IR 05000373/2014502: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 06/11/2014 | | issue date = 06/11/2014 | ||
| title = IR 05000373-14-502, 05000374-14-502; on 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator V | | title = IR 05000373-14-502, 05000374-14-502; on 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator V | ||
| author name = Skokowski R | | author name = Skokowski R | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/PSB | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/PSB | ||
| addressee name = Pacilio M | | addressee name = Pacilio M | ||
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear | | addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear | ||
| docket = 05000373, 05000374 | | docket = 05000373, 05000374 | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:une 11, 2014 | ||
SUBJECT: LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 | |||
==Dear Mr. Pacilio:== | ==Dear Mr. Pacilio:== | ||
On May 23, | On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of your staff. | ||
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the | 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. | ||
No findings were identified during this inspection. | The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection. | ||
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading | In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) | ||
-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). | component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), | ||
accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). | |||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
/RA Donald Funk Acting for/ | /RA Donald Funk Acting for/ | ||
Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18 | Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18 | ||
==REGION III== | ===Enclosure:=== | ||
Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License | IR 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information | ||
05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles , IL Dates: May 19 - 23, | |||
R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen , Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach , Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski , Reactor Engineer Approved by: | REGION III== | ||
R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety | Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License No: NPF-11; NPF-18 Report No: 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles, IL Dates: May 19 - 23, 2014 Inspectors: R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen, Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach, Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer Approved by: R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure | ||
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS= | =SUMMARY OF FINDINGS= | ||
IR 05000373/2014502, 05000374/2014502; 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station, | |||
Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event; | |||
Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator Verification. | |||
This report covers a one-week period of announced baseline inspection by four regional inspectors and one resident inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., Green, White, Yellow, and Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5, dated February 2014. | |||
=== | ===NRC-Identified=== | ||
and Self-Revealed Findings | and Self-Revealed Findings | ||
Line 56: | Line 59: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
=== | ===Licensee-Identified Violations=== | ||
None | None | ||
=REPORT DETAILS= | =REPORT DETAILS= | ||
Line 64: | Line 67: | ||
==REACTOR SAFETY== | ==REACTOR SAFETY== | ||
===Cornerstone: | ===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness=== | ||
{{a|1EP7}} | |||
{{a| | ==1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event== | ||
== | {{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.07}} | ||
===.1 Exercise Evaluation=== | ===.1 Exercise Evaluation=== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.j, requires , in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA)event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, | Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.j, requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA) event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, 2014, exercise to satisfy this requirement, and the NRC inspected the LaSalle County Station HA event exercise to assess the licensees ability to effectively implement their Emergency Plan during a HA event and adequately protect public health and safety. | ||
The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments: | The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments: | ||
The adequacy of the | * The adequacy of the licensees performance in the biennial exercise conducted on May 21, 2014, regarding the implementation of the Risk-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively. | ||
-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively. | * The overall adequacy of the licensees emergency response facilities with regard to NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities, and Emergency Plan commitments. The facilities assessed were the Control Room Simulator, Alternative Emergency Response Facility, Incident Command Post, Central Alarm Station, and the Emergency Operations Facility. | ||
* A review of other performance areas such as the licensee EROs recognition of abnormal plant conditions; command and control, including interactions with site security staff; intra and inter-facility communications; prioritization of mitigating activities; utilization of repair and field monitoring teams; interface with offsite agencies, including local law enforcement agencies; staffing and procedure adequacy; and the overall implementation of the Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures. | |||
* Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions, as demonstrated during this exercise, to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). | |||
* The adequacy of the licensees post-exercise critiques, to evaluate LaSalle County Stations self-assessment of its ERO performance during the May 21, 2014, exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.g. | |||
The | The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis. | ||
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.07-06. | |||
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114. | |||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. {{a|1EP8}} | ||
==1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review== | |||
{{a| | {{IP sample|IP=IP 71114.08}} | ||
== | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in | Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenarios submitted to the NRC using IP 71114.08, Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review, to determine if the exercise would test major elements of the Emergency Plan as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). This inspection activity represents one sample on a biennial cycle. | ||
-office review of the exercise objectives and | |||
The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis. | The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis. | ||
This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08 | This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08-06. | ||
-06. | |||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
Line 117: | Line 104: | ||
==OTHER ACTIVITIES== | ==OTHER ACTIVITIES== | ||
===Cornerstone: | ===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness=== | ||
{{a|4OA1}} | {{a|4OA1}} | ||
==4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification== | ==4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification== | ||
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71151}} | |||
===.1 Drill/Exercise Performance=== | ===.1 Drill/Exercise Performance=== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP) Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter | The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP) | ||
, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre | Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the DEP data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)document NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre-designated control room simulator training sessions, and performance during other drills. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. | ||
-designated control | |||
This inspection constituted one DEP sample as defined in IP 71151-05. | |||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
Line 137: | Line 122: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter | The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, performance during the 2013 and 2014 drills, and revisions of the roster of personnel assigned to key ERO positions. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. | ||
This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05. | This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05. | ||
Line 147: | Line 132: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) PI for the period from the second quarter | The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS) | ||
PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI and results of periodic scheduled ANS operability tests. | |||
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. | |||
This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05. | This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05. | ||
Line 153: | Line 141: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
{{a|4OA6}} | |||
{{a|4OA6}} | |||
==4OA6 Management Meetings== | ==4OA6 Management Meetings== | ||
===.1 Exit Meeting Summary=== | ===.1 Exit Meeting Summary=== | ||
On May 23, | On May 23, 2014, the inspectors presented the biennial exercise inspection results to Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. | ||
The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary. | The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary. | ||
ATTACHMENT: | ATTACHMENT: | ||
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | =SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | ||
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT== | |||
: [[contact::H. Vinyard]], Plant Manager | Licensee | ||
: [[contact::H. Vinyard]], Plant Manager | |||
: [[contact::G. Buckley]], Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist | : [[contact::G. Buckley]], Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist | ||
: [[contact::G. Butz]], Site Security Operations Manager | : [[contact::G. Butz]], Site Security Operations Manager | ||
Line 176: | Line 164: | ||
: [[contact::M. Hayworth]], Emergency Preparedness Manager | : [[contact::M. Hayworth]], Emergency Preparedness Manager | ||
: [[contact::J. Houston]], Nuclear Oversight Manager | : [[contact::J. Houston]], Nuclear Oversight Manager | ||
: [[contact::C. Howard]], Radiation Protection Technical | : [[contact::C. Howard]], Radiation Protection Technical Support Manager | ||
Support Manager | : [[contact::J. Hughes]], Emergency Preparedness Coordinator | ||
: [[contact::J. Hughes]], Emergency Preparedness Coordinator | |||
: [[contact::J. Keenan]], Operations Shift Operations Supervisor | : [[contact::J. Keenan]], Operations Shift Operations Supervisor | ||
: [[contact::J. Kowalski]], Engineering Director | : [[contact::J. Kowalski]], Engineering Director | ||
Line 186: | Line 173: | ||
: [[contact::G. Wood]], Training Support Manager | : [[contact::G. Wood]], Training Support Manager | ||
Nuclear Regulatory Commission | Nuclear Regulatory Commission | ||
: [[contact::R. Ruiz ]], Senior Resident Inspector | : [[contact::R. Ruiz]], Senior Resident Inspector | ||
: [[contact::J. Robbins]], Resident Inspector | : [[contact::J. Robbins]], Resident Inspector | ||
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND | |||
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED== | |||
===Opened, Closed, and Discussed=== | |||
None | None | ||
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED== | |||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 10:38, 20 December 2019
ML14162A274 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | LaSalle |
Issue date: | 06/11/2014 |
From: | Richard Skokowski Plant Support Branch II |
To: | Pacilio M Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
Robert Jickling | |
References | |
IR-14-502 | |
Download: ML14162A274 (12) | |
Text
une 11, 2014
SUBJECT:
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 BASELINE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BIENNIAL EXERCISE INSPECTION REPORT 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502
Dear Mr. Pacilio:
On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection which were discussed on May 23, 2014, with Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. No findings were identified during this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response, if any, will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS)
component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS),
accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA Donald Funk Acting for/
Richard A. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18
Enclosure:
IR 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
REGION III==
Docket No: 50-373; 50-374 License No: NPF-11; NPF-18 Report No: 05000373/2014502; 05000374/2014502 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Marseilles, IL Dates: May 19 - 23, 2014 Inspectors: R. Jickling, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Beavers, Emergency Preparedness Inspector J. Maynen, Senior Physical Security Inspector G. Roach, Senior Resident Inspector M. Ziolkowski, Reactor Engineer Approved by: R. Skokowski, Chief Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000373/2014502, 05000374/2014502; 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014; LaSalle County Station,
Units 1 and 2; Baseline Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event;
Exercise Evaluation Scenario Review; Performance Indicator Verification.
This report covers a one-week period of announced baseline inspection by four regional inspectors and one resident inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., Green, White, Yellow, and Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5, dated February 2014.
NRC-Identified
and Self-Revealed Findings
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
No findings were identified.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event
.1 Exercise Evaluation
a. Inspection Scope
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.2.j, requires, in part, that nuclear power reactor licensees, in each eight calendar year exercise cycle, provide the opportunity for their Emergency Response Organization (ERO) to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to a Hostile Action (HA) event directed at the plant site. LaSalle County Station designed the May 21, 2014, exercise to satisfy this requirement, and the NRC inspected the LaSalle County Station HA event exercise to assess the licensees ability to effectively implement their Emergency Plan during a HA event and adequately protect public health and safety.
The exercise evaluation consisted of the following reviews and assessments:
- The adequacy of the licensees performance in the biennial exercise conducted on May 21, 2014, regarding the implementation of the Risk-Significant Planning Standards in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10), which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and Protective Action Recommendations (PARs), respectively.
- The overall adequacy of the licensees emergency response facilities with regard to NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities, and Emergency Plan commitments. The facilities assessed were the Control Room Simulator, Alternative Emergency Response Facility, Incident Command Post, Central Alarm Station, and the Emergency Operations Facility.
- A review of other performance areas such as the licensee EROs recognition of abnormal plant conditions; command and control, including interactions with site security staff; intra and inter-facility communications; prioritization of mitigating activities; utilization of repair and field monitoring teams; interface with offsite agencies, including local law enforcement agencies; staffing and procedure adequacy; and the overall implementation of the Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures.
- Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions, as demonstrated during this exercise, to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14).
- The adequacy of the licensees post-exercise critiques, to evaluate LaSalle County Stations self-assessment of its ERO performance during the May 21, 2014, exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.g.
The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.
This exercise evaluation inspection constituted one sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71114.07-06.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review
a. Inspection Scope
Prior to the inspection activity, the inspectors conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenarios submitted to the NRC using IP 71114.08, Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review, to determine if the exercise would test major elements of the Emergency Plan as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14). This inspection activity represents one sample on a biennial cycle.
The inspectors reviewed various documents that are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the exercise evaluation on a biennial basis.
This review of the exercise objectives and scenario constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.08-06.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification
.1 Drill/Exercise Performance
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP)
Performance Indicator (PI) for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the DEP data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)document NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes, including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, assessments of PI opportunities during pre-designated control room simulator training sessions, and performance during other drills. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one DEP sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the ERO Drill Participation PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI, performance during the 2013 and 2014 drills, and revisions of the roster of personnel assigned to key ERO positions. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one ERO Drill Participation sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Alert and Notification System
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Alert and Notification System (ANS)
PI for the period from the second quarter 2013 through the first quarter 2014. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, was used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees records associated with the PI to verify that the licensee accurately reported the indicator in accordance with relevant procedures and the NEI guidance. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed licensee records and processes including procedural guidance on assessing opportunities for the PI and results of periodic scheduled ANS operability tests.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one ANS sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA6 Management Meetings
.1 Exit Meeting Summary
On May 23, 2014, the inspectors presented the biennial exercise inspection results to Mr. H. Vinyard and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented.
The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- H. Vinyard, Plant Manager
- G. Buckley, Corporate Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist
- G. Butz, Site Security Operations Manager
- A. Daniels, Corporate Emergency Preparedness Manager
- G. Ford, Regulatory Affairs Manager
- M. Hayworth, Emergency Preparedness Manager
- J. Houston, Nuclear Oversight Manager
- C. Howard, Radiation Protection Technical Support Manager
- J. Hughes, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
- J. Keenan, Operations Shift Operations Supervisor
- J. Kowalski, Engineering Director
- J. Kutches, Maintenance Director
- M. Martin, Chemistry Manager
- J. Williams, Work Management Director
- G. Wood, Training Support Manager
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- R. Ruiz, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Robbins, Resident Inspector
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed, and Discussed
None