IR 05000289/1988027

Insp Rept 50-289/88-27 on 881115-17.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Partial Participation Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise Conducted 881116

ML20196F108
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/28/1988
From:	Fox E, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196F104	List: IR 05000289/1988027 ML20196F098
References
50-289-88-27, NUDOCS 8812120201
Download: ML20196F108 (5)

Text

, a l

. .  !

. *

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /88-27 Docket N License N DPR-50 Priority ---

Category C Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation Post Office Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Nxe: Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Middletown,PennsylvanB Inspection Conducted: November 15-17, 1988 A

l NRC Team Members: . !*. . ox 7Re t Team Leader date S. Pele chak, Region I R. Conte, SRI, TMI Unit 1 T. Moslak, RI, TMI Unit 1 Approved By:

W. J M rus, s

ief Emergency N/Jd'h date Preparedness Section, FRS&SB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on November 15-17, 1988 (Report No. 50-289/88-27)

Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection and ob-servation of the licensee's partial participation annual emergency prepared-ness exercise conducted on November 16, 198 The in:,pection was performed by a tean of four NRC Region I personne Results: No violations, deviations or unresolved items were identifie The licer.see's response actions for this exercise were adequate to provide protec-tive measures for the health and safety of the publi ?frf1:0:01 o

m ov noacugy.002a, FDc

. .

. .

l DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on November 17, 198 P. Ahern, Senior Staff Assistant, Nuclear Safety Compliance Committee R. O. Darley, Manager, Plant Engineering, THI-l T. G. Broughton, Operations & Maintenance Director, THI-1 J. J. Colitz, Plant Engineering Director THI-1 G. J. Giangi, Manager, Emergency Preparedness, GPU J. Hildebrand, Director, Radiological 8 Environmental Controls, TMI-1 H. D. Hukill, Director TMI-1 A. J. Palmer. III, Manager, Radiological Controls / Field Operations, TMI-1 R. P. Shaw, Radiological Controls Director, THI-1 G. J. Sibonetti, Jr., THI Emergency Preparedness Manager, THI-I R. L. Sullivan, Oyster Creek Emergency Preparedness Manger

. During the conduct of the inspection, other licensee ,ersonnel were inter-

'

viewed 6nd observe .0 Emergency Exarcise The Three Mile Island partial-participation exercise was conducted on

,

November 16, 1988 fron 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 .1 Pre-exercise Activities

!

The exercise objectives, submitted to the NRC Region I on August 11, 1988, wore reviewed and, following revision, detennined to adequately test the licensee's Errergency Plan. On September 7, 1938, 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 and supporting data provided by the licensee. It was detonnired that the revised scenario would provide for the adequate testing of major portions of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and also provided the opportunity for licensee personnel to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in need of corrective r,ction.

NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on November 15, 1988, and

participated in the discussion of emergency response actions expected during the scenario. Suggested NRC changes to the scenario were made by

.

the licensee and were also discussed during the briefing. The licensee i stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and indicated in the scenario that controllers would intercede in exercise

! activities to prevent scenario deviations or disruption of nonnal plant operations.

'

. .

The exercise scenario included the following events:

1. Locating a missing person and medical response to a potentially contaminated / injured perscn; 2. Declaration of Unusual Event, Alert, and Site Area Emergency; 3. Degrading Grid; 4. Tube leaks in both Once Through Steam Generators; 5. Offsite release of radioactivity to the environment; 6. Onsite fire brigade re.ponse and offsite response by local fire

, comptnics; 7. Loss of annunciators in the Control Room (Simulator) with an ongoing transient; and 8. Evacuation of non-essential site personnel The above events caused the activation of the iicensee's onsite and off site emergency response f acilities.

'

2.2 Activities Observed During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed observations of the activation and augnentation of the emergency vrganization, activation of emergency response facilities and actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of the emergency response facilities. The following activities were cbserved: Detection, classification, and assessmert of the scenario ovents; Direction and coordination of the smergency response; Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies; Communications /information flow and record keeping; Assessment and projection of radiological dose and consideration

1. of protective action; j Maintenance of site security and access control; l Assembly and accountability of personnel; Performance of technical support, repair and corrective action; Performance of first aid and rescue; 1 Provisions for communicating information to the public; 1 Performance of in plant and offsite radiological surveys; 1 Provisions for in plant radiation protection; and 1 Fire fighting activities.

l l

l l

. -. .

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

.

. .

.

3.0 Exercise Observations The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response facilities, and use of the facilities were generally consistent with their emergency r',sponse plan and implementing precedure .1 Exercise Strengths The team also noted the following actions that provided strong positive indication of the licensee's ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions: Positive command and control of all emergency response facilities (ERFs) was demonstrated by the respective managers; Communications and notifications between ERFs was efficient; Excellent use of the simulator and contingency planning for problems in using it; Very good internal critique at the Technical Support Center (TSC); TSC engineers were very proactive as they anticipated and asked what if questions needed for sound engineering solutions; Very good use of back-up radios when they experienced real timo problems with hard-wire communications; Use of Meteorological data by the Radiological Assessment Center *

(RAC) and overall performance of the RAC was very good; and Taking of Particulate /ledine samples nanually from the Fost Accident Sampling Systen was professionally and efficiently perfo rme .2 Exercise Weaknesses The NRC team identified the following areas where weaknesses were observed which could have degradeo the responte and should be evaluated by the licensee for corrective action. The licensee conducted an adequate self-critique of the exercise which also identified some of these areas: The Major Event / Equipment Status Board in the TSC was not updated after 9:26 This board should have been kept current through the duration of the drill; and The TSC Coordinator should have provided more frequent briefings to TSC personnel; i.e. every 30 minutes instead of every 90 minute ~

. .

. .

,

..

4.0 Licensee Action on Previously identified Items Based upon discussions with licensee representatives, examinathn of procedures and records, and observations made by the NRC team o. ring the exercise, the items identified during the previous ernergency exercise were acceptably demonstrated and are closed: '

i (CLOSED) 50-289/87-16-01: Engineers assigned to the Technical Support ;

Center (TSC) did not identify, track and anticipate trends, develop a ,

composite of the emergency situation and respond on a proactive basi There were indications of a lack of understanding of plant condition '.

(CLOSED) 50-289/87-16-02: Activation of the Parsippany Technical Func-tions Center (PTFC) was delayed one hour. The TSC Coordinatoa had a TSC i staff rnember call a Parsippany staff member at hor'e and ask that t individual to staff the PTF .0 Licensee Critique The NRC team attended the licensee's post exercise critique on Novenber 1 17, 1988, during which the licensee discussed observations of the exercis The critique was adequate in that licensee participants highlighted both r deficiencies in performance and areas for improvemen :

[

6.0 Exit Meetino and NRC Critique ,

i Following the licensee's self-critique, the NRC team met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report. Team observations made during the exercise were surrrnarize !

The licensee was infomed that previously identIficd items were adequately !

addressed and that no violations or deviations were observed. Although j there were areas ide.ntified for corrective action, the hRC team determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's <

.

perfontance denonstrated that they could irrplerr. tnt their Emergency rian .

and Emergency Pian Implementing Procedures in a tranner that would provide ;

adequate protective treasures for the health and safety of the publi ;

i

! Licensee tranagement acknowledged the findings and indicated that they l J would evaluate and take appropriate action regarding the items identificd !

for corrective actio [

)  !

'

At no tirre during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written ,

'

information to the licensee.

$ *

,

!

i

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