ML17278A925

Forwards WNP-2 Annual Emergency Exercise - 1986, Providing Objectives & Limitations as 75-day Submittal to Annual Exercise Program.Remaining 45-day Submittal Will Contain Detailed Description of Exercise Scenario

ML17278A925
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	06/12/1986
From:	Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML17278A924	List: ML17278A925
References
GO2-85-0545, GO2-85-545, NUDOCS 8607210139
Download: ML17278A925 (45)

Text

AECBYEO BRQ Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 June 12, 1986 G02-86-0545

'eggt19 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 372-5000 LI ls Sb072 f 0139 Bb0714 PDR F

• DOCV OSOOO397I

~I~

,'"k PDR~

I:~"

Docket No. 50-397 Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596

Dear Mr. Martin:

SUBJECT'NP-2 ANNUAL EMERGENCY EXERCISE FOR 1986 The enclosed document, "WNP-2 Annual Emergency Exercise - 1986" objectives and limitations is provided as the first (75 day) submittal to our annual exercise program. The remaining (45 day) submittal will contain a detailed description of the exercise scenario and anticipated actions.

Please be aware that in order to accommodate the scheduling needs of some of the player participants the exercise schedule has been shifted from September 17, 1986, to September 18, 1986.

I Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. R. A. Chitwood, Manager of Emergency Planning and Environmental Programs at (509) 377-8466.

Very truly,yours, G. C. S rensen, Manager Regulatory Programs GCS/RDM/vlc Enclosure cc: R. Donovan--FEMA N. S. Reynolds--Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 8 Reynolds LI

l g

OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS

'IHP-2'ANNUAL EtIERGEHCY EXERCISE 1g86 A. OBJECTIVES

a. General (1) Demonstrate the ability to activate the essential emergency organization in a timely. manner and effectively staff all Supply System emergency response centers (Control Room,

.Operational Support Center, Technical Support Center, Emergency Operations Facility and the corporate Joint Information Center).

( 2) Demonstrate the ability of the emergency center directors to effectively maintain management control of the emergency response during implementation of the emergency plan and implementing procedures.

( 3) Demonstrate the ability of the emergency organization to correctly implement the emergency plan and implementing procedures and demonstrate the adequacy of each.

( ~) Demonstrate the ability to dispatch Supply System personnel to the State and County EOCs to conduct accurate and timely technical briefings.

(5) Demonstrate the Supply System's ability to adequately interface with the NRC's Region V Site Response Team and communicate with the NRC on plant and health physics data.

(6) Demonstrate adequate performance of selected previous areas of deficiency to allow close out of items. (Specific questions are listed on critique worksheets, Attachment A).

(7) Demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate with and provide Plant/EOF/Corporate information to Public Affairs and Information or to the Joint Information Center as appropriate.

b. Control Room (Simulator) and Technical Support Center (1) Demonstrate the ability to assess the incident conditions, to determine which emergency action levels have been reached, and to classify the incident correctly in accor-dance with the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.

(2) Demonstrate the ability to initiate notifications to the EOF Communications Center, NRC, and County as applicable, in a proper and timely manner.

I (2) Demonstrate the ability to correctly notify on-site per-sonnel using the plant alerting systems.

(4) Demonstrate the ability of the emergency staffs to effectively communicate:

(a) Between the plant emergency centers.

(b) Between the plant emer'gency centers and the Emergency Operations facility emergency centers.

(5) Demonstrate the ability to correctly conduct technical evaluations of the incident conditions and to implement appropriate corrective actions to mitigate the consequences.

(6) Demonstrate the ability to make proper Protective Action Recommerrdations and implement correct Protective Action Decisions in a timely manner as appropriate.

(7) Demonstrate the ability to transfer support responsibili-ties efficiently to the augmenting Technical Data Center/Emergency Operations Facility.

c. Operations Support Center (1) Demonstrate the ability to exercise proper control of in-plant emergency teams, including the implementation of correct health physics measures.

(2) Demonstrate the ability to correctly perform personnel accountability and personnel search of the protected area for a potentially missing individual.

(".) Demonstrate the ability to provide basic first aid to a contaminated and in'red person.

( ~) Demonstrate the ability to perform personnel decontamina-tion.

(5) Demonstrate adequate team briefing/debriefing techniques.

(6) Demonstrate the ability to make proper decisions regarding re-entry.

d. Emergency Operations Facility (1) Demonstrate the ability to notify County, DOE and State within the prescribed time allowed, and to notify key emergency organization members in a timely manner.

(2) Demonstrate the ability to assume support responsibilities from the'lant once the EOF is operational.

( 3) Demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate, between the Emergency Operations Facility, the Joint Information Center, County, State, and DOE emergency centers.

( ~) Demonstrate the ability to provide basic first aid to an injured person at the EOF.

f. Joint Information Center (1) Demonstrate the ability to efficiently coordinate news release information with DOE, State, and County agencies throughout the incident.

1 (2) Demonstrate the ability to produce accurate, coordinated and timely news releases.

(3) Demonstrate the ability to respond effectively to telephonic queries from the media and the public.

( ~) Demonstrate the ability to accurately monitor media sources for information on the incident.

(5) Demonstrate the ability to detect and properly act upon rumors.

2. Benton and Franklin Counties:

a. Demonstrate the ability to effectively make and simulate imple-menting protective action decisions for members of the public and for emergency workers.

b. Demonstrate the ability to provide timely and accurate alerting of the public, including the Horn Rapids Offroad Vehicle Park.

c. Demonstrate the abili-ty to respond with a representative to the EOF and efficiently interface with the Recovery Manager and supporting groups.

d. Demonstrate the ability to respond with a representative to the JIC and to collectively produce and issue coordinated news releases.

e. Demonstrate the ability to make a decision based upon predeter-mined criteria, whether to issue KI to emergency workers.

f. Demonstrate the ability to supply KI to emergency workers once the decision has been made to issue KI.

g. Demonstrate the establishment of an access control point to an evacuated area.

3. Joint Supply System, DOE-RL and Washington State:

a. General (1) Demonstrate the ability of the Emergency Operations Facil-ity (MUDAC) to perform correct assessments of the radio-logical consequences.

(2) Demonstrate proper and efficient deployment of environ-mental field and (weather permitting) aerial monitoring teams.

(3) Demonstrate the ability of the monitoring teams to deploy with required equipment, to use the emergency equipment according to procedure, and to perform radiological surveys, and report results.

(4) Demonstrate the ability of the Emergency Operations Facil-ity staff to coordinate and efficiently utilize Supply System, State, and DOE monitoring teams.

( 5) Demonstrate the Emergency Operations Facility's ability to perform dose assessment and projections of the radiological survey information, to trend this information, and to make and disseminate appropriate Protective Action Recommenda-tions and Decisions.

4. Joint - Sup ly System, DOE-RL, Mashington State and Benton and Franklin Counties:

a. General (1) Demonstrate the timely sharing of information on the status of the emergency, and demonstrate the effective coordina-tion of response activities, both within and between emer-gency centers and with teams in the field.

( 2) Demonstrate the configuration of emergency centers for efficient operations.

(3) Demonstrate the ability to properly document the emergency conditions and',agency r'esponse activities.

(4) Demonstrate timely activation of the emergency centers and personnel.

( 5) Demonstrate effective coor dination of the various law enforcement agencies'mergency response activities by the EOF staff.

5. DOE and USCG Demonstrate the ability to alert the public on the Columbia River (within the EPZ) and disseminate an initial instructional message.

6. Joint Washington State and Benton and Franklin Counties

a. Emergency Worker Center (1) Demonstrate the mobilization of staff and prompt activation of a facility.

( 2) Demonstrate that adequate equipment, facility and procedures are available to decontaminate emergency workers, equipment and vehicles.

7. Washington State

a. EOC

~

(1) Demonstrate the capability to monitor Benton and Franklin Counties'bility to disseminate appropriate instructions to the public via the EBS in a timely manner.

(2) Demonstrate ab'ility to 'provide HP support to decision makers.

(3) Demonstrate ability to Reactor Assessment Team to provide decision makers with pertinent interpretation of plant radiological status.

b. Field Operations (1) Demonstrate the establishment of an access control point to an evacuated area.

(2) Demonstrate that the appropriate equipment,, measures, capabilities and procedures exist to control/limit the emergency dose commitment.

B. LIMITATIONS

1. Routine plant operations will be continued during the exercise.

Plant operations are not to be jeopardized.

2. , There will not be evacuee role players assigned for the plant or exclusion area. Exclusion Area evac'uation will be simulated. The river sirens and the Mye siren will not be sounded.

3. The NRC Site Response Team, the State environmental field teams, JIC, EOF and County EOC respondents will be prepositioned in Richland and begin participation after a time delay of one hour after decla-ration of the emergency classification which activates their responses.

4. Implementation of roadblocks offsite "and WNP-2 site access restric-tions will be established for a limited time and discontinued after evaluation has been completed.

5. Actual implementation of offsite protective actions will be simulated.

6. Simulated airborne release will not equal nor exceed PAG's beyond 10 miles.

7. Any required actual emergency situation response by participants will take precedence.

8. Offsite re-entry monitoring or protective action decision making concerning re-entry will not be performed nor simulated.

9. Emergency Control Room operations may be portrayed at the simulator in the Plant Support Facility.

10. Only designated players, are to be affected by the scenario.

ll. Radioactive material is not to be utilized to "spike" any sample nor for contamination props.

12. Physical manipulation of plant operational systems will be simulated.

13. Actual security is not to be jeopardized.

14. PASS sampling will not be demonstrated; however, it may be simulated.

15. mutual aid response by other utilities will not be demonstrated nor simulated.

16. Dosimetry at the PAP and AAP will remain in place and will not be transported to the EOF.

17. An actual shift change will not be demonstrated.

18. 'lternate emergency centers will not be required to be activated.

19. Transportation offsite to a medical facility will not be demonstrated nor simulated.

20. The JIC may only be partially pre-staged with respect to phone equipment setup only.

ATTACHMENT A SELECTED PREVIOUS AREAS OF DEFICIENCY 1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-16 84 Control Room (Simulator) Evaluation (}uestions Time 'tem NOTE: Any negative response shouId result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mere augmenting telephone talker personneI obtained and utilized?

(N83C-46, EX848-02-3, I85-3-1, 85-3C2)

B. Were proper records maintained? (H84C-c, EX84C-03-10)

C. Were initial classifications and notifications made in a timely manner?

(HOVE/85A-Dl-l)

0. Mere technical communications with the TSC staff correct and timely?

(EX85B-2 and C-36)

E. Was GDS data verified by other plant indicators? (84-5B-D2-4)

F. Were the proper emergency signals used? (EX85B-14)

G. Were members of the staff familiar with the PAR diagram? (84-5C-01-3, EX84C-03-14)

H. Did the external staff, such as the JIC Director, refrain from making calls to the Control Room? (EX85C-31)

1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-19 84 Operations Suppor t Center Time-Line Items OSC Evaluation l}uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Was proper control of the reentry teams exercised, including briefings and debriefings? (N83B-48, N84C-f, EX84A-D 1-1, I85 2-1, 85-3B-2, EX8588, B9, B10, B13 and 815)

B. Were potential emergency team members SCBA qualified/current? (N83B-51, 84-5B-02-1)

C. Mere radiological controls and considerations adequate? (N83C-50, EX8586, B7, Bll and B12)

D. Mas the emergency center space efficiently utilized? (N84C-e)

E. Mas the shielding study information utilized to determine the safest routes for reentry teams? (N83B-49)

F. Did the HP technicians appear to be knowledgeable in their duties?

(N83B-55, 85-2B-Cl)

G. Mere nonessential personnel ordered to evacuate from the plant promptly, and was accountability conducted correctly'? (N83C-54, EX84C-D3-2)

H. Did the fire brigade respond in a timely manner? (84-5A-D3-1)

I. Were emergency PA set messages audible in the center? (EX84A-D1-2, 85-38-3, EX85B-3)

J. Mas the emergency center noise level properly controlled? (84-5B-D2-2)

I 1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-20 84 Operations Support Center Evaluation questions K. Were the status boards maintained in a timely fashion? (84-58-02-5)

L. Were radiological issues adequately coordinated with the RPth/REM?

(EX858-4, B-5) t4. Was the player accountability log legible? (EX84B-D2-2)

N. Mas the accountability coordinator able to ascertain accountability information from the other plant emergency centers? (EX84C-03-15)

0. Was access to the GSB through the maintenance shop roll-up door, and the I8C shop north door, restricted? (EX84C-'D3-34)

P. Were any overheard data transmission errors challenged by the log keepers? (84-6C-5)

g. Were the reentry team members able to operate the orange portable phones readily? (84-6C-6)

R. Mere needed reference materials available in the center? (EX84C-03-4 and 03-35, 85-3C-3 and C-7)

S. Mere center activation instruction cards used? ( 85-3C-58)

T. Was the clamshell stretcher stowed in the OSC readily accessible?

(85-3C-16)

U. Mere data on hazards properly interpreted and conservative courses of action selected regarding protective clothing/equipment decisions?

(86-1B-1/2)

V. Mere only calibrated/properly functioning items of equipment utilized.

(86-1B-3)

1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-21 84 Operations Support Center Evaluation (}uestions M. Mere phone outlets readily accessible in the center? (86-1 C-1)

X. Did the staff appear familiar with the types and functions of emergency equipment available in the center'? (86-1C-3)

Y. Mas the listing of personnel on the CAS accountability printout in some usable order e.g. alphabetical, slot number, etc.? (86-1C-4)

Z. Did the accountability and evacuation procedures appear to be workable?

( 86-1C-5)

~ 1 ~

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-24 84 Technical Support, Center Evaluation guestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mere notification responsibilities properly transferred to the EOF when the Recovery tlanager assumed control? (F838-15c, 85-3C-12)

B. Were needed reference materials available, but restricted to controlled procedures? (EX84C-D3-4, 85-3B-4, I85-2-1)

C. Were required protective action recommendations made and disseminated correctly and promptly'? (EX85A-1)

D. Here emergency PA set messages audible in the- center? ( EX84A-D1-2, 85-3B-3, EX85B-3)

E. Mas the TDC staff kept informed of plant status? (84-5B-D2-3)

F. Has GDS data verified by other plant indicators? (84-5B-D2-4)

G. Mere status boards maintained in a timely fashion, and in consonance with GDS data? (84-5B-D2-5, EX85-C20)

H. Could the plant PA set be activated from the center? ( 84-5B-D2-7, 85-3C-59)

I. Were technical communications with the control room staff correct and timely? (EX85B-2 and C-36)

J. Here radiological issues adequately coordinated with the OSC/MUDAC staffs? (EX85B-4, B-5)

K. Were the proper emergency signals used and followed? ( EX85B-14)

l 1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-25 84 Technical Support Center Evaluation questions L. Mas the plant Security Force informed of protective measures and other key actions? ( 85-3B-6, EX85B-16)

M. Mere Plant emergency PA announcements made by the PEO from the control room, or TSC, as appropriate? (85-3C-59, EX85B-3)

N. Could the staff access the computer adequately? ( 84-5C-E1-5, 85-3C-10)

0. Oid the TDC staff provide the analyses and information requested by the TSC staff? (84-5C-E2-5)

P. Did the information network function as designed in EPIP 13.11.18?

(EX85-3C-23)

1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-32 84 Supply System Decision Center Evaluation guestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Were protective action recommendations prepared and disseminated in a timely and correct manner? (F848-1, EX84B-02-6, I85-1-1, 85-3B-7, EX85A-1)

B. Was the EOF staff made aware, on a timely basis, of protective actions implemented by offsite agencies? (84-5A-D1-11, 85-3C-20)

C. Were the numbers of people in the center, and the noise level, properly controlled? (EX84C-D3-31, 85-3C-22)

D. Were update briefings conducted frequentl'y, and did they include input from the staff and offsite agency representatives on condi tions/

responses? ( 84-5C-D1-6, 85-3C-20, EX85C-32 and C-33)

E. Were notification responsibilities properly transferred to the EOF when the EOF was activated and Recovery Manager assumed control? (85-3C-12)

F. Were the PA emergency announcements audible? (85-3C-33)

G. Were near-site PAD's implemented properly?'EX85-3C-34)

H. Mere the emergency center charts correctly and promptly posted? (F84C-9)

~J 1 ~

1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-36 84 Security Decision Center Evaluation ()uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Was the staff cognizant of the status of DOE and county road barricade establishment? (F83C-13)

B. Was the staff cognizant of the status of the river evacuation? (F83C-12)

C. Was the EOF staff made aware, on a timely basis, of protective actions implemented by offsite agencies? (F83C-3, 84-5A-01-11, 85-3C-20)

D. Were the PA set emergency announcements audible? (85-3C-33)

E. Mere the status boards properly maintained? (85-3B-8)

F. Was the center activated at the Alert classification? (85-RC-6)

G. Was the procedure used for river evacuation (EPIP 13.5.4) POC approved (85-RC-7).

I ~ 0 ~

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-43 84 EOF Comnunications Center Evaluation (}uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Wer e telephonic notifications to offsite agencies initiated, and received, within the time limits? (F83B-11, EX84B-D2-9, 84-5B-E2-9, 85-3C-18)

B. Did the center staff receive the required, and only the required, pager call-backs? (84-5B-E2-3, EX84C-D3-29, 85-3B-9)

Were facsimile notifications to offsite agencies initiated, and received, in a timely manner? (84-5C-01-14)

D. Did the flow of EOF hardcopy information work properly? (85-3C-31, EX85C-37)

E. Did facsimile traffic move in and out in a timely manner'? (84-5C-D1-14, EX85C-12)

F. Were update notifications 'to the State routed to the State duty of ficer/receiver promptly? (EX84B-02-9)

I 1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-46 84 Offsite Agency Coordination Center Evaluation ()uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Did the county representative obtain timely and accurate information from the County EOC staff on the protective responses? (F83C-2)

B. Mere status boards maintained in a timely fashion? (84-5B-D2-5)

C. Were the PA set emergency announcements audible? ( 85-3C-33)

D. Did the State representatives coordinate with one another on information being passed to counterparts in the State EOC? (F83C-5)

E. Did the Governor's Representative receive adequate briefings on the s i tua ti on'? (85-3C-34)

F. Mere offsite agency representatives kept informed of the Supply System condi tions and responses? (85-3C-61 )

G. Did the DSHS representatives understand their roles, and the EOF information sources? (EX85C-7)

H. Did the information network function as designed in.EPIP 13.11.18?

(EX85-3C-23)

I. Was the EOF staff made aware, on a timely basis of protective actions implemented by offsite agencies? (84-5A-D1-11, 85-3C-20)

(

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-49 84 Technical Data Center Evaluation ()uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Did the TDC staff members understand their input requirement to the PAR process? (N84C-g)

B. Mas the staff kept informed by the TSC staff of plant status?

(84-5B-D2-3, 85-3B-11)

C. Mere the PA set emergency announcements audible? (85-3C-33)

D. Mas the noise level contro'lied to a reasonable level, and was the size of the staff restricted to the positions enumerated in the procedure?

( 85-3C-39)

E. Mere the status board entries legible? ( 84-5C-E1-15, EX85C-22)

F. Did the information network function as designed in EPIP 13.11.18?

(EX85-3C-23)

G. Did the staff provide the analyses and information requested by the TSC staff? (84-5C-E2-6)

H. Mas the center log properly maintained? (EX85-3C-21)

I. Mere needed reference material s avail abl e? (EX84C-D3-4, 85-3C-38)

1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-52 84 NUDAC Time-Line Items HDTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mas projected integrated dose, rather than dose rate, used to prepare PARs for the public? (F83C-19)

B. Did the MUDAC staff receive frequent required updates on plant conditions from the TDC? (H83C-58, 85-3C-36)

C. Did the Protective Action Decision Group members appear to be familiar with the procedures and process? (F83C-ll, EXS4C-03-47)

D. Mere PARs, both for the public and for emergency workers, prepared in a timely and correct manner'? (F84B-l, 85-3B-7, 8-14 and C-43, EX84B-D2-6, I85-1-1 )

E. Was field data compared with projected data, and this comparison recorded pursuant to EPIP 13.8.1, Attachment A, 13.11.14 and 13.14.2, Attachment B? (FS3B-S, F84C-B, EX84C-03-24, 85-3C-42)

F. Were default values found in EPIP 13.8.1 used with the EDPS? (F84B-2, EX84C-D3-26)

G. Was field data properly used to define the extent of the plume? (F83B-5, C-18, 84-2B-D5)

H. Were dose projection calculations properly performed? (84-5B-E2-6, EX85-B- 1 9)

(

1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-53 84 NUDAC Evaluation (}uestions I. Mere the field teams briefed and controlled properly? (F838-2, -4, -6 and

-7; N83C-59 and -60, F84B-3, 84-5B-E2-7, EX84B-D2-8, F84B-3, 85-3B-12)

J. Mere protective action decisions promptly disseminated to field teams?

(F83B-3)

K. Mere communications promptly established, and maintained, with field teams? (F83B-1 )

L. Mere the data sheets and other important records properly controlled?

(N83C-57)

M. Were the status boards and maps posted in a timely manner? (EX84B-D2-7, 85-3C-41 )

N. Mere radiol ogical issues adequately coordinated with the REtl? (EX85B-5)

0. Mas the t<UOAC staff internal command and control effective? (EX85B-18)

P. Were DOE and State staff members who arrived after activation adequately briefed'? ( 84-2B-D2)

g. Mere the PA set emergency announcements audible? ( 85-3C-33)

R. Oid the information network function as designed in EPIP 13.11.18?

(EX85-3C-23)

1 1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-56 84 Fiel d/Aerial i~lonitoring Team Evaluation questions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mere the field/aerial team kits complete, including where appropriate, check sources and river evacuation procedures, and were calibrations current? (F83C-4, 84-5B-D2-9 and D2-10, 84-5C-D1-12, F84C-6 and C-7, EX84B-D2-12 and D3-44, 85-3B-13 and B-15, EX85C-38)

B. Here air samples taken at plume center lines? (84-2B-Dll, F84C-9, EX84C-D3-46, 85-38-16)

C. Did team members perform their monitoring tasks properly and otherwise display familiarity with procedures? (84-2B-D6, F84C-8, EX84C-D3-45, 85-3B-16 and C-63, I85-3-2)

D. Did team members take appropriate protective measures on their own?

(N83C-60, EX85C-25)

E. Were silver zeolite filters, rather than charcoal filters, used to take air sampl es? (N83C-61 )

F. Did team members follow procedures regarding the checking of samples with a survey meter? (N83C-61 )

G. Mere samples marked with permanent markers'? (84-6B-Cl )

H. Mas the river evacuation kit utilized by the team on the Coast Guard boat obtained at the MPF? (85-RC-5)

W1 C

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-58 84 HP Center Evaluation questions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Did the staff adhere to sound HP practices, such as found in RPI 11. 4.1 and 11. 4. 2? ( 84-4A-Dl-1)

C. Mere protective clothing requirements of the RWP adhered to? ( 84-4B-02-1)

D. Mere samples marked with permanent markers? ( 84-6B-Cl)

E. were environmental samples logged properly and in a timely manner?

(84-5B-E2-8, 84-6C-4)

F. Were the PA set emergency announcements audible in the chem lab?

( 85-3C-33)

G. Were the posted Radiological Control Area barricades honored by all staff members? ( 86-1B-4)

Il

~ I k

0

/

~g i~

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-65 84 Joint Information Center Evaluation (}uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mere news releases timely, accurate and coordinated, and did they include PARs, items from news conferences and contact telephone numbers?

(85-3B-18, EX858-20, B-21, C-l, C-8, C-ll, C-15 and I85-7-1)

B. Did the staff monitor the local electronic media and AP wire for coverage of the event? (84-3B-D2, F84C-4, EX84C-D3-28, I85-7-2, 85-3B-17)

C. Did the media hot line recorded messages include information about the JIC, news conferences, or other means provided for media access? (F83C-23)

D. Mere the time portions of the status boards clear as to which times (e.g.

event, news release, etc.) were being referred to? (F83C-25) 0 E. Mas notification of center activation sent to all required agencies?

(84-3B-Dl )

F. Did the ftanaging Director/Representative receive timely and accurate information? (84-5C-D1-13, EX85C-40)

G. Did responding agencies, e.g. Benton County, provide spokesperson ETA and interim news release authority? (84-3C-la)

H. Did facsimile of EBS messages reach the JIC in a timely manner? (84-3C-12)

I. Mere slides projected during the news conferences readily visible?

(F83C-26, F84C-6, EX84C-D3-20, I85-7-3, 85-3C-52, E85C-10)

)

1986 Emergency Exercise

~

'II-0-66 Joint Information Center Evaluation guestions 84 NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation J. At news conferences were questions repeated by the JIC Director for audio record, and were unanswered questions noted for later resolvement?

(F83C-27, I85-7-3, 85-3C-52)

K. Did the telephone response teams receive timely updates on status?

(84-3c-ld, EX84B-D2-5)

L. Did the telephone team lines remain open during the news conferences?

(F84C-5, EX84B-D2-5)

M. Mere the required initial calls made to the media by the t~iedia Telephone Team'? (EX85-3C-2)

N. Mere some key person duties, such as those of the PITT supervisor, delegated to avoid individual "overloading" ? (EX85-3C-5)

0. Were needed reference materials available, but restricted to controlled procedures? (EX84C-D3-4, 85-3B-4, I85-2-1)

1986 Emergency Exercise III-D-71 84 Benton County EOC Evaluation (}uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Mere EBS messages complete and appropriate for the situation, and were they made for each PAR? (F83B-l, EX85A-l, C-15, C-31 and C-39)

B. Mere fan out notifications completed within the 15 minute default times?

(F83C-1)

C. Were EOC staff briefings given on critical activities, such as the activations of assistance centers? (F84C-l, EX84C-D3-36)

D. Mere PARs implemented within default times? (85-3B-19)

E. Mas the District Health Officer involved in the decision to administer KI to emergency workers, and was the decision coordinated? (EX84C-D3-38, EX85B-22)

F. Were telephonic notifications received within default times, and were facsimile notifications received within reasonable times? (84-5C-D1-14, EX84B-D2-9, 85-3C-18)

G. Mere status boar ds properly maintained? (85-3B-20)

H. Mas the EOC staff made aware, on a timely basis, of protective actions implemented by county agencies? (84-5C-Dl-ll, 85-3C-20)

I. Were facsimile machine operators able to operate the equipment properly?

( 84-5C-E2-2)

1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-72 84 Benton County EOC Evaluation (}uestions J. Mas the ETA of the JIC spokesperson, and the name/number of the interim news release authority, provided to the JIC staff? ( 84-3C-la)

K. Mere facsimile copies of EBS messages sent to the JIC in a timely manner'?

( 84-3C-12)

l986 Emergency Exercise III-0-76 84 State EOC Evaluation guestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Was the set-up of the EOC accomplished quickly? (F84B-l, EX84B-D2-10)

B. Was the tracking/display of EBS message content accomplished? (F84-B-2, EX84B -0 2-11 )

C. Did the roles of the Supply System representatives appear to be clear to them? (F83S-20)

0. Did the technical staff members integrate information properly with the Supply System representatives? (F83C-3)

E. Did the staff members know how to operate the telephones, including initiation of a conference call? (F84C-3, EX84C-D3-41)

F. Was the rumor control telephone number disseminated promptly? (F84C-4)

G. Did the status board- posting reflect "effdctive" or "accurate for" times?

(84-5B-D2-5, F84C-5, EX84C-03-43)

H. Were telephonic notifications received within default times, and were facsimile notifications received within reasonable times? ( 84-5C-01-14 and E-2-9, EX84B-D2-9, 85-3C-18)

I. Were fanout notifications completed within default times, and was information passed verbatim? ( 84-5B-D2-11 and El-27)

J. Was the EOF staff made aware, on a timely basis, of protective actions being implemented? (84-5C-D1-11, 85-3C-20)

4

~ y e

(

1986 Emergency Exercise III-0-82 84 Coast Guard Station Evaluation ()uestions NOTE: Any negative response should result in an Unfavorable Evaluation A. Were the procedural texts of the river evacuation loudspeaker messages appropriate for the simulated situation? ( 85-RC-1)

B. Were boaters directed to Leslie Gr oves Park, instead of to the Old Hanford Townsite or to White Bluffs? ( 85-RC-2)

Was the control link to the evacuation vessel through the appropriate control agency? ( 85-RC-3)

D. Oid the patrol vessel crew run straight Op river broadcasting the evacuation message, and then during the return trip check the back waters for potential evacuees? ( 85-RC-4)

"I 'T A'i I~

y e ~

l,986 Emergency Exercise III-0-83 84 Previous Evaluation Finding Reference A. Single Letter Prefix (if applicable): Outside agency marking observation:

F - FEMA I - IHPO N - NRC B. Multiple Letter Prefix (if applicable):

EX - Exercise, internal observation NOUE - Notification of Unusual Event, actual emergency C. First Number: CY of activity, e.g. 83, 84, 85, etc.

D. Subsequent Number: Designation of drill, e.g. 84-5, 85-3, etc.

E. Subsequent Letter: Category of finding, if applicable:

A - Major Deficiency B - Minor Deficiency C - Item for Clarification F. Subsequent letters and numbers: observation designation in critique.

G. Examples:

N83C-46:

N NRC observation 83 - 1983 exercise C - Item for clarification 46 - Number in the critique

Wl I

4 g a 'o 1'

1986 Emergency Exercise I I I-D-84 84 Previous Evaluation Finding Reference EX84B-02-3 EX - Exercise internal observation 84 - 1984 B - Minor deficiency D2 Number 'in the critique I85 2-1 I - INPO observation 85 - 1985 drill 2 Number in the critique F84C-9 F - FEMA observation 84 - 1984 C - Item for clarification 9 - Number in the critique 85-3A1 85 - 1985 3 - Drill 85-3 A - Major deficiency 1 - Number in the critique

W STR ION:

M cket No. 50-397 July 10, 1986 BWD-3 r/f EHylton (2)

JBradfute DOCKET NO(S). 50-397 Nr. G. C. Sorensen, Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 George Washington lfay Richland, Washington 99352 ..

SUBJECT:

l%

lfNP-2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.

D Notice of Receipt of Application, dated D Draft/Final Environmental Statment, dated D Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated D Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. , dated D Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated D Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License, dated Bi-Weekly g3 ggQNQ(Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated 0 2 1986 24266 D Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume D Amendment No. to Application/SAR dated D Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated D Facility Operating License No. , Amendment No. , dated D Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated D Other (Specify)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated CC:

OFFICE~ LP j3ND...

SURNAME%

DATC~ 2JI J86...

. aj'hm NRC FORM 318 (1/84) NRCM 0240

J v I ~

g g P

'I C

~ I r

~ p r

(

L

~ ,

t ) '} ( I I

Ir p 1 hl~~ J4

't