IR 05000443/1988003

Insp Rept 50-443/88-03 on 880216-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Action on Previously Identified Items, Emergency Response Facilities & Equipment,Audits & Reviews, Training,Drills & Exercises

ML20151C227
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/29/1988
From:	Lazarus W, Tuccinardi T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151C221	List: IR 05000443/1988003 ML20151C217
References
50-443-88-03, 50-443-88-3, NUDOCS 8804120237
Download: ML20151C227 (5)

Text

_ _

__ _ .. ._ _ _ . . . . . . . _ __ _ .

. .-

,

.

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-443/88-03

~

Docket N ,

License No. CPPR 135 Category C ,

Licensee: Public Service Co. of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire  ;

Inspection Conducted: February 16-19, 1988 i

Inspectors: -r_ <

T. TuccinarJi, Emergency PreWidedness

[ 3!23 date Speci lis

,

Approved by:

W

/

azar

. A M' ei M 7

f,gergencyPreparedness ' dits Inspection Summary: Inspection on February 16-19, 1988 (Report N ;

'

,

50-443/88-03)

Areas Inspected: A routine unannounced emergency preparedness inspection was i performed at Seabrook Station. The inspection areas included licensee action on previously identified items, emergency response facilities and equipment, '

audits and reviews, training, and drills and exercise Results: No violations were identifie l i

. 1 i

i n

8804120237 geo4o4 r~

PDR ADOCK 05000443 O DCD

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

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

-

-

.

.

.

Details 1.0 Persons Contacted

• Temple, Licensing Coordinator

• Perkins, Licensing

• J. Warnock, Nuclear Quality Manager

• R. Donald, Nuclear Quality Auditor

• R. Cooney, Technical Project Manager

• G. Gramn, Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness

• 0. Ta11eart, Training Supervisor

• W. DiProfio, Assistant Station Manager J. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Manager M. Camphill, Health Physics Working Foreman D. Young, Lead Planner, Scenario Development E. Collins, Supervisor, Onsite Drills and Exercises

,

L. Starris, Health Physics Working Foreman R. Campion, Controller, PASS Sampling *

P. Casey, Emergency Planning Supervisor D. Broulette, Instructor

• Denotes those persons present at the exit interview on February 19, 1988.

'

2.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Progra ! Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items

'

2. Closed (50-443/87-08-06)

The lack of sensitivity of the test engineering staff, in (

failing to promptly inform the operations crew of the loss of  ;

containment integrity needs to be evaluated and correcte l The licensee short term corrective action was a memorandum

'

entitled Control Room Notification dated October 27, 1987, stressing the necessity of notifying Control Room (CR) ,

i personnel of incorrect conditions concerning the plan The

'

memo was distributed to plant department managers and

supervisors, technical support, maintenance group, and i

Operations personnel. Long term corrective action was to stress the same necessity in the training for general employees. The training module entitled General Employee Training (GET), S-35,

,

Lesson 1 dated 9/08/87 was reviewed and found to contain l instructions for notification of the CR for emergencies . The

GET instructor was interviewed who stated that he was aware of

the memo and that notification of the CR for incorrect concitions as well as emergencies was covered during GE Based on the above this item is close __ ___-____ _ _________ _ _ __ _ ___ _ -

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

. .

'

.

2. Closed (50-443/87-12-01)

The licensee was to evaluate the SORC process to enable the ,

Radiological Assessment Manager to be ir. a' formal review path for those department procedures that have the potential to affect the level of emergency preparedness ~.

The Radiological Assessment Manager will review SORC meeting announcements and minutes for items that could have an impact-on the Emergency Pla Based on the above'this item is close I 2.2 Emergency Response Facilities and Equipmen ,

The inspector toured the licensee's' Control Room (CR), Technical Support Center (TSC), and the Operations Support Center (OSC), to evaluate thei adequacy under emergency condition The OSC is a relatively large area that is also the Health Physics control point for plant access. The area has sufficient space for personnel and equipment. Equipment lockers are in the OSC for storage of emergency supplies. An inventory of the contents of one locker was being perfortned during the inspectors tour, and is normally performed on a I monthly basis. A Fully Integrated Nuclear Information System (FINIS)

terminal is available in the OSC allowing access to respiratory protection qualification, medical qualification, and exposure status of personne '

During an emergency, repair and survey tours would be assembled, briefed, and dispatched from the OSC. The licensee records' pertinent data  :

concerning each team on status boards that are hung on the wall when the OSC is activated. All teams, except auxiliary operators sent by the CR, are recorded on these status board Communication equipment used to maintain contact with repair and survey teams was reviewed and appeared adequate, i

Adjacent to the OSC is the chemistry Laborator This laboratory has dedicated space and equipment for (Post Accident Sampling System) PASS samples. The dedicated PASS cabinets are inventoried weekly,- and PASS training is conducted every six months. A multichannel analyzer, detector l

and associated hardware are also dedicated to PASS analysi '

The TSC is located adjacent to the C There is sufficient space for technical staff in the event of an emergency. Status boards are posted to keep track of changing plant conditions, off-site action, and all repair and survey teams. The TSC contains sufficient plans and procedure resources to aid the technical staff in mitigating the consequences of an acciden .-- -

_ - , _ - _ - _ - _ . - . - . , , - . . _ . -

-. . . ~ . _ - - = . - __ .

-

. .

.

.

The inspector toured the CR. The Radiation Data Management System for the detection, measurement and display of radiation levels, and the Safety Parameter Display System were operational during the inspection.

, Emergency communications equipment is available for notification of off-site authorities and the NRC on an equipment console in the CR. One dedicated spare emergency telephone is located on the same consol Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl .3 Audits The inspector reviewed the audit of the Emergency Preparedness (EP)

program at Seabrook Station. The 1987 audit of the program and the 1987 exercise was complete but had not yet been issued. The report appeared to be an aggressive examination of EP, generating improvement items for the program. The audit team was verified to be independent of the EP organization and included three INPO EP specialists, three New Hampshire Yankee personnel, one person from Yankee Atomic, and one person from the Nuclear Safety and Review Committee. The technical credentials of randomly chosen team members were verified to be adequate in the area of emergency preparednes Distribution of the completed audit was verified to include senior managers and the EP staff. Findings of the audit were assigned to responsible persons and are tracked on the Integrated Commitment Tracking System (ICTS). Deadlines for corrective measures have been established and a periodic review of progress is conducted to ensure timely resolution of issue Based upon this review, this area is acceptable, j 2.4 Training l

l Emergency Preparedness (EP) training is performed by a training staff in th? EP organizatlon. At the present time the 13 instructors are contractor personnel. The instructors are responsible for training the approximately 300 people needed to man the Emergency Respecse Facilities ( ERF) . Three qualified people are available to fill each of the ERF position The Fully Integrated Nuclear Information Systed keeps track of training records, requalification time period, and is updated on a monthly basi Training for the ERF positions is conducted on an annual basi The training procedure ER-82 Emergency Preparedness-Training was reviewed by the inspector. From that procedure a matrix chart, Figure 1, summarizing training requirements, was compared with the current Emergency Response Organization Pager Schedule for the first quarter of 1988. Two names were chosen randomly from the list of qualified Site Emergency Directors and

, Response Manager Courses required of each person chosen were verified to have been completed with a p ssing grade within the past yea Based upon this review, this area is acceptabl .- __ _ -. _ ._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

_. . _.. __- ___ __ _ _ _ . _

_ ____ ___

. .

.

..

,

,

2.5 Drills The schedule of drills for the periods June through December 1987, and January through March 1988 were reviewed. Both were found to contain a large number and a wide variety of drills. The 1987 training schedule was organized to require classroom requalification during the first half of the year and the majority of the drills during the last half of the yea From the list of approximately 23 drills conducted the last half of 1987, '

two were chosen at random for review. Medical Emergency #2 conducted on July 1,1987, and Combined Furctional Drill #4 conducted October 27, 1987 were reviewed and found to be challenging scenarios which fulfilled the ,

stated objectives. Weaknesses identified by licensee observers were recorded and tracked for resolution.- The inspector examined the

_

weaknesses, and verified that those weaknesses determined to require procedure or staffing changes did in fact result in such change Based upon che above review, this area is acceptabl .0 Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee personnel listed in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. The licensee was informed that no i violations or deviations were noted. The inspectors also discussed some  !

areas for improvemen '

.

At no time during this inspection was any written material provided to the licenso '

,

,

!

l

1

r e-g - - em -

, , , -.-- - - , ,--,,a v , - -me,w~-