IR 05000293/1988036
| ML20235A974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1988 |
| From: | Ronald Bellamy NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Bird R BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235A977 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#189-8183 2.206, NUDOCS 8812290127 | |
| Download: ML20235A974 (2) | |
Text
._
__
. - - _ _
__
_
_ _ _ -
_
<n
,
O -
M -DO~86'Q1
[.03
,
g,gg ge),3gQ
.
.
... n...
,
_$
$l % S d
D gggy Y.q -
DEC 21 1988
.
_
_
sEb
.
i c
,
W j
Docket No.
50-293 License No.
DPR-35 l
Boston Edison Company
[
ATTN: Mr.. Ralph G. Bird
'
Senior Vice President - Nuclear
!
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station j
RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road
-
'
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection No. 50-293/88-36 j
A routine safety inspection of your annual emergency preparedness exercise was conducted by Mr. C. Conklin-of this office on December 12-14, 1988 at your Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Discussions of.
our findings were presented by Mr. Conklin to you and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas. examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, ths inspection consisted of selecti.ve examination of procedures and repre-sentative records, interviews with personnel, observations by the inspector,
-
and follow-up of findings identified during previous emergency preparedness inspections and exercises.
.
Within the scope of this inspe,ction, no violations were identified.
It was determined that your emergency response actions were adeguate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with.us in this matter
.
is appreciated.
Sincerely, e i,+.al Signed By:
RoiiNN k.5Nmfogical Safety Chief
'
-
Facilities Radio and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-293/88-36
,
i
_
,
.
-
<
%/ AR.9 6 / a7 si r
-
~
IE 35 m emew w,. as u e
'
-
u
__ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
,
.
.
-
,
L 2
.
Y Boston Edison Company-
DEC 2 1 Jggg
,
REGION I==
'
Report No.
50-293/88-36
~
Docket No.
50-293 License No.
DPR-35 Priority Category C Licensee:
Boston Edison Company
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
,
RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road
-
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Facility Name: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
December 12-14, 1988 Inspector:
Who
/p n/w/fr
'
C. Conklirt, Eenior Emergency date PriparednestSpecialist,DRSS
,-
,
,
,
,
,
W. Lazarus,. EP Section Chief, DRSS
.
,
C. Warren, SRI Pilgrim C. Carpenter, RI Pilgrim R. Hogan, PEPB, NRR Approved By:
___
n thz be 4/n/fV w. v tazar)2s, Chiet, tes, date FRSSB, DRSS Ins e_ction Summary: Inspection on December 12-14, 1988, (Report No.
3/88-36)
-
Areas Inspected:
A routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection and i
observation of the licensee's annual partial-participation emergency exercise performed on December 13, 1988.
The inspection was performed by a team of five NRC Region I and headquarters personnel.
Results: No violations were identified.
Emergency response actions were
{
adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the
public.
1
,
,
.y-rel 0129 881221 ADOCK 05
/
- - -
_- - - _ _-
_
^
j
,
)
f
- DETAILS
,
1.0 Persons Contacted The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on December 14, 1988.
R. Bird, Senior Vice President, Nuclear i
-
K. Highfill, Station Director
'
R. Varley, Emergency Preparedness Manager J. Morlino, Drill and Exercise Coordinator E. Robinson, Nuclear Information Manager P. Mastrangclo, Chief Operating Engineer P. Hamilton, Compliance Division Manager J. Alexander, 0)erations Section Manager A. Lee, Onsite Emergency Preparedness Manager J. Spancier, Emergency Preparedness Equipment and Facilities Manager
'
The inspector also interviewed and observed the activities of other licensee personnel.
2.0 Emergency Exercise The Pilgrim' Nuclear Power. Station partia.1-participation exercise was conducted on December 13. 1988 from 0700 to 1430.
The exercise was announced and during norm,1. working hours.
The Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Department of Public Health participated at the Emergency Operations Facility. Additionally, the local communities participated in notification activities and the Plymouth Fire Department responded to a simulated fire on site. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not observe any activities.
.
2.1 Pre-Exercise Activities Prior to the emergency exercise, NRC Region I and FEMA representatives held meetings and had telephone discussions with the licensee to discuss objectives, scope and content of the exercise scenario. As a result, minor changes were made in order to clarify certain objectives, revise certain portions of the scenario and ensure that the scenario provided the opportunity for the licensee to demonstrate the stated objectives as well as those areas previously identified by NRC and FEMA as in need of corrective action.
HRC observers attended a licensee briefing on December 12, 1988, and participated in discussions of emergency response actions expected during the exercise, The licensee's controllers wer?
responsible for controlling exercise activities to prevent
'
deviations from the scenario and to ensure that normal plant i
.
l l
.
.
_-
__
.
..,
.
tperations were not disrupted. The exercise scenario included the for110 wing events:
,
1.
Unusual, increased leakage into Radwaste;
'
2.
A fire in the,"A" Diesel Generator room; 3.
Loss of shutdown cooling flow; 4.
Loss of coolant from the Residual Heat Removal _ (RHR) system;
-
5.
Declaration of Unusual Event, Alert, and Site Area Emergency; 6.
Calculation of potential off-site dose consequences; and 7.
Evaluation of protective actions for EPZ communities.
2.2 Activities observed During the conduct of the exercise, five NRC team members made observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of emergency response facilities, and actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of the emergency response facilities. The following activities were
,
observed:
.
.
1., Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events;.
2.
Direction and coordinai. ion of the emergency response';
3.
Augmentation of the emergency organization and response facility activation;
,
4.
Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent plant status information:
5.
Communications. information flow, and record keeping; 6.
Assessment and projection of potential offsite radiological
,
dose and consideration of protective actions; 7.
Provisions for inplant radiation protection; 8.
Performance of offsite and inplant radiological surveys; 9.
Maintenance of site security and7 access control; f
-
10.
Performance of technical support, repair and corrective j
actions; j
,
i 11.
Fire Fighting practices;
)
l
<
.
.
___ __ - _;__
.
.
~f
.
-
12.
Recovery and reentry; 13.
Assembly, accountability, and evacuation of personnel; and 14.
Preparation of information for dissemination at the Emergency News Gehier.
3.0 Exercise Observations 3.1 Exercise Strengths
-
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 response plan and implementing procedures.
The team also noted the following actions of the, emergency response organization that provided strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions and implement the emergency plan:
1.
Very good command and control of all emergency response facilities (ERF's) was demonstrated; 2.
Classification of events was timely and conservative;
.
3.
Staff notification and augmentation, and subsequent ERF
,
activatio'n was timely;
.
4.
Face to face and telephonic communications in the Control Room were excellent. The staff used repeat backs of orders to assure that they were correct, displayed very good drillsmanship and performed in a professional manner; 5.
The fire brigade leader displayed excellent leadership and knowledge and provided timely and accurate information and support to the Plymcuth Fire Department personnel who responded to the simulated fire; and 6.
The EOF staff performed a very good evaluation of conditions necessary to terminate the emergency and enter recovery.
3.2 Areas for Improvement The NRC identified the following areas for improvement.
Although these findings did not have a significant negative im)act on overall performance during the exercise, they should 3e evaluated and corrected ty the licensee.
The licensee conducted an adequate self critique of the exercise that also identified these areas.
'
,,
i
--
.
,_
.
-
,
,
L
.;
e
.q
-
!I.
-
1.-
The procedure for notification of the' Plymouth Fire Department
.
is not clear as to.when calls made are for information purposes or to request assistance.
,
2.
The media center representative could have provided more explicit and detailed-answers to posed questions-.
4.0 Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items'
,
'
L The' following items were identified during previous inspections (Inspection Report No. 50-293 Based upon observations made by the NRC team during the.exerc/87-54).ise, the following open items were
'
'
acceptably demonstrated and are closed:
(Closed) 50-293/87-54-03:
Dose projections made on the portable
.
computer did-not agree with the projections made on the HP-85.
'
(CLOSED) 50-293/87-54-04: The TSC appeared to focus on implementation of a single activity or course of action when multiple options.were available.
L 5.0 Licensee Critique _
l
.
.
.
.
-
l The.NRC Team Lea' der attended the licens'ee's post exercise critique on December 14, 1988 during which the key licensee controllers discussed observations of the exercise.
The critique was thorough and the
-
licensee indicated that the observations would be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
6.0 Exit Meeting and NRC Critique The NRC Team Leader met with the licensee represent'atives listed in Section 1 of this report at the end of the inspection.
The Team Leader summarized the observations made during the exercise.
The licensee was informed that previously identified items were
- adequately addressed and no violt.tions were observed. Although there-were areas for improvement identified, the NRC team determined that
'
within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's performance demonstrated that they could implement their Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner which would adeguately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate the NRC comments and observations and make changes where
- appropriate.
.
O e