IR 05000277/1989012

Insp Repts 50-277/89-12 & 50-278/89-12 on 890410-13.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Changes to Emergency Preparedness Program,Emergency Facilities,Independent/ Reviews/Audits & Notifications & Communications

ML20247N893
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	05/25/1989
From:	Amato C, Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247N853	List: IR 05000277/1989012 ML20247N848
References
50-277-89-12, 50-278-89-12, IEIN-86-097, IEIN-86-97, NUDOCS 8906060053
Download: ML20247N893 (6)

Text

. _ - - . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

., . .

. .

l'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIA'IORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report Nos: 50-277/89-12

_50-278/89-12 Docket Nos: 50-277 50-278 License Nos: DPR-44 Priority _ Category C DPR-56 Priority _ Category C Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Campany 2301 Market Street Philadeh Aia, m nnsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 10-13, 1989 Inspector: dut4em V Ff f C. (AnatofOpergency Preptuntless date Specialier, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS c'4 wGw3 /w' fJ date

C. ConklingSr. EPS, EPjV, FRSSB, DRSS Approved By: / -

< Muoo J $

W1 W Iaz , Chief, Emergency date Pre s Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on April 10-13, 1989, (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/89-12 and 50-278/89-12)

Areas Inspected: A routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection was conducted at the Peach Bottan Atomic Power Station. 'Ihe inspection areas included: C Facilities, %es tc the Emergercy Preparedness Prugcuu; EmergencyEquipment, Instrumenta Management Independent Control; ReviewsKnowledge and Performance

/ Audits; Licensee of Previously Actions on Duties (Training);ied Identif Firdirgs; Notifications and Communications; and Off-Site Activitie Results: No violations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000277 g PDC

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-__ _ _ _ . __ -

., . .

. .

DETAIIB Persons Contacted W e following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting hold on April 13, 198 B. Clark, Superintendent of Administration R. Gallagher, Consultant, Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Acting Site-Emergency Preparedness Coordinator D. Meyer, Manager of Support D. Smith, Vice President, INaach Bottom Atamic Power Station C. Wike, Consultant, Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Principal Engineer, Cbrporate Emergency Preparedness Section h e inspector also interviewed and observed the activities of other licensee pere h . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

'Ihe inspectors reviewed the licensee's progress concerning the items opened during previous inspection (CLOSED) (50-277/88-09-03 and 50-278/89-09-03) Violation. Independent Reviews / Audits required by 10 CFR 50.54(t) were not corducted or were not conducted properly. 'Ihe licensee completed an acceptable review / audit as required and advised the Commonwealth, State ard Counties of the availability of report sections treating the interface for adequacy with these government (CLOSED) (50-277/88-09-04 and 50-278/88-09-04) IFI. 'Ihere was inadequate management control and procedures to resolve deficiencies identified in licensee reviews and audits. An Interface Agreement has been drawn up and signed by the Executive Vice President, Nuclear, a tracking system is in place to follow recolution of deficiencies, ard deficiencies are di w W at station review meeting (CIOSED) (50-277/88-09-05 ard 50-278/88-09-05) IFI. Were was a poor interface between Emergency Preparedness, Quality Assurance ard other site pru. cuas involved with Emergency Preparedness. 'Ihe steps taken to address the above IFI also satisfactorily addressed this ite (CLOSED) (50-277/88-12-04 ard 50-278/88-12-04) UNR. Emergency Action Isycl (EAL) classifications did not include events. 'Ihere was no complete correlation with the EAL exa:nples given in Apperdix 1 of NUREG-0654, Rev. EAls have been revised to include the examples l

given in NUREG-0654, events have been added and EAls will include Technical Specification required shut downs.

[ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -- - -

., ,- .

. .

'(CICSED) (50-277/88-12-03 and 50-278/88-12-03) IFI. Senior Reactor-Optors did not develop Protective Action h---e iations m -(PARS) in a t.unely manner. Training has been introduced and lesson Plans modified which stress the timely development of PARS and their centunication to off site authoritie '

l 3.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Pruytam (EPP)

,

The EPP organizational structure was studied, piumnal were interviewed and EPP activities were identified to determine if the licensee has developed, maintains ard iltplements an EPP required by 10 CFR 50.54(t)

which meets the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Section IV of Appendix E to-10 CFR 5 There have been no significant changes to the licensee's emergency preparedness program since the last inspection. The Site Emergency Preparedness Group (SEPG) is still staffed by two consultants one of -

whom devotes half time to this activity. Full time secretarial support is available. The Site Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (SEPC) reports to the Corporate Director of Emergency Prepah_ and has direct access to the Station Vice President, the Site Manager of Support and the Superintendent of Administration. The SEEC is adequately implementing the program drawing upon site resources and corporate suppor Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl .0 Emelgency Facilities, Equignent, Instrumentation and Supplies Emergency response facilities are designed to meet the requirements of 10 CPR 50.47(b)(8) and (b)(9),Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97. Equipment, status boards, communications systems,. plans, procedures, habitability and access control provisions were checked for the control rocm (CR), .

Technical Support Center (TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility (IDF) .

Plans and procedures, equipment and supplies were checked on a sampling basis. Results irdicated that equipment was inventoried, instrumentation was calibrated as required, and eqiment and instruments were operable. Plans and procedures were in place and current. Site and off site monitorirg kits were also checked. Equipment and supplies matched the inventory lists. Equipnent was in calibration and functional. The licensee plans to enlarge the TSC and install a Safety Parameter Display System terminal by late 199 The inspector observed a test of the emergency dies,al electric generator

. (EDDG) which provides back up power for the EOF and TSC. Procedures to

!

__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

_ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ __ . _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

.

.

l 4  !

!

bring the EDDG on line were available as well as personnel to inplement the procedures. During the course of the inspection, AC power to the EOF aid TSC was lost. 'Ihe EOF dose assesc=nt cmputers'

uninterruptable power supplies cut in ard function was maintaine Sensor calibration recolds for meteorological tower sensors, vent monitors ard the containment high rarge monitors were checked. All calibrations were in order ard curren Based upon the above review, this area of the licensee's emergency plan is acceptabl .0 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Trainirg)

Emergency preparectness trainirg (EPT) activities, training records, lesson plans, Emergency Response Organization (ERO) qualification roster, ard the trainirry matrix were studied, and TrainirE Department (TD) staff interviewed in order to verify that emergency preparedness training is in compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) ard Section IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 5 'Ihe inspectors verified that training for the Emergency Response Organization is being conducted ard current. 'Ihere are 881 site personnel qualified for Peach Bottom ERO positions. At least three persons are qualified for each ERO position. 'Ihere are six Emergency Response Managers ard four Emergency Directors currently qualifie Another 275 nuclear headquarters personnel are also ERO qualifie A training matrix has been developed. Iesson Plans (LPs) based on job task analysis are in use. Performance based training will intrtduced. A camputer data base is being phased in to tracx -

ency preparedness training of site staff. Emergency preparedness tra is given by a senior instructo Reactor operators are trained in emergency preparedness including four hours of simulator trainirg. Senior Reactor Operator training now stresses the need for timely accident classification, development of Protective Action Reldations (PARS) ard rapid ccumunication of classification ard PARS to off site authorities. Simulator training included response to fast breakirg accident scenarios was given during the week of September '26,1988. LPs are being nodifiEd to stress the requirement for timely classification and PAR development, ard communication of these to csff-site authoritie _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ __-__-___-________- _ _ - -

- - ________ _

,

. g . -

e w i l

Quarterly station drills will be scheduled. Drills and exercises will be run frun the on site simulator beginnirg in 1990 (drills) and 1991 ,

(exercises). 'Ihis practice will enhance the realism of trainin I Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl J Indeperrlent' Reviews / Audits l An independent review / audit is required at least every twelve months by !

10 CFR 50.54(t) which includes determination for adequacy of the I licensee / State / local government interface and the availability of the

'

results of this study to State / local governments. 'Ibe licensee's

Technical Specificat.lons (TS) also require an audit of the EPP and EP 'Ihe audit / review reports were reviewed to verify that these requirements j were ne !

'Ihe audit required by Technical Specifications and the 50.54(t) review are done in conjunction.' A Master Audit Plan (MAP) has been develope An Appendix B based Quality Assurance Plan' (QAP) is also in us l Licensee personnel corduct audits. 'Ibe review was done by a contractor whose staff visited 90% of off site goveummud.al personnel' involved in ,

the Radiological Emergency Response. Licensee / government interface l adequacy was evaluated and results made available to the involved off !

site agencies. No problems were identifie i Based upon the above review, this area of the licensee's emergency j preparedness program is acceptabl !

7.0 Notification and Oammunication i

!

Communication systems were evaluated to ascertain if the requirements of i 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (b)(6), Sections IV.D.1 and E.9 of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and NRC Information Notice 86-97 were ne Twelve independent, redundant and diverse communication systems to off l site locations including governments were identified. Results of 1988 1 pager call-in tests were satisfactory. 'Ihe 1988 availability of the 77 j sirens in Maryland and Pennsylvania was 99.17%. A letter certifyiry !

this availability was sent to FEMA-III duriry February 198 j i

'

8.0 Off-Site Activities and Public Information

'Ihe SEPC and corporate off site emergency planner were interviewed and ap;uxpriate records reviewd to determine if the standards of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (5) , (b)(7) and (b)(12), and the requirements of Sections I D.2, IV.D.3 and IV.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are me l

,

j

_ _ . __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _____

. , .. .

2.

I I 6 Brochures have been mailed to the residents of the Emergency Planning Zone and prirz:1 pal estployers. Enwjus y preparedness inserts have been placed in three phone directories. A media briefing was held and a media briefing kit prepared. Appropriate goveumsdal officials and personnel were trained in their emergency rspa.au:,e duties. Ietters -

certifying this trainirg were sent to Maryland and Pennsylvani ' Istters of Agreement are current. The inspector. verified that support hospital staffs and personnel of the Delta-Cardiff Fire and Ambulance squads received required trainin Copies of the Emergercy Response Plan were sent to Maryland and Pennsylvania and the .rlsk Counties for review. This plan contains the Emergency Action levels (EAls) and PARS. A meeting was held during September 1988 at which EAIs and PARS were diamtmu Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emerge 1L,f plan is acceptabl .0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with li nsee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the findings of this inspection as detailed in this repor The licensee was informed that no violations were identified. Several areas for improvement were ri k m M . The licensee acknowledged these findings and agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions ad appropriat At no time during this inspection did the inspector provide any written information to the license .

_ - . _ _ . .

_ - . . - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ . _ _