IR 05000245/1978035
| ML19256A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1978 |
| From: | Bores R, Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256A303 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-78-35, 50-336-78-32, NUDOCS 7901050032 | |
| Download: ML19256A325 (5) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
Region I 50-245/78-35 Report No.
c;n-116 / 79-12 50-245 Docket No.
50-336
C DPR-21
--
License No. DPR-65 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Enerav Company P. 0. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection conducta': October 25-27, 1978 Inspecto s:
// - 2 g - 78 R.
Bofes, Radiation 5pecialist date signed WA
_//~N~5
=
D. E. Donaldson, Rac4ation specia ilst (October 201 date signed date si ned
~
/ /!2 /
Approved by:
J. P. Stqhr,Tfiidf, Environmental and Special
'date signed Pr cts Section, FF&MS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on October 25-27, 1978 (Combined Report Nos. 50-245/78-35 and 50-336/78-32 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection lin.ited to the observation of a licensee conducted emergency drill and to the followup of licensee actions for resolution of previously identified emergency planning and radiation pro-tection items.
The inspection involved 20 inspector-hours onsite by two regionally based inspectors.
Resul ts:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7 9 010 5 00~5W Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
,
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
- J. E. Opeka, Station Superintendent
- E. J. Mroczka, Station Services Superintendent
- G. A. Cheatham, Health Physics Supervisor
- R. E. Brisco, Service Group Supervisor C. L. Gilbert, Training Supervisor J. E. Laine, Associate Health Physicist D. Stump, Health Physics Technician The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees, including emergency drill participants and observers.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insr,ection Findinos (Closed) Deficiency (245/78-30-03; 336/78-25-03): Failure to follow procedures - (1) failure to record calibration data, and (2) failure to SORC approve temporary radiological area.
The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee, verification of dosimeter calibration records and review of the SORC meeting minutes that the licensee had taken corrective and preventive actions as documented in the letter to NRC:I dated September 27, 1978.
(Closed) Unresolved item (245/78-30-04; 336/78-25-04): Adequacy of emergency first aid training program.
The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee and the review of applicable correspondence that the licensee had trained personnel on each shift and was completing arrangements to train / retrain additional personnel in advanced first aid techniques.
(Closed) Deficiency (245/78-30-05; 336/78-25-05): Failure to post radiation area.
The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee and by direct observations that the specific radiation area in question had been posted as documented in the licensee's letter of September 27, 1978.
Subsequently, the materials were removed from this area, decontaminated, and disposed of or stored in more permanent locations. The inspector noted that the licensee performed additional site surveys to assure that all such radiation areas were properly poste (Closed) Deficiency (245/78-30-06; 336/78-25-06): Failure to label containers in accord with 10 CFR 20.203.f(1) and (2).
The inspector verified through discussions with the licensee and inspection of observed containers that containers requiring " Caution, Radioactive Materials" labels were properly identified with labels that included radiation levels, kinds of material, estimates of activity and dates that the activities were estimated.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (245/78-30-01; 336/78-25-01): Evaluation of adequacy of emergency air iodine monitoring. The inspector reviewed the status of the licensee's evaluations and actions to upgrade the emergency air lodine monitoring program.
The inspector determined through discussions with the licensee and examination of purchase requests that the licensee is in the process of obtaining increased capacity air samplers and charcoal cartridges for field sampling.
The licensee stated that by December 1, 1978 portable scaling instru-ments would be ordered for use in the emergency kits.
The licensee also stated that necessary calibrations and procedural modifications would be performed so as to minimize the delay in the implementation of the new procedures / equipment upon the arrival of the purchased instruments.
The inspector stated that while considerable progress has been made in this area, this item would remain unresolved until the above modifications / procedures and necessary training are completed and are reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
4.
Emeraency Drill a.
Pre-drill Activities Prior to the initiation of the drill, the inspector discussed the nature and scope of the drill scenario to verify adequacy.
The scenario involved a loss-of-coolant accident coincident with a malfunctioning stack monitor such that offsite dose consequences were assumed until shown otherwise by offsite measurements.
The inspector determined through discussions with licensee personnel that the drill was unannounced to the extent that the drill scenario was known only to the drill auditors, the inspectors and to a limited number of plant personnel, b.
Drill Observation During the drill, two NRC inspectors made detailed observations of the following activities:
(1)
Notification of plant personnel and offsite agencies; (2)
Plant evacuation;
.
(3) Assessment actions; (4) Coninunications ;
(5) Coordination and control of response actions; and, (6)
Dispatch of survey teams.
c.
Drill Results The inspectors attended a post-drill critique, during which the drill participants, observers and inspectors discussed the drill results and highlighttd areas needing improvements. Areas specifi-cally discussed by the inspectors included:
(1) Delays in dispatching the offsite monitoring teams; (2)
Delays in verifying personnel accountability; (3) Completion of all notifications / coordination; (4) Observers, in some instances, providing assistance to drill participants; (5)
Information dissemination to personnel assembly areas; and, (6) Use of emergency status board.
The inspector noted that:
(1) The licensee's response was generally in accord with approved procedures; (2) The response was evaluated by qualified licensee personnel; and, (3) The drill results and observer comments, including those of the inspectors, were documented for further evaluation and resolution, as appropriate.
Based on the licensee's demonstrated performance and on the implementation of the corrective actions discussed in Detail 2, the inspectors determined that the response objectives of the licensee's Emergency Plan could be effectively met.
The inspector had no further questions in this area at this tim.
.
-
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Detail 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 27, 1978.
The inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of this inspection.
With reference to the adequacy of the emergency air monitoring, the licensee stated in a telephone discussion between Mr. Opeka, others of his staff and the inspector on November 7,1978, that the decision had been made to analyze the air samples (charcoal cartridges and particulate filters) with portable scaling instruments and GM type detectors. The licensee stated that the scalers would be ordered by December 1,1978 and that work on calibrations and procedure modifications would be performed so as to expedite implementation upon delivery of the equipment.