IR 05000305/1982003
| ML20042B948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Bob Fitzpatrick, Patterson J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042B945 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-82-03, 50-302-82-3, NUDOCS 8203260323 | |
| Download: ML20042B948 (5) | |
Text
.
.-
.
-
_
_
-
L
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-304/82-03(DEPOS)
Docket No. 50-305 License No. DPR-43 Licensee: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
Post Office Box 1200 Green Bay,'WI 54305 Facility Name: Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station
,
Inspection Conducted: January 25-30, 1982
,
yr Inspectors:
B. E. Fitzpatrick 34 h 19 6 2.
s Shted io. / 99 2.
hAJ.
t e son
)
.
,
Approved By:
W.
e
,-Chief 9% % kio.I98L
.
'
Emergenc Preparedness Section
/)?
/ D )/ W P'
C. J. Pap riello, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch f
Inspection Summary Inspectica on January 25-30, 1982 (Report No. 50-305/82-03(DEPOS))
Areas Inspected:
Special announced inspection of Prompt Public Notifi-cation / Warning System and testing of the system. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector and an in-office review by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
]
I i
'
i 8203260323 820312
.
PDR ADOCK 05000305
!
O
-
,_ _- __ - _--
~
,
.-
.
....,
..
. -.
....
. _ -,
. -. -.
_
.
i
'
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 notiffeation 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 inctalled 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.
All sirens identified in the November 19, 1981, letter (E. R. Mathews to J. G. Keppler) are in place. A simplified map was provided in that letter and a detailed map is being prepared by the licensee.
The Resident Inspector verified installation of sirens No. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
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?
An alert signal will cover essentially 100% of the 5 mile combined Point Beach /Kewaunee EPZ and greater than 90% of the population within the combined 10 mile EPZ will be provided an alert signal.
The Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) will adequately provide an instructional message to the entire 10 mile EPZ.
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?
The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) will be utilized by t'le State to provide an instructional message to residents of the EPZ. For
'
slower occurring events, message initiation may occur from the Joint Public Information Center.
c.
Does the public information distribution program provide information regarding this system?
(Explain)
The brochure "Just In Case" lists 12 area radio and 5 television stations for information sources. The brochure addresses the use of sirens as one means of alerting the population.
--
_
.
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site?
(Explain)
Yes, adequate coverage is provided based on conservative estimates allowed by NUREG-0654, Appendix 3.
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal?-
Less than 10% of the population may not hear the initial signal.
Kewaunee and Two Rivers constitute the only major population centers (as well as Mishicot) within 10 miles of both plants:
These population centers are covered by sirens.
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?
The sheriff will dispatch emergency vehicles to the affected sectors with mobile siren capability. The major population centers (Kewaunee and Two Rivers) have siren coverage.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
These facilities are located close to the sirens and will receive alert / notification from the siren /EBS arrangement.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
Initial integrated testing was completed prior to February 1, 1982.
1.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g., licensee, local government, or State)?
The new sirens are under warrantee for one year. At expiration, a maintenance contract will be in place with a local contractor as provided by PPS and administered by Kewaunee County.
J.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
State of Wisconsin directs the Manitowoc or Kewaunee County Sheriff dispatcher to activate the sirens in the respective counties.
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
An annual statement of periodic test results will be requested by the licensee from the county.
- _ _ _ - _
_
-
.
.
"
1.
Name of licensee contact:
J. J. Wallace, Nuclear Systems Supervisor 3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
Each individual siren was tested locality and a full integrated system test was conducted prior to February 1,1982.
b.
Was State and County involved:
County only.
c.
Was FEMA present:
'
No.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
The resident inspector.
i e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
i
'
John Wallace, WPS
'
John Richmond, WPS f.
Review records of the test (Commenti:
Not applicable because initial tests were just completed prior
'
to February 1, 1982 4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
Installation: None.
Test Result: Three sirens initially malfunctioned, however, one was repaired and satisfactorily retested on January 30, 1982.
Another siren would not response to the radio signal for I
activation, but it can be mannually activated. The re-maining siren is under repair.
These deficiencies are open items.
(50-304/82-03-01)
Records: Not applicable.
Others: Not applicable.
l
i
l
'
.
,
'5.
Percons Contacted
- J. J. Wallace, Nuclear Systems Supervisor John Richmond, Plant Services Superintendent-
- Denotes tho-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 30, 1982. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
5