IR 05000338/1987011

Insp Repts 50-338/87-11 & 50-339/87-11 on 870608-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Selected Areas of Emergency Preparedness Program

ML20235G065
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	07/02/1987
From:	Decker T, Tabaka A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235G054	List: IR 05000338/1987011 ML20235G050
References
50-338-87-11, 50-339-87-11, NUDOCS 8707140089
Download: ML20235G065 (9)

Text

______ -- _

.

tk# "f ouf UNITED STATES

'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY r.OMMisSION

[{,y o REGION 11 j 101 MARIETTA STREET, .

• e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 o

'

%,*****/ jut 0 21937 Report Nos.: 50-338/87-11 and 50-339/87-11 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NFP-7 Facility Name: North Anna Power Station Inspection Conducted: June 8-12, 1987 i Inspector: d b[

Date Signed

~

_

A. E. Tobaka Approvedby:d loa '- 7 67 T. R. Decker, Section Chief Date Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine unannounced inspection was to evaluate selected areas of the emargency preparedness progra Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviatichs were identifie e707140089 e70702 PDR ADOCK 0500 ]O O

- _ _ _ _ _ _-_ - -

.

-

J l

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. Harrell, Station Manager

• Bowling, Assistant Station Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing

• A. Stafford, Superintendent Health Physics

• T. Johnson, Supervisor Quality

• F. Cox, Supervisor Corporate Emergency Planning

• S. Harrison, Emergency Planning Coordinator

• J. Leberstien, Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Licensing J. Rauth, Supervisor Records Management H. Moyers, :>hift Supervisor, Health Physics R. Evans, Jr. , Shift Supervisor, Health Physics M. Johnson, Assistant Health Physics Supervisor D. Ross, Senior Staff Health Physicist E. Dreyer, Senior Staff Health Physicist L. Thomason, Supervisor Corporate Health Physics M. Horner, ERCS Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, security office members and office personne Other Organizations C. Price, Bureau of Radiological Health, Commonwealth of Virginia G. Urquhart, Department of Emergency Services, Commonwealth of Virginia Nuclear Regulatory Commission L. King, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview (30703)

The inspection scope and findings were; summarized on June 12, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1,above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detill the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the mar.erial provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . 5 Notification and Communication (8220 )

l Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,

,

Section IV.D, 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 emergency planning zon The inspector reviewed the licensee's notification procedures. The procedures were consistent with the emergency classification and EAL scheme used by the license The inspector determined by review of applicable procedures and by discussion with licensee representatives that adequate procedural means existed for alerting, notifying, and activating energency response personnel. The procedures specified when to notify and activate the onsite emergency organization, corporate support organization, and offsite agencies. Emergency telephone numbers listed in the licensee's Station Telephone Directory for emergency response support organizations were checked quarterly by the licensee to determine whether the listed numbers were current and correc The content of initial emergency messages was reviewe The initial messages appeared to meet the guidance of 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 licensee representatives, the system consisted of 54 fixed siren One additional siren had been recently added onsite near Lake Anna. A review of licensee records verified that the system as installed was consistent with the description contained in the Emergency Pla Maintenance of the system had been provided for by the licensee. The inspector reviewed siren test records for the period of January 1986 to May 198 The records showed that in 1986 cancel tests were conducted every two weeks, growl tests quarterly, and full-cycle tests monthly. In a letter dated October 22, 1986, the licensee notified the NRC of a change in the testing frequency for the Early Warning System sirens. Beginning January 1987, the test frequencies were changed as follows: cancel tests every two weeks, growl tests monthly and full-cycle tests quarterl Licensee documentation indicated that the tests were performed in 1987 as appropriate. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's documentation of system operability during the period of January to December 1986. For the year overall system operability was 97.4% with no individual month falling below 92.4%. ,

Communications equipment in the Control Room, OSC, TSC, and E0F was inspected. Provisions existed for prompt communication among emergency <

response organizations, to emergency response personnel, and to the public. The installed communications systems at the emergency response l

'

facilities were consistent with system description in the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure The inspector conducted operability checks on selected communications equipment in the Control Room, TSC, OSC, and E0F. No problems were observe The inspector reviewed licensee records for the period of l

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

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

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ,

.

January 1986 to May 1987 which indicated that communications tests were conducted at the frequencies specified in Section 8.7.4 of the Emergency Plan. Licensee records also revealed that corrective action was taken on

!

problems identified during communications tests.

i- Redundancy of offsite and onsite communications links was discussed with licensee representatives. The inspector verified that the licensee had

'

established backup and redundant communications systems which made use of Insta-phoneloop;(2) microwave system (Off-Premises the following(:3 )(1)

Extension); UHF two-way radio to the Louisa County Sheriff's Department; (4) Commercial phones; (5) State Controlled Administrative hone System; (6) sound powered phones; (7) Private Branch Exchange Telep(8)

and various internal and external ringdown The inspector requested and observed an unannounced communications and notification check using the Commonwealth and County Insta-loop syste No problems were note 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 February 1986 routine inspection and to note how these changes affected the overall state of emergency preparednes The inspector reviewed the licensee's system for making changes to the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures. As delineated in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Emergency Plan all changes to these documents must be reviewed by the Station Nuclear Safety Operating Comraittee (SNSOC)

prior to implementation. Discussions with licensee representatives and examination of records indicated that changes were appropriately apprcved by SNS0C and selected managenent personne It was also noted that all such changes were submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the effective date, as require Since February 1986, the licensee had made several revisions to both its Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures. Revisions 10 and 11 to the Emergency Plan (dated May 15, 1986, and December 4,1986, respectively)

were previously t eviewed by the NRC confirming that the changes made did not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness progra In addition, the inspector reviewed the changes made to the Implementing Procedures which had not been previously reviewed by the NRC. No changes to these docunents were identified which would degrade the Plan's effectivenes In accordance with the Emergency Plan, the inspector confirmed that the Plan and Implementing Procedures had been reviewed at least every 12 months, as required.

- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ -

.

.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for distribution of changes to the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures. Document control records for the period February 1986 to May 1987 showed that appropriate personnel and organizations were sent copies of plan and procedural change 1 in accordance with Document Control Procedures DCM-59, " Procedure

for Nn/S Emergency Plan," and DCM-57, " Procedure for NAPS Emergency Plan impleraenting Procedures." In addition, the inspector reviewed selected control copies of the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures and found them to be curren Discussions were held with licensee representatives concerning recent modifications to facilities, equipment, and instrumentatio These changes included the installation of the new Health Physics Network communication links, the installation of an additional onsite emergency siren and the turnover of the Emergency Response Facilities Data Acquisition System (ERFDAS) on May 1, 1987. Review of selected procedures indicated that changes were made to reflect these recent modifications (i.e. transmittal of information over the HPN, use of the RAD / MET Model on the ERFDAS); and complete descriptions of this equipment will be included in the next revision to the Emergency Plan. It should also be noted that the licensee has under construction a new multi-functional Media Center to replace the current one at the Mineral Volunteer Fire Department. The facility is tentatively scheduled for completion in September 198 The organization and management of the emergency preparedness program were reviewed. Recent changes included the reassignment of an individual to the position of Assistant Station Manager-Nuclear Safety and Licensing and the departure of the Corporate Emergency Planning Coordinator. The Corporate position has not yet been filled; however, due to the divisfor, of responsibility between the Corporate and plant staff, and the remaining number of individuals at Corporate, this should not effect the emergency preparedness program at North Ann Significant changes in the staffing of offsite support agencies included reassignment for the positions of New Hanover and Spotsylvannia County Administrator No violations or deviations were identifie . Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82205)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Sections I and IV.C, this area was examined to determine whether shif t staffing for emergencies was adequate in numbers and 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 the guidance of Table B-1 of NUREG-065 The licensee had established an emergency call-out procedure for notifying off-shift emergency response and augmentation personnel. The call-out procedure was included in the Station Telephone Directory and contained

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

.- _ - _ ___ -

.

.

the home numbers of all response individuals by emergency position. The roster appeared current, and licensee documentation indicated that it was updated on a quarterly basi Although the licensee did have a procedure for contacting emergency response personnel, no system specific to the Emergency Plan was in place to assure the availability of these -individuals (i.e. duty officer /

"on-call" system). The inspector determined that such availability and timely response of_ augmentation personnel for the onsite emergency organization, as specified in Table 5.1 of the Emergency Plan, was uncertain because the response was neither tested by augmentation drills or real-time call-outs, nor assured through a duty roster syste Licensee representatives did indicate that an augmentation drill would be performed at a later date, the results of which will be reviewed during a future inspectio Inspector Follow-up Item 50-338,339/87-11-01: Assure that augmentation personnel are available and can respond to the site in a timely manner in accordance with Table 5.1 of the Emergency Pla . 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 the followicg dose assessment procedures:

EPIP-4.07, Protective Measures-EPIP-4.08, Initial Offsite Release Assessment EPIP-4.09, Source Term Assessment EPIP-4.10, Determination of X/Q EPIP-4.27, Use of Class "A" Meteorological and Dose Calculation Mode The procedures had provisions for calculating doses for ground releases, monitored and unmonitored pathways such as the plant building vents, containment leakage, and steam releases. The procedures allowed for refinement of dose projections through incorporation of feedback from field monitoring and for timely incorporation of dose assessment results into onsite and offsite protective action decision-makin The inspector discussed the dose projection models used by the licensee and the Commonwealth of Virginia with representatives of both partie These discussions as well as past correspondence indicated that a comparison between the nodels used by both organizations was performed in early 1984; however, the results of the comparison could not be locate During the course of this inspection one of the problems was rerun. For the problem used, the models compared favorably, within a factor of tw The Commonwealth and licensee representatives also indicated no significant differences had been noted during previous annual exercise _ _ _____a_____ -

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

.

i j

6 1 i

The inspector discussed the licensee's manual (EPIP' and computer (RAD / MET) dose projection models with .St ation ano Corporate representatives. The licensee recognized that differences exist between the two models; however, an indepth comparison between the two had not been formally documente The licensee is currently performing such a compatibility study as well as determining, the need to modify certain f assumptions in the computer calculation. Completion of this study will be j reviewed during a future inspectio Inspector Follow-up Item 50-338-339/87-11-02: Completior of the comparative study between the EPIP and RAD / MET dose calculation model An inspection and operability check were made of selected equipment and support items used for dose assessment at the TSC and EOF. No problems were observe The inspector requested and observed dose assessment walk-throughs by selected licensee personnel designated as responsible for dose projection during an emergency. The individuals demonstrated ability to make such calculations using both manual and computerized method The inspector discussed the backshift availability of personnel qualified to make dose calculations. Licensee representatives stated that such personnel were available on all shifts. The inspector verified from a review of current staffing levels and emergency response training records that this capability existe The inspector conducted a comparison test between the licensee's manual dose model and the NRC Interactive Rapid Dose Assessment Model (IRDAM).

For the scenario used, the two models compared favorably. No significant differences were identifie 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 emergency planning zone (EPZ) on an annual basis, i

The licensee had developed an emergency response information brochure and a calendar for use by the public residing in or frequenting the 10-mile EP Licensee representatives stated that the calendar was updated annually. Section 8.8 of the Emergency Plan required a coordinated review and annual update of this informatio Liccnsee documentation dated January 7 and February 24, 1986, showed that development of the 1987 calendar was coordinated with offsite authorities and that recommendations were incorporated as appropriate. In addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia seal appears on both the calendar and brochure. The inspector

_---- ---____--_i ____ _ _______

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

~

.

I evaluated the current calendar and verified that it included the information specified by NUREG-0654,Section I According to licensee representatives, the means.used by the licensee to inform the transient population of appropriate emergency response measures and actions included posted notices at public parks, notices in telephone books and dissemination of public information brochures to various tourist attractions in the area. A review of correspondence between the licensee and the Commonwealth of Virginia indicated that the public information brochure was distributed by the local County Coordinators to parks, recreation areas, and marinas. The inspector observed the placement of an information sign at the entrance to Lake Anna State Park and an emergency response notice in one of the local telephone directorie A review of the licensee's internal documentation showed that the 1987 edition of the public information calendar was sent to residences within the 10-mile EPZ. The public information calendar provided a point of contact for obtaining additional information; this contact being the individual's local County Emergency / Civil Defense Coordinator. The appropriate telephone numbers were provide An insert was also provided for obtaining information from Virginia Powe In addition to the public information brochure and calendar, licensee representatives indicated that the on-going public information program included an annual media day for informing news media personnel, numerous i

'

public speaking engagements with various civic groups and schools, and a visitors' cente It was noted that the licensee distributed a special brochure in May 1986 explaining to the public the irregular full-actuation siren test to be conducted. The inspector also reviewed a description of the public information program in the licensee's Emergency Plan and internal correspondence concerning implementation of the public ,

information program. Based on these reviews and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee's public information program continued to meet the applicable regulatory requirement No violations or deviations were identifie . Inspector Follow-up Item (92701) (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-338,339/87-05-02: Revise EPIP-1.05 to clarify which protective action recommendation is ,

applicable for a security event classified as a General Emergenc The inspector reviewed Revision 7 to EPIP 1.05, " Response to a i General Emergency," dated April 28, 1987. The licensee had made the appropriate change to the procedure to highlight the correct protective action recommendation for a security event, (Closed) IFI 50-338,339/87-EP-01: Verify audibility of alarms in high noise areas. The inspector observed the placement of visual alarms / signals in the diesel generator rooms as committed to in the September 24, 1979, licensee response to IE Bulletin 79-1 The

_----------_ u ______--__-- --

,.

licensee assured operability of these four evacuation lights by dispatching an individual to one of the four diesel rooms each week during the alarm test to observe actuation in accordance with Preventive Test Procedure I-MISC- The inspector also observed a weekly test of the three Station alarms. No audibility problems were encountered during the test. In addition, discussions with licensee representative indicated that the audibility and operability of the Gai-tronics Communications System was performed on a quarterly basis according to Preventative Maintenance Procedure E-11-COM/Q-1. The inspector had no further questions in this area.

l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~