IR 05000498/1986028

Insp Repts 50-498/86-28 & 50-499/86-25 on 860825-28.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.Emergency Preparedness Appraisal Scheduled for 861110-21

ML20215E839
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/20/1986
From:	Baird J, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215E809	List: IR 05000498/1986028 ML20215E804
References
50-498-86-28, 50-499-86-25, NUDOCS 8610150523
Download: ML20215E839 (7)

Text

.

t 9

.

APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION REGION IV , ,

NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/86-28 Construction Permits: CPPR-128 50-499/86-25 CPPR-129 Dockets: 50-498 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)

P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 s

Inspection At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: August 25-28, 1986 ,

w . . .

Inspectors: b 7////f(>

J. 1. Baird, Emergency Preparedness Analyst Date Other Inspectors: F. Carlson, Comex Corporation F. Rathbun, Battelle

,

Approved: MJ b '

Yho/86 L. E. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness ~' Date '

and Safeguards Programs ~Section .

'

,

,

'

'

Inspection Summary ,

'

Inspection Conducted August 25-28, 1986 (Report 56-498/86-28;50-499/86-55)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of preoperational emergency preparedness activitie This included interviews with HL&P and Matagorda '

County representatives, review of emergency plan implementing procedures, ,

examination of emergency supplies and equipment, discussions with HL&P representatives concerning preoperational inspection schedules, and a tour of onsite and Matagorda County emergency response facilitie Results: Within the emergency response areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. An emergency preparedness appraisal was scheduled for November 10-21, 198 %kONh G

~

,

,

r

'

7 7 .

~

-

,M ,

DETAILS g- .

, ' Persons Contacted-Principal' Licensee Personnel

'

• R.' Balcom, Operations Manager

• D. Cody, Manager, Nuclear Training-

~

L. Davis, Unit Supervisor _; "

',, '*B. Franta, Manager of Staff-Trainin ,

• G.'Jarvela,-Health & Safety Services Manager H. Johnson, Shift' Supervisor

• R. Goodwin, Emergency and-Safety ~ Service's Supervisor

.

,

J. Green, Operations Quality Assurance Manager P. Kerr, Emergency Planning Coordinator- '

• Kinsey,~ Plant Manager-

'

L. Lowe, Public Information Specialist

• McBurnett, Supervising Engineer G. Painter, Manager, Public Relations H. Russel, Lead Training Instructor

'J. Sims, Emergency Planning Coordinator D. Thomas,' General Supervisor, Program / Administrative Support N. Walker, Emergency Planning Coordinator

• P. Walker, Senior Licensing Engineer-J. Wells, Reactor Operator Matagorda County S. Hurta, Matagorda County Sheriff

,

NRC

• D. Carpenter, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Summary The NRC inspectors discussed the status of completion and implementation

~

of:the emergency preparedness program with licensee representatives; held interviews with HL&P personnel; reviewed training records; examined selected equipment and documentation; reviewed coordination with offsite

,

groups; reviewed notifications and communications; toured the Unit 1 control room, technical support center (TSC), operational support-

~

/

center (OSC), and emergency operations center (EOC); and visited the Matagorda County emergency operations center. The following functional areas were reviewed:

,~

h

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

. .

. Emergency Preparedness Organization The NRC inspector reviewed the latest onsite organizational structure related to the emergency preparedness program. It was noted that the responsibility for coordinating both onsite and offsite preparedness was assigned to the Emergency and Safety Services Supervisor, who reports to the Health and Safety Services Manager under the Plant Manager. Three Emergency Planning Coordinators report to this supervisor. No emergency planning responsibilities were assigned at the corporate office leve This organizational structure will be reviewed in subsequent inspections to determine if it will provide an

, adequate degree of. management support for an operational emergency preparedness progra The NRC inspector also reviewed management controls implemented through annual program reviews pursuant to the requirements of 10.CFR 50.54(t). It was noted that the reviews will be conducted by Station Operations Quality Assurance Department personnel who are independent of program implementation responsibility. The reviews will be scheduled and corrective actions handled through the-Operations. Quality Assurance Plan and routine quality assurance procedures, b'. . Staffing of Emergency Response Positions

'The NRC inspector discussed onshift, initial response and full emergency response organizations and staffing with licensee representatives and reviewed Table C-2 of the emergency plan. The NRC inspector noted that STP staffing levels and augmentation times were documented in Table C-2, Section C, of the emergency plan. This table was structured according to the guidelines of NUREG-0654, eTable B-1, and used the same major functional areas and layout as Table B-1. The augmentation times were 45 and 60 minutes, which correspond to the guidelines of 30 and 60 minutes in Table B-1. The 45 minutes time was required because of travel time from distant population centers where most augmentation personnel liv The NRC inspector noted that no demonstration of augmentation of the onshift staff had been conducted yet to confirm the licensee's ability to meet the augmentation goals. The call-out systern for notifying the augmentation staff also was not completed yet, Training Program ,

The NRC inspector determined that the licensee had a formally documented training progra The program was promulgated and controlled through Section M of the emergency plan, the Training Administration Manual, and interdepartmental procedures. Formal lesson plans were used for each phase of onsite training and the training objectives were stated in each plan. Lesson plans were not prepared for offsite emergency response trainin , _ _

...

The NRC inspector reviewed several packages of completed course materials, including attendance records, lesson plans, examinations, and summary sheets for the entire course. NRC inspactors also attended two of the courses being presented in emergency preparedness. The courses appeared to be satisfactory in theory but practical factors were somewhat lacking. The tabletop drills being conducted should provide more practical aspects but were being hampered by incomplete equipment such as telephones and the Emergency Response Facility Data Acquisition and Display System (ERFDADS).

Hands-on practical use of all equipment should be conducted as facilities and equipment are complete A review of training records and the matrices used for determining which level of training is received by each person showed the systems to be established and in order. The NRC inspector noted that training records were being shifted to the training record documentation system (TRDS) computer for the past year. Most emergency plan training records were just being entered in the computer data base because the courses had only recently begun. Thus, the computer record did not show the current status of emergency plan training but the training could be confirmed by hard copy of the attendance sheet The NRC: inspector discussed the effectiveness and status of training

' ~ with selected operations personnel (shift supervisor, unit supervisor and reactor operator) and the Operations Manager (who is assigned as an alternate Emergency Director). These discussions substantiated the status of~ emergency plan training and demonstrated that emergency response organization personnel understood their emergency plan

,

functional assignment The NRC inspectors noted that the formal training of offsite emergency' response personnel had not yet begun. This training should start and be completed soon so that the involved personnel and

'o'rganizations can effectively participate in drill and exercise sessions, Ag_ci_ dent _ Detection, Classification, Assessment, and Protective Action Decisionmaking The NRC inspector noted that most accident assessment equipment was installed but enough final phases of installation, checkout, and testing remain to preclude a review of the equipment and prevent use and practice with it by the operator The procedures for plant normal and off-normal operations were in place. It was noted that these procedures did not refer or cross-reference the emergency plan and associated emergency plan implementing procedures (EPPs). The procedure for emergency classification was issued and had been used for training and practice. A review of this procedure showed a significant number of b

O *e D e

alarm levels and decision point numbers were listed as "to be supplied," which detracted from the current training and drill This information should be provided as.soon as possibl Discussions with personnel trained as Emergency Director and operating crew members indicated to the NRC inspector that the training to date had been effective. The classification procedure appeared to be workable, was well understood, and was expected to be improved by a revision which was currently under way. The NRC inspector noted that the Emergency Director questioned demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the emergency plan and classification schem Decisionmaking and the coordination of lines of authority were also examined in discussion sessions and determined to be satisfactor Emergency Notifications The NRC inspector discussed the licensee's provisions for alerting, notifying and activating plant staff, offsite organizations, and the public. It was noted that procedures for notifications had been written and approved._ However, the emergency staff notification procedure had no system established for the call-out and no telephone numbers.were>provide In addition, it was noted that the licensee had' procured approximately 2,000 tone-alert radios to be distributed

. within the 10-mile emergency planning zon '

-

The NRC inspector also discussed the status of the public information

,

program with a licensee representative. It was noted that the emergency information brochures and posters for transient population had not_been completed yet, and the distribution for these items had not been identified. In addition, it was noted that written procedures controlling emergency public information team activities

'had not been completed. The Manager of Public Affairs stated that attention would be given to completing these items in a timely fashio Physical Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies The NRC inspector toured the Unit 1 control room, TSC, OSC, E0C, and Matagorda County emergency operations center. It was noted that, except for the TSC, the emergency response facilities were virtually I

completed. A licensee representative stated that the TSC would be completed by October 1, 198 Emergency telephones were being installed but were not operational ye Most of the emergency supplies and equipment had been purchased and stored in the EO None of the emergency supplies and equipment had been deployed to the other emergency response facilities yet. The NRC inspector noted that a draft procedure for the inventory and calibration of the emergency instrumentation and supplies had been writte . .. -

6 Communications The NRC inspector discussed the status of onsite and offsite emergency communications systems and equipment with licensee representatives. It was noted that a new high capacity communications system being installed was projected for completion by October 1, 1986. Ringdown telephone systems were being provided to state and county emergency operations centers, as well as to the NRC emergency operations center. A licensee representative stated that the ringdown systems were expected to be operational by mid-December 1986. The NRC inspector also determined that pagers had been provided for corporate and plant key staff to enable prompt contact in the event of an emergency requiring augmentation of the onshift staf In addition, it was noted that a draft procedure for periodic testing of emergency communications systems had been writte Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures The NRC inspector noted that the licensee had provided 11 emergency plan implementing procedures for use. Ten of these procedures had been approved and issued. The remaining procedure was still designated for information only, and was being issued for training, drills, and exercise Several procedures were still in draft form, including those dealing with evacuation and accountability, inventory of emergency equipment and supplies, and periodic checks of emergency communications equipmen An additional 141 procedures which pertained to emergency plant operations already existed under numbering systems for routine plant operations and nonradiological applications. Plans had been made to convert these procedures to EPPs through the simple device of a numbering change. A licensee representative stated that these additional procedures would be renumbered and approved as emergency plan implementing procedures by mid-Octobe Coordination With Offsite Groups The NRC inspector inquired about coordination of emergency planning with offsite agencies and noted that the licensee had been active in

'

working with county and state officials to support preparation of the offsite emergency plans. The NRC inspector also reviewed the status of letters of agreement with offsite support agencie It was noted that four of the letters were dated more than one year ago and three support resources identified in the plan did not have corresponding letters of agreement executed. This was brought to the licensee's attention and a licensee representative stated that the letters would be updated as necessar No violations or deviations were identifie r sr

.

.. *,s

.;

,

.

.

7 2 a Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on August 28, 1986. The NRC inspectors stated that the discussions, observations, and tours had

~~-~ - not identified any significant indicators that the emergency preparedness

.

i'

,

~

,

'

program completion progress could not support an emergency preparedness

^

-

appraisal ,in November 1986. A schedule for conducting the appraisal

,

during the period November 10-21, 1986, was agreed o ;> .

'

'

.- -

, . . ,. ._ .

.

f k .

M '

g

' ~

,

-Q ,, , . r -: ~

j, , t

.h

'

- %

• - $