ML20050D884
| ML20050D884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, 05000000, Trojan |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1982 |
| From: | Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| TAC-46275, NUDOCS 8204120411 | |
| Download: ML20050D884 (3) | |
Text
9
.9 UCg#'o N ?CIPM,ST M UNITED STATES 8Y)3 'k, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIZN 3IR 7&Isj t
3 2[
REGION V D/D PM 0, y' V g
1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 260 U
,o WALNUT CREEK, CAur0RNIA 94596 4[D Q{
March 30,1982 opspI DF4TI MEMORANDUM FOR: Brian K. Grimes, Director DivisionofEmergencyPreparedness,bfE WW File L%
FROM:
George S. Spencer, Director Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards Programs, Region V
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISES This memorandum is in response to your March 9, 1982 request to the Regional Administrators for a report of our experience with the initial fullscale exercises of the licensee's upgraded emergency plans. To date three such exercises have been conducted in Region V: Trojan, San Onofre (Unit 1) and Diablo Canyon. The fullscale exercise for Rancho Seco has been schedule for the month of June 1982.
G Q
G All three licensees devoted a major effort to preparing for the exer sd.
f' The exercise objectives were discussed with local government and F as # y ' M' #,
personnel prior to being established. The scenarios were developed toprovideanadequatebasisforevaluatingthoseaspectsofemergen]
" ', E
".4 5
planning identified by the objectives. The exercise documentation hred/' f g
the objectives, a description of the scenario and expected responses A d
A pertinent information for the observers and applicable reference mateMa). # *
, /'
Each licensee controlled the distribution of the scenario and expected V N responses. The licensees arranged for an adequate number of observers an'dNi provided them with training and instructions. This. portion of all three licensees' exercise program was considered to be a good practice.
The three licensees also provided for reviewing the exercise results and arranging for appropriate corrective actions.
Each held at least one critique within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following completion of the exercise. The critiques were documented so that suggested improvements or problems could be evaluated.
Each licensee had a system for assigning responsibility to assure the corrective actions were taken and appropriate documentation was made. This portion of the exercise programs was also considered to be good practice.
Generally the scenarios and the methods used to provide the information and data to the participants were satisfactory.
In one case the adequacy of the control room testing was questioned by some NRC personnel; however, the licensee emphasized that for this exercise the primary objectives were related to the offsite response and operations of the Technical Support and Emergency Operations Facilities.
According to the licensee, future exercises would involve simulating the appropriate data in a manner normally expected by the licensed operators.
In all cases the scenarios or data form had some adverse impact on the responses; however, this can probably be expected to some extent for every exercise because of normal contraints imposed by existing facility conditions.
/ -d [
8204120411 820330 PDR ADOCK 05000206 F
PDR 8'
APR 5M
r 7
Brian K. Grimes Two of the exercises disclosed that imorovements were needed in the area of communications. One facility found some " dead spots" where the onsite and near site monitoring teams could not communicate with the emergency response facilities (TSC, OSC, E0F) using radios. This facility also found that better coordination by the parties involved would improve the use of the communications (telephone) system connecting the various E0Cs with the nuclear facility. The forms used in connection with the transmission and receiving (recording) of information and data over the telephone system that connected the E0C's with the reactor site needed to be modified to improve the flow of such information. The other exercise disclosed ineffective use of part of the communications systems that connect-the state and local governmental facilities.with the E0F. A need for additional telephones in the E0F and the dose assessment center was also identified.
In addition, there was a recognition that the Coast Guard should have received updated information on a periodic basis and an improved flow of information between the offsite monitoring teams and the dose assessment center was needed. The manning of the two telephone systems (ENS and HPN) that connect the NRC and the nuclear power plant facility is not settled in the minds of the licensees.
All three exercises showed there was a need for some improvement in the first aid response to an injured person.
In one case improvement in the contamination control in connection with handling the injured was identified as an item needing attention.
In another exercise an unnecessary amount of attention was directed toward contamination on the injured person to the detriment of attending to the injury.
Inadequate support for an injured leg during movement of the injured employee was also noted during one exercise.
The third exercise disclosed a need to improve the first aid team response time. One exercise involved the use of a plastic carrier to control contamination; however, questions were raised whether the carrier would permit shock treatment or other first aid action (e.g. CPR or providing oxygen) to be performed.
None of these items were considered to be significant weaknesses.
Some improvements in the operations of the dose assessment group were identified in two of the exercises.
Delay of dose projections was a common weakness.
Both exercises disclosed a need to provide more data (e.g. source terms and plant status) to the dose assessment group. One of the two ' groups needed additional technical assistance.
The other group needed more space in which to work and improved exchanges of information with the EOF.
All three exercises showed some improvements in the area of onsite rronitoring could be made.
None of these improvements were generic in nature.
In one instance there was a need to identify specific locations where survey readings were or could be made so as to provide comparable information.
The suggestions for two of the exercises included providing the monitors or monitoring teams with information on the status of the plant and wind direction.
The importance of recording data at the time of' measurements or collection of samples was mentioned at one of the exercises. One critique included a recommendation that the monitoring procedures be expanded to provide more details.
9
Brian K. Grimes March 30, 1982 The exercises disclosed a few additior,al areas where improvements could be made. One exercise showed:
(1) there were spacing and display problems at the EOF, (2) a need to establish protective action criteria for the interim TSC and (3) the transfer of authority from the TSC to the ECF needed better identification. Another exercise resulted in questions being raised about the
~
response of the fire brigade; however, it could not be determined whether this was the result of a training weakness or a deficiency in the scenario.
Your March 9,1982 memo indicates that the report of the exercise program experience to date may be issued as a " Lessons Learned" NUREG report.
The above described experience appears to be of minimal value for licensees in other parts of the country.
Problems are nonnally site or licensee specific and are corrected as such.
Region V believes that our licensees would find little benefit in such a NUREG. We believe the limited NRC resources could be better used in other more productive endeavors.
We appreciate that there could be a need for an in-house summary of the information generated by the five regions. However the inspection reports, copies of which are sent to Headquarters, should provide the information necessary to generate such a report. We believe that the most efficient use of manpower would be for Headquarters to prepare the summary report and then provide the Regions with an opportunity to comment on it.-
This suggestion is made because regional preparation of summary reports detracts from the limited manpower that is available to accomplish the assigned functions.
/
G. S. Spencer Director, Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards Programs, Region V cc:
R. Engelken G. Smith, RI P. Stohr, RII J. Hind, RIII J. Collins RIV
.