ML20154S651

Affidavit of Ja Macdonald.* Discusses June 1988 Graded Exercise at Plant

ML20154S651
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/28/1988
From:	Macdonald J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:
Shared Package
ML20154S590	List: ML20154S587 ML20154S651 ML20154S667 ML20154S673
References
OL-1, NUDOCS 8810050119
Download: ML20154S651 (4)

Text

-

r-

?

f

+<

September 28, 7_ . ' 3 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUP' "'VICE COMPANY O. ..n 11AMPSHIRE , at al.

) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1

) 50-444-OL-1

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning and Safety

) Issues)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES A. MACDONALD I, James A. MacDonald, being on oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am the Radiological Assessment Manager for New Hampshire Yankee. I have previously testified in these proceedings. During the Seabrook Station Graded Exercise in June, 1988, I was the Emergency Operations Facility l Coordinator, a role which I have performed for over three years. My responsibilities as the EOF Coordinator include assessment of station conditions, formulation of protective action recommendations (PARS), and interface with offsite authorities, as required, to discus's and explain PARS and station conditions.

2. The NRC in Inspection Repotu No. 88-09 stated that:

"Results: No violations were identified.

Emergency response actions were adequate to

% OO g g y ha f G

3.

f provide protective measures for the *aalth and safety of the public."

3. The above referenced inspection report identified both strengths and weaknesses. One of the weaknesses or areas for corrective action identified by this inspection report is the factual basis upon which the Massachusetts Attorney General (MA AG) relied in filing its motion. The purpose of this affidavit is to address the affidavit of Robert D. Pollard and the following excerpt from the NRC inspection report relied upon by the MA AG.

"The Technical Support Center (TSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) staft displayed questionable engineering judgment and/or did not recognize or address technical example:

concerns (50-443/88-08-01). For

"-Neither the EOF or TSC staff questioned a release of greater than 7000 curies per second with only clad damage and no core uncovery."

4. Exercise participants were provided specific instructions or guidelines regarding the conduct of the Seabrook Station Graded Exercise, one aspect of which included the use of information supplied by an Exercise Controllsr. The exercise participants were advised that their adherence to thic guidance would be necessary in order to assure that all objectives of the exercise could be achievad. The guidance given regarding controller supplied information was that exercise participants shall accept this information and proceed although a participant could seek further clarification. More specifically, during previous drills TSC and EOF team members

l 1$  !

were advised that it may be necessary to elevate or accelerate  !

i certain parameters that pertain to core damage in order to ensure a level of response commensurate with the objectives of  !

the drill. Therefore, it is unlikely that release data provided by an exercise controller would have been questioned during the course of the Graded Exercise.

5. In any event, a review was made of materials generated during the exercise. In addition, discussions have been held with both controllers and exercise participants regarding this matter. This review conclrded that the lack of correlation between the release condition and core cooling indications were questioned and discussed by key Tsc emergency rosponse personnel. These reviews also concluded that the personnel did as directed, 1232, they accepted the information from the controller as being correct and proceeded accordingly.

Further, the emergency response personnel had themselves realized that it was necessary to produce elevated radiological conditions in order to fully exercise offsite responders.

6. The actual response and implementation of all emergency response procedures was not hindered by this lack of correlation. This includes all the sampling and analysis (containment airborne radionuclide and hydrogen levels, reactor coolant radionuclide and dissolved hydrogen levels, POST LOCA s.

monitor readings and specific core parameters) which are required to be performed for assessment of the magnitude of core damage.

7. Based on the foregoing paragraphs, I have concluded l

that the observation of the NRC Inspector does not reflect a l display in questionable engineering judgement and/or an inability to recognize or address technical concerns. The observation has since been found to be inaccurate because key TSC and EOF personnel were aware of this lack of correlation.

Furthermece, this lack of correlation should not have been questio' sed ry the players during the exer:ise because the players realized from their experience in past drills, and based on the guidelines for the June, 1988, exercise, that this information had been provided by the controller for the purpose of fully exercising offsite responders.

46k/9 h Y&f'- AWY ~ ~

ames A. MacDonald' l STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Rockingham, ss. September 28, 1988 Then appeared before me the above subscribed James A.

MacDonald, and made oath that he was the author of the foregoing affidavit and that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge.

Before me,

! bJvU /_iJb>! y)

Notary Public '

My Commission Expires: j .////A' r ,-

P