ML20247M997
| ML20247M997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1989 |
| From: | Lazarus W, Vito D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247M976 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-89-19, NUDOCS 8909260110 | |
| Download: ML20247M997 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000333/1989019
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ ,
>
. . .
,.
.
l
.
.
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
,
REGION I
!~
Report No.
50-333/89-19
Docket No.
50-333
License No. DPR-59
Category _
C
1
Licensee: Egy York Power Authority
-P.O. Box 41
,
Lycomina. New York 13093
,
Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Inspection At: _ Lycomina. New York
Inspection. Conducted: September 5-7 1281
.
Inspectors:
f
-
D.Vito/EPS,FRSSB,DRSS
/ date >
E. Fox, Sr. EPS, RI .
W. Schmidt, SRI, FitzPatrick
R. Plasse, RI, FitzPatrick
I
P9
Approved by:
w
W. C laz
s, Chief, Emergency Preparedness
date
Sect
, FRSSB, DRSS
Inspection Summary:
Insoection on September 5-7. 1989 (Inspection Report
No. 50-333/89-19)
Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection and
observation of the licensee's annual emergency exercise on September 6,1989.
The inspection was performed by a team of four NRC Region I personnel. The
State of New York and Oswego County participated to a-limited degree. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not observe the exercise.
Results: No' violations were identified.
Emergency resp .se actions were
adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the
public.
l
8909260110 890914
ADOCK 05000333
Q
PNU
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_ _ _ _
_____ ___-._____-.----.______________________
_
- _ _ _ _ -
l
1
-
V
p
-
,
.
.
,
DETAILS
1.0 -Persons Contacted
The following key licensee representatives attended the exit meeting on
September 7, 1989.
E. Berzins, Public Information Officer
i
i
W. Fernandez, Resident Manager
'
l'
H. Keith, Superintendent, Instrumentation and Controls
E. Mulcahey, Supervisor, Radiological and Environmental Services
W. Robinson, Quality Assurance Engineer
G. Vargo, General Supervisor, Radiological Engineering
A. Zaremba, Jr., Emergency Planning Coordinator
The inspectors also observed the actions of, and interviewed other
licensee personnel.
2.0
Emeraency Exercise
The James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant partial participation
exercise was conducted on September 6, 1989 from 8:00 A.M. to 1:30 P.M.
The State of New York and Oswego County participated to a limited
degree.
2.1
-Pre-Exercise Activities
Prior to the emergency exercise, NRC Region I had telephone
conversations with the licensee to discuss the objectives, scope and
content of the exercise scenario. As a result, certain portions of the
scenario were revised to ensure that all exercise objectives would be
met.
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on September 5, 1989 and
participated in discussions of emergency response actions anticipated
during the exercise. The licensee stated certain emergency response
activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in
exercise activities to prevent deviations from the scenario and to
ensure that normal plant operations were not disrupted.
The exercise scenario included the following events:
1.
ADS failure resulting in a shutdown required by the Technical
Specifications;
2.
Inadvertent HPCI initiation and accompanying transient causing
fuel cladding failures;
3.
A stuck open safety relief valve;
4.
Main Steam equalizing header rupture with MSIV failure resulting
in a steam leak to the turbine building; and
_
_ - _____ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
4
5.
Leakage past the turbine vent dampers resulting in a release to
the environment.
2.2
Activities Observed
During the conduct of the exercise, four NRC team members made
observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency
organization, activation of emergency response facilities, and actions
of emergency response personnel during the operation of the emergency
response facilities. The following activities were observed:
1.
Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events;
2.
Direction and coordination of the emergency response;
3.
Augmentation of the emergency organization and response facility
activation;
4.
Not ification 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,
consideration of protective actions, and recommendation of
protective actions to state officials;
7.
Provisions for in-plant radiation protection;
8.
Performance of offsite and in-plant radiological surveys;
9.
Maintenance of site security and access control;
10.
Performance of technical support, repairs and corrective actions;
11.
Assembly, accountability and evacuation of personnel;
12.
Preparation of information for dissemination at the Media Center;
and
13.
Critique of the exercise.
3.0
Exercise Observation _s
The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of
the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response
facilities, and use of the facilities were generally consistent with the
'
Vermont Yankee emergency response plan and implementing procedures.
I
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ . __________ - _ - _ -
_
__
__ - __
.__- - -
. _ _ .
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ .
!
'
.
.
.
.
4
3.1
Exercise Strenaths
The NRC team noted the following actions that provided strong positive
indication of the. licensee's ability ta cope with abnormal plant
conditions:
1..
The licensee effectively interacted with the State of New York and
Oswego County representatives in the EOF during the exercise,
contributing to scenario realism;
2.
Dose assessment. activities were proactive and aggressively
attempted.to evaluate potential radiological conditions based on
projected trends in plant conditions;
3.
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) were effectively utilized, event
classifications were correct, and subsequent notifications were
timely;
4.
Emergency Response Facility (ERF) communications, interactions,
and overall command and control were effectively demonstrated; and
5.
Staff augmentation was prompt and each ERF was activated in a
timely manner.
3.2
Areas for Improvement
The NRC team identified the following areas which did not have a
significant impact on overall performance during the exercise but in
which improvements could be made. These areas for improvement should be
evaluated by the licensee to determine whether improvements could
strengthen the emergency response effort. The areas for improvement are
indicated as-follows:
1.
Control room supervisory personnel dispatched an individual from
the control room to close a set of truck bay doors which had been
discovered to be open as part of the exercise scenario. The
Operations Support Center (OSC) was manned at the time. The
dispatching and tracking of this individual should have been under
the control of the OSC so as to relieve the control room staff
from this responsibility.
2.
There was no prohibition of eating, drinking and smoking in the
OSC prior to the establishment of habitability.
3.
Although appropriate Protective Action Recommendations (PARS) were
developed by the licensee during the exercise, the licensee
decisionmakers in the EOF appeared, at times, to spend excessive
time searching for a predetermined PAR (via existing charts and
procedural guidance) to validate their decisions. The licensee's
emergency response decisionmakers should not only be able to
recognize those conditions for which a predetermined PAR exists,
but should also recognize those conditions when one does not or
_ _ -
_ _ _ . - . _ _ -
_
_ - . _ - -
- - - _ _ _ . _ . - _ _
- - . - - - _ _ _ _ . - . - _
_ - . _,
-
- '.
i
L4
L
3
.
5
L
when an existing predetermined PAR is somewhat related to a given
situation but may not directly apply. The inspectors noted that
in these situations, the decisionmakers should consider the use of
existing PAR guidance along with other pertinent available
information (field radiological data, dose assessment,. evacuation
time estimates, plant conditions, state and. local agency. input) to
develop the-most appropriate PAR. This area will be reviewed as-
part of a subsequent routine EP inspection.
,
l
4.0
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Items
Based on discussions with licensee representatives, observations.of the
exercise, and review of records, the following items which were
identified during the previous exercise (Inspection Report 50-333/88-08)
were not repeated and are closed.
- (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-333/88-08-01.- TSC disorganized.
TSC command and control lacking.
Command and control was evident during the exercise. Personnel exhibited
- proper use of the emergency plan and implementing procedures and
knowledge of their respective emergency response organization
responsibilities. -The transfer of control of the emergency response
effort from the-TSC to the EOF was performed well.
Based on these
findings, this item is closed.
- (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-333/88-08-04 - Form EAP-4, which
provides input for Procedure EAP-18 was not used in TSC.
Appropriate portions of Procedure EAP-4, Dose Assessment Calculations,
were used during the exercise.
Based on this finding, this item is
closed.
5.0
Licensee Critioue
The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on September
7, 1989. The lead licensee controller for each emergency response
facility discussed the licensee's observations of the exercise. The
Emergency Planning Coordinator indicated that the observations would be
evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken. The critique was
thorough and comprehensive and demonstrated the licensee's ability to
perform a proper self-evaluation.
6.0
Exit Meetino and NRC Critioue
The NRC team leader met with the licensee representatives listed in
Section 1 of this report at the end of the inspection. The team leader
summarized the observations made during the exercise.
_ _ - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
__ -
. - .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'. .
'
..
6
.
_The licensee was informed that previously identified items were
adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there.
were areas identified for improvement, the NRC team determined that
within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's
performance demonstrated that they could implement their Emergency Plan
and Emergency Plan implementing Procedures in a manner which could
,
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.
At no time during this inspection did the inspectors provide written
information to the licensee.
.
s
- _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _