IR 05000424/1988038
| ML20206M460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1988 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Decker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M452 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-IIT05-002-073D-90, CON-IIT5-2-73D-90 50-424-88-38, 50-425-88-42, NUDOCS 8811300574 | |
| Download: ML20206M460 (30) | |
Text
_.
.
.
.
UNITED STATES
y'
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
REGION 11 o
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
%,,,, j*
e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
~
NOV 181988-Report Hos.: 50-424/88-38 and 50-425/88-42
+
Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: NPF-61 and CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2
,
Inspection Conducted: August 15-19, 1988 Inspector: d M [d O
//!/k87 cw K
L. Cunningham Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
S. E. Merwin G. A. Stoetzel
/. FgWilliams, Jr.
//!M Approved by: j [ M d4 T. R. Decker, Section Chief Da'te Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards l
SUMMARY
'
Scope: This special, announced inspection was an emergency preparedness q
implementation appraisal (EPIA) of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)
Unit 2.
The purpose of the appraisal was a comprehensive review of the status
.
of the site and corporate emergency preparedness programs and identification of progranratic differences and/or changes specific to Unit 2.
An EPIA of VEGP Unit I was performed in March 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-424/86-12) to
.
satisfy the preoperational requirements for that unit.
Unit 2 was also included in that appraisal, and assigned Inspection Report No. 50-425/86-18, based upon the generic relationship of the Emergency Plan, respective procedures, and emergency response facilities (ERFs) provided for the two unit
'
plant.
Inspection Report Hos. 50-424/86-12 and 50-425/86-18 should be
!
!
consulted as a reference for details applicable to Unit 2.
To facilitate crossreference, VEGP Unit 2 appraisal areas and respective titles defined in the subject report are identical to those areas treated in the Unit 1 1986 Inspection Report.
Accordingly, the VEGP Unit 2 appraisal included review and assessment of the following basic areas: emergency (preparedness program administration anti Emergency Response Organization ERO); training / retraining; ERF's, and respective equipment; emergency implementing and supplementary procedures and directives; coordination with offsite groups and agencies; and walkthroughs of selected ERO personnel to evaluate their cognizance of emergency detection / classification, notification, and protective action decision making.
8811300374 G81118 PDR ADOCM 05000424
_ _
.
.
.
- The status of emergency preparedness open items, incluoing previous outstanding enforcement matters were reviewed (Paragraph 9).
Results: 1he Unit 2 EPIA disclosed no violations or deviations. The appraisal indicated, however, that several areas specific to Unit 2 should be evaluated and considered for improvement.
Additionally, several program areas involving Unit 2 were determined to be incomplete and could not be fully evaluated.
These items are listed in Enclosures 2 and 3, respectively, to the letter, and are fully discussed in the subject report.
Review and evaluation of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure 91602-C-Rev. 5 ("Emergency Drills and Exercises") disclosed a violation involving the licensee's failure to implement Section 4.18 of that procedure (Paragraph 7.1).
The referenced procedure required the submission of a written report of emergency drills and exercises to the Plant General Manager defining specific critique findings and required corrective actions.
This finding was fully discussed with cognizant licensee representatives prior to and during the appraisal exit interview (Paragraph 10).
The identified violation was applicable solely to VEGP Unit 1, since it is based upon Appendix A Technical Specifications to the Unit's Operating License NPF-68.
Unit 1 Inspection Report No. 50-424/88-38 was provided to accommodate tracking of the subject violation and documentation of the status of previously identified emergency preparedness open items assigned to that uni __ __ - _ _ _ __ - _.
. _. _ _ _
__
_ ___. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
'O
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION DETAILS 1.0 ADMINISTRATION 1.1 Responsibility Assigned 1.2 Authority
,
1.3 Coordination 1.4 Selection and Qualification
'
2.0 EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION 2.1 Onsite Organization 2.2 Offsite Augmentation 3.0 TRAINING / RETRAINING l
3.1 Program Established 3.2 Program implemented 4.0 EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 4.1 Emergency Facilities 4.1.1 Assessment Facilities 4.1.2 Protective Facilities 4.1.3 Expanded Support Facilities 4.1.4 Emergency News Center 4.2 Emergency Equipment 4.2.1 Assessment Equipment 4.2.2 Protective Equipment 4.2.3 Emergency Comunications 4.2.4 Damage control / Corrective Actions and Maintenance Equipment and Supplies 4.2.5 Reserve Emergency Supplies and Equipment 4.2.6 Transportation
.
O-
,
.
5.0 EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES
'
5.1 General Content and Format 5.2 Emergency, Alarm, and Abnormal Occurrence Procedures
,
5.3 Implementing Instructions 5.4 Implementing Procedures 5.4.1 Notification 5.4.2 Assessment Actions 5.4.3 Protective Actions 5.4.4 Security During Emergencies
'
5.4.5 Repair / Corrective Actions 5.4.6 Recovery
,
5.4.7 Public Information 5.5 Supplementary Procedures 5.5.1 Inventory, Operational Check and Calibration of Emergency Equipment Facilities and Supplies 5.5.2 Orills and Exercises 5.5.3 Review, Revision, and Distribution of Emergency Plan and Procedures 5.5.4 Audits 6.0 COORDINATION WITH OFF-SITE GROUPS l
l 6.1 Off-site Agencies 6.2 General Public 6.3 News Media 7.0 DRILLS, EXERCISES, AND WALK-THROUGh5 71 Program Implementation 8.0 PlRSONS CONTACTED 9.0 LICENSEE ACTIONS AND PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED FINDINGS 10.
EXIT INTERVIEW 11.
ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS
.
s
-
b
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IMPLEMENTATION APPRAISAL FOR
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 2 1.0 ADMINISTRATION 1.1-1.4 Responsibility Assigned, Authority, Coordination. Selection and Qualification This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and
!
(16); Paragraph IV.A of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; gui.iance promulgated in Section !!.A and P of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Inspection disclosed that three employees on the staff of the Vogtle Electric i
Generating Plant (VEGP) were engaged on a full-time basis in the development and implementation of the site emergency preparedness program and respective procedures. This group consisted of the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor, an Emergency Preparedness Specialist, and an administrative clerk. The Emergency Preparedness Supervisor reports to the Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
The latter principal reports direc ly to the VEGP General Manager.
The Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager, is assigned the general responsibility for site emergency preparedness and interaction with State and local offsite support groups.
The Emergency i
?
Preparedness Supervisor and his staff implement the VEGP Emergency Plan.
These responsibilities are described in the VEGP Administrative Procedures und
!
'
The Senior Vice President for Nuclear Operations is assigned overall responsibility and authority for all nuclear activities including emergency preparedness programs for the Georgia Power Company.
The Corporate Manager, Nuclear Training and Emergency Preparedness has responsibility for corporate
,
emergency preparedness programs, and reports to the Senior Vice President l
Nuclear Operations through the Manager of General Support.
The Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Organization, which is composed of the Nuclear Emergency
.
Preparedness Manager and three full-time prof 1ssionals, reports to the Nuclear l
Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
This organization coordinates the development and maintenance of the corporate emergency preparedness program.
,
The Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Manager is the counterpart of the Emergency i
Preparedness Supervisor at VEGP.
These responsibilities are described in the
-
Corporate Emergency Plan, the VEGP Emergency Plan and the Corporate Emergency PlanImplementingInstructions(EP!!s).
Personnel assigned to the positions cited above fully met the required
,
qualifications established in the (FSAR) and/or formal job descriptions, j
Professional development and formal training programs were made avi'lable to
"
all professional emergency preparedness personnel to assure that their emergency planning expertise and skills are maintained as required.
!
i l
- - - -..
. - - -...
.
._--
.- -
-,-
-
,
t
,
.
'
'
,
'
,
The opportunity for all site personnel to provide input to the VEGP Emergency Plan and EPIPs is formalized and described in EPIPs 91602-C and 91701-C, and Administrative Procedures 00050-C and 99951-C which direct all requests for revisions to the plan and respective procedures to the Emergency Preparedness l
Supervisor.
Administrative Procedure 00001 directs all managers to assign personnel to the Emergency Response Organization as requested by the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor.
i Administrative Procedures 00001 and 00002 assign emergency preparedness responsibilities to the various VEGP managers and superintendents, and the Plant Review Board.
These and other VEGP procedures clearly delineate the
-
responsibilities for emergency preparedness onsite.
The referenced procedures also provide for the direct coordination of budget input and other management responsibilities for Managers and Superintendents including the Plant Training and Emergency Prepeedness Manager.
The Division of /<ir'r...tration of the Georgia Power Company (GPC) Emergency
,
Preparedness Proo ac as stipulated in the VESP Emergency Plan and respective i
EPIPs, and the oorporate Emergency Plan and EPl!s, require thitt the corporate
!
organization manage the corporate emergency response, and assures proper
'
coordination between the emergency programs of the corporation and the nuclear i
plant sites, as well as interaction with Federal, State, and local governments, and private contractors.
!
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
.
be adequate, o
2.0 EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION
!
2.1-2.2 Onsite Organization and Offsite Augmentation t
,
l This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and
.
(2); Paragraph IV. A of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and guidance promulgated in i
Sections II. A and B of NUREG-0654, Rev.1.
t i
!
The VEGP Emergency Response Organization was described in Section B of the VEGP
,
,
i Emergency Plan and in EPIP Q1101-C.
The descriptions provide the
'
organizational structure ard a li: ting of assigned personnel, by job +.itle, for
!
the key emergency positions assigned during response to an emergency event i
+
initiated with the Notification of an Unusual Event, and escalated through the
!
General Emergency classification.
Appropriate tables summarized the key
[
emergency organization positions, with the job title of the primary designees,
!
and respective alternates who will serve as backups for each emergency position l
assigned.
Discussions with VEGP emergency personnel, and a review of the VEGP t
Emergency Plans, EPIPs and associated plant procedures indicated that the
,
licensee appeared to have considered and included all required onsite emergency
'
functions.
The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> onshif t coverage exceeded the criteria for minimum staffing
!
promulgated in Table B-1 of NUREC-0654, and provided for the Onshift Operations
!
Supervisor (0505) to assume the position of Emergency Director until relieved
!
t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _. _ _,.._
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _
.m
..
.
_. - - -
-
._- _
- _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.
.
.
.
!
/
'
by one of the following, namely:
Manager of Operations. Operations Superintendent, Plant Minoger, Plant Support Manager, VEGP General Manager or the Corporate Senior Vice President of Nuclear Operations.
If the OSOS is
incapacitated, the Shift Supervisor assumes the position of Emergency Director until relieved.
The VEGP Emergency Plan and EPIPs provided a primary designed and at least two alternates for all key positions in the VEGP Emergency
.
Response Organization and the lines of succession for these positions.
J Corporate headquarters personnel augmenced the VEGP emergency organization witn
a Corporate Emergency Center (CEC) based in Atlanta, Georgia. The CEC provided
'
the following:
public information functions; emergency support coordination of offsite agencies and contractors; comunications; operational and radiological accident assessment; manpower and logistics support; and a backup dose assesment cepability.
The corporate emergency organization, position assignments, and interaction with VEGP were described in Section B of the Corporate Emergency Plan, Appendix 7 of the VEGP Emergency Plan, and Corporate Emergency Plan procedure EPl!-01.
The Corporate Emergency Center was managed
,
by the Director of Corporate Response.
'
,
)
The position of Director of Corporate Response were nonnally assigned to the
>
,
j Senior Vice President for Nuclear Operations.
His alternates were the i
'
Ccrporate Manager Nuclear Safety and Licensing, Manager of Nuclear Performance
i and Radiological Safety, or the Plant Performance Manager. Depending upon the
[
progression of an accident at the plant, the Senior Vice President for Nuclear
,
Operations and the Corporate Manager of Radiological Safety may travel to the
'
!
plant site as primary designees for the positions cf Emergency Director and
!
Company Spokesperson, respectively.
Additionally, the Director of Corporate Comunit.ation and the Corporate News Service Manager also may travel to the plant site as primary designees for the emergency positions of Public
'
Information Manager in the plant E0F and Eme gency News Center Director, respectively.
The functions and responsibilities of the corporate public information staff were described in the VEGP Emergency Comunications
[
.
(Appendix 8 of the VEGP Emergency Plan) and in the EPils.
i
!
Review of assignrents to the Corporate Emergency Organization disclosed that the Corporate Manager of Radiologcal Safety was cited as the primary designee
,
'
i for the Company Spokesperson and the Radiological and Radioactive Waste
!
Manager.
The dual assignment was documented in the site Emergency Plan, and the Corporate Emergency Plan and procedures.
This finding was brought to the
attention of the Corporate Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Manager wno stated
,
that the Radiological Safety Supervisor was primary designee for the potition
,
of Radiological and Radioactive Waste Manager.
It was further stated that the
,
observed error in primary assignments would be corrected.
The error w6s i
traceable to recent changes in Corporate Personnel, i
l The assignment of persornel to the VEGP and Corprate Emergency Organizations
,
'
was based primarily on their normal job assignments which relate to job l
experience, education, and special skills.
Review of the VEGP and Corporate Emergency Plans and procedures indicated that personnel assigned to various
,
I functional areas and emergency positiuns had the appropriate expertise and job
experience to perform their designated emergency functions.
,
i
!
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
'
The VEGP emergency response organization was supported by local ambulance and
)
emergency medical services, and primary and alternate hospitals for treatment of contaminated and non-contaminated injured personnel.
Fire contro! support
'
was provided by the local fire departments.
l.ocal radio end trievis:on stations supported the warning and public notification program.
Additiorial offsite support was provided by Westinghouse and other vendors, sontractors, INP0, and Southern Company Services as stated in the agreement letters and
descriptions of assistance provided in the VEGP and Corporate Emercancy Plans.
,
i B6 sed on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to l
be adequate; however, the following item should be considered for prcgram
<
improvement;
'
Review Corporate Emergency Organization staffing to ensure that personnel
-
i assignmnts are correct, and that an adequate number of personnel are availat le to fill key primary and alternate positions (50-425/88-42-01)
i 3.0 TRAINING r
i 3.1 Program Established
,
)'
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 19; i
j 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and (16); Paragraph IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50-
'
'
guidance promulgated in Sections 11.0 and P of NUREG-0654, Rev.1; and criteria
!'
defined in ANS!/ANS 3.7.3.
'
i was presented in Section 0 i
The licensee training program for emcrgency planning (REP) and detailed in EPIP
!
of the Voatie Facility Radiological Eaergency Plan i
,
91601-C.
The program evaluation disc osed no significont changes since the (
review conducted during the Unit 1 (tergency preparedness implenentation
appraisal and subsequent folicwup insp 'ctions.
The training program remained
'
adequate in scope and content, and etntinued to ensure required initial,
^
r remedial, and annual training of Emergency Response Organization (ERO)
i
personnel.
Note, that the subject progr6m, as initially established, was based i
i on two operating Units; therefore, adequate training of ERO personnel j
responding to an emergency at Unit 2 was also provided.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
be adequate.
3.2 Program Implemented
,
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15)and l
(16); Paragraph IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
l Sections 11.0 end P te NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
}
The licensee't training program was fully implemented.
A review of records l
indicated that VEGD emergency response organiration personnel were adequately
[
.
trained in each required training category, and that each position in the t
{
emergency response organization was adequately staffed.
Personel who did not
!
successfully complete the required courses were excluded from the 115 c of
I t
t
-
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,
,
.
..
.
P personnel assigned to the emergency response organization and periodic update of same.
The training status of all emergency response 'ersonnel was tracked to ensure that each person received required training on an annual basis (plus or ninus one calendar quarter).
Course materials, including lesson plans and respective course examinations, were reviewed.
Course ar/ training content were consistent with the content as described in the licensee's records.
Examination results were compared with training records.
Personnel who failed an examination were required to retake the applicable training course and pass the course examination as a requirement i
for entry into the ERO and in the listing on the ERO roster as updated.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.0 EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 4.1 Emergency Facilities 4.1.1 Assessn.ent Facilities This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Regulatory Guide 1.97, and Section ll.H of NUREG-0654, Rev.1; and criteria defined in ANS1/ANS 3.7.2.
4.1.1.1 Control Room The updated REP and EPIPs were available.
Emergency equipment and decisional
,
!
aids specified in the REP were in place and operable.
When the temporary I
partition separating Units 1 and 2 Control Rooms is removed, the Control Roems l
will share a common area, common monitor readouts, and communications equi pment.
Based on the above findings, th.s portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.1.1.2 Technical Support Center (TSC)
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix F to 10 CFR 50; orders defined in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737; and guidance pecmolgated in Sections !!.H and I of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Inspection and discussions with cognizant licensee representatives disclosed that the TSC ventilation system will be manually switched to the emergency mode when the TSC is activated as required by facility activation procedures.
As a consequence, the emergency filtratien system pr esses all outside makeup air and 25% of the recirculated air through a standard HEPA train. The ventilation system vas tested in the emergency mode.
A TSC positive pressure of 0.25 inches of water was maintained during emergency recirculttion.
--_
_
- - -
-
. - -__ _ _ _ _ __ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
I i
.
Inspection of facility comunication systems and equipment disclosed the following:
dedicated individual voice links between the TSC and the Control
Room were in place and operational; designated commercial telephones were
)
provided for NRC use in addition to the operable Emergancy Notification System
(ENS) and Health Physics Network (HPN) extensions; dedicated tele
primary State and local government response agencies (ring-down) phone links to
'
were in place and operational; and a radio system for communication between the TSC and radiciogical field monitoring teams was in place and fully operational.
Review and evaluation of the TSC confirmed that all emergency equipment and decisional aids were consistent with the requirements specified in the REP and EPIPs.
No essential changes were noted for this facility with respect to the findings documer.ted in the previously cited VEGP Unit 1 Appraisal Report (50-424/86-12,50-425/86-18).
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.1.1.3 Operations Support Center (OSC)
This area was r1 viewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR S0.47(5)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in section II.H of NUREG-0654 Rev.1; and criteria defined in NUREG-0578.
The location of the OSC was consistent with the Emergency Plan and findings of the referenced Unit 1 appraisal.
Consistent with previous findings, this facility was not environmentally protected; however, the OSC was provided with an Zberline AMS-3 continuous air monitor equipped with alarms and radiciodine monitoring capability, in the event of required OSC relocation, the TSC was designated as the seccndary locus, with the l'F as an additional alternate.
Primary and backup voice comunication links were provided between the OSC.
TSC, and Control Room.
The OSC contained all required emergency equipment, decisional aids, and commnication equipment specified by the Emergency Plan and consistent with the findings documented in the Reference Unit 1 Appraisal Report.
The OSC layout plan and the VEGP 10 mile and 50 mile EPZ maps were posted in the OSC Manager's office.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.1.1.4 Emergency Operations Facility (E0F)
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirementi of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Section !!.H cf NUREG-0654, Rev. 1; and criteria defined in NUREG-0578.
The EOF contained all of the emergen.y equipment and decisional aids specified in the REP and respective EPIPs.
The E0F was equipped with dedicated voice comunications with the TSC, OSC, and Control Room.
Dedicated comercial telephones were provided for NRC use, including ENS and HPN extensions at the
_-
_ ___ _ __
'
j
.
.
,
i NRC assigned work location.
Adequate non-dedicated backup voice communication
,
links to the NRC, other Federal, State, and local agencies, and emergency support organizations were also provided.
Radios were provided for
comunication with field monitoring teams, and inter-emergency facilities in the event of power failure.
All findings were consistent with those reported in the Unit 1 EPIA report.
.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to i
'
be adequate.
4.1.1.5, 4.1.1.6 Post-Accident Sampling and Analysis This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
Paragraph IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section !!.I of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
The Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) utilized both a primary remote panel and a backup local panel for comprehensive sampling and analysis of liquid coolant samples and containment air samples.
At the time of the appraisal, installation and testing of the Unit 2 PASS was incomplete.
The expected completion time was dependent on the availability of essential equipment; however, the licensee planned to begin initial testing on or about September 20, 1988. Once completed, the system will be identical to the Unit 1
,
system, which was determined to be adequate during the Unit 1 appraisal and
!
respective followup inspections.
,
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was l
determined to be inccmplete as defined below.
j Completion of installatien and testing of Unit 2 Post Accident Sampling System
{
(50-425/88-42-02).
,
t 4.1.1.7, 4.1.1.8 Post-Accident Liquid Effluent and Gas and Particulate i
Effluent Sampling and Analysis
[
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
,
Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in l
Section 11.1 of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
j b
Instruments and systems for post-accident liquid effluent sampling, gas and particulate effluent sanp'ing were not yet in place in Unit 2.
The licensee estimated that this equipment would be in place and operational by mid-January,
1989.
The equipment will be identical to that used in Unit 1, which was found to be idequate during the Unit 1 EPIA and followup inspections.
'
,
t Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was found i
to be incomplete as defined below.
!
!
Completion of installatien and operation of instruments, systems and equipment required to conduct sampling and snalysis of liquid, gas, and particulate
>
effluents (50-425/88-42-03).
i
...
- - - - -. -__ _. -
.
. -. -
_ - -. _
-
____ _-_
-__
.
.
4.1.2 Protective Facilities 4.1.2.1 Assembly / Reassembly Areas Thisareawasreviewedpursuanttotherequirementsof10CFR50.47(b)(10);and guidance promulgated in Section II.J of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
The inspector reviewed Section J of the Emergency Plan, EPIP 91401-C "Assembly and Accountability", EPIP 97403-C "Site Evacuation" Section V11 of the General
.
!
Employee Badge Training Handbook, and the respective Section of the referenced VEGP Unit 1 Appraisal Report.
Areas for assembly and relocation of plant personnel were identical to those identified and discussed in the Unit 1 Appraisal Raport.
Procedures for site assembly evacuation and relocation were essentially unchanged as well. The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant recreation
'
area served as the primary relocation center.
The Georgia Fower Wilson Plant
site was assigned for use as the backup relocation center as determined by the l
Emergency Director who could also elect to send nonessential personnel home, if conditions warranted.
<
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's prem am appeared to be adequate.
>
4.1.2.2 Medical Treatment Facilities t
i This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Sections II.K and L of NUREG-0654, Rev.1; and criteria defined in ANSI /ANS 3.7.1.
The inspector reviewed Section L of the Emergency Plan, and EPIP 91307-C
"Contaminated Injury."
The ensite first-aid station was located near the r
health physics station in the control building.
The facility was fully l
l l
prepared for use.
Required supplies and equipment were in place within the first-aid room and adjacent decontamination room.
An inventoried and sealed
<
ambulance kit was available in the decontamination room.
Hospital kits were available at the Burke County and the Humana Hospitals. The hospital kits were t
inventoried and properly sealed.
!
An ambulance is stationed onsite, and is used primarily by construction
,
'
contractors.
Following completion of the Unit 2 construction phase, the i
licensee plans to assume management and use of the on site ambulance during operation of Units 1 and 2.
If the ambulante is not in service, or several
persons are injured occur during an emergency, transportation to designated r
local hospitals would be provided by off site support groups consistent with
!
approved agreements.
!
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
!
l
be adequate and consistent with findings of Unit 1 EPIA and respective followup t
inspections.
!
!
,
i
)
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
4.1.2.3 Decontamination Facilities This aree was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8),(10),
and (11); Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated
'
in Sections !!.J and K of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
l The inspector reviewed Section K.3 of the Emergency Plan, EPIP 91306-C,
"Contamination Monitoring and Decontamination", and respective sections of the Unit i Appraisal Report. The decontamination facility was located in the first
.
aid facility adjacent to the first aid rcom, and was comon to both Units 1 and 2.
Decontamination kits were available at that location, the OSC, EOF, and the two relocation centers, namely, the VEGP recreation area, and Plant Wilson.
The decontamination facility, supplies, equipment, and procedures were
,
consistent with those available during the Unit 1 Appraisal.
Based on the above findings and consistent with the findings of Unit 1 EPI A,
-
this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
[
'
4.1.3 Expanded Support Facilities This area was reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(3) and (8); Paragraph IV.E
,
of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections II.C and H of
'
NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Available work facilities and resources for expanded support personnel such as corporate, contractor, and non-licensee augmentation personnel were identical to those determined to be adequate during the Unit 1 EPIA.
No additions or modifications to the subject facilities and resources were implemented, p
Based n the above findings, and consistent with the Unit 1 EPIA, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.1.4 Emergency News Center j
l The Emergency News Center (ENC) was determined to be fully adequate j
during Unit 1 EP!A and respective followup inspections.
No
[
signficant changes were identified.
(
4.2 Emergency Equipment 4.2.1 Assessment Equipment 4.2.1.1 Emergency Kits and Emergency Survey Instrumentation This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and (9); Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix i to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections !!.H and I of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Section H.6 of the Emergency Plan, EPIP 91702-C, Rev. 6 (Energency Equipment and Supplies), and respective Sections of the Unit 1 EPIA report and respective followup inspections were reviewed.
Emergency kits were located in the TSC,.- _ _ -_______ ___
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-.
_ _ _ _.
. -.
_ _ _ _. _ __ _ ____ __
.
10
>
t OSC, E0F, at the health physics control point, ambulance, Burke County and Humana hospitals, and relocation centers, inspection confirmed that kits were
inventoried quarterly.
Inventory checks were performed on the health physics
,'
decontamination kit, EOF kit, and a field monitoring kit.
All findings l.
disclosed were consistent with those defined in the Unit 1 EPIA report and respective follow-up inspections.
No essential changes were mada nor required
'
for VEGP Unit 2.
r Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
!
l be adequate.
'
)
4.2.1.2 Area and Process Radiation Monitors
j This. area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CTR 50.47(b)(9);
Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Section 11.H and I of NUREG-0654; and criteria defined in NUREG-0737.
Special emphasis was placed on reviewing the status of Unit 2 radiation monitors required to provide information critical to the emergency l
classification process and protective action recommendations.
The status of
the following monitoring systems was reviewed, namely:
Control Room; containment low-range monitor; fuel handling building; sampling room; seal
<
table instrumentation; containment access hatch; containment high-range; TSC
'
display room; TSC work area; radiochemistry laboratory; steamline monitors; and decontamination station monitors.
Descriptions of the monitors could be found in Section 11.5 (Process and
!
Effluent Radiological Monitoring and Sampling Systems) and Section 12.3.4 (Area
}
Radiction Monitoring System) of the FSAR. Monitors in Unit 2 will be identical t
in type and respective placement to those in Unit 1, as discussed ti the Unit 1
EPIA Report.
Readouts will be available locally and in the Unit 2 Control
'
Room.
Unit 2 monitors were currently being installed and calibrated.
L
Discussions with licensee staff indicated that the monitors will be operational
by mid-January 1989.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was found l
J to be incomplete, as defined belcw.
-
l Completion of installation, calibration and testing of Unit 2 area and
-
process radiation monitors (50-425/88-42-04).
4.2.1.3 Non-Radiation Process Monitors
!
I This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9)
l Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in
[
j
' Sections II.H and I of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1; and criteria defined in NUREG-0737.
)
The inspector reviewed the availability and status of non-radiation process l
monitors which are used in emergency detection, classification, and r rotective
!
action recomendations.
Examples of these instruments include:
reactor
coolant system (RCS) temperatures, pressures,and flow; steam genera +.nr levels.
[
l l
!
l
!
I
--.
-
-
-
. - -. - - -
-
- -. -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _.
.__ _
.
.
.
,
.
temperatures, and pressures; and tank levels.
Table 7.5.2-1 of the FSAR, listed all such "Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation" of. Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Inspection disclosed that Unit 2 respective non-radiation process monitors applicable to accident assessment were identical to those provided in Unit 1.
as discussed in the Unit 1 EPIA Report.
Based on the sbove findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.2.14 Meteorological Instrumentation The site Meteorologicai Program was fully defined and treated in the Unit 1 EPIA Report and respective followup inspection reports. No further discussion of this area is required.
4.2.2 Protective Equipment 4.2.2.1 Respiratory Protection This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Sections II.H and J of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, and guidance in NUREG-0041.
Table.'-1 of the REP and Health Physics Procedure 47013-C describe the inspection, maintenance, and storage of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs).
Inspection and discussions with cognizant licensee representatives disclosed
that respiratory protecticn needs (full-fsced respirators and SCBAs) for emergencies involving Unit 2 would be obtained from common supplies established for Units 1 and 2.
The subject supplies were located in the Control Room, TSC,
OSC, HP control point, and EOF, This finding was consistent with those
discussed in Unit 1 EPIA Report and respective followup inspection reports.
,
!
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
4.2.2.2 Protective Clothing This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and
!
(11); Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.H. J, and K of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Discussions with licensee staff indicated that protective clothing needs during emergencies involving Unit 2 would be obtained from conmon supplies located in i
j the Control Room, TSC, OSC, HP control point, E0F, and relocation centers. The i
supply inventory was based upon the projected requirements for two operating units, Protective clothing supplies and the adequacy thereof is fully discussed in the Unit 1 EPIA Repor. _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
__ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,
y Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
f 4.2.3 Emergency Communications t
4.2.3.1 Emergency Comunications Equipment
~
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6);
Paragraphs IV.E and G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections ll F and F of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
!
In accordance with Section F of the VEGP Emergency Plan, the onsite emergency communications consisted of the following:
Emergency Notif cation Network
,
(ENN) connecting the Control Room, TSC, EOF, and back-up EOF; GPC General l
Office Hotline between the Control Room, TSC, and EOF; dedicated dial between i
the Control Room, TSC, OSC, E0F and back-up E0F; GPC General Office Dial l
between the Control Room TSC, EOF and back-up E0F; Bell Dial between the Control Room, TSC, OSC, EOF and back-up EOF; inplant radio between the TSC and OSC; and Plant Page System between the Control Room, TSC, and OSC.
Provisions were also in place for routinely checking operability of emergency comunications devices and equipment on a monthly and quarterly basis. Review i
of the communications test records required by EPIP 91204-C, "Emergency Response Comunications" disclosed the following findings:
Recently acquired emergency vehicle No. 6 was not listed on the Monthly
I Radio Checklist defined by EPIP 91204-C. As a result, the vehicle's radio r
was not tested during July or August, 1988, as required.
The radio in emergency vehicle No. 4 was out of service during the monthly
tests conducted on December 1, 1987.
A new data sheet was not completed
.
,
to document the repair and retest as required by the above referenced
!
'
procedure.
The monthly test of the ENS and the Health Physics Network (HPN) conducted
'
,
on January 22, 1988, contained four test items marked "NA" and a statement in the remarks section stating that the "Emergency Preparedness Supervisor
,
detennined that intra VEGP ENS testing was not required." This resulted in
[
failure to test some portions of the system during January 1988. A full
[
.
system test ras subsequently conducted on February 12, 1988.
'
.
!
The quarterly facility telephone test conducted on July 28, 1988, for the
!
Backup EOF did not indicate if the test was satisfactory, i
The date and time of the TSC remote radio checks were not indicated for
,
the monthly check conducted on August 10, 1988, t
'
!
I l
i
<
i
-%-_
-
.-.m.g m.,.,
%-g,.
y,.
_
-,, _
,,m.,%
_.-_qy 7-
,.
.--_y-.
..--e--
er-, - - -
,.ve+ __ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
.__
_
_
. _ _
_
___ ____.
.
.
1 Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
.,
be adequate; however, the following items should be considered for program
improvement:
Ensuring that emergency vehicle No. 6 is included in the monthly radio checklist and that routine tests are conducted as required (50-425/88-12-05).
- Ensuring that communication test forms are properly completed as required by the respective procedure, and that resolution of any and all problems and retests related thereto are fully documented (50-425/88-42-06).
4.2.4.
Damage Control / Corrective Action and Maintenance Equipment and Supplies
-
'
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.H of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1.
'
.
Damage control / corrective action, and maintenance equipment and supplies were found to be consistent with the detailed findings documented in the Unit 1 EPIA
'
Report. Based upon the general relation of the subject requirements to the two unit plant, the supplies and equipment were determined to be adequate.
j Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was determined to be adequate.
4.2.5 Reserve Emergency Supplies and Equipment
>
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraphs IV.E and G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50: and guidance promulgated in
,
Section ll.H of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Reserve emergency supplies and equipment were found to be consistent with the j
detailed findings documented in the Unit 1 F. PIA Report and related followup
inspections.
Based upon the generic relation to Unit 2, no further review of j
this area was required, j
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was
determined to be adequate.
I 4.2.6 Transportation
>
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV,E and G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
,
Section ll.H of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
j Transportation was fully discussed in the VEGP Unit 1 EPIA Report and
!
respective followup inspection reports.
The licensee had an ambulance
!
permanently assigned to the plant site.
Additionally, two vehicles were located at the Training Center and four other emergency vehicles were located i
l onsite. All vehicles were equipped with emergency radios.
__
_ _. -___________________ _ ____ ______ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ ___ ___
.
'
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
5.0 EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES 5.1 General Content and Format This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b);
Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in section !!.B of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1; and criteria defined in Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Each procedure described and highlighted the prerequisites and conditions that must exist before the specified emergency preparedness actions are performed, and the precautions and limitations to be observed during performance of such actions.
Each procedure provided required approval occumentation, checklists and data sheets to verify that the actions described therein were completed as required.
It was noted that one reference in the REP was incorrect.
Section H.1 of the REP stated that "the filtration system will be placed in Emergency Mode when the TSC is activated based on procedure EPIP 91201-C "Activation and Operation of the Technical Support Center."
Switching the TSC ventilation system to the filtration mode, attending activation of the TSC, however, is defined in EPIP 91110-C, "Duties of Health Physics Supervisor".
Accordingly, the Health Physics Supervisor is designated to manually actuate the subject system. The licensee promptly submitted a manual change request to correct the REP.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate; however, the incomplete item defined below was identified.
Completion of revision of Section H-1 of the REP to define the correct procedure requiring actuation of the TSC ventilation system immediately uponactivationofthatfacility(50-425/88-42-07).
5.2 Emergency, Alarm and Abnormal Occurrence Procedures This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
Paragraph IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections 11.0, H, and I of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
In cddition to plant normal operating procedures, the licensee used three types of procedures fer off-normal conditions namely: Alarm Response Procedures (ARP 17000 series), Abnormal Operating Procedures (A0P 18000 series) and Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP 19000 series).
None of the ARPs reviewed required evaluation of the initiating conditions relative to emergency action levels. It was noted, however, that ARPs applicable to events requiring implementation of the Emergency Plan referred reactor operators to A0Ps and/or E0Ps and the respective Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures. A0Ps included event-oriented abnormal conditions that were not included in the E0Ps, such 3s seismic events, reactor coolant high activity, and fuel handling events. All A0Ps, ARPs, and E0Ps were reviewed for
_ _ ____________-______
____ __ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
!
.
.
,
t l
.
i
!
completeness.
The inter-relationship of ARPs to A0Ps and E0Ps were clearly l
defined and determined to be adequate.
!
Based on the above observations this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
5.3 Implementing Instructions This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
Paragraphs IV.C and D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections !!.C. D. H, and I and Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
The inspector reviewed the EPIPs to determine if the procedures adequately
i implemented the REP in accordance with the above requirements. A procedure was established and maintained for each class of emergency specified in the
!
Implementing instructions were written for use by the i
Emergency Director (ED).
The functional responsibilities of the ED were clearly specified, including those responsibilities which cannot be delegated.
This area was discussed in detail in the Unit 1 EPTA Report and respective followup inspection reports.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate, j
5.4 Implementing Procedures 5.4.1 Notification
.
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and j
(6); Paragraphs IV.C and D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated l
in Sections !!.E. F. H and J of NUREG-0654. Rev. 1.
This area was reviewed in detail and fully discussed in the Unit 1 EPIA Report.
]
No changes were identified.
The sequence of no'.ifications to alert, mobilize, J
and/or augment the ensite emergency organizatic.i and supporting agencies was
specified for each : lass of emergency.
The notification procedures contained a i
listing of all persons and agen:ies included in the response scheme, and
'
defined the means to be used to implement the initial contact and required
'
followups, i
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to q
be adequate.
5.4.2 Assessment Actions l
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) and (10); Paragraph IV.B of /ppendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Sections 11.1, J, and M o f NUREb-0654. Rev.1, and guidance promulgated in IE Information Notice No. 83 28.
.
.
i
,
- _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - -
,
.
'
,
!
l
'
The following items, including training lesson plans for off-site dose assessment, were reviewed:
(1)Section I of the Emergency Plan; (2) EPIP 91304-C "Computerized and Manual Back-Up Methods for Release Rate and Dose Calculations;"
(3) EPIP 91305-C "Protective Action Guidelines;"
(4) EPIP 91001-C "Emergency Classification and implementing Instructions;"
'
(5) training lesson plans for offsite dose assessment.
Additionally,
walkthroughs on dose assessment were conducted with two Health Physics Foremen.
A review of VIBRANT (the licensee's computerized dose assessment program)
indicated that parameters specific to Unit 2 (e.g,, Unit 2 effluent monitors
and effluent path flow rates) were not yet incorporated into the program.
The dose assessment walkthroughs revealed several items of concern regarding EPIP 91304-C.
One Health Physics Foreman did not know how to use the default isotopic release rates in Worksheet 1 of the subject procedure for calculating
'
offsite doses.
In addition, a second Health Physics Foreman did not know hcw to interpret wind direction readings greater than 360*.
Finally, during a walk-through using the isotopic release input option of VlBRANT, it was noted that the reference identification numbers (ID#s) for radiciodine isotopes in
VIBRANT were not consistent with the IDis listed in EPIP 91304-C Worksheet 1.
s
Reference ID#s in VIBRANT were 18-22, while Worksheet 1 defined values of I
16-20.
It was further noted that EPIP 91304-C did not describe the use of
'
POPDOSE.
POPDOSE is a computer model run on an HP-110 computer to determine l
population doses.
A review of the training lesson plan for Offsite Dose
Assessment indicated that training was provided on the use of POPDOSE.
I Table 1,
item 5 of EPIP 91305-C did not address protective action
'
recommendations for whole body doses gretter than 5 rem, and thyroid doses
'
j greater than 25 rem.
The current procedure reads: "a. whele body:
1 rem to 5
rem"; and "b. thyroid:
5 reni to 25 rem."
a l
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate; however, the follcwing incomplete item defined below was
,
)
identified.
l Incorporation of Unit 2 specific effluent monitor information into the VIBRANT j
program code (50-425/88-42-08).
Additionally, the items listed below which relate to accident assessment should be considered for program improvement.
'
l Ensuring that personnel trained in offsite dose assessment are cognizant
of use of default isotopic release rate data defined in EPIP 91304-C j
(50-425/88-42-09).
i
- i Ensuring that personnel trained in offsite dose assessment are fully
j cognizant of interpretation of wind direction readings greater than 360 degrees (50-425/88-42-10).
Ensuring that reference IDas for radiciodines listed in VIBRANT and
i Worksheet 1 of EPIP 91304-C are consistent (50-425/88-42-11).
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
'
O
.
- Providing guidance on the use of POPDOSE defined in EPIP 91304-C (50-425/88-42-12).
'
Reviewing recommended protective actions for whole body doses greater than
'
,
5 rem, and thyroid doses greater than 25 rem promulgated in Table 1,
'
Item S. of EPIP 91305-C (50-425/88-42-13).
I
'
5.4.2.1 - 5.4.2.3 Offsite, Onsite, and in-Plant Radiological Surveys c
,
,
'
Those areas were reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9)-
Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
-
Sections II.H. I, 6nd K of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1.
"
EP!P 91303-C "Field Sampling and Surveys" and EPIP 91302-C "In-Plant Sampling i
and Surveys" were reviewed.
The Unit 1 EPTA Report and respective followup i
'
inspections disclosed that the subject procedures were dr.termined to be adequate, i
,
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to l
'
be adequate.
p
,
5 4.2.4 - 5.4.2.7 Procedures for Primary Coolant and Containment Air f
'
Sampling and Analysis This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
!
Appendix VI.B and E of 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.I of r
l NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
-
}
Procedures relevant to the PASS system included the following chemistry l
i procedures:
30180-C, "Post Accident Sampling System P. ogram;" 33065-C "Ganma (
Spectroscopy Under Post Accident Conditions:" 35611-C; 35614-C, 35615-C, and
35620-C, describing procedures for operation of the PASS system; and 35623-C i
through 35640-C, describing procedures for calibration, troubleshooting, and quality centrol addressing PASS system compot.encs.
The subject chemistry procedures were common to Units 1 and 2 PASS, and were determined to be
,
adequate during the Unit 1 EPI A and respective followup inspections.
Note,
~
i
!
however, that procedures 35611-C and 35615-C, siculd be revised to reflect
.
I Unit 2 valve numbers.
The licensee was aware ' hat these revisions were l
.
!
required as indicated by notations made in these procedures.
The licensee
!
indicated that the revidens would be completed f)llowing hot testing of the
'
Unit 2 PASS system.
!
I Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
[
be adequate; however, the Incomplete item defined below was identified.
!
i Revision of Chemistry Procedures 35611-C and 35615-C to Reflect Unit 2
'
j PASS valve numbers (50-425/88-42-14).
l i
'
i
.
J I
b
__
,__ _,
-
_ _. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - ~ _.. _ _
...
b
-_______ ___ ______-_____- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.
_ ____ _ ______- -________ ___________ _ __ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____,
.
.
l
5.4.2.11 Procedures for Stock and Liquid Effluent Sampling and 5.4.2.8
-
Analysis This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
Paragraphs VI.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
Section 11.1 of N"PEG-0654. Rev. 1.
Procedures relevant to this area ineladed the following Chemistry Procedures:
33016-C "Obtaining Ventilation Systems Samples for Radioactivity Analysis Under Post-Accident Conditions;" 33017-C "Monitoring of the Radioactive Liquid Waste Management System During Recovery Operations Following an Accident;" 36011-C
"Radiation Effluent Off Normal Conditions;" and 33065..C "Gama Spectroscopy Analysis Under Post Accident Conditions."
The subject procedures were common to both units, and were determined to be adequate during followup inspections to the Unit 1 EPIA.
,
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to i
be adequate.
i 5.4.2.12 Radiological and Environmental Monitoring Program This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9);
,
Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in j
Section 11.1 of NUREG-0654, Rev.1; and criteria defined in Supplement 1 to
)
l The routine radiological and environmental monitoring prngram also provided the
capability for post accident monitoring.
During and following the accident
mode, the subject program would be implemented by the Manager of Radiological
Safety.
This program was comen to Units 1 and 2 and was determined to be adequate during the Unit 1 EPIA. No significant program changes were made.
'
i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
{
be adequate.
5.4.3 Protective Actions
]-
5.4.3.1 Radiation Protection During Emergencies I
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(11);
Paragraph IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in a
Section II.K of NUREG-0654. Rev.1.
i I
Emergency Procedure EPIP 91305-C "Protective Action Guidelines," and EPIP 91301-C "Emergency Exposure Guidelines" were reviewed.
These procedures were determined to be adequate during the Unit 1 EPIA and th t respective followup inspections. The subject procedures were applicable to VEGP Units 1 and 2.
Based en the above fin 'ings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequat _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
i
5.4.3.2 Evacuation of Owner-Controlled Areas This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10);
Paragraph IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
,
Section II.J of NUREG-0654, Rev.1.
Emergency Procedure EPIP 91403-C "Site Evacuation" was reviewed in detail.
l This procedure was determined to be adequate during the Unit 1 EPI A.
No
,
significant changes or revisions to the site evacuation procedure were made.
l Based on the above findings, this portion of the liceniee's program appeared to
!
be adequate.
l 5.4.3.3 Personnel Accountability I
l This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements rif 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10),
Paragrwh IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
Se dion II.J of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1.
,
Emergency Procedures EPIP 91401-C "Assembly and Accountability," EPIP 91402-C i
"Search and Rescue," and EP!P 91704-C "Actions for Security During a
!
Radiological Emergency" were reviewed in detail and discussed with cognizant
licensee representatives.
These procedures were determined to be adequate
during the Unit 1 EPIA and respective followup inspections.
No significant
!
changes to any of the subject procedures were made.
i t
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
!
L 5.4.3.4 Personnel Monitoring and Decontamination
{
!
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirerrents of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10);
[
Paragraphs IV.B and E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
Section II.K of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1.
[
c Emergency Procedures EPIP 91306-C
"Contamination Moritoring and l
Decontamination" and EPIP 91307-C "Contaminated injury" were reviewed.
These i
procedures were found tc be adequate during the Unit 1 EPIA and respective
followup inspections.
[
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to f
be adequate.
>
5.4.3.5 Onsite First-Aid /R'scue j
t This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12);
'
Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Sections !!.K and L of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, and criteria defined in ANSI /ANS 3. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
- - _ _
__
_
'
.
O i
,
l The inspector reviewed Sections L.1 and L.2 of the Emergency Plan, and EPIPs J
91301-C "Emergency Exposure Guidelines " 91306-C "Contamination Monitoring and
-
Decontamination," 91307-C "Contamination Injury," and 91402-C "Search and Rescue."
The subject procedures were determined to be adequate durirg the
j Unit 1 EPIA and respective followup inspections.
The subject references are applicable to postulated accidents involving either Units 1 or 2.
Inspection disclosed that 33 health physics technicians received current Red
'
Cross Multi-media First Aid training, and the licensee's medical radiological emergency training course.
Some of the cited personnel received additional were qualified emergency medical technicians (EMis)gned to the ambulance crew first-aid training as well.
Fifteen persons assi
"
.
I Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to.
be adequate.
i 5.4.4 Sacurity During Emergencies i
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10);
Paragraph IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; guidance promulgated in Section 11.J J
of NUREG-0654. Rev. 1; and requirements defined in Appendix C to 10 CFR 73.
'
The security measures implemented during plant site emergencies were specified
!
in Emergency Procedure EPIP 91704-C "Actions for Security During a Radiological
Emergency.d This procedure was reviewed in detail and discussed with l
cognizant licensee representatives.
The procedure was determined to meet the j
requirements of the above regulatory criteria and guidance.
,
i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to l
be adequate.
)
5.4.5 Repair / Corrective Actions This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(11) and (13); Paragraph IV.E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Sections ll.K and M of NUREG-0654 Rev.1.
.
l The REP and EPIPs provided a detailed description of the operations perfonted i
by the TSC, OSC, and Radiological Emergency Teams (RETs) for investigation, j
repair, and/or corrective action activities during emergency events. This area j
was reviewed in detail during the Unit 1 EPI A, and was determined to be
!
adequate.
No significant changes were identified.
i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
'
l be adequate.
5.4.6.
Recovery This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(13);
Paragrtph IV.H of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.M of NUREG-0654, Rev. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
- _ _ -
.
.
'
.
j
<
f The Emergency Plan and the EPIPs specified the authority for declaring that a
recovery phase has been entered. Provisions for evaluating plant operating conditions, and in-plant and off-site radiological conditions were identified.
The plan and procedures defined the requirements for discussion with other
,
individuals and agencies prior to initiation and declaration of the recovery mode.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
5.4.7 Public Information This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7);
Paragraph IV.D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
Section !!.G of NUREG 0654, Rev. 1.
v l
l This area was reviewed in detail during the VEGP Unit 1 EPIA and respective
followup inspections.
Current review of the Public Information Program and l
facilities disclosed no significant changes, j
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's nrogram appeared to
be adequate.
!
l 5.5 Supplementary Procedures I
d 5.5.1 Inventory, Operational Check and Calibration of Emergency Equipment,
)
Facilities and Supplies This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8);
Paragraph IV.G. of Appendix E tt 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in j
Section II.H. of NUREG-0654 Rev. 1.
EPIP 91702-C required the Health Pi ysics Superintendent to be responsible for i
ensuring quarterly inventory of emenency instrumentation and supply kits.
The i
kits were also to be inventoried af tir each use.
This procedure called for
]
each kit to be inspected for the exact amount of supplies available, and verification of operability checks of all instrumentation and equipment.
Forms
were provided for the ten different types of kits, listing the type and amount
.
of each item that should be available, i
l A review of the records in the VEGP emergency preparedness organization for the last three quarters indicated that all kits were inventoried as required.
f These records were also n intained in document control and the health physics
organization.
!
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to i
be adequate.
!
!
l l
!
I
__.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - -. - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
- - - - - - -. - - - - -
,
,
.
'
t
.
l t
5.5.2 Orilis and Exercises r
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14);
Paragraph IV.F. of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in (
Section ll.N of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
EPIP 91602-C placed primary responsibility for the conduct of emergency drills
[
cn the VEGP Emergency Preparedness Supervisor, while the Corporate Manager of
}
Nuclear Training and Emergency Preparedness retained overall responsibility for
the annual exercise.
The annual exercise was to be planned and implemented
through the Corporate Exercise Coordinator in conjunction with the VEGP l
Emergency Preparedness Supervisor.
The Corporate Exercise Coordinator was to
be appointed by the Corporate Manager of Nuclear Training and Emergency j
Preparedness.
,
i The referenced procedure provided data sheets and foms for development of r
scenarios, simulated messages, and foms to document observations and
,'
evaluations.
Additionally, the procedure required the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor to prepare a report for the VEGP General Manager through the Plant l
Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
A critique of each drill and exercise was required by this procedure, and a written report, including significant conunents and corrective actions, was to be prepared by the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor for the VEGP General Manager through the
.
P16nt Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
Under Administrative Procedure 00104, the corrective actions required outside the VEGP Emergency l
Preparedness Organizatien were tracked and closed out using the VEGP Action (
T"seking Program.
Program improvements within the Emergency Preparedness Urganization were tracked on an informal Action Item System maintained by the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor.
The records and reports on drills were maintained for two years, while those on exercises were maintained for five years as stipulated in EPIP 91e02-C, and the VEGP Emergency Plan.
Implementation of drills and exercises is discussed under Section 7.1, below.
Based on the above findings this portion of the licensee's program appeared to be adequate.
5.5.3 Review, Revision and Distributicn of the Emergency Plan and Procedures This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10);
Paragraph !!!.G. of Appendix E of 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.P of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
The review and revision of the VEGP Emergency Plan and EPIPs was described in the VEGP Administrative Procedures 00402-0 and 00051-C, and Section P of the VEGP Energency Plan.
The Emergency Preparedness Supervisor had the responsibility for the VEGP Emergency Plan and EPIPs, as shared by the Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
The responsibility for the Corporate Er.3rgency Plan, EPIIs, and coordination of the VEGP Emergency Plan with State, local and Corporate plans lied with the Corporate Manager Nuclear Training and Emergency Preparedness.
The VEGP Emergency Preparedness Supervisor and Corporate Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Manager was to review
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
___ _ __ ____
.
.
l
,
l
all plans and procedures, at least on an annual basis, including letters of
!
agreement with offsite agencies and contractors.
In additior,, the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor was to review all telephone numbers given in the EPIPs quarterly listings and update same when required.
,
Consistent with Administrative Procedures, the Emergency Preparedness l
Supervisor maintained files and records of Emergency Plans and respective EPIPs
to document the following actions addressing the plan and procedures:
required
validation; tracking of channes; draft revisions; concurrences from other i
departments; resolving comments; and obtaining approval of the Plant Review
.
Board.
!
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
be adequate.
J
,
!
5.5.4 Audit l
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t);
!
Paragraph IV.G. of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance prcmulgated in l
i
'
Section II.P of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1 j
-
In addition to reviews described in subsection 5.3.3 above, separate reviews
were performed by the VEGP Quality Assurance Department as required by the
!
plant Technical Specifications.
The audit system used to implement these
I reviews was described in Quality Assurance Procedure-05-01, Rev.18.
Audits
were required annually using either contractors, corporate office personnel, or
]
personnel from Plant Hatch to perform technical reviews of the program.
I This area was previously reviewed in detail and is documented in the Unit 1
{
{
EPIA Report and respective followup in;pections.
i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
!
be adequate, j
,
6.0 Coordination With Offsite Groups 6.1 Offsite Agencies l
This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and I
(3); Paragraph IV. A of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in l
l Sections II.B ard C of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
!
Offsite agencies including the States of Georgia and South Card ina, Burke and Richmond Counties of Georgia, Aiken. Allendale and Barnwell '.ounties of South
!
Carolina, the U.S. Department of Energy - Savannah River Plant (SRP), and their signed letters of agreement were appended to the VEGP imergency Plan.
The
,
letters of agreement were current and valid. This area was reviewed in detail j
and sumarized in the Unit 1 EPI A Report.
The current review disclosed no significant changes in offsite support agency facilities, support capabilities,
training programs, and interaction with the licensee.
l
.
_ ____________ _ _- ____ _ _______
.
t
i t
I Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to
.
'
be adequate.
6.2 General Public G.3 News Media These areas were reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7);
Paragraphs IV.D and F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in Section II.G of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
,
i l
The subject areas were reviewed in detail during the VEGP Unit 1 EPIA and
f detemined to be adequate.
Current review of dissemination of public l
hrochures, distribution of Emergency Radios, Operational Status of the
!
>
!
Emergency Siren System, and interaction of licensee with the News Media
!
j disclosed no significant changes subsequent to Unit 1 EPIA.
l I
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to l
be adeque.te.
l
7.0 Orills, Exercises, and Walkthroughs
}
7.1 Program implementation
!
l This area was reviewed pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14);
Paragraph IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50; and guidance promulgated in
'
Section II.N of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
.
k Drills and exercises required by the Emergen:y Plan and respective implementing J
procedures were routinely performed.
The drills and practice exercises were i
coordinated with the licensee's emergency response organization, State and local support groups, and the SRP, depending on the emergency program area
'
tested.
Inspection involved a detailed review of records and report files en j
j drills and exercises performed by the licensee to implement training requirements and demonstrate compliance of such activities with the REP and
respective implementing procedures discussed in Section 5.5.2, above.
)
Inspection disclosed that following completion of an unannounced full l
activation drill performed by the licensee on March 9,1988, the Emergency Preparedness Supervisor failed to submit a written report of the results
'
j thereof to the VEGP General Manager as required by Emergency Procedure EPIP-91602C. Section 4.18 of the subject procedure required that the Emergency
l Preparedness Supervisor shall submit a written report of emergency preparedness drills to the VEGP General Manager defining significant drill critique coments
and respective corrective actions using Data Sheet 5 of Revision 4 of the
'
referenced procedure.
The above finding was discussed in detail with cognizant licensee representa-
tives prior to and during the appraisal exit interview. The inspector informed j
the licensee the'
Ne to implement the reporting requirements of Emergency
Procedure EPIP
's it.consi stent with requirements of Unit 1,
Appendix A, Ter
catica 6.7.1. The subject specification stated, in
l
- _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _, _. _.. -.. _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
,
.
.
!
'
r
?
t part, that written procedures shall be implemented. The licensee acknowledged
!
the finding, and committed to review administrative controls required to i
preclude its recurrence.
Licensee representatives discussed other methods I
currently used to document and track drill and practice exercise findings which
,
include entering such findings into an Action item System dedicated to items
!
requiring corrective action.
l Violation:
Failure to implement emergency procedure EPIP 91602-C requiring l
submission of a written report to the VEGP General Manager detailing drill i
critique findings and respective corrective actions (50-424/88-38-01).
This
item will be reviewed during future inspections.
i
!
8.0 Site Personnel Contacted
[
,
- J. Badgett Manager, Training and Emergency Preparedness j
0. Bloemendaal Corporate Emergency Preparedness Specialist t
- G. Buckhold VEGP General Manager
H. Butterworth Operations Superintendent r
J. Carswell Health Physics Foreman
R. C1510 Supervisor Startup Unit 2
!
M. Covey PASS Test Supervisor r
A. Cure Plant Health Physicist l
- R. Folker Quality Assurance Engineering Support Supervisor l
M. Garg Electrical Engineer
!
J. Gasser Shift Supervisor (
0. Haile Shift Supervisor
!
S. Hargis On-Shif t Operations Supervisor (0505)
i
- R. Harris Public Information Supervisor i
B. Hennessey Shift Supervisor
!
J. Hopins 0505 i
T. Journey PASS Test Supervisor i
S. Khera Health Physics Technician l
- I. Kochery Health Physics Superintendent l
M. Kurtzman Health Physics and Chemistry Training Supervisor R. Lee Chemistry Supervisor
J. Lucot Health Physics Supervisor I
- L.
Mayo Senior Emergency Preparednes. 'pecialist
!
- J. McKnight Health Physics / Chemistry Techni al
!
T. Neufang Methods and Training Specialist l
- L. Nickun Regulatory Compliance Supervisor j
M. Odom PASS Specialist j
C. Peters Health Physics Foreinan
- K. Pointer Senior Plant Engineer l
- J. Roberts Emergency Preparedness Supervisor
[
- P. Rushton Training & Emergency Preparedness Manager i
J. Sills Chemistry Supervisor
!
- D. Smith Construction Engineer S. Waldrup HVAC Engineer J. Williams OSOS j
f
!
t
!
-
- -. - -
..
-
- -
.
O
.__. _.
'
.
-
'
NRC Resident inspector
,
- R. Aiello
- Attended Exit Interview t
,
9.
Action On Previous inspection Findings a.
(Rescinded) Apparent Violation 50-424/87-32--01, 50-425/87-23-01:
EPIP-N091001-C is inadequate for implementing REP due to inconsistency between the Plan and Procedure addressing EAL.
Based upon a detailed review of the EALs, the subject procedure, and
-
Tables 0-1 and D-2 of the VEGP REP, the apparent violation was withdrawn, b.
(Closed) Violation 50-424/87-32-02, 50-425/87-23-03:
Failure to Classify a Security Event in Accordance with the VEGP REP.
!
Inspection confimed that all corrective actions committed to by the licensee were implemented as required, namely:
initiation of l
management training regarding recognition and handling of suspected explosive devices; and evaluation of erergency classification of
]
security events regarding suspected explosive devices.
'
c.
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item (IFI)
50-424/87-32-03, 50-425/87-23-03:
Verify Audibility of Alarms in High Noise Areas (See Also: 87-EP-01and79-BU-18),
Inspection confirmed that the volume and clarity cf the plant public
-
address system (PA) was adequate to assure audibility of emergency alarms, announcements, and routine personnel paging in high noise areas.
The inspector, accompanied by a cognizant licensee
'
representative, assessed the effective audibility of the PA system on the plant turbine decks and areas innediately below the turbines.
Consistent with industrial hygiene practices and plant safety requirements, the assessment was conducted using approved ear plugs.
d.
(Closed) Violation 50-424/87-23-16, 50-425/8/-23-06:
Failure to Provide Training to Emergency Response Personnel in Accordance with the REP.
A deteiled inspection of plant training records, course materials, and respective course examination results confirmed that personnel identified as lacking specified training were trained as required.
e.
(Closed) Bulletin 87-EP-01 (78-8U-18):
Verify Audibility of Alarms in High Noise Areas.
The inspector evaluated and verified the audibility of emergency alams in designated high noise areas in Unit I as discussed abov _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
i a
.'
,
o
l
!
!
D.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were sunnarized on August 19, 1988, with l
those persons indicated in Paragraph 8. above.
The ir.spector described the areas evaluated and discussed in detail each item listed below.
l These specific findings are characterized as Improvement and Incomplete (
Items.
Incomplete items are findings for which action is not completed l
but the need for required completion is recognized and agreed upon by the
licensee.
Improvement Items are those findings identified My the
!
inspectors which require review and consideration by the lice 0see to
!
improve the effectiveness of the Emergency Preparedness program and its
'
implementatien.
The licensee has agreed to evaluate these item: aM will take fol'.owup actions as determined to be appropriate.
One violat'ai specific to Unit I was identified regarding the licensee's failure to implement an EPIP which requires submission of a written report to the VEGP General Manager regarding exercise and drill critique findings and required corrective actions related thereto.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this appraisal.
No dissenting comments were expressed by the licensee.
Iten No.
Type Description 50-425/88-42-01 Improvement Reviewing Corporate Emergency Organization staffing ensure that personnel assignments are correct, and that an adequate number of personnel are available to fill key primary and alternate positions.
50-425/88-42-02 Incomplete Completion of installation and testing of Unit 2 Post Accident Sampling System, 50-425/88-42-03 Incomplete Completion of installation and operation of instruments, sp tems ano equipment required to conduct sampling and analysis of liquid, gas, and particulate effluents.
50-425/88-42-04 Incomplete Completion of installation, calibration, and testing of Unit 2 area and process monitor _
_ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _
.
'
.
.
'
s0 426/89-42-05 Improvement Ensuring that Emergency Vehicle No. 6 is included in the month',y checklist and that routine test be conducted ;is required.
50-425/88-42-06 Improvement Ensuring that communication test forms are properly completed as required by the
,
'
respective procedure, and that resolution of any and all problems and retests
'
related thereto are fully documented.
50-425/88-42-07 Incomplete Completion of revision of Section H-1 of the REP to define the correct procedures requiring actuation of the TSC immediately upon activation of that facility.
50-425/88-42-08 Incomplete Incorporation of Unit 2 specific effluents monitor information into the VlBRANT program code.
50-425/88-42-09 Irprovement Ensuring that personnel trained in offsite dose assessment are cognizant of use of default isotopic release rate data defined in EPIP-91304-C.
50-425/88-42-10 Improvement Ensuring that personnel trained in offsite dose assessment are fully cognizant of interpretation of wind direction reading greater than 360 degrees.
50-425/88-42-11 Improvement Ensuring that reference 10 Nos. for radiciodines listed in Vibrant Worksheet 1 of EPIP-91304-C are consistent.
50-425/88-42-12 Improvement Providing guidance on the use of POPDOSE defined in EPIP-91304- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____
___ _._ ____
.
'
.
.
50-425/88-42-13 Improvement Reviewing reconnended protective actions for whole bouy doses greater than five rem, and thyroid doses greater than 25 rea promulgated in Table 1, item 5 of EPIP-91305-C.
50-425/88-42-14 Incomplett Completion of revision of Chemistry Procedures 35611-C and 35614-C to reflect Unit 2 PASE valve numbers, 50-424/B8-38-01 Violation Failure to implement Emergency Procedure EPIP 91602-C requiring submission of a written report to the VEGP Gcneral Manager detailing drill critique findings and respective corrective actions.
11. Acronyms and Initialisms ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable AOP Abnormal Operating Procedure ARM Area Radiation Monitor ARP Alarm Pesponse Procedure CEC Corporate Emergency Center CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR Control Room EAL Emergency Action level ED Emergency Director EMT Entergency Medical Technician ENC Emergency News Center ENS Emergent / Notification Systen EOC Emergency Operations Center E0F Emerg?ncy Operations facility E0P Energency Operation Procedure EPTA Energency Preparedness Implementation Appraisal EPIP Energency Plan implementation Procedure EP Emergency Preparedness EPZ Erergency Planning Zone ERF Emergency Response Facilities ER0 Energency Response Organization FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report GPC Georgia Power Company HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air HP Health Fhysics
_ __.
__..
,
,C
'
o
!
INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operattens
!
NOVE Notification of Unusual Event l
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission
'
OSC Operations Support Center 0505 On-shift Operations Supervisor PASS Post Accident Sampling System j
RET Radiological Emergency Team l
!
VEGP Vogtle Electric Generation Plant
!
!
!
,
I
_