IR 05000346/1982006
| ML20042B920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Paperiello C, Patterson J, Reyes L, Rogers W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042B918 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-82-06, 50-346-82-6, NUDOCS 8203260273 | |
| Download: ML20042B920 (5) | |
Text
_
-_,__-
.
..
.
i
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
I Report No. 50-346/82-06(DEPOS)
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue
-
Toledo, OH 43652 Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Davis-Besse Site Inspection Conducted: January 27 and 29 and February 11-12, 1982
' Inspectors:
50/WL Senior Resident Inspector Y
Sf10/8%
W. Rogers, Resident Inspector atte
t'o
$t MJ.
Approved By:
e so, Ch ef 3 /o
Emergency Preparedness Section
'
CLh
}
lC f'
C Paperiello, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Operations Support Inspection Summary Inspection on January 27 and 29 (onsite) and February 11-12, 1982 (In-office),
(Report No. 50-346/82-06(DEPOS))
Areas Inspected: Special announced inspection and testing of the Prompt Public Notification / Warning System. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite and in-office by three NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
,
8203260273 820311 gDRADOCK 05000346 PDR
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - _.
.
..
t
On February 1, 1982, the licensee must demonstrate that physical and administrative means exist for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective of the system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within about 15 minutes. The technical basis for review of the system is given in Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided are the bases for determining if the prompt public notification system installed is as described in your Emergency Plan or other correspondence sent to the Commission.
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
The inspectors verified 21 out of 42 sirens (50%) were installed. This was a random survey. All sirens inspected were found to be installed as indicated in licensee correspondence to NRC.
2.
The following questions were directed to the licensee:
a.
Will the system provide both an alert and an informational or instructional message to the population throughout the ten mile (five miles for Lacrosse and Big Rock Point) Emergency Planning Zone within 15 minutes?
The current system provides an alert signal to the population within the ten mile EPZ.
In addition, twenty-two Tone Alert Radios provide both an alert and informational message to all schools, emergency service departments, a hospital, a nursing l
ho.ne, and the local radio station.
b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through a. above)
would be used to provide an instructional message to the public after the sirens have been activated?
Upon activation of the siren, the alerted public is instructed to turn to the Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) for the'
Ottawa County area. Several radio and television emergency stations are identified in the public information brochure.
c.
Does the public information distribution program provide information regarding this system?
(Explain)
Yes, two monthly Nuclear News letters were mailed previously to the permanent population within 15 miles of the facility. These news letters contained information about a nuclear emergency.
Also the local telephone directory has instructions for the public if a nuclear emergency is declared at the plant.
.
l l
______ _ _____ ________ _
.
.
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site? (Explain)
Yes, the design criteria of the siren system should achieve 10 db above ambient noise levels at 5 miles.
For the population below 2000 persons / square mile (5-10 mile area), this design sound level is 50 db.
This meets the design of NUREG-0654.
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal?
.
Design of the siren system should permit the permanent population to hear the initial signal. Actual sound tests will be conducted later this year.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 10 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification? Comment:
The local Fire Departments go door-to-door verifying that a green card or a towel is hanging from the window to verify that the initial notification was heard.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
Comment: A total of 22 Tone Alert Radios have been given to i
these facilities.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
Yes, both the sirens and the Tone Alert Radios have been tested before February 1, 1982.
i.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren)
system (e.g.,
licensee, local government, or State)?
Toledo Edison Company.
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
Ottawa County Sheriff in Port Clinton, Ohio.
,
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
A Quality Control program is being developed by the licensee.
Currently, monthly siren tests are being conducted.
_
m.
__
.
.
.
1.
Name of licensee contact:
Hs. Judy Hirsch, Emergency Planning Supervisor.
3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
An integrated test was conducted to verify the operation of all sirens.
b.
Was State and County involved:
-
Yes.
c.
Was FEMA present:
No.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
The resident inspector and Mr. Ted Myers of TECo.
e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
A licensee representative was present near each siren.
i Mr. Ted Myers, TECo, coordinated the test for the licensee.
l f.
Review records of the test (Comment):
a A letter was sent to Region III dated January 29, 1982, which documented the fact that five out of 42 sirens did not function properly during the test.
,
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
I Installation: None.
Test Result: Five out of 42 sirens did not activate. The licensee committed to correct the deficiencies by June 1, 1982, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2). This is an open item.
(50-346/82-06-01)
Records: Not applicable.
Others: Not applicable.
5.
Persons Contacted Ms. Judy Hirsch, Toledo Edison Company.
Mr. Ted Myers, Toledo Edison Company.
!
.
__.
-
_
.
__
-. -.
a
.
6.
Exit Interview The resident inspector met with the licensee representatives (listed in Section 5) at the conclusion of the inspection. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
5