IR 05000272/1989005

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-272/89-05,50-311/89-04 & 50-354/89-07 on 890313-16 & 22 & 0417-19.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Program
ML18094A435
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek, 05000000
Issue date: 04/28/1989
From: Amato C, Lazarus W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18094A434 List:
References
50-272-89-05, 50-272-89-5, 50-311-89-04, 50-311-89-4, 50-354-89-07, 50-354-89-7, NUDOCS 8905220051
Download: ML18094A435 (12)
v • d • e


Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No Docket N License N DPR-70 DPR-75 NPF-50 Priority -

Priority -

Priority -

Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-4800 Facility Name:

Category C Category C Category C Inspection At: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem, New Jersey Dates:

-

Inspectors:

Approved by:

March 13 to 16, March 22, and April 17 to 19, 1989 D. Allsopp, RI, Hope Creek F. Fox, Jr., Sr. EPS, RI C. Gordon, EPS, EPS C. Halvey-Gibson, SRI, Salem mergency FRSSB, DRSS ness

.// ~, ~

Inspection Summary:

Ins I n s e ct i on Re or t No s-. ~..._,.,_..,......,.,....,..........,.~----..-,.----..-.--..-...,.,...,.--..-.------.--...,.--..--.-~..-;..-,......-.---~---

Are as Inspected:

Routine, announced, safety inspection of the licensee's emergency preparedness program conducted on March 13 to 16 and March 22, 198 Results:

No violations were identified.

890522005J PDR ADOCK 890503 05000272 PNU -

Q

  • DETAIIS 1.0 Persons Contacted

'!he following Public Service Electric & Gas personnel, and others as indicated, were contacte *C. Adams 1 Manager 1 Emergency Preparedness Department J. Austin, RN, Emergency Depart:Jnent, Salem Memorial Hospital

.

  • C. Connor, General Manager, Nuclear Services Department
  • P. Galleshaw, Salem TSC Project Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects D. Hanson, Manager, Training Department
  • R. Hovey, Sr. Nuclear Shift SUpervisor, Hope Creek Operations M. Ivanik, Jr., Security Regulatory Coordinator, Nuclear Security SUpport Services J. Kerin, Sr. Nuclear Fire Protection SUpel:visor, Nuclear Site Protection s. IaBruna, Vice President, Nuclear Operations S. Miltenberger, Vice President and Orief Nuclear Officer, Nuclear Production Department, Electric Business Unit
  • P. Moeller, Manager Site Protection D. Mohler, Manager, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Sei:vices D. Perkins, Manager, Station Quality Assurance, Salem
  • G. Raggio, Station Licensing Engineer, Salem L. Salamon, Manager, Nuclear Public Infonnation
  • R. Schaffer, Principal Trainer, Training Department M. Shewski, Project Manager, Sargent & 1llndy Engineers M. Slinpson, Sr. Staff Engineer, Radiation Protection Services
  • R. Yewdall, Sr. Engineer, Radiation Protection Services
  • Denotes those present at the exit meetin '!he inspectors also observed the actions of, and interviewed other licensee personne.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items

'!he following.items were identified during previous inspection Based up::m obserVations, review of procedures and discussions with licensee personnel by the inspector, the following inspector follow up items have been resolve Details will be found in Section 13.1 for the first four items noted below, which are closed based on licensee perfonnance during a March 22, 1989 dril *

(CI.DSED) (50-272/86-22-02 and 50-311/86-22-02)

'!here was a lengthy search to locate a missirq person. A search and rescue team was fanned in nine minutes and the missirq person was found 16 minutes late (CLOSED) (50-272/86-22-04 and 50-311/86-22-04) F\\lel damage data was not sent to other emergency response facilities. A degraded core was identified and this fact with details was transmitted to other emergency response facilitie (CLOSED) (50-272/86-22-06 and 50-311/86-22-06) '!he OSC failed to report the status of in plant teams to the control roa Status of in plant teams was.reported.to the control roo (CLOSED) (50-272/88-23-02, 50-311/88-26-02 and 50-354/88-26-01) The Emergency Response Manager (ERM) failed to communicate to the Eme:rgency Operations Facility (EDF) staff core and containment status toward exercise en The ERM advised the EDF staff core and containment status were such that recovery could be considere (CLOSED) (50-272/88-05-01) call-in test results indicated a consistently low response to pager messages. A review of pager call-in results for 1988 indicated an acceptable response leve *

3.0 The Ernel:gency Preparedness Program (EPP) Organization

'Ihe EPP o:rganizational stnicture was studied, personnel were interviewed and EPP activities were identified to determine if the licensee has developed, maintains and irrplernents an emergency preparedness program (EPP) required by 10 CFR 50.54 (t) which meets the standards of 10 CFR 50. 4 7 (b) and Section Dl of Appendix E to 10 CFR 5 'Ihe licensee, PSE&G, durirq January 1988 was reo:rganized into six Business Units, one of which is the Nuclear Production Deparbnent (NPD)

headed by a Vice President-chief Nuclear Office He is supported by a Vice President Nuclear Operations and six General Managers (GM).

'Ihe Chief Nuclear Officer spends about a week a year on emergency preparedness matter He is a qualified Public "Spokesperson and a fonnerly qualified Emergency Response Manage 'Ihe Vice President for Nuclear Operations expends about a month a year on EPP matters and is a qualified Emergency Response Manage 'Ihe NPD was reo:rganized durirq october 198 'Ibree GMs report to the Vice President for Nuclear Operations, one of whom is the GM for Nuclear Services (NS).

He was a senior reactor operator for Hope Creek and Salem, an Emergency Director, and a currently qualified Emergency Response Manage 'Ihe EPP and Trainirq Deparbnent managers report to him. He maintains contact with the EPP through weekly staff meetings and discussions with the EPP manager.

'!he EPP is headed by a fourth level manage Ten persons are assigned to the EPP plus four* contractor personnel two of whom are responsible for.

siren repair and maintenanc 'Ihe staff includes reactor operators and Heal th Physicists. 'Ihe reactor operator rotational program is on going whereby a Hope Creek/Salem operator is assigned to the EPP for a yea D..rring 1988, the licensee perfo:rmed a management review of all NPD functions and positions. 'Ihe EPP arrl emergency preparedness training activities were impacted. '!he off site planner function was eliminated and two Radiation Protection personnel were added to the EPP staff. '!he reduction in weekly training drill frequency is discussed in Section belo In spite of the changes and re-o:rganization, emergency preparedness effectiveness is currently being maintaine Based on the above *findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Emergency Preparedness Training (EPI')

EPl' activities, training records, lesson plans, Emergency Regponse O:rganization (ERO) qualification roster, arid the training matrix were studied, and Training Deparbnent (TD) staff interviewed in order to verify that emergency preparedness training is in compliance with 10 CFR 50.~7(b) (15) and Section IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 5 A 53 by 12 training matrix was developed identifying Emergency Response O:rganization (ERO) positions and one or more of the courses required for each position. '!here are 1,244 personnel ~ified for one or more ERO positions with at least three persons qualified for each positio Training is provided by a number of modalities. Training was given by a

.Health Physicist and a Nuclear Engineer supported by the Emergency Preparedness Deparbnent (drills and exercise, and Lesson Plan revi~w).

County, local government and special district employees are trained by the State governments (see Section 11 below).

EPl' is now a function assigned to Technical and Engineering Trainin '!he EPl' SUpel:Visor position has been eliminated; the fo:aner incumbent is still tasked with this responsibility. '!he Nuclear Engineer assigned to EPl' has been transferred to another training unit. '!he TD policy aim is to broaden the training base, adopt a modular approach and reduce dependence on a single instructor. '!his will be done following the requirements of the Instructor Development Manual which requires demonstration of trainer subject arrl technique mastery, and U$E: of training material based on Job Task Analysis (JTA) *

Operator instructors will give EPl' training. 'lhese instructors are fonnerly licensed senior operators or currently simulator licensed and, as such, have been EPl' trained and examine In addition, an operator JTA was completed which identified 433 emergency response activities involving the Event Classification Guide (Eex:;). Operators and Shift Technical Advisors receive eight classroom hours of EPl' and simulator training through use of the Em. EPl' training will be given to Radiation Protection (Rad Pro) personnel by Rad Pro instructor An EPl' Task list has been developed but a JTA which is a prerequisite to implementation does not exist. '!he licensee in Section 12.5 of the Hope Creek Final Safety Analysis Report connnitted Rad Pro personnel training to the requirements of ANSI 3.1 which associates instructor qualification and training mcx:lules with JT '!he weekly training drill frequency for on shift personnel at each station has been cut back to every other week on a trial basis. 'lhese drills are based on mini scenarios requiring use of the Effi including Protective Action Recormnendations and of off site notification When questioned about the value of this program, operators praised it stating it maintained their emergency response capability curren Quarterly training drills are a fo:rm of training; eight are scheduled for 198 SUpport hospital personnel are trained by a contractor. Site engineers attend a 900 hour0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> Systems Engineering course which includes simulator training but not accident analysi An internal audit of EPl'

and the TD recorrnnended EPIresponsibility should be transferred to the EP '!he TD Director stated in a March 1988 memo that this recornmendation merits review and will be considere Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl. o AuditsjReviews An independent review/audit is required at least every twelve months by 10 CFR 50.54(t) which includes detennination for adequacy of the licensee State/local government interface and the availability of the results of this study to state/local government '!he licensee's Technical Specifications (TS) also require an audit of the EPP and EPI'.

The audit/review reports were reviewed to verify that these requirements were me Two staff members of the Quality Assurance Program and Audits conducted the audit and revie Two reports were issue The TS based audit addressed 30 items relating to Criteria 1 to 17 of Appendix B to 10 CFR-50; Quality Assurance Procedures were followe '!he review addressed the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 54 (t).

  • The review covered 14 interface areas including the annual e.Xercise and an NRC inspection repor No review deficiencies were identifie On January 27, 1989, the States of Delaware and New Jersey were sent copies of this repor Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's e.mei:gency plan is acceptabl.0 ErneJ:gency Action levels (FA.Is)

FA.Is were reviewed and discussed with reactor operators and Emergency Preparedness Department staff. '!his was done to detennine if the FA.Is meet the standard of 10 CFR 50. 4 7 (b) (4), the requirements of Section IV. B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, the guidance of NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Infonnation Notice No. 28 of 1983 (I&E IN 83-28}, and Planning Standard D and Appendix 1 to NUREX3-065 FA.Is are presented in graphic-logic fonn in the Sections of the Event Classification Guide (Em).

They are based on events, symptoms, breached barriers am I&E IN 83-28. * logic tree ends refer the user to Attachments which contains notification procedure and fonn Referrals to Ea; containing FA.Is are given in the Integrated Operating Procedures, Abnonnal. Operating Procedures, Emergency Operating Procedures and some Implementing Procedure On May 3, 1988, the licensee sent the Event classification Guide containing the EAI..s to Delaware and New Jersey asking the states to review the Guide and concur with the EAI.. Each state concurred with the EAI.. Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's e.mei:gency plan is accep~l. o Protective Action Reconnnendations (PARs)

The standards and requirements for PARs are given in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (10)

and Section IV. B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50. Applicable guidance is found in I&E IN 83-2 PARs were reviewed and discussed with licensee staff in order to verify that the standard and requirement are met and PARs are consistent with federal guidanc PAR development is given fn Section 4 of the Hope Creek E03 and Section 5 of the Salem E0 PARs follow declaration of a General Emergency and are based on plant conditions, I&E IN 83-28, projected doses and security event PARs were called to the attention of the States (see Section 6. 1 above).

Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Plans and Procedures

'!he Emergency Plan (EP), Event Classification Guide (Ea;) and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) were reviewed to detennine if they meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) (16) and 50.54(q), and the requirements of Section IV. G of Append.ix E to 10 CFR 5 A review of these docmnents indicates the EP, Ea; and EPIPs have been appropriately reviewed and are current. Availability of these documents in each Emergency Response Facility (ERF) was checked on a sampling basis with particular attention given to procedures for classification, PAR development and notification. eurrent and approved copies of thes documents were available in each ER Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs)

ERFs are designed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (8) and (b) (9),Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, SUpplernent 1 to NUREX:;-0737 and Regulato:ry Guide 1.9 F.quipment, status boards, communications systern.s, plans, procedures, habitability and access control provisions were checked for the three control rooms ( CRs), Technical SUpport Centers ('ISCs), Operations SUpport centers (OSCs), Health Physics control Points (CPs) and the Emergency Operations Center (EDF).

Status boards, maps, facility diagrams, plans, procedures, drawings, and equipment were in place and maintained, equipment was within the

prescribed calibration period and functional and cOmmUnication equipment operative at all ERF' Portable computers to calculate projected doses were properly stored and functiona A non-dedicated EDF is located in Salem, New Jersey about 7. 5 miles from the site. '!he protection factor for this facility is 13. '!he ventilation system is equipped with HEPA filters for particulate remova Filtration media for iodine removal is not provided. A natural gas fired emergency generator provides back up powe SUrvey and air monitoring equipment is

.available. '!his facility was approved by the Corrnnission without requiring an Alternate EDF (AEDF).

'!he licensee will explore means to provide iodine filtratio '!he Salem '!SC is an interim Emergency Response Facility located* on the third level of B Building (ali:;;o called the Clean Facilities Building).

'!he interim classification is based on Salem Unit No. 2

license condition 2.C. (25) (p). Follavirg an NRC safety Parameter Display System inspection, the licensee evaluated the '!SC against the requirements of SUpplement 1 to NUREX;-0737, Section 8.2 and the eVal.uation criteria of I&E Inspection Procedure 82412, "ERF Appraisal", and concluded the '!SC as built did not meet 59 NRC criteria. Licensee management recognized the problem, approved a correction project and appropriated funjs. '!his project is slated for corrplet,ton durirg october 198 Upon corrpletion, the Salem '!SC will be reevaluate As the interim Salem '!SC does not meet habitability requirements, in the event of an incident at Salem requirirg '!SC evacuation, the Salem '!SC staff would go to the Hope Creek '!SC in accordance with Procedure 302 The EP, Salem Ea; and EPIPs are available in the Hope Creek '!S Plant, and radiological data would be hard copied to the Hope Creek '!SC from the Salem Control Roo Additional plans and drawirgs are on file at the Nuclear Trainirg Center library adjacent to the EO A procedure was developed durirg the early 1980's for Salem '!SC staff relocation and has been satisfactorily tested durirg a dril Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Notification and Corrnnunication Corrnnunication systems were evaluated to ascertain if the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) (5) and (b) (6), Sections IV.D.1 and E.9 of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and I&E IN 86-97 were me Twelve independent, redundant and diverse conmrunications systems were identified. These include a fiber optics line, microwave systems, Delaware and New Jersey State emergency radios, and facsimile and data transmission capabilit NRC Health Ihysics Network phones worked at all location A corrnnercial_ pager system calls in personnel. This system is activated by the licensee's "HELP" desk located at their Newark headquarters. The pager company's office in suburt>an Ihiladelphia is called and the pagers activated from that location. A pager company antenna is located on the sit Results of call-in tests were reviewed and it was detennined that response was above the 70% level specified as acceptable by the license Inprovement was noted above this level f ollavirg introduction of the three team syste Based on the above findings, this.portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl *

11. O Off Site Activities

'!he lead-off site emergency planner was interviewed and appropriate records reviewed to determine if the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) (5) and (b) (12) and the requirements of Section IV.D.3 and IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are me County and local government personnel are trained by the state Governments. letters certifying training completion were sent by the States to FEM A special drill was conducted with lower Alloways Creek to evaluate their response capability. A Special Needs data base for hearing and mobility :i.npaired has been lJIXlate All letters of Agreement

  • are current. The licensee developed and distributed a Fire company response manual, and participated in an Emergency Preparedness Program for school * A VHS training film was developed by the licensee which shavs radiological, self protection technique '!he film was used to instruct County and local government personne FEMA reviewed the film and gave a positive evaluation. Table top exercises were conducted once in each of the four Countie Delaware River surface water clearances procedures have been develope A letter certifying 1988 siren availability as 98.5% was sent to the States which will fo:r:-ward this data to FEMA. Tone alert radios and route alerting back up siren A route alerting map has been developed for each siren coverage area. Fire vehicles have been equipped with light bars containing a loud speaker which broadcasts a prerecorded voice message as the vehicle completes the route. Results indicated the output could be heard over the siren coverage area rout The room dedicated to treating injuredjcontarninated persons at the Memorial Hospital of Salem County was maintained in a state of readiness with one exceptio A delay was encountered in locating a copy of this facility's procedure The licensee agreed to take appropriate steps to prevent a recurrenc Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Public Infonna.tion The Public Infonna.tion Department manager was inteiviewed and publicly distributed material reviewed to detennine if the requirements of 10 CFR *

50.47(b) (7) and Section IV.D.2 of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are me The public is advised of emergency procedures by brochures fonna.tted around a calendar, inserts in six phone directories and newspaper advertisement Calendars were mailed to Emergency Planning Zone

residents. others were available at drops where the licensee's gazette is distributed on and off site. Infonnation broc.hures for fanners have been maile If the Emergency News Center (ENC) in Salem were to become uninhabitable, operations would be transferred to an alternate ENC. Steps are being taken to consolidate nnnor control centers in each State and combine 800 number Transient Warning Signs have been erected at 51 locations in both State These signs are located at :points on the roads which are 5 or 10 miles from the site. F.ach sign location is an Access Control Point. Transient stickers have been distributed to public facilities and are stuck to visible walls of these facilitie F.ach sticker contains a brief message telling the reader what to do in the event a siren is heard for three to five minute Based. on the above findings, this :portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl. o Emergency Drill To detennine if the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 4 7 (b) ( 15) and Section V of-

.Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 were met, the inspector observed a drill on March 22, 198 The drill protocol was rncxiified to duplicate that of an annual exercis The scenario was written to require declaration of all four Emergency Action Levels and included conditions resembling those classified as weaknesses in past exercises. Satisfactory res:ponse was shown and inspector follow up items were close Based on the above findings, this :portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl. o Ibse Assessment The standards, requirements, and guidance for dose assessment are given in 10 CFR 50.47(b) (9), Sections IV.Band IV.E. of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, -section II.f.1(2) of NURB3 0737 (Supplement 1), Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.97, and NUR:EX:;-0654, Rev. 1, Appendix 2. Facilities were inspected, records were checked and personnel interviewed to verify that these requirements were me There are two on site meteorological towers located close to each othe Record checks indicated the sensors and electronics were in calibratio The tower and sup:porting base facility are surrounded by a fence with a

..

locked gate. 'Ihere is no intrusion alann. Site Protection Officers obseJ:ve the facility during routine patrols. Batteries provide back up powe Cllannel calibration. (system) records for the contairnnent high range.

monitors and effluent.monitors providing read out during emergencies were reviewe 'Ihese monitors were in calibration and calibration was done using approved proce:iure Kits for aerial and terrestrial field teams were checked against the inventocy list and also for operability and calibration currency. Kit content matched inventory, equipment was functional and within calibratio A thirty foot cubic sample required for iodine analysis is collected by field team The licensee could not prcduce a basis document or justify the sample volmn A basis dOClllilent will be developed and the needed volmne reviewed to detennine if it can be lowered to reduce collection time and minimize mission dose. If release duration and icxiine to noble gas ratios (I/NG) are unknown, default values acceptable to the states will be used. 'Ihe licensee is researching the basis for the values in us Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Security-EmeI:gency Preparedness Interface To determine if an acceptable Security-Emergency Preparedness interface is in place,Section II.D.59 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 73 and NUREX;/CR-3251 were consulted, and security personnel were intei:viewe Site protection is provided by a licensee Fire Department (FD) and a contractor security forc Security officers and Firemen are radiation worker qualified, Emergency Plan trained and vital area access cleare The firehouse is located within the protected are Firemen are respirator fitted and trained; Security Officers are no When this fact was called to the licensee's attention, the licensee stated they will now as matter of policy respirator train and fit Security Officer All firemen are N.J. licensed Emergency Medical Technicians (EMI's) who take a 70 hour8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> course once every three years and must pass a practical and written examination in order to maintain their EMI' license. A FD officer and a Fireman are members of the Operational Support Center staff. The FD. participates in drills. and exercises, EPP-FD interface meetings, drills with off site fire corrpanies, and scenario developmen The Security force coordinates emergency response activities with the control room (CR), provides the CR with 10 CFR 73. 71 notification info:rmation, participates in drills, exercises, scenario development and EPP-Security interface meetings. 'Ihe Security Officer assigned to the Technical SUpport Center staff would transmit an Emergency Director's

  • order to evacuate the Guard House and provide Radiation Protection support for the Guard house staff. 'Ihere are no area monitors or sw:vey equipment located at the Guard Hous Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Actual Unusual Events Unusual Events (UF.s) documentation was reviewed on a sampling basis to detennine if the licensee complied with 10 CFR 50.47(b) (4) and (b) (5),

and the requirements of Sections IV. B and F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 5 Sixteen UF.s were declared during the 12 month period ending January 198 Six were declared at Salem 1, three at Salem 2, and seven at Hope Cree A check of records indicated the Event Classification Guide (Ea;) was used correctly. Operators recognized events and syrrptorn.s, referred to the correct section and Attachment of the Ea;, filled out the fol'.1IIS accurately and made notifications within the prescribed tim Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl.0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held with the licensee personnel identified in Section 1 of this report. The licensee was advised no violations, deviations or unresolved items were identified.The Inspector also discussed some areas for linprovernen Licensee management acknowledged these f ind.ings and indicated they would evaluate them and take appropriate corrective action regarding the items identifie At no time during the course of the inspection did the inspector provide any written material to the license *

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000272/1989005&oldid=5006848"