ML20042D481

Forwards Rept for Unannounced Drill Conducted on 890124 for Plant.No Deficiencies Noted.One Area Requiring Corrective Action Re Communication Noted.Approval of Offsite Plans for Plant Granted Under 44CFR350 Continues to Be in Effect

ML20042D481
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	12/21/1989
From:	Kwiatkowski D Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9001090188
Download: ML20042D481 (4)

Text

. .

. 4 j

4 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 DEC 21 1989 Mr. Frank J. Congel Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Congel:

Enclosed is a copy of the report for the unannounced drill conducted January 24, 1989, for the LaSalle Nuclear Power Station. The LaSalle County-Emergency Operations Center was activated for the drill. The report was prepared - by the Federal Emergency Management Agency . ' (FEMA) Region V staff and transmitted to FEMA Headquarters.

There were no deficiencies identified during the January 24, 1989 unannounced drill. However, one area requiring corrective action (ARCA)' regarding communication capabilities was identified. The appropriate objective related- to the ARCA will be demonstrated during the' next LaSalle Nuclear Power Station exercise currently- scheduled for June 6, 1990.

Based on our review of the unnannounced drill report and.the scheduled corrective action, FEMA considers that offsite radiological emergency preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate offsite measures can be taken to protect the health and ' safety of the- public living in the vicinity of LaSalle Nuclear Power Station in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at that site. Therefore the approval of the offsite-plans-for the LaSalle Nuclear Power Station granted under ' 44 CFR 350 on June 4, 1982, continues to be in effect.

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

Sincerely,

>vra Y' /

g ' Dennis H. Kwiatkowski Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Enclosure

\

l(-

9001090188 891221 hDR ADOCK 05000373 PDC -

7g3f

,, o  :

-i

, l I

LASALLE COUNTY EOC '

UNANNOUNCED DRILL l-24-89 l=

The LaSalle County Sherif f's Department received NARS notification '

of the incident at 10:01. The call verification to IESDA was I completed by 10:05. LaSalle County EOC staff members were then l immediately notified by two Sherif f's deputies viaThere commercial were no-telephone. Notification was completed by- 10:14. A delays, and the telephone numbers on the list were accurate.

prescripted meesage typed at the top of the call list was read to each of the persons notified.

The FEMA evaluator, who was initially stationed at the Sheriff's Department, arrived at the EOC' at 10:18. ' UponThe his rapidity arrival, . several of the personnel were already present in the EOC. mobilization process sugges been present within the Criminal Justice Building prior to the-beginning of the drill; such as the County Sheriff, two deputies, and the ESDA Coordinator. Three other assistants were also One assistant, who was described as - a trainee, had~

present. This individual was not arrived at the EOC at 8:00 that morning. This trainee had established the named on the EOC staff list.

sign-in desk and documentation process, 'and referred to herself as a " recorder". Most of the EOC members If this seemed were anto off-hours arrive within drill, 15-20 minutes of their notification. ,

the mobilization may not have been as rapid.-

Conclusion:

Objective #2, Mobilization of Emergency Personnel, was met. I Play began with receipt of the NARS notification of the Site Area Emergency at 10:01. The dispatcher who received the call was able to note all conveyed information accurately and-- without line The verification call placed to IESDA, Springflald' interference.

was answered within 15 seconds of placement.

The verification By 10:06  ;

process itself was completed within one minute - (10:05) .the notificati No problems in reception or had begun via commercial telephone.The use of pagers enabled.certain EOC-transmittal were observed. A total of 16 separate lines members to be reached in their cars.

were available in the EOC, and this was: sufficient for.. each EOC member to have a phone for his/her exclusive use. .

Primary communications to the EOC (other than commercial ~ lines) handled through the LaSalle County Sheriff's are regularly dispatcher's office. The latter organization is responsible for i

l relaying all messages to the EOC; this resulted in a two-step -!

communication process.

l

' *4N = M4T g g- g _

~ - -

• * "6 M 4foradnaks h g ,A

i

, e a The EOC staff included a Public .Information Aide, who had a single line devoted to this purpose. Rumor control was not demonstrated nor was it required, i

Very few of the communications systems available to the LaSalle- [

County EOC were actually demonstrated during the unannounced drill.

Those which were demonstrated included > the NARS and commercial lines available to each of the agency representatives on the BOC ,

t staff. The evaluator had to specifically request to be shown what other communications systems were potentially available to EOC operations. These systems included primary radio links between LaSalle County Sheriff's department and its patrol cars; secondary radio links to municipal law enforcement and emergency response f organizations; point-to-point communications; the ISPERN system; a RACES base station; VHF and Low Band radio connections to te EOC (DC controlled speaker system) and walkie talkies. None of these systems were demonstrated. No ham operators were present at the EOC, although the evaluator was told that the EOC had established t contacts with three ameteur radio clubs. I

Conclusion:

Objective #4, Communications, was partially met.

• The LaSalle County EOC is located below grade, in the basement of l the LaSalle County Criminal Justice Building.- EOC operations were i carried out in a designated space approximately 25 x 30 feet in size formed by the substructural walls of the building. This three-sided space could be closed off and locked up by means of a gate. At the time of the FEMA evaluator's arrival, a door-sized opening had been made at the gate. At this point, an access control / security desk had been established. Each EOC member asas required to sign-in upon arrival. The documentation used for this l.

purpose was the dosimetry log (dosimetry was available at the desk but was not dispensed to EOC. members) . No distinct security log was used because the dosimetry log served this function. . However, one shortcoming of this procedure is the absence of institutional affiliation data on the security log. This could= complicate the tracking of late arrivals among the EOC staff.

All needed displays were available at the EOC. The main status 4 board was updated promptly, and was used to record the time ' and nature of critical communications. Activity sheets were distributed-to each of the EOC staff members for documenting contacts- with i

their respective agencies. The evaluator was shown the back-up electrical generator available to the Criminal Justice Building,.

and was told a smaller, portable generator was available to the EOC-proper, in the event that the CJB back-up failed. i Ventilation, seating, table-space and restrooms were adequate for extended operations'vithin the EOC.

Conclusion:

Ob-jective 15, Facilities, Eq0ipment, and Displays, was met.

_,.a . wa Eh- -

-L

The drill began at 10:01 and proceeded according to the specifications of the plan. After receiving the notification call,-

the LaSalle County Sheriff's dispatcher requested verification of-the Site Area Emergency (10:03-10:05). Members of the EOC were alerted by commercial telphone during the period 10:06 to 10:14.

This notification was prompt and efficient. Overall, the names and telephone numbers used were accurate and up-to-date. This accelerated notification phase was possible through the use of two persons making simultaneous calls to different EOC personnel. This greatly reduced the time needed to activate the EOC. However, as-mentioned previously, a large number of EOC staff members were on-scene'at the EOC at the time of the' evaluators arrival at 10:18.

This may suggest that a large portion of the EOC staff, by virtue of their daily responsibilities, were conveniently situated in relation to the EOC at the time of the unannounced drill.

Upon arrival at the EOC, staff members established contact with their respective agencies, as directed by the County ESDA Coordinator. Even though the duration of the drill was brief, the coordinator conducted periodic briefings in order to update EOC staf f on the emergency situation. During the period.10:11 through 10:26, communication linkages were established with the following municipal EOC's: Seneca, Marseilles, Ransom, and_ Grand Ridge (in accordance with stated objectives) as well . as with the Grundy County EOC and the IESDA Springfield as specified in.the plan. The-Department of Nuclear Safety and CECO were also contacted during this period. These institutions were not . represented ' at ' the LaSalle County EOC despite the provision of seats for these representatives.

Conclusion:

Objective #36, Unannounced and Of f-Hours, was snet.

Areas Requiring Corrective Action:

Several important communications systems were not demonstrated' during the unannounced drill. The systems were shown to the evaluator only after the evaluator urged the staff to demonstrate the equipment. No ham operators were present at , the EOC to participate in the drill. These systems should be demonstrated during , the drill to insure that they are functioning properly in the event of an emergency.

Areas Recommended for Improvement:

The EOC staff list should be updated. The " recorder" trainee person, whose name did not appear on the list, was acting as controller of the security desk, which is not representative of appropriate procedures.

Areas Recommended for Improvement:

The dosimetry record form should not have been used as a general sign-in sheet. This type of form does not include institutional affiliation and may complicate the tracking of late arrivals or !

the partinipation of unknown auxiliaries. A designated EOC staff I sign-in sht et should be developed and used for this purpose. I mA l_ . .. . .  :. - " .

~

5'"~ ~~~- -A