ML20006D816
| ML20006D816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1990 |
| From: | Flynn H, Mcpheters L Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9829 OL, NUDOCS 9002150103 | |
| Download: ML20006D816 (162) | |
Text
-
e a
.l}? {
a
[ g&
L I
00CKETED USNRC.
l February 9, 1990
% FEB -9 P3 :34 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rhCE OF SECRETARY (00CKElit4G ?'d SlI'VICI-ORAIl BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING BOARD JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CilAIRMAN JUDGE RICIIARD F. COLE JUDGE KENNETl! A. McCOLLOM 3
)
-In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Co. of New llampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.-
)
50-444-OL
)
Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
Q.;
NOTICE OF FILING The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) respectfully submits to the-Licensing Board and the parties two reports updating materials included in
'I FEMA's December 1988 consolidated finding on the Seabrook Nuclear Power 1
Station. The first report is FEMA's February 1990, Review and Evaluation of the State of New llampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NIIRERP) for Seabrook Station. This report updates the December 1988 Review and Evaluation of'the N11RERP. The second report is FEMA's January 1990 Report on the Status
'of Corrective Actions, First Exercise and Drill Cycle, 1988 to 1994, of the States of Maine and New IIampshire and New llampshire Yankee's Offsite Response f
'P Organization for the Seabrook Station. The second report updates a % retitles the December 1988 Status.of Corrective Actions-for the 1988 FEMA Graded Exercise.
9002150103 900209 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
PDR hso3
~
p17
- t yv
' 3i f
p Respectfully submitted,-
N,f6Mfl4 FLjMW&.
H.' Joseph Flynn K
Federal _ Emergency _ Management: Agency 1500 C. Street, S.W.
' Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472:
(202) 646-4102' k W NC Linda lluber McPheters i
Federal Emergency Management Agency-Office of General Counsel 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 (202) 646-3941
,1
-l l
1 i
A.
4 i
)
i
m v
('
i ci 00LKETED-V5NRC.
February 9','1990' E
~)0 FEB -9. P 3 :34 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE Of SECRETARY 00CKLllHG & SERVICI.
BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Bli ANCFI -
JUDGE IVAN. W. SMITil, CHAIRMAN JUDGE RICliARD F COLE JUDGE KENNETil A. McCOLLOM c
)
~ In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Co. of New llampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
.Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
-)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Notice of Filing and attachments have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, on February 9, 1990.
.s Administrative Judge Administrative Judge G. Paul Bo11werk, III Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington,' D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative-Law Judge Howard A. Wilber Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 q
. Washington, D.C. 20555' es,
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 5
g h
L, 3
U i
- Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
_ Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James H. Carpenter
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
~ Washington, D.C. 20555
.Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Mitzi A. Young, Attorney I
Office of the General Counsel Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Diane Curran, Esq.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Harmon, Curran & Tousley Ropes & Gray 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 One International Place j
Washington, D.C. 20009 Boston, MA 02110 v
Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Shaines & McEachern p
116 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Box 360 Machester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Judith A. Mizner i
Holmes & Ellis Counsel for Newburyport 47 Winnacunnet Road 79 State Street Hampton, NH 03842 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq.
Jane Doherty Kopelman and Paige, P.C.-
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 77 Franklin Street 3 Market Street Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Jack Dolan 145 South Main St., P.O. Box 38 Federal Emergency Management Agency Bradford, MA 01830 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 s
George D. Bisbee, Esq.
Suzanne Breiseth Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the Attorney General Town of Hampton Falls 25 Capitol Street Drinkwater Road Concord, NH 03301 Hampton Falls, NH 03844
. John Traficonte, Esq.
Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit
. Office of the Attorney General
,6 One Ashburton Place, 19th floor Boston MA 02108 Peter J. Brann, Esq.
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Assistant Attorney. General Hampe & McNicholas Office of the Attorney General 35 Pleasant Street State House Station, #6 Concord, NH 03301 1
Certificate of Service, February 9, 1990, p.2.
f; l9:,
-Allen Lampert'
' William Armstrong W'
Civil-Defense Director-Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833
'Exeter, Nil 03833 g
Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney 4
Board of Selectmen' City Manager RFD #1 - Box 1154 City Hall-Kensington,' Nil 03827 126 Daniel' Street Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Anne Goodman, Chairman William S. Lord-
> Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Town llall - Friend Street 4-Durham, Nil 03824 Amesbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso R. Scott flill-Whilton, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Lagoulis,Ilill-Whilton-& McGuire South Itampton,' Nil 03827 79 State Street Newburyport, MA,01950-Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Norman C. Katner Board of Selectmen
-Superintendent of Schools P.O. Box 710 School Administrative Unit No. 21-North flampton, 101 03862 Alumni Drive llampton, Nil 03842 Sandra F. Mitchell The lionorable Civil Defense Director Gordon J. Ilumphrey Town of Kensington ATTN:
Janet Coit Box 10 RR1-United States Senate East Kingston, Nil 03827 Washington, D.C. 20510 Sv* k / & VlCOtLh%o LINDA IlUBER MCPHETERS Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 (202) 646-3941 Dated: February 9, 1990 4
.)
Certificate of Service, February 9, 1990, p.3.
g,;
=
rma U,-
7 ederal Emergency Management A'gency F
P-I I
Washington, D.C. 20472 S
O A
FEB-9 ~ 1990 Mr. James'M. Taylor-Executive Director for Operations.
r g
C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Taylor:
This :is'to-transmit 'the enclosed two reports updating materials. included-in the' Federal Emergency Manag'ement Agency's'(FEMA) December-1988 consolidated-
+
finding on the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The first report is the Februaryfl990 Review and Evaluation of the State of New Hampshire Radiological' Emergency Response Plan' (NHRERP) for Seabrook Station. This report updates 1
- tne December 1988 Review and Evaluation of the NHRERP.
The second report.
is the' January 1990' Report on the Status of Corrective Actions, First Exercise 'and Drill Cycle,1988'to 1994, of the States of Maine and New
- Hampshire' and: New Hampshire Yankee's Offsite Response' Organization for l
the Seabrook Station. The second report updates and retitles the December-1988 Status?of' Corrective Actions for the 1988 FEMA. Graded Exercise.-
The February 1990 Review and Evaluation of the NHRERP is based on revisions-l e-of that plan recently distributed by the State of New Hampshire. The evaluation-3
-continuesoto support FEMA's finding that-New Hampshire's plans and-preparedness
'are adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the-
' New Hampshire' portion of the' Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures-can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency and are capable of being implemented.
If ~you have any= questions,- please feel free to contact me-at 646-3692. We
~
will be forwarding' additional copies of these reports under separate cover.
Sincerely, Grant C. Peterson Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support
'l 4
li Enclosures L
As Stated L
f;
t g
n
i Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I i;
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FIRiff EXERCISE AND DRILL CYCLE 1988 TO 1994 OF THE STATIS OF MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE lr AND NEW HAMPSHIRE l' ANKEES OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION FOR THE SEABROOK frrATION i
l J
'd h
N
%7@%/
o o
January 1990 t=
i P
L
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 1 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FIRST EXERCISE AND DRILL CYCLE 1988 TO 1994 OF THE STATES OF MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE'S OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION FOR THE SEABROOK STATION g
4 llll "4
A g
A
/
O o
January 1990 1
t i
Jcnusry 1990 CONTENTS E X E C U TI V E S U M M A R Y '...................................................
IV 1 STATE OF M AINE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILL..........................
1 2 STATE O F N EW H A M PSHIRE............................................
6 i
2.1 State of New Hampshire - 1988 Exercise and Drills.....................
6 2.2 State of New Hampshire - 19 8 9 Drills.................................
18 3 NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION...........
19 3.1 New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization - 1988 Ex e rc ise and Drills.................................................
19 3.2 New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization -
19 8 9 D r ills........................................................
28 TABLE 1 Seabrook Exercise and Drill Chronology................................... vill i
'.I l
p,.
l iii
January 1990 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND On December 7,.1979, the President directed the Federal. Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assume lead responsibility for all offsite nuclear planning and response.
FEMA's responsibilities in radiological emergency planning for fixed nuclear facilities include the followings a.
Taking the lead in offsite emergency planning and in the review and evaluation of radiological emergency response plans developed-by State and local governments; b.
Determining whether such plans can be implemented on the basis of observation and evaluation of exercises of the plans conducted by State and local governments; c.
- Responding to requests by the NRC pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between-NRC and FEMA relating to Radiological Emergency Planning.and Preparedness, 50 Fed. Reg. 15485 (April 18,1985);
d.
Coordinating the activities of Federal Agencies with.
responsibilities in the radiological emergency planning process:
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) iv
n
'Joauary 1990 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).
. Representatives of these agencies serve on the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), which is chaired by FEMA.
INTRODUCTION FEMA has the responsibility to determine whether offsite plans for emergencies at nuclear power plants can be implemented.
Federal regulations require offsite response organizations to demonstrate that they can implement their plans over a series of exercises and drills conducted in a six year cycle.
The criteria utilized in the FEMA evaluation process are contained in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 (November 1980), NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supp.
.1- (September 1988), the Exercise Evaluation Methodology (EEM) specified in FEMA memorandum dated June 20,1988, and those expected actions called for by the plans and procedures of the participants. FEMA evaluates plans against a set of 37 objectives.
The basis for the :37 objectives was taken from standards contained in FEMA's 44 CFR 350.5 and the FEMA /NRC documents, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. I and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.- 1, Supp.1. The 37-offsite objective statements were taken from FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EX-3 (February 26,1988) and its March 7,1988 amendment, Managing Pre-Exercise Activities and Post Exercise Meetings.
-For the purpose of exercise and drill assessment and evaluation, FEMA uses the following methodology to classify exercise inadequacles.
FEMA classifies exercise inadequacles as deficiencies or areas requiring corrective actions. Deficiencies (DEF) are demonstrated and observed inadequacles that would cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of a nuclear power facility in the event of radiological emergency. Because of the potential impact of deficiencies on emergency preparedness, they are required to y
January 1990 be promptly corrected through appropriate remedial actions, including remedial exercises, drills, or other actions.
Areas Requiring Corrective Action (ARCA) are demonstrated and observed inadequacles of performance, and although their correction is required, they are not considered, by themselves, to adversely impact public health and safety. In addition to these exercise inadequacles, FEMA identifies Areas Recommended for Improvement (ARFI), which are areas / issues observed during an exercise that are not considered to adversely impact public health and safety. While not required, correction '
or improvement of these areas / issues would enhance an organization's level of emergency preparedness.
REPORT FEMA Headquarters has established policy that requires the Regions to develop.
and maintain a data base on exercise and drill evaluations. This report represents the Exercise lasue Database for the Seabrook site for the first six year cycle of drills and exercises.
When exercise issues are identified, FEMA requests corrective actions to address and resolve the issues. The offsite response organizations present action plans, milestone -
dates, and commitments to resolve the basis for the issues.
This document is a status report on the status of corrective actions. This document is updated periodically to reflect changes in status to identified issues and changes to database (additional dellls and exercises). See Table 1 for the dellls and exercises performed in the six year cycle and reflected in this report.
This report contains three sections, one for each of the three primary emergency response organizations: the States of Maine and New Hampshire and New Hempst!re Yankee's Offsite Response Organization. Within each section, as appropriate, there are subsections that reflect the status of issues identified in individual drills and exercises, vi
January 1990
' The subsections are presented in the following format:
- Subsection headers offsite response _ organization and the-appropriate drill or exercise.
- ' Objective nurabers the number of the applicable objective.
c' Category of exercise inadequacy: DEF, ARCA or plan issue. FEMA notes that we do not track resolution of ARFIs.
Exere'ise inadequacy: a narrative description of the issue. FEMA notes that the complete text can be found in the appropriate exercise or drill report.
Recommended Corrective Action: a statement expressing the item recommended-for implementation or corrective action.
FEMA notes that _ this text represents 'the actions taken by the offsite.
response organization.
' Commitment Dates date established by the offsite response
. organization for corrective action to be complete.
Realization Dates date that the corrective actions were
' implemented.
FEMA notes that this data field contains FEMA verification when appropriate.
vii 8
' January 1990 1
TABLE 1 Seabrook Exercise Chronology First Six Year Cycle 1988-1994 A.
BIENNIAL EXERCISES Exercise Date-Participants June 28-29, 1988 Maine, New Hampshire, and e
New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization B.
MEDICAL DRILLS June-28, 29, 1988 New Hampshire o
June 29, 1988 New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response o
Organization
'* October 3, 1989=
New Hampshire October 4, 1989 New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response e
Organization viii
.r
January 1990 1
- 1. STATE OF MAINE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILL Objec-Category Commitment Realitation tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a 4
ARCA The Media Operations State of Maine is upgrading 6/89 6/89, 25 pairs Center did not have its Media Operations Center.
of telephone ample telephone Additional telephone capability lines install-capability for the will be provided.
ed in Media Operations working press. (F)
Center, 8/7/89 letter.
Verified by R. Donovan 8/89 visit.
5 hRCA Some of the displays State of Maine is upgrading 6/89 6/89, modifica-and status boards in its Media Operations center.
tion made to the Media Briefing Room Adequate display and status Media Center were not mounted or boards will be provided.
for mounting
- displays, arranged for adequate 6/26/89 letter.
use during briefs for the media. (G.3.a)
Verified by R. Donovan 8/89 visit.
TMM will be distributed to 1/89 (THM) 12/88, Plan 6
ARCA Non-Troop A personnel were not provided all ACP & TCP responding distributed, instructions on the use organizations.
12/29/88 letter. TMMS of dosimetry which are have been included as App. B of distributed to the Traf fic Manager >ent Manual (TMM). (K.3.a-b) all responding organizations.
1
- 2.
January 1990i
- 1. IFFATE OF MAINE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILLS (Cont %$
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment-Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy
. Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date An instruction card for EW 6/89' 6/89, Instruc-6 (Cont'd) exposure control vill be (Instruc-tion card developed.
tion card)' developed and distributed, 10/19/89 letter.
Training will be accomplished 1989 Training. con-during the next annual cycle.
(Training ducted in cycle)
Sept. & Oct.,-
10/19/89 letter.
8 ARCA The air sampling pump' Pump was calibrated 8/88.
8/88 8/88, Pump was was last calibrated in Plan specifies maintenance c.alibrated.
September 1986. (H.10) program which is viewed to be adequate. This piece of equip-ment inadvertently missed its calibration cycle.
The TMM will be distributed 1/89 (TMM) 12/88, Plan 20 ARCA Some personnel at ACP's were not fully knowl-to all ACP & TCP responding.
distributed.
edgeable about the five organizations.
12/29/88..
groups of individuals letter. ~ TMMS who were to be allowed _
have been access past the ACP.
distributed to (J.10.j) all responding organizations.
m-January 1990
[3
- 1. STATE OF MAINE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIA (Cont'ef)
Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date' Date b
a Training will be accomplished 1989 Training 20 (Cont'd) during the next annual (Training) conducted in training cycle.
Sept. & Oct.,
10/19/89 letter.
The Procedures were revised 8/88 (Pro-8/88, Plan 27 ARCA The kits did not con-tain equipment and on 8/1/88.
cedures) revised.
supplies to decontam-Equipment will be provided 1/89 12/88, equip-inate sample collection tools.-(J.11) by 1/1/89.
(Equipment) ment provided,'
12/29/88 letter. Decon -
tamination sup-plies have been added to sample collection kits.
Training will be completed 1989 Training con-during next annual training (Training) ducted in July, 10/19/89 cycle.
letter.
Plan was revised to include 8/88 (Plan) 8/88, Plan 30 ARCA The preventive PA to shelter milk cows all lactating animals in pas.
revised.
and place them on.
Staff will be trained on 1989 Training con-stored feed did not include goats. (J.11)
Preventive / Emergency (Training) ducted in July, Protective Actions.
'10/19/89 letter.
g'"'
~
l January 1990 4
~
- 1. STATE OF MAINE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIA (ContW
^
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date=
Procedure ~2.06 was revised 8/88 8/88, Plan Maine The Plan does not Other contain adequate trig-in the 8/1/88 Revision..
(Plans)1 revised.
Issue ger levels for defining Training will be conducted 1989 State training fic contamination.-
'during next annual training (Training) conducted-in cycle.
July,-10/19/89 letter.
Appropriate, forms have been 8/1/88 8/88, Plan Maine Procedures did not have Other forms for recording the generated and incicded in the (Plans) revised.
Issue results of'the survey 8/1/88 Revision.
C
- 2 of individuals.
Training will be accomplished 1989-State training during next annual training (Training) conducted in cycle.
July, 10/19/89 letter.
-4
'Jr.nscryl 1999 5:
- 1. ' BTATE OF MAINE - 1998 EXERCISE AND DRILla (ContNO Objec-Category Comunitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Reconnended Corrective Actions Date
'Date:
a b
Maine Written procedures are Updated Lab Procedure were 10/1/88 10/88, Lab
Other not-available that completed by 10/1/88.
'(Plans) procedures issued.
Issue describe: ~ 1) Setting up f3c
~ the sample receipt' area;
- 2) Receipt,-monitoring, logging and transfer into the laboratory, and 3) Canuma spectra -
analysis.
aExercise Inadequacy:
DEF Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not. adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety are protected. Prompt remedial l
action required.
ARCA Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biennial exercise.
bReference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
Other Issue: Plan issues that were identified. The planning' issues represent functional areas that were C
not part of the scope of the exercise objective and extent of play.
~ January 1990.
'6' 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAMPSIBRE-1988 EXERCISE AND DRILLS Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date:
Date b
a The 6/88 Revision to the 8/88 8/88, Plan 2
ARCA The NH PIO at Media Center was observed NHRERP contains an additional (Plan)
' revised.
on a number of staff member for Media Liaison occasions having duties at NH State EOC. This
-trouble reaching his.
. person will spend more time in counterpart at the contact with the PIO.
State EOC. (A.I.d)
The importance of constant PIO 1989 PIO training contact will be reinforced
-(Training) completed in with training.
- August, 10/19/89 letter.
4 ARCA Some of the radios An instruction sheet for 9/88 9/88. Batter-being used by staff battery rotation, and quarterly les provided, instruction in nonparticipating inspection has been developed.
communities experi-Additional batteries have been sheet pro-vided. 2/89, enced poor reception provided.
quarterly quality due to weak
' ins pection radio batteries. (F) started.
4 ARCA Notification and The fax machine was initially 1989 Training module communication with reported to be broken; however, (Training) revised in July the Portsmouth Circle further evaluation indicates and Staging Business Center that this was due to operator's Area staff Staging Area was to
. error, not to the machine it-trained in be made by fax.
The self. Training will be provided
- August, fax machine did not to ensure operators know how 10/19/89-letter.
work.
(F).
to.use equipment; l
~
,- m January 1990 :
7 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIE (Cont %I)
Objec-Category Commitment'
-Realization tive of Exercise' Recomunended Corrective Actions Date Date-b No.
Inadequacy
- Exercise Inadequacy 5
ARCA Media Center - There.
fill Media Center *Iisplays will 6/89 6/89, Media were no maps available be upgraded to incorporate _
-Center displays for news briefings-these comments. Maps of the' upgraded and that adequately plume Exposure & Ingestion are in place, depicted evacuation Exposure Pathway EPZ cill-be 10/19/89 routes, plume EPZ compiled & placed in the Media letter.
populations,~recep-Center. The maps will include tion centers loca-major evacuation routes, access tionn., congregate
& traffic control points, care center loca-population data & the locations tions. There was no of the emergency facilities. A stat us board present status board will be made avail-in the staff working able in the working area.
area.
(G.3.s)
Additional training on dosi-1989 Training module 6
ARCA Most bus drivers, ambulance drivers, metry equipment and exposure (Training) 2 & 19 were town personnel,.and control use will be provided revised.
a few local police to all emergency workers.
Training was completed as did not monitor part of annual-exposure via the training cycle.
use of dosimetry equipment and Instruction cards will be'
'6/89 6/89, Instruc-exposure control procedures.
(K.3.a provided to all field (Instruc-tion card and b) workers. These will be tion card)' developed and stored and distributed distributed, with the dosimetry.
10/19/89 letter.
I c:
' ' : January 1990:
ev 8L 2.1 IFFATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILLS (Contie Objec-Category tive of Exercise Comunitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy
'Recommmended Corrective Actions Date Date:
Setr of draft news releases 1989 12/89, Plan 13 ARCA Some News Releases contained "need to and EBS messages will be (Plan) revised.
know" information expanded; Department of and should have more' Education Procedure will also properly been issued be expanded to include steps as EBS messages or for providing school related revised EBS messages EBS message input.
(instructions). Some Preparers will be trained on 1989 Training module EBS messages lacked important information.
developing appropriate EBS (Training) 21 was revised.
(E.5 and C.4.b) message and news releases.
PIO training J
was conducted in August, 10/19/89 letter.
The 6/88 Revision to the 6/88 8/88, Plan 14 ARCA New Hampshire spokes-
-men, while generally NHRERP' adds a technical (Plan) revised.
proficient, demon-assistant to the Media strated an apparent Center Representative.
lack of knowledge Both personnel will be.
1989 8/89, Training regarding emergency planning zone-issues.
trained thoroughly in the (Training) was completed-(G.4.a)
RERP.
as part of annual training cycle.
Janeery 1990 9
2.1 STATE OF MEW HAMPSHIRE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIA (Cont'a0 Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recomumended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a Maps will be reviewed to make 6/89, 6/89, maps 18 ARCA Some drivers had difficulty in reading them clearer & concise. Bus (Maps) revised and or following the maps.
route strip maps will be issued.
I Maps lacked detail reviewed and revised to and accuracy.
ensure maps are clearer, (J.10.d) concise and ensure routes are correct. Maps will include recognizable landmarks, key points & key intersections as possible.
Additioncl training for 1989 Module 19 was drivers will be provided (Training) revised in in next annual cycle.
7/89. Training was completed as part of annual training cycle.
19 ARCA In Brentwood, after the Additional training will be 1989 Training module order to shelter was provided to staff members on 4C (EOC opera-tions) was received, the selectman protective actions.
revised.
in charge called the Brentwood was Swasey School to tell trained in them to let the child-ren take their normal
- January, Portsmouth was bus routes home.
In trained in June Portsmouth, the schools 10/19/89 were told to effect letter.
early dismissal and to hold only latch key children by the Ports-mouth EOC.
(J.10.g)
Janeery 1990 10 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAREP5 HIRE - 1998 EXERCIBE AND DRHJJ (Cent 94 Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recoshmended Corrective Actions Date Date Bus Route strip maps will be 6/89 6/89, maps 19 ARCA In several cases, the maps had wrong in-reviewed and revised to ensure (Maps) revised and structions or had instructions / addresses are issued.
wrong addresses which correct and concise.
created problems for these drivers.
(J.10.g)
Drivers will be provided 1989 Training module training on following route (Training) 19 was revised instructions.
to include fol-lowing route instruction.
Training was completed as part of the annual training cycle.
21 ARCA Monitors did not con-Each CDV-700 (or equivalent) 1989 Training was sistently use headsets issued by the State for radio-(Training) completed as while performing moni-logical monitoring purposes part of the toring. (J.12) is accompanied by a headset.
annual training The State has established a cycle.
quarterly maintenance program in accordance with Vol. 1, Sec.
2.4.5.
This program ensures that all radiological equipment is in a constant state of readiness. Training for moni-tors will address the need for
' January 1990-11 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE-1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIA(Cant 4 Objec-Category tive of Exercise Coensitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Eaercise Insdequacy Recosamended Corrective Actions Date Date 21 monitoring personnel to control (Cont'd) background noise and include practical sessions which stress monitoring in a noisy environ-ment.
The procedure will be reviewed 1989 12/89, Plan 21 ARCA The Radiological Screening Program at and revised for 1989 update.
(Plan) revised the State EOC-DPHS Duties and responsibilities of level was not well specific DPHS personnel will developed relative to be more explicitly described.
who has specific duties Training of these personnel 1989 DPHS letter, and responsibilities for implementation of will occur during neat annual (Training) 2/28/89 the program. (J.12) cycle.
details changes made to training materials.
Training was conducted in May, 10/19/89 letter.
23 ARCA The patient was not The existing procedure provides 1989 Training was covered to confine for covering. Training on (Training) completed as-contamination when this procedure will be provided.
part of the transported (L.4) annual training cycle. See objective 23, Fection 2.2.
l
January 1990-12 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAMP8tHRE - 1998 EXERCIBE AND DRILIA (Ce6 Objec-Category Comunitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recoaumended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a Map to identify all hospitals 6/89 Map developed 23 ARCA habulance attendants need to be provided and those which are MS-1 will (Maps) and issued, 10/89 letter.
with a list of MS be developed.
hospitals and maps to Ambulance procedure will be 1989 12/89, Plan where they may trans-port contaminated reviewed and revised, as (Plans) revised.
patients or'a MS necessary, for the 1989 hospital designated update.
at the time of the assignment. The pro-cedure needs to be changed to cover transport of a patient with life-threatening injuries to specify transport to the nearest hospital. (L.4)
Module 23, Management of 1989 Module 23 was 24 ARCA Medical & Nursing staff members & personnel Contaminated Injured Patients, revised in performing radiation will be revised to emphasize
- August, monitoring did not radiation terminology & bio-10/19/89 Ietter.
fully understand the logical effects.
Verified in biological effects of 10/89 drill.
radiation, the signi-ficance of " counts m
d
' January 1990 13
" 2.1 STATE OF MEW HAWPIRifRE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIA (Costi$
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization b
No.
Inadequacy
- Esercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date Training will be provided to Training was 24 per minute" (contamina-(Cont'd) tion) and " Millirem MS-1 Medical & Nursing Staff.
conducted in per hour" (dose rate)
_ August, and the monitors did 10/19/89 not fully understand letter.
how to make and inter-Verified in pret contamination and 10/89 drill.
dose rate measurements (L.1) 27 ARCA The teams were unfa-Additional training will be 1989 Training was miliar with maps and provided. Several of the conducted in had difficulty reach-monitoring personnel were par-May, 10/19/89 ing their original ticipating in their first graded letter.
locations. (J.11) exercise & map reading diffi-culties were due largely to inexperience. This problem will be remedied by providing additional training.
Team #1 was unfamiliar Sample teams will be provided 1989 Training was with procedures for additional training on these conducted in sample collection and procedures and the use of the May, 10/19/89 with survey techniques instruments.
letter.
with the assigned in-struments. (J.11) l
.(
Jammary 1990 14 2.1 STATE OF NEW HABBF5 HIRE - 1998 EXERCISE AND DRILIA (ContNO Objec-Category Comunitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recomunended Corrective Actions Date Date b
s 34 ARCA Shift change for key Appropriate local and host EOCs Next Creded staff positions was will demonstrate full shift Esercise not demonstrated for change at a drill, or during Seabrook and Kingston.
the next Craded Exercise.
Partial shift change was demonstrated for Portsmouth, Newfields, Brentwood, Stratham, E.
Kingston, Newton, and Newcastle. (A.4)
Additional steps were added 6/88 8/88, Plan N.He Adequate arrangements did not exist for 24-to both procedures in the (Plans) revised.
Other hour continuous opera-
.6/88 Revisior. to the NHRERP Issue fl tion of Staging Areas to ensure continued operations C
and Reception Centers.
are maintained.
Training will be accomplished 1989 Training for in next cycle.
(Training) Reception Center was conducted in November (1988) and training for Staging Area was con-ducted in
- August, 10/19/89 letter.
1Janosry 1990
'~
15.
2.1 frrATE OF NEW HANPSHIRE - 1988 EXERCISE AMD DRILLS (Conti0 Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commaitment Realization b
No.
Inadequacy
- Exercise Inadequacy Recomumended Corrective Actions Date Date N.H.
ARCA One bus route strip Bus Route strip maps will be 6/30/89 6/89, maps 1986 map had a confusing upgraded to support resolution (Maps) revised and -
Exercise area which will of this comunent.
issued.
Defi-require map to be ciency modified.
d
- 24 N.H.
ARCA The spokesman for NH Additional training will be 1989 PIO Training 1986 OEM at critical times provided during the next (Training) was completed Exercise did not appear fully annual cycle to ensure the in August, Defi-knowledgeable on spokesman for NH OEM is 10/19/89 ciency important aspects of thoroughly knowledgeable letter.
d f33 the emergency plan.
on the NHRERP.
N.H.
ARCA There was an incon-This inconsistency has been 6/88 8/88, Plan 1986 sistency present in removed in the 6/88 Revision (Plan) revised.
Exercise the plans regarding to the WdRERP.
Defi-monitoring speed ciency (frisking). App. F5 d
- 38 of Vol. 4A indicates rate of one inch per second, p. F7-14 indi-cates a monitoring speed of about 1/2 in.
per second. Page B6-14 of the host cosenunity plans (including Manchester) also states 1/2 in.
per second.
=
Jammery 1998
.16 2.1 STATE OF NEW HAMP8 HIRE - 1998 EXERCME AND DEtII.IA (Ceg@g Objec-Category Commitment Realization
-tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy
- Exercise Inadequacy Recesssended Corrective Actions Date Date b
N.H.
ARCA Plan should be revised Plan will be reviewed and revised 1989 12/89, Plan 1986 to show EOC down-for the 1989 update. The revised (Plan) revised.
Exercise stairs.
EOG concept will be shown.
Defi-ciegcy
- 45 N.H.
ARCA The 1986 Exercise Coordination between the State 1989 Training was 1986 Issue #49 refers to Staging Area and the Brentwood (Training) conducted for Exercise an operational need EOC will be addressed during Staging Area Defi-for coordination annus1 training for the Rockingham staff in August and for Brent-ciency between Brentwood County Staging Area and Brentwood wood EOC staff
- 49 and the Rockingham EOC Staff.
d in January, County complex. 41-10/89 letter.
though the State Trans-portation Staging Area Procedures have been developed with con-sideration for traffic volume, the procedures themselves do not resolve the issue.
January 1990 17 2.1 frrATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILLS (Contie Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization a
D No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date N.H.
NA Copies of the bus The State notes that the Packer N/A N/A 1986 routing maps, which Meadow Home is an elderly housing Exercise reportedly have been project, not an identified special Defi-updated to show the facility.
Its residents are ciency Packer Meadow Home treated as part of the general d
- 87 location are not public and therefore the facility present in the up-does not appear on a specific map.
dated plan. These However, bus routes for the general maps need to be re-public without transportation, viewed to confirm including the Packer Meadow Home, that the facility have designated bus routes. Indi-is included in the viduals requiring special assis-bus routing scheme.
tance, as in the general public, will be identified and included included en the special needs list.
aExercise Inadequacy:
DEF Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety are protected. Prompt remedial action required.
~
ARCA Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biennial exercise.
bReference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
COther Issue: Plan issues that were identified. The planning issues represent functional areas that were not part of the scope of the exercise objectives and extent of play.
dVerification of Corrective Actions: Exercise inadequacies identified in previous exercises / drills to which the organizations have agreed to implement corrective actions. These listed items were rated incomplete in the FEMA Seabrook Exercise Report (9/1/88). FEMA notes that these functional areas were tested in the exercise.
~
Janeery 1990:
18 2.2 STATE OF MEW HAMPERERE-1989 DRILLS Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy
- Exercise Inadequacy Recosamended Corrective Actions Date Date b
Revise training module gf j g 23 ARCA Ambulance attendant removed shoe covers
- 23A Revise ambulance procedures SMD before entering vehicle Train staff gg$,
Train staff gl9 23 and ARCA Ambulance attendant 1988 ARCA did not package for Obj.
patient in accordance 23 with procedures.
C Train staff g
24 ARCA Support staff did not demonstrate proper monitoring techniques.
aExercise Inadequacy:
Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that wculd cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate Prompt remedial DEF to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety are protected.
action required.
ARCA Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biennial exercise.
bReference NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
Exercise inadequacies identified in previous exercises / drills to Verification of Corrective Actions:
C These listed items were rated which the ortyanizations have agreed to implement corrective actions.
incomplete in the FEMA Seabrook Drill Report (1/90).
e 1
January 1990 19-3.1 'NEW HARIPSHIRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRH,IE l
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date To ensure that the Staging 8/88, 8/88, Plan 3
ARCA There was a delay at the Staging Area Leader maintains command (Plan) revised.
Area in responding
& control, the flexibility to to an impediment assign an assistant has been to evacuation added to IP 3.2 in Amendment 6.
traffic.
(A.1.d)
As necessary, duties may be delegated to ensure immediate response to situations which may arise in an evacuation; i.e., traffic impediment.
Training will be provided in 1989 6/89, Training annual cycle.
(Training) modules re-vised, 6/21/89 letter. Train-ing was com-pleted as part of the annual Training cycle.
Amendment 6 of IP 2.8 directs 8/88 8/88 Plan 4
ARCA Some directives to field workers were the Bus Company Liaison, (Plan) revised.
not received in the Evacuation Support A Special field. (F)
Vehicle Dispatchers to repeat the directives to field workers. Heavy radio traffic is to be expected during emergencies.
January 1990~
20 3.1 NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFBITE RESPON8E ORGANIZA110N - 1988 EXERCBE AND DRILIA (Conti$
Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Euercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date l
b s
i EMS radio will be fixed.
6/89 6/89, EMS Radio 4
(Radio) fixed; a backup (Cont')
radio has been installed, 6/14/89 letter.
i The necessary training will 1989 1/89, Training e
be provided in next (Training) module revised, training cycle.
6/21/89 letter All Media Center displays 6/89 6/89, Media 5
ARCA Media Center - No maps I
with detailed evacus-will be upgraded to support (Displays) Center displays tion routes, reloca-resolution of this comment.
have been up-graded and are tion center locations, in place, or population by 10/19/89 planning areas, were letter.
used in briefings or displayed at the Training on the use of 1989 Training Medica Center Meteorological con-displays for the staff will (Training) (required ditions were not be provided during the next reading) was issued in consistently displayed training cycle.
- August, and maintained.
i 10/19/89 (C.3.a) letter.
i l
l
1 January 1990 21 NEW IIAMPSilIRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATIO95 - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILLS (Cont'J) 3.1 Ob~ec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise b
No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequgcy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date a
b ARCA The reading of dosi-Appropriate Training will be 1989 4/89, Training meters at 15 cinute provided to bus drivers and (Training) module revised, l
intervals was not route guides concerning 6/21/89 letter.
accomplished in a reading of dosimetry and Training was minority of cases in recording exposure.
conducted as spite of the 15 min.
part of the annual Training radio tone to promote dosimeter reading.
cycle.
This was a more frequent problem for Bus Drivers.
(K.3.a and b) 13 ARCA One of the EBS mes-Training will be provided 1989 8/89, Training sages was not clear to staff to review message (Training) was conducted and NHY ORO news and news release content as part of the release #15 incor-for consistency and annual training cycle.
rectiv stated that accuracy.
an overturned lumber truck was blocking traffic on I-95.
(E.5 C.4.b)
Amendment 6 of IP 2.12 pro-8/88 8/88, Plan 13 ARCA EBS messages and press releases were vides a parallel distribution (Plan) revised.
sometimes withheld process for messages & press from distribution to releases to the Media Center j
l the media relations
& JTIC, once approved.
and rumor control Training will be provided in 1989 9/89, Training l
staff at the JTIC pending receipt of next cycle.
(Training) was conducted approved copy as as part of the annual training news release from the Media Center.
cycle.
l (E.5, C.4.b)
..I I
II I Jameery 1990 22 3.1 NEW HAMP85HRE YANREE OFFWTE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION - 1988 EXERCBE AND DRHJJ (Come$
Objec-Category Coasmitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date D
a 13 ARCA At the Media Center Staff will be trained to use 1989 9/89, Training and at the JTIC, it correct letterhead for EBS was conducted as part of the was not always easy messages.
annual training to tell which releases were EBS messages and cycle.
which weren't.
(E.5)
KI supplies are accompanied post 5%
9/89, KI 16 ARCA Some briefings by dosimetry record with an appropriate infor-power supplies have keepers to Emergency nation sheet which will be (Information been purchased Workers did not in-distributed with the tablets Sheet) and are in clude possible side (when procured).
place, 10/19/89 letter.
effects from ingesting KI, or what to do if Training will be provided to 1989 9/89, Training side effects occur.
Information materials dosimetry record keepers.
(Training) was conducted as part of the provided to the home-annual training bound individuals did not include this in-cycle.
formation.
(K.3.a and b) 16 ARCA Some route guides Training for Route Guides will 1989 9/89, Training assigned to school be provided concerning exposure was conducted, evacuation did not control /KI administration.
as part of the annual training tell their bus drivers (2 of 4) that the use cycle.
of KI had been recom-mended nor did they tell the bes drivers that they had simulated taking KI.
(K.3.a and b)
,w,-..
'Jaowery 1990 23.
3.1 NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFBITE RESPONSE ORGANFZATION - 1998 EXERCISE AND DRILLS (Cont 4 Objec-Category Commitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a i
Maps will be upgraded as 6/89 6/89, Maps 18 ARCA Some Route Guides en-countered difficulty necessary to ensure they are (Maps) revised and in reading their maps.
clean, concise & accurate.
issued, 6/21/89 letter.
The main problem seems to be a lack of detail Training will be provided in 1989 1/89 Training on the maps.
(J.10.d) the rext annual cycle.
(Training) conducted, 6/21/89 letter.
I 19 ARCA Some of the maps con-Maps will be upgraded, as 6/89 6/89, Maps l
revised and tained incomplete necessary, to ensure they instructions or detail are clean, concise and issued, 6/21/89 letter.
l for locating day care accurate.
centers and nurseries.
(J.10.g)
IP 2.10, Attachments 3 and 4 1989 12/89, Plan 19 ARCA Some Route Guides did not insist that the vill be revised to include (Plan) revised.
bus drivers follow the specific instructions to designated routes.
follow prescribed routes.
Other route guides Route Guides and bus drivers 1989 Training was gave directions to bus drivers to deviate will be provided additional (Training) conducted as from designated routes.
training.
part of the annual training (J.10.g) cycle.
Jameecy 1990 20 3.1 NEW HAMP5EHRE YANKEE OFFETE aREIPONSE ORGANIZA110N - 1998 EXERCBE AND DEILI4 (Coen$
Objec-Category tive
-of Exercise Commitment..
Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date 21 ARCA Some maps for-directing Maps will be upgraded, as 6/89 6/89, Maps evacuees from Reception-necessary, to ensure they revised and Centers to Congregate are clear, concise and accurate.
issued,.6/21/89 Care Centers had in-letter.
adequate instrc;tions, inconsistencies, etc.
(J.12)
Amendment 6 of Appendix M 8/88 8/88, Plan 22 ARCA The data base for Corsgregate Care Centers incorporated the indication (Plan) revised.
(CCCs) in the current of which CCC could not procedure did not accommodate the handicapped.
indicate which CCCs Training of personnel will 1989 9/89, Training cannot accommodate handicapped persons occur during the next annual (Training) was conducted who evacuate by thesr-cycle.
as part of the selves or with annual training families or friends.
cycle.
(J.10.g) 23 ARCA Ambulance attendants Training on procedures for 1989 7/89, Training need additional hands-contamination control will be module was re-on training on the provided to ambulance attendants.
vised, 10/19/89 procedures for contami-letter. Train-nation control.
(L.4) ing was con-ducted as part of the annual training cycle.
_.,.............w 4
January 1990.
25 3.1 NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRHAE (ContW
~
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization a
b No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date Maps to identify all hospitals 6/89 6/89, esps 23 ARCA Ambulance attendants need to be provided' and those which are MS-1 (Maps) revised and with maps showing will be developed.
issued, 6/21/89 locations of MS-1 letter.
hospitals to which
. Procedures will be reviewed 1989 12/89, Plan-they may transport patients. The proce-and revised, as necessary, (Plan) revised.
dure should be revised for the 1989 update.
to cover transport of a patient with life-threatening injuries to the nearest hospital or nearest MS-1 Hospital. (L.4) 24 ARCA Medical and Nursing Additional training will be 1989 7/89, Training Staff members do not provided.
was completed, fully understand the 10/19/89 biological effects of letter.
radiation and the significance of
" counts per minute."
(L.1) i
.c_. _ - _.~. _.... - -.. _ _ _ _ _ - _ = _ - _ _, _ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _.
--.v
,,,~r
.cn.-
,m.,
.-...-w.'--,
---,e-n.
January 1990-
~
26 3.1 NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFBITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION - 1988 EXERCISE AND DRHJA (Conti$
Objec-Category Comunitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a The procedures have been 8/1/88 8/88, Plan ORO According to the plan Other one Special Population revised in Amendment 6 to (Plans).
revised.
Issue Liaison is assigned to assign the Special Population
- 1 each community. This Liaisons permanently to the C
staff level could Staging Area and to allow the result in excessive flexibility to assist each time required to notify other in making notifications.
~
special populations of Training will be provided in 1989 9/89, Training the status of the emer-gency situation and to the next annual cycle.
(Training) was completed as part of the coordinate their trans-annual training portation needs.
cycle.
The procedures have been 8/1/88 8/88, Plan ORO According to the plan, Other one School Liaison is revised in Amendment 6 to (Plans) revised.
Issue assigned to each com-assign the School Liaisons
- 2 munity. This staffing permanently to the Staging C
level could result in Area and to allow flexibility excessive time required to assist each other in to notify schools and making notifications.
day care centers of the Training will be provided in 1989 9/89, Training status of the emergency situation and to the next annual cycle.
(Training) was completed as part of the coordinate their trans-annual training portation needs.
cycle.
l
JanaDry 1990
'I 21 3.1 NEW HAMPSlilRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION 1988 EXERCISE AND DRILIE (ContM)
Objec-Category Comunitment Realization tive of Exercise No.
Inadequacy Exercise Inadequacy Reconenended Corrective Actions Date Date b
a j
ORO Media Center - There A NHY Onsite Response Represen-1989 Training Other were some excessively tative coordinates the timing of (Training) (required issue long periods during press briefings. This procedure reading) was
- 3c which no media ques-will be reviesed and training
- issued, tions were answered will be provided in the next 10/19/89 i.e.,
the lack of annual cycle, to address informal letter.
update briefings by briefings.
the Media Relations Floor Liaison in between fonnal briefings.
aExercise Inedequacy:
DEF Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that tSe public's health and safety are protected. Prompt remedial action required.
ARCA Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biennial exercise.
bReference NUREC-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement I (Planning Standards and Elements).
Other Issue:
Plan issues that were identified. The planning issues represent functional areas that C
were not part of the scope of the exercise objectives and extent of play.
l
Jonesey 1990' 28 3.2 NEW HAMP5ERRE YANKEE OFFETE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION - 1989 DRHJJ f
Objec-Category tive of Exercise Commitment Realization b
No.
Inadequacy" Exercise Inadequacy Recommended Corrective Actions Date Date 23/24 None No exercise inadequacies Note: All corrective actions were identified.
identified for objectives 23 and 24 in Section 3.1 were verified to be corrected in these drills, aExercise Inadequacy:
j DEF Demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the public's health and safety are protected. Prompt remedial act; ion required.
ARCA Areas observed that require corrective actions. Correction required before next biennial exercise.
bReference NUREC-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 1 (Planning Standards and Elements).
/
FEBRUARY 1990 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF TWE STATE OF MEW NANFSMIRE RADIOLOGICAL ENERGENCY REUPONSE PLAN FOR SEABROOK STATION A
N 1Y N
% _or /
O C
Federal Emergency Management Agency d
February 1990 t.
,c. i,
r i
i FEBRUARY 1990
't l
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF TNE STATE OF NEW RAMP 8 HIRE
{
RADIOLOGICAL ENERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR l
SEABROOK STATION i
i t
f l
CY Wf I
g<
I ll j
$grerJ F
\\
l o
o l
I l
l-I Federal Emergency Management Agency February 1990 i
FEBRUARY 1990
~
l CONTENTS l
ACRONYMS xv i
a FIGURE 1 Seabrook Plume Exposure-EPZ.
. xvii kp FIGURE 2 Seabrook Ingestion Exposure EPZ.
.xviii INTRODUCTION 1-l
' REVIEW AND~ EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA.
5 i
i A.
Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control)
(Planning Standard A).
-5 i
i A.l.a. Evaluation Criterion 5
Statement 5
i 5
i Plan Reference Evaluation 6
i A.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 6
1 Statement.
6 Plan Reference 6
I Evaluation 6
j i
A.1.c.' Evaluation Criterion 6
Statement 6
Plan Reference 7
I Evaluation 7
i A.1.d. Evaluation Criterion 7
Statement.
7 Plan Reference 7
Evaluation 8
A.1.e. Evaluation Criterion 8
Statement.
8 Plan Reference 8
Evaluation 8
A.2.a. Evaluation Criterion 8
Statement.
9 1
Plan Reference 9
Evaluation 9
A.2.b. Evaluation Criterion 10 Statement 10 Plan Reference 10 Evaluation 10 l
A.3.
Evaluation Criterion 10 L
Statement 10 Plan Reference 11 Evaluation 11 l
111 p
I FEBRUARY 1990 j
i CONTENTS (Cont'd) 1 A.4.
Evaluation Criterion 11 i
Statement.
11 Plan Reference 12 Evaluation 12
)
C.
Emergency Response Support and Resources 1
(Planning Standard C).
13 i
C.1.
Evaluation Criterion 13 l
C.1.a. Evaluation Criterion.
13 i
Statement 13 Plan Reference 13 Evaluation 13 l
C.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 13 Statement.
13 Plan Reference 14 Evaluation 14 l
C.1.c. Evaluation Criterion 14 i
Statement 14
~ Plan Reference 14 Evaluation 14 C.2.a. Evaluation Criterion 14 Statement 14 p
Plan Reference 15 i
Evaluation 15 C.3.
Evaluation Criterion 15 Statement 15 Plan Reference 15 Evaluation 15 C.4.
Evaluation Criterion 16 l
Statement 16 l
Plan Reference 16 l,
Evaluation 16 D.
Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D) 17 l
l D.3.
Evaluation Criterion 17 Statement.
17 Plan Reference 17 Evaluation 17 D.4.
Evaluation Criterion 17 Statement 17 Plan Reference 18 Evaluation 18 IV
i FEBRUARY 1990 f
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
I t
E.
Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard'E) 19 6
E.1.
Evaluation Criterion 19 Statement 19 Plan Reference 19 l
Evaluation 19 E.2.
Evaluation Criterion 20 Statement.
20 Plan Reference 20 Evaluation 20 E.5.
Evaluation Criterion 20 Statement 20 f
Plan Reference 21.
Evaluation 21 E.6.
Evaluation Criterion 21 Statement.
21 Plan Reference 22 Evaluation 23
[
E.7.
Evaluation Criterion 23 Statement.
23 Plan Reference 23 Evaluation 23 F.
Emergency Communications (Planning Standard F) 24 i
F.1.
Evaluation Criterion 24 F.1.a. Evaluation Criterion.
24 Statement.
24 Plan Reference 24 Evaluation 25 F.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 25 Statement 25 Plan Reference 25 Evaluation.
25 F.1.c. Evaluation Criterion 25 Statement 25 Plan Reference 26 Evaluation 26 F.1.d. Evaluation Criterion 26 Statement 26 Plan Reference 26 i
Evaluation 26 V
v y
[l -
+
FEBRUARY 1990 o
I CONTENTS (Cont'd)
I F.1.e. Evaluation Criterion 26 Statement.
26 Plan Reference 27 i
Evaluation 27 j
F.2.
Evaluation Criterion 27 Statement 27 Plan Reference 27 I
Evaluation 27 r
F.3.
Evaluation Criterion 27 Statement 27 i
Plan Reference 28 l
Evaluation 28 G.
Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G) 29 G.I.
Evaluation Criterion 29 Statement 29 Plan Reference 30 Evaluation 30 G.2.
Evaluation Criterion 30
' Statement 30 Plan Reference 31 Evaluation 31 G.3.a. Evaluation Criterion 31 Statement 31 Plan Reference 32 Evaluation 32 G. 4.a.. Evaluation Criterion 32
' Statement 32 Plan Reference 33 Evaluation 33 G.4.b. Evaluation Criterion 33 l
Statement 33 Plan Reference 33-Evaluation 33 G.4.c. Evaluation Criterion 33 Statement 33 Plan Reference 34 Evaluation 34 G.S.
Evaluation Criterion 34 Statement 34 Plan Reference 34 Evaluation 35 vi
FEBRUARY 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) i H.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H) 36 l
H.3.
Evaluation Criterion 36 i
Statement 36 Plan Reference 36 Evaluation 36 H.4.
Evaluation Criterion 36
[
Statement 36 Plan Reference 37 Evaluation 37 H.7.
Evaluation Criterion 38 Statement 38 Plan Reference 38 Evaluation 38 H.10.
Evaluation Criterion 38 Statement 38 Plan Reference 39 Evaluation 39 l
H.11.
Evaluation Criterion 39 i
Statement 39 Plan Reference 39 Evaluation 39 H.12.
Evaluation Criterion 39 Statement 39 i
Plan Reference 40 Evaluation 40 I.
Accident. Assessment (Planning Standard I) 41 I.7.
Evaluation Criterion 41 Statement 41 Plan Reference 41 Evaluation 41 I.8.
Evaluation Criterion 41 Statement.
42 Plan Reference 42 Evaluation 42 I.9.
Evaluation-Criterion 42 Statement 43 Plan Reference 43' Evaluation 43 l
l l
L v11
{
' FEBRUARY 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) i i
I.10.
Evaluation Criterion 43 i
Statement.
43 Plan Reference 44 I
I Evaluation 44 i
I.11.. Evaluation Criterion 44 Statement 44 Plan Reference 45 i
Evaluation 45 I
J.
Drotective Response'(Planning Standard J)
(6 J.2.
Evaluation Criterion 46 Statement.
46 Plan Reference 46 o
Evaluation 46
-t J.9.
Evaluation Criterion 46
~
Statement 47 Plan Reference 51 Evaluation 51 3
J.10.
Evaluation Criterion 51 J.10.a. Evaluation Criterion.
51 i
Statement.
52 Plan Reference 52 Evaluation 52 J.10.b. Evaluation Criterion 52 Statement.
52 Plan Reference 53 Evaluation 53 J.10.c. Evaluation Criterion 53 Statement.
53 Plan Reference 53 Evaluation 53 J.10.d. Evaluation Criterion 33
^
Statement.
53 Plan Reference 55 Evaluation 55
-J.10.e. Evaluation Criterion 55 i
Statement.
55 Plan Reference 56 Evaluation 56 J.10.f. Evaluation Criterion 56 Statement 57 Plan Reference 57 g
Evaluation 57 vili 1
(
~
4 FEBRUARY 1990 L
{i CONTENTS (Cont'd) e
~J.10.g. Evaluation-Criterion 57 (Statement,
58-Plan Reference 59 Evaluation-59 J.10'.h. Evaluation-Criterion 59 Statement.
59 Plan Reference 60 Evaluation 60
.i l
1 J'.10 i. Evaluation-Criterion
'60 Statement.
60 60 Plan Reference Evaluation 60 J.10.j. Evaluation Criterion 60 Statement 61 Plan Reference 61 Evaluation 62 J.10.k. Evaluation Criterion 62 l
Statement.
62 1
Plan Reference 62 Evaluation 62 i
J.10.1. Evaluation Criterion 63 i
Statement 63 Plan Peference 63 Evaluation 63 4
64 i
J.10.m. Evaluation Cri-in Statement 64 Plan Refere 64-Evaluation 64 J.11.
Evaluat' ion Criterion 64 Statement.
65 Plan Reference 66 Evaluation 66 J 12. ' Evaluation Criterion 67 Statement..
67 j
Plan Reference 68 Evaluation 68 i
' :K. Radiological. Exposure Control (Planning Standard K) 69
't i
K.3.a. Evaluation Criterion 69 i
Statement 69 Plan Reference 69 Evaluation 70 i
ix l
f.
FEBRUARY 1990 k
'l 3.
o CONTENTS (Cont'd)
(
i i
r 70 K.3.b. Evaluation. Criterion Statement.
70 L
Plan' Reference 70 70 Evaluation
.1,
K 4.
Evaluation Criterion 71 71 Statement _.
Plan Reference 72 Evaluation 72 K.5.a. Evaluation Criterion 72 Statement 72 Plan Reference 72 Evaluation 72 K.5.b. Evaluation Criterion 72 Statement.
72 Plan Reference 73 Evaluation 73 lb. Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L) 74 L.1.
Evaluation Criterion 74 Statement-.
74 Plan Reference 74 Evaluation 74 L.3.
Evaluation Criterion 74 Statement 74 Plan Reference 75 Evaluation 75 L.4.
Evaluation Criterlon 75 7
75 Statement
.z.
D Plan Reference 75 Evaluation 75
.M.
Recovery and Reentry Planning and Post Accident Operations (Planning Standard M) 76 g
av M.1.
Evaluation Criterion 76-1 j
Statement 76 Plan Reference 77 j
Evaluation 77 M.3.
Evaluation Criterion 77 Statement 77 Plan Reference 77 Evaluation 78 i
X
,gh Vt-F FEBRUARY 1990 i
CONTENTS (Cont'd) 1(#
^
s s
L M.4.
= Evaluation Criterion
'78
-Statement.
78 7
78 Plan Reference Evaluation 78
[
N.
Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard I;)
79
... ~.....
N.1.a. Evaluation Criterion 79 Statement.
79 Plan Reference-79 s
Evaluation 79
?
' N.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 79 Statement 80 Plan' Reference 80 Evaluation 80 l
N 2.
Evaluation Criterion 80 N.2.a Evaluation Criterion.
81 Statement 81 Plan Reference 81 Evaluation
.81 1
N.2.c. Evaluation Criterion 81 Statement 82 Plan Reference 82 Evaluation 82 N.2.d. Evaluation Criterion 82 Statement 82 Plan Reference 82 Evaluation 83 m
N.2.e. Evaluation Criterion 83 Statement 83 Plan Reference 83 Evaluation 83 N.3.
Evaluation Criterion 83 N.3.a Evaluation Criterion.
83 Statement 83 Plan Reference 84.
Evaluation 84 N.3.b. Evaluation Criterion 84 Statement'.
84 Plan Reference 84 Evaluation 84 t
xi
FEBRUARY 1990-I CONTENTS (Cont'd)'
N.3.c. Evaluation Criterion 84 Statement 85 Plan Reference 85 Evaluation 85 N.3.d. Evaluation Criterion ~
85
.-Statement 85 Plan Reference 85 Evaluation 85=
1 85; N.3.e. Evaluation Criterion Statement 86 Plan Reference
'86.
Evaluation 86 N. 3. f. Evaluation Criterion 86 Statement.
86 Plan Reference 86 Evaluation 86 N.4.
Evaluation Criterion 87 Statement 87 Plan Reference 87 Evaluation 87 N.5.
Evaluation Criterion 87 Statement.
87 Plan Reference 88 Evaluation 88 O.
Radiological Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard =0) 89 i.
0.1.
Evaluation Criterion 89 0.1.b.
Evaluation Criterion.
89 Statement 89-Plan Reference 89 Evaluation 89 O.4.
Evaluation. Criterion 89 0.4.a Evaluation Criterion.
90 Statement 90 i
Plan Reference-90 Evaluation 90 lO.4.b. Evaluation Criterion 90 Statement 90 Plan Reference 91 Evaluation 91 xii L
I i
u.
FEBRUARY 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) 0.4.c. Evaluation Criterion 91 Statement..
91
' Plan Reference 91 Evaluation 91 0.4.d. Evaluation Criterion
............... - 92 Statement.
92 Plan Reference 92
....... =...........
Evaluation 92 0.4.f. Evaluation Criterion 92 Statement 92 Plan Reference 93 Evaluation 93 0.4.g. Evaluation Criterion 93 Statement.
93 Plan Reference 94 Evaluation 94 0.4.h. Evaluation Criterion 94
-Statement-.
94 Plan Reference 94 Evaluation 94 0.4.j. Evaluation Criterion 94 Statement.
94 Plan Reference 95 Evaluation 95
-0.5..
Evaluation Criterion 95 Statement 95 Plan Reference 96 Evaluation 96 P.
Responsibility for the Planning Effort:
Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Standard P) 97 P.1.
Evaluation Criterion 97 Statement.
97 Plan Reference 97 Evaluation 97-P.2.
-Evaluation Criterion 97 Statement.
97 Plan Reference 97 Evaluation 97 P.3.
Evaluation Criterion 98 Statement 98 Plan Reference 98 Evaluation 98 xiii
?
FEBRUARY:1990 I
CONTENTS (Cont'd) t P.4.
Evaluation Criterion 98
... =.............
Statement.
98 Plan Reference 99 Evaluation 99 P.5.
Evaluation Criterion 99 Statement..
99 Plan Reference 100 Evaluation 100 P.6.
Evaluation Criterion 100 Statement 100 Plan Reference 100 Evaluation.
100 P.7.
Evaluation Criterion 100 Statement 100 Plan Reference 100 Evaluation 100 P.8.
Evaluation Criterion 101 Statement
.- 101 Plan, Reference 101 q
Evaluation 101 P.10. - Evaluation Criterion 101 Statement 101 Plan Reference
. 101 Evaluation 101 Plan Review Rating Summary 102 s
5 k
xiv 1
i
FEBRUARY =1990-ACRONYMS j
'I ACP Access Control Point
- AFD Air Force Base ARC American Red Cross ARES
. Amateur Radio Emergency Services BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory
- CAP Civil Air Patrol CPM Counts per minute DHS New Hampshire Division of Human Services DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOE U.S.
Department of Energy DOI U.S.
Department of the Interior DOT.
U.S.' Department of Transportation DPHS New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services DRD Direct-Reading Dosimeter DRF Dose Reduction Factor
' EAL Emergency Action Level EBS Emergency Broadcast System r
ECL Emergency Classification Level EMS New Hampshire Bureau of Emergency Medical Services of the Division of Public Health Services EMT Emergency Medical Technician
- EOC Emergency Operat' ions Center EOF Emergency Operations Facility
- EPA U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency EPZ Emergency PlLnning Zone ERPA Emergency Response Planning Area
-ETE Evacuation Time Estimate Study FAA Federal Aviation Administration i
- FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Ager.cy
- FRC Federal Response Center FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan FRMAP Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan (formerly IRAP -= Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan), DOE
- GE General Emergency HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (formerly, Health, Education and Welfare)'
l IFO Incident Field Office JCAH Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals-KI Potassium Iodide LOA Letter of Agreement mR M1111 rem NAS Nuclear Alert System o,
- NESPAC New England State Police Assistance Compact NHCDA New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (name changed to New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management - NHOEM)
NHOEM New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (formerly New Hampshire-Civil Defense Agency, NHCDA)
NHRERP New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan NHY New Hampshire Yankee NHY ORO New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization xv s
6
FEBRUARY 1990
'NOAA
- National:. Oceanic and. Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department.of Commerce
-NRC
. Nuclear: Regulatory Commission PA~
. Protective Action PAG-Protective Action Guide PAR.
Protective Action Recommendation PSNH Public Service of New Hampshire
-R Roentgen-RACES Radio Amateur Communications Emergency. Services REM
- Roentgen Equivalent Man
'RCDC.
Rockingham County Dispatch Center i
RCNH Rockingham County Nursing Home RERP.
Radiological Emergency Response Plan'.
'SAE Site Area Emergency
-SS Seabrook Station
.SWFMA Southwestern Fire Mutual Aid TCP Traffic Control Point
.TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter
.TMM Traffic Management Manual USAF U.S. Air Force I
USCG.
U.S. Coast-Guard.
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VY Vermont Yankee WSPCC New.
Hampshire Water ' Supply and Pollution Control Commission YAEC' Ysnkee Atomic Electric Company i
s i
e I[
O xvi
FEBRUARY 1990.
<N W
1 MAINE
~
A 1
E' NEW HAMPSHIRE stu cunnua\\
- **s
(
l inntwoes toj l
l l
(
Or, rum o
DNEston wros ust uprom omsta, anarm aus 51 125 so m SEABROOK STATION
~
unre f
wwra MIisINEr i
$gggy j_
SEABROOK STATION-
"mm 10-MILE 7
p nst (es7 EMERGENCY 4es PLANNING' ZONE (EPZ) unar v
=
SSACHUSETTS
[
}
I j-FIGURE 1 Seabrook Station Plume Eposure Emergency Planning Zone xvil i
. ~.
- w. +
x y..
FEBRUARY 1990
/
~.
ll W
L TLAND -
16 95 93
.j s
10CNESTil e 4
' MAINE i
i COE080 00HR j
Lc
-}
10' lismouTH J
mAEHisTER' t -.
g NEW-93 e SEABROOK STAT 10N 3-suin HAMPSHIRE 10 Mil.E t
- u. sum 1
towtLL fem 95
- MAISA010SETTS*
ANoont 128 2
1 495 tuttY -
SEABROOK STATION 50-MILE 12e INGESTION PATHWAY ZONE (IPZ) 80STON g
WORCESTit
0 50 MILE 4
.c i l.'
FIGURE 2 Seabrook Station Ingestion Exposure Emergency Planning Zone xviii i
if *
,,,,e
m-FEBRUARY 1990 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR SEABROOK STATION INTRODUCTIOh
.This review was conducted by the Federal Emergency
. Management Agency, Region I (FEMA I), with the assistance of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC).
The RAC is chaired by FEMA and has the following members:
U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of 4*
Commerce, and the U.S.
Department of Interior.
The Regional Assistance Committee functions in accordance with 44 CFR, Part 351,
" Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Response." This FEMA review and evaluation used NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980 as the basis (planning standards and specific criteria) for determining the adequacy of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Station.
FEMA Guidance Memoranda (GM) and FEMA REP-series documents were utilized to interpret, clarify, and evaluate the criteria.
The New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) for Seabrook consists of the following State and local volumes:
Volume Number Title 1
New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan 5
Implementing Procedures
. Governor's Office and NHOEM 6
Implementing Procedures - Division.of Public Health Services 7
Implementing Procedures - State Agencies, Rockingham County, Federal Government 8
State and Local Functional Implementing Procedures 9
State and Local Appendices 10-19 Reserved 20 Seabrook Station Local Radiological Emergency Response Plan 21 Brentwood Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 22 East Kingston Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 23 Exeter Plan Information and implementing Procedures 24 Greenland Plan information and Implementing l<
Procedures j
25 Hampton Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 26 Hampton Falls Plan Information and Implementing l
Procedures-l 27 Kensington Plan Information and Implementing l
Procedures 28 Kingston Plan Information and Implementing 1
~..
I j
i E
FEBRUARY 1990 j
29 New Castle Plan-Information and Implementing
)
-Procedures a
30 Newfields Plan Information and Implementing J
Procedures 31 Newton Plan Information and Implementing Procedures
-32 North Hampton Plan Information and Implementing i
Procedures 33 Portsmouth Plan Information and Implementing Procedures i
34 Rye Plan Information and Impicmenting Procedures 35 Seabrook Plan Information and Implementing-Procedures 36 South Hampton Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 37 Stratham Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 38 Dover Host Plan Information and Implementing r
Procedures 39 Manchester Host Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 40 Rochester Host Plan Information and Implementing Procedures 41 Salem Host Plan Information and Implementing Procedures L
42-49 Reserved L-50
' Letters of Agreement NA Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study NA Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study Handbook NA New ilampshire Traffic Management Manual NA-Emergency Phone Listing Following is a-summary of the u.aterial that has been submitted to FEMA for' review and evaluation:
On December 9,
1985, the State of New Hampshire
- submitted the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) for Seabrook Station.
. In February
- 1986, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as Supplement 1, 2/86.
.In April 1986, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates referred to as supplement 2, 4/86.
In June 1986 the State of. New Hampshire provided
[
plan updates referred to as Revision 1, 6/86.
[
In September 1986, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as Rev.
2, 8/86.
On April 29, 1988, NHY provided the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System, FEMA REP-10 Design Report, dated April 30, 1988.
In May 1988, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as the 2/88 update to Rev.
2.
2
~
FEBRUARY 1990 On July-29,
- 1988, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as the 6/88 update to Rev.
2.
On October 7,
1988, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as the 10/88 update to Rev. 2.
On October 18, 1988, NHY provided to FEMA REP-10 1
Addendum Report to the Seabrook Station Public Alert and
- Notification System Design Report.
On. November 28, 1988, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as the 11/88 update to Rev.
2.
i On November 30, 1989, the State of New Hampshire provided plan updates, referred to as Revision 3 to the NHRERP.
The State of New. Hampshire also provided the Emergency Phone Listing.
In December,
- 1989, The State of New Hampshire provided the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study, Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study Handbook, and the Traffic Management j
- Manual, j
t On February 5,
1990, the State of New Hampshire 1
provided plan updates, referred to as the 2/90 update to Revision 3 to the NHRERP.
'i k
f 3
s.
4 d
4
.1 i
L
. FEBRUARY 1990 Ms.<
y
+.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION ' AGAINST i PLANNING STANDARDS ~ AND-EVALUATION
!Y CRITERIA t
h The' review and' evaluation of'the NHRERP is attached.- The format reproduces each planning standard and specific criterion of-
.NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1,-followed by a statement of the Plan.
contents related=to each-review criterion,.a Plan reference, and an evaluation section.
3 i
i T
I 4
?
L 1
4 t
"t.'.
I r
FEBRUARY 1990:
REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
-J A. Assignment-of.
Responsibility (Organizational Control)
(Planning Standard A):
l Primary responsibilities for emergency _ response by the nuclear L
- facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various_ supporting organizations have been specifically established, and each principal. response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis.
Evaluation Criterion
'A.1.a.
Each plan shall identify the State, local' Federal and private sector organizations (including utilities), that are intended to be part of the overall response organization for Emergency Planning Zones.
(See App. 5.)
Statement A.1.a.
The Plan identifies the State, Federal, and local organ-izations that are part of the-overall response organization (Vol. 1,_Sec. 1).
The interrelationship of these organizations are illustrated on Fig.
1.2-1.
The primary New Hampshire State organizations are identified as the Governor's Office, the New Hampshire office of Emergency Management (NHOEM), and the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS).
In some cases private sector organizations provide resources for. emergency-response.
Municipal emergency response organizations are described in Sec. 1 of each of the local plans (Sec. 1.6 of Vol.
7 20 and Sec.
1.4 of Vols. 21-41).
Twenty-one (21)_
municipal organizations are identified.
These. consist of 17 communities within the plume EPZ and 4 host communities.
In those cases in which a plume EPZ community does not participate in or is unable to l"
participate in the emergency planning or response, the State of New Hampshire will institute compensatory measures to protect the public as described in Sec.
1.2.6 of Vol.
1.
1l' Plan Reference A.1.a.
Vol.
1, Sec. 1; Vol.
20, Sec.
1.6; Vols. 21-41 (Sec.1.4).
5 l
L 1
4 i
i FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation A.1.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion A.1.b.
Each organization and suborganization having an operational role shall specify its concept of-operations, and its relationship to the. total effort.
Statement A.1.b.
The Plan describes the concept of operation and the operational roles of the State of New Hampshire primary-i and support organizations in Sec. 1.2 of Vol.
1.
Details of operational roles of State ' agencies are provided in the procedures in Vols.
5-7.
Operational roles of local response: organizations are provided in 1
the local communities plans (Sec. 1.6 of Vol. 20 & Sec.
1.4 of Vols. 21-41)..
In-those cases in which a plume EPZ community does not participate or is unable to participate in the emergency planning or response, the State of New Hampshire will institute compensatory measures to protect the public as described in Sec.
1.2.6 of Vol.
1.
Plan Reference A.1.b.
Vol.
1, Sec. 1.2; Vols. 5-7; Vol. 20, Sec'. 1.6; Vols.
21-41, Sec.
1.4.
- Evaluation A.1 '. b. Adequate Evaluation Criterion
'A 1.c.
Each plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a block diagram.
Statement
.t A.1. c. - The Plan illustrates the relationships between the various State,
- Federal, local, and utility response organizations in Fig. 1.2-1 (Sec.
1,2, Vol. 1).
The relationships are described in Sec. 1.2 of Vol.
1.
A diagram (Figure 2.7.1) illustrating relationships among emergency facilities is provided in the Vol. 20.
The relationships are described in Sec. 1.6 (Vol. 20).
A 6
m 9; n
?
FEBRUARY 1990
- 1 j
special block diagram illustrating the relationships of the-various Federal agencies which are part of. the Federal-response is presented as Fig. 1.4-1 of Vol. 1 and the relationships described in Sec. 1.4 of.Vol.
1.
l l[
Plan' Reference
.A.1.c.
Vol.
1, Figs.
1.2-1, 1.4-1 and Secs. 1.2 and 1.4; Vol. 20, Figure 2.7.1 and Sec.
1.6.
u i
Evaluation A.1.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion A.1.d.
Each organization shall identify a specific individual by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response.
Statement i
A.1.d.
The Plan provides the identification of. specific
' individuals by title within each of the State response agencies who are in charge of the emergency response in Vol. - 1, ' Secs.
- 1. 2 &.1. 3.
Sec.1. 2 describes-the overall radiological emergency response organization for the
-State of New Hampshire.
Sec.
1.3 identifies the specific responsibilities of each agency in the State's overall _ radiological emergency response J organization.
The specific procedures of each of these key agencies are contained in Vols.
5-7.
The Governor has ultimate command and control of all.
State resources.
The local governments are. responsible for implementing decisions reached by the State. At the local level, the individual by. title.who would govern
-the local Emergency Response Organization is. identified-in Sec. 1.4 and Fig.
1.4-1 of Vols. 21-41.-
In most cases _the local plans identify the Board of Selectmen as being both the governing authority and being responsible 4
for administrative control of the town.
In a few cases, administrative control is delegated by - the Board of Selectmen to the Town or City Manager (e.g.,
- Exeter, Dover).
t Plan Reference A.1.d.
Vol.
1, Secs. 1.2 & 1.3; Vols. 5-7; Vols. 21-41 (Sec.
1.4 & Fig. 1.4-1).
Evaluation 7
FEBRUARY'1990 4
A.1.d.
- Adequate, t
Evaluation Critierion A.1.' e. Each organization shall. provide for 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of-communications links.
.j Statement A.1.e.
The Plan (Sec.
1.2 of Vol. 1) identifies the. State Police as the 24-hour warning point for the State.
The State Police receive the initial notification from the-
+
Seabrook Station and then notifies appropriate agencies-(Sec. 2.1'of Vol..1).
' Details of communication links which support 24-hour notification are described in Sec..
'2.2.3 and-Tables 2.2-1 & 2.2-2 of Vol.
1.
Figure 2.1-1 (Vol'.
1) describes.the emergency notification procedure for the 24-hour per day notification capability.
Sec.
1.3 of Vol.
1 describes' -the-responsibilities of each agency in the State's:
radiological emergency response organization.
Each agency is to maintain an adequate emergency response
. capability for a 24-hour basis (two 12-hour shifts).
q Local towns receive initial-notification from the L
Rockingham' County Dispatch Center.
Figure 2.2-1 in Vols.
21-41 describes the. emergency notification-H procedures.
Secs.1.4 & 2.2 of Vols. 21-41 describe the responsibilities of the. local governments to maintain an o
adequate emergency response-capability for a 24-hour' basis.
The Emergency Phone list contains
.the various notification call out lists for all elements in the New Hampshire' Emergency Response Organization.
Plan-Reference
'A.1'.e'.
Vol.
1,
- Secs, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1,
& ' 2. 2. 3, Tables 2.2-1 &
2.2-2, and Figure 2.1-1; Vols. 21-41, Secs. 1.4 & 2.2
.and Figure-2.1-1; and the Emergency Phone Listing.
Evaluation A.1.e.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion A.2.a.
Each organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by
- title, of emergency
- response, including the 8
-m
r.am FEBRUARY 1990 following:
Command and-Control,-
Alerting and Notification, Communications,-
Public-Information, Accident Assessment, Public -Health and Sanitation, Social-Services, Fire and Rescue, Traffic Control, Emergency Medical
= Services, Law Enforcement, Transportation, Protective Response (including authority-to request. Federal Assistance and to initiate other; protective actions), and Radiological Exposure Control.
The description of these functions shall include a clear and concise summary such as a table of-primary and support responsibilities using the agency as one axis and the function as the other.
(See Sec. B for licensee.)
Statement A.2.a.
The Plan describes.the functions and responsibilities for major elements of the emergency response by agency and/or. individual in Sec. 1.3 of Vol.
1.
These functions and responsibilities are illustrated on the matrices shown on Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-2.
Table 1.3 differentiates between preassigned and stand-by responsibility.
Table 1.3-2 differentiates-between-primary and support responsibility.
Specific responsibilities for key individuals by title-are provided in the State agency - procedures presented in Vols.
5-7.
The responsibilities of. key individuals within the local response organizations are illustrated in the responsibility matrix presented as Table 1.6.1 in each j
of the local plans (Sec. 1.6 of Vols. 21-41).
The descriptions' of functions and responsibilities are
{
outlined;in Table 1.6-2 and are discussed in Sec.
3'of--
the local; plans (Vols. 21-41).-
{
In those cases in which a plume EPZ community does not participate or - is unable to participate in emergency -
response, the State of New Hampshire will' institute compensatory measures to protect the public as described in Sec. 1.2.6 of Vol. 1.
Plan Reference
.l A.2.a.
Vol.'1, Secs. 1.2 & 1.3 and Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-2; Vols. 5-7; Vols. 21-41, Sec. 3 and Tables 1.6-1 and 1.6-2.
Evaluation A.2.a.
Adequate.
9
qt w
FEBRUARY:1990-Evaluation criterion-A.2.b.. Each plan shall contain (by reference to specific acts, I
codes or statutes) the-legal basis for such authorities.
t Statement' I
L
^ A.'2.b.
The Plan provides the legal basis for the Governor and State emergency response agencies-to implement radiological emergency response actions in-Sec. 1.1 of-Vol.
1, with a listing of specific statutes provided in Table 1.1-1.
The New Hampshire Civil Defense Act (RSA.
107) and the New Hampshire Public Defense-and Veteran's Affair's Act (RSA 107-B) provide the authority for the Governor and the Director of NHCDA (now NHOEM) to l
develop and implement the NHRERP.
The legal basis for the emergency response activities of municipalities is provided in Sec.1.3 of Vol. 20 and Sec. 1.2 of Vols.
21-41.
Plan Reference A.2.b.
Vol. 1, Sec. 1.1 and Table 1.1-1; Vol. 20, Sec. 1.3; and Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.2.
Evaluation A.2.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion A.3.
Each plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of operations developed between Federal,-
i
- State, and local agencies and other support organizations having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones.
The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria-for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of information.
These agreements may be provided in an appendix to the plan or the plan. itself may contain descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the plan may serve to verify _ the agreements.
The signature page format is appropriate for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regula-
- tions, or executivo orders where separate. written agreements are not necessary.
Statement A.3.
The Plan describes the concept of operations between the response organizations in Secs.
1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of 10 f
i[
i
~
T FEBRUARY'1990 Vol.
l'.
The State of - New Hampshire and New Hampshire Yankee
-(NHY) have executed a Letter of_ Agreement to establish radiological emergency preparedness, notification,'and response for-the Seabrook' site.
It specifies concepts-of-operation. between the two regarding alert and notification, exchanges of information, evaluation'and y
. implementation of - precautionary - actions for special populations,-accident assessment measures-for both the 1
plume and ingestion exposure EPZs,.and the coordination of- - public information and rumor control activities.-
e Specific lead functions are assigned to the' State of New Hampshire concerning the notification and coordination l
of emergency activities with the State of Maine, the USCG, the FAA, and the Boston and Maine railroad.
The. State of New Hampshire and the' State'of Maine have u -
executed a Letter of Agreement for-the_Seabrook site..
It states that New Hampshire will notify Maine _of ECLs o
and that New Hampshire and Maine will coordinate response actions.
Specific Federal assistance has been identified as q
required from-the - U.S. Coast Guard and the.FAA..The Coast Guard and the FAA will be requested to restrict boat and. air traffic for the plume exposure.EPZ.
The-State ~ of New Hampshire has signed a memorandum of g
understanding with the USCG and-the FAA to provide control, notification, and restriction of appropriate traffic.
J Letters of Agreement are found in Vol. 50.
Plan Reference A.' 3.
Vol. 1,-Secs.
1.2, 1.3,
& 1.4; and Vol. 50.
4 Evaluation j
A.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion A.4.
Each principal organization shall be capable of j
continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period.
The individual in the principal organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources-1 (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title.
Statement A.4.
The Plan (Sec. 1.3.2 of Vol. 1) states that each agency
'1 11 1
?
k
l'T j
-FEBRUARY 1990
)
ff Ein 'the emergency-response -.- organization has-the responsibility to assure that it can be notified and'
. mobilized on a.24-hour basis, and;that it can support the emergency.. response effort on a 24-hour' basis (two 12-hour' shifts) for the ' duration of 'a protracted 1
i emergency period.
The individual, by title, who is responsible for assuring the continuity of resources for 3
extended operations. for',each agency or principal response-organization is provided in-ther State procedures (Vols. 5-7) for State agencies,- and in 1
Secs.1.4 and 2.2
( Vols. --- 21-41 ) for - local emergency
-response organizations.
Call-lists and rosters: to support the capability. to staff around-the-clock operations are provided in the Emergency Phone Listing.
I l.
Plan Reference A'. 4. -
Vol.- ' 1,- Sec.
- 1. 3. 2 ; Vols. 5-7; Vols. 21-41, Secs. 1.4
& 2.2;
& Emergency Phone Listing.
Evaluation A.4.
Adequate.
FEMA has reviewed: staffing rosters in May of 1988 and i
September 1989.
FEMA found-that adequate numbers of j
staff were identified and trained to staff all
. designated positions on.a 24-hour per day operations basis.
t L-t-
12 I
~
y
[
FEBRUARY 1990'
- C.
Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C):
Arrangements for-requesting and. effectively using assistance 1
res7urces'have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facill'.y: have been made, and other organizations-capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified.
Evaluation Criterion C.1.
The Federal government maintains in-depth capabilities to assist licensees, States and local governments-through the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan (formerly Radiological Assistance Plan (RAP) and Interagency Radiclogical Assistance Plan (IRAP)).
Each State and licensee shall make provisions for incorporating the Federal response capability into its operation plan, including the-following:
Evaluation Criterion C.1.a.
Specific persons by titla authorized to request Federal i
assistance; see A.1.d.,
K.2.a.
Statement-
.j C.1.a.
The Plan describes the process for requesting Federal
'l assistance in Vol.
1, Secs.
1.4.4, 1.4.7, and 2.5.2.
All requests for nontechn; cal assistance will be channeled through the Governor's Authori_ zed Representative, 'the NHOEM (formerly NHCDA) Director.
The NHOEM Director requests nontechnical support from FEMA.
The DPHS EOC Radiological Health Technical Advisor will request technical support from DOE.
4 Plan Reference C.1.a.
Vol. 1, Secs. 1.4 & 2.5.2.
i
-Evaluation C.1.a.
Adequate.
Eva1uation Criterion
-C.1.b.
Specific Federal resources expected, including expected times of arrival at specific nuclear facility sites.
Statement C.1.b.
The Plan describes the expected Federal resources and times of arrival in Sec.
1.4 and on Table 1.4-1 of Vol.
1, 13 l
+
FEBRUARY 1990-Plan Reference-
' C.1. b. - Vol. 1, Sec. 1.4 and Table 1.4-1.
Evaluation.
C.1.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion c.1.c.
Specific licensee, State, and local resources available to support the Federal response, e.g.,
air fields, command post, telephone lines, radio frequencies and telecommunications centers.
Statement C.1.c. The - Plan describes the resources which will be made
-l available to - support the Federal response in Section 1.4.
(Vol. 1).
These resources include: -the. State EOC'
~in.Conco!.-d which-is equipped to support FEMA.
representatives; the utility-operated EOF which will support the NRC, FEMA, and DOE; air transportation and ground transportation provided by the CAP; and nearby airports for use by Federal aircraft (see Table 1.4-2).
Federally operated facilities which may be established-are described in Sec. 2.4 of Vol. 1.
Plan Reference
. 3 C.1. c. Vol.
1, Secs.-1.4 and 2.4,
& Table 1.4-2.
-(
Evaluation C.1.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion f
C.2.a.
Each principal off-site organization may dispatch representatives to the licensee's near-site Emergency Operation Facility.
(State technical analysis representatives at the near-site ~ EOF are preferred.)
Statement C.2.a. The Plan indicates in Sec. 2.4 and on Table 2.4-4 of Vol. 1 that the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS), NHOEM, and other State agencies will report to 14 l
FEBRUARY 1990-the IFO/ EOF-at the ' Alert ECL.
Accident assessment analysis will be performed for the State at the IFO/ EOF t
by the Division of Public Health Services.
Procedures
~
for key agency representatives who will beelocated at the IFO/EOFLare found in State procedures (Vols. 5-7).-
It is not ' anticipated that-local emergency. response organizations will. dispatch representatives to the IFO/ EOF.
Plan Reference 1
C.2.a.
Vol. 1, Sec.
2.4, Table-2.4-4; Vols.
5-7.
Evaluation C.2.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion C 3.
Each organization shall identify radiological laboratories and their general capabilities and expected availability to provide radiological monitoring and T
analyses services which can be used in an emergency.
Statement C.3.
The Plan describes the capabilities of the'- DPHS Laboratories in-
' Concord for providing. radiological.
+
analyses in Sec. 2.5 (Vol. 1).
Equipment available and sample analysis capabilities at the DPHS Laboratories is listed in App. D, Vol.
9.
The Plan (Sec. 2.5, Vol.1) states that the capabilities-of the DPHS laboratories can be supplemented through the New-England Compact on Radiological Health Protection which is described in Vol.
50, in the New England Interstate Radiation Assistance
- Plan, which was
[
developed in accordance with Article III of the Compact.
Plan Reference
.C.3.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.5; Vol.
9, App. D; & Vol. 50.
Evaluation C.3.
Adequate.
15
3
)
FEBRUARY _1990
-l facilities, organizations or-individuals which can'be-l relied upon in an emergency'to provide assistance. -Such assistance' shall be identified and supported by i
' appropriate. letters of agreement.
q l
h Statement
. C. 4 ~.
- The Plan states in Sec.
1.3.2 of.Vol.
1 that-New
{
Hampshire has written-agreements' with other R
organizations regarding the-provision of - public and private resources during a
radiological-emergency.
The New Hampshire office of Emergency
-- response.. has-the responsibility to ensure that Management adequate resources are identified to meet the emergency response _needs.
The New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management has the responsibility to maintain current letters of agreement with various resource providers.
copies of these agreements are provided in Vol. 50.
These documents represent agreements with:
other states; bus providers; ambulance providers; private' -
y trucking companies to supply emergency bus drivers; towing companies; transportation staging area managers; 1
fuel providers;- EBS radio stations; county sheriffs departments;.New Hampshire agencies; selected special-facility managers; host health care facilities; i
hospitals; American Red Cross; and provider of. permanent record dosimeters and reading services.
' Plan Reference C.4.
Vol.
1, Sec. 1.3.2; & Vol.=50.
Evaluation-C.4..
. Adequate.
FEMA received from New Hampshire in January of 1989 and January of 1990 annual letters of certification.
The annual letters of certification state ~that the various agreements contained in Vol. 50 are current.
-l T
l 16
.m
, ?' D
-. K,,
i FEBRUARY 1990 D.; Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D):
A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the
. bases of-which include facility system and effluent parameters, is inluse by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided - by
' facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial off-site-' response measures.
-Evaluation Criterion D.3.
Each State.and local organization shall establish an i
emergency classification and emergency action level scheme consistent with that established by the' facility licensee.
Statement D.3.
.The Plan (Sec. 1.5 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 1.7 of Vol. 20) describes the emergency classification system which is used to initiate emergency response.
The emergency classification levels are Notice of Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency, and General Emergency.
.t Plan Reference D.3.
Vol.
1, Sec. 1.5; Vol. 20, Sec.
1.7.
-2 1
Evaluation D.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion D.4.
Each State and local organization should have procedures in place that provide for emergency actions to be taken which are consistent with the emergency actions recommended by the nuclear facility licensee, taking into account local off-site conditions that exist at the time of the emergency, i
ls Statement D.4.
The Plan describes the written procedures which provide for emergency actions censistent with the emergency i
classification levels in Sec. 2.6 of Vol. 1 and Sec.
2.11 of Vol.
20.
State procedures are contained in Vols.
5-7.
Local community procedures are provided in Sec. 3 of Vols. 21-41.
17
'I Y'? o
-1:. ; <
'\\ Y' yl:1@<. ~!w.
y--
y . t, jq '.qi,=
- f'@t;s a 1;y
'~
FEBRUARY 1990' d
.3 ;
a fi,.
- h.... < s
- j.
t 4 >
Plan' Reference-g,. ;
b,, ' f.+ ' ~ -
D.4.
Vol.-1o Sec. 2.6; Vol.'20, Sec.
2.11; ~Vols. 21-41, Sec.~3..
L y,y. r. 1 y: ; o Evaluation I
p.
.1
- 's D.4.
Adequate.
n,
' lC h
e pi'
[N '
't 4
L l
L
- t..
.r.,
k V
', ~.
r
.)
' =
e i
i 4
i
. I i.
i 5
I i
1.5
! 't '~
x.y i'.
_[} /.
4
'S i
l :'-
i l
t, I'
k.
18 m
iN
%', 1.s.
2
![
k ' I; i
(
L FEBRUARY 1990
)
e E.
Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E):
1 I
Procedures have been established for notification by the j
licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response i
L organizations; the content of initial and follow up messages to response organizations and the public has been established; and means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established.
I Evaluation Criterion
/
E.1.
Each organization shall establish procedures which describe mutually agreeable bases for notification of response organizations consistent with the emergency classification and action level scheme set forth in App.
1.
These procedures shall include means for verification of messages.
The specific details of verification need not be included in the plan, t
i Statement E.1.
The Plan (Sec.
2.1 of Vol.
1) states that-the notification of response organizations is triggered by the standard four level ECL scheme set forth in App. 1 of NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1.
The initial notification is from Seabrook Station to the New Hampshire State Police Communication Center.
The State Police Communication Center then notifies DPHS, NHOEM (formerly NHCDA), and the Rockingham County Dispatch Center.
- NHOEM, in turn, notifies the other state agencies comprising the State emergency response organization.
The Rockingham County Dispatch Center e
notifies all local emergency response organizations.
-This notification procedure is illustrated on Fig.
2.1-1.
The notification sequence is chown on Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2.
l Plan Reference E.1.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.1, Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2, Fig.
2.1-1.
Evaluation
'E.1.
Adequate.
l Evaluation Criterion E.2.
Each organization shall establish procedures for alerting, notifying, and mobilizing emergency response personnel.
l 19
k L
I"EBRUARY 1990 Statement E.2.
The Plan describes the procedures for the notification of State and local government emergency response personnel.
Notification methods including appropriate verification process and procedures are described in Sec. 2.1.2 of Vol. 1 and in Sec.
2.3 of Vol.
20.
Specific State communication procedures for notification are provided in Vols. 5-7 and in the Emergency Phone Listing.
Specific local government communication procedures are provided in Sec. 3 of Vols. 21-41 and in the Emergency Phone Listing.
Plan Reference E.2.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.1; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.3; Vols. 5-7; Vols.
21-41, Sec. 3; and Emergency Phone Listing.
Evaluation E.2.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion E.5.
State and local government organizations shall establish a system for disseminating to the public appropriate information contained in initial and follow up messages received f rom the licensee including the appropriate notification to appropriate broadcast media, e.g.,
the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS).
Statement E.5.
The Plan (Sec. 2.1 of Vol. 1) states that the primary means for disseminating information to the public is EBS.
Dissemination of information and instructions is described in Vol.
1, Secs. 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, and in local plans, Vol. 20, Sec. 2.5.
Other alerting means will include the U.S. Coast Guard notification of boaters in of f shore waters within 10 miles of the plant and the FAA notification to pilots regarding closure of the air space.
Activation of the EBS is described in Sec. 2.1.5 of Vol.1 and in Appendix Bl.1 of Vol 9.
A list of EBS messages is found in Appendix B2.0 of Vol. 9.
The texts of prerecorded EBS messages are found in Appendix B2.1 of Vol.
9.
The texts of prescripted EBS messages are found in Appendix B2.2 of Vol.
9.
It is the responsibility of the NHOEM EOC Operations Of ficer to coordinate the activation of the EBS system with the 20
.. =... -. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 FEBRUARY 1990 activation of the Alert and Notification System sirens.
It is the responsibility of the EOC Media Liaison to prepare the EBS Messages and the responsibility of the NHOEM Director to approve the message content.
The communications officer is responsible.for establishing availability and contact with EBS.
The Rockingham County Dispatch Center is responsible for the activation of the alert siren system (Vol. 7, Secs.14.13 & 14.14).
The Plan (Sec. 10.3 of Vol. 7) contains provisions for the State Police Communications Center to activate the EBS if a General Emergency has been declared and to direct the activation of the alert siren system if the NHOEM cannot be contacted within 10 minutes.
Plan Reference E.S.
Vol.-1, Sec. 2.1; Vol.
7, Secs. 10.3, 14.13, & 14.14; Vol.9, App. B; and Vol. 20, Sec.
2.5.
Evaluation E.5.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion E.6.
Each organization shall establish administrative and physical means, and the time required for notifying and providing prompt instruction to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
(See App. 3.)
It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement.
It shall be the responsibility of the State and local governments to
' activate such a system.
Statement E.6.
The Plan describes the Public Alerting System in Sec. 2.1.4 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.5 of Vol. 20.
The.
Seabrook siren
- system, within the State of New Hampshire, consists of 94 sirens, the locations of which are summarized on Table 2.1-3 and shown on Fig.
2.1-2.
Sirens can be operated either in a siren mode or a public address mode. The New Hampshire Yankee's FEMA REP-10 and FEMA REP-10 Addendum reports describe the design basis for the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System.
The primary siren activation and control point (alert system) is the Rockingham County Dispatch Center (RCDC) wi.*h backup activation from the Seabrook Station Control Room. The New Hampshire municipalities within the Plume 21
FEBRUARY 1990 EPZ can also activate the sirens within their boundaries. When the State EOC is activated, NHOEM will direct the RCDC to activate the sirens.
In the event of a
fast-breaking emergency, the State Police Communication Center (SPCC) can direct RCDC to activate the sirens.
During the period of heaviest beach use (May 15-Sept 15) precautionary beach closing may be considered as early as the Alert ECL.
If this action is taken, the sirens covering the beach areas will be used in the P.A. mode to alert the beach population of beach closing.
This can be done by use of the beach sirens in the P.A. mode with a pre-recorded voice message.
Tone-alert radios have been provided to institutions, special needs facilities, and special needs persons.
These tone-alert radios will be activated by a signal broadcast by the designated EBS station.
For the hearing impaired, the tone-alert radios will be equipped with special signaling devices. Thes4 tone-alert radios are a supplemental system to the primary siren system.
Means of alerting boaters in offshore waters will be provided by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
The State of New Hampshire has an agreement with the USCG stating that the State will request the establishment of a marine safety zone.
The USCG will establish a marine safety zone with appropriate notices to marinero broadcast over mariner radio channels.
The State can provide personnel and equipment from the Department of Safety
- Services, Division of Boating
- Safety, to supplement the USCG alerting and
. notification activities. By agreement with New Hampshire Yankee, the State of New Hampshire requests cuch marine alerting and notification by the USCG for the offshore waters in the Seabrook Plume EPZ.
The State of New Hampshire has an agreement with the
'p U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration (DOT) for the establishment of an air space restriction and the notification of aircraft.
By agreement with New Hampshire Yankee, the State of New Hampshire requests such alerting and notification by the DOT for the Seabrook Plume EPZ.
Plan Reference E.6.
Vol. 1, Sec.
2.1, Table 2.1-3, & Figure 2.1-2; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.5; Vol. 50; FEMA REP-10 and FEMA REP-10 Addendum Reports.
22
FEBRUARY 1990
)
1 Evaluation E.6.
Adequate.
i The Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification l
System Design has been found to meet the specific design l
requirements of FEMA REP-10. The current administrative and physical means meet the 15-minute. design objectives of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1.
The Seabrook siren system within the State of New Hampshire has been installed as specified in the FEMA REP-10 and FEMA REP-10 Addendum reports and as described in Sec. 2.1 of Vol.
l 1
(NHRERP).
The Seabrook siren system became operational effective October 1989.
Evaluation Criterion E.7.
Each organization shall provide written messages intended for the public, consistent with the licensee's classification scheme. In particular, draf t messages to the public giving instructions with regard to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of affected areas shall.be prepared and included as part of the State and local plans.
Such messages should include the appropriate aspects of sheltering, ad hoc respiratory protection, e.g.,
handkerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking or evacuation.
The role of the licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages.
For ad hoc respiratory protection see " Respiratory Protective Devices Manual" American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1963, pp. 123-126.
Statement E.7.
The Plan contains the prescripted EBS messages and describes the prerecorded messages.
These messages are included in App. B of Vol. 9.
The messages are scripted for the range of ECLs and protective actions.
The Plan describes the dissemination of these messages in Sec. 2.1.5 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.5 of Vol. 20.
Plan Reference E.7.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.1.5; Vol.
9, App. B; and Vol. 20, Sec.
2.5.
Evaluation E.7.
Adequate.
l 23 l
i l-
FEBRUARY 1990 F.
Emergency Communication (P1anning Standard F):
Provisions exist for prompt communict.tions among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.
Evaluation criterion F.1.
The communication plans for emergencies shall include organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the communication links.
Each organization shall establish reliable primary and backup means of communication for licensees, local, and State response organizations.
Such systems should be selected to be compatible with one another.
Each plan shall include:
F.1.a.
Provision for 24-hour per day ' notification to and activation of the State / local emergency response network; and at a
- minimum, a
telephone link and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication links that initiate emergency response actions.
I Statement F.1.a.
The Plan describes the initial notification process from the Seabrook Station to the State Police Communications
. Center in Sec.
2.1.2 of Vol.
1.
The designated communications link is the Nuclear Alert System (NAS).
i The State Police Communications Center, which operates on a 24-hour basis, then contacts NHOEM, DPHS and the Rockingham County Dispatch Center (RCDC) by commercial telephone.
The RCDC, in turn, notifies the local response organizations by local dispatch radio, and the NHOEM notifies the State emergency response organizations by commercial telephone.
l Communications systems used in the initial notification I
of emergency response organizations are described in Sec. 2.1.2 of Vol.
1, in Sec. 2.3 of Vol. 20, and in Sec. 2.3 of Vols. 21-41.
The communications links for the initial notification are shown on Fig.
2.2-1.
The communications equipment present at State facilities is described in Sec.
2.2 (Vol.
1) and is shown on Table 2.2-1.
The designation of primary and secondary communications links between each of the key emergency response facilities are shown on Table 2.2-2.
Plan Reference L
F.1.a.
Vol.
1, Secs.
2.1.2, 2.2, Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, Fig. 2.2-1; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.3.
24
FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation i
F.1.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.1.b.
Provision for communications with contiguous State / local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones.
Statement i
F.1.b.
The Plan provides for communications with contiguous i
states (Massachusetts and Maine) and NHY ORO by means of the Nuclear Alert System (NAS) for communications with i
Massachusetts and NHY ORO; and by commercial telephone and NAWAS for communications with Maine. Communications capabilities are described in Sec. 2.2 (Vol. 1) and in the local plans (Sec. 2.4 of Vol. 20 & Sec. 2.3 of Vols.
21-41).
The primary and backup communications systems between the various emergency response facilities are shown on Table 2.2-2 (Vol. 1).
These include communications between State EOC, local EOCs, and other emergency facilities.
Plan Reference F.1.b.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.2, Table 2.2-2; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.4; and Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.3.
Evaluation i
F.1.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion 1
i F.1.c.
Provision for communications as needed with Federal emergency response organizations.
Statement F.1.c.
The Plan (Sec.
2.2, Vol. 1) indicates that the primary communications link with Federal agencies will be commercial telephone, NAWAS (a FEMA dedicated telephone system), or FTS (a Federal telecommunication system).
25
FEBRUARY 1990 Plan Reference F.1.c.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.2.
Evaluation F.1.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.1.d.
Provision for communications between the nuclear facility and the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations
- Facility, State and local emergency operations centers, and radiological monitoring teams.
Statement F.1.d.
The Plan describes the communications capabilities between the various emergency response facilities in Sec. 2.2 (Vol. 1).
The primary communication system i
between Seabrook Station and the EOF is the Nuclear Alert System (NAS).
Communication capabilities between the other emergency response facilities are summarized on Table 2. 2-1.
Communication capabilities of the local governments are discussed in Sec. 2.3 of Vols. 21-41.
Communications between the field monitoring teams and the State EOC or the IFO/ EOF will be by mobile high-and low-band civil Defense Radio.
Plan Reference F.1.d.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.2, Table 2.2-1; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.3.
Evaluation F.1.d.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.1.e.
Provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in each response organization.
Statement F.1.e.
The Plan describes the provisions for alerting emergency personnel in each response organization in Sec. 2.1 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.2 of Vols. 21-41.
Phone numbers are contained in the Emergency Phone Listing.
26
FEBRUARY 1990 Plan Reference i
F.1.e.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.1; Vols. 21-41, Sec. 2.2; and Emergency Phone Listing.
Evaluation F.1.e Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.2.
Each organization shall. ensure that a coordinated i
communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities exist.
I Statement F.2.
The Plan (in Sec. 2.2.8 of Vol. 1 and in Sec. 2.4 of Vol. 20) describes the uniform, state-wide, four-channel emergency medical communication system which has been installed in the Seabrook EPZ. All fixed and mobile EMS radios have a common frequency (155.175 mhz).
Each medical Regional Coordination Center (RCC) is equipped with a four-channel base station which includes this common frequency, two hospital-to-ambulance f requencies, r
and hospital-to-hospital frequency.
For the Seabrook-site, the RCC is the Rockingham County Dispatch Center.
Plan Reference F.2.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.2.8; Vol. 20, Sec.
2.4.
Evaluation F.2.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.3.
Each organization shall conduct periodic testing of the entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10, N.2.a, and App. 3).
Statement F.3.
The Plan in Secs. 2. 2. 9 and 3.1.2 of Vol.1 and Sec. 2. 4 of Vol. 20 provides for periodic testing of the State's communications systems.
Table 3.1-1 (Vol. 1) specifies the frequency of communications drills for each of the major communications links.
FEMA notes that most of the communications equipment is used on a daily basis.
27
i FEBRUARY-1990 Testing of the siren and tone-alert radio public alerting system is described in Sec. 2.1.4 (Vol. 1).
Plan Reference s
F.3.
Vol. 1, Secs. 2.1. 4, 2. 2.9, and 3.1. 2, Table 3.1-1; Vol.
20, Sec.
2.4.
f Evaluation F.3 Adequate.
4 28 4
a
i FEBRUARY 1990 a
G.
Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G):
Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in an emergency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining indoors), the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of information during an emergency (including the physical location or locations) are j
established in advance and procedures for coordinated i
dissemination of infornation to the public are established.
Evaluation Criterion e
G.I.
Each organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at least annually) dissemination of information to the i
public regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency.
This information shall
- include, but not necessarily be limited to:
i
- a. education information on radiation:
b.
contact for additional information c.
protective measures, e.g.,
evacuation routes and relocation
- centers, sheltering, respiratory protection, radio protective drugs, (and protective measures related to the ingestion pathway)'; and t
d.
special needs of the handicapped.
Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Information in the telephone book; periodic information in utility bills; posting in public areas; and publications distributed on an annual basis.
t i
Statement G.I.
The Plan describes the Public Education program and the information materials in Vol.
1, Secs. 2.3.2 through 2.3.5 and Table 2.3-1, and in Vol. 20, Sec.
2.6 and Table 2.6-1.
The New Hampshire public information material consists of documents which will be made available to the public in the plume EPZ on an annual-i basis.
The various documents describe the emergency planning program and provide information on what the members of the public should do in the case of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Station.
1.
This language has been added to Evaluation Criterion G.1 in accordance with' FEMA Guidance Memorandum IN-1, to stress applicability to ingestion pathway concerns.
According to current FEMA guidance, the public information materials designed to meet the requirements of FEMA Guidance Memorandum IN-1 do not have to be pdblished until June 12, 1990.
29
FEBRUARY 1990 The public education program does not include the provision of information in telephone books. The Plan does not describe the public education progran or discuss the public educational material for protective measures related to the ingestion pathway.
Plan Reference G.I.
Vol.
1, Secs.
2.3.2.,
2.3.3., 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 & Table l
2.3-1; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.6 & Table 2.6-1.
l t
Evaluation G.I.
Adequate.
New Hampshire has prepared a farmers brochure in order to provide public education material for the ingestion pathway.
The State has' indicated (letter dated 1/9/90) that a discussion of the farmers brochure and a summary of the distribution scheme will be added to the NHRERP as part of the 1990 annual update.
FEMA has reviewed the information calendar and the supplementary materials for the plume EPZ, and the farmers brochure for ingestion EPZ.
FEMA's REP-11 review and evaluation has found the documents adequate.
Copies of the reports (REP-11 review and evaluations) are available at FEMA Region I.
Evaluation Criterion G.2.
The public information program shall provide the permanent and transient adult population within the l
plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to become aware of the information annually.
The programs should i
include provision for written material that is likely to be available in a
residence during an emergency.
Updated information shall be disseminated as least annually. Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, posted notices or - other means, placed in hotels,
- motels, gasoline stations and phone booths) shall also be used I
to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that l
would be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs.
Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone l
directory or other source of local emecgency information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies.
Statement G.2.-
The methods of disseminating emergency planning 30
{
FEBRUARY 1990-information to the permanent residents and transients within the Seabrook plume EPZ_ ale described in Vol.
1, 1
Secs. 2.3.2 through 2.3.5 and susmarized on Table 2.3-1 and in Vol. 20, Sec. 2.6 and Table 2.6-1.
The methods include distribution of calenCars and brochures, adhesive labels, and posters to be displayed in public places.
i Plan Reference G.2.
Vol. 1, Secs. 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5,
& Table 2.3-1; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.6 & Table 2.6-1.
l Evaluation G.2.
Adequate.
Calendars were distributed to the public in the plume EPZ in 1988 (1989 Calendar) & 1989 (1990 Calendar).
The I
fliers, posters, and labels were distributed to special facilities, State parks, and local governments in the plume EPZ in the fall of 1989.
Signs have been placed at the all-year parks in the plume EPZ.
Signs vill be placed at the seasonal parks, campgrounds, etc. In the plume EPZ during the periods of use by the public, beginning in 1990. The f armers brochure was distributed-to farmers and food processors located in the plume EPZ in the fall of 1989.
Subsequent distribution will be made as needed and in conjunction with the annual update of the agriculture and food processors facilities listing in 1990. A supply of f armers brochures has been established at the State EOC for distribution in the event of an emergency.
Evaluation Criterion G.3.a.
Each principal organization shall designate the points of contact and pnysical locations for use by news media during an emergency.
l Statement G.3.a.
The State has designated (Vol.
1, Secs. 2.3.6 & 2.4.2) the NHY Media Center as the central location for media j
contact with the State of New Hampshire.
Utility, State 1
and Federal spokespersons will be stationed at the Media
.l Center which is located at the Newington Town Hall.
The i
Joint Telephone Information Center (JTIC) is designated as the location at which media representatives can make telephone inquiries.
The Plan does not require local communities to be present at the Media Center.
If the local communities 31
i i
FEBRUARY 1990 i
elect to release.information to media representatives, j
they will advise the Media Center of their intent, will establish a local oriefing room, and the briefings will I
be limited to local response activities (Vol. 20, Secs.
2.6 & 2.7).
l l
Plan Reference G. 3.a. ' Vol. 1, Secs.
- 2. 3. 6 and 2. 4. 2 ; Vol. 20, Secs. 2. 6 & 2. 7.
j
' Evaluation G.3.a.
Adequate.
j Evaluation Criterion I
G.4.a.
Each principal organization shall designate a
spokesperson who should have access to all necessary l
information.
Statement G.4.a.
The Plan states that the official spokesperson for New l
Hampshire will be the Governor's designated representative, referred to as the Media Representative (Vol. 1, Sec. 2.3.6 and Vol. 5, Secs. 1.0 & 17.0).
The Media Representative will be located at the Media Center..The Media Representative, upon arriving at the Media Center, establishes contact with the NHOEM Media Center Technical Assistant, Federal Public Information Representatives, the NHY Emergency News Manager, the NHY q
ORO Public Information Coordinator, the Massachusetts Media Center Representatives (if available), the Maine l
Nedia Center. Representatives (if available), and the l
NHOEM Media Relations /Ruraor Control Liaison.
He (she) also establishes communications with the Media Liaison at the State EOC.
f' The Media Representative receives (via telecopier) from the State EOC and reviews'all news advisories approved for release by the Governor or the NHOEM Director.
The Media Representative will coordinate these advisories with other public information personnel at the Media I
L Center.
The Media Representative receives (via l-telecopier) and reviews copies of all EBS messages l
approved for release from the EOC Media Liaison.
The l
Media Representative will instruct administrative staff l.
to log and coordinate distribution of news advisories and EBS messages to media representatives at the media I
- center, to the wire
- services, and to the Media Relations / Rumor Control Liaison.
The Media Representative participates in all media 32
FEBRUARY 1990 briefings at the Media Center. The Media Representative' is responsible for preparing the briefing text for news i
briefings.
The Media Representative will advise the State EOC Media Liaison of the content of news briefings and any significant rumors or trends in public or media inquiries received from the Joint Telephone Information center. The Media Representative will contact the State EOC Media Liaison with any questions that could not be answered from the media during the news briefings.
Plan Reference l
G.4.a.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.3.6; Vol. 5, Secs. 1.0 & 17.0.
i Evaluation
[
G.4.a.
Adequate.
i Evaluation Criterion G.4.b.
Each organization shall establish arrangements for timely exchange of information among designated spokespersons.
Statement
{
G.4.b.
The Plan states (Vol.
1, Sec.
2.3.6) that the New I
Hampshire Media Representative will coordinate news
[
releases with other organizations designated spokespersons at the Media Center.
Plan Reference G.4.b.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.3.6; Vol.
5, Sec. 17.0.
Evaluation G.4.b.
Adequate.
L Evaluation Criterion G.4.c.
Each organization shall establish coordinated arrangements for dealing with rumors.
Statement G.4.c.
The Plan (Vol.
1, Sec. 2.3.6) states that the State of New Hampshire rumor control activities are to be carried out at the Joint Telephone Information Center in Newington, NH.
The State, NHY ORO, and the utility will 33
O d
FEBRUARY 1990 share a common toll-free "800" telephone number for the public and media to call during an emergency.
State representatives (Vol. 5, Secs. 22.0, 23.0, 24.0, & 25.0)-
will be available at the Joint Telephone Information
,i Center to respond to public and media inquiries regarding offsjte protective action recommendations.
Rumor control staff will be responsible for interfacing with the public.
They will be responsible for detecting f alse rumors that may be circulating and to help prevent the proliferation of false rumors.
The procedures for the Media. Representative (Vol.
5, Sec. 17.0) indicate that he/she is to advise the State EOC Media Liaison of any significant rurors received in the Media Center via the Media Relations / Rumor Control Liaison.
Rumor control activities will include correcting the misinformation at its source if it can be identified.
Special briefings, EBS messages, or news releases may be made to advise the media and public about false rumors.
Plan Reference G.4.c.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.3.6; Vol.
5, Secs.
17.0, 22.0, 23.0, 24.0, & 25.0.
Evaluation G.4.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion G.S.
Each organization shall conduct coordinated programs at least annually to acquaint news media with the emergency plans, information concerning radiation, and points of contact for release of public information in an emergency.
Statement G.5.
The Plan (Vol.
1, Sec. 2.3.6) indicates that NHY will conduct annual media briefings to inform the media about emergency response organization's
- plans, basic information about radiation, concepts of operations, and how distribution of news information will be handled in an emergency.
The State of New Hampshire will be an active participant in these annual media briefings.
Plan Reference G.5.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.3.6.
34 I
, s
'i FEBRUARY 1990 c' %,, >
'a ' ~
4 Evaluation
)
G.S.
Adequate.
The State of New Hampshire began its participation in 1988 with New Hampshire Yankee in the annual m e d i a briefings for Seabrook Station.
l t
i I
1:
F v
t t
i li t
35 d
.. ~,
1 FEBRUARY 1990 j
M.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H)?
Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the j
emergency response are provided and maintained.'
l Evaluation Criterion H.3.
Each organization shall establish an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling j
response functions.
i Statement H.3.
The Plan states that the State of New Hampshire and i
local communities have each established Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs).
The EOCs are described in Sec. 2.4.2 of Vol. 1 and in Secs. 2.4 of Vols. 21-41.
- 3 Each of these EOCs will serve as the command and control center for emergency response operations within the individual jurisdictions, and for communicating with 4
other jurisdictions.
Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-3 lists the EOCs, as well as other emergency response facilities.
Plan Reference H.3.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.4.2, Tables 2,4-1 & 2.4-3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.4.
3 valuation H.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion H.4.
Each organization shall provide for timely activation and staffing of the facilities and centers described in the plan, i
Statement H.4.
The Plan describes the staffing and activation of the State's emergency response facilities in Vol.
1, Sec. 2.4.3 and in Vol. 20, Sec. 2.7. The staffing of the State's emergency response facilities is summarized on Table 2.4-4.
Table 2.4-4 illustrates the status of activation and the staffing by each State organization of the appropriate f acilities for the various emergency classification levels.
The staffing and activation of the local government's emergency response facilities is described in Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.4.
36
~.
FEBRUARY 1990 Following is a summary of the various facilities and activation status The State EOC in Concord is operated by NHOEM and is activated at the Alert ECL.
Local EOCs are activated at no later than the Site Area Emergency ECL.
The IFO/ EOF is a State facility collocated with the Utility-operated EOF at the Newington Station in Newington, New Hampshire.
Both the IFO/ EOF and EOF are activated at the Alert ECL.
The Media Center is a utility operated f acility which is activated at the Alert ECL.
State Staging Areas are managed by Rockingham County Sheriff's Department personnel who are placed on standby at the Alert ECL.
The Staging Areas may be l
partially activated at the Alert ECL and they will be fully-activated.at the SAE ECL.
Reception Centers are State operated f acilities which i
are located in local host communities.
Reception l
Center operations are managed by the New Hampshire Division of Human Services.
The NHOEM will request the activation of Reception Centers upon the decision l
of the Governor to evacuate all or part of the plume i
EPZ, or when an evacuation may be imminent.
The l
Division of Human Services procedures and the host l
community plans specify the process for mobilizing and staffing the reception centers.
Monitoring and Decontamination facilities are State i
operated facilities which are located with each Reception Center.
An additional facility has been designated as a emergency worker monitoring and decontamination facility.
These facilities will be activated, as required, to support the emergency
)
response effort.
Mass Care Shelters are facilition operated by the American Red Cross.
The Mass Care Shelters will be opened selectively based upon the need for this service.
The DPHS Laboratory is a facility operated by the State for the analysis necessary to support State l
field monitoring and dose assessment activities. The l
DPHS Laboratory will be activated, as required, to support the emergency response effort, l
Plan Reference H.4.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.4.3, Table 2.4-4; Vol.
20, Sec. 2.7; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
2.4.
Evaluation H.4.
Adequate.
37
FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation Criterion H.7.
Each organization, where appropriate, shall provide for off-site radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility.
Statement H.7.
The Plan states that the State has made provisions for offsite radiological monitoring equipment for both environmental monitoring (Vol.
1, Sec.
2.5) and personnel exposure monitoring (Vol. 1, Sec. 2.7) in the vicinity of the Seabrook Station.
Contents of the environmental kits are described in Vol. 9, App. D.
An inventory of monitoring equipment at reception centers is provided in Vol. 9, App. D.
Plan Reference H.7.
Vol. 1, Secs. 2.5 & 2.71 Vol. 9, App. D.
Evaluation H.7.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion H.10.
Each organization shall make provisions to inspect, inventory and operationally check emergency equipment / instruments at least once each calendar quarter and after each use.
There shall be sufficient reserves of instruments / equipment to replace those which are removed from emergency kits for calibration or repair.
Calibration of equipment shall be at intervals recommended by the supplier of the equipment.
Statement H.10.
The Plan, Sec. 2.4.5 (Vol, 1), states that provisions have been made to inspect, inventory, and operationally check the equipment to be used for implementing an emergency response at least every calendar quarter and af ter every use. Radiological monitoring equipment will be calibrated in accordance with established calibration schedules.
A sufficient reserve of equipment and instruments is on hand according to the Plan (Vol.
9, App. D).
The local plans (Vol. 20, Sec. 3.4.3 and Vols.
21-41, Sec. 1.5) reflect the commitment to inventory emergency equipment quarterly and to inventory and check radiological monitoring equipment on a quarterly basis.
38
FEBRUARY 1990 l
Plan Reference i
H.10.
.Vol. 1,Sec.
- 2. 4. 5; Vol. 9, App. D; Vol. 20, Sec. 3. 4. 3 ;
I Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
I Evsluation i
H.10.
Adequate.
l Evaluation Criterion H.11.
Each plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emergency kits by general category (protective equipment, communication equipment, radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies).
i Statement F.11.
The Plan (Vol.
9, App. D) contains lists of emergency kits by category. Emergency communications equipment is described in Sec. 2.2.2 (Vol. 1) and is listed by facility on Table 2.2-2.
Field monitoring kits are briefly described in Sec. 2.5.3 (Vol.
1) and the con
- Ants of these kits are listed in Vol. 9, App. D.
I DPHS laboratory equipment is listed in Vol. 9, App. D.
Dosimetry and monitoring equipment is listed by f acility in Vol.
9, App. D.
Plan Reference H.11.
Vol. 1, Secs.
2.2.2, 2.5.3, and Table 2.5-2 and 2.7-1; Vol.
9, App. D.
\\
Evaluation H.11.
- Adequate, r
Evaluation Criterion H.12.
Each organization shall establish a
central point (preferably associated with the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility), for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media.
Statement H.12.
The Plan (Sec.
2.5.3, Vol. 1) states that the State of New Hampshire will establish its accident assessment 39 t
m.+.
1 FEBRUARY 1990 function at the IFO/ EOF at the Newington Station in N e w i n g t o n,. N. H.
The New Hampshire field monitoring teams will be coordinated and dispatched from the IFO/ EOF. The New Hampshire monitoring teams will report sample results to the IFO/ EOF via radio and will receive j
instructions on additional monitoring to be performed.
1 The procedures for the coordination of field monitoring and data collection are described in Secs. 7.0 &
9.0, Vol.
6.
Sample media are returned to the IFO/ EOF for j
screening, prioritization, and distribution to i
laboratories for further analysis.
i Plan Reference H.12.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.5.3; Vol. 6, Secs. 7.0 & 9.0.
Evaluation H.12.
Adequate.
i
[
t I
1 I
i 40
FEBRUARY 1990 5.' Accident Assessment (Planning Standard I):
^
Adoquate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a
radiological emergency condition are in use.
Evaluation I.7.
Each organization shall describe the capability and resources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone which are an intrinsic part of the concept of operations for the facility.
]
Statement I.7.
The Plan (Sec. 2.5.3, Vol.1) describes the capabilities and resources for field monitoring within the plume EPZ.
The New Hampshire DPHS will mobilize a minimum of three
)
two-person field teams per shif t to conduct field radio-logical monitoring.
Field teams will be assembled at the DPHS facility in Concord and will proceed to the l
IFO/ EOF.
The field teams will be directed by the IFO/ EOF in Newington. Monitoring teams will be equipped J
with all required equipment as listed in App. D of vol.
9.
Although field radiological monitoring is a
State responsibility, there are provisions in the plan for acquiring supplementary field monitoring data from the local response organizations.
As indicated in Sec. 2.8 l
of Vol 20, DPHS may call upon town emergency personnel L.
to take background readings in the immediate area of the local EOC using available equipment.
Plan Reference
[
I.7.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.5.3; Vol.
9, App. D; Vol. 20, Sec.
2.8.
l Evaluation I.7.
Adequate.
L Evaluation Criterion I.8.
Each organization, where appropriate, shall provide
- methods, equipment and expertise to make rapid assessments of the actual or potential magnitude and locations of any radiological hazards through liquid or gaseous release pathways.
This shall include activation, notification means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and 41
FEBRUARY 1990 estimated deployment times.
Statement I.8.
The Plan (Sec.
2.5.3, Vol. 1) describes the methods, equipment, and expertise to make rapid assessments of actual or potential magnitude and locations of radiological hazards.
The New Hampshire DPHS has made provisions to mobilize a' minimum of three two-person field teams to conduct field radiological monitoring.
Field teams will be assembled at the DPHS f acility in Concord and proceed to the IFO/ EOF in Newington.
Field team procedures (Sec.
10.0 of Vol. 6 & Sec. 3 of Vol. 8) call for field team members to pick up vehicles with dual radio capability (UHF and VHF) in Concord.
Travel time is estimated at one and _one-half hours.
Monitoring teams will be equipped with all required equipment as listed in App. D of Vol. 9.
After being dispatched from the IFO/ EOF, the field monitoring teams will proceed to monitoring points as directed by the IFO/ EOF within the plume exposure EPZ.
At monitoring points the team will measure whole body dose rate, will take air samples, and will determig airborne radioiodines at levels less than 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter above typical background levels. The monitoring teams will report the sample results to the accident assessment staf f by radio and will receive instructions for the next monitoring
' location.
Any liquid spills in the waters near the Seabrook Station will be monitored by the collection of water samples as needed.
Plan Reference I.8.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.5.3; Vol.
6, Sec. 10.0; Vol.
8, Sec. 3; Vol. 9, App. D.
Evaluation I.8.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion I.9.
Each organization shall have a capability to detect and measureradioiodineconcentra_tfonsinairintheplume exposure EPZ as low as 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter under field conditions.
Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radiation shall not decrease the stated minimum detectable activity.
42
FEBRUARY 1990 Statement 9
1.9.
The Plan (Sec. 2.5.3, Vol.1) describes the capabilities to detect and measure radioiodine concentrations in air i
in the plume EPZ. The State has made provisions for the i
use of the E-140 to potermine airborne radioiodines at levels less than 10 microcuries per cubic centimeter
~
above typical background levels.
The procedures in Sec.
3 of Vol. 8 indicate the method of converting field readings to iodine concentrations, and instructions for expediting delivery of field samples for further laboratory analysis.
The Monitoring Team Coordinator check list (Sec. 9.0 of Vol. 6)' informs the Monitoring Team Coordinator to instruct' DPHS monitoring teams to expedite delivery of air samples to the IFO/ EOF if a 1
reading of 100 cpm above background is detected.
]
Plan Reference J
l I.9.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.5.3; Vol.
G, Sec. 9; Vol.
8, Sec.
3.
Evaluation i
I.9.
Adequate.
i i
Evaluation Criterion I.10.
Each organization shall establish means for relating the various measured parameters (e.g., contamination levels, I
water and air activity. levels) to dose rates for key isotopes (i.e., those given in Table 3, page 18 of NUREG
- 0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1) and gross radioactivity measurements.
Provisions shall be made for estimating e
integrated dose from the projected and actual dose rates and for comparing these estimates with the protective action guides.
The detailed provisions shall be described in separate procedures.
Statement I.10.
The Plan (Secs. 2.5.3 and 2.6, Vol. 1) describes the provisions for relating field measurements to projected dose rates and for comparison of dose rates with protective action guides (PAGs).
The procedures (Sec.
7.0 of Vol. 6 and Sec. 6 of Vol. 8) for the DPHS IFO/ EOF Accident Assessment Team indicate that, in conjunction with Utility Accident Assessment, the Accident Assessment Team is to perform atmospheric dispersion estimation and dose rate estimation using METPAC.
The type of information that can be obtained from the METPAC printout includes plume arrival time for downwind dictances up to 10 miles, whole-body and 43
1 FEBRUARY 1990' thyroid dose rate projections, atmospheric dispersion and plume depletion factors, and whole body and thyroid integrated doses for 2, 4,
6, or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of exposure.
FEMA notes that DPHS will staff an accident assessament function (Sec. 8 of Vol. 6) at the State EOC.
The EOC METPAC Operator will perform accident assessment functions until the IFO/ EOF Accident Assessment Team is operational. At that time, the EOC METPAC Operator will provide a backup to the IFO/ EOF Accident Assessment Team and will provide a check for accident assessament activities at the IFO/ EOF.
Field radiological measurements will be used to prepare dose estimates and projections for subsequent comparisons to dose projections derived from the METPAC.
The procedure (Sec. 4.0 of Vol. 8) for conversion of field radioiodine count rates to child -thyroid dose commitment specifies a
process to reduce undue conservatism in order to calculate accurate dose commitments.
PARS will be developed as described in Sec. 6.0 of Vol.
8.
Forms 210 A & B (Forms Sec., Vol.
- 8) have been developed to document the PARS.
See J.11 for discussion of dose projections for the ingestion pathway.
Plan Reference I.10 Vol.
1, Secs. 2.5.3 & 2.6; Vol. 6, Secs. 7.0 & 8.0; Vol.
8, Secs.
4.0, 6.0,
& Forms.
Evaluation I.10.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion I.11.
Arrangements to locate and track the airborne radioactive plume shall be made, using either or both Federal and State resources.
Statement 1.11.
The Plan (Sec.
2.5.3, Vol.
1) indicates that, if necessary, aerial monitoring will be performed by DPHS monitoring personnel with National Guard (if available) or Civil Air Patrol aircraft.
DPHS may use Federal resources if the FRMAP has been invoked prior to the i
need for aerial monitoring and if the resources are readily available. Procedures for aerial monitoring are described in Sec. 3.0 of Vol.
8.
l 44 I
FEBRUARY 1990 Plan Reference I.11 Vol.
1, Sec.--2.5.3; Vol.
8, Sec. 3.0.
Evaluation-I.11.
Adequate.
4 r
' f i
e P
[
i i
e l
p l
l 1-i 1
i 45
~
r FEBRUARY 1990 J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J):
A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ' for emergency workers and the public.
Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed.
Evaluation Criterion J.2.
Each licensee shall make provision for evacuation routes and. transportation for on-site individuals to some suitable off-site location, including alternatives for inclement weather, high traffic density and specific radiological conditions.
Statement J.2.
The Plan does not describe any special provisions for the evacuation of Seabrook Station workers.
The Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study indicates that the State's evacuation plan for the general public includes an estimate of vehicles that could come from Seabrook Station.
During normal operations, evacuation of non-assigned station personnel would involve approximately 500 vehicles.
Plan Reference J.2.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.6; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.11; Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study.
Evaluation J.2.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.9.
Each State and local organization shall establish a capability for implementing protective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria.
This shall be consistent with the recommendations of EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes (EPA-520/1-75-001), and with those of DHEW (DHHS)/FDA recarding radioactive contamination of human food and anite 1 feeds as published in the Federal Register of October 22, 1982 (47 FR 47073).
46 i
(
h FEBRUARY 1990' e
t Statement J.9
- The-Planq ( App.
C, Vol. 9) describes the New' Hampshire l
8 communities within the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZLas-being within Rockingham County, New Hampshire..
i All land area is said to be--under the jurisdiction of
)
the following communities:
Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Greenland, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Kingston','New Castle, Newfields, Newton, North Hampton, t
'Portsmouth, Rye, Seabrook, South Hampton, and Stratham.
)
The' navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean are under the jurisdiction of the USCG.
See Figur~e 1 on page xvii.
I E
The State of New Hampshire has grouped the identified communities into Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs)~. ERPAs are groupings of municipalities that are identified on the basis of distance and direction from the' SNPS and for which specific evacuation time l
c,7timates have been assigned.
Evilowing (source-is Table C1.1-1 in Vol. 9) is the identification title (ERPA name) and grouping of municipalities:
ERPA Grouping's of Municioalities A
Hampton Falls, Seabrook,_Hampton Beach C
Kensit.gton, South Hampton D
Hampton, North Hampton F-Brentwood, East
- Kingston, Exeter,.
- Kingston, Newfields, Newton l'
G Greenland, New Castle, Portsmouth, Rye, Stratham l
FEMA notes that ERPA designations ERPA B and ERPA E have been assigned to groupings of municipalities in the -
Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ.
The general population, projected to -1990 - (source is-t Figure 6.5-1 of Sec.
6, Vol. 8), is stated to be as.
follows:
ERPA Permanent Summer Peak A
9,442 46,284 C
2,439 3,286 D
15,865 29,782 F
26,060 28,399 G
40,651 53,114 Total
-Population 94,457 160,865 The transient population mainly visits Seabrook and Hampton Falls, and Seabrook and Hampton beaches (ERPA A); Hampton and North Hampton (ERPA D); the beaches in Rye (ERPA G), and the community of Portsmouth (ERPA G).
The Seabrook Station Ingestion Exposure EPZ affects 47
FEBRUARY 1990 K -
portions-of the States of Maine;and New Hampshire'and portions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
.!?
The Plan (Figure C1.1-2, Vol. 9) i d e n t i f i e s - a l l' or:
portions of the following New Hampshire counties as being part of the-ingestion exposure EPZ:
Rockingham, Hillsborough, Merrimac, Belknap, Straf ford, and Carroll.
See Figure 2 on page xviii.
The: State of New Hampshire has adopted the concept of operation for Protective Actions (Sec.
2.6, Vol. 1) in the plume exposure EPZ as follows:
. New Hampshire will rely upon a
combination of precautionary and protective actions.
- Precautionary actions include actions such as school ll cancellation or early school evacuation, closure or evacuation of certain beaches between May 15 and i
September 15, and the establishment of a Water (Marine)
Safety Zone by the USCG.
Plant Status and prognosis are the basis for precautionary actions for seasonal beach populations, school children, and boaters.
At ALERT ECL, if plant prognosis warrents, the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook will be closed and access
-l control will'be established.
1 At SAE ECL, if plant status is stable, the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook will be closed and access control
~!
will be established.
{
At SAE ECL,. if' plant status indicates that a major j
plant-system is unstable or degrading, the beaches in.
Hampton and.Seabrook will be evacuated, access control
.I will be established, and a marine safety zone will be 1
established.
At SAE ECL, a decision will be-made on precautionary actions for schools: cancellation if schools are not in session; early evacuation of schools if schools are in session; and cancellation of extracurricular school I
I activities.
. Protective actions include sheltering and/or evacuation coupled with traffic and access control.
Plant status and prognosis are the initial basis for protective actions for the general public.
i At GE ECL, a decision will be made to evacuate Hampton Falls and Seabrook including Hampton and Seabrook beaches (ERPA A),
establish access control, and establish a marine safety zone.
l 48 i
4 L
' FEBRUARY-1990' Based upon assessment of' plant conditions,-a-decision to' extend protective actions to other.ERPAs will be; made.
.The State.of New Hampshire will-utilize dose projections.to confirm the adequacy of protective action decisions based upon assessment of plant status and prognosis, as described in Sec. 2.6.7 of Vol.1 and Sec. 6 of Vol.
8.
The protective action recommendation will be conveyed to the public on a community basis.
Institutionalized populations (including those in hospitals, nursing homes and jails) will be considered as part of the general public.-
If the protective actions for the general public cannot be implemented for these populations, a
more detailed evaluation of protective action recommendations is undertaken based upon facility-specific sheltering protection factors.
The State of New Hampshire has established-the capabilities for effecting the evacuation of the general public and special populations.
The State of New Hampshire has designated staf f, equipment, and resources to effect evacuation and to establish access control points (ACPs) for evacuated areas.
The State of New Hampshire will provide dosimetry and KI, if appropriate, to those Special Populations who cannot evacuate.
The State has designated evacuation routes to be used in the plume exposure EPZ.
The evacuation routes for the Seabrook Station EPZ are shown in Fig.
- 2. 6-2 of Sec. 2. 6 in Vol. 1.
The evacuation routes are described in App, C, Table'C.1.1-4 of Vol. 9.
Traffic and access control points (Figure C1.1-10 in Vol. 9) will expedite traffic flow during the implementation-of an evacuation.
If necessary, an evacuation can be implemented during adverse weather.
Access control, which-will be'imple-mented by the New Hampshire State Police and by local police, will be established during a sheltering or evacuation protective action. The communities within the Plume Exposure EPZ have equipment for dealing with snow removal and route maintenance (Sec. 2.6 of Vol.
1).
The. State has provided several means for supplementing local route maintenance capabilities (dealing with impediments)'should these become desirable (e.g., New Hampshire Department of Transportation and New Hampshire National Guard personnel and equipment).
The primary means of transportation for evacuation of the general public will be privately-owned vehicles.
Each community has an individual designated with the responsibility of assessing the needs and providing transportation assistance, if required, to the special populations. Special populations are defined as schools (public and private), day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, other special facilities, and residents who 49
^
' FEBRUARY 1990 are transit-dependent'or who require;special help.
Special arrangements have been planned to provide for the transport of these _special populations.-
The-provision of transportation resources for people not able to use private automobiles will be coordinated by the State of New Hampshire.- If a local community does not have the capability.to respond to the emergency, the -
State will assume the responsibility for providing assistance to special. populations.
The State of New Hampshire has made arrangements -to evacuate the transit-dependent. persons in the beach areas within about 2 miles'of Seabrook Station-during the period from May 15 to September 15 of every year.
The State recognizes that the-possibility exists that
.some transient population on the beaches may not have access to a source of transportation.
In the event that evacuation is recommended for~the beach population, the transportation-dependent transients will be accommodated-l in temporary public shelters located in-the beach areas until State-provided transportation resources arrive.
The State has made provision for sheltering and subsequent evacuation of the transit-dependent beach population as follows:.
prescripted EBS messages-that.
will direct transportation-dependent beach population to -
shelters; buildings identified as shelters; and the provision of transportation resources to evacuate transients to the designated reception centers.
l The State of New Hampshire employs the " Shelter-in-l Place" concept. This concept provides for sheltering at i
the location in which the sheltering instruction is j
received.
Those at home are=to shelter at home; those 1
at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace j
or school building.
Transients located indoors or in i
private homes will be asked to shelter at the locations they are visiting if this is feasible.
Transients without access to an indoor location will be advised to t
evacuate as quickly as possible in their own vehicles.
If necessary, transients without transportation will be advised-to shelter in nearby public buildings.
The State.has established the capability to alert and j
notify the public.
The Plan (Sec.
2.1.4, Vol.
1) describes the New Hampshire Public Alerting System.
i This system consists of 94 sirens and designated EBS stations.
The State will coordinate the activation of the sirens and the designated EBS radio station.
FEMA l
notes that the New Hampshire Public Alerting System is operational at this time.
The State of New Hampshire has adopted the concept of operation for pas (Sec.
2.6.6 of Vol.
1) in the ingestion exposure EPZ as follows:
50
FEBRUARY 1990
. Precautionary guidance:
Recommend that milk-animals be placed'on-stored feed.
. Preventive 1 Protective Actions:. Recommend-pas if the measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels.
. Emergency Protective Actions:-
Recommend pas if the measured contamination of foodstuff exceeds the emergency derived response levels.
The State of New Hampshire has adopted the concept of operation for pas (Sec.
2.9, Vol. 1) for the Reentry and Recovery Period as follows:
recommend the designation of restricted zones, relocation of the general ~ public, and decontamination campaigns.
These
-Protective ~ Actions will be based on the measurement of
. contamination that would result in projected whole body doses exceeding the various relocation PAGs.
-The State of'New Hampshire has. adopted the EPA PAGs for the general public and emergency workers in'the plume exposure EPZ.- ( Sec.
- 2. 6. 3, Vol. 1).
The State of New Hampshire has adopted the FDA PAGs for foodstuffs in the ingestion exposure EPZ (Sec. 2.6.4,'Vol. 1).
The State of New Hampshire has adopted the draft EPA = PAGs for relocation (Sec. 2.9 of Vol. 1).
'The State of New
- Hampshire PAGs are consistent with the-New' Hampshire Yankee'Offsite Response Organization, and the State of Maine..
Plan Reference i
J.9.
.Vol.
1, Secs. 2.1.4,. 2. 6,
2.9, Figure 2.6.2; Vol.
8, L
'Sec.
6, Figure 6.5-1; Vol.
9, App.
C, Table C1.1-1 &
j '
C 1~. 1 - 4, Figures C1.1-2 & C1.1-10.
L l.--
Evaluation J.9..
- Adequate, Evaluation Criterion o
J.10.
The organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include:
4 J.10.a. Maps showing evacuation
- routes, evacuation
- areas, preselected radiological sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas; (identification of radiological sampling and monitoring points shall include the designators in Table J-1 or an equivalent uniform system described in the plan).
i 51
t
' FEBRUARY 1990
~ Statement j
J.10.a. Several, types of maps are provided in various sections l
of the State and local-plans.
These maps are l as 1
-follows:
Location Tygg
. Vol.
1, Fig.'2.5-2 Grid Map (for Of f-Site Radiological Monitoring) l
. Vol.
1, Fig.
2'.6-2 Evacuation Routes. &
Reception Centers
. Vol.
9, App. C Figure C1.1-1 Plume Exposure EPZ; Figure C1.1-2 Ingestion Pathway EPZ; and Figure C1.1-3 Emergency Response Planning Areas.
. Vol. 20, Figure 1.5-1 Plume Exposure.EPZ Figure 1.5-2 Emergency Response Planning Areas
. Vols. 38-41',
Figure 2.4-1 Reception Centers and Mass care Shelters Locations.
. Traffic Management Manual Access / Traffic Control Points.
Plan-Reference J. 1 0. a. V o l. - 1,- S e c.
2.5, Figure 2.5-2 and Sec.
2.6, Figure 2-6-2; Vol.
9, App.
C, Figures C1.1-1, C1.1-2, & C1.1-3; Vol. 20, Sec.
1, Figures 1.5-1 & 1.5-2; Vols. 38-41, 1
Figure 2.4-1; Traffic Management Manual, j
':4 Evaluation J.'10.a.~ Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.b. Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear-facility.
This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees shall also present the information-in a sector format).
Statement L
.J.10.b. Populat on distribution by ERPA is provided in map form i
1 in Vol. 8, Figure 6.5-1 and in table-form in Table 1.5-l.
1 in Vol. 20.
1 52
-l FEBRUARY-1990 Plan Reference
- l
- J.10. b. _Vol.
8,- Sec.
6, Figure 6.5-1;EVol. 20, Sec. -l',
Table r
- 1. 5-1. -
i Evaluation
-l I
J.10.b. Adequate.
Evaluation = Criterion
' J.10.c. Means for notifying all segments of the transient and-resident population.
i Statement J.10.c. The Plan,in Sec. 2.1 of Vol. 1 and in Sec. 2.5 of Vol'..
20 describes 'the means for' notifying all segments of-the transient and resident population.
See comments under E,6. -
?
Plan Reference J.10. c. Vol.1, Sec. 2.1; Vol. 20, Sec.
2.5.
.t
-Evaluation
' J.10.c. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion
'J.10.d' Means for protecting' those persons whose mobility may be '
L impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement.
Statement J.10.d. The Plan in Sec. 2.6 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.11 of Vol. 20-describes the means.for protecting'those persons whose mobility may be impaired.
See discussions and comments under J 10.g on the provision of transportation assistance to transit-dependent persons.
Each community has an individual designated with the responsibility of assessing the needs for and providing transportation assistance, if
- required, to special populations.
At SAE or GE, the communities (or the State for the communities) will contact the special 53
- -. ~.._.
m j
FEBRUARY.1990:
I populations. The special populations will be advised of the emergency conditions at Seabrook.- The community-(or State)' will confirm the transportation. requirements necessary to e*fect-evacuation. -If evacuation is y" '
-implemented, the special facility populations will be advised of the number of vehicles being sent' and the ETA -
-(estimated time of arrival).- In those cases in which a community is unable to respond to an emergency, the
~
State Plan in Sec.
1.2.6 of Vol'.
1 discusses the
='
provisions for identifying transportation resource' needs (including receiving requests for assistance during the emergency) and for obtaining and supplying the required resources.
The' provision of-the transportation resources.will;be-coordinated by the State.
The, State will direct the dispatch of-vehicles to the Local. Staging Areas-where they will-be provided maps and directions -to_ the 1
facilities.
Any cdditional unanticipated vehicle needs will be coordinated through the NHOEM Liaison at the IFO/ EOF and the State Transportation Staging Area.
The i
detailed procedures have'been incorporated into Vol.
5, Secs. 14.0 & 15.0 and in Vols. 21-37,.Sec.
3.
All transportation needs and resources are coordinated by NHOEM at the IFO/ EOF in Newington.
Transportation requirements are transmitted from the communities to the IFO Local Liaisons. The IFO Local Liaisons then provide the information to the IFO Resources Coordinator who,_ in turn, requests the resources from the EOC Resources Coordinator at the State EOC in Concord.
In addition, one representative of the State's Bureau of Energency Medical Services (EMS) will also be located at the State EOC ' and will be prepared to respond to requests for transportation assistance from special facilities.
.l Special-arrangements have been planned for the transport of.special populations as follows:
Schools - In the event an. evacuation is initiated during school hours, New Hampshire children will be bused directly to Reception Centers.
The provision of the transportation' resources will be coordinated by the State.
c In the event an evacuation is SDecial Facilities recommended, Special facilities (nursing homes and hospitals) will be evacuated from the area to designated host facilities.
The number of persons SDecial Needs Population requiring transportation support in each community of the Seabrook plume EPZ during an emergency are identified annually in a special needs population survey conducted by NHOEM.
The individual in each community, who is responsible for overall transportation require-ments (e.g.,
Transportation Coordinator) maintains a 54 l'
[
S f
FEBRUARY--1990 current listing: of community residents who require evacuation by. either. special vehicle:(1 e., ambulance or
.special van) or.that' require physical help to. evacuate..
The ' Transportation Coordinator -(or responsible - town official)-- ~ ~is responsible
-for identifying the j
transportation = requirements. of special needs persons.
This includes those individuals previously identified and listed on the-Special Needs List and also - any
- individuals
.who-telephone.
the EOC requesting j
e
. transportation assistance.-.
The Plan does.contain a consolidated listing (Sec.
NHOEM,.
page 48, Emergency Phone-Listing) of transportation needs which is as follows:
528 buses, 25 special needs buses, 41 vans,14 reclining seat coaches,
.[
- 26. ambulances, and 15 wheel chair vans are required..
' Individual lists of transportation needs are found in each community's section of the Emergency Phone Listing.
I' Plan Reference J.10. d. Vol.
1, Secs. 1.2.6 & 2.6; Vol.
5, Secs. 14.0 & 15.0; Vol. 20,.Sec. 2.11; Vols. 21-37, Sec. 3.-
Evaluation t
J.10.d. Adequate.
l The State conducted a special needs survey in 1986. The State conducted two special needs surveys in 1989.
The State distributed the revised special needs list-to'the participating.' governments in January 1990.
1 FEMA's review of the Letters of. Agreement - (Vol.
50)
' indicates that adequate resources are available.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.e. Provisions for the use of radioprotective
- drugs,
~
particularly for emergency workers and institutionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose immediate evacuation may be infeasible or-very difficult, including quantities,
- storage, and means of i
distribution.
Statement J.10.e. The Plan (Sec. 2.6 and Sec.
2.7, Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.10, Vol.
20) describes the provisions for the use of radioprotective
- drugs, potassium iodide (KI),
by emergency workers and institutionalized persons.
55 4
t FEBRUARY 1990'
.XI is stored at,the following State and local emergency.
facilities (see App. D1.1.5l& D1.1.6 in Vol. 9):-
.-EPZ community local EOCs J
. Hospitals and Nursing Homes
.l
. State Transportation Staging Areas
. State-Police Troop "A" Headquarters
. Dept. of.. Transportation field facilities
. IFO/ EOF
. Reception Centers
. Rockingham County Jail C
The 'KI supplies at'each of the. above facilities are inspected on a quarterly basis and-any KI that has i
exceeded or will exceed. the shelf.-life. prior to the next.
- j scheduled finventory will be replaced - (Sec. 2.'4 '. 5, o f Vol. 1).
At the local level, the RADEF Officer-will J
perform-this inventory and-will return outdated KI to the NHOEM (Sec. 3.4 of Vol. 20).
At the, State and local dosimetry issuance points, all emergency workers receive a-Potassium Iodide Acknowledgment Form which they are-I required to sign.
1 The-KI will be made available to be ingested by :all.
staff'and by confined individuals only af ter instruction.
to.do so'by DPHS.
Ingestion by hospital patients.and residents of nursing homes will only be allowed if the individual's physician has determined that the use of KI is appropriate-for the individual..Such determination
-may be made in advance and -noted in the individual's medical records.
I Plan Reference
-]
J.10 e. Vol.
1, Secs.
2.4.5, 2,6, and 2.7; Vol.
9, App. D1.1.5
& D1.1.'6;'Vol. 20, Secs. 2.10 and 3.4.
' Evaluation J.10.e. Adequate Evaluation Criterion s
' J.10.f. State and local organizations' plans should include the methods-by which decisions by the State Health Department for administering radioprotective drugs to the general population are made during an emergency and the predetermined conditions under which such drugs may be used by off-site emergency workers.
56
E i
4 U,
FEBRUARY.1990.
'Statementi
~ J.10. f. The Planiin - Sec.
- 2. 7 of - Vol. 1 and ' Sec. 2.10 of Vol. 20 I
- describes - the - methods and.
decision process' for administering.
KI.
'to-emergency workers and institutionalized individuals who can not-evacuate.-
3 For emergency workers,. KI will be distributed - at the time dosimetry is issued.
. If t h e ;- p o w e r ' p l a n t h a s released I-131, and if projected. doses are expected to exceed the upper range'of the general population PAG for thyroid exposure (25 rem), the use-of.KI for emergency
-workers'will:be considered. The Director, DPHS, has the responsibility for. authorizing emergency workers ' to begin.taking KI.
Sec. 4al, Vol. 8,-provides guidance
-and instruction for the authorization and administration of-KI..
In :regar'd:.to institutionalized individuals, KI is predistributed to the institutions so that it will be available 7.in the event of a radiological emergency.
Institutionalized individuals:are individuals who are patients in hospitals, residents in a nursing home licensed :as' such by the Division of Public Health Services, individuals who are confined in a house of correction, or who are staff employed by the hospital, t
nursing home or house of correction and whose presence 1
in the. facility is unavoidable during a radiological emergency.
J According to the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services = KI Policy Letter dated April 24,.1986 _(see
_Vol. 50, Sec. 2.0-1), KI will not be provided by DPHS:
's l-to the general public.
As. indicated in. this' policy g
letter, and in the Plan, ingestion of the KI.will'only N*
1.
=be done upon the authorization of the DPHS Director.
' Plan Reference J.10. f. Vol.
'1, Sec.
- 2. 7 ; Vol.
8, Sec. 4.1; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.10; s
Vol. 50, Sec.
2.0-1.
f Evaluation J.10. f. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.g. Means of relocation.
57 s
'i TEBP.UARY 1990 2
y c
Statement J.10 ~.g. The Plan in Sec.
- 2. 6. of Vol. 1 and Sec. - 2.11 of Vol. 20 describes means for the relocation of the general public-including persons who are transit dependent.
See discussion and comments on the provision of 7
-_ transportation' assistance for special populations under J.10.d.
The primary means of transportation for the general public will be privately-owned vehicles.
The Plan assumes that residents requiring transportation, including non-automobile owning individuals and persons l
without access to their vehicles, will leave the EPZ in automobiles of
- friends, neighbors, or relatives.
- However,
'for those who require transportation assistance, the State will provide buses that will drive along predesignated routes for the pickup of residents.
4 In the-event of an evacuation, the State EOC Resources Coordinator will direct.the dispatch of the buses:from the State Staging Areas to the Local Staging Areas.
At 1
the Local Staging Areas, the buses will be provided with
. route maps and directions for driving-along the-
. predesignated routes.
Some towns have predesignated i
pickup' points witbin the town (e.g.,
Exeter).
Designated bus routes are outlined in the Emergency Plan Information Calendar that is provided to all plume EPZ residents. EBS messages will direct residents requiring transportation to report to the nearest bus route location for pickup.
Residents who are provided transportation assistance will be evacuated to the predesignated' Reception Centers.
The responsibilities of_the New Hampshire DOT and the National Guard have been expanded -to include the role of 'providing an additional pool of vehicle drivers, if
- needed, to
~l support an evacuation.
The State of New Hampshire has made arrangements to i
evacuate the transit-dependent persons present in the beach areas within about 2 miles of Seabrook Station (beaches in Hampton and Seabrook). The State recognizes W
that the possibility exists that some transient-
~
dependent population on the beaches may not have access to a source of transportation.
In the event that evacuation is recommended for the beach population, the transportation-dependent transients will be accommcdated in temporary public shelters located in the beach areas until State-provided transportation resources arrive.
The State has made provision for sheltering (NHOEM Sec.,
page 47 of 48, Emergency Phone Listing) and subsequent evacuation of the transit-dependent beach population as follows:
prescripted EBS messages that will direct transportation-dependent beach population to shelters; buildings identified as shelters; and the provision of 58
f.1 FEBRUARY 1990~
transportation resources to evacuate transients to the
-I designated reception ~ centers.
j The ~ Plan does contain a consolidated listing (Sec.
- NHOEM, page 48, Emergency Phone Listing) of-transportation needs which is as follows:
528 buses, 25-l special needs buses, 41 vans,14 reclining. seat coaches, 1
26 ambulances, and 15 wheel chair vans are required.
A Individual lists of transportation.needs are found-in each community's section of the Emergency Phone Listing.
1 Plan Reference J.10.g. Vol.
1,- Sec. 2. 6 ; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.11; Vol. 50; Emergency l
. Phone Listing.
9 i.
Evaluation J.10.g.- Adequate.
-FEMA's review of the Letters of Agreement (Vol. 50)-
indicates that adequate resources are available.
1 Evaluation' Criterion J.10.h. Relocation. centers in host areas which are-at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries. of the plume exposure emergency planning zone (see J.12).
i.
Statement-J.10.h. The Plan in Sec. 2.6 of Vol
'1 and Sec. 2.11 of Vol.-20 describes the-provisions for relocation. centers (reception centers) and congregate care centers.
See discussion under J.12.
Four reception centers are located in the host communities of Dover, Manchester, Salem, and Rochester.
l--
The specific locations.within these communities are i
listed on Table 2.4-1 and are shown on Fig. 2.4-1 of Vols. 38-41.
All four reception centers are located more than five miles beyond the outer boundary of the lo mile plume exposure EPZ.
Reception center operation is described in each of the host community plans (Vols. 38-41, Sec. 2.4).
The New Hampshire Division of Human Services (DHS) will provide personnel to manage the reception centers (Sec.
5, Vol.
7).
The New Hampshire DPHS will supervise radiological monitoring and decontamination services which will be carried.out by local staff (Sec.
5, Vol. 8).
Congregate care will not be provided at the reception center itself, but will be provided at nearby mass care 59
- t
.iit
FEBRUARY 1990 shelters in the host communities. According to the1 host community plans (Vols. 38-41, Sec. 2.4), 42. congregate care centers (mass care shelters) have been identified.
The identified congregate-care centers have space for-approximately 35,430 people.
The American - Red Cross will staff and manage the mass care shelters.
Plan' Reference b
J.10.h. Vol. 1, Sec. 2.6; Vol.
7, Sec. 5; Vol.
8, Sec. 5; Vol.
20, Sec.
2.11; Vols.
38-41, Sec.
2.4, Table 2.4-1,.
Figure 2,4-1.
v
-Evaluation J.10.h. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion y
J.10.1. Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions.
Statement J.10. i. The Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study provided projected traffic capacities of the evacuation routes.
-The. capacities of each route segment are' tabulated in Sec. 3.
Reductions in the capacities due to rain (20%)
and snow (25%) are presented.
According to the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study, the highway system in' the Seabrook evacuation area consists primarily of'the following three categories of route segments:
. Two-lane roads;
. Multi-lane' expressways; and
. Freeway ramps.
Plan Reference J.10.i. Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study.
Evaluation-J.10. i. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10. j. Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibilities for such control.
60 I
t
/
FEBRUARY 1990-Statement-
' J.10. j. The Plan in Sec. 2.6 of Vol.
1, Sec. 2.11_of Vol. 20, and in - the Traffic Management Manual, describes the means to establish access control-during a radiological emergency.
Access: and traffic control within the State of - New Hampshire will be implemented by local police and the New Hampshire State Police.
The preselected access control points (ACPs);and traffic control points (TCPs) are. described in'the New Hampshire Traffic Management Manual. Access control instructions and traffic control instructions are provided in the Traffic Management Manual, which contains a listing ar.d sketches-of the ACPs.
The Traffic Management Manual indicates that sufficient cones exist to equip all ACP/TCPs.
When an area has been evacuated, it is considered to be an Exclusion Area from which both transients and residents are restricted.
The following categories of people may be. allowed temporary access to the Exclusion Area:
- Farm owners and/or employees with. livestock and associated farm care responsibilities.
. Owners, Managers and selected employees of commercial establishments with responsibilities for the security and preservation of equipment and products threatened by an evacuation.
In addition to access control of automobiles on the
- highways, additional access control measures are presented in the Plan.
As stated in Sec. 7 of Vol.
5, the'NHOEM Agency _ Liaison Officer will advise the Boston and Maine Railroad Chief Dispatcher to prepare to stop train traffic from entering the EPZ -if protective actions are recommended.
The EOC Operations ' Of ficer will coordinate the establishment of a marine safety zone with the Coast Guard (Sec.
5, Vol.
5).
As indicated in Sec. 17 of Vol. 7 and Sec. 1.4 of Vol.
1, the U.S. Coast Guard will restrict boats (5-or 10-mile marine safety zone) from the Plume EPZ and the Federal Aviation Administration may declare the plume EPZ a restricted flight zone.
Plan Reference J.10. j. Vol.
1, Secs. 1.4.5 and 2.6; Vol.
5, Secs. 5 & 7; Vol.
7, Sec. 17; Vol.
20, Sec. 2.11; Traffic Management Manual.
61
- r;
~
^
q^
FEBRUARY'1990 Evaluation J.10.j Adequate..
t Evaluation. Criterion
- J.10.k. Identification of and means for dealing with potential L
impediments (e.g., seasonal impassability of roads) to-use of evacuation routes, and contingency measures.
Statement J.10.k. The Plan (Sec.
2.6, Vol. 1 and in Sec. 2.11, Vol. 20) l describes -the means and process for dealing' with potential impediments to the use of evacuation routes, such as those caused -by bad winter weather and/or-stalled or abandoned vehicles.
3 t
The communities within the plume exposure EPZ (Sec. 3 of Vol. 21-37) have ample equipment and road crews for dealing with snow removal and traffic impediments since this is a normal function of local communities in New Hampshire.
In addition, the State has provided other means for supplementing local route maintenance capabilities if needed.
The New. Hampshire Department of Transportation
~,
is prepared to use its maintenance equipment, including plows and trucks, and towing equipment to maintain these routes during adverse weather and a;t unforeseen impedi-ments (stalled or abandoned vehh les) to evacuation 1
occur.
This equipment can be-made available'within a a
few hours of receiving requests for support.
Should even more support be required, New Hampshire National-Guard equipment and personnel may be used as a backup.
Activation. times for this backup resource would be con-siderably longer.
It would likely take between two and-twelve hours to mobilize and dispatch National - Guard Resources.
These State and local resources may.also be used to remove impediments to evacuation, such as stalled vehicles.
If needed, private tow vehicles can be requested.through and coordinated by State Police Troop A (State Police Section, Emergency Phone Listing and Vol. 50).
Plan Reference J.10. k. Vol.
1, Sec. 2.6; Vol. 8; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.11; Vols. 21-
'3 7, Sec. 3; Vol. 50; Emergency Phone Listing.
Evaluation J 10.k. Adequate.
62
4 i
s FEBRUARY 1990
' Evaluation Criterion ~
' J.10.1. Time estimates for = evacuation of various sectors and j
distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure. pathway emergency planning zone (see App. 4).
)
Statement J.10.1. The Plan ' (Sec.
6, Vol. 8) contains time estimates for evacuation of the various planning areas.
Evacuation time ~ estimates were calculated for. the designated ERPAs'.
The overall evacuation time estimates include the-l evacuation time estimates for persons at the beaches,'
for transit-dependent persons, and for-special facility 1
populations.
Sec.
2.6 of Vol. 1 indicates that the source of the evacuation times was the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study.
Sec.
2.11 of Volume 20 assigns priorities for evacuating (providing transportation assistance) to special facility populations and transit - dependent persons.
Transportation assistance will be provided to special populations by community according to.the proximity to Seabrook Station in the following order of priority:-for public schools; private schools including day care centers; the beach transit-dependent transients
+
(during May 15 to September 15); hospitals and nursing homes; residents requiring transportation assistance' (transit-dependent persons);
and the special needs persons.
Sec.
8 of Vol.
5 states that the EOC Resources Coordinator will cause the dispatch of transportation resources to the towns designated for the implementation of protective actions.
The-Rockingham-County's procedure for local staging ' areas (Sec.14.S of =Vol. 7) and the Transportation Coordinator's portion of Sec. 3 (Vols. 21-37) indicates that the local governments will dispatch transportation resources in the order of priority that is discussed above.
Plan Reference J.10.1. Vol.
1, Sec. 2.6; Vol.
8, Sec.
6.
Evaluation J.10.1. Adequate.
63
. ~..
. ~
1 FEBRUARY 1990
.)
Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. The basis for the choice of recommended protective-
- actions from the plume exposure pathway during emergency j
conditions.
This shall include expected local-protection afforded. in residential units or. other i
shelter for direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.
}
Statement-l J.10.m. The Plan in Sec. 2.6 of Vol. 1 and in Sec. 6.of Vol. 8 describes the basis for the determination of specific j
protective action recommendations (PARS) for the plume-j i
exposure pathway.
The Protective Action Decision criteria is the process for developing PARS (Vol.
8,
,p-Sec. 6).
i The PAR process (Protective Action Decision Criteria) is
[k based upon both plant status and dose projections, as appropriate.
Field measurements are incorporated as I'
4 they become available in order to refine PARS. ~The EPA L
L Protective Action Guides are used as a basis for
[
- A selecting protective actions for the plume exposure
[
Ti pathway..
The METPAC program used for dose projection
'k contains. shelter protection factors for a woodframe L
y, house without a basement, used in both whole-body and l'
". r thyroid dose calculation.
1 L
-\\. Plan-Reference J 10.m. Vol.
1, Sec. 2.6; Vol. 8,'Sec. 6.
w
$Evs.luation
.10.m. Adequate.
1 E aluation Criterion
. j.
I i
J.
1.
Eacn State shall specify the protective measures to be L
used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protecting the public from consumption of contaminated f oodstuf f s.
This shall include critaria
~for deciding whether dairy animals should be put on stored feed.
The plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation.
Maps for recording survey and monitoring data, key land use data (e.g.,
farming),
dairies, food processing plants, water sheds, water 64
y 1
FEQRUARY 1990 i
supply intake;and treatment plants and reservoirs shall-be maintained.
Provisions for maps showing detailed.
crop information may be by including reference to their 3
availability and location and a plan'for their use. The
~)
map' shall start at the facility and include all of the.
50 21'.e ingestion-pathway EPZ.
Up-to-date lists of the i
name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or p
agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall'be maintained.
L Statement J.ll.
The Plan in Sec. 2.6 of Vol. 1 describes the protective measures to be used for the ingestion pathway.
[
The State of New Hampshire has adopted the concept of l
operation for pas in the ingestion exposure EPZ as i
follows:
- Precautionary guidance:
recommend that milk animals be placed on stored feed and in shelters.
. Preventive Protective Action:
recommend pas if the L
measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels L
. Emergency Protective Action:
recommend pas if the l-measured contamination of foodstuff exceeds the h
emergency derived response levels.
L,
'Sec.
2.6.8 of Vol.
'l discusses the process for determining _ protective actions for the ingestion EPZ.
Secs.'ll and 12 of Vol. 6 and Sec. 3 of Vol. 8 discuss the process for collecting ingestion pathway samples and for the analysis of these samples.
Procedures have-been developed for the collection of water', snow, milk, i
vegetation, meats and meat products, soil, food crops, animal feeds, and shellfish.
Procedures have been.
developed for the analysis of sample media and for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled ingestion.
App. E of Vol. 9 specifies the process for determining protective actions for the ingestion EPZ.
Preventive Protective Actions for food control (e.g.,
. field or orchard crops) require these foods to be stored until the. radioactivity has decayed or been washed off.
More extensive protective actions will be used only if the above measures are ineffective.
Emergency Protective Actions will prevent food from entering the market place.
DPHS will order, and the Department of Agriculture will implement, control of harvesting, sale of
- crops, and, if necessary, condemnation of 65
FEBRUARY 1990; j
i a
contaminatedafoods.
These protective actions will be Limplemented'.by direct contact-with-the commercial.
procedures according to-the plan.
Lists: 'of the commercial agricultural facilities in-the ingestion pathway-EPZ are maintained.by.-the Department of-3 Agriculture.. The Plan also indicates that' DPHS will I
order,- and-'the--Department of Fish.and Game will i
implement, control' of harvesting,
- sale, and if i
necessary,~ condemnation of all contaminated shellfish.
1 These protective actions will be implemented by direct contact. with the commercial fisheries and producers.
Lists of all the commercial fisheries-in the' ingestion j'
Z' pathway EPZ are maintained by the Department of Fish and Game.
According to the Plan (Sec.
2.6.6 of Vol. 1), water control will focus on water supplies that receive a major portion'of their water from surrounding watershed
'1 1
which may have become contaminated.
The Plan indicates that, as.necessary, DPHS will -ask the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) to control the use of water from potentially contaminated
.public surface water supplies within the ingestion pathway EPZ.
Public surf ace' water supplies can be temporarily condemned ' until, testing for radioactivity l
levels-can be undertaken to confirm or refute the need-for control.
-Condemnation of surface water supplies 1
will be implemented by the WSPCC.through direct contact with the water supply owner / operators.
The. WSPCC maintains a list of all public ~ water supplies in New j
Hampshire.
q Provisions have been made for. maintaining maps for recording survey and monitoring data, and. for monitoring 1
tkey land use data,
- dairies, food processors, food distributors, water supplies, etc., at the EOF and at the State EOC'.
The sample collection teams have USGS maps-for the ingestion exposure EPZ and maps for the plume exposure EPZ.
A grid system is used for both maps.
i Plan Reference J.11.
Vol.
1, Secs. 2.6; Vol.
6, Secs. 11 & 12; Vol.
8, Sec.
3; Vol.
9, App.
E.
Evaluation J.11.
Adequate.
66
1 FE!RUARY 1990 h
4
-Evaluation Criterion' 1
J.12. -
Each organization shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuee's at relocation centers in host areas.
The personnel and equipment available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period. all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
1 Statement i
JJ.12.
The Plan ~1n Secs. 2.6 & 2.7.5 of Vol.1, in Sec. 2.11 of Vol. - 20, and in Sec. 5 of Vol. 8 describes the means for registering and monitoring evacuees, q
There are four reception centers for New Hampshire I
evacuees.
These are located in the communities of Dover, Rochester, Manchester, and Salem - (Vols. 38-41, i
Sec. 2.4 & 4.0).
Each of these reception centers is designated as the host for evacuees from selected plume-exposure EPZ communities.
(
The reception centers will be managed by personnel provided by the New Hampshire DHS.
Registration may be handled directly by DHS staff or delegated to other' available-emergency response workers.
Staffing functions and numbers of personnel for registration,.
. message
- exchange, coordination of volunteers, information and recreation, student processing, etc.,
are described in Sec. 5 of Vol. 7 and in the DHS section-of the Emergency Phone Listing.
L Monitoring and decontamination will be supervised by L
DPHS staff and will be performed by local-staf f..
l l
Details of the registering, monitoring and decontamination are further provided,in DPHS procedures (Vol. 8,-Sec.
5).
Staffing - functions and numbers. of required personnel for monitoring and decontamination-are described in Sec. 5 of Vol.
8.
The basis for establishing the staffing levels is also described in Sec. 5 of Vol.
8.
The total number of y
evacuee arrivals at each reception center was estimated by first obtaining the sum of the summer weekend peak population for each EPZ community to be sent to a particular reception center.
Then the population of special facilities.and the number of those evacuees who are transit-dependent for each EPZ community were subtracted from the peak population totals.
The remainder population was then multiplied by 20% in accordance with FEMA guidance. As a final step,100% of the transit-dependent population was added to the total L
since all transit-dependent people would be transported directly to reception centers.
On the basis of the above calculations, the number of evacuees expected at 67
n I
FEBRUARY'1990.
' the reception centers _ for registration and monitoring ~is 34,851 persons.
-The average.mo'nitoring' rate is stated-as..three minutes' I
per person..
Therefore,.in-12 hours, each monitoring position' can process. 240 evacuees.
The number of monitoring-positions required' is 146, based upon an:
' expected 34,851 evacuees.
According to the Plan,.184 monitoring positions are provided at the 4 primary-facilities (46 per facility) and 24 monitoring positions are' provided at the..-4 back-up. facilities- (6 per-facility) for a total of 208 monitoring positions.
These numbers, 184. and 24, represent the monitoring
-i positions-assigned to Control Point Monitoring functions.- There are.' monitoring positions assigned to other functions.
such as vehicle monitoring, i
decontamination, etc.
FEMA notes that-the staff arrangements (Table 5.4-1 of Vol. 8. ) calls for an additional 15 monitors at each primary facility and-an additional 4 monitors at each-back-up facility.
These. monitors are provided for rotation break periods and-are not included in the-above discussion of 208 monitoring positions for control point monitoring functions.
1 Arrangements have been made for the special facility populations to be monitored and decontaminated, if necessary, at the host. facilities (Vol.
8, Sec.
5, and Vol'.
9,. App. D and F).
Plan Reference J.12.
Vol.
1, Secs. 2.6 & 2.7.5; Vol.
7, Sec. 5; Vol. 8, Sec.
5 and Table 5.4-1; Vol.
9, Apps. D& F; Vol 20, App.
2.11; Vols. 38-41, Secs. 2.4 & 4.0.
Evaluation J.12.
Adequate.
l l
l 68
~
?>
y FEBRUARY 1990 l
K.4 Radiological Exposure Control-(Planning Standard K):
Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, i
are established for emergency workers.
The means for controlling radiological exposures shall include exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving j
Activity Protective Action Guides.
. Evaluation Criterion K.3.a.
Each organization shall make provision for 24-hour-per-1
/'.
day capability to determine the doses received by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear accident, including volunteers.
Each organization shall make provisions-for_ distribution of dosimeters, both self -
reading and permanent record devices.
Statement l-K.3.a.
The Plan in Sec. 2.7 of Vol.1, in Sec. 2.11 of Vol. 20, and in Sec. 4.0 of Vols. 38-41, describes the provisions for determining dose received by emergency workers'and describes the availability, plans for distribution, and use of dosimetry by emergency workers.
In addition-to L
emergency workers,-individuals receiving Exclusion Area passes will be issued dosimeters at the IFO/ EOF.
Dosimetry and its use are described in Sec.
2.7.2, Vol..
~
1, and Sec. - 10, Vol.
8.
Three dosimeters will be 1
provided to emergency workers in order to monitor and record-the whole body gamma exposure of emergency-p workers. These include two self-reading " pocket-types",
a CDV-138 (0-200 mR) and a
CDV-730 (0-20R) or I
' equivalents.
The third is a
thermo-luminescent
. permanent record dosimeter -(TLD) which is used to measure the total exposure an emergency worker receives for the duration of the emergency.
Emergency workers assigned' life-saving missions in accordance with Sec. 8 of Vol.-8 will be issued a CDV-742 (0-200R).
The dosimeters are stored, along with other radiological monitorin'g equipment, at the facilities designated in App. D, Vol.
9.
The Plan (Sec.
2.7, Vol. 1) indicates that NHOEM will be responsible for providing and maintaining an adequate supply of radiological equipment at each facility.
Plan Reference K.3.a.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.7; Vol.
8, Secs. 8 & 10; Vol.
9, App. D; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.11; Vols. 38-41, Sec.
4.
69
FEBRUARY 1990 j
Evaluation'
- 1 1
X;3.a.. Adequate.
J
' Evaluation Criterion 1
K.3.b.
Each organization shall ensure that dosimeters are read
)
at appropriate frequencies and provide for maintaining
]
dose records for emergency workers involved. in any nuclear accident.
Statement K.3.b.
The Plan in Sec. 2.7 of Vol.
1, in Sec. 2.10, of Vol.
20, and in Sec. 10 of Vol. 8 describes the process that instructs emergency workers to read their dosimeters at appropriate intervals, to record the readings, and to-R periodically report the readings to appropriate staff.
1 The process (described in Sec. 2.7.2 of Vol. 1) states that, after being issued dosimeters, personnel will read their self-recding dosimeters at 30-minute intervals.
'If releases of radioactive materials are expected or l
have occurred, each emergency worker will be instructed to take readings at 15-minute intervals.
Emergency workers. are to report readings to their respective supervisor at certain levels; i.e.,
175mR, 1R, 2R, 3R, etc.
. Exposure records are to be maintained by the-appropriate supervisor.
DPHS is responsible for emergency worker exposure records.
Log Sheets will be maintained in each f acility that issues dosimetry.
A sample Dosimetry-KI Report Form can be found in the Forms section of Vol. 8.
After the emergency has been~ terminated, all Personnel Exposure Records will be-forwarded to the DPHS
-Radiological Exposure Clerk at the IFO/ EOF for review and will be kept by DPHS as a permanent record.
Plan Reference K.3.b.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.7; Vol.
8, Secs. 10 & Forms; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.10.
Evaluation K.3.b.
Adequate.
1; lL l
70
FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation Criterion K.4.
Each. State and local organization shall-establish the decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to a
incur exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action Guides (i.e., EPA PAGs for emergency workers and lifesaving activities).
Statement K.4.
The Plan _ (Section 2.7.4, Vol.
1) describes the radiological exposure control decision criteria for i
emergency -workers.
DPHS is responsible for-all decisions relating to radiological exposure of State and local emergency workers.
DPHS personnel located in the IFO/ EOF will be kept informed of local emergency worker exposure via the local EOCs and will be directly responsible for State workers.
At predetermined dose levels, DPHS will either order emergency workers to leave the area or authordze increased exposures.
As indicated in Table 2.7-1~,
(Vol.1) specific actions and decisions will be required at each reporting level.
The decision on whether to instruct the emergency worker to leave the affected area or continue ~with his duties depends on how critical the worker is to the specific activities he is engaged in.
Workers with dosimeter readings of 5 R or greater will
-be reported to the Radiological Exposure Clerk at the IFO/ EOF for inclusion into the Radiological Screening Program (RSP).
All local emergency workers who have this level of exposure will be ordered -out of the affected area.
Only State emergency workers, required to perform tasks deemed critical to the response by the DPHS IFO Controller and for whom no replacement is available, will be allowed to exceed a dosimeter reading of 5 R.
The DPHS IFO Coordinator must approve exposures to emergency workers in excess of SR (Sec. 4, Vol. 6).
The plan further indicates that at the 20 R exposure level, all appropriate emergency workers will be ordered to -
leave the affected area.
This provides reasonable assurance that no emergency workers will be allowed to exceed the New Hampshire whole body exposure limit for emergency workers (EPA emergency worker PAG for whole body dose) of 25 rem.
The decisions to allow emergency workers to exceed 20R whole body exposure will be made by the Director, DPHS in accordance with Sec. 8 of Vol.
8.
Entry of affected areas will be allowed only by State emergency workers that have not reached this limit,-or that have had no prior exposure.
l 71
'l FEBRUARY 1990 I
Plan-Reference
-r K.4.-
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.7, Table 2.7-1; Vol.6, Sec. 4; Vol.
8, Sec. 8; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.10.
Evaluation K.4.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion
-K.5.a.
Each organization as appropriate, shall specify action levels for determining the need for decontamination.
Statement K.5.a.
The Plan in Sec.
2.7.5 of Vol. 1 indicates that the action level for determining the need for decontamination is 100 cpm above background, measured using a CDV-700.
Plan References K.S.a.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.7.5.
Evaluation K.5.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion K.5.b.
Each organization, as appropriate, shall establish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal.
Statement K.5.b.
The Plan (Secs.
2.4.2 &
2.7.5, Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.10, Vol. 20) describes the means (personnel, equipment, facilities, and procedures) for decontamination of emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments, and equipment, and for waste disposal.
Emergency workers, vehicles, equipment and supplies will be monitored for contamination
- and, if
- required, decontaminated at the designated Emergency Worker Monitoring and Decontamination facility in Manchester, New Hampshire.
In addition, local EOC's within the Plume Exposure EPZ are equipped with CDV-700 survey 72
.y i
k FEBRUARY 1990 i
. meters.
Therefore, local emergency workers may be screened for contamination at the local EOC.
If local f
screening determines that the level of contamination on i:
a person or on surfaces of equipment, - supplies and vehicles exceeds 100 cpm above background, emergency Jri
_ orkers wil,' be referred to the designated Emergency w
!)
Worker Monitoring and Decontamination facility in Manchester, New Hampshire.
i
?
If-emergency workers are -injured anii require medical attention, decontamination personnel will refer them f
directly to a medical facility.
State field monitoring
(
team personnel,.who are-deployed from the IFO/ EOF, will It be monitored for contamination and decontaminated at the
-IFO/ EOF under the-supervision of DPHS.
Monitoring and (l
decontamination of their equipment,
- supplies, and l
vehicles (will also be done at the IFO/ EOF.
f-2 Monitoring and decontamination of emergency workers will F
be accomplished according to Sec.
5 of Vol.
8.
Decontamination procedures will be implemented by i
emergency _ personnel under the supervision of the Division of-Public Health-Services.
Disposal of 9
contaminated wastes will be accomplished by DPHS 3
personnel, or by qualified radioactive waste' handlers t
.under contract (Sec.
2.7.5 of Vol. 1).
In addition, certain types of contaminated waste could be disposed of in accordance with an agreement between the State of New
. Hampshire and New Hampshire Yankee included in Vol. 50.
ily y
Plan Reference aj K.5.b.
Vol.
1, Secs. 2.4.2 & 2.7.5; Vol.
8, Sec. 5; Vol. 20, g
'Sec. 2.10; Vols. 38-41, Sec. 4; Vol. 50.
i d
Evaluation e
b K.5.b.
Adequate.
t NH:
W e
73
FEBRUARY 1990 L.-Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L):
Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.
Evaluation Criterion L.1.
Each organization shall arrange for local and backup L
hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals.
3.
Statement L.1.
The-Plan-in-Sec. 2.8 of Vol. 1 and in Sec. 2.9 of Vol.
20 - describes the arrangements for local and backup hospitals with medical services and capabilities for evaluation of radiological exposure and uptake.
Elliot llospital and Wentworth-Douglass Hospital are designated as MS-1 hospitals for off-site response in New Hampshire (Vol. 50).
Plan Reference L.1.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.8; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.9; Vol. 50.
Evaluation L.l.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion L.3.
Each State shall develop lists indicating the location of public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical services facilities within the State or. contiguous States considered capable of providing-medical support for any contaminated injured individual.
The listing shall include-the name, location, type of facility and capacity and any special radiological capabilities.
These emergency medical services should be able to radiologically monitor contaminated personnel, and have facilities and trained personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.
Statement L.3.
-The Plan contains a listing (App. D2.1.8 of Vol. 9) of
" Local Medical Facilities capable of Treating Radiation Accident Patients." This listing provides the names and 74
FEBRUARY 1990
!c ) 's locations of the medical facilities as well as a brief
^
ME summary of the " Capacity to Treat Exposed / contaminated Individuals."
Plan Reference L.3.
Vol 9, App. D2.1.8.
Evaluation L.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion L.4.
Each organization shall arrange for transporting victims
(
of radiological accidents to medical support f acilities, statement L.4.
The Plan in Sec. 2.8 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.9 of Vol. 20 describes the provision of ambulance resources for a radiological emergency.
Emergency Medical Services are provided by ambulance services operated by local government or private organizations.
Services within the jurisdiction of local dispatch centers. are coordinated by the dispatch centers.
During an emergency response, services outside the local dispatch service area will be acquired for evacuation functions.
Vol. 9, App. D2.1.6 lists the services available in the State of New Hampshire.
Letters of Agreement have been executed with the designated companies (Vol. 50).
The Plan in Sec. 2.8 of Vol.1 states that if, during an emergency at
- Seabrook, ambulances are needed from outside the local service area, the EMS Liaison, in coordination with the EOC EMS Coordinator, will obtain required service.
Plan Reference
'L.4.
Vol.
1, Sec. 2.8; Vol. 9.
App. D2.1.6; Vol. 20, Sec.
2.9; Vol. 50.
s.
S Evaluation y
c L.4.
Adequate.
!i ii.
75
s; l
FEBRUARY 1990 M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Post Accident Operations (Planning Standard M)*
General plans for recovery and reentry are developed.
Evaluation Criterion M.l.
Each organization, as appropriate, shall develop general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the neans by which decisions to relax protective measures (e.g.,
allows reentry into an evacuated area) are reached.
This process should consider both existing and potential conditions.
Statement' N.l.
The Plan in Sec. 2.9 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.12 of Vol. 20 describes means by which decisions to relax protective measures will be reached.
When it has been determined that plant conditions have stabilized or are improving with no chance of worsening, the Governor, in consultation with the Director of NHOEM and the Director of DPHS shall direct that recovery operations shall begin. Following the initiation of re-covery operations by the Governor, the Director of NHOEM or his designee will poll the heads of each of the agencies or departments within the EOC to determine the requirements to return the affected areas to their pre-emergency condition.
As the recovery phase progresses, the Governor may allow selected positions of the emergency response organization to return to their non-emergency mode of operation (Sec.
2.9.1, Vol. 1).
Recovery actions are described in Sec. 2.9.2 (Vol. 1).
As a temporary framework for recovery efforts, areas in which protective actions have been ordered will be considered suitable for normal activity when the dose commitments to residents are less than the levels established in App. E of Vol.
9.
The criteria used an.
the basis for this tem?orary framework have been derived from the EPA RelocatLon PAGs (12/88 draft document).
The goal for long-term recovery efforts will ensure that the dose commitments to the general public are less than the nonoccupational whole body exposure limits established in the New Hampshire Rules for Control of Radiation (Sec. 2.9 of Vol. 1).
If radiation has been released during the emergency, DPHS will conduct field monitoring, in areas in which sheltering or evacuation had been ordered, prior to the resumption of normal activities. Environmental sampling for ingestion pathway analysis will also be performed.
76
a FEBRUARY 1990 p
Restrictions on food and water will-be lifted when DPHS has determined that levels of radioactive material found in food and water supplies have decreased below the PAGs for preventive actions established by the FDA.
Decontawination of equipment, vehicles, and paved areas, etc.
will be performed if surfaces have become contaminated by radioactive material.
Plan Reference M.l.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.9; Vol. 9, App. El Vol. 20, Sec. 2.12.
Evaluation M.1.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion M.3.
Each_ licensee and State plan shall specify means for informing members of the response organization that a recovery opera tion is to be initiated, and of any changes in the organizational structure that may occur.
Statement M.3.
The Plan in Sec. 2.9 of Vol. 1 and Sec. 2.12 of Vol. 20 describes the means for informing staff that a recovery operation is to be initiated.
Normal communications channels and procedures would be used. tor informing emergency response members that a recovery operation is to be initiated.
Staffing positions established during the emergency response will initially remain active during the recovery phase.
As the recovery progresses, the Governor may allow selected positions of the emergency response organization to return to their normal mode of operation.
A recovery schedule will be established after the local officials have determined how long it would take to re-establish the emergency response organization at the local EOCs.
This coordination process is designed to provide for an orderly return to normal municipal services.
Recovery instructions will be broadcast to the public via the Emergency Broadcast System.
Plan Reference M.3.
Vol. 1, Sec. 2.9; Vol. 20, Sec. 2.12, 77
FEBRUARY 1990 l
Evaluation M.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion M.4.
Each plan shall establish a method for periodically estimating total population exposure.
Statement M.4.
The Plan (Vol.
1, Sec. 2.9.4) describes provisions for periodically estimating total population exposure.
These estimates will be made using population distribution information, monitoring data, dispersion calculations, plant
- releases, meteorology, and sheltering / evacuation information.
The Plan (Vol.1, Sec. 2.9.4) stipulates that population exposure estimates will be on a whole body basis and will take into account weightings of specific organ doses, if deemed appropriate by accident assessment.
All significant pathways will be considered:
plume direct gamma, plume inhalation, deposition direct gamma, and deposition resuspension inhalation or ingestion.
Plan Reference M.4.
Vol.
1, Sec.
2.9.4.
Evaluation M.4.
Adequate.
f 78
y 0
FEBRUARY 1990 N.
Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N):
Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected.
Evaluation Criterion N.1.a.
An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a najor portion of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans and organizations.
The emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in off-site radiological releases which would require response by off-site authorities.
Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.
Statement N.1.a.
The Plan indicates that the State of New Hampshire has made the commitment (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol.
1, Sec. 3.3 of Vol. 20, Sec. 1.5 of Vols. 21-41) to participate in periodic radiological emergency preparedness exercises.
Plan Reference N.1.a.
Vol.1, Sec. 3.1.5 ; Vol. 20, Sec. 3. 3 ; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
Evaluation N.1.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.1.b.
An exercise shall include ' mobilization of State and local personnel and resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. The organization shall provide for a critique of the annual exercise by Federal and State observers / evaluators.
The scenario should be varied from year to year such that all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a five-year period.
Each organization should make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m.
and midnight, and another between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
once every six years.
Exercises should be conducted under various weather conditions. Some exercises should be unannounced.
79
FEBRUARY 1990 Statement N.l.b.
The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5, Vol.
1) indicates that the exercise will be a test of the New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization's integrated capabilities.
The local personnel will participate in joint exercises every two years.
The State personnel will fully participate in the exercises at either Seabrook or Vermont Yankee on an annual rotational basis with each plant exercised every two years.
When not fully participating in an exercise, the State will participate partially to support the full participation of the local response personnel. Once every six years the State will exercise the ingestion exposure pathway response plans in conjunction with an exercise.
The exercise scenario will be varied from exercise to exercise in order to test all the major elements of the plans and preparedness of the State and Local Emergency Response Organization within a six-year period.
During this time
- frame, exercises will be scheduled at different seasons of the year to allow for exercising under various weather conditions.
To complete the full range of exercise conditions, every six years one exercise will begin at night, between 6:00 p.m.
and 4:00 a.m.,
and one will be unannounced.
The Plan stipulates that official observers from Federal and State agencies will observe, evaluate, and critique the exercises.
Plan Reference N.l.b.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.1.
Evaluation N.l.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.2.
A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed at
- testing, developing and maintaining skills in a
particular operation.
A drill is often a component of an exercise.
A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a qualified drill instructor.
Each organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the annual exercise at the frequencies indicated below:
l 80
FEBRUARY 1990 N.2.a.
communication Drills Communications with State and local governments within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone shall be tested monthly.
Communications with Federal emergency response organizations and States within the ingestion pathway shall be tested quarterly.
Communications between the nuclear facility, State and local emergency operations centers, and field assessment teams shall be tested annually.
Communication drills shall also include the aspect of understanding the content of messages.
Statement N.2.a.
The Plan (Sec.
3.1.2, Vol.
1, Sec. 3.3 of Vol. 20, &
Sec.
1.5 of Vols.
21-41) commits the State to the conduct of periodic communications drills between - the various organizations and xey facilities in the New Hampshire emergency response organization.
The emergency communications systems to be used.by the New Hampshire Emergency
Response
Organization are described in detail in Sec. 2.2 of Vol.
1.
The schedulo of drills to test that system is outlined in Table 3.1-1, including monthly drills with the Utility, State Police, NHCDA (NHOEM) and local governments; quarterly drills with the Utility, State Police, NHCDA (NHOEM), DPHS, Governor, contiguous States, and FEMA; and annual drills with NHCDA (NHOEM) and the State Emergency
Response
Organization.
Field team communications are tested in annual radiological monitoring drills.
Plan Reference N.2.a.
Vol.
1, Secs. 2.2 and 3.1.2, Table 3.1-1; Vol. 20, Sec.
3.3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
Evaluation N.2.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.2.c.
Medical Emeraency Drills A
medical emergency drill involving a
simulated contaminated individual which contains provisions for participation by the local support services agencies (i.e.,
ambulance and off-site medical treatment facility) shall be conducted annually.
The off-site 81 1
v
l FICRUARY 1990
(
portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required annual exercise.
Statement N.2.c. The Plan in Sec. 3.1.3 of Vol. 1 commits the State to holding drills of off-site medical emergency capability on an annual basis.
The Plan states that this drill may either be held separately or as part of the required bi-biennial exercise.
Plan Reference N.2.c.
Vol_.
1, Sec. 3.1.3.
Evaluation N.2.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.2.d.
Radiological Monitorina Drills Plant environs and radiological monitoring drills (on-site and off-site) shall be conducted annually.
These drills shall include collection and analysis of all sample media (e.g., water, vegetation, soil and air),
and provisions for communications and record keeping.
The State drills need not be at each site.
Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.
Statement N.2.d. The Plan (Sec. 3.1.4 of Vol. 1) describes the provision for holding combined radiological monitoring and health physics drills for DPHS staff at least annually.
One of the drills will be held in conjunction with the exercises at Seabrook and Vermont Yankee.
Each drill will include mobilization of the monitoring teams, dispatch of monitoring teams (at one of the two drills, field teams will be dispatched to the appropriate EPZ),
collection of field samples, communication between field teams and the emergency facilities, and recordkeeping.
The drills will include laboratory analysis of the field samples with simulated high radioactive activities, and use of the resultant data in accident assessment functions.
Plan Referenco N.2.d.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.1.4.
82
\\
FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation d
N.2.d.
Adequate.
y Evaluation Criterion N.2.e.
Health Physics Drills
-Health Physics drills shall be conducted semi-annually which involve response to, and analysis of, simulated airborne and liquid samples and direct radiation I
measurements in the environment.
The State drills need not be at each site.
l-l Statement N.2.e.
The Plan in Sec.
3.1.4 of Vol. 1 states'that health physics drills will be combined with radiological monitoring drills.
(See Statement narrative for N.2.d.)
l Plan Reference
[
N.2.e.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.1.4.
c
[L Evaluation L
N 2.e.
Adequate.
?
Evaluation Criterion N.3.
Each organization shall describe how exercises and drills are to be carried o'ut to allow free play for 4
decision making and to meet the following objectives.
t Pending the development of exercise scenarios and exercise evaluation guidance by NRC and FEMA the scenarios for use in exercises and drills shall include but not be' limited to, the following:
hr
[
N.3.a.
The basic objective (s) of each drill and exercise and
(:
appropriate evaluation criteria.
It Statement I:
N.3.a. The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol. 1) states that the basic Q(
objectives for the exercises will be explained in terms of the emergency response functions to be exercised. At the full exercise, the State will test all nine of the emergency response functions described in Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol.
1.
In a limited exercise, the State will, at a 83 4
L.
?
FEBRUARY 1990 l-
- minimum, test ~
notification methods and accident assessment capabilities, with other functions tested as deemed necessary by NHOEM.
Evaluation criteria will be i
provided to official observers.
Plan Reference
'N.3.a.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.1.5.
Evaluation N.3.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.b. The date(s), time period, place (s) and participating organizations.
Statement N.3.b.
The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol.1) states that the date and time period described in the exercise scenario will coincide with the scheduling agreed upon with the Utility, with other appropriate states in the-EPZ, and with NRC and FEMA.
NHOEM will describe each emergency facility and the organizations that will participate in the exercise.
The full exercise' will include each agency in the New Hampshire Emergency
Response
Organization, including the appropriate local Emergency Response Organizations, and each emergency facility associated with the plant at which the accident is simulated.
In the limited exercise, a smaller portion of the Emergency Response Organization may be involved.
At a minimum, however, NHOEM, DPMS and State Police Communication Center will participate in any limited exercise.
Plan Reference N.3.b.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.1.5.
Evaluation N.3.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion N.3.c.
The simulated events.
I 84
) *+b L
[
FEBRUARY 1990 Statoaant N.3.c. 'The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol.1) states that the exercise scenario will include both initiating events and sufficient off-site events to meet the objectives of the exercise.
Plan Reference N.3.c.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.1.5.
Evaluation N.3.c.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.d.
A time schedule of real and simulated initiating events.
Statement N.3.d. The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol.
1) indicates that the schedule of events in the off-site scenario will be built around the initiating events at the power plant.
These will include escalation through the Emergency Classification Levels.
In addition, NHOEM will add suf ficient of f-site events to meet the objectives of the exercise.
Plan Reference.
N.3.d.
Vol. 1, Sec.
3.1.5.
j Evaduntion N.3.d.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.e.
A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exercises or drills to include such things as simulated casualties, off-site fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective clothing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams, and public information activities.
85 e
FEBRUARY 1990 Statement N.3.e.
The Plan (Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol. 1) indicates that the i
exercise scenarios will include narrative summaries describing the conduct of the exercise.
The narrative i
summary will include the schedule of real and simulated
?
events, schedule of anticipated responses, and depth to which activities will be exercised or simulated.
The narrative summary will enable observers and evaluators to trace the course of the exercise and to be prepared to observe the emergency response activities at critical milestones during the exercise.
Plan Reference N.3.e.
Vol. 1, Sec. 3.1.5.
Evaluation N.3.e.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.f.
A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers.
Statement N.3.f.
The Plan (Sec.
3.1.5 of Vol.
1) describes the arrangements to be made for exercise observers and the advance materials to be provided to them.
NHOEM will work with FEMA to schedule the placement of observers during drills and exercises. Observers will be provided with an advance copy of the scenario and of the plans and procedures to be tested.
Observers will be briefed as to the schedule of events and evaluation criteria for each observer location. Observers will be provided with evaluation sheets and guidelines applicable to their locations.
Plan Reference N.3.f.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.1.5.
Evaluation N.3.f.
Adequate.
86
.1
e.
FEBRUARY 1990 fy Evaluation Criterion l
N.4.
Ofricial observers from
- Federal, State or local governments will observe, evaluate, and critique the required exercises.
A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise to evaluate the ability l
of organizations to respond as called for in the plan.
i The critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable j
af ter - the exercise, and a formal evaluation should result from the critique.
Statement N.4.
The Plan commits the State of New Hampshire to have official observers from Federal and State agencies to observe, evaluate, and critique the required exercises j
(Sec. 3.1.5 of Vol. 1).
A critique will be conducted at the conclusion of each exercise to evaluate the performance of the State and local emergency personnel.
The critique will be conducted as soon as practicable after the exercise.
This critique will be followed by a formal evaluation of the response capability of each c
agency in the Emergency Response Organization.
In most
- cases, FEMA will conduct the critique and supply a written evaluation.
As necessary, the critique and evaluation efforts not sponsored by FEMA w.t ll be provided by NHOEM.
7 Plan Reference N.4.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.1.5.
Evaluation N.4.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.5.
Each organization shall establish means for evaluating observer and participant commento on areas needing improvement, including emergency plan procedural
- changes, and for assigning responsibility for implementing corrective actions.
Each orgeization shall establish management control M 2d to enhum that corrective actions are implemented.
Statement N.S.
The Plan states that NHOEM will review all observer / evaluator comments on exercises and drills 1
(Sec. 3.1. 5 of Vol. 1).
These comments will be brought to the attention of the appropriate members of the New 87 i
FE*RUARY 1990 Hampshire Emergency
Response
Organization.
Where inadequacies are cited, NHOEM will raspond to the comments stating its concurrence or disagreement with the validity of the inadequacy.
A schedule for undertaking remedial actions for confirmed inadequacies will be prepared by NHOEM within one month of receiving and reviewing evaluator comments.
The scheduis will be provided to FEMA and to the numbers of the Emergency
Response
Organization that are charged with the responsibility for undertaking corrective actior:s.
All corrective actions will be implemented prior to the subsequent major exercise.
The remedial actions may include NHRERP revisions, implementing procedure revisions, upgrading of facilities or equipment, and additional training and drills.
Plan Reference N.5.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.1.5.
Evaluation N.S.
Adequate.
i c
88
1 4
FEBRUARY 1990 O. Radiological Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard O)
Radiological Emergency Response training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in an Emergency.
I h
Evaluation criterion J
i O.1.
Each organization shall assure the training of j
appropriate individuals.
O.1.b.
Each off-site response organization shall participate in r
and receive training. Where mutual aid agreements exist between local agencies such as
- fire, police and ambulance / rescue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the mutual aid g
district.
P Statement O.1.b.
The Plan describes the State's Radiological Emergency i
Response Training Program in Sec. 3.2 of Vol.
1.
The i
Plan states (Sec. 3.2.2) that training will be provided to all organizations that comprise the New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization.
A training matrix, which summarizes the concepts presented to each 1
audience, is presented in Table 3.2-1.
The audiences include personnel from State agencies, local response organizations, special facilities, bus
- drivers, ambulance personnel, county
- staffs, mutual aid organizations, Red Cross, EBS stations, and other key organizations.
Local plans include their commitment to
+
schedule local staff members for the training (Vol. 20, 3-Sec.
3.2, Vols. 21-37, Sec.
2.6,
& Vols. 38-41, Sec.
2.5).
The Plan includes a commitment to support local training, including fire departments and medical support that support the EPZ communities under mutual aid agreements.
a Plan Reference 0.1.b.
Vol.1, Secs, 3. 2, Table 3. 2-1; Vol. 20, Sec. 3. 2 ; Vols.
21-37, Sec. 2.6; Vols. 38-41, Sec.
2.5.
Evaluation 0.1.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion O.4.
Each organization shall establish a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans.
The specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs 89
FEBkUARY 1990 j-(including the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the following categories 0.4.a.
Directors or coordinators of the response organizations.
Statement 0.4.a.
The Plan describes the State's training program for agency directors and emergency planning coordinators in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol.
1.
The content of the training is shown on Table 3.2-1.
The Plan indicates that the training for these individuals will be conducted by NHOEM once per year, and will focus on broad emergency planning concepts.
NHOEM will cover each of the major 7
elements of the NHRERP in these training sessions.
Participants in this training will be familiarized with the State's concept of operations.
Material will, cover the responsibilities of each agency in the Emergency Response Organization.
Likewise, the training will cover basic concepts essential to understanding the State's Emergency planning efforts.
These include Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) in New Hampshire; Emergency Classification Levels, and the locations and functions of the various Emergency f acilities within the State.
State agency personnel with responsibilities requiring additional training will be scheduled for supplemental sessions.
Plan Reference i
O.4.a.
Vol. 1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.a.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O.4.b.
Personnel responsible for accident assessment.
Statement 0.4.b.
The Plan describes the State's training program for accident assessment staff in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol. 1.
The Plan states that at least once per year DPHS will conduct accident assessment training for the staff and volunteers that it will use for dose calculation and projection work.
DPHS staff that will be used for assignments in the State EOC, at the IFO/ EOF duty stations-will be included in the accident assessment 90
i FEBRUARY 1990 v,
training.
The training will cover the decision processes outlined in Sec.
2.5, and the predictive techniques contained in the DPHS Standing Operating Procedures.
According to the
- Plan, the accident assessment training provided by DPHS will be
[
supplemented by training provided by the Seabrook plant operator.
As schedules
- permit, DPHS staff and volunteers will attend on-site training sessions at the plant site.
Plan Reference 0.4.b.
Vol.
1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.3, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.b.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion 0.4.c.
Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel.
Statement 0.4.c.
The Plan describes the State's training program for radiological monitoring and analysis staff in Sec. 3.2.3 L
of Vol. 1.
The Plan states that once per year DPHS will conduct training for its monitoring and analysis teams.
This training will include familiarization and use of the instrumentation available in each of the field monitoring kits.
In addition the training will include familiarization with procedures for mobilization and dispatching field teams, locations of monitoring sites, procedures for communicating, and dispatching field samples.
The Utility'also will include DPHS staff and volunteers in training being provided to the Utility monitoring teams as necessary.
This training will be used to supplement the training provided by DPHS.
The training will be scheduled to precede the periodic drills and exercises.
This will provide a means of verifying the adequacy of the training.
Plan Reference 0.4.c.
Vol.
1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.c.
Adequate.
91
FEBRUARY 1990 Evaluation criterion O.4.d.
Police, security and fire fighting personnel.
Statement 0.4.d.
The Plan describes the State's training program for
- police, security and-fire-fighting personnel in Sec.
- 3. 2. 3 of Vol.
1.
The Plan indicates that State responsibility in this area is limited to access control and traf fic control functions.
Once per year NHOEM will instruct State Police, National Guard and Department of Transportation personnel on access control and traffic control functions.
The instruction will include EPZ locations and boundaries, location of access and traf fic control
- points, and procedures for manning access control points.
In addition, those that may be called upon to respond to requests for police and security support within an EPZ will be given basic radiological exposure control instruction.
The Plan states that since on-site police, security, EMS or fire fighting support is provided by Utility personnel, contractors, and by local emergency workers in the Town of Seabrook where the Town and Utility have support agreements, traini'ng of these people will be handled by the Utility directly.
Plan Reference 0.4.d.
Vol.
1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.d.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O.4.f.
First aid and rescue personnel.
Statement 0.4.f.
The Plan describes the State's training program for
. medical support and rescue personnel in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol.
1.
The content of the training is shown on Table 3.2-1.
The Plan indicates that EMS will coordinate training for emergency workers with medical support and rescue responsibilities.
To support mutual aid agreements, the training will be provided to the entire EMS region in which the EPZ communities are located.
The training will include an overview of the NHRERP, emergency classifications, notification, and protective actions with an emphasis on evacuation 92 I
FEBRUARY 1990 concepts.
The EMS instruction will also include basic radiological exposure control for emergency workers.
Plan Reference 0.4.f.
Vol. 1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.f.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion o.4.g.
Local support services personnel including civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel.
Statement 0.4.g.
The Plan describes the State's training for local support services personnel in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol. 1 and is shown on Table 3.2-1.
Training will be provided for support service agencies (DMS, Red Cross), local volunteers, staging area staff, bus and ambulance drivers, towing company drivers, decontamination center personnel, special facilities staff, local EOC staff, local police and fire personnel, and mutual aid fire departments.
Support personnel involved in management and operation of the reception centers will receive training in descriptions of the EPZs, locations of the reception
- centers, and support service functions at these facilities.
Transportation personnel will receive training in the NHRERP and emergency response organization, notification, ECLs, protective actions, locations of staging areas and garages, basic radiation concepts, and radiation exposure control.
l Decontamination Center personnel will receive a training
'j program which consist of two phases.
The first phase, a
lecture and slide presentation, will include an overview of emergency planning concepts, such as the responne organization, emergency planning
- zones, emergency classification, emergency facilities, notification, and protective response.
Basic radiation
. concepts, radiological exposure control, and use of dosimetry will also be covered.
The second phase of training will be a practical demonstration and exercise
~
4 of the skills used in the Decontamination Center.
Topics in this session include activation of the f acility, use of protective clothing, survey methods for personnel and vehicles, and decontamination procedures.
93 1
FEBRUAF.Y 1990 V
Special facilities staff will receive training in the
- NHRERP, ECLs, and notification, focusing on the implementation of protective actions in these facilities.
For local EOC, police, fire, and mutual aid personnel, training will focus upon the State-local interf ace, and the responsibilities of the local
. response organizations, but it will also cover. basic elements of radiological emergency response.
The local EOC staff will receive training on EOC operation's, to review such aspects as the town emergency response organization, use of procedure checklists, message
- forms, and status
-boards, internal communication, and EOC security.
Additional training will be provided to the radiological. officer on maintenance of radiological equipment, procedures for issuing dosimetry, and maintenance of exposure records.
Plan Reference 0.4.g.
Vol.
1, Secs. 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.g.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion O.4.h.
Medical support personnel.
Statement 0.4.h.
The Plan describes the State's training program for medical support and rescue personnel in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol. 1.
See the Statement under element 0.4.f.
Plan Reference 0.4.h.
Vol.
1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.h.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O.4.j.
Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency inforustion and instructions.
Statement 0.4.j.
The-Plan describes the State's training program for personnel involved in the communice. tion of emergency information in Sec. 3.2.3 of Vol.1.
The content of the 94 j
l
e t
FEBRUARY 1990-training is shown on Table 3.2-1.
The Plan indicates that NHOEM will provide annual instruction to those personnel that have key roles in notification and emergency communications. These people include the supervisors and dispatchers at the State Police Communications Center, Rockingham County Dispatch Center, local dispatch centers,.and representatives of EBS stations.
Instruction will include discussion of notification procedures and
- messages, emergency
' communication
- equipment nnd f acilities, and emergency public information.
Instruction will also cover description of EPZ locations, Emergency Classification t-Levels and an overview of the NMRERP.
Any agencies and individuals with responsibility for activation of the 1
Alert / Notification System will receive training on the procedures for use of the system.
Plan Reference 0.4.j.
Vol. 1, Secs.
3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Table 3.2-1.
Evaluation O.4.j.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O.5.
Each Organization shall provide for the initial and f
annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities, j
Statement 0.5.
The Plan indicates that the NHOEM Emergency Planning Coordinator will provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with radiological emergency response responsibilities and that he will administer l'
the radiological emergency response training program (Sec.
3.2.4 of Vol. 1).
NHOEM will coordinate the scheduling of each of the training sessions with the agency responsible for providing the training.
s.
The Plan indicates that training will be provided to all organizations that comprise the New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization. The training will be provided at least annually, and more frequently if significant NHRERP changes are implemented, or if inadequacies in emergency response capability are discovered.
The commitment to provide this training is also reflected in local community plans (Vols. 21-41, Sec. 1.5).
The training program consists of training in the following concepts (Sec. 3.2.2 of Vol. 1):
. Basic Emergency Planning Concepts 95 s
FEBRUARY 1990
. Notification
. Protective Actions
. Radiation Concepts
. Radiological Exposure Control
. EOC Operations
+ Procedure Checklists
+
. Traffic Management
. Operation of Alert and Notification System
. Radiological Monitoring Equipment and Exposure Records
- Reception Center Operations
- Decontamination Center Operations
. Staging Area Operations
. Accident Assessment
- Radiological Monitoring and Analysis
. Protective Action Decision Making
. Family Plan.
Different groups will receive training in different combinations of the above concepts, according to need.
The Plan stipulates that attendance will be taken at U
each scheduled. training session.
Attendance forms will be forwarded to NHOEM as a permanent record of required training.
Plan Reference 0.5.
Vol. 1, Sec. 3.2; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
l'.5.
Evaluation 0.5.
Adequate.
=
96
FEBRUARY 1990 P.
Responsibility for the Planning Effort Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Standard p
P):
Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distribution of emergency plans are established, and planners are properly trained.
Evaluation Criterion P.1.
Each organization shall provide for the training of individuals responsible for the planning effort.
Statement P.1.
The Plan in Sec. 3.2 of Vol. 1 describes the commitment to provide for initial and annual retraining of emergency response personnel, including those responsible for the planning effort.
Specific training for Emergency Planning Coordinators is described in Sec. 3.2.3 (Vol. 1).
Plan Reference P.1.
Vol.
1, Sec.
3.2.
l Evaluation P.1.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion P.2.
Each organization shall identify by title the individual with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning.
Statement P.2.
The Plan (Sec.
1.1.2 of Vol. 1) indicates that the k.
Director of the NHCDA (NHOEM) has overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response
- planning, including development, distribution, maintenance, and testing of the NHRERP.
At the local community level (Sec.1.2 of Vols. 21-41), the Selectmen or designee are indicated as being responsible for the planning effort.
Plan Reference P.2.
Vol.
1, Sec. 1.1.2; Vols. 21 -41, Sec.
1.2.
Evaluation P.2.
Adequate.
97
FEBRUARY 1990 L
' Evaluation Criterion P.3.
Each organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Coordinator with responsibility for the development and updating of emergeney plans and coordination of these plans with other response organizations.
Statement P.3.
The Plan in Sec.
3.3.2 of Vol. 1 indicates that the Director of NHCDA (NHOEM) is responsible for the overall development of the NHRERP.
The Plan (Sec. 3.3.2 of Vol. 1) indicates that each agency within the New Hampshire Emergency Response organization has designated an Emergency Planning Coordinator.
The Emergency Planning Coordinators are responsible for coordinating their agencies planning efforts, disseminating revisions to the NHRERP, and informing NHOEM of any needed updating of
- plans, procedures, or training.
Sec. 1.5 of Vols. 21-41 indicates a designation of a person responsible for coordinating, updating,- and-distributing changes to the local emergency plan.
Plan Reference P.3.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.3.2; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
Evaluation P.3.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion P.4.
Each organization shall update its plan and agreemente as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis.
The update shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises.
Statement P.4.
The Plan describes the process of updating of the NHRERP and its agreements (Sec.
3.3.3, Vol.
1).
The Plan states that the Director of NHOEM will ensure that the
- NHRERP, supporting implementing procedures, and emergency planning agreements are reviewed and updated as changes in emergency preparedness status take place.
At least annually, the Director will direct that a plan review is performed to ensure that the NHRERP reflects current emergency preparedness status and issue updated copies.
Provisions are described for annual review and update of the local municipality plans in Sec. 3.4 of 98
TEBRUARY 1990 vol. 20 and Sec. 1.5 of Vols 21-41.
The Director of NHOEM will certify annually, by letter to FEMA, compliance with the " periodic requirements for
.the preceding year."
Plan Reference P. 4. -
Vol. 1, Secs. 3.3.2 and 3.3.3; Vol. 20, Sec. 3.4; Vols.
21-41, sec.
1.5.
Evaluation P.4.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion P.S.-
The Emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans shall be forwarded to all organizations and appropriate individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans.
Revised pages shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been made, c
Statement P.5.
The Plan indicates (Sec. 3.3.2 of Vol.
- 1) that the Director of NHOEM will ensure that copies of the NHRERP are numbered, and that distribution of the plan will be controlled and registered by serial number. All changes will be entered in the control copies and noted both in l-a master plan distribution log kept by NHOEM at its f
offices, and in a log sheet of revisions kept in the p-front of each copy of the Plan.
As part of the distribution to plan holders, the t
Director will summarize the plan changes implemented
[
since the preceding review and all revised pages shall i
be dated and marked to show where changes have been F
made.
Distribution will be made to FEMA, to the f
Emergency Planning Coordinator for each agency within F
the New Hampshire Emergency Responce Organization, the Civil Defense Directors of the local municipalities, to the power plant operators, and to other. persons holding controlled copies of the NHRERP.
At the local level, the distribution of updated copies of the plans to
- individual members of the local emergency response organization will be done by the local official
,[
designated in Sec. 1.5 of Vols. 21-41.
k I
The Plan in Sec.
3.3.2 of Vol. 1 indicates that the Emergency Planning Coordinators for the other agencies p
within the New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization are responsible for disseminating revisions to the
- NHRERP, and its implementing procedures, to the emergency workers within their own agencies.
99
FEBRUARY 1990 Plan Reference P.S.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
Evaluation P.S.
Adequate.
Evaluation criterion P.6.
Each plan shall contain a detailed listing of supporting plans and their source.
Statement P.6.
The Plan (Sec. 3.3 of Vol. 1) indicates that the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan is supported by local Radiological Emergency
Response
Plans.
The Plan in Sec. 3.3 of Vol. 1 states that each community (both plume EPZ and host communities) is responsible for compiling and maintaining their own plan.
The local supporting plans are listed in App. F of Vol. 9.
Plan Reference P.6.
Vol. 1, Sec. 3.3; Vol.
9, App. F.
Evaluation P.6.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion P.7 Each plan shall contain as an appendix listing, by title, procedures required to implement the plan.
The listing shall include the section(s) of the plan to be implemented by each procedure.
Statement P.7.
The Plan in Sec. 3.3 of Vol. 1 and in Sec. 1.6 of Vols.
21-41 contains the implementing procedures.
Plan Reference P.7.
Vol.
1, Sec. 3.3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.6.
Evaluation P.7.
Adequate.
100
FEBRUARY 1990 i
Evaluation criterion P.8.
Each plan shall contain a specific table of contents.
Plans submitted for review should be cross-referenced to these criteria, Statement P.8.
The Plan contains a table of contents and a cross reference index to evaluation criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.
Separate. tables of content are provided in Vol.1 and for each local plans.
The cross-reference index is provided in App. F of Vol. 9.
Plan Reference P.8.
Vol 1 & Vols. 21-41, Table of Contents, Vol. 9, App. F.
Evaluation P.8.
Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion P.10.
Each organization shall provide for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures at least quarterly.
Statement P.10.
The Plan describes provisions for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures on a quarterly basis.
As indicated in Sec. 3.3.3 of Vol.1, the NHOEM Director will see that the Emergency Phone Listing is reviewed for accuracy at least quarterly.
The local community plans (Vols. 21-41) describe provisions for a quarterly update of telephone numbers (Sec. 1.5).
Plan Reference P.10.
Volume 1, Sec. 3.3.3; Vols. 21-41, Sec.
1.5.
i.
I.
Evaluation i
P.10.
Adequate.
f.
101 l-
FEBRUARY 1990 i
Plan Review Rating Summary l
Element Rating Element Ratina Element Rating f
. i i
A.1.a A
H.3 A
N.1.a A
A.1.b A
H.4 A
N.1.b A-A.1.c A
H.7 A
N.2.a A
A.1.d A
H.10 A
N.2.c A
A.1.e A
H.11 A
N.2.d A
A.2.a A
H.12 A
N.2.e A
A.2.b A
I.7 A
N.3.a A
f A.3 A
I.8 A
N.3.b A
A.4 A
I.9 A
N.3.c A
C.1.a A
I.10 A
N.3.d A
C.1.b A
I.11 A
N.3.e A
c.1.c A
J.2 A
N.3.f A
C.2.a A
J.9 A
N.4 A
C.3 A
J.10.a A
N.5 A
C.4 A
J.10.b A
O.1.b A
D.3 A'
J.10.c A
O.4.a A
D.4 A
J.10.d A
O.4.b A
E.1 A
J.10.e A
O.4.c A
E.2 A
J.10.f A
O.4.d A
E.5 A
J.10.g A
O.4.f A
E.6 A
J.10.h A
O.4.g A
E.7 A
J.10.1 A
O.4.h A
i F.1.a A
J.10.j A
O.4.j A
l
.F.1.b A
J.10.k A
O.5 A
~
F.1.c A
J.10.1 A
P.1 A
i F.1.d A
J.10.m A
P.2 A
' F.1.. e A
J.11 A
P.3 A
F.2 A
J.12 A
P.4 A
F.3 A
K.3.a A
P.5 A
G.1 A
K.3.b A
P.6 A
G.2 A
K.4 A
P7 A
G.3.a A
K.5.a A
P.8 A.
G.4.a A
K.5.b A
P.10 A
G.4.b A
L.1 A
i G.4.c A
L.3 A
G.5 A
L.4 A
M.1 A
M.3 A
M.4 A
102 m
.m.
s.,