IR 05000309/1993024
| ML20058F262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1993 |
| From: | Keimig R, Lusher J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F251 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-93-24, NUDOCS 9312080050 | |
| Download: ML20058F262 (8) | |
Text
._
.
.
.
,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Docket / Report:
50-309/93-24 License: DPR-36 Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station
,
Inspection:
November 8-12,1993 Inspection At:
Wiscasset, Maine
<!
k p/.fv/A Inspectors:
ar s
(f. Lusher', Em"drgency' Preparedness Specialist
~
~
date Kent Faris, USNRC Contractor (Pacific Northwest Laboratories)
Approved:
b, d 4/2V[O
,
M R. Keimig, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section
'dat'e Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Areas Inspected
!
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station emergency preparedness (EP) program changes, emergency facilities, equipment and supplies, organization and management control, emergency response organization (ERO) training, staff knowledge and performance, and independent reviews / audits.
Results
)
Overall, the inspectors found effective EP program implementatiuiin all areas.
i g20 BOO 50931130
'G ADOCK 05000309 PDR
!
.
.
,
Table of Contents
1.0 Persons Contacted.......................................
2.0 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures...................... 2 3.0 Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies
...........
4.0 Organization and Management Control........................... 3
5.0 Training
............................................
6.0 Independent and Internal Reviews and Audits....................... 6 7.0 Revie w of Open Items..................................... 7 8.0 Exit M eeti n g........................................... 7
.-
-.--.
..
- -
.
_
_ _ _
>
i
!
.
s DETAILS i
1.0 Persons Contacted The following individuals were interviewed during the inspection and attended the exit meeting.
l B. Blackmore, Plant Manager J. Crowder, Supervisor, Training i
S. Evans, Emergency Planning / Environmental Engineering Section Head J. Frothingham, Manager, Quality Programs
-
!
J. Kirsh, Supervisor, Operations training W. Olsen, NRC Resident Inspector, Maine Yankee D. Whittier, Vice President Licensing and Engineering The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel during the inspection.
t 2.0 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures i
The inspectors reviewed changes to the emergency plan (E-Plan) and its implementing
procedures (EPIPs) since the last inmection to determine if they adversely effected the l
emergency preparedness program am whether the changes had been properly reviewed,
'
approved, and distributed. The inspector concluded that the changes did not decrease program effectiveness and were handled properly.
The inspectors found that the licensee had corrected and reviewed all Emergency Action Level
!
(EAL) scheme problems to ensure compliance with the NUREG-0654 (EAL) scheme. This was -
an Unresolved Item in Inspection Report 50-309/92-13.
The inspectors also found that the licensee had tevised its EALs and basis document to comply l
with the NRC-approved NUMARC EAL scheme. The revised EALs and basis document were l
in the initial review process. The licensee plans to submit the NUMARC EALs to the NRC late in the first quarter of 1994, and implement them during the third quarter of 1994. They are also
preparing to implement the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 400 Guidelines by January 1,1994. The inspectors had no questions regarding these matters.
,
This area of the program was assessed as being effectively implemented.
,
3.0 Emergency Fm:ities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies The inspectors toured the Control Room (CR), Operations Support Center (OSC), Technical Support Center (TSC), and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) to assess whether these facilities, equipment, supplies, and procedures were effectively maintained.
The inspector reviewed EPIP 2-50-25, " Facility Equipment Inventory," checklists covering the period December 10, 1992, thmugh October 25,1993. The checklists were complete and
indicated that inventory discrepancies, e.g., depleted batteries, were immediately corrected. The
-
_, _ _ _ _
-
+~.
. -
.-
,
.
.
quarterly and eighteen month Emergency Response Facilities (ERF) ventilation performance test l
results were also reviewed to ensure that proper testing of these systems had been completed as l
required in the E-Plan. All surveillances were completed and test results were satisfactory.
l There had been several ERF improvements made since the last inspection. The improvements included additional communication equipment, revised status bosrds, and enhanced area maps provided for use in the facility.
i This area of the program was assessed as being effectively implemented.
4.0 Organization and Management Control l
The inspectors reviewed the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) and management control of the EP program to assess conformance with the E-Plan. The ERO is staffed three deep in all major positions. Training rccords were reviewed and the ERO was found to be fully qualified.
Responsibility for EP is assigned to the Manager, Licensing and Engineering Support.
Reporting to the Manager is the Emergency Planning and Environmental Engineering Section Head.
Reporting to the Section Head are the on-site and off-site Emergency Planning -
Coordinators (EPCs). The on-site coordinator is an individual from the Operations staff who was an Shift Operating Supervisor (SOS). Additional resources from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company are available to assist him and a new Senior Engineer has been added to the Corporate staff who will spend part of the time performing E-Plan activities.
This area of the program was assessed as being effectively implemented.
5.0 Training Five scenarios were prepared by Maine Yankee Training staff personnel for presentation by the inspectors to Operations personnel (3 crews) to evaluate their ability to coordinate plant activities during an emergency, perform E-Plan classifications, make E-Plan communications, assess Protection Action Recommendations (PARS), and evaluate offsite dose assessments.
The scenarios were reviewed by the inspectors for content, level of difficulty, and accuracy. Some minor modifications were necessary to assure the desired level of classification.
Each crew was comprised of individuals in the following job categories:
,
One Plant Shift Superintendent, Licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)
One Shift Operating Supervisor, (SRO)
One Primary Reactor Operator, Licensed Reactor Operator (RO)
One Balance Of Plant operator (RO)
One Nuclear Safety Engineer, Shift Technical Advisor (STA)
.-
?
'
i The scenarios were selected from the licensed operator exam bank. Two scenarios were administered to each crew; one was used as a " control" and given to all three crews, while the second scenario was different for each crew. A fifth scenario was retained as a spare.
The following is a brief summary of each of the four (4) scenarios administered to the control i
room crews:
i Scenario #3 (control)- Initially the Unit was at 100% power with high Reactor Coolant :
System (RCS) activity and minor primary to secondary leakage. Following a loss of condenser vacuum and subsequent turbine and reactor trip, a fuel cladding failure and a Steam Generator tube rupture occur. Additionally, a Steam Generator safety valve sticks open on the Steam Generator with the ruptured tube, providing a release path to
'
the environment. E-Plan Classification Level for this scenario is a General Emergency l
based on a loss of three fuel barriers.
Scenario #5 - Initially the Unit was at 80% power with a major oil leak on the Diesel Generator l A. A 20 gpm RCS head vent leak occurs which quickly escalates to a large break Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA). E-Plan Classification I2 vel for this scenario
'
is a Site Area Emergency based on a LOCA with makeup greater than High Pressure
,
'
Safety Injection (HPSI) capability and a loss of pressurizer level for greater than ten minutes.
Scenario #27 - Initially the Unit was at 100% power with Emergency Diesel IB out of service. A 20 gpm head vent RCS leak occurs requiring a forced shutdown. While the shutdown is in progress, a seismic event causes a loss of all offsite power and RCS leakage into the containment. Diesel Generator IA fails to start resulting in a station blackout. E-Plan Classification level for this scenario is a General Emergency based on a LOCA with a loss of all AC power.
Scenario #30 -Initially the Unit was at 100% power with Emergency Feed Pump P-25C out of service. A lightning strike results in a loss of offsite power. Both Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump P-25A and Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump P-25B fail to start, resulting in a loss of all feedwater. Steam generator levels continue to decrease, forcing the crew to initiate feed and bleed cooling to the RCS. E-Plan Classification Ixvel for this scenario is a Site Area Emergency, based on a loss of feedwater and two Steam Generator levels decreasing to less than 110 inches.
All crews performed in accordance with the established Abnormal and Emergency Procedures and adequately mitigated all accident conditions. Event classifications were done in a correct and timely fashion. Notifications were timely and accurate; however, wind speed and direction information were missing from several forms. This was considered by the inspectors to be an artifact of the way the scenarios were presented and not a critical flaw. PARS were correctly evaluated and communicated. Offsite dose assessments were performed by each crew during Scenario #3. Two crews utilized the " Monitored Release" option for the Code Safety release
.
.
,-
"
path, while one crew utilized the less conservative "Non-Monitored" release path. The "Non-Monitored" method gave a less conservative PAR but nonetheless was correct.
Additionally, the following training materials were reviewed during this inspection:
Emergency Plan Training Course (EPTC) Rev. 2,1/20/93, Training Matrix Attachments a.
'
A, B, and C. They were cross-referenced with the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Manual Call Roster - Rev. 1, 10/10/93 and were found to be consistent and complete. The position of Engineering Coordinator for the Call List is referred to as an Engineering Advisor in the Training Matrix.
l b.
Training records were being maintained by a computer tracking system that can access any individual's complete yearly training history. The records were, therefore, easy to access and use. Twenty three individual records were randomly chosen and reviewed for accuracy and completeness. The information was cross-referenced 'with training courses required by EPTC Rev. 2,1/20/93, Training Matrix Attachments A, B, and C.
All positions reviewed were documented as having received their required annual training for the calendar year with the exception of three individuals assigned to the position of TSC Maintenance Advisor. It was not apparent that this training was scheduled during the remaining calendar year; however, the licensee stated that it would be.
Five EPTC lesson plans were randomly chosen and reviewed for accuracy and adequacy c.
of the course material. All were found to be professionally formatted with clear learning objectives established. The inspectors suggested that the lesson plan, EP-DSA-01,
" Local Assistance Organizations", might be revised to include such things as current l
plant organizational charts, Emergency Plan Organization charts, maps showing physical locations of Emergency Response groups, and discussions on such topics as "Who is In Charge?" during an event. The licensee responded that this would be considered.
d.
Three recertification exams were inspected for positions that require annual exams as part of the recertification process. These were found to be complete and accurately graded.
All individual training records reviewed showed participation in at least one drill during e.
the calendar year, which is the goal; some individuals had participated in as many as four drills.
f.
Following up on weaknesses previously identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-309/92-13, the inspectors found that the training course requirements for the Dose Projection Coordinator were revised by the addition of a special module EP-DOS-01,
" Dose Projection From The Control Room", which provides periodic training in the use of EZ METPAC as well as METPAC.
g.
For Reactor Operator Training and Requalification Training E-Plan Classifications in lesson plans and simulator scenarios, the following lists the number of existing lesson
__
.
.t -
,
.
!
plans with their E-Plan Classification level:
]
.
Notification of Unusual Event (NUE)
-3
{
Alert-6
,
Site Area Emergency (SAE)
-6 General Emergency-1
,
,
The following lists the number of existing Requalification Training Exam Bank scenarios
with their E-Plan Classification Level:
NUE-7 Alert
- 16 SAE-6
,
i General-1
!
The inspectors suggested that more scenarios be developed for training on the General Emergency Classification. The licensee responded that it would be considered.
h.
Twelve drills / exercises were scheduled for 1993 (10 had been completed as of this inspection). Two of the E-Plan drills were randomly chosen for review to assure compliance with Procedure 2-50-23, " Emergency Preparedness Exercises and Drills".
All paperwork associated with each drill was reviewed. All packages were found to have the proper approvals and documentation. Drill objectives were clearly defined. Findings and Recommendations were clearly documented and distributed to responsible managers.
'
Outstanding items were being tracked utilizing a computer data base.
This program area was assessed as being effectively implemented.
l 6.0 Independent and Internal Reviews and Audits Maine Yankee Quality Program Department Audit Report, MY-92-14, " Emergency Preparedness Program", and MY-93-14, " Emergency Planning", were reviewed during the course of this inspection. The following observations were made:
Both audits followed an established two year inspection plan using audit checklists
!
Audit summaries were distributed to appropriate management personnel
The 1993 audit followed up on a previous deficiency, offsite support group training, and
found it greatly improved in 1993 Per 10 CFR 50.54(t) requirements, the results of all audits on Emergency Plan Offsite
Support Group interface were made available to outside agencies
,
.
_
_.
.
,
'
,
.
E-Plan expertise for the audit was provided by an Emergency Coordinator from another e
,
utility This program area was assessed as being effectively implemented.
One classifiable event occurred thus far in 1993. This was an NUE for a severe storm which
,
struck the site in March of 1993. The procedures used to mitigate and report this event were
'
reviewed for compliance and accuracy. All procedures and notifications were completed as required.
j
.
This program area was assessed as being effectively implemented.
?
7.0 Review of Open Items
Closed (URI 50-309/92-13-01) The licensee agreed to evaluate and correct the EALs that significantly deviated from NUREG- 0654 guidance. The licensee performed
a thorough review of the EAL scheme and made changes to make it conform to i
NUREG - 0654 guidance as possible. Also, the licensee is in the process of
putting together the NUMARC EAL scheme which it expects to present to the
NRC for review during the first quarter 1994.
Closed (IFI 50-309/92-13-02)
No automatic PARS were required for a Generr.1
)
'
Emergency. Review of the EPIP 2-50-16, Revision 16, now has a minimum PAR recommendation of " Shelter All Areas."
!
Closed (IFI 50-309/92-13-03) During ir:spection 92-13, the inspectors were informed that in March of 1990 there was an internal commitment to do a quarterly ERF ventilation test to ensure proper fan and damper operation. This surveillance had not been performed until May 22,1992. The licensee has placed the surveillance i
on a surveillance tracking system and it has been properly completed.
Closed (URI 50-309/92-13-04) The inspectors concluded that insufficient staffing resources were being applied to the EP program. The licensee selected the on-l site coordinator from the Operations staff. He was an Shift Operating Supervisor (SOS). The licensee also used additional resources from Yankee Atomic to assist him and will add a new Senior Engineer to the Corporate staff who will spend part of the time performing E-Plan activities.
{
l 8.0 Exit Meeting
,
,
The inspectors met with the licensee personnel listed in Detail 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the scope and findings. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
,
'
,