ML20217F488: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000483/1998006]]
| number = ML20217F488
| issue date = 04/22/1998
| title = Insp Rept 50-483/98-06 on 980324-26.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Support
| author name = Murray B
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000483
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 50-483-98-06, 50-483-98-6, NUDOCS 9804280173
| package number = ML20217F440
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 10
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000483/1998006]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:w
  s.
                                        ENCLOSURE 2
                        U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                          REGION IV
l      Docket No.:    50-483
l
i      License No.:    NPF-30
      Repet No.:      50-483/98-06
l      Licensee:      Union Electric Company
      Facility:      Caliaway Plant
      Location:      Junction Hwy. CC and Hwy. O
                      Fulton, Missouri
      Dates:          March 24-26,1998
      Inspector (s):  Gail M. Good, Senior Emergency Preparedness Analyst
      Approved By:    Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch
l                      Division of Reactor Safety
      Attachment:    Supplemental Information
                                                                          l
                                                                          !
                                                                          !
                                                                          .
                                                                          :
                                                                          l
1
                              '~
    9804280173 980422
    PDR  ADOCK 05000483
    G                pm
 
        s
      lr q
                                                                    -2-
                                                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                                              Callaway Plant
                                                  NRC Inspection Report 50-483/98-06
                    A reactive, announced inspection involving changes to the Callaway Plant Radiological
                    Emergency Response Plan and implementing procedures was conducted.
                    Plant Support
                    *
                            Two violations of 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements were identified involving changes that
                                                                    _
                            were made to the emergency plan, without prior NRC approval, that: (1) reduced
                            augmentation capabilities by extending response goals for nearly all emergency
                            organization personnel, and (2) reduced training commitments for field monitoring team -
                            personnel. The response goal changes had the most significant effect on the areas of
                          . operations support and health physics. There was a lack of attention to detail during the
j                          emergency plan review and revision process (Section P3).
      1
                                                                                                                        ,
                                                                                                                        i
                                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                                        \
                                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                                      H
                                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                                        4
L
  ."              ,
  -
L'
    ,          ,
          \l-'
                                                                      ,
 
L
!@-
L
    y,
                                                            -3-
L        iP3      Emergency preparedness Procedures' and Documentation '
I            a.    Insoection' Scone (82701-02.01)
!
:
L              L An in-office review of Revision 21 to the Callaway Radiological Emergency' Response :
p                  Plan, dated May 29,1997, was initiated on March 12,1998. The licensee did not ,
K                  request prior approval because it determined that the changes did not decrease the
L      ,      - effectiveness of the emergency plan and continued to meet '10 CFR 50.47(b) planning
                  standards and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, requirements.i The preliminary results
<
                  indicated that some of the changes potentially decreased the effectiveness of the
L                  emergency plan. This reactive inspection was conducted to further review the
                                        .
l              : emergency plan changes. In addition to Revision 21, the following Radiological
L                : Emergency Response Plan and procedure changes were reviewed'during the :
i:        ,
                ' inspection:
                  .
                            Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 21, Change Notice 97-01, ,
l;                          dated August 5,1997. The licensee did not request prior approval because it j
L                          determined that the changes did not decrease the effectiveness of the
K
"                          emergency plan and continued to meet 10 CFR 50.47(b) planning standards and
                          ' 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, requirements.
l
                  .
                            Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 21, Change Notice 97-02,
                            dated February 25,1998.- The licensee did not request prior approval because it -
'
                            determined that the changes did not decrease the effectiveness of the
                            emergency plan and continued to meet 10 CFR 50.47(b) planning standards and
                            10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, requirements.
                  .        Emergency implementing Procedure, EIP-ZZ-00101, " Classification of
                            Emergencies," Revision 20. . The licensee did not request prior approval because
                          : it determined that the changes did not decrease the effectiveness of the
                            emergency plan and continued to meet 10 CFR 50.47(b) planning standards and
                                                    .
  -                        10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, requirements.
            b.    Observations and Findinas
                  Radioloaical Emeroency Resoonse Plan. Revision 21
{
                  The inspector identified isse es in two categories: those that appeared inconsistent with
                  '10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements, and those that needed additional clarification, detail, or
                  correction. The two categories and corresponding issues are discussed below:
                                .
                            Cateaorv 1
                          'The first category consisted of changes in two are'as (staff augmentation and
                            training) that were inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements.10 CFR
                            50.54(q) requires licensees to follow and maintain in effect an emergency plan,
 
  :,
;
  :.
                                          -4-
      which meets the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix
      E to Part 50. Licensees are permitted to make changes to the plan without
,
      - Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of
[      the plan and the plan, as changed, continues to meet the 50.47(b) planning
      standards and the Appendix E requirements. As previously mentioned, the -
      licensee did not request prior approval because it determined that the changes        l
      did not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan and continued to meet        '
      10 CFR 50.47(b) planning standards and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
      requirements.
      A.      The following changes to staff augmentation times were made:
              (1)    The response goal for a dedicated communicator position was
                      changed from 30-45 minutes to 60 minutes. This change.
                      increased the burden on the shift communicator to perform offsite
                      agency and NRC notifications.
              (2)    The response goal for the position that performs r ore thermal
                      hydraulics assessment (technical assessment coordinator) was
                      changed from 30-45 minutes to 60 minutes. ' This change affected -
                      operations / technical support and increased the burden on
                      available shift personnel.'
              (3)    The response goal for the health physics coordinator, who directs
l
                      assessment of onsite radiological conditions and support activities,
!.
                      including protective measures, was changed from 30-45 minutes
                      to 90 minutes. This change affected operations support
                      capabilities.
              (4)    The response goal for the operations support coordinator, who
                      forms, directs, coordinates, and briefs inplant teams, was changed
                      from 60-75 minutes to 90 minutes. This change affected
                      operations support capabilities.
              (5)    The response goal for the emergency team coordinator, who
                      directs inplant team formation and performs team briefings,
                      dispatch, and tracking, was changed from 60-75 minutes to 90
                                                                                            '
                      minutes. This change affected operations support capabilities.
              (6)      The response goal for six radiation / chemistry technicians was
                      changed from 30-45 minutes to 90 minutes. The response goal for
                      six other radiation / chemistry technicians was changed from 60-75
                      minutes to 90 minutes. This change affected operations support
                      and offsite monitoring caprSlities.                                  ,
                                                                                            !
1
                                                                                            l
                                                                                            l
 
h
  %
l                                -5-
      (7)      The response goals for the chemistry coordinator, who directs
j              primary and secondary chemistry activities and evaluates
!-              chemical conditions, was changed from 60-75 minutes to 90
!.            ' minutes. This change affected operations support capabilities.
l    -(8)      The response goal for one mechanic was changed from 60-75
                minutes to 90 minutes. This change affected operations support
L              capabilities.
:
      (9)      The response goal for the electrician was changed from 3045
l              minutes to 90 minutes. This change affected operations support
                capabilities.
l-    (10)      The response goal for one instrumentation and control technician
;              was changed from 60-75 minutes to 90 minutes. This change
i              affected operations support capabilities.
l
l    (11)    The response goal for the emergency operations facility
l              communicators was changed from 60-75 minutes to 90 minutes.
l              This change placed a greater burden on the 60-minute responders
l              who perform offsite agency notifications.
!
l    (12)    The response goal for the technical support center engineering
!-
              staff was changed from 60-75 minutes to 90 minutes. This change
              affected technical support capabilities.
      (13)    The response goal for the security coordinator was changed from          ,
g              60-75 minutes to 90 minutes. This change placed a greater              l
!              burden on available security personnel.                              .I
L
      (14)    The response goals for the joint public information center              1
              coordinator, administrator, editor, and media host were changed        i
              from 2 to 3 hours. This change affected the availability of            I
              personnel to interact with the media,
      in making the above changes, the licensee attempted to establish a
L    minimum staffing level for emergency response facilities (to perform basic
l    functional capabilities). Facility minimum staffing positions were given 60-
l.    minute response goals, placed on pagers, instructed to remain within 60-
      minutes of the site, and were expected to remain fit-for-duty. No changes
      to the call-out system were initiated that would add to existing response
      times (based on residential demographics of the plant staff). However, by
      making the above changes, the licensee: (1) overlooked the functions of
      the operations suppo;t area (operations support centers at other sites)
      which is collocated with its technical support center; (2) failed to recognize
      that it dropped below NUREG-0654, Table B-1, minimum staffing levels            ;
                                                                                      I
 
  .
  g                                                                .
                                          -6-
                                                                                            i
              that were met in the previously approved emergency plan (Revision 20);
              (3) extended response goals beyond those specified in NUREG-0654,
              Table B-1, that were met in the previously approved emergency plan            ]
              (Revision 20); and (4) failed to request approval prior to implementation.
              As a result, the inspector determined that the above response goal
              changes constituted a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) because they
              decreased the effectiveness of the emergency plan and did not continue
              to meet Planning Standard 50.47(b)(2) which requires that udequate
              staffing for initial response and timely augmentation of response              l
              capabilities are maintained (50-483/98006-01).                                l
                                                                                              !
    B.      The requirement to collect and analyze offsite sample media (solid, liquid,
              gas) was deleted from the description of the radiological monitoring drill.
              The inspector determined that the reduction in field monitoring team
              training requirements constituted a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q)
              requirements because it reduced the effectiveness of the emergency plan        3
              (50-483/98006-02).
    Cateoorv 2
    The second category consisted of the following issues that needed additional
    clarification, detail, or correction:
r
!
    (1)      Facility minimum staffing (60-minute responders) was not clearly
              described.
    (2)      Terms used to describe facility activation, staffing, and manning were not
              used consistently. Changes to Section 4.1 did not fully implement the
              change to activate the emergency operations facility at the alert
              emergency classification level.
    (3)      Based on discussions with the licensee, the referenco to the corporate
              organization was incorrectly deleted from Section 3.1.1.5 of the
              emergency plan. There was still some support provided by the corporate
              office.                                                                    .
    (4)      Table 6-1 did not accurately describe environmental monitoring
              capabilities.
    (5)      Offsite sampling point maps were incorrectly deleted.
    (6)      There were numerous editorial errors (e.g., biannualinstead of biennial).
    (7)      The change summary was incomplete (some changes were not
              mentioned).                                                                  ,
l
!
.
 
,
  s
  6
l
                                                7
                (8)    There were numerous errors involving revision bars (e.g., changes without
                      revision bars and revision bars without changes).
                Based on the number and types of issues listed in Category 2 above, the
                inspector concluded that there was an apparent lack of attention to detail during
                the emergency plan review and revision process. The licensee agreed to correct
                the changes in the next change notice / revision. This response was acceptable.
        Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan. Revision 21. Chanae Notice 97-0j
        No issues were identified. The changes did not appear to decrease the effectiveness of
        the emergency plan.
        Radiofoaical Emeroency resoonse Plan Revision 21. Chance Notice 97-02
i
        The changes included a new reference to the severe accident management guides. The
        licensee had identified that the emergency plan change was issued before the guides
        were placed in the control room and technical support center. This inconsistency existed
        until March 25,1998 (about one month), when the guides were placed in the two
        locations. The changes did not appear to decrease the effectiveness of the emergency
        plan; however, implementation was improperly coordinated.
        Emeraency lmolementina Procedure. EIP-ZZ-00101. " Classification of Emeraencies."
!
        Bayision 20
        No issues were identified. The changes did not appear to decrease the effectiveness of
        the emergency plan.
    c. Conclusions
        Two violations of 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements were identified involving changes that
l
        were made to the emergency plan, without prior NRC approval, that: (1) reduced
l      augmentation capabilities by extending response goals for nearly all emergency
        organization personnel, and (2) reduced training commitments for field monitoring team    J
l
        personnel. The response goal changes had the most significant effect on the areas of
        operations support and health physics. There was a lack of attention to detail during the
        emergency plan review and revision process.
                                      V. Manaaement Meetings
    X1  Exit Meeting Summary                                                                      i
        The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at
        the conclusion of the inspection on March 26,1998. The licensee acknowledged the
        facts presented. No proprietary information was identified.
r
t                                                                                                  J
 
                                .  .  .. .    .  .                                            ,
        s
        4
        %
                                                  -8-
          Regional management, who participated in the above exit meeting by telephone,
          requested the licensee to promptly arrange a meeting to discuss actions planned to
          address the concerns identified in the inspection. On March 30,1998, the licensee
          issued Change Notice 98-004 to Revision 21 of the Callaway Radiological Emergency
          Response Plan. The change notice restored the response goals specified in Revision
          20, including the operational support area positions, and reinstated the requirement to
          collect and analyze specific environmental samples.
          The licensee met with members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Region
          IV on April 2,1998, to discuss the emergency plan. A meeting summary will be issued
          by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
l
  . ...
          ..                    .
                                                                                      .
                                                                                            . _ .
 
b
'
b                                                                                              I
                                            ATTACHMENT
                                                                                                l
                                                                                                l
                                                                                                '
                                  SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
                            PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
  Licensee
  R. Affolter, Plant Manager
  J. Blosser, Manager, Operations Support
  S. Crawford, Acting Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness
  J. Laux, Manager, Quality Assurance
  J. Neudecker, Superintendent, Personnel
  J. Peevy, Manager, Emergency Preparedness and Organizational Support
  M. Reidmeyer, Engineer
  NBG
  D. Chamberlain, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety (by telephone)
  B. Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch (by telephone)
  D. Passehl, Senior Resident inspector
                                                                                                l
                          LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
  IP 82701        Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program
                                      LIST OF ITEMS OPENED
  Ooened
  50-483/98006-01        VIO    Failure to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements when personnel
                                response goals were extended in the emergency plan (Section P3)
  50-483/98006-02        VIO    Failure to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements when field
                                monitoring team training requirements were deleted from the
                                emergency plan (Section P3)
                                                                                                i
                                LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
  Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 21, dated May 29,1997
  Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 21, Change Notice 97-01,
  dated August 5,1997
 
    b
    3'
    ,%
                                                  -2-
        Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 21, Change Notice 97-02,
        dated February 25,1998
l      Emergency implementing Procedure, EIP-ZZ-00101, " Classification of Emergencies," Revision
        20-
l
l
                                                                                                  l
                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                  l
                                                                                                  i
                                                                                                  i
                                                                                                  l
p
                                                                                                  i
                                                                                                  !
l_.
}}

Revision as of 16:49, 26 January 2022

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20217F488&oldid=3420784"