ML20093L424
| ML20093L424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1984 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 5211-84-2191, NUDOCS 8407310407 | |
| Download: ML20093L424 (2) | |
Text
. -_
GPU Nuclear Corporation g
g7 Post Office Box 480 Route 441 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
July 25, 1984 5211-84-2191 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4
- d. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Stolz:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Resolution of Emergency Planning Deficiencies The ASLB Partial Initial Decision (PID) on the restart of TMI-1 identified several emergency planning conditions tt be satisfied prior to restart.
Item 2010g of the PID required a communications drill to be held as a result of problems identified by FEMA in the June 2, 1981 TMI Annual Exercise.
This drill was conducted on October 14, 1981 and judged sufficient by the NRC Staff and NRC restart certification item #144 was certified as complete (see NRC Letter dated July 25,1983).
The November 16, 1983 TMI Annual Exercise, however, identified comunications deficiencies similar to those discussed in the PID. On June 25, 19 4 Mr. William Dircks wrote a memorandum to the NRC Commissioners prov1 ding the staff's recomendations toward the resolution of emergency preparedness related TMI-l restart issues.
GPU Nuclear met with representatives of FEMA Region III and NRC Region I to discuss resolution of the communications deficiencies. Subsequently, a comunications exercise with all 5 risk counties was conducted July 17, 1984. Attached is a letter of July 16, 1984 from GPUN to FEMA Region III describing the objectives of the exercise and the scenario used. GPUN provided observers, through the use of Emergency Management Services, Inc. (EMS) at all County E0C's. A detailed analysis by EMS of the comnunications exercise is included (Attachment 2). The report indicates that the exercise successfully demonstrated the communications capability of the five counties surrounding TMI. As is to be expected, areas needing further attention were identified and GPUN, through the efforts of EMS, will address these matters as part of its continuing program of assistance to the counties.
8407310407 840725 PDR ADOCK 05000289 9
F PDR y
_ _ce,,__,s.. _,,,,ee _ _ e_osco,,__
Mr. John F. Stoltz 52;;-84-2191 Prior to the July 17, 1984 conurunications exercise, a special comnunications drill was conducted to address communications deficiencies in Dauphin and 1
Lancaster Counties identified by fem in the 1983 TMI Annual Exercise.
1 This drill, held June 18, 1984, involved TMI TMI risk counties and the Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP). The drill scenario simulated a break-d0wn in the notification scheme between TMI and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEM) thereby requiring Dauphin County to assume the lead role in the notification process.
In addition, the scenario included the protective action recomnendation of sheltering to be passed.
Representatives from fem Region III and PEm were observers. The drill identified the need for the development of a Standard Operating Procedure and for conducting specialized training dealing with notifications and comnunications. Emergency Management Services, Inc. provided specialized training dealing with notifi-cations for Dauphin County.
EMS also developed a Standard Operating Procedure which was adopted for use by all five TMI risk counties. These actions were performed prior to the July 17, 1984 Communication Exercise.
GPUN believes that the July 17, 1984 communications exercise resolves the comnunications aspects of the deficiencies identified in the 1983 TMI Annual Exercise and forms the basis for the NRC Staff to re-certify completion of PID item 2010g.
The Category A deficiencies identified in the 1983 TMI Annual Exercise will be further addressed in exercises scheduled for the third quarter of 1984.
These exercises should resolve any remaining concerns about the adequacy of offsite Emergency Planning for TMI.
Sincerely, f
u Director. TMI-1 HDH/GJG/SM0/djb Attachment (2) cc:
D. Matthews, NRC Headquarters R. Conte Senior Resident Inspector T. Martin, NRC Region I R. Wilkerson, FE m Headquarters J. Asher, FEM Region III J. Patten, PEm
ATTACHMENT 1 e
p-GPU Nuclear Corporation Route 4 S th Mic::.6:cwn, Pen.spania 17c57 C15.
717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Nurncer:
(717) 948-8440 6400-84-65 Jely 16, 1984 Mr. J. Asher, RAC Chairman FEMA Region III Curtis BLilding Seventh Floor Sixth and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Asher:
Pursuant to our meetin Mr. William J. Dircks'g of July 3,1984 and in accordance with June 25, 1984 memo to the NRC Comrrissioners, a corrr unications exercise is scheduled for July 17, 1984. This exercise will involve the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), Bureau of Radiation Protectior. (BRP). Druphin, Lancaster, York, Cumberland and Lebanon Cotnties and TMI risk municipalities.
Attached for your informa. tion is the scenario for this exercise.
The objectives for the exercise include:
- Satisfactorily perform the TM1-1 restart condition item 2010g (NRC certification item #144) imposed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
There must be held prior to restart of TMI-l at least one comunications drill similar to that suggested by the Comnonwealth (PF fil8).
The drill should include ideally, communications between:
Licensee and PElG, PEl% and each risk county and its key officials and each municipality and its key officials.
Such a drill should be structured to test telephone servict and the various radio systems.
If possible, stress should be placed on the communications systems to test the possible effect on an emergency overload situation.
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public utilities Corporation
_ _ _ =. _ _
i O
J. Asher July 16, 19?:
- Dauphin County will demor. strate its ability to promptly implement the notification and alerting responsibility upon a breakdown in commur.ications between PEMA and TMI. Notifications shall include other TMI risk counties, PEMA and Dauphin County risk municipalities.
- Lancaster County will demcnstrate its ability to promptly notify the Lancaster County risk municipalities of TMI emergency declarations and protective action recomnendations.
Please inform nie at ycur earliest convenience as to whether the objectivet.
have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Again, I woclo like to thank you for the support and cooperation you have provided towards the prompt resolution of exercise deficiencies.
Sincerely.
'7 s w.
G. J Giang GPUNMana@er, Emergency Preparedness 1sg Attachment cc:
R. Wilkerson, FEMA Headquarters l
P. Giordano, Director FEMt. Region III i
D. Mathews, NRC Headquarters B. Crocker, NF.C Region I J. Patten, PEMA D. Taylor, PEMA I
I
'l l
=
i SCEhARIO Clocktime/ Scenario time 10C0 T=0 TMI-l Centrol Rocm notifies Dauphin County and PEMA that a Site Emergency was declared at TMI-1.at 0950 due to a large leak within the Reactor Building.
Minor amounts of radioactivity is being released to the envirtnment btt is expected to terminate within 30 minutes.
Expected Actions:
PEMA should contact BRP and the TMI risk counties.
Dauphin County should contact the risk municipalities.
BRP should contact TMI-1.
~
1000 T = 30 TMI-l recommends sheltering fer a 2 mile radius. around TMI to BRP. At this point it will be assumed that neither BRP nor TMI can contact PEMA requiring Dauphin County to assume the. lead role.
Expected Actions:
Dauphin County should contact the risk ccunties, Dauphin County risk municipalities and attempt to contact PEMA.
9 m
I e
i i
i f
i e
.~
- ~
r 7
--.--_--r---.
~-.r~
, ' ~.
s ATTACHMENT 2 EMS emergency Management Services. inc.
Suite 105 355 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5677 July 18, 1984 JUL 191984 Mr. George Giangi Manager, Emergency Preparedness GPU Nuclear P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057
Dear George:
In accord with your instructions, EMS assigned personnel to each of the five TMI risk counties to independently observe player partici-pation in the communications exercise. The observers were orally briefed on the general scheme of the drill and instructed to observe the effective-ness of message handling (authentication and accuracy), dissemination of messages (both internally and to risk municipalities), the amount of realism (actual play vs. simulation), and finally to assess the overall demonstrated capability of the observed county to conduct operations under emergency conditions. Due to some early concerns expressed by county EMCs, the introduction of these observers into the framework of the exercise were not as official critics. Consequently, the observations listed below should be treated as a basis for GPU/ EMS continuing effort to assist the counties in the development of more effective organizations and improved operational procedures.
The comments are not listed in any priority manner.
Favorable comment:
a.
The counties participated to the degree to which they had planned to participate, and notified all risk municipalitie's in an acceptable time frame, which in itself is a major undertaking that severely tests the saturation point of the inplace telephone communications system.
b.
All counties demonstrated that their respective listing of municipal EMCs and institutional points of contact were up to date.
c.
The existing notification systems were adequate, d.
Telephone communications,.although slow, were sufficient to meet the initial message dissemination requirements.
l l
e.
On duty shif ts (full time employees) were adequate l
to handle the initial message dissemination surge.
l f.
Initial response personnel demonstrated their general knowledge of the RERP as it applied t,o dissemination of the triggering l
message.
1 3
In two instances. Lebanon and York Counties, second echelons of leadership demonstrated their respectiva capacities to fill' the EMC roles due to the absence of the EMC. The Dauphin County EMC i
handled the responsibilities of the assistant EMC during the ' initial j
notification requirement and demonstrated that the county has the capability-i to accommodate the loss of key personnel and operate effectively.
i h.
Dauphin County demonstrated that'it has the capacity to assume net control from PEMA in the event of a communications failure by
}.
use of existing radio and/or telephone channels.
j
- i. Of special interest were the actions of Lancaster County.
This county extended the drill beyond the communications objectives to 1
include setting up of the IOC; activating RACES, PEMARS and local government radio nets; and, the plannijs and preparation for triggering of the public alert system. Two volunteerstaff members physically reported to the EOC l
and set-up for continued operations.
1
- j. Dauphin County is to be commended for its full call-out effort which included municipalities, school districts, nursing homes, etc.
Especially noteworthy was the effort to locate primary points of contact and the cooperation and coordination among those disseminating the initici message in sharing the notification burden.
i 4
- k. Positive attitudes toward the drill and its importance for I
preparedness were observed in all counties.
I Areas needing attention:
1 i
a.
The recording of emergency notification messages needs j
additional practice to insure completeness, accuracy and timeliness.
t b.
All messages, incoming and outgoing, should be in writing.
4 1
This would ensure that when several individuals are disseminating information that the identical inforestion is being delivered, t
I Lebanon County did not receive the initial message from 4
c.
j PEMA.
I t
d.
During drills and tests (communications) some administrative j
arrangements need to be developed which does not require the personal response j
of the municipal EMC. The present system of calling the business or work place i
of the EMC and having the individual called or paged only to discover that it is a communications drili is not received enthusiastically by either I
the employee (ENC) or the employer.
l l
g fer Gul af, IM felet*h*** **
- bN#* & I' WY y
s,,,,,,,,,. s easy,a men K. Nedmen (fM)ye & %*/d"'
- , i,,,e,.,,s+ a J s h o ~t*' 4 * * /* * *'-
.=
. _~
e.
Four of the five county RERPs include an Incident Notification Form, designed to be used for the transmission of information from the State to the County. The Lancaster County RERP does not include the form. The forms being used by the four counties are not identical.
(York County uses a form shown as Change #1, July 1983 and the remaining counties use the form distributed with their initial RERP). The York County form includes redundant information in paragraph II. and III.8.
f.
The initial notification message from some counties to municipalities and institutions was too lengthy.
J 3
The role of the log / journal needs to be emphasized during subsequent training sessions and a" log / journal clerk" needs to be identified and instructed in its maintenance, in some instances.
j EMS provided observers to the Counties as follows:
Cumberland County..................M. S tarry Dauphin County.....................K. Henderson j
Lancas ter Coun ty...................R. Carroll Lebanon County.....................W. Vinnette Yo r k Coun ty........................ D. Th oma s t
The TEMA provided J. Asher as an observer to the Dauphin County and 1
i K. Lawson to the Lancaster County. The PEMA similarly assigned P. Robbins l
to Dauphin County and R. Foor to Lancaster County.
have representatives at the other EOCs.
Sincerely, d
i j
ORAN K. HENDERSON j
OKH:kar l
I i
i I
l i
l
-.