IR 05000254/1982004
| ML20052C224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Dupont S, Patterson J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052C212 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 50-254-82-04, 50-254-82-4, 50-265-82-05, 50-265-82-5, NUDOCS 8205040512 | |
| Download: ML20052C224 (5) | |
Text
4 t
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report ho. 50-254/82-04; 50-265/82-05 Docket No. 50-254; 50-265 Licensee No. DPR-29; DPR-30 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 g
Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Quad-Cities Site, Cordova, IL Inspection Conducted: January 26 and February 8, 1982 9/9 E M i
Inspectors on IdMs?
Y/v42
>
.
o Chief
/Y 87 ApprovedBy-}'EmergencyPreparednessSection
'
/
.
Inspection Summary:
Areas Insp'ected: Special announced inspection of Prompt Public Notification Warning System and testing of the system. The inspection involved seven inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8205040512 820316 PDR ADOCK 05000254 O
.
_
.
J
&
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, i
.
Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of l
questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided j
are the bases for determining if the prompt public notification system
.
Installed is as described in your Emergency Plan or other correspondence
sent to the Commission.
T'
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about '20%) of siren locations.
,
Approximately 35% of the 52 sirens installed were inspected and found to be located as per the licensee's December 14, 1981, and Janaury 15,
{
1982, correspondance.
In addition, the NRC apprasial team verified
installation of several sirens in Rock Isalnd County.
- 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 I
'
Zone within 15 minutes?
The system provides an alert signal only by means of an outdoor
siren to the population within the 10 mile Emergency Planning
,
Zone (EPZ).
b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through a. above)
'
would be used to provide an instructional message to the public
i.
after the sirens have been activated?-
The licensee distributed brochures to residences within the 10
mile EPZ describing action to.be taken after_ hearing the initial _
'
siren. Also-through the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) an.
!
instructional message'is given through the'1ccal radio stations.
l I
c.
Does the public information distribution' program provide information'regarding this system?
(Explain)
,
The brochures contain information regarding the warning system
,
,
including actions to be taken in the event of an emergency. The
'
-
'
call numbers for the EBS station are listed. A'new mailing is being made this yer:
Present distribution includes motels, l
parks and other ic'.r_ons where transient populations might be j
located in' addition to all residents in the 10 mile EPZ.
!
l
!
i
2
!
!
f
-
.-
-
,.
.
. -... - -
-_
,-
. -
..,,,.
--
.
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 population within the 5 mile EPZ. This will be confirmed by a test in the next three months. The engineering design appears to provide 100% coverage within the first 5 miles.
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 1G miles will not hear the initial signal?
The licensee is presently determining this percentage. An exact percentage is not available at this time.
This is an open item.
(50-254/82-04-01 and 50-265/82-05-01).
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 00% 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 patrol vehic s with loud speakers to notify people in rural area remote locacions. The EBS also gives instructional messages when the emergency justifies it.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
The State of Illinois notifies these special facilities by means of radio receivers installed at these sites. These receivers are also used to notify the occupants of tornado warnings or other natural disasters.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
As the sirens were installed, they were individually " growl" tested. This was to verify at low volume, that each unit operated.
They have not been tested at high volume.
i.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g., licensee, local government, or State)?
The responsibility for maintenance of the siren system has not been finalized.
It will probably be assigned to appropriate counties or their designated contractors. The financial responsibility is with the licensee.
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
This authority is with the County Sheriff. The siren decoder is located in the Sheriff's communication office. Authority to activate comes from the Governor's office.
i
.
.
.
.
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
This program is currently being developed and will include scheduled maintenance of the siren system. This program is being jointly developed between the governmental units, city, county, state, and the licensee. This is an open item.
(50-254/82-04-02 and 50-265/82-05-02)
1.
Name of licensee contact:
W. Brenner, Emergency Planning, Commonwealth Edison Company corporate office.
3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
All sirens were " growl" tested upon installation. Radio controls were also tested on each siren in each of the four counties and several deficiencies were identified which are detailed in Section 4.0.
b.
Was State and County involved:
No.
c.
Was FEMA present:
No.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
'
Three licensee respresentatives from the Engineering Department, CECO.
e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
Messrs. Carson, Flessner and Delaney, CECO, corporate office, f.
Review records of the test:
Records are being maintained by licensee, but have not been reviewed by NRC at this time. These will be examined during
a future inspection.
.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
Installation:
None.
..
.
.
.
Test Results:
< All sirens were satisfactorily " growl" tested upon installation.
Radio tests involving encoders, decoders and radio transmission showed the following deficiencies: Whiteside County - 4 sirens out of 7 were deficient, Clinton County - 5 sirens out of 17 were deficient; Scott County - 4 out of 10 sirens were deficient and Rock Island County - all 18 sirens were deficient after radio control tests. This is an open item, but has been listed for the tracking system as part of the recent Emergency Preparedness Appraisal Report No. 50-254/82-02 and 50-265/82-02.
Records:
Records are being maintained and information on results of testing have been forwarded to Region III.
Others:
Not applicable.
5.
Persons Contacted W. Brenner, Emergency Planner, Commonwealth Edison Company.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 5) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
5