IR 05000443/1987012

Insp Rept 50-443/87-12 on 870317-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Changes to Emergency Preparedness Program,Licensee Reviews/Audits,Organization & Mgt Control & Security/Emergency Preparedness Program Interface

ML20205T459
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/29/1987
From:	Lazarus W, Thomas W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205T456	List: IR 05000443/1987012 ML20205T452
References
50-443-87-12, NUDOCS 8704070301
Download: ML20205T459 (7)

Text

.

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /87-12 Docket N License No CPPR-135 Licensco: Public Service Company of New llampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, New llampshire 03105 Facility Name Seabrook Nuc1 car Power Station Inspection att Seabrook, New llampshire Inspection Conducted: March 17-19, 1987 Inspectors .

Am J 29 7 W. Tlifimas, f.mjrgency Preparafd' ness Date SpecialinE, EP&RPB, DRSS C. Conklin, EPS, EP&RPD, DRSS Approved by: g eM _d 9 /7

.

W. (/ Laz f s, Chiet Emergency Date

!

Preparedness Section. EP&RPB, DRSS Inspection Sismmary: Innocction on March 17-19. 1987 (Report No. 50-443/87-12)

Arenn Inspoeted: Routino announced emergency preparedness inspection. The inspection areas included: Changes to the Dnergency Preparedness Program:

Licensee koviews/ Audits: Organization and Management Control:

Security / Emergency Preparednes's Program Interfaces and Trainin Re niil t a No violations woro identifie PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR

.

. __ _ _ . . _ _ _

.

' *

i i i  !

i i

,

?{

'

!

2  ;

'

DETAILS ,

!

!  !

, t l Personn Contacted l

'

[

• T. Beard, Senior Faergency Planner  !

• A. Callendrello, Faergency Assistance Manager  !

.; *P. Casey Senior Faergency Planner ,

l *R. Cooney, Technien1 Projects Manager [

i *R. Cyr, Maintenance Manager  ;

, * DiProfio, Assistant Station Manager l

'

j *R. Donald, Nuclear Quality Group Auditor l *J. Crillo, Assistant Operations Manager

T. liarpater, Director, Faergency Preparedness J. ll111 Unit Supervisor ,

L. Ilubbard, Unit Supervisor ,

l *L. Jacobson, IAC '

)i J. Linville, Chemistry Department Supervisor T. Lucca, I&C Foreman

'

,

I

• J. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Hannger  !

G. Madej, Shift Superintendent  !

D. Moody. Station Manager

• T. Murphy, ISC i j *D. Perkins, Licensing S. Perkins, Emergency Preparedness Trainer  !

• T. Pucko, Licensing Hannger ,

1 *C. Roberts, Manager, Security and Computers

[

] R. Strickland, Shift Superintendent  !

l * Tesple, Licensing Coordinator

[

}

• J. Tuberty, Administrative Project Manager -

j *P. Vinson, Audit and Evaluation Supervisor  ;

• Denotes those present at the exit interview l

] 2.0 1.tcensen Action on Previnun innocetion Findinan During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's progrens concerning the items opened during previous inspections. The status of j

'

these items, as well as anticipated completion dates, are as follow Note: All noterinked (*) items are required to be corrected prior to >

tasuance of a full power Itcens i

! (CLOSED) *(85-32-06): Provide ndditionni qualified alternates for key ERO positions to assure the ability to ntnff the augmented organization on n 24

.

l  !

j hour basin, i

j

{ The following documents were reviewed: Faergency Response Organization I (ERO) listing, dated March 13, 1987 ER-3.1 Technical Support Contor (TSC) l Operations: ER-3.2, Operational Support Center (OSC) Operationni ER-3.3,  :

Faergency Operations Facility (EOF) Operationni ER-3.4, Senbrook Station  !

] News Services Operationni and ER-3.5, Media Center Operntion l

'

l

,

- _ _ _ _ . _ ._____ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _- _

-

.

l

. .

!

r 3 I

[

The licensee has designated a minimum of three individuals for each ERO  :

position. The response organization is trained and has sufficient depth to [

support protracted operations. The Medin Center Manager position in t presently staffed by two individunts, however the licensee is actively l striving to recruit and train another individunt for this positio l l

Based upon the above review, this item in close j (CI.0 SED) *(86-18-07): The inittni dose assessment model assumes no todine component in the release source ter The licensee has issued revisions to ER-5.1,llP-41 Dose Projection Determination, and ER-5.7 IIP-41 Emergency C1nssification Determination, i lloth revisions contain an iodine source ter l t

Based upon the above review, this item is close '

(CLOSED) *(86-18-15): Draft appropriate procedures for the performance of on-site (out-of-plant) radiologicnt survey ,

l

!

The licensee has issued ER-4.8, Emergency On-Site Radiologient Survey L dated November 20, 1986. This procedure contains appropriate provisions  !

and references for in-plant surveys, radiation / contamination surveys, air l sampling, sample transport, out-of-plant surveys and other surveys, such as [

taking anow and vegetation samples. This procedure niso contains n protected aren survey map, site aren map and a site boundary ma (

-

Based upon the above review, this item is close (OPEN) *(86-18-17): Distribute finnt detnited public information brochures  !

describing all necessary emergency planning information for the public,  ;

including evacuation route l Interim public information brochures providing basic public information l were distributed June 30, 1986. The status on the finnt brochures is as follows: Program plans and draf t materints were submitted to FINA. NRC, t and all benbrook licensing parties as part of revision 2 to the New l linspahlre Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NilRERP), September 198 '

FINA RAC comments have been made and rovintons are being made to address the comments. The revised information will be resubmitted to FINA na part i of the NilRERP revision procens. This item will be reviewed in a subsequent '

inspectio (OPEN) *(86-18-32): Complete the orientation and training program for New ,

linmpshire and Mannachusetta stato nnd local official This item will remain open pending n finnt decision of the ASI.B concerning the New linmpshire Ynnkoo petition for a reduction of the 10 mile EP/. nnd 1 NRC clarification of the requirements for each state and local agenc (CIM ED) *(86-18-34): Complete installation of the Pont Accident Sampling l Syste I

I

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

.

. _- . _ .

-

.

.

!

'

The Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) installation is complet Acceptance testing is in progress, with completion scheduled for May 198 PASS implementation and capability will be reviewed during a Post Implementation Inspection of NUREG-0737 task action item II.B.3, Post Accident Sampling, and is being tracked separately, therefore this item is close .0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparednenn Program t 3.1 Changes to the Emergency Preparedncan Program  !

There have been no significant chas.ges to the licensee emergency preparedness program since the Inst inspection. Changes which have !

taken place have been minor and have been determined to not ,

adversely effect the licensco's overall state of emergency

'

preparedness. The licensee has appropriate procedures and mechantama in place to assure that changes to the plan and procedures which could affect the overall state of emergency preparedness will be identified. All changes to the emergency plan and implementing procedures receive review by the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) and approval by station manageacnt, and are controlled in accordance with approved r procedures and NRC requirements prior to impicmentatio !

Ikised upon the above review, this area is acceptabl .2 Knowledge and Performance of Duties (Training)

The inspectors reviewed training procedures and records and interviewed personnel to determine their knowledge of emergency pinnning procedures. The following documents were reviewed: ER-8.2, Emergency Preparedness Training: 1 canon plans: attendance sheets test results: required reading lists: and the Training Summar Emergency preparedness trnining requirements are well documente A training matrix is available to allow quick reference between emergency position and required training modules. Required reading Itats are utilized to ensure the emergency organirntion is aware of

!

l plan and procedure changes outside of the regular training cycl i The inspector noted that all lenson plans are current, npproved and on file. All old lesson plans are archived and referenced to the opp 11 cable training clnsa by date. The current training cycle is September 1986 to June 1987, and in approximately 70% complete, with scheduling of remaining personnel ongoing. Required reading lists are well maintained, including distribution, sign-off on changes, and follow-up documentation on late returns. The records system is easy to use, liard copies of all records are maintained in the cmorgency preparedness section. In addition, the Training Center maintains a computerized records system and the Training Summary crons references very well with the manuni system. All

_- . - -- - . _-.

. .

training modules require that a written test be passed. Personnel who fail these tests are removed from the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) until successful results are obtaine The inspector interviewed several individuals in the emergency organization selected on a sampling basis. Four senior licensed individuals who may ba called upon to function as Short Term Emergency Director wo e chosen. Scenarios were chosen to provide events with security implications (possible sabotage), and a fast breaking event, and were given to each operator. Detection, recognition and classification were prompt and correct for the given situations. Based on the demonstrated knowledge of the individuals, notifications, and any associated protective action recommendations, would have also been prompt. The operators were aware of the safety implications of events caused by sabotag There are security procedures in place and the operator / security interface is established and adequate. There were minor inconsistencies between operators on dealing with events with security implications. The licensee has agreed to provide additional training to address this are Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl .3 Organization and Management Control The inspectors reviewed the emergency preparedness normal staffing organization and noted that there has been a change in the reporting chain. The Director, Emergency Preparedness now reports to the Vice President, Nucicar Production. The inspectors noted that this change does not lessen the programs visibility and interface with upper level management, and in fact ties the program closer to normal station operations. The on-site staff consists of a manager, two emergency planners and an emergency plan traine The staff is adequate in size and qualifications to fulfill their functions. The actual training of the ERO in is the process of being transferred to the Training Center, with implementation anticipated for the 1987/1988 training cycle. The emergency preparedness group will still maintain control of lesson plans, staffing of the ERO ar.d scheduling of drills and exercises. The staff assigned the responsibility for off-site issues consists of a manager, and several consultants. Approval has been obtained to increase the permanent staff in this area by two in 198 Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl The Emergency Preparedness Group has no formal ties to the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) except for approval of the Dnergency Plan and Implementing Procedures. The inspectors noted l that there are many department procedures that have the potential I to affect the level of preparedness. As an example, an operations I

'

department procedure for the weekly testing of the pager system removed the Radiological Assessment Managers (RAM) sign-off without I

, .

.

. .

t

his knowledge. The pager system is used to notify key ERO members if augmentation is necessary. Problems with the pager system could go unresolved, or not be resolved in a timely manner if the RAM is not in the review process for these procedures. The licensee agreed to evaluate the SORC process to enable the RAM to be in a formal review path for those department procedures that have the potential to affect the level of emergency preparedness. This item is unresolved (50-443/87-12-01).

i 3.4 Independent Reviews / Audits The Quality Assurance Group is responsible for conducting yearly, independent audits of the emergency preparedness program. The objective and purpose of the audit is well documented, with references specified. The audit team utilizes a detailed checklist that covers the major portions of the program. The team members consist of Quality Assurance personnel as well as personnel with technical knowledge of emergency preparedness. The review process is extensive, and adequate controls exist for the follow-up of

! corrective actions. The licensee's first audit is scheduled for the week of March 30, 1987. The results of this audit will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's drill and testing program. The licensee has conducted all drills and tests in accordance with their implementing procedures. Followup and corrective actions have been timely and effective. Ilowever, the licensee needs to formalize this proces As an example, it wac difficult for the inspectors to determine that all drill objectives were in fact satisfied since they were combined within various station drills. In addition, the corrective actions and followup of problems with the pager system and automatic dialing alert system, noted during a station drill, have not been formally documented. However, the inspectors were able to determine that corrective actions were taken when the problems were identified. The licensee has agreed to evaluate and i strengthen the documentation associated with their drill and testing progra Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl I 3.5 Security / Emergency Preparedness Program Interface

\

Discussions were held with the Seabrook Station Security Coordinator and a Security Shift Supervisor. The purpose of the discussions was to determine the interface, interaction and degree of integration of the station security program with the emergency preparedness program. Green Mountain Security Services is the security contractor for the Seabrook Station. All security l

'

officers receive General Employee Training (CET) MOD. 1, Safeguards Contingency Plan Training, Physical Security Plan Training and Radiological Emergency Plan Training. SS-305, Emergency Plan Operations / Training, provides an introduction and overview of l

!

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

.

_,, _ . _ . . _ _ _

'

. . J ' ', 7 f ,,

. , ? ,

' *

, .

1 si

. 1 ,

'

s t

' emergency planning and instruction to security personnel regarding their responsibilities associated with the Station radiological emergency plan. SS-305 consists of five hours of classroom training, followed by a written examinatio Course content includes an explanation of the importance of an 3 ' Emergency Plan as well as security's role in efficient plan implementation. Specific topics covered are emergency response encility locations, functions, and activation as well as security (s responsibilities associated with site access, accountability and i evacuation. The course content identifies security actions for j search and rescue efforts, actions associated with the off-site 3 assembly area and the Route 107 warehouse, interactions with off-site support agencies and authorities, actions required by security

_ to help activate / operate the LOF and Media Center, security events associated with the classification scheme, and actions required by

. security for the notification process. A copy of the SS-305, Part I f'

'

'

'

• and Part II test were reviewed by the inspectors. All security officers are required to pass these tests. Retraining is required I, 5 annually. Training records, test scores, and security training activities are maint ined by thl+ Security departmen .. %

Based upon the above review, this ar'ea is acceptabl '

, .

.

4.0 Exit Meeting

'

, .

The inspector met with licensee pyrconnel at the conclusion of the inspection (see Detail 1 for attendees) t2 discuss the scope and findings of'this inspection'as detailed in thisireport. The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions as appropriate. At no time during this inspection was any written material

provided to the license ss

,

s k

t

.

$

i s

'

s

&

0, ~

I