IR 05000338/1985008

Insp Repts 50-338/85-08 & 50-339/85-08 on 850318-22.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Area Inspected:Emergency Preparedness

ML20127L262
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	04/05/1985
From:	Cline W, Kreh J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127L236	List: IR 05000338/1985008 ML20127L232
References
50-338-85-08, 50-338-85-8, 50-339-85-08, 50-339-85-8, NUDOCS 8505220305
Download: ML20127L262 (5)

Text

,

'^"

~

gp RE: o UNITED STATES

• -

'o . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'[

-$-

o REGloN 18 101 MARIETTA STREET, * 2 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

\* *** */ . APR 0 81985 Report Nos.: 50-338/85-08, 50-339/85-08 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA -23261

. Facility Name: North Anna' Power Station Docket Nos.: 50-338,50-3392 License Nos.: NPF-4, NPF-7 Inspection Conducted: March-18-22, 1985 Inspector: , U 06-/I Jy.Kreh :Date. Signed

= Approved by: h M-p W. El Cline, Chief

_V-F-85 Date Signed V Emergency Preparedness Section Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY

'

~ Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved 32 inspec:or-hours onsite and 2 inspector-hours offsite in the area af emergency preparednes Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

PDR ADOCK 05000338 '

G PDR l

.

..

..

g

~

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. W. Harrell,~ Station. Manager

• M.- L. Bowling,. Assistant Station Manager, Safety and Licensing R. O.'Enfinger, Superintendent Operations

• J. W. Martin, Jr., Director Emergency Planning (Corporate)

R. E. Beckwith, Coordinator Emergency Planning (Corporate)

• S. A. Harrison, Coordinator Emergency Planning (Station)

• A. L. Hogg, Jr. , Manager QA

• R. T..' Johnson, QA Staff. Engineer F. P. Miller,. Supervisor QC J. W. Winn, Senior QC Inspector W. ' R. Madison, Senior Instructor G.' B. Crisman, Shift Supervisor S. P. Hughes, Shift Supervisor P. A. Ke.=p, Shift Supervisor

,

Other Organizations G. O'N, Urquhart, Chief, Radiological Planning Branch, Department of Emergency Services, Commonwealth of Virginia W. H. Towsey, Chief, Mineral (VA) Volunteer Fire C W. L. Harper, Member, Louisa County (VA) Board of Supervisors NRC Resident Inspectors

• M. W. Branch

• J. G. Luehman

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview (30703)

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 22, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. Two findings were identified as possible violation These were related to protective action decision-making and the annual independent review of the emergency preparedness prorsm. During a telephone conversation on March 28, 1985, the inspector informed a licensee representative that further review in the ,

Regional Office determined that the two findings in question did not constitute violations. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or rev'ewed by the inspector during this inspectio !

'

,

_

y

, ..

d

,

.3 f Protective Action Decision-Making (82202)

. Pursuant to 110' _CFR 50.47(b)(9). and (1_0) 'and ~ 10 CFR' Part 50, - Appendix E,

~~ Section IV.D.3, this area was inspected .to determine .whether the licensee ihad 24-hour per-day capability _to make recommendations to protect the.public and onsite worker "

Thel inspector discussed responsibility and authority for protective action

< decision-making . with licensee : representatives and reviewed pertinent

-

q .

portions; of the licensee's emergency plan ' and - procedures. The plan and procedures ' clearly 7 assigned responsibility and authority for . accident assessment and - protective action decision-makin Interviews with members off theflicensee's emergency. organization revealed that these . personnel understood their -authori_ ties' and responsibilities with respect- to accident assessment.and protective. action decision-makin .-Walk-through ' evaluations involving protective action decision-making were

' conducted with three Shift Supervisors. Personnel interviewed appeared to-be ' cognizant of appropriate L onsite protective measures _ and aware of the rangeriof protective action recommendations appropriate to offsite protection. : Personne1 Linterviewed were aware of the need for timeliness in-making ' initial protective action recommendations to ' offsite official Interviewees demonstrated adequate understanding of the requirement that

-

p'rotective action recommendations be based on core condition and containment 1 status even if no release is in progres The 1.icensee's guidelines for the: choice of protective actions during an-emergency are required by 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(10) to be consistent with Federal guidance. However, the inspector noted during a review of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (EPIP)-1.05 (" Response to General - Emergency") that, under certain accident' conditions, the procedure could produce an initial

protective action recommendation involving evacuation of :the .public, which would' be 'more conservative Jthan the initial recommendation specified by-

. Federal guidance (namely, shelter.in~all sectors to 2 miles and-in downwind sectors'to 5 miles). This variance from published ' Federal guidance was

' discussed as a possible violation during the exit meeting. After further ,

review, it was determined that the methodology used by the licensee' was acceptable from. a standpoint of protecting the health and safety of the general public (see.' paragraph 2).

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 lthe program since the last routine inspection (February-March 1984) and to note how these changes affected the overall state'of emergency preparednes The inspector discussed the licensee'.s program for making changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures. The' inspector reviewed the licensee's system 'for review and approval of changes to the plan and

-

. _ _ _ _

'

- - -

.

,

a j. -

, . .

~

<

-

4,

.

_ procedures. JThe inspector verified that changes:to the plan and procedures oi ~

-wereLreviewed and' approved-by management. .'It:was also noted that - all such changes :were submitted to ;NRC within 30 days of the offective_ date, _as

requi red.=

Discussions?with licensee representatives indicated that no significant

modifications- to facilities, . equipment, or instrumentation 'had. been-completed _since the last inspection. Permanent' structures for the Technical-

. Support 1. Center and'the Local Emergency-Operations Facility were observed to

, "be.under constructio '

, oThe -organization and management ~ of the emergency preparedness program ~ were reviewed.- The inspector verified that there had been no significant changes

in ithe corganization' or assignment of responsibility for the plant and corporate emergency planning staffs since the last inspectio The-inspector's. discussion with licensee representatives disclosed that the only

- ~ significant change._in the organization and staffing of the offsite support agencies was appointment of _a new' Acting. Administrator / Emergency' Directo .for Louisa County as of February 1, -198 . The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the emergency plan and procedures. Document control records for the period

. March-November 1984.~showed that-appropriate personnel and organizations were sent. copies:of plan and procedural changes, as require ~No-violations or deviations were identified in this program are ' Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training) (82206)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(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 the description . (in the emergency plan) of - the

' training program, training ~ procedures, and selected lesson plans, and

-

-interviewed members of the -instructional staff. Based on these reviews and

. interviews, the inspactor determined that the licensee had established a formal emergency training-progra Records of training for key members of the emergency organization for the i period February-October 1984 were reviewed. The training records revealed that personnel-designated as alternates or given interim responsibilities in the emergency organization ~ were provided with appropriate trainin According to -the training records, the type, amount, and frequency of T training were consistent with approved procedure 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 respond ' as if an emergency actually existed. The individuals demon-I cstrated familiarity with-emergency procedures and equipment, and no problems

_

A

- _ _ - - ._ - _ _ - , -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . ___ _ __ _- - _

- .

,

.

c

%?

^

_

'

5-

'

were observed in theDareas of emergency i detection / classification and e  : protective. action decision-making.

] No. violations or deviations were identified in this program are . l Licensee Audits (82210)

~

-

Pursuant'to110 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 .

f

'

.j t Records of audits of the program were reviewed. The records showed that an

, independent audit of the program was' conducted-by the licensee's Qualit Assurance Department on May 24-July 2,1984. This ' audit fulfilled the -

,. , 12-month frequency - requirement for such audits. The audit records showed

that - the . State and local government interfaces were evaluated. Audit findings; and recommendations were presented to plant and corporate management. A review of past audit reports indicated that the licensee complied with the five year retention requirement for such report , .

" Licensee emergency plans and procedures required critiques following-

?

-exercises, and an evaluation process following drill Licensee

' documentation showed that these requirements were followed, resulting in identification of deficiencies and recommendations for corrective action.

':--

The licensee's program for follow-up action -on audit, drill,:'and exercise *

findings was reviewed. Licensee procedures required follow-up on deficient

<

areas. identified during audits, drills, and exercise The inspector reviewed selected licensee records which indicated that corrective action  ;

was taken on . identified ' problems, as appropriate. 'The licensee had established a Computer Tracking System (CTS) as a management tool in

, following up on actions taken in deficient areas.

.

a

..

No violations or deviations ~were identified in this program area.

.

p.

, Coordination with Offsite Agencies (92706)

! The ' inspector held discussions with licensee represen't atives regarding the

} ; : coordination of ~ emergency planning with offsite agencies. Written agreements existed with those offsite support agencies specified in the emergency plan, and the agreements -had been renewed within the past two years, as require The inspector determined through ' interviews with representatives of selected local and State support agencies that the-1icensee was periodically contacting those agencies for purposes of offering training and maintaining mutual familiarizatiori with emergency response roles.. Those interviews disclosed no significant problems related to the interfaces between the licensee and the offsite support agencies listed in paragraph t t