IR 05000206/1993035
| ML13312A761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1994 |
| From: | Mcqueen A, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13312A758 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-93-35, 50-361-93-35, 50-362-93-35, NUDOCS 9402230062 | |
| Download: ML13312A761 (8) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
REGION V
Report Nos.:
50-206/93-35, 50-361/93-35, and 50-362/93-35 License Nos.:
DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15 Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
Irvine Operations Center 23 Parker Street Irvine, California 92718 Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection at:
San Onofre Site, San Diego County, California Inspection Conducted-December 13 -
17, 1993 A. D. McQueen, erge P epare ness Ana yst Date Signed Approved by:
ate ige Ro ert
.
Pa e, Chief Safeguards, Emergency Preparedness, and Non-Power Reactor Branch SUMMARY:
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection to address Shift Staffing and Augmentation, Knowledge and Performance of Duties, and the Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Progra Inspection procedures 82205, 82206, and 82701 were used as guidanc Results:
The results of this inspection indicated that the licensee was maintaining i
'ts --emergency preparedness program and achieving program goal Emergency preparedness training and facility maintenance appeared to exceed minimum regulatory requirement.9402230062 940120 PDR ADOCK 05000206 Q
DETAILS
Persons Contacted Licensee Personnel
- C. Anderson, Supervisor, Site Emergency Planning (SEP)
- K. Bellis, Manager, Nuclear Affairs and Emergency Planning (NA&EP)
.*R. Calsbeck, Computer Based Training (CBT)
Specialist
- B. Culverhouse, Emergency Planning Specialist
- J. Dale, EP Training Instructor
- R. Douglas, Engineer, Onsite Licensing
- K. Fowler, Engineering Aide
- R. Garcia, Emergency Planning Engineer
- R. Giroux, Nuclear Licensing Engineer, Onsite Nuclear Licensing D. Hall, Shift Superintendent
- F. Liu, Emergency Planning Engineer, SEP
- G. Lulias, Engineer, Quality Assurance (QA)
- S. Martorano, Engineering Training Supervisor R. Moreno, Training Officer, San Onofre Fire Department
- J. Reeder, Manager, Nuclear Training
- M. Whatley, Site Emergency Planning
- M. Zenker, Lead Engineer, Emergency Planning
- W. Zintl, Manager, Site Emergency Preparedness The above individuals denoted with an asterisk were present during the December 17, 1993, exit interview. The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's emergency preparedness, administrative, and technical staff during the course of the inspectio NRC Personnel A. McQueen, Emergency Preparedness Analyst, NRC R. Pate, Chief, Safeguards, Emergency Preparedness and Non-Power Reactor Branch J. Russell, Resident Inspector, NRC Functional or Program Areas Insected The licensee appeared to be maintaining their previous level of performance in the following areas and their program seemed adequate to accomplish their objective Shift Staffing and Augmentation (MC 82205)
Shift staffing and augmentation were reviewed with the Site Emergency Planning Supervisor. It was indicated that no substantive changes have occurred in the emergency planning staff or the emergency response organization (ERO) since the last routine EP inspection at the site. The licensee had in place administrative mechanisms to meet goals for shift staffing and augmentation, to include use of the "Red Badge" protected area access system to insure ERO personnel meet annual training requirements in a timely manner. Augmentation drills have been
conducted periodically (at least quarterly) to insure that augmentation goals can be me A review of the "Training Status Of Emergency Response Personnel" indicated that there may be very little depth in augmentation capability for some ERO assignments. This conclusion resulted from a comparison of the Emergency Plan Training Program Curriculum and a current printout of the Training Status roste It was noted that some ERO assignments have only two or three persons indicated as currently trained to perform those function and of the few personnel listed in some assignments, the same individuals were listed against more than one assignmen It was indicated to the licensee that this could potentially make it difficult to sustain emergency response operations for an extended perio No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program are Knowledge and Performance of Duties (MC_ 8206)
Requirements of this inspection module were reviewed in conjunction with the Core inspection module review of emergency preparedness training. A training program is in place to provide initial position specific emergency preparedness training to ERO members, followed up with annual recurring training to insure reinforcement of knowledge of duties. Review of the emergency plan training program procedure and a "Training Status Of Emergency Response Personnel" roster dated December 14, 1993, indicated that amount and type of training received appears appropriate to meet requirements and commitments. A Shift Superintendent was interviewed to verify.that he understood his emergency authorities and responsibilities as site Emergency Coordinator. He demonstrated such understanding and the capability to identify and classify emergency events promptly and correctly when presented with emergency event scenario The licensee makes training opportunities available for local offsite support personnel and provides them with training literature for reference and use. An annual medical emergency drill was conducted on July 21, 1993, involving offsite support personne The drill was evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency-(FEMA).
The formal drill critique was reviewed as part of this inspectio No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program are *3 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program (MC 82701)
(1) Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures Twenty one Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP),
which had been revised since the last routine inspection, were reviewed during this inspectio *
EPIP SO123-VIII-10, Emergency-Coordinator Duties, Revision 5-8, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-10.1, Station Emergency Director Duties, Revision 1-6, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-10.2, Corporate Emergency Director Duties, Revision 0-5, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP SO123-VIII-30, Operations Leaders Duties, Revision 6-8, dated October 14, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-30.1, Emergency Planning Coordinator Duties, Revision 9-5, dated August 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-30.5, Shift Communicator Duties, Revision 3-4, dated November 18, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-30.6, EOF Communicator Duties, Revision 9-5, dated August 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-40, TSC Health Physics Leader Duties, Revision 7-7, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-40.1, OSC Health Physics Coordinator Duties, Revision 8-1, dated September 9, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-50, Technical Leader Duties, Revision 7-1, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-50.2, EOF Technical Leader Duties, Revision 1-1, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP SO123-VIII-60, Security Leader Duties, Revision 6-6, dated September 9, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-60.1, OSC Security Coordinator Duties, Revision 5, dated September 10, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-60.2, EOF Security Supervisor Duties, Revision 0, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-70, Administrative Leader Duties, Revision 5-5, dated July 2, 1993
EPIP S0123-VIII-70.2, EOF Administrative Coordinator Duties, Revision 0, dated May 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-80, Emergency Group Leader Duties, Revision 5-4, dated July 2, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-0.100, Maintenance-and Control of Emergency Planning Documents, Revision 0, dated August 19, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-0.200, Emergency Plan Drills and Exercises, Revision 2-4, dated July 27, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-0.201, Emergency Plan Equipment Surveillance Program, Revision 4-2, dated September 9, 199 *
EPIP S0123-VIII-0.301, Emergency Telecommunications Testing, Revision 5-1, dated July 2, 199 Changes to the implementing procedures had apparently been reviewed, approved and distributed in accordance with approved licensee procedures and NRC requirements before implementation. No apparent degradations in site emergency preparedness were noted in the marked or indicated change (2) Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies An inspection tour was made of each of the emergency response facilities (ERFs),
which included spot checking of various equipment items, instrumentation, and supplie ERFs appeared well maintained and ready for emergency us Spot checks were made at random of radiation monitoring and respiratory equipment at each ER All selected items were verified as being in calibration or had been appropriately inspected on a scheduled basis. It was apparent that key facilities and equipment are adequately maintained and continue to meet NRC requirement No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area which appeared in some areas to exceed minimum requirement (3) Organization and Management Control
The emergency planning staff organization and the emergency response organization (ERO) were reviewed with the Site
Emergency Planning Supervisor. It was indicated that no substantive changes have been made in-the EP staff or the ERO since the last routine EP inspection at the sit No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program are (4) Training See also sections 2.a and 2.b above. The licensee's key emergency response personnel have been properly trained as required and appear to understand their emergency responsibilities. The licensee uses a combination of computer based training, renewed annually, and participation in emergency exercises and drill Licensee critiques for 1993 drills and exercises were reviewed as part of the inspection, to include:
(a) AnnualEmegencyExercise The 1993 annual emergency exercise was conducted on September 1 Participation included the licensee ERO, State, and local government agencies. This exercise was evaluated by the NRC (Inspection Report 93-21, dated October 13, 1993).
No violations of NRC requirements or exercise weaknesses were identified in that inspection. Offsite participation was evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Region IX, which is issuing a separate inspection repor FEMA also evaluated offsite activities during the annual Medical Emergency Drill on July 21, 199 The licensee critique of that medical emergency drill, dated August 31, 1993, was reviewed during this inspection and appeared appropriate to the exercise activitie (b) Quarterly Emer1 Licensee Emergency Drill Critique Reports were reviewed for the following drills:
March 17, 1993, Emergency Drill critique
-
Report, dated April 2, 199 *
May 12, 1993, Emergency Drill Critique Report, dated June 18, 199 *
August 11, 1993, Emergency Drill Critique Report, dated August 23, 199 Drill critique findings in all cases appeared appropriate to drill objectives and--activitie (c) Fire Department Training Drills It was verified that the licensee has conducted all fire drills required by the Emergency Pla Specifically, the emergency plan requires one joint drill annually with the U.S. Marine Corps Camp Pendleton Fire Department and one per quarter for the San Onofre Fire Department. The licensee in fact has conducted three drills with the Camp Pendleton Fire Department (one for each shift) and at least one drill per calendar quarter for each shift of the San Onofre Fire Department. Of the 12 drills conducted during 1993, at least one per shift was announced and at least one.was unannounce No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area and it was noted that the licensee appeared in some areas of EP training to be exceeding minimum.requirement (5) Independent Reviews and Audits (a) AnnualEgg eyPearedness Audi During the period November 23, 1993, through December 2, 1993, Site Quality Assurance conducted the annual emergency preparedness audit and issued Audit Report SCES-321-93, dated December 199 The audit report was reviewed as part of this inspection. The report indicated that "No significant deficiencies were identified" as a result of the audit; however three minor discrepancies were noted and all three were
"field corrected."
These discrepancies were indicated as having no "significant impact on the overall quality of the program."
Findings and corrective actions appeared appropriate and in accordance with regulatory requirement (b) Quali rveilance Sixteen QA Surveillance Reports for 1993 EP activities surveillances conducted by Site Quality Assurance were reviewed during the inspection. The surveillance reports and resulting findings and actions were identified in and incorporated into the annual audit abov No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program are.
Exit Interview On December 17, 1993, at the conclusion of the site visit, the inspector met with the licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 above to summarize the scope and the preliminary results of this inspectio The licensee was provided with details of the findings indicated abov The licensee ' did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.