ML20214K139

Forwards Comments on Emergency Preparedness Exercise Scenario Review.Amount & Quality of Plant Parameter Data,In Addition to Lack of Controller & Contingency Messages,Will Not Support Meaningful Exercise

ML20214K139
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	11/12/1986
From:	Jamison J, Lynch T Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	Cunningham A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
NUDOCS 8612020177
Download: ML20214K139 (3)

Text

- - - - -- - - - -

ro- 3%

s'o-3 M g

OBattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories l' *. . *t"Uf}O Ah** P.O. Box 999

• • • Richland, Washin U 9352 Telephone (509)

Telex 15-2874 November 12, 1986 Mr. A. L. Cunningham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Andy:

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SCENARIO REVIEW - DECEMBER 3, 1986 Enclosed are the PNL comments on the 1986 Farley Nuclear Plant Emergency Preparedness Exercise Scenario Review. The anount and quality of the plant parameter data in addition to the lack of controller and contingency messages will not support a meaningful exercise.

If you have any questions regarding this review please contact T. P. Lynch on FTS (509) 375-3794 or me on FTS (509) 375-3782.

Sincerely, mI -

L/

J. D. Jamison T. P. ch Technical Leader Research Scientist Emergency Preparedness Group Emergency Preparedness Group Health Physics Technology Section Health Physics Technology Section HEALTH PHYSICS DEPARTMENT HEALTH PHYSICS DEPARTMENT JDJ/TPL: chb Enclosure cc: D. B. Matthews, w/ enclosure 8612O20177 861112 l PDR ADOCK 05000348 (\

_ TO5

. . .- . ~ . .. - .

9 A Y i

FARLEY SCENARIO REVIEW p December 3,1986 Objectives-The objectives appear to be very general and could . include more specific

~

i -

information on what constitutes an acceptable level of response..

= Controller Messages

- No controller messages were provided with the scenario. The list entitled

! " controller cards" is incomplete and inadequate to support an assessment of the scenario.

, Contingency Messages No contingency messages were included with the scenario and there was no

- recognition of the need for such messages in the package.

I~ Plant Parameter Data

1. -The plant parameter data section is seriously deficient and will-not support a meaningful exercise. The deficiencies include:

a. Operations data only covers the period up to 0930.

[

b. There is no data for the period from 0745 to 0845.

c. The 0845 data point TRCST (1), Subcooling, is obviously erroneous, i

i d. The units for the WCFWSGI (1), feed flow and WMSHSGN (1), steam flow are incorrect and the units for WRHR605A, RHR Flow are also

apparently incorrect.

e. Many data points are not clearly identified while others have no units. (e.g. RRMSR02, 07, 24A, etc.),

f. Containment temperature data seems erratic. Containment temperature

-(TCNM) apparently drops from 266 F at 9:11:34 to 232 F at 9:16:44

then continues to rise to 274*F at 9

21:49. Data points TCNMDPOA and TCNMDPIA (presumably containment cooler inlet and outlet air temperatures) show a similar drop at the same' time then continue up 2 at a rapid rate actually exceeding the containment temperature (TCNM) at 9:21:49 through 9:30:09.

g. Some data point descriptors are not meaningful (loop leak, loop leak flow) while other data essential to the understanding of the plant transient is not provided. (e.g. total ECCS flow, RVLIS indication, core exit thermocouple readings).

! h. The amount and quality of the data does not support a determination of the correlation between the core damage sequence and the source tenn.

l 1

L i

I w . . , . . - . , _ - .- - _ _ - . - . - , - - - - - -

'2. No listing of plant alarms (annunicators) is provided to support the plant data.

Onsite and Offsite Radiological Data

1. The inplant radiological data for the pipe penetration room did not include contamination or airborne values. The " contact readings" for the pipe penetration room did not indicate what the monitor would be in contact with.

2. There appeared.to be insufficient inplant data to support reentry team missions.

3. Units are not provided with all of the radiological data.

4. It is not clear if the times given for reactor coolant, containment atmosphere and stack samples are for the time of collection or the time of analysis.

5. Dose projection results from the HP-1000 model or its backup should be provided to assist controllers in evaluating the adequacy of the calculations during the scenario.

6. The offsite whole body doses on the plume maps for 1000 and 1200 are lower by up to a factor of 50 when compared to the values generated using the PNL version of IRDAM. The SPING data was used as the source term input.

7. Both window open and window closed values are not included for the offsite data. The raw data (CPM) is not provided for air samples which might be taken.

8. The 7:15 SPING N.G. average value differs-by two orders of magnitude on two data sheets. (4.58E-7 vs. 4.58E-5)

Events Sequence The narrative summary does not include the rationale behind the events scripted which precludes a determination of whether the necessary precursor events have occurred.

General Information

1. No guidance on the conduct of the exercise is provided for the controllers or players.

2. There are no page numbers and a general lack of cohesiveness to the scenario.

2

.