ML20248J366

Forwards FEMA Exercise Evaluation Rept of Plant 880622 Emergency Preparedness Exercise.Six Deficiencies & 12 Areas Requiring Corrective Action During Exercise Noted.Record Copy

ML20248J366
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	04/05/1989
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Morris K OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8904140404
Download: ML20248J366 (2)

Text

__

y. :.[\\ ',.

APR 51989 L In Reply. Refer To:

Docketi 285 l

l 0

-Omaha'.Public' Power District ATTN:

Kenneth J. Morris, Division Manager

~ Nuclear Operations 1623 Harney Street h

Omaha,.Nebrarka 68102

,Gentlemeni Attached is a. copy of the Federal. Emergency Management Agency's' (FEMA) l

-exercise evaluation report of-the Fort Calhoun Station' emergency preparedness.

exercise of June 22, 1988.

The report indicates that FEMA observed 6 deficiencies and 12 areas requiring-corrective action--during the exercise.

If. you have-any further questions, please contact Mr. Nemen M. Terc at

'(817) 860-8129.

Sincerely, 0

W0 L. J. Callan, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Attachment:

As stated cc w/out attachment:

Program Manager FEMA Region 7 911 Walnut Street, Room 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 cc's w/ attachment:

Director Nebraska Civil Defense Agency

- 1300 Military Road Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 (cc's continued)

C:RPS/ [B AI 89-089 C:SEPMPB C:RPB D:DRP JEvere K/ sir BMurray Westerman Callan l l}l9 0

$ l3 lb bl00N l l I

N' W

@9 oV/ yow M gma

l Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station

. ATTN:

W. G. Gates, Manager P.O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.

20036 Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director bec to DMB (A045) bec distrib. by RIV w/ report:

Resident Inspector Inspector P. Milano, NRR Project Manager

-SEPS:RPB File RIV File bec w/o report:

R. D. Martin R. L. Bangart R. E. Hall B. Murray j

R. J. Everett Project Engineer DRP/B DRP MIS System C. A. Hackney W. D. Travers, NRR I

l l

(-

ff

%o, UNITED STATES k.

E

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,; j h

,j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

/'

- e 3

ji 4 g

March 20, 1989 e

i MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard L. Bangart, Director Division of Radibtion Safety and Safeguards Region IV FROM:

William D. Travers, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 6.

SUBJECT:

FEMA REPORT ON THE JUNE 22, 1988 FORT CALHOUN EXERCISE The enclosed memorandum from Dennis H. Kwiatkowski, dated March 9, 1989, transmits the FEMA Region VII report of the subject exerciser"Six deficiencies identified during the exercise have been adequately corrected through the demonstration of. appropriate remedial actions. Twelve areas requiring corrective action (ARCA) were identified during the exercise. The related objectives will be demonstrated during the next full participation exercise scheduled for July 26, 1989. We request that you forward the enclosed memorandum and attached report to the licensee.

v v MLM W

William D. Trave s, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

FEMA Memo, dtd. 3/9/89 CONTACT:

Lawrence K. Cohen, NRR 492-3184 a n 2 th 9 /R /

& J W y' "Y y -

Q,

1

[%

) Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 MAR - 9 E 1

1 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Frank J. Congel Director

)

Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation yC ission

.S.

Nuclea egulat/J u yo f{.

+-

FROM:

Dennis H.

iatkowski j

Assistant Associate Director j

~

office of Natural and Technological i

Hazards Programs

]

Exercise Report for the dune 22, 1988, Exercise

SUBJECT:

of offsite Radiological Emergency Response i

Plans Site-specific to the Fort Calhoun Nuclear i

Power Plant

]

Attached is a copy of the exercise report for the June 22, 1988, full-participation exercise of the offsite radiological emergency response plans, site-specific to the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant.

The State of Nebraska and the Counties of Sarpy and Washington participated fully in the exercise.

The report was prepared September 22, 1988, by Region VII of the Federal

.. Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The six deficiencies identified during the exercise have been adequately corrected through the demonstration of appropriate l

remedial actions.

A remedial exercise was conducted August 17, 1988, correcting one deficiency cited at the State Forward Command Post and two at the Washington County Emergency Operations Center, as indicated in the attached report.

A l

Medical Services remedial drill was conducted on September 27, 1988, in which another of the previously cited deficiencies was corrected.

The two deficiencies identified for the State of Nebraska regarding the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) were corrected through the State's submission of plan changes and the remedial demonstration of appropriate objectives.

The remedial demonstration for the correction of the EBS deficiencies was accomplished in coordination with the February 13, 1989, Cooper Nuclear Power Station remedial exercise.

j i

1

__________________d

There were twelve Areas Requiring Corrective Action (ARCA) identified during the June 22, 1988, exercise.

As indicatet in the exercise report, the related objectives are to be demonstrated during the next full-participation exercise.

Additional verification of corrective action implementation will be provided by FEMA after the next joint exercise which is now scheduled for July 26, 1989.

Based on the remedial actions taken by the State of Nebraska, FEMA considers that offsite radiological emergency preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken offsite to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the site, in the event of a radiological emergency.

Therefore, the approval of the offsite plans for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant granted under 44 CFR 350 in December 3, 1984, continues to be in effect.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me on 646-2871.

Attachment As Stated I

,tg,9},pr gg.y >.M5.p_,,.Wg;ng.;j,,,g g..ggg, c. 3..4'ggg: q u.c s s..

.7 s

n m,..

.... m. %g.s 4,p;.@1..@; e,Q Q.-Qfg.. t -

. s

<ae n -

f

...ww,,

. :. a..

I ;

a,. ut U kk# [4 Ah.. ~2k. '

e g ne q %--

..,h

,w

. m...z,.n.

d-fi hbfM,h8$

[ f] p'6*!$s 3. e.4 g+,. s w : p p. f.s.r.p h.(y ssp p p g,g g,n.$.v.? Q 3, g.w.b.

4

,$%p;.M.~~Acpe..~

~ e,fg%;A~ M.M.., u...w;p

../ ph..~.

m l

r p

A aq.,,u,w.W.%.

/

~:

. w,. v.

g u, 3. ;. g. 7,~ p -g.:. a.S: q,, A %.2 n p. J. 4._ p. Q ;,

W p.p gg

-Qy.y,..

y

.,,; 9.,c..y ; Q f c.A w. g

c. 4

u. C Q ; y f Q Q q :).592, Q jiP., y,-7..o.,a*;.3 Q g y...}n G.wn; a w",5;:j.<p.g f. n. w.,:t;g,

,ik.. e,,

D

2. '.M

.w w.

i+. ~. ~.,:w.m h: W,. %. g.p.y.n%...yy h.g-s&,*ww** ;,

.. n..

, 1

..

. m;;

,,-w m...~. w....,ew. s,@g.s.mm, s,h.

e..

f.... i

. 6.,.+

w.,

.s.

-.m:.

'd, ',

j,4

[hf i,..y s

i s.ar. r.,

.,_m s

8 f.Q k,, c

., m.

w h

h {5

[

.1 f3

• %[

IMd@

Ek hY hN -

t.Oh 4..'Y,a,,~./*~ '9/T~ O,N.N['j$h., min.a.y.ekNN.r.g.r@

', : >,. r..

,:i w.u u.

m.#

.or. y g.f..J s.y 9,.y..p s,;p~ ;.949y;3 9

g.,,.n 3Q,

.c -ya m.

w :. r %

m,,

.c

. w.ru :, c q..

3,';M.CrT.X k %y pg,g. q% 7 % y.%M 2.z../ g% O gg y.w w W

, ~ -

.g.

a

.?

QyQCt Q,, C.

~": :

3 'e.

. 4,e g r; p. p.y'p' Q.$v{g g p(f ig g,,"t y gg%g Tjgy:,g g3g,;,g

%ge>p.,.,

g y.'

c

. g'y...~,.. @lpg..~.g.r..pnw.,q.y, qqpcyg.f.g.y.gmp. g.m,p,g.,'g.g.S,.g: g...,.,.gg.

g,~t n.,y~.

.4.

.;p g,7m

7.,,4:,,,.,p... wh %g,,w :.y gy.,,

.u w e....%s.p. e,-

+,

,y

g n s,e, w i g n p; a.g

. p,c,. 7.e. -+., ;,..,

.y,.. m%,., m. m., m,. m.y.

pq 7.

m.3,.o 79-

.s.

~

)l.;C ' Mk % V_ 2: M ;;'Q M T.Q T _S i M *-:.k.,3,,, 9,y % :%.: Q.

.4 EKERCISE RYALUATION OF TTI IMPLEMENTATION'O 4..h,q,f'.:., %.,Q '.,,~; y :

^ ' _:

g "..

e Pfw Q. C.f,'..', AND. LOCAL RADIOLOGICAL) EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANSypQ QJj.Q g;;q..

p.p,4. n. N, e ga;.W --!TA ~. W J O p$: 1 A

m.. 6,u..~ J...... n.n L.e.o,,, m. X o.

,,'..,.._ yw.,w.:,n..#g... M:

h 3. A, y gy. :.p..p.ff. y W

.h c

1

ml

...%.M..,x.> s.n:.s,. r,e,y

w%

i a.v x

,.WQ.gx e. %.wg+w.,p,u....,p. ~.p.rV.y h.x.,..3 v y

nac e

p. u :,; mt,.,

r..

t.

a.

+

n.

....a..

.,..,. s,:.,. ~ s.:.n. CA. LH.OUN N. UCLEAR STATION. g,,1....C.#@i >n.,C, m,W N, -. -'.

.W, J.e..F. ORT

,.*$....."1,.<r A.., /..:

... r.>...<;

,1 a

.n.

s, A w *. m. ~v s~. n ;.....,%r.-:p~.c. s a..Q...g-

,4i ww.y.h.g*

y~

,. Blair:, Washington Countyr Nebraska R&.r u,.,

n

.. x...

w

. a. ~. +-

s; v v.,; e : > z g... c;, u,, ~~ u.

=w r r.c w -

. t; Omaha Public Power,r_i, strict,p. LicenseM.f y.c.r7N N '.i. 3 T.-

.. z...g v.y~,p..s y, f.r.;,.g y ;~.f.;ms. s..,.w,.. p,7,y g,,m,m m.....w,1

,DEh.

7. -

J.

D

, L,g.'",.

qm n

., (. g......1..

g m

4

..,9,. e

,.w; w

w m. s.

. g.,.-.

a,.. m,,.,..,. s w-. s.%.v. w.y.. c,,7k s w y_n.s.

4.,,,.. a.., g, e...m._..

4._

pa.

n.

,w.

,z,, e

.z.

.n.

,.,..; n. p., #+.o.3,..

.y

.,,,.. i

.m.....

...... s,4 w.

6

. ra.g.

,y.

..s.

h.

, _,.. t,, m.,,, s,, m,.

,4,.,; g ag

. ; e,,,.,,

...g. w.

s:

., e,,ga.y.,y,

....,,.s 2

.4. s.,

,3 Q.?;'. %l),,y. m.x.x.?EKERCIBE COND'UCTED &m tW 2,;,;.

$u Y ~X l & C if ? W

. %tG@hldf%g Q.$

.., ~ 3

g. *:y ". 7[.,, g 7,,;

l N

[ MF !p l'.C N "'.q'j. g%.j,'/ M $ $ !./yunel22,;j1tS8c.@.{i M.

.' @.V f.

7(./ MV',,., , "

,/#f,q.,

y'u O...I}g/ c'y9 ;;,f-3; W.,hi.$..y.

REME. DIAL EXERCISE. CONDUCT. ED,Wd:/.,@

.d GiM'S dl,V.g.5'.Q % Q U6Wp @ % g g, n..,~~..,.-.. m 4 g.,m,. g-. e FM. A > 3,.<., W

~1988 p.t.wfa_y 1,,e W; a.I :..

.c.. J

.,,.3<.

,c ~

. O.,. August.17F

~.

, y.. -

y...., <.. g p g ^. w@.

,.y S.

a.

u. e,..x

,~...e:

g ; g P. g g

,... pf.,. 4 3 p

.n. w -

gl

, 3,f.*. g.3.:af.,ng%. ;,.p.. pf..g<.y. y;gg gg g.

m.

...,.....,p-qqvg;..yggg,,,g,.;,yggy..g, my;_g.m. y 4. M. % n b, e' s, N D $h.

p,.,

+x

^-.

t :,a.....

c., (.?.c.E.[5,P,ar.t.iidpant!~sNM, y -

? ' W...... g, M $Eyt,@37,h.%.w.g;l.6' 4;

N,iM.[ll.hQ.y'.Qyp%.s

.:Ib-UA'

. u.a. l.v..s.['4 p. Q l f g. $ ? Q E O Q., y. % $ ?,..u%.p';.jQ4 QyQ.Q ' 4,.y irs

~~ @g.*:.Y.Y :.%*e.

.'.M:& W t

.,g A i p., W,. 9... w 2 c.y e

w um w4w m.

s..-

o.

.. A/. County of Sarpy yc

- 3. % g, g g v. g. Y 'I C,b u m & g,.o..,,

y t.. i_ n g t o D.. W.a g 4 w,

N D M P. s.: %.n_T. S. a /:

u m nty. f-Wash

e..*. ~,,,

y,.. m 3

w m

w

.,i

.s..., 4, sMy, A~

N-. & % y & p..Q $ 9, &,...#.

1. y.

o

... m p,

sf&g.a[l}!@&!&&Q&;p6,d.. f*::bgQ y

N(;

V:, 4, pp%@&$fftQ.% M. i%

R.

ER,2g, q @..... m.,j.%. %.,,,, u p:

a b.

. ig -

3;

%. (%....,, E y

% I%. h I{.,

bkh.h.h.nM,{ N... ~.Whg

.8 kN

$ k

• N h N h, o -MEkMi

$5 6 M M@' G @?#g[ M M f

.. m,

,q.

[A$%F@@/@Nbh,.o

.q MyN i

c M4fg. @#5/i%.[Qj L.hf.@" Region-VII,iCKansa iM

@6y*/,C.Federar.EmorgancyManagenent.Agancy FM,fl.,1 g J i,y,S,@p i% JC ~

.,9 4

. W !? ? & 2..

y@s:2:,p. : A.

. ' W,.. f.

3.. Q.Qy, s, ?ly@c;A,w. f u g.:;,,a. nr w.w.p ~..,.4g

..g;,;;yg. c.

WG.x.so,,,7.;%.*a.

.w

.r

!*.y!h?;;;.Fi;'.?. };y>,f,['$%.Q,%s

&,f;Q.Q *iXh,y$;g,:g 2~g,

.u.;.4,w..+"g., sl.,

r...

m ik.

s c

,Q* '

g g u,j.; g,--v.'....f..,.,,,A.;.'.

..x.,.,. n,, A. y; m :g. ~ ~.p.e~ % g. c.

,s..:e. w,.

. <;,:.,y; nt.,;,%.. w< 4.., or;n. 2...g=...~,#

y.. b, L,; w -. - Y..

.y..u

c. p M.,. :. y...y ww.. e m,.

r:~.:r m t. n

.e

,. Regional.. irector, cit.: W 4W;,.c E.MO. 9...

,.A.

6

m. y

a.;

,s u g, ti,p. <

k h, h ;$ N,kh.k'[;.,..J.DU. g,rstree6m.

s v7 7.7 f,..f. ;.p, q,. W,..

D 4

ove

e. h.Id}Yh h bI h h h h,h,..m,.w.;g g e-7 y,,

,.y y, :,,7y 3,, 3.% y k,k

[h#hihhM NN.

.es

w. m.. m: U;i.'h{@g'Q~g,24.M))w;::s,fM7%@*Q.I?.'%Q'$4

. s e w=?

a Is&, hw. b.yJR

.S W

iQ

.,i ym Q.:.lv-RMs&. M,g&.%;t.Q & W.

' %& Q.5

g

NY$&~.:yQ #fh%Q[?b'-)h&ys yv,p..,.,,,,

) U*;.,.

g, t f.Sa::stf*-)cA

%.'QQMt W Vi3 M*

-f c

$*.,y.WK:

• 4,

w..*, 4. 3. -.

p ~ 4

-, q;,, n.,h,,.,p p.

. J,3; t f.,,

ACh$,Y$M'MNEGWW.3... - p,.*o.m..,,.g.,'r.,pp h.

..;9.t s-.. e y;, ~~. v s

Ni. 44 ;&;MQ$p s

e a

g

.=

1.ge

., b*.;.$

4.t

. n x~. E ~..MJN I

W.

gg;W%}

&, M &., '< h. _;lqm:Wf*"

• yy2:

rrO. W.

%-B

. e#g'jg>gd@

T'[. '.,,,

/

r. b~

c%,;.a I W,. b... 1..,.* r 7 " M, W

m d.

~,

w*.

~

a s

m M

E

?, '

m..

~"

5 l..

. kNb

/k

>gg+ era,m.

,,r.

g g7 Ni h k' h MENh[e gn @f$

r s

rd.yd,,,.3, p@ a z -

a

.m

="

%,;ge. p.. uk w a

g w

w e

..c g

'r*4W.

n

& rim tM 3.tppp

- # ~ ' ' ' "

~*

C e e 4

5 % :.

%&' QoJ~QggYvd g.M g'vil%.

~

k x y MANCE m

Af g %s..

97

$y, fh.I b

,hk dk i

4P, k

't mr Nhh$54

, Y

.. j $

4 l

. "hY$

b.44

$.J 55%

.QW.

5.lO h,0%UD$

WNhEh%

A.*

(%j$.i~hMT W

WQEfk' M f?.M". 31.Mk((#

M

• #@b MT.CpJb.

kN W "$

W

f. pref N

~

1 u

niiL&yqf,'%g$.Mly gen 4l'qlW.Q,f

%.y.

O y, vSQ,yyMy.W" IM) j'hyAO/,.% :* % % 1%%% %Wp_A.

? t.

w4:..o tu) m, w f, %.

v m

.y W #Wvr$6&fk

. h?q.y n N S D Jd h $ 0$ $,.'AND,IOCAL,,RADIOLOGI,CAIiEMERGENCY A$$. EXERCISE NVALU1 TION OF7 TIE IMPLEMENTATION"OVSTATEy49v glf,y -

f dN3; un %d9/Iob9P Blairj..Wa b, b $b k [f IY?

b Ogi1 f%

E %p*h r N W % %,W FORT,CALE0DN NUCK. EAR STATION

~Q h.

v.- u.

WWkhhW4:A? 'd ska,,f

. M. s 6 rue i

W 3.W :

+ n1+:;~ w.v ;,,: w+8 g M M@. 'i E N o maha.',

,M~t p:My.-p.er.LLe, %w,t.g;Lic.ns'.e!,p ;:p x$

lia. Power,l CicnA g,pl. ~.

c.

District 7 t

vb 4

n p*;

y m y v. m,c,m.% sky, y.n.p

y m p.

r. w m ; g,h.ap.,. -. $g.w". i Y..

b k k h hk N h,a.% h d. h "_.,.;...,:. M., % m.

$k$

f g>p 9

k fg

-5@$%(@h

.g... M-QW y4y4%

9 EEERCISE CONDUCTED.

l4 5 M g

w, 4

7 7+

M 5

ff h kINAkk N h d ".

$ $2d ffh

.,4%gf##s y,hME dfg REMEDIAL EXERCISE CONDUCTED) p'e.y g hpS @ i."'#. @h yA st gUp;m.q:.i,Myg, fhiiH$TS@9+.%$$$q$8llg,.(,h. P'-ii?

r V

44

%r727 -

F h

w.,ih s Ju

'e &.

n.4 W.&rh$DM by g

c:a$505 g~.k$$$

n.

~

p ; 2 p"Partiodpasfis. F '22 7;Mt.$ g #

g.,, p q.

8@bT.m9.k.. w$..Ml3k./s*p$gk rww gg%

Efddl

"'#h' h: h ; M $'@$$# " k t'i k A a$l[d.9,d M a._,W,f T

f8M

~.V m ev.Ik gy y.,.n g

" d ',

% ff,2 m D county;of.sarpya

?

u..w

'd

%;>NbMSW;2kRp

. M1

43. iq WMn'n:p@@.ibl3R w.. s. %ofiWashingtoit c b

'hsty '-

.gt /ff

$16.f A:q.

+-

y w $ 1I $ h,... Q y 2 ;%

g

_ [N( %g & % %

.+

9 g

5%

yYfjP

$$r#/ig$18,d

?

4 3

3 NM,$hkiM@N@4fM 3f@M MINMY,iMY'

~N

@ N M [ [ M ) -.{ f'

' F

• E W " E[* *h T g 7' 7

., I )

N

.k M

$kh h Y { C ERe loni.V L)j%@M%

h %

iC.

F-Q ' 3Gf8nk'tQQ.g?MPaiV Misson,i.

E

,#7N' f

':Ransasscity 5g i 6$i~i%i 4p>hn?g4 W&l%C.'$??'

~~

s...

~x.

h RegionalhY

$gmnyn..

m. MS..,.s4.pp.o.

gs m sw

%MWwgpyg..ovjrstre.y2ppp. Dir atory.w.

v yy pgg m

c

%n a w n,e a a, a a n n

n nw wemu l

• ~

CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM 8.................................. 111 EXERCISE 8UMMARY.............................................

vi 1

INTRODUCTION............................................

1 1.1 Exercise Background................................

1 1.2 Exercise Evaluators................................

1 1.3 Evaluation Criteria................................

2 1.4 Exercise Objectives................................

2 1.5 Exercise Scenario..................................

3 1.6 State and Local Resources..........................

3 2

EXERCISE EVALUATION.....................................

5 2.1 Nebraska Operations................................

5 2.1.1 State Emergency Operations Center.........,..

5 2.1.2 State Field Command Post....................

8 2.1.3 Dose Assessment and Field Team Coordination.

9 2.1.4 Field Monitoring...........................

12 2.1.5 Radiological Laboratory....................

15 2.1.6 Information Authentication Center..........

15 2.1.7 Media Release Center.......................

18 2.1.8 DeSoto Bend National Wildlife Refuge........

19 2.2 County Operations.................................

20 2.2.1 Washington Co. Emergency Operations Center.

20 2.2.2 Washington County Emergency Worker Decontam-ination Center.............................

23 2.2.3 Media-Blair Rescue Squad and UNMC Hospital.

24 2.2.4 Sarpy County Emergency Operations Center...

25 2.3 Iowa State Operations.............................

25 2.3.1 Council Bluffs Ambulance...................

25 2.3.2 Missouri Valley Rescue Squad................. 26 3

REMEDIAL EXERCI85......................................

28 3.1 BBCkground........................................

28 3.2 Nebraska Information Authentication Center........

28 3.3 Forward Command Post (Div. of Rad Health)..........

30 3.4 Washington County Emergency Operations Center.....

30 3.5 Blair Rescue Squad (BRS) and Hospital.............

30 l

3.6 Missouri Valley Rescue Squad (MVRS)...............

31 1

4

SUMMARY

OF DEFICIENCIES AND AREA 8 REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION..................................................

32 4.1 Deficiencies......................................

32 4.2 Areas Requiring Corrective Action.................

33 _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ -

E i

IAC Information Authentication Center IDOT Iowa Department of Transportation INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory ING Iowa National Guard ISDH Iowa State Department of Health ISP Iowa State Patrol KI Potassium Iodide LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident MRC Media Release Center i

MVRS Missouri Valley Rescue Squad i

NPPD Nebraska Public Power District NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological 0654 Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of I

Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (1980).

l OPPD Omaha Public Power District PAG Protective Action Guidelines PAR Protective Action Recommendations PCEOC Pottawattamie County (IA) Emergency Operations Center PHS Public Health Service PIO Public Information Center I

RAC Regional Assistance Committee RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RERP Radiological Emergency Response Plan SCP (Iowa) State Compensatory Plan SEB State Emergency Board SEOC State Emergency Operations Center SHP State Highway Patrol (Nebraska) l l

-iv-

EXERCISE

SUMMARY

The purpose of an exercise is to determine the ability of the various off-site agencias to respond to an emergency covered i

by state and local Radiological Emergency Response Plans.

The evaluation of such an effort will, of necessity, tend to focus on the negative aspects of the exercise, on inadequacies in plan-ning, preparedness and performance.

This summary's focus on the negative should not be taken to mean that there were not a great many positive accomplishments as well.

Indeed, there were.

But in the interest of brevity, only inadequacies will herein be summarized.

FEMA classifies exercise inadequacies as deficiencies or ar-eas requiring corrective actions.

Deficiencies are demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that off-site emerdency preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken to protect the health and safety i

of the public living in the vicinity of a nuclear power facility j

in the event of a radiological emergency.

Areas recuirina corrective actions (ARCAs) are demonstrated and observed inadequacies of State and local government performance, and although their correction is required, they are not considered, by themselves, to adversely impact public health and safety.

In addition, FEMA identifies areas recommended for imorove-

ment, which are problem areas observed during an exercise that are not considered to adversely impact public health and safety.

While not

required, correction of these would enhance an organization's level of preparedness.

In several instances, objectives are judged to have been only partially demonstrated.

A partial demonstration need not lead to an inadequacy.

It can result from limits of demonstra-tion imposed by the scen.ario, or the choice of one response option over another.

FEMA identifies these objectives as not fully demonstrated.

NEBRASKA OPERATIONS Nebraska State Emercancy Operations Center While many functions were performed quite well, two objec-tives were not adequately demonstrated.

The first was objective Number 12, protective actions in the ingestion pathway.

While actual implementation occurs in the field, there was a technical assistance role for the agricultural representatives.

They were J

not sufficiently well versed in the technical aspects of inges-tion pathway issues to carry out this role.

-vi-

Eachincton County EOC Two deficiencies were observed, both relating to access con-trol.

Through a

lack of coordination between Sheriff's Department and the Blair Police Department, not all access con-trol points were established.

Proper demonstration was accomplished at a remedial exercise on August 17, 1988.

There were two areas requiring corrective action; both re-lated to personal exposure control.

Washincton County Raeroency Workar Decontamination Center i

objective Number 29 was not fully demonstrated, since no ve-hicles were decontaminated.

Blair Rescue Seuad and University of Nebraska Medical Center The Blair Rescue Squad, a volunteer organization, required an hour to mobilize.

In the meantime, other means were used to transport the victim.

A remedial drill was conducted on August 17, 1988.

However, when the ambulance arrived at the plant, the crew had no opportu-nity to demonstrate their skill at surveying and treating a

contaminated, injured individual.

Another remedial drill will be required.

The Medical Center fully demonstrated all objectives.

Barov County EOC Since this county had a minimal role, only Objectives Number 1,

3, 4,

and 5 were required.

They were fully demonstrated.

IONA OPERATION 8 Missouri valley Rescue Seuad The crew failed to adequately demonstrate the procedures and techniques for handling a contaminated, injured person.

This was fully rectified at a remedial drill on August 17, 1988.

Council Bluffs Ambulance This crew was well trained and fulfilled all the objectives.

-viii-

l 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 EXERCISE BACKGROUND Radiological emergency response plans for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station (FCNS) for the States of Iowa and Nebraska and affected local jurisdictions have been conditionally approved by FEMA.

The Nebraska State and local portions of those plans were approved by FEMA on December 3, 1984.

The Iowa State Plans were approved on May 6, 1987.

Eoth approvals are conditioned upon final approval of the Alert & Notification System.

This joint radiological emergency preparedness exercise was conducted for the FCNS on June 22, 1988.

It was classified as full participation for Nebraska.

Iowa did not participate.

The.

results of the exercise are presented in this report.

The exer -

cise was conducted between the hours of 0700.and 1430.

The plans exercised included the Nebraska Radiological Emergency

Response

Plan, and the Sarpy and Washington County, Nebraska, Radiological Emergency Response Plans.

This scenario did not require. activa-tion of the Dodge County EOC.

Previous exercises for this facil-1 ity were held July 22, 1981, September 15,

1982, December 6-7,

1983, October 24, 1984, July 24, 1985, June 25,

1986, and July

-22, 1987.

This is the second year of the second six year cycle.

1.2 EXERCISE EVALUATORS Fifteen Federal Agency personnel and five FEMA contract per-sonnel evaluated the off-site emergency response functions.

Evaluators and their assignments are listed below:

Observer Agency Assianment Bob Bissell FEMA Washington Co. EOC Bill Brinck EPA Dose Assessment & F.T.

Coordination Mike Browne DOT /FHWA DeSoto Bend Tim Burke ARC Sarpy Co. EOC Marlee Carroll FEMA IAC Tom Carroll ANL Field Monitoring Carol Coleman FEMA Nebraska SEOC John Coleman FEMA MRC Bob Dye EPA Nebraska Rad lab John Furst FEMA Nebraska FCP Ed Hakala ANL Washington Co. EOC Anna Hart USDA Nebraska SEOC

K.-

V,...

E.

' State EOC-(Lincoln) a.

Mobilization'and staffing of control centers; deci-sion-making'and coordination; and, use of. displays.

The State Field Command Post will locate to the Fort Calhoun EOF.. If plant scenario permits, test relocation of. State Field Command Post to support field operations _by local and State Governments.

(FEMA Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) b.

Implement operational status and functions.to include:

Notification and follow-up contacts with State, partici-pating States, Federal, and private agencies having responsibilities described in Nebraska Plan.

Includes decision-making and coordination.

(FEMA Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5) c.

' Reaction times and simulated supporting resources esti-mates for selected State, Federal and voluntary agencies.

(FEMA Objective 3) d.

Support field radiological response activities.

Coordi-nate protective action recommendations prepared by the Field Comand Post.

(FEMA.0bjectives 3 and 5) e.-

Support transport _of-samples to the State Laboratory in Lincoln.

(See para 6. below)

.(FEMA Objective 9) f.-

Assumption of operational status and functioning of State-EOC in coordination with agencies and field elements.

Includes State EOC interstate coordination.

(FEMA' Objectives 3, 4 and 5) g.

State EOC coordination of simulated Federal technical and non-technical support.under the Federal Radiological Emer-gency Preparedness Plan (FRERP), including message flow and simulated support by such agencies as NRC, DOE and FEMA.

(FEMA Objectives 4, 5, 32 and 35)'

h.

Support and coordinate implementation of ingestion EPZ protective actions determined by Field Command Post.

Coordinate agricultural response requirements in support of the Department of Health. Agricultural operations will be conducted by the USDA State Emergency Board acting in conjunction with the State Department of Agriculture.

(FEMA 0bjectives 11 and 12) 1.

Support operations of the Infonnation Authentication Center (IAC) and Media Release Center (MRC).

If neces-sary, issue coordinated releases from State EOC.

(FEMA Objectives 14, 24, 25 and 26) 2a

1L,.

c.

Mobilize and deploy field monitoring teams in a timely manner.

l (FEMA Objective 6) l d.

Decision-making provisions for the simulated use and dis-tribution of radioprotective' drugs for emergency workers.

Monitor and control emergency worker exposure.

(FEMA Objectives 8, 20, 21 and 22) e.

Conduct health hazard assessment for exercise radiological hazards in Plume and Ingestion EPZ.

Coordinate with utility and adjacent States. Make appropriate protective action recommendations to Governor's Authorized Represen-tative.

Implementation of Plume EPZ arotective actions to be simulated.. Coordinate ingestion haZ operations with 5 tate iOC. Develop support requirements to be accomplished by the agriculture agencies at the State EOC in coordination with the Health Sept. representative at the State E0C.

Perform similar functions for reentry and recovery operations.

(FEMA Objectives 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 34 and 35) f.

Conduct Ingestion EPZ recovery operations in support of local government.

(FEMA Objectives 3 and 35) 4.

IAC/ EOF

\\

l a.

Activate the IAC (FEMA Objectives 1, 2 and 5) b.

Assumption of operational status to include: coordination with appropriate utility, State, and local government agencies and organizations, including communications; formulating public information and instructions; and, use of displays.

(FEMA Objectives 3, 4, 5 and.14) c.

Coordination of rumor control functions and coordination with MRC.

(FEMA Objectives 25, 26 and 35) d.

Coordination with Washington County EOC and dissemination of emergency public information and instructions to EBS within 15 minutes of declaration of SITE AREA EMERGENCY and/or GENERAL EMERGENCY.

Support ongoing local government emergency public information efforts.

(FEMA Objectives 13, 14 and 25) 5.

MRC (Omaha) a.

Activate the MRC

-(FEMA Objectives 1, 2 and 5) 2e 1

p J --

d.

' Emergency' area and decontamination procedures for a contaminated individual.

-(FEMA Objective 31).

C.

The.following Nebraska local support capabilities, as listed in appropriate plans, will be tested:

1.

Washington County-EOC' a-Initial notification receipt and alerting of-key people.

(FEMA Objective 1)-

b.

~ Communications and coordination with all involved l

agencies.

(FEMA Objective-5) c.

Mobilization of staff and activation of the EOC..to include capability for.24-hour operations.

(FEMA Objectives 1, 2 and 3) i d.

Assumption of operational status and functioning of the EOC to include:

notification of local government and private agencies and organizations; decision-making and coordination, and,'use of displays.

.(FEMA Objectives'~3 and 4) e.

Communications with appropriate S. tate and local agencies

(

and field elements.

(FEMA Objective 5) f.-. Alert public within 15 minutes of declaration of SITE AREA EMERGENCY and/or GENERAL EMERGENCY and recommendation by the EOF: coordinate public.infonnation and instructions with IAC; and brief media regarding local activities.-

Monitor local media broadcasts and coordinate with IAC.

(FEMAObjectives 13,14,24,25and.26) g.

Support reentry / recovery operations.

(FEMA Objectives 35) h.

Monitor and control emergency worker exposure.

(FEMA Objective 20) 1.

Practice coordinated access control and security by selected law enforcement agencies.

(FEMAObjective.17) i j.

Support, coordinate and/or implement Ingestion EPZ protec-(

tive actions as required.

1 I

-(FEMA Objective 12) 2.

Emergency Worker Decontamination Station (Blair)

]

a.

Activation of decontamination station including appropri-ate staffing.

j (FEMA Objectives 1 and 2) 2e

The 35 FEMA Objectives are used for exercise tracking.

These objectives are referenced by number in each section of the report.

It should be clearly understood that any mention of ob-jectives being inadequately or not fully demonstrated refers only to this exercise, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

1.5 EXERCISE SCENARIO l

1 l

This scenario was initiated when a mini-spray valve and a

containment purge valve malfunctioned.

This occurred about 0700.

About 0930 a main steam safety valve also malfunctioned and lead to the rupture of a steam generator tube.

This resulted in con-taminated primary coolant being released in the secondary system and the atmosphere.

The wind was toward the southwest, with the release being carried toward the town of Kennard.

The main events were as follows:

Planned Actu'al Time Event Time 0730 Containment Radiation Monitor 0740 goes into Alert Alarm 0900-Main Steam Safety Valve 0918 Malfunctions; Worker is Burned and Contaminated.

Site Area Emergency 0945 General Emergency 0948 1200 Plant Recovery and 24-Hour 1300 Time Jump 1300 Ingestion Pathway Actions 1310 1600 Exercise Terminates 1600 1

1.6 STATE AND LOCAL RESOURCES l

l Organizations participating in the exercise:

State of Nebraska State Civil Defense Agency Nebraska National Guard l

Nebraska Highway Patrol l

Nebraska State Agriculture Department Nebraska Game & Parks Nebraska Department of Health University of Nebraska Medical Center 3

m

2-EXERCISE EVALUATION 2.1 NEBRASKA OPERATIONS 2.1.1 313te Emercency Operations Center (SEOC)

The following objectives were to be demonstrated:

1, 2,

3, 4,

5, 12, 25, 32 and 35.

A corrective action from the last exercise was related to tirely notification by the State Highway Patrol (SHP).

This was ar.complished when, at 0740 the SHP. called to announce that the plant had declared an Alert.

Mobilization calls began immediately, and the facility was fully staffed at 0853..

This included representatives of the State Department of Agriculture, the USDA State Emergency Board, and the Department of Health.

During the course of the exercise a

shift change was performed, adequately demonstrating 24-hour f.

capability.

Objectives 1 and 2 were fully demonstrated.

As An the past, facilities, displays, and equipment were ad-equate to support emergency operations, fully demonstrating Ob-jective Number 4.

Primary and backup communications to all appropriate sites were demonstrated, fully accomplishing Objective Number 5.

At 0918 they were notified that a Site Area Emergency had been declared at 0915.

At 0920 the State Operations Officer called Washington County EOC to advise them that sirens should be sounded.

While the Operations Officer was still in contact with the Washington County EOC, the EOF came on the hot line at 0922 and also advised sounding the sirens.

At 0929 the FCP advised the SEOC that the sirens had sounded.

At 0937 the EBS test mes-sage aired over KFAB.

At 0936 the SEOC notified FEMA Region VII that a Site Area Emergency had been' declared.

(They had previously called about the Alert at 0836.)

In addition, they requested FEMA to provide on-site assistance in tt area of public affairs.

5

4 t

• What procedures exist for farmers to obtain support re-sources?

• How are surplus feed sources identified /provided to farmers?

• Who is responsible for contacting milk haulers?

What is the procedure?

• Are transporters advised that milk is potentially radiologically contaminated?

• What are the procedures for obtaining-authorization for holding, dumping or processing milk?

The evaluator also remarked on the positive attitude of the

staff, their professionalism and their receptiveness to increas-ing their proficiency in this area.

1.

Objective Number 12 was not adequately demonstrated.

The PIO was quite active in coordination of all information prior to release to the public.

It is recommended that in the early stages of the accident (particularly before the IAC is ac-tivated) that the PIO could be better utilized if located in the Operations Center of the SEOC.

I objective Number 25 was fully demonstrated.

In the course of the exercise, Federal assistance was re-

- quested from FEMA, EPA, DOE, and the USCG.

However, it is recommended that radiological and meteoro-logical data be provided during each Regional Office contact.

Objective Number 32 was fully demonstrated.

Overall emergency operations management and decision-making l

was demonstrated by two different shifts.

Both were adequate in their performance.

However, it was observed that message han-dling protocol seemed to be unfocused, with each State agency as-signing its own message numbers and distributing them as they believed appropriate.

It is recommended that this process be re-viewed for more consistency.

Objective Number 3 was fully demonstrated.

Objective Number 35, Recovery and Reentry, was not demon-strated.

Summary:

Objectives fully demonstrated:

1, 2,

3, 4, 5, 25, and 32.

7 1

I

Their role in protective action decision-making for the in-gestion pathway was the same as the plume pathway.

There was extensive discussion with members of the Division of Radiological Health ~regarding reentry, food contamination, and PARS.

Objective Number 11 was fully demonstrated.

At 1000 it was determined that there was a need for DOE as-sistance, and help was requested.

It was later determined that a DOE response would take approximately 24-hours.

Other requests for Federal assistance were coordinated with and made by the SEOC.

I Objectives Number 3 and 32 were fully demonstrated.

At 1003, after discussion with State Department of

Health, it was recommended that emergency workers within the EPZ should j

take KI.

This fully demonstrated Objective Number 21.

Objective Number 35 was fully demonstrated.

Neither the State plan nor Federal guidelines contain re-entry PAGs.

However, diligent consideration was given to exist-1 ing conditions in arriving at the reentry decision.

The establishment within the State plan of State PAGs would make re-I entry decisions more readily defensible.

At 1643 they advised the SEOC that the dose rates and pro-jections indicated that evacuees could return to their homes by

- about June 30.

At 1700 the exercise terminated.

Summary:

Objectives fully demonstrated are:

1, 2,

3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, 32, and 35.

Area Recommended For Improvement 4.

Development of interim state reentry PAGs would be useful.

2.1.3 Dose Assessment and Field Team Coordination These functions were carried out by members of the State Di-vision of Radiological Health who were located at the EOF with the State Field Command Post.

Objectives to be evaluated were:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

10, 11, 20, 21, 22, and 35.

The call' triggering activation was received at the Depart-ment Headquarters in Lincoln at 0740.

The staff was assembled 9

~%.

l.,

As the ingestion pathway became an issue, appropriate dose l

projection procedures were demonstrated.

The State people fre-quently compared their projections with OPPD.

Monitoring teams were told to sample for airborne radiciodine, vegetation,

soil, water and milk.

Objective 11 was fully demonstrated.

Personal dosimetry was used appropriately by BRH

staff, fully demonstrating Objective Number 20.

At 1000 the Director of the Division of Radiological Health recommended KI for field teams, and at 1004 extended this to in-clude emergency workers in the EPZ.

Supplies of the drug were available and procedures for distribution were known by.all.

Objectives 21 and 22 were fully demon,strated.

/.

When the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time jump was announced it created problems because the scenario did not provide data on what had-transpired in the interim.

The team attempted to construct its own data and continue the exercise.

Recovery 'and reentry discussions were extensive.

When it was discovered that the reentry PAGs in the State Plan were inad -

equate, they set about formulating their own reentry levels.

There was general agreement on 25 mR/yr.

However, this should be researched for supporting evidence and, if warranted, put in the 4

plan.

Part of the discussion revolved around information to the

_public.

They prepared information on safety precautions to be taken during reentry, but no information on possible health ef-fects of low level exposure.

It was also decided that the information would be communi-cated to the public via public meetings rather than EBS releases.

Both methods should be utilized.

This information was transmitted to the SEOC at 1441.

The exercise terminated at 1600.

Objective 35 was fully demonstrated.

I Summary:

Objectives fully demonstrated:

1, 3,

4, 5,

6, 10, j

11, 20, 21, 22 and 35.

1 i

l objective not adequately demonstrated:

2.

Deficiency 1.

The second shift roster was the same as the first, which is a demonstrated inability to provide for 24-hour capability.

This deficiency was resolved by submission of a

valid 4

I 11

e e

would be biased high.

For measurements made immediately follow-ing reactor shutdown, the bias would be a factor of approximately ten.

If the other radioiodines are counted more efficiently than I-131, then the. calculated I-131 concentrations would be greater than a factor of 10 for the same time period following reactor shutdown.

This overestimate of the I-131 concentration would re-sult in an overestimate of the thyroid dose projection which in turn would lead to taking protective actions to a greater dis-tance than required.

Objective Number 8 was not adequately demonstrated.

The team collected samples of soil, vegetation and water.

All procedures were properly performed with samples prepared for transport.

A milk sample was not obtained by the field team since they were not requested to do so.

Additionally, the milk sampling procedure does not include an option or requirement for adding a preservative.

At the exit inte"rview it was stated by State personnel that adding a preservative was not included since the preservative may not be conducive to a counting procedure that includes ion-exchange techniques.

There are, however, pre-servatives available that do not interfere with counting proca-dures requiring use of. lon-exchange techniques.

It is recommended that the option for adding this preservative be in-cluded in the sampling plan in the event a large inventory of milk samples are required for preservation of the samples prior to counting and for sample archives after counting.

Since no. milk samples were taken, Objective Number 9 was not

~ fully demonstrated.

All personal dosimetry was according to plan.

The Landauer TLDs issued to emergency workers have an issue date of 10-10-83.

It is not clear if the TLDs are annealed (rezeroed) on a periodic basis (e.g.,

annually) or if the TLDs were annealed only at the time of issue.

The potential exists for each TLD to acquire a

~

different exposure history during the 5-year stor&ge at the State Health Office in Lincoln.

The exposure history is probably not known at the time of issuance to emergency workers and others (e.g.,

farmers allowed to reenter a contaminated area).

If the TLDs have an unknown exposure, then a readout would be biased high resulting in a conservative exposure.

This may not be a ra-diological concern, but could lead to a liability concern for the State.

Objective Number 20 was not adequately demonstrated and sub-jact to corrective action.

Team Number Two was also fully staffed.

After arriving at the EOF at 0900, they performed equipment checks and received briefing information.

They were at their first monitoring point at 0955.

Since no shift change was performed, Objective Number 2 13

2.1.5 Radiological Laboratory objectives to be demonstrated were:

2 and 9.

The operation was fully staffed at the beginning of the work day.

Qualified individuals received second shift assignments.

Several of them were also present and participated in the exer-cise.

There was an adequate number of trained personnel to as-sure the capability of 24-hour operation.

Objective Number 2 was fully demonstrated.

The staff performed well in receiving and screening. samples delivered from the field.

However, a CDV-700 at the receiving area did not have a calibration sticker.

This will require correction.

s.

It is recommended that the sample log be revised to reflect I

the date, time, and name of the person collecting the sample.

Proper procedures were observed in doing the analysis on the soil and vegetation samples.

Procedures also existed for milk and water, but were not demonstrated.

However, there were no procedures on file for analysis of snow.

This will be an area requiring corrective action.

Objective Number 9 was not fully demonstrated.

summary:

Objective Number 2 was fully demonstrated.

Objective Number 9 was not adcquately demonstrated.

Area Reauirina Corrective Action 6.

Procedures for performing radiological analysis of snow must be developed and ready for review at the next exercise.

7.

The CDV-700 used to receive samples must have a calibration sticker at the next exercise.

Areas Recommended for Improvement 5.

The sample log should be revised to reflect the date, time and name of the person collecting the sample.

2.1.6 Information Authentication center (IAct This operation is located at the EOF and functions in con-cert with the FCP.

Objectives to be evaluated were:

1, 2,

4, 5,

14, 25, and 26.

15

\\

While there was a good deal of interaction between the Ne-braska and OPPD PIOS, and an exchange of releases, much of this occurred after the information had been released.

In this sense, it was communication, but not prior coordination.

An example of this failure could be seen when, at 1007, OPPD issued a correction to a State message that had gone out to the MRC.

The correction involved the inclusion of the evacuation of pregnant women and preschool children.

This had initially been omitted by the IAC staff.

Objective Number 25 was not adequately demonstrated.

The IACs role in rumor control is primarily and basically one of obtaining accurate information, should it be required by the MRC or local government in combatting any rumors that,might be circulating.

When Washington County ^ transmitted evacuation routes at 1029, one of them was erroneous.

Members of the staff detected the error and corrected it prior to issuance.

Objective Number 26 was fully demonstrated.

Summary:

Objectives fully demonstrated:

1, 4,

5, and 26.

Objectives not adequately demonstrated:

2, 14 and 25.

i Deficiencies

-2.

Failure to either simulate or actually contact the EBS sta-tion with PARS at the Site Area Emergency and twice during the General Emergency is a deficiency in the demonstration of Objective Number 14.

3.-

Erroneous landmark descriptions were used to delineate sec-tors L, M and N when an evacuation PAR was composed, leaving a portion of the affected area unevacuated.

This is a defi-ciency in the demonstration of Objective Number 14.

At a remedial exercise on August 17, 1988, Deficiency Number 3 above was remedied.

However, they failed to contact EBS in a timely manner and further corrective action will be re-quired by October 22, 1988.

Areas Requirina Corrective Action 8.

Proper coordination between Nebraska and OPPD prior to re-lease of information must be demonstrated at the next exer-cise to accomplish correction of the inadequacy ascribed to Objective Number 25.

17

Eighteen calls were handled, fully demonstrating Objective Number 26.

Summary:

Objectives fully demonstrated:

1, 4, 5, 25, and 26.

Objective not adequately demonstrated:- 24.

Objectives'not fully demonstrated:

2 and 5.

Area Reauirine Corrective Action 10.

At the next exercise, timely release of all PAR messages must be demonstrated.

2.1.8-Desoto Band National Wildlife Refuae L

At 0759 the DeSoto Bend National Wildlife Refuge received a

call from the Nebraska State EOC advising them that a Site Area

-Emergency had been declared.

This would appear to have been a misstatement by the

SEOC, since the correct EAL at this time was " Alert".

Based on this notification, refuge personnel began Eneir evacuation procedures.

At 0851 it was confirmed that simulated evacuation of the 20 visitors and refuge personnel had been ac-complished.

At 0930 the communications center at Logan, Iowa called to say that sirens were about to be activated and requested confir-mation.

Officers stationed in the main part of the refuge re-ported hearing the sirens.

At 0950 notice of General Emergency was received.

At 0957 the Nebraska SEOC called with current meteorological data.

At this time, in a real emergency, depending on the severity of the situation, all refuge personnel may also have been evacuated.

While refuge personnel generally acted in conformity with their own emergency plans and performed well, a review of those plans would indicate certain weaknesses.

Primarily, the section entitled " Nuclear Accident" does not

' use the terminology found in the definition of the Emergency Ac-tion Levels (EALs).

Since protective actions are tied to these

levels, it is important that their significance be understood by decision makers at the refuge.

The only protective action avail-able to refuge visitors is evacuation.

The plan should clearly state that evacuation will take place at a Site Area Emergency.

This would not prohibit refuge management from evacuating at the 19

i At 0920 the SEOC called and announced that a Site Area Emer-gency had been declared at 0915.

At 0922 the official notice came from the plant and sirens were activated at 0928.

At 0929 the Sheriff's dispatcher began dictating message #4 (initial no-tification) to the EBS station.

At 0937 the test message aired over KFAB.

Objectives Number 13 and 14 were fully demonstrated.

I At 0946 the EOF called again and advised that a

General Emergency had been declared at 0944.

At 1007 the Sheriff's dis-patcher called the EOF for an update t7d received the Protective Action Recommendations (PARS).

The county director was simulta-neously receiving them over another phone.

Sectors L, M and N

were the affected areas and required access control for the en-tire area.

At 1016 the Sheriff gave orders to initiate road blocks at the outer perimeter of the affected area.

Due to a

misunder-

standing, the Blair Police Chief failed to establish road blocks on highway 133 and 75 just south of Blair until 1130, prompted by the inquiry of an evaluator.

This lack of timeliness constitutes a deficiency, t

At 1342 the affected area was expan'ded as sheltering was recommended in sectors L, M and N from 5 to 12 miles.

Adjustment I

of the access control points did not occur until 1458, again, not

'until an evaluator inquired.

This also is a deficiencyr Objective Number 17 was not adequately demonstrated.

CDV-750 and CDV-138 dosimeters and record cards were dis-tributed to all pp.rsons in the County EOC.

However, the plan also requires distribution of TLDs, and this was not done.

In

addition, the record cards indicated CDV-138 and CDV-742 dosim-eters were distributed.

Though it is simple enough to make the changes on the form, this should be done by the issuing officer prior to distribution.

Both of the above are areas requiring corrective action.

Objective Number 20 was not adequately demonstrated.

Since the ingestion pathway was being exercised, the County Agricultural Agent reported to the EOC and then went to his of-fice and remained ready to consult maps and records to provide necessary information on dairy farms, mest and poultry proce-dures, grain procedures, and water supply intake points.

21

Areas Reauirina corrective Action 11.

When thestath-liaison ~personarrivedhebroughtthe'TLDs.

1

-However, they were never distributed by either the Radio-I' logical Officer or the' Emergency Management Director.

This responsibility must be incorporated into the appropri-ate check list as a specific item, and must be demonstrated j

at the next exercise.

12.

The dosimeters issued were low and mid range.

The record cacds issued showed a low range, and a high range.

Consis-tency should be-accomplished by changing the card.

This is to be demonstrated at the next exercise.

Area Recommended For Improvement L

7. Moving the dosimetry issue table into the hall would provide more work space inside the EOC and reduce congestion in the doorway.

2.2.2 washinaton County Emeraency Worker Decontamination Center This facility was located at the Dana College gymnasium in Blair, Nebraska.

(

Objectives to be demonstrated were:

2, 20, and 29.

This operations was staffed largely by local volunteers un-der the direction of a health physicist from the Nebraska Divi-sion of Radiological Health.

It did not operate in concert with the timing of the exercise scenario.

Two monitors and a registration clerk assisted the health physicist.

.They also had a roster of additional trained volun -

teers showing training as of June 1988.

The health physicist did not demonstrate shift change.

Therefore, Objective Number 2 was not fully demonstrated.

All dosimetry required by the plan was available and oper-able.

It was delivered from the Washington County EOC.

All l

staff read and recorded their dosimeters according to proper pro-cedures.

Though they did not know their exposure limits they knew where to look them up, and did so.

Record cards were turned in to the health physicist.

Objective Number 20 was fully demonstrated.

No vehicles were decontaminated at this demonstration.

They

did, however, walk through complete personnel decontamination 23

(

handle a contaminated, injured person.

This will require additiona.1 remedial action.

2.2.4 sarov county Emeraency onorations center

. objectives to be demonstrated were:

1, 3, 4, and 5.

This facility was located at Papillion, Nebraska and was only activated at a minimal level to provide communication and linkage with Washington County.

At 0744 the Sheriff's dispatcher received a teletype from the Nebraska State Patrol that an Alert had been declared at 0740.

This information was confirmed by the SEOC at 0807.

Noti-fication proceeded according to plan.

Objective Number 1 was fully demonstrated.

n y

Plans, procedures, and check lists were used, and message logs kept.

No substantial decision making was required by the exercise scenario.

Status boards were maintained and those maps required for reception and care were posted.

Other maps were available.

Primary and backup communication to all appropriate loca-tions were demonstrated.

l Objective Number 3, 4, and 5 were fully demonstrated.

j summary:

Objective Number 1, 3,

4, and 5 were fully demon-strated.

2.3 IOWA MEDIC 2.3.1 Council Bluffs n=hulance l

objectives to be demonstrated were 5, 20, and 30.

This demonstrative was not formally a part of the

exercise, since Iowa had invoked the biennial exemption and declined to participate this year.

Rather it was classed as a medical drill which FEMA evaluated.

Primary and backup communications were demonstrated showing full knowledge of radio procedures and techniques.

The crew was equipped with high and low range dosimeters and TLDs.

They were aware of their exposure limits and read and re-corded their dosimeters every 15 minutes.

Readings were reported to the County EOC.

25

l l

I Deficiency 7.

On August 17, 1988 a remedial exercise was held to ad-equately demonstrate objectives Number 5, 20, and 30.

At.

this time the same Missouri Valley Rescue Squad Crew per-formed adequately.

i l

As preparation, they were required to receive the same type l

of training curriculum which we approved for the remedial action.to the 1984 deficiency.

Verification of the training was received by FEMA.

1 i

As a verification for the future, the names of persons re-i ceiving radiological training and the type and duration of I

the training must be included in the annual letter of certi-fication.

L 4

l

{

j 27

On August 17, 1988 at 0910 Nebraska received a Notice of Unusual Event from the licensee.

At 0933 they received the noti-fication of Alert.

Washington County EOC was notified.

At 1002 a General Emergency was declared and in-house shel-ter from 0-2 miles was recommended.

At 1008 the decision for in-house shelter was made.

The IAC staff began composing the ap-propriate EBS message and checking the map.

At 1014 the message was sent over the data terminal to the MRC and Washington County EOC.

At 1016 Washington County called to confirm receipt of the

message, and at 1017 volunteered the landmark descriptions for the 0-2 mile area.

At 1020 the IAC called the EBS station (KFAB) and completed dictating the message.

It should be noted that this first message contained no landmark descriptions - only the instruction to stay tuned for more information.

At 1027 the IAC called Washington County EOC and requested that they send local landmark descriptions on the data

terminal, even though they had received them verbally at 1017.

At 1028 l

Washington County replied via the data terminal that they would prepare landmark descriptions.

At 1034 the landmark descriptions were transmitted from Washington County.

At 1045 EBS message #7 with the landmarks for sheltering 0-2 miles was prepared.

It went through several steps of review and

(

verification before calling KFAB at 1054.

Dictation of the mes-sage to the EBS station was completed at 1056, 48 minutes after the decision had been made.

At 1101 the State Division of Radiological Health recom-mended extension of the in-house shelter area to include sectors K,

L, and M out to 5 miles.

The IAC contacted the Washington County EOC immediately and were told that landmark descriptions would follow; they did at 1117.

After reviewing the landmarks, the staff began typing the message at 1123.

It was phoned to KFAB at 1130.

summary:

The first objective - preparation of protective action messages using appropriate landmark descriptions was ac-complished.

The second objective - timely transmission of pro-tective action messages to the EBS station was not demonstrated due to the fact that it required intervals of forty-eight and twenty-nine minutes to provide landmark descriptions to the pub-lic.

Selecting predesignated landmarks, and incorporating them into a message seems to have been unduly delayed by a cumbersome administrative process of selection,

review, approval,

typing, transmission, etc.

29

i

survey, provided first-aid, and advised the ambulance crew that contamination was so low (1/6 mR/hr) that only gloves were neces-sary.

The crew transported the victim to the University of N9-j braska Medical Center where the receiving staff performed all the necessary medical and radiological procedures called for.

I summary:

The Blair Rescue Squad did not have the opportu-nity to demonstrate the procedures for handling a contaminated, injured, person.

Ambulance facilities were demonstrated, as well as enroute communication.

Another exercise demonstrating the equipment and procedures necessary to handle a contaminated injured person will be re-quired (objective Number 30).

This is scheduled for September 27, 1988.

j The University of Nebraska Medical Center fully demonstrated all required objectives (5, 20, and 31).

3.6 MISSOURI VALLEY RESCUE 80UAD (MVRS)

At the original exercise the MVRS failed to adequately dem-onstrate their ability to handle a contaminated, injured indi-vidual.

A deficiency was cited.

FEMA required appropriate training and another remedial

, drill as the. remedy.

On August 17,

1988, subsequent to the training, the same crew participated in an emergency drill and fully demonstrated the equipment and procedures necessary to handle a radiologically contaminated, injured person.

They also demonstrated appropriate exposure control and com-munications.

The deficiency was satisfied.

31

5.

At 1342, when the area for sheltering was extended out to 12

miles, the access control points were not adjusted accord-ingly.

The change of locations did not occur until 1458 when the inquiry of an evaluator prompted action.

A successful demonstration of Deficiencies Number 4 and 5

was performed at a remedial exercise on August 17, 1988.

Medic - Blair Rescue Sauad (BR8) and University of Nebraska 6.

The inability to respond in a timely manner is a violation of planning elements L.1 and L.4 of NUREG-0654.

On August 17, 1988 the Blair Rescue Squad demonstrated its response capabilities at a remedial e,xercise.

However, the scenario did not permit them to demonstrate their ability to handle a contaminated, injured person.

This will require additional remedial action which is scheduled for September 27, 1988.

Missouri Valley Rescue Scuad 7.

On August 17, 1988 a remedial exercise was held to ad-equately d.1onstrate Objectives Number 5, 20, and 30.

At this time the same Missouri Valley Rescue Squad Crew per-formed adequately.

As preparation, they were required to receive the same type of training curriculum which we approved for the remedial action tot he 1984 deficiency.

Verification of the training was received by FEMA.

As a verification for the future, the names of persons re-ceiving radiological training and the type and duration of the training must be included in the annual letter of certi-1 fication.

AREA 8 REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION NEBRASKA OPERATIONS State Emercancy Operations center (SEOC) 1.

Members of the State and local Food and Agriculture Councils must be given training in those areas of expertise required for ingestion pathway assistance.

A demonstration will be required at the next exercise.

2.

Objective Number 35, Recovery and Reentry was not demon-strated.

This will be required at the next exercise.

33

1, ' i' l

4.

(

tency,should be accomplished by changing the card.

This is to be demonstrated at the next exercise.

l-l l-I b

1 35 l