IR 05000322/1987012

Insp Rept 50-322/87-12 on 870622-25.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Changes to Emergency Preparedness Program,Emergency Response Facilities,Equipment, Instrumentation & Supplies & Organization & Mgt Control

ML20237F866
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/31/1987
From:	Conklin C, Lazarus W, Tuccinardi T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237F850	List: IR 05000322/1987012 ML20237F847
References
50-322-87-12, NUDOCS 8708210600
Download: ML20237F866 (7)

Text

- _ _ .

.

\

^

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

REGION I

Report N /87-12 Docket N License N CPPR-95 Priority Category: C l

Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 )

l Wading River, New York 11792 l

Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station l

l Inspection At: Wading River, New York Inspection Conducted: June 22-25,,1[7 Inspectors: ,, . , J/ I C. % K ^6, Emer preparedness 'date

. , DRSS S /

T.'Tucciha , 'RPB, DRSS Approved ty-

'

///7

, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 22-25, 1987 (Report No. 50-322/87-12)

_ Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspectio The inspection areas included: Changes to the emergency preparedness program; emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation and supplies; organization and management control; training; protective action decisionmaking and open items identified in previous inspection report >

Results: No violations were identifie MON G

P

--

(

.

!

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted

• G. L. Krieger, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor  !

• D. M. Crocker, Manager, Nuclear Emergency Preparedness

• S. Skorupski, Assistant Vice President Nuclear l i

• T. Durando, Licensing Engineer ,

• G. Gisonda, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing

• L. Britt, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

• J. A. Notaro, Manager QA Department

• J. A. Scalice, Assistant Plant Manager

• R. W. Grunseich, Operational Compliance Engineer

• J. F. Alexander, Operating Engineer

• R. C. Crowe, Operations Staff Manager

• E. Stieger, Plant Manager R. Reeves, Watch Supervisor i A. Mattessich, Watch Engineer i R. Francois, Watch Supervisor A. Bodan, Watch Engineer i In addition, the inspectors interviewed several other licensee personne * Denotes those present at the exit interview I 2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's progress

concerning the items opened during previous inspections (Inspection Reports 50-322/82-18, 50-322/85-06, and 50-322/86-02). The status of these items is as follows.

l

- (CLOSED) 82-18-30: Complete installation and operational testing of 1

'

communications and notifications systems described in the EPIP' The only communication / notification system unresolved is the New York State Radiological Emergency Communications System (RECS) hotline. This "

,

system was installed and operationally tested in the fall of 1983, however it has since been disabled at the state E0C. Notifications to the state are presently made via this backup commercial telephone.

, (See detail 3.2).

L Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.

l l -

(OPEN)82-18-34: Prepare and distribute public information material

! regarding actions to be taken by individuals within the EP The inspector reviewed the provisions for distributing public information material to the public within the EPZ. Brochures have been prepared for each evacuation zon The brochures contain

__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

-

adequate information concerning educational information, licensee and government contacts, EBS notifications, evacuation routes, j relocation centers, congregate care centers, sheltering and special population needs. The information will be available in local ,

telephone books. Additionally, brochures will be mailed to all l homes and businesses in the EPZ. Provisions are in' place to account  !

for transient populations and special population needs. This information will be distributed following final disposition by the licensing board. This item will remain open pending a review in a subsequent inspection.

'

- (CLOSED) 50-322/85-06-01: Maintain training records on compute The following documents were reviewed: EPIP 5-4, Emergency j Preparedness Program Training, Rev 6, dated 6/10/87; and letter NLR  ;

87-0266, dated 6/17/87 concerning computerized record EPIP 5-4 has been revised to reflect that computerized record keeping is not a requirement. The inspector noted however, that training records for the onsite emergency response organization have been computerized as part of the overall corporate training and qualification progra Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl (CLOSED) 50-322/85-06-03: Provide Watch Supervisors with Emergency Director (ED) trainin EPIP 5-4, Rev 6, dated 6/10/87 has been revised to require that Watch Supervisors receive ED training. The inspector noted that all Watch Supervisors have received ED training and are fully qualifie Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl (CLOSED) 50-322/86-02-04: EOF Response Manager needs more help from the Emergency Preparedness Assistant in formulating PAR' The duties and responsibilities of the Emergency Planning Advisor #1 have been revised to allow for the delegation of tasks to other E0F staff member l Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl )

I 3.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program 3.1 Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program There have been no significant or major changes to the licensee emergency preparedness program since the last inspection. Changes which have taken place have been minor and have not adversely l affected the licensee's overall state of emergency preparednes The licensee has in place appropriate procedures and mechanisms to

)

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

. b

'

assure that changes to the plan and procedures which could affect the overall state of emergency preparedness will be detected. All changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures receive review by the Review of Operations Committee (ROC), approval by station management, and distribution in accordance with approved procedures and NRC requirements prior to implementation. The

'

l inspector noted that there is no minimum staffing (functional)

i requirements specified for each Emergency Response Facility (ERF).

l The licensee agreed that ERF minimum staffing requirements should be j reviewed and revised as appropriate.

l l Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl .2 Emergency Response Facilities, Equipment Instrumentation and Supplies The inspectors examined all ERF's, with special attention to the Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) and Emergency News Center (ENC)

located in the Training Center in Hauppauge, New York. The E0F and ENC are large, well designed and laid out, are adequately equipped and have good communications capabilities. Security procedures are in place to ensure the segregation of the Emergency Response Orga-nization (ERO) and the press. The inspectors observed the operation of dose assessment equipment, primary and backup communications, including the conference bridge from the Control Room and the Emergency Callout System (ECS), and other support equipment. All instrumentation worked properly and was in calibration. All kits and lockers contained the proper equipment. The inspectors noted the Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) was out of service at the EOF due to a circuit problem. The RMS was restored the same day. The HP-85 operator had initial difficulty with the backup dose assess-ment program, but once the program was operational he was able to perform dose projections and protective action recommendations rapidly and correctly. The difficulty experienced was due to a lengthy program load time, and the inspectors noted that labels have been placed on the HP-85's to warn operators of the long program load tim The inspectors reviewed the results of the monthly communications checks. These tests are well documented and corrective actions are undertaken promptfy as required. A review of the RECS line tests indicate that the State of New York, and Suffolk County do not currently participate in the test. The State of New York also does not include Shoreham in their bi-weekly RECS line test. The inspec-tors noted the the State of New York participated in RECS line tests

,

h-----_--- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _

.

up to May 24, 1984 and Suffolk County participated in RECS line tests up to January 8,1986. A further review of documents associated with actual Notification of Unusual Events revealed that the State of New York and Suffolk County did not respond on the RECS line. However, notifications were made in each instance utilizing the backup means (commercial telephone) of communication Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl d (

i 3.3 Organization and Management Control l The ERO is fully qualified with at least three people qualified in 4 each positio Personnel respond to the ERF's either by pager or j l

telephone notificatio Pager on-call lists and ER0 call lists are 1 updated quarterl f l

An augmentation drill was conducted on April 2, 1987. This drill i resulted in a late TSC activation (90 minutes). The primary cause for the late activation was the physical time required to make all

! telephone notifications. The licensee has since implemented a q l computerized Emergency Call System (ECS). The ECS is activated by l

'

l security personnel, automatically telephones ERO personnel and

,

provides for verification of notificatio Another augmentation drill is scheduled for July 1987. Monthly checks are performed on j the ECS and will include actual calling of the ERO. Weekly tests are conducted on the pager syste The inspectors noted that the licensee has been aggressively pursu-ing the resolution of the above noted problem. However, due to the !

importance of timely notifications and augmentation, this item will I

'

be followed until successfully resolved. It is recommended that the transit times for all 60 minute responders be evaluated to ensure that these personnel can in fact meet the 60 minute response goa This is an inspection follow-up item (50-322/87-12-01).

i 3.4 Training The following documents were reviewed: EPIP 5-4, Emergency Pre-paredness Program Training; NOSD-17, Training and Qualification (

Program; lesson plans; attendance sheets; and test result '

Emergency preparedness training requirements are well documente The inspector noted that all Emergency Preparedness lesson plans arr current, approved and on file. The records system is easy to us i Hard copies of all records are maintained in the emergency prepared- l ness training section. The training department utilizes a computerized l records system that complements the hard copy records. All training I modules require that a written test be documented. The inspector noted that all Emergency Preparedness lesson plans are current, approved and on file. The records system is easy to use. Hard copies of all records are maintained in the emergency preparedness

- - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _

.

• 6 l

training section. The training department utilizes a computerized records system that complements the hard copy records. All training modules require that a written test be passed or that practical waikthroughs be demonstrated. A system is in place to schedule training sessions, both initial and requalification, to follow position changes and to prevent unqualified personnel from being part of the ERO. The following-improvements are recommended:

Establish a clearer means to remove unqualified personnel from the ER0; and consider a yearly review and update of emergency preparedness lesson plan t The inspector interviewed a select sample of individuals in the emergency organization. Two Watch Engineers, two Watch Supervisors and an Emergency Director were chosen. Scenarios were chosen to provide fast breaking events, and were given to each individua Detection, recognition and classification was prompt and correct for the given situations. Notifications, and any associated protective action recommendations, would have been promp Although each individual classified the postulated events correctly, some' operators

. utilized the EAL table from least to worst condition, and for a time !

stopped at a lower classification prior to making the correct classification. This may be indicative of a weakness in the human factors design of the EAL's and should be evaluated by the licensee to evaluate the methodology of EAL presentation from a human factors standpoint.

,

l Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.

'

3.5 Protective Action Decisionmaking i The following documents were reviewed: EPIP 1-4, General Emergency; i EPIP 1-11, Operational Assessment; EPIP 2-2, Dose Projections; and EPIP 2-3, Protective Action Recommendation ,

The licensee has 24-hour capability to assess and analyze plant conditions and make appropriate recommendations to off-site

,

l authorities. The Watch Engineer / Emergency Director makes the l initialprotectiveactionrecommendation(PAR). These PAR's can be i based upon plant conditions or projected dose and are based upon EPA j guidanc In the event release rate information is not readily I an'lable, default release estimates are contained in the procedure, l

Subsequent PAR's and updates are made by the TSC or E0F-staff when activate .

Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.

!

!

I,

. _ . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .. .

,

.

-

4.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with the licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the findings as presented in this report. The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate ,

them and institute corrective actions as appropriat l At no time during the inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee, i

l l

l