ML20127B570

Forwards Sser Input Updating Info in SER (NUREG-0420) Section 13.3 Re Emergency Preparedness Evaluation.Areas Addressed Include Emergency Classification Sys,Notification Methods & Public Educ

ML20127B570
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/17/1984
From:	Matthews D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20127B321	List: ML20127B318 ML20127B570 ML20127B910 ML20127C143 ML20127C445 ML20127C452 ML20127C461 ML20127C466 ML20128Q623 ML20128Q750 ML20128Q758 ML20128Q786 ML20128Q816 ML20128Q840 ML20128Q890 ML20128Q919 ML20128Q966
References
FOIA-85-190, RTR-NUREG-0420, RTR-NUREG-420 NUDOCS 8405010023
Download: ML20127B570 (10)

Text

,

EPB R/F April 17, 1384 /

MFMORANDUM FOR: Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch #2 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: David B. Matthews, Acting Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENT TO SER FOR SHOREHAM Enclosed is our input on emergency planning for the supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This material up-dates information contained in Section 13.3 (Emergency Preparedness Evaluation) of the Shoreham SER, Supplement 1, September 1982 (NUREG-0420) and SER Supplement 3, February 1983.

David B. Matthews3 Acting Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

EP Input for Shoreham SER cc: E. L. Jordan, IE . DISTRIBUTION J. N. Grace, IE DBMatthews, IE S. A. Schwartz, IE DCS R. C. DeYoung, IE DEPER R/F F. Xantor, IE EPB R/F - ,'

J. R. Sears, IE ,f MC b EP4 EP E

~

JRSears:sc FrJntor DBMatthews )

4/p/84 4/fj,/84 4/6/84 f .7

.~

SUPPLEMENT TO SHOREHAM SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT l

13.3 Emeraency Preparedness Evaluation SER Supplement No.1, dated September 1981 (NUREG-0420), provides the staff evaluation of the applicant's emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. In SSER 1, the staff identified deficiencies requiring revisions or additional information and the applicant responded' by providing the staff with tre required information. The staff reviewed the information and published its findings in happlement No. 3 to the SER dated February 1983. SSER 3 identified open and confirmatory items which had not yet been completed. The NRC emergency preparedness staff has visited the reactor site and evaluated the applicant's progress in resolving the open and confirmatory items. This report discusses those items. The order of presentation corresponds to the listing of deficiencies that appear in Section 13.3 of SSERs 1 and 3.

13.3.1 Assignment of Responsibility (Organizational Control)

Supplenent No. 3 to the SER identified the following open items:

(1) The New York State site-specific emergency plan for Shoreham is still under development and has not yet been formally submitted to the NRC, (2) The Suffelk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan is still under development and has not yet been formally submitted to the NRC,

2 The Suffolk County authorities have decided not to participate further in offsite emergency planning and the State of New York will not impose an independently developed plan upon the local authorities.

In the absence of State and local plans, the applicant has developed their own offsite radiological emergency response plan for Shoreham, referred to as the LILCO Transition Plan, and the implementing procedures for this plan. The Transi-tion Plan, Revisions 1, 2, and 3, has been submitted to the NRC and, at the i request of the NRC, reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 1

(FEMA). FEMA provided its findings on Revision 3 to the Transition Plan by letter dated March 15, 1984. FEMA identified 32 plan inadequacies and '

raised . concerns regarding the applicant's legal authority in certain areas of the Transition Plan. The determination of the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness for Shoreham remains an open issue.

~

13.3.2. Emergency Classification System SSER 3 documented that the applicant had committed that all remaining inforsation on Emergency Action Levels would be submitted to the NRC for review before fuel load.

In a submittal dated June 3,1983, the applicant provided all the requested

information on Emergency Action Levels. We have reviewed this information and find that it complies with Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654. We conclude.that this item has been satisfactorily resolved.

i  ; .

i 13.3.3 Notification Methods and Procedures Supplement No. 3 stated that the applicant p1sns to coordinate protective action recommendations with local and State emergency personnel when the offsite plans are available for review. As indicated in Section 13.3.2 of this report, County and State plans have not been submitted. The applicant has submitted their Transition Plan to compensate for this inadequacy; however, this is considered to be an open item pending the resolution of the offsite emergency preparedness issue.

13.3.4 Public Education and Information Lack of coordination with Suffolk County on the public information program

! was identified in SSER 3 as an open item.

Since January,1983, the applicant has been mailing to all electric service customers within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone a monthly newsletter which provides generic information about emergency preparedness. The infor-mation provided in the newsletter to date has included a description of the alert and notification system including the siren system, tone alert radios and the emergency broadcast system (station WALK); basic information about radiation, and information about evacuation. On February 17, 1984, the applicant submitted revision 3 of the public information brochure which inciuces improved maps, additional information on the classification of radio-1c;' cal erergencies, and information for the hearing impaired and disabled.

The staff concludes that coordination with Suffolk County on the public information program is not presently feasible as a result of Suffolk County's refusal to participate in Shoreham emergency planning. However, on the basis of our review of the emergency planning information already dis-tributed through the newsletter and our review of the public information brochure which the applicant plans to mail to all residents in the 10-mile EpZ, we conclude that the applicant has provided a satisfactory response to this item.

13.3.5. Emergency Facilities and Equipment The applicant had comitted, as documented in SSER 3, that the Technical Support Center, the Emergency Operations Facility, and the Operations Support Center would be functional before fuel load. The applicant had also comitted that the backup meteorological tower would be functional before fuel load and agreements would be made with offsite agencies for seismic, meteorological and hydrologic information.

Based on a review of infomation in the emergency plan, the results of the emergency plan implementation appraisal conducted at the Shoreham facility, and on observations made during visits to the Shoreham site, the staff finds that, on an interim basis, the emergency response facilities (ERFs)

- - _. _ . _ ~ - - .. -_

I i

and equipment at Shoreham are adequate to support a response effort in the

] event of a radiological emergency. In addition, information obtained during I

the site visits has established that the backup meteorological tower is operational and the applicant has made agreements with Lamont Laboratories for seismic information and the National Weather Service for meteorological and hydrologic information. The staff concludes that this issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

1 l Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, " Requirements for Emergency Response Capa-l bility", which was issued via Generic Letter No. 82-33 dated December 17,

, 1982, provided additional clarification for TMI-related items in NUREG-0737 including ERFs. As indicated in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, the staff will conduct a post-implerentation appraisal of the applicant's emergency I

response capability against the requirements specified in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, including the adequacy of the completed ERFs, on a schedule

to be developed between the applicant and the NRC.

13.3.6 Accident Assessment The applicant had committed, as documented in SSER 3, to complete installation of equipment necessary for radiological accident assessment.

t

. Based on information obtained during the onsite emergency plan implemen-tation appraisal and subsequent site visits, the staff has verified that

- = - -. - - . _. _. - - _ - - . - - . . _ - _ - - - _ , - ._.----__--_- - . - _ ,

the applicant has completed installation of radiation effluent monitors, in-plant radiciodine instrumentation, and containment high range radiation monitors. The applicant has also completed installation of the Radiation Monitoring System computer for computing offsite radiological consequences based on either measured or assumed radiation source terms and site meteor-ology. The staff finds that this issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

13.3.7 Protective Response SSER 3 indicated that the applicant had committed to complete installation of equipment for respiratory protection before fuel load.

A facility for testing and fitting respirators and a refilling system have been installed onsite and are operational. In addition, implementation procedures have been written and. approved by plant management for operation.

The staff finds 'that this item has been satisfactorily resolved.

l 13.3.8 Radiological Emergency Response Training SSER 3 identified that the applicant had developed a training program for the Suffolk County Police, but the police had not responded to the applicant's offer to provide training.

.?

I The staff finds that there still has been no acceptance by the Suffolk ,

, County Police of the training offered by the applicant. In the LILCO Transition Plan, certain police functions in a radiological emergency at Shoreham would be performed by LILCO personnel, who are being trained to 4

perform such functions. The staff considers that this item is related to

, offsite preparedness and will remain open pending resolution of the offsite emergency preparedness issue at Shoreham.

13.3.9 Emergency Plan Implementation Appraisal

During the period of August 23 - September 2,1982, the NRC conducted an onsite appraisal of the applicant's capability to implenent the emergency plan. This appraisal was confined to elements of the SNP'S emergency plan (onsite) and did not address elements of the LILCO Transition Plan (offsite).

The findings of the emergency preparedness appraisal, and the applicant's

? commitment to re' solve the deficiencies noted therein by specified times, were transmitted to the applicant in a report dated September 13, 1982.

In letters dated October 29, 1982, February 14, 1983, and April 21, 1983, the applicant reported to the NRC their progress in resolving the deficiencies.

During the period of December 5-9, 1983, the NRC conducted a followup onsite 4

5 0

4 .

1 s

v- -- ---e.v- .-- w, ,w.mw_.-,_.... -.,_,.---.--w, e-,,e,v,r,-- c.. -...m~,..-,- .,-.,-.-~e- y - - - - - . . . , , . . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - . -

r -

. .. e reappraisal of the applicant's progress in resolving the deficiencies identified in the original inspection. The report of the reappraisal, dated February 6,1984, identified four open items to be resolved. The applicant has made further progress in resolving these items, and the staff has deter-mined that as of April 1,1984, the status of open items was as follows:

(1) Four Radiation Monitoring System monitors remain to' be calibrated. .

(2) A replacement valve has been installed in the Post-Accident Sampling System (PASS); the valve must be tested and calibrated.

(3) NAWAS and RECS telephone drops in the New York State EOC require New York State agreement.

~ ~

(4) The audibi1ity of the onsite public address system will be adjusted to the ambient noise kevel after the plant is in operation.

(5) The distribution of the public information brochure remains to be completed. The staff will request that the applicant distribute the public information brochure prior to fuel load.

0 mm

1 I

The NRC reapprasial also determined that the applicant has completed a j review and update of the emergency plan implementation procedures.

The reappraisal also detemined that the applicant has completed the installation, testing and development of procedures for the following:

the computerized dose assessment system; the radiation and effluent monitoring system (with the exception of the calibration not.ed above);

emergency response facilities; decontamination facility; and EAL instru-i mentation set-points.

I The staff has detemined that resolution of the two remaining open items related to equipment; i.e., calibration of the remaining radiation monitor and the valve in the PASS system, can be confimed through re-inspection prior to fuel loading. The other open items are related to the resolution of the offsite emergency preparedness issue.

13.3.9 Conclusion

Based on a review of infomation provided by the applicant, the results of the onsite emergency plan implementation appraisal, and additional staff visits to the site, the staff has detemined that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate pro-tective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency that i .

may occur during fuel loading and low-power operations (up to 5% of rated

. power).

_ _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . , ._ _ _ _..___ _ _ . __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _