IR 05000369/1980026
| ML19343A738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1980 |
| From: | Andrews D, Jenkins G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343A731 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-80-26, NUDOCS 8011210137 | |
| Download: ML19343A738 (17) | |
Text
.
-
-
.--
'
M
'o UNITED STATES f
8. "* -
f
^n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
{,g l44'pf. e[E
/l REGION 11 o9*be9 101 MARIETT A si,, N.W., SUITE 3100
.
'
'g * * * * * j'
ATLANT A, G EORGIA 30303 e
t Report No. 50-369/80-26
,
Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 License No. CPPR-83 Inspection at M Guire Site near C arlotte, North Carolina
/B - f-fB Inspector:
f
./
Date Signed D.'L.Andj'sg Approved by:
/c - 9-D
-
,
,
G. R. Je s,/S6cfion Chief, FFp Branch Date Sigted
,
SbrefARY
,
-Inspection on September 15-19, 1980
'
Areas Inspected j
This routine, announce 1 inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of:
emergency organization; emergency-classification system; notification methods and procedures; emergency communice.tions ; public information; emergency facilities and equipment; accident assessitent; protective responses; radiological
'
exposure control; medical support; exercises and drills;; radiological emergency response training ; and periodic review and distribution of cmergency plans.
~
Results Of the 13 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
O
8011210-13"1
.
.,
-,
-
-
-
.
.. -
.
- -. -
.
.
.
. -. -
.
.
. -
..-
.
.
DETAILS
.
'1.
Persons Contacted McGuire Station Employees-I
- M. D.-McInt'osh, Station Manager
- W.! M. - Sample, Projects and Licensing Engineer
- T. J. Keane,-Station Health-Physicist
- ' M. S. L Gloyer, _ Tech.~ Associate, Emergency Planning
- D. B. Lamphe, Jur.ior Engineer
- G A. Copp,- Nuclear Engineer
.
T. L. Parker, Trsining Coordinator G. Singletary, Engineer
.
L. Baker, Station Nurse F. -Jarrett, Environmental Chemistry Supervisor
'
'
A. Deak, Chemist D. Griffin, I&E Specialist Other Licensee Employees-i R. Kohler, Duke Power General Office D. 0glesby, Steam Production, General Office
.
R. Clemmer, Health Physicist, Catawba Nuclear Station R. Kinard, Health Physicist, Catawba Nuclear Station G. Mitchell, Operations, Catawba Nuclear Station
,'
K. Malloy, Steam Production, General Office J. Knuti, Operations, Catawba Nuclear Station l
NRC Resident Inspector
- T. Donat, Senior Rer:*. dent Inspector-
- D. O. Myers, Resident Inspector (Oconee)
,
- Attended Exit Interview f'
2.
Exit Interview
.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 19, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
'
..
Unresolved items were not identified during this ins,,ection'.,
- -
.
.
.
m*
,8 medi.
@ h,p.
,6@
mew-
%
N*84'EP**
- $4sn@=teWM MmWgm 4-6dW'es-W 4* h 9 9 FMSMO8'-f*"4@4hNW4 MW 5%3&
g p esse e -48 eWPe$g g C
(P-whpee-
.Se"
n-+T
. _..
- . -.,-.
..m.-
- --__..
. _.- -..
.
,
,,.... _ -.
.
-2-5.
Inspection Criteria This inspection was conducted against criteria which are not yet final.
Changes to Title 10, Part 50, Code of Federal Regulations, were published on August 19, 1980, (45 FR 55402) and will become effective on November 3, 1980. NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 was publisM d January 1980, for interim use and comment and is currently being revised, to be published in final form in tb near future. The McGuire Nuclear Station Emergency Plan and the Dub Power Company Crisis Management Plan are currently being reviewed by tnr. NRC Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch, NRR, which may require changes or additions to the current plans prior to the publication of a Safety Evaluation Report, or approval of the plans. The items identified in this report are not to be considered as encompassing all required actions necessary to satisfy interim or final criteria for the emergency preparedness program at McGuire Nuclear Station.
6.
Emergency Organization a.
This area was reviewed to insure that on-shift facility operator responsibilities for emergency response are unambiguously defined, that adequate staffing to provide initial facility accident response in key functional areas is maintained at all times, timely augmentation of response capabilities is available, and that the interfaces among various onsite response activities and offsite support and response activities are specified.
b.
The inspector reviewed the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) Energency Plan, Duke Power Company Crisis Management Plan (CMP), Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and interviewed licensee representatives to verify that:
(1) The emergency organization of plant staff personnel for all shifts and its relation to the responsibilities and duties of the normal staff complement has been established.
(2) An emergency coordinator has been designated who shall be onsite at all times and shall have the authority and responsibility to immediately and unilaterly initiate any emergency act;ons, including providing protective action recommendations to authorities responsi-ble for implementing offsite emergency measures.
(3) A line of succession to the position of emergency roordinator has been provided.
(4) Specific assignments for emergency situations have been made for all shifts onsite and augmentation of the plant staff by offsite personnel following the declaration of an emergency has been provided.
(5) Services to be provided by offsite agencies have been arranged and that written agreements reached with offsite agencies, specifying services to be provided in an emergency, are included in the emergency procedures,
'
.
ef.
es e
a w g.w - e wg
.m em.eg.mene-M w
,
Dhe t r=-is Wh e e4 Wra g
a.=e y
myga et.e e ske
+8@=*e%m'4*e As en e h*
Ee**"N*
'
- '=
i
-.
i
.
-3-
.
~
The - following acceptance criteria were used in evaluating the above c.
area.
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 5.0 and Appendix 10.1.
(2) Duke Power Company CMP, Section 5.0
,
.(3) Station Directive 3.8.2 (4) Emergency Plan implementing procedures EP/0/A/5000/31, EP/0/A/5000/32, EP/0/A/5000/33, EP/0/ \\/5000/34.
,
(5) NUREG 0654,Section II.B (6)
10 CFR 50.47(b)(1),(2),(3)
(7)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV. A.
d.
Except for'the following, the inspector had no.further concerns or specific comments in the above area. During a previous inspection, an inspector identified-an item to be followed in the above area concerning coordination and written agreements with offsite support agencies (78-24-01). This item was re-inspected during a subsequent inspection-(50-369/80-19). At the time of the latter inspection, arrangements and
.
agreements with offsite support agencies had not yet been completed.
'
These arrangements have now been completed and written agreements with 4 -
offsite agencies are included as an appendix to the MNS Emergency-
!
Plan. This item is considered closed.
-
!
7.
Emergency Classifications System
This area was reviewed to insure that a standard emergency cla'ssification a.
and action level' scheme based on facility system and effluent paramenters has been established.
b.
The inspector reviewed the MNS Emergency Plan and implementing procedures to verify that an emergency classification and emergency action level scheme utilizing ~ specific instruments, parameters and equipment status has been established.
,
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above area:
,
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 6.0 (2) Emergency Plan implementing procedures EP/0/A/5000/31, EP/0/A/5000/32,
-
EP/0/A/5000/33, EF/0/A/5000/34.
,
.
(3)
,
.
,->a
'-
,
&
I
.p
.
...
..-.e-.w.~.-.
-
- - - - -
~~ -.--. -. -, - - = - - - - - -
- ~ - - ~ ' - + + * + + - - * * -
'
ya
- ---**]*{ * _
_
.
.
-
.
..
'
.
,
-4-(4). 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.B.
(5) - 1 NUREG 0654,Section II.D.
d.
The ' classification ' and action' level _ scheme appears to meet current published criteria. The inspector had no further concerns or specific comment' in the above area.
8.
Notification Methods and Procedures i
This area was reviewed to insure that procedures have been establish i a.
for notifi. cation of emergency. personnel and all emergency response j
organizations including' state and local government response agencies.
b.
The licensee's Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan implementing procedures
v_ : reviewed to verify that:
(1) Procedures have' been established for notifying, alerting and mobilizing esergency response personnel.
(2) The contents of initial and follevup messages to be sent from the licensee to state and local government agencies have been estab-lished including a message verification scheme and recommendations
-
for protective actions.
!
(3) The physical means for alerting the public within the plume
exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) has been provided.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate - the above area:
~
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 6.0, Appendix 10.5 and 10.6.
(2) Emergency Plan implementing procedures EP/0/A/5000/31, EP/0/A/5000/32, EP/0/A/5000/33, EP/0/A/5000/34 (3)
l (4) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.D
~
(5) NUREG 0654,Section II.E.
(6) Station Directive 3.8.2 d.
Except for the-following, the inspector had no further concerns or specific comments in the above area.
_
An alert and notification system has been established 'to provide initial notification to 'the public within the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). This system does not currently meet the design objective of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.D.3, and should be upgraded by July 1,1981,
-- --
as indicated in the referenced paragraph. (50-369/80-26-01)
I
/
l
_
9..e_g we eg m
p
- - QM _,
.6
.6-WW
'
'
. __
.
.
.
_.
_
,
,
'
-5-
<
9.
Emergency Communications This area was reviewed to insure that provisions have been made for a.
prompt communications among principle response organizations.and en : rgency personnel.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were reviewed to insure that:
,
.
(1)- Provisions have been made for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day communcations with i
cont'iguous State and local governments within the EPZ.
'
(2) Provisions have been made for communications among the Control l
Room, Technical Support Center, Emergency Operations Facility (EOF), and radiological monitoring teams.
(3) Adequate communications have been provided between the facility and the hTC Emergency Response Center.
,
-(4)
Procedures have been developed for periodic testing of the emergency communications systems.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above areas:
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 7.2 (2) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6)
(3)
10 CFR 50,~ Appendix E, paragraph IV.E.
(4) Implementing Procedure PT/0/A/4600/11 (5) NUREG 0654,Section II.F.
-
,
(6) Duke Power CMP. Section 7.0 d.
Except for the following the inspector had no further concerns or
- .
specific comments inlthe above area.
(1) The inspector noted that procedure PT/0/A/4600/11 provides periodic
-
'
- '
testing of emergency communications systems and verification of-telephone numbers of emergency response persor.ael but the procedure
'
' was vague concerning the frequency of each of the test and verifica-tions, and documentation of the testing. A licensee representative
agreed that ' the l procedure was inadequate and stated that this ~
,
procedure will be revised to -
t
-
clarify these ' areas.
This iteri shall remain open until' revision of the procedure is completed (50-369/80-26-02).
(
l I
l
,
,
-
.,s
, - -
,-
-, -.. - - - - - - -
ce-
+--,-n
,,
.-
.
-6-
.
(2) During a previous inspection an inspector identified a f ilowup item concerning the completion of installation and testing of communications systems (50-369/78-24-08).
Since that inspection, communications hsve been expanded to include the technical support center, operations support center, and the EOF. This item shall remain open until all communications systems have been tested.
10.
Public Information a.
This area was reviewed to insure that information is provided to the public on how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be; and to insure that the principle points of contact with the news media are established.
b.
The Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were reviewed and discussions were held with licensee representative te verify that:
(1) Information concerning the notification and actions to be taken by the public are diseminated within the EPZ annually.
(2) The principle points of contact and physical locations for use by the news media have been established.
(3) A program has been established to acquaint news media with the eeergency plans.
c.
The fol'1owing acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above area:
(1) MKS Emergency Plan, Section 8.1 (2)
(3)
10 (TR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.D.
(4) NUREG C554,Section II.G.
d.
Except for the following, the innpcetor had no further concerns or specific comments in the above area. Duke Power Company conducted a series of seminars during the week of 9/8/80, to provide information to the public and news media concerning the information specified in the above acceptance criteria. During these meetings, a brochure was distributed contain#.ng information on emergency planning within the EPZ; however, the MNS Emergency Plan, CMP or implementing procedures do not ' appear to meet the acceptance criteria in that:
(1) There is no p.ovision to disseminate the indicated information to the public witbin the EPZ at least annually.
(2) There is no provision to conduct news media information programs annually.
.
,.y = -
ww.--.
-w w
- uw
.w-weao===w***-
~e
=
- -**===e+=
e-*=
-Wesa=****u
sp**"
- " * ' * * * * * ' ~
m
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
f-7-
.
(3) There is no provision for insuring that the transient and permanent
.
population within the 10~ mile EPZ have an opportunity to become aware of this information on an annual basis.
This area was-discussed with a licensee representative who stated that a procedure would be' developed or a' revision to the MNS Emergency Plan
,
would be made to include public information disseminations. (50-369/
!
80-26-03).
11.. Emergency Facilities and Equipment
a.
This area was reviewed to insure that adequate emergency facilities and equipecat to support the emergency response are provided.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan, implementing procedures and CMP were reviewed, and the facility was inspected to verify that:
(1) A tcchnical support center, operations support center and EOF have been established.
(2) Onsite monitoring systems used to initiate emergency measures and for continuing assessment are provided and maintained.
j (3) Offsite monitoring equipment is provided and maintained.
(4) Emergency equipment is calibrated and inventoried periodically.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above areas:
,
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 7.0 and Appendix 10.4 (2) CMP Section 7.0 (3) Implementing Procedures EP/0/A/5000/35, EP/0/A/5000/36, EP/0/A/5000/37, EP/0/A/5000/38,HP/0/A/1009/04,PT/0/A/4600/11.
(5) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E.
,
(6) NUREG 0654,Section II.H.
i d.
Except for the following,- the inspector had no further concarns or specific comments in the above area.
(1) A previous inspection _ item (50-369/78-24-02), concerning incomplete emergency kits'is closed. In reviewing the procedure for inventory
,
,
of emergency kits and emergency vehicle equipment, the inspector i-noted that procedure-PT/0/A/4600/11 was inadequate in that'it does not provide a mechanism to insure corrective action is taken
T L
'
i g
_,.
s
. - - - -. -
- _ _
_ -. -
o
-
m r.r-m -- - ~m --
-ss,,--
,,.
,,_e+..
~,**+wre-r + -
_g.
on deficiencies and the procedure dces not provide for documenta-tion of inventeries. A licensee it,'resentative stated that this procedure will be revised te correct the indicated deficiencies.
(50-369/80-26-04)
(2) A previous inspection followup item (50-369/78-24-04), identified incomplete installa t..L and testing of the seismic monitoring system. Pre-op te ts TP/0/B/3150/01, 02 and 03, have still not been completed and this item will remain open.
In :ddition, during this inspection, a discussion was held L tteensee personnel concerning procedure EP/0/A/5000/36, Eart
- t.4 k e. The control room instrumentation includes an audible alarm when an earthquake occurs which exceeds the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) described in the FSAR; however, procedure EP/0/A/5000/36 contains operator actions to be taken at earthquake magnitudes less than the OBE and at magnitudes considerably greater than the OBE; i.e., there are three ranges of earthquake magnitudes at which specific operator actions are to be taken, only one of which is assouated with an audible alarm in the control room.
The inspector questioned the capability of control room personnel or the Emergency Director to determine the exact magnitude of an earthquake from the control room instrumentation provided.
Licensee personnel agreed that earthquake magnitudes are not readily discernable from control room instrumentation and that this matter would be looked into and appropriate action taken to make this information readily available to control room personnel.
(50-369/80-26-06).
(3) A previous inspection item (50-369/78-24-06) concerned the control room habitability from the standpoint of HVAC isolation and detection systems. A second item (50-369/78-24-07), concerned the control of openings into the Unit I side from Unit 2 construc-tion.
Procedures TP/1/A/1450/05 and TP/1/A/1450/16 have been completed and verify control habitability requirements and control room integrity during construction of Unit 2.
These items are closed.
(4) A previous inspection item (50-369/78-24-12) concerned the meteo-rological instrumentation. The meteorological system is operating and read-outs are available in the control room; however, the turn over of the maintenance of this system from the Environmental Section to the Instrument (I&E) Section is not yet complete.
This item shall remain open. In addition to the ca! N at. ion and mairitenance of this system the inspector observeu local instrumentation at the base of the met tower. These read-outs are available for use in an emergency should the control instru-mentation be inoperable. The local instruments do not read out directly in meterological parameters and thus the information is not useful to the Control Room without unit conversions. Licensee representatives agreed that a simple procedure for converting local instrument readings to meteorological parameters would be
..
.. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - -. _ _ _ _ _... _., _... _. _. _.
_ _... - _ - _..
r.
A
-9-useful and stated that such a procedure would be developed. This item will remain open until the procedure is developed.
(50-369/
80-26-06).
(5) A previous inspection item (50-369/78-24-03) concerned testing of the Breathing Air System and analysis of breathing air quality.
Pre-op test TF/1/B/1450/13 has been completed and the breathing air equipment is operable. Air quality is being analyzed by the chemistry section utilizing procedure CP/0/B/8700/C5. This item is closed.
(6) A previous inspection item ( J-369/78-24-09) concerned installation and testing of the emergency lighting system. The installation of the emergency lighting system is complete and pre-op test TP/1/A/1350/23 has been completed. This item is closed.
(7) A previous inspection item (50-369/78-24-11) concerned installation, testing and calibration of process and effluent monitors used to initiate emergency actions and continuously assess releases. The and effluent monitoring system has been installed arocess, area lut testing and calibration were not complete at the time of this inspection.
This item shall remain open until pre-op tests TP/1/B/1600/01A, TP/1/A/2600/15 and TP/1/B/1000/01B are complete.
12. Accident Assessment This area was reviewed to insure the adequacy of methods, systems and a.
equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological condition.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan, implementing procedures and CMP were reviewed and the facility was inspected to verify that:
(1) Onsite capability and resources to provide initial values and continuing assessment of releases or po?ential releases are available.
(2) Methods and techniques to be used for determining source term releases or potential releases of radioactive materials are established.
(3) A method of determining release rate and projected doses if instrumentation used for assessment is off scale or inoperable is provided.
(4) Methods, equipment, and personnel are available to make rapid assessments of offsite radiological hazards, including field monitoring of radioiodine levels, within the 10 mile EPZ are available.
- -. -, -
. -...... ~. - - - - -. ~, - - - - - -.. ~
- ~. - - - - ~ - -, -.,.. - - -... -.. * -. - +. -. - - - ~ +.,
- - ~ ~ ~
.
--10-
.
- c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above area:
(1) HTS Emergency Plan, Sections 6.2, 7.3 and Appendix 10.2.
,
(2) Duke Power CMP, Section 6.2 and 7.3.
(3) Implementing Procedures EP/0/A/5000/29, EP/0/A/5000/31, EP/0/A/5000/32, EP/0/A/5000/33, EP/0/A/5000/34, HP/0/A/1009/04.
(4)
(5) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.B.
(6) NUREG 0654,Section II.I.
,
d.
Except for the following, the inspector had no further concerns or specific comments in the above area.
(1) The inspectcr ac,ted that decisional aids for use-by the Emergency
- Director in initial assessments of offsite consequences of a release of radioactive material contained in procedure EP/0/A/
5000/29 were inadequate to deal with a spectrum of accidents.
Licensee representatives agreed that the procedure was not completely satisfactory. A computer program is being developed
for use onsite which will have the capability of projecting offsite ' consequences for a range of potential accidents. This program.can be run by the on-shift Health Physics technician using the ND6600 equipment so that this capability will be continuously available to the-Emergency Director.
In addition, the licensee has agreed to look into more sophisticated computer programs to be used in longer term assessments. This item will remain open until the above ~ actions have been completed.
(50-369/78-24-13)
(2) In addition to the decisional aids described above, the inspector noted that no procedure was available to estimate potential i
source term - information during large scale accidents if the annulus monitor, currently used in EP/0/A/5000/29 calculation, was inoperable. A licensee representative stated that redundant,
~
high range, containment monitoring is planned to be installed in accordance with NUREG 0578 but that until that instrumentation is installed there is not an alternate method to determine containment activity.
A procedure to utilize portable instrumentation or area monitoring will be developed for use in assessing containment activity until such time as the containment monitors are installed.
(50-369/80-26-07)
.
.
g-
,
e--
/
.
e,aM4+ q
,
et - er -i tsh g, h
4--
--M
_.ee'*
g 4se w et*t 4#ppW
"":'*T*'***O'.0%
N--49*-e.
a m a.*
p'p-=q qq M 4e-ge._4 eW 4 e'6* W
'
.,...
-
....
.--
.
.
.. -
- - -
.. -. - -
.
..
.
.
- -
.
-11-13. Protective Response This area was reviewed.to in?ure that protective. actions during an a.
. emergency are developed and are available for use.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were reviewed to verify that:
-(1) Means have been established to warn and advise individuals in areas controlled by the licensee.
'(2) Evacuation routes and transportation for onsite personnel to offsite assembly areas have been provided.
(3) Provisions have been made for radiological monitoring and decontamina-tion of evacuated personnel.
(4) A procedure has besa established to account for all personnel onsite at the time of the emergency and continuously thereafter.
(5) Provisions have been made for protective clothing, respiratory protection and radioprotective drugs for onsite emergency.
werkers.
'
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above area:
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Sections 6.4, 7.4 and Appendix 10.4.
(2) Duke Power CMP, Section 6.4 (3)
(4)
Implementing Procedure F.P/0/B/1009/05
.
(5) Station Directive 3.8.1 j
(6) NUREG 0654,Section II.J.
.
.
d.
The inspector discussed the above area with licensee representatives and had.no questions ~ concerning the adequacy of the procedures. The
site evacuation and accountability will be tested in conjunction with l
the annual exercise which is discussed in paragraph 16.d.(2) below.
'
14. Radiological Exposure Control s.
.This area. was reviewed to -insure that means. for controlling the
,
'
-
radiological exposures of emergency workers is established.
b.
-The MNS Emergancy Plan, emergency implementing procedures ar.1 CMP were
'
reviewed to verify that:
!
-
,a ~... :..
.n..n-
_
-.- a -- :-
-
..--
.- -
'
,
.
.
. ~. ~ ~ -
.r.
,
p
.,
- _
_.
.
.
....
..
.
.
-12-(1) The lic-nsee has ~ established exposure guidelines for various emt.rgency situations.
,
(2) The individuals who may authorize emergency personnel to exceed i
routine exposure limits have been identified.
(3) Provisions have been made for decontamination of emergency personnel, equipment, supplies and instruments.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate che above area:
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 6.3 i
(2) Duke Power CMP, Section 6.5 (3) Implementing Procedure HP/0/B/1009/05
. (4)
(5) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E.
'(6) NUREG 0654,Section II.K.
d.
The inspector discussed the above area with licensee representatives and toured the decontamination facility. There were no further questions or concerns in this area.
15. Medical Support.
This area was reviewed to insure that arrangements have been made for a.
'
medical treatment-of personnel onsite and for transportation and
~
treatment at offsite facilities for contaminated injured personnel.
b.
The MNS Emergency. Plan and implementing procedures were reviewed, medical treatment facilities were inspected, and dicusssions with the Station Nurse were conducted to verify:
(1) Arrangements have been made for onsite treatment of contaminated
"
individuals.
(2) Provisions have been made to transport -injured personnel to
. offsite treatment facilities.
!
(3). Supplies, equipment and procedures are available to decontaminate injured personnel.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above area:
m e
'
.. _.
- - - - -
--~.--w
....4.-.---...m.-.-..------
~~~e-
- -+
"-
.
,,
,
<
m......,
,
-13-l (1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 7.5 and Appendix 10.1 (2) Implementing Procedure EP/0/A/5000/30 (3)
(4) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E (5) NUREG 0654,Section II.L.
d.
Except for the following, the inspector had no further concerns or specific comments in the above area.
During discussions with licensee representatives and a tour of the medical facilities, the inspector noted that the medical / decontamina-tion facility located in the auxiliary building had not been stocked with supplies and equipment.
Licensee representatives stated that construction personnel were still transiting this area and that supplies and equipment would be stocked when the area was sealed off from outside personnel. The Station Nurse will provide a list of supplies which should be maintained at this location for treatment of contaminated injuries. The incomplete facility was identified during a previous inspection (50-369/78-24-10) and this item will remain open until the facility is completed and stocked. The transportation and treatment at offsite facilities of contaminated injured personnel is arranged and agreements have been obtained from offsite agencies as noted in paragraph 6. above.
16. Exercises and Drills a.
This area was reviewed to insure that periodic exerc:ses are conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capability, that the results of exercises form the basis for corrective action for identified deficiencies and that periodic drills are conducted to develop and maintain key skills.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan and the Duke Power CMP were reviewed and dis-cussions were held with licensee representatives to verify that:
(1) An emergency exercise that tests the integrated capability and a major portion of the emergency preparedness plans and organizations is conducted annually.
(2) Drills which develop, test and maintain skills in particular operations are held periodically.
(3) A scenario is developed for each exercise and drill which contains basic information relative to the conduct of the drill or exercise and provides for qualified observers.
.
- e.-
and
.
4mh4-emM-'Wt444
= 6 & We
"M
-
M '
%*
F*
NN-e" E
"'em
- D6*###
4-*#*-""*O
"'
O 8'
w
eme" W*
.
.
.
,
-14-J
.
Y (4) Critiques are conducted _as soon as practical after each drill or exercise and that. management controls are established to insure corrective actions on critique items are implemented.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to _ evaluate the~above area:
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 7.6 (2) Duke Power CMP, Section 3.1.2 (3)
(4)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.F.
(5) Implementing Procedure PT/0/A/4600/06 (6) NUREG 0654,Section II.N.
d.
Except for the following, the inspector had no further concerns or s,ecific comments in the above area.
i (1) Emergency drills and exercise were discussed with licensee personnel
and the inspector noted that procedure PT/0/A/4600/06 does not reflect the requirements of the MNS Emergency Plan, Section 7.6.
- Licensee personnel stated the procedure had been written prior to recent changes to the emergency plan and that the procedure would be revised to conform to the current emergency plan.
(50-369/
'
80-26-8).
(2) The inspector attended a planning meeting at Duke Power Co.
General Offices in Charlotte, NC on 9/16/80. The purpose of the meeting was_to discuss a preliminary scenario being developed for
the McGuire emergency exercise to be conducted within the next 2-3 months.
The inspector contributed comments on the draft scenario and stated that the developing scenario appeared to be appropriate in conception and format.
Changes and additions to-the scenario as a result of this and other meetings of the planning committee will be forwarded to the NRC Region II office for review prior to the. exercise date. The area of exercises and drills will remain open until the' conduct of the planned emergency
exercise. (50-369/80-26-9)
17. Radiological Emergency Response Training This area was reviewed to insure that emergency response training is a.
provided to those who may be called upon to assist in an emergency.
~
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan, Duke Power CMP and implementing procedures were reviewed - and discussions with licensee personnel and record
,
reviews were conducted to verify that:
_
t.-
..
.
v-rY'%4 M'F 66 6*Okph6_
' -
--
M het @ W 9M $p M49=M 9h85*$
- N@# $ d _, M $ M4M8WW'
N---
"E^"
N O
_,
,
-
.
.,.
,
_
_
m. I:
'
g J
-15-
.,
(1) EmerSency response training is provided to those offsite emergency organizations who may be called upon to provide assistance in an emergency.
(2) The training program for the onsite emergency organization includes prretical drills on assigned functions when appropriate.
(3) Training ~ for individuals assigned specific duties-in the emergency organization are provided initial qualifying training and periodic retraining in their assigned function.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above
,
area:
(1) hWS Emergency Plan Section 8.1 (2) Duke Power CMP, Section 8.1.1 (3)
-
(4)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.F (5) NUREG 0654,Section II.0
,
d.
Except for the following, the inspector had no further concerns or specific comments in the above area.
(1) During the review of this area, the inspector noted that training outlines and'lessou plans have not been developed for some of the specialized training areas and that all of the required training i
has not been completed Licensee personnel stated that, although the initial training has been conducted in most of these areas, fomal training documents have not yet been developed.
The inspector stated that this area would remain open until required emergency response training is complete and training documents have been developed. (50-369/80-26-10).
(2) In reviewing procedure EP/0/A/5000/37, the inspector noted that potential emergencies include release of chlorine gas from the plant chlorination system.
Procedure CP/0/B/8300/03 describes actions to be takcu for leakage of chlorine gas and damage to f
chlorine gas cylinders. The actions include use of an Emergency Repair Kit for damaged chlorine cylinders.
It was discovered through discussions with chemistry personnel that the individuals responsible for emergency response to a chlorine emergency had-not been trained in the use of the repair kit. Licensee repre-
,
sentatives ~ agreed that such training is appropriate and stated that a training' program would be instituted in the near future.
(50-369/80-26-11).
.
l
.. _
_. -.
.
-_
--
-
-
-. -
- - - - - - ~
.
.
.
_ -.
.
.-
,
.
,
.
16-
-
.
(3) During discussions with the Plant Training Coordinator, the inspector noted that records for all emergency response training are being maintained at a central location and that controls are being instituted to insure that initial and required retraining will be conducted in accordance with station requirements. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
-
18. Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans This area was reviewed to insure that emergency plans and implementing a.
procedures are developed, reviewed and distributed as required.
b.
The MNS Emergency Plan, Duke Power CMP and implementing procedures were reviewed and discussions were conducted with licensee representa-tives to verify that:
(1) Each organization updates its emergency plan as needed and reviews and certifies the plan to be current on an annual basis.
(2) An individual has been designated as the Emergency Plan Coordinator and has the responsibility for development and coordination of the emergency plan and procedures, including coordination with other response organizations.
+
(3) Independent' audits of the emergency preparedness program are conducted every two years and that management controls ' are imp'.emented to evaluate and make corrections based on audit fiadings.
c.
The following acceptance criteria were used to evaluate the above c
area:
(1) MNS Emergency Plan, Section 8.2 (2) Duke Power CMP, Section 8.2 (3) Station Directive 3.8.2 (4)
(5) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.G (6) NUREG 0654,Section II.P.
d.
The inspector discussed the above area with licensee representatives -
'
including the development and distribution of 'the emergency plan and procedures. An Emergency Planning coordinator has been designated and
-
the distribution of the plan. and procedures is accomplished through
-
the Station Document Roor. Procedures are still in the developmental stage and the MNS Emergency Plan and Duke Power Co. Crisis Management Plan are still being reviewed by the NRC Emergency Preparedness Licensing
, i Branch.
/~
~.
-ga p-w y-1
%e- = %et*e'mh e-p
_"****SE'8"**
wu' *T M -m'
W Mr
-**9P*"W"'J*
-"*"'#
M9" s, 4aA
" ' " ' "
*
""