IR 05000458/1986025

Insp Rept 50-458/86-25 on 860721-25.Violation Noted:Failure to Follow Procedures.Deficiencies Noted Re Dose Assessment Training & Equipment

ML20205G193
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	08/08/1986
From:	Baird J, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205G100	List: IR 05000458/1986025 ML20205G094 ML20205G132
References
50-458-86-25, NUDOCS 8608190424
Download: ML20205G193 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-

.
      .
-. .

APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

_

   '

NRC Inspection Report: '50-458/86-25 License: NPF-47 Docketi 50-458' '

 '
 . ',,

Licensee:'lGulffStates Utilities (GSU)

 '
  - River Bend Nuclear. Group P. O. Box 22 .  - St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Facility Name: River Bend Station (RBS)

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

Inspection Conducted

July 21-25, 1986 l

t

.

'

-
 -Inspector: .

d a bird JT B'. Saird, Emerg sic {{PreparednessAnalyst h8/E6 Dhte' - Emergency Prepared d.suvand Safeguards Programs Section

   .    -
       ,,
      ,

Approved: hdi t/t/f6 , L. A. Van ~ dell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Date' and Safeguards Programs Section

      .

Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted July 21-25, 1986 (Report 50-458/86-25) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's emergency notifications and communication, shift staffing and augmentation, and dose calculation and assessmen Results: Within the emergency response areas inspected, one violation (failure to follow procedures, paragraph 2) and two deficiencies (dose assessment training, paragraph 5; dose assessment equipment, paragraph 5) were identifie _ G

     , . .- .. ..

r

. .
      ,
 ,
       *
.
 '     *
       *

  .
  .
     . .

DETAILS

  , Persons Contacted '
.
   '

Gulf States Utilities

 , , . *D. ~ A'ndrews',.. Director, Nuclear Training
 *J. Booker, Manager, Engineering, Fuels, and Licensing
 *J.' Cadwallader, Supervisor, Emergency Planning
'
 *W. Cahill,1 Senior.Vice President, RBNG
 *E.-Cargill,[ Supervisor, Radiological Programs D. Chase, Technical Staff Engineer M. Chilson', Nuclear Equipment Operator J. Clark, Nuclear Control Operator Foreman
 *H. Dennis, Prompt Notification System Operator W. Eisele, Health Physicist
., C. Fantacci, Radiation Prptection Supervisor
 *D. Feighart, Senior Emergency Planner   "
       .
'
 *D. Gipson, Assistant Plant Manager , ,
,  *T. Gildersleeve, Senior Emergency Planner  ,
      '
      .
       '
 *R. Jobe, Senior Emergency Planner
 ,
 *R. King, Licensing ~    .
: * Odell, Manager, Administration -
 *E. Oswood,- Senior Quality Assurance Engineer .   - -
 *S. Perrin, Communications Foreman
     *
    ~

Contractor Personnel , .

     '

W. Smith, Impell .. .

      ~

State of Louisiana

     '
     -
     .

D. Zaloudek, Emergency Planning Supervisor, LNED Federal Emergency Management Agency

 - Jones, Community Planner NRC Personnel
 *D. Chamberlain, Senior Resident Inspector
 * Jones, Resident Inspector
 * Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Notifications and Communications The NRC inspector reviewed appropriate procedures for notifying and communicating with offsite agencies during an emergency. The River Bend emergency plan (hereafter referred to as "the Plan") and

,,  - -
. .
 -

.
-
     .  .
   ,
. associated procedures appeared to be consistent with 10 CFR 50.72 notification requirements. The NRC inspector determined that the licensee .

had provisions for message ver.ification by the state and county authorities upon notificatio The NRC inspector also observed ,

 'demonstrati6n of unannounced test notifications to state agencies from the TSC and control room by use of backup telephone numbers. The contacts were promptly made and no discrepancies were identified. Telephone numbers for all licensee and offsite support emergency response personnel
 '

and facilities wereglisted in EIP-2-029, " Emergency Telephone Numbers."

The NRC-inspector,noted that this procedure required that the

 ' Supervisor-Emergency. Planning make a daily review of a listing of newly hired ~and terminating personnel, and ensure that all emergency telephone numbers were reviewed for accuracy and updated quarterly. The NRC inspector determined that the daily review had not been accomplished and that-emergency telephone numbers for offsite agencies listed in EIP-2-029
 .had not been reviewed on a quarterly basis as required. This is an apparent Niolation of NRC requirements. (458/8625-01)

The NRC insp~ector noted that the primary means of alerting and notitying the public in the plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) is by 92 fixed sirens. The licensee verified the operability of this system through daily electronic interrogation and weekly silent tests. In addition, a weekly patrol with visual inspection and a quarterly preventive maintenance was being conducted. The NRC inspector reviewed a sample of test and maintenance records and noted no discrepancies. The

,  NRC inspector also made a visual inspection of 12 sirens in the EPZ and noted no apparent problens with the condition of the equipment. During the review of this. area, the NRC inspector noted that the licensea had instructions for the various checks and tests but no approved, written procedures for implementing the instruction .

The NRC inspector reviewed communication links and equipment'as described

 , in the Plan and procedures. The description of communication links in the Plan was found to be consistent with the description in the state pla The NRC inspector noted that the licensee performed. communication drills periodically _and had a mechanism in place to correct any deficiencies noted. Primary and backup communication links for emergency response facilities and offsite support agencies were checked weekly. Primary communications links to state and local agencies were by telephone hotline with commercial telephone lines and radio used as backups. Monthly system checks of the emergency notification system (ENS) and health physics i network (HPN) were also performed. A review of selected records of these ,

tests over the past year verified that tests were performed as require l The NRC inspector also observed one of the weekly communications tests with offsite agencies and no problems were identified. While' reviewing this area, the NRC inspector noted that there were no approved, written procedures for performing the communications checks and generating the records of the tests.

       !
      -

I

-.
   - . . --

- - .~  -, . - .
     , . . - .- _. . .. -.
       .
... .
   .

4 . .

Duri5g the inspection, the NRC inspector contacted.) representative of the ' Region VI Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) office and inquired about the status of the FEMA review of the alert and notification syste ~ The FEMA representative stated that the design report was currently.under review and that a test date for the system would be established upon ! satisfactory completion of the design revie .

   , .
     .
       .

i

'

The following are observations the NRC inspector called to the licensee's

   ~
 # attention. . These observations are neither violations nor unresolved   '

's,

 -
 -
 -items.- These items were recommended for licensee consideration .for-improvement,,but have no specific regulatory requirement.

*

 *

' Written procedurestshould be provided for testing of onsite , communica'tions' systems.and the generation and retention of test-

;   record ,

..

! l Operational checks, periodic maintenance and system operat. ion j

'
-

instructions should be incorporated into written procedures and generation-and retention of; records specifie ' Shift Staffing and Augmentation

    '

The NRC' inspector reviewed the Plan, discussed shift staffing and '

        '

? augmentation with licensee representatives and reviewed selected personnel qualification records to determine if the goals and criteria of Table B-1

of NUREG-0654 could be me The NRC inspector also review <J the results

, of two^ unannounced augmentation drills conducted September 17 and

October 2, 1985. These reviews inaicated that.the. licensee had made

adequate provisions for shift staffing and augmentation to deal with emergencies. The NRC inspector noted that-the two augmentation drills

;  described above had been conducted in response to an emergency
   ~

preparedness appraisal finding and subsequent periodic augmentation drills-

were not provided for in the Plan or specified as'one of the drills to bw , l conducted pursuant to Procedure EIP-2-102, " Training,. Drills, and . Exercises."

- ,

) The NRC inspector determined that contact of emergency response personnel needed to augment the onshift staff would be by radio pager contact . initiated by the on-duty' shift clerk with designated primary personnel-i assigned to the emergency respunse organization. Personnel who receive i ' the page use a call-back number to the pager system which verifies that contact has been made. Backup telephone calls are made if a person fails .

 -to call back. Key personnel contact other-plant personnel having roles in j  staffing the c:nergency response ~ organization. The callout would proceed until sufficient staff would be notified to staff the emergency response

'

     ~

i facilitie Each of the key responders were assigned pagers. . Periodic testing of pagers;was conducted although such testing was not specifically-defined in procedures. The NRC inspector noted that' personnel ~ appeared to' - , understand the use of pagers, but.there was.no written procedure

controlling the issuance, use, testing,-and maintenance of pagers. -The i licensee depended on having a number of personnel qualified and' assigned to

i

, . - - , - , - - - ,-- . ~  ,  -., , - . .  , ,. , .

      ,
. .
.
    .-

   ,

emergency response positions for availability to respond to an augmentation call. The NRC inspector noted that an emergency telephone book (EIP-2-029) was maintained with pager numbers and home and work , telephone numbers for the emergency response organization. The call list was reviewed and updated once per quarte Tiie following are observations the NRC inspector called to the licensee's attention. The observations are neither violations nor unresolved item These items were recommended for licensee consideration for improvement, but they have no specific regulatory requirement Augmentation drills should be specifically included in procedures to be performed on a specified frequenc * A procedure should 5e issued to control the issuance, use, testing, and maintenance of :.ersonnel pager No violations or deviations were identifie . Dose Calculations and Assessment

     ~

The NRC inspector toured the emergency response facilities, examined dose assessment equipment and procedures, observed ' demonstrations of dose * * assessment, and held discussions with selected station personnel to-

'

determine what provisions the licensee had made for dose calculation and assessment during a radiological emergency. A r.epresentative of the state of Louisiana was also contacted to discuss the state capability.and . ' compatibility o'f dose calculations. This discussion indicated that'the' *

, state had experienced good cooperation with GSU on establishing dose assessment techniques, and no significant compatibility' problems had been identified during previous drills and exercise A review of dose assessment procedures showed that the li_censee had provided a programmable calculator and manual methods for rapidly performing emergency dose projections. The NRC inspector determined that the licensee's computerized method using the GSU digital radiation monitoring system (DRMS) had not been implemented ye The NRC inspector noted that a GSU letter datea February 28, 1986, committed the licensee to a completion date for this system of 2 months after the completion of 100 percent power testing. Licensee representative stated that the 2-month period referred to would end August 16, 1986. The dose assessment techniques were implemented in Procedure EIP-2-024, "Offsite Dose Calculations - Manual Method." The dose assessment methodology included assessment using vent monitor readings or release pathway grab sample results. The procedure also included a methodology for determining the release rate from field monitoring team measurements. Three manual methods were provided: manual calculation, programmable calculator calculation, and manual use of isopleth overlays for off-centerline dose Dose assessment could be performed in all of the emergency response

, facilitie .

      - - - - - -
     . _ .

__

  ,
. . .
.
 *

  .

The NRC inspector observed demonstrations of the manual calculation, programmable calculator, and isopleth procedures in the control room, . technical support center (TSC), and emergency operations center (E0F), respectively. In the control room, the NRC inspector noted that the programmable' calculator was inoperable due to the batteries being down on the printe This resulted in the control operati'n'g foreman having to use the backup manual-manual method for demonstration of dose assessment capabilities. The foreman was able to complete the calculations, but made an error which caused the results to be incorrect. When questioned about training, the foreman stated that he had oeen adequately trained in the calculator method, but had only performed the manual-manual method once befor In the TSC, a health physicist successfully demonstrated the licensee's capability to perform dose assessment with the programmable calculator method in a timely manner. At the conclusion of the demonstration, the NRC inspector noted that the calculator printer module was put back in the storage box with the switch on. This was brought to the licensee's attention and the switch was turned off and a notice placed on all of the storage boxes reminding the users te turn the switch of Next, the NRC inspector observed the licensee's d'ose' asses'sment capability in the E0F. The health physicist selected to demonstrate the3 dose - assessment attempted to use the programmable calculator and found that it' was inoperable. The NRC inspector noted that-the health: physicist.

. subsequently demonstrated dose assessment by the isopleth method in a-

    .

satisfactory and t.imely manner. During the demonstration, the NRC inspector also noted that one of the values in' Table 1 of. Attachment 3 to EIP-2-024 was incorrect. The licensee took immediate corrective action in issuing a memorandum alerting the station staff to the error and providing the correct valu Based on the above, the following items are-considered to be einergenc a preparedness deficiencies: -

     .

Dose assessment programmable calculators in the control room and E0F

      ~

were not maintained in operable condition. (458/8625-02)

*

Proficiency for performing backup manual dose assessment calcelations in the control room was not demonstrated to be adequat (458/8625-03) No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Meeting The NRC inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 25, 1986. The NRC inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the finding '

       ;

.

NRC FollM 768 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRWCIPAL INSFTCTOR fNamp Est hest se mee ntwa 0535 hq g d) 7* j3 ' INSPECTOR'S REPORT REVIEWER . Office of Inspection and Enforcement

         [ gg,fl INSTECTORS TRANSA TION      REPORT  NExT INSPEC DATE LICENSE E ' VENDOR     DOCKE' NO 18 dtiss OR LICENSE NO 18V PRODUCTH13 dgw   NO SEO MO vp fY      && G    g g
     '

4 11 b % i f .l d,$ Q C) Q f f A M - MODIFY

     -

D - 0ELETE C

     -

R - REPLACE D 1 2 14 16 14 e EMOD OF INVESTKiATION %5PECTiON INSPECTION PERFORMED By ORGAN 2ATION CODE OF REG ON/MO CONDUC ING ACTIVITY (See tfMC 0530 ' Marooner Repor F^OM TO K 1 - REGIONAL OFFICE ST AF F OTHER gwg y,,,po.,, ngg w a y MO- DAY VR MO DAY TR 2 - RESIDENT INSPECTOR _R(GON DMSON I UANCH B oh ,;1 1 7 o!7 JIS Tl4 3 - PERFORMANCE AMRAISAL TEAM .4 3 l D 25 26 31 32 ' 33 34 35 TYPE OF ACTivif Y CONDUCTEDIChece one boa o'Wyl REGIONAL ACTION ICheck one bon or*vi N 02 - $AFETY _ 06 - MGMT vaSIT to - PLANT SE INQUIRV 1 - NRC FORM 591 03 - INC10ENT 07 - SPECtAL 11 - INVENT.vER 15 - #NVESTIGATION 2 - KEGON AL OFFICE LETTER 04 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SHIPMENTIEXPORT 05 - MGMT AUDIT 09 - MAT ACC iMPOR T 36 37 M sNSPECTiON W.ESTiU ATON fin >NGS TOTAL NWBER REPORT CONTAIN 2 790

  " ""    ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE    LETTER OR GEPORT TR ANSMtTT AL DATE OF VCLATCNS AND   MELD  INF ORM ATbON A B C D    DEv;ATCNS  '
  ,

NRC FOPU 591 REPORT SENT

         -*     TO MO FOR 1 - CLEAR    -

OR REG . LETTER ISSUED * ACTION g 2 - VIOLATON 3 - DEviATON A B D D

          "

VR day C Af8 C A B C D MO "D A Y MO- VR 4 - VCLATCN & DEviATON g,l , , , { 1 - V ES 1 - YES df /l# hh l l l_ , W 4041 42 43 44 49 50 SS MODULE INFORMATiON MODut E INFORM ATON 4* C D MODULE NUMBER INSP yg 9 MODULE REO FOLLOWUP D MC E NUM8ER iNSP 9 MODULE REO FOLLOWUP 8* 6g## r 98 5 5 55 58 *

- xs 8-  : 4<ds5 - - - . 5 g-  - -

a- ad -*s5 s - - : a-r i i !5 9i f

  *

6 Siiss !:i3 $ i !I si i t i i !5 : s si !! $ g: 6 iii ! i !$ sI i

: = z 25 : e n r aa:1 r8e  : I so : = c ; I sa  e - )dsisa:1 r8e : z su e; z
. i r 3iol7, o,3l  ^

oioia ii i liiI e i iIiiI ^ i i i i i IiiI

  *

i i i i i liil ' i i i i i 'l i i l c i , i i i liiI c i i i i i liiI i t i i i liil i i i i liiI

  ^       ^

e i 5 1 2l2 i >i3! odi.A lici o t i liil e i iliil' i i i i i liil l i t i i i i l i l i i i i i l i i i I i t i i i i i i i i i f f t t t t I t f l I I )

= i S3iallioisl  ^

o3m /ioi o c i IiiI e i iliiI ^ i i i i i IiiI

  *

i i t i i liil ' i i i i lI i l 1 i t I i i I , i i I i ii t I t i i i l i l i l i ! i s i d illaci71 ^ ci3ia t ioio c- i liiI e i iIiiI ^ i i i i i IiiI

I I i t I i i i i i i i l i

  '

i l i I i i i l i i i i i ! O CIRCtf SEQUENCE IF 0 I D I I VOL ATON OR DEviATON , , l l t l l l l l l l l l l l l l '1 l' 3l4 l5 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 21 l 26 1l2 3l 4 lS to 12 13 is 16 is is 20 2, 26}

           =

 ,
~

f3RC $0RU 7E A REPoRV MODULE NUMBER DOCKET NO. al0RUCENSE

'j'f*pos3,   woisyPRoo inia a. ,o ,,o. . , g gy , g INSPECTOR'S REPORT d6o oo +$J M /; 2 5 a vo"o*$ma"'ORDEvjTioM i (Continuation)    e , , , , , , c Office of Inspection and Enforcement     _g

_e, C C

       ] .o.oR-,,,,,..,._,._._,,.....,~.__..-_.....,,...E_,-....,,.,._,
  '

a Failure to Follow Procedures

'~ CFR 50.54(q) requires that licensees shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the
, requirements in Appendix E to Part 5 t 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6) requires, in part, that provisions be established for
,.

prompt communications among principal response organizations and emergency personne .

,, River Bend Station Support Manual Procedure EIP-2-104, Revision No. 1
"- effective May 8,1985, " Maintenance of Emergency Telephone Numbers," had been established,fo support implementation of the emergency communications
,1 systems provisions of the emergency plan in accordance with the planning
' 8- standard in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6). EIP-2-104 states, in Section 4.1, that
,a the Supervisor, Emergency Planning shall review listings of newly hired and terminating personnel on a daily basis, and ensure that all emergency
.
'5-telephone numbers in the emergency telephone book are reviewed for accuracy and updated quarterl .
"~ Contrary to the above, on July 24, 1986, the NRC inspector determined that'

the Supervisor, Emergency Planning, had not received and reviewed listings . i of newly hired and terminating personnel on a daily basis. In addition,

~ the Supervisor, Emergency Planning, had not reviewed offsite agencies' .   *

a backup telephone numbers in the eme'rgency telephone book for accuracy on a quarterly basi This is a Severity Level V violatio (SuppkementVIII)(458/8601) n 2 s

2?

29

31.

33 3s

4

        $1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSloN
   .' T    ^

}}