ML20062D346

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 70-0824/90-02 on 900917-21.Violation Noted But Not Cited.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness, Observation & Evaluation of Emergency Drill,Maint of Select Emergency & Fire Protection Equipment & Drills
ML20062D346
Person / Time
Site: 07000824
Issue date: 10/26/1990
From: Gooden A, Rankin W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062D345 List:
References
70-0824-90-02, 70-824-90-2, NUDOCS 9011130127
Download: ML20062D346 (15)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:> q. S e [C# #80bq'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES - f" ntGION Il 5 ,y, 101 MARIETT A STREET, N A. 't ATLANTA, OEORGI A 30323 \\,"+**/ s OCT 2 9 $00 ' Report.No.: 70-824/90 Licensee: Babcock and Wilcox Company Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Lynchburg, VA 24505 1 . Docket No.: 70-824 License No.: SNM-778 [ ! Facility Name: Naval Nuclear Fuel Division q (1 Inspection Conducted:. September 17-21, 1990 Inspector: h &h , /O -Jy--90 'A7 _Gooden Date signed j 5-Accompanying Personnel: - J. Kahle R. Marston Approved by: M / o-@ Signed _ - i# m Fate W. Rankin, y - . Emergency Preparedness Section< ~ Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch ~ Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ..g.

SUMMARY

Sco'pe: -l This. routine, announced inspection was ' conducted in the area of emergency preparedness. 'Several areas within the emergency preparedness program were reviewed -to determine. if-the program was being maintained; in a state of , operational' readiness. Specific areas' reviewed included: the following: . observation and evaluation of emergency drill;; maintenance of select emergency and fire protection ' equipment; Radiological Contingency Plan -(RCP) and emergency procedures _ update and distribution of changes to. copyholders; training, periodic drills' and' exercises; and open. items from1 previous y l inspections. ~ si ~ Results: 1 -In! the areas--inspected, two non-cited' violations- (NCVs) were identified: n

1) Failure to-include a test of the communications links and notification procedures-for-early warning of the public between the site and the
Commonwealth-and local-emergency units (Paragraph 6), and
2) Failure to

_ perform monthly communications test of the Emergency Notification System (ENS) or: Health Physics Network (HPN)'during the: Calendar Year 1989 (Paragraph 3). 9011130127 90100o PDR ADOC.K 0700682A b PDC

c.3 ; 4 ,7 q 1 DUringLthe drill, a weakness was identified as a result of the licensee's - failure:,to adequately implenent the RCP and Emergency Procedures to ensure that-1 protective neasures were taken ' in-response :to the postulated accident

(Paragraph 6). The inspection also indicated the following:

q An effective licensee critique and self-identification of concer.is. Tiniely notification of the Emergency Control Organization (ECO). j Selected emergency equipment was included in a periodic maintenance program for ensuring operability. l The licensee -agreed to implement immediate improvements in -the radiological-1 contingency program to correct the findings in:the drill. 4 t I f _ tw 1 m 3 i- ,,.i) j' ( ; -. + f r -l8 t

1 A

,jiC:, [

]b;-l

'h M.- 4 . f '.f t ' l. .L i I y,,

r 5

i g ff - ih i< -s P r

.I 1 { REPORT DETAILS i 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees A. Ambrose, Industrial Safety Coordinator 4

  • R. Bennett, Manager, Safety and Licensing
  • C, Boyd, Licensing and Compliance Officer 1

W. Camm, Technician, Health and Safety

  • T. Grochowski, Health Physicist
  • J. Noon, Manager Safeguards and Security
  • S. Schilthelm, Supervisor, Health Physics
  • L. Trent, Manager, Safety and Safeguards
  • D. Ward, Manager, Health and Safety
  • W. Younger, Supervisor, Plant Engineering t

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel, i

  • Attended exit interview 2.

Offsite Support Agencies (88050) 'Th'e inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the coordination of emergency planning with -offsite support grcups and adjacent' Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) facilities (Naval Nuclear Fuel Division j [NNFD] and Commercial Nuclear Fuel). According'to Section 8.2 of the RCP, - the agreements with offsite support agencies are. maintained - by. the

j Emergency Officer.

Updated agreement letters were on file for the 4 1. following offsite support agencies: Lynchburg General, Hospital (dated 1 x February 1,1989), Concord Rescue Squad -(dated September 8,1989) and ~ ] Concord Volunteer Fire Department (dated January 10,1990). j m The -inspector reviewed documentation for a site familiarization tour and training that was provided on October 23, 1989, to six members of the Concord Volunteer Fire Department. According to a letter dated August'25, i c 1989, members of the Concord Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad were offered the referenced training and tour. Although calendar year 1990 tr'ining and site familiarization tour had not been conducted a letter (dated August 1990) extending an invitation to conduct the referenced training and tour had been'provided. In addition,~ members of the NNFD Emergency Response. Team (ERT) were provided a. tour during November and December 1989.- A calendar year 1990 site familiarization { tour had not been provided but was planned. When questioned regarding the l Comercial. Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) ERT participation in the referenced training and tour, - the inspector-was informed that CNFP-ERT was not 1 included. The licensee indicated that future site familiarization tours will include the CNFP-ERT. The licensee committed to at least annually I f i

i y. 7.._ 1 2 L providing )a site familiarization tour to neighboring ERT personnel (CNFP/NNFD.. The inspector informed the licensee that this item would be tracked as an Inspector Followup Item (IFI) for review during a subsequent inspection. 1 IFI (70-824/90-02-01): Verify that at least annually, neighboring ERT l personnel are provided a site familiarization tour. No violations or deviations were icientified. { 3. Emergency Plans, Procedures Facilities, and Equipment (88050) a. Radiological Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (EPs) The inspector reviewed documentation to verify that an annual review V had been conducted of the RCP and EPs in accordance with Section 7.4 of the RCP. The current copy of the RCP is dated June 1987, Revision I 2. The inspector noted that proposed revisions had been incorporated into a. revised draft RCP for. review by the Emergency Control

0rganization and subsequent submittal for NRC review and approval.

Regarding the distribution of changes to the RCP and EPs. a . formalized. program had been implemented under an instruction j . maintained by the Licensing and Compliance Officer. The cover memo y used for transmittal of changes to controlled copy holders required j copy holders to return transmittal memo as an acknowledgement that i changes-were received and inserted into the appropriate document. To ensure that manuals were maintained current and up-to-date, the. 1 inspector reviewed selected procedures from controlled copies of the j EPs (copy nos. 5,'13, and 17). No problems were noted; the randomly i selected procedures were - current and up-to-date. A licensee I representative informed the inspector that full implementation of the j revised NRC emer ency plenning rules were planned for the next license renewal calendar year 1992). The inspector reviewed the emergency action levels '(EALs) in-the RCP-and ' the emergency- -classification procedures (RL-EP-6 and RL-EP-7) for consistency and-verification thatt.the EPs adequately implemented the RCP -{ classification scheme. The inspector noted that although:the level of event: classification was identical between the RCP and EPs, the - l conditions.for declaring the emergency 'in the RCP were in some instances ambiguous and not as concisely stated as in the EPs. ' The' inspector discussed this. item with a licensee representative who l acknowledges this matter and indicated that a commitment tracking number-(90-46), was assigned to verify that conditions for declaring an emergency in the RCP-are concise and consistent with conditions in the EPs. The licensee was informed that their actions ~ to resolve. the l commitment item was considered an improvement item for review during-a future visit. 1 i

1 4 3 b. Facilities and Equipment Records of calibrations and/or surveillances performed during the period April 23, 1989 thru August 30, 1990, were reviewed for the emergency lockers. emergency power source, emergency communications system (CNS and HPN), and meteorological system. With two exceptions, no problems were noted. Inventories, calibrations, i and/or operability checks were performed in accordance with I procedures 'and the RCP. Surveillance records indicated that, for-discrepancies, corrective actions were prompt and properly documented. The two exceptions involved the emergency communications i testing and the periodic maintenance and testing of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) used by emergency response personnel. Emergency comunications equipment (ENS and HPN) was noted during a safety audit by the licensee as not being consistently tested and documented in accordance with procedural requirements found in RL-EP-3 (monthly) which were based on NRC Information-Notice 86-97,. There was no documentation available to confirm monthly testing was performed during calendar year 1989. This item was ider.tified and properly documented, including the corrective ection and date completed, in a memo dated 1. 4 February 9,1990. Failure to conduct monthly checks of the emergency coneunications system was a violation of NNFD-RL Procedurt No. RL-EP-3. However, the licensee identified violation described above is not being cited because criteria specified in Section V.G.1 of the.NCR's Enforcement policy were satisfied. This finding is therefore considered a licensee identified non-cited violation (NCV). NCV (70-834/90-02-02): Failure' to perform monthly communications test of the ENS or HPN during calendar year 1989. } According to Section '5.4.3.1 of the RCP, the use of respiratory equipment was controlled pursuant to the site respiratory protection program. The site -respiratory-program was fully implemented..via various procedures governing-the use of respirators, periodic maintenance and testing, respirator training, etc. However, the routine program utilized different' respiratory equipment from that assigned to the emergencyL cabinets for use by emergency response personnel. When questioned regarding the procedures governing the periodic maintenance and testing of this. equipment, the inspector was informed that such procedure had not been developed and -implemented. Although a written procedure was lacking, the inspector observed documentation to show that periodic pressure tests were performed. The inspector discussed the tests with the personnel assigned responsibility in this program area, and observed the performance of periodic maintenance by responsible personnel in accordance with the manufacturers reconnendations. The licensee acknowledged the necessity of proceduralizing this 1

h 4 program, and conmitted to the development of a procedure governing the periodic maintenance, testing, and use of s equipment. The inspector informed the licensee that tH s item would be tracked as an IFI for review during a subsequent inspection. .l IF! (70-824/90-02-03): Procedural development governing the periodic maintenance, testing, and use of respiratory protection equipment used by emergency response per)onnel. The inspector conducted an operability test of the ENS from Building D with the NRC-Operations Center. No problems were noted with the quality. of voice transmission, and the location of the ENS and HPN were in accordance with the facility layout description for Building D. j One NCV was identified. 4. Training (88050) This area was inspected to determine if the licensee was providing. training in accordance with the RCP. Section 7.2 of the RCP outlines the training program.- Training was reviewed for three individuals assigned to the Emergency Control Organization (EC0) since the last inspection. All' three . individuals were. provided training on their respective role.and . responsibilities in the ECO. In addition, respiratory protection recertification and medical examinations were reviewed for several -individuals assigned:to the ERT. The records showed that the selected individuals were within their certification dates and had current medical examinations.. Regardin'g offsite support training,- as discussed in Paragraph 2 above, members of the Concord VFD attended four hours. of site. familiarization /

training 1 during October 1989.

Members of the NNFD ERT received training during the fourth quarter of 1989. No violations or deviations were identified. 5. ' FireProtection(88050)' The inspector discussed this program area with a licensee representative and reviewed the appropriate documentation. The licensee's Fire Brigade Team was. synonymous with the ERT. The Emergency Response Organization-chart identified eight individuals assigned to the ERT. Since the last inspection ~, several training sessions involving classroom instructions and-hands-on training were conducted as follows: Emergency Vehicle Occupancy Course (June 1990), Ladder Training (July 1990), Emergency Rescue (August 1990), and Hazardous Material I (September 1990).

5 The inspector reviewed several B&W Health and Safety fire Protection Procedures for a description of the fire protection maintenance program. Surveillance documentation for the portable fire extinguishers, sprinkler system and-valves, fire hydrants, and fire pump flow test was reviewed. The surveillance documentation covered the period September 1989 to August 1990, and disclosed that audits were conducted at the required frequency. The inspector discussed with the licensee as an improvement the implementation of a procedure governing periodic inspection of fire hose houses. This item was assigned a commitment tracking system number by the licensee (CTS No. 90-47) for followup. No violations or deviations were identified. 6. Tests and Drills (88050) Section 7.3 of the RCP required an annual emergency drill be conducted, to " test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods, to test emergency equipment and to ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties." The calendar year 1990 drill was conducted on September 20, 1990, and did not involve any of the State local, or federal agencies. The duration of the drill.was 1 approximately 30 minutes. The licensee identified 19 objectives for drill evaluation. One item not included as an objective, and which during -r previous drills had been inadequately tested, involved a test of the connunications links and notification procedures. Section 6.2 of the RCP states that "the annual ' drill shall include as a minimum a test of the = con.munications' links and notification procedures for early warning of the public between the site and State and local emergency units." This matter was discussed with' licensee management during the calendar year 1989 exercise as a test to.be performed on a'"real-time" basis during the drill (NRC Report No. 70-824/89-07). In response to the postulated accident, the licensee failed to. test connunications and notification with State and localgemergency units. Consequently. the licensee was informed that this item was considered a. violation. On-October 23,.1990, the licensee was j informed that based on plans to conduct a remedial drill within 3 months .i .of1the inspection; ending date, this NRC identified violation is not being cited because. critieria.specified in.Section V. A of. tne.NRC Enforcement . Policy were. satisfied.o NCV (70-824/90-02-04): Failure to perform a test 'of the communication links and notification procedure for early warning of the public between the site, State, and local emergency units during the annual drill. The scenario required a response to a storage trailer fire involving paints and solvents. One employee working inside the trailer was postulated as incurring burns-and a fracture to the forearm. In addition, a second individual located in a remote area.from the fire, was simulated as suffering: a ' heart attack. The inspector observed the licensee's . actions in the.following areas: i

~ 6 ECO activation, staffing and operation Notification and connunication onsite and offsite Facility evacuation and accountability On-scene response by ERTs (HNFD and NNFD-RL) On-scene coceand and control Access control An inspector observed that notification methods and procedures had been established for NRC, State, and local response organizations. Although State and local response organizations were not notified (ss discussed above), the_ licensee provided information t'o the NRC regarding the simulated emergency within the required time regime. Regarding onsite notifications, an artificiality was noted involving the notification and activation of the NNFD ERT. The details of the scenario were confidential; however, the ERT was informed prior to the exercise date regarding their participation and an anticipated starting time. Consequently, the response lacked real-time notification and deployment. The licensee acknowledged this item and committed to the performance of real time notification and deployment of the NNFD ERT during a future drill. The inspector informed. the licensee that this item will be tracked as an IFI for review during a subsequent drill.- IFI (70-824/90-02-05): Perform real-time notification, activation, and development of.NNFC ERT. Based on the following observations. -the licensee's ability to implement - the RCP and EPs-was considered a weakness:- Failure to complete accountability for a simulated heart attack victim in accordance with RL-EP-7 Section~4.0. The simulated victim was never located nor identified as missing. Lack of access control to incident area. Non-essential persons were allowed complete entry into the-area of hazard. Lack of coordination between the ECO and NNFD ERT. The NNFD ERT responded directly to the incident area rather than the assembly area (for instructions and/or personal dosimetry or-health physics ie support). Delayed arrival by RL ERT to scene of incident and the additional delay in donning. equipment for responding to the fire (total time approximately 25 minutes). Lack of1 coordination between ERTs (NNFD' and. NNFD-RL). RL ERT required controller prompting for on scene coordination. Improper response by NNFD ERT and Medical Team due to the lack of monitoring capability (had radioactive material been involved) and adequate information regarding -the status of the incident and hazard potential.

x 7 ' Licenseeiobservers noted similar findings during the critique. The . weakness was discussed with licensee representatives before and during the exi t._ In response to' the weakness, the licensee conmitted to the following near term actions:

1) Restructuring of the emergency organization-(to combine expertise from the NNFD and RL organizations),
2) Conduct training for the emergency organization once identified.
3) Reorganize the Roll Taking Organization to enhance accountability-procedures, and 4) Provide general emergency response training for all site. personnel.

The licensee connitted to a redemonstration of emergency response capability once the aforenientioned items. are completed. AccordingL to licensee management, it is anticipated that a remedial

exercise will be conducted in approximately three months.

The licensee i was-informed that the weakness and corrective actions taken in response would,be revi.ewed-during a follow-up inspection. - Weakness (70-824/90-02-06): Failure to adequately implement the RCP and EPs-in response to a postulated accident. In addition to the weakness noted above, the inspector discussed the following improvement items with the licensee: -Excessive prompting- . Assignment of personnel along the s'ite access routes to provide: ' directions to ERT personnel from support agencies i Deletion of the names of controllers from the accountability drill Oseiof.an emergency log book 'or event book-by personnel assigned to A the position Emergency Recorder ;Drillsmanship on the part of exercise evacuees Thellicensee' demonstrated a?very effective and critical self-assessment of its emergency-response capability. Included inythe assessment discussions were11ong term and short tem corrective. actions to. ensure an adequate s Cdpability.for responding to Various kinds of emergencies. .0ne NCV was identified. ~ e7. LNRClinformationNotice-(92703)~ The inspector discussed with a licensee representative their response to .theLfollowingInformationNotices-(IN): t .IN - No. 90-01 "Importance of Proper Response to Self-Identific i Violations By Licensees." The inspector reviewed documentation to .show that the' referenced IN was distributed to appropriate staff for review and a'ction as necessary. .lI< 9

g -

9 8 IN,No. 90-08 "Kr-85 Hazards from Decayed Fuel." According to I documentation, the licensee reviewed the referenced IN in relationship to Section 3.3.3 of the RCP and determined that based on the: concentration values, the offsite consequence of a ruptured fuel assembly at RL is not significant. IN No. 90-44 " Dose Rate Instruments Underresponding to the True Radiation Fields." The inspector was provided documentation to show an evaluation was conducted of onsite equipment which met the IN criteria, and the appropriate instrument manufacturer was contacted for resolution or corrective action. 8. Ac'. ion on Previous Inspection Findings (92701) a. (Closed) IFl 70-824/88-04-05: Develop a procedure to perform t.mergency radiological dose assessment using meteorological and source term input. The subject procedure was issued during September 1989. The inspector reviewed Procedure No. RL-TP-464 " Emergency Procedure for Offsite Dose Assessment," Rev. 1, dated March 1, 1990, and noted that the procedure utilized changing meteorological soure.e-term.E and actual field = team monitoring results (if-available) for performing 4 offsite dose projection. The procedure also provided recomniendations regarding protective actions based on the EPA PAGs. (. Closed). Violation; 70-824/89-02-06: Failure to conduct monthly 1b. inspection of _ portable fire extinguishers during December 1988 and-January.1989. By letter dated August 4,1989, the licensee was informed by NRC -(Region II) that based on the additional documentation including the_ corrective steps which were taken, the-violation was rescinded, c. (Closed) IF1-80-824/89-02-07: Ensure that CY-89 exercise include a-comprehensive communications drill between the site, State, and ;1ocal response personnel. Thistitem is closed by virtue of a violation discussed in Paragraph 6-of~this report.

d.-

'(Closed) IFI 70-824/89-07-01: Issuance of Update Emergency + -Procedures'by October-31, 1989. According Lto a memo - dated October 17,1989 (To: Copy Holders Distribution), revised pages were issued for the NNFD-RL Emergency . Procedure Manual. Procedures formerly referred to as EP-1 thru EP-29 was removed / replaced with RL-EP-1 thru RL-EP-10. The discrepancies identified by both the NRC and licensee were resolved. e, -(Closed) NCV 70-824/89-07-02: Failure to adequately make required-changes to the EC0 roster. I

9 The subject finding was opened and closed under Report No. 89-07, . dated October 20, 1989. However, administrative actions to close item were completed under Report No. 70-824/90-02. f. -(0 pen) IFI 70-824/89-07-03: Consideration of a designated indoor location for an E0C. The subject finding was discussed with licensee representatives and remains open pending further review and evaluation by licensee management. 9. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 21, 1990, with' those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below. _ The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspetion. There were no dissenting comments from. the licensee. Licensee management (Manager, Safety and Safeguards, 'and Manager Safety _and Licensing) - reiterated the-concern for taking prompt and effective actions (as i discussed in Paragraph 6) in response to the exercise findings, f The Mana'gerp Safety and Safeguards further stated that an evaluation with higher level management at the B&W site would ensure reassessment of the ~ - role. and.esponsibility of other site tenants in responding to . emergencies. On October 23, 1990, the inspector i_nformed the Licensing and Compliance .1 Officer that failure to test con.munications with State and local emergency units-during the drill.was-considered'.a-NCV rather than a cited violation a as discussed during the exit. li

Item Number Description /_ Reference ~

~70-824/90-02-01 IFI - Verify that at least annually, neighboring tour-(Paragraph 2)provided a site familiarization ERT. personnel are q 1 824/90-02-02 NCV - Failure to perform monthly ;ommunications test of the ENS or HPN during calendar year 1989 (Paragraph 3). 70-824/90-02-03 IFI ;- Develop procedure governing the periodic maintenance,. testing, < and ute of respiratory protection equipment used by emergency response personnel-(Paragraph 3). 70-824/90-02-04 NCV - Failure to perform a test of the communication links and notification procedure for early warning of the public between the site,

x ..s; ,4 10 State, and local emergency units during the annual drill (Paragraph 6). 70-824/90-02-05 IFl - Perform real-time notification, activation, and deployment of NNFD ERT (Paragraph 6). 70-824/90-02 06 We:kness - Failure to adequately implement the i<CP and EPs in response to a pot,tulated accident (Paragraph 6). Licensee managen:ent was informed that six open items from previous inspections were reviewed. Five items were closed and one remained open (Paragraph 8).

Attachment:

Scenario and Exercise Objectives

+. UUF 1 To: NRC From: R. L. Bennett, Emergency Officer J. A. Calvert, Industrial Safety Engineer ^ Subj.: 20-Day Notification for Annual August 30, 1990 NNFD-E Emergency Exercise for 1990 h l ( = The 45-day notification for the NNFD-RL's emergency exercise for 1990 was prepared on August 3, 1990. A copy of that notification is Ei attached for information. Information for the 20-day notification is L given below. The planned time for the emergency exercise to begin is 1:00 PM on Thursday September 20, 1990 with an alternative date of September 'u 21, 1990. General instructions about the. exercise will be provided to g members-of the RL's Emergency Control Organization on the morning of f J the= exercise. A telephone call will be made to the Receptionist at 1:00 PM-informing-'her of an emergency exercise involving an enlosion.and fire in a storage. trailer near the Garage-Maintenance Building with a y request for response by the Emergency Response Team. One man hao been injured. u .The emergency exercise.will be announced over the PA system at 1:00~PM. -The evacuation alarm will be sounded following this L announcement. A few' key operations will be informed about.the L upcoming exercise on Thursday morning to prevent injuries or spread of1 radioactive contamination. L Written information will be provided to members of the Emergency Teams-as they arrive at the scene of the exercise. After the through him, ponse Officer arrives, all information will be relayed Emergency'Res l o L The exercise is: based upon a driver backing a vehicle into the corner of a trailer where an electrical box is located. This causes Ml -sparking inside the trailer which ignites flammable vapors-from solvents-and paints stored there. Combustibles stored in the trailer ignite and a fire starts. An individual in the' trailer is. burned at. the time #f the ignition of the vapors, but;is able to open the door and falls out of the: trailer and down theJsteps to the ground. (A Us. . note will be placed on the individual identifying location and degree of burns and a broken right radius.) The driver notifies the fire, and injury. If ten minutes L

Receptionist about the explosion,ing is started, the Emergency 14" ;

elapse before effective firefight l"4 Response Officer will be notified that fire has. spread to an adjacent n trailer..If adjacent vehicles, portable compressors etc. have not 6 .been moved within an elapsed time period'of-twelve m[nutes, the o J G! jA m ?i ul 91!';

Emergency Response Officer will be notified that fire has spread to these items. If fif teen minutes elapse before ef fective firefighting is started, the Emergency Response Officer will be notified that fire 4 has spread to an adjacent dumpster. If twenty minutes elapse before effective firefighting is started, the Emergency Response Of ficer will be notified that fire has spread to the Garage Maintenance Building. Also during the exercise, two individuals will attempt to pass through the fire lines to "get a better view of what is golng on". Coincident with the primary accident, an individual will suffer a simulated heart attack in Building C. This individual will not report for the roll call. This person will be conscious and will be able to inform rescuers about his condition. Controllers will wear identification and will be present in the Assembly Area, at the scene of the accident, and will accompany the re-entry team to Building C. The exercise will be terminated by the primary controller after proper emergency response has been completed. Injured personnel will be placed in emergency vehicles,ise will last no longer than 30but not transported to the It is anticipated that the exerc minutes. 9 L. tSJ y.A.CM l l l l

_.__..m................... To: NRC From: R. L. Bennett, Emergency Officer J. A. Calvert, Industrial Safety Engineer l Subj.: Annual Emergency Exercise for 1990 August 3, 1990 Planned Date of Emergency Exercise: September 20, 1990 Alternate Date: September 21, 1990 Planned Time of-Emergency Exercise: 1:00 PM Description and Scope of Emergency Exercise: A minor accident propagates into a major fire. The scenario is progressive in that if control is not established within a fixed time frame, further incidents will occur. -Objectives to Be Fulfilled:

  • Drill of employees in evacuation and roll call
  • ' Timely and effective evacuation of facility
  • Timely activation of the Emergency Control Organization
  • Effective-response of the Emergency Control Organization
  • Drill of Alternate Emergency Of ficer

-

  • Timely activation of the Emergency Response Team
  • Ef fective response of the Emergency Response Team
  • Timely notification of' NNFD's hergency Team
  • Effective' response of NNFD'c Emergency Team
  • Timely notification of NNFD's Spill Control Team

-* Effective response of1NNFD's-Spill Control Team

  • -Timely notification:of off-site emergency response groups
  • Ef fective response of off-site emergency responsa groups
  • Orderly and efficient control of response groups
  • Timely and proper evaluation.of need for off-site assistance
  • Proper establishment of controlled area boundaries
  • Effective use of communication systems
  • Timely and proper classification of initial situation
  • Timely and proper upgrade of developing situation
  • Timely and proper use"of the ENS

_}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20062D346&oldid=4456771"