IR 05000219/1991002
| ML20029C295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1991 |
| From: | Craig Gordon, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C288 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-91-02, NUDOCS 9103270131 | |
| Download: ML20029C295 (8) | |
Text
PC
. -.
--
U.- S. NUCLFAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION -
REGION I
.
- Report No; 50 219/91-02 Docket No:-
50-219 License No:
DPR 16 Licensee:-
GPU Nuclear Corocration P. O. Box 388
. Forked River. New Jersev 08731 Fac,ility Name:
Ovster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection Ati-Forks.d. River. New Jersey
' Inspection Conducted:
January 28. February 1.1991
,
'
A
_
. lnspector'
b@h9 h si
'
k X 91 Ciaig Qh. Gorddn,' Senior Emergency llate'.
'
Preparedness Specialist, DRSS
.
LLonny L Eckert, EP Specialist
- Approved Bj:
_
<w-13 [1/
'
Willram'La(r@, Chief, Emergency ;
date Prepare (iness Section, FRSSB, DRSS
'
t-Irnp_estion on January 28. February 1.1991: Inspection Inspection Summary:
e Report No. 50-219/91-02-
-
' Arehs Inspected:nRoutine, unannounced safety inspection of the emergency preparedness
- -(EP) program conducted at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.. The inspection
.
areas included changes to the emergency preparedness program; inspection of emergency
' facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies; review of organization and management co'ntrol; inspection of emergency respor.se organization _(ERO) training; and inspection of
. independent program audits.
'
- Results: No violations were identified.
L
'9103270131 910308 PDR ADOCK 05000219T G
_.
_ _
.
_
. - _ - -,
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following licensee representatives were contacted during the inspection.
- R. Barrett, Operations Manager
- J. J. Barton, Director, Oyster Creek
- J. E. Bontempo, Lead Emergency Planner
- G. W. Busch, Licensing Manager
- B. DeMerchant, Licensing Engineer M. Douches, Auditor P. Fiedler, Vice Presivent and Director, Nuclear Assurance S. Fuller, Group Operations Supervisor G, Giangi, Corporate EP Manager
.
D. MacFarland, Site Au,iit Manager D. Pietruski, Group Shift Sapervisor C. Rigsbee, Group Operations Supervisor D. Rcbillard, Lead Auditor -
- J. C. Solakiewicz, Quality Assurance Manager
- R. L Sullivan, Emergency Preparedness Manager L Thompson, EP Training Cordinator
- J. K. Williams, Manager, Training C. Wilson, Group Shift Supervisor
- Denotes attendance at exit meeting on February 1,1991.
2.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Procram 2.1.
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program Significant changes to the EP program have occurred since the last inspection.
The. inspectors reviewed the changes and discussed details with the EP Manager and other licensee program staff as follows.
A major modification to improve the emergency communication system was made during 1990. The change involved switching dedicated commercial circuits to a GPU owned microwave system which links each emergency (
response facility (ERF). The system has backup power sources ena is
!
supplemented with commercial telephone lines. The licensee expended a
'
great deal of resources in planning and coordinating this effort and an l
l l
.-
.-
adequate safety evaluation was performed prior to implementation. Turnover was completed in late 1990 and the system was used during the December
.
I quarterly drill. The new system should enhance reliability of emergency communications and does not appear to decrease the effectiveness 0
-
The overall capability of the system will be further evaluated during the full. participation exercise scheduled for October 1991.
The licensee is in the process of making fundamental changes to the format of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP). For each designated
,
emergency response position, a new checklist is provided which guides
!
individuals through their assigned duties. This alleviates time consuming direction and control responsibilities of ERF managers yet still allows them to maintain broad picture status of each facility. fleview of the changes indicated that substantive information was not eliminated from the updated format. At
'
the time of the inspection checklists were just completed for activation and staffing of the EOF with similar procedures for the TSC, OSC, and other facilities to follow. Training of Emergency Support Directors (ESD) on the new procedure was complete with instruction and practical training of individuals in other functions expected.
Despite a change in plant management, the EP staff will continue to report to the same individual, now the Director, Oysier Creek.- Within the EP staff however, one personnel change was identified which could impact the
!'
program. The Lead Emergency Planner responsible for exercise scenario development and conduct of EP training for key ERO members transferred out of the program. Discussions with the site and corporate EP Managers indicated that active recruitment was in progress but a selection to fill this'
- vacancy was not made.
.
,
Other changes to the licensee's emergency preparedness pugrani since the last inspection were minor and did not adversely affect the licensee's overall state of emergency preparedness. The EP Manager initiates changes based
.'
upon perceived administrative needs or from areas requiring corrective action identified during program implementation. Revisions to EPIPs receive formal concurrence by the corporate EP staff then by the EP Manager. Emergency Plan and EPIP updates are issued through controlled distribution and were up-to date in emergency response facilities.
'
- Based upon-the above review, this area is acceptable.
]
._.
.
.
2.2 Emergency Facilities. Equinment. Instrumentation and Suppli.g.s The inspectors toured the control room, Technical Support Center (TSC), and Operations Support Center (OSC). These facilities are adequate to support emergency response and were in agreement with information specified in the Emergency Plan; The EOF was not inspected but has provided sufficient support for conduct of drills and exercises for several years. Recent EOF upgrades were reviewed during the 1990 annual exercise and determined adequate. Checks of equipment and supplies revealed that surveillances of equipment were performed at the prescribed frequencies, instrumentation was calibrated as required, and equipment and instruments were operable.
Communications equipment including telephones, public address systems, ana portable radios were inspected in onsite ERFs and were consistent with EPIPs No reduction in number of telephones and communication devices is expected as a result of the microwave system upgrade.
A noteworthy initiative taken by the licensee was to coordinate with the NRC on installation of the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). -Licensee representatives indicated that the system testing and implementation was completed and ERO personnel were trained on system operation.
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
2.3 Organization and Management Control The inspectors held independent discussions with the Vice President and Director, Nuclear Assurance, Director, Oyster Creek, and Manager, Corporate Emergency Preparedness. Management support for emergency preparedness was evident at each organizational level. These individuals stated that they meet regularly with the EP Manager at the site to obtain updates on the
- status of program activities. On occasion they also meet with State and local officials to discuss items of mutual interest regarding offsite emergency preparedness.
The inspector reviewed the normal staffing organization as it pertains to administration of emergency prepcedness. The EP Manager is responsible for all onsite and offsite emergency planning and for implementation of the program.
The EP program staff includes five additional authorized professional positions. This level of staffing is adequate to carry out the essential program tasks of maintenance of the Emergency Plan and EPIPs,
\\
r
.
.
conduct of drills and exercises, ensuring readiness of ERFs. and interfacing with offsite groups. Position descriptions thoroughly described duties and responsibilities for each program member.
Review of the Emergency Response Organization-(ERO) indicated that several changes were made since the last inspection, particulntly in the positions of Emergency Support Director (ESD) and Emergency Director (ED). It was determined that the licensee has sufficient personnel to staff all ERO positions, with four qualified individuals in most functions. In addition to Group Shift Supervisors (GSS) and Group Operations Supervisors (GOS),
ED training is provided to other operations and shift personnel (SROs, STAS, ROs) who are qualified to assume the duties of ED when successful training is completed.
The inspectors noted that primary staff is notified by pager with a weekly duty roster issued by the EP Manager. The ;) agers are tested weekly and an unannounced test conducted quarterly. Review of test records indicated dependable responses by pager holders and good system reliability.
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
2.4 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)
.
The. inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for emergency response training and noted that Section 8.2.1 of the Emergency Plan describes the x
emergency training program for different categories of ERO personnel, non-essential personnel, visitors, and offsite support organizations. Specific ERO training.is determined by the Manager Plant Training and respective Department Heads and includes course requirements to_ satisfy each emergency position. Training of offsite support groups is provided by various -
state agencies and consulting groups and coordinated through EP program staff.
Discussions were held with the Manager Plant Training and_ EP Training Coordinator who provided lesson plans, examination material, examination results, and attendance records of ERO training for site personnel. Composite and historical records for each individual are maintained via mainframe computer in the Parsippany office. To determine when training for any member of the ERO should be taken or when requalification is due, reminder letters are sent to the individual and immediate supervisor at prescribed -
intervals. Personnel who do not respond to these notices and take the necessary training are removed from the qualification list. The.e is no
)
,
..
-
)
I e
management directive which assigns site personnel to the ERO but senior licensee management stated that personnel were cooperative in assuming emergency response duties and maintaining requalification. Administrative
_
inducements are also provided for personnel to continue as part of the ERO.
i Review of selected database files and records indicated that individuals in key response positions completed necessary requalification training.
The majority of training is provided to ERO personnel by the Training Coordinator, and supplemented by members of the EP program and training staff. The EP Training Coordinator has provided response training for several years and showed good familiarity and knowledge of program needs.
Classroom instruction, walkthroughs, and practical training are required for key ERO functions. A training matrix identifies specific course requirements
,
which eacit individual must take annually, included are General Employee Training (GET), ED/ESD instruction,.ERF training, dose projections,
,
technical support, onsite/offsite surveys, and notifications and communications.
'
- The inspectors monitored training sessions given to ERO personnel and noted that the GET session did not thoroughly cover basic concepts on the emergency planning zone (EPZ), significance of each emergency classification,
impact of. radiological-releases,' or _ issuance _ of protective action recommendations. The Training Manager stated that the content of GET '
[,
training sessions would be reviewed and discussed with EP staff. Since the last inspection more emphasis has been placed on the amount of practical training E
and demonstration of proficiency by :ERO staff is now required by participation in. facility walkthroughs or scheduled drills and exercises. ' The inspectors interviewed individuals on shift (GSS and GOS) who may be called
-
upon to be. Emergency Directors and determined that their practical EP
training. was adequate with respect to EALs, emergency classification, F
protective action decisionmaking, and direction and control functions.
Lesson plans' are detailed-and focus. on-relevant response actions ~ and implementing procedures. Program changes were appropriately iactored into EPIPs. The inspectors reviewed examination questions, examination records, and training records of selected individuals. Examination questions related a
directly to lesson plans. Although the licensee was changing over to a ne_w computer system to maintair, records, most files reviewed were complete and
. up to date.
l m
.
,;,
-,,,,. - - - -,
..
-, -. -. - -..
,
,, -,
, -,., - _ -. - - - - -.. _. _
- - - -
b,
,
,
i
-.
I
!
2.5
]ndependent and Internal Rev'ews and Audits Independent quality assurance reviews of the entire EP program are condue;ed annually by Site Audit Department, in addition, the Operations Quality Assurame Group (Ops OA) performs reviews of selected program areas to supplement the annual reviews. The 1990 audit was performed by
.
individuals from the Site Audit Department during the first quarter 1990 using i
a designated checklist and audit matrix from the audit plan. Several reviews were also performed by Ops OA. The inspectors reviewed the checklist, matrix, and reports issued by each group and discussed audit preparation with the lead auditor, Site Audit Manager, and Ops OA Manager.
The inspectors determined that audits were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(t), identified areas requiring corrective action, and covered a review of offsite interface with' State and local authorities.
Although the scope of the independent reviews was adequate and included most program activities, specific areas not covered in audits were an evaluation of how the EP program compares to the NRC planning standards (10 CFR 50.47(b)), current NRC guidance, or recent industry trends. At the l
time of the inspection, the 1991 audit had just begun. The auditors indicated i
that a broader scope for this audit would be considered and the inspectors requested a copy d the fm' al audit report when issued. This will be reviewed in a subsequent upection.
A corrective action system is in place and used to track items to completion.
Review of the reports indicated that activities of the EP program were
conducted -effectively since _the previous audit had only one identified recommendation. EP staff has been attentive to addressing items identified by the Site Audit Department and Ops OA. Audits and monitoring reports
.
were formally distributed to senior plant and corporate management.
3.0 Licensee Action on Previous inspection Findings During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's progress on previously identified NRC concerns and discussed with the EP Manager how each item was addressed. Specific items reviewed included accident management training, use of the site simulator during drills and exercises, practical training, and general administration of_ the EP program. All items were adequately addressed and no further concerns were identifie.
.
.-
,
,
4.0
]3xit Meeting The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection as detailed in this report.
The licensee was informed that no -violations were identified. Several areas of improvement were discussed. The licensee acknowledged these findings and agreed-to evaluate them and institute corrective actions as appropriate.
.
I i
'