IR 05000282/1988006

Insp Repts 50-282/88-06 & 50-306/88-06 on 880622-24.No Violations,Deficiencies or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Exercise

ML20151C391
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	07/11/1988
From:	Foster J, Matthew Smith, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151C337	List: IR 05000282/1988006 ML20151C333 ML20151C410 ML20151C412
References
TASK-3.A.1.1, TASK-3.A.1.2, TASK-3.A.2.1, TASK-3.A.2.2, TASK-TM 50-282-88-06, 50-282-88-6, 50-306-88-06, 50-306-88-6, NUDOCS 8807210341
Download: ML20151C391 (9)

Text

-' .- -

, ,  ;

. .

.

V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

jl Reports No. 50-282/88006(DRSS); 50-306/88006(DRSS)

Docket-kos. 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At: Prairie Island Site, Sed Wing, Minnesota N A Inspectors: .45m th O'/!//!PP Team Leader Date

. 'E . ost '7//f88 Da% /

i Approved By-

.[

. G. Snell, Chief MA Emergency Preparedness Section 9 / 98 DaYe /

Inspection Summary Inspection on June 21-24, 1988 (Reports No. 50-282/88006(DRSS);

j No. 50-306/88006(DRSS))

'

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection (IP 82301) of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant emergency preparedness exercise, involving observations by three NRC representatives of key functions and locations during the exercise. The inspection was conducted by two NRC inspectors and one consultant. Section 5 of this report provides an updated summary of the status of all emergency preparedness related TMI (SIMS) item Results: No violations, deficiencies or deviations were identified as a result cf this inspectio The licensee demonstrated an adequate response capability to a simulated accident scenario involving an offsite radioactive release. Two Open Items were identified as a result of this inspectio ;

l

l l

,

8807210341 880712

$

PDR ADOCK 05000292 Q PDC

_ _ - _ - _ _ _ .

~ -_ .- . ._ _ - ~. .

W . .

-

,

,

. .

.

OETAILS . Persons Contacted NRC Observers and Areas Observed M. Smith, Control Room (Simulator) and Emergency Operations Facility F. Carlson,. Technical Support Center J. Foster, Operational Support Center Northern States Power Company L. Eliason, General Manager E. Watzl, Plant M: nager D. Schuelke, Plant Superintendent, Radiation Protection D. Mendele, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection M. Ladd, Admini' trator, Emergency Preparedness F. Fey, Superf r. .endent, Radiological Protection T. Amundson, Superintendent, Training M. Sellman, General Superintendent, Operations G. Earney, General Superintendent, Training M. Chen, Health Physist M. Agen, Training J. Callahan, Training D. Reynolds, Training W. Bell, Instructor J. Goldsmith. Engineer M. Wadley, Shift Manager M. Werner, Instructor G. Kolle, Instructor R. Stenroos, Engineer G. Andahl, Engineer D. Prechs, Security All of '.he above individuals attended the exit meeting on June 23,.198 . General A daytime exercise of the license's Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures was conducted at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant on June 22, 1988. The exercise tested the license's capabilities to respond to a hypothetical accident scenario resulting'in a major-radioactive release, j

,

The State of Minnesota and the counties of Dakota and Goodhue, and the I State of Wisconsin and Pierce county participated fully in this exercis Attachment 1 describes the scope and objectives of the exercise and Attachment 2 describes the exercise scenari ,

4 e - p r y ,- - -->4,- w ,s w e- ..a- ,-+.---w ~ .n-. -

r n-e, n-. ~ , , , s - + ~ , - c n -p-- - ,-+_w.v, , - c- -,a

,_

~ '

l .

, ,. .

.

.'

l General Observations Procedures

. This exercise was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E requirements using the Northern. States Power Corporate Nuclear emergency plan and implementing procedures, and the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant emergency plan and implementing procedure Coordination The licensee's. response was coordinated, and timely. Had these events been real, the actions taken by the licensee-would have been sufficient to allow State and local authorities to take appropriate actions to protect public health and safet Observers Licensee observers monitored and critiqued this exercise along with three NRC observers and a number of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) observers. FEMA observations on the responses of State and local governmental agencies will be documented in a separate repor Exerci se Critique The licensee conducted facility and controller critiques immediately following the exercise on June 22, 1988. A-formal critique was held with the licensee and NRC representatives on June 23, 1988, at the Prairie Island Training Center. A joint public critique was held in Red Wing, Minnesota on April 24, 1988, to present the preliminary onsite and offsite findings of the NRC and FEMA observer . Specific Observations (82301) Control Room Control Room personnel responded properly to simulated accident conditions as presented to them on the simulato They were familiar with their procedures and referred to them throughout the exercise. Emergency conditions were properly classified in accordance with their emergency procedure The control room crew was well managed by the Shift Supervisor and demonstrated good Control Room practice and decorum, maintaining low noise levels, and repeating instructions and instrument reading Personnel maintained adequate logs to allrw reconstruction of significant actions taken during the simulated emergenc ,

.

-

e + ,c, -. ,- sw--r-wry., , -

w c- w~ ' *

t *

. - -

,' :. -

.

.

Public Address announcements were made following event classifications to alert plant personnel of the current emergency classificatio However, the announcement should have contained'a short explanation of the-reason for the classification. NotificationLprocedures were properly followed and all offsite notifications were completed within 15 minute . Based on the above findings, this portion-of the licensee's. program is acceptable.' However, the following item should be considered for improvement:

Plant announcements regarding emergency classificatiens should contain a short explanation of the reason for the classificatio Technical Support Center (TSC}

The Technical Support Center was quickly activated and procedures, logs and checklists were properly utilized. Noise levels were adequately controlled and status beards were well maintained'and used throughout the exercis . Radiological Control was established in the TSC by setting up a Continuous Air Monitor and the issuance of TLDs to all personne Radiological access control was not adequately cemonstrated in the TSC as the frisking station established for the TSC was not adequate to avoid contamination of the TSC. The barrier was not established outside the TSC, and a step off pad was not available. Personnel did not frisk themselves properly even though they were under the {

supervision of a Health Physics Technician. This will be tracked as '

Open Item No. 262/88006-0 The TSC staff worked well together and functioned as a team. Timely oriefings were conducted by the Emergency Director. Procedures were followed and adequate logs were maintaine Accountability and evacuation of plant non-essential personnel was-satisfactorily completed in less than 30 minute The assembly point for evacuees was selected based on-possible radiation hazard Based on the above findings, with the exception of the open item, this portion of the licensee's program is acceptabl Operations Support Center (OSC)

The Operational Support Center was staffed and operational in a timely manner. Adequate supplies of emergency equipment were available. The OSC Coordinator provided informative briefings at regular interval Key OSC personnel displayed knowledge of plant maintenance and troublesnooting activitie ;

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

. .

. ..

.

.

_ .0SC habitability was quickly determined and monitored frequentl Dosimetry was issued to all 03C_ personnel. OSC status boards provided information regarding' unit' status, emergency actions, and in plant teams. A plant: layout board was used to describe radiation levels in affected plant area However, the. board section designated "Tee. Tis" referred viewers to the HP Coordinator. This was not an adequate means of tracking plant teams.via the status boar Immediate knowledge of team locations could-be crucial in an event where plant radiation levels were increasing rapidl Health Physics personnel-did an excellent job of tracking doses, checking dose recurds,' generating emergency raaf ation work permits, .

and issuing dosimetry. Teams were adequately briefed on radiation hazards expected in.their work areas. Two in plant teams observed

~

by the NRC evaluator displayed proper concern for radiation dose One team adequately demonstrated the donning and wearing of full anti-contamination clothing and Scott air packs. Communication using radios and a telephone whi;e wearing the air packs was adequately demonstrate ,

i Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program I is acceptable. However, the following item should be considered for improvement:

Status boards in the OSC should be improved to indicate the locations of in plant team Emeroency Operations Facility (EOF) l

!

The EOF was promptly staffed in an orderly fashion. Personnel were l well trained, professional and worked well together. Procedures, I logs and checklists were utilized properly. Noise levels were '

adequately controlled. Overall management of the EOF was excellen Briefings were informative and ;onducted every half hour. Status boards were adequate and maintained throughout the exercis Dosimetry was issued and properly used. Habitability checks were made at regular interval The E0F established and maintained adequate communications with other plant emergency response facilities, the State of Minnesota and the radiological health departments of Minnesota and Wisconsi A three-way conference call was maintained between the health departments and the plant dose assessment personnel in the EO Formal offsite notifications to the State of Wisconsin were untimely due to problems with the NAWAS line, the backup fax system number was out of date, and all commercial lines were busy. However, the State of Wisconsin was kept adequately informed through the three-way

-_____ __- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ --

- .,. . - -. . - .-

..

,, ., .

. .

.,

conference call set up with the State health department of changes in the emergency classifications and recommended protective action Plant personnel identified a surveillance procedurc problem regarding

~

the incorrect fax number during their self ' critique and committed to correcting'the surveillance procedure. This will be tracked as.0 pen Item.No. 282/88006-0 Field teams were effectively used to monitor the' plume dimensions and intensit Field team data was compared to dose predictions to check for accuracy and inconsistencies. .The field team data.was-coordinated with State data and this coordination led to an excellent demonstration'

~

of a reentry decisio Technical Support personnel effectively utilized drawings, procedures and Emerrency Response Computer System (ERCS) information to trend plant co..dition The administrative support was efficient, and E0F personnel appeared well trained and professiona Based on the above findings, with-the exception of the open item, this portion of the iicensee's program is acceptabl e. Exercise Scenario and Control The licensee's scenario was challenging and met the need for offsite release, yet maintained realism. The degree of challenge te this exercise adequately tested the licensee's ability to protect .he public health and safety. The licensee's use of the simulator and ERCS system considerably enhanced the realism of the exercise. Some problems were encountered with the ERCS system prior to the' beginning of the exercise, which delayed the start of the exercise by one hour. However, once the hardware problems were solved the system functioned well during the exercise and added considerable realism to the exercis Exercise control was consicered adequat Controllers were adequately tro*ned in their role as evaluators. No instances of controller prompo;n3 was observe f. Licensee Critiques l The itcensee held three levels of exercise critiques, one at each

..dividual facility immediately following the exercise, a critique for lead controllers following the facility critiques, and a formal presentation at the NRC Exit Intervie NRC personnel attended these critiques and determined that significant exercise deficiencies were addressed by licensee personnel and that the licensee had demonstrated an excellent self appraisal progra l

l

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

. _ . _ _ . _ . .

• ' .

,, ,

.

. TMI-Related (SIMS)' Items

-

On October 31, 1980, the NRC issued.NUREG-0737, which incorporated into one document all .TMI-related items approved for implementation by the Commission ati.that time. On December 17, 1982, the NRC issued Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 to provide additional clarification regarding Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Revision 2) - Application to Emergency Response Facilities, upgrade of Emergency Response Facilities, and Meteorological ' ,

Data, as well as other area The. status of the completion 1of.these TMI-related items are internally tracked by the NRC. The current status of'each of these items related to emergency preparedness is ar follows:

Item N Current Status Comments II Open This item refers to implementation of Chapter'8 of Supplement'l to NUREG-0737, and should be closed.upon completion of the as yet unscheduled ERF Appraisa III.A. Closed (Unit 1) The current status of this item fo .

N/A (Unit 2) Unit 2 is incorrect. This item involved short term improvements to'the emergenc preparedness program and was closed at the conclusion of the Emergency Preparedness Implementation Appraisal:

Reports No. 50-282/81-20 and No. 50-306/81-22 dated December 17, 198 III.A.1. Closed This item involved interim upgrades to the ERF' III.A.1. Nos Listed This item involved design criteria for upgraded ERF's, but was subsequently determined to be not applicable (N/A).

This item should be added to the-tracking system with a current status !

of N/ '

III.A.1. Open The current. status of this item is incorrect. Because this item involved ERF modifications that were incorporated into MPA-F-63, 64 and 65, this item was closed at the conclusion of the Emergency Preparedness Implementation-Appraisal: Reports No. 50-282/81-20 an No. 50-306/81-22 dated December 17, 198 III.A. N/A The current status of this' item is incorrect. This item involved the submittal of upgraded emergency-plan:.

This item was closed with the issuance of the emergency preparedness input to the SER: Reports No. 50-282/82-21(DEPOS)

and No. 50-306/82-21(DEPOS) dated December 27, 198 .. . .

'

'- .

-

_,

.

I l

Item N Current Status

'

Comments III.A. N/A The current status of this item is incorrect. This item involved the submittal 'of emergency procedure This' item was closed at theLconclusion of the Emergency Preparedness Implementation Appraisal: Reports No. 50-282/82-20 and No. 50-306/81-22 dated December 17, 198 III.A. Not Listed This item involved an acceptable interim meteorological program. This item was closed at the conclusion of the Emergency Preparedness Impirientation Appraisal: Reports No. 50-282/81-20 and No. 50-306/81-22 dated December 17, 198 This item should be added to the tracking system with a current status of close III.A. Open This item involves an acceptable final meteorological progra This item will be closed at the conclusion of the as

.yet unscheduled ERF Appraisa III.A. Open This item involves an acceptable Class A meteorological model. This item will be closed at the conclusion of the as yet-unscheduled ERF Appraisa III.A. Open This item involves a licensee's review of their Class A meteorological mode .

This item will be closed at the I conclusion of the as yet unscheduled ERF Appraisa III.A. Not Listed This item required the-licensee to )

provide a description of the Class B l m9teorological model to the NR Based on the current structure of the ERF Appraisal program, the NRC is not  ;

reviewing these submittals of the l Class B model. Therefore, this item should be added to the tracking system with a current status of N/ III.A. N/A The current status of this item is incorrect. This item involves an acceptable Class B meteorological model. This item will be closed at the conclusion of the as yet unseieduled ERF Appraisa _ _ _ - _ _ = _

.. - - --. . ~

,

'.'

,

tem N Current Status Comments MPA-F-63 Open This . item involves a review of the TSC durit;g the ERF Appraisal. This item will be closed at the conclusion of the as yet unscheduled ERF Appraisa MPA-F-64 Open The current status of this item is incorrect. 'Thi: item involved a review of the OSC, which was completed during the June 17, 1986 exercise: Reports No. 50-282/86006(ORSS) and No. 50-306/86006(DRSS) dated July 11, 198 MPA-F-65 Open This item involves a review of the E0F during the ERF Appraisal. This item will be closed at the conclusion of the as yet unscheduled ERF' Appraisa MPA-F-66 Open The current status of this item is incorrect. This item involved the Nuclear Data Link, which has been superceded by the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). This. item should have a current statu. of N/ . Exit Interview The NRC exit interview was conducted on June 23, 1988, with the licensee representatives listed in Section The NRC Team Leader discussed the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee indicated that none of the information discussed during the exit was proprietar Attachments: NSP Exercise Objectives and Guidelines Narrative Summary i

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _