ML20154G888

Insp Rept 50-458/85-80 on 851209-13.Violations Noted:Failure to Submit Changes to Emergency Implementing Procedures & to Document Procedure Review

ML20154G888
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	01/10/1986
From:	Hackney C, Terc N, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154G756	List: ML20154G753 ML20154G767 ML20154G888
References
50-458-85-80, NUDOCS 8603100136
Download: ML20154G888 (6)

See also: IR 05000458/1985080

Text

_ _ _

. .

APPENDIX B

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-45S/E5-80 License No: NPF-47

Docket: 50-458

Licensee: Gulf States Utilities

P. O. Box 2951

Beaumont, Texas 77704

Facility Name: River Bend Station

Inspection At: River Bend Station, St. Francisville, Louisiana

Inspection Conducted: December 9-13, 1985

Inspectors: _ _ _h_ ,[ -, /~ # ' - d

Nemen M. Terc, Emergency Prepared ess Analyst Date

Emergency Preparedness and Safr guards

Programs Section

ASO .

ScSw/ l - 10 - ( b

CharlesA. Hackney,EmergencyPrepagedness Date

Analyst, Emergency Preparedness and

Safeguards Programs Section

Approved: A

L. A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness

1 -10 - 86

Date

and Safeguards Programs Section

Inspection Sun, mary

Inspection Conducted December 9-13,1985 (Report 50-458/85-80)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the training program and

changes to the emergency plan. In addition, the inspection included followup

of previously identified items. The inspection involved 81 inspector-hours

onsite by two NRC inspectors.

8603100136 860305

PDR ADOCK 05000458

G PDR

, .

.

-2-

Results: Within the two areas inspected, two violations were identified

(f ailure to submit changes to the emergency implementing procedures, paragraph 4;

and failure to document procedure review, paragraph 4). One deficiency was

identified (protective action recommendation flow chart, paragraph 3). In

addition, the NRC inspectors closed eight items previously identified during

the emergency appraisal.

i

1

l

. . - . - . ,_. -

g. . - - - - - - - - , _ , _- _ ,,m ,.-_w

- .- . .__ _

. . .

-3-

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

.I

• D. Andrews, Director, Nuclear Training

• D. Bloemendaal, Senior Emergency Planner

• J. Booker, Manager, Engineering Fuels and Licensing

• J. Cadwallader, Supervisor, Emergency Planning  :

• T. Crouse, Manager, Quality Assurance

*D. Davenport, Plant Security Supervisor

1

• J. Deddens, Security Training Coordinator

i *T. Dexter, Security Training Coordinator

j *C. Fantacci, Senior Health Physicist

• T. Gildersleeve, Nutech Consultant

.

• B. Hall, Plant Services Supervisor

l

• K. Hodges, Quality Assurance Supervisor

f *G. Kimmell, Supervisor, Operations-Quality Assurance

• G. King, Plant Services

'

• T. Loudenslager, Nutech Consultant

• W. Odell, Manager, Administration

• G. Patrissi, Quality Assurance Engineer

• W. Reed, Director, Nuclear Licensing

• D. Simpson, Nutech Consult:nt

• D. Reynolds, Supervisor, Administrative Support

i *R. Stafford, Director, Operations-Qus11ty Assurance

• K. Suhrke, Manager, Projects

• R. Taylor, Qu lity Assurance Engineer

• B. Thibodea"., Control Systems Supervisor

• P. Tomlinson, Director. Quality Services

• D. Williamson, Operations Supervisor

• Denotes those present during the exit interview.

2. Appraisal Improvement Items ( Appendix B)

'

(Closed) (458/8435-07): The NRC inspectors noted that formal assignments

of emergency response personnel were made.

.: (Closed) (458/8435-12): The NRC inspectors noted that respiratory training

was being provided to emergency response personnel and that it was required

by their training program.

(Closed) (458/8435-42): The NRC inspectors determined that the licensee

made a review of lighting conditions for the evacuation routes and

determined that lighting was adequate, j

l

I

i 1

4

.

'

. . _ _ , . _ . . _ . ._ _ _ . . , . , _ -- ..___ -

_. _ _ _ __ _ . . _ _ . . _ , - . . _ -

. . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _

. . .

-4-

(Closed (458/8435-58): The NRC inspectors verified that revised procedures

EIP-2-003, " Alert," ElP-2-004, " Site Area Emergency," EIP-2-005, " General

Emergencies," and EIP-2-006, " Notifications," were modified to emphasize

the 15 minute requirement for notification of offsite authorities.

(Closed) (458/8435-60): The NRC inspectors verified that on December 10,

1985, the licensee provided a River Bend Station emergency telephone

verification number to the St. Francisville Volunteer Fire Department via

i Memo RGB-22758.

1

(Closed) (458/8435-61): The NRC inspectors verified that procedure

EIP-2-009, " Medical Emergency," was revised to include the taking of vital

signs and to notify the control room.

(Closed) (458/8435-71): The NRC inspectors noted that procedures were

revised to clarify that the shift supervisor will act as emergency

,

coordinator.

(Closed) (458/8435-86): The NRC inspectors verified that emergency

procedures instructed nuclear equipment operators to report to the

operational support cer.. e for accountability.

No violations or deviations were found.

3. Training Program

'

The NRC inspectors reviewed Section 13.3 of the Final Safety Analysis

Report for River Bend Station which contains the Emergency Plan, Station

Support Manual Procedure EpP-2-202, " Selection, Training, and Qualification

of the Emergency Response Organization," and lesson plan modules. In

addition, the NRC inspectors attended a training class on radiological

assessment and protective action recommendations and held discussions with

the training staf f.

The NRC inspectors noted that training.was modularized. Emergency

preparedness training consisted of 13 modules. Each module contained a

lesson plan, student handouts, applicable procedures, training aids, and

examinations. Individuals being trained in the emergency response

organization received lectures and practical training. Each emergency

response position was correlated with specific modules. Training status

for individuals was kept by computer listings. Training and retraining

took place continuously throughout the year.

The NRC inspectors noted that the Protective Action Recommendation Flow

Chart used during class instructed the emergency directors to review a

series of offsite concerns prior to making protective action recommendations.

These concerns deal with a series of special considerations to be taken

prior to evacuation of the public, such as special population groups and

?

'

.. . . . -. . .- . . - - . - _ - . - _ . -. . . - . -. -. ..

,

I

O *e e

i

i

! -5-

!

inclement weather conditions. These decisions are normally within the

scope of duties and authorities of the States, FEMA, and parishes. The

i NRC inspectors noted that for several scenarios presented during class,

j such considerations delayed protective action decisions made by the

licensee. In addition, the NRC inspectors noted that the flow-chart

j referred to above did not allow for preventive sheltering or evacuation of

near site population during site area emergencies. .

) The above constitutes a deficiency (458/8580-03).

,

j No violations or deviations were identified.

' Changes To The Emergency Preparedness Program

4.

i The NRC inspectors reviewed changes to the emergency preparedness program  ;

j- and determined that procedures EIP-2-014 and EIP-2-017 were approved for  !

< fmplementation on October 10, 1985, and had not been submitted to the NRC

!

at the time of the inspection on December 10, 1985. This is in violation

of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section V, that requires changes to the Emergency

Plan and Procedures be submitted to the NRC within 30 days of such changes

,

(458/8580-01).

1

The NRC inspectors reviewed EIP-2-100, " Review, Revision and Approval,"

EIP-2-101, " Review of the Emergency Plan," minutes of the October 9, 1985

FRC meeting, and review and comment documents. The NRC inspectors

4 determined that revisions made to EIP-2-014, "Offsite Radiological

l Monitoring," and EIP-2-017, " Operations Support Center Support Functions,"

were sent out for comment and presented to the FRC for approval; however,

i verification that the procedures had been reviewed and documented to

j 10 CFR 56.54(q) and EIP-2-100 in accordance with the requirements in

'

Secticn 4.2.2 and 4.3.4 could not be determined.

~

1 The above constitutes a violation (458/8580-02). .

i Temporary instructions have not been issued by the emergency preparedness

!

department since the last inspection. *

i No licensee facility or equipment changes were made either onsite or

offsite cince the previous inspection on December 10, 1984. Further,

, there had not been any organizational or administrative changes made to '

l the emergency response organization.

i Appropriate State agencies had copies of revised documents distributed to ,

their respective offices.

]

1

No other violations or deviations were identified. j

1 5. Independent Inspection Effort

!

l The NRC inspectors toured the control room during a weekly test of the

i emergency notification / communication network ano noted that. communications

>

with State and local authorities were prompt and clear.

1

i

1

1

.

o . .

-6-

The NRC inspectors noted that the Emergency Notification System (ENS)

telephone was located within the communication room in sLch a manner that

would make it practically impossible for an individual to maintain a

continuous flow of real time information to the NRC. The NRC inspectors

held discussions with the licensee and agreed that a possible solution

would be to provide an extension with a headset into the control room so

that the ENS communicator would be able to access plant parameter displays

in an effective manner.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Exit Interview

The exit interview was held on December 13, 1985. The exit interview was

conducted by Mr. Nemen M. Terc, Emergency Preparedness Analyst, with Mr.

Charles A. Hackney, Emergency Preparedness Analyst in attendance. The

licensee was represented by Mr. James Deddens, Vice President River Bend

Nuclear Group, and his staff. The licensee was given an oral summary of

the NRC inspectors' findings, observations and comments. The NRC inspectors

identified two violations and one deficiency as described above (see

paragraphs 3 and 4 of this report). In addition, the NRC inspectors noted

that eight improvement items previously identified during the emergency

appraisal were closed.

I

l

1