ML20036B252
| ML20036B252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1991 |
| From: | Kelly G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036A053 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-162 NUDOCS 9305180376 | |
| Download: ML20036B252 (7) | |
Text
AUG 14 CJi jf CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM TO OAC J
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Office Allega 'on Coord' at gion I THRU:
M branc hief)
FROM:
(secti' n chief)
[
o
SUBJECT:
CLOSEOUT OF ALLEGATION Rl-91-A-0134 FOR MILLSTONE UNIT 2 / NORTHEAST UTILITIES 1.
On June 10,1991, an anonymous caller told Region 1 that he was a victim of employee discrimination when he was laid off in October 1990 and not rehired. During the conversation the caller was informed of the Department of Labor (DOL) procedures and was given the appropriate DOL contacts.
2.
On June 26,1991 the same caller alleged that he was not rehired because j
he carried out his assigned duties according to company procedures which slowed work progress. A copy of 29CFR24, " Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints" was sent to the caller (through a third party).
3.
Since 30 days have passed since the last conversation with the caller, no further action is planned.
4.
All telephone record documentation of the closeout of this issue is attached, t
5.
This allegation is closed.
<?/ f/
(section chief)
/
Enclosure:
As stated
/
cc:
Senior Resident inspector File RI-91-A-0134 AOC DRP File RI-91-A-0134 1
HUBBARD92-162 PDR
(
I
\\
w I7 I
.....D c.. L,a......1. AN.E,..... e 10,.45 i
stwn er -
m.
r
. u2.
i lic!sreweF FANEt atTEsctss:
IITE:
ALLEGATICN NO.
2 3.a3f. 4 - C I W Cha1rman -
Lt g q_ik ie CATE:
47 "SwAd (Mtg.h2345)
Eranen Chief -
h Sectien Chief (AOC) - de weci:.:m
- tICRITY:
lign q
SAFETY !!GNIFICANCE: Yes @ Untnewn Others - C.Wkde L
e...e.....h. C... C. r.e -,,,. :
e,3
_r
.e r cob.E
-...anc
.s m
b cm CN he-CONFICENTIALITY GRANTEO: Yes No (See -;;ecat :n Eecet:: :ecert)
IS THEIR A CCL FINDING:
Yes No
- ...:..:.:.,,A; ANT:.
<es u.n
..o n
- .... :.. :.: ::.:q.e :y i.
< e,.
- y. o
_v. :..... c. e..a....
- A5.**ENSEE :.E5FCNCE TO CHILLING E::ECT LET ER:
Yes No
!CT**N:
'. )
n W TLL%
. W rc %
b 51 %2)N d%
bn dhkhm h k u
Gk
. t 5)
NOTE!:
i 4
1
17 l
RECCRD CF ALLEGATION FANEL CECISIONS l
5:TE:
/VI.* i e
PANEL ATTENDEEE:
ALLEGATICN NO.. 81-9d-4-of3T Chairman -
(tA o a 1N r 6V J
CATE: 313 uG1 (Mtg. 1 2 3 4 5)
Eranen Chief -
/d]b PRICRITY:
Hign Lew Section Chief (AOC) -
FAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No ntn n Others - Ne f CCNCL'RRENCE TD CLCSEC'JT: CD @ SC h gmf d e<-
l CCNFICENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes 6
(See Allegati:n Recei:: Recert)
IS THEIR A CCL FINDING:
Yes
- S : MILL;NG EFFECT L:..i; WARRANIED:
fes No
-A5 CHILL;NG :- :...:2 :s :::N SENT:
Yes No l
HAS LICENSEE RESFCNCED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER:
Yes No ACT:CN:
1)
Alev in e m L' %,// r edi wi OI-N-A o e so O[hM ~ TM$kb7 2) 2)
A) 1 5)
NOTES:
I'i
1 l
/7 i
RECCRD GF ALLEGATION FANEL CECISICNS SITE:
/h/(%e 2
- 1NEL ATTENCEES:
l ALLEGATICN NO.: f].9f-O-offf Chair-an -
LUw ih s uu CATE:
12.3MMd (Mtg.h2345)
Branen Chief -
Section Chief ( AOC) - [e.[!v l
PRICRITY:
Hign Seciu:n Lew SAFETY EIGNIFICANCE: fes No Unknown Others - f u)Li he 1
CCNC"RRENCE TC CLCSECUT: DD EC SC Neufark l
r-l 1
CCNFICENTIAL'TY GRANTEO: Yes No CDPh %
N hrm eisTer (See Ailega:::n Rece10: Recert) 15 THEIR A CCL :INDING:
Yes No
..--..__..r.. e ::. :...-.. :-..;...ga. - -. ru.- :.
'es N. o nnn
. :. i ::.. _:__N _c r i.
- v. e e i.40
_n.. c - : : : _ i..ra :_:. ::..-.
_.i.
_. u :..._.-- *:---c.:ien Yes
.s4o
_.__..__c:C.sirt
~y~
Cu..i s_, r hm
.AS,. :_Sc:: ::
_4
..s ACTICN:
I) et c
N Sf % Give n +57 i d u &1 4 -
w w as d ku.,ste ~ L oma C)
- U l
-)
i 1
)
i
\\
l 5)
NOTES:
i l
l
r SENIOR ALLEGATION PAhTL i
JUNE 14,1991 l
l SAFETY TAGGING ISSUES AT MILLSTONE i
i i
l
REFERENCE:
RI-91-A-137 -
CONCERNS:
Numerous allegations provided to NRC over past two years, particularly in last 6 months, describmg taggmg concerns.
Lack of action by NRC (violations, management attention) to address and resolve l
tagging problems.
BACKGROUND:
An estimated ten allegations have described recent conditions wherein tagging i
problems are asserted to exit. These have been manifest by incomplete tagging boundaries originally specified (est. 2 cases); " hot" circuits which should not, by wiring diagrams, exist (est. 3 cases); wrong tags hung on equipment (est. 2 cases); or, ignoring / misinterpreting tags already hung (est. 3 cases).
All issues have been referred to licensee; responses on most are still forthcoming.
e None, individually, have been judged - immediately by resident staff, in short term by Allegation Panels and Regional Management, or ultimately in certain older instances by final review and closeout by NRC - to have high safety significance, or warranting enforcement.
l l
Some issues are being legitimate or potential personnel safety concerns, and some I
I have as root cause poor attention to detail or design / document fidelity.
PROBLEMS / LIABILITIES:
i NRC has not, as yet, put all of these concerns together and fully considered their cumulative effort. Assessment of a " group" of allegations (like tagging) is needed to put perspective on whether these are indicators of a programmatic concern, or an expected and reasonable amount of difficulties in a large-volume activity such as tagging.
l l1 i
2 i
NRC review of the 300-400 concerns received over past 2-3 years has typically addressed issues individually. Until the recent Task Force creation, an ability to l
process concerns has had an approximate 4-month " dead time" (from receipt to letter i
exchanges to closure); this makes group assessment and perspective difficult. The i
impression left on those involved is the initial assertion "...there's a tagging problem;"
l the back-end evaluation is lost.
i
?
l EVALUATION / ASSESSMENT:
l j
t Several facts over last 2-3 years merit consideration relative to tagging:
No personnel injuries known.
t No escalated or other violations attributable to tagging.
No reportable events or safety systems inoperabilities (other than one recent j
Unit 3 diesel problem) caused by poor tagging.
Recent INPO appraisal of safety tagging program had no programmatic concerns.
Tagging is a continuous and extensive activity that requires communication (and sometimes interactive interactions) between operators and craft / technicians.
i No allegations have pointed to programmatic weaknesses or flaws in the methods; the l
l asserted examples are low significance performance issues (which should be typically l
l worked out and satis'actorily resolved at worker level before a job begins) which may j
l represent some attention-to-detail problems. The allegations are, for the most part. a j
running commentary on problem solving that is - ironically - being successfully j
resolved by the licensee.
No nuclear safety significance, to date.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
June 1991 IPAT will focus programmatically on the Millstone safety tagging program.
Resident inspectors are routinely addressing the tagging process in last month or so; continue this initiative on all 3 units.
Recent Unit 3 91-09 report highlights diesel tagging issue (unresolved item pending
)
licensee's review of program and corrective actions).
j i
j I
i.
l l
3
(
New tact by Shedlosky (on 6/13) to bring taggings issues directly to Unit Director for immediate attention and programmatic assessment.
Most recent licensee referral letter will ask NU to address larger implications of numerous tagging concerns.
Being assessment of common theme allegations when INEL contractors begin in Region / site (next week).
t i
t UNITED ST ATES j
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-h Q a
5 8
REGON I I
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
- 4.,*
,/
KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 1M061415 g,
{
l NOV 0 61991 8
Docket Number: 50-336 i
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN:
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 f
f Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 i
l
Dear Mr. Opeka:
l Thank you for informing us of the results of your reviews of the concerns listed in the enclosed table. We have performed verification inspections on selected issues, find your responses l
generally acceptable, and plan no funher actioas on these issues at this time. This is not to say that further independent reviews of these issues will not take place in the future. You will be kept informed of such verification inspections and independent reviews by the normal inspection I
report process.
t A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Pubhc j
Document Rooms and sent to the State of Connecticut. We appreciate your cooperation in these j
"m.
i 5m n Edward Wenzinger, Chipfj 7 Reactor Projects BranchW
{
i
Enclosure:
Table of NU's Responses l
l l
i i
cc uVencl:
Public Document Room (PDR) i Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut
'O qto}
\\
C 97 ll
i l
l ENCLOSURE l
NRC NU
RESPONSE
SUBJECT OF ISSUE NUMBER
RESPONSE
DATE 91-070-1 A09805 09/27/91 NO PLANT INCIDENT REPORT FOR "D' CIRCULAllON PUMP TRIP l
f 91-070-3B MOTOR HEATERS WERE NOT ENERGIZED ON SPARE BORIC ACID PUMP 91-079 A09768 09/27/91 GAMMA METRICS PROCEDURES -
91-ll3N &
A09699 09/13/91 ABNORMAL STACK RADIATION 91 136 MONITOR INDICATION 91-114-1 REPETITIVE FAILURES OF VENT -
STACK HIGH RANGE MONITOR i
91-114 2 ACCUMULATOR TANK LEVEL CALIBRATION ERROR 91 116 INADEQUATE RWP/HP CONTROLS 91-1 2 CLEAN LIQL'lD RADIATION h
i MONITOR TAGG!NG ERROR OUT OF SERVICE STACK MON!!OR IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF ON-(
CALL I&C TECHNICIAN 91-129 VOLUME CONTROL TANK LEVEL EVOLUTION i
91-130 WRONG PART FOR LOCAL PRESSURE GAGE 91-162 A09698 09/09/91 UNCALIBRATEDIUNLABELED EXHAUST VENTILATION DUCT MANOMETER 91 163 A09819 09/27/91 WIDE RANGE NUCLEAR i
INSTRUMENT UNDOCUMENTED S%TTCHES 91-165-1 A09703 09/09/91 UNLABELED CRYOGENIC LIQUID NITROGEN CONVERTER VALVES 91-165-2 PERMANENTLY CONNECTED -
NOT DEPICTED PUMP 91-166 A09701 09/13/91 RECOVERY BORIC ACID TANK PUMP ISOLATED SWITCH i
h
I 8,,
UNITED STATES
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g D
E REG 8oNI t
47s ALLENoALE ROAD.
KING oF PRUS$1A. PENNSYLVANIA 194061415
- g NOV 0 61991 Docket Number: 50-336 t
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l
ATTN:
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
I Thank you for informing us of the results of your reviews of the concerns listed in the enclosed table. We have performed verification inspections on selected issues, f'md your responses generally acceptable, and plan no further actions on these issues at this time. This is not to say l
that further independent reviews of these issues will not take place in the future. You will be kept informed of such verification inspections and independent reviews by the normal inspection report process.
A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Rooms and sent to the State of Connecticut. We appreciate your cooperation in these l
- ~ ers.
Sir.cera.
~
-/
f s
Edward Wenzinger, Chi,efJ Reactor Projects BranchW
Enclosure:
Table of NU's Responses I
1 l
l cc w!cncl:
Pubhc Document Room (PDR) l Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut 0
N9 ex y
D 4
te r
_f&,
ENCLOSURE
,(
NRC NU
RESPONSE
SUBJECT OF ISSUE
- t '^ *
- NUMBER
RESPONSE
DATE 91-070-1 A09805 09/27/91-NO PLANT INCIDENT REPORT FOR
'D' CIRCULAT10N PUMP TRIP 91-070-3B MOTOR HEATERS WERE NOT ENERGlZED ON SPARE BORIC ACID PUMP 91-079 A09768 09/27/91 GAMMA METRICS PROCEDURES 91 ll3N &
A09699 09/13/91 ABNORMAL STACK RADIATION 91-136 MONITOR INDICATION 91 114-1 REPETITIVE FAILURES OF VENT STACK HIGH RANGE MONITOR 91 114-2 ACCUMULATOR TANK LEVEL CALIBRATION ERROR 91-116 INADEQUATE RWP/HP CONTROLS91-122 CLEAN LIQUID RADIATION MONITOR TAGGWG ERROR s;-; i OUT OF SERV CE STACK MONITOR IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF ON-CALL I&C TECHNICIAN 91 129 VOLUME CONTROL TANK LEVEL EVOLUTION 91-130 WRONG PART FOR LOCAL PRESSURE GAGE 91-162 A09698 09/09/91 UNCALIBRATED/ UNLABELED EXHAUST VENTILATION DUCT MANOMETER 91-163 A09819 09/27/91 WIDE RANGE NUCLEAR INSTRUMENT UNDOCUMENTED SWITCHES 91-165-1 A09703 09/09/91 UNLABELED CRYOGENIC LIQUID NITROGEN CONVERTER VALVES 91-165-2 PERMANENTLY CONNECTED -
NOT DEPICTED PUMP 91-166 A09701 09/13/91 RECOVERY BORIC ACID TANK PUMP ISOLATED SWITCH
i
\\
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_j
[
g REGloN 8 5
j 475 ALLFWDALE ROAD f
0, f
KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 196141s
/
e NOV 0 61991
+
Docket Number: 50-336 l
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l
A'ITN:
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
Thank you for informing us of the results of your reviews of the concerns listed in the enclosed table. We have performed verification inspections on selected issues, find your responses generally acceptable, and plan no funher actions on these issues at this time. This is not to say that further independent reviews of these issues will not take place in the future. You will be kept informed of such verification inspections and independent reviews by the normal inspection report process.
A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Rooms and sent to the State of Connecticut. We appreciate your cooperation in these
~.. a of 4 86 Edward Wenzinger, Chiefj f C
Reactor Projects Branch (
Enclosure:
Table of NU's Responses cc avxnci:
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut i
0 h
ENCLOSURE NRC NU
RESPONSE
SUBJECT OF ISSUE NUMBER
RESPONSE
DATE 91 070-1 A09805 09/27/91-NO PLANT INCIDENT REPORT FOR
'D* CIRCULATION PUMP TRIP 91-070-3B MOTOR HEATERS WERE NOT ENERGlZED ON SPARE BORIC ACID PUMP 91-079 A09768 09/27/91 GAMMA METRICS PROCEDURES 91-113N &
A09699 09/13/91 ABNORMAL STACK RADIATION 91-136 MONITOR INDICATION 91 114-1 REPETITIVE FAILURES OF VENT STACK HIGH RANGE MONITOR 91-114-2 ACCUMULATOR TANK LEVEL CAllBRATION ERROR 91-116 INADEQUATE RWP/HP CONTROLS 91-12:
CLEAN LIQUID RADIATION MONITOR TAGGING ERROR s;-;3 OUT CF SERV;CE STACK MOS; TOR IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF ON-CALL I&C TECHNICIAN 91-129 VOLUME COhTROL TANK LEVEL EVOLUTION 91-130 WRONG PART FOR LOCAL PRESSURE GAGE -
91-162 A09698 09/09/91 UNCALIBRATEDIUNLABELED EXHAUST VENTILATION DUCT MANOMETER 91-163 A09819 09/27/91 WIDE RANGE NUCLEAR INSTRUMENT UNDOCUMENTED SWITCHES 91-165-1 A09703 09/09/91 UNLABELED CRYOGENIC LIQUID NITROGEN CONVERTER VALVES 91-165-2 PERMANENTLY CONNECTED -
NOT DEPICTED PUMP 91-166 A09701 09/13/91 RECOVERY BORIC ACID TANK PUMP ISOLATED SWITCH
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k/-/ Q E
g REGON I L
l 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSSIA PENNSYLVANIA 194061415 -
MOV 0 61991 Docket Number: 50-336 i
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATEN:
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
Thank you for informing us of the results of your reviews of the concerns listed in the enclosed table. We have performed verification inspections on selected issues, find your responses generiiy rceptable, and plan no further actions on these issues at this time. This is not to say I
thrt rurther independent reviews of these issues will not take place in the future. You will be kept informal of such verification inspections and independent reviews by the normal inspection report process.
A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Rooms and sent to the State of Connecticut. We appreciate your cooperation in these p
.sh V,
J1 P'
Edward Wenzinger, Chief f
Reactor Projects Branch J
Enclosure:
Table of NU's Responses
(
cc w/ encl:
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut 0
0 V
I e
k
J 1
i I
i 1
ENCLOSURE l
NRC NU
RESPONSE
SUBJECT OF ISSUE NUMBER
RESPONSE
DATE 91-070-1 A09805 09/27/91 NO PLANT INCIDENT REPORT FOR
- D' CIRCULATION PUMP TRIP 91-070-3B MOTOR HEATERS WERE NOT ENERGlZED ON SPARE BORIC 3
ACID PUMP i
91-079 A09768 09/27/91 GAMMA METRICS PROCEDURES 91-113N &
A09699 09/13/91 ABNORMAL STACK RADIATION 91-136 MONITOR INDICATION 91-114-1 REPETITIVE FAILURES OF VENT STACK HIGH RANGE MONITOR i
I 91 114-2 ACCUMULATOR TANK LEVEL CALIBRATION ERROR l
91-116 INADEQUATE RWP/HP CONTROLS j
i 91 - C2 CLEAN LIQUID RADIATION j
, MONITOR TAGGING ERROR l
i
^~ CP. ERV;cE STAC:-; '.:ON TOR Il IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF ON-CALL !&C TECHNICIAN j
91-129 VOLUME CONTROL TANK LEVEL j
l EVOLUTION -
91-130 WRONG PART FOR LOCAL l
+
PRESSURE GAGE I
91 162 A09698 09/09/91 UNCALIBRATED/ UNLABELED i
EXHAUST VENTILATION DUCT f
MANOMETER 91-163 A09819 09/27/91 WIDE RANGE NUCLEAR INSTRUMENT UNDOCUMENTED
.j SW7TCHES I'
91-165-1 A09703 09/09/91 UNLABELED CRYOGENIC LIQUID NITROGEN CONVERTER VALVES 91-165-2 PERMANENTLY CONNECTED -
NOT DEPICTED PUMP 91-166 A09701 09/13/91 RECOVERY BORIC ACID TANK PUMP ISOLATED SWITCH l
i l
1 j
I6 f *" ~ y QAb-A-Opg uN.TEc si ATEs f
[$.'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
=n e,
~
.k
'f 475 ALLENDALE Pcco g
.aNo or cauc9A atsssytvwa tsm415 g.
f
....+
DEC 6 1931 l
Docket Nos.
50-245 License Nos. DPR-61 50-336 DPR-65 50-423 NFP-49 l
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President. Nuclear l
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l
P. O. Box 270 l
Hartford. Connecticut 06141-0270 l
Dear Mr. Opeka:
Subject:
Combined Inspection Nos. 50-245/91-19,50-336/91-23 and 50-423/91-19 On September 23-28,1991 an announced. safety inspection of your September 26,1991, emergency preparedness exercise and other emergency preparedness activities was conducted by Mr. C. Amato and other members of this of5ce. The inspection was conducted at your Milhtone Nuclear Power 5: anon, Waterford, Connecticut, and at your of5ces in Berlin.
Connecticut. In addition. the inspection was continued during the period October 7-30,1991 at the NRC RI office in King of Prussia. Pennsylvania to permit evaluation of documentation obtained during the on-site portion of the inspection and to review your corrective actions taken in response to the Unusual Event declared as a result of Hurricane Bob. Discussions of our Endings were held by Mr. Amato with your staif at the conclusion of the on-site portion of the inspection.
j I
The exercise demonstrated the ability of the Millstone Station and Corporate staffs to take timely and adequate protective measures on behalf of public health and safety. Corporate staff exhibited excellent response to scenario accident conditions. An adequate emergency preparedness program was maintained, and no exercise weaknesses were identified.
Although no violations were identified, an unresolved item is discussed in Section 7.4.4 of the enclosed inspection report.
1 1
l e
1 m
i I
/
L
,t
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company No reply to this letter is required. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, k
a\\
w J' H. Jo, ner, ief es Facilities Radio ogical Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-245/91-19,50-336/91-23 and 50-C3,91-19 cc wiencl:
W. Romberg, Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services l
R. Katich. Manager, Nuclear Licensing S. Scace. Nuclear Station Director H. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director C. Clement. Nuclear Unit Director G. Garfie d, Esquire N. Reynolds. Esquire K. Abraham, PAO C) i Public Document Room (PDR) l_ocal Public Document Room (LPDR)
[
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Connecticut U. S. FEMA-1 l
l l
l i
1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 3
DR g g bec wl encl:
Region I Docket Room (w/ concurrences) j Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
D. Jaffe. PM, NRR J. Williams, PM, NRR E. Wenzinger, DRP E. Kelly, DRP W. Raymond, SRI. Millstone A. Asars, SRI Haddam Neck R. Arrighi. DRP R. Lobel, EDO DRS SALP Coordinator DRSS SALP Coordinator J. Joyner. DRSS RI-91-A-0219 RI-91-A-012S RI-91-A-0228 RI-91-A-0046 RI A-0236 1
I i
)
1 1
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO3DIISSION REGION I Report Nos.
50-245/91-19
(
50-336/91-23
{
50-423/91-19 i
i Docket Nos.
50-245 l
50-336 50-423 i
License Nos.
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101-0270 l
{
Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station 1:: spec: ion Conducted:
September 23-28,1991 and October 7-30.1991 i
Inspection At:
Berlin, Connecticut; Waterford, Connecticut: and King of Prussia, Pennsylvania I
f Inspecm:s:
O,M. b dM
//[NW C. G. Amato. Erierpency Preparedness date -
Specialist. Region I D. Dempsey, Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant P. Habighorst, Resident inspector, Millstone Point Plant K. Ihnen, Operations Engineer (Examiner)
J. Jamison. NRC Contractor K. Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant W. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant G. Vissing, NRC Licensing Project Manager r
Apprm ed:
I f
///b/w E. McCate'. Cfirsf. nmergency /
date Preparedness Section. Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
\\
i s
t 1.
~
l 1
2 Areas Inspected: Safety inspection of the licensee's full-participation emergency preparedness exercise, and of the emergency preparedness program. Program areas inspected included Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure changes, training, audits and reviews. maintenance of emergency response facilities, public information, off-site activities, and responses to situations requiring emergency classification.
Results: No exercises weaknesses were identified. The exercise demonstrated the licensee's ability to take timely and adequate protective measures on behalf of public health and safety.
Corporate staff exhibited excellent response to scenario accident conditions. An adequate emergency preparedness program was maintained. No violations were identified. An unresched item, involving the extent of training given to operators on the simulator that includes classifying scenarios at the Site Area Emergency and higher levels, is discussed in Section 7.4.4 4
i l
4 23 These drills evolve slowly, and subsequently the Site Area and General Emergency.
classifications are performed by management at the EOF and not by the control room staff. Due to this fact, and the fact that simulator scenarios provide limited classification at higher levels (Site Area Emergency classifications are reached, General Emergency classifications are not), there is no evidence or documentation that shift staff is proficient in classification at high levels. This area is unresolved and will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection (UNR 50-245/91-19-01,50-336/91-23-01 and 50-423/91-19-01).
Based upon the above review, this area of the licensee's program is acceptable.
7.5 Independent Reviews and Audits 10 CFR 50.54(t) recuires an audit / review esery 12 months to determine the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness program. This audit is to be done by personnel who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness program. The licensee has several documents that reflect this requirement including nuclear and corporate procedures, as well as Technical Specification, Administrative and Emergency Plan references At the time of the inspection the audit had not begun. The audit will be performed by personnel of the Radiation Protection Section of the Radiological Assessment Branch (RAB). Although these personnel do not have direct responsibility for the emergency preparedness program, the Branch does, and these personnel are qualified members of the Corporate Emergency Response Organization. To date no conflicts have been identified concerning the audits. However, in 1992 the Quality Services Department (QSD) will assume responsibility for these audits. The QSD will continue to use 3
RAB personnel as technical experts. The RAB Manager and the RP Section Chief will assign personnel to these functions. This area will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's program is acceptable.
8.0 Oncall Procedures and Methodology The licensee has established oncall procedures for the SERO, a methodology for calling personnel and a means for testing the system. The inspectors reviewed procedures interviewed personnel and test records to determine if adequate procedures, training and equipment are in place so the SERO may be activated during off normal hours.
The licensee has esublished several policies and procedures to define and control the oncall process. NUP-56. " Pay Policies and Practices for Technical Employees".
effective 9/1/S5, addresses administrative and craft personnel and covers such topics
e i
l 24 i
as no more than 16 consecutive hours on duty, personnel are expected to repon for
[
emergency and ovenime, and fitness for duty applies, including fatigue, e.g. anyone called after working ovenime may claim they are not fit for duty due to fatigue.
Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedure (NEO) NEO-90-G-292, dated 10/25/90, established policies that make supervisors and managers responsible for the response of individuals on the oncall list.
i l
Millstone station maintains two lists, one for emergency response and one for station suppon. Oncall staff may exchange with other staff members either formally or l
j informally. Informally this is accomplished by passing on a pager while still maintaining responsibility. Formally this is accomplished by completing a form and transferring the oncall responsibility. Maintenance of the oncall roster is the lead 4
supervisor's or manager's responsibility. However, this practice deviated from the commonality policy stated in the NEO procedure, in that Haddam Neck maintains a single oncall list and permits only formal transfer of oncall responsibility.
The inspector reviewed a draft of "Oncall Procedure", EP-4211, Revision 15. This draft document changes responsibility for maintenance of the oncall list to the l
l SSNEPC. SERO members' will be required to forward changes to the oncall schedule j
to the SSNEPC. The procedure continues to maintain the informal transfer method
[
l and assigns responsibilities to seven groups of station staff..
j i
i Call-ins are accomplished by the use of a recently installed electronic system, the
-l Emergency Notification and Response System (EN&RS). The inspector observed i
several test and exercise uses of this system, which provides both voice and hard copy l
i messages, and concluded it is efficient. Pagers are tested daily, with the signal sent from five towers located throughout the NU service territory.
[
Based upon the above review, this ponion of the licensee's program is acceptable.
j 9.0 Licensee Response to Actual Events
)
The inspectors reviewed repons of licensee response to actual events to determine if i
the licensee's actions were consistent with their emergency plan and implementing l
procedures. Since the last inspection,13 Unusual Events (UEs) were declared. Of '
l these, three were declared at Unit 1, two at Unit 2, seven at Unit 3, and one was a Millstone site declaration. The UEs all were correctly classified and notifications were timely. With the exception of the site UE, response actions were as expeted. The site UE was declared during Hurricane Bob and was not de-escalated until the next day.
i During the Hurricane the following events took place.
i i
The EOF was powered by the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG).
l i
..m r