|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams | | {{Adams |
| | number = ML20209D483 | | | number = ML20215M821 |
| | issue date = 08/13/1986 | | | issue date = 10/28/1986 |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-302/86-25 on 860715-18 & 0725.Violation Noted: Failure to Adequately Train Individual Designated to Make Emergency Notifications & Failure to Retrain Fire Brigade Chief at Required Frequencies | | | title = Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-302/86-25 |
| | author name = Decker T, Sartor W | | | author name = Walker R |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| | addressee name = | | | addressee name = Wilgus W |
| | addressee affiliation = | | | addressee affiliation = FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| | docket = 05000302 | | | docket = 05000302 |
| | license number = | | | license number = |
| | contact person = | | | contact person = |
| | document report number = 50-302-86-25, NUDOCS 8609090329 | | | document report number = NUDOCS 8611030326 |
| | package number = ML20209D471 | | | title reference date = 09-25-1986 |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE |
| | page count = 6 | | | page count = 1 |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- | | {{#Wiki_filter:On}in kl OCT 2 81986 lorida Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. W. S. Wilgus Vice President Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 14042, M.A.C. C-2-M St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Gentlemen: |
| .
| | SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-302/86-25 Thank you for your response of September 25, 1986, to our Notice of Violation issued on August 25, 1986, concerning activities conducted at your Crystal River facilit We will evaluate your response and reply to you in the near future regarding its adequac We appreciate your cooperation in this matte |
| n UNITED STATES
| |
| [n 0 0 'o
| |
| '' '
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| [ n REGION 11 g j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W. ;
| |
| * r i ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 '
| |
| % ,,,,,* -
| |
| AUG 2 51986
| |
| ~
| |
| .
| |
| -Report No.: 50-302/86-25'
| |
| Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South .
| |
| St. Petersburg, FL .33733 Docket No.: 50-302 License'No.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 Inspection Conducted: July 15-18.and 25, 1986 Inspector: ON W. M. Sartor * | |
| .
| |
| 2//3/76 Date Si'gned Accompanying Personnel: . Decker Approved by: tI[ 4, #/jyM T. R. Decker, Section Chief Date'51gned Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
| |
| '
| |
| SUMMARY Scope: This was a routine, unannounced inspection of selected portions of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Progra Results: Within the emergency response areas inspected, two violations were identified: failure to adequately train those who may be called upon to make notifications; failure to retrain the fire brigade chief at frequencies required in the Emergency Pla .
| |
| 8609090329 860825 -
| |
| PDR ADOCK 05000302 G PDR ,
| |
|
| |
|
| E
| | Sincerely, |
| .
| | " |
| | | Original Signed by Roger D. Walker Roger D. Walker, Director Division of Reactor Safety cc: P. F. McKee, Director Nuclear Plant Operations |
| REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. Fuller, Supervisor Radiological Support Services P. F. McKee, Director Plant Operations
| | [R.C.Widell, Manager Nuclear Operations |
| *M. Mann, Nuclear Compliance Specialist P. Haines, Nuclear Licensing Engineer | | ; Licensing and Fuel Management bec: NRC Resident Inspector ocument Control Desk tate of Florida |
| * Laycock, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist
| |
| * L. Rossfeld, Nuclear Compliance Manager M. H. Jacobs, Area Public Information Coordinator
| |
| **K. R. Wilson, Manager, Site Nuclear Licensing
| |
| *P. D. Breedlove, Nuclear Records Management Supervisor
| |
| ***J. Alberdi Senior Nuclear QA Specialist
| |
| * K. Baudhauer, Assistant Nuclear Operations Plant Manager
| |
| *J. L. Russell, Senior Fire Protection Specialist
| |
| *L. A. Hill, Manager Site Nuclear Services
| |
| ***J. R. Roppel, Manager Tech Support
| |
| *R. T. Wittman, Nuclear Operations Superintendent
| |
| *D. A. Fields, Manager, Site Quality Systems R. A. Parker, Training Specialist R. A. Arnold, Training Specialist P. Ellsburg, Technical Training Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission
| |
| *T. Stetka, Senior Resident Inspector
| |
| **D. Collins, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch, DRSS
| |
| **S. Elrod, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2, DRP
| |
| * Attended on site exit interview conducted July 18, 198 ** Conference call exit interview conducted July 25, 198 *** Participation in onsite and conference call exit interviews, Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 18, 1986, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. A second exit interview was conducted on July 25, via conference call to provide additional information informally requested by the licensee. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. The licensee did
| |
| | |
| .
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed).VIO 50-302/85-18-0 Abnormal Procedure P-961, " Earthquake," was reviewed and corrected the previous violation identified for inadequate emergency procedures for seismic event . Unresolved Item *
| |
| One unresolved item was identified pertaining to the correction of deficiencies identified in the formal critique for the 1985 Emergency Exercis (SeeParagraph7), Notification and Communication (82203)
| |
| Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D; and Section 9 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating (in the event of an emergency) among its own personnel and offsite supporting agencies and authoritie The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedure The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme used by the licensee. The inspector determined that the procedures made provisions for message verification. Although the procedures appeared adequate for making required notifications, difficulties in correctly implementing the procedures were observed during a walk-through in the Control Room and is discussed further in Paragraph 7 of this repor The content of initial emergency messages was reviewed and discussed with licensee representative The initial messages appeared to meet the guidance of NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3 and II.E.4. However, the inspector noted that the " State of Florida Notification Message Form for Nuclear Power Plants" that was to be used by the Shift Supervisor in the Control Room was almost unreadable because of the poor print quality. This was acknowledged for corrective action by the licensee and was identified for follow-up in a subsequent inspection (IFI 50-302/86-25-01).
| |
| | |
| No violations or deviations were identifie *An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviatio *
| |
| .
| |
| 4 Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)
| |
| Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16); 10 CFR 50.54(q); and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection in May 1985 and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparednes The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for making changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures. The inspector verified that changes to the plan and procedures were reviewed and approved by managemen It was also noted that Revision 5 to the plan dated May 30, 1986, was submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as require No violations or deviations were identifie . Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)
| |
| Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section I this area was inspected to determine whether emergency response personnel understood their emergency response roles and could perform their assigned function The inspector reviewed the description (in the emergency plan) of the training program, training procedure, and selected lesson plans, and interviewed members of the instructional staff. Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had established a formal emergency training progra Recordsoftraining(identifiedwithReportID: NT 205R02 as of 7/16/86) for selected members of the emergency organization were reviewed. The training record for a senior fire protection specialist revealed that only three fire brigade training sessions had been attended since March 21, 198 This attendance of training is not in accordance with Section 19.1.4 of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan which directs that each member of the Fire Brigade attend training at least quarterl This finding was identified as a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) which requires in part that the licensee follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. Section IV.F of Appendix E states in part that the emergency plans shall cc,ntain a description of periodic retaining programs for fire control teams (fire brigade) (50-320/86-25-02).
| |
| | |
| The inspector conducted walk-through evaluations with selected key members of the emergency organization. During these walk-throughs, individuals were given various hypothetical sets of emergency conditions and data and asked to talk through the response they would make if such an emergency actually existe The individual designated as the initial emergency coordinator demonstrated familiarity with emergency procedures and equipment, however, a problem was observed in the area of notification. Specifically, during one walk-through
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| | |
| the individual that was designated to make notification to the State Warning Point, Tallahassee, was not adequately trained as indicated by: (1) the individual indicated that notification would be made via the National Warning System (NAWAS), which the plan identifies as the back up communication system to the State Hot Ring Down Telephone System which is to be the primary means of contact, and (2) the individual was not familiar with the State of Florida Notification Message Fom to be used for making notification. This finding was identified as a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q)
| |
| which requires in part that nuclear power reactor licensees follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b). Paragraph 50.47(b)(15) states that radiological emergency response training be provided to those who may be called upon to assist in an emergency. Contrary to the above, the licensee had failed to provide necessary training to an individual who was designated as an emergency response member to make notifications (50-302/86-25-03).
| |
| | |
| Two violations were identifie . Licensee Audits (82210)
| |
| Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness progra Records of audits of the program were reviewed. The records showed that an independent audit of the program was documented in Audit Report No. QP-265, dated March 22, 198 This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such audits. The audit records showed that the State and local government interfaces were evaluated, and that findings concerning the interfaces were made available to State and local government authoritie Audit findings and recommendations were presented to plant and corporate managemen Licensee emergency plans and procedures required critiques following exercises and drills. Licensee documentation showed that critiques were hcid following the annual exercise. The records showed that deficiencies were discussed in the critique and recommendations for corrective action were mad However, records were not made available to the inspector that permitted an audit of the corrective actions that had been mad The records provided indicated only that the item had been close The inspector was informed that additional documentation specifying the corrective action taken may be available but could not be located. The inspector identified this as an unresolved item (50-302/86-25-04). On August 11, 1986, the licensee informed the NRC inspector that the additional documentation was available for review during a future inspectio One unresolved item was identifie . _
| |
| _ . . . _ , . . . _ - __ __
| |
| .-
| |
| , | | , |
| 6 InspectionFollowup(92701)
| | ' |
| (Closed) IFI 50-302/84-18-04 Revise EM-204(C) to clarify method of selecting overlays. EM-204(C) has been cancelled and the release and offsite dose assessment during radiological emergencies are discussed in Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures EM-204(A) and EM-204(B).
| | : WSartor TDec er DCollins "SElrod DVerrelli JP :ohr 10/w/86 10/t/86 10/pg86 10/t$86 10/>f/86 10 }Y86 |
|
| |
|
| , | | , |
| | 8611030326 861028 PDR ADOCK 05000302 G PDR gg |
| | . .- .. . . - . |
| | .- |
| | h b{ |
| }} | | }} |
