ML20151Q002
| ML20151Q002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Conte S HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Q006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808100265 | |
| Download: ML20151Q002 (3) | |
Text
.
J.
August 1,1988 The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte United States House'of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Conte:
I an pleased to respond to your letter of July 7,1988, in which you forwarded a letter from a constituent, Mr. Larry Bogart, regarding the local public docunent room (LPDR) collection for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe), maintained at the Greenfield Comunity College, Library Learning Resource Center, Greenfield, Massachusetts. Mr. Bogart stated that the document collection is incomplete, particularly with respect to 1988 mate rial. He also stated that he was unable to find information on the April 1988 Emergency Preparedness Exercise when he visited the LPDR on May 19, 1988, and expressed concern about the extent of involvement by local and state governn'ents.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) sends new documents to each local public document room on a weekly basis, and 1988 material has been routinely added to the Greenfield Comunity College LPDR collection since early January 1980.
In addition, each LPDR is also provided with a Weekly Accession List ider:tifying the new material being added to the collection. The new material is tdded to subject files rather than filed separately by year.
In response to a May 23, 1988, telephone conversation with Mr. Bogart's associate, Ms. Joy MacNulty, we provided the Citizens Energy Council with a cumulative listing, by subject file category, of the 1988 records concerning Yankee Rowe made publicly available by the NRC and available for public inspection and copying at the Greenfield Comunity College and at our Headquarters Public Document Room in Washington, DC. We informed Ms. MacNulty at that time that the NRC report on the April 26, 1988, Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise conducted at (ankee Rowe had not yet been issued. The Inspection Report (No. 50-29/88-08) was issued on June 7, 1988, processed into the NRC's computerized Nuclear Documents System on June 15, 1988, and sent to the Greenfield Comunity College on June 21, 1988. During a routine on-site audit of that LPDR collection on June 27, 1988, we confirmed that the inspection report was available for public inspection and copying in the "Inspection Reports" file, Category Q.
A copy of the report is enclosed for your information.
This report documents the participation in the emergency exercise by county officials and officials of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York.
Our June 27, 1988, audit of the LPDR confirmed that the collection is complete anc: well maintained, and that library staff are knowledgeable of the
$sf*
pM 1
8808100265 880801 g
g PDR ADOCK 05000029 P
PNU t
2 t
collection and able to provide competent service to patrons.
In this regard, a refresher training session was conducted for all reference librarians who staff the reference desk.
I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to Mr. Bogart.
However, if he still has questions concerning the availability of information at the local public document room, please inform him that he may contact our LPDR staff directly at their toll free number, 800 638-8081.
Sincerely, (sten,ay T.I, Rehm M'AyVictor Stello, Jr.
hExecutiveDirectorforOperations
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 Distribution JSouder F0IA/LPDR Rdg E00-0003827 LRobinson DGrimsley PNorry WMcDonald 0GC OCA VStello JTaylor TRehm JMurray SECY F0IA/LPDR JSouder:vr*
7/18/88
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
/
/
0FC
- FOIA/LPDR
- D:DFIPS
- D:ADM d :0:AR[1
,(:0GC-WF
- ED V -
n
- 0CA y
.[..__:
... g
(..:.._-
IS..f.
! -: j$
......l
....!........f
.........:. b h'
/f8f
- 7/d88
- ) /td88
- 6/(/88
/ k/88 DATE
- 7/18/88
- 7/18/88
- f 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY t
J
-y l
. collection and able to provide competent. service to patrons.
In this regard, a refresher training session was conducted for all reference librarians who staff the reference desk.
I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to Mr. 8ogart.
However, if he still has questions concerning the availability of information a the local public document room, please inform him that he may contact our LP staff directly at their toll free number, 800-638-8081.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No.:50 9/88-08,n c
Distribution JSouder FOIA/LPDR Rdg ED0-0003827 LRobinson DGrimsley PNorry WMcDonald 0GC OCA VStello JTaylor TRehm JMurray SECY l
s
\\
s~
FOI
/LPDR JS der:vr 1 S1/88
]
0FC
- F0IA/LPDR
- D:DFy ij
- D:ADM
- D: ARM
- 0GC-WF
- EDO
- 0CA A____:___.........:............: ___________:_____.......:.__
...... :. _4q(L...... :. _ J
.NAME
- LRobinson
- DHGr %Isley :PNorry
- WGMcDonald
- HRagan
- VStello 1
- f//[/88
- 1/ $/88
/ /88
/ /88
- / /88
/ /88
- l/l/88 DATE o
t OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
JUN 0 71983 Docket No. 50-29 Yankee Atomic Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. Bruce L. Drawbridge Vice President and Manager of Operations 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 This letter refers to the routine safety inspection of your Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise conducted by Mr. T. Tuccinardi of this office and other members of an NRC team on April 26-28, 1988, at the Yankee Atomic Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts. Discussions of our findings were held by Mr. T.
Tuccinardi with you and your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The areas examined during the inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report (enclosed). Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of the emergency exercise by team members.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed. Yankee Atomic Power Station performance during the exercise demonstrated the ability to implement the Emergency Plan and the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a manner that would provide adequate protective measures for the health and safet/ of the public.
No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely, crv-9 Hgr.ed Oy:
u T..:c R. EMlamy Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Region i Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR YR 88 0001.0.0 hi 05/19/88
. 's pm
-est%F5i:431-SSO607 PDR ADOCK 05000029 d 6"..
o nr.n
r_
' Yankee Atomic Electric Company 2
JUN 07 gg cc w/ encl:
J. E. Tribble, President N. N. St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent G. J. Papanic, Jr., Senior Project Engineer - Licensing P. W. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Public Document Room (POR) local Public Document Room (LPOR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Massachusetts bcc w/ancl:
Region I Occket Room (with concurrences)
M. Perkins, Management Assistant, ORMA (w/o encl)
D. Haverkamp, Section Chief, DRP J. Kaucher, Project Engineer, DRP H. Eichenholz, SRI - Yankee (w/ concurrences)
G. Grant, SRI - Vermont Yankee R. Bores, Technical Assistant, DRSS M. Fairtile, PM, NRR 6
RI:0RSS RI:0RSS RI:0 S RI:0RSS Tuccinardi/sh Conklin Laz Bellamy 5/0/88 5/f)/88
/88 8/(,/88 L
VV
[
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR YR 88 0001.1.0 05/19/88
)
l l
pet y-r wgy
-,me.
gw-rum
-y:-
m-w 4
y a
v-y-
p-r
+ - !-+-
a--7--
r-P
r.
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No.
50-29/88-08 Docket No.
50-29 License No.
OPR-3 Category C
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name:
Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: April 26-28, 1988 Inspectors:
Om 4_
71 P
T. T. %ccita?S, Emergency P@iredness date Special tTt, FRSSB, DRSS C. Conklin, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS W. Lazarus, EPS, FRSSB, ORSS R, Christopher, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS H. Eichenholz, SRI Yankee C. Carpenter, RI Y. ee Approved b k A_
k8[M W
a reparedness date Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 26-28, 1988 (Inspection Report No.
(S0-29/88-08)
Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced emergency preparedness inspection and observation of the licensee's annual emergency exercise performed on April 26, 1988.
The inspectten was performed by a team of six NRC regional and resident personnel.
Results: No violations were identified.
The licensee's emergency response actions for this exercise were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
---esOGRM455-490607 PDR ADOCK 05000029 0
r Details 1.0 Persons Contacted W. Riethle, Manager, Radiation Protection Group W. McGee, Public Affairs Ofrector J. Gilman, Radiation Protection Group J. Hawxhurst, Radiation Protection Group J. Kay, Technical Services Manager A. Kadak, Vice President J. Gedutis, Senior Chemist R. Mellor, Technical Director T. Henderson, Assistant Plant Superintendent J. Robinson, Director, Environmental Engineering G. Babineau, Radiation Protection Manager A. Tatro, Training Instructor B. Wood, Administration Manager D. McDavitt, Radiation Protection Engineer G. Morgan, Technical Services K. Jurentkuff, Plant Operations Manager
~
B. Drawbridge, Vice President N. StLaurent, Plant Superintendent The above listed persons were present at the exit meeting.
In addition, other licensee personnel were contacted, interviewed and observed during the inspection.
2.0 Emergency Exercise The Yankee Atomic Power Station unannounced, backshif t exercise was conducted on April 26, 1988, from 4:30 to 11:00 p.m.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of Vermont participated fully.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and New York conducted field monitoring activities and a ingestion pathway exercise on April 27, 1988.
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities i
The exercise objectives, submitted to NRC Region I on January 20, 1988, were reviewed and determined to adeq'Jately test the licensee's Emergenep Plan.
On March 2, 1988, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRC review and evaluation.
Region I l
representatives had telephone conversations with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content of the scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made to the scenario which allowed adequate testing of major portions of the Emergency Plan (EP) and the implementing procedures, and also provided the opportunity for licensee personnel to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in need of corrective action.
3 e
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on April 26, 1988.
Suggested NRC changes to the scenario were made by the licensee in the areas of technical support and radiological data.
The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and that controllers would intercede in exercise activities to prevent disruption of normal plant operations.
2.2 Scenario The exercise scenario included the following key events:
1.
Loop 1 pressure indicator failure; 2.
Plant mode reduction In accordance with Technical Specifications; 3.
Switchgear Room Fire Suppression System "TROUBLE" indication; 4
Fire Emergency; 5.
RCS pump begins to vibrate; 6.
Control rod drop incident; 7.
Second control rod drop incident causes a reactor scram signal initiation; the reactor fails to scram, however, a manual scram l
of the reactor from Switchgear Room is successful; 8.
Loss of feedwater, Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) radiation alarms, and safety relief sticks; 9.
Release to atmosphere begins several minutes later; 10.
Release of radioactive materials to environment; and
(
11.
Relief valve closed and plant stabilized, commence recovery.
2.3 Activities Observed During the conduct of the licensee's exercise, NRC team members made detailed abservations of the emergency response organization activation and augmentation, the emergency response facilities (ERFs) activation and operations, and the actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of the ERFs. The following activities were observed.
1.
Recognition of initiating conditions, correlation of these with Emergency Action Levels (EAls), selection and use of emergency operating procedures, and completion of notification to offsite governmental authorities;
I 2.
Staffing and activation of ERFs; 3.
Communication between and within ERFs; 4.
Formulation of Protective Action Reconmendations; 5.
Performance of technical support, simulated repair and corrective actions; 6.
Capability of the Health Physics organization to maintain radiological controls; 7.
Communications with offsite agencies; and 8.
Interaction between Emergency Director, and state and county representatives in the EOF.
3.0 Exercise Observation 3.1 Exercise Strengths The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response facilities, and use of the facilities, were generally consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing procedures.
The team also noted the following actions of the licensee's emergency response organization that were indicative of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions.
1.
Excellent communication with, and utilization of, offsite teams for offsite survey data and plume tracking.
2.
Frequent and quality briefings were conducted in the Technical Support Center (TSC), and overall, TSC command and control was excellent.
3.
Plant methods, procedures, and performance of emergency notifications was very good.
3.2 Exercise Weaknesses The NRC fdentified the following exercise weaknesses which need to be evaluated and corrected by the licensee.
The licensee conducted an adequate self critique of the exercise that also identified some of these areas.
1.
Communication between the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) was weak.
Numerous instances of poor communication were in evidence, both between and within ERFs as evidenced by the following examples:
r 5
When discrepancies were found at the Emergency Operations
+
Facility between the METPAC dose assessments model and field survey team results, a conservative decision to use the field team data was made.
However, the rationale for this decision was never communicated to the Technical Support Center (TSC) or Control Room (CR).
TSC and CR 1
should be kept abreast of offsite issues.
The recording of offsite radiological data in the TSC is also referenced in i
procedore OP3324, "TSC Operations".
TSC was not kept abreast of the scenario event "loss of
+
Knowledge of the loss of feedwater should have caused the TSC staff to examine and project affects on the reactor.
Though this event made little difference cn the progress of the scenario, the TSC was not aware of this and a loss of feedwater could have had major effects.
The Engineering Support Center (ESC) had indication of minor core damage prior to the declaration of the General Emergency (GE).
This knowledge was never available to the
{
staff in the TSC.
Had the TSC examined these indicat'ons, the GE may have been declared earlier.
The CR was not kept abreast of what issues were being examined in the TSC or in the EOF.
Since the CR is in fact running the plant, they should be kept advised of corrective measures being considered in the TSC, and the effects of the accident offsite.
The area of communications between ERFs will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-29/88-08-01).
2.
The Recovery Manager in the E0F used forms for notification of state and local officials that were not in the official "EOF Operation Procedure".
The licensee stated that the forms it had used had been agreed upon by the licensee, and state and local officials, but had not yet been included in the EOF Operation Procedure.
The inclusion of the autharized notifica-tion forms in current procedures will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-29/88-08-C.).
3.3 Other Areas Requiring Follow-up l
1.
Recovery Manager (RM) performs routine administrative functions as well as the "orange phone" communications.
This often left the RM unavailable to confer with his staff, as well as interact with state officials in the EOF.
The licensee stated that this arrangement was made with the affected states. However, the RM could be relieved of many of these administrative duties, allowing him time to maintain better command of the EOF as well as interact with state and local officials.
6 v
2.
Protective Action Recommendations (PAR's) were not developed and presented'in a structured manner. As an example, while the licensee was relaying a PAR to state officials, new information resulted in an attempt to analyze and change the PAR on the spot. Altiiough the licensee and state of ficials stayed with the original PAR, several minutes were spent discussing a change in the PAR. Additionally, the RM was not included in the discussion, nor was the data validated.
3.
The TSC has no method of tracking technical iscues being examined by the TSC staff.
For example, when the ESC suspected that there may have been fuel overheat and potential degradation, the issue was not pursued by TSC staff nor was a record of the data kept for follow-up.
4.
The scenario had the potential to adversely affect licensee performance.
In particular, plant data did not accurately reflect operator actions, and there were significant differences between projected versus actual field measurements.
4.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
~'
(Closed) 50-29/87-03-02 (IFI) Field team results were not displaynd or distributed to response personnel in the E0F.
During the exercise, data flow from the field teams through the communications system to health physics (HP) personnel was observed.
The data flowed well and HP personnel were supplied w'th a constant stream of information.
The data was analyzed and used to modify Protective Action Recommendation decisionmaking. The states were constantly involved and did in fact receive the data and its implications. Oose assessors aggressively pursued disparities between projected and actual doses, and made conservative decisions in view of these differences.
Plume tracking during the scenario was made difficult by constant scenario wind shifts, however, offsite teams performed well in spite of the difficulty.
Based on these observations, this item is closed.
i 5.0 Licensee Critique The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on April 28, 1988, during which key licensee controllers discussed observations of the exercise.
The licensee indicated that these observations would be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
6.0 Exit Meeting and NRC Critique 1
The licensee was informed no tolations were observed. Although weak-nesses were identified as noted in detail 3 above, the NRC team deter-i mined, that within the scope and limitation of the scenario, the licensee's performance demonstrated they could implement their Emergency Plan and emergency procedures
i i ;' ',
in a manner that would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate them and take appropriate action regarding the items identified.
'?-
i
~
]
C itt -
$[ '
UNITED STATEC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
t j
WASHINGTON, D. C 20655
-3 g
l jf
,T; 1
\\,.....,/
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 07/26/88 EDO CONTROL: 0003827 DOC DT 07/07/88 FINAL REPLY:
Rep. Silvio O. Conte TO:
C hai rtnan Zech FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 88-0631 Extacutive Director ROUTING:
DESC:
ENCLOSES LETTER FROM LARRY BOGART RE LACK OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT LPDR IN GREENFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS DATE: 07/12/88 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT: 'kDonald M4Ax.
ARM r
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKSt Raf. EDO 3531 Donnie Grzimaley
//14/88 PLEASE PREPARE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE FCo MRS. NORRY'S REVID. SOT LATER TH;d :405, 7/22/88 hUfE: FOR SIGNA'11)RE OE STELLO e,
n m,
3 l
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-88-0631 LOGGING DATE: Jul 12 88 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
S.O.
Conte--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE:
Jul 7 88 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
Lack of information available at the respository library in Greenfield specifically on emer evac exercises conducted in April ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
Bogart DATE DUE:
Jul 26 88 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
fcg'd 0il: t00
- Jats.., o dir.
- n Time -
ELO---003827
..