ML20245C248

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Documents 860625 Telcon W/R Bird Re Understanding That FEMA Would Issue Evaluation Rept on 870701 Showing Deficiencies in Emergency Plans
ML20245C248
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 07/07/1987
From: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20244D847 List:
References
FOIA-88-198 NUDOCS 8904270073
Download: ML20245C248 (16)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:6 .,w , , & na L: i.% ?.2 a . :div. .: n Be .h i.: Gi , & ,, 9%M %:.,.53 = %.:y&c :, . 

         *                                                                              /,

ana 

                     'o                            UNITED STATES g

8 t o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, p wasmuarow o.c.rous q/ lg1 / 

              .....                                 JUL    7 1987                       ,
                                                                                        .mw P' i n trM .,:

p t&- lCMWL MEMORANDUM FOR: Files kh.W FROM: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH RALPH BIRD, BEco On June 25, 1986, I was called by Mr. Ralph Bird, Senior Vice President of. Boston Edison Co. He understood that FEMA Region I would issue on July 1 an evaluation report showing deficiencies in emergency plans for the Pilgrim ') pl ar.t. He was concerned that the FEMA R-I report would not take into con-sideration material provided by BEco that he believed would show the deficiencies were either being addressed or had been corrected. He further < understood from conversations with FEMA R-I staff that the July I report date ' was_an internal deadline imposed as a result of a request from NRC for a report on emergency response plans at Pilgrim. The purpose of his call was to ask me to call' FEMA and request FEMA to delay issuing their report until  ! the BEco submittal could be reviewed.  ; I told Mr. Bird I. did not think it was appropriate for me to appear to put pressure on FEMA concerning the timing or contents of their report. In any case I did not intend to carry BEco's messages to FEMA.- I suggested that he contact FEMA management directly with his request. Subsequently, within a week, I received a second call from Mr. Bird in which he stated he had talked with FEMA and at their suggestion he was sending a package describing emergency plan improvements to the Conunonwealth of Massachusetts with copies to FEMA and NRC. j On or about June 30 I received a call from Mr. Henry Vickers, Director of the FEMA Region-I office. He stated that Mr. Eird's request for a delay in issuing  ; the FEMA report appeared to be reasonable, particularly in view of the likeli- ' hood that Pilgrim would not be ready to restart for a few more months at the " earliest. I told Mr. Vickers that I wanted to be sure he did not feel under any pressure from NRC concerning the timing or contents of the FEMA report. He asked whether NRC needed the report by July 1. I said we were more concerned l that their evaluation be thorough and complete. Because I didn't believe the plant would be ready for restart until the fall, if then, I said we did not l i need their evaluation report for at least another month but that if they l f3890419T $ JOHNsongB'198 PDR 

                                              - .          ..=-        -      - -
                                                                                  .y .       . s. -    .
                                                                                                                  .-m                   .

w .: . - . . . . 

, -..c,.4. ne. i : . . , .                                                          . z.                  . . :. . .. :  ...u    --.----
                               . . s. .: ~ ... c . a v:. =. 2 . ;.~                      . :: . ; e  c-                       .z          ..

i 

                   ~

JUL 7 1537 Files submitted it on July 1, we would accept it and evaluate their findings. Mr. Vickers asked if I would repeat these views to Mr. McLoughlin of FEMA HQ if he called me. I told him I would, but the call never came. The call from Mr. Vickers was my only communication with FEMA on the matter. i Thomas E. Murley, Direcwr Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: J. Sniezek F. Miraglia R. Starostecki

wmz:sx: c::.cw.ca:,- w:ui ..u.  :.n =-  : . . v; n; c:v u ,:. ... '.;s: -

i. .

4 COMMISSION BRIEFING Ot' STATUS OF CONTAINMEt'T PEPFORMAFCE IMPPOVB1ENTS AND INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATI0t: (IPE) EFF0FTS r T. E. F'URLEY, X27691 1 T. P. SPEls, X27517 l 2 JULY 15, 1987 

                                                                                      $hh 1

1 i - - _ . ___

w.. ; =u:v.=,s.c = .w.n.c:n:ww : .w: .w,ww - .:r  :.w.mu..:.. wr: ,r.:;sxc= mx r 

 ' ' I ..      ,

I i BRIEFING OUTLINE OvEFY!EW PROPOSED APPROACF TO SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES STATU.

  • CF MARK-1 PROPOSAL 1FDivIDUAL ~ PLAtJT E. XAMINATION (IPE)
                                     '0BJECTIVE AND SCCPE-IFE INITIAT10h                                               .
                                       -     GENERIC LETTEF
                                       -     GUIDrLINES AND CRITERIA SEVERE ACCIDENT mat'AGEMENT PP0 GRAM CCNTAlf4 met:T PERFORfiAt CE CCHEDULE l

i _1_ . ( , 

               ' Lr _-__ __ __ n _ __     _                          .

w: m a i ziwix w m:c E w : s .e x r : w . c:. w .'.w x .:.. : c. m m : n e mi w w .:.. . OVERV!Et' CcVPPEHENSIVF APPROACH'TC IVPPOVE SAFETY ItJCLUDES: 

                           -        PLANT OPERATIONS
                           -        INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS
                            -       CONTAINMENT PERFORMAf1CE IMPROVEt' EFTS
                            -       SEVERE ACCIDEPT MAf4AGEMENT PROGRAM
                        '    C0f;E! STENT WITH SEVERE ACC: DENT POLICY                       ".

(8/8/85: 50FR3213E1 ' PURSUE IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVING ECTF PARDh'A:E AN 

                               !!: A WAY WHICH IMPROVES THE OVERALL PLAl.T SAFETY A THE RISK TO THE HEALTH Af!D SAFETY OF TFF PUBLIC 4

4

r S' .- N 0 S 1 N S T O WC I E E T I P A V S U E N - L R I T A GN V T C' T NEl E N I IMi E T N UHC G MS E NlR N E O D IAA I G N I E T TTE C R N U F A G C U ES NNS N L N A A S MT OOE I A AI O NN CCR T S MD E L IE N R C AM O E TE C - - - V NV E OO L S CR J P RM T EI N m' H E T J D S O A I E R G C R O - I C U R I AD P E EC T R O N E R E V P D E I S C 1 C TS A NE KS AI RT E LT AN R PI ME E lE.H L V YI L S FB IA AV IO L 4 TR TR C NE NP I EN EM T S DL TI A DC IU O 1 V P E E E I VP D S UR OP S m MH I C E T E C N A. 

                                                   "f R

O T F N R l E T A P C i L S R N S P N T A A N 0 L O L l N E P I E. S T A I F E U A N R D A D N I E R I I V E VM A O P T I A N R O D X P N E O 1 l I C l 

                                                        '    L

(QDFLjunE: Dn';;.')k?.mDREh?:'necz,- W L s : ' T. h .t B W %:3 "~. ' 2.Jh ^:nisGi: . "% :la ILV <. 1 D , . 1 4 ?. ? l.. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOP PARV-! C0t!TAlhhE t t , f 

                                                                                 . , .     .-                                      j HYDROGEM CONTR0t.                                                          1
                                                                                              !.                i
                                                                                                    ..         .t     W-    )

DRYWEll SPRAYS h..,.<, , PRESEUPE CONTROL (CONTAINMENT VENTING)_ .I,  : hM4w E v;J - CORE DEERIS MANAGEF.ENT_ PROCEDURES AND TPAINING i -=_x_,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ &

wmm -:.n w . n.rn. .aus.n;nw ., , . . . w. ; . . . . a . w. , = - , , . ; c. n. . .w.n . . - ..a 1 1 F j; . 

                                                                                                                          ]

j INDIV! DUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS (IPEs1 1 OBJEC !VES AND SCOPE 

                                                                                                                       -{
  • A SYSTEMATIC' EXAMINATION OF PLANT DESI0t', CPERATION, MA!!!TENANCE AND EMERGENCY CPERATION; TO.BE PERFORMED USING l IDCOR'S IPE METHODOLOGY OR A MODERN PRA.  !
                                                                                                                       .j IDENTIFY PLANT-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES * (DESIGt!                                 1 AND PROCEDURAL) TCl SEVERE ACCIDENTS (FOR j.CTf, CORE DAMAGE AND CONT / it! MENT PFPFCRVANCEl.                                                    *
                   *     [ItTFRSTAtlp Wi-4T CCULD PCSFIBLY 00 WFONG IN A PLANT.

IDEt'T!FY AND EVALUATE MEANS FOR IMPROVihG FLANT/ PERFORMANCE (V:A P/PDWARE ADDITION 5/PCTIFICATIONS, ADDITICt'S TO PROCEDURES, TPAINING)J INCORPORATE lllTO SEVERE ACCIDENT MANAGEMFFT PROGRAM.

  • DOMINANT SEVEPF ACCIDENT SEQUENCES FOP THE PLANT 5-

mmwua=:rwwa u ..ww=,u=:n.wa.wn -xwen: c 2=. ,oa=r- a. xuw.ma .x. ~ GENERIC LETTER INITI/.TE THE IPE 

                      -         PHASE 1 IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT SEVERE ACCIDENT SEQUEt.;CES IDENTIFY POTENTI AL APE / S FOR IMPROVEMENTS ESTABLISH ACCIDENT mat!/GEMENT PROGRAM             :
                           -     PHASE 2                                             .

IDENTIFY PLANT SPECIFIC CORRECTIVE ACTIOf(S), INCLUDING SEVEF.E ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING THE GEr.ERIC LETTER SPECIFIES 3 0FT10NS TP/T C SATISFY THE EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS l 

                             -     IDCOR IPEM
                             -     LEVEL }} OR Ili FF.A
                              -    OTHER SYSTEMATIC EVALUAT10fi V.ETHCD
        = -_ :    -_ _ _ ,

W m. u.aTaw5.72i:u ' w m;;.it:::.: x . w .L:o. M u & a.4 m c w. H. ~, ' , viua wt::.a 

                                                                                                              ' ], L .

e 

                                                                                                          ,f bO NElihES ANE CPiltf_d        L
                                                                                         ,i   "
                                                                                                                       ) 1 l

GUIDELINES IDENTIFY PLAliT FEATURES AND OPERATOR ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE IMPORTAf4T TO RISK.- GUIDELINES HIGHLIGHT POTEllTIA'L AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT IN VARIOUS. AREAS OF PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION. CR!TERIA ARE THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC PLANT FEATURE 0 OR OPERATOR ACTIONS IDEf;T!FIED IN THE GUIDELINES. FOR EXAMPLE THE CRITERI A ADDRESS SUCH THINGS AS: 

                                        -      EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES, CAPACITIES, AliD DURATICN OF OPERABILITY
                                         -      IDENTIFICATION CF IMPORTANT OPERATOR ACTIONS                           !
                                         -      PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION FOR INITIATICN OF MITIGATING SYSTEMS AND OPERATOR ACTIONS FIVE SETS OF GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE.-         FlVE MAIN CONTAINMENT TYPES IN THE USA; FOR THE MAR'K-l CONTAlliMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF DRYWELL SPRAYS, AND CONTAINMENT VENTING IN                      ,

REDUCING THE PROBASIL]TY OF CONTAINMENT FAILURE. -d___._--_-_____.---_--._ _ _ . , - ___ _

vmaar .zamw.:unx,m:wm m:c aa, , nzw. zu .u. w a ~ n: au :w:m . 

                                                                                                             )

V 

            .                                                                                                l i
   ~

l l SEVERE ACCIDEhi MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

  • INSIGHTS DRAWN FROM THE IPE, AND CONTAINMENT-PERFORMANC PROCEDUPES, CORRECTIVE ACT!CNF EFFORTS COULD IDENTIFY:

(INCLUDING HARDWARE ADDITIONS / MODIFICATIONS), TRAlflING O 

     ~

l THE CFERATORS AND EMERGENCY TEAMS, AND ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENTATION. FOR EXAMPLE: 

                                       -     THE CAPAEILITY OF EXISTING SYSTEMS TO ARRES CCNTAIN If<-VESSEL THE CONSEQUENCES CF AN                 .
                                        -    THE CAPABILITY OF EXISTING SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIF C0f!T AINMENT' INTEGR ITY
                                         -   THE BEST WAY CF USING SUCH SYSTEMS
                                          -  IHE BENEFIT CF ADDITIONAL DEVICES Af!D SPECIFIC PROCEDUREE PAVING SUFFICIENT If;STRUMENTATION AND OPERATOR TRAINING TO KNOW WHAT REMEDIAL ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, WHAT STEPS ML'FT BE TAKEf!, AND WHAT EOUlFMENT NEED TO FUNCT10l!

THE INSIGHTS GAINED FRCM THE ABOVE WCULD BE j L_ PLANT'S DESIGN AND CFERATIONS Af!D INTO THE SEVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM l 

         ~ ~-~--     -..__ ____     _

awm c. m;.,: a s e u : x. u m . y :2 : = a a. s . a m:. . v. s e ,w .; w. :~- , w =n 

                                                                                                           )

l l 1 CUNIAINMENT PERFORMANCE /!t'PR0vg1 LTS l PROCEED TO EVALUATE POTEtlTIAL CONTAINMENT PERFORMANC IMPROVEMENTS FOR M CONTAINMENT TYPES (MARK-I, -!1, -Ill, ICE COND. & LARGE DRYS), . PROCEED WITH WELL i10CUSED RESEARCH ON BOTH BROAD A

  • WELL AS Oft ISSUES RELATING TO SPECIFIC CONTAINMENT F MODES AND ASSOCIATED POTENTIAL FIXES TC IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE.

C00RDlhATE WITH IPE ACTIVITIES. IllIT! ATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION ON CONTA PERFORMANCE ACT10flS IN AUGUST 1988. 

                                                                       -9_

c-w .wn=an.x. . . . . ,.,.~ x : m.-~ =.n...s n.m..w nw =. .. n w - . L l SCHEDULE l iPE 5/28/87 (C) ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE 6/05/87 (C) ACRS FULL CcMMITTEE ' 6/09/87 (C) ACRS LETTER f FFVISE IPE PACKAGE TO CCPSIDER 7/30/07 , 

                                 /CF.S VIEWS; MEET WITH IPEUSTRY                                          .

8/30/87 , FPR REVIEW OF IPE PACKAct . 10/15/S7 CRGR REVIEW OF IPE PACKAGE 31/15/87 Cc.PMISSION REVIEW OF IFE PACKAGE 12/01/67 issue IPE GENERIC LETTER TO UTILITIES ilP.P,/RES REGIONAL MTGS TO DISCUSS IPE PROCESS 02/01/LT: UTILITY RESPCNSE 00ARTERLY V1GS AT NRC HEADGUAP.TEPE. C00PERAT'YF PEVIEW OF SEVERAL PLAPTS

c..a:.g:2.:.va;u z a n .aian ae, m ae w.:im w r i m +a:.. y; w a s , i; w . m e ' x - WITH NO PREVIOUS SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS (E,G., ILQ PRA) To GUIDE THEM THPU THE IPE; USE INFO TO SHARPEN IPE GUIDANCE 02/03/F9 IPE SUBMITTALS FOR PLANI $ WITH PREVICUS SYSTEMATIC ANALYSES PPCGRAM COMPLETION DATE EXPECTED BY .E_ND-1990 WITH P FIXES (IF. HEEDED). FEV PLANTS MIGHT HAVE COMPLE1c3 IMPLEMENTA-710N 0F THOSE FIXES AL50. e e e I

m .1; mm .mm m . . . =< . m,z .m . =. . . m - z. . - . , . m=. ,.--m-- . - - SCHEDULE CONTAlt! MENT PERFORMANCE /It'PROVEMENTS SET UP RES/NRR STEEFING GROUP TC COCFDitJATE SEVERE ACCIDEFT PROGRAM l S/3/87 IMPLEMENTATION l' lt!!TIATE PEVIEW OF INDUSTRY'S CONTAINtiENT 8/30/87 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (NUMARC, uTILillES) COCRDINATIOb W/SEVERF ACCIDENT RESEARCH

  • PROGR/M TO ASSURE COMPATIBLF EFFORTS / .

PPIORITIES BETWEEN THE RESEARCH PFCGRAM AND THE IMPLFFENTATIOf.' PROGRAM (lPE CONTAINMENT IMPROVEMENTS, ACCIDENT PERIODIC MANAGEMENT) PROCEED WITH CALCULATIONS /WELL FOCUSED RESEARCH Off SFECIFIC !SSUES RELAT!!!G TO CONTAINMENT FAltVPE MCDES AND POTENTIAL CONTINUING FIXES SEVERE ACCIDErlT IMPLEMEtJTATION PROGRAM PLAN TC COMMISICN (REV, SECY 86-76); TO INCLUDE IPES, cCt!TAINMENT PERFORMANCE, REGULATORY

c~ m u = c =;.t. m a w ;:::.m a." u a;: n n 5x;.3 22.2r; - w = m e::.;:P.nia s .a h a r .- - :r =; L, , UTILIZATION CF SOURCE TERMS, ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT, IPPPOVED PLANT CPERATI0t'f. , .(HUMAff F/CTORS) 9/30/87 TECHNICAL tlTOS W/RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY ON CONTAINMENT TECHNICAL ISSUES 10/30/87 STAFF COMPLETES P.EVIEW OF t'UMARC SUBMITTAL 12/15/F7 ACRC, DISCUSS!ct:S/FEEDEACK 4/01/88 . I N 111/.l RECOMMENDATIONS TO CRGR ON CCNTAlt/ MENT IMDRCVEMENTS, THESE RECOMt'ENDATIONS WILL CCATit!UE OVEF A 2 YF., PERIOD AhD I!!LL COVEF EACH CF THE CONTAINMENT TYPES. WILL BE CLOSELY C00FEINATED WITH THE IPE t.ND THE RELATED PFSEARCH FFFCRTS. 7/03/88 i RECCPMENDATIONS TO CCMMISSICN 8/15/88 13 - 

       =___       _ _ _ _          _ _ _ . _ _ =}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20245C248&oldid=3273023"