ML20136F611
| ML20136F611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1985 |
| From: | Hackney C, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F544 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-85-33, NUDOCS 8511220155 | |
| Download: ML20136F611 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1985033
Text
'.
.
.
APPENDIX B
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
STN 50-482/85-33
License:
Docket:
STN 50-482
Licensee:
Kansas Gas and Electric Company
P. O. Box 208
Wichita, Kansas
67201
Facility Name:
Wolf Creek Generating Station
Inspection At:
Wolf Creek Site, Burlington, Kansas
Inspection Conducted:
August 19-23, 1985
l
Inspector:
du h
-
'dA/
Il-$-Y[
C. A. Hackney, Emergency Preparedness Analyst
Date
Approved:
(b id
ll-7-ff
L. A. Yandell. Chief, Emergency Preparedness
Date
and Safeguards Programs Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted August 19-23, 1985 (Report STN 50-482/85-33)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's emergency
preparedness program in the areas of changes to the emergency preparedne s
program, knowledge and performance of duties and program review.
The is.=pec-
tion involved 36 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
One violation was ident'fied (failure to follow procedures,
paragraph 2).
1
l
pg
AD E
p
G
<
.
.
.
-2-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- F. Rhoades, Plant Manager
- K. Moles, Supervisor Emergency Planning
- R. Hoyt, Emergency Planning Administrator
- G. Rathburn, Manager, Licensing & Radiological Services
S. Austin, Shift Supervisor
- J. Good, Licensing
J. Weeks, Supervising Operator
T. Fraker, Nuclear Station Operator
R. Grant, Director Quality
M. Hall, Lead Engineer
T. Conley, Health Physics Technician III
M. Brownfield, Document Control Clerk
V. Hofford, Administrative Clerk II
P. Redding, Document Control Clerk
D. McDaniel, Document Control Supervisor
B. Herrin, Document Control Clerk II
J. Dagenette, Training Specialist
J. Houghton, Operations Coordinator, Operations
~
D. Melville, Technical Document and Control Supervisor
D. Hooper, Document Control Clerk III
M. Schrieber, Engineering Specialist III
NRC
- J.'Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector
- B. Bartlett, Resident Inspector
The NRC inspector also held discussions with other station and corporate
personnel in the areas of quality aseurance, communications, document
control, changes to the emergency pseparedness program, and emergency
response.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Changes to the Emergency Program
The NRC inspector reviewed selected sections from the emergency plan and
emergency plan procedures (EPP) to determine that the documents had been
reviewed and submitted according to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q)
and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph V.
The NRC inspector determined by review that there had not been any changes
to the emergency plan since the licensee had received the operating
license March 11, 1985.
There were, however, changes made to EPP 01-1.1
m
!
l
.
-
p
_
!
i
[
-3-
I'
>
L
on May 13, 1985.
The revised EPP was sent to the NRC on June 27, 1985.
The licensee had discovered that the document had not been submitted to
'
.the NRC in the required 30 day period and had taken immediate corrective
action. On June 28, 1985, a letter was written implementing the correc-
tive action.
On May 5, 1985, EPP's 01-3.1, 01-3.4, 01-3.5, and 02-1.5
were revised and submitted to the NRC on May 15, 1985. _ According to
EPP 02-1.1, Section 4.3.2.1, an evaluation was to be performed and docu-
mented on all changes to the emergency pian and procedures.
<
>
The NRC inspector determined that an evaluation of the May 15, 1985 and
June 27, 1985 submittals was performed to the requirement of 50.54(q);
however, the evaluation was not documented according to EPP 02-1.1,
'
Section 4.3.2.1.
The NRC inspector reviewed a distribution matrix for EPP, emergency plan,
and piping and instrumentation drawings.
It was determined that the
reviewed documents had been properly distributed; however, it was deter-
mined that document control procedure KP-1032, titled, Distribution
Control System, sections 7.3.5-7.3.7 required controlled documents to have
an acknowledgement sheet returned to the document control center.
Failure
to respond, after having received two requests for the acknowledgement
letter, required that the party be removed from the controlled document
list.
Further, each letter was to be reproduced and retained on file
until resolved.
The NRC inspector determined that the procedure was not
being followed in that delinquent persons were being called on the tele-
[
phone rather than being sent a letter.
One person had not responded to
telephone calls concerning documents transmitted to them on April 2, 1985.
I
These two examples of a failure to follow procedures are a violation
against Technical Specification 6.8, " Procedures and Programs"
(50-482/8533-01).
There were no stated changes decreasing the effectiveness of the emergency
plan or EPPs submitted to the regional NRC office.
'
The NRC inspector inspected the licensees onsite and offsite emergen'c'9 N _
response facilities.
Specifically the Emergency Operations Facility
(EOF), Operational Support Center (OSC), and Technical Support Center
(TSC).
The facilities were as stated in the emergency plan with the
exception of the EOF.
The EOF had furniture and displays that were not in
the emergency plan.
It was determined that the training department was
moving to the training center and the furniture storage was temporary.
There had not been significant changes to the emergency response organ-
ization since March 11, 1985.
The duties of the onsite and offsite
l
emergency planning coordinators have remained the same since March 11,
'
1985.
There were no additional key personnel added to the emergency
'
response organization.
No other violations or deviations were identified.
L
- -
I
e.
'*
,
s
.
-4-
3.
Knowledge and Performance of Duties
The NRC inspector reviewed training records for selected emergency
response team personnel.
The training records were difficult to audit
from the training matrix.
The computer printout did not indicate required
training, retraining requirements, test scores, titles, or if the person
was still qualified to remain on the emergency team.
Training was
assigned according to each persons position in the emergency organization;
however, some essential training was being given that was not identified
as being required for operations personnel, e.g. , emergency detection and
classification, and dose assessment.
The NRC inspector noted as an area for improvement, the need to consol-
idate the emergency personnel training records and to use the computer to
track personnel training records.
Additionally, it was suggested that
essential personnel training requirements should be reviewed and appro-
'
priate essential training should be assigned as required training.
Interviews were held with selected emergency response personnel to
determine their understanding of their role in the emergency organization,
and their duties and responsibilities.
It appeared that those persons
interviewed were knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities.
Walkthroughs were conducted with selected emergency response personnel
'
which included duty emergency director, shift supervisor, supervising
operator, nuclear station operator, and health physics.
The persons
interviewed were asked questions as they applied to their team assignment.
Operations personnel were interviewed in areas of emergency detection,
classification, protective action recommendations, notifications, emergency
response facilities, shift staffing, and authorities.
The health physics
technician was interviewed in areas concerning offsite radiological
monitoring, communications, monitoring areas, reporting data, equipment,
and interfacing with the state radiological monitoring teams.
The response
f rom each team member appeared adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Audits
The Quality Assurance department had performed the 50.54(t) 12-months
emergency program review, however, the report had not been finalized.
This area will be reviewed during a future inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview
The exit interview was conducted on August 23, 1985, with Mr. F. Rhoades
representing the licensee.
Mr. J. E. Cummins and Mr. B. L. Bartlett,
m
c.
- ~'
.
.
,
.
-5-
NRC resident inspectors were present, Mr. C. A. Hackney, the NRC
inspector, summarized the inspection findings.
It was noted during the
-
- inspection that the licensee's letters of agreement were inconsistent in
their review cycle.
This area was discussed as an item for improvement.
- The licensee stated that they would review the letters of agreement
annually and update the letters every 2 years.
The licensees response
-
appeared acceptable.
The NRC inspector stated that there was one violation
with two examples for failure to follow procedures.
.
9
9
4
4
..
- .
-
- - - - - -