IR 05000400/2006008
| ML061270003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/2006 |
| From: | Brian Bonser NRC/RGN-II/DRS/PSB2 |
| To: | Gannon C Carolina Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| IR-06-008 | |
| Download: ML061270003 (16) | |
Text
May 5, 2006Carolina Power & Light CompanyATTN:Mr. C. J. Gannon, Jr.Vice President - Harris PlantShearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165SUBJECT:SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT- NRC EMERGENCYPREPAREDNESS INSPECTION REPORT 50-400/2006008
Dear Mr. Gannon:
On April 3-7, 2006, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection atyour Harris Plant. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on April 3-7, 2006, with Mr. Edward Wills and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance 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. However, alicensee identified violation which was determined to be of very low significance is listed in the report. The NRC is treating the violation as a non-cited violation (NCV) consistent with SectionVI.A of the NRC Enforcement Policy because of the very low significance of the violation and because it is centered into your corrective action program. If you contest this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.: Document Control Desk, Washington DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator Region II; the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
and the NRC Resident Inspector at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in theNRC Public Document Room (PDR) or from the Publically Available Records (PARS)
component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). To the extent possible, your responseshould not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be CP&L2placed in the PDR and PARS without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/Brian R. Bonser, ChiefPlant Support Branch 2 Division of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos.: 50-400License Nos: NPF-83
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000400/2006008 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
REGION IIDocket Nos.:50-400License Nos.:NPF-63 Report No: 05000400/2006008 Licensee:Progress Energy Facility: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power PlantLocation:5421 Shearon Harris RoadNew Hill, NC 27562-9998Dates: April 3-7, 2006 Inspectors:Lee Miller, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector (Section 1EP2, 1EP3,1EP4, 1EP5, 4OA1)Approved by:Brian R. Bonser, ChiefPlant Support Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR No. 05000400/2006008; 04/03/2006 - 04/07/2006; Harris Nuclear Power Plant; EmergencyPreparednessThe report covered a one week announced inspection be a regional senior emergencypreparedness inspector. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green,
White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, "Significance Determination Process" (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after the NRC management review. The NRC's program for overseeing the safeoperation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUNREG-1649, "ReactorOversight Process," Revision 3, dated July 2000.A.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
===Cornerstone: Emergency PreparednessNo findings of significance were identified.
B.Licensee-Identified Violations
.===
Violations of very low safety significance, which were identified by the licensee havebeen reviewed by the inspectors. Corrective actions taken or planned by the licensee have been entered into the licensee's corrective action program. These violations and corrective actions are listed in Section 4OA7 of this report.
REPORT DETAILS
1.REACTOR SAFETYCornerstone: Emergency Preparedness1EP2 Alert and Notification System Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the adequacy of licensee methods for testing the alert andnotification system in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment02, "Alert and Notification System (ANS) Testing". The applicable planning standard 10 CFR Part 50.47(b)(5) and its related 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D requirements were used as reference criteria. The criteria contained in NUREG-0654,"Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, was also used asreferences. The inspectors reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to thisreport.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.1EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the ERO augmentation staffing requirements and the processfor notifying the ERO to ensure the readiness of key staff for responding to an event and timely facility activation. The results of the 03/14/2006 unannounced off-hoursaugmentation drill was reviewed. The inspectors conducted a review of the backupnotification systems. The qualification records of key position ERO personnel wasreviewed to ensure all ERO qualifications were current. A sample of problems identifiedfrom augmentation drills or system tests performed since the last inspection werereviewed to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114,Attachment 03, "Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation Testing."
The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) 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 thisreport.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.1EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the associated 10 CFR 50.54(q) reviews associated with non-administrative emergency plan, implementing procedures and EAL changes. The revision 50 of the Emergency Plan covered the period from 03/22/2005 to 04/07/2006. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114,Attachment 01, "Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes." The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria. The criteria contained in NUMARC/NESP-007, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels",
Revision 2, Regulatory Guide 1.101 were also used as references.The inspectors reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to thisreport.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified. 1EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the corrective actions identified through the EP program todetermine the significance of the issues and to determine if repeat problems were occurring. The facility's self-assessments and audits were reviewed to assess thelicensee's ability to be self-critical, thus avoiding complacency and degradation of theirEP program. In addition, inspectors review licensee's self-assessments and audits to assess the completeness and effectiveness of all EP-related corrective actions. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114,Attachment 05, "Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies." The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) 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 thisreport.b. FindingsNo findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1Performance Indicator (PI) Verificationa.
Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedure for developing the data for theEmergency Preparedness PIs which are:
- (3) ANS Reliability. The inspectors examined data reportedto the NRC for the period 01/01/2005 to 12/31/2005. Procedural guidance for reportingPI information and records used by the licensee to identify potential PI occurrences were also reviewed. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill and exercise performance through review of a sample of dr ill and event records. Theinspectors reviewed selected training records to verify the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill participation for personnel assigned to key positions in the ERO. The inspectorsverified the accuracy of the PI for alert and notification system reliability through reviewof a sample of the licensee's records of periodic system tests. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71151,"Performance Indicator Verification." The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.9 and NEI 99-02, Revision 3, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guidelines,"
were used as reference criteria. This inspection activity represents three samples on an annual basis.The inspectors reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to thisreport.b.FindingsNo findings of significance were identified.4OA6Meetings, including ExitOn April 7, 2006, the inspector presented the inspection results to Mr. E. Willis, M anager- Operations, and other members of his staff acknowledged the findings. The team lead stated that additional information would be accepted and reviewed. The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or taken during the inspection.4OA7Licensee-Identified ViolationsThe following violation of very low safety significance (Green) was identified by thelicensee and is a violation of NRC requirements which meet the criteria of Section VI ofthe NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, for being dispositioned as an NCV.10CFR50.47(b)(5) requires in part that the public alert and notification system meets thedesign requirements of FEMA-REP-10 or is compliant with FEMA approved Alert and Notification System (ANS) design report and supporting FEMA approval letter.
Contrary to this, on January 24, 2006, during a review of the Harris Plant tone alert radio database, it was discovered that 92 addresses in the 5 mile radius of the Harris Nuclear 6Plant did not have tone alert radios. This was identified in the licensee's CorrectiveAction Program, Action Request Number: 182074, tone alert radios not in all residences as required by the E Plan. This finding is of very low safety significance because the licensee demonstrated that all of the 92 addresses could be notified with backup routealerting within 45 minutes and the licensee took prompt action to deliver tone alert radios to the 92 homes. The last radio was delivered on February 1, 2006.ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information A-Attachment
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel
- E. Wills, Manager Operations
- P. Fulford, Manager - Nuclear Assessment
- D. Corlett, Supervisor - Licensing/Regulatory Programs
- T. Pilo, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor
- J. Dills, Maintenance - Superintendent
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
OpennedNoneOpenned and
Closed
None
Closed
None
A-Attachment
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Section 1EP2:
- Alert and Notification System TestingRecords and DataReviewed Maintenance data sheets and post-maintenance testing, January - December, 2005MiscellaneousCP&L Harris Emergency Warning System Operating Manual, October 10, 2001CP&L Harris Touch Screen Operator's Manual, November 5, 2001