IR 05000277/1978034
| ML19282B240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1979 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Bores R, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B238 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-78-34, 50-278-78-37, NUDOCS 7903120024 | |
| Download: ML19282B240 (4) | |
Text
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50-277/78-34 Report No. 50-278/78-37 Docket No. 50-277 nn_.rro 6PRU4 C
License No.non-55 Priority
-
Category C
_
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Facility Name:
Inspection at: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: December 7, 1978 Inspectors:
[w g/-/3-79 R. J. B(res ' Radiation Specialist date signed g GLR
///g/79 L. ii. 'Bettenhausen, Reactor Inspector date signed date si ned f
/
Ib Approved by:
J. P/ Stobr',' Chief, Environmental and date signed Sp'ecial Projects Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 7,1978 (Combined Report Nos. 50-277/78-34 and 50-278/78-37)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced insper. tion limited to the observation of a licensee conducted radiation emergency drill and followup of the licensee's actions relative to improvements in emergency air monitoring capability.
The inspection involved 14 onsite inspector-hours by two NRC regionally based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7903120024 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
'
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- W. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
- R. Scholz, Chemistry Supervisor
-
H. Reynolds, Health Physicist, Catalytic, Inc.
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee persor.nel in-cluding drill participants and drill observers.
- denotes those present at exit interview on December 7,1978.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (78-16-02 and 78-20-02):
Emergency field monitoring equipment and procedures. The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee and revis e of instrumentation in use, that while the improved instrumentation had been obtained, this area hac not yet been fully implemented.
(See Detail 4).
3.
Emergency Drill a.
Pre crill Activities Prior to the initiation of the drill, the inspector discussed the nature and scope of the drill scenario to verify the adequacy.
The scenario involved a simulated, non-isolable leak in the line from the Unit 3 holdup pipe to the drain pot level controller, resulting in postulated offsite dose consequences. The drill was held during the off-duty hours such that the emergency response organization had to be recalled to the plant.
The inspector detennined that the outside support agencies had been notified of the event and that the drill was unannounced to licensee personnel to the extent that the drill scenario was known only to the drill observers, the NRC in'pectors and
.
a limited number of higher management personne.-
b.
Drill Observation During the drill, two NRC inspectors made detailed observations of the following activities:
(1) Control Room action concerning the detection and response to the simulated emergency conditions; (2) Notification of plant personnel, offsite plant manage-ment and emergency response personnel, and offsite agencies; (3) Plant evacuation; (4)
Incident assessment actions; (5) Dispatch of radiation monitoring teams; (6) Monitoring team actions; (7) Communications; and (8) Coordination and control of response actions.
c.
Drill Results The inspectors attended a post-drill critique, during which the drill observers and participants and the inspectors discussed the drill results and highlighted areas of recomended improvements.
Items discussed by the inspectors included:
(1)
Earlier monitoring of personnel and conditions at the ECC; (2)
Use of available personnel to aid in ECC, e.g. as data recorder, messenger, etc., until the rest of emergency response organization arrives; (3) Use of multicopy forms for documenting communications; (4)
Use of status board to note and post information; (5) Consideration of moving to low-background areas prior to
' counting air samples (offsite teams).
'.
4 Based on the licensee's demonstrated performance during the drill, the inspectors determined that the response objectives of the licensee's Site Energency Plan could be effectively met.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Emergency Air Monitoring Capability The inspector reviewed through discussions with the licensee and examination of instrumentation, the status of improvements relative to the emergency air monitoring capability (50-277/78-16-02 and 50-278/78-20-02). The licensee stated that the necessary instrumentation had been obtained, silver zeolite cartridges were in use for air iodine sampling, and necessary calibrations had been performed.
The licensee stated that the new counting instrumentation was not yet in use, however, because of instrumentation malfunctions which the licensee is trying to correct.
The licensee stated that the instrumentation would be put into service as soon as these difficulties are resolved. The inspector stated that this item would remain unresolved until this area is fully implemented.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Detail 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on December 7,1978.
The inspector discussed the purpose, scope and findings of this inspection, including the status of the unresolved item (78-16-02; 78-20-02).
.