IR 05000029/1987013
| ML20235J261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1987 |
| From: | Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235J255 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-87-13, 50-29-87-13, NUDOCS 8710010373 | |
| Download: ML20235J261 (7) | |
Text
,9l
,
'
..;
-
U.
S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY. COMMISSION
'
REGION-I Report No.
50-29/87-13
'
.i c
.l Docket No.
.50-29 License No.,
-;
i Licensee:
Yankee Atomic. Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road.-
Framingham,. Massachusetts 10701'
Facility.Name:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station
')
Inspection At:' Rowe, Massachusetts,
')
L:
Inspection Conducted:
August'.30 to September 2,:1987 y;)
Inspectors:
bw
-
i5D Specr,jklih, Emergency Preparedness-C.
Co date j
alist, EP&RPB, DRSS
.]
Approved by:
gee <A4ae"
7 V.[_.J/ Lagphis, Chief, Emergency -
'date -
Preparedness Section, EP&RPB, DRSS-
.;
I Inspection. Summary:
Inspection on August 30 to September.2, 1987 (Report No. 50-29/87-13)
(
l Areas Inspected:
Routine announced emc.rgency preparedness inspection.. The inspection areas included:
Changes to the
!
Emergency Preparedness Program; Licensee Reviews / Audits; Shift
.
Staffing and Augmentation; Security / Emergency' Preparedness
.
j c
Program Interface;.-Training; and open items identified in
previous. inspection reports.
'
Results:
No violations were identified.
.i
- '
![I'i
,
8710010373'870923 W
PDR ADOCK 05000029 Q
pg
_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _
--
_ _ - -
l
b
-
I l
t f
DETAILS
,
l 1.0 Persons Contacted j
l
- C.
R.
Clark, Training Manager
!
- W. Piethle, Manager Radiation Protection J
- D. H. White, Operations Training Supervisor j
- L.
Bozek, Quality Assurance Supervisor i
- D. McDavitt, Emergency Planner
- J.
Kay, Technical Services Manager
- R. Mellor, Assistant Technical Director j
- T.
Henderson, Technical Director
'
- L.
Heider, Vice President
- N.
St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent
R.
Sedgwick, Supervisor Supervisor
B.
Drawbridge, Assistant Plant Superintendent
R. Jodoin, Assistant Operations Manager l
M.
Debay, Senior Control Room Operator G.
Baird, Shift Supervisor P.
Suter, Senior Control Room Operator
- Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings l
During the inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's progress concernino the items opened during previous inspections (Inspection Reports 50-29/83-13, 50-29/84-03, and 50-29/87 03.
The status of these items is as follows.
(CLOSED) 83-13-01: Review emergency plan implementing
-
procedures and make revisions.
The inspector reviewed the specific areas identified in the inspection report and ascertained that revisions have been made to address each concern.
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
(CLOSED) 84-03-52:
Address the means to decontaminate
-
wounds.
l The emergency plan and implementing procedures address both decontamination and personnel injury.
Decontamination of i
_ _ _ -.
- _ _ -
-
._ - _ _ _____ - _
I
.3
,
wounds is performed by hospital personnel with health physics support provided by the licensee.
Agreements are
{
in place with the hospitals.
!
Based upon the above rev'iew, this area is acceptable.
(OPEN) 87-03-04:
Emergency Action Level's (EAL's) should
-
be evaluated for inconsistencies and to the guidance of
.;
The licensee has completed an initial review of the EAL's j
for inconsistencies and to the guidance of NUREG 0654.
Additional reviews are scheduled to evaluate the j
effectiveness of the EAL's in such areas as human factors-
{
and quantification of initiating conditions.
3.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program j
3.1 Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program
]
l There have been no significant or major changes to
the licensee's emergency preparedness program since j
the last inspection.
Changes which have taken
'
l place have been minor and have not adversely affected the licensee's overall state.of energency preparedness.
The licensee has in place j
appropriate procedures and mechanisms to assure that changes to the plan and procedures which could affect the overall state of' emergency' preparedness will be detected.
All changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures receive review by.
j the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC),
approval by station management, and distribution in accordance with approved procedures and NRC requirements prior to implementation.
Based upon the above review, this area.is acceptable.
3.2 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)
The following documents were reviewed:
OP-3340, Emergency Preparedness Training; Technical Administration Guideline #12, Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities lesson-plans and
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _.-_ _--
_
- - - - _ _
__-
.
l
'
practical walk through scenarios; attendance sheets; and test results.
The emergency' plan and implementing procedure delineate the training requirements for the'
,
'
I emergency positions.
The required annual training
..
has been completed for 1986, and is scheduled to be
completed for this calendar year.
The records for j
all personnel are kept in the training' department
,
I in both hard copy and computerized format.- The inspector noted several deficiencies in the
training program.
These include:
j
-
Many lesson plans are not current, reviewed or
approved; Lesson plans are not in place for specialized l
-
'
training such as Post Accident Sampling; Neither the emergency plan or the implementing
-
procedure describe the complete program requirements, nor are they in agreement with each other.
Reconciliation of the plan and procedure should include a matrix of training requirements versus emergency position; and
.)
i With the exception of operations requalification
-
training, there is no validation system in
'
place.
The inspector noted that these deficiencies have previously been identified by the licensee, and a course of corrective action has been initiated.
These items will be followed until successfully resolved.
This is an inspector followup item (50-29/87-13-01).
The inspector noted that the operations requalification program has been upgraded from annual cycle training to segmented training.
The segmented training occurs over the length ~of_the fuel cycle.
Since this cycle is longer than one year, it is recommended that administrative controls be put in place to ensure that personnel in the requalification program receive the required i
annual emergency preparedness training.
-
_
__.
_ - _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
, - - - _ _
_
l l
l
- d
-
J
.
The inspector; interviewed a select' sample of individuals in the emergency organization which included two Shift Supervisors and two Senior Control Room' Operators'who may be called _upon to be-Scenarios were chosen to.
L Emergency Director..
provide events with security implications.and a
]
fast breaking' event, and were given to each individual.
Detection, recognition and
.
_
classification was1 prompt and correct for theLgiven j
situations'.
Notifications, and any associated
{
protective action recommendations, would~have been-U
. prompt.
The operators were aware of the safety.
implications of events caused by sabotage.
There
'
are security procedures in1 place and the.
operator / security interface is established and j
adequate.
The inspector noted that the operators tended #
use the EAL's from the lowest'to highest classification and tended to stop at a' lower classification.
The licensee has. agreed _to
.
_
l evaluate the EAL's from a human factors standpoint (see section 2.0).
Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable, l
3.3 Independent Reviews / Audits The following-documents were reviewed:- Audit Plan, Y-87-14; Audit Report,.Y-87-14; RPG 51/87 Memo,
" Review of the Public Notifications System and.
Emergency Preparedness Interface Program";
YA-RPG-500, " Emergency Preparedness Program, (10CFR50.54t) Review; and various memo's to offsite agencies documenting required reviews and approvals.
The Quality Assurance Group from Yankee Atomic Power Corporation performs the annual emergency.
preparedness audit.
The audit was conducted on-March 9-13, 1987. _The audit team consisted of individuals experienced in QA audits as well as expertise in emergency preparedness.
The audit team performed a critical review of the licensee's' emergency preparedness program.
Several-areas of concern were identified including the training program-and staffing problems.- ' Additional
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _.. _ _ _ _ _.
'e l
,
areas identified for corrective actions included:
drill, omissions;. documentation problems; and
' emergency plan and implementing procedure discrepancies.
Corrective actions on the weaknesses identified by this audit and not-specifically addressed by this report will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection Based upon the above review, this area is acceptable.
j 3.4 Security / Emergency Preparedness Program Interface
!
Discussions were held with the Yankee Atomic Security Supervisor and.the Security Training Officer.
The purpose of the discussions-was to determine the interface, interaction and the degree of integration of the station security program with
_
the emergency preparedness program.
Green Mountain Security Services is the-security contractor for Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
All security officers' receive General Employee Training, Fire Brigade Training, and Radiological Emergency: Plan Training.
Security' personnel are also assigned membership on the plant ~ fire brigade.
Fire brigade retraining is required annually.
Emergency plan training for security officers i
covers security plan access for. emergency vehicles,
'
accountability, and access for the various.
emergency response facilities.
All security officers are required totrequalify annually, j
Training records, test scores and security program
activity records are maintained by the Security Department.
Based upon the above review, this' area is acceptable.
I l
3.5 Shift Staffing and Augmentation
!
-The emergency response organization-(ERO), both j
on-shift and augmentation personnel, are adequately-described in the Emergency Plan.
The ERO is-i trained and has a sufficient depth-of personnel to
be able to support protracted operations.
l
_o
._.
_
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
..
7.-
,
The licensee utilizes a combination of pager system notifications and telephone callouts.
The licensee conducts a callout drill annually.
.The results of the March 5, 1987 drill: indicated that problems existed with'the existing pager notification system.
The1pager problems resulted in several staff members.not'being~ notified.-This in turn
- resulted in. subsequent.telephonecnotifications not being performed.
.The inspector'noted that.these deficiencies have q
previously been identified'by the-licensee, and a
course of corrective action has been initiated.
j These items will-be followed until'successfully.
i resolved.
This isLan inspector followupiltem'
l (50-29/87-13-02).
4.0 Exit Meeting-
]
L The inspector met with the licensee personnel. denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of.the inspection to discuss
,
the' findings as presented in this report. The' inspector also discussed some areas for improvement.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate them'and
~
,
institute corrective actions as appropriate.
,
At no time during the inspection did the inspectors provide
!
any written information to the licensee.
<
!
l l
a i!
I
,