ML20056E904: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No. 70-1257/93-08 Docket No. 70-1257 License No. SNM-1227 Licensee:
Siemens Power Corporation
~2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352-0130 Facility Name:
Siemens Power Corporation 1
Inspection at:
Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted: June 28 - July 2, 1993 8!L/f_f Inspectors: P. M. Qualls, Reactor Inspector Uatt Signed Approved by:
h 8[Y[f5 R. J. Pate, Chidf, ' Safeguards, Dgte Signed Emergency Preparedness, and Non-Power Reactor Branch Summary:
Areas Inspected: This was a routine inspection of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness program and followup on open items.
Inspection procedures 30703, 88050, and 92701 were addressed.
Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.
No significant weaknesses were identified during this inspection. The working relationship between the licensee and the offsite agencies and the apparent support by facility staff and management of the Emergency Planning program were observed program strengths.
i l
9308250279 930804 PDR ADDCK 07001257 C
PDR
 
i l
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Tte below listed persons were contacted during the course of the inspection.
i Licensee Personnel
*R. E. Vaughan, Manager, Safety, Security and Licensing
*L. J. Maas, Manager, Regulatory Compliance J. B. Edgar, Staff Engineer, Licensing
*T. C. Probasco, Safety Supervisor R. K. Burklin. Health Physicist
*E. J. Hough, Technical Training Specialist i
Other Personnel D. Schrag, Deputy Director for Fire Operations, Richland Fire Department B. Martin, Director, Benton County Emergency Planning G. Pira, DOE Planner, Benton County
*The above individuals denoted with an asterisk were present during the exit meeting on July 2,1993. The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's emergency preparedness, administrative, and technical staff and management during the course of the inspection.
l
\\
2.
Emergency Preparedness (88050) l a.
Offsite Support Agencies The inspector reviewed the agreement letters with the Offsite Support Agencies. The letters were all current with responsibilities clearly defined. The inspector discussed with 1
Richland Fire Department and Benton County officials the licensee's relationship with their organizations.
Representatives of both organizations stated that the licensee was providing the support and training necessary for their staff to protect the public during an emergency. The inspector noted that the licensee's relationship with the Offsite Agencies was a significant program strength, b.
Emergency Plans. Procedures. Facilities and Equipment The inspector reviewed the licensee's revised Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures which were created to implement the licensee's revised Emergency Plan, EMF-32, Revision 17. The l
inspector reviewed the procedures for plan implementation only.
The inspector did not review the plan to ensure compliance with licensing criteria as that review is being accomplished separately.
The inspector noted no deficiencies in the licensee's implementing procedures. The inspector noted that the licensee's emergency call list is included in the emergency plan and is available to plant personnel in an emergency.
*W 9
 
l
\\
t b
2 i
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Pre-Emergency Plans which were l
received in the Region V office on July 22, 1993. This manual provides the information needed by emergency responders to safely j
react to a site emergency. The procedures provide an exterior i
building photograph and a floor plan drawing for each facility building. The procedures also include hazardous materials which may.
i' be present in the room and expected occupancy. The information was presented.in a clear concise manner and should prove to be of l
significant benefit in responding to a severe facility emergency.
The inspector toured the facility and inspected emergency kits, communications equipment, onsite medical kits and the site i
evacuation location. The inspector noted that the emergency response and medical equipment was well maintained, the emergency communications equipment appeared to be in working order. The j
inspector opened several emergency equipment lockers and noted that l
the instrumentation was in calibration, was in good working-condition, and was readily available in sufficient quantities. The i
inspector also noted that air tanks were filled and that the self-contained breathing apparatus and acid suits were available and in
.i good condition. The inspector noted that offsite sampling support i
is provided by Battelle National Laboratory which is a near neighbor l
I of the facility.
c.
Tests and Drills l
l The inspector reviewed the licensee's complet'ed drills. The inspector noted that drills are being conducted in accordance with Emergency Plan requirements. The inspector reviewed the last four i
site accountability. drills.
The time to accomplish accountability-for the. drills averaged 14 minutes. -The inspector reviewed the logs from the March 27, 1993, inadvertent sounding of the criticality alarm and noted that the time to accomplish accountability was 13 minutes.
1 The inspector reviewed the training records for the Plant Emergency Response Team (PERT). The inspector noted that the licensee maintained an adequate number of trained personnel to respond to emergencies. The inspector reviewed the content of the PERT classes and concluded that it was adequate for the level of response required of PER; members. The inspector noted that licensee employees appeared to be supportive of the emergency response program due to the numbers of assigned members which attend the periodic PERT training. The inspector was told by the licensee, however, that training is provided for each shift one time. No makeup classes are provided or required for personnel who do not attend the training. The licensee also did not have a tracking l
method for non-attenders to ensure that each individual receives i
adequate training. The licensee also provides no-criteria for L
disqualifying an individual for missing some amount of training.
l Subsequent to the onsite inspection the licensee's Safety Supervisor
 
l i
.i 3
informed the inspector that a system to track training: attendance was instituted.
d.
Fire protection i
During discussions with the licensee, the inspector noted that primary responding agency for the licensee is the Richland Fire l
Department. The licensee plans that the initial response by onsite j
i staff be as incipient fire fighters only.
Followup response for 1
larger fires is accomplished by professional fire fighters in the i
Richland Fire Department. The inspector noted that in place fire fighting equipment located in the licensee's facility appeared well maintained.
l e.
Corrective Action List and Quality Assurance Audit l
l The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1992 and 1993 audit of the l
Emergency Planning Program. The audits were accomplished by the licensee's Quality Assurance organization. The audits were..
grq comprehensive and well documented.
Items identified by the auditor l
in 1991 had been corrected before the 1992 audit. Many of the= items L
noted during the 1993 audit, which was completed on March 9,1993, had been corrected prior to this inspection. The inspector reviewed the licensee's Corrective Action List being kept by the Safety Supervisor and noted that items were being corrected in a reasonably short time frame and the list was not excessively long.
l 3.
Followup of Previously Identified Open Items (92701) l a.
91-04-27 (CLOSED) Review of Agreement Letters j
The open item concerned the requirement of the _ Emergency plan to conduct biannual review of the agreement' letters with offsite l
agencies. The guidance is to conduct biennial reviews. Revision 17 of EMF-32 has corrected this administrative error. This item is CLOSED.
b.
91-04-30 (CLOSED) Reporting Location The licensee's Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures had required their staff to notify the NRC Region V office of an emergency declaration vice the Headquarters Operations Center. The inspector reviewed the applicable procedures and noted that they had been revised to require NRC Operations Office notification of an event.
This item is CLOSED.
c.
91-04-31 (CLOSED) NRC Region V Telephone Number The licensee's Radiation Safety Manual, ANF-30, contained an
- obsolete telephone number for the NRC Region V Office. A subsequent revision to the manual corrected the telephone number. This item is CLOSED.
 
4 i
I d.
91-04-33 (CLOSED) Documentation of EP Training The open item concerned the lack of a formal method to document all initial and requalification training. When reviewed by the inspector, as noted in Paragraph 2.c above, the licensee did not have a system to track personnel who did not attend training sessions.
The licensee also had no criteria to specify which sessions could be missed and how often training could be missed and still maintain a qualified status. The licensee has subsequently instituted a system to track training attendance.
Item 91-04-33 is CLOSED. The inspector will review the training attendance tracking and qualification status at a future inspection. (93-08-01) OPEN.
L e.
91-04-40 (CLOSED) Fire Fighting Responsibilities of the PERT 1
Revision 15 to the Emergency Plan stated that PERT members could fight fires only when no radioactive materials were involved. The Safety Supervisor had stated that the expectation was that the PERT fight incipient fires with an extinguisher. Revision 17 to the l
Emergency Plan reflects the expectation of the facility management l
that the PERT fight incipient fires. This item is CLOSED.
4.
Exit Interview l
An exit meeting was held on July 2,1993, with members of the licensee staff identified in Paragraph I of this report. The items identified in this report were discussed at that time. Significant strengths were identified in the areas of working relations with offsite agencies, the support of the Emergency Planning Program by site personnel, and the expeditious completion of site accountability during an inadvertent alarm and routine drills. No significant weaknesses were identified. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
l l
I}}

Latest revision as of 13:15, 17 December 2024

Insp Rept 70-1257/93-08 on 930628-0702.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review Licensee Emergency Preparedness Program & Followup on Open Items
ML20056E904
Person / Time
Site: Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date: 08/04/1993
From: Pate R, Qualls P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056E903 List:
References
70-1257-93-08, 70-1257-93-8, NUDOCS 9308250279
Download: ML20056E904 (5)
v • d • e


Text

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No. 70-1257/93-08 Docket No. 70-1257 License No. SNM-1227 Licensee:

Siemens Power Corporation

~2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352-0130 Facility Name:

Siemens Power Corporation 1

Inspection at:

Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted: June 28 - July 2, 1993 8!L/f_f Inspectors: P. M. Qualls, Reactor Inspector Uatt Signed Approved by:

h 8[Y[f5 R. J. Pate, Chidf, ' Safeguards, Dgte Signed Emergency Preparedness, and Non-Power Reactor Branch Summary:

Areas Inspected: This was a routine inspection of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness program and followup on open items.

Inspection procedures 30703, 88050, and 92701 were addressed.

Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.

No significant weaknesses were identified during this inspection. The working relationship between the licensee and the offsite agencies and the apparent support by facility staff and management of the Emergency Planning program were observed program strengths.

i l

9308250279 930804 PDR ADDCK 07001257 C

PDR

i l

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Tte below listed persons were contacted during the course of the inspection.

i Licensee Personnel

  • R. E. Vaughan, Manager, Safety, Security and Licensing
  • L. J. Maas, Manager, Regulatory Compliance J. B. Edgar, Staff Engineer, Licensing
  • T. C. Probasco, Safety Supervisor R. K. Burklin. Health Physicist
  • E. J. Hough, Technical Training Specialist i

Other Personnel D. Schrag, Deputy Director for Fire Operations, Richland Fire Department B. Martin, Director, Benton County Emergency Planning G. Pira, DOE Planner, Benton County

  • The above individuals denoted with an asterisk were present during the exit meeting on July 2,1993. The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's emergency preparedness, administrative, and technical staff and management during the course of the inspection.

l

\\

2.

Emergency Preparedness (88050) l a.

Offsite Support Agencies The inspector reviewed the agreement letters with the Offsite Support Agencies. The letters were all current with responsibilities clearly defined. The inspector discussed with 1

Richland Fire Department and Benton County officials the licensee's relationship with their organizations.

Representatives of both organizations stated that the licensee was providing the support and training necessary for their staff to protect the public during an emergency. The inspector noted that the licensee's relationship with the Offsite Agencies was a significant program strength, b.

Emergency Plans. Procedures. Facilities and Equipment The inspector reviewed the licensee's revised Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures which were created to implement the licensee's revised Emergency Plan, EMF-32, Revision 17. The l

inspector reviewed the procedures for plan implementation only.

The inspector did not review the plan to ensure compliance with licensing criteria as that review is being accomplished separately.

The inspector noted no deficiencies in the licensee's implementing procedures. The inspector noted that the licensee's emergency call list is included in the emergency plan and is available to plant personnel in an emergency.

  • W 9

l

\\

t b

2 i

The inspector reviewed the licensee's Pre-Emergency Plans which were l

received in the Region V office on July 22, 1993. This manual provides the information needed by emergency responders to safely j

react to a site emergency. The procedures provide an exterior i

building photograph and a floor plan drawing for each facility building. The procedures also include hazardous materials which may.

i' be present in the room and expected occupancy. The information was presented.in a clear concise manner and should prove to be of l

significant benefit in responding to a severe facility emergency.

The inspector toured the facility and inspected emergency kits, communications equipment, onsite medical kits and the site i

evacuation location. The inspector noted that the emergency response and medical equipment was well maintained, the emergency communications equipment appeared to be in working order. The j

inspector opened several emergency equipment lockers and noted that l

the instrumentation was in calibration, was in good working-condition, and was readily available in sufficient quantities. The i

inspector also noted that air tanks were filled and that the self-contained breathing apparatus and acid suits were available and in

.i good condition. The inspector noted that offsite sampling support i

is provided by Battelle National Laboratory which is a near neighbor l

I of the facility.

c.

Tests and Drills l

l The inspector reviewed the licensee's complet'ed drills. The inspector noted that drills are being conducted in accordance with Emergency Plan requirements. The inspector reviewed the last four i

site accountability. drills.

The time to accomplish accountability-for the. drills averaged 14 minutes. -The inspector reviewed the logs from the March 27, 1993, inadvertent sounding of the criticality alarm and noted that the time to accomplish accountability was 13 minutes.

1 The inspector reviewed the training records for the Plant Emergency Response Team (PERT). The inspector noted that the licensee maintained an adequate number of trained personnel to respond to emergencies. The inspector reviewed the content of the PERT classes and concluded that it was adequate for the level of response required of PER; members. The inspector noted that licensee employees appeared to be supportive of the emergency response program due to the numbers of assigned members which attend the periodic PERT training. The inspector was told by the licensee, however, that training is provided for each shift one time. No makeup classes are provided or required for personnel who do not attend the training. The licensee also did not have a tracking l

method for non-attenders to ensure that each individual receives i

adequate training. The licensee also provides no-criteria for L

disqualifying an individual for missing some amount of training.

l Subsequent to the onsite inspection the licensee's Safety Supervisor

l i

.i 3

informed the inspector that a system to track training: attendance was instituted.

d.

Fire protection i

During discussions with the licensee, the inspector noted that primary responding agency for the licensee is the Richland Fire l

Department. The licensee plans that the initial response by onsite j

i staff be as incipient fire fighters only.

Followup response for 1

larger fires is accomplished by professional fire fighters in the i

Richland Fire Department. The inspector noted that in place fire fighting equipment located in the licensee's facility appeared well maintained.

l e.

Corrective Action List and Quality Assurance Audit l

l The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1992 and 1993 audit of the l

Emergency Planning Program. The audits were accomplished by the licensee's Quality Assurance organization. The audits were..

grq comprehensive and well documented.

Items identified by the auditor l

in 1991 had been corrected before the 1992 audit. Many of the= items L

noted during the 1993 audit, which was completed on March 9,1993, had been corrected prior to this inspection. The inspector reviewed the licensee's Corrective Action List being kept by the Safety Supervisor and noted that items were being corrected in a reasonably short time frame and the list was not excessively long.

l 3.

Followup of Previously Identified Open Items (92701) l a.

91-04-27 (CLOSED) Review of Agreement Letters j

The open item concerned the requirement of the _ Emergency plan to conduct biannual review of the agreement' letters with offsite l

agencies. The guidance is to conduct biennial reviews. Revision 17 of EMF-32 has corrected this administrative error. This item is CLOSED.

b.

91-04-30 (CLOSED) Reporting Location The licensee's Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures had required their staff to notify the NRC Region V office of an emergency declaration vice the Headquarters Operations Center. The inspector reviewed the applicable procedures and noted that they had been revised to require NRC Operations Office notification of an event.

This item is CLOSED.

c.

91-04-31 (CLOSED) NRC Region V Telephone Number The licensee's Radiation Safety Manual, ANF-30, contained an

- obsolete telephone number for the NRC Region V Office. A subsequent revision to the manual corrected the telephone number. This item is CLOSED.

4 i

I d.

91-04-33 (CLOSED) Documentation of EP Training The open item concerned the lack of a formal method to document all initial and requalification training. When reviewed by the inspector, as noted in Paragraph 2.c above, the licensee did not have a system to track personnel who did not attend training sessions.

The licensee also had no criteria to specify which sessions could be missed and how often training could be missed and still maintain a qualified status. The licensee has subsequently instituted a system to track training attendance.

Item 91-04-33 is CLOSED. The inspector will review the training attendance tracking and qualification status at a future inspection. (93-08-01) OPEN.

L e.

91-04-40 (CLOSED) Fire Fighting Responsibilities of the PERT 1

Revision 15 to the Emergency Plan stated that PERT members could fight fires only when no radioactive materials were involved. The Safety Supervisor had stated that the expectation was that the PERT fight incipient fires with an extinguisher. Revision 17 to the l

Emergency Plan reflects the expectation of the facility management l

that the PERT fight incipient fires. This item is CLOSED.

4.

Exit Interview l

An exit meeting was held on July 2,1993, with members of the licensee staff identified in Paragraph I of this report. The items identified in this report were discussed at that time. Significant strengths were identified in the areas of working relations with offsite agencies, the support of the Emergency Planning Program by site personnel, and the expeditious completion of site accountability during an inadvertent alarm and routine drills. No significant weaknesses were identified. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.

l l

I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20056E904&oldid=4482238"