ML20236B585

Forwards Minutes from 870702 Mgt Meeting W/Util & State of Il in Glen Ellyn,Il Re Emergency Preparedness Items

ML20236B585
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/16/1987
From:	Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Gerstner W ILLINOIS POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8707290162
Download: ML20236B585 (3)

Text

-

l JUL 161987 Docket No. 50-461 Illinois Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. C. Gerstner Executive Vice President 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 '

Gentlemen:

This refers to the management meeting held at our office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, on July 2, 1987, between C. J. Paperiello and other Region III l personnel, Mr. D. Hall and others of your staff to discuss emergency l preparedness items. I The enclosed copy of our meeting report identifies areas discussed. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this meeting report.

Sincerely,

" Original signed by W.D. Shnfer" l Jack A. Hind, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Meeting Minutes l

cc w/ enclosure:  !

DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII 4 Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Mark Jason, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Control Division Richard Hubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public utilities Division H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division 8707290162 870716

, David Rosenblatt, Governor's PDR ADOCK 05000461 l Office of Consumer Servicer F PDR W. Weaver, FEMA, RV D. Matthews, EPB, NRR j/

,/ v ,

RIII RII RIII RI 1 RI 4 j 10 Foster /mnj kl t i /

r/ S 11 Kn'op ($JJa,er b (

(E5 )U  %

1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' REGION III Docket No. 50-461 License.No. NPF-55 ,

Licensee: Illinois Power-Company-Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Station Meeting At: Glen Ellyn, Illinois

. Meeting. Conducted: July 2, 1987 l l Meeting Summary l J

Meeting on July 2, 1987 Areas Discussed: .A special management meeting was conducted to discuss-emergency preparedness regulations, a recent letter sent by the licensee to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and the timeliness of the licenree's declaration of an unusual Event during a recent seismic event.

]

Persons Attending Illinois Power Company D. P. Hall, Vice President J. S. Perry, Manager - Nuclear Program Coordination )

F. A. Spangenberg, Manager - Licensing & Safety -l

'l Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region III.

]

C.. J. Paperiello, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, RIII l W. D. Shafer, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch l W. G. Snell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section.

J. E. Foster, Senior Emergency Preparedness Analyst M. L. McCormick-Barger, Reactor Project Inspector State of Illinois-

)

C. W. Miller, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1 Areas Discussed l

Letter to NRR The licensee had sent a letter to Dr. T. E. Murley of the Office of Nuclear i Reactor Regulation on April 28, 1987 (attached), indicating that there were. ,

inconsistencies in the NRC's emergency response. guidance. Specifically, the licensee had indicated that there was an inconsistency related to the criteria i

.-_ ____ - __-_ - ___-_____ _ - _ - w

y .

for declaring a General Emergency as_ provided in NUREG-0654 and in recent guidance provided by NRC Headquarters personnel. The licensee suggested that new guidance ~should be issued which would resolve these apparent inconsistencies.

It appeared to the Region 'III personnel that this letter was directly related to a Notice of Violation related to the untimely declaration of General Emergency in the licensee's last evaluated emergency exercise. Licensee-personnel indicated that they accepted the Violation as valid and had modified 1 their Emergency Plan and Procedures to preclude similar occurrences. They stated that the letter had not been intended to question the Violation, but to _

present concerns regarding the consistency of guidance which they had recently received from NRC Headquarters and'that contained in NUREG-0654.

Regional personnel indicated that they had understood the letter to be questioning the earlier Violation and stated that their enforcement action had been based solely on the licensee's Emergency Plan as approved at that time and the guidance applied had been consistent.with.that in NUREG-0654.

It was acknowledged that the primary NRC guidance document,'NUREG-0654, is in  !

need of revision in several areas to be consistent with the evolving emergency preparedness philosophy. Some of the changes in NRC philosophy are the result of experiences learned from the TMI and Chernobyl accidents and other incidents at U.S. plants in the recent past. NUREG-0654 revisions have been initiated several times and are still pending. A recent series of training l documents, NUREG-1210, also contains some guidance which is partially ~

inconsistent with that in NUREG-0654. The Deputy Regional Administrator acknowledged the concern that conflicting guidance could lead to. improper f actions on the part of a licensee. However, it was emphasized that NRC findings and enforcement have in the past and would continue to be based only on approved plans and procedures, not on guidance documents.

Seismic Event Unusual Event Declaration The timing of the licensee's declaration of an Unusual Event _during a recent )

l seismic event was also discussed. j l The licensee's Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme in place at the time of the seismic event provides for the declaration of an emergency based on monitoring  ;

equipment present in the Control Room. This equipment was out of service (no l plant shutdown requirement is associated with seismic equipment) at the time of the event. As a result, the requirement for declaring an emergency class l was apparently interpreted rigidly and an Unusual Event was not declared until I about nine hours after the earthquake. While an-emergency classification had I

not been made, the licensee had promptly notified the NRC and'sent personnel to check on the status of plant systems and the cooling lake dam. When information was available (through passive monitoring equipment which required evaluation) to indicate that earthquake levels had been present.in levels sufficient for a declaration, the Unusual Event was declared..

Licensee personnel acknowledged that the Unusual Event should have been declared earlier and stated that their procedures had been modified to provide for declaration of an emergency class based on earthquakes perceived by plant personnel or reported to the plant in addition to those indicated by Control Room monitoring equipment.

2

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