IR 05000313/1989029

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-313/89-29 & 50-368/89-29 on 890626-29.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Operational Status of Emergency Preparedness Program, Including Changes to Emergency Plan & Facilities
ML20245H133
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/28/1989
From: Powers D, Terc N
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245H118 List:
References
50-313-89-29, 50-368-89-29, NUDOCS 8908160326
Download: ML20245H133 (4)


Text

.

,

.

,

APPENDIX

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report:

50-313/89-29 Operating Licenses:

DPR-51 50-368/89-29 NPF-6 Dockets:

50-313 50-368 Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)

P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO)

Inspection At: ANO, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: June 26-29, 1989 Inspector:

dVMW h

7!2/[U Nemen M. Terc, Emergency Prepar'edness Date Specialist Accompanying Personnel:

Ronald A. Caldwell, Security Specialist PW 7/2f/89 Approved:

Dale Powers, Chief, Security and Emergency Date Preparedness

%ction Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted June 26-29,1989 (Report 50-313/89-29; 50-368/89-29)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, announced inspecticn of the operational status of the emergency preparedness program; including changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures, and changes to emergency facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies.

The inspection also included organization and management control, independent audits of the emergency preparedness program, and training of emergency response personnel.

Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. A tour of emergency response facilities, and a review of the licensee's emergency organization and procedures revealed that the licensee is continuing its efforts to maintain a good quality program.

Interviews conducted with a sample of emergency responders indicated that personnel were knowledgeable of their emergency duties. The inspectors concluded, based on the results of this inspection, that the operational status of the emergency preparedness program at ANO was adequate.

8908160326 890007

PDR ADOCK 05000313 (

G PNV p

m e

,

,

l: [~,

'

5,:,

'

.

2-

.:

'

o!

DETAILS m-

.

.1.

LPersons' Contacted-AP&L'

'

  • E. Force', Training Manager

~

.

.

  • R.; Rust, Shift Supervisor, Unit 2
  • E.' Ewing, General Manager,. Technical Support and Assessment
  • P..Michalk, Licensing Specialist u

,

~*F.. Van Buskirk, Emergency. Planning Coordinator

-

  • D._Boyd, Supervisor, Emergency PlanningL

.

1*T. Baker, Technical. Assistant

  • N. Carns, Director,-Nuclear Operations
  • L. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality NRC:
  • R. Haag,~ Resident. Inspector, ANO
  • A. Howe 11, Project Inspector, Region IV
  • Denotes those present at exit interview, The inspectors also held discussions with other station-and corporate-Lpersonnel in the areas of security, health physics, operations, training, and emergency response.

2.

Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701-02.01)

The inspec'tcrs noted that Revision 7 to the ANO Emergency Plan was made on August 30,-1988.~

Revision 7 was promptly submitted to NRC on September 23, 1988, and by letter dated November 18, 1988, NRC notified the licensee that the revision was acceptable.

The inspectors reviewed the effective dates versus the submittal date of 33 emergency plan implementing procedure (EPIP) changes made between June 1988 and June 30, 1989, and found that they had been submitted to

-

NRC within the required time. The inspectors also reviewed EPIP changes for content and determined that they did not decrease the effectiveness of the, Emergency Plan.

No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.

3.

Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies l.

(82701-02.02)-

l'

The inspectors toured the licensee's emergency response facilities (ERFs)

and'noted that they were adequately maintained and that equipment and supplies were in place in accordance with inventories.

No changes to

'

s m_

__

_

n

o

%.

,

.

,

.

'

facilities, equipment', instrumentation, or supplies have adversely c1

'

affected the licensee's emergency response posture.

j The inspectors observed that inventory lists were not available in

- equipment' lockers and field kits, and stated that"these would be useful to

'

M the' users.

No violations or deviations were identified in this p'rogram area.

4.

Organization and Management Control -(82701-02.03)

The inspectors reviewed the number and qualifications of the emergency

- preparedness staff and determined that recent reorganizations of AP&L did not appear to adversely effect the Emergency Preparedness

-

Coordinator (EPC) and his staff.

Presently, the staff is supervised by

'

the Manager of Training who reports to the General Manager of Technical Support who reports to the Vice President, Nuclear. As a consequence of the present reorganization, the EPC is one step closer to the Vice

President, Nuclear-. The licensee is presently attempting to fill a vacant

position ~ for an emergency planner under the EPC and is considering changing the title of the Manager of Training to Manager of Training and

. Emergency Preparedness to give a greater administrative visibility to the EPC.

The inspectors noted that the senior trainer working for the EPC had

,

been reassigned. The licensee stated that he would return to his position in the near future, j

No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.

5.

Training (82701-02.04)

The' inspectors interviewed'three teams consisting of Shift Supervisor

- and Shift Administrative Assistant; two teams consisting of Dose Assessment Supervisor and Dose Assessment Team Member; and one team consisting of an Offsite Monitoring Supervisor and one Emergency Radiation j

Team Member to determine their knowledge pertaining to'their duties during

!

emergency conditions.

]

The control room staff members were asked to classify certain emergency conditiens and make protective action recommendations. The inspectors

)

noted that all shift supervisors performed well, but that one shift supervisor underclassified the postulated accident conditions for the specific scenario presented. The licensee took immediate action to

,,

reschedule this individual for training on similar scenarios.

The interviewees were allowed.to use any reference material normally

.available to them.

The same questions were used for similar teams.

One

]

- ANO emergency preparedness staff member and, on occasion, a quality l

assurance inspector witnessed the interviews.

l

.

...

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _

,

.

_.

_

.

__

._

._

p*4 >

>

~-

,

L4-1;.:..-

l

j

,,

,

K

.,

'

The' inspectors provided the. team, with data necessary to perform a dose calculation and determined that they performed well..However, one. team L

'

didinot apper 'to have sufficient familiarity with the computer program in order that they could promptly perform dose projections and assessments.

p.

The licensee subsequently made arrangements for additional hands-on

'"E practice-for all dose assessors.

No' violations or deviations were identified in this program area.

i l

6.

Independent Audits -(82701-02.05)

The. inspectors noted that the QA department conducted an audit from April 27 to June 23, 1988,.to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t),

and a number of surveillance were conducted throughout 1988. QA Audit Report.QAP-13-88 documented two audit findings, made three recommendations for enhancement of the emergency program, and documented two observations.

The inspectors noted that corrective actions were initiated and completed

.!

on the audit findings. The inspectors also noted that additional

' emergency preparedness expertise, outside of the licensee's organization, was used to enhance the 1988 audit.

No violations or. deviations were identified in this program area.

7.

Exit Interview T'

inspectors. met with the resident inspector and licensee representatives in paragraph I above on June 29, 1989, and summarized toe-scope and findings of the inspection as presented in this report. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.

.

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _