IR 05000245/1987013

Insp Repts 50-245/87-13,50-336/87-12 & 50-423/87-13 on 870629-0702.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Emergency Preparedness Program

ML20238D014
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/01/1987
From:	Lazarus W, Thomas W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238D004	List: IR 05000245/1987013 ML20238D003
References
50-245-87-13, 50-336-87-12, 50-423-87-13, NUDOCS 8709100509
Download: ML20238D014 (8)

Text

._

_ _ _

.

L.

!: -

.

(

!

!

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Docket No License No DPR-21 i 50-336 DPR-65 C 50-423 CPPR-113 Categories C Licensee: Northeast Utilities j P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 7 Facihty Name: Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: June 29,- July 2, 1987 Inspectors: N, M 8' F'7 W. V. Thomas, V / /date '

Emergency Preparedness Specialist Approved by: . , dexM+# 9 87 W. QfQ.4zarufyChief date Emergency Preparedness Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 29, - July 2, 1987 Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-245/87-13, 50-336/87-12 and 50-423/87-13)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced preventive, emergency preparedness inspection of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program conducted June 2 July 2, 198 Results: No violations were ider.tifie PDR O ADOCK 05000245 PDR

- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

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

7--_-.

.

"

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted

• W. Buch, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

• P. Capello-Bandzes, Training Instructor

• C. Clement, Millstone, Unit-3 Superintendent

• W. Collins, Associate Scientist - Radiological Assessment Branch

• T. Dembek, Emergency Planning Coordinator H. Haynes, Station Services Superintendent

• S. Hodge, Supervisor, General Nuclear Training

• J. Kangley, Radiological Services Supervisor

• E. Malloy, Emergency Preparedness Supervisor

• R. Neuendorf, Analyst, Sonalysts, In S. Scace, Millstone, Unit-2 Superintendent

• J. Stetz, Millstone, Unit-1 Superintendent

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie .0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 2.1 (Closed) IFI 50-245/86-23-01, 50-336/86-29-01 and 50-423/86-36-01:

Status boards in the TSC were inadequate and disorganized. There was no formal use of the boards, and three users were documenting different parameter These items were closed by the Resident Inspector in IR 50-336/87-0 .2 (Closed) IFI 50-245/86-23-02, 50-336/86-29-02 and 50-423/86-36-02:

Station accountability was not demonstrated during this exercise due to a security system hardware failure (Exercise Objective 13).

The licensee has made changes to the security access computer system to correct the problem experienced during the exercise. Subsequent tests of the revised system have shown that it will now function properl .3 (Closed) IFI 50-245/86-23-03, 50-336/86-29-03 and 50-423/86-36-03:

The status board in the E0F for implemented protective actions

contained both implemented and recommended protective actions. This l

was not readily apparent to the E0F staff and could result in ( confusio These items were closed by the Resident Inspector in IR 50-336/87-0 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _. -_ ___ . . _ . _

'

.

E

_' -p

3 2.4- (0 pen) IFI 50-245/86-23-04, 50-336/86-29-04 and 50-423/86-36-04: 1 The Corporate Emergency Operations Certer (CE0C) was not. fully aware of the location of offsite teams in relation to the plum For example, team #5 was dispatched to a location on the oppcsite side of the plume without directions, and was also dispatched back to the E0F without regard for possible contamination from the plum The Nuclear Training Department has been requested to address this item during 1987 Corporate Training to assure that Field Team Data i

'

Coordinators are aware of Plume and Environmental Monitoring Teams

'

locations at all times and only direct teams into radiation areas as required to protect the public and to minimize team exposure at all times. This item will be evaluated during the next exercis .5-(0 pen)IFI 50-245/86-23-06, 50-336/86-29-06 and 50-423/86-36-06:

The Nuclear Emergency Support System (NESS) did not operate properly throughout the exercise. Initially, one of the data control computers' failed, and subsequently all hard copy capability failed'

(Exercise Objective 15). This resulted in a backlog (approximately 10 minutes) of plant data being passed to the other facilitie ,

Computer Hardware has been included on the Equipment Surveillance l Program (EPIP 4616) to increase reliability and identify reoccurring problems for resolution. This ' item will be evaluated during the next exercis .6 (0 pen)IFI 50-245/86-23-07, 50-336/86-29-07 and 50-423/86-36-07: .No announcements were made over the station paging s.ystem concerning plant conditions. In addition, the station page in the TSC did not function throughout the exercise. This could have resulted in plant personnel not being notified in a timely manner of degrading condition i A procedural step has been added to EPIP 4001, Director Station Emergency Operations (DSE0) to make a PA announcement each time an <

'

EAL is classified, and a request was sent to Nuclear Training to train TSC staff members to turn the PA speaker volume up upon arrival at the TSC. This item will be evaluated during the next i exercis .7 (Closed)IFI 50-245/86-14-01,50-336/86-15-01,50-423/86-22-01 Completion of the acceptance test for the evacuation alarm system in the Unit 3 yard area (dB levels and audibility). The licensee has agreed to complete testing and evaluation by the annual exercise, 4

November 198 Acceptance testing of the evacuation alarm system in the Unit 3 yard area was completed on August 27, 198 ;

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

7 __ _

.

.

2.8 (Closed)IFI 50-245/86-14-02,50-336/86-15-02,50-423/86-22-02 Include as part of the surveil?ance procedure for the evacuation alarm EPIP-4601 the yard areas. The licensee has agreed to complete this modification and implement this procedure prior to the annual exercise, November 198 (86-14/15/22-02)

The evacuation alarm for the Unit 3 yard area was included in Surveillance Procedure 4601 on November 10, 198 .0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program 3.1 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures There have been no significant changes to the licensee emergency preparedness program since the last inspection. Changes which have taken place have been minor and have been determined to not adversely affect the licensee's overall state of emergency preparednes The licensee has appropriate procedures and mechanisms in place to assure that changes to the plan and procedures which could affect the overall state of emergency preparedness will be identified. All changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures are subject to multiple reviews and approvals required by the Emergency Plan. The Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) reviews all changes. All changes are controlled in accordance with procedures and NRC requirements prior to implementatio Based on the above review, this area is acceptabl .2 Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies The inspectors toured the Control Room, Technical Support Center, Units 1, 2 and Unit 3 Operational Support Centers, and the Emergency Operations Facilit Copies of the Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures were available and current. Status Boards, maps, phones, radios, forms, radiation detection equipment, telecopiers and plant drawings were available and maintaine Equipment inventories and instrumentation operability are checked quarterly pursuant to EPIP 4616. All equipment checked was operable and within calibratio I Based on the above review, this area is acceptabl .3 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)

A Nuclear Training Manual has been prepared, reviewed and approved which will be implemented during the later part of July,1987. The Nuclear Training Manual describes EP training policy, tests, Site Emergency Organization Positions, and lectures required for each position. An Emergency Plan training matrix has been developed to track training progres _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

= _ , - _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - - -

t

.

..

'

Training in Barrier Breech analysis to classify emergencies is given per IE IN 83-28. Licensed operators receive.four hours of EP training during license requalification. All DSE0 positions are filled with currently trained personnel. There are at least five

. qualified persons for each positio Additional training for licensed operators who may act as DSE0s.is indicated to ensure they are aware of the implications of classification actions with associated posture codes and impact of these on the site and themselves. They should be instructed that they'are permitted to recommend or not recommend a PAR associated with a Posture Cod 'An' Emergency Preparedness Procedure (EPP) is being implemented as described in the Emergency Plan (EP) meeting regulatory requirements. Personnel from the Connecticut state government and -

29 towns have received EP training in three areas during 1986; 1987 l training is in progress and attendance is recorded. On and offsite firemen are trained by the Nuclear Training Departmen Training includes instruction as to the effects of fire suppressants on safe shut-down equipment'. Letters from 20 governmental supporting agencies and' entities are'on file and curren Recovery training is given on a read and sign basi The inspectors interviewed trainers and training department managers, reviewed the Nuclear Training Manual, Lesson Plans, Training Records, Examinations, and walked a small select number of staff through hypothetical problems to determine if training is current and effective. Based on these interviews, reviews and  ;

examinations, the inspectors concluded training is current and effective'.

3.4 Organization and Management Control The inspectors interviewed corporate managers, supervisors, and staff, as well as, reviewing tables of Organization and Position Descriptions to determine the degree of corporate management involvement, changes in duties, assignment of new personnel, offsite activity, and offsite agreements. Based on these interviews and reviews, the inspectors concluded Corporate involvement is by i

" exception" (that is no involvement if there are no problems). 1 Both Emergency Preparedness and Training are units within NUSC0; the Director and Manager report to the Vice-President for Nuclear and Environmental. Two full time trainers are assigned to emergency program training. Additional support is provided by lecturers with required expertise drawn from NNECO or NUSCO staff. The EP staff numbers nine; two members are assigned on an effective resident basis to each site'resulting in a matrix type organizatio ;'

Emergency Preparedness Program (EPP) is responsible for offsite training. EPP routinely undertakes ten broad task area Consultants augment the emergency preparedness staff as neede ,

i

__.___________ _ __________ _

_

.

.

,

Based on the above findings, the inspectors concluded effective training and EP programs are in place, the Site Emergency Organization is currently and fully staffed, staff members are aware j

'

of their duties and are capable of discharging them. Offsite interfaces appear current and adequate. A potential for an onsite interface problem exists since three "new" superintendents have been or are being qualified. Offsite agreements with supporting agencies .

have not substantively change !

3.5 Training Walkthroughs and Security / Emergency Plan Interface The inspector conducted walkthroughs with four Shift Supervisors (SS) and four Senior Control Operators (SCO) representing each uni Scenarios included events with security implications and a quick

~

breaking event. The operators quickly recognized postulated events and made correct and timely emergency classification Classifications would have ensured conservative protective action recommendations would be made. The inspector noted the following areas where improvement is recommended:

- Training should be improved to ensure SS/SCO's have a greater awareness of the implications of security events on other vital areas of the plant as well as a better knowledge of actions that will be taken by the security force (50-245/87-13-01)

- The SS/SCO's were aware that automatic protective actions are taken at a General Emergency, however, they weren't aware what type of actions are taken or their possible impact on them as Director of Site Emergency Operation (50-245/87-13-02)

3.6 Security Actions During Emergencies The inspector reviewed security response actions during emergencies with the Security Supervisor. Security Procedures are in place that address training and qualifications for security officers as well as response to actual events. EPIP's are in place that adequately address security actions during emergencies. The inspector noted that there are no requirements for respirator training of guards, nor any minimum number of trained guards on shift. Presently, less than 50% of the guards are respirator trained. The licensee agreed to evaluate the need for respirator training for security guards to ensure security support would be available during events that would require respirators be worn. (50-245/87-13-03)

3.7 EAL's The inspector reviewed the EAL classification scheme that is presently under development. The format is being changed to improve human factors in such areas as recognition of events from the l

l

_

.c

,

.

, ,

highest to lowest level of seriousness, color coding and appropriate i symbolization. In addition, initiating conditional symptoms I corresponding to EAL are being utilized where appropriate to aid the operator in recognition classification. The EAL's are consistent with the guidelines of NUREG 0654. The inspector noted that several initiating conditions for General Emergency have not been included in the EAL's. The licensee has agreed to evaluate these events and <

include them, as appropriate, prior to implementation of the new EAL' .8 Independent Reviews / Audits NUSCO Radiological Assessment Branch (RAB) is responsible for performing the independent annual review of the emergency preparedness program. The audit program is divided into 14 areas which cover the entire emergency preparedness program and are i performed over a 12 month period. The inspector noted that all areas scheduled to date have been performed, and all areas were completed in 198 The inspector reviewed CONI-11.01 Emergency Plan Audits, auditor qualifications and training, and RAB audit preparation. CONI-11.01 specifies and describes the 14 functional areas to be audited. The auditors are qualified inspectors and have received all required  !

training. They do not have a strong emergency preparedness background and the audit teams did not have technical experts available. Checklists are prepared prior to each audit. However, there are no procedures in place governing checklist preparation, review areas or supervisory approval. The actual audit reports are prepared in such a manner that it is difficult to determine the specific audit areas covered. The inspector noted that several reports had findings that were in fact, not valid findings. The j inspector was able to determine that audits covered the adequacy of state / local government interfaces, however this information was not shared with the affected agencies. The audit also did not identify

,

whether or not EAL's were reviewed with the affected agencies.

I l- Based upon the above review, the RAB audit program should be evaluated and strengthened to resolve the weaknesses identifie ,

This item is unresolved. (8:0-245/87-13-04)

4.0 Exit Meeting The NRC team met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0

,~

of this report at the end of the inspection. The team leader summarized i the observations made during the inspection.

,

The licensee was informed as to the status of previously identified open l

item No violations were observe ._-_ _ _ __-_- _

.

..-

Licensee management acknowledged the' findings and indicated that appropriate action would be taken regarding the inspection follow-up and unresolved ite At no time during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the license i

!

If.') . .

s<

.

..

--_--..--...---_-__---___D

- _ _ .-_ _ ____ . _ _ _ _ -. - - _ _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ..-. .

.

l

!

!

i,

, .

i J

69 6 y 01 d3S LBbt S0-38HSfl

.___--____ -