IR 05000213/1988016

Insp Rept 50-213/88-16 on 880830-31 & 0901.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Program

ML20206D722
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	11/04/1988
From:	Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206D703	List: IR 05000213/1988016 ML20206D700
References
50-213-88-16, IEIN-83-28, NUDOCS 8811170232
Download: ML20206D722 (10)

Text

.

,

.

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.VMISSION

REGION I

Report No.

50-213/88-16 Docket Nc.

50-213 License No.

OPR-16 Licensee:

Connecticut Yankee Atemic Power Company P. O. bot 270 Hartford, Cinnecticut 06141-0270 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At: Berlin and Haddam Neck, Connecticut Inspection Condueted: August 30-31 and Septenber 1, 1988 Inspector:

(?,

!bn '.'.-

/ k '; G / A - y ! l / W t. G. Amato, Esergency Preparedness Specialist, date

'

Emergency Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS

- ft:

__ _

1. V7

~

Approved By:

W. J.4 rus ief Emergency Preparedness date Se.tirn, FRSS, DRSS I n 5p_ec t i on,S umu ry : Inspection on August 30-31 and September 1,1988 (Inspection baport No. $67213/88-16)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced, safety inspection of the licensee's e:rergency preparednass program r:onducted on August 30-31 and September 1,1988.

Results: No violations, deviations or unresolved items were identified.

se11170232 881107 ADOCK0500gg3 DR

.

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _

_ _ _

-

.

-

.

.

'

.

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following Heddam Neck Plant and Northeast Utility Service Company (NUSCO) personnel were contacted.

M. Bonaca, System Manager, Reactor Erlineering, NUSCO

,

'

G. Bouchard, Unit Superintendent. Haddam Neck Plant

• W. Buck, Senior Nuclear Emergency Planning Coordinator, Millstone Point P. Capel' -Bandzes, Trainer, Nuclear Training Department, NUSCO

• E. DeBarba, Superintendent, Site Services, Haddam Neck Plant F. Grandone, Operations Of ficer, Connecticut Office of Civil Preparedness

• R. Gill, Supervisor, Security Department, Haddam Neck Plant R. Harris, Diractor, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering Department, NUSCO

T. Hodge, Supervisor, General Nuclear Training, Training Department, NUSCO

• P. Luckey, Senior Trainer, Nuclear Training Department, NUSCO F. Mancusco, Director, Connecticut Office of Civil Preparedness

<

• W. McCance, Senior Nuclear Emergency Planning Coordinator, Haddam Neck

• E. Molloy, Supervisor Emergency Preparedness, NUSCO

• A. Nericcio, Supervisor, Public Information

• L. Osiecki, Nuclear Emergency Planning Coordinator, Haddam Neck

• R. Rogers, Manager, Radiological Assessment Branch, NUSCO

!

C. Sears, Vice President, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering Division l

H. Sieg ist, Supervisor, Radiation Protection, NUSCO

!

• Denotes licensee ai.d NUSCO personnel who attended the exit meeting.

,

The inspector also observed the actions of, and interviewed other licensee and NUSCO personnel.

2.0 The Emergen_cy Preparedness (EP) Organization l

2.1 In order to determine if the licensee has established an organization which has developed and maintains an Emergency Plan (EP) which meets

th? s+andards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements o'Section IV

,

of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, as applicable, the inspector interviewed managers and personnel and identified on going emergency planning activities.

2.2 The Emergency Preparedness Program has developed, maintains and updates the Emergency Plan and Energency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs)

i for the Haddam Neck Plant, as well as, the associated procedures for the Corporate 0*ganization Nuclear Incidents (CONI). Arang the forty activities undertaken by the Emergency Preparedness Staff (EPS) are:

logistic support to the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) at the site and N!! Headquarters; development of exercise and drill

'

senarios; support to NUSCO's Training Department; support of the

,

State and Town governments; maintenance of the Public Alerting

,

s

- _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.-

,-

.

.

.

System; participation in the Public Information Program; testing and jl maintenance of the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) call out pagers for the reactor site, NU Headquarters, State of Connecticut and the Towns; and f.esting/ maintenance of dedicated emerjency communications systems.

Scenario development is an extensive activity since the Haddam Neck Plant participates in nine exercises

'

and drills a _vear. CONI "plays" in at least two of these. The EPS is

)

supported in these activities by the NUSCO Training Department, two units of the Connecticut Light and Power Company (CLP) and plant i

service groups.

Scenario development assistance is given by reactor

'

i engineering and plant operations. With the exception of NV Peadquarters, ERO personnel are drawn from the plant staff. The Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Coordinators (NEPCs) have not been j

assigned active ERO functions.

2.3 The respone.ibility for emergency prepartdness is located within the

,

Engineering Division of NUSCO and is, administratively, one of four Sections comprising the Radiological Assessment Branch (RAB).

The EP staff is headed by a first line sup rvisor, here are 10 staff total, two of these ten are assigned to the site.

All of the mil members have prior emerg,ency preparedness experience. Trainino opportunities are available to the staff.

Site NEPCs have not yet observed operators when undergoing simulator training in classification and notification procedures.

2,4 Executt.es and managers are routinely involved with EP to varying degrees. The Divisional Vice President is actively involved with an industry group concerned with severe accident analysis. He maintains qualification as a Corporate Emergency Director (CED), reviews drill and exercise scenarios as well as changes to the EP ano it's implemer ting procedures, and takes disciplinary action against those personnel who do not participate in emergency preparedness activities. He maintains an active interface with the State and Town Governments. The Department Director has an extensive background in severe accident analysis. He routinely acts as an exercise or drill controller. The RAB Manager devutes about half time to EP activities, including ongoing contacts with the State and Towns, interface with site managers and meeting with the EPP supervisor.

The EP Section has prepared three publications relating to emergency praparedness.

Two 'f these are principally intended for the ERO staff. One is a handbook and the other is an information guide. The third is a brochure, in Spanish, destined for distribution to the Hispanic communities.

2.5 The EDP is located within an engineering division and department and

$s managed by engineers; it is a multi-dis

' nary program.

Two nuclear emergency preparedness personnel pi'

administrative n

assistant are assigned to the Haddam Neck Pl s site. These positions are considered essent?a' functioni.

The senior Nuclear EPC maintains on 90ing communication with the site Service Superintendent

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

,

.

.

.

.

t i

I e

i and his staff assistant. About eight hours per week are expended j

addressing emergency preparedness matters.

i Based en the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program is

,

acceptable.

l

,

i j

3.0 Training i

,

3.1 To ascertain if adequate radiological training for NU and off site

personnel is provided as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and Section l

IV F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, the training organization training

'

matrices, lesson plans, examinrtions, and grade records were reviewed i

t and personnel interviewed.

t

!

3.2 Training is the responsibility of the NUSCO Nuclear Training Depart-i ment (NT).

The Director of the Nuclear Training Department reports I

,

j to the Vice President for Nuclear and Environmental Engineering.

NT l

j activities are concentrated at the Nuclear Training Center lccated at i

i the Millstone site.

The NT staff numbers about 120 th,mo of whon are

!

j dedicated to EP training which is the responsibility of General i

j Nuclear Training.

EP training is provicted for each site and i

l Corporate Headquarters personnel Soecialized tiaining is given by

!

subject matter experts who may be members of :he NL) staff or i

j contractor employees. NT trainers are qualified following eight (8)

[

days of training. They also participate in The Northeast Training i

Workshop and Conferences ano may receive in-house training.

The l

Supervisor, General Nuclear Training, audits training sessions and i

j stated he is satisfied with the quality of the training.

[

r 3.3 There are 21 lesson plans f or the 21 ERO positions.

These plans are i

'

>

not based on jcb task analysis (JTA). A pilot program is underway

{

using four lesson plans to determine the feasibility of this

i approach. All lesson plans are reviewed annually and revised as

j necessary to reflect feed back, from drills and exercises.

Every EP

and Implementing Proced;re change goes to Training. A Training j

>

Project Control Com:nittee has been established which meets monthly.

j l

Each lesson plan cover sheet provides signature blocks for subject L

eatter experts, another trainer and the Supervisor, General Nuclaar j

4 Training for review and approval. A Nuclear Training Manual

]

(NTM) has been developed, with final approval expected this year.

3.4 If t.aining is missed, makeups must be scheduled.

Line supervisors

are responsible for insuring all their staff members are properly

!

trained and currently qqalifted. NT is respensible for training and

!

'

providing the sites with negative training results. The site cietermines the outcome of negative training results.

Training is

<

!

classified as significant or interim.

Significant training is i

classroom training while interim tiaining is read and sign. Eighty

[

(80) percent is the passing grade.

[

I i

!

t

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

_

!

'

'

.

j

.

.

i

"

I i

!

3.5 Operators are trainod in Emergency Action Level (EAL) classification I

and associated communications proceduret. Managers and directors

are trained in Protective Action Recommendations (PARS) and the Connecticut State Posture Co6es. At the time of this inspection, j

'

about 300 site personnel were trataed for 21 ERO on call or support

,

positions. At least five persons are qualified for each of the ERO

'

positions at the Haddam Neck Plant, i

!

3.6 About 73 Corporate personnel have been trained for the Corponte i

>

Organization Nuclear Incidents (CONI);

these personnel staff the Corporate Emergency Operating Centar (CE0C). One quarter of these are assigned to Dose Assessment.

CECC staff training had not begun

.

at the time of this inspection but all are within the 9 to 15 month

.

l requalification window.

Training in severe accident analysis is l

being offered for the first time to select CONI personnel, fwelve

!

lesson plans have been developed for the fourteen CE0C positions, j

3.7 Training is offered to State and Town personnel in three areas.

!

Attendance is taken but examinations are not administered.

This

training for 1983 was underway at the time of this inspection and f

l had been largely completed.

This training included review of EALs l

l and PARS.

t i

I-Based on the above findings, this portion of the licensee's teergency plan

l is acceptable.

'

,

4.0 Energency Operating Procedures (EOPs) Emergency Action Levels (EAls)

and Protective Action Recommendations (PAR,S]

{

S 4.1 Fif teen E0Ps and 43 Abnornial Operating Procedures (Af)Ps) were checked i

as were the EAls to deternine if the requirements of Section IV B of L

Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and Standards 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and 10 CFR

{

30.47(b)(10) are met.

,

j 4.2 E0Ps and AOPs, as well as appropriate administrative procedures,

!

!

contain referral to Energency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs)

[

for EAL determination.

The c14ssification scheme is found in t

j EPIP-1.5-1 which contains color coded, human f actor engineered,

!

l classification charts. Events, symptoms and barrier breech analysis

'

are factored into these charts. Since PARS are associated with the f

,

l Posture Codes, they are predetermined. Only two PARS are listed and I

j these are for General Emergency (GE); they are designated GE Bravo l

and GE Alpha.

The classification scheme is in conformity v Ith j

guidance given in NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement J

r f

Information Notice No. 23 of 1983.

!

!

I

-

l i

r I

- - - - - - - - -

- -

.

-

,

l

-

l

.

.

,

t

l i

4.3 Thirty-four of the 47 Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures have

been revised. The remainder are being reviewed. All have been or l

,

will be reviewed and approved by the Plant Operating Review Ccemitteo

!

(r0RC). The changes reflect human factor engineering, feed back from t

drills and exercises and NRC comments.

Based en the above findings, this portion of the licensee's emergency plan is ace ptable.

5.0 Eg rgency _ Response Facilities (ERFs)

!

5.1 The Control Rooms, Technical Support Center, Operational Support l

Center, Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and the Corporate

!

Emergency Operations Center (CEOC) which is designated as tha

Alternate EOF (AEOF) for each NU reactor site were checked to i

determine if they are properly equipped and currently maintained in j

keeping with the requirements of Section IV E of Appendix E to 10 CFR

50.

5.2 Each facility was checked.

Plans and Procedures were current.

Equipment was functionai and within calibration windows. Self-contained Breathing Apparatus, face pieces and canisters were

[

properly stored and usable.

EOF filter banks were maintained and the

EOF emergency diesel electric generator fuel tank was full.

,

5.-3 Eighteen on and off site communications systems weie identified.

These include dedicated, hard wired, point to point telephone

!

circuits, commercial phone lines going to different exchanges, NU and

[

commercial microwave transmission capability, fiber optics lines, r

facsimile machines and data transmission capability. Operability of

[

phone systems was checked on a sampling basis; all lines checked j

were found to be functional.

The NRC's ENS and HPN lines are j

included in the preceding listing.

(

,

5.4 ERO personnel are alerted by voice pager system which is tested twice daily. The inspector observed a daily test and results were satisfactory. Monthly verification tests are also made and results are recorded, Records of these tests indicate accepteble results.

f i

Based on these findings, this portion of the licensee's program is l

acceptable.

6.0 EP-Security Interface

'

6.1 To asce-tain if Nuclear Security Officers (NS0s) were properly t

trained, qualified and annually requalified to support implementation

[

of ths.nergency plan, tLe inspector checked their training program

'

and record g.._,------------

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

-

--

-

-

,

>

.

.

k

I (

i 6.2 NS0s are EP trained and are also Radiation Worker qualified, respirator trained and fitted. Training extends to search and rescue and accountability.

Based on the above facts, this portion of the licensee's program is acceptable.

7.0 Off Site Activities 7.1 To determine if the licensee's on going activities meet the require-ments of Section IV D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and arpropr.4tely support off site entitles, the inspector interviewed State officials, reviewed the test records for the Alert and Not1fication System (ANS),

inspected the Joint News Center and reviewed dissemination of tr.for-mation to members of the public within the ten mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

j 7.2 There are 246 Public Alerting System locations within the Haddam Neck Plant EPZ. Each location has four ANS sirens. Surveillance is J

conducted manually every ather week.

In addition, there is a j

quarterly load test in lieu of a growl test and an annual test when i

all the sirens are activated. About 90% of the Tot s carry out monthly full function tests. Malft.netions are corrected as soon as

possible.

Results are reduced and sent to the Connecticut Office of

,

Civil Preparedness (OCP) for retransmittal to FEMA-I. Results for i

1987 which were sent by the OCP on January 22, 1983 indicated 96%

{.

availability.

7.3 Seventeen lettors of Agreement (LOAs) are current with the State,

Police, Fire and Ambulance services and Amtrak.

i 7.4 The Joint News Center (JNC) is co-located in the state FOC in j

Hartford. The press briving room seats about 42 and has 12 press j

phones. A rumor control a*ea is established with space for eight

tables.

The Emergency Brradcast System center is also located here.

A Media (raining Manual has been developed and the annual media

,

l briefing session held.

Space is also provided for the four member j

liaison team sent from the Corporate Emergency Operating Center.

!

7.5 A two page insert has been placed in seven telephone directories for the sites. Evacuation routes are shown, EBS and TV stations are

'

listed and reception centers identifit ' and correlated with

,

evacuation. routes.

Instructional material is not mailed to

'

residents, but similar material for farmers has been prepared; 4200

out of 10.000 copies have been distributed. About 20,000 transient i

hand outs nave been printed u d are distributed at parks and I

recreational centers. A Spanish language emergency information

!

brochure has been prepared.

i i

!

I l

!._____--___,_._______.-

, _ _ _....-,-,._ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

--

,

-

'

,

i

,

!

,

l 7.6 State and Town officialt have been briefed with respect to EAls, PARS

!

and the Posture Codes.

l 7.7 Connecticut State Office of Civil Preparedness personnel stated they were satisfied with the licensee's support and cooperation.

lased on the above, this portion of the licensee's emergency program is

!

acceptable.

.

8.0 Independent / Review Audit

.

8.1 10 CFR 50.54(t) requires an annual review / audit of the EP by

<

qualified individuals having no direct responsibility for program l

implementation.

The inspector checked review protocol, records and

results to determine if this requirement is met.

!

!

8.2 The review is conducted by staff members of another section of the r

Radiological Assessment Branch.

There is no matrix since all aspects

[

of the EPP are covered annually.

The reviews are conducted in four l

quarterly segments and includa determination for adequacy of the t

State and lccal government interface.

Findings and recommendations

!

'

must be acted upon satisfactorily.

Reports are distributed annually

[

and go to upper management. A revtew of reruits obtained so far this

year indicates they are extensive but resemble more of compliance

,

i determine. ion since the quality of the EPP and it's supporting

'

resources are not addressed.

>

i Based on these findings this portion of the licensee's emergency program

j appears acceptable.

'

i 9.0 00 sime t_ry j

l i

9.2 To ascertain if the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) and Section B

!

j of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are being met, calibration records for

!

-

release detectors and meteorological tower sensors were checked.

'

t Methodology was also discussed with the licensee's staff, f

I 9.2 Sensor and electronic calibration records indicate that maintenance I

l nd calibration is conducted per the established schedule. Instru-i

rentation was functional and in calibration. No determination as to I

the adequacy of techaiques was made.

I

'

I 9.3 Projected doses are calculated at the Technical Support Center (TSC)

(

.

using a TRS-80 computer.

The associated software is based on a

[

straight line Gaussian model. There is a stack at the Haddam Neck f'

Plant and, releases are considered to be mixed releases. That is, a

[

,

'

fraction of the release 's treated as a ground level release and

l another fraction as an elevated release.

The TRS-80 program is l

l I

!

r

t

}

)

-

I i

!

'

l

_-

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

_ _ _ _.

_ __

_

'

.

.

.

t I

i i

checked monthly against the initial validation run results. Once o

'

week, the on-call Manager of Radiological Consequence Assessment i

performs a surveillarce test of ths TRS-80 using check input data.

!

This also serves as training in use of the system. Once the CEOC is i

functional, lead dose assessment responsibility is assumed by the CEOC dose assessment staff.

The software available there includes one based on a puff advection model called Puff which can handle plume rise. Additional programs include GASPAR (dsposition calcula-tiens), LADTAP (liquid releases) and U.S. EPA's AIR REM (population dose). A program similar to that used at the TSC is not used.

Puff is in almost daily use and the license stated this use is a suitable substitutt for a formal program.

9.4 Two Haddam Neck Plant personnel qualified as Managers of Radiological Consequence Assessment were questioned as to the use of the TRS-80 and the basis for some of the software's model. One was very proficient while the other was not.

This lack of response uniformity suggests a need to review training to ir.sure consistent results. The licenset agreed to do this.

9.3 Dose calculations were compared with results obtained by the Connecticut State Department of Environmental Protection using the same source terms and meteorological data.

Results were in good agreement.

Ba:,ed on the above this portien of the lice.esee's program is acceptable.

10.0 Drill Observations 10.1 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) requires periodic drills to develop and maintain required skills.

To determine if this was being done effectively, a drill was observed during the course of the inspection.

10.2 Activities were observed at the CEOC. Command and control as well as information flow including communication with the E0F and off site teams were evident.

Procedures were followed. At the beginning of the drill, the hard copy information system, the Off Site Information System (OFIS) failed.

Rapid response was made and an alternate system was placed in use.

In addition, the NO Computer Disaster Recovery Plan which includes 0FIS could have been implemented.

Based on the above, this portion of 'he licensee's emergency program is acceptable.

11.0 Exit Meeting

,

An exit meeting was held with licensee personnel listed in Section 1.0 of this rernrt.

The licensee was advised no violations were identified.

The inspector also discussed some areas fcr improve ent.

The licensee (

.

_

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

__ __

-

,

,

,

j

.,

+

'

s'

,' o,

,

!

r

.

i teknowltdged these findings, and agreed to evaluate them, and institute

!

corrective action. At no time during the ccurse of the inspection did the

inspector give the licensee written material.

e i

i f

!

i

[

.

!

.

f

>

i i

?

,

.