IR 05000277/1988027
| ML20151Y244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1988 |
| From: | Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y212 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-88-27, 50-278-88-27, NUDOCS 8808260308 | |
| Download: ML20151Y244 (6) | |
Text
..
...
..
..
.
-
_.
.
- ,
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos:
50-277/88-27 and 50-278/88-27 Docket Nos:
50-277 and 50-278 License Nos:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Markot Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stition Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: August 2-4, 1988 Inspectors:
bw P!Wf8f e
C' C6nklirp, Senior Emergency date Preparedness Specialist, FRSSB, DRSS
<C~
/#
Approved by:
.
Chief, Emergency
/ date
. M azar 1 Preparedne ection, FRSSB, DIRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on August 2-4, 1988 (Report Nos. 50-277/88-27 and 50-278/88-27).
Areas Inspected: A routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection was conducted at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. The inspection areas included:
Emergency Response Facilities; Public Information Program; Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program; and followup of corrective actions on previously identified issues.
Results: No violations were identified.
8308260308 880817 PDR ADOCK Ot5000277
-
- _
-
- - - - - __ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_j
.,
.
e e
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted J. Franz, Plant Manager D. LeQuia, Seperintendent Plant Services B. Clark, Superintendent Administration G. Hansen, Compliance W. Eckman, Nuclear Quality Assurance C. Wike, Technical Advisor A. Engler, Emergency Planning R. Stuhler, Emergency Planning D. Barss, Emergency Planning 2.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program 2.1 Emergency Response Facilities The inspectors reviewed the readiness of the Emergency Response Facilities (ERF's) including the Operations Support Center (OSC), Technical Sup ort Center (TSC) and the Emergency Operations Facility E0F). The facilities were generally set up in accordance with t e implementing procedures and specified equipment was available for use.
Spot checks were conducted on the availability of dosimetry, radiological sampling equipment and other supplies. All equipment except for the installed PING's, was available, in good working order and in calibration, if appropriate.
Communications equipment, data systems (including meteorological data and plant data camera systems) hat
,
and computer systems were operational. The inspector found t several key positions in the TSC and E0F have individual work books that include appropriate procedures and forms. However, these books are not controlled, and in fact contained out of date procedures. The licensee has agreed to evaluate the necessity for work books and will control those deemed necessary.
See section 3.0 for a discussion of the OSC.
The inspectors found the EOF first floor PING out of service and the TSC PING alarms out of service.
Further review indicated that the PING's have had recurring problems since late 1987.
This is a result of incompatible hardware and software. Options to fix this problem were identified approximately February, 1988. A decision was not made on implementing one of these options until a) proximately June, 1988. During this period, the PING's failed t1eir Surveillance Tests, calibrations were not performed as a result, and they were essentially out of service
-
.
.
and unavailable for use.
Portable sampling equipment was available during this period and could have been used if required. New PING's are scheduled for installation and implementation September 1, 1988. This problem has been repeatedly identified to Emergency Preparedness and Health Physics management, however management has not been timely in resolving this issue. As a result of the inspector's comments, and prior to the end of the ins)ection, the licensee installed i
new equipment to replace the PliG's.
Procedure revisions were also being implemented to address the operation of the equipment.
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
2.2 Public Information Program Public information brochures have been distributed to the as well as to areas where transients are general public, brochure is also reproduced in the area telephone present. This books. The brochure has a "This Information is Important" note on the front page written in English, Spanish and Vietnamese There are no other apparent instructions in any other language other than English. The brochure includes adequate information concerning the method and times of public notifications, Protective Action Recommendations, Emergency Broadcast Stations, provisions for transit dependent populations, provisions for school children and general information on radiation and its effects. The inspector called the rumor control numbers listed in the brochure for York, Lancaster and Chester counties and was able to receive adequate information regarding emergency planning.
Based upon the above review, this area is adequate.
2.3 Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program The licensee has rewritten and reformatted all of their Emergency Response Procedures (ERP's) as well as revised their Emergency Plan. The ERP's are clearly written and adequately reflect the concepts of emergency management.
Responsibilities are clear and unambiguous.
Each ERP has also incorporated a flow chart that will help ensure that the ERP's are properly followed. The flow charts also can be used as a checklist.
In response to a self identified weakness in shift augmentation and subsequent ERF activation, tha licensee has established a new E'ergency Response Organization (ER0) duty roster. This has been coordinated with the station normal management duty roster
-
.
.
to a large extent.
Procedure ERP-140, "Telephone Lists for Emergency Use", delineates the call out process. All Emergency
'
Directors, Recovery Manager, Team Leaders and most Group Leaders have pagers. Subsequentstaffcalloutsareperformed by telephone by the Team and Group. Leaders.
Each Team and Group Leader also has a controlled copy of the procedure for offsite use. The procedure provides support verification of responding staff with provisions to contact additional staff as necessary.
The procedure identifies 30 and 60 minute responders, as well as those individuals who cannot respond in one hour.
Implementation will be reviewed during the annual exercise.
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
3.0 Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items des (CLOSED) 50-277/86-15-10 and 50-278/86-16-10: The facility area
-
ignated as the OSC inhibits an integrated and coordinated response by augmented support staff.
A new OSC has been designated, procedures have been developed and 1988. The OSC approved, and implementation is scheduled for August 8,has sufficient is located in the Access Control Center. The building size to house the required support staff.
Equipment and supplies are available and adequate. Habitability relocation criteria is established and a backup OSC has been designated. OSC performance will be evaluated during the annual exercise.
50-277 Deficiencies in the Eme(CLOSED) Plan an/88-09-01 and 50-278/88-09-01:
-
rgency d Implementing Procedures.
The Protective Actions Coordinator has been changed to the Dose Assessment Team Leader and the plan and ERP's adequately reflect l
responsibilities. Additionally, the plan and the Nuclear Group Policy Interface agreements adequately describe the responsibilities for site i
l emergency preparedness activities as well as the drill program.
- (OPEN) 50-277/88-09-02 and 50-278/88-09-02: The review of the emergency action levels with the Commonwealth is inadequate.
The Nuclear Group Policy Interface Agreements address the responsibilities for sharing this information on an annual basis with the Commonwealth. Normally this will be performed in conjunction with annual training. The training program is under development and l
l l
l l
l-
.
scheduled for completion December 31, 1988. A special meeting to will be address the newly revised Emergency Action Levels (EAL's)ted that the conducted prior to the annual exercise.
The inspector no present scheme does not provide for documentation of the Commonwealth review of the EAL's if there are no comments. The licensee agreed that this is necessary.
This item will remain open pending completion of the Commonwealth review of the EAL's.
doc (OPEN) 50-277/88-09-03 and 50-278/88-09-03:
Failure to maintain
-
umentation of the 1983 audit failure to perform the 1985 audit, and failuretoprovidethe1986audittopropermanagement.
The Nuclear Group Policy Interface Agreements have been established and approved.
These agreements clearly delineate responsibilities and actions to be taken to conduct emergency preparedness audits and reviews. The emergency plan also has been revised.
However, the plan still does not clearly define the audits that must be performed, and who will perform these audits. The licensee has agreed to revise the plan actions are consistent with the licensee'pectors noted that these to clearly reflect these issues. The ins s response in this area. This area will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
- (CPEN) 50-277/88-09-04 and 50-278/88-09-04:
Lack of timely management attention to outstanding emergency preparedness audit deficiencies.
The Nuclear Group Policy Interface Agreements adequately address the responsibilities to identify issues, provide corrective actions and track and document these issues. The Action Item Tracking (AIT) system has been instituted and personnel have been assigned to administer it.
The system has been updated with outstanding issues from previous inspections, audits and drills and to date a large percentage of these issues have been successfully addressed.
However, overall management of the AIT system still has not captured all outstanding areas requiring corrective actions or provided timely resolution of outstanding issues.
This area will be reviewed in a sut, sequent inspection.
- (OPEN) 50-277/88-09-05 and 50-278/88/09/05:
Poor interface between emergency preparedness and other site departments.
The emergency 3reparedness organization has been approved along with the Nuclear Group )olicy Interface Agreements.
Emergency Preparedness responsibilities, functional areas and management interfaces are adequately described. Additionally, the licensee has taken steps to strengthen the onsite interfaces by installing a Site Emergency
_ _.
__ _
- *
.
.
.
Preparedness Coordinator with strong operational experience as well as a strong emergency preparedness background.
- (CLOSED) 50-277/88-12-02 and 50-278/88-12-02:
Evaluate and upgrade emergency response personnel assignment selection process to ensure assignment of qualified individuals.
The Nuclear Group Policy Interface Agreements delineate the selection process for staffing the ERO. The ERO has been identified and training is in progress. Training is scheduled to be completed August 26, 1988.
Each key position is at least three deep,ddress new hires, quits andwith many positio three deep.
Provisions are in plece to a transfers.
- (OPEN) 50-277/88-12-03 and 50-278/88-12-03:
Evaluate and upgrade as appropriate, Protective Action Recommendation training.
The training department has been requested to make enhancements to the training program to address this issue. These enhancements have not been implemented to date. This area will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
Action Levels to ensure conformance w/88-12-04:
Review all Emergency
- (CLOSED) 50-277/88-12-04 and 50-277 ith NUREG-0654.
The inspectors reviewed ERP-101
"Classification of Emergencies",
Revision 0,andchangesforRevision1. These changes are consistent with federal guidance, quantify conditions where appropriate and are clear. The emergency )re)aredness staff has worked very closely with operations to ensure tie EAL's are operationally sound. The licensee has agreed to a long range plan to evaluate the EAL's as symptomatic, barrier based,d to incorporate human factors. integrated to the Emergency Opera appropriate an Based upon the above reviev:, this area is acceptable.
4.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with the licensee persoanel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the findings as presented in this report. The inspector also discussed some areas for improvement.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions as appropriate.
At no time during the inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee.