IR 05000255/2010502: 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)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
| author name = Peterson H
| author name = Peterson H
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OB
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OB
| addressee name = Schwartz C J
| addressee name = Schwartz C
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| docket = 05000255
| docket = 05000255
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532-4352 April 13, 2010  
{{#Wiki_filter:ril 13, 2010


Mr. Christopher Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Palisades Nuclear Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530
==SUBJECT:==
PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE INSPECTION 05000255/2010502


SUBJECT: PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE INSPECTION 05000255/2010502
==Dear Mr. Schwarz:==
On March 5, 2010, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline emergency preparedness biennial exercise inspection at your Palisades Nuclear Plant. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on March 5, 2010, with members of your staff.


==Dear Mr. Schwarz:==
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.
On March 5, 2010, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline emergency preparedness biennial exercise inspection at your Palisades Nuclear Plant. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on March 5, 2010, with 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. Based on the results of this inspection, one NRC-identified finding of very low safety significance was identified. The finding involved a violation of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and because the issue was entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy. If you contest the subject or severity of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector Office at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. In addition, if you disagree with the characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0305, "Operating Reactor Assessment Program." In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
 
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
 
Based on the results of this inspection, one NRC-identified finding of very low safety significance was identified. The finding involved a violation of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and because the issue was entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
 
If you contest the subject or severity of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector Office at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. In addition, if you disagree with the characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).


Sincerely,/RA/ Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20  
Sincerely,
/RA/
Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20


===Enclosure:===
===Enclosure:===
Inspection Report 05000255/2010502  
Inspection Report 05000255/2010502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information


===w/Attachment:===
REGION III==
Supplemental Information
Docket No: 50-255 License No: DPR-20 Report No: 05000255/2010502 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.


cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Docket No: 50-255 License No: DPR-20 Report No: 05000255/2010502 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant Location: Covert, MI Dates: March 1 through 5, 2010 Inspectors: Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector Robert Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector Thomas Taylor, Resident Inspector Approved by: Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure  
Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant Location: Covert, MI Dates: March 1 through 5, 2010 Inspectors: Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector Robert Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector Thomas Taylor, Resident Inspector Approved by: Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure


=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
IR 05000255/2010502, 3/1/2010-3/5/2010; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection. This report covers a one week period of inspection by two regional inspectors and a resident inspector. One Green finding was identified by the inspectors. The finding was considered a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of NRC regulations. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609,
IR 05000255/2010502, 3/1/2010-3/5/2010; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Baseline Emergency
"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 Proce ss," Revision 4, dated December 2006.
 
Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection.


===A. NRC-Identified===
This report covers a one week period of inspection by two regional inspectors and a resident inspector. One Green finding was identified by the inspectors. The finding was considered a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of NRC regulations. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 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 4, dated December 2006.
 
===NRC-Identified===
and Self-Revealed Findings
and Self-Revealed Findings


===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
: '''Green.'''
: '''Green.'''
The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), "Conditions of licenses," for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program. The independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups. Specifically, Quality Assurance's assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009. The licensee entered the issue in their corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915. The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness (EP) SDP. The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs. The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green). The finding has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments.  (P.3(a)) (Section 1EP5)
The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.


===B. Licensee-Identified Violations===
The independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009. The licensee entered the issue in their corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915.
 
The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness (EP) SDP. The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs. The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).
 
The finding has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. (P.3(a)) (Section 1EP5)
 
===Licensee-Identified Violations===


No violations of significance were identified.
No violations of significance were identified.
Line 56: Line 75:
==REACTOR SAFETY==
==REACTOR SAFETY==


===Cornerstone:===
===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness===
Emergency Preparedness
{{a|1EP1}}
{{a|1EP1}}
==1EP1 Exercise Evaluation==
==1EP1 Exercise Evaluation==
Line 64: Line 82:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed the March 2, 2010, biennial emergency preparedness exercise's objectives and scenario to ensure that the exercise would acceptably test major elements of the licensee's emergency plan and to verify that the exercise's simulated problems provided an acceptable framework to support demonstration of the licensee's capability to implement the plan. The inspectors also reviewed records of other drills and exercises conducted in 2008 and 2009, to verify that those drills scenarios were sufficiently different from the scenario used in the March 2, 2010  
The inspectors reviewed the March 2, 2010, biennial emergency preparedness exercises objectives and scenario to ensure that the exercise would acceptably test major elements of the licensees emergency plan and to verify that the exercises simulated problems provided an acceptable framework to support demonstration of the licensees capability to implement the plan. The inspectors also reviewed records of other drills and exercises conducted in 2008 and 2009, to verify that those drills scenarios were sufficiently different from the scenario used in the March 2, 2010 exercise.


exercise. The inspectors evaluated the licensee's exercise performance, focusing on the risk significant activities of emergency classification, notification, and protective action decision making, implementation of accident mitigation strategies, and correction of past exercise weaknesses in the following emergency response facilities: Control Room Simulator (CRS); Technical Support Center (TSC); and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF). The inspectors also assessed the licensee's recognition of abnormal plant conditions, transfer of responsibilities between facilities, internal communications, interfaces with offsite officials, readiness of emergency facilities and related equipment, and overall implementation of the licensee's emergency plan. The inspectors attended post-exercise critiques in the CRS, TSC, and EOF to evaluate the licensee's initial self-assessment of their exercise performance.
The inspectors evaluated the licensees exercise performance, focusing on the risk significant activities of emergency classification, notification, and protective action decision making, implementation of accident mitigation strategies, and correction of past exercise weaknesses in the following emergency response facilities:
* Control Room Simulator (CRS);
* Technical Support Center (TSC); and
* Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).


Later, the inspectors met with the licensee's lead exercise evaluators and managers to obtain the licensee's findings and assessments of their exercise participants' performances. The self-assessments were then compared with the inspectors' independent observations and assessments to evaluate the licensee's ability to adequately critique their exercise performance. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.01-05.
The inspectors also assessed the licensees recognition of abnormal plant conditions, transfer of responsibilities between facilities, internal communications, interfaces with offsite officials, readiness of emergency facilities and related equipment, and overall implementation of the licensees emergency plan.
 
The inspectors attended post-exercise critiques in the CRS, TSC, and EOF to evaluate the licensees initial self-assessment of their exercise performance.
 
Later, the inspectors met with the licensees lead exercise evaluators and managers to obtain the licensees findings and assessments of their exercise participants performances. The self-assessments were then compared with the inspectors independent observations and assessments to evaluate the licensees ability to adequately critique their exercise performance. Documents reviewed are listed in the to this report.
 
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.01-05.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1EP4}}
 
{{a|1EP4}}
==1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes==
==1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.04}}
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.04}}
Line 86: Line 111:


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1EP5}}
{{a|1EP5}}
==1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies==
==1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.05}}
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.05}}


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed action taken to resolve Unresolved Item 05000255/20090005-02 identified during the 2009 biennial emergency preparedness program inspection. The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 through 2009 to ensure the licensee was able to assess the overall maintenance and effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program and to determine if the independent assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments. The licensee provided a benchmarking summary report and audit program analysis that was reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors reviewed the documentation and conducted additional interviews with the Quality Assurance staff members. The inspection did not represent an inspection sample.
The inspectors reviewed action taken to resolve Unresolved Item 05000255/20090005-02 identified during the 2009 biennial emergency preparedness program inspection. The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 through 2009 to ensure the licensee was able to assess the overall maintenance and effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program and to determine if the independent assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors reviewed the licensees evaluation of the adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments. The licensee provided a benchmarking summary report and audit program analysis that was reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors reviewed the documentation and conducted additional interviews with the Quality Assurance staff members. The inspection did not represent an inspection sample.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====


=====Introduction:=====
=====Introduction:=====
A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), "Conditions of licenses," was identified by the inspectors for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency  
A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, was identified by the inspectors for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.
 
Quality Assurances independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups.


preparedness program.
=====Description:=====
Palisades follows the Entergy Nuclear Emergency Plan Master Audit Plan.


Quality Assurance's independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups.
The EP audit plan specifies the EP core scoping elements and the frequency of evaluation in each functional element. The evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments is listed as a mandatory core scope element and requires evaluation during the surveillance conducted every 12 months. The Entergy Nuclear Management Manual states the audits of the emergency preparedness program must review all elements of the program at least once every 24 months. If an audit is to be performed beyond 12 months from the previous audit, an assessment shall be performed to include performance indicators.


=====Description:=====
For the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), Michigan Department of State Police Emergency Management Division is the leading state agency for emergency response planning and operations. The local governments in the EPZ include Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren counties. In the 2008 Quality Assurance audit report, the auditor evaluated the interface of the licensee with State and local governments as satisfactory. The auditor made contact with officials from the Michigan State Police, Allegan, and Van Buren counties. Berrien County was not contacted.
Palisades follows the Entergy Nuclear Emergency Plan Master Audit Plan. The EP audit plan specifies the EP core scoping elements and the frequency of evaluation in each functional element. The evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments is listed as a mandatory core scope element and requires evaluation during the surveillance conducted every 12 months. The Entergy Nuclear Management Manual states the audits of the emergency preparedness program must review all elements of the program at least once every 24 months. If an audit is to be performed beyond 12 months from the previous audit, an assessment shall be performed to include performance indicators. For the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), Michigan Department of State Police Emergency Management Division is the leading state agency for emergency response planning and operations. The local governments in the EPZ include Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren counties. In the 2008 Quality Assurance audit report, the auditor evaluated the interface of the licensee with State and local governments as satisfactory. The auditor made contact with officials from the Michigan State Police, Allegan, and Van Buren counties. Berrien County was not contacted. During the 2009 audit, the auditor made contact with Berrien County and also evaluated the interface as adequate. The State and the other two counties were not contacted.


Prior to the 2009 contact, Berrien County had not been contacted for a period greater
During the 2009 audit, the auditor made contact with Berrien County and also evaluated the interface as adequate. The State and the other two counties were not contacted.


than 24 months.
Prior to the 2009 contact, Berrien County had not been contacted for a period greater than 24 months.


As a result of the inspection, the licensee performed a bench marking study to evaluate their audit program in comparison to other programs in the industry and evaluate the use of various methodologies and performance indicators. In addition, the licensee developed a white paper discussing the issue. The study found the licensee's level of detail for monitoring performance and conducting surveillances could be improved to meet the rule criteria. The white paper found more effort should have been made when conducting the surveillances to evaluate the interfaces with all groups. The licensee's Quality Assurance proposed courses of action to improve the audit process and corrective actions to meet requirements.
As a result of the inspection, the licensee performed a bench marking study to evaluate their audit program in comparison to other programs in the industry and evaluate the use of various methodologies and performance indicators. In addition, the licensee developed a white paper discussing the issue. The study found the licensees level of detail for monitoring performance and conducting surveillances could be improved to meet the rule criteria. The white paper found more effort should have been made when conducting the surveillances to evaluate the interfaces with all groups. The licensees Quality Assurance proposed courses of action to improve the audit process and corrective actions to meet requirements.


=====Analysis:=====
=====Analysis:=====
The inspectors determined the licensee's failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program within the specified time periods as required by regulation was a performance deficiency. Specifically, Quality Assurance's evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments for all groups exceeded the 12-month and the extended 24-month audit period. The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness SDP. The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs.
The inspectors determined the licensees failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program within the specified time periods as required by regulation was a performance deficiency.
 
Specifically, Quality Assurances evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments for all groups exceeded the 12-month and the extended 24-month audit period. The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness SDP.
 
The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs.
 
The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).
 
The finding involving the failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009.


The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green). The finding involving the failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurance's assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009.  (P.3(a))
      (P.3(a))


=====Enforcement:=====
=====Enforcement:=====
10 CFR Part 50.54(t) requires, in part, that all elements of the emergency preparedness program must be reviewed at intervals not to exceed 12 months. The review must include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments. Contrary to the above, in 2008 and 2009, the licensee failed to evaluate the adequacy of interfaces with all appropriate offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurance's assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008 (Berrien) and the interface with the State and two counties (Allegan and Van Buren) in 2009. The overall conduct and effectiveness of the EP program both onsite and offsite were not reviewed to ensure all program elements of the emergency plan were being properly implemented. Because the violation was of very low safety significance and was entered into the licensee's corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915, the violation is being treated as an NCV, consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (NCV 05000255/2010502-01, Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments).
10 CFR Part 50.54(t) requires, in part, that all elements of the emergency preparedness program must be reviewed at intervals not to exceed 12 months. The review must include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments.
 
Contrary to the above, in 2008 and 2009, the licensee failed to evaluate the adequacy of interfaces with all appropriate offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008 (Berrien) and the interface with the State and two counties (Allegan and Van Buren) in 2009. The overall conduct and effectiveness of the EP program both onsite and offsite were not reviewed to ensure all program elements of the emergency plan were being properly implemented. Because the violation was of very low safety significance and was entered into the licensees corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915, the violation is being treated as an NCV, consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (NCV 05000255/2010502-01, Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments).


==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
Line 127: Line 163:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled the licensee's performance indicator (PI) submittals for Drill/Exercise Performance for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 5. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the number of reported drill and exercise opportunities and the licensee's critiques and assessments for timeliness and accuracy of the opportunities. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's documentation for control r oom simulator training sessions and other designated drills to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
The inspectors sampled the licensees performance indicator (PI) submittals for Drill/Exercise Performance for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the number of reported drill and exercise opportunities and the licensees critiques and assessments for timeliness and accuracy of the opportunities. The inspectors reviewed the licensees documentation for control room simulator training sessions and other designated drills to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.


This inspection constituted one drill/exercise performance sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
This inspection constituted one drill/exercise performance sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
Line 137: Line 173:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Drill Participation PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, "Regulatory Asse ssment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records and ERO roster to validate the accuracy of the submittals for the number of ERO members assigned to fill key positions and the percentage of ERO members who had participated in a performance enhancing drill or exercise. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection constituted one ERO drill participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Drill Participation PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records and ERO roster to validate the accuracy of the submittals for the number of ERO members assigned to fill key positions and the percentage of ERO members who had participated in a performance enhancing drill or exercise. 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====
====b. Findings====
Line 145: Line 183:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors sampled the licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI  
The inspectors sampled the licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the records of the licensees reported number of successful siren operability tests as compared to the number of siren tests conducted during the reporting period to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.


Document 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline,"
This inspection constituted one alert and notification system sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the records of the licensee's reported number of successful siren operability tests as compared to the number of siren tests conducted during the reporting period to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection constituted one alert and notification system sample as defined in IP 71151-05.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|4OA5}}
==4OA5 Other Activities==


74OA5 Other Activities
===.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (URI) 05000255/2009005-02 Adequacy of Evaluation of===


===.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (URI) 05000255/2009005-02 Adequacy of Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments===
Interface with State and Local Governments The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 and 2009 to determine if the assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors determined a violation of NRC requirements had occurred. An NRC identified non-cited violation was documented in 1EP5 of this report and the unresolved issue was closed. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
 
The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 and 2009 to determine if the assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors determined a violation of NRC requirements had occurred. An NRC identified non-cited violation was documented in 1EP5 of this report and the unresolved issue was closed. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.


{{a|4OA6}}
{{a|4OA6}}
Line 164: Line 201:
===.1 Exit Meeting Summary===
===.1 Exit Meeting Summary===


On March 5, 2010, the inspectors presented the inspection results to T. Kirwin and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input items discussed was  
On March 5, 2010, the inspectors presented the inspection results to T. Kirwin and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input items discussed was considered proprietary.


considered proprietary. ATTACHMENT:
ATTACHMENT:  


=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
Line 172: Line 209:
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==


Licensee  
Licensee
: [[contact::T. Kirwin]], General Manager Plant Operations  
: [[contact::T. Kirwin]], General Manager Plant Operations
: [[contact::A. Blind]], Engineering Director  
: [[contact::A. Blind]], Engineering Director
: [[contact::D. Hamilton]], Nuclear Safety Assurance Director  
: [[contact::D. Hamilton]], Nuclear Safety Assurance Director
: [[contact::D. Malone]], Emergency Preparedness Manager  
: [[contact::D. Malone]], Emergency Preparedness Manager
: [[contact::G. Sleeper]], Assistant Operations Manager - Training  
: [[contact::G. Sleeper]], Assistant Operations Manager - Training
: [[contact::D. Corbin]], Assistant Operations Manger - Shift  
: [[contact::D. Corbin]], Assistant Operations Manger - Shift
: [[contact::P. Anderson]], Licensing Manger  
: [[contact::P. Anderson]], Licensing Manger
: [[contact::M. Frato]], Security Manger  
: [[contact::M. Frato]], Security Manger
: [[contact::T. Mulford]], Shift Manager  
: [[contact::T. Mulford]], Shift Manager
: [[contact::C. Sherman]], Radiation Protection Manager  
: [[contact::C. Sherman]], Radiation Protection Manager
: [[contact::B. Ford]], Maintenance Manger  
: [[contact::B. Ford]], Maintenance Manger
: [[contact::J. Ford]], Systems Engineering Manager  
: [[contact::J. Ford]], Systems Engineering Manager
: [[contact::B. Kemp]], Design Engineering Manager  
: [[contact::B. Kemp]], Design Engineering Manager
: [[contact::C. Scott]], Human Resources Manager  
: [[contact::C. Scott]], Human Resources Manager
: [[contact::T. Shewmaker]], Chemistry Manager  
: [[contact::T. Shewmaker]], Chemistry Manager
: [[contact::J. Walker]], Acting Quality Assurance Manager  
: [[contact::J. Walker]], Acting Quality Assurance Manager
: [[contact::O. Gustafson]], Entergy Continuous Improvement Manager  
: [[contact::O. Gustafson]], Entergy Continuous Improvement Manager
: [[contact::B. Dotson]], Licensing Specialist  
: [[contact::B. Dotson]], Licensing Specialist
: [[contact::J. Fountain]], Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator  
: [[contact::J. Fountain]], Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
: [[contact::J. Ridley]], Emergency Preparedness Specialist  
: [[contact::J. Ridley]], Emergency Preparedness Specialist
: [[contact::N. Brott]], Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
: [[contact::N. Brott]], Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
: [[contact::J. Ellegood]], Senior Resident Inspector  
: [[contact::J. Ellegood]], Senior Resident Inspector
 
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==


===Opened===
===Opened===
: 05000255/2010502-01
: 05000255/2010502-01       NCV   Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments  


===Closed===
===Closed===
: [[Closes finding::05000255/FIN-2010502-01]]
: 05000255/2010502-01       NCV   Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
: NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
: 05000255/2009005-02       URI   Adequacy of Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments Attachment
: [[Closes finding::05000255/FIN-2009005-02]]
: URI Adequacy of Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments  


==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
The following is a 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 of 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.
==1EP1 Exercise Evaluation (71114.01)==
: SEP; Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan; Revision 18 EAL Basis; Palisades Nuclear Plant EAL Technical Basis Document, Revision 0
: EI-1; Emergency Classification and Actions; Revision 50 Palisades Emergency Planning Graded Integrated Exercise Report; dated September 16, 2008 Palisades Drill Related Condition Reports Listing; 2008 through 2009
: CR-HQN-2010-00242; Web EOC User Sessions Terminated Unexpectedly; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000884; Training Building Siren Failed; dated March 2, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-00890; Accountability Failure; dated March 3, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000898; Outdated PAR Chart at EOF; dated March 3, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000899; Broken Kit Seal at EOF; dated March 3, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000900; TSC Accountability Computer Initial Failure; dated March 3, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000906; Scenario Data Issues; March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000908; Outdated OSC Response Ream Checklists; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000910; ERO Member without Permanent DLR; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000911; Failure to Recognize Radiological Hazards; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000912; JIC Press Releases Contained Content Errors; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000913; Iodine Concentrations Not Reflected as Net CPM; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000914; Incomplete Response Team Checklists; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000915; Delayed ED Approval of Notification Forms; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000916; Habitability Controls at EOF Not Adequately Maintained; dated March 4, 20109
: CR-PLP-2010-000917; Missed Opportunity to Reduce Simulation at EOF; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000918; EOF and State EOC Clocks Not Synchronized; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000920; EOF Controlled Copy Procedures Missing Pages; dated March 4, 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-000941; Habitability Restrictions in the Simulator; dated March 4, 2010
: LO-WTPLP-2010-00106 04; Training/Briefing Process for Offsite Support; dated March 4, 2010
: LO-WTPLP-2010-00106 05; Improving Response Team Deployment Process; dated March 4, 2010
: LO-WTPLP-2010-00106 07; Upgrade OSC Onsite Map; dated March 4, 2010
: LO-WTPLP-2010-00106 10; Onsite Survey Routes; dated March 4, 2010
: LO-WTPLP-2010-00106 17; TSC Contamination Control; dated March 4, 2010
==1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes (71114.04) 10==
: CFR 50.54(q) Evaluation Package; Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan;
: Revision 18
: CR-PLP-2009-04915; NRC EP Inspection Question Concerning 10
: CFR 50.54(t) Audit Implementation
==1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies (71114.05) 04915; White Paper Discussing Disposition of Quality Assurance Monitoring of==
: Emergency Preparedness Benchmarking Summary Report Regarding Licensee Practices for Review of Emergency Preparedness Programs; dated November 30, 2009 2007-001-8-002; Nuclear Oversight Observation Report; dated March 20, 2007
: QS-PAL-2008-007; Palisades Quality Assurance Surveillance Report; dated March 25, 2008
: QA-7-2008-PLP-01; Quality Assurance Audit Report; dated June 9, 2008
: QA-7-2008-PLP-01; Quality Assurance Audit Plan and Evidence Report; dated April 14, 2008
: QS-2009-PLP-015; Palisades Quality Assurance Surveillance Report; dated April 30, 2009
: Entergy Nuclear Emergency Plan Master Audit Plan (MAP); Audit Number 7;
: Revision 11
: EN-QV-109; Entergy Nuclear Management Manual; Audit Process; Revision 16
: EN-QV-105; Entergy Nuclear Management Manual; Nuclear Oversight Performance Reporting; Revision 3
: EN-QV-108; Entergy Nuclear Management Manual; QA Surveillance Process;
: Revision 6
: 44OA1 Performance Indicator Verification (71151)
: NRC Performance Indicator Technique/Data Sheet, Alert and Notification System Reliability; 4
th Quarter 2009 NRC Performance Indicator Technique/Data Sheet, Drill/Exercise Performance, th Quarter 2009 NRC Performance Indicator Technique/Data Sheet, ERO Drill Participation, th Quarter 2009
: CR-PLP-2010-00106; Public Warning System Siren Rotation Failures; dated
: January 11' 2010
: CR-PLP-2010-00565; Investigative Findings and Repair Actions for Siren Cold Weather Rotation Failure Indications; dated February 9, 2010
==LIST OF ACRONYMS==
: [[USED]] [[]]
: [[ADAMS]] [[Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System]]
: [[ANS]] [[Alert and Notification System]]
: [[CAP]] [[Corrective Action Program]]
: [[CFR]] [[Code of Federal Regulations]]
: [[CR]] [[Condition Report]]
: [[CRS]] [[Control Room Simulator]]
: [[DRS]] [[Division of Reactor Safety]]
: [[EOF]] [[Emergency Operations Facility]]
: [[EP]] [[Emergency Preparedness]]
: [[EPZ]] [[Emergency Planning Zone]]
: [[ERO]] [[Emergency Response Organization]]
: [[IMC]] [[Inspection Manual Chapter]]
: [[IR]] [[Inspection Report]]
: [[NCV]] [[Non-Cited Violation]]
: [[NEI]] [[Nuclear Energy Institute]]
: [[NRC]] [[U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]
: [[OSC]] [[Operations Support Center]]
: [[PARS]] [[Publicly Available Records]]
PI Performance
Indicator
: [[PI&R]] [[Problem Identification and Resolution]]
: [[SDP]] [[Significance Determination Process]]
: [[TSC]] [[Technical Support Center]]
URI  Unresolved Item
C. Schwarz    -2-
In accordance with
: [[10 CFR]] [[2.390 of the]]
NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its
enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the
: [[NRC]] [[Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (]]
PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/  Hironori Peterson, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20
Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000255/2010502    w/Attachment:  Supplemental Information
cc w/encl:  Distribution via ListServ
: [[DISTRI]] [[BUTION]]
: Susan Bagley
RidsNrrPMPalisades
RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource Cynthia Pederson
Steven Orth
Jared Heck
Allan Barker


Carole Ariano
Linda Linn
: [[DRPIII]] [[]]
DRSIII
Patricia Buckley
Tammy Tomczak
ROPreports Resource
DOCUMENT NAME:  G:\DRS\Work in Progress\PAL 2010 502 DRS.doc  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]] [[]]
: [[NAME]] [[RRussell:co]]
: [[RJ]] [[for]]
: [[HP]] [[eterson]]
: [[DATE]] [[4/12/10 4/13/10]]
: [[OFFICI]] [[AL]]
: [[RECORD]] [[]]
: [[COPY]] [[]]
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 20:21, 21 December 2019

IR 05000255-10-502, on 3/1/2010-3/5/2010, for Palisades Nuclear Plant; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection
ML101050504
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/13/2010
From: Hironori Peterson
Operations Branch III
To: Schwartz C
Entergy Nuclear Operations
References
IR-10-502
Download: ML101050504 (15)
v • d • e


Text

ril 13, 2010

SUBJECT:

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE INSPECTION 05000255/2010502

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

On March 5, 2010, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline emergency preparedness biennial exercise inspection at your Palisades Nuclear Plant. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on March 5, 2010, with 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.

Based on the results of this inspection, one NRC-identified finding of very low safety significance was identified. The finding involved a violation of NRC requirements; however, because of the very low safety significance and because the issue was entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) in accordance with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

If you contest the subject or severity of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the Resident Inspector Office at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. In addition, if you disagree with the characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The information that you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000255/2010502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

REGION III==

Docket No: 50-255 License No: DPR-20 Report No: 05000255/2010502 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant Location: Covert, MI Dates: March 1 through 5, 2010 Inspectors: Regina Russell, Emergency Preparedness Inspector Robert Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector Thomas Taylor, Resident Inspector Approved by: Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000255/2010502, 3/1/2010-3/5/2010; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Baseline Emergency

Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection.

This report covers a one week period of inspection by two regional inspectors and a resident inspector. One Green finding was identified by the inspectors. The finding was considered a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of NRC regulations. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 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 4, dated December 2006.

NRC-Identified

and Self-Revealed Findings

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

Green.

The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.

The independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009. The licensee entered the issue in their corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915.

The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness (EP) SDP. The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs. The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).

The finding has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. (P.3(a)) (Section 1EP5)

Licensee-Identified Violations

No violations of significance were identified.

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

1EP1 Exercise Evaluation

Main article: IP 71114.01

.1 Exercise Evaluation

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the March 2, 2010, biennial emergency preparedness exercises objectives and scenario to ensure that the exercise would acceptably test major elements of the licensees emergency plan and to verify that the exercises simulated problems provided an acceptable framework to support demonstration of the licensees capability to implement the plan. The inspectors also reviewed records of other drills and exercises conducted in 2008 and 2009, to verify that those drills scenarios were sufficiently different from the scenario used in the March 2, 2010 exercise.

The inspectors evaluated the licensees exercise performance, focusing on the risk significant activities of emergency classification, notification, and protective action decision making, implementation of accident mitigation strategies, and correction of past exercise weaknesses in the following emergency response facilities:

  • Control Room Simulator (CRS);
  • Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).

The inspectors also assessed the licensees recognition of abnormal plant conditions, transfer of responsibilities between facilities, internal communications, interfaces with offsite officials, readiness of emergency facilities and related equipment, and overall implementation of the licensees emergency plan.

The inspectors attended post-exercise critiques in the CRS, TSC, and EOF to evaluate the licensees initial self-assessment of their exercise performance.

Later, the inspectors met with the licensees lead exercise evaluators and managers to obtain the licensees findings and assessments of their exercise participants performances. The self-assessments were then compared with the inspectors independent observations and assessments to evaluate the licensees ability to adequately critique their exercise performance. Documents reviewed are listed in the to this report.

This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.01-05.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes

Main article: IP 71114.04

.1 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors conducted a review of all the emergency action level changes and sampled the revisions to the emergency plan to evaluate whether the changes identified in the revisions may have decreased the effectiveness of the emergency plan. The inspection included a review of the 10 CFR 50.54(q) change process documentation.

Since the last NRC emergency plan change inspection and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plant, Revision 18, was implemented based on your determination that the changes resulted in no decrease in effectiveness of the emergency plan and the revised plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC review of the revisions does not constitute formal approval of the changes; therefore, the emergency action level and emergency plan changes remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

This emergency action level and emergency plan changes inspection constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.04-05.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies

Main article: IP 71114.05

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed action taken to resolve Unresolved Item 05000255/20090005-02 identified during the 2009 biennial emergency preparedness program inspection. The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 through 2009 to ensure the licensee was able to assess the overall maintenance and effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program and to determine if the independent assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors reviewed the licensees evaluation of the adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments. The licensee provided a benchmarking summary report and audit program analysis that was reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors reviewed the documentation and conducted additional interviews with the Quality Assurance staff members. The inspection did not represent an inspection sample.

b. Findings

Introduction:

A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50.54(t), Conditions of licenses, was identified by the inspectors for the failure to complete an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program.

Quality Assurances independent assessment did not evaluate and document the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments at an interval not to exceed 12 months for all groups.

Description:

Palisades follows the Entergy Nuclear Emergency Plan Master Audit Plan.

The EP audit plan specifies the EP core scoping elements and the frequency of evaluation in each functional element. The evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments is listed as a mandatory core scope element and requires evaluation during the surveillance conducted every 12 months. The Entergy Nuclear Management Manual states the audits of the emergency preparedness program must review all elements of the program at least once every 24 months. If an audit is to be performed beyond 12 months from the previous audit, an assessment shall be performed to include performance indicators.

For the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), Michigan Department of State Police Emergency Management Division is the leading state agency for emergency response planning and operations. The local governments in the EPZ include Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren counties. In the 2008 Quality Assurance audit report, the auditor evaluated the interface of the licensee with State and local governments as satisfactory. The auditor made contact with officials from the Michigan State Police, Allegan, and Van Buren counties. Berrien County was not contacted.

During the 2009 audit, the auditor made contact with Berrien County and also evaluated the interface as adequate. The State and the other two counties were not contacted.

Prior to the 2009 contact, Berrien County had not been contacted for a period greater than 24 months.

As a result of the inspection, the licensee performed a bench marking study to evaluate their audit program in comparison to other programs in the industry and evaluate the use of various methodologies and performance indicators. In addition, the licensee developed a white paper discussing the issue. The study found the licensees level of detail for monitoring performance and conducting surveillances could be improved to meet the rule criteria. The white paper found more effort should have been made when conducting the surveillances to evaluate the interfaces with all groups. The licensees Quality Assurance proposed courses of action to improve the audit process and corrective actions to meet requirements.

Analysis:

The inspectors determined the licensees failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program within the specified time periods as required by regulation was a performance deficiency.

Specifically, Quality Assurances evaluation of the adequacy of the interfaces with State and local governments for all groups exceeded the 12-month and the extended 24-month audit period. The deficiency did not meet the criteria for traditional enforcement, therefore, was screened using the Emergency Preparedness SDP.

The finding was determined to be more than minor because the finding adversely affected the EP cornerstone objective to ensure the licensee is capable of implementing adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public in a radiological emergency. The failure to conduct the audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the EP program had the attribute associated with Offsite EP, specifically, the evaluation of the working relationship between the offsite and onsite emergency response organizations and programs.

The inspector evaluated the finding using with IMC 0609, Appendix B, Sheet I, Failure to Comply flowchart. The audit program was noncompliant with a regulatory requirement not involving an EP planning standard or a risk significant planning standard; therefore, the finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green).

The finding involving the failure to conduct an independent review of all program elements of the emergency preparedness program has a cross-cutting component in the Problem Identification and Resolution area with the component of Self and Independent Assessments. The licensee did not conduct the self-assessments in sufficient depth to evaluate the interfaces for all offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008, and the interface with the State and two counties was not evaluated in 2009.

(P.3(a))

Enforcement:

10 CFR Part 50.54(t) requires, in part, that all elements of the emergency preparedness program must be reviewed at intervals not to exceed 12 months. The review must include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments.

Contrary to the above, in 2008 and 2009, the licensee failed to evaluate the adequacy of interfaces with all appropriate offsite governments. Specifically, Quality Assurances assessment failed to evaluate the adequacy of interface with one of the counties in 2008 (Berrien) and the interface with the State and two counties (Allegan and Van Buren) in 2009. The overall conduct and effectiveness of the EP program both onsite and offsite were not reviewed to ensure all program elements of the emergency plan were being properly implemented. Because the violation was of very low safety significance and was entered into the licensees corrective action program as CR-PLP-2009-04915, the violation is being treated as an NCV, consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (NCV 05000255/2010502-01, Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments).

OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification

Main article: IP 71151

.1 Drill/Exercise Performance

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled the licensees performance indicator (PI) submittals for Drill/Exercise Performance for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the number of reported drill and exercise opportunities and the licensees critiques and assessments for timeliness and accuracy of the opportunities. The inspectors reviewed the licensees documentation for control room simulator training sessions and other designated drills to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted one drill/exercise performance sample as defined in IP 71151-05.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Drill Participation PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during the period, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records and ERO roster to validate the accuracy of the submittals for the number of ERO members assigned to fill key positions and the percentage of ERO members who had participated in a performance enhancing drill or exercise. 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 of significance were identified.

.3 Alert and Notification System

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors sampled the licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the fourth quarter 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance were used as contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5. The inspectors reviewed the records of the licensees reported number of successful siren operability tests as compared to the number of siren tests conducted during the reporting period to validate the accuracy of the submittals. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted one alert and notification system sample as defined in IP 71151-05.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA5 Other Activities

.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (URI)05000255/2009005-02 Adequacy of Evaluation of

Interface with State and Local Governments The inspectors reviewed the independent audits and surveillances conducted by Quality Assurance in 2008 and 2009 to determine if the assessments met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors determined a violation of NRC requirements had occurred. An NRC identified non-cited violation was documented in 1EP5 of this report and the unresolved issue was closed. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

4OA6 Management Meetings

.1 Exit Meeting Summary

On March 5, 2010, the inspectors presented the inspection results to T. Kirwin and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input items discussed was considered proprietary.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

T. Kirwin, General Manager Plant Operations
A. Blind, Engineering Director
D. Hamilton, Nuclear Safety Assurance Director
D. Malone, Emergency Preparedness Manager
G. Sleeper, Assistant Operations Manager - Training
D. Corbin, Assistant Operations Manger - Shift
P. Anderson, Licensing Manger
M. Frato, Security Manger
T. Mulford, Shift Manager
C. Sherman, Radiation Protection Manager
B. Ford, Maintenance Manger
J. Ford, Systems Engineering Manager
B. Kemp, Design Engineering Manager
C. Scott, Human Resources Manager
T. Shewmaker, Chemistry Manager
J. Walker, Acting Quality Assurance Manager
O. Gustafson, Entergy Continuous Improvement Manager
B. Dotson, Licensing Specialist
J. Fountain, Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
J. Ridley, Emergency Preparedness Specialist
N. Brott, Senior Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

J. Ellegood, Senior Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

05000255/2010502-01 NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments

Closed

05000255/2010502-01 NCV Inadequate Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments
05000255/2009005-02 URI Adequacy of Evaluation of Interface with State and Local Governments Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000255/2010502&oldid=2284976"