IR 05000324/1990020
| ML20044A959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1990 |
| From: | Rankin W, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A958 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-90-20, 50-325-90-20, NUDOCS 9007170081 | |
| Download: ML20044A959 (5) | |
Text
w
,,
--
'
.
\\
e
,;
'
.
UNITO STATES
,
.,
em atocq*e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
- .
'
I
[
'h REGION 11
.
101 MARIETT A STREET.N.W.
j
'
ATLANTA CEORGIA 30323
+o***++
JUL 0 3 3 90 Report Nos.: 50-325/90-20 and 50-324/90-20
' Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551
>
l Raleigh, NC 27602
!
Docket Nos.:
50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.: OPR-71 and DPR-62
,
Facility Name:
Brunswick I and 2
'
'
Inspection Conducted: Jun 22, 1990 Inspector:
7/2./9,p__
[~ __ _
Uate~ Signed
_,
__
W. M. Sartor
,
Accompanying Personnel:
W. Rankin Approved by:
$/4- # 7.@
~14, 9/
i
~~
W. H. Rankin, Chief ~
D&te Tgiie'd7
,
Emergency Preparedness ection Emergency Preparedness and Radiological p.
Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
.t
!
SUMMARY Scope:-
,
,This routine, announced inspection involved the observation and evaluation of a remedial communications drill conducted by the licensee to demonstrate early corrective action to an exercise weakness identified during the April 3, 1990 i
emergency exercise.
The exercise weakness was a failure to provide clear, concise, and correct initial and follow-up notifications to offsite agencies,
.
-
and failure to ensure all required offsite agencies receive the notifications.
Additionally, the communications drill provided events that supported the
'
opportunity.for offsite agencies to demonstrate corrective actions to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deficiency.
Results:
The communications drill was fully successful to demonstrate the required
corrective actions.
?
.
,
9007170081 900703
'
POR ADOCK 05000324 PDC Q
s'
T~p.
.
>
.
.,.
.
'
.
l
l REPORT DETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees i
- B. Altman, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- R. Gibbs, Shift Technical Advisor
- J. Harness, Plant Manager
,
- W. Harrison, Production Specialist
- B. Houston, Specialist Emergency Preparedness
- R. Indelicato, Project Specialist, Corporate Emergency Preparedness
- J. Lichty Senior Specialist, Operations
- J. Moyer, Technical Assistant to Plant General Manager
- R. Starkey, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Plant
- M. Thompson, Manager, Corporate Emergency Preparedness and Nuclear fuels Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, operators, technicians, and administrative personnei
'
Nuclear Regulatory Connission
- W. Rankin, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section
- R. Trojanowski, State Liaison Officer
- Attended exit interview 2.
ScopeandObjectives(82301)
The scope and objectives of this remedial exercise were discussed in a post-exercise meeting on April 23, 1990, and were documented in Paragraph 16 of Inspection Re > ort Nos. 50-325/90-13 and 50-324/90-13.
(Note: A typographical error 'n the report indicated the date as June 23, 1990; the correct date was June 22,1990.) An excerpt from Paragraph 16 of that inspection report is attached.
Additional discussions between the NRC and licensee representatives
'
broadened the scope of message formulation in the Technical Support Center-(TSC) to include at least one incorrect entry )on the notification message prior to the Site Emergency Coordinator's (SEC review and approval of the message.
This was done during the exercise on the message for the Site Area Emergency notification, and the SEC corrected the error prior to his i
approval of the message for transmittal to offsite agencies.
'
No violations or deviations were identified,
F~
o
!
-
'
..
3.
CommunicationsDrillScenario(82301)
The scena-io for this remedial drill was reviewed to determine whether provision had been made to adequately test the licensee's notification capability in order to verify that Exercise Weakness 50-325,324/90-13-01 had been corrected as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. Paragraph IV.F.5.
The scenario data sheets were reviewed with licensee representatives on June 20, 1990.
Discussions focused on the manner in which the data was to be presented.
The licensee acknowledged the need to present the data orally to the players to better simulate how data are passed rather than presenting the player with the typed message. This also provided a better test of the licensee's ability to formulate notifications, which was a drill objective.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Notification Methods and Procedures (82301)
This area was observed to determine whether procedures had been established for notification by the licensee of State and local response organizations, and that the content of initial and follow-up messages to response organizations had been established as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5).
The inspector observed that the notification trethods and procedures were established in the Plant Emergency Procedure 02.6.21, titled Emergency Connunicator.
During this remedial drill, the licensee's messages provided for events that resulted in a declaration at each of the four emergency action levels.
In each case the licensee provided notifications that were prompt, concise, and accurate.
Additionally, the licensee provided supplementary details to offsite agencies in follow-up messages.
When one of the counties was dropped off the selective signaling system, the communicator made others aware of the problem and an alternate system was used to make the notification within the specified time.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
-ActiononPreviousInspectionFindings(92701)
l (Closed) Exercise Weakness 50-325, 324/90-13-01:
Failur-. to provide clear, concise, and.Grrect initial and follow-up notifications to offsite agencies and failure to ensure all required offsite agencies received the notifications.
Both the initial and follow-up notifications for this ec19atto drill were fully satisfactory.
Additionally, the inspector observed verifications of notifications being conducted.
l
,
. - -
<
,
o
.i s
.
'
]
.
!
'
I
,
6. -
Exit' Interview
]
.
.!
The -inspection scope and results were summarized on June 22.11990, with-l those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas t
'
inspected' and discussed.in cetail the. inspection observations.
!
Proprietary information 1s not-contained in this-report.
Dissenting'
t comments were not received from the licensee.
~i i
,
,
-I
!
Attachment:
'I
~ Excerpt from NRC Inspection j
Report Nos. 50-325/90-13
.
-
and50-324/90-13(1page)
!
t l
<
r h
-
- i t
!
'
i
=
?
.
1
-?-
f
'
e
!
f r
'.)
!
!
- $
f i
i
w I
n
_
.
..
,
'
i b'
i
'
.
-
ATTACHMENT Excerpt from NRC Inspection Report Nos:
50-325/90-13 and 50-324/90-13 (1 page)
,
16.
Post-Exercise Meeting Summary
,
On April 23, 1990, the State of North Carolina hosted a Brunswick Task Force Meeting at the New Hanover County Public Library in Wilmington, North Carolina.
The meeting agenda included a discussion of the April 3 Brunswick exercise activities, a review of the FEMA critique of the exercise, and a discussion of the deficiencies and remedial actions required to demonstrate corrections.
,
a.
Remedial actions agreed on to demonstrate corrections to FEMA
,
deficiencies addressed a limited communications exercise of approximately three hours duration on June 23, 1990.
CP&L representatives indicated that would support the exercise from the
'
Brunswick Steam. Electric Plant with objectives to demonstrate adequate notification message formulation, approval, transmittal and verification of receipt.
Notifications will progress through a General Emergency with PARS so the corrective action to the FEMA deficiency addressing the adequacy of EBS message geographic boundaries could be demonstrated.
It was also agreed that at least one of the notifications to a county via the selective signaling system would be locked out such that the licensee would be required
'
to use an alternate means to make the notifiestion to that county.
t b.
Additional discussions concerning the Brunswick County E0C and dosimetry mix avdilability to offsite responders were also discussed.
These issues are FEMA-related and no further discussion-is provided in this report.
I I
-
-