IR 05000416/1987024

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:32, 25 February 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-416/87-24 on 870928-1002.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Area Inspected:Emergency Preparedness
ML20236B401
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/16/1987
From: Decker T, Gooden A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236B389 List:
References
50-416-87-24, IEIN-85-080, IEIN-85-80, NUDOCS 8710260160
Download: ML20236B401 (8)


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:~

                     , { t ff:l, p
                 ~

y 7 * 9' W -Q- . , v q- . ~ j4Q ~ , ..; y ,_.,9 i:' Mi 1

   >
     .7.,.
           ; . ; igg   ..
                     . , ,  4.c pp
                       -
.,

i i i

           ..   ,-  ,3, ' . ;j;  ; .s ,
                     -

1;

                       ,
                  ,r a
  ..g g,,
        ,
        .,
                 'o       , ,
 .l' %y
  ,      ,
    ; ,,  .e  < , l'
         - UNITED STATES'   '

J l' s ' N;.iN

                 '
         ~
                '
. g J  l u #o ;  >

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS'lON ! .

 '
                '!

qq [ . . , i ., : REGION H 7 (  :

              ,
                   ,   3-7; . 4  q
. . . , ,

4; 'f ;! i p;g- ,

    :

101 MARIETTA STREET. .

                     '

y i

  **  't'     ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323    '"

3 ;a; *1

                     *'  -h O
 ^H   j         y     ,
                  , .

y 4;,.N s oc h a ign s -

                    ,
                      #   q W ,
           '
            ,'  ,

j _

                      .  ,
                  >
     ,
       ,              , .h }
              '

y ^ Repo'rt No.:;.50-.416/87-24 f mil+

   ~

s -

                ,
 ,     ,
                  ._ + .,  4-Licensee:e SystemEnergyResources~,(In .
   '< : Jackson, MSc 39205:
           .r    '
               <
                .
                 '
                  ')[[. N
                  '
                   .
                    
                     ?' d .-
                      '
                        ,
  +
                 ,'
      '
               ., .

L

                        -)'
<

Docket No.': 150-416 - License'No.:. ,,NPF-29o ,

              -
                     ~

t , .

  . ... .
      . . .  . ..      r /        /,' ,

Facil=ity:Name:,iGrand Gulf Nuclear Statio .I

                    ',
                    . Q'
 ,
  ' Inspection con' i ducted:  Septernber728,-October 2,1987       -. g-
                  *'
    . .
       > .  ,             .
                     . *
                /o-/4A 67
                     ' '
'
 '  Inspector:. . A. Gooden d.1 M zbe  <
               <
                :Date. Signed       '

I

              ,
       '
           '    ".         ',

g '

 ~
  >  ,

fj g . I j; T.,R. Decker, Section Chief

     .      .,. . . . .

Date. Signe y L Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards L < ,

             ,
                 #     ,
                      '
                  ~' '   '

L SUMMARY .

                   .

Scope: This routine, unannounced.. inspection, was cond'ucte'd 'in$th'e area of L 1 emergency preparednes j

             .c
             -
                      -  ,

Results: No violations or.' deviations were ' identifie > y. - fI , v,

                       -
                     ,
            ,
                        ,

i l

1

r !! J _): '1

                    '
                        .
              .l

,a .

                 ,        y
.

'

                .p r
          (   ,
             .
                        ..
                        '
-

7' ,  ;

         ,         ,    . e<4
    %.  ., :x '
           /

871026016b PDR ADOCK h PDR h i6

,   G '     "
                  . fig ~
            ,        ,
                       ._ /
                       ,
                     ,L  T ,.
                *
                ,

I s

                        ,'
             '

I

                     .l   - ' -
              , [ ,I      jI
                      .)
    '          '        - :-  -

__ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ i - . -

-
-
      ,
      ]

j i REPORT DETAILS-  !

       ! Persons Contacted     j i

Licensee Employees  !

 *J. D. Bailey, Compliance Coordinator   q
      '
 *K. Beatty, Training Superintendent    ,

i *R. C. Fron. Emergency Preparedness Manager  ! l C. W.' Elisaesser, Shift Superintendent j

 *P. L. Hayes, Training Support Supervisor   ;
 *T. Hildebrandt, Radiation Control Supervisor   .l
 *J. G. Hurley, Site Emergency Preparedness Coordinator  zi
 *R. T. Halback, Administrative Assistant'to General Manager  j G. H. Lee, Shift Superintendent    ,
 *J. V. Parrish, Chemistry / Radiation Protection Superintendent  l W. A. Russell, Shift Superintendent  .
       !
 *J. C. Vincelli, Chemistry / Radiation Control Technical Assistant  !
 *T. M. Wilkerson, Radiation Control Supervisor

.

 *M. J. Wright, Manager, Plant Support    ,

l Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, ! operators, security office members, and office personne 'l Other Organizations E. G. Blanche, Tensas Parish Emergency Management Coordinator A. C. Garner, Director, Claiborne County Civil Defense C. W. Jones, Assistant Coordinator / Emergency Planner, Tensas Parish Emergency Management B. J. Pace, Program Manager, Mississippi Emergency Management Agency J. T. Russell, M.D., Vicksburg Medical Center Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 *R. C. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector J. Mathis, Resident Inspector
 * Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings'were summarized on October 2, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the . inspection findings. . No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the
   ~

inspector during this inspection.

- __________ _ ______ x -__ .___- -

-
-
      !

2 )

      ! Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) Violation 50-416/87-16-01: Failure to provide two members of tne current on-call list requalification training in.accordance with Plant i" Administrative Procedure 01-S-04-2 The inspector verified the implementation of the corrective action described in the licensee's response (dated August 7,1987) to the Notice of Violation, and determined i; from a review of records that further instances of this type of  1 noncompliance had been avoide . Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections I j and IV.C; and Section 4.0 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this program ! area was inspected to determine whether the licensee used and understood a ! standard emergency classification and action level schem l

      !'

The inspector reviewed the licensee's classification ' procedure The event classifications in the procedures were consistent with those j required by regulation and the Emargency Plan. The classification i procedures did not appear to contain impediments or errors which could j lead to incorrect or untimely classificatio ]

      :

Selected emergency action levels (EALs) specified in the classification 'i procedures were reviewe The reviewed EALs appeared to be consistent j with the initiating events specified in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654 and the ) Emergency Plan. The inspector poted that some of the EALs were based on i parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentatio ; The inspector verified that the licensee's notification procedures included criteria for initiation of offsite notifications and for  :

      '

development of protective action recommendation The notification procedures required that offsite notifications be made promptly after declaration of an emergenc ' The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of l EALs with State and local officials. A licensee representative provided 1 the inspector with documentation dated December 2, 1986, which showed that ; the licensee had contacted State and local officials for conducting a l l review of the EALs used in event classification and protective action { decision-makin In addition, the inspector discussed EAL Coordination ! with selected offsite authorities, and reviewed the documentation from the offsite authorities providing concurrence with the EALs used by the license Interviews were held with three Shift Superintendent One of the , j interviews was to verify that the Shift Superintendent understood the 3 l relationship between core status and such core damage indicators as l l containment high-range radiation monitor, inadequate-core-cooling i indicator, high-range effluent monitor, containment hydrogen monitor, and ' vessel coolant level. The interviewee was knowledgeable of the various

l

l

      \

_, i

.
.
      ,

t core damage indications and their relationship to core _ status. The remaining two Shift Superintendents were presented the - following scenarios: (1) loss of onsite and offsite power, (2) an aircraft crash, i and (3) a' walkthrough involving severe weather . (tornado). All' 1 interviewees appeared . knowledgeable of the Emergency Plan Implementing l Procedures (EPP), the Off Normal Event Procedures (0NEP), and their 1 relationship to event classification and protective actio ' The responsibility and authority for classification of emergency. events

   .

and initiation of emergency action were prescribed in licensee procedures and in the Emergency Plan. . Interviews with selected key members of the licensee's emergency organization revealed that these personnel understood their responsibilities and authorities in relation 'to accidenN classification,' notification, and protective action recommendation Selected Emergency Plan Procedures (EPPs) were reviewed by the inspector and discussed with licensee personnel. The EPPs provided direction to users concerning timely classification of accidents. All personnel interviewed appeared to be familiar with the classification information in Emergency Plan Provedure No. 10-S-01- Walk-through evaluations involving accident classification problems were . conducted with three Shift. Superintendents. All personnel interviewed ! promptly and properly classified the hypothetical accident situations presented to them, and appeared to be familiar with appropriate classification procedures.

, No violations or deviations were identifie . ProtectiveActionDecision-Making (82202) Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) and (10); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3; and Section 6.5 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had 24-hour-per-day capability to assess and analyze emergency conditions and make recommendations to protect the public and onsite workers, and whether ' offsite officials had the authority and capability to initiate prompt protective action for the publi The inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action decision-making with licensee representatives and reviewed pertinent portions of the licensee's Emergency Plan and procedures. The plan and procedures clearly assigned responsibility and authority for accident l assessment and protective action decision-makin Interviews with members of the licensee's emergency organization showed that these personnel understood their authorities and responsibilities.with respect to accident assessment and protective action decision-makin Walk-through evaluations involving protective action decision-making were conducted with three Shift Superintendents, all of whom appeared to be cognizant of appropriate onsite protective measures and aware of the range

     ,

_ . g

of protective action' recommendations appropriate to offsite protectio Interviewees were aware of the need for- timeliness .in making initial protective action recommendations . to offsite officials. Personnel demonstrated adequate understanding 'of the requirement .that protective action recommendations be based on care condition and containment status even if no release is in progres The capability of offsite officials to make protective. action decisions and to promptly notify the public was discussed with licensee representa-tives. Licensee procedures made provisions for contacting responsible offsite authorities on a 24-hour basis. Backup communications links with offsite ' authorities were available. The inspector verified that offsite decision-makers with authority for emergency response activities could be contacted by observing a communications check from the Control Room with 1 the 24 hour State and local warning' points in Mississippi and Louisian The inspector discussed protective action decision-making by offsite agencies during a telephone conversation with 'a senior emergency management: representative of the State of Mississippi. According to this official, key State decision-makers had predetermined criteria for use in protective action decision-making which were consistent with those used by the license No violations or deviations were identifie . Notification and Communication (82203) , l Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, + l Section IV.D; and Section 7.5 of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area ; was inspected to determine whether the ' licensee' was maintaining a

     '

capability for notifying and communicating (in the event of an emergency) among its own personnel, offsite supporting agencies and authorities, and the population within the EpZ.

, The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures. The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and EAL ' scheme used by the licensee. The inspector determined that the procedures made provisions for message verificatio The inspectnr determined by review of applicable procedures and by discussion with licensee representatives that adequate procedural means existed for alerting, notifying, and activating emergency response personnel. The procedures specified when to notify and activate the onsite emergency organization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencies. Selected telephone numbers listed in the licensee's procedures for emergency response support organizations were checked in order to - determine whether the listed numbers were current and correct. No problems'were noted.

I The content of initial emergency messages was reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives. The initial messages appeared to meet the f l l .

      :

o-

,

e

L guidance of NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3- and II. During the inspection, licensee representatives stated that the format and content of the emergency messages are currently being reviewed by the offsite authoritie The licensee's management control program for the prompt notification system was reviewe According to documentation and discussions with both the licensee representatives and offsite authorities,.the system consisted of 43 fixed sirens and 38 tone-alert receivers. A review of ' records verified that the system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the Emergency Plan. Maintenance of the . system had been provided for by the licensee. The inspector reviewed siren test records for an unspecified time period in calendar year 1986 to September 1987.

' Maintenance records were incomplete.- Sufficient information was not being provided by the contractor. For example: (1) no dates were included on-test result sheets prior to February 1987, (2) details regarding the suspected cause of siren failure was not included, (3) the name of personnel performing the maintenance was not consistently recorded on sheets, and (4) in the event a siren repair was delayed, no explanation was provided for the delay. In addition to the aforementioned -concerns, on August 3,1987, the licensee failed to notify the NRC (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(v)) regarding the. Claiborne County siren network , failure to activate during the monthly test. . Failure to report the. loss of Claiborne County siren system was identified as a violation in NRC ' Report No. 50-416/87-18 (Item 87-18-05). The inspector of record also j noted problems with the licensee's procedures which address the Alert  ! j , ' Notification System testing and result The problems identified in l Report No. 87-18. und concerns noted above regarding maintenance j documentation were discussed with the licensee for taking corrective j action. The licensee had responded to the Notice of Violation both 3 telephonically and by lette The inspector acknowledged the .; appropriateness of the actions that were taken 'and informed a licensee ! representative that issues such as the following must also be addressed: ;

(1) improve documentation of maintenance and . test results, (2)' develop a j more detailed procedure addressing the Alert and Notification System operability, and (3) review method of calculating total siren availability to encompass a major portion of an individual system as being inoperable- .]

as compared to only the total system being inoperable. The licensee 1 agreed to review these items and was informed that these issues will be 1 l tracked as corrective actions to the Notice of Violation issued on. August j l 28,1987 (Report No. 50-416/87-18). The inspector also discussed the  ; Alert Notification System with a representative of the Mississippi J i Emergtncy Management Agenc No problems were disclosed during the ; l disccssion.- According to FEMA documentation dated June 9,1987, the  ! l FEMA 43 test conducted on April 10, 1985,- resulted in the determination l l that the Alert and Notification' System for Grand Gulf is adequate to promptly alert and notify the public in the event of an emergency at the site.

l Communications equipment in the Control Room, Technical Support Center (TSC), and Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) was inspected. Provisions ! l, i _____ _ _

_ ___ _

& z,W-'      ,

n

       ,
       - .; ;   ,
    -
       -
       -
%     '
      '

g- ~6L

     '
       ,

f: ! y > existed for prompt communications 1among: emergency response organizations, to emergency response personnel,L and to the 1public. ; ?The installed; J communications . systems at the emergency . response" facilities !were O consistent with system descriptions 'inLthe: Emergency. Plan 'andl implementing - dj procedures .- , The inspector. conducted.. operability checksf on selected communications-equipment in.the Control Room, TSC, and: E0F. HNoiproblems were observed; ;i The . inspector reviewed licensee ' records . fors the period JuneL1986.' tot 4 i September 1987 which indicated that the. site' EmergencyD Preparedness-Coordinator was conducting monthly communication . drills fromEvarious: o1 emergency response. facilities to verifyfoperability oficommunications-

   ~

M equipmen The. tests were conducted atL the frequencies specified Din: 0

     '

NUREG-0654, Section II.N. Redundancy of offsite and onsite communication links was discussed;with licensee representatives. The inspector verified that, the licensee had ; established a-backup. communications system which made use of.a UHF Radiol Syste The inspector requested and observed an operability check 'and noted that the system operated properl , In response to IE Information Notice No.'85-80, " Timely' Declaration..ofian- L Emergency Class, Implementation of an Emergency Plan,: andl Emergency , j Notifications," the inspecto'r interviewed three Auxiliary Operators wh would serve as communicators for the Control' Room: duringithe oinitial _

       .r'

notifications to the offsite agencies'.- In? addition,: two Eengineers ' designated as communicators for the - TSC :were also' interviewed. -All

    '

interviewees demonstrated familiarity with ' the communications: equipment (ENS, OHL, etc.) and their responsibility as communicator ' '

No violations or deviations were identifie :( Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82205) Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) aAd 10 CFR Part:50, Appendix.E,. Sections IV.A and IV.C, this area was inspected to determine whether' shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers .and in functional capability, and whether administrative and physical means were~ available

     .

and maintained to augment the emergency organization ~ in' a timply; manner; . q Shift staffing levels and functional capabilities of. 'all : shifts were-reviewed and found to be consistent with the guidance ,of . Table' B-lj of . NUREG-065 The licensee has established.a duty officer system, so:thati , essential off-shif t personnel are available1 if needed.~ The On-call' Outy-Manager notifies the primary personnel, then primary personnel: notifies augmentation staff. The physical means for: notification is via telephone and pager The inspector discussed staff augmentation: times with licensee representa-tives. Licensee representatives indicated that -Table B-1f augmentation - times have been demonstrated during past exercises as a result *ofg

    ,,
  '
      -____=
.
,
'

9 *N

=
.
$
. "Y
%(

m

  .
 .

Y

 .
 .
 '
  >
  %
  =
  &
 .
 %"
  -
 %
         '

7 y ,, \? '

      'q,'!~     q
   ,
    ,  '\     j f. , .
-
  ,
   '<  s  .. i
  '

5 1 ,

     \  dS
  . I ; 7
  < n  h,,,'  -  '
,
 < s \, j ,\
       ':

{ emergency resp 6nse facilities adtivation times. However, erbannounced ors < unannotmed irill documenting times as:shown in Table B-J of NVREG-0654 ) and Table 54'of the Grand Gulf. imergency Plan had not been ' confirme Licensee ' representative acknowledged this finding and cchmitted to conducting an aupentatipn drili foe verification of augmentation time The licensee uis informed that this matter is considered an inspector

 ,
 '
- followup ite Inspector Followup Item (50-416/87-24-01): Verify shift  staff augmentatiomt$esusingannouncedandunannounceddrill No violations Er deviations were 3dentifie . CoordinationwithOffsiteAgencies(82210)     '(,  l
         '
         \

The inspetw # eld discussions with Hcbasee representatives regarding1the - t coordination 'of emsegency planning with offsite agencies. Written Q \ 'd agreements existed Mth those offsite support ' agencies specified in the , id' Emergency Pls'n. The,inpector determined throeph personal and telephonic w interviews witft represer.tatives of selected locat and State support  ! agencies that tb licensee was periodically contacting those agencies for l purposes of offering training and maintaining mutual familiarization with emergency response roles. Those interviews disclosed no significant problems qatated to the interfaces between the licensee 'and the offsite support' agsncies listed in Paragraph . InspectorFollowup(92701) a A a.' (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 87-16-02: Provide documentation to verify training for TSC Communicator The inspector reviewed the course package attendance sheets for Pbspiratory Fit Test held during June 1987, and noted that1 training , w1s provided in accordance with the licensee, commitmen \

        ^
         <

q,, ) '

 , (Closed) IFI 87-16-03: Maintain trainins records in acco7 dance'wih
 '
 '

Administrative Proce?!rp ohs-04,14. Aetnistratim ' controls have $;y I

          /

been implemented sinA 'the last L'ispection whichJappears 1;o provide s( ,

          )
,t '

greater control for tracking cArse packages. A sign-in k g has been i instituted to preclude mishandlim/ lof course packayls. M addition

,

all training regords are now centralized into ong $sta (known as

'
  " Time Sharing Option," TS0).\ To further deanstrate the effectiveness of recent changes, a select nunber of course '

packages were requested and retrieved without any probleri (Closed) IFI 87-16-04: Complete all training for personnel assigned to the offsite emergency organizatio Tho' inspector reviewed training for 39 randomly selected individuals assigned to the offsite

  ,

emergency organization. According to documentation, training had been provided in accordance with the requWeNents of Nuclear Licensing Administrative Procedure ho. 2.14, "ErQjency Preparedness Yraining, Drills, and Exercises." ;,S ,;(

     !
     '

y9 s 4s y 4 '\ ; p

      '

t ( y

       , j   ,
           .
    ,
        '
        '
  ).   )   i t- _   U-. . t im  _____-th_m

}}