IR 05000259/1988026

Insp Repts 50-259/88-26,50-260/88-26 & 50-296/88-26 on 880829-0902.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness,Including Programmatic Elements of Emergency Detection & Classification & Training

ML20155G315
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	09/20/1988
From:	Decker T, Kreh J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155G298	List: IR 05000259/1988026 ML20155G294
References
50-259-88-26, 50-260-88-26, 50-296-88-26, NUDOCS 8810140197
Download: ML20155G315 (6)

Text

'

e dic o UNITED S1 ATES

'

t o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. \ REGION 11 h, .M ..

. 101 MARtETTA STRE ET, * t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

\...../ EP23IEB Report Hos.: 50-259/88-26, 50-260/88-26, and 50-296/88-26 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33 DPR-52, and DPR-68 Facility Name: Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: August 29 - September 2, 1988 Inspector: A "va [ <' 4 /ra '7[#MS J. L. Kreh p, Date Signed Approved by: LNeuvo A [d '7/'<'MS T. R. Decker, Section Chief Date Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency preparedness, and included review of the following programatic elements: (1) emergency detection and classification, (2) protective action decision-making, (3) notifications and communications, (4) shif t staffing ano l

augmentation, and (5) trainin Results: In the area inspected, no violations -]r deviations were identifie The findings of this inspection indicated that the licensee was adequately prepared to respond to an emergency at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.

l l

l 1 l l l l

l l

'

l I

'

l 8810140197 000923 PDR O

ADOCK 0b000259 ,

PNU

)

. ____ _ _ - __ _ __ - . _ - _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

,

,

. .'/ * *

.

.

<

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• M. Bolch, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manager ,

W. Brown, Shift Operations Supervisor '

• G. Campbell, Plant Manager

• N. Catron, Program Manager, Emergency Preparedness Branch (Corporate)

A. Clement, Project Manger T. Corr.elius, Project Engineer

• Ivey, Compliance Licensing Engineer R. Kitts, Chie'. Emergency Preparedness Branch (Corporate) i D. Maehr, Engineer Aide

• B. Marks, Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness Program (Corporate)

• R. McKeon, Plant Support Superintendent M. Miller, Shift Operations Supervisor j W. Percle, Project Manager

,

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included j operators, technicians, and administrative personne NRC Resident Inspectors

*C, Brooks

• 0. Carpenter

• Attended exit interview

, Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)

, Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E Sections IV.B

'

and IV.C; and Sections 4.0 and A.1 of the licensee's Radiological Emergency Plan (REP), this program area was inspected to determine whether

,

the licensee used and understood a standard emergency classification and action level schem Selected emergency action levels (EALs) specified in the licensee's classification procedure were reviewed. The reviewed EAls appeared to be generally consistent with the initiating events specifie<1 in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654 and the REP. The inspector noted that some of the EAls were based on parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentatio The inspector verified that the licensee's notification procedures included criteria for initiation of offsite notification 3 and fo, development of protective action recomendation The procedures required that offsite notifications be made promptly (via the Operations Outy Specialist in Chattanooga, TN) after declaration of an emergenc .

.

.

.

.

-

.

The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of EALs with State officials. Documentation showed that state officials had reviewed the EAls during June 1988 with State and local officials, and that these officials agreed with the EAls used by the license 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 recommendation Walk-through evaluations involving accident classification problems were conducted with two Shif t Operations Supervisor Both individuals properly classified the hypothetical accident situations presented to them, and appeared to be familiar with appropriate classification procedure No violations or deviations were identifie . Protective Action Decision-Making (82202)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) and (10); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Secticn IV.D.3; and Section 100 of the Radiological Emergency Plan, 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 worker The inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action decision-making with licensee representatives and reviewed pertinent portions of the licensee's emergency plan and procedures. The plan and procedures clearly assigned responsibility and authority for accident assessment and protective action decision-makin Interviews with members of the licensee's emergency organization showed that these personnel understood their authorities and responsibilities with respect to accident assessment and protective action decision-makin Walk-through evaluations involving protective action decision-making were conducted with two Shif t Operations Supervisors, who appeared to be cognizant of appropriate onsite protective measures and aware of the range of protective action recommendations appropriate to offsite protectio Personnel interviewed were aware of the need for timeliness in making initial protective action recommendations to offsite official 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 progres No violations or deviations were identifie i 7

• '

. ,

'

.

3 Notification and Comunication (82203)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.0; and Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the Radiological Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating with its own personnel, offsite supporting agencies and authorities, and the populace of the 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) in the event of an emergenc The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures. The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and EAL scheme used by the licensee. The inspector determined that the procedures made provisions for message verificatio The inspector determined by review of applicabie 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 u ganization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencie The content of initial emergency messages was reviewe The initial messages appeared to meet the guidance of NUREG-0654, Criteria II.E.3 and II.E.4. The format and content of the initial emergency messages had been reviewed by State and local government authoritie The licensee's management control program for the prompt notification system was reviewe According to licensee documentation and discussions with licensee representatives, the system consisted of 54 fixed sirens, 5 mobile sirens, and numerous tone-alert radio A review of licensee records verified that the system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the REP. Maintenance of the system was provided by the licensee. The licensee had recently completed installation of 45 additional sirens intended to eliminate the need for mobile-siren routes in the 5- to 10-mile annulus. Completion of the activation system for the new sirens was expected in December, 198 Comunications equipment in the Control Room, OSC and TSC was inspecte Provisions existed for prompt comunications among emergency response organizations, to emergency response personnel, and to the public. The installed communications systems at the emergency response facilities were consistent with system descriptions in the REP, The inspector reviewed licensee records for the period March 1988 to August 1988 which indicated that comunications tests were conducted at the required frequencies. Licensee records also revealed that corrective action was taken on problems identified during comunications test No violations or deviations were identifie .. .

• *

-

.

"

.

_

-

.

4 ShiftStaffingandAugnentation(82205)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.A and IV.C this area was inspected to determine whether shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available and maintained to augment the emergency organization in a timely manne Shift staffing levels and functional capabilities of all shifts were reviewed and found to be consistent with the guidance of Table B-1 of NUREG-065 The licensee used an Automated Paging System (APS) for expediting the notification of the plant emergency response organi.atio The APS was a computerized, manu-driven s:, stem which activated radio pagers via one transmitter onsite and several offsit Weekly, unannounced tests of the APS were conducte The APS, activated by the Shift Operations Supervisor's clerk, appeared to be effective in meeting Table B-1 goal The inspector discussed staff augmentation times with licensee representa-tives, who provided documentation of an unannounced, off-shift drill on August 17, 1988, in which TSC activation occurred within 60 minutes of the Alert declaration, as require The inspector reviewed records of weekly APS tests, the results of which provided a continuing demonstration that staff augmentation times would be generally consistent with Table B-1 guidance in the event of an actual activation of the emergency response organizatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Knowledge and Performance of Outies (Training) (82206)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F, this area was ir.spected to determine whether personnel understood their emergency response roles and could perform their assigned function 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, notifications, and protective action decision-matin No violations or deviations were identifie . Action On Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow-Up Items (1Fis) 260/85-52-06 and 260/85-52-07: Due to editorial error, these two items were closed

_

. -

l

.

..

A

_

-

for Units 1 and 3, but not for Unit 2, in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-259, 260, 296/87-30. This closure corrects that erro (Closed) IFl 259, 260, 296/85-52-08: Review FEMA 43 documentation when availabl This document will be reviewed upon issuance as part of the NRC's routine inspection program; thus, performance of such a review will no longer be tracked as an open ite . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 2,1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. Although proprietary information was reviewed during this inspection, none is contained in this repor .. . _

._ _ . --_,___.___.__ .. _ . , . _ _.