IR 05000272/1985029

Insp Repts 50-272/85-29 & 50-311/85-27 on 851203-05.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Annual partial-scale Emergency Exercise on 851204

ML20138R401
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/23/1985
From:	Harpster T, Vito D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138R390	List: IR 05000272/1985029 ML20138R389
References
50-272-85-29, 50-311-85-27, NUDOCS 8512310250
Download: ML20138R401 (4)

Text

.

.

I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No /85-29 50-311/85-27 Docket No l License Nos. OPR-70, DRp-75 Priority --

Category C Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box __236 .

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name: Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Hancccks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducte December 3-5, 1985 Inspectors: b ~/

J. Jw4hurst Team Leader bat G. Art ur, Batt lie B. Borchardt, R ident Inspector, Salem Units 1 and 2 T. Foley, Senior Resident Inspector, Calvert Cliff l P. Gaul, Assistant ERC T. Kenny, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem Units 1 and 2

,

V. Ramsdell, Battelle )

i G. Steotzel, Battelle D. Vito, Senior EP Specialist Approved by:

T. L. arpster.j Chief, _] 73 (_

date Emer'ncyPrehrednessSection I I

'

Inspection Summary: I Inspection on December 3-5, 1985 (Repor_t Nos. 50-272/85-29 and 50-311/85-27)

Areas Inspected: Observation of the licensee's annual partial scale Emergency l Exercise conducted on December 4, 1985. This inspection involved 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> by l l 9 resident and region-based inspectors and contractor personne l

!

l Results: No violations were identified.

!

.

0512310250 051224 l PDR ADOCK 05000272 l 0 PDR

!

i

<

.

'd U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No /85-29 50-311/85-27 Docket No License Nos. DPR-70, ORP-75 Priority --

Category C Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company E0. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey _ Oi038 Facility Name: Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: December 3-5, 1985 Inspectors: b< _]l Jwx Team Leader batd G. J. y'ur,hurst Artd Batt Ile 9. Borchardt, R ident Inspector. Salem Units 1 and 2

. T. Foley, Senior Resident Inspector, Calvert Cliff P. Gaul, Assistant ERC T. Kenny, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem Units 1 and 2 V. Ramsdell, Battelle G. Steotzel, Battelle D. Vito, Senior EP Specialist Approved by: ' -

T. arpster Chief,

_1173 da b Emer 'ncy Pre tredness Section

. Inspection Summary:

Inspection on December 3-5, 1985__(Report Nos. 50-272/85-29 and 50-311/85-27)

Areas Inspected: Observation of the licensee's annual partial scale Emergency Exercise conducted on December 4, 1985. This inspection involved 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> by 9 resident and region-based inspectors and contractor personne Results: No violations wre identifie PDR ADOCK 05000272 O PDR

_ _ _ _

.

t

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

"C. Adams, Emergency Planning Staff

"K. Anderson, Emergency Planning Staff

• C. Banner, Emergency Planning Staff S. Bravar, Public Information Officer

• W. Britz, Radiation Protection Services Manager

• Burricelli, General Manager Engineering and Plant Betterment

• Cavalier, Atlantic Electric

• Gerrity, Senior Operations Supervisor

• Gueller, Operations Manager

• C, P. Johnson, Nuclear Quality Assurance

• Lowenstein, Jr. , Senior Shif t Supervisor

• D. McCloskey, Emergency Planning Manager

• C. A. McNeill, Vice President Nuclear

• L. K. Miller, Operatians

• J. Morrison, PSE&G

• L. A. Reiter, General Manager

"J. J. Schaffer, Emergency Preparedness Staff

• J. C. Trejo, PSE&G

,

• J. M. Zupko, General Manager i " Denotes those present at the exit interview on December 5, 198 . Egen ency_ Exercise l The Salem Nuclear Generating Station partial scale exercise was conducted on December 4, 198 .

a) Pre-Exercise Activities Prior to the emergency exercise, NRC Region I representatives had telephone discussions with licensee representatives and provided written comments on the scope and contents of the objectives and

'

! scenario. In addition, the NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on December 3,198 The exercise scenario included the following events:

) (1) Reactor trip on lo-lo level steam generator level; (2) Excessive vibration in Reactor Coolant Pump No. 23 (broken impeller);

(3) Rapidly increasing reactor coolant leakage and increase in radiation monitor levels (fuel damage);

'

(4) Fire in service water intake structure; x---__-____-___-___-_--________-___-_-__-___-_____-___-___ . (5) Safety injection actuated, containment Hi-Hi pressure alarm l

occurs (Large Break LOCA);

(6) Containment pressure peaks at 37 psig and ra'diation levels reach ~600 R/hr.

, The above events resulted in activation of the licensee's Emergency l

Plan and emergency response facilitie Exercise Observation During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency organization; activation of emergency response personnel r during the operation of the emergency response facilitie The following activities were observed:

(1) Detection, classification, and assessment of the scenario events; (2) Direction and coordination of the emergency response; (3) Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent information; (4) Communications /information flow, and record keeping; (5) Assessment and projection of radiological (dose) data and consideration of protective actions; (6) Provision for in plant radiation protection; l (7) Performance of in plant radiological surveys; i

(8) Performance of technical support; (9) Performance of repair and corrective actions; (10) Activation and operation of EOF; and, (11) Dissemination of public informatio The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization; activation of the emergency response facilities; and actions and use of the facilities were consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing procedure The-team also noted the following areas where the licensee's activities l were efficiently implemented:

(1) Emergency procedures were effectively used and closely followed by operators;

o

.

,

..

(2) The Senior Shift Supervisor used good discretion and was very familiar with the ECG, players in the control room had a good attitude; (3) Frequent-conferences were held by the EDO, good communications between technical people and decisions were made based upon input from all managers; (4) Communications between the OSC, the Control Point and with other response facilities were generally good. Radio communications were maintained with in plant teams in potential high radiation areas; (5) New phone system was effectively utilized for making notifications and communicating between facilities; (6) Emergency communications staff were familiar with procedures and coordination of corrective actions were good; (7) Generally most players were found to be well trained in the use of procedures and equipment; and, (8) Information flow was good; status display were kept curren The following areas were identified which could have degraded the response to the simulated emergency, and should be evaluated for possible corrective actio (1) The controller / observer for the PASS team was not knowledgeable on PASS panel operation. Knowledgeable controllers should be provided in all areas, especially those which require specific technical expertise (50-272/85-29-01; 50-311/85-27-01).

(2) Press release #3 on the declaration of a General Emergency at the SNGS was poorly written (50-272/85-29-02; 50-311/85-27-02) in that PSE&G's recommendations for protective action were include A similiar comment was made during the Hope Creek exercise on October 29, 198 The licensee demonstrated the ability to make appropriate recommen-dations for the protection of the health and safety of the publi In addition, the emergency preparedness program at SNGS demonstrated from a practical standpoint that all deficiencies identified in the previous annual emergency exercise (October 24,1984) have been correcte '

3. Exit Intervtew The inspectors met with licensee representatives (see detail 1 for

attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the findings of the exercise observations as detailed in this report. At no time during this inspection was any written information provided to the licensee.