IR 05000413/2008501
Download: ML082330002
Text
August 19, 2008
Mr. J. Site Vice President Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Catawba Nuclear Station 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745-9635
SUBJECT: CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS INSPECTION REPORT 05000413/2008501 AND 05000414/2008501
Dear Mr. Morris:
On July 31, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an Emergency Preparedness inspection at your Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 and 2. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on July 31, 2008, with Mr. J. Pitesa and other 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, no findings of significance were identified.
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). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,/RA/
Brian R. Bonser, Chief Plant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 05000413/2008501 and 05000414/2008501
w/Attachment:
Supplemental Information
(cc w/encl: See Page 2)
August 19, 2008 Mr.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000413/2008-501, 05000414/2008-501; 07/28-31/2008; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Emergency Preparedness Baseline Inspection.
The report covered an announced inspection by two emergency preparedness inspectors and two resident inspectors. The NRC=s program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, AReactor Oversight Process.@
A. NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
None.
B. Licensee-Identified Violations
. None
REPORT DETAILS
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstone:
Emergency Preparedness 1EP1 Exercise Evaluation
a. Inspection Scope
Prior to the inspection activity, the inspector conducted an in-office review of the exercise objectives and scenario submitted to the NRC 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 onsite inspection consisted of the following review and assessment:
- The adequacy of the licensee's performance in the biennial exercise conducted on July 29, 2008, was reviewed and assessed regarding the implementation of the Risk Significant Planning Standards (RSPSs) in 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(4), (5), (9), and (10),
which address emergency classification, offsite notification, radiological assessment, and protective action recommendations, respectively.
- The overall adequacy of the licensee's 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, Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
- Other performance areas besides the RSPS, such as the emergency response organization's (ERO) recognition of abnormal plant conditions, command and control, intra- and inter-facility communications, prioritization of mitigation activities, utilization of repair and field monitoring teams, interface with offsite agencies, and the overall implementation of the emergency plan and its implementing procedures.
- Past performance issues from NRC inspection reports and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercise reports to determine effectiveness of corrective actions as demonstrated during this exercise to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14).
- The post-exercise critique process and the presentation to the licensee's senior management conducted on July 31, 2008, to evaluate the licensee's self-assessment of its ERO performance during the exercise and to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.F.2.g.
The inspectors reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes
a. Inspection Scope
Since the last NRC inspection of this program area, Revision 07-2 of the Catawba Emergency Plan was implemented based on the licensee's determination, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), that the changes resulted in no decrease in the effectiveness of the Plan, and that the revised Plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The inspectors conducted a sampling review of the Emergency Plan changes and implementing procedure changes made between September 2007 and June 2008 to evaluate for potential decreases in effectiveness of the Emergency Plan. However, this review was not documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and does not constitute formal NRC approval of the changes.
Therefore, these changes remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety.
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 04, AEmergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes.@ The applicable planning standard (PS), 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria.
The inspectors reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the EAL and Emergency Plan changes on an annual basis.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification
a. Inspection Scope
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for three Performance Indicators (PI) listed below. For each of the submittals reviewed, the inspectors reviewed the period from April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008. To verify the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-02, ARegulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline,@ Revision 5, were used to verify the basis in reporting for each data element.
$ Emergency Response Organization Drill/Exercise Performance (DEP) $ Emergency Response Organization Readiness (ERO) $ Alert and Notification System Reliability (ANS) The inspectors reviewed portions of the raw PI data developed from monthly performance indicator reports and discussed the methods for compiling and reporting the PIs with cognizant emergency preparedness personnel. The inspectors also independently screened drill and exercise opportunity evaluations, drill participation reports, and drill evaluations. Selected reported values were calculated to verify their accuracy. The inspectors compared graphical representations from the most recent PI report to the raw data to verify that the data was correctly reflected in the report.
Reviewed documents are listed in the Attachment to this report.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 (Closed) NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/175, Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review
The inspectors completed Temporary Instruction TI 2515/175, Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, and Program Review. Appropriate documentation of the results was provided to NRC, HQ, as required by the TI.
This completes the Region II inspection requirements for this TI for Catawba Nuclear Station.
4OA6 Meetings, including Exit
On July 31, 2008, the lead inspector presented the inspection results to Mr. J. Pitesa and other members of your staff. The inspector confirmed that proprietary information was not provided during the inspection.
ATTACHMENT: