05000331/FIN-2011002-02: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.11 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.11 | ||
| Inspector = M Munir, K Riemer, D Jones, L Haeg, R Murray, A Scarbearyl, | | Inspector = M Munir, K Riemer, D Jones, L Haeg, R Murray, A Scarbearyl, Haegm Mitchell, R Murray, A Wilson, B Cushman, K Riemer | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = Based on a simulator drill scenario on January 25, 2011, the inspectors identified an issue of concern regarding whether Entergy procedure IP-EP-210, Central Control Room. Attachment 9.1, Shift Manager/Plant Operations Manager (Emergency Director) Checklist, is adequate to ensure proper notification of state and local authorities as required by IPEC Emergency Plan Section E. Additionally, the inspectors questioned whether operator training with regard to implementation of this procedure checklist is adequate and consistent amongst operator crews. As a result, the NRC has opened an unresolved item (URI) requiring further information from Entergy regarding their review of the adequacy of the procedure including an assessment of operator training specific to implementation of that procedure checklist. Description: Following the emergency declaration of an Alert by operators during a simulator drill scenario on January 25, 2011, the operators entered emergency plan implementing procedure IP-EP-210, Central Control Room, Attachment 9.1, Shift Manager/Plant Operations Manager (Emergency Director) Checklist. The IPEC Emergency Plan, Section E, Notification Methods and Procedures, paragraph 1.b.5, requires in part that an immediate notification (within 15 minutes) of an Alert is made by the Shift Manager or his designee to the New York State and Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, and Orange Counties. The emergency plan implementing procedure checklist directs the Shift Manager to complete a New York State (NYS) Radiological Emergency Data Form and have a control room Offsite Communicator email and fax the data form to the offsite authorities. The Offsite Communicator must then confirm receipt of the information by offsite authorities. NRC regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), require in part that procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee, of State and local response organizations. The drill scenario simulated one county not being present during the initial notification call via the radiological emergency communication system (RECS). The Offsite Communicator provided the event notification to NYS and the counties that were present on the line. The NRC inspectors observed that during the drill the Offsite Communicator did not implement additional communication measures to ensure the county, not present during the initial notification, received the event notification via fax. The inspectors observed that not affirming receipt of the notification by the county would not be consistent with IPEC Emergency Plan Section E in ensuring the licensee notifies all state and local authorities. The inspectors also observed that Entergy evaluators did not address this issue during the simulator scenario critique. The inspectors questioned Entergy personnel regarding their views during the simulator scenario and the expected operator response. The inspectors concluded additional information is required from Entergy staff related to their assessment regarding the adequacy of the procedure IP-EP-210, Attachment 9.1 and operator training with regard to the implementation of that procedure. Prior to completion of this inspection, Entergy personnel revised the Control Room Initial Notification Checklist (Form EP-4) to provide direction to operators in the event initial notifications are not able to be completed for required state and local authorities. (URI 05000247/2011002-02, Notification Process for State/Local Authorities During a Simulator Scenario) | | description = Based on a simulator drill scenario on January 25, 2011, the inspectors identified an issue of concern regarding whether Entergy procedure IP-EP-210, Central Control Room. Attachment 9.1, Shift Manager/Plant Operations Manager (Emergency Director) Checklist, is adequate to ensure proper notification of state and local authorities as required by IPEC Emergency Plan Section E. Additionally, the inspectors questioned whether operator training with regard to implementation of this procedure checklist is adequate and consistent amongst operator crews. As a result, the NRC has opened an unresolved item (URI) requiring further information from Entergy regarding their review of the adequacy of the procedure including an assessment of operator training specific to implementation of that procedure checklist. Description: Following the emergency declaration of an Alert by operators during a simulator drill scenario on January 25, 2011, the operators entered emergency plan implementing procedure IP-EP-210, Central Control Room, Attachment 9.1, Shift Manager/Plant Operations Manager (Emergency Director) Checklist. The IPEC Emergency Plan, Section E, Notification Methods and Procedures, paragraph 1.b.5, requires in part that an immediate notification (within 15 minutes) of an Alert is made by the Shift Manager or his designee to the New York State and Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, and Orange Counties. The emergency plan implementing procedure checklist directs the Shift Manager to complete a New York State (NYS) Radiological Emergency Data Form and have a control room Offsite Communicator email and fax the data form to the offsite authorities. The Offsite Communicator must then confirm receipt of the information by offsite authorities. NRC regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), require in part that procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee, of State and local response organizations. The drill scenario simulated one county not being present during the initial notification call via the radiological emergency communication system (RECS). The Offsite Communicator provided the event notification to NYS and the counties that were present on the line. The NRC inspectors observed that during the drill the Offsite Communicator did not implement additional communication measures to ensure the county, not present during the initial notification, received the event notification via fax. The inspectors observed that not affirming receipt of the notification by the county would not be consistent with IPEC Emergency Plan Section E in ensuring the licensee notifies all state and local authorities. The inspectors also observed that Entergy evaluators did not address this issue during the simulator scenario critique. The inspectors questioned Entergy personnel regarding their views during the simulator scenario and the expected operator response. The inspectors concluded additional information is required from Entergy staff related to their assessment regarding the adequacy of the procedure IP-EP-210, Attachment 9.1 and operator training with regard to the implementation of that procedure. Prior to completion of this inspection, Entergy personnel revised the Control Room Initial Notification Checklist (Form EP-4) to provide direction to operators in the event initial notifications are not able to be completed for required state and local authorities. (URI 05000247/2011002-02, Notification Process for State/Local Authorities During a Simulator Scenario) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000331/2011002 Section 1R11 |
| Date counted | Mar 31, 2011 (2011Q1) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.11 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | M Munir K Riemer D Jones L Haeg R Murray A Scarbearyl Haegm Mitchell R Murray A Wilson B Cushman K Riemer |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |