IR 05000289/1990080

Safety Insp Rept 50-289/90-80 on 900911-13.Exercise Weaknesses Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Annual & partial-participation,emergency Preparedness Exercise Conducted on 900911-13

ML20062B099
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/03/1990
From:	Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062B097	List: IR 05000289/1990080 ML20062B094
References
50-289-90-80, NUDOCS 9010240041
Download: ML20062B099 (7)

Text

. .

,

, ., .

,

p..- .

. .

y4 ..

,

y e. ,

'

I

.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Region I q

~

I '

[ Report N /90-80 -

~

Docket N i i'

. License No.- DPR-50

,

I Licensee: - GPU Nuclear Corporation i P. O. Box 490  ;

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

Facility Name: 'Ihree Mlle Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit N Inspection Conducted: September 11 13, 1990

!

l Inspection At: Londonderry and Susquehanna Townships, Pennsylvania x.--

.

Inspectors: C. '

M/Jff# l C. G. Amato,1(egional Team Leader, date

Emergency Preparedness Section, RI i

R. Hasselberg, Jr., Sr. Emergency Preparedness Specialist, PEPB/ Nuclear Reactor Regulations

- eaulieu, sident Inspector, TMI i Approved: // h 90

. J. I ddaru's', Chief, Eny6rgency 'date l Preparedness Section, Facilities Radiological and Safeguards Branch ,

Division.of Radiation Safety and Safeguards *

L Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 1113,1990 (Inspection Report No' 50- - . ',

289/90 80)

Areas Inspected: Announced, routine, safety inspection of the licensee's annual, partial-participation, emergency preparedness exercise conducted on September 11-13,1990.

[, The inspection was performed by a team of three Region I and Headquarters personnel.

u Results: Two exercise weaknesses were identified. GPU Nuclear Corporation's staff response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.

L 9010240041 901003 PDR ADOCK 05000289 Q PDC

_ _ _ __- _ -______-_ _-___ _ _ - _______. - --

[ ; 3.t, ,

.

. .

. I DETAILS -

<

. . Persons Contacted .

.

The following personnel' attended the exit meeting. Unless noted otherwise, l personnel listed below are GPU Nuclear Corporation staf o L

P.~Ahern, Senior Staff Assistant ,

G.' Broughton, Director of Operations, TM1-1 j '

R. Cook, PWR Group Leader, Department Of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-P. Fiedler, Director, Nuclear Assurance Division and Vice President G. Giangi, Manager, GPUNC Emergency Preparedness Department H. Hukill, Director, TMI 1 Division and Vice President ,

G. Kuehn,;TMI-2 Site Operations Director ,

,

,. A. Palmer, Radiation Control, Field Operations Manager L R. Shaw, Radiological Controls Director '

!

G. Simenotti, TMI Emergency Preparedness Department Manager R. Wells, TMI-1 Licensing Engineer l The inspectors also interviewed'other licensee personne . EMERGENCY EXERCISE The Three Mile Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1 announced, partial- 1 participation exercise was conducted 'on September 12,' 1990, from 7:30 a.m. to

'

- 11:55 a.m. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania participated to a limited degre .1 Pre-exercise Activities p The exercise objectives were submitted to NRC Region I on June 11,1990, and on July 11,1990, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package. 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 which allowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Three Mile Island : ;

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Emergency Plan and Implementing :

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 September 12,1990. The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise activities to prevent disruption to normal plant activitie ,

- .

.

e ,s. -

,A s ..

-

n

3 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events: Excessive main turbine vibration;

Turbine generator and reactor trip;

,

.

. .

) Declaration of an Alert due to a primary to secondary leak;

' 4.' Failure of a' main steam relief value to close resulting in a direct release pathway to the environment; Plant cool.down; i Failure of a suction valve to open preventing operation of the decay heat removal system; Closure of the main steam relief valve; and, j q

8.- Opening of the suction valve and operation of the decay heat

. removal syste l . Activities Observed i During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC inspection team ' ]

members made detailed observations of the activati_on and augmentation of !

the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the Emergency Response  !

Organization (ERO) staff, and actions of the ERO' staff'during operation of l l7 the ERFs. The following activities were observed: 1 i-l Correct use of control room procedures, j i Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events; i

Direction and coordination of emergency response; -

0 Notification of licensee, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and County personnel and communication of pertinent plant status information to Commonwealth personnel;  ; . Communications /information flow, and record keeping; L

L

e

-

_a

a

... ,

,

U c.'-

, ,  ;[

.. .

.

4 1 ' Assessment and projection of off-site radiological dose and *

consideration of protective actions; and, Accident analysis and mitigatio q i CLASSIFICATION OF EXERCISE FINDINGS r

Emergency preparedness exercise findings are classified as follow ,

.

! Exercise Strengths Exercise strengths are areas of the licensee's staff response that provide strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plan >

!

conditions and implement the emergency plan implementing procedure .2 Exercise Weaknesses Exercise weaknesses are areas of the licensee's response in which the l performance was such that it could have precluded effective implementation of the emergency plan implementing procedures in the

,

event of an actual emergency in the area being observed. Existence of an y L exercise weakness does not of itself indicate that overall response was "

inadequate to protect public health and safet Areas for Improvement

.An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significant negative impact on the licensee's ability to implement the Emergency Plan q Implementing Procedures and response was adequate. However, it should be evaluated by the. licensee to determine if corrective action could

'

< improve performance.

l- EXERCISE OBSERVATIONS

- The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation of the Emergency Response Organization, Emergency Response Facilities, and use of these facilities were generally consistent with their Emergency Pian and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures. The following strengths, and areas for improvement were identifie l l

l l

l l

Y

'

.m e

>

.

'

lJ ' l ,_l

.

.. ..

m, .

.

, 5

, :4.1- Simulator Contiel Room (Emergency Command Center) L t s No exercise strengths were identified.- a

No exercise weaknesses were identifie ;

l , !

The following area for improvement was identifie , .

- At the beginning of the scenario, reactor operators did not closely ,

follow reactor cooling system cool-down rat !

I Technical Support Center ' '('.

W <

No exercise strengths, weaknesses or areas for improvement were 4 identifie .3 Operations Support Center (OSC) -

The following exercise strength was identifie ;

,; The Maintenance Superintendent rapidly identified the cause of - !

valve failure and developed a repair plan for quick correctio ,

The following exercise weakness was identifie , Improper health physics practices were followed. Use was made of l'

non-representative survey and air sample data to determine .

radiation control practices for the emergency repair teams. 50-289/90-80-01 The following areas for improvement were identifie I The OSC Coordinator's staff briefings were infrequent and not overly informativ , The tool shed key could not be located for ten minute .4 Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) ,

s

-

The following exercise strengths were identifie . The Technical Support Group staff drew on industry experiences to project possible challenges to the reactor and develop worst case scenario ^

_--______:__:__-__-_.__.-______ _-

y .

i

t n; p ,

,  !

!

( ,. -e

+ ;

.

' The Emergency Preparedness Representative prior to the arrival o the Emergency Support Director (ESD) placed the EOF in: i r operation and gave the ESD, upon his arrival, a very detailed turn- (

t over briefing,

' The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania representatives were well briefed and fully supporte ,

The following exercise weakness was' identifie .' The staff of the Environmental Assessment Command Center 'l (EACC) did not, at all times, correctly project doses due to lack of- 1 understanding of plant conditions and failure to communicate with l the EOF Technical Support Group. Field data was not correlated

_,

with calculated doses. Dose data was not plotted. EACC staff did Lnot advise the ESD of projected dose values which could increase rapidly and if so could have exceeded Protective Action Guides for

. declaration of a General Emergency. 50-289/90-80-02 No exercise areas for improvement were identifie l Exercise Control c No exercise strengths, weaknesses or areas for improvement were i identified.

L 1 LICENSEE CRITIQUE t

'

i The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on September 13, 1990 during which the licensee's lead controllers and observers discussed

'

observations of the exercise. The licensee's critique was constructive and thoroug . EXIT MEETING Following _the licensee's self-critique, the NRC team met with the licensee's '

representatives listed in Section 1 on September 13,1990 to discuss findings as detailed in this report. The NRC team leader summarized the l observations made during the exercise. The licensee was advised two l exercise weaknesses were identified. ~ The NRC team also determined that l- within the scope and limitation of the scenario, the licensee's performance L demonstrated the capability to implement their Emergency Plan and

r- _ ,

' .s , . - ,

,_.,

.

'*; t

'

n '

-

7  ?

! Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner that.would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the '

public,

.

,

.!

r

'N

,

$

?

i I

[

l s

,

l l

l l

i

,

l

,

,

'

.. _