IR 05000416/1990016
| ML20058A255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1990 |
| From: | Rankin W, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A249 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-90-16, NUDOCS 9010250358 | |
| Download: ML20058A255 (8) | |
Text
{
l l
UNt1 LX1 AT EG f
[, p #80g*g*
.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS::lON
f
Rt 0l014 il
101 MARitTT A $1Rt ET. N.W.
'*
ATLANT A. GE ORGI A 30323
- %
/
- ...*
(CT11Ipp Report No.:
50-416/90-16 Licensee: System Energy Resources, Inc.
Jackson, MS 39205 Docket No.:
50-416 License No.: NPF-29 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Inspection Conducted: Au ust 27-31, 1990 Inspector:
[@
/C//O/96
~,
W. Sartor, Jr.
F~
Date Sitndd Accompanying Personnel:
H. Christensen G. Maxwell J. Will (PNL)
N/t
/
0 Approved by:
W. Rankin, Chief
/~ ~ ~~ ~
Dpte, Signed
~~
Emergency Preparedness Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection involved the observation and evaluation of the annual emergency preparedness exercise.
Emergency organization activation and response were selectively observed in the Control Roem, Technical Support Center (TSC), Operational Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations facility (E0F). The inspection also included a review of the exercise scenario and observation of the licensee's post exercise critique.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
One exercise weakness was identified for failure of the exercise scenario as observed to sufficiently challenge the emergency organization (Paragraph 2).
Additionally, the licensee's critique identified items needing corrective action which included delayed repair team response, discrepancies with the time specified for emergency classification notifications, and incomplete information flew between emergency facilities (Paragraph 12),
c 9010250350 901011 i
PDR ADOCK 05000416
'
O PNV
]
-
-.- _
--
.
,
.
,
,
,4
.
,
m
"
REPORT DETAILS
.
[
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D Ables, Senior Nuclear Instructor, Training
- W. Abraham, Compliance Coordinator, Plant Licensing
'
- *W. Cottle, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- J. Craika, Project Manager, Plant Projects and Support
- J. Dimmett, Manager, Plant Maintenance
- T. Hildebrandt, Radiation Protection Superintendent
- *C, Hutchinson, Plant Manager
- M. Kavanaugh, Senior Emergency Planner
- F. Mangan, Director, Plant Projects and Support
- A. Morgan, Emergency Preparednr.ss Manager
- J. Parrish, Manager, Plant Optrations
,
- J. Roberts, Manager,'Performaace and Systems' Engineering
- J. Summers, Compliance Coord'nator, Plant Licensing
- T. Tinney, Mechnical Superintendent, Plant Maintenance
^,.
- T. Wilkerson, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- M. Wright Training Superintendent
- G. Zinke, Plant Licensing Superintendent Other licensee employees. contacted - during -this inspection included engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
.
.;
NRC Resident Inspectors
- H. Christensen
- J. Mathis-
- Attended exit interview
.2.
.ExerciseScenario(82302)
.
The scenario for the emergency exercise-was reviewed to determine that provisions had been made to test the integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within the licensee, State, and local Emergency Plans' and organization as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14),
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section ll.N.
The scenario was reviewed in advance of the scheduled exercise date and L
.was discussed with licensee' representatives.
Scenario concerns that were provided to thel licensee included the lack'of challenge to the' emergency organization. because no radiological plume was released to test offsite -
monitoring teams (0MTs), protective action recommendations (PARS) were not l,
~L
<
.
.
e
.
,
l required, and dose assessment would be minimal.
The licensee responded r
'that the exercise was planned to be challenging from an operational
,
L perspective end that the OMTs would be challenged with a low Specific Activity (LSA) trash spill as a result of a truck accident.
As the exercise was cohducted, it was observed to be Control Room operations r
- demanding, but not operations challenging.
The primary events in the
'
Control Room consisted of the implementation of Off-normal Event Procedure 05-1-02-1-4, Loss of AC Power.
The Control Room shift was able to demonstrate good procedural adherence; however, the events did not require
!
interactive decision making to occur between the Control Room staff and.
the TSC staff.
The failure to challenge the emergency oicanization with a scenario that L
tested a major portion of the basic elements existing within.the emergency
'
preparedness plans and organization was identifi9d as an exercise weakness 50-416/90-16-01.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Assignment'ofResponsibility(82301)
This area was observeu to determine that primary responsibilities for emergency response by the licensee had been specifically established and
'
>
that adequate staff was available to respond to an emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1), 10 CFR 50 Appendix E. Paragraph IV.A. and specified-criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.A.
'
The inspector observed that specific emergency assignments had been made for the licensee's emergency response organization and there werV adequate staff available to respond to the simulated emergency.
The initial response organization was augmented by designated licensee representatives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Onsite Emergency Organization (82301)
'
The licensee's on-shift emergency organization was observed to-determine that the responsibilities for emergency response were unambiguously
defined, that adequate staffing was provided to ensure initial facility.
accident response-in key functional areas at all times, and that the interfaces were specified as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.A, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,
'Section II.B.
The inspector observed that. the initial on-shift emergency organization-
-
. was well defined-and the responsibility and authority for directing actions necessary to respond to the emergency were clear.
Section 5.0 of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Emergency Plan provides for the
! organizational control of emergencies.
As indicated, the Shift.
L
.
p
-
.
,
!
- ..,..
.
t.
!
Superintendent became the Emergency Manager until relieved by the On-call
Manager.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.-
Emergency Classification System (82301)
_
This area was observed to determine that a standard emergency a
classification and action level scheme was in use by the nuclear f acility
!
licensee ' as required by -10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.C. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.D.
,'
'
An inspector observed that the emergency classification system was in ef fect as stated in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Emergency Plan Section 4.1, which provided off-normal events to be classified into one of
the four emergency classification levels.
The procedure was used by the i
Emergency Director to classify the Alert and Site Area Emergency with-the i
Design Basis Earthquake and Safe Shutdown Earthquake indications respectively.
-i t
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.-
NotificationMethodsandProcedures(82301)
,
This arca was observed 'to assure that procedures were established for notification of State and local response organizations and emergency
,
personnel by the license, and that the content of initial and followup t
messages to. response organizations was established. This area was further
!
observed to assure that. means to provide early notification to the population.within the plume exposure pathway were established pursuant to i;
10CFR50.47(b)(5). Paragraph IV.D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and
-
,
specific guidance promulgated in Section II.E of NUREG-0654.
An inspector observed that notification methods had been established in
Section 6.2.4 of the Grand Gulf Emergency Plan and were used to provide
information concerning the simulated emergency conditions to Federal,
,
State, and local response organizations and,to alert the licensee's augmented emergency. response organizations.
The Grand-Gulf Operational Hot Line was used for the initial and ongoing communications between the
,
licensee and the offsite agencies.
The -initial notifications of an
'
emergency classification-and the followup notifications were made in a-timely manner and provided the required information to the offsite agencies in accordance with the implementing procedures.
The prompt notification: system (PNS) for alerting the public within the-plume-exposure pathway -consists-of 43-sirens in Claiborne County and Tensas Parish, as well as tone activated receivers located in institutions
,
within the 10-mile EPZ. -The system was not activated during this partial
,
participation exercise to simulate warning the public of significant
events occurring at the reactor site.
The responsibility for activating the portion of the system within their respective jurisdictions is with-i r
s
,-,-i.-
.
-
_
.
b
.
.
t the Port Gibson/Claiborne County Civil Defense and Tensas Parish Emergency Preparedness.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Emergency Communications (82301)
This area was observed to determine that provisions existed for prompt communications among principal response organizations and emergency personnel as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
Paragraph IV.E. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.F.
e Communications among the licensee's emergency response facilities (ERFs)
and emergency organization and between the licensee's emergency response m
organization and offsite authorities were good.
No communications related problems were identified during this exercise.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
PublicEducationandInformation(82301)
,
This area was observed to determine that information concerning the simulated emergency was made available for dissemination to the public as-required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7),10 CFR 50, Appendix E. Paragraph IV.D and-specific criteria in NUREG-0654 Section II.G.
Early information to the media and the public for the simulated emergency was provided by the Emergency Information Center-with the first news
.
bulletin provided at 6:16 a.m.
.Later during the exercise the Emergency
'
News Media Center at the Port Gibson/Claiborne County Emergency Operations Center was activated and information was provided to the media and public via press briefings and news bulletins.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
EmergencyFacilitiesandEquipment(82301)
,
ThisLarea was observed to determine that adequate emergency facilities =and equipment to support an emergency response were provided and maintained as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8),10 CFR 50, Appendix E. Paragraph IV.E and-specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.H.
The inspector: observed the activation, staffing, and operation of the ERFs
,and evaluated equipment provided.for emergency use during the exercise.
o a.
-Coni"n1 Ream < An inspector-observed that * control room personnel acted promptly to initiate emergency response to the simulated emergency.
Emergency procedures were readily available and the response was' prompt and effective.
i s
ig
,,.,
h[
a m
.
- -
)
,
m
_
'
3 b.
Technical Support Center (TSC) - The TSC was activated and staffed.
promptly upon notification by the Emergency Director of the simulated
.
emergency conditions leading to an Alert emergency classification.
<
'
The TSC staff appeared to be knowledgeable concerning their emergency responsibilities and TSC operations proceeded smoothly.
The TSC
~.,
,
appeared to have adequate equipment for the support of the assigned
staff.
c.
Operations Support Center (OSC) - The OSC was located in the Maintenance Shop ~of the GGNS Administration Building and was staffed i
promptly upon activation by the Emergency Director.
An inspector
!
observed that teams were formed promptly, briefed and dispatched
'
efficiently.
.
d.
Emergency Operations facility - The E0F is located' in the Energy Services Center about. 6 miles from the reactor site., The fac'lity appears to be adequately designed, equipped, and staffed to support
,
an emergency response.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'!
10. Accident Assessment
!
This area was observed to determine that adequate methods, systems, and
-
equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or-potential offsite a
consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use as required
.
by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B,-and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II I.
Sections. 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of the GGNS Emergency Plan describes the assessment-actions to be'_taken during an Alert Classification and a Site Area Emergency Classification respectively.
The scope of this exercise did not result in manylof these assessment actions being required since no airborne release occurred.
However,'the licensee did demonstrate some-
radiological monitoring capabilities by responding to a mock truck-accident involving LSA material.
The remainder of actions observed i
centered on the Control Room personnel for procedural adherence in simulating the off-normal event procedure " Loss of AC Power," 05-1-02-I-4,
dated March 3, 1987..
i No violations or deviations were identified.
11.'ProtectiveResponses(82301)
This area was observed to determine that guidelines for protective actions-during the emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, were developed and_
i in place, and protective actions for emergency workers, including
'
evacuation of nonessential personnel, were implemented promptly as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), and specific criteria' in NUREG-0654 Section II.J.
.
c o
,
,
a l
.
.:
- ..,-
o
.
An ' exercise message directed the Emergency Oiractor % implement site evacuation and accountability to demonstrate the ability to, perform evacuation and accountability inside the Protected Area within
[
approximately 30 minutes of the evacuation announcement.
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
'
12. ExerciseCritique(82301)
The licensee's critique of the emergency exercise was observed to determine whether shortcomings in the performance of the exercise were brought to the attention of manag(ement and documented for corrective action pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47 b)(14),
Paragraph IV.E. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section ll.N.
'
The licensee conducted facility critiques with the_ exercise players immediately following the exercise termination on the first day. -Licensee controllers and observers ' conducted additional critiques ; prior to providing formal critique results to management on August 31, 1990.
The critique was thorough and identified items needing correction.
Some of.
the items the licensee's critique identified as needing correction included:
a. OSC repair teams response times were slow (requirement for teams to dress out in anti-c's when not required by radiological conditions was a major causative factor).
b. Emergency declaration times varied between notification messages and news releases, c.. Information flow between emergency facilities was not complete (e.g.,
the Control Room staff was not advised of the LSA spill).
d.Interactiveproblemsolving(i.e.,whatifdiscussions)werenot observed by the accident assessment teams, e. Numerous health physics practice concerns were observed during the response to the LSA spill (discussed at the earlier evaluatorts critique but not discussed at the management critique).
No violations or deviations were identified.
-13.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Inspector Followup ltem (IFI) 50-416/89-25-01:
Same EALs used y
.for emergency classifications by TSC and E0F in dress rehearsal and
. evaluated exercise. ' A review of the dress rehearsal scenario indicated the events and EAls were not similar to those used for the graded
'
exercise.
i
,
i
..
I i
.
-
--
-
-
.
7...
_..
- nei
{,
'
r
.;y
-
g
,,-
,
e,
'
.
)
6.'
r
,
,
'
- . G
- A.-
..,,, ',.
,
,
,
y
,
'f
'
,
,-
_
V p
h.
t
.
}
k
- a e
,
,
,
-
_ ltem Number Description and Reference
,"
---.
s-.
504416/90-16 01 Exercise Weakness-Failure to challenge
the emergency organization.during
'1
'
annual emergency exercise. Paragraph 2.
.!
14.
Exit l'iterview i
.
The inspection. scope and results were summarized immediately following.the
,
licensee's critique to management on August 31, 1990, with those-persons-
.i indicated in Paragraph 1.
The-inspector described the areas inspected!and'
-
discussed in detail. the_ inspection results.
Proprietary information is_
i
.
-
not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from
!
,
.-
i-the. licensee.
]
,
,
d
' Attachnents:
?
'
1... Scope'and Objectives
- i m
2... Narrative Summary and Sequence j
'
<
'of Events-
'
'
i
+..
1
-
'I
.
.
.:-
E<
-,
,
{
'
>
.. <.,
,
,
,
T
'
.
i
.,. ;,
I h
'
'
-g
.- i
'
- .'"L
'I
.i I
is
_l
-
>
.
,.
t I-
'I 1' '
,
ny
,