ML20137Y677
| ML20137Y677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510080068 | |
| Download: ML20137Y677 (2) | |
Text
. . . - -- - - - _ - = - - - - - . ._ .
l
- SEP 3 0 $85 Docket No. 50-483 Union Electric Company ATTN
- Mr. Donald F. Schnell Vice President - Nuclear
, Post Office Box 149 - Mail Code 400 4
St. Louis, MO 63166 Gentlemen:
We have received the enclosed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) letter dated September 3, 1985, and associated final exercise evaluations on the offsite emergency preparedness exercise conducted on June 5, 1985.
This was a full participation exercise of the State of Missouri and the Counties of Gasconade, Callaway, Osage, and Montgomery. This final exercise evaluation lists several recommendations (which are referred to in the FEMA l letter and attachments as deficiencies) regarding the offsite emergency response plans for the area around the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant.
Based on the performance of the offsite agencies during the exercise, FEMA d
did not identify any deficiencies affecting public health and safety in the event of an accident at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant. As a result, the approval under FEMA Rule 44 CFR 350 will remain in effect.
We fully recognize that the recommendations to be implemented may involve j actions by other parties and political institutions which are not under your direct control. Nonetheless, we would expect the subject of offsite prepared-ness for the area around the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant to be addressed by you as well as others.
/
8510000068 ADOCK O5000 83 OM l PDR PDR i i
F i
. . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . , , _ . . _ . , . . . _ _ . . ~ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . , . . . . _ . . . _ , . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ , . . ~ . _ _ . . . _ . . _
Union Electric Company 2 SEP 30 1985 4
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
i Sincerely, e0rtainal Signed by W.D. Shafer" W. D. St afer, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch l
Enclosure:
As stated i
i cc w/ encl:
l W. H. Weber, Manager, Nuclear i Construction i S. E. Miltenberger, Plant Manager R. L. Powers, Assistant Manager Quality Assurance DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Region IV
^! K. Drey Chris R. Rogers, P.E.
Utility Division, Missouri l Public Service Commission SNUPPS i
i-e RIII I RIII RI Patter n/jp Ph ps Suermann ha &r 09/30/85 4/so W
W. e,%*%
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency f' 4 j Washington, D.C. 20472 O v SEP 31985 fo-913 MEMORANDlN FOR: Edward L. Jordan Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness rM Mr@
fCgz and Engineering Response t-bl -l L Office of Inspection and Enforconent 7F- p U.S. ear Re atory Conmission ~[ r'
/,Q f FROM: - d'W . i nm Assistant Associate Director Q J' ~ ~
int Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs StBJECT: Exercise Report of the June 5,1985, Exercise of the Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans for the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Attached is a copy of the Exercise Report of the June 5,1985, joint exercise of the offsite radiological energency preparedness plans for the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant. This exercise was full participation for the State of Missouri and four counties. The report, dated July 22,1985, was prepared by Region VII of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Although there were Category B deficiencies observed at the exercise, they did not detract from the overall demonstrated capability to protect the health and safety of the public. The State is preparing a schedule of corrective actions. As soon as it is received, we will send you a copy.
However, since there were no identified impediments to protecting the public during this exercise the approval under 44 CFR 350 will remain in ef fect.
If you have any questions, p1 ease contact Mr. Robert S. Wilkerson, Chief, Technological Mazards Division, at 646-2861.
Attachment As Stated
=non m;5."J50903 PDR 7s p ADOCK 05000483 '
F PDR
$ g@ 2,3 6 si
\
4 Federal Emergency Management Agency
( Region VII 911 Walnut Stnet Kansas City, Missouri 6410F JUL 2 21985 MD40RANDUM FOR: Samuel Speck Associate Director
, tate & Locpl Programs & Support FROM:
Cr 4))U
- Patrick J. Breheny, Regio d
lA/
1 Director, FIMA-Region VI::
SUBJECT:
Submission of the Exercise Report for the Evaluation c f'the-Implementation of State and Local Radiological Emergen.*y Response Plans for the Callavay Nuclear Power Plant In compliance with kk CFR Part 350 and your memo of August 5, 1983, I hereby submit three copies of the Exercise Report, dated July 22, 1985, for the evaluation of the implementation of State and Local Radiological j Emergency Response plans for the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant exercise, l
June 5, 1985, for your review and approval.
( A Table of Contents is provided to assist in your review. Further documentation and related materials are retained and may be requested t
from FIEA Region VII, which is the office of record for this exercise evaluation. -
'We wish to emphasize that although the off-site authorities failed to demonstrate the initial alert and notification within fifteen minutes, we have determined in this one instance, not to cite a Class A deficiency.
We focused on the fact that the plant issued two separate messages to ,
f Callaway County announcing the Site Area Energency. These messages 1 contained information which was in conflict with the scenario and with each other. In addition, the first message was inconsistent within itself ;
l and the second came frcan a source outside of the communication chain. j A twelve minute delay ensued in the attunpt to verify and correct the two messages. We have noted the chronology of events (p. 19) which contributed to the delay. We attribute this deficiency to the plant's Technical Support Center (TSC), (p. 32) rather than to Callavay County e and as such wish this be brought to the attention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a further observation of the on-site /off-site coordination [
and communication.
Therefore, with no Class A deficiencies noted, the exercise demonstrated that the off-site preparedness continues to be adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be takeni to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the site in the event of a radiological emergency.
Attachment l
l l
EXERCISE EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE AND IDCAL RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS CONDUCTED JUNE 5, 1985 for the CALLAWAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri Union Electric Company, Licensee FARTICIPANTS:
O Siete er Missouri County of Callaway County of Montgomery County of Gasconade County of Osage (All jurisdictions participated)
JULY 22, 1985 prepared by Federal Baergency Management Agency Region VII Kansas City, MO
-850HHHH47- 850903 ij'U
~ /,
I EXERCISE o EVALUATION June 5,19 8 5, Exercise of the Radiological Emergency Response Plans for the State of Missouri, ,
and the Counties of Callaway, Gasconade, Montgomery, and Osage f or the Union Electric Company's C ALL AW AY NUCLE AR POW.ER PLANT near Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri July 22,1985 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region Vil P ATRICK J. BR E HE NY 911 Walnut Street Q
Regional Director Kansas Cit y, M O 6410 6 l
L
s 00BTENTS t ,~
r
- ABBREVIATIONS AND ACR0NDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv EKERCISE StBetAR Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi 4 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................... i 1.1 Exercise Background......................................... 1 1.2 Exercise Evaluators......................................... 1 1.3 Evaluation criteria......................................... 2 1.h Exercise Objectives......................................... 2 1.5 Exe rc i se S c enari o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.6 State and Local Resources.................................. 15 2 EXERCISE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.1 Missouri Operations........................................ 17 2.1.1 State E=ergency Operations Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.1.2 E=ergency Operations Facility....................... 23 2.1.2.1 Forward Co--aad Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
]
i 2.1.2.2 Publi c Infor=ation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 j 2.1.2.3 Badiological Assessment.................... 25 2.1.3 Radiological Monitoring Teams....................... 26
~
i 2.1.h Joint Public Infor=ation Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 l . 2.1.5 Medical E=ergency................................... 29 2.2 County Operations.......................................... 30 j 2.2.1 Callaway County /Fulton E0C.......................... 30 2.2.2 Gasconade County E00................................ 32 2.2.3 Montgo=ery County E00............................... 3h j 2.2.h Osage Cvunty E0C.................................... 35
- 2. 3 S1mmary of Deficiencies and Reco==endations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 s
U
O A>8arv1*T10=S A=D ACa0 1 s .
ANL Argonne National Laboratory BRH Missouri Division of Health, Bureau of Radiological Health CCEOC Callavay County /Fulton Energency Operations Center CNPP Callaway Nuclear Power Plant DOT Department of Transportation EBS Emergency Broadcast System ECC Emergency Co==unication Center i
ECCS Emergency Core Coolant System EOF Energency Operations Facility EPA Enviorn= ental Protection Agency EPL Etergency Preparedness Director
() EPC E=ergency Planning Zone FAA Federal Aviation Ad=inistration FEMA Federal E=ergency Management Agency FCF Forward Co==and Post FEA Federal Highway Administration GCE00 Gasconade County Emergency Operatiens Center GOIC Union Electric Company's General Office Information Center INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory JPIC Joint Public Information Center KI Potassius Iodide '
LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MCEOC Montgomery County Emergency Operations Center NUREG-065L Criteria for preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
() Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-065L/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1) i i
iv I I
L J
OCEOC Osage County Energency Operations Center g PAG Protective Action Guide PAR Protective Action Recommendation PIO Public Information Officer PHS Public Health Service RAC Regional Assistance Committee RCS Reactor Coolant System RER Residual Heat Removal Department Public Safety, State Emerger.:y SEMA Missouri of Management Agency SEOC State Energency Operations Center TLD Tnermoluminescent Dosimeter UE Union Electric Company USDA United States Department of Agriculture g i
)
O l
v
EXERCISE SIDetARY 1
The purpose of an exercise is to determine the ability of appropriate off-site agencies to respond to an emergency covered by state and local Radiological Emergency Response Plans. The evaluation of such an effort
- vill, of necessity, tend to focus on the negative aspects of the exercise,
. on deficiencies in planning, preparedness and performance.
This focus of attention on the negative should not be taken to mean that there were not a great many positive accomplishments as well. Indeed, there were. However, in the interest of brevity, only deficiencies vill herein be su==arized.
Currently, FD!A recognizes two types of deficiencies:
(1) Those that would lead to a judgement that off-site emergency l preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance j that appropriate protective measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency. A deficiency of this type would lead to a negative finding; and (2) Those where performance during the exercise was considered faulty, and corrective actions are required. However, all factors taken together give reasonable assurance that, in the event of a real radiological emergency, appropriate measures can and vill be taken to protect the health and safety of the public. Deficiencies of this type vould not dictate a negative finding.
8 It should be noted that no deficiencies of the first type (leading to a negative finding) were observed at any location or activity during this exercise. Generally, the mobilization of staff and activation of facilities was successfully accomplished, and the appropriate response was carried out according to plan. Departures from this pattern of operation are noted below.
i MISSOURI OPERATIONS State Ehnergency Operations Center -
Seven deficiencies requiring corrective action were observed. .Four vere in relation to the objective requiring a demonstration of the ability
, to coordinate emergency activities and decision making. Specifically, the message handling and use of the status board require improvement.
One deficiency relates to the insufficient number of phones available for use by other State agencies, and two relate to the failure to alert the public and give an initial instructional message within 15 minutes.
Complete details are contained in Section 2.1.1.
l l vi l
l
li l
I Baergency Operations Facility i
Three deficiencies requiring corrective action were ;bserved. In the Forward Command Post there was an occassional breakdown of con =unications between BRH and PIO. In the PIO there was a departure from the plan when messages were formulated at the JPIC instead of the EOF. The Radiological Assessment group did not arrive at the EOF in a timely manner. Full details are contained in Section 2.1.2.
Radiological Monitoring Teams The only deficiency observed was a departure from the State Plan, which states that the teams vill be comprised of one BRH person and one SEMA person.
In this exercise the SDM person was replaced by a Union Electric employee.
Other suggestions for enhanced performance are contained in Section 2.1.3.
Joint Public Information Center No deficiencies vere observed in carrying out the objectives of this operation. However, there are recommendations and suggestions intended to enhance perfor=ance contained in Section 2.1.k.
Medical Energency No deficiencies were observed. Suggestions are noted, however, in
.I Section 2.1.5 COUNTY OPERATIONS Callaway County /Fulton EDC Two deficiencies requirinE corrective action were observed. Both related to the require =ent to alert the public and disseminate an initial message within 15 minutes. Full details are contained in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.1.1 (SEOC).
Gasconade County EDC No deficiencies requiring corrective action were observed. For details and sugEestions for enhanced operations see Section 2.2.2.
Montgomery County EDC No deficiencies requiring corrective action were observed. Full details of the operation are contained in Section 2.2.3 Osage County EOC The only deficiency requiring corrective action was an insufficiency of outEoinE phone lines. A discussion of the operation is contained in Section 2.2.h. )
vii
O De=onstration of the Alert and Notification system was conducted on May 7, 1985 In view of this, all facilities were relieved of the necessity to provide an actual demonstration of tone alert radios and sirens.
Siculation was acceptable.
- O i
i O
l viii l
1 INTRODUCTION g
1.1 EXERCISE BACKGROUND The first joint radiological emergency preparedness exercise for the CNFP was conducted on March 21, 198h, resulting in the need for a remedial exercise of the Alert and Notification System. During the March 21, 198L, exercise, the State failed to demonstrate the ability to promptly alert the public, and to effectively coordinate the development and release of protective action reco=mendations.
Also, Callavay County did not demonstrate the capability to adequately and effectively sound sirens in the EPZ.
These failures necessitated a remedial exercise which was successfully conducted on April 19, 198L.
Participants in both exercises in 198h and this exercise of June 5, 1955, were: The State of Missouri, and the Counties of Callavay, Gasconade, Montgomery and Osage.
The exercise of 1965 was conducted on June 5, between the hours of 0800 and 1630. It was classified as Full Scale with all State and local jurisdictions participating.
1.2 EXERCISE EVAIDA'IORS h Fourteen Federal agency personnel and five FEMA contract staff evaluated the off-site energency response functions. These individuals and their exercise assignrents are given below:
OBSEEVE? AGEiCY ASSIGNFHiT Frank Begley F D*.A Exercise Overview Wolf Biedenfeld HHS/PHS Medical Emergency Bob Bissell FEMA Osage Co. EOC Eill Erinck EPA EOF - Radiological Assessment Kay Carder FD/.A Gasconade Co. EOC Marlee Carroll FDiA EOF - PIO Tony Foltman ANL State EOC Caroline Herzenberg ANL Field Tea Monitoring Arnie Hessler DOT /FAA State EOC To= Hogan FD/A Callaway Co. EOC Rochelle Honkus INEL Field Tea = Monitoring Yehuda Klein ANL Callavay Co. EOC Rich Leonard FD'A State EOC L. C. Lindsey DOT / FHA Callaway Co. EOC Ron McCabe FD/.A Montgomery Co. E00 Dorothy Nevitt USDA State E00 Eileen O' Hare FD'A/ABC Federal Liaison Chris Saricks Tic Seidel ANL FD'A Forward Coenand Post JPIC Dick Sumpter FD'A Exercise Overview
_p_
1.3 EVA111ATION CRITERIA l
The evaluation criteria for this exercise were:
- 1. N" REG-065L/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (All applicable requirements).
1.a. The thirty-five standardized objectives developed as a summary of observable elements contained in NURIL-065k, and submitted by the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency indicating the locations for demonstration (s).
(See matrix, pages 3 to lk.)
- 2. Missouri Nuclear Accident Plan - Callavay, 1983 (All current l revisions through May, 1985).
- 3. Callaway County /Fulton Radiological Emergency Response Plan, 198L (All Revisions through May, 1985).
- Callavay County /Fulton Implementing Procedure Responsibilities (All revisions through May, 1985).
L. Gasconade County Radiological Emc rgency Response Plan, 195L (All revisions through May, 1985).
Gasconade County Implementing Procedure Responsibilities (All revisions through May, 1985).
O 5 Montgo:ery County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, 19SL (All revisions through May, 1985).
Montgomery County I=plementing Procedure Responsibilities (All revisions through May, 1985).
- 6. Osage County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, 198h (All revisions through May, 1985).
Osage County Implementing Procedure Responsibilities (All revisions through May, 1985).
1.h EXERCISE OBJECTIVES On March 21, 1985, the State of Missouri submitted for=al objectives for State and local jurisdictions for this exercise. On April 15, 1985, l
they sub:itted the following matrices showing which objectives applied to which facilities or functions. The objectives are numbered 1 through 35, j and vill be refered to by nu=ber throughout this evaluation report.
I O
I ST ATE OBJECTIVES 1985
____________IPIO _________________IFN IDose Assm IJPIC INedical IEOC IFCP I____I_____I_____I__________l____t______l____
I I I I 8 .
t I ;
! I i t i !
- 1. Demonstrate ability to Ii YES I YES YES 1 YES !YES I YES ! N/A I mobilize staff and i i i ! I i :
cetivate f acilities l _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ t _ _ _ _ _ _t _ _ __ II __ _ _ 1 i_ _ _
promp tl y. i I I ! I i I i ! #
Demonstrate ability to 1 i i I
- 2. ! t fully staff facilities ! ! I E E IE I O g N/A g cnd maintian staffing i i ! I 1___ ___ t _ ____
g cround the clock. !___!_____!_____l_________t_ I I i ! t I
! ! f I
! ! ! I
- 3. Demonstrate ability to 1 1
! 1
! ! I I i !
E N/A g YES g N/A g make decisions and to i i i E I I
____f coordinate emergency activities. l _ _ _ _ f _ _I _ _ _I ! _ _ _ _ _ II __ _ I_ _ ___I __ t ___I _ ! _
f I i !
I I I i I I i O. Demonstrate adequacy I I i i i I I gN/A of f acilities and I N/A YES g b IEb I N/A !
YES displays to support i I I i t i I i !
emergency operations. I i !
! I i Semonstrate abilaty to ! I 1
i 1
I ! ! I IE i E t YES g N/A communicate with all ! lE i appropriate locations, !
! ! ! I t i I organi z ati ons , and t t :
- t field personnel. ! ! I
! ! I i ! I i !
- 6. Demonstrate ability to : t ! : 1 i i i mobilire and deploy !
N/A YES g E3 N/A N/A field monitoring teams i I^ ! IA ! g in a timely f ashion.
!____!_____I_____!__________t____I______!______,t. I I
- I I I I t I I I
! ! I
- 7. Demonstrate appropri- 1 I i I t I I
ate equipment and 1 I N/A I)TS 3 N/A I N/A I procedures f or deter- tN/A IN/A I N/A i ! I 1 I mining ambient radi- I I i ation levels. !____!_____!_____!__________I____f______I____
i I t I t i l I i I I
Demonstrate appropri- : i i I O. I I t I I I ate equipment and I N/A HTS t N/A I N/A I
procedures f or measur- IN/A !N/A IN/A ! I i i i i I i
ment of airborne ! I I I I I I i
radiciodine concentra- i! I I 1 I I t
tions as low as I I I
! I i 10-7 uCi/CC presence of noble I ! I I i I i i !
i jg! t I i !
gases. f l
TE6E iFEE- iFiB- TBBEE EssR IFA- i3ETE- inE5iEEEt
- 8 : t_____t__________r____r______t_______:
I I g 3 I : ! :
7 monstrate appropri- t I t t 0 s*e equipment and procedures f or collet-i I
I I
t I
.NO t:N/A
- N/A i N/A I N/A I N/A i N/A .
- j tion, transport and ! I I t ,
I !
analysis of samples I t
! I 3 c4 soil, vegetation, ! i I i ! l____i,____,t_______t l snow, water and milk. t____t i I 1 t t :
I I I t 2 ,
- 10. Demonstrate ability I I I I I I t 8 t N/A to project dosage ! I YES N/A N/A N/A i YES N/A 8 I t '
to the pubite vsa I !
! I I t t .
plume exposure, based I i !
I i ! ! I I I on plant and field I I
! ! ! I t !
data, and to determine i ! ! 1 I * ;
appropriate protective ! !
! I ! I I I I measures, based on ! t '
I I I I i I I PAG *s, available I I I I
! ! I I shelter, evacuation ! I I i ! ! !
time estimates, and t I t !
i ! ! !
other appropriate l____t t i !____!______8_______t factors. ! I i t i ,
I I
I ! ! ! I t!
- 11. Demonstrate ability i ! I t to project dosage ! I I* t N/A g N/A N/A N/A ;NO .N/A g NO g g g to the public via ! ! t 8
( ngestion pathway I i ! !
I
- i i I i I exposure, based on ! !
! ! ! I I field data, and to I !
I ! I t
! I I t determine appropriate t 1 i ; 1 1 protective measures I i 1 8 1 I t I based on PAG's and ! I I ! !
an other relevant I t I : I I 1 fattors (NUREG-0654, ! I
_ ! ! I t 1.10, J .11 ) . t____I_____!_____!____ I t ! I I ! ! !
I t I t 4
- 12. Demonstrate abiity to I i !
I
- I I I I I implement protective !
NO NO NO NO NO g NO g i NO g g g g g action f or ingestion I t 1
! I i i pathway hazards I ! I ! t I (NUREG-0654, J. 9, ! !
U 113- I____I_____I_____I__________t____!______f_______!
,1 ! ! !
- I I t
I ! !
- 13. Demonstrete abiliy to ! ! 8 I
! ! I N/A alert the public with- l gYESgYES gN/A :N/A g N/A g N/A g g in the 30-mile EP2, I I t disseminate an initial !! !
I I ! I I I instruc t i onal message l____1_____I____,t__________t____!______I_ _ _ __ t within 15 minutes O
I
~
IE6E~ikEP ~~IPib~~ib65E 5555~iE5'~lJP5E~~i5E65E ___i______I______
I____I_____!_____I__________f i t i
! I i t I 3 :
! I
- 10. Demonstrate ability to ! !
I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A i YES I YES I1 N/A g
i !
f ormulate and distri- I ;
bute apprpriate in- 1 1
I t :
- g 3 i 3 structions to the I i t i ;
public in a timely I I t_____i__________t____g______;! I f ashion. I i i t
! ! I I I I I i I I I
- 15. Demonstrate the organi-ti I I I I I I
rati onal ability and I NO I NO I NO I NO I NO i :
resources necessary to i NO i NO I i 1 I I
I ! ! !
manage an orderly I i I i i I I evacuation of all or l ! I I I I I i !
part of the plume EPZ ! ! ! I I (NUREG-0654, J.9, J.10 9). !____!_____8_____!__________!____!_____ I ! ! I i i
! : 1 I i i
! ! ! I I N/A
- 16. Demonstrate the organi-! ygg i I I N/A I I N/A N/A I rational ability and 8 N/A i N/A ! ! I I i i resources necessary to i ! I i 8 i I deal with impediments ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I to evacuation, as i I I I i i : I inclement weather or ! ! I i i
!____jggi traf fic obstructions. ____I_____!_____I__________
I i i (NUREG-0654, J.10.k). ; I ! i l i i ! I
- 17. Demonstate the organi- : I NO I NO I NO I 1 g3 NO z ati onal ability and ! g3 I
99 i : : I :
I I resources necessary to !
I i i ! I I
! I control sccess to an ! I I I I I !
evacuated area (NUREG- !! i I 0654, J.10.j). i i i
! I I !
i ! !
! 1 I
- 18. Demonstrate the organi-! i i : t : !
I rational ability and I i I N/A I N/A I N/A g3 i
! ! pfg N/A I resources neccessary i g) i i i ! !
to ef f ect an orderly I
! ! ! I i !
I evacuation of mobility-! : ! I I I I I !
impaired individuals 1
! ! ! I I I within the plume EPZ (NUREG-0654, J.10.d). i____I_____I_____I__________!____I____
9
~
TE5E iFEE- iFiB iB5sE EsiA iFA- 13EiE- IRE 5iEEEi
____t_____.._____ __________I____l______t_______.
I I i ! :
! I i I I ! ! I
- 19. Demonstrate the organi- : 1 I N/A I r ati onal ability and i NO ! NO I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A
! I I I resources necessary to I : : !
I I i ! :
effect an orderly i i !
I I : : :
evacuation of s chool s i 8 I i ; I :
within the plume EPZ ! !
I i ! ! !
(NUREG-0654, J.9, i I J .10. g) . t____I_____!_____!__________!____!__ l_______:
- 1 I I I 8 i !
I I I I i !
- 20. Demonstrate the ability: 1 I
to continously monitor YES I YES I YES I YES I YES I N/A I N/A
! I I I I i 1 and control emegency :
! I I worker exposure. !____I_____!_____!__________!! I I I I I I I
! ! ! I I
- 21. Demonstrate the ability! I i I I I I to make the decision, ! ! I I I
based on predetermined I N/A I YES I N/A 3 YES I N/A I N/A I N/A I I .I i i i !
criteria, whether to
- i I I f f i !
issue K1 to emergency :
- i i 1 : I I workers and/or the I f f i general popul at i on. I I t I i ! I i ! ! !
I f I ! !
Demonstrate the ability: I !
m) I to supply and adminster : N/A l N/A 3I N/A ! YES I YES I N/A I N/A !
i i ! ! l KI, once the decision i t I i______,:
has been made to do so.l____l_____l I I I :
- I 1
! ! I :
- 23. Demonstrate the ability: ! !
I to effect an orderly i! 99 i i N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A :
. I I I t evacuation of onsite l :
(
personnel (NUREG-0654, i : : 1 I I I i J.2). I i : I i : I I ! I i !
- i : 1 I
- 24. Demonstrate ability to I t 1 I
l brief the media in a N/A I N/A I
N/A I N/A I N/A I YES I N/A i I : I : I I clear, accurate and I
timely manner. I I i i !____!______f_______
l I
l l
l f
f 1
TE6E TEEE- iFi5- T55sE AssR :
TEA-13EiE-I_______:
TA;&n E I I i i ! ;
t ! I t
! I
- 25. D;monstrate ability to ! YES ! YES 3 YES K) I K) !
YES provide advance co- ! !
t i !
crdination of inform- I I t_____I__________I____1______t______ I I t !
otion released. i I I I t ! I :
! I !
- 26. Demonstrate ability to I !
N/A I N/A I YES I N/A Gatablish and operate ! N/A:! N/A II N/A If i 1 8 I i rumor control i n a co- I! I I !____t I i
! 8 orinated f ashion. i i i i t ! I i
! I I i J I g) i I K)
- 27. Demonstrate adequacy i g) i g) I g) NO
! I of procedures for reg- t g) I I i 1 !
I istration and radio- ! 1
! ! 3
! 1
! I i logical monitoring ! ! ! ! !
of evacuees (NUREG- t____!_____!_____I__________f____!_____ I t :
C654, J.12). ! !
! I i I t I
I ! 1 g) I g) f
- 23. Demonstrate adequacy i g) I g) i g) I g) I g) I t I of f acility f or mass ! I I i ! I care of evacuees t i____! i (NUREG-0654e J.lO.h) !____I_____iI i i 1 I t
f : !
I t
! ! ! g :
I
- 29. Demonstrate adequate ! : i ! !
- g)
Gquipment and pro- i g) ! g) g) i g) : g) : g)
- edures f or decon- : I !
I t i tamination of emer- !
! I i 8 i t gency workers, equip- ! t i !
I :-- --- i ment and vehicles : I : ,
(NUREG-0654, K.S.a,b)
. I 1 I i ! :
! ! ; I
/
- 30. Demonstrate adequacy ! I i !
O ; W g YES :
of ambulance f acilities:i O O : O : M i t 1 and procedures for : I I i handling contaminated I f I_______
I____I_____i_____ i i i individuals. i ! I l 1 t t :
t I
! N/A YES g
- 31. Demonstrate adequacy ! !
N/A : N/A g g N/A; N/A N/A ;
of hospital facilities : : I I I l i
and procedures for i I I I 3 handling contaminated 1 _____t_______
individuals. I____I_____:_____I l
O
iEUU~ikbP~~ihib~~i6655~k55b~ikb~~t3PiU~~ihE6i6hii~
!____I_____I_____I__________I____I______I_______t
! ! I t O'
- 32. Demonstrate ability to !
I i I
I I I I i I NO I NO ! NO NO I NO !
identi f y need f or , NO ! NO request, and obtain I i I ! ! I i !
Federal assistance. 1 I I I !____I______I______,t
- I I I I ! I t
- 33. Demonstrate ability to I i i ! ! I I !
relocate to and operate! N/A! No i N/A i NO I N/A N/A I N/A I the al ternate EOF /EDC I I I I I i i !
(NUREG-0654, H.2, H.3).t____I_____I_____!__________1____!______I_______t I I t
! ) ! I I I I I !
- 30. Demonstrate ability to i ! ! I estimate total pop- I N/Al N/A I N/A I NO I N/A t N/A N/A I I t ulaion exposure 1 1 (NUREG-0654, M.4) !____I_____!_____I__________f____f______!_______t
! I l t : I I :
- 35. Demonstrate ability to : i ! ! ! ! I !
determine and imple- ! I t ! I I I I ment appropriate ! NO I NO i N/A ! NO : N/A N/A I N/A 8 i I I ! ! ! I measures for controlled:
recovery and reentry. ! : : 1 I I i O
O 1
i
OBJECTIVES 1985 Callaway! Montgomery ! Osage I Gasconade I t i t I i I I I I I I YES I YES Demonstrate ability to I YES YES I I
- 1. I I mobilize staff and acti- 1 ! -__I_ ____!__________t vate f acilities promptly I I t i 8 i I YES i YES I Demonstrate ability to ! I YES t
- 2. YES I I
! I t fully staff facilities I _t________I_______
and maintain staffing i ! I !
I t !
around the clock. i i 8 I t i I '
t
- 3. Demonstrate ability to I t I YES I YES I
make decisions and to I YES YES I I t i I coordinate emergency l _ ___ __ __ t _ _______t activities. t_ _=_! _ _
I I I t I I I I I O. Demonstrate adequacy of f YES tYES I YES I facilities and displays t YES 8 8
! (
i ! t to support emergency I _____t _
operations. f__________I t 8 i
! I I I I t I I
- 5. Deenonstrate ability to I YES I YES I YES communicate with all ! YES I ! I g
'appropri ate locations, t t I ! W organizations, and field II I I i _!
personnel. I I t
! I I I I I Demonstrate ability to ! i
- 6. N/A I N/A I N/A mobilize and deploy field! N/A !
! I I I monitoring teams in a i I I I I timely f ashion. I !
I t 8 I !
I I I Demonstrate appropriate !
- 7. t N/A I N/A I N/A l' equipment and procedures i N/A I I I t for determining ambient i t I _t l__________!__
radiation levels. t i I I t I I I I
D. Demonstrate appropriate I I N/A t N/A I equipment and procedures t N/A I N/A I 1 8 I
for measurement of air- 1 I t t t I l borne radiciodine con- I I i
! I centrations as low as ! ! I I I 10-7 uCi/CC in i ! ___!________t _
t l the presense of noble gases.
9
, -lo_
i t Cal l away 1 Montgomery Osage ! Gasconadet I f I I I I t !
O Demonstrate approprate !
t N/A I N/A N/A I N/A 3 equipment and procedues ! !
for coll ecti on , trans- 1 I I I I 2 I port and analysis of 8 I !
! ! I samples of soil, vege- t :
I t t tation, snow, water and milk. t__________!____________!________I__________t I 2
! I I i ! ! !
- 10. Demonstrate ability to I project dos.ge to the i N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A
! ! ! I public via plume exposure! I 8 based on plant and field f I f
3 I I data, and to determine ! I I I I I appropriate protective !
I I I !
measures, based on PAG's,I I available shelter , evacu-! ! I l ation time estimates, ! I I i !
! ! ! 8 and all other appropri- t ate f actors. !__________!______ _
l___ _ _ _ I _ __ __ _ __ __ t
! ! I I i i ! l !
- 11. Demonstrate ability to I project dosage to the I public via ingestion i N/A t N/A ! N/A ! N/A
! I I pathway exposure, based I !
[]} on field data, and to t I t !
determine appropriate ! I !
I i ! I protettive measures, I I i !
based on PAG's and other i I
! I I relevant f actors. I I I I I (NUREG-0654, I.10, J.11).1 1 I i 1 f f t i I
- 12. Demonstrate ability to i I
! t f '
implement protective N/A L' / A N/A i N/A actions f or angestion i ! I 1 I I i pathway hazards. (NUREG- t !
I I 0654, J . 9, J .11 ) . f l__________!______ I I I I I I t I
- 13. Demonstrate ability to I 8 i ' I I alert the public within YES YES YES YES I
the 10-mile EPZ, and t I I I l
disseminate an$ initial instructi onal message
! I t i !
l I i within 15 minutes. l__________I__ __ __
I e
O I
1 Callaway--------_-----------i i Montgomery Osage I Gascona -----det l___------
l_ ------- l-_--------- l-------
! I I i
- 14. Demonstrate ability to I i 1 I
f ormulate and distribute !! I yng i yEs I ygs I appropriate instructions ygg
! ! I I to the public in a fashion, timely!l__________I____________I________I__________Ii I I I I I i 1
- 15. Demonstrate the organi- 1 I i l l I rational ability and I I I YES I YES I I YES resources necessary to YES I l I I
manage an orderly evacu- 1 I I I I ation of all or part of 't 1 I I I I plume EPZ (NUREG-0654, J . 9, J .10. g ) . l__________I______-____ Il__--____l__-_______I I i l i I I I I
- 16. Demonstrate the organi- !
I I YES I YES I
rational ability and I ygg YES I I l I resources necessary to I I I I deal with impediments to 1 I I I I I
evacuation, as incle- 1 I l I I
ment weather or traffic I
! ! I I obstructions (NUREG-0654,1 I I I J.10.k). l__________I I I I I i ! l Demonstrate the organi- !
I I rational ability and i I I pg I resources necessary to I 1 33 I pg 93 I I I control access to an i I I
i i I evacuated area. (NUREG- !
I i 1 1 1
0654, J 10.j) I I i I I I I I
- 18. Demonstrate the organi- 1 I i I I NO I rational ability and re- I pg ND N3 I I I I I sources necessary to I I l' I
effect an orderly evacu- ! I I I I
ation of mobility-impair-I I I I i
ed individuals within thelI I i i !
plume EPZ (NUREG-0654, J.10.d). l__________I____________I________I__________I l
O
? .
I Callaway 8 Montgomery I Osage t Gasconadet t ~~~~~~~~~~ I I ! !
() Demonstrate the organi-rational ability and re t
- t t
t ,
I I
I I
sources necessary to I I I NO I NO I NO NO ef f ect an orderly evacu- I ! ! ! I ation of schools within I i ! ! !
the plume EPZ (NUREG- t ! I ! I 0654, J.9, J.10.g). !__________!____________!________t ____
1
)
t I I I I
- 20. Demonstrate the ability J I I I I l to continously monitor ! I I YES I YES I YES YES and control emergency I t i I ! ,
worker exposure. t _ __ _____I_______ ___!________t _
t i ! I I I
- 21. Dee.onstrate the ability 1 I I I I I I to make the decision, !
YES I YES I YES YES based on predetermined i I I I crieteria whether to I ! ! ! I issue KI to emergency I I I I workers and/or the I I I I I general population. l__________!____________!____ l ._
! I I I I
- 22. Demonstrate the ability I I I ! i to administer KI, once t I I YES I YES I YES YES the decison has been made t i 1 I !
sJ to do so. I I t____ _t _ _a t.
I I I I I
- 40. Demonstrate the ability 8 I I I I to effect an orderly i I I I I NO N/A N/A N/A I evacuation of onsite per-! ! ! I sonnell (NUREG-0654, J.2)! ! I - 1 I I I I I I
- 24. Demonstrate ability to ! ! I I I breif the media in a ! YES I N/A : N/A N/A I clear, accurate and i I I I I timely manner. I I I I I I I I i !
- 25. Demonstrate the abili ty I I I t I to provide advance co- t YES I YES I YES : YES ordination of informa- ! I t i I l ti on rel eases. t__________I____________!____ t__________t
() )
l l
l :
l
. l Callcway : Montgomgry i Oscge I Cecconcde:
~
l__________I____________I_-----_ l__________I I ! !
I I
! i !
Demonstrate ability to i I N/A YES I N/A I N/A establish and operate !
! I i rumor control i n a co- !
ordinated fashion. l__________I____________I________I__________II I I I I
- 27. Demonstrate adequacy of !
I N/A I N/A I N/A I procedures f or regis- I N/A I I I traion and radiological i I I I I monitoring of evacuees. f f l (NUREG-0654, J.12). I__________!____________l___
I i _ __l________
I I i I I I I
- 28. Demonstrate adequacy of f ..
I N/A I N/A 3 N/A I f acility mass care of f N/A ! ! !
evacuees (NUREG-0654, t i l
!__________f____________fI _______tI J.10.h). I i I I I I 3
- 29. Demonstrate ~ adequate ! I i NO I NO I NO equipment and procedures ! NO I i I : 1 f or decontamination of ! I I I emergency workers, equip-! ! ! I I ment and vehicles. I ! !
(NUREG-0654, K.5. a,b). l__________!____________I________l______ I I I 1 I
! ! I i !
- 30. Demonstrate adequacy i N/A I N/A N/A f N/A of ambulance f acilities ! I I I and procedures for hand- ! f I I t l ling contaminated indi- I i ! i t !
I I vi dual s.
I I I l I I I I I
- 31. Demonstrate adequacy : I i i N/A I N/A I N/A of hospital facilities N/A ! I t and procedures for hand- ! l I f f I ling contaminated indi- I t ___t________t ____
l '
viduals. I I I I I I I I I I
- 32. Demonstrate ability to i I I i N/A I N/A I N/A identify need for, I N/A ! I I l I !
request, and obtain
_ __ t __ _ _t _
l Federal assistance. l _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ f _ _
1 l
i I
l l 1 l
i O
1
) _________________________i l Callaway 1 Montgomery Osage I Gasconade!
I I I
!__________! I
! I I I I I I I
- 33. Demonstrate ability to 1 relocate to and operate i N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I I I I I the alternate EOF /EOC I (NUREG-0654, H.2, H.3) l__________I____________!________f__________t!
! I I I
- 34. Demonstrate ability to I I i i I estimate total popula- ! N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I I I I !
tion exposure (NUREG- 1 0654, M.4). 1__________I____________I________I__________! !
I I l I
- 35. Demonstrate ability to I i i ! I I I I I determine and implement !
appropriate measures f or 1 yEs I yEs I YES I YEs I controlled recovery and I i ! i i reentry, l__________i____________f________f__________t O
f O
e 1.5 EIERCISE SCENARIO This exercise scenario was based upon a control rod ejection Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) coincident with a degraded Emergency Core Cooling Syste= (ECCS) leading to fuel failure and a breach of containment integrity. A list of major events with planned and actual times follows:
Actual Planned + .
Event Time Time -
Contaminated Injury 0835 0815 Unusual Event 0837 0830 Alert 0908 0900 Site Area Emergency 1026 1015 General Emergency 11h0 1130 12k0 Release through Unit Vent 1230 Vent Release Terminated 2000 1500 (Time Ju=p) 1630 Exercise Terminated 1613 (Real Time) 1.6 STATE AND IDCAL RESOURCES Listed below are organizations which planned to participate:
State of Missouri h
- 1. Depar cent of Public Safety, State Emergency Management Agency
- 2. Division of Health, Bureau of Radiological Health 3 Department of Social Services, Division of Fa:ily Services L. Depart:ent of Public Safety, Missouri State Highway Patrol 5 Department of Public Safety, Missouri National Guard
- 6. Missouri Highway and Transportation Department
- 7. Misscuri State Water Patrol S. Missouri Departcent of Agriculture 9 Missouri Attorney General's Office
- 11. Department of Conservation Missouri Counties
- 1. Callaway County /Fulton:
(a) County Court / Mayor (b) Emergency Management Director (c) County Sheriff (d) Fulton Police Chief (e) Fulton PIO (f) Transportation Officer (g) County Health Officer (h) City i;ealth Officer (i) County Road & Bridge Superintendent (j ) Callavay Actulance District Supervisor (k) Callavay Memorial Hospital
- 2. Gasconade, Montgomery and Osage Countier:
(a) Presiding Judge (b) E=ergency Management Director (c) County Sheriff (d) Public Information Officer (e) Transportation Officer (f) County Health Officer (g) County Road & Bridge Superintendent O
O
l 2 EXERCISE EVALUATION h 2.1 MISSOURI OPERATIOES
- 2.1.1 State Energency Operations Center (SEDC)
The following objectives were to be demonstrated at this facility:
1, 2, 3, h, 5,13, IL,16 and 25.
The SEOC received Notification of Unusual Event from both Callaway Cotnty r.nd the Missouri State Highway Patrol at 08h5 and began activation of the facility. The status was upgraded to Alert and the SEOC was notified of this at 0912 and subsequently began to fully activate the SEOC. Activation was co=pleted at 1113. Those organizations represented were: State Highway Patrol, Department of Highway and Transportation, State Water Patrol, Bureau of Radiological Health, Department of Conservation, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Family Services, Department of Agriculture, State Attorney General's Office and the National Guard.
Objective Nu=ber 1 was fully demonstrated. Number 2 was only partially de=cnstrated, in that they did not demonstrate the capability to main.tain staffing around the clock.
Objective Number 3 states:
"Deconstrate the ability to make decisions and to O coordinate agency activities."
Demonstration of this objective is rated as deficient, due to a lack of coordination and co==unication regarding messages received at the SEOC.
Specifically, the Operations Officer failed to closely read messages on several occassions. Two observed results were: (1) The notification of the Site Area Emergency indicated an airborne release, but this was not recognized and thus not posted on the status board; and (2) Protecive Action reco==endations e=anating fro = the FCP vere described at a SEOC briefing as including the use of stored feed for animals out to a radius of five miles. However, the message from the FCP actually called for stored feed out to two miles, with access control out to five miles.
In addition to messages not being closely read by the Operations Officer, they were then placed in a central holding box instead of being routed to the appropriate response person. Such a routing procedure vould have insured another review and possibly corrected the situations cited above.
Further lack of sufficient coordination was demonstrated by the failure to closely monitor the protective action decisions made by the counties and post ther at the SEOC. Rather, the monitoring and visual displays recorded the reco==endations from the FCP, which were not the same as each county's decisions. It was therefore unclear from the SEOC status board which protective actions had actually been taken. g
- The only consistent reporting of county protective action decisions to the SEOC was in the for= of EBS messages to the EBS Coordinator. These
=essages were not routed for inclusion on status boards, nor directly reviewed for routing and briefing of the SEOC staff.
It should also be noted that the status board described the " General E=ergency" es a " Site / General E=ergency". This is incorrect and could cause confusion. The classifications set forth in NUREG-065L should be used.
Shortly after the alert was declared, BEH called and asked for confir=ation of vind speed and direction. However, the staff person who initially contacted BEH had deployed to establish the FCP, and BRH's request vent unanswered for about 35 minutes. This was a =ajor reason BEH did not deploy in a timely canner.
While the SEOC provides adequate space for SEMA staff, there is a need for more space to acco=odate representatives fro = the other State agencies.
Coupled with the lack of space is the lack of telephones. There was only one phone to be shared by all other State agencies, and in a real incident this vould be inadequate. Objective Number h was not fully de=onstrated.
Other than the lack of telephones, the pri=ary and back-up co==unications were adequate, with the exception of the FAX =achine linked to the JPIC.
It was inoperable for trans=ission until 1300. However, it should be noted g
that SD'.A staff worked around this difficulty by use of telephone and courier
() service to the JPIC.
Also, the conference phone line (the blue phone) linking the FCP, the SEOC and all county EOC's functioned very well. This was the recedy to a deficiency cited last year, and proved to be an efficient means of fostering rapid coordination, and avoidance of the sequential call down used in the 195L exercise. Objective Nu=ter 5 was fully de=enstrated.
At 1031 the SEOC received a transcission fro: the CCEOC relaying a cessage fro = the plant that a Site Area E=ergency existed. '~he notification frc: the plant indicated that an airborne release of radioactivity was in progress. It indicated that the affected sectors were F, G and H out to 10 miles. However, the message contained no RAD data, plu=e arrival time or protective action reco==endation.
The cessage vas further confused by a note in the "renarks" section which read: " rad vaste building ventilation cleared - release of airborne activity".
At 1036 this same =essage was received frc= the plant, again showing the affected sectors as H, G and F, out to 10 tiles, and failure to clarify that the release was contained on site.
l I o
. s
- f 4
The process of notifying other State agencies began at 10h0 and was completed at 1051.
At 1050 Montgomery County called the SE0C to infor= the EBS Coordinator i that they wished to release =essages #1 and #2 (authorization and notification of site emergency). At 1055 Osage County called with the sa=e request.
At 1056 Montgo=ery County also requested release of message #h (ru=or i
control). At 1058 Gasconade County called to seek release of =essages #1 and #2.
- At 1058 the EBS Coordinator simulated a call to the EBS station authorizing the above =essages for simulated release at 1101. It should
! be noted that the call to the station was not actually =ade, nor was there a simulatien of actually trans=itting the infor=ation to the station. In
! reality, this vould have taken several cinutes and a release ti=e of 1101 vould not have been possible. In any case, there was a failure to alert and notify the public vithin the required 15 minutes, since notification frc= the plant was received at 1036 and EBS =essages were not released until 1101.
i
! This sequence also created another proble: in that the EBS coordinator notified all counties at 1059 that EBS message release would be at 1101.
I This did not give sufficient ti=e to sount. sirens and for residents to tune i their radios to EBS to hear the initial message. Objective Number 13 was J not fully de=onstrated. However, since there is no specific ti=e limit on the subsequent formulation and instructions, Objective Number 14 was fully de=onstrated.
distribution of protective action g To understand the causes underlying the failure to demonstrate Objective 13 (alert and initial notification within 15 =inutes) the following chronology should be noted.
The Callavay County EOC received a call fro = the plant at 1031 infor=ing i the= that a Site Area E=ergency had been declared. The =essage contained inconsistent release data as explained above. This confusion was further co= pounded when at 1032 another call was received at the CCE0C on the Sheriff's phone fro = a security officer at the plant. This call was not in conformity with the plans and procedures. He also announced the Site l
Area E=ergency, but there was no indication of a release. However, in plant i
personnel were supposedly called upon to evacuate. No release data,
=eteorological infor=ation, or PARS were provided.
It required 12 minutes to reconcile the inconsistencies within the first message and to verify the reason for the absence of release data in the second call. At 10h5 the other counties were infor=ed of the SAE via the blue phone.
By the ti=e all the counties had prepared their initial messages and f'
i relayed the infor=ation . to the EBS coordinator at the SEOC, it was 1059 The EBS coordinator announced over the blue phone that the messages would l
air at 1101. However, .the EBS coordinator cerely announced to the evaluators and players that he would now call the EBS station. Had he actually called, g
i or simulated calling the station, reaching the appropriate person, dictating the proper =essages for each of the four counties, and receiving read-back l
verification for accuracy, it is unlikely the =essages could have aired this soon.
r-w - _ ~~ x - - , - . - - - - , . . 2 -s ,n~.+ - - _ . ,_ , , , , . - , - , p._,-.,.-,m _. ,
1 In retrospect then, there vere two activities contributing to the delay:
(1) Tveleve minutes were lost in atte=pting to reconcile the inconsistent release data coming fro = the plant; and (2) Approx 1=ately thirteen =inutes h elapsed while all four counties prepared their initial notification =essages.
It is strongly reco== ended that the procedure be changed to permit the EBS coordinator to i==ediately initiate the Alert and Notification process upon declaration of a Site Area E=ergency. He would si= ply call the EBS Station and request release of the cessage that "A Site Area E=ergency existed and listeners should stay tuned for further instruction". He vould then infor= the counties of the SAE and air time of the announce=ent (allowing the= ti=e to sound their sirens) and request each county to prepare appropriate follow-up =essages.
This, or a similar procedure, should be incorporated into all appropriate docu=ents and planc.
The evaluators observed that the EBS Coordinator has too =any responsibilities for one person. The de= ands include receipt of =essages frc= the counties, co= piling and logging the=, preparing and trans=itting
=essages to the EBS station, and telefaxing copies to the JPIC. Excessive responsiblity was evidenced when two messages prepared for si=ultaneous release at 1055 indicated that both a Site Area E=ergency and a General E=ergency status existed. There was also at least one instance when the EBS Coordinator was required to =ake an EBS =essage release to the station while si=ultaneously receiving a cessage from the counties.
At 1105 BRH notified the SEOC that they recon = ended placing milk ani=als on stored feed within a radius of 2 =iles. At ll2h the SEOC called Callaway County ECC to deter =ine whether they had accepted the recon =endation. It was deter =ined that they had. At 1125 the FCP called the SECC with the sa=e reco==endation of stored feed as well as access control of Sectors F, G, and H at 5 miles.
At 11L3 the FCP notified all EOC's of General E=ergency using the " blue phone". Since there was an airborne release of radioactive naterial, BRH reco== ended evacuation within a 2 mile radius and sheltering to 5 =iles in Sectors F, G, and H.
At 1150 the SEOC called Callavay County EOC (CCECC) to deter =ine their choice of relocation centers. Lincoln University was selected, and at 1210 the SECC notified CCEOC that the Lincoln University Center was open and ready for evacuees (relocation center si=ulated).
The presence and participation of representatives of the State Highway Depart =ent, and the State Patrol sufficiently demonstrated Objective Nu=ber 16.
At 1207 EBS messages regarding the General E=ergency were aired.
At 121k the FCP reco== ended evacuating to 5 miles and 10 miles in Sectors F, G, H, and J. They also instructed the SEOC to coordinate proper EBS p/
U releases with the counties and to notify the FAA, the Coast Guard and the railroads to shut down traffic through the affected areas. This notification was done by 1225
=
At 1225 the BRH phoned in recomending stored feed to 10 miles in Sectors F, G, H, and J. They also reco::nended access control in all Sectors to The recoc=endations h
5 miles and to 10 miles in Secto? , F, G, H, and J. Objective Nu=ber 25 was were accepted and EBS messages broadcast by 1305 de=onstrated.
Recovery and reentry objectives were not identified for this exercise.
However, if counties are to achieve all recovery, and reentry objectives there vould have to be so=e State participation.
Su=ary: Objectives not fully demonstrated - 2, 3, h and 13 Deficiencies and Recnemmendations
- 1. Deficiency: Operations Officer failed to carefully read certain incoming messages. Also, cessages were not routed to appropriate responders, but vere placed in a central holding box. (Objective
- 3.)
Reco=endation: Messages should be reviewed carefully and then routed through appropriate response personnel.
- 2. Deficiency: The SEOC status board reflected the protective action reco=endations frc the FCP only, and did not reflect actual county actiens agreed to. (Objective #3.)
Reco=endation: E35 messages from the counties should be routed for : cclusion en the status board.
3 Deficiency- The status board incorrectly shoved the General (NUREG-065L, Appendix E:ergency as a " Site / General E=ergency".
- 1) (Objective #3.)
Reco=endation: Correctly use only the recognized classifications as set forth in NUREG-065L, Appendix 1.
L. Deficiency: There was only one phone identified for use by 9 ather State agencies. (NUREG-065h, G.3.a.) (Objective #L.)
Fe co=endation: Additional phones must be provided.
5 Deficiency: Failure to alert the public vithin the EPZ through 15 minutes.
dissemination of a notification message within (L'JRE -065L, E.5., E.6., Appencix 3.) (Objective #13)
Reco=endation : Due to the fact that the initial public alert anc notification need not incorporate protective action instructions, the initial EBS message need only notify the public of the emergency and instruct the: to stay tuned. This could be released with SEOC coordination, and the counties needing only to activate the sirens. g Protective action instructions dictated by the counties could be issued in subsequent messages.
l .
- - . . . ,. -- -. ~ . - _ _ . - - .
.- :- . l
. 1 l
O 2.2 COUFIT OPERATIONS V
2.2.1 callaway County /Fulton EDC The following objectives were to be de=onstrated at Callaway County l E0C (CCEOC): 1, 2, 3, k, 5, 13, lk, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 2k, 25, 26 and i 35 l
Activation and staffing of the CCEOC began with the notification of
- an Alert at 0910 and was co=pleted at 0930. No prepositioning was observed.
Objectives Nu=ber 1 and 2 regarding activation and 2h hour staffing were fully de=onstrated.
- Decision =aking and the ability to coordinate emergency activities j (Objective Nu=ber 3) was also de=cnstrated. However, this function would
- have been =uch enhanced had the person in charge conducted more timely and infor=ative briefings. Only two were held
- one at 1230 and ene at 12k5
- Neither involved feedback or reporting from other EOC staff people.
It would have been particularly appropriate to have conducted a briefing to clarify the confusion concerning the " airborne release" which was actually
) on site and contained within the Rad Waste building.
l The facilities were quite adequate, showing =uch i= prove =ent over last year. A back-up generator was in the process of being installed. Objective Nu=ber k was de=onstrated.
l Co==unication with all organisations and field personnel (Objective Nu=ber 5) was fully demonstrated, with use of the co-ference phone connecting j all EOCs and the FCP being particularly impressive. This eatisfied a j deficiency fro: last year. At 1033 the CCEOC was netified of the Site Area j E=ergency. The =essage stated that an airborne release was in progress affecting sectors F, G and H out to 10 miles. However, there was no RAD
- data or protective action reco==endation. It took until 1045 to reconcile the inconsistencies. At this time (10k5) all other counties were notifed of Site Area E=ergency. The E=ergency Manage =ent Director, the County Co==issioners, the Mayor's representative (the PIO) coordinated in drafting an EBS tessage, and then relayed it to the SEOC at 1050. They tren vaited o
for notification from the SEOC to sound the sirens and activate tone alert radios. At 1059 the State EBS Coordinator said E3s =essages would air at 1101.
This resulted in only a one minute lapse between siren activation and airing of the EBS message. The time delay in alert and notification can (1) The dual notification fro = the licensee with te traced to two causes:
conflicting infor=ation required 12 minutes to acco.plish verification; and (2) The length of time required by the SEO to coordinate the EBS I
-essages fro = the four counties and get them on the air.
- O f
At llL7 the CCEOC was notified that a General Emergency had been declared. An EBS message with PARS was for=ulated. At 1156 the PIO attempted g to relay the message to the SEOC but could not get through to the EBS Coordinator. At 1159 the PIO tried again to reach the EBS Coordinator but
'.a s told he was on another line. However, the PIO insisted that someone take the EBS message.
At 1206 the SEOC called CCEOC and said the message vould air at 1207 They sounded the siren i==ediately (simulated).
While there was a failure to demonstrate Objective Number 13, it was certainly not due to a deficiency of preparedness on the part of CCEOC.
It would appear that a standard notification message should be aired by the State when the appropriate classification level is reached, without requiring anything more than notification to the counties that the action is being taken. This initial message would simply advise people to stay tuned for further infor:ation. Subsequent messages with specific PARS could then be developed by each county.
When the decision to evacuate was made, the CCEOC demonstrated excellent cocrdinated decision =aking with thorough consultation with the Sheriff's Office, Fulten Police Departcent, the Transportation Office and the Highway Pstrel. They also verified that resources were in place to manage all tobility i= paired persons. They fully deconstrated Objectives Number 15 and 16, as planned, and also Number 18, even though it was not listed.
The CCEOC had adequate Objective Nu=ber 20 was not fully demonstrated.
supplies of dositeters, record keeping cards and KI. However, TLDs were just received that day, and verkers were not faciliar with their use.
At 1LL2 the ERE decided that KI should be made available to emergency verkers. Actual usage is an individual decision as per the Plan. It was determined that the State Highway Patrol vould deliver the KI to access centrol points. Objectives Nu=ber 21 and 22 vere fully de enstrated within the limits of t'- Plan.
Objectives lumber 2L and 25 called for advance coordination of informatien and edia briefings. Objective 25 was fully de=enstrated throu6h observance of rocedures designed to provide advance coordination of infor ation.
I lovever, it was decided that no media briefings would be held at the CCEOC. Rather, media people were referred to the JPIC. (It should be noted either local briefings, or referral.
that the plan provides two options: In essence, then, the decision makers Aderral is actually preferred.) This vill at CCE0C deleted Objective 2L during the course of the exercise.
be carried as an undemonstrated element, not as a deficiency.
! The PIO staffed the Ru=or Control number, with additional staff available, if needed. Objective Number 26 was fully desenstrated.
No Reccvery and Beentry activities or discussions were held. Failure h te demonstrate this objective was due in part to the fact that in an actual event the State would need to initiate much of the leadership. Tne State chose not to exercise this objective, making it practically impossible for the counties to engage in any meaningful activity.
1 .
However, the fact that no effort was made by CCEOC officials to even i discuss this objective would leave Number 35 totally undemonstrated.
Su=ary: Objectives undemonstrated - 13, 20, 2L and 35 I
Deficiencies and Rec - ndations
- 12. Deficienev: Failure to disseminate an initial EBS tessage within the required 15 minutes. (NURm-065h, E.6) (Objective #13) i Recomendation: Change plan and procedures to stipulate that I the initial EBS =essage si= ply requests listeners to stay tuned for further infor=ation. Broadcast Protective Action I Reco=endations in a subsequent message.
- 13. Deficiency: Insufficient time allowed after the alart to per=it residents to tune radios to the EBS station. (NURm-065L. E.5) iObjectives 13 and lh) 1 Reco=endation : Eirens should finish sounding before the EBS I Broadcast begins.
I In addition to these deficiencies it should be noted that the Technical Support Center of the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant was also deficient in the following =anner.
-
- Deficiency: At 1031 CCEOC received a call fro = the Technical Support Center declaring a Site Area E=ergency, stating that an airborne radioactive release was in progress. The affected areas
- vere listed as sectors F, G and H out to 10 =ile s . However, the cessage contained no RAD data nor were protective action l
reco=endations given. This was due to the fact that the release
! vas actually confined to the RAD vaste building. However, this fact was not clear from the content of the cessage.
Reco=endation : Message originating in the Technical Support Center should be both clear and accurate.
l
! ** Deficiency: At - 1033 a second call came frc= the plant. It was i
placed by a security guard and came in on the Sheriff's line at j the CCE00. This unauth0rized call also announced the Site Area ,
E=ergency, however, it contained no release data.
Reco=endation : Only official procedures as set forth in the plan should be used to contact off-site authorities. ,
2.2.2 GASCORADE COUFIT !!DC The following Objectives were to be demonstrated: 1, 2, 3, k, 5, 13, :
l lk, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 35 l
' Mobilization, activation and staffing of. the GCEOC began at 08L5 and (
was co.~pleted at 1008. Representatives of all required agencies were present, j demonstrating fully Objectives Number 1 and 2. .
9
- -- ,. . , . - , , ,n ,.,v.--n.. --,,-,y ,--.---,,-..n, --__..,,,-,_,-----r., ,.--,.-._y-. ., ..
While the ability to take decisions and coordinate energency activities was de=onstrated, it is stiongly reco== ended that attention be given to g
holding periodic briefings to keep all staff fully infor:ed. Objective Number 3 de=onstrated.
Displays and facilities were adequate to de=onstrate Objective Number L. However, in future exercises, access to the EOC should be controlled.
Back-up power was also available this year.
appropriate personnel and facilities was Co==unication with all However, de=onstrated through primary systecs, achieving Objective Nu=ber 5 it should be noted that they did not demonstrate back-up co. unica* ions with the EOF.
At ICL5 Callaway County EOC notified GCECC that a Site Area E=ergency had been declared. At 1050, via the conferenceOver phone, Montgomery County the same line, Gasconade requested that EBS tessages 1 and 2 te aired.
County concurred. However, no siren was sounded, since Gasconade County believed its " concurrence" was agreement that cessages 1 and 2 vere appropriate for Montgomery County. They did not intend to air any =essages of their own. .
At llh3 they were notified of a General Energency with the recorrendation to evacuate to 2 miles and shelter to 5 =iles in Sectors F, G and H. Since none of this affected Gasconade County, no cessage was released.
O At 1215 PARS called for evacuation of all Sectors to 5 =iles and Sectors F, G, H and J out to 10 mile s . The County Officials did not feel that evacuation was varranted in Sector G1 (Morrison), so no =essage was released.
Se plant and the FCP strongly erged that they reconsider, and af ter =uch discussion they agreed to release cessages 1, 2, E and 9 for Sector Gl.
"his was at 1255. The county was notified at 1315 that the cessages would air at 1316, not giving the adequate ti=e to s~' +5e sirens prior to EES release. Nevertheless, sirens were sounded at 1315 Objective Nu=ter 13 was not de=onstrated. However, this is viewed as a limit of de=onstration rather than a deficiency. Due to the fact that the County Officials were continually assessing FAFs and dose projections in light of the reality that only a minute portion of the county lies within the EPZ, it is apparent that public safety was never lef t unaccounted for.
The failure to sound the siren and air an E33 tessage at the General Enervency was the result of a conscious decision based on the fact that the attendant PARS (evacuate to two tiles, shelter to 5 tiles in Sectors F, G, and H) did not affect Gasconade County.
At 1L35 SEM informed the county that BEH had recommended naking M:
available to energency workers. The County Health Officer reviewed the release data of 1.9 R Thyroid and did not feel that E! vas warranted. The County Co==issioner concurred. Objective 21 was demonstrated.
Though KI was not actually administered, they did have it available along with a means for distribution, thus demonstrating Objective Nutter h
l 22.
1 e
l
. O V
Appropriate dosi=etry was available for all personnel, and was issued when emergency workers deployed from the GCEOC, de=enstrating Objective Nu=ber 20.
After reaching the decision to evacuate Morrison, control points were established and reception centers activated, and buses were placed on standby.
Objectives 15 and 16 were fully demonstrated.
Though SD1A indicated that Gasconade County would demonstrate Objective Number 25, (coordination of infor=ation prior to release) it is really not applicable under the plan. The proper procedure is a referral of media people to the JPIC rather than a county release of infor=ation. The county PIO did this.
Objective Number 35 (Recovery and Beentry) was addressed through discussions a=cng the County Co==issioner, the D: Director and the EOC clerk.
However, =uch of the decision =aking at the county level is contingent upon infor=ation and initiatives generated by the State. Since the State did not choose to demonst; ate thir objective, there was a li=1t to the role the counties could play.
However, the representatives of the County response agencies left the ECC without dicussing their respective roles. It is to the credit of the County Co :issioner and the Energency Management Director that they did contact the SECC and ask release of EBS tessages 10 and 11 informing evacuees that they could return to their homes. (Since the State was not exercising f]
' this objective, the cessages were based on the assu=ed relaxation of protective actions.)
Due to the lack of discussion of Recovery and Reentry procedures by the response agencies, Objective Number 35 is not fully de=enstrated.
Sn ry: Objectives unde =onstrated - 13 and 35.
2.2.3 Montgomery County EOC Se objectives to be demonstrated were: 1, 2, 3, h, 5, 13, IL, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 35 The call fro: the SECC was received at 0925 announcing the Alert.
The MCEOC was fully activated and staffed at 1000. Twenty-four hour capability was accounted for via roster. Objectives 1 and 2 were fully demonstrated.
Interaction of the Emergency Management Director with all members of the EOC was excellent. Briefings were held and all staff cembers were kept fully informed of developments. This was in turn reflected in the pro =pt and efficient use of the status board and other displays. Objective Nu=ber 3 and L vere fully demonstrated. However, access to the MCECC needs to be more strictly controlled. Also, back-up power was available this year, i] Primary and back-up co==unications were available for all locations.
l However, back-up co=munication to the EOCs was not deconstrated. Objective Nu=ber 5 was demonstrated.
At 10h8 they were notified by Callaway County EOC of the Site Area g Emergency. By means of the conference line they coordinated their EBS ressage W with the other counties. At 1059 the EBS coordinator at SEOC notified the counties that the ressages would air at 1102. Sirens and tone alerts were activated i==ediately. The county thus got its =essage out in 16 minutes.
However, since the regulations require time computation to begin with the first notification to an off-site authority, it is held that Objective 13 has not been demonstrated.
At 1220 activation of traffic control points was ordered, and a road block on highway 9L was established due to a bridge vash out.
The activation of all resources required to acco=plish evacuation including mobility impaired, was acco=plished thus de=cnstrating Objectives 15 and 16.
Energency worker exposure was adequately monitored and controlled, demonstrating Objective Number 20.
At lLLO the MCECC was notified that BRH reco= ended =aking KI availacle to energency workers. A discussion with the county nurse and a review of the release data caused them to decide against its use. Objective Number 21 was demonstrated; Objective Number 22 was not.
'~h e FIO had set aside space for local media briefings and had prepared caterial for the press. Een out of area media people called, he referred ther to the JFIC. Objective Nurber 25 was fully demonstrated.
g About 1530 the staff began to discuss Recovery and Reentry issues such as securing evacuate. areas. However, they quickly concluded that they needed the data from the State to properly do the job.
Within the limits created by the State's lack of demonstration, Objective Nunter 35 was atte pted, but not demonstrated.
So--^ry: Cbjectives unde =onstrated - 13, 22 and 35.
- 2. 2.14 OSAGE COUNTY EOC The Objectives to be de=onstrated were: 1, 2, 3, L, 5, 13, IL, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 35.
Activation of the ECC began with the Alert classification called in at 0911. Staffing was co=pleted at 1000, fully demonstrating Objective Number 1.
However, twenty four hour capability was accounted for by means of roster which was not verifiable. Therefore, Objective Nutter 2 was not fully demonstrated.
Their ability to =ake decisions and coordinate emergency activities was evidenced throughout the exercise with frequent briefings and overall g
staff involveran:.. Objective Nu=ber 3 was fully de=enstrated.
i
[
I i
'O Space ane diep1aye were adeauete, aed beck-er gover vae ave 11eb1e.
However, only 2 outside phone lines were available for the entire EOC staff, f This is clearly insufficient and =ust be rectified. Objective Nu=ber L I was not demonstrated.
ce==unications were adequate except for the Pri=ary and back-up insufficiency of phone lines =entioned above. Objective Nu=ter 5 was I de=cnstrated.
At 10k5 the Callaway County EOC called announcing the Site Area E=ergency. At 105L the sirens were sounded and EBS =essages were aired I, at 1101. Calls to hearing i= paired (who had been provided with load switching j devices) were simulated.
Measured fro = the ti=e OCEOC received notification, they did get an l
EBS =essage aired in 16 minutes. However, this is not sufficient to
- de=onstrate Objective Nu=ber 13, since ti=e co=putation begins when Callaway County EOC was notifed at 1033. i Evacuation capability and the ability to deal with i= pedi =ents to evacuation were also de=cnstrated. Calls were simulated to schools and nursing ho=es, and the relocation center was contacted. .. Objectives 15 and 16 vere de=onstrated.
All procedures for continuous monitoring and control Af e=ergency workers 9
l' -
-ere followed, de=onstrating Objectives Nu=ber 20. ,
i The County Health Nurse led the discussion on the use of KI when BRH l
=ade the reco==endations. It was determined that KI vns not necessary.
I. Objective Nu=ber 21 vas fully de=enstrated, Nu=ber 22 was not.
Though Cbjective 25 vas listed for de=cnstration by the SD%, it is really not applicable in Osage County, and was not de=onstrated.
Recovery and Reentry was not discussed because the State did not provide l reco==endations regarding relaxation of protective actions. Objective 35 j
! vas not de=onstrated.
Su==ary: Objectives not demonstrated - 2 L, 13, 22 and 35 5
Deficiencies and Rec - ndations T
l 14. Deficiency: Insufficient phones and outgoing lines to sustain
' a response effort. (NUREG-065L, H.3.) (Objective #L) 1
! Reco==endation: Make available at least 3 = ore lines for e=ergency
' use.
I 2.3 StBetARY OF DFICIENCIES AND REC 000ENDATIONS State lhermency Operations Center _
l
- 1. Deficiency: Operations Officer failed to carefully read certain inco=ing =essages. Also, =essages were not routed to appropriate responders, but were placed in a central holding box. (Objective I
l
! t #3.)
o Reco=endation: Messages should be reviewed carefully and then routed through appropriate response personnel.
- 2. Deficiency: The SECC status board reflected the protective action reco=endations fro: the FCP only, and did not reflect actual county actions agreed to. (Objective e3.)
Reco=endation : EBS =essages frc= the counties should be routed for inclusion on the status board.
- 3. Deficiency: The status board incorrectly showed the General E=ergency as a " Site / General Emergency". ( tTJREG-065 k , Appendix
- 1) (Cbjective #3.)
Reco =endation: Correctly use only the four recognized classifications as set forth in IRJREG-C'65L, Appendix 1.
- h. Deficiency: Tnere was only one phone identified for use by 9 other State agencies. (!TJEEG-C65k, G.3.a. ) (objective *L. )
Fec o=endation : Additional phones must be provided.
5 Deficiency: Failure to alert the public vithin the E"1 through disse =ination of a notification message within 15 tinutes.
(ITJEEG-065h, E.5., E.6., Appendix 3.) Objective F13.)
g Re co=endation : Due to the fact that the initial public alert and notification need not incorporate protective action instructions, the initial E33 cessage neei only notify the public of the energency and instruct ther to stay tuned. This could be released with SEOC coordination, and the counties needing only to activate the sirens.
Protective action instructions could be issued in subsequent cessages.
- 6. Deficiency: There was insufficient ti=e provided (2 minutes) between the sounding of the sirens and the EB3 broadcast. (!PJEEG-C654 E.5., and Appendix 3.) (Objective #13.)
Peco=endation: Allow sufficient time between sounding of sirens (alert) and broadcast of an EES tessage (notification) to per=it residents to tu .e their radios. Broadcast should not begin until sirens have stopped sounding.
- 7. Deficiency: Organization and staffing pattern of the SECC assigns so =any duties and responsibilities to the EEC Coordinst:r that his ability to carry out all that is required is severely compro=ised. (ITJF.EG-065 L , A.2.a., E.5., E.6.) (Cbjective #3 and 14.)
Beco=endation:
Coordinator.
Provide additional staff support to the EEG g
+ -
- O =>r/>cr j 8. Deficiency: Coordination and communication between BRH, FCP and j PIO broke down on occassions. (NUREG-065h, A.l.d, A.2.a.)
I Reco=endation: Locating FCP and Dose Assessment in the same roo=
2 would be helpful. Another approach would be to copy FIO and BRH on all messages received by the FCP. (This vould be easy since h copy ;iCP paper was used.
I R)P/PIO l 9 Deficiency: Appendix 3 of the State Plan says messages vill be j for=ulated at the EOF. During the exercise, this was done at the JPIC.
i l Reco=endation: State should either change the Plan or follow it as written.
1 Radiological Assesa-nt
- 10. Deficiency: The BRH field coordination people did not arrive at 1 the EOF until 1120, or two hours after having been alerted.
Reco =endation: SEMA should determine the precise cause of the
- j. delay and assign responsibility at the SEOC to handle BRH call l backs, or establish call back number at the plant for use until j FCP is operational.
d l Radiological Monitoring Teams I
i 11. Deficiency: The Plan calls for teams to be cc prised of a person fro: BRH, and a driver /co=unicator fro: S D'.A . The driver was furnished instead by Union Electric.
j Reco=endation: State Plan should be followed, or changed to provide i the necessary coordination to accomodate Union Electric's
! participawon.
f'allaway County / Fulton N)C i
- 12. Deficiency: Failure to disseminate an initial EBS tessage within i the required 15 minutes. (NUREG-065h, E.6.)
I Recomendation: Change plan and procedures to stipulate that the initial EBS message simply requests listeners to stay tuned for further information. Broadcast Protective Action Reco=endations l
in a subsequent cessage.
- 13. Deficiency: Insufficient time allowed after the alert to permit j residents to tune radios to the EBS station. (NUREG-065h, E.5.)
i
! Reec=endation : Sirens should finish sounding before the EBS l Broadcast begins.
E .
~ .
}
1 Deficiency: At 1031 CCE0C received a call fro = the Technical Support Center declaring a Site Area Emergency, stating that an airborne h,
radioactive release was in progress. The affected areas were listed as sectors F, G and H out to 10 miles. However, the cessage contained no RAD data nor were protective action reco=endations given. This was due to the fact that the release was actually confined to the RAD waste building. However, this fact was not clear from the content of the messaga.
Reco=endation : Message originating in the Technical Support Center should be both clear and accurate.
- Deficiency: At 1033 a second call came fro = the plant. It was placed by a security guard and came in on the Sheriff's line at the CCEOC. This unauthorized call also announced the Site Area Emergency, however, it contained no release data.
Reco=endation : Only official procedures as set forth in the plan should be used to contact off-site authorities.
Ormge County EOC 1!.. Deficiency: Insufficient phones and outgoing lines to sustain a response effort.
Fecc=endation: Make available at least 3 core lines for emergency use.
O
.J