IR 05000220/1985019

Insp Rept 50-220/85-19 on 851112-14.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Annual Emergency Exercise Performed on 851113

ML20137Z244
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/05/1985
From:	Craig Gordon, Harpster T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137Z234	List: IR 05000220/1985019 ML20137Z229
References
50-220-85-19, NUDOCS 8512110258
Download: ML20137Z244 (6)

Text

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

.

$

. .

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-19 Docket N !

License No. DPR-63 Priori ty --

Category C i Licensee: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West j Syracuse, New York 13202 i e

Facility Name: Nine Mile Point-1  !

l Inspection At: Scriba, New York 4 t

'

I Inspection Conducted: November 12 - 14, 1985 Inspectors: 21 m 11[4/ss-C. Zijpordon', EPS, EP&RPB, DRSS / date W. Cook, Resident Inspector, Ginna

M. Gaitanis, DEPER, IE S. Hudson, Resident Inspector, Nine Mile Point

-

W. Lazarus, RI A. Luptak, Resident Inspector, FitzPatrick C. Marshall, Resident Inspector, Nine Mile Point J. McClell.an, Battelle, PNL W. Thomas, RI R. Trpub, Battelle, PNL Approved by: <1ut4uo /2 l'

T. L rps,t P t' date Eme cy P_3 , Chief Section, DRSS reparedness Inspection Summary: Inspection on November 12-14, 1985 (Report No. 50-220/

85-19)

.

Areas Inspected

Routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection and

, observation of the licensee's annual emergency exercise performed on November i 13, 1985. The inspection involved 155 inspector-hours by a team of nine NRC Region I and NRC contractor personnel.

i Results: No violations were identified. The licensee's response actions for

'

this exercise were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.

!

Fi5 L2110250 8512KMi POR ADOCK 05000220

! O PM

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

. - . - -- .-. . - - - - - . - . .- -- -

.

.  !

l l

DETAILS j Persons Contacted

, The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on l

November 14, 1985.

l M. T. Boyle, Nuclear Compliance and Verification G. W. Burgess, Assistant Emergency Coordinator

'

T. Chwalek, Emergency Coordinator

L. Czech, Chief, Nuclear Emergency Planning, State of New York K. S. Crounse, Assistant Manager System Security

'

, M. Hedrick, Nuclear Training Supervisor

S. M. Karpen, Corporate Health Physicist i E. W. Leach, Superintendent Chemistry and Radiation Management

T. E. Lempges, V. P. Nuclear Generation j R. G. Orr, Supervisor, Nuclear Security

J. T. Pavel, Assistant to '

T. A. Peeling, Nuclear Generation Specialist T. J. Perkins, General Superintendent

T. W. Roman, Station Superintendent NMP-1

A. M. Salemi, Assistant Emergency Coordinator P. Volza, Supervisor, Radiological Support i

! The team observed and interviewed several licensee emergency response

{ personnel, controllers, and observers as they performed their assigned j functions during the exercis ' Emergency Exercise ,

The Nine Mile Point 1 Nuclear Power Station full scale exercise was con-

ducted on November 13, 1985 from 7

00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.

!

I Pre-Exercise Activities ,

The exercise objectives, submitted to NRC Region I were reviewed and l determined to adequately test the licensee's Emergency Plan. On i July 25, 1985, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package l for NRC review and evaluation. Region I representatives had tele-phone conversations with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff

I to discuss the scope and content of the scenario. As a result, minor-revisions were made to the scenario and supporting data by the licensee. The upgraded scenario allowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing -

l Procedures (EPIP) and also provided the opportunity for licensee

. personnel to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC i

as in need of corrective action.

<

NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on November 12, 1985, and

] participated in the discussion of emergency response actions expected i

.~ ..- _ ._. ___ _ . _ _ _ _._ - . _ ., _ _ _ ._,_ _ , _ _ . _ , . _ , _

.

-

during the scenario. The changes in the scenario and the emergency response actions expected during each phase of the scenario were also discussed. The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise activities to prevent scenario deviations or disruption of normal plant operation The exercise scenario included the following events:

• Airline break from Main Turbine Relay Dump Valve causing loss of feedwater heating;

• Loss of Emergency Core Cooling System;

• Loss of AC and DC power;

• High reactor pressure leading to a LOCA;

• Release of radioactivity to the atmosphere; and

Declaration of unusual event, alert, site area emergency, and general emergency classification The above events caused the activation of the licensee's onsite emergency response facilities and also permitted the State and local governmental authorities to exercise their Emergency Plan b. Activities Observed 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 facilities, and actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of the emergency response facilities. The following activities were observed:

• Detection, classification, and assessment of the scenario events;

Direction and coordination of the emergency response;

Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent plant status information;

Communications /information flow, and record keeping;

Assessment and projection of radiological dose and consideration of protective actions;

Provisions for in plant radiation protection;

. - ..

.

.

-

Performance of offsite and in plant radiological surveys;

• Maintenance of site security and access control;

• Performance of technical support;

• Performance of repair and corrective actions;

• Assembly and accountability of personnel;

Provisions for communicating information to the public; and

• Management of recovery operation c. Exercise Observations The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, .lctivation of the emergency response facilities, and use of the facilities were generally consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing procedure The team also noted the following actions of the licensee's emergency response organization that were indicative of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions:

Communications and information flow within and between each emergency response facility was effective, especially in the new EO *

Direction, control, and coordination of activities in the TSC provided ef fective and timely resolutions to most problem *

Emergency response personnel were knowledgeable in their assign-ments and in demonstrating the use of the emergency procedures, and in general demonstrated that they were competent in perform-ing their assigned function =

Offsite survey team members demonstrated proficiency in the use of survey equipment and procedures, sampling techniques, and reporting results to the EO *

The Radiological Assessment Coordinator gave significant thought throughout the exercise to plant conditions and how changes would affect release d. Open Items The NRC identified the following areas which need to be evaluated by the licensee for corrective action (the licensee conducted an ade-quate self-critique of the exercise which also identified some of these areas):

l l . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

_

I

.

'

l

. i

'

4 l l

• Classification of the Unusual Event in accordance with prescribed EALs did not receive identification by Control Room staff until prompted by controllers. (50-220/85-19-01)

• Control Room, and OSC logs for reconstructing the sequence of events which took place were not maintained during critical phases of the exercise. (50-220/85-19-02)

• Controllers and observers were not thoroughly trained on how or

.

when to provide data, contingency messages, and other informa-tion to players. This resulted in an excessive amount of verbal interaction between controllers, observers, and players in the control room and EOF. (50-220/85-19-03)

• Briefings were not conducted between the Corporate Emergency Director, key E0F coordinators, and State and county personnel to discuss protective action recommendations, plant status, and prognosis of the emergency, although this information was trans-mitted through the Radiological Assessment Coordinator. The licensee is reevaluating the Emergency Plan and Procedure to clearly delineate this functio (50-220/85-19-04)

• Emergency classifications are not clearly displayed in the EO (50-220/85-19-05)

• Press releases were delayed and did not describe information regarding status and magnitude of the radiological releas (50-220/85-19-06)

Dose assessment printouts could not be easily interpreted by the Corporate Emergency Director and did not describe usable infor-mation on integrated dose and dose rates. (50-220/85-19-07)

• In-depth discussions between the Recovery Manager and E0F coordinators regarding short term and long term recovery and reentry efforts did not occur in the EOF. (50-220/85-19-08)

e. Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items The licensee provided adequate demonstrations of deficient areas which were identified by NRC during the previous emergency exercise with the following exception:

• Guidelines for operation of the Emergency Ventilation System are not developed and formally implemented. (50-220/84-23-03)

.

.

.

-

5 l Licensee Critique The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on November 14, 1985, during which key licensee controllers discussed observations of the exercise. The critique appeared adequate in that

,

licensee participants highlighted both areas for improvement (which the licensee indicated would be evaluated and appropriate actions taken) and areas in which improvements have been mad Specific improvement areas which were identified related tp a need for additional supplies in OSC equipment kits, reporting of personnel to the TSC, and general communication capabilit . Exit Meeting and NRC Critique Following the licensee's self-critique, the NRC team met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report. The team leader summarized the observations made during the exercis The licensee was informed that previously identified items were adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there were areas identified for corrective action, the NRC team determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's performance demon-strated that they could implement their Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner which would adequately provide pro-tective measures for the health and safety of the publi Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated that appropriate action would be taken regarding the identified open item At no time during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the license .