IR 05000424/1988036
| ML20204J192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1988 |
| From: | Decker T, Gooden A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204J188 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-88-36, 50-425-88-45, NUDOCS 8810250028 | |
| Download: ML20204J192 (7) | |
Text
.'
l
,
'.
o te u s
f. a %o%
'
UNITE 3 STATES O'~
i j.
.. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
o
REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
%,,,,
e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
,
Report Nos.: 50-424/88-36 and 50-425/88-45
,
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
,
P. O. Box 4545
.
Atlanta, GA 30302 j
Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.:
HPF-68 and CPPR-109
!
l Facility Name: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
,
inspection Conducted:
September 12-16, 1988 Inspector:
O.
- -b
/0~7-SS A. Gooden, Radic ion Specialist Date Signed
Approved :hbh 2A L
/0 -// - $$
T. Decker, Section Chief'
Date Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUNiARY Scope: This unannounced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency preparedness.
An assessment was made of changes to the Vogtle emergency preparedness program since the last inspection to determine what effect these changes may have had on the state of emergency preparedness; and a review was
!
conducted of the management control system for ensuring the operational readiness of the emergency organization.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
Program strengths were noted in key areas such as document distribution and emergency response training.
Based on the number of drills conducted during the calendar year 1988, the licensee's attention appears to be focused on maintaining a qualified
!
emergency response organization.
Within the areas examined, the licensee i
f appears to be maintaining the emergency preparedness program in a state of operational readiness.
!
i l
!
,
p i
K
0 PD
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-.
-
.
.
,
,
.
l REPORT DETAILS
,
l 1.
Persons Contacted
i Licensee Employees l
l
- V. Agro, Plant Administration Superintendent D. Bloemendaal, Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Corporate Office
- A. Cardona, Senior Procedure Specialist
- C. Garrett, Operations Engineer
,
- T. Greene Plant Support Manager
- W. Kitchens, Operations Managt,*
,
,
l
- L. Mayo. Emergency Preparedness Specialist l
- K Pointer, Senior Plant Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Compliance r
'
!
- J. Roberts, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor l
- P. Rushton, Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager j
- C. Stinespring, General Support Manager
- J. Swartzwecder, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager l
I (
Other licensee employees contacted included engineers and office personnel.
NRC Resident inspectors l
- R. Aiello l
- J.
Rogge
- Attended exit interview 2.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16),10 CFR 50.54 (q), and Apoendix E to 10 CFR 50, this area was reviewed to determine if the licensee's program l
governing changes to the Emergency Plan and Emerger.cy Plan implementing Procedures (EP!Ps) had been properly implemented since the last rcutine
.
inspection (May 1987).
The inspector reviewed Section P of the Emergency Plan which described the program for preparation, review, approval, and distribution of changes tu the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
Plant procedures 00103-C (Occument Distribution and Control), 70408-C (Controlled Document Distribution). 00051-C (Procedures Review and Approval), 00402-C (Licensing Docurrent Change Request), and EPIP 91701-C (Preparation and
Control of Enorgency Planning Documents) implemented Section P of the Emergency Plan.
The inspector further discussed with a licensee representative the program for making changes to the Plan and EPIPs.
The inspector was provided a walk-through demonstration of the distribution process frem the inception of the change package to the distribution of Manual Holders' copies.
According to Document Control personnel, the management system used for tracking document changes is known as the l
- - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
.
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- - -
-
- - - -
.
'
.
'.
.
.
2 Nuclear Operating Records Manager..ent System (NORMS). TMs system is used by Document Control to track the document approval date, date received in Document Control, current revision number, etc.
Since the last inspection, only one revision had been submitted for the Emergency Plan.
,
The licensee provided documentation dated July 22, 1988, to show NRC Region 11 approval of changes incorporated as Revision 10 to the Vogtle Plan.
Several EPIPs were revised since the last inspection.
The inspector reviewed documentation to verify that changes to the Emergency Plan (Revision 10) and selected EPIPs had been reviewed in accordance with and approved ' y management.
the procedures governing such review, a
Document distributions to onsite and offsite Manual Holders were reviewed.
In addition, the inspector also reviewed the timeliness of Plan (Revision
-
'
10) and procedural (29 revised procedures) changes submitted to the NRC to verify that changes were submitted within 30 days of the approval date.
It was noted that all such changes were submitted to NRC within 30 days of the effective date.
Several Control Manual sets were reviewed to determine if manuals were being maintained current and up to date with controlled procedures. The inspector reviewed the following manuals:
Manual No. 31 (L. May/C. Koster)
Manual No. 50 (V. J. Agro/ EOF Backup)
Manual Nos. 42, 48, and 55 (B. R. Quick /OSC and OSC Manager)
Manual NJ. 56 (Control Room)
Manual No. 70 (On-Shift Operations Supervisor)
Manual Nn. 53 (Technical Support Center Manager)
Manual Nos. 44, 50, 52, and 54 (EOF, Backup EOF, EOF Emergency Director, and EOF Manager)
With one exception, all procedures selected for review were current in accordance with a NORMS printout dated September 6,1988.
The one exception involved Manual Nos. 42, 48, and 55 located in the Operations
,
Support Center (05C).
Ir. vach of the three aforementioned Manuals, a superseded copy of EPIP 91'J1-C (Emergency Classification and Implementing Instructions) was noted.
According to Document Control records, the current version of EPIP 91001-C was Revision 006, dated August 11, 1988, and distributed to Manual holders on August 12, 1988.
The copy of EPIP
91001-C found in the OSC Manuals was Revision 005, dated August 27, 1987.
The inspector informed the licensee representative that, although the referenced procedure had no relevance to the OSC Manager's role and responsibilities during an emergency, failure to maintain current and l
up-to-date a controlled document could c.' considered as a potential violation pending further review of the inspection details by Regional
<
management.
A further review of this matter by Regional management following the inspection determined that a violation had not occurred (see i
Paragraph 7 for details).
However, this matter was conidered an
,
inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) to ensure that licensee actions to prevent
,
recurrence were effective.
.
i IFl (50-424/88-36-01, 50-425/88-45-01):
Verify that a'.I controlled documern5 are maintained current and up-to-date.
'
,
'.
,
.
.
,
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment..nstrumentation, and Supplies (82701)
.
Discussions were held with a licensee representative concerning modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation since the last inspection. According to this individual, no significant changes had been made to any of the facilities.
Minor changes were made involving the floor plan or layout for the Technical Support Center (TSC), and the Control Room was expanded to include Unit 2 personnel and additional telephones.
At the time of (he inspection, reallocation of floor space was occurring in the OSC to incorporate additional office space.
According to the licensee contact, this change does not decrease the effectiveness of the OSC in responding to emergencies.
A previous inspection (Report Nos. 50-424/88 38 and 50-425/88-42)
documented the results of an operability check on equipent and support
{
items, as well as the periodic inventory of etaergency kits and communications tests.
Consequently, there were no equipment inventories and/or operability checks performed during this inspection. However, the inspector did conduct an accountability of reference documents in each of the emergency response facilities (Control Room, TSC, OSC, and Emergency
!
Operations t7eility), and reviewed selected copies of the Emergency Plan and EPIPs to 6termine if documents were being maintained current and up-to-date.
Two inconsistencies were noted, and both involved outdated materials.
In the OSC, three manuals contained a superseded copy or EPIP 91001-C (see Paragraoh 2 above).
The other item involved out-of-date emergency phone directories.
During the TSC walk-through, the inspector noted that two copies of a superseded telephone directory were stored inside Administrative locker #1 along with other reference and/or support material.
This matter was discussed with the licensee contact, who informed the inspector that current copies of the emergency phone directory were found in each of the TSC position notebooks. The inspector reviewed selected position notebooks and verified that current directories were available.
The licensee initiated actions during the period of the inspection to discard old directories from the TSC locker and review other emergency facilities for removal cf superseded,naterial.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Organization and Management Control (82701)
The inspector's discussion with licensee representatives disclosed that several personnel changes had been made involving both the corporate and plant staffs since the May 1987 inspection.
According to a transition organization chart which was prcvided to the inspector, at the corporate office, personnel changes involved the position of Executive Vice President - Nuct er Operations and the position of Manager - Training and Emergency Preparedness.
Included in the Corporate Office changes is the reporting chain for emergency preparedness. At the plant, the individuals filling the positions of Plant Manager and Plant Support Manager exchanged
_
-
..
. -..
-
.
--
.
-
.
.
.
!
.
positions.
Regarding changes to the emergency organization, personnel changes were made to the positions of Dose Assessment Manager TSC
>
j Manager, and the E0F Manager.
According to a licensee contact, none of i
the aforementioned changes will result in any of the emergency response positions not being covered by an assigned and qualified individual.
i Regarding changes to the offsite emergency organization, the inspector was
'
I
]
informed that the position of Director of the South Carolina Emergency
'
Preparedness Division had been reassigned due to the former Director's l
retirement.
In addition, an agreement letter had been executed with i
Babcock and Wilcox for performing semple analysis. The inspector verified
]
the new agreement and no problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
IndependentReview/ Audit (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area j
was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an
!
independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program.
'
i
,
'
According to documentation provided to the inspector, independent audits
l of the program were conducted by the Vogtle Quality Assurance Department
,
l during the period March 17, 1988 through April 15, 1988 (documented in
Audit Report No. OP12-88/11, dated April 19, 1988).
The Georgia Power
i Corporate Quality Assurance Office conducted an audit during the period
d May 10-24,1988 (documented in Audit Report No. 88-EP-2, dated June 20,
!
i 1988).
The aforementioned audits fulfilled the 12-month frequency
!
requirement for such audits.
Findings that resulted from these audits l
i were presented to Plant and Corporate management.
A further review
,
regarding the actions taken in response to those findings disclosed that l
,
I Plant and Corporate management had reviewed the findings and assigned
!
]
milestones for resolving these items, j
>
i
$
The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise
!
j findings was reviewed. The exercise and drill findings were being tracked f
i vic an emergency planning tracking system known as the "Vogtle EP Action
!
Item Report."
This report listed the item number, responsible person,
'
l action item description, date assigned, and date due for each item. This i
report was circulated only within the emergency planning staff for
'
l follow-up actions.
In addition, exercise and drill findings along with
'
Quality Assurance and NRC audit findings were being tracked by the l
j plant-wide action item tracking (AIT) system, Administrative Procedure
'
00104-C "Action Item Tracking '
According to a licensee contact, on a
I
'
weekly basis, status reports are provided for review to plant management.
j The inspector reviewed items identified durinq the annual exercise held on l
May 24, 1988, and noted that all NRC findings had been addressed and the j
corrective actions to resolve items had been completed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
>
!
!
!
.
i
- --
--
,. _. - - _, - - - -, -,.
,.,,, _ -, _ -..,.
. _ _ _,.. - _ _ _ _.,.,..
..,, _. _, _ _ - _.,
-., - _, - - __
.,.,..._
-
-
-
,
i
'
.
.
,
.
6.
Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82701)
[
I t
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.A
.
and IV.C. this area was examined to determine whether shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional capabi;ity, and
'
,
whether administrative and physical means were available and maintained to i
augment the emergency organization in a timely manner.
,
!
The inspector reviewed Table B-1 of the Emergency Plan and discussed shift
staffing and augmentation with a licensee representative to determine if
.
the goals and criteria of Table B-1 of NUREG-0654 could be met.
The
!
i licensee had established an automatic computer-based telephone l
notification system referred to as "MEl.!TA."
On a quarterly basis, a a
recall drill is conducted to perform the following:
(1) verification that i
the met.!TA auto-dialing system is operational; (2) verification that phone
"
and beeper numbers for augmentation staff is current; (3) determination of
the percentage of personnel that can be notified and properly respond to
,
the message; and (4) estimates of arrival times for augmentation personnel l
at the Plant Entry Security Building (PESB).
The call-in procedure
-
appeared to be effective in meeting Table B-1 goah.
The inspector j
.
discussed with a licensee representative staff augmentation times as
,
determined by studies, drills, or call-in during actual events.
The i
licensee representative indicated that an augmentation drill was last i
conducted on November 20, 1986. The inspector reviewd licensee records of
!
that drill, and found that documented augmentation times were consistent
'
with Table B-1 guidance.
However, a recent verification of augmentation
!
,
!
i times had not been done.
The inspector informed the licensee that, in view of comitment to meet Table B-1 augmentation staffing, a drill should
'
be conducted periodically to verify augmentation capability.
The inspector further stated that personnel turnover combined with other human i
factors (single parents, caring for the elderly and/or handicapped, etc.)
could lead to the unavailability of emergency response personnel for
-
meeting staffing requirements.
A licenseo representative acknowledged l
this finding and stated that the quarterly recall test provides the I
'
i capability for verification of Table B-1 requir:eents. Consequently, the
)
licensee was informed that this matter is considered as an IFl.
,
IFI (50-424/88-36-02, 50-425/88-45-0?):
Verify and document, during
quarterly recall test or an actual call-in drill, that Table B-1 staffing
!
requirements can be satisfied.
l
'
l No violations or deviations were identified.
)
7.
Exit Interview
)
The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on September 16, 1988, j
with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the
!
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed i
below.
I s
i
!
.
<
...
,
In response to the item involving a superseded procedure (see Paragraph 2 above), immediately after the exit interview, the Plant Administration Superintendent provided adaitional details to the inspector regarding the reason for the outdated procedure at the referenced location.
On September 20, 1988, the inspector informed the Site Emergency Preparedness Supervisor that, based on a further review by Regional management of the inspection details and the additional details provided to the inspector following the exit intervir:w, the item in Paragraph 2 above will be categorized as an Inspector Follow-up Item rather than a violation.
The licensee centset acknowledged this item and stated that actions would be taken to ensure that all controlled documents are maintained current and up-to-date.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
Item Number Description and Reference 50-424/88-36-01, 50-425/88-45-01 IFI - Verify that all controlled documents are maintained current
,
and up-to-date (Paragraph 2).
I 50-424/88-36-02,50-425/88-45-02 IFI - Verify and document, during i
quarterly recall test or an actual
,
call-in drill, that Table B-1 staffing requirements can be satisfied (Paragraph 6).
.
!
I
.
.
.
.
.