IR 05000322/1987003
| ML20207S397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1987 |
| From: | Conklin C, Fox E, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207S389 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-87-03, 50-322-87-3, NUDOCS 8703190389 | |
| Download: ML20207S397 (4) | |
Text
.
- - _ - _ _ - - - -. - -
,.
.
.-
U.
S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-322/87-03 Docket No.
50-322 License No.
CPPR-95 Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792 Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Wading River, New York Inspection Conducted:
February 10-12, 1987 Inspectors:
~
3187 C. Conki4), Em6rgency Preparedness date Specialist, P RPB, DRSS J/9/f7
, Sed (ArEmfgencyPreparedness date
.
Special,ist, EPS, EP&RPB, DRSS Approved by:
Ws#
3} y
~
V. J/yazarup, Chief, Emergency
'da te'
Preparedns(s Section, EP&RPB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on February 10-12, 1987 (Report No.
50-322/87-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection.
The inspection areas included: Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program; Emergency Facilities; Licensee Audits; and Training.
i I
'
Results: No violations were identified.
<
8703190399 870313 PDR ADOCK 0500
,
G
-
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
- G. L. Krieger, Emergen'cy Preparedness Supervisor
- J. F. Alexander, Operating Engineer
- J. W. Keelty, Compliance Engineer
- D. M. Crocker, Manager, Nuclear Emergency Preparedness
- G. J. Gisonda, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
- J. A. Notaro, Acting Director, QASC
- J. P. Powers, Audit Section Head, QSD
- R. Grunseich, Operational Compliance Engineer
- B. R. McCaffrey, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support Dept.
- J. A. Scalice, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations
- S. S. Skorupski, Assistant Vice President Nuclear
- J. W. Devlin, Manager Nuclear Site Security Division
- R. A. DiCola, EIT/ Compliance Engineer R. T. Perra, Section Supervisor QA/QC W. Nazzaro, Watch Engineer W. Uhl, Watch Supervisor F. Kraus, Shift Agent C. Davario, Assistant Manager, NOSD In addition, the inspectors interviewed and observed the actions of other licensee personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program 2.1 Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures which detail actions to be taken for various event classifications to determine if they are adequate in scope and content to ensure that appropriate actions would be taken. The following procedures were reviewed: EPIP 1-1, Notification of Unusual Event, Rev. 3; EPIP 1-2, Alert, Rev. 3; EPIP 1-3, Site Area Emergency, Rev. 3; and EPIP 1-4, General Emergency, Rev. 3.
The inspector noted that during classification of events, there was no indication of possible interface with an NRC response team prior to issuing messages to the State. The inspector indicated that informing the NRC's Site Team Leader / Director of Site Operations is critical to ensure that the NRC will be able to respond to any requests from the State for substantiating information as to reasons for the classification. The licensee agreed to make appropriate changes to these procedures to reflect appropriate coordination between the NRC response team and the licensee's response organiza-tio q
-
.
.
.
The inspectors also reviewed EPIP 3-1, Emergency Operations Facility Activation.
The procedure appears adequate in scope and detail to activate the E0F, This will be reviewed further in a subsequent inspection.
,
Based upon the above review this area is acceptable.
2.2 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)
The following documents were reviewed:
Shoreham Emergency Plan; and Standing Order MC-1, Operational Response to Events Concerning Deliberate Acts Directed Against Plant Equipment.
The inspector interviewed a select sample of individuals in the emergency organization. Two senior licensed individuals who may be called upon to be Emergency Director were chosen. Scenario s were chosen to provide an event with security implications and a fast breaking event, and were given to each operator. Detection, recog-nition and classification was prompt and correct for the given situa-tions. Notifications, and any associated protective action recom-mendations, would have also been prompt. The operators were aware of the safety implications of events caused by sabotage.
There are security procedures in place and the operator / security interface is estab-lished and adequate. The operators were aware of Standing Order MC-1, although their detailed knowledge was limited.
In addition, the LILC0 Shift Agent was interviewed. He was aware of the appro-priate security procedures, his interface with operations and Standing Order MC-1.
The Shift Agent had some difficulty with the terminology and meaning of the various radiological controlled areas within the station. The licensee has agreed to provide additional training to address these areas.
Based upon the above review this area is acceptable.
2.3 Emergency Facilities The licensee has recently completed construction of a new EOF which is located within their Training Center in Hauppauge, New York.
The EOF is approximately 18 miles from the station. The EOF is on a secure power source, the first drop from an adjacent substation, with a diesel generator backup. Ventilation is standard building code.
The facility is used both for training functions, as well as the EOF, with the Dose Assessment area and an equipment storage area as dedicated spaces.
There is adequate working space for all discip-lines, including the NRC, FEMA, state and local agencies as well as several areas where expansion is possible. The training facility contains a large document library and complete audio / visual complex which is available to the EOF staff. There is adequate parking available.
The Training Center has standard industrial security on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis. This security force will be used to control access to
..
.o
.
.the E0F during initial activation, and will be supplemented to provide security during EOF operation. The EOF is scheduled to be declared operational approximately March 20, 1987.
In addition to the EOF, the Emerg.ency News Center (ENC) will also be located in the Training Center.
It will be on the second floor with a separate entrance for press members.
Security and physical access appear adequate to prevent press members from accessing the EOF without authorization. While the ENC appears to be adequate from a general layout and size viewpoint, construction is not far enough along to allow a determination of adequacy. The ENC is scheduled for comple-tion in April 1987. The operation of the EOF, and the ENC, will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
Based upon the above review this area is acceptable.
2.4 Licensee Audits The following documents were reviewed:
Shoreham Emergency Plan, Section 8.2; Quality Assurance Manual, Appendix A; Quality Assurance Procedure 18.1, Audit Programs; and Audit Report, dated 12/16/86.
The QA Audit Section performs audits and appraisals of the emergency preparedness program. This audit covered all the major elements of the program. The review team consisted of twelve members, with four members haveing technical expertise in emergency preparedness.
The review and distribution process is extensive. Adequate administra-tive controls exist for documentation and follow-up of corrective actions. The actual audit was thorough and detailed, and provides assurance that weaknesses or potential weaknesses would be identified and corrected. The inspector noted that audit deficiencies are classified as " findings" (violation or non-compliance of LILCO proce-dures) or " observations" (improvement items). " Observations" and
" performance items" do not receive the same visibility as " findings",
but could be significant enough to warrant such documentation and review. The licensee agreed to review the criteria for findings and observations to account for observation or performance items.
Based upon the above review this area is acceptable.
3.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with the licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. The licensee was informed that no viola-tions were noted. The inspector also discussed some areas for improve-ment. The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions as appropriate.
At no time during the inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee.