IR 05000250/1978024
| ML17338A383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1978 |
| From: | Gibson G, Hufham J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17338A380 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-78-24, 50-251-78-24, NUDOCS 7812210076 | |
| Download: ML17338A383 (6) | |
Text
Vp0 Cy C
~
i~
+>>*++
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.:
Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152
.
Inspection at:
Turkey Point Facility, Homestead, Florida Inspection conducted:
October 18-19, 1978 Fuel Ins ection Summar Inspector:
G. T. G'o Reviewed by:
-.
.r J.
W.
ufham, Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section Facility and Materials Safety Branch
/gal-z/
Date Ins ection on October 18-19 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 inspection, including: discussions with licensee personnel on emergency planning; observing licensee fire drill on October 18; observing licensee annual emergency exercise on October 19; and discussions with the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) personnel.
The inspection involved 8 inspector-hours on-site and 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> off-site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie V RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 DETAILS I Prepared by:
~C'.
T. Gibson, Radia Specialist Environmental and pecial Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
/l)~pc'ate Dates of Inspection'Dc.o t 18-19, 1978 Reviewed by:
W.
ufham, Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date 1.
Persons Contacted
"H MJ
.s.D S.
""R.
"R.
G.
W.
Yaeger, Plant Manager Hays, Plant Superintendent, Nuclear W. Jones, gC Supervisor Kingsbury, Radiological Emergency Plan Coordinator (FPSL)
H. Reinhardt, gC Engineer T. Hunt, Security E. Garrett, Plant Security Supervisor Patricci, Fire Protection Engineer (FPRL)
Johnson, Director, Florida Division of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS), Orlando Radiological Laboratory Eakins, DHRS
-'Denotes those present at Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s No previous enforcement items were within the scope of this inspection.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Two unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 4.d and 5.b of this repor ~
~
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 I-2 4.
Observin Emer enc Exercises a.
On October 18, 1978, the inspector observed the licensee's initial fire drill, held in conjunction with the Dade County Fire Department.
On October 19, 1978, the inspector observed the licensee's annual emergency exercise, held in conjunction with the State of Florida DHRS.
The fire drill consisted of a simulated fire in the Radiation Control Area (RCA).
The annual exercise consisted of a simulated loss-of-coolant (IOCA) accident with implementation of off-site support agencies including hospitals.
b.
The inspector observed the following unacceptable items during the October 18th fire drill:
(1)
The FPSL Interim Fire Team responded to the fire without radiation survey instruments or high range pocket dosimeters.
(2)
The FPSL Interim Fire Team members ran out of air from the Scott Air Packs (self-contained breathing apparatus)
during firefighting operations.
This is considered by the inspector to be a significant item.
For the three Interim Fire Team members, only two spare breathing apparatus were available, located approximately 100 to 150 feet from the fire scene.
Although additional breathing apparatus was available in the plant, these were not brought to the fire scene.
Additionally, fire team members were not aware that the Dade County Fire Department air charging pumps would not arrive at the fire scene for at least 45 minutes after notification.
(3)
FPM. Interim Fire Team members did not wear protective gloves or boots.
C.
The inspector observed the following unacceptable items during the October 19th annual emergency exercise:
(1)
The FPSL guard force makes an accountability sweep of the RCA during an emergency.
For the simulated accident:
(a)
The guard force did not carry radiation survey instru-ments.
(b)
The guard force did not carry high-range pocket dosimeters.
(c)
The guard force did not wear respiratory protectio RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 1-3 (d)
One guard, at the location of two simulated injuries, would have received a simulated exposure of 50 to 120 Rem before the simulated radiation area was identified and quantified.
(e)
Evaluation of the guard force accountability sweep effectiveness was not possible in that the guards apparently knew (as discussed with the guard during the exercise)
that four simulated injured persons had to be found.
(2)
The initial radiation survey team, consisting of the Nucle'ar Watch Engineer and another individual, simulated having respiratory protection; simulated having radiation instruments, and simulated wearing protective clothing.
The response effectiveness of the initial survey team could not be evaluated due to the extent of the simulation.
(3)
The use of walkie-talkies for communication between the Radiation Survey Team and the control room could not be evaluated due to the simulation of wearing Scott Air Packs.
It was considered unlikely by the inspector that intel-ligible conversation can be made on a walkie-talkie while wearing a Scott Air Pack, unless the Scott Air Pack is equipped with a "speak-easy" connector.
Licensee personnel were unsure as to whether these connectors were available onsite.
(4)
(5)
The possibility of the Radiation Survey Team members, who simulated using Scott Air Packs, running out of air during their response could not be evaluated.
At T + 50 minutes, the drill scenario stated the effluent plume would change direction to flow NW.
This change infor-mation, with the resultant plume then covering the Security Building, was not given by the control room to the guard force or Security Supervisor.
(6)
The Security Building does not contain any radiation instru-ments, nor is the Security Building ventilation controlled to prevent contamination.
(7)
The Security Building does not have an evacuation plan, or apparent criteria for evacuation.
(8)
Contamination of the guard force and resultant decontami-nation was not addressed by the dril V
~
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24 I-4 d.
The items identified in paragraphs 4.b and 4.c shall be considered an unresolved item (250-78-24-01 and 251-78-24-01).
These items will be inspected during a subsequent drill to assure the licensee's actions implemented to correct items identified during the drill are effective.
a
~
The inspector also observed the licensee is accountability for site personnel and noted that the accountability was conducted in 50 minutes.
Although this item was identified as an unresolved item in a previous inspection (250-77-19-01 and 251-77-19-01),
the licensee has improved in reducing response time from one hour and 20 minutes to 50 minutes.
However, it is expected that all site personnel shall be accounted for in 30 minutes or less.
b.
The unresolved item 250-77-19-01 and 251-77-19-01 shall continue as an unresolved item until the next drill, to allow the licensee to demonstrate the adequacy of the accountability procedure.
,6.
Off-Site Su ort A encies The inspector discussed with state personnel (denoted in paragraph 1)
the current support agreements with the Florida Power and Light Company.
The inspector also discussed items including: notification, reporting information; responses; and protective actions.
Mr. Johnson stated he is discussing with licensee personnel questions regarding prompt notification of abnormal releases, to assure the State of Florida is aware of any accidental release to the environs.
The inspector will be contacted by Mr. Johnson if FPM.'s reporting to the Atate needs resolution or clarification.
7.
Exit Interviews a.
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.
b.
On November 3, 1978, Messrs.
J.
Hufham and G. Gibson discussed with Messrs.
H. Yaeger and J.
Hays the overall drill evaluation.
The licensee representatives concurred with the NRC that it would be appropriate to conduct new drills to test the effectiveness of measures implemented by FPRL to correct identified areas needing improvement.
The licensee personnel stated that these drills would be conducted on or before March 1, 1979, and would include a fire drill and a general site drill.
The inspector requested to be notified prior to the drills to allow for observation of the response improvements, and to assess the status of the unre-solved items.