IR 05000338/1986005

Insp Repts 50-338/86-05 & 50-339/86-05 on 860224-28. Violation Noted:Failure to Provide Specialized Training Program for Personnel Assigned to Damage Control Teams

ML20210H082
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	03/16/1986
From:	Decker T, Kreh J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210H047	List: IR 05000338/1986005 ML20210H044 ML20210H050
References
50-338-86-05, 50-338-86-5, 50-339-86-05, 50-339-86-5, IEIN-85-080, IEIN-85-80, NUDOCS 8604020690
Download: ML20210H082 (6)

Text

e- m . g- ---- . ,

'

t.; , .

- .

UNITi2D STATES -

00EIuq'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS'SION

[ n REGION li g j' 101 MARIETTA STREET. *

t '

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323 ( *..,* ,/

MAR 2 0 Iggy Report Nos.: 50-338/86-05 and 50-339/86-05 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company ~

Richmond, VA 23261-Docket Nos.: 50-338~and 50-339 License Nos.: 'NPF-4-and NPF-7 Facility Name: North Anna Power Station Inspection Conducted: February 24-28, 1986 Inspectcrs: s[# o B d 3N/8 J. L. Kreb // Date Signed

' Accompanying Personnel: .A.'E. Tabaka Approved by: [/.[ M#A J//4/84 T. R. Decker, Chief Date' Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite and'4 inspector-hours offsite in the area of emergency preparednes Results: One violation was identified: failure to provide a specialized-training program for personnel assigned to Damage Control Teams. No deviations were identifie .

i

m Pa*Peu G

%TES

n

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. W. Parrell, Station Manager

• E. R. Smith, Jr. , Assistant Station Manager

• L. L. Edmonds, Superintendent Nuclear Training

• G. E. Pederson, Supervisor Training

• S. A. Harrison, Coordinator Emergency Plarning (Station)

• G. A._Polson, Coordinator Emergency Planning (Corporate)

• F. M. Cox, Supervisor Emergency Planning (Corporate) J. Mocarski, Loss Prevention Supervisor Black, Station Safety Coordinator C. Lencalis, Shift Supervisor C. Sturgill, Assis ant Shift Supervisor W. R. Madison, Senior Instructor

Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics,. security force members, and office personne Other Organizations R. F. Perkins, Jr. , Chief, Louisa (VA) Vclunteer Fire Department M. A. Manrique, Assistant Coordinator of Emergency Services, Louisa County, VA

,

NRC Resident Inspectors

• M. W. Branch L. P. King

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope'and findings were summarized on February 28, 1986, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the violation described below in Paragraph 5 (failure to provide specialized emergency training for personnel assigned to Damage Control Teams). Although station management representatives did not explicitly take exception to this finding, - they indicated that further evaluation would be undertake The licensee did not identity as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio rc j

.

.

3 Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections I and IV.C, this program area was inspected to determine whether the licensee used and understood a standard emergency classification and action level schem The inspector reviewed Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (EPIP)-1.01,

" Emergency Manager Controlling Procedure," to determine the adequacy of the licensee's classification scheme. Although the procedure was lengthy r.nd relatively cumbersome, interviews with Shift Supervisors (see paragraph 5 below) confirmed its efficacy. The indications associated with the various conditions listed in the Emergency Action Level (EAL) Table (Attachment 1 to EPIP-1.01) were generally keyed to the values of specific plant parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentation. The EALs appeared to be consistent with the initiating events delineated in Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, Revision The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of EALs with State and local officials, and noted documentation of the licensee!s annual review of EALs with representatives of State and local agencies in a meetino on March 27, 198 '

No violations or deviations were identifie . Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)-

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16), 10 CFR 50.54(q), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was. reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine ir.spection (March 1985) and to note how any such changes affected the overall state of

_

emergency preparednes The inspector verified, through discussions with licensee personnel and examination of records, that station management representatives reviewed and anproved changes to the Emergency Plan (E?) and the EPIPs through the functioning of the Station Nuclear Safety and Operations Committee (SNSOC).

The inspector verified that EP/EPIP revisions during the period January 1985, thraugh January 1986, were submitted to the NRC within 30 days of implementation and that they were distributed to appropriate station

~

personne The licensee's most recent EP revision was dated March 5, 1985 (Revision 9);

NRC review previously confirmed that Revision 9 had not decreased the effectiveness of the E Significant ;hanges in the' licensee's emergency response facilities included turnover of the new Technical Support Center (TSC) and Local Emergencj Operations Facility (LEOF). The TSC, adjacent to the Control Room, and the LEOF, adjunctive to the Training Building, were examined briefly by the inspecto Provisions for activation and use of these f acilities were

,

.

incorporated in the EPIPs. Revised descriptions of the TSC and LEOF were to be included in the next EP revision (in progress, according to the licensee). Other changes included refurbishment of the Local Media Center in Mineral, VA, to improve general habitability and communications capability. These changes in the . licensee's emergency response facilities increased the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness progra The inspecte reviewed the licensee's organization for administration of the emergency preparedness program. The departure of the corporate Director Emergency- Planning resulted in downgrading of the position to that of

- Supervisor, although the organization of the program was . unaffected. The individual serving as corporate Supervisor Emergency P_lanning was formerly Coordinator Emergency Planning for the Sur y Power Station. There were no changes in the organization of the program at the station leve The emergency preparedness program at North Anna had good visibility and appeared to be receiving adequate att ntion from station managemen Significant changes in the ' staffing of offsite support agencies included reassignments for the positions of Louisa County Emergency Coordinator, Caroline County Emergency Coordinator, and Coordinator of Emergency Services for the Commonwealth'of Virgini No violations or deviations were identifie . Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)

Pursuant to 10 CFP 50.47(b)(15) and Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, +.his area was inspected to determine the extent to which emergency response personnel understood their roles and were capable of performing their assigned function The inspector examined selected lesson plans and training records, ' and interviewed members of the instructional staff. The training program as defined in EP Section 8.3 was found to be fully implemente Lesson plans were thorough and detaile Training records were up to date and readily auditable; several minor discrepancies were identified to the licensee and promptly resolved. Training records for key members of the emergency organization for the period March 1985 - January 1986, indicated that the type, amount, and frequency of emergency preparedness training were consistent with EP -equirement Although the EP/EPIPs identified the existence and functional role of the Damage Control Team in the emergency response organization, the EP did not describe a specialized initial training and periodic retraining program for personnel assigned to the Damage Control . Team, as required by regulatio Further, licensee representatives were unable to identify the provision of specialized emergency training for the personnel in question at any phase of their normal employment training. The inspector informed the licensee that the EP failed to comply with the requirements of Section IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 5 .

.

S'

Violation (338,339/86-05-01): Failure to provide specialized emergency training for members of the Damage Control Tea The inspector conducted walk-through~ interviews with 2 persons identified in-the emergency crganization as (interim) Station Emergency Manager (SEM).

' During these walk-throughs, the indi"4 duals were 'given various hypothetical sets of emergency conditions and data an3 asked to discuss what actions they would take in accordance with the EP/EPIPs. The individuals demonstrated reasonable facility and familiarity with the procedures, and no significant problems were observed in .the areas of emergency detection / classification ar.d protective action decision-makin As part of one of the walk-throughs described above, the inspector interviewed an individual designated by the mock SEM as Emergency Communicator. That individual demonstrated familiarity with EPIP-2.01,

" Notification of State and Local Governments", and EPIP-2.02, " Notification of NRC." In addition, the individual in question stated that she had received formal training for the role of Emergency Communicator, and had served in that capacity during several actual emergencies (Notification of Unusual Event ~ classification). Lessons plans and training records for the Emergency Communicator function were reviewe In connection with this matter, the inspector di Oissed with licensee representatives IE information Notice No. 85-80, " Timely Declaration of an Emergency Class, Implementation of an Emergency Plan, and Emergency Notifications." The licensee had reviewed this Notice and had determined that no action was necessary, since

. formal training for the Emergency Communicator position was already being given. The inspector had no further questions on this matte 'One violation and no deviations were identifie . Licensee Audits (82210)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness progra Records of audits of the program were-reviewed. The records showed that an independent audit of the program (Audit No. N-85-03) was conducted by the licensee's Quality Assurance Department, with findings contained in a report dated May 10, 1985. This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such audit The audit records showed that the State -and -local government interfaces 'were evaluated. ' Audit findings and recommendations were presented to station and corporata c.anagement. A review of station records indicated that the licensee complied with the five year retention requirement for audit report Licensee emergency plans and procedures . required critiques following exercises, and an evaluation process following drill Licensee documentation showed that these requirements were followed, resulting in identification of deficiencies and recommendations for corrective actio c ,

-.

.

- The ' licensee.'s program for' follow-up action on audit, drill, and ' exercise findings was reviewed,- as were records which indicated that corrective action was taken on identified problems, as appropriate. The licensee had established a computerized tracking system as a management tool in following up on actions taken in deficient area No violations or deviations were identified in this program are . ' Coordination with Offsite Agencies (82210)

-

15e inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the

.coardination of emergency planning with offsite agencie Written agraements existed with those offsite support agencies specified in the EP, with the required 2 year renewal of those agreements in progres The'

inspecar determined through personal ~ interviews with representatives of selecteo local support agencies that the licensee was . periodically contacting those agencies for purposes of offering training and maintaining mutual familiarization with emergency response role Those interviews disclosed no significant problems related to the interfaces between the licensee and the offsite support agencies listed in Paragraph . Inspector Follow-up (92701)

(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 338,339/85-21-01: EPIP-1.01 was revised to eliminate 8 separate EAL references to declaration of a Notification of Unusual Event only upon attainment of Mode 3 (i.e.,

declaration was formerly not required while unit in Mode 1 or 2).