ML20206T480
| ML20206T480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | Brown G, Fish R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T356 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-86-15, 50-362-86-15, IEB-79-18, NUDOCS 8607080151 | |
| Download: ML20206T480 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000361/1986015
Text
.
.
U.-S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
50-361/86-15 and 50-362/86-15
Docket Nos.
50-361 and 50-362
License Nos.
Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company
Post Office Box 800, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units
2/3
Inspection at:
San Onofre Site, San Diego County, California
Inspection dates:
May 13-16, 1986
Inspector:
30
b
G'.
A.
Brown, Emergency Preparedness
Date Signed
Analyst
b 30
b
Approved By:
u
R.
F.
F i's h , Chief
D a't e S4gned
Emergency Preparedness Section
Summary
Inspection on May 13-16, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-361/86-15 and
50-362/86-15)
Areas Inspected
Announced follow-up inspection of the lice'nsee's provisions for
alerting personnel in high noise areas in Units 2'and~3.
The
inspection included a June.5, 1986 telephone discussion of the
subject matter with the Senior Resident Inspector.
Results
One violation of NRC requirements, failure to~ provide workers with
instructions on their emergency response to the Unit 2 containment
building strobe lights, was. identified.
8607080151 860703
ADOCK 05000361
G
L--
- -
.
'
,
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- H.
Morgan, Station Manager
J.
Schramm, Supervisor of Coordination
- D.
Peacor, Manager, Station Emergency Preparedness
- D.
Bennette, Supervisor, Station 3mergency Preparedness
G.
Gibson, Compliance Supervisor
C.
Bostrom, Administrator, Station Emergency Preparedness
Training
- G.
Lulias, Quality Assurance Engineer
J.
Long, Quality Assurance Engineer
M.
Rodin, Supervisor, Configuration Control Engineering
S.
Olafsson, Emergency Preparedness Specialist
'
- M.
Wharton, Deputy Station Manager
- J.
Wambold, Training Manager
- D.
Stonecipher, Site Quality Control Manager
- M.
Short, Project Manager
- W.
Zintl, Compliance Manager
- W.
Kirby, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- W.
Lazear, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- M.
Freedman, Engineer
- V.
Legaspi, Quality Control Supervisor
- J.
Grosshart, Quality Assurance Engineer
- M.
Speer, Compliance Engineer
,
- C.
Adams, Quality Control Inspector
- R.
Brown, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R.
Borden, Quality Assurance Engineer
- D.
Herbert, Independent Safety Engineering Group
2.
Background
On August 7,
1979 the NRC issued IE Bulletin 79-18 alerting
all operating plants of a potential safety hazard for workers
who may be working in areas where the noise Jevel is too great
to hear audible emergency alarms.
The bulletin requested all
licensees to perform studies of their working environment to
determine if any such areas existed, and, if so, to devise
means for ensuring that workers in those areas are also
alerted.
Since the bulletin applied only to operating plants,
units under construction were provided with a copy of the
bulletin for information only.
Unit 1 of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was in operation at that
time, but Units 2 and 3 were still under construction.
Southern California Edison (SCE) addressed the bulletin's
items promptly and eventually installed flashing strobe lights
in Unit
1.
Plans were made to install similar strobe lights
in Units 2 and 3.
In the interim, SCE relied on an
administrative search and rescue system to evacuate workers
who may not hear the audible warnings in Units 2 and 3.
.
.
- .
.-
-
.
..
i
'
.
,
2
3.
Unresolved Item
This inspection was conducted to address Unresolved Item No.
86-01-03 reported in Inspection Report Nos. 50-206/86-01,
50-361/86-01 and 50-362/86-01 which covered an inspection
conducted January 6-10 and February 3-7,
1986.
The Unresolved
Item consisted of two main areas of concern regarding SCE's
work to complete the installation of visual alarms in certain
high noise areas in Units 2 and 3:
a)
that work to complete the installation may have been
needlessly subjected to considerable delays and that the
licensee may not have adequately tracked progress in the
work activities
b)
that, after the installation, workers may not have
been informed of the meaning of the devices nor
instructed in their proper responses.
4.
Scope
The inspector interviewed personnel responsible for the
installation of the systems as well as personnel responsible
for tracking this work.
The history of events prior to and
after the issuance of Documents PFC 2/3-83-904 and 2/3-83-905
(the supporting documents for the installation of strobe
lights in Units 2 and 3,
respectively), was reviewed, along
with documents relating to the tracking of the work from its
early stages to the present.
Personnel responsible for
emergency preparedness training were also interviewed and
training documents examined to determine what training, if
any, workers had received after the implementation of the
visible strobe light warning system in Unit 2.
5.
Findings
a.
Work Delays and Tracking Concerns
The review of pertinent documents provided the following
chronology relative to the implementation of the visual
alarm systems:
CHRONOLOGY
12/83
Units 2 and 3. reach operating. conditions.
Surveys initiated to identify high noise areas.
5/13/84
Site Problem Report +#5416 issued.regarding
problems hearing site emergency evacuation siren
system.
DCP'1250.0E initiated.
__
.
.
'
..
3
6/11/84
Referencing DCP 1250.0E, letter SCE
84-0554 to Bechtel (Merlo to'McCluskey) requested
Bechtel to. install visual alarms in high noise areas
and modify systems of Units'1, 2 and 3 so that-each
system can be alarmed independent of the other
7/27/84
Issued NRCAIR (NRC Action Item Report)
F-NRC322-to test the audibility, intelligibility and
visibility of the evacuation system throughout all
Unit 2 and 3 plant areas and assure corrective
action on any deficiencies
1/10/85
Issued PFC 2/3-83-904 (Proposed Facility
Change) to install 19 strobe lights in Unit 2
1/30/85
Issued PFC 2/3-83-905 to install 19 strobe
lights in Unit 3
2/7/85
Issued-PRR No. S0027-85 (Problem Review
Report) to monitor so as to assure that corrective
<
action on any deficiencies meets the intent of IE
79-18
3/12/85
Unit 2 strobe light evacuation alarm
system placed in service'(DCP 1250.0E).
Strobe
lights will automatically activate simultaneously
i
with the Thunderbolt Siren system
1/31/86
SCE issued first bulletin to employees to
inform them of the strobe lights in Unit 2
and what to do in response to their acti-
,
vation (Emergency Planning Bulletin 4-86)
During this inspection the licensee provided documents to
show the tracking and progress of th.ese projects to date.
Based on the interviews and documents examined, there
appears to have been no significant delays in completion
of the prescribed work and SCE has maintained an adequate
tracking of the events of this task.
This item of
concern is resolved.
b.-
Instruction To Workers Concern
The visual evacuation alarm system had been completely
installed an'd placed in service'in Unit'2 on 3/12/85.
.At
the time of this inspection three.of a total of 19 strobe
lights had been installed in Unit 3.
The inspector
determined that.no form.of instruction or information had
been provided to workersLregarding the purpose of-the
Unit 2 visual alarm system and their response to its.
activation from the. implementation date of 3/12/85 until
January 31, 1986.
~
,
<*
c t
,
.
,
.
-
-
.-_
,
-
- - , ,
.
.- - -.
.
~ . . .
,
=
art
k.! '
,
t
.
,
<
a
.
- .
'
"'
4
.
-
>
.
,
. .
,
.;
- .
'4
>-
y
, ,
p
.
}
'
,
!
The licensee' agreed.that'no instruction or information
4
,
-
.had been provided to' workers'regarding the purpose and-
function of the' strobe lights until after it had been
'
l.
~
discussed during the January 1986 routine emergency
preparedness inspection.: However..the licensee 1 contended
that the project was not_completedfsince onlyLUnit'2
strobe lights were cinstalled, with Unit 3 installation-
scheduled for completion during'the next planned outage
in December 1986.'
'
,
It.is the licensee's policy that applicable proce'ures
d
or
instructions are to be implemented only upon completion
and final acceptance of all; work.
They maintained that
-
i
this minimizes confusion regarding system operation on
j
thefpart of site personnel.
Further, the licensee held
that they presently do not rely on this visual alarm
4 .
system to evacuate personnel from.high noise areas, but.
,
1
.
_ -
rely on their administrative accountability,andusearch
'
l
system.
Therefore, they concluded that' informing workers
!.
of the Unit 2 strobe ~11ghts' purpose and the proper
{
response to their activation is not necessary, or
3
required,uat this time.
While the licensee's actions to provide these warning
devices for their employees is exemplary, the issue of
,
concern is whether the employees knew the purpose and how
,
to respond to those devices hadschey been activated.
It
,
i
was noted that when'the strobe lights were installed in'
1
Unit 2,
they were designed to, and do, activate simul-
taneously with the Thunderbolt' Siren system.
The
j
operators had no option whether to omit the strobe light
,
j
signals or not.
Thus, the lights would have flashed-
automatically anytime the siren system was activated.
3
j
Even if the licensee's expected; response was for,their
i
workers to ignore the strobe lights because other
i
evacuation methods were in-use,: proper ins'tructio'n to
f
this effect would eliminate unnecessary, confusion.
j
The regulations are clear,that the worker has a right to
j
be kept~ informed as to the purposes and functions of
'
protective devices and that the. employer.has"an obli-
gation to' provide that information: 10-CFR'19.12 states,
in part that' "All individuals working in6or frequenting
,
i
any portion.of~a:restridted~ area.shall beekept informed-
,
of...the purposes'and function's of prot'ective; devices
j;
. employed;...shall'be instructed in the appropriate
' response to warnings made ..."
One violation of'NRC requirementsy failure toJprovide
,
j-
instructions. required byfl0 CFR 19.12, was~-identified
!.
- (86-01-03).
-
+jP-
'
'
i
.
.!!
.
3
.v#.
.
3
,
,
'
i'
,
f i4
4
<
a e ;-
,
p
$'
g,:f
I' %
,
7
tu
y.. -
/
,
,
,
lf'
. N~s
p .~i_'
am.w
.'l
1Y8'#
5 'j' <
I
,
, *
i
,
.
..;.
'
,
_ : l 'p
,
'
?^
$ 1
'
.
.
-
m *'
.
--
-
-
,
. . _ .
__
.
.
.
J
,
,-
. .
,
5
6.
Exit Interview
The inspector held an exit interview with the licensee on May
1
16, 1986, to discuss the preliminary findings of this special
inspection.
Those.in attendance at this meeting have been'
'
identified.in Paragraph 2 above.
Findings resulting from this
,
j
inspection were discussed and the licensee was advised that a
~
possible violation of the provisions.in 10 CFR 19.12 was
'
identified.
i
t
--
.
.
4
2
5
5
i
t
!
i
e
t
I
e
,
L-
.,
,
)
,
,
!
I
n
a
b
a
,
,
r
8
3
P
.
M
,
.
,
. _ -
. _ . . _ . - - _
_ _ . ,
_ ,
.,
.
. - . . .
_