Text

Forwards FEMA Exercise Rept of 851016 Exercise of Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans.Coordination of Emergency Planning Efforts W/Offsite Agencies Requested to Resolve Two Identified Deficiencies
	ML20154H060
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Scarano R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Withers B; PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
	NUDOCS 8603100178
	Download: ML20154H060 (1)
	v • d • e

/1 j\

bO D f1AR 031986 Docket No. 50-344 Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. Bart D. Withers Vice President Nuclear Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy of the FEMA Region X report of the October 16, 1985, Trojan Nuclear Power Plant full participation Emergency Preparedness exercise.

The FEMA report identifies two deficiencies requiring corrective action in the offsite preparedness for Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. We request that you continue to coordinate your emergency planning efforts with the appropriate offsite agencies to insure these deficiencies are resolved in a timely manner.

We will continue to monitor your activities in the recolution of the deficiencies identified in the FEMA report.

Sincerely, fsl Ross A. Scarano, Director Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards Programs

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/ enclosure:

J. Lentsch, PGE S. Orser, PGE T. Walt, PGE cc w/o enclosure:

D. Mattews, Chief, EPB:IE R. Fish, RV bec: RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

J. Martin B. Faulkenberry G. Cook Resident Inspector Project Inspector i

RV >

KPrendergast:dh RFist

RScarano WcSfdWS 2//r /86 2/gf[/86 2/ /86 g p>//f/,

8603100170 060303 7 l PDR ADOCK 05000344 !

F PDR /' '

i

./ & 6

\

4 Federal Emergency Management Agency

. Washington, D.C. 20472 Jul 22 MS MEMORANDUM 10R: Edward L. Jordan Director Division of Dnergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulafory Comission Frm: "

Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs SUBJECr: Exercise Report of the October 16, 1985, Exercise of the Offsite Radiological Dnergency Preparedness Plans for the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Attached is a copy of the Exercise Report of the October 16, 1985, joint exercise of the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. H is was a joint full participation exercise for the State of Washington and Cowlitz and Lewis Counties, and the State of Oregon and Columbia County. Incorporated in the exercise report is an evaluation of a medical drill conducted on October 14-15, 1985, that provided an adequate opportunity to test the resnnnsa ca,nebilities of the various medical organizations. We report dated December 13, 1983, was prepared by Region X of the Federal DTergency Management Agency (FDiA).

no following deficiencies were observed at the exercise:

1. %cre were insufficient radiation monitoring teams to screen the 35,000 evacuees entering the Lewis County, Washington assistance center (AC) within the 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months stipulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)/ FEMA regulations. For exanple the State did not request assistance frm the U. S. Departrent of Energy to supplement the State's efforts in monitoring the evacuees. In addition, the initial instructions by the State to the host county for screening evacuees were not correct (but were subsequently corrected by the American Red Cross). H e potential for contamination of the evacuees was significant since a large number of evacuees had been caught for a substantial period of time in the plume.

2. Here was a failure to provide timely notification of key response organizations. Here was a 1 1/2 hour delay by the State of Washington in the dispatch of radiation nonitoring teams to the Lewis County AC.

Even this dispatchina would not have been done if there hadn't been a request by the County for radiological monitoring at the AC.

2601 oN3 c2 gg.

In order to remedy the two deficiencies FEMA Region X has recomnended that officials of the State of Washington finalize their determination of radiological monitoring needs for a sustained 24-hour operation, make appropriate site-specific arrangements for Federal radiological monitoring assistance, revise the procedures for mobilization of monitoring teams, and revise their plans accordingly. We Region also reconnended that the State of Washington review the current evacuation zone configurations and evacuation routes under different accident scenarios, with the goal of inproving zone configurations of persons to be evacuated and determining nultiple evacuation routes in order to minimize potential exposure.

Finally, the remedies generated by these reconnendations will be tested in a renodial exercise in June 1986.

In addition to the deficiencies, there were inadequacies identified re-quiring corrective actions. H e State is preparing a schedule of corrective actions for the areas requiring corrective actions. As soon as it is received and analyzed, we will send you a copy. W e schedule is expected frcrn the State on or before February 21, 1986.

While there were inpediments to protecting the public identified in the exercise, the approval of offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans under FEMA Rule 44 CFR 350 will remain in effect since: (1) the State is already working on the schedule of corrective actions, and (2) the deficien-cies will be addressed in a test scheduled for June 1986.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ibbert S. Wilkerson, Chief, Technological Hazard: Division, at 646 20Gl.

Attachment as stated

\

TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PIAff

! Licensee: Portland General Electric Location: Rainier, Oregon (Columbia County, Oregon)

Date of Exercise October 18, 1988 i

i' Participmats: Pull Scale State of Washington Cowlitz County, WA Lewis, County, WA Portland General Electric state of Oregon i columbia Coasty, Oregon

Medical Drill St. John's Boopital, Longview, WA Good Samaritsa Boopital - Portland, OR St. Vincent Boopital, Portland, OR Rainier Ambulance Company, Rainier, OR Participante small scale None t

l l

Prepared by: FEMA RI/RAC December 13, 1988

, 86012902 960122 '~

PDR A K 05000344 F PDR

. ---------.-,r--,--,. - . . y ---

,--m- --.,_m.----m.---+.~-------- - -e - . - , - .-,,.-,r-,.----7 , 7,-- y---,.w, ----y- .c %e-

t

CONTENTS Trojan Nuclear Pomer Plant Exercise Report IIERC I SE SUlstARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

1. INTR 00UCTION............................................................ 1 1.1 Esercise Background................................................ 1 1.2 Esercise Evaluators................................................ I 1.3 Nedical keergency Drill Objectives & Limitations................... 3 1.4 IIedical Eastgency Drill Scenario Summary........................... 4 1.5 Log of Significant Events for Medical Drill........................ S 1.6 Esercise Objectives & Limitations.................................. 11 1.7 Summary of Esercise Scenario....................................... 12

! 1.8 Log of Significant Events for Exercise............................. 13 l 2. EXERCISE EVALUATION..................................................... 20 i

l 2.1 Drill Results...................................................... 22 2.1.1 .St. John's Bosp1tal......................................... 22 2.1.2 Good Samaritaa.Bospital..................................... 24 2.1.3 St. Vincent Bosp1tal........................................ 26 2.1.4 Rafaler Ambulance........................................... 28 2.2 EmerCise Results................................................... 25 ,

l 2.2.1 State of Washington (EOC Field Teams and Assistance Ccater) 25 l t 2.2.2 Cowlitz County Washington.................................. 37 2.2.3 Lewis County Washington....................................

2.2.4 Portised General Electric (EOF and E0C)..................... 41 2.2.5 Stata of Oregos (Boc and Field Teams)....................... 49 2.2.6 Coluable County. 0regoa.....................................

3. SUBSIARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES......................................... 51 l

3.1 State of Washington................................................ 81

3.2 Cowlitz County Washingtes......................................... SS i 3.3 Lewis County, Washington...........................................

! 3.4 Portland General Electric.......................................... 54 3.5 State of 0regoa....................................................

3.8 Columbia County. 0regos............................................

APPENDIX I Suasary of Esercise Objectives and Esercise Evaluation......... 86 E1 story of Esercise Evaluation by Location and Function........ 87 i Eistory of Esercise Objectives by Location and Function........ 59 )

Eistory of Exercise Deficiencies and Reconseadations........... 73 APPENDIX II Definiticas of REP Esercise Terataology and Glossary of Teras.............................................. 90 i

APPENDIX III Verification of Corrective Actions............................. 94 APPENDIX IV Role of Dose Projection Systes & Offsite Verification Systes... 112 l 11 4

m j . . . . . . . . 4 . - . .

4 CONTENTS Trojaa Nuclear Pawer Plant Esercise Report ,

EXERCISE StNSIARY............................................................. 111

< 1. INTR 000CT10N............................................................ 1 1.1 Exercise Background................................................ 1 1.2 Exercise Evaluators................................................ 2 l 1.3 Nedical Emergency Drill Objectives & Limitations................... 3 1.4 .Nedical Emergency Drill Scenario Suasary........................... 3 1.5 Log of Significant Events for Medical Dril1........................ 8 1.8 Emercise Objectives & Limitations.................................. 11 1.7 Summary of Exercise Scenario....................................... 12

1.8 Log of 31Enificant Events for Eserc1se............................. 13

2. +1a CISE EVALUATION..................................................... 22 2.1 Drill Results...................................................... 22 2.1.1 St. John's 5ospital......................................... 22 ,

2.1.2 Good Samaritaa.Eospital..................................... 23 2.1.3 St. Vincent Hospita1........................................ 25 2.1.4 Rainier Ambulance........................................... 28 r

l 2.2 Exercise Results................................................... 27 '

i 2.2.1 State of Washlagton (50C, Field Teams and Assistance Center) 27 j 2.2.2 Cowlitz County, Washington..........*....................... 44

) 2.2.3 Lewis County. Washington.................................... 53 2.2.4 Portland General Electric (EOF and E0C)..................... 58

] 2.2.5 State of Oregon (ROC and Field Teams)....................... 72

! 2.2.8 Columbia County. 0regos..................................... 87 i

I

! 3. StNetARY LISTING OF DEF IC I ENCI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 l

i 3.1 State of Washington................................................ 99 l 3.2 Cowlits County. Washingtos......................................... 101

] 3.8 Lewis County. Washington........................................... 102 1 3.4 Portland General Electric.......................................... 103 j 3.5 State of 0regoa.................................................... 105 i 3.8 Columbia County. 0regon............................................ 107

, APPENDIX ! Sumusey of Esercise Objectives and Exercise Evaluatloa......... 108 i Eistory of Esercise Evaluation by Locatica and Function........ 109 i Eistory of Emercise Objectives by I,ocation and Punction....... 110 l Eistory of Exercise Deficisacies and Recommendations........... 120 APPENDIX II Defiettions of REP Esercise Terminology and Glossary of Terme.............................................. 148 3 APPENDIX III Verification of Corrective Actions............................. 152 1 APPENDIX IV Role of Dose Projection System 4 Offsite Verification System... 195 1

11 I

l 1

EXERCISE S12OIARY This report represents the findings of the Federal Emergency Management

Agency Regica X, and Regional Assistance Committee (FEMA RX/RAC). This is an evaluation, based on analyses by the Federal evaluators, of the performance of participants in the Medical Drill (Rainier Ambulance St. John's, Good Samaritan and St. Vincent Bospitals) on October 14 and 15, 1985, and participants in the Esercise (States of Washlagton and Oregon: Cowlitz and Lewis Counties. Washington:

Columbia County, Gregens and Portland General Electric Company) on October 16, 1945.

The October 16 esercise was designed to establish conditions for a follow-on lagestion pathway esercise to be conducted during the week of March 3-T, 1986.

The scope and magnitude of the simulated release was designed to create conditions allowing States to esercise Field Teams, State Realth Laboratories, and State EOC's.

The analysis of the consequences of the release, the ingestion pathway Protective Action Recommendations (PAR's), and the initial ingestion pathway sampling plans developed as part of this exercise play, will be incorporated into the ingestion pathway exercise scheduled for next year.

A participant briefing and public briefing were held on October 18, 1985.

In these sessions the evaluation and recommendations for corrective actions were discussed.

For additional information, please contact Richard W. Donovan, RAC Chairman, FEMA RX.

SUMMARY

OF RECGrr.anbED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FEMA RX/RAC recommended the following corrective actions

_ STATE OF WASHINGTON At the State Emermency Doerations center. Olvania WA o Conduct training for Duty Officers la Baergency Notification Procedures.

o Revise procedures to automatically deploy Radiation Monitoring Teams and equipment to Assistance Centers.

o Train staff and revise procedure to monitor NBAN broadcasts of emergency public instruction, o

Revise Public Information Procedures and provide training regarding the distribution of all pertinent information and disseelaation of Protective briefings. Action Recommendations (PAR's) in media releases and Field Monitorina Teams '

o Revise procedures.

o Train Field Team Staff.

111

CONLITE COUNTY. WASHINGTON At The Emereemew Onoratione Center e Develop states boarde, espe and visual displays for the Beergency Operations Center, and lasta11 or relocate additional telephoses.

o Esaure the County's decioloa-saker le available for conference calls with other decision-makers when required.

o Revise contest of pre-written emergency public tastruction messages and trela staff la their proper use for public notification ovec REAN radio, ,

At the Lewis County Asele*==ae Center. Centralia. WA o Enhance capability and revise procedures to perfore Assistance Center (AC) and shelter functione.

PORTLAND **"'*E RfitTRIC (PGE)

At M e Emereenew Oserations Center. Salem. OR o Revlee procedures and trala staff.

At the Troian Emerzenew Deerations Facility. Rainter. OR o Trata staff os procedures conceralag developlag Protective Actica Recommendations to the Counties and states.

o Train staff on the development of ingestion pathway radiation monitoring and sampling pleas.

STATE OF OREGON At The Emerrency OperatiotM_ Center _

o Review current procedures concerning laternal approval of neus releases prior to diesesiastions revise procedures and conduct troistas.

For Radiation Monitorian Field T ---

o Establish notification eyetes for Field Tease.

o Train field team staff.

COLUMBIA COUNTY. OR At The Emermanew Onoratione Center o

Review esisting stafflag aselgaments for first shift, revloe taeking and provide training. .

o Enhance staffing needs for 24-hour operations determine tasklass provide troistag.

o Revise Rumor Control Procedures.

Av ed e an e epag & 6 WGw e9 e 9-e @ee 9 -69 98 4

VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS In additica to the preestablished esercise objectives, FINA evaluated the .

leptementation of the correcti,e actions identified la previous esercises: e.g.,

issues identified through our previous evaluations that the participante agreed to resolve. Please see Appendix III for the report and statue of corrective actions.

Corrective actione not succese 11y loplemented durlag this exercise will be the object of review and evaluation la future exercises.

OfRER SIGNIFICANT ISSUESt "^ " "^Y OF PROTECTIVE =_^3URESr EVA"ATION PLAN. AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR TEE MMIITORING OF EVACUEES."

The scenario for this esercise assumed a significant release of radioactive materials that sould have caused significant dose commitment to the general population on the Washington side of the plume EFE. As part of our evaluation process, we computed the dose commitment to population as a result of the Protective Actica Decisions (PAD's) la order to determine whether the current evacuation plan is appropriate, and whether the State's preparedness and demonstrated decisioamaking and resource identification process with respect to the monitoring of evacuees are adequate. In both cases, we believe further preparedaees related activity is required.

Adeauncy of Evacuation Plan Portland General Electric has prepared as evacuation analysis report for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, PGE-1034. (Note: PENA RX has not yet evaluated this report eith our IENIS model.) This report's results have been incorporated lato the evacuation plan (s) of Cglumbia County, Oregon and Cowlits County, Washington. The predeternised three 360 evacuation sones (see Figure 1) and designated evacuation routes have been incorporated into the public education progree, public brochure and emergency response plans for the offsite agencies.

FEMA RX's dose estimates'apre based upon the scenario plume exposure rate (see Table 1), the scenario plume leeplethe (see Figure 3), and the evacuation time estimates. (Note: The evacuationstimes were taken free PSE 1034. Their time (s)

~

differ oosenbat from those times est1onted by Cowlits County and contained in our sismificant events log.)

The following assumptions were used for the dose estlantest o The plume had reached the affected population sectore by the time evacuation has started.

o Sector N population was la the plume for the full duration of the evacuation i time, and travel time was divided egually between isoplethe 8 and 9. l e The populatlee la Sectors 3. F, G, and 0 spent equal time la looplethe 7, 8, and 9.

o The population la sector F was la the plume for duration of the evacuatloa.

o The evacuation time eetlantes for the population la Sectors S O, and 0 were reduced by 18, 30. and 45 minutes, respectively, to account for travel time outside of the plume.

v

Delag the above assumptions, the following population dose eetlantes can be made for each sectort Integrated Dose Population Does Sector Population ser tranett (Ree) (aerson-real F =

(1183) x (0.754) = 877 3 =

(234) x (0.479) = 181 G =

(2038) x (0.803) = 1230

, 0 =

(s0s) x (0.Sas) = 2es -

N(1-5) = (19465) x (0.390) = 7599 N(411), = (7300) x (0.233) = f699 N =

(4865 x (0.233) = 1,1,22.

(Pacific Nwy)

TOTAL PERSON REN = 12966 The PAD could have resulted la a population dose of 12966 person'res. If ICRP risk factors are applied to this population dose, approximately 2 fatalities could be espected from the comblaed cancer and genetic risks.

It should be noted that the State took no action (enercise play) to remove the Department of Transportation (DOT) work crew (at allepost 57) who had closed one of the two I-5 lanes (Northbound). This lane restriction would have lacreased the evacuation times, and dose commitment for the 35.000 (plus) evacuees.

_Suasary and Recommendations o If the population in Sector 0 would have been sheltered in place. the total population esposure could have been reduced by tes person-rea.

o If portions of Sector G and portions of Sector N (Mt. Brynton Road) were configured lato separate sectors that represented the topographical features, tL.' total population esposure could have been reduced even farther assualag those sectors were sheltered. (Note: FEMA RX does not have the proper population data to perfore this analysis and compute the revised dose comettaent.)

o We recommend that the appropriate Washlagten officials review the current evacuation some configuration and evacuation route designation in order to determine there are not more appropriate evacuation sector configuratione and evacuation routes.

Adeouscir of Preneredness Radiatica Monitorina of Evacuees o NRC/ FEMA criteria calle for a level of preparedness that would result la monitoring of all evacuees (reefdente and treasiente la the plume EPZ) arriving at the AC's within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months .

vi l............. . .

L

o The State of unshington dispatched three Field Tease durlag this esercise (two to the plume EP1 and one to en AC that see being evaluated).

[ Note: According to the State's current procedures, there are three Radiation Control Tease of which two will be dispatched to the emergenty and the third (Reserve Tese) held back and estatained to cover a simultaneous accident la another location. If additional resources are

, required, the State will request assistance from the Federal Government.]

o FEMA RX has held neeeroes meetings over the last 3 years la which we have l

' encouraged the State to determine its radiological soalterlag needs and make the necessary arrangements with the Federal Goverseest. (Note:

Recent meetlage were held la April and August of this year).

l o As indicated eteenhore la this report (see evaluation of Washington's Objective # 8), the State did not roguest additteen) espport to perfore their esaltorlags e.g., seven Teases with two Tease in the field and one Team (initia11F) at each of the three predetermined AC's and two Emergency Worker Centers. [ Note: This Field Noattoring Team requirement does not acknowledge the fact that the 35.000 (plus) pereene (evacuatlag mortheerd) would have heard froa media sources that they were evacuatlag through a radioactive plume. Therefore. In all probability they would have stopped at the Lewis County AC to be monitored /decantasiasted.]

We reconsend that appropriate Washington State officials flam11se their determination of radiological mealtoring needs for a sustained 34-hour operation, make appropriate ette-specific arrangemente for Federal radiological asaltering

, assistance, and revloe their plane accordingly.

l v11

Figure 1. EVACUATION ZONES AND ROUTES

~ ~~ '

A *C== =.=. w. ~.a.

r n:,wwae.w: ,

m. .. - 1

( "-

\ ..

,,,*. y' gy .

, \ _

~ .

~

{ ,

) - Af,% ) _ . <Wl'"

z j

Ol'_ .~ a

]....'.' .' ..

'f .. n l w jy : .i \, . ~< '

lg .~..

s% m L)~ y..

\

2._ - 'l h.? ;, , , / '.~_ [ ' (

y l -f _ < .,' 3 ..s i yN ' .

q m( .

x g,..

j_C '

. .';, p ,5 l* ,, _

lg l,/ 1- '

~

sl ,. ,)

(ps.,, \ $

) L. ,

o,iq , , N,

. +, ; -

1., , ,7.~. '

,=[JY

'l

'l ',i -

-( - ,

7, p hs.--

' c-4 , M.

s

'A

]y.?)\

/ ~ .

g L. .,, y , ,

_/

4., .,,g , J._ .y.u %.t3 e-r. ., a /

l

.o.

_ _ _ .o

.- e m l my_.

,,, , ,,,,,,,, A g g r- - _

$ g g g -=.

Evacuation zones: a.8.nme remue 2.5 to 8.nde redue ,ggg 5 to 10-ndo redue

.p,

Figure 2. TROJAN NUCLIAR PLANT: 10 Mile Survey Grid Map

. . . . . . . . . . : : a . .

al

\ \ ;

e l \ _ I

\ "i s X \ /-

t \ scn !

, \ 2 # "

1

( '

s .

. P i / 1 VV s

, , T l N f i .'[ \ t ) / ,\ 'N. s I s t ..

-< - # /X . . L'u _ b .7

. : A wV -

jf:-N / .. V \ / Al / 7

= -xn // \ Fs V EL .5T. uR HA '

DS6 ,,TT JX' " Ir -L t 8 5 If Af AVud7 JFn V 1 &

u \ fJ. , .ajfL%pr% r\T s % \- 5

= c-'; '
'r/ t- Ar rn_<t , i.11A s > LU LGh L 7" Wl ( LR$
~ -,
xym Wy yt% y my i r2r76EI M IMP-g 1 1. ,L _
~
l l k 1 Fl k LR MO< 6 D M.m %7 F/ 95 s h - 2 k
u
!/
diho elu 1 f R f- 4f yep
, n m h
dVJsN om
' 'i A.: C > NN - W A Y/ A.
mA A e m 'tj) LOA 7?.99 Eri 1 1fL LO 7
/ --
= NNMk kne og r a20is3 -
MVM%47/
a
/ /MB1 .
I5 A. R GV\ y // V/) WY'
% . Vm 'N.
L _JUJ \1jfdE9t\WK) / a v ~i sa
i l
3988 WeeIS e m megem SW M M eene3esseen .
Sent) 4 er M ' 8'AaB 1 2 2 a a 7 e e ,
. e. 33 . . . . . . . . . .e e
33 to See T = 338.858 Y = 48.888 T = 5.888 T = 4.488 T = 3.3ee Y = age . . . $ e$ n est = 3e8.ee8 est = es.ses est = 38.838 est = 4.888 S*T = 3.ees Set = 3.800 F '4 300 to see Y = ane.See Y = 3es.See Y e es.aes T = 33.388 Y = 3.938 Y = See Y = See Y = See Y = es g 1'
=
aut = See.ees est = 388.ee8 est a te.aes est = St.aes est = 3. pes amt = 3.ees est = see est = nee est = ge .g a
303 to me Y = 408.858 Y = See.See Y = es.See T = 34.18e Y = 3.488 Y = See Y = ese Y = See Y = tee e Set = 388.888 Set = See.See Get = 98.388 Set = 3B.488 Set = 3.ees est = 3.7ee ast e 730 est = age est = age F
338 to am Y e 40 W T = stb.me Y = A8.30 Y = 34.388 Y = 3.880 Y = See Y = She Y = Ese Set e 388.888 est = See.See Set = 98.33e set = m.aee But . 3.8e8 est = 3.3ee est Pse msg = ese est = age T = See gg g '
See to SBS _ Y=3
.st = ,3 .stYe3. 3 0. .stY=3 = 3 2, .stY=4 ./PS T = See t = 3 80 T=3
.st e .0s Y = see
.st e Y = 3e.
e .st = 30s 3 3!
Y = 3 as. Y = 3 ak aF SBS to See - Ye3Eh Y = 3sw Set = 3 &De est = 3t h Y=3 Set = 3 s De est . 3 Y=3 set = 3 Y = See T = See $*
Set = 3 a w set = 400 est . See ,2 43 E
2
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 EXERCISE BACKGROUND The October 18, 1988 Trojan Exercise wee the stath esercise to be evaluated by PENA RX/RAC elace the leplementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Ceemiseloe's rule on Beersency Preparedness. The previous esercises were held on March 4, 1941. November 17 and 19, 1941. November 10, 1948 October 8,1943, and October 17, 1984. l
!acluded eleeubere in this section of the report le the ouemary of the scenario and the eigelticent event loss which include the projected and actual times selected evente occurred la the esercise and medical drill.
The criteria utilised in the evaluation procese are contained in NUREG-0654/
FEMA-AEP-1. Rev. 1 (November 1940), the esercise evaluation modulee specified in FEMA menerandue dated August 1983, and these espected actione called for by the l participant's plane and procedures.
A Control Cell use established for this esercise. Its purpose see to place telephone celle to the various 30C's. The Control Cell members placed calle representing the media and the concerned public.
The resposee by participants to the control cells' telephone calle gave a boele for the Evaluators to detereise the adequacy and preparedaeos capabilities of the State and County with respect to their Beersency Public laforestion Progree.
The offette agencies and the Licensee have reopended to the poet osercise evaluations by leptementing corrective actione in resposee to the FEMA RX/RAC Adentification of esercise leadequecies and recommendations for corrective actions.
Please see Appendia 1 for the history of demonstrated esercise objectives, objectives still to be dessestrated, and functional aroes where receemendatione for corrective action have been identified.
The section of thle report covering esercise resulte costelas a astrative emenery and statemente se each eboerved esercise inadeguecy. Baercise inadeguacies have been grouped in the following categories:
Category A. Preparedaees se demonstrated in the esercise une set adequate to protect the public beelth and estety.
Category B. Corrective actices are ceneidered necessary.
Category C. Performance use adeguate, but correctable weaknese see noted.
Esercise inadeguacies are grouped under embeectione of Receaneadation for Corrective Actione and are catogerised into the above three ceteseries for sech participsat. Esercise 1: i n :les are stated la the following format
,,1133. Narrative statenest followed by persetheses in ubich the applicable NURSS 0464 elemente are deflood.
Italmatian Narrative statement (or reference to emether marrative -
statement) stating the retiemale of the evaluaties.
_Reconneadation. Corrective action and marrative statement espressing the itees receemended for laplementation to effect corrective actione.
1
1.2 FEMA RX/RAC EXERCISE EVALUATORS /AS$1GletENTS 1.2.1 Medical Drill (October 14 and 15. 1985)
Location Evaluators St. John's Neopital Frank Bold - GA Technologies Good Samaritan Noepital Frank Bold - GA Technologies St. Vincent Mospital Freak Bold - GA Technologies 1.2.2 Esercise (October 18. 1988)
Location ""*!" store Trojan / EOF (S) Richard Donovan - FEMA-RX-----------------Team Leader Tony Foltaan - Argonne trad Salmonson - Westinghouse (WINCO)
J. N. Keller - Westinghouse (WINCO)
Don Maanlon - Supply Systen Cow 11ts Co. ROC (4) Bill Van Pelt - NNS/PNS/FDA-------------Team Leader.
Neal Adams - NNS/FWS Jennie Croeler Sprouse - Benton Co. DEN Ren Bertram - Argonae Coluable Co. BOC (3) Gary Masayaski - Argonne-----------------Teas Leader _
W1111aa Gasper - Argonae Ed Causa - IFA Weehingtos/50C (4) Bill Brous - FEMA RX-----------------Team Leader Bob Naokoll - USDA FSIS James Levenson - Argonne Ken Lerner - Argonne I Oregon 30C's (S) Richard Petersen - FDA----- ---------------Team Leader.
Pat Turner - DOE-RL Dean Kunihiro - lutC RV Tom Baldwin - Argonne Phil Cossa - FENA RX Field Tesas (5) Rick Zinnerman - Westinghouse - WA Ground--------Team. Leader _
Daa Comme 11 - Rockwell - WA Groemd Jim Price - UNC. !ac. - OR Ground--------Team Leader.
Jerry Van Nors - Westinghouse - OR Grenad Nerold Lines - UNC. lac. - Lewis Co. MA Aselet. Center---Team. Leader.
Lewis Co. Assistance David Dikty - DAR Reserviet-------------Co-Leader Center (2) Bill Jonees - Red Crose-----------------Co-Leader Control Cell (2) Eleanor Castle - FEMA RX Portlead. OR Dale Potte - IRS (Oregon) 2
1.3 IEDICAL maa88eV DRILL OBJECTIVES AIID Lill!TATIOI88 1.3.1 undleal "- =- w Drill (a==lte - ' offeite) .
Date: October 14 and 15, 1988 1.3.3 Particinatina Oramalaatiana Portland Generet Electric Ceepeay Columbia County (C-CCII notificaties sely)
St. John's Bespital
' Anlater Bural Fire District (ambulance)
Seed Senaritaa Beepital St. Vincent Beepital 1.3.3 tugagag,
s. To meet the IIedical Beersency Drill requiremente of the Trojan Radielegical Emergency Plan,
b. To conduct a drill that will include the,mobilisation of Licensee. County, and keepital peroommel and resources adeguate te verify the capability to respoed to a medical emergency ocesario requirlas roepease.
1.3.4 Chjectives See report secties for specific objectives.
1.4 IEDICAL RIERGENCY DRILL SCSMARIO SUISIARY The 1985 Trojan IIedical Beersency Drill use conducted on October 14-15. 1988.
The drill en October is did esercise the Trojan perseasel and st. Joha's Beepital statf la Leagview. The drill esamenced with a call to the trejaa conteel rose announcing the diocevery of as injured /centamtmated worker. The shift Supervleer did direct the IIndical Emergency Teen to the lajered/centaminated workers metitled Celuable County Ceemusicatione Ageoey (C-CIIII) to request en ambulance he dispatched to the sites and metitled the Itodical Realth physielet.
Estater Rural Fire Dietrict did dispatch the ambulance. shes the IIndical Realth Physicist had the necessary patleet inferenties, he did estify St. John's Beepital of the medical emergency (drill) and latermed them of the patient's statue and the apprealante arrival time of the ambulance. The IIndical sealth Physicist did then travel to st. John's Beepital.
The IIedical Emergency Teen treated the patleet at the accident locaties (Elevation Si estelde the Ret pump rese), and upon arrival of the ambulance the Ambulance Crou did transport the Sajured/contamiested worker to et. John's Beepital ubere the secher use treated. The Ambulance Cros did act ester the protected area of Trejam for this drill.
Pet perseasel participating la the drill en October is did laeladed Trojan Badiaties Protecties Pereennel, the POE IIndleal Realth Phyeleist, and Trojan Plant Seeerity. The drill as Seteber 14 did esercise Good Samaritan and St. Vincent -
Beepitale: it did met involve the ambulance or activitsee en the Trojas lleclear Plant ette.
3
~
1.4 NEDICAL EMEP.0ENCY DRILL SCENAMO A. &acident Descrimilan
1. A technician spilled fuming nitrie acid on his bero right am and inhaled fumes.
2. In rushing to N nearest sink, he broke a beaker sentaining reaeter ecolant (about 70 pC1 total activity) ht was standing next to a pit aster.
3. h remeter eeelant splashed en both of W technician's forearms and the front of his labeest.
4. A piece of glass embedded in his left forearm.
S. h technician then fainted, striking his forehead on h floor.
We was found lying face down en W het lab fleer.
6. The remaining spilled resetor seelant was confined to the eeunter top and sink.
5. Patient Condikien
1. The vietin has regained senselousness, but is disoriented and has some difficulty breathing.
2.
We has a severe said burn on his right foreers, a bleeding puncture wound with a large pleee of embedded glass in his left feroam, and a eentusion en his forehead.
3. No is radiologically contaminated with reester seelant.
4. Injuries and sentamination are shown la Figures 1 and 2.
5. The vaatia's vital sign data and general phreisel sendition are shown in Table 1.
6. Once W 1abeoet and gloves are removed, the sentamination rensins relatively constant ever the period since the aseident oseurred to arrival at the keepital.
d
1.4.1 Table 1. Victie Vital Siena
. Trojan Nuclear Plant Medical Energency Drille Value et Treten
. Vital al== lat aheck 2nd thack in Ambulence et Messitel bl5 min later)
Blood Pressure 100/90 110/60 115/70 120/80 Fulee 100, aermal normal setsel fluttore ,
Bespiration shallow 12 breaths / 14 14 broething min with some difficulty SINERAL PHYSICS CONDIT105
1. Abdensa - eeft and mentender.
2. Lesalised eree of swelling and tendernese se forehead.
3. Pupile equal and reestive.
4. Fece normal, ameopt Item 2 above.
S. Initially emporteneing eens diffleulty/diesenfect with breathing.
6. chest - equal breath eeunde.
7. All pulses are palpable.
s. Acid burn se right forearm.
9. Punature wound on left foreers, lattially bleedtag.
10. Redicestive sentamination en foreerus and abdomen.
S
1.4.3 Figure 1. Injured /Contaalnated Worker Trojan Nuclear Plant Medical georgency Drille
".ont..i
. ,. u f f
/
t
/** g uncture Wound f I 14bcoat Sleevaa 100,000cyn (2 ar/br) t /
/ Il ftift\ h tg /
.Right CJove I i g
- f A 14ft Clova 200,000cpe T (4 er/hr) If l " ~~~~~'~"
4 i
200,000cpe' (4 ar/hr) '
Acid Burn 500,000cyn
' (10 ar/hr) 3 Labcoat Front J No Contamination on Back T
f
' t F ,
( .
Asetas: 1 eye-lodpa ,
10,000cpe=0.2 ar/hr ,
8
i 1.4.8 Figure 2. Isjured/Centasiaated Norker Trojan Nuclear Plant Medical Emergency Drille .
Labceat/elevee Removed y Centuaise
h
~
\
./
7- I I skin s 40,000epe i g g g l / t, (0.8 ar/hr)
(0.6 ar/hr)
/ 5
, /, ..____ .
_5 g .
f I l l\ \
f f
f f
/
( g------- -]l g
Puncture wound with slaae shard (100 eps a
f f g af ter shard removal
', /Acidburn -
Ces nation)
.s .
. 1 50,000 eye (1.0 mR/br) abdominal area only. 39, detectable
, , eestaminaties es back. '
'1 \
l .
Aseme 'lepe=10dpa
10,000epap0.2 ar/hr -
Centaminaties levels'remais essetamt ,gt,g, heepital perfesas saltial decentshisaties. Levels dearesse by SOE with'asah desentaminaties procedure. I Af ter the third decentaminaties effort the aestaminaties will be sampletely removed. 9 l .
l 1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT IVENTS Offsite IIndical Emermency Drill. Trojan Ihnelear Plant
.0ctober 14 and 15. 1988 St. John's Eeenital (October 15, 1945)
E EVENT coleEENT 0948 Trejaa Plant petitled Accident notification fers used.
St. John's via telephone. completed by nurse, injuries given, se UTA 1006 informaties sa contaminaties, me call back mueber, response level category 4 0068 Preparatica of area begna, perseasel besta dreselag.
Dess call liet activated.
0047 Call list completed.
1907 Sealth Physicist free plaat Briefe murse.
arrives.
1014 Update free ambulance. Via NEAR Network, patient states.
1990 Preparaties of area eseplete.
1933 Ambalance arrives.
1988 Patlest 1sta Beergency Rose.
1980 Ambulance and perseasel cleared, hallway opened.
1988 Patient treated, decantaminated flee compressed, real time seuld have to ,and moved to close rees la been apprealantely 1 1/2 to 8 heure.
1988 Beersency Departeest.
1100 Pereennel out of protective '
elething and monitored.
1100 Esercise terminated.
8 m
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
,ggfsite Medical Emermancy Drill. Trojan Nuclear Plant October 14 and is 1988 Good " ritan Beanital (October 14, 1988) h EVENT casa m T 0040 Trojaa plaat notified coed Accident notificaties form ased, samaritan, via Telephone, completed la detail by nurse. lajuries STA 1930 and contaalaaties levels listed, resposee level category provided, contasiasties type gives.
0044 Call liet activated.
0044 Preparetles of area started, pereensel begia dreselag.
0049 Update free Trojaa plant. Patient ambulatory, being brought la by autanebile.
Dell Call list completed. All staff actified.
1000 Area ready Not enough abeerbent paper se cart to cover fleer. Staff used bed sheets.
1980 Statf ready, standlag by. .
1981 Patient arrives accompaaled Realth Physico perseasel passed all by Trojaa Realth Phyelce interenties en to medical staff.
pereeasel.
less Patient late Beersency Dept.
1980 Patient treated, decentasiasted fles compressed, real time seuld have to and moved late clean roes la l been appreslaately 1 1/2 to a bours.
1100 Baergency Department. !
Alle Perseasel out of protective clothing and maattered.
1110 Esercise teraiented.
9
1.5 LOG OF SIGNIFICAlff EVENTS Offsite Medical Emermency Drill. Trojan Nuclear Plant October 14 and 15. 1985 S*. Vincent Mosaltal (October 15, 1985)
TIIEE EVENT c000 TENT 1845 Trojan plant notified St. No form available in procedure.
Vincent via telephone actificatien included injuries.
ETA 1830. contaalaation level.
1844 Call list activated 1850 Preparation of area started.
Personnel besta driesing.
1380 call list complete. All staff motified.
1880 Personnel suited up, standtag by .
1835 Area ready Not enough absorbent paper en cart to cover floor.
1830 Patient arrives accompsaled Realth Physico perseasel passed all by Trojaa Beelth Phyelce leformatios este medical staff, pereoanel.
1883 Patleet into cast reen, Cleasep outside bogiaa.
1834 Outelde area, Tobiele released.
1883 Patlest treated, decostaalanted Time compressed, time slaulated to and moved into closa rosa la seuld have been appremiantely 1 1/2 1860 Emergency Department. to S hours.
1400 Personnel out of protective clothlag and moaltered.
1400 Esercise terslaated.
10
e 1.4 TROJAN EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS 1.8.1 * 'lelarical Emerieser Exercise "
Date: October 14, 1988 laitiaties Times 0000 Duraties: Apprealantely a heure l
1.4.3 Particin*1tiaL 0rzmalaations.
State of Oregos and Columbia County Oregen State of unohtagtee and Cowlita and Lewis Counties. Washlagten Portland General Electric Company Amercian Red Crose. Lowls County Chapter 1.8.3 Puranas.
a. To meet the requiremente of the Trojan Radiological haergency Plan,
b. To conduct an esercise that will facinde the mobilisation of Licensee. State (s) and local (s) pereensel, and resources adequate te verify the capability to respond to an accident scenarie requiring response.
c. To conduct an esercise meias a scenario that will allow free play in the decialemmaking process by all participattag organisations.
d. To conduct an esercise meias a scenarie that will allow for the development of as fattial ingestion espesure pathway sampling plan and provide impet to a 1984 ingesties pathway esercise.
1.8.4 Objectives The objectives for this esercise are contained la each of the ladividual report sections.
1.T SERSIARY OF EIIRCISE SCENARIO The 1948 Trejan Radiological Emergency Plas esercise did occur sa October it.
1988. It begea at 0000 and lasted apprealantely 8 1/2 hears.
The 1988 Trojaa RERP esercise ocesario poetalated that prior to the start of the accident the "B" centritusal charsias pump (CCP) une out of service for malatemance work en the fleid side of the pump. Daring thle evelaties, an operator leadwortently mispeettiemed pump maalfles bypese valve 8479A (vs 84798) i to the "cleeed" posities. At T=0. the Plant begna to esperience Reactor Coolant Systes (RCS) leakage greater thaa Technica! Specificaties limite free the "A" reacter coelaat peep (RCP) seal. This resulted la declaratina of as Unseral i Svent. The scenario developed late an Alert at T=30 minutes, uhes the R."* eea! -
leak lacreased to 90 spa.
At T=00 minutes, the "A" RCP shaft selsed. The initial CCS pt stare spike to seas pela caused asse breakage of red cluster centrol assembly (RCCA) split pies.
The split pin fragmente ledged in the apper intermale of the veneel head, thereby laterfering with RCCA sevement and resultias la numerous centrol rede falling to i 11
1.7 SUIglARY OF EXERCISE SCENARIO (f%atinued) lasert when the reactor trip signal was received. The reacter reesiaed critical.
and the pressuriser PORY and safety valves remained open. The failure of the reacter to trip resulted la operators attempting emergency beraties via the "A" CCP. A Site-Area Emergency esisted at this potat.
At T=75 alastes. RCS pressure began to fall. See preneuriser safety valve stuck opea. and the primary system begna to auffor a net less of leventory. Due
to the lattial pressure lacrease which one prolonged by the failure of the reactor to trip. coupled with the laadvertent closure of staiflow bypese valve 8479A. the "A" CCP deadbended for 15 alautes and burned itself out. Emergency beration had stopped. A General Emergency was declared at this pelat.
At T=90 slautes, the reactor coolant drata taak rupture disk ruptured. The "A" RCP seal leakage lacreased to 120 spe. The pressuriser safety relief valve reasised opea, and Costainment pressure increased as primary laventory mae lost to the Centalament. Core uncover) began.
At T=3 hours, fuel damage begna. Contatement pressere costlawed to lacrease, and a major radioactivity release to the environment begna as Caetatament integrity une lost through a leaklag electrical penetraties. Caetainment sprays operated to keep costalament pressure withis deelga !!aits.
At T-3 heers, the "B" CCF mas retarsed to service, and high-preneure safety injecties flew une restored. Contatament pressere and RCS toeperature begna to decrease. Emergency beration malatained the core la a subcritical state as the RCS 11guld level lacreases. The release rate of radioactivity to the envireement decrossed.
At T=4 hmars, the release use torsiasted. The plume EPI porties of the esercise une terminated at apprealantely T-5 hours. Initial lageetles pattuays dose assesseest and sempling plaamias continaed at the Boy for about 1 1/2 hours more.
Projected offeite radiaties desee were below protective acties guide (PAG) levels until feel damage beses (T=3 hours), after each time, effette doses eacceding d ele body pas levele more projected out boyeed 5 alles, based spes plant statue parameters.
Radiological release data and the initial lagostian pathways sampling plan generated by this ocesario will be need as the loput for the aces Radielegical liesiterlag/ EOF Ingestion Pathuey Drill.
13
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS l Troian Exercies. Trojan Nuclear Plant October 18. 1985 SCENARIO Emercise TIME TIME EVENT COISIENT 0000 NOUE 0814 EOF NOUR 0818 OR DOE NOUE 0824 Cow 11ts Co. Dispatch IIOUE 0825 Columbia Co. Dispatch NOUE 0826 NA State . NOUE 0830 ALfJtt 0832 30F ALERT
~0832 OR 5ealth NOUE 0432 MA Be61th WOUE 0435 OR DOE ALElt?
0635 30F DAA Steffed 0437 OR Enalth ALERT 0639 Cowlits a columbia Dispatch ALERT 0833 01A State ALERT 0840 (R BOC Setup Began 0843 OR 5ealth Diepetched Field Teens 1 4 3 0843 30F PSE Field Teen Arrived -
0844 OR BOC Severser Arrived 0645 Columbia, Cow 11ts, a NA TSC Activated 0845 30F BIBE Arrived 0845 NA BOC Seeds (IIAIIAS) NOUE -
0844 Lewis County Received (EAIIAS) NOUR OSSO MA BOC
. Seede _ (llANAS) ALERT and Lewie Co. BOC copied ALERT 0482 NA DOES BAD Teens 1 a 3 put se Standby la
.I e g , , , m n A
1.8 140 0F SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Troia'a Esercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant
_0cieber 18, 1985 SCENARIC Esercise TIME TIIEE IVENT COISIENT 0854 MA DOES Received ALElt?
0000 BOF BOC's Polled for Decloisa-aaker 0907 BOF BAA Functional Total 30F 3/8 Functissal 0904 OR BOC Declared Operatiemal 0000 ,
Site-Area Emergency (SAE) 0000 TSC to BOC's, 30F Par #1 (Shelter Evacuate Columbia kiver), SAE 0010 WA DSRS Field Teene are IIshilised 0010 WA BOC Seeds (IRAIIA3) " General Condities"
. 0011 OIt 50C Aamounced SAE 0918 Seners! Baergency (GE) 001 TSC to 30C's, BOF PAR 88 (Shelter), SE 0913 Cou11ts 50C Declared Activated 0914 BUF Dispatched POE #1 Dels 54 DesS Dispatched WA et 0015 Coalits BOC Prese Briefing #1 este Lewis Cesaty Received (nahAS) "esseral Candities" 0017 Celuable ROC Declared Activated 0917 Columbia /Cowlits 30C's Sirene Activated - PAR et telt Costits BOC BBS #1 re PAft 68 0010 WA DOES WA #1 Diepetched Otto IIA SOC Declared Activated 0931
Oft 30C BBS re Severnor via RSAft 0031-28 BOF to 30C's RaSerding Ceesseresse SE - PAR
83. EDS - Stress 14
1.9 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Trojan Exercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant -
October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Esercise TIME TIME EVENT CGiv r 0925 Columbia ROC News Release #1 0925 Columbia EOC RES #1 Regardlag FAR 82 0926 Cowlitz EOC Dispatch EN Eits 0928 OR E0C Press Briefing #1, PAR 82 0930 WA BOC State of Emergency Signed by OcVernor 0930 -
WA 50C Press Release #2 0935 EOF to IOC's IRN Assumed Control 0935 Cowlits IOC Press Erleflag $2 0935 Columbia & Cowlitz EOC's to WA & OR 50C's Discussica on School Ivacuation to 10 mi. All Concurred 0940 Columbia 50C Access Control Established Regarding 10 al.
0941 Lewis Co. 50C to Red Cross Standby. GE 0942 EOF to 30C's PAR 83. E.5 mi. Evacuatloa 0943 OR EOC Started Rumor Control Operations 3945 OR BOC News Release 84. Evacuate 10 mi.
0945-46 EOF to EOC's Regarding PAR 83 0946 OR BOC to Columbia BOC Regarding Radio failure la Columbia County 0947 30F First Dose Projection la DAA 0947 WA ROC Rumor Control Functional 0944 GR 81 Field Team Arrived EPZ 0949 EOF to G5t #1 Assignment 0949 WA BOC to Clark, Lewis, Wahkiakom Counties Activate Assistance Centers 0950 EOF to EOC's PAR 84, 5 mi, Evacuation 15 D b hGe
_ Me $ M @Nwe M h 4 W e emhe a 9 4g S
h. p y g g
1 1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Trojan Exercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant -
October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Exercise TIME TIME EVENT DM 0952 EOF to EOC's Concurred in PAR #4 0952 WA EOC to NA Field Teams PAR 83 and K1 Recommended 0953 EOF OR FTC. etc., Arrived 0954 NA EOC Rumor Control Operational 0955 Cowlits & Columbia Counties Sirens Activated - PAR 94 0956 OR #1 to EOF Assignment Acknowledged 0956 Columbia BOC EBS #2 re PAR #4 News Release 82 0959 (R EOC Bealth Officer Arrived 1000 Lewis County to Red Cross Begin Shelter Operation 1000 OR BOC EBS #2 re: PAR 84 1000 MA EOC Press Briefing #1 1001 Cowlitz EOC EBS 82 re: PAR 84 1002 Lewis Co. Pacific NN Sell Regarding Telephone lastallation 1002 OR BOC Press Brieflag #2 1002 Cowlitz EOC to BOF EI for EW in Field?
1003 Columbia Roc Release #3 .
1003 EOF to EOC's Discussica Regarding: KI and Status of Evacuation in Nelso/Kalaan schools 1004 PGE #1 to BOF Elevated Readings 2005 TSC to EOF ARN reading at North Site Boundary 31.R/hr.
1005 EOF to WA Field Teams Take KI re: Request from MA BOC 1006 NA BOC to BOF Access Control Established la Cowlitz Co.
1007 PGE el to EOF First Field Reading 16
.w,me. e me - =* 4 m ,e- e o
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS .
Trojan Exercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant .
October 16. 1985 I
SCENARIO Exercise TIME TIME EVENT C000ENT
, 1 1009 OR BOC Concurred Regarding K! for OR EW 1009 EOF to 30C's PAR 85 10 al. Evacuation 1010 EOC's Concurrence PAR 85 1012 EOF DAA PAE Arrives 1014 GR EOC State of Emergency Signed by Governor 1015 BOF to BOC's 50C decide on E! for BW l 1015 Cowlitz EOC Press Release 83 1017 Cowlits EOC EBS #3 re PAR 85 1017 EOF OR 82 Arrives la EPZ 1022 Columbia BOC Sounds Sirens for Columbia and Release EBS #3 Regarding PAR 85 1022 Lewis Co. Assistance Center Operational 1024 Cowlits IOC Sirens Activated to PAR 85 1025 ER 50C Press Releflag #3 re PAR 85 1029 Cowlits 50C Demonstrate Cable TV, interpretable EBS Message 1030 Columbia BOC News Release #4 1030 WA #1 to EOF Regarding Plume Contact 1031 Cowlits 30C to Field IW Regarding Dose /Exposare Control i
1032 . B0F to EOC's Regarding Field Readings
! 21.0 R/br Regarding Locations
' 4.4 R/hr Regarding Locations 3.S R/hr Regarding Locations 1033 Lewis County to WA BOC Request Status of Personnel Mon!.torlag for Evacases ,
1035 WA #2 to 50F Regarding Plame Contact 1037 EOF Received First Id Sample 17 1
O e toi.aep -4 msh
^ " ' ' ' ' " " = ~
--,,,*NND w- ., - ,+n.--n,.,- . , -, , _ , _ _ __ __ _ _
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Trojan Exercise. Trojen Nuclear PIsnt October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Esercise TIWE TIME EVETT C000ENT 1038 OR BOC to EOF Regarding Status of Evacuation EOC Referred to Co. IOC's 1039 WA EOC Discussica - Erscuees from B, F
& G. Will Need to be Monitored for Contamination 1040 EOF WA DAA Team Arrives 1041 WA D8ES #3 Dispatched by WA EOC to Lewis County 1042 Lewis County E0C Receives Plume Plot information D F, and G 1042 EOF DAA - Operational 1045 DSBS #3 Deploys to Lewis County 1046 WA BOC to Cowlitz EOC All 3 Assistance Centers Activated 1'046 OR E0C Agriculture Request: Sterile Feed Regarding Plume EP1 1047 Cowlits ROC to EOF E.8 mi. Evacuation Complete 1053 EOF to Field Teams KI Recommendation 1054 Columbia 50C to OR 50C EW Eave Takes KI 1055 EOF to E0C's PAR 96. EI for EW and SP 1058 Columbia 50C to OR EOC National Guard Assistance for l Access Control I
1058 EOF to 50C's Concurred la E! for SP 1059 Colombia 30C Release #5 1102 Cowlitz BOC Prese Briefias #5 l 1103 OR BOC ReBardlag 9 Dairies on Stored Feed withia Plume EPZ l
l 18 g . .- . ,-,.,-----r -
---v- "--r +-

w -r-.------w----~ =- 9 e~~-1----'-ww-'wyw-----w-w'-w-e v

1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Troisa Exercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant
October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Exercise TIME TIME EVENT COISEENT 1104 WA EOC Press Conference 82 1105 Columbia EOC First Enowledge of OR State's Declaration of Emergency 1105 Lewis ARC Request Plume Verification of ,
D. F 0 1109 Columbia EOC to OR EOC 5 alle Evac. Complete at 1040 1109 Cowlitz EOC to WA EOC Reports 2.5 and 5 mi. Evacuation 2005 complete. 80% of 5-10 mi.
Complete 111f WA E0C Press Briefing #2. Rumor Control 4
Phone #' Announced 1115 Cowlitz EOC Press Brief 86. Evacuation to 10 miles is complete 1119 WA #3 Arrives at Lewis Co.
1120 EOF to EOC's Integrated Dose Estimate Regarding 3-hour release 1122 Columbia EOC News Release 86. Evacuation to 5 mi. complete 10 mi. continuing 1127 WA #3 Begins Personnel Honitoring at Lewis DAC !
1127 OR ROC Press Briefing 84. No Further Evacuation Beyond 10 al., No Protective Actices outside 10 mi. PSE Spokesperson: No Adverse Realth Affect regarding this Release 1132 Cowlitz Eoc Decision - No Reason to Relocate ROC re 1120 19
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT IVENTS Troisn Exercise. Trojan Nuclear Plant October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Exercise TIME TIME EVENT C0ver.nT 1140 MA 1 to EOF First Air Sample re 1100 Sample 1145 Lewis to ARC Screen Persons Living in Plume Sectors A, B, F. N 1147 EOF to Teas (s) Define Plume Location. Area coverage 1150 Columbia EOC to Oregon EOC 10 al. evacuation is 754-complete 1155 OR 50C Rumor - IBAN No Nilk Sales 1158 MA EOC Discussion: Assistance Centers
- Shelters are Full i 1200 WA EOC Evacuation Complete 10 al., open j Assistance Center in Thurston l County. There are available DSES Monitoring Teens for Assistance Centers in Thurston County 1200 Columbia 50C National Guard Assistance at 1200. 10 al. Evacuation Complete 1203 WA EOC Press Briefing #3 1204 WA EOC Posts First Data on Map Display 1207 OR BOC Press Briefing #5 OR Agriculture Embargoed all Nilk in 10 al. EPE 1210 WA EOC Release Terminated 1218 NA BOC PIO Concerned about Rumors 1218 Columbia Co. Release 87 ,
f 20
- * *-e- .m.. em+ . . . . . ..
1.8 LOG OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Trofan Exercise. Troian Nuclear Plant October 16. 1985 SCENARIO Exercise TIME TIME EVENT CopptENT ,
1220 CR BOC First and Only PGE/OR Joint News Release 1225 OR EOC Esercise Terminated 1233 WA EOC Press Briefing 84 1240 Cowlitz EOC Press Briefing 87 1245-50 MA/Cowlitz/ Columbia / EOF (less DAA) and All Field Teams Exercise Terminated l 1302 MA EOC Press Briefing 85 l 1319 Lewis Co. ARC Terminate Exercise 1327 DSES Flaished Surveying Public at Lewis County 1330 EOF First PAR for Ingestica EPZ 1340 EOF to 30C's Ingestion PAR 1445 EOF Ingestica Sample Plan 1445 EOF /DAA Exercise Terminated
. s l
l l
d
?
l E1
_ . _ , . _ _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ . _. _ , _ _ , , _ _ . , . _ . , _ , _ _ _ - . . , , , , . _ , . , , _ . _ _ _ , _ , , _ _ _ 4.,., ____
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.1 Nedical Drill Results St. John's Good Samaritan, and St. Vincent Bospitals and Rainier Ambulance Introduction.
St. John's (Longview. Washington). Good Samaritan and St. Vincent Bospitals (both located in Portland. Oregon) participated in the medical aspect of the esercise. Rainier Ambulance Company (Rainier. Oregon) provided the transport service from the Trojan Nuclear Plant to St. John's Bospital.
I 1
2.1.1 St. John's Mosoital. Loarview. Washinrton Objective: n==aastrate adeauser of hosnital facilities and arocedures for handliar contaminated individuals.
Susaary: Not Objective. C. Perforemace adequate, but correctable
. usakness was noted.
Points of Review: Medical Module and Procedures.
t Evaluation: St. John's Bospital has facilities in their Emergency l Department (ED) which can be isolated and still allow access to and use of the Emergency Department Facility.
Personnel Contacted: Gary Peamer. N.D.
Judy Tanney Unit Secretary David Ragebo. RN r.n==== Wests. Unit Secretary Larry IAnite. EDT Pat Ballowell. RN Carol Saler. RN Perseasel participattag la the esercise were well trained and knowledgeable la the handling and decostaalaation of 111 or injured patients contaalanted with radioactive material. An l excellent in-service training program has been put on by the Trojan staff. The program consists of fear modules of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months each. The training is documented and includes the noe of radiatica messaring lastruments and evaluation and laterpretation of radiation osasarenests. Gary Peener. N.D.,
and David Eagebo R.M., have attended the Oak Ridge Associated
Universities' course se headling and treatneat of radiation accident victime for nurses and physicians.
Supplies and equipment were checked. No discrepancies were acted. The two Geiger Counters and the Ian Chamber were
operational and la calibration.
32 t - _ _ _ _ ,.__, _ - , .--, , , , , -
y ,, ,,, ,, .
,. _m. ,w %w- ._,&
--_ = . --- . -__ .- . . _ -
. l l
\
3.1.1 St. John's Bosoital. Lonsview. Washinston (Continued) l The procedures were implemented in January 1985. The -
procedures include a procedure for use of portable radiation survey equipment, a radiation accident actification fore, l defined response level categories, Unit Assistaat Check Sheet l and other pertiment information.
l The participants approach to the exercise use commendable; all l played the exercise as if were a real event.
Recommendation: Ites. Patient Information. (REP-1:L.1)
Evaluation: Patient status information provided to St. John's l by Trojan staff uns lacomplete. See Log of Significant Events for Medical Drill.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: POE should use a form identical to the " Unit Assistant's Check Sheet" to provide l I patient status information to hospital staff of Emergency 1 Department. l 1
Iten. Pleas / Procedures Review. (REP-1:0.4.h. and P.5).
Evaluation: Documentation of mandatory reading of procedures by staff consists of a small piece of paper stapled to a copy of the procedures. Documentation act effective and not permanent record.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Formalise I documentation, possibly la individual traiaing record.
i l l
! 3.1.2 Good Samaritan Bosnital. Portland. Oremoa I
ob.iective: -
Demonstrate adeauppy of hospital facilities and arecedures for l hand 11am contaminated ladividuals. ,
j
! Summary: IInt objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable usakness uns noted.
Points of Review: IIedical IIodule and Procedares.
4 Evaluatica: Good Samaritan Bospital has facilities in their Emergency I Department (ED) ubich can be isolated and still allow access to and use of the Energency Departaset Facility.
. Personnel Contacted: Jack Batta11a, IS
.l Deborah Sprague-Wagner, thit Assist. Louis DsIIsat, IS i Dick Baltes Ceammaications Beverly James-Stanley, Raf Belen Parreakoph, Rif Ros11a Davis. Itil Ilichael Sequeira,Im Linda Stetson, LPIl l Cricket Seifert. Unit Assistaat Collie Scala, Rif i
SS
- - - . , - . - ,--ww=,vw-w-- m,-p- w www-,w-w- ---wy -.c+_ y
3.1.2 Good Samaritan Rosaltal. Portland. Oteron (Continued)
Evaluation

The Emergency Department is well trained and knowledgeable la (Continued) the handling and decontamination of 111 or injured patients contaminated with radioactive material. An escellent ia-service trainlag program developed by IIs. Crc.* ole Eeba, RN.
and members of the Trojan Staff, continues to be used to amistain and enhance the knowledge and skills of the present staff, and to trala seu staff members la the headling and decostaalaation of 111 or injured patients contaalaated with radioactive material. The course includes use of portable radiation measuring lastruments and evaluations and laterpretations of radiatica measurements. As la-service trainias program uns held by the ED Staff and Trojaa Staff within the past anoth. Trainias le documented. Carole Behn, RN; Alicia Simpklas, RN; and Louis Dellent 15, have attended the Oak Ridge Associated Universities' coarses on handling and l treatment of radiation accident victime for nurses and i physicians. Collie Sonia, RII, is scheduled to attend the I course for marses la early 1988.
Supplies and equipment were checked. There uns not an adequate
- empply of absorbent paper used to cover the floor area l
available on the Supplies and Equipment Cart. The two Geiger i Conators and the Ion Chamber more operational and la j calibration.
! The procedures were revleued, updated and espanded as necessary la July 1985. This lacludes a procedure for use of portable radiation survey lastrumente, a Radiatica Accident Notification Form, defined response level categories. Omit Assistant's Check Sheet, Banaa Body Servey pora and other pertiment information.
Three marses who had not previossly participated la en esercise were assigned to participate la this esercise. They more all j
adequately trataed la the g ee r : ee.
The participante approach to the esercise une commendable; all played the esercise as if it more a real event.
) Recommendation: Item. Operational Supplies. (REP-1 L.1) i I
1 Evaluation: Immefficient supply of shoorboat paper en Supplies l and Equipment Cart.
- Rec h tlos for Corrective Actions: peg to required to
! check Supplies and Egelpment Cart en a monthly schedule. There une no readily available documentation to indicate that this requirement uns accesplished. Provide levantary list with apace for date and ialtials of ladividsal perfersias cart I
check.
l l
S4
I l
2.1.3 St. Vincent Bosoital. Portland. Oromoa Objective: Demonstrate adecuacy of hosnital facilities and aroceduree for l
1 hand 11er contaminated ladividuals.
Seamary: Not objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable l l weakness was noted.
Polats of Review: Medical Module and Procedures.
Evaluation:, St. Vincent 3ospital used the Cast Roos la the ED. This roca can be isolated and still allow access to and use of the ID Facility. New constructica precluded use of the Physical Therapy Facility.
Personnel Coatseted: Michael Zianerman, MD Deborah Tuke, RN All Ninter, RN j
Briaa Eughes, Ph.D Marren Parrish, Safety a Security The St. Vincent Bospital Emergency Departeest Staff Nesbers participating la the exercise are well trained and knowledgeable la handling of 111 or injured patients l contaalanted with radioactive material. ED personnel have received training from the Trojan Staff la all aspects of handling 111 er injured patiente contaalasted with radioactive ,
I materials includlag use of portable radiation measuring l lastruments and evaluation and interpretation of radiation measurements. A video tape "Bospital Emergency Maangement of Radiation Accidents " prepared by Oak Ridge Associated Universities, is also used for in-service trainlag. Beverly i Mand, RN; A11 Nester, RN; and Nichael Elemerana 15. have attended the Oak Ridge Associated Universities' course on i headling and treatment of radiation accident victime for marses j i and physicians.
Supplies and equipment were checked. There was not an adequate supply of absorboat paper, used to cover the floor area, available on the Supplies and Equipment Cart. The two Geiger Counters and the Ion Chamber were operational and la calibration.
The procedures were reviewed and updated as necessary la September 1984.
The hospital has a Radiation Safety Officer abo is well qualified and esperienced la making, laterpreting, and l
evaluatlag radiation measurements.
l I
The participants approach to the esercise was commendable; all played the esercise as if it were a real event.
l l
i i SS I
ese
.,o_.y. _. - . , . . , , _ _._._.. m m.,. --g-_. m.,,._ __-_
2.1.3 St. Vincent Bosofts1. Portland. Oregon (Continued)
Recommendation: Item. Operation Supplies. (REP-1:L.1) -
Evaluation: Insufficient supply of absorbent paper on Supplies and Equipment Cart.
' Recommendation for Corrective Actions: PGs is required to check Supplies and Equipment Cart on a monthly schedule. There I was no readily available documentation to ladicate that this )
requirement was accomplished. Provide inventory list with space for date and initials of ladividual performing cart I check.
3.1.4 Ambulancer Rainier Rural Fire District i Ob_lective Demonstrate the adecuacy of ambulance facilities and arecedures for handliar contaminated individuals, Summary: IIet objective.
Pelats of Review: Itsdical Ilodule and Procedures.
Evaluation: The Rafaler Ambulance Company can successfully handle and l transport am 111 or injured person contaminated with j j radioactive satsrial. )
l Personnel Contacted: Terry Trice, ytre Chief Leslie Gallies, BIrF III Rick Brundage. Elfr II I The Asiater Ambulance company is a part of, and is located at,
the Rainier Rarel Fire Department Facility. The ambulance attendants are volunteers and are troised and Certified 1 Energency IIedical Techalcians I, II, and III. They have received training is basic radiaties physics and headling of
l. 111 or injured patiente contaminated with radioactive anterial. IRi11e the training is not regularly scheduled, it is I adequate a0d documented. An excellent Standard Operettag Procedure
Transporting Radiologically Costaalanted Patisats Operational standards," has been prepared and see laplemented as September t. 1985. (IIote Raialer Ambulance Ceapany can no longer request paramedics from Leagview,' IInshingtes.)
If a Realth Physicist or Esalth Physics Technician is present at the scene and ride la the ambulance to the hoepital,
)
attendants of Rainier Ambulance Ceapany will be able to successfally headle and transport am 111 or injared patient contaalanted with radioactive materials.
I The participant approach to the esercise was ceammadable. All
played the esercise as if it were a real event. The packaging of the patient for treasport was noteworthy.
l H
1 l
4 4 -em y g4p *$ e -e
, , - - - - - - . , - . . . -, - - - - ,_, ,,,__n_.. __,,.__,e ,~,~,.n_._ _ . .
l
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.1 STATE OF MASHINGTON 2.2.1.1. State IOC i i
! Objective #1: Demonstrate ab111tv to mobilise. staff and activate j
facilities arcantiv.
Summary

Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered
, necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Notificatica of response organizations should be within the followlag times:
a. All response organisations within SS alautes of l receipt la change of declaration of Alert. I
b. All response organisations within 15 minutes of '
receipt la change of status: Alert to Site-Area i -
Emergency and Site-Area Emergency to General
'. Baergency.
l 2. Actual Time of Time Required for l Receint/Channe Status Notification I
Alert 0839 37 minutes l SAE 0906 N/A GE 0011 15 minutes
3. Nas the ROC staffed at the appropriate classification and did key response personnel respond within 30 slastes?
Yes, I
4. Nas the ROC statfed and appropriate response eleasato represented when it was declared functional (activated)?
, Yes. Note: See " General Instructions to Evaluators."
8. See Module Section A.
1 Evaluation: The ROC facility was activated to a functional /eperational status in a prompt manner. Staff more la positieas and assumed duties la a timely nammer. Staff showed adequate knowledge of procedures and systems. Note: The actual Duty Officer uns not utilised for this esercises a full-time Conaualcations Officer, reallier with the process, uma put
into this position.
Tuo procedural discrepancies observed daring early notification famont are noted for correcties because they constitute alsinformation; result could be potential inappropriate or ao response.
37 j . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . .
. - _ _ _ - . . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , . , . _ _ . , , . - m _ ,.-
l; Ivaluation: 1. The NAWAS and access NOUE messages went out at 8:45 sad 8:46 (Coatinued) respectively--fully 5 minutes after the DO uns in receipt of ALERT at 0839.
2. RAWAS at 0910 and ACCESS at 0916 use lacorrect terminology of " General Condition" as apposed to correct " General Energency."
l Recommendation: Ites. Notification - Duty Officer. (rep-1:E.2: 0.4.J.)
, Ivaluation: See above.
1 Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train and demonstrate Do proficiency la performing motification unlag accurate terminology. This training must stress the ability to upgrade actification process uben overrun by events.
l 0'oiective 2.a: Demonstrate adecuacy of facilities and disclars to sanoort emeraeacy operations.
Seamary: Not objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
points of Review: 1. Response time for maintalaims status boards and brieflag E0C Staff abould be 10 minutes after receipt of change la status or change in recosaeedation for protective actions.
I 2. Were the facilities and equipment adequate to support the j emergency response effort? Yes.
3. Were status boards, maps, etc., odequate? No.
i 4. See Module Secties C.
i Ivaluation: Status boards were generally posted la a timely, freguest and accurate manner. Occasional exceptions favolved failure to keep i plant status PAR's and AC status currest. Der observance of routiae ladicates that few of the ROC Staff use these boards for any purpose. Racept for one flaal DSES briefing about plume i
status, no information or use use ande of the many maps and l status boards rather, small scale displays were used en the j Baecutive Table la lieu of the established displeys (amps and
! status boards).
! Der current and past evaluations of the ROC and its displays acknowledges that the current BOC represents a herculean attempt to operate la a structure that has lasufficient space and layout
! to serve as sa 50C. In that view, the space and layout is adapted as well as can be done. Nessures taken to silence, ceanect, sever, and operate la all spaces are judged as the best that can be done with the available structure. The estrost maps and status boards are too small and too far many to serve the needs of Executive Decision-anker. The Executive Table was often briefod, very adequately, through the use of very small scale data charts, 111metrations, amps, and each. Brieflags to WRIC and the larger BOC did met use these tools due to small SS f
+e , e. e w eg.*..w-,e- - .
eg, -----v.-w- , _ , . - - , , - ----._~v--,--- - -- - - - , - - , , , , - - - n- , . -, m_
1 i
valuation: size. The existing status boards and maps around the EOC are (Continued) either incompatible. nonexistent or neglected with respect'to displaying the data from the small scale items used at the Executive Table.
Recommendation: Ites. Adequate facility (maps and status boards). (REP-1:8.3
J.10.a. A b.

0.4.a. b. A j.)
Evaluation: Selection of displays continues to show a need for improvement.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions

1
1. Review and standardise the displays needed to support i Executive Group. Create several sets of status / posting boards and map boards that address the following

Plant condition PAR's/ PAD's, local A/N-ESS actions, key telephone numbers, status of EOC(s) and E0P and WEIC: and map (s) i showing wind /wn, plume PAR, PAR laplementation status. PAR completica status, population by sector, etc.
i
2. Place the displays near the Executive Group BOC Operations
! Group, and la the WEIC.
l
3. Train the staff on use of displays in 50C, WEIC, press and technical brieflags. Emphasis on graphics displays e.g., ,
i plant scheastics and map display of plumes, PAR's, i roadblocks, etc., would help all understand far better than 4 I just narrative briefings.
I Objective 2 br Demonstrate adeauacy of facilities and disnlers to sannort l
j enerrency operations. Evaluation analies to media dissemination and press briefiar rooms only.
I I Sumasry: Wet objective. B. Corrective actions are coseidered necessary.
j Points of Review: 1. Response time for maintaining status boards and brieflag E0C j staff should be 10 slautes after receipt of change la status
! or change la recommendatica for protective actises.
l 2. Were the facilities and equipasst adequate te support the j emergency response effort? Yes.
2
3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adequate? No.
! 4. See Module Section C.
Evaluation: A running sequence of all press releases from all sources was l malatained on the status board. Each release was given a unique member. These releases were promptly posted and disseminated to
, appropriate agencies. The facilities were generally adequate:
however, asps and charts indicattag protective actions implemented would be cf great benefit to media dissemination l personnel, the PIO spokesperson, and to the media la the press i briefing rooms.
I l 39 1
--+e.---%----,--- ,---.-rw-i-w- - + - - _o, - ,m,----- p --,-4--w w,-e.,.% ,+---s,,& myw m . , nym , ge wr, ,n m w , . w w we e c,
_ . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ -. _ _ . _ . - .___._ _._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
4 j Evaluation: The press briefing room was very small and could accommodate few )
(Continued) press representatives. The lack of graphics provides the press '
i with little information.
l Recommendation: Ites. Adequate facility (maps and status boards). (REP-1 R.3; J.10.a. & b.; 0.4.j.)
! Evaluation: See above.
I Recommendatlan for Corrective Action: Upgrade and provide maps fadicatlag: 1) evacuation routes; 2) AC's; 3) decontamination
stations; 4) 3PZ with shelter and evacuation status for the media dissoalaation room and the press brieflag roce.
i j Objective 3: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all annronriate
]
locations. oreanizations and field personnel.
Summary: Het objective.
! Points of Review 1. Were communications systees adequate (i.e., enough phones, ,
i necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes. '
i
2. Were the systese used properly? Yes.
3. See Module Sectica D.
! Evaluation: Communication systems were adequate la number, they worked well i j and were used effectively. The use of radio networks, dedicated
] land lines and commercial telephones were deseastrated. The separate dedicated systems for decistoaanking, technical data j and public information worked well. The hard-copy (facsimile) treassission system provided reasonable quality copy with slainal delay.
! Objective 4: Demonstrate ability $9 make decisions and to coordinate 4
emersency activities.
Summary: Net Objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary. i
] '
j Points of Review: 1. Were e;ppropriate representatives lacluded la the decision i
procuss and provided adequate brieflag and logistic i i support? Yes. l
2. Did the perseas arrive at decisions within the 18 alante l time? Yes.
3. Did the correct persos make the decisions? Yes.
4. Were the docialens carried est effectively? Yes.
l S. Were the correct protective acties decisions made? Yes.
8. Were the implementation lastructions for protective measures telephoolcelly dispatched to the appropriate response
organisations? Yes.
i I
1
~
l
i a
Points of Review: 7. Were the decision-makers notified of the time that the (Continued) implementation actions were executed? Note: Indicate time required for deliberation of decision-makers for each FAR to i PAD: Recommendation #1: 4 alautes ; #2: 3 minutes.; #3: 1 l minute.; #4: 1 minute; and #5: 1 alaute. 1
8. See Module Sections 5 and I. ,
i
, Evaluation: With one noted exception, the Washington BOC demonstrated the ability to make decioloas and to coordinate emergency activities la a timely amaner. The decision-makere sought out information as to current and projected status of the situatloa. A great l deal of laput was generated just by asklag for additional iaformetion.
l The coordination of emergeacy activities appeared to be compromised by the inattention to posittag of energency 1 activities on the status boards; it was difficult to track and )
determine uhat asseures were being carried out and to what extent activities were belas accomplished. l I
. The one acted exceptica uns State's action to recommend II to 1 1
Washlagtes yield Teams at 0953 and their discussion and action l j regardlag II for other Xaergency Workers 2003-08.
1
]
Recommendation: Item. EI Deciolon methodology. (REP-1 J.10.f; 0.4.a. a b.)
Evaluation: The recommendation for a PAR for II to EW's should originate at the 30F. There was confesion as to the process and i the status of State Precedures for adelaistration of II to EW's, i
Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Trafalag staff to laclude all appropriate representatives in !
the decisiemaaklag process.
3. Follow procedures for PAR's as eritten and/or rewrite procedures with stipulations as to sho/hou II adelaistration will be directed.
)
i Objective 5: Demonstrate the abilities of the ree: ::: er===1mation to
) effectively utilize e= - rt amencies and au*ha=ities ukere/uhen
] local e===h111tles are ==::f f.
Summary: Did not meet objective. A. Deficloacy.
Points of Review: See Module secties S.
Evaluation: Support une provided to host Ceanties la the fera of l
laformation, and assistance as per regnests. Estimates on evacuattag population eine and evocanties times were developed l by the Disaster Analysis Groep (BAS) and forwarded to the host i
Counties by the Disaster Operations Greep (DOS). Initially, the screenlag advice for radiological assitorlag parposes use -
lacorrect. It was met corrected until guestkomed by the Iewis l County American Red Crees Chapter.
j S1 l
ll _
Evaluation: Lewis County notified the State that shelters were full, and (Continued) '
requested assistance to accommodate the overflow evacuees. The DOG then contacted the Thurston County DEN and asked them to have the Thurston County Red Cross Chapter open additional shelters.
Although the DAG developed an estimate of the evacuating public, they failed to recognize the significance of S8,000 persons with potential contamination who were evacuating northward into Lewis County. Unlike previous exercises, a request for US DOE Radiological (RAD) Nonitoring assistance was never made. There would have been insufficient staff and equipment to perfore monitoring of those persons arriving at AC in Lewis County.
(Please see Other Issues in the Executive Seamary.)
Reconsandation: Item. Response Support. (REP-1:C.1.b. & 4; J.12)
Evaluation: Sufficient RAD Noaltoring Team support was not ensured.
I . Reconaeadation for Corrective Actions: The State should deterniae the requirements for RAD Noeitorlag Teams and make arrangements for such assistance. Revise procedures to address 1 these issues and specify the trigger levels for requesting such assistance.
Objective 6: Demonstrste ability to formulate and distribute amoronriate
. Instructions to the aublic in a timely fashion. ;
I Summmary: Net objective. 3. Corrective actions are coesidered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the Counties prepare and coordinate the public instructions (ISS message content)? Yes. I
2. Was the content of the public lastructions adequate (see )
Part F of the ROC Hodule)?
i
Evaluation

Washington has a single log entry from Washingtoa State Police
! (WSP) logs inferring a slagle follow-up action. It states only j that no E38 response has been received at a time late in the i
azercise.
i The current procedures assign this responsibility only to the l WE!C Nanager. (Note: This issue has been identified in previous esercises and remains as open ites.)
A task was fattiated by WEIC, through EOC Supervisers to WSP, to monitor ESS/ESAM at W5P Eelso and Vancoever stations and report back. The WSP task was passed out of the State BOC at 1002. No reports were observed to retura, nor was any follow-up laquiry made within the ROC to ascertala that RSS/KRAM public notification / instruction uns actually accomplished.
32 1
-. . _ _ ~ - _ . . .- _... - _ - - _ _ _ . - _ - _ - _ - - -
- - _ _ _ - - . . . . - _ . _ . . - - . _ _ - _ - _ . - - _ . ~ _ -
~
} Evaluation 1. A 1002 tasking message is considered excessive delay j (Continued) followlag SAE actification at the ROC at 8:00. If the response from NSP field stations would have been rapid, the State would have been sware of the need to perform a backup ESS/KBAN public actificatica/lastructies role over an hour after SAE had been declared.
2. Limited lattiative to follow up on the ESS/ESAN acattor assignment by WEIC (which initiated it). the 50C Supervisor or WSP indicates a problem of tracklag assignments to completloa.
Recommendations: Item. Public Instructions. (REP-1:E.5. 4 & 7; 0.4.J.)
i Evaluation: 1) The action is critical la terms of the State assuring that the County, or State if need be, has performed the A/N role; 2) The State did not play out reasonable actions (e.g., call ERAN and ask); 3) No other activity was observed that the State confirmed siren activation action or other A/N roles; and 4) No status board or brieflag contained definitive status of A/N action.
i .
1 Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Revise procedures to make monitorlag and reporting of BBS/KRAN public notificatica/lastruction messages by appropriate State salt an automatic action rather than a l task assignment. Revise ROC Procelures to specify positica responsible for verifying that that this action is occurring.
l E. Trelaing of pertinent EOC Staff related to State role in
] A/N en the revised procedure for treekine local A/N actions
) and initiating State A/N actions to back up the Comaty,1f accessary.
i i
Objective 7: Demonstrate ability to brief the media in a clear. accurate.
and timely manner,
, Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered accessary.
t Points of Review: 1. Were all press releases approved by the designee? Yes, j 3. Were the press releases properly disseminated to the i
appropriate release potate? Yes.
I s. Were news cor.ferences held er stealated? Was a schedule l for seus conferences developed and posted? No.
l 4. Did the PIO ensare that media questions (telephone) were j answered accurately and la a timely amener? Not observed.
j S. See Module Section 1.
1 as I
4._. . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,.
. - - . - - - -_. _ __. . c , _ . _ - - _ _ _
Evaluation: All media rolesses were approved by the WEIC Nanager. However.
several problems arose with the faitiation (production) of rolesses. First, the majority of M IC messages lacked .
approval /laitiation times. Second. the numberlag system, sequencing, and orderly dissenlaation of these releases became backlogged and subsequently confused.
All MIC releases were properly dissestaated to all appropriate i I
release points, but due to a lack of concurrence times (os releases) and confused numbering / sequencing, the dissemination of i I
NEIC messages 3-4 was not prompt.
News conferences were conducted hourly and a time for the next brieflag was posted la the media dissoalaation room. The scheduled time for the next briefing was not posted in the press brieflag room. The spokesperson(s) gave out incorrect l taformation regardlag the severity of the radiological release, the status of the AC and shelter activation, and advised the media to go to the AC's. Spokespersons did not have adequate tools to assist the State's presentation.
~
Recommendation: Ites. Media Brieflag. (REP-1 0,33 0.4.J.)
i Evaluation: Although all WEIC releases were approved and I initiated by the WEIC manager, the times of concurrence for most ,
releases uns esitted. The procedures for membering/ sequencing WEIC releases was not followed. Day 11cate use of release numbers coupled with rapidly changlag events resulted la lags la excess of 30 alautes for the dissemination of WEIC releases.
Recommendation for Corrective Acties:
1. Revise procedures to specify that release time should be lacluded.
3. Traia staff on process of numberlag WEIC release and the prompt processing of releases.
l S. Train Staff on the postlag of times for media briefings e.g.,
The times for media brieflage should be clearly posted la the
press roca (rect WEIC Assistaat Manager Procedure 10.2.2 IV-A, 8).
Itea. Media Operations. (REP-1:8.33 0.4.j.)
Evaluation: The Technical Spokesperson stated that a field reading of 80 mR/hr at 7 miles north of Trojaa was barely above i background and of no sissificance. In the same statenest, he i ladicated that the State had administered KI for Field Teams and l did not address protective actions for general public. The l State's Spokespersos indicated that a Disaster Assistance Center uns open la Lewis County and that the Red Cross had opened
shelters in Clark, Wahkiakaa, and Pacific Ceanties. Me also
, ladicated that the Governor had confirmed that the release had ,
! stopped as of 1208. Ne offered to provide driving laformation (directions) to the media so that they could go to the AC.
34 l 1
I l e y , o w e a e
,--gw_w.-- .g---.-gv.,y--.w - . -,-er-- _yge me,wy-
Recommendation: Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train the staff on (Continued) pre-coordination among spokespersons and the accuracy of material to be used la briefing th'e media. -
Objective 8: Demonstrate ability to creoare and nrovide advance coordination of taformation releases.
Summary: Not objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO coordinate to-be-released laformation with the other locations prior to release to the media? Yes.
! 3. Did the PIO have access to all necessary information?
Yes.
3. Did the PIO facorporate the appropriata. *public instructions" into the appropriate media releases (public information)? No.
4. See Module Section I.
j Evaluation: The PIO coordinated to-be-released information with all locations prior to release to the media. Bouever, appropriate "public instructions" were act incorporated lato press releases. Specifically. PAR's $1. 3, 3 and 4 were not lacluded la the WEIC releases. Further these PAR's were not adequately presented or illustrated la the news brieflage.
(See Objective S.)
i Procedure VI-B (188 asaltorlag) was initiated, but act followed up. Procedure VI-C (Notify WEIC Staff of ESS status and action.) ans not implemented.
Recommendation: Ites. Adequate Releases (REP-1 0.4.c.: 0.4.J.)
Evalsations (See above.)
Recommendation for Corrective Actione: Additional training is required to emeure that the WEIC Nanager implements and completes all procedures; specifically moeitering of ESS i broadcasts and brieflag appropriate staff, and lacluding the PAR's/ PAD's la releases and brieflage.
1 Objective 9: Demonstrate ability to establish and ooerate rumor control la a coordinated fashion,
Summary: Net objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO establiek a los to track rumore? Yes.
3. Did the PIO promptly report rumore er misinformation to the appropriate officials? Yes.
SS
~
, , , , - , - - - yr- - + -e -m,p-e __.y,,, y _m, m,, ,,,,mmamp-m.,
Points of Review: 3. Did the PIO develop, coordlaate and release public (Continued) laformation releases to counter the rumors or misinformation? No. .
4. Did the PIO coordinate their rumar control operation with other locations? No.
S. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: A log identifylag rumors /public conceras uns established.
Rumors and questisas came into the ROC /WEIC at a variety of points. These issues were referred to the appropriate official and " call back" procedures were implemented. In general, so activity was observed la which the PIO incorporated rumor /public concera issues into pablic j laformation at press releases. Da one occasion, the PIO asked i the rumor control operators if there were any rumore that l should be addressed. There was no response. It was not
observed ubether " Rumor Control" use coordinated with other locations.
7 I
Of the 31 telephone calls placed to usshington State by the
. Control Cell, approximately ass of the laquiries received ;
lacorrect answers (e.g. alsinformation--do not eat eggs; i I
j 12-n11e evacuation; do not est fish; and tambility to tell l
person ubether to eracuate or shelter).
l Recommendation: Itees. Adequate Rumor Centrol. (REP-1 G.4.c.; 0.4.J.)
I Evaluation: See above. See Objective 8. It appears ese of the ressoas the Rumor Control Staff remained uninformed was j that releases more not factual; e.g., did not contata PAR's i
and PAD's facts.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train staff on the see of the call-back forms and on their mood to identify those j issues that need to be addressed.
l Objective 10: Demonstrate the o"manisational ability and researces necessary j to effect an order 1r evacuation of mobility-insaired i individuals within the alune EPI.
Summary: Met objective. ,
i Points of Review: 1. See Module Sectica G. 1
3. The State's Rumor Centrol should forward roguests to State i 30C for referrel/ transmittal to Coulits Comaty 30C.
(Note: Track how less it takes roguests to move froa Rumor Centrol to State ROC and from State 50C to Ces11ts j Coasty EOC.)
} Evaluation: Issufficleat data to evaluate. A slagle mobility lapaired et11 was correctly forwarded to the operations station and was
responded to la a timely manner. No trail uma established so j the competency of the resposee cannot be evaluated.
I SS
. .. i. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. . . . _. . _ _ . . ... . . .
i
_ __ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ ___ a
1 l
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.1 STATE OF WASHINGTON (Continued) 1
] 2.2.1.2 In The Field Note: Washington State DSHS dispatched two Field Radiological Noeitoring Teams to the vicinity of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. This section of the report is divided by objectives and then by each team.
Objective 11: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all amoroorfate l l
locations. organizations. and field personnel.
! Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable I weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. Were communications systems adequate (i.e., enough I phones, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes l -
2. Were the systems used properly? Yes.
] 3. See Module Sectica D.
Evaluation for WA #1 " Dead Spots" were observed in the EPZ (i.e., no repeater).
l Battery charger for radio was not working correctly. i Readings could not be communicated promptly because of the amount of radio traffic handled by the EOF. Beyond these hardware problems and the 50F radio traffic problem, this team communicated very well.
Evaluation for WA #2 Overall, Washlagton Field Team p2 demonstrated a very good ability in handling appropriate communications. Radio protocol by the Team Leader was very good.
1. Radio not control by the 30F mad poor radio protocol by other Teams resulted la delays reporttag survey results.
2. The location of the first 3 serveys were inaccurately 4
reported to the 50F.
3.
The Team missed the last lastructions by the 50F to take ground deposittoa samples because their radio volume had been turned down while stationary and the lastructions were given while mobile. The lacreased background moise prevented the Team from hearing these instructions.
4. Field Team defined west plume boundary, center line, and east plume boundary la a stretch of 5 afautes and reported only the center line reading without ladicatlag its significance.
Recommendation: Item. Communications. (REP-1 F.1.d.: 0.4.c.)
Evaluation: See above.
1 1
i Recommendation: Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Investigste/ evaluate the feasibility of installing .
repeaters to eliminate " Dead Spots" within the EPZ.
2. Repair broken charger for radio (WA 81). !
3. Radio Conauaications Procedures should be revised to !
eliminate the direction / distance information given over the l radio. This could be done at the EOF with only grid
! locations from the Field Teams. I
4. Poor radio protocol by some teams suggest formalizing a standard radio message to report location and survey results. Training la radio use is required for all potential users. Field Teen radio protocol training should include stating the significance of the reading being reported; i.e. benadary, center line, general information.
Objective 12: Demonstrate ability to mobilize and denlow field monitorine teams la a timely fashion, i
j Summary: -
Not obj9ctive. C. Performance adequate, but correctable usakness was noted.
l Points of Revism: See Module Sectica A.
, Evaluation MA 81: Nobilisation of WA #1 Field Teams was adequate. Eeuever, one Team member who is moraally la the Seattle area, uns at the DSES Office. Also, van's for the Field Teams were obtained before motification of NOUE. Call-up list was not up-to-date.
Some Team acabers brought equipment required for moraal work duties. This was considered above and beyond call-of-duty.
Evaluation MA #2 Overall aobilisation and deployment of Washlagten Field Team 82 use good. Team acabers were la their moraal work locations adten the esercise began.
I
, 1. Team vehicles had been requested and were picked up by l radiation control perseasel prior to the first NOUE
notification. l
! 3. IRaile en standby, the Washingtoa et Kits more laventoried l l and lastrumente more checked. The investory process I i
identified that the Team Rit had no alpha meter. l l 3. Not all Team acabers la Washington Field Team et are j identified as members of a h shington Field Tema (see i Figure 3.7 titled "Radiaties Centrol Sectica Emergency i Response Perseasel" dated 12/84).
4. DGES/ REP Precedere 3.1, "Censuaications " states that the j (208) Nuclear pheme aanber is assueted as a set of red l
phones with the number 848-5837. (Note: the " Red" phones were brous and they had a different number, 788-8d33.)
i l
M i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . - - . . . . - - . . . - .
l i
j Recommendation: Iten. Alerting, notifying and mobilizing. (REP-1:E.2: 0.4.b.)
Ivaluation: See above. .
Recommendation for Corrective Actions.
i 1. Update / revise D88S/RCP Figure 3-7 to reflect current staff.
1
2. Update procedures to reflect the phone color and phone number of "208 Nuclear."
3. Train etsff to replace missing or defective equipment. The missing alpha meter in Team 2 Kits should have been filled with a spare. There was time to do this while on standby.
Objective 13: Demonstrate appropriate equineent and arocedures for determininr ambient redistion levels, danmary: : Net objective. D. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. See Module Sections B, C E, and F.
. 2. See paper " Role of Dose Projection System: Offsite Verificatica System."
Evaluation WA #1: Continuous monitorlag uns act performed per DSES/RCP S.2.2-2.
Air samples were properly packaged but not identified (labeled). Team seebers did not know the anzimum allowed dose l without authorization. This Team uns well organized and managed. They desoastrated as la-depth amaroness of their assigned duties and esecuted la a timely manner.
Evaluation WA #2: Overall, use of equipment and procedures for determinlag ambient l radiatica levels were good.
1. 30P's, while verbally discussed, were not specifically used daring the actual use of am lastruncat. It ses evident that the ladividual taking readings knew the precedures and followed them.
2. No ground secourements were taken. Team Captain's 4
questicas/lastructions em taking ground measurenests were l act followed through. (Note: If ground esasurenests had been taken, team would have been amare that there nos plume I deposition; e.g., ground contaalaation.)
l
3. The team missed the 1853 lastructions by the B0F to take ground deposities samples because their radio volume had been turned doue while stationary and the lastructions were gives while they were mobile. The lacreased background noise preventsd the team free hearing these lastructions,
d. Field Team defined west plume boundary, center line, and east plume boundary la a stretch of 5 minutes and reported saly the center line reading without ladicattag its significance.
i I
39 l
I
l i !
Recommendation: Itea. Monitorlag personnel. (REP-1:1.S; 0.4.c.)
Evaluation

See above. .
Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Team members should review DSRS/RCP S.2.3-2 en
Continuous Monitoring Procedures." '
2. Revise DSES/RCP S.4.1 to provide procedure to identify )
(label) air samples after packagias.
3. Teen members should review DSES/RCP 4.4.3.2 "Prote::tive Action Procedures within Plume Esposure Pathuey."
4. Future training sessions should include listening to others j and for assertiveness la relation to toen actions; 1.e.. ;
taking ground measurements or reportlag appropriate !
background, plume boundary and center line to the EOF.
i
! Objective 14: Demonstrate anoroariate eaufseest and arocedures for sensure- -
l '
. ment of airborne radiolodine concentrations as law.as 10 '__
. aci/CC in the cresence of noble meses, Summary: Net objective.
Points of Review: 1. See Module Sections B. C. E. and F.
2. See paper " Role of Dose Projectica System and Offsite Verificatica System."
Evaluation MA #1. This team demonstrated equipment and procedere adherence for the measurement of airborne radiolodine. Procedure does not I call for sample identification. (See Objective 13.)
Evaluation MA #2: Tees Leader was never directed to take airbores radiolodine concentratica measurements by the DAA. DOES/RCP S.S.3.1.C states that " Air sempling measurenesta are taken as directed by CDAC." The Team Leader knew he could independently decide to i
take sa air sample. Team discussion identified the Teen
! Leader's philosophy that findlag plume boundaries and center j lines is more laportant them gettlag air semples. (Notes j Evaluator faJted to ask Team to demonstrate this capability.
Also note, that this Teen Leader failed to follow his l
philosophy vis-a-vis reportlag plume boundary and center line asesurements.) See Objective 13.
40 l .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .. .. . , , , , , . .
- . - . - - - - _ _ . - - , . _ - - - , _ - . - - . , - _ , - - . , - . . - , _ , . _ - - - - , - - - . . , ~ . - _
~
4
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.1 STATE OF MASHINGTON (Continued) !
i j 2.2.1.3 At the Assistence Center ,
' Objective 15: Demonstrate ability to mob 111 e. staff and activate facilities I
aronDt1Y.
Summary: Did not meet objective. A. Deficiency.
Points of Review: 1. Notificatica of response organizations should be withia the following times:
l1 i
a. All response orgsalzations within 25 minutes of, {
receipt la change of declaration of Alert.
] b. All response organisations within 15 minutes of receipt is change of status: Alert to Site-Aret
} Energency (SAE) and SAE to Esmeral Energency (GE).
i I
1 2. Actual Ties of Time Required for 1 _3,qvint/_Chanat _S_tung. Botification l l
l Alert 0839 13 minutes l SAE 0906 N/A
! GE 09111 to aleutes i
Evaluation: The ROC notified DSES of the Alert at 0852, la alautes after 1 declaration of Alert. According to DSES Procedures, two Moaltoring Teams were put.en standby. According to DEM l
Procedures, the elements necessary to activate and staff the J AC's should have been put os standby they were not.
1 1
. At 0949 the Washlagten BOC requested Clark. Lewis and Wahkiakus Counties to activate AC's. The Washiestoa 50C did not request DSES to dispatch Teams to AC's antil 1041, and was la response to a request from Lewis C.eusty at 1088.
l The DSES Team arrived at the Lewis County AC at 1119. By this time, contaminated perseas had been processed and released by l the ARC Staff to preclude a major jas up la the operatica of i the AC.
I
! Recossendation: Iten. Activation of Assistance Centere. (REP-1:2.1 3.2 ;
j J.10.h.: 0.4.J.)
1 Evaluation: Se;e above.
i 1
41 1
i 1.
l Recommendation: Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
(Contianed)
1. Revise Procedures to clearly specify the steps necessary l
for all elements of the AC to be notified, mobilised and l
deployed.
2. Review current preparedness posture and consider activation of all elements at Alert level la order to ensuse that AC's i
are ready and operational before arrival of evacuees.
e,ghi gpti ve 16: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all amorooriate locations. creanizations. and field norsonnel.
4 Summary: Not objective. C. Perforemace adequate, but correctable i usakness uns noted.
1 Points of Review 1. Were communications systems adequate (i.e., enough phones, mecessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? No l
' 2. Were the systems used properly? Yes.
3. See Module rection D.
Evaluation: Radio contact was established med asistained between the Washington State ROC and the Lewis County AC by both the DSES l
Team and the ARC. (This uns done via amateur radio.) Straag j interference uns esperienced at times. Radio uns used ezrertly j by Field Teen.
i Recommendation: Item. Connuaications for DSES. (REP-1:F.1.b.)
Evaluation: The Field Toma's radio periodically emitted a series of loud keep teses em Chamael 2 (45.38 M s) at the Lewis Ceesty AC. The heep tones appeared to come free a signal source of equal or higher strength as the Washington State 50C. This could cause a serioen disruptica of ceanuaications.
Reconneedsties for Corrective Actions: The signal searce should be feend and eliniented, cr another chamaal ased.
Objective 17: Demonstrate adesnate eenimment and arecedures for the monitorine decon*==Imation of the evnenees.
Summary: Not objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered mesassary.
Points of Review: 1. Place laaters saatles en variens eveceses. (Note: They should be fesad by maalter.)
8. Determine process that WA DSES/ ARC / County develops to determine udnick of the aveceses are potentially exposed /contaalanted.
S. See Secties S. Bras Procedures and Nodale Section 8.
42 N- *Wump e e *e *
ee-omeo w =e-ee g ewesege se . mepem e te e sum e et em cu>e em e* co ** e' *e o de . .e e-.
s Evaluation: .
N
. DSES provided one 2-member Monitoring Team with a GM; one Team I member surveyed while tha'other interviewed evacuees (logged 4 survey, speed was approximately 13 persons per hcur).
DSES curveyed 13 evacuee's. All 9 lantern aantles were found.
s .\
The evacuees that were focad to be contaalanted, could not be decontaminated at that AC because access to bathroom and change rooms could not be accomplished because of locked doors. The key could not be found.
Note: No provisions were made to survey private vehicles or pets after the evacuees were decontaminated and released frce the Assistance Center.
It should be noted that the ARC performed the screening of evacuees and determined ubich evacuees needed to be monitored.
Recownendation: Item. Adequate Facility. (REP-1:J.12)
Evaluation: Field Team could not gain access to bathroom and change room. . -
Recommendation for Corrective Actjens: Insure access or select new facility,. (Note: a nearby fair grounds facility had easy access to shower and change facilities. The Field Team stated
, that the nearby facility any be used la the future for evacuee l monitoring and decontamination.) '
1
(
N
~
l 43 9
g ..
. . . . . . . _ . . , .. . . . . ~
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.1 STATE OF WASHINGTON (Continued) 2.2.2 Cowlitz County. Washinston Obiective 1: Demonstrate ability to mobilise. staff and activate facilities areastly.
, Summary: Not objective.
l Po!ets of Review: 1. Notification of response organisations should be within the followlag times:
a. All response organizations within 25 minutes of receipt in change of declaration of Alert.
b. All response organisations within 15 minutes of receipt in change of status: Alert to Site-Area Emergency and Site-Area Emergency to General Emergency.
2. Actual Time of Time Required for 1 Receint/Channe Status Ectificatica l
j Alert 0839 SS alautes
.l SAE 0908 N/A 1
GE 0910 SS alautes
3. Was the IOC staffed at the appropriate classification and did key response personnel respond within 30 minutes response tias? (39 minutes) l i
4. Was the ROC staffed and appropriate response elements represented uhen it was declared functional (activated)?
Note: See " General Instructions to Evalastors." Yes.
t
S. See Module Section A.
j Evaluation: Response organisations were motified within SS miantes of the declaration of an Alert. 50C staff contacted law enforcement officials, fire departneat officials, public works officials, plotters and the County Mosith Director. The motification from the utility uns received at 0839. It'was not verified.
Call lists used by the Commualcations Director and 50C Director appeared complete and up-to-date. Several other officials on these lists were also notified. The first resposes organisation arrived at 0840, one minute after the Alert declaration.
The ROC une staffed and declared operational at 0918.
Stafflag was completed at 0923 with the arrival of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and the Nelso Police. ;
i 44 l
t - . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _....~...._ . - . . . . - - -. . . . ..
Objective 2: Demonstrate adeausev of facilities and displays to suonort i l
energency ooerations, Summary: Net objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
i Points of Review: 1. Response time for maintaining status boards and briefing EOC staff should be 10 minutes after receipt of change in status or change in recommendation for protective actions.
I 2. Were the facilities and equipment adequate to support the i emergency response effort? Yes.
3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adequate? No. 1
4. See Module Section C.
l Evaluation: The visual displays la the 50C were generally not adequate to determine the status of events and PAR's/ PAD's. The D0G's status boards, maps, etc., did not reflect information such as evacuation routes, AC's and IWC locations, etc. The sections ,
identifying " events" and " action decisions" were not completed '
in a manner assuring clear understanding of what occurred. l 2
Recommendation:. Item. Adequate Displays. (REP-1 5.3: J.10.a. A b.)
Evaluation: The landequacy of the visual display of j significant information within the 50C. See above.
'{
Recommendation for corrective Actione: It is recommended that the visual displays be revloed so that they reflect the kinds of information needed for good decistoamaking. Specifically, it is recommended that a status board be designed to reflect status changes and actica taken: 1) Evacustica routes: 2)
Assistance Centers: 3) Emergency Worker Centers: 4) Plume tracklag; and 8) Dose projection, etc.
la addition, it is recommended that the facility representative be provided a status board to brief the 30C on technical informatloa.
I i i Objective 3: Demonstrate ability to c __icate with all m .m iate i l
I locations. oreanisations. and field w :----1.
Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review 1. Were communications syuteos adequate (i.e.. enough phones, l necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? 1
3. Were the systems used properly? )
3. See Nodule Section D.
! l Evaluation: Radio communications are more than adequate with a duplication ;
of the dispatch system in the ROC. the use of the TDY and the tone-elert radios contributlag to a stroenlised efficient <
communications system. l
! 45 1 1 l l
m. . . . . . . . . . .
i .
l Evaluation: There were no telephones available to members of the DOG and (Continued) DAG at their designated locations. Communications from the DOG to Agencies outside the ROC was by dispatch from the .
< Communications Center. In cases where immediate response was needed, unnecessary delays would occur. IIsabers of both groups were required to find available phones sleeubere in the EOC for communications with outside Agencies.
l Recommendation: Iten'. Adequate Communications. (REP-1:F.1.b; 5.3) )
1 Evaluation: The adequacy of telephones for use by DOG and DAG; I e.g., communication between emergency organisations and the DOG l
and DAG any be hindered due to limited access to telephones. ;
thereby creating delays la implenosting decisions. )
Recossendation for Corrective Actions: f
1. A means of communication should be established at every table. The DAG abould be in the position of monitorlag the technical information telephone, with the Facility
)
Representative taking responsibility for laterpreting that I data.
! 2. The EOC van, having a duplication of the dispatch system.
aust be parked close outside the ROC so that the staff can 1
quickly access these radios if deemed necessary.
i Objective 4: Demonstrate ability to M e decisions and to coordinate emeraenCY activities.
Summary: Itet Objective. S. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Were appropriate representatives included la the decision process and provided adequate briefing and logistic support? No.
2. Did the perseas arrive at deciolone within the 15 minute default time? Yes.
i
3. Did the correct person make the decistoas? Omkneen.
4. Were the decistoms carried out effectively? Yea.
8. Were the correct protective action decisions made?
Unknoun.
S. Were the implementation lastructions for protective measures telephoolcally dispatched to the appropriate response organizations? Simulated.
7. Were the decision-eskers motified of the time that the implenostation actions were esecuted? (Note: Indicate l time required for deliberation of decistom-makers for each l PAR to PAD. Recommendations: $1.- 8 aimetes: 82.- 1 minute; and 83.- 1 minute.)
8. See Itodule Sections B and g.
l 49 1
. ~ . . . . . . ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
1 Evaluation: The sole decision-maker in Cowlitz County is the Sheriff or his designee. In many cases the Sheriff ande decisions during the exercise without consulting other individuals; such as those decisions regarding concurrence with 50F recommendations on PAR's. The decisions were made in the case of evacuation to 5 l and 10 miles immediately, and therefore were well within the 15 minute default time.
An assumption is made by other ROC's that the belge out-ring phone is reserved for decision-makers and is so staffed. At times it appeared that decisions were belas made not by the Sheriff, but by the communicator on the phone, a Deputy Sheriff. Recommendations would come over the phone requiring concurrence from Cowlits County and the communicator would concur, with no visible consultation with the Sheriff. While
, there may be good rapport between the two ladividuals, there were times when the Sheriff would evidence a lack of knowledge about a just-completed call confirmation. Our understanding, again, is that a decision-maker is to be on the belge out-ring )
phone since most of the background information necessary to a good decisica is given ever the phone prior to the request for
! concurrence.
l tenether the conect decisions were made is difficult to say. l If the Sherift had been on the belge phone to hear the !
recommendations being ande, he might have made decisions other l than those he made. Also, since there was a lack of informa- '
tion in the IOC, he might not have made as fully informed a decisica as was possible The 10-s11e evacuation called for individuals to be evacuated from relatively safe areas into the center line of the plume and north along the plume of the scenario. A differest decision might have been made had thia been knoun. (IIote: See Esercise Summary Other Issees.)
We could not judge as to whether the decisions were carried out effectively la all cases. The decisions to shelter and evacuate were backed by ESS messages and by the DOG dispatchlag vehicles to accese control points.
Recommendation: Iten. Decisioamaking. (REP-1:J.9; J.10.m.: 0.4.a.)
Evaluation: The issue is that the decision-maker was not party to enough of the necessary backgreemd Saformation to make a good decision.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. The decision-maker abould be actively stafflag the belge auto-ring phone so as to hear the backgreemd laformation and be able to give ia-person concurrence.
2. A more adequate representation of plume and roadblock /
evacuation status should be readily visible to allow better decisioamaking.
47
. - . . . _ ._. - ., . . - . .--.. . - _ ... . . .:- . s .
. - - - - - - ~ - , - - _ - - ----.--,-..,n-.-..--_ --__-_,__ n. _ .-- - ---
Recommendation: 3. Direct laterface between the DAG sad D00. Less use of (Continued) message forms between the DOG and the Sheriff would lead to more verbal communication and a faster flow of information.
4. IIore direct communications between the D0G and their Field Teams could lead to a more timely display of laformation on which to make evacuation decisions.
l Objective 5: Demonstrate the abilities of the response areanisation to effectlyely utilize suonort amencies and authorities where/ shen local capabilities are exceeded, h ey: IIet objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable i usakness uma noted.
Points of Review: See llodule Section G.
Evaluation: Italle the County made a declaration of emergency. It was not announced to the ROC Staff or over the radio / telephone to other
. County Agencies. A probles could therefore occur with tasking of other groups to work for the County. The lack of a continuous monitor on the green phone (technical information) meant that the decision-maker une operatlag with less than adequate information. The decision-asker should have made more
use of the Facility Representative, requesting that he brief the ROC on plaat status on a routine basis, and that he monitor the green phone. Bad there been more use of this individual and the information from the 50F, and had the phone information
, been plotted, different decisions on the movement of people i
from the affected ar'en alght have resulted.
i The Facility Representative did know uhat his job uns but uns act aggressive la carrylag it out. Isetend of providing briefings to the ROC, the Realth Officer, acting as the DAG Chief, did the job. Those brieflags started saly ahes the esercise was well underway and ladividuals were hengry for laformation.
i Reconaeadation: Item. Resource Support. (RIP-1 J.9; 0.4.a.) l Evaluation: The issues are that the Declaration of Emergency was not announced, and the potential for landequate use of available resources esisted.
l Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train the 1 Staff /Deciales-asker /DAS/ DOG. The Declaration of Baergency should be announced to the ROC, them the media and to other government entities.
Ites. Resource Support. (REP-1:J.93 0.4.b.)
Evaluation: There was landequate use of available resources.
48
. - - . - . . . .... ... ... . ~....- - ..
...-}
Recommendation Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train the DAG Staff.
(Continued) The Focility Representative should monitor the green phone and provide periodic briefings to the EOC on plant status and plume condition.
l Objective 6: n.senstrate ability to formulate and distribute annrocriate instructions to the public in a timely fashion.
Summary: Net objective. 5. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the Counties prepare and coordinate the public instructions (EBS message content)? Yes.
I 1. Wes the content of the public instructions adequate (see Part F of the ROC Nodule)? No.
Evaluation: EBS messages (public instructions) were generally disseminated in a timely fashion, although in one case the EDS message i occurred (incorrectly) prior to the soundlag of the Cowlitz l County sirens. In addition. ISS messages did not adequately
)
- infore citizens concerning which evacuation routes should I
be used based on citizen location. This probles was due to i
inadequate prescript messages in the plan, ad-libblag and lanceurate reading of information that uns la prescript messages, and failure to use appropriate available prescript messages. Prescript messages do not currently include evacuation routes to use based on location. These messages also do not recommend evacuation of the Columbia River and related instructions. Inaccurate reading of prescript messages included identifying street locations in a some as evacuation routes that are not REP plan evacuation routes. As lacomplete use of prescript messages was the failure to broadcast Attachment SA during the General Emergency. In addition, see Objective 8 regarding EBS lastructions for the mobility lapaired.
Recommendations: Ites. Adequate Public Instructions. (REP-1 E.7; 0.4.j.)
Evaluation: EBS messages did not adequately provide lastructions to the public.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Revise Public Instruction. Prescript EBS messages should laclude specific evacuation routes for each some requested to evacuate and a recommendation to evacuate the Columbia River with related lastructions.
! 3. The County should determine the process for developlag and includlag non-prescript emergency messages for future situations similar to the simulated evercrowding of the Lewis County Shelter Area (Cowlits County's reception area) and the openlag by the State ~of another shelter nearby.
1 48 i
i Recommendation: 3. Train staff. Public lastruction messages should be read j (Contioned) carefully and completely without ad-libblag or reference to prior messages (instemd of reading sessage content). .
Appropriate portions of Attachment SA prescript message l
should be read during school evacuations. Care should be i taken to ensure that ESS messages do not precede siren
! alertlag.
i Objective 7: Demonstrate ability to alert the sublic within the 10-alle EPZ.
and dissealante an initial instructional messare within 15 alautes, Summary: IIst objective.
l Polats of Review: 1. Did the Counties coordinate the simulated activation of the
, Alert Systen? Yes. .
3. Did the counties demonstrate the simulated activation of r the Alert System and the simulated activation of the i Notification System (Public Instruction) within the
! - 15-alante default time of SAE/GE or change la PAR / PAD?
l Yes.
l Time of Recelet of PAR Time of Notification
,gg, 0808 N/A'
'l R 0912 0918
. *0E lamediately followed SAE.
I
3. See Isodule Sectica F.
l Bealuation: Cowlits and Columbia Counties effectively coordianted activation i of stres alerting and subsequent ESS messages. Seth the alertlag
. system and the RSS messages were activated withis the required 18-minute response period.
i Objective 8: Demonstrate the ormanisational ability and resources necessarr _
to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility-imaalred individuals within the slane EPI.
Summary: IIet objective.
Points of Review: See llodule Section G.
Evaluaties: The points of review for this objective requires written documentation of the locaties and special needs of mobility-impaired (III) perseas and that this information he used to arrange transportation for such ladividuals. The limitations of the objective marrows the faces to the evacuation of these perseas. One NI call une received at the EOC. It was received on the Rumor Control pheme. Caller i advised that transportation would be provided and to read j brochure (Public Raergency lastructions). Sheriff was advised l l
80 l l
l 1
l L-- _ _-. - - - - - . - - - .. _
1 i
l Evaluation: and he referred it to D00 for action. DOG dispatched a vehicle (Continued) via Communications Center. The ROC staff uns not aware of special needs of MI'es were not totally aware of location of '
all such personst did not have written informaties for either.
According to BOC staff, there are community resources already la place to assure that NI's are transported. Bowever, it is 1
imposelble to assure that 100% of all N1's will be transported. In addition, it le not practical to maintain a l
complete registry of NI's due to mobility of population.
Partial information is available.
l t I Objective 9: Demonstrate ability to brief the media in a clear, accurate.
! and timely manner, Seamary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
l Points of Review: 1. Were all press releases approved by the sheriff or designee? Yes. -
3. Were the press releases properly disseminated to the l appropriate release points? Yes.
i S. Were news conferences held or slaulated? Yes. Nas a
) ackedule for news conferences developed and posted? Yes.
) d. Did the PIO ensure that media questicas (telephone) were l
answered accurately and la a timely manner? Yes.
S. See Module section I.
, Evalsation: Seven simulated press brieflage were held on a timely basis during the esercise (5 were observed). All brieflage were
, clear but la ese case the release to the media did not identify ,
i the AC available la Lewis Ceesty even though the press release ;
j* mesease uns based on costalmed laformaties.
l Appropriate public tastructions were placed la the news releases to the estemt that sectione of the public Saformation j brechare en Trojan emergencies were copied vertatta la the
press releases.
I Recommendatica: Iten. Adequate Press Briefing. (REP-1:9.3 0.d.J.)
l Evaluaties: Press release taformaties did not alunye 4 completely dieseminate useful, and available, public protection
, inforestion.
Recommendaties for Corrective Actione: Traiales of staff.
i Press releases should be checked assiast source documents and other relevar.t data to prevent lacomplete er lancesrate prese releases and brieflage.
Objective los Demonstrate ability to arenare and arey)dq adynace coordlaatica .
of laformatica rolese_as.
l Summary: Not objective.
i l
i Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO coordinate to-be-released laforestion with the
other locations prior to release to the media? Yes.
2. Did the PIO have access to all necessary laformation? Yes.
3. Did the PIO facorporate the appropriate 'Pablic ,
Instructions" into the appropriate media releases (Public l Information)? Yes. j
! 4. See Module Section I. l Evaluation: The PIO la Coelits, or her assistaat. did a good job of coordinatlag all press releases with other State ROC's/PIO's l
) prior to release. They generally had all the taformation. Ia l
! one release the setting up of AC's une noted. but no available l i address or location was gives even though the PIO had the taformation.
I I 1 )
. Objective 11: Demonstrate ability to establish and coerate rumor control la a l coordinated fashion.
Gummary: IIst objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable 4 -
usakness uns noted. I i
l Points of Review: 1. Did the Cou11ts County FIO establish a log to track i rumors? Yes.
I 2. Did the PIO promptly report rumors or alsinformation to the l appropriate officials? Yes.
S. Did the PIO develop, coordinate and release public laformation releases to counter the rumors or afsinformation? Yes.
4. Did the PIO coordiante their rumor control operstles with other locatione? Bot aboerved.
- 8. See Itsdule Secties I.
Evaluattom: Rumor control uns very cosecleations la their response to rumors. They coordlaated their resposee with Coasty BOC Staff esporte, researchlag facts portatalag to each rumor and kept a *
{
j thorough les of laceslag calls. l l
It une noted that' the PIO une amare that her reopensibilities i lacladed the counterlag of rumore, but it une not written la the PIO Procedures.
Recommendaties: Ites. Rumor Centrol. (REP-1 G.4.c.)
4 Evaluation: PIO Procedure falling to identify the
) responsibility of the PIO to counter rumors.
i l Recommendation for corrective Actiese Revise procedures. It
! ebould be facInded la the PIO Procedure to see E3411 and press i releases to counter rumore considered to be persistent by publicising facts relating to the rumor.
l l
l St 1
i l
?
3. EXERCISE EVALUATION 1
I 3.2.1 STATE OF WASHINGTON (Continued) i 2.2.3 Lewis County. Washington
(
l ,,3g13, All major cities la Cowlits County are either laside er affected by 1 the plane 5P1. Therefore, the State and Cow 11ts County have made arrangements i for three host Comaties to establish and operate Assistance Centers (AC's) for evacuees from Cowlita County.
i Lewis Coasty is one of these host Counties. The Coasty did not provide a plas/ procedure for review. The Lewie comaty Chapter of the American Red Croce 1 (ARC) ande a copy of their Chapter Plan available to yEMA Evalustors for this esercise evalestion. - '
i
! The AC une a jolat operation between the Washington State DSES Team and the Lewis Coasty Chapter of the ARC.
i Objective 1: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all aanrooriate locations, er; nisations and field eerr- -1.
Summary: Not objective.
I Points of Review 1. Were commealcatione systone adequate (i.e., emeesh phoses. l l .accessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes.
3. Were the systems used properly? Yes.
~
3. See Module Section D.
Evaluation: Good radio contact available between Weekington State ROC and l j Lewis Comaty AC. This was done via anstear radio. !
i j Objective 2: Demonstrate ability to mobillas etaff and activate facilities aromatir.
l Seamary: Net objective. 3. Corrective actions are ceasidered necessary. ;
Points of Review: 1. Notificaties of response ergeaientions should be within the j following respease times: :
l a. All resposee ergesinations withia 38 minutes of receipt l la change of declaration of Alert.
b. All respease organisations within 18 alantes of receipt l
!a change of states: Alert to SAE and SAE to SE.
S. Actual Time of flee Regelred for Recelat/Chamme Status Estificatian i
33 alastes Alert 0854 l SAE Did met receive, i GE ARC 1000 SS alastes
! M t
I
}
~
Pointe of Review 3. Was the AC staffed at the appropriate closelfication and (Continued) did key response pereoanel respond withia 30 slautes
! response time? Yes. .
1 .
j 4. Was the AC staffed and appropriate resposee elemente .
I represented when it une declared functiemal (activated)? '
) Note See "Senoral lastructions to Evaluators." Yes. ,
) i j S. See Module Secties S.a. l 1
Evaluation: The AC una staffed as followet S Radiological Nealtare. i i MA DSES ARC 3 Radio Operatore, 1 Barse. S Registrare.
3 CAP Cadete. 1 Namager and 1 Centeen Worker.
4 The staffing was adequate for esercise purposes la view of the
ammber of slaulated evacuees, but'sould met have been adequate i
if the players had addressed the scenario. (See Executive i Summary: Other.) DSus une roguested to deploy at 1041.and e arrived at the AC at 1119. (Note SE use at 0912.). See WA 4 State Report, Objective 15. The Lewis Coasty ARC Chapter une
) alerted at 0941, the AC use activated at 1000, and fully operatiemal at 1032, iseofar as the ARC porties une concerned.
AC Staff and evacuees could met Sala access to hathroom/ change reen.
]
Receaseadation: Iten. Adequate yacility. (REP-1 J.12)
Evalsettom

AC Staff and evacuees could met gala access to hathrees/ change rees.
l
. Receaseadaties for Lorrective Actions: Provide aqcess to esistles hathreen/ change rees or change AC locaties to a new facility. A nearby fairgrounds facility has easy access to
! eheuere and change facilities. The Field Team stated that the facility may be need la the future for evaceae survey /
decostaalaaties.
1 Objective 3: Demonstrate ability to fully staff Assistance Canter and Shelter Areas and anlatain staffiant around the eleek.
Summary: Not objective. 5. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
{ '
Pelate of Review: 1. See Lewis Commty AC Procedures.
3. See ARC Procedures. !
3. See Nedule Secties S.a. l Evaluatiset Lewis Ceesty ARC performed adequately to the task at head.
'! Bouever, most of the response use laprovised at the last minute and not descrlhed la the estatias Chapter Disaster Plan.
54 i
I
.. - . .. ... e.+ -e . . . . e e .. . a ...-..ee ....s e. .e . * .
I
_ n - - .
i i
Recommendation: Ites. Assistance Center Operations. (REP-1:J.10.h.: J.12; !
0.4.g.) i Evaluation: See above.
t Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Revise Lewis County j Plan to address the following: '
l
1. Deflee specific roles of workers.
i 2. Describe call-out procedures for disaster volunteers. !
3. Descr.lbe procedures for obtaining assistance from ARC l (Northwest Territory) and ARC (Western Operations Beadquarters).
Object;ve 4: Demonstrate adecuacy of arocedures for resistration of j evacuees.
Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered accessary.
Potats of Review: 1. See ARC Procedures.
2. See Module Section S.b. !
i !
Evaluation: ARC: No abelter registration cards. No casework master file.
! No nurslag assorandum cards available. Nasklag tape on floor '
i J is leadequate to chamael evacuees through the AC registration.
ARC: If buses or vano arrive at the AC as part of the j slaulated evacuation, record arrival time. Answer: 1026.
Describe the procedure ARC registration begins and some
evacuees transported from AC to shelter prior to arrival of j Radiological Nealtoring Teams. If congregate care was provided
at a separate location, was transportation to the Congregate
! Care Center available for those without their sua i
! transportatioa? Yes. If so, describe the transportation j systes provided: School Bus a as Salvation Army van a 1 Twin City Treasit a 1.
i l Recommendation: Item. AC Operations. (RgP-1:J.10.h.: J.12.s 0.4.s.)
i Evaluation: ARC: Obtala proper forms for annaglag an j Assistance Center / shelter operstles.
Recommendaties for Corrective Actions: Revise pleas, l procedures, and trala staff. Develop job descriptions of I
supervisors and merkers to ensure smooth traffic flow and label stations. Constract rope guidepath barricades to channel traffic rather than using tape en the floor.
85
_--._ _.~~.._ _ ____ _ _ _ . _ - _._ _. _ _ _ ___--.
f objective 5: Demonstrate adeavate enuiseent and nrocedures for the monitoring and decontaalaat19n of the evacuees, Summary: Net objective. C. Perforetace adequate. but correctable j weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. Place lantera esatles on various evacuees. Note: They should be found by monitor.
S. Determine process that WA DSNS/ ARC / County develops to i determine which of the evacuees are potentially l j esposed/ contaminated.
l
3. See Section S. DSNS Procedures and Module Sectice S. l Evaluation: The ARC established a screenlag operations e.g., they requested I the State ladicate what areas people were evacuattag frees ubich had the possibility / probability of being affected by the l
plumes and arriving evacuees were asked what reefdential area j they lived la. Those who lived la suspected areas were
directed to the DSNS Monitorlag Areast others were processed ,
1 through the AC. When persons were monitored / decontaminated by !
l . the DSBS Team. they were then processed through the AC. It
] should be noted that the ARC perseasel recognised that the
lattial suspected areas (D. F & G - 1042 as) of possible plume j esposure were incorrect and they requested verification from j the State ROC. ,
The ARC ocreener asked only where the evacuees lived, not where l they case free. One evacuee lived outside the plume but had
driven through it. Ne was not surveyed, since he was waiting
] la the " clean area." ARC and Salvation Army have arranged to !
l' provide replacement clothing for evacuees at the l decontamination Area. Provided by Salvatica Army (Seattle) and ;
2. local boepitale.
Recommendation

Ites. Aaeletance Center Operations. (REP-1 J.138 0.4 3.)
1
! Evaluation: ARC ocreener did not ask evaceees if they had been i la the plume area. Evacuees who lived outside the plume area, but had drives through it, were seat to wait la the " clean aree," and were not surveyed.
l Recommendation for corrective Actione: ARC should ask evacuees if they have been la the plume area.
i Objective St Demonstrate adeenacy of facilities for anse care evacuees.
I Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary, i Point of Review: 1. See ARC procedures.
3. See Module Secties C (Congregate Care).
Se i
i t
i i
---nn,,---_-,- --n-,--.,,-,. , - ~ , _
L i
Evaluation: The AC yacility appeared to be adequate to handle all issues
} during the esercise. The Chapter Disaster Plan, however, does l not adequately address all required itees for Shelter .
j Operations. Although the AC was establisheet in an efficient
and timely meaner, and preparations were enda to open shelters.
sheltere were not opened and therefore this aspect could not be l l completely evaluated. A enjer point to be ende la this !
evaluation le the physical separation and roles of the AC's and the shelter (e). The purpose of the AC is to regteter and
screes evacuees prior to sheltering. A large meekor of people amet be moved rapidly through the AC ubich will require much larger stafflag for registration and RAD eeniterlag than une '
! demonstrated. After panelas through this facility, the evacuese are considered " clean" and sent to RC shelters or shelters of their sua selection (la poselbly contamianced vehicles). Balettag I,ewis County shelter agreemente indicate housing for 8,458 people.
[
i Recommendation: Itse. Shelter Operations. (REP-1 J.12) i Evaluation: See above. '
l
) Reconseadation for Corrective Actions: The Lewis Chapter ARC needs to develop its disaster plan to laclude:
{ 1. Agreements with other volunteer agencies favolved la !
l disaster reopense effort.
l t
2. Agreements with grocere and distribution unrehouses for !
food procurement.
l l l 3. Stafflag requiremente for each identified shelter.
l j 4. Procedures for obtaistas ceto and blankets.
l 8. Volunteer call-est precedure. i l
~
S. Contact numbers of Disaster Services at Northwest Territory and Westera Operations 5eadquarters.
l l
.i 0
4 ST i
t e +.=e as. . . .......+e .
- _ . _ . . . . - - - . . - ...-.. ~- . - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _
i i
i
)
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION :
e i 2.2.4. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 2.2.4.1 Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)
.32.13. The 50F facility le composed of two major operations: Interface and l discuselon with offeite agencies (EOF): and the integration of POE, States of I j Weehington and Oregon assessment forces (Does Assessment Area (DAA)]. Where applicable, by objective, this section of the report le divided into the EOF and DAA.
_0bjective 1.a.: Demonstrate ability to sob 111 e. etaff. and activate facilities RE2AR$1X.:
f j Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weaknese 1sas noted.
I Pelate of Review: 1. Wee the 50F staffed at the appropriate claselfication and did key pereoanel respond within 30 minutes response time?
f Yes.
i 2. Was the EOF staffed and appropriate resposee elements
! represented when it une declared functional (activated)?
4 Yes. (Note: See " General Instructions to Evaluators.")
l 3. See Module Sectica A.
l 4. Response times for arrival of State Personnel: )
Oregon 90-180 minutes: Weeklagton 120-240 sinutes.
! Evaluation: The response of POE's BOF percommel to the facility, and of the i j staff at the facility, la the physical setup, use generally i
rapid, efficient and effective. Staff from the Administrative
! Group began arrivtag at 0438, three slautes after the receipt 1 of the Alert declaration.
i The physical setap was accomplished la en espedient manner by 0650. The coanumications area une operable at 0881. The 50y Director declared the ROF partially activated (Camannicatione l Area and DAA) at 0000, however, thle declaration use not ande i effette.
Within the resposee time of 30 slautes communications had been j established with the TSC, a telephonic roll-call with the Roc's i had been negresolvely conducted, the facility one functional, and the EOF Director uma conducting a status brieflag.
Bouever, the facility was met declared activated less the decostamination facility, until e minutes later. It appeared that essential portiene of the decenteniention area, no enumerated la EP-8, Step C, 1.c (3) for activaties were operative, even though all area functione eetlined la EP-8, step E, s.d were not.
H j ...- ..... . . . . . . - .. . , . . . . . . . ,
~ _ _ _ , _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ , . .. ____
l Evaluation The Emergency Manager assumen his duties and responsibilities
(Continued)
at 0935. At this time, the EOF was declarmi activated. Oregon l EOF 11aleon arrived at 0940 and Washlagton liaison arrived at j 1038.
i Recommendation: Ites. Activation. (REP-2:E.2.3 0.4.a.)
Evaluation: Interpretation on facility activation.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train staff and revise l procedures. Key personnel should be orleated on the essential i elements of activation for this facility, and the procedure i
clarified by revision. If appropriate.
Objective 1.b.: Demonstrate ability to nobilize. etaff. and activate facilities
! arcantly, -
i Summary: Net objective, pointe of Review: 1. Was the EOF (Dose Assessment) staffed at the appropriate classification and did key response persossel respond withia 30 afautes response time? No.
!' 2. Was the EOF (Does Assessment) staffed and appropriate
response elements represented when it ses declared I
functional (activated)? Note See " General Instructions I to Evaluators." Yes.
j 3. See Nodule Section A.
i 4. Response time for arrival of State pereoanel: Oregon j 90-130 minutes: unshingtor. 120-140 minutes.
Evaluation

The DAA stafflag was begun during the ALERT classification and
' the DAA une fully set up and functional by 0907, approminately i 38 minutes following the ALERT declaration. At the time that .
I the DAA use deternised to be functional. it was staffed by the '
appropriate pet perseasel. The Oregon State Protective Active i Evaluator arrived at the DAA at 1012. This was within the j 90-130 minutes response time for the Oregon State personnel.
i The BAA became fully operational at 1043 with the arrival of l the Washlagtoa State Protective Action Evaluator. The l Washington State pereoanel arrived withis the 130-340 slaute i response time. The DAA was fully staffed according to the j plea, however. 34 hour-per-day operation and a ehlft change i were not demonstrated.
l l The laitial Field Team Coordination Staff consisted of two I persons from POE's Ragineerlag staff per Procedure Ep-8.13
! p.t. They arrived at the Visitor Center at 0848, approminately i three minutes fellowing the ALERT motificaties. They
} 1mmediately begna setting up radios, statue boards, and other miscellaneone egulpeent. This une completed at 0803, with the last radio checks. Thus, the Fleid Team Coordination Group was
! functional, with utility personnel. 30 minutes after the ALERT
motification.
)
Se l
i l
l l ._ ~. . . _ _ _ . . ._
1
Evaluation Three members of the Oregos state Team assigned to Field Tema (Continued) Coordination arrived at 0953, or 81 alautes following the ALERT. They lamediately asked for brieflags from the utility i
staff. At 1001 , State of Oregon's personnel assumed control ,
of Field Team Coordination with an FTC, one AFTC, and RO. !
At 133 alautes following the ALERT, or 1040, the Washington l State personnel assigned to Field Team Coordination arrived.
They lamediately moved lato a support role to the Oregon personnel.
l The laitial activation and stafflag of the DAA by POE's plaat i j personnel une completed within the response times being 4 functionally staffed within 18 minutes. After resolving a minor probles la establishing telephone control with the TSC, all key functions of DAA were operational with all equipoest
, functicolag at 0907 and the DAD reported to the EOF Director.
j PSE corporate staff arrived and assumed control of the DAA
] within 70 slautes of the declaration of the Alert.
1 j -
DAA staff from both Gregon and unshington arrived within the respective resposee times. All Oregos staff arrived within 100 minutes and all Washlagtes staff arrived withis ISS ainutes of l j the Alert declaration.
i
! Objective 2.a.: Demonstrate adecuacy of facilities and disalare to sumoort
emersency omerations.
! Summary: Not objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable
{ weaknese was acted.
I l Points of Review: 1. Response time for maintalains status boards and brieflag BOF staff is 10 minutes after receipt of change la status or change la Protective Action Recommendatione (PAR's).
l 2. Were the facilities and equipeest adequate to support the l emergency response effort? Yes.
j 3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adeguate? Yes.
1 4. See Module Section S.
1
] Evaluation: POE's 50F provides as adequate worklag envireement to support the energency resposee operations of the licensee's staff'la j the comenaications sectica and the combined joint licensee (State (s) staff la the RAA.
l 3
Facilities and support equipment were adequate to support the
{ reopease effort. Status boards were adeguate and there were j assismed staff she promptly updated the states boards as
conditions required.
l i 1 l
4 1
j ** 1 i
I
) .
E *1uation: It should be acted that POE is proceeding with a renovation (Continued) project (1986) which will substantially change the designated work area and provide enhanced equipment, status boards. .
allotted work space, etc. That should substantially leprove )
the many operations conducted at the BCF.
1 EOF facilities and displays were certainly adequate. The displays reflected excellent design. Worthy of special note was the application of color-coding for field dose rates.
Display up-dates were generally timely, but a few very minor !
observations are offered: !
j o The ERN interjected status board corrections twice (0911 j and 1023 hours0.0118 days 0.284 hours 0.00169 weeks 3.892515e-4 months ), and the Alert EOF Director once (1022).
o The meteorological data portion, ubick admittedly by scenario reenlaed constant, retained its original effective I
. time of 0938 throughout the day.
o The projected dose overhead display was incorrectly ,
color-coded for a time due to the temporary absence of a red pen.
l o The Field Teams were required to give reading locations by l the established esp grid, but for esse of computer loput.
! also by direction and distance. There were some j laconsistencies but the less-accurate direction (distance
laputs were always used. lacludfag a distance off by a factor or two).
.l j Recommendation: Iten. Display maintenance. (RIP-1:J.10.a. A b.: 0.4.g.)
i l Evaluation: See above.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Trafalage Personnel should be encoaraged te pay even greater attention to the need to update data display 6 correctly and rapidly. Also.
! consideration should be given to establishing a methodology for i conversion of lacoming Field Tema location and data to the l aceded direction / distance computer laput either by modification of the computer program, or even by use of a conversion matrix.
j Objective 2.b.: Demonstrate adeauncy of facilities and disslave to summort emeraeacy emerations.
)
Summary: Not objective.
f Polats of Review: 1. Response time for maintainlag status boards and briefing i DAA staff is 10 minutes after receipt of change la status or change la Protective Action Recommendations (PAR's).
, 2. Were the facilities and egulpeest adequate to support the
! soorgency response effort? Yes.
! 3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adequate? Vee.
4. See Module Section 3.
41 i
i I
i .
. . . . . . . _ . ~ _ _ - . . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . ... . . . . - . . .
l Evaluation: The space assigned to the DAA within the 50F is limited and somewhat crowded. however, all functions were performed adequate. Space was allotted to State and Federal personnel.
! Overhead projectors were used to display field data, computer projections and Field Tema reports. This display was ,
maintained alacet lamediately after receipt of saformatloa. i
~
Other worklag displays were maintalaed for use of DAA
, personnel Field Tema locations, projected versus measured dose rates, etc.
- The DAA facilities and displays were adequate to support i emergency operations. The dose assessment status boards were updated immediately after each new dose projection calculation. Two minor problems occurred with the use of the dose assessment status boards: 1) correct units: e.g., used mR j rather than mR/hr., and 3) different color codes for sieller !
I esposures were used on the computer projectica and measured i esposure rates status boards. Both of these items were eventually noted and corrected .ater la the esercise.
t
) -
The basic facilitise for Field Team coordlaation activities
! were se specified in procedures and were adequate. Space was ,
creaped, but effectively used: particularly the use of CED for l
listing status on the overhead slanted wall, which alalained
) movement of personnel, allowed rapid updattag, and were readily j vielble throughout the 50F. This is as lagestone idea and should be considered for use la the new EOF facility.
]?
The radios had aus111ery headphones ubich allowed personnel ,
charged with updating the statue and aspe te overhear l communications with the Field Teams and them to ladopendentiv i and lamediately update the Field Tema locations, and their readiass. This too, is sa excellent idea and should be coatianed.
! There were some minor difficulties with the legibility of the !
l j status listing of the locations and readings (correctione).
This is eleply a matter of ensuring that the person doing the j writtag esercises care to write clearly, large, and la a consistent format. A clear template with headings was used l later, but was placed too high to project clearly.
I Objective 3.a.: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all aanroariate locations ersasinations. and field mersonnel, summary: Not objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable
! monknees was noted.
1 I Polats of Review: 1. Were coanuaications systems adequate (i.e., enough phoses, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes.
j 2. Were the systems used properly? No.
j S. See Module Section C.
j
, St i
L Evaluation: The communications systes available to the 20F Commualcations Area and the EOF State Liaisons were sufficient to provide expedicat and headache communications to all appropriate ,
locations, organisations and field personnel.
The 50F communications staff admirably maintained contact with the offsite ROC's via ARD for the purpose of providing verbal changes la emergency classifications PAR's and 4 - discussion / concurrence for PAR's.
, Washlagton State's 11aleon frequently utillsed phone line and systes dedicated to other users. Calls for the Washlagton State liaison were received at 1027 and 1080 on the SS-1 ,
phone. At the time of the latter communicatios., both i Washlagten representatives had the two liaison commercial i phones tied up for an estended period, leaving the Oregon State j liaison without any communications means. The Washlagton State EOC was partially responsible sface they frequently called for l EOF liaison on the selective signal systee lastead of the phone j aumbers reserved for the State's use.
4 Recommendation: Item. Comonalcatione. (REP-1:F.1.d.: 0.4.a. A b.)
1 l Evaluation See above.
}
4 Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Trainlag Appropriate j personnel should be instructed as follows:
l o PGE's EOF Director / Communications Staff - refsee calls for j the State liaisees, referring calle to the appropriate i aanbers.
! o Washlagton State's ROC Staff - desigaste a slagle
point-of-contact for the EOF liaises and call the liaison I at the appropriate number.
o Washington State's Liaison Team, restrict calls to the i desigasted phone provided.
l o Oregon State's liaison - assume peesession of the phone
provided.
l l
Objectives.b.: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all amareeriate I locations. ormanisations and fielt, aersommel.
! l l Summary: Net objective.
I points of Review: 1. Were communicatione systees adequate (i.e., enough phones, j accessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes.
j S. Were the systeme used ptoperly? Yes.
S. See Module Section C.
I i .
I es
. . I l
l
, Evaluation: The DAA demonstrated their ability to commualcate with all l appropriate locations, organizations, and field personnel.
i . Commercial telephones were used for communications with the TSC, State ROC's, and local EOC's. The DAD requested ;
laformation from the Field Teams via radio communications through the FTC.
l The Fleid Tese Coordination Group had one ground radio for
communication with PGE and the States of Oregon and Washington L Fleid Teams. There was also as serial radio for communication I with any Aerial Teams. No Aerial Teams were dispatched durlag the esercise and this capability was not demonstrated.
l i The RO's generally used adequate radio protocol such as the phonetic alphabet designations, exercise or drill statements, f and call signs. Bowever, the use of these procedures among the three R0's during the exercise was laconsistent and dependent
, on the heat of the activity. See Ob'jective a for more discussion.
1
, . It was apparent from monitoring the R0 communications that the
Oregon Field Tese et was using aca-standard procedures and
! frequently laterrupting other transmissions, j Communications were generally asistained throughout the plume
! EPI, but not within all the lagostion EPI. There were
! occasional problems in communicating with the Pos Team, but did i mot appear to seriously limit commualcations.
4 j Field Teams were given hourly updates of emergency status, protective actions and special motifications. A standard fors uns used and all Teams were polled to assess receipt. All special apdates,'IAL changes, etc., were promptly transmitted, and fease polled.
l f objective 4: Demonstrate ability to make decisions and to coordinate j emermancy activities.
j Summary: Not objective. 5. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review 1. Were appropriate representatives locluded la the decision process and provided adequate briefing and logistical
oupport? Mostly.
2. Were the loplementation lastructions for protective
! measures telephonically dispatched to the appropriate j response organisations: e.g., USC07 l
l l ed 1
)
e n,-,- e--- ewn - ---m-ws., v --~w-..w-,- g-w- ~=w-mm-,-wo------
i Evaluation: With one exception, at PGE's 50F the decisionaaklag lacluded
' the appropriate ladividuale, brieflage were frequent and adequate, and instructions were communicated to appropriate I response orgaalzatione. However, some difficulties were noted
! la the handling of RI for EW's. Specifically, the EOF Staff
was informed shortly after 1000 that Cowlits County. Washington l State Field Teena, and the State of Oregos requested status of l
RI for EW's, and then unilaterally decided to admieleter II.
i Bowever, so feedback on a possible PAR of this nature was j provided to these jurisdictions until a El PAR use made at 1063, a commendable short time after the first confirmation of the presence of iodine at 1037. IP-30. Figure 30-4. ladicates this routing for such a PAR. Also laformation on the in-plant j KI PAR. of sometlee prior to 1019. use act dieseelasted to the l 50C's pursuant to IMtEG 0684. Paragraph E.4.R.
I The DAA descastrated its ability to make decletone and to i coordlaate emergency activities. The appropriate dose 1 assessment representatives: e.g., the DAD. protective actica ;
I evaluation and does assessor were involved la the decision-
- enking process. Dose projections were completed using both 6 i plant data and field measuremente. PAR's for shelterlag and I evacuation were developed, however, ao PAR for the ingestion I pathway were determined by the Dose Assessment Statf during the emergency phase of the exercise.
l The let enintained everall control of the operatione at the DAA l by frequent loput of requeste to both DAD and the DA. The DAD.
la many cases, acting la response to IDI requeste, malateined ,
coordination with the FFC to assure that field data mee ;
t available for use la the decision process. The lattial dose I
j projection, based on in-plant containment radiation reading and
! the design basis contatement leak rate. Indicated that so j offeite PAR use appropriate.
In the ease time frees, plaat status informaties lead to j evacuation PAR's , eventually resultlag la en evocantios l reconeendation to 10 elles. Dese projectica, based on field
{ data would have called for evacuation la the 5-elle rease. The i DAA staff discussed the necessity of plume pathuey PAR's beyond l the to-alle BP1 and concluded that the measured doses and J projections based as these doses, did not marrant PAR's beyond
! those ubich had already been implenested, based os plant status information. The DA and the PAE (both Oregon and Washingtes)
! reviewed all dose projectises and PAR's.
) The lattial dose projectica, based es in-plant radiation i
reedlage, did met indicate the need for the use of RI. At ,
1000, the DAD respeeded to and inquiry free the BOF Director '
and stated that there use no need for as BW PAR (i.e.. RI).
! The first dose projection, based es the first effolte uhole boy l l dose rate acaeurement (1008) aloe did not indicate the need for
! the use of K1.
i
! ss i
i I
en ew ne- - --,---ww.. , wmm_.
The DAA produced a PAR for RI use by EW's and special populations within 7 minutes of the receipt of the first field radiolodine data (1037 and 1044). .
The DAA did not follow EP-30. Section C, in that no ingestion pathway dose assessments or PAR's were produced until well af ter the emergency phase of the incident had passed. This lack of any discussion of possible PAR's may have contributed to the unilateral Oregon action to embargo milk.
The FTC frequently met with the DAD and the ERM to provide data from Field Teams or to accept requests promptly transmitted to the Field Teams.
All PAR's were promptly transmitted to the Field Teams, both EW PAlt's and Public PAR's: usually within sinutes.
At 1003 the FTC was informed by the DAD that Washington's E0C wanted Washington Field Tomas to take RI. That was transmitted to the Field Teams.
Recommendation: Ites. Ingestion Pathway PAR. (I.10: J.73 0.4.b.)
Evaluation: The DAA staff did not produce any short-term ingestion pathway dose essessments or PAR's during the emergency phase of the incident as required by EP-30 Section C.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Provide additional training to DAA staff with regard to EP-30.
Ites. Emergency Worker PAR's. (RgP-1 I.10 J.10.f.: 0.4.b.).
Evaluation: The handling of EW PAR's when the local jurisdictions have " preempted" the recommendation process.
Recommendation for Correct!ve Actions: EP-30 should be revised to address steps to take when local jurisdictions implement PAR's prior to the development of correspondlag PAR's by the 50F. Also, the means to inform ROC staffs of protective measures being implemented by the facilitys e.g., exclusion ares evacuation. RI, etc., should be established by procedures.
Objective 5: Demonstrate ability to nroject desare to the nublic via slume annosure. based on slant and field data, and to determine aanropriate nrotective measures. based on PAG's. available shelter, evacuation time estimates, and all other aanronrtate factors..
Summary: Met objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
1 86 l l
l l . ._ _.
l 1
i Pointe of haview: A. Dose Assesseest Operatione: 1
1. Did the Does Assessment Director (DAD) and Field Tean Coordinator (FTC) keep each other informed on what was !
going on?
1 2. Were the plume tracking aspe/ field monitoring '
information compared to dose projection estimates / plume i plot estimates?
- 3. Did the Dose Assessment Staff keep ap-to-date on plant j status and environmental conditions?
4. Did the Dose Assessment Staff work eeoothly, and ;
l
a. Make timely recommendations to ROF '
! Director /Beergency Response Manager?
1 b. Utilise the Dose Projection System effectively?
J c. Perfore evaluation according to procedures?
d. See paper " Role of Dose Projection System and Offsite Verification Syster.
B. Field Teaa Operations:
1 1
- 1. Were the Field Tease dispatched at appropriate times and to appropriate locatione?
2. Did the Field Team Coordinator keep la regular radio contact with Field Tease (e.g., regular brieflage on l
Plant / environmental conditione, espected plume l directions, etc.?
l 3. Were PAR's made to Field Tease?
l 4. Did the FTC keep track of the Field Toens and use thee 1.e., Field Tema strategy?
! 5. Were plume tracklag aspe kept up-to-date and readable? l S. Were proper radio procedures used by the FTC7 i i
Evaluation: Field Teen ' --- - t and Interface. No apparent problems were
, acted, free this perspective, la the FTC and DAD leformation f flow. The DAD would often cenault with the FTC to obtain i l current field data er to make requeste for special asaltoring. !
, The first Team, free peg, was dispatched at 0914, two einstes 1 1
following the GE declaraties. Bewever, the Team mee dispatched I l to the Goble beat ramp, south of the plaat, to deliver I
lastrueestatlom kits to the USCO. Iater, at 0944, the Team was l redeployed north of the plaat to saatter, once the RO wee 3 leformed that the USCG was not playing la the esercise.
j Bewever, moraal rendesvese time with the Usec le typically around an hour which essentially removes the Field Team from a
)
eenitorias role. , ,
The FTC aselgaed the first Oregon Team a task at 0949 and the l seceed Team at 0985. First contacts with the Weehangton Tease
! came at 0068 uhen then they were still 88 elles north of the j j plant. Their first seeisamente came about 1000. The State
assignments were appropriate with one Oregon Team en each side ;
j et the river to help define plume boundaries, and the two Weehieston Teams la unshington state to define center lines and l I leading edges. Tease were gives latitude, per their procedures. (
! to define plume center linee and boundaries. l J
I ST l I. i 1 l
. . . ~ . . . . . - . . . . .. . . . ..
l l
Evaluation: The FTC and RO consistently gave hourly updates on weather. ,
! (Continued) plaat conditione. PAR's and special instructions. A standard '
j fore use used along with a timer. Special lastructions were transmitted generally within a few minutes. In all cases. Field .
Teams were polled os understandtag.
I i At 2003 the FTC was informed that the Washiestem 30C saatml
! their Tease to take RI. This use broadcast to the Teams at 2005, which were subsequently pelled as to understanding.
j The FTC adequately kept track of Teases their posittene were l plotted lamediately os receipt of trasseisoies and they were
{ gives instructices generally to seek the plume benaderies and j eenterline. After all Teams were la the eres, and had ende lattial reedlege, they were lastructed to determine the east.
! west north boundaries and centerline.
! l
} Plume tracklag espe were consistently and immediately kept !
t updated by persoasel with head phones uhe directly mesitored ,
l trenesiseless.
1 j The 30's generally used adequate radio protocol. Benever, the 4 esercise drill prefim er suffix metaties une set consistently ;
} used. Only the Fes RO used the appropriate sign-off, estas the
radio call sign. The phonetic alphabet une used more often than mot by the RO's, but apparently eene Field Tomas were set.
There use a good bit of discussion that the Field Teams were set l providias the distance and direction of their locatione. i Bowever, they were providing their grid locations. The letter !
le an adequate locator and the distance and directica could be !
j ouch more oestly and correctly calculated by the DAA computer. I i Seving the Tomas de the calculaties le preme to error, i l ,
especially at might, and provideo Teams with unnecessary taske !
uhen they are busy. The Field Teen tressaisoises to the 50F
j appeared laceseisteet with rogueste and format. The data use l i met identified me centerline, boundary, or other. The order of
data une laconsistost as soll. l l
Does Assesseest Area The Dese Assesseest Staff desseetrated l their ability to project desese to the public via plume espesure. Dese projectless were booed spes both plant and field '
data. The DAD, at the request of the IWI perledically casoulted 1
i with the FTC. The dose assessment staff kept up-to-date se plant statue and envireemental conditiene via fregnent contact i with the Tsc. .The dose assosoment staff made same eenperlease j between the plete of field eseltorias data and the dose i projecties estientes. Some of the dose projoettees were l sedified as field seesuremente boesse ovellable. Bosever, more cooperleans, at distances farther free the plant, seuld have been onde. Deee projectices more updated whenever plant parametere changed The Doee Aseeeemost statt method sesothly, ,
4
es i
i I
,--m_--r- .-. . , . .
~
f l Evaluation: however, the DAD could have been more forceful la his direction (Continued) of the Dese Assessment Stait. PAR's uste timely, with the . !
exception of lagestion pathway PAR durlag the energer.cy. (See i Objective 4.) , ,w Some probleme were meted la translating field n'reestement data i
plotted by grid coordiastes to vector distances.. This creates potential problems for is.pettlag this data 1sto the computer and
~
generating dose projecties. i i .%
As discussed la Objective 7. plaat statue drove all public j PAR's. Daring the calculatiosi et projective Total Integrated Deee Projecties (TID) only 11altea field data une used for input-
, to the computer. A large enouet er field date use available but i met Feed. There see heavy reliance na data takes meer to the l plaat. Data taken 6-4 alles douanied. abere there use good assurance that the plume centerline had been identified. was
} 1ersely Ageered. The Sta.tes and the RN correctly stopped the ,
use of the fire TID projection and insisted es a better set of !
layet data. Several projectione could have been made metag differest laput data and the results coepared.
Receaseadation: Ites. Dese Projecties. (RgP 1:1.20 0.4.b.)
1 Evaluaties: The project 10e of tetel latogroted doce relied en
sely a small fracties of the available data base.
I j Recoseendaties for corrective Actian Froy1de additional
! trafelas to the DA and DAD to aseste that the amatene use of a data le onde particularly after the emergency phase of the.
l !acidents e.g. gere comparlease of dose projectione and field measureneste should be mods, with emphaels belas placed en the use of plume centerline esseuremente for semperioen with the
dose projections. Rete The field mesesresent grid coordinates i and distance information need to be verified hetere the data is
{ estored la the computer for making dose projecties.
Ites. Radielegice! Nemitories/Reportlas. Ih8P-1:1-83 0.4.b.)
l Evaluaties: Field Tease were regneoted to provide distance and directies la addities to their grid locetles, an unnecessary l entra task (see above).
Receemendaties for Corrective Actions: The Field Teene should provide their locaties sely by grid peelties, the suA pletter a eseld readily calculate the distance and directions using a
} rotating plastic template and/or the does aseeeement eseputer could really be programond to de the esaversions. -
l Itse. Radialesleal Nemiteries/Reportlag. (Mp-1 I.S 0.4.b.)
l Evaluaties: Field Teams reporting of data use inceaelstent in
! fermat.
l j te l
l 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l Recommendation Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Training. The Field i Teams should record their data on a prescribei form with high
priority items first; e.g., Team identifier location, time,of reading, samma reading, gamma beta reading, air sample, other.
The data should be recorded by the RO la the ease fashion. In addition, the significance of the data should be noted:
centerline, other, or plume boundary (edge): e.g., other, j Objective 6: Demonstrate the ability of the EOF to develon an initial l inneetion mathwave samalian alan and lattial Protective Action j Reconnendation iFARI.
i i
Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
i Pointe of Review: 1. See IP-St. Reentry and lagestion Pathways Monitoring l Sampling Plan.
]
l 2. This scenerlo will allow the opportualty for the development of an laitial lagestion esposure pathway sampling plan which 1 will provide, input to a itse ingestion pathway drill (to be evaluated at BOF, State laboratories and State ROC's).
i Ivaluation: After the conclusion of the emergency phase of the incident, the j DAA staff generated as lagostica pathway PAR and developed an
! laitial sampling plan. The PAR did act include any l recommendathne on protective actions. The distances at which i
the preventative and energency PAG's would be exceeded and the
! appropriate sector were the sely laternation on the PAR. The i omission of the PAR's le not la accord with EP-80. Section
C.2.d. This omiselon was at the directica of the DAD The
! Oregos and unshington PAG's questlosed thle position but signed j off en the report.
I 1 The lattial sampling plan, while followlag generally EP-St. was
! not in sufficient detail to be usable by the Field Tease. The l closing of the Oregon and Washington 30C's before thle task was
{ accomplished covered some problem in that specific laternation
which would be needed was met available. The DAA staff decided
, that one dairy in each of the designated areas should be 4
sampled. The sample plaa le not clear and lay 11ee that all j dairies la the desigasted areas should be sampled.
There was no comelderaties of the capabilitys e.g., supplies, of l the Teams aselgaed the various taske la the sampling plan. The
Tease should have been imetracted to geesties the dairy j operatore concerales operaties at the particular dairy e.g.,
i are the como en pastures how often is allk picked up and -
transported

is the slik being sampled a statare of allking, i and if oo. when more the allklage for the sampled milk. These 1
i l
70 I
i
\- * '%
w. -
s
^
Evaluation: types of questions must be answered before any data can be (Continued) meaningfully interpreted. The best use of resources and the fewest contacts with the dairy operators, particularly outside .
the IO-mile EPZ. would seem to indicate that the sampling Team should ask these questions.
Two poten'tial problems, rot addressed by the DAA staff involves the presence or lack of presence of dairy personnel in the area which was evacuated. Also, would it be appropriate for the Team to meet with representativas of the County Agricultural. Staff (Extension Agent, etc.). .The vegetation sampling protocol seems excessive without prior low level radiation readings -- sample after establishing the presence.cf deposited activity greater than some trigger value -- perhaps 100 mR/hr.
The Dose Assessment Staff determined the tentative preventative and emergency PAG distances in accordance with EP-32 procedures. These PAG distances were relayed to the State EOC's. An initial sampling plan was developed for the ingestion pathway. However, the plan was,very general and it may require more detail before it can be implemented by the Field Teams.
Recommendation: Ites. Dose Projection. (REP-1:I.10: 0.4.b.)
Evaluation: No ingestion pathway PAR's were specified as requjred by EP-30. C.2.d.: only distance at which the preventive and emergency PAG were exceeded.
Recommendations for Corrective Actions: Train DAA Staff. In
.perticul w the DAD. on the provisions of EP-30.
Ites. Radiological Monitoring / Sampling. (REP-1:1.8; 0.4.b.)
Evaluation: The initial ingestion pathway sampling plan was not sufficiently detailed to be usable by the Field Teams.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train DAA Staff in needs of a workable plan. Possible procedure revision needed.
i l
E
'f 71
- - . _ . - . . - . . . - . L _ .. .
., ~1_____._______ _ . _ , _ . _ _ __ . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.4 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 2.2.4.2 Oregon State EOC Objective 7: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all anoroorfate locations. otranisations, and field personnel.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review 1. Were communicatiens systems adequate (i.e., enough phones, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)?
2. Were the systems used properly?
3. See Module Section c.
Evaluation: Volume on Blue Phones (Public Information Circuit) was low; speaker phone volume so low as to be almost unusable.
Item. Communications. (REP-1:F.1.d.)
Evaluation: See above Recommendation for Corrective Actions. Perform Quality Assurance on system and adjust / replace as necessary.
Objective 8: Demonstrate ability to brief the media in a clear. accurate, and timely manner.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. Were all press releases approved by the designee?
2. Were the press releases properly disseminated to the appropriate release points?
3. Were news conferences held or simulated? Was a schedule for news conferences developed and posted?
4. Did the PIO ensure that media questions (telephone) were ,
answered accurately and in a timely manner?
5. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: The PGE Briefer was on hand and did provide technical briefings to media on plant status. His briefings were coordinated with ODOE prior to briefings.
The PGE Technical Briefer did overstep the limits of his responsibilities by issuing health impact assessment of radio-logical release. Specifically, in response to a question he 72
, _ _ _ -._ e-- _ _
Evaluation: stated "there would absolutely be no adverse health effects" if the figures (dose projections) were accurate. This is not
' (Continued) a PGE responsibility, and the question should have been .
referred to Oregon State for response.
Numerous media phone calls were placed to PGE Eeadquarters, who, in turn, referred the calls to the Sales location. In turn, the Salen EOC (Rumor Control and BOC proper) did not refer their calls to the PGE Team at Salem. Instead, they (the callers) were diverted to recall PGE Needquarters or read the AP/UPI wire service stories.
Ites. Media Briefing. (REP-1:0.3.; 0.4.j.)
Evaluation: See above. ,
Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
1. Review procedures to determine if the PGE technical l spokesperson's responsibilities are adequately described. Revise if necessary.
2. Conduct training on procedures.,
3. Conduct spokesperson training for all designated PGE spokespersons, j Objective 9: Demonstrate ability to D:enare and nrovide advance i coordination of information releases. j Sumasry: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted. ;
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO coordinate to-be-released information with )
the other locations prior to release to the media?
2. Did the PIO have access to all necessary information?
3. See Module Sectica I.
Evaluation: PGE did not sign off on most Oregon releases. PGE issued only one release with Gregon and aces on its cua.
PGE's Procedures do not clearly define the approval point for its news releases once it is operational at the OR E0C, Recommendation: Ites. PGE Nedia Operations. (REP-1 G.4.a..& b.; 0.4.J.)
Evaluation: See above.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Review and revise procedures (in coordination with Oregon State); and conduct l training on revised procedures.
l 73 i
-,-g *m- am -y- -se,- ---+--,----ww-ew----y-,, ,r-.vmeewe.-wwwe - , , - -W
l Obtective 10: Demonstrate ability to establish and operate rumor control in a coordinated fashion. .
Summary: Net objective.
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO establish a log to track rumors?
2. Did the PIO promptly report rumore or misinformation to
. the appropriate officials.
3. Did the PIO develop, coordinate and release public i information releases to counter the rumors or I misinformation. l
4. Did the PIO coordinate their rumor control operation with l other locations? I
5. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: The State of Oregon and PGE operate their media operations from the State's ROC. A Rumor Control Team is staffed and operated by Oregon State. During this exercise, numerous phone calls (37) were placed from the Control Cell to PGE's
. Headquarters. The corporate staff, in accordance with their procedures, directed the callers to call the Sales EOC or Rumor Control Operations at Sales. These calls were referred to PGE in Portland or the caller was directed to refer to the AP/UPI wire service for PGE's story. ,
l 1
74 y w -- ---
e--m w --
pg. --,. .-,-,.-,e ,a ,mgw.g , y,-,.rw. . -wwm-.,
--- - ~_. -_- . _ - - - - . __ . - - - - _ _
2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.5 STATE OF OREGON
)
]
2.2.5.1 Emerrency Onerations Center (EOC) l Objective 1: Demonstrate ability to mobilize staff and activate facilities proently.
e Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. Notification of response organizations should be within the following times:
a. All response organizations within 25 minutes of receipt in change of declaration of Alert. .
b. All response organizations within 15 minutes of receipt in change of status: Alert to SAE and SAE to GE.
2. Actual Time of Time Required for Receint/Chante Status Notiftestion Alert 0835 11 minutes SAE 0908 3 minutes GE 0911 1 minute
3. Was the EOC staffed at the appropriate classification and did key response personnel respond within 30 minutes?
4. Was the EOC staffed and appropriate response elements represented when it was declared functional (activated)?
Note: See " General Instructions to Evaluators."
5. See Module Section A.
4 Evaluation: Staff was promptly notified within the Oregon State organi-sation. The ROC was physically established within a period of 28 minutes (Oregon Realth did not arrive antil 78 minutes following initial establishing activity). Notification was ande in a timely and orderly meaner. Information verification with all parties proved to be time well spent (carried out slaultaneously with EOC activation).
1
Recommendation

1. Item. BOC Activation. (REP-1:R.3; F.1.d.; 0.4.a. & J.)
1 Evaluation: See above. i
. l l Recommendation for Corrective Actions: The State Realth Officer and other health response personnel arrived later than Sales personnel and were not physically available for consultation in I the PAR decisionmaking process. It is suggested that the l radio-telephone equipped vehicle be used enroute from Portland to Sales and that "means to access it" be made known in the l 1 procedures and particularly at the " assessment and decision-maker desks." The Realth Officer could then be involved should the need arise.
75 i
v .- -
-,,---.w --r
l Objective 2: Demonstrate adecuacy of facilities and disolave to suDDort enerrency operations. l l
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable l weakness was noted. I Points of Review: 1. Response time for maintaining status boards and briefing EOC staff should be 10 minutes after receipt of change in status or change in recommendation for protective actions.
2. Were the facilities and equipment adequate to support the emergency response effort?
3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adequate? l j 4. See Module Section C. i Evaluation: The facilities and displays available at the Oregon EOC were adequate to support emergency operations. All response agencies had adequate working space and the ambient noise levels of normal operational activities did not appear to hamper the performance of any of the participants. Two projection displays were used to keep the ROC staff informed of emergency conditions. Changes in EAL's and PAR's were promptly posted on the projection display. Four status boards were
available as follows: 1) Assessment Board, 2) Situation Board,
3) Resource Board, and 4) Incident Log. The Assessment Board and the Situation Board were adequately maintained throughout the exercise. However, information oss not posted on the Resource Board or the Incident Log in a timely manner. It should be emphasized that this did not significantly lapact performance since duplicate information was posted on the projection displays which became the primary status boards for the ROC. The projection display was more promptly updated and more easily visible to all personnel than either the Resource ,
Board or the Incident Log. At approximately 0943, erroneous '
information regarding an evacuation PAR was incorrectly posted on one of the projection displays and the Situation Board.
This error was promptly recognised and corrected on the projection display and was corrected in a briefing of ROC personnel. However, the erroneous informatina was not corrected on the Situation Board and the incorrect information i remained on this board until approximately 1030.
. Recommendation: Item. Adequate Display. (REP-1:5.3; O.4.g.)
Evaluation: See above.
i Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Information on the Resource Board and the Incident Log were more promptly posted and more easily read on the projection displays. We believe that space could be more effectively utilised if the Resource Board and the Incident Log were removed from the 50C.
Alternately, the Status Board plotters should be trained to ;
update these boards in a more timely manner. The Status Board plotters should be trained to periodically check the accuracy of information posted on the Situation Board.
76
)
)
I
,_e, -,,y,w.-r.,,-,,-.y,g._,wwy--+.y.-pe pg , p 97twam- p er
Objective 3: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all approorlate locations. organizations, and field Dersonnel.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review 1. Were communication systems adequate (i.e., enough phones, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)?
2. Were the systems used properly?
3. See Module Section D.
Evaluation: Communications to and from the Oregon State EOC were generally very good. The Automatic Ring-down Circuit Selective Signaling Circuit and Public Information Circuit, as well as all land line telephones, were operational throughout the exercise. These communication systems were effectively utilized and they provided for fast and reliable coordination of Oregon's information with the licensee, Washington State and i Columbia and Cowlitz Counties. At approximately 0930 backup l radio communications via the RF Radio link with Columbia County was lost. A National Guard van equipped with a State Police radio and a State Police Officer trained to operate this radio was dispatched to a location at the Columbia County patrol office to reestablish radio communications with the county.
This action was simulated. Loss of radio communications with Columbia County is not considered a deficiency since radio is the backup communications link.
Recommendation: Item. Communications. (REP-1:F.1.d.; 0.4.g.)
i Evaluation: The Oregon State Procedures specify that the existing radio communications systes rather than the dedicated telecommunications system is the primary means for communication between the Oregon EOC and the Columbia E0C for requesting and coordinating assistance. (See Attachment 9, page END-85.)
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: The procedure should be reviewed and revised to indicate that the Automatic Ring-down Circuit is the primary means for coordination with Columbia County.
Item. Communications. (REP-1:F.1.d.)
Evaluation: Some participants noted that the volume of the Automatic Ring-down Circuit and the PIO Circuit were weak.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Circuits should be investigated to determine corrections.
77
. ~ . _ . _ . . ... . .. . . . . .. _. . .
- . - > -. _ % , , . - - , _ - - - - m-, . - -,. ,.-,_-,-
e Recommendation: Ites. Communications (REP-1:F.1.d.; 0.4.g)
(Continued)
Evaluation: Some telephone circuits were not positioned as indicated on page END-18 of the Oregon Procedures.
l Recommendation for Corrective Actions: The diagram should be l reviewed and revised as necessary to accurately designate the location of these instruments.
4 Objective 4: Lemonstrate ability to make decisions and to coordinate emerrency activities.
Summary: Net objective.
Points of Review: 1. Were appropriate representatives included in the decision process and provided adequate briefing and logistic support?
2. Did the persons arrive at decisions within the 15 minute default time?
3. Did the correct person make the decisions?
4. Were the decisions carried out effectively?
5. Were the correct protective action decisions made?
8. Were the laplementation instructions for protective measures telephonically dispatched to the appropriate l response organizations? '
7. Were the decision-makers notified of the time that the implementation actions were executed? (Note: Indicate time required for deliberation of decision-makers for each 1 PAR to PAD. Recommendations: #1 (River Evacuation) -
9:07; #2 (Shelter) - 0918; #3 (School Evacuation) - 0937;
4 (KI) - 1009; and #5 (10-a11e Evacuation) - 10:11.) i
8. See Module Sections 3 and E.
Evaluation: In each of the major PAD's involving persons in the plume EPZ, the Oregon EOC fully participated to the extent necessary where decisions required input and coordination with other 50C Staff. Key staff were consulted to the degree necessary to arrive at a reasonable decision. In most instances decisions were arrived at in a timely manner. Extensive use of the i automatic ring-doun phone system facilitated the dissemination and coordination of these decisions with key organizations
outside of the State of Oregon.
The decision to place cattle on stored feed did not appear to be adequately coordinated with Cowlitz and Columbia Counties or the State of Washington, in that the decision was made and was implemented by Gregon Agriculture without discussion with, or notification to, those jurisdictions.
l l
78 i
~
. - - _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ - .. .. .z.. .
,_.._ _ ._ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . ~ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ ___-_.
Objective 5: Demonstrate ability to formulate and distribute aDDroDriste instructions to the Dublic in a timely fashion.
Summary: Net objective.
, Points of Review: 1. Did the counties prepare and coordinate the public instructions (EBS message content)?
2. Was the content of the public instructions adequate?
(See Part F of the EOC Nodule.)
e Evaluation: The KRAM broadcasts by the Governor were accurate, timely and i appropriate. Instructions to the public via news briefings were l sometimes unintentionally handled by the inappropriate individual or agency: e.g., Agriculture discussions (decisions and actions) on stored feed and embargoed allk from dairies within plume EPZ (4th Press Conference); statements by Governor that no PAR's are l necessary beyond 10 miles (3rd Press Conference).
0bjective 6: h irate ability to brief the media in a clear. accurate, and
- timely ====ar.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. Were all press releases approved by the designee? No. (See Objective 7.)
2. Were the press releases properly disseminated to the appropriate release points? Not observed.
3. Were news conferences held or simulated? Yes. Was a i schedule for news conferences developed and posted? Yes.
I 4. Did the PIO ensure that media questions (telephone) were l answered accurately and in a timely manner? No. .(See Objective 8.)
5. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: Oregon is to be commended for the laprovements in its Media !
Center. Staff assigned there were knowledgeable about their I t
duties and responsibilities and responsive to requests for
) information and assistance. The addition of the radio link to the ROC enhanced the Media Center's PIO ability to question and receive information from the IOC Staff. The timing and frequency of news briefings was determined to be appropriate. The lack of media player participation prevented a thorough evaluation of player's ability to handle stressful media encounters. On occasion, Oregon E0C's Media Center Briefers overstepped their bounds unintentionally in the areas of PAR's and agricultural
issues. (See Objective 5 evaluation.)
i Recommendation: Item. Media Briefing. (REP-1:G.3; 0.4.j.)
l Evaluation: On occasion Briefers overstepped their bounds in
PAR's and agricultural issues.
19
, - - - . .,.g ,, -.,.y.--------,__---9,,,.9 -. _ -y-. -
,y, ,.ip--mr. ,w y,-- y 9y.-p,ogyy __g,-,..e---,,y_ , - . , - , w-y e.-g ep.e-e-m
Recommendation: Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Review Briefer's (Continued) area of responsibility. Conduct spokesperson training to leprove proficiency in dealing with media. .
Objective 7: Demonstrate ability to creDare and Drovide advance coordination j of information releases.
Summary: Net objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO coordinate to-be-released information with the other locations prior to release to the media? No.
2. Did the PIO have access to all necessary information? Yes.
3. Did the PIO incorporate the appropriate "Public Instructions" into the appropriate media releases (Public Information)?
Yes.
4. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: Oregon's assignment of an individual to coordinate news releases on the, Blue Phone was appropriate and, for the most part, coordination was done prior to release. On one or two occasions.
" coordination" took place after Oregon had released the
information; hence, coordination on those occasions was almost superfluous, although the need for corrections or retractions might have been discovered even at that late point.
Persons at the ROC charged with coordination did not understand their duties; e.g., concurrence, information review, accuracy check, etc.
l Attachment 8-B, (END-65) and 8-C (E35-66) requires the review, prior to release, by PGE Technical Representatives, Oregon /PGE i PIO Liaison Officers, External Coordinator, PIO, and DPIO. In l addition, the Oregon EOC News Release form provides spaces for i
sign-off to indicate concurrence by the Governor, Technical l Advisor, PIO, POE and the Blue Phone (other organisations).
Direct observation and a review of news releases as issued shows l no instance where sign-off for all was obtained, and several instances where none were obtained.
In one case where no sign-offs were made (NR84) a 10-mile i evacuation was reported. This was in conflict with the PAR in effect at the time. In another case (NR81) telephone numbers not intended for the public were published for Neshington State and Cowlitz County. The former has serious health-related realfications. The latter would have seriously lapaired State and County phone communications.
Recommendation: Item. Coordination of Information. (REP-1:0.4.b.; 0.4.J.)
Evaluation: See above.
80 l
_ _ - - . .__. .....___ . . _ - .. . ..... - -. .. . . ~ .
I Recommendation: Recommendation for Corrective Actions:
(Continued)
1. Review / Revise procedures to clarify the relationship bbtween l
" coordination, information review (quality control / accuracy check) and release."
2. Conduct training for all PIO staff on a frequency adequate enough to maintain player proficiency. It is suggested,
! based on exercise performance by some players, several hours of training occe per year is inadequate.
I Item. Media Operation. (REP-1:G.4.a. A b.; 0.4.J.) j l
Evaluation: Approval and sign-off process was not followed.
Incorrect releases were issued.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Review current procedures. Rewrite to describe the approvals / sign-offs which are mandatory prior to release. Draft procedures to describe the use of the sign-off blocks on the news release form. Conduct training on procedures.
l l Objective 8: Demonstrate ability to establish and operate rumor control in a i
coordinated fashion.
i Summary: Net objective. S. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO establish a log to track rumors? Not observed.
2. Did the PIO promptly report rumors or aloinformation to the appropriate officials. Yes.
! 3. Did the PIO develop, coordinate and release public i
information releases to counter the rumors or alsinformation? No.
4. Did the PIO coordinate their rumor control operation with other locations? No.
S. See Module Sectica I.
Evaluation: Oregon State has implemented an electronic process and procedures for providing current information to the Rumor control Center.
Each Team Member has a Nang Station. When the ROC issues hard copy, that text is sent to each Wang Statloa. That text and later texts serve as the only laformed source for the Team Member to use in responding to public and media inquiries. A total of 12 releases were prepared and made available via the Wang System in a prompt manner.
TheRumorControlCenterreceived87callsfromtheControlCeIl 1
during the exercise. Of these calls, approxiestely 384 were
! incorrectly answered or not answered. (See Objective 9.) The
, Rumor Control Center did not answer any calls from persons 81 l
l Evaluation: identifying themselves as the media, despite clear instructions l (Continued) to do so. (Rumor Control Guidelines: Current procedures indicate the Rumor Control Center will process telephonic media inquiries as well as questions from the public.) -
Recommendation: Item. Media Inquiries. (REP-1:G.4.; 0.4.J.)
Evaluation: Media were advised to come to the News Center, or take press releases off AP and UPI wire services.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train staff to follow procedures.
Obfective 9: Demonstrate the orranizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility-innaired individuals within the cluse EPZ.
i Summary: Net' objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Points of Review: 1. See Module Section G.
2. The State's Rumor Control should forward requests to State ROC for referral / transmittal to Columbia County EOC. (Note:
Track how long it takes requests to move from Rumor Control to State EOC and from State ROC to Columbia County EOC.)
l i Evaluation: Nobility Impaired (telephone) calls received by Rumor Control
) from individuals with impaired mobility were not forwarded to the .
1 EOC. However, such individuals were referred to Sheriff.
Assistance Centers, or instructed to put out white cloth, which any be a more reasonable plan. Of the 6 NI calls received, the persons were'not uniformly ordered to display white sheet. None of the calls were given the Sheriff's phone number. They were just told to " call the Sheriff."
Recommendation: Item. Transportation Assistance. (REP-1:J.10.d.; 0.4.J.)
! Evaluation: See above.
J Recommendation for Corrective Actions: More specific procedures I
should be developed for Rumor Control to use in answering calls from mobility lapaired individuals. Train staff.
l l
82 i
~
~ -- . . . . . -_ _ _ -.. . .. , , . . .
---w -s--- g y - .,
- - - - - ,.-,r , . ,- , .g -g , - , -wr,.,r-,--y..+gy,,q _- . , , .- _,-wy w-. ,w--ry,,.ww, ,,-.-,--g w -m,,.r-9 y-Q--m--,,wy-
! 2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2.5 STATE OF OREGON (Continued) 2.2.5.2 In the Field Objective 10: Demonstrate ability to coanunicate with all anoronriste locations, orranizations. and field norsonnel.
Summary: -
Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness aos noted.
Points of Review: 1. Were communications systems adequate (i.e.. enough phones, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)? Yes.
2. Were the systems used properly? No.
3. See Module Section D.
Evaluation: Field Teams had problems with the phonetic alphabet and were insufficiently trained in the use of the car radio phones.
Field Team #2 did not use correct radio protocol in the ;
transmission of information across the radio channels. This resulted in some confusion including talk over other Field Team transmissions and a misunderstood instruction to investigate the plume bounduries. This misunderstanding resulted in the Team entering the plume center.
Recommendation: Iten. Cosaunications. (REP-1:F.1.d.; 0.4.J.)
l Evaluation: See above.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Train Field Team personnel in the use of all communications equipment. -
Obiective 11: Demonstrate ability to mobilize and denlow field monitoring teams in a timely fashion.
Summary: Not objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
i
! Points of Review: See Module Section A.
Evaluation: Very rapid mobilization and deployment of Field Teams was demonstrated. Rosever, mobilisation time was unrealistic j because personnel were kept from normal duties in a central I office area prior to the exercise. Equipment and esterials were pre-staged prior to activation. Team mobilisation was completed in 2 minutes. Actual departure from the facility was completed in 15 minutes.
I l
SS 1
_ . - . - - . . . - - - . 2._ . . . .. . -
- - . _ . - -.-_.~; , -, . - .. . --... .-,.a--._-__ , . . _ , . , _ - - - . - . _ , . , _ _ .- -
Evaluation:: A systes of notification for off-hours mobilization has been (Continued) implemented . However,.during normal work hours personnel are dispatched to many different locations with no easy means.of contact in the event of an emergency. Comments from Team members expressed concerns about the ability of the State to mobilize these Field Teams once the individual Team members had been deployed into the field on daily work assignments.
Probably no more than one-third of the Team personnel would be available during normal work hours.
Recommendation: Item. Mobilization. (REP-1:E.2)
Evaluation: See above.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Develop a means to contact energency response personnel during work hours. (Note:
The existing paging system could provide this notification capability.
Objective 12: Demonstrate appropriate eauinment ans' orocedures for determining ambient radiation levels.
Summary: Net objective. B. Corrective actions a?e considered necessary. .
Points of Review: 1. See Module Sections B. C, E, and F.
2. See paper " Role of Dose Projection System: Offsite Verification System.
Evaluation: The Teams demonstrated that they could adequately track the plume and determine the ambient radiation levels. Personnel were trained to control their own exposures. However, the need for additional emphasis on periodic dosimeter checks should be reinforced. Routine 30-minute dosimeter checks were not always accomplished in a timely manner. Sampling and analysis techniques were good and experienced personnel even noticed that leaving samples to close to the counter could create j misleading results. The Aerial Field Kit was not prepared; instruments had been removed for calibration. Substitute instruments were available from stock in the area. Ground Field Kits contained instruments that were out of calibration.
Procedures require Field Teams to respond to the EOF with survey result locations using the grid coordinate system and a direction and distance from the plant. Determining direction and distance was less accurate than the grid locations and was difficult for Team members to accomplish.
! The calculator used with the Kit uses a led display and was 1 very difficult to see during the exercise. Galy one set of I
Anti-C's were taken with the Kit and Team asebers were not clear on their use.
84 Oh -
- -66M 49
er*
W-ggm ege w - Men' e >
,-w,.--------t-- ,.-3 -e enwv- -w.-- -b- +-- p. M-g -m--w-e--%.-s.ww -w r --g---v-e.-ew- e-
,'y,ww-e,p_ gw v-so-- ---e,<
l Evaluation Team Leaders demonstrated the ability to properly aske field (Continued) decisions based on information available in the field and in l
one case over-rode EOF instructions to deploy in an area well outside the plume pathway.
Recommendation: Ites. Radiological Monitoring Procedures. (REP-1:1.8; 0.4.c.)
Evaluation. See above.
i Reconsendation for Corrective Actions: Revise procedures to calculate direction and distance items at a location other than in the field. Revise procedures to adequately address the use i of Anti-C's and respiratory equipment. Provide training to the Field Teams on appropriate use of Anti-C's, eta.
1 Ites. Radiological Monitoring /Bquipment readiness.
(REP-1:5.7; I.8; 4.b.)
Evaluation: Field Team #1 was dispatched to the field with air sampling equipment and a counter scalor that were out of calibration.
I Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Field Rits should be kept full and instruments properly calibrated at all times.
Instruments requiring calibration should be replaced with other I instruments until calibration is complete. Protective clothing should be provided for all Team members. The calculator should be replaced in favor of a model that is easily read in all light conditions.
Objective 13: Demonstrate amoropriate eeninsent and orocedures for measurement of airborne radiolodine concentrations as low as d ' uC1/CC in the nresence of noble mases, Summary: Not objective.
Pointa of Review: 1. See Module Sectione B. C. E, and F.
2. See paper " Role of Dose Projection System and Offsite Verification Systen."
Evaluation: Iodine samples were taken. Samples were collected according to procedure and read at a location outside the plume in an area of low background.
i SS I
i-.-.. . . .. _ _ .- _.. . . _ . . . , . , , . . _ _ , . . . . , ,
,-,-m- ---,-w,-,---y3,w,.m.J .- _ , _ _ , , - %,_g-- , - , -,,U,-..-- g '-4. , _ _ - y,. - . . . _ . . _- _,m_,.L 3y-., - , , .,- _w-m--..
OTHER:
Obfective: Emerrency Resnonse Team Trainine for Radiolorical Monitorinr..
Summary: Net objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: Were all Team members adequately trained for emergency responte?
Evaluation: The Oregon State Field Tema response consisted of two ground i units with a Team Leader and two additional members on each l Team. Team Leaders were technically well prepared and generally understood the procedures and equipment used.
Leadership was provided by each Team Leader. Team members were generally unfamiliar with both the procedures and the equipment used by the Teams for emergency response. In one cases, a Team i member was unsure of how to convert alcro-R to millires.
demonstrating a lack of understr.nding of basic nuclear technology. Taan personnel stated that training for emergency response was only conducted as part of this annual exercise.
Without the Team Leaders, neither Team would have been effective.
Recommendation: Item. Isergency Preparedness. (REP-1:0.4.c.)
{
l Evaluation: See above.
I I Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Formal classroom instruction in all aspects of radiological emergency response should be conducted for all Team members to include basic nuclear physics, instrumentation, communications procedue=s.
contamination and exposure control, sample collection and i
evaluation, etc. This training abould consist of an initial training sequence followed by periodic retraining. In addition, it is recommended that frequent drills and actual use of equipment, instruments, and materials be conducted.
1 i
86 '
1 l
)
1 I
i i
l 1
! 2. EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.2. STATE OF OREGON (Continued) i 2.2.6 Columbia County. Oreron I
l Objective 1: Demonstrate ability to mobile. staff and activate facilities !
Dromptly. I Summary: Net objective. B. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
Points of Review: 1. Notification of response organizations should be within the following times
a. All response organisations within 25 minutes of receipt in change of declaration of Alert.
b. All response organizations within 15 minutes of receipt j in change of status: Alert to Site-Area Emergency and j Site-Area Emergency to General Emergency.
k 2. Actual Time of Time Required for
! Recoint/ Chance Status Notification l Alert 0839 13 minutes 1 l SAE 0908 No time !
GE 0912 33 minutes
3. Was the IOC staffed at the appropriate classification and did key response personnel respond within 30 minutes? No.
4. Was the IOC staffed and appropriate response elements represented when it was declared functional (activated)?
Yes. (Note

See " General Instructions to Ivalastors.")
8. See Module Section A.
I Evaluation: The County demonstrated an ability to mobilize, staff, and
activate the ROC but some problems were revealed in l demonstrating promptness.
j
1. All response organisations were notified at the NOUE in 8 minutes. The Alert fanoet took 13 minutes. Notification of response organisations after declaration of a GE took 33 minutes, ubich is too long to be considered " prompt."
2. Activation and stafflag of the 50C with key personnel took 38 minutes.
, 3. It tc h 46 minutes for all response personnel to arrive (making the ROC operational).
i I
i
......a, . . . . , - - . . . . . . . . . ~ . .e
___..~.___,__...--._.h_...,,_L,,._,_.-y
_ . __,,,,__ , a _ _ _ __ _ . . . _ _ .
. ~ _ _ , - . _ - - . . .. _ . . . , .
I i
, Recommendation: Item. Notification. (REP-1;E.2) l Evaluation: We believe the reason the notification of response l personnel took so long was because the Director of Emergency !
! Services and/.or his delegate was performing too many functions l l !acluding making notification calls after a GE. It is apparent '
! that when the C-Com makes their calls, they are accomplished l quickly (8 minutes and la minutes) but when the notification duty is shifted to the Director of Emergency Services at the GE the time lacreases considerably (33 minutes) dhd still not completed because key people have too much to do.
! Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Recommend that all notification duties at all classifications be assigned by l procedures to the Consunications Center.
Objective 2: Demonstrate ability to fully staff facilities and maintain staffine around the clock. ,
Summary: -
Net objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered necessary. j i Points of Review: See Module Section A, Questions 18-30.
i Ivaluation: Twenty-four hour staffing was demonstrated by two shift 1 changes. These shift changes were intended to occur at d
approximately 1000 and 1130. Given the rapid deterioration
! of plant conditions and upgrades of emergency classifications.
shift changes were performed so that minimal disruption would j occur and to provide for a smooth transfer of responsi-bilities. Briefings were provided to incoming staff and they were generally knowledgeable of their roles and responsi- ,
bilities.
It was evident that during periods of heavy information flow,
there was lasufficleat staff to carry out the many responsi-
^
bilities required at the mala operations / decision-maker's table. The Director of Emergency Services and Deputy Director
were not able to simultaneously respond to auto ring-doun
calls, the actification famout, siren activation, and EBS message transmission, response to control cell rumor control ,
calls, review and approval of news releases, and overall '
3 direction of EOC operations.
j Recommendation: Ites. 24-hour-day Staffing. (REP-1:J.9; 0.4.a.g. A j.)
Evaluation: See above.
1 j Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Review / revise tasking l
assignments and procedures and train staff. The IOC staffing requirements and responsibilities for internal information flow needs to be .eviewed; the responsibilities of the Director 88 j
i i,
!-- ~___.._...__.~= . . . . .,_ _ .. __ . . .. .
, _ - ~ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __n_.,_._.-_____.._.__.___ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _
i l
l l
l Recommendation: of Emergency Services and the Deputy Director should be clearly (Continued) defined as key decision-makers. The primary responsibilities should include responding to auto ring-down calls and direction of the 50C. A separate individual by title and backup should I be identified to handle all Rumor Control calls; these cells should be screened and, if needed, responses to them should be l obtained from the appropriate emergency response agency heads.
In the exercise, three different ladividuals perform siren activation and EBS message transmittal. If this arrangement l continues, specific training should be provided to ensure that ,
the laportant function is implemented properly. In lieu of '
this arrangement. It is suggested that a specific individual, l l by title (and backup) be assigned to carry out this role.
Objective 3: Demonstrate adeouser of facilities and displays to sunoort eserrency operations.
Summary: Net objective. C. performance adequate, but correctable
. weakness noted.
Points of Review: 1. Response time for maintaining status boards and briefing i EOC staff should be 10 minutes after receipt of change in status or change in reconseadation for protective actions.
2. Were the facilities and equipment adequate to support the j emergency response effort. Yes.
] 3. Were status boards, maps, etc., adequate?
4. See Module Section C.
I Evaluation: The Columbia County EOC consisted of 4 separate rooms to accommodate operations, message handling and communications, PIO functions and the 911 Canonnications Center. Sufficient space, lighting, furniture, and amenities were available to support the emergency functions. A 10-elle IPZ esp with Sectors was posted. This map was also used to ladicate the
location of access control points. A chart showing projected dose rates was used throughout the exercise. Chalk boards were l also used to document road blockades, assistance requests, and
responses and protective actions carried out. A chalk board was also used for status updates, included information on emergency classification and esteorological conditions. Also, available were a 80-alle Ingestica EPA Nay, a topography map, l
and a listing of dairies located within Columbia County.
Population data by sector was not evallable at the 50C.
Generally, all of the key status boards and maps were ut111:ed.
Recommendation: Item. Status board updatlag. (RgP-1:5.3 J.10.a a b.: 0.4.g) l Evaluation: During the esercise one ladividual was responsible for maintaining status boards and running messages. '
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Identify and train one person to esclusively maintsin status boards. One individual should have primary responsibility for maintaining status.
89
. XX_-. :D-- ~
'::T. _ - _ . - - _ . . _ . . - _ . . - . - _ , - - . ~ _ '.,~ ~ ~ T lLT ' ' L _- . -
Reconsendation: Ites. Adequate Displays. (REP-1:J.10.b.)
(Continued)
Evaluation: Population data by sector was not available to the i
EOC staff.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Develop appropriate display that represents population by sector.
1 i
Objective 4: Demonstrate ability to communicate with all anoropriate 4 locations. orranizations and field cerea-___ 1. _
Summary: Net objective.
Points of Review 1. Were communications systems adequate (i.e., enough phones, necessary dedicated circuits, etc.)?
2. Were the systems used properly?
3. See Nodule Sectica D.
/
{ Evaluation: The communications equipment evallable at the Columbia County EOC was adequate in providing necessary primary and backup redundant communication links. Communications equipment was l
promptly set up and onde operational during the initial activation procedures demonstrated at the IOC. The dedicated
! phones used during the exercise, in general functioned well.
' There were some difficulties observed during the early stages of the exercise with the Blue Phone (or the PIO phone) and the automatic ring-down (Belge Phone). The problems experienced with the Blue Phone consisted of confusion in deteretning who was answering and/or on-line for discussions. In addition, 1 auserous times during the transmiselos from Coluable County there were disconnects for no apparent reason. The cause of this problem was not easily determined from the ROC, but it I appeared that it was operational error on the other end of the phone. A sieller problem was observed on the Beige Phone when transmissions and discussions were laterrupted by other parties attempting to use the phone while Columbia was on the line.
4 The other dedicated systems used by the ROC staff performed flawlessly, providing a rapid consistent communications link.
On the first EBS message transmission over the KBAN circuit, i
the recording mechanise located at KBAN was inoperative -- the I message was transmitted accurately but somewhat slowly.
l i
The subsequent EBS messages (2) emperienced no such delays as the recording system at NBAN became operational. The multiple radio systems present in the ROC Comenaications Center were functional during the exercise and operated without problems.
Except for the Beergency Service Net which became inoperable i
j during the early stages of the esercise and remained unusable, 4
the problem appears to be with the radio unit (or equiposat).
The facsimile machine used to transmit and receive hard-copy messages also functioned without error throughout the exercise. The speed and clarity of the treassission over I
l
. 90
- - - , . , , - - - , - - gwp- g w,--g -wma w-n.
-,ynm
,-g y mn
__m-n.,,,,_ . , , ,
. , , .. . ,-ryy-
.q,- .
Evaluation: the system were very good. The operations of all the (Continued) communications systems demonstrated at the EOC were done properly.
i Delays were experienced in the receipt of the Accident Notification / Assessment Forms transmitted from the ROF.
These delays increased as the exercise proceeded. (Note:
Seven Accident Assessment / Notification Forms were sent to Columbia County; the 7 forms took 4, 14, 17, 27, 30, 54, and 71 minutes (chronologically) to be received at Columbia County.)
l Objective 5: Demonstrate ability to make decisions and to coordinate esermency activities.,
Summary: Met objective.
Points of Review: 1. Were appropriate representatives included la the decision f
process and provided adequate briefing and logistic support? Yes.
! 2. Did the persons arrive at decisions within the 15 minute default time? Yes.
]
4 3. Did the correct person make the decisions? Yes.
4. Were the decis.lons carried out effectively? Yes.
5. Were the correct protective action decisions made? Yes.
) 4. Were the laplementation instructions for protective
measures telephonically dispatched to the appropriate
! response organisations? Yes.
i
7. Were the decision-makers notified of the time that
, the laplementation actions were esecuted? (Note: Indicate l time required for deliberation of decision-makers for each l
PAR to PAD. Recommendation #1, 92, and #3: Concurrence with PA recommendation was immediate.
! .. .ee moduie cti s . and i.
1 Evaluation: The Columbia County BOC demonstrated the ability to make decisions and to coordinate emergency activities. Although l Columbia County is responsible for laplementatloa, they do participate in the decisioamaking process and concur with PAR's recommended by the Trojan EOF. The decistos authority lies with the State ROC with impleasatation responsibility resting with the County:
1. Director of Emergency Services, acting as behalf of the County Commissioners, use the lead and decision-maker for i Columbia County. Briefings were provided free Trojan i sufficient for the County to make decisions.
I
91 I
i l
.-- _--. .= - , - _ . - ~~: ~ 1 ~ T.. J C X ...-.- L . L '.O
P Evaluation 2. Director of Emergency Services concurred with PAR's (Continued) immediately:
Evacuation to 5 miles: 0950 - concurrence immediatelys Evacuation to 10 miles - 1009 - concurrence immediately.
KI for Special Populations - concurrence lamediately.
3. All concurrence with PA recommendations were made by the !
Director of Emergency Services.
! 4. DOG immediately started to implement PAR decisions; setting l up predetermined roadblocks, sirens, public notices, etc.
5. Based upon plant status, the recommendations from the plant
! seemed appropriate. Certainly the PAR decisions that Columbia County concurred with were appropriate.
6. Contacted by D00 or implemented by DOG. .
7. Response action board ladicated time actions completed.
In every case, the County concurred with the PAR and they did
so immediately. The decisions to shelter and to evacuate were the correct ones based upon plant status and later actual releases into the offsite environment. The D00 immediately started to implement the PA decielos by manalag access
roadblocks. The Director of Emergency Services coordinated with Cowlitz county about public tastruction messages on ESAN.
County can effectively participate in the decision process and direct the implementation of plume PA's.- -
l Three weaknesses were observed in regard to the " coordination" l portion of the objectives: 1) Director of Emergency Services l did not brief his total staff in sufficleat detail on current
! status of the soorgency and response activities; 3)' Director of Emergency Services was diverted free higher priority duties by i personally perforetag " notification" duties; and 3) Director of
! Emergency Services was burdened by answering " Rumor Control"
questions. It should be reemphasised that the primary and l highest priority responsibilities of the Director of Emergency Services are to direct laplementation of the plume PA's; to ensure the warning and public actification are accomplished and i to activate and supervise the ROC. Other kinds of functions 4
should not be done by the Director as they laterfere with these l primary duties. (See Objective #1 and #2.)
Obiective 6: Demonstrate the abilities of the ressoase orzanisation to effectively utilise sannort amencies and authorities where/when
> local canabilities are exceeded.
Summary: Net objective.
Points of Review: See Module G.
92 l .
j _ .. - - ... ... . .. - _ . . . . . .. . . . _ , _ , .
_._~.
l Evaluation: The ROC. DOG, demonstrated ability to utilize support agencies when local capabilities 1 sere exceeded or expected to be exceeded. The Sheriff requested assistance from USCG. Oregon State Police, State Health Department and Oregon National Guard.
Assistance was requested from other agencies based upon immediate need or upon projected and precautionary need.
Resources from other other agencies were requested in timely manner and as appropriate in anticipation of future needs; e.g., National Guard.
Objective 7: Demonstrate ability to formulate and distribute anoropriate instructions to the nublic in a timely fashion.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted.
Point of Review: 1. Did the Counties prepare and coordinate the public instructions (EBS message content)? Yes.
2. Was the content of the public instructions adequate (see Part P cf the ROC Nodule)? No.
Evaluation: Three RSS messages were transmitted from the Columbia County.
E0C. The first occurred at 0925 and covered the 10-mile sheltering PAR. The second BBS message was disseelnated at 1
0958 and addressed the 5-elle evacuation, the 5-10 alle sheltering and the Coluable County school evacuation. The third EBS message included the to-mile evacuation and EW administration of KI; this message was disseminated at 1022.
These three prescriptive EBS messages were disseminated by different individuals and generally they were handled clearly and within the default time. The messages specifically addressed sheltering procedures, lastructions for transient evacuation, instructions for schoolchildren, and specific evacuation instructions for the populations within 2.5, 5 and i 10 miles of the plant. Rumor control issues were act addressed publicly through separate EBS messages. '
Recommendation: Itse. Public Instruction. (RgP-1:E.7)
Evaluation: See above.
Recommendation for Corrective Acticos: Revise Public Instructions. Include text la prescriptive BBS messages for automatic evacuation of the Columbia River. l l
l 93
. l
.. . ~ . . . - . . _ ._ . - . - . . . . . . - ..
,,-- ,._, ., ,---- ,- ---,,--,-,--n-wq.- ,----,--a,4+cn-__,.,,g.,_m-__._, , _.,,-.w ------,emn , m~e- mn -p-
l Objective 8: Demonstrate ability to alert the public within the 10-mile EPZ.
and dissesinate an initial instructional messaare within 15 t sinutes. .
l l
Summary: Net ob,jective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted. ,
Points of Review: 1. Did the Counties coordinate the slaulated activation of the Alert Systes? Yes.
2. Did the Counties demonstrate the simulated activation of the Alert Systes and the simulated activation of the Notification System (Public Instruction) within the i
15-minute default time of SAE/GE or change in Protective Action Recommendations / decisions? Yes.
Time of Receipt of PAR Uge of Notifiestion
_jeg. N/A N/A
_qE, 0912 0925 0950 0958 1012 1022
3. See Module Section F.
Evaluation: Three public alerting activations occurred during the exercise. Each stren activation was coordinated between Cowlitz and Columbia Counties. The first stren activation was performed by the Director of Emergency Services and consisted of a siren test. The corresponding EBS message was read to the EBS station by the Deputy Director. The second siren -
i
' activation was simulated by Columbia County and the follow-up EBS message was disseminated by the Director of Emergency i
1 Services. The third siren activation was performed by Cowlitz County and the EBS message for Columbia County was transmitted l by the PIO following authorisation by the Director of Emergency
. Services.
Recommendation: Ites. ANS Coordination. (REP-1:I.51 0.4.J.)
Evaluation: Coordination of the siren sounding and EBS dissemination could not be initially confirmed by the PIO because the PIO was unsure of who was responsible for sounding the sirene; this information should have been given to the PIO.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: Training should be !
) provided to ensure that all authorized individuals are faellier with stres activation and coordination and BBS message dissemination. Ideally for each event, ese persons could 1 i
activate siress and seed RSS messages.
l
>l I;
l sd l
T --- , z- = = _z_ z_ == = = -- - - - - - _ . _ _ _ _ O
_ - _ - . . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ __~ _ -_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __. ._
1 Objective 9: Demonstrate the creanizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EL -
Summary: Net objective.
Point of Review: See Module section G.
4 Evaluation: At 0934 the Director of Emergency Services determined that evacuation of all schools in Columbia County out to 10 miles was appropriate. Concurrence with the Washington and Oregon State ROC's and Cowlits County was initially delayed but this PAR was included in the 0958 ESS message. Other responses to implement this PAR was simulated within the ROC and no buses l
were activated to demonstrate this objective.
Objective 10: Demonstrate the ormanisational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility-laneir_ed_
individuals within the slume EPZ.
l -
Summary: Net objective.
3
Points of Review

See Module Sectica G.
f j Evaluation: Yhe Sheriff (D00) is prepared to provide special transportation to those impaired individuals who need and request this assistance. Reiguests for this type assistance came in and was j acted upon. A log was maintained of assistance requests and the time of completion. An esemple of transportation provided was senior citizens needing transportation. Assistance was provided and completed within 42 alautes.
The Sheriff demonstrated that the ROC is orgaalsed and has the necessary responses to provide transportation to mobility
impaired individuals. Additional resources are available if i 1 aumerous requests abould come las that le buses, ambulances, or i vehicles from other County Departments.
l Objective 11: Demonstrate ability to brief the media in a clear. accurate.
and timely manner,
! Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable I weakness une acted.
Potate cf Review: 1. Accordlag to Procedure, Columbia County does not initiate j direct contact with media. The Control Cell will phone calls to the County to test their respasse.
, 2. Were all press releases approved by the designee? Yes.
3. Were the press releases properly dissoalanted to the appropriate release points? Yes.
1 S6
)
i j
l i
Points of Review: 4. Did the Coluable County PIO ensure that media questions j (Continued) (telephone) were answered accurately and in a timely manner? j
5. See Module Section I. . .
i Evaluation: The ability to adequately brief the media in a clear, accurate and timely manner was demonstrated. Direct contact with the j media was not experienced at the 160C. Any media inquiries which would have occurred at the county E0C would have been directed to the Media Center at the State EOC in Sales. Thw lead PIO at Columbia County could be available to brief the media if needed, but this function would be discouraged. Press releases generated in Columbia County were completed using data input from responding agencies and the operation directions staff at the ROC. They were in general complete, concise, and accurate in content. However, none of the seven news releases contained any information depicting shelter or evacuation recommendation areas by familiar landmarks / boundaries. These items should appear in 1 appropriate news releases. In addition, rumor ccatrol inquiries !
received were well handled but follow-up clarification and l discussion were not included in any news release. News releases were drafted and typed in the PIO area, then presorted to the Director of Emergency Services for approval. The releases were j then offered to the other emergency operations areas (Washington !
EOC, Oregon EOC, Cowlitz EOC, PGE, and Trojan) for concurrence l and approval on content and informational accuracy. This 1 operation occurred over the dedicated PIO (Blue) Phone. In all 1
seven instances approval and concurrence was obtained with only very minor alterations. Mard copies were provided to all appropriate agencies and locations following approval.
An ongoing log of information released to the media was not maintained, but copies of all releases were flied and available fo: reference. The filicg system used in the P!O area was not efficient or orderly. This did not cause any difficulties during
the exercise, but we believe it is essential that a rapid and
! accurate filing and logging systes be utilised. A system to log l
and record message flow through the PIO area should be implemented. This could be incorporated into an improved filing system.
l Recommendation: Ites. Media Operation. (REP-1:G.4.3 0.4.j.)
Evaluation: News release information did not always contain useful public protection information that was available.
Recommendation for Corrective Actions: We suggest the'following ,
be addressed la training sessions: Faallier landmarks / boundaries )
for protective action areas should be lacluded in the news releases. News releases should include the information used to satisfy Rumor Control inquiries. I,ogs should be maintained by the PIO staff of news release information. Copies of ESS messages should be posted next to the news releases displayed outside the ROC entrance fot review by media representatives.
26 l
~
Obiective 12: Demonstrate ability to nrenare and nrovide advance coordination of information releases.
Summary: Net objective. C. Performance adequate, but correctable weakness was noted. .
I Points of Review: 1. Did the PIO coordinate to-be-released information with the
- other locations prior to release to the media? Yes.
2. Did the PIO have access to all necessary information? Yes.
3. Did the PIO incorporate the appropriate "Public Instructions" into the appropriate media relsenes (Public Information)? No.
l 4. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: Columbia County FIO's coordinated the news release content and information with appropriate locations. Conference calls were held with all locations on the " Slue Phone" to verify news releases. Upon verification and concurrence with the other '
responding operations (i.e. Cowlits County, Washington EOC.
Oregon BOC. Trojan) the news release is transmitted in hard-copy to Oregon EOC in Sales for presentation to the media at the News j
Center. The PIO's were receiving information to be incorporated
into the news releases from the IOC's DOG in Columbia County. ,
Access to all pertinent and necessary information~was available to i the PI0's. Appropriate instructions to the public were incorporated into the news releases with the exception of those items discussed under objective 11 (rumor control information.
faalliar landmarks and boundaries). Internal operations within l the PIO staff require some reevaluation and changes. This was i j never an outstanding probles but assignments and specific duties should be known by all the PIO staff.
{
j , ;
1 l Recommendation: Ites. Media Operations. (REP-1:G.43 0.4.J.)
\ l Evaluation: Specific task assignments were not well defined for the various PI0's through the early stages of the exercise, i causlag some significant confusion and possible time delays in drafting of news releases.
Recommendation for Corrective Acticast Review and Revise Tasking l
Assigawats and Procedures. Train staff.
Objective 13: Demonstrate ability to establish and onerate rumor control in a
coordinated fashion, I
Summary: Net objective. 3. Corrective actions are considered necessary.
! Points of Review: 1. Note: According to Procedures. Coluable* County will defer all l questions to State Rumor Operations. . To test system. Control l Cell will place calls to Columbia County.
2. Did the PIO establish a los to track rumors? No. -
3. Did the PIO promptly report rumors or sistoformation to the appropriate officiule? No.
, l 97 I'
i I I 1
! Points of Review 4. Did the PJO develop, coordinate and release public inforantion (Continued) releases to ter the rumors or alsinformation? No.
5. Did the PIO coordinate their rumor control operation with other locations? No.
6. See Module Section I.
Evaluation: The Rumor Control function was activated and operational in Columbia County during the exercise. Prior to arrival of the PIO staff, the ROC rumor control inquiries were handled by the Deputy Director of Emergency Services. This proved to be overwhelming in
- addition to the other duties assigned to that position. (See
. Objective 1 and 2.) When the PIO function was operational in the 50C, Rumor Control was addressed by the PIO Staff. According to procedures, Columbia County should defer all questions to the State Rumor Operation la Sales Oregos. During the exercise, some calls were handled by the PIO Staff and others were deferred to j the Oregon E0C. Those calls responded to by Columbia County were 1 act adequately handled. There was no logging system in operation to track rumor inquiries. Rumors or misinformation were not reported to appropriate officials in the IOC. News releases were 1 -
not coordinated and developed to counter the rumors or substantiate the information given. And the PIO's did not 4 coordinate rumor control operations with other locations.
Recommendation: Ites. Rumor Control Operations. (RgP-1:6.4.c.; 0.4.J.)
Evaluation. Rumor Control functions are not well defined at the I EOC. For some rumor calls, procedures were followed which directed the calls to Salee ROC. Other calls were answered at the County FIO area. In most lastances the calls were not treated l '
adequately.
i Recommendation for Corrective Actions. Review and revise I l
proce. dure. Trata staff. Procedures should be nodified (or enforced) to assure a uniform and consistent Rumor Control function. Additional training should be provided to PIO staff so that all appropriate Rumor Control Operations can be addressed.
1 I
l 1
] se l
i
. __ , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ __-,_,___-,,_._,-._[...,..__, _ , . . . , _ . . _ . , .
3.
SUMMARY
LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 State of Washington -
3.1.1. October 16, 1985 (Page 1 of 2)
Category of Objective Exercise Recommended '
Commit- Realiza-Corrective ment ation No. Inadecuaev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
1. B Notification Train Staff E.2 0.4.J. **
i l
5.a. B Maps / Status Boards Review / Revise H.3; J.10.a. A b.; Naps & Status 0.4.a. b. & j. ** Boards; Train Staff 2.b. 5 Maps / Status Boards Provide and H.3; J.10.a. A b; Train Staff 0.4.J. **
4. B Decisionmaking - KI Review / Revise J.10.fi 0.4.a.4 b.** Procedures.
Train Staff
5. A Resource Support Determine C.1,b.A 4; J.12 ** Requirements; e
Make Arrange-ments: Revise Procedures
6. B Public Instruction Revise Procedures E.5. 6 & 7; 0.4.j.** 4 Train Staff
7. 8 Media Briefing Train Staff G.3: 0.4.J. **
B Nedia Operation Revise Procedures G.3; 0.4.J. ** 4 Train Staff S. B Adequate Releases Train Staff G.4.c.; 0.4.J. **
9. 8 Adequate Rumor Train Staff Control Operation G.4.c.: 0.4.J. **
1. C Communicutions Evaluate System F.1.d.; 0.4.c.** Fix Equipment; Revise Procedures s & Train Staff 99
3.
SUNNARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS i
l 3.1 State of Washington 3.1.1. October 16, 1985 (Page 2 of 2)
Category of Objective Exercise Recommended Commit- Realiza-Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
12. C Alerting Notifying Revise Procedures and Mobilisation & Train Staff E.2 ; 0.4.b. **
13. B Nonitoring Personnel Revise Procedures I.8.; 0.4.c. ** A Train Staff
15. A. Notification and Revise Procedures Activation of a Train Staff Assistance Center E.1; E.2; J.10.h.;
0.4.j. **
16. C Communications Quality Assurance:
F.1.b. **
EOC Radio Trans-mission Capabilities 17.*** B Adequate Facility Ensure Access or J.12 ** Select Other Facility Izercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that ,
preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next blannual esercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. However, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0654/FENA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
These items require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Lewis County, State of Nashington and American Red Cross.
100
)
3. SIDetARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.2. Cowlitz County. Washington 3.2.1. October 16, 1985 Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadeousev Actions Date Date
2. B Adequate Display Develop & Display E.3; J.10.a.& b. **
3. B Adequate 1) Nove Phone Communications 2) Pre-position F.1.b.; 5.3. ** Communications Van
4. B Decisionmaking Train Staff J.9; J.10.m.;
0.4.a. **
5.a. C Resource Support Train J.9.; O.4.a. ** Decision-maker (s) 5.b. C Resource Support Train DAG Staff J.9.; O.4.b. **
6. B Public Instruction Revise Messages; l
E.7.; O.4.j. ** Determine Process;
& Train Staff ,
9. C Adequate Media Train Staff Releases
I G.S.; 0.4.j. **
j 11. C Rumor Control Revise Procedures G.4.c. **
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual esercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. However, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
101
_ _ - _ . . _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ ___ ,_ = - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3.
SUMMARY
LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND REC 080tENDATIONS 3.3 Lewis County. Washinnten 3.3.1 October 16, 1985 Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment etion No. Inadecuacy* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date 2.*** 8 Adequate Facilities Ensure Access or J.12 ** Select Other Facility 3.*"* B Assistance Center Revise Plan Operations J.10.h.;J.12;
0. 4. g . "
4.**" 8 Assistance Center Revise Plan Operations & Train Staff J.10.h.; J.12; O.4.g. **
5.** C Assistance Center Train Staff Operations J.12; 0.4.g. **
6.**** 8 Shelter Operations Develop Agreement (s)
J.12 " 4 Revise Plan l
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Proept remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. However, correction would enhance preparedness.
"* Reference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
These items require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Lewis County, State of Washington and American Red Cross.
These items require review, discussion, decisions, and cosaltaents by Lewis County and American Red Cross.
l 102
~
- - . , . - - , ._ _ . - - - , . +
,. ,,.-v-,._____ ,. - . , _ ,. ,.,,.y,
-- . . . .. . . . . ~ , . , . - .
, m,- ,.,, w- , . .,_w ,, ,_,-.,m--
.- . - - , - - . _ ,w.y-~,-
3. SUNNARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECONNENDATIONS 3.4 Portland General Electric Egf_
3.4.1 October 16, 1985 Category of Recommended Consit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeausev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date 1.a. '
C Activation Revise Procedures E.2; 0.4.a. ** & Train Staff j 2.a. C Display Maintenance Train Staff 1 J.10.a.A b;0.4.g. **
1 1
3.a. C Communications Train Stafdf F.1.d.; 0.4.a.&.b.**
4. B PAR's Revise Procedures I.10;J.10.B;0.4.b.** a Train Staff 5.a. C Dose Projection Train Staff I.10; 0.4.b. **
5.b. A c. C RAD Nonitoring A Revise Procedures Reporting & Train Staff I.8; 0.4.b. **
i 6.a. B Dose Projection Train Staff I.10; 0.4.b. **
l 6.b. B RAD Nonitoring: Revise Procedures j '
Sampling Plan -
A Train Statf 1.8.; 0.4.b. **
7. C Communications Quality Assurance F.1.d. **
8. C Media Briefing Train Staff G.S.; 0.4.J. **
9. C Media Operations Review / Revise G.4.a.4 b.: 0.4.J. Procedure & Train Staff
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that
, preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the l
public's health and safety is protected. Proept remedial action required. I "B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required
, before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommanded for corrective actica. Corrective actions not required. However, correction would enhance preparedness.
t
Reference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev. 1 (Planalag Standards and Elements). i 1
103

,._,,,,_,.,,,--v----,-,-.-.-,y,-,

_r.,,.----.,,-~y-.,,,%y,
- , . -,yw-.,..,n,,w/-,n,,,. .y-,.,_-y.,-+,y- w. w w. e-tem v r--,1
3. StBetARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND REC 00stENDATIONS 3.4 Portland General Electric Medical Drill 3.4.1 October 14-15, 1985 l
Category of Recommended Exercise Commit- Realiza-Corrective sent ation Location Inadeausev* Exercise Inadeaumer Actions
, Date Date St. John's Bosoital:
C Patient Information Revise Procedures L.1 **
l C Procedure Review Documentation
. 0.4.h. P.S **
Good Samaritan Bosoital C Operations Supply Quality Assurance I
L.1. **
l l
l St. Vincent Boscitalt i
l C Operations Supply Quality Assurance L.1. **
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the 1
"B" public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next blananal exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Con rective actions not
required. Bowever correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-06S4/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev. 1 (Plaanlag St. Wards and Elements).
104
_ - . - --- - - . ~ - - . - - - . _ - _ ~-
1 I
i l
1
3.
SUMMARY
LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.5 State of Oregon Page 1 of 2 3.5.1 October 18, 19'85 l
l Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza- '
i Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
1. C Activation Realth Deployment E.3.; F.1.d.; in Vehicles with 0.4.a.& j. ** Communications; Plan l Revision; Train Staff
2. C Adequate Display Revise Procedure & l E.3.; 0.4.g. ** Arrangement or '
Train Staff
3. C Communications Procedure Revision.
1 F.1.d.; 0.4.g. ** Quality Assurance. l 4 Train Staff
6. C Nedia Briefings Review / Revise 1 G.3; 0.4.J. ** Procedures; I
& Train Staff l
7. B Coordination of Review / Revise Information Procedures; G.4.b.; O.4.J. ** 4 Train Staff i
B Nedia Operation Review / Revise 1 G.4.a.4 b.; Procedures; &
0.4.j. ** Train Staff i
8. 8 Media Inquiries Train Staff G.4.; 0.4.j. **
9. C Transportation Revise Procedures Assistance Train Staff J.10.d; 0.4.J. **
10. C Communications Train Staff F.1.d.; 0.4.J. **
11. B Nob 111:stion Develop / Process /
E.2 ** Revise Procedures l l
l l
l l
l 106 l l
l
~
l
- . =: - ._
3. SGOtARY LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.5 State of Oregon Page 2 of 2 3.5.1 October 16, 1985 l
l Category of Objective Exercise Recommended Codmit- Realiza-Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadeausev Actions Date , gate
12. B Radiological Revise Procedures 1
Monitoring Maintain Equipment l H.7; !.8: 0.4.b ** Readiness A Train Staff Other B Emergency Develop & Implement
. Preparedness Training Progras O.4.c. **
l l
l l
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the "B"
public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not
required. Bowever, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0684/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
l l
I 106
~
. _ . . . ~...._ _ .. .. .. ._. ..
3.
SUMMARY
LISTING OF DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.6 Columbia County. Oreron '
3.6.1. October 16, 1985 Category of Recommended Comalt- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeausev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
1. 8 Notification Revise Procedures E.2. **
2. B 24-bour-day Review & Revise Staffing Tasking Assignments J.93 0.4.a. g. & & Procedures 4
j. ** Train Staff 3.a. C Status Board Designate &
Neintenance Train Staff E.3 3 J.10.a. A b.:
0.4.g. **
3.b. C Adequate Displays Develop Displays J.10.b. **
7. C Public Instructions Revise Text E.7 **
8. C ANS Coordination Train Staff E.5 3 0.4.J. **
11. C Media Operations Train Staff G.4 3 0.4.J. **
12. C Nedia Operations Review & Revise
{ G.4.3 0.4.j. ** Tasking Assign-l meats & Procedures
j Train Staff I i
13. R Rumor Control Revise Procedure Operation and/or Train G.4.c.: 0.4.j. ** Staff: l
Esercise Inadequacy: 1 l
"A" Demonstrated and observed landequecies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the )
public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required, l "B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. Bowever, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0654/ PENA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
107 l
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ n _- r - -. - - - - . ___ - - - - - - -
)
APPENDIX I StastARY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND F.XERCISE EVALUATION l
l Introduction.
! 1. NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (November 1980) specifies that all major elements of the response plans and procedures of the Licensee. State (s) and local governments are tested over a 5-year period. Furthermore, every 6 years an exercise shall start between 1800 and midnight and another between midnight and 0600. The exercise criteria was seended by a FEMA Guidance Memorandum (10/01/85) which changed the 5-year cycle to a 6-year cycle and the off-houre
, exercise requirements from two esercises to one exercise starting between 1800 and 0400 once every 8 years.
2. FEMA promulgated to the FEMA Regions specific exercise evaluation policy in August 1983. The exercise uniforetty policy specified the use of nine " modules" for establishing the objective basis for evaluation and a specific set of " objectives" to track the demonstration of the preparedness elements of the response plans and procedures.
3. This appendix is composed of three parts:
Part I.
A tabulation of the response elements within each of the nine l modules. This tabulation is posted, using a function code, to indicate l by year or exercise what response elements have been tested.
i l Part II.
, A tabulation of the response elements within each of the nine modules. These response elements are further broken down lato the 1
Individual objectives that summarise sub-elements of the response plans and procedures. These objectives are posted, using a function code, to indicate by year or exercise what response elements have been tested.
4 Part !!I.
A Summary Listing of Deficiencies, by exercise or drill, with j scheduled commitment and realisation dates e.g., if a response element
or objective has a function code "1" (Demonstrated. Recommended
! for corrective Action), that deficiency and recommended corrective j action will be found in Part III. As indicated in Part I or Part II, the deficiency will be detailed stating appropriate organisation and current status, t
e l 108 l
i APPENDIX !
PART I: IISTORY OF WY88CISE IVAmATION BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION i
i Function 1. D = Adequately Demonstrated this Exercise 1
2. D* = Adequately Demonstrated in a Drill i 3. I = Demonstrated. Recommendation for Corrective Actions *
'. 4. X = Demonstrated, but act Ivaluated
5. ED = Not Designed for this Exercise S. NA = Not Applicable for this Site
See Individual Esercise Reports for Reconseadation for Corrective Actions
)
_.1911. 1211. 1191. 122.3. 1111. 1919 I
1. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY (EOF)
Activation & Stafflag D .ND D D D I Facility Adequacy I I D D D I l Commualcations I I D D I I ;
Information Function I I I I D I Dose Assessment / PAR I I I I I I l
2. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENYER fROC)
A j Activation & Stafflag D D D D I I Emergency Operations Management I I I I I I i Facility Adequacy I I D I I I I
Commualcations ! D D I D I Dose Assessment / PAR NA NA NA NA NA NA j Public Alert & Notificatica j I I I I D I ;
Protective Actica Implementation I I D D I I !
! Radiological Exposure Control ND ND ND E ND I i
Information Function / Rumor Control I I I I I I Recovery / Reentry D ND ND I ND ND l
j 8. EDICAL FACILITIES Comouelcations D ND D D D D r Noepital Facilities and Procedures D ND I I I I Ambulance Facilities and Proceducee D ND D I D
D 4
4. FIELD RADIOLOGICAL NDHITORING Activation /Nobilisstlos D ND ED D E I 3{ Equipment Adequacy and Operations I I I I I I l Commualcations I I D D I I
{ Exposure Control I I D I I I l
l i los i
I . l
..___.____.___._ n _ a ~ _ _ _ _ _ .
__-.__ _,_,__~.we'm
, ~. ..
APPENDIX I PART I: ,
IISTORY OF EXERCISE EVALUATION BY L^ CATION AND FUNCTION Function 1. D = Adequately Demonstrated this Exercise
2. D* = Adequately Demonstrated in a Drill
3. I
= Demonstrated, Reconsendation for Corrective Actions *
4. X = Demonstrated. but not Evaluated
5. ND = Not Designed for this Exercise
6. NA = Not Applicable for this Site
See Individual Exercise Reports for Reconsendation for Corrective Actions 1211. 19.II. 1).II 1).92 1.tfi. 1187
5. FIELD INPLENENTATION OF PR'YTECTIVE DECISION Communications ND ND ND ND ND Traffic and Access Control ND ND ND ND I
Special Evacuation ND ND I Route Alerting ND ND ND ND D ND ND ND ND D*
Norker Exposure Control ND ND ND ND ND ND I '
6. DECONTANINATION FACILITY inr.RGENCY WORKER CENTER I Activation and Staffing ND ND ND ND -
i Operations ND I ND ND ND ND ND I
7. RECEPTION / CARE FACILITIES Activation and Staffing ND ND ND ND Communications ND I' ND ND NO Registration of Evacuees ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND Congregate Care'of Evacuees ND 'ND I
Monitoring of Evacuees ND WD ND I MD ND ND ND ND I
8. RADIOLOGICAL LA_"*4 TORIES _
Activation and Staffing ND ND ND Facility Adequacy ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Operations ND ND ND ND ND ND [
9. JOINT INFn" 4 TION CENTER (JIC) _
There is no " Joint" Information Center for the Trojan Site.
This function is demonstrated <
at the ROC's. l
I

110 l
. . , ~'
_ . _ .. - -..-.--~~ ~~--.- - --
.-_....._ _ ___._._ _ _ _ __- _ __ _ _. ' ~ ~ ~ - _._, _ -_ _.__,_____ _ -._ _
~*
APPENDIX I FART II: 5! STORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION Rey:
Objective yrecuency Evaluation for Year By module A - Annual D - Adequately Demonstrated Subheading (s) B - Every 2 years I - Demonstrated. Recommendation for corrective Action
Each module 6 - Every 6 years X - Demonstrated but not Evaluated ND - Not Designed for this Exercise NA - Not Applicable for this Site
See Individual Exercisc Reports for Recommendation for Corrective Action Evaluations Obiective Frea. E f.1.E E E E ,
A. Onette - EOF - Joint
1. Activation and Staffing D ND D D I I Demonstrate ability to mobilise staff and activate facilities proeptly. B D ND D D I I Demonstrate ability to relocate to
! and operate the alternate EOF. 6 ND ND D ND ND ND Demonstrate ability to fully staff facilities and maintain staffing arour.d the clock. 6 ND ND ND D ND ND
2. Facility Adequacy I I D D D I Demonstrate adequncy of facilities and displays to support emergency operations. B I *I D D D I S. Coesunications I I D D 1 1 Demonstrate ability to communicate eith all appropriate locations, organisatione, and l field personnel. B. I I D D I ! l i
4. Information Function I I I I I I l Demonstrate ability to make deciolons and to coordinate emergency activities. 5 I I I I I I Demonstrate the ability to brief the media in a clear, accurate and timely manner. B I I i D D D 111
i APPENDIX !
PART II: MISTORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION i
Evaluations Ob.iective has.:. Bl. E U. 12. E EL A. Onsite - ROF - Joint (Continued)
5. Dose Assessment / PAR I I I I I I l Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public via plume exposure, based on Plant and field data, and to determine appropriate protective measures, based on PAG's, available shelter, evacuation time estimates, and all other appropriate factors. 3 I I D D I I l
Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public via ingestion pathway esposure, based on field data, and to determine approp-riste protective measures, based on PAG's and l other relevant factors. 8 D I ND ND X ! ,
l l Demonstrate the ability to estimate total j population exposure. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND l
1 '
Demonstrate the ability to make the decision, !
based on predetermined criteria, whether to issue E! to emergency sorkers and/or the ,
general population. 3 I I D D I I 4
B. State / Local - ROC *
1. Activation and Stafflag D D D D I I l Demonstrate ability to mobilise staff and '
i activate facilities promptly. 3 D D D D I I Demonstrate ability to fully staff facilities
) and asintala stafflag around the clock.. 8 ND ND E ND ND I
)
Demonstrate ability to relocate to and operate I the alternate 50F/50C. 8 15 ND ND D ND ND
3. Beergency Operstless Namageoest I I I I I I Demonstrate ability to make decisions and to coordtaate emergency activities. B I I I I I I Demonstrate ability to identify need for, roguest, and obtale Federal assistance. 4 ND ND D D ND I i
att 1
i I
i 1
APPENDIX I PART II: MISTORY OF n nCISE OBJECTIVES BY f_OCATION AND FUNCTION (Ceal'd.l..
Evnimations objective F.rm EBLEAL EBL '
. 3. State / Local - ROC (Continued)
3. Facility Adequacy I I D I I I
Demonstrate adeguacy of facilitise and displays j to support emergency operations. !
3 I I D I I- I i 4. Communications ! D D I D I i Demonstrate ability to conouaicate with all appropriate locations, organisatione, and field personnel.
B I D D I D I
5. Dose Asseeement/ PAR NA FA NA NA NA NA Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public via plume esposure, based on plant and field data, and to determine appropriate j protective measures, based upon PAO's, avail- :
1 a
able shelter, evacuation time estimates, and all other appropriate factors. 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA .
Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public via lagostion pathway esposure, based se field data, and to deteralee appropriate ,
protective esseures based as PAO's and other relevaat factore. S NA NA NA NA NA NA
} Denometrate the ability to effectively use field
} data la conjunction with dose projectica eyetens j to develop protective action recommendatione. 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
4. Public Alert and Notification ! I
,> I I D I 4
Denometrate ability to alert the public within the lo-alle RP2, and diesentante as laitial instructieaal assesse, withis is minutes. B I I I D D D I
Deeenstrate ability to formulate, coordinate and distribute appropriate imetructions to the public, la a timely fashion. 3 I I I I D I l
113 1 I
l l
2Ti _ . _ _Z- " .
? ' * ~ ~ '
"C
1_, ~ ~ '
L;.1 Z C _ " T _E ___7_.
i APPENDIX 1 PART !!: MISTORY OF avrMCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION (Cont'd)
Evaluations objective F.r.ana. EEEEEE B. State / Local - ROC (Continued)
$ 7. Protective Action Implementation I I D D I I Demonstrate ability to make decletone and to coordinate emergency activities. 3 D I D D D D l Denonstrate the ability to make the decielon.
l. based on predetermined criteria. whether to j leone KI to emergency workers and/or the ,
general population. 3 I D D D I I l I
Demonstrate the ability to supply and '
adelaister II, once the decleton has been made to de so. 3 I D D D I I Demonstrate the organisational ability and resources necessary to manage an orderly evacuation of all or part of the plume EPZ. B I D D D D D Demonstrate the organisational ability and L resources necessary to effect an orderly l evacuation of mobility-lepaired individuals within the plume EP2. 8 ND ND ND ND ND I Demonstrate the organisational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools withis the plume 3P1. e W 2 ND ND ND D Demonstrate ability to continuously soalter and control emergency worker esposure. 4 ND ND ND ND ND I Demonstrate the organisational ability and resources necessary to deal with lopedleents to evacuation, se inclosent weather or traffic obetructions. 8 I D ND NO NO ND
Denosetrate the organisational ability and j resources necessary to control access to en evacuated area. 8 ND ND ND INi NO D*
4 Demonstrate ab!!!ty to effect an orderly
evacuation of onette personnel. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND Demonstrate ability to leptement protective actions for ingestion pathway hasarde 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 114 1
. -........ nn--......... -.%.. . . . ... .
APPENDIX !
PART II: NISTORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FWCTION (Cont'd)
Eval'atione Objective h 31 31 33., g3_ 8.1, 33.
B. State / Local - ROC (Continued) .
l S. Radiological Emergency Control ND ED ND ND ND I l
Demonstrate ability to continuously soalter and control emergency worker esposure. 6 ND ND ND ND ND I Demonstrate ability to eetlante total l- population exposure. 6 ND ND ED ND ND ND i 9. Information Function / Rumor Control I I I I I I l
Demonstrate ability to provide advance
l coordination of leforestion released. B I I I ! D D l Demonstrate the ability to establish and oper-l ate rumor control la a coordianted fashion. B I I ND N3 D I I Demonstrate ability to brief the media la a clear, accurate, and timely manner. B I I D I I I
, 10. Recovery / Reentry D I ND ND ND ND Demonstrate ability to determine and laplement 3 appropriate seasures for controlled recovery and reentry. 5 D I ND ND ND ND l
1 C. IIedical -
] 1. Communicatione D Im D D D D Demonstrate ability to comenaicate with all appropriate locations, organisations, and field personnel. A D ND D D D D
2. Noepital Facilities and Procedures D ND I I I I J
l Demonstrate adeguacy of hospital facilities and procedures for handling costasiasted individuals. A D ND D D D I i 3. Ambulance Facilities & Procedures . D le D I I D 1 Donoastrate adequacy of ambulance facilities and procedures for hand 11ag contaminated ladividuale. A D le D I I D 1 115
. . . . . . _ . , ~ _ _ _.,_2.... . . . - . . . . - . . . .
)
l 4
APPENDIX I PART II: IISTORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION (Cont'd)
Evaluatione Objective
[Ent. E 9,L $1 13. E 39,,
D. Field Radiolonical Monitorina i
1. Activation /Nobilisation D ND ND D ND I Demonstrate ability to mobilize and deploy field monitorlag tease la a timely fashion. 8 D ND ED D ND I l 2. Equipment Adequacy and Operatione 1 I D I I I t
i Demonstrate appropriate equipment and
procedures for determining ambient radiation levels. 3 I I D I I I 4 .
Donoastrate appropriate equipment and procedures for seasurement of airborne regiotodineconcentrationeselowas j 10 sci /CC la the presence of noble gases. 3 I I D I I D 1
Demonstrate appropriate equipment and
) procedures for collection, transport, and
analysis of samples of soil, vegetation,
! onow, water and allk. 8 I I ND ND I ND i S. Communications ! I D D I I
Demonstrate ability to communicate with all i
appropriate locations, organisatioso, and j field personnel. 3 I I D D I I
4. Esposure Centrol I I D I I I
)
{ Demonstrate ability to continuously monitor j and costrel emergency worker esposure. B I I D I I I
\
Demonstrate the ability to supply and adelaister l EI, esce the deciolon has been ande to do so. 8 ND ND ND D D D q E. Field Innlementation of protective Decial -
1. Coesunicatiene W W W W ND I l Demonstrate the ability to coammaicate with ;
i all appropriate locations, organisations and l -
field personnel. 4 W ND ND ND ND I !
1 2
3to i
.----_---_-_~~_-_._----_-~___
i E fIEEll l PART TI: MISTORY OF Ev'*CISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION fCont'd)
Evaluations objective
tr.ana. EEEEEE
] E. Field Innlenestation of Protective Deciolone (Cont'd)
2. Traffic and Access Control ND ND E ND ND I J Demonstrate the organisational ability and {
i resources necessary to control access to an i
} evacuated area. 8 ND ND E E ND I i Demonstrate the organisational ability and .
resources necessary to deal with impedimente l to evacuation, such as faclement weather or traffic obstructions. 8 ND ND E ND ND ND Deeemetrate the organisational ability and resources necessary to manage an orderly i evacuation of all or part of the plume EP1. 8 ND ND ND ND E D*
{ 3. Special Evacuation ND ND ND ND ND D I
j Demonstrate the orgaalzational ability and i resources necessary to effect an orderly evec-I mation of mobility-lopaired ladividuals within the plume EP3. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND
) Demonstrate the organisational ability and -
resources necessary to effect sa orderly evacuation of schoele withis the plume EPI. 8 E ND ND ND ND D i 1 .
l 4. Route Alertlag ND ND E ND ND D*
l Demonstrate the ability te alert the public within the 10-elle BPI, and dieseeinste as lI laitial lastructional message, within 18 minutes. 4 mW W W W D*
l l 8. Norker Exposu'.e Centrol N ND E ND ND 1 l
Demonstrate ability to continuously monitor and control emergency worker esposure. e WWWWW 1 Denogetrate the ability to supply and adotaleter R1, esce the deciales has been made to de se. 6 mW W ND ND 1 l
i i
j 117 l
i t
... - . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . + + + - ~ . * * * ~ = - . - - * ~~ ~
f APPENDIX I
PART II

MISTORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES BY LOCATION AND FUNCTION iCont'd)
Evaluations Ob.fective Etsg4_ gl, t E 13. E 39.
l F. Ottantamination Fagility/Eserzency Worker. Facility.
1 l 1. Activation and Stafflag ND ND ND ND ND I Demonstrate ability to mobilise staff and j activate facilities promptly. 8 ND ND ED ND ND I 1
! 2. Operatione ND ND ND ND ND I 1
Demonstrate adequate equipment and procedures i
for decontamination of emergency oorkere.
equipment, and vehicles. 4 ND ND ND ND ND I j G. Receptica/ Care Fac111 time
1. Activatica and Staffing ND ND ND ND ND I l Demonstrate ability to nobilise staff and activate facilities promptly. S E E ND ND ND I i
Demonstrate the ability to fully staff facill- '
ties and malatala staffing around the clock. 8 RD ND 15 ND ND D t
'I i 2. Comenaicatione IW ND le ND ND I
Demonstrate the ability to commualcate with l all appropriate locatione, organisations.
and field perseasel. 8 E ND le IW ND - I
5. Registraties of Evacuees IW 15 ND 15 ND I
(
! Demonstrate adequacy of procedures for regie-I tration and radiological asalterlag of evacuees. S 10 im IB ND ND I
} 4. Congregate Care of Evacuees ND ND IW Im WD I 4
Demonstrate adequacy of facilities for ease j care of evacuees. 4 2 ND IB B ND I i
I i S. IIoalterlag of Evacuees W W IS ND IID I
! Demonstrate adequate egulpeent and procedures I' for decontasiasties of osergency workere.
equipment and vehicles. 4 ND ND ND WD ND I l
118 1
I - .. .. ..-- _ - . . - . ;.--..-... .
. . - - . . . - ~ . - . . . . . - . - . . . . . . .
APPENDIX I PART II: HISTORY OF EXERCISE OBJECTIVES MY LOCATION AND FUNCTION iCont'd) i Evaluations Objective h g g gg, E E g N. Radiolorles! Laboratory
1. Activation and Staffing ND ND ND ND ND ND Demonstrate the ability to mobilize staff and activate facilities proeptly. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND
2. Facility Adequacy ND ND ND ND ND ND Demonstrate adequacy of facilities and displays to support emergency operations. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND
3. Operations ND ND ND ND ND ND Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for seasurement of airborne 7radio 1 Mine concentrations as low as to uC1/CC in the presence of noble gases. 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for collection, transport and analysis of samples of soll, vegetation, snow, water, and allk. 8 ND ND X ND ND ND i - .
1 6
l l
l l
119 e e. e.. e .e i -ear S aee = em p eme et .e e - + = em me . * +eee ee e f
I 1
1 l
1 i
APPENDIX I l PART !!!: Elf 70RY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 0f0ff.NDATIONS . TROJAN Washinaten State - Drill. Anguet 1948 Category of Receamended Ceemit- Realiza- ;
Objective Esercise Corrective esat attes Be. Inadeauacv* Exercise Inadeemmew Actions Date Date 1.a. * 'B lisaiterlag and Select Differest i Decentaalaaties Facility or Develop i Facility Enhancement Plan J.13 and K.5.b.** for Currest Facility 1
1 1.b. *
B atositerlag of Evacuees Develop Precedures
! J.12 and 0.4.c.** 4 Train Perseasel i
1.c. 5 Decentasimaties of Develop Process.
Evacuees Revlee Precedures.
J.it and K.S.b.** Provide suggeettene l
2. A Iloniterlag of Evacuees. Develop Process.
Vehicles, and Equipment Revise Precedures.
J.128'N.5.b. & 0.4.c.** 4 Train Psroessel
3. l
! A Deee Ceemitment Trelaing l
] K.3.a. and 0.4.c'* ,
t
4. **
3 Persesse! Itsetterlag Discuseles. Deciales and Decentasiasties Precedure Revieles R.8.b. and 0.4.c.** and Trelaing ,
i I
! 8. A Perseasel itsettering Develop Precedures, j I
l and Decentaminaties Revise Precedures.
R.S.b. and 0.4.c.** and Trelains t l l
Raercise Imadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed landeguacies that would cause a flading that l j
properedsees une met odeguate to provide resseeable soeurance that the -
public's health and safety is protected. Preept remedial acties required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actices. Correcties required before seat biannual esercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective acties. Corrective actiese met required. Desever, correcties usu14 enhance preparednese.
Reference NURSO-0664/ FEMA-REP-1. Dev. 1 (Planalag Standards and Elemente).
1 l
These itsee require review, discueeles, deciolone, and caenitoonte by Clark comaty and state of Weekinstem.
j ** These itsee require review, diocessien, deciaiene, and commiteente by Clark l Comaty. State of Weekinstes and Americes Red Crees.
l * ** These items require review, diseaselas, decisiese. and commitmente by Cowlits i Comaty and State of Weekington.
l 130 I
i i
y--... .- . '..----.. -.- .....-. . . . - . - . . . . - - . - . . - . . - . . . .
. APPENDIX !
PART III: MISTORY OF EXDCISE DEFICIEN 158 4 REC 0fGENDATIONS - TROJAN Washinston Statt. - October 17. 1984 Page 1 of 2 Updated October 1985 Category of Recommended Commit- Reallas-Objective Esercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadequacy * [ggreise Inadecuaev Actione Date Date
1. B Notification Process Procedure Revision 7/85 7/86
, *C.1 and Trelair.g
. **F.1.a. A e. 0.4.J.
I
2. C Declaration Trainlag 9/45 of Activated !
i *C.1 I **0.4.j.
3. C Poeting Status Boards Training 9/88
'C.t
0.4.J.
j 4. C Adequacy of Status Additional 7/88 S/85
, Boardo Status Boarde
) *C.3 l **D.S. N.3
5. B K! Decision Proceso and Procedure Revision 7/45 7/88 Implenestation Action and Training
C.7
J.10.e. A f. -
0.4.a. b., & c.
4. C Filing System Procedure Revielos 9/88
CS and Training
0.3.a., 0.4.j.
i 7. C Notification of Rumor Tralaing 9/88 ,
Control Telephone No's. '
'C.9
0.4.J. i 1
8. B Assistance Center Trainlag 9/85 l i
Activation ;
C.7
{ **0.4.a. A 0.4.J.
0bjective Reference (see Appendia 1) l
NUPEG 0854 Reference (Pleaning Standard and Element) l
! 131 i
i
. . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . - . . - . . ~ . . ... ..
1 APPENDIX !
PART !!!: BISTORY.0F. EXERCISE DEFIC 15NCIES & REC 0petENDATIONS - TROJAN Washinston State - October 17, 1984 Page 2 of 2 Updated October 1985 Category of Recommended Commit- Rea11:n-Objective Esercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadequacy *. Exercise Inadeauser Actions Date Date
9. C Disaster Analysis Procedure Revision 7/85 7/85
C.7 and Training
I.10. J.9. J.10.a.
r
10. C Field Tema Kit Quality Assurance 3/85 Ongoing Equipeent Adequacy Progres
E.2
M.10. 8 11
11. C Field Tema Operations Procedure Revision 3/85 Ongoing
E.3 and Training
I.S. A 10
12. C Field Team Communications Equipment Improve- 7/85 3/85
E.4 seats and Procedure
F.1.d. Revision
13. C Esposure Control Training 7/85 3/85
E.5
0.4.c.
14. C Tema Organisation Training 7/85 3/85
E.5 ,
0.4.c. I I
0bjective Reference (See Appendia I)
NUREO 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) i 1
112
APPENDIX 1 PART !!!: MISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFIQIENCIES S RECQf8IENDATIONS - TROJAN Washinaton State - October 8,1883 Updated 10/84 (reply 12/83)
. Category Coenit- Realiza-of Recommended aest tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date l
A None S None C PIO Fact Sheet Procedure Revision 4/44 12/84
C.S Training 4/84 S/84
A.1.b. G.4.b. & 0.4.j.
C P10 Coordination Procedure Revision 4/84 18/84
C.S Training 4/84 S/84 j **0.4.b 8 0.4.J.
C Mard Copy Transmiselon Quality Assurance ,
'C.4 Prograa 4/84 S/84
F.1.b. & d., and G.4.b. ;
J C Field Tees Operetten Tralains S/84 S/84
E.3
!.8 and 0.4.c. ,
l l
t
0bjective Reference (See Appendia 1)
NURSG 0864 Reference (Planning Standard and Elseent)
I 133 I
l
= . - . . . . . . . . . . - - -- . . . , _ . . . . . , , , ,,
. APPENDIX I Part III: MISTORY OF 'Y**CISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 005tENDATIONS - TROJAN i
. Washington State - November 18, 1983
Category Consit- Realiza-d of Reconsended meat tioh Defleiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None i
3 None C Information Flow & Ngt. Procedure Reviolon 1/83 4/83 l 'C.3 Training 4/03 4/83
A.1.b a 0.4.a., b. A g.
C Notification of Costiguous Procedure Reviolon 1/43 4/83 Counties Trainlag 4/83 4/03
C.3
E.3. F.1.a. A b.
C Status Boards Equipment 1/83 1/83
C.3 Training 4/03 4/83
D.3, J.10.a. A b. and O.4.a., b., a g.
C P!0 Operstlos Procedure Reviolon 1/43 4/83
C.S Training 4/03 4/03
0.3.a., 0.4.a., b. A c.
and 0.4.j.
C Field Tees Operation Procedure Revision 1/s3 1/es -
E.3 Training 4/93 4/83
I.S and 0.4.c. ~
i l
0bjective Reference (See Appendia 1)
NURSO 0664 Reference (Planalag Standard and Element) i 1
184 t
e . . .. . ... ..-.+ . - ....-- . . . . . . . <>e . ie
1 APPENDIX I Part !!!: IISTORY..07. EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES 4 ?tC089tENDAT10NS. .1ROJAN washinnton state - November 17 & 19. 1981 2
Category Commit- Reallas-of Reconeended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actione Date Date A P!O Operation Procedure Revision 7/82 9/82
C.4 Training 9/82 10/82 i * *G . 3 . a . . G . 4 . a . b . A c . .
I and 0.4.J.
B None C Protective Action Decielos Procedure Revision 7/88 9/82
C.7. C.10 Trainlag
A.1.b.. J.9.. J.10.m.
and 0.4.a. A b.
i C Inforestion Flow & Ngt. Procedure Revision 7/82 9/82
C.S. C.3 50C Ietrovement 9/42 9/02 l **A.I.b. and 0.4.g. Training 9/02 10/82 l C Field Teaa Operation Procedure Revielen 7/82 7/42
E.2. 3. 4 a 8 Training 9/02 9/82
I.S. J.10.a.. J.11 Equipment 9/82 9/02 j and 0.4.c.
0bjective Reference (See Appendix !)
NUREG 0684 keference (Planalag Star.dard and Element) i t
l i,
1 128 I.- ... . .. . . . - . _ _ . . . , - . . . . . .. - .- . -- - .. -.
l
? -
I APPEND 1X 1.
1 Part I!!: MISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 0001ENDATIONS - TROJAN j Washianton State -March 4. 1981 i
j Category Commit- Realiza-
) of Reconsended aest tion Deficiency Deficionew corrective Actions Date Date i
! i A P10 Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.9 Tralaing 10/81 10/81 i
0.3.a. 4.a. b. a c. .
and 0.4.J.
a A Protective Action Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 l Recommendation /SOF Training 10/81 10/81 i *s.s I
**I.S. I.10. J.S. J.10.a.. '
1 J.11 and 0.4.c.
l A Field Tesa operstlos Procedure Revision 10/01 10/01
*E.2. 3. 4 4 8 Training 10/81 10/81 4
N.12. I.T. S & 9. J.11 Equipment 10/81 10/81 and 0.4.c.
B BOC Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 i
C.S. C.3 BOC !aprovosest 10/01 10/s1 j **A.1.a.. D.S. M.S. Trafalog 10/81 10/81 l J.10.a. A b. .
j and 0.4.a. b. A g.
l l
l i
l l
J l
i 1
! *0bjective Reference (See Appendia I)
! **WURSS 0484 Reference (Planales standard end Eleasat)
.i I
i 134
APPENDIX I '
l PART III: IISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECf= ENDATIONS - TROJAN Cowlitz County, Washinston - Drill. August 1985 Category of Objective Exercise Recommended Commit- Realiza-Corrective ment ation No. Inadeausev* Exercise Diadecuacy Actions Date Date
1. 8 Communications Designate Primary F.1.d.** and Backup Consunication' System and Revise Procedures
5. B Dose Commitment Revise Procedures J.10.e; K.3.a; and Training 0.4.a. and b.**
8. A Dose Commitment Revise Procedures J 10.m. and K.S.a. and Training and 0.4.a. A b.**
7.a. B K! Administration Revise Procedures K.S.a. and 0.4.b.** and Training 7.b. B 'KI Administration Revise Procedures K.3.a. and 0.4.b.** and Training
10. B KI Administration Training K.S.at 0.4.b d, & j.**
11. C Access Control Training J.10.J. and 0.4.d.**
Other: (A) C Information Flow Training I
0.4.d.**
Other: (B-1) B Personnel Decontamination Training K.5.b. and 0.4.c.**
Other: (B-2i B Personnel Decontamination Training K.5.b. and 0.4.c.**
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the
S" public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not
required. Bowever, correction would enhance preparedness. ;
Reference NUREG-0854/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elseents).
127 r
4
APPENDIX I
. l PART III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 000tENDATIONS - TROJAN Cowlits County. Washington - October 17, 1984 Category of Reconsended Commit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadecusev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date None for this Exercise.
9 1
l 1
128
* * *
ee pe = - m- Ow w em e - pe e e es ,e e,ee . ye . _ = --a- ee .Og+ -- - -e e , ->,.ye
APPENDIX I Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 090tENDATIONS - TROJAN Cowlitz County. Washington - October 5, 1983 Updated 10/84 (reply 12/83 and 9/84)
I i
Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficioney Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B Alternate ROC Review Alternatives
'C.3 & Determine Effective 12/85
D.4., E.5., E.6.. Corrective Actions F.1.b.,c.,d. A e.,
F.2., F.3., R.S.,
J.10.a., & b.
B Emergency Broadcast Rewrite EBS Message 3/84 9/84
C.6 A & N Procedure
E.5., E.6 & 7 and J.10.c. Revision 3/84 9/84 C EBS Training EBS Training 8/84 9/84
C.6
0.4.a. g. & j.
1 1
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I) ;
NUREG 0654 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) l l
l 129 GP-69=ee@p 9 .: di44 p 9eS e om.-. . m e e- e p, ee4 gee e-spegg ame men ea wgwe 9e se q pr 6 - e% e -,g 3 e -epe e em
==- -. - - - . - . - . - .._ , t .- e - __. - - - - - .- ,
l l
APPENDIX I i i
l Part III: BISTORY OF 4 u CISE DEFICIENCIES & RECtmenmATIONS - TROJAN l
Cowlitz County. Washington - November 18, 1982 Category Comalt- Realiza-of , Reconsended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B EBS Message and EBS Procedure Revision 9/83 t/84 Coordination Training 9/83 8/84
C.8
E.8 & 7 C None
0bjective Reference (See Appendix D
'**NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Stanc'rd and Element) i 130 l
_ . _ _ . . - _ . . - . . . - - - . - - - - - - - , - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ~ - - - ~ - -
APPENDIX I P
Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Cowlitz County, Washington - Nov. 17-19, 1981 Category Consit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A PIO Operation Procedure Revision 9/82 9/82
C.9 Training 9/82 9/82
G.S.a., G.4.a. b. A c.,
and 0.4.J.
B EBS Operation Procedure Revision 3/82 5/82
C.8 Training 9/82 9/82
E.8 & 7 and 0.4.j C Information Flow & Mgt. Procedure Revision 9/82 9/82
C.2. C.3 Training 9/82 9/82
A.I.b., D.S. E.3, EOC Improvements 9/82 9/82 J.10.a. A b.
and 0.4.a., b., d. A g.
l l
1
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) l 131
- m - - w- .m .-- --,,.e,-- - ---w &=m. - - , -.-..
1 1
APPENDIX !
Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOBOGENDATIONS - TROJAN Cowlitz County, Washington - Mar. 4, 1981 Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A PIO Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.9 Training 10/81 10/81
G.3.a., G.4.a., b. A c.
and 0.4.J.
A EOC Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.2, C 3 Training 10/81 10/81
A.I.a., D.3. H.3, J.10.a. A b. EOC Improvemente 10/81 10/81 and 0.4.a., b. A g.
A EBS Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 (A&N) Training 10/81 10/81
C.8
E.5, 8, & 7 and 0.4.a., g. & j.
B Protective Action Decision Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.7 Training 10/81 10/81
A.I.b., J.9., J.10 m.
and 0.4.a., b., g. A h.
C Information Flow & Mgt. Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.2 Training 10/81 10/81
A.I.b. D.3, H.3, J.10.a. A b.,
and 0.4.a., b. A g.
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0654 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 132 4 4-6-e6ye
_h@6h+W e *D**-e 4W , og ggh ahgyW@ , q g ge p .- 6aa em- g eee,
+ , , ,,_ , - - , . .--
t t .
l
, APPENDIX I PART III: BISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN
t Clark County. Washinston - Drill, August 1985 Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza-Objective Exerc!ae Corrective ment ation No. Inadeausev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date l
1. e Communications Revise Procedures
j F.1.d.** re: Staffing Assign. 1 I
I
2. *** C Shelter Operations Training Shelter J.10.a. and 0.4.g.**
2.a *** A Assistance Center Enhance Staff, Assistance Operations Revise Procedures Center J.10.a. and 0.4.g.** and Training i
l 2.b. ** A Monitoring - Select a Different i Assistance -
Decontamination Facility or Develop Center Facility Enhancement Plan For J.12 and K.5.b.** Current Facility
3. *** A Assistance Center Enhance Staff,
Assistance Operations Revise Procedures Center J.10.a. and 0.4.g.** and Training
4. * ** 8 Assistance Center Discussion and Assistance Operations Agreement.
Center J.10.m; J.12; and Revise Procedures.
0.4.c. and g.** and Training
5. *** A. Assistance Center Procedure Revision Assistance Operations and Training Center J.10.m. and 0.4.g.** -
8. *** A Assistance Center Revise Procedures Assistance Operations and Training Center J.10.a. and 0.4.g.**
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas ret.oemended for corrective action. Corrective actiona not required.
However, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0684/ FEMA-RgP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements). l
These items require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Clark County and American Red Cross.
These itees require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Clark County and State of Washington.
** These items require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Clark County, State of Washington and American Red Cross.
133
APPENDIX I PART III: BISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REC 0petENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric F,Qf.,- October 17. 1984 l Updated October 1985 1 l
Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
1. C Update of Status Boards Training 3/85 3/85 88.3 l
0.4.J.
2. B Communications with Quality Assurance 3/85 3/85 Field Teams. or Equipment 88.3 Improvement
F.1.d.
3. B Communications with Training of 3/85 3/85 Field Teams Field Team
B.3 Dispatcher
0.4.J.
4. B Management of Field Teams Training of 3/85 3/85
B.5 Operations Staff
0.4.c.
5. B Management of Field Teams Training of DAD 3/85 3/85 88.5 .
I
0.4.c.
l 1
8. B Protective Actions for Training 3/85 9/85 Field Teams 88.5
J.10.e.
7. B Use of Field Team Data Training 2/85 2/85
B.5
0.4.c.
8. C Information Flow Training of 3/85 3/85
B.4 EOF Staff
0.4.j.
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 134 l
, _ . , ,,_,.,--m --w - ,
)
i i
APPENDIX I PART III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric Medical Drill - October 16, 1984 Updated Octobver 1985 Category of Recommended Coenit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. M egy g Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date Good Samaritan and St. Vincent Bosoitals
1. C Documented Review of Training 10/84 10/85 Procedures -
D.2
0.4.h.
Rainier Ambulance
1. C Finalize Procedures Procedure Revision 7/85 3/85
'D.3 and Training
P.5, 0.4.h.
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0654 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 135
- - - - - ~
w. -
m-,-- y,,---,e,,- ,- -- -y->-,e -m. ,g,+_,m,__,-g gwm- , --,w-, p--w,me-- ----,s---cc-rw--r-w
APPENDIX I Port III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric [_0,F_- October 5, 1983 Updated 10/85 (reply 12/83)
Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B None C EOC PIO Procedures Procedure Revision 3/84 10/85
C.9 Training 3/84 10/85
G.3.a.. G.4.a. & b.
C Field Team Procedure Revision
B.5 (EP-29) 5/84 8/84
H.12. I.7 & 8. & O.4.c. Training 3/84 3/84 C Wosther Service Forecast Procedure Revision
B.5 (EP-8) 4/84 8/84 "C. I .a. & c.
C County (s) Notification Procedure Revision 3/84 3/84
B.4
E.3 & 4 C State Liaison Role Procedure Revision EOF Communications Protocol (EP-8) 10/84 10/84
B.3
F.1.d.
C PAR Process Revise Procedures
B.5 (EP-30) 5/84 09/84
J.10.e., f., & m. Revise Accident Assessment Form 5/84 09/84 C Redesign EOF Accommodate Federal
B.5 Agencies / Dose
H.2 Assessment Area Deferred
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
!!UREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 138
+ _ . .,-- - -y- y , -,e ,,--y __,y m,,, -.----..,.-y, . . - - - - , , , , . .,m---e-
APPENDIX I 1
Part III: EISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & REColetENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric Medical - October 5, 1983 Updated 10/85 (reply 12/83)
.(Good Samaritan. St. Vincent. Columbia District Bosoitals)
Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion ;
Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B None C Good Samaritan- Procedure Review for 10/84 10/85 St. Vincent Revision Purposes Columbia District and Documentation
D.2 of Yearly Review
L.1 C Good Samaritan Documented Review 10/84 10/85 St. Vincent of Procedures by Columbia District Assigned Staff
D.2
L.1 C Capability to make and Develop In-service evaluate radiation Training Program 10/84 10/85 measurements in St. Vincent Hospital
D.2
L.1 C Ambulance Procedures Develop Radio-
D.3 active Safety
L.1 Procedures 10/84 10/85
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 137 9 6*W*W5 't *'Me5 *6 * . , , , .
-.3___.-
w -.m-r p w--- - - - -+w--, - - --,y-- gymw w-v-. -w- --
APPENDIX I Part III: BISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric E0P and Medical - November 18, 1982 Updated October 1985 Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actiogp_ Date Date A None 8 Notification Process Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83
'8.4 Training 9/83 9/83
E.3 & 4 and 0.4.a. A j.
C Use of Field Data / Dose Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83 Assessment Operation Training 9/83 9/83 88.5
I.7. I.8, I.10 and 0.4.b. A c.
C Protective Action Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83 Recommendation Training 9/83 9/83 88.5
J.7. J.10'.e.
and 0.4.b. A c.
C Status Board Update Training 9/83 9/83
'8.4
0.4.j.
C 2-5 Map Review 9/83 9/83
E.3
J.10.a.
Medical: (Good Samaritan & St. Vincent)
A None 8 None C Training Develop Program and
D.2 Implement 5/84 5/84
L.1 C Operation Procedure Revision 5/84 10/85
D.2
L.1
objective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Rsference (Planning Standard and Element) 138 l
APPENDIX I Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Portland General Electric [0f_- November 17 a 19, 1981 Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B Use of Field Data / Dose Proced. Development 7/82 7/82 Assessment Operation Training 9/82 9/82
B 5
I.7, I.8, I.10.
J.10.e., f. A m.
and 0.4.c.
B Recovery Reentry / Dose Proced. Development 7/82 7/82 Assessment Operation Training S/82 9/82
B.5
I.10, J.10.m., J.ll, l M.1 and 0.4.c.
C Information Flow & Ngt./ EOF Training 9/82 9/82
B.2, 8.3 & B.4 EOF Improvement 7/82 7/82
A.I.b., D.S. E.3 & 4 E.2, H.12, and 0.4.a. b. & j.
C Field Tema Operation / Dose Procedure Revision 7/82 7/82 Assesseent Operation Training 9/82 9/82
B.5
I.10. J.7
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 139
4 4MO 9 y
,.__.-..__,--y,,,,.,,_-n., -
- , , , , - , , - , - - - - ,-,--,,--w--
-g ---- . - -_.. . . ,, , , _ _ , , ~ ,
l APPENDIX I l
Part III: EISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN ,
I
_ Portland General Electric EOF and Medical March 4, 1981 Category
Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A PIO Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
B.3 & 4. C.9 Training 10/81 10/81
F.1.b., 0.3.a., Equipment 10/81 10/81 G.4.a. & b. and 0.4.J.
A Dose Assessment Operation Procedure Revision 7/81 7/81 88.5 Training 10/81 10/81
H.12. I.3.a. A b., Naps 10/81 10/81 1.7, 8 & 10. Jg7, ;
J.10.e., J.ll and 0.4.c.
B Protection Action Procedure Revision 7/81 7/81 Recommendation Training 10/81 10/81
B.5
B.4, B.8, D.2, E.3 & 4.,
F.1.a.,b.,c.,d.A e.,
I.10, J.7, J.11 N.1, and 0.4.a., b. & j.
B EOF Operation Procedure Reviolon 7/81 7/81 EOF Equipment 7/81 7/81
B.2 Training 10/81 10/81
A.I.b., A.3, D.1 & 2 .
E.2, 5.12. J.10.a. A b.,
J.ll and 0.4.a., b. & j.
. Portland General Electric /Nedical
i A None B None C None
0bjective reference (Part II)
NUREG 0854 Standard and element reference 140 l
APPENDIX I
e PART III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN State of Oreron - Drill. August 1985 Recommended Commit- Realiza-Category of ment ation Objective Exercise Corrective 8 Actions Date Date No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadecuacy I'
Nonitoring Procedures Revise Procedures
2. B or Designate K.5.b.**
Different Instrument B Commut*.;ations Revise Procedures 3.
P.1.d. and 0.4.c.** and Train Personnel Facility Setup Revise Procedures
4. B and Develop Signs K.5.b.**
i C Monitoring Procedures Revise Procedures i 5.
K.5.b. and 0.4.c.** & Train Personnel
Exerciso Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Prompt remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. Rosever, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0854/ PENA-REP-1. Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
l l
l 141
--r-r-'-' -'---w --w- -'w--w--- -- w' ---
9 ----- --- - - - - - ---+-m-- - - '
--W-- --W- T-T- N
I l
APPENDIX I PART III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Columbia County. Oregon Drill - August 1985 (Page 1 of 2)
Updated October 1985 l
Category of Recommended Commit- Realiza- ,
Corrective sent ation Objective Exercise Date Date No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadequacy Actions l
1. C Communications Flow Additional Tele-E.3** phone Capability
2. C Status Board / Maps Maintenance and
5. 3. and 0. 4 . a . A b . " Improvement Improve Status Boards & Training Distribution of EW Kits Tasking, Pre- 1/86
5. A J.10.e; K.3.a; and positioning EW and 0.4.d.** Kits and Training 3/86 A Administration of KI Tasking. Training, 1/86 6.
J .10. e . and 0. 4 . d . " and EW Kit Configuration Dose Commitment Tasking and 1/86
7. 8 J.10.m.; K.3.a. Training and 0.4.a. A b. **
Distribution of EW Kits Revise EN Instruc - 1/86
9. B tions & Training and
0. 4. d . "
of EW's 3/86 Exposure Monitoring and Procedure Review 1/86
10. B and Training of and Control K.3.a. and 0.4.d.** EW's 3/86 Administration of KI Same as Obj. 5 & 6 Same as
11. E Obj.
J.10.e; K.S.a; and 0.4.d.**
5&6 Access Control Training 3/86
12. B J.10.e and 0.4.d."
C Shelter unnarement Develop Staffing 14.*"
J .10. h . " Identification Name Tage..etc.
16.a. C Registration Screening Training J .12 and 0. 4. g . "
142
- - --.-------_..,r, - - . ---_y _ - _ - .,-.-___.,,w_, e - _ ,,- _ _ . -- - - - _ _ . , _ .
APPENDIX !
PART III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Columbia County. Oreron Drill - August 1985 (Page 2 of 2)
Updated October 1985 Category of Recommended Consit- Realiza-Objective Exercise Corrective ment ation No. Inadeousev* Exercise Inadecuacy Actions Date Date
^
16.b " C Tracking of Requests for Training Assistance J.10.h. and 0.4.g.**
17.a. C Shelter Identification Develop Exterior J.10.h.** Sign 17.b. C Designate Area for Pets Designate Space J.10.h.**
17.c.*** C Emergency Public Designate and Information Train Staff G.4.a. and 0.4.g.**
17.d.*** C Runcr Control Training of Staff G.4.c. and 0.4.g.**
I
Exercise Inadequacy:
"A" Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety is protected. Proept remedial action required.
"B" Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biannual exercise.
"C" Areas recommended for corrective action. Corrective actions not required. However, correction would enhance preparedness.
Reference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
These items require review, discussion, decisions, and commitments by Columbia 1 County and American Red Cross.
143
. . . - . - . . . . - - . - . . 1
_ , , . _ _ . - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - . - - - - - ~ - _ _ . - .-_ _,
APPENDIX I Part III: BISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN .
Oreron State and Coluable County - October 5, 1983 Updated 10/85 (reply 12/83)
Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Dete A- None B None C Energency Public Procedure Review Information and Revision, and 3/84
C.9 Training 9/84 10/85
A.1.b., E.5., 0.3.a.,
G.4.a., b. A c., and 0.4.J.
C Status Boards / Training Inhance Status
C.2 Boards 10/84 10/85
A.1.b., D.3., Procedure Review J.10.a. A b., and Revision, and and 0.4.a., b. & g. Training 10/84 10/85 i C Esalth Advisor Role Procedure Review &
'C.7 Revision 5/84 9/84
J.9., J.10.f. Training 9/84 9/84 J.10.m. & 0.4.b. .
C Field Monitoring Procedure Revision 5/84 9/84
E.5 *
J.10.e. A f.
4
, C Field Team Equipment Improve Emergency
E.2 Equipment 10/84 l **I.7., I.10, & I.11.
Columbia County. Oreron l
A None j i i B None ,
C Supervision of EOC Staff Training 9/84 9/84
C.2
A.1.b. & D.3 i *0bjective Reference (See Appendix I) -
NUREG 0654 Reference (Planning Standard and Element) 144
--. -. - ,- --- - _ . _ . - _ = - _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - . . -
APPENDIX !
Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Oremon State and Columbia County - November 18, 1982 l
Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B None C PIO Operation Training 9/83 9/83
C.9
0.4.J.
C Field Team Operation Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83
E.3 Training 9/83 9/83
I.8 and 0.4.c.
Columbia County. Oremon A None B None C PIO Operation Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83
C.9 Training 9/83 9/83
G.4.a. & b.
C EBS Nessage and IBS Procedure Revision 9/83 9/83 Coordination Training 9/83 9/83
C.6
E.8 4 7
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0654 Reference (Pleaning Standard and Elseent) l 145
* *N**'"* -*4 - y e gg Wepy es e gem.e ,> aO, yegs g mege ennus. ..g, ,, ,,
-_,% y , _-- g,, w -
-.--_ _--_ - - - - - ,a y __.-._ , , - . - - _ _ - - + - - - _ _ - , - --, , , - . - - _ -
.--e-6 --,-y-9--w------+n- w
l APPENDIX !
Part III: HISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOMMENDATIONS - TROJAN Oregon State and Columbia County - November 17 & 19, 1981 Category '
Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Date Date A None B None C PIO Operation Procedure Revision 8/82 8/82
C.9 Training 8/82 8/82
G.4.b. and 0.4.J.
C Information Flow & Mgt. Procedure Revision 8/82 8/82
C.2
A.I.b. and 0.4.g.
C Status Boards / Maps Development and
C.2. C.3 EOC Improvement 8/82 8/82
D.3 C Field Tema Operation Procedure Revision 8/82 8/82 Training 8/82 8/82
E.2. 3, 4 & 5 -
Equipment 8/82 8/82
I.8 and 0.4.c.
Columbia County. Oreron A None B None C None
0bjective Reference (See Appendix I)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and Elseent) 148
- - ~ - - - - , - - - - - ,- ,, - _ - - - - - , - - + - - - - - , - y ,m --,,,----- - - - --m-- ---s----w---r-m---e--- - -m--
APPENDIX I Part III: MISTORY OF EXERCISE DEFICIENCIES & RECOBOtENDATIONS _.IEqJ E -
Oreron State and Columbia County - March 4. 1981 Category Commit- Realiza-of Recommended ment tion Deficiency Deficiency Corrective Actions Dato Date A PIO Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
' *C.7 Training 10/81 10/81
G.3.a., G.4.a., b. A c.
and 0.4.j.
A Protective At: tion Decision Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 (Technical Assessment Training 10/81 10/81 EOC/TSC)
C.7
I.8, I.10. J.9, J.10.a and 0.4.a., b. A c.
) A Protective Action Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 Recommendation / EOF Training 10/81 10/81 88.5
I.8, I.10. J.9, J.10.a.,
J.ll and D.4.c A EOC Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 EOC Improvements 10/81 10/81
C.2. C.3 Training 10/81 10/81
A.I.a., D.S. E.3, J.10.a. A b.
and 0.4.a., b. A g.
A Field Team Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
E.2, 3, 4 4 5 Training 10/81 10/81
E12 I.7, I.8, I.9, Equipment 10/81 10/81
J.ll and 0.4.c.
Columbia County. Oromon A PIO Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81
C.9 Training 10/81 10/81
G.3.a., G.4.a. A b.
and 0.4.j A EBS Operation Procedure Revision 10/81 10/81 (A&N) Training 10/81 10/81
C.8 l
E.5, 8, 7 and 0.4.a., 3. & j.
0bjective reference (See Appendix !)
NUREG 0854 Reference (Planning Standard and E1Jeont) 147 1
l l
j . -. .
l APPENDIX II DEFINITIONS OF REP EXERCISE TERMINOLOGY and GLOSSARY OF TERMS l l
ALERT (Alert Systsa): The hardware systes(s) used to get the attention of the public within the plume EPZ. Examples of an Alert system are: sirens; tone activated radios; and vehicles (including boats and airplanes) that utiliza loud speakers /sirene, etc., to perform public alerting.
NOTIFICATION SYSTEN: The hardware and software system used to deliver a warning message (public instruction) to the public within the plume EPZ.
Examples are: EBS radio station; NOAA radio; sirens /public address system that allows voice transmission; and vehicles with public address capabilities (i.e'..
l message and means of delivery).
i PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Instructions (warning messages) that are Protective Action Recommendations for public within the plume EPZ. Instructions should be given by a public official and delivered directly to the public via the notification system (i.e., EBS radio). Message content and timeliness are very important.
Nessages should be repeated by Notification System at least every 15 minutes until updated by public authorities. If applicable, public instructions should be coordinated with other authorities.
PUBLIC INFORMATION: Information delivered to the media via press conferences, interviews, technical briefings, printed media releases, and telephonic distribution of printed releases. Information should be current. accurate, and timely. All printed releases should be coordinated with other authorities before distribution to the media. Ideally, information released la news
{ conferences, briefings, and interviews should be coordinated before release.
If pre-coordination does not occur, then post-notification to other authorities of critical points discussed in interviews, conferences, etc., should occur.
FUNCTIONAL (Activated) The EOC/ EOF / Assistance Center /JIC/ Emergency Worker Center / Laboratory, etc., should be considered functional (activated) when the emergency facility is minimelly staffed (essential portions) and capable of performing the critical emergency functions assigned to that facility. ,
OPERATIONAL: The IOC/ EOF /JIC/ Assistance Center / Emergency Worker Center / Laboratories, etc., are fully staffed and capable of performing all emergency functions assigned to that facility.
I
! VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: Deficiencies identified la previous l exercises / drills to which the organisations have agreed to laplement corrective j actions.
l l
l 14e
~
.,,.,,p-,._ .- _,,. ,,,,,_w,_ _m.,. -y .
e__ ,y.,, , . , . - , , ,-.~-.-,-,,w.ey.%__m,.,
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AC Assistance Center
AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foan A/N Alert and Notification System AG Agriculture Department of. Washington State ANN Alert / Notification / Mobilization AP Associated Press ARC American Red Cross ARD Automatic Ring-down Circuit ARN Area Radiation Monitor BAF 'Below Active Fuel BPA Bonneville Power Administration CAC Containment Atmosphere Control CAP Civil Air Patrol CAS Central Alarm Station - at Plant CCON Columbia County Consunications CCP Centrifugal Charging Pump CCSO Columbia County Sheriff's Officer CCTV Closed Circuit Television C-DAG Chief Disaster Analysis Group CEP Containment Purge Exhaust Valve C1 Currie cfm Cubic feet per minute CNC Crisis Management Center CNS-RE Containment Monitoring Systea-Radiation Element CR Control Room CR0 Control Room Operator l DA Disaster Analysis Director DAA Dose Assessment Area DAC Dose Assessment Coordinator DAD Dose Assessment Director DAG Disaster Analysis Group DC Disaster Chairman DEN Department of Emergency Management DES Department of Emergency Services ;
DG Diesel Generator '
DGB Diesel Generator Building DO Duty Officer DOE-RL Department of Energy - Richland Operations DOG Disaster Operations Group DOI Department of Interior DOT Department of Transportation DPIO Deputy Public Information Officer DSHS Department of Social & Nealth Services. WA ST (Radiation Control Unit)
DWI Disaster Welfare I'mrufry EAL Emergency Action Level EBS Emergency Broadcast System ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EC/IRN Energency Coordinator / Emergency Response Manager ED Emergency Department EDPS Energency Dose Projection System EDTA Estimated Time of Arrival EFSEC Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Washington State 149
..--.......-}-. .. .. - , . . - . . . . . . . . . .. .
GLOSSARY OF TERNS (Continued): l EOC Energency Operations Center, County EOC in Kelso and
State EOC in Olympia ROF Near-site Energency Operations Facility near Trojan ROFCC Emergency Operations Facility Conaunications Center !
EPA Environmental Protection Agency I EPIO Imergency Public Information Officer - State lI EPZ Emergency Planning Zone i: BR Imergency Room (Mospital) l .ERP '
Elevated Release Point
, ERN Emergency Response Manager
! ERP Emergency Response Procedures i
ESD Emergency Services Director ESF Engineered Safety Features ,
ETA Estimated Time of Arrival EW Emergency Norker ;
EWC Emergency Norker Center FAX Facsimile ,
l FDA . Food and Drug Administration )
FEMA RX Pederal Emergency Management Agnacy Region I FTC Field Team Coordinator -
I GE General Emergency
gym gallons per minute i i ECC Needquarters Communication Center i
RP Eealth Physics l
EDT Bard-copy Data Transmission Systete i j
i NPCS Righ Pressure Core Spray I&C Instrumentation and Control i KI Potassius Iodide (Thyroid Blocking Agent) I l KRAN Local ESS Station I KV K11ovolt LETS Law Enforcement Teletype System
LLEA Local Law Enforcement Agency LOCA Loss of Coolaat Accident LPCS Low Pressure Core Spray i Net. data Noteorological data
IW Managing Director NI Nobility Impaired NSI Noin Steam Isolation <
! ar N1111 roentgen l IstEN N1111res
) MS Main Steam (line)
J NBIV Main Steam Line Isolation Valves -
N Nitrogen 4
NfA Not Applicable i NANAS Motional Alert and Narning System
! NEFAI Bard-Copy Treassissloa l NANAS National Narning System
NOUE Notice of Unusual Event i
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commiseloa GACC Ofreite Agency Coordinatica Center j
, 000E Oregon Department of Energy !
006 Out of Service I OSC Operations Support Center l 150 l l
1 l
j _ . . . . _ . . ... . . . . . .. ..
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1965 Washington State EOC 4 -
No. RAC Reconeendation/ Corrective Action ResDonse/ Action
3. Postine of Status Boards Some boards were kept current, Training will be held.
others were not.
A Post all relevant and useful data. Make sure entries are legible.
Evaluator Ass?gggL:
K. Lerner Action:
1 Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
Some status boards were not kept current. Specifically, the Operations Group boards (" Protective Actions" and " Plant and Accident Status") were act current as of 1000. Some inforestion was not posted; for instance, the recommendation for special populations to take KI. Multiplicity and redundancy of boards probably lopedes this function.
t 155
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washington State EO_C s
No. RAC Reconeendation/ Corrective Action Resnonse/ Action
4. Isorove Status Boards small size / scale made many State has developed new Status Boards unreadable. Status Boards and improved the remaining Status Boards.
A Develop /!aprove Status Boards Evaluator Assinned:
B. Railrell Action:
! Complete (C)
!acomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
A major improvement was acted in the addition of the " red light status board." The remaining status boards continue to be less than desirable.
They are too busy, too cluttered, and generally unworkable.
i 156
-w--r -
%y#m-, y. - _ .,. - - - - - , - - - _ . - - _ , - *-g-, - - , , e% - . - -
,----y3-.wy,-,----. - -,g-n- -wy- . - , .-2-,+ ,,-
_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ .- _~ .._ . _ _ . . . _ _ __ _ _ . _ . - ___
b J
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE '
October 18. 1985 Washinrton State EOC ,
l i
No. RAC Reconeendation/ Corrective Action Bernonse/ Action ,
.i
5. II Decision Process
'l o Realth Physicist in Disaster ~ Procedures will be revised,
Analysis Group approved KI for . check 11ste developed, and
County instead of Health Officer.

trainlag conducted, o WSP did not direct Troopers 4
assisting County to take KI
,,g&: Revise Procedures. Develop Checklist and Train Staff.
1 i Evaluator Assistaed:
a B. Easkell 1
Action:
complete (C) j Incomplete (!) I i
) Evaluetor Comment:
Some confusion noted la the directica for administering KI. It could not be ascertained where the approval or direction for taking It! originated.
Note: It was later determined that Dr. Leahy ordered KI ta inergency Workers.
l l
157 l l
l l
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
i TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 i Washinrton State EOC No. RAC Re6ommendation/ Corrective Action Response / Action
6. PIO Press Release Filiam System 4
Releases were delivered to Media Briefing Revise either Procedures Room, but not flied / sequenced so that one or stress in training.
could tell if they were complete or which was the most current.
A Use Filing System that Dissemination Manager uses.
Evaluator Assirned:
J. Levenson Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment i
The releases were delivered, filed, and sequenced at the Media Briefing Roon Nowever, the filing system was cumbersone and the log in/ dissemination form was too lengthy. Rather than check marks, times of dissemination should be logged.
A clipboard sequence siellar to that in the Operations Roos, by jurisdiction, may be helpful. A graphic display, indicatlag cumulative PA's, any provide additional visual reirforcement in the Media and Press Stiefing Rooms. A plotter would be required.
1 l
I 158
.s VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ,
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washington State EOC d
l No. RAC Rec'oemendation/ Corrective Action Response / Action
7. Egtification of Rumor Control Phene 8's Media Briefing: Spokesperson did not Training will be done, write Rumor Control 8's on flip chart in press room. Thus TV scan did not capture them.
l ff., Training of personnel.
Evalustor Assirned:
J. Levenson l
Action' I Complete (C) l Incomplete (I) I i
l Evaluator Comment:
Although functional and operat W 51 and coordinated by 1023 the rumor control blank on the flip char t : no not filled in until the end of the second press briefing (17t3) */ number or its function was not addressed prior to that pt M .
159
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16. 1985 Washington State EOC No. RAC Reconsendation/ Corrective Action Response / Action
8. Assistance Center Activatir/1 State did not initiate timely or, Training will be done.
definitive actions to stage or activate Assistance Center.
_, GL Train staff to follow Procedures Ivalustor Assirned: )
K. Lerner Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
Following the Site-Area Emergency classification, the Operations Group contacted the host counties and requested them to have the Red Cross activate Assistance Centers. This was done reasonably promptly. However.-
DSES Monitoring Teams were not dispatched to monitor evacuees until a request was received from Lewis County, approximately an hour later. The Operations (EOC Supervision) checklists should include a request to DSHS for Monitoring Teams at this point.
180 o
mes**se Weseeso m eewe m e emme e == w wewe .me- . esmo e e - - e .-ee .en e a .ee,
- - .-w -- ,m - , , , - ,
9 - , .-,,,g-.y -- , - - -,..,y __---.--w,, - - - -em.---e-siv-wwww----e.wg-*---wewr-vvm---w,.,m we e ^
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE
. October 16, 1985 I Washington State EOC i
i" e
No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
9. Lole of Disaster Analysis Group DAG: Consists of Disaster Procedures will be revised.
Analyst, Realth Physicist and and staff trained.
Nuclear Engineer. Roles of RP, NE and DA not specific with regard as to who does what and who works for whos.
Ja,: Revise Procedures, and train staff.
Evaluator Assirned:
B. Easkell i
.i i Action:
{ complete (C) C
! Incomplete (I)
-! Evaluator Comment: l An excellent working relationship was demonstrated. 1 l
l i!
161 w esomes m --ee . e emo we e.= * = ee . . . . -
, e e, p. .
.-_--w. - *m.,--.. -,w ,- , , , , , _ . , , __ - . . , ,-,,_y. -, . ._[._,, .-.. ,,m_ -.- -, - w ._ _ w , _ . - --
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washinrton State Ffeld Teams #1
.1
.l.
No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
1. Notification of Response Arencies.
Various calibration dates; Ongoing Program to maintain Eberline P 1C es - overdue for kits in constant state of calibration; and cubitainers were readiness.
not in kit. -
,ff. Follow Quality Assurance Program (Quarterly Monitoring).
Evaluator Assigned:
R. Zimmerman and D. Connell Action: .
Complete (C) C Incomplete (!)
Evaluator Consent:
All observed equipment calibrated. Cubitainers in kit.
162
" 'O #-
8 g@6eaesa@@W e+ap. 4
- , . _ . - - - . * . _ - . --%- .---...,,.-__,,,.___,__.,__.,,g - ,,,,., ,,,,w_,, _ . - _ ,,,_.,g 9.p ,-~~ - - . ,.,*..- -- e ,, ,e , p,.__ ,.
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1965 -
Washinston State Field Team #1 Response / Action No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action
2. Field Teen Ooerstions.
No Procedures for soil samples; inadequate Procedures were to be revised.
amps in kit (e.g., no county / city maps. Naps were to be provided.
only Trojan grid maps).
,,ff, Revise procedures, provide county and city maps.
Evaluator Assinned:
Rick Zimmersan and Den Connell Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
No Procedures for soil sampling as yet. Additional Maps have been provided.
I l
1 163
-- -.h . ..... . _ _ . . _. ,, ._, ,_ , , _ _ , _ _
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washington State Field Team #1 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
3. Field Team Communications.
Antenna cable on one radio Training was to be conducted.
broken. Batteries were Radio antenna was to be dead even though charger was rept. ired.
s,vallable.
CA Provide mere substantial cable connector. Train staff to plug in portable battery charger.
Evaluator Assfened:
Rick Zimmerman and Dan Connell
/.ction :
Complete (C) C Incomplete (I)
Esaluator Comment:
Antenna cable was in good working condition. Staff knew how to use the battery charger.
164
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS -
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washington State Field Team #1 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
4. Exposure Control.
Teana did not know location (s) of Training was held.
EWC's. Teams were not aware of maximum dose allowed without authorization.
CA Training on EWC locations and allowable dose without authorization.
Evaluator Assigned:
Rick Zimmersen and Dan Connell Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
Teams did know where the EWC's were, but did not know their maximum allowed dose without authorisation.
165
, - , , - - - , - , - - - . , , , , - - - --a ,
- , - _ _ - , , , _ _ . _- ..___n,, _ _ _ . _ _ , - _ , . , _ . , _ , _ -_ _ , _ _ , , - - _ _ - --,w- -
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE .
October 16, 1985 Washington State Field Tema #1 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
5. Team Orranization and Traininr.
Team members not trained in First Team members will be trained Ald/CPR. Kits contain First Aid in First Aid.
Kits.
CA Train Team Nesbers in First Ald/CPR.
Evalustor Assinned:
Rick Zimmerman and Dan Connell Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
No Tema Members have been trained recently in First Aid (within 3 years).
166
-- -+ . . . . . . . *;.. ~ . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE .
October 18, 1985 Washinston State Field Teams #2
50. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
1. Notification of Response Arencies.
Various calibration dates: Ongoing Program to maintain Eberline PIC 88 - overdue for kits in constant state of calibration; and cubitainers were readiness.
not in kit.
A Follow Quality Assurance Program (Quarterly Monitoring).
Evaluator Assizned:
R. Zimmerman Action:
Complete (C) C Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
l 1
l l
h l
187 4
- -..T. .- ... . - - . . . . . . ... .
-.------,---r,__v_.-w,, ._.-,-r--,-,--,-.- - , - - - - -
-,,ww--,_,--,___._._,,7-y., _ ,_ _ _ ,. - - - - . -m.--,.--w__.-.r_- _ . - - , ..----,---w,,,ww--
w--- ,-
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 .
Washington State Field Team #2 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
2. Field Tees Operations.
No Procedures for soil samples inadequate Procedures were to be revised.
amps in kit (e.g., no county / city maps, Naps were to be provided.
only Trojan grid maps).
1 i .
1 .
.g. Revise procedures, provide county and city maps.
I i
Evaluator Assinned

J Rick Zimmerman Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment; Tema I,eader had no copies of soll sampling Procedures. County / City maps were available, but the Team Ieader was unsaare of them. For this !
Exercise, not having County / City aspe resulted in very little lapact to Team performance. ,
t r ,
l 188
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Washinston State Field Team #2 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
3. Field Teae Commutications.
Antenne cable on one radio , Training use to be conducted.
broken. Batterie7 were Radio antenna was to be i dead even though charger use repaired.
available.
l J,6,. Provide more substantial cable connector. Train staff to plug in portable battery charger.
Evaluator Assinned:
Rick Zinnerman I
~i Action:
Complete (C') C Incomplete (I) .
l Evaluator Comment l
l I
l
.i W
189
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .
TROJAN EXERCISE October 18, 1985 Washinston State Field Tema #2 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
4. Exposure Control.
Teams did not know location (s) of Training was held.
EWC's. Teams were not aware of anslaus dose allowed without authorisation.
_fA. Training on IWC locations and allowable dose without authorization.
Jvaluator Assinned:
Rick Zimmerman i .Ag1129.8 Complete (C) C
!acceplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
Teams did not know the 3.75R accumulated dose reading that requires notification of the 50F. D8ES/RCP 4.4.3.2.C.1. They guessed 2.5R which is a a more conservative number.
170
VF.RIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE .
October 16, 1985 Washinrton State Field Team #2 No. RAC Reconsendation/ Corrective Action Response / Action
5. Tema Orranization and Training.
Team members not trained in First Team members will be trained Ald/CPR. Kits contain First Aid in First Aid.
Kits.
fe, Train Team Members in First Aid /CPR.
Evaluator Assinned:
Rick Zinnerman Action:
Complete (C) C Incomplete (1)
Evaluator Comment:
It appeared that as management organised training occurred. It was the 1,uck-of-the-draw.
171
.~~.-..... . . . . . . . . . . .
9 VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 14-15, 1985 Portland General Electric - Medical: Good Samaritan Bosnital St. Vincent Rosoital h n/ Corrective Action PGE Response / Action
1. Documentation of Staff's Procedure Review.
No documented monitoring of Procedure Will establish review period Review by Staff Members, and document staff review.
,,,qs, Establish a review period and document the mandatory reading of the procedures.
Evaluator Assinned:
Frank Bold Action:
Complete (C) C
!acomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
Review period and documented reading of plan has been established.
i l
17E
_ i
. . . ,,. . . . . . . . + . - **
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 14-15, 1985 Portland General Electric - Medical: St. Vincent Moenital No. RAC Reconsendation/ Corrective Action PGE Response / Action
2. St. Vincent Bospital Establish in-service training Program was to be in place, program so that staff can make and evaluate radiation measurements.
A Boldover from 1983.
Evaluator Aasianed:
Frank Bold Action:
Complete (C) C -
Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
Review period and documented reading of plan has been established.
l l
173 l
l I
1
. ~ . . . . . . . -- . . . . . - . - _ . _ . - . ..
l
I VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE
. October 14-15, 1945 a
. Portland General Electric - Medical: Rainier Ambulance
_No. RAC Reconeendatlon/ Corrective Action PGE Response / Action
3. Finalize Procedures.
Draft Procedures adequate. Procedures were put in final fore.
$d, Finalise Pr'ocedures.
Evaluator Assinned:
Frank O. Bold 3
Action:
! Complete (C) C Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
An excellent procedure has been prepared and was leplemented on September 2, 1988.
l 174
- _ _ _ , , _ _ - - - , _ - - _ , _ . _ , . , , . , _ . . , . . ..,_--c. _ - ,_ , n.. . - - - . , , , - - _ . . - . . - . , - - . .
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE '
October 16. 1985 Trojan EOF j
\*
No. RAC Reconeendation/ Corrective Action Resnonse/ Action
1. Undate of Status Boards.
Status Board update was slow Training was held. I at times e.g., clasettication was incorrectly posted for about 30 minutes.
l l
l 6
.2,. Trelaing - emphasis that computer runs, accident assessment foros, verbal PARS. etc., be promptly posted.
Evaluator Assinnedt Don ==== ion Action Complete (C) C
!acomplete (!)
Evaluator C- tt Note evaluation of Objective 4.
i 178 1 l
l
. . . _ . . - - . _ . . . - _.. ._u_....... -. .. . . .
k YERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 18, 1985
Trojan EOF l
No. RAC Reconeendation/ Corrective Action ' Response / Action
2. Radio Communications System.
Adequacy of radio communications Quality assurance.
mas only marginally demonstrated. Checks were performed.
Ground to air did not work.
Requires ground to ground to cover both.
_fd Check transmitter to ensure proper working order.
Evaluator Assinned:
Too Foltaan i
Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment: -
No opportunity to evaluate ground-to-air communications l
178
VERIFICATICN OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Trojan EOF No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Responee/ Action
3. Trainfar of Field Team Dianatchere (FTD)
Net control was not established. Training was held.
An additional position was added.
g&, FTD should receive specific training.
Evaluator Assinned:
T. Foltaan Action Complete (C) C Incomplete (!)
Evaluator comment:
The FTC handled 5 Teams effectively and provided adequate data on plume boundaries and center line values. Communicatione to do no appeared adequate.
i 177
.. _ ._ _ - . _ . . = _ . . _ . . . - . . - - . . . - -
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE -
October 18, 1985 Trojan EOF No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Resnonse/ Action
4. Manamement of Field Team Operations Field Team data did not allow for Training was held.
adequate plume tracking. Limited radio-lodine values were not correlated with whole-body measurements.
_gA.: Train FTC and Assistant to follow Procedures EP.8-11.
Evaluator Assinned:
T. Foltaan Action:
Complete (C) C Incomplete (1)
Evaluator Comment:
Adequate data was collected on the plume boundaries and center lines.
Teams were constantly reminded to collect samma and samma/ beta measurements with the air samples.
178 l
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE .
October 16, 1985
) Trojan EOF No. RAC Reconneadation/ Corrective Action Ressoase/ Action 1
5. Sumervision of Field Team Manasement l
The DAD did not direct the Training was held.
overall performance of the DAA so that adequate field team data was available.
,,,GA Trela DAD designees to follow EP.S.8 I
i Evaluator Assimmed:
J. Railer
_Actlent
, Complete (C) C l !acomplete (I) l Evaluator c- -t i The DAD asintained good coordination with the FTC to obtala a large amount of Field Team data. l 4
, 179 1
1 i
q .-- . . - -
. ~ . . . . .. . . . - . . -
l l
l
)
l VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE ,
October 16, 1985 Trojan EOF No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action ResDonse/ Action S. Protective Action for Field Teams K! une prescribed for Field Team Procedure will be revised.
before State (DAA) approval.
A Revise procedure to clarify / assume that EW PAR has State authorization.
.y l
Evaluator Assinned:
l J. Keller Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (!) I Evaluator Comment:
The KI directive for Emergency Workers was issued without any discussion with the DAA.
I 1
4 l 100
..- _ _. _. - . . . . - . ~ . ~ . . . . - .
~
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE .
October 18, 1985 Trojan EOF No. RAC Recossendation/ Corrective Action Response / Action
7. Use of Field Team Data Field data was not correctly used: Training was held.
e.g., all field measurements were input as center 11nes serial exposure rate coupled with ground Iodine measurements.
A DAD should verify data to be used for back calculations via computer.
Evaluator Assioned:
J. Keller Action:
Complete (C) C Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment ,
I I
The DA only used points where gamma and beta plus gassa and radiolodine data was available for use in computer dose projections. ;
I e
lol
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 18, 1985 '
Trojan EOF No, RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Response / Action
8. Proant' Bard Copy Paner Flow i
Paper Flow was not prompt, nor did it Personnel will be trained.
substantiate " Verbal PAR" given over telephone.
.Q.:, Time-stamp forms transmitted.
q Let each EOF Director know when each ites is transmitted.
1 Evaluator Assirned:
Don Mannion Action:
i Complete (C) C Incomplete (!)
l -
Evaluator Comment:
With the exception of the FAX actification of Alert classification, which was sent from the 50F 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 25 minutes after classification, but only 22 i minutes from receipt at the IOF from the TSC. the all-station Faxing of I notification forms and related information was generally timely e.g.. PAR 84
! took 17 minutes: PAR #5 took 12 minates. PAR 86 took 11 minutes, etc. In addition, notification fors.originale seemed to be moved properly to and from the 50F Director, but the use of in/out boxes in that area utsht improve efficiency.
Some motification forms were not completed correctly in respect to the entries or times. Specifically. FAX 84 motification fora did met have a basic time entered and had an incorrect classification time. FAI 8's 11, 14. 18 39 38, and 40 notification forms had incorrect classificaties times.
i i
l
182 l
-..~ _ . ... . . _ .. _.. ... ~=, , . . .
1 i
I l VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE I October 18. 1945 .
1 ;
Portland General Electric - Oremon EOC i
2 No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action POE Ressoase/ Action l
i 1.A.
i coordination of Emermancy Public Informatloa.
1 l
i PGE's PIO at State ROC did not appear to PGE's Procedures will be reviewed i be the source of Plant Information for and revised to enhance and j the Oregon State Public Information strengthen the role and function
! operation. role sad function of PGE's Public
! Information Representative at the l Oregon EOC. Necessary communi-l
- cations equipseat will be provided.
! EA.
l PGE's PIO at the State ROC should be a party of the blue phone network.
POE's Procedures should be revised to enhance and strengthem the role and function of POE's PIO Representative i at the Oregon State ROC.
1 Evaluator Assianed: P. C = = !
I i i
I t
Action: I Complete (C) l
!acesplete (1) I 1
i Evaluator Commentt i
i PSE's PIO at the State ROC was added to the Blue Pheme Network. (The phone layout i for P05 and Inforention Coordinator. 35-18 was lacorrect and should be corrected.)
i POE's Precedures were revised (see below for commente). The POR Procedures specify
the ROC P10 should tape and replay neue brieflage to Corporation Beadquarter's i Director. P! Adviser, and 30P PI Representative ever the Centres phone. This was not
deae.
4 EP-32-4 Elves the Team two Sales BOC Coordinators authority to " direct and coordinate POE's Public Informaties efforte." During the esercise it appeared that i l
the ROC Representative for PSE shared this reopenelbility with the POE BOF PIO ,
i Representative (the latter " concurred" with news releases) la addities to the Sales l POE Representative - he does set have release authority, and the sales 50C's PSE Team l
! 3 Coordinator's release antherity le met clearly stated la 38-4. Recommand further l clarification of and tratalas sa precedures. 5 5-09 aise requires PSE PIO Liaison I i officer to review all releases for accuracy and concurrence, met just these l specifically aestlosing POE.
i
' 188 j
\ I 1
1 l . .. ._. .. ... .
l VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16. 1985 .
Oreeon State ROC No. RAC Recc z ;detion/ Corrective Action State Response / Action d
1. Innrove the Production of News Releases.
State releases did not incorporate State will revise procedures.
Coluable County's news releases. No POE will strengthen State's los or file of rolesees. Nard copy public information activittee received free other locations was at Sales JIC.
distributed to Media Center or Rumor Control Center.
l
.fd.: Revise procedures to ensure '
timely production of news roleseos, include logging and filing system.
System should ladicate uhen hard copy is received, checkpoint to verify occupancy, and revised laternal routing for appropriate dieseelmation potate.
Evaluttor Aselmaed:
P. f = a L
.Actles Complete (C)
Incomplete (!) I Evaluator Commentt News releases were produced la a timely meaner. Suggest a separate news release muebering leg be meintalaed apart from the les maintalaed by Deputy PIO's I,og Keeper. Bard copy received free other locatisse une met distributed to either the Media Center er Rueer Centrol Center. No checkpolat te verify accarecy: the Information Coordiantor's Precedures (EID-48) assign this resposelbility, but it see met perfereed during the esercises although sese, but met all, releases free other sites were received la the ROC. The releases were met distributad to the "in boekets" of the agency but lasteed were placed in I cubbyheles at the side of the rees. Their presence see nevet ende known to the players. Receemend training se procedures se a guarterly or seel-easual heele.
184 i
l
~
l
]
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 2385
Oregon State IOC No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action State lleenonse/ Action
2. Flow of Information Amons PIO Ilemente.
Critical positione and locations were not State will revise procedures.
etaffed (e.g., Media Roon). Rumor POE will strengthen State's Control and Media Room operations often public information activities logged behind current events, thus at Sales JIC.
1 creating nielaformation.
GA.
a. Revise procedures to ensure that critical positions in the State's PIO functions are staffed.
i
b. In troislag, stress the rapid distribution of B1L press releases received to the Public Information and Media Room (s).
l Ivaluator Aselaned:
P. Can=n j Action l Complete (C) ,g i j !acomplete (I) '
\ l 1
i j Ivaluator Comment l l
The State made major leprovemente in the stafflag of critical functione in l
a timely manner (with the major exception of the absence throughout the
! esercise of the Governor's Press Secretary, who served as the PIO). The DPIO should have assumed thle role at. cording to procedures EIS-48 and the 1
Information Coordinator should have stepped into the DP!0 slot.
The addittom of the radio link between the Media Center and the 50C was a
! noticeable improvement. The 50C's Rumor Control Center word processor link worked well. The Evaluator suggeste egulpping the word procesolag terminal in the ROC with a printer, and using it, ou that printed, rather than handwritten news rolesses any be distributed.
185
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE ;
October 18. 1988 . i Orezon State IOC i E0. RAC Rec -- "-tion / Corrective Action State Resnanse/ Action S. Monitor the EBS/KRAN Broadcasts.
Staff did not soaitor ESS broadcasts. State's procedures will be No copies were received by State in revised and training sessions order to be provided to Rumor Control will emphasise role of State in or Media Room. monitorlag ESS broadcasts.
I
, 1
a. Revloe Procedures to specify a .
mechaatse to ensure soaltorlag i of Est broadcasts.
b. Ensure that content of ESS broad-casts are conveyed to appropriate
! BOC personnel.
! Evaluator Aasinned: P. Conan l !
Action:
Camp 1ste (C) __.,,,
Incomplete (!) I j i
)i . Evaluator CemeentL l l
1 a. Attachment 9 page EIS 89-90. E. use of NBAN circuit states the NBAN I
) circuit "provides the ROC's with a seems for mealtorlag leformaties released by i others." This phone is located in the EIS Director's Office and was not
{ monitored eacept immediately prior to OR Governor's broadcasts.
b. In addition. POE's Procedures (EP SS-1, Rev.-0. Itse 8), requires the l BOF PIO to "mositor KSAN radio for PAR's and report discrepancies between i current and broadcast PAR's to the OR BOC. This was not observed: it any or ony not have been simulated.
1 The OR DP!O stated that BBS broadcast review uns belas coeducted for Oregon j by Coluable County and that they would call'if there was a problem. This
! amounts to self-evalenties and leproper delegation.
Recomesad stafflag of RAAN circuit se a coatisseus basis with the addition l et a speaker to facilitate this. Review existles procedures, espeed there necessary, and coeduct training.
i 4
188 i
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Oregon State EOC No. RAC Recossendation/ Corrective Action State Response / Action
' 4. Enchasize R8AN and Columbia County's Role.
Oregon's releases and press conferences State's procedures will be gave incomplete and inconsistent data on revised to reflect role /11 sit-l the status of protective seasures being ations on State's reportitis
( laplemented by Columbia County. Information y,g, issuing public instructions.
CA Revise Procedures to spell out limits of PAR's which will be normally included in State EOC briefings and news releases; and the condition. If any, which would cause the State to exceed their limitations.
Evaluator Assigned:
P. Coran Action: i Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I
_Ivsluator Comment:
Unable to locate (in draft OR Procedures) the limits of PAR's which will normally be included in State E0C briefings and news releases, nor the condir. fans which might cause the State to exceed those limitations.
Oregon News Release #4 did give inaccurate PAR information. OR News Briefing #4 (stating there will be no adverse health effects from the release) and #5 (embargo of milk) were inappropriate. Briefing 84 stated "no protective actions are necessary outside the 10 mile zone." This statement was premature and did not take into consideration PAR's which might be required for the ingestion pathway.
187 I
(
l l
I VERIFICATION OF COPRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16 1985 .
Oreron State EOC l
l l
No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action State Response / Action
5. Adeausev of Status Boards, Status Boards were not kept current. State will review / revise Key events were not tracked. status boards, as necessary.
I l
I CA
a. Review staff assignments to ensure maintenance of status boards.
b. Revise existing status boards and locations. Develop / revise /
relocate to maximize effective-ness and use.
Evaluator Assinned: T. Baldwin i
Action:
Complete (C) ,
Incomplete (I) I Evalustor Comment:
Information on the Resources Board and the Incident Leg were duplicated and more promptly posted on the projection displays that could be more easily read than either the Resources Board or the Incident Log Boards. We believe that space could be more offactively utilized if the Resources Board and the Incident Los Board were removed from the Oregon State EOC. Alternatively, the Status Board Platters should be trained to update these boards in a more timely manner. (See Objective #2 for Oregos EOC.) The Status Board Plotters should also be trained to periodically check the accuracy of information posted on the l Situation Board.
188
~w- , - -----e -- --w -----------a-- ------w iw-- = w* = g--,e -
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 .
Oteron State EOC No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action State Response / Action
6. Information Flow.
Oral briefings were often one way. state's training progree will Status boards were not utilized. include emphasis on utiliza-tion of Status Boards and oral briefing techniques.
Gb. -
l Utilize Status Boards and develop polling technique to bring other State Agencies into the oral briefing process.
l l
Evaluator Assigned: l T. Baldwin Action: . I Complete (C) C Incomplete (I)
Evaluator Comment:
Oral briefings were conducted approximately every 30 minutes as required by Oregon EOC Procedures. These briefings included polling of agencies which allowed for coordination of emergency management. Critical information was posted on the projection display and referred to in oral briefings as appropriate.
l l
189
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 .
Oreron State EOC No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action State ResDonse/ Action l
7. Role of Oteron Beslth Advisor.
Procedures were not followed with State will review / revise respect to KI for E.W. procedures for issuing instructions for KI adminis-tration and role of Realth Advisor in PAR process and plume measures.
I CA Review / revise Realth Advisor procedures with respect to PAR's and plume measures (evacuation / shelter /KI).
Evaluator Assinned:
R. Peterson 1
1 Action: l Complete (C) l Incomplete (I) I
, 131gtor cett
1. KI evaluations were properly conifacted.* After receipt of an initial K! PAR -- albeit from an " incorrect" source -- key factors including the fact 4 of actual release, etc., were considered. 2. The State Health seemed to unilaterally initiate a, protective action involving placing cattle on stored feed (without IOF involveasnt) outside the sealth channel (7) the Degartment of
, Agriculture Oregon, embargoed pickup of allk from dairies in the 10-mile zone.
Note that EMD - 36 does not require Governor's concurrence for administration of KI to Field Measurement Staff.
- Continued on next page - l 190
~
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ,
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Oregon State EOC No. RAC Reco Jendation/ Corrective Action State Response / Action
7. Role of Oreron Health Advisor.
Evaluator Comments (continued)
That which the Realth Department is to do; that which is originated by other organizations; that which requires analysis; that which requires external coordination, may potentially conflict; e.g.,
o According to Plan, Realth doesn't do plume PAR's, except they and Agriculture did place cattle on stored feed in the plume EPZ (only).
o Realth had Governor's concurrence on KI for Field Teams. Plan says concurrence by Governor not needed. (Repeat -- their analysis was correct, however).
o Health didn't seem to consider problems'(was there enough, where, etc.) of KI in special populations but did seek confirmation it had been administered.
Some references appended: (References regarding Realth)
IIG-9 "The Health Advisor provides recommendations on ingestion exposure and Emergency Worker dose c'ontrol to the Governor."
END-20 Upon receipt of PAR, Realth Advisor receives PAR on ingestion.
Emergency Worker dose control and recovery reentry from the OED Operations Center with Assessment Group Assistance.
EJD-36 Realth Advisor... receives Agriculture Director input on ingestion protective action...provides these recommendations to the Governor.
...As part of Opere.tions Group... apply resources to implement.
... participate in briefings if ingestion or Emergency Worker or R/R actions involved.
KI...Realth Advisor... Field Measurement Staff... plant driven...do not require Governor's approval. Thsy will be immediately implemented by Trojan EOF staff !
based on... conditions. ir responsible for assuring that all State and I,ocal Agencies with workers in the lo-alle zone have been informed....
191 l
l
. . . . . . . _ . . . ~ . . . . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ - . .-.~ ... . _. . . . .
,7 , , - - , _,,,.,,w - . , - , --
-,%,_.,,g _,,,_y. ,,m, .- ,- m.. ,,, ,.. w-,.,y,., ,--,,......---y,,,, ...m-,-,-.,. p---, , - . ,-,,
, VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE AC'f!ONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Oremon State Field Team No. RAC Rec-----4= tion / Corrective Action Response / Action
1. KI for E.W./ Exposure Control.
Different reactions between the State will revise procedures ground teams on self administration for issuing instructions for of KI. KI administration.
CA -
Revise procedures / training to clarify self administration /self prescription of KI.
Evalustor Assinned:
Jim Price: Gerry VanHorn Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I i
Evaluator Comment:
There has been no revision of the State Procedures for issuing instructions for KI Administration since the last evaluation.
i 192 1
-._m.. . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ , _ _ . . _ . . , _ . . ..
l l
~
i VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 -
, Oteron State Field Team No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action Resnonse/ Action
2. Aerial Team Eaulceent. ,
Aerial Team's kit does not allow State will improve the for ground team configuration, configuration of the Aerial Team's kit, but will not include air sampling capability.
Jd, Since Aerial Tema is often in the position of performing as a Ground Team (due to weather ), their kit configuration should allow for this function (clothing and equipment).
Evaluator Assigned:
Jim Price: Gerry VanHorn Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (I) I Evaluator Comment:
There has been no change in the configuration of the Aerial Tema Kit since the last evaluation.
193
- - - - - ~ ~ -
.?....... . . . .
.. .- . -_: = _-__ __ _ - . - . - - . ._ - - _
VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ~
TROJAN EXERCISE October 16, 1985 Columbis County. Oremon EOC e
No. RAC Recommendation / Corrective Action County Response / Action
1. Update of Status Boards.
For a period of time. Status Boards County's Training Program will were not maintained in a timely emphasize roles and need for fashion. prompt status board updates.
g .
Training should address the laportance of this function.
Evaluator Assinned:
G. Kassynski Action:
Complete (C)
Incomplete (!) I Evaluator Comment:
l l One individual was responsible for maintaining Status Boards and running messages. One individual abould be solely responsible for maintaining Status Boarde.
1 1
% 1 1
194
} _ _ _
l j APPENDIX IV ROLE OF DOSE PROJECTION SYSTEM AND OFFSITE VERIFICATION SYSTEN By Richard W. Donovan, FEMA RX/RAC Chairman Federal Regional Center, Bothell, WA 98021 (206) 481-8800 The purpose of an energency response organization accident assessment /
verification system should not be limited to protection of the public from actual exposure. It should include real time public reassurance during a minor / moderate release as well as a major release. It should include monitoring and documentation of actual radiological conditions in the environment, and assessment of radiation dose to the public (including special population and emergency workers) regardless of magnitude. It should also provide the methodololgy for estimating total dose comaltaents to the public in all affected areas following the termination of all releases (controlled and uncontrolled from an incident).
Dose assessment and protective action recommendations should be the result of two processes:
1. Onsite Jose projection system which is capable of producing dose projections based on plume pathway modeling that is driven by readings, plant parameters, release rates, monitors etc.; and ingestion pathway modeling that is driven by uptake data, deposition assumptions, etc.
2. Offsite rate / dose verification sytem based upon field monitoring, sample collection, and analysis.
Onsite Dose Projection Systes The onsite dose projection system can be either manual or computerized and is usually based upon release rates (real and projected), isotopic analysis, meteorological data, plume dispersion model, and a dose estimation model.
The plume and ingestion models should integrate doses beyond 10 miles and 50 miles for both emergency planning pathways. A annagement system for dispatching field teams collecting data, analyzing data, and closing the protective action process si.ould be developed that will allow an orderly transition from the plume emergency phase into the ingestion phase and the recovery reentry process.
The dose projection system o.Sould compute projections of integrated dose estimates. These projections of potential exposure (plume and lagostion pathway) should be sufficiently conservative to preclude under-estimation of dose tapact.
The dose projection system should have a primary and backup capability.
The backup calculation method should be ande as consistent.as possible with the primary method with regard to consistency in conservation for dose projections.
195 l
i
. ~ . - . . . , . . . _-,. .. . . .. .
5
_. _ _ . ~ . _ . - - _._ .- , _ - - _ , _ , _ , . - . _ _ - - . _ , _ _ , , , , . . , _ , . , _ , , _ . , , , ,__ ________.n.___m______._,_, m__,.,__

ML20154H060

Contents

Text

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20154H060

Text

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search