ML20092P750

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supplemental Testimony of Pf Cosgrove & Jl Fakler on Contentions 39,40,41,44,98,99 & 100 Re Training of Offsite Emergency Response Workers.Related Correspondence
ML20092P750
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 07/09/1984
From: Cosgrove P, Fakler J
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8407090336
Download: ML20092P750 (87)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:6]% 3~N Oss.D f N A i N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ l .,4 'A . F" - o Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Roard ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Emergency Planning) Unit 1) ) ) ) SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY INSPECTOR PETER F. COSGROVE AND LIEUTENANT JOHN L. FAKLER ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING CONTENTIONS 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 AND 100 - TRAINING OF OFFSITE EMERGENCY RESPONSE WORKERS 0. Please state your names and occupations. A. My name is Peter F. Cosgrove. I am a Deputy Inspector in the suffolk County Police Department and hold the position of Executive Officer of the Third Precinct. Until January 15 of this year, I was the Conimanding Officer of the Suffolk County Police Academy. My name is John L. Fakler. I am a Lieutenant in the Suf folk County Police Department and hold the position of Commanding Officer of Media services. i F

  • f lh

. Ng@ ce T)go

l I Our professional qualifications are contained in our previously filed testimony on Contentions 34, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 100. Q. Since your testimony was filed on April 2, 1984, have you received additional information which bears upon the issues raised in Contentions 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 1007 A. Yes. It is our understanding that, subsequent to the filing of our testimony on April 2, 1984, LILCO was ordered by the Licensing Board to produce copies of critique and evalua-tion forms that had been completed by controllers and observers I of four LERO drills and/or exercises. Wo have been informed that those controller / observer comments were produced by LILCO I on or about June 1, 1984, and that such comments represent the l only drill /exercino comments by LILCO controllers and/or ob-servorn that have been retained by LILCO or its training con-sultants. Based upon our review of the documents produced, it j apnears that we have been provided with comments from a training drill held in llovember, 1983 and another training drill held in January, 1904. We have also been provided comments from two exercises hold in February, 1984. We have reviewod these documents and, in our opinion, they raise sig-nificant concerns about the adequacy of the LILCO drill and exercise program. 2-

l I Q. What are these conc 2rns? A. First, we are concerned about the lack of briefings and the adequacy of the briefingt. that have been held both j prior to and during LILCO's drills and exercises. Such l briefings, during an actual emergency at Shoreham, would be of i i crucial importance and would, for example, provide a way of keeping LERO personnel informed shout such matters as the i status of the emergency, radiological and meterological i conditions, and the general progress of the emergency response. Therefore, it is important that during training drills and ex-l ercises, briefings be held and that such briefings be realistic l and adequate in scope. Numerous comment sheets, however, noted i that briefings were not held and that those which were held i i { were frequently inadequate. f 1 O. Is it your opinion that emergency workers must be i i constantly kept advised as to all do?. ails of the emergency and the actions taken in response to the emergency? t A. No. However, emergency workers should be kept ap-prised of the overa11' status of the emergency and the plant i conditions, and they should be knowledgeable about the general j i j progress of the emergency response. In addition, it is i essential that emergency workers be kept fully informed about

all emergency conditions that bear upon their particular emergency jobs. For example, radiological monitoring personnel would need to be aware of wind direction and other me-terological conditions, just as LILCO's traffic guides would need to be kept advised about traffic conditions. The importance of timely and adequate briefings of emer-gency response personnel is emphasized by the LILCO Plan. For example. the LILCO Plan specifies that it is the responsibility of the Staging Area Coordinators to establish and maintain functional staging areas. (See OPIP 2.1.1). It is not possi-ble, however, for the staging areas to function adequately if the amargency workers assigned to the staging areas do not have prompt and accurate information. Such information is provided by briefingst if such briefings are adequate, emergency workers will be better able to perform their tasks ef fectively and in the manner envisioned by the LILCO training program. For this reason, it is important that training drills and exercisos include realistic and adequate briefings of trainees. Without such hrlofings, drill and exercise participants are precluded from having an opportunity either to interact with other emer-gency workers or to drill their job skills in a meaningful manner. - -

c_-_________ From our review of the drill / exercise comments produced by LILCO, it appears that problems in briefing emer-gency personnel / trainees occurred at every drill and exercise. For example, during the November, 1983 drill, drill control-l 1 lors/ observers commented that " periodic updates were not performed." One observer indicated that training personnel i " generally performed below expectations," and that "(t]here were deficiencies of a significant nature." This same observer commented simply as follows: "Not the right info [rmation] at r the right time." Similarly, during the January drill, observ-l ers noted that sone briefings were " slow, late, [and) inaccu-rate," and also " lacked details." It was also noted that the bus driver dispatcher briefing "did not address current plant status / radiological status." Oriefings continued to be a problem during the two February exercises for which we were provided comments by LILCO. The first exercise, held on February 8, was character-ir.ed by numerous comments from observers about the lack of briefings. For example, observers wrote that there was "no general emergency briefing at (the Port Jefferson staging area)", and "(nlo general plant briefings for LERO field workers." In addition, there were comments that "(nlo radio-logical information was given to people going out to the

r field." It was also observed that " people [were] not informed [of the] potential plume path and radiation levels at all." In fact, of the 14 completed critique / evaluation forms commenting on the performance of participants assigned to the LILCO staging areas during the February 8 exercise, seven indicated that personnel going into the field were not properly briefed as to the potential plume path and radiation levels. In addition, six of these forms also noted that field personnel were not properly briefed as to protective action recommenda-tions. Only two of the forms indicated that field personnel had been properly briefed in both areas. This pattern of problems with briefings continued during the second February exercise, Which was held on February 15. As before, observers commented primarily on the lack of briefings. For example, one observer noted that there were "[n]o briefings relative to plant status or radiological conditions," While another observer commented that "[s]taging area personnel (dosimetry) were not briefed regarding emergency ^ status, protective actions, plume travel -- other than status board posting. This is not enough." .In addition, it was noted that "[b]riefings as to radiological conditions [were] poor." H In fact, the briefings ~were so poor that one observer noted the following: " Traffic guides were given what meteorological

O [and] plant status data displayed on status board but road crews, [ route] spotters [and route] alert drivers [were] not given this data in briefings. This is a deficiency." (Emphasis in original.) From the foregoing, it is clear that problems with briefings have persisted in every drill and exercise held by LILCO. The comments quoted and the critique / evaluation forms from which these comments were taken are appended to this tes-timony as Attachment 1. In our opinion, it is likely that the consistent failure of LILCO's briefings to provide drill and exercise participants with adequate and accurate information will significantly and adversely effect the ability of LILCO's i emergency response personnel to develop an accurate understand-ing of LILCO's overall emergency response effort. In addition, in our opinion it is likely that the inadequate nature of LILCO's briefings have foreclosed LERO trainees from having an adequate opportunity to practice the particular jobs required of them under the LILCO Plan. This is a serious deficiency of the LILCO training program. l I Q. Have the drill / exercise comments reviewed by you re-vealed any other problems with LILCO's training program? A. Yes. There are comments and critiques from each of the drills and exercises noting significant problems with radio users being unfamiliar with proper radio language, radio proto-col and general communications techniques. These areas are ob-viously important, since a good command of radio protocal, lan-guage and communications techniques would be necessary for there to be adequate communications among emergency response personnel during a Shoreham emergency. In our opinion, the persistent pattern of problems in these areae is therefore of significant concern. A sampling of the problems revealed in the training documents we have reviewed is set forth below and is appended to this testimony as Attachment 2. During the November 1983 drill, for example, observ-ers noted a "real need for radio training for communicators." One observer, in critiquing two communicators, commented as follows: " poor radio technique in 1 case, fair in the other." Some observers noted that LILCO's communicators were "unfamil-iar with radio jargon" and one observer noted that "communica-tors had varying degrees of expertise with radios . more and better radio training [needed]." Similarly, during the i

January drill, it was noted that LILCO's " traffic guides need[ed] more exposure" to radios to learn appropriate communi-cation techniques and that the " communicators need[ed] to-review [ radio] jargon." These problems continued during the February exer-cises. For example, during the February 8 exercise, some ob-servers noted that "[b]etter radio protocol practices [were] needed" and that "[g]eneral radio protocol training is needed." In addition, when asked whether radio communications were easi-ly understood, an observer commented as follows: "Not easily. A lot of walkover, some static. Poor radio etiquette." (Emphasis in original.) Radio language, or " jargon," was also a problem in the February 8 exercise. For example, in one case traffic guide and traffic controller had a simulated a " problem" to solve and radioed in 'for instructions. There were no further communications, and 30 minutes later both the traf-fim guide and the controller were instructed to come in from the field. After arrival, the traffic controller learned for the first time that the radio room had been trying to reach them in the field with instructions on solving their problem. The controller concluded that this mishap was caused in part by the fact that "no uniform [ radio] language [was] being used." l

During the February 15 exercise, problems with the use of radios persisted._ " Poor radio protocol and etiquette" were observed again, as were examples of exercise participants " joking and laughing around." (This problem had also been noted in the February 8 exercise). For example, one observer commented as follows: "Too many traffic guides were calling the base in rapid succession without waiting for the base to respond to the first caller. This is either' lack of courtesy on the air (or fooling around by the drivers) or lack of knowledge in the use of the airways. Perhaps better training in the use of radios is req [uired]." In our opinion, the problems noted above are symptomatic problems which underscore the inadequate training.given to LERO workers in.the area of radio communications and usage. As a result, it is likely that the emergency response personnel relied upon by LILCO have not been properly trained to communi-cate effectively via radios,-and therefore cannot be expected to respond to an emergency at Shoreham in the coordinated -manner necessary to ensure an adequate and effective emergency response. -

O. Have the training documents reviewed by you revealed any other concerns regarding the communications training pro-vided by LILCO? A. Yes. In January and February there were problems with the radio equipment used in the training drills and e>.ercises. For example, field personnel were not always provided with the appropriate radio equipment, and in many cases they were not given radios at all. Most of LILCO's emergency perscnnel do not use radio equipment in their daily jobs, and even those that do use such equipment do not use it under emergency conditions on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, it is important for the LILCO drill and exercise participants to be given some " hands on" experience with the equipment they will be expected to use in an actual emergency at the Shoreham plant. Without such experience, it is unrealistic to expect LILCO's emergency workere to be able to perform adequately during an actual emer-gency. A sampling of those comments concerning problems with LILCO's radio equipment (including the unavailability of such equipment) is provided below and is appended to this testimony as Attachment 3. During the January drill, for example, it.was noted that LILCO road crews were dispatched from the Riverhead - 11

l staging area with " Channel 3 radios, but [Riverhead] can only monitor Channel 10." In addition, observers noted a " lack of radios by field personnel" and a need for " radios for road . crews. During the February 8 exercise, an observer in LILCO's communications room commented that there was "not enough communications equipment in [the] communications room to handle [a] real emergency." Another observer noted that there was probably "not enough radios for the purpose of this exer-cise." During the February 15 exercise, problems with an in-sufficient number of radios continued. For example, one ob-server noted that " road crews [were] supposed to have multi-band radios, which were not available." Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that segments of the LERO organization have not been provided an opportunity to use and practice with the radio equipment they would be ex-pected to use during an emergency at the Shoreham plant. In our opinion, this is a serious deficiency of the LILCO training program. 0 - l N 1: +

O. Have you discovered any other problems with the LILCO training program from your review of the drill / exercise comments provided by LILCO? A. Yes. One area of particular concern was revealed by our review of critique / evaluation forms prepared by observers assigned to LILCO's Emergency Worker Decontamination Facility ("EWDF"). The EWDF was activated during the January and February drills and exercises and, during all three training a opportunities, there was evidence of " sloppy performance" by the LILCO personnel given responsibility for performing monitoring and decontamination duties under the LILCO Plan. This " sloppy performance" by LILCO's monitoring and decontamination workers is not surprising, since monitoring and decontamination skills are not the kind of job skills performed by LILCO workers on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, LILCO's training program must be of sufficient quality to provide individuals unfamiliar with the tasks of monitoring and decontaminating personnel (and vehicles) with the ability to perform adequately. Based on our review of the training documents provided by LILCO, however, it must be concluded that the training given to LILCO's monitoring and decontamination personnel has. failed to teach such personnel their jobs. A sampling of the critique / evaluation comments which lead to this l l,

o 4 0 conclusion is set forth below and appended to this testimony as. During the January drill, for example, it was noted that "[t]he monitoring personnel were scanning people a little too rapidly and they sometimes neglected to monitor the person's feet It was not until after a number of persons had been monitored that the monitoring personnel at the EWDF fell into a pattern and scanned more properly "although still a little too rapidly." Even then, however, they "ne-glected to fully question [a contaminated] person to find out his/her [ field] location. Also they neglected to tell the peo-ple ajacent [ sic] to them that they had a contamination problem." During the February 8 exercise, it was noted that "[d]osimetry people were acting confused about what to do." The controller therefore had to instruct such persons to read the appropriate sections of LILCO's procedures. In addition, as had hapnened during the January drill, it was again noted 4 that monitcri;.g a.1d decontcmination personnel " monitored too fast." It was also noted that they " rushed the thyroid count." In one instance, an observer commented that the decontamination worker " held the probe too far away;" in another instance, it was noted that "some items were touched but not monitored." 14 - I l r ,. + -

e During the February 15 exercise, problems with LILCO's monitoring and decontamination personnel persisted. For example, some observers commented that " monitors were slop-py" and that there was some " sloppy performances." In addition, one observer noted that "[d] econ [tamination] monitors need more training. They were monitoring poorly. " This same I observer noted that, in one instance, "the Decon[tamination] Coord[inator] sent a person to the hospital . without doing decon[tamination]." In our opinion, this pattern of problems is very signifi-cant and raises serious concerns about the adequacy of the LILCO training program. As noted by one observer, "there was the possibility for cross-contamination the way [EWDF workers] 1 were handling monitoring." Taken together, the problems noted during the January and February drills and exercises indicated a significant failure on the part of the LILCO training program to teach adequately the LERO monitoring and decontamination personnel how to perform their emergency jobs.- i i O. Have the critique / evaluation comments reviewed by you also indicated problems with drill / exercise ~ participants not checking their personal dosimetry equipment during the drills and exercises? I l 15 - l f.

o A. Yes. During the February exercises, many of the participants did not check their dosimetry equipment. Checking dosimetry readings is of obvious importance during a radio-logical emergency and must be practiced during training drills and exercises so that it becomes "second nature" to each LERO worker's routine. Notwithstanding the importance of dosimetry checking, there were numerous comments from both the February 8 and the February 15 exercises in which dosimetry checks were not taken by the exercise participants. For example, one observer at the February 8 exercise noted that the participants "did not check their dosimetry." The same observer also commented that he "did see one [ participant] check his dosimetry once. The others I did not see check at all during the 2 1/2 hrs [I was] out [at] the transfer point." Another observer at the February 8 exercise noted that "the transfer control point coordinator I was with never checked his dosimeter readings." Similarly, during the February 15 exercise, traffic guides and a transfer point coordinator were observed not to take periodic checks of 1 their dosimetry equipment. At this exercise, another observer noted' that "in the field [,] personnel exposures were not checked. This is a habit that should be broken." . 3

O The above examples, which are appended to this testimony as Attachment 5, indicate a problem that could have serious consequences for individual workers during an actual emergency involving an offsite release. LILCO must therefore emphasize, during training, the importance of checking dosimeters, so that this practice becomes part of each worker's emergency job rou-tine. Based on the comments reviewed, it must be concluded that LILCO has placed insufficient emphasis and importance on this aspect of each worker's emergency response function. O. Have the drill / exercise comnents reviewed by you dis-closed any other problems with LILCO's training program? A. Yes. Although there are many other problems that could be discussed, we will conclude this testimony by expressing our concerns about the fact that many of LILCO's own observers / controllers (including those supplied to LILCO by its training consultants) apparently believe that they have not been adequately prepared to be observers / controllers. Obvi-ously, if training drills and exercises are to provide a way to assess the adequacy of a training program (as LILCO claims), it is extremely important that there be enough observers and that i they be properly briefed so that they can properly determine if the activity they are observing is being done correctly. In 3 ! L'

i t e i l this regard, LILCO's training program has not met with success. Our opinion with respect to the inadequacy of briefings / preparation of LILCO's observers / controllers are il-lustrated by the following sampling of comments. These comments are appended to this testimony as Attachment 6. During the January drill, for example, one observer noted the following: For future drills, controllers will need to be better briefed. To prevent the miscommunications which occurred early at the EOC. It is unacceptable to brief fellow controllers at different locations on how events are to occur 15 minutes on the day before the drill. This unfamil-iarity caused confusion amongst the partic-ipants and also created inconsistencies in procedural useage [ sic]. Similarly, during one of the February exercises, an observer commented that " Impel observers (were) not briefed or knowl-edgeable enough on procedures," while another observer noted that there were "not sufficient observers." With inadequate briefings and insufficient staffing of ob-servers, it is impossible to determine whether or not all problems with the LILCO training program have been identified. For example, it is possible that observers who were not ade-quately briefed did not comment on significant problems because 18 -

they were not fully cognizant of the procedures and the drill / exercise scenarios. Nevertheless the problems which we have discovered by reviewing the critigtm/ evaluation comments provided by LILCO give rise to serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the LILCO training program and, for this reason, we have prepared this supplemental testimony. O. Please summarize your conclusions. A. The documents provided by LILCO regarding the LILCO drills and exercises conducted to date (and for which LILCO has retained documentation) lead to the following conclusions. First, numerous comments from all drills and exercises demon-strate that there has been a lack of briefings and that i briefings that have been held have of ten been inadequate. Second, there have been significant problems with LILCO's training with respect to radio communications. These problems have included problems in the areas of radio language, eti-quette and general radio technique. In addition, not all trainees have had the appropriate radio equipment to practice with during the LILCO drills and exercises. Third, LILCO's l EWDF workers have not received sufficient training to perform i adequately their monitoring and decontamination responsibilities under the LILCO Plan. Fourth, LILCO's 4 i I I l

e T personnel have not been trained adequately to check their dosimetry equipment. Finally, LILCO's own observ-ers/ controllers (including those supplied to LILCO by its 1 training consultants) have not always been adequately prepared to judge the conduct and performance of the trainees under their observation and supervision. 1 Individually, it could be argued that these concerns may be correctable; similarly, in some cases, it could be asserted that the problems are not that significant. Taken as a whole, I however, the concerns and problems discussed in this testimony indicate significant problems with LILCO's training program. While one might expect such problems during early drills, we believe that, by this time, steps should have been taken to i correct and remedy them. This has not been the case, however, leading us to conclude that the LILCO training program has failed to recognize and deal adequately with problems.

Indeed,

] in some cases, problems have actually become worse. Drills and exercises should be learning experiences both for the trainees / participants and for those in charge of the training 1 program. It is apparent that, in LILCO's case, those in charge have not learned from their experiences, and, as a result, ~ I LILCO has failed to adapt its training program to correct problems either when they first occur, or even over time. i t [ _n e m

O 9 O. Does this conclude your testimony? A. Yes. i, J l 1

wwe .ww A O e i ATTACHMENT 1 [ 1 t i h

Area Evaluated Monitors Ratina 11/83 G. Access Control l. Was an appropriate acces.s control 5h3 2 1 N*O* .l posture established? 2. Eas there an identifiable system imple-5h3 2 1 N*O* .4 mented that effectively identified 7 /$d$': authroized personnel within the facNity? .. Wy H. Su= ary.. 1. Describe any problems noted by the area being evaluated. Provide a description.cf the problem, its outcome or effect and any reco= mended corrective courses of action to alleviate or - correct the deficiency. Any of the previously listed areas that receive an evaluation grade of 2 or 1 require a written e::planation on this page. pc/ plNW Aild fE - 'f guco & e

  1. f Woifr b-a.A-A A f l f Y A gQ M

^~ sl4JA.#4 W8Nsuf* w '.n w., % W. 4-s fi$',,s c.;cadn a8 t.J/fb,f +~ 2 x. ~ ~ C~ y Al /M l/v ,/c' g.z} ' J am. j 'M f W b /"

f. S~)

/ ./ y )- sebo Y N / ~f-he p.,, p & " + P ") ( iLPtw e2so m g 'B af* ... di k h h Sb$ '?>%#"%. M?iM-Wh5;P7 M/4/n [ T o \\ LEfil uat s T g~ nature / Date ~~ l chi N WWW-W 4dg+ -Jo-m p s--{. w 4 Page 94 of.109 t

g m e- ' - su ou Drill Evaluation j. Area Evaluated Monitors Rating A. Activation and Resoonse d g h4 3 2 1 N.O. l. Was the activation / initiation efficient and organized? 2. Were personnel familiar with their - 5 4 3 2 1 N.O.

  • :- -T.]

- % =ue '4 responsibilities and respond in a timely manner? 3. Was the person in charge clearly 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. identifiable? 4. Was the transfer of responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1 H.O. k acco=plished effectively and efficiently? b ~ S. Comunications Shl\\rw y 2O1 N.O. pp a g-1. Here all required and specified 5 4 3 F cc:=nunications circuits operable? 2. Were personnel familiar with communi-5 3 2 1 H.O. cations available and the intended use of each? 3. Here there sufficient personnel 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. to conduct co=munications tasks? 4. Was incoming infom '. ion effectively 5 l3 2 1 N.O. I and efficiently distributed to appro-A)0 % M S -.4-priate personnel? l' n # & 5. Were periodic updates made by the 5' 4 3 N.O. senior individual? Sh 6. Were accurate co=unication logs kept? 5 4 '3 2 1 H.O. '7. Were the status boards properly 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. r-J. -4 No hn f ^'Oed utilized and updated? S. Did individuals in charge spend an inor-5 14 3 2 1 N.O. dinate amount of time on comunications, such that their attention was diverted from the incident? (No = 5, Yes = 1 ) Page 91 of 109 e

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ Evelection 5tcndards "5" E:cellent - Personnel and equip =:nt always functioned without crror. There were no prcble=s encountered end all personnel and .,cquip=2nt functioned et a superior level. "4" Good - Per:ennel and equipment generally performed as expected. Any errors or problems were minor and did not detract from . ]4,. co=pletion of the task. ',Z. ;;.. ~' .'? "3" -Sctisfactory - Personnel and equip:nent perfo'n=ed at an acceptable level. Errors noted were not severe and co=pletion of the task " as cchieved within acceptable limits. t; i "2" Peor - Personnel end equipment generally performed below expec-i tations. There were deficiencies of a si nificant nature. The D i creas cbility to carry out its function was diministied. "1" Fcilure - Personnel and equip =2nt consistently failed to perfonn ~ as required. Acceptable completion of the task was not achieved. H. O. I'ot Observed 4 i i l l

1/84 Evcluctica St:ndards

  • 5*

Excellent - Personnel and equiptent always functioned without crror. There eere no prcble=s encountered cnd cil personnel and cquip:2nt functioned at a :uperior level. s "4" C-ood - Per:ennel and equipment generally perfomed as expected. Any errors or probic=s were minor and did not detract from .'f co=pletion of the task. ....,,..q., '3" -Sctisfactory - Personnel and equip =ent perfomed at an acceptable level. Errors noted were not severe and co=pletion of the task tras cchieved within acceptaole limits.

  • 2" Peor - Personnel and equipment generally performed below expec-tc: ions. There were deficiencies of a significent nature. The creas cbility to carry out its function was diminished.

"1" F:flure - Personnel and equip:2nt consistently failed to perfom as required. Acceptable cc pletion of the task was not achieved. R. O. I:ot Observed (kd (CS ~ cq. % y sfeeg,, { osIrr<r)e J wace s w/[17 '8 h e - a)&qcd As -en a e p. J <aasret 0 w-- eNL ra Ce n(lg Glnn \\n i \\ ( e 2, 7TO f4 T 6c( 1 = d

e /.rce Evtlueted F.onitors Ratino 2hN.O. /Jo c H Se,* 4, 2. Did persennel check to ensure that all g-5 4 3 equipment eas available end functional es yc4pg g,g carly in the cetivation process? 3. If equipment was inoperable or failed 5 4 3[2)1 W.O. in use, eere appropriate actions taken V

  • a resolve the deficiency?

(spares / .9 bcekup equipment)

  • - '. %f 4.

Here there cny situations in which the h4 3 2 1 N.O. Icet of equipment, or a lack of ability to operate tne equipment, prevented per-l sonnel from completing their tasks? (No = 5, Yes = 1) If so, please indicate detail s. 2 h N.O. "fA 5. Here there cny situations in which 5 4 3 cdditional equipment or materials, or

UJWM, different types of equipment could have made the cetivity more effective?

(No = 5 Yes = 1) If so, please indi-cete detail s. 2hN.O. 5. Could the area support the personnel 5 4 3 .cssigned to it? 2hN.O. 7. Were there sufficient resource materials 5 4 3 readily available to support the conduct of the response? (maps, reference docu-cents, copies of plans and procedures, data sheets, e*c. ) F. Protective Measures 2hN.O. 1. Were appropriate protective measures 5 4 3 implemented for response personnel? 2 h N.O. 2. Did personnel oronerly wear protective 5 4 3 clothing andfosimetry3 1 4h2 1 N.O. 8CifN4f 3. Were appropriate radiological practices 5 4% Ace p Emane. observed? 4. Were field personnel kept apprised of h4 3 2 1 W.O. radiological conditions? _I 2hN.O. 4l 5. Were response activities ccnducted with 5 4 3 regard for personnel safet/, consistent trith the need to co:plete the activity? ...- -...y

DRILL COMMINTS Riverhead Staging Area C ___.:nications : 1. Staging Area radio does not have call letters on set. 2. .Riverhead is dispatching raod c:.evs with Channel 3 radios but can only monitor Channel 10. ' '3. No @ritten =echanis= to dete==ine status of traffic control points dispatched vs. =anned. 4 Cc_.:nicatiens links were not fully utilired; a lot of EOC l cc.__.:nicatiens were by radio instead of phone. Problen - in Riverhead the radio and dedicated line are nex: to each other. J 5. Proble: vi h IOC ove riding the traffic guides en radio. 6. Sc=e traffic guides faint in receivinE radio trans=issiens inadvertently cut off other guides in the process of trans=itting. Bus Drivers: 1. Triu=ph Bus Cc=pany could not be found. 2. Standardize instructions for. recording times =ilitary vs. regular. 3. Bus Driver Dispatcher briefing (2 minutes) asked for volun:eers to drive routes. 3riefing did not address current plant status /raciological status. i 4 Proble= - not all drivers had vehicles. ~ 5. Teedback en =aps - the spirals. vere too s=all, the =aps are ce=ing apart. 6. Map W/Edvards Avenue - Riverhead Wa.rehouse Transfer Point - Scale on =ap is not consistent. Deceiving in one case an inch is a couple of blocks i.t another its =uch longer (3 =iles). 7. E.oute 3P Reves & Doctor Path is a flood area and may be ,i_-.p as s able. Was iced en day of drill 1/28/84. i .1 Transfer Point Coordinator: J 1. (Mercy H.S.) Transfer buses were not dispatched to'Selden. l l a. No =aps to relocation center. l I ,_,r-, -.rn.-.

' *L b s.b wb 0+- % ' 7(n a cJ.y-JA' a~u, m m%-- 9 ld-k & y-0J pp v 4 >.m 4 Anjg / T. ~ ML-nr L -h 1) W nd Sn L i~A & L-l.4 -t SJ-n W it. "U k )W, cam / c.- w .l y p- [ k

b. f Q&l.

/A (J lh'p fu --w M ?- la k e/: .c 4.b t~) .kM ,fM-4'/94 pW m

n. %)J h ~: i ;;- t.-+/ 4 Lef.

w Wu u jg m4 4L Ua.s n 1. (G k

c. K z.

l.'h-J h < K L b S A. >v) 4 Aa p 4 ?p.- w & wJA & KZ~ L 4 /4. r hLa k.x. - qs.. Mt G c /s m > > w W W '.* e/ (, v: % A& h kY lw N h% u,w.4 k4 cn. c-. D~ ~, t & uLul ] J A.S = /, 2, L,pk L kJ T4 F. & ?& .mL yh J km a du' 4 /g T/ I4 L td M u 5 L ~ YFU Euj /~m s~ .T m u Au m ~ Ms ~ afn JJ jk ~ a

I i Sumary In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this secti on. Put the f acts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the __5 exceptionally good perfomance. -a,u No p/any 6nen n O Lp 2 un_ fieM Wm&S Ehwoes 4cu enoup cpbg 4 bneU E $argoGs, S - M as s % scf b ~g w Cgos J A eb 9 2= h:-6 4= & o o CATI)04 'Ob desodt g A w c b h O) llO k A cecy1 m e e, j

%~ m f=. m a.2 m_ NL.p yJ p a,u, i n c^>% ~ f.c,y ) W bg4 A&g P /7. ~ " di A4L-nr k U n.d n Jn A A,W, f n + i. 4) ua J w a . Nk b:/Qua' 6-.iw GJ Yb y u L !A. 4 mL.% J ek L W .k,i d u. pn & l- & Li) I D : i, ;,;.- 1.g_/ v kc/ W W' { !. /5m4 wHL Lta.w% / f% h C. lb.

5..
l. k.)

h, K. c h .W~ !A. x,.) hda,,, p 4 1 A. - W W eJA ,0 KI' al h Oi. o 7 A w L u.- c Au c fa vA > : L, 1 t.1 + -src.w.wi En % w p-) kY j?r m iN b w.4 kn yh

e. e-.

%~ t& uL A ) J A.a .s m ' Vs L m { /<JJ.~t ?u' kv kJ T4 V~ k 2. i QA trdL fvh J hw m4/ ,is rg' A - w w g i b 94 c. - TA i 4 .r. L)),/~4 k+ Shy lN M u ,,~ /khL ~ j afn L J,i k ~ c

_3-Sumarv In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no* questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally good perfonnance. L f 5M O j$tt..N" 0 g 6" A. lc ' &T.~b' ~

  • A, wr>Ac.A

~r .5T 5 c T c3J bW, T/9 h., L. % M9) UA c L +$ mT 4 oQ 3 T is . ~. = r.- .t.. 7 h. Y~cl$Ajicl9c4.&d"%-(='<ji:w A c-SN;~iTw ![ *k N%S i.,,,f ; c. b,.f;,.ja,n.--

  • b D Mh l

'lf%C) Y.'. 'b4 0: ~ $. ncoctL AL

r alf.

kp k u& MD, e n m c s. e, s...

o.... if N A.r 4 L d c f u l % m f i4 g

4 l v&. A g se ~ A f4 ~ - <~ C @ # ~ - r. h m. A Aek L L d k. n,L Jr 99 + s+ k+< cupt 14~v. % M & +&-~g m A h t'Qr y . eg, s, + A~~ M W 4 + % g%. c+7 a re 9 4 i e .6-

s III. Comand and Control 1 Yes No N/A N/0 ~ 1. Was it apparent that a senior individual in charge at all times? 2. Were general briefings given to the, Staging Area staff periodically re-- garding the. status of the, emergency?- N V 3.. Were personnel going.into the. field-properly briefed as to: - Protective action recomendations? N a - Potential plume path and radia-i ) tion levels? X - Their particular assignment? y ~ C w g gOVfDF CODEb exJAro?s, i e p' Y .e. = _ _ e i a p 1 M e p e l l 7 I =

III. Command and Control Yes No N/A N/0 1.- Was it apparent that a senior / individual in charge at all times? V 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re- / garding the status of the energency? V 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? s/ ~ - Potential plume path and radia- / tion levels? / J - Their particular assignment? t/ e E _ _ _ _

l III. Command and Control l Yes No N/A N/0 1. Was it apparent that a senior b' / individual in charge at all times? 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of the emergency? b/ 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? b/ - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? / - Their particular assignment? r s 6 _

III. Command and Contro1+: Yes No N/A N/0 1. Was it apparent that a senior y individual in charge at all times? A 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-g/ garding the status of the emergency? A 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? )>( - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? I - Their particular assignment? 76-O 9

XII. Comand and Control E T Yes No N/A N/0 l. Was i,t apparent that a senior f individual in charge at all times? V 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re - '[ garding the status of the emergency? 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? / - Potential plume path and radia-j tion levels? - Their particular assignment? v 1 -N

l

~ +. 6 M e - w M O e e S 9 5-I' .~.- _-,

e III. Comand and Control Yes No N/A N/0 individual in charge at all times? / 1. Was it apparent that a senior j 2 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re- / garding the status of the emergency? / i 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? ,/- 2 - Their particular'assignmentt r/ -i ~ 'I 'l 9 9 e e en ! l -M

l III. Comand and Centrol Yes No N/A N/0 1. Was it apparent that a senior V 5 individual in charge at all times? n ~q e 2. Were general briefings giv' en to the Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of the emergency? 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? - Potential plume path and radia-y tion levels? A 7 ) - Their particular assignment? Y T l' h d Wt{~ FQ, ieo/0 bt A Con 2 3 Fw Al/0 ruc Ao ? i h ~:l O $.a

.\\ O III. Comand and Control C Yes No N/A N/0 1. Was it apparent that a senior V 33 individual in charge at all times? --g__ 2. Were general briefings given to the ] Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of the emergency? t/ 3. Were personnel going into the: field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recomendations? v - Potential plume path and radia-I tion levels? / - Their particular assignment? s - -2 .m M 1 w 0

== 9 --

0 9' M &/W ~ III. Comand and Control Yes. No N/A N/0 2 1. Was it apparent that a senior individual in charge at all times? Y S ~3 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of the emergency? N N. 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? V - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? 1 - Their particular assignment? g O l l e ..m. i e

l 9,

W

III. Comand and Control Yes No N/A N/0 1. Was it apparent that a senior individual in charge at all times? / 3 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area st&ff periodically re-f garding the status of the emergency? v 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? / a - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? / - Their particular assignment? / 6 e e e i -s-e w-e i t l l ' ~~

l 2I III. 'Comand and Control Yes No N/A N/0 = 1. Was it apparent that a senior / ~ ' individual in charge at all times? Y 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area. staff periodically re - garding:the-status of the emergency?', f-V 3. Were : personnel going into the field-properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? 2 - Potential plume. path and radia- _ f tion levels? Y - Their particular assignment? vr .i a. E + e 4 e 9 m =m .? 6 M O e 5-w -,-.-,n-. -.,. ~ -,, ,,..e. . ~. - - -. ~

D) . l . Zj III. Comand and Control ~ 2 Yes No N/A N/0 -.i 1. Was it apparent that a senior _ M_; individual in charge at all times? Y .-44il 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of the emergency? 3; Were-personnel going into the field-properly briefed as to: - Protective action recomendations? a - Potential plume path and radia-tion levels? - Their particular assignment? N 4 1 W .f Y m 1 as J 3 I A e 9 5 i l l i --i h

III. Comand and Control ~ Yes No N/A N/0 .4 1. Was it apparent that a senior individual in charge at all times? 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-f garding the status of the emergency? 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to: - Protective action recommendations? / - Potential plume peth and radia-7 tion levels? / ~ - Their particular assignment? v .- =2 O o 4 6 e WW 4 e i l s- = - - - - v -+ - - -p--- w -mg- -we e -e-r'e- ---.-w---m-----a-e-.-,-- -,e-

+6

--m,w - + - -

.?- III. Command and Control ~ Yes No N/A N/0 T. Was it akparent that a senior individual in charge at all times?' \\ 2. Were general briefings given to the Staging Area staff periodically re-garding the status of-the emergency? 3. Were personnel going into the field properly briefed as to:- - Protective action recommendations? T/ - Potential plume path and radia- / T' tion levels? Vf - Their particular assignment? y c N 6 1 a e. M 9 0 4 -

LONG ISI.AND LIGHTING CO!GANT and ~ ~ LOCAL EMERGIUCY RESPONSE ORGANI"ATION NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE 2/15/04 ll e OBSERVER CON'" ROLLER LOG SEEET ~~ Namo: Date: [ [ Locrtion: ? i TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT Su nW - f4v Tt+$=t-e 4 +J -l %'e4 % %. l aA f'r wi L) J 4w L._ a s w 6-__ -.m._.4 - spku.J +t_1A MAh cL 3=+ { I fk. 4 4-a u f A g,_. 4 s J. ) 6.A /b u.. 't. A d 9 c= a a e c p. . vwl p% Nt-i s sy c. Avd pk Abdc 4 W Puri)- ~ p.Q J 4 /At4N da M-- - b,4-Jf %W h-f p Q L o t. J oJ k, k & = ~ - J-gg_A -% y J

  • D~

^ 4-._Mt::, a b p., t e 94., L a a e s%. /b u- -LJ PT eL), L to

.r.

M ha Nob ~ cr %. 14 54); JGN 3h 6;g A L fU N~, ed oLp Ju N-Je rb,.._, % b htll M k* ,g A, u k W.L.c d4 i. I* J~- d u u % tot 'n W tw n n t % w= SW b >

.. s .a Su::: nary In your own words, describe and evaluate the de=enstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this i secti on. Put the facts record *d in the "yes/no" Questiens in 4 perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the ~ ~ - e exceptionally good performance. . /' 2 ^_, y W w A n# (> J # d ; ; i M E' " A 4,(2 w AQ-J j ..I I J _.o - ( h_ o.O m. y t.L g WM "E s d [ '_^ ,,~ ~ ^ \\ w.1 -- A a a c ~ m m. r u. m +, 0 1 f M M = ) -- - af K. s * -. -3, 8 7 y d .e 2 7 l s 1 4 ) i I 1 i 4 l 4 h j i 9 - - -

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and h LOCAL DZRGENCY PISPONSE ORGAN!::ATION NUCLEAR D2RGENCY PP2PAPIDNESS EZERCISE OESERVER CON'" ROLLER LOG SEEET ~.e} ~ Nua: Date: Location; l ~ TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT b u >.~ n w4 L w tA Vq fy 6% N,--s it b De t W .> i,-~. L WJ e t g,9 Ap (s suuJ l w 6-4 'd. A1 ku m UL bh bas gg e Je 6 bf L &Le~AA Pt.a %, vv ) 4 \\u W :e L a. .. - \\-- h f f W +*--e d k l t b.>A ) Q 1(: 39. ku,.m aw c, qWeJq bb.A.,l,o d ggl' w. u.u ) le kk 4 o-4 a w-M. A h H.L. -lo. v 6 g4 /uyA. w V nk s..,.m AM % b ALg uj w LW-t /m-t 6 ':-e+- ?, L, ;u, g_ _, J u -r %-h hl., 5 kO

= = = =

w k W h a. 3 ALwl tt i 1., \\.A. ( J > % A % :ss n J. rm s wL wF 4"64-2.ghb hak/b W Q

d__,

Wla dw t 3 A v ~ AJ %L w % A. bW 'T g M-c. p.}., d k t t kv-+ 6

  • M s%s

' has bW b + *M-d T-i

a.. Surmary In your own t:ords, describe and evaluate the de=enstrated activities, ccpcbilities cnd resources, or lack thereof, covered by this scetion. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in d' perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally g~ood perfor. nance. S., - . :r 24~ @' : Als cM Q~ L,h og Q"* f 5 6 % of, 4 ~ 4) 7 ["'T'- e..seasi.d. ss@ 6 4. b.:r &ja A. W(J b r' /_J 1 %Y d.b h % h:QI Af'"A' hb i o$ tv gc 'au 'rW4 % -og pw% j p fs G,pW g,,;g kh! i%L

  1. f A

h.ft. ai x a ,wsp%@ *, ,7 s,+.:b w ckt;;:. Y J' a* Sk2 4 wi' b "f

  • > % "E i

'ht. um/ cP,6 -m p;e<:. b,- t J <j i v bf ( W [***)*/ 0 O" G,, S *.0 > y v.$ i., a ~ x s, ,.,,.. w aa a= a a, y,7~~ % 4 ; w . f'Q~ A. /.n.r & a

$ ;f n

y s r~. m.. 8 s,m kd p n - Q[ u,, s 'c 3 g.g w cpp g.ca. a. y.;f, J.eeA.4A ( b 2 0 b& a.O. M w f ff ~ ff

m o ATTACHMENT 2

~l fsrec Evaluated Monitors _ Rating 11/g3 9. Here the correct private lines used and 4 3 2 N.O. did non-emergency com.unications inter-fere t!ith emergency transmissions? [ (No = 5, Yes = 1) AI h

10. Were logs used effectively by personnel 5 4 3 2 1 N.O.

!V,M.,' .,. I to review past events and to trend data?

11. Were appropriate com.unications tech'-

5 4 3 2 N.O. A'. $ i . - bd f sign-on, sign-off, no abbreviations f #y# l' y

  • niques followed?

(Phonetic alphabet, or acronyms) qg ,,.k c, Q N ' k' C. Procedures , V,N W Anjc_o.,r5 1. Were personnel generally familiar with 5 4 3 2 1 N.0. the relevan't procedures? 2. Were procedures followed? 5h3 2 1 N.O. l 3. Here personnel so ovenhelmed with pro-5 4 3 2 1 N.O. cedural requirements that they were. distracted from the appropriate response? bO 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. 4. Here the procedures appropriate? c 'L b b omo cI^ Tg f S .O W-C C f @ U' b - D. Direction and Control 4 i 1. Could the response be catagorized as a 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. team effort or a group of individual j efforts? (Team = 5. Individuals = 1) 2. Was there an effective mechanism for 5,4 3 2 1 N.O. resolving differences of opinion regarding technical issues and actions to be taken? 3. Was there excessive noise and loitering 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. in the response facility? (No = 5, O j l Yes = 1) E. " Material and Ecuipment 1. Uas c11 the' required material and equip-i5 4 3 2 1 N.O. -( /Qg { g cant available? t* l h4 C .ckua;-)s n. e Page' 92 cf 109 l l

f.rea Evaluated Monitors Rating

  • G.

Access Control 1. Was an appropriate access control 5h3 2 1 N.O. posture estcblished? 2. Uas there an identifiable systea imple-5h3 2 1 N.O. Y mented that effectively identified. 'D.,5 authroized personnel within the facility?. H. Sumary -j 1. Describe any problems r.oted by the area being evaluated. Provide a description of the problem, its outcome or effect and s any reco. mended corrective courses of action to alleviate or correct the deficiency. Any of the p'reviously listed areas that receive an evaluation grade of 2 or 1 require a written explanation on this page. .j Q' pg& pcl py NYA A i-yaJ' poeesu.u> N A &a i' y( a Ja m+# %-x& 4f*EY agJ p.p +% p gg l g J:_d' (zf,AA' 5 QW"'3' k. N f

  1. )

/ g.z) ,_s9[$ gzi-MW ~ g, 5t h D* ,.,,, p,)x - w 'j~r-I .., ff (. ' .= 4';:...' ;' p g g 5, L.E(aluat Wghat'iiFe7 Date f ghfNY @$/WY-W &WW . D A.- # - c/- MW l Page 94 of 109

m I,rea Evaluated Bonitors Rating 2. Did personnel check to ensure that all i equipment was available and functional 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. early in the activation process? y%, e 4 L-i 3. If equipment was inoperable or failed 2hN.O. in use, were appropriate actions taken 5 4 3 to resolve the deficiency? (spares / backup equipment)

c..? "

4. Were there any situations in which the .-4. ( '. lack of equipment, or a lack of ability 5 4 3i2 N g, to operate the equipment, prevented per-c,lghdj !,,,, y. O. l. A M,,- (!!o = 5. Yes = 1) g ga-..rd,d h (4.4 -: 'c0 [' C sonnel from completing their tasks? details. If so, please indicate g ,g, 6 C r %.,3 gg( ga ng dif#r.. my r t h M-V Nr S 5 Here there a*ny situations in which cdditional equipment or materials, or n 2 (1) N.O. l'c4 }D 5 4 3 different types of equipment could have made the activity more effective? jfg [g[M i [ J_ (,y: (!!o = 5. Yes = 1) OSICrJu (

  • cate details.

If so, please indi- -g *b bt'T6, f' 1

  • N

'Y CC L (C<dic b u 6. Could the area support the personnel cssigned to it? 2hN.O. 5 4 3 4 7. Vere there sufficient resource materials readily available to support the conduct 5h3 2 1 N.O. of the response? (maps reference docu- ,00m f ments, copies of p)lans a,nd procedures,- data sheets, etc. 1 F. Protective Heasures 1. Here appropriate protective measures implemented for response personnel? 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. ~ 2. Did personnel properly wear protective clothing and dosimetry? 54 3 2 1 N.O. /}</1 3. Vere appropriate radiological practices v) observed? 5 43 2 1 N.0. /\\/r/\\ A / 4 Here field personnel kept apprised of i-rcdiological conditions? 54 3 2 1 .0. 5. Mere response activities conducted with h )/ [? rascrd for personnel safety, consistent 5 4 3 2 1 N.0. t:ith the need to complete the activity? ] t l i Page 93 of 109

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ - ~ 1/84 f.res Evtlusted Ronitors Rating 9. Were the correct private lines used and 5 4h2 1 N.O. PA 9 4 + did non-ecerger.cy canicctions inter-DCp', g6 fere trith emergency transmissions? g,4 gga w w, (to = 5 Yes = 1) t 10. Here logs used effectively by personnel 5 4 3 2 1 N. to review past events and to trend data? - ~ ~~. 1 [

11. Were appropriate ec=:unications tech-5 4 ha 2 1 N.O. TM PPs niques followed? (Phonetic alphabet, sign-on, sign-off, no abbreviations NON MED ffoGf ftPs W mt.

or ccronyms) C. Procedures 1. Here personnel generally familiar with 5h3 2 1 N.O. the relevant procedures? 2. Here procedures followed? 5h3 2 1 N.O.* 3. Were personnel so overwhelmed with pro-5 4 3h1 N.O. cedural requirements that they were distrected from the appropriate response? 4. Were the procedures appropriate? 5h3 2 1 N.O. D. Direction and Control 1. Could the response be catagorized as a 5h4 3 2 1 N.O. team effort or a group of individual efforts? (Team = 5 Individuals = 1) 2. Was there an effective mechanism for 5h3 2 1 N.O. resolving differences of opinion regarding technical issues and actions to be taken?

. Was there excessive noise and loitering 5h4 3 2 1 N.O.

in the response facility? (No = 5 Yes = 1) E. 62terial and Ecuipment }h 1. Was all the required material and equip-5 4 3 2 1 N.O. cent evailcble? g. ? _ ~

Area Evalucted Monitors Ratino G. /ccess Control i 4@2 s 1. L'as en cppropriate cecess control 5 1 N.O. posture established? + 2. L'as there en identifiable system imple-h4 3 2 1 N.O. ,d cented that effectively ic'entified .. ~._ -f l cuthroized personnel within the facility?.

  • 4 H.

Sunnary 1. Describe cny problems noted by the area being evaluated. Provide a description of the problem, its outcome or effect and any recernended corrective courses of cetion to alleviate or correct the deficiency. Any of the previously listed areas that receive an evaluation grade of 2 or 1 require a written explanation on this page. B u e r ) P r. W HL& A Qw u.c~'9 ='. u u w 4, g =+d m. ggg4) ha-wwiAy witJ % w/a pu<.A n. sc4se) M w g5 era ty/4. e w S

p. e c ~a e & W ^1 & &~

gn ) W A 4 u u ! W 5 y ~ -) a. . W. r. G.g. %, i a,2, 4 y _... i pature / Date SnoM it

i 2/8/84 e Summary In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this secticn. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally good perfonnances. . i ~ N% 4._ L. w wI 6 ~ 6_,4,_ 4 J K. 14 L L v.J 4d> p ,iq 4 y. M> 1 y htcW ~,9 Lj i, J k b c.J x y 1 H aQ m.4h e.,, 9 / w b m w LA teg uJ L a. 4 J-W e.w.- tu %. h M -%p w pyA j M k % Avu d. ~ GLb f%4 7 M e- % pu ~ l' A ^'Y w % t- %L a) ynjnl. N. hes 4y v. ry Au o g w. /ul.) (%) b tu M [$ hko . fA6 4 Mb A A- ~

-g

%~% fL AJ 1.t a g a,z,_ i b n owJ b W,A kJ /wl f M-1 y ,r- -c-,-~-,-m,.-. n.

.y._i r te~ ~s ~s 4- % u i /iup~. 4p c3 al u n n m \\'% ~ ~ 9 /d4 W HJ p us m L ~h fAQ p /7. ~ u.L - nr f6 U nd vwL A,p A 4 n km% k. xi. 4) a ch, f La u - % gn-wk k' fe>yk y cs % L< .+ k%. 3 A eLQJ e kaLn~- y h j& pum W& L/J lheia-t+/iQ/. u~ w u

1. /.7 n4 mL w.sn tw k
c. x.

/AJ kr K L h S A. Q,l A p A 5. ! k. - he' %~-, e JA & K r~ 4,4 /4. A M L.M. - 9,,.. A4L 4 ~- 7 c M u1 > r C-w e c. %, w i N hb /. n& s& h lk lw%~ -, t k wm )k 4 M i en.c tJ u J //l 2 Yt). {/d L' l<s) T$ f~. N 9a nL yh J M4 ar/ l 4 / d Tyll h W4 M u.--. 9< L.

  • W '

[Q / 4 T @ iil 4 .r. h)) /~4 kw v ,,n /khL ~ f af LJ jk c

V. Comunications Yes No N/A N/0 1. For each of the following: -3

a. Indicate whether comunication was demonstrated (Yes, No, etc.)
b. Name-the comunication system used on the dotted line (dedicated land line, two-way radio, comercial phone,etc.)

- Local EOC/ primary.k..Et, 4.4 ' / / backup .C4 M @ We6. ,/ - Bus Drivers....... N r....... ,/ - Traffie Guides.... O...... L 4 - Roa d C rews..................... 1 - Route Alert Drivers....

6......

V/ - Route Spotters..... k.. ; ~ $/ Transfer Points.... la.... s/ 2. Were radio comunications easily _)( j understood, i.e., no static? I 3. Was there too much comunication traffic on the radio frequency? 1 4. In general, were comunciations ,/ good? v 5. Were messages written down? 6. Were they retained for future reference? l 7. Were any comunications problems rectified? 7 bOh I b O} M o h LJ (Ok s m c, % c 9ohoIEh pfhe._ %M 3. k

oh La.)bd %o & )-

( \\ tk ry)h O e .g. W

")hML $$e o ch,%c-Ottu .\\ ....g. 77+ eve. t'c-mo w s. . 4-M~ r .Pr - Cow ma :, fewa~v k On.iw 7b ' Me.e-Coms W ' Ao d&e m ' __^ - ' ' ~ . 7; e m S o 3. i + =, x T.'o ~ Earir., /in.=en 2 ea- ~ i ~a %rm /nr%rw~s." 8m ~22e H 4 %a< ~ so it. , G e m,. Co~.aen a.,&na. rm.,-- f e m ra. cn.r-- fu ~ ~ ,% r.:n .T C.r- /%. Z~ wa,e-n- fww f. ~. 4dy T V&n.< Tm Wnr 77.vm (3 Cc-/L,o On i (+a 'ra di,,- /G.swnr ut On k%r-n oo pr f w~ Groma-to a vm n- _s a. PPoat.emt. - paio Rom /ks 120 uMy 7a 7kwe. .S m rm. O n Trme Po n n u m eta.~ r f.n v.- 0 * /4.rren am. ............L ea (tm ra m c.~m.- cr., tym-a,4s.n t.',.x 25~ bu:str /r' Jo' s Sw:- preson.e 6 ' ~ 4 f . F** l* * *f 6.5,< A '/ / ts ' o u d ' n 1 lis Aptrio J, Pa. Oranvnn s~r y.c r m N a UNirW %.<~ + * "~ $ c~< Mo (cB %~ ut.c..s.-m .. :.. ;... a. ;.... g. ..1

s
.

e j ...,,...a,. g.,.c,.,...;,.., w. 1 ... g.

. ;. f '.' '. y;;.y... y:.!;. ;

m i

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMP;dIY and ~ LCC?d:. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANI::ATION WCLEAR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE 2/15/84 OBSERVER CO'ITROL',ER LOG SEEET j 42' ' ~ N0mO Date: LOC 3 tion: TIME OBSERVATIOJ/ COMMENT /W2-W > > v_t J ju. b WL5 i & gab th wol44,1 W s. 4 4 L 4 4 5-Se b 54k I 9I s WI 'l LA LJ 4L ptj [ NAI Ik c al 494 M , b. A% pAuisL.e. eoks ua k lsg r w.b 9

t. r i

ho A. ,a e A 3 i w 39 94 w - - w w.. - - 6 e f S I e 6 i

O 'T I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and LOCAL EnERGENCY PISPONSE ORGANIIATION _dj NUCLEAR D'ERGENCY PPIPAREDMESS EXERCISE OSSERVER CONTROLLER LOG SHEET ~ ~~-x t Z-/[- 8'[. ~ NCCC:kr';.. 2-f Date: h& =- b Location: TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT _ ,m._-_ /4/Mc%Cfg4,, O Q,- j7_ g,3,rrf g, g,g g:Q M 0- _----- -f - doJ'?2 e t,,, . j in~2 la m k M ia eikt, Mrtvrt. e carape, 'bcPwM Toc. 3ur, AEEl A G "E4 E) ro

-Act s. t -r-#r:

P Q to c.~ ~ ~, mmu. I l y s gQ 7'" arc MAJ V 'M tJECE PtW tdG 'W BU # M opia so ceasia.i a a ru..r u,e1-a c r o a-l 3/6G. ro eEspoA t ro --ng gw eaux E. MW W EIWEL LA ct eu cou2-r'c5 a,t 7;fg yR. G % tspl-l4 - nJG os E o.- rmr A e.a s. Pc299; % ent2. --2Ais a e-r u we ese os v?AOsc 5 W ?.E 'b. - 7, '. l [ 04 E. MV b?_LV G h., t.J /-S b OS;'I** e e PJ Dio o p e. % 'ib Ef3 6. Astab cucsr.,3JS 1 h-r"' [ i i ~ 'l MWL Y-fOurG5 ro La aret.( 1.(au.Ja 'CG JM wAs s,. a esad c r m. L -cre.c s ere e a ' a= l c?SN~'o F s As ro .s inruer oc r;cc SE4uth= -sxfG Mh A/> ' _ : = ' ^f aM no 'bttrGc r cc(E peaaEtn'" % c,. y GsPaE* - l TBa JGus-var.f ss e A s D g4 fJCcE55 O fEC/ C LS M A L.t51-cf- '2 '7 w., -., - M dN~ 1 p60hLG ). R. V %Do g,J s W MOSM T hah GPL'*r' Lesr o g),%cos-p -ru3 o. T** mAJV g we / /d, mzen 7h~ 4 */S Sco*J S %4 0J c' ofCY > .,,4,r ;n n ME (PDY t d* p% gg fja c;z L, > ? citsrJc G ra v o 46

O o ATTACIIMENT 3 i l 1 l l

DRIL1, COMENTS g-1/84 Pdverhead Staging Area e C-.:nications : i 1. . Staging Area radio does not have call letters on set. 2. Riverhead is dispatching raod crews with Channel 3 radios - "c - 1 but can only monitor Channel 10. I 3. No written mechanism to determine status of traffic control points dispatched vs. tanned. 4 Co==unications links were not-fully utilired; a lot of EOC cc _.:nicatiens were by radio instead of phone. Proble= - in Riverhead the radio and dedicated line are next to each other. 5. Problem with EOC overriding the traffic guides on radio. 6. Scme traffic guides faint in receiving radio transmissions inadvertently cut off other guides in the process of transmitting. Eus Drivers: 1. Triu=ph Bus Co=pany could not be found. i 2.- Standardice instructions for recording times military vs. regular. 3. Eus Driver Dispatcher briefing (2 minutes) asked for volunteers to drive routes. 3riefing did not address current plant status / radiological status. 4 Problem - not all drivers had vehicles. 5. Feedback on naps - the spirals.were too small, the maps are coming apart. 6. Man W/Edvards Avenue - Riverhead Warehouse Transfer Point ~ Scale on, map is not consistent. Deceiving in one case an inch 'is a couple of blocks in another its much longer (3 miles). t l 7. Route 3? Reves & Doctor Path is a flood area and may be ,i= passable. Was iced on day of drill 1/28/84. s m Transfer Point Coordinator: J. 1. (Mercy F..S.) Transfer buses were not dispatched to Selden. a. No maps to relocation center. m ._.... _ _., ~

  • f rea Evaluated V.onitors Ratino G.

/ccess Centrol 1. Was an appropriate access control h4 3 2 1 N.O. posture established? 4 h 2,1 N.O. .I 2. Was there an identifiable system imple-5 cented that effectively identified . f. cuthroized personnel within the facility? '4 SEE LAST Co u.n ev 7 fo ELc w '-~' 21 .w H. Samarf 1. Describe any problems noted by the area being evaluated. Provide a description of the problem, its outcome or effect and any recc:::nended corrective courses of action to alleviate or correct the deficiency. Any of the previously listed areas that receive an evaluation grade of 2 or 1 require a written explanation on this page. A -3) /4MC' )7 70 J YME PERS o A/ /,0 csygscG ap rr.fx:= Y. C 4 f f i c.

  • T' * 'J

/dAf / r) &j rr,fr4',* & G oNLY ff Yoil 7NA7 -r M & ". Tse4A:~ftc [cAlrocat. loo /2otus ratz

  • N55 V'#

7"N 2 SECTr an/ Of co vale if You ~ Lo0 k A-7 Tff& .Trt;w & /s o,q.sg p yoj y ou t_ n 7 u e.v k_w o u rws. ff-e&taE-t.tf p e ~; EQ /5 Y 7'M E-T A 4 ff'C SECT'** l /. fE*Pc& VJtn>C O rGF2A2*'T /2 E*l o* ME /'MPLGM5e 7/.*/6 /,dec EO use Gi. 2, $. A. C Sc e F- /2 fro t a $ isy ,Cr2/_p,p MJcon 2g., c o A1s rE7-dEtf (Gr,4c7 .5, 5 1 T A V C 7 / 04/f f..A C sc e E f O c A 7sosuf a f' ~7g s,isc 7,euc scy) 4. /' N 4 8 /c t T Y Yo Fo& Low sc eue.esa oue to s (A.0c2 UAAL C o v E/Z.*A C E (woy Anl.g to CONTAC7 r!f6L /co/ YE,0 j -........gm n._::;.,i.:;.: :.uz -ww g~.:n:.my.l.l,n<~;Mc.h.a J,i,,,3,, L .G. C o to Meu7 To 6-2 -- EP6TliaToYiTgysWre / Dat.ei 4 / &oP46 c o u t.- Q /5 & ID Esu Y~/ f /2 9 fi Y f./A M'E WS 0 1 Saf-1 JS A W F)$ /3 v 7 JECvAtry C o u L 9 M <4 W E' Afifd SG77~2k u /r /J Jrtet foJJt MG (JA ME /rl AloV*) T* E*Yde TMeu rne ite4awasr stof ocoa ( / x,cu r,m:= 1 TA U C AC Z1~cCAC6 Y4tzy) goo Go (As ro 746 d'OC u.uexAcee.useo a ree</. is oc sueo sr rx<.1 enra':er. ~ ~ :~ - "*L.--. . Y - L.J~

q .} oj Arca Evalucted Monitors "atina i e t 2. Did personnel check to ensure that all 5 4 3 2 1 N. O. ) equip =2nt ecs avcilable and functional y. ectly in the activation process? .2 j' 3. If equip = ant was inopercble or failed 14 3 2 1 H.O. .I l72/ to resolve the deficiency? (spares / -'.E in use, were cppropriate actions taken Q /. backup equipment) 4. Were there any situations in which the 5 4 3 2 1 N. O. lack of equipment, or a lack of ability to operate the equipment, prevented per-sonnel from cc:pleting their tasks? (no = 5. Yes = 1) ' If so, please indicate details. 5. Were there any situations in which 5 4 1 N. O. k (3. 2QQ cdditional equipment or caterials, or different types of equipment could have mede the activity more effective? g% E bu}{ cAG 4 (No = 5 Yes = 1) If so, please indi-Ctrn0 cate detail s. 6. Could the crea support the personnel 4 3 2 1 N.O. essigned to it? g 7. Were there sufficient resource materials 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. readily available to support the conduct of the response? (maps, reference docu-cients, copies of plans and procedures, data sheets, etc.) F. Protective Measures 1. Were appropriate protective measures ./ 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. implemented for response personnel? 2. Did personnel properly wear protective 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. clothing and dosimetry? 3. Were appropriate radiological practices 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. observed? 4. Were field personnel kept apprised of 5 4 3. 2 1 .0. rediological conditions? 4 7 5. Were response cetivities conducted with 5 4 3 2 1 N.O. regard for personnel safety, censistent with the need to co. plete the activity? t -m w msww--- -~pr-oe ,,e-- w-~va-p,< ~ m

~ 2/8/84 Sumary In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilitier and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this o section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally good perfonnance. O aluACw hO Y D 1 p2.69 Op. tuW cJ'c1.., y c h g Y e'= p cu d wb? -e 4 ge f d%Q x 61-d e $ 4 4 g w ~ y cee, L ha ds 6 W W h a y a.+ep A p. = @ sfA h4 atl./dA cc 4 (.a p c'. c m A ec w 0 'A * +:0 0 ^ h cEA c<T ) m -gfa f< ly-4f.a A& p c7 P N L ^ - @.uet Q w " & 9 7 A er ,w,nw 4 dA uG ec8 -ee e

'Sumary o In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this secti on. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the 3-l exceptionally good performance. WJLL-OA.0" Wu A Od.)& A sAa Mg dfp-d p-9& d u ded yloci-6 w v m o d n ~A1. 4 n%g p,c % 4 Q aA-a. cur ,L %-. i fwfou f % 4z-m. e0 l reh4., Wi-e% fogs a JD bx eLa g -1 n M. m w l b C-64^. b / A WM rau - ss~ g yi; cre dpadz, % S ^y y "f O f x v - ~ 2 c. - y ~ y m cx w a-.e.. =. l w l - e +r-

Sumery 2/15/84 o In your ovin words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capcbiJities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the 4 exceptionally good perfonnance. 1. ? 14-~(3D: cx aya . y- -x 4 wk.s p ys 6 d b ,s hpust' an a s _ _ t ' '. e s pebbL4 ; e- .: _ ;.' 2 L d

  1. [$/Jg Mlb,;

-U f h

=='. [" 4 , yd WM k 3m 3 pt e- -(

b. D &,

' ' W W /.'C-euYL 'fi:

  • 'L.

? ~ ~ -+i-o, ~_ lb CYT r is 0 0 ffM^* _,, ,w Ti,.p7p. gs de y' kT n, w - ~ ww n Lw

w. d t h 4 D &,us h weno.- w7r wkXuh..

Z% 9-@: 6I4 c.z7d-u a 6 l l l l t l -r-I

ATTACHMENT 4 1

j P 1/84 Anal M - s-a s "P o - C rMi o-e n 3, s.,_ ..M 's t+d m s e% - t., =e 1 y u oJ u s p - p L, e.c _c. x ~ '~~~ ~=D s M.$a E s a.7m n.n rnc o.m.cl cL.e sca.n,.nLv cmA &i w stu i a_ w ,w-x >., : n-a rm - i.'.m i /

2. awme, me, - ~~

s I, w i - - 4 & - s -t a_i u l- - o_.o1 6 _u.o h c~a s de~ra_ewA o-c_. u.m _m a,-i.,i h' 'M r_cvMeddR., ^ 1.4)e-7 lu l Ams' - _h ' _ v n.. x & p. S a_.c_c ctqca & io_4 n. ~ 'te ~- - an +- j /IE ;-=,_le^& m. ctJc-c d m-fo ~ was. em o y asak L o L ce cc,% n um.t.ul.cvD ~n-a-b-e_a riiD~ : hn 4 n R.=u: I W y nr-:- L _ p.p_:.s a m m. f1 .h.: &--OJ.--s_. v_w I uw s 4 c.:L__.s ( ins - w__- _cw m, +v 4% O. p u 4 d.u a o_ % o.4.%vM iw h a m.i u a-. s p c _'. ::. j u :7 E.c. M. a 7 L. Cb m-R ea.=a s lu.d. n.o a 0 4 CL --Je cx i cL_.o.m. M g ~mGk s A-o-w-C 4 m c_.d te-s t l?_t.w u_._n_o_ M F 4-c'c-c' D ~' r.e e, W _o_~ 4 o_n_o ti t.l, E v u C.fu i h in.AAm sg_ c-M. % ha a_ cd a)&' ouu a.

De% m sm ueng -n w s I LOCAL EMERGENCY REEFONSE ORGANI"ATION ,/ NUCLEAR EMERGENCY FFIFAFIDNESS EXERCISE 2/8/84 OBSERVER CON"' ROLLER LOG SEEET 9, [G / k 4/ Date: Na.me: j:I L) pe_g, 7 n LW 1 Loca:Lcn: -m

n. e_,.

') e-TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT ] __^ R Wl kr 1n 7 n Mg2_ sa s d~ C P= P 3. 5. I c ~$5~2=:E cI %.% \\ % 'u~W k 9'1m_,-, A s m i%.Osc-N {Pr mp i ~_ nw am, ' AmL h, Sed G h de O CL. "s ~C ~~~D M t O c m % m.a. en - e m g f Q $ [D. %.-=.- w uat A cLbe A /, l ).' IE Q w %1Os Hr w m n% L/4 h%- Wf nw 3 ' lka. sa W ~- aW e 7 M' C L' ~ C wsd~geJEw 4kwm zu c_:.s.n s t> -InAte h a. D cx m s % u-' e.n.u v ' cu %( M-h S ye_ % s a p2 L to W m cG h h. Q CD c-h-1::: 3o

-!_ c ~A % &x c -. A..

A 4 c.~oct et G-- a.ddE.nvu_n_ u% # c M4 4 - cedG3 d IL Cc :n_ci.- oi* /:e 6 cb % 1 l' D % l.e m re & -6 >=c&n.ro,e m %

LONG ISLAND LIGP.*"ING COMPANY and LOCAL EMERGENCY PISPONSE ORGANI"ATION j F NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PPIPA"tIDNESS EXERCISE / / OBSERVER CON" ROLLER LOG SEEET b < G /e Y Date: Na::te : Location: E ~ -- s. .,;_ s / i - k _. / gef,0 3 s/~ h d.g N \\ -i i TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT .m e ks-p A S m gui n~e i sy-a - e h h. i p kL- -- h-smag^dak d4 % le m c. ex.a hsC6~. & - dvh wh s %A _ 2 s :. u. _.-m;u L-e M._T % %,~ K-!d u5V gm~d-r de. T ' s n a p_ M No wd ~ p. a wem-k v&& T (._.s a p&q-w~m -J M =A ' ' - NE 'WK w ?% c. - m+ L A -Mo?'~ ,[W M a

  • ~ ~,

a k. Mw EG0t d+

  • vW

,(_ um C ~_ f v e A sm w_ OaQ - g w ~ % r & _- ~ n. d e~ 4 m m k i 1-([ g T$ pb W M A W '*Lv. ~ _ D W f W q. bz ks n ,_ w _ m,s _ s ] Q & h.4 W 1 W ' MU% l 7/ v c-M % s I w h D 1' w a (Q.1-- J' w ~ i-n M_==~ z (, -u ACf_ M b MM W O-(e)

[ 'dohVu rts'WP' rnster.rrg 7s19... m 7 i LOCAL D'ERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION l s u,w.,,r

e.v.eRC.re.w. v.

re..r:. r.w r ms r.e..e. rv.rRC.er o a-6 OBSERVER CON"' ROLLER LOG SEEET Date: 2M, 8 Na:ne : a-2&/6 77/h <rer? Location: C ~ w / TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT lw 'n c. / 3( k mF d ~= x A r,.~.-4 4 u. ./ O z o 9% P & 4 a.C a y WW a WM U WA W, g &x/ f &m x,./' A At2 ~ al~l 0< w Lcn.cd, ~ .. t....a.: q~. $&.. . w.c p, Y :'..,, 5 h?}lt,.~ ,,r) A - ' '1 ~ .rt y e ~. 'C'.k.f.,i k;%,~pif :...gl bly %.-'. ,:.'.. '.. ?'d.Qse Q 1;.j g;. ',F-'Y. &rs L*w. - + 4 '. 7, ~ J x p s1:s c. s .>.c p .M ~ E4 r.: - ?:. 4 '- '= l ' ' is" k.;***-,.. '.:.. w,<!"$ % *{. 4 ~'s' h I'$f* N h $3 an.$ ;_ lgh 2 A r

  • e 7 e m a,

w .ho Mcmw

nL

+ m.,_,.f.s.:. yl _ __'__m__ 1* Q, ~' l5: h : h ~ ~ m w.m.. u.,- ~k. ' . I[$ E_C*~ id [ b dDi. _; e- =a"" m-- W"* v %y __- m +- . _ - - - ~ ~% C ~ J ' '.. C.% Wk i =Ys 7.. t

O'T' -1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and ,a LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION 2/15/84 hJCLEAR EMERGENCY PREPAP.EDNESS EXERCIS'E 7 OBSERVER CONTROLLER LOG SEEET i i' Nc.me: [ _~.l '1} Date: 2 / - /5~c N ~ / Locction: 200 O b TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT r__ __ Tc1.J 's,o_.s-_. h w i. la 3O h / i e (N 2-N : b% A bM LM C.' [ '~~~~T U', I l l ~ A s s s c e r s & c-<.y j l %. u.:-=~aa Lp1. u,u c c.e-vdSE 3-A.4 U6e El /W~O 7 l @.C ct 27x ", l i c %_~ ;6 w d - P w-u. ~ a. 4 l-~ w s~~L=- .tM_ -

m xu s.

c, n~. . c --r p.... g... ~ - m w. Pm: : ; wid=-. s.:n.hmeclu-i ko 'cM w-e_ w.';t sr,g-d. m <~-o-a Lus>-.,-wMM At Cs.c--:-.: cQ_,_.o, c,urde -~ j 74' A- ~ N~.. - "'"dA [t.O,'vtOd.I /% ^ c y-c,, m /' [

==.hk OM.4/ /'A( 4,'

-

  • e%

y M1 - s (,,4*N bb 6_,, C V Cf~S D*A, N Q0$ 2 @W., R R' ( ii >YY / 1 rM W y~7^t. ' -? 96 ET~ b ~, d ~ zt-w A a ar: c u d i., w p. V.s_ w.cl smu= lv_ck..-R l hw 'N b-se y"* [ 4^ mu e!-<..Lri, ,y Cdw~L -m m <. rec.c,-xw, c-pa.: av 3 ' se o n. \\ t

1,uae + oe., .v...v w..c.

u.. w LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE

^ OBSERVER CON

  • ROLLER LOG SEEET T

m. Hr.me : Date: Location: TIME OESERVATION/ COMMENT YDP . ~. - - { '~- ~ ' ~ i+r t+ p p t& v <-.o W c la.~.Je., / ~ l L -ik p M.- ~- l-D J oJ-tic La L w y L tp~ \\ C4 Ln, %n kJ) " n j k L.u L u . v / q,,' W J. 7 h jsn n ~ W" \\ g& h wi nW uJJ l y; n n k. y t> 1(m W W'A- *L U b/~- J d JY W qt 4 7m L ll n l d h ur~el/A As~-a> w {LQ ][ rhJ.] S- %)M ./ L2 4 vs J Qd r - A rw t.O m f+c) la $'rT ^ &wt.s E' ') L N, /[tq,1 ~u vv- _ i }{L cl W 1 I 6 0~- W < ~ ~ ' tl0 N /& "w" h Wl 4 p,. ~ w>,t L ~ x ~- Wds.* 4% ( elik y Y wy.) ) ) % b. f.>. /;n h l J D ul w Ju n d' ~-w ~ _. ' - * ~

LONG ISLAND LIGETING COMPANY and . LOCAL E!CRGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION . A ! [ NUCLEAR DIERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE OESERVER CON"' ROLLER LOG SEEET / ~ f. l ~ ~ } <. .T. \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ Locr. tion: /X hD M t TIME OBSERVATION / COMMENT %x A ns a&. & p yD MP

  1. " rwa, A ",# p.sas f. 4,u e &,

rw a % w/kAM = ,2h.a&&J s&.cre Yk

.4 i

r- - DLc/p>, g ln.s && N k TA * & = f &c . 3 o~4 96 n J = f 4 &- d-Z -C-7f' a.L.9;-- ~ lb D w G J m A.a. p o a., 6W

  • A /n-TAf.-waCAP

~* /aWA % 4-~ ^' l ~ D =.

O P ATTAcnngyy 5 I E I ^

2/8/84 ' Sunrnary - In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this secti on. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the 4 exceptionally good performance. J k Nb-Db MY CNSk YNELk bd MrT O e e 844 3 9 OO e S

  • e O

O 12 -

~ ~ ~ ~ '

7

' Sumary In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by" this ,~ section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in ~:i perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the -- M exceptionally good performance. _5 bA%' Tr+t MGS NE T % ap,2.ts,cac.tv secTd i k b k b[hY TNd[ T ~d. G--v, 5, tJ>N un sF 2.EQU t r :e6) t4 A t? Y. 6. m g, cvf -7 o etse e, Tu e o e r t-r.v m =Ts, ca s -c Le<. ia 4 K'mp y T24 W.- c$ SesE D is P A Tc

  • t, M --.

c4 e Got M h q gy ~~E4=iG.6 d% SC>A& CNNMcQ AEdr WAAT chL \\ N -~~p G DbP'S. 4H C47 "C,) S4oULD tim M s Q D O Ti, E,i' / n ~ (g pic.pdf'h, MTC'c SOMG M%, N Sc5d5 dC76 y:sesc.sec Ger TLy, ur e-xua n -ta n-w% atme_ott u m Q%P4tTc4 6cdes S dde,MTca TM.E $3go pg, c.cn b, Um I n D : - sr me E:t.%w-ceecr-M Des mcwq o, _,,c. -ye c - t-2 F.2 ~r DtD m T %eE. c+cc<. AT 4..L g Q( Q

  • 'ho, O b

ygg

t. s ' N r d Lt.WT tcc P(L:)JLCf.O CiD W4 T2Ms=bl_.

PT, A =ev.5 e e s D e.t e c a s, 4 co ef so d**F'* cdh j cap._ i e s cavup.c.ics W e ts MrVa (WVon GDGT% wn p Mt@ v.) A S W % tau C. 'ih % % dd MLOSE N922 4':3LLT -rd c.cvy=Lete Tegte. (2. ceres THooc.,e+, . cm7, M S A C t:. -y l

Suman c s In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this 'l section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally good performance. --J = W asA O % ,-puls a A' JJa 4 y c~ 3 i g,:..g.nd f. W %.E j p-w'w kJ & & A ~ W-n, dd a::::6O. e _d O em i m e-4 m 9 4 9 -

Su:=a ry 2/15/84 C In your own words, describe and evaluate the dsmonstrated activities, capabilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this e. section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in petspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the ~7-exceptionally good perfonnance. ?. -i'fLA T+ su p t,- w rp. 9 w 7 ,4'** 08CE (* wCg p7 p t % - P CR *-o si. egge I'

    • MS F,p.

(z g ~ ~'

  1. 0 IL SM PM Q

70 N* CwQ. e e 9 1 j e M 5. t d 1 a l H O e l l........

Sumary In your own words, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capcbilities and resources, or lack thereof, covered by this section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/r.o" questions in perspective. Explain the deficiencies, and also note the exceptionally good perfonnance. ] k sMyvg 0.vc,. ;l g A de!d m. s.> < -, PSrsora I e x p e vas ee4-cb-def u.c D'S 'S 9 bdt 4 W 4-s h y lg p gg p. ^ y e meng umuut l e M S e 9 9 9 .n ,-~a e e

3 ? f ATTACHMENT 6

1/84 a Ec-arAt bers ea '/cr/E9 L, c.x.nb <J VL. EGC &.- }. Sw.iZ: vd Ax-L4A oy-f - ceg A ] -m p, n. ... 5_-f r'w p ha6t p #h ys~;o. A ~~ 4 4 s.p Q.u m y a y'h,A w y, 24 ~~ o4 .L s - @. &.L*s:. an/.L-sp. n aA / L E } % c424,cos-% wd.-a.4A.das. Ana. /ro p w / i A n s.Azl w n f d A L G o c.. Js s, ng.ur-p /-- &= 4 ) & p.:7 A J J. 8 & e & >4-M ,4 __ fA-a,m al.- a a t. 9 4 % e l. Q p,, 4 w,A - L m,t14. g ;~.4 4 a o p 4./.,,a.a L a A,s<, '- A w egy . ] q .=. ! 4 P .e e. m

,1 2/8/84 i g-VI. SceneMo 4 i Sumary ___ i Conraant on the adequacy of the scenario. Did it provide enough --ss activity? Was it realistic? Did it test areas of earlier deficiencyt -j 3 /sL Q($b WU'W* NOY $ Atru' 5 O M lGJbu.) AGW housi. cw Aca a G b 4 ='te' 0 W +6 = =ame.

  • m e

4 g,; ~. d 3 e l l l .c 1 F 1 I j -my==. }} w_

,a w i ~ Suma rv In your own wo'rds, describe and evaluate the demonstrated activities, capabilities and resou~es, or lack thereof, covered by this section. Put the facts recorded in the "yes/no" questions in perspective. Explain the deficienciss, and also note the exceptionally good perfomance. [' 1 m c- ? pocisEr n es casacc er .o gia. oyu esc ~ P42n ip4rg, c' gg i.gg viour cid'#- HE

  • V 4T "E

T'"E

  • #USE c5 rEces,., cc

~ encycE,.c.v c.c4rcirikt,L., so % scre,:.r u c er is

== % "Cr /$ U C' 9 qTT s9aT Cp vs= cu'c e e s, essm o ar 0,,tc, in g gg 4g M 4 0$ W 'C r,,.,c uc ro I D* T8Mf 7T2'r GE*vP TiL vCvik 4 te E4cy A e,3 op 4 pg, ecen~ seu. a.ar Coca

eecre, rame, w 8r, FE'c h n

7,c,e trCEP Eo.- ppt Fxi p en E1.PC7 gEs c.2g ,g,,,,, s y> c p y,.7,,

2. w

, m,i, w 4 -, r a c. c. %- u,,.zc 3 oracc e "> M VC2:- E p pi $fg,,.f 7, re rec u 3, h .saFFe c Esi c2rC2JELS ' 4 O Easc. e. c.4u Eo r-as rcse-tk ea: r*'+ F* - " ' 9 ET Q -=4o M ' Corir2Erc;;., w ggs p.cq rce to r r cE4e TAFF'c 6woCI H E rw a W A cts ear. F-s aA vur A rs m;~; u '9r o,fra ro Horthr Td Ec c, S 5 Cl* L & R E, *r cF ' w.,5 9 .c w to ;*T

  • O 0~EfL V I- 0.,

HsTE O?'f S69 EEi N-T f4r to w C e. r >H C,v Fi Ec.O NEn EE c P-C f W e > Ico He orJ b ofiHC 763 ( o-2.&, R ov7G AL.5 M vCe rw ~r u irn-r k r-er+er i r '*

  • r e Es e

^ #F ON c Ce um 7 12ut w h 4FrCR THE O R ra t-m.- a r3 g OTC AG C x CR C g,s ,,y, e -B-}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20092P750&oldid=4330553"