IR 05000382/1999012
| ML20196E090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196E087 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-99-12, NUDOCS 9906280039 | |
| Download: ML20196E090 (18) | |
Text
-
.
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.: 50-382 License No.: NPF-38 Report No.: 50-382/99-12 i Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Facility: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Location: Hwy.18, Killona, Louisiana Dates: May 24-27,1999 Inspector (s): William A. Maier, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I Paul J. Elkmann, Emergency Preparedness Analyst, Region IV Approved By: Gail M. Good, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachment: Supplemental Information l
9906 M 37 990621 PDR A90CK 05000382 G PDR
.
-2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-382/99-12 A routine, announced inspection of the operational status of the licensee's emergency preparedness program was performed. The inspection included the following Areas: events, emergency preparedness facilities and equipment, emergency plan and implementing procedures, hurricane preparedness program, emergency response organization training, organization and management controls, audits, and effectiveness of corrective action Emphasis was placed on events and changes that had occurred since the last routine emergency preparedness inspectio Plant Support
=
The licensee has a well-implemented program with several strong elements, including facility readiness and maintenance, event response and followup, response staffing levels, qualification tracking, and independent program audits (Sections P1, P2.1, P6, and P7). j l
!
=
The licensee response to actual events was timely and complete. Lessons learned from actual events were successfully applied to licensee programs (Section P1).
- Emergency response facilities were v, ell maintained, and appropriate equipment and supplies were available. Communications and computer systems were verified to be operational. Surveillances and communication tests were regularly performed and problems were corrected (Section P2.1).
- Changes to the emergency preparedness program were appropriately incorporated into the licensee's emergency plan and implementing procedures. A good system was employed to track procedure and plan changes (Section P3.1).
= The licensee continued to have an innovative and highly effective hurricane preparedness program which continues to strive for improvement based on lessons i learned from actual events (Section P3.2).
- The two crews evaluated in the simulator walkthroughs generally performed satisfactorily, but one crew did not fully understand the offsite dose consequences of the simulated release. This performance did not meet the threshold for classification as an exercise weakness because the crew did communicate a protective action recommendation based on plant conditions that was accurate for the simulated offsite doses. Appropriate remedial actions were implemented for the individuals involved, and actions were planned to assess the other crews (Section P4.1).
- The licensee's evaluations and critiques of the crews' performances in the simulator walkthroughs were thorough and accurate (Section P4.1).
= One dose assessment team effectively performed the dose assessment function (Section P4.2).
.
-3-
- Emergency responders were adequately trained on recent changes to the onsite emergency preparedness program and on requirements for maintaining their position qualifications (Section P4.3).
= Training records showed that emergency response training was completed in a timely manner, and all emergency response organization members were maintaining required qualifications. Required drills and exercises were being conducted in a timely manne The training department identified the need to adjust the emergency preparedness training workload due to a reduction in the number of emergency preparedness instructors. Appropriate options were being developed to maintain all required training (Section PS).
- Changes in the emergency planning department's organization, loca ion, and reporting chain were not considered to adversely impact the emergency preparedness function.
'
Senior site management strongly supported emergency preparedness involvement by all site personnel (Section P6).
- The independent reviews of the emergency preparedness program were effective in identifying and documenting problems. Audit plans were comprehensive and met all regulatory requirements (Section P7.1).
- The licensee's corrective actions for a selected sample of condition reports were appropriately determined and implemented. One condition report was closed without performing an adequate apparent cause determination when one was required (Section P7.2).
.
A
.
-4-Report Details IV. Plant Support P1 Conduct of Emergency Preparedness Activities Insoection Scope (93702-02.03)
Inspectors reviewed documentation packages for the three emergency classifications that occurred since the previous routine emergency preparedness inspectio Inspectors also reviewed licensee event reports to determine whether events occurred that required classificatio Observations and Findinas The three events reviewed were unusual event classifications stemming from an offsite chemical release and Hurricanes Earl and Georges. The documentation packages were complete and clear. Initial and termination notifications to off-site authorities and notification of the emergency response organization were accomplished in a timely manner. Event logs and documentation were complete. The licensee performed a thorough post event critique following each event, identifying appropriate lessons-learned and corrective actions. The licensee showed the ability to quickly implement lessons from events, particularly in responding to Hurricane George The licensee event reports reviewed indicated that all events met notification requirements. No examples of event misclassification were identifie Conclusions The licensee showed the ability to properly classify emergency events and to implement the emergency plan as needed. The licensee response to actual events was timely and complete. Lessons learned from actual events were successfully applied to licensee program P2 Status of Emergency Preparedness Facilities, Equipment, and Resources P2.1 Emeraency Resoonse Facilities Inspection Scoce (82701-02.02)
Inspectors reviewed emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation, supplies, and surveillance / test procedures to determine whether facilities were maintained in a state of readiness. The following locations were assessed:
- Control room
- Operational support center
- Emergency operations f acility j
- Emergency notification system { sirens)
l
-5-b. Observations and Findinas inspectors found that the emergency response facilities were in a state of readines Procedures, plans, forms, and other documents were available and verified to be current. Radiological instruments were available, calibrated, and demonstrated to be operable. Communications and computer systems were verified to bo operationa In the control room, appropriate emergency plan documents, procedures, forms, and supplies were readily available and current. Computer and communications systems related to the emergency plan were operational. Respirator face masks were available in a variety of sizes and in good repair. Respirator eyeglass inserts were available for those licensed operators who required the The technical support center consisted of a dedicated command room with several multi-use rooms within the control room envelope. Appropriate emergency plan documents and supplies were available and current. Supplies in the multi-use areas were appropriately secured. Computer and communications systems were observed to be operational. While inspectors were present, one radio system was required to be reset; however, the backup system remained operational. The facility was observed to be maintained in a state of readines i l
l The operational support center storage area contained all the equipment listed on the inventory checklist. The operational support center command area was a dedicated room and ready for activation. Adequate procedures and plant reference material were staged in the area. No inoperable circuits were identified during a spot check of the l installed communication circuit The licensee had identified several backup locations for relocating the operational support center in the event adverse radiological conditions rendered the primary location uninhabitable. These backup locations were chosen in order to provide adequate azimuthal diversity from the most likely plant release locations. The administration building, generation support building, and skills training building were all either designated or under consideration as backup locations for the operational support center. The assignment of several backup locations for the operational support center showed the licensee's concern for protection of onsite response personne The emergency operations f acility consisted of a small number of dedicated rooms in the training facility, plus additional multi-function space that was taken over as neede The additional rooms were confirmed to be available and contained the equipment required for facility activatio Inspectors reviewed records of facility maintenance and inventories, routine communications tests, emergency notification system testing, and routine inventory of emergency response vehicles. All records were readily available, clear, legible, and complete. All required inventories and operational tests were completed as specified in licensee's procedures. Siren availability was between 95 percent and 99 percent over the period reviewe i
.
6- Conclusions Emergency response facilities were well maintained, and appropriate equipment and supplies were available. Communications and computer systems were verifiad to be operational. Surveillances and communication tests were being regularly performed and deficiencies correcte P3 Emergency Preparedness Procedures and Docu' mentation P Emeraency Plan and imolementina Procedures Insoection Scope (82701-02.01)
Inspectors evaluated the following areas to determine whether the emergency plan and implementing procedures were being maintained:
- Emergency plan changes
Annual emergency action level reviews by off-site authorities
- 50.54(q) review packages
Required emergency plan and procedure submissions to the NRC Observations and Findinas inspectors held discussions with licensee emergency preparedness staff about the licensee's method for maintaining the emergency plan and tracking emergency plan and implementing procedures. The draft, review, approval, and submission status was demonstrated fo.r several procedure changes currently in progress, inspectors confirmed that emergency action levels were reviewed annually with off-site authorities in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B. The licensee discussed emergency action levels as part of the annual training given for offsite agencies. Inspectors verified that this discussion was included in the applicable lesson plan and that training had been presente Inspectors reviewed five effectiveness determination packages for emergency plan and procedure changes. Packages were found to be descriptive, clear, and complete. All packages reviewed showed compliance with NRC regulation Inspectors reviewed the licensee's 1999 procedure /omergency plan revision / change lo All required submissions to the NRC were complete d within 30 days. The licensee's file that contained submission correspondence was complete and up to date, Conclusions Changes made to the emergency preparedness program were appropriately incorporated into the licensee's emergency plan and implementing procedures. A good system was employed to track procedure and plan change .
. l-7-P3.2 Hurricane Preparedness Insoection Scoce (82701-02.02)
The inspectors:
- Discussed the hurricane preparedness plan with the licensee's emergency ,
preparedness staff
- Interviewed senior site management representatives to determine their l involvement with hurricane response measures j
- Reviewed the hurricane preparedness plan and procedures
- Reviewed hurricane response-related materials provided as training to licensee j employees j
- Toured the storage area for hurricane supplies
)
- Toured the " hurricane war room" located in the maintenance support building i Observations and Findinas Licensee staff in all departments showed good awareness of the hurricane program and its roles. The licensee has had significant recent experience with hurricanes and has shown the ability to effectively critique its program and quickly incorporate lessons-learned. Communication equipment to be used for hurricane-type events was maintained ready for use. The licensee had upgraded this equipment as well as revised its hurricane response plan to more effscrively manage extended mobilization period Senior managers were knowledgeable in the lessons learned from past experiences, were experienced in hurricane tabletop drill participation with the off-site response agencies, and had aggressive expectations for personnel performance in hurricane response, Conclusions l
The licensee continued to have an innovative and highly offective humcane l
preparedness program that continues to strive for improvement based on lessons learned from actual event ,
P4 . Staff Knowledge and Performance in Emergency Preparedness P Simulator Walkthrouahs inspection Scoce (82701-02.04)
The inspectors observed two operating crews in the performance of emergency response activities for a simulated accident scenario that led to a general emergency
-
t l l-8-condition with an offsite release of radioactive material. The scenario evaluation
occurred on the plant-specific simulator in a dynamic scenario progression. The scenario was developed by the licensee organization and was designed to evaluate the onshift emergency response organization's performance in the following risk-significant emergency preparedness functions:
- Event assessment and classification
- Offsite agency notification
- Assessment of offsite dose consequences of radioactive material releases
- Development and communication of appropriate protective action recommendations for both on-site and off-site personne b. Observations and Findinas Both crews achieved all of the results necessary for the appropriate emergency response to the scenario. Both crews pedormed timely and correct event assessment, off-site agency notification, and protective action recommendations. There was, however, a disparity between the crew's ability to adequately assess off-site dose consequences of the radioactive material releas Specifically, while one crew properly characterized the extent of the off site doses at the various distances from the plant, the other crew erroneously underestimated the dose This error was due to the improper interpretation of the display screens for tne licensee's on-line computer-based dose assessment system. The crew incorrectly interpreted the main steam radiation monitor reading of 500 mR/hr as the calculated total effective dose equivalent for the whole body at the exclusion area boundar Projected doses at this boundary and beyond were actually in excess of Environmental Protection Agency protective action guideline i in arriving at this erroneous conclusion, the crew made four errors: (1) the data initially was incorrectly read off the display; (2) the peer check of the data failed to detect this error; (3) in failing to seek a thyroid committed dose equivalent value for further i consideration of the adequacy of protective actions, the crew demonstrated unfamiliarity I with the concept that two different projected dose values need to be considered; and (4) when the on-line dose assessment system printed out projected off-site doses that were significantly greater than the value assumed, the crew failed to adequately I
investigate the reason for the discrepancy and whether expansion of protective action recommendations were warrante Despite the fact that the crew's assessment of off-site dose consequences was unsatisfactory,its performance did not preclude effective implementation of the emergency plan in the event of an actual emergency. The crew did communicate a protective action recommendation based on plant conditions that was accurate for the simulated off-site doses. Therefore, this performance issue did not meet the threshold for classification as an exercise weaknes j j
-9-Although the crew's observed performance did not constitute an exercise weakness, the errors in the interpretation of offsite dose consequences represented a knowledge deficiency in a risk-significant area of emergency preparedness. Due to the limited sample size, the inspectors could not determine whether or not the knowledge deficiency was present among other operating crew The licensee evaluated the scenarios in parallel with the inspectors and also identified the knowledge deficiency noted above. The emergency planning n anager initiated formal corrective action to determine the extent of the problem. Emergency planning Action item 99-034 was initiated to observe operating crew performance in classes and simulator scenarios to determine the extent of the problem. This action was planned to be followed up with discussions and training on the use of the control room dose assessment program and quizzes using dose assessment problems. Separate from the actions specified in the action item, remedial training was prescribed for the individuals i observe The licensee conducted formal critiques following the simulator scenarios. The crew performed a candid self-assessment and documented commitments for improvemen The evaluators' comments were detailed. Several suggestions for improvement were raised and captured by the licensee for followu Conclusions The two crews evaluated in the simulator walkthroughs generally performed satisfactorily, but one crew did not fully understand the offsite dose consequences of the simulated release. This performance did not meet the threshold for classification as an exercise weakness because the crew did communicate e protective action recommendation based on plant conditions that was accurate for the simulated offsite doses. Appropriate remedial actions were implemented for the individuals involved, and actions were planned to assess the other crews. The licensee's evaluations and critiques of the crews' performances in the simulator y alkthroughs were thorough and accurate.
P4.2 Dose Assessment Team Walkthrouah 1 Inspection Scoce (82701-02.04)
The inspectors conducted a dose assessment walkthrough with one emergency operations facility dose assessment team, consisting of three individuals. Data for a typical release scenario were presented to prompt demonstration of dose assessment activitie Observations and Findinas The team worked well together and successfully completed a postulated scenario that included meteorology data, plant monitor data, and results from environmental monitoring teams. The emergency operations facility dose assessment team showed good knowledge of its facility, equipment, and procedure .
-10- Conclusion One dose assessment team effectively performed the dose assessment functio P4.3 Emeraency Responder Interviews a.' Inspection Scope (82701-02.04)
The inspectors interviewed members of two operating crews as well as several senior emergency responders to determine their knowledge of training requirements and assessment of the adequacy of their emergency preparedness trainin Observations and Findinas The operating crews and the senior responders interviewed were familiar with the training requirements needed to maintain their qualifications. The individuals were familiar with the method for notification of requahfication deadlines and knowledgeable of recent changes to the onsite emergency preparedness program that affected their emergency response organization positions. The individuals were also knowledgeable of requirements for drill participation to maintain qualification Conclusions Emergency responders were adequately trained on recent changes to the on site emergency preparedness program and requirements for maintaining their position qualification P5 Staff Training and Qualification in Emergency Preparedness i Inspection Scoce (82701)
Inspectors reviewed the emergency response organization training program, training records for selected individuals, lesson plans, and training documents, inspectors also reviewed files and records associated with drills and exercise Observations and Findinas Training records indicated that individuals were being property trained, and all records examined were complete and up to date. Expiration dates for required training were easy to determine, and training status was being tracke Program lesson plans were governed and developed by training department j procedures. A training department self assessment identified that there was no formal !
process to identify emergency plan and procedure changes that required lesson plan changes. This self-assessment finding was being properly tracked in the licensee's corrective action system for resolutio .
-11 -
Two instructors were currently assigned to emergency response organization trainin Instructors were required to maintain instructor credentials per training department procedures. The current instructors had extensive station experience and substantial background in nuclear training. Under the ongoing licensee reorganization, the number of instructors will be reduced to one (the more experienced instructor planned to retire).
Training department management indicated that the training load would exceed one instructor's ability to complete, and options were being developed to move some parts of the training programs to other instructors (e.g., operational support center training for radiation protection technicians to the requalification program for radiation protection technicians, increased use of subject matter experts as instructors). Details of how the required training would be delivered had not been finalize Inspectors confirmed that required radiological, chemistry, and medical drills were properly conducted. Critiques were performed following each drill, and appropriate action items identified and tracked. The licensee drill program included elements of these specific drills in many site-wide drill c. Conclusions Training records showed that emergency response training was completed in a timely manner, and all emergency response organization members were maintaining required qualifications. Required drills and exercises were being conducted in a timely manne The training department has identified the need to adjust the emergency preparedness training workload due to a reduction in the number of emergency preparedness instructors. Appropriate options were being developed to maintain all required trainin P6 Emergency Preparedness Organization and Administration
, a. insoection Scope (82701-02.03)
To evaluate emergency planning department staffing changes, emergency response organization staffing, and overall management program support, the inspectors:
- Reviewed the roster for the emergency response organization
= Interviewed the emergency planning manager, director of nuclear training and emergency preparedness, and general manager of plant operations b. Observations and Findinos The inspectors noted that there were no positions on the emergency response roster i with fewer than three qualified responders. Some positions had as many as six qualified responders. The licensee has implemented the duty roster concept of staffing its emergency response organization so that responders are informed of the need to terr ain available and fit for dut Since the last NRC inspection, a change was made in the reporting chain for the emergency planning department. Emergency planning previously reported to the site
.
.
-12-support division and currently reported to the director of training and emergency planning. This change was a lateral move for the emergency planning department within the site organization. The inspectors determined that this lateral move did not decrease the emergency planning department's stature within the site organization. The department remained as accessible to senior site management as it had previously bee As part of the change in reporting chain, the emergency planning department was scheduled to change the location of its work area from the site credit union building to the nuclear training center. This change was scheduled to occur immediately after this inspection. The training ' center is located approximately a mile from the site, whereas the site credit union building is just outside the protected are The emergency planning manager thought the move to the training center would enable the staff to exercise greater oversight of the collocated emergency operations facilit I This facility required increased oversight to ensure its readiness, since it was not a dedicated facility. The emergency planning manager recognized that moving further away from the other emergency response facilities would increase the need to oversee the readiness of those facilities. However, since they are dedicated and, in some cases, locked facilitico, the emergency planning manager did not foresee any adverse results l
of this move. The inspectors agreed with this assessmen The emergency planning manager informed the inspectors of another planned change j in organizational resources for the emergency planning department (administrative j support). This planned change was part of the site-wide reorganization and was not expected to impact the strength of departmental technical resource Interviews with both the director of nuclear training and emergency planning and the general manager of plant operations revealed that they both were knowledgeable of the status of ine emergency planning function on site and future challenges. Both were qualified as members of the emergency response organization and had interacted extensively with off-site response agencies in drills and meetings. In addition both senior managers also had expressed their expectations that emergency response was a duty of all site worker c. Conclusions Changes in the emer0ency planning department's organization, location, and reporting chain were not considered to adversely impact the emergency preparedness functio Senior site management strongly supported emergency preparedness involvement by all site personne l s
&
-13-P7 Quality Assurance in Emergency Preparedness Activities P7.1 Indeoendent Annual Reviews Inspection Scope (82701-02.05)
The inspectors reviewed the last 2 years' independent reviews of the emergency preparedness program (Audit Reports SA-98-026.1 and SA-98-026.2) and interviewed the director of quality and the lead auditor for the review Observations and Findinas The teams for the reviewed audit reports consisted of quality assurance personnel and technical experts who were from other Entergy sites or utilities. The other team members had no involvement with the implementation of the emergency planning program at Waterford other than being members of the emergency response organization. The director of quality was also an emergency response organization member but did not exercise any influence with the outcome of the audits from the time they had begun until the report was approved. The auditors who performed the annual emergency planning review were sufficiently independent from program implementatio Both audit reports were covered by systematic plans. These audit plans drew upon a wide range of references such as: (1) the Final Safety Analysis Report, (2) timely topics such as year 2000 diagnostic efforts in emergency planning computer applications, (3)
recent NRC generic correspondence topics such as respiratory protection requirements for emergency responders, (4) and the effectiveness of corrective actions for previously identified problems. The audit plan also incorporated topics req;ested by the emergency planning manager. The audit plans included the items required by NRC regulations. The audit plans were comprehensive and items reviewed were based on a diverse collection of references and requirement Audit reports were detailed, and the audit team used the licensee's problem identification system to capture the more serious negative findings for corrective actio Interviews with audit personnel indicated that the content of the audit findings remained intact throughout the review process and was not subjected to management revision or negotiation with the audited groups. The audit reports were widely disseminated among senior site management, other Entergy sites, and the offsite emergency response authorities, as required by 10 CFR 50.54(t). The audit reports were an accurate and objective assessment of the emergency planning department's performance and were given high visibility among licensee managemen Conclusions The independent reviews of the emergency preparedness program were effective in !
identifying and documenting problems. Audit plans were comprehensive and met all regulatory requirement P
,-
.
-14-P7.2 Effectiveness of Licensee Controls Insoection Scooe (82701-02.06)
The inspectors reviewed the following condition reports to determine the adequacy of correction actions:
- CR-WF3-1998-48 failure of emergency notification system phone circuit-
- - CR-WF3-1998-599 public information materials delivered to wrong residents
- CR-WF3-1998-793 national weather service radio found turned off
- - CR-WF3-1998-998 two employees listed in emergency management resources book whose qualifications had expired
- CR-WF3-1998-1258 emergency operations facility diesel failed to load during a power outage a CR-WF3-1998-1558 twenty emergency response organization personnel did not participate in a drillin 1998 = Observations and Findinas With one exception, the above condition reports were effectively processed and j appropriate corrective actions specified. One condition report was classified as ]
l requiring an apparent cause determination, but the condition report was closed out without this determination being made. A response from the involved department was solicited and obtained, but it merely identified the nature of the problem and referenced corrective actions for an earlier, similar condition report. Despite the fact that the required apparent cause determination was not adequaialy documented for this
- condition report, the proposed corrective action plan adequately addressed the situation as described in the condition repor , onclusions The licensee's corrective actions for a selected sample of condition reports were i
'
appropriately determined and implemented. One condition report was closed without performing an adequate apparent cause determination when one was require l V. Manaaement Meetinas ,
X1 Exit Meeting Sunimary ,
l i
The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at an exit meeting on May 27,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. No proprietary information was identified, i
.
ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee E. Beckendorf, Supervisor, Plant Security A. Bergeron, Chemistry Superintendent G. Bourgeois, Quality Assurance Specialist M. Brandon, Licensing Supervisor C. DeDeaux, Sr., Licensing Supervisor E. Ewing, Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs G. Fey, Supervisor, in-house Events Analysis J. Fields, Senior Emergency Planner .
R. Fletcher, Operations Training Supervisor "
A. Harris, Plant Engineering Manager J. Hoffpauir, Operations Manager M. Huskey, Senior Emergency Planner T. Leonard, General Manager, Plant Operations T. Lett, Radiation Protection Superintendent J. Lewis, Emergency Planning Manager ,
B. Matherne, Supervisor, Technical Training i B. Morrison, Quality Assurance Supervisor J. O'Hern, Director, Training and Emergency Preparedness R. Perry, Offsite Emergency Planning Coordinator G. Pierce, Director, Quality
]
i R. Prados, Senior Lead Licensing Engineer G. Scott, Licensing Engineer H. Shrum, Operations Assistant Superintendent O. Tucker, Year 2000 Embedded Lead J. Williams, Chemistry Technician ,
l NRC J. Nicholas, Senior Radiation Specialist INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 82701: Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedriess Program IP 93702: Prompt Onsite Response to Events at Power Reactors
.
.
-2-ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened-None Closed None Discussed None LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED j EP-002-050 Dose Projections Based on Plant Monitoring Revision 15, Data Attachment EP-003-040 . Emergency Equipment Inventory Revision 20 EP-003-070 Emergency Communications Systems Routine Revision 19 Testing EPP-429 Duty Emergency Planner- Revision 0 W2.300 Review of Changes Affecting the Quality Revision 0 .
Assurance Program, Licensed Operator l Requalification Program, Security Plan, and the Emergency Plan WG.102 Emergency Preparedness Hurricane Policy Revision 1 W6.103 Hurrin. ? Preparation / Response Guidelines Revision 3
'
- W6.103 Hurricane Policy and Preparation / Response Revision 4 [ Draft)
Guidelines Actual Event Packaaes
- Hurricane Earl,98-01,9/1/98
= Union Carbide Naphtha Releace,9/10/98,98-02
- Hurricane Georges,9/26/98,98 03 Waterford-3 Quality Assurance Audit Report SA-98-026.2, Radiological Emergency Plan
!
..
.
3-Drill and Exercise Reports -
- ~ Control Room Breathing Air Drill,98-03, March 16,1998
- Near Site Callout Drill,98-04, March 23,1998
- Site Drill,98-05, April 5,1998
- Joint Hurricane Preparedness Tabletop, June 11,1998
- Site Drill,98-09, July 15,1998 3
- FEMA Report on Off-site Medical Drill, July 15,1998 )
- On-site Callout Drill,98-10, July 27,1998
= EOF Callout Tree Drill,98-11, August 18,1998
- PASS Drill,98-15, October 26,1998
- Site Drill,98-14, December 9,1998
- Control Room Breathing Air Drill,98-13. December 17,1998
- Fire Brigade Drill Scenario and Critique, NTP-202 Revision 7, Attachment * December 7,1998 l
- February 4,1999
- February 9,1999 ,
'
- February 11,1999
- February 22,1939
- Joint Hurricane Preparedness Tabletop, May 5,1999 1999 Drill and Tabletop Schedule (dated 1/22/99)
10 CFR 50.54(a) Emeroency Plan Checklist
- Emergency Plan Departmental Reporting Functions
= EPP-001-010, Unusual Event, Revision 21
- EP-002-100, Technical Support Center Activation, Operation and Deactivation, Revision 26
- Waterford-3 SES Emergency Plan, Revision 24 Emeraency Facility Readiness Checklists. EPP-428. Revision 1. Attachments 7.1 throuah and 7.10
- January 1999 through March 1999 (monthly)
- First Quarter 1999 I
Emeraency Vehicle Checklist. EP-428. Revision 1. Attachment l
- January 1999 through March 1999 [ monthly] ;
i
!
l
a.
r ..
-4-Emeraency Communication Test Sheet. EP-003-070. Revision 15. Attachment * January 1998 through April 1999 [ monthly]
Alert / Notification Reoort ISiren Testinal
- First Quarter 1998 through First Quarter 1999 [ quarterly)
- January 1999 through March 1999 [ monthly)
- September 29,1998 [ post Hurricane Georges]
Trainina Records
- Selected Emergency Response Organization members
- Area Industry Training,2/3/98
- Media Training,4/9/98
- Training for Medical Response Organization (WJMC),6/10/98
- State and Parish Response Organization Training,7/23/98
- Training for Medical Response Organization (St. Charles Hospital),9/9/98
- Training for Medical Response Organization (Ochsner Hospital),10/14/98
- Area Industry Training,2/2/99 Lesson Plan W-3-SEM-EP-State. Emeraency Plan Trainina for the State and Parish Response Oraanizations. Revision 3. 2/23/98
- 1998 Hurricane Season Preparedness Activities [ checklist)
- 1999 Hurricane Season Preparedness Activities [ checklist]
- Draft Y2K Integrated Contingency Plan, Version 9.3,5/19/99
- Waterford 3 Quality Assurance Audit SA 98-035.1, Computer Codes and Software, W3H3-98-0070 A4.07,7/16/98
- Use As is Report, Y2KAl WF3-0206, Control Room Dose Assessment Program (CRDAP)
Emeroency Manaaement Resources Book
- On-site Emergency Organization
- Near-site E:mergency Organization
- Emergency News Center Organization Emergency Planning Information (Web Site Contents),
i L I