IR 05000213/1990007
| ML20055C603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1990 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C602 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-90-07, 50-213-90-7, NUDOCS 9005290027 | |
| Download: ML20055C603 (8) | |
Text
r
_
~
.
[.'
.
. (
,
,
,
..
,
"
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I
,.
Report No.
50-213/90-07 Docket No.
50-213 License No.
,
,
' Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford. Connecticut 06101-0270 Facility Name:
Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station I
Inspection Conducted: April 2-5.1990
'
'
Inspection At: Berlin. Haddam and Waterford. Connecticut Inspectors:
- e
/u s' P!fd
~
p C.'G. Agtto, Emergency reparedness date Specialist, Region I Approved:
.5 i' 70 W. J. Ibizarus, Chief, Eifergency date Preparedness Section, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
>
Inspectiqa_llommary: Inspection on April 2-5.~ 1990 (Insnection Report NL-i 50-213/9fr07)
-q Areas Inspected: Announced, routine, safety inspection of the licensee's emergency
-
preparedness program. The inspection areas included: changes to the emergency plan
. and implementing procedures; emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation and supplies; organization and management control; training; response to actual conditions requiring emergency classification; and off-site activities.
Results:
No violations were identified.
<
'N
O
m
.
,
, a..
,
.
>
g,
.
o
,
...
DETAILS
,
1.0 Persons Contacted
,
_
The following personnel were contacted. Unless noted otherwise, personnel
listed below are Northeast Utility Service Company staff.
- E. Annino, Licensing Analyst
- W. Buck, Sr. Site Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
-
,
M. Bonaca, Manager Reactor Engineering A. Castagno, Manager of Public Information.-
E. DeBarba, Station Services Director, Connecticut Atomic Power Co.
- R. Gill, Security Manager, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.
R. Harris, Director Of Nuclear Engineering
!
- R. Heidecker, Supervisor, Operator Training, Training Department L
S. iiodge, Supervisor of Emergency Preparedness Training, Training Dept.
<
L
- * P. Luckey, Sr. Nuclear Trainer, Training' Department
- D. Miller, Station Director, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.
'
- W.- McCance, Sr. Site Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
-
- E. Molloy, Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness
- L Osiecki, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator C. Sears, Vice President, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering
,
i
- Denotes personnel who attended the exit meeting.
d
l 2.0 Emercency Plan and Implementine Procedures
To determine if the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16) and the requirements of q
10 CFR 50.54(q) and Section G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are met, the
';
inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan and Implementing Proc'edures, q
2.1 The Emergency Preparedness Section of the Northeast Utility Service
'
Company is responsible for the development, review, distribution and maintenance of the Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan
and Implementing Procedures, and the Corporate Organization Nuclear Incidents (CONI) Procedure Manual. Section 8.3 of the Emergency Plan y
and Section 1.0 of the CONI Manual detail procedures for meeting these requirements. The Licensee has also developed an administrative
,
procedure, Connecticut Yankee Admin!,trative Control Procedure 1.0-6, r
Rev. 8 which addresses, in part, these requirements. The inspector
-
K'
reviewed the documents and checked licensee actions against procedures.
Plans and Implementing Procedures were developed, reviewed, distributed
,
and maintained in ucord with these proceduree j
I (
!!
[1k
'
,
-
.
. -
,
,,, w,
'
r
.
,
.
,
.,
..
2.2
' The inspector also reviewed changes to the Emergency Preparedness -
Program. Siren availability during 1989 was above Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) specifications. The licensee modified siren
testing frequency to once per quarter. - This decision was based on the
-
historical availability record and the experience of other NRC power
'.
reactor. licensees who had also reduced test frequency. The State 'of Connecticut was notified and agreed with the revised test schedule.and j
FEMA Region 1 also concurred. However, the emergency plan was
apparently not revised, nor was the NRC advised of this emergency plan
,
change as required by 10 CFR 50. 54(q). This item is unresolved (50-
.
213/90 07-01).
,
.
Except as noted above, this portion of the licensee's emergency c
preparedness program is acceptable.
-
!
3.0
~ Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs)
'
.'
ERFs are designed and maintained to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8)'
'and (b)(9), and the requirements'of Section IV of' Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
Supplement I to NUREG.0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97. Equipment,-
instrumentation, supplies, status boards, maps, safety system diagrnms, plans,
procedures, and communication systems were reviewed or tested on a sampling basis for each ERF.
3.1 The. inspector determined that the ERFs were maintained'in a state of
-
readiness. Instrumentation was functional and within the calibration period. Communication systems tested included the NRC Emergency
,
.
Notification System, and the Health Physics Network. Notification. calls
,
were made and verification received using current procedures. All tested equipment worked properly. Rapid facsimile machines are also available which can transmit simultaneously to multiple terminals and electronically -
verify transmission receipt.
3.2 The Emergency Operations Center (located within the Emergency h
T Operations Facility) has been reconfigured. All telephones, except the j
,
Director's, have been removed from the senior staff desk, which becomes i
a conference table. Other manager and supporting staff work stations, with telephones, are now *ocated along the walls. This reconfigaration is intended to improve decin making discussions and reduce r.oise level.
Based on the above review, this portion of the. licensee's emergency
. preparedness program is acceptable.
.
.,
_
__.
.-
_
m t
<>
m
.
.
,,
,
L
L 4.0 Organization and Management Control x
,
The emergency preparedness program structure was reviewed, personnel were j
interviewed and activities evaluated to ascertain if the licensee is maintaining and controlling an emergency preparedness program as required by 10 CFR 50.54(t)~
which meets the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requiremente of Section'
IV of' Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
,
4.1-The Emergency Preparedness Section is staffed by ten professionals, four l,
of whom are senior staff members. Two staff members are assigned full time to the site. The staff discipline mix is adequate to meet the
~
demands placed on the program. Staff has been stable and there were no organizational changes since the last inspection. Connecticut Yankee Administrative Control Procedure, ACP 1.0-6 assigns emergency preparedness responsibili*ies to the Senior Site Emergency Preparedness o
Coordinator, to the Emergency Preparedness Section. Supervisor and to the Station Services Director. Emergency preparedness responsibilities of other licensee senior staff are also delineated in this procedure.
4.2 Management review and control involves vice presidents, department and site directors, managers and supervisors. These individuals manage by objective and track emergency preparedness activities through
. participation in meetings, resolving audit findings,'if needed, and by two tracking ' systems. the Corrective Action Items list and the Emergency Preparedness Commitment Follow List. In addition, they maintain
.
emergency response organization qualifications, review scenarios and l
changes to the Plan and Procedures, participate ia drills and exercises and
interface with State and Town officials. All interviewed expressed satisfaction with the emergency preparedness program.
Bued upon the above review, this portion of the licenste's emergency
'
preparedness program is acceptable.
.;
5.0 Training '
{
Emergency preparedness lesson plans, training matrix, examina ions, training and
!
attendance records and the Emergencv Response Organization qualification
!
roster were reviewed. Training Depaament staff were interviewed and a practical training session observed. This was done to verify that emergency
,
preparedness training is in compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and Section IV.
.F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50. The status of off-site and accident management
~
training were also reviewed.
4 3
,
.... -.....- --..
-
_
'"
-.
,
.
.
-
.:
,
-
5.1 - _ Emergency preparedness training is current and is given in accordance with the policies stated in the Nuclear training manual. Over 300
=
personnel are qualified. Training is not scheduled uniformly over the
,
. course of e year, but is scheduled principally before the NRC observed -
exercise. The practice results in a non uniform training department work-load and also constitutes a form of preparing for the exercise, rather than
,
?
being trained to respond at any time. The licensee agreed to review the
'
feasibility of uniform scheduling. The inspector also reviewed selected
--
questions from the question bank. They were of various types, probing
and balanced.
5.2-The inspector attended a training session for severe accident analysis.
'
The lecturer was well prepared, interacted with the attendees and fielded questions. To enhance training, the class was divided into two groups and
_ given problems to be solved on a team basis, with the groups competing
'
against each other. This methodology appeared to be very effective.
Trainees displayed detailed plant and discipline knowledge and developed innovative and feasible solutions. Licensee developed software (ten PC programs) to support accident analysis was demonstrated. The licensee is
_
committed to accident management training and considers it an asset to emergency preparedness. They plan to introduce a new program called -
. MAP-GRAPH This program will access the Off site Information System computer memory and rapidly recover data beginning veth reactor shut-down. MAP-GRAPH will-accommodate reactor conditions to core uncovery and vessel melt, and will handle interfacing system loss of
_
coolant accidents as well.
5.3 Reactor operators receive classroom and simulator training in emergency preparedness including classification. Training in Protective Action-Recommendation (PAR) development is not given since it is not needed
__
by senior operntors. The Connecticut State Posture Codes associate
"
PARS with the NRC's emergency classification levels. Forty percent of Senior Operators training time is devoted to playing the role of the Director of Site Emerge ncy Operations. They are drilled in tlw use of
-
EPIP 1-5.1 (classificatio t), which they are taught to enter based upon Emergency Operating Pncedure E-O and the orange or red paths of the
_
Critical SW.ty Function Staus Tree.
5.4 Non operator emergency response organization managers are trained in
classification and PAR development by the staff of the Training Department's General Nuclear Training group. Personnel of the General
-
,
Nuclear Training and Op rator Training Groups were interviewed by the
'
inspector during a joint meeting. Several differences and common factors
,
,,
JL (
e
,
Q_._LJL._--_____-____-_-_--_-__ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ - _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
..
,
m
..,
,
- t y,
+
v
.6 in this area of emergency preparedness training vere identified. Accident
rie.sification ia made using one of three tables. These include a Barrier Mure Table and two Event Tables. Columns in this table are subdivided into symptom and conditior; sub columns. The terms Event, symptom and condition are apparently not defined. This omission has led y
to some confusion. Oprator Tra!ning personnel are familiar with, and introduce, the concepts of containment by pass and interfacing system loss of coolant accident, but General Nuclear Traini.ng does not use thace concepts. These barrier failure modes are noted in general terms in the Barrier Failure Reference Table. Participants agreed training.
- enhancement and uniformity would be ach!everi if the terms vere formally -
defined and both training groups covered ail barrier failures.
5.5 :
Training of volunteer fire company and c.mbulance company members who would come on site to support licensee emergency response activitie
was current. Medical training for these personnel, and personnel of the i
support hospital staff, was given by a medical consultant. Training of l
- governmental Emergency Planning Zone emergency workers is the
'
responsibility of the Emergency Preparedness Section. A record check indicated training was offered and given. The Connecticut State Office of
-
l Emergency Management.has sent a letter to FEMA attesting to the completion of this training.
-l Exceptlas noted above, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
!
il 6.0 Independent Audits / Reviews j
L l
An independent review / audit is required at least every twelve months by 10 CFR l
- 50.54(t) which shall include,. determination for adequacy of the licensee, State j
.
and: local government interface Provisions shall be made so the results of the
!
interface determination are available to State and local governments. Section
L 6.5.2 of Appendix A to the licensee's Technical Specifications requires an j
independent Safety Review of the 50.54(t) audit / review report and Section
6.5.2.7.E requires that the Nuclear Review Board shall audit the Emergency Plan
and Implementing Procedures eve v two years.
6.1 The 50.54(t) audit / review was conducted by a Section of the ' Radiological
,
Assessment Branch. An Audit matrix was prepared and an entrance meeting held,-but no formal exit meeting was held. Results indicated an effective emergency preparedness program was in effect. In lieu of a l
formal' exit, result packages were sent. The Nuclear Review Board
'
i
. -.
.
% ([
. 3..
.
-
'
,
concurred. Results of the interface determination will be sent to the State.
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
.;
h 8.0 Public Information and Off Site Activities t
Correspondence, documentation and records, and personnel were interviewed -
'i and a siren test observed to determine if the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5)
and (b)(12),' and the requirements of Sections IV. D. 3. and IV. F. of Appendix '
E to 10 CFR 50 were met.
8.1 Telephone book inserts appear in three telephone directories. About 100,000 brochures were mailed to Emergency Planning Zone residents, Town officials and motels. A mass media briefing was held in conjunction
.l with a wire service meeting for reporters. A briefing packet was prepared for attendees. The licensee maintains an on-going interface with State and Town governments. All Letters of-Agreement for off-site responders i
to nupport the licensee in the event of an accident are current.
,
Emergency Action Levels were called to the attention of cognizant off-site' officials.-
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness pqram is acceptable.
9.0 '
Dose Cel ulation and Assessment
'
Facilities were inspected, records checked and staff interviewed to determine if the following standards and requirements were met: 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9),
Sections IV. B and IV. E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and footnote 2 to
.
Section II. F.1. (ATT 3) of NUREG-0737, SUPP.1.
9.1 Dose projection software was validated and documented. Additionally, and in response to NRC concerns, the default release duration time has
been revised to two hours. - Specifications for the Containment High Range Monitors were reviewed against those in NUREG-0737.
,
Specifications for these monitors met those. of the NUREG for gamma only detectors. The dose assessment area of the Corporate Emergency Operations Center was inspected and found to be in a state of readiness.
,
c
'
-
,
- -.
'
A
.c-
]
'
a..:.y
,..
. '
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency
preparedness program is acceptable.
'
j 10.0 Licensee Response to Actual Events i
< r The inspector reviewed the licensee response to actual events, including notifications, personnel were interviewed and facilities inspected to determine if the licensee's actions were in compliance with-10 CFR 50.72(a) and (b).
10.1 Over 20 notifications were made to the NRC since the last inspection. A number of these reported results of engineering analysis indicating
. potential problem areas. Others were made per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(vi).
These reports were made following notification to the Connecticut State government in keeping with Connecticut law.
Connecticut law requires reporting of oil spills hazardous material spills.
The law does not specify a minimum value which must be reported.
Reports must be made to the State Police. The licensee is reporting all j
spills regardless of quantity or location spill location. The licensee, with other Connecticut private sector organizations, is working to reach
. agreement with the State as to a threshold reporting level.
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
11.0 Exit Meetine
'
An exit meeting was held with licensee personnel identified in Section 1 of this report on April 5,1990..The inspector presented the results of the inspection and advised the licensee that while no violations or,leviations were identified, one unresolved item was identified. Licensee management acknowledged these findings and indicated they would evaluate them and take appropriate corrective etion regarding the items identified.
.I l
l'
t F
(