IR 05000443/1989002
| ML20235R668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1989 |
| From: | Fox E, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235R659 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-89-02, 50-443-89-2, NUDOCS 8903030385 | |
| Download: ML20235R668 (6) | |
Text
i
,.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-443/89-02 Docket No.
50-443 License No.
CPPR-135 Priority --
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: January 30 - February 3, 1989 S/fp Inspector:
&#Aw
~
date
. f/ FoxMr., Sr. Lpprgency Preparedness SpecialiW, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS
,
Approved by:
AM c2 7//?
W. J G aza u, Chief, Emergency Preparedness date f
Section, SB, DRSS
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection of January 30 - February 3, 1989 (Report No.
50-443/89-02)
Areas Inspected: A routine announced emergency preparedness inspection was performed at Seabrook Station. The inspection areas included licensee action on previously identified items, emer management control and organization,gency response facilities and equipment, emergency plan and implementing procedures, training, and audits and reviews.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
fg30303s38902'23
ADOCK 05000m-g PDC
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
-
.
.
.
i DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
- A. Callendrello, EP Licensing Manager P. Casey, Emergency Planning Drill Supervisor
- R. Donald, Quality Assurance Auditor
- S. Ellis, Manager Response and Implementation
- G. Gramm, Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations f
- P.
Grier, Instructor
.
T. Grew, Speciality Training Manager
- J. Hill, Unit Supervisor
- J. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Manager
- R. Messina, Security Supervisor
- B. Mizzau, Resources and Facility Coordinator
- N. Pillsbury, IRT Manager
- P. Stroup, Director Emergency Response and Implementation
- D. Tailleart, Emergency Preparedness Manager
- W. Temple, Licensing Coordinator
- P. Upson, Audit Supervisor
- J. Warnock, Nuclear Quality Manager
,
'
D. Young, Lead Planner Scenario Development
- Denotes those persons present at the exit interview on February 3, 1989.
2.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program 2.1 Licensee Acticn on Previously Identified Items 2.1.1 Closed (50-443/86-18-17)
Distribute final detailed public information brochures, i
'
providing basic information concerning what action to take on siren activation, where to receive additional information, etc.
The licensee has distributed the public information in a calendar format which provides the required information.
2.1.2 Closed (50-433/86-18-32)
Complete the orientation and offsite training program for New Hampshire and Massachusetts State and local officials.
The training records for the state of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization which compensates for the State of Massachusetts, and the local officials for New Hampshire indicated that the orientation and offsite training programs have been completed. Addi-tionally, these persons had participated in the June 1988 exercise and their performance was evaluated by FEMA. At the time of this inspection, annual retraining was being conducted.
t
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ ___ ________- ____ __________-__ _ _ __ - - -
.
.
.
2.2 Emergency Response Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies The inspector toured the Control Room (CR), Technical Support Center
~
(TSC), Operations Support Center (OSC) and the Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) in order to evaluate that these facilities were maintained in a state of operational readiness.
The CR contained adequate emergency preparedness equipment, instrumentation and supplies.
These were verified to be maintained in a state of readiness.
Recent changes made to the emergency plan and procedures had been appropriately incorporated into the plan and procedures.
The TSC is located adjacent to the CR.
There is sufficient space for technical staff in the event of an emergency as well as telephones, maps, etc. Status boards are posted to keep track of changing plant conditions, offsite actions, and all repair and survey teams.
Within the TSC there is a dedicated room containing sufficient plans and procedures, drawings and other resources under document control to aid the technical staff in mitigating the consequences of an accident.
The OSC is located on the first floor of the Administration and Services Building and 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. A Fully Integrated Nuclear Information System (FINIS) terminal is available in the OSC allowing access to respiratory
'
personnel. qualification, medical qualification, and exposure status of protection
DurinkspatchedfromtheOSC.an emergency, repair and survey teams would be ass and d The licensee records pertinent data concerning each team on status boards that are located on the wall when the OSC is activated. All teams, except auxiliary operators sent by the CR, are recorded on these status boards.
Communications equipment used to maintain contact with repair and survey teams was reviewed and appeared adequate. A decontamination facility is adjacent to the OSC and it was adequately stocked and maintained.
The EOF is located at the entrance to the Newington Station on Gosling Road, Newington, New Hampshire.
It serves as a base for radiological assessment, overall emergency response organization management and recovery activities. A portion of the E0F has been assigned as the State of New Hampshire Incident Field Office.
Another portion serves as the Emergency Operatin Communities (SPMC)g Center for the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Staff.
u___________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - - - - -
--
-
- - - - - - - - - -
- - _ _ _ _
_
- _ - __ _____________
-
i i
!
'
The E0F has sufficient assembly space, charts, maps, desks, and communications equipment and appears to be sufficient to accommodate the recovery organization and the responding representatives from government
and industry responsible for corrective action to terminate or limit
!
onsite damage and offsite consequences.
Radiological assessment j
monitoring and evaluating and protective action recommendation
'
formulation are directed from the E0F. The EOF has the capability to access and display station parameters including the Safety Parameter Display System, independent of both the TSC and CR.
Backup power to the E0F is in the form of an emergency diesel generator and an uninterrupted power supply from Newington Station.
Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
2.3 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures j
!
!
The inspector reviewed recent changes to the Emergency Plan and l
Implementing Procedures and determined changes made have not adversely affected the licensee's overall state of emergency preparedness and that these changes have been appropriately incor
!
emergency plan and implementing procedures.porated into the licensee's i
I The licensee has instituted a Change Control Pro $lity within the ram whereby a Change Control Team (CCT) is charged with the responsib l
Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations subdivision to review and approve every revision that is proposed to a procedure within the
Nuclear Production-Emergency Response (NPER)Em(ergency Response Plan as well as procedures with
!
the SPMC and the New Hampshire Radiological (NHRERP NPER cha)n)ge and the impact of the proposed change on the plan and pro-Th cedures within the SPMC and NHRERP. This occurs before a revision is then approved by the CCT with approval only a result of a conclusion that the revision is both needed and does not negatively impact either the i
l SPMC or the NHRERP.
Following CCT approval, the proposed procedure is then submitted for approval to an Independent Reviewer, the Radiological i
Assessment Manager, to SORC, and finally to the Vice President-Nuclear
!
Production before the revision is made. CCT minutes are published, issues are logged, and a complete file is maintained of the change.
A review of recent changes also verified that changes to the Emergency Plan and Procedures were reviewed, approved and distributed in accordance with approved licensee procedures and NRC requirements prior to implementation.
Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
l 2.4 Independent Reviews / Audits The inspector reviewed Quality Assurance Audit Report No. 88-A02-01
" Emergency Preparedness Plan" for Seabrook Station, dated March 9,1988 and the corresponding audit checklist in order to determine the adequacy of the scope and depth of the audit.
In reviewing the audit w___________-__-__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
!
!
!
!
.-..
.
i checklist, it was noted that although an audit of the interface between the utility and the State and local governments had been conducted,it could not be determined if the results of that interface audit were made.
<
available to the State and local governments. It was determined that
'
program weaknesses had been identified by the audit and that prompt and technically appropriate action had been taken by licensee management to-correct them. The audit team was comprised of three Institute of Nuclear Power Operations personnel, three New Hampshire Yankee personnel, two
,
Yankee Atomic personnel and one person from the Nuclear Safety and Review
,
Committee. These individuals were verified to be independent of the EP organization.
Distribution of the completed audit includes' senior managers and EP staff. Findings of the audit are assigned to responsible persons and are tracked in the Integrated Commitment Tracking System.
Deadlines for corrective action are established and a periodic review of progress is conducted to ensure resolution of issues.
The schedule and drills for the period November 1988 to January 1989, were reviewed and found to contain a large number and wide variety of drills.
Based upon this review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
2.5 Training Emer thefencyPreparednesstrainingisconductedbytheTrainingCentervia l
pecialty Training Group are four qualified persons ava(one NHY manager and six contractors). There ilable to fill major Emergency Response Facilities System keeps (ERF) positions.
The Fully Integrated Nuclear Information track of training records, requalification time period, and is updated on a monthly basis.
l Training for the Emergency Response Organization (Emer)gency Plan.
ER0 is as discussed in Section 12.2 of the Seabrook Station Radiological The l
training program for the ERO is depicted in matrix format at Figure 12.1
,
'
and the procedure for Emergency Preparedness Training is ER-8.2.
The chart was compared with the current ERO pager schedule for the first
quarter 1989.
Names were chosen randomly from the list of qualified Res3onse Managers and Radiological Controls Managers. Courses required of eac1 person chosen were verified to have been completed with a passing grade within the past year.
l Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
s
!
l i
'
)
i
,
l
,
!
,..
.
1 2.6 Organization and Management Control j
The inspector reviewed recent changes made to the emergency organization and/or management control systems and it was determined that these changes have had no adverse effect on the licensee's emergency preparedness j
program.
s Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's emergency preparedness program is acceptable.
3.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee personnel listed in Section 1 at the
,
conclusion of the inspection. The licensee was informed that no
!
violations, deviations or unresolved items were noted.
The inspector
!
also discussed some areas for improvement.
j At no time during this inspection was any written material provided to
!
the licensee.
I I
I J
,
i i
)
t i
l I
3