IR 05000413/1990004
| ML20012C307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1990 |
| From: | Kreh J, Rankin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C305 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-90-04, 50-413-90-4, 50-414-90-04, 50-414-90-4, NUDOCS 9003210012 | |
| Download: ML20012C307 (8) | |
Text
3
'
~
'
~
~
.
,
s s
., f r? l
k #"M c/[5* Y *Es Etcl,,Iq.
.t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
'
-[
-
[g HE0 ION ll'
' ' " "
g-y.
101 MANETT A STREET, N.W.
4(
_
- -
'p.
AT L ANT A, CEORGI A 30323
r j.. a. ;&
-
FEB 2 21990
'
~ 50-413/90-04_and 50-414/90-04'-
t Report Nos.:
- .
Licensee: Duke Power Company
y 422 South Church Street
!
'
m
'
l E
. Charlotte, NC, 28242
'
,
.
'
Docket Hos.:
50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF152
,
"
!
'
Facility Name:: Catawba 1 and 2
'
' Inspection Conducted:.-January:22-26, 1990 N, p
!$
/ r/38h/Ab Inspect :
' t d. L/.'Kreh
_
.Date. Signed Approved y:
bw
/v M M76 W. H. Rankin, Chief
.
Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division _of-Reactor Safety and Safeguards
,
.
SUMMARY Scope:
-.This routine, unannounced' inspectio'n was conducted to assess the operational readiness of the site emergency._ preparedness program. and included review of the following programatic elements:. -(1) Emergency Plan and associated implementing procedures; (2) facilities.n equipment. -instrumentation. - and
supplies; (3) organization andi management. control; (4)' training; -and '(5)
independent reviews / audits.
<
L Results:-
l The licensee's emergency preparedness program appeared to be well organized and L
- effectively; managed.
Emergency facilities, and equipment were properly L
' maintained.
An interview with one Shift Supervisor and observation 'of a simulator training-exercise suggested that emergency response training was.
effective. Required program audits and drill / exercise critiques were thorough, p
L and 'a system was in ~ place for tracking the correction-of problems in emergency L
preparedness.
No violations or ' deviations were identified.
The findings of L
this-inspection indicated that the licensee was adequately prepared to respond j'
-to an emergency at the Catawba Nuclear Station.
I 9003210012 900222 PDR ADOCK 05000413
o PDC
,
<\\'
?
_ _ _ _ _ _
.........
.
..
.
__
-
,
j.,,,
'
',,
..
,
l~p'
.
.
-
,
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. Barron Director. Operator Training
- R. Casler Superintendent, Operations
- J. Cox Training Manager
- J. Forbes, Superintendent Technical Services
- M. Glover, Compliance Manager
- G. Mitchell, Emergency Planner T.'0 wen, Station Manager R. Parker, Shift Supervisor G. Spurlin, Senior Simulator Instructor J. Standridge, Quality Assurance Auditor Other licensee employees - contacted during this inspection included
~ engineers, operators, security force members, -technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W. Orders. Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Emergency Plan and. Implementing Procedures (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16), 10 CFR 50.54(q), Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and Section P of the Emergency. Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether sianificant changes were made in the-licensee's emergency preparedness program, since the inspection in
'
February 1989, to assess the impact of. any such changes on the overall state of emergency preparedness at the facility, and to determine whether the licensee's actions in response to actual emergencies were in accordance with the Emeraency Plan and its. implementing procedures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's system for making changes to the Emergency Plan and the Emergency Plan Imp 1Ementing Procedures (EPIPs). The inspector confirmed that licensee management approved all revisions to the EPIPs and the Emergency Plan issued since February 1989.
For a selected sample of nineteen EPIP revisions, the inspector verified the licensee's
. submittal of each to the NRC within 30 days of the approval date, as required.
Copies of the Emergency Plan and EPIPs located in the Control Room and Technical Support Center (TSC) were inspected and found to be current revisions, with one specific exception.
In the TSC, controlled copy no.19 of the EPIPs (the only complete copy of that document
q
..-
..;
'.
,
maintained at the TSC) did not as of January 23, 1990, contain the current edition (Revision 14. dated December 29,1989) of Station Directive 3.8.4,
"0nsite Emergency Organization."
This was a crucial EPIP because it contained, in Enclosure 1, the telephone call list for the emergency organization.
Although no specific requirement was found regardina the time allowed for updatina controlled copics of the EPIPs, the inspector noted that an interval of 25 days had already lapsed.
Other controlled copies elsewhere onsite were checked immediately after the subject-discrepancy was discovered, and all were found to be current.
However, the significance of an outdated call list in the TSC copy of the EPIPs was mitigated by the presence of a-" communications directory" which was being maintained.
Revision 24 of Enclosure 1 to Station Directive 3.8.4 was included in the directory, 26 copies of which were located at work stations in the TSC.
While lacking safety sianificance, the subject discrepancy indicated a need to review the process for distributing procedural revisions to controlled copies of the EPIPs so as to insure
timely updates. This matter was discussed with licensee manaaement durina the Exit Interview.
One change (Revision 89-1, dated December 1989) to the Emeroency Plan was issued since the February 1989 inspection.
The NRC's formal licensina review of Revislon 89-1 was in progress at the time of the-inspection.
The inspector's selective review of that revision, tooether with information provided by licensee representatives, indicated that no significant programmatic changes were made in the subject area since the February 1989 inspection.
Documentation of the required annual review of the Emeraency Plan and EPIPs was provided to the inspector. The review was performed durina the period August 28 - December 8,1989, and was documented in accordance with the requirements of procedure PT/0/B/4600/07, " Review of Emergency Plan-and Implementing Procedures."
The review identified various minor deficiencies for which corrective actions were formulated and completion dates assigned.
The inspector reviewed records pertaining to the emergency declarations which had occurred since February 1, 1989. All of these declarations were
,
l at the Notification of Unusual Event level. The following is a compendium of the referenced events.
Date/ Time Description of Event 2-21-89/0115 Safety injection with discharge to reactor vessel (Unit 2)
2-21-89/1345 (Same as above)
3-5-89/2143 Safety injection with discharge to reactor vessel (Unit 1)
- -
-..
,
.
.
.
..
...
,
.
.
'
.
-3-31-89/1225 Loss of an Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) function (both trains of the Control Room Area Ventilation System were l
inoperable, with Unit 1 in Mode 1 and Unit 2 in Mode 6)
The documentation of these events showed that notifications to State and local governments and the NRC were made in accordance with applicable requirements.
Each of the listed events appeared to have been classified correctly.
The emergency preparedness staff routinely reviewed the response to each declared emergency in order to identify problems or inconsistencies which may have occurred with respect to the requirements-of-the EPIPs.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
3.
Emergency Facilities,- Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and (9),10 CFR 50.54(q), and Section IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's emergency response facilities (ERFs) and associated equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained in a state of operational readiness, and to assess the impact of any changes in this area upon the emergency preparedness program.
..
i The inspector toured the following ERFs: Control Room. Operations Support L
Selective examination of emergency equipment and L
supplies therein indicated that an adequate state of readiness was being l.
maintained.
A number of impressive refinements in data displays, instrumentation and physical layout were noted at the TSC and OSC.
H The inspector reviewed completed documentation for each of the followina L
equipment surveillance procedures for the period February 1 - December 31, 1989:
PT/0/B/4600/04, " Periodic Verification of Emergency Supplies" (applicable to TSC and OSC).
l PT/0/B/4600/05,
" Coordination of Comunications" (included
requirements for conducting communications tests monthly, quarterly, and annually).
- HP/0/B/1000/06, Enclosure 5.1, " Monthly / Quarterly Emergency Equipment Check' Sheet" l
IP/0/B/3343/01, "Teledyne Geotech Meteorological Instrumentation
Weekly Calibration" Documentation of the listed surveillance procedures indicated that identified problems were corrected expeditiously.
.
-
.
.
.
.
'
v.
,
4'
'
Section 6.1 of the licensee's Compliance Manual delineated the testing and maintenance program for the 77 sirens included in the Alert and
,
Notification System (ANS).-
The inspector reviewed records-of the full-cycle siren tests conducted January 7 April 1. July 1, and October 7, 1989. Also reviewed was documentation of the annual preventive maintenance performed on the sirens during 1989 (primarily in January and February ).
The sirens were supplemented by 251 tone-alert radios
'
-
provided by the licensee to such facilities as factories, large i
businesses, nursing homes, prisons, day-care centers, schools, hospitals,
'
and certain public buildings.
About 180 of these radios were distributed during 1989.
Based upon ERF walk-downs, review of the Emeroency Plan, and statements by licensee representatives, the inspector concluded that no degradation of ERF capabilities had occurred since February 1989.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Organization and Management Control (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and (16),Section IV.A of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and Section B of the Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine the effects of any chances in the licensee's emergency organization and/or management controls systems on the emeroency preparedness program, and to verify that any such changes were properly l
factored into the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
,
l The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were
' reviewed.
The inspection verified that there were no significant changes l
emergency plannina staff since the last inspection.
L l
Personnel changes in certain station management positions resulted in the reassignment of several key positions involvino primaries as well as alternates in the emeraency response organization.
Review of trainina records of such personnel confirmed that training requirements for their l
new positions in the emergency organization were completed prior to l
assignment to those positions.
Availability of off-shif t personnel to staff the TSC and OSC following an emergency declaration was tested by means of an unannounced drill which commenced at 6:07 a.m. on April 1,1989.
Licensee personnel actually L
reported to the station and met the auamentation criteria as specified in l
Figure B-1 of' the Emergency Plan, according to drill records.
The
!
licensee planned to conduct one such drill annually.
There were no changes in the support arrangements with offsite response organizations, nor were there any changes in the lead personnel among the county emeroency preparedness offices since the February 1989 inspection.
However, at the State level, a new Director and a new Area 2 Coordinator for the South Carolina Emeraency Division were appointed in mid-1989.
! * -. [,;."
!
.
l p
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Trainino(82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50-47(b)(2) and (15),Section IV.F of Appendix E to
'
10 CFR Part 50, and Section 0 of the Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's. key emergency response L
personnel were properly trained and understood their emergency
,
responsibilities.
Records of training for selected key members of the emeroency response organization were reviewed.
The training records revealed that assigned
<
personnel, including some designated as alternates, were provided, with training which was appropriate, in terms of content and frequency, and
'
i consistent with applicable requirements, l
!
l In a effort to gauge the effectiveness of the emergency response traininq program, the inspector undertook two evaluations.
First, a routine simulator exercise (a component of the Licensed Operator Requalification j
l'
Program) was observed.
A shift crew was presented a situation involving an anticipated transient without scram and required to respond appropriately on the simulator.
The simulated accident was initially classified at the Alert level, and was later escalated to a Site Area
'
Emergency.
.The exercise did not include completion of notification
forms, notifications either simulated or actual' to offsite aaencies,
!'
consideration of the need for onsite protective actions and offsite, protective action recommendations, or any other EPIP requirements beyond
,
'
emergency classification.
The inspector discussed with licensee management the frequency of simulator exercises in which each shift crew follows throuah the details of the EPIPs and implements applicable requirements (with simulations as appropriate).
The training program currently provided for one such exercise per year for each shift crew.
The licensee agreed to consider an increase in the number of simulator exercises involving full execution of the EPIPs.
,
The inspector's second training evaluation consisted of an interview with one Shift Supervisor, the position designated as interim Emeraency Coordinator (until relieved by the Station Manager or alternate).
The interview examined the Shift Supervisor's general knowledge of emergency response as well as his specific understanding of such matters as emergency classificction, onsite and offsite protective actions,
notification, and nondeleoable responsibilities of the Emergency Coordinator.
The interviewee was given a set of hypothetical emeraency
' conditions and was asked to talk through the response he would give as Emergency Coordinator under such conditions. The interviewee demonstrated a thorough understanding of the general concepts as well as the specifics of the emergency response proaram.
No problems were identified during this interview.
- - - - -
- -
-
- -
.
.
y
,
.
,
i
.,7
"
.j
,
<
?
The training program for offsite support aaencies was reviewed..
Documentation indicated that appropriate annual training sessions were conducted by licensee personnel as follows:
,-
L
. Agency or aroup of acencies 1989 trainina date l
l l
Emergency management / preparedness June 19, 1989 staff from York County, Gaston County, Charlotte-Mecklenbura, and the States of North Carolina and South Carolina Local law enforcement August 5, 1989
L Fire departments February 26, 1989
.
Medical Support February 28, 1989, March 15, 1989 August 22, 1989 No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
IndependentReview/ Audits (82701)
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, and
.whether the licensee had a corrective action system for deficiencies and weaknesses identified during exercises and drills.
The required annual independent audit of the emergency preparedness program was-recently conducted by the licensee's Quality Assurance (QA)
Department.
The results of the audit were presented to licensee manaaement on January 16, 1990.
The audit was to be documented in Report No. NP-89-33(CM), which was not yet issued at the tine of the current inspection, although the inspector was briefed on the findinas by the lead auditor.
Deficiencies identified during audits, drills, and exercises were tracked for follow-up on a station-wide, computed-based system called the Catawba Action List File (CALF). A printout dated January 17, 1990 showed a total of 30 open items that had been identified during drills and exercises.
'
The inspector reviewed documentation of the last annual exercise (April 27,1989) which indicated that 11 action items were identified and entered into the CALF.
According to the previously referenced CALF printout. 2 of those 11 items remained open.
For each open item, the printout indicated the responsible individual, the proposed corrective action, and the due date. The licensee was effectively using the CALF as a management tool for ensuring the completion of corrective action for identified problems in emergency preparedness.
No violations or deviations were identifie _
,
--
,;t.*:-
..
l-7
!
7.
NRC1InformationNotices(92701)
,
The inspector determined that the following NRC Information Notices (ins)
were received by the licensee, revicwed for applicability, and distributed to cognizant personnel, and that corrective actions, as appropriate, wtre completed or scheduled:
IN 89-19:_ Health Physics Network
Failure of Licensed Senior Operators to Classify Emeraency Events Correctly Ih 89-89: Event Notification Worksheets 8.
Action on' Previous inspection Findings (92701),
(Closed) IFI 50-413, 414/89-12-01:
Providing specific guidance for review, approval, and implementation of nonprocedural emeroency actions.
L This netter was discussed during a Shif t Supervisors neeting on August 18. -
1989.
The subject ouidance was presented during subsequent Operator Requalification training; however, the inspector determined -that the guidance was not incorporated into the applicable lesson plans. This item i
L is now closed based on the licensee's agreenent to factor the specified l
information permanently into lesson plans.
!
l 9.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 26, 1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed above.
Although proprietary information was reviewed during this inspection, none is contained in this report.
Dissenting consents were not received from the licensee.
---
-
-
-.-