IR 05000382/1985015

Insp Rept 50-382/85-15 on 850506-10.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Program

ML20126J049
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	06/12/1985
From:	Baird J, Constable G, Hackney C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126J039	List: IR 05000382/1985015 ML20126J035
References
50-382-85-15, NUDOCS 8506180508
Download: ML20126J049 (4)

Text

-

.

APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/85-15 License: NPF-38 Docket: 50-382

'

Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L)

142 Delaronde Street

'New Orleans, Louisiana 70174

'

l Facility Name: Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (SES)

Inspection At: Waterford 3 SES Site near Killona, Louisiana Inspection Conducted: May 6-10, 1985 j

Inspector: dcA C MmL w C. A. Hackney, Eme'gency r Prep) redness Analyst G- I1 - FI Date

'

Approved: h [ b 4 w r/

J.vB. Baird, Chief,' Emergency Preparedness Section 4/f.2 /7tr Date

'

I 4. ,1

-

[ [

G. L. Constable, Chief, Project Section B Date

'

Reactor Project Branch 1

. Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted May 6-10, 1985 (Report 50-382/85-15)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's emergency preparedness program. The inspection involved 47 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Within the emergency response areas inspected, no violations o'r deviations were identifie y2

.

'

DR ADOCK O l

l . _ . . - - .

i

.

.

-2-l DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel

• R. P. Barkhurst, Plant Manager

• S. A. Allemans, Assistant Plant Manager

• R. G. Azzarello, Emergency Planning Manager

• P. N. Backes, Operation Assurance Manager

• D. Packer, Training Manager State of Louisiana A. Bordelon, Louisiana Office Emergency Preparedness D. A. Zaloudek, Louisiana Nuclear Energy Division S. B. Greenwich, Louisiana Nuclear Energy Division St. Charles Parish J. Lucas, Emergency Preparedness Director St. John The Baptist Parish B. F. Madere, Emergency Preparedness Director NBC

• T. A. Flippo, Resident Inspector The NRC inspector also held discussions with other station and corporate personnel in the areas of operations, emergency response organization, quality assurance, and training.

'

• Denotes those present at the exit interview.

l Program Review The NRC inspector reviewed Section VI of the Nuclear Operations Manual and held discussions with selected Quality Assurance personnel concerning the emergency preparedness program review. The licensee had not developed a

,

review program. This area will be inspected during a future inspectio Drill and exercise reports were reviewed to determine critique information and weaknesses that had been identified. The licensee had implemented an

, action item list to track recommended items 'for improvement that had been

! identified following their drills and exercises. However, it was noted that the action item list contained areas for improvement that had been on the tracking system for approximately a year. The NRC inspector recommended that the licensee expedite taking corrective action on identified areas l of weakness and improvemen No violations or deviations were identified.

. -

- ,_ , , - _ - -

-. _ , . _ _ _ .

. . . _ -_ . _ -.

-

.

.

'

-3-

' Changes To The Emergency Plan

,

The NRC inspector reviewed the Nuclear Services Procedure titled, " Review

-

and Approval of Revision to Licensing Documents." The NRC inspector noted Section 5.4 stated that the emergency planning department would evaluate all changes to the emergency plan. Further, their review would assure that changes to the emergency plan would not decrease the effectiveness and safety of the emergency plan. The NRC inspector noted that proposed changes to the emergency plan are reviewed and approved by the emergency planning manager and forwarded to the plant operations review committee

, (PORC) for review. Upon completion of their review, the plan changes are sent to the plant manager for his review and approva The NRC inspector reviewed selected changes to the emergency plan and emergency plan implementing procedures. Of the documents reviewed, all documents appeared to have been appropriately processed. It was noted that of those documents reviewed, all had been submitted to the NRC within

'

the specified time of 30 day No violations or deviations were identified.

, Knowledge and Performance of Duties The NRC inspector reviewed selected documents as they related to the i emergency preparedness training program. In particular, general employee,

, off-site agency, persons within the owner controlled area, and key j emergency response personnel records were reviewed. Also, walkthroughs j were conducted with selected operations shift supervisors and. nuclear auxiliary operators.

~

The refresher training courses outlined in a memorandum from D. Packer to R. Azzarello dated May 9, 1985, were used by the NRC inspector as a basis for evaluating emergency personnel retraining requirements. The NRC inspector compared selected station personnel training records with the required retraining program and determined that appropriate personnel had received the required training.

l Walkthroughs were conducted with operations representatives from three shifts. The individuals were given various incidents to determine their capability to detect, classify, and make notifications to offsite 1 ' agencies. The operations personnel were knowledgeable in areas of responsibility, offsite notifications, and communications. However, two persons required prompting to make emergency classification. Further, two i of the persons did not appear to have been familiar with using the l

emergency action level procedures and making emergency classification However, the NRC inspector noted that these difficulties appeared to be partially caused by the shift supervisors being interrupted several times during the walkthroughs due to plant personnel operating the plant at 80 percent full power for the first time. Operations personnel were u

!

o

. -- .. .-- . - - , - . . - - _- - - _

. . _ . -

.

, . .

-4-requesting permission to perform tasks and the shift supervisors had to

, authorize the work orders. This area will be evaluated again during a future inspectio The NRC inspector recommended that the licensee provide additional emergency detection and classification training for operations personne Selected persons outside the protected area, and on the owner controlled l property, were also interviewed to determine their responsibilities during '

an emergency. Persons interviewed were knowledgeable in exit routes, assembly areas, and evacuation routes from the plan No violations or deviations were identified.

I 5. Scenario Planning Meeting

>

The scenario development committee met to discuss the objectives for the 1985 Waterford 3 SES exercise with the State of Louisiana, and the two

<

Parishes. The meeting was conducted by a representative from LP&L, Mr. R. Azzarello. Committee representatives were requested to review the scenario objectives and make recommendations for improvements. The scenario objectives were read to the committee and each person was given the opportunity to make changes or comment on the proposed scenario objectives. The NRC inspector indicated that the scenario committee

'

should review comments made by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

and the NRC following the previous exercis The comments made by FEMA and the NRC should be included as exercise objective No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The exit interview was held May 10, 1985. The exit interview was '

l conducted by Mr. C. A. Hackney, Emergency Preparedness Analyst, with Mr. T. A Flippo, NRC Resident Inspector in attendance. The licensee was represented by Mr. R. Barkhurst, Plant Manager, and his staff. The licensee was given an oral summary of the inspector's findings, observations, and comments, The inspector stated that there was an unresolved item concerning thesoperations personnel's apparent unfamiliarity with the emergency detection and classification procedures. The NRC inspector stated that Region IV management would review and determine the status of the finding. This item was subsequently resolved as an area to be evaluated during a future inspection (see paragraph 4).

!

!

!

t f'

_, _ __ _,_ .__ _

_ _