IR 05000324/1986026
| ML20215M867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1986 |
| From: | Decker T, Tabaka A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215M805 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-86-26, 50-325-86-25, NUDOCS 8611030384 | |
| Download: ML20215M867 (8) | |
Text
,
km Mr UNITED STATES
.
f
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
[
-
REGION 11 p
g j
- 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- i e-ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i
OCT 2 81986 Report Nos.: 50-325/86-25 and 50-324/86-26 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62 Facility Name: Brunswick 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: September 22-25, 1986
. b/k[1!UD
/[
b Inspector:
/_
Eb A. E. Tabaka Date Signed
~
Approved by:
d E
/0/J/ B4 T. R. Decker, Section Chief Dat'e Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
-
SUMMARY
'
Scope:
The purpose of this routine, unannounced inspection was to evaluate selected areas of the emergency preparedness program.
Results:
One violation was identified - Failure to provide adequate first aid training to those emergency personnel designated to provide this service.
,
.
8611030384 861028ADOCK 05000324 PDR PDR G
= -,
,r
-
-
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- P. W. Hose, Vice President - Brunswick Nuclear Plant
- E. A. Bishop, Manager - Operations
- J. A, Smith, Director - Administrative Support
- P. G. Dorosko, Administration Supervisor
- R. A. Indelicato, Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness
- R. G. Black, Corporate Emergency Preparedness
- R. M. Paulk, Senior Specialist - Regulatory Compliance
- W. J. Dorman, Supervisor - Quality Assurance P. T. McNeil, Shift Operating Supervisor R. A LaBelle, Shift Operating Supervisor E. W. Savage, Shift Foreman E. Bean, Director - News Projects P. E. Kelly, Director - Community Relations P. H. Greer, Information Assistant W. R. Hatcher, Security Manager M. M. Malone, Security Chief (Burns)
J. R. Warrick, Security Training (Burns)
R. E. Peacock, Training Coordinator - Health Physics P. B. Snead, Senior Engineer - Radiation Control T. L. Sarner, Fire Protection Specialist D. F. Shouw, Senior Specialist - Operator Training M. C. Shealy, Project Specialist - Non-Licensed Training Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, security force members, the technical aides, and office personnel.
Other Organizations D. A. Ledgett, Chief - Southport Rescue Squad D. E. Summers, Director - Emergency Services, New Hanover County J. Danial, ER Nurse, Dosher Memorial Hospital NRC Resident Inspectors
- W. Ruland L. Garner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 25, 1986, 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 materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Notification and Connunications (82203)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D, 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 support egencies 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 verifications.
The inspector determined by review of applicable procedures and by discussions with licensee representatives that adequate procedural means existed for alerting, notifying, and activating emergency response personnel.
The procedures were found to be adequate with respect to notification and activation of the onsite emergency organization, colporate support organization, and offsite agencies; however, one item was noted.
The notification of the State and local governments was specified to be 15 minutes for all emergency classes; however, the procedures also indicated that the time frame required might interfere with actions to mitigate the accident which is occurring. Due to regulatory requirements concerning this notification time and the fact that certain minimum staffing levels are maintained at the plant such that adequate personnel should always be available, these statements should be modified to reflect certain notifications within 15 minutes.
The licensee agreed with this, and committed to clarifying it in a future plan revision.
Inspector Followup Item (50-325/86-25-01; 50-324/86-26-01):
Clarifying the 15 minute notification statement such that it leaves no ambiguity on the time frame in which the States and local governmental organizations will be notified.
During this inspection the Shift Foreman's log for the period of August 1985 through September 1986, as well as completed notification forms, were reviewed to verify that the four reportable events that had occurred during this time were properly classified and the notifications were made within the applicable time frames.
It appeared that all documentation was in order, and actions were taken in accordance with the emergency procedures.
The content of initial emergency messages was reviewed.
The initial messages appeared to meet the guidance of NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3 and II.E.4.
_
_
_ *
.
The licensee's management control program for the prompt notification system was reviewed.
According to licensee documentation, the system consisted of 33 fixed sirens (4 in New Hanover County and 29 in Brunswick County).
A review of licensee records verified that the system, as installed was consistent with the description contained in the emergency plan.
Maintenance of the siren system had been provided for by the licensee. The inspector reviewed siren test records for the period January 1985 through August 1986.
The records confirmed that silent tests were conducted every two weeks, growl test quarterly, and a full-cycle test annually as specified in NUREG-0654, Appendix 3.
The full-cycle FEMA test was last performed on September 18, 1986.
The licensee had made provisions for documenting and correcting in a timely manner any problems that were identified during each siren test.
Communications equipment in the Control Room, Operations Support Center (OSC), Technical Support Center (TSC), and Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) was inspected.
Provisions existed for prompt cormiunications among emergency response organization, to emergency personnel, and to the public.
The available communications in these facilities were consistent with the descriptions given in the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures.
The inspector conducted operability checks on selected communicaticn equipment in the Control Room, TSC, and E0F.
Specifically, those lines tested were:
the automatic ring-down (ARD) to the State and counties, an ARD between the TSC and E0F, and several lines within the TSC.
No problems were identified.
The inspector also reviewed licensee records for communications drills performed since the last routine inspection.
These records indicated that the tests were conducted at the frequencies specified in NUREG-0654,Section II.N.2.a.
Licensee records also showed that problems encountered had been documented and corrected.
Redundance of offsite and onsite communication links was discussed with licensee representatives.
The inspector verified that the licensee had established adequate back-up communications.
Specifically, the back-up system made use of several radio communication systems, sound powered telephones, commercial telephone lines, PBX system, and a microwave system.
The VHF radio to be located in the EOF was tested to ensure that the counties could indeed be notified via this method.
No problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16), 10 CFR 50.54(q), and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection in September 1986, and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparedness.
The inspector discussed the licensee's program for making changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures, and reviewed Section 6.2 of the Emergency Plan governing the review and approval of changes to these documents.
The inspector verified by review of~ the
.
-
.-.
- - -.
..
..
-
-
- -
-..
.
. _ - -
. -
-
-. -..
.
-~
.. --_.
r
-
.
l
" Nuclear Evaluation Checklist" for Plan Revisions 20 and 21 that the changes were reviewed and approved by management in accordance with the procedures.
Since the last inspection, several modifications were made to the emergency plan and-implementing procedures.
It was determined by transmittal letter review and a comparison with the Regional records that all changes made to
these documents' were-submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective j
date as required. The document control records as well as an examination of
selected controlled plans indicated that the appropriate persons were also i
sent copies of the changes made since the last routine inspection.
{
The inspector confirmed that the Emergency Plan was reviewed on an annual basis by the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee as required by Section 6.4 of
- '
the Emergency Plan. The last such review was performed on October 24, 1985.
"
Discussions' were held with licensee representatives concerning recent modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation.
It was indicated to the inspector that no significant changes had been made in i
these areas since September 1985.
i
!
The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were i
reviewed. The inspector verified that there had been no significant changes in the -organization or assignment of responsibility for the pla'nt and corporate emergency planning staffs since the last inspection.
The
'
inspector's discussion with licensee representatives also disclosed that there had been no significant changes in the organization and staffing of
the offsite support agencies with the exception of Dosher Hospital. Due to-
prolonged illness, all coordination is now being conducted through the j
Emergency Room Nurse or the Nursing Supervisor instead of the In-service Training Coordinator. This should not hinder the hospital's capabilities in j
responding to an emergency.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)
.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F,
'
this area was inspected to determine whether emergency response personnel i
understood their emergency response roles and could perform their assigned functions.
,
The inspector reviewed the description of the training program in the Emergency Plan and PEP-4.3, " Emergency Training and Drills." Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had established a formal training program.
I Training records for selected members of the emergency organization for the
'
period September 1985 to September 1986 were reviewed.
These records
indicated that all members of the Radiological Emergency Teams are not j-provided first aid training in accordance with their assigned duties.
,.
Section 3.2.5 of the Emergency Plan designates these personnel as those who
.
p-
.-
-, -, -, -,. -,,,,,,.
,-,.,c.,,---.-,,----v--
<-,,,,e,,.,,,m,-,-
-w m,
,,
,w.,n,.-.
,emmw-,w
,.,.,._-,---,n---n,,-.,.._-,.---...n-..
- --
.
will provide first aid services onsite during an emergency; however, only approximately half of these personnel had received any training.
Furthermore, there are no procedures in place outlining the first aid training, nor is there a method of ensuring that training to these individuals is provided.
Although there is currently an effort underway by the licensee to provide 24-hour first aid coverage by training all fire brigade members to be first responders, this does not relieve the Radiological Emergency Teams of their currently delegated responsibility of providing the first aid capability.
This was identified to the licensee as a violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F. and Section 6.1.8 of the Technical Specifications.
Violation (50-325/86-25-02, 50-324/86-26-02):
Failure to provide first aid training to those emergency personnel who are assigned this responsibility by the Emergency Plan.
According to the licensee's documentation, other aspects of the training program were being provided.
Records indicated that emergency drills were being conducted in accordance with PEP-04.3. These included communications, medical, fire, and health physics drills.
In addition to those required, the licensee has also conducted additional table top drills for the TSC, OSC, and E0F staffs and an augmentation drill was conducted in March 1985.
The inspector also discussed training and coordination with representatives of the Southport Rescue Squad, Dosher Memorial Hospital, and New Hanover County Emergency Services. No problems were noted in either area.
The inspector conducted walk-through evaluations with selected key members of the emergency organization; specifically, two Shift Operation Supervisors, and one emergency comunicator.
During these walk-throughs, individuals were given various hypothetical sets of emergency conditions and data and asked to respond as they would during an actual emergency.
The individuals demonstrated familiarity with their emergency response roles, and no problems were observed in the areas of emergency detection and classification, protective action decision making, and notification.
One violation was identified.
6.
Public Information Program (82209)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.2, this area was inspected to determine whether basic emergency planning information was disseminated to the public in the plume-exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) on an annual basis.
The licensee had developed an emergency response information brochure for use by the public residing in or frequenting the ten-mile EPZ.
Licensee representatives stated that the brochure was updated annually, and documentation was available to verify this.
The licensee maintained documentation which showed that the development of the brochure, issued in
-
.
February 1986, was coordinated with the various State and local authorities.
The inspector also evaluated the content of the brochure and found it was in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-0654,Section II.G.
According to licensee representatives, the means used to inform the transient population of appropriate emergency response measures and actions is the distribution of multiple copies of the public information brochures to such localities as motels, restaurants, and other commercial establishments. Supplies of the brochures are also available to the various local emergency organization upon request.
Documentation was available confirming the distribution of these brochures on a quarterly basis.
In addition to the brochure, it is planned to place information stickers on all public telephones within the ten-mile EPZ.
Similarly, these stickers will provide information to transients on what immediate actions they should take upon hearing the emergency sirens.
This program has not yet been implemented; however, it is intended that all these stickers will be in place by the annual exercise on December 10, 1986.
The public information brochure provided a point of contact for obtaining additional information.
The inspector interviewed one of the individuals who might respond to such inquiries. This person, located at the Brunswick Visitor's Center, was familiar with their responsibility for providing accurate and prompt information to the public.
They were also aware of their duties during an emergency, and who could be contacted if additional information would be required.
Based on these discussions, the individual appeared knowledgeable and qualified to disseminate information to the public.
In addition to the public information brochure, the licensee indicated that other types of public information programs were underway.
These programs included:
seminars and tours held for local government officials and response organizations, periodic newsletters, various news releases, and an annual media information day. The media training has not been conducted for 1986; however, it is scheduled for November so that the basic training can be done in conjunction with that for the annual exercise.
Based on the documentation review and discussions with the corporate and site Public Information departments, the inspector determined that the licensee's public information program continued to meet the applicable regulatory requirements.
7.
Licensee Audits (82210)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness program.
Records of audits of the program were reviewed. The records showed that an independent audit of the program was conducted by the Corporate Quality Assurance Department on August 25-29, 1986.
This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirements for such audits.
The report for the most
-
_- _
--
-
-. -
-.
~
.
recent audit had not been issued at the time of the inspection; however, the audit checklist and exit meeting minutes were reviewed.
This review indicated that the State and local interfaces were adequately addressed, as well as procedural adequacy and overall emergency capability.
The audit findings were available upon request.
A review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee had complied with the five year retention requirement for such reports.
Licensee emergency plans and procedures require critiques following exercises and drills.
Licensee documentation for the period September 1985 through August 1986, showed that deficiencies and weaknesses were discussed, and recommendations for corrective action were made.
It was also noted that such items were forwarded to plant management and the appropriate individual for corrective action.
The licensee's program for followup on audit, drill, and exercise findings was reviewed.
The licensee's procedures required followup on the deficient items identified.
There were several mechanisms in effect for tracking the progress of such items.
The corporate QA Department tracks audit findings through its Quality Assurance Records Tracking System. The group documents progress on each item of nonconformance untii a satisfactory corrective action has been completed and verified.
Specific emergency preparedness items are also tracked on the Emergency Preparedness Action Item Tracking List maintained by the site EPC.
Upon review of the latter listing, the licensee's attention and action on such items appears to be adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Inspector Followup (92701)
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (325, 324/85-32-01):
Ratision of APP for seismic alarm, and appropriate training on same. The inspector reviewed the revised seismic procedure and interviewed members of the Control Room staff.
Personnel were cognizant of how to determine ground acceleration from the strip-chart recorder.
The newly added checklist appeared to adequately
" walk" the operators through the determination process.
l l
,