ML20148E627
| ML20148E627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1988 |
| From: | Decker T, Gooden A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148E617 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-88-06, 50-348-88-6, 50-364-88-06, 50-364-88-6, NUDOCS 8803250266 | |
| Download: ML20148E627 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000348/1988006
Text
.
_
-
-
.
.
['
, g&* Mou
e
4
UNITED STATES
[
fj
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
o
!
REGION 11
Y
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
g
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
e,,,,
MAR 181988
Report Nos.: 50-348/88-06, 50-364/88-06
i
Licensee: Alabama Power Company
'
600 North 18th Street
Birmingham, AL 35291-0400
Docket Hos.: 50-348, 50-364
License Nos.:
HPF-2, NPF-8
Facility Name:
Farley
Inspection Conducted:
February 29 - March 4, 1988
Inspector:
O.
o-n-([a_
/6 /f3 P>
A. Gobden
.
Date Signed
Approved by:
/I
7//4/(6
T. R. Decker, Section Chief
Date Signed
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was to assess the operationa'i
readiness of the site emergency preparedness program; and to determine if
changes to the emergency prenaredness program since the March 1985 inspection
meet NRC requirements, commitments, and the affect of changes on the overall
state of emergency preparedness.
Results:
One violation was identified - failure to provide personnel
designated as Operations Shift Aide annual communication training.
.
I
1
8803250266 880318
ADOCK 05000348
4
O
- _ - . - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .
. _ _ - _ . . . - -
...
.
.. - -. .
.. -
.
.
__
_
_
.
.
_ .
.
-.
<
.
,
,
REPORT DETAILS
2
.
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted
- W. Bayne, Supervisor, Chemistry and Environmental
J. Brantley, Licensing Engineer
A. Chan, Licensing Engineer
J. Gibson, Operations Shift Aide
- D
Grissette, Supervisor, Environmental and Emergency Planning
R. Hill, Operations Manager
V. Holley, Jr., Shift Supervisor
J. Hudspeth, Supervisor, Document Control
A. Mcdonald, Public Information Assistant
R. Monk, Shift Supervisor
B. Moore, Sector Supervisor, Technical Training
- 0. Morey, Assistant General Manager, Operations
J. Powell, Shift Supervisor
- W. Shipman, Assistant General Manager, Support
W. Smith, Operations Shift Aide
R. Wiggins, Supervisor, Operations Training
.
- L. Williams, Training Manager
Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians,
security office members, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview
!
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on March 4,1988, with
1
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed
.
below.
A member of the licensee's staff took exception to the violation
discussed in Paragraph 7 below (failure to provide communications training
to individuals designated as Operations Shift Aide).
The Supervisor,
Chemistry and Environmental, stated that the requireri communications
training, as referenced in Section VIII.B of the Emergency Plan, was
intended only for the Technical Support Center (TSC) comunicators.
However, a member of the plant management staff disagreed with the
,
aforementioned justification in that no reference was made in the
Emergency Plan to comunication training being specific only for TSC
communicators.
He agreed with the violation as presented and stated that
actions would be taken to resolve this matter.
The licensee did not
identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the
inspector during this inspection,
j
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
_.
.
__ _
_
. . _ _
_
. .
_
___
-
.
.
-
.
2
4.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16), 10 CFR 50.54(q), and Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the
program since the last routine inspection (March 1985) and to assess the
i
impact of these changes on the overall state of emergency preparedness.
f
The inspector discussed with a licensee representative the licensee's
program for making changes to the Emergency Plan and Implementing
Procedures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures (Plant
Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-1, "Development, Review, and Approval of
Plant Procedures," and Section VIII.D of the Emergency Plan) governing the
review, approval, and distribution of changes to the Plan and procedures.
The inspector verified that changes to the Plan and procedures were
reviewed and approved by management.
It was also noted that changes were
being distributed to copy holders in a timely manner, as evidenced by the
logbook containing the dates for transmittal and returned acknowledgement
sheets, and a review of acknowledgement slips for selected changes since
the last routine inspection.
In addition, the licensee maintains a
computerized tracking system known as "Control Document Distribution" for
tracking Plan end procedural changes to copy holders.
The computer
generated printout contains information such as the procedure title, date
of revision, copy holder's name, transmittal date, etc.
The inspector
reviewed documentation for the following Plan and implementing procedure
changes to verify that submittals were made within 30 days of the approval
date:
FNP-0-EIP-019 dated 7/26/85, mailed to NRC 7/29/85
FNP-0-EIP-017 dated 7/24/85, mailed to NRC 7/29/85
FNP-0-EIP-016 dated 11/24/87, mailed to NRC 11/25/87
FNP-0-EIP-027 dated 12/2/87, mailed to NRC 12/3/87
FNP-0-EIP-008 dated 12/3/87, mailed to NRC 12/3/87
EP Revision 12, Approved 5/23/86, mailed to NRC 5/30/86
No problems were noted.
All submittals were made within 30 days of the
approval date.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
EmergencyFacilities, Equipment, Instrumentation,andSupplies(82701)
Discussions were held with a licensee representative concerning
modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation since the last
inspection.
According to a licensee representative, no changes had been
made to any of the emergency response facilities; however, enrgency
response equipment purchased since the last inspection included the Farley
Tone Alert Radios (discussed below in more detail) as replacement for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radios.
An inspection and operability check was performed on selected equipment
and support items used for emergency response in the Control Room, TSC,
and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
In the Control Room and TSC, the
t
p
.
.
.
- . --
-
.
-
. ..
-
- -
'
.
.
4
3
)
'
!
inspector observed the operability of the meteorological data recording
system and the Data Acquisition System.
No problems were noted with
operability.
In addition, the inspector observed communication checks
from the Control Room, TSC, and Shift Foreman's Office using the Emergency
Notification System (NRC Operations Center), and the Emergency
'
Notification Network (State and local warning points) was checked from the
,
TSC.
A two-way plant security radio which may be used in the event all
'
land lines are lost was checked for operability.
No problems were noted
with any of the communications equipment.
However, a telecopier located
in the TSC used for transmission of emergency notification messages failed-
to operate during the initial test.
The Rapicom 5000 with Safpak allows
transmission of emergency messages to multiple destinations.
As'part of
,
the Emergency Notification Network operability test, licensee personnel
performed an operability check af the Rapicom 5000.
The operability test
was performed in accordance with procedures discussed in Surveillance Test
Procedure FNP-0-STP-60.0, "Emergency Communications Operability Test."
After several attempts had failed using the test procedure steps, licensee
personnel decided to operate equipment in accordance with the- procedures
outlined in the equipment manual.
It was noted that omitting the use of a
,
Departmental Code from the procedure resulted in a successful transmittal.
Further review and evaluation by licensee personnel resulted in the
~
identification of the Departmental Code switch positioned in the disable
mode as opposed to the enable mode.
This resulted in noi.-acceptance of
the Departmental Code thereby impeding proper operation or transmission.
According to personnel performing the test, the TSC Rapicom 5000 Safpak is
dedicated for emergency use; consequently, a Departmental Code is not
necessary.
As a result, licensee personnel initiated a change request
form for Test Procedure FNP-0-STP-60.0 to delete Step 4.1.1.7 requiring
entry of a Departmental Code to avoid recurrence of the aforementioned
situation.
As part of the emergency comunication equipment, the inspector discussed
,
with licensee representatives the maintenance and periodic testing.of the
1
plant emergency warning system for high noise areas.
According to
documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the Farley
i
emergency evacuation system consists of flashing blue lights and an
evacuation alarm sounded over the plant public address system.
The
inspector was informed that the evacuation alarm is tested on a weekly
l
basis.
However, there is no periodic preventative maintenance program in
place for the sirens or lights.
In addition, the weekly test does not
'
include documentation of the test results, nor verification that the
l
lights are operational.
The licensee agreed to review this item for
development of a surveillance procedure governing the periodic testing of
the alarms and lights to ensure system operability.
The licensee was
informed that this matter is considered an inspector followup item for
4
review during a subsequent inspection.
2
Inspector Followup Item (50-348, 364/88-06-01):
Develop a surveillance
procedure for the emergency warning system which governs the periodic
maintenance, testing, and documentation thereof to ensure system
,
operability and reliability.
i
..
.. .
.
-
- - .
_
..
-
____
- . -
.- -
. , _ . -
- , -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
. . .
.
..
..
..
.
..
.
.
.
-
.
4
In assessing the operational status of the emergency facilities, the
inspector verified that reference documents, protective equipment, and
supplies were operational and inventoried on a periodic basis.
Emergency
kits and/or cabinets from the Control Room, TSC, Central Security Control
Building, and the E0F were inventoried and randomly selected equipment was
checked for operability.
Selected equipment operated properly and
'
displayed current calibration stickers.
The emergency backup lighting in
the TSC was checked for operability and no problems were noted.
During
the E0F inventory, the inspector noted that two reference documents
(FNP-0-RCP-746 and FNP-0-RCP-747) were missing from the randomly selected
cabinet.
This matter was discussed with a licensee representative for
resolution.
According to the licensee representative and a review of
)
documentation (Procedure Request forms dated July 15, 1986, and January
{
21, 1987) both documents were superseded and a request for deleting the
procedures were approved on the aforementioned- dates.
However, both
documents remained on the inventory sheet.
During the inspection, a
procedure request form specifying that both documents be deleted from the
inventory list was submitted and approved on March 3,1988.
A review of
Revision 19 to FNP-0-EIP-16, Attachment 16L, Page 8 of 10, verified that
the deletions were made.
There were no further questions or concerns
regarding the inventory.
By review of applicable procedures and
documentation for the period of February 1985 to December 1987, the
inspector determined that emergency equipment (e.g., emergency kits and
communications equipment) was being checked in accordance with procedures
governing such tests (FNP-0-EIP-16 and FNP-0-STP-60.0).
The inspector
also verified that current copies of the Emergency Plan and Implementing
Procedures were available in the emergency response facilities.
No
problems were noted.
The licensee's management control program for the Prompt Notification
System (PNS) was reviewed.
According to licensee documentation and
discussions with a licensee representative, the current system consists of
3 fixed sirens (located in the Alabama cities of Columbia, Gordon, and
Ashford) and tone alert radios for those residents inside the plume
exposure pathway but outside the areas covered by sirens.
During the
period of the inspection, the inspector was informed that the licensee in
conjunction with State authorities were discussing actions to correct
deficiencies identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) evaluation of the Farley PNS on September 22, 1987. According to
licensee personnel, a meeting was scheduled for Monday, March 7,1988,
between the utility, State, and local authorities to address the
appropriate actions to resolve FEMA concerns. The licensee attributed the
two siren failures (Gordon and Columbia) of September 22, 1987, to bad
batteries.
According to licensee documentation, the batteries were
replaced in both sirens and semiannual maintenance had been performed on
all three sirens on November 19 and 20,1987.
A full cycle test was
conducted and all sirens operated for the full three minute design period.
According to licensee personnel, further actions to resolve the PNS
findings will result from the meeting of March 7,1988, referenced above.
The inspector had no further questions regarding the licensee's response
to the FEXA evaluation.
A review of licensee records verified that the
.
--
.
.
~_
.
-
-
-
-
. . ~ .
.
.
._ _ _ _ __ -___ __
f
'
.- ' .
\\
'
.
l
5
\\
i
system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the
System mainterance was provided by Alabama Power's
-
Southeast Division Telecommunications personnel.
The inspector discussed
siren test records with a licensee representative who indicated that
i
Houston County Emergency Management Agency maintains siren test records.
4
The licensee provided siren test records for the period January 1986 to
June 1987.
The records showed that silent tests were conducted
bi-monthly, growl tests quarterly, and a full-cycle test annually.
'
Documentation was available to verify that corrective action was prompt
and timely in response to siren failures,
No violations or deviations were identified.
)
a
6.
Organization and Management Control (82701)
The inspector's discussion with licensee representatives disclosed that
several administrative changes had been made to the emergency organization
since the March 1985 inspection:
(1) the title, Manager of Nuclear
Support, was upg(raded to, Vice-President, with no resulting change in2) the Assi
i
responsibility;
been assigned alternate responsibility as the Emergency Director; and
(3) all Superintendent level positions were upgraded to Manager level
positions without a change in responsibilities (e.g., Superintendent
1
Operations, current title "Manager Operations"),
j
Regarding changes to the offsite emergency organization, the inspector was-
informed of the following changes:
(1) personnel had been reassignec' to
the positions; Director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency,
Director of the Houston County Emergency Management Agency, and the
l
Alabama Emergency Management Agency Field Coordinator's position for
I
Farley, and (2) the title Early County Civil Defense Agency was changed to
Early County Emergency Management Agency.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Training (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F
this area was inspected to determine whether emergency
.esponse personnel understood their emergency response roles and could
perform their assigned functions,
j
The inspector reviewed Section Vill.B of the Emergency Plan and Station
Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-45 for a description of the training
program and tra'.ning procedures.
In addition, selected lesson plans and
instructional aids were reviewed and members of the training staff.were
interviewed.
Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector
determined that the licensee had established a formal emergency training
program.
)
- ,-
j
. - - - - -
-
. - -
, - ,
.
- - - , ,
. - , . , ~ - , . .
.
.
,
,_
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_-
'
.
.
.
-
6
l
In response to IE Information Notice No. 85-80, "Timely Declaration of an
Emergency Class, Implementation of an Emergency Plan, and Emergency
Notifications " the inspector interviewed two Operations Shift Aides who
may be designated as an Offsite Communicator for the Control Room; and two
Licensing Engineers with responsibility as communicators in the TSC.
During the early stages of an event, the Offsite Communicator in the
Control Room is responsible for initial communications to the Offsite
Agencies (State and county) via the Emergency Notification Network.
The
inspector interviewed communicators regarding various comunications
systems available from the Control Room or TSC for making notifications,
their responsibility as a comunicator, backup communications system, etc.
No problems were noted with the TSC comunicators; however, there appeared
to be a lack of training with the Control Room comunicators.
In one
instance, the interviewee demonstrated a poor understanding of
comunicator responsibility and the various comunications systems
available in the Control Room.
Both interviewees demonstrated a lack of
training regarding comunications systems in the Control Room.
A review
of training records verified that the Operations Shift Aides had not
received annual communicator training in accordance with the Plan and
,
procedures during the Calendar Year 1986 or 1987.
A licensee
representative stated that comunications responsibility in the Control
'
Room rests with the Shift Supervisor as opposed to the Operations Shift
Aides.
The licensee representative further stated that the intent of
communicators training, as discussed in the Plan, refers to TSC
1
communicators only.
The inspector informed the licensee representative
!
that according to FNP-0-EIP-26 (Offsite Notification) Revision 23, dated
4
September 29, 1987, initial notification should be made by an extra Shift
Foreman, the Operations Shift Aide, or the Shift Support Supervisor; and
according to Section VIII.B.1.g of the Farley Emergency Plan, personnel
responsible for the transmission of emergency information and instructions
'
will receive annual training on emergency comunication procedures and
communication equipment operation. This item is identified as a violation
of 10 CFR 50.54(q) which requires the licensee to follow an Emergency Plan
which meets the planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b).
Violation (50-348, 364/88-06-02):
Failure to provide annual comunicator
training to Control Room communicators.
According to training records, with the exception of the finding stated
,
above, all other training records for a small sample of key members of the
J
onsite emergency crganization were consistent with approved procedures.
The inspector reviewed training records for 1986 and 1987.
No problems
were noted.
The inspector reviewed 1986 and 1987 training records for various offsite
suppnrt agencies.
It was noted that training was provided in accordance
with Section VIII.B of the Farley Emergency Plan. The inspector conducted
walk-through evaluations with selected key members of the emergency
organization.
The individuals were given various hypothetical sets of
emergency conditions and data and asked to respond as if an emergency
actually existed.
Interviewees demonstrated familiarity with emergency
.
.
.
-.
.
-
.
7
I
procedures and equipment, and no problems were observed in the areas of
emergency
detection,
classification,
and
protective
action
recomendations.
One violation and no deviations were identified.
8.
IndependentReviews/ Audits (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area
!
was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an -
'
independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program.
Records of audits of the program were reviewed.
According to
.
documentation provided to the inspector, independent audits of the pro
were conducted by the Safety Audit and Engineering Review Group (SAER) gram
on
the following dates:
January 7,
1985 through February 14, 1985
(documented in Comp (osite Audit Report No. 85-04), January 6,1986 through
February 14, 1986
documented in Composite Audit Report No.86-02),
February 23, 1987 through April 3,1987 (documented in Composite Audit
Report No. 87-05).
In addition, an audit was conducted of the 1987 annual
exercise (September 2-29, 1987).
The calendar year 1988 audit was in
"
progress during the period of this inspection. The aforementioned audits
fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such audits.
Audit-
findings and recommendations were presented to plant and corporate
management.
A further review regarding the corrective actions for
resolving audit findings disclosed that several items have been resolved,
1
and remaining items are either being evaluated or the corrective action is
in progress.
From a total of 81 items identified during 1987, as of
January 19, 1988, 14 items have been completed according to licensee
3
3
documentation.
The Itcensee's program for followup action on audit, drill, and exercise
i
findings were reviewed.
Licensee procedures required followup on
deficient areas identified during audits, drills, and exercises.
The
licensee had established a tracking system known as the "Emergency
Planning Punchlist" for use as a management tool in following up on
actions taken in deficient areas.
Findings are assigned to the punchlist
according to a prioritized rating.
The inspector reviewed a printout
entitled "Emergency Planning Punchlist."
It was noted that items were
assigned to various groups with an assignment date, source of finding,
)
brief description of finding, status of item (open/close), and priority
code.
It appears that appropriate, corrective actions are being taken in
a timely manner.
,
i
No violetions or deviations were identified.
l
9.
IE Information Notice (92717)
(Closed) IFI 50-348, 364/86-IN-98:
Offsite Medical Services.
The
inspector reviewed the Southeast Alabama Medical Center Radiation Plan and
noted the facility's willingness to accept casualties resulting from
1
1
. .
.
.
-
..
.
.
.-
..
8
radiation accidents across the State of Alabama. According to a licensee
representative, Alabama Power provides training to medical personnel at
the referenced facility on a periodic basis.
In addition, a decision by
NRC Headquarters dit:losed that there is currently no need for Regional
inspector involvement for the inspection of licensee arrangements for
providing medical services for members of the general public.
10.
IE Bulletin (92703)
j
1
(Closed) IFl 50-348, 364/87-EP-01:
Verify audibility of alarms in high
noise areas (79-BU-18).
In response to IE Bulletin 79-18, the licensee
had installed a plant emergency evacuation alarm system with volume
control overrides to all speakers, and blue flashing lights to provide a
visual warning in high noise areas. The plant evacuation alarm is carried
over the public address system.
According to licensee documentation (PCN
work completion notification for PCR No.79-566, dated May 31, 1985) all
modifications and system testing had been completed and the results were
acceptable.
This item was closed but a new item discussed in Paragraph 5
(provide periodic maintenance and testing of alarms and lights) was
opened,
-
.
.
-
-
-