IR 05000302/1990030
| ML20062E687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1990 |
| From: | Rankin W, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E684 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-90-30, NUDOCS 9011210178 | |
| Download: ML20062E687 (8) | |
Text
l
' ~
.
.
.
.- [$c.a4]o.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
- .I_?
.-
,
=[,
51EGpN H L-101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
$
,g,
'
't'
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323 A,%,.*/
L.
-
NOV 141990
. Report No.:.50-302/90-30'
,
.
Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation n
3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket No.:
50-302 License No.:- DPR-72
'
Facility Name:
Crystal River 3 L-Inspection Conducted:
Sep mber 24-28. 1990 i
EK. d _J.gp
// f f 9 B -
Inspector:
3artor, r.
_Ifa e igned j
.
.
Accompanying Personnel:
.B. Desai, Rll l
'
S. Elrod, Ril Will, Sonalysts, Inc.
I
//_/j/ 90 Approved byt W. = H. Ra nki n,"ChTe~f~
te ignEd-
~
~~~
.
' Emergency Preparedness section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch
.
Division of Radiation Safety-and Safeguards l
SUMMARY
'. Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was the observation and evaluation of the.
I licensee's annual: emergency exercise.
Key areas of the licensee's emergency response. organizations -and facilities were observed to evaluate the
. implementation.of the Emergency Plan and procedur_es in providing for the _ health and safety of the public and onsite' personnel during a simulated emergency.
+
Results:
{
-
.In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
.y
!
The111censee was fully ' successful-in the -demonstration of implementing the
-
Emergency: Plan.and procedures-for dealing with the scenario events as observed and thereby provide for the. health and safety of the public and onsite
"
s-personnel.
Exercise strengths-included prompt identification 'of emergency-a action levels, and correct emergency classifications. Two areas for inspection i
followup' will focus' on accuracy and timeliness of notifications (Paragraph 7)
and - documentation of. licensee's protective action ' recommendations (PARS)
i (Paragraph 11)'.
!
9011210178 901114
!
PDR ADOCK 05000302 O
,
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
_,,,1,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, '
,
?
"
' '
'
' ' ' ' ' = ' ' ' ' ' ' =
^'
?
.
.
.'
.
,
REPOR1 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licenseo Employees P. Bcard, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- G. Boldt, Vice President, Nuclear Production
- S. Chapin, Radiologicai Emergency Planning Specialist
- J. Dymek, Senior Nuclear Fire Protection Engineer
- W. E11sberry, Nuclear Technical Training Supervisor
- R. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer
- E. Gallion, Nuclear Operations Peer Evaluator
- S. Garry, Corporate Health Physicist
- M. Laycock, Radiological Emergency Planning Specialist
- K. Linhart, Emergency Medical Technician
- G. Longhouser, Security Superintendent
- P. McKee, Director, Nuc1 car Plant Operations
- J. Mogg, Telecommunication Supervisor
- W. Nielson, Assistant Maintenance Superintendent (Acting)
- R. Parker, Nuclear Emergency Team Instructor
- M. Pombier, Supervisor, Nuclear Specialist Training
- E. Renfro, Director, Nuclear Materials and Controls
- S. Robinson, Chemistry / Radiological Superintendent
- V. Roppez, Manager, Nuclear Plant Maintenance
- J. Stephenson, Supervisor, Radiological Emergency Planning
- F. Sullivan, Manager, Nuclear Plant Systems Engineering
- R. Widell, Director, Nuclear Operations Site Support
- C. Williams, Nuclear Fire Protection Specialist
- M. Williams, Nuclear _ Regulatory Specialist
- R. Zareck, Operations Emergency Operations Procedure Specialist
- Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Other Organizations
- R. Bristol, Radiological Emergency Planner, Citrus County Sheriff's Department
- A. Engel, Security Compliance, Burns Security
- C. Hultquist, Radiological Emergency Planning Manager, State of Florida
- J. Soukup, Citrus County Emergency Manager, Citrus County Sheriff's Department NRC Resident Inspectors P. Holmes-Ray
- R.
Spence
.
.
.
..
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
.
a. _' -
-
.
,
- Attended exit interview 2.
ExerciseScenario(82302)
The scenario for the emergency exercise was reviewed to determine that
-
provisions had been made to test an integrated emergency response capability as well as the basic elements existing within the licensee, State and local Emergency Plens and organization as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.N.
The scenario was reviewed in advance of the schedule exercise date and was discussed _with licensee representatives.
The scenario developed for this exercise was adequate to exercise the onsite and offsite emergency organizations of the licensee to_ demonstrate capabilities required to meet s
the objectives of the exercise.
The scenario also met the needs _for the State and local response organizations participations as a non-required
" Training Exercise."
The State's Division of Emergency Management participated at the EOF to test direction and control functions.
The Department of Health-and Rehabilitative Services deployed the Mobile Radiological Emergency Laboratory and the associated field. monitoring teams.
-The. response organizations of the risk counties fully participated.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Assignment of Responsibility (82301)
This area was observed to assure that primary responsibilities for
-
-
emergency response by the licensee had been specifically established and-that adequate staff was available to respond to:an emergency as reouired by -10 CFR 50.47(b)(1), '10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV. A, and spec 1fic criteria in NUREG-0654,-Section II.A.
The inspector noted - that Section 5.0- of the Florida Power Corporation Radiological Emergency Response Plan provided for the assignment of responsibilities for an emergency at its Crystal River Unit 2.
-During'
this small scale exercise the State of Florida's Division of Emergency Management and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services-pertially participated in response'to their-primary responsibility for the local population ~ and environs, to include _the. possible need for
- .
evacuation. _Although not demonstrated during this exercise, the emergency
'
-
responsibilities of various support agencies such as fire and medical had been specifically established in the licensee's Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
.-
I
.
-.
9'-
j
.
'
1l
!
-4.
Onsite Emergency Organization (82301)
'
The licensee's onsite emergency organization was observed to assure that the 'following requirements were implemented pursuant to i
10CFR50.47(b)(2), Paragraph IV. A of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and
,
specific guidance promulgated.i n Section II.B of NUREG-0654:
(1) unambiguous-definition of responsibilities for emergency response; (2) provision of adequate staffing to assure initial facility accident
,
response in key functional areas at all times; and (3) specification of onsite and offsite support organization interactions.
The inspector observed that the licensee's on-shift organization was I
effective in responding to. the simulated emergency and their responsibilities were clearly defined.
Although the Technical Support
Center was staffed and operational approximately twenty minutes after the Alert declaration, the Man-On-Call did not assume the Emergency
,
Coordinator responsibilities from the Acting Emergency Coordinator until t
approximately'15 minutes later.
The Emergency Coordinator then directed
'
the efforts of the ensite emergency response to include notification and
. recommendations - for protective actions to State and local authorities
,
until relieved of these latter responsibilities by the E0F.
The inspector i
observed that the interfaces between the onsite organization and offsite support agencies appeared to be adequate, j
-
No-violations or deviations were identified.
'
<
5..
Emergency Response Support and Resources
,
,
This area was' observed to determine that arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, that arrangements
to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency
'
-
- Operations' Facility had been made, and that other organizations capable of -
!
augmenting the - planned response have been - identified as required -by-
!
10 CFR 50.47(b)(3),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV. A, and specific i
criteria in NUREG 0654,Section II.C.
j
State Dand local staff 'were accommodated at the near-site Emergency-Operations Fecility located at.the Nuclear Operations Training Center in j;
' Crystal River. Licensee contact with offsite organizations was prompt and
'
assistance resources from various agencies were prepared to assist in-the
'
simulated emergency.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
6.
Emergency Classification System (82301)
This area was observed to assure that a standard emergency classification j
- and action level scheme was in use by the nuclear facility licensee i
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), Paragraph IV.C of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50,
,
specific guidance promulgated in Section II.D of NUREG-0654, and guidance -
.
recommended in NRC Information Notice 83-28.
l
b
.
.
t
..
The' licensee's emergency classification system was described in Section 8.0 of the Plan and procedure EM-202. The emergency action level table provided. conditions and indications that are the basis for classifying the condition into one of the four emergency classes.
The system was used effectively by the Acting Emergency Coordinator and the
,
Emergency Coordinator te classify the simulated emergency that progressed
'
to a Site Area Emcrgency classification.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Notification Methods and Procedures (82301)
This area was observed to determined that procedures had been established for notification by the licensee of State'and local response organizations and emergency personnel, and that the content of initial and follow-up messages to response organizations had been established; and means to provide early notification to the populace within the plume exposure pathway had been_ established as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.D, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section 11.E.
The inspector observed that Section 9.0 of the Plan and specific portions of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure EM-202 provided for notification methods and procedures, and noted that formats for initial notification and follow-up messages have been pre-established to assure complete and clear dissemination of information to emergency response organizations.
An inspector noted that the methods and procedures were effectively used for initial and follow-up notifications in most cases, but some exceptions were observed.
One exception was the failure to make timely notification-of the Alert to the State Warning Point _ via the State Hot Ringdown network. '.The notification chronology to support this observation was as follows:
(1)- Unusual Event' declared at 0754; (2) Alert declared at 0804; (3)-State / counties notified of the Unusual Event via the State Hot Ringdown network at 0808;-(4) NRC notified of the Alert at 0815; and-(5) State / counties notified.of the Alert at 0825.
Examination of.the above times and notifications against the procedural requirements of Emergency _ Plant Implementing Procedure EM-202, "Outies of-the Emergency Coordinator," identified two problem areas. One was the failure to inform
,
the State-Warning Point of the highest emergency classification that would have applied with the initial notificatien and the second was the failuri e make the Alert notification within 15 minutes of emergency _
clasification.
Another exception was the NRC was never provided -
infore tion concerning the Unusual Event declaration.
Also, a review of the StaM' of Florida Notification Message Forms revealed frequent omissions ach as the time of.the message and who it was reported by.
The failure to make prompt and complete notifications was identified for an Inspector Follow-up Item _(IFI) (IFI 50-302/90-30-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
.
.
--
.
- 8.
EmergencyCommunications-(82301)
This area 'was observed to verify that provisions existed fr r prompt communications among principal response organizations and emergency personnel as revired by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6), 10 CFR 50, Arpendix E.
Paragraph IV.E and specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.F.
The inspector observed communications within and between the licensee's emergency facilities, and the offsite environmental monitoring teams and the E0F.. The inspector also observed information flow among the various
,
groups within the licensee's emergency organization, in general,
'
ccmmunications of-information occurred in an adequate manner.
The inspctor also-observed that the public address system was used to
'
announce emergency classifications and evacuation instructions, but was not used to. keep personnel informed of plant conditions such as the_ plane crash and' loss of power.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Emergency _FacilitiesandEquipment(82301)
This area was observed to determine that adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support-an emergency response were provided and maintained as-
. required:by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,. Paragraph IV.E, and
.
'
specific criteria in NUREG-0654,Section II.H.-
The inspectors observed the activation, staffing and operation of the
. emergency response facilities and evaluated equipment provided for emergency use during the exercise.
_
No-violations or deviations were identified.
'10.
AccidentAssessment(82301)
This area was - observed to determine whether methods, systems, and equipment for. assessing and-monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of radiological emergency conditions were in use as required by-10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), Paragraph IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and specific criteria in Section-II.I of NUREG-0654.
, The accident assessment program included an engineering _ assessment of plant status and-an assessment of radiological hazards to both onsite and offsite-personnel resulting from the accident.
Prior to the activation of the Technical' Support Center (TSC) and the inherent dose assessment
~
capability, the Control Room personnel completed two manual dose l
projection calculations.
Following the TSC activation, the computerized
,
RADDOSE IV-was the primary dose assessment modeling method.
The inspector observed that the licensee used the dose assessment projection capabilit)
along-with the field team dose assessment measurements to assess the radiological release in a conservative manner (see next paragraph).
_ _ _... _ _ _. _ _ _
<
a
.
The activities of onsite and offsite radiological monitoring teams were not observed by the inspector.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Protective Response (82301)
This area was observed to determine whether guidelines for protective actions during the emerges.cy, consistent with Federal guidance, were developed and in place, and whether protective actions for emergency workers, including evacuation of nonessential personnel, were implemented promptly as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), and specific criteria in Section II.J of NUREG-0654.
Numerous inconsistencies existed between known data and the protective action recommendations for which the licensee provided concurrence to the State.
For example, prior to the EOF assuming the responsibility from the Emergency Coordinator at 1007 for making PARS; the statement in the TSC at 0945 was that the dose rates were decreasing and no PARS were to be recommended.
Review of State of Florida Notification Forms indicated that by 1059 it was known that the release had terminated at 1030 hrs.
Additionally, a review of the RADDOSE IV dose projections in the E0F indicated that inputs at 1000,1100, and 1130 all indicated that. dose rates did not require a PAR be made.
In view of the above information, it did not appear to the inspector that the recommended protective actions of evacuate all sectors out to 10 miles was the appropriate PM for the licensee to include on their State of Florida Notification Message Form sent out at approximately 1100 hrs.
The licensee prov;aed the inspector with a PAR logic which reviewed how an environmental survey team result at 1010 hrs, gathered at 0.5 miles was used with sona conservative assumptions to arrive at a condition that would suppoit a reconnended action of two mile 360 shelter and 10-mile shelter of potentially affected sectors.
The licensee then indicated that the final recommendation after discussions with the State and counties resulted in the PAR of evacuate all sectors to 10 miles. The inspector identified the need for the licensee to document their recommended protective actions based on plant conditions and not a concurrence to the final decision of offsite authorities as an IFI (IFI 50-302/90-30-02).
The inspector observed that the licensee's staff demonstrated protective response for their onsite personnel in a number of instances.
This included the evacuation of onsite areas as well as owner controlled warehouses that were in the downwind direction of the release.
The awareness of the health and safety of the public had also been demonstrated prior to the initiation of the release when the licensee had requested assistance from the State to move some protesters from the plant access road to a location that would not be downwind should a release occurred.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.....
.
.
.
.
..
...
.
.
'
.
-
,
12.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on August 31, 1990, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting consents were not received from the licensee, item Number Description / Reference 50-302/90-30-01 IFI - Failure to make prompt and complete offsite notifications (Paragraph 7).
50-302/90-30-02 IFl - Failure to document PARS based on plant conditions as licensee recommended PARS (Paragraph 11).
Attachments:
Scope, Exercise Objectives, and Narrative Summary
.