IR 05000010/1982003
| ML20054C169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Axelson W, Jordan M, Patterson J, Tongue T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C167 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-82-03, 50-10-82-3, 50-237-82-04, 50-237-82-4, 50-249-82-04, 50-249-82-4, NUDOCS 8204200176 | |
| Download: ML20054C169 (5) | |
Text
___
o
..
..,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-10/82-03; 50-237/82-04; 50-249/82-04 Docket No. 50-10; 50-237; 50-249 License Nos. DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection At:
Dresden Site, Morris, IL 60450 Inspection Conducted: January 25-29, 1982
[C bpk 3-23-,PL Inspectors:
M. J. Jordan Y
}q5 2L 3, y,
g, f AI.
n 13, (99 t.
Approved By:
W.
e son, Chief
- d th1961.
Emergency Preparedness Section
,
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 25-29, 1982 Report No. 50-10/82-03(DEPOS); 50-237/82-04 (DEPOS); 50-249/82-04(DEPOS)
Areas Inspected:
Special Announced Prompt Public Notification / Warning System and testing of the system. The inspection involved five inspector-i hours on site and five hours off shift and offsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identitled-
I 8204200176 820329 PDR ADOCK 05000010
-
..
_.
- - - -. -
~
_
.
-. _ -
.
,.
. -
.
.
On February 1, 1982, the licensee must demonstrate that physical and administrative means exist for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective of the system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within about 15 minutes. The technical basis for review of the system is given in Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided are the bases for determining if the prompt public no' 'ication system installed is as described in your Emergency Plan or ot_ar correspondence sent to the Commission.
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
A licensee map of siren locations was submitted to NRC Region III and later to the Resident Inspectors. Over 20% of the sirens shown on the map were visually sited by the Senior Resident Inspector or Resident Inspector and found to be installed as shown.
2.
The following questions were directed to the licensee:
a.
Will the system provide both an alert and an informational or instructional message to the population throughout the ten mile (five miles for Lacrosse and Big Rock Point) Emergency Planning Zone within 15 minutes?
The system is an alert system only via an out door siren.
However, several have optional public address capability.
b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through a. above)
would be used to provide an instructional message to the public after the sirens have been activated?
A siren sounding horn. The licensee distributed brochures to residences within the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)
describing action to be taken after hearing the sirens.
The brochures are to be redistributed annually.
Present plans are to coordinate notification through local radio stations.
c.
Does the public information distribution program provide information regarding this system?
(Explain)
The Public information distribution program provides some infor-mation regarding what to do (i.e., emergency radio station call numbers) but presently does not clearly indicate what required
!
actions from the public would be expected as a result of the sounding of the sirens.
l l
'
i l
!
.-
.
-
-_
_ _
..
.
.
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site?
(Explain)
The licensee has stated that the system covers 100% of the popu-lation within the 5 mile EPZ. This will be confirmed by the licensee during a test in March or April of 1982.
>
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal?
The licensee is presently determining this percentage. They are unable to give the exact percentage at this time.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 10 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification?
The local law enforcement agencies have patroling vehicles with loud speakers to notify people in rural areas. All high populated areas will be notified by sirens.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have l
been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
The State of Illinois notifies special facilities by means of Plectron Receivers (tone alert radios) at these sites. This is a state operated radio system.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
As the sirens are installed, they are " growl' tested. This is to verify, at low volume, to see that each unit operates. They have not been tested at full volume.
1.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g.,
licensee, local government, or State)?
This has not been finalized to date.
Some of the sirens will l
be maintained by the local communities, but most will be main-tained by Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
i
'
The decoder is in the County Sheriff's office for each affected l
county. Authority to activate comes from the Governor's office.
l The individual who operates the decoder is under agreement between the state and local officials.
i
!
l l
l l
1
.
..--
..
.-
-
.
..
,
.
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
This program has not been established at the Dresden facility.
1.
Name of licensee contact:
W. Brenner, CECO Corporate Of fice 3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
A " Growl" Test (see item 2h above) was performed during installa-tion. On February 1,1982, a intergrated test was conducted to verify that each siren received a signal to activate it.
A full volume test and the area covered is not planned until March or April.
b.
Was State and County involved:
The State was not involved, however, Grundy County and Will County were present.
c.
Was FEMA present:
FEMA, the State and the County will be involved in the March or April test, however, FEMA was not present at this test.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
The resident inspectors did not witness the test because it was conducted on Saturday. However, the inspectors interviewed the licensee regarding the test and reviewed records of the test results.
c.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
Vernon Chaney, Corporate GSEP Coordinator Robert Burchill, Staff Engineer Charles Parker, Staff Engineer f.
Review records of the test:
The inspectors reviewed records of the initial test results.
Test deficiencies are listed in Section 4.0.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
i Test Results Twelve out of 26 sirens for Will County did not operate; none of the four sirens for Kendell County operated; and 19 out of 30 sirens
,
-
.
.
.
operated for Grundy County.
Licensee has committed to correct these deficiencies by June 1, 1982, in accordance with the rule. This is an open item. (50-10/82-03-01; 50-237/82-04-01; 50-249/82-04-01)
Records Item 2.k.,
listed above, indicated no formal Quality Assurance or Quality Control program has been established to ensure continual reliability of the system. This is an open item.
(50-10/82-03-02; 50-237/82-04-02; 50-249/82-03-02)
5.
Persons Contacted W. Brenner, Emergency Planner, Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office D. Scott, Dresden Station Plant Superintendent 6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 5) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 25-29, 1982.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
5