IR 05000309/1989004

Insp Rept 50-309/89-04 on 890306-09.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness Program, Facilities,Equipment,Supplies & Organization & Mgt Control

ML20248C704
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	03/27/1989
From:	Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20248C700	List: IR 05000309/1989004 ML20248C698
References
50-309-89-04, 50-309-89-4, NUDOCS 8904110295
Download: ML20248C704 (6)

Text

T ' V-

, .s

.

.

.

V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No: 50-309/89-04

. Docket No: 50-309 License No: DPR-36 Priority Category C Licensee: Wiine Yankee Atomic Power Comoany i 83 Edison Drive-Auausta. Maine 04336 Facility Name: &tice Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset. Main Inspection Conducted: March 6-9. 1989 Inspector: ~

l / 1 Craig Conklin, Senior Emergency date Preparedness Specialist, DRSS Approved By: (W d7 WilQasLazarus, Chief, Emergency date Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on March 6-9. 1989. (Recort No. 50-309/89-04)

Areas Insoected: A routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection was conducted at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. The inspection areas included: Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program; Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies; Organization and i, Management Control; Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training);

Independent Reviews / Audits; and Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Finding Results1 No violations were identifie '

.

$

>O O i OC o i

. ._

r

- . .

.

.

-

.

I l

DETAILS 3 l Persons Contacted i The following licensee representatives attended the exit meeting hold on March 9, 198 n

Dr. E. T. Boulette, Vice President, Operations and Plant Manager i D. Whittier, Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Licensing .

S. Evans, Senior Licensing Coordinator l J. Temple, Emergency Planning Coordinator l The inspector also interviewed and observed the activities of other licensee personne .0 Operational Status of the Emeraency Preparedness Proaram Chanaes to the Emeraency Preparedness Proaram  ;

There have been no significant changes to the licensee's 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 preparedness. Changes to the program are initiated by the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (EPC) and are based upon perceived needs or identified areas requiring corrective actio ,

Revisions are reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee !

(PORC) and approved by the Plant Manager, Vice President, Engineering and Licensing and the President prior to implementation. It was noted that the addition of approvals by the Vice President and President have approximately doubled the j time necessary to implement these change i

'

The inspector noted that Implementing Procedures (IP's) do not use a consistent format. For example, some IP's are based upon functionality, some are based upon responsibilities and many are a combination of both. Additionally, the structure of the IP's is

i

.

l not always consistent. The licensee has agreed to evaluate the current IP's and implement a consistent methodology.

'

i

.

The inspector reviewed the status of the 1989 Public Information l

Brochure (PIB). The PIB was issued for 1989 in the form of a booklet to all EPZ residents, businesses and recreational area Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl { [mergp wv Fac!1ities. Fauioment. Instrumentation and Sunolies I

The inspector toured the Technical Support Center (TSC), !

Operations Support Center (0!,C) as,d Emergency Operations Facility l (E0f). Thne facilities are adequate to support emergency i

!

l

. _ _ _ - _ _

-

e

.

~

.

.

response and are in agreement with-the Emergency PlanLand IPs.-

Checks of equipment and supplies revealed that the equipment is 1 regularly inventoried, instrumentation is calibrated as required, and equipment:and instruments were operabl _

=The inspector'also; reviewed the Emergency Response Facility (ERF)

ventilation system in place to. meet the NUREG 0737, Supp. I habitability commitments. There are two trains designated as:the TSC/ EOF ventilation system. Both trains must be operable for the system to function correctly. These trains are tested periodically for. filter capacities, charcoal efficiencies and

. total system flow. . Both trains were. tested on~ April 2,1987. The E0F train was tested on October 3, 1988. The current schedule calls for.one train to'be tested each refueling. cycle. .The system was placed in operation in accordance with IP 2.50.13, Emergency Operations Facility Procedure and operated. However, the , -

inspector was unable to determine the system lineup and whether the system was performing as intended. _The licensee has agreed to evaluate the system and retest it. This will be reviewed in a subsequent inspectio Based upon the above review, this area -is acceptabl .3 Organization and Manaaement Control The inspector reviewed the normal staffing organization as:it q pertains to emergency preparedness and noted that changes have taken place. The EPC reports through the Senior Licensin Coordinator, the Licensing Supervisor, the Manager Nuclear Engineering and Licensing, the Vice President, Engineering and Licensing, to the President. The Plant Manager also reports to the President. .Although this~ change has.resulted in two-additional management layers for the_ EPC to report through, this l has not diminished program impact as the EPC has direct access to both the President and the Plant Manager as necessary. Management support for emergency preparedness was evident _at all level The EPC is responsible for all off-site and on-site emergency-planning and for implementation of the program. The EPC has n staff but does receive assistance from the Training department, , !

the Technical Support department, the Simulator. department and Government _ Affairs. All portions of the program are under the EPC's direct purview or-review. The EPC is hard pressed to accomplish all required tasks and this was exacerbated by a recent two month detail to the Security department. Although the program '

is being adequately administered, delays and inconsistencies in performance were noted. These included ' delays in corrective ,

action completion,, incomplete or inconsistent documentation, and l

. portions.of the program not being performed as noted in Section j 2.5. The licensee has agreed to evaluate this area (50-309/89-04- t 01).

____

.

I *

.

l 4 )

i l The inspector reviewed the Emergency Response Organization (ER0) )

) and determined that there have been several changes since the last  ;

' inspection. It was determined that the licensee has sufficient j personnel to staff all ERO positions. However, the Emergency Plan, IP's and emergency roster do not always agree and it is j often difficult to determine who is assigned to each position. In j some cases multiple positions were noted to be assigned to the '

same staff member. The licensee has agreed to evaluate their ERO, to designate staff for specific positions and to show sufficient depth to support 24-hour operations (50-309/89-04-02).

!

The inspector noted that primary staff is notified by Page Additional staff are notified by a telephone callout. The pagers l are tested weekly, however no evaluation is conducted on test results. The licensee has agreed to evaluate this area. The inspector also noted that key staff (the Duty Emergency Coordinator, Nuclear Safety Engineer, and senior staff) perform

,

redundant or subsequent verification telephone calls. The inspector indicated that this process has the potential to delay l the response of these key individuals to support the operating l staff. The licensee has agreed to evaluate this are .4 Knowledae and Performance of Duties (Trainina)

)

!

The inspector verified that training for the ER0 is being j conducted in accordance with IP 2.50.5, " Emergency Plan Training". l l Training is current for all members of the ERO, except for one j

'

individual. This individual was scheduled for training prior to i the end of the inspection. Lesson plans are current, approved and reviewed by the EPC. Performance validation is performed as appropriate. A system is in place to ascertain ER0 training status and remove individuals not currently qualified. Student records were accessible and current. The inspector determined that all plant staff receive introductory emergency preparedness training through General Employee Training (GET), Technical Staff Training or Safety Training. The licensee agreed to evaluate combining and formalizing this training to ensure all members of the ERO receive emergency preparedness introductory trainin The inspector interviewed three individuals who may be called upon to be the Radiation Evaluation Assistant (REA). These individuals

were presented with a scenario that would require them to evaluate

! radiological conditions and make a Protective Action l Recommendation. The inspector noted that although these I individuals were trained as REA's, this would not be their normal ERO assignment. These individuals had difficulty performing the required tasks, although the IPs were available and referenced.

l These individuals were not familiar with the IPs, had difficulty in finding the proper forms or sections of the IPs to use, and

'

l were unaware that the IPs delineated the responsibilities for the REA. Upon further questioning, only one individual was aware that

,

the IPs delineated the responsibilities for the position they l

_ _ _ _ - _ _

_

.

.

. .

.

normally perform, and he could not locate the proper IP to us These individuals showed an apparent lack of training in basic emergency preparedness functions, activation and operation of emergency facilities and concepts of operation (50-309/89-04-03). Independent Reviews / Audits The Quality Assurance Group from Yankee Atomic Power Corporation performs the annual emergency preparedness audit. The audit was conducted on August 15-19, 1988. The assigned audit team consisted of individuals experienced in audits as well as emergency preparedness. The audit adequately identified areas '

requiring corrective action, as well as reviewed off-site interfaces. A corrective action system is in place and utilized to track these areas to completion. Although the audit was not formally distributed to senior management, the inspector determined that senior management was apprised of the audit primarily through the EPC and the corrective action system. The inspector was not able to determine that the audit was made available to the state and local officials as required by 10 CFR 50.54(t). A good working relationship exists between state and local officials and the licensee and this audit report did not contain any significant findings regarding that interface. As failure to provide this audit to the state would be classified as Severity Level V, it was not cited as a Violatio The licensee I agreed to make the audit immediately available to state and local

'

officials. This corrective action will be verified during a subsequent inspection (50-309/89-04-04).

The inspector reviewed the drill program and determined that all drills, exercises and tests were conducted in accordance with IP 2.50.23, " Emergency Preparedness Drills and Exercises".

Documentation was complete and corrective actions performed as appropriate. The inspector noted that drill summaries were not of ,

consistent detail and quality. The licensee agreed to evaluate this are j Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl l 3.0 Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinos During the inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's progress i concerning the items opened during previous inspections (Inspection l Report Nos. 50-309/84-05 and 50-309/87-22).

! (Closed) (50-309/84-05-16): Provide a completc description of the Meteorological Monitoring program in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and reference in the Emergency Pian

'

A complete description of the Meteorological Monitoring Program is provided in the FSAR and referenced in the Emergency Plan.

l i

E___.___ _

p w

... -.

. . . . . .

.

..

6-3.2' -(Closed) (50-309/84-05-17): State how the primary Meteorological

.

Monitoring program conforms to RG 1.23, Rev. 1 or. justify any

. deviation The FSAR states that the Meteorological Monitoring program j conforms to RG 1.2 )

W (0 pen) '(50-309/84-05-18): Provide an acceptable method to acquire l backup meteorological. measurements to assure. continuous- j radiological assessment during severe weathe l The licensee has.not established a backup system for obtaining _ _

meteorological-information. The licensee was able to demonstrate that they could obtain this information'1ocally...The. inspector-noted that this process was'not formalized,and the' licensee agreed to evaluate and take appropriate actio .4 (Closed) (50-309/87-22-01): The licensee audit did 'not identify ,

problems or potential weaknesses in their Emergency Preparedness 1 progra The 1988 audit was adequat See.section I (Closed) (50-309/87-22-02): Licensee has not conducted all drills and tests in accordance with applicable implementing procedure The 1988 drill program was performed in accordance with the IP See section .0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the j conclusion of the inspection to discuss the scope and findings of this ,

inspection as detailed in this repor J The licensee was informed that no violations were identifie Several !

areas of improvement were discussed. The licensee l acknowledged these !

findings and agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions'as i appropriat l At no time during this inspection did the inspector provide any writte !

information to the license !

,

'

'

!

_ _ ___ _____- -. __