ML20107G263
Text
... _ -.. -
I r:
7 tiov 2 c 1975 J. F. Stohr, Section Leader, Environmental and Special Projec Section i
Fool Facility and Materials Safety Branch, Region I f
/
INSPECTOR'S EVALUATION
(
%p REGIONIINSPECTIONREPORTNo.50-219T75-25 a
j
,, ',, cs fC a JER8EY CENTRAL POWIK AND LIGHT COMPANY
^- -'
'z. Q "f
c Or:TsR CRaum meCL AR r0W R sTAfr0N i
The above referenced report doements an inspection of the licensee'd Emergency Drill (Module 827125) conducted on November 12 and 13, 1975.
j The inspection as originally scheduled would have cont.isted of myself, j
Mr. Stohr, Mr. Donaldson and Mr.
Gr======.
With these persons, all essential activities of the drill would have been evaluated, on a l
sampling basis, by the NRC. With the original contingent of personnel, inspectors would have covered:
(1) the Emergency Control Center; (2) l the Mein Control Roon; (3) the onsite Monitoring Team; (4) tho offaite Monitoring Team; and, (5) the medical ausraeacy operation. O ne in -
j spector would have been assigned to items (1), (2) and (4) wf.th the i
remaining inspector covering items (3) and (5).
I With the cancellation of Mr. Donaldson's participation, and W.aon-j participation of Mr. Gr====== for reasons outside of my direct knowledge, l
I feel that the entire spectrum of drill related events was not covered as fully as desired to meet the Module requirement to "... observe the i
response of the licensee's organization during one of the scheduled drills..."
in,ht The lica=ama's ensite Quality Assurance Organisation observed / reported a total of fifty-seven drill related inadequacies; fourteen (14) or 24.56%
l of the items were identified with respect to the offsite monitoring teams (they monitored two of the three teams) which we did not monitor.
l Based on these figures, one quarter of the reported problems occurred in an area not monitored by Commaission representatives. Of the fourteen i
(14) items, ten (10) were identified as common to both ra=== and would, l
by logical extrapolation, have been observed by an NRC inspector accom-l panying the remaining offsite monitoring team as originally scheduled.
I While I have no reason or evidence to suggest that the licassee's Quality l
Assurance Audit was inadequate, I am personnally of the opinion that observing seventy-five (75%) of the identified areas may not completely t
l fulfill the intention of the module to observe the licensee's organiza-I tional response.
/t c
- 3. M. [. /L' I2 4i I
W. A. Ruhlman r g hg
}
Reactor Inspector
./
cc:
P. R.
Ison M
hO [
E. C. Greenman dW41
,g hp
// [^~
C. O. Gallina
{,
- 4 W.P.C.
d Ruhlman/mjd p
d j/
/
11/19/75 Y r e n n 2,p-l\\f L (S c n
//b /p' 9604230163 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
e.
Oll7f,T/.NI)11:0 1 T1:11 1.T ST e
J J l-T.9
, Pricility/Lictmsee: _0yster Creek page p Location:- Forked River. New Jer.sey Licence flo. DPR-16 OIL OPj::d::G J OP DO!:G
- l /l.Y 5 7) # 2 / 'f h
- 5 N f
[/
/. C).031 C.l 0
. J.Z 1 F_1)"*!_'l _
1 nl11M E V
11 0 7TI'If P /S
' !::Ty.nps:Cr
~
u.
75-20 75-25 582710B X
Lack of letter of agreement P/S j
D-3 D-3.a with Fire Department 75-20 X Lack of facility plot' plan P/S 75-25 4
D.-14 3-3.a
,j 75-20 75-25 582711B
.X Lack of procedure for pick-S i
D-16 D-Jfa, up_of Environemental Sample s
75-20 75-25 582711B X Lack of calculations of on-8 D-17 D-3.a site dose ~ from accidents I
75-25 582710B
'X Lack of letter.of agreement 75-25 S
D-3.b (1) with ambstlance service 2-3.b (1)
+
75-25 582711B X
Failure.to conducte annual D-3.b(2)
P/S r evi ew/revin d or of Plan 582711B 75-25 X
Upgrade procedure 905 25 pj3 D-3.b(3),
to agree with Plan
,1 l
p i
l a
l.
l e
l l
l 1'
I 1
}
j I
_, _j
~....,...
8