ML20155G829
| ML20155G829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1988 |
| From: | Everett R, Terc N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155G825 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-88-21, NUDOCS 8810170494 | |
| Download: ML20155G829 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1988021
Text
'
.
.
,
.
APPENDIX A
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
!
NRC Inspection Report:
50-458/S3-21
Operating License: NPF-47
Docket: 50-458
4
Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities
,
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisv111e, Louisiana 70775
Facility Name:
River Bend Station (RBS)
Inspection At:
RBS, St. Francisville, Louisiana
.
Inspection Conducted:
September 12-15, 1983
1
1
Tb'[#
Inspector:
7
Nemen M. Terc, Emergency Preparednes Specialist
Date
j
l
i
i
Approved:
h
.tuf
(c/,3/gg'
i
j
4. J. Everett, Chief, Security and Emergincy
Date
Preparedness Sectiot.
l
l
Inspection Sumary
'
inspection Conducted September 12-15, 198f 2 poyt 50-458/33-21)
-
i
)
Areas Inspected:
Routino, announced inspection of the operational status of the
emergency preparecness prograta.
I
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
i
identified.
,
4
i
8310170494 831007
1
ADOCK 050004'5G
'
0
F'DC
-
-
-
-
.
-
- -
- .
_ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
'
i
..
.
,
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
R15
- P. Grahan, Assistant Plant Manager
- M. Sankovich, Manager, Engineering Department
- D. Andrews, Director, Nuclear Training
l
- J. Cadwallader, Supervisor, Emergency Planning
r
"T. Crouse, Manager, Quality Assurance
- W. Odell, Manager, Administration
- T. Fredieu, Supervisor, Operations
- L. Johnson, Manager, Tachnical Operations
- R. Horn, Technical Nuclear Training Coorcinator
"L. England, Director, Nuclear Licensing
- G. Kimmell, Director, Quality Services
i
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
The NRC inspector also held discussions with other statior, and corporate
personnel in the areas of security, health physics, operations, training,
and emergency response.
2.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Violation (458/8730-01) Inadequate Training - The NRC inspector
determined that retraining of key emergency response operations personnel
had been completed, and their understanding of emergency preparedness
concepts had attained adequate levels.
3.
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (82701-02.01)
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's Emergency Plan and Emergency
Plan Implementing Procedures, and noted that no changes to the plan had
been made since the last inspection.
Changes to procedures were submitted
in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
Changes to
Procedures EIP-2-006, "Notifications," and E1P-2-005, "General Emergency,"
were submitted to the NRC within the required deadlines. Changes were
also noted in other station procedures as necessary for consistency.
These procedures were distributed to users on a timely basis using
established mechanisms for document control.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
,
J
l
l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ .
_
- ,
- .
-.
--.
- _ . - _ -
-
.
. _ _ _ -
_
-__
-
I
~.
,
..
3
!
i
4.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies
UI2701-02.02)
2
The NRC inspector toured the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs); held
discussions with the emergtncy preparedness staff; and examined
inventories to determine if equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were
maintained in a : tate of operational readiness,
i
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
5.
Organization and Management Control
(82701-02.03)
"
The NRC inspector interviewed licensee management and reviewed a
memorandum dated August 23, 1988, entitled "Emergency Retponse
Organization," which listed persons qualified to occupy the different
1
!
positions in the emergency response organization in the event ef an
accident.
In addition, the same document specified additional personnel
that had been selected to occupy various positions in the emargancy
response organization in the near future, and established qualification
criteria and training requirements for these positions.
This memorandum
,
has a wide distribution and maintains management and cognizant personnel
'
awareness of any personnel changes that may impact their emergency
response organization.
!
Tne NRC inspector noted that a new person was appointed to the emergency
preparedness staff as an assistant to the lead emergency planner.
The
,
j
NRC inspect >r determined that a training program had been established to
!
qualify this new staff member including the observation of exercises at
j
other facilities.
!
I
The NRC inspector reviewed the Letters of Agreement between the licensee and
t
i
offsite support groups and noted that these letters were current.
In
'
l
addition, the NRC inspector noted that emergency action levels had been
,
j
discussed with state and parish officials as required by 10 CFR 50,
!
Appendix E, paragraph IV.B.
i
e
]
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
i
a
l
j
6.
T_ra i n i ng (82701-02.04)
!
1
]
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's training records, vendor proposals,
i
,
and reports. As a result, the NRC inspector noted that:
.
Retraining of key emergency response operations personnel was
1
j
completed by March 2, 1988, using a newly developed lesson plan
'
J
(SP-093-0) specifically designed to enhance conceptual knowledge
i
needed by key emergency response personnel.
I
d
Some of the weaknesses in the performance of emergency respcnders in
j
the past was partly due to the fact that the emergency planning staff
had no direct participation in the training of energency responders,
i
The energency planning staff now has a direct role in preparing,
i
conducting and testing emergencj response personnel.
l
'
__
.
.
. _ . .
. __
.__ --
_ _ . . _ -
.- -
-
-
l
-
,
..
.
,
4
>
1
A consultant was hired to perform an independent evaluation of the
emergency response training program.
The consultant issued a report
i
on February 25, 1988, making 35 observations and recommendations for
j
further improvements.
'
i
!
Another consultant-vendor group is presently engaged in a
,
cenprehensive revision of the licensee's emergency response
l
organization training program.
.
The NRC inspector conducted interviews with four teams consisting of
Emergency Coordinators as defined in NUREG 0654. At RBS the Emergency
Coordinators are designated as Shift Supervisors, Emergency Directors, and
,
4
Rocovery Managers, depending on the level cf augmentation of the emergency
!
response organization.
The teams were constituted as follows:
Each of the first two teams consisted of one Shift Supervisor
!
]
and one Control Operations Foreman (C0F) (The C0Fs have
l
notification and dose assessment responsibilitics).
l
'
l
'
The third team consisted of a Recovery Manager and a Radiological
i
j
Assessment Coordinator.
<
t
The fourth team consisted of one Emergency Director, a Technteal
j
Support Center Manager, a Radiation Protection Supervisor, and a
Radiological Assessment Coordinator,
i
i
i
The interviewees were presented with 11 conceptual questions pertaining to
4
l
their inmediate emergency response duties and responsibilities.
In
)
addition, each team examined was presented with a walkthrcugh entailing a
hypothetical accident sr.enario for the purpose of testing their accuracy
1
'
l
in classifying emergencies, making acequate and timely notifications and
l
.
protective action recommendations.
The interviews were performed in the
l
Control Room. in the Technical Support Center, and in the Emergency
,
'
Operations Facility. These locations allowed realistic conditions for the
l
personnel interviewed.
All necessary reference materials were available.
,
.
Each interview lasted 90 minutes. The same questions and accident
I
scenario were used for every tcam.
Representatives from the licensee's
}
training, emergency preparedness, and operations staffs were present
i
during each of the interviews.
'
l
Based upen the above, the NRC inspector made the following findings:
f
J
I
Knowledae of Outies and Responsibilities
I
{
1
All teams demonstrated an adequate overall knowledge of their duties
I
,
and responsibilities in event of emergency plan activation and
,
!
responded accurately anc readily to conceptual questions pertaining
l
to their duties and responsibilities during emergency conditions.
l
!
However, one team was unsure at first as to the proper offsite
'
!
i
l
!
.
.
. .
. -
.
.
-
.
-
...
.
5
consequence due to a longer release duration. This was corrected
during the interview.
Accident Detection
All teams were able to promptly recognize accident conditions
postulated by the accident scenario and implement mitigation
strategies in accordance with emergency operating procedures.
The
Recovery Manager erroneously believed that grab stack samples could
be taken and analyzed in less than 20 minutes. This misconception
was corrected during the interview.
Accident Classification
1
All teams were able to properly classify plant condttions into the
i
proper emergency classification.
Accident Notifications
All teams were able to initiate and complete the proper notification
forms in response to an emergency declaration by the Emergency
j
Coordinator.
Dose Assessment
The NRC inspector provided each team with the data necessary to
perform dose calculations. All teams were able to obtain the correct
dose projections.
protection Action Recommendation (PAR) Formulation
All teams performed well when requested to formulate a PAR for the
postulated general emergency cariditions and write the PAR as though
they were making the entry on the appropriate message form.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
7.
Independent Audits (82701-02.05)
The NRC inspector noted that independent, annual audits had been conducted
by the Quality Assurance Department as required by 10 CFR 50.54(t) for
1987 and 1988. The report for the most recent audit, issued on
September 2, 1988, identified seven items requiring corrective actions and
assigned responsibilities for carrying out corrective actions. The report
also required a written response for each item and a response deadline.
In addition, the NRC inspector noted that a tracking system was in place
to ensure that corrective actions would be taken.
!
The NRC inspector determined that the licensee had conducted an
appropriate number of emergency drills.
In addition, the NRC inspector
noted that deficiencies identified in these drills were subject to a
i
_-__--
'
. '. .,
,
,
6
corrective action tracking system to meet the intent of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14), which requires that the licensee correct deficiencies
identified during exercises or drills.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
9.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspector met with licensee representativos in paragraph 1 above
on September 14, 1988, and summarized the scope and findings of the
inspection as presented in this report.
Licensee representatives
acknowledged their understanding of the inspection findings,
i
,
.. - .-.
.-
-
.
-
}
)
j
. . o ,. . - .
'
.
A.TTACHMENT 2
.
UPDATE FORH_
FACILITY:
8Er bd IWa
00CKET:
to vs
1
1
)
ORIGINATORS NAME: 80EEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
l
]
TYPE:
@
ITEN NO.:
@@@8886000
'
,
REPORT:
%@@@@C
PARAGRAPH:
8000
!
,
'
@EOEEO88800EEE8EEE8M
)
FUNCTIONAL AREA:
i
!
DESCRIPTION:
T886@808BBCBEEE88880
i
8 6 0 B W 3 0 E]8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
!
000000000000000000D0
I
!
STATUS C000:
@
4
l
UPDATE /CLOSE:
EEB3G000OO0000000DDO
<
{
REPORT
)
f
i
t
RESPONSIBLE
SECT 10N
086WD00000
'$
4
I
I
DETAILS:
l
i
I
!
!
I
!
i
)
I
i
I