IR 05000528/1986012
| ML17299B313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Fish R, Temple G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17299B311 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-86-12, 50-529-86-12, NUDOCS 8606230097 | |
| Download: ML17299B313 (12) | |
Text
SbOb230097 BbObQO PDR ADOCK 05000528
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report'os.
50-528/86-12 and 50-529/86-12 m
Docket Nos. 50-528 and 50-529 License Nos.
NPF-34 and NPF-Sl
Licensee:
Arizona Nuclear Power Project P. 0.
Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Facility Name:
Palo Verde Nucl'ear Generating Station Units 1 and
Inspection at:
Palo Verde Site - Mintersburg, Arizona Inspection conducted:
April 14-18 and April 28 - May 2, 1986
Inspector:
Approved By:
~Summa r
. Te le
. P. Pish, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section Date Signed C/4'/gd Date Signed Ins ection on A ril 14-18 and A ril 28 - Ma
1986 (Re ort Nos. 50-528/86-12 and 50-529/86-12)
Areas lns ected:
Routine, unannounced emergency preparedness inspection in the area of changes to the emergency preparedness program, public information, shift staffing and augmentation, notifications and communications, licensee audits, emergency detection and classification, protective action decisionmaking, knowledge and performance of duties (training) and follow-up on one violation and one open item identified during previous emergency preparedness
'inspections.
Inspection procedures 82201, 82202, 82203, 82204, 82205, 82206, 82209, 82210 and 92701 were addressed.
Results:
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The previously identified open item and violation were close n, ll tf
/
k gw ll P
DETAILS Persons Contacted T. Barsuk, Supervisor, Onsite Emergency Planning H. Bieling, Supervisor, Offsite Emergency Planning V. Elish, General Training Instructor W. Fernow, Manager, Training T. Green, Supervisor, Training Support D. Nichols, Supervisor, General Training F. Riedel, Shift Supervisor, Unit 1 M. Roettger, Emergency Planning Coordinator C. Russo, Manager, Quality Audits and Monitoring S. Ryan, Shift. Supervisor, Unit 2 J. Sarver, Emergency Planning Coordinator G. Simiele, Emergency Planning Engineer D. Yows, Manager, Emergency Planning and Preparedness Action on Previous Xns ection Findin s (Closed) Violation (84-33-01):
Thirty-nine individuals identified as having assignments in the emergency organization had not received full initial training and or retraining required by their emergency response assignment.
In addition, a number of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) personnel had not received annual retraining in personnel assembly, accountability, evacuation and reassembly.
The inspector verified that corrective actions, as described in the licensee's August 22, 1985 response to the violation, had been implemented.
Staffing lists were examined and found to be correct in nearly all cases.
The inspector discussed the Training/Emergency Planning interface problems with the Managers from each of these departments.
Although it appears that some progress has been made, the licensee is encouraged to maintain an effective line of communication between these two departments.
This violation is considered closed.
(Closed)
0 en Item (85-34-02):
Weaknesses identified offsite during the annual medical emergency drill were not being tracked to assure resolution.
Responsibilities related to this matter have bee'n centralized.
Additionally, provisions have been made to document and track weaknesses identified during future medical emergency drills.
This open item is considered closed.
Chan es to the Emer enc Pre aredness Pro ram
)r To determine if any changes to the emergency preparedness program had been made which could affect the overall state of emergency preparedness, the inspector toured the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) (i.e.,
Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Centers (OSCs)
and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)) and discussed changes to the emergency response organization and the administration of the emergency preparedness program with the Manager, Emergency Planning and
'V
, I 4 '
Preparedness (EPSP).
The inspector noted.that the EPGP has increased its staffing and that the group appears to have stabilized.
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified, during this part of the inspection.
Public Information Pro ram The inspector verified that basic emergency response information has been disseminated to the public in the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ);
The inspector examined the licensee's 1986 public information calendar, emergency guide and a quarterly publication entitled "The New Generation".
Materials such as posters, signs and the local telephone directory, which are used to provide information to the transient population, were also examined.
Distribution of a brochure, which has been developed for the non-English speaking population, was discussed with,EPSP personnel.
The inspector verified that the county had reviewed the materials noted above.
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part of the inspection.
Shift Staffin and Au mentation The inspector reviewed Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP)
administrative procedure number 7N409.02.00, Revision 2,
"Emergency Response Organization and Staffing"-; Table 4.2-4 of the licensee's Emergency Plan (EP),
"Minimum Staffing Requirements for PVNGS for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies; and the latest emergency planning staffing list.
The method used to assign personnel to the emergency response organization and the method used to augment the onshift emergency organization were discussed with EPSP personnel.
Based on the procedural review and the discussions, the inspector concluded that physical and administrative means are available and maintained to meet the shift staffing and augmentation goals of Table B-1 of NUREG-0654.
However, it should be noted that the licensee was granted a temporary deviation to the 60 minute augmentation goal by the NRC.
This temporary deviation is described in Supplement 7 to the Safety Evaluation Report.
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part of the inspection.
Notifications and Communications The inspector reviewed Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (EPlP) 03,
"Unusual Event Implementing Actions".
Notifications are also addressed in EPIPs-04, 05 and 06 (Alert, Site Area Emergency and General Emergency Implementing Actions, respectively),
however, 'since all four of these procedures are identical, with respect to this subject, 04, 05 and 06 were briefly reviewed for consistency.
Three minor issues were discussed with EPSP personnel.
Prom a procedural standpoint, the licensee is maintaining their capability to make the appropriate notification I>>
t g
I
The inspector reviewed ANPP procedure number 7N409.08.00,
"Emergency Preparedness Drills" and examined communication test documentation.
The inspector was able to verify that communication tests had been conducted in accordance with the aforementioned procedure.
The inspector also verified that the licensee's prompt notification system (37 sirens)
was in place and that appropriate tests had been conducted.
Three minor issues were discussed with EPSP personnel.
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part of the inspection.
7.
Licensee Audits The inspector verified that an independent audit of the emergency preparedness program had been conducted on an annual basis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(t)
and Section 8 of the licensee's EP.
Quality assurance audit report number 85-024, dated September 3,
1985, was reviewed.
Six Corrective Action Reports (CARs) and two Quality Assurance Observations (QAOs) were issued as a result, of the audit.
Follow-up documentation resulting from the CARs and QAOs was reviewed.
This material appeared to be complete and appropriate.
No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part, of the inspection.
8.
Emer enc Detection and Classification This subject was examined through a review of applicable procedures and discussions with licensee personnel, including Shift Supervisors (SSs).
The results of the SS interviews are summarized in Section 10 of this report.
The inspector reviewed EPIP-02,
"Emergency Classification" and concluded the procedure contained the appropriate emergency classy.fications (based on Emergency Action Levels (EALs)), authorities
, and responsibilities. lt should be noted that discussions between the NRC.and the licensee, regarding Technical Specification related Unusual Events,
"have been'ngoing.
No'ignificant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during thi's part of the inspection.
9.,
Protective Action Decisionmakin This subject was addressed through a review of applicable procedures and discussions with licensee personnel, including SSs.
The results of the SS interviews are su'mmarized in Section 10 of this report.
The inspector reviewed EPXPs - 03,'4, 05, 06 (titles previously mentioned)
and 15,
"Protective Action Guidelines".
Cp No significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part of the inspection.
However, it should be noted that a previously identified open item (85-34-01), related to this subject matter, will be addressed during a future inspectio I
1 (
i t~
lp U
N
-
I'
Knowled e and Performance of Duties A review of the EP training program was conducted to ensure an effective training program was established and maintained.
The inspector reviewed ANPP procedure number 8N718.04.00,
"Emergency Plan Training", examined training records for onsite and offsite (corporate)
emergency response personnel, and held discussions with training and EPSP personnel.
Interviews with SSs were conducted to determine their familiarity (i.e.,
effectiveness of training) with procedures they would be required to use i.n an emergency.
Training records for selected key emergency response personnel (onsite and offsite) were compared with the requirements of the aforementioned procedure.
This comparison showed that appropriate training had been conducted.
The inspector interviewed two SSs, one from Unit 1 and one from Unit 2.
During the interviews,,the SSs were presented with seven emergency situations.
The SSs were asked to classify each of the events'and describe any other actions they would be required to take.
The results of the interviews showed that, in general, the SSs were familiar with procedures/processes for classifying events and for making notifications.
However, both of the SSs exhibited some weakness in the area of protective action recommendations.
The inspector pursued this matter and found that while training on this subject appeared to be adequate, no questions pertaining to protective action recommendations were included in the training'xaminations.
Additionallyg the inspector determined that the applicable procedures (see section 9 of this report) could bene'fit from some cosmetic/human factors work.
All of this information was brought to the licensee',s attention.
Further exami'nation of this issue will be accomplished during follow-up of open item (85-34-01).
No significant. deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during this part of the inspection.
Exit Interview The inspector held an exit interview with the licensee on May 2, 1986, to discuss the preliminary findings of the inspection.
The attachment to this report identifies the personnel who were present at the meeting.
The licensee was informed that no significant deficiencies or violations of NRC requirements were identified during the inspection.
The licensee was informed of the status of the previously identified open item and violation described in Section 2.
Findings described in Sections 3-10 were briefly summarized with particular attention given to the findings described in Sections 6 and 10.
Subsequent to the inspection, it was determined that follow-up on the weakness described in Section 10 would be incorporated into open item 85-34-0 I h
lf N
)
1 II ~
(
I ti I
'I lh
ATTACHMENT EXIT INTERVIEW ATTENDEES T. Barsuk, Supervisor, Onsite Emergency Planning H. Bieling, Supervisor, Offsite Emergency Planning J.
Bynum, Plant Manager W. Ide, Director, Corporate Quality Assurance/Quality Control D. I,anier, Licensing Engineer S. Penick, Supervisor, Quality Monitoring W. Quinn, Manager, Licensing C. Russo, Manager, Quality Audits and Monitoring T. Shriver, Manager, Compliance E. Van Brunt, Jr., Executive Vice President J. Vorees, Manager, Nuclear Safety D. Yows, Manager, Emergency Planning and Preparedness
I