,. .

.,.

,,

p..-. . .

y4 ..

e. I'

, y ,

.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Region I q

I [ Report No. 50-289/90-80 -~'

~

Docket No. 50 269i

i. License No.- DPR-50

'

,

I Licensee: - GPU Nuclear Corporation i

P. O. Box 490 ;

Middletown, Pennsylvania 170574

Facility Name: 'Ihree Mlle Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1

Inspection Conducted: September 11 13, 1990!

| Inspection At: Londonderry and Susquehanna Townships, Pennsylvania

--

1x..

Inspectors: C.M.h ' M/Jff# lC. G. Amato,1(egional Team Leader, dateEmergency Preparedness Section, RI''

iR. Hasselberg, Jr., Sr. Emergency PreparednessSpecialist, PEPB/ Nuclear Reactor Regulations

4

- D. eaulieu, sident Inspector, TMI i

Approved: // h 90. J. I daru's', Chief, Eny6rgency 'date |d

Preparedness Section, FacilitiesRadiological and Safeguards Branch ,

Division.of Radiation Safetyand Safeguards *

L Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 1113,1990 (Inspection Report No' 50- - ',.

289/90 80)

Areas Inspected: Announced, routine, safety inspection of the licensee's annual, partial-participation, emergency preparedness exercise conducted on September 11-13,1990.

[, The inspection was performed by a team of three Region I and Headquarters personnel.u

Results: Two exercise weaknesses were identified. GPU Nuclear Corporation's staffresponse actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safetyof the public.

L

9010240041 901003PDR ADOCK 05000289Q PDC

_ _ _ __- _ -______-_ _-___ _ _ - _______. - --

[ ; 3.t, ,

1.

. .. I

DETAILS -

1. Persons Contacted .<

. .

.

The following personnel' attended the exit meeting. Unless noted otherwise,

| personnel listed below are GPU Nuclear Corporation staff. o

LP.~Ahern, Senior Staff Assistant ,

G.' Broughton, Director of Operations, TM1-1 jR. Cook, PWR Group Leader, Department Of Environmental Resources, '

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-P. Fiedler, Director, Nuclear Assurance Division and Vice PresidentG. Giangi, Manager, GPUNC Emergency Preparedness DepartmentH. Hukill, Director, TMI 1 Division and Vice President ,

G. Kuehn,;TMI-2 Site Operations Director ,,

, . A. Palmer, Radiation Control, Field Operations ManagerL R. Shaw, Radiological Controls Director

'

G. Simenotti, TMI Emergency Preparedness Department Manager!

R. Wells, TMI-1 Licensing Engineer |

The inspectors also interviewed'other licensee personnel.

2. EMERGENCY EXERCISE

The Three Mile Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1 announced, partial- 1

participation exercise was conducted 'on September 12,' 1990, from 7:30 a.m. to- 11:55 a.m. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania participated to a limited degree. '

2.1 Pre-exercise Activities

p The exercise objectives were submitted to NRC Region I on June 11,1990,and on July 11,1990, the licensee submitted the complete scenariopackage. Region I representatives had telephone conversations with the >

licensee's emergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content ofthe scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made to the scenario whichallowed adequate testing of the major portions of the Three Mile Island ;:

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Emergency Plan and Implementing :Procedures and also provided the opportunity for the licensee to !

demonstrate those areas previously identified by the.NRC as in need ofcorrective action. NRC observers attended a licensee briefing onSeptember 12,1990. The licensee stated that certain emergency responseactivities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede inexercise activities to prevent disruption to normal plant activities.

,

- n. .

.

e ,s. -

,A-s ..

n

3*

2.2 Exercise Scenario

The exercise scenario included the following events:

1. Excessive main turbine vibration;

: 2. Turbine generator and reactor trip;. . :),

.

Declaration of an Alert due to a primary to secondary leak;3.

' 4.' Failure of a' main steam relief value to close resulting in a directrelease pathway to the environment;

5. Plant cool.down; i

6. Failure of a suction valve to open preventing operation of the decayheat removal system;

7.. Closure of the main steam relief valve; and, jq

8.- Opening of the suction valve and operation of the decay heat. removal system.

l2.3 . Activities Observed i

During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC inspection team ' ]members made detailed observations of the activati_on and augmentation of !

the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) and the Emergency Response !

Organization (ERO) staff, and actions of the ERO' staff'during operation of ||7 the ERFs. The following activities were observed: 1

i

-|1. Correct use of control room procedures, j

ii2. Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events;:

3. Direction and coordination of emergency response; -

0 4. 1 Notification of licensee, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Countypersonnel and communication of pertinent plant status informationto Commonwealth personnel; ;

5. . Communications /information flow, and record keeping;

L

L :e

-

.__ _ _ _ _ _ _a

a... ,

,

U c.'- ;[, ,

. ..

.

4 1

6. ' Assessment and projection of off-site radiological dose and *

consideration of protective actions; and,

7. - Accident analysis and mitigation.q

i

3. CLASSIFICATION OF EXERCISE FINDINGSr

Emergency preparedness exercise findings are classified as follows. ,

.

!3.1 Exercise Strengths

Exercise strengths are areas of the licensee's staff response that providestrong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant. >

! conditions and implement the emergency plan implementing procedures.

3.2 Exercise Weaknesses

Exercise weaknesses are areas of the licensee's response in which the l

performance was such that it could have precluded effectiveimplementation of the emergency plan implementing procedures in theevent of an actual emergency in the area being observed. Existence of an y

,

exercise weakness does not of itself indicate that overall response wasL"

inadequate to protect public health and safety.

33 Areas for Improvement

.An area for improvement is an area which did not have a significantnegative impact on the licensee's ability to implement the Emergency Plan qImplementing Procedures and response was adequate. However, it shouldbe evaluated by the. licensee to determine if corrective action could

'

improve performance.<

|- 4. EXERCISE OBSERVATIONS

- The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation of the Emergency ResponseOrganization, Emergency Response Facilities, and use of these facilities weregenerally consistent with their Emergency Pian and Emergency Plan ImplementingProcedures. The following strengths, and areas for improvement were identified.

|

|l

|

|

|

Y '

> .m e .

|J ' | ,_|'

... ..

m, ..

9

5,

, l.:4.1- Simulator Contiel Room (Emergency Command Center) L

t s

No exercise strengths were identified.- a

1

| No exercise weaknesses were identified. ;

!,

The following area for improvement was identified. 0.,

1

- 1. At the beginning of the scenario, reactor operators did not closely,

follow reactor cooling system cool-down rate. !

I

4.2 Technical Support Center ' '('.4|W No exercise strengths, weaknesses or areas for improvement were<

identified.

4.3 Operations Support Center (OSC) -

The following exercise strength was identified. ;1

,;

1. The Maintenance Superintendent rapidly identified the cause of - !

valve failure and developed a repair plan for quick correction.,

The following exercise weakness was identified.,

1. Improper health physics practices were followed. Use was made of |non-representative survey and air sample data to determine .

'

radiation control practices for the emergency repair teams. 50-289/90-80-01

The following areas for improvement were identified. I

1. The OSC Coordinator's staff briefings were infrequent and not_.ioverly informative.

2. The tool shed key could not be located for ten minutes.,

4.4 Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) ,

s

The following exercise strengths were identified.-

1

1. The Technical Support Group staff drew on industry experiences toproject possible challenges to the reactor and develop worst casescenarios.

^_--______:__:__-__-_.__.-______ _-

y . i

!;t n; p ,

,

!

''

( -e,.

+ ;.

6'

2. The Emergency Preparedness Representative prior to the arrival of.the Emergency Support Director (ESD) placed the EOF in: i

operation and gave the ESD, upon his arrival, a very detailed turn- (rover briefing, t

3. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania representatives were well'

briefed and fully supported.,

The following exercise weakness was' identified.

1.' The staff of the Environmental Assessment Command Center '|(EACC) did not, at all times, correctly project doses due to lack of- 1understanding of plant conditions and failure to communicate with |the EOF Technical Support Group. Field data was not correlatedwith calculated doses. Dose data was not plotted. EACC staff did

_,

Lnot advise the ESD of projected dose values which could increaserapidly and if so could have exceeded Protective Action Guides for

. declaration of a General Emergency. 50-289/90-80-02

No exercise areas for improvement were identified. |

4.5 Exercise Control

No exercise strengths, weaknesses or areas for improvement were ic

Lidentified.

1

5. LICENSEE CRITIQUEt

The NRC team attended the licensee's exercise critique on September 13,'

i

1990 during which the licensee's lead controllers and observers discussed'

observations of the exercise. The licensee's critique was constructive andthorough.

6. EXIT MEETING

Following _the licensee's self-critique, the NRC team met with the licensee's '

representatives listed in Section 1 on September 13,1990 to discuss findingsas detailed in this report. The NRC team leader summarized the

| observations made during the exercise. The licensee was advised two| exercise weaknesses were identified. ~ The NRC team also determined that|- within the scope and limitation of the scenario, the licensee's performanceL demonstrated the capability to implement their Emergency Plan and

_ - - - - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -

r- _ ,

' .s , . -c. ,

. '*; ''

, _ . ,t

:n'

-

' 7?

! Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner that.wouldadequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the 'public,

.>

,

. !

r

'N,

$

?

i

I

[

l

s

,' l

|

|

|

|i

,

l,

,

'

.. - _ -