IR 05000373/2014502: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 06/11/2014
| issue date = 06/11/2014
| title = IR 05000373-14-502, 05000374-14-502; on 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator V
| title = IR 05000373-14-502, 05000374-14-502; on 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator V
| author name = Skokowski R A
| author name = Skokowski R
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/PSB
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/PSB
| addressee name = Pacilio M J
| addressee name = Pacilio M
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear
| docket = 05000373, 05000374
| docket = 05000373, 05000374
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
{{#Wiki_filter:une 11, 2014
[[Issue date::June 11, 2014]]


Mr. Michael Senior VP, Exelon Generation Co., LLC President and CNO, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555
==SUBJECT:==
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502


SUBJECT: LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502
==Dear Mr. Pacilio:==
On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of your staff.
 
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
 
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection.


==Dear Mr. Pacilio:==
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS)
On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of your staff. The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS),
accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).


Sincerely,/RA Donald Funk Acting for/ Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18  
Sincerely,
/RA Donald Funk Acting for/
Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18


===Enclosure:===
===Enclosure:===
IR 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502  
IR 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information


===w/Attachment:===
REGION III==
Supplemental Information cc w/encl: Distribution via LISTSERV Enclosure U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License No: NPF-11; NPF-18 Report No: 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles, IL Dates: May 19 - 23, 2014 Inspectors: R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen, Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach, Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer Approved by: R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety 2
Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License No: NPF-11; NPF-18 Report No: 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles, IL Dates: May 19 - 23, 2014 Inspectors: R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen, Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach, Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer Approved by: R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure


=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
IR 05000373/2014502, 05000374/2014502; 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator Verification. This report covers a one-week period of announced baseline inspection by four regional inspectors and one resident inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., Green, White, Yellow, and Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance Determination Process (SDP)."  Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 5, dated February 2014.
IR 05000373/2014502, 05000374/2014502; 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station,


===A. NRC-Identified===
Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event;
and Self-Revealed Findings
Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator Verification.


===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness No findings were identified.===
This report covers a one-week period of announced baseline inspection by four regional inspectors and one resident inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., Green, White, Yellow, and Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5, dated February 2014.


===B. Licensee-Identified Violations===
===NRC-Identified===
None 
and Self-Revealed Findings


3
===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
 
No findings were identified.
 
===Licensee-Identified Violations===
 
None


=REPORT DETAILS=
=REPORT DETAILS=
Line 53: Line 67:
==REACTOR SAFETY==
==REACTOR SAFETY==


===Cornerstone:===
===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
Emergency Preparedness
{{a|1EP7}}
{{a|1EP7}}
==1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event==
==1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event==
Line 61: Line 74:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.j, requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA) event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, 2014, exercise to satisfy this requirement, and the NRC inspected the LaSalle County Station HA event exercise to assess the licensee's ability to effectively implement their Emergency Plan during a HA event and adequately protect public health and safety. The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments:  The adequacy of the licensee's performance in the biennial exercise conducted on May 21, 2014, regarding the implementation of the Risk-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively. The overall adequacy of the licensee's emergency response facilities with regard to NUREG-0696, "Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities," and Emergency Plan commitments. The facilities assessed were the Control Room Simulator, Alternative Emergency Response Facility, Incident Command Post, Central Alarm Station, and the Emergency Operations Facility. A review of other performance areas such as the licensee ERO's recognition of abnormal plant conditions; command and control, including interactions with site security staff; intra and inter-facility communications; prioritization of mitigating activities; utilization of repair and field monitoring teams; interface with offsite agencies, including local law enforcement agencies; staffing and procedure adequacy; and the overall implementation of the Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures. Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions, as demonstrated during this exercise, to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). The adequacy of the licensee's post-exercise critiques, to evaluate LaSalle County Station's self-assessment of its ERO performance during the May 21, 2014, exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.g.
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.j, requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA) event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, 2014, exercise to satisfy this requirement, and the NRC inspected the LaSalle County Station HA event exercise to assess the licensees ability to effectively implement their Emergency Plan during a HA event and adequately protect public health and safety.


4 The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.
The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments:
* The adequacy of the licensees performance in the biennial exercise conducted on May 21, 2014, regarding the implementation of the Risk-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively.
* The overall adequacy of the licensees emergency response facilities with regard to NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities, and Emergency Plan commitments. The facilities assessed were the Control Room Simulator, Alternative Emergency Response Facility, Incident Command Post, Central Alarm Station, and the Emergency Operations Facility.
* A review of other performance areas such as the licensee EROs recognition of abnormal plant conditions; command and control, including interactions with site security staff; intra and inter-facility communications; prioritization of mitigating activities; utilization of repair and field monitoring teams; interface with offsite agencies, including local law enforcement agencies; staffing and procedure adequacy; and the overall implementation of the Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures.
* Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions, as demonstrated during this exercise, to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14).
* The adequacy of the licensees post-exercise critiques, to evaluate LaSalle County Stations self-assessment of its ERO performance during the May 21, 2014, exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.g.
 
The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.


This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.07-06.
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.07-06.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings were identified.
No findings were identified. {{a|1EP8}}
{{a|1EP8}}
==1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review==
==1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.08}}
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.08}}


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenarios submitted to the NRC using IP 71114.08, "Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review," to determine if the exercise would test major elements of the Emergency Plan as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). This inspection activity represents one sample on a biennial cycle. The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis. This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08-06.
Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenarios submitted to the NRC using IP 71114.08, Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review, to determine if the exercise would test major elements of the Emergency Plan as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). This inspection activity represents one sample on a biennial cycle.
 
The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.
 
This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08-06.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
Line 81: Line 104:
==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
==OTHER ACTIVITIES==


===Cornerstone:===
===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
Emergency Preparedness
{{a|4OA1}}
{{a|4OA1}}
==4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification==
==4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification==
Line 89: Line 111:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP) Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the DEP data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre-designated control 5 room simulator training sessions, and performance during other drills. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection constituted one DEP sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP)
Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the DEP data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)document NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre-designated control room simulator training sessions, and performance during other drills. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
 
This inspection constituted one DEP sample as defined in IP 71151-05.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
Line 97: Line 122:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, performance during the 2013 and 2014 drills, and revisions of the roster of personnel assigned to key ERO positions. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, performance during the 2013 and 2014 drills, and revisions of the roster of personnel assigned to key ERO positions. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.


This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
Line 107: Line 132:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI and results of periodic scheduled ANS operability tests. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS)
PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI and results of periodic scheduled ANS operability tests.
 
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.


This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
Line 113: Line 141:
====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings were identified.
No findings were identified.
{{a|4OA6}}
==4OA6 Management Meetings==


6
===.1 Exit Meeting Summary===
{{a|4OA6}}
 
==4OA6 Management Meetings==
On May 23, 2014, the inspectors presented the biennial exercise inspection results to Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented.
 
The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.


===.1 Exit Meeting Summary On May 23, 2014, the inspectors presented the biennial exercise inspection results to Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of the licensee staff.===
ATTACHMENT:  
The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary. ATTACHMENT:


=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=


==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
Licensee  
 
: [[contact::H. Vinyard]], Plant Manager  
Licensee
: [[contact::G. Buckley]], Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist  
: [[contact::H. Vinyard]], Plant Manager
: [[contact::G. Butz]], Site Security Operations Manager  
: [[contact::G. Buckley]], Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist
: [[contact::A. Daniels]], Corporate Emergency Preparedness Manager  
: [[contact::G. Butz]], Site Security Operations Manager
: [[contact::G. Ford]], Regulatory Affairs Manager  
: [[contact::A. Daniels]], Corporate Emergency Preparedness Manager
: [[contact::M. Hayworth]], Emergency Preparedness Manager  
: [[contact::G. Ford]], Regulatory Affairs Manager
: [[contact::J. Houston]], Nuclear Oversight Manager  
: [[contact::M. Hayworth]], Emergency Preparedness Manager
: [[contact::C. Howard]], Radiation Protection Technical Support Manager  
: [[contact::J. Houston]], Nuclear Oversight Manager
: [[contact::J. Hughes]], Emergency Preparedness Coordinator  
: [[contact::C. Howard]], Radiation Protection Technical Support Manager
: [[contact::J. Keenan]], Operations Shift Operations Supervisor  
: [[contact::J. Hughes]], Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
: [[contact::J. Kowalski]], Engineering Director  
: [[contact::J. Keenan]], Operations Shift Operations Supervisor
: [[contact::J. Kutches]], Maintenance Director  
: [[contact::J. Kowalski]], Engineering Director
: [[contact::M. Martin]], Chemistry Manager  
: [[contact::J. Kutches]], Maintenance Director
: [[contact::J. Williams]], Work Management Director  
: [[contact::M. Martin]], Chemistry Manager
: [[contact::G. Wood]], Training Support Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
: [[contact::J. Williams]], Work Management Director
: [[contact::R. Ruiz]], Senior Resident Inspector  
: [[contact::G. Wood]], Training Support Manager
: [[contact::J. Robbins]], Resident Inspector  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
: [[contact::R. Ruiz]], Senior Resident Inspector
: [[contact::J. Robbins]], Resident Inspector
 
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==


===Opened, Closed, and Discussed===
===Opened, Closed, and Discussed===
None
 
None


==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
The following is a partial list of documents reviewed during the inspection.
 
: Inclusion on this list does not imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather that selected sections or portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection effort.
: Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.
: 1EP7 Exercise Evaluation (71114.07)
: EP-AA-1000; Exelon Nuclear Standardized Radiological Emergency Plan; Revision 24
: EP-AA-1005; Exelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for LaSalle Station: Revision 36
: EP-AA-11-700; Alternative Facility Operation; Revision 0
: EP-AA-110; Assessment of Emergencies; Revision 9
: EP-AA-113; Personnel Protective Actions; Revision 11
: EP-AA-114; Notifications; Revision 12
: EP-AA-111; Emergency Classification and Protective Action Recommendations; Revision 18
: EP-AA-112; Emergency Response Organization/Emergency Response Facility Activation and Operation; Revision 16
: LOA-FC-101; Unit 1 Fuel Pool Cooling System/Reactor Cavity Level Abnormal; Revision 21
: LOA-SY-001; Security Abnormal Procedure; Revision 25
: LOA-SY-002; Supplemental Security Abnormal Procedure; Revision 3
: LOA-SY-003; Extreme Damage Mitigation Guideline; Revision 9 Two Year List of Drill and Exercise Condition Reports; July 2012 - May 2014 Two Years of Drill and Exercise Timelines; July 2012 - May 2014
: IR 01663570; Exercise-Control Room Simulator Identified Several Procedural Requirements not Performed; May 23, 2014
: IR 01663563; Exercise-Joint Information Center had Several Accuracy and Timeliness Issues; May 23, 2014
: IR 01663546; Exercise-Response Facilities Identified Several Communications Weaknesses; May 23, 2014 1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review (71114.08) LaSalle County Station 2014 HAB Exercise 60 Day Submittal; February 18, 2014 4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification (71151) ERO Drill Participation; Second Quarter 2013 - First Quarter 2014 DEP Opportunities; Second Quarter 2013 - First Quarter 2014 ANS Reliability; Second Quarter 2013 - First Quarter 2014
==LIST OF ACRONYMS==
: [[USED]] [[]]
: [[ADAMS]] [[Agencywide Documents Access and Management System]]
: [[ANS]] [[Alert and Notification System]]
: [[CFR]] [[Code of Federal Regulations]]
: [[DEP]] [[Drill and Exercise Performance]]
: [[DRS]] [[Division of Reactor Safety]]
: [[ERO]] [[Emergency Response Organization]]
: [[HA]] [[Hostile Action]]
: [[IP]] [[Inspection Procedure]]
: [[NEI]] [[Nuclear Energy Institute]]
: [[NRC]] [[U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]
: [[PAR]] [[Protective Action Recommendation]]
: [[PARS]] [[Publicly Available Records System]]
PI Performance Indicator SDP Significance Determination Process
Mr. Michael
: [[J.]] [[Pacilio Senior]]
: [[VP]] [[, Exelon Generation Co.,]]
: [[LLC]] [[President and]]
: [[CNO]] [[, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville,]]
: [[IL]] [[60555]]
: [[SUBJEC]] [[T: LASALLE]]
: [[COUNTY]] [[]]
: [[STATIO]] [[N,]]
: [[UNITS]] [[1]]
: [[AND]] [[2  BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION]]
: [[REPORT]] [[05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502  Dear Mr. Pacilio: On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (]]
: [[NRC]] [[) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr.]]
: [[H.]] [[Vinyard and other members of your staff. The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection. In accordance with 10]]
: [[CFR]] [[2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the]]
: [[NRC]] [[Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (]]
: [[PARS]] [[) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the]]
: [[NRC]] [[Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Sincerely,  /]]
: [[RA]] [[Donald Funk Acting for/  Richard]]
: [[A.]] [[Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos.]]
: [[NPF]] [[-11; NPF-18 Enclosure:]]
: [[IR]] [[05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502  w/Attachment:  Supplemental Information cc w/encl:  Distribution via]]
: [[LISTSE]] [[RV  DOCUMENT NAME:  LaSalle 2014]]
: [[502 EP]] [[(]]
: [[RDJ]] [[).docx  Publicly Available  Non-Publicly Available  Sensitive  Non-Sensitive To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy]]
: [[OFFICE]] [[]]
: [[RIII]] [[]]
: [[RIII]] [[]]
: [[RIII]] [[]]
: [[RIII]] [[]]
: [[NAME]] [[RJickling:bl JKutlesa for DFunk DFunk for RSkokowski]]
: [[DATE]] [[06/10/14 06/10/14 06/11/14]]
: [[OFFICI]] [[AL]]
: [[RECORD]] [[]]
: [[COPY]] [[Letter to Michael Pacilio from Richard]]
: [[A.]] [[Skokowski dated June 11, 2014]]
: [[SUBJEC]] [[T: LASALLE]]
: [[COUNTY]] [[]]
: [[STATIO]] [[N,]]
: [[UNITS]] [[1]]
: [[AND]] [[2  BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502]]
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 10:38, 20 December 2019

IR 05000373-14-502, 05000374-14-502; on 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator V
ML14162A274
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/11/2014
From: Richard Skokowski
Plant Support Branch II
To: Pacilio M
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
Robert Jickling
References
IR-14-502
Download: ML14162A274 (12)
v • d • e


Text

une 11, 2014

SUBJECT:

LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502

Dear Mr. Pacilio:

On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS)

component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS),

accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA Donald Funk Acting for/

Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18

Enclosure:

IR 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

REGION III==

Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License No: NPF-11; NPF-18 Report No: 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles, IL Dates: May 19 - 23, 2014 Inspectors: R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen, Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach, Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer Approved by: R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000373/2014502, 05000374/2014502; 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station,

Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event;

Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator Verification.

This report covers a one-week period of announced baseline inspection by four regional inspectors and one resident inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., Green, White, Yellow, and Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5, dated February 2014.

NRC-Identified

and Self-Revealed Findings

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

No findings were identified.

Licensee-Identified Violations

None

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event

Main article: IP 71114.07

.1 Exercise Evaluation

a. Inspection Scope

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.2.j, requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA) event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, 2014, exercise to satisfy this requirement, and the NRC inspected the LaSalle County Station HA event exercise to assess the licensees ability to effectively implement their Emergency Plan during a HA event and adequately protect public health and safety.

The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments:

  • The adequacy of the licensees performance in the biennial exercise conducted on May 21, 2014, regarding the implementation of the Risk-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively.
  • The overall adequacy of the licensees emergency response facilities with regard to NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities, and Emergency Plan commitments. The facilities assessed were the Control Room Simulator, Alternative Emergency Response Facility, Incident Command Post, Central Alarm Station, and the Emergency Operations Facility.
  • A review of other performance areas such as the licensee EROs recognition of abnormal plant conditions; command and control, including interactions with site security staff; intra and inter-facility communications; prioritization of mitigating activities; utilization of repair and field monitoring teams; interface with offsite agencies, including local law enforcement agencies; staffing and procedure adequacy; and the overall implementation of the Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures.
  • Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions, as demonstrated during this exercise, to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14).
  • The adequacy of the licensees post-exercise critiques, to evaluate LaSalle County Stations self-assessment of its ERO performance during the May 21, 2014, exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.g.

The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.

This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.07-06.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review

Main article: IP 71114.08

a. Inspection Scope

Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenarios submitted to the NRC using IP 71114.08, Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review, to determine if the exercise would test major elements of the Emergency Plan as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). This inspection activity represents one sample on a biennial cycle.

The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.

This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08-06.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification

Main article: IP 71151

.1 Drill/Exercise Performance

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP)

Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the DEP data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)document NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre-designated control room simulator training sessions, and performance during other drills. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted one DEP sample as defined in IP 71151-05.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, performance during the 2013 and 2014 drills, and revisions of the roster of personnel assigned to key ERO positions. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.3 Alert and Notification System

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS)

PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI and results of periodic scheduled ANS operability tests.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

4OA6 Management Meetings

.1 Exit Meeting Summary

On May 23, 2014, the inspectors presented the biennial exercise inspection results to Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented.

The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

H. Vinyard, Plant Manager
G. Buckley, Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist
G. Butz, Site Security Operations Manager
A. Daniels, Corporate Emergency Preparedness Manager
G. Ford, Regulatory Affairs Manager
M. Hayworth, Emergency Preparedness Manager
J. Houston, Nuclear Oversight Manager
C. Howard, Radiation Protection Technical Support Manager
J. Hughes, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
J. Keenan, Operations Shift Operations Supervisor
J. Kowalski, Engineering Director
J. Kutches, Maintenance Director
M. Martin, Chemistry Manager
J. Williams, Work Management Director
G. Wood, Training Support Manager

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

R. Ruiz, Senior Resident Inspector
J. Robbins, Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened, Closed, and Discussed

None

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000373/2014502&oldid=2283235"