ML20205N721
| ML20205N721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1986 |
| From: | Terc N, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N701 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-86-04, 50-313-86-4, 50-368-86-04, 50-368-86-4, NUDOCS 8605020267 | |
| Download: ML20205N721 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1986004
Text
-m
.
.
APPENDIX B
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-313/86-04
Licenses:
50-368/86-04
Dockets:
50-313
50-368
Licensee:
Arkansas Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO)
Inspection At:
Russellville, Arkansas
Inspection Conducted: January 27-31, 1986
Inspector:
(hrd}b
M
4[t/M
Neiiien M: Terc, Emerge
Preparedness Analyst,
04te '
Emergency Prepared
s and Safeguards
Programs Section
Accompanying personnel:
Mark I. Good, PNL
Approved:
bdi
4/u//f
L. A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness
Da'te
and Safeguards Programs Section
Inspection Summary
Routine Inspection Conducted January 27-31, 1986 (NRC Report 50-313/86-04 and
50-368/86-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's emergency
preparedness training program, including followup of previously identified
items, personnel proficiency, and training records.
Resul t.s:
Within the area inspected, two violations were identified (failure to
provide adequate training paragraph 3; inadequate equipment and procedures-
paragraph 3).
Sixteen open items from previous inspections were closed.
8605020267 860418
{DR
ADOCK Q5000313
. _ .
_
-.
_ - _ ,
.,- _ _
._
-
, _ _ _ _
-.-
_
.
.
.
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- B. A. Baker, Operations Manager
- T. C. Baker, Technical Analysis Superintendent
- B. L. Bata, Quality Assurance Engineer
- A. D. Binkley, Emergency Preparedness Training Coordinator
- D. W. Boyd, Emergency Planning Coordinator, ANO
- P. Campbell, Plant Licensing Supervisor
- T. H. Cogburn, General Manager Nuclear Services
- J. T. Enos, Manager Nuclear Engineering and Licensing
- R. C. Evans, Manager Engineering Supply Training
- S. J. Gallagher, Emergency Preparedness Trainer
- R. E. Harris, Training Coordinator
- D. Howard, Special Projects Manager
- L. W. Humphrey, Administrative Manager
- R. E. Jackson, Administrative Training Supervisor
- J. M. Levine, Director Site Nuclear Operations
- D. B. Lomax, Plant Licensing Supervisor
- J. McWilliams, Operations Superintendent
- J. T. Pugh, Lead Trainer
- M. W. Tull, Corporate Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
- J. D. Vandergrift, Training Manager
- F. P. Van Buskirk, Emergency Planning Coordinator, ANO
- J. R. Waid, Training Supervisor
- D. Ward, Shift Supervisor
NRC
- C. C. Harbuck, Resident Inspector, ANO
- J. E. Gagliardo, Reactor Projects Branch Chief, USNRC-IV
- W. D. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector, ANO
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors also contacted other licensee
personnel such as:
shift operation supervisors and shift staff
assistants, shift health physics and chemistry technicians.
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Open Items from Previous Inspections
(Closed) (313/8122-90; 368/8121-90):
The NRC inspectors noted that
training of offsite emergency response personnel had been incorporated in
the Emergency Plan and in procedure TP 1063.21, " Emergency Response
Training Program."
I
j
....
3
(Closed) (313/8211-26; 368/8209-26):
The NRC inspectors noted that procedure
EPIP 1904.07, "Offsite Dose Projections," implemented on January 27, 1983,
'
-incorporated integrated projected radiation doses in addition to dose
rates.
(Closed) (313/8211-89; 368/8209-89):
The NRC inspectors noted that the
licensee did not intend to use data from state monitoring teams in their
calculations.
(Closed) (313/8319-01; 368/8319-01):
The NRC inspectors reviewed the
10 CFR 50.54(t) Quality Assurance of emergency prep..edness for 1985 and
noted that interfaces with the state had been evaluated.
.(Closed) (313/8408-07; 368/8408-07 and 313/8502-03; 368/8502-03):
The NRC
inspectors noted that NRC Report Nos. 313/85-25 and 368/85-26 had documented
that the evacuation of the Emergency Operations Center was timely.
(Closed) (313/8408-09; 368/8408-09):
The NRC inspectors noted that coordination
of state offsite teams was made by the state authorities (See also response
to 313/8211-09).
(Closed) (313/8408-11; 368/8408-11):
The NRC inspectors noted that
medical kits for treating injured contaminated persons were provided by
June 1, 1984.
(Closed) (313/8423-01; 368/8923-01): The NRC inspectors noted that a
remedial drill to verify the proficiency of the shift supervisor and the
shift administrative assistant was conducted.
(Clostd) (313/8423-02; 368/8423-02):
The NRC inspectors noted that
-quarterly drills had been established and implemented to upgrade emergency
response training of operations personnel in the areas of emergency
detection, classification, notifications, and protective action
recommendations.
(Closed) (313/8502-02; 368/8502-02):
The NRC inspectors determined that
implementation and use of form QAP-13 was revised on July 22, 1985, to
incorporate reference to the elements of 10 CFR 50.54(t).
(Closed) (313/8502-04; 368/8502-09):
The NRC inspectors reviewed
documentation showing that an unannounced shift augmentation drill was
conducted on December 16, 1985.
,
'
(Closed) (313/8510-04; 368/8510-04):
The NRC inspectors noted that revised
dose projection procedures contained correction factors derived from field
team radiation measurements.
(Closed) (313/8510-05; 368/8510-05):
The NRC inspectors noted that the
recovery mode was demonstrated in drill and observed by NRC in October
1985 (see NRC Report Nos. 50-313/8510-25; 50-368/8510-26).
.
. - . - , -
_ . - , - . , .
--
- , . . .
.
. , . . - - - - , - - - , - - . . - , . . ,
,...,,. .
,n,
. -
. . .
.
4
(Closed) (313/8510-08; 368/8510-08):
The NRC inspectors noted that procedures
and forms were incorporated in emergency cabinets and kits and were
included in the document control system.
(Closed) (313/8510-10; 368/8510-10):
The NRC inspectors noted that the
licensee changed their communication scheme while donning self contained
breathing apparatus.
Now they rely on portable transceivers applied to
their throats.
No violations or deviations were noted in this area.
3.
Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)
l
The NRC inspectors reviewed Section 0 of the Emergency Plan for Arkansas
Nuclear One, and En:ergency Plan Administration Procedure No.1063.1,
" Emergency Response Training Program." The NRC inspectors noted that this
procedure was presently undergoing an extensive revision. A total of 25
master training record printouts and a sampling of 10 records in microfilm
were reviewed to verify the accuracy and consistency of the training
records.
In addition, the inspectors made a detailed review of 3 out of
29 existing lesson plans.
The NRC inspectors also conducted interviews and walkthroughs with
on-shift emergency response elements such as shift supervisors and
administrative assistants, shift health physics and chemistry technicians.
The NRC inspectors tested the performance of four shift supervisors and
four administrative assistants representing a total of four different
shifts, by means of individual emergency response scenario walkthroughs in
the control room.
Each walkthrough lasted approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
The
same accident scenario was used for each shift.
The scenario presentee by
the NRC inspectors required classification of emergency events, initial
notifications and dose projections.
In addition, the NRC inspectors
interviewed six on-shift health physics technicians and three chemists who
were responsible to perform dose calculations.
The health physics
technicians were presented with a scenario designed to test their ability
in determining both the habitability of the control room, and the
radioiodine content of a radioactive plume.
Based on the above activities, the NRC inspectors made the following
findings:
o
Health physics technicians that would have on-shift. assignments were
unable to perform two main tasks they would be responsible for during
accident conditions.
o
The NRC inspectors determined that all six health physics technicians
interviewed ignored technical criteria necessary to establish
habitability conditions in the control room and as a consequence
failed to determine protective action guides for personnel in the
control room during accident conditions.
These technicians failed to
recognize that one of their major responsibilities was the protection
-
!
.
. .
5
of emergency workers, and had no idea of the priorities and nature of
immediate actions required from them.
This indicated that if the
shift supervisor was too busy to direct them, they would be unable to
perform their duties.
o
The second task required by the NRC inspectors from the health
physics technicians involved the ability to determine whether a
radioactive plume contained radioiodine.
All of six technicians
failed to perform this task because they were unable to adequately
interpret sample results.
The above examples of insufficient training are an apparent violation
against the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15), which states that
" Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be
called on to assist in an emergency."
(313/8604-01; 368/8604-01).
While conducting a procedure review, the NRC inspectors made the
following findings:
o
Procedures 1905.002 "Offsite Emergency Monitoring," 1205.030
" Airborne I-131 determination using MS-2/ SPA-3," 1905.031 " Airborne
I-131 determination using an RM-14/HP-210," and 1905.032 "Use of
ND-60 Multichannel Analyzer" offered no guidance for determining
- <hether the individual taking the airborne sample in the field was
immersed in the radioactive plume.
Several technicians stated that
they needed walkthroughs on back shifts and more in depth training on
tasks involving their main emergency duties,
o
The NRC inspectors further noted that instrumentation presently in
offsite emergency kits appeared to be inadequate to establish whether
offsite air sampling is being performed within the radioactive plume.
The above examples of inadequate procedures and inadequate
instrumentation are an apparent violation against the requirements of
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV.E(2), which states that " Adequate
provisions shall be made and described for equipment used to
determine the release of radioactive materials to the environment."
(313/8604-02; 368/8604-02).
The following are observations the NRC inspectors called to the licensee's
attention.
These observations are neither violations nor unresolved
items. These items are recommended for licensee consideration for program
improvement, but they have no specific regulatory requirement.
The
licensee indicated that these items would be reviewed.
o
Some emergency response personnel had not received all required
training.
For example, one communications manager was missing the
communications lesson; one shift supervisor was missing the
Protective Action Recommendations lesson; and one shift
,
w..
.
6
administrative assistant was missing the Protective Action
Recommmendation lesson.
The NRC inspectors could not determine from
records and interviews whether the individuals had not received the
training .or whether the training documentation had been misplaced or
lost.
Training lecture documentation for three other emergency
response persons which included 22 lectures was not available in the
master training record files.
Documentation for the apparent missing
records was produced at the end of the inspection by searching other
files.
This indicates that a programmatic deficiency exists in the
licensee's record keeping system.
o
Other errors were found in the training record keeping system such as
incorrect logging and posting, incorrect microfilm numbers, missing
lessons, double entries of lessons and title inconsistencies.
Of the
25 records examined, 9 records had missing documentation and
administrative errors.
o
Administrative Procedure No. 1063.21, Revision 6, "En.ergency Response
Training Program," which governs the licensee emergency response
training program, failed to specify requirements for a periodic
review of training records.
o
Emergency response personnel who participated in control room
walkthroughs performed classification and notifications in a correct
and timely manner.
Notification forms were completed with few
errors. Proper signatures and authorizations were obtained prior to
release of information.
Emergency procedures were used efficiently
for emergency plan actions.
Protective action recommendations made
were based on plant conditions and were appropriate and timely.
No other violations or deviations were identified.
4.
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
Messrs. J. E. Gagliardo, Reactor Projects Branch Chief, W. D. Johnson, NRC
Senior Resident Inspector, and C. C. Harbuck, NRr Resident Inspector in
attendance.
The licensee was represented by Mr.
.J. M. Levine, Director,
Site Nuclear Operations and his staff.
The licensee was given an oral summary of the NRC inspectors findings,
observations and comments.
The NRC inspectors identified two violations
described above (see paragraph 3 of this report).
In addition, the NRC
inspectors noted that 16 improvement items identified in previous
inspections were closed.