IR 05000338/1978035
| ML19256A736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Hufham J, Perrotti D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256A732 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-78-35, 50-339-78-31, NUDOCS 7901100010 | |
| Download: ML19256A736 (16) | |
Text
.
paprCo UNITED STATES
,
[
[o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
o REGION il
93
$
tot MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 3o303 o
%...+ /
Report Nos. : 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 Docket Nos. : 50-338 and 50-339 i
License Nos. : ?.'PF-4 and CPPR-78
.
Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name: North Anna Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: North Anna Site, Mineral, Virginia Inspection conducted: October 30 - November 3,1978 Inspector:
D. J. Perrott '
/2[/[73 Reviewed by:
--
p J. W. Huf ham, CIFf'e f Da t'e y
Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on October 30 - November 3, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31)
Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection to determine the adequacy and eff ectiveness of the licensee's emergency organization, including coordi-nation with off-site support agencies; emergency facilities, equipment and procedures; means for determining a release; emergency training; fire brigade organization and training; tests and drills, and a review of the licensee's response to an IE Bulletin. A routine, unannounced preoperational inspection was performed on November 2, 1978, to determine the status of completion of Unit 2's remote shutdown panel and radiation monitoring systems. The inspec-tions involved 27 inspector-hours on-site by one h%C inspector.
Results: Of the nine areas inspected, there were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
790110Co/0
.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
D. J. Perrotti, Radiation Specialist Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
,
Dates of Inspection: October 30 - November 3, 1978
/44[pg Reviewed by:
M A
J. W. Hufham, CWef D'a t'e g
Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Persons Contacted a.
VEPCO Personnel
- J. Kellams, Acting Plant Manager
- D. Hopper, Health Physics Supervisor
- D. Woods, NRC Coordinator
- F. White, Acting Fire Marshall
- J. Ogren, Training Supervisor J. Mosticone, Operations Shift Supervisor S. Harvey, Assistant Operations Supervisor J. Harper, Instrument Supervisor
- E. Smith, Engineering Services Supervisor
- W. Diehl, Quality Control
- E. Harrell, Maintenance Department
- S. Sarver, System Health Physicist b.
Other Individuals Contacted
- M. Kidd, NRC Resident Inspector D. Broga, Director, Radiation Safety, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia E. Kube, Louisa County Civil Defense Coordinator J. Milton, Chief, Mineral Volunteer Fire Department J. L. Snider, Jr., President, Louisa County Rescue Squad S. Hart, Louisa County Rescue Squad, Mineral Unit
- Denotes those individuals attending the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings No licensee action on previous inspection findings were reviewed during this inspectio.
.
RII Report.Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-2 3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 11.a of this report.
'
4.
Coordination with Off-Site Support Agencies
,
a.
Appendix E to 10 CFR 50,Section IV.D specifies that the emergency plan shall contain procedures for notifying, and agreements reached with local, state, and federal officials and agencies for early warning of the public. Appendix E also specifies arrangements for the services of a physician and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies; arrangements for transportation to, and treatment of injured or contaminated individuals at, treatment facilities outside the site boundary.
Appendix 8.1 of the Emergency Plan, which contains the agreement letters with offsite groups, specifies that the letters will be renegotiated every three years.
b.
The inspector discussed the coordination with offsite support agencies with licensee representatives, and with the individuals from offsite support agencies identified in paragraph 1.
The inspector was informed that new letters of agreement are now being negotiated, and that nine of the offsitt. groups have already signed them.
The inspector confirmed that the licensee had maintained contact with offsite groups from telephone conversations with the local county administrator and fire chief, and by a discussion with the Director of Radiation Safety from the Medica'
College of Virginia (MCV). The inspector reviewed the emer y y and medical equipment and facilities at MCV. The facility alymed to satisfy the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
From these discussions, the inspector confirmed that, with the exception of a session at North Anna for fire and rescue personnel about one year ago, there has been no direct involvement by offsite groups in the emergency exercises.
This matter was discussed with licensee management representatives at the exit interview.
~
The inspector stated the importance of including the offsite support personnel in the emergency drills. The inspector was informed that the local groups were invited to participate in the last drill, but they declined the offer. The inspector was also informed that training sessions for familiarization had been attempted, however, it was difficult to get volunteer personnel to attend the sessions at North Anna. The inspector pointed out the necessity of getting the offsite personnel to attend the familiarization training and participate in the drills, where
.
.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-3 applicable. The inspector pointed out that North Anna had been operational for less than one year, and that this matter regarding offsite group participation in the emergency exercises would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
c.
The requirement for coordination with offsite support groups
'
appeared to be adequately satisfied.
.
5.
Facilities, Equipment and Procedures a.
Changes in Facilities, Equipment and Procedures The inspector reviewed changes to the facilities, equipment and the emergency plan up to and including Change 1 dated May 20, 1977.
The change did not alter the initial requirements of the emergency plan and did not constitute an unreviewed safety ques-tion nor a change in the Technical Specifications.
b.
Emergency Kits
,
(1) Appendix E to 10 CFR 50,Section IV.F specifies that the emergency plan include provisions for emergency first aid and personal decontamination facilities, including equipment at the site for personnel monitoring and decontamination.
Appendix 8.5 of the Emergency Plan lists equipment that must be available at the plant.
Health Physics procedure HP-ADM-EP-1, Routine Inspection of Emergency Kits, requires a monthly inventory of the emergency kits, a functional check of high-range dosimeters quarterly, and an annual rotation of certain items of protective clothing with fresh supplies.
(2) The inspector reviewed the contents of one of the three ecergency kits located in the HP lab. The inspector verified, by record review, that the kits had been inventoried monthly during the period November 1977 to October 1978; however, the inventory lists did not indicate the quarterly function check of high-range dosimeters. The inspector verified that one of the dosimeters and the dosimeter charger were operable and that the dosimeter could be re-zeroed. The inspector also verified that the dosimeters had been tested on June 28, 1978. A ::censee representative stated that the emergency dosimeters, which are rotated every quarter,will be placed on the same six month test interval as the other routinely used dosimeters. The inspector had no further comment..
RII Report Nos.'50-338/78-35
~
and 50-339/78-31 I-4 (3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
c.
Main Control Room Environmental System (1) Section 5.1 of the Emergency Plan defines the main control
,
room as the emergency control center. Technical Specifica-tion 4.7.7.1.a requires a 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> operability test of the emergency ventilation system each month. Technical Specifi-cation 4.7.7.2.a requires monthly verification of the avail-ability of 84 bottles of air at 2300 psi. Technical Speci-fication 4.7.7.3 requires that the operability of each ventilation unit be demonstrated every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> by maintaining control room air temperature at 120 degrees Fahrenheit or less.
(2) The inspector reviewed test procedures 1-PT-76.1A and IB which verified the 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> operability test had been performed monthly during the period December 1977 to October 1978.
The inspector observed the bank of 84 air bottles at 2400 psi for Unit 2 side, and was informed by a licensee represen-tative that a similar bank was installed for Unit I side.
The inspector verified, by review of 1-PT-76.3, that the availability and pressure requirements of the air system had been verified monthly for the period November 1977 to October 1978.
The inspector also reviewed operations log 1-LOG-4, for the period January through October 1978, which verified that the control room air temperature had been checked every four hours in order to demonstrate the operability of the HVAC units.
In addition to the above surveillance verification, the inspector reviewed the Control Room Boundary Breaching Log which is maintained by the Shift Supervisor.
This log ensures that only one conduit penetration at a time may be opened in order to assure that positive pressure can be maintained in the control room in the event of an emergency while the Unit 2 side of the control room is under con-struction. The inspector reviewed log entries for the past two weeks which verified each conduit opening had been properly sealed prior to the opening of another one.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
d.
Emergency Breathing Equipment (1) Technical Specification 6.8.1.a requires written procedures to be established and adhered to for storage and inspection
.
MII Report Nos. 50-338/78-b and 50-339/78-31 I-5 of respiratory protective equipment. Appendix 8.5 of the Emergency Plan defines the types of emergency breathing equipment available for use. Procedure RPM-7, paragraph 1, requires a monthly inspection of the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
(2) The inspector observed the SCBA's in the control room and the corridor leading to the HP area. The inspector reviewed the inspection tags for these units which verified that the monthly inspections have been conducted. The inspector also observed the cascade charging systems, one with 35 percent oxygen for containment entries, and the other with compressed air for fire fighting units.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations, e.
Emergency Communications (1) Section 5.2.1 of the Emergency Plan defines the various communication systems that are provided for onsite and offsite communication. Procedure ADM-7.0 requires a test of the fire and evacuation alarms every week.
(2) The inspector witnessed a test of the fire, site evacuation and station alert alarms on November 1, 1978. The inspector reviewed documents which verified that the weekly tests had been performed during the period January to August 1978, except on three occasions when no entry was made.
The inspector asked several plant personnel and supervisory staff about the weekly tests. The inspector was informed by all parties that the tests have been conducted each Wednesday at approximately 12:15 p.m. in order to preclude any persons mistaking the test for an actual alarm. At the exit interview, a licensee management representative agreed to incorporating the test in the miscellaneous PT schedule. In this manner, the recording of the test would be assured. The inspector also verified, by observation and usage, that the various communication systems identified 6y the Emergency Plan were available and operable.
(3) The requirement for the various communication systems and testing of the emergency alarms appeared to be adequately satisfie.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 1-6 f.
Emergency Lighting (1) Section 9.5 of the FSAR describes the emergency lights that are automatically energized upon loss of normal voltage.
,
(2) The inspector asked about periodic testing of the system.
The inspector was informed by licensee' representatives that there was no requirement for testing of the emergency lights; however, they had been checked periodically. At the exit interview, a licensee management representative agreed to look into putting the * esting of the emergency DC lighting system into a periodic test schedule in order to assure the reliability of the system.
The inspector had no further comment.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
g.
Remote Shutdown Panel (1) Section 7.4.1 of the FSAR describes the remote shutdown panel and defines the monitors, equipment, and detailed operating instructions that must be available for the operator.
(2) The inspector verified, by observation, that the shutdown panel for Unit I was available as described in the FSAR.
The shutdown panel for Unit 2 is addressed in paragraph 13.
(3) The requirement for the Unit I remote shutdown panel appeared to be adequately satisfied.
6.
Means for Determining a Release Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, paragraph IV.C requires means for determining the magnitude of release of radioactive material, and criteria for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary.
.
a.
Emergency Radiation Monitors (1) Section 5.3.2 of the Emergency Plan requires that process and area radiation monitors readout in the control room.
Section 5.3.2.1 states that each reactor containment has a radiation monitor, capable of reading 10,000 R/hr, for estimating a release from the design leak rate. Technical Specification table 4.3-3 requires a channel check every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, a functional test every 31 days and a calibration every 18 months for the stack particulate and gas monitors, and the fuel storage pool monito.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-7 (2) The inspector verified, by observation, that the control room readouts for the radiation monitors were available as described in the Emergency Plan. The inspector observed a source response test of the control room area monitor and verified the alarm setpoint. The inspector discussed the
,
process and area monitors which are common to Units 1 and 2 with a licensee representative. The inspector was informed that the Unit 2 radiation monitors would be covered under preoperational test 2-P0-10. The inspector informed licensee representatives that the test and calibration of the systems would be reviewed by an inspector during a subsequent inspec-tion. The inspector had no further comments.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
b.
Meteorological Instrumentation (1) Section 5.3.1 of the Emergency Plan specifies that the meteorological instrumentation, including wind direction, wind speed and temperatures, has readily accessible readouts in the control room. Technical Specification Table 4.3-5 requires a daily channel check and a calibration every six months for the meteorological system.
(2) The inspector verified the meteorological readouts in the control room. The inspector reviewed the Backboard Operators Log which indicated that the channel checks are being performed every four hours. A review of surveillance procedure 1-PT-40.1 verified that the system had been calibrated on a quarterly basis during 1978. The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that calibration of the overall meteorological system involved three groups--the Environmental Services Department for the sensors, the Communication Department for the telemetry, and the plant Instrument Section for the recorders in the control room. The inspector had no further comments.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
c.
Seismic Instrumentation (1) Section 5.3.1 of the Emergency Plan specifies that seismic instrumentation readout is available in the control room.
Technical Specification Table 4.3-4 requires a monthly channel check for the triaxial time history accelerograph, and a channel function test every 6 months and calibration every 18 months for the other components of tt e seismic monitoring syste.
,
.
RII Report Nos.'50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-8 (2) The inspector verified the readouts in the control room for the seismic instrumentation. The inspector reviewed periodic test 1-PT-39.1 which verified that the monthly channel check for the triaxial time history accelerograph had been performed during the period January to October 1978. The inspector
,
reviewed periodic tests 1-PT-39.2 and 39.5, which verified that the six month channel function tests had been completed for the first and second half of 1978: The inspector was informed by licensee representatives that there were no seismic instruments associated with the construction of Unit 2.
The inspector noted that the calibration of the system was not due as yet, and informed licensee representatives that this would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or '-viations.
7.
First Aid and Decontamination Facilities Appendix E to 10 CFR 50,Section IV.F specifies that the Emergency a.
Plan include provisions for emergency first aid and personal decontamination facilities, including equipment at the site for personnel monitoring and decontamination, and facilities and medical supplies for first aid treatment. Section 5.5.1 of the Emergency Plan specifies that a first aid room is available including a normal compliment of first aid supplies and equipment, and also designates the laundry room as an alternate first aid station. Section 5.5.1 also defines the decontamination facility, including sinks, showers, a low-range survey instrument and decontamination agents.
Section 5.5.2 of the Emergency Plan specifies that medical facilities include company designated physicians in the local area.
b.
The inspector observed the alternate first aid room, and verified that it was available as described in the Emergency Plan. An inspector witnessed the successful decontamination of plant personnel who were involved in a liquid spill on November 2, 1978. This activity verified the availability of the decontami-nation facility. Time did not permit a complete review of the local area physician and the first aid room supplies and equipment, however, the inspector verified that a room was being maintained for emergency first aid.
c.
The requirement for first aid and decontamination facilities appeared to be adequately satisfied.
.
.
RII Report Nos.. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-9 8.
Emergency Plan Training Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, paragraph IV.H requires that the emergency plan contain provisions for training of employees of the licensee who are assigned specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and other persons whose assistance may be needed in the
'
event of a radiation emergency.
.
a.
Emergency Director Training (1) Section 3.2 of the Emergency Plan defines the plant personnel who may succeed to the position of Emergency Director.
Appendix 1 to Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure 21 (EPIP-21), specifies the emergency preparedness training to be received by the Emergency Committee, shift supervisor and assistant shift supervisor. Section 1 of EPIP-21 specifies annual refresher training.
(2) The inspector was informed by the training coordinator that the Emergency Committee training is accomplished through the review of the Emergency Plan and EPIP's.
The inspector reviewed documentation which verified that the Emergency Committee had reviewed the Emergency Plan and EPIP's on October 3-4, 1978, except for one member. The inspector was assured that the training for this individual would be completed for this year.
The inspector had no further comments.
(3) The requirement for Emergency Director training appeared to be adequately satisfied.
.
b.
HP/ Chem Technician Training (Including First-Aid)
(1) Appendix 1 of EPIP-21 specifies the emergency preparedness
, training to be received by the HP/ Chem technicians. Section 1 of EPIP specifies annual refresher training.
Section 7.1.3 of the Emergency Plan st;ites that one individual on each shif t holds a valid first aid certificate.
(2) The inspector discussed the training of the HP/ Chem techni-cians in responding to emergencies with licensee representatives.
The inspector verified, thrcugh review of training documentation, that the last formal training for all the technicians was done on October 18, 1977. A licensee representative stated that the annual requirement for refresher training would be satisfied prior to the end of the year.
The inspector
.
.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-lb reviewed first aid training records for eight HP and twelve Operations personnel which verified that at least one member of each shift holds a valid first aid certificate.
(3) The requirement for training of HP technicians and first aid training appeared to be adequately satisfied.
'
c.
General Employee Training
,
(1) Section 7.1.1 of the Emergency Plan states that each employee assigned, including temporary workers, shall be oriented in the Emergency Plan and his participating responsibilities.
Section 1 of EPIP-21 specifies annual refresher training.
Appendix 1 to EPIP-21 specifies the emergency preparedness training to be given to security, supervisors, foremen, regular employees, and Visitor Center personnel.
(2) The inspector verified, through review of selected training records of individuals from Maintenance, Engineering, Health Physics, Instrumentation, Labor, Quality Control, Security and Operations that the annual refresher training in emergency plans and procedures had been conducted.
(3) The requirement for annual refresher training for general employees appeared to be satisfactorily met.
d.
Offsite Support Group Training (1) Section 7.1.1 of the Emergency Plan specifies that appropriate offsite agencies have received a copy of the plan and that meetings will be held periodically to review their status.
Section 7.1.2 os the Emergency Plan states that VEPC0 has agreed to the training of local emergency units to the extent of periodic familiarization visits to North Anna as well as supplementary training for designated emergency units in Louisa and Spotsylvania counties.
(2) The familiarization training and coordination of activities with offsite support groups is addressed in paragraph 4 of this report. The inspector contacted a VEPC0 representative from the corporate office and asked for a distribution list of the Emergency Plan to offsite support groups. The inspector was informed that the list would be furnished. The inspector contacted the Louisa County Civil Defense Coordinator and verified that he had a current copy of the Emergency Pla.
RII Report Nos.-50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-11 9.
Review, Updating and Distribution of Emergency Plan and Procedures Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, paragraph IV.E requires provisions for main-taining, up-to-date, the organization for copying with emergencies, the procedures for use in emergencies, and the lists of persons with
'
special qualifications for coping with emergencies.
a.
Review of Emergency Plan and Procedures by t-he Station Nuclear Safety Operating Committee (SNSOC)
(1) Technical Specification 6. 5.1. 6. j states that the SNSOC shall be responsible for review of the Emergency Plan and EPIP's.
Section 2.5 of EPIP-21 specifies an annual review of the Emergency Plan and procedures by the Plant Manager and the SNSOC.
(2) The inspector verified, by review of a training memorandum, that the Emergency Plan and EPIP's were reviewed by the SNS0C on October 3-4, 1978.
(3) There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
b.
Distribution of the Emergency Plan and EPIP's to Onsite and Offsite Personnel (1) Section 7.1.1 of the Emergency Plan specifies that appropri-ate offsite support agencies have received the plan and that revised copies will be sent when appropriate.
(2) The inspector discussed the distribution of the plan and procedures with licensee representatives. Distribution of the Emergency Plan is discussed in paragraph 8.d.
A review of EPIP's at five locations onsite and offsite verified that the holders of these EPIP's had up-to-date copies; however, a review of the distribution list in the document control room indicated that some EPIP holders had not acknowledged receipt of updated procedures. The inspector was informed by the custodian of the distribu. tion list that when the return receipts are not sent back in, a call is made to the individuals as a reminder.
The inspector discussed this matter at the exit interview and commented that it appeared that the procedures were being distributed appropriately, but that some individuals were not sending back the acknow-ledgement receipt in a timely manner. The inspector had no
-
further comment.
.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 1-12 (3) The requirement for distribution of the plan and procedures appeared to be adequately satisfied.
10.
Review of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 77-08, " Locking Systems"
,
a.
IE Bulletin 77-08 required the licensee, in part, to survey the facility and facility plans as to whether or,not prompt emergency ingress into electrically locked safety-related areas by essential personnel could be assured during loss of power, and if unimpeded emergency egress from all parts of the facility could be assured with respect to hardware and security system installations. In addition, the licensee was required to review existing emergency plans and procedures to assure that prompt emergency ingress and unimpeded emergency egress was fully and effectively addressed for any postulated occurrence. A written report was required for any facility that did not meet the requirements of action item 1 and 2 of the bulletin.
b.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to IE Bulletin 77-08. The response, dated February 16, 1978, states that existing emergency plans and proiedures do not address emergency ingress or egress; however, the appropriate plans and procedures will be revised as required af ter the implementation of the security modifications described in the amended Security Plans.
The inspector discussed this matter briefly with licensee representa-tives at the exit interview. The inspector stated that revisions to the Emergency Plan and EPIP's regarding this matter would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
11.
Fire Protection / Prevention a.
Fire Brigade Organization (1) Technical Specification 6.2.2.f requires at least five fire brigade members onsite at all times, in addition to the minimum shift crew of five personnel required for a safe orderly shutdown of the plant.
.
(2) The inspector discussed the shift fire brigade requirements with the acting Fire Marshall. The inspector was informed that nine personnel were presently attending a four day scene leader training course at the Surrey site and the Ashland, Virginia fire training school.
The inspector obtained shift schedules from Operations and Security, and compared the three shifts (days, swings and graveyard) on October 28-29, 1978, with fire training records.
This review verified that a minimum of five fire brigade members
,
.
RII Report Nos.' 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-13 were onsite at all times for that two-day period, with one exception. One individual from the Security Department had been assigned to the fire brigade for the day shift on October 28, 1978.
A review of the individual's training record indicated that no fire brigade training had been conducted. The inspector was informed by a licecsee repre-sentative that the individual had received initial fire fighting training on November 29, 1976.
On lovember 8, 1978, the inspector contacted the state fire training center in Ashland, Virginia, in order to verify the fire fighting trainine of this one individual. The record of training was not available.
Subsequent telephone conversations with licensee representatives on November 8-9, 1978, revealed that the individual had received only the general fire instructions given to general employees, and had not received any professional fire fighters training.
During the exit interview, this matter was discussed thoroughly with licensee management representatives. A licensee represen-tative stated that the Administrative Controls portion of the Technical Specifications covering the shift fire brigade requirements of the fire protection program were not in effect as yet. The inspector reviewed a statement in Amend-ment 3 to the Technical Specifications which could be inter-preted in such a manner that the shift fire brigade require-ments would be effective prior to startup, following the first regularly scheduled refueling outage. The refueling outage is scheduled for September 1979.
(3) This matter was identified as an unresolved item by the inspector, pending further clarification as to whether or not the Technical Specifications regarding the shift fire brigade are effective at the present time (50-338/78-35-01).
b.
Fire Brigade Training (1) Technical Specification 6.4.2 requires that fire training, maintained under the direction of the Fire Marshall, meet or exceed Section 27 of the NFPA Code-1976.
Section 4 of the Fire Protection Plan requires training sessions every quarter for members of the Fire Brigade.
(2) The inspector reviewed the training records of fifteen members of the fire brigade. These records revealed, with three exceptions, that initial fire training had been completed at the state fire training center at Ashland, Virginia, within the last seven months. Of the three remaining indivi-
,
RII Report. Nos.. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-14 duals, two have had the initial training within the past two years. The training of the third individual is discussed in paragraph 11.a. above. A review of the quarterly training sessions revealed that most, but not all, of the fire brigade members were attending the quarterly sessions. The inspector was informed that even with several training sessions each
,
quarter, it was difficult, if not impossible, to complete the quarterly requirement for the eqtire brigade.
The inspector discussed the quarterly training sessions for the fire brigade with the acting Fire Marshall and with licensee n.anagement repre sentatives at the exit interview.
The inspector was informed that the Fire Marshall would define the fire brigade members needed to ensure the minimum shift requirements would be met.
This would not preclude the utilization of other fire fighters (for example, a maintenance individual who is a trained fire fighter, but works only on days) if they were needed. The training for the defined fire brigade would be assured by holding several training sessions during the quarter. The inspector had no further comments.
(3) The requirement for fire brigade training appeared to be satisfactorily met.
12.
Emergency Drills a.
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.I requires provisions for testing, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to assure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific duties, and provisions for participation in the drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency. Section 7.1.2 of the Emergency Plan specifies that drills will be held annually to ensure maximum effectiveness of the plan, and to keep personnel aware of their role in the overall plan.
Section 7.1.2 also specifies that appropriate offsite agencies will be asked to participate in, or observe the exercise, where applicable.
b.
The inspector discussed the emergency drill held on October 20, 1978, with the Health Physics Supervisor.
The inspector was informed that local agencies had been contacted to participate in the drill, as appropriate. The inspector reviewed critiques of the drill furnished by the QC and HP department heads.
The inspector was informed that the comments of the drill observers would be looked into and any deficiencies would be corrected.
The inspector also discussed this drill brh. fly with the resident
.
.
RII Report Nos. 50-338/78-35 and 50-339/78-31 I-15 NRC inspector. The resident inspector observed the activities in the control room during the drill and stated that the drill appeared to go very well.
c.
The requirement for emergency drills appeared to be adequately satisfied.
.
13.
Unit 2 Preoperational Inspection The inspector discussed the status of the Unit 2 remote shutdown panel and radiation monitoring systems.
Through discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector defined that these two systems were the only ones unique to the preoperational emergency planning phase of Unit 2 construction. All other areas of emergency planning have been verified through the preoperational and operational inspection of Unit 1.
The inspector cbserved that the Unit 2 shutdown panel was not yet completed.
The inspector was informed that it would be completed under preoperational procedure 2-SN-36. This matter was identified as an outstanding item (50-339/78-31-01).
The inspector was info rmed that the radiation monitoring system for Unit 2 would be completed under 2-PO-10.
This matter was identified as an outstanoing item (50-339/78-31-02).
14.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 3, 1978, at the North Anna site. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.