ML20133Q253

Insp Rept 50-062/85-02 on 850819-23.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness

ML20133Q253
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	10/04/1985
From:	Cunningham A, Marston R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133Q250	List: ML20133Q246 ML20133Q253
References
50-062-85-02, 50-62-85-2, NUDOCS 8511010459
Download: ML20133Q253 (16)

See also: IR 05000062/1985002

Text

'

.

u UNITED STATES

[DR Rio %, *

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

d' \ . /* REGION 11

h.

. ) 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

-

r ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%N,'!v},/,##

ULT 171985

Report Nos.: 50-62/85-02

Licensee: University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA 22901

Docket Nos.- 50-62 (University of VA Test License No. R-66

Reactor)

Fac;11ty Name: University of Virginia

Inspection Conducted: August 19-23, 1985

-

$f&

Inspectork:'R.R.Marston $hg'

~

/C-V-[5

Date Signed

Accompanying Personnel: R. T. Hogan, IE HQS, M. R. Poston-Brown, RII

N#9 w *

Approved Fby:p,%. L. Cunningham, Actirif 5ection Chief /6- / -85

~

Date Signed

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine, announced inspection involved 84 inspector-hours onsite and

21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> offsite in the areas of an emergency preparedness appraisal.

Results: Of the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.

I

1

.

8511010459 851017

PDR ADOCK 05000062

i

G PDR

l

. _ . - _ - . -

.

.

-

,

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

DETAILS

1.0 EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION

1.1 Onsite

1.1.1 Functional Areas and Assignments

1.1.2. Interviews and Walkthroughs

1.2 Offsite

1.2.1 Functional Areas and Assignments

1.2.2 Interviews and Walkthroughs

2.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE

2.1 Notification and Activation of Emergency Organization

2.1.1 Procedures

2.1.2 Communications

2.1.3 Interviews and Walkthroughs

2.2 Classification and Assessment

2.2.1 Identification and Classification

2.2.2 Assessment Action

2.2.3 Interviews and Walkthroughs

23 Protective / Corrective Actions

2.3.1 Facilities and Equipment

2.3.2 Evacuation and Accountability

2.3.3 Personnel Exposure Control

2.3.4 First Aid and Rescue

2.3.5 Interviews and Walkthroughs

3.0 MAINTAINING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

3.1 Training and Retraining Program

3.2 Drills

3.3 Maintenance of Procedures and Plan

c. PERSONS CONTACTED

.

_ _ _ ._. _ _ . _ . . _ ._ ._ -_ . _ _ _

.

i

t

i

3

<

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this appraisal was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the

licensee's emergency preparedness program. This appraisal included at evaluation

of the adequacy and effectiveness of areas for which explicit regulatory

requirements may not currently exist.

The appraisal scope and findings were summarized on August 23, 1985, with those

, persons indicated in Section 4.0 of this report.

1

i 1.0 EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION

1.1 ONSITE ORGANIZATION.

,

1.1.1 Functional Areas

This area was reviewed with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,

i IV.A.2, and criteria of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982.

a. The inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan (EP) and the Errergency Plan

Implementing Procedures (EPIPs), and discussed the emergency

organization with licensee representatives. The inspector verified

that the licensee identified the functional areas of Director of

Emergency Operations, Coordinator of Emergency Preparedness, Public

Information Liaison, Radiological Assessment Coordinator, individual

authorized to terminate emergency and initiate recovery, individual

! authorized to permit reentry, and individual authorized to permit

volunteer workers to incur radiation exposure in exces; of normal

occupational limits. In addition, the licensee defined the specific

i assignments, responsibilities, and authorities in the onsite emergency

organization. These identifications and definitions were found in

,l

Section 3.2 of the Emergency Plan (EP).

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's prograin

appeared to be adequate.

b. The inspector determined through discussion with licensee

representatives and review of the EP, Section 3.1, that a line of

succession was provided for the following positions: Director of

Emergency Operations; Coordinator of Emergency Preparedness; Public

Information Liaison (included in Emergency Director's

responsibilities); and Radiological Assessment Coordinator.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program

appeared to be adequate.

c. The inspector determined through discussion with licensee personnel

that all members of the onsite emergency organization had at least one

year of experience appropriate to their designated emergency

assignments.

!

~ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - ,

__ _ . _ .__ _. . . _ _

-

,

!

l

4

.

I

!

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program

,

appeared to be adequate.

.

! d. Interviews with seven members of the onsite emergency organization

showed that they understood the interfaces between and among the onsite

l functional areas. A licensee representative stated that an

<

organizational chart illustrating the interfaces was not made

because of the small size and simple nature of the organization.

l

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program

1 appeared to be adequate.

i

j e. The inspector determined that management support appeared to be

'

adequate. The Reactor Facility Director stated that he (and in his

absence, his alternate) had the authority to commit the Reactor Account

and certain State money to control an emergency.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program

, appeared to be adequate.

1'

f. The Reactor Facility Director stated that he felt the greatest length

of time an emergency would last would be two days, and that, if'

j necessary, the staff could be split to cover two - 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts per

i day.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program

l appeared to be adequate.

!

1.1.2 Interviews and Walk-Throughs

l

!

The inspector conducted interviews and walk-throughs with eight members of the

onsite organization. They all appeared to understand their responsibilities and

authorities for their functional areas of responsibility and felt that their

training was adequate.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

1.2 0FFSITE SUPPORT

This area was reviewed with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,

and criteria of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982.

1.2.1 Fire Protection

The inspector interviewed a member of the Charlottesville Fire Department and

noted that fire protection at the Reactor Facility was provided as requested.

The University of Virginia (UVA) Er.vironmental Health and Safety Department has

provided training to all members of the fire department which included the topics

P

, --- ,--~..--,--r_,., _.-,,,.-,_,_.- - -- ,..- %w.., 2 .

_.,.~-,.v,-,.w.,p,,..-+-..---cv_.w.~,-,, ,,ww .,

. - - . - - . . - . . .- . . .. . . _ __

.

5

l

of instrumentation, UVA and UVA reactor emergency plans, and a tour of the

reactor facility.

'

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate,

j 1.2.2 Police Protection

'

The inspector interviewed a member of the University of Virginia Police

Department. The UVA Police Department is fully deputized by the city and county

and would provide police protection as requested.

! The UVA Health and Safety Department has provided training to some members of the

! UVA Police Department which included expected responder action. The training did

not include a facility tour to familiarize the police with facility layout and

i access procedures.

,

The Charlottesville Police Department and the Albemarle County Police Department

were available for additional police assistance if necessary. Although a Mutual

! Aid Agreement has been signed between the University and both the City of

j Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle outlining such assistance, the shift

commander for the Charlottesville police stated that the Charlottesville police

i never received training for an emergency at the UVA reactor, nor was he aware of

<

the specific support that would be expected. The Albemarle County police

I

inderstood what emergency response would be requested but hcd not received

training either.

i

Charlottesville, Albemarle County and UVA participate in a Joint Dispatch Center

i

for emergency services in the surrounding area. All local- police departments,

fire departments and rescue squads for the three entities are serviced by the

i Joint Dispatch Center through one emergency telephone number. One out of fifteen i

i dispatchers for the Joint Dispatch Center received training in the offsite

emergency response which would be needed for an emergency at the UVA reactor

i

facility.

I

! Although the primary offsite support for police protection had received adequate

j training, the additional police support groups and the dispatchers at the Joint

l Dispatch Center which would receive the emergency call would benefit from some

training in the emergency response expected from each police department.

1

i

Based on the above findings, this pwtion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate; however, the following matter should be considered for improvement:

l Developing a training program for dispatchers and Charlottesville and

Albemarle County Police departments sufficient to provide the ability to

perform their expected emergency function (50-062/85-02-01).

l 1.2.3 Ambulance Services '

i

i The inspector interviewed a auty officer for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue

] Squad and noted that the rescue squad would provide onsite medical aid and

i

,

l

_,~g-,.-----. ,. -..,,._n-,,,_., ,,n.,_ , . - . , - - . . . - -- ,__n.

. . . -- - - - - .

.

.

.

t -

. ,

,

i

6

, .

-

'

transportation for contaminated injured personnel to the University of Virginia

i Medical Center.

l The UVA Environmental Health and Safety staff provided training for all rescue

! squad personnel including expected responder action, UVA reactor emergency plan

and instrumentation. The training did not include a facility tour to familiarize

the rescue squad with facility layout and access procedures. Some rescue squad

i members felt there was insufficient training and were unaware of the individual

who would airect emergency operations at the reactor facility. The rescue squad

,

participated adequately in the biennial drills conducted by the licensee.

, Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

! be adequate; however, the following matter should be considered for improvement:

l Upgrading the training for rescue squad members to assure the ability to

! perform their expected functions. Include a description of UVA reactor

j emergency organization (50-062/85-02-02).

j Including a tour of the reactor facility in the training program for all

offsite personnel who might be required to enter the facility. The tour

I

should familiarize personnel with the facility layout and access procedures

(50-062/85-02-03).

j 1.2.4 Hospital and Medical Support Services

I The UVA Medical Center provided medical facilities to the reactor facility.

! These facilities operated under a Radiation Emergency Plan prepared by the

Medical Center for response to personnel injuries with or without radiological

{ consequences. This plan included procedures for managing persons injured in any

1

i

accident which involves radioactive contamination or external exposure. The

medical facilities were equipped for treatment and decontamination of patients.

A discussion with the Medical Center management indicated that they have an

in-depth knowledge and understanding of the functior,al areas in which they would

I

be expected to perform.

Emergency room staff received training by the UVA Environmental Health and Safety

( staff including fr-hospital accident response and the UVA Medical Center .

Radiation Emergency Plan. The Medical Center ha; participated adequately in the

biennial drills conducted by the licensee. In the most recent drill, some

emergency room staff expressed concern over participation in a real emergency.

As a result of these comments, the licensee plans to upgrade the training for

emergency room staff.

t

Additional services and support are also provided by the Oak Ridge Region

l Coordinating Office of Radiological Emergency Assistance, as requested.

i

.

I

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ .__ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ __.-_- _ _ _ . _._._ _

-. - _

.

7

1.2.5 Additionai Support

The UVA Radiation Safety Office of the Environmental Health and Safety Department

provided training of onsite and offsite emergency response personnel. During an

emergency, the office would provide personnel and equipment if needed for

assessment and protective actions. Interviews with personnel from the Radiation

Safety Office indicated that they have been involved with the development and

maintenance of emergency preparedness at the reactor facility and, therefore, are

qualified to perform their expected functions in an emergency.

The Virginia Office of Emergency Services provided assistance as stated in the

Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Operations Plan. The inspector held a

discussion with the Emergency Services Coordinator for the

Charlottesville-Albemarle area and determined that the Virginia Office of

Emergency Services would provide support as needed during an emergency at the

reactor facility.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

2.1 NOTIFICATION AND ACTIVATION OF EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION

This area was inspected under the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, and the

criteria of ANSI 15.16-1982.

2.1.1 Procedures

i The inspector reviewed Section 7.1 of the emergency plan, and implementing

procedures EPIP-6, Notification of Emergency Response Personnel, EPIP-7,

Notification of State and Local Governments, and EPIP-8, Notification of NRC.

The procedures and plan appeared to be adequate; however, inconsistencies were

! noted between the plan and procedures regarding the person responsible for

l notification. Notification message forms were provided with each EPIP as an

l attachment. Copies of these attachments were available to State and local

governments, the NRC, support agencies and other necessary agencies. These

notification forms included points of contact and telephone numbers as well as

information for the user to pass on to the support group or government agency.

Implementacion of off hour notifications relied on the presence of a student or

staff member in the building, and his ability to locate the posted copies of

EPIP-6 to make the Emergency Response Personnel notifications. EPIP-6 can also

be used by the University police in the event that the intrusion or fire alarms

are actuated. The plan specified that EPIP-6 will be posted in the vicinity of

the phones used to make notifications. However, a check of a few phones revealed

I

'

the EPIP was located on the nearest available bulletin board, and that no EPIP

was available in the secretary's office.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate; however, the following item should be considered for improvement:

l

,

--- - - - - - _ _ _ - - . - . , . - ,

.

8

Making changes in EPIPs-6, -7, and -8 to ensure agreement with the plan

regarding the responsibility for notification (50-062/85-02-04).

2.1.2 Communications

Communications were reviewed in Section 8.4 of the Emergency Plan. The primary

methods of notification consisted of a PA system (for duty hours) and phones (for

off-duty hours, and to make notifications). The Emergency Response Personnel

rosters were posted on bulletin boards throughout the building. The licensee has

not checked the status of emergency action telephone numbers to ensure that they

are updated and correct. All the EPIPs used to make notifications were only

available to the emergency response staff. However, extra copies of the

notification forms were stored in the emergency supply cabinet.

The licensee had a 2-way radio designated for use to communicate with the

University Police. The radio is considered to be backup to the telephones.

Three walkie talkies were also available onsite for the Emergency Director to use

for communicating with site monitoring teams. None of these radios were kept in

the Emergency Support Center, rather, they were distributed among the staff. The

2-way radio was tested every 6 months for operability. A period for testing the

walkie talkies has not been established.

Various types of alarms are used by UVA. The fire and intrusion alarms are

actuated in the University Police Department's 'acility. A 1cw level water alarm

and radiation alarms are also used onsite. These alarms are discussed in

Section 8.2 of the emergency plan. The licensee has not committed to testing

these alarms on a specified schedule. However, the evacuation alarm is scheduled

for testing once every six months.

Based on the above findings, this part of the program appeared to be adequate;

j however, the following items should be considered for improvement:

Moving " Emergency Actions" rosters closer to telephones (50-062/85-02-05).

--

Providing documentation and schedules for ensuring that the Emergency

Action duty roster telephone numbers are current (50-62/85-02-06).

-

Assessing the need for moving the radios from an of fice to the crimary

l Emergency Support Center (50-62/85-02-07).

2.2 CLASSIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

2.2.1 Identification and Classification .

This area of the licensee's program was inspected with respect to the

requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, and the criteria of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982.

2.2.1.1 Procedures

l The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementing procedures. EPIP-1, Emergency

Direccor Controlling Procedures, Attachment 1, described the EALs, which appeared

'

l

i

-

.. . __.

.

-

.

9

to be consistent with the Tables of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982. The EALs did not

include levels for thyroid doses; however, licensee representatives stated that

iodines were not considered a significant threat for this reactor.

The EALs in EPIP-1 were generally based on information readily available to the

responsible individuals. Also where practicable, they related to facility

parameters, effluent release levels, and equipment conditions for each emergency

class.

The licensee also provided EPIPs (EPIP-2 through EPIP-5) for implementing

emergency actions for each emergency classification. EPIP-9, Radiological

Surveys, and EPIP-10, Assessment Actions, provided for post accident surveys and

sampling.

The EPIPs did not specifically address actions to be taken for radiological

emergencies occurring after hours; however, licensee representatives stated that

audible alarms annunciated for loss of pool water or high radiation levels.

These alarms could be heard by the routine security patrols or anyone else

present. It was noted that there were some inconsistencies between the plan and

EPIPs. Specific airborne or waterborne concentrations for a fixed MPC value

differed between the plan and the EAL tables in EPIP-1. The allowable dose limit

for an emergency worker to save a life was shown as 75 rem whole body in the

plan, and 100 rem whole body in EPIP-}0.

Based on the above findings, this part of the licensee's program appeared to be

adequate; however, the following item is recommended for improvement:

Ensuring consistency between the plan and EPIPs (50-062/85-02-08).

2.2.1.2 Equipment

Through discussions with licensee representatives and observation and inspection

of the equipment, the inspector determined that the radiological equipment and

nonradiological monitors and indicators described in the plan and procedures as

being relied on for emergency detection and classification were in place and

o;'erabl e .

Records were reviewed which showed that operability and calibration checks were

performed on the equipment, and equipment condition was noted. Licensee

representatives stated that inoperable instruments are routinely replaced and

repaired.

The radiological equipment has alarm points set to correspond to specific dose

[

rates at the site boundary, so conversion factors would not normally be needed,

'

according to licensee representatives.

,

i A low background proportional (alpha and beta) counter was available in the

Health Physics Lab at the Facility. Other counting equipment was available

elsewhere on the campus.

_ -- -_ __

-

.

10

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

2.2.2 Assessment Actions

The inspector reviewed the procedures applicable to this part of the licensee's

program. EPIP-10, Assessment Actions, described the methods, systems and

equipment for gathering and processing information and data on which to base

decisions to escalate or de-escalate emergency response actions. EPIP-9,

Radiological Surveys, and EPIP-10 described the methods for monitoring dose rates

and contamination levels. EPIP-9, Section A.3 and EPIP-10, 2.a, addressed

monitoring at the site boundary.

The EP and EPIPs do not address assessment for a protracted period of time.

Licensee representatives stated that the most protracted emergency situation was

anticipated to last no more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, and, if necessary, 12-hour shifts

, would be worked.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

2.2.3 Interviews and Walk-Throughs

The inspector interviewed seven operations personnel and one Health Physics

Technician.

The individuals responsible for emergency detection, classification, and

continuing assessment appeared to be familiar with the plan and procedures.

During walk-throughs, the individuals were able to perform emergency detection

and classification.

The individuals interviewed stated that they were trained through a variety of

methods including lectures, roundtables, and drills.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

2.3 PROTECTIVE / CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

2.3.1 Facilities and Equipment

2.3.1.1 Emergency Support Center

The Emergency Support Center (ESC) was inspected against the requirements of

10 CFR 50, Appendix E, and the criteria of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982. The ESC was

discussed in Section 8.1 of the amergency plan. Section 8.1 stated that it is

the responsibility of the Emergency Coordinator to activate the ESC. However,

i this responsibility is not one of those assigned to him in Section 3.2 of the

l emergency plan.

!

l

. _ _ . _ , _ - _ _ _.__ _ __ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-_ - -- _- __ ._ . .. - - ... --

-

! .

!

t

i

, 11

-

1

i

.

A primary ESC would be established in the secretary's office. A tour of this l

! area revealed that although telephones were available in the ESC, no EPIPs or '

j copy of the plan were located in the ESC but would need to be brought by the

,

staff. (Other problems with the ESC viere discussed in Section 2.1,

Communications).

!

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate; however, the following item is recommended for improvement:

Placing copies of the Emergency Plan, EPIPs, and Emergency Action in the ESC

(50-062/85-02-09).

2.3.1.2 Protective Equipment

The adequacy of protective equipment was determined by a tour of the HP lab and

I an inventory check of the emergency supply cabinets.

i

The licensee maintained two emergency supply cabinets; one near the UVA and one

, near the Cavalier reactor. Each cabinet appeared to be adequately stocked with

equipment for onsite personnel; however, it appeared that no provisions were made

j for providing equipment, such as dosimetry, and protective clothing for offsite

j support groups who might be required to enter a radiation or contaminated area.

!

l A few minor problems were also noted with the cabinets. First, instruments in

the cabinet were due for recalibration between the quartarly checks. Second, the

rope used to cordon off radiation areas was white, not the standard yellow and

i magenta (this was observed to cause problems at the last exercise). The facility

j only has two Scott air packs available and one spare bottle.

i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

l be adequate; however, the following items are recommended for improvement:

!

l Using radiation rope or tape to cordon off radiation areas rather than white

rope (50-062/85-02-10).

Establishing a stock of protective clothing, respiratory protection

equipment, and dosimetry for use by offsite support personnel

(50-062/85-02-11).

2.3.1.3 Decontamination Capabilities

Decontamination is discussed in EPIP-12, Personnel Monitoring and

Decontamination. The inspector reviewed this procedure and it appeared to be

adequate; however, the following item is recommended for improvement:

Expanding contents of Decon Kits to provide improved decon capability or

securing agreement with Health Physics for assistance (50-062/85-02-12).

l

.-,---J_-.--.-.-.-.-----.-.--------------------,---

_-- _ - _ . _. _ . - - - _ _ _ _ . _,._ . _ _ _ . ._. -

.__

-

.

-

12 i

i

< l

1

2.3.1.4 Equipment Maintenance and Calibrations

Emergency equipment and supplies were discussed in Section 8.6 of the emergency

plan. The emergency plan required that the equipment be inventoried every six

'! months, checked for operability every quarter, and recalibrated semi-annually. ,

'

Spot checks of instruments in cabinets and around the building revealed

instruments were calibrated every 3 months.

The plan also stated in Section 10.3 that all emergency equipment removed from

l service for repair or calibration will be replaced with an equivalent item.

1

i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

j be adequate.

2.3.2 Evacuation and Accountability

2.3.2.1 Evacuation

i

! EPIP-14, Evacuation of Onsite Areas, discussed guidelines for an orderly

{ evacuation of facility personnel and visitors. It discussed conditions for

j partial and complete evacuation during an emergency. However, evacuation routes

were not clearly marked or posted. The procedure did not discuss a predesignated

An evacuation alarm was in place at the facility and was tested for

'

route.

{ operability once every six months.

! Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

j be adequate; however, the following items should be considered for improvement:

!

l Posting evacuation routes with maps showing location of assembly areas

l

t

(50-62/85-02-13).

i Revising EPIP-14, Evacuation, to be consistent with EPIP-19, Reentry, which

i requires issuance of dosimetry and conduct of instrument checks prior to

reentry. EPIP-14 did not require removal of these items from the building

during evacuation (50-62/85-02-14).

2.3.2.2 Accountability

2.3.2.3 Assembly Areas

Accountability was discussed briefly in the plan. EPIP-11, Personnel

Accountability, and EPIP-14, Evacuation of Onsite Areas, discusses the procedure

for ensuring accountability and designated the assembly areas. Segregation'of

potentially contaminated individuals at the assembly areas was discussed in

Section 7.5 of the plan. The inspector reviewed these procedures and they

appeared to be adequate. Hcwever, the assembly areas were not posted.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate; however, the following item should be considered for improvement:

Posting the primary and secondary assembly areas (50-62/85-02-15).

L--.-_--_---.-------.---.-----------

.- -_- -. ._ - = . . . - - - ._. ._

. - - -

.;- .

!

~; - g 7m

l0

>

n

i , 13

{

- ' /

,

i s.

'

2.3.2.4 Personnel Monitoring . . ~

The area of personnel monitoring is defined in emergency procedures and the plan.

-

, For example, EPIP-10, Assessment Action, discusses emergency exposure limits for

1

personnel (in excess of 10 CFR 20 limits). Section 7.5 of the plan further

i discusses monitoring of evacuees and separation of contaminated individuals from

i uncontaminated evacuees.

!

'

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

1 2.3.3 Personnel Exposure Control

! Exposure guidelines were included in the plan and the procedures. However,

} inconsistencies were noted in the exposure guidelines. The plan guidelines were

l less conservative than the procedures (see 2.2.1.1, this report). High range

i personnel . dosimeters were available in the emergency supply kits, as well as

j ropes and signs to be used for access / egress control. Access control at the

l facility was also discussed in EPIP-18, Facility Security.

1

i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

i be adequate.

i

4

2.3.4 First Aid and Rescue

b

! First aid equipment was kept in the emergency supply cabinets, and the equipment

appeared to be adequate. However, only one staff memoer was Red Cross qualified

'

to administer first aid. First aid was also covered in procedure EPIP-13, First

Aid and Medical Care. This procedure was reviewed and appeared to be adequate.

Additional medical care was provided by the University hospital . The licensee

i relied on the Albemarle Rescue Squad for ambulance service to the hospital

facility.

I

, Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

j be adequate; however, the following item is recommended for improvement:

!

l Training more than one staff member in first aid to ensure adequate coverage

l (50-62/85-02-16). ,

,

2.3.5 Interviews and Walkthroughs

Interviews and walkthroughs were done in the areas of notification,

j accountability, and handling of emergancy equipment. The individuals interviewed

j appeared to be well trained and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.

Based en the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

i

!

i

l

l

!

l

,

. - _ - -- - - - - - - . - . -

. _. - - - = _ . _ - . - - - . .

-

.

!

,

14

-

I

3.0 MAINTAINING EMERGENCY DREPAREDNESS

./

.

3.1_ . - Esif(GENCY TRANIING AND RETRAINING PROGRAM

, ~ . -

The inspectors reviewed Section 10.1, Training Program for Facility Dersonnel, of

,

the Emergency Plan, held discussions with licensee training personnel and

!

interviewed various onsite and offsite emergency response personnel in regard to

< their training. The inspectors noted that the licensee established and

implemented a training and retraining program for emergency response personnel. ,

j'

Descriptions ,and records of training are maintained in various places. The '

licensee pro #bd training in emergency notification, evacuation and

accountability to o'rdte personnel who are not part of the emergency response

, organization. However, training records did not specifically document emergency

l training nor were there any reerds of periodic retraining. The inspectors noted

'

that the training-retraining progric could be strengthened by consolidating the

training information into a training program manual or the training procedure to

include the following:

'

1

'

a) lesson plans for various subjects,

. b) objectives and contents of lessons,

! c) groups of lessons required by each category of onsite ar.d offsite

, response personnel,

j

d) provisions for attendance records for offsite personnel,

j e) provisions for attendance records for onsite personnel who are not part

i of the emergency response organization,

l f) frequency of retraining,

l g) emphasis to offsite support personnel of the biological effects of

! radiation and emergency response direction and control, and

h) tours for all offsite personnel who may be required to enter the

facility.

l Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program aopeared to

be adequate, but the following matter should be considered for improvement:

-

Strengthening the training / retraining program by including those areas

identified above (50-62/85-02-17).

l 3.2 DRILLS

r

The inspector reviewed the established emergency drill and exercise program with

licensee personnel. The licensee developed a written scenario for conducting

each exercise. The inspector reviewed reports of the two most rnent medical

exercises which inclu6d coordination of offsite support from the rescue squad,

UVA police and medica, facility personnel. Evacuation and accountability drills

of the reactor facility were conducted several times each year. The inspector

noted that observers were provided, critiques conducted and records maintained

for any required follow-up for improvement items observed during the exercise or

dri l l . The licensee has recently implemented an expansion of the exercise

program to include onsite emergency organization notification, communications,

classification, assessment, protective and corrective activities. Onsite i

,

- ,-,..m_._.. _. _ _ _ . , . m,,,e. , , . , , , - . . _ - . _ . . _..,% ,_,,-~,.,_m.,,.,,r,_,, ,, .,, ,,_.,,_,.m,.,.g.,,-,._,..-%-,,.m.,,._.m. ,_, , _ .

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _

,. ..

-

l .

15

.

.

emergency exercises will be conducted annually while offsite surport is to be

included biennially.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate.

3.3 MAINTENANCE OF PROCEDURES AND PLAN

The inspector reviewed Section 10.A, Review of Emergency Plan, held discussions

with licensee personnel, and noted that the licensee has provided a means to

review and update the emergency plan and implementing procedures. However, the

inspector noted that provisions for review of emergency plans which are attached

to the UVA reactor emergency plan (UVA Medical Center) or incorporated by

reference (UVA Police Department, Commonwealth of Virginia and Oak Ridge Region

Coordinating Office), .were not developed. The UVA Medical Center Radiation

Emergency Plan which was attached to the UVA Reactor Facility Emergency Plan was

an outdated version.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared to

be adequate; however, the following item should be considered for inprovement:

Coordinating with offsite support groups to assure that current plans are

available and updates in pl,ans and procedures are compatible

(50-62/85-02-18).

< Letters of agreement with offsite support organizations were attached to the

facility emergency plan as part of the appendix. The emergency plan specified (

that the emergency plan and appendix will be reviewed and, 'f necessary, updated

by the Reactor Safety Committee during even numbered years. The letters of

agreement with the rescue squad, UVA police and the Mutual Aid Agreement with /

Charlcttesville and Albemarle County were dated January 1979, January 1979, '

June 1976, and May 1976, respectively. The lack of current agreements with

offsite support organizations together with inadequate training for these

personnel (see Sections 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4) could lead to delays in offsite

response during an energency.

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program appeared

be adequate; however, the following item should be considered for improvemer

Periodically updating the letters of agreement with offsite support .ies

(50-62/85-02-19). >

!

4.0 PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee Contacts

/

• R. U. Mulder, Reactor Facility Director

• J. P. Farrar, Reactor Administrator

• P. E. Benneche, Reactor Supervisor

• B. Copcutt, Radiation Safety Officer

I

r

!

,I

"

l

-

.

16

.

.

• R. Allen, Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee

B. Hosticka, Senior Reactor Operator

R. L. Ridenour, Senior Reactor Operator

• J. E. Henderson, Reactor Health Physicist

G. D. Conley, Senior Reactor Operator

T. L. Nguyen, Reactor Operator

C. C. Cobb, Reactor Operator

A. A. Turley, Health Physics Technician

Offsite Contacts

Commander S. Bailey, Albemarle County Police Department

C. Bryan, Duty Officer, Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad

M. Carroll, Dispatcher, Joint Dispatch Center and Emergency Services,

Coordir.ator for Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia Office

of Emergency Services

Captain R. Dunn, University of Virginia Policy Department

Commander T. W Hawkins, Albemarle County Police Department

Lt. C. D. Snoddy, Shift Commander, Charlottesville Police Department

B. Thompson, Associate Director for Operations, University of

Virginia Medical Center

l

1

.