ML20238E225
| ML20238E225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1987 |
| From: | Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Withers B WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709140219 | |
| Download: ML20238E225 (4) | |
Text
4 j
i AUG 2 o trl i
l l
In Reply Refer To:
Docket:
STN 50-482 1
1 i
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 1
ATTN:
Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer P. O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 d
Gentlemen:
In response to your letters dated June 19 and July 16, 1987, we have reviewed j
your exercise scenario manual for the 1987 exercise.
The review was to deter-i mine if all of the major elements of response required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) j and Appendix E to Part 50,Section IV.F, were addressed in your objectives.
The enclosed comments were telefaxed to the resident inspectors' office for Mr. K. Moles on August 11, 1987.
Our comments and questions are contained in the enclosure to this letter.
l l
Please make appropriate changes and provide the NRC staff with your changes before or at the controllers' meeting.
If you have any additional questions, please call Mr. Charles A. Hackney at (817) 860-8188.
1 Sincerely, l
s/
J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc:
(see next page) l l
l I
RIV:NMEPB C:NMEPB)
C C:RPB CAHackney;ap WLFisher DBHun er JEGag i rdo ff/l4/87 W/)]/87
$/W87 i h=,5 9
W B709140219 070820
//
i PDR ADOCK 05000482
\\\\
F PDR
i I
'o.
)
i Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation ATTN:
Otto Maynard, Manager of Licensing
'P. O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Gary Boyer, Plant Manager Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P. O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 j
Mr. Robert D. Elliott, Chief Engineer Kansas Corporation Commission Fourth Floor, Docking State Office. Building Topeka, Kansas 66612-1571 j
FEMA Region ATTN:
Program Manager 911 Walnut Street, Room 300 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 i
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director I
l bcc:
I DMB (IE35)
.j RPB Myron Karman, ELD, MNBB (1) j RRI R. D. Martin, RA l
Section Chief (RPB/B)
DRSP
)
RPSB W. L. Forney,-RIII RIV File Resident Inspector, RIII MIS System RSB 1
RSTS Operator Project Inspector, RPB j
D. Weiss, RM/ALF R. Hall P. O'Connor, NRR Project Manager G. Sanborn D. B. Matthews, NRR
~
1 1
4 i
l
WOLF CREEK EXERCISE SCENARIO REVIEW In general the scenario sequence is straightforward and logical.
Provisions should be in place to continue the exercise, should the simulator fail.
Major Deficiencies None.
Minor Deficiencies 1.
The high coolant activity would be apparent to the operating crew well before the RCS sample result comes in at 0750.
Containment radiation levels are up substantially, and sample station radiation levels would surely have alerted the Chemistry Technician that coolant activity was very high.
For realism, the initial conditions message should prepare the players for the coolant sample analysis report.
Other Deficiencies / Questions 1.
Reactor coolant flow in loop D is shown as exceeding 100% from time 1030 until 1145, while the other loop flows are very low. What does this mean? Is the D reactor coolant pump left running with a tube leak in the D steam generator?
2.
What is the purpose of Message On-1, which states that the EOF area radiation monitor high alarms? According to Page 7.88, radiation surveys at the E0F show only slight increases if any.
Also, the Area Radiation Monitor data sheets show that the monitor in the E0F records 0.2 mR/hr throughout the scenario.
3.
Message No. 001 incorrectly states that the RCS sample was taken at 0310.
According to the scenario timeline, the sample was taken at 0530.
4.
It would be more appropriate to give the information in Message No. 005 to the security guard, and allow him/her to notify the control room.
This would allow for evaluation of communication channels.
5.
What does the containment building breach flow rate shown on Page 5.51 signi fy? This is apparently some sort of calculated effective leak rate but it does not agree with the release from the steam generator safety (no flow at all shown during the tube rupture release).
6.
Meteorological forecast information should be provided in the scenario in an appropriate format in case players request it.
7.
Unless the walls between the containment purge supply area and CR filtration area in the Aux Building (evaluation 2047) are extremely thick, it is unlikely that the former would read 5 R/h while the latter reads <2 mR/h, as is indicated on Page 7.81.
i l
-g.
8.
According to Page 7.86, the inplant contamination survey data are-
)
applicable after 1200.
However, the data sheet (Page 7.87 implies that the data are applicable after 1045.
M s
What is the purpose of Page 7.89, which shows radiation levels in,d e 9' 9.
main steam enclosure and aux. buildings? This information would not i
normally be available during an actual event because the levels will vary from location to location inside these buildings.
Also,thecorrelatind between the aux. building levels on this page and the aux, building:
I levels shown by area radiation monitor readings is poor.
,j u;
10.
The offsite deposition data show that the deposition levels decreare at certain locations.
For example, between 1130 and 1145 for location M1, the smear activity levels decrease from 200,000 to 120,000 cpm /100 cm2, Deposition levels should not appreciably decrease during a. release.
11.
Controller Mini-Scenario 0:
Contamination levels should be provided.
12.
Are there any actions that would likely be ordered in an attempt to close the stuck-open steam generator code safety? If so, controller instructions should be provided for the expected actions.
I
<'w h
b Q
_J
m <~*
/
R:'
o <C e
O tt 3
~
2:
cn O.
O V) m E
_ _ _