ML20084E478

Forwards Exercise Repts for 820603 & 830610 Joint Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercises W/State of Co & Weld County,Co.Repts Demonstrate Capability to Protect Public in Event of Radiological Emergency

ML20084E478
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/25/1984
From:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20084E482	List: ML20084E478
References
840422, NUDOCS 8405020298
Download: ML20084E478 (95)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. {k ( Federal Emergency Management Agency f Washington, D.C. 20472 APR 251984 HEHORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan j Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Responso i l Of fico of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nucionr Regulatory Commission i FROMs Ri o}Y $m j Assiktant Assoc -en Director 1 Office of Naturnt and Technological j llazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Exorcise Reports for the Fort St. Vrain Nucionr Power Station l l Attached are exorciso reports for the joint offsito radiological omorgoney preparedness exercises conducted on June 3, 1982, and June 10, 1983, for the Fort St. Vrain Nucient Power Station with the State of Colorado and Wold 4 County, Colorado. These reports cito that the State of Colorado and Wold County demonstrated the capability to protect the public in the ovent of j n radiologient omorgency at the s' ort St. Vrain Nuclear Power Station. Although there woro deficienclos observed at those exorcises, they did not dotract from the overall demonstrated capability by the State of Colorado i and Wold County to protect the hontth and safety of the public. In light of this, the Federal Emergancy Hanngement Agency 44 CFR 350 approval of i tho Stato and local pinns for the Ft. St. Vrain Nucient Power Station l will remain in effect. 1 If you have any questions, planso contact Mr. Robert S. W11korson, Chief, j Technological finaards Division, at 287-0200. Attachments j As Stated i &**Nl I f?$8E?oI$8$li., PDR s l/E 35 t

• lt

@(( Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI!! Denver Federal Center, Buuding 710 Denver, CO 80225 ? JUL123 MEMOF.ANDUM FOR: ALTON D. COOK, R GION DIRECTOR FROM Jorome Olson, Chief Natural and T gical Hazards Divis

SUBJECT:

Fort St. Vrain Exercise, 1983 ISSUE: Whether the State of Colorado and Weld County emcegency and preparodness plan's as exercised in this limited scenario are adequate to protect the health of the l population from the off-site effects of a radiological emergency of the Fort Ot. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant? StMMARY: The health of the ci izens in the areas surrounding the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant would have been protected by the utilization of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan by the Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services, Colorado State Fenith Department, State Police and the Weld County Sheritf's Department and others. BACKGROUND: The State Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Fort St. Vrain was approved by all necessary regulatory agencies in 1980. This exercise reflects an extensive site, however limited

offsite, scenario for a

defined Site Emergency at a fixed facility nuclear power plant. "TIie objectives for FOSAVEX-83 exercise, jointly developed by the State of Colorado and Public Service Company of Colorado were forwarded to FEMA VIII, March 24, 1983. the scenario was not received by FEMA until June 10,1983. The objectives and the resultant scenario are the criteria against which the exercise will be evaluated. The evaluation is based upon the NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1 (Rev. 1), the proposed rule 44 CFR 350 and the Guidance Memorandum, Number 17, utilizing a module-oriented evaluation tool developed, under a contract, by the Argonne Laboratory. ' The off-site observation team was comprised of the Regional Assistance Committee, additional FEMA staff members, and Red Cross volunteers. A joint Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC),

Colorado, Wald County, Public Service Company of Colorado, and FEMA critique was held June 16, 1983, at Fort St. Vrain Visitor Center.

] 1 l 2 i l i i i l CONCLUSIONS: The requirements of NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1, (Rev. 1) and proposed rule 44 CFR 350 limits the scope of j FEMA's evaluation to the single question relating to the adequate protection of the health of the population around a 3 fixed nuclear facility. The conclusion of the Regional Assistance Committee is that the health of the population was j and would have been protected under the conditions stated for the objectives and scenario. The objectives and scenario i were jointly developed by the State of Colorado and Public Service Company of Colorado. I J A judgement that the health of the population was protected i J does not imply that all aspects of the exercise were 1004 i ef fectively executed. In the past, a major deficiency has been the inability to communicate effectively with the Colorado state Health Departments field health assessment teams. A portion of these concerns has been alleviated by the availability of the state of Colorado communication van. i i The 5 watt receiver / transmitters were shown once again to not be an effective communication device under these l circumstances. A more powerful receiver / transmitter unit or the utilization of a repeater would be recommended in part to i help solve this problem. l ASSESSMENT: The major assessment modules as developed by the j Argonne Laboratory utilised by the RAC to evaluate this exercise were: j l 1. Emergency Operation Center l 2. Forward Command Post c i 3. Media j 4. Medical Support l 5. Decontamination i ] 6. Field monitoring 7. Radiological Laboratory Emergency Operations Center (EOC) l 1 l The manning of EOC was by design limited. The anticipatory l climate surrounding the exercise made critical evaluation difficult. Staffing was effectively accomplished with the l apparent ability to upgrade involvement if necessary. Duties l were performed in a very professional non-crisis atmosphere. j

Data, information and recommendations.

were

received, evaluated, discussed, and verified in a direct manner.

The t necessary state representatives were in attendance. Media briefing was developed and delivered effectively. The FCF management team was dispatched to forward command post with j

speed, reflecting the anticipatory atmosphere of the EOC.

some confusion resulted from apparent procedural errors at the power plant control room. The NRC will evaluate these l i }

3 incidents. FEMA used the exercise to activate the Regional Emergency Response Team and were provided space to function. Fort Lupton Forward Command Post (FCP) After the activation of the FCP team, the staffing was accomplished rapidly. The power plant control room communication errors, of failing to adequately notify the Weld County dispatcher and Sheriff's department, resulted in a delayed arrival of the security force and field patrol units. Little confusion resulted at the FCP as a result of the communication delay except for the presence of media representatives and the failure to utilize a badging procedure. The FCP operated with an organized, informr1 effectiveness that could possibly break down in an actual incident. An argument can be effectively advanced to tighten managerial control. Independent of this possible criticism, data were collected, directions

given, and recommendations were developed involving the several state, local, and utilities representatives Decisions were carried out in a

free-flowing, professional manner utilizing direct and rapid communications with the EOC. Limitation imposed by the scenario resulted in some confusion, verification delays, and increased decision making. -The major contributor to any delay was the inability to communicate quickly, directly, and effectively with the field monitoring and assessment teams. The police component represented by the Colorado State Police and the Weld County Sheriff's Department functioned in a most professional manner. Information.a1 road blocks were established, marginal security was established at the FOC, and details for specific evacuation procedures were quickly developed. Field Monitoring and Radiological Laboratory The Colorado State Health Department field assessment team (as per the scenario) played the exercise very low key with only one team being deployed. Radio equipment shown in previous exercises to be ineffective limited the training opportunity for Health Department personnel as well as compromising field communications for the exercise. At least two pieces of equipment in the field van were labeled with expired calibration date. Significant backup equipment and analytical capabilities by scenario. design were isolated .from the field exercise with the supply van stationed at the l FCP. This reserve of equipment if brought into service would have extended the departments' activities. The field team

4 i was not adequately prepared to respond to the deficiencies in l communications. N.o rapid or consistant communications were i possible 'until the arrival of the National Guard unit. Inappropriate notification via FEMA observer equipment resulted in the National Guard deployment. j one source of confusion arose when the decision was made to hold the wind direction constant. This decision was consistent with the pre-set scenario. Field and prompted data were co-mingled causing apparent inconsistencies. Verification of this data did demonstrate effective action by the forward command post personnel. This effort would have been greatly simplified by additional direct communication links with the field health assessment teams. Medical Support and Decontamination i i The 1983 scenario started with an electrical fire, equipment failure, and a personnel injury. A clear message was not sent from the plant command center to the ambulance service. Therefore, even though the " victim" was located and treated effectively on site and the St. Luke's Hospital was adequately prepared to treat an injured, contaminated victim, the whole scheme was not completed. Tone Alert System The Tone Alert System was activated and an appropriate message broadcast. The Emergency Broadcast System was alerted by a no' message broadcast. Data to determine the efficiency of the Tone Alert System relative to this exercise is being collected by Mr. Robert Heggis, a RAC member, of Human Health Services. The preliminary results suggest similar findings to last year. The evaluation tool, timing and procedures may not have the. sensitivity required to prove effectiveness. Recommendations specific to this problem will be developed over the next few months. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. A full scale, unannounced, multimedia hazards exercise should be. developed involving the Fort St. Vrain nuclear power plant. Particular emphasis should be given to the realities of the plant's operation and design. A recovery phase operation that would necessitate federal, state, and local coordination should be -included in. the development and execution'of the scenario (FOSAVEX-84). I i

5 t 2. The communications system should be independently evaluat'ed and expanded if the primary system is inadequate to provide field communication with the capacity for direct FCP - field assessment team communications. cc: Mr. Pat Byrne (2) Mr. Al Hazel Regional Assistance Committee (12) Mr. Marlow Stangler l l

A 9 / FORT ST VRAIN FOSAVEX-82 RACEVALlMTION s } I f i . I 9 1 l r'I:s 'f

u... -

e ( Federal Emergency Management Agency I I Region VIII Denver Federal Center, Building 710 Denver, CO 80225 j o i 1 June 18, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Direc< tor Office of Natural and Technological Hazards h FROM: Jerome M. Olson Acting Chief Natwtal and Technological Hazards ivision

SUBJECT:

Fort St. Vrain Exercise-June 3,1982 Re: Memorandum dated April 5, 1982 Lee M. Thomas / Regional Direc. tors "Un,iformity of Evaluation Reports" The attached materialis setf-explanatory. It is intended to futfill the requirements set forth in the re.ferenced memorandum. s Attachment Number 1 is the Region Vill letter sent to the Direc. tor, Division of Disaster Emergency Services soliciting response.to per-ceived deficiencies noted sn the exercise. A copy of the State's re-ply utill be provided your office when received. 1 All material submitted herein has also been provided both the State l and Regional Assistance Committee members. t 9 mg** a f e f 'ee f .1

g-s. i* lO g. t t l 1 'l i 'I I INDEX Attachment Subject 1 Letter t.o Colorado D0 DES l 2 Cover Shee.t 3 An Executive Sunwuj 4 Exercrit 5 Deficiencies (Significant) 6 Deficiencies (Minor) 7 Tone-Activated Systen Study 8 Scenario (s) 9 Participant Questionaires 10 Exercise Objectives 11 Newspaper Report of Exercise l 12 NRC/ EPA Letter / Memo Response t I O O e r l 0 f

1 p

i g ,~e , - - - - -, ~,,

r i' f Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII Denver Federal Center, Building 710 Denver, CO 80225 O O t June 18, 1982 I l l Mr. J. P. Byrne, Director Division of Disaster Emergency Services l Camp George. West Golden, Colorado 80401

Dear Kt. Byrne:

1 1 have made every attempt to develop the "hardcopy" follow-up exercise eval-1 uation data in accordance with he " Interim Critique Report". You recatt, this " Critique" was given you de day following the exercise. l after grinding out a As is usually the case Jten a hurried report is made,have been some modest " composite" report from all parties concerned, there changes. There are no " surprises" however, and if changes were made it was in degree and not in kind. It is hportant for you.to note the Last para-graph on the last page of the " Interim Critique Report". This office con-l tinues to support the contention that both the State and Weld County Plans are adequate to protect the health and safety of the public. 9 The Participant Questionaires are of interest. Even nough most of.the play-l ers did not return their copies the ones that did checked some interesting squares'. An educational program may be h order. Your cooperation is urgently needed in responding to the "Significant" as well as the " Minor" deficiencies noted in Attachments 5 and 6 respectively of h e attached material. What is needed is the schedute for any corrective action you intend to implement. Just as a personal note,.the.three Fort St. Vrain exercises have made me an exercise booster. Each exercise has provided subtle insight on RERP items j previously bought unassailable insofar as imple~ entation goes. The assump-m tion that the Tone-atert receivers would be activated when expected by.a phone. call.to be WS showed uat one additional operational step must be taken; namely, call the Forward Comand Post and ask the Coordinator if de ' receivers have, in fact, been activated. 21.(L/ML ~ N. Paul Affey, Ch Regional Assistance Committee g

L '.,.*...~....'. l..:- a - ..=. 3-I, ,l.. e L f MEMORAMOUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director office of Natural and Technological Hazards l FROM: Acting Chief Jerome M. Cison$tnological Hazards vi Natural and Tec ion

SUBJECT:

Fort St. Vrain Exercise June 3,1982 Eveh mtion-Cover Sheet I I RE: Memorandum Da.ted April 5,1982 Lee M. Thomas / Regional Directors Uniformity of Evohmtion Reports 'l Date of t.his report...................... June 17, 1982 i Date o f the exercise...................... June 3, 19 82 ' l I State S Localities involved................ State only - C0 Locality in EPZ not par.ticipating.......... Weld County =" Evaluators FEMA....................... 5 FHWA....................... 2 EPA....................... 1 DOE.....................,.. 0, FDA......'................. 2 .l Hus....................... 1

I NRC.......................

1 USDA....................... 1 i. l il

.. ~- s t' 'g i i i

SUBJECT:

Fort ST. Vrain Exercise June 3,1982 Evaluation-Executive Summa)ul t i With one exception he Executive Samary is identical with the Interim l Critique Report dat was prepared post-exercise and given the Director, Divi.sion of Disaster Emergency Services. The concluding sentence was orally s presented during the public forum but was not " written" into the interim t Critique Report until Later. i The concluding coment is a judgenent and is as follows: "The 400 exercises done in the past together with the current exercise showed.that the Licensee as well as State & Local RERPs are adequate to pro-tect the health and safety of the public." I I k .l I i

M e-n ,- dv;;mmmww .ewr ?. ?, February 1982 (Pag) I cf 5) INTERIM CRITIQLE REPORT Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power This is an Interin Critique for the Station Exercise conducted on June 3, Ivaz 198 The report highlights the findings of 8 _ observers of the FEMA Region VITRAC. A more i detailed report will be provided later. This report consistsTO functional areas and cites activities of participating offsite State and loc ~al jurisdictions. j I. DERGENCY OPERATIONS, FACILITIES AND RESOURCES } (Working space, internal communications and displays, communications, security) i State ECC-Att obserughs generally agreed that.the facilities and resources adequate. (One problem surfatzd concenning i he nele telephone system but it was resotved early). FCP-The FCP showed vast improvement over Last years facility. However, it was generally agreed that internal communica-tions, displays and comusiication with field. teams in need 1 ofimprovement. The consensus opinion was.to model ne FCP after he State EOC (at a considerabty reduced Level). The fact hat a PA system was available but not used reinforced observer confusion as.to "who was in charge". Local: I ~ 1 i II. ALERTING AND MOBILIZATION OF F FICIALS AND STAFF (Staffing, 24-hour capability, alerting timeliness) h State: There was some difficulty noted in initially alerting and mobili-zation because some numbers needed updating. It was also suggested that, instead of using the acronymn 900ES, the full agency name should be stated. This shchid' help in minimizing.the need.to re.- peat the wond., 0 O A g 0 Locals f 1 i. n

h y_.. e._, _,_.i.3 w _..,. ~ ~ (Paga 2 er 5 7 t V '. 3 j-. ~.:. Fort St. Vrain Exercise i Facility Name I III.. DERGENCY OPERATIONS MANAGEENT I (Organization, control, leadership, support by officials, information flow between levels andorganizations, decisiormaking, checklists and procedures) ( Leadeukip evident and briefings conduc.ted so att I State: EOC-Adequate. could know status of play. 'The briefing at about 10:30 which

novided a direct interaction with.the paticipating agencies j

by directing neir attention to their specific area of play l received seveAal kudos. The degree 'of control and display of Le'adeuhip at the ECC FCP-I was not evident at the FCP. Internalinformation flow be.bceen Levels and organizations may have existed but it was not Again use of the PA system would appuent to be observers. have strenguen Lead coordination,.. It would have assisted i i Local: immeasureably in the conduct af briefings. 1 I s IV. PUBLIC ALE'RTING AND NOTIFICAT10N (Means of notification, e.g., sirens, vehicles, or other systems, notification timeliness) -l State: Within the' scheme of this exercise, the Tone Activated Aterting 'I syst.em did not work. A FEMA tasit, force (composed of RAC and Red Cross workers) checked 150 baitdings before 11:50 am and 130 after. Those checked after the receivers had been activated showed: 45 people were not at home or their dogs were; 44 received the alert; 37 were afkome but did.not. hear the message for one reason or another; 4 I;ouses did not have a unit or the unit they did have did not work. A more detailed evnkntion will be included in a Later report. Local: e O 'l u .. ~. _m.. - _ ~,. m..

, I. ......g...--:=...-------. s 1.,s * *. i f.. (Page 3 sf 5', I ', "". t Fort St. Vrain Exercise (Facility Name) PUBLIC AND PEDIA RELATIONS j V. (Publications, press facilities, media briefings, news release coordination) j States Public and media rein.tions appeared adequate. There was a sugges-tion that a more all inclusive briefing could be obtained if ex-excise participants could prepare infarma. tion bulletins, where ( appropriate, for inclusion WLth de overall report prepared by the ECC or FCP Coordinator.' We get he st.atus of the plant but we don't ordinarilij concern ourselves with the status of people or farm animals. Locals ( i VI. ACCIDENT ASSESSPENT (Staff and field operations, monitoring, adequacy of equipment, technical calculations, use of PAGs, issuance of timely recommendations) { States Accident assessment appeared adequate in almost all respehts. There did appear to be a communication problem with respect to correlating i plant projected data and the Health Department's verification of the I plants data. -l 1 l t , Local: f I O e t

m-- - - - ,,.._x._- .e ,p,

1

'4 i' (Page 4 cf 5) i' Fort ST. Vrain Exercion i (Facility Name) VII. ACTIONS TD PROTECT T E PUBLIC I (Sheltering, evacuation, reception and care, transportation) 5tates Mequate I f i l Locals g { I l VIII. EALTH, EDICAL, AND EXPOSURE CONTROL EASLRES (Accees control, adequacy of equipment and supplies, doainstry, use of KI, y decontamination, medical facilities and treatment) Staten Seope of exercise precluded response 2.n uese areas. f g & Locals f mer O i t lll t i

c 3 ,... m.m.. _- } 'f N.. 1 ~' (Page 5 of 5) i Fort St. Vrain _ Exercise (Facility Name) A IX. RECOVERY AND REENTRY OPERATIONS (Adequacy of Plans and Procedures) There appeared to be some confusion near exercise tem. I (

stage, Plant's determination of a drop-down to " unusual event" prevented a close out of.the exercise. The State plan i

does not defin' this term. e l I t I Locals 'I i '- I i i i X. RELEVANCE OF TE EXERCISE EXPERIENCE (Benefit to participants, adequacy of the scenario) y States The exercise was considered relevant however, FCP organization and communication problems have been noted in past exercises. One RAC member st.ated that, as he recalled, the first exercise was superior to this latest. l One point was brought out severat. times... it related.to the briefing Len Boulas held at the ECC where he not on!.y briefed the audience bu.t he made suggestions to the participants the various areas the responding agency might have some concern. Another RAC member praised the Red Cross and the Department.of Locn1s Agriculture in their Level of awareness and degree of response to exercise conditions..

• • THE TWO EXERCISES DONE IN THE PAST TOGETHER WITH TKt. CURRENT EXERCISE SHOWED THAT THE LICENSEE

/) AS WELL AS STATE 6 LOCAL RERPS

1. l f

L l ARE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH h de_ e- -3 N. ~ Paul Attey, RAC Chyt AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC. W' FEMA Region VIII l' Aerachmea.s

= .- t,o 3 EXERCRIT e. i (DATA RECORDING FORN) TEAM LEADER LOCALITY EXERCISED State FUNCTION EOC & EOF (FCP) USE DEY: (EOC, Police, Etc.) STATE Co ~ DESIG 0 I SITE 35 DATE 6/3/82 i FACILITY Fort St. Vrain DATE June 3, 1982 j. r TEAM LEADER Alley AENCy FEMA ll- .i' OBSERVER

• ACENCye Composite fleport l
• (ENTER -CONPOSITE-ON TEAN LEADERS CONSULIDATED COPY)

] THE SYSTEM FOR RATING WILL K AS FULLONS (SEE Af fADM:NT I FOR COWLETE DESCRIPi10NS): j l N - NOT OBSERVED: NOT APPLICABLE, NO DEFICIENCY IWl.IED I - CAPABILITY LACKING: ESPONSE CALLED FOR BUT WT DENONSTRATED w 2 - CAPABit.ITY WEAK: SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES NOTED OR COWLICT 'n WITH PLAN 3 - CAPABILITY ACCEPTABLE: DEFICIENCIES NDTED THRT COIA.D POTENTIALLY LINIT EFFECTIVE PERFORNANCE I A - CAPABILITY CD00: DEY MINOR DEFICIENCIES WTED 5 - CAPA8ILITY OUTSTANDING: NO DEFICIENCIES NOTED, NO IWfl0VEENTS KCESSARY j THIS DATA SWIN.D BE EMIERED IN FIELD 13 (FLDTEST) 0F TE l-DATA BASE WITHIN. !!; 72 HOURS POST I EXERCISE Febnsary 1982 I M ent 4-l

-4 - - ~ ~. ~ ~ l ): [l FAoE 1 sECTieII (,. - AftEAs Fan SWnovEnEnY (CHECKl FLAS app /pgr ACTIVITY TinELY T~ Miming nEscuRCED PLAN nAfl003 .g9; ELEPEfff To set LY/MS FennnL cJT Eeuse Pens one con? (l-Si ..c....e..s. ~. egEstvEltt ,i.f l, T EVALu4TED {T

i. t siseumv s. EnEneEsecy arEnarsens, raciL:TsEs a statsouRcEs (4) however, the State j f saract, senEnsent cerev., ossrLAYS, sEcuRITyl The FCP facilities were Th'd overall adequacy of emergency operations is rated four o

,Il 3. Dis-EOC is rated 4,and the Forward Command Post (FCP) is rated $c e I (briefings) licensee con- /',i plays minimall orgdnizational cont'o1 weak; communicationity strong at start but f play. 5-F 18 is. , trolled; secur f,g y motsuncy er ceseamencareens sysTEns tenseenfty Ano sacaurt wifn jI g cessiseuaus sTaTEftecat sevEswommis ustnise Tm Eers bility. .!.f EOC and FCP consnunications' good with primary and backup capa t-1. [, I j j F 1e .]I ,$,g s + EnaL Assuuncy er connumecavseses, As APPsecretsATE, UtTn fee .i M eruneEncy w arensE onsaniza m ns tion considerably. FEMA g representative handled the federal response organizations.New Actiire response not -{l .s ' t! j' ,t n2cessary. F 19 } l [l Aft ammenamey y egenggegCAf teIS SysTEns'OETWEEN Tm IsuCLEFACILITY AIS DEA tive offices appeared good.

l l

j t Licensee's communication with FCP, EOC and its own execu e+ l } 4 a. e te . N. asemanecy er erEcerse STATE en Local m-=- settete To i t ~ i surrenT FEREftAL stEarenBE l ted response of Weld i The scope of the exerci.se did not include active or s mu a 1 County forces.

• e I

b I 1 I ~

p~ _.(

• '.i raec a sECMM

. }, ) p ,AR,E,AS Fen R e i (cHECM essuncE3 Pt. Ass RAT sse i .n.ui, rens ans ce=T t i-u m eazar .. 3.M.. A..S #.6 iese d AcTaviYv gggggevent = se , v,,,, ,,e,e c,T 4 py <.i ., EVAs.taATEo .F. i ,,,,,,,,,,,,,e . -Ace Ann Anawines 1

• 'l Forward Command Post lacked informative displays; brief-

' 'l EOC space and amenities good. PA system). ing space; attention getting devices; strong leadership amenities (podium, .j'I (In all fairness it,.can be said the FCP facilities are considerably improved over those f L Indprovement was more in licensee communication with the plant and the .6 -}; us d last year. State EOC than on the operational considerations for the near-site forces. .{rf f,j y y gge e,gTtfWeAR. coresunICAYleges, spect.Upl88s y g mauernett, miset.ATs, Ase HEssASE-MANDL.lles enecEDuntsIn addition to the points mad [ t. *, l Some messages intended for immediate communication with the field jj ' l EOC adequate. as well as some messages coming from the field were not handled expeditiously. me sage handling. i .! li ~ 4[ .i ' t {. jj e ese secun:Tv'nsAsumes ll 4 FCP security extremely tight to start with but relaxed as exereise

9.,.

EOC adequate. cccurity relaxed somewhat. i t I 4( M s i 's evennt.L Assouncy or THE notseenscv erstATINe centra tract 1 f ,FCP overall adequacy fair. ..t EOC overall adequacy good. ) J 10A fi jn gj AmesuAfa semes osset.Avec sususus tvActaAf ten nouves, am te g jl r, reinfs, nauscanon cswYens Aeso sHEL. ten AREAS Forward Command Post displayed only;one l j 8 ) EOC-did not show maps of sampling points. For the most part this map j l l small map showing positions of field monitoring teams.This map depicted little operational play or use of 2 chowed no field measurements.(Communication with the field almost non existent thereby making i assessment teamis. i use ef the map ~ marginal at best. ) 1 $f l l 1 \\ I i

g .Ii ..:l, PAet o

• ;i-stetim

^ AREn raa 8araceENr eenEen

• • • '"'"', FIT.^!4/.C#

activity TIMEl.Y TRAI%IMe stEsoURcE3 PLAN RATIMe FLAS TO DE (Y/N) FORMAL eJT EOUgP PERS ORS c5NT (1-O3 ELE 9ENT

• i, I,

.EvALUATEg J 188 ansammTE ptAPS Ol3 PLAYED SM5 WING POPULATION DISTRIBUTION MEAR X, ),7 j.

===== FAcIttiv av EvAcuAview AREAS EOC-There did not appear to be any maps showing population distribution by evacua-II tion areas. .I FCP-No maps in ac,cordance with this element. i. '..'s \\ . {: j eu. , l. e ,b i e p ?I iI et U; rii

i 1

ei D l t i e .. l-f: i ll e S

- - -- := - -- -- _{__ ' o[t T..k raer o -efi- ,. in==== i e== > PLAs ) -'.e e.u.y .g Tinti.y inAteine uscusteta PLase mvana tv/;;) FefoW L, cJT EculP Pgpg cite coni (3.C) ELEMEnf ,,, q, To se EvAtuAfte i, l . m antlese Ase seestLarAften SF eFFICl a s AnD ,j,. sessamny a cTarr asTAFFites, 24-Houn CAraSILITY, ALENTime TinELIIEESS) f The alert Licensee and State prac.tice in alerting and mobiliztion of forces evident. ti, It is known that the State has a 24-hour capability but this exercise R was timely. conducted during working hours. A TE cAPAstLITv Felt 24-Depult tulTIAL EnEngEnCY MsPenSE A80D i==n= or===icAvi== Caphility know to exist but not tested. ..i f. j y A 4 j 8. j enrassLsTv ran e4-Houn eenvassuous unenemacy ascenoa erenAvi== '!h I Capability (from peacetime disasters) known to exist but not tested. i;. i 6.i' lt = h E 1 6[, ,{. l,. p. menemer er esserouars unto ran sesTw. er enen. weremotenanuarAvions teactuDeus nEA je,, 'f verification may have been to a tele-Fort St. Vrain alerted EOC of unusual event; If this the case then it ti phone number Fort St. Vrain people told the EOC to call. 'I: is not in accordance with RERP. E E mesmanney y pumreensare uste Pest ALEstTI0IS, IIsflFYIDES AIS f,- naiuri= =m==nev===== r======- Proce<* ares adequatee Fanout invaccord with RERP. i G I l l T D

'~ D. - i-ff PAeE O sect eSIG AnEAS Fem I Am.ns (cnEcst3 PLAS, mt AcTtviTv TInELY YnAl*"Itse nEscuRcE3 plast mATipos To sE tyr;3 renMAL SJT EOUIP Pens SRe coset ( 1 -C) ELEnENT j. O* =A ' L' EVALUATED 1l. I er ArrnePalATE. TenELv DIsPATc'N or 'A flEPflEsEwTATIVE TS , i. timely ucE==s -sit = E-EOC-Timely dispatch made and Forward Command Post observed to be manned in a . :E li. r , li manner. I I {.j{ F IA f I-q n Aseeuncy er EnEneEncy nEsconse: connunicAf teses toutentwT vee . "j - a T* raoneT acTivaTica System:r, adequate. 1.s Primary system was telephone with radio, back-up.

• f k

)i r 1E y s m 4..,1 a Asecuncy er connunscAf tens seulentwT uoEn ran ALEnfine ano ? ActivAvame enEnnEncy nEsPossoE PEnsonnEL Alerting process effective and emergency personnel responded. 1 . l '. I I ,~ F E g . ' c,p cApessLtTv To ceseguestcATE vlTH FINED Ano nestle MEDICAL [ suPrenT FACILITIES k Scope of exercise did not permit test of this capability. !i 2 M 4 , '.f f,f J sEnosseinATsees er TenE.y Amo Errie:EwT AcTavaTien Ases sTarrimo ar Eoes Ano einEn FAcit Tits d on unannounced State EOC and FCP efficiently activated and on a timely basis-base criteria. f O s o w---

- - - -~ AstEAS FeR 19EPHOWEMERT IC9Ecstl PLAe ., {.., ACTlvlTY T ipE1.Y TRAL'ilIIB ltESOUptCE3 plast RAfl8es 10 SE (Yr48 FesspeAL OJT EeulP PECO ene copef tt.cl .ELETElef gygtgggggy t pf f gagesaggy g 3 g. EMEneENCY SPERAf teget PeAf0AeEDENT leRSAMl2Af test. t' DECISicN MAft19003 \\ testfacL, LEADERSHIP, SUPreftY SY OFFlcI ALS, Command and control of the situatio'n (3). EOC rating 'four (4)b The FCP rating threeThis may have been due to the licensee's control I,. Ct the FCP was not readily apparent. t to Cf data einanating from the facility and the licensee's dispensation of the da aThe S , ] } the State. It appeared licensee's data precipitate comunand actions to FCP response agencies. A 1A } 4.g.f tiictated each response anencies actio .p,,, Y EylsEsect Tsent sPEcfric estoAsetzATimes eenvE serve ADE bI EsfasLisesEs As PAstT er owEnALL mESPenoE FCP organizations established but inter-agency control needed for EOC adequate. overall control'of response actions at the FCP. jfi . ;I.' ' .ff A 8 cp ; nTlass toen? A sPEcirle leestvlount, av TITLE, uns sEsissesta.av I - er q FCP lacked of amenities to focus control as well as other factors E== ,f, EOC adequate. which effected development of strong leaderiship of State forces. 4l . p. ti A SA NTISIs TMnT PRIMAftV & SUPPORT PUBICTieseB & il A RESPWIIBISILITIES DenwE BEtti ASSle8EO.Te SPECIFIC " ' * * " ' ' ^ ' " " " ' " ' ' " " ' " Both EOC and FCP demonstrated that primary and support functions and responsibilities lj However, at the FCP nameplates would assigned to' specific organizational elements. !l have been helpful to separate the players from observers. ff C 1A Iz EvigEgect vtanY A SPECIFIC PEsteeN Has BEEN AUTHORIZED Te I: REGUEST FEBERAL ASSisTAfect (STATE SIR.V3 No assistance needed so this element not tested. Plan designates this responsibility. l f 9 (

T-Q. I .. net. PLAs. 3), ar.cTIOve 3,,,As,,.r.est IterstSWEMEtiT tesecK3 anE nEsauncta etass anTeses SEENVElt3..C.p M. 4. 0./.72.' AcTavery ,,,,,ty (Y/;; reseena oJT toWIP PEFO Sne cent (1-CD ELMNT , j-E*"nito u O o - [ age gpagggesecy claSStricATISBs' SYSTEM taas ErrEcTivELv USEs AMo 3.g uns cesssisTENT WITH THAT gr THE UTILITv l The general emergenhy classifications going into the exercise effectively used. j'l However, the,re was some conibsion when exercise controllers desired to go from " alert" I-Going from alert to unusual event Otatus to an "all clear" or site only emergency. .l ceemed inappropriate. a 4 bra unsTvess Pnecteunes meer uomo ren eMrstenecy acTieses y. t cesssistessi wiTu racatity asce asso Local errsift cessotteeses .] Same evaluation as noted above. I! A

3. 7 p

c, Mass.etn,a,T,ie,se er,. err.ecTiv.e.coen.o se.tTween eMEneGscy nESPONDE T.rr -Y ns. m. se T s ris There was no" 8, n. A. FCP briefings not as effective as they could have been. [ EOC adequate. It was not clear how agency l clear distinction as to who was chief among chiefs. coordination was accomplished or how needed tasks assigned. 4 / Ansonner er surranT asawest paniscienfless av sLectro J arricsats' EOC and FCP, had full participation by those expected to play; namely, State and some local participants. t 4 I i

sacT99 t-l esudE amram Felt 99EPReventset teMEest ,y Tnai,, sus nEssuncEs rLase anteess Puis,:

e.,

gaan.3 PepeteL SJT Retite Pens ans cent H-Q N -, 4, ...e.s........ygg .AcisveTv gagnveitt g TO BE ggf p7 h Evaluates jj susemat tv - PumLie mLestTsese's MsTIFICAY6 sit EMEANs eF .8 1. asTsFacafsees - ssnEsas, WENICE.Es SR STHER sVsTMos e One aspect of this 'sxercise was the activation of the prompt notification system (tone ...i, Timely activation of the system was not accomplished due to -'i ) activated receivers).However, when the system was activated (about 3 hours after the 's. initial alert was; supposed to have activated the system) most receivers did activate-Il NWS inadvertence. There are weaknesses in the system; namely, where homes / businesses actually visited. E ,'3, s$hr8m gggggt units; public apathy toward use of the unit.

• ome i
• J PtmLIC W mPPaSPftlATE SIS'e HECEtWEs FnsM THE LICMSEE. Ee e

,,,sEssa er 4f q 'l ~ ges ,EBS and Nets system alerted. System adequate. ({ I n e f :' 2..[ j gggggggy y sgases eseEs FeR IISTIFfcAtteII a pneMPT IsesTsuscTleN y is T,a rumLic su THE plt 8E EPz testnam te nesanEss Message went out D. Alert message provide NOAA for broadcast on tone-activated receivers.Since this was a State ' but receivers not activated for about 3 hours into exercise. Cxercise, primarily, there was no followup by sheriff's office to notify public by b ciren & bull hom. E, 7 3p jg errectiva umE eF isesinucTeensomeama=*a Fest THE PueLic in arrEcTam antas Public Service Company mounted an extensive campaigri to instruct public in use of At this time residents in the 5-mile EPZ were given a copy of the public educational brochure which the company had passed out the year before. l tone-activeted system. It was deteresined that some households were in need of a new copy of the brochure. r J tot g asamuney W siEases woes PWR IIsflFYises ALL seeMEstTs GF Tansessest aus aEssoENT peruLAfteN Nany people were not notified because they were not near a receiver when activated. l Rural comununity has a predoutinent agrarian people whoogenerally are in the field during j In addition some residents were without the radios & some radios did the work-day. not operate. e O e

- = ~ = - - . - = - - ggg y MCTlts" AltEAS F6ft flWIISWE8E8tf (cMtett M - {. manvERI ACTIVITY 3pEty TRAL ~,,ltes ItESOUptCEs Plast IRAfile (YCl FaseptAL OJT EOUIP PEsta cIts casef tl.cl ELEBE88T o EV UATEED ~ f.r 4 / ggggggggy y. PggLit Age OEDIA IEELATISIIB (PUBLICATISD85. PHESS yacILITIES, SEDIA BetIEFINDS. IEELEAsE coastOIMATI, ENS I Public and media relations good. One minor criticism involved the use of " feedback" l frosa response agencies, to EOC/FCP coordinators which could be incorporated in the media briefings. The information appeared to come from the top down with little ~, interest in detemining player's actions within their own sphere of endeavor. i e 1 ggElect W DIssengteATicII SF 10FelqMATISIG To THE PtmLIC. 4,/ ( tITulu fut LAsf uAst i Considerable work was done by PSC to educate the public (brochure and tone-alert education) done in late January 1982. l l b ' ' e a Jg gyggElect er A PtmLic fire PneeftAM FOR PEIIMA80ENT a TRANSIENT .6. Per en THE Puest EPz. aucu As PesTEo neTIcEs ETC. r During the house to house canvass of the alert and notification operational capability p check, the green infomation brochures were also checked. It was detemined coverage i good but more brochures needed. I g,, arreterstIATE PetNTS 5F ceNTACT FeR TIE FEDIA HAVE BEEN oEsseseATEo i EOC and FCP points of contact established and adequate. M f ASEstAACY W JetNT IEDIA FACILITY. WDElIE APPflePRIATE I This elesment satisfactory. \\ 9 ~ p 1 r O

~ - z. ~ cnc_ ( T I I 'p .. Jet stettees AnEAs ren timeevEntwT teurens '..ff.'Ib.R.N AcT W:Ty 7InELY YnAInIns REscuncE3 PLaw stat le FLas 8 T2 sE (Y/Z) renn4L CJT EOUIP Pens one cent (l.c) ELDENT . ~. - EVALUATED .gy- -l meteunev er issuto entes nELEAsEs .5. With the exceptiori'of the " minor" point made below (response agency feedback) the adequacy of press releases satisfactory. e 4A y cfpgBIA setNLEsrEns0009443 BEEN des 9 NATES tre05 HAS ACCESS TS .f. p au. nrets any inrannnTian Media spokesperson designated; however, releases should have included feedback 3 infomation from response agencies. = = n E, sE., i-T .i.f spentsm-Appeared adequate both at EOC and FCP. = e ac metsuncy or coenotte4 ten assianseenis ran nunen coment. .f.. f. nEAsunts Systematic briefings heldh State Health Department does have rumor control telephone number for use by public seeking infomation. I g O

---=;-._. - ~ enen 11 SECT 950 ..l. j AHEAS ren ifFnewtM9ff (CMEtEl PLAs emeeswant acttviTv ymy vaesses nascuncta ruus aniesee mE gyn resent eJT toute rEns eno com (1-01 N g fe. ( pygy

w..

si Ar i.varr a einto arenari==. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, seuiroient. TucessicaL caLewLatimes, use er rams )I t l Tho squipment possessed by the State Health Department to measure radiation in the field If; l 13 CCnsidered adequate. In light of cosununication problems there was not time to make . Communication with the h I usuch less verify dose, assessments called for in the scenario." Third. person" relay of messages through FCP coord I fiold was almost impossible. There f to consuunication and back the same route produced delays and misunderstandings. M 7 i f ingngn,e,g,ggg,,t,h,,,gg,ggg contact their field monitors directly. l L ( Surv:;;y instruments adequate, including equipment to verify as well as identify fission ,,j i 1 produst release. I id. 3 .x M ta s g,/ l;, ggg aggguagg eggeTRaL Petest' tens SEtes EstasLlanED ren actief ( l ,,,annov.s. er resto nonivenine anta ano sanrte m o'* l- ( As Thcre was a central point setup for receipt and analysis of field monitoring data. .9 Moreover dose. assess-noted,comununications prefented much montoring data to be assessed, !O ment and verification was virtually impossible due to casamunication " slowdown" of action and, I finally, the termination of the emercise. I 7 4g .gggumey w cArmstLlfv Alg meanna.ree peR rIELD nellfeninD

7.. -

estessa THE puser rez State Health Department has portable instrumentation dnecessary. I e [ asseunts carasetsty is nace a nness assessneer er naesserver 7C .x.. O LsCAT990 eF Llelf9B eR SAgteus flapleLeSICAL nnZAnes That capability did not Thio capability tied to ability to communicate with field.Marther, the indirect mode of communicat cxiot. prevented direct comunand and control by the Health Department of its forces. k e l

( _g a sEcTsan ? Antas ran inPaavtw_NT teseests see m e t*d m $J M acysvity Tanety-Ynas No meseUncE3 PLAN naisus FLas . - - ' " - - "~ Ev4L'ATIst (Y/;I resetA4. OJT EOUIP Pens one cesW (1-El ELEMENT To et , *j empassa. Tv rest '=^*'""mirseT,or mAosessoint coneEwinATseus su 3T. i PLunt Err UBWEst rsELD ceNDITIent To se F-7 (STATE enLY) Capability is knowii-to exist; however, not tested during this exercise. As noted pre- 'l viously, the Health Department was not given time to verify the dose assessments defined in the exercise scenario. t b I to y y carms3L317 rest stELATINS seAsunED PARAhSTEAS Te Dest MATES f. p. Asen Est:PATEo sufrenATra Desets isTATE ONLYs Capability not tested. There was no time for the Health Department to actually make ( eff-site assessments (before end of exercise) to detemine if scenario dose assess-y' ments made by licensee correct or check out its own intemal calculation process. s I i1 carasIL3TV rest LecAT see AND TRAestIsee AIIIsspw mAoleACT:VE g PLtem UsTH AIO OF FEDERAL Ase/est STATE stEsetMets isTATE eNLYI Not demonstrated due to scope of exercise (and also due to communication difficulty with field monitors). r. J carastLITv Te nEconnroe, resTEcTIVE ActieN, easto en rlAos, 4..*/ su PLu m Erz isTATE enLvl Protective actions recommended by both State DODES office as well as State Department Cf Agriculture. c s EvsomecE er AvAstassL:Ty a cArmstLITY er mastelsescAL g LAmenaven:Es esfATE enLys Scope precluded need therefo m not tested. 'I )

3 -. ist ACTIWITV AsIEAS Fest inrnowqmgEstT (CHECK 3 SECTIGN

• ', ~.

eseEIIVEftI b TJ DE TInELY YnAINIDes stEscustcE3 PLage MAT 1985 FlJte . - [, EVALUATED IT/N) FtmMAL cJT Eeuer PERS este coeff (1-Si ELEfmff r susseAny vs: - AcTecoes to PueTEc7 int rustic tanELTEnino, .A./. EvactaAvtest, nEctrTien a cant, vnAseseenTATieses I: The scope of exercise prevented exercising the RERP's provision for this contingency. j' l l

~

r l connoiseAvian u Tu uTit Tv ran newEnEnf er ens TE inoivjouALs J E .A./ j. To arresTE LocAvieses 6 o Not tested. l s M J 9 cAPABlLITY PsIt 1(FLEnENTATiefs er PnSTECTtWE nEA9ultEs Not tested. Capability exists as demonstrated in past exercises. t i. s J 100 I i AggeuACY er pqEiness tagED Fan PnSTECTffs3 feeBILITY IWAlnED M i PEfteeleB, 19ECLuDif05 IteSTITUTISMALLY cSMFileED Not tested. i I I., AsteuAcv er pqEineos umEn ran enPLEnEwTeses nEtecAvices er J see parutAct Not tested. J' h b 1 I

Zn 1-_1 r 8E)VEnl AREAS FtFt INPROVENENT tCNEt;sr,a 1, CTIL.. l TINELY TRAINING RESOURCED PLAN RATiges FLAS-s, ACTIVITV (Y/N3 ' FORNAL CJT EQUIP PER3 OR9 CONT (1-El ELEMENT T3 BE EVALUATED J IOK 1 ADEOUACY OF enedNI2ATIONS IDElt?IFICATIOM OF AND MEANS FOR .M.. DEALING %flTH PciENTIAL IffEDINENTS TO EVACUATION t. Red Cross appeared to be on top of this situation; however, sc, ope of exercise did n,,t include exercise of this option. J 11 .A../ [ ASEGUACY OF PROTECTIVE MEAsusw' eM INSEST10N EPZ, INCLUDINO (STATE ONLY) DAIRY FACILITIES, FOOD PftOC8'.*lh PLANTS, ETC. P i There was no need to activate State Department of Ar n #.ture had this under control. protective measures; 7-v;ves3 capability exists. l J 100f ActeUATE ItELOCATION-Cf9fftRS HAVE $EEN ESTABLISMED AT LEAST 5 . A../ [ i MILES 4 PF.EFEPASLY 10 MILES OUTSIDE THE PLUNE EPZ 2 l Scope of exercise' did not require testing this capability. g SUPPLIES 4 EQUIPNENT AT RELOCATION ADEGUACY OF FACILITIES. AND/SR PESS CAME CENTERS Scope of exercise precluded testing this element. I l r ( I l AntoUACY eF STAFFIMO AT RELOCATISM AND/OR MASS CARE CENTERS Scope'of exercise precluded testing this element. t l 6 m 6 g e e e

4 U l. TISt. AREAS FtNt 1MPf45WEMENT (CHECK 3 PLAS* 'i MSERVEftt..&.-.pp W g . ACTIVITY TIMER.Y TRAINIMS REscuRCED PLAN ftATINS 73 SE (Y/N) FORMAL CJT EOUIP PERS tNte CONT (1 31 ELEDEltf . C EVALUATED J 10 '(- MEWMACY OF PfteCEDuftES PSIt PROCESS 19ES EVACUEES IN RELSCATION .M. ' j IteCLUDlMe te.TH CAftE DECON 4 RAD MONITORIMO, ETC.

N, Ttlis element not exe1cised.

I I 1

e i

(

.i: .*s i e ?' 1 t 2 e .s ' s. i 's e I y 8 e e s 9 4 6 I l ) l 4 1 .l l i I J i

4 _V. ]f g'[ p .~E t. AnEAS reR IMPROVEMENT tcHECKI SEcTION '.. D.h.44 Y AcTivlTY TIMEl.Y TRAINIMS REscuncE3 Pt.AM MAfitte PLAS, (Y/N) renMAL cJT Eoute PER3 One ccNT (1-23 ELEMENT J,l' TD DE gyAg.uATEo anssenny vas - MEALTH, M OIcAR., AND EMPGsuRE CONTROL f/ nEAsuntstAccEss cowTRot, AoEouAcv er EoulPntwT, usE or Kit

• Il Th3 scope of the exebise prevented testing the health, medical and exposure control

. lt or the use of KI.

t l'Il I'i

• J i8E gg Assouncy er rMovssions ran vee er K ren EnERoEncy wonKEns

.d Ann i=TiTufio=uzEn rE=== in r'uat Erz Nst tested. Plan not completely clear on use of KI at this time. l} s .f' 6 J ter astouncy or METueos votoin senKielo oEcsst0NS TO ADMIMisTER g f Ki To cEwTRAL rerutAvioN Not. exercised. A review of the Health Department's " plan will be made to detemine if d']. this contingency adequately covered. .i J 10J ) ,M,, Aetouncy er contact er Access to EvAcuATEo AnEAs ,i Not within scope of exercise. ,f K sA ADEcuAcT er A Ed MeuR A DAY cArASILtTV Te DETERMINE DOSE ./.U REcEivEn av EnERSEtscY WUnKERS Not within scope of exercise. . I, e l I l

' ~~ - - - ' ' ~ ~-- 1C - - M 'E-SE "*~ N' .~ AREAS FOR IMrftevEMENT ICHECKS SECTION ACTIVITY , TIMELY TRAINING RESOURCE 3 Pt.AN 9tAfftes PLAS. essERVERt EVALUATE 3 SY/N1 FORMAL CJT EoulP PERJ ORS CONT (1.G) ELEMENT Tal BE K ss t [ .A../ oEMonsTRATiew w ADEauATE AnD rnEoutwT EnEnetwCY WORKER DestfETER READIMOS & MAINTEMAftCE OF DOSAGE RECORDS p Not exercised. t 4 g .t l*4 K 4

• I EVIDENCE THAT'AN ADEGUATE DECISIGN CHAIM HAS BEEN 4

E2TABLISHED TO AUTHORIZE EXPOSURE FOR EMER WORKERS IN EXCESS .A./. ..l. j or PAes Not exercised .I g. e K UA EVIDEveCE YnAT APPRorRIATE ACTlow LEVELS HAVE sEEN SPECIFIED ..A.[ j reR DETERMIMilet MEED FOR DECONTAMINATION Not exercised K as i moEounCv er MEASURES reR oEcontAMinAvleN or EMEnoEwCY .M.. f AND EouirMENT,.AnD reR WASTE DiscosAL PERomesti., suret IES, Not exercised i o L 1 { ADEOUATE CAPASILITY DEMONSTRATED BY LOCAL AND/OR BACKUP y. HD8PITAL AMD MEDICAL SERVICES FOR HANDLINS PERSONNEL .f s Not exercised i . i l e e .l

^Q -. ~ s, I ~~~ ~~~-~ -- yg

• .I.

g,gggygg, AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (CHECKS SECTION [$ TRAINING RESOURCE 3 PLAN RATINS PLAS ACTIVITY j T3 BE TIMELY .FonMAL CJT EQUIP PERS One CONT (1 03 ELEf4E98T

L EVALUA1ED (Y/N) lL I

L 4 l ADESUATE CAPASILITT DEMONSTRATED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF .M.. t j. g. RADIOLSSICAL ACCIDENT VICTIMS TO MEDICAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Not within scope of exercir.e l h M 4 i CAPASILITY FOR PERIODIC ESTIMATION OF TOTAL POPULATION .M.. -;l g EXPOSURE tSTATE ONt.YI ';t Not within scope of exercise il P .l I i t t ) i.l } i. a ls 1 l j 9 9 9 h e

-J ~~~ .__-.gg a g - ~~

• 8

! l,* eBSEftVERI AREAS FOR IMPRevEMENT ICHECK) SECTION ACTIVITY .TIMEl.Y TRAINIMS RESOURCE 3, ore coni (s.si ELEMENT PLAN RATING PLAS TU BE e,t EvAtuATEo (Y/n> FORMAT. oJT Eouir PERS ' I gassemitY lx. REtevtRY AND REENTRY SPERATicNS I ADEcuACY OF JP y PLAme Asso FRoCEcuRES: ~ I Tha only deficiency,noted was lack of licensee-State defining the signal to downgrade the classification from " alert" to "all clear". l-

• .-.\\

M S ASE9u4CY OF ESTABLISHED DECAMS FOR INFORMINS RESPONSE ORS THAT stEtevtRY AND REEMTRY CAN DE IMITI ATED < STATE oNI.Y) .X.. d.O 9 li Same as above.

r E

l. I e M I ASEWMACY er PasttDuftES DEMONSTRATED FOR IEEENTRY AND g RELAXATleN OF PROTECTlWE 99EASuRES ALLOWINS ftEENTRY Scope of exercise prevented test of this element. e

• e t

e e 9 I s i. 4 i*.; e ) 9

- gg _m. g JT11. t,. --^ AftEAS Felt leqrstevtsetwY tCHEtns amusgWEltt ACTivlTV .g lose nEscuncEa a maying PLAS. - a ya, rennAi. ca7 touir PENS ene cowT (1 0) ELMENT E8E mTEn Supeenny x - nELEvAncE er Tut ExEnCISE EnrEnlEncE ISEntrtT To 4/ - }. PAftTicIPANTS. AcEcuACT SF TM SemARiel 2 The exercise showed that additional training .g The objectives of the exercise achieved. amenities of FCP upgraded; dependable communcications s io needed in operation of the FCP; ,I with. field monitoring teams assurred; time allowed for the Health Department to make .I its judgement on dose assessment; a means for Health Department to talk directly to i. their field elemerits. The A & N tone activated system must be re-evaluated. N is / SCEBIARle Te TEST CAPASillTT Te MOSILI2E STATE 4.. g A.gggMACY OF,EnSenne. ano nESouncES teCAs. S5enario adequates It revealed weaknesses and showed that the Forward Command Post should command most of the evaluators attention during the next exercise. i .~ N-1A assunameY W EM. TS Test INTEeftATED CAPASILITIES S ftAJelt 4.j Peltflelse SF THE SASic ENISTINS nESPeleSE ELEMENTS IN AFFECTED "" ~~ ~" ~" ~~~ "" ~~~ e=0 Adequate. I 4.. i SEBEFIT er EMEftCISE Te PAftTICIPAIETS The exercise appeared to be quite beneficial. It revealed weaknesses; pemitted differen t; retesting of a & n system and the agencies to work together; showed a need for training; distinct need to solved the communication with monitor teams. i 4 N. Paul Alley, Cha'iman Region VIII Regional Assistance Committee e 4

L;_. f .j l* ~ l l

SUBJECT:

Fort St. Vrain Exercise June 3,1982 \\ Evd"ation-Samary Significant' Deficiencies A re.-assessment of.the tone-activated prompt notification system is con-sidered ne.cessary. (NUREG 0654, Element E.6) The prompt notification system used by.the Public Service Company of Colorado is the tone-activated receivers issued.to all ress-dents within the five-mile inhalation emergency planning zone. A detailed stud,of the operational capabilities of the system as undertaken d the extraise.. The team Leader for the system evaluation was M. Robert Heggie, l RAC member and Emergency Coordinator for.the Deparbnent of Health S Human Services. M. James Montgomery, RAC member and Health Physicist with the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, participated in the eva nnfinn. In addition,.the. task force included.the Red Cross Advisor for Region Vill, k. Sitt Cameron and three Red Cross volunteers. A copy of M. Heggie's report is included as Attachment 1 The re-assessment shout.d include: 1. Assurance att in 5-mile zone possess unit 2. Att units operate satisfactority 3. Modify State RERP to assure verification system activated. s 4. Re-education of h e public.

• 5.

Assure that the tone-activated system is adequately backed-up with Weld County forces.to actively assure evacuation, as necessary. The Fort St. Vrsin plan has a serlous weakness in the comunications oper-ations portion. This weakness concerns State Health Department comuni-cations between mobile unLts and mobile units and the FCP. (NUREG 0654,1.8) At the present time WF Aadlo contact be. tween the mobile unLts and the FCP i are poor.to nonexistant. Mobile unit to mobile unit contaat is poor due to the geography of the arek which produces " dead spots". Comunications are presently carried on'by having the State Health base station relay messages be. tween mobile units and mobile unLts and the FCP. i This operation effectively stoms down message handling and transmission times and increases the chance for garbled or bad data being transmLtted. RECOMMENDATION: Action should be taken.to replace.the prese.nt Health VHF transmitter /re.ceiver and remote units with a WF repeater located on Lookout 1' Mountain or some other high location. With this repeater on Line the State Health Department would have exceitent comurleaflans coverage over the whole northern front range area. The repeater would eliminate the. radio dead apots and direct comunlenflans would be established between mobile units in the field and the FCP.

Q-' -- : ~ w-~.._........... l i

SUBJECT:

Fort ST. Vrain Exercise June 3,1982 Evaluation-Samary Minor Deficiencies 1. Emergency Operations Forward Comand Post (NUREG 0654, C.1c) The Forwa'rd Comand Post tacked informative displays; dedicated briefing space; attention getting devices; name tags; consistent security procedures. RECOMENDATION: Duplicate some of.the State EOC aminities in the I j FCP including security procedures. l (NUREG 0654, J. 10a) ECC did not show maps of sampling point to-I cations. FCP tack of displays discussed elsewhere. l (NUREG 0654, J. 10b) ECC did not show maps of population by evac-l uation areas. The Foututd Comand Post lacked may showing popata-tion distaibution, evacuation Mu.tes, sampling pornts, relocation centers and shelter areas. RECOMENDATION: Equip or have avaltable in emergency the desired maps at bou ECC and FCP. 2. Emergency Operations Management (NUREG 0654, A. 1d) Forward Comand Post lacked af amenities.to focus controlled Leadership. Strong comand and controlis needed in the FCP to coordinate Licensee action / reaction with State forces. RECOMENOATION: Provide additional coordinator FCP training and/or notate E0C and FCP coordinator assignments. l lNUREG 0654, D. 3) Confusion was apparent in downgrading exercise j from " alert".to a Lesser state of emergency. RECOMENOATION: Modify RERP explilltty defin.ing.the "all clear" sLtua.ticn. 3. Public Alerting 6 Notlfication (NUREG 0654, E. 7) During.the evaluation of the. tone-activated system ~ Lt uts determined that some residents lacked a copy af the Licensee's educational brochurt. REC.0MENDATION: Provide copies of the brochurt to.those who do not possess a copy. l Attachment 6

m,n t Ii 4. Public and Media Rofn' inns lNUREG 0654, G. t) During the house to house canvass of the notification system (tone-activated receivers) it was noted.pompt that a fese residents did not possess the Licensee prepared informational buchure. l RECOMENDATION: Determine nied and issue the brochures as necessary. I (NUREG 0654, G. 4a. ) Releases, primarily, dictated by Licensee's data with some data fum D00ES. There appeared to be no means of y getting feedback from the various response agenciesfor incorporation i in the periodic media briefings. RECOMENOATION: Interrogate the various response agencies as a mtter of policy, prior to de media briefings and include, agency " position" data as necessary. 5. Accident Assessment 1 The Licensee's scenario does indicate hadiciodine lNUREG 0654Tke e. 9)xercise t<me-6rame did not permit Health Department release. opportunity to "piay" out the measurement of the radiciodine veri-fication scenario comittment. Communication difficulties toge.ther with the indirect field contact (via FCP Coordinator.to Communication Center to field and back the same way) duced " built-in" delay factors plus possiblity for message g ling. RECOMMENDATION: Given good comunications the Health Department will have suffielent time to verify Licensee exercise data. Direct field comand and control of monitou wilt aid considenably. (NUREG 0654,1.10) The State Health Deparbnent was not given 7 suf 'eient time to correlate the Licensee's dose assessment with th own computation. RECOMENDATION: S e e as in 5 above. l I 6. Recovery and Reentry (NUREG 06S4, M. 3) There was some confusion when it was decided.to downgrade 6t. exercise from "aiert" to a lesser status. RECOMENQATIONs Modify RERP to cover the sitnation. e f 1 Attach a nt 4

OQ.-. l~l ~ ~.M..~Z.2 25..L.X W = = m --. e - - ---.....~.:. a ,,,==== Public Health Servios i j DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 8L HUMAN SERVICES Region Vill f Federal Office Building 1961 Stout Street Denver CO 80294 [ June 15, 1982 Mr. Paul Alley RAC Chairman FEMA REGION VIII Building 710 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80220 Dear Pault he FEMA Region VIII Regional Advisory Comittee (RAC) met at your office on May 29, 1982 and identified a need to determine if the public alert system for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant was adequate to meet the public need. I, as the U.S. Public Health Service representative on the RAC, was given the , responsibility of conducting a survey to determine the effectiveness of the alert system that was to be tested on June 3,1982. He Red Cross Advisor to FEMA Region VIII was to provide five (5) Red Cross volunteers, and of course, you had input into the survey form and strategy. He stated purpose of the survey was to: (A) visit as' many locations within five (5) miles of the power plant as possibler (B) determine if the location had radio receivers and if so, did they works (C) ascertain if those people who were at home/ business did hear the alert, and if not why; and (D) other information as was available. At 9:30 a.m., June 3, the five (5) Red Cross volunteers, the America National Red Cross (ANRC) Regional FEMA Advisor and the U.S. Nuclear Regualatory Commission (USNRC) Representative from Arlington, Texas met with me at the Federally funded Plan de Salud Health Center in Fort Lupton, Colorado. After the briefing, maps with specific geographic assignments were distributed to each surveyor along with survey forms and necessary supplies (see attached). Af ter receiving notification that the alert had officially begun, the survey teams began knocking on doors at 10:10 a.m. Unfortunately, there was a failure to disseminate the alert, and the actual alert did not go out over the l Weather Bureau Alert Tone System until 11:50 a.m. Consequently, some of the information collected prior to that time has not been included in the general, 4 ' survey tabulations, i.e., sites receiving or not receiving alert, reasons for - not hearing alert, response to alert within 0-2 and 2-4 miles from plant. Data en the above information was tabulated only for those 130 sites that were surveyed af ter the alarm went put. General data obtained from the total 280 sites surveyed includes status of the radio receivers, information on g receiving severe weather alerts and treekly hst and effectiveness of the. pre-j) exercise alert publicity. H e survey was completed at 2:00 p.m. l l Sere were a number of additional factors which have a significant impact on l l the survey. Those readily identified are as follows: (A) June is an extremely busy time for farmers as it is the start of the migrant workers' I At.tachment 7 r

m ..v ,.u...:--- { '- 1 ~ Page 2 - Mr. Paul Alley June 14, 1982 season for harvest of their crops; (B) the month of May and first few days of June were unusually rainy. There had been numerous severe weather warnings given by the weather bureau during this period. For example, several days before the exercise, three (3) weather alerts were given out on the radio receiver in one evening 3 (C) the Public Service Company (PSC) mailed infor-nation to holders of the receiver that an alert was to be held on June 3; (D) KOA radio, Denver, gave numerous public service announcements regarding the test exercise; (E) the Platteville sirens sounded an alert at approximately 9:15 an. .- to this report gives data obtained from the survey. Highlights are as follows: GENERAL SURVEY DATA: (280 Sites Surveyed) 1. Only 130 (464) were surveyed after the alert was disseminated at 11:50 am. The remainder 150 (54%) were surveyed before the alert was actually given. 2. 181 occupants of the 280 sites surveyed were interviewed (99 were not at home). I 3. 8% of the sites surveyed (15 of 181) indicated that they did not have L a receiver or that they had been having problems with the radio. 4. 75% of the sites surveyed (136 of 181) indicated that they had a copy of the PSC instruction and brochure that were provided to each recepient of the receiver. 25% either did not have a brochure or did not know if they had a copy. 5. 67% of the sites surveyed (122 of 181) indicated that they heard the weekly weather bureau test of the system. f 6. 76% of the sites surveyed (137 of 181) indicated that they had received severe weather warning alerts that were put out by the weather bureau over the radio. ~. 7. 52% of the sites surveyed (9.5 of 181) indicated that they were not aware of the Fort St. Vrain test exercise before it occurred. SPECIFIC SURVEY RESULTS AFTER ALERT WAS DISSIMINATED: (130 Sites Surveyed) r 8. Of the 130 sites that were surveyed after the alert, 44 (34%) actually received the alert via the receiver (45 were not at home and 41 were at home but did not hear the alert). Data from the 150 sites surveyed prior to the alert are not included. I ? l

I r I i Page 3 - Mr. Paul Alley i June 14, 1982 l' 9. Receivers were turned off at 20% of the locations who were at the j site but did not hear the alert. 10. 27% or 11 of 41 sites interviewed after the alert was given responded that they did not hear the alert because they were either at home but out of hearing distance. 11. 67% of the sites within 0-2 miles of the plant received the alert. It is recognised that this survey was not a research project, however, the data obtained does point out deficiencies, problems, omissions, and/or where further studies should be conducted. Consequently, the following is offered: l 1. Major deficiencies arose in initiating.the alert system which will be 'I covered in other reports. %ese deficiencies should be addressed in detail. 2. Because the alert was delayed, 130 of the 280 sites were surveyed after the alert was issued. Only 34% (44) actually received the alert by the radio receiver. In contrast, however, 674 in the 0-2 mile sone from f.he plant heard the alert. As a follow-up it is recommended that a. Here is a need for further study to determine more precisely why this small percentage of people received the alert over the radio receiver. b. Require a supplemental method of notifying rural residents. Due to the county Road grid system in the immediate area, mobile police notification by siren and bull-horn should be considered as well as initiation of sound and visual alert devices at the plant site, i.e., flares, balloons, smoke and possible explosive devices. i l l c. Determine the effectiveness of the duplicate radio and siren alert systen-for Platteville. Se sirens went off appromi-mately 2 1/2 hours earlier than the actual test.

3., Specific information has been provided under separate cover (see attached letter) identifying the specific locations that do not have receivers or that have receiving problems.

A program to assure that the receivers are in place and workable should be initiated. 4. We large percentage of receivers that heS been turned off (204) is of concern. It should be determine if this problem is caused by l apathy, complacency caused by the escessive amounts of weather l alerts, lack of education, or for other reasons or a combination of l the above. " AttAchmestt 7 i-,.r,.--- -~._-_-,,-r..--.-m..,.,._,-_.--.-__--~_----,.-.,-%. --.--,,,,-.mm-%.,--y,m_ __,-_--.-c.-,,,-----..

,, n. e - .......s, .L. 1 l Page 4 - Mr. Paul Alley June 14, 11982 5. Of those who responded after. the alert, 274 indicated that they were home but were out of hearing distance, further study is needed to determine how the group of people who are at home can be assured of T receiving the alert (see item 92 above). l 6. Revision of the public information and edu:ation program is indicated. PSC and ROA Radio provided extensive information on the exercise, however, only 52% of the sites indicated that they had g prior knowledge of the test. In addition, only 754 had the PSC information and educational booklet. i 7. Only 67% of the sites indicated that they heard the weekly Weather Bureau test and 764 heard severe weather alerts. It is of concern j that the percentages are not greater and that the system is not more j effective on a day-to-day basis. Further evaluation is indicated. I wish to commend Mr. Jim Montgomery, USNRC, Arlington, Texas for volunteering and assiting in conduct of the survey; Mr. Bill Cameron, ARC Advisor, Region VIII FEMA, for obtaining five (5) super volunteers; the anonymous med Cross

• volunteer who gave it all and consequently received a dog bite; and give special recognition to you, Paul, for your knowledge, insight and guidance which led to the development and implementation of the survey.

Sincerely yours, s Robert F. Beggie Emergency Coordinator U.S. Public Health Service Attachments e l l. a l

e' t

,.a.~ o.s.s*.*u..

-:n~.iw~sk = 2_ h - ss..~ ous '.m*Ms-u L3 w.r - ~- m u ~

.c.-s -.. s. t l I GENERAL SURVEY RESULTS 280 h tal Sites Surveyed 150 Sites visited prior to 11:50 130 Sites visited af ter 11:50 l 280 htal sites visited 99 Not at home 181 Interviewed 280 h tal sites surveyed 1 15 Did not have radio or have a receiving problem. i Sites that have green PSC information booklet. 136 Yes l 26 No g 19 Other 181 Total Sites that has heard Weather Bureau tests. 122 Yes 26 No 33 Other y 181 htal Sites that use radio to receive severe weather alerts. 137 Yes 28 No 16 other 181 htal Sites that heard publicity about test bef, ore alert occurred. 95 Yes 62 No i 3)3, ' Other 181 htal l

~ ^ .. ~ ^ ^:. ^ ~^- - T: w.h _ -.- .a... + m u a m a m ac.a-.. m s.'.z A 1-t .I ' SPECIFIC RESULTS FROM SITES SURVEYED AFTER ISSUANCE OF ALERT 130 Total Sites Surveyed Sites surveyed after alert. 45 Mot at home l 44 Received alert 41 Did not receive alert 130 Total sites surveyed after alert Reason did not hear alert. l 8 Receiver off j 5 At home but out of hearing distance 6 Away from home or business 7 Set does not work correctly 15 Other 41 Tctal (sites surveyed af ter alert) not receiving alert Response within 0-2 miles of plant. 2 Mot at home 10 Received alert .lj 3 Did not receive alert 15 Tbtal sites surveyed after alert Response within 2-4 miles of plant. 43 Not at home 34 Received alert 38 Did not receive alert 115 Total sites surveyed after alert 1 o# e me I' ll 1 l l At.tacliment 7 l l

L e _.'.'. ;.... u.. - _ - - - . = :-- - " h - - - - ~ - " ~ ~ = - ' - - - - ' * - ~ ~ AttacAnnt 7 c ,, n W !I El G GJ_ JiO-- i,,, 9 ; h % g$p m o

Dry 'wny.. & n ^

6 -- i

L i

s a. j y-- gu o c s. D'# M,. A *Q@.' ~, M.p wa - % %g m-1 j .) e w = -K [] \\ jM 9Q \\; i ..,.S,, g, T S g. 2 f n .M; 1 y...ATw r . g,. \\s Q( k. ) \\. A~ + ww. x i .3 s .k % &w.. p,,y n u w./ -g.._ F p-.y .J X hn=w = r Jy w t, , /" y h@N 1. h' n N,_,7m,.h .ge.;-: 3 3 ~ .y = /- \\. . }. %f. f E=.1% b-. t .MYmg.- . W"'- Hi r m s _ami 'T -4 .m - h?l ~ / / lh O V l G [ j ..g. r, y ,~/ <) y. l . 19 ". sq ,f - f.s f&. ..,.e ,9 ~ r, k4ym ~

f. '

~. ,,J,) p. ~.. j y 7 ) .n ,. ( , p"; e - , = - ,e g p- .. x.43h.,.f. pm.,,q ,, f., .N ' @ ' )t. t Lj' p \\ N q It C %qv ~- / s a \\ e; /" f 3$ )' / \\ p T' . e ,T, 'M. S_\\.. i,9A h7,@< ,,),,.... n L 4 m b~., e1 ?F'fj \\[>j'h.".-f" [ h,g t } 7 r w ,7 i.(- /-.yp s w. s, f3 [C .7 0 T-i.g T s l-6,4 ' '.,,.5.. g;.. i d 4 g,._ a. i.. ), 7 yn /g 4- /, /.. ] J'-/"- f v y,, .w ,:.s. y .., gg c ~ {l '- ' I y,. ^174 m a tf 9' j A, --s' i f g. y I i.' i@,.. 4<.- -U ;g]-p.,J.\\wA)g '& ;s k, as i. n w .f ) m : r .n .,, 1 1 =3 I 1 e ~

h. o 4!

.,.;L g T. n OM,.

i s

,e s ~1h,- -..C.- 5 W-m 7 t]O ., ~f - n ../.s

A,

n. n,., qe.

} ~ '...... ~ Q 7.,. ~..~ l. .i 1 FORT ST. TRAIN POWER FIJGIT ANNUAL EMERGENCY TEST EXERCISE 3 June 3, 1982 FUBLIC ALERT NOTIFICATION SURVEY FORM ..,E ADDRESS j . DISTANCE FROM FT. ST. VRAIN: ( ) 0-2 miles ( ) 2-4 miles, ( ) 4-5 alles SONE: ()A ()5 ()C ()D I Times . At Scae ( ) Yes ()No ( ) Residential l s 'M

1. P.

..g 'f j Do you have a Tone Activated Radio Receiver? ' y Does it work? { - c Do you still have a green brochure which lists emergency actions to take when the receiver is activated (published by 3 s .f FSC)? it i save you ever heard Weather Bureau tests that are conducted { on Wednesdays from 11-12 a.m. Do you use a receiver to be alerted by Weather Bureau about tornadoes, floods, etc.? DID YOU BEAR TODAY'S TEST EXERCISE 7 ~ If no Was receiver off7 Were you at home but out of hearing distance? Were you away from home or business 7 Did you see or hear about the test exercise before it i I occurred? ap e Interviewer e

h' ..-. mm., . ! v-i ? June 7, 1982, Mr. Paul Alle) Federal Daergenv/ Mnget. Agency Denver Federal Center auilding 710 Denver, Colorado 81225 Dear Pault I l During our June 3,1982 survey of the Fort St. Vrain Exercise, the dio receiver or had ,,following sites indicated that they did not have a raThis int'ormation is being provi other problems. nation to the appropriate Psc and/or state official. F508

• M

,M b neceiver lef t at last Imretta Mock 403 Olive way residence, called for f replacement but no results. I ,r Iman toglow 304 Olive Lane ses problems with receiver, PSC called but } s l response was no good. } Plattville Mardware 400 Main Street Set does not work. '1200DIvlsion Set does not operate at M. Camp all. i 14975 thunty M. 21 Set does not work on Linda medrick batteries. l '1501 sella vista set does not work. ?? t 13490 county Road 17 Does not have receiver,' Richard Brig just moved in. County Road 301/2423 Does not work. I Norgren (Big Mouse) i 8567 County poed 30 Does not work well. Asmassen Rick Apple 14533 moed 19 Just moved in, does not have receiver. f Richard with 14201 moed 15 Did not go off may be a g , problem? l i 4 (. L 8

4 ~. s -aw - w - - - sa-uw a * ~

• ' ' >=' -d = ~ ~ ' '-

...,_a_ Page 2 - Str. Paul Alley June 7, 1982 o g Aeness FRonIJM Johnson County 34. 19 9 RR Track Beception poor, garbled. Ellis CountyRoad15 Does not have radio. 7790 county Road 42 0 17 Does not,have radio. Yates Smith 16202 County Road 15 tune does not go of f. Can push button to got weather information. Please provide information on the disposition of this matter. Wank you in advarre for your expeditious assistance. 3 l Sincerely yours, [. 4 l 't Robert F. Beggie i, Energency Coordinator t t 1 i f s s l l I a 6 l l e 4 e i

g g.m_ % - w% u :'.h.~:.s% -

= k %w&. e * ~~=.: k Q.sGm :.a y..--a- --...

D ,. ~*;, _ ; *-,,- ;-- --, -----~~~:-

• L.~.L
• ~".... *':." M. ~. !. - ~~~: - -

f $y SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 1-j Tsv Radiological Emergency Respcmse Plan Exercise - 1982 l POsAVEX - 82 i since this is an uncontrolled exercise and the start time for the exercise has not been announced, the times given here are not critical The initial conditions except those times preceded by an asterisk (*). at the time the exercise begins-the plant is in routine operation at 70s reactor power. (Events which affect off-site operations) Event Estimated Time For Event ~ A non-isolatable leak in a reheat section on

• T*0800 Icop 2 begins.

l Declaration of " notification of an unusual i 0815 event" by plant personnel.

1. DODES receives call on 279-8855.

0820 866-2471.

2. Governor's office receives call on 0823

3. D0 des verifies by return call.

0825

4. D0 DES decides what actions (if any) are 0830 required by " notification of unusual event".

Noble Gas at EAB reads 0.4 mrem /hr s 0830 An " alert" is called by the plant. The W 0900 off-site release calculations has an effluent for noble gases greater than ten times the Technical specification release rate limits.

1. " Alert" notification scheme begins (P.3 13-f

} 0905 RERP).

2. SEOC activation dec'1sion made.

f l 0907

3. FCP activation decision made.

0909

4. DODEs initiates callout of EOC staffing.

0910

5. FCP'begins progressive manning (initially 0910 Ft. Impton Police or Sheriff's Office, followed by PSC personnel, D0 des, Nealth Dept., Governor's Office or Health Dept.

i ( PR REPR.), I

6. Decision is made at ROC to activate the I

Early Warning Alert system (NOAA Weather Radio). 0915 I

7. Decicion,ia med3 Ct EDC to Cstivat3 the EBS 0920 Systesi.

(Notice.to RCE and EFKA is given but they may or may not elect to use it.) } Noble gas at EAR reads 55 aren/hr. i 0925 1020 S. SEOC manned with sufficient state agency representatives to be operational. 1025 Wohle gas at EAR reads 800 aren/hr.

1. Site emergency declared by the plant and 1030 depressurisation of the reactor vessel is begun.

1035

2. FCP fully operational

3. EOC - Public Relations Media Coordinator 1050 provides media briefing.

1055 Moble gas at EAR reads 300 ares /hr.

4. FCP - Public Relations Media Coordinator 1100 provides media briefing.

5. Police Chief in Platteville reports to FCP 1105 that he is ready to begin evacuation, wants to know when he should begin.

1105

6. Off-site monitoring begins.

1115

7. Inquiry from Ft. Impton Fire Chief as to s

whether he should get ready for decontamina-tion or not. 1125 . Noble gas at EAR reads 50 mres/hr. 1130

8. Inquiry from dairy as to whether milk is i

marketable.

9. Truck farm northwest of Greeley wants to %now 1145

what effect this has on his crops - he grows onions. 1155 poble gas at EAs reads 10 mram/hr. o

10. Farmer three miles south of plant wants j

,1200 transportation furnished to transport his migrant laborers to Denver for deportation. ' ~ ~ I

11. Citisen in Greeley wants a poAA weather Radio i

1215 Receiver furnished him. e I f

,f /p.:.sph w . h.Av%.: - a,.,m y., _ _ a t *- I *..* + Moble gas at EAB reads background. 1225

12. Reporter from longmont Timen wants an inter-1230 view with the person in charge of the FCP.

l 1 1245 ('Ib FCP) Inquiry from citizen - what's going on at Ft. St. Vrain - I hear there is a core melt-down-call me at XXX-XXXX. (Give answer,to umpire). Message from CSU RAD Team Leader concerning 1300 exposure of emergency workers. I Someone came by here a few minutes #ago and 1315 took a milk sample from the milking we just finished. When will we know if the milk F is O.K.? Who would know this? Where can j we call them? ,I 1330 Depressurization complete. I I just received a call fran the UP in New York. 1345 He says they have a confirmed report the Ft. St. Vrain is on the verge of melt-down-what reply is given to him? (Give it to umpire). 1400 Inquiry from citizen near Gilcrest. Is it 0.K. to use my well water for cooking? s I live just south of Ft. Lupton, and I've f 1415 got a " cutie pie" and its up to one " RAD" per hour. You are going to get sued for letting all of these people get sick. If I I don't hear from you in 15 minutes I'm going to get the hell out of here and tell all my neighbors to leave too. My phone number is XXX-XXXX. j Cloud passage complete and field measurements

• 1440 reach background at all locations. Probloc terminated.

O .a ee b e Attachmed 8

n...,.~. = ,1. 75i RAC13'.03ItAt EMERGENCY PRE 8AREDSE55 AW.RL EXER 0!SE FOSAVEX 82-Narrative Sumary The exercise will be based upon a non-isolable leak in a reheat \\. l section on loop 2. This initiating event, when the deteretnation is made that the leak is "non-isolable", would result in classification l as a SITE AREA EMERGEN;Y, as described in Table 4.1-3, iter 2,'of the 1. Fort St. Vrain RERP. The initial conditiens at the time the leak occurs will be routine operation at 705 reactor power. The determination that the leak is **non-isolable' will result from i evaluation of a leakage path past valve HV-22132 to the main condenser. This valve will have been identified as leaking from alars I-13A,5-g; LD08 2 RHT STM TO COCENSER VALVE LEAK. This alars will be designated as 'on" in a list of activated alar 6s given to control rose operators prior to the onset of the initiating event. l The flow of emercise events is intended to be such that the I initiating event will be the detection of a small amount of activity in secondary costant at the Steam Jet Air E.fector. Approximately 10 i sinutes later, Rea: tor Building Ventilation radioactivity levels will

increase, indicating offsite release.

At this time, it is anticipated that personnel will be sumoned to their emergency stations by the plant radiological alare, and that a declaration of a NOTIFICATION OF WJ5UAL EVENT emergency class will follow shortly 30 minutes, the west reactor operator will be thereafter. At t = informed that the indication for Loop 1 Hot Reheat radiation monitor .t has begun to move upscale, and is currently reading approminately 200 cpe. The Loop 2 Hot Reheat radiation monitor is reading background (this monitor, under routine conditions, is set to monitor the staan j s generator interspa:e on loop 2, and, until sanitoring is switched to the loop 2 Hot Reheat Header, willreadbackground). At t = 40 minutes, the Reactor Building Ventilation montter alams on both RT-7324 1 & 2. The offsite re" ease calculations will indicate that the l event has reached the magnitude of an ALERT emergency classification, as the affluent release rate for noble gases is somewhat greater than 10 tiees the Technical Specification release rate limits. Release I rates will rise only slightly over the next 45 minutes, until, at t = I 85 minutes, the situation begins to deteriorate rapidly. l\\\\.MTMi.m :.n%VM.W.*TN' Win an.'sk. T.v.%.:n:.~.in **.. i.Y.'r -t.+ g:nMrM u;:a s m. 5 nf. v.* u e l l l _--.-._.,_,-_,,.~~,,.__._-_--mm_m._, ., _ _ _.. _ _ _., _. ~.. __

~d a.'."._ m w % %e - _ m_._ u. _ _ 4 i

i At t = 85 minutes elapsed time from the initiating. event, tha i

indications on the Stes: Jet Air Ejector radiation monitor will take a rapid rise. The rate of increase on the Loop 1 Hot Reheat radiation monitor will not be appre:iable. If the operator switches l the loop 2 reheat monitor to monitor the Hot Reheat Header from the loop 2 Steam Genera or interspace, this monitor will indicate upscale, with about a 10 minute lag behind the Steam Jet Air Ejector it monitor (othe vise, the monitor, will indicate background whenever is m:nitoring the Steam Generator interspace). The offsite radiological release rate will increase ser.awhat at this time also. I It is anticipated, that with indications of a large.pricary to I secondary leak occuring, the Control Room will make the decision to affected loep, if they have not already done so, based shutdown the i upon previous indications. If the operator shuts down loop 1, based l upon the loop 1 Hot Reheat Header radiation monitor leakage, no appreciable change in radiation leakage or effluent rates will be noted. If the operator selects loop 2 for isolation based upon that loop's radiation indications, simultaneously with the loop shutdown, radiation raadings will take a rapid swing upward again. Subsequent investigations of the leakage path will eventually lead to the conclusion that the leak is non-isolable due to the leakage past HV-22132 into the condenser. This determination should result in the declaration of a SITE AREA EMERGENCY. Shortly thereafter, a depressuri:ation of the PCRV will begin. The depressurization will last for approxirately 3 hours, with a steadily decreasing offsite radiological release rate continuing over the entire period. After the depressurization of the pCRV is completed, the radiation readings will return to normal levels, and the ter=ination of the esercise will be declared. v53. @..r.-wnrihu. JUEc.n:crylvu:v.' tam.mccrn.c m.....,w. .. &....negw.s.pmi e..gNg c f 8 (Licensees) 1 l 1

MU *. pd.T W:.-.,.. ~ 7- ._h--- . = v~e - -- i t ;. t 3 pla ned Secuen:e of Eve *.ts for FD$AVEX 82 Scenario: At appromir.ately time t = -10 minutes, the operators in the control room will be given a list of alarms that are to be presumed to be up I on the varicus annunciator panel windows. This list will include I alam I-13A,5-8; LOOP 2 MT STM TO CONDENSER LEAK. There will be a sufficient nu=ber of alams listed on this alam sheet for systems that are both related and unrelated to the exemise scenario that it will not be readily appa*ent to operators prior to the onset of the exercise initiation that this particular alam will serve to identify the leakage path, l ,. f.W* s'

• J.%.$.! ?.'.9 3 Y ' D N.#./.i b M i b. [ *" h E.i N # E'

'N I I e e# l e I' Attachmed i (Licenatea) i i l 1

L Mw- -,_n.-- I* >l^ 4 i At time t = 0 minutes, the following window on the annunciator panels 1 l i will come on; I-05B;5 AIR EJECTOR ACTIVITY HIG5f (RA4-31193) 5 time this alam vinder corces so RI-31193 on I-0 is reading j At the approximately 600 cym. At time t = 10 sinutes, the operat'or is informed that the indication on RT-7324,1 is currently reading upscale at a;: proximately 10K eps, and that RT-7324,2 is currently reading approximately 300 cpa. The indications for RT-7325,1 & 2 and RT-73437,1 & 2 are remaining at background. c l During the the tiet span from t = 10 minutes to approxir.ately t = 30 rinutes, the activity indications from RT-31193, and RT-7324, 1 & 2 1 will increase at a very gradual rate, until at t = 30 minutes, the operator is inforced that the loop 1 Hot Reheat Header Monitor has j begun to rise slightly. At that time, the following radiation values are noted; I RT-31193 reading 2.0DE+03 cps; 2.00E+02 cpm I RT-2253 reading background, f 4.00E+02 cpe, if on HRH); RT-2264 reading RT-7324,1 reading 3.00E+04 cpm; RT-7324,2 reading 1.50E+03 eps; RT-73437,1 reasing 3.5DE+02 cpm. RT-73437,7 reading background; At t a 40 minutes, the Rasetor Building Ver.tilation noble gas tenitors(RT-73241&2) alJrm with the folloWing indications noted on other rr.distion detectors; j RT-31193 reading 2.00!+03 cps; RT-2063 reading 2.0DE+02 cps; l RT-2I64' reading background, (1.50E+03 cpa, if on HRH); I RT-7324,1 reading-1.55 M6 cpa; RT-7324,2 reading 4.35E+04 cpa; RT-73437,1 rear 1cp ' 3.50E*DZ cpm. ),l RT-73437,2 reading 7.03E+02 com; Other radiological monitors reeain at, or near, their background i values. f w,nu.w.s ~mu.uw me=em.w.m.watme .~ a=n-.= m-r I, l l' h 1 A _m. _.---_.,,_,,_,m_~. y,. r,__m .._.-,m .. v o ~ ~

7 .~e-.- % a -v m.~m ~:-- r~:-mu.. ^ s- <- =, - =-

o-~=" ~ ~~-=~~

q . 85 minutes, the radiation readings on the Sometime after time t =

• 'crious affluent and radiation ' process sonitors will begin to increase again to the following values; RT-31193 reading 3. ODE +03 cpm; RT-2263 reading 3.00E+02 cpm; RT-2264 reading background, (2.DDE-03 cps, if on HRH);

.I RT-7324,1 reading offscale high; I RT-7324.2 reading E.265+05 cps; RT-73437,1 reading 9.20E+03 epm. RT-73437,2 reading 1.03E+03 cps; If the decision is made te shutdown loop 1, instead of the leaking loop 2, no significant change in radiction readings on the radiation effluent or radiation process effluent sentters will be noted. Sometime after loop 2 shutdown occurs, resulting in vastly increased radiation leakage rates, it will be determined that tha leak is non-isolable. At that point, a SITE AREA EMERGEN;Y emergency ~ classification will be declared. At that point in tire, it would be determined that the best way to terminate the release is to depressurize the PCRV. Fros the time that decision is made, the exercise will last for approximately three sore hours, as radiation ~ levels begin to drop to background values. During the depressuri ation, it is anticipated that field teams will be assessing offsite radiological consequences. Once radiation levels have decreased to background, and the PCRV has been depressurized, the eserci'st will be declared terminated. ML?nu:7,uT;;c.wnowq34.c..uygp,$g,y.3c,q.;;g,py,1.wgp,.cg.w.,:w.w.up.py,t;r:p::;:.,..m t 9 e 0 Atuchmeg s (LLeen4ee4) i ,~.v-,

---

n.

E. 2 7 %., C ~ C n i.... .. L. <..L~ :~ ~.. ffi.'.' s rebruary 19s2 r Page 1 of 3 '} PARTICIPANT REST 10mAIRE This spectionnaire le designed to help determine the preparedness of your comemity, egency, and/or department for radiological emergency response, as well as to improve future exercies. Ycur opinions will be most helpful. Please complete the question- ,l noire et the and of the exercles and return it to a FEMA observer. Wille answering i the questions, please be candid. Indicate any deficiencias you feel exist, using space provided between items for your commente. DATE h em 3' /?Pp EXERCISE I 10uR nnn DA W 'P. /W Vf11ir l 100R PD5IT10N ()SS7' y/W PPesIord GoVE49)G#7t?4 4R'77m v psem LtEATION I [ d b _* 1 i 1. EXERCISE PREPARATIONS Did you review your energency responsibilities before YES [ a. ND I the exercise? i b. Were you aware (,in advance) of the times that key l stimulatei emergency events were scheduled to occur? YES W \\., In your opinion, was ths acenario realistic? YES V ND c. d. Did the exercise scenerlo adequately test your egency's y 2 YES emergency response system? e. Did the exercise adequately test your own YES V N0 l assigned responsibilities? f. Do you have enough knowledge to effectively V 80 carry out your radiological response seeigreent? YES (If not, describe any further training needed below). 2. PLANS APO RCSDURCE MATERIAL 5 a. Did you participate in developi current Radiological YES [,, ND,,,,, Emergency Response Plan (REAP)? b. Are you setlefied with your surrenJ: RDtP7 YES ND _

e. Did you have access to a capy of the RERP during.the y

NG YE5 exercies?,, d. Are you estisfied with your seteriale (e.g., maps, '[ E population date, list of shelters, traffic piene, etc.)? YES ll MTscMrrtsu' 9

., :-. u Page 2 cf 3 d l

3. DOtGDer FACILITIES, EQUIPOT. Ape RPPLIES Was your Emergency Operations Center (EDC) inn adequate facility V

i s. ES ND _ for conducting a radiological energency response? / 4. Were commmicetions eNtama between your facility and other E'S NO locations adequate? gte b A, } Q p I' Were the internal communications in your EtX: (message handling, c. MS ND _ saps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? J If applicable at your location l were the evacuation assembly f d. YES NO areas (reception centers, etc. adequate? g I If applicable at your location, were supplies for evaeustion YES NO a. (e.g., cats, blankets, transportation, etc.) ovailable? N$ 'j f. Ia sufficient operational radiological annitoring equipment YES NO li available where needed? W v I 4. INTER. AGENCY C00RDINAT!bN APC SUPPORT Did you have adequate access to your counterparte at other' ,y YES V _NO a. locations? Ll, b. Were needed information and deciolons from other locations YE5_/ .s ND _ reported to you pramptly? ..e. Did you receive or have enough information upon which YE5 _y NO to base your decisions? d. Did your operation receive ad ate radiological data from YES y NO the Utility, Local, State, or Federsi Agencies? l .. ~. - -

',}...'f._:'.7^___W_.994?:^T.?m:r - --- -==--- .u.- - =-

p. s.

l. Page 3 of 3 r

5. COMUNICATION WITH PLSLIC I

s. Were you asked to provide information to a Pelic Information 1

YES No Officer? Were TV or radio receivers available at.your location to b. YES N0 I locations adequate?

c. Did you have access to Pelle Inforestion releases from other p

YES ND i locations? l I 4. OVERALL RATIMIS Please rate on the scales below by circling the appropriate number.

l Indicate the benefit of the exercise to your jurisdiction or agency in terms s.

ofs l (1) Trminino: 1 2 3 4 5 GDID POOR-(2) Testing: 1 2 3 4 5 POOR s Indicate your confidence in your organization's capability to execute radio-b. logical amergency response plane to protect the p411c: 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH LOW COWIDEMI COW 100CE (Please use this space, and continus on the back if necessary, to record 7. REMARK 5: Include probleme identified, osjor anything you wish to add about the exercies. or minor, d ich are obstacles to achieving exercise or operational objectives. Suggestions to rectify problems would be helpful.) ~~ l r Thank you for your assistence. Please return the completed questionraire ts by the end of the exercise. caservers Name ll

l^^ . }'.~.. a., ' ' ::.:' ' =- : :- Y

• • L.....

tu is February 1982 Page 1 of 3 I l PARTICIPANT SKST10mAIRE This spectionnaire le designed to help detetuine the prep Future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. thile answering naire at the and of the esercios and return it to a FEMA aboarver. Indicate any de the questione, please be candid. l space provided between itana for your commente. 4-3-fl oRTE Fos A vs x T2. I EXERCISE Mt,Yi 6c 4, ke er - YOUR n4Mt A.d. [FriSs beed PSC TOUR POSITION Eor LOCATION r,

1. EXERC15E PREPARATIONS Did you review your energency responsibilittee before yES V

m_ s. the exerciee? .s* Were you owere (,in advance) of the times that key E5 V W b. stimulated emergency events were scheduled to occur? z. ' YES NO V In your opinion, was the scenario realistic? c. Did the exercise scenario adequately test your egency's YE5 E_ d. emergency respones system? Did the exercles adequately test your ear, YES V W e. assigned responsibilities? Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES [ NO~ f. carry out your radiological response assignment? (If not, describe any further training needed below). 2. PLANS APO RESOURCE MATERIAL 5 Did you partleipate in developing current Radiological YES ND a. Energency Response Plan (RERP)? YES' V' W - AreyouestisfiedwithyourcurraniRERP7 b. V, f_ Did you have access to a copy of the RERP during the VE5 W 's. exercies?,, V, / Are you setiefied with your esteriale (e.g., sepa, NO VE5 population date, list of shelters, traffic plans, etc.)? d. i O e ._______.------,--.--_--.<--,,--.--,--r, .n--,-, ,,,,-m w,,-.,, ,w,- ,,,--,m

[ ], T:'Cr?t...---r.2. __ : tia.e2 --s#m - t -....... -... _. - -. I.* Page 1 cf 3 I

3. Du.mziCY FACILITIES,'EDUIPDENT, NO RJPPLIES Was your Emergency Operations Center (EOC) iri adequate facility ES NO ~

for conducting a radiological amargency response? Eden $nA s. Phont .Sh.o uld h a Vt. . L 't o c_ Psc af s Were communications sNtems between your facility and other f'. I YES NO I 4. 1 et one adequate? 4 o FCP j tycable y e Hen.y yre a.s1f.ey /,ns Were the internal communiestions in your EII: (message handling, YE5[N0_ c. j maps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? /gV If applicable at your location, were the evacuation assembly YES N0 I d. areas (reception centers, etc.) adequate? I M I i If applicable at your location, were supplies for evacuation YE5 N0_ l[; (e.g., cots, blankets, tronoportation, etc.) available? s. // Is aufficient operatioral radiological monitoring equipment YES _N0 _ f. available d ere needed? i I INTER. AGENCY COORDINATI6N APO SUPPORT 4. Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other' ,/o YES V N a. locations? i l Here needed inforestion and decisions from other locationsE5_/N0_ b. j reported to you promptly? .e'. Did you receive or have enough information upon,which ES gg to base your decisions 7,. ./g Did your operation receive adbate radiological data fromYE5 V r Federal Agencias? d. the utility, Local, State, an o 1 e = ~ m

S ' ~ .

.~

Page 3 of 3 t i

5. C0ktONICATION WITH PLSLIC

a. Were you enked to provide information to e Public Information VES [NO Officer?

F i .: 7 Were TV or radio receivere available at.your location t E NO b. locatione adequate?' ] t / ,/ Did you have access to Public Information rolesses from other YES NO V l c. locstions? 'i j 6. OVERALL RATINGS ~Please rate on the scales below by circling the appropriate number. .l Indicate the benefit of the e.arcies to your jurisdiction or egency in terne I a. of: (1) Training: 1 2 3 5 sooo Po0R (2) Testing: 1 2 4 5 COG) POOR I Indicate your confidence in your organigstion's espebility to execute radio-i b. logical emergency response piene to protect the p@lica - 1 2 3 4 5 1 LOW COWIDENCE CDWIDEEE

l (Please use this space, and continue on the neck if necessary, to record

.i 7. REMARKS: anything you wish to add 'about the embecies. Include probleme identified, mejor or minor, sich are obstacles to achieving' exercise or operational objectives. . Suggestions to rectify problems would be helpful.) /[AlbAAddmi rYcrly

• c d'N"h

' E wly. Wumy Systen Uke.n L's t A r~e.4e4 6y D OD es;.,,,,. s *. -. _-we" Fleese return the completed questionnaire to l l 1her* you for your seeistance. I il by the end of the suorelse. ll Ubearvers Name 9 - - -. ~. - a .h P

.. N.7.'[ [ E E E. E.'E : _.=. =...r..u : :. w d ;... 6 - 2.'---- p :,F j o February 1982 ( Page 1 of 3 N PARTICIPANT OLESTIOP84 AIRE o l This spacetionnaire is designed to help determine the preparednese of your enemmity, egency, and/or department for radiological soorgency response, as well se to improve Future exercies. Your opinions will be east helpful. Please complete the questior> noire et the and of the exercios and return it to a FD4A observer. teille snowering the aguestions, please be candid. Indicate any deficiencies you feel eulet, using space provided between itene for your commente. CLERCISE-1 ' b/.' < DATE ?'os -s. 4thm Nht ( )r t.' f F i Y /I[ "- YOUR POSITION 72E /'/ LOCATION d ? be 'h * 'i~ 1. DERCISE PREPARATIONS Did you review your emergency responsibilities before .f a. the exercies? ES V NO r b. Were swore (Jn advance) of the times that key ,j stiau ed emergency events were scheduled to secur? YES / 10 In your opinion, wee the scenario realistic? YES NO c. i d. Did the exercios scenerlo adequately test your egency's emergency response system? E5 00 s

e. Did the exercise adequately test your sun assigned responsibilities?

YES p DO I f. Do you have enough knowledge to effectively V !I carry out your radiological toepones seeigneont? ,ES NO (If not, describe any further training needed below). g,q. ),. 2. PLANS APO RESOURCE MATER 141.5 l Did you participate in' developing current Radiological s. 8 Emergercy Response Plan (RERP)? VES / ND _ VES 80 _ b.,. Are you satisfied with your curren); RDtP7

e. Did you have access to a copy of the RERP during the

~ 80 VE5 esercies?., d. Are you estisfied with your motoriale (e.g., sape, 80 population date, list of shelters, traffic plane, etc.)? VE5 i O e-- ,_,,,--_--_-._,,-,w,,...n,-

- - + -. -. :_ Page 1 GF 3 . l. =. - t ETRGENCY FACILITIES, EQUIPENT, #c RJPPLIES j .},

s. Was your Emergency Operations Center (EDC) en adequate facility ES NO for conducting a gological smergency response?. </

I Were communications systema between your facility and other E'S ', N0 ( 4. locations adequate? t I Were the internal communiestions in your EOC (message hedling, ES ' ' NO c. aaps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? f j 1 If applicable at your location, were the evacuation assembly YES NO i d. ~ areas (reception centers, etc.) adequate? If applicable at your location, were supplies for evacuation YES NO s. (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, :tc.) available? ,l Is sufficient operatioral radiological monitoring equipment i YES N0 f. available d ere needed? s INTER.ACENCY C00RDINAT1bN AM) SUPPORT 4. ! t Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other' YES V' NO a. locations? .l Were needed information and decisions from other locations YES I ND _ b. reported to you promptly? 1 '.cs Did you receive or have enough information upcet u.hich TES g I to base your decisions? d. Did your operation receive ad uste radiological data from NO YES ~. l! the utility, Local, State, or rederal Agencias? y q l

i

.l

%_&.-itbi.---1-n?:----.L... ^ ' ~~ ^ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - l "T ' Page 3 of 3 r t

5. CDIOUNICATION WITH PLSLIC

? Were you asked to preide information to o Public Information YES 50 s. Officer? Were TV or radio receivers available at.your location to YES 410 b. I locations adequate? i Did you have access to Public Inforestion releases free st'her i YES NO V' c. locations? 4 I 6. OVERALL RATINGS P1sese rate on the eccles below by circling the appropriate number. Indicate the benefit of the exercios to your jurisdiction er agency in teres e. of [5 i (1) Trainino: 1 2 3 4 GDCD POOR (2) Testing: 1 2 3 4 5 GDCD POOR v !l Indicate your confidence in your organization's capability to execute radio- ) b. logical energency response piene to protect the p e lics 'l 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH LOW COW 10EW.E CDWIDEtt ll (Please use thle space, and continus on the back if necessary, to record 7. REMARKS: Include problems identified, mejor anyttung you wish to add about the exercies. or minor, s ich are obstacles to achieving exercise or operational objectiveJ. Suggestions to rectify probleme would be helpful.) l ti Thank you for your assistance. Please return the completed questionnaire to by the end of the exercies. comervere psame n -,,w .---,-,----,-,--r_=% .ww.-v,------.-% ,-"w y- -, - r---,m-----

~-..[. 7.C^.-J Ci;_M.'tM. 2.r..= - c.:..n --.... -. - - t * :. - I i = February 1982 s l Page 1 of 3 i PARTICIPANT GLEST10mAIRE This apostionnaire is designed to help determine the preparedness of your cosamity, agency, and/or department for radiological emergency response, as well as to improve Future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. Please complete the question-Wille answering I paire et the and of the exercles and return it to a FEMA observer. Indicate any deficiencies you feel esist, using I the questions, please be candid. space provided between itema for your comments. 't EXERCISE Et. M. V e ='..- Erect _ iu B"1 DATE 3 "Sune O "2. TDLR NAE b $ U, - r 8 YOUR POSITION $% jam be M4. be s (l;m;t ONte.te h f I ( 6--g *(2. e cgr (.A et.A i LOCATION Eoc I i 1. EXERCISE PREPARATIONS Did you review your emergency responsibilities before f YES [ NO a. the exercise? in advance) of the times that key WI u sware ('ency events were scheduled to occur? b. Were YES ted emerg stinu YES NO In your opinion, was the scenario realistic? c. d. Did the exercise scenario adequately test your agency's YES % emergency response system? Did the exercise adequately test your own 'WX e. YES assigned responsibilities? f. Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES M M carry out your radiological responsa assignsent? (If not, describe any further training needed below). / 2. PLANS AM) RESOURCE MATERIALS t Did you participate in devel ing current Radiological YES , NO s. Emergency Response Plan (RERP 7 YES - W1 b. Are you satisfied with your currenj; RERP7 Did yipu have access to a' copy of the RERP during.the YES Y W c. exerclas?,, ~ Are you setlefied with your materiale (e.g., maps,. YES X _ NO d. population date, list of shelters, traffic plans, etc.)? 1

~ s, Page 1 cf 3 I 3 EKWGENCY FACILITIES, EQUIPENT, Arc RIPPLIES

s. Was your Energency Operations Center (EDC) inn adequate facility YES N ND_

for conducting a rMiological amergency responne? .._f 4. Were communications sy' stems between your facility and other YE'S _ NOM locations adequate? Were the internal communieations in your ElI: (seaeage handling, YES Y ND _ c. maps, status boards, etc.) adequate? i i d. If applicable at your location, were the evacuation assembly YES NO areas (reception centers, etc.) adequate? I 1 If applicable et your location, were supplies for evacuation YE5 ND _ s. (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) available? l f. Ia sufricient operational radiological monitoring equipment YES ND _ evellable dere needed? y I 4. INTER-AGENCY C00RDINAT!bN APC SUPPORT Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other YES NO a. locations? b. Were needed inforestion and decisions from other locations YE5_ NO,,,,,,,,, rsported to you pramptly? .e. Did you receive or have enough information uped $1eh YE5 _ NO to base your decisions? d. Did your operation receive ad ate radiological data from the Utility, Local, State, or Federal Agencies? YES NO j II ll

M:2..t.'.. c =. -.--._.r.r.

- m -....T.. _ _. _., j.q,- 1,* ~ Page 3 of 3

5. t0004JNICAT!0N WITH MELIC Were you ooked to provide information to a Pelic Information No X a.

YES Officer? ~ b. Were TV or radio receivere sveilable et.your locetion to locatione adequate? YES N01 4 t Did you have access to Public Information relseees from other YES N0 1 q c. locatione? i f 1 6. OVERALL RATINGS Please rate on the scales below by circling the appropriate number. Indicate the benefit of the exercies to your jurisdiction or egency in terne s. l ef h 4 5 (1) Training: 1 2 (2) Testing: 1 2 3 4 5 C0(D POOR s Indicate your confidence in your organization's capability to execute radio-b. logical meergency response piene to protect the p@lic: 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH LOW i CO TIDENCE COWIDOCE I 7. REMARKS: (Please use thie.epece, and continus on the back if necessery, to record anything you wish to add about the ev' rcles. Include probleme identified, major e er minor, diich are obstacles to achieving exercise or operational obje:tives. Suggestions to rectify probless would be helpful.) PesW4-l+'s hu.1 w + l\\ +Le "Clatr'G As 't.J _.'. R m.e.J J.44..,.. e c f.-,) esys.tuL:en L.es L & as~s as *qtu<d s* L sr :

w..-k,e e a.Ja. w, (4s4=8.

Thank you for your gesistence. Please return the completed questihire to by the and of the exercies. Ebeerv tre Nase .l

• ***'~ ~ 2..W?'~..'.".*.2.f':^!. 2W.W."h '. W.?! 2 2 D ' N " " ~ * " '*~~ "~ ~ ~ " -

f,', Y&l W oSSO February 1982 Page 1 of 3 PARTICIPANT S KSTIOPMAIRE This questiomaire is designed to help determine the preparedness of your community, egency, and/or department for radiological emergency response, as well as to improve future exercise. Your opinions will be most helpful. Please complete the question-noire at the and of the exercies and return it to a FEMA observer. m ile enevering l i the questions, please be candid. Indicate any deficiencies you feel suist, using space provided be ween itene for yeer comments. b N o.a b ah h /hv DATE h b u.w d 3 8*) EXERCISE ovSb %e - % A\\\\ v02,We YOUR POSITION b e v e.< M d \\ _ ( aj $ o w LOCATION t l 1. EXERCISE PREPARATIONS Did you review your emergency responsibilities before YES !/ NO a. the exercise? ( b. Were you swore (,in edesnee) of the times that hoy E5 V W ~' I stimulated emergency events were scheduled to occur? >i E5 V ND In your opinion, was the scenario realistic? c. d. Did the exercise scenario adequately test your egency's 9 YES W emergency response system? Did the exercise adequately test your own W s. YES assigned responsibilities? f f. Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES V W carry out your radiological response seeignment? (If not, describe any further training needed below). i j 2. PLANS A M RESOURCE MATERIAL 5 Did you participate in devel ing current R'ediological MD [ f s. YE5 , Emergency Response Plan (RERP 7 TE5 V W-J b. Are you satisfied with your curren) RERP7 /

c. Did you have access to a copy of the RERP during.the YES V ND exerciae?,,

Are you satisfied with your satorials (e.g., saps, VE5 MM d. population date, list of shelters, traffic plans, etc.)? 4 4 0 I ~,. _ _

h:1_..^ " 4:=-;_:- 7 L. ~ ~.,......... ,fy.}.:'

= = =&..:.4ym~ m.:.

t Page 1 of 3 d '[ 3 pCRODCY FACILITIES, EQUIPENT. APO RPPLIES '8 Was your Emergency Operations Center (EDC) en adequets facility YES VN0_ a. for conducting a radiological energency response? 1 l l g Were communications sy' stems between your fact Hty and other YE'S V NO 4. locations adequate? ) 'l Were the internal communications in your EOC (message handling, YES //ND_ c. saps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? 3 I If applicable at your location l were the evacuation assembly YES V N0 _ d. areas (reception centers, etc. adequate? If applicable at your location, were supplies for evacuation YES // ND_ (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) available? s. Is sufficient operatioral radiological sonitoring equipment YES V NO f. sys11able where needed? l ~ INTER-AGENCY C00RDINAT!bN APO SUPPORT 1 4. l

s. Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other YESEND locations?

l 11 Were needed information and decisions'from other locations YE5[ NO,,,,,,,, b. l reported to you promptly? -~ ? .e.' Did you receive or have enough inforestion uped,$leh YES,V N0_ to base your decisions? d. Did your operation receive ad ate radiological data fram I the utility, Local, State, r Federal Agencias? YE5M NO t i I ll

].._. '~ "~ & = =..... l > Page 3 of 3 I

5. CC804JNICATION WITH ptBLIC Were you asked to provide information to o Public Information ND V-K5 '

s. Officett s. ~ Were TV or radio receivers available at.your Zoestia' n to YES NO ' b. locatione adequate? f

c. Did you have access to Public Information releases from other YES

_ N0_ locatione? I 6. OVERALL RATINGS Please rate on the scales below by circling the appropriate ruter. Indicate the benefit of the amer:les to your jurisdiction or agency in terms I a. ofs m ,1 (1) Training: 1 2 3 4 5 POOR' l (1) Testing: 1 2 3 4 ) POOR v I Indicate your confidence in your organization's capability to execute radio- 't b. logical emergency response plane to protect the publics h i 1 2 3 4 5 ) HIGH i LOW CDTICE l COWIODE lj (Pleses use this.epece, and continus on the back if necessary, to record . Include problems identified, mejor I REMARK 5: 7. anything you wish to add about the exercise. or minor, dich are obstacles to achieving exercise or operational objectives. Suggestions to rectify problems would be helpful.) f l Please return the completed questionnaire ts Thank for your seeistence.

"7M,,44 by the end of the suercies.

/ coservers Name

c. > j, i y February 1982 l PARTICIPANT SESTISMAIRE i This questionnoire is designed to help determine the properednese of your community egency, and/or department for radiological energency response, es well se to laprov l future exercise. Your opinione elll be seet helpful. thile snowering naire et the and of the exercise and return it to e TEMA observer. Indicate any defic the guestions, please be candid. il space provided between itene for your comments. ExEncisE Fr ' sv. VRasel oATE T u e3 6 s, M F3 YOLR NAlt . Toll #4 C4Ltst#4A# YOUR POSITION CAPratel-CoLotAco sterf PATRei LOCATION 6o C. CAMP G(oRGeg' ad(s7' t'I 1. EXERCISE PREPARAT1tMS Did you review your emergency responsibilities before YES % 10 _ e. the exercise? Were you owere (Jn advance) of the times that ley YES K1C b. stimulated emergency events were scheduled to accur? YE5 Y NO In your opinion, wee the scenerlo realistic? c. Did the exercise scensrio adequetely test your egency's BC Y d. YE5 emergency response systes? D' 1

e. Did the exercise adequetely test your enn YES N0 seeigned responsibilities't Do you have enough knowledge to effectively

~ YES X ND i f. carry out your radiological response seeigreent? (If not, describe any further training needed below). f 2 PLANS APO RESOURCE MATERIALS Did you participate in devel ing current Radiological N0 L YES i e. Emergency Response Plan (REF 7 YE5 V [ ' IC_ b. Are you estisfied with your curranj; RERP7

5. Did.you have access to e copy of the RERP during.the YES %

10 _ esercies?,, sotkefied with your esteriale (e.g., espe, TES (_ ND d. Are ion date, list of sheltere, traffic plane, etc.)? 1 i' O I ~

s'. '.. ~ Page 1 cf 3

3. DCRCDCY FACILITIES,'E001 PENT. #c RPPLIES Was your Emergency Operations Center (CDC) en adequate facility VES X ND_

s. for conducting a radiolo0 ca1 emergency responoe? 1 ? \\ Were comsmiestions shtens between your frecility and other YE'S % NO 4. locations adequate? I I' Were the internal constmicetions in your ElI: (asssage hedling, YES T N0_ e. j maps, status boards, etc.) adequate? 1 /4 If applicable at your location l were the evacuation assembly A d. YES NO areas (reception centers, etc. adequate? N If applit:able et your location, were supplies for evacuation YES NO s. (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) available? ll M-f. Is sufficient operational radiological annitoring equipment YES ND _ available dere needed? s 4. INTER AGENCY C00RDINATIbN APO SUPPORT Did you have adequate access to your counterparts et other. YE51 NO l a. locations? i Were needed information and decisions from other locations YES1ND_ b. reported to you promptly? Did you receive or have enough information uped,$1ch TE g g . e'. to base your decisions?,

d. Did your operation receive ad uste radiological data ftem YE5hM0 1

the utility, Local, State, or Federal Agencies? ] ll 1 ~ ~ n

q*h-b! --*-'-4 mmc.:::: z =: ;- --- -..a i ) + Page 3 of 3 f

i

5. _ComMICATION WITH PL2LIC Were you asked to provide information to a Pdlic Information f

NO N s. TES Officer? i ) ,,. ~ b. Were TV or radio receivers available at.your locution to TES NOI I locatione adequate? t Did you have access to Pelic Information releases fras gther i TES NO I e. locatione? ~ t i i d. OVERAlt. RATINGS , lease este on the scales below by circling the appropriate number. l'I Indicate the benefit of the exercies to your jurisdiction or egency in terne a. l of h 4 5 I (1) Trainino: 1 2 ,0. 'j (1) Testing: 1 2 4 5 ,1 GotB P00R V l Indicate your confidence in your organization's espability to execute radio-b. logical energency respones piene to protect the pelics, O' 1 2 3 HIGH LOW COW 10ENCE l t COW 10DCE (Please use this space, and continus on the back if necessary, to record l' 7. REMARK 5: anything you wish to add ~ebout the exercise. Include problems identified, major or minor, dich are obstacles to ethieving'esercies or operational objectives. 'I i, Suggaetions to rectify pro 61ees would be helpful.) I s Thank you for your assistence. Please return the completed questionnaire to f by the end of the exercies. Observers Name

^- ... m l. February 19R2 Page 1 of 3 PARTICIPANT SEST19mAIRE This spanetionnaire is designed to help determine the pr Future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. m ile snowering noire et the end of the exerties and return it to e FEMA aboarver. Indicate any defi the apsestions, please be condid. space provided between itses for your commente. M s'.1-RI,f S/ 6:n ann t atte15E 2 O!M I. vfr& V0tR NADE r Fv. CF e/ jf s/ s 1 f) .4 m. J V00R P051T10N y f WJ /, LEAT10N 1. D ERCISE PREPARATIONS / Did you review your energency responsibilities before W/ YE5 I a. l the exercies? / Were you sware (Jn advance) of the times that key ES V W b. stimuleted emergency evente were scheduled to occur? NO j YE5 In your opinion, was the scenario realistic? i c. Did the exercise scenario adequately test your egency's l YE5 W l d. emergency response system? L /

e. Did the exercise adequetely test your een TES V

W l eenigned responsibilities? ~ Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES W_ f. earry out your radiological response sesignment? (If not, describe any further training needed below). l f 2. PLANS APC RESOURCE MATERIALS Did you perticipate in developing current Radiological ND_/ TES e. Emergency Response Plan (RDF)? YE5 W_ Are you estisfied with your surren) RDF7 b.

h. Did.you have access to a copy of the RDF during.the VE5 ND -

emercies?,, Are you eatisfied with your esteriale (e.g., sepe, VE5 h_8 population date, list er sheltere, traffic piene, etc.)? d. e e --,-,,,,------.,w.,- --ww_,,-,-,,,.,,_ ,_m,_,,m,,,,,,--,--,__,m y---.,-,,m,,. w eg,-p

' L..' P - i.. Page 2 Ef 3 / s - e L I

3. DCWGENCY FACILITIES, E001 MENT. #C RPPLNS Was your Energerty Operations Center (EOC) en adequate facility MS N0 _

e. for conducting a radiological energency response? Were comunications sNtems between your fact 11ty and other YE'S 1/ N0_ 4. locations adequate? \\ l i / Nere the internal communications in your E E (message handling, E51N0_ c. maps, status boards, etc.) adequate? i 3 I If applicable st. your location, were the evacuation assembly YES N0 _ I d. areas (reception centers, etc.) adequate? l l1 If applicable et your location, were supplies for evaeustion E5 N0_ (e.g., cots, blankets, trenoportation, etc.) swallable? s. l Is sufficient operational radiologiesi monitoring equipment ES NO l f. L, evellable where needed? INTER.ACENCY C00RDINAT1hN APC SUPPORT 4. H

s. Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other E 51 NO,,,,,,,,,

i' locstione? Were needed information and decisions from other locations E5_ N0_ b. reported to you promptly? ~ .si Did you receive er have enough inforestion won,uhich ES,,,g/ g-g l ta base your decisions?, d. Did your operation receive es ste redislogical data from YE5 ND _ the utility, Local, State, a r Federal Agencias? 1, l O b--,

(.......i. _x ..: -2. 2

--.. _-. ;=

.

,3 7. ---.. p.. Page 3 sf 3 I [s.. -

5. CtpocNicATION WITH PLSLIC i

y-Were you ooked to provide information to e Pelie Information VES N01 s. Officer? s +.. f Were TV or radio receivere avoi161e et.your toestion to YES _ N0 b. lacetione adequate? i Did you have access to Public Information releases free other YES NO e. locations? i 6. OVERAlt. RATINGS Please rete on the scales below by circling the appropriate number. Indicate the benefit of the exercise to your jurisdiction er egency in teres e. of ij (1) Training: 1 2 3 4 5 W POOR l il (1) Testing: 1 2' 3 4 5 5) POOR M l Indicate your confidence in your organization's espebility to execute radio-b. logical emergency response piene to protect the pelics 1 2 3 4 5 4 i IGH j LOW CD NCE CO W IDECE (Please use this space, and continus on the back if necesesty, to record o Include probleme identified, major 7. REMARX5: enything you wish to add about the exercise.or minor, dich are obstacle l Suggestions to rectify problems would be helpful.-) 9 I l Please return the eenpleted questionnaire to Thank you for your assistence. by the and of the exercies. comervers Name

t*:.:.'. :' ~. ---. b--:- ... ~.. : ".. - February 1982 Page 1 of 3 PARTICIPANT REST 1tpHAIK This gaestiomeire is designed to hsIp determine the preparednese of your comunity, eGency, and/or department for radiological energency response, es well as to improve future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. Please complete the questiom m ile snowering j, noire et the and of the exercies and return it ta e FEMA abeerver. the questions, please be candid. Indicate any deficiencies you feel exist, using ,4 'I space provided betwa itene for your emmente. DATE [ N8b[A/h J EERCISE YtML NAE hl/ MNR[6 " Nd h/. M! p.rM y.. VOUR POSITION /Mcfg/* i',# / l LtX:ATION /$CP[ Mf/"/rJ@~

1. ? N 4, b

). 1. DERCISC PREPARATIONS Did you review your emergency responsibilities before WS NO e. l the exerciee7 b. Were avere (in advance) of the times that key WN E5 stinu ed energency evente vers scheduled to sceur? K5 K ND i In your spinion, wee the scenario realistic? s. d. Did the exercise scenerlo adequately test your egency's E5 N W emergency response eyeten? s Did the exercise adequately test your een E5 N W o. seeigned responsibilities?

i f.

Do you have enough knowledge to effectively N NO E5 carry out your radiological response assignaent?

l (If not, describe spy further training needed below).

0,l 2. PLANS AM RESOURCE MATERIALS Did you participate in devel ing current Radiological 21 f, E5 e. Emergency Response Plan (RDF ? E5 T ND -

b. 'Are you setlefied with your eurrent RDip?

af. Did you have access to e espy of the Kir during.the E5 j enereise?., 1 Are you setlefied with your seteriale (e.g., sepe, E5 4 _ ND d. population date, list of sheltere, traffic plane, etc.)? 1' I e l +- -u

f,'b'hWL".h~L.".$.5,h-Wtr.:Q.Mw =739 y. Page 2 er 3 s I \\

3. D_etCDCY FACILITIES, EQUIPICMT. AfD RPPLIES Was your Esergercy Operetform Center (EDC) inn adequate facility YES N ND_

s. for conducting a radiological emergency response? I 4. Were communications systems between your facility and oth2r YE'S Y NO locations adequate? ) + 1 Were the internal communleations in your EOC (asssage harWilng, e. YES ND _ maps, status boards, etc.) adequeta? i If applicable at your location, were the evacuation assembly i YES _ NO d. areas (reception centers, etc.) adequate? i i If applicable at your location, were supplies for avacuation YES NO s. (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) evellable?

1 Is sufficient operatioral radiological monitoring equipment lI f.

YES NO available where needed? f' ! INTER. AGENCY C00RDINAT!bN APC SUPPORT f' 4. Jf Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other' v e. YES /\\ N0 _ locations? -l Were needed information and dociolone from other locations E5 ND_ h. reported to you promptly? ? { .e.' Did you receive or have enough inforestion upon,et ch 4 hi g YE to base your declaions? d. Did your operation receive ad ete radiological data from NO YES the Utility, Local, State, r Federsi Agencies? 1e ll ~ - n..- j

' ~ ~ u - ; r... - _._ _ _ -.

.. e....

i Page 3 er 3 I

5. _CDOUNICATION WITH PLSLIC

~ I / Were you asked to provide information to a Pdlic Inforestion a. VES NO Offiser? Were TV or radio receivere eveilable et.your location to t. YES NO I locations adequate 7' i I Did you have access to Pelle Information releases free other e. YES N0 o lacetions? I I 6. OVERALL RATINGS ) Please rete on the scales below by circling the appropriate nueer. Indicate the benefit of the suercios to your jurisdiction or egency in terne l e. i efs (1) Trainino: 1 2 3 5 CIND POOR (1) Testing: 1 2 3 4 5 C0(D 3 POOR v Indicate your confidence in your organiastion's espebility to execute radio-il' b. logicei emergency response plans to protect the pelict l, 1 2 3 4 5 i HIGH LOW COWIDENCE COW 10DCE l['I (Please use this spece, and continus on the back if necessary, to escord REMARKS: anytMng you wish to add about the exercise.. Include probleme identified, mejor 7. , or minor, dich are abstacles to achieving exercise or operational objectives. / Suggestions to rectify probleme would be helpful.) .j YW"W f, 75 NL d. U $ Y f ~ djaga qxa o%px kWuR D"j t l y M Ak 4 gg pas on. y-:'. l '/ Please return the completed questionnetre to Ther* you for your eseistence. I by the end of the suoreise. caservere nome -,-....-.-.--,,--,,-----,--_..r- -.-.---.,.-m.---.---,,e ._.-------..-.-,.-,.49---.

.. L - -:-.G=.= . : :'.X......

h. '.*.

February 1982 s l PARTICIPANT REST 10M4 AIRE Thie questionnaire le designed to help determine the pro future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. Wille enevering l noire et the end of the exercies and return it to a FEMA observer. Indicate any defici 6 the questions, please be eendid. 1 space provided between itene for your comments. 2 l D UICISE [ah 87 lb k.d.f P DAR { TO R NAE Nard. J avitzr MedaA/OSvu MM. YOUR POSITION LEAT10N @u///t. e b /ce d'

1. DERCISE PREPARAT!WS Did you review your emergency responalbilities before YES NO X i

s. the exercies? in advance) of the times that key Were you swore ('ency events were scheduled to occur? ES Y W b. stimulated soorg YES Y_ W In your opinion, woe the scenario realistic? c. \\ Did the exercies scenario adequately test your agency's d. TES N 2 emergency response systen?

e. Did the exercies adequately test your enn YE5 M

seeigned responsibilities? Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES M ND f. carry out your radiological response assignment? (If not, describe any further training needed below). 2. PLANS APC RESOURCE MATERIALS I Did you participate in devel i eurrent Radiological 10 3 ~ YES e. Emergarry Response Plan (RDir 7 YE5 Y' IC _ Are you estisfied with your surrent RERP7 l b.

c. Did you have aceees to.a copy of the REN during the YE5 y IC_

exerciae?., setinfied with your seterials (e.g., sepe, YE5 [ ND d. Are ion date, list of shelters, traffic plane, etc.)? popu fI' ,,,,,,,,,_-,,-,..,,,-w-m,.

v ,;. ~ ~ =- ~ ---...... c.,,. - - w -.- -n ._~...., _. of L-Page 2 sf 3 o i; j'

3. DERGDCY FACILITIES EQUIPENT. APC RPPLK5 I

s. Was your Energency Operations Center (EDC) en adequets facility YES V ND_

I for conducting a radiological energency response? ., 1 4. Were communications sy'etens between your facility and other N0 YES Jocationsadequate? ~, $sab 'nture phN h f I. O. ./ Were the internal communications in your EtI: (message hgndling, s, YE5 X ND _ l s, ' meps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? e i t If applicable at your location l were the evacuation assembly YES Y No lI d. areas (reception centers, etc. adequate?

l i

If applicable at your lo:stion, were supplies for eveeustion YES Y NO l e. (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) ovailable? j 1 ~ liI f. Is sufficient operational radiological sonitoring equipment YES Y ND_ sys11eble where needed? s i h 4. INTER-AGENCY C00RDINAT!6N APC SUPPORT l 'l Did you have adequate access to your counterparts at other. a. YES ND _ locations? b. Were needed inforestion and decisions from other locations YE5 _% N0 _ tf reported to you promptly? s. ll / .e/ Did you receive or have enough inforestion pn which YES NO II to base your decisions? 1 ir d. Did your operation receive ed ate radiological data from Ygg )( NO ll the Utility, Local, State, or Federal Agencies? ~ i

1 l

en-e.. ames.== ===. n. em o e

~ _ _ _. . ;..g. L,. Page 3 of 3 ~ f I t S. Ct>MJNICATION WITH PLE.IC Were you ooked to provide inforestion to e Pdlic Information . No k e. YES Officer? b. Were TV or radio receivere evel.Itble et.your location to YES N0 locetions adequate? i Did you have eccess to P211e Information reIsames from dther T Iccations? e. YES .NO 4. OVERALL RAT!fC5 Please rete en ths scales belos by circling the appropriate number. l Indicate the benefit 9f the exercies to your jurlediction or egency in teres e. afs (1) Trainino: 1 2 3 4 G7 c00D l P0on (1) Teeting: 1 2 3 4 D M POOR v f Indiev.e your confiderce in your organization's espebility to execute radie-b. logicei seergency response piene to protect the pelica I !l 1 2 3 4 IGH LOW COTICENCE COWIDEEE (Please use this spe:e, and contirm en the back if necessary, to record 7. E MARK 5: -enyt.hing you wish to add about the exercise. Include problese identified, major er minor, dich era obstecho to achieving' exercise er operational objectives. Suggestions to rectify probless would be helpful.) ~ Ther* you for your seelstance. Please return the ecumpleted questihire to I f by the and s't the emersion. lI cheerwere Name I ) ^-

, ' - q,_ - 7. % 9, wr-t February 1982 s f Page 1 of 3 PARTICIPANT GLEST10Pe4 AIRE This gaestiomaire is designed to help determine the prepa future exercies. Your opinions will be most helpful. Please complete the question. thile enewering naire et the end of the exercise and rwturn it to e FDIA observer. Indicate any defic l the questions, please be candid. 8 space provided between itene for your caemente. 6/skl 't-0 5 4 U W fr 2 ' DATE ExCRCISE AL A/A1L5 4 ~/0M Lbo'6 Y som ewe YOUR P051r10N / F4L7M bO (_ l LOCATION l 1. EXERCISE PREPARATIONS _ Did you review your emergency responsibilities before YE5 f / NO e. the exercise? Were you more ('in advance) of the times that keystimulated emer YES E V b. YES V_ NO In your opinion, wee the scenario realletic? c. J l Did the exercise scenario adequately test your egency's y ND d. YES emergency response systen? Did the exercise adequately test your sun YES M_ e. assigned responsibilities? / V 'f Do you have enough knowledge to effectively YES

NO f.

carry out your radiological response assigneont? i .(If not, escribe any fue her tr,aining needed be ) / A/ Ot<- dyl f

2. #" "

2. Pt.ANS Am RESOURCE NATERIALS _ _ Did you participate ivi developing current Radiological ND _y YES e. Emergency Response Plan (REAP)? .~I W VES Are you satisfied with your current. RERP7 6. Did you have access to a copy of the RERP during the y ND enareise?., YES c. estinfied with your esteriale (e.g., sepe, YE5 E W-ion date, list of sheltere, traffic plane, etc.)? d. Are popu M i h

=.. j --

,. _... n,.

, ~..,,:2...... - -

Page 2 of 3 i ~ s i f DCRGENCY FACILITIES,'EQUIMENT, WO EPPLIES .}. Was your Energercy Operations Center (EOC) en adequate facility YES / NO s. far conducting a radiol ical energercy respo 7 N NfO 'l .t. Were communications systems between your facility and other locations adequate? g F C p d FCC (CbM YES V ND _ i \\ Were the internal communiestions in your EE (mess e handling, I c. YES l NO V maps, etstus boards, etc.) adequate? I If applicable at your location l were the evacuation assembly d. YES NO areas (reception centers, etc. adequate? I I l If applicable at your location, were supplies for evacuation M e. S NO (e.g., cots, blankets, transportation, etc.) available? t f. Is sufficient operational radiological monitoring equipment k YES ND _ sys11able where needed? -l .l 4. INTER.ACENCYCOORDINAT1bHAND5UPPORT

a. Did you have adequata acce6a to your counterparts at other' V

YES NO locations? l { {g s g. b. Were needed information and decisions' ftcr4 c?.her locations YES_[ND_y ~ ~ reported to you prom / g y j .s.' Did you receive or have enough inforestion upon whiett. YES g NO M*,A, to base your decisions? d. Did your operation receive ad uste radiological data from / the utility, Local, State, or'rederal Agencies? YES NO ll

I L..

l

a........_._., g, .s.. Page 3 of 3 f s t

5. C!p00NICAT10N WITH pLgLIC r

-o.Here you maked to provide information to o Pelic Information / j ES t/ N0_ j Offiser? c i l kk Were TV or radio receivers available ot.your locetion to b. ES NO i locations adequate? I l Did you have access to Public Information releases from other NO / l YES c. l' locations? a u l 4. OVERALL RATIt.5 Please rate on the scales below by circling the appropriate number. Indicate the benefit of the exercies to your jurisdiction or egency in terne o. of (1) Trainino: 1 2 3 4 5 GIXD POOR l (2) Testing: 1 2 3 4 5 g EDID POOR a Indicate your confiderte in your organization's espability to execute radio-b. logical emergency response plans to protect the public 1 2 3 4 HIGH LOW COWIDEE.E COW 1DOCE I. (Please use this space, and continue on the boek if necessary, to record Include probleme identified, major 7. REMARK 5: -onytrung you wish to add'about the exercies. or minor, dich are obetacles to achieving exercise or operational objectives. i Suggestions to rectify problems would be helpful.) l l l Please return the completed questionnstre to fo your essistence. T, by the end of the exercies. / o on.orvers nom. l .? ..a,-

...1 _y.. ..---.--~; _C.

• *C.ll ~ ~:'

gaa ~ p MNO3ANJJM } o,.primcm of Mif.iv, Affen 3 f'. 4$ DIVISION OF DISASTER EMERGENCY SERVICES s, AGENCIES IN THE FT. FT. VRAIN STATE RADIOIIGICAI, s ;, '.".. TO: EMFm3CY RESPONSE PIAN. ,J,,Q;4 FROM: WII.I.IAM S. MARTIN ochee o team %.sg: e.w. TUBJtCT: FT. ST. VRAIN RERP ANN'.'AI, EXEP"'SE m, ; c. inh,. t. s.,. sn. s: se.,a DATE: MAY 21, 1982 n'^.',..'*"" 'the Division of Disaster Dnercemcy Sc- ?aa- 'MDES), together with the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power Generation Station of P.thlic Service Cornpany of Color do, will conduct an exercise of the State Radiological Dnergency Response Plan (RERP) for Fort St. Vrain (April 1980) on Thursday, June 3,1982. t l The objectives of the exercise are as follows: 1. Demonstrate that response organizations can alert and notify emergency response persc~el. 2. Demonstrate that emergency response facilities (i.e., Technical Support Center, Personnel Control Center, Executive Command Post, Forward Command post, and the ' State EOC) can be staffed in a timely' fashion. 3. Demonstrate that the teleconmunications systems can be manned and operated in a timely manner and that the systems are adequate to handle the anticipated traffic during site emergency conditio:.s. 4. Demonstrate that the incident assessment staff can l perform assigned tasks rrlated to assessment and that timely decisions c4w be maf.e concerning incident category and appropriate res;onse for the result-t category. (Additional emphasis will be placed on field assessment). 5. Demonstrate that implementation, procedures have been established for the early warning system (NOAA Weather Radio), METS, and the EBS System. ~ 6. Demonstrate the cap.bility to prepare coordin.ted public information materials at both the State EOC and the i Forward Comma-# Post based,on the infornation available -during the course of the exercise. lr j Att.achment 10 I I.

w*w 1.__. r..., =3 -._. m i. t D'."**** 7. Demonstrate that plant operations and support personnel respond to the emergency situation utilizing emergency i procedures to mitiga.e the consequences of the incident. e The exercise will be conducted within the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., but the exact starting time is not being announced. The critique for representatives of the principal participating agencies will be held from 10 a.m. to noon at the Ft. St. Vrain Visitor Center g y near Platteville, on Friday, June 4, 1982. All agencies, Federal, State & Iceal C vernment, as well as schools { s private relief organizations which have emergency roles to play 6 are encouraged to participate in the exercise to the extent that the above objectives will involve t2em in the exercise play. Also they are encouraged to take this exercise as an opportunity to review their plane. checklists, callup lists and operr. ting procedures to assure readiness for a real la-' dent at Ft. St. Vrain should it occur. i SI erely, 9 .hf ?"f.]. l Willie . Martin Exercise Controller I ~ l WSMrgcc v 1 i b, s a 1 1 I . 0 4 e

,l t q.,. -:.-i ? Cc:.. :

W Ddonde

~~ l ( 16805 WCR 19 1/2, Platteville, Colorado 80651 I May 24, 1982 Fort St. Vrain l Unit #1 i P-82158 Mr. J. P. Byrne, Director Department of Military Affairs Division of Emergency Services Camp George West Golden, CO 80401

SUBJECT:

FOSAVEX 82 i

Dear Mr. J. P. Byrne:

I have attached a copy of the guidelines that we will be utilizing to 'l conduct the exercise. These guidelines also establish the critique schedule for 10:00 am. June 4,1982, at the Visitor's Center.

l I believe we have discussed all other facets of this year's exercis.e

'I at various meetings. I want to express y thanks to you and all the State people as well as the Weld County people for the cooperation .l received and efforts expended in preparing for the exercise. j Very truly yours, 'l i ./hN-WPVw h -[ Don W. Warembourg Manager, Nuclear Production Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station DWW/skd -- Attachment eri ndrews Paul Alley L gj;j jo ggj Al Hazie U* M m, ;n r--- ) FEMA REGION Vlli ( '\\ l l' .. $ e t 4 = (4y-INSURANCE & MITIGATION Attachme.nt 10

L. La.-~.;,.L.,n-. ike_- -- + .;_ w=_C Q.".*2.."_ _.w.- - L-t..- S. INTiR-DEPARTMENT MEMD - PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO pPC-82-2004 i' DATE: May 19, 1982 l l TO: Distribution FROM: Don W. Warembourg, Manager, Nuclear Production, FSV I 1 ATTN: i i SUBJ: RADIOLOGICAL EXERCISE 1982 The next exercise for our radiological response plarf' has been scheduled for June 3,1982. As nearly as possible, we plan to begin on site activities for the exercise beginning at 8:00 am. and I would anticipate completion of the exercise by 3:00 pm. I Given the scenario which we have developed and the logistical l requirements of plant operations as well as other routine activities, the following guidelines will apply to this year's exercise: 1. Road blocks (those to be established initially by PSC) will not be set up (only simulated). The PCC personnel, however, sh*3uld determine their capability in terns of people and material to accomplish establishment of road blocks. 2. Deliveries and routine visitations to the plant will be allowed during the exercise sr> as to minimize impact on operations and schedules of non-company personnel. l 3. All personnel will initially participate in the exercise unless their specific duties at the time prevent participation. Any personnel excused from participation must have the approval of plant management prior to 8:00 am. on June 3, except as indicated in Item 5 below. 4. After initial rt.sponse to emergency stations, personnel accountability etc.,'all personnel not actually involved in manning the command posts will be' told to return to work via announcement over the plant public address system. I anticipate ' that personnel will be returned to work within 60 to 90 minutes of' initiation of the exercise. After this initial period routine plant access and activities can be continued. ~ 5. The P1 ant Manager, Superintendent of Dperations, or Shift Supervisor can excuse any person from participation in the I exercise either before or during the exercise if that person is ~ l needed to respond to actual plant activities. 6. The Visitor's Center will participate in the initial portion of the exercise in that the center is established to receive personnel from the site. Beyond this condition, the Visitor's ll Center will not participate in terms of evacuation of visitor's i etc. Attachmt.nt 10 l

Y.:', c' =nq =+ -%--

N ---.

Y,_ _ Y ___ _ _--- -...._, . --;- A_ May 19, 1982 2 PPC-82-2004 t l 7. We do not anticipate a great deal of interface with the Executive Command Post (ECP)..Therefore, the Director of the ECP may at his discretion reduce the normal complement of the ,ECP after personnel accountability and initial establishment of the command post and the communications systems. 8. For your general information. I have attached the scope and objectives of the exercise. 9. Following the exercise the critique schedule has been established as follows: A. 7:30 am. June 4,1982 Visitor's Center PSC Internal Critique l B. 10:00 am. June 4,1982 Visitor's Center Combined Critique, State, Local, FEMA, NRC C. 1:30 pm. June 4,1982 Visitor's Center NRC Critique, for PSC. The Plant Managers, Command Post Directors, and the Clerical people involved with keeping logs should attend the critiques, although any of the Command Post participants may attend as their work schedule might dictate.. g 7Y WL*2=& Don W. Warembourg gy" DW/skd ' Dist: All FSV Supervisor's Directors / Alternates all Command Posts .L.- / e 9 e 0 m .=

• ,.../*

. ~ < -... 1 Page 10 - Mocky Mountain Noirs, Denver, Colo. 'Frkley, June 4,198i S t. Vr ai n.... :i r....+ .(' "9 '**. ' . y, ;c (f ~ s ~ radio dril

/. -

m., ' - f ~ 's, goes awry - ), . By JDi MANGETT. e' q.;,;. y som aus 'FLATTEVII.1X,i A tout of emnergemey procedures at the Fort st vrain anclear power plant backfired Thursday whom a ' l radio system designed to alert area rest- . dents failed because of "hannas errur." l A National Weather Service IWar forgot to press the bettee that activates f, recaos la 1.100 PlattertDe bornes and best-asenes, said John P. Byrne, directer of the 1 state Dtvisnoe of Disaster Sar- ) vtces, which conducts the aan i ~ "It was human error," as Byrne. "There are a lot of red faces at the Weath-ll er Service." - i

• lt was se arver en my parL for est

,1 making sure everybody knew what to es," said Maurice Pasta, meteorologist in. charge of.the Naticeal Weather serv 6ce's Denver office. "Therg was a breakegwe km i comrnunicatkees.* I i The broadcaster, whom officials rufened l to ident2fy, read a spessage at 9 a at de-sertbing the lake emergency at the Pubhe Service Co. reactor, but sew Plattevuld I I reandeota heard it becpese of the geef. Byrne sakL. i The message, which included hustree, tjoes to remais ladoors, was repeated at - Il 45 am after the activator buttaa had been pushed The alert system worked car. - rectly thea, Byrne sant Should the systeen fall dartag a real emergency, reandents would be saformed immediately by authorttken going dear.to-f door, said Publie service On. - ^ _. i s an Mardy McAdams. l PSC installed the redlas in ponnes and businesses within a fivHn11e rodas ei the g plant at the request of the Nuclear Regula. g tory Commission, McAdarns said.1hs was.,, 'g the first test of the radias, she sait I Other then the alert system, Byrne pro-. p acanced the test a success. la Plattertile, a tiny farmlag comunuse-ty four aules from the plant,many people took little motice of the test.

• It's a lot of heresucretti:W,* emid and

. "I des't k ' redte f James Mar owner of Margas s Drug e in That plant hans't emy-and M was1. Nehedy here warreas shootit" Said Postmaster Margaret Dmyts, "It dosso't hether une that the radio didn't so eff when 14 was supesed tot When the ; ' good Emed deckles it a og ture to go,l'un ~ .I .P Che'et Harold Otero amid he was.* te go. radio er met concerned when the radio at Tows Rail was suent durtag the 9 ais alert."There's always a passalmitty ammethlag reeM go. wrong there," he said "We'd west le baser as asse as possible." - No one called the power plant to amm. pla4 P3C off6cials said. The muuty had retmied the meet that H le=taff the rednes, u, said. The unigee nature af te teMus.. i cooled Fort 84. Vrain plant psevents as serious accadest that wenM paquire Isnme,, enate evacuation, she sait l "We felt they weren't ascemary,*.'she enkL "We feel confident we eseld eustart through strees and (by estag) deer'- , although these de prevede aesther O measure of errealty and peace of amind." NRC eswomas Clare Males anM the radies aussonal *1e teu people what is - l am u there is a esed to esserm ' I yee have te know there in a mesehe,44 ~ ~ 4fWpW40ss94sMgWMWIfdMMfe4WeeWWl. .... - -. ~.. V Attachunun ,}}