IR 05000250/1986007
| ML17342A416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1986 |
| From: | Decker T, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342A415 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-86-07, 50-250-86-7, 50-251-86-07, 50-251-86-7, NUDOCS 8603110482 | |
| Download: ML17342A416 (16) | |
Text
~pg REJIG fp0 0O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 M 05 ]986 Report Nos.:
50-250/86-07 and 50-251/86-07 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 Mest Fl agler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and
License Nos.:
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection Conducted:
February 3-7, 1986 Inspector:
R.
R. Marston Accompanying Personnel:
A.
. Tabaka ate igned Approved by:
T.
R. Decker, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Da e Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 70 inspector-hours onsite in the area of emergency preparedness.
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
Shops f0482 8
~)agP 6OSO5 pgg ggOCP 050 pgR
JI I
,~r'
P (
R J
ll r
P
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees C.
M. Wethy, Vice President C. J.
Baker, Plant Manager - Nuclear
"K. L. Jones, Plant Manager Nuclear, Acting R. J. Acosta, Quality Assurance (QA) Superintendent
"L. W. Bladow, Supervising Engineer QA
"B. A., Abrishami, Acting Technical Department Supervisor
"J. J. Maisler, Acting Emergency Planning Supervisor (FPKL)
"J. Arias, Jr.,
Regulatory 8 Compliance Supervisor
"T. A. Finn, Operations Supervisor - Nuclear
"E.
R. LaPierre, Chemistry Department Supervisor M. A. Ammerman, General Employee Training, Health Physics, Training Supervisor M. T. Barry, Training Supervisor, Wackenhut Security C. A. Coker, Plant Supervisor - Nuclear W.
C. Schimkus, Plant Supervisor Nuclear P.
G. Bailey, Health Physics Coordinator (FP&L)
- G. A. Casto, Emergency Planning Coordinator E. J. Traczyk, Jr.,
Fire Protection Coordinator
~H.
E. Hartman, ISI Coordinator
"R.
D. Hart, Licensing Engineer
"R.
G.
Mende, Reactor Engineer and Chemistry Other licensee employees contacted included technicians and specialists, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations C. Diaz, REP Coordinator, Monroe County Civil Defense Dr.
H.
R.
Nateman, Medical Director, Emergency Department, Baptist Hospital of Miami NRC Resident Inspectors T. Peebles (SRI)
"D.
R. Brewer (RI)
"Attended exit interview
~ 'xit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 7, 1986, with those per sons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee did not identify
as proprietary any of the material s provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(4)
and
CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.B and IV.C, this program area was inspected to determine whether the licensee used and understood a standard emergency classification and action level scheme.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's classification procedures.
The event classifications in the procedures were consistent with those required by regulation.
The classification procedures did not appear to contain impediments or errors which could lead to incorrect or untimely classification.
Selected emergency action levels (EALs) specified in the classification procedures were reviewed.
.The reviewed EALs appeared to be consistent with the initiating events specified in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654.
The inspector noted that some of the EALs were based on parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentation.
The inspector verified that the licensee's notification procedures included criteria for initiation of offsite notifications and for development of protective action recommendations.
The notification procedures required that offsite notifications be made promptly after declaration of an emergency.
The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of EALs with State and local officials.
Licensee documentation showed that the licensee had discussed the EALs during January 1986 with State and local officials, and that these officials agreed with the EALs used by the licensee.
Interviews were held with two Plant Supervisors Nuclear to verify that they understood the relationship between core status and such core damage indicators as the inadequate-core-cooling indicator, high-range effluent monitor, fuel temperature indicator, containment hydrogen monitor, vessel coolant level, and post accident primary coolant analysis.
All interviewees appeared knowledgeable of the various core damage indications and their relationship to core'tatus.
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 accident classification, notification, and protective action recommendations.
Walk-through evaluations involving accident classification problems were conducted with two Plant Supervisors Nuclear.
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 identified.
Protective Action Deci sion-Making (82202)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(9)
and (10)
and
CFR Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.D.3, 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 public.
The inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action deci sion-making with licensee representatives and reviewed pertinent portions of'he licensee's emergency plan and procedures.
The plan and procedures clearly assigned responsibility and authority for accident assessment and protective action decision-making.
Interviews with members of the licensee's emergency organization revealed that these personnel understood thei r authorities and responsibilities with respect to accident assessment and protective action decision-makings Walk-through evaluations involving protective action decision-making were conducted with two Plant Supervisors Nuclear.
Personnel interviewed appeared to be cognizant of appropriate onsite protective measure's and aware of the range of protective action recommendations appropriate to offsite protection.
Personnel interviewed were aware of the need for timeliness in making initial protective action recommendations to offsite officials.
Interviewees demonstrated adequate understanding of the requirement that protective action recommendations be based on core condition and containment status even if no release is in progress.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Notification and Communication (82203)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(5)
and (6)
and
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 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 licensees The inspector determined that the procedures made provisions for message verification.
The inspector 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.
A listing of selected telephone numbers for the emergency response organization was available for use in the event of an emergency.
The content of initial emergency messages was reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives.
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'ccording to licensee documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the system consisted of 38 fixed sirens.
A review of licensee 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 the period July 1985 to February 1986.
The records showed that tests were conducted every two weeks including siren motion, public address mode, and air horn.
A full-cycle test was conducted annually as specified in NUREG-0654, Appendix 3.
Communications equipment in the Control Room, OSC, TSC, and EOF was inspected.
Provisions existed for prompt communications among emergency response organizations, to emergency response.personnel, and to the public.
The installed communication systems at the emergency response facilities were consistent with system descriptions in the emergency plan and implementing procedures.
Redundancy of offsite and onsite communication links was discussed with licensee representatives.
The inspecto~
verified that the licensee had established a backup communications system.
The backup system made use of the following communication systems:
public address system, motor maintenance circuit, PAX telephone system, Bell system telephones, FM radio system, portable radios, Miami area interoffice dial system, radio-paging system, national warning system, local government radio system, emergency notification system, and state hot ringdown telephone.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16),
CFR 50.54(q),
and
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 June 1985, and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparednes The inspector discussed the licensee's program for making changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure governing review and approval of changes to the plan and procedures.
The inspector verified that changes to the plan and procedures were reviewed and approved by management.
It was also noted that all such changes were submitted to NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as required.
Discussions were held with licensee representatives concerning recent modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation.
Licensee representatives stated that there had been no significant'odifications in these areas.
The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were reviewed.
The inspector verified that there had been no significant changes in the organization or assignment of responsibility for the plant and corporate emergency planning staffs since the last inspection.
The inspector'
discussion with licensee representatives also disclosed that there had been no significant changes in the organization and staffing of the offsite support agencies since the last inspection.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the emergency plan and procedures.
Document control records for the period July 1985 to February 1986 showed that appropriate personnel and organiza-tions were sent copies of plan and procedural changes, as required.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(15)
and
CFR Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F, this area was inspected to determine whether emergency response personnel understood their emergency response roles and could perform their assigned functions.
The inspector reviewed the description (in the emergency plan)
of the training program, training procedures, and selected lesson plans, and interviewed members of the instructional staff.
Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had established a
formal emergency training program.
Records of training for key members of the emergency organization for the period July 1985 to February 1986 were reviewed.
The training records revealed that personnel de'signated as alternates were provided with appropriate training.
According to the training records, the type, amount, and frequency of training were consistent with approved procedures.
The inspector conducted walk-through evaluations with selected key members of the emergency organization.
During these walk-throughs, individuals were given various hypothetical sets of emergency conditions and data and asked to talk through the response they would make if such an emergency actually
existed.
The individuals demonstrated familiarity with emergency procedures and equipment, and no problems were observed in the areas of emergency detection and classification, dose calculation, assessment action (to include plant conditions and protective action and decision-making).
IE Information Notice No. 85-80,
"Timely Declaration of an Emergency Class, Implementation of an Emergency Plan, and Emergency Notifications,"
was discussed with the licensee and the notification procedures were reviewed.
Notification of the State Warning Point and the NRC was the responsibility of the Emergency Coordinator.
Licensee representatives stated that if the notification calls wer'e delegated, policy was for an Operator to make the calls.
Training records indicated that Emergency Coordinators and Operators were trained on the notification procedures.
The
. inspector discussed emergency training and coordinat-:on with representatives of the Monroe County Civil Defense and the Baptist Hospital Emergency Department.
No problems were noted in either area or in other interfaces with the licensee.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Dose Calculation and Assessment (82207)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(9), this area was inspected to determine whether there was an adequate method for assessing the consequences of an actual or potential radiological release.
The inspector reviewed Emergency Procedure 20126,
"Off-Site Dose Calculations."
The procedure had provisions for calculating doses for ground releases and monitored pathways such as the plant stack, building vents, containment leakage, and steam releases.
No elevated releases were considered in the model because the plant stack is short; thus, all releases were considered to be at ground level.
The procedures allowed for refinement of dose projections through incorporation of feedback from field monitoring.
The inspector discussed the compatibility of the dose projection models used by the licensee and the State of Florida with licensee representatives.
It was determined that the two models were compatible and no major differences existed.
The licensee procedures made provision for timely incorporation of dose assessment results into the offsite protective action recommendation process.
However, during interviews with key licensee emergency response personnel, they all appeared to recognize the uncertainties associated with dose projections and the importance of making protective action recommenda-tions based on plant conditions'n inspection and operability check was made of selected equipment and support items used for dose assessment at the TSC and EOF.
No problems were observe.
The inspector requested and observed dose assessment walk-throughs by selected licensee personnel designated as responsible for dose projection during an emergency.
Three individuals demonstrated the ability to make manual calculations, and two individuals demonstrated the ability to make dose projections using computerized methods.
Each individual observed was able to produce acceptable results by one of the methods within 15 minutes.
The inspector discussed the backshift availability of personnel qualified to make dose calculations.
Licensee representatives stated that such personnel were available on all shifts.
The inspector verified from a
review of current staffing levels and emergency response training records that this capability existed.
The inspector conducted a comparison test between the licensee dose model and the NRC Interactive Rapid Dose Assessment Model ( IRDAM).
Results were compared and discussed with the licensees Some differences were noted.
Possible reasons for these differences were recognized and di scussed by both parties.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Licensee Audits (82210)
Pursuant to.10 CFR 50.47(b)(14)
and (16) and
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 Plant gA organization during the period November 27, to December 20, 1985, and an audit of the offsite program was conducted by the Corporate gA organization during the period of August 16 to September 25, 1985.
The audit fulfilied the 12-month frequency requirement for such audits.
The audit records showed that the State and local government interfaces were evaluated, and licensee representatives stated that findings concerning the interfaces were made available to State and local government authorities.
Audit findings and recommendations were presented to plant and corporate management.
A review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee complied with the five-year retention requirement for such reports.
Licensee emergency plans and procedures required critiques following exercises and drills.
Licensee documentation dated April 8, 1985, showed that critiques were held following periodic drills as well as the annual exercise.
The records showed that deficiencies were discussed in the critiques, and recommendations for corrective action were made.
The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise findings was reviewed. 'icensee procedures required follow-up on deficient areas identified during audits, drills, and exercises.
The inspector reviewed licensee records which indicated that corrective action was taken on identified problems, as appropriate.
The licensee had established a
~
V
~
g
~
tracking system as a
management tool in following up on actions taken in deficient areas.
No violations or deviations were identifie h