IR 05000382/1986027

Insp Rept 50-382/86-27 on 861117-21.Violation Noted:Changes Made to Emergency Mgt Resources Book W/O Being Initialed & Dtd Per Procedure E-3-050

ML20212E973
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	12/24/1986
From:	Hackney C, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212E965	List: IR 05000382/1986027 ML20212E960 ML20212E967
References
50-382-86-27, NUDOCS 8701050542
Download: ML20212E973 (4)

Text

_ . . -

.

APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/86-27 License: NPF-38 Docket: 50-382 Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company N-80 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Facility Name: Waterford 3 Steam Electric Statico (SES)

Inspection At: Waterford 3 SES site near Killona, Louisiana Inspection Conducted: November 17-21, 1986 Inspector: k.M M j / 2 - dY - filo C. A. Hackney, Emergency Prepgredness Analyst Date Emergency Preparedness and SaTeguards Programs Section Approved: d la[4/8(p L. A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Dath '

and Safeguards Programs Section Inspection Surnmary Inspection Conducted November 17-21, 1986 (Report 50-382/86-27)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's emergency preparedness program, including the areas of notifications and communications, changes to the emergency preparedness program, and shift staffing and augmentatio Results: Within the three areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure to follow procedures, paragraph 4).

8701050542 861231 PDR ADOCK 05000392 O PDR

__ _ ._ _

"

.

-2-DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel

• J. Dewease, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations

• R. Azzarello, Emergency Planning Manager

• K. Cook, Nuclear Support and Licensing Manater

• J. Lewis, Onsite Emergency Planning Coordinator M. Bourgeois, Shift Supervisor W. Pendergrass, Shift Supervisor M. Langan, General Training Supervisor R. Perry, Offsite Emergency Planning Coordinator C. Hebert, Security W. Hinzman, Security NRC

• J. Leuhman, Senior Resident Inspector

• T. Staker, Resident Inspector Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

1. G. Jones, Emergency Management Program Specialist The NRC inspector also held discussions with other station and corporate personnel in the areas of health physics, operations, and emergency response organizatio * Denotes those present at the exit meetin # Contacted by telephon . Notifications and Communications The NRC inspector reviewed appropriate procedures for notifying and l communicating with offsite agencies during an emergency. The Waterford 3 Emergency Plan, hereafter called the Plan, and associated EPIPs were consistent with 10 CFR 50.72 notification requirements. Additionally, the licensee had instituted a message verification number for offsite agencie A message verification number was transmitted to appropriate offsite agencies in a letter dated October 23, 1986. During walkthroughs with the shift supervisors, various situations were given that required portions of the communication system to be utilize The communication system appeared to function and each agency responded to their notification. The NRC inspector noted that extra copies of forms were

,

available for notifications and emergency action records. Further, it was l noted that the offsite notification form in EP-2-010 attachment 7.5 did l

l

-- - .-

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

.

,

-3-have a space for the Emergency Director's information release approval signature. The preventative maintenance program for the alert notification system was reviewed to confirm that maintenance and periodic testing was being performed. The NRC inspector determined from the alert notification system records that the maximum down time for any siren was 3 days. The NRC inspector reviewed the 1985 Waterford-3 Alert System Report and found it to be an excellent report pertaining to availability and maintenance for

'

the alert notification syste ;

No violations or deviations were identifie . Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program ,

.

The NRC inspector reviewed selected sections of the Plan and EPIP Special NRC inspector attention was devoted to the EPIPs in the area of management procedure review according to 10 CFR 50.54(q). The licensee stated, in writing, that Plan changes and EP procedure changes were  !

reviewed to assure compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). The NRC inspector i noted that the onsite safety review committee did not determine whether or

,

not emergency preparedness personnel had conducted a review of Plan changes

,

or EP procedure changes to ensure that they did not decrease the

,

effectiveness of the Plan or EP procedures. Licensee emergency response facilities were inspected to determine if any facility changes had occurred

! and that changes had been incorporated into the Plan and the EPIPs.

Personnel changes to the Technical Support Center (TSC) manning table had not been incorporated into the EPIPs or the Plan. The Safety Parameter

Display System has been installed in the control room, Emergency Operations l

'

Facility (EOF), and TSC. Changes to the emergency response organization

'

placed the Senior Vice President's position as the EOF Director and the '

plant manager's position as the TSC emergency coordinator.

p i The NRC inspector reviewed training records for the Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs (NS&RA) manager and conducted a personal interview. The t

'

NS&RA manager was cognizant of his duties and responsibilities for onsite i interface with the TSC and offsite agencies. Appropriate changes had been made to the personnel resources manual that included the NS&RA manager as a

new EOF Director replacemen A review of EPIP change records by the NRC '

.

j inspector indicated that EPIPs had been revised and submitted to the NRC in-the required 30 days. The NRC inspector determined that the licensee had written procedures for submitting EPIP changes to the NRC and distributing EPIPs and maintaining records.

L -The following are observations the NRC inspector called to the licensee's 1 attention. These observations are neither violations nor unresolved item '

,

'

These items were recommended for licensee consideration for improvement, but they have no specific regulatory requiremen "

'

The onsite safety review committee should determine that 10 CFR 50.54(q)

t reviews had been performed according to regulatory requirements.

l No violations or deviations were identified.

!

,

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

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

-4-4. Shift Staffing and Augmentation The NRC inspector reviewed EP-2-015 of the Waterford 3 emergency procedures and reviewed the emergency organization personnel list. The NRC inspector compared Table 5-1 of the Plan with NUREG 0654 Table B-1 and determined Table 5-1 of the Plan to be adequate. Further, the NRC inspector discussea shift augmentation with the emergency preparedness coordinator and other selected station personne The licensee had conducted call-in drills on April 10, 17, and 24, 198 The initial drill indicated to the emergency preparedness manager (EPM) that personnel response times were not adequate. Additional drills were performed until the EPM was satisfied with personnel emergency response times. The NRC inspector determined that emergency response personnel were to be contacted via telephone or personal pager in the event of an emergency at the station. The NRC inspector observed that plant personnel were carrying their pagers. The licensee maintained a Resource Book for emergency response personnel. The NRC inspector identified 11 documents located in the TSC, control room, and E0F that had been changed without being initialed and dated. This is an apparent violation of the requirements of Technical Specification 6.8.1 and the requirements of Procedure EP-3-050, Section 5.3.1.2.1.b which stated that corrections

"must be initialed and dated by the person making the change."

(382/8627-01)

Licensee management took immediate corrective action as observed by the NRC inspector. A staff meeting was held to review the procedural requirements, and a check on all resource documents was done to identify any similar problems. The NRC inspector was satisfied that the licensee had satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 and is now in complianc No additional response is require No other 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 November 21, 198 The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the finding _ . . . . .. . - ________________________________________._________J