ML20234F506

Comments on Facility Scenario for 870911-12 Exercise. Scenario Should Support Reasonable Demonstration of Licensee Emergency Response Capability.No Major Deficiencies Noted

ML20234F506
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	06/22/1987
From:	Jamison J, Stoetzel G Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
NUDOCS 8707080246
Download: ML20234F506 (4)

Text

i DA6 OBallelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories h ,* P.O. Box 999 g JUL j Richland, Washington U.S.A. 99352 Telephone (509) 375-3782 Telex 15-2674 June 22, 1987 i

1 Mr. A. L. Cunningham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Region 11 )'

101 Marietta Street Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30303 {

Dear Andy:

MCGUIRE SCENARIO REVIEW, September 11-12, 1987 Attached are the comments resulting from our review of the subject scenario.

The scenario should support a reasonable demonstration of the licensee's Emergency Response capability. No major deficiencies were noted. No list of l' acronyms and system designators was provided in the scenario. These desig-nators are not standard in the industry. Not having them defined makes it difficult if not impossible to adequately review some parts of the scenario.

The comments are classified as follows:

Major Deficiencies - Those which may have a serious negative impact on the overall conduct of the exercise - e.g., prevent an adequate demonstration of the licensee's Emer-gency Response capability.

l Minor Deficiencies - Those items which, individually, may degrade the l demonstration of certain parts of the licensee's l capability, but should not significantly detract from the overall success of the exercise.

l Other Deficiencies / Questions - Items such as minor deficiencies or incon- l l sistencies in scenario data, or matters of clarity )

which the licensee may wish to examine or explain -

prior to the exercise.

l 8707080246 G70622 PDR ADOCK 05000369 F pop i _ _ _ _ _

we a

.. . Mr. Andy Cunningham June 22, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me on FTS (509) 375-3782, or G. A. Stoetzel on FTS (509) 375-2781.

Sincerely

h. .

J. D. Jamison G. A. Stoetzel l Technical Leader Senior Research Scientist Emergency Preparedness Group Emergency Preparedness Group Health Physics Technology Section Health Physics Technology Section HEALTH PHYSICS DEPARTMENT HEALTH PHYSICS DEPARTMENT JDJ/ GAS:lem cc: DB Matthews, w/ enclosure l

t 1

l l

L - - _ - - - _

1 MCGUIRE SCENARIO COMMENTS September 11-12, 1987 )

O Major Deficiencies:

None.

Minor Deficiencies:  ?

1. The response of containment atmosphere rad monitors to the blowdown of the RCS to containment is not correct. An hour after the quench tank rupture disk blows, only the low range gas monitor shows any increase.

The monitors show no further increase even after core degradation begins and the containment high range monitors go up by four orders of magnitude.

2. On-Site Radiological Data. The scenario did not provide any airborne radiation levels inside the plant.

3. On-Site Radiological Data. The onsite dose rate maps did not include any information on airborne radiation levels from the plant to the site boundary.

Other Deficiencies / Questions:

1. How can steam generator pressures remain above 1100 psig long after the generators have boiled dry at 1900?

2. Why does water level in the dry steam generators increase to 4% at 2245 with no indicated feed flow?

3. Message No. 258. Data was provided for post accident gas sample results, however, no radiochemistry data was provided for reactor coolant samples should they be requested during the exercise. Message 25A gives only Boron, Hydrogen and something labeled "GSA" which is presumed to be gross activity (undefined acronym). l 4 Messages 5A, 8B, 10A, 23A, 23B, and 25B have no times associated with them. Approximate times that these contingency messages may be given i should be provided.  !

5. The " Appendices" tab in the scenario had no information included. Was this intentional?

6. Message 25B. Post accident gas sample data is provided in Xe-133 equivalent and 1-131 equivalent. Shouldn't isotopic results also be provided for these samples? In addition, the last post accident gas sample result should read for time 1300 not 1200.

1 i 1

i__ 1

1

. i

7. On-Site Radiological Data. The first survey data sheet for the 695' hallway states that all readings are normal for the time periods 1130-1700 (9/11/87) and 0730-1430 (9/12/87). The 9/12/87 times appear to i be in error based on the following data sheets and should read 0730-1130.

8. Medical Drill. Only one set of vital signs is provided for each victim in the scenario. Will these vital signs be applicable for the duration {

of the exercise? j i

I l

l 1

l I

l 2

l_: _ _ -- _ _______ ___- - _ _ _ _ _