ML20246L264
| ML20246L264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1989 |
| From: | Gooden A, Rankin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E371 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-89-02, 50-395-89-2, NUDOCS 8903240127 | |
| Download: ML20246L264 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000395/1989002
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
___. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p*QCEcg
t
.,
.
.
.ll' *
-'k
UNITED STATES
j
'.j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
r
REGION 11
. o,,
+,,,,*[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
%*
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
MAR 0 71989
Report No.:
50-395/89-02
Licensee: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company
Columbia, SC 29218
. Docket No.:
50-395
License No.:
Facility Name: Summer
<
Inspection Conducted: January 23-27, 1989
Inspector: O,
0+Nt-~
OZ- 23-69
A. Gooden
Date Signed
Accompanying Personnel:
K. Roughen
Approved by: W.
0 9. - 2. 9 - P1
W. Rankin, Acting Chief.
Date Signed
Emergency Preparedness Section
Emergency Preparedness and Radiological
Protection Branch
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the area of
l
Several areas within the emergency program were
l
inspected to determine if the program was being maintained in a state of
l
operational readiness for responding to emergencies. This included a review of
training, changes to the emergency organization, distribution of changes to the
Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Procedures (EPPs), audit reports, and the
maintenance of key facilities and selected emergency kits or equipment.
Results: Within the areas inspected, three violations were identified.
Two
violations were licensee-identified: (1) failure to remove superceded copies of
i
documents in accordance with Document Control Procedure-101 (Paragraph 2);
l
Nuclear Services Administrative Procedure-IIC (Paragraph 5)g in accordance with
(2) failure to provide documentation for completed trainin , and (3) failure to
provide seven members of the Offsite Radiological Monitoring Team with training
in accordance with EPP-018 (Paragraph 5).
This violation is similar to a
violation discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-395/88-11.
The inspection indicated the following:
Equipment inventories were well documented, and conducted at the
specified procedural frequency.
Administrative controls governing the distribution of changes to the
station Emergency Plan and EPPs appeared to be effective.
!
I
8903240127 890307
7
gDR
/* DOCK 05000395 I
,
PNU
E
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ __ _
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
!
!
-
.
.
.
.
1
Additional
training had been planned for personnel with
'
responsibility in event recognition, classification, notification,
protective action recommendations, and overall command and control
during emergencies.
The licensee's internal audits of the emergency preparedness program
were detailed and comprehensive.
However, improvements are needed in the licensee's management control system
for ensuring the following:
All personnel assigned to the Emergency Response Organization have
'
been trained in accordance with procedures governing emergency
response training.
Administrative controls and/or procedures governing records quality
are fully implemented.
i
!
_ - _ _
__ _ _ _ -
.
_
.
i
.
REPORT DETAILS
l
1.
Persons Contacted
j
j
Licensee Employees
- K. Beale, Manager, Nuclear Protection Services
)
L. Bouknight, Emergency Planning Specialist
- 0. Bradham, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
1
- C. Counts, Emergency Services Coordinator
- H. Donnelly, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Licensing
S. Furstenburg, Shift Supervisor
D. Goldston, Shift Supervisor
V. Kelley, Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training
R. McCauley, Nuclear Training Coordinator
F. Miller, Training Specialist, Quality Assurance
..
- M. Quinton, General Manager, Station Support
!
- J. Skolds, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations
- G. Soult, General Manager, Operations and Maintenance
,
- R. Sweet, Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance
- G. Taylor, Manager, Operations
B. Thompson, Surveillance Specialist
,
!
- M. Williams, General Manager, Nuclear Services
Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians,
operators, security office members, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
j
- F. Cantrell, Chief, Reactor Projects Section
- P. Hopkins, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
- Participated in telephone exit interview on January 30, 1989
2.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16),
10 CFR 50.54(q), and 10 CFR 50,
Appendix E, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made
i
to the program since the last routine inspection (May 1988), and to assess
the impact of these changes on the overall state of emergency
preparedness.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures governing
,
the review, approval, and distribution of changes to the Plan and EPPs
(Station
Administrative
Procedure-139,
and
Document
Control
Procedure-101).
The inspector noted that changes were being distributed
to copy holders in a timely manner, as evidenced by the transmittal dates,
and a review of acknowledgement slips for selected changes since the last
routine inspection.
The licensee maintains a " file index distribution
card system" which reflects the document number and/or title, revision
number, copy holder number, and the number of copies issued.
Further, an
audit was conducted of select controlled copies shown on the distribution
_ _ _ - _ - - - - - -
-
'
t.f
2'
,
list.
It was noted that EPP Copy #43F, located in the Operational Support
t
Center (OSC), contained a superceded copy of EPP-005.
Revision 12 to
l
EPP-005, dated August 12, 1988, had been superceded by Revision 13, dated
l
December 21,1988 (issued December 22,1988).
Concurrent with the NRC
j
review of documents, the licensee's Quality Assurance Auditor identified
i
Emergency (Operating Procedures (E0Ps) located in the Emergency Operations
l
Facility
E0F) that were superceded
as were plant drawings.
The
!
cognizant licens.ee representative, when informed regarding the superceded
1
documents, took immediate action to remove the superceded documents and
!
conducted an . internal . audit of all Plans and procedures in the emergency
l
response facilities .for verification that ' current documents were
!
available.
Consequently, according to a licensee contact, administrative
. corrective actions were documented and implemented to resolve the
aforementioned findings and prevent recurrence. The licensee was informed
that this matter was considered a Licensee Identified Violation (LIV) that
meets the- criteria specified~ in Section V of the NRC Enforcement Policy
'j
for not issuing a Notice of Violation.
LIV 50-395/89-02-01: Failure to maintain all documents in accordance with
j
Document Control Procedure (DCP)-101.
{
!
The . inspector reviewed documentation for the Emergency Plan' and
!
implementing procedure changes identified below to verify that submittals
'!
were made to NRC within 30 days of the approval date:
j
Emergency Plan Revision 24 dated July 29, 1988, mailed to NRC
l
July 29, 1988
EPP-001 Revision 14 dated June 15, 1988, mailed to NRC July 29, 1988
EPP-005 Revision 13 dated December 21, 1988, mailed to NRC
January 10, 1989
EPP-007 Revision 5 dated July 15, 1988, mailed to NRC July 25, 1988
i
EPP-009 Revision 6 dated June 28, 1988, mailed to NRC July 1,1988
EPP-015 Revision 9 dated October 10, 1988, mailed to NRC October 24,
1988
1
EPP-018 Revision 8 dated October 26, 1988, mailed to NRC
November 11, 1988
!
EPP-019 Revision 13 dated October 4, 1988, mailed to NRC October 12,
i
'
1988
In addition, the inspector reviewed the timeliness of the Corporate
Emergency Plan changes (Revision Nos. 13, 14, and 15) that were submitted
to NRC.
It was noted that all such changes were submitted to NRC within
30 days of the approval date.
The inspector reviewed the following controlled copies:
Control Room (Copy No. 10)
Technical Support Center (Copy Nos. 43B and 43C)
Nuclear Service Training Library (Copy No.178)
Emergency Operations Facility (Copy Nos. 158 and 228)
11
No problems were noted with any of the above referenced documents.
(
_ _ _ _
_- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
-_
_ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _
l
.
,
3
.
One violation and no deviations were identified.
'
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies (82701)
3.
Discussions were held with a licensee representative concerning
modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation since the last
The inspector was informed that no significant changes had
i
inspection.
However, according to a
been made to any of the onsite facilities. South Carolina Electric and Gas Compa
licensee contact,
management had concurred on a proposal to relocate the Media Center from
the Nuclear Training Center to the Palmetto Center downtown (this . facility
currently' serves as the backup Media Center).
The relocation is
An inspection and operability check was
anticipated-prior to June 1989.
performed on selected equipment and support . items used for emergency
response in .the Control Room, Technical Support Center (TSC), and E0F.
The inspector requested and observed an unannounced communications check
from the Control Room using the Emergency Notification System (NRC
In addition, announced communications checks were
Operations Center).
conducted from the TSC using the dedicated ring-down phone system to State
and local warning points, and the two-way radio system with the local law
enforcement agencies (LLEA).
No problems were noted; contact was
established via each communications network tested,
i
In assessing the operational status of the emergency facilities, the
!
inspector verified that protective equipment and supplies were operational
!
Emergency kits and/or cabinets from
and inventoried on a periodic basis.
Room, TSC, Security Annex Building, E0F, and OSC were
the - Control
inventoried and randomly selected equipment was checked for operability.
With one exception, the selected equipment operated properly, displayed
current calibration sticker, and successful battery checks were obtained.'
The one exception involved a radiation survey instrument (RM-14, serial
no. 3453) stored inside Emergency Kit No.1, located at the Security Annex
Building.
The licensee immediately took action to replace the
instrument with an operable replacement.
The failed
aforementioned
instrument, according to documentation, had been calibrated and serviced
on December 29, 1988.
A licensee representative informed the inspector
that the survey instrument failed due to a faulty high voltage board.By
There were no further questions or concerns regarding the inventory.
review of applicable procedures and documentation for the period of
January 1988 to December 1988, the inspector determined that emergency
(e.g. communication equipment and emergency kits) was being
equipment
checked in accordance with procedures governing such tests (EPP-019 and
EPP-022-).
The inspector also verified that current copies of the EPPs
were available in the emergency response facilities (Control Room, TSC,
As stated above in Paragraph 2, superceded documents were
OSC, and E0F).
prevent
promptly removed and administrative actions implemented to
recurrence.
The licensee's management control program for the Early Warning Siren
According to discussion with a licensee
System (EWSS) was reviewed.
representative, the current system consists of 107 fixed sirens and tone
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .
._.
.
(
l
4
.
4
l
.
,
1
t
alert radios for schools within the plume exposure pathway. The licensee
provided siren test records for the period January 1988 to January 1989.
The records showed that silent tests, growl test, and full-cycle tests
were being conducted in accordance with EPP-022 and NUREG-0654.
An EWSS
,
trouble report form was used for documenting actions taken as a follow-up
l
to siren problems.
1
In addition to warning signs and public information brochures, the
licensee maintained as an additional capability for providing public
,
information, a public address system.
This system included speakers
i
located at siren sites Nos. 9 and 45 on the Monticello Reservoir.
The
'
location of these speakers provide coverage to individuals frequenting the
recreational facilities on Monticello Reservoir.
The inspector noted
>
'
during an audit of test records that speakers at siren site No. 9 were
declared inoperable on August 2, 1988, and were not returned to service
until late December 1988.
The current test procedure (EPP-022) did not
!
specify the time required for returning speaker equipment to an operable
state; the only time requirement specified was for repairs to the EWSS
l
(e.g. sirens and encoders).
The licensee acknowledged this finding, and
,
provided details documenting the delay in returning speakers to service.
!
The inspector informed the licensee that failure to take prompt and
!
corrective actions to return speakers to service was considered a
potential violation pending further review by Regional Management.
Following a review of the EWSS inspection details and a discussion with a
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV (FEMA IV) representative
regarding what constitutes the EWSS at Summer, the licensee was informed
,
"
on January 30, 1989, that this matter was considered an inspector
follow-up item (IFI) rather than a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
The
licensee agreed to develop administrative controls for ensuring prompt and
corrective actions are taken on failed equipment.
,
l
IFI 50-395/89-02-02: Develop administrative controls to ensure that prompt
'
and corrective actions are being taken to repair all equipment used for
public notification.
Documentation was provided to the inspector to show
s
that preventive maintenance was performed on the EWSS during May through
August 1988, and the average annual operability was 92.0 percent (%).
t
As part of the emergency communication equipment, the inspector discussed
l
with licensee representatives, the maintenance and periodic testing of the
i
plant emergency warning system for high noise areas.
According to
!
documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the Summer
l
emergency evacuation system consisted of flashing red lights and an alarm
j
sounded over the plant public address system.
The inspector was provided
!
documentation to show that the evacuation alarm was tested on a weekly
l
basis.
However, there was no periodic preventative maintenance program in
place for the sirens or lights.
In addition, the weekly test did not
include documentation or verification that the lights and speakers were
,
operational. The licensee agreed to review this item for development of a
l
surveillance procedure governing the periodic testing of the alarms and
1
lights to ensure system operability.
The licensee was informed that this
!
matter is considered an IFI for review during a subsequent inspection.
l
l
l
)
.
_
-
_
_ _ _ _ - -
+
.
'
5
i
j
'
!
l
IFI 50-395/89-02-03:
Develop and implement, a surveillance procedure for
the emergency warning system which governs the periodic maintenance,
testing, and documentation thereof to ensure system operability and
reliability.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
4.
Organization and Management Control (82701)
[
,
The inspector's discussion with licensee representatives disclosed that
.
I
several administrative changes had been made to both the normal and
emergency organization as a result of promotions since the May 1988
inspection.
These promotions had no impact on the reporting chain for
An additional administrative change involved the
!
Manager, Nuclear Protection Services.
Previously, security, fire,
industrial
safety, and emergency preparedness reported to' .the
aforementioned position.
Since the May 1983 inspectio4 responsibility
for security and fire were reassigned; however, emergency preparedness and
industrial safety continue to report to the Manager l Nuclear Protection
i
Services.
According to a licensee contact, this reassignment of
responsibility should provide increased attention to the emergency
preparedness and industrial safety programs.
When training and
qualification records were reviewed for individuals reassigned within the
emergency organization as key assessment personnel (e.g. Emergency
Director, Emergency Control Officer, etc.), no problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Training (82701)
Pursuant to 10CFR50.47(b)(15)
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F, this area was inspected to c'etermine whether emergency
response personnel understood their emergency response roles and could
perform their assigned functions.
The inspector reviewed Section 8.0 of
the Emergency Plan and EPP-018 for a description of the training program
and training procedures.
In addition, selected lesson plans 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.
i
The inspector observed a licensee conducted communications drill in lieu
of conducting walkthrough evaluations.
Cognizant licensee representatives
were informed by the inspector that the communications drill would be
considered in the same manner as NRC walkthrough evaluations.
The
inspector was informed that the scenario details . for the drill was
confidential and unrehearsed; however, the time for conducting the drill
was provided to onsite and offsite participants. According to discussions
and licensee documentation, included as objectives were:
Test of the dedicated ring-down system to offsite agencies
,
__
_ _ _
'
,
.
,
6
.
Accident assessment and classification
Overall management of the accident by the Interim Emergency
Director (IED)
Test Communicator's ability to properly document, record, and
notify State and local authorities
Ensure that response personnel were familiar with their duties
and responsibilities
Participants included a Shift Supervisor, who may be designated as IED and
two individuals who may be designated as Offsite Communicators for the
Control Room.
As a further demonstration of familiarity with procedures
and responsibilities, once the communications drill was terminated, the
inspector interviewed the Shift Supervisor in the areas of protective
action recommendations, exposure limits, facility activation, and other
aspects of Plan implementation.
During the communications drill, the Shift Supervisor was given
hypothetical plant conditions and data and asked to respond as if an
emergency actually existed. As IED, the simulated emergency was promptly,
and correctly classified.
The interviewee demonstrated familiarity with
the EPPs as well as the role and responsibilities of the IED.
Notifications to offsite agencies were in accordance with the notification
time requirements.
One of the communicators (designated as NRC
Communicator) had difficulty in making the NRC notification via the
Emergency Notification System (ENS).
When initially deployed, the
individual appeared confused and uncertain regarding the notification role
and system for performing notification.
In performing notification, the
'
communicator erroneously removed the dedicated ringdown phone for
State / local agencies and pressed the "All Call" button as opposed to the
dedicated circuit for the NRC (ENS). The Shift Supervisor recognized the
mistake and took prompt remedial actions to complete the simulated NRC
notification in a timely manner.
A drill critique was held immediately
following the drill.
The licensee's critique was both detailed and
effective.
Observations were similar to those noted by the NRC observer.
The ENS Communicator, when questioned regarding the attempt to notify NRC
via the State / local dedicated circuit, attributed the mistake to
miscommunication with the Shift Supervisor.
During the exit interview
held on January 27, 1989 (see Paragraph 9), the licensee was informed by
,
the inspector that, a preliminary review of the drill details by cognizant
'
i
Regional Management personnel resulted in a potential violation; failure
l
to follow notification procedure governing notification to the NRC.
The
,
i
licensee took exception to this finding and provided more clarifying
j
)
details on events leading to the subject finding.
Further, training
records were provided to show that several individuals with responsibility
as ENS Communicators (including the subject individual) had attended the
required training.
The inspector acknowledged the additional details and
4
information, then commented regarding the communicators lack of
aggressiveness in gaining access on the dedicated phone circuit, and the
I
i
, _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ , - _ _ _ . _
__
.
-
l
7
!
appearance of not knowing the exact location for the ENS inside the
Control Room.
A detailed review of this matter by Regional Management
following the inspection resulted in the determination that a violation
had not occurred.
During the drill, the inspector was not in a position
to state with certainty what directions the Shift Supervisor provided the
ENS Communicator regarding required notifications and/or procedural
j
implementation.
However. the communicator's tentativeness in gaining
i
access on the dedicated ENS is considered an inspector followup item. The
i
licensee agreed to conduct nands-on training to ENS Communicators using
)
the dedicated notification network.
)
1
IFI 50-395/89-02-04: Conduct periodic drills and/or communications test
for the ENS Communicators with hands-on experience using the ENS.
T aining records were reviewed for several members of the onsite and
i
ofisite emergency organization.
Selected training records were chosen
based on the January 1989 Emergency Planning Telephone Directory listing
i
key personnel and phone numbers according to emergency response position.
l
When personnel training records were compared with position assignments,
!
the inspector noted that seven of the individuals assigned to the offsite
.
Radiological Monitoring Team had not completed the required training for
!
Offsite Radiological Monitoring personnel in accordance with EPP-018.
,
l
This 1 nding was acknowledged by the licensee, and is identified as a
f
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).
j
During the May 1988 inspection, a violation was identified in the area of
!
training for onsite plant assessment personnel.
A repeat finding in the
area of training appears to warrant increased attention to the current
practices for tracking emerger;./ response training.
l
Violation 50-395/89-02-05:
Failure to provide seven members of the
Radiological Monitoring Team with training in accordance with EPP-018.
,
i
Additionally, the inspector noted :Jring the review of training records
that documentation for completed training was not consistently being
!
completed and transmitted in accordance with the procedures governing
i
documentation of training.
According to the Nuclear Services
1
Administrative Procedure, if a formal lesson plan has not been submitted,
the back side of the attendance record sheet shall be completed to hclude
information regarding course objectives and an outline of topic > .
ie
licensee was informed during the exit interview that this matter t
,eing
considered as a potential violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
l
Criterion XVII, Quality Assurance records. The licensee took exception to
this finding and provided documentation ( A Quality Assurance Audit Report
,
No. II-01-88-B) to support this finding as being licensee identified.
During a Quality Assurance Audit conducted in January 1988 (Q. A. Report
No. II-01-88-B, finding 4), discrepancies sirnilar to the above were noted
in the area of procedure control regrrding the review, approval, and
control of training materials.
As a result of the audit, lesson plans
,
f
r
L
_ _
-
_
t
.
.
__ _
_ _ _ -
._ ____
_
__
_
i
n
j
l
'
8
i
were developed in accordance with procedural requirements.
Further,
selected training records that were reviewed by the inspector covering the
period June through August 1988, contained as an attachment to the
,
attendance record an outline of the Emergency Plan training topics.
l
4
Training documentation prior to June 1988 was not consistent with
procedural control requirements.
According to quality assurance
documentation, dated January 1989, actions had been completed to resolve
the above finding.
In light of the above actions, this potential
violation was discussed with Regional personnel, and since all
3
requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V, were
satisfied, this violation is not cited.
The licensee was informed that
t
this matter was considered a LIV.
]
LIV 50-395/89-02-06:
Failure to provide documentation for completed
training in accordance with the Nuclear Services Administrative Procedure.
!
Two violations and no deviations were identified.
6.
Independent Review / 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, an independent audit of the
program was conducted by the Quality Assurance Group during the period
January 11-27,1988 (documented in Surveillance No. 11-01-88-B), and the
most recent audit was initiated on January 18, 1989, scheduled for
completion on January 27, 1989.
The most recent Audit (to be documented
I
in Audit Report No. II-6-89-B), conducted concurrent with the NRC
!
inspection, will satisfy the annual frequency requirement for such audits.
Members of the most recent audit team were interviewed regarding areas
audited and the results. Two potential findings with direct applicability
to the NRC inspection results were discussed:
Failure to provide training to a member of the emergency
response organization (Chemistry personnel).
Failure to remove superceded copies of Emergency Operating
Procedures and drawings in the E0F.
A review of the licensee's audit plan or check-list indicated that the
audit was detailed and comprehensive.
The results of the aforementioned
audit will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise
findings was reviewed.
The inspector reviewed a sample of.1987 and 1988
i
exercise items to determine if corrective actions were being taken to
resolve items.
The licensee had established a tracking system known as
I
l
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . -
-
_ _ . _ _
_ _ - - . -
. - - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ - - _ _ ,
f
.,
i
i
9
1
1
~
l
1
l
the " Regulatory Tracking Sys' tem" for use as a management tool in following
i
up on actions taken in deficient areas.
It was noted that items were
l
assigned to various individuals with a tentative completion date.
"
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82701)
Pursuant to
and
Appendix E,
Sections IV.A and IV.C, this area was inspected to determine whether shift
staffing .for emergencies was adequate both.in numbers and in functional
capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available
and maintained to augment the emergency organization in a timely manner.
The inspector reviewed Table 5-1 of the Summer Station Emergency Plan to
1
determine if shift staffing was consistent with the goals of Table B-1 of
i
Shift staffing levels and functional capabilities were
!
reviewed and found to be consistent with the guidance of Table B-1 of
The licensee had established a duty roster so that essential
off-shift personnel are available if needed.
The licensee uses a
radio-pager system for notification of off-shif t personnel. On a regular
basis, notification tests are conducted on radio-pagers to verify that the
administrative means are in place for contacting the off-shift personnel
if needed.
The inspector discussed staff augmentation times with a licensee
representative, who indicated that drills had confirmed that Table 5-1
augmentation times could be met.
The inspector reviewed licensee
documentation dated September 17, 1987, which showed that an augmentation
drill' was held, and that staff augmentation times were consistent with
Table B-1 guidance.
According to a member of the licensee's staff, a
drill is planned for the Calendar year 1989 to include as an objective,
the verification of augmentation requirements as reflected in Table 5-1 of
the Summer Emergency Plan.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701, 92702)
(Closed) Violation 50-395/88-11-01:
Failure to provide two members of the
onsite emergency organization plant assessment staff with training in
accordance with Emergency Plan Procedure-018.
The inspector reviewed the
licensee's response to the violation (dated July 8,1988), and reviewed
training records for the period May 9-13, 1988. The inspector noted that
the licensee had provided training during May 1988 to each of the subject
individuals.
!
(0 pen) IFI (50-395/88-11-02):
Provide additional training for all
personnel with responsibilities as the Emergency Director or IED.
At the
time of the inspection, training had been initiated, but was not complete.
1
i
__
_ _ _ _
__
_ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - .
o
.'
1
10
9.
Exit Interview
27,.1989, with
The inspection scope and results were summarized on January
The inspector described the areas
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material proviced
to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
The licensee took exception with the finding regarding the ENS
Communicator's failure to follow notification procedures (see Paragraph 5)
In response to the potential
-
based on details provided by drill observers.
violation involving adherence to procedures governing the control of
training records (Paragraph 5), licensee representatives provided
documentation to show this item had been self-identified and corrective
The inspector
actions to resolve this matter had been implemented.
informed the licensee that the documentation would be reviewed and the item
The licensee had no comments regarding the
considered as a potential LIV.
potential violation for failure to taxe prompt corrective action to repair
speakers at the Monticello Reservoir- (Paragraph 3).
According to the
General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations, the details on this matter will
be reviewed and responded to accordingly. There were no further dissenting
The inspector informed the licensee that findings were
comments.
The following
preliminary and subject to Regional Management review.
potential violations were identified:
Failure to follow notification procedure (EPP-002) governing
notification to the NRC.
Failure to provide seven members of the offsite Radiological
Monitoring Team with training in accordance with EPP-018.
,
Failure to take prompt corrective action to repair speakers used
as part of the EWSS for notification.
On January 30, 1989, the inspector informed the Manager, Nuclear
Protection Services, and the Emergency Services Coordinator that, based on
a further review of the inspection details and information provided
following the inspection, the inspection findings in Paragraphs 3 (failure
to take prompt corrective action to repair speakers) and 5 (failure to
follow notification procedures) were determined not to be violations and
would be followed as IFIs.
The Manager, Nuclear Protection Services,
stated the following actions would be taken:
l
Develop administrative controls to ensure that prompt corrective
actions are taken to repair all equipment used for public
notification.
Conduct periodic drills and/or communications test for the ENS
Cownunicators with hands-on experience using the ENS.
u_____________---.-
i
-_
i
j .
c
1
l
-
. . .
'
i
?
11
Item Number
Description
50-395/89-02-01
LIV - Failure to maintair. all documents.in
accordance with DCP-101 (Paragraph 2).
50-395/89-02-02
IFI - Develop administrative controls to
ensure that prompt and corrective actions
<
are being taken to repair all equipment used
for public notification (Paragraph 3).
50-395/89-02-03
IFI - Develop and implement, a surveillance
procedure for the emergency warning system
which governs the perodic maintenance,
testing, and documentation thereof to ensure
system operability and reliability
(Paragraph 3).
50-395/89-02-04
IFI - Conduct periodic drills and/or
communications
test
for
the
Communicators with hands-on experience using
the ENS (Paragraph 5).
50-395/89-02-05
Violation - Failure to provide seven
individuals
assigned to the Offsite
Radiological Monitoring Team training in
accordance with EPP-018 (Paragraph 5).
[
50-395/89-02-06
LIV - Failure to provide documentation for
completed training in accordance with the
Nuclear Services Administrative Procedure
(Paragraph 5).
Licensee management was informed that two open items were reviewed.
One item
was closed (Paragraph 8) and one remains open for additional actions.
1
e
)
i
.