ML20138P123
| ML20138P123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1985 |
| From: | Kober R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512240312 | |
| Download: ML20138P123 (3) | |
Text
-
9
)- f;. Y-[
- yt?
t' Miff:*?]
,.,.,. ?. ' %I*1 i
I_
Eb &J T..*bNad Gd]Eka
&&T E&E!
e ol
~-
%k
- ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION e '89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649-0001 ROOER W. kcl 5ER -
' VICE P982SfDENT' TELEPMo**E EtzcTasc * **rAu encoucr.oa a.aacoorvis 546-2700 December 2,1985 b
Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region'I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-244/85-20 R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244
Dear Dr. Murley:
Inspection Report 50-244/85-20 was sent to RG&E with a letter
' dated October 30, 1985 from Mr. Thomas T. Martin. The inspection
[
. report concerned an inspection conducted September 25-27,1985 to observe the Emergency Exercise. A response was requested within 30 days to address a concern noted in the letter even though no violations
' were identified during the inspection. The concern is addressed in Attachment A to this letter.
Ve truly yours, bl*'
Ro er W. Kober Attachment-8512240312 851202 DR ADOCK 050 24
,4,e/
C __
o
F t
s
+
~g p-NaOk ny r;.y -
r
~ ATTACHMENT A
- Response;to; Inspection
- Report 50-244/85-20
- a g-C f An linspectioniwas conducted. September:~ 251-27, 1985.to observe the Emergency. Exercise. ;During:that inspection, no' violations cwerefobserved,fhowever,-.one concern was-listed-in the inspection 1
ireport.on.the. cover letter dated'. October 30,'1985.from v -
Mr.; Thomas'T.' Martin.: The following response addresses'that item.
! Item:;
' The' Energency' Operations Facility -(EOF) dose assessment team 'did not offactively' utilize Linformation available -
..to perform accurate,, timely ~ dose assessment calculations which, could have -been : used to determine.or verify protective action recommendations.
M LResponse:iDuring L the : exercise, prior to the release,.the curie inventory of:both-noble gases and.' iodines in the creactor' coolant system:was determined from the' analysis
~
.of~a;coolantosample.
From the. time the sample.was
+
taken,.theEcondition.of the plant had rapidly'de-teriorated in the scenario, therefore, the sample was not -
.~
.consideredito be -_ representative of-present-:or near.
future reactor coolant' activity.
Consequently, a
' ~
-hypothetical dose projection:was not made based on this Linformation.;
However, ; dose' projections ~ prior to
, release?will be carried - out' in future. exercises.-
In-the exercise, when theigeneral~ emergency'.was. declared,
- priority was changed from : making hypothetical dose
- projections to. assisting the ' recovery manager in' making -
predetermined protective action recommendations based
.on plant' conditions.. When the release did' start, dose projections were quickly made to verify that the
- protective actions taken were correct.
p
~
A training session ~for the Emergency Operations Facility dose assessment personnel was held on October 10, 1985 i
to, discuss all the items needing improvement based on d!# C '
the critique:of the September 26, 1985 Emergency Exercise.
'All dose-assessment personnel were-made aware they should calculate hypothetical release rates N
. and umake dose. projections prior to an actual release based Lon available plant -information.
Although pro-cedures are currently available that contain information helpful in calculating hypothetical release rates,
.these procedures will be reviewed and revised if necessary to' ensure they provide sufficient information and give guidance to make accurate calculations.
Review and revision of procedures and any necessary training of dose assessment personnel will be completed
~
by January 31, 1986.
e Attachment A (continued)
In addition to the concern about hypothetical dose calculations, Mr. Martin's October 30, 1985 letter addressed other items discussed below.
The procedure used by the MIDAS computer operator for inputting release rate data did not contain conversion factors necessary to convert certain forms of raw data into the units required for input.
Initially, during the exercise, an incorrect conversion factor was calculated which was promptly identified as erroneous.
The correct conversion factors are now available for use in the procedure.
The procedure will be further reviewed for completeness and revised if necessary by January 31, 1986.
A procedure is being developed to provide guidance to the survey team director to ensure the survey teams are efficiently managed.
Survey teams will be directed to locate the centerline and boundaries of the plume rather than survey at fixed locations.
This should enable the plume to be characterized more quickly, especially in the case of narrow plumes.
The procedure will be completed by January 31, 1986.
The EOF dose assessment team did stay current with changing plant conditions by the direct phone line to the Technical Support center (Tsc) dose assessment team.
This communication system is used to obtain important plant information without having to wait for delivery of plant status forms.
The source term status board contains space for much information already available to the EOF dose assessment team on plant status forms and printouts of the computerized dose projections.
The status board will be updated to eliminate unnecessary items by January 31, 1986.
l
-