ML20132F733

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Description of Objectives & Summary of Events for Facility full-scale Emergency Preparedness Exercise Scheduled on 830413.W/o Encls
ML20132F733
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Waterford
Issue date: 01/26/1983
From: Maurin L
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: Jay Collins
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML082320156 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-206 W3F83-0032, W3F83-32, NUDOCS 8510010399
Download: ML20132F733 (2)


Text

'

' h6 7

t LOUISIANA P O W E R & L I G H T! p,o ouAnoNoE San a sox soos. NEW ORLEANS. LoutSIANA 70174. (504) 366-2345 matac L V. MAURIN Vice President Nuclear Operations January 26, 1983 W3F83-0032 John T. Collins Regional Mministrator j$ 27 I US NRC Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 1000 Arlington, TI 76011

Dear Mr. Collins,

In keeping with the established submission schedule for the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station full-scale Emergency Preparedness Exercise material, Louisiana Po*rer and Light is providing the attached description of the objecLives and su= mary of events for your review. The exercise is scheduled to be conducted on April 13, 1983.

The development of the objectives for the exercise entailed a coordinated effort between Louisiana Power and Light Company and State and local government agencies in order to achieve exercise goals which will demonstrate the response capabilities of all the parties involved. The submitted objectives reflect the culmination of a coordinated approach between the organizations involved and as a result Louisiana Power and Light anticipates that there will be minimal modification to these objectives as the exercise preparation work progresses.

In order to keep the exercise efforts on track and to enable Louisiana Power and Light to meet the next submission date for the detailed description of the exercise scenario and anticipated actions, Louisiana Power and Light requests that any comments or requests for modification to the submitted objectives or summary of events be provided to Iouisiana Power and Light no later than February 15, 1983. Your cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated and will help to ensure that the final scenario will be one that thoroughly addresses each objective in a realistic manner.

0510010399 850227 DERNAD

-206 PDR g7A,h.M o/r6 l

1 John T. Collins W3F83-0032 Page 2 Louisiana Power and Light contacts related to the exercise and its preparation should be directed to:

Mr. George P. Bailey E:nergency Planning Coordinator Louisiana Power & Light Co.

P. O. Box B Killona, LA 70066 Very truly yours, L. V. Maurin Vice President Nuclear Operations LVM/GPB/tjf Attachnent E. Jordan, L. Constable. D. Perrotti, 6 G. L. Groesch, E. Blake, cc:

M. Stevenson, S. Turk i

l

w l.OUISIANA

,42 ostanoNos Start:

P O W E R & L i G H T[ p C BCx 6000

  • New CALEANS LoutSIANA 70174. (504: 365-2345 NuS[is'OS October 31, 1984 W3P84-2975 3-A1.01.04 A4.05 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 l

Dear Mr. Collins:

Subject:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50 'l82 Transient Information Distribution List in the Emergency Plan

References:

1) LP&L Letter W3F84-0062 dated June 18, 1984
2) Telephone Comunication - C. Hackney (NRC) and J.J. Lewis on October 18, 1984 In item 13 of the reference 1 letter, Louisiana Power & Light Company ce=1tted to providing t..

transient information distribution list in the next revision of the haergency Plan.

As discussed in the telephone conversation between C. Hackney and J. Lewis on October 18, 1984; Louisiana Power & Light Company will not incorporate the transient information distribution list in the Emergency Plan, but will instead update it on an annual basis and retain on file for NRC review.

Very truly yours.

[

K.W. Cook Nuclear. Support & Licensing Manager KWC:JJL:GEW:sms cc: NRC, Director, Office of I&E NRC, Director, Office of Management G.W. Knighton, NRC-NRR E.L. Blake W.M. Stevenson W.A. Cross INPO Records Center (D.L. Gillispie)

C. Hackney (NRC Region IV)

D. Perrotti (h1C)

/d/A-8W246 up %g,~-~ ^

ofn

~

p ***% q',

UNITED STATES f

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{

v, C

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5,/

SEP 1 1933 E

s,,

Docket No.: 50-382 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:

Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:

James H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

WATERFORD 3 Enclosed is the final NRR input for Waterford 3 SALP evaluation for the period July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983.

The input has been circulated to the appropriate Division Directors for comment and their comments have been incorporated into this revision of the SALP.

This represents NRR's contribution to the I&E SALP for LP&L's Waterford 3 plant for this rating period and will be presented as such at a meeting at Region IV on August 30, 1983.

Contributions to this input were made by R. Benedict, L. Bender, LQB; D. Kubicki, CHEB; J. Clifford, M. Goodman, PRSB; H. Garg, J. Jackson, EQB; T. Huang, G. Hsii, CPB; and D. Perrotti, EPLB.

AW~

V V

datfies H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. Collins, Region IV J. Gagliardo, Region IV W. Crossman, Region IV G. fiadsen, Region IV i

f jyc ' -

c/a

psest.e,,%

UNITED sT ATEs 4

[ '.'),

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION ff

.s.y;,f.,

v.asw.uctos. o c. mss f*

t, ?.:Jmfl y

j a...*

Docket ho.: 50-382 MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:

Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:

James H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

WATERFORD 3 Enclosed is the final NRR input for Waterford 3 SALP evaluation for the period July 1, 1982 inrough June 30, 1983. The input has been circulated to the appropriate Division Directors for coment and tneir corxnents have been incorporated into this revision of the SALP. This represents NRR's contribution to the I&E SALP for LP&L's Waterford 3 plant for this rating period and will be presented as such a meeting at Region IV on August 30, 1983. Contributions to this input were made by R. Benedict, L. Bender, LQB; D. Kubicki, CHEB; J. Clifford, M. Goodman, PRSB; H. Garg, J. Jackson, EQB; T. Huang, G. Hsii CPB; and D. Perrotti, EPLB.

N

% p (.

J' emes H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

J. Collins, Region IV J. Gagliardo, Region IV W. Crossman, Region IV G. Madsen, Region IV G. Constable, Region IV p:-

p.gy. w

~

O E9

f* *%

UrflTED sT ATEs 4

A NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[,$ l%p S

fp p

j WA$mNMON, D C 20555

.~

t 1,. 22 / /

%,,...../

Facility Name: Waterford 3 Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company i R Project Manager: James H. Wilson I.

Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the applicant.

Louisiana Power & Light Company, in the functional area of licensing activities.

It is intenced to provide NRR's input to the SALP review process as described in NRC Manual Chapter 0516. The review covers the period July 1,1982 to June 30, 1983.

The basic approach used for this evaluation was to first select a number of licensing issues which involved a significant amount of staff Ccmments were then solicited from the staff.

Finally, this manpower.

information was assembled in a matrix which allowed an overall evaluation of tne applicant's performance. This evaluation is based on staff input from eight review activities.

II.

Surcary of Results HRC t',anual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evlauated will be assigned a performance category based on a number,of factors.

The single final rating was determined through integration of the opinions received from the NRR reviewers and the judgement of the project manager.

Based on this approach, the performance of Louisiana Power & Light Company in the functional area " Licensing Activities" is rated category 2.

III.

Criteria Evaluation criteria, as given in NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0516 Table 1, were used for this evaluation.

IV.

Performance Analysis The applicant's performance evaluation is based on a consideration of seven attributes as given in the NRC Manual Chapter.

For most of the licensing actions considered in this evaluation, only three of four of the attributes were of significance. Therefore, the compsite rating is heavily based on the following attributes.

(1) Management involvement (2) Approach to resolution of technical issues (3) Responsiveness

d With the exception of Enforcement History and Reportable Events for which there was no basis within NRR for evaluation, the remaining attributes of Staffing and Training were judged to apply to only a few licensing activities. Both training and staffing were considered as unique licensing activities, under licensee qualifications.

The perfomance analysis was based on our evaluation of the following licensing activities:

Training Fire Protection Procedures On-site Emergency Plans Environmental Qualification Semisic Qualification Licensee Qualification Core Perfomance The level of licensing activities during the review period was used as a criterion in choosing the functional areas considered in this evaluation.

A. Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Quality The overall rating for this criterion is category 2.

There is evidence of planning and assignment of priorities and decision making seems to be at a level that ensures managemant review.

Management involvement was particularly evident in meeting the requirements of Appendix R. Emergency Planning and Licensee Qualification. However in the area of procedures, the rating is category 3 because the applicant's approach to writing E0Ps lacked prior planning. The approach to writing E0Ps changed several times during the course of the review, resulting in unnecessary delays. It appeared to the staff that LP&L sought to expedite operator licensing at the expense of developing adequate E0Ps. However, near the end of the rating period, plant management appears to have taken a more structured and planned approach to developing acceptable E0Ps.

B. Approach to Resolution Tne overall rating for this criterion was category 2.

In the technical area of Fire Protection, the applicant's performance was rated category I because thay use technically sound approaches in most cases, and display sufficient conservatism when potential for safety significance exists. However, in the case of Procedures, the rating is category 3 because applicant has not appeared to use an analytic approach to E0P

e -

development. Piany engineering judgements appeared to be made on the spot, without references or consideration of supporting docuitentation.

Also, the applicant appeared to be extremely reluctant to use existing industry guidance (fiSSS,liiPO, liRC dotouments).

However, near the end of the rating period, LP&L 6ppeared to have redirected their procedures development program to make more use of available supporting documentation and to use a more analytical approacn.

C. Responsiveness to NRR Initiatives The overall rating for this criterion was category 2 but in the area of core performance the rating was category 1.

In general the applicant's responses are timely with very few long-standing regulatory issues attributable to licensee. The resolutions proposec by the licensee are usually acceptable.

However in the area of procedures, a rating of 3 is assigned because, after more than two years of review involving two sets of E0Ps, the applicant still does not have a set of approved E0Ps. The applicant has demonstrated a continuing inability to discern technical errors identified during the review by Regional and fiRR reviews.

However, near the end of the rating period LP&L appeared to be more sensitive to the technical problems assiciated with the proceedures.

D. Enforcement History There is no basis for an fiRR evaluation of this criterion.

E. Reportable Events There is no basis for an f4RR evaluation of this criterion.

F. Staffing This criterion was not broadly evaluated, but did receive an overall category 2 based largely on LP&L's performance in the area of the licensee qualification. During this SALP review period, the applicant overcame a large deficiency in staffing.

Although some key positions were still vacant and overall staffing fell short of stated goals at the end of the period,

(

the effort displayed by the licensee earned them a category 2.

G. Training This criterion was given a rating of a category 3.

Although the training department has been given greater authority in the

- ~

l corporated organization, this organization has not been as effective as it should have been at this stage of the licensing l

process. Also, there is an apparent lack of coordination between 1

the applicant's organziation that develops procedures and the training organization which could lead to problems in the applicant's approach to accident mitigation during operation.

However, near the end of the rating period, LP&L agreed to get the operators more involved in the E0P development process, although it is still not clear how training will be coordinated with the E0P effort.

V.

Conclusion Management attention and involvement with matters of nuclear safety is evident and satisfactory performance with respect to safety is being achieved. The applicant's responses are usually timely and reasonable resolution to licensing issues are offered.

However, one

- - ;- 4,k-attribute, traing, received an overall unsatisfactory rating, for c'

g one of the eight technical areas evaluated, procedures, significant deficiencies in all attributes resulted in unsatisfactory ratings for the applicant's performance during this reating period.

Due to the importance of proper procedures and training in the human factors area of design and operation of the plant, we believe that there is sufficient weight in these activities to cause us to give an overall rating of a weak category 2 to Louisiana Power & Light Company in the area of licensing activities.

It should be noted, however, that near the end of the rating period, LP&L underwent major personnel changes in the procedures area.

Based on these personnel changes and programmatic redirection, we believe that.

the applicant has a significantly improved foundation from which an adequate E0P development program can be generated.

In addition, there are indications that the applicant is taking appropriate steps to bring about a satisfactory resolution to the E0P issue.

e i

O

M UNITED STATES

/,

E%

NUaEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iQi WASMNGTON. D. C. 2C555 k 4, 91Fjl!g !

%,....f l

Facility Name: Waterford 3 Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company NRR Project Manager: James H. Wilson I.

Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the applicant, Louisiana Power & Light Company, in the functional area of licensing activities.

It is intended to provide NRR's input to the SALP review process as described in NRC Manual Chapter 0516. The review covers the period July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983.

The basic approach used for this evaluation was to first select a number of licensing issues which involved a significant amount of staff manpower.

Coments were then solicited from the staff.

Finally, this-information was assembled in a matrix which allowed an overall evaluation of the applicant's performance.

This evaluation is based on staff input from eight review activities.

II.

Sumary of Results NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned a performance category based on a number of factors.

The single final rating was determined through integration of the opinions received from the NRR reviewers and the judgement of the project manager.

Based on this approach, the perfomance of Louisiana Power & Light Company in the functional area " Licensing Activities" is rated category 2.

III.

Criteria Evaluation criteria, as given in NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0516 Table 1, were used for this evaluation.

IV.

Performance Analysis The applicant's perfonnance evaluation is based on a consideration of seven attributes as given in the NRC Manual Chapter.

For most of the licensing actions considered in this evaluation, only three or four of the attributes were of' significance.

Therefore, the 'compsite rating is heavily based on the following attributes. -

(1) Management involvement (2) Approach to resolution of technical issues (3) Responsiveness

EVALUATION 14 ATRIX---sal.P REVIEW TOR WATERf0RD 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA LICEilSiliG ACTI0ll/ITEH REVIEllER HAtlAGEllENT APPROACil TO RESPONSIVE-ENFORCEliENT REPORTABLE

. STAFFING TRAlliiti INVOLVEMEtlT RESOLUTION tlESS IIISTORY EVEllTS Training L. Hender 2

3 2

NA NA 2

3 (LQn) rire Protection D. Kubicki 2

1 2

NA NA NA NA l

(CllEB) l J. CIifford

' 3 3

'NA NA NA 3

Procedures M. Goodman 3

(PSRB)

On-Site Emergency Plans D. Perrotti 2'

2 2

NA NA 2

2 (EPLB)

Env i r'onmen ta l

11. Garg 2

2 2

NA NA NA NA Qual i~ fica tion (EQR) 9 Seismic Qualification J. Jackson 2

2 2

NA NA NA NA

([QB)

Licensee Qualification R. Benedict NA 2

2

  • NA NA 2

NA (LQB)

G. Ilsii Core Performance T. Iluang 2

2 1

NA NA NA NA (CPB) b 4

m O

l s

9

- Witn the exception of Enforcement History and Reportable Events for which there was no basis within NRR for evaluation, the remaining attributes of Staffing and Training were judged to apply to only a few licensing activities. Both training and staffing were considered as unique licensing activities, under licensee qualifications.

The perfomance analysis was based on our evaluation of the following licensing activities:

Training Fire Protection Procedures On-site Emergency Plans Environmental Qualification Semisic Qualification Licensee Qualification Core Perfomance The level of licensing activities during the review period was used as a criterion in choosing the functional areas considered in this evaluation.

A. Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Quality The overall rating for this criterion is category 2.

There is evidence of planning and assignment of priorities and decision making seems to be at a level that ensures managemant review.

P,anagement involvement was particularly evident in meeting the requirements of Appendix R. Emergency Planning and Licensee Qualification.

However in the area of procedures, the rating is category 3 because the_ applicant's approach to writing E0Ps lacked prior planning. ' The approach to writing E0Ps changed several times. during the course of the review, resulting in unnecessary delays.

It appeared to the staff that LP&L sought to expedite operator licensing at the expense of developing adequate E0Ps.

However, near the end of the rating period, plant management appears to have taken a more structu' red and planned approach to developing acceptable E0Ps.

B. Approach to Resolution.

The overall rating for this criterion was category 2.

In the technical area of Fire Protection, the applicant's performance was rated category 1 because they use technically sound approaches in most cases, and display sufficient conservatism when potential for safety significance i

exists.

However, in the case of Procedures, the rating is category 3 because applicant has not appeared to use an analytic approach to E0P r

i developmerrt. Many engineering judgements appeared to be made on the spot, without references or consideration of supporting documentation. Also, the applicant appeared to be extremely reluctant to use existing industry guidance (NSSS,INPO, NRC docouments).

However, near the end of the rating period LP&L appeared to have redirected their procedures development program to make more use of available supporting documentation and to use a more analytical approach.

C. Responsiveness to NRR Initiatives The overall rating for this criterion was category 2, but in the area of core perfonnance the rating was category 1.

In general the applicant's responses are timely with very few long-standing regulatory issues attributable to licensee. The resolutions proposed by the licensee are usually acceptable.

However in the area of procedures, a rating of 3 is assigned because, after more than two years of review involving two sets of E0Ps, the applicant still does not have a set of approved E0Ps. The applicant has demonstrated a continuing inability to discern technical errors identified during the review by Regional and NRR reviewers.

However, near the end of the rating period LP&L appeared to be more sensitive to the technical problems associated with the procedures.

D. Enforcement History There is no basis for an NP,R evaluation of this criterion.

E. Reportable Events There is no basis for an NRR evaluation of this criterion.

F. Staff.ing This criterion was not broadly evaluated, but did receive an overall category 2 based largely on LP&L's perfonnance in the area of the licensee qualification.

During this SALP review period, the applicant overcame a large deficiency in staffing.

Although some key positions were still vacant and cverall staffing fell short of stated goals at the end of the period, the effort displayed by the licensee earned them a category 2.

G. Training This criterion was given a rating of a category 3.

Although the training department has been given greater authority in the corporate organization, this organization has not been as effective as it should have been at this stage of the licensing process.

Also, there is an apparent lack of coordination between

4_

the applicant's organziation that develops procedures and the training organization which could lead to problems in the applicant's approacn to accident mitigation during operation.

However, near the end of the rating period, LP&L agreed to get the operators more involved in the E0P development process, although it is still not clear how training will be coordinated with the E0P effort.

V.

Conclusion t

Management attention and involvement with matters of nuclear safety is evident and satisfactory performance with respect to safety is being achieved. The applicant's responses are usually timely and reasonable resolution to licensing issues are offered.

However, one attribute, training, received an overall unsatisfactory rating. Also, for one of the eight technical areas evaluated, procedures, significant deficiencies in all attributes resulted in unsatisfactory ratings for the applicant's performance during this rating period.

Due to the importance of proper procedures and training in the human factors area of design and operation of the plant, we believe that there is sufficient weight in these activities to cause us to give an overall rating of a weak category 2 to Louisiana Power & Light Company in the area of licensing activities.

It should be noted, however, that near the end of the rating period.

LP&L underwent major personnel changes in the procedures area.

Based on these personnel changes and programmatic redirection, we believe that the applicant has a significantly improved foundation from which an adequate E0P development program can be generated.

In addition, there are indications that the applicant is taking appropriate steps to bring about a satisfactory resolution to the E0P issue.

~

l

-