IR 05000321/1987018

Insp Repts 50-321/87-18 & 50-366/87-18 on 870720-24. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness

ML20238A319
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	08/31/1987
From:	Decker T, Gooden A, Testa E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238A293	List: IR 05000321/1987018 ML20238A291 ML20238A303
References
50-321-87-18, 50-366-87-18, IEB-79-18, IEIN-86-098, IEIN-86-98, NUDOCS 8709090243
Download: ML20238A319 (16)

Text

f.

y

.

i.d 6 p'

,

1 UNITED STATES

,

W pm,Mo,g% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[N' I n REGION li g*

j 101 MARIETTA STREET, ' c ATLANTA, G EORGI A 30323

'

k . . . . . ,/

' *

SEP 0 21987 Report Nos.: 50-321/87-18 and 50-366/87-18

l.icensee

Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545

, Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2

, . Inspection Conducted: July 20-24, 1987 Inspectors: S A (/N /,.-, FN//P9 A. Gooden v Date Sitjned y S. S F/1//f E. D. Testa Date Signed Approved by: s a ///p /,t'7 T. R. Decker, Chief Date ' Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

, i SUMMARY

':

Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was in the area of emergency preparedness.

b Result 3: Three violations were identified: (1) failure to train selected members of the Emergency Response Organization; (2) failure to implement the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure for the review of the Emergency Plan and Letters of Agreement; and (3) failure to submit Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure changes within 30 day >

8709090243 e70902

[DR ADOCK 05000321 PDR

,

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ __w

-_ - _- ,

>

'll c-

,

,<

l

.

t l

\

l

l REPLRT DETAILS t ) Persons Contacted )

i Licensee Employees

• J. 1). Pannett, Superintendent. Plant Training

• S. C6 #:,y, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Supervisor J. R. Beck, Maintenance Foreman j

• D. Bloemendaal, Senior Emergercy Planning Speciali",t j C. B. Boatwright, Project Coordinating Ergineer, Cx porate Quality '

Assurance B. E. Butler, Operations Surcrvisor -

• G. M. Creighton, Procedure Specialist, Huclear Safety and Compliance

• R. L. Davis, Quality Assurance Aud!t Supenisor

• R. Dedrickson, Assistant to Vice President W. E. Duvall, Plant Engineer W. Elton, Senior Clerk F. G. Gorley, On-Shift Operations Supervisor S. K. Gay, Shift Clerk '

G. J. Gay, Shift Clerk .

, ,

H. D. Hart, tenior Clerk, Emergency Planning '

• J. I. Hamands, Acting Supervisor, ISEG K. A. Hatcher, Senior Instructor, Emergency Planning R. L. Hayes, Deputy Manager, Operaticns T. J. Kirkham, Plant Health Physi:ist . ,

• C. L. McDaniel, Plant Administration lianager J. E. McKinney, Shift Superviser ,

• D. F. Moore, Nuclear Training Cecrcin6 tor, Corporate Office

• R. D. Mothena, Nuclear Erergency Prepd edness Supervisors

• R. K. Moxley, Quality Assurance Field Represer.tative T. Sheppard, Shift Technical Advisor

• Sorrell, Document Control Supervisor R. E. Vornadore, Shift Supervisor'

Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, security force members, and office personn Other Organizations

.

J. F. Hill, Chief of Planring. Georgia Emergcncy h2nagement Agency D. H. Moffet, Radiological Ennrgency Planning Officer, Georgia Energwcy Management Agency NRC Resident Inspectors

• P. Holmes-Ray

• J. E. Menning 1 l *R. A. Musser

• Attended exit interview L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _

W 4 , 4

<

y)l >

'

kh I t f'

. , y- ,<,

y ..

,

L Exit Interview Ifhe inspection scope aid findings 'were summarized on July 24, 1987, with

,1

'those pc6 sons. hidicated in Paragraph.1 above. The inspector. described the areas inspected;and discussed in detail the inspection findings. The

'

licensee did n'at agree with the inspection finding regarding annual

, si review o(Leiergency action levels. Dissenting comments were in reference to . the (Jefinition of " annual." :The inspector informed licensee Representatives that, pending further review, " annual" is. as defined in the technical. specifications for NRC licensed activities other than energency exercises. The following violations were identified during the inspection:

f

,

1), Failure to conduct an annual emergency action level (EAL) review with -

the State and local government authorities; o

Failure to implement the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure

~

, ', 2)

'

(63EP-EIP-066-0) which governs the review of Emergency Plans, e agreement letters, and procedures; 3). Failure to- submit changes to the Emergency Plan Implementing L' Procedure.within 30 days; and

O f^ '

4) . Failure to take corrective action in. accordance with the Emergency

' Plan Implementing Procedure (75TR-TRN-001-05) which defines the '

Radiological Emergency Response Training Progra f 8 Ore Julv 29, 1987, the inspector informed the Emergency Preparedness LSupervisor that based.on a further revicw of the definition of " annual,"

'

as used in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.S. the inspection finding regarding EALs would be considered an Unresolved Item *. On July 30, 1987, tqa inspector informed the Supervisor of Nuclear Safety and Compliance that there would be no violation regarding annual review of EALs since

', annual as used in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B refers to each calendar yea 'k '

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Cicsed) Violation 50-321/86-07-02: Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure f1 (EPIP) 63EP-EIP-078-05 not implemented as described. Emergency Plan L- Implementing Procedure 63EP-EIP-078-05 (Maintenance of the Emergency h

b;

. , .

• An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviation.

l\~

u

'

. ,

wn- -

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

l

.

Organization) has been deleted from the licensee's list of EPIP The inspector reviewed a copy of Implementing Procedure 75TR-TRN-001-0S (Radiological . Emergency Response Training) and noted that maintenance of the emergency organization, including Emergency Response Training Status reports, are included in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of Procedure 75TR-1RN-001-05. A review of the most recent Emergency Preparedness Status Report (EP-87-60, dated June 30, 1987) and Emergency Preparedness Qualification List (EP-87-62, dated June 30,1987) provide the Emergency Response Training Status Repor . Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections I and IV.C; and Section D of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this program area was inspected to determine whether the licensee used and understood a standard emergency classification and action level schem The inspector reviewed the licensee's classification procedures. The event classifications in the procedures were consistent with those required by regulation and the Emergency Plan. The classification procedures did not appear to contain impediments or errors which could lead to incorrect or untimely classificatio Selected EALs specified in the classification procedures were reviewe The inspector noted that the selected 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 notifications and for development of protective action recommendation The notification procedures required that offsite notifications be made promptly after declaration of an emergenc The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the coordination of EALs with State and local officials. Licensee documentation showed that the ~ licensee had discussed the EALs during January 1986 with State and local officials. A 1987 review of EALs had not been conducted at the time of the inspectio According to a licensee representative, discussions with State representatives regarding the EAL review resulted in a decision to conduct the EAL review during October 1987. The licensee was informed by the inspector that EAL reviews shall be conducted on an annual basis in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV.B, and that failure to conduct such a review was a violation of the referenced regulation. The licensee took exception to this finding pending clarification of the definition of " annual." Further review of this matter by Regional management following the inspection determined that a violation had not occurred (See Paragraph 2 for details).

Interviews were held with two On-Shift Operations Supervisors, one Shift Supervisor, and one Shift Technical Advisor to verify that they understood the relationship between core status and such core damage indicators as containment high-range radiation monitor, inadequate-core-cooling

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _______

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

l

.

indicator, high-range effluent monitor, fuel temperature indicator, containment hydrogen monitor, vessel coolant level, and post-accident primary coolant analysis. All interviewees appeared knowledgeable of the 1 various core damage indications and their relationship to core statu The responsibility and authority for classification of emergency events I and initiation of emerger.cy 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 Selected Emergency Operation Procedures (E0Ps) were reviewed by the inspector and discussed with licensee personnel. The E0ps provided direction to users concerning timely classification of accidents. All personnel interviewed appeared to be familiar w th the classification information in the E0P Walk-through evaluations involving accident classification were conducted with two On-Shift Operations Supervisors and one Shift Supervisor. All personnel interviewed promptly and 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 E, Section IV.D.3; and Section J of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had 24-hour-per-day I capability to assess and analyze emergency conditions and make recommendations to protect the public and onsite workers, and whetaer offsite officials had the capability to initiate prompt protective action i for the publi l

!

The inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action I decision-making with licensee representatives and reviewed pertinent portions of the licensee's Emergency Plan and procedures. The Plan and procedures clearly assign 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 On-Shift Operations Supervisors and one Shift Supervisor, all of whom appeared to be cognizant of appropriate onsite protective measures and aware of the range of protective action recommendations appropriate to offsite protection. Personnel interviewed were aware of the need for tineliness 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 The capability of offsite officials to make protective action decisions and to promptly notify the public was discussed with licensee representative Licensee procedures made provisions for contacting responsible offsite authorities on a 24-hour basis. Backup communication links with offsite authorities were availabl The inspector verified that offsite decision-makers with authority for emergency response activities could be contacted by conducting a roll-call drill test during a walk-through with the communicato No violations or deviations were identifie . NotificationandCommunication(82203)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D; and Sections E and F of the licensee's Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating (in the event of an emergency)

among its own personnel, offsite supporting agencies and authorities, and the population within the EP The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures 73EP-EIP-001-05 and 63EP-EIP-073-0 The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and EA1. scheme used by the licensee. The inspector determined that the procedures made provisions for message verificatio The inspector determined by. review of applicable 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 emergency response persor iel (onsite emergency organization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencies). Selected telephone numbers from the licensee's emergency call list for emergency response personnel were checked in order to determine whether the listed numbers were current and correc No problems were note The content of initial emergency messages (Attachment 1 to l 63EP-EIP-073-0S) was reviewed and appeared to meet the guidance of l NUREG-0654, Sections II.E.3 and II. The licensee's management control program for the Prompt Notification System was reviewe According to licensee documentation and discussions with a licensee representative, as of April 1987, the system consisted of 2,549 tone-alert radio The licensee had established a maintenance program for the tone-alert radios that included the following: 1) number of radios issued during the month according to county location; 2) total f ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

.

number of replacement radios issued; 3) total number of radios recovered during the reporting period; and 4) total number of electrical service connections identified inside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), or total nunber of electrical service disconnections identified inside the EP The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts weekly radio test Plant Security personnel confirm test results by contacting Appling County, Toombs County, and the Hatch Visitors Cente Based on the tone-alert signal strength at any of the aforementioned locations, Security affirms a positive or negative finding with the National Weather l Service office in Savannah (Agency of NOAA). The inspector reviewed the

, plant Security logbook which contains documentation of the NOAA tone-alert radio test. Test results for the period January 1,1986 to July 22, 1987,

'

were reviewed. Results showed that tests were being conducted on a weekly basis. It was also noted that documentation regarding signal verification and system maintenance is well documented by Security personnel. The inspector discussed the Prompt Alert and Notification System Broadcast Stations (Emergency Broadcast System) with a representative of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA). No problems were disclosed during the discussion. According to FEMA documentation dated August 8,1986, the FEMA 43 test conducted on October 2,1985, resulted in the determination that the Prompt Alert and Notification System for Hatch is adequate to promptly alert and notify the public in the event of an emergency at the sit Communications equipment in the Control Room (CR), Operations Support Center (OSC), Technical Support Center (TSC), and Emergency Operation Facility (EOF) was inspecte Provisions existed for prompt communications 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 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure The inspector conducted operability checks on selected communications equipment in the Control Room (Emergency Notification System) and TSC (Emergency Notification Network). No problems were observe The inspector reviewed licensee records for the pariod April 11, 1986 to June 11, 1987, which indicated that communications tests were conducted at the frequencies specified in NUREG-0654,Section II.N. Licensee records also revealed that corrective action was taken on problems identified during communication test Redundancy of offsite and onsite communication links was discussed with licensee representatives. The inspector verified that the licensee had established a backup communications syste Redundancy is provided by the use of a plant microwave that provides a direct communication line to the General Office in Atlanta, or the Civil Defense radio from the plant TSC out to the county warning point. The inspector requested and observed an unannounced communication and notification checks using the Civil Defense radio. The inspector noted that the system was inoperable. Attempts were made to notify Appling and/or Toombs Cr9nty via the Civil Defense radio, but were unsuccessful. A licensee representative verified telephonically

...

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

.

that'both county warning points were being monitored, by advising county personnel that a communications check using the Civil Defense radio was being conducted. Both of the aforementioned locations advised that no transmission was received via Civil Defense radio from Plant Hatch. A licensee representative acknowledged this ' finding and indicated that the Civil Defense radio in the TSC would be added to the monthly communications checklist found in Procedure 63EP-TET-001-0S. The licensee was informed that this matter is considered an Inspector Followup Ite Inspector Followup Item (50-321/87-18-01, 50-366/87-18-01): Verify and document the operability of the Civil Defense radio in the TS No violations or deviations were identifie . Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program (82204)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16); 10 CFR 50.54(q); and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV and V, this area was reviewed to determine whether changes were made to the program since the last routine inspection of August 18-22, 1986, and to note how these changes affect the overall state of emergency preparednes The inspector discussed the licensee's program for making changes to the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures. No Emergency Plan changes had  ;

been made since the last inspection. A major revision to the Plan is '

being prepared and is currently in draft fonn undergoing final review l Five implementing procedures were revised and reissued since the last l inspection. The inspector verified that the procedures were reviewed and approved by the Plant Review Board prior to in.plementatio The inspector reviewed Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (63EP-EIP-066-0) requiring the documentation of the Emergency Plan and ,

Letters of Agreement review. There was no documentation showing that the I Emergency Plan and Agreements have been reviewed and certified to be current with exceptions or deletions so noted. However, the inspector i noted during the review of the letters of agreement between the licensee  !

'

- and offsite support agencies, that licensee personnel had deleted some of the letters of agreement from the Emergency Plan and documented the agreement letters deletion via a hrMwrittened note. A licensee representative was informed that failure to properly document the agreement letters review is considered a violation of Technical Specification requiremen Violation (50-321/87-18-02, 50-366/87-18-02): Failbre to implement the requirements of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (63EP-EIP-066-0)

regarding documentation of the Emergency Plan and Letters of Agreement revie Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that no significant modifications to onsite facilities, equipment, or instrumentation had been

.

,

made since the last inspectio I t _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -___J

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

.

The organia.wn and management of the emergency preparedness program were reviewed. A licensee representative indicated that a new full-time site Emergency Preparedness Supervisor reported on June 6, 1987. From February until June, this position was filled by the same individual on a two or three day-per-week basis. Another change since the last inspection involved the reporting chain for the emergency preparedness program which was reassigned from the Manager of Health Physics and Chemistry to a newly created position of Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manage According to 11censee representative, the only change to the offsite support organization involved Jeff Davis Count A new Emergency Management Director for Jeff Davis County was to be appointed in the immediate future. Regarding facility changes, since the last inspection, Emergency Operations Centers had been completed for Appling and Toombs Counties. The inspector also toured the new Emergency News Center located in Toombs County. A licensee representative indicated that the facility was about 90% complete. The facility is located outside the 10 mile EPZ and will be operational during the 1987 Annual Exercis The inspector reviewad the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the Emergency Plan and procedures. Document control records for the period August 1986 to July 1987, revealed that Procedure 63EP-EIP-075-0S, transmitted by Transmittal No. DCD 87-DP-294 dated June 2,1984, was not sent to the NRC within the required 30 days of approva A licensee representative was informed that this finding is considered a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q). The inspector found that the NRC was also not included on the distribution for Transmittal No. DCD 87-80 (transmittal date of July 5,1987) and DCD 87-51 (transmittal date of July 9,1987), which at the time of discovery, were less than 30 days ol The licensee, when informed of this, promptly corrected the transmittal list and then expedited the NRC distributio Violation (50-321/87-18-03, 50-366/87-18-03): Failure to submit changes to the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure within 30 days after the change is approve Two violations and no deviations were identifie . Shift Staffing and Augmentation (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 Section B of the Plant Hatch Site Emergency Plan, Onsite Emergency Organizatio The licensee has l

established a " Call Tree" notification system so that essential off-shif t

'

persons could be contacte The inspector determined that the

- _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ - _ _ _

.

.

availability of augmentation personnel for the onsite emergency

'

organization, as specified in the Emergency Plan, e uncertain because such availability had not been tested by announcea or unannounced drill A licensee representative acknowledged this finding and committed to conducting an augmentation drill for verification of augmentation time The licensee was informed that this matter is considered an inspector followup ite Inspector followup Item (50-321/87-18-04, 50-366/87-18-04): Verify timely shift staff augmentation times using periodic announced and uannounced conrnunication drill No violations or deviations were identifie . Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)

Pursuant to 10CFR50.47(b)(15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F, this area was inspected to determine whether emergency response personnel understood their emergency response roles and could perform their assigned function The inspector reviewed Section 0 of the Emergency Plan and the Implementing Procedure (75 TR-TRN-001-05) for a description of the training program and training procedures. In addition, selected lesson ,

'

plans and members of the instructional staff were interviewed. Based on these reviews and interviews, the inspector determined that the licensee maintains a formal energency training progra Emergency response training records for a selected number of individuals assigned to the Emergency Call-list (dated April 1987) were compared to the emergency position training matrix to determine if the licensee was maintaining qualified personnel to fill the emergency response organization positions. Although it appeared that the licensee had recently devoted a significant amount of time and resources to the emergency response training program, the inspector noted that personnel were assigned to the emergency response organization who had not received annual retraining in accordance with the training implementing procedure (75 TR-TRN-001-05).

From a total of sixty individuals, three were noted as not having received retraining for assigned roles in the emergency organization. According to training documentation for these individuals, the last training date on required modules for the assigned emergency position was November 198 This item was identified in the most recent QA audit (87-Ep-1, conducted February 9-27,1987) as a Category 2 AFR. A review of the past licensee QA reports (years 1982-1986) also documented examples of personnel whose training had lapse In addition, past NRC inspections have identified findings in the area of training (1984-1985). Although the emergency response training program appeared to be receiving increased attention from the plant and corporate management staffs, the effective actions were not being taken to ensure that only trained personnel are assigned to the energency organization, as evidenced by personnel with lapsed training

!

I

_ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

.

being assigne Procedure 75 TR-TRN-001-05, " Radiological Emergency Response Training," Section 7.3.2.2, stated that personnel who fail to maintain current training and qualification will be removed from the emergency response organizatio The licensee acknowledged this finding and indicated that affected personnel were scheduled for trainin Violation (50-321/87-18-05, 50-366/87-18-05): Failure to implement Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure 75TR-TRN-001-OS to maintain a trained and qualified emergency response staf Training for offsite support agencies was reviewed. Medical training was provided by Radiation Management Corporation (RMC) to the Appling General i Hospital staff on August 18, 1986, and to Meadows Memorial Hospital on August 19, 198 The 1987 medical training is being planned for a mutually agreed date (to be determined) prior to the 1987 Hatch exercis According to training records, training for the offsite fire support group was provided to the Baxley Fire Department on March 17, 1987. Training included 1.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> of classroom and 1.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> of a site familiarization tou 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, dose calculation, assessment action (including plant conditions, in-plant sample collection and analysis, and offsite monitoring), and protective action decision-makin One violation and no deviations were identifie . DoseCalculationandAssessment(82207)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), this area was inspected to determine whether there was an adequate method for assessing the consequences of an actual or potential radiological releas The inspector reviewed Procedure 63EP-EIP-053-0S, Rev. 1, Emergency Classification and Prompt Offsite Dose Assessmen This procedure provides initial methods used to determine gaseous effluent release rates, emergency classifications, offsite dose projection, and guidelines for initiation of protective actions.

i

-

The inspector requested and observed dose assessment walk-throughs by selected licensee shift personnel responsible for dose projections during an emergenc The individuals demonstrated the ability to make such calculations using Procedure 63EP-EIP-053-05 and the Performance Flow Chart.

l I

I

l

{ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

a

.

The inspector reviewed Procedures 63EP-EIP-4PL-006-0 and 63EP-EIP-054- These procedures are used for making offsite dose estimations and protective action recommendations with the aid of a computer. The inspector requested and observed dose assessment walk-throughs by selected licensee personnel designated as responsible for offsite dose estimates during an emergency. The individuals demonstrated the ability to use the procedure and computer to produce acceptable results by this metho An inspection and operability check was made of selected equipment and support items used for dose assessment in the CR and EOF. No problems were observe The licensee prccedures made provision for timely incorporation of dose assessment results into the offsite protective action recommendation proces Interviews with key licensee emergency response personnel indicated that they all appeared to recognize the uncertainties associated with dose projections and the importance of making protective action recommendations based on plant conditions. The inspector discussed with a licensee representative the results of a comparison test between the licensee, NRC, and State dose assessment mode The inspector was informed that documentation regarding such comparison was not availabl The inspector discussed with the licensee representative potential differences between the various dose models. lhe licensee representative agreed and Committed to comparing dose assessment results between the aforementioned methods and identifying what differences may exist. This was identified as an inspector followt p ite Inspector Followup Item (50-321/87-18-06, 50-366/87-18-06): Compare dose assessment results from the Prompt Dose Assessment, Computer Dose Assessment, State Dose Assessment, and NRC Dose Assessment (IRDAM) methods using Standard Benchmark Problem No violations or deviations were identifie . Public Information Program (82209)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.2, this area was inspected to determine whether basic emergency planning information was disseminated to the public in the plume-exposure-pathway EPZ on an annual basi The licensee has developed an emergency response information brochure for use by the public residing in or frequenting the 10 mile LP Licensee representatives stated that the brochure was updated annually and mailed to residents during the month of October each year.

The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that the 1987

'

public information program will include a new forma Calendars containing the infonnation previously printed in the brochure format will be mailed to residents in the EPZ. The licensee provided documentation to show that development of the brochure was coordinated with the

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _-

f

'

.

l appropriate offsite authoritie The inspector reviewed the October 1986

, brochure to determine if information was included as specified in

'

NUREG-0654,Section I It was noted that general information regarding radiation was not included in the public information brochure, but instead, was included in the quarterly publication titled " Plant Hatch Neighbor" which was mailed to residents during October, January, April, and Jul According to licensee representatives, the means used by the licensee to inform the transient population of appropriate emergency response measures and action included posted notices, notices in phone books, dissemination of public information brochures to gas stations and tourist attractions in the area, as well as signs at boat access ramp A review of licensee documentation showed that the public information brochure was sent to all residential and business locations within the 10 mile EPZ. The inspector observed an emergency response notice in the Vidalia-Lyons, Baxley-Hazelhurst-Lumber City telephone directory dated July 1986 through July 1987. According to licensee documentation, 20 signs are posted at various locations within the EPZ for notification to the transient population. The inspector visited three locations and found that signs were posted as described in licensee documentatio A review of the licensee documentation showed that the 1986 edition of the public information brochure was sent to residences within the 10 mile EPZ during October 1986. The public information brochure provided a point of contact for obtaining additional information. A telephone call was made to the designated point of contact to determine the type of information which could be provided and the individual's qualification to provide such information. The point of contact shown on the 1986 brochure had been ,

reassigned other dutie The 1987 public information document will '

reflect the newly assigned point of contact. In the interim, personnel at the information center have been instructed and provided procedures for handling calls until the revised public information document has been distribute In addition to the public information brochure, licensee representatives indicated that the public information program included an annual media day for informing news media personnel, a quarterly publication (Plant Hatch Neighbor) sent to residents within the EPZ, and a visitors' center. The inspector also reviewed a description of the public information program in the licensee's emergency pla Based on these reviews and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee's public l information program continued to meet the applicable regulatory  !

requirement No violations or deviations were identifie !

_- - _ _ . l

_ . .

l- l l

,

I

12. Licensee Audits (82210)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee had performed an independent review or audit of the emergency preparedness progra Records of audits of.the program were reviewed. The records showed that an independent audit of the program was conducted by the Plant Hatch Quality Assurance Department and the Georgia Power Corporate Quality Assurance office during February 9-27, 1987, and was documented in Audit Report No. 87-EP-1, dated March 1987. This audit fulfilled the 12-month frequency requirement for such audits. The audit records showed that the .

State and local government interfaces were evaluated. The inspector reviewed a letter dated April 9,1987, which verified that findings concerning the interfaces were made available to State and local government authorities. Audit findings emi recommendations were presented to plant and corporate managemen A review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee compliad with the five-year retention requirement for such report Licensee Emergency Plans and procedures required critiques following exercises and drills. Licensee documentation dated October 23, 1986, showed that a critique was held following the annual exercise. The records showed that deficiencies were discussed in the critiques, and recommendations for corrective action were mad The licensee's program for follow-up action on audit, drill, and exercise findings was reviewe Licensee procedures required follow-up on deficient areas identified during audits, drills, and exercise The inspector reviewed licensee records dated June 12, 1987, which indicated that corrective action had been initiated for an exercise item involving the EPZ maps and should be completed by the 1987 exercise date. According to the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor, an informal tracking system had been established for assigning action items (resulting from exercises, drills, NRC inspections, etc.) to individual EP staff members for resolution. Weekly updates are provided by staff members. From a total of 16 items that were identified during the 1986 exercise, two items have been closed, and actions have been initiated to complete several other item No violations or deviations were identifie . Coordination with Offsite Agencies (82210)

The inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the coordination of emergency planning with offsite agencies. The inspector determined through telephonic interviews with representatives of GEMA that the licensee was periodically contacting GEMA for purposes of offering training and maintaining mutual familiarization with emergency response roles. The inspector also verified with State representatives that on an annual basis, the licensee coordinates a review of the public information .

L

'

14 l

l > brochure for comments and update A GEMA representative further stated that the -licensee's involvement with the State's Radiation Workers Group monthly meeting hes enhanced communications and the interface. . The interview did not disclose any significant problems between the licensee and GEM No violations or deviations were identifie . IE Information Notice (92717)

(Closed) IFI 50-321/86-IN-98 and 50-366/86-IN-98: Offsite Medical Service A review of the Letters of Agreement with offsite medical facilities: indicated that facilities acknowledge acceptance of casualties resulting from an accident at Hatc . IE Bulletin (92703)

(Closed) IFI 50-321/87-EP-01 and 50-366/87-EP-01: Verify Audibility. of

' Alarms in High Noise . Areas (79-B0-18). This item was reviewed and closed in an earlier NRC report.(84-29, dated August 30,1984). In addition to the previous report, the inspectors observed the weekly site warning test

. for audibility,. and reviewed the test and maintenance records for the siren and emergency warning light .8

-

b

~

l v2 l

,

'

!Q

.,

• *d

-

h i

l

-- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ . . _ - _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ - . - -