ML20040D641
| ML20040D641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202020106 | |
| Download: ML20040D641 (14) | |
Text
.
4 Federal Emergency Management Agency l Washington, D.C. 20472 O O M-Y JAN 22 1982 - m, ,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Brian K. Grimes gf 'b Director Division of Emergency Preparedness a U. S.gW 1ea Reg tory Commission th , , _
. -Q % -
FROM: Richa . r mm' Y y 'S Assistant ssocia e Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards b #
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Interim Finding on the Offsite Emergency 2'I Preparedness for the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS)
Per our agreement, attached is a NUREG-0654 (A-P) evaluation regarding the adequacy of offaite emergency preparedness for the ZNPS which supplements our interim finding to you dated October 23, 1981. Included are the Zimmer interim findings prepared by Regions IV and V.
Attachments l
i 8202020106 820122 PDR ADOCK 05000358 F pon $
L I
, , n' f'; .fFEDERAL EMER2ENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY f Region V
'Jg D - Federal Center I i sattle Creek, Michigan 49016
_c : a J AN 2119821 .
MEMORAN0tM FOR: Acting Chief. Natural and Technological Hazards Division Attention: H. Gaut. Technological Hazards Branch FROM: Regional Director, FEMA Region V SU6 JECT: Interim Report - William H. Zimer Nuclear Power Station In response to your request, attached is the Interim Finding of State and local readiness for off-site Radiological Emergency Preparedness for the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
The site-specific plans have been reviewed by the Regional Advisory Comittee, comented upon, and an evaluation sent to the State prior to the exercise of November 18, 1981.
The post-exercise evaluation was finalized December 1,1981 and sent to the State. Ohio is currently in the process of reacting to the evaluation.
s %
dased on the above evaluations, there are elements which require a concentrated effort to make tb2 necessary modifications to the planning documents and implementing procedures. The State has been notified of a 30-day period from receipt of the post-exercise evaluation in which to coment on the deficiencies. We have requested of them, by letter, a schedule to be submitted to Region V.
Specifics as to capability to carry out the emergency functions are indicated in the attached report.
dw hn T. Anderson Attachment ,
.. FIDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Region V-Federal Center . .
Battle Creek. Michigan 49016 s .
1 J:.n s? . 34c Mr. Curtis Erifff th, Jr. .
Deputy Director -
Ohio Emergency Services JAN-7 ,1982 and Disaster Agency , ,
2825 West Grenville Road
^
Worthington, Ohio 43085
Dear Mr. Gr4ffith:
Enclosed is a revision of the report. Ifax:mr Nuclear Power Station Site Specific Plan, sent to you on December 18,1981. The report has been revised.to highlight plan elements that deserve special interest. This should not be an indication that ttut items that do not fall into the " Element of Special Concern" portion of the report would receive a lesser degree of concern on our part. The revised report should serve as a annagement tool for you and your staff to make necessary improvements to your plan and iglementing procedures. '
It is requested that you establish a schedule of corrective -
actions you plan to take, as well as to provide us with your critical and constructive coreents, and respond *a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region V so we can continue our review process. We would appreciate your comments as soon as possible, with a target date of January 29,1982.
Sincerely.
sIESID John T. Anderson Regional 'Direc+4r inclosure
~.
. v .,
INTERIM FINDINES FR THE 5 TATE AND LOCAL Puut5 W CHIO. AND CLERMONT COUNTT; WIO -
, SITE-3PECIFIC WILLIAM H. ZD9ER ltl CLEAR POWER STATION ,
y ..
J. Inti'oduction . .
.: .m.
u i This document aetstitutes an'interia finding of the Federal Beirgency : I '- 0 " d *
. Management Agency .(FDE) Region V on.the at Wesy of ' radiological 7 . l .g. . : '. i .N .
enargonicy propevedness of.the' State end local governeests.wtthin Regica Y i. F :-;;.
at the Zimmer Nuclear Poner Station (ZWS). Moscow,. Okto. . ~ . - . . ,. l. J J ' l. .-
- ..y, c
- ^
2NPS is.3ocated in.Chio en .the Ohio River dividing Chlo..end Eentucky. The!'*.7'.9 '
plumeitzposuru@athuey Beerfency Planning Zone (EPZ) idifch. extends.. cat; toff;. . .. . .
ten siles' includes 1erts 4f Clermont toonty in Vhio, and t==@ ell - "
. n ee.P '. : .. -
Pendleton,'and Brecken.. Counties in Kentucky. The ingestian pathuey EPZ J-i '.f-J'..:
(50 a11e) "facludes portions of Ohio .and Kentucky. The ports of.these.? . :.4.t-*3"- .
zones lying.in Eentucky are within the jurisdiction of. Region:IY and are. ;,... . . f.
. not included;.in this. document. -%. s .. .;,.,.. .p.-%s.'.h 6e
. . . . . . .- . . 3.'.
- ..w,g a The. principalischnical and planning ..,.idzations favo%ed are::rm:!j:--hG-
..q . ..; -
Ohio The Disaster Services Agency, the Ohio national. Guard. T - ", N the Department of Health, the Environmental Protection - -
Agency. the Department of Agriculture, the Department of.1
. Natural Resources,, the Department of Transportation. . '.
+ Clermont County - The Clermont County Disaster Services Agency, .
. the Clermont County 5heriff
- The basis for the findings presented in this document.inclades
- - .
The State of Ohio Plan for Respense to Radiation Beergencies at ,
Licensed Nuclear Facil.ities (State Plan)
The Clermont County. Radiological Emergency Respemme Plan for ~~ -
the .Ms. H. Iismer Nuclear Power Station (County Plan) '
The Ms. H. Z'inser Huclear Power Station Off-Site Post-Exercise * .
. Evaluation, November 18,1981. -
Comments from members' of the Regional Advisory Commdttee and FDM Region Y staff on the Clermont County site-specific plan -.
. for the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, October 15,1981. .
Elements of special concern as a result of evaluating w ise observaties -
data will be addressed at the end of each alphabetical.section. Although -
these items may not necessarily be rador impediments to plan development and implementation, they are serious enough to warrant special effort to correct. It is strongly recommended that the State self-impose a rigid schedule to implement necessary action to aggressively correct all dis-crepancies. This schedule should be coordinated with FEMA Region Y so that assistance can be rendered as necessary.
~2 .T -
- ~ ' ~
.2-II. planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria - -
A. Assignment of Resoons1Dility (0 roan 12ation Coritrn_1) -
state ano county soorgency .resochse plans clearly identify the State.
local, Federal.and private organizations that are~ intended toits part -
of the overal.1 response organization. These groups participated in the
- exercise of November 18. 1981. The responsibility of each group is .
. clearly deffned except in the area of radiological assessment and -
- annitoring. The Clenment County Plan states' that the Clansant County . .
Disaster Services Agency,.(CCDSA) will assume primary responsibility for ".
radiological.aonitettag analysis. and ======st. This caflicts <with.g.-c. .
the ~ State Plan; thich. states that the Chio Department of Health has .j.<. ? .'. . .
. the primary respensthflity for this function. This discrepancy'tanD - -
! + cause prc614mm%n.there.Ts a difference between . Eve actions 2.,-..,; ,?., , .
- recommended by Stata and County. Daring.the exercise af movember.18.. 4..
it was eserved that too marty groups (State. County, muPUtilityl were _. w ...
"'trying to calculate dess, initiate the tvecuattoo,.and specifyw _ftM. :- .
Nation boundarfes, .Thetole of each organization.in accident assess-G'.'9-
-ment and radiological-exposure control, should be}eed The exercise.showed .that duttess. roles. and decisionwunking responsi f..: ...
- tilities were. Tn general, well-defined and understood. Leadership C ~ N t
in .the State Emergency Operations Center (50C).was.wffective. In the C.'.lEi.
Clermont CountyIDC. however. it.aras not clear to.the. observers that ,' . . -
~
- the Ccunty Sherfff, who is identiffed in the Plan.as the individual . ..
in charge of the emergency response, was.actually in charge of operatians at the EOC.- 2 servers felt that coordination and e-==tcatim in both ~ -
EOCs could be erManced 5y more frequent. staff. briefings. - - .
- The Plans provide for 24-hour notification of emergency response organization.' THe NovaBer 18 exercise began slightly earlier than nomal working hours. T5e notification systan sammed to work well since sc6flization ef N -41 was generally acceplished in a timely ,
manner. The capa5f1fty for providing continuous (24-hcur) % htions
- for a protrac'.:ed . period was deenstrated in the. State and County EDCs . .
By double-stafftng.during t5e exercise. A sinulated ~ shift ~. change was -
carried out by some personnel at the County EOC. but was not observed in the State EOC. Staulated or actual shift changes, including briefing of relief personnel, is recommended for future exercises.
The written agreements supporting-the emergency response operations- -
concept set for:th in the Clement County Plan . included a signature sheet an'd several letters of ' agreement. Sono agencies that should be' included on the signature sheet, notable the Clermont Authority for Rural Transportation (CART) have been taitted. It is also felt.that letten of agreement fram agencies such as the U.S. Arw Corps of. .
l Engineers shculd be included in the Canmty Plan. , .- .
. e
,-y...,., , _ _ _
9
,y .
, 3 ,, .
Elements of Soecial ConcemE ,
.. At the local level, the November 18 exercise shamed that responsibilities within the host reception center were not defined or understood. Nome of the participating organizations (state and County Health Departments, '
local fire department American Red Cross) knew who uns responsible for . ' c the management of the center. They also did not know advich hospitals -
' within the area had been designated for the treatment of radiologically . .,..
injured persons.- - -
,c . ... .
Provision for folief personnel in some areas, notable the radiological '
,,'.7
' assessment tese in the County EDC, the field monitoring team. (EDF). .
and for the State Public Infomation .0ffices at the Buergency Operations ..
Facility was. net evident during the exercise. .
-. . . . <c .- - . .
.* . 7,x . *:
Emergency'Resocnse' Support and' Resources C. *- .: -
. .... t. . M. ,: -
The Sovernor of Ohio has clearly identified the 11 ass of authorityi.
not only to request and obtain Federal assistance but to obtain. . -
State resources as well. This combination is important because the < - -
State should.only. request Federal assistance unen their can rescumes are depleted 'or incapable of meeting the demands of the emergency. ..
' Maintaining control of the total State resources in the manner in which f *
(hio does 1sleffective, and precludes unnecessary toquests for. Federal '
assistance when State resources can handle the needs.
The discussions in the State and County Plans of Federal .Mizations that may he asked to praride assTstance in a radiological emergency are adequate as far as they go. But they are inecuplete. No mention for example.'is made of the need to request assistance from the Interstate
. Caunerce Commission to control rail traffic or from the Federal Ariation Administration to control air traffic. Letters of agreement fras these .
and other Federal .agencier should be included in the State and County
. Plans. Only one letter of agreementfrom a Federal Agency (U.S. Coast Guard) is included in tfle County Plan. The State was able to adequately -
provide the resources necessary to support a Federal responsel During the exercise of November IB. State reoresentatives were sent to the ECF via helfcopter, and arr.tved in a timely manner.
~
Element *of' Spec'ial Conearn:
It is felt that the State should develoo its cem capability to analyza
, radiological samples, rather than relying solely on Federal centractor fact 11 ties. An independent State capability in.this area is necessary
, to insure sample integrity, to make cenparative analyses with Federal results, to insure State leadership, and to bolster citi: ens?.cenfidence
. in reported results. ,
4 o - * * . . . . - . . .
D. Emergency Classification System The emergency classification systems used by the 5 tate and County .
are consistent with that of the utility and were used effectively in the November la exercise. - -
~
The state has p'rocedures in place that provide for emergency actions
. to be taken. These.piQres'were followed dur$ng the exercise. '
j Copies of the State Plan were available during the exercise and they< .
were 7.f.. ..d to. Written pce t ires for individsini perticipants . . .
. were not observed during the exercise. . f . , ,., ,5.1
. Notification Methods and piM..s ' .
i l
E.
/.' - '
~
I ,' '
State and County procedures for notify!ng emergene;y r==r== crgani ations were w11 deoenstrated in the exercise of govember 18. Notift
- l. 'I. "'--
cation and seabi.11 ration of response. personnel was generally. accomplished .' .
in.4 timely manner. The County Plan calls for the EOC to be activated . ' ..
upon notification that a tite area emergency" has been declared. . . . . ~
DuHng the exercise..however, the'Ceunty EOC was activated ati the . C-: /-
' " alert" whichds a conservative r.ppreach the Coasty has chosen to take.
Vedfication pidstares for the. County not'ificattoms may, reqdire modiff- : -
' cation. The Coimty Plan states that veHficatiam.af notification can e l be by call-back or by voice recognition. VeHfication should only be -
i via call-back. It'was observed duMng the exercise that the nalerta - .
l .
message received in the County Sheriff *s. office via dedicated phone -
line .was not verified. -
A draft informatite guide " Circle of Safety" describes pMk.i.ive actions to be taken by the.public is included in the County P3an. This draft guide should not mention the use of potassism fodiale (KI). The official ..
position of the state of Chfo and Clermont County is not to administer
, potassium todide (KI) to the general public. Reference in the information 1
guide to KI may confuse the public and raise questions.
Elements of soecial Concern:
Thel 5 minute yrywi. notification was not demonstruted since the prompt.J notification system had not been installed although the County did effectively demonstrate a back-up warning system to' include the use of telechones, radios, EBS, helicopters, and simulated notification from dispatched fire vehicles. It was estimated that it took 45 minutas ,
to alert the population within the Emergency plausing Zone using these methods. The 55 was notified of the site area energency 35 minutes after it was declared. ' Media briefings and releases during the exercise were not as timely as possible. There were long delays Mt r.a briefings and the acdia were not kept apprised of the events as they were occurring.
The delay in infomation given to the press resulted in the public not meeiving timely information from any source other than EBS, '
p 1
,.,~ J. _
F. Imemency Censuunications -
. . k~
Planning at all levels of government demonstrated capatsflity with minor deficiencies. Fir.it, the method by which Clerunat Etnarty wfM '
. .ccumunicate with L4.df and isntucky Countfes is not specified:
second,.ao reference is sede on backup cismuniesticas fases the EBC. ' '
to the nuclear facility sad the licensee's nes% Immegency !$er=- - -
- ations Tacility (EDFh ,and third. no Tafersons is ande ammeerstag < ' . ' - -
1 comunicattans trasthe toonty IDC1m the Clermaet commay.nas l .
.that is 11estgestad for;the.trustmast af.sentanheated 'TistShas.pe 4,
~'
The exercise.surfacen concern about how the 35A staff sou2d be sem-~"~ . .
.fied to Paspond to an emergency if the telephone systemees 4espose % , .'
tive. -. State.cfficials readily pointed set that the Dhtostate Rigimim6 s.' .
- Patrotwould actify the ,,,,i.,, data 215A staff amuhers ty'edst gyarlY'. ** ?
asens necessary. It is .apperant that a seconders isotificatSam does%. <
. ixist, tot the 41stef1s en how'ttrts 'systus estrks4s not c3eas, eeferenceM
.Se'ettan.133Carf;the State Plan. Exemple.of clariffcettes : shou 3d' ',.N.
. %QG who' aposster t weeld -fase altersete-seens af notfrytsettsei'.f: -
. 1.
- s. ' * - -
. state: and . . whatart these'*alternateM.
' . V, - l '#
-.. m. .
.. ... ~. . .. . - .
T. . -.. ... ...'.q'.;3
- . _ :..+.. -
. . < . - .. . . .,v..... :. *. "
^.- 3)uring'ths.:azeiittse,"%1=-*3ms the%. M ..... . .x'cumssaice25mniisgstum' -
~
': und'7adte was.phe.tackdpneens af ===8cattens 6=ha== tem. State 3CC'.'
. and 'the -GjEIE EDF# taans ta'the fleid.'JA 3 tate-mal:13e sus "
. with a " ^ -enhfle vaerfrem the Emmen Saurd served as m'1tak'.ased .. -
kW= Communications.with.the Federal respense argantastiansl4aere? - -
provided. Dverall, .eenrgency Wsetions were adequeam'ty 'dumonstrated '
so the andor.soncern was that no backup redio system existed beltemesi" <. .
. the Wg EDC, the utility.. and the.2DF. An approprista restie :systne . '
is remasaded to satisfythis need . . .
G. 'public'Edsi.dian 2nd.THfMitst "- - -
.9
- h..L of specia Lconcerm . . .
e On the whole..public information mes adequately prorfdad ftse. fledfa' .
- brieffngs and releases. ware well coordinated betmeen the tum Samtsr * ..
~
PIDs, the State'IDCs and th'e utility.' However, the brieflags and. . ' - -
releases were not as timely as they should be. There wome long delers -
between briefings. The media were not kept . apprised of delays hetness ., . .
briefings or kept apprised of the events as they.wers ocnerring. ,If hard copy is not-tamediately~available, verbal releases should be given.
Briefings and fe ,%
- tico .and detafis.could leases have at times been lacked proridad. comprehensiveness
. It is anderstood tsunt - nors the-explan> . .:c .
press facility needed. is tenoorary; It appeefs that morehowever. grouruberk sort telepheme could have been.accouplished lineis ers . critically i.- .f4 tin the ;,. . AM stess brief!ngs, there needs to .be a more actSw .v,. . . -
i role taken by both State end the veility to press during the exercise es to the pressl ro. e. .sore . . adequetely ... : : : prepare the J . .. .
The transient populatieri.was to have beien notified by the Coast Goerd.
.%re attention.needs to be given to t:2moers and betal and metal guercs!, -
s c -
l
@ 1
Emeroency Facilities and Eouimt H. .
Emergency Operation Centers at both state and County ' levels ars -
. adequate.- The State EDC, located in the basament of the Robert E.
Beightler Armory, was described by observers as " impressive." It
~ is self-contained. includin and is. generally specious. gThe its own generator bunks, and kitchen State also utilized a mobile comann4
- cations van to . facilitate ccumenication with field monitoring taass. .
The Clernant Casesty . Enc.is divided into two sections one for 'decisica'.Tf.
and one for '. response.' This separation of the two basic ftmettons .
was foind to facilitate operations. Activation and staffing of all of9- yb..-
.these facil.ities.nes'tf aly. '
.7 .. ..
' ,.... h,f. f.,$.;
~
U.
The centen1 point for teEceiving radiological monitor data is the '.'; i "-
. Clermont county 1 ational linard facility. .also site of the E1ermont? Mt .
County IOC, Clermont. County demonstrated adequate equipment ands
.gi ..s , e ans to'. monitor iodice levels in th's field and relay this ' ! -7 " "
i reation to the radiological data collection point. : However. thepe' '
is considerable confusion as to whether collection and analysis etf t
. radiological data will be perfcgued by the County or the 3tata; see'.; . , :. C .,
Criter' ton 'M #~
~
l I. Accident Assessment Elements of Special Conc &rrJ Both Clernent County and the State have demonstrated an ability to '
measure to data collection radiationpoints. levels in the field and to return this information -
' Their key functions remain undanonstrated:'
one, the State has not shown an ability to assess liquid hazards (open waters, e.g., rivers, streams, ponds, etc.). An adequate demonstration by an effective use of the helicopter to define the upper levels of the pitsee was not adequately demonstrated. Also not demonstrated adequately
! was a systenatic use of survey teams to define : the ground level of the plume without giving them unnecessarily prolonged exposure peMods. .
Two, the State has.not fully demonstrated a capability to deMye inte-grated dose estimates from raw field data. 'A computer program for per-forming this function is in place and this operation was demonstrated during the exercise. SOPS for this operation were not available when the State's Plan was reviewed and should be incorporated into the evision.
Three, the State did. net analyze collected samples but rather consigned
- this function to a Federal contractor. The State should esta/.ilish an independent analytical.capabil.ity to insure sample integrity and to serve as veMfication for results of Federal analysis.
As previously mentioned. there is a discrepancy between the State Plan and the Clermont County Plan as to duMsdictional responsibility for radio-Icgical monitoMng. Because of these defects in planning and operation it is at for questionable this site. whether accident assessment has been adequately prepa, red '
7 N a. protective aesoonse Elements of Soecial Concern:
Protective in addressed measures the plan.forThe the ingestion pathway EFZ are also insufficiently plan should include agricultural resource infor-mation such as caps for recording monitoHng data, lists of food proces-sing plants, water supply intakes, and so on. Capability for disseminating information on protective measures was observed to be in place, but a com-plete demonstration af. ability to implement protective response was not -
effected in the exercise.
,- , - - - , , ,---- - y-w,-w - - - , - - - - ,,w,---w----+----y -
.. r-
.7 .
. r. ... n. . ,-
Elemmts of Special Concern: .
- Serious deficiencies exist at the planning level with respect to
- h. ;.
l implementation of measures to yn.J,.ct the oublic. Some, but not all Y - -
of'these deficiencias were resolved via exercise of b 6..ive b4.Ioss u.. . .".s.
Warning of restdant and transient pcpulation' s , not clearly provided for .Sf
.in the; plan, was affattive1y acccuplished., . flowever,-12.is y. . act that a capability.to evacuste and shelter.the populat5em was demostrated.j j ;
Maps showing populatica distributionb sector withis the. lilaat EP2 *emeM.8 .0 not displand at* stata and comty zoc'.s, lielocatsee-contars, ev===rese in?M ?
routes and she16 ;.g areas wem,also sist displayed.' The destas of the wc.T.5-relocation contars' gas lurt reported.to the IDC's in a ttuely1:astrica. : 2tsee v.N pec61ess.feflect defects dn the p1 14g stage.with vespect to ident$ficutteeH of.ievacustica routes aed , relocation centers and.gstinatica of IPZ papelat$sas V.i
. . .- .. ... ....w .
. .- .-v...,.g;.
~ . .
.h. ,.1%
Management of route tapacit;r of'avacoation used in the plan Testas appears acaftain.'.
ars arealistically kigh. -which Comsaltants'estimatar implies.'t.
that evacuation time estimatas 'are unrealistically los. State and Count;rd/' } '. .
estimates of these factors 40 act agree with .the consultants'. Althougpa . .
observers concluded that the'5tata demonstrated ability to identify and-E.d,.2. '. :. . ' '
- deal with 1.,,.iiimmts to-evacuation. cit is unclear ihether t!ris inclades E. ' '
' removakaf'hr,,-. Live. vehichs from the headney. This faction is not. sg '. "
mentioned in the. plan. . .
'. : .; . , '.. .2. ,j ,,. .r.c. . 1 '.i
~...a.:
. K. 1tadiblecical Emm Centrol '
",,0 . 7
. . .J . r.. . .
. r'.
The State of Ohio demonstrated adequate ability to mentter and ed2 state' smergency workers frca access radiation hazards. Field perscanal were proeided with dosimeters which were checked periodically by RAD health personnel in
.the' State communications van. Decontamination of emergency persmael. instro -
.aents, and equipment uns.adeqately deemstrated. Two other i= mi.r.1,.: '
measures were not observed: a 24-hour enability to assess doses, ano the. , - :'
keeping of cumulative . dose records. There.was sone delay in .the decision process
.- for authorizing emergency mb to receive doses in excess of general public ..
PAE's. When the health personnel in the commmisations van questioned the Stata -
en the advisability of. sending a team back into a high radiation area, the . <
decision to pond 1o.ct, a lisw teme was not until 1/2 hour later. .f - . " .
, ../.-
- .y ..
Comty monitoring perscanel isere adequately' protected via the use of.seli i J .. I
' readin(desiasters. The County EDC was in constant communicatim -
e' with the field teams in order to insum n%i. dose readings. and . . ~' -
J maintenance of asse records. Hemeyer, dosimeters were act provided tos ~
National Guard pengnnel assigned to access control; tiris was felt to hei . J ' -J '
a significant lapse in protection of the emergecy wort force.' DeccataarinaticeF.
of County personnel and equipment was not d u.wo. .- -
Element of Special Concern: . ' .
Examination of the Clement Ccunty and State plans re'venis a conflict as to - '
the level of contamination which. triggers action to decentaminata; this should ba resolved to yield a unifem stancard. - - - -
- y .
9
e.
L. Medical and Public Health Suoport Ability.to secure prompt treatment for contaminated and injured indivi- l duals was simulated. Cincinnati General and Clermont County hospitals
. demonstrated adequate capability for handling such individuals. Clermont County Hospital is a well-equipped and well-managed facility nearby. -
This apability is confined to arinor exposure, however, when the capabil-ity is exceeded exposed individuals are transported to- Cincinnati General in Cincinnati. Greater education and training of hospital staff in the use of monitoring. equipment is needed.
M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Post-accident Operations Procedures for recovery and reentry are adequataly planned, but were not implenented during the exercise and, therefore, could not be evaluated appropriately. It is recommended that future exercises include a recovery
- and reentry phase.
N. Exercises and Drills The Novenber 18th axercise demonstrated a dedication and ability on the part of all Ohio organizations to exercise amergency planning. The exercise tested major portions of the response organization and resources.
Future exercises should include recovery and reentry as this was not I
4sted on November 18th.
III. Schedule of corrections The FEMA Region V and RAC review of the State and local . plans for the.
emergency planning zone of the Zinsner Nuclear Power Station revealed that the plans are basically adequate .to protect the public. There were some deficiencies noted in this review as conveyed to the State on October 15, 1981 and so:ne problems that surfaced as a result of the November 18,1981 exercise.
It should be noted that the problems found in the plans and implementing pro-cedures are such that once corrected would serve to improve upon the overall emergency response capability.
The State was provided a copy of the exercise evaluation on December 23. 1981, but was advised that a revised copy would be furnished to them the middle of January,1982. Once the State receives this revision, we anticipate a .
response from them within 30 days. This response, upon receipt, and Region Y review, will become a part of the Interim Report.
I Federal Emergency Management Agency
@ RegionIV 1375 Peachnee Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 January 21, 1982 MEMORANDUM POR: LEE M. THOMAS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ..
AN
. LOCAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT FROM:
Regional Di ctor .
SUBJECT:
Kentucky (Simmer Power Station, Ohio)
Mini 44 CFR 350 Report The attached subject report is submitt.ed for your review and for inclusion in the overall Simmer Rcport. No corrections have bcon made to noted deficiencies and nonc are anticipated until April 1982. USDA plan critique information is not included in this in-t.erim report.
While definite plan and plan execution capability improvements are needed, we consider the State of Kentucky and the involved counties to be capable of implementing their planned responses to an off-site release of radioactive material at the Zinuner Power Station.
Attachment ~"
5
[_ _
? .) ']
I 1
0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
,, . v- .
I. Introduction The following.2immer site-specific preliminary evaluation report fa provided for FEMA National Office review. This report is applicabic only to Kentucky. The lo-mile EPZ includes the Kentucky counties of Bracken, Campbc11 and PendIcton. REP plans from these countics and the State Disaster and Emergency Services Office were reviewed to produce the findings of this report. In addition, RAC IV conducted an' evaluation of the Zinumer exercise held on November 18, 3981.
7 I. Evaluago,n, The followinC evaluation relates to planning standards A through P, NUREG 0654.
A. fas,ff,nyent of Respo,nsibility o (Organization Cont rol)
Designation of some functional emergency coordinators is missing in count.y plans. The assumptions sections of many plan annexes contain statements of fact rather than assumptions. Required letters of agreement are not in the State / county plans. During the exercise there was not sufficient liaison between the State RAD Health and Operations Offices.
B. On-Site Emergency Organizat,1on, Applicable only to licensee.
C. Emergency Respons,e, Suffort o and Resources i
The various plans indicate that a Federal Coordinator will be located at. each county EOC. This indication should be deleted.
D. Emergency Clasaffication Sy,s,t_es, No deficiencies noted.
E. _ Notification Methods and Procedures Current system for public notification does not meet requirements of NUREG 0634.
F. Ebnergency Communications l Deficiencies which hampered response operations were noted in Bracken and Pend 1cton County during the November exercise.
G. Public Education and Information The State plan does not establisis a rumor control center, although there is mention of rumor control. During the exercisc, the public information staff was very limited,and there was no technical information briefing for the news media.
l l
,. ,v;. .
- H. Energency Pre 111_t_teo and Equipment County plans do not contain any specific listings of esacrgency response equipment. The State field radiological center is too sas11, particularly in its conniend sad control and display areas.
Bracken and Pendicton Counties also need additional EOC space.
- 1. Ac,cident Asses _a_ men,C
~
Staff limitations in the State RAD Health organization would be a problem in projected operations. Although effective, field monitoring teams need additional comensnications capability and more training. Additional radiological equipment is required I -
in emergency kits.
J. Proteetive.Resy n,se Host County shelter capacities are not included in Campbell and l Bracken Count.y plans. Delays were experienced in initiating evacuation ordera during the November exercise.
K. Radiological Exposure Control Additional training is required in the areas of decontamination, personnc1 dosimetry and exposure control methodology.
I.. Medical and Public H_esi,t,h, Support i Kentucky hospitaJa listed in the state plan are not represented
- by letters of agreement.
M.' _Regvery and Reentry Planning, anci,_, Post-Accident Operatio.ns If RFA is to share responsibility for estimatius total population dose, letters of agreement should be executed and included in all plans.
N. Exe,r,c,1a,es, a,nd Dril3 s -
'!be November exerciac provided an excellent learning experdence and identified the need for training in virtually all areas of emergency response at both State and local levcis.
O. Radiologeal,,_ Emergency Response Traini,n3 See K and N.
P. Responsibility for the Planninn Effort, No deficiencies noted.
III. S,c.hedule of Correctsons Kentucky indicates plan improvements / corrections will not be l
submitted to PEMA before April 1982.
2
- .,, - . -