IR 05000443/1993003

EP Insp Rept 50-443/93-03 on 930216-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Ep Program Changes,Emergency Facilities,Equipment,Instrumentation,Supplies,Organization & Mgt Control,Training & Independent Reviews/Audits

ML20035A100
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/17/1993
From:	Lusher J, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20035A098	List: IR 05000443/1993003 ML20035A097
References
50-443-93-03, 50-443-93-3, NUDOCS 9303240063
Download: ML20035A100 (5)

Text

.

i

!

,

.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Region I

[

!

Docket / Report:

50-443/93-03 t

i i

License:

CPPR-135 Licensee:

Public Service Company of New Hampshire j

New Hampshire Yankee Division

!

Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874-0300

!

t Facility:

Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Seabrook, New Hampshire Dates:

February 16-19, 1993

[

l Inspectors:

b G bO, b

'3 Ill l'tf I

J. Lusher, Emergency Preparedness Specialist date i

i Approved:

1 c. A %

3/nh3

!

'

E. McCabe, Chief, EmerEency Preparedness date Section, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

Areas Inspected j

Emergency preparedness (EP) program changes; emergency facilities, equipment, t

instrumentation, and supplies; organization and management control, training, and independent j

reviews / audits.

!

!

,

Results l

l Effective implementation of the emergency preparedness program was identified. Due to'

{

staffing and drilling reductions, management attention to EP performance was identified as a key

,

to assuring a continued high level of performance. The inspector also noted, as potential.

i improvement items, that the Emergency Plan did not reference the " Emergency Preparedness l

Training Program Description," and that the Operational Support Center was not configured as i

indicated in the Emergency Plan.

.

9303240063 930318 PDR ADOCK 05000443-

-

G PDR

!

.

.

.

.

-

_

-

f

'

i

!

.

,

DETAILS

.

1.0 Parsons Contacted The following licensee personnel attended the exit meeting on Febmary 19, 1993.

R. Badger, Facilities Supervisor J. Dolan, Technical Projects Engineer R. Donald, Auditor S. Ellis, Site Services Manager j

G. Gram, Executive Director, Suppon Services T. Grew, Technical Training Manager J. Grillo, Opentions Manager f

W. leland, Chemistry / Health Physics Manager l

J. Malone, Assistant to Executive Dimetor, Nuclear Production

G. Mcdonald, Nuclear Quality Manager

'

J. Rafalowski, Health Physics Department Supervisor

,

J. Sobotka, Engineer-Regulatory Compliance

]

E. Sovetsky, Technical Projects Supervisor P. Stroup, Director, Emergency Preparedness D. Taillean, Emergency Preparedness Manager D. Young, Emergency Preparedness Plans and Procedures Supervisor l

l Other licensee personnel were also contacted.

!

2.0 Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures

[

!

The inspector reviewed the Seabrook Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan Implementmg

-

Procedure (EPIP) change process. Changes were reviewed by the Suppon Services

Subdivision and Emergency Preparedness (EP) Organization via a Change Control Team.

l That team reviewed the changes to see if they were appropriate and if they complied with

!

10 CFR 50.54(q). A review sheet was attached. The changes were then submitted to

!

the members of the Station Operations Review Committee, who also conducted a 10 CFR l

50.54(q) review.

!

NRC review found the Emergency Plan and EPIPs to be up-to-date. All changes wem properly reviewed and approved by the licensee. No associated reduction in Emergency

Plan effectiveness was found.

l i

This program ama was assessed as being effectively implemented.

j l

,

I

.!

I

.

.

.

.. - -

.

._,

'

t i

.

.

.

i 3.0 Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation and Supplies.

i TM Control Room, Technical Support Center (TSC), and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) were found to be in excellent opemtional readiness. Equipment supply cabinets were found to be stocked as described in the Emergency Plan. However, the inspector fotmd that the Operations Suppon Center (OSC) was not configured as indicated in the

'

Emergency Plan: its area for storing emergency equipment had been turned into office i

space and the stomge lockers had been moved. One of the general supply lockers was

.

'

in the OSC assembly area and the other lockers were just inside the entrance to the

,

Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA). Therefore, equipment would require surveying prior to use in the OSC or other areas outside the RCA.

t I

The inspector myiewed the Repetitive Task Sheets (RTSs) used to accomplish the 1992 facility inventories and tests and found them to be complete. Facility and equipment

'

inventories and tests were described in the Site Suppon Procedure manuals. These were

very detailed and were found to be a very good basis for maintenance. Also, RTSs were

tracked by computer. There was a weekly printout of RTS items that were overdue, due I

l that week, and due the next week. The overdue items list was small, with none of these

exceeding the pennissible latitude in perfonnance interval.

'

,

This prognm area was assessed as being effectively implemented.

4.0 Organization and 31anagement Control J

When Massachusetts implemented an emergency response function for the ponion of the l

Seabrook ten-mile emergency preparedness zone (EPZ) in Massachusetts, the Seabrook

,

Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) was no longer needed. As a msult, the i

i licensee decreased the EP staff to the prescribed eight pennanent members. Some of the t

.

EP staff were temporarily reassigned to the Massachusetts transition project, and EP l

'

consultants were utilized until the annual exercise was completed. All areas of the

{

program were being administered.

'

All Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions were described in Emergency i

Plan Appendix A.

SSP-92310, "ERO Notification System (ERONS) Maintenance,"

l Revision 1, described the fonnal system for updating and maintaining the ERO. That

{

l computerized data base was updated weekly for on-shift personnel and monthly for other

,

positions. The infonnation was interfaced with a telephone call-out system to perform call-outs and create a report for back-up call-outs.

ERO staff were identified as primary and secondary responders. The ERO staff was being supplemented by personnel from the Off-site Response Organization (ORO), as the

)

,

requirement for these personnel was reduced due to Massachusetts implementation of off-I site msponsibilities. The seven primary ERO management positions could be filled by one of at least four qualified responders, and training was in progress to qualify a total

.

I a

_

._._ _.

_____

_.

.

-

__

i

!

-

.

.

4 l

l

!

of nine individuals foreach of these positions. Primary responders carry pagers activated

!

from the Control Room. Each secondary response position could be filled by one of at i

least three qualified responders. Secondary responder call-out was via ERONS activation r

j by Security. ERONS utilized eight telephone lines, required identification of the caller,

!

gave a message, recorded response data, and tmcked the filling of all ERO positions.

t ERONS was also used to report ERO staffing and qualification status. Three databases i

'

were maintained, one for ERO infonnation, one for training, and one for drill records.

-

The databases were current, accumte, and easy to use. Reports genemted included: the

!

l ERO roster, the ERO requalification history report, the ERO backup call-out listing, and

i drill attendance reports. ERONS call-out tests were being performed quanerly.

i j

j This progmm area was assessed as being effectively implemented.

j i

5.0 Training l

!

)

The tmining program was described in Section 12 of the Emergency Plan. Matrices for i

initial and annual training identified required training modules for each ERO position.

!

ERO personnel also were required to receive General Employee Tmining and Radiation

j Worker Training.

l

?.

-

f Tmining was the responsibility of the Specialty Training Managen.

The "1993

'

Emergency Plan Tmining Program Description" (which was not referred to in Section l

12 of the Emergency Plan) outlined the basic concepts of the progmm. That description

!

was reviewed by the Emergency Pmparedness Manager and approved by the Training l

Manager and Director of Site Services.

f

!

s The 1993 Emergency Preparedness Training Program Description Manual had been l

reviewed by the Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC). Control Change Team (CCT)

r review and Station Operational Review Committee (SORC) had not-yet been j

accomplished, and the manual had not yet been implemented. The 1993 revision j

combines the initial lesson plans into a new self-study program which is to be followed l

by a written test. It also incorporates qualification guides to be prerequisites to ERO l

'

qualification. The inspector noted that any use of the Emergency Plan Tmining Progmm -

' '

Description as the training guide should be preceded by 10 CFR 50.54(q) review, and

,

that subsequent changes should be similarly reviewed to assure that Emergency Plan i

effectiveness would not be degraded. Also, reference to the manual in the Emergency i

Plan section on tmining would be appropnate.

r The inspector reviewed the drills and schedule in the " Radiological Emergency

Preparedness Drill and Exercise Manual," Revision 3.

That manual provided drill

'

objectives and the schedule for covering these in the drill and exercise program. During 19%7 the following drills were perfenned: four special taining drills for the

,

'

Massachusetts transition, an annual exercise pmetice drill, the annual exercise, and four i

j

.

h

.

.

-

,

.

-

-

t hospital drills for off-site casualties. For 1993, EP drills and exercises had been cut back r

to the minimum described in the Emergency Plan: one annual practice drill, the annual emergency exercise, Herdth Physics drills, and communication drills. Timse drilling

levels met NRC and licensee requirements. However, because there wem signincant EP

,

stafGng and practice drill reductions, close management attention to EP was assessed as

'

being a key to assuring continued effective perfonnance.

Ovemil, good program implementation was identified in this area.

6.0 Independent and Internal Reviews and Audits

'

The inspectors reviewed the 1991 and 1992 audits perfonned to meet 10 CFR 50.54(t)

requirements, the audit of the December 7-11,1992 Massachusetts tmnsition, audit plans

'

and check lists.

These were evaluated for thoroughness, for repeat findings or observations, and for distribution to upper management for review.

The 1991 audit was conducted over a four-week period so that the auditors could observe i

different emergency planning evolutions and drills; that was assessed as an excellent initiative. The 1992 audit was conducted from Febmary 3-7, 1992. Also, between the

1991 and 1992 audits, two surveillance audits were performed, the first to verify facility i

readiness and the second to verify that Health Physics supplies dedicated to emergency preparedness were not being used for other pu poses. Separate reports were issued for each smveillance audit. Audit finding corrective action statement answers were required l

to be, and were, submitted to the QA/QC depanment within 30 days after the audit

report was issued.

l Quancrly licensee meetings were held with State and local of6cials. For the meeting i

after the audit, the meeting minutes documented that those officials were infonned of the l

audit results.

l The inspector reviewed the Incomplete Items List (IIL) used to track items fmm drills,

exercises, facility inspections, and program upgrades. IILs were pmduced weekly.

!

Monthly management review assured that timely corrective measures were being taken.

!

NRC review concluded that this program area was being effectively implemented.

i 7.0 Exit Meeting

'

i At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors met with the licensee personnel listed I

in Repon Detail I to discuss the inspection scope and findings. The licensee was

[

infonned that no violations were identified. Aspects noted in this repon as potential i

improvement items were also discussed. The licensee acknowledged the NRC findings j

and expressed the intention of evaluating them and taking corrective action as

!

appropriate.

!

t I

.-