IR 05000289/1989081
| ML19332E774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1989 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E773 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-81, NUDOCS 8912120125 | |
| Download: ML19332E774 (6) | |
Text
. -. _.
. _.
-
V
,
l
'
,
'
.
U. S. REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
REGION I
Report No.
50-289/89-81 Docket No.
50-289 License No. DPR-50 Priority --
Cateaory C
.
Licenseet GPU Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 480 Middletown. Pennsylvania 17057-0191 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Generatina Station
' Inspection at: Londonderry Township and Susouehanna Township. Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: October 16-18. 1989 Inspectors:
W
- ///f C~. G.(pTato, g)ergency Preparedz(ess Specialist, date Team Leader
_
,
E. Fox, Sr. Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I D. Vito, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I G. Weale, _Sonalyst, Inc.
F._ Young, Senior Resident Inspector, TMI
//FJ
~ Approved By:
h-
//
W.Jftafar0y, Chief,EmergencyPreparedness date t
Section, Region I I
Insbection Summary:
Inspection on October 16-18. 1969 (Insrection Renort No.
'50-289/89-81)
l'
Areas Insoected:
Routine, announced, inspection of the licensee's full-participation emergency exercise conducted on October 16-18, 1989-The
.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and surrounding Townships participated in the off-site exercise which involved both the plume exposure and ingestion pathway
,
emergency planning zones.
U.S. FEMA-III observed off-site activities'.
Results: No violations were identified.
Emergency response actions were adequate to provide protection for the health and safety of the public.
l-
-
O
<.-
.
c
)
-
,
.
DETAILS i
1.0 Persons Contacted The following GPU Nuclear Corporation personnel attended the exit meeting.
G. Broughton, Operations and Maintainence Director, TMI-1 G. Giangi, Manager, Emergency Preparedness Department, GPUNC D. Hassler, Licensing Engineer, TMI-1
W. Heysek, Licensing Engineer, TMI-l
~J. Hildebrand, Vice President GPUNC and Director, Radiation and Environmental Controls Division H. Hukill, Vice President GPVNC and Director THI-l G. Simmonetti, TMI Emergency Planing Section Manager Representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection also attended the exit meeting.
The Inspectors also observed the' actions of, and interviewed other l
licensee personnel.
2.0 Emeroency Exercise l
L The Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, full-participation i
exercise was conducted on October 17, 1989, from 3:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and surrounding Townshins participated.
Region III of the Federal Emergency Management Agency observed off-site L
activities, n
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities
!
The exercise objectives submitted to NRC Region I on July 16,1989 were reviewed and, following minor revision, determined to be adequate to test the licensee's Emergency Plan.
On August 9,1989 the l
licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRC review and L
evaluation. Region I representatives' had telephone conversations l-with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to' discuss the scope I
and content of the scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made
.
-
L to the scenario which allowed adeouate testing of the major portions L
of the TMI-I Nuclear Generating 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 16, 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
,
I normal plant activities.
L
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
..
'k'.
, f,,
c..-
r.
'
,
'
.
,
2.2 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events:
Loss of a feedwater pump;
-
Once Through Steam Generator-(OTSG) leakage in both steam
-
generators; Loss of all six circulating water pumps;
-
-. Total loss of makeup to the reactor cooling system (RCS) and feedwater to the OTSGs; Fire trips the 4160 volt vital bus;
-
Fuel cladding damage;.
-
Loss of fission product barriers;
-
Ground level and elevated release of radioactive material to the
-
environment;-
Vital bus fire was extinguished and vital bus power restored;
-
i RCS. inventory was restored and decay heat removal re-established,
-
l terminating the release.
L 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
.'
Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the Emergency' Response l
Organization (ERO) staff and actions.of ERO staff during operation of
'
the ERFs. The following. activities were observed:
1. Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events; 2. Direction and coordination of emergency response; 3. Augmentation of the emergency organization and response facility.
activation; l'
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 actions; and, 7. Engineering analysis of accident mitigation approaches.
.
-
,
-
-
.
.
-
..
....
.....
....
....
- - - - - _ _
..
n
.
.3.0 Classification of Exercise Findinas Emergency Preparedness exercise findings are classified as follows.
Exercise Strenaths 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 area being observed in the event of an actual emergency.
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 Imorovement An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significant negative impact on the ability to implement the Emergency Plan and response was adequate. However, it should be evaluated by the licensee to determine if corrective action could improve performance.
4.0 Exercise Observations The inspectors observed licensee response actions in the emergency respcase. facilities.
Emeraency Command Center / Control Room The following exercise strengths were identified.
1. The operators effectively implemented Emergency Operating Procedures throughout the exercise.
2. Operators were well versed in Plans and Procedures, and their limitations. The operators demonstrated this knowledge throughout the exercise.
3. Simulator use induced realism.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The.following areas for improvement were identified.
1. Start-up procedures for the Radiological Assessmeat Center (RAC)
computer should be available in the RAC computer area.
. -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _
g
-
+
-
,
..
. - - -
,;
-,
.
-
2. - There was an apparent, temporary break-down in information flow
'
between the Emergency Director and the Operations Coordinator; 3. The Shift Foreman used incorrect Reactor Coolant System temperature-pressure curves while the-reactor operators and Shift Technical Advisor used the correct curves.
4. A Radiological Control Engineer experienced difficulty on three occasions in accessing data.
Technical Support Center (TSC)
,
The following exercise strengths were identified.
<
l'. Overall response of TSC personnel was very good.
l
,
l 2. Use of the Plant Data Computer facilitated data' acquisition and offset the temporary. loss of the data printer.
3. Trending of plant data was very good.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
No areas for improvement were identified.
Ooerational Suonort Center (OSC)
I
.The following exercise strengths were identified.
'
1. There were good OSC team briefings.
2. OSC team tracking was excellent
,
3. Radios were effectively used to maintain communications with
,
repair teams, 4. OSC tasks were very well prioritized.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following area for improvement was identified.
There was no apparent consideration given to dose minimization for emergency workers, particularly those sent to check the circulating pumps.
Emeraency Operations Facility (E0F)
The following exercise strengths were identified.
1. There was excellent command and control and frequent, detailed staff briefings by the Emergency Support Director (ESD).
w
-- -
-r----
w-e y
mm m
.
m-
--
-
.
---
-
.
. _ -
_ __..
.
,
3;
-
L
.. -
i
..
-
2. Very good interaction with and support of the Pennsylvania representatives at the EOF.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following areas for improvement were identified.
1. Press releases approved by the ESD contained jargon not readily understandable to the general public.
I i 2. Side and back doors to the E0F were not secured or observed by a security officer throughout the exercise.
y 5.0 Licensee Critiaue
.
l L
The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on October 18, 1989 during which the licensee's lead. controllers discussed observations of the exercise. The licensee's critique was critical and thorough, a
The' licensee indicated that these observations would be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
6.0 Exit Meetina
,
Following the licensee's self critique, the NRC team met with the l-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 I
were identified.
Although areas for improvement were identified, the NRC team determined that within the scope and limitations 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.
I e.,..
... -...
.
,
.
.. -.
. -.
~_