IR 05000245/1989081
| ML19327C090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1989 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327C089 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-89-81, 50-336-89-81, 50-423-89-81, NUDOCS 8911150255 | |
| Download: ML19327C090 (7) | |
Text
~~
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-245/89 81 50 336/89 81
{
50-423/89 81 Docket Nos.
50 245
,
50 336
!
'
50 423 (
Litense Nos.
DPR 61 Pr<ority -
Cateaory C i
DPR 65 Pr< ority -
Cateaory C
NPF-49 Priority -
Cateoory C
!
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Enerav Comoany P.O. Box 270 Bartford. Connecticut 06101 0270
Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station j
Inspection At:
Berlin and Waterford. Co0necticut
!
Inspection Dates: October 3 5. 1989 l
,
inspectors:
_. _
,
C. G. Amato, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, date
!
!
Emergency Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS i
,
C. Conklin, Sr. EPS, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS i
C. Gordon, EPS, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS P. Habighorst, RI, Millstone G. Beth(e, Comex,.Inc.
Approved by:
6-7
l
'
W. J J(zard, Chief Emergency Preparedness date
'
SectTon, FRSSB, DRSS
,
Inspection Summary;, Insoection on October 3-5. 19E'9 (Combined Insocction
.
Report Nos. 50 245/89 81. 50 336/89-81 and 50 423/89 811
,
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced, inspection of the licensee's partial-
!
participation emergency exercise conducted on October 3-S, 1989.
The State of Connecticut and several towns participated for training.
NRC Executive, Base and Site teams participated.
,
Pesults: No violations were identified.
Emergency response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
$$11$$bbk b ' '
O i
-
-
. _ - -
..
,
.
.
f
'
-
DETAll$
1.0 Persons Contacted The following Northeast Nuclear Power Company (NNECO) and Northeast Utility Service Company (NUSCO) personnel attended the exit meeting.
W.Buch,SeniorNuclearEmergencyPreparednessCoordinator,NUSCO, f
E.Berrylo-Bandzes,GeneralNuclearTraining,Tra,iningDept.,NUSCO Shift Supervisor 111 stone Unit No. 1 NNECO
,
P. Capel
+
R. Harris Nuclear Engineering De H.Haynes,, Director $ervicesSuperintendent,partment,NUSCOMillstone Station, NN Station J.Kangley, Superintendent,MillstoneUnitNo.E,NNECO Senior Engineer, Millstone Station
'
J. Keenan, NNECO i
R. Krammer, Shift Supervisor, Millstone Unit No. 1 NNECO
'
SeniorNuclearEmergencyPreparednessdoordinator,NUSCO W. McCance, Supervisor d
,
E. Molloy Emergency Preparedness, NUSCO R. Rogers,, Manager, Ra iological Assessment Branch, NUSCO W. Romberg, ice President, Nuclear and Environments 1 DivisionVice President Nu C. Sears, V i
The inspectors also observed the actions of and interviewed other licensee personnel.
,
2.0 Emergency Exercise
-
The Millstone Nuclear Power Station announced, pa*tial-participation
,
exercise was conducted on October 4 1989, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
!
TheStateofConnecticutandseveralTownsparticipated.
!
2.1 Pre exercise Activities The exercise objectives submitted to NRC Region I on June 26,d to be 1989 were reviewed and following minimum revision, determine
adequate to test the licensee's Emergency Plan.
On July 28 1989,
!
the licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRb review
+
and evaluation.
Region I representatives had telephone conversations with the licensee's emergency pre discuss the scope and content of the scenario. paredness staff to As. result, minor revisions were made to the scenario which allowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Millstone Station Emergency Plan and Procedures 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 October 3, 1989.
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 of !.ormal plant activities.
,
-.
-
[
,
'
,
.4
.
'
2.2 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events:
1.
Main generator is disconnected from the grid, and load is reduced; 2.
Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs) clete and then fail to reopen due to loss of MSIV control; Scram signal initiates,lume; but rods fail to insert due to water in 3.
the scram instrument vo
Loss of Stand-by Liquid Control system pumps; 5.
Heat removal accomplished using the isclation condenser and blow-down to the torus; 6.
Minor fuel clad damage; 7.
Heating and boiling of torus water; 8.
Pressurization of the primary containment; 9.
Torus venting via the main stack; 10. Release of radioactive material to the environment via the Reactor Building and Unit 1 stack; 11. Restoration of the Stand-By Liquid Control System pump; 12. Boron injection and reactor shut down; and, 13. Reduction of primary containment pressure and release termination.
2.3 Activities Observed During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed observations of the activation and augmentation of the l
Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the Emergency Response Organization (The)following activities were observed: staff and actions of ER ERO of the ERFs.
1.
Detection, classification, end assessment of scenario events; 2.
Direction and coordination of emergency response; 3.
Augmentation of the emergency organization and response facility activation;
-_
.
'
.
4.
Notification of licensee personnel and off-site agencies of pertinent plant status information:
5.
Communications /information flow, and record keeping; 6.
Assessment and projection of off-site radiological dose and consideration of protective actionst and, 7.
Engineering analysis of accident mitigation tpproaches.
3.0 Classification of Exercise Findings Emergency Preparedness exercise findings are classified as follows:
Exercise Strengths Exercise strengths are areas of the licensee's response that provide strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions and implement the emergency plan.
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 in the event of an actual emergency in the area being observed.
Existence of an exercise weakness does not of itself indicate that overall response was inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public.
Areas for Improvement An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significant t
l negative impact on the ability to implement the emergency plan and
,
response was adequate. However, it should be evaluated by the licensee i
I to determine if corrective action could improve performance.
4.0 Exercise Observations l
The inspectors observed licensee response actions in the emergency response facilities.
Control Room l
The following exercise strengths were identified.
l
'
l.
The operators effectively implemented Emergency Operating Procedures through the exercise.
2.
Probable success paths were identifled.
3.
There was timely, on going and effective communication between the Shift Supervisor and the Director Station Emergency Operation *
'
.
S
)
I
,
!
4.
Early consideration was given to containment venting.
!
5.
The Senior Shift Supervisor Staff Assistant regularly updated i
the Shift Supervisor as to classification and response of off l
site facilities.
l l
6.
There was good interaction between the NRC Resident Inspectors
!
Duty Officer, Siiift Supervisor and the Senior Control Operator.
'
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
(
One area for improvement was called to the licensee's attent. ion.
l 1.
Prioritization of support activities for Auxiliary Operators
!
was confusing.
l Technical Support Center (TSC)
i The following exercise strength was identified.
!
1.
The TSC exercise controller was very knowledgeable and
'
effectively controlled TSC activities.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
l Three areas for improvement were called to the licensee's attention.
j 1.
There was a lack of strong command and control with respect to direction, priorities and tracking.
2.
Communication from other Emerge 1cy response Facilities could be
!
improved. The TSC staff was nnt aware a General l
Emergency-Alpha had been declared for about an hour and a half.
I
'
3.
TSC staffing would have been improved by supplementing staff
with more Unit 1 personnel.
,
Operational Support Center (OSC)
l
,
The following exercise strengths were identified, t
l
1.
Thnre were good OSC team briefings.
l 2.
Log book entries were detailed.
l No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following area for improvement was identified.
At times awareness and tracking of Auxiliary Operators and OSC
!
teams entering the plant was less than desirat,le.
Time of entry and return, mission, and task results were not well tracked within and among ERFs.
l
'
-
-
-
-
,
.
.-
-__
.
.
.
j
L
1 Eneroency Operations Facility (E0F)
j The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
There was excellent command and control and frequent staff briefings by the Director Station Daergency Operations (DSED).
2.
The EOF staff was aware of the status of the unaffected units, site and environmental conditions and protection 01 in plant staff.
3.
The Technical Assistant to the DSE0 effectively used Eiliergency Operating Procedures.
.
,
4.
Classification and Protective Action Recommendations were well reasoned, prompt and conservative.
5.
There was good interaction with the NRC Site Team.
6.
The EOF deployed a marine Environmental Monitoring Team.
l No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following areas for improvement were identified.
1.
The DSE0 did not advise the EOF staff for 20 minutes that he had assumed command and control.
]
I 2.
The Senior Shift Supervisor acting as the DSE0 did not order
)
assembl 4010 B.y/ site evacuation at the Site Area Emergency )er EPIP
This procedure allows flexibility if other lazards are
present.
However have been ordered, hazards were not present ano assembly should
'
.
I The Mannher of Radiological Dose Assessment calculated 3.
projecte doses assuming venting via the Stand-by Gas Treatment System and not via the reactor building and main stack (dose values for both cases would have been the same for this scenario).
Corporate Emeroency Operation Center (CEOC)
{
The following strengths were identified.
1.
There was good interaction with the NRC. An open phone line l
was maintained with the NRC Executive and Base Teams including briefings of NRC Executives and Managers.
2.
There was frequent and timely feed back by the licensee's liaison officers at the Connecticut State Emergency Operations
,
Center.
)
3.
Effective radio communication and control of Environmental Monitoring Teams was maintaine,
-
-
,-
4, i
-
.
.
.
'
~
.
i
!
!
!
4.
Proactive on coing and aggressive response was demonstrated by
,
theTechnIcalSupportgroupincludingconsiderationof l
alternates and worst cases.
!
5.
Frequent and in depth managers meetings.
j No exercise weaknesses were identified.
[
The following areas for improvement were idenified, f
1.
The Director Corporate Emergency Operations did not brief the f
CEOC staff as to plant status and off site res>onse.
Instead,
he relied on status board prstings to convey tiis information.
l 2.
The status of the unaffected units was not displayed.
!
>
5.0 Licensee Critique
{
The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on October 4, 1989 during which the licensee's lead controllers discussed observations of i
the exercise.
The licensee's critique was critical and thorough.
The
!
licensee indicated that these observations would be evaluated and i
appropriate corrective actions taken.
(
6.0 Exit Meeting l
.
Following the licensee's self critique, the NRC team met with the i
licensee s representatives listed in Section 1 to discuss findings as
<
detailed in this report.
[
.
The NRC team leader summarized the observations made during the exercise.
!
The licensee was advised no violations or exercise weaknesses were
ident.lfied and the previously identified exercise weakness was adequately i
addressed. Although areas for improvement were identified the NRC team determined that within the scope and limitations of the sc,enario, the
,
t 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.
At no time during the course of the inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee.
!
I
!
!
i
,
L
$
, -.,
-.
,
.. - - -
.
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-