ML20133J230
| ML20133J230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1985 |
| From: | Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-823 OL, NUDOCS 8510180340 | |
| Download: ML20133J230 (120) | |
Text
. _ _ .
i
) .!
9 l ~ '. D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,e ,
D BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD [CT hi py, bkb,{ "[Li(
3R V'/ ' w In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EDDLEMAN PROPOSED CONTENTIONS BASED ON EXERCISE Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Counsel for Applicants October 15, 1985
$ g 1s03
r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
I. Introduction...........................................
Standards Governing Late-Filed Contentions............. 2 II.
8 III. Application of The Standards...........................
A. Proposed Contentions -- Basis with 8 Specificity.......................................
14 EPX-1.............................................
15 EPX-2.............................................
17 EPX-3.............................................
18 EPX-4.............................................
19 EPX-5.............................................
EPX-6............................................. 20 21 EPX-7.............................................
23 EPX-8.............................................
EPX-9............................................. 24 EPX-lO............................................ 25 EPX-11............................................ 27 EPX-12............................................ 28 B. The Lateness Factors.............................. 29 Factor (1): Good Cause for Failure to File on Time...................................... 30 Factore (ii) and (iv): The Availability .
of Other Means Whereby Petitioner's Interest Will Be Protected; and the Extent to Which Petitioner's Interest Will Be Represented By Existing Parties................... 35 Factor (iii): The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Developing a Sound Record...................................... 36 Factor (v): The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation Will Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding........................................ 39 IV. Conclusion............................................. 41 1
r O
4 October 15, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EDDLEMAN PROPOSED CONTENTIONS BASED ON EXERCISE I. INTRODUCTION On May 17 and 18, 1985, the pre-licensing full participa-tion emergency planning exercise, required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.7, was conducted for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The exercise involved the participation of Carolina Power & Light Company, the State of North Carolina, and the four counties within the plume emergency planning zone
("EPZ") -- Wake, Chatham, Harnett and Lee Counties. By all ac-counts, the exercise was a success, enabling FEMA to find "rea-sonable assurance that appropriate measures can'be taken to protect [public) health and safety" in the event of a ra-diological emergency at Harris." See FEMA August 7, 1985 Memo-randum, To Edward L. Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA), re: Interim Findings on Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness for the Shearon Harris Nuclear
r j-i s I
j Power Station.1/ Nevertheless, on September 30, 1985, 1
intervenor Wells Eddleman filed proposed " Contentions Based on Emergency Planning Exercise," (hereinafter " Proposed Conten-tions"). For the reasons stated below, Applicants oppose the admission of Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions.
1 4
II. STANDARDS GOVERNING LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS a
The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R. I 2.714, 1
require that a petitioner set forth the basis for each conten-tion with reasonable specificity. This standard requires that a contention state a cognizable issue with particularity, i
i Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and i
2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 216-17 (1974), and that a petition-l er provide a " reason" for its concern. Houston Lighting and i
Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 548 (1980).
As a general proposition, a Licensing Board should not f address the merits of a contention in determining admissibili-ty. Id. However, a contention and its basis may be scruti-nized to determine if a litigable issue has been pleaded. Two i
l purposes of the basis with specificity requirement are "to help
! assure at the pleading state that the hearing process is not I
improperly invoked," and "to assure that the proposed issues l
l
\
j 1/ This document was a part of Board Notification 85-078 (August 21, 1985), which included the FEMA Exercise Report and the FEMA Interim Findings Report.
- - . = - - . . . -- - - _. ___ -
i
- b
. l are proper for adjudication in that particular proceeding."
l Philadeldhia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, f 13, 20-21 (1974). In this j Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.
II regard, a contention must be material to those findings which See precede licensing, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. $ 50.57.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 l
j and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. 1649, 1654-55 (1982).2/ With re-j spect to the matters raised here by Mr. Eddleman, we note that a perfect emergency planning exercise is not a precondition for j an operating license under the Commission's regulations. What is required instead is a finding of " reasonable assurance that 1
l adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event
! of a radiological emergency." 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(a)(1). Ac-1 i cordingly, an emergency planning contention is not litigable in I
- an operating license proceeding unless it would cast doubt on this finding. ,
4 In other words, an intervenor, in setting forth the basis for its proposed contention, must establish a nexus between the 1 i
4 l 2/ Not only must the contention be relevant to the Board's ultimate findings, but it must provide a foundation sufficient to warrant further exploration. Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.
13, 21 (1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, ,
Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 A.E.C. 243, 246 (1973). . See also
. t l
l Seabrook Station, supra, LBP-82-106, 15 N.R.C. 1649, 1655 (cit- !
j ing Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI [
j 5, 7 A.E.C. 19, 32 n.27 (1974); rev'd sub nom., Aeschliman v.
l NRC, 547 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rev'd sub nom., Vermont j Yankee Nuclear Corp. v. NRDC, 434 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978)), for ;
the proposition that a contention must be sufficient to require reasonable minds to inquire further, j I
i
- l i
I+
i
e 4
I i substance of the contention and the statutory and regulatory scopeoftheBoard'[ jurisdiction. Seabrook Station, supra, LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. 1649, 1654. With respect to any safety i
issue (such as emergency planning), the intervenor must specify i
! a regulation with which applicant is allegedly not complying, and must provide sufficient detail to permit the Board to de-i termine how the regulation is being violated; or the intervenor j
i should allege with particularity the existence and detail of a i substantial safety issue on which the regulations are silent.
_I d . at 1656. This requiremont is often referred to as the l
J " legal basis" or " regulatory basis" for a contention.
Contentions may also be scrutinized to eliminate those j
i that are based on factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations. ,
.i i
This scrutiny is readily distinguishable from the proscription f
in Allens Creek, ALAB-590, supra. Allens Creek prohibited Li-l I
j censing Boards from rebutting a source or reference proffered
)
l in support of a contention, but it did not prohibit rejecting a 1
i contention when such source material is ficticious or misrepre-i sented. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-765, 19 N.R.C. 645, 652-56 i
i (1984), in which the Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of I
proposed contentions, noting that "the laws of physics and the ;
j l
f physical properties of * *
- unirradiated fuel * *
- deprive
\
[Intervenor's] purported contentions of any credible or i~
arguable basis"; Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 N.R.C. 1423, 1504-05
'l i
4 a
. 4
,m, - - , , - m,-w,.--<., .,.,r--r---- ~ , - - , , _ . - - = - , , .-,.-m,,,.,,v e n m , . .n e _ .---.m.r.,v,, .m . m - .,m,
a 4
1 (1982), in which the Licensing Board rejected a contention be-cause of factual indecuracies in the allegations; Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-82-107A, 16 N.R.C. 1791, 1804 (1982), in which a Licensing Board re-jected a contention because it seriously mischaracterized the
! draft environmental statement; Carolina Power & Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-82-119A, 1
16 N.C.R. 2069, 2076 (1982), in which this Licensing Board re-jected contentions which inaccurately described the applicants' proposals. Thus, the Licensing Board here may properly inquire into the full context of a proffered statement of factual I basis. Such inquiry is in essence a determination as to wheth-2 er the referenced factual basis actually exists, and whether it supports the proposed contention; the inquiry is not a determi-nation as to whether the factual basis is "right" or " wrong."
$ In addition to the normal pleading requirements, 10 C.F.R.
i
$ 2.714 sets out five factors that must be balanced in admit-ting a late-filed contention; and a contention is untimely if it is filed later than fifteen days prior to the 10 C.F.R.
' 5 2.751a special prehearing conference. 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b);
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-l 83-19, 17 N.R.C. 1041, 1043 n.2 (1983). The five factors are:
i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
l l
! ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petition-er's interest will be protected.
iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a i sound record.
1 -S-i
iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v).
In Catawba, supra, CLI-83-19, the Commission enunciated two fundamental principles underlying the five-factors analy-sis: first, a petitioner has the obligation of uncovering information in publicly available documentary material; and second, there is a substantial public interest in efficient and expeditious administrative proceedings. Id. at 1048 (citing WSTE-TV, Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.2d 333, 337 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). The Commission also adopted a three-part test for determining whether good cause exists. Good cause exists if a contention:
- 1. is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document;
- 2. could not be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and
- 3. is tendered with the requisite degree of promptness once the document comes into existence and is acces-sible for public examination.
Id. at 1043-44. Although this test specifically addresses doc-umentary material, it is equally applicable to any other source allegedly providing new information.
Unlike the assessn.ent of basis in determining the admissi-bility of a contention, evaluation of the five lateness factors entails an assessment of the merits of the claims made.
Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2),
t 1
CLI-78-12, 7 N.R.C. 939, 948-49 (1978). In St. Lucie, the Com-s
! J -
mission stated:
f i
l In considering untimely petitions licensing boards are required to assess * *
- whether the petitioner has "made a substantial l
i showing of good cause for failure to file on time." In doing so, Boards must neces-sarily consider the merits of claims going i to that issue.
Id. The Commission therefore upheld the consideration of affi-(
t davits.3/
i Similarly, in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-30, 17 N.R.C. 1132, 1141-42 i
^
(1983), a Licensing Board considered affidavits and held an on-1 the-record conference in assessing the lateness factors. With respect to factor (iii), the Board held: "the extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist i
in developing a sound record is only meaningful when the pro-1 posed participation is on a significant, triable issue;" and with respect to factor (iv), the Board held, "the extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or I delay a proceeding is properly balanced against the signifi-i cance of the issue."4/ Id. at 1143 (emphasis supplied).5/
i i
j 3/ This ruling parallels the customary practLee of consid-j ering affidavits for and against motions to ree' pen a record. 1340, in j See, e.g., Diablo Canyon, supra, ALAB-756, 18 N.R.C.
' which the Appeal Board considered affidavits on a motion to re-open the record on quality assurance.
f 4/ "If significance and triability of the issue were not in- ,
herently part of the overall balancing test for late-filed con-i' (Continued next page)
. _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - . . . . . _ _ . _ . -_. _ _ . . _ - , _ , ~ - - _ . . -
?
i i
4 e III. APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS j
A. Proposed Contentions -- Basis With Specificity i j
I Mr. Eddleman cites three documents in support of his pro-posed contentions -- the FEMA Exercise Report, the State's in-ternal evaluation of the exercise, and the State's log of mes-sages from the exercise.6/ To be sure, the documents Mr.
1 (Continued) tentions, the illogical result would be that the significance l of an issue could not weigh the balance in favor of admitting a l
late-filed contention before the close of the record, but could t weigh in favor of admitting the same contention filed even [
j later, after the close of the record." LBP-83-30, 17 N.R.C. at j i
- 1143-44. f f
h S/ See also Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomicaff'd, Power Plant, Unit 2, LBP-82-96, 16 N.R.C. 1408, 1429-35, l l i
I ALAB-707,'16 N.R.C. 1760, 1766 n.5 (1982). In this case, the j Licensing Board resolved an untimely petition by making find-ings of fact with reference to a transcript of a publicanswer hear- to l
ing. The transcript had been attached to applicants' l The Board criticized the petitioner for failing
' the petition.
l to offer factual support for its assertions and based itssub- re-t jection of the petition in part on the " clear evidence" I mitted by applicants. Id. at 1432-33.
t 1
! 6/ Mr. Eddleman has greatly increased the burden on the Board l and the parties by his failure to either cite specifically, or to provide to the Board and the parties, the latter two docu- ,
ments on which he relies. As the Appeal Board has observed elsewhere:
)
The Licensing Board properly cri,ti-cized [Intervenor] for failing either to cite specifically, or to provide to the
' Board and parties the documents on which it
- [Ilf [Interve-
- bases its contention.
l nor) intended to rely on certain documents as the basis for its contention * * *, it l was obliged to provide them to the Board I
(Continued next page) 1 i
t I
i l
--yri-w-- -3y, ---yy,-my y-- w-wi- --e-ww--v--.or-y- m & 9 vw M MW ~ P T'*" M-'W 9 r-WFM WC"w"VW'e8"--""*W'T'W* *'M-"w-t'~N'-W
4 Eddleman references note areas where emergency planning can be improved -- as well'as areas where performance is praised.
Yet, recognizing that there are areas where emergency planning still can be improved, FEMA nevertheless made the overall find-ing of adequacy required by the Commission's emergency planning regulations:
(Continued) and the parties, or, at a minimum, to de-scribe them with reasonable specificity so as to facilitate locating them. Without the documents, the Board could hardly make a judgment as to whether they provide a basis for (Intervenor's] contention.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unite I and 2 ) , ALAB-804, 21 N.R.C. 587, 592 (1985) (emphasis supplied).
In the instant case, Applicants obtained from the State copies of the voluminous materials produced by the State in re-sponce to Mr. Eddleman's request. Applicants next reviewed those materials to determine specifically which of the docu-ments Mr. Eddleman had cited. Applicants then provided those materials to the NRC Staff, and enclose them here for the con-venience of the Licensing Board. See Atachments 1 and 2,
" Evaluation Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Exer-cise, May 17-18, 1985" (the State's internal evaluation of the exercise, hereinafter " State Exercise Report") and the State's message log and corresponding numbered State Emergency Response Team's Message Forms (which Mr. Eddleman terms " State EOC Mes-sages"). (Note that Applicants have here enclosed only those messages which Mr. Eddleman cites or which are referenced here-in.)
In late August, the NRC provided the Board and all parties with copies of Board Notification 85-078, dated August 21, 1985, re: " Interim Eindings On Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plants and Preparedness For The Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station," which included (as Attachment I thereto) the "EEMA Exercise Report."
_9
- _- _ - = -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _. . . _ _ _ - -
i i
's
- *
- that the State and local emergency
) -plans are adequate and capable of being im-
~ plemented,' and * *
- that offsite prepared-l i
ness is adequate to provide reasonable as-surance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of j
l the public living in the vicinity of the '
j Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station in the 4
event of a radiological emergency. ,
Compare FEMA August 7, 1985 Memorandum, To Edward L. Jordan l (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA), with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1) and (2).
Mr. Eddleman's 12 proposed contentions are nothing more than a litany of select quotations and references to the three cited documents. There is no assertion that any of the items identified in the proposed contentions results in non-
!, compliance with the applicable emergency planning regulations.
Certainly Mr. Eddleman has offered no basis to undermine FEMA's 1
j f finding that -- notwithstanding room for improvement in a num-I ber of areas -- the Commission's regulations have been met. "
i Simply stated, Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions lack " reg-i ulatory basis," for they are litigable only if asserted to be ,
! Anything more is l
necessary for compliance with regulations.
As the Catawba Licensing i I
4 beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.
i
, Board recently explained:
I j
We are a body of limited authori.ty !
with a responsibility to determine if the emergency response planning is in conformi- l ty with regulatory standards. Although we I recognize Intervenors' " desire that the ~
level of emergency preparedness for those residing near the Catawba Nuclear Station l
i be enhanced to the maximum extent possi-4 ble," our function is not to require that i measures be taken which exceed the i l
1 w.--.-__.-.--.-.-..----.-----..--
4 .
J e
Commission's requirements. The agency is
, charged with establishing standards that
+ are adequate to preserve the public's health and safety. We accept that the Com-mission's laws, rules and regulations es-tablish requirements that will accomplish the intended purpose. Our role is not to substitute other standards for those set by the Commission, which are binding upon us.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. 933, 940 (1984), aff'd, ALAB-813, 22 N.R.C. 59 (1985).
j Mr. Eddleman's failure to explain how (if at all) the mat-h i
i ters identified in his proposed contentions challenge FEMA's I
finding is particularly grave given the reliance on that find-ing which is inherent in the NRC's regulatory scheme. The Com-mission itself has emphasized:
1 As a matter of practice, the Commis-sion gives great weight to FEMA's views on the need for and adequacy of specific offsite protective planning measures.
i
)
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
- 528, 533 (1983)
! Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C.
! (citations omitted), rev'd sub nom. (as to interpretation of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12)), GUARD v. MRC, 753 E.2d 1144 (1985).
', The Commission's reliance on FEMA's expertise is expressly embodied in the regulations, at 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(a)(2):
I The NRC will base its loverall finding on i
emergency preparedness] on a review of the
- *
- FEMA findings and determinations as to whether State and local plans are ade-quate and whether there is reasonable as-surance that they can be implemented, and l' on the NRC assessment [of onsite prepared-
- In any NRC licensing pro-ness).
ceeding, a FEMA finding will constitute a t
i i
a y"
rebuttable presumption on questions of ade-i
- quacy and, implementation capability, s
j Given the weight attached to FEMA's finding, it was incumbent l
- upon Mr. Eddleman to provide some specific explanation for the implication that FEMA erred in making its finding of adequacy by (allegedly) underestimating the gravity of the matters he I raises. Mr. Eddleman's failure to offer any such explanation renders his proposed contentions fatally defective.
Rejection of all of Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions on the above-stated ground would be completely consistent with the t
' decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in UCS v. NRC, 735 F.2d J
1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Court there invalidated an NRC rule precluding litigation of the emergency preparedness exercise.
Nevertheless, the Court took pains to point out that not all exercise observations need be subject to litigation:
Our decision that the hearing require-ment * *
- includes factual issues raised i
about the preparedness exercises is not overly restrictive. *** [Clertainly the Commission can limit that hearing to issues l
-- not already litigated -- that it consid-ers material to its decision. :
- [T]he hearing requirement does not unduly limit the Commission's wide dis- .
cretion to structure its licensing hearings in the interests of speed and efficiency.
4 For example, the Commission argues *
- that the exercise is only relevant to its
~i licensing decision to the extent it 1,ndi-cates that emergency preparedness plans are fundamentally flawed, and is not relevant as to minor or ad hoc problems occurring on the exercise day. Today, we in no way re-strict the Commission's authority to adopt this as a substantive licensing standard.
) 734 F.2d at 1147-48 (emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted). i 1
- 12-
_ . . _ . , , . __..-%. .%.. .;.-.-_m..__, ,,..._r._., ,-,,1._ _. , . - - _ . . - ,,_,,,_,,_.,m._...-__y ,--e, _ , . _ , . . . . r.,
Thus, under the test advanced by the Commission before the Court in UCS,7/ Mr.' Eddleman was required to provide some basis to suggest that -- FEMA's finding notwithstanding -- the items raised in the proposed contentions evidence " fundamental flaws" in offsite emerency preparedness.g/ As discussed above, Mr. Eddleman has not even attempted such a showing.
Finally, it is not clear how a hearing would further illu-As FEMA points out, minate the issues Mr. Eddleman has raised.
the minor deficiencies identified through the exercise 7/ The application of such a test does not preclude litiga-tion of exercise-related contentions under other situations.
For examole, FEMA occasionally is not able to make a " reason-able asuarance" finding, due to one or more major deficiencies identified in an exercise. Under the test advanced by the Com-mission (above), litigable contentions could be framed based on those deficiencies.
Similarly, even where (as here) FEMA identifies no major deficiencies (and therefore makes a " reasonable assurance" finding), an intervenor might frame a litigable contention by explaining how FEMA's finding is (allegedly) in error, and pro-viding some basis for the assertion that FEMA has failed to ap-preciate the gravity of a specific problem in the exercise.
Rather, he has simply com-Mr. Eddleman has failed to do this.
piled a " laundry list" of exercise observations, without regard to the context of those observations -- particularly the con-clusions of overall adequacy.
g/ The limitation of exercise-related litigation to "funda-mental flaws" in preparedness is consonant with existing Com-mission case law on general emergency planning matters. For example, the Appeal Board has emphasized that litigation is to focus on whether the emergency plan "itself satisfies the 16 more broadly drafted standards of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)." Li-censing hearings are not to become " bogged down with litiga-tion" about the details of planning. See Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076, 1107 (1983).
- *
- can be corrected through training and additional resources. These deficiencies f did not de' tract from the overall capability demonstrated by the State of North Carolina and Wake, Chatham, Harnett, and Lee Counties to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a ra-diological emergency.
- [EEMA Region IV) will assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective actions.
In these circumstances, where problems already are acknowledged and corrective actions committed to, there is no demonstrable advantage to the development of an evidentiary record on the subject. Mr. Eddleman does not contend that the concerns he discusses cannot be corrected.
These reasons alone compel rejection of all of Mr.
Eddleman's 12 proposed contentions. Nevertheless, Applicants below present additional arguments specific to the individual proposed contentions.
EPX-1 Timely notification of radiation releases is not assured, e.g. in light of the approximate 42 minutes delay in notifying SEET [ sic; SERT] of an uncontrolled radiation release during the ex-ercise (State EOC evaluation by NC State Govt Evaluator). Without timely notice to emergency response personnel, the emergency management agencies cannot adequately protect the public from radiation releases.
This proposed contention lacks basis in fact. Although Mr. Eddleman accurately cites the State Exercise Report, that report is simply in error.
As indicated in State EOC Message 212, the release began at approximately 12:36, and was discussed in the State Emergency Response Team (" SERT")
briefing which f had commenced only moments before, at approxi-mately 12:35. See State EOC Message 207 (which documents that briefing, and notes the report that " Release is underway, venting from Stack 1"). These messages conclusively demon-strate that the State received immediate notification of the release. The timeliness of notification is further supported that by the FEMA Exercise Report, which noten, at page 8,
"[r}adiological and plant data were readily obtained from CP&L with no apparent delays or omissions." EPX-1 therefore lacks any factual basis, and must be rejected.
EPX-2 Communications deficiencies revealed in the ex-ercise could have severe bad effects in a real emergency, including lack of effective communi-cations and radiation monitoring results, lack of contact with field and ground units, etc.
For example, [a] the emergency inter-system mu-tual aid frequency was so overloaded the state's communications evaluator stated it was " proved that there could be absolutely no communications with ground units on this frequency due to con-stant misuse." Other examples: [b] The Highway Patrol evaluator found " communication inadequa-cies; equipment . . . is not yet capable of ade-quately handling the impact of so many units re-sponding to an emergency of this type.";
[c] Harnett County had " insufficient tele-phones"; [d] "[E]xtra radio traffic overloaded personnel on duty" in Chatham County;
[e] " excessive delays" in Emergency Medical Ser-vices Office receiving messages from SERT (State Emergency Response Team); [f] communications J
' from the mobile radiation lab had to be relayed i
to base station at times, which "always intro-duces the possibility of delayed and/or incor-rect information" according to the State Radia-tion Protection Section evaluator.
I 4
In EPX-2, Mr. Eddleman strings together a series of di- I rdlatively minor communications problems, and opines verse,
- -(with no basis) that they "could have severe bad effects in a '
! real emergency." In fact, the only significant communications :
i concern identified by FEMA's comprehensive review was the need b for additional telephones for Harnett County emergency response '
See FEMA l (which Applicants have denominated EPX-2(c) above).
- Exercise Report, at 24-25. And, even with "far too few tele-phones for a 'real-world' emergency, FEMA noted that "the players at the [Harnett Countyl EOC made the very best of a bad physical situation. * * * (W]ith the participation of the am-f
] ateur radio emergency system, overall communications 1
j capabilities were good to excellent."9/ FEMA Exercise Report, I at 24 (emphasis supplied).
i In any event, FEt!A has identified the problem in Harnett j County as a deficiency, and FEMA Region IV has committed to
" assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective ac-tions." See FEMA August 7, 1985 Memorandum, To Edward L.
i 3 Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA). With that excep- l i, tion, FEMA has determined that the regulatory standard gov-I erning emergency communications was adequately demonstrated ,
i i
I i 9/ It is worth noting that Harnett County emergency response
' operated out of a basement hallway, as a temporary facility for purposes of the exercise. The Assembly Room in the County Man-agers Office Building will serve as the County EOC in future exercises, and in the event of a real emergency. Communica- [
c tions facilities there will be greatly enhanced. t
! s 1 h i
i l
]
I
during the May 1985 exercise. And, even as to the situation in Harnett County, Fema' concluded that, "(allthough this deficien-cy should be corrected, the lack of this equipment is not sig-nificant enough to seriously hamper emergency response in Harnett County." FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 9.
Thus, i there is no regulatory basis for any part of EPX-2, and it must be rejected in its entirety.
EPX-3 CP&L emergency medical personnel do not have adequate equipment available (e.g. splints) to treat fractures, and have not demonstrated the ability to maintain a high level of patient care while preventing contamination of themselves and the environment. (Ref: State of NC's on-site evaluation of Emergency Medical Operations).
Mr. Eddleman's reliance on the State Exercise Report as an evaluation of the capabilities of CP&L's first aid team is mis-placed. Because this portion of the exercise was conducted on the Harris plant site, the state official whose comments are cited was only an observer -- not an evaluator -- of that por-tion of the exercise. Those with responsibility for the offi-cial evaluation of that portion of the exercise were the NRC Staff evaluators, who were likely more familiar with the objec-tives of that part of the exercise and the specific medical scenario presented. The NRC Staff evaluation concluded:
This area was observed to determine that arrangements were made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals as re-quired by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.L.
An inspector observed the emergency medical
_ rescue activities at the accident scene, and treats.ent by the staff at the Rex Hos-pital. In all portions of the exercise, acceptable judgement was displayed with re-gard to first aid practicos, decontamina-tion of the patient, and contamination con-trol. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identi-fled.
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-400/85-20 (June 5, 1985).10/ In-I deed, even the state observer noted that the first aid team's response was " generally adequate," and that "[a)l1 CP&L person-nel performed professionally during the drill * * *." See State Exercise Report, at 3. Accordingly, there can be no sug-gestion that the regulations and the regulatory guidance have not been met. EPX-3 is lacking in basis.
EPX-4 Lee County's decontamination training and prac-tice are not adequate. For example, evaluation revealed that the group of decontaminators indi-cated "they had not been trained and were unsure what to do. They appeared to have no knowledge in the use of the instruments, no consideration was given to collecting water and attempting to control contamination. None of the personnel (knew) . . .
'when is decontamination complete'"
(Lee County evaluation). This problem must be remedied by training and retesting to assure people evacuating in this area can be decontami-nated and that Lee County's volunteers and other l
personnel are assuredly able to carry out-first-class decontamination work.
10/ This inspection report was earlier referenced at page 9, note 3 of " Applicants' Response To Eddleman Proposed Conten-tions on Notification of State and Local Emergency Management Agencies" (August 23, 1985), and is here enclosed as Attachment 3, for the convenience of the Board.
Thee thrust of EPX-4 is the first sentence -- that " Lee County's decontamination training and practice are not ade-
~
quate." But that sentence is not supported by the remainder of the contention, which reflects the true circumstances: for 2 whatever reason, some of the individuals performing decontami-nation during the exercise "had not been trained." Thus, there is no problem with the quality of decontamination training;11/
these particular individuals need only receive it. And Lee County has already committed to the training. See FEMA Public Meeting Tr. 91. The FEMA Interim Findings Report, at page 14, therefore concluded that the applicable regulatory standard "was evaluated as adequate" in the exercise.
Accordingly, EPX-4 must be rejected. It is not supported by the factual basis which Mr. Eddleman cites and, moreover, lacks regulatory basis.
EPX-5 Emergency siren activation is inadequate and there is no reliable means assuring that Wake County emergency response personnel will know when the sirens have been activated. Ref: Wake County evaluation by State of MC "some method should be devised to determine if emergency warning sirens have been activated"; State EOC messages 53, 122, 160, 166, 176, 182, 205; nu-merous areas had sirens not sounding, sounding of sirens was delayed about 40 minutes and there appeared to be initial confusion over confirma-tion.
11/ The quality of the training is perhaps best evidenced by the lack of problems in the other counties, where the training had been completed prior to the exercine.
As Mr. Eddleman indicates, there were a number of problems with the# siren systsm during the exercise. What Mr. Eddleman fails to note is that the exercise was not intended to be a formal test of the siren system. Indeed, as the FEMA Interim Findings Report indicates, at page 8, "[t]he official FEMA testing of the Alert and Notification System has not yet been conducted." The sirens were activated during the exercise to provide an element of realism, to acquaint the public with the sirens' sound, and to provide an opportunity for CP&L and State and local officials to identify any problems with the newly-installed system prior to the formal FEMA testing of the sys-tem. See generally FEMA Public Meeting Tr. 77-78 (problems I will be corrected before official FEMA testing of siren sys-tem). EPX-5 thus reflects fundamental misperceptions of the regulatory scheme and the purpose of the exercise and must be rejected as lacking in basis.
EPX-6 Management and coordination of rumor control were inadequate (FEMA exercise report, e.g. at 13, see discussion at 11-13) especially in that there was no announcement of the early Harris Lake evacuation (necessary to avoid panic, FEMA, p.12); likewise the General Emergency was not publicly announced for almost an hour after it was declared (FEMA, p.12). With the General l Emergency declared but unannounced, public t
knowledge (e.g. from emergency personnel and ,
radio-frequency scanners and listeners) could also spread panic. (FEMA report received 8/30/85). i As Mr. Eddleman indicates, problems were experienced with i
the public information function during the course of the exer-cise. He' wever, FEMA'has already identified these items as deficiencies (FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 10), and FEMA Region IV has committed to " assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective actions." See FEMA August 7, 1985 Memorandum, To Edward L. Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA). Moreover, FEMA has concluded that "[a]lthough these deficiencies should be corrected, they are not significant enough to seriously hamper emergency response." FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 11. EPX-6 must therefore be rejected.
EPX-7 Radiation dose assessments were not promptly communicated to State Emergency Response person-ne l, data files were delayed up to half an hours, and coordinates of Traffic Control Points (TCPs) lation ofwere doses notgiving tabulated to allow allowable faster
" stay calcu-times" at those TCPs. (FEMA, pp.8-9). All such deficiencies need to be remedied to protect the health and safety of the public, which depends on accurate and timely radiation dose assess-ment.
A review of the language in 6 2.1.2 of the FEMA Exercise Report (page 9), to which Mr. Eddleman refers, indicates that there were technical difficulties with the "hard copy" trans-mittal of computerized data files of dose assessment data.
Nevertheless, the information necessary for decision-making was transmitted verbally on a timely basis, so that the "hard copy" transmission problems had no potential adverse impact on public l health and safety. Moreover, the problem was resolved over i
so time, as personnel became more familiar with the system, that the system was' operating smoothly later in the second day of the exercise. See FEMA Exercise Report, l 2.1.2 (page 9).
Further, FEMA has already identified the problems with "hard copy" transmission of dose assessment data as a deficiency, noting that the problem can be resolved through additional training. (FEMA Exercise Report, at 9); and FEMA Region IV has committed to " assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective actions." See FEMA August 7, 1985 Memorandum, To Edward L. Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA). Finally, FEMA has concluded that "[allthough this deficiency should be corrected, it is not significant enough to seriously hinder emergency response." FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 19. Ac-cordingly, the first part of EPX-7 lacks regulatory basis.
With respect to the tabulation of the coordinates of Traf-fic Control Points ("TCPs"), it should be noted that the exer-cise scenario did not call for projections at the TCPs. The Radiation Protection Section ("RPS") elected to add those pro-jections to the exercise, even though the TCP coordinates had not yet been obtained from the Highway Patrol, to see if a par-ticular part ot a new computer program would function as de-signed. Since the exercise, RPS has been working closely with the Highway Patrol to make better use of this aspect of RPS's dose assessment capability. In any event, as the FEMA Exercise Report notes (at page 9), the delay involved in tabulating the TCP coordinates was "brief." The section of the FEMA Interim
)
I Findings Report which relates to radiological exposure control i f
~
for emergency worke[s therefore concluded that the applicable j regulatory standard "is adequately addressed in the plans and was evaluated as adequate during the May 1985 exercise." Thus, 4
the second part of EPX-7 is also without basis.
Accordingly, EPX-7 should be rejected in its entirety.
EPX-8 Emergency Broadcast System use was incomplete and ineffectively managed (FEMA, 2.3.1. (2),
j page 13; see p.12 discussion). Inadequacies in-
' clude procedures for activation and use of the EBS (before the State assumes control); inade-quate coverage of the emergency area and emer-gency response area, incomplete messages and in-
- structions to the public. (Ref
- FEMA report received 8/30/85 Board Notification 85-078) Nu-merous problems with EBS activation mentioned on pp.17-18 of the same report also need to be identified and rectified. All these problems i
must be resolved to ensure timely and effective notice to the public about nuclear / radiation i emergencies so that the public can be protected I in such emergencies.
1 While problems with the EBS system were initially encoun-tered in the exercise, the problems were generally resolved with time. For example, the FEMA Exercise Report specifically
)
notes, at page 18, that "[alctivation of the EBS did improve as the emergency continued." Moreover, viewed in context, the problems were relatively minor and did not impair adequate emergency response. Thus, FEMA was able to conclude that the regulatory planning standard governing public notification i
(including the use of the EBS system) "is adequately addressed
. - .- - ~ - , --- , , .. - - . . ~ . - -- - . . . - - . - . - , ,,,.,
I .
in the plans and was demonstrated by the State and counties during the May 1985 exercise."
FEMA Exercise Report, at 8.
Accordingly, EPX-8 must be rejected for lack of regulatory 4
basis, i
i ZPX-9 Radiation survey teams have a weak level of ,
t training in the use of anticontamination cloth-ing and/or respirators (State Radiation Protec-tion Section evaluation). This needs to be remedied to protect the health and safety of these teams and to ensure that they will be able to do their work in a timely manner, i
Mr. Eddleman accurately cites the State Exercise Report, but takes his excerpt out of context. Although the state
' evaluator noted that additional training in the use of respira-tors and anti-contamination clothing would be " beneficial," he
, also noted that:
In general, the field teams were com-petent in performing their specified task in accordance with their pertinent proce-dures. These individuals demonstrated an ,
adequate knowledge level concerning their responsible areas and performed with a pro-fessional man.*er during the exercise.
State Exercise Report, at 12 (emphasis supplied). The state evaluator concluded that "the field teams responded in a compe-tent manner during the exercise and would be able to perform t
their assigned responsibility during an actual emergency." Id.
This assessment of the level of training is echoed in the FEMA i
l Exercise Report, at page 15, which indicates that "[t}eam mem-bers in general were adequately trained" (with the exception of i I
the need for further training on the low-volume air sampler --
the subjNet of EPX-lb). Thus, the FEMA Interim Findings ke-port, at page 13, concluded that the regulatory standard gov-erning accident assessment "was evaluated as adequate during the May 1985 exercise." Accordingly, there is no regulatory basis for EPX-9.
EPX-10 Protection of emergency personnel and the public from radioactive iodine is not assured because (1) low volume air samplers are deficient in calibration and flow rate information, as de-tailed in the NR Radiation Protection Section evaluation, and (2) there are deficiencies in the distribution of, and notification of when emergency personnel are to use, potassium iodine (KI): See, e.g., Wake County workers being notified late (after possible contamination)
(Wake Co. evaluation by State of NC/Meck. Co.
evaluator).
The State Exercise Report evaluation on these items gener-ally parallels that in the FEMA Exercise Report. However, the FEMA Exercise Report is clearer on the precise nature of the calibration problem; specifically, the FEMA evaluator noted that the samplers "were last calibrated in January 1984." See FEMA Exercise Report, at 15. This matter is obviously readily rectified. Certainly it did not preclude a FEMA finding of ad-equacy with respect to radiation monitoring cap' ability. See FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 13.
Moreover, although there were some problems with flow-rate information from the air sampler,_the FEMA evaluator noted that
_-_ . . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ .= .. _.
4 4
these concerns can be readily resolved through additional See FEMA Exercise Report, at 15.
FEMA Region IV has training.
i I already committed to " assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective actions." See FEMA August 7, 1985 Memo-randum, to Edward L. Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm 1 (FEMA). Further, the section of the FEMA Interim Findings Re-port which "specifically addresses radioiodine in air, general 4
field monitoring capability, [andi assessment capability" con-i cluded that the applicable regulatory standard "is adequately I
addressed and was evaluated as adequate during the May 1985 ex-ercise." FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 13.
t Similarly, while -- in the words of the FEMA evaluator --
"some of the personnel were weak in understanding the relation-f ship between radiciodine exposure, the thyroid system, and the '
i i use of KI," the FEMA evaluator also noted that the concern would be readily resolved through re-training. See FEMA Exer-I cise Report, at 29. Accordingly, the sections of the FEMA In- ;
s terim Findings Report which relate to the provision of ra-I dioprotective drugs for emergency workers concluded that the
! regulatory standards are " adequately addressed in the plans" i
' and were " evaluated as adequate during the May 1985 exercise." {
See FEMA Interim Findings Report, at 14, 15. EfX-lO thus lacks 4
factual and regulatory basis.
4 i
i i ,
i
EPX-11 There are numerous deficiencies in hard-copy transmission of information (see, e.g., State EOC messages 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 34, 35, 40, 41, 57, 67, 71, 127) which must be remedied to as-sure timely and accurate emergency information is available to protect public health and safe-ty.
As indicated in several of the State EOC messages which Mr. Eddleman cites, some difficulties were experienced with telecopy equipment ("hard-copy transmission of information")
during the exercise. However, the difficulties must be viewed in context. While telecopies of messages are useful for record-keeping and are more convenient than hand-written notes for maintaining logs, they are not integral to effective commu-nications. As Mr. Vance Key of the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management explained at the FEMA public meeting after the exercise, telecopy is only a backup to other faster verbal lines of communication -- telephone and two-way radio. There-fore, telecopy is unnecessary provided that the information needed for decision-making is available through one of the two f primary means of communication (phone and radio), as it was in the exercise. See FEMA Public Meeting Tr. 67.
Moreover, the telecopy problems experienced in the exer-cise were somewhat anomalous. As one of the county emergency coordinators explained at the FEMA Public Meeting:
l [T]he facsimile unit that we had was not
! nearly as effective as we would have liked it to have been. It worked great up until Thursay morning, and it's working great today. So, evidently, it just didn't want to work for that drill.
l I
1
!i i EEMA Public Meeting Tr. 86. Thus, the telecopy problems can be i, i
fairly cdaracterized as "ad hoc problems occurring on the exer-cise day" -- precisely the type of item which is barred from litigation under the standard advanced by the Commission in the UCS case. See 735 F.2d at 1148. EPX-11 must therefore be re-jected.
EPX-12 Emergency assistance needs to be upgraded to as-sure evacuation of people fishing, boating, camping, etc. near the Cape Fear River in Zone.
('H') - see State EOC message 162, a high prior-ity third request to get assistance.
Mr. Eddleman cites " State EOC Message 162" -- character-i iced as "a high priority third request" for assistance -- in 1
support of his claim that emergency response must be upgraded to assure timely protection of people on the Cape Fear River in Zone "H". However, examination of the full record makes it clear that response to the request for assistance was timely.
The first request was received at 8:49 a.m. on May 18 and was relayed to the Wildlife Resources Commission. See State EOC Message 132. The second call occurred at 9:12, and was again referred to the Wildlife Commission. See State EOC Message 143. Wildlife officers were dispatched to the. Cape Fear area at 9:43 (see State EOC Message 151), although Harnett County apparently was not aware that the officers already had been dispatched when it made its third call -- the message that Mr.
Eddleman cites.
- g. , -e, - .- - ,, .,e ., , , , a e
i Thus, reviewed in context, the record makes it clear that resources were being mustered in response to the first request for assistance, and were already being dispatched at the time the second request was received; the "high priority third re-Indeed, State quest" which Mr. Eddleman cites was superfluous.
EOC Message 126 indicates that the National Guard had aircraft over Zone H (including the Cape Fear River) between 9:45 a.m.
and 10:30 a.m. Thus, the response to the Cape Fear River area was timely, particularly considering the applicable regulatory >
guidance, which expressly recognizes that more remote recre-ational areas need only be reached "on a best effort basis."
1 See NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 (Rev. 1), " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and i
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,".at 3-16. As indicated in the FEMA Interim Findings Report, at page 8, the regulatory planning standard for public notification "is ade-quately addressed in the plans and was demonstrated by the State and counties during the May 1985 exercise." EPX-12 is therefore lacking in factual and regulatory basis.
B. The Lateness Factors i
When a motion to admit late-filed contentions is filed on j the eve of the closing of the record, " petitioner's burden on the section 2.714(a) factors is a heavy one." Houston Lighting J
and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-671, 15 N.R.C. 508, 511 (1982). Such is the case
at hand, since the hearing on the single remaining admitted emergency planning dontention is scheduled for completion the
' first week of November -- only two weeks away.12/
Factor (1): Good Cause for Failure to File on Time i
Mr. Eddleman asserts as good cause for the lateness of his contentions that "the information was not in [his] hands to provide the basis of these contentions" and that he has " filed within 30 days of having it." Proposed Contentions, at 5.
More specifically, he asserts that he " received FOIA documents from FEMA only at the end of August 1985." Proposed Conten-1 tiens, at 1. This appears to be untrue.
As the correspondence enclosed as Attachment 4 indicates, the FEMA Exercise Report was released to Mr. Eddleman on August 7, 1985, pursuant to his Freedom of Information Act request filed with FEMA by his agent, Nina Bell, of the Nuclear Infor-
! mation and Resource Service. Thus, the FEMA Exercise Report was available to Mr. Eddleman at least three weeks before "the end of August" -- which is, of course, when the NRC provided it to the Board and the other parties. Thus, contrary to Mr.
Eddleman's assertions, those of his proposed contentions which are based on the FEMA Exercise Report (EPX-6, E,PX-7, and EPX-8) 12/ Also pending before the Board are three proposed emergency planning contentions filed by Mr. Eddleman which relate to an
[
incident at the Brunswick plant. These proposed contentions
' are now ripe for Board ruling.
l
' were not filed within the allotted 30 days of the availability !
of the idformation:13/ rather, they were roughly 21 days late. T Equally important, in a number of instancec, information putting Mr. Eddleman on notice of the concerns raised in his contentions was publicly available prior to the availability of i It is obvious, therefore, that the the documents he cites.
proposed contentions are not " wholly dependent" on the content L of the particular documents Mr. Eddleman references, and that he cannot claim that the contentions "could not be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability" of the documents he cites. Accordingly, ,
those contentions fail the tripartite test for good cause pre- ;
scribed by the Commission in Catawba. CLI-83-19, 17 N.n.C. at 1043-44.
2 Specifically, although Mr. Eddleman cites the State Exer- J cise Report as a basis for EPX-2(c) (concerning the need for i
1 additional telephones for Harnett County operations), that j problem was specifically identified at the post-exercise FEMA Public Meeting held on May 19, 1985 (which Mr. Eddleman at- l tended for a time). See FEMA Public Meeting Tr. 71-72, where Mr. Myers, Director of the State Division of Emergency Manage-i ment, indicated that he would respond to Mr. Eddleman's ques- l tions and then begin the " exercise critique" portion of the meeting. Mr. Eddleman chose to depart before his questions i [
! 13/ LBP-82-119A, 15 N.R.C. 2069, 2073 (1982).
i l
I l
I were answered and before the exercise critique began. In any event, Applicants served the transcript of the FEMA Public Meeting on the Board and the parties on June 11, 1985. Because the item raised in EPX-2(c) was public knowledge as a result of the May 19, 1985 meeting or -- at a minimum -- as a result of its reflection on page 89 of the transcript of that meeting, EPX-2(c) is untimely by a matter of several months, without J
good cause.
Mr. Eddleman also points to the State Exercise Report as the basis for EPX-2(f) (concerning base station relay of infor-mation between field teams and the mobile radiation monitoring lab). Yet that item was identified in several places in the FEMA Exercise Report, which was available to Mr. Eddleman well before the State Exercise Report. See FEMA Exercise Report, at pages 14 (5 2.4) and 15 ($ 2.5). Therefore, EPX-2(f) is also i
untimely without good cause. .
Similarly, while Mr. Eddleman cites the State Exercise Re-
- port as the basis for EPX-4 (concerning the need for additional training of Lee County radiation monitoring / decontamination personnel), that matter was first raised in the May 19, 1985 FEMA Public Meeting, and is reflected on page 91 of the tran-script of that meeting (served in June, 1985). ,This same sub-ject was also addressed in the FEMA Exercise Report, which was made available to Mr. Eddleman on August 7, 1985. See FEMA Ex-ercise Report at p. 5, 5 1.8. Thus, EPX-4 is untimely by a matter of months, without good cause.
t
l !
I 1
Mr. Eddleman cites both the State-Exercise Report and sev-eralSta$eEOCMessagesasthebasisforEPX-5(concerning problems and delays in siren activation and confirmation of activation). But, again, these matters were addressed earlier at the FEMA Public Meeting, and are reflected in the transcript of that meeting. See, e.g., Tr. 41-42, 64-65 (sirens not acti-vated though officials thought they were). The siren issues 3
I were also particularly prominent in media coverage of the exer-i cise. See, e.g., Attachment 5 hereto. Mr. Eddleman offers no explanation as to why this long available information did not trigger his proposed contention. Moreover, the siren issues were also addressed in the FEMA Exercise Report, at page 16.
Accordingly, EPX-5 also is untimely by a matter of months, without good cause.
Further, Mr. Eddleman proffers the State Exercise Report as the basis for EPX-9 (concerning additional training for field survey teams). Once again, this issue had previously been raised in the FEMA Exercise Report (at page 2, i 1.5),
which was released to Mr. Eddleman more than three weeks prior ,
to the availability of the document he cites. Absent some ex-planation for the delay, EPX-9 is also untimely without good cause. ,
Similarly, Mr. Eddleman relies on the State Exercise Re-port as the basis for EPX-10. But the subject matter of EPX-10 had also been addressed in the FEMA Exercise Report, which was l
available to Mr. Eddleman approximately three weeks before the 1
l i
State Exercise Report. For example, the first part of EPX-10 (concernibglowvolumeairsamplers)wasaddressedindetailat pages 14 to 15 ($ 2.5) of the FEMA Exercise Report; and the second part of EPX-10 (concerning KI for Wake County personnel) was discussed at page 29 ($ 2.10.3) of the FEMA Exercise Re-port. Accordingly, EPX-10 too is untimely without good cause.
EPX-11 (concerning problems with telecopiers for "hard copy transmission of information") is also assertedly based on documents which the State produced to Mr. Eddleman at the end l
of August. But, once again, the contention could have been proposed long ago on the basis of publicly available informa-tion. For example, the telecopier problems were specifically identified at the May 19, 1985 FEMA Public Meeting. See, e.g.,
I Tr. 67, 83, 86. The telecopier problems were also discussed in the FEMA Exercise Report, at pages 3 (5 1.6.1), 19 ($ 2.6.1),
20 ($ 2.71), and 22 ($ 2.8.1), which was available to Mr.
Thus, Eddleman well before he received the State documents.
EPX-11 is also untimely without good cause.
In short, as to quite a number of his proposed contentions
-- EPX-2(c), EPX-2(f), EPX-4, EPX-5, EPX-6, EPX-7, EPX-8, EPX-9, EPX-10, and EPX-11 -- Mr. Eddleman cannot show that the l
contention "is wholly dependent upon" the document he cites, that it "could not be advanced" prior to the availability of the document he cites, or that it was " tendered with the requi-site degree of promptness" once the cited document was avail-able. Thus, the above-listed contentions fail the Commission's i
. _ = .. =_ - .. _ -. - - _
Catawba test for determining the existence of good cause. 'See Catawba,* supra, CLI-83-19, at 1043-44. While all five factors must be balanced for all late-filed contentions, when an inter-venor fails to show good cause, it must make a " compelling showing" on the other four factors. South Carolina Electric &
Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, I 13 N.R.C. 881, 886 (1981), aff'd sub nom., Fairchild United Action v. NRC, 679 F.3d 261 (D.C.Cir. 1982). This Mr. Eddleman has failed to do.
Factors (ii) and (iv): The Availability of Other Means Whereby Petitioner's Interest Will Be Protected; and
' the Extent to Which Petitioner's Interest Will Be Represented by Existing Parties Mr. Eddleman asserts simply that there are no other means or other parties that will protect or represent his interests in the matters he has identified. See Proposed Contentions, at l 5. Mr. Eddleman's terse statement seeks to avoid the affirma-tive showing that he is required to make and, moreover, is i
l quite at odds with the specific circumstances presented here.
While the Board should not simply assume that the NRC l
Staff and FEMA will represent intervenors' interests, i
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project ,
j No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 N.R.C. 1167, 1174-75 (1983'), this case is different from most. Indeed, in this case, it is FEMA (or, in the case of the State Exercise Report, the State of North Carolina) which identified the concerns in the first instance.
And the FEMA Exercise Report clearly states that corrective ac-See, e.g., FEMA August 7, 1985 tions will be required by FEMA.
Memorandum, To Edward L. Jordan (NRC), From Richard W. Krimm (FEMA) (indicating that FEMA Region IV "will obtain a schedule of corrective actions" and "will assure completion by the State of the necessary corrective actions"). See also State Exercise Report, at 1-2, 16-18 (indicating willingness to address iden-tified problem areas). In light of FEMA's expressed commitment to an active role in resolving exercise problem areas, it is reasonable to conclude that the NRC Staff / FEMA will represent Mr. Eddleman's interests here.14/
Factor (iii): The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Develocing a Sound Record With respect to this factor, Mr. Eddleman offered the fol-lowing argument:
I can call as witnesses the evaluators and other knowledgeable persons (e.g., exercise participants); I am able to conduct discov-ery and cross and direct examination and have more time available now to deal with contentions; also my health is better than it was during the safety hearing period.
Without a record, of course, there is no sound record.
Proposed Contentions, at 5. This statement completely fails to 14/ Factors (ii) and (iv) are given less weight than the other factors. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 N.R.C. 881, 895 (1981);
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
ALAB-707, 16 N.R.C. 1760, 1767 (1982).
.- . _ = . - -.
satisfy Mr. Eddleman's burden on this factor. The Appeal Board I
has repeEtedly emphdsized the importance of factor (iii),
stating:
when a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particulari-ty as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witness-es, and summarize their proposed testimony.
WPPSS No. 3, supra, ALAB-747, 18 N.R.C. at 1177 (citing Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
! Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 N.R.C. 1725, 1730 (1982); South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 N.R.C. 881, 894 (1981); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476, 7 N.R.C. 759, 764 (1978); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 N.R.C. 387, 399-400 (1983)). In ALAB-747, the petitioner had described its ex-perience in NRC proceedings and had specifically identified a witness, but the Appeal Board found such statements " manifestly inadequate." WPPSS No. 3, supra, 18 N.R.C. at 1177.
l Mr. Eddleman's offer on this f actor is considerably less than that which the Appeal Board found inadequate in ALAB-747.
1 Mr. Eddleman has failed to identify any prospective witnesses by name; indeed, there is no indication that he has even con-l tacted "the evaluators and other knowledgeable persons (e.g.,
exercise participants)" he proposes as witnesses. Nor has Mr.
Eddleman summarized the testimony these unidentified persons would provide, as required by the Appeal Board in WPPSS.
I
6 Certainly there is no indication that they would testify other than in dupport of the conclusions of the two reports -- that j
overall response capabilities are adequate to protect public i health and safety.
Moreover, as discussed in Section III.A above, none of the matters raised in the proposed contentions undermine in any way FEMA's finding of adequate assurance. Accordingly, they do not 1
raise a significant safety issue necessary to the sound devel-opment of the record. Under these circumstances, Mr.
I i Eddleman's generalized offer to " call as witnesses the evaluators and * *
- exercise participants" falls considerably short of the effort required to assist in developing a sound 4
record.
Finally, Applicants submit that Mr. Eddleman's performance during the hearings on safety issues in October 1984, and more i
recently during the emergency planning hearings in June 1985 and the drug hearings earlier this month, casts additional ,
doubt upon his ability to contribute to a sound record. See ;
" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Certain Safety Contentions and i
Other Matters)" (January 14, 1985) at 3 ("the hearings on Mr. '
4 Eddleman's several safety contentions sometimes left us with the feeling that he had spread himself too thin"); " Memorandum j and Order (Ruling on Contentions Concerning Diesel Generators, i Drug Use and Harassment at the Harris Site)" (March 13, 1985) I i at 9-10 ("From the Board's perspective, Mr. Eddleman's contri-t butions to this record have been uneven. Having repeatedly i
t i
bitten off more than any two people could properly chew -- de-spite this Board's cautions against over-extension -- Mr.
Eddleman's resources have been spread too thin much of the time. For example, at various points in the fall safety hear-ing, it was obvious to the Board that Mr. Eddleman was only or less.
preparing his cross-examination one day in advance, We expect all parties to be better prepared than that, and most are.") Thus, the third factor weighs heavily against the ad-mission of Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions.
1 j
Factor (v): The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation Will Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding As he must, Mr. Eddleman concedes that admission of any of his proposed exercise contentions will broaden the issues.
Similarly, the admission of any of the contentions would delay the proceeding.
Mr. Eddleman appears to believe that a delay in the pro-posed fuel load date for the Harris Plant sanctions any delay in the proceeding. The fifth factor refers to a delay of the proceeding, not to delay of the operation of the facility.
Enrico Fermi, supra, ALAB-707, 16 N.R.C. 1760, 1766. In Fermi, the Licensing Board rejected ar argument that there was no delay because fuel loading was not scheduled for a year. Here, I the record of this proceeding on all issues is scheduled for closing within a month.
Indeed, at this late date, admission of new contentions would not only subst'antially extend the proceeding, but it would also seriously threaten the plant's schedule. Mr.
Eddleman's optimism about the ability to complete a hearing without impacting plant schedule is not justified by past expe-rience. Although Mr. Eddleman does not detail his projection of the course of litigation, he has in the past customarily en-gaged in extensive and protracted discovery. The simplistic schedule he projects here affords no time for the summary dis-position process, and glosses over the time required for post-hearing events such as the filing of proposed findings of fact, and Board deliberations and the preparation of a decision.
Moreover, Mr. Eddleman contemplates that fuel load and low-power testing would occur while his contentions were pending --
a proposition unattractive to Applicants and the State, given the potential (however remote) of the imposition of a license condition as a result of the hearings, and the need for time to meet any such condition prior to ascension above 5% power. In sum, given the expected fuel load date for Harris (March 1986),
there is a very real possibility that litigation of these pro-posed contentions could result in a delay in plant operation.
Accordingly, all five of the $ 2.714(a) factors weigh against the admission of EPX-2(c), EPX-2(f), EPX-4, EPX-5, EPX-6, EPX-7, EPX-8, EPX-9, EPX-lO and EPX-11, and four of the five factors weigh heavily against the admission of the re-maining contentions. Particularly considering the lack of 4
demonstrable safety significance of the proposed contentions, the "lat[ ness factors" militate strongly against the admission of any of the contentions.
t IV. CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, Mr. Eddleman's twelve proposed exercise contentions must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted, d>M- #4ddZ4L-Tho6as'A. Baxthr, P.CV (
Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
' Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAtW P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: October 15, 1985 i
~
~
l 1
I J i
s b
.- . __ . _ }
October 15, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response To Eddleman Proposed Contentions Based On Exercise" (with Attach-ments) were served this 15th day of October, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the par-ties listed on the attached Service List.
'!t^ M (,
Delissa A. RidgwayU (
l e
o -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^ ~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-400 OL
)
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) ;
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 -307 Granville Road 27514 Chapel Hill, North Carolina :
Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 716-A Iredell Street Elaine Chan, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Legal Director Richard E. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light company Docketing and Service Section Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Office of the Secretary -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Management Board Mr. Daniel F. Read, President 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street CHANGE Raleigh, North _ Carolina 27611 l Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l
o o
Bradley W. Jones, quire U.S. Nuclear Regul ry Commission Region IIe 101 MarieE'ta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740 Steven Rochlis, Esq.
Regional Counsel FEMA 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Steven F. Bryant 1.ssistant Attorney General Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l
4 e
0
.. Attachment 1 a
t EVALUATION REPORT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EXERCISE
- 1 MAY 17 -
18, 1985 Phillip C. Riley Chief State Evaluator Gil Green Assistant Chief State Evaluator e
U e
(
~
R CONTENTS A. Introduction B. Purpose C.
Evaluation Procedure S-D.
Shearon 1 Harras Plant Evaluation Fire Operat2ons 2.
Emergency Services Operations
( E. Countres 1
Chatham County
- 2. Harnett County
- 3. Lee County
- 4. Wake County F. State Agencies G.
Communications H.
Public Informatzon I.
Recommendations J. Summary 1
e
d 0 ./
l
\
Pe.
I NTROD UCTI ON To meet the ever increasing demand for electricity in eastern North Carolina, brought about by our increased population andmany construction growth, Carol months 1na power & Light Company began Power Plant. ago of the Shearon Harris Nuclear In the planni ng s tages of construction many local, state and company personnel began to formulate information into an emergency nuclear ancident.plan to protect our citizens in the e ve n t of a loaded Longwithbefore nuclear Shearon fuel,the Harris was to go on line or be plan needed to be tested. credibility of our emergency It is the sincere hope and wish of this evaluator that lessons will prove learned beneficialduring tothe each period and of May 17 and 18, 1985, every participant and that steps will be taken to address the identifled problems. From occurances danger to ourin the past, we citizens must in the leatn to prevent unnecessary future.
PURPOSE It is the intent of this document to point out weaknesses exercise. and/or problems identified during the span of this involved It is not intended to deter the efforts of agnecies; but, help in areas they themselves so openly noted.
This evaluation must sincerely thank those i ndi vi d uals who served as local, state and federal evaluators who so willingly shared their experiences. I also must pay tribute to those evaluators involved in those agencies appearing an this report for completion their assigned of their honesty, concern duties. and promptness in the
e EVALUATION PROCEDURE In an exercise attempt of this ma gnito facilitate t ud the overall evaluation of an e a tremendous and coordination is obviously necessary. amount of planning The procedures attempted during this specific exercise were designed to gather facts an relation to a predetermined chainto local and state a g e n c y' s response of events. The overall concept of this exercise evaluation procedure federal. evaluators an an organized was to move both state and wi t hi n a predesignated time frame. manner into affected areas met our objecti ve not to say without some This evlautor believes shortcomings that we can be addressed in the future. In the Summary and Recommendations sections be addressed. of this document, these areas will f
i
( ;
O
.e SHEARON HARRIS POWER PLANT OH-SITE EVALUATION FIRE OPERATIONS This evaluator personally observed the a na tiati ng events occuring full-scale at the plantprocedures.
evacuation site which would eventually esculate to Shearon Harras Plant Fire Personnel along with responding outside commended. fire support, must be It was quite evident that training and coordination priority. of these agencies had received a very high Procedures demonstrated for the protection of a
personnel seemed qui tealong with fire suppression and control efforts adequate, i
EMERGENCY MEDICAL OPERATIONS
(
State Medical Se r viEvlautor.
c e s, Bob Bailey, Chief, Office of Emergency advised that the CP&L first aid t e a m' s '
response to an injured victim at the plant was generally adequate.
However, the personnel spent a major portion of their efforts an preventing further contamination to themselves and the environment. This is necessary and important, high level. but patient care should also be maintained at a Thought should be given to increasing psychological support given to the patient. This appeared non-existent toward the end. in the anattal phases of response and mantmal handle the patient's Thefractured team did not leg,have and a proper splant to be given to providing the first aid teamconsideration with a varietyshould of splints personnel and additional training in using them. All CP&L performed professionally during the drill and in the exchange of the patient from plant personnel to the Apex Rescue been Squad, although the time spent in transfer could have reduced.
t It was concluded that this problem could be alleviated by ha vi ng a CP&L EMT ride to the hospital wi t h the off-site ambulance responder and transfer needed information en route. The Apex professionally Rescue Squad conducted themselves and responded i
appropriately to directions from !
CP&L health personnel regarding the contaminated patzent.
o CHATHAM COUNTY E O C E val ua t or: Ben Mabrey Office of Emergency Services i Cabarrus County l'
Chatham TheCounty evaluator went indicated well. that overall operations in traffic overloaded personnel Inonthe initial stages extra radio duty.
operations area is li mi t e d and Space a vai l a bl e in the consideration should be gi ve n i
to movi ng isolated area.thoseThe i nd a va d uals who must make decisions to a more i
However, an a County Coordinator did an excellent job.
long term operation he death. Evaluator suggests would run himself to others come to him. The tht he anchor himself and let y
Mabrey was reporteed as decontami nation si te vi si t e d by Mr.
exceptional. '
a
' (' The biggest shelters opened problem encountered administratively from 09: seemed to be two 30 through will partially address 11:00.
specifically in the f ollowi thisng problem at this point and more I
! recommendation section. The two areas federal evaluatorsnot evaluated until the morning wereofnot Mayidentified 16, 1985. to both state counties were notified to identify their areas All weeks prior to the exercise. Evaluation routes,ofcar play two assagnments notification was andreceived.
time-frames had already been finalized when original announced plan created This last mi nu t e change an the state and federal evaluators. A coordination f ully operational shelter problems both to and those two shelters approximately 38 road miles were apart.opend during the same time-frame at Communication logs kept the State EOC indicate that notified at 08: 50 Saturday May 18,Chatham County EOC was
! shelters could 1985, that a dmi n1 s t ra ti ve not be county would handle evaluation. checked and were advised that the
{ At 10:55 a federal e val ua t or was his map contacted was not updated but he andwas Chatham unable County toEOC locatecould the shelter beca not be
{
contacted on 155. 280 because of excessive and unnecessary 1ater radiosection.
t raffic. ) IThe issue of 155.280 will be addressed .
in a i
4
(
l l
o HARNETT COUN,TY Evaluator: J. Robert Willis Department of Emergency Management Lincoln County job The staff assigned to Harnett County did under extremely inadequate circumstances. an outstanding The County EOC was established in a hallway in the Harnett County Courthouse. Communications presented a tremendous problem because of i ns uf fi ci e nt telephones. Harnett County sirens ccould ommuninot c a t be i ons.activated because It is highly of a short-circuit recommended in radio that a priori given to an efficient EOC area. ty be LEE COUNTY E val ua t or: Bob Phillips, Director of Gaston County Emergency Management i
Overall EOC operations during this exercise were adequate as indicated by the County Evaluator; however, problems
'- EOC did exist that mtght be considered and addressed.
staff was
(
deli vering messages insufficient i n recei vi ng, writing and coordinator was an an acceptable time-frame. County constantly interrupted by calls and EOC personnel who were not f amili a r wi t h County Operational Plan.
The use ofproblems.
constant speaker phones should be e li mi na t ed because of I
its training It is recommended to all agencies that Lee County continue and increase in emergency operations plan.
Decontami na tion si te evaluated at US 1 and NRC evaluators, revealed the SR 1415 by f ollowi ng observati ons: This group appeared unsure of themselves and initially indicated Theythey that had not appeared been trained and were unsure as what to do.
to have insteuments, no knowledge in the use of the no consideration was and attempting to control contamination.given None personnel coul'd to collecting of the water complete?" answer the question "when is decontamination moni t ori ng be increased It is recommended that training in radiological and intensified in this county.
WAXE COUNTY EV ALUATOR: Wayne Broome, Operations Of fi cer, Mecklenburg County Emergency Management Plant Due and to the the location potential of the Shearon involvement of Harris heavily Nuclear Power populated areas, both in Wake County and the Ci ty of Raleigh, it is
iconstant mpe r a titraining ve that Wake and County gi ve high priority to the emergency personnel. updating of information to all It is recommended that s pe ci fi c county guidelines and standard operating procedures be pro vi d e d to EOC staff which would designate specific duties. A plant status board needs to be developed to quickly give all personnel an overview of plant conditions. A CP&L r e pre s e n t a t i ve r.eeds to be present at Wake County EOC to interpret data to elimi nate confusion on plant conditions.
Establishment of communications between SERT and other counties should be by some means other than speaker phones.
. It is suggested that the use of these phones be eliminated.
A review should be made of Wake County EOC message control gui d eli ne s.
emergency warningSome method strens should be de have been vi s ed to determine af activated.
Wake County, during this exercise scenario, had the responsibility problems for the largest area of pla y; therefore, occurring easily identified. during the entire ti me frame were more It is recommended that personnel ha vi ng the responsiblity actions of all for overall decisions that will affect the emergency services, should be trained in the possiblei outcome already nvolved. of the affect on the emergency services If vital messages and decisions are
( delayed, area, would be cacangereo.services and others in the affected the emergency Example:
County were not notified of the need forDOT workers in Wake Potassium Iocide tablets of t i me until after possible contamination due between county notification and the message beasq to the lapse delivered to the involved agencies.
These same i nd i vi d ua l s should be a wa re of the need to not rely only on mechanical message personnel. d e vi c e s to influence not i fi c a t i on of involved Example: Messages were delayed that had been recei ve d both breakdown of hard by telephone copy machine. and radio because of mechanical overallAlthough Wake Countyboth State and Federal evaluators relayed that operations were adequate, hope f ull y these areas of concern can and will be addressed.
STATE AGENCIES State Emergency Operations Center E V A LUA TOR:
Gill Green. Assistant Chief Evaluator with
- Di vision of Forest Resources This evaluator, havi ng been involved with all exercises
(- of this excellent!
nature in the past, gi ves this operation an "E" for The close working relationship with all state agenci es during our recent hurricane and fi re s, experiences with the tornados, all in a relatively short tima span, has
7 developed a smoothe worki ng re'lati,ons hi p. The cooperation, respect and pastand actual dedication occurences of these agencies d uri ng this exercise is very commendable.
did notIn both Gil's and my j udgement, this exercise really tax the capabilities of the very effective scenario State Emergency Response Team that we now have.
Listed below are a few a t t e nt i on: mi nor obs erva t i ons that need 1
Telephone Communi c a t i ons:
i Some type of reliable Speaker phones not effective.
i betweeen all County EOC's. communication must be maintained On several ocen: tons, contact was lost dependence with one orformore on telecopiers hardcounties. The copy veri fication
- as fi ne; much however, quicker by voice i ni t i al messages could be handled c ommuni ca t i on.
- 2. Bri e fi ngs:
caused Briefings were not started on time which undue conf usion in the Ope ra ti ons Room.
- 3. Shelters:
and a general On Saturday at 07:46, a barrier was breached 5 emergency was declared.
4
( set up three to fi ve miles d ownwi nd and One shelter was not evacuated 4
4 because unannounced condition did not match scenarlo.
Status Board: Information on status as situations occurred. On Saturdayboard not p r o vi d e d at 13:00, status board was one hour and ten minutes behind.
- 5. Message Flo w:
On Saturday at- 13: 18, I SERT was informed of an uncontrciled beginni ng at 12:36 andrelease ending atthat 13:00. lasted a full 24 minutes
( This was eighteen Indications minutes after the release had already occurred.)
but information arehad that this was not a hardware problem, This needs attention.simply not come through the system.
- Department of Transportation EVALUATOR
- Gerald R.
! Safety and Fl emi ng, Director of Occupational Emergency Planning DOT operations during the manner af ter ini tial before no t i fi c a t i on. exercise proceeded in a timely 12: 00 on May 17, 1985. Field Operations began and firadios. el d di vi si ons worked well Communication wi t h the use between the EOC of telephone and DOT It is recommended that a reporting procedure be C establishedatfor useoffices in future i confusjon i n vol ve d.
field dueexercises to the number to eliminate possible of people Cooperati on and
! departmente were excellent, relationship This with other state evaluator felt that
_ _ . . ~ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . , , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ . . . . . .
o
- 8 4
$9\ >
,i -
operations j proceeded smoothly and efficiently. Some i deficiencies that were noted are an' follows: (
1.
i Actual Road numbers and those
' map were not c ompa ti bl e. shown on the evacuation I i
2.
Evacuation routes should !
i to assure that all evacuation be checked at periodic intervals of the signs are in place. Some {
t carefully. evacuation Re vi s i routes ons need to be considered more t
?
l 3. reduce traffic conflicts. needed to shorten routes and are f
- Evacuation and considerand detour routes need to be i
}
conflicting problems.
present-day traffic counts pre-established and overall (
l I i t,
North Carolina State Highway Patrol
)
} !
E V A LU A TOR: 1st Sgt. G.
4 S. Ake, State Highway Patrol !
The State Highway Patrol committed i uniformed personnel to this exercise. 164 uni f orme d and non- I participation of the SHP in this It as felt that the ,
& ability to successfully evacuate residents did affected exercise that test their would be I
by an off-site radiation release. More importantly, 1
this exercise feel was a very good training vehicle, one which we was invaluable.
i !
1 .
i The Patrolinadquacies; communication experienced the usual problems with t equipment, which is designed to 4
support adequately handling the impact is not yet capable of our statutory mission, an emergency of this type. of so many units responding to I We are slowly resolving this r problem, but as always, budget restrictions are factor. a governing !
~
i Troopers who Therewere were not the usual number of " uni nf orme d"
{ what they were told. properly briefed, However, I do feelorthat who did not retain personnel our supervisory preparationwere j and better thorough informed pre-exercise than ever before due to our briefing. ;
We also found b ri e fiitng, extremely It beneficial to expand our after-action }
every member. was a superb learning experience and i n vol ved i exercise; the It allowed all an oportunity to critique the !
response plan, and t hei r parti ci pa ti on. {
j A substantial number of our personnel r I
the next exercise involve more recommended that [
volunteer evacuees in order to i
thoroughly more test on-the-road activities and to make the " play" interesting. i should include events It was designedalso felt the exercise to better test the scenario
{
p capabilities of each responding agency.
- 2 i
recommendations. I concur wi th these !
! i Over-all Suggestions: i I
i
s
~ .;
f 1 Highway Patrol Radio equipment at the County EOC ( except Wake) was not adequate.
radio assigned to Major Richardson.Wake Cbunty EOC used the new e q ui pme n t for EOC's and Posts. We need this 2.
Pri n t e d Guidelines of procedures to be followed in personnel every monitoring radiological kit. and ve hi cle moni toring in wi t h ti me. Troopers forget procedures cards. These procedures could be put on laminated 3.
. Labeling and of Shearon in uniform Harris Plant map as to function sequence.
Example: The map is confusing!
Wake Traff2c Control Post 1, and Wake Security Roadblock could be shown as WT-1 WS-1, etc.
4.
S t a t e wi d e uniform format for post instructions and function of post for every nuclear plant.
are doing these differently. All Troops 5.
Low Range dosimeter for all Highway Patrol personnel.
Emergency Management has purchased them for local law enforcement.
(
North Carolina Na ti onal Guard E V A LUA TOR: Major James T.
Ellis, III, and Military Support Plans Operations Officer Although the National Guard was not req ui re d ( by exercise play) toinmobilize service troop units, they did provi d e an invaluable vari ed areas.
on stand-by. Two helicopter aircraft were placed One of these aircrafts was used to transport state Remaining and federal evaluators aircraft was over entire used to evacuate exercise Lake Harris. site.
National Guard operations placed several units on standby alert and issued special instructions to 1
units as f ollo ws:
Insure all mission equipment is operational.
- 2. Insure Alert & Notification plan as current.
- 3. Make tentative i
of rations. arrangements with vendors for purchase 4.
Radicmeters and Dosimeters are ready for issue.
- 5. I
( NBC monitori units. ( NOTE:ng teams would be mobilized and sent with
( coordination was madeno agency action requi red, ho we ve r.
if NG assets were wi th required EOC and EMS to determine personnel) for evacuation of injured
! l
l
{
Recommendations '
- 1. Exercise play should peri od.
The start andrunstop continuou, sly throughout of the exercise the lose it urgency and does not test seems to agency ef fecti veness.
2.
The National antennas on theGuard should be permitted to install two place for future Admi ni s trati on Buildi ng to remain in exercises and emergencies.
- 3. Request guidance National Guard or clarification with regard mission to Plan. as listed in the NC Response 4
Clari fication of radio equipment for use by SERT.
5.
Recommend, Plan be reducedif atinallsize possible. the Emergency Response and written to cover any nuc, lear aincident, contingency plan be have a large plan for each facility. rather than The North Carolina National its experience
? in previous SERT Guard finds this exercise and operations.
i bring a very close working relationship between all has served to 1
agencies.
North Carolina Department of Corrections E V A LUA TOR:
Herbert Rosenfield, Dept. of Corrections The only assigned task for the Department of Corection during the exercise was to provide food for volunteers an shelters Center Operations and forinthe personnel assigned to the Emergency Raleigh.
prellma narily made The assignment was on Thursday, May 16; fi rm numbers gi ven on exercise on May 18 t h.h the actual request received during the Friday. May 17; wi t During the exercise, the followi ng meals were served:
Friday. Hay 17--100 lunches to the EOC in Raleigh Saturday, May 18--Lee County, 106 lunches. Chatham County Shelter-50 lunches; Harnett County Shelter-125 lunches; Wake County Shelter-45 lunches lunches: EOC Raleigh-100 Total 526 lunches
('
i a
It is.manner.
ti mely felt that the meals were suitable and d eli ve r e d in We werengpleased with the performance of our va ri ous units in completi this task. A problem noted wi t h
d 3
. II -
W.
the system during timely written requestthis operati~on is*that we did not recei ve a for these m'eals. As soon as a general emergency was declared and the need for meals was clear, a notice should have been received.
In order to assess the players response to emergencies, t wo messages were sent concerning possible evacuation of prisons.
Together they The indicated responses were both written and verbal.
problem. a good grasp of the complexity of the Overall, the Department of Correction controller /
evaluator team felt that the Department responded quite well.
A considerable amount as some theoretical planning. of actual work was accomplished as well accomplishments during the We felt satisfied with our exercise.
Office of Emergency Medical S e r vi c e s EV ALUATOR: Bob W.
MedicalBailey, Services Chief, Office of Emergency The evaluation of the medical emergency has already been
( discussed to be added:in this Thereport; however, the following comments are OEMS personnel appropriately activated the EMScounty Lab, personnel, EOC'sassigned and Statepersonnel SERT. On to the Radiation Protection Saturday, OEMS personnel went through the call-up procedures pro vi d e rs and had several local county on evacuations.
standby an case they were needed to back-up Having Room B-25 Di vision worked for only OEMS and Fire and Rescue very well.
carrying out assigned activities. The area was very conducive to was noted by the OEMS staff was that One area there of concern appeared that to be e xc e s si ve delays in receiving messages from SERT.
almost an hour It took routine messages may befor messages to reach OEMS from SERT. While of little consequence, e va c ua t i on messages iodine, and etc., messages could have nepertaining ga ti ve to administering potassium rec ei ve d ra pi dl y. consequences if not In addition personnel to the normal ac ti vi ti es, OEMS pro vi d e d fi ve with evaluating as evaluator.s roadblocks,for this drill. They were involved providing communica tions fordecontamination stations and in evaluating the two state evaluators that were Radiation Protection Section.
(
O
[A
.6 fl Radiation Protection Section Division of Facili'ty Services EVALUATOR: Johnny D.
James, Emergency Response Planner performing pertinent In general, the field survey their specified. task in teams were competent in accordance procedures. with their adequate knowledge levelThese i ni di vi concerning their d ual s demonstrated an and performed with a professional responsible areas manner during the exercise.
the There.eare overall some f f ecti vensareas s of the which could be improved to increase areas include: field survey teams. The 1
To facilitate loading of teams are deployed f rom the equipment when the field survey would be beneficial. RPS mai nof fi ce, a checklist
- 2. Procedures on "when and how often" to read pocket dosimeters teams. should be clarified for the field survey 3.
Some members of the fi eld survey teams
( acknowledged a weak level of training in the use of re s pi ra t ors and/or canti-contamination a rri ed with field clothing.
survey teamsSince this equipment is be beneficial to increase when deployed, it would li mi t their use of this equipment. their training in this area or 4.
The low volume air samplers concentrations did not display addition, used to measure calibration radiotodine data and, in flow rates had withconflicting the information concerning expect ed insure confidence in filter cartridge in position. To this equipment
- this area should be resolved. during deployment,
- 5. Increased f amiliarity wi th t he ment would be helpful level of their use even though an adequateradiation detection equip-existed; knowledge ,
6 Due to topographical differences, had to be relayed to the base s t ati communications of on. at ti me s l
a relay in communications The introduction
' bility want of delayed and/or incorrect always introduces the possi-elevated to consider positioning information. You may of area outside of the Ep2 to improve the Mobile Lab at an ;
communications. '
i
'f In summary, the field t competent manner during thesurvey teams responded in a perform their assigned exercise emergency. responsibili tyand would during an be able to actual l
l c
l l _ _ _
lb A
e s
Department of Natural Resources and Division of Envi ronmental Community Development Management E V A LU ATOR:
Richard Lasater, Response Branch Enforcement & Emergency Overall, the personnel performed exceedingly well in accordance wi th Shearon Harris Exercise Plan. Raleigh and Fayetteville player and eachRegional other. Office supervisors interacted wi t h Emergency Management interrupted the exercise schedule by holdi re-entryng adiscussion di vi si onaltomeeti ng in the EOC before all owi ng the begin.
in the re-entry mode. The major role in this plan is Player and others were kept waiting and made to feel that the re-entry portion of the exercise was reallybyunnecessary attention the to the point of being given very short exercise lead agencies.
When the re-entry operation hurried manner.was finally discussed, it was done in a very been practiced orInpaid discussed.
the any last real five attention.
years, re-entry has never This should be Ci vi l Air Patrol EVALUATOR: Alonzo F. Coots, Maj. CAP, NC Wing Disaster Preparedness Officer As reported by the evaluator, response was timely and according to procedures: ground support and radio communications were conducted in an efficient ma nne r; both sorties were conducted in a professional and very proficient manner; CAP cadets were used as" runners" at the State EOC and should be highly commended for their efforts and support.
The evaluator felt that the following items should be discussed:
1 CAP 47,50 aircraft or 47.58couldMhz. not contact CP&L by radio on either 2.
Polaroid photos were not as well as could have been if 35mm a drill, the filmaircraft had been used and also because this was in a real event. was flyi ng 1000 feet hi ghe r than 3.
CAP aircraf t was not used to monitor evacuation routes and airSheriff County crew Departments.
was not in direct contact wi t h SHP or wi t h 4.
The loud-haller on the people in remote areas;aircraft nor, waswasthenot used to evacuate Forestry Service ai rcraf t used which also was equipped with a loud-hailer.
. \
/d i
- i
' - 8
'vs ,
a
- 5. The serial radiological \
was not exercised. moni t ori ng capability of the CAP was orbiting the plant It should prior tobe thenoted that therelease anticipated aircraft and with the minimum e q ui pmen t aboard, could have established detectable a exposure rate.
l 6.
CAP crew samples. was not prepared or requested to take air 7.
CAP air damage. crew was not trained to make estimates of 8.
In the follow-up table' top exercise it did not seem that any SHP, who plans had been made to utilize either CAP or carry CDV-777-kits) for go, no go decisions necessary during the recovery / return phases.
The evaluator further stated that all CAP members are volunteers and he felt that their talents were under-utilized.
COMMUNICATIONS
- EVALUATOR:
( Max Powell, Special Assistant to Commissioner NC Department of Insurance While it appeared almost the exercise had their own two-way every Department radio, involved with workable communications between all agencies story.
coordination and The however, this SHP had the only reliable is a different source of contact:
being involved system was quickly overworked by so many units in this exercise.
all local traffice confusing to all to be on 155.280.The involved. whichexercise called for proved to be very by FCC for inter-system mutual This frequency, although assigned .
being used aid during squads and daily for day-to-day operationsemergencies, by many rescue is even some small police departments. Any incident which requires the use of this statewide mutual aid channel will be There confused must be some due to constant misuse in this area.
be cleaned On Saturday up evenconsideration morning, ifMay the18, as to how to FCC is requested this channel take can a c ti on.
1985, the give both state and federal evaluators helicopter deployed to the exercise a look and listen at no communications acti viwith ty proved ground that there could be absolutely constant mi s us e. units on this frequency due to It is recommended that communication system upgradedEmergency Management have their g and put into operation. While they have radio a good contact wi thbasic all console, they do not have sufficient cators. agencies, nor assi gned telecommuni-i
/r
{. .
There must be a coordinated effort by the Office of Emergency an Management toWhile times of emergencies. bring about' necess ary communi ca ti ons enough telephone lines and this exercise instruments, is had it more than realistic to what is used in a "real world" emergency?
I strongly recommend that a committee be formed i mmeproblem.
this d i a t e l y to discuss and formulate a workable solution to agency involved wi This t h should be a priority item with every SERT operations.
PUBLIC INFORMATION tState EOC)
EV ALUATOR:
Max Powell. Special Assistant to Commissioner NC Department of Insurance The State EOC-PIO Center is really the hub around .
which information is received from the EOC and then di thesmedia s e miandna the ted to the public.
general Information Center for distribution to To be such an important part of understaffed.
greatly the overall effort, this part of the operation is 4
The overall efforts of the PIO section was very good; however. they were shorthanded and at times the information would swamp recovering andthem, but the Lead PIO did a good Job of There generally stayed on top of the situation.
to theapparently Center. but wasfelt a good that flow of information from the EOC to the EOC was missing. information from the Center back I
( PIO) at least three, runner at all would recommend times, twoadditional secretaries, staff record all bri e fi ngs, Lead PIO be focal point for all information. Lead PIO be able to select PIO's he feels comfortable with, receive input from Media Center, addi ti onal space and a FAX Machine in the EOC is a must.
I 1
l i
_ . _ ~
(
lh i
RECOMMENDATIONS This evaluator credibility in this and feels that f u t u'r e if we are to retain Emergency Management exercises, the Division of recommendations made by should revi ew and address those agency evaluators their recommendations who so freely gave in the' preceeding pages of this report.
This evaluator would hope that the purpose of this document will be for the increased efficiency of future exercises and "real world" events.
Again. I must state that this exercise went rel a t i vel y smoothe at the State level. At the local level, problems encountered were Justified due to this being the first exercise of this kind in this area.
The f oll o wi ng recommendations address those problems that seem to arise most often.
1.
It is requested implement a that the study into ourDi vi si on overall of Emergency Management system. emergency communication EOC's areIn "real world" dependent on operations, both state and local i nf orma t i on comi ng in from operational areas. Operational information and direction areas are dependent on reliable control. from those ha vi ng direction and coordinatedThis cannot be done without a reliable and communication network.
- 2. Real12.ng that Emergency flan, information contained in our State's as related to fixed nuclear facilaties, must be written to meet federal guidelines; efforts to provide operational personnel with a more simplified and should be made easily understood plan of action.
- 3. In future exercises, those agencies h a vi n g the responsibility shelters, and of implementation of traffic control points, time-frames that decontamination stations. should be informed of establish and follow evaluation routes. Agencies who must development of maintain operationevacuation maps. routes should have input in was incorrect and confusing. Map used for this exercise 4.
The use problems thanofwere speaker phones in this exeresse created more of value.
should be closely looked at: moved Procedure for speaker phone use eliminated. from Operation Room. or 5.
g Future realistic valscenarios ue wi t h should be closely studied for their i
consi dera ti on to running the exercise full-term wi th no breaks.
allow all agencies to truly(At testleast 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) This will not call " time-out" in emergencies!) their capabilities. (You do
.e
- 6. More consideration should be gi ven t o recovery operations; this would be the major problem in a "real world" a
nuclear ancident operational area. and should be given the same priori ty of 7.
There should be a continued trai ni ng for all local and state program of specialized emergency personnel to keep abreast of this type their "in-house" of an incident which is not provided in training. Also, continued si mul a t ed operations should be staged for SERT operations may maintain our level of profaclency. so that we 8
areas. Deadlines gi ven all agencies should b,e enforced in all E va l ua t i on procedures requiring transportation.
personnel, and cost are not easily changed at the last minute.
coordinated with Time-frames for acti vi ty evalua tion should be evaluation team routes.
i
?
1 i
I
n
'l8 .
(.?
SUMMARY
In summartsing the evaluation of the Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Exercise, I would like to state that I efeel f f e allc t i agencies, vel y, both state and federal, worked together professionally and to the best of their ability.
I would like to further state that it is the opinion of mycelf along with the other state evaluators, that in the event of an emergency at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as. that better If not all agencies would than, this handle the situation as well exercise.
worked together in "real-world" All agencies have j '
that the recourcec and personnelemergencies most and have proved in North Carolina 1
1 any emergency that would arise. can handle I would like to commend each agency and each evaluator forneed do theirimprovement.
honesty and willingness to outline those areas that Without this kind of cooperation and 3
dedication, Response Team that wenot we could are build s t ri vithe ng ttype of State Emergency o build.
will outline problemsour that need to be addressed Each andexeretse will allow us to broaden resources and improve our Team.
A special thanks goes to Assistant Chaer Evaluator. Gil office ofChief Green. Controller. Tonta Young. NC Hi ghwa y Pa t rol.
4 Emergency Medical Guard, for their guidance Se r vi c e s and the NC National procedures of this exercise. and assistance in the evaluation l
Res pect f ull y c ubmi t ted.
Ph1111p C. Riley
! Chaer State Evaluator !
Deputy Commi s s i one r HC Department of Insurance 4
Fire and Rescue Services Division b
J PCR/ ape I i
e F
4
OPERATIONS JOURNAL AttachmEt 2
~
Organization Location Period covered o I From To Division of Emergency Management State E0C lj5 "r N
Dat Hour Date Entry Ref. Time No. Msg # incidents, Messages, Actions, Etc.
In Out J 1 1 1117 Warning message - unusual event 01055 1120 notification made in E0C - SERT notification begun 2 2 1125 National Guard aircraft departing RDU - No action 3 3 1135 From Radiation Protection Service initial report - no action 4 4 1144 Fron Medical Examiner - No action 5 5 1146 All counties notified of unusual event - Posted 6 6 1151 SERT notified - Posted 7 7 1155 Updated warning message - no action 8 8 1200 CAP, EOC representatives - no action 9 9 1224 Weekend numbers for Temporary Housing Personnel Q 10 10 1227 Warning message - ALERT - Posted 11 1240 EOC Briefing - Operations Officer - Including 4 counties .
12 11 1243 All counties reported receiving notification of alert 13 12 1245 Copy of E0C Briefing 14 13 1553 Chatham requests hard copy of briefing 15 14 1154 Wake requests hard copy of briefing 16 15 1250 Harnett requests hard copy of briefing 17 16 1304 Lee requests hard copy of briefing I 18 1308 EOC briefing - EOC activated and assuming control of state resources - E0C procedures explained - state agencies pre-sented briefings - DOT has started erecting evacuation route signs 19 17 1327 From Wake - could not hear briefing O 20 is 1338 Name of official on duty Haraett couaty ero nas errivea M .
sign t Dan Spurling - Operations Recorder p g g/ '
wmm f /
No. of Pagn OPERATIONS JOURNAL 81 N .
Orsanization Location Period Covered s-From To Div. of Emergency Management State EOC wou, o. , u, o.,,
, 1346 5/17/85 1503 5/17/85 Yo7 d,'s # in out incents, hsa8es, Actions, Etc.
21 19 1340 Hard copy of E0C Briefing (1308) 22 20 1340 Warning message - ALERT - High Radiation level 23 21 1343 CAP message directing aerial photo mission and comunica-tions check 24 22 1345 Meterological message from Dayne Brown 25 23 1350 Request for dosimeters from NCNG 26 24 1356 To CP&L - SERT & EOC status report 27 25 1357 Request from Harnett for last two briefings l 28 26 1401 From amateur radio - Wake County radio operational - 1415 29 27 1410 Al Poland notified of E0C activation 30 28 1418 Message re dosimeters to NCNG 31 29 1420 R. L. Mayton CP&L Tech Rep to be notified 32 30 1425 CP&L Staff to depart to exercise location 33 31 1430 Wake County evacuating Harris Lake - Simulated 34 32 1438 EOC, Wake County, and Shearon Harris Plant - amateur radio has contact 35 33 1439 E0F at CP&L activated at 1414 36 34 1436 Hard copy of ops briefing to counties 37 35 1445 Request for hard copy of 1425 briefing by Harnett Co.
38 36 1450 CP&L Liaison to E0C 1445 (See Msg. 30) 39 37 1452 Request for helicopter from Wake County 40 38 1500 Message from Chatham - EPS to staging areas 41 39 1501 Ham Radio in Wake E0C KIME-23 1
O 42 40 1503 Name of otticial on duty Request hard copy of 1430 briefinpy Lee,Co.
Sign fu e Dan Spurling - Operations OfHechchp / .
- , - , r~ '
No. of l'agn OPERATIONS JOURNAL '*je No.
Or5anization Location Period Covered e.
From To p Div. of Emergency Management State E0C Hour Date Hour Date d . 1504 5/17/85 1615 5/17/85 Yo7 dsf*e ,, gg, Incbts, hsages, Actions, &c.
43 41 1504 Request hard copy of 1430 briefing by Chatham County.
44 42 1505 Message from CP&L re site emergency 45 43 1506 Warning message update - site emergency 46 44 1440 CP&L to operations site emergency at 1425 47 45 Message to FEMA 48 46 1509 SHNPP to SERT - OUT OF SEQUENCE 49 47 1512 CP&L news release 50 48 1515 51 49 1520 52 50 1528 NCNG from Insurance - request for aircraft
] 53 51 1532 From Radiation Protection Services (RPS) - two teams operational 54 52 1537 Ops from Dayne Brown - activity increasing
(
55 53 1537 EBS sirens sounded 56 54 1540 CP&L news release 57 55 1543 Lee County requests state to assume direction & control 58 56 1555 Warning message update #7 - two barriers breached 59 1550 EOC briefing 60 57 1550 CP&L liaison to Ops update 61 58 1600 EOC from RPS - Weather update 62 59 1605 Harnett County requests State to take direction & control 63 60 1615 Request from Harnett County (ref message 59) 64 61 1615 Request from Wake County for State to take direction &
O Name of official on duty co#troi , . ,
$ignatur Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder gg 7
~ , - r '
1
No. of Pages OPERATIONS JOURNAL. '*8} N .
Of5anization Location Period Covered e-From To Div. of Emergency Management Hour Date Hour Date State EOC
(] - 1618 5/17/85 1730 5/17/85 Entry Ref. Time No. Msg # inchts, Messages, Actions, Etc.
fn Out 65 62 1618 Briefing,1545 66 63 1622 Ham operations in contact with Lee County 67 64 1625 State assumption of direction & control - 4 count'ies 68 65 1630 CAP mission photos 69 66 1635 Information from E0F 'iaison 70 67 1635 Message from Lee County reference Message #57 71 68 1640 Severe weather report - ACTUAL 72 69 1649 Lee requests copy of message #57 73 70 1650 Crisp assumes duty as on-site ops director 74 71 1652 Message flow correction - hard copy to counties 75 72 1658 Weather update from RPS 76 73 1703 Warning message #8 77 74 1700 Message from Chatham County - population on lake 35 78 75 1715 Severe weather bulletin - ACTUAL 79 76 1724 SERT briefing at 1700 80 1730 E0C activity terminated for day to continue 0700 18 May G
0 A Name of official on duty Sig u=
/
Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder g ,jg 9 r u a9 t4/s4, [
N" ' 5" OPERATIONS JOURNAL '*l' "" l Or5anization Location Period covered +
From To Div. of Emergency Management State EOC . 0700 5/18/ 5 0812 5/18/85 l Entry Ref. Time No. Msg # inc s, Messages, Actions, Etc.
in Out
, 81 0700 18 May 1985 - EOC operational 82 77 5/17/85 - Message from Harnett - E0C closed 83 78 5/17/85 - Message from Crisp - E0F 84 79 0704 CAP Aerial photo mission .
85 80 0705 MET data from CP&L 86 81 0716 Request for Conino Van - Harnett 87 82 0722 Request for message number clearification 88 83 0735 News release - SERT - Jordan Lake 89 84 0727 Commo van on way to Harnett County 90 85 0728 Wake Sheriff close and evacuate Harris Lake - 5/17 91 86 0733 Message and WX DATA from Crisp - E0F 92 87 0734 Harnett County ham radio contact with E0C 93 88 0755 CP&L news release #6 - 5/17/85 94 89 0748 Message to Harnett REF - conino van enroute 95 90 0752 Warning message #10 - SITE EMERGENCY 96 91 0755 Message from Ops to SERT - GENERAL EMERGENCY - 0746 97 92 0757 CC&PS PIO Release 98 93 0758 Message from CP&L liaison re GENERAL EMERGENCY 99 94 0806 Request from CP&L via Wake Sheriff to clear Lake Jordan 100 95 0808 Request for information on A/C vicinity 10 mile EPZ 101 96 0810 Message from PIO to SERT - phone numbers 102 97 0810 0745 Briefing 103 98 0813 Message from Harnett County - van has not arrived O 1o4 99 08i2 Name of official on duty sessesefromwake-aore9uestforess;staace signaturc Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder /
,~, . f" '
' No. of Page OPERATIONS JOURNAL "'je N .
Organization I.ocation Period Covered '-
From To
(
N Div. of Emergency Management State EOC Hour Date Hour Date
. 0813 5/18/85 Entry Ref. Time No, Msg # In inciden.s, Messages, Acti ns, Etc.
Out 105 100 0816 From CP&L liaison - areas to be evacuated 106 101 0817 0810 Briefing 107 102 0820 SHP to SERT - KI to Troop C 108 103 0821 SHP frcm Ch'E - instruction for KI 109 104 0821 DHS to Ops - Delivery of K1 to SHP 110 105 0824 0820 Briefing 111 106 0824 SHP to SERT - Traffic CP's and road blocks 112 107 0826 Warning message #10 113 108 0827 Harnett County shelters ready to go 114 109 0831 Notification to transportation - air-rail-bus O
v 115 110 0830 Counties from Ops - movement at KI 116 111 0832 Ops from DHS - request assistance for KI movement 117 112 0835 Lee County shelters and Traffic Control stations in place 118 113 0838 From Wildlife location at A/C 119 114 0839 DHS from Ops - approval of sites in Message 11 120 115 0840 Shelter locations operational 121 116 0842 DHS from Forestry - availability at A/C 122 117 0843 SERT from SHP - all posts manned for evacuation 123 118 0847 Clarify message Fonn use from Wake (Broome) 124 119 0847 Ops from RPS - reason for general emergency 125 120 0843 DHS from Environmental Mgt. - A/C locations 126 121 0852 Ops from Wildlife 127 122 0854 From CP&L liaison - re siren activation O 128 123 0856 From ARC - Wake Shelter location , o Name of ofncial on duty Signature
[
Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder
///f fifQ EM49 ta'RM
OPERATIONS JOURNAL f **
Orlanization Location Period covered 4 From To iv. f Emer9ency Mana9ement Hour O STATE E0C
- 0902 Date 5/18/85 0943 Hour Date 5/18/85 Entry Ref. Time No, Msg # In lac ts, Messages, Actions, Etc.
Out 129 124 0902 Instructions from DHS on KI 130 125 0904 Warning message #11 - GENERAL EMERGENCY 131 126 0850 Ops from NCNG - Helicopter location 132 127 0907 Harnett County not receiving telecopy message 133 128 0908 Ops from Land Resources - A/C location (none) 134 129 0908 Lee County shelter location 135 130 0909 DHS from CAP - A/C locations sorties 136 131 0910 Ops from RPS - Equipment reports 137 0900 E0C Briefing 138 132 0911 Request from Harnett County to evacuate Cape Fear River 139 133 0911 SERT from OEMS - correction to message #46 140 134 0912 CP&L litison - E0F status 141 135 0913 News release #7 142 136 0914 MET DATA from RPS 143 137 0913 From Harnett County - schools open 144 138 0917 CP&L liaison - WX report - KI instructions 145 139 0918 From NCNG - Aircraft availability 146 140 0927 MET DATA from RPS 147 141 0931 DHS to Ops - status of KI distribution 148 142 0930 DHS to Ops - KI distribution in Wake County 149 143 0930 Harnett County - 2nd request for assistance 150 144 0935 SERT from SHP - no traffic problems 151 145 0942 Ops from Wildlife - Jordan Lake and recreation areas evacuatt d O 152 145 0943 Name of official on duty rrom Weke County Heeits Director - Directions for KI distri.
Signature Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder p M/
-. a.,
rm
NMI Pign OPERATIONS JOURNAL ) N Organization Location Perioo Covered e-From To Hour O Div. of Emergency Management STATE E0C 0944 5/18/85 Date Hour 1050 Date 5/18/85 Entry Ref. Time No, Msg # in incidents, Messages, Actions, Etc.
Out 153 147 0944 From Wake DSS - Dix shelter closed - report 154 148 0947 RPS - MET DATA 155 149 0948 Warning message #12 - GENERAL EMERGENCY 156 150 0950 Shelter report from Chatham County 157 151 0953 To Harnett County from Wildlife Res. - Evacuation of Cape Fear River 158 152 0955 Crisp - DEM liaison at EOF - with summary of briefina 159 153 0957 From Chatham - Distribution of KI 160 154 0958 0915 briefing 161 155 1000 From Wake Sheriff - TCP's manned
- 162 156 1001 CP&L news release #8 163 157 1004 From Chatham - simulated contamination 164 158 1010 Same as #156 165 159 1012 CC&PS news release #4 (8
- 41 am) 166 160 1013 From SHP - areas which heard sirens and areas which did not 167 161 1023 To wildlife from Harnett - requests check on Cape Fear 168 162 1025 Third request from Harnett 169 163 1025 From SERT leader - Plant report 170 164 1030 .
MET DATA from RPS 171 165 1035 Chatham County shelter report 172 166 1037 Harnett County - problem with radio - REAL 173 167 1040 From SHP - KI distributed
- 174 168 1050 From CAP - Aerial monitoring complete - NEGATIVE
!O i75 169 1050 Name of othcial on duty From sHe - 2one a 2 mi. evecuetioe comniete.
Signa Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder / / [ 4 f R49 (4/84) f /
OPERATIONS JOURNAL **#""
' E ""
Orlanization Location Period Covered --
From To
! Div. of Emergency Management STATE EOC
. 1 0 5/18 85 1 3 5/18 85
'?
No M # in Out '"#b 8 ^ " " '#*
176 170 1100 Lee County - Food from Prisons to shelter has arrived 177 171 1102 Report from ARC - Decon stations 178 172 1100 MET DATA - RPS
, 179 173 1103 Wake County message #96 re evacuation !
i 180 174 1106 Wake County message #99 - warning routes completed 181 175 1107 From SHP - Areas K, L. 8. C & D - 5 mi. evacuated i
182 176 1108 From Chatham County - questi6ns on sirens i
183 177 1112 To RPS from DOT - personnel status 184 178 1113 Ops from Harnett County - shelters opened 185 179 1116 Lee County food status
- 186 180 '1118 From SHP - evacuation status 187 181 1117 CP&L liaison report i 188 182 1119 Harnett County - answer to #176 189 183 1119 Warning i..essage #14 - GENERAL EMERGENCY ;
190 184 1122 From ham operator re evacuation 191 185 1126 From SHP - Areas L & I 10 mi. evacuated 192 186 1126 From Harnett - shelter closed 193 187 1127 1030 briefing 194 188 1128 MET DATA from RPS 195 189 1130 From cor.mo officer re Harnett Radio Repair 196 190 1135 Harnett County closed decon station 197 191 1142 Warning message #15 - GENERAL EMERGENCY 198 192 1143 From Harnett County - Message #8 l
O is9 i93 ii43 rrom Heraett County to Correctioa rood arrivai time Name of offical on duty bgn e Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder gj www ( '
f l
OPERATIONS JOURNAL E 1 *'
Orsanisation Location Period covered >
From To a
Q Div. of Emergency Management STATE EOC -
Hour 1145 Date 5/18/85 Hour 1330 Date 5/18/85 l
';.? #, ,,, """ , %,. %e. wo . m.
200 194 1150 Evacuation completed in Wake County 201 195 1206 CC&PS news release #5 202 196 1218 CP&L liaison update report 203 197 1220 Wake report on evacuees (85) at Martin Middle School 204 198 1222 Wake report on evacuation 205 199 1223 Harnett has closed shelter #1 206 200 1228 Same as #199 207 1235 Briefing en release 208 1242 Sounding sirens at 1244 - varified by all four counties 209 201 1238 Amateur station - Harnett County closed 210 202 1254 MET DATA from RPS 211 203 1258 From CP&L Liaison - release contents 212 204 1258 Wake County message #115 - personnel location 213 205 1300 Amateur radio reports sirens in all 4 counties I
214 206 1301 Warning message #16 - GENERAL EMERGENCY 215 207 1304 1235 Briefing 216 208 1305 MET DATA from RPS 217 209 1326 Harnett County EOC closed 218 210 1327 CP&L news release #10 219 211 1328 Exercise terminated 220 212 1330 1315 Briefing JOURNAL CLOSED m,
O Dn Name of official on duty S' ur Dan Spurling, Operations Recorder g gg qu e wan
'f Y
- ,.-
- 2.- . . v t, . r_ . : q ., . . . l3
, .r. , ..
2
'!![l, J.
A I STATE EMERGENCY. RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAG'E. FORM 7'n t..
ing O Routine
' ~
O Outgoing O Immediate TO: b A' '
FROM: A /C -
DATERIME WRITTEN: 7 2 i TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1-INIh_l3 AN E ERCISE MFSSAGE i >
] rA . n / . - -
ALGZu- &f3'l
! ~% anJA4s "/ /
i i /
6' d ^ -
LJ &
h>w.
a gs.) o s c>
Dxe iA bbA I
l v bbON I i
1 :
1
,' IF MORE SPACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HtRE O '
I . ._ . .
Imm - f l M &#itT% fNCV C 1.~__ M T%
l JERT TF AM LF ADFRJA%T ( Cultural Resourecs Revenue l OPER %TIONS OFFICER l O Human Resources %erretary of % tate l l" A4EMACE OFFICER l , Aging Trans;wirtation tDOT)
/ PtlRtir (NFO OFFl(FR <
Fmereenry Meef.ral services frecurer Health %crvices M i ,
Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio l l Arfministration l Radiation Protection American Red Cross l l Apiculture l %orial tervices %alvatinn Army l l Auditor l Insurante I .
l l Commerce l Justic e . . i I
l l titilit es Commission Corrections l $RI _ DA{f)]{f #
l l l l _ tabor , [
l l Division of Prisons l _ N.e ri R,=<mem .vil ferryn Do !
l l Crime Control A Public %4f ety l Invironmental Manae,ement !
l l Civil Air Patrol l Fo'est Resources l l Imergency Management l l anti Resourres f l l National Cuard I Wildlife l l State HighWAV Eatrol l Pyhlic instruction CP.115 '841 I
l
.--,_-w---mw-
12,' . 1. < *. . * ; : j4 g.c..:,r:g43:l.Q.;.sg i g j g -gg-3., g g yjp g 'l.gi g 3.g;,4 ,,,,,,
m
. 4 ,'8,$. 15.4.MV:4'5 TATE Eh4ERdESCLREShdhSE iEAid!S' MESS $UE [ FORM .
.th # U.I.h :[N l
{
Lmncoming O RoutineT?
m .
. n s 'f..
4 m ,7' ~, .gw t
$ O outgoing 'O .imm life'
'~.yN.I>J. , ,
I
> ' ' th : 5 % 'Ne . . 4 e ld.n',,' , v .1,MI.d C, 2 .+
a
- - s (' .
/ > J,4 b ~[O
' ~
FROM:
{
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: THIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE
. i I
%~A Y-R C o--s w or/ J L '] O & ,
a *
( y / j l
l I
l O m s
IF MORE SPACE IS NilD[D, USE REV[R5[ 8,ND CH[CK HERE O i ll , ll SfRT TI AM tt40f R/A%T [ll ll ll Cultural Rewurces llll ll ll Revenue h l __
OPf R ATION% OFFICIR ll l l Human Resourecs II l l Secretary of state l l
3MI% AGF OFFICFR _ )l. l l AR,nn ll l I Transportation (DOT) I
[l PUntlC INFO OFilffR en_ry Me,hcal % es.ces l} l lTreaturer l I
{ ll ll Covernor's Office lll I! ll Mental Health lll l ll Amateur Radio ll l l l Administration ll l l Radiation Protection ll l l American Red Cross l Arnculture %) rial Services l l tal$ation Army l l l Aud tor insurance l l l(ommerce justice . m I l l uu,, e4 comm,,,,nn II I I $ni 11 l lKBard Urc I I I Irnuenn, ll l l t*>r II l I I I I I D,... inn o, e,,o,n, 11_l l N uomm, ...i nrn, n4l [ l l I _l l r,,me cent,oi A ruvir <a,,,y ll l I en,,,nnmentaiuany,m, nill l I I 1 Oii l l i
l o .' Me ra.co, recerency M.inu,m,ni 11 II i
1-i I
<~~ R~urce, t and R~urc e, ii i I
i I
i I
l 11 I I I I Nat,onal Cuard ,,_ I I WddMe Il I l l f I I I st4,, H,,s.ay e4,,oi I I rum,< in ,,un,on ll 1 I I l
(P F flllel I i
l
l gutu:r.WoM.> i~di:r.!ds.ggrfggj@4gjsgg@ighj@p,ggQ;yy jfl 1 ..... . , . - , . . , . . . . . . . ~ ,
-u :.@, l!?.5%. $ TAT.E...EMERGENJYJtESP.QNSETEAM'.S.N,,... ESSAGE .... . .ORM .M. . . .fu.iMn'...
, ei j
h y ~ .9'in.'f'W; Gf ' coming" ' 'O&' k$ a' '
Routine P4.if-il.!h ~"
j -IN
@/ 4 UM%w%
O outgoing DImmediate' i . . . .
$' :': , ' 3.a .g .
i l 2 .n - %? '
' IMN;"Q"O/P/dMnG.Vf.'l ,.q*;fl?W a s ', . i; g.:'.~.. , 1
,1*'d , O ;* q' ,, . . ;;
C TO:'
- e . r.n ,;.,. , . .:. m. ,... ... " ..
.FROM: . . bM >>
DATE/IIME WRITTEN: / 2. S 4 #1
- TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number
- 1 THIS IS AN EXERCISERESSAGE
!&<W d h& [0AL4 AY i
j b%f f ,
$D. hl40baw ~
e
/
/ (
i i
j . -
O
- IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O i
,,. I M-EU '.5 ,.U$MNM1d I l STRT TE AM LE ADER/A%5T m Cultural Resources Revenue N/M l OPfRATIONS OFFICER l Human Resources Secretary of State l MESSACE OFFICER l j Aveng Transportation (DOT) dPt fRtIC INFO OFFICFR M'I Emergency Mafical %ervices Treasurer Health 5ervices , i [' i M) ,h ?b.he' i
- Cosemor's Of6re Mental Health Amateur Raetio l Administration l Radiation Protection American Red Crott l Aericulture l %orial Serveret %alvation Armv l Aurfitor l Insurance 2"Y ~ "
l Commerce l Justice . i .
l titilities Commmion l SRI bh hEk l Correctiong l tahor I
Diviuon of Prnong l N. erd Rs.n mis ,vil C,,wn th Crime Control & Publir Safety l f evironmental Management Civil Air Patrol l Forett Resources fmerrency Management l t anrf Retources National Guartf l Wilrilife _
% tate Hiehway Patrol l Public Instruction cPnsmt
. p_, . ' . -
. . - . :,c . n .
1 ~
l(g
. s;...
r.t
. igg #N' STATE EMERGENCY. RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM ,
v43 e- ~
y .;, .,.
ming bkoutir[)
. v;.q;- . _ ,,, . . .' e. .;. .4g-e.a.y .
- ..f.C O Outgoing O Im nediate
-tv
, ;~
- TO: & N EA '
FROM: Ib DATEMME WRITTEN: .
/O.' ~
[
TEXT ( ( Prior Msg. Number 3 THIS IS AN D(ERCISE MESSAGE l s emo1 /n>/As } Yhulu de fmmm2W/s l A (bann.Ede(d
~ P
%. A/Am WA, -
i I
l i
l l
O l l l
l l
j IF MORE SPACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND C'iECK HERE O ;
Im 9m -
S -
- C. -d2 1 d EME 6M 1 l SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue IMOPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources $ccretary of State l/AESS AGE OFFICER / ,Ag'in g Transnortation (DOT)
PURllC INFO OFFICER [M[ Emergency Merhcal 4rvices Treasurer Y Hraith %rvices N
fthT(if,%pu y$.j'$\W {'
l Cosernor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio l l l Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross l l l Agriculture Soci.il 8.ervices Salvation Army l l l l Auditor Insurance justice M
l l l l Commerce . i _ l I
l l l Utilities Commission %A1 b)/h / A/. h k.
l l l Corrections labor !
l l l Division of Prisons N.t.r4 Rm em .vvi Cmun De l l l l Crime Control A Pubhc Safety Environmental Management l l l Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources l l l Emerrency Management land Resources '
l l l National Cuarrj Wildhfe l l l State Highway Patrol Public Instruc tion CP 7 f t/94}
l
g . .. .w.a . . .-
Wsghgggggg,.p.gggggggqMg;hnry c7f m . . .. ~. .... . n .... ....... .. ...
- 352Eh5 TATE EMERGENCYjRE.Sf.QMEJRI@.i.h...~.~~..
%j ESSAGE10@ , M#RC.' .
bR;[b$g" bMNnY-l
. ' $8 ' L I.-[. ,. P"*NV.'%
) ' p# g* ,h O outgoing ' O Immediate
) :. F"~, s , ' ; . i L" se *' ;<.'.:; . . '.:s. '>.. .l 4l;c O. .
- j . , . ITO:
~
" " ' ' , e . +'2 Ms,j5 .Hi?j~
s.u<..
. . l_ NM
//// ' " .' - :. . ' " ' . ' ' > ' ' -..
-~ -
i DATERIME WRITTEN: /3',4 7 O M
/
b-/ 7'b'I j . TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1 THIS 1.9 AN FYFRCI.9F MF9tacF l Rwm+ s M azo ad i I -
Jr Aus2 &%s o D
'O "
1 I
I l
l l l i
I
'I l
IF MORE SPACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O i
, - ___ - TD1 n W& .
NCf" ,_ _ .,. r wrr. .
SERT TEAM LE ADER/ ASST. Cultural Resources Resenue
- OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State MESSACE OEFICER, _ Aging Transportation (DOT)
/ PUBLIC IN i/ Emereency Medical Services Treasurer
? -
Health Services /kMihh.i4['NMbkj$M Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance NdikbMEMN2MMd[
Commerce lu tice Utilities Commisuon $81 Corrections labor Diviuon of Prisons N.fural Pa.natus .vvf Onmm D*.'
Crime Control A Public Safety Environmental Management O Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emereency Management tand Resources National Guard Wildhfe State Highway Patrol Pubhc instruction CP.7 ($/84;
j 6dh5l,' i;d u .'. ..;,kh.eQlqk&).frlh&zfff&kf'&&gg}g&}Q,.y: . . ..
& ,u jg -
MDMRSTATEJM5R'GENCY RESPDMSEJFhkIMN$5 dis 56RMM$)ig'f
.:sy.g.pp .. :s ' :.s,
- w v- .* :6 I O j-(- .,
O Incoining ' .GRoutine .
M %t.i -
2 t ..
.. IPDutgoing - :O lmme .WW diates
.w.
% A $ # % M T!$ M Fth2h D $ @ h ' % % e 3 '
[. ,_ 3%gggnw .;,_ ' '
? .t ~ -
.ommus wairTess I , . . .
d> 7/O .
/ 7.s G l . TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: _ i. THIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE
- sear'A% df a .
~
I. iL . 2 'x d J o. ,
- m. AJ n V
sa$ '
G~
N. 8 -C OMS *'2f @ . a -a 5: M Eoe b d b A L L ,
a./-l: r M
! sSt M .: .
Y he OJ;* GW to
+e 12 P s % r L %ds pf M 1 JenG +acDed do " lJho - "-
AL& dw OMCum% -& aird IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE '
maswa ^ ~:.a a c. = ,; t = = _: _ _ m w _. ww= ==
V SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. /N' Cultural Resources Resenue OPERATIONS OFFICER [] Human Resources Secretary of State
, ME55W.E f)f rgER Aging Transportation (DOT) 1 -
! PUBL FFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer
! Health Services EEM f ., ' I ?$4 ~ '
- Cosemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Rar'io I Administration Radiation Protection Amencan Red Crou
) Agneulture Social Services Salvation Army
! Auditor Insurance %]N[dDMM j Commerce justice / (4,fo./11 Ee C I Utilities Commimon 581 V 7% y 8,8 C.
Corrections labor V h h g L g @ f._
j Division of Prnons N. tral Rsvum ;rd Cimm Da: k- [p EO (
Crime Control A Public Safety Environmental Manaeement ( t)M DM Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources M Emergency Management land Resources g/ (W I
National Guard Wildlife l State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP 7 (5'84)
g Te $
.s.
kRIEFING-STATEEOC-1430-May17,1985 '
Briefing conducted by James Munns Operations Officer, as follows:
L ALERT status with no further consnunications from Shearon Harris'. CP&L EOF was activated at 1400.
Th2 alert status was issued at 1315 - high radiation readings.
Th;re is no change in the weather.
Wake County E0C has authorized evacuation of Harris Lake as a precautionary measure.
The agencies were polled as follows:
Highway Patrol - no change.
Transportation - no change.
Insurance - no change.
National Guard - no change.
EMS - no change.
- Human Resources - no change.
Amateur Radio Operators are in contact with Wake County EOC and Shearon Harris,
{ed Cross has placed personnel on stand-by alert in all four counties.
CAP has an aircraft airborne to take aerial photographs, if necessary, of plant and plant area.
j Briefing conducted by Dayne Brown as follows:
1425 message received from CP&L EOF that the alert had been upgraded to a site emergency.
Weather is standing. .
Reactor was shut-down at 1350 and is going into cool-down.
O :
- u. i- - ?. ,; .;.:.;:1. ;. y;;.;).gj,%;y;*g.), jug.:. . . ! 35
{., STATE EMERGENCY RESPO.NlSE[ TEAM'SMESSAGE FORM _.i.%
i
, ' ~ 7 ~ : a l Eincom' ins 5Noutine i g . - . - . , - . . - w .m O Outgoing O lmmediate '
I I TO: _ O MA-s2ubt ' ' .hd I ')~
1 rRom: d.
DATEnlME \VRITTEN: i Y_ /_3 rr7.
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1: THIR 1R AN HERCISE MESSAGE
\ &&s .fwJ an a' / 4'. '2S 2 m &4 l d -txt M ud id$ 0 $d E u. af S -
/
1 l
, ,l L A@ '
_ lid
[W /l"
- O
- tol) v
! I' i l l l
l l IF MORE $ PACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O 1
- . . - . .. ., . _ . _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ M i El&NAGELTOM'M*W%$ TDjelfffM'-~*~^^-. TO1_1 NIT OADENCY 9+% ft++ tJD* .d SERT TE AM (( ADER/ ASST Cultural Resources Revenue
/ Opf R ATIONS OFFICER Human Resources $ccretary of State Mf 55 ACE OFFICER Agieg Transportation (DOT)
/'l PURtIC IN87 OFFICIR Empreensv Medicat Services Treasurer F~@ .Md'~ M Health Services ' MN'509ERNMEN8 AGINCIESM Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Adynistration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Aericulturo %ocial %ervices Salsation Arms Auditor insurance h j h R5[5 $ 5fh)Y M is h k M .$
Commerce _
lue re Utilities Commission !Hi Corrections labiv Divition of Pritons N epral Rjysrts arvj OrrYT1 M Crime Control A Public %afetv insironmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management land Resources National Cuard Wildlife Stce Hiebway Patrol Public Instruction CP 715 84)
yv.w.
- .c . . . ., a .
g ,.; g q q q q u y ..,_;. 4 9
, T.M.VSTATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'SS4ESSddE' FORK.MISM$fs O 'j .'incoming
'1; - - . N :..
outine 5 s 5'. . . . a r ? - -- <,~* <r4..- .
7?cd7- DOutgoing O Immediate '
.t,-
ggg -
. ;:+ r ~
FROM: i
/
, DATE/ TIME WRITTEN- J' N
- h -/[#I TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: - h THIS IS AN EXERCISE MFRRAGF
~
AAL W 0 AAA
~ '
w b0
/>/j/
I (/ l l} T
l f.
, nafwu &
ei IAA
//
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O M Im - i l l l SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST- l Cultural Resources Revenue l d OPERATIONS OFFICER l Human Resources Secretarv of State l J MESSAGE OFFICER l Aeing Transportation (DOT) ll [ 0 PUBLIC lNFO. OFFICER l Emercency Medical Services Treasurer h l Govemor's Office O Mental Health Amateur Radio l l Administration l Radiation Protection American Red Cross l l Aericulture l Social Services Salvation Armv l l Auditor l Insurance MN D"'" MMS l l Commerce l Justice l l Utilities Commission l 581 l l Corrections l Labor l l Division of Prisons l Natural Revurus and Omrn. DW l l Crime Control & Public Saferv l Environmental Management l I/ Civil Air Patrol l Forest Resources l /l Emergency Management l Land Resources l l National Guard l Wildlife l l State Highway Patrol l Public Instruction CP-7 (5/84)
p.
s.n w -'
..a.i a ,:s 3y 9. n . 4}
[iljp?, ;ig & STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE. TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM w:
nM.5
tQ
,.. $.4l,.:
oming 'O Routine 2
? ! $ .b. d' t;tY..l ,2.**'!
t l 3.W.?p " +4.M~%
O Outgoing ' O Immediate .
..dK i
x ..s
), .ggg' ..
i
.FROM: -
- DATE/ TIME WRITTEN
- 7 TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: ,. THIS IS AN RERCISE MESSAGE A A s
~
$4%- % l SV 7
/ " # #d
. A> n
- M- ,
~
" G oj x2 s-O A n a s, l k / A -
.} M.. %, U(" AM M IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O I I W I -
l '$ Y %r-e,kst.Q. % '
t
/ SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources l Revenue
/ OPERATIONS OFFICER l Human Resources l Secretary of State
, MESSAGE OFFICER l Aging l Transportation (DOT)
[ PUBllC INFO. OFFICER l Emergency Medical Services l Treasurer
'jl l l.. L' ~ .*l !%N l Govemor's Office ll Mental Health l Amateur Radio l Administration l Radiation Protection l American Red Cross Agriculture Social Services l Salvation Army
"' ^
Auditor Insurance N.i 'i)[iN -
. ['
Commerce justice l Utilities Commission l 581 ,
l Corrections l Labor l Division of Prisons l N. rural Rrvunes and Camrrt Diw l Crime Control & Public Saferv l Environmental Manarement l Civil Air Patrol l Forest Resources
/ l Emergency Management l Land Resources l National Guard l Wildlife l State Highway Patro! l Public Instruction CP 7 (5/84)
. . s-.. .. . . . .
... .s. . , , ,
Jyty k'D.kNbd$$$'I$'( [,[
m:
( . t$ $5 TATE EMNh@ggp)3^s'(Q*$gS j'gggtjijg p
O
. _f_,- >.,,c.y ., n ., .
Encomini Routine _
- . k .:.w.w&
'Y. ( O dutgoin'g' 'A :O mE ate-
- z. .8
'. ' "9?,',^;,7lf,N *
. Ef ' h f~f!. l';'*f_:YW:
f, $5 "~'
FROM:
DATE/ TIME WRITTENI
~
N
. TEXT < Ret. Prior usg. Number: TTHIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE
/537 G S Du a _ h A.A 6%b s.
.l l IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O ,
h _3 5 }lD i-- _ _ m. mCZ--^ 7_ -
__ C ^ ~~ M]C,i 33RDYNCY G . T J M M SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. N.l> / Cultural Resources Revenue N1 OPERATIONS OFFICER 0 Human Resources Secretarv of State MESSACE OFFICER , Aging Transportation (DOT)
[ PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER -
/ E mereency Medical Services Treasurer
-;.W.
l - ( . , ; cg ~- Health Services UNfd[6/dh" Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance ~ MF" Commerce lustice Utilities Commission SBl Corrections Labor Division of Prisons N, rural Revutis and Comm. DW Crime Control & Public Saferv Environmental Management l Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources l Emergency Management Land Resources National Cuard Wildlife State Highway Patrol Public Instruction I CPJ C/84)
.ig.f N h /X $ kk5h' k .',N d h .h h h'h f f[(hfeh6.. - h
! jff . dis %iMTATEiMER'GE'N{EkdNjENifM535E55d({NDRM.M.T
- X U
. ex; m% -
Incoming D Ro'u tine b
- *, . . L .. 4.a.q .'s ,3 7l-jjul* thy
'ip-fi
.. O Outgoing q' arimmediate!,, _
'gp
'c ,.- .y lg } ? ~i+e- 4. V ,.
' ' ' c i'. , ? - ~s .
q?i:. ' :r ' ~
FROM: Y IN$ -lkl58 d ' h U d 8I5 $
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN- /
. TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: E THIS IS AN FXFRCISF MF99ARE
/Nf 0 (L EC E I L?[ b Fb4 Edf L 1 A I S dd HE'l3F l CD -(2 L as> r i a 5Hv r Do ws facts.S
% pMlu i t a-c B e v 6- EMcw reb
- (h m o L i 4 c- pm nro sis'urbo v <._)
(4) 'h C()[LE .5 S u/2 A-7jo A) tG-o /Ai& cd N 1 h A U -/ $ IL.5 YfN [A ( ft'Eb 0 (G ) F~u t L 2Ea k >^> h,. l f) G 12 t.) h L D t w r7 1/ 0 Lt9-hb/4)L (fn A u v M t>91 V A- t .5 o o r --
(?) P R o ar Ec 71l/G. } Laid -A/o^) os) /A b A k -
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O M IW M'.W
^
~7 DM. n.n ,-- x= _m__ ?- _ 7 BO' M TF%dMCf;-2.h*EO&s i
[//./ SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State MESSACE OFFICER n 3 Aging Transportation (DOT)
PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emereency Medical Services Treasurer l Health Services Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration V //// Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army
, Auditor Insurance NM@jf -#"
l Commerce Justice I (4)dIA Eo C Utilities Commission SBI V k [ M M & C._
Corrections Labor V M fo C Division of Prisons Nasal Rmms and Comm. Dw / 8 No C_.
Crime Control & Public Safety Environmental Manacement l Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources [ #
Emergency Management Land Resources I3 M) [
National Guard Wald!ife State Highway Patrol Public Instruction l
l/. ($' D 5 / r s) 0 A /o' 'a7/*l $$ lf {8 /)/~-/ [, f5 l
l
,. N$.' > ,.. . .* ~5;i-;CygfyRh&& -h.pk j J&Q.;., .; }
4.
g.:, ,
_ STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE.JEAM'S' MESS $GE.}ORM'.;4$/.;L, ~
O Incoming O Routine GK$utgoing O Immediate
.TO: I -
'"I '
FROM: 1#1 DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
[
TEXT (Re' Prior Ms Number: - 1
. IS AN FXFRCfSF MFRRAGf l
$01 0Ad $ $ /I //) (
/$a Atb* 'hiz2 mal / YA 71 4 w 2 b Vs b $
'M % er4 % / '
' " ~ '
Gd ~ -
fl '
yry
~
ath/ '
O Y/
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O IM -
Et4tES$AGMTO:TE&N** tot' thl)#%LGehlW5"CW @hlNTT-i 6 AGENCY5 9+W 4% W **e
/ SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue
/ OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State MESSACE OFFICER Asine Transportation (DOT)
PUBLIC INFO OFFICER Emereenev Medical Serv ces Treasurer
> EO ;_ -Mi:5 Health Services M N46YEE$$4EATddENOEM' Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Africulture Social Services Salvation Armv Auditor Insurance Q.DTUERSIShihiNMSNEYN Commerce lastice Utilit;es Commission SBI l
Corrections Labor Division of Prisons Natural Revxms and Camrn Dw Crime Control & Pubhc Saferv Environmental Management l Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emereency Management Land Resources National Guard Wildhfe State Hiebway Patrol Public Instruction CP 7 (5/84)
I
.x .. . ,bi m ,; i.e a 43;e;Mgglsffggggggg,qgyj l :.
..y.
. .g .
'W: STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAWSMES3$dyldj@,gj$3g
.. .. .. & A. ...,3 O Incoming O Routine
. :.7-
., oing ediate
\
,o. "w u - M,17jRu-( .w a.% a: m$@;&.=~ .
FROM: Os DATE/ TIME WRITTEN- 1OS Dkb \
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: ,. THIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE ~
C hh W ^ %,M ,
i L st\ M,, ,
A (_d \W e _w S 3
4 ( t\.3L A U C e .
T -
-- s g O
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O
,, g,- . . - . _,
y _ __
SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. l Cultural Resources Revenue OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State MESSACE OFFICER Anine Transportation (DOT)
PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emereency Medical Services Treasurer l i, . .
i n f.ji .
Govemor's Office
~ ' ,[: * . Health Services Mental Health h fM 6 ly.f.'[ . . J.; - P . -
Amateur Radio l Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross ' '
Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army
__ Auditor __
insurance .
Commerce Justice # * ^
Utilities Commission S81 N#/N##/
Corrections Labor Division of Prisons N; rural Remurms arri Ornm DW Crime Control & Public Saferv Environmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management Land Resources National Guard Wildlife _
State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP.7 '* :
lea
. STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM .,
ng O Routine O Outgoing mediate TO:
FROM: bfMIb0 UMM b DATE/ TIME WRITTEN- hk TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: ,
1: THIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE ,
I o us r s e) x) C Lts G C A L lJ b '
7"o Ah VIC C 7~b'd >
A- @ /Lo B L fat #1AV. EJ I s P C.o 4/ CE /L N it c o s - FEbS .AILE. Q Ano N/K T4E Cloot. l A3 O (L l Y td M T4 L k ikic -
(coo n b M /
Foit. s r ILC/> he7 wh n o d iA/ 4 s TA k i b c-O L A C E -( n V 4' G d 1 x1 EoC .
O IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O
$114MESSAG5'TO@%' Vet'RYM TO INITtGCTN(ptP4Vd3ldihY FFO fNITW CENCY's' N M ,4-kV SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue hV OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State T
' *ESI ACE OFFICER Aning Transportation (DOT)
/MitjNIC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical c,ervices Treasurer FY_-Mb LY - - -- M Health Services
~
MOM $1ItUfdENfMGEN'C4EAM-N Covernor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection Amencan Red Cross Aericu!!ure Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance A h lNER'SlS M M # Yd5Y. M N Commerce Justice Utilities Commission SBI Corrections Labor Division of Prisons Nsural Rmrrrs and Cm DN Come Cor. trol A Public Safety Environmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emereency Manaeement land Resources National Guard Wildlife State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP 7 (5/80
l0Q m
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM .,.
TO: 5 OM<# P/0k/5 6 ##-
FROM: $MIO dl0L 6 th /$ b DATE/flME WRITTEN: /b NM I L '
. O O TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: h illonebec Gum-D wdt ti e s c<it-/ H //webra whi '7W2r eam mmes,c nivp s xyi M s w cex5
/k FOLLcMA/S M CAT t *.
5, Z . T, I,.
// )?7~ d 9 Y.T D LL 1030 N25.
O IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O M' imuunmuun -
mm-MM
_m , __ Z _ _ - r ^J___m C" L7 @.pf60th'cq(WT.*Mh .
UV SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue M OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State j .d MESSACE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT) l M W) ' PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emereenev Medical Services Treasurer l
(.",jdf c.. ' .
Covernor's Office
t_ g4 Health Services Mental Health Mh Amateur Radio
[
l Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross i i Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army ,
Auditor Insurance 63NER5YOM7 MYE i
Commerce justice Utilities Commission SBl Correct.ons Labor Division of Prisons Nieural Rmma, and Cmm th Crime Control & Public Safety O
Environmental Managemer t Civil Air Patrol Fore <t Resources Emergency Management Land Resources National Cuard Wildlife State Highway Patrol Public instruction Cr.7 (s '84)
., ^N'O.; I N.d i ~ .t .- -
/k
. STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM . , .
l Incoming O Routine O Outgoing ; O Immediate TO: h- _
FROM: -
b DATE/ TIME WRITTEN: o4 8~
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1-THIS IS AN FURCISE MFRSAGE h At A W $0 Ect m & Wl ' "
?7f7 %.eLeBs V
&sp 'i 7f/-/
O IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O lkt%4ESMGES'TO:'FOA, -C~ LTO'j9WMCW " " ~ ~ ~ " .T01 WIT ! -ACEN(VGS /*Wch
@[ SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue M"
OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State
$ / MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT)
DM ' PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer
' -l @M2 _. Health Services @ D M M bi((A Y E ES '
N Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance M M[RU M M M M Mp Commerce lustice / . , _
Utilities Commission 581 / O M/A) hfkk s Correctons Labor Division of Prisons N, sural Rmms ard Crmm Dtw Crime Control & Public Safety Environmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management land Resources National Guard Wildlife j State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP-7 (5'%
L3 2 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM t_ ming O Routine
! O Outgoing Mediate TO: S*" e A I% )
FROM: ,
- OC DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1- THiS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE W ANM =
l l
l l
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O MSAGES JO:4MnksMl%M .TO l 'fNtTH .st%CENCrp h"+M & t E 'YO
- l I tNIT-% CENCY42str Ntma'mv ;
N SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue I
Mh I OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State
/?AES) ACE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT)
M M/LIC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer lU M #
ACHNYMNf.Jc. Health Services DNON40YE RN MENTAbENd$5M Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio '
Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance STHERS (Specif9'NNM ?O N U'-
Commerce lustice Utilities Commission SBI Corrections labor i j Division of Prisons Natural Rr am and Comrn Dw
'l Crime Control & Public Safety {
Environmental Management i Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources l
Emergency Management Land Resources _ l National Guard V Wildlife d@8)
State Highway Patrol Public Instruction l l CP 7 (5/84)
I 1
l
Oj INCOMING HARNETT cot lNTY 1-g -
BERGENCY OFIRATING CDCIR
] 0'JTGOING -
ESSAGE FORM NO.
TO:
1@ DATI-TBE: , '
FR2!: l l~j SVl\c D )\SOk ;- SYhCff b C ,
& W
'~
k a n s bo & ~ 6p
% th -
zn fl SIGNA ~:?i: v - L DIFA?. trit CR AGD;CY:
RE! API.S:
~.
O' .. ' -
9%9 @49&M@ g45t.c.QM Sp;e !.m p /-[ 3 STATE EMERGEN'CY_RES.PONSE JEAM.'S.. MESSAGE..EORM .. . < ,
C Min O Routine
'v
! O Outgoing immediate ' l TO: b M FROM:
DATERIME WRITTEN: tb !
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1 THIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGF n n Yh - s
$/// "
l$
l l
l l
$AA
- Afx ,s W/Y: s .
y , ,
. CO
\ ,
I I
nF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O l bi4ESSAGESTCJ%'"-9fe W4G :TOi (NJ; fuGENOf-4-M/?$k% W J/ TO f NIT. < 4ACENCY M M .vaev= - -
M SERT TEAM LE ADER/ ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue
- d. OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State l l / / MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT) I
%[N""T'DBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer
._ MNb N Health Services EIMSMV5tNMENTIGEkD$'A Covernor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross
, Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army
.l Auditor insurance [dTH'ERSUdiNNb8M@'MM j Commerce lustice j Utilities Commission SBI I Corrections labor Division of Prisons Nani Recim* arvi Comm. D=.
Crime Control & Public Safety Environmental Management k Civil Air Patrol / Forest Resources Emergency Management / tand Resources National Guard V Wildlife /d M df I State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP 7 (5/84)
\
Yl HAENrtT county INC0hENG DERGENCY OPERATING CINER OUTGOING W ASAGE FORM NO.
l TO: kg QC #
DA~E-TDE: 6-/ N T k 9:t.z
?Vu44 EoG Y tu<.A .
y d:R4p ~~aw ca J Au e-- Y
[& n lm f&
SIGNA",?.E : A [
DEPARL?:IT CR AGEN0Y:
f' RERPJ.S:
e O H 1 I
- \
l 2.
I
s.
(' h ['
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM .,.
TO: /l$NZ OUVY'f -
//[Alfy .TotM/Sch' f C CCit. L oGn ni FROM: # IN / # "E DATE/ TIME WRITTEN: N b- M TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: E bl##4 OMIf4 *^# D C#/'# M !
FsVOM 0EC/l- l O C-M '9 l V .' Y/'/9'*1, E'E Q uff//at C-- I tJoL 0t /F[ Off/Ccs. A/r f/ sf~~ Et/A CDt+ T'Z FrSdZ'let</ &
$s9V//J sJ $s4fl Ffs* 4. [1 tlI A',,
f1SG- Y d'3 2- X[.Cttuto st- { 9l WA A JTEQu/f 7'sN G Jst.*s t_
l
~
(,5t!'*L'%Y! ! -
4t}/L Ot-tFLV O !=A Cl<,5 D s JPir7t'ef v's 4 1
RAO: O Yo S C f ^/C. Yo fdM# rates [. L/ s9 C titt it o d ,m s-s L s0/ st I'r .
l O
IF MORE SPACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O l ime l-IBM $4Es9tCt5i.T&M.4 TEMW ITOl 1Nii.- ?"ACENCY 4 % W'M M W TD (NITMACENCY W%rf,TfC ?.
i bV SERT TEAM LE ADER/ ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue h OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State 4
' h MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT)
N4b--4'U8 tlc INFO. OFFICER Emergency Meoical Services Treasurer EE *D- '---e Health Services 'MdN'-d EhiSNEMMEENUNME Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agnculture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor insurance M bien M ihN N, M.hDf Commerce justice / <e/.l2LwX/ h. Z Utilities Commission 581 ' V//] ([t//gp*$co ~
Correctrons labor V3\N Mfn sa) O h/.
Division of Prisons Nxural Ravnuu=, and Comm DW Crime Control & Pubhc Saferv Environmental Manacement
- Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources I Emergency Management ./ Land Resources National Guard ! Nh6 Wildlife State Highway Patrol Public Instruction 1
- CP 7 t%
. f:.y w -
/%
4 .
.g,
. ,s.
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM ..
~
Pfn~ coming O Routine 1 O Outgoing ediate TO: (( :
FROM:
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
r
/f ff
/ '
/O /0 df TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1- l kh0Y $ Th/ bl0 fu ? WCA'f $//? EA/S L - /S' L-M /-/7 L-/f i
AACNs"~ Ti%1 7 D/O /MAf S / nest /S l L - 2.J O
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O b N 7 02 WNEiFME57%M WWMMNCVSit!fMMM hd/ SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue Yd\\ OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State "h 34f55 AGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT)
[] [IPUBLIC' INFO OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer l
. y W i,f [ -[. S f S...
Health Services h i Govemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross l Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army 1 Auditor Insurance IM$ #[d l Commerce justice Utilities Commission 581 Corrections Labor Division of Prisons Natural Revmp; arvi Crmm. Dm' Crime Control & Public Safety Environmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management land Resources National Guard Wildlife t/ h State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP-7 (5/84) l
les STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM oming O Routine O Outgoing iate l
TO: ?** O A= W ,
FROM:
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: E 1
88 a__ - Md l
l O
IF MORE SPACE 15 NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O Im -
EnniNESSAGES TO: MAMA--:-- TO: INIT: /AGENCYJ1rymf%M%r@ 'TOJ (NIT ' iAGENCY -- .ur ~-
VSERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State MJ55 ACE OFFICER Acing Transponation (DOT)
/7)[M PUBltC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer
~
EINI% dRGENCY M N N N h Health Semees ENON40VERNMENT'dCE$bESM:
Covernor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance Y O'1HEU UpeNfyyMfd6M6- ,
Commerce lustice Utilities Commission 581 Corrections Labor Division of Prisons N,tural Revisu's and Gmm DtN Cnme Control & Public Safety Environmental Management Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emereency Management land Resources National Guard V Wildlife NW State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP.7 (5/84)
I i
f Iy;gyg HARNETT COUNTY ~
)
is BG:".3ENCY OPERATING CDhu
[, OUTGOING MESSAGE FO?M NO.
TO:
DATI-ins:: II8'8 g'"l -
NQ j Sad, gAru// Ec.,C /o: .21 N/ori' o'$
Y ues b Ej "'I b Aff' */;ce &om & a)Y{i {e $6 Assish IN <b 4 abiEcxkoJ & e.61caip/,'o J s'd 0w 9 /Exp NJet '
id %sae *//* Q bo e /ex.<, 2:lewAJ + ca,nfec.
Ad By Af m.y SIGNAT.7.I: 4 4, v DIFAC.TE IT CR ASIN0Y:
RDJA?JJ:
C _
1 l
l
/6@
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM . ,.
34tfoming O Routine O Outgoing Mediate TO: Oh FROM:
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN: /O 3/ O #" !
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: b W*Y [D hr.ns m-v1 A WI rW [ryt l
Y hMr 1
Ad M W l i j t rW OM tn MC 6 A, l nUnD toOb L 2u d O>a M A o -
CA arkdd M& -
b u
pattw DA A Yn n h. %. n Aa4 !
a_
IF MORE SPACE IS NEfDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O Ef44f54GE&TOtWWW.WT TO, 1NITMGYNWa*@M49Wf'faz.Y YO 1 NIT- *%CENCY M tu W
- W SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue h OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State l
N MESSAGE OFFICER Asing Transportation (DOTl I Nk PUBLIC INFO OFFICER Em'e reency Medical Seruces i Treasurer
$MM W Health Sersices MOM'OVERNMENT1AdfSOESM i Govemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Aenculture Social Services Salvation Army l Auditor Insurance .dOTHERS'(5'pecifvI5MMIElE-Commerce justice Utilities Commission SBI Corrections labor l l
Division of Prisons Natural Revums and Crrnm De i Crime Control & Public Safety Envirnnmental Manacement I Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources V Emergency Management [# 3 MHPP W Yhcr;-
National Guard d/dlife State Highway Patrol Public Instruction CP 7 (5/84) l
1 yg. $l .
xxu: ' .t . .,. :.:. ..
,. . a <.: . , . . .
)&
i ; . -3; STATE EMERGENCY. RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM
.3 cming O Routine O outgoing dmediat[
To: WLL - Yr -
i FROM: b OLC 'l DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
bt- ~
! TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: HIS IS AN EXERCISE MESSAGE dl M1th 6 6 9 /mor e, U L
- )
g /
bvl_h NOJ _L[ l l )D (T W I bl '
! 0L ') ' '. D -
-u J
j l
, IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O l Im m 1 M 2.wsun w - .., T URW fTOfM t5'IAGENWGM F5"6 50: WTeFACENCYY.aWW?ahA*p>
M SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue !
l DV OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretarv of State j N/ MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT) l Ik PUBLIC INFO OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer MMM$NIIbENII'ESDa
" ~ ~ ' " -
Health Services Covernor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor Insurance /MiEERSdpkikND '
UM Commerce lustice Utilities Commission 581 Corrections Labor
. Division of Prisons N. rural Rmams and Omm. De Cr3e Control & Public Safety Environmental Management j Civil Air Pa,rol Forest Resources l Emergency Management land Resources l National Guard Wildhfe State Highway Patrol Public Instruction
! (PJ (5/80 l
l
- -< l$0 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM - . , ,
O Incoming O Routine F
going ediate TO: bDO Ed i, FROM: @- 5/ r y-I DATE/ TIME WRITTEN: M l TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number:
- i. THIS IS AN EXERC!SE MESSAGE t
Wsl %~ J b wad b rm kb CNh . @
,%MGM\9 N i 7\ %
l I
e ;
I j IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O 4
iis Sh 9 01jdMkD^" BOAfMJWMC_"_T TON l _N/N SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue Y OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State MESSAGE OFFICER Aring Transportation (DOT) i
/ PUBLIC INFO OFFICER Emereeney Medical Services Treasurer l l Health Services f Govemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Aericulture Social Services Salvation Army I
]
i Auditor insurance 7 WM @ E" ^^
L I Commerce justice NN MhWY _
l I Utilities Commission SBI b M /V$ t\ %LRk@
Corrections labor @
Division of Pnsons Naural Rwutrs arvi C2mm DN Crime Control & Public Saferv Environmental Manacement Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management Land Resources i National Cuard Wildlife State Highway Patrol Public instruction CP1 R'84>
L_ ___ - - - _ _ _ _ _
lo f' i
i , .
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM ..
l ;
l Incoming [FRoutine 4
0 Outgoing O Immediate TO: db db 1 j FROM: NN
)
DATE/ TIME WRITTEN: /25F Af 71ty i TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: 1-THIS !sf ERCISERERSAGE Uwh etnu'uvnta'2'&v O&
Un AOdir' Mk hs.sno meu As-wtwb2 Anu /1hh As dw&/ cv>:d l 0%n im ~ a+ '/a.vz Am l
l O
i l
i IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE C 4GI44ESSACE5*TO:PJ.E^ lit"-MVW TO ' INIT ' *%CENCYEW#rVR*8M L M INIT- ' ' AGE NCY - 9'v% *M *;- e e/ SERT TEAu LE ADER/ ASST Cultural Resources Resenue 4 OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of Sta'e V' #- MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT) '
PUBtlC INFO OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer j $ N1 E Health Services $kdMdh5RNMENT ' AGENCIES %b Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio [
Administration Radiation Protection American Red Crou l Agriculture Social Services Salvation Army i Audifor insuran< e JMTNERS (Specify))SisM4.0,140
- Commerce justice
! Utilities Commission SBl i Corrections Labor j Division of Prisons N.eral Rmsm and Grnm Dis Crime Control A Public Safety O Civil Air Patrol Emergency Management Environmental Management Forest Resources land Resources National Guard Wildhfe State Highway Patrol Public instruction CP7f5/MI
M fl07 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM ...
s ns To: E .
- / DIM 8. bb i FROM: E W DATE/ TIME WRITTEN:
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: E -
h _ _ N bl 0$cbd bAnAuo 0AM cjpW] <
l I !
I O !
i 1
l IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE C3 i l WLbMESSAGET30TM *i-!"Md- TO' 1 NIT ' Ti'AGENor*VSM*btfr*W , ITO 1 NIT- -ACENCY *-*%A* { _V SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST. Cultural Resources Revenue Mh OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Re<,ources Secretary of State
/ MESSACE OFFICER Agina Transportation (DOT)
[
T PUBLIC INFO. OFFICER Emergency Medical Services Treasurer b M I__ k_._ _ I __ M Health Services ONONMOVERNME'NTIACENCIES-NI Covemor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection American Red Cross Agriculture Social Scruces Salvation Army Aud for Insurance , i,OTHERS (Spedfy) S,'rM4NkU i Commerce lustice / J/tt h _ [8 B C-b Q2/I[M m b, U
! Utihties Commission 581 # l I Corrections labor / M/C/ b/, /:D Division of Prisons Nanl Re=nms and Gmrn [h ! [llMk b db Cnme Control & Pubhc Saferv Environmental Manacement _.
Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources t/ M Af/Al [h k A f Emergency Management land Resources 1/l,$ [z b*>.2/h National Guard Wildhfe '
State Highway Patrol Pubhc fnstruction CP71U84)
r
)
a IEFING - STATE EOC - 1235 - May 18, 1985 James Munns, Operations Officer, reports as follows:
RELEASE IS UNDERWAY venting from Stack 1. Dayne Brown assumes that it is an uncontrolled release but because it is venting from a stack, monitoring capabilities are good. .
W:ather - wind is from 450 at 10 mph - temperature is 710 - Stability Class C.
All persons affected by the leakage have been sheltered or evacuated.
C;nfirmation from all agencies that there are no SERT or other emergency personnel still in the affected areas. The counties were polled and all county workers are also clear.
Dayne Brown - dose projection at this time is not life threatening. Asked that all agencies reconfirm personnel clear. Done.
1244 - all county sirens were sounded.
Highway Patrol requests that if an agency requests assistance from HP personnel for re-entry, there will be a 10 min, delay for administration of KI and dose projection.
Health Services advises there was not sufficient doseage released for administration KI.
Dayne Brown - worst case evaluation "no problem". No thyroid PAG exceeded. BUT unless there is a compelling reason, emergency personnel are to stay out of the area. If request is received to send emergency personnel into area, check with Mr. Brown first. All counties were polled to make sure this message was received. All confirmed.
/O
./
~ '
blh STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM'S MESSAGE FORM .-
( O Incoming O Routine 8 ediate TO: T " * -- -
d*A M d[e FROM: 08NE v DATEMME WRITTEN:
TEXT (Ref. Prior Msg. Number: F -
i i b
'O i l
I 1
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE REVERSE AND CHECK HERE O AI D M E% W 3 & M i t J _" ^_' %
_ >TO INITJAACENCV-WR- C-W "/F TO< 1 NIT '
- AGENCY W ** " -
V SERT TEAM LEADER / ASST.
i Cultural Resources Resenue OPERATIONS OFFICER Human Resources Secretary of State
, MESSAGE OFFICER Aging Transportation (DOT)
V PUBLIC INFO OFFICER Emereency Medical Services Treasurer
] h o .b[N l; Health Services ' MSMVER'NMENT'AGINCIES3".
Governor's Office Mental Health Amateur Radio Administration Radiation Protection Amencan Red Crnu Aenculture Social Services Salvation Army Auditor insurance NOTHERS (5551fy)Md8khN!i er_- '
j Commerce lustice l Utihties Commission SBt
) Corrections labor i Division of Prisons Natural Romm arif Cnrmi DW 4
Crime Control & Public Saferv Environmental M.inagement
( -
Civil Air Patrol Forest Resources Emergency Management land Resources l National Cuard Wildlife
\
State Highway Patrol Public Instruction I
i CP-715/84) l
59 EFING - STATE EOC - 1315 - May 18,1985 James Munns, Operations Officer, as follows:
Release which occurred began at 1236 and terminated 1300 which lasted 24 minutes. It was an uncontrolled release.
Considering wind speed, release will clear the 10 mi. MPZ at 1400.
Sheltering should occur for food supplies located downwind.
Dayne Brown, as follows:
Release occurred from the reactor auxillary building vent.
Dose projection data - does not appear that protective action guide for thyroid has been exceeded even at the site boundary.
BUT if any personnel were in the immediate downwind area of plant Mr. Brown wants to know.
EXERCISE OVER 1120.
G i
l D
l l -
Attachment 3 y
7f"9Qppy y q1 UNITED STATES M NA FGER & L U3-g C o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION %*Jt:S N p p
[
- o I0 101 MARIE 5T EET.Nw. 1' "'
i.,1 .
- T u NT4.aEoncia so m ; 1 ....._,_.o
.._ E 4 S a & g s c.f m v v**iWRDN HARRIS N. p, p,,
JUN 051985 ~ " " *
' 7 'C MZ7 ,
Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. E. E. Utley ZEM/ME:-Q '
..T !_i_.. .a _'.C Executive Vice President ; y - g " - 7 '~~~ - -- - -!
Power Supply and Engineering --
and Construction 411 Fayetteville Street
./ I L h ~- ~ ~ '
~~ -- ---
Raleigh, NC 27602 # #* 0. ~~dMK
- -.T .
.~
Gentlemen:
I ^ . :: .
SUBJECT:
REPORT NO. 50-400/85-20 "T-On May 16-19, 1985, NRC inspected activities authorized by NRC Constru'ct" ion -
Permit No. CPPR-158 for your Shearon Harris facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progress.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
-l
(/ W D vid M. V relli, Chief R actor Pr jects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-400/85-20 cc w/ encl:
R. A. Watson, Vice President Harris Nuclear Project R. M. Parsons, Project General Manager
p Kacq,b UNITED STATES
/ e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN 11
[ # o
~ 101 MARIETTA STREET.N W.
e ATLANTA GEORGIA 30323
.v /
~
',% JUN 051985 Report No.: 50-400/85-20 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Occket No.: 50-400 License No.: CPPR-158 Facility Name: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Inspection Conducted: ay 16-19, 1985 Inspectors: h/
T. R. Decker
_d/f O(te Signec
\f h 3 $f J. L.~ Kren O(te' Signed Accompanying Personnel: G. Stoetzel C. Hawley j F. McManus Approved by- .
W. E. Citre, Chief Dite Signed Emergency Preparedness Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 149 inspector-hours onsite in the area of an emergency preparedness exercise.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
I e
REPCRT DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. A. Watson, Vice President Harris Nuclear Project
- J. L. Willis, Plant General Manager
- E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President
- B. J. Furr, Vice President - OT & TS
- C. S. Bohanan, Director - Regulatory Compliance "R. G. Black, Director Emergency Preparedness
- J. M. Collins, Manager - Operations -
- J. R. Sipp, Manager - Environmental and Radiation Control
- C. Gibson, Assistant to the General Manager "T. C. Morton, Electrical / Instrumentation and Control Maintenance Supervisor
- H. R. Banks, Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance "A. C. Tollison, Manager - Nuclear Training
- J. B. Hudson, Project Specialist - License Training "J. R. Bohannon, Director Special Projects
- R. B. Starkey, Manager, Environmental Services "W. W. Webster, Manager, R&CS Section
- 0. B. Waters, Principal Engineer - Operations
- J. P. Thompson, Cperations Supervisor .
- R. T. Garner, Shift Foreman
- H. R. Goodwin, Senior Scecialist - Emergency Preparedness
- E. M. Bean, Corporate Communications - Emergency Preparedness Communications
- 0. E. Hollar, Associate General Counsel
- A. L. Garrou, Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness
- B. W. Morgan, Senior Specialist - Health Physics
- J. H. Smith, Director - Nuclear and Simulator Training
- R. M. Coats, Assistant to Group Executive - Fossil-Generation and Power Transmission
- E. E. Johnson,. Principal Specialist - Document Services "J. W. McDuffee, Radiation Control Supervisor
- A. Klemp, Operations Quality Control Supervisor
- C. E. Rose, Operations Quality Control Supervisor
- D. R. Elkins, Radiation Control Foreman "W. H. Batts, Maintenance Supervisor
- M. E. Jackson, Project Engineer - Maintenance
- H. Lipa, Environmental and Chemistry Supervisor
- S. Hamilton, Manager - Construction Procurement and Contracts Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, and office personnel.
t ._ .- , _. . _ _
2 I
NRC Resident Inspectors
- G. Maxwell "R. Prevatte
- Attended exit interview
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summa-ized on May 19, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary"any of the materials provided d
to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
- 3. Exercise Scenario (82301)
The scenario for the emergency exercise' was reviewed to determine that
- provisions had been -made to test the integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within the licensee, State and local organizations emergency plans and staff as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14),
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.F and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.N.
The scenario was reviewed in advance of the scheduled exercise date and was discussed with licensee representatives on several occasions. While no major problems with the scenario were identified during the review, several inconsistencies became apparent during pre-exercise practice drills.
~
To preclude the possibility that the inconsistencies might detract from the licensee's overall performance, a new scenario was developed prior to the exercise. The new scenario was consistent with the previously established timelines and was reviewed by the inspectors and the licensee controller organization. All scenario questions were resolved prior to the exercise.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 4. Assignment of Responsibility (82301)
This area was observed to determine that primary responsibilities for emergency response by the licensee have been specifically established and that adequate staff was available to respond to an emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.A, and specific 4 criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.A.
The inspectors observed that specific emergency assignments had been made for the licensee's emergency response organization and that there ' was adequate staff available to respond to the simulated emergency. The initial eh
I i-l 3 -
1 response organization was augmented by designated licensee representatives and the capability for long-term or continuous staffing of the emergency
] response organization was demonstrated. The inspector had no further i questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 5. Onsite Emergency Organization (82301) l The licensee's onsite emergency organization was observed to determine that the responsibilities for emergency response were unambiguously defined, that -
1 adequate staffing was provided to insure initial facility accident response in key functional areas at all times, and that the interfaces were specified
] as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV. A,
, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.B.
The inspectors observed that the initial onsite emergency organization was well defined and that adequate staff was available to fill key functional positions within the emergency organization. Augmentation of the initial emergency response organization was accomplished through mobilization of off-shift personnel and Corporate assistance. The on-duty Shift Supervisor assumed the duties of Site Emergency Coordinato'r promptly upon the initiation of the simulated emergency and directed the response until relieved by the Plant General Manager. T,he inspectors had no further 4
questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 6. Emergency Response Support and Resources (82301)
This area was observed to determine that arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, that arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and that other organizations capable-of augmenting the planned response have been identified as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV. A, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.C.
State and local staff were accommodated at the near-site Emergency Operations Facility. ' Licensee contact with offsite organizations was prompt and assistance resources from various agencies were prepared to assist in the simulated emergency. The inspector had no further questions in this 4 area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
1 l
l M
4 l 7. Emergency Classification System (82301)
This area was observed to determine that a standard emergency classification and action level scheme was in use by the licensee as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.C, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.O.
An inspector observed that the emergency classification system was in effect as stated in the Radiological Emergency Plan and in the Implementing Procedures. The system appeared to be adequate for the classification of the simulated accident and the emergency procedures provided for initial and continuing mitigating actions during the simulated emergency. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
- No violations or deviations were identified. -
,# 8. Notification Methods and Procedures (82301) i This area was observed to determine that procecures have been established I
for notification by the licensee of State and local response organizations and emergency personnel, and that the content of initial and follow-up messages to response organizations had been established; and means to i
provide early notification to the populace within the plume exposure pathway have been established as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b); 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.0, and specific criteria in NUREG-0654 Section II.E.
The prompt notification system (pNS) for alerting the public within the plume exposure pathway was in place and operational. The system was activated during this exercise to simulate warning the public of significant events occurring at the reactor site. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 9. Emergency Communications (82301)
This area was. observed to determine that provisions existed for prompt !
communications among principal response organizations and emergency ,
personnel as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, '
paragraph IV.E, and specific criteria in NOREG-0654, Section II.F.
Communications among the licensee's emergency response facilities and l emergency organizatior, and between the licensee's emergency response organization and offsite authorities were good. No communication related problems were identified during this exercise.
No violations or deviations were identified.
M
l l
5 ;
- 10. Public Education and Information (82301)
This area was observed to determine that information concerning the simulated emergency was made available for dissemination to the public as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.0, and -
specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.G.
Information was proviced to tne media and the public in advance of the exercise. The informa-ion included details on how the public would be notified and what initial actions they should take in an emergency. A rumor control program was also in place. A Corporate and Plant Media Center was established and was well equipped and coordinated. The inspector had no j
)
further cuestions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified. .
- 11. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (82301)
This area was observed to determine that adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support an emergency response were provided and maintained as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E, and
- specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.H.
)
i The inspectors observed the activation. .staf fing and operation of the emergency response facilities and evaluated equipment provided for emergency use during the exercise.
- a. Control Room - An inspector observed that Control Room personnel acted promptly to initiate emergency response to the simulated emergency.
, Emergency procedures were readily available and the resoonse was prompt i
and effective. The inspector had no further cuestions in tnis area.
- b. Technical Support Center (TSC) - The TSC was activate 6 and staffed promptly upon notification by the Site Emergency Coorcinator of the simulated emergency conditions leading to an Alert emergency classi-fication. The TSC staff appeared ~ to be knowledgeable concerning their emergency, responsibilities and TSC operations proceeded smoothly. The TSC appeared to have adequate equipment for the support of the assigned staff. The inspectors had no further questions in this area.
- c. Operations Support Center (OSC) - The OSC was staffed promptly upon activation by the Site Emergency Coordinator. An inscector observed 1 that teams were formed promptly, briefed, and dispatcned efficiently.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
- d. Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) - The EOF is located at the Shearon Harris Energy and Environmental Center, about two miles from the reactor site. The facility appears to be adequately designed, equipped and staffed to support an emergency response. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
I am
, .. -, -, - ~ . - , -
6
- e. Corporate Emergency Operations Center (CEOC) - The CEOC is located in the Raleigh Corporate offices. The facility appears to be adequately equipped and staffed to support an emergency response. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 12. Accident Assessment (82301)
This area was observed to determine that adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite 6.- consequences of a radiological emergency condition were in use as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.B. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.I.
The accident assessment program includes both an engineering assessment of plant status and an assessment of radiological hazards to both onsite and offsite personnel resulting from the accident. During the exercise, the engineering accident assessment team functioned effectively in analyzing the plant status so as to make recommendations to the Site Emergency Coordinator concerning mitigating actions to reduce damage to plant equipment, to prevent release of radioactive materials, and to terminate the emergency condition.
Radiological assessment activities are spre'd a over several groups. A group in the TSC was estimating the radiological impact in the plant based on inplant monitoring and onsite measurements. Radiological effluent data was received in the TSC. The TSC and EOF calculations were done in parallel and compared on a timely basis both with each other and with the results obtained by the State of North Carolina. The results were also compared with the data obtained in the EOF from the offsite monitoring groups.
The dose assessment methods incorporated both detailed meteorological parameters and inplant data to predict the consequences of a radiological release and to evaluate the actual (simulated) release. Default values were available for use should there be any question concerning the reliability of the meteorologi. cal instrumentation. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
A helicopter was used to transport field teams as well as for aerial monitoring. No procedures defining aerial monitoring practices were observed to be used. The inspector discussed aerial plume tracking with licensee representatives, including proper procedures such as:
7 (1) contamination surveys of the helicooter following flight in a plume, (2) cescription of personnel dosimetry for flight crews, (3) development of maps appropriate for aerial tracking, and (4) radio use (and equipment) consistent with ground teams. The licensee agreed to evaluate the aerial plume tracking system to determine if improvements were necessary. This exercise weakness will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-400/85-20-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 13. Protective Responses (82301)
This area was observed to determine that guidelines for protective actions during the emergenny, consistent with Feceral guidance, were developec and in place, and protective actions for emergency workers, including evacuation of nonessential personnel, were implemented promptly as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.J.
An inspector verified that the licensee had and used emergency procedures for formulating protective action recommendations for offsite populations within the 10 mile . emergency planning zone. The licensee's protective action recommendations were consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other criteria, and notifications were made to the appropriate State and local authorities within the 15-minute criteria.
An inspector observed that protective actions were instituted for onsite emergency workers which included periodic radiation surveys in the facility, evacuation of nonessential personnel, and consideration of the issuance of potassium iodide to essential personnel. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 14. Radiological Exposure Control (82301)
This area was observed to determine that means for controlling radiological exposures, in. an emergency, were established and implemented for emergency workers and that they included exposure guidelines consistent with EPA recommendations as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(11), and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.K.
An inspector noted that radiological exposures were controlled throughout the exercise by issuing emergency workers supplemental dosimeters and by periodic surveys in the emergency response facilities. Exposure guidelines were in place for various categories of emergency actions and. adequate protective clothing and respiratory protection were available and used as appropriate. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
, , , . , , _ , - - . n_.-.n. ,,- -
8
- 15. Medical and Public Health Support (82301)
This area was observed to determine that arrangements were made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragrapn IV.E. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.L.
An inspector observec the emergency mecical rescue activities at tne accident scene, and treatment by the staff at the Rex Hospital. In all portions of the exercise, acceptable judgement was displayed with regard to first aid practices, decontamination of the patient, and contamination control. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 16. Recovery and Reentry Planning (82301)
This area was observeMo determive that general plans were made for e recovery and re-entry as reauired by 10. CFR 50.47(b)(13), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragrapn IV.H., and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.M.
4 The licensee developed general plans and procedures for re-entry and recovery wnich addressed both existing and potential conditions. The plan contained the position / title, authority and responsibilities of each key individual in the recovery organization. A separate staff was employed to I develop the recovery plan. The inscector had no further questions in this area.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 17. Exercise Critique (82301)
The licensee's critique of the emergency exercise was observed to determine that deficiencies identified as a result of the exercise and weaknesses i noted in the licensee's emergency response organization were formally presented to licensee management for corrective actions as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14),10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.E. and specific criteria in NUREG-0654, Section II.N.
j The exercise critique was conducted after the conclusion of the exercise.
.i Licensee management, key exercise participants, and NRC representatives were i present. The licensee discussed areas of tne exercise in which items for possible improvement were identified. The inspectors determined that the ,
! critique was comprenensive and acequately addressed weaknesses identified in i the l'icensee's emergency response program during this exercise.
l M
e
,77,__, .---y-- , _ - , _ , , . , , - , , . , , , , _ .,._,7,,,,.,_,._,,y_ . , - . ,--.-..,,_--%,-- . , - . . , , , . , ._ r_
9 A public critique was held on May 19, 1985. Representatives from licensee management, the State, local governments, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the NRC presented their preliminary findings on the exercise.
No violations and deviations were identified. ,
- 18. Federal Evaluation Team Report (82301)
The report by the Federal Evaluation Team (Regional Assistance Committee and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV staff) concerning the activities of offsite agencies during the exercise will be forwarded by separate correspondence.
No violations or deviations were identified.
I O
Attachment 4 1
- Ms. Nina B211 l Assistant Director [ July 11, 1985]
Nuclear Infonnation and Resource Service '
1346 Connecticut Avenue N.W., 4th F1oor
- Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Bell:
This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1985, and subsequent telephone conversation with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff on June 25, 1985, on behalf of Wells Eddlanan, in which you requested, under the Freedon of Infonnation Act, documents relating to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant radiological mergency response exercise on May 17-18, 1985.
As indicated to you by phone, all of the material requested, except one enclosure, had to be obtained fran either our FEMA Region IV office or the State of North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. I'll respond directly to the four itens as listed in your letter:
l
'! 1. Enclosure # 1 entitled "N.C. EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS for the SHEARON ij j HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, MAY 17-18, 1985" contains the objectives and scenario used in the May 1985 energency response exercise.
- 2. Enclosure # 2 contains all of the evaluation crtieria and/or assessment jl guidelines used by FEMA Region IV to evaluate the May exercise.
J'
- 3. Enclosure # 3 is the transcript of the public meeting / critique held the afternoon of May 19, 1985, at the Apex Senior High School, Laura i Duncan Road. Apex, North Carolina. The exercise evaluation report for the May 17-18, 1985, Shearon Harris exercise and the FEMA interim findings on offsite Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant are now being canpleted. They will 1
l be sent to you in a few days concurrent with FEMA's furnishing then to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission.
l 4. FEMA does not have an established policy regarding the access of persons intervening before the Nuclear Regulatory Canmission to areas
! used in the exercise, meetings, and critiques in general and for the Shearon Harris 1985 exercise in particular. Since State ar.d local facilities are used, any policy would be appropriately established by
', either State and/or local governnental authorities.
ii Enclosures
!<I As Stated
- Sincerely, i
, Samuel W. Speck i Associate Director State and Local Progres and Support
! **L...._.........
I
I Hs. Nina Bell Assistant Director M Nuclear Infornation and Resource service IE 13A6 Connecticut Avenue N.W., 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Bell:
This is in further response to your letter of June 11, 1985, and our subsequent letter of reply dated July 11, 1985, in which you requested, under the Freedon of Infornation Act, docunents relating to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station radiological energency response exercise on May 17 18, 1985. .
We stated in the July 11, 1985, letter that the exercise evaluation report for the t'.ay 17-18, 1985, Shearon Harris exercise and the FEMA interim findings on offstte radiological energency response preparedness for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station would be sent to you cnneurrent with FEMA's furnishing then to the U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory i Connission (NRC). They are both enclosed, along with our transmittal letter to the NRC.
i Enclosures As Stated Sincerely, 1%4to Richard W. Krinn Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs 1
l
. 'y
' ( ut.EIGH (NC) TIMES 3-20-85 Section A, Page 3 #
Nuclear plant response testecl bill By KYLE MARSIIALL resulis hailed the situation," he said today. One Times statT writer concern is that the emergency planning zone that includes all ne emergency drill near the areas within a 10-mile radius of
. Shearon IIarris Nuclear Plant the plar.t is not big enough, Martin that kept local law enforcement said. ,
officers busy over the weekend "The 10-mile limit has no scien-has been termed a success by tific basis at all," he said. "If you local officials and Carolina Power have a severe accident, there's no
& Light Co. way to tell whatsoever whether ending on Saturday with a radia-J. Russell Capps, Wake director you're going to get radiation tion leak. -
of emergency management, said within 10,20, or even 50 miles."
the two< fay drill testmg the re- At a public hearing on the drill The drill was required by the yesterday, held at Apex Senior sponse capabilities of emergency Nuclear Regulatory Commission teams exceeded his expectations. before a commercial operation ' liigh School, severalthey residents "I was very pleased." he said said the only prob!cm noticed license for the plant can be was that the emergency sirens in today. "I don't know of any hitch granted to CP&L. The $3 billion at allin the field. It fully exceeded the area either didn't work or 4 plant, located about 20 miles our expectations." southwest of Raleigh,is scheduled , weren't loud enough. De strens g A spokesman for CP&L called are sounded to warn citizens to to begin producing electricity by turn on their radios and televi-the exercise a " tremendous suc* September 1986.
cess" because it gave local emer* sions for further information on i Capps and Ms. Bean both said gency management teams and the that NRC representatives, as well the emergency, / * '
utility a chance to work together as officials present from the Fed. Ms. Bean saId some of the in prepartng the emergency re- eral Emergency Management siten lant have not sponse "As far as the company person-Agency, were pleased with the FCt ce 11 r tested. d drill. The two agencies will re-net and the off site personnel are lease a full report on the exercise concerned, they all exhibited a withm a few weeks.
high level of professionalism," Ms. Bean said it wouldn't be said Elizabeth M. Bean. possible to estimate how much the But David II. Martin of Raleigh, drill cost CP&L to organize and energy committee chairman of carry out because of the large the Conservation Council of North number of people involved. As Carolina, which opposes nuclear many as 4.000 state and local power, said the drill was not an officials, CP&L personnel, health adequate preparation for a possi- agency workers, federal nuclear ble emergency- regulators and citizen volunteers "The problem with this drill is had some connection with the that it's not a realistic approach to exercise.
The drill tested the effective-ness of emergency response plans by CP&L, the state Division of Emergency Management and law enforcement teams from Wake, ifarnett, Chatham and Lee coun-ties. It also was intended to test the coordination of news confer- -
ences and statements to see if the public would be adequately in-formed in the event of an emer.
gency.
The mock emergency started Friday with the announcement of a small fire in a buildmg near the plant, and escalated into a full.
blown nuclear emergency before
.,l' ,
.t e
e- em . am a w
s FUQUAY-VARINA (NC) INDEPENDENT 5-22-85 Pago 10 Officials describe emergency test as and local goseenments to
- Despite some problems with respond to nuclear emergencies sirens. officials evaluating Caro- and passes its critique to the ggggg3g lina Power & Light Company's Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
two day mock emergency at the Shearon Ifarris Nuclear Power ..We feel the escreise w a5 hits. O'Briant said she was Plant at New Ilill have described successful, and it adequately concerned that residents would
,,,_, th2 test as a success, demonstrated the ability of not have heard the sirens at allif Russell Capps, coordinator for off site personnel to respond the drill had been held at night.
Wake County's Emergency should there be an emergency at when people are asleep. or if k hfanagement the Shearon 11arris Nuclear- had occurred in cold Seather, Wake County,0fGee, noted s sirens failed Plant." Woodard said.
to that when people keep their doors sound during a scheduled drillon Re mock emergency started and windows closed.
Friday, but he added that the Friday morning with the "We didn't think much about sirens did work effectively on announcement of a pretended it when thev (CP&L) tested the -
Saturday. fire at the plant. The scenario sirens a while bsck, because we
,,We aren.t sure of the reason continued to worsen throughout thought they weren't going full why they didn't work (on the day until a site emergency blast." Mrs. O'llriant said.
Friday). Capps said. ney did was declared at 2:25 p.m. "We're not protesting the plant.
At 3:10 p.m. on Friday CP&L We just want the sirens to be
( ""* work twice on Saturday. Issued to ares media sources a Overall. Capps described the loud enough to wake us up in t;st as a success and said simulated bulletin announcing -
that higher than. normal levels of the winter with the kids talking participating emergency agen- radioactivity were building cies excelled in their tasks. and the TV on. you wouldn't hear Inside the plant's containment it."
Capps made his remarks at a building. Sirens were scheduled James L. Willis the plant's public hearing held at Apes to sound in the four counties general manager, said the 62 Senior liigh School Sunday (Wake, Lee. Ilarnett and sirens within the 10 mile radius efternoon. Officials from CP&L of the plant were designed to '
and federal, state and county government held the meeting to Chatham) with land within a provide a noise level sufficient to critique the drill and to answer 10 mile radius of the plant. alert residents, ne sirens also On Saturday, the emergency are placed close enough together questions submitted by the to provide some oserlapping pubhc. continued to escalate until an Area fire, police and rescue evacuation of residents living in sound if one should fail to personnel did not tant activate, he said. ,
attend Sunday s meeting, but they, too* a five would mis have beenradius called forof the fn an Willis said CP&L officials in interviews hionday described actual occurrence. Sirens sound. would test the siren near Mrs. ,
ed throug 1out a 10 mile radius of O'Briant's home.
th2 test as a. success. They said th;y expect to meet with the plant to alert residents to Also, a FEhfA official told cmcrgency planning officials at a turn on their radios or televisions hirs. O'Briant that the sirens 1 ter date to evaluate the drill in for further information carried have not been officially tested.
d;pth. . over the Emergency Broadcast and when they are tested the System. federal agency will conduct a The drill was one step in CP&L,s attempt to obtam a The sirens were to alert the telephone survey to find out public that radiation gas was where people are not hearing the i
leaking from a stack, or large sirens and vhere the " dead license for the llarris plant. chimney, at the plant. The spots" are.
which is scheduled to begin make.believe leak was contained commercial operation in Sep- within half an hour, and the in addition. Willis said backup t;mber 1986. In addition to the systems are provided through -
simulation ended at 1:35 p.m. local fire, rescue and police mock emergency, the pubhc At Sunday's hearing on the hnring was required as a part of personnel to alert the pubhe.
drill Jessie O'Briant of New lilli in Fuquay Varina area emer.
tha licensing process. brought a list of names of 51 During the hearing Glenn C. genc'y personnel traveled people who live within five miles throughout local zones affected Woodard Jr. of the Federal of the plant and who said the Emergency Management Agen. by the alert and announced over sirens were not loud enough. public address systems that cy (FEMA) said the exercise generally was successful, al. residents should turn on their though he added that further radios or telesisions for inore training of emergency personnel information, might be necessary. FEMA evaluates the capability of state
, \
~
, P .
LILLINGTON (NC) HARNETT COUNTY NEWS 5-22-85 Section A, Pa .:e 1 h_uc. tear mant , test,
.n ernergency conducted any situati n. In this respect the BY ED MENNINGER emergency situation which may ever c mpany will be distributing a total Repeatedly made crystal clear to occur at this installation.
inf rmati n b klet t the public this the population of this area at a public Some 70 persons attended ai h:aring in Apex Sunday afternoon is critique and review at Apex High fall, and annually the booklet will be th) fact that everyone concerned in School of the pre licensing exercise, updated and distnbuted a new, Willis any way with the Sheaton Harris which tested emergency prepared- eIP lained.
Nuclear Power Plant west of Aper is ness within a 50-mile radius of the Lillington and most of Harnett t: tally prepared to handle any plant Friday and Saturday. Emergen. County are well within the 50-mile 7
" ingestion exposure pathway" sur.
' " ' ' ~
cy management directors in the four rounding the plant which is one of affected counties reported on prepar- three in this state, but any "inci-ations which have been made in their i dent" at the plant would not respective counties. They include necessarily affect the whole area, it Wake. Lee, Harnett and Chatham was pointed out. I Counties. lis noting this fact, state emergency Speaking for Harnett, Henry G. management director Vance E. Kee Johnson said about 1400 persons in i e*P l ained that the state's plan for a Buckhorn and Hector's Creek Town. . situation calls for local management ,
ships reside within the critical with the state assisting. But if the 10 mile radius area from the plant. . governor eventually declares a situa- i
- The county Social Services depart. tion a " disaster" case then the state ment would be in charge of shelter. office would take charge of all ing the county health department l directions and controls with county would have a role in determining officials assisting.
whether any water and food supplies Kee reviewed the state's over.all have been contaminated by radiologi- P,l an at some length, and later an
' cal emissions. emergency warnings overview of the area's situation by would eminate from Sheriff Lewis :the Federal Emergency Management Rosser's communications center in . Agency was presented. After the the courthouse, the volunteer fire and eight designated speakers had con.
rescue units have been extensively cluded their presentations, questions trained in this particular respect for .from the audience, which had been the past half year, Johnson advised. , solicited before the meeting's start, James Willis, speaking for Caro. were answered by the panel. _
lina Power & Light Co., emphasized ! A system of warning sirens has that the chances for an " incident" at been set up throughout the 10 mile the plant "are extremely remote." area, and a woman from Newhill '
but such a possibility does exist and which is located within two miles of IF (that was the afternoon's big word) ; the plant complained that during the it comes to pass the public needs to ' esercise last weekend she couldn't '
know what to do in any emergency hear the sirens nearest to her and to be assured in advance that ' residence. Willis assured her that local offi:.ials are prepared to combat
~
they being would be checked as perhaps l -
defective.
Another woman asked how the emergency planning might work if a situation arose when many workers might be unavailable to help with it.
" Lady, we're so well trained that we'll' succeed even with a short staff " moderator Joseph F. Myers -
replied.
.