ML20056G902
| ML20056G902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1993 |
| From: | Barr K, Salyers G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G899 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-93-10, 50-370-93-10, NUDOCS 9309070292 | |
| Download: ML20056G902 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000369/1993010
Text
,
~
\\
-
.
,-
UNITED STATES
/pa af a\\g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
y*
~a
REGION 81
E,
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
y
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3032M)199
3
k
,+ /
AUG 191993
- e.
l
l
l
Report Nos.:
50-369/93-10 and 50-370/93-10
Licensee: Duke Power Company
P. O. Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
!
Docket Nos.: 50-369 and 50-370
License Nos.: NPF-9 and NPF-17
<
l
Facility Name: McGuire
!
Inspection Conduct t
June 21-25, and July 29, 1993
'
l
v6. W. Salyer - va
%[/9 / ff 3
Inspecto :
N
,
(JateSighed
Approved by:
N,[gMrm
M /1,17 7 3
K.
P'.
B'a'r, thief
(jate Sitned
l
r
l
Emergency Preparedness Section
'
l
Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch
l
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
l
SUMMARY
l
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency
preparedness, and included review of the following programmatic elements:
(1) Radiological Emergency Response Plan and its implementing procedures;
(2) emergency facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies;
(3) organization and management control; (4) independent reviews / audits; and
(5) training.
Results:
!
In the area inspected, one violation was identified:
failure to properly
!
classify a loss of offsite power event as a Notification of Unusual Event
(Paragraph 2). Two Unresolved Items (URIs) were identified:
(1) notification
of NRC of procedure changes within 30 days in accordance with 10 CFR 50,
l
Appendix E.V (Paragraph 2), and (2) maintaining Emergency Preparedness
'
training current (Paragraph 6). One Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI), specify
which ERO positions require respirator qualification (Paragraph 6), was
identified.
l
l
l
!
A
C
G
-
-
.
.--
-
-
-
--
_ __.
__
_ -.
.
__
.
_
_ _ . .
'
,
,
.
REPORT DETAILS
l
'
!
i
1.
Persons Contacted
!
Licensee Employees
- M. Cloinger, Emergency Preparedness
i
- W. Duncan, Quality Verification, Audits
j
- J. Frye, Quality Verification Manager, Audits
i
.
- M. Geddie, Station Manager
4
- J. Glenn, Nuclear Generation
l
- B. Hasty, Emergency Plan Manager
- M. Lackey, Operations Training
- J. Nagel, Security
i
- J. Reavis, Emergency Preparedness
- J. Schutle, Radiation Protection
Other licensee ' employees contacted during this inspection included
members of the emergency response organization, training staff, and
l
office personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!
- T. Cooper, Resident Inspector
'
- K. Van Doorn, Senior Resident Inspector
,
i
- Attended exit interview
!
Abbreviations used throughout this report ar e listed in the last
paragraph.
2.
Emergency-Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701)
This area was inspected to determine whether significant changes were
made in the' licensee's emergency preparedness program since the last
inspection, 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 Emergency Plan and its~ implementing procedures.
Requirements apnlicable to this area are found in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16),
10CFR50.54(q), spendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and the licensee's
Emergency P1an.
a.
The. inspector discussed with the Emergency Planning Manager,.the
licensee's methodology for making procedural changes to the REP
and EPIPs. The inspector concluded that the licensee did not have
a procedure specifically for making changes'to the REP or EPIPs
but used the plant generic program for procedure changes.
The inspector noted that.the EPIPs consist of eighteen Response
Procedures maintained by the emergency preparedness organization,
i
ten Health Physics Procedures maintained by the Health Physics
.
,
,
_
_.
-
. - -
.
.
.
.
- .
.
. -
-
.
.
l
2
'
organization, and three Chemistry Procedures maintained by the
'
chemistry organization.
Each group made changes to and approved
their particular procedures but, the emergency preparedness
organization was responsible for maintaining the EPIPs up-to-date.
The licensee's documentation indicated that they had made
,
approximately 42 revisions to the EPIPs since February 1991. The
inspector's review of the EPIP revisions found:
A June 1, 1992 letter from the licensee to the NRC indicated
f
-
'
a year lapsed between a procedure approval and NRC
notification. This was identified by the licensee and
corrective action was identified in the letter to the NRC.
A September 22, 1992 letter from the licensee to the NRC
-
indicated more than two months elapsed between procedure
j
approval and NRC notification.
I
An April 26, 1993 letter from the licensee to the NRC
-
indicated approximately 33 days elapsed between procedure
approval and NRC notification.
The inspector discussed with the Emergency Planning Manager the
j
apparent late notification to the NRC of their changes to the
l
In the discussion, the Emergency Planning Manager stated
the facility considers the implementation date to be the date the
Safety Assurance Manager signed off on the procedure and not the
approval date indicated on each procedure. The Emergency Planning
Manager further explained as an example, that once a procedure
change was approved, the procedures were placed in the control
room and available for use by Control Room personnel prior to the
final approval of the Safety Assurance Manager.
General
distribution of the procedure did not occur until the Safety
Assurance Manager signed off as approving the procedure. The
,
inspector noted, as an example, for the September 22, 1992 letter
l
l
to the NRC, the Safety Manager signed off on the procedures on
'
September 16, 1992, but OP/1/B/6200/48, dated July 9, 1992, and
L
OP/2/B/6200/48, dated July 22, 1992, were approved, approximately
l
69 and 56 days, respectively, before the Safety Assurance Manager
approval and distribution to the EPIP manuals.
In a telecon with
i
the licensee on August 18, 1993, the licensee was informed that
this item was identified as an unresolved item pending NRC
(
determination of the implementation of these procedures.
URI 50 369, 370/93-10-01: Notification of the NRC within 30 days
of a procedure change in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.V.
The inspector reviewed four procedure change packages and verified
that an equivalent 10 CFR 50.59 or 10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation had
been performed.
Except as stated above, a review of licensee
records indicated that all of the REP and EPIPs changes between
l
. - -
_ _ _
_ __ __
.
,
i
!
3
February 1991 and June 1993, were approved by management and
subruitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as
required.
By reviewing documentation and discussion with licensee personnel,
the inspector determined that the following NRC ins applicable to
emergency planning were reviewed by the licensee and distributed
to cognizant personnel:
IN 91-72: Revision of EPA PAG Manual
-
IN 92-08: Revised Protective Action Guidance for Nuclear
-
Incidents
IN 92-32: Problems Identified With Emergency Ventilation
-
Systems for Near-Site (Within 10 Miles) Emergency Operations
Facilities and Technical Support Centers
IN 92-38: Implementation Date for the Revision to the EPA
-
Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions
for Nuclear Incidents
The inspector noted that corrective actions were taken when
appropriate.
b.
The inspector verified that the REP and EPIPs had received the
required annual management review as stated in EP Section P.4,
" Review of Emergency Plan."
The inspector reviewed documents indicating that plant EALs were
presented to and reviewed by the State of North Carolina on
October 24, 1991 and December 29, 1992; Catawba County on
October 9, 1991 and December 17, 1992; Gaston County on October
17, 1991 and December 18, 1992; Iredell County on October 9, 1991
and December 17, 1992; Lincoln County on October 8, 1991 and
December 15, 1992; and Mecklenburg County on December 10, 1991 and
December 15, 1992. Neither the State nor the counties recommended
any changes to the EALs.
,
The inspector reviewed the EALs as found in EPIP RP/0/A/5700/00,
" Classification of Emergency," dated July 22, 1992, and determined
that the procedures were consistent with the ?EP, Section D,
,
" Emergency Classification System /EAL Basis Document."
!
The inspector compared instrumentation referenced in the EALs with
'
available Control Room indication. During the comparison, the
,
inspector noted that EAL 4.1.9, initiating condition #2, under the
NOVE category listed Lake Norman water level of 745 ft. as an
action level. When asked by the inspector, the Control Room
operator assisting the inspector was not aware of any Control Room
indication for Lake Norman water level and stated that it might be
on the OAC. The Unit 1 OAC identified computer point A0766 was
.
- - -
~-
-
-
.
-.
.
.
- - -
- -
- .
.
.
4
Lake Norman water level and the indicated that the lake level was
745 ft. The inspector verified from a local reading at the dam,
that the actual lake water level was 757 ft and therefore, the
l
licensee had not exceeded their action level.
i
.
The inspector expressed the following concerns to the Emergency
,
Planning Manager.
,
i
Two of the operators in the Control Room were not aware of
the lake level EAL or that a Lake Norman water level
indication was available in the Control Room.
-
i
The FSAR stated that there was an alarm in the Control Room
.
'
for a low = lake level (745 ft.).
l
l
The OAC computer indication did.not and was not programmed
to alarm in the Control Room, and the Control Room could
!
have missed a NOUE classification.
l
.
_
How long was. the instrument out of calibration?
>
The Emergenci Planning Manager acknowledged the inspector's
. concerns and indicated the licensee was evaluating the issue.
!
,
Subsequent to this inspection, this issue was followed up by the
j
-
i
Resident Inspectors and was addressed as violation 50-369,370/93-
'
11-01.
i
Except for " Lake Norman water level" as discussed above and the
l
4
" Loss of offsite power,' both unit related main bus lines
'
de-energized" discussed in 2.c. below, the EALs did not appear to
contain impediments or errors which could lead to incorrect or
,
untimely classification. The inspector concluded that the EAls
!
were based on parameters obtainable from Control Room
'
l
instrumentation.
Controlled copies'of the REP, EPIPs, and Emergency Telephone
Directory in the Control Room and randomly selected controlled
!
j
copies in the TSC, and EOF were audited by the inspector for the
!
'
most current revision. No problems were identified.
!
\\
!
c.
Four emergency declarations were made by the licensee since the
last inspection:
j
j.
February 11, 1991, NOUE
{
i.
\\
July 15, 1991, NOVE
Axial Flux Difference
!
-
r
>12 percent (TS shutdown)
l
i
,
4
April 21, 1992, NOUE
Loss of "B" Train of the Solid
-
- i
State Protection System in
i
conjunction with a load
t
j
rejection
i
i
,
i
l
$
'
. - . .
- - .
-
.
-
_
__ ,_
._,
.
. .
- -
l
'
,
!
l
l
!
5
October 23, 1992, NOUE
Containment Spray Out of
a
Service (Less than the minimum
,
l
channels of Engineering Safety
'
Features operable)
While reviewing the events, the inspector noted that during the
February 11, 1991, loss of offsite power on Unit 1, it took
,
1
25 minutes to make a NOUE classification.
Licensee procedure
RP/0/A/5700/00, dated November 27, 1990, was in effect at this
,
'
time. Enclosure 4.1 of the procedure specifies a loss of offsite
l
power in Modes 1-6 as an EAL for a NOVE.
Enclosure 4.1 also lists
l
ECCS initiation as an EAL for a NOVE. Control Room logs for
!
February 11, 1991, indicate that at 13:55, Unit 1 Reactor Tripped
due to a complete loss of power; loss of 230 KV switchyard; and
blackout. The Cantrol Room logs also indicate that a NOUE was
declared at 14:20 based on a valid SI. During an interview with
the SR0 or shift during the event, the SR0 stated that "they knew
the EAL, hnd they were watching and waiting for SI to inject into
the core to make the classification." The inspector concluded
that the NOUE classification should have been made immediately on
VIO 50-369, 370/93-10-02:
Failure to properly classify a loss of
offsite power as a NOVE.
t
Inspector follow-up also indicated that a licensed operator
training instructor had been teaching operators that they had
15 minutes after entering the diagnostic portion of the E0Ps
before they had to naake an event classification. The inspector
,
'
informed the licensee that the 15 minutes was for notification of
offsite agencies. This was corrected by the Emergency Planning
Manager.
The inspector reviewed the classification and conditions prompting
the classifications for each of the above events.
Except as noted
above, the inspector concluded that other classifications were
made correctly and offsite notifications were timely.
One violation and one URI were identified.
!
3.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies (82701)
This area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's ERFs and
associated equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained in
l
a state of operational readiness, and to assess the impact of any
'
changes in this area upon the emergency preparedness program.
Requirements applicable to this area are found in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8)
and (9), 10 CFR 50.54(q),Section IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50,
and the licensee's Emergency Plan.
I
,
,
. , .
-
1
l
-
'
l
l
6
The inspector toured the licensee's TSC and EOF. The inspector was
!
informed that the TSC had been remodeled in December 1991. The TSC was
an open area except for the News Group, Offsite Communicator, and
Radiological Assessment.
In addition to the existing equipment, the
l
inspector observed that the licensee had installed three new data
'
computers, which could be displayed on four overhean monitors, and six
wireless communication headsets for different positions.
Five of the
headsets had two-way communications capability and one headset had
listen-only capability. The ERDS terminals in the TSC and E0F were
l
successfully accessed and immediately available for use.
In the TSC,
1
the inspector observed a licensee representative perform an offsite dose
calculation using the dose computer. The licensee provided
documentation that indicated the dose assessment program (Mesorem) had
..
been compared with the State of North Carolina and the NRC's dose
'
!
assessment program and that the program test results were comparable.
f
The licensee also provided documentation that indicated the newest
version of Mesorem was validated on November 18, 1991, by comparing
l
eleven test cases to the previous version of Mesorem (April 1990), and
!
manual calculations.
l
l
The licensee stated that they also conducted Augmentation Drills on
l
December 17, 1991 and December 9, 1992, and met the 45 minute and
l
75 minute activation times. The licensee provided documentation
indicating that they performed the drills. The inspector reviewed this
documentation and concluded the licensee did not document the activation
times or maintain documentation to support the times. The importance of
supporting documentation was discussed with the licensee representative.
The Emergency Planning Manager stated they would improve their
,
)
documentation in the future.
The licensee had numerous procedures for maintaining the emergency
facilities and equipment.
Periodic test PT/0/A/4600/79, tested
emergency response equipment and was performed monthly, quarterl.v, and
annually in the TSC and E0F.
Periodic test PT/0/A/4600/84, testcad
Communication equipment in the EOF.
Periodic test PT/0/A/4600/06,
l
tracked the required drills and drill items.
Based on the inspector's
review the of this documentation, prompt corrective actions were
undertaken when equipment deficiencies were identified.
The inspector also reviewed four different test procedures and results
associated with the TSC Emergency Ventilation System:
PT/0/B/4450/01F, VH System HEPA and Carbon Absorber Filters Test
PT/0/B/4450/12F, VH Filter Train Air Flow Measurement
l
PT/0/B/4450/15F, VH Filter Package Visual Inspection
-
PT/0/0/4450/29, VH System Performance Test
-
l
.
.
_ _ - _
._
_ _
.
- - -
-_ _
.
.-
7
The tests were conduced on a staggered 18 month cycle. The test data
points monitored the D/Ps across the Pre-Filters, HEPA Filters, Charcoal
Filters, Final Filter and Total Filter D/P, TSC/outside D/P, and the
system airflow.
The inspector concluded that the TSC Emergency
Ventilation System was being adequately maintained,
i
The inspector toured the OSC. The OSC had been relocated to the 775'
elevation of the Auxiliary Building.
The area was spacious and well
organized. The inspector noted that the OSC had numerous personal
computers and communication equipment that would aid in accessing plant
,
'
information during an event.
The inspector reviewed quarterly inventory records from June 1992 to
j
June 1993, for the various emergency kits.
The inspector also observed
i
a licensee representative inventory several emergency kits using
!
procedures:
j
PT/0/A/4600/llA, " Environmental Survey Check list Radiation
-
Protection Vehicle"
4
1
PT/0/A/4600/110, " Personnel Survey Kits Training and Tech. Ctr.
Evacuation Facility Check List"
Based on review the inspectors review of records and observation of the
licensee's inventory of several emergency kits, the inspector concluded
that the licensee was properly maintaining the emergency equipment.
The ANS consisted of 53 fixed sirens in four counties: 26 in Mecklenburg
County,10.in Gaston County,13 in Lincoln County, and 4 in Iredell
'
County. Siren testing consisted of a bi-weekly silent test of sirens
that was conducted by the counties, a weekly low growl test conducted by
,
Duke Power, and
full system activation that was performed quarterly by
the county E0Cs.
The quarterly testing was performed under the
,
jurisdiction of the respective county emergency management agency, and
test results were forwarded to the licensee.
Documentation indicated
that siren system operability was 95 percent in 1991, and 98 percent in
t
1992.
4
'
The inspector reviewed documentation indicating that the licensee
maintained 82 tone alert radios. The radios are intended for special
.
facilities where there may be concentrations of per:cns who would be
i
highly unlikely to hear the sirens or where the persons are likely to
j
.
need special care during an evacuation such that the evacuation might be
'
slowed.
The tone alert radios were under the control of the county E0C.
The tone alert radios could be activate in conjunction with the
-
emergency sirens (ANS) or as a separate system.
!
The inspector concluded that the emergency response facilities and
emergency equipment were appropriately maintained.
No violations or
!
deviations were identified.
I
i
1
.
__
-
.
._
_
_
~
_ _
__.___
_ _ .
i
..
l
8
4.
Organization and Management Control (82701)
This area was inspected to determine the effects of any changes in the
licensee's emergency' organization and/or management control systems on
the emergency preparedness program, and to verify that any such
changes were properly factored into the Emergency Plan and EPIPs.
Requirements applicable to this area are found in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1)
l
and (16),Section IV.A of Appendix E,to 10 CFR Part 50, and the-
licensee's Emergency Plan.
The Emergency Planning Staff had increased by two specialists and a
dedicated office assistant. - The EP staff, prior to a reorganization,
reported to a Section head who reported to the Station Manager
Now,
the EP staff reports to the Safety Assurance Manager who reports to the
McGuire' Site Vice President.
The licensee appointed a new' Emergency Planning Manager in August 1991.
l
The inspector reviewed the. qualifications of new Emergency Planning
Manager.and_ concluded that she possessed the professional knowledge to
maintain the licensee's Emergency Preparedness program.
The organizational structure of the ERO had changed since the last
inspection.
In August 1992, the current site ERO and programs were
implemented. The new ERO and programs incorporated the Crisis
Management Plan and emergency response functions previously performed in
the Corporate Office into the site program.
Each site was given total
responsibility for Emergency Planning and facilities.
After reviewing the licensee's reorganization, the 'i.e.intenance of the
facility, and the_ emphasis placed on the emergency preparedness drills,
,
!
the inspector concluded that management was involved in and supportive
.
.of the Emergency Preparedness Program.
No violations or deviations were
l
identified.
5.
Independent Review / Audits (82701)
l
l
This area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed
l
an independent review audit of the emergency preparedness program, and
l-
whether the licensee had a corrective action system for deficiencies and
[
weaknesses identified during exercises'and drills. Requirements
L
applicable to this area are found in 10 CFR 50.54(t) and the licensee's
The inspector reviewed two audit reports, "CM-91-01" dated January 29,
1992'and "CM-92-Ol" dated December 14, 1992. Audit report CM-92-01
reviewed General Office Support, Site Emergency Plans and various plant
. Implementing Procedures, Equipment (Communications, Monitoring,
,
L
Alerting), Emergency Drills, Exercises, and Critiques, Siren Systems,
l
Document Control, Training, and State and County Interface.
!'
..
-
.- - -
.. . - .
-
. . .
-
- . . - - -
-
-
.
.
9
Audit report CH-92-01 conducted November 16, 1992 to December 8, 1992,
listed three auditors. Based on review of the report and discussion
with licensee representatives, the inspector concluded that what
appeared to be a three person team
a six day audit done by one person., three week audit was, in actuality,
Although the audit report lacked detail in the individual subject areas,
the inspector concluded that the program coverage of the audit met the
minimum requirements identified in 10 CFR 50.54(t).
The inspector
verified that the audit findings were being tracked and adequately
resolved by the Emergency Preparedness organization.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs and tracking list for
follow-up of findings from audits, drills, and exercises.
The inspector
concluded that the licensee was responsive in addressing and completing
identified items.
The inspector reviewed a matrix that tracked the licensee performance of
the major elements of the Plan within a five year period as stated in
the EP. The inspector did not identify any deficiencies.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Training (82701)
This area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's key
emergency response personnel were properly trained and understood their
emergency responsibilities. Requirements applicable to this area are
contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and (15),Section IV.E of Appendix E to
10 CFR Part 50, and the licensee's Emergency Plan.
The inspector reviewed Section N, " Exercises and Drills" of the REP.
Section N discussed Exercises, Augmentation, Fire, Medical Emergency,
Radiological Monitoring, and Radiation Protection Drills, their
execution, critique and action item follow-up.
The inspector reviewed
documentation that indicated the licensee activates the TSC, OSC and EOF
using a simulator-driven scenario each quarter.
The inspector review of
the licensee's drill results indicated that the licensee exceeded the
requirements of Section N of the REP.
The inspector reviewed the EP training program for site personnel.
Initial training for EP was conducted in a classroom environment.
Starting in August 1992, requalification was a self-study handout. The
Emergency Planning Manager conducted individual annual Communicator and
Data Coordinator Training in the TSC, E0F and CR and classroom annual
licensed and non-licensed operator Emergency Preparedness Overview
classroom training.
The Radiation Protection Section conducted training
for Dose Assessment personnel, Field Monitoring Teams and the Radio
Operators. The licensee stated that they are planning to upgrade the EP
training program and are currently looking at other EP training programs
in the industry.
i,
.
. .
..
.
-- -
-
.
.
10
The inspector reviewed the EP Training tracking system. The training
records were computerized and personnel training status was tracked by
the licensee. The system listed each individual's name and the date
they completed each training course.
The Emergency Plan requires members of the ERO to have the Emergency
Planning Overview Training and retraining on an annual basis. The
licensee procedures allowed a three months extension to their required
training date before the member was considered unqualified. The
inspector reviewed a weekly computer print out of Emergency Planning
,
Overview Training Dates to verify ERO members training was being
maintained up-to-date. The inspector identified 22 members that had
exceeded their required training date by more than three months. The
inspector concluded that the majority of the expired training members
were a result of merging the Corporate ERO training into the McGuire ERO
training.
In a telecon on August 18, 1993, the licensee was informed
that this item would be identified as a URI pending verification that
the individuals with expired training were maintained on the site duty
roster. The inspecter also noted that the issue of 16 percent of the
ERO members with expired training were previously identified in EP audit
report CM-92-01, dated December 1992.
URI 50-369, 370/93-10-03: Maintaining Emergency Preparedness training
current.
The inspector accessed the computer training records for the respiratory
qualification of 33 ERO personnel.
Eleven of the 3? members checked by
the inspector had expired respirator qualification. The inspector noted
lesson plan SA-MN-EP-OlS, "EP Overview," Section 1.2, " Emergency
Response Organization Member Responsibilities Include: Basic Respiratory
Protection Training." The licensee emphasized to the inspector that
SA-MN-EP-OlS was a lesson plan. The licensee stated that to maintain
respirator qualifications, the individual was required to be trained in
use of the respirator, the individual also was required to have a
medical physical examination and be fit tested. The licensee stated
that they are evaluating who actually needs to be respirator qualified
verses having all members respirator qualified. The licensee was
informed that identification of ERO members needing respirator
qualifications would be tracked as an Inspector Follow-up Item.
IFI 50-369, 370/93-10-04:
Respirator qualifications for ERO members.
The inspector verified through documentation that all qualified
Emergency Coordinators and Emergency Directors had participated in
drills in their respective positions since the last inspection.
The inspector reviewed documentation that indicated the licensee was
meeting their commitment to offsite training as stated in Section 0.1,
"Offsite Agency Training." Documentation was reviewed for:
Carolinas Medical Center, February 17-19,1992
Gilead Volunteer Fire Department (Primary), October 5,1992
+
.
'
.
l
l
l
11
l
l
Cornelius Volunteer Fire Department (Secondary), October 5, 1992
-
,
'
Mecklenburg Rescue Squad, September 23, 1992
-
'
Mecklenburg Count Emergency Services, June 8-10, 1992, May 6,
-
1993, May 10-12, 1993
,
l
l
l
One URI and one IFI were identified.
7.
Exit Interview
l
,
!
The inspection scope and results were summarized on June 25, 1993, with
!
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
One licensee representative
'
although he agreed with the inspectors observations, questioned the
l
inspectors comments concerning audit report CM-92-01 (discussed in
'
Paragraph 6). On August 18, 1993, a teleconference was held between
licensee management and NRC management to further discuss the technical
issues in this report.
Licensee management was informed that the issues
l
of notifying the NRC within 30 days of emergency procedure changes and
maintaining training current would be identified as unresolved pending
i
additional NRC evaluation. Licensee management was also informed of the
violation for failure to properly implement their Emergency Plan. No
proprietary information was reviewed during this inspection.
Item Number
Description and Reference
!
50-369,370/93-10-01
URI - Notification of the NRC within 30 days of
'
a procedure change in accordance with
10 CFR 50 Appendix E.V (Paragraph 2).
,
50-369,370/93-10-02
VIO - Failure to properly classify a loss of
offsite power as a NOUE (Paragraph 2).
50-369,370/93-10-03
URI - Maintaining Emergency Preparedness
training current (Paragraph 6).
50-369,370/93-10-04
IFI - Specify which ERO positions require
'
respirator qualification (Paragraph 6).
8.
Index of Abbreviations Used in this Report
Alert and Notification System
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
D/P-
Differential Pressure
Emergency Action Level
Emergency Operations Center
l
E0F
Emergency Operating Facility
E0P
Emergency Operating Procedure
,
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure
'
Emergency Planning Zone
Emergency Response Data System
Emergency Response Facility
-
.
ER0
12
Inspector Follow-Up ItemEmergency Response O
IFI
IN
Information Notice
KV
Kilo Volt
Operator Aid ComputerNotification Of Unusual Event
0AC
OP
Chemistry Procedure
Operational Support Center
Protective Action Guideline
Radiological Emergency PlanProtective Action R
Response Procedure
Senior Reactor Operator
Safety Injection
TS
Technical Specification
Unresolved Item
Violation
,
s