IR 05000461/1993015
| ML20046A413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1993 |
| From: | Cox C, Mccormickbarge NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046A410 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-93-15, NUDOCS 9307280055 | |
| Download: ML20046A413 (5) | |
Text
_ _.. _.. _. _
-_
.. _
..
. _..
__
_
.
.!
.
U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
REGION III
-l Report No. 50-461/93015(DRSS)
-
I Docket No. 50-461 License No. NPF-62.
'
.
Licensee:-
Illinois' Power Company-l Mail Code V-275
' :
P. O. Box-678 l
Clinton, ILL 61727.'
.
Facility Name:.Clinton Power Station Inspection At:
Clinton Site, Clinton, IL Inspection Conducted: July'12-16, 1993
_
,
Nb
/
I Inspector:
C. Cox'
Date i
Approved By: k Id M bruun Ydi/4 7 (E. W. McCormick-Barger, Chief Date l
,
Non-Power Reactor Section
-
l Inspection Summary Inspection on July 12-16. 1993 (ReDort No. 50-461/93015(DRSS))
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the operational status of the Emergency Preparedness (EP) program, including the following areas:
licensee's actions on previously identified items (IP 82701);. and operational
,
l status of the emergency-preparedness program (IP 82701).
l Results: No violations, deficiencies, or deviations.we're. identified. Overall
!
management support for the program continued to be excellent. The maintenance requirements for the EP program was well proceduralized-in the Emergency
Planning Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) and Emergency Response Standing Orders (ERS0s) and tracked on computerized tracking systems.. Training and drills for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) continued to meet or exceed the commitments 'in the emergency plan.
EP staff continuing training was another. strong point.with the EP staff attending several industry.
sponsored seminars and observing other licensees' cxercises or drills. Onsite and offsite emergency response facilities were very well maintained and improvements were noted.
i 9307280055 930721
'
PDR ADOCK 05000461 G
ppg":-
,.
.l t.
. - -.. -
. _. -.... -,. -... -
- -,
..
...-, -
i
DETAILS
i 1.
Persons Contacted
'
J. G. Cook, Vice President F. A. Spangenberg, Leader, Nuclear Strategic Change Program
,
D. P. Thompson, Manager, Nuclear Training Department L. E. Everman, Director, Radiation Protection
D. E. Komeman, Director, Nuclear Station Engineering Department
,
M. W. Lyon, Director, Emergency Planning D. R. Morris, Director, Nuclear Assessment R. F. Phares, Director, Licensing J. R. Taylor, Director, Nuclear Support P. D. Yokum, Director, Plant Operations T. Elwood, Supervisor, Licensing Operations W. K. Evans, Supervisor, Emergency Drills and Exercises 0. V. Sipek, Supervisor, Regional Regulatory Interface D. L. Walters, Nuclear Assessment Auditor The above licensee representatives attended the July 16, 1993 exit i
meeting. The inspector contacted other licensee representatives during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified items (IP 82701)
(0 pen) Inspection Followuo Item No. 461/93008-01: This item pertains to the inconsistent use or lack of use of checklists in the Technical Support Center (TSC). The inspector observed two training seminars
,
where the use of checklists were emphasized. Discussions among the ERO
members attending the sessions were facilitated by the EP staff to identify improvements in the checklists that would encourage the use of the checklists.
This item will remain open until good checklist use is observed in the next evaluated exercise.
3.
Emeraency Plan Activations (IP 82701)
a.
There was an emergency plan activation on May 22, 1992, when a i
Notice of an Unusual Event (NUE) was declared by the licensee due to a fire onsite lasting greater than 15 minutes.
A charcoal fire in the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) charcoal filters was noted by the Control Room staff and was promptly and correctly classified as an NUE.
Notifications to the offsite agencies were made within the required timeframe and a close out letter sent to the region.
b.
A second emergency plan activation occurred on August 22, 1992, when a NUE was declared by the licensee due to a suspected contaminated injured person. A worker fell in a contaminated area and was injured. The NUE was declared when the ambulance left the site and the notifications were made to the offsite agencies within the required timeframe.
The declaration was based on
,
.
.
.
.
suspected contamination. However, the worker was determined not
to be contaminated upon arrival at the hospital, so the licensee had made a conservative declaration rather than delay treatment of the injured worker to determine the extent, if any, of the contamination.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Operation Status of the Emeraency Preparedness Proaram (IP 82701)
a.
Emeroency Plan and Implementina Procedures The inspector reviewed with the licensee's Revision 9 to the Emergency Plan (EP) for the Clinton Power Station, which had an effective date of March 12, 1993, and Advance Change Notice (ACN)
10/1 which had an effective date of March 19, 1993.
Review of the changes indicated that the effectiveness of the emergency plan was not decreased and the changes were appropriate. Another ACN was in the process of being issued during the inspection to revise the plan to reflect the recent reorganization of the EP staff.
That ACN was not reviewed by the inspector.
Current copies of the Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) were verified to be available in the onsite and offsite Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) by the inspector. During a walkthrough of the Control Room evacuation
procedure and in interviaws with operators, it was noted that EPIPs and the EP were available at the Remote Shutdown Panel.
The documentation and tracking of the maintenance requirements for the emergency plan was excellent. The maintenance requirements for the EP program were well defined in the EPIPs and the Emergency Response Standing Orders (ERS0s), a set of lower level procedures. The commitments in those procedures and other commitments were tracked on an internal EP/ Drill Action Item Tracking System and/or the facility-wide Central Commitment Tracking System. The tracking systems appeared to be effectively used to ensure maintenance requirements were met and effectively used to track resolution of deficiencies identified during drills, exercises, independent audits, and NRC inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Emeraency Facilities. Eauipment. Instrumentation. and Supolies The onsite and offsite ERFs (Control Room, Technical Support Center, Operational Support Center, Emergency Operations Facility, l
Backup Emergency Operations Facility, Joint Public Information Center, and Headquarters Support Center) were toured and were as described in the Emergency Plan and relevant EPIPs.
All facilities appeared to be in an acceptable state of operational readiness and no major changes in the facilities were noted.
__
.
.
.
While there were no major changes in the facilities, improvements
were noted. The Back-up Emergency Operations Facility recently had more phones installed, including phones for the NRC site team.
The licensee also improved the dose assessment model by obtaining the model used by the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS)
and obtaining the NRC model (RASCAL) as a backup.
New computer workstations were also recently purchased to run the dose models.
l Other improvements noted were the purchase of uninterruptable power supplies for several of the ERFs, improvement in pager coverage for the ERO, and additional phones in the simulator for drill use.
i No violations or deviations were identified.
j c.
Oraanization and Manaaement Control There were two changes in the organization of the Emergency Preparedness Program since-Inspection Report No. 50-461/91025(DRSS). The first change was the elimination of one staff level emergency planner in March 1993. The second change was a reorganization that resulted in the Director -
Emergency Response and his staff reporting to the Vice President / Plant Manager through the Manger - Nuclear Training
Department. Previously, the EP staff reported to the Senior Vice
'
President through the Manager - Nuclear Licensing and Safety.
It was also noted that the reorganization resulted in a new Manager -
-
Nuclear Training Department. No impact of the changes in staffing levels and the reporting chain to the effectiveness of the EP program could be determined during-the inspection.
However, the changes were very recent.
The organization, notification, and staffing levels of the ERO essentially remained as described in Inspection Report
,
No. 50-461/91025(DRSS). The staffing levels continued to be ample to ensure timely activation of the ERFs could be achieved.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
d.
Emeraency Preparedness Trainina The ERO training program remained as described in Inspection Report No. 50-461/91025(DRSS). The inspector observed two requalification training seminars.
The first seminar was for the combined engineering staff of the TSC and EOF. The second seminar was for the health physics staff of the TSC and EOF.
The format of the seminars was to cover changes in procedures and facilities, drill and exercise improvement items, discuss the drill schedule, and an open discussion on any items of interest to the seminar participants. The inspector reviewed the training matrix, selected training records, selected lesson plans, and interviewed three field team members.
...
..
.
.
.
Continuing training for the EP staff was excellent. Staff members participated in industry-wide meetings such as an American Nuclear
!
Society (ANS) EP topical meeting, observed drills and exercises at other licensees, and assisted other licensees Quality Assurance audits.
The drill and exercise program remained as described in Inspection j
Report No. 50-461/91025(DRSS).
Records of the emergency i
preparedness drills were reviewed and the licensee continued to meet or exceed the commitments in.the emergency plan. Annual offsite training had been completed as. required and the Emergency I
Action Levels (EAls) were provided to offsite agencies.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e.
Indeoendent Reviews / Audits Quality Assurance (QA) Department records of audits and surveillances of the Station's EP program conducted since the last routine inspection were reviewed.
Records were complete and readily available. The 1991 and 1992 audits satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t).
j No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with those licensee representatives identified in Section 1, on July 16, 1993. The inspector reviewed the scope and preliminary findings of the inspection.
The licensee indicated that
,
none of the information discussed was of a proprietary nature.
i i
5