ML20042E446
| ML20042E446 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1990 |
| From: | Kreh J, Rankin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042E445 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1151-90-03, 70-1151-90-3, NUDOCS 9004230036 | |
| Download: ML20042E446 (6) | |
Text
- m p* *8 804, UNITED 8TATES
[f"p*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N d
REGION il h
101 MARIETTA STREET N.W.
2 ATLANT A. GEORCI A 30323
/
APR 05 1990 Report No.: 70-1151/90-03 Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Columbia, SC 29250 Docket No.:
70-1151 (Fuel Division)
Ifecense No.: SNM-1107 Facility Name: Westinghouse Electric Corporation - Columbia Plant inspection Conducted: March 12 16, 1990 Inspector:
M 14 h 9d p J. L. Kreh Dhte' 51gned Approved by: Ltd M hcWb 4[7/9o W. H. Rankin, Chie Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
1 This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted to determine whether:
I (1) the licensee's emergency preparedness program is maintained in a state of
,i operational readiness, (2) the licensee is conducting required tests and 3
drills, and (3) the licensee's efforts in coordi,iating emergency planning with i
offsite support agencies meet license requirements.
e Results:
.In the area inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The emergency preparedness program appeared to be well managed, with adequate.-_
,4 allocation of staff resources in this area.
The findings of..this inspection
. indicated that the licensee was adequately prepared to respond to an emergency ii at the Columbia Plant.
'L P
l i
4230036 9004og
- i p
C ADOCK 07ooj33y FDC
J REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Fischer, Senior Engineer, Regulatory Engineering (Site Emergency Plan-Coordinator)
- W. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs
- J. Heath, Manager, Regulatory Operations J. Hooper, Regulatory Engineer (Fire and Safety Program-Administrator)
- E. Keelen, Manager, Manufacturing
- R. Koga Plant Manager
- E. Reitler, Jr., Manager, Regulatory Engineering Other licensee employees-contacted during this inspection. included engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Other Organizations M. Byrd, Director, Richland County (SC) Emergency Medical Services R. Martin, Director, Richland County Emergency Pr.eparedness M. Tkacik, Radiation Safety Officer, Richland Memorial Hospital, Columbia, SC
- Attended exit interview 2.
Site Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures (88050)
The Site Emergency Plan (SEP) and associated implementing procedures, which were known as the Columbia Site Emergency Procedures (CSEPs), were reviewed to determine whether changes had been made since the last routine inspection in the area of emergency preparedness (August 1989), and to observe how any such changes may have affected the licensee's emergency..
response capphility.
Except for some updated notification lists in CSEP-0013' issued on March 12, 1990, the SEP and CSEPs had not been revised since May 24, 1989; those revisions came under review during the August 1989 inspection.. However, the licensee was in the process of revising the SEP to address the changes in emergency planning requirements, as promulgated in 10 CFR Part 70, which become effective on April 7,1990.
The inspector reviewed selected portions of the draft SEP in order to determine the-status of the licensee's progress in this matter.
(It should be noted that the licensee will be required to formally submit the revised SEP to the NRC for review and approval prior to its implementation.)
This draft SEP revision was:
forwarded on February 28, 1990 to seven offsite support agencies for their comments, which were requested by Ap-il 2, 1990 (i.e., a period of 33 days for comment).
The inspector noted that 10 CFR 70.22(i)(4) requires the
1 licensee to allow the offsite response organizations expected to respond in case of an accident 60 days to comment on the licensee's emergency plan before submitting it to the NRC.
Since this requirement takes effect on April 7,1990, licensee management agreed that the timing associated with this matter mandated an extension of the aforementioned comment period to e
60 days, and will advise the subject agencies accordingly..
Although the NRC's formal review of the revised SEP will not: occur until after the licensee's official submittal of that document (due by May 1, 1990), the inspector's preliminary review did disclose the absence of a specific requirement for quarterly communications checks with offsite i
response agencies, as specified in 10 CFR 70.22(1)(3)(x11). Modifications of the emergency classification scheme-(Section 3 of'the SEP) and exercise.
frequency (Section 7.4) were the principal changes made to address the new 10 CFR Part 70 requirements for emergency planning.
Letters of Agreement with offsite support agencies, as found in Appendix A of the current SEP, were from 1987, whereas SEP Section 4.4 stated that.
such agreements "will be typically renewed on a biennial basis or as is' necessary "
The licensee provided for the inspector's review renewed Letters of Agreement, dated between February 1989 and March 1990, which will be included in the forthcoming revision of the SEP.
SEP Sections 7.1 and 7.4 respectively, required annual reviews of the CSEPs and the SEP. Although the licensee had no explicit documentation of that review, implicit documentation existed in the form of annual revisions to the SEP and selected CSEPs.
However, the inspector noted an arrangement wherein an " Implementing Procedure Approval Sheet" indicated appropriate management approval of the May 24, 1989 revision of.the CSEPs, but no analogous, explicit management - concurrence in the. May 24, 1989 revision of the SEP was documented. A licensee representative. stated that the " Implementing Procedure Approval Sheet" was considered to document management approval of changes to the SEP as well. but that arrangement was not self-evident.
The licensee agreed to review this matter for corrective action as appropriate, No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment (88050)
The inspector examined facilities, equipment, and supplies which were designated for emerg(ency use,- including the following:2), Conversion Area emer portable Health Physics emergency cabinets transceivers (used and maintained by Security), Emergency Vehicle (equipped for fire and rescue response), self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) at various locations, and the Emergency Control-Center.
Selected records of surveillance checks of the above were also reviewed.'
Except as discussed below, all equipment and supplies were found to be properly maintained, and radiological monitoring instruments were in current calibration.
.i i
3 Section 6.5.1 of the SEP stated that field emergency meteorological equipment would be maintained.
This equipment, contained in the office area Health Physics cabinet, appeared to be in good condition and was successfully demonstrated as capable of yielding data on wind speed and direction.
However, no maintenance or calibration program was associated with this equipment.
Licensee management agreed that regular maintenance and calibration were desirable for this equipment, and agreed to implement an appropriate program to provide same.
The only other equipment problem identified by the inspector was an. inoperable megap(hone in the Conversion Area container.
During the last annual exercise October 6, 1989), a megaphone was found to be inoperable when needed. The licensee agreed to take appropriate corrective action to address this repetitive problem.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Coordination with Offsite Support Agencies (88050)
The inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the coordination of emergency planning with offsite support agencies. Written agreements, all updated since 1989, existed with the State of South Carolina, Columbia Fire Department, Richland County Sheriff's Office, Richland County Emergency Medical Services, Richland Memorial Hospital, and the Department of Energy / Savannah River Operations.
The inspector verified through these discussions and a review of records that the licensee was periodically contacting local support agencies for purposes of offering training and maintaining familiarization with emergency response roles.
The most recent training given to offsite support groups was an orientation course at the licensee's facility on September 26, 1989.
The inspector conducted telephonic interviews with representatives' of three local support organizations as identified in Paragraph 1.
Each individual offered only positive comments regarding the licensee's efforts-and initiatives in maintaining and developing the interface with'his organization; each also confirmed receipt of the licensee's revised SEP with invitation to comment.
Refer to Paragraph 2 for further information related to the coordination of emergency planning with offsite agencies.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Tests and Drills (88050)
Section 7.3 of the SEP required an annual radiological. emergency response drill involving offsite support groups.
The most. recent such drill-was conducted on October 6, 1989, and was observed by the NRC (see Inspection Report No. 70-1151/89-07). The licensee's written drill critique captured five relatively minor problems for correction and improvement.
For each of these findings, corrective action had been assigned but not yet completed.
This matter will be reviewed during a future. inspection to
l o
4 i
i confirm the licensee's completion of corrective action for the referenced deficiencies, f
Section 7.3 of the SEP.also required that the Emergency Brigade. perform at least one fire drill annually on each shif t.
As of January 1, 1990, the licensee's training program for the Emergency Brigade was revised such that the above requirement was to be fulfilled quarterly instead of annually.
The first of this new program of quarterly drills for the Emergency Brigade was conducted for the day shift on March 15, 1990 at 2:00 p.m.
The drill was observed by the-inspector and was judged to be successful; the licensee conducted a candid.and productive critique immediately following.
The inspector discussed with licensee management the observation that neither the fire alarm nor the; criticality alarm (both tested at the outset of the drill) was audible or visible near the scene of the simulated fire (trailer adjacent to the storage pad for uranium hexafluoride tanks).
The licensee acknowledged the. validity of this observation and agreed to review whether certain outdoor locations within the Controlled Access Area should be covered by the fire and criticality alarms.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
FireProtectionProgram(88050)
The inspector discussed this area with a cognizant licensee representative, reviewed applicable documentation, and inspected selected equipment.
An upgrade in this prcgram was in progress with the development of detailed prefire plans for the various sections of the plant; completion of these plans was anticipated by March 31, 1990.
The licensee expected to use the prefire plans in Emergency Brigade training, in responding to an actual fire, and in identifying possible improvements in the fire protection methodology for a. given area of-the plant.
The inspector reviewed the reports of several audits of the fire-protection program by American Nuclear Insurers (ANI).. The licensee appeared to be actively responding to ANI suggestions for improvement.
The inspector selectively reviewed records generated since August 1,1989-for the surveillance tests of each of the following categories -of equipment:
portable fire extinguishers fire hose stations and valves sprinkler systems fire pumps No violations or deviations were identified.
-.-;=.-....
5:
j q
a 7.
Exit Interview i
The : inspection-scope and results_ were summarized on' March 16,1990, ~withl those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. -The inspector, described the areas' 7
inspected andidiscussed in detail:the comments and observations contained in Paragraphs 2. 3, :and 5 and, the conclusions-in the Summary. - Licensee-
?
management-took no exception to the inspector's presentation.,! Although-i proprietary information was reviewed. during - this inspection,- none -:is.
contained in this report.-
q Li j
I m*t h
f, 1
ii s
- i
.j
. j
+
..l
. t
.)
- 7
'l 4
. I l
r
+
r f
4 I.
)
-, - l
,~
,{
~