IR 05000245/1988015
| ML20205P934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1988 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205P931 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-88-15, 50-336-88-21, 50-423-88-14, NUDOCS 8811090020 | |
| Download: ML20205P934 (9) | |
Text
-
.
.-
^ W i
.. F,
.
.
,
-
.
,,.
- l
.8
,
.
.
.
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
.
i
'
DScket Nos. 50-245
,
50-336
'S0-423 Lic'ense Nos. 0PR-21 Priority Category C l
-
.
OPP-65 Priority Category.C
-
NPF-49 Priority -
Category C
-
Lit:ensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut, 06141-0270
{
Inspection At:
Berlin and Waterford, Connecticut Inspection' Conducted: August 22-25,193 Inspector:
_
/frE
C. GfA#tof_Rmergency Preparednrss Specialist,
/ date
,
Emer Wncy Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS e
Approved By:
/e /t f[W W. JfA.azaf )u, Chief, Emergency Preparedness c' ate Section, FRSSB, DRSS l
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on August 22-75, 1988 Combined Inspection Reports 50-245/88-15, 50-336/88-21, and 50-423/88-14)
,
Routine, announced, safety inspection of the licensee's emergency preparedness program conducted on August 22-25, 1988.
-
Rasults: No violations, deviations or unresolved items were identified.
I I
i i
,
I
,
'
i
!
i
.
p[
DO
,
m a
.
,
- -..,-,., -,.,...
n
,,-,----,--.---.-_,.---....,___,-.n,------,-,-..,.---
-,
- -.. -, - -. -
,
,
..
..
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and Northeast Utility Servica Company (NUSCO) personnel were contacted.
M. Bonaca System Manager, Reactor Engineering
- W. Buck, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Millstone Point t
- P. Capello-Bandzes, Trainer, Nuclear Training Department
'
- T. Dembek, Emergency Planner, Millstone Point R. Harris, Director, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering Department
- H. Haynes, Site Ser'.' ices Superintend, Millstone Point T. Hodge, Supervisor, General Nuclear Training, Training Department
- P. Luckey, Senior Trainer, Training Department
,
D. Hersey, Assistant Engineer, Licensing
'
- E. Molloy, Supervisor Emergency Preparedness, NUSCO C. Sears, Vice President, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering Division
{
- R. Rogers, Manager, Radiological Assessment Branch, NUSCO
- Denotes Licensee and NUSCO personnel who attended tne exit meeting The inspector also observed the actions of, and interviewed other Licensee and NUSCO personnel.
2.0 Follow-up on Previous Inspection Findings (CLOSED)(50-245/87-13-01) Inspector Follow-up Item. Training in bmeb sweep procedures indicated.
This training was provided during the Int cycle.
(CLOSED) (50-245/ 87-13-02) Inspector Follow-up Item.
Training is indicated for operators in the consequences of Protective Actions (pas).
The State of Connecticut Posture Codes coupled to NRC's Emergency Action Levels (EAls) are in use.
Protective Action Recommendations (PAPS) are, therefore, associated with the EAL. The operators do not recommend PARS and, hence, do not require training in the consequences of pas.
(CLOSED) (50-245/87-13-03) Inspector Follow-up Item. Net all Nuclear Security Officers (NS0s) are respirator trained and fi:ed. All NS0s with the exception of those on maternity leave are respirator trained and fitted.
(CLOSED)(50-245/87-13-04)
Inspector Follow-up Item. Om ' b Ass rance does nt. use a check list when reviewing the Emergency bwedricu.
Program (EPP).
The annual Quality As.urance review cw-rs all 15 aras each year and a cheek list is, therefore, not necessar,
.
.
f..
.
..
.
'
'
yi
,
(CLOSED) (50-245/86-14-03) Inspector Follow-up Item.
NRC Health Physics Network (HPN) phones have not been installed.
Six (6) HPN phones have been installed and are functional.
3.0 The_ Emergency Preparedness (EP) Organization
,
3.1 In order to determine if the Licensee has established an organization
which has developed and maintains an Emergency Plan (EP) which meets the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, as applicable, the inspector reviewed
,
I the organizational structure, interviewed managers and personnel
-
,
and identified ongoing emergency planning activities.
3.2 Northeast Utilities (NU) is a utility holding company with five subsidiaries including two nuclear generating companies and a service
ccmpany (NUSCO). One of the generating companies is the Northeast f
Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) which operates the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Another, Northeast Service Company (NUSCO) has i
established an Emergency Preparedness Program (EPP) which has i
developed, maintains and up-dates the EP and provides the essential
'
logistics to support the Emergency Response Organiza+. ion (ER0) at the site and at Northeast Utility (NU) headquarters in addition to providing support and training to the State and Towns including mairitaining the Public Alert'
System (PAS) and the Public Informa-tion Program.
In addition, EPP develops drill and exercise
-
scenarios and is responsible r the associated logistics. A NRC t
observed exercise and three drills are conducted each year at Millstone.
The EPP is supported by the NUSCO Training Department, a unit of the Connecticut Light Power Company (CLP) and several site groups.
Scenario development support is provided by Reactor Engineering and Operations. With the exception of Corporate Head-quarters, ERO personnel are drawn from the itcensee's site staff.
,
The site Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Coordinators have not been L
assigned an active ERO function.
3.3 The CPP is "locateu" within the Engineering Division of NUSCO and is, administrative 1y, one of four Sections comprising the Radio-
!
bgical Assessment Branch (RAB) which is headed by a third level NUSCO manager who is, de facto, the Corporate Emergency Planner.
t The EPP staff is headed by a first line supervisor and numbers ten; two of these ten are assigned to the Millstone site.
The EPP staff years of cumulative experience numbers approximately 43, 25 of which are accounted for by the RAB manager, the EPP Supervisor and the site Senior EPC.
Each of these individuals had prior EP experience before joining NU. The remaining EPP staff at Berlin averages three
!
years of experience each. With the exception of the RAB manager, l
none of the EPP staff is trained on the graduate level in Nucicar
~i Engineering or Health Physics or has a reactor operations background.
.
The EPP Supervisor holds an engineering degree and has received
!
additional training in Health Physics.
EP training opportunities are available to the staff.
Site EPCers have not yet observed operators
!
i
,
_ _ _ _ _. _ _, _,,,.. _, _ -,.. -, _. _ _ _, _, _. _ _ _ _ _ _, _.,.
. _ -
_ _,., _ _ _ _,. _,. _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _,,.., _ _. _ -.. _
_
_
__
_______________-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ ____
___
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.
.
.
-
.
when undergoing simulator training to recognize events and symptoms, correlate these with Emergency Ops ating Procciures (EODs) or associated procedures, classify :nd notify.
3.4 Executives and managers are routinely U volved 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 and it's Implementing Procedures, manages by exception data, will take disciplinary action against those personnel who should participate in drills and exerciset sut don't and could have done so. 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 ar.d uses "standard" management techniques to keep abreast of EP activities.
The RAB Manager devotes about half time to EP.
Activities include ongoing contacts with the State and towns, interface with site managers and meeting with his EP Supervisor.
3.5 The EPP is located within an engineering division and department and is managed by engineers; it is a multi disciplinary program.
Staff consensus indicattd additional and on going training is needed if future EPCers are no-to become narrow and weak generalists. Site EPCers are considered ar essential function.
'
Based on the above findings, this segment of the Licen e's EPP is acceptable.
4.0 Training 4.1 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 IV F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, the training organization was reviewed, training matricies, lesson plans, examinations, and grade records were studied and personnel interviewed.
4.2 Training is largely the responsibility of the NUSCO Nuclear Training Department (NT) the Director of which reports to the Vice President for Nuclear and Environmental Engineering. NT act1;1 ties are concentrated at the Nuclear Trainin) Center located at the Millstone site.
The NT staff numbers about 120, three of whom are dedicated to EP training which is the responsibility of General Nuclear Training.
EP training is provided for each site and Corporate Headquarters personnel; there is, in addition, a Nuclear Fire Training group at Niantic.
This training is available to NU and community fire-fighters.
Specialized training is given by subject matter experts who may be members of the NU staff or contractor employees (ex.
medical training is provided by the the Yale University Hospital staff).
NT trainers are qualified following eisnt (8) days of training; they also participate in The Northeast Training Workshop
,
.
- - -.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- __-
- - _ _
J
.
.
,
.
.
>
'
and Conferences and may receive in-house training. The Supervisor, General Nuclear Training, audits training sessions and stated he is satisfied with the quality of the training.
4.3 There are 28 Lesson Plans (LPs) for the 21 ERO positions.
These LPS are not based on job ' task analysis (JTA). A pilot program is underway using four (4) EP LPS to determine the use of this approach.
All LPs are reviewed annually and revised as necessary to reflect feed back from drills and exercises.
Every EP and EP Implementing Procedure change goes to Training. A Training Project Control
Committee has been established which meets monthly; EPCers, Operator and Health Physics trainers may attend these meetings.
Each Lo cover sheet provides signature blocks for subject matter experts, another
'
trainer and the S"pervisor, General Nuclear Training, who review and approve these. A Nuclear Training Manual (NTM) has been developed and has been under review for a year.
It is still classified as a draft; final approval is expected this year.
'
4.4 If scheduled training is missed, makeups must be scheduled.
Line supervisors are responsible for insuring all their staff members are properly trained and currently qualified.
Th9 NTC is responsible for training and providing the sites with negative training results.
The site determines the outcome of negative training results.
Training is classified as significant or interim.
Significant training is classroom training while interim training is read and
l sign.
Eighty (80) percent is the passing grade.
4.5 Operators are trained in Emergency Action Level (EAL) classification
.
!
and associated communications procedures. Managers and directors
are, in addition, trained in Protective Action Recommendations (PARS)
i and the Connecticut State Posture Codes.
At the time of this
'
inspection about 600 site personnel were trained for one or more of the 21 ERO positions 15 of which are on call positions and six are
support positions.
There are, at least, five persons qualified for each ERO position.
'
4.6 About 70 Corporate personnel are trained for Corporate Organization Nuclear Incidents (CONI);
these personnel man the Corporate
'
Emergency Operating Center (CE0C). One quarter of these are assigned to Dose Assessment.
Training had not begun at the time of this
,
inspection but all are within the nine to 15 mcath requalification
'
l window. Completion of this training will be verified by inspection prior to the first 1988 NRC observed exercise.
Training in severe accident is being offered for the first time to select CONI l
personnel.
4.7 Training is offered to State and Town personnel in three areas.
,
Attendance is taken but examinations are not administered.
This training fc,r 1988 was underway at the time of this inspection end
[
had been largely completed. This training included review of EAls
and PARS.
\\
.
- -. -. - - -
-.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
[
-
.
..
,
.
.
Based on the above determinations, this portion of the Licensee's EPP is acceptable.
5.0 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), Emergency Action Levels (EALs)
and Protective Action Recommendations (PARS)_
5.1 E0Ps and $ssociated Abnormal Operating Procedures (AOPs) were checked for each of the three Millstone Units as were EALs to determine if the requirements of Section IV B of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) are met.
5.2 E0Ps and A0Ps as well as appropriate administrative procedures contain referral to Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIPs) for EAL determination.
The classification scheme is found in EPIP-4701 wr. ch contains colored coded, human factor engineered classification
'
charts.
Events, symptoms and barrier breech analysis are factored into these charts. Since PARS are associated with the Posture Codes, they cre predetarmined; only two PARS are listed and these are for General Emergency (GE); they are designated GE Bravo and GE Alpha.
Operator EP training includes use of classification and notification procedures.
Based on the above findings, this portion of the Licensee's EP is acceptable.
6.0 Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs)
6.1 The Control Rooms, Technical Support Center, Operatiors Support Center Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and the Corporat; Emergency Operations Center (CE0C) were checked to determine if they are properly equip e d and currently maintained in keeping with the requirements of Section IV E of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
6.2 Each facility was checked.
Plans and Procedures we,a current.
Equipment was functional and within calibration windows.
Self Contained Breathing Apparatus, face pieces and canisters were properly stored and useable.
EOF filter banks were maintained per schedule and the E0F emergency diesel electric generator fuel tank was full.
The protection factor for the EOF is 500.
6.3 Eighteen on the off site communications systems were 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, facsimile machines and data transmission capability. Oper-ability of phone systems was checked on a sampling basis. All lines so checked were found to be functional.
The NRC's ENS and HPN lines are included in the preceding listing.
6.4 The ERO is activated by voice pager which is tested twice daily.
The inspector observed one test; results were satisfactory.
Test records also indicate acceptable results.
Monthly verification i
.w--
/
,
.
.
.
tests are also made and results are recorded.
Records of these tests indicate acceptable results.
The Millstone Director on call does not have a cellular phone while the Duty Officer does.
Since in the event of a fast breaking accident, the State might wish to discuss the timing of PAR implementation or extent, contact with the Director during transit to the site is recommended. This matter was discussed with the Licensee who agreed to review the matter. This will be subject to a follow up inspection.
Based on these findings, this portion of the Licensee's program is acceptable.
7.0 EP-Security Interface 7.1 To ascertain if Nuclear Security Officers (NS0s) were properly trained, qualified and annually requalified to support implementation of the EP, the inspector checked their training program ar.d records.
7.2 NS0s are EP trained and are also Radiation Worker qualified, as well as respirator trained and fitted.
Training extends to search and rescue plus accountability.
Based on the above facts, this portion of the Licensee's program is acceptable.
8.0 Off Site Activities 8.1 To determine if the Licensee's on going activities meet the requirements of Section IV D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 and appropriately support off site entities, the inspector interviewed State officials, reviewed the test records for the Alert and Notification System, inspected the Joint News Center and reviewed dissemination of information to members of the public within the ten mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
l 8.2 There are 125 four function sirens within the 180 degree EPZ for Millstone. One of these functions is the public alerting system.
These sirens are battery mounted atop 3c foot, dedicated poles.
Surveillance is conducted manually every other week.
In addition, there is a quarterly load test in lieu of a growl test as well as an
annual test when all the sirens are acitated. About 90% of the Towns carry out monthly full function tests. Malfunctions are corrected as soon as possible; this activity is the responsibility of the NU Regional Test Group at Madison, CT.
Results are sent to the l
Connecticut Office of Civil Preparedness (OCP) for retransmittal to U.S. FEMA-I.
Results for 1987 were sent to the OCP on January 22, 1988 and indicated 96N availability.
Surface water clearance
'
procedures are in place.
8.3 Seventeen Letters of Agreement (LOAs) are current with State, U.S.
government entities, Police, Fire and Ambulance services, Amtrac and bus companies.
i I
l
-
~,
.
.
8.4 The Joint News Center (JNC) is co-located in the State E0C in Hartford. A NU work area is also provided at this location sized to accommodate four persons. The press briefing room seats 42 comfortably and and has 12 press phones. A rumor control area is established with space for eight tables.
The Emergency Broadcast System center is also located here. A Media Training Manual has been developed and the annual media briefing session held.
8.5 A two page insert has been placed in sev=n telephone directories for both sites.
This information appears in 470,000 phone books.
Evacuation routes are shown, EBS and TV stations are listed and reception centers identified and correlated with evacuation routes.
Instructional material is not mailed to residents.
Similar material for farmers has been prepared; 4200 out of 10,000 copies have been distributed.
About 20,000 transient hand outs have been printed and are distributed at parks and recreational centers. A Spanish language emergency information brochure has been prepared.
8.6 State and Town officials have been briefed with respect to EALs, PARS and the Posture Codes.
8.7 Connecticut State Office of Civil Preparedness personnel stated they were satisfied with the License's support and cooperation.
Bases on the above, this portion of the Licensee's EP is acceptable.
9.0 Independent / Review Audit 9.1 10 CFR 50.54(t) requires an a,nual review / audit of the EP by qualified individuals having no direct responsibility for program implementation.
The inspector checked review orotocol, records and results to determine if this requirement is met.
9.2 The review is conducted by staff members of another Section of the Radiological Assessment Oranch in which th EPP is located.
There is no matrix since all aspects of the EPE are covered annually.
The reviews are conducted in four quart. ly segments and include determination for adequacy of the Stat and local government inter-face.
Findings and recommendations r-,t be acted upon satis-factorily.
Reports are distributed annually. A review of results obtained so far this year indicates they are extensive but resemble a compliance datermination since the quality of the EP and it's supporting resources are not addressed.
Based on these findings and with the exception of the nature of th: activity.
this portion of the Licensee's EP appears acceptable.
.
l
T
'l
.
.
.
10.0 Dosimetry 10.1 To find out if the Licensee is maintaining and calibrating vent monitors and meteorological sensors tower, operation and calibration records were reviewed and methodology was discussed with staff. This segment of the inspection relates to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9).
10.2 Sensor and electronic calibration records indicate that maintenance and calibration is conducted per the established schedule.
Instrumentation was functional and in calibration.
No determination as to the adequacy of techniques was made.
This will be done during a future inspection.
10.3 Dose calculations were intercompared with results obtained by the Connecticut State Department of Environmental Protection using the a
same source terms and MET data.
Results showed good agreement.
Based on the above, this po"tion of the Licensee's EP is acceptable.
11.0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held with Licensee personnel listed in section 1.0 of this report. The Licensee was advised no violations were identified.
The inspector also discussed some areas for improvement.
The Licensee acknowledged these findings, and agreed to evaluate them, and institute corrective action. At no time during the course of the inspection did the inspector give the Licensee written material.
-
-,