IR 05000219/1990008
| ML20042G405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1990 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G404 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-90-08, 50-219-90-8, NUDOCS 9005140199 | |
| Download: ML20042G405 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ ,. ,, < ,,,, - $ .; . .' o . , . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region i Report No.
50-219/90-08 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
DPR-16 Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 388 Forked River. New Jersev 08731-0388 Facility Name: Ovster Creek Nuclect Generating Station Inspection Conducted: April 26 27.1990 Inspectors: d.
<beM M1/99 C. G. Amatd, Emergency Preparedness 7dat'e Specialist, Region I E. F. Fox, Jr., Sr. Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region 1.
E. E. Collins, Sr. Resident inspector, Oyster Creek C. Z. Gordon, Emergec.cy Preparedness Specialist, RI Approved: + C MV O W.'J. Lazarus, Chief, Emergfncy date Preparedness Section, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards-
Inspection Summary: Insoection on January 26 27.1990 (Insoection Report No. 50-219/00-081 Areas Inspected: Routine, announced, emergency preparedness inspection and observation of the licensee's partial participation emergency preparedness exercise conducted on April 27,1990. There was limited participation by personnel of New . Jersey's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering and the State Police Office of Emergency L Management. The inspection was performed by a team of four Region I personnel.
Results: No violations were identified. The licensee response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
9005'40199 900508 PDR ADOCK 05000219 O PDC . . -
. % ' ..
. ! . DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following GPU Nuclear Corporation staff members attended the exit meeting.
J. Barton, Deputy Director, Oyster Creek Division T. Blount, Lead Emergency Planner, Oyster Creek J. Bontempo, Lead Emergency Planner, Oyster Creek K. Burkholder, Emergency Planner, Oyster Creek B. De Merchant, Licensing Engineer, Corporate Services Division P. Fiedler, Director, Nuclear Assurance Division and Vice President E. Fitzpatrick, Director, Oyster Creek Division and Vice President G. Giangi, Manager, GPUNC Emergency Preparedness Department S. Kempf, Jr., Senior Off Site Emergency Planner . S. Polon, Site Manager Communications, Office of Communications A. Rone, Director, Plant Engineering M. Slobodien, Director, Radiological Controls R. Sullivan, Oyster Creek Emergency Preparedness Department Manager 1' Wazzan, Emergency Planner, Oyster Creek J. Vouglitos, Manager, Environmental Controls, Oyster Creek The inspectors also interviewed and observed other licensee personnel.
2.0 Emergency Exercise The Oyster Creek announced, partial participation exercise was conducted on April 26,1990, from 2:30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. The State of New Jersey, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering and the New Jersey State Police Office of Emergency Management participated to a limited degree.
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities The exercise objectives submitted to NRC Region 1 on January 12,1990, were reviewed and, following revision, determined to be adequate to test the licensee's Emergency Plan. On February 21, 1990, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRC review and evaluation.
Region I representatives had telephone conversations with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content of the scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made to the scenario which allowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures
. ,. , d ..
.,
and also provided the opportunity for the licensee to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in need of corrective action.
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on April 26,1990. Suggested NRC changes to the scenario made by the licensee were discussed during the briefing. The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise activities to prevent disruption to normal plant activities.
2.2 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events: ' 1.
One isolation condenser out of service; 2.
Small, and then a large leak, from the reactor cooling system into the drywell; 3.
Reactor scram; 4.
Fire within the protected area, and evacuation of non-essential personnel from the fire threatened area; 5.
Loss of emergency service water and service water suction (equivalent to loss of the ultimate heat sink); 6.
Isolation condenser steam break inside the reactor building (containment by pass); 7.
Reactor core cooling via the main stack; 8.
Elevated, filtered release of radioactive material to the-environment; 9.
Termination of the isolation condenser leak; L 10.
Restoration of emergency service water intake (return of ultimate heat sink).
11.
Declaration of the four Emergency Action levels; and, 12.
Development of Protective Action Recommendations.
! I J ! l'
% - .x,: .. . ' ' , ' s, " a . 3 .s
J 2.3 Activities Observed e During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed observations of: the activation and augmentation of the Emergency Response Facilities and the Emergency Response. Organization , staff; and actions of the Emergency Response Organization staff during , ' operation of the Emergency Response Facilities.' The following activities F . were observed: L Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events; 2.
Direction and coordination of emergency response; 3.
Augmentation of the Initial Emergency Response and Support Organizations staffs and the Emergency Response Facilities; l 4.' Notification of licensee and New Jersey State personnel and f communication of pertinent plant status information to these - personnel;. 5.
Communications /information flow, and record keeping;- ,.
6.
Assessment and projection of off-site' radiciogica'l dose and ! consideration of protective actions; 7.
Fire fighting and coordinated actions between the Oyster Creek fire brigade and the Forked River Fire Department; and, , 8.
Plant corrective actiorts.
.t 3.0 Classification of Exercise Findings , ,
Emergency preparedness exercise findings are classilled as follows.
. . . Exercise Strengths 3.1 , Exercise strengths are areas of the licensee's staff response that provide ' strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant ' - conditions and implement the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.
I i 'l> .. _ h cp - Nj m: . 4# , o n
" 3.2 Exercise Weaknesses Exercise weaknesses are areas of the licensee's response in which the .- ' performance was such that it could have precluded ' effective ._ ] implementation of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in the
event of an actual emergency in the aiea being observed. Existence of an . .; ' exercise weakness does not of itself indicate that overall response was ' inadequate to protect public health and safety.
. [^ 3.3 AreMor Imprpvement _ " An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significant negative impact on the licensee's ability to implement the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and response was adequate. However, it should , be evaluated by the licensee to determitie if corrective action could 'l Improve performance.
! 4.0 Exercise Observations , The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation of the Emergency Response . Organization, Emergenev %ponse Facilities, and use of these facilitie's were pt.nerally consistent with tneir Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan -! Implementing Procedures. The following strengths, and areas for improvement were identified.
4.1 Emercency Command Center The following exercise strengths were identified.
f 1.
Reactor operators were aware of plant conditions at all times, and asked "what if questions".
2.
The Group Shift Supervisor's (GSS) decisions to wram the reactor , and initiate drywell spray were appropriate.
, 3.
The GSS's made a very good decision to use the control rod drive hydraulic pump to maintain water level above top of active fuel.
No ev.ercise weaknesses or areas for improvement.were identified.
, i f
e s . ,
,, - _- =.' ' [ , '[ , gg d {',
.; i ' w 6- , ' i 4.2 Technical Sunnort Center , . The following exercise strengths were identified.
' . , -; 1.
Very good use of the Emergency Operating Procedures throughout q the exercise.
, 2.
- The Emergency Director Assistant and supporting engineer rapidly -
" developed a number of alternate core cooling methods.
( No exercise weaknesses were identified.
! The following areas for improvement were identified.
'
- 1.
The Protective Action Recommendation was not posted.
2.
. Completion of accountability and the results, although known, were j not announced. - - 3.. One on site, out of-plant radiation control team did not follow 'l GPU Nuclear Corporation policy regarding simulation and the ' Oyster Creek air sampling procedure.
4.
Heat transfer calculations were not done to determine if the injection rate from the control rod drive hydraulic pump matched the boil-off rate and, was therefore, capable of maintaining water level above top of active fuel.
' I 5.
Consideration was not given to the use of probabilistic risk nssessment so the Emergency Director could determine the likelihood for primary containment failure.
- 4.3 - Operation Support Center l ' . The following e:=rcise strengths were identified.
1.
Command and control by the Operations Support Center ~ Coordinator and Radiation Control Coordinator was excellent.
> 2.
Good thought was given as to how teams were to be used for pursuing a wide range of tasks.
i No exercise weaknesses vra. identified.
( - L - - . O
@m ^; ~ m- , k: ' 'sJ 3_
- }
T i z y
g1 g,
. , ,
The following areas for improvement were identified.
1.
Not all Operations Support Center teams were accompanied by GPU controllers and observers.
' ,' 2.
The procedure for connecting the service and fire water pumps was
difficult to follow.
I . 4.4 Emercency Ooerations Facilit,y The following strengths were identified.
1.
- There was very good support of the New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear
engineerirg personnel and interaction with them in developing a Protective Action Recommendation.
,
e-2.
The upgraded security alarm system provided information as to the status of all doors throughout the exercise.
? 3.
The enhanced data projection system worked well and facilitated player response.
q
No exercise weaknesses or areas for improvement were identified.' j
- 1 I
! 5.0 Licensee Critique .: ! The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on April 27,1990 during { which the licensee's lead controllers and observers discussed observations m te exercise. The licensee's critique was critical and thorough. The licensee
, indicated that these observations would be evaluated and appropriate co .,c action taken, l I
6.0 Exit Meetine i ~ l Following the Feensee's self critique, the NRC team met with the licensee's representatives hsted in Section 1 to discuss the findings detailed in this report.
. The NRC team determined that within the scope and limitation of the scenario, " the licensee's performance demonstrated they could implement their Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner that would ) adequately provide protective measures-for the health and safety of the public.
.. t ' R _ n
- !
, ' mac eCau ses - u.s. wuctsAn ns00LAT0nY C0te418SION peacessensct0mmene om. eve seamsemme. 8AdB7/ CHaif'te-3 %1U.mn INSPECTOR 8 REPORT - ,,,,,,,, , office of inspection and Enforcement Q,gg /g (gjg h ' r - ,. , ~*c*' A Ad477e Ch'est e 3 Gp/ua e, C/n/C [0.x E D44//>V c" atronT mexvsenrec.eAfe uCENsti vtN00a. T' a",s,A 00.C0.t wo,.e *,CTu'a u.CE.N,et at, es 0
. . . ,,,. m ' * * * * ' $ ff)l/l7/f )fl L f f.//5 /-/l" <;-{}
/ y q g' d ;t A j g q g . l 0 n_L / 'n tM A/OC L. (WX M ='*00*T i f e-r ' " ' ' C M l'dM M WeAv 0 - OtLiti C _ a. atPLACs l .e, e i J i w. . . Plac0 0s avtsf eGatioss'msetC1ces aNsetCt:0N Piasoaut o e y ] ORGAMitAtiON 000E OF RESIOettes0 00NouCT
]01Mta O"d$ ,i enou to C. neo OssAL 0atsCE stAss
. M0 Day vn M0 Der vn 2 - nesetNi msPtCT0m aI+Q16 Y19 #Iy & flO > - *>0au^ ace ^"a**^t "^M
_M A a 'n = ii a m - o e. - . TYPt of ACfiviTV CONOUCitD tCnenn ens ees esvyt ] - AGGiosiat Act:0ee N 82 - sAftTY _ 08 - WOMT.vt9ef W - PLANT teC.
i. - 580UIRT "" _ , !l 1. NaC 80aw mi in - *ClotNT 07 - sPICIAL ti - sevtsef.vta.
s. mvtsfogatioN z 3 = KICCNAL O88tCE ttfTim 08 - IN80AClutNT 08-vtN00m 12 - sMIPutNTitxPORT 05. MGMT AU0if OS - MAT ACCT, 33.ladP0A f M 37 = msrtcTeo3mw tzr0 ArioN F8NDiNG5 tof Ag NyW9(R INSDAC4WENT CON 8tRENCE atPom1 Cossiam 2 790 LtTTIA 0m mtP0A1 TRANsessTTAL Daft % ' ' ' " * " * * ' _ 0F votAfcNs AND Mito >FoaMAfose 'A e C
ofviAfCNs sinc #0nad at - meP0mfstNT 8 * CLEAR 08 AG4 TOMik804 LETTen ssut0 ACTION _
- -vouroN 3 - OtviAfose A
B C
Alt c
A e C
M0 Dav va.
Mo.
day l va.
4. vouros.6 0turoN j - i - vis i - vis oL50 IF fic I III , , , , N 80 41 di
44
50 M WOOutt $NeoaMafiON Mo0uti ises0aMa tios.
M00utt alO F0tLOWup $ MODULINUMelmiNsp gg g ]Ih M000LE RECL F0tLOWUP as00VLE Nuutta inesP I.
4!!g !!. gg I.
I.
I!!js !!. ! ! i li il t i l l!!jsdli! ! i ll il 1 : 1 1 11 il t i i llid it! ! ! !! ll . . . .c - . - , , . ..
4 PidlAdJl liil liii iliil ii i i-i //idiV //d r i
' . i s i ~ ' lin i liil
a ,i i, i ii i i i liil e - i liil c ii i i .i ,, i liil ii i i i liil a a i, i, i , liil iliiI _ ii i i i liiI . i f Vv b di ll dsid / did e_ i ^ ^ . i li liil li.I
i ii i i i .i liil liil c c ii i. i ii i, i ls
I..I o o , i, ,, i i, i, , liil liil liil iliiJ ii i s i
. i . i i .i i, i is i i i liil liil
.i , i i liil li,1 e e ii .. i ii ,, i liil liil a ii i i i ,i i i i L liil liil iliiI . i ii i i i liil ^
. i-i in i i i liil liil
= i, i i i ,, i i i liil lii l e e ii i n i ii i i i ii i i i IiiI iii1
- 2a. a'n'avess
= ii i i i .Inl. is = ,, is is i.
i.
. 20 ni ...I,,I. i s . = ,, .. i.
. = ,, n - - - - - - -. -. . - - - - , - _
PRE-INSPECTION COVER SHEET AND INSPECTION PLAN ,
- ,
(Region I Work Form) . .: FROH: YNmh Report No..S~0 *d/ 7/8 9 -87 ' .f f (Reporting (Inspector) C, b M / N #du[ 5/*3 TO: (Reporting Inspettof's Supervisor) SUBJECT: INSPECTION OF 6-E.8)' CruM ON #6 '/# f/n/fff47 ' ' (Facility) -(Dat(s) ' i / List of outsta.iding items up to date, reviewed and proper items selected.
/ (/'fIspection plan completed (attached or summarized below).
i Inspection Plan: J/V A MM i , M s.
l}$1-A t /rY-<A k m f . .fm A M
- 6 --r u k . , % / 5 d 3 f/ -< -er-cA/ W ' ' /// i L , _ - NAMES OF ACCOMPANYING PERSONNEL: RESIDENT INSPECTOR " h _ NOTIFIED:
- 14 / 20 d%
. [ ' -v v_ _' '), Inspector _ Initial /Date- [[ DRP SECTION CHIEF NOTIFIED: %.20 h (For State) lospettor Infd al/Date .; (Notification) ' ACKNOWLEDGED: A/A ,,,, Accompanying' Inspector's Supervisor ifapplicable) SUBMITTED: b - )~~ APht0VED: _ #1 Reporti/ig Inspector ejioffing' Insppr's SupeMisor File: .m e' y~ - Branch Files (Inspector's Branch and Project Brani:h)'"", f b e M # m L M hone: (.4/177e 9feev FTS: Hotel: r _' Site Contact Name: / M d i r a Phon ' Ti.
U//d FTS: - Region'I Form I k ' ' (Sept _1988) i
,
, .. _ _ _ _ _ _ -- t w , - , s .' f POST-INSPECTION COVER SHEET DATE SUBMITTED: 3//NV , 19 Pr ' , FROM: nV RE: 58'd/9/7A 'O 7 h C - 2 9 Y / +. / / f f f .on (Reportitg Inspector)- (Inspection No.)
'(Dates of Inspettion) J N C 'TO: - , j (Reportin'g Inspector"'s Supervisor) W (Facility Identification) - /)]- e facility resident / senior resident-inspector has been informed of the i . inspection results.
- / W Th M lity project section chief has been informed of the inspection results.
/ s ctor's section chief has been informed of the inspection results.
// Feeder Reports have been completed and are attached - List: 1.
- 4 2.
L 3.
l / tion Report is completed and ATTACHED.
'/pdation letter or Region I Form 29 is completed and attached (a' standard form with new or: modified paragraphs desired).
! / / - List of update:i outstanding items (Region I Form 6) completed.
For Mater 1'als,
' license Jcider attached (list will be with it).
/V 4 / /-1 tiga_1 Dat'a Sheet-(766) completed and ATTACRED.
t < L _ / on Plan (Region I Form 1) as corrected, ATTACHED for' Branch Files.
.
// SALP input submitted-for Division files.
l Addition'ai Comments: bMMMN cMo4 N u AMfb Y3Cl 4 L/rl n ~ M keeA-l & & d%,u-, ee dLrs _ ),qMW-s ., exA - ' l, (Reporting Inspector) 1j File: E Reporting Inspector's Branch NOTE: Cross out and initial sections not applicable.
p l REGION I Form 2 - (Revised March 1985) o j g . - - - }}