IR 05000409/1982001
| ML20041E138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Axelson W, Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E134 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 50-409-82-01, 50-409-82-1, NUDOCS 8203100179 | |
| Download: ML20041E138 (5) | |
Text
...
.
_
._
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
REGION III
Report No. 50-409/82-01 Docket No. 50-409 License No. DPR-45 Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue - South Lacrosse, WI 54601 Facility Name:
Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor Inspection At: Genoa, WI Inspection Conducted: January 27-28, 1982 (onsite)
February 9, 1982 (in-office)
Inspector:
L. G. McGregor Approved By:
xelson, Chief M
V
'
'
Euergency Preparedness Section T, d Yn.. -
2!1 E7 C. J. Paperiello, Chief Emergency Preparedness and l
Frogram Support Branch Inspection on( anuary 27-28 and February 9, 19 2(Report No. 50-409/82-01)
'
Areas Inspected:
Special, announced inspection and testing of the Prompt Public Notification / Warning System.
Inspection involved 13 inspector-hours on-site and in-office by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8203100179 820223 PDR ADOCK 05000
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
By February 1, 1982, the licensee must demonstrate that physical and administrative means exist for alerting and prov' ding prompt instructions l
.
'
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, l
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 siren (s) are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
The inspectors verified that the one siren for LACBWR had been installed.
In addition to the one siren, several tone alert radios were distributed to members of the public within the 3-5 mile area of the plant. These AM alert radios were distributed by the Sheriffs of Vernon County, Wisconsin and Houston County, Minnesota by Februsry 1, 1982.
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 (one siren plus several tone alert radios)
does provide an alert message to the population within the 5 mile EPZ.
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 Station (EBS) for the Lacrosse area. A Letter of Agreement has been executed with the Lacrosse EPS (WKTY-AM) to provide an instructional message to the public on "what you should do regarding this emergency."
The public within the five mile EPZ was provided a brochure to instruct them to the EBS system.
c.
Does the public information distribution program provide infor-mation regarding this system?
..
_ _
._
.
.
Yes, the brochure indicates that the public will be notified and that radio and television will carry all necessary infor-
.
mation.
Local officials will also notify residents within the EPZ via public address, sirens, tone alert radios, and word cf mouth, d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site?
Yes, however, for LACPWR, the design objective is 100% of the population within 3 miles. The initial siren test yielded 10 db above ambient noise levels at 3 miles. This meets the design of NUREG-0654.
e.
What percent of the population between 3 and 5 miles will not hear the initial signal?
Approximately 20% of the population may not hear the initial 15 minute signal, however, this is only about 230 residents or approximately 80 or 90 houses, or 45 houses per county.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 5 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification?
Spec.a1 arrangements have been made with both county Sheriffs to ensure timely notification of the public between 3 and 5 miles. This includes the use of telephone contact and squad cars equipped with sirens or speakers. Most off-duty county deputies have equipped squad cars.
In addition, radio alert receivers are being supplied to key county residents to assist in public notification, g.
What special arrangements for prompt notifications have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
This is not applicable for the Lacrosse BWR. No special facili-ties are located within the 5 mile EPZ that will not hear the alert signal.
h.
llave the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
Yes, initial test on January 27, 1982, and retest on January 29, 1982.
1.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g.,
licensee, local government, or State)?
The licensee is responsible.
.
J.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
A The County officials for both Wisconsin and Minnesota, k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
No formal documented program has been established. This is an Open Item (50-409/82-01-01).
1.
Name of licensee contact: John Parkyn 3.
Operational Test of Siren System:
a.
What type of test?
Sound measurements out to three miles, b.
Was State and County involved:
County only.
c.
Was l'EMA present:
No.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
L. G. McGreger, NRC e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
John Parkyn, Paul Shafer and Paul Sampson.
f.
Review records of the test (Comment):
Not applicable because initial test was just conducted on January 27, 1982.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
Installation: None, siren and tone alert radios installed by February 1, 1982.
Test Result:
Initial test result indicated a decoder failure on January 27, 1982. This was repaired by the licensee and a successful retest of the decoder was conducted on January 29, 1982.
Records: Not applicable Others: Not applicable
...
.-.
..
- -. -
~. -
.
,
.
.
...
~.
_.
. -.
.
i
'5.
Persons Contacted e
- J. Parkyn, Assistant Plant Superintendent and Security Manager
- P.
Shafer, Radiation Protection Engineer
,
.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
6.
Exit Interview
>
,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 5) at the conclusion of the inspection. Tne scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
.
<
!
.t
!
- -
i -
J
5
-..,_,_
_
-
..
..
.
., _. _. _ _... _.., _ _ _ _ -,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _.. _ _ _