ML20040B867
| ML20040B867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1982 |
| From: | Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gilberts D NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B868 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201260495 | |
| Download: ML20040B867 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000282/1981023
Text
.
.
January 20, 1982
-
-
' 't h
Docket
N,.
50-28'
Y\\
Docket No. 50-306
\\
'\\
Northern States Power Company
- ,
ATTN:
FI:-
Dennis E. Gilberts
~l
Senior Vice President
Power Supply
414 Nicollet fla ll
fli nneapo 1 i s , tlN 55401
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by flessrs.
W.
1.
Axel son , W. B. Grant , and J. P. Patterson of this office on December 7-9,
1981, of activities at Prairic Island Nuclear Power Plant authorized by NRC
Operating Licenses No. DPR-42 and No. DPR-6G and to the discussion of our
findings with fir.
I..
R. Eliason, tir. F. P Tierney, Jr. and others of your
staff at the conclusion of the i 'is pe c t i on .
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of pro.edures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with pirsonnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requis-ments were identi fied during the
course of this inspection.
We are concerned with the method of scenario development and of exercise
guidance currently used by your staff.
Several problems encountered during
this exercise were directly related to scenario deficiencies and inadequate
guidance provided to you. con t ro l l e rs . These deficiencies are listed in
Appendix A to the enclosed inspection report.
Accordingly, you are re-
quested to submit a written statement within twenty-five days of the date of
this let ter describing your planned act ions for imprcving each of the items
identiiied in Appendix A.
In the future, we expect your staf f to it.ilow the provisions of FEtlA
Guidance tiemorandum No. 17, Joint Exercise Procedure, which provides for
scenario develooment and approval by NRC and FEtlA .
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and vaur response to this letter will be placed
in the NRC's public Document Room
If this report contains any information
that you (or your cont ractors) believe to be exempt from disclosure under
10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by tele-
phone within ten (10) days from the date of this letter of your intention
U2012604v3 ugoggg
{DRADOCK 05000282
i,c.
7 -
/n
R
o
L
--
.
.
Northern States Power
-2-
January 15, 1982
Company
to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within twenty-five (25)
days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to
withhold such information.
If your receipt of this letter has been
delayed such that less than seven (7) days are available for your review,
please cot.ify this office promptly so that a new due date may be estab-
lished. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must
be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information
which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which
contains a full statement of the reasons which are the bases for the
claim that the information should be withheld from public disclosure.
This sect. ion furth,r requires the statement to address with specificity
the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4).
The information sought
to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate
part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within
the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter, the enclosures,
l
and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document
1
Room.
1
l
l
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
l
Sincerely,
h4 i:a ]
v'J. A. Hind, Director
Division of Emergency Preparedness
and Operat.ional Support
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Exercise
Deficiencies
2.
Inspection Reports
No. 50-282/81-23 and
No. 50-306/81-z5
I
cc w/encls:
F. P. Tierney, Jr. , Plant lianager
Df!B/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident inspector, RIII
,
l
Jo!.n W. Ferman, Ph.D., Nuclear
Engineer, t!PCA
FEf!A, Region V
l
RIII
RI T /
RlII
RIII
F}I
o
U $ h'n'u l n Q, '
<ijsfd
h\\
Axelso
l
Patto son /so
P@ i
Ifin
Little
Qt %qllo
///f
dk
12/30/81
l
!
!
l
l
.
.
1
1
Appendix A
'
1
EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES
1.
The licensee conducted an inadequate technical review of the data
l
provided in the scenario. Reactor coolant pressure / temperature
l
relationships given to the Control Room staff conflicted with the
corrective actions which the reactor operators should have taken.
Further, radiological monitoring data provided to the field monitoring
teams did not represent the expected conditions from the scenario.
2.
The sequence of events listed in the scenario caused the exercise
participants to implement onsite actions and make protective measures
recommendations prior to the expected times agreed upon with the off-
site agency controllers. As a result, the offsite agency controllers
were not able to control some offsite actions. The NRC, FEMA, State,
and local officials recognize that under realistic conditions, events
can occur such as they did during the exercise, however, for the pur-
pose of demonstrating capabilities during an exercise, the controllers
(both onsite and offsite) must steer the exerci.se as provided for in
the scenario.
3.
Scenario development and approval did not follow the provisions of FEMA
Memorandum Guidance No. 17.
Enclosure 1 of that guidance provides mile-
stones for exercise observation and critiques.
Specifically, NRC was
not provided with a final scenario until one day prior to the exercise.
4.
Controllers of the exercise were not provided proper instructions and
guidance relevant to their roles, responsibilities, and authorities
during the exercise. During the exercise, some controllers were
observed prompting the participant to implement actions which the
exercise was designed to test.
Further, the controllers should have
stopped actions which caused the exercise to go astray from the
design of the scenario.
5.
Records management and followup notifications to offsite agencies
from the TSC were inadequate.
According to the Emergency Plan,
followup notification shall be made to offsite authority justifying
the recommended accurate protective measures. During the exercise
the licensee recommended protective measures to offsite authorities
but failed to provide followup notificatioa which would justify their
recommendation. Further, review of exercise records, indicated no
documentation which technically justified the recommended protective
actions.
6.
During the exercise, the inspectors noted that proper onsite public
addreas messages were not given specifically informing the onsite
personnel that an emergency exists (proper classification) and a
description of the nature of the emer;,encv.
_ . _ _
_ _
__
.___ _
_
_
. .
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ .
- _
.__