IR 05000382/1989033
| ML19324B713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1989 |
| From: | Powers D, Spitzberg D, Terc N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324B710 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-89-33, NUDOCS 8911080060 | |
| Download: ML19324B713 (6) | |
Text
<
w
,
>
>
- 6,
>
g;,
s o
"
'i
!,
i
-7; g
,,
a e*
t
,
e,.
.
s
,
.
_e y,.
.
'
,
.. cv
,c
,
9. r t
- \\
.
,,
s
.
,
,p
- <
b
'
0, APPEND $X'
$
'
,,
.
,
,
.,
.
F
lU.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
'
!.
, ',
'
REGION'IV
!
"
L
!
'
.
,
J
$.
. NRC ' Inspection Report:
S0-382/89-33 Operating License:
[
'
<
,
Docket:
50-382~
N l
~
,
L
,
h[L Licensee:
Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L)
'c 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana. 70160
.
y
.
.
'
[
,
' Facility Name: Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station (WSES-3).
,
.
P'
. Inspection At: WSES-3 near'Killona,~ Louisiana
,
"
.
s Inspection; Conducted:
October 2-6, 1989
.
<
,
/#/M//7
- Inspectors:
'
O
'l
,
.'
'
. Nemen'M. Terc, Emergency Preparedness Analyst.
Date
,
,
Security and Emergency Preparedness Section j
!
h uMAS h M/w//f
'
D. Blair Spitzberg, Emergency Preparedness Date
,;
Analyst, Security and Emergency Preparedness Section Approved:
wh
- /2fM
'
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chief, Security and Date.
t
.
Emergency Preparedness Section
~
.,
Insr<ction' Summary i
s.
. Inspection Conducted October 2-6, 1989 (Report 50-382/89-33)
i 4+.
' ! Areas Inspected:
Routine,unknnouncedinspectionoftheoperationalstatusof
.the emergency preparedness program, includi' g changes to the emergency plan and n
' implementing procedures, emergency facilitics, equipment, instrumentation, and i
L
'c
' supplies.
The. inspection also included organization and management control,
!
' independent audits of the. emergency preparedness program, and training of emergency response personnel.
p
,
O T.
,' _
.
t
,,
Results: ";Within the arear, inspected, no violations or deviations were
-
' identified.
The inspectors determined that:
changes to the emergency plan and B
implementing procedures did not adversely impact the licensee's emergency p
readiness program; facilities, equipment, and supplies were readily available
.
~
I h, 8911080060 891101
PDR ADOCK 05000382 O
PNU l
n.
s x
-
,
'
..
B.
,
r 3,
-
g
>
'
.,i.
I c';. y
..
~!
'
'
[
.
i i..
'
. g.,
.{
'
<.
.
v
'
6 ',
<
- .
,
ic
!
[--
and'in good operating condition; emergency planners were well qualified to
'
!
maintain'the program; training of emergency responders was adequate; and
,
p independent audits by the quality assurance department assured compliance
,
jL with NRC requirements.
i O
.
.
.
.;
L.
.
The' inspectors concluded, based on the results.of this inspection, that.the
.
operational status of the emergency preparedness program at WSES-3 was
adequate.
<
5=
l r
,
t
,
L
.;
"
.i
.
'
I
'
i l
s
,
I.
r
P I,
!L '
f s.'
i
,,
'
,
m y.
'
L t
!
I l
.
,
f P
>
'
L.,
,.
,
'l l.
.
.
lI r
.. -- -.. - - ---_-_.,-..- - - ---- - --
i
~
!
,
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee
- D Davis, Manager, Event Analysis Reporting
- F. Englebracht, Manager, Nuclear Emergency Plan and Records
- M. Langan, Technical Training Supervisor
- R. Perry, Offsite Emergency Pitnning Coordinator
- J. McGaha, Plant Manager, Nuclear
- D. Baker, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support and Assessment
- J. Lewis, Onsite Emergency Planning Coordinator
- L. Laughlin, Site Licensing Supervisor
- A. Lockhart, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance
- P. Prasankumar, Assistant Plant Manager, Technical Services NRC f
- T. Staker, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspectors also held discussions with other station and corporate personnel in the areas of security, health physics, operations, training, and emergency response.
2.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701-02.01)
The inspectors reviewed significant or major changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures to verify that these changes have not adversely affected the licensee's overall state of emergency preparedness.
The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's emergency preparedness program
.
to verify if major or significant changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures had been reviewed, approved, and distributed in accordance with licensee's procedures and 10 CFR 50.54(q) requirements.
The inspectors reviewed changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures and determined that they had been submitted to NRC within the 10 CFR 50.54(q) statutory limit of 30 days af ter implementation of changes.
During the period from October 1988 through Saptember 1989, the licensee made I change to the emergency plan and 20 changes to the emergency plan implementing procedures (EPIPs).
The inspectors reviewed changes for content and determined that they did not decrease the effectiveness of the licensee's emergency plan.
No vialations or deviations were identified in this program are :
L o
.,
L
3.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies
~
(82701-02.02)
The inspectors toured key emergency facilities and equipment to verity that they were adequately maintained, and to determine if changes made since the last inspection were technically adequate, met NRC requirements, met licensee commitments, were appropriately incorporated into the emergency plan and implementing procedures, and had no adverse effect on the licensee's emergency readiness.
The inspectors noted that emergency response facilities were equipped in accordance with the licensee's emergency procedures, equipment was in p
place and operable, and adequate supplies were available.
No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.
4.
Organization and Management Control (82701-02.03)
The inspectors reviewed the emergency organization and/or management control systems to determine if changes have been properly incorporated into the emergency plan and implementing procedures and have not adversely affected the licensee's emergency response readiness.
The inspectors reviewed the number and qualifications of the emergency i
preparedness staff and found them to be properly qualified to perform
'
their duties. The inspectors noted that the site Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (EPC) a.i other emergency planning staff were presently supervised by the nselear emergency preparedness and records manager who was directly involved in emergency planning and devoted most of his time to supervising emergency planning.
He reports to the Nuclear Services l
Manager who is directly under the Senior Vice President - Nuclear
,
Operations, i
No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.
5.
Training (82701-02.04)
,
i The inspectors reviewed the training of emergency responders to verify if j
changes to the program since the last inspection were incorporated into I
the training program, to determine if emergency responders were aware of l
such changes, understood them, and hac been properly trained to implement i
them.
The inspectors also interviewed a small sample of selected key emergency responders.
'
The inspectors reviewed the training program for emergency responders, including course descriptions, lesson plans, and requalification
,
i requirements. A review of the most recent computer database training records indicated that persons interviewed during this inspection had
!
received the required training to perform their emergency response dutie I
!
i t
..
.
.
-
,
-
5-i
.-
>
The inspectors interviewed four teams each consisting of the Shift
Supervisor, Control Room Supervisor, Shift Technical Advisor, and Auxiliary Operator who acted as notifier / communicator to determine their knowledge pertaining to their duties during emergency conditions.
The interviewees were interviewed in the simulator and in the technical support center (TSC). They were allowed to use any reference material that would normally be available to them.
Each interview lasted r
tpproximately 90 minutes.
The same questions were used for all teams.
Several emergency preparedness, quality assurance, and training staff members witnessed the interviews.
The control room staff members were asked various technical questions, to classify certain emergency conditions, perform dose assessment, and make protective recommendations.
The inspectors noted that all teams performed well, although the
'
inspectors made some observations as follows:
One shif t technical advisor (STA), as contrasted with the others, was not aware of the existence of EP-2-052, " Protective Action Guidelines."
'
The projection of radiation doses offsite using the nomogram method demanded a group effort.
During real accident conditions, this would distract decision makers from other vital concerns.
,
.
When these observations were preser.ted to the iicensee's management, the licensee's management agreed to examine responsibilities and priorities demanded from STAS to determine whether they should be required to train on protective actions recommendations.
In addition, the licensee decided r
to substitute the use of the manual nomogram dose assessment method by a personal computer in order to allow operators more time for other critical aspects of emergency response during the initial phases of accident development.
No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.
6.
Independent Audits (82701-02.05)
The inspectors examined independent and internal audit reports for the i
l licensee's emergency preparedness program since the last inspection to l
determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t), and to determine whether licensee commitments and protective actions were implemented in a timely manner.
The inspectors also examined the licensee's audit program to determine if it had a corrective action system for deficiencies and weaknesses identified during drills and exercises and l
to ascertain whether appropriate corrective actions were implemented in a timely manner.
The inspectors reviewed the annual quality assurance audit of the emergency preparedness orogram to see if it met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t).
The indepe ident review was performed by one certified
i
<
t
'
.....
V
'
,
-6-
< -
.
,
A auditor'during the period January 15 to February 16, 1989.
The audit included:
review of drills and exercises, the status of emergency action-item tracking, emergency plan implementing procedures, emergency facilities, training of emergency responders, and interfaces with the state and local governments. The audit incorporated the results of 11 surveillances of exercises and drills.
The inspectors noted that the scope and depth of the audit appeared to
'
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspectors offered the observation that the quality assurance auditors were not using resources available to them in the form of assistance from emergency planners in other utilities. The licensee acknowledged this fact and stated that they would enhance the next audit by using such outside resources.
No violations or deviations were identified in this program area.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the resident inspector and licensee representatives denoted in paragraph I above on October 6, 1989, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as presented in this report. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials previded to or reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
i l
!
l
!
\\
i
<
l
,
i