IR 05000413/1987018
| ML20214X346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1987 |
| From: | Decker T, Kreh J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214X335 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-87-18, 50-414-87-18, NUDOCS 8706160436 | |
| Download: ML20214X346 (7) | |
Text
s
!
?
'
p.
.-
,
,
f, e
<
.
-
/pmneog*o
-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
'
UMTE3 STATES
'
~ -: '
'
y REGION il n
s g
j-101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323.
-u.
- j JUN 0 41997 JReport Nos.: 50-413/87-18 and 50-414/87-18-
~ Licensee: Duke Power Company
'
422 South' Church Street Charlotte, NC -28242
>
,
^
Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF-48-
. Facility Name: Catawba Nuclear Station
.
.
InspectionConduthd: May 18-22, 1987
>@ b,
/d(4
$ 'I~[7.
Inspector:
'
-
J. y Kreh Date Signed
N *d Iv (c-3 -87 Approved by:
S(T.R. Decker, Chief
.Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved review and evaluation of selected areas of the licensee's emergency preparedness program.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
l l
,
r 8706160436 870604 i
~~
gDR ADOCM 05000413 PDR
=
.
,
w REPORT DETAILS ~
1..
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-
~ *J. W. Hampton, Station Manager.
- *J. W. Cox, Station Training Manager
- *H. B. Barron, Superintendent of Operations
.
- C, L. Hartzell. -Compliance Engineer
- R. O. Sharpe, Nuclear Engineer
- F. P. Schiffley, Licensing Engineer
.
- D. P. Simpson, Station Emergency Planner
.
V. D. King, Associate Engineer T. B. Smith, Station Information Specialist NRC Resident Inspector
- P. K. VanDoorn
' * Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 22, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
'a..
(Closed) Violation (413/86-40-02, 414/86-43-02):
Failure to conduct
'
a required semiannual health physics drill involving postaccident containment air sampling.
In the licensee's written response to the Notice of Violation, the cited problem was attributed to personnel error.
Recurrence was not expected because of the recent implementation of the Employee Training and-Qualification System (ETQS), under which scheduling.of drills was the responsibility of Health Physics ETQS personnel.
b.
(Closed) Violation (413, 414/87-03-01):
Failure to maintain Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) as required by Technical Specifications.
As a result of personnel oversight, station Document Control received an EPIP change after a considerable period of time had elapsed from the effective date of the procedure, resulting in an untimely distribution. The Station Emergency Planner instituted a system to prevent recurrence.
The inspector was satisfied that the system would operate as intended.
i
.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
4.
Notification and Communication (82203)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D; and Sections E and F of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating with its own personnel, offsite supporting agencies and authorities, and the population within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) in the event of an emergency.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures.
The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification scheme used
-
by the licensee.
The inspector confirmed that the procedures made provisions for message verification.
The inspector determined by review of applicable procedures and by discussion with licensee representatives that adequate procedural means existed for alerting, notifying, and activating emergency response personnel.
The procedures specified when to notify and activate the onsite emergency organization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencies.
Selected telephone numbers listed in the licensee's procedures for emergency response support organizations were checked in order to determine whether the listed numbers were current and correct; no problems were noted.
The inspector reviewed and discussed with a licensee representative the specifics of the Event Notification Tree as delineated in Enclosure 6 of Catawba Nuclear Station Directive (CNSD) 3.8.4.
This call tree indicated that the Compliance Engineer, upon notification by the Control Room of a declared emergency, was to immediately notify the Superintendent of Technical Services (who in turn was responsible for notifying a large portion of the technical staff for the augmented emergency response organization), the NRC Resident Inspector, and the Project Engineer. The applicable EPIPs (RP/0/A/5000/02, /03, /04, and /05) listed office and home telephone numbers for the three individuals designated and trained for the position of Compliance Engineer. The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that, in the event none of the three designated individuals could be reached, the Control Room comunicator would (by standard practice rather than procedure) use the Station Duty List to reach (via telephone or pager) the person on duty for the Compliance Section. However, the inspector's interview with the most recent addition to the Compliance Section (of those assigned to the Station Duty List)
disclosed that this individual was not knowledgeable of the calls required to be made by the Compliance Engineer in accordance with CNSD 3.8.4.
The licensee agreed to provide specialized emergency preparedness training to all individuals on the Station Duty List for the Compliance Section.
InspectorFollow-upItem(413,414/87-18-01): Training all persons on the Compliance Duty List to serve in the role of Compliance Engineer as described in the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
_J
.
.
The format of initial and follow-up emergency messages to State and local governments appeared to conform to the guidance of NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3 and II.E.4.
The warning message forms used by the licensee were standard forms developed by the States of South Carolina and North Carolina with utility input and concurrence.
The licensee's management control program for the prompt notification system was reviewed.
According to licensee documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the system consisted of 77 fixed sirens. A review of licensee records verified that the system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the Emergency Plan.
Maintenance of the system had been provided for by the licensee.
The inspector reviewed siren test records for the period January 1986 to January 1987.
The records showed that silent tests were conducted every
two weeks, full-cycle tests quarterly, and growl tests after any naintenance work.
This test regime exceeded the specifications in NUREG-0654, Appendix 3.
No offsite agency problems relating to the prompt notification system were disclosed during the inspection.
Communications equipment in the Control Room, Operations Support Center (OSC), and Technical Support Center (TSC) was inspected.
Provisions existed for prompt communications among emergency response organizations, to emergency response personnel, and to the public.
The installed communications systems at the emergency response facilities were consistent with system descriptions in the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
The inspector conducted operability checks on selected communications equipment in the TSC.
No problems were observed. The inspector reviewed licensee records for the period July 1986 to March 1987 which indicated that communications tests were conducted at the frequencies specified in NUREG-0654,Section II.N.2.a.
Licensee records also revealed that corrective action was taken on problems identified during communications tests.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16); 10 CFR 50.54(q); and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection (September 1986) and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparedness.
The inspector discussed the licensee's program for making changes to the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's system for review and approval of changes to the plan and procedures.
The inspector verified that changes to the plan and procedures were reviewed and approved by management.
Except for the instance described in Paragraph 3.b above, all such changes were submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as required, i
.
.
Discussions with. licensee representatives indicated that no significant modifications to facilities, equipment.-or instrumentation were completed since the last inspection.
Some minor changes in the OSC appeared to offer the potential for improving the function of that facility. Lockers around the perimeter of the main OSC room.were moved to another area to effectively enlarge the room, and benches were added to the staging area to reduce OSC congestion. These alterations did not necessitate Emergency Plan or EPIP revisions.
The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were reviewed.
The position of Station Emergency Planner (SEP) was reassigned as of May 1, 1987.
The new SEP had nine years of experience as a licensee employee, and had been assisting the previous SEP since October 1986.
Attendance at a highly regarded course for emergency planners was scheduled for June 1987.
The inspector's discussion with licensee representatives disclosed that there had been no significant changes in the organization and staffing of the offsite support. agencies since the last inspection.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the Emergency Plan and procedures.
Document control records for the period July 1986 to April 1987 showed that, except for the instance described in Paragraph 3.b above, appropriate personnel and organizations were sent copies of plan and procedural changes, as required.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
ShiftStaffingandAugmentation(82205)
Pursuant to 10CFR50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.A and IV.C. this area was inspected to determine whether shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available and maintained to augment the emergency organization in a timely manner.
Shift staffing levels and functional capabilities of all shifts were reviewed and found to be consistent with the guidance of Table B-1 of NUREG-0654.
The licensee had established a duty roster so that essential off-shift personnel are available if needed.
The call-in procedure appeared to be effective in meeting Table B-1 goals.
The inspector discussed staff augmentation times with licensee representa-tives.
Licensee representatives indicated that response during the February 1987 exercise (which started at 7:00 pm) confirmed that Table B-1 augmentation times could be met.
Although augmentation drills were not held on a regular basis in the past, the new SEP planned to implement a program of such drills in the near future.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
.
7.
Public Information Program (82209)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7);
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.2; and Section G of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether basic emergency planning information was disseminated to the public in the plume-exposure-pathway EPZ on an annual basis.
The licensee has developed an emergency response information brochure for use by the public residing in or frequenting the 10-mile EPZ.
The inspector verified that the brochure was updated annually, as required.
Discussion with licensee representatives indicated that development of the brochure was coordinated with the approp(riate offsite authorities.
The inspector reviewed the current brochure 1987 edition) and verified that it included the information specified by NUREG-0654,Section II.G.
According to the Emergency Plan, the means used by the licensee to inform the transient population of appropriate emergency response measures and action included posted notices and public information brochures at motels, hotels, police stations, fire stations, public libraries, post. offices, and licensee retail offices, as well as informational signs at parks and lake access points.
The inspector confirmed the availability of notices and brochures at a sample of these locations.
According to licensee representatives, the 1987 edition of the public information brochure was sent to residences within the 10-mile EPZ during February 1987.
The public information brochure provided a point of contact for obtaining additional information.
An interview was held with the point of contact to determine the type of information to be provided and the individual's qualification to provide such information. Based on the discussion, the inspector determined that the type of information to be provided was adequate and the individual had appropriate qualifications.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Audits (82210)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program.
Records of audits of the program were reviewed.
The records showed that an independent audit of the program,was conducted by the licensee's Quality Assurance Department from December 8, 1986, to March 2, 1987, and was documented in Audit Report No. NP-86-23 (CM), dated March 20, 1987.
This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such audits.
The audit records showed that the State and local government interfaces were evaluated, and that findings concerning the interfaces were made available to State and local government authorities.
Audit findings and recomendations were presented to plant and corporate management.
A
_
_
- _ _ _ _ _
__
. _ - _ _
_
_ - _ _ _
+
.
review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee complied with the five-year retention requirement for such reports.
The licensee's Emergency Plan required critiques following exercises and drills.
Licensee documentation showed that critiques were held following periodic drills as well as the annual exercise.
The records showed that deficiencies were discussed in the critiques, and recommendations for corrective action were made.
The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise findings was reviewed.
Inspection of licensee records indicated that corrective action was taken on identified problems, as appropriate.
The licensee had established a tracking system called the Catawba Action List File (CALF) as a management tool in following up on actions taken in deficient areas.
The inspector noted that drill weaknesses were not tracked on the CALF.
The licensee agreed to consider tracking findings from training drills on the CALF to insure the implementation of appropriate corrective actions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
InspectorFollow-up(92701)
(Closed) Licensee-Identified Violation 413/86-40-01, 414/86-43-01:
Failure to submit EPIP changes to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date.
The corrective action described in Paragraph 3.b above for a later violation was also designed to forestall a recurrence of this type of problem.
10.
IE Information Notices (92717)
The following Infomation Notices (ins) were discussed with licensee representatives to ensure that receipt, management review, and appropriate corrective action had occurred.
a.
IN 86-97 (Emergency Communications System):
The licensee planned to provide an individual from Operations to staff the Emergency Notification System (ENS) line during an emergency; this change will be factored into the Emergency Plan and EPIPs in the near future, b.
IN 86-98 (Offsite Medical Services):
According to the licensee, the States of North Carolina and South Carolina were attempting to obtain agreements with additional hospitals beyond those currently listed in State plans.
The licensee had not deemed it necessary thus far to take any action in ;esponse to this IN.
.
.
.
__a