IR 05000322/1989010
| ML19354D563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1989 |
| From: | Craig C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354D562 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-89-10, NUDOCS 8912280049 | |
| Download: ML19354D563 (7) | |
Text
.
,-
.-
.
,
.
-.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No:
50-322/89-10 Docket No:
50-322 License No:
CPPR-95 Priority Category [
Licensee:
Lona Island Liahtino Company Post Office Box 618 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Wadina River. New York. 11792 facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Wadina River. New York Inspection Conducted:
December 5-7. 1989 Inspector:
[M
~
/2 fl P1 Craig Con ;ltnf Senior Emergency date Preparetfrmss Specialist, DRSS Edwin Fox, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, DRSS Craig Gordon, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, DRSS Frank Crescenzo, Senior Resident Inspector, Shoreham Approved By:
at h
/>// G[f-p Wildprfn Learus, Chief, Emergency date Preparedness Section, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Insoection on December 5-7. 1989. (Recort No.
50-322/89-10)
Areas Inspected:
A routine, announced inspection of the licensee's partial-participation emergency exercise was conducted at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The Local Emergency Response Organization (LER0) did not participate.
Results:
No violations were identified.
Emergency response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
89122 h C PDR Q
.
.
.
.
,.
.'
.
DETAILS-1.0 Persons Contacted The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on December 7, 1989.
G. Kreiger, On-site Emergency Preparedness Supervisor R. Gutmann, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support W. Steiger, Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Operations E. Youngling, Vice President, Conservation and Load Management E. Montgomery, Nuclear Projects Division Manager M. Ma, Radiological Controls Division Manager R. Purcell, Operations Manager W. Maloney, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department o
J. Leonard, Vice President, Corporate Services The inspector also interviewed and observed the activities of other licensee personnel.
2.0 Emeraency Exercise
,
The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station announced, partial-participation exercise was conducted on December 6, 1989, from 7:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
The Local Emergency Response Organization (LER0) did not participate.
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities The exercise objectives submitted to NRC Region I on June 26, 1989 were-reviewed and, following minimum revision, determined to be adequate to test the licensee's Emergency Plan. On October 5, 1989, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRC review and evaluation.
Region I representatives h::d telephone conversations with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content of the scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made to the scenario which allowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Shoreham Station Emergency Plan and Procedures and also provided the opportunity for the licensee to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in need of corrective action.
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on December 5,1989. Suggested NRC changes to the scenario made by the licensee were discussed during the briefing.
The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise activities to prevent disruption of normal plant activities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
______-
i..
.
.
,-
<
.
.
L
i 2.2 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events:
1.-
Loss of meteorological data due to a lightning strike; 2.-
Damage to fuel bundles being shuffled in the spent fuel pool; 3.
Loss of all Safety Relief Valve control power; i
4.
A fire in the West Switchgear Room affecting the Core Spray i
A discharge valve; l
S.
Loss of all circulating water pumps; 6.
Loss of High Pressure Coolant injection;
'7.
Release to the environment through the Service Water system;
8.
Loss of Reactor Core Isolation Cooling pump; and l
9.
Depressurization of the primary system and subsequent level i
recovery with low pressure injection.
2.3 Activities Observed l
During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed observations of the activation and augmentation of-the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staff and actions of ERO staff during
operation of the ERFs. The following activities were observed:
!
-
1.
Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario l
events; i
2.
Direction and coordination of 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 offsite radiological dose and consideration of protective actions; I
7.
Provisions for in-plant radiation protection; l
8.
Performance of offsite and in-plant radiological surveys;
l
.
.
.
,
9.
Maintenance of site security and access control; 10.
Performance of technical support, repairs and corrective actions; 11.
Assembly, acct,antability and evacuation of personnel; 12.
Fire-fighting practices; 13.
Preparation of press releases; and 14.
Critique of the exerciso.
3.0 Classification of Exercise Findinas Emergency Preparedness exercise findings are classified as follows:
Exercise-Strenaths Exercise strengths are areas of the licensee's response that provide strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions and implement the emergency plan.
Exercise Weaknesses Exercise weaknesses are areas of the licensee's response in which the performance was such that it could have precluded effective implementation of the emergency plan (in the event of an actual emergency in the area being observed).
Existence of an exercise weakness does not of itself indicate that overall response was inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public.
Areas for Imorovement An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significant negative impact on the ability to implement the emergency plan and response was adequate.
However, it should be evaluated by the licensee to determine if corrective action could improve performance.
4.0 Exercise Observations The inspectors observed licensee response actions in the emergency response facilities.
Control Room The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
The operators effectively implemented Emergency Operating Procedures and Implementing Procedures throughout the exercis,
,
.-
-
,
.:
.
.
_1
'
,-
2.
The Watch Engineer demonstrated good command and control.
3.
Timely notifications were made to LERO (LERO participation was limited to notifications). The licensee successfully demonstrated backup notifications to the New York State Warning Point and Suffolk County Warning Point.
The following exercise weakness was identified.
1.
Although the Unusual Event was declared, the Watch Engineer did not identify it based upon loss of meteorological capability in the Control Room. Additionally, the Shift Technical Advisor, Operations Manager and the oncoming Emergency Director did not recognize this initiating condition. The inspectors noted that the Alarm procedure being utilized did not flag the user to the Emergency Action Levels (50-322/89-10-01).
No areas for improvement were identified.
Technical Suonort Center (TSC)
The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
The Emergency Director demonstrated very good command and control and conducted frequent briefings.
2.
TSC staff were knowledgeable of plant conditions and emergency response actions.
3.
The TSC was promptly activated.
4.
TSC staff performed accurate core damage assessments.
,
5.
Information flow to other ERFs from the TSC was timely and I
accurate.
I No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following areas for improvement were identified.
l
'
1.
The TSC dose assessment staff utilized an instrument reading which was off-scale high to calculate the Service Water release.
The postulated reading was actually higher than the maximum of the E
instrument and resulted in a non-conservative estimate of the i
release.
2.
The Emergency Action Levels (EAL) for Alert 12 and Site Area l
Emergency 12 include reference to a high radiation alarm that is
'
not quantified and is essentially the same for both classifications. Although the exercise players took a
- -
conservative approach and classified the event as a Site Area Emergency, these EAls should be reviewed for clarit *
+
r
.
L
Operational Sucoort Center (OSC)
The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
The OSC has an excellent layout.
2.
The OSC Coordinator exhibited good command and control.
3.
The OSC repair team briefings and team dispatch were very good.
4.
The fire brigade response was excellent.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
No areas for improvement were identified.
Emeroency Operations Facility (E0F)
The following exercise strengths were identified.
i 1.
There was excellent command and control and frequent staff briefings by the Response Manager.
2.
The EOF was promptly activated.
3.
Excellent security was maintained through the E0F as well as the
!
News Media Center.
4.
A very good Protective Action Recommendation decision making process was demonstrated.
5.
The EOF technical staff demonstrated an exceptional awareness of verifying the availability of equipment prior to it actual No exercise weaknesses were identified.
,
l l
No areas for improvement were identified.
l-5.0 Licensee Critiaue l
l The NRC team attended the litansee's exercise critique on December 7, L
1989 during which the licensee's lead controllers discussed observations l_
of the exercise.
The licensee's critique was critical and thorough.
I The licensee indicated that these observations would be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
l l
l l
-
.
.
.
.*
-
- <,
I
6.0 Exit Meetino Following the licensee's self critique, the NRC team met with the licensee's re)resentatives listed in Section 1 to discuss findings as detailed in t11s report.
The NRC team leader summarized the observations made during the exercise.
The licensee was advised no violations or deviations were identified. The NRC team determir.ed that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's performance demonstrated they could implement their Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures in a manner that would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated that they would evaluate the NRC comments and observations and take corrective actions as appropriate.
_