IR 05000395/1993002

Insp Rept 50-395/93-02 on 930111-15.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness

ML20128G852
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	02/05/1993
From:	Barr K, Salyers G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128G850	List: IR 05000395/1993002 ML20128G848
References
50-395-93-02, 50-395-93-2, NUDOCS 9302160129
Download: ML20128G852 (3)

Text

- - _ - - - _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - _

r

- (g/D%k

, UNIT ED STATES NUCLEAn nEGULATonY COMMissl0N

[ HEclON il

$* ,nl 101 MARIETT A STHLET.N * ATL ANTA,0EOncl A 30323

'4 9 * * " ' ,d FE0 0 h 133- ,

Report No.: 50-395/93-02 ,

licensee: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Columbia, SC 29218 ,

Docket No.: 50-395 License No.: NFP 12 f

facility Name: V. C. Summer Nuclear Station InspectionCondupted: January 11-12 1 3 Inspector: ydk b - - 0 O f G. W. Saly Cate igned I

}

_d!6 f3

'

Approved by:K.P'.'barr.Thl_ef'?,a Date' signed Emergency Preparedness Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

,

SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency >

preparedness. The licensee's program was reviewed to determine whether the "

licensee was maintaining a capability for emergency. detection and classification, protective action decision-making, notifications and communications, shift staffing and augmentation, training, and dose assessmen Results:

The licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program was operational and fully capable of performing its function. Management supported the upgrade of-L facility equipment such as, Emergency Warning Siren System (EWSS) Telephone System (Paragraph 3), and Emergency Response Organization Notification System -

(ERONS)(Paragraph 5). One Inspector Followup Item (IFI) was identified L concerning evacuation route signs within the protected area (Paragraph 7).

>

PDR ADOCK 05000395 O PDR

~

. _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

..

-

.

REPORT DETAILS

~ Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• K. Beale, Supervisor, Emergency Services

• L. Bouknight, Emergency Preparedness Specialist

• D. Caviger, General Manager, Nuclear Safety

• C Counts Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

• R. Fowlkes, Manager Nuclear Licensing

• A. Koon Jr., Nuclear Operations Department Project Coordinator

• C. McKinney, Licensing

• R. Myers, Emergency Preparedness Specialist

• K. Nettles, General Manager, Station Support

• H O'Quinn, Nuclear Plant Services

• Quinton, General Manager, Emergency Services

• Taylor, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included members of the emergency response organization, training . staff, and office personne Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• F. Cantrell, Section Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, Region !!

= Cline, Chief, Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch, Region 11

• T. farnholtz, Intern, Division of Reactor Projects

• B. Haag, Senior Resident Inspector

• Attended exit meeting Abbreviations and Acronyms used in.this report are listed in the last paragrap . Emergency Detection and Classification.(82201)-

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and 10 CFR.Part.50, Appendix E, Sections.-IV.B and'lV.C and Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654, this program area .

was inspected to determine-if the licensee.had reviewedithe Eats with=

State and-local authorities:as required, and if classification-procedures'had provisions for prompt and accurate classifications by;th license The-inspector verified-that the licensee's notification-procedures included criteria for initiation of-offsite notifications and for-development of PARS. The notification procedures required that offsite

. notifications be made promptly;after declaration of an emergency.

..

..

.

. _ ~ - . - - . - - . - .- . - _ - - . - . --

l

+

.

l

,

The inspector reviewed a letter dated July 30, 1992, from the State of '

South Carolina Military Department, Emergency Preparedness Division tht stated the latest revision of EPP-001 (Revision 21) had been reviewed by  :

the appropriate state and local authorities. There were no comments and  !

all parties concurre No violations or deviations were identifie . NotificationandCommunication(82203)

'

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (6) and 10 CFR Part 50, Ap)endix E,Section IV.D., this area was inspected to determine whether tie licensee  !

was maintaining a capability for notifying and communicating (in the ,

event of an emergency) among its own personnel, with offsite supporting I agencies and authorities, and with the population within the EP .

The inspector reviewed documents indicating that the licensee had performed the required weekly silent test, monthly growl test and annual full actuation test. In 1991, the annual operability of the EWSS system was 88.9%. The licensee informed FEMA that the EWSS did not meet.the ,

90% operability requirement for the EWSS as stated in FEMA REP 10. The ,

licensee informed FEMA that they were in the process of_ upgrading the EWSS with a new radio receiver actuation and feedback system. The i inspector reviewed a letter from FEMA Region IV to NRR which discussed the licensee failure to meet the guidance of FEMA-REP 10 " Guide for the .

Evaluation of Alert.and' Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants."-

In the letter, FEMA.did not require any action based on the licensee upgrade of the system. The licensee successfully completed a full actuation modification acceptarae test of the EWSS on January 23, 1992, and an annual full actuation test on June 3,1992. The inspector reviewed documentation ~that indicated since the system upgrade, operability of the EWSS.had increased to 96.3% in 199 The inspector. discussed with the licensee the'75% minimum operability ,

criteria in EPP-022. The licensee stated that-the criteria only applied 4 to single test and the criteria was chosen based on the original. FEMA system operability test. The. system passed the FEMA operability test if 75% of the local residence surveyed stated that they could hear the siren The inspector.noted when calculating the operability factor for the EWSS, (number of sirens that function properly divided by. Ae total number of sirens), the licensee subtracted from the denominator, the number of sirens known to be'out of service? This-in affect increased the apparent operability factor. . The accepted method of-calculating = -

siren operability was discussed with the licensee. Thr licensee stated-that the:1992 data had- been recalculated, and no creditLwas taken for-known inoperable sirens. . The. licensee stated they will continue to use the total number of installed sirens when calculating EWSS system operabilit ,

,

Wvy7r 4 - w y g -

g.ag -1,wy+ g- y w r m- e ad- e- g-wa*-

- . - - . - - -- .- - - . - . - - - . -

.

The inspector reviewed documentation indicating satisfactory completion ,~

of the required annual radio check to schools within the EP In response to the loss of normil power to the telephone system, the inspector, with the assistance of a licensee engineer, reviewed the-operation of the power supply to the EWSS radio transmitter. The  ;

'

transmitter sends a radio signal to actuate the individual sirens.

L Licensee drawings E-206 048 indicate that the EWSS radio transmitter receives it's power from UPS "A" which is supplied from 480V switchgear A or B through a manual transfer switch. UPS "A" also had a battery backup. The inspector did not identify any concern The licensee had contracted flMM and Associates to evaluate evacuation times based on the 1990 centus. HMM and Associates will use data from the Central Midland Committee (four counties within the-EPZ) in -

conjunction with the 1990 census data. The inspector reviewed a letter; from HMM Associates (December 8,1992) and discussed with the licensee -

the scope of HMM Associates contract. The contract was to:

• survey the road system in the 10 mile EPZ

• review the population changes from a total vehicle standpoint-and compare this to the current ETE

' * collect 1990 censm data

• survey of-the schools and businesses in the EPZ

• when the demographic study is complete, compare the results to the'-

1983 ETE population data The letter indicated that evaluation should be completed in the first quarter of 199 The reactor trip and loss nf B0P power on-January 12 resulted in loss o normal power to the telephone system and placed the telephone system.on its backup battery power supply. The operability of the telephone system became a concern because it is the principal means of notifying _

offsite agenciestof site emergency situations. Approximately twenty minutes following the trip, the-licensee made an announcement over the paging system asking all personnel to limit their usage of the' _

telephone Af ter approximately one-hour, the battery voltage had_-

decreased _from approximately_50VDC to 45VDC. Voltage had decreased to-43VDC when normal power was restored. . The telephone. system fails when'

power drops to 37VDC. The length' of time that the battery was capable

'

of powering the system had_been reouced becauseLof major upgrades to thei telephone system._ While reviewing diagrams of the communication system,.

the inspector noted that the ESSEX-(microwave)-telephone system shared the same battery charger and battery power supplyTas the normal telephone. exchange. Also, further review revealed that the battery is-not-maintained by a periodic maintenance program.1 These issues were-discussed with:the licensee. The licensee noted the-inspector' comments and referenced a communication power supply modification package,_MRF 422416 "DC Power'for Telephone system".. The inspector reviewed the package and-observed that three new battery chargers,,which were part of the modification package, had been mounted,' ready for

.

.

,

, , , _ , - p --

.

, ,

.

,

i

el'ect rical ' hook'up, The licensee _ stated that new,' larger capacity _

batteries were already on site and that installation of the syste4 ;

should be completed before the outage in Mr.rch. The_ system engineer in-charge of the' modification stated that the new battery had a 1680 Ampere hour rating and that- the calculated full- load of the r telephone system, as built, is approximately 100 amps. Based on the *

battery 1600 Ampere-hour rating and the system. load _of 100 amps, this modification would give the onsite telephone system a 16 hour1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> backup j power supply. The system engineer stated that when the new system is installed, a periodic maintenance program on the battery would be implemente The inspector =and a licensee representative toured the TSC and the E0F.-

The inspector observed the placement (storage) and condition of the procedures required in the TSC and the EOF. The inspector vorified the placement of radio stations, telephones, dose computers, facsimile machines, and requested the licensee to demonstrate the operability _of SPDS computer terminals. Based on the general appearance and the operational demonstration of randomly selected equipment, the inspector concluded that the TSC and E0F appeared to be properly maintained and in a condition of operational readines No violations or deviations were identifie . Shift Staffing and Augmentation (82205)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A and IV.C, this area was-inspected to determine if shift staffing for emergencies was adequate both in numbers and in functional

-

- capability, and whether administrative and physical means were available

'

and maintained to augment.the emergency organization in a timely manne The inspector reviewed the Emergency Planning Telephone Directory and noted that it was current and was being updated quarterly .as required.by >

the Plan. The inspector randomly selected names of emergency personnel from the emergency phone directory and verified that their~ phone number was correct. The inspector verified that positions, identified as'"#

Required for minimum staffing" in the' emergency phone book wer consistent with NUREG-0654 Table B-1 and EPP-23, "0nsite Emergency Response Center Operation." No errors were identified.-

The inspector reviewed a report of a practice Back-Up EOF activation drill conducted on November 11, 1992. The report stated that-the Back-up E0F_was fully activated-in 88 minutes. Although 88 minutes was longer than.the 75 minute goal,_ the report noted that all .of the .

principle-personnel were in place.by 75 mi_nutes.. The inspector reviewed -

the 10. specific ~ areas evaluated.and the _ lead contr_oller's 16 evaluation criteria.~ The inspector ' concluded that the licensee evaluation of the udrill was both_ thorough and objective. The licensee graded the drill as satisfactor No violations or deviations were identifie ,

.

_ --

_

.

.

5. Knowledge and Performance uf Duties (82206)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and (15) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F, and Section B of the Emergency Plan, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's key emergency response personnel were properly trained and understood their emergency responsibilitie '

The inspector observed a Shift Communicator training class. The inspector noted that the instructor was on time, organized, had class handouts, covered the training objectives, and solicited class participation. The class was scheduled for four hours, but the building lost power 55 minutes into the session and did not reconvene that da '

The inspector could not evaluate the content of the course other than from the handouts. The inspector did not identify any concerns from the material reviewe The inspector selected eleven individuals names from the emergency

'

planning telephone directory. Using the licensee's computer tracking system and EPP-018, " Emergency Plan Training" Revision 12, the inspector verified the selected individuals had received the required initial training specified for their position and that their training was up-t date. The inspector did not identify any delinquencies in trainin The inspector noted that the emergency preparedRass program does not require respiratory protection training for it's responders. _This was discussed with the license The licensee stated individuals needing respirator training for their job, are trained and their training _is tracked by their work group. The inspector, using the licensee tracking computer, verified individuals which may need respirator training in their position, were receiving training and their training was being maintained up-to-dat _

The inspector interviewed a Shift Communicator (Fire Protection Of ficer) . The interview consisted of the inspector stating that a general emergency had been declared, and observing the interviewee perform portions of EPP-002, " Communication and Notification,"

Revision 28, which consisted of a simulated local group and ctatewide group beeper activation and a walkthrough of the call in sequence using the " Call Tree." The interviewee also performed a walkthrough of the EPP-021, " Activation of the Early Warning Siren System," Revision 14, for actuating the EWSS. No problems were identifie The inspector observed a demonstration of a new Auto Dialer System (ERONS). The system-uses a tier type user actuation. The system will actuate the emergency beepers and, if necessary, perform the emergency call tree if the beeper system f ailed. The system contains a call back message that gives the caller a briefing of the type of event, where to report, and their emergency position. The licensee stated the system should be operational by May 199 No violation; or deviations were identifie _ - _ _ _________--__-

, .- - - . _ . . -- - . .

,

t

-

.

'

6. Dose Calculation and Assessment (82207)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), this area was inspected to determine whether there was an adequate method for assessing the consequences of an actual or potential radiological releas Interviews were conducted with two dose assessment supervisors, one from the TSC and one from the E0F. Each interviewee was given EPP-005,

"Offsite Dose Calculations," Revision 17, and asked to perform an-offsite dose calculation using both the nomogram and the manual metho' The inspector then compared the two results. The interviees were_then asked to take field team data taken at 3 miles, back calculate the data to 1 mile and make a PAR based on their calculation. The inspector did not observe any procedural problems in performing the calculations or making PARS based on their calculations. The inspector did note the first interviewee incorrectly used the wrong side of the " time after shutdown" graph (HR-4) on the whole body' nomogra The dose assessor is to use the left side of HR-4 if data' from Gl9 Radiation Monitor is used -

and the right side of liR-4 if data from A13/14 Radiation Monitor is used. There was a large difference in the scaling of the two sides _ o the graph. Using the wrong side of HR-4 resulted in a large error in one of the dose assessor's calculation The inspector noted that the second interviewee had completed dose assessment retraining the day of the interview. The training covered dose assessment methods using the nomogra The first interviewee had not received the retraining, but was scheduled for retraining at a later date. The first interviewee received personal instruction from a member of the EP staff covering the error in his calculatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Reactor Trip and Partial loss of Balance of Plant Power Event On January 12,1992, the facility experienced a partial loss of balance of plant power and a reactor trip. The inspector observed the event-from the TSC and focused primarily on' potential ' classification and emergency preparedness issue The inspector concluded that no emergency action levels were exceeded, but, noted the following three issues: The concern over the battery backup power supply _to the telephone system discussed ~in detail in Paragraph The inspector exited the protected area from the TS . While

,

walking through areas _ that had lost power, the inspector noted three-emergency lighting fixtures that failed to illumirat One hall in;the Auxiliary Sersices Building was totally dark. :The failed emergency lighting was brought to the licensee's attentio The iicensee promptly repaired the failed lights and performed. a complete test of the emergency lighting system in all areas l that

w rx -- , w y ,

_ _ - . _ . _- _ . - .

..

.

t

had lost power. The inspector observed the corrective action and concluded that no follow-up actions were necessar The inspector left the TSC and attempted to follow evacuation-signs while exiting the protected area. The inspector noted that some of the evacuation signs in the stairwells were missing or not immediately recognizable. .This issue was brought _to the attention of the licensee. The inspector and a licensee representative-walked down different areas of the control building noting the placement and size of the evacuation signs. The licensee agreed that additional signs were needed. The licensee committed to review evacuation routes and clearly place appropriate RED or GREEN evacuation signs identifying evacuation routes within the Control Building and the Aux Service Building. The licensee was informed that the commitment to review and clearly place appropriate RED or GREEN evacuation signs identifying evacuation routes within the Control Building and the Aux Service Building would be tracked as an IF IFI 93-02-01: Review evacuation routes and clearly place RED and GREEN evacuation signs identifying routes within the Control Building and the Aux Service Buildin . Independent and Internal Reviews and Audits (82701)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and (16) and 10 CFR 50.54(t), this area was inspected to determine whether the-licensee has performed-an independent review audit of the emergency preparedness program, and whether the licensee has a corrective action system for deficiencies and weaknesses identifici during exercises and drill The inspector reviewed the licensee's independent audit report of the Emergency Preparedness Program. The report dated March 9, 1992, stated there were no findings issued, however, the report identified-six enhancement items-that are to be responded to and tracked if neede The inspector concluded that the audit met the requirements.of 10 CFR 50.54(t). The inspector noted from the report and from discussion with the licensee, that they are participating in an exchange program with other licensee's emergency preparedness groups when performing their. independent audit The inspactor reviewed a EP Self _ Assessment ' Report. This'is a new program .hich the licensee implemented to improve:the quality of their

-

program. The report was analytical and objective and was viewed by the-inspector as a proactive' step to enhancing the progra . Action on Previous Inspection' Findings (92701)

The inspector reviewed'the_open items:from the previous inspection and-concluded the items could best be evaluated and closed during-an; annual exercise inspection. No_open items _were closed during this inspectio M

-

m -, ,

- .

..

.

10. Exit Interview lhe inspection scope and results were summarized on January 15, 1933, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection result Licensee management was informed that no previous IFis were closed. The licensee acknowledged the findings concerning evacuation route sign No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. No proprietary information was reviewed during this inspectio Item Number Category, Description, and Reference 50-395/93-02-01 IFl: Review evacuation routes and clearly place RED and GREEN evacuation signs identifying routes within the control building and the Aux Service Building (Paragraph 7).

1 Abbreviations And Acronyms ARP Alarm Response Procedure Aux Auxiliary B0P Balance Of Plant E0F Emergency Operating Facility EPP Emergency Plan Procedure EPZ Emergency Planing Zone ERONS Emergency Response Organization Notification System ETE Evacuation Time Estimates EWSS Emergency Warning Siren System FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency IFl Inspector Follow-Up Item MRF Maintenance Request Form NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation -

NUREG Nuclear Regulation PAR Protective Action Recommendation TSC Technical Support Center UPS Uninteruptable Power Supply V Volts VDC Volts Direct Current

. . . .