ML18153C122
| ML18153C122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1990 |
| From: | Rankin W, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153C121 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-90-02, 50-280-90-2, 50-281-90-02, 50-281-90-2, NUDOCS 9003050062 | |
| Download: ML18153C122 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1990002
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
-
~ (" . ...... t')
FEB O Q 3::1tr
Report Nos.: 50-280/90-02 and 50-281/90-02
Licensee:
Virainia Electric and Power Company
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281
Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
Inspection Conducted: January 8-12, 1990.
Inspector: ~ ~~
.
~
W. Sartor** ..
License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37
Approved by* t.LA\\ R
QM Lt-*~
. w~ki n' ciffet.......
Scope:
Emergency Preparedness Section
Emergency Preparedness and Radiological
Protection Branch
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
. SUMMARY
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency
preparedness (EP).
Several aspects of the emergency preparedness program were
inspected to determ;ne if the program was being maintained in a state of
operational readiness for responding to emergencies.
Observations intluded a
review of selected records and audit reports, discussions with the ongoing
- audit team, discussions with the corporate EP .staff, and reviewing open items
for closure.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The Surry emergency preparedness program was being maintained adequately to
respond to an emergency *. Program strengths included significant corporate
resources being allocated to plan additional program improvements since the
successful November 15, 1989 emergency exercise. Inspection emphasis was given
to progress made in needed additional corrective actions for previously
identified problem areas such as staff augmentation response times and. the
command and control of offsite monitoring. teams *
I
-
- 'JC)()'°'.'.'()'::/
o(*in~o500o~ * --- --,
-
-
-
-
-
-*L*
h~=i(lOO:.:~:::::(_
~OR
AUUG~ ---
C!
- -*
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
REPORT DETAILS
- W. Benthall, Supervisor Licensina
J.- Collins, Director, Corporate Emergency Preparedness
- J. Costello, Station Coordinator, Emergency*Preparedness
- E. Grecheck, Assistant Station Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing
- S. Harrison, Senior Emergency Planner, Corporate Emergency Preparedness
- M. Knasler, Station Manaaer
C. Matthews, Assistant Security Shift Supervisor
R: Morgan, Quality Assurance Auditor
J. O'Hanlon, Vice President, Nuclear Services
- E. Smith Jr. , Manager, Qua 1 i ty Assurance
C. Tarantino, Staff Health Physicist
L. Thomasson, Supervisor, Corporate Health Physics
W. Webb, Security Shift Supervisor
- other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative
personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission
- W. Holland, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Emergency-Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies (82701)
Discussions were held with licensee - representatives concernina.
modifications to facilities, equipment. and instrumentation since the last
inspection.
The inspection activity concentrated in areas that had
previously been identified as problem areas in routine inspections or
during emergency exercises.
The areas encompassed equipment and
instrumentation used for initiating emergency organization callout,
instrumentation contained in emergency kits, _and the status of the new
Multiple Integrated Dose Assessment System (MIDAS) dose assessment
software.
Si nee the November 15, 1989 emergency preparedness exercise, the pagers
and telephone speed dialers have been an integral part of the callout
procedures.
Surveillance Test Procedure (STP} STP-~6 entitled "Emergency
Plan Auamentation Callout Drill" was reviewed for the Auaust 9, 1989
callout: It was not fully satisfactory because one position (Reactor
Engineer) was not filled within the required time. The December 12, 1989
callout results could not be reviewed because Records Control had not yet
filed the STP.
Although the December 4, 1989 callout was not fully
satisfactory, licensee representatives indicated the use of the pagers was
improving th~ augmentation time.
The inspector also conducted interviews
,
2
with the backshift Security Shift Supervisor and Assistant Security Shift
Supervisor to ascertain their ability to initiate an emergency callout if
so required.
Both individuals were familiar with the *equipment and *
procedures, and a walkthrough of the faci 1 ities indicated they could
effectively implement the callout. Subsequent to this inspection, durinq
a meeting with licensee management on January 16, 1990, the licensee
indicated further specific actions would be taken _to meet specified
auamentation times.
These included personnel relocation to a closer site
proximity, maintaining personnel off shift in a standby response status,
and further enhancements to call in practices.
Discussions with a licensee representative concerning instruments in the
emergency kits indicated six to eight microcurie Cs-137 sources had been
added to provide a capability for ensuring the operability status of
portable survey instruments.
Discussions with Corporate Health Physics representatives addressed the
status of the MIDAS software.
Information provided indicated that MIDAS
should be available by July 31, 1990, with the contractor providing
documentation to identify differences greater than a factor of three
between MIDAS results and the then current Conunonwealth of Virginia dose
assessment model results.
The inspector stat~d that the review of the documentation explaining any
differences areater than a factor of three wou 1 d be tracked as an
inspector fo,-low-up item (IFI).
IFI 50~280, 281/90-02-01.
Review the documentation of differences between
the MIDAS dose assessment model and the Conunonwea 1th of Vi rai ni a' s dose
assessment model. This item permits IFI 50-280, 28i/87-12-05 to be closed
because the differences between the current but soon to be discontinued
RAD/MET model and the*current Conmionwealth of Virginiamodel are.not now
planned for formal documentation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Licensee Audits (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(l4) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area
was inspected to determine whether the 1 i censee had performed an
independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program ..
Records of audits of the program were reviewed.
The most recent
10 CFR 50.54(t) audit had been conducted from July 31-September 1, 1989,
by the Corporate Quality Assurance (QA) Department with the support of
technical specialists from Enercon Services.
The overall assessment was
the emergency preparedness program was satisfactory with 12 concerns and
six improvements items being identified.
The aforementioned audit
satisfied the annual frequency requirements for such audits.
Durina the
week of this inspection, the inspector observed two interviews being
conducted by the Surry QA Staff which had initiated the 1990 EP Audit.
3
Audit interviews observed were well oroanized and reflected knowledge* of
the EP program.
-
No violations or deviations were* identified.
4.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701, 92702)
a.
(Closed) IFI 50-280, 281/87-12-05:
Documentation of the manual;
computerized and Commonwealth dose models such that differences are
understood by all parties prior to their use.
Although test cases
were run on the above dose models, documentation of the differences
was not made because of updates to the RAD/MET dose model.
Because
the licensee is implementing a new dose model (MIDAS), the
documentation of differences wi-11 be followed with that program (see
Paragraph 2).
b.
(Closed) IFI 50-280, 281/87-12-06:
Ensure operability of the
computerized_dose model.
The inoperability referenced appeared to
occur as a result of key files needed to make the system operable
being deleted or modified.
Station software control has been
enhanced since that time and should prevent a similar occurrence.
c.
(Closed) IFI 50-280, 281/87-12-09:
Review documentation to ensure
that Local Emergency Operations Fadlity.(LEOF) habitability is in
accordance with_ NUREG-0696 and sec ti on 7 .1 *. d of the Emergency Pl an.
A maonahelic oauoe with a ranoe of O to 5 inches of water was
insta-lled next- to- the LEOF HVAc' control panel and the reference leg
field routed to the outside with work completed on. February 15~ 1989.
Procedure PT-32.14 now provides for LEOF pressurization testing on an
18 month Cycle.
d.
(Open) IFI 50-280, 281/87-29-12:
Improve command and control of the
offsite monitoring team during the initial deployment.
This item
will be a performance objective of the licensee conducted
mini-exercise for training purposes to be conducted during the first
quarter of 1990.
An NRC inspector wi 1 l try to observe the i tern to
provide closure.
-
e.
(Closed) IFI 50-280, 281/89-09-01:
Conduct more frequent audits of
the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) controlled
distribution.
STP 55.3. has been revised to require quarterly (or *
following facility activation) inventories of the EPIPs.
f.
(Closed) IFI 50-280, 281/89-09-03:
Review and evaluate, providing a
capability in the*emergency kits for ensuring the operability status
of portable survey instruments.
A six to eight microcurie Cs-137
source nad been added to the required emergency kits to provide the
capability of performing operability. status of the portable survey
instruments.
. .
5.
4
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 12, 1990, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas
inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting
conrnents were not received from the licensee.
Item Number
50-280, 281/90-02-01
Description/Reference
IFI - Review the documentation of
differences between the MIDAS dose
assessment model and the Conrnonwealth
of Virainia's dose
assessment model
(Paragraph 2).