IR 05000250/1979030
| ML17339A341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1979 |
| From: | Hufham J, Perrotti D, Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17339A340 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-79-30, 50-251-79-30, NUDOCS 7911300161 | |
| Download: ML17339A341 (15) | |
Text
~S RECII
~4
~o Cy
~c O
IVl p
+~
~O
+0*4+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-250/79-30 and 50-251/79-30 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Units 3 and
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Turke Point site near Homestead, Florida wski use J'.
L. Andrews P. A. Taylor D.
. Perrotti Inspectors R. E. Trojan
~ when Q
Date Signed
/o /w Date Signed
/D /.'//
ate Signed
~o/jr/>
Date Signed Approved by:
J W. Hufham, Section Chief, FFMS Branch Date Si ned SUMMARY Inspection on September 24-28, 1979 Areas Ins ected This routine, announced inspection involved 120 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of coordination with offsite support agencies; Emergency procedures, Facilities and Equipment; Emergency Training for Licensee Employees and Offsite Groups; Fire Brigade Organization and Training; Emergency Drills; Emergency Organization; Audits; follow-up on IE Bulletins 79-18 and 77-08; follow-up on previous inspection findings.
Results Of the ten (10) areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees H. Yaeger, Plant Manager J.
Hayes, Plant Superintendent Nuclear V. Wager, Operations Supervisor K. Beatty, Training Supervisor E. LaPierre, Radiochemist J.
Wade, Chemistry Supervisor P. Hughes, Health Physics Supervisor W. Klein, Staff Engineer K. York, Document Control Custodian R. Reinhart, Quality Control, Emergency Drill Coordinator D. Hunt, Security Supervisor J.
Moore, Operations Superintendent G. Vaux, Acting Quality Control Supervisor J. Ferrell, QA Engineer R. Tucker, QA Engineer S. Feith, QA Supervisor S. Kingsbury, Administrator, Emergency Planning R. Scott, General Office Health Physics Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included 5 technicians, 2 operators, and 2 mechanics.
Other Or anizations Chief Moore, Homestead Air Force Base Fire Department Col. McManus, Commanding Officer, Homestead Air Force Base Sergeant Cannida, NCO In Charge, Disaster Preparedness Division, Homestead Air Force Base Dr. H. I,eitman, Director, Radiological Emergency Department, Baptist Hospital Dr. H. Nateman, Assistant Director, Radiological Emergency Department, Baptist Hospital Mrs. Stein, Head Nurse, Radiological Emergency Department, Baptist Hospital F. Messing, Administrator, Baptist Hospital E. Donalson, Chief, Metro Dade County Fire Department A. Fischer, Deputy Director, Metro Dade County, Florida, Office of Emergency Preparedness Civil Defense A. Gilson, Director, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Emergency Evaluation Facility, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Miami Beach, Florida NRC Resident Ins ector R. Vogt-Lowell
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 1,
1979, with H. E. Yaeger via telephone from the Region II office.
This action had been previously arranged as Turkey Point management had a previous commitment to attend an out-of-town meeting on the day that the inspection was concluded.
The plant manager acknowledged the inspection findings with respect to the two unresolved items discussed in paragraphs 7.d and 12.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
Open Item 78-10-01:
Distribution of Emergency Procedure (EP)
20104,
"Emergency Roster".
The inspector verified that EP 20104 is being reviewed, updated and distributed in accordance with existing Technical Specifications and approved management controls.
The inspector verified, by telephone calls, a sampling of emergency telephone numbers contained in EP 20104.
A review of the distribution list maintained by document control section verified that holders of the emergency procedures have received the current version of EP 20104.
This matter is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (78-16-02)
Method to Utilize the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (ABVS) plant vent monitor to delineate the magnitude of a possible radioactive release.
The inspector observed the physical location and lineups of the monitor in question and ascertained that the Auxiliary Building Vent System Monitor samples effluent from the Auxiliary Building prior to a set of filters which are between the monitor and the plant vent and therefore should not be used to determine the magnitude of releases to the atmosphere.
A method has been developed and incorporated into licensee's Emergency Procedure 20103 to utilize the Plant Vent Gas Monitor (R-14) to provide source term data (Ci/sec) in determining the magnitude of releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
(Open)
Unresolved Item (78-24-01)
Unacceptable Items Observed During an Annual Emergency Exercise (RII Report Nos. 50-250/78-24 and 50-251/78-24).
The inspector observed an emergency drill on September 27, 1979, and deter-mined that items 4.c.(1).(a),
(b), (c), (d), and (e), have been resolved.
Items 4.b. and 4.c.(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) remain open.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (77-19-01) Accountability of Personnel During a
Site Evacuation.
During the emergency exercise on September 27, 1979, the licensee demonstrated adequate response time (less than 30 minutes) in accounting for all site personnel.
The accountability procedure was observed by an inspector.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (78-10-03)
Adequacy of the First Aid Room and Supplies.
The inspector examined the First Aid Room and supplies available for medical emergencies and discussed this area with licensee representatives.
Routinely, there are no medical or paramedical trained personnel onsite.
The licensee relies on trained first aid personnel and the availability of offsite
medical support agencies.
In actual medical emergencies in the past this arrangement has worked well in the management of injured personnel.
The inspector determined that the medical equipment and supplies onsite are apparently adequate for the level of training of first aid team members.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 7.d, and 12.
5.
Coordination with Offsite Support Agencies a.
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments to maintain contact and coordination with the offsite agencies as described in the approved Emergency Plan.
b.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Emergency Procedures (EP), written letters of agreement with offsite support agencies and the list of off-site support agencies specified in the Emergency Plan to verify that:
(1)
Detailed procedures have been established describing methods for notifying Local, State, Federal officials and other offsite support agencies in the event of a radiation emergency.
(2)
Arrangements for the services of a physician and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies have been established.
(3)
Arrangements for the transportation and treatment of injured or contaminated individuals at a treatment facility outside the site boundary have been established.
C.
The inspector contacted five offsite agencies and met with officials of these agencies to verify that contact is being maintained by the licensee and that services, as described in the letter of agreement, can be provided.
d.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas.
(1)
Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, paragraph IV.D.
(2)
Emergency Plan, Section 3 and Appendices 1-8.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Facilities, Equipment and Procedures a
~
Changes to Facilities, Equipment and Procedures The inspector reviewed established management controls and inter-viewed licensee personnel to determine if changes had been made to the Emergency Plan, Emergency Procedures, emergency facilities and equipment since the last inspection.
(2)
The review of this area, with respect to changes, was conducted to verify that:
(a)
Changes did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
(b)
Changes did not alter the requirements set forth in the Emergency Plan.
(c)
Changes were reviewed and approved in accordance with estab-lished plant procedures.
(d)
The Emergency Plan notification roster (names, telephone numbers),
organization and listed personnel specifically qualified for coping with emergencies were updated at the required intervals.
(e)
Required plant committee review and gA audits of the Emergency Plan were conducted.
(f)
Revisions to the Emergency Plan and Emergency Procedures were distributed to the required locations at the facility.
(3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas.
(a)
Technical Specifications 6.5.1.6, 6.5.2.8 and 6.8.1.
(b)
Emergency Plan, Sections 10 and 11.
Responsibility for the updating and document control of the emer-gency plan is assigned to the FPSL Radiological Emergency Plan Administrator.
This matter of updating and document control, which was defined as unsatisfactory in gA Audit gAO-OTP-79-08-252, was discussed with the FPM Radiological Emergency Plan Administrator.
The inspector was informed that it would be looked into.
The inspector informed the licensee representative that this matter would be included in the unresolved item as discussed in paragraph 12.a of this report.
Within the area inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Emergency Kits (1)
The inspector reviewed selected calibration and inventory records along with a physical inspection and inventory of emergency kits and equipment located in the main control room, south assembly room, site boundary station, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Baptist Hospital.
Types of emergency equipment selected for inspection and inventory included self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), respirators, survey meters, air samplers, emergency kit supplies',
pocket dosi-meters, and pocket dosimeter chargers.
(2)
The review and inspection of emergency kits and equipment was conducted to verify that:
(a)
The required periodic inventory, calibration of emergency equipment, and emergency kits were being conducted.
(b)
The physical condition and content of emergency kits and supplies are being maintained in a state of readiness.
(c)
The emergency kits, supplies, and portable instrumentation are at various locations as required by the Emergency Plan and Emergency Procedures.
(3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
Emergency Plan Section 2.6.
(b)
Health Physics Procedure HP-90.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Main Control Room Habitability (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to maintaining the main control room habitable as the Emergency Plan defines this area as the center for controlling activities during emergency conditions.
(2)
The inspector reviewed surveillance test records, calibration data, channel checks, and system alignment to verify that:
(a)
The control room ventilation system is properly aligned.
(b)
The required operability tests are being performed on the control room ventilation system at the required frequency, including system automatic isolation upon receiving a safety injection signa (3)
The inspector made a physical review that the food and water supplies were stored in the control room as described in the Emergency Plan.
(4)
The inspector verified by observation that readouts or displays for air temperature, wind speed and direction were located in the control room.
(5)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
Emergency Plan Section 2.6.1.
(b)
FSAR Section 9.9.
(c)
Surveillance Test Procedure - 16001.2.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Remote Shutdown Panel (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to insuring that the required plant parameters and controls as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report can be used to perform an emergency shutdown of the plant in the event the main control room cannot be manned.
(2)
The inspector reviewed surveillance test records, calibration data, channel checks, and performed physical inspections to verify that:
(a)
The specified Emergency Operating Procedures were at the remote shutdown stations and were up to date.
(b)
The calibration and channel checks for pressurizer pressure, pressurizer level, steam generator pressure, steam generator level are conducted at the required frequency.
(3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
FSAR Section 7.7.4.,
(b)
E.O.P.
20002 Control Room Inaccessibility.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Emergency Communications (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to licensees commitment to maintain and have available various types of communication systems within the plant for both normal and emergency use as is described in the Emergency Pla "7" (2)
The inspector observed the physical location of communications in the main control room, remote shutdown stations, to verify the availability of the communication systems are as required by the Emergency Plan.
(3)
The inspector reviewed records to verify that the plant emergency alarm tests have been satisfactorily performed at the required frequency.
(4)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
Emergency Plan Section 2.5.
(b)
Emergency Procedure, EP-.20112, Communications Network.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
h.
The inspector reviewed preventive maintenance schedules and inspected one type of emergency electrical system to verify that emergency lighting systems are being maintained and are as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
(2)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(a)
FSAR Section 7.7.4.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
Medical and Decontamination Facilities (1)
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee commitment to provide emergency first aid and personnel decontamination facilities, including medical supplies and equipment for first aid treatment, which is described in the Emergency Plan.
(2)
The inspector performed a physical inspection of 'equipment and supplies at the first aid room, reviewed records of first aid team training, and inspected equipment and supplies for personnel decontamination to verify that:
(a)
The first aid team had received required training.
(b)
That emergency equipment and supplies were in good condition and available in specified areas and required quantitie (3)
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.
(b)
Emergency Plan, Section 6.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Means for Determining a Release This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan for determining the magnitude of a release of radioactive material and the criteria for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary.
b.
The inspector performed an inspection of instrumentation in the control room and reviewed records for instrumentation calibration, channel checks, functional test and alarm set points to verify that readouts for wind speed, direction, temperature, area and process monitors were operable and available as required by the Emergency Plan.
c.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.C.
(2)
Emergency Plan Section 4.2.
(3)
Technical Specifications 3.9 and 4.1.
As a result of this review, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Commitments from the licensee in the area of determining the magnitude of a release of radioactive material are discussed in paragraph 7.d. below.
d.
The inspector found that the Unit 3, Spent Fuel Pool Vent Monitor is not calibrated in units which can be used to provide source term information (Ci/sec) in determining the magnitude of a release from the Spent Fuel Pool area.
The licensee agreed to develop a procedure for determining source term releases from the Unit 3, Spent Fuel Pool area, utilizing the existing vent monitor, by November 15, 1979.
Until this procedure is developed, reviewed and implemented, this item shall remain unresolved.
(250/251/79-30-01).
8.
Emergency Training for Licensee Employees and Offsite Groups a.
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan to conduct emergency training for licensee employees onsite, offsite FPL employees who are assigned
specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and non-FPL offsite groups whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiological emergency.
b.
The inspector reviewed personnel training records along with training schedules and training course content to verify that:
(1)
Emergency training had been given to the following categories of personnel:
emergency director, emergency coordinators, emergency team leaders, emergency team members, general employees, contractor personnel, offsite FPL employees, and non-FPL offsite groups.
(2)
Personnel are informed of changes in Emergency Plan and Emergency Procedures.
(3)
Refresher training had been given as specified in the Emergency Plan.
(4)
The training courses covered the material specified by the Emergency Plan or Procedures.
c.
The inspector interviewed five individuals from the above categories to verify that training had been provided as documented in the training records.
d.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(1)
Emergency Plan, Rev. 3, Section 8.3.
(2)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.H.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Emergency Drills a
~
This area was reviewed with respect to licensee's commitments as described in the Emergency Plan for the planning, execution and evalua-tion of emergency drills.
b.
The inspector reviewed records reports, and discussed with a licensee representative the most recently conducted drills in the areas of a full scale radiation emergency drill, fire emergency, medical emergency and simulation of emergency conditions due to a hurricane to verify that:
(1)
The required drills were performed at the prescribed frequency.
(2)
Changes to the Emergency Plan or Procedures as a result of defi-ciencies identified during the drill have been reviewed and approved by licensee managemen (3)
Changes were issued to persons, organizations, and support organi-zations.
c ~
On September 27, 1979, the Turkey Point Facility, with offsite agency participation, held an emergency drill which involved a medical emer-gency, a loss-of-coolant accident (IOCA), and a site evacuation.
Four inspectors were onsite at the time of the drill and were stationed in the control room, the site assembly room, the main gate guard station and at the scene of the medical emergency (outside Unit 4 containment access hatch).
Following the medical erne'rgency drill 'the LOCA drill was escalated and a site evacuation was instituted.
Emergency Teams were assembled in accordance with the Emergency Plan but were not acti-vated.
One inspector followed the simulated injury to the licensee's alternate treatment center (Baptist Hospital, Miami) and observed the actions and procedures of the emergency medical team in dealing with potentially contaminated injured persons.
A critique of the drills, held on September 28, 1979, was attended by the inspectors.
d.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section VI.I.
(2)
Emergency Plan, Section 9.5.
As a result of this review, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Fire Brigade Organization and Training a
~
The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementing procedure on fire brigade organization, training program provided, and reviewed individual training records for the fire brigade team members to verify that:
(1)
The initial fire brigade training was conducted for new team members.
(2)
The fire team roster is maintained.
(3)
Refresher fire brigade team training is conducted at specified frequency.
(4)
The required number of fire brigade team members are maintained onsite at all times.
b.
The inspector reviewed QA audit gAO-PTP-79-08-250 and noted that the licensee had identified an item concerning the fire brigade quarterly training.
This matter will be included in the unresolved item as discussed in paragraph 12.
, of this repor c.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria to inspect and evaluate the above area:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Technical Specifications 6.2.2.f and 6.4.2.
E.P.
20107 Fire/Explosion Emergencies.
E.P.
20115, Duties and Responsibilities of Emergency Control Officer, Figure 1.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Emergency Organization a.
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitment's described in the Emergency Plan for developing the organizations for coping with radiation emergencies.
b.
The inspector reviewed licensee's organization charts, Emergency Rosters, and Emergency Procedures to verify that:
(1)
Specific authority, responsibilities and duties have been defined and assigned for onsite FPL emergency organization, offsite FPL emergency organization, and specified outside support agencies.
(2)
The individuals assigned on the emergency call lists is current as to names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
c.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of this area:
(1)
Emergency Plan, Section 2.
(2)
E.P.
20115, Figure l.
within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Audits The inspector examined the licensee's equality Assurance audit nos.
gAO-PTP-79-08-250 and QAO-PTP-79-08-252, which were inspections in the areas of Emergency Planning; Emergency Procedures and Fire Brigade Training.
The inspector noted that seven unsatisfactory items were identified in the areas of Emergency Planning and Emergency Procedures and one unsatisfactory item was identified in the area of Fire Brigade Training.
Until the licensee provides resolutions and completes corrective actions for the identified deficiencies this matter will remain unresolved to be inspected at a future date (250/251/79-30-02).
-12-13.
IE Bulletin Review a
~
IE Bulletin 79-18, Audibility of Evacuation Alarm in High Noise Areas, was discussed with members of the licensee technical staff.
Several problem areas have been identified within the plant and corrective action has been initiated.
Completion date for corrective action is estimated to be November 1979.
A formal response to the Bulletin has been submitted to the FPSL corporate office for review and forwarding to the NRC.
Until corrective action has been completed this item shall remain open.
(250/251/79-30-03).
b.
IE Bulletin 77-08 requires the licensee, in part, to survey the facility and facility plans as to whether or not prompt emergency ingress into electrically locked safety related areas by essential personnel could be assured during loss of power, and if unimpeded emergency egress from all parts of the facility could be assured with respect to hardware and security system installations.
In addition the licensee was required to review existing emergency plans and procedures to assure that prompt emergency ingress and unimpeded emergency egress was fully and effec-tively addressed for any postulated occurrence.
A written report was required for any facility that did not meet the requirements of action items 1 and 2 of the bulletin.
(1)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response, dated February 13, 1978, to IE Bulletin 77-08.
The response stated, in part, that unimpeded emergency ingress and unimpeded emergency egress are important considerations in the plant security program, and that the scope of the security plan and emergency procedures has been satisfied.
Emergency ingress and egress, with respect to plant security, was reviewed by an inspector during a previous inspection (IE Report No. 50-250, 251/78-13).
(2)
The Emergency Planning requirements of IE Bulletin 77-08 appear to have been satisfactorily met.