Text

Insp Repts 50-361/86-15 & 50-362/86-15 on 860513-16. Violation Noted:Failure to Provide Workers W/Instructions on Emergency Response to Unit 2 Containment Bldg Strobe Lights
	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: ML20206T350; ML20206T476; ML20206T480;
References
	50-361-86-15, 50-362-86-15, IEB-79-18, NUDOCS 8607080151
	Download: ML20206T480 (6)
	v • d • e

. .

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. NPF-10 and NPF-15

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

Approved By: u b 30 b

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

PDR ADOCK 05000361

G PDR

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

i

lights will automatically activate simultaneously

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

}

'

,

! 4 The licensee' agreed.that'no instruction or information

,

-

.had been provided to' workers'regarding the purpose and-

'

function of the' strobe lights until after it had been

discussed during the January 1986 routine emergency

~

l.

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-

3

automatically anytime the siren system was activated.

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

this effect would eliminate unnecessary, confusion. j

f

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 , , .

'

<

f i4

.

.!! ,

a

e ;-

, i'

4

p $' *

g,:f I' % ,

7 tu

y.. - / ,

,

lf' am.w .

N~s *

p .~i_'

.'l

i , ,* 1Y8'# ' , . ..;.

I

5 'j' <

, ,

_ : l 'p

'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .

- m_*' .

?^__ _ $ 1 _ ' _ --

-

. . _ . __ . . .

,

J

, , ,- . .

5

6. Exit Interview

1 The inspector held an exit interview with the licensee on May

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

i

t

!

i

e

t

I

e ,

L-

, .,

) ,

,

!

I

n a

b

a , ,

r

8 3

P

. M

,

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

. - . . . _

ML20206T480

Text

Navigation menu

Search