IR 05000412/1987049

Insp Rept 50-412/87-49 on 870629-0701.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Followup Insp of Emergency Preparedness Items Identified During Emergency Preparedness Implementation Appraisal on 870302-06

ML20238C803
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	08/28/1987
From:	Fox E, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238C799	List: IR 05000412/1987049 ML20238C797
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-3.A.1.2, TASK-TM 50-412-87-49, NUDOCS 8709100387
Download: ML20238C803 (6)

Text

_ - _ .

. .

. . - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'* ..

,~~t~i

.

^'

, f? 2 .) l

,f!- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ REGION I

' Report No. 50-412/87-49 Docket..N License N CPPR-105 Category B-1 l- Licensee: Duguesne Light Company

!!' Post? Office Box 4

'% Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077

-

3' ,

Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Inspection Conduct  : )6ne,2 -

1, 1987

/ /

Inspect'$rs: ., A r EP Special_ist date

'

H C. Z.'Gordon,.EP&RPB, DRSS c; R. K. Christopher, EP&RPB, DRSS G. R. Bryan, Comex t

'

- -

)

Approved b V O 'Laz ergency __, ~date

,

Prepare ess tion P&RPB, DRSS a

Inspection Summary: Inspection conducted on June 29-July 1,1987

,.

Report No. 50-412/87-49 Areas Inspected: Announced followup inspection of emergency preparedness items identified during the Emergency Preparedness Implementation Appraisal (EPIA)

performed March 2-6, 1987, (Report No. 50-412/87-14) to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program for Beaver Valley Unit 2 and the integration of the Unit 2 program into the overall site emergency preparedness progra Results: No violations were identifie Corrective actions were verified as being completed on all items required for initial criticality and full power operatio h p

Lp 970910 PDR 870902 "

A 050004176

[1 4O PDR y q

.. . ._ .__ - _

- _ .

,,

f '

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted

• R. Brooks, Instructor, Operations and Maintenance

• E. Cohen, Director, Radiation Operations, Unit 2

• P. Gangwisch Instructor 0&M

• Girdwood,. Director, Radiation Operations, Unit 1

• J. Godleski, Engineering & Operations

• C. Harvey, Director, T&C Training M. Jones, Supervisor Records W. Lacey, Plant Manager

• S. Lavie, Senior Health Physics Specialist

• Mahan, Senior' Planner

• J. Marietto, Instructor, O&M

• G. McKee, Emergency Planning Specialist

• T. Noonan, Assistant Plant Manager

• F. Pavlechko, Director, Emergency Preparedness Program

• F. Schuster, Nuclear Station Operations Supervisor, BV-2

• S. Stubbs, Senior Quality Assurance Specialist

• H. Szklinski, Senior Health Physics Specialist

• R. Vento, Director Radiation Engineering

'*G. Zosack, Compliance Radiation The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees.

.

• Denotes those present at exit interview.

!

l 2.0 Scope of the Inspection 1 During the period March 2-6, 1987, the NRC conducted an appraisal of the state of emergency preparedness at the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Power Statio As a result of this appraisal, the NRC identified 26 significant items requiring resolution in order for the licensee to achieve an adequate l state of emergency preparedness. These findings were transmitted to l the licensee by letter dated April 29, 1987, with Inspection Report N /87-14 enclosed. The purpose of this inspection was to review the status of the licensee's actions on those items in need of corrective action prior to criticality, low power, and full powe .0 Summary of Results This report documents the follow-up of the areas for which review was completed during the previous inspection. Items which are closed and were listed as open items in the previous inspection reports are addressed below. All items identified for correction prior to criti-cality and full power have been correcte (Closed) (50-412/87-14-02) Complete shift Technical Advisor Training /

Qualification.

l _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

y -

-

'

,,

---

)

la I

-

. f g s l J' e }# l

. o

1

. ,, L

>The inspectors revieved:the records used in the Emeryhcy Preparedness Training Program for the Emergency Response Qualifistion of Shift Tech-nical Advisort. (STAS). The review included lesson pYans for course program 9289 (Emergency S6und/ Shift ERO), functional' outlines, course

, material, written * 4aminat(on results, and STA training and attendance

'p records for emergency resp 0cse. Based upon this information and discus-sions with the licensee's emergency preparedness tr3'ning staff, the inspectors determined that all 9 STAS have been qualified to carry out emergency response duties as of May, 198 ,  ;

!

. , (Closed)(50-412/87-14-04) Complete the training'for shift personnel on l the Emergency Plan-lmplemaiting Procedures.

[t l tvring the EPIA held in March 1987, the inspectors conducted walkthroughs with licensee personnel fcr the purpose of evaluating training with regard t

, to each shift'n iMility to classify emergencies, make protective action j recommendations, notify appropriate offsite authorities and calculate <

'

radiological dose projections. Result'.t of these walkthroughs identified I /: weaknesses in the performance of the initial emergency response organizatio '

[

On June 29-30, 1987 the inspectors conducted another set of walkthroughs with licensee personnel. Four shifts comprised of four individuals per shift (Shif t Supervisor, Senior Technical Advisor, Health Physics Tech-nician and an Administrative As:,istant) were established for the purpose of testing the staff's kaowledge of emergency action levels, ,

determination of protectiv'e mea.bres, engineering communications, and  ;

observing other c.tions of licensee personnel in response to an accident scenario. Results of the walkthroughs indicated tnat little progress had

, been made in the shift's response actions despite additional emergency s' f. raining being given. 'The inspectors did deternine that the licensee's

-

actions for this scenario were adequate to protect the health and safety of the public. Specific f1ndings were: i

• All administrative assistants had completed required EP trainin Although the Energmcy Plan Implementing Prqcedures (EPIP) used in the walkthrov34s were formally distributed.nthe Unit 2 Control Room copy of the Emer;ency Plan was not. The ccoy used was marked " Draft" and at least one 3ectico of the Plan was missin * The dose projection problems were all completed correctly. One problem presented was intended for discussion only. Discussions  !

with STAS indicated that each one had an adeguate training to provide radiological dose assessmen * Notifications to offsite authorities were rnada promptly, l

, ,

/

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ._

- _-_ _ s

,

.,

l I * Protective Action Recommendations were not consistent among each j

-

shift but were adequate to protect health and safety of the publi l Procedure EPP/IP 4.0 does not adequately incorporate the guidance of '

IE Information Notice 83-28 (fast breaking situation, shelter 2 miles around the site and 5 miles down wind). '

• As in the EPIA, the control room crews had difficulty with emergency l classification and use of emergency action level Minor errors were identified in conservative classification of events. None of these errors would have jeopardized the health and safety of the publi The inspectors explained that the basic problem appeared to be an inadequate emergency action level schem * Selected Emergency Action Levels were revised to address specific problems cited during the EPIA (e.g. , the RCS pump locked rotor nomenclature problem). However, some technical issues still have not been addressed (barrier criteria, fire, ATWS). Further, the absence of human factors in the EALs identified during the EPIA has not been adequately addressed and also needs licensee attentio * No technical review of the classification procedure had been conducte Licensee representatives stated that they will submit a new revision of the classification procedure for NRC review. The inspectors explained that submis:. ion should identify the NUREG-0654 initiating conditions and the specific Unit I and 2 EALs which ful-fill that guidance. Where deviation from guidance is expected by the licensee, justification should be provided .

Almost all of the walkthrough classifications made were made from the front matrix section of the procedure. Although the operators were familiar with the color coding scheme in the Emergency Plan, several of the operators used Unit 1 procedure * Discussion with shift representatives indicated that one crew had not taken training on the revised EAL procedure In summary, it was determined that additional training on the revised portions of the Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Pro-cedures is necessary (but not required prior to full power operations)

and that the licensee should reevaluate the existing EAL matrix and l

tabulators to facilitate ease of use by shift personne Licensee personnel stated that a schedule would be determined to resolve these items in the near-term. (IFI 87-49-01).

(Clo5ed)(87-14-08) Place as-built drawings for unit 2 in the ERF records roo The inspector toured the Emergency Response Facility (ERF) records room

'

and determined that controlled as-built drawings for unit 2 were on file.

m

'

. . .. .. .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . .

_ _. . _ _ . - _ _ _ -_-

I l'

'

-

L ,

(C.losed) (50-412/87-14-09) Complete the installation and acceptability testing of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).

The. inspectors discussed the installation and acceptability testing requirements.for.the (SPDS) with the Office of Nuclear Reactor'.Regu-l .lation (NRR) and determined that a separate appraisal of the SpDS

!. was conducted by a team of NRR specialists. The results of this:

appraisal are to be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)'

(to be published). . Preliminary findings indicate. that the SPDS remains. incomplete but installation, testing, and operation are not considered to be. required specifically for criticality, ' low power, or full power licensing. . The inspector noted that the system is necessary to satisfy NUREG 0737 requirements I.D. 2 and will be reinspected when complete (Closed) . (87-14-13) Acquire an acceptable offsite assembly area (facility)

in lieu of the Kennedy Corner facilit In inspection report 87-41 it was stated that an acceptable offsite assem-bly area, Racoon. Township Building, also known as Western District Office, had been designated in lieu of the Kennedy Corner facility. During that

_

inspection it was determined that the Western District Office appeared During this inspection evacuation procedures EPP/IP.3.1,

~

adequat .1.1, and 3.1.2. were reviewed and determined that procedures have been revised to include the Western District Office. Training of personnel on this change through general employee training (refresher) was on goin (Closed)(87-14-15) Complete the constru.ction of the Unit 2 storage are The inspectors toured the Unit 2 storage area, located in the South Office Shop building, and noted that the construction was complete. Two (2) air sampler kits were available and. keys to access the samplers are maintained by health physics personne (Closed)(50-412/87-14-17) Complete the installation, operations testing and calibration, and turn-over of the digital radiation monitoring system (DRMS)

The inspectors reviewed a memorandum from M. Pavlick to distribution dated April 13, 1987, regarding system acceptance release program. The memo indicates that the DRMS was officially turned over to the licensee's startup grou (Closed) (50-412/87-14-18) Complete the development, and issuan:e of procedures for calibration of instruments and monitors as wel l as a schedule for the calibration of the digital radiation menti.oring system (DRMS).

_ ____ _-__ Y

_

- _ _

.

'

The inspectors reviewed the status of DRMS, held discussions with licensee staff, and determined that certain technical specification and non-technical specification related monitors identified in the EAL scheme were not operable at the time of the inspection. The inspectors determined that without such instrumentation there was the possibility of hindering or precluding classification of emergency condition Licensee representatives stated that either the DRMS monitors would be completed prior to full power or an alternate means would be provided to enable radiation levels to be detected in areas where continuous monitors were unavailabl On July 20, 1987, the licensee provided a list of inoperable DRMS non-Technical specification monitors used in EALs. For each unavailable monitor, an acceptable alternate means was provided to ensure that initiating conditions associated with EAls could be obtained. The Licensee indicated that within Emergency Preparedness Implementing pro-cedure (EPIP/I-1) TAB 29 (BV-2) page 3/4 (Attachment 3 page 123) that an instrument designated 2 ARC - RQI-100, Condenser Air Ejector was incorrect and would be changed to 2 ARC - RQ100, Air Ejector Discharge. A revision to this effect was in proces (IFI 87-49-02).

(Closed) (50-412/87-14-19) Complete the certification of operations conditions for the detectors in the DRM The inspectors reviewed licensee documents associated with completion of the DRMS, held discussions with licensee personnel coordinating DRMS operability, and determined that certification of initial operating pro-cedures for both technical specification and non-technical specification DRMS monitors was complete (Closed) (50-412/87-14-21) Complete the installation of equipment in Unit 2 control room for required non-radiation process monitors (NRPM)

read out The inspectors toured the Unit 2 control room and determined that NRPM instrumentation read-outs required for use by personnel during emergencies had been installe )

(Closed) (50-412/87-14-22) Complete the installation testing and turnover of standby and evacuation . alarm The inspector observed a test of the standby and evacuation alarms during a personnel accountability drill conducted at 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 198 The alarms had been turned over to +c.e licensee. The Unit 2 standby alarm did not actuate. Testing of the evacuation alarms was adequat The licensee identified the necessary corrective action and conducted a successful test of alarms at 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. May 19, 1987. The alarms are tested weekly and documented in OST Test 2.40.1 and 2.40.2 l

.__-__-_____________a

- ___ -

.

t

'

(Closed) (50-412/87-14-24) Complete and specify the primary assembly areas for Unit The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures and determined that the primary assembly areas for Unit 2 had been specified and were complete at the time of this inspection to allow for accountability and other necessary actions to be performed at the primary assembly area (Closed)(50-412/87-14-26) Complete and issue the integrated security / emergency plan and implementing procedure for Unit 1 and Unit The inspector reviewed security procedures #17.1, 17.2, 18.1 thru 1 which were submitted by the licensee on July 20, 1987 and determined that the Security / Emergency Plan and Implementing procedure for Unit 1 and Unit 2 had been completed and issued July 16, 198 (Closed) NUREG 0737 III A. During the EPIA March 2-6, 1987, inspection report 87-14, it was determined that Unit 1 and Unit 2 share common emergency facilitie Specifically, the emergency response facility for Unit I which was reviewed previously and found to be acceptable was not reviewed during this EPIA. However, the Technical Support Center was reviewed during the EPIA in accordance with the requirements / guidance of NUREG-0654, 0696, 0737 Supp 1 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix E and found to be acceptabl The Operations Support Center had been determined to be adequate pre-viously and was not inspected during the March 2-6, 1987 EPIA. Based on previous inspections, the March 2-6, 1987 EPIA and follow up inspections (IR 87-33 and 87-41) it appears the emergency response facilities are adequate and acceptabl .0 Summary and Listing of Remaining Open Items During this appraisal followup, it was determined that no open items remain which require licensee action prior to criticality, low power or full power. By letter dated July 22, 1987 the licensee provided a schedule for revision of EAls indicating that action in this area is expected for completion by September 1987 (IFI 87-49-03).

5.0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection July 1, 1987, the inspectors met with representatives of the licensee (see Section 1 for attendees) to discuss the findings of this inspection as detailed in this repor At no time during this inspection was any written material provided to the license t

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . . . .

_ _ _

m7- ---._

.

b es I

j hs 6 y 01 d3s L8W S0-08HSD f

I l

- - - - _ - _ _ _ - _

j