ML18010B042
| ML18010B042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1993 |
| From: | Barr K, Salyers G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18010B040 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-93-03, 50-400-93-3, NUDOCS 9303080097 | |
| Download: ML18010B042 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000400/1993003
Text
gpeIt REGII
0
co
>>>>*<<+
UNITED STATES
,NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323
) ~p 25
P-I-'eport
No.:
50-400/93-03
Licensee:
Carolina
Power
and Light Company
P. 0.
Box 1551
Raleigh,
NC
27602
Docket No.:
50-400
License No.:
Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant
Inspection
Conduc
d:
Ja uary 25-29,
j99
Inspector:
G.
W. Sl
o Z
Z'c
Date Signed
Approved by:
~~ Fz
-K. P. Barr,
Date Signed
Emergency
Preparedness
Section
Radiological
Protection
and
Emergency
Preparedness
Branch
Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine,
announced
inspection
was conducted
in the area of emergency
preparedness,
and included review of the following programmatic
elements:
(I) Radiological
Emergency
Response
Plan
and its implementing procedures;
(2) emergency facilities, equipment,
instrumentation,
and supplies;
(3) organization
and management
control;
(4) training;
and
(5) independent
reviews/audi.ts.
Results:
In the areas
inspected,
two violations were identified.
Several
concerns
affecting the operational
readiness
of the emergency
preparedness
program were
identified.
.In the emergency
response facilities,'he reliability of the
Emergency
Response
Facility Information System in the
Emergency Operations
Facility was questionable.
Operational
Support Center
emergency
response
,teams'and-held
mobile radios
had
been identified as
a problem in multiple
drills and two out of six radios failed when tested
by the inspector.
Some
facility-identified emergency
preparedness
problems
do not appear to be
receiving
a reasonable
level of priority.
This comment is based
on the
inspector's
review of the
Emergency
Preparedness
Nuclear Assurance
Department
report
and review of the Facility Automated
Commitment Tracking System list.
9303080097
930225
ADOCK 05000400
8
REPORT DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
Licensee
Employees
- R. Bassett,
Senior Specialist,
Emergency
Preparedness
- J. Collins, Manager,
Operations
- J. Cribb, Manager, guality Control
- C. Gibson,
Manager,
Programs
and Procedures
- H. Goodwin, Project Specialist,
Emergency
Preparedness
- E. Kellogg, Specialist,
Emergency
Preparedness
- J. Kiser, Manager,
Radiation Control
- B. HcKenzie,
Senior Engineer,
Environmental
& Radiation Control
- E. HcLean, Senior Engineer,
Nuclear Engineering
Department
- A. Poland,
Manager,
Environmental
& Radiation Control
- M. Staton,
Power Agency Site Representative
- T. Wait, Senior Specialist,
Nuclear Assessment
Department
- M. Wallace,
Senior Specialist,
Regulatory
Compliance
- W. Wilson, Manager,
Spent Nuclear
Fuel
Other licensee
employees
contacted
during this inspection
included
engineers,
operators,
technicians,
and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
- K. Barr, Section Chief,
Emergency
Preparedness
- T. Decker,
Section Chief, Radiological Effluents
and Chemistry
- D. Roberts,
Resident
Inspector
- J. Tedrow, Senior Resident
Inspector
- Attended exit interview
and abbreviations
are listed in the last paragraph.
Emergency
Plan
and
Implementing Procedures
(82701)
Pursuant to
and Appendix
E to
10 CFR Part 50, this area
was reviewed to determine if procedures
are
being properly implemented,
whether
changes
were
made to the program
since the last routine inspection
(July 1991),
and to assess
the impact
of these
changes
on the overall state of emergency
preparedness
at the
facility.
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
program for making changes
to the
EP and the
PEPs.
A review of selected
licensee
records
confirmed that
all changes
to the
EP and
PEPs since July 1991 were approved
by
management
and submitted to the
NRC within 30 days of the effective
date,
as required.
PEPs
implement the
EP.
The inspector
randomly
selected
and reviewed
changes
to the
PEPs which had occurred since the
last inspection.
The inspector
concluded the changes
to the
PEP that
were reviewed were in agreement
with and did not decrease
the
effectiveness
of the Plan.
Controlled copies of the
Emergency
Telephone Directory,
EP,
and
PEPs
wer'e audited in the Control
Room,
TSC,
and the
EOF.
No problems
were
identified.
One emergency declaration,
a
NOUE, was
made
by the licensee
since July
1991.
The inspector's
review of the
EAL Classification
procedure
'and
conditions prompting the classification indicated that the
classification
was
made promptly, correctly,
and timely offsite
notification conducted.
The inspector
reviewed the minutes of the November
19,
1992 quarterly
meeting of the Harris Plant Task Force which is composed of State,
county,
and
CP&L emergency
preparedness
personnel,
The meeting minutes
indicated that the Harris
EALs were presented
and reviewed.
The minutes
of the meeting stated:
A licensee
representative
"distributed
and reviewed
the
new emergency
action levels that
CP&L will be
using in 1993.
Please
do not use these guidelines
as
revisions
are still being considered.
.Once the final
revisions
are
made the levels should
be easier to
determine.
The
new guidelines
should
be in place
by
January.
The licensee will notify us when the final
revisions
have
been
approved.
Once again,
DO NOT use
the guidelines until further notice."
The licensee
was using the minutes of the task force meeting
as
documentation of meeting the requirements
Section
IV.B. which states
the
EALs shall
be reviewed with the State
and
local governmental
authorities
on
an annual
basis.
The inspector
noted
that the "quarterly meeting" was'either
procedurally
mandated
nor
chartered
and
was not
a regularly scheduled
meeting.
The inspector
informed the licensee that the
NRC did not consider the
Harris Plant Task Force meeting minutes
as proper documentation for
meeting the requirements
of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.B.
The
licensee
requested
the State to provide
a letter stating that they
cons.idered
the licensee's
presentation
of the
EALs to the task force
as
a State
and local government
review.
The State promptly replied
as
requested.
The licensee
stated to the inspector,
that in the future,
an
official review of the
EALs and
a correspondence
(letter) will be used
to document
review and approval
by State
and local government
agencies
in response
to
10 CFR 50,Appendix
E, Section
IV.B.
The inspector
r'eviewed the letter from the State
acknowledging their
review.
Neither the State
nor the county made
any recommended
changes.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
Emergency Facilities,
Equipment,
Instrumentation,
and Supplies
(82701)
Pursuant to
and (9),
and
and
Section
IV.E of Appendix
E to
10 CFR 50, this area. was inspected
to
determine
whether the licensee's
and other essential
emergency
equipment,
instrumentation,
and supplies
were maintained
in a state of
operational
readiness,
and to assess
the impact of any changes
in this
area
upon the emergency
preparedness
program.
The inspector toured the licensee's
Control
Room,
TSC,
OSC,
and, EOF.
The inspector
noted that the
OSC had
been relocated
from the service
building to the waste
process
building.
The inspector
noted the
relocation
had placed the
OSC closer to the health physics
areas,
and
that there
was adequate
area for the
OSC members to respond.
The
inspector 'concluded
the relocation did not decrease
the effectiveness
of
the Plan.
While touring the
OSC, the inspector requested
an inventory
check of one of the three
emergency
supply kits.
The kit was fully
stocked
and all equipment
was calibrated
and operated satisfactorily
with the exception of two hand-held
mobile radios.
The inspector
and
a
licensee
representative
tested
the radios.
Two of the six radios failed
to transmit.- It was determined that the problem with the radios
was
bad
batteries.
The batteries
had
been taken directly from the chargers
and
- placed
on the radios.
The inspector
noted that the batteries
had
been
in the charger for at least three
weeks
(time since the last inspection
of the sealed
cabinet).
The inspector
noted that there
were spare
batteries
available if the battery
on the radio failed.
The radios
had
been identified as
a problem in the
1991
annual
exercise,
four drills in
1992,
and the
1992 annual
exercise.
In addition, the
HAD audit,
an
independent
audit required
by 10 CFR 50.54(t), identified the problems
with the radios
as
an example of deficiencies identified during EP,
drills and exercises
where corrective actions
were not being effectively
accomplished.
The
OSC radios were older, multiple channel
radios that
security
had replaced with newer ones.
The inspector
informed licensee
representatives
that the failure to maintain the operability of the
hand-held
mobile radios
was
a violation of the requirements
of Section
3.1 of the
EP.
Violation 50-400/93-03-01
Example
1:
Failure to maintain operability of
the
OSC hand-held
mobile radios
(OSC Emergency Kit Radios Section
3.2.3.k)
as defined in Section 3. 1 of the Shearon Harris
EP.
While touring the
EOF, the inspector requested
an operational
demonstration
of the
ERFIS terminals.
When the licensee
representative
attempted to activate the system,
the three
ERFIS terminals failed to
operate.
The
ERFIS terminal is
a computer data display of vital plant
parameters
(information) along with meteorological
information that is
used to monitor present plant conditions,
trend
and predict plant
changes,
make plant event mitigating recommendations,
and
make
recommendations
to 'protect the health and'afety of the public.
Some of
the information'isplayed
are
and Regulatory
Guide 1.97 variables.
A technical
assistant
was called to investigate
the problem
and
he was
unable to activate the terminals.
Later in the day,
when the system
was
4
returned to operability, the licensees
explained that the problem was
a
bad switch on the backup
ERFIS computer.
There are
two switches
on the
backup computers.
The two switches
are redundant
and only one switch
can
be closed at
a time.
Their. output supplies
data to'the
ERFIS
terminals in the
EOF.
The licensee
provided the inspector
a copy of a
work request identifying the problem with the switch on the backup
ERFIS
computer.
The licensee
stated that maintenance
had worked on the main
ERFIS computer
and
had transferred
data processing
over to the backup
ERFIS computer,
and that the faulty switch was selected
on the backup
ERFIS computer.
The inspector
noted that
a similar problem occurred
with the
ERFIS in inspection
91-14
and
was characterized
as
a NCV.
The
inspector
requested
the licensee
to provide
a listing of all work orders
on the
ERFIS system during the past twelve months.
The inspector
reviewed the list and noted that numerous
work orders
were compl.eted
in
1992,
and that
n'umerous
work orders still remained
open.
The inspector
was
aware that there were
ERFIS terminals in the control
room,
TSC,
EOF,
and the site managers office,
and that the list of work orders
applied
to all
ERFIS terminals,
computers,
and computer interfaces.
Based
on
the backlog of work orders
and the failure of the system to operate
when
tested
during this inspection,
the inspector
informed licensee
representatives
that
ERFIS reliability was
a concern
and that this was
a
violation of Section 3. 1 of the
EP.
Violation 50-400/93-03-01'xample
2:
Failure to maintain
EOF=equipment
(ERFIS terminals Section 3.5.3.b)
as defined in Section 3. 1 of the
Shearon
Harris
EP.
With the exception of the
ERFIS in the
EOF, the emergency
equipment in
the
EOF facility, Control
Room,
and
TSC appeared
to be maintained
in an
appropriate
state of readiness.
According to statements
by licensee
representatives
and observations
by the inspector,
no significant
changes
in the facilities other than relocating the
had occurred
since the last inspection.
The Emergency Ventilation System for the
EOF was tested
in the emergency
mode.
The system actuated
properly and indicated
a positive pressure
of
0. 13 inches of water.
The acceptable
pressure
is 0. 125 inches of water.
The system
appeared
well maintained
and in a state of operational
readiness.
The inspector
requested
and observed
an operational
test of the
EDG.
The
EDG is rated at
175
KW.
With all
EOF loads being supplied
by the
EDG, the
EDG was only carrying approximately
30
KW.
The inspector
reviewed the maintenance
and testing records of the
EDG since July 1991.
The
EDG appears
to be receiving proper maintenance
and testing.
The inspector
reviewed inventory records of various
emergency kits since
July 1991.
- The records
indicate the emergency kits were being properly
maintained.
The inspector
and
a licensee
representative
performed
an
inventory check of an
Emergency Kit located in the
and two
Environmental
Monitoring Kits in the
EOF.
While inventorying the
Environmental
Monitoring Kits in the
EOF, the inspector
used the '
5
procedure
and attempted
to locate sampling points
on the
map provided in
the kit.
Using their approved
procedure,
the inspector
and the licensee
representative
were unable to locate identified sampling points
on the
map provided.
Additionally, pertinent
road
names
and route
numbers
necessary
for a field 'team to get to
a sample point were not identified
on the
map.
The licensee
provided documentation
indicating that the
licensee
had identified the problem in
a previous drill and that the
deficiency was being tracked.
The licensee further stated that they
were waiting for the state to update their local
area
map before they
changed
the
maps in the kits.
The inspector
concluded that the licensee
could have taken short term actions
such
as annotating
route numbers
on
the existing
maps at the sample point locations.
The licensee
was
informed that the update to'the local area
maps in the environmental
kits would be tracked
as
an IFI.
IFI 93-03-02:
Update
area
maps located in the Environmental
Monitoring
Kits.
With the exception of the hand-held
mobile radios discussed
in
Paragraph
3 and the environmental
monitoring kit maps,
the inspector
found the emergency kit equipment operational,
calibrated
and the
inventories
complete.
The inspector verified the availability of emergency
vehicles for the
environmental
monitoring teams in the event of an emergency.
At the
time of the inspection,
the licensee
had two vehicles in the
EOF back
parking lot and access
to
a third vehicle that was normally used
by the
training department.
The inspector
observed that during the
NRC
inspection
documented
in IR 91-14 approximately
10-12 vehicles
were
.immediately available for emergency
use.
The licensee
stated that in an
emergency
they would have
access
to any company vehicle.
The licensee
is equipped to field five environmental
monitoring teams
but only plans
to field three
teams of two persons
each.
The inspector verified the
operability of a vehicle selected
at random
by requesting
the licensee
start the vehicle.
The vehicle started
and ran satisfactorily.
Visual
inspection of the all vehicles indicated that the vehicles
were ready to
respond.
The inspector
concluded the availability of vehicles at any
given time was adequate.
The inspector
accompanied
by a licensee
representative,
met with the
Chatham
County Emergency
Management
Coordinator.
The inspector
discussed
with the Coordinator the county's working relationship with
Shearon
Harris
and the quarterly meeting of the task group.
The
coordinator
spoke very favorably of the licensee
and their working
relationship.
While in route to the
Chatham county
EOC, the inspector
noted the
. placement
and condition of evacuation
signs.
While returning to the
site from the
EOC in Chatham county, the inspector located
and observed
the placement
and condition of public warning signs located
near boat
launch
areas
and picnic areas.
All signs
appeared
to be well placed
and
in good condition.
In addition to the signs,
the inspector
randomly
6
inspected
phone booths for placement of information available to the
transient population.
The Emergency
Plan,
Section 5.2.5,
"Public
Education
and Information" states
that adhesive .decals
are located at
public telephone
booths within the 10-mile
EP2 to inform the transient
population that they are in an emergency
warning zone
and what immediate
actions to take should they hear the sirens.
Contrary to the above,
four out of eight tel'ephone
booths
surveyed
by the inspector did not
display the adhesive
decals.
The inspector
informed the licensee that
the failure to properly post adhesive
decals
in public telephone
booths
was
a violation of Section 5.2.5 of the
EP.
Qa
Violation 93-03-02:
Failure to maintain Public Education
and Information
(Adhesive Decals located at public telephone
booths 'throughout the
10-
mile EPZ)
as defined in Section 5.2.5 of the Shearon
Harris
EP.
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
documentation of required
communications
tests for the period of July 1991 to December
1992:
(1)
EOF communications
system functional tests,
performed biweekly;
(2) monthly communications dril.ls involving message
transmission
from
the Control
Room to the State
Warning Point via the Automatic Ring-Down;
and
(3) tests of the
ENS.
According to the records,
prompt corrective
actions
were undertaken
when equipment deficiencies
were identified.
The
EWNS consisted of 79 fixed sirens
(Chatham,
Sanford-Lee,, Harnett,
and
Wake Counties).
Silent testing
was performed bi-weekly under the
jurisdiction of the respective
county emergency
management
agencies,
'
with test results
forwarded to the licensee.
Actual live testing with a
person
standing
by to actually witnessing the actuation
was performed
annually.
This=provides
on line activation
and operability testing of
the
EWNS system.
The licensee
provided documentation
to the inspector
that indicated the system functioned reliably and that identified
problems
had received
prompt corrective actions.
Two violations
and
one IFI were identified.
4.
'rganization
and Management
control
(82701)
Pursuant
to
and
(16)
and* Section
IV.A of Appendix
E
to
this area
was inspected
to determine
the effects of
any changes
in the licensee's
emergency
response
organization
and/or
management
control
systems
in the emergency
preparedness
program
and to
verify that
such
changes
were properly factored into the
EP and
The management
and organization of the emergency
preparedness
program
was reviewed
and discuss'ed
with licensee
representatives.
No management
or organizational
changes
in the program had.occurred
since July 1991.
The inspector
noted that the administrative assistant
had
been
reassigned
to another
area,
the emergency
preparedness
specialist
had
been transferred
to training and
a individual from a health physics
group
had filled the vacated position of emergency
preparedness
specialist.
The issue of staffing in the, emergency
preparedness
area is
also discussed
in Paragraph
5,
I
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
EP, Section
5, "Haintaining
Emergency
Preparedness"
which addressed
the performance of a variety of
'equired
activities, including testing of communication
systems,
training for licensee
and offsite emergency
response
personnel,
shift
augmentation drills, and other program maintenance activities.
Documentation of these activities
was maintained.
.Records
were reviewed
~ in the following.areas:
Emergency
Communications
Test
Training of offsite, emergency
response
personnel
Early Warning System Siren Activation Monitoring
EP Augmentation Callout
EP Radiation
Instruments
and
Emergency Kit Inspection
and
Checks
All of the required records
were found satisfactory.
No violations'or deviations
were identified.
Independent
Review/Audits
(82701)
Pursuant
to
and
(16)
and
10 CFR 50.54(t), this area
was inspected
to determine
whether the licensee
has performed
an
independent
review audit of the emergency
preparedness
program,
and
whether the licensee
has
a corrective action
system for deficiencies
and
weaknesses
identified during exercise
and drills.
'here
were two
NAD 10 CFR 50.54(t) audits
and audit reports since the
last inspection.
Audit report H-EP-91-02
was dated
January
24,
1992,
and audit report H-EP-92-01
was dated
October
28,
1992.
The most recent
independent
audit H-EP-92-01,
used
INPO documents
"Performance
Objectives
and Criteria for Operating
and Near-term Operating
License
.
Plants"
(INPO 90-15),
and "Generic Guidance for, Emergency
Preparedness
Program
Review"
as
an audit guide.
The audit met the
requirements
identified in 10 CFR 50.54(t).
The inspect'or
reviewed the
qualifications of the technical
expert assigned
to the emergency
preparedness
portion of the audit
and concluded that the auditors
emergency
preparedness
background'was
satisfactory.
The audit report stated:
"Repeat
emergency
preparedness
program
deficiencies
continue.
gualitative tracking, trending, root cause
determination,
and corrective
action .of identified
EP drill and,exercise
deficiencies
are not being effectively accomplished."
The report listed
four examples of recurring deficiencies identified in drill critiques.
The report also noted that
ACR 92-05 from the
1991
NAD audit of the
emergency
preparedness
program
(Report H-EP-91-02)
had not been closed
at the time of the
1992 audit.
ACR 92-450 was'ssued
as
a result .of the
H-EP-92-01 report.
The inspector discussed
the report details with the
licensee's
Emergency Coordinator.
The licensee
stated that the root
cause for the untimely corrective actions
was the work load relative to
the staffing of the emergency
preparedness
group.
The licensee
provided
documentation
(CP&L Letter Number:
HS 930051)
supporting the statement
that additional staffing is needed for trending
and tracking action
items to completion.
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
program for followup on more
significant findings from audits, drills, and exercises.
The licensee
had established
a facility wide computer-based
system called
FACTS for
tracking the more significant
EP deficiencies.
Based
on reviews of the
system'data,
the inspector
concluded
the licensee
was completing
corrective actions in the time frames established
on the list in about
75% of the cases.
= In addition,
the emergency
preparedness
group
had
a
personal
computerized
EP action item tracking,list for managing less
significant followup actions
items.
That list was part of the
NAD audit
discussed
earlier.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
Training (82701)
Pursuant
to
and (15),
and Section
IV.
F of Appendix
E
to
10 CFR Part 50, this area
was inspected
to determine
whether the
licensee's
key emergency
response
personnel
were properly trained
and
understood their .emergency responsibilities.
The inspector
reviewed the training records of selected
members of both
the onsite
and offsite
ERF roster.
A computerized
personnel
history of
all training for
ERF personnel
stationed
at the site is maintained.
In
addition to identifying past training,
an "attention" date identifies
- required training two months prior to the actual training expiration
date.
The inspector identified one incident of apparent
laps in
qualification.
A Radiation Control Director remained
on the emergency
roster in 1992 even though
he
had not been retrained
in accordance
with
procedures.
The licensee
provided copies of procedure revisions that
had deleted
a training requirement
and then subsequently
rei'nstated
the
requirement for a specific course.
The inspector
noted that the
individual
had since
been retrained
and the individuals qualification
was current.
The inspector did not note
any other discrepancies,
'The inspector
observed
a "retraining" session for EP Overview and
Environmental Honitoring
8 Chemistry.
Upon entering the classroom
the
students
received
a lesson
plan
and
a student
handout which consisted
of
an outline of key elements.
The students
were also given
a list of
objectives.
The students
looked
up the information necessary
to meet
the objectives
using the
EP and
PEPs.
The students
were tested
at the
end of the training session.
The inspector
reviewed the objectives
and
the content of the test.
There were several
good objectives
and the
test
was challenging.
Some training improvements
were discussed
with
the licensee.
The inspector
concluded that, if the student
could answer
all of the objectives for the particular lesson
plan, they would, at the
least,
have
a minimum acceptable
knowledge level of that particular
course.
The inspector
informed the licensee
representative
that their
program satisfied the training requirements.
The licensee
representative
stated that Harris was considering developing
a new
training programs
based
on
INPO systematic
approach
to training similar
to the
one being developed
at Hrunswick, but no commitment or extra
resources
were
made available to improve the program at this time.
The inspector
reviewed documentation that indicated training was
provided to offsite support
agencies;
Holly Springs
Rural Volunteer Fire
Department,
Apex Rescue,
and Hospital training.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
Action on Previous
Inspection
Findings
(92701)
The inspector
reviewed the
open items from the previous inspection
and
concluded
the items could best
be evaluated
and closed during
an annual
exercise
inspection."
No open items were closed during this inspection.
Exit Interview
The inspection
scope
and results
were summarized
on January
29,
1993,
with those
persons
indicated in Paragraph
1.
The licensee
expressed
concern
over the potential violations
and stated that
a trouble ticket
on the deficient
ERFIS terminals in the
EOF had
been written recently.
The inspector
informed the licensee that
he was
aware of the trouble
ticket.
No propriety information was reviewed during this inspection.
Licensee
management
was informed that
no previous IFIs were closed.
Item Number
Descri tion and Reference
50-400/93-03-01:
50-400/93-03-01
50-400/93-03-02:
Violation - Example
1:
Failure to maintain
operability of the
OSC hand held mobile radios
(OSC
Emergency Kit Radios Section 3.2.3)
as
defined in Section
3. 1 of the Shearon
Harris
(Paragraph
3).
Violation - Example 2:
Failure to maintain
equipment
(ERFIS terminals Section 3.5.3.b.k)
as
defined in Section
3. 1 of the Shearon
Harris
(Paragraph
3).
IFI:
Up date
area
maps located in the
Environmental
Monitoring Kits. Roads
and
applicable points of reference
are to be
properly named
and clearly indicated
so
as to
facilitate exact location of sampling points
when communicating
between
the environmental
monitoring teams
and the
TSC or
(Paragraph
3).
J
I
50-400/93-03-03:
10
Violation: Failure to maintain Public Education
and Information (Adhesive Decals located at
public telephone
booths. throughout the 10-mile
EPZ)
as defined in Section 5.2.5 of the Shearon
Harris
EP (Paragraph
3).
9.
Abbreviations
And Acronyms
ACR
CFR
ERFIS
EWNS
IFI
NAD
PEP
TS
Adverse Condition Report
Code of Federal
Regulations
Emergency Action Level
Emergency, Diesel Generator,
Emergency
Response
Facility Information
Emergency Notification System
Emergency Operations
Center
Emergency Operating Facility
Emergency
Preparedness
Emergency
Plan
Implementing
Procedures
Emergency
Planing
Zone
Emergency
Response
Facility (TSC,
EOF,
Emergency
Warning Notification System
Inspe'ctor
Follow-Up Item
Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations
Non-Cited Violation
Nuclear Assessment
Department
Notice Of Unusual
Event
Nuclear Regulation
Operational
Support Center
Plant
Emergency
Procedure
SafetyParameter
Display System
Technical Specification
Technical
Support Center
Syste'
OSC)
I
~