IR 05000029/1982006
| ML20052D192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Crocker H, Sakenas C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052D188 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-82-06, 50-29-82-6, NUDOCS 8205060350 | |
| Download: ML20052D192 (4) | |
Text
..
.
U.S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No. 50-29/82-06 Docket No. 50-29 License No. DPR-03 Priority
-
Category C
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC)
1671 Worcester Road framingham, Massachusetts- 01701 Facility Name:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS)
Inspection at:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: March 24-26, 1982 h
Ce-h_
V f' N e Inspectors:k.Shkenas, Tea [Lsader,EPS,RI da(e' (igned T. Foley, Senior Resident Inspector, Yankee Nuclear Power Station R. Smith, Inspector, EPS, RI W. Madden, Inspector, EPS, RI J. Sears, EPLB, HQ B. Zalcman, EPDB, HQ M. Lindell, Battelle, HARC J. Mann, Battelle, PNL G. Stoetzel, Battelle, PNL b
19'
2'
Approved by:
2 /,
7. W. CFocker, CMef, Emergency dats s'14ned Preparedness Section, DEP&OS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 24-26,1982 (Report No. 50-29/82-06)
Area Inspected:. Routine, announced emergency preparecness inspection and-observation of the licensee's annual emergency exercise.
The inspection involved 144 inspection hours by a team of nine NRC Region I, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, and NRC contractor personnel.
Results: No violations were identified.
8205060350 820420
-
PDR ADOCK 05000029
,,
.
.-
-
-.
-
-
.
.
Details 1.
Persons Contacted L. H. Heider, Vice President, Operations, Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(YAEC)
H. A. Autio, Plant Superintendent, Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS),
J (YAEC)
B. Drawbridge, Technical Director, (YNPS)
<
i N. St. Laurant, Assistant Superintendent (YNPS)
J. Staub, Technical Services Manager, (YNPS)
'
R. Sedgewick, Security Supervisor, (YNPS)
E. Chatfield, Training Manager, (YNPS)
L. French, Plant Engineer, (YNPS)
J. Trejo, Radiation Protection Manager, (YNPS)
J. Robinson, Director, Environmental Engineering, Yankee Nuclear Services Division, (YNSD), (YAEC)
J. Mcdonald, Radiation Protection Managar, (YNSD)
P. Casey, Radiation Protection Group, (YNSD)
D. Holsinger, Senior Emergency Planner, (YNSD)
The team also observed and interviewed other licensee emergency response personnel as they performed their emergency response functions.
2.
Emergency Exercise The Yankee Nuclear Power Station emergency exercise was conducted on March 25, 1982 from 6:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.
a.
Pre-exercise Activities The NRC team of observers met with the licensee on March 24, 1982 and reviewed the nature and scope of the exercise scenario. The licensee coordinated the exercise scenario with state officials from Vermont and Massachusetts. The scenario included an offsite radio-activity release under meteorological conditions that could require response on the part of offsite agencies. Aspects of the Emergency Plan which were not included in the exercise scenario were first-aid and/or rescue and activation of the station fire brigade.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's exercise program appeared to be acceptable.
.
b.
Exercise Observations During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, nine NRC team members made detailed observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency organization; establishment of the emergency response facilities; and actions of emergency response personnel during the
,
operation of these facilities.
The following activities were observed:
'
.
_
_
..
.
.
I i
I
'
'
(1) detection, classification, and assessment of the events making up the scenario; (2) direction and coordination of the emergency response; (3) notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent information; (4) evacuation, assembly, and accounting for licensee personnel; (5) assessment and projection of radiological data and consideration of onsite and offsite protective actions; (6) performance of offsite radiological surveys; (7) maintenance of site security and access control; (8) performance of technical support; (9) performance of repair and corrective actions; and
'
(10) provision of information to the public.
The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, establishment of the emergency response
,
facilities, and actions in and use of these facilities were generally
'
consistent with their emergency response plar and implementing procedures. However, the team did find areas for licensee improvement which are discussed below.
'
(1) Presentation of cue cards to emergency personnel should be dsc-in a manner to avoid prompting.
(2) The plant page was difficult to hear in the Operations Support Center.
(3) The flow of information in the Emergency Operations Facility should be improved to assure that it is received by the cognizant individual in a timely manner.
(4) Information used in dose projection, i.e., nomograms, should be verified by another staff member.
(5) Procedure check off lists should be utilized as tasks are completed to avoid missing a required action.
.(6) Estimates of offsite dose should take into account plant.
status, repair time and meteorological conditions, in addition to release rate.
,
_,
_
-
,
-
_ _.
_
.
.
(7) Improvements should be made in the area of briefing the media on radiological conditions through staff training and visual aids.
(8) Teams for offsite monitoring were not used effectively, spending too much time waiting for instructions.
More than four air samples should have been collected by the two teams.
(9) Offsite samples were not adequately labeled to assure accurate identification at a later date.
(10) Offsite dose measurements should include both open and closed window readings to provide better information on plume location.
(11) An attempt should be made to traverse the plume while performing dose monitoring, and aerial surveys should be considered due to the uneven terrain surrounding the site.
(12) Modify Offsite Monitoring procedure to assure that backup instruments are properly selected and checked prior to -field use, c.
Post Exercise Critique The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on March 26, 1982, during which exercise controllers and observers presented their observations and key exercise participants discussed their reactions to the exercise. Areas identified as needing improvement were highlighted and the licensee indicated that these would be evaluated and appropriate corrective action taken.
3.
Exit Meeting Following the licensee's post-exercise critique, the NRC team met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report. The team leader presented the findings of the NRC inspection and informed the licensee that their exercise performance demonstrated that they could implement their Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures in a manner which would adequately protect the health and safety of the public.
However, there were areas in addition to those identified by the licensee in their post exercise critique, where improvement s should be made, and the improvement items previously described in section 2.b were discussed.
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated that evaluation and resolution of the identified improvement items would begin immediately.
_