IR 05000387/1991019
| ML17157A922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1991 |
| From: | Conklin C, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A921 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-91-19, 50-388-91-19, NUDOCS 9111080210 | |
| Download: ML17157A922 (9) | |
Text
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
,Region I Report Nos.
Docket Nos.
License Nos.
50-387/91-19 and 50-388/91-19 50-387 and 50-388 NPF-14 and NPF-22 Licensee:
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Facility Name:
Inspection:
Inspection At:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station October 15-17, 1991 Serwick, Pennsylvania Inspectors:
C. Con lin, Regional Team Leader Q~
II date Approved:
P. Bonnett, DRS J. Stair, RI, SSES J. Laughlin,.DRSS E. McCabe, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section,'Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards s<)soiq I date Inspection Summary: Inspection on October 15-17, 1991 (Combined Inspection Report Nos.
50-387/91-19 and 50-388/91-19).
Areas Inspected:,
Announced, routine, safety inspection of the licensee's full-participation emergency preparedness exercise.
Results:
The licensee's response actions for this exercise were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
No violations, deviations or exercise weaknesses were identifie ETAILS persons Contacted The following personnel attended the exit meeting.
J. Minneman, Supervisor Nuclear Emergency Planning H. Woodeshick, Special Assistant to the President R. Byram, Vice President Nuclear Operations H. Stanley, Superintendent of Plant - SSES T. Markowski, Dayshift Supervisor G. Jones, Manager, Nuclear Engineering I. Kaplan, Manager, Energy Information Center R. Barberich, Manager, Nuclear Services R. Doty, Supervisor, Radiological and Environmental Services R. Stotler, Manager, Nuclear Security The inspectors also interviewed and observed the actions of other licensee personnel.
EMERGENCY EXERCISE P
S Electric Station conducted a full-participation exercise on Th Fd 1E October 16,,
3991, from 3:00 p.m.
to 11':00 p.m.
e e era Management Agency
{FEMA)
obse e
'
ed the offsite performance by the Commonwe tlth of Pennsylvania, Luzerne and Columbia counties, and a
ecte municipalities..
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities The complete scenario package, including obj'ectives was submitted to the NRC on Jul 31, 1991.
Following the NRC review, Region I representatives
d tele hone conversations with the licensee s emergency p p
)a e ep
a result onl minor to iscuss d'.
tl e scope and content of the scenario.
Asa, y
of the revisions were ma e
o d
t the scenario which allowed adequate testing
er enc Plan ortions of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Emergency an major portions o d Im lementine Procedures and also provided t e oppo the o ortunit for the licensee to demonstrate those areas previously identi.fied b'he NRC as. in need of corrective action.
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on October 16, 1991 6 1991 to discuss the revised scenario.
'The licensee stated that certain emergency response tctivities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise actlvlties wou
<<ct~vit>e~ to preve activities to prevent disruption to normal plant activitie.2 Exercise Scenario The exercise scenario included the following events:
Seismic event and subsequent after shocks; Steam line break in the High Pressure Coolant Injection system; Loss of coolant through a Reactor Recirculation piping break; Fuel damage; Release to the environment; and Declaration of Notification of Unusual Event,
.
ert Site Area Emergency and General Emergency.
The above events caused the activation of the licensee's onsite and offsite emergency response facilities.
213 Activities Observed i
the conduct of the exercise, NRC inspection team members made etai e
'
u mentation of the Emergency detailed observations of the activation and augm Response Facilities and actions of the Emerg y
p enc Res onse Organization sta during operation o
e f th Emergency Response Facilities.
The following activities were observed:
1.
2.
. 3..
5.
6.
7.
10.
Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario, events; Direction and coordination of emergency response; Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies; Communications/information flow, and record keeping; Assessment and projection of offsite
adiolo ical dose and consideration of protective actions; Provisions for inplant radiation protection; Performance of.offsite and inplant radiological surveys; Provisions for communicating information to the public; Performance of technical support, repa'ir and corrective actions; and Maintenance of site security, access control and accountability o
personne CLASSIFICATION OF EXERCISE FINDINGS
~ Emergency preparedness exercise findings are classified as follows.
Exercise Strengths
's stren ths are areas of the licensee's response that provide strong positive in ica ion
'
'
b al lant conditions and implement the emergency plan and procedures.
Exercise Weaknesses reas of the licensee's response in which the performance I"xer is w aknes s are a was such that it could have precludeed effective implementation o e em e event of an actual emergency in the area being observe
.
xis e ex ',
fi dicate that overall response was inadequate to exercise weakness does not of itsel in icate a
protect public health and safety.
Areas for Improvement Anareaf
rim rovement is an area w ic i
n h
h d'd ot have a significant negative impact mer enc lan and response was adequate, however on the ability to implement the emergency p an an res it should be evaluate y
e ic d b th 1'nsee to determine ifcorrective action cou performance.
EXERCISE OBSERVATIONS the licensee's activation of the Emergency Response The YRC te im noted that e
icen er enc Res onse Facilities t
s, an us (
o)
g y
p ficilities were generally consistent with their emergency pan an im tacihties were gen 4.1 Control Rooiil tl reco nized by the control room staff Changing plant conditions were promp y g
'nd they were timely about entering app p
'
h t
a ro riate rocedures throug out ie 0 erators were also very thorough in followingapplicab e operating sitio Sp~c~fic Pro ed res procedures and in using their emergency p an osi ion (PSPs).
The Shift Supervisor assumed the role of Emergency irector d
od command and control. Communications among the shift'nd maintaine goo comm s were lax in that v
e enerall
~ood.
However, some oral communication t alwa s used and there was some informality.
Some r"p a
""'
"
o y
information was not communicated dur'ng i
the exercise, u
)
t im act on the correctness or timeliness of the shift response.
h the Unusual Event and Alert were accurate and Offsite notifications for bot t e nusua v
. timel
. The communicator was able to effectively inte well as make the required offsite notifications, e s i t kill to dd obl strated ood diagnostic and brainstorming s
s o a i
'
h Hi h Pressure Coolant Injection steam This was especially evident during t e ig line break.
The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
Plant conditions were promtly recogniz'zed and classifications were correct and timely.
2.
Notifications were timely.
3.
Shift crew demonstrated very good diagnostic skills with regard to problem solving.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following exercise area for improvem vement was identified.
1.
Oral communications were informal at times resultin in a loss of information.
Technical Support Center The Technical Support Center {TSC) was pr p y rom tl activated subsequent to Several ke staff reported to the control room the declaration on an Alert.
y for iefing by th ir counterpa p io o
p of proce ures an d
and especially the PSPs were demonstrated y
s a
.
trol.
He ke t his staff informed of D exercised ood command and control.
e ept is ed riorities for tasks and maintained good communications (ERF )
Th l
'f'
d b
t otificatio s er enc res onse facilities s
.
l Site Area Emergency was correct and timely, an su seq tie ie e TSC staff ke t apprised of environmenta iy.
nditionsand performed numeroushabitabilitysurveysof the
.
ie con i ion essentiaI TSC personnel and the relocation of the terna e Command Center (ASCC) in response to degrading plant con
'
i
'
conditions.
The following exercise strengths were identified.
Good prioritization of tasks by the E Th evacuation of non-essential TSC personn el and the relocation of ASCC staff demonstrated a
good awareness e evac ess of environmental conditions and protection of staff.
3.
Communications among ERFs was strong.
No exercise weaknesses or areas for improvemen t were identified.
4,3 Operations Support Center The 0 erations Support Center (OSC) w s p p y a
rom tl activated after the and t. The OSC Supervisor demonstrated good comman declaration of an Alert.
e u
boards were ol over OSC activities.
Status boards and briefing ersonnel.
The OSC Supervisor conducted ood briefings and debriefings of all dispatched repair teams.
evera n ia is atched throu hout the exercise and they demonstrated a good
idiid lo Idi knowledge of the plant and associated equipmen
.
n in T'3 ducted a smear surveywithout gloves and improperly han e
t e by p ng ac
'
'
I OSCS the India Teams shifted to t e d t eive good briefings and debriefings'n t >e p
the TSC.
exhibited good command and control of the teams from
)e The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
The OSC demonstrated good control of the India teams, including use of statu's boards, briefings and debriefings.
No exercise weaknesses were identified.
The following exercise area for improvemenent was identified.
1.
A member of India Team 13 did not demonstrate good health physics work practices in a
a th t a smear survey was conducted by an individual ro erl handled.
not using gloves and the smears were improperly han e
.
Enrergency Operations Facility Fo)lowjng the declaration of the Alert, plan p
ant staff re orted to the Emergency
'0 erations Facility (EOF) to ensure the facility was properly setup an a
e ui ment o erable.
The EOF was fully activated after the Site rea Emergency was declared and y
g a
(GO} in Allentown. Some functions were accomplished rom t e to rctiv rtion most notably the liaison with offsite agencies.
The Recovery
ted effective. command and control.
Several briefin s were held with key staff, and included the T ter (MOC) b telephone.
Significant events were promptly f'h 6 1 E c a.
'
'
d the subsequent Protective Action d discussed-during these brie mgs.
e classification was timely and correct an t e su se ecommendation P
g was con ecom
'AR)
onservative and timely. The initial PAR was
'v s ofboth the Bureau of Radiation Protection discussed with the representatives o
o e
{BRP) and Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency{,prior o PAR and subsequent PARs, were developed utilizing plant orolo ical release and,offsite arameters.
PARs and their bases were fullydiscussed with BRP and h
EOF.
Throughout the exercise, the health re resentatives present at t e sant
" h t 'f'alculations based upon various p an phy
'sics staff conducted w a i
e BRP and PEMA representatives aware of these conditions.
They kept the an e s and calculations.
e a so Th EOF
conducted numerous habitability surveys an, nted the RM recommended evacuation of the EOF to when conditions warrante, t e to exercise time the Alternate EOF-(the evacuation was not performed due to exercise
'onstraints).
It was note t >at a i
d
PSP is available to give guidance regarding t'
criteria.
habitabilty of the an ac i
'
EOF d
t'on guidelines for dose and relocation cri eria.
However, it does not call or t e f
h EOF ventilation system to be placed in the EOF recirculation mode unti a ter-a i i
'1 f-habitability is affected by a plume. Ifthe EO rior to the ventilation system had been placed in the recirculation mode prior o
itabilit of the EOF would have been maintained and a o p
relocation to t e h
Alternate EOF would not have been necessary.
roug oth lant the exercise the main i
'a'ned excellent communications with b p,
staff and offsite agencies.
The following exercise strengths were identified.
1.
Classification of the General Emergency was timely and correct.
PARs were uickly developed utilizing plant conditions, as well as swereq
'ertinent offsite parameters.
The P~ s, inc u ing PARs, were discussed with BRP and PEMA representatives in the EOF.
3.
There was very good interaction between the EOF and other facilities by telephone, particularly regarding significant events.
No exercises weaknesses were identi.ie
.
'.'.
The following exercise area for improvemenent was identifie.5 T
PSPs for EOF habitability should address the issue of placing the 1.
he s or EOF ventilation system in the recirculation mode prior o e
rior to arrival of a plume; Media Operations Center The Media Operations Center (MOC) was initially activated in the Energy Information Center.
e The MOC coordinated with the control room to receive current p ant status, as w
t t s well as coordinated with the counties and ennsy v OC.
When a Luzerne county had media representatives present at the M en the MOC at the YMCAin Berwick, a briefing was decision was made to open t e a
he remainder held and t en a
o.
h h lf of. the staff proceeded to Berwick.
The remain er
'ck:
There were continue o
un d t f nction until relieved by the staff at Berwic:
nties of Luzerne and f
t discussions between the licensee, the counties o
Columbia, and Pennsylvania prior to all press briefings and requen i
r d all news releases.
The briefin s were well conducted and informative.
All participants were knowledgeable regarding their agencys actions.
e ne tngs participated with individuals both at the MOC y
and b
a live satellite connection.
This process worked very well.
The following exercise str'engths were identifie
.
ed.
1.
Briefings were informative and frequent.
2.
A good use of staff was demonstrated to effect a transfer of MOC operations from the Energy Information Center to the Berwick YMCA.
3.
There was excellent'interface between the license,e Commonv,ealth and counties of Luzerne and Columbia.
No exercise weaknesses or exercise areas for improvement were identified.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items Based u on discussions with licensee representatives, exam amination of procedures and d
b the NRC team during the exercise,'reas for im >rovement identified during the previous annual emergency exercise
~ om ine
. 50-387/90-07 and 50-388/90-07) were acceptably. demonstrated and not repeated.
CLOSED)
50-387/90-07-01 and 50-388/90-07-01:
Although the OSC provide to the technical staff, its overall function was no '
y adequate support to e
in~ this exercise.
implemented.
The OSC function was efficiently implemented during
Licensee Critique and Exit Meeting The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on October 17, 1991 during which the licensee's lead controllers and observers discussed observations of the exercise.
The licensee's critique was'constructive and thorough. Items'that require corrective action were identified.
'ollowing the licensee's self-critique, the NRC team met with the licensee's repre'sentatives listed in Section 1 to discuss findings as detailed in this report.
The NRC team leader summarized the observations made during the exercise.
The licensee was advised that no exercise weaknesses were identified. The NRC team also determined that, within the scope and limitation of the scenario, the licensee's performance demonstrated the ability to implement their Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner th it would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.