ML18044A683
| ML18044A683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Axelson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Pagano F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18044A682 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003310059 | |
| Download: ML18044A683 (8) | |
Text
,.
e e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 24, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank Pagano, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Task Force FROM:
W. L. Axelson, Team Leader, Emergency Preparedness Task Force
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT REGARDING SITE REVIEW AT PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT FOR IMPROVING EMERGENCY _PREPAREDNESS On January 14-18, 1980, Review Team No. 6 conducted a review of the (draft)
Palisades Nuclear Plant Emergency Plan and.. the State of Michigan Eme,rgency Preparedness Plans.
A site tour was initially conducted with representa-tives from* the Stat~ Eni¢rgency Services Ci.vision; Allegan County Sheriff's Office; and the District State Police Department.
After the site tour, the team members met with the Van Buren County Commissioners in Paw Paw, Michigan.
- This meeting was combined with the Resident Inspector's familiarization meet-ing.
The remainder of the first day was spent touring the Van.Buren County Emergency Operating Center located in Paw Paw, Michigan.
On the second day, a technical review session was conducted with Consumers Power Company.
The draft emergen*cy plan was reviewed against" the acceptance criteria addressed in Emergency Planning Review Guideline Number One, Revision One.
Enclosed is a suminary of findings regarding this review.
As a result of this meeting, Consumers Power Coopany was instructed to correct the de-ficiencies identified in their plan and submit to the Office of Nuclear Reac-"-
tor Regulation a revised plan within five weeks.
The licensee agreed to do this.
On the third day, a technical review session was conducted with representa-tives from state and local governments.
State representatives from the Emer-gency Services Division; the Department of Public Health; the Pepartment of Agriculture; and the Department of Natural Resources attended.
Representa-tives from the Van Buren County Commissioners Office; County Department of Health; Van Buren and Allegan County Sheriff's Office; and other local rep-resentatives from several townships within Van Buren County also attended.
In addition, representatives from the U~S. Coast Guard and the Federal E~er gency Management Agency were present.
During the meeting with state and local representatives, several suggestions and common concerns were raised.
Enclosed is a summary of these findings including identified areas in the plans needing further attention.
F. P~gano On the fourth day, an additional plant tour was conducted in conjunction with the NRR Lessons Learned Task Force Team.
Common areas of concern were reviewed together. Particular attention was focused on the following items:
technical support center, improved in-plant iodine sampling, and provision for post-accident sampling.
A public comment session was conducted on the fourth day, after the plant tour.
As a result of this session, two areas of concern were identified which the team feels should be addressed in the state or local plans. They are (1) local school representative, particularly in Covert Township, have not been involved in emergency plans and consequently are unaware of their responsibilities as stated in Annex M of the local plan, and (2) the elderly and handicapped within the EPZ have not been identified.
The latter item can be addressed by contacting the Area Agency on Aging located in St. Joseph, Michigan.
The team recognizes that it is not practical to identify every handicapped person within the EPZ; however,. some preplanning including cog-nizant agencies on handicapped p~rsonnel can be of some benefit.
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/enc1: R. Silver, DOR/NRR
~µ W. L. Axelson, Team Leader Emergency Preparedness Task Force.
R. Van Niel, FEMA Nat'l Office D. Glen, Battelle Northwest Lab B. Jorgensen, Resident Inspector
The following items were identified during our review:
Palisades Emergency Plan
- 1.
The licensee has selected locations for the onsite.Technical Support Center (TSC) and operational Support Group Center (SGC) for the January 1, 1980 requirements.
The licensee has agreed to fully imple-ment these centers prior to startup. Startup is tentatively scheduled for April 1980.
The TSC will be located adjacent to the control room in the shift supervisor's office.
This area currently meets the same habitability requirements as the control room.
Additional offices ad-jacent to the control room will also be designated as the TSC.
These offic.es do not meet control room habitability.
The licensee is current-ly developing procedures to monitor for both direct radiation and air-borne radioactive contaminants in these areas.
During the plant tour, the teams fro~ Lessons Learned and Emergency Plan-ning_ discussed the roles and functions of the TSC.
The teams agreed that for* the short term, technical. data access or. display to the TSC needs..
improvement.
The licensee agreed that a dedicated communicator from the control room to the TSC would provide access to technical data. F.urther, th(yagreed that radiological assessment data to the TSC would be ensured by allowing direct access to the control room.
This function needs to.
be separated from the dedicated communicator because radiological assess-ment parameters are located behind the control roolll panel.
The emergency planning team concurred with these recommendations.
Regarding the long range plan for the TSC, the licensee stated that two plans are currently being examined.
One plan is to upgrade the habita-bility for the short term Tse. and provide direct display of critical plant parameters.
The other plan is to build.a new facility separate from the tecporary TSC.
In summary, the licensee agreed to provide "as.:..built" diagrC\\IJlls of the TSC and SGC in the emergency plan.
The diagram should clearly indicate the communications (primary and backup) between these cen.ters, the con-trol room, arid the offsite centers established by the licensee, state and local authorities.
- 2.
The licensee is currently developing procedures for collection and ana-lyses of post-accident samples for (1) primary coolant, (2) containment:
atmosphere, and (3) final stack effluents.
These procedures will be emergency plan implementing procedures which will be listed in the emer-gency plan.
During the site visit, these procedures were still under development, The licensee stated that these procedures will be devel-oped prior to startup.
l*
2 -
The licensee's long range plan is consistent with NUREG-0578 and the clarification letter dated October 30, 1979.
- 3.
The licensee containment monitors currently read up to 104 R/hr.
The licensee's long range plan is to upgrade these monitors to 107 R/hr.
- 4.
The licensee is currently developing procedures for improved in-plant and offsite radioiodine monitoring.
These procedures will be emergency plan implementing procedures Yhich will be listed in the emergency plan.
The licensee intends to provide portable air samplers using a silver zeo-lite sample media.
- 5.
The licensee is currently installing saturation meters plus backup means for detection of inadequate core cooling.
The licensee stated these pro-visions will be installed prior to startup.
- 6.
Appendix M of the Emergency Plan (Table of Emergency Action Levels) is inconsistent with NUREG-0610.
Several areas were missing,. particularly the detection method of initiating the emergency classification.
The licensee agreed to include the detection methods previously discussec! in Items 2 through 5 as emerg'ency action levels.
These *are* the contaireent monitor radiation levels; sample results from containment atmosphere;
- sample results from stack effluents; and instrumentation for detection of inadequate core cooling.
Each instrmnent reading or sample re*sult will be calibrated*to classify an alert, site or general emergency.
The table will list (1) an event, (2) detection method and reading, (3) li-censee actions and (4) actions by state and local officials. The table.
may reference appropriate technical specifications for the lower classes of emergencies in lieu of real time instrument readings. *However, the licensee agreed that the procedures will list all appropriate instrur.ent readings or sample results for all classes of emergencies.
This is a slight deviation from the acceptance criteria, however, the team felt the licensee is fulf_illing the intent of the criteria..
- 7.
The licensee emergency plan does not provide plots showing contai~en.t radiation level vs. extent.of core damage.
The licensee. agreed to.pro-vide these plots in the emergency plan.
- 8.
The licensee's normal operating organization for day shifts include, as a minimum, six individuals: one shift supervisor, two reactor opera-tors, one shift technical advisor, and two auxiliary operators. rne li-censee's off shift organization consist of five individuals. During an emergency, the licensee's plan states that off site support can be p=o-vi.ded within 60 minutes. Part of this support is activated from the Consumers Power General Office.
The plan needs to clarify what s~?pcr~
Yill augment the onsite organization fo=- all shifts.
A block dia£rc.=
indicating what support will 1:e i!:plemented within 60 minutes for all shifts needs to be included in the plan.
Duringmeetings with the licensee, the proposed minimum plan~ staffi=.g requirements for emergencies... ~ere discussed.
The licensee stated that
- their organiu:.tion does not provide for a shift foreman, as requirec by
3 -
.the proposal in NUREG 0654.
Also, electrical maintenance/I & C technicians would have to be hired to implement this proposal.
In general, the licensee felt this would have a significant impact on their current organization.
The licensee expressed concern regarding a reasonable schedule for implementation of these requirements.
- 9.
The licensee has selected a near site Emergency Operating Center (EOC).
This center is located approximately five miles north of the f~cility.
The state and local officials toured this center*with the Emergency Plan-ning Team.
The state and local officials, as well as the team, concurred in the selection and location of the cecter. If an accident was less severe, the near site EOC could be moved closer to the facility.
The State of Michigan plan currently provides this mobile capability.
IO.
The licensee's plan does not contain Appendix B or C as stated in the index.
Appendix B should include the plots of time-di.stance dose cal-cul~tions and the.methodology for dose assessment.
Appendix C should include the site evacuation routes, relocation center~ population dis-tribution for the 10 mile EPZ, and vehicular road maps for the 10 mile EPZ.
- 11., The licensee's plan does not provide for dissemination of educational information to the public regarding the potential warning methodology for e~ergencies. The licensee is currently examining this criterion.
The plan should include what method exists for warning the public.
Currently, the local plan proVides for door-to-door notification.
Annex B of the local plan provides for siren coverage in the cities of South Haven, Bangor, Covert, and Hartford.
However, the plan's de-ficiency statements indicate these sirens need to be upgraded.
For the interim (CY1980), the licensee should.develop with state and local officials, a more timely warning system using the existing siren systems.
An educational instruction pamphlet can easily be developed using these sirens with a 24 hr/ciay media station. This can easily be implemented by mid-1980.
- 12.
Appendix E of the facility plans needs to be upgraded to include radio-logical equipment necessary to conduct adequate radiological monitor-ing, both onsite and offsite.
- 13.
The current Letters of Agreement with the Department of Energy and Van Buren County Sheriff need to be updated.
In addition, a Letter cf Agreement with the Van Buren Coll!:).ty State Park Director should be ce-veloped.
This agreement should identify the EI!lergency measures to be provided and the mutually acce?table cri~eria fer their implementation.
- 14.
Sect:ion 12.6.7.3.2 of the plan briefly.states that contractors and ven-dors are available for assfstance.
The pla:'l should explain these c<!i:;a-bilities.
- 15.
The plan does not provide for thyroid blocking agents or distribution of this drug during an emergency.
- 16.
Section 12.6.8.1.1.d of the plan (training) does not indicate what train-ing will be provided for local emergency preparedness personnel.
- 17.
Section 12.6.7.1.2 of the plan does not indicate that adequate.respira-tory protection equipment is available for the TSC.
State of Michigan, Van Buren County, and Berrien County Emergency Plans On January 8-9, 1980, the Regional Advisory Committee (Region V) met to dis-cuss their review of the state and local emergency plans for the State of Michigan.
Messrs. Gaitanis and Axelson were present at the meeting held on January 8th.
As a result of this meeting, several common concerns betwee~
the RAC and the emergency planning teams were discussed.
The following re-presents those concerns:
- 1.
Several items, particularly 400 and 500 'series items from NUREG-75/lll were missing from the plans.
- 2.
The Allegan County plan was not submitted for review.
This plan encom-passes a small portion of the 10 mile EPZ for the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
- 3.
The local plans do not reflect actual execution aut~ority, particularly for a general emergency.
In a real situation, the local sheriff has authority to execute.the local plan without.concurrence from.the cou:ity
- cdI:llilissioners.
- 4.
Letters of Agreement with the State of Indiana were missing from the.
plan.
- 5.
Letters of Agreement with the operating facilities were missing from t.he plan.
The above items were discussed with state and local representatives at t:he emergency planning meeting held at Palisades.
Additionally, the RAC **ill be meeting with Michigan on January 31 and February 1, 1980.
As a result of the emergency planning team meeting with state an.d local re-presentatives, additional areas.of improvement were discussed with these officials.
- 1.
Currently, provision for prompt alerting of some parts of the 10 mile EPZ exist.
The method for alerting is sirens.
However, these sirens are not integrated irito a preplanned nuclear emergency warning systec with predetermined actions from a local news media station.
The teaI:
$Uggested that for the interim, these sirens should be used for alerticg the public of a nuclear emergency.
The news media station warning mes-
. sages should be in English and Spanish due to a large influx of Spanish speaking residents during the harvest season.
- 2.
Currently, no radio station within the 10 mile EPZ operates for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day.
However, a representative from WJOR radio station (South Haven),
indicated ehat their station can be manned and operating on high p~ar (EBS output) within ten minutes from a notification.
The team suggested that WJOR be the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day media notification station.
2 -
- 3.
Currently, the local plans (Annex M) adequately address evacuation of county school districts.
However, several local school representatives and school superintendents were unaware of their responsibilities as indicated in the plan. The team feels that training is needed in this area and prompt notification of all affected schools should be addressed as part of the early warning system.
- 4.
The state plan provides an emergency classification system which is inconsistent with NUREG-0610.
This item was discussed with representa-tives from the Department of Heal~h at the Big Rock Point visit.
During the Palisades meeting, Mr. Ted Zale, from the State Emergency Services Division indicated that this 11".atter would be pursued within the state.
In tte interim, the team agreed to accept both NUREG-0610 and Michigan's Class A, B, C, and D systems.
The plans should indicate compatible sys-tems to prevent confusion.
The team ~tressed that this matter should be resolved.*
- -*- - -*- ------* *---*** -- ~-- ____.. ___.