IR 05000322/1987019

Emergency Preparedness Insp Rept 50-322/87-19 on 871117-19. No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Observation of Licensee Annual Emergency Exercise Performed on 871118

ML20236W429
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236W416	List: IR 05000322/1987019 ML20236W413
References
50-322-87-19, NUDOCS 8712080022
Download: ML20236W429 (6)

Text

.

-

. , . - --

, -l}t C Q

~

'-

\.

)y;4

<

y,y.. ,. R,

"

. -

.. '

Ph . O'

'

s

$)r{j L 4

y, (N

.

N, /

,

y j,.'

.

\'

'

'

l , , . _

i , ,

, >

,

g

'"

]

, h(9

'

's

4 U.S.'IWO. EAR RESEA10R'l C0KUSSION'

REG. ION I-i i , 1 s Repcyt.Noi3' y SU-322/87-1N w  ;#

s

&- Docket N .50-322

-

4 i

! . j

'

License N .CPPR-95 .a .a

' Priority Category C ]

>g  ;

! i

,, . Licensee: Long Ist &deLighiing Company j P.O. BoHiY d q s Wading RiF5, New York 11792

<

~,

j .

' Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclea:r Power Station ka ,

[ Inspectior; At: Wading River, New ...

%rk \ , ,! .!

'

'

\ InspectidnConducted: November 17219, 1937 .!

a .

Inspectors: e b,.jf '

N N '

//[3[3 C Conyiii,' Team Leader, [fi, date j EP& ppb, DRSS 3

l T. Tuccinardt, IP Specialist, EPS, EP&RPB, DRS g 1.R Hogan,(!RR~' )

i A

^

F. Crescenzd,'RI '

3 , N 3 \

'

( Approved By: A -#[ # . jf

'

W. JOAzards4 ChieCEPS, da' e

'

i EP&RPB, DRSS l ,

N Inspectlon Summaryy;_ Inspection on November 17-19, 1987-(Report N LU322/87-19)

Areas Inspected: Routine.at ounced emergsncy preparedness _ inspection and observation of,the licenses's' annual emergency exercise performed on November 18, 198L i

Headquarters The inspection was performed bf(<a team of four'NRC;RegionTand personne '

l .

- ,

l 3

\_ .- ..

'

Results: No violations were' ifentified.qEmergency ' response. actions were" adequate to provide protective ceasureV Nr the h;ealth- and safety of the -

publi , .,

. O,.

gQ .'

,

I

, : A x b

.

'

' ,' i

\.

>

s

.f

-

!, '

> 'y N

, . *

,

j ., <

v, 5 ri nm y, ig

-_ ____ ~

..

-_ __

n >

s- + .

_ _-___ __

,

l

.

-

i DETAILS i

1. Persons Contacted The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on November 19, 198 G. Krieger, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor _ . ..

C. Daverio, Manager, Nuclear Operations -Support Department i J. Notaro, Manager,-QA Department I. Freilicher, Vice President Corporate. Affairs-W. Steiger, Plant Manager E. Youngling,-Manager, Nuclear Engineering S. Skorupski, Assistant Vice President Nuclear D. Crocker, Manager, Nuclear Emergency Preparedness J. Morlino, Drill and Exercise Coordinator The team observed and interviewed _several licensee emergency response personnel, controllers and observers as they performed their assigned 'l functions during the exercis '

j i Emergency Exercise The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station partial participation exercise was j conducted on November 18, 1987 from 8:00 AM to 2:00 P ! Pre-exercise Activities j

!

Prior to the emergency exercise,-NRC Region I representatives held _ ;

meetings and had telephone discussions with licensee represent- i atives to discuss objectives, scope and content of the exercise ;

scenario. As a result, changes were made in-order to clarify l certain objectives, revise certain portions of the scenario and i ensure that the scenario provided the opportunity for the licensee '

to demonstrate those areas previously identified by NRC as in need of corrective actio NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on November 17, 1987,-

and participated in the discussion of emergency response actions i expected during the various phases of the scenario. The licensee ; stated that controllers would intercede in exercise activities ~to i prevent scenario deviation or disruption of normal plant operation l The exercise scenario included the following events: '

- An earthquake and subsequent after shocks; I

-_ = _ -

. ______- - -- .,~

.

- A loss of. all onsite'DC power; l - A loss' of decay heat' removal capability; _

- A small break LOCA, within containment, with subsequent coreL damage; ,

- Declaration ~of. Unusual Event, Alert,-Site Area Emergency and j General Emergency. Classifications;-

- Calculation of offsite dose consequences; an Recommendation .of protective actions to state official .2 Activities Observed During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, four NRC/ tea _

members made detailed observations of the activation and augment .

ation of the emergency organization, activation .of-emergency _

response facilities, and actions of emergency response personne !

during the operation of the emergency response facilities. Th following activities.were observed:

. Detection, classification and assessment of scenario events;- Direction and coordination of the emergency response;  ! Augmentation of the emergency organization and_ response facility activation- '

l Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies o I pertinent plant status information: Communications /information flow, and recordkeeping; ' Assessment and projection of offsite. radiological' dose an consideration of protective actions; j i Provisions for:inplant radiation protection;'- q Performance of offsite and inplant radiological surveys; j Maintenance of site secur.ity and access control; 1 Performance of technical. support, repair and corrective actions; 11. Assembly, accountability and evacuation of personnel;; and 7 :;

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

. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________j

l

i

!

1 Preparation of information for' dissemination at the Emergency i News Cente i

,

3.0 Exercise Observations The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response facil-ities, and use of the facilities were generally consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing ' procedure The team also noted the following actions that provided strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions:  !

!

-

Positive command and control of all emergency response facilities (ERF's) was demonstrated by the respective managers;

-

Classifications made by the Control Room, Technical Support Center .

(TSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) staff were prompt and i correct, and subsequent notifications were timely;

-

Protective Action Recommendations (PAR's) were timely and conservative;

-

The respective ERF managers established priorities that were l accurcte and appropriate for the scenario. These priorities were .

'

promptly acted upon by the ERF technical staffs; i

-

Status boards were maintained throughout the exercis Record keeping and facility logs were excellent;

-

Staff members in each ERF demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the !

plant and coordinated effectively with their respective j counterparts; and i

-

Press releases and press briefings were conducted frequently and were accurate. The Technical Spokesperson was very knowledgeable ,

of plant conditions and was able to convey this knowledge to the '

media representative .1 Areas Requiring Follow-up l

The NRC team identified the following areas which could have degraded the response and should be evaluated by the licensee for corrective action.

l The licensee performed technical assessments, such as time to core uncovery, using different assumptions. Although each individual j assessment was correct, the bases for the assessments were not u-_

_

'

. 1

,

always communicated to the various ERF's, resulting in seemingly _

wide results in the assessments. The difference in results made it more difficult for the E0F staff to evaluate the effectiveness of their protective action recommendation .0 Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items The following items were identified during the previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-322/86-02). Based upon observations made by the NRC team during the exercise the following open items were acceptably demonstrated and are closed:

(CLOSED) 86-02-01 IFI: Activation of the Operations Support Center (OSC) was delaye (CLOSED) 86-02-02 IFI: The LER0/Brookhaven offsite field monitoring data was used minimally in the E0 (CLOSED) 86-02-03 IFI: The method of verbal transmission of dose assessment information to the State of New York via the RECS line is cumbersome and creates delay .0 Licensee Critique The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on November 19, 1987, during which the key licensee controllers discussed observa-tions of the exercise. The licensee indicated these observations would'

be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions take .0 Exit Meeting and NRC Critique The NRC team met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report at the end of the inspectio The team leader summarized the observations made during the exercis The licensee was informed that previously identified items were adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there were areas identified for corrective action, the NRC team determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the linensee's performance demonstrated that they could implement their Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure's'in a manner which would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the {

publi .1

- - - _ - - --

,

,

.'

Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated that appro-priate action would be taken regarding the identified open ite At no-time during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee.

,

1'

l l

l

,

a_-_--_-------_-_--