ML20141J332

Requests Addl Info Re Scenario for Emergency Preparedness Exercise Scheduled for 860402,covering Objectives,Controller Messages,Event Sequence & Data Presentation

ML20141J332
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	04/18/1986
From:	Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Jeffery Griffin ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8604280101
Download: ML20141J332 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - .

\

A p%

l APR I 81986 In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-313 50-368 I Arkansas Power & Light Company ATTN: Jqhn M. Griffin, Senior  ;

Vice President - Energy Supply P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 I Gentlemen:

This letter is to acknowledge receipt and staf f review of the scenario for the emergency preparedness exercise scheduled for April 2, 1986. As a result of this review, the following items were identified as requiring additional infor-mation, clarification, or revision. This information was relayed to your emergency preparedness staff via telephone on March 19 and 20, 1986.

Objectives

1. Revise objectives to include initial accountability and continued accountability in all onsite ERF's.

2. Page 4 of the observer check list for the Control Room is not properly titled.

3. In the exercise rules and participant guidelines, page 3, 12.0 should have all but the first sentence removed to eliminate prompting before the event.

Controller Messages

1. The plant parameter sheets are very cumbersome for the controllers to use.

If the plant simulator fails, the controller should orally give the parameters when the plant parameters change, not the entire package of parameters at one +.ime as is implied.

2. Controllers should be prepared to deny the use of other methods to keep reactor pressure up.

3. The loss of the simulator that will be used to provide operators with scenario parameters would pose the controllers with significant problems

[ that have not been identified in messages. For example:

I

}. a. the 0935 pressurizer steam leak is not supported in the scenario i data, and is not found in a contingency message, and

/

RIV:EP C:EP&S D:D C:R C:RPB L CHackn LAYande RB rt DRHuqter A-/b /86 &/A/86 (/Q/86 QM/86 JJGagliaf@U t/p7/8p 8604280101 060?18 3 PDR -ADOCK 05000313 y PDR ,. /f, g I.

I o i -

= .

Arkansas Power and Light Company l

b. there is no contingency message to cover the failure of breaker A305 (0936) that removes the decay heat pump A from service.

)

Event Sequence l

1. At 49 to 50 minutes following 0935, a step change occurs in the plant parameters that does not correlate to any scenario event.

l

2. The 0930 HPI loss and the reactor coolant system reaching saturation at 1000 are not supported by initiating events in the scenario.

l

\

l

3. The reviewers are concerned that the scenario time line and messages will I l

not agree with the simulater or the Safety Parameter Display System.

4. At 1010, the scenario indicated evacuation of a school. What is the basis l for this action to prompt evacuation of the schools?

Data Presentation

1. There appears to be a serious disconnect in projected facility dose rates and the methods that apparently were used to obtain them.

The facility drawings in the Area Survey forms do not show Area Radiation Monitor ( ARM) locations. It is not believable tha .rsonnel would be required to measure dose rates greater than 1000 Rinr in Zones 1 and 2 over 2 days, and up to 350 R/hr in Zone 4. Consequently, either the wrong forms have been used, or else AP&L is planning to have personnel conduct j surveys in a hazardous manner. It seems more likely that the ARMS would l be used to collect such dose rate data, even if the health physics staff l had to extrapolate from the ARMS that did not go offscale. '

It was further noted that ARMS RE-8018 and 8020 (20 R/hr) and RE-8017 and 8019 (122 R/hr) were not located on drawings. There is a 30-minute lag in the listed ARM dose rate increases when compared to the Area Survey Data.

Thus, the relationship between these readings and those in the Area Survey Data could not be evaluated for agreement. It was obvious that different people compiled the data on the ARM forms and the Area Survey Data forms.

The ARM readings accurately used the Capital R for roentgen, while Area Survey Data used the long-abandoned lower-case r for roentgen.

2. There are no data in the scenario that support a radiation alarm following the 11:30 waste gas tank explosion.

Sincerely,

L%DW Signed hp J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc

(See next page)

o . L Arkansas Power & Light Company cc:

J. M. Levine, General Manager Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. Box 008 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Arkansas Radiation Control Program Director bec to DMB (IE35) bcc distrib. by RIV:

RPB Resident Inspector R. D. Martin, RA R&SPB Section Chief (RPB/B) D. Weiss, LFMB ( AR-2015)

RIV File DRSP RSB MIS SYSTEM RSTS Operator C. A. Hackney L. A. Yandell R. L. Bangart I