ML083300585

Medical, Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination, and Reception Center Drills Evaluated on 10/21-22/08

ML083300585
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	11/21/2008
From:	Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	NRC Region 4
Shared Package
ML083300523	List: ML083300543 ML083300580 ML083300585
References
Download: ML083300585 (87)

Text

Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Drill Report - 2008-10-21 Final Report - Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program 2008-11-21

Drill Report Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Drill Date: 2008-10-21 Report Date: 2008-11-21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency REP Program 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Executive Summary Chapter 2 Introduction Chapter 3 Drill Overview Section 3.1 EPZ Description Section 3.2 Drill Participants Chapter 4 Drill Evaluation and Results Section 4.1 Summary Results of Drill Evaluation Section 4.2 Status of Jurisdictions Evaluated 4.2.1 Support Jurisdictions 4.2.1.1 Pontchartrain Center Reception Center 4.2.1.2 West Jefferson Medical Center 4.2.1.3 Paulina-Grand Point-Belmont Volunteer Fire Department 4.2.2 Private Jurisdictions 4.2.2.1 West Jefferson Air Care Ambulance Appendices Appendix 1 - Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix 2 - Drill Evaluators and Team Leaders Appendix 3 - Drill Evaluation Areas and Extent of Play Agreement Appendix 4 - Drill Scenario and Timeline Appendix 5 - Planning Issues

1. Executive Summary On October 21 - 22, 2008, out-of-sequence Reception Center, Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination and Medical Drills were conducted for the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (Waterford 3), located near New Orleans, Louisiana. Personnel from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA) Region VI, evaluated all activities. The purpose of the drill was to assess the level of preparedness of local responders to react to a simulated radiological emergency at Waterford 3.

Personnel from the City of Paulina, West Jefferson Parish, the American Red Cross, and Waterford 3 participated in the drills. Evaluation Areas demonstrated included:

Emergency Operations Management, Protective Action Implementation, and Support Operations/Facilities. Cooperation, training and teamwork of all participants was evident during the drills, and DHS/FEMA wishes to acknowledge these efforts.

This report contains the final evaluation of the out-of-sequence drills. The participants demonstrated knowledge of their emergency response plans and procedures and adequately demonstrated them. There were no Deficiencies, one Area Requiring Corrective Action (ARCA), that was corrected on the spot, and one Plan Issue identified during the drills.

1

2. Introduction On December 7, 1979, the President directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assume the lead responsibility for all off site nuclear planning and response. FEMA's activities under the REP Program are conducted pursuant to 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 350, 351 and 352. These regulations are a key element in the REP Program that was established following the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station accident in March 1979.

Rule 44 CFR 350 establishes the policies and procedures for the DHS/FEMA Region VI Office's initial and continued approval of tribal, state and local governments radiological emergency planning and preparedness for commercial nuclear power plants. This approval is contingent, in part, on state and local government participation in joint exercises with licensees.

FEMA's Region VI responsibilities in radiological emergency planning for fixed nuclear facilities include the following: Taking the lead in off-site emergency planning and in there view and evaluation of radiological emergency response plans (RERPs) and procedures developed by state and local governments; Determining whether such plans and procedures can be implemented on the basis of observation and evaluation of exercises of the plans and procedures conducted by state and local governments; Responding to requests by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and FEMA dated June 17, 1993 (Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 176, September 14, 1993); and Coordinating the activities of Federal agencies with responsibilities in the radiological emergency planning process:

- U.S. Department of Commerce- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- U.S. Department of Energy- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services- U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA 2

- U.S. Department of Transportation- U.S. Department of Agriculture- U.S. Department of the Interior- U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Representatives of these agencies serve on the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), which is chaired by the Branch Chief of the DHS/FEMA Region VI Office. Formal approval of the RERPs was granted by FEMA on April 25, 1988 under 44 CFR 350.

The DHS/FEMA Region VI Office evaluated a drill on October 21 - 22, 2008, to assess the capabilities of local emergency preparedness organizations in implementing their RERPs and procedures to protect the public health and safety during a radiological emergency involving the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station. The purpose of this report is to present the results and findings on the performance of the offsite response organizations (OROs) during a simulated radiological emergency.

The findings presented in this report are based on the evaluations of the federal evaluation team, with final determinations made by the DHS/FEMA Region VI Office RAC Chair. The criteria utilized in the evaluation process are contained in:

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, November 1980; and Interim REP Program Manual, including the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation Methodology (August 2002).

Section 3 of this report, entitled "Drill Overview," presents basic information and data relevant to the drills. This section of the report contains a description of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and a listing of all participating jurisdictions and functional entities that were evaluated.

Section 4 of this report, entitled "Drill Evaluation and Results," presents detailed information on the demonstration of applicable evaluation areas at each jurisdiction or functional entity. If applicable, this section also contains: (1) descriptions of all Deficiencies and Areas Requiring Corrective Actions (ARCAs) assessed during the drill and recommended corrective actions and (2) descriptions of unresolved ARCAs assessed during previous exercises and the status of the OROs efforts to resolve them.

3

3. Drill Overview This section contains data and basic information relevant to the October 21 - 22, 2008, Reception Center and Medical drills to test the offsite response capabilities in the area surrounding the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station. This section of the report includes a description of the Emergency Planning Zone and a listing of all participating jurisdictions and functional entities that were evaluated.

3.1. EPZ Description The area within 10 miles of Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (Waterford 3) is entirely in the State of Louisiana. The most prominent natural feature in the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is the Mississippi River running from west-northwest to east-southeast through the middle of the area. The Waterford 3 EPZ involves two parishes, St. John the Baptist Parish and St. Charles Parish.

There are several communities near the site within the 10-mile EPZ. These include Killona, Montz, Norco, Destrehan, Hahnville, Luling, LaPlace, Edgard, Reserve, and Garyville. The 2000 census estimated the population of the EPZ to be 91,116 persons mainly concentrated in towns along the Mississippi River. There are two hospitals, three nursing homes, and two incarceration facilities in the EPZ.

The major highways include I-10, I-310, I-55, U.S. Highways 61, 51, and 90, and Louisiana Highways 18 and 3127. There are four railways in the EPZ, which are the Canadian National Railroad, Kansas City Southern Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Burlington Northern Railroad. The Waterford 3 EPZ is divided into 16 Protective Action Sections for the purpose of emergency response and implementation of protective actions.

3.2. Drill Participants Agencies and organizations of the following jurisdictions participated in the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station drill:

Support Jurisdictions East Jefferson Fire Department 4

East Jefferson General Hospital Emergency Medical Services Kenner Police Department Parish of Jefferson Emergency Management Paulina-Grand Point-Belmont Volunteer Fire Department Jefferson Parish Private Jurisdictions American Red Cross City of Kenner Department of Social Services Pontchartrain Center Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station West Jefferson Medical Center 5

4. Drill Evaluation and Results 4.1. Summary Results of Drill Evaluation 6

Table 1 - Summary of Drill Evaluation DATE: 2008-10-21 SITE: Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station, LA A: ARCA, D: Deficiency, M: Met Ponchartrain Center West Jefferson Air Care Amb.

WJMC Paulina VFD Emergency Operations Management Mobilization 1a1 Facilities 1b1 Direction and Control 1c1 Communications Equipment 1d1 Equip & Supplies to support operations 1e1 M M M M Protective Action Decision Making Emergency Worker Exposure Control 2a1 Radiological Assessment and PARs 2b1 Decisions for the Plume Phase -PADs 2b2 PADs for protection of special populations 2c1 Rad Assessment and Decision making for the Ingestion Exposure Pathway 2d1 Rad Assessment and Decision making concerning Relocation, Reentry, and Return 2e1 Protective Action Implementation Implementation of emergency worker exposure control 3a1 M M M M Implementation of KI decision 3b1 Implementation of protective actions for special populations - EOCs 3c1 Implementation of protective actions for Schools 3c2 Implementation of traffic and access control 3d1 Impediments to evacuation are identified and resolved 3d2 Implementation of ingestion pathway decisions - availability/use of info 3e1 Materials for Ingestion Pathway PADs are available 3e2 Implementation of relocation, re-entry, and return decisions.

3f1 Field Measurement and Analysis Adequate Equipment for Plume Phase Field Measurements 4a1 Field Teams obtain sufficient information 4a2 Field Teams Manage Sample Collection Appropriately 4a3 Post plume phase field measurements and sampling 4b1 Laboratory operations 4c1 Emergency Notification and Public Info Activation of the prompt alert and notification system 5a1 Activation of the prompt alert and notification system - Fast Breaker 5a2 Activation of the prompt alert and notification system - Exception areas 5a3 Emergency information and instructions for the public and the media 5b1 Support Operations/Facilities Mon / decon of evacuees and emergency workers, and registration of evacuees 6a1 MM Mon / decon of emergency worker equipment 6b1M Temporary care of evacuees 6c1 MTransportation and treatment of contaminated injured individuals 6d1M M7 a.b.4.2. Status of Jurisdictions Evaluated 4.2.1. Support Jurisdictions 4.2.1.1. Pontchartrain Center Reception Center MET: 1.e.1, 3.a.1, 6.a.1, 6.c.1.

AREAS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION: 6.a.1.

ISSUE NO.: 70-08-6a1-A-01 CRITERION: Reception center/emergency worker facility has appropriate space, adequate resources, and trained personnel to provide monitoring, decontamination, and registration of evacuees and/or emergency workers.(NUREG-0654, J.10.h., K.5.b)

CONDITION: The vehicle monitor moved too fast and held the probe too far from the vehicle surface to properly detect the presence of radiation.

Secondly, when the vehicle monitor identified contamination he did not respond appropriately by reporting the contamination levels and allowing the recorder to record the contamination levels on the appropriate forms.

POSSIBLE CAUSE: The vehicle monitor did not refer to the procedure for proper monitoring technique and reporting procedures. This is a new location and additional training on procedures and technique is recommended.

REFERENCE:

NUREG-0654, K.5.a (Decontamination and Monitoring of emergency personnel, supplies, instruments, and equipment and for waste disposal) and FEMA-REP-22 (Contamination Monitoring Guidance for Portable Instruments Used for Radiological Emergency Response to Nuclear Power Plant Accidents).

EFFECT: The monitor may not have detected contamination on the vehicle because he was using the improper monitoring technique. In addition, the monitor did not respond appropriately when contamination was detected on 8

c.d.e.f.a.b.c.d.e.f.a.b.c.d.e.f.the vehicle. This undetected and unreported contamination may result in a spread of contamination to other clean areas or persons.

CORRECTIVE ACTION DEMONSTRATED: The controller coached the monitor on the proper technique and the monitor was able to re-demonstrate the activity using effective monitoring techniques. The controller stopped play for the second time and coached the monitor on the proper procedure.

After coaching, the monitor was able to respond appropriately by informing the team's recorder of the contamination levels found and directing the vehicle driver to the impound area.

DEFICIENCY: None NOT DEMONSTRATED: None PRIOR ISSUES - RESOLVED: None PRIOR ISSUES - UNRESOLVED: None 4.2.1.2. West Jefferson Medical Center MET: 1.e.1, 3.a.1, 6.d.1.

AREAS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION: None DEFICIENCY: None NOT DEMONSTRATED: None PRIOR ISSUES - RESOLVED: None PRIOR ISSUES - UNRESOLVED: None 4.2.1.3. Paulina-Grand Point-Belmont Volunteer Fire Department MET: 1.e.1, 3.a.1, 6.a.1, 6.b.1.

AREAS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION: None DEFICIENCY: None NOT DEMONSTRATED: None PRIOR ISSUES - RESOLVED: None PRIOR ISSUES - UNRESOLVED: None 4.2.2. Private Jurisdictions 9

a.b.c.d.e.f.4.2.2.1. West Jefferson Air Care Ambulance MET: 1.e.1, 3.a.1, 6.d.1.

AREAS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION: None DEFICIENCY: None NOT DEMONSTRATED: None PRIOR ISSUES - RESOLVED: None PRIOR ISSUES - UNRESOLVED: None 10 APPENDIX 1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARC Amercian Red Cross ARCA Area Requiring Corrective Action EPZ Emergency Planning Zone ER Emergency Room FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HP Health Physics JPFD Jefferson Parish Fire Department NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIC Officer In Charge OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescent PED Personal Electronic Dosimeter PPE Personal Protective Equipment RAC Regional Assistance Committee REA Radiation Emergency Area RPT Radiation Protection Technician RSO Radiation Safety Officer VFD Volunteer Fire Department WJMC West Jefferson Medical Center 11 APPENDIX 2 DRILL EVALUATORS AND TEAM LEADERS DATE: 2008-10-21, SITE: Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station, LA LOCATION EVALUATOR AGENCY Pontchartrain Center Reception Center

• Nan Calhoun Linda Gee Joseph Keller Elsa Lopez DHS/FEMA DHS/FEMA ICF DHS/FEMA West Jefferson Medical Center Nan Calhoun

• Linda Gee Elsa Lopez DHS/FEMA DHS/FEMA DHS/FEMA Paulina-Grand Point-Belmont Volunteer Fire Department Nan Calhoun Linda Gee Joseph Keller

• Elsa Lopez DHS/FEMA DHS/FEMA ICF DHS/FEMA West Jefferson Air Care Ambulance Joseph Keller ICF* Team Leader 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1.APPENDIX 5 PLANNING ISSUES Paulina-Grand Point-Belmont Volunteer Fire Department ISSUE NO.: 70-08-6a1-P-02 CONDITION: Portions of the Checklist which make up a part of the plan are out of date or misleading. For example, the Personnel Contamination Report (Section IV Form 2 of Checklist 3) shows a CD V-700 as the monitoring instrument rather than the Ludlum 3-A which was the instrument demonstrated. Also,Section III of Checklist 3 discusses a portal monitor.

This devise is not shown in other parts of the Checklist and was not demonstrated.

POSSIBLE CAUSE: Over sight when equipment was updated.

REFERENCE:

NUREG-0654, K.5.b EFFECT: Potential confusion. Also this form can be used as a record of actions taken in an emergency and should be accurate.

RECOMMENDATION: Revise plan to accurately reflect equipment to be used and correct forms for documenting actions.

84