IR 05000263/1982002
| ML20050B206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Madison A, Paperiello C, Patterson J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050B198 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 50-263-82-02, 50-263-82-2, NUDOCS 8204050097 | |
| Download: ML20050B206 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-263/82-02(DEPOS) Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicolett Hall Minneapolis, EN 55401 Facility Name: Monticello Inspection At: Wright and Shurburne County Inspection ConJucted: January 18 through 29, 1982 }/rff2. - Inspectors: A. L. Ifnqison .f - J[P.Patterson // [[ / / b hb Approved By: W.
, is,n, Chief Eme gency Preparedness Section CL LOA V ) ll C. J Paperi llo, Chief, Emergency Preparednes and Program Support Branch / Inspection Summary: Inspection on January 18 through 29, 1982 (Report No. 50-263/82-02(DEPOS)) Areas Inspected: Special announced inspection of Prompt Public Notification / Warning System and testing of the system. The inspection involved _22 in-spector-hours on site by one NRC inspector and an in-office review by one NRC inspector.
l Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
! , 8204050097 820316 PDR ADOCK 05000263 G PDR
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, Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided 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.
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
Completed observation 100% by January 29, 1982.
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 Zone within 15 minutes? Alert (sirens) only is provided.
b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through a. above) would be used to provide an instructional message to the public after the sirens have been activated? N.O.A.A.
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) over commercial radio. Also, Tone Alert radios in selected locations (schools, hospitals, nursing homes, factories, selected officials, etc.) are provided, c.
Does the public information distribution program provide information regarding this system? (Explain) Yes, however, this was distributed a year ago and needs to be updated. Licensee expects to do this by April 1, 1982.
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site? (Explain) Yes, 100% coverage is provided by sirens only.
,
- __ . . -.- _
. e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal? Twenty five percent of the population may not hear the initial test.
However, the licensee over designed the siren coverage with , a 70 db conservative basis.
In-service testing and FEMA evaluation will determine if this is properly designed.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 10 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification? Agreements have been obtained with the County Sheriff's Office for the use of mobile sirens.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes? See Part 2.b above.
. h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested? The system was tested on January 6 and 27, 1982.
1.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g., licensee, local government, or State)? The licensee expects this responsibility to be given to the local government. However, this has not been negotiated at this time.
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system? Minnesota Department of Emergency Services and County Sheriff has the authority.
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
This is an open item pending resolution of maintenance respons-
ibility of the system.
I 1.
Name of licensee contact: Elemont C. Ward at Northern States Power corporate office.
3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test? (Explain): , Each siren was tested upon installation and a full integrated system test was conducted prior to February 1, 1982. Audible and
' . f visual observation of about 35% of the sirens were made and a local response counter check was made of the remaining sirens to ensure the sirens received the signal.
b.
Was State and County involved: . No c.
Was FEMA present: No d.
Did you witness the test: Yes e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test: Bruce Tam, Siren Project Ent Pr, who supervised various i - ' construction personnel.
f.
Review records of the test (Comment): ' Tests were completed on January 29, 1982. Accordingly, review of test records was not done during this inspection.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection: Installation: None.
Test Result: The initially test called for 1 revolution of each siren, and two , hours later a test with several revolutions. A failure of a siren ' could have gone undetected on the first test. The licensee revised their test procedure.
Records: j l Licensee has not been maintaining records of test results, however, they have agreed to do so for future tests.
Others: i Civil defense director in Sherburne County was not fully aware of system audits function.
Also, no QA or maintenance plans have been selected or proposed.
Licensee is confident that the counties will take responsibility, however, no decision has been made. (TO-').6h82.01 Oh l '
i i .- . . . - -
,... 5.
Persons Contacted Bruce Tam, Siren Project Engineer
- E. L. Ward, Emergency Planning Coordinator
- W.
Shamla, Plant Superintendent
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 5) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 29, 1982.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
, i ! , i !
,, _.,. ,,__m, ,.,, m __._ ,_,. _ _.. . .m ,.,_..__ _ .____ - -...... . }}