IR 05000298/1985028
| ML20151L700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1985 |
| From: | Hackney C, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L687 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-85-28, NUDOCS 8601020313 | |
| Download: ML20151L700 (8) | |
Text
. _- -. _ _..
. - -
_
_
-
-
.
,
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-298/85-28 License: DPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
.
Inspection At: Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownsville, Nebraska I
Inspection Conducted: October 14-18, 1985
Inspector:
ak(ca h, AL%#
/ 2 - V 3/ 5
.
C. A. Hackney, Emergency Prepartdness Analyst, Date Emergency Preparedness and. Safeguards Programs.Section
r n
Other Accompanying Personnel:
C.-Wisner, NRC E. M. Podolak, NRC L. Smith, Battelle G.~ Bryan, Comex i
F. Carlson, Comex i
E. E. Hickey, Battelle
. Approved:
bh b h IE-4-96 L. A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Date
.
and Safeguards Programs Section
'
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted October 14-18,1985 (Report 50-298/85-28)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's performance and capabilities during an exercise of the emergency plan and procedures. The inspection involved 218 inspection-hours by seven NRC inspect _rs.
Results: '.Within the emergency response areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified. One deficiency was. identified.
-
8601020313 851219 I
.'
'
O
~ADOCK 05000298-PDR PDR.
i
-
_-
,
.
.~. _,
_
_
._ _ _,
,. ~,--._
.-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
- L. G. Kuncl, Assistant General Manager, Nuclear
- P. V. Thomason, Division Manager of Nuclear Operations
- P. R. Windham, Emergency Planning Coordinator
- D. A. Whitman, Program Control Manager, Nuclear Power Group
- C. Goings, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
.
- J. Sayer, Assistant Technical Staff Manager
- C. Morgan, General Office Emergency Planning Coordinator
,-
- J. E. Flash, Public Information Coo ~rdinator, Nuclear
- J. M. Meacham, Technical _ Manager N_RC
'*D. L. DuBois, Senior. Resident Inspector Federal Emergency Management Agency '(FEMA)
R. Leonard, Program Manager M. Carroll, Senior Technological Hazards Specialist The NRC inspectors also held discussions with other station and corporate personnel in the areas of health physics, operations, and emergency
!
response organization.
,y
,
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previou's Inspection Findings
(Closed) Open Item (298/8208-03)(4):
The licensee had developed the
-
4_
capability for projecting dose in the downwind direction.
(Closed) Open Item (298/8307-01): A complete staff of operhtions
<
_ personnel ~were provided to participate in the exercise.
'(Closed) Ope Item (298/8307-02): The operations. personnel kept records during the exercise that appeared adequate.
,
~
~
~
A procidure had been implemented to-(Closed) 0 pen Item (298/8307-04):
incorporate adjustments to the calculated doses and dose rates based on
&
Lfield measurements.
.
+*
-
. *
_
%
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
._
-
_-...
_
.
-
-
Q
.
,
+
/,'
N-
-
(
[
s
.
"
'
,
3.
Exercise Scenario
'
The exercise scenario was reviewed to determin'e if provisions had been
,
made for the level of participation by state and loce] agencies, and that s.
y'
all the major elements of the emergency. response 9 N7d be exercised in a
accordance with the re'qwirements of 10 CFR 50 and the guidance criteria in N
'
.
NUREG 0654, Section 11.n.
The review included an e~ valuation of the N
adequacy.of both operational and radiological aspec'ts of the scenario.
In
"
addition, a review of the internal consistency andsth6 roughness of information provided tu participants, observers, conf. rollers and evaluators was made. Results of this review were as follows:
>
The scenar.io contained a narrative summary of physical events which
,
l occurred and the-rational behind those events.
}
There were numerous scenario messages given to the players, prompting
- *,,
,
,
was minimal.
.
s Scenario events'were tiln'ed such that players appeared to have
-
adequate time to respond'Md react to the event.
%
\\
<
-
i'
~
The scenario was written 40 test the. reactor operations peis~onnel,
,
=
onsite and offsite monitoring personnel, and recovery fune.tions.
The scenario challenged the operations personnel for emergency
detection, classification, and notification.
Further, the onsite'and i ' '
offsite radiological monito' ring teams had the opportunity to s
s demonstrate'the use of emergency procedures and radiological A
monitoring equipment.
"
,
No violations or deviations were identified...
'
a 4I Control Room
'
M[,.
W'
..;
.
m.
,
,
a ? P-. m'y% %
.-
-
_f s.
y
Initial conditions were given to the operations person @ pritr to;f.he
-
~t initiation of the exercise:
'
s
'
.,
,
.
The'plhnt*nas.been operating at 100'4 power and had 300 equivalent f/
a.
.
.,
full power days and had.been at power for 30 days.
. b.
. Containment spray MO-26-A & MO-31-A was tagg'eh. closed due'to major
.k:
-pipe break between both valves.
Estimated repair dated 5 days from E
,
October 15, 1985. A defective section.of pipe _had been removed.
~
1
-
c.
Site ambulance h<d been taken to Nebraska City for maintenance and i
L.
would re, turn on October 17, 1985.
- )
d.
Reactorwagrcleanup(RWCU) pump-Bwasisolatedformaintenance.
1-
.
.,
L.y _
.w x
,
M
'h
.
/
',
-
'tt
~~
x-
'
w(
Y,
.-
.- ---
.:
---.. a
L'
- - - -
- = - - - - - - -
-
-
- - - - - - - -
e
,
.
,.
l l
4 s-
,
\\
f.
Spent resin (RWCU) was scheduled for transfer to a contractor for proce'$ sing on October 16, 1985.
g.
Rebctor heat removal MO-26-B manual valve operator was broken and removed for retooling in the maintenance shop, repair to be completed on October 16, 1985, i
The exercise was initiated at 7:30 a.m. with an injured, contaminated The licenseeg.eclared a Notification Of Unusual Event based on d
person.
the contaminated and injured plant person.
The plant radiological monitoring team was dispatched to the injured person (the injured person was not an objective of the drill due to the licensee demonstrating this capability with an aptual contaminated injured person).
At8:00a.m.theseai\\5ntheRWCUtransfer ump failed releasing radioactive resin into the room.
The area radiation alarms indicated 1000
~
. times normal readings and an Alert was declared.
Following the Alert, the goerations personnel were notified that a safety valve was leaking.
Plant-conditions deteriorated at 10:30 a.m. when pieces of the jet pump rams head broke off and were impinged on the core and lodged in the flow channels. A Site Area Emergency was declared due to a degraded core with a' possible loss of' coolant geometry.
Failure of safety 1alve RV-70A and the rupture of the turbine steam line
-
were coupled with iv.c-easing drywell pressure and containment high
.-
fs radiation level readings. A Gen'eral Emergency was_ declared due to loss of
$
6 ~two of three fission product barrie'rs with a potential loss of the third.
t
- e The NRC inspector noted that operations personnel consulted appropriate
procedures and emergency operating procedures. The NRC inspectors noted that information from the control r]om to the TSC was maintained and timely. Additionally, notificati6ns to the state were performed in 15 minutes, and the NRC was notified,within the I hour requirement.
-
TheNRCinspectornoted-thatinhimulatedeventbothdieselgenerators-V were allowed to idle at speed but without load fsr periods in excess of one hour..This occurred twice. -It was also noted that for approximately 45 minutes, both diesel generators.were simulated as being operated -in pcrallel with offsite power'. sTne NRC inspector questioned if this could result in a station blackout'if offsite power were lost. Based on these observations of-diesel ~ operating practice, it is recommended that diesel operating procedures be reviewed to agsure that there is no conflict with IE4 Notice 84-69.
-
4s.
.,t No viola ihnk'tr deviations were id r!tified.
d,
'
t i
b
%
i
'
v
. f r-
?
o
.
.e
..
.
.
.5.
Technical'Su--^rt Center The Technic : Support Center (TSC) was activated approx',ately 10 minutes after the declaration of an Alert. TSC personnel were o served consulting their emergency procedures. Emergency action levels and emergency
- classi fication discussions were excellent an.ing the TSC staff. The NRC inspectors noted that the TSC had recently been modified to allow for additional working space'
Status boards were maintained with current
.
radiological and reactor conditions. Offsite notifications were made within the required time limits.
Personnel in the TSC acted in a professional manner and supported the TSC' response effort during the exercise. Dose assessment provisions were timely and provided as requested. Correlations were made between' projections by computer model, hand held computer, and field team data.
Staff plant briefings were timely and informative.
Accountability was initially considered to have been achieved in approximately 41 minutes, however, the NRC inspectors questioned the'
actual time that accountability had been achieved.
Further, there did not appear to have been an initial and continuous accountability system for the TSC.
The NRC inspectors observed the following deficiency:
Initial and continuous accountability was not achieved; refer to
guidance criteria NUREG-0654, J.5. (298/8528-01).
6.
Dose Assessment Dose. assessment personnel in the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)
routinely compared data between the state and licensee team members.
Following the General Emergency-the dose assessment team made timely.
protective action recommendations. There appeared tc be good coordination between the EOF staff and the offsite radiological monitoring team. Dose assessment personnel in the EOF and TSC appeared to be familiar with
,
procedures and equipment.
Status boards were' maintained and_ trend infor-mation posted.
.
No. violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Medical First Aid
,
Credit.for _ satisfying the medical response objective was given on the basis of an emergency at.the ' plant ~. A report was; issued on March 27,-1985, from P. V.- Thomason,- Division Manager of Nuclear
.
Operations to R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator,;NRC Region IV.
detailing the medical events.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'.;..
.
.
.,
,,
- _..
-
-. -
-
-
-
-_
.
.-._
-_
,..
6 i
8.
Offsite Monitoring The offsite radiological monitoring teams responded to the emergency in a timely manner. The offsite teams were briefed by the Radiological Assessment Coordinator on radiological conditions, the mission, and plant conditions pr.ior to the teams departure from the EOF.
The teams were given plant status and changing radiological conditions during the exercise. Team members demonstrated excellent health physics practices in radiation control, self monitoring, and contamination control.
The following are recommended improvement items:
,
Consideration should be given to obtaining more than one air sample
during'the exercise.
The accompanying driver should assist the health physics technician.
- No violations or deviations were~ identified.
9.
Emergency Operations Facility / Alternate Emergency Operations Facility
- The Emergency Operations Facility '(EOF) was activated in a timely manner.
!
The EOF-was put in stand-by upon the declaration of an Alert
'
classification. ~.The EOF director (EOFD) announced.the transfer of
,
exercise command, from the TSC to the EOF, to the staff. The EOF r
personnel were kept apprised of plant and offsite~ events by periodic e
r l~
status announcements in the EOF. ~ Additionally, the EOFD and staff kept
'
the state agencies informed on exercise _ events in a timely manner.
The ELSD turned over command of the exercise to the assistant EOFD several tu.as during the exercise. The transfer was timely and did not appear to interrupt the EOF staff emergency response efforts.
Status boards were
. maintained and kept current _with the exercise events.
Protective actio~n
'
' rec.mmendations to'the State and the State's' actions were announced to the
'
EOF pers'onnai. Radiological monitoring. for both airborne.and direct
_.
'
radiation was performed periodically. The NRC inspectors noted that'
offsite personnel were not being checked for radiological contamination prior.to entering the EOF.
a The EOF was evacuated due to a loss of power to the EOF. The EOF interior
,
. lights were switched off. The emergency lights came on_and.an announcement was~made for all EOF personnel to evacuate to the: Alternate
-
,
Emergency Operations Facility-(AEOF).in Auburn, Nebraska..The EOFD transferred command of the exercise to the TSC and personne1< transferred
'
required equipment with.them. The transfer of-the staff from the EOF to
.
the' AE0F _was completedlin approximately 40 minutes.
The EOFD assumed
._
Lcommand of:the exercise'from the TSC and.continuta'their emergency
!
-
^
response-functions. The NRC inspectors noted that-the State of Nebraska
radio 'was~ disruptive to AEOF briefings. and AEOF communicators. The noise
.
level in the AEOFJwas distracting to the emergency. response effort.
'
!
a
e f
..
L..
m
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
. m.1.
.
.
.
.
..
..m. m m
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-....
The NRC inspectors toured the E0F prior to the exercise and noted that the facility contained only emergency response mat'erial. The licensee had removed material that had previously been stored in various EOF response rooms.
The following are recommended improvement items:
Establish a monitoring check point for offsite personnel entering the
EOF.
,
sets on the radios to reduce noise levels.
10. Operational Support-Centers The Operational Support Centers (OSC) were activated in a timely manner.
OSC personnel were radiologically monitored during the exercise.
Personnel accountability was maintained and teams dispatched from the OSC were logged in and out of their respective.0SCs'. Teams were briefed on t
ALARA and their task prior to being dispatched from the TSC or OSC.
No violations z or deviations were identified.
11. Media Response Center The media response center was activated in a timely-manner. The NRC inspector noted that NPPD press briefings were not well coordinated with the state. The NPPD representatives allowed themselves to get involved
with. "what if" and "how much will this cost" questions. The inspector noted that a sound system was needed for'the press to hear what was being said during the briefings. The visual aids used during the briefings were inadequate.
Further,'a system diagram of the reactor would be of.
assistance during reactor status discussions.
The following are recommended improvement items:
Install a sound system. for addressing the press.
- Obtain visual aids for press presentations.
. Press presentations should be coordinated with principal speakers-
- -
entering ~the press room together.
Staff briefing personnel should have media training.
- 12.
Exercise Critique
~
-The NRC 1.1spectors-attended.the post-exercise cr1tique by the licensee staff on October 17,11985,- to' evaluate the licensee's identification of
- deficiencies-'and weaknesses as required.by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and Appendix.'E'of Part 50,~ Paragraph IV.F.5.
The 1,1censee staff identified.
~
- -. - - -
-
- -
=
-
--
--- -
- --
-
--
--
-
.
, _. -
._
= _
l
.'
a.,,
8
,
the deficiencies l'sted below.
Corrective action for identified deficiencies _and weaknesses listed below will be examined during a future
<
NRC inspection:
Site personnel were not given an evacuation route to follow for the
radiological evacuation.
Tools were not checked for contamination when leaving the controlled
area.
..
Operational Support Center teams status in the. plant were not
!
maintained.
-
Accountability was inadequate.
'
General office personnel need additional training in the use of
- -
communications. equipment.
t Media response center needs. sound system for briefing the media.
- *
'
Visual' aids are not effectively used.
- 13. Exit Meeting The NRC inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 17, 1985.
The
- -
NRC inspector summarized the purpose and the sc. ope of the inspection and j
the findings. ~ Additionally, the. licensee representatives were informed I
that' additional findings may result following a briefing of Region IV management. The licensees actions'during the exercise were found to be y
adequate ~to' protect:the health and safety of the public.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
.
!:
,
,
A
- -
t
,
s
_
f P
,,
,
,
,,
.
-w
--
1.,-UE,,
,
-r-e
, -w w
, - - + -, -
e,,--
,w r-r',
ew-~~
.,, r ; -