ML18092A162

Forwards Post-Exercise Assessment,831026,Exercise of Radiological Emergency Response Plans of State of Nj,Salem County & Six Localities,& Cumberland County & Two Localities for Pse&G Salem Nuclear Generating Station,Hancocks....

ML18092A162
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/27/1984
From:	KRIMM R W Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	JORDAN E L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML18092A163	List: ML18092A162
References
NUDOCS 8405080021
Download: ML18092A162 (3)

Text

Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 APR 2 71984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan FROM: Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Krimm Associate Director Natural and Technological Hazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Exercise Report of the October 26, 1983, Exercise of the Offsite.Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans for the Salem Nuclear Power Station Attached are two copies of the Region II Exercise Report of the October 26, 1983, joint exercise of the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the Salem Nuclear Power Station. The State of New Jersey, Salem and Cumberland Counties, and eight municipalities participated in the Region II portion of the exercise.

The report, dated March 12, 1984, was prepared by Region II of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Six deficiencies which were classified as "significant" (using the current criteria) in the evaluation of the October 13, 1982, exercise remained incomplete at the time of the 1983 exercise (#52, 57, 64, 67, 83 and 99 in Table 4.1 of the March 12, 1984, exercise report). However, in a March 2, 1984, letter, the State of New Jersey informed FEMA's Region II Office of steps they were taking to correct those deficiencies.

The FEMA Region II evaluation of that information was forwarded to FEMA Headquarters_*

-on April 3, 1984, and is presented below, along with a statement of each ** deficiency as it appeared in the 1982 exercise evaluation.

1. Deficiency 4.2.3.c -1982 exercise (#52 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 FEMA Exercise Report. Coordination between the (Salem County) emergency management coordinator (EMC) and staff could be improved with more frequent and better use of the Emergency Operating Center's (EOC) public address system.* (NUREG-0654

,' II, H. 3). Region II Evaluation

-April 1984 Although this weakness should be corrected, we do not believe it would seriously impede an effective response.

This is particu.larly true since the State of New Jersey plays the primary role .. in emergency response.

• The State conducted a training session in Salem County on September 20, 1983, reviewing internal procedures and working with the County to establish a training schedule for 1984. This will be provided to FEMA upon its development.

The State also prepared a manual for EOC Operations.

2. Deficiency 4.2.7.a. 1982 exercise (#57 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 FEMA Exercise Report) The county (Salem County) must demonstrate the capability to implement protective measures.

The county should demonstrate its capability to participate in the relocation of population and access control. (NUREG-0654, II, J.10.g. and j). Region II Evaluation The county demonstrated its ability to evacuate residents at the 1983 exercise.

Access control is essentially a State function and the plan will be revised to make this clear. In addition,.

it should be noted that access control was not an objective at the 1983 exercise but will be an objective of future exercises.

In light of the foregoing, this item has been listed as a Category B deficiency.

3. Deficiency 4.2.8.b. -1982 Exercise (#64 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 FEMA Exercise Report) Decontamination personnel (in Salem County) should be familar with action levels for skin contamination. (NUREG-0654, II, k.S.a.). Region II Evaluation The exposure guidelines for determining the need for decontamination were not known at the 1983 exercise.

However, the Post Exercise Assessment states that "the demonstration at this (decontamination) center represents a marked improvement over earlier exercises

... Given the significant progress already made, as well as the State's commitment to further training, we believe this deficiency should be classified in the "B.. category.

4. Deficiency 4.2.10./4.3.9

-1982 Exercise (#67 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 FEMA Exercise Report) The county should demonstrate reentry capability. (This applied to both Cumberland and Salem Counties.) (NUREG-0654, II, M). Region II Evaluation The State, rather than the county, has primary responsibility for recovery and reentry. The State demonstrated an acceptable capability to perform this function at an exercise at another site. (Recovery and reentry was not an objective at the Salem exercise.)

./ 5. Deficiency 4.3.5. -1982 Exercise (#83 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 FEMA Exercise Report) Residents of Cumberland County must be made aware of protective actions to be taken during a radiological emergency. (NUREG-0654, II, G). Region II Evaluation (April 1984) The public information brochures were distributed February 7-10, 1984. In addition, the State is undertaking a thorough public education campaign including a survey to measure the level of public awareness in the Salem emergency planning zone (EPZ). The results of the survey will be used to focus this endeavor.

These lead us to believe that this should be a Category B deficiency.

6. Deficiency 4.4.8 -1982 Exercise (#99 in Table 4.1 of the 3/12/84 Report) With the exception of Salem City, dosimeters were not generally distributed.

Self-reading dosimeters of both low-range (0-200 m.R) and intermediate-range (either 0-5 R or 0-20 R) sensitivity and a permanent record device should be provided to all emergency workers. The self-reading dosimeters should be read and recorded regularly. (NUREG-0654; II, K.3.a., K.3.b.). Region II Evaluation (April 1984) The State's March 2, 1984, update indicates that the county issued self-reading dosimeters to all municipalities on October 20, 1983. The State will ensure that the municipal EMC's make distribution to the proper response agencies.

The State further indicated that it purchased sufficient additional dosimeters to meet current and anticipated requirements.

According to Region II, only one of the five municipalities (Elsinboro) identified as being deficient in this area in 1982 was still *deficient at the 1983 exercise.

This improvement coupled with the State's continued efforts in this regard lead to a Category B rating for this deficiency.

FEMA Region II staff will furnish a copy of the final report to the State of New Jersey and will request a schedule of remedial actions to correct deficiencies.

As soon as we receive and analyze the State's response, we will send you the results. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert S. Wilkerson; Chief, Technological Hazards Division, at 287-0200.

Attachments As Stated