ML20071B535
| ML20071B535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1983 |
| From: | Keller J, Kowieski R, Mcintire P Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071B518 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302280390 | |
| Download: ML20071B535 (59) | |
Text
e .
FEMA'S SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF FEBRUARY 21, 1983 CONCERNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 Q.1 Do you have a statement of professional qualifications?
A. Yes, my statement of professional qualifications is attached to this supplemental testimony.
~Q.2 When did Roger Kowieski first become involved in emergency planning?
A. Mr. Kowieski first became involved in emergency planning in 1978 as Regional Dam Safety Coordinator. In 1981, Mr. Kowieski was appointed by the Regional Director as the Chairman, Regional Assistance Comittee, responsible for the REP Program. Since that time, he managed the REP program and dam safety activities in FEMA, Region II.
Q.3 Please describe the nature of that involvement up to the present time, including the various activities engaged in, persons communicated with 'and responsibilities.
A. As Regional Dan. Safety Coordinator (1978 - present), he is responsible for the management and successful implementation of the Dam Safety Program within the Region including Emergency Action Planning. In this position he works closely w'th the highest level Civil Defense Officials of the state, courty and local governments, U.S. Army Corps.
of Engineers, National Weather Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, universities, privete consultants and professional organ-izations responsible for prtmoting dam safety programs in the interest of public safety and welfare.
In 1979, Mr. Kowieski chaired FEMA's National Task Force on dam safety and submitted a policy recomendation on FEMA's role in Dam Safety.
Also in 1979, he organized, managed and conducted the Federal Emergency Management Agency's first Dam Safety Conference attended by Civil Defense Director's, dam owners and public officials responsible for the public safety and welf are. Since November 1981, Mr. Kowieski was responsible for the Radiological Emergency Preparedeness Program in the position of the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee.
In this capacity he provided a high level of technical assistance to state and local governments in preparation of plans required to meet federal regulations. Performing these duties he dealt with high level federal, state and local officials, community leaders, private citizens and news media representatives.
Q.4 Are you authorized to present to the Board the current FEMA evaluation of the Indian Point PERP for offsite emergency preparedness? Does your testimony represent that current FEMA evaluation?
A. Yes.
Q.5 Has FEMA prepared a report dealing with the status of plan revisions, equipment purchases and training as they relate to the significant deficiencies in five planning standards identified in July 19827 A. Yes. The report is attached to this testimony (Attachment 1).
8302280390 830218 PDR ADOCK 05000247 T PDR
n Q.6 What procedures are being utilized by the Federal Die.spx:y Managecent A,wx:y to verify that the resources called for in the Radiological Emergency Response Plan are available and .
that energency workers are receiving the training called for in the plan?
Indian Point Verification A. One wWsnt of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 44 CFR 350 review process pertaining to.the State and local Radio-logical Dnergency Plans and Preparedness surrounding the Indian * .
Point Nuclear Generating Facilities is verification that elements of the plan'are, in fact, in place, and individuals are capable of carrying out assigned responsibilities. %e surveys will also
- provide State and County personnel with feedback and assist FDIA *
-in preparing for the March 9th exercise.
Ihe Aspns National Laboratory, under contract to FDIA, developed questionnaires to be used in surveying vacious wwents of the Indian Point Radiological Dnergency Preparedness Plans. This work is being supervised by the Begion II staff of FH %. %e elements to be surveyed are:
o bus ccupanies o schools (to be' evacuated) o congregate care centers o special facilities (to be evacuated) o reception Centers o personnel monitoring centers o hospitals o county EOC checklists l
o ambulance ccmpanies l
The FEMA verification procedures are based on generally accepted l statistical sanpling methods, which involve randcmized selection of the facilities to be surveyed..
EINA is cognizant of the fact that much remains to be done in the i
area of training in order to increase preparedness. %erefore, the questionnaires are relatively basic.
l l
L _ _ . . . _ . _ , - _ . _ _ . _, _ _ , _ . . , _
f
- 3.10 The emergency plan fails to conform to NUREG.0654 in that, contrary to Evaluation Criterion II J.10.d.
proper means for protecting persons whose mobility may be impaired have not been developed. Specifically, adequate provisions have not been made for groups named in the bases submitted for the following contentions.
Westpac 6
. UCS/NYPIRG I(B) (2), basis 6 and I(A) basis (7)
Parents I, basis (22) and II basis Contention 3.10: Response Element J.10.d. of NUREG .0654 does not specify a single method for pro-tecting mobility impared individuals. In many cases sheltering may be a better protective action than evacuation. Significant improvements in planning have or are scheduled to be undertaken for those institutions
- within the 10-mile EPZ that house mobility impaired individuals.
We understand that the majority of special facilities own the vehicles which would be used if evacuation becomes necessary. The plan identifies the priviate bus companies which would be used to supplement the special f acilities resources providing buses and vans in the event of emergency.
During the 120-day clock period significant progress in planning was made for non-institutionalized mobility impaired persons and those who do not s-speak English.
The revised county plans provide two (2) primary methods for identifying t-he non-institutionalized mobility-inpaired population:
o the public information pamphlets distributed annually will include a mail-in postal card. This will identify this population in advance, and o at the time of an accident, special telephone number (s) will be announced over the broadcast media; mobility-impaired persons will be able to call to request transportation.
l In addition, the four counties have agreed to contact approriate agencies
( and facilities to solicit information about additional mobility impaired
! persons. The Department of Social Services in Westchester and Orange l Counties are responsible for evaucation needs of mobility impaired persons.
l In Putnam, the Fire and Rescue Service is in charge. In Rockland, the Civil Defense Director is responsible. Each county will maintain an update confidential list of non-institutionalized mobility impaired persons. In l
case of a radiological emergency, each county E0C would be manned by a l representative from the County Agency responsible for the special problems of mobility impaired persons. If evacuation becomes a possibility, staff will activate its procedures, including notification to, and coordination with E0C command.
l-i t
With regard to the inmates of Ossining Correctional Facility, there is a very definate NYS Department of Corrections' policy for the Ossining facility: to shelter inmates, the facility has sufficient shielding i
I capability. In addition, potassium iodide will be issued should it become necessary. Staffing of the facility is the responsibility of the NYS Department of Corrections and is provided for its procedures.
It is FEMA's belief that most of the special population who are not institutionalized ii,e with other individuals or have neighbors whological It seems wuld to assist in protecting them in the event of an accident.
conclude that people who do not live within the 10-mile EPZ but spend considerable time there would seek information from others and in the event of an accident listen to the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS).
t
i t %
4.7 The emergency plans should be upgradtd to provide' more -
adequate methods for. alerting and informing persons.who are deaf, blind, too young to understand the instructions or who do.not speak English.
j Since FEMA last- testified before the Board, new initiatives have been devel-oped to educate _ the public residing within the EPZ. The public ~ education brochures- are being revised and will be distributed as they become ready.
Training has occurred and more is scheduled.
i-
. According to the New. York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, the siren system has been individually -tested as well as augmented as follows:
Of the original- eighty-eight sirens already installed, ten will be reloca-ted; three in Orange County, two in Rockland County, and five in Westchester County. In addition to those sirens already upgraoed,h three more will be upgraded to 122 decibels.
In addition, twenty-three sirens will be installed, bringing the total number to 142. Of these, ten will be installed in Rockland County and thirteen in Westchester County. Installation was to begin about January 10, 1983.
4
! FT.MA believes that significant improvements' have been made in the siren 'sys-tem. All units have been individually tested and additional sirens in-stalled. As soon as FEMA's alert and notification procedures are finalized, a formal evaluation of the alert and notification system will be under-t aken.
FEMA believes that not all the residents of the EPZ do understand ~ the brochures. However, we do believe that in the event of an accident- the residents would follow instructions provided by the EBS.
The Public Information Officers (PIO) Work Group, established during the 120-day clock, conducted a survey of non-English speaking persons residing in the Indian Pt int 10-mile emergency planning zone. This survey identified several relatively.small non-English speaking comunities. These include 17 Greeks (St. Basil's School, Putnam County): 958.Spanish and Portuguese and possibly their families (0ssining, North Rockland, and 2 or 3 families in Croton Harmon/Briarcliff Manor); 378 Haitian / Creole and possibly their fami-
~
' lies (East Ramapo and Nyack); approximately 2,000 Yiddish (New Square); and 50 persons who speak Oriental languages. -
t c FEMA agreed with the State and counties recomendation that it would be im-
- practical to develop brochures in languages other than English considering
- - the limited number of non-English speaking residents. The state and counties recomended that a more effective way of reaching the non-English i
speakers would be through the comunity social and religious leaders.
l In addition, . special measures such as posters and telephone inserts are
.being developed as part of a Public Education Program for transients includ-ing those using recreational areas. These measures are scheduled to be im-plemented in 1983.
i I
L
c' '.
Roger B. Kowinski PPTESSICNAL CUALIFICATICNS r
Roger B. Kowieski is employed at FDR, Region II, New York. Mr. Kowieski is currently serving as the Chaiman of the Regional Assistance Ccumittee, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, Region II, Federal Dnergency Management h9enCy*
) Mr. Kawieski holds an MS in Envitusmutal Engineering from Wroclaw Polytechnic l- Institute, Poland and a Professional Engineer License fran the State of New Jersey.
'Ihe witness began to acquire skills in management, planning, and design while working for the private sector. From 1971 to 1973, Mr. Kowieski worked for Ionis Berger Associates where he was involved in design of interstate highways and water 4 resources projects. In 1973, Mr. Kowieski joined URS Corporation as a Project i Manager. In this capacity he was responsible for planning, design, and management
, of various projects in water resources and environmental fields including flood-hazard identification studies, flood control, sewage treatment plants for hazardous waste, instrumentation, and Environmental Impact Statements. ,
'Ibe witness began his Federal ervices in 1977 with the Federal Insurance Adminis-tration (FIA) in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develognent. As an As-'
i sistant Director for Engineering with FIA (1977-1980), the witness was primarily responsible for the management, admi.nistration and.inplementation of all Flood Insurance Studies, dam safety prwtmu activities and other floodplain related ac-l tivities in the Region. In this capacity, the witness monitored, supervised, and
. coordinated the work of approximately 25-30 private engineering consultants and federal agencies conducting work in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the .
Virgin Islands. He also provided technical assistance to State and local officials on various flood damage mitigation techniques and flood warning methods designed to increase the public awareness and to reduce future flood losses.
!' Appointed by the FIA Administrator to the Task Force ccanprised of national experts
! in hazard mitigation, he assisted the Adminiatrator in analysis evaluation and re-p direcrion of external and internal operations of FIA Programs. (1978).
In 1978, Mr. Kowieski was also named as Regional Dam Safety Coordinator respoluible for the management and successful inplementation of the Dam Safety Program within the Region. In this position, he was involved in emergency action planning for dams and reservoirs. This involved the evaluation of emergency planning in the i
event of dam failure, delineating the inundation areas, and preparing notification I and evacuation plans.
1 In 1981, Mr. Kowieski also served as Acting Director of the Insurance and Mitigation Division responsible for the management and planning of all activities related to the NFIP and hazard mitigation.
With the realignment of the Regional Office in November 1981, Mr. Kowieski was namec Acting Chief, Technological Fazards and Engineering Support Group and the
( Chairman of Regional Assistance Ccumittee. In this capacity, the witness was responsible for managing and administrating all of engineering activities pertain-ing to the NFIP, Radiological Dnergency Preparedness Pr@ tams, Dam Safety Pr@ tau, and hazardous materials program.
i
l
~
j i
Roger B. Kowieski (Continuation)
As Chairman of the Regional Assistance Comittee, the witness dealth with those representatives of the Governor responsible for the REP program, the Department of Health, the legislature, and euervercy services agercies. In this capacity, he provided a high level of technical assistance to State and local governments in preparation of plans required to meet federal regulations. Under his direc-tion and supervision as RAC Chairman, Region II successfully catpleted a large amount of work with very limited staff, including reviews and exercises for Nine Mile Point, Ginna, Indian Point, Oyster Creek, and Salen. In Decenber 1982, Mr. Kowieski was 1. uroted to Project Officer, Natural and Technological Hazards Division. In this capacity the witness assists the chief of the division in managing the activities of the division, including Radiological anergency Plan-ning Programs, National Flood Insurance Program, and the Dam Safety Prcytcau.
s e
l er -
r - w- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m C- A, ATTACHMENT 1
~ _ . . . _
UPDATE RFLDORT W
THE STAWS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS CITED IN HIE JULY 30,1982 INTERIA FINDINGS ON W E ADEQUACY OF RADICIOGICAL EMERGDICY RESPONSE PREPAR4 TION
- OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMCirS AT SIE .
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATICN DECEMBER 16, 1982 Prepared by the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGMCY REGIW II Frank P. Petrone 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Regional Director
~
_-~ _ : __ _ _ _ _. __ _
C o TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1
I. Background 1
Status of Remedial Actions 3 II.
III. Public Meeting Concerns 9 9
IV. Plan Review .
f i
h i
4 o d
~ ~ ' ' - - ~ ~ -
I . BACKGROUND - - -
In response to a request frcan the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (NBC) dated June 16, 1982, th's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) subnitted its "InteriF. Findings on the Adequacy of Radiological ,
Emergency Response P'.eparation of State and Iccal Governments at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station", dated July 30, 1982.
Determinations of adequacy in the Interim Finding were based on a review of the radiological emergency response plans of the State of New
. York and the. counties of Orange, Putnam, Rockland and West & ester, as well ac on the observed performance of these political jurisdictions during an exercise of the plans conducted on March 3, 1982, and upon a -
review of coments made at two public meetings held in Westsester and Orange counties on July 26 and 27,1982. Based on the review of the responses from the State of New York relating to the State and County components of the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan WIPP), and after review of the legislative action taken by the Rockland County Legislature ( Resolution 320, dated May 18, 1982), FEMA determined that signifi' cant deficiencies existed with respect to five planning standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. 'Ihese planning standards along with highlights of the specific deficiencies for each standard are listed below.
o Notification Methods and Pxcedures (Planning Standard E)
- Observed equipment failures of the alert and notification system (sirens).
- Lack of criteria at the State and County level to determine what emergency public information would be disseminated via Emergency Broadcast System and through news releases, o Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G)
- Lack of complete public education campaign regarding Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) and reception
- and congregate care centers.
- Inadequate distribution of the Public Education bro dure.
Emergency Planning"2one residents should be made aware of the number of the ERPA in which they reside, since emergency public information is provided by ERPA zone number.
- Need for publication of the public information brodure in language (s) other than English.
- Inadequate arrangements for rumor control.
o Protective Response (Planning Standard J)
- Inadequate means for notification of transients
- No maps showing population. distribution around the nuclear facility.
- No provisions for use of radioprotective drugs for emergency workers.
- No identification of and means for dealing with impediments to use of evacuation routes.
- No, details of protective measures to be used for ingestion pathway.
- ~ + ' '" + - ..%_ ,, ,,
- 4 .
t
- Inadequate means for monitoring of evacuees at relocation -
centers. ' '
- Possible non-response by private and public bus operators for evacuation of public transportation dependent population in Westchester County, o Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K)
- Absence of permanent record dosimeters and 24-hour capability to determine doses received by emergency
-. personnel.
- Insufficient personnel and equi;snent resources for decontamination of personnel ..
o
.o Re=mnsibility for the Planning Effort (Planning Standard P)
A resolution enacted by the Rockland County Legislature, dated May < .
18, 1982, directing county staff not to cooperate with the utilities, NRC and FEMA in the federally mandated radiological emergency planning process.
- The State and Rockland County have not provided adequately -
for training of individuals responsible for the planning effort in Rockland County. .
- Rockland County's withdrawal frczn the Radiological Emergency Preparedness process made it un sle to assume the updating of its plan, as needed. *
- Rockland County's withdrawal from the REP process made it unable to review its plan on an annual basis, and certify it to be current.
Following the FEMA transmittal to the NRC of August 2,1982, the Administra:.or of NRC Region I invoked its 120-day regulatory clock on August 3,1982. FEMA Region II staff met with the New York State l Radiological Preparedness Group (REPG) on August 18, 1982 to discuss a timetable by which the State, counties and utilities would inplement i
remedial actions required to correct the deficiencies identified by .
FEMA Region II. It was also agreed that the task force approacts would best acconplish the timely implementation of these remedial actions.
The remedial actions developed to address the deficiencies in the interim report were divided into 34 sub-el ements iw thin the fivu planning standards and were set forth in a working document entitled,
" Interim Findings Indian Point Radiological Emergency Preparedness, Remedial Action Schedule", which was based on the Indian Point Interim Findings Report. The task force groups which were set up are outlined below:
o Executive Work Group - REPG and FEMA; i
o Public Inforination Officers (PIO) Work Group - REPG, New York f State PIO, FEMA, PASNY, Con Ed, Westchester, Putnam and Orange Counties; o Plan Revision Task Force - REPG and FEMA; 2-Y? ""'
r- - - 4e r u' y y_w -
g,,, ., _mm y7__y,__, , , _ _ _
o Radiological Task Force - New York State Department of Health (DOH), FDiA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
and o Ingestion Task Force - DOH, FEMA, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The primarf role of FEMA, EPA and FDA and other RAC members was to assist their State, County and utility counterparts on the five working groups in developing the remedial actions.
S'even bi-weekly progress report meetings on the Remedial Action Schedule for Indian Point radiological emergency preparedness were ,
held, beginning on September 8,1982 and concluding on November 29, 19,82. These meetings were attended by staff of FEMA Region II and, on several occasions, by FD4A National Office staff, representatives of NRC Region I, USEPA Region II, FDA Region II, PASNY and Con Edison, New York REPG and Department of Health, and Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. Rockland County officials observed several of the meetings.
Representatives of intervenor groups and the press also observed some of'the sessions.
On December 1 and 2,1982, FEMA representatives. met witti REPG staff in Albany, New York in an effort to obtain a final agreement on remedial actions necessary to resolve all outstanding deficiencies. The '
bi-weekly progress report meetings, and the final meetings in Albany, have been marked by full and frank exchanges of views, carried out in a spirit of cooperation by all parties involved.
FEMA agreed to provide this report consisting of an update of progress made on correcting the five significant deficiencies and a comprehensive plan review, rio.later than December 17, 1982. This update, provided in accordance with the FDiA-NRC Menorandum of Understanding, reports on the current status of remedial actions cmpleted or underway to correct significant deficiencies in five planning standards. This report reflects the status of plan revisions, equipment purchases and training as they relate to previously, identified deficiencies.
FDiA would like to acknowledge the fact that the REPG staff, employees of the counties and personnel of both utilities have put forth an impressive level of effort and, through effective management, hard work and dedication, have made significant progress.
II. STATUS OF REMEDIAL ACTICUS FDiA and RAC members have reviewed many documents relating to remedial actions during the past several months. In some cases, appropriate plan revisions have been made, Mr.inWilliam others'the actual plan C. Hennessy, revisionsofmust Chairman the still be made in the future.
Disaster Preparedness Camission, in a December 3,1982 letter to Mr. Frank P. Petrone, Director of FEMA Region II, committed toOnformally subnit the plan revisions to FEMA on behalf of the Governor.
December 7,1982, FEMA received a comitment from REPG to make all formal plan revisions by January 15, 1983.
a .
E. Notification Methods and Procedures he deficiencies noted in the interim report have been adequately addressed.
The need for corrections to the alert system (siren system) and documentation of the operability of the system has been addressed in subnittals from the State / utility dated November 17, 1982, certifying that the siren system now in place is operable.
Criteria'for the content of EBS messages and news releases was ifeveloped by October 5,1982 along with generic EBS mesages.
Procedures for PIOS have been revised to correspond to the plan revisions being made as part of the remedial actions.
I5provements were made, on October 19, 1982, in the procedural steps for alerting, notification and mobilization of emergency response personnel in Rockland County, including use of new paging equipment.
h e State plan was revised on September 22, 1982 to inprove procedures for contacting Federal agencies. Initial PIO training on revised procedures was completed on November 5,1982 and a senedule of future training submitted.
The Hudson Valley and Catskill New York Operational Area 3 EBS plan was received by FENA on September 9,1982. Authenticator code envelopes are available on a need-to-know basis at the NABC News Center and in the West & ester EOC. The additional backup phone number was given to Westchester County, the EBS activating county, prior to December 1, 1982 to assure the ability to activate the EBS system. Meetings were held during November 1982 with managers cd WABC, WFAS and other EBS stations covering the 10-mile EPZ to discuss EBS activation and- the i inportance of station participation during exercises and in the event of a real emergency.
Orange and Rockland Counties tested their sirens during the 120-day period. FEMA observed the Orange County test and found that eleven of twelve sirens sounded. A formal report from the State is anticipated by January 15, 1983.
G. Public Education and Information The deficiencies noted in the interim report have been adequately addressed.
A conprehensive public education program has been developed whid utilizes various methods to provide information about the emergency I
plans on an ongoing basis, including radio public service l
announcements, newspaper ads, and a speakers' program. During-November l 1982, newspaper ads in the area weekly and daily newspapers and radio public service announcements provided information to residents on how to obtain the brochure, Indian Point and You. Future ads and radio announcements are planned during three time intervals in 1983.
l The utilities have funded four new positions in the four county area to l assist with public education and training activities. The distribution
~
I of the new public information brochure is planned for February or March of 1983.
- -. - - - - = . -- --
~
a .
/
In September'1962 the State furnished FEMA with a survey of non-English-l speaking students and, where possible, the English proficiency of their L families. Based on the data presented in this survey report, there is no need to publish the information brodure in languages other than
,English. An outreach program for the non-English speaking residents, which was proposed by the State and endorsed by FEMA, has been initiated through contacts with conmunity, social, and religious leaders. .
Plan revisions have been made and procedures developed to address rumors. he rumor control procedures are nodelled after the Oswego County system which was sucessfully demonstrated at the James A. .
Fitzpatrick Exercise on August 11, 1982.
Information for transients will be put in place in late February or Mard 1983 (to coincide with brochure distribution) and material for <
telephone directories in the f'our county area will be supplied in the fall of 1983.
Also included in the plan revisions is additional information on physical arrangements and equipment availability in the. Joint Media Center. The current alternate Joint Media Center located in White Plains, New York was inspected and found acceptable as an alternate by.
FEMA on Decemoer 2, 1982. A new primary site for the Joint Media
- Center is being sought and is targeted for coupletion by July 1983.
J. Protective Resconse All but one of the deficiencies noted in the interim report have been adequately addressed.
Posters, planned for distribution in February or March 1983, and a telephone book insert for fall 1983 pnone books are being prepared to I get information to transients. Maps, with population information by ERPA, are now available in county EDCs.
The State and Counties have adopted the Food and Drug Administration re u m. d ation on use of Potassium Iodide (KI) for emergency workers and captive populations. Se new policy states that KI will be given when thyroid dose projections exceed 25 Rem.
Procedures have been revised to give additional information on means for clearing impediments on evacuation routes. S e Counties will use l
county, town or village equipnent or local private contractors to.
provide necessary resources. %e means of implementi.% these procedures are in place now.
Adequate information on surface water inventory and the location of produce and dairy farms was furnished to FEMA. h is conpletes
!' information requirements for ingestion pathway protective actions.
9 i
.__: __,_r_ - - ' - - -
a .
Procedures have been developed for monitoring capability at con 7regate care centers and for transmission of field data to decision makers.
Based on information' ftirnished to FEMA on December 1,1982, in the event of an emergency each county EOC will be manned by a representative of the respective county agency responsible for special problems of the mobility inpaired. If evacuation is recomended, these agencies will carry out their responsibilities to arrange for evacuation. Additional public information programs will be used to inform the mobility impaired persons of methods of receiving assistance. The current information brochure contains phone numbers to be called for assistance and the conprehensive public information program, discussed above, will publicize these numbers.
Additional maps, not available in the last exercise, were provided on October 20, 1982. All relocation centers have been certified to be outside the 10-mile Plume Exposure EPZ.; .
The only deficiency in Planning Standard J, which is not adequately addressed at the present time, concerns the possible non-response,of comercial bus drivers used for evacuation in Westchester County.
Therefore, this planning standard remains significantly, deficient.
Alfred DelBello, the West & ester County Executive, in a letter dated June 2,1982 to the NRC Commission Chairman, and again in the public meeting of July 26, 1982, has expressed concern that crmnercial bus driver;s, over which the county exercises no direct control on letters of agreement, may not respond to a radiological emergency at Indian Point. The West & ester Couqty Radiological Emergency Response Plan (WCRERP) relies on both public and ccanercial bus drivers for emergency evacuation of populations dependent on public transportation. As a co mensating measure, the REPG proposes to rely upon New York State l
military forces (National Guard) to respond to an emergency at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Generating Station replacing private and public bus operators who do not respond. REPG has provided for review by FDtA a New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs (DMNA) plan for the utilization of military forces to replace civilian bus drivers. This plan, "OPLTW Radiological Emergency-Indian Point", sets "
forth detailed sucedures for a DPNA takeover of bus fleets and -
evacuation of public transportation dependent populations in i
West & ester County by comercial or school buses manned by New York State military forces.
FEMA has evaluated the DMNA plan to conpensate for the possible failure l
' of local bus drivers to respond to a radiological emergency at Indian Point and found it would require an additional 4 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, above the f normal evacuation times, to cxmplete. In a worst case situation, i.e.,
i an evacuation required for all sectors and no response by any comercial drivers, the additional time required for the military to respond cannot be judged by FEMA to be adequate to protect the public health and safety. Mr. DelBello also expressed reservations about the additional t;ime required to utilize military drivers in a County ;
critique transmitted to NRC Olairman Palladino, dated December 6, l 1982. l
- ' * - e w --,,, , . . , , _ .
m
.The State is-continuing its efforts to address this important issue. . . . _ . _ _
REPG hac reported that.it intends to fund a comprehensive study of the mass transit portion of the West & ester RERP to comence in early 1983.
Based on the results of that study, a nere effective solution to the needs of public transportation-dependent residents of Westdester County is to be developed.
K. Radiological Exposure Control
'Ihe deficiencies noted in the interim report have been adequately addressed. .
~
The State agreed on December 2,1982 to initiate imediately ,
procurement of the permanent record dosimeters required for a response -
at Indian Point and have started a phased acquisition of low range iself-reading dosimeters. High range civil defense dosimeters will be used in the interim. -
Revisions in decontamination procedures are being made in the plan and
- the State training manual and will be mmpleted by January 13, 1983.
The State is developing numeric requirements for both trained personnel and equipment for use at monitoring and decontamination facilities and this information will be included in the plans by Janu'ary 15, 1983.
Revisions in the plan and State training manual with regard to disposal j
of contaminated wastes generated by demntamination will be conpleted '
- by January 15, 1983. Monitoring equignent will be checked for proper i operation quarterly and calibrated annually.
P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort On May 18, 1982, the Rockland County Legislature enacted Resolution
- 320. This resolution and Resolution #473, enacted on July 13, 1982, provided for the following:
o Rockland County would no longer participate with F12%, NBC, Con Ed and PASNY in developnent of the Federally mandated Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Indian Point.
o Rockland County would prepare its own Nuclear Emergency and Preparedness Plan and General Disaster Preparedness Plan.
o Rockland County would, nevertheless, cooperate with all State and Federal agencies in coordinating an emergency response to an actual radiological accident at Indian Point NPGS.
State officials originally construed the actions by the Rockland County ,
Legislature as a withdrawal of Rockland's participation in preparedness for the offsite consequences of a radiological accident at Indian Point. On this basis, the State undertook the developing of plans and procedures whereby State officials would assume the County's responsibilities under the existing plan, Their basic premise was that -
in the event of an incident at Indian Point the Governor would make an emergency declaration and dispat& predesignated and trained State enployees to staff the Rockland County Emergency Operating Center.
On November 18, 1982, Mr. John T. Grant, Chairman of the Rockland County Legislature, sent a letter to the NRC Comissioners whid made the following points:
_ i _ _1 _ - _n -
~ -
1 e s o that the original Rockland County Radiological Emergency Response
- Plan was evolved without necessary-input from local officials and, therefore, much of the plan was unworkable.
o that because of the time' required p State takeover of local emergency services and resources in an actual' emergency would not be any better than adoption of the original plan.
o that Rockland County would develop their own Radiological Emergency Plan.'
Since then FEMA has observed a tabletop exercise on November 30, 1982 in which key county and State agencies participated in responding to a simulated accident at Indian Point. FD1A has also been assured by botn
- State and County officials that a new plan is being drafted. According to the Vice Chairman of the Rockland County Legislature, a preliminary .
version will be ready for FEMA /RAC review in January of 1983.
l On December 7,1982 the Rockland County Legislature adopted two n,ew l resolutions. W e first, #796, called for the reactors at Indian Point to remain shut down.
l The second, 4829, amended resolution #320 by deleting and replacing the fourth and fifth resolved clat%es so that the County can obtain the greatest possible financial assistance for the development of its plan.
The resolution also resolved that:
o the Legislature disavowed the initial plan and directed that all future County efforts and expenditures be devoted to the developnent and implementation of the plan being prepared by the County Office of Emergency Services.
o the, Legislature directed the Chairman to call upon State and Federal agencies, including FEMA and NRC, as well as Con Edison and PASNY to provide the County with sudi assistance as they can furnish in the development of the new plan. .
However, as of this date, FEMA nust conclude that Planning Standard 2, Resconsibility for the Planning Effort, remains significantly deficient. This is primarily due to the County's earlier lack of involvement in the planning and preparedness activities subject to FEMA evaluation. Until Rockland County's Plan is developed, reviewed by the
! Regional Assistance Ccanittee, and personnel trained on the new plan the original emergency plan must be utilized to respond to an incident.
l Bis plan has been disavowed by the Legislature of Rockland County.
l The Chairman of the County Legislature has also expressed to the NRC that the asstmption of County functions by State personnel would not bo l adequate.
l a.
l -
4 5 Si.1ce tha issuance of th3 Intirim Report, thn-3 has been significant progress in Rockland County. In ths past three months,the County _has obtained funds, equipnent and training. The County also has agreed to develop'a Radiological Response Plan that the Legislature believes will be workable.
Se Chairman of the County Legislature has been directed by. Resolution to seek assistance in the plan developnent from FEMA, the NRC and the utilities. Se sana Resolution also rescinded the restrictions placed on County officials regarding improving the current plan. FEMA anticipates at this time that a workable Radiological Emergency Re= Wnse Plan will be developed for Bockland Ccunty and FEMA staff has been most awgriate officials trained in early 1983.
impressed with the recent efforts of the Rockland County officials to be ws.e active participants,in the REP process. The efforts of the
. l
' State personnel involved in' developing w w . sating measures for any non-participating county and specific Standard Operating Procedures for six State agencies, that'were prepared to assist in Rockland County, should be recognized.
1 III. PUBLIC MEETING CCNCERNS-FEMA Region II, in its analysis of the public meeting transcripts, made a compilation of 46 representative concerns raised during the two public meetings held in Westchester and Orange Counties.- Most of the issues or questions raised at either the two meetings hadThese alreadyconcerns-surfaced during the plan review or the 24, annual exercise.
1982. Se State's responses were forwarded to NYREPG on September FEMA's were transmitted to FENA in their letter dated October 1,1982.
evaluation of the State re= g se was furnished to the State on Nov e er 4, 1982. Se State's responses to the FE2% evaluations were returned to FEMA in their letter dated November 16, 1982. Se Region provided the State a disposition rating for each concern in its letter l
l to the' State on November 24, 1982.
In FE R's disposition appraisal of the State's re. wides of the 46 representative concerns, a majority of the replies were found to be acceptable. At the meeting in Albany, New York, December 1st and 2nd, the State assured the FE2R representatives that the State staff is working actively to resolve unacceptable ce.guses as soon as possible.
As of this report, based on information verified to date, it is the judgment of FEMA that the remaining concerns e m ssedFEMA at the two Region Il public meetings do not reveal any new deficiencies.
will continue to assist the State and nonitor the progress on unresol M public meeting Concerns until w uwctive actions are cmipleted.
l
'IV PIAN REVIDf '
I FEMA proposed rule 44 CFR 350 establishes the operative process by which FEMA reviews and approves offsite radiological energency preparedness plans (developed facilities.
by State and local governnents) for camercial nuclear In simple terms, the and effort by FEMA and the State and local goverrments.
process consists of the following:
. FEMA Regional Office receives official set of state and local Plans frtu l the Governor requesting "44CFR 350" approval.
l
_9_
L
.- . . _- .- - -= - -. - _-
- ~ -- -
.-CJ. W the RAC review the Plan and the State corrects id2ntified .
deficiencies or provides a schedule for corrective actions.
. FB4A observes and evaluates fhl scale exercise.
. FDIA and the State participate in Public Meeting (s) .
. FDM Region submits the Plan to Headquarters.
f
. FDR Headquarters and the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating
. Conmittee (FRPCC) review the submittal.
. FD% approves or disapproves the Plan and sends a letter to the Governor and the NBC info ming them of its action.
FD4A and the State of New York wre actively engaged in this process when the request for an " Interim Finding" was made by the NRC.
. July 21, 1981 - The State of New' York applied for focal review and approval of the State Generic Plan. -
. August 18, 1981 - The. State applied for review of the State Site Specific Plan for Indian Point and the four (4) county plans (Orange, Putnam, Ibckland and Westchester) located in the 10-mile EPZ.
. September 29, 1981 - FDR provides FDWRAC conments cn State Generic Plan to the State.
. October 7,1981 - RAC and State meet to discuss and clarify review l connents on State Generic Plans.
. O::tober 22, 1981 - State responds to FDR review comments on State Generic Plans.
. December 31, 1981 - FDR provides FEWRAC ccanents on the State Site Specific Plan and the four county plans for Indian Point.
. March 3,1982 - Joint full scale exercise conducted at Indian Point.
' . May 27, 1982 - FDR issues Post Exercise assessment. .
.. June 25, 1982 - The State of New York sutaitted to FDR ccanents and a senedule of corrective actions' on the plan deficiencies for the State Site Specific Plan and the four (4) county plans at Indian Point.
. July 8, 1982 and July 22, 1982 - State of New York furnished FD % with a j number of plan revisions to the State Generic and site specific plans for Indian Point.
. August 2, 1982 - FD% provides NRC " Interim Finding" at the request of the NRC. Subsequent to these activities, FDM and the State of New York have placed primary engnasis on correcting the deficiencies in the five (5) planning standards that were significantly deficient in the August 2,1982, Interim Finding.
i
_ . - _ _- - E -
-4we4 + - ,e ,
FDR anticipate 3 that the State will furnish plan revisions reflecting co:crective actions for all deficienci^3 (including those identified as The minor) in the near future as part of the continuing 44CFR 350 process.
process will continue with an exercise in March 1983 in which FEMA will evaluate the state of preparedness at Indian Point.
The, plan review wnich follows outlines the current status of plan deficiencies based on the 44CFR 350 process that have been identified during the course of initial plan review, the annual exercise conducted on March 3,1982 and the two public meetings held in July 1982. Also reflected in this plan review is the status of runedial actions taken during the period covered by the NRC 120 day letter. to address the deficiencies in the August 2 Interim Finding.
Notwithstanding those uncorrected deficiencies previously noted in this report -
relating to Planning Standards J and P, the remedial actions that have been acccznplished and those scheduled for ccanpletion as reflected in the plan review constitute offsite plans that will be feasible and capable of implenentation.
This assessnent, however, is subject to verification at the exercise scheduled in March 1983.
In order to clarify the infocnation contained in the plan review chart, the following explanation is provided: .
Plannino Standard: The alpha-numeric identifications relate directly to enose designations and planning standard descriptions found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1.
RAC Ccanents on State and County Plans: The connents appearing in this column on the State Radiological Preparedness Plan (REPP), " generic plan", are those made by FEMA Region II in a letter to NY29, State 1981. 'Ihe Disaster Preparedness Comnission (DPC), dated September connents appearing in this coluart relating to State Site Specific and County Plans are those made by FEMA Region II in a letter to NYDPC, dated Decesher 31, ~1981.
State / County Response Action: The State / County connents appearing in
' tnis column are an updated cxxupilation of those made by the State in various letters to FEMA Region II since October,1981.
PAC Evaluation of State / County Responses: The RAC connants in enis column represent the updated RAC evaluation of the State cxxnments, as adjusted by those corrective actions taken by the State during the "120-day period."
Planning Standard (Appraisal): The appraisal for ead of the planning standards (adequate, minor or significant deficiency) are the updated ratings for the State's coppliance, overall, with ead planning standard.
6
'i e
, tup 1All POlMT HUC1 EAR CFNTDATING STATIONS Pag) L el [f RAC EVAL.UATION OF THE IIEW VosE STATE CE*ERIC AND SITE SPECIFIC Af80 FOUR COUNTIES' PLANS RAC Comments en State and County riens State (S)/ County (C) Seepense RAC Evaluation of 5 ste/ County [lannina Standard Seepnose e Adequate
,1 y e (S) State Ceneric Action e Minor er e (SS) State Site Specific gg j ,, e (C) Camely e SignitScast a,reen ,.
- m. m Minor deficiency A ASSICuMENT or REStaseStelLITY Ale (S) Implement Section 700 (S) Section 700 set forth in the Flan. (S) Acceptable. State Senate Bill 7122. dated July 9 1981 le inserted in State Plan. The Flen was emb-I . misted before the enabling legtelation was poseed.
If the intent of the State le to beee the current legislative enactment in the Flan, then the State ehould provide IEMA and all socipients of the Plan {
with the enacted legletetton to replace the Bill t version of the'Act in the REF Flen.
(c) Implement Section 708. Clarify (C) Will provide statement in Flen. (C) Corrective action met complete until Plan revletene 6 ingestion patt.way EFE planetas furnished.
responelbtitty.
Alb (3) Adequate (C) Unacceptable. Plan revisteen need to articulate the (C) Clarify concept of operatione (C) Rebuttal of RAC comment.
implementation of revisions to article 2b.
(S), (55) & (C) Implement Section 708. (S) & (SS) Will revlee figures. (S) & (SS) Acceptable I Ale (C) Will make rien revisions. (C) See comment for A.I.e. above.
[ -
1 (S) & ($$) Implement Section 700. (S) & (SS) Will make changes in Flan. (S) & (SS), Acceptable Ale (S) System of primary phone number distribution.
(C) See comment for A.I.e., above, (C) Clarife concept of operettoes with (C) Crose references will be clarified. ,
chart. Poor crose refereactas. Concept of, operatione comment ignored.
i l
D e
t I
l l
l
. no I
e I unt AM rotNT MUM FAs CrMrRATINIST'TIONS _
Fest [ si d RAC EVALUATION OF 1HE NEW YosE STATE CF.NERIC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTlf.S' PLANS RAC C&assente on [lenmina Stendere State (5)/ county (c) seasonae RACEvaluationofSpete/
- County o Adequate State and Coun g plans peeponse
% Ae- ton o Minor or S% o (5) State Generic e SignifScent e (SS) State Site Specific g} e (C) Coungy
__ defere..c.
sta Ale (S) & (SS) Adequate (C) r=nt of capability to seech each individual in (C) Can individuele in charge of each (C) Agency personnel and bachwupe provided in verteus procedureo charge of each orgentsetion's reopense 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> e organisetton be reached 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Bach esency hee !!ne of succeost,a day, ignored.
a dayf for disasters. See comment for A.I.e. above.
(S) & (SS) Action not complete until Agreement Letters (5) & (SS) HDUa not fine!!aed. tople. (S) &veloped.
(SS) Letter agreemente being de-A2e snetved. Plan revision shoutng USDA role not re-ment Section 70s. Include USDA Role of USDA ut!! be reived. A confilet estete in assignment of responet-i potat of contact. added. bility.
l l
(C) Agree with RAC comment. (C) See comment for A.I.e. above.
(C) Implement Sectiom FOS.
e i.
A2h (S), (55) & (C) Adequate (S) Draf t page changes furatched to FEMA dut tag the l A. 3. (S) Agreement Letters utselag. Clett- (S) etate concure in USDA contact procedure.
9/22/s2 bi-veekly meeting corrected the deficiency.
ficettom of USDA role and contact Once plan revletone are formally trensettted to all
[I procedures. (C)Id*poIIbId'IbEdif1Id""dNrIIt SFdIlIonenot (C) Agreement Letters missing. (C) Ut!! ettempt to obtain Agreement complete until Agreement Letters received.
Letters. If agreemente obtelmed, will forward to FEMA.
A.4, (S) Adequate (C) See comment for A.I.e. above.
l (C) Not addressed where referenced.
(C) Will correct cross reference problem.
9 e
l G
Fagt si J utAN FOINT PUrtFAR CFMFDATING ST'TIONS BAC EVAL.UATION Of THE NEW YORE STATE GENFRIC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES * 'LANS BAC Coeusente on Plannina Standard State and County Plana State ($)/Couary (C) Besponse AACEvaluettenofspate/ County Resposee e Adequate e (S) State Ceneric Action e stimer er j]$
3 o (SS) State Site Specific e Signt(Scent
.33 me e o (C) County a.rs,s..,.
Minor deficiency C r.PERGENCT RESPONSE SUFFraf AND RESOURCEi (S) Adequate (g) the ceumunicettene leaue to being (S) sharehas plant not included Sa {tet of ettee. la-
, Cia clude Itettage of fac111ttee end reseucces available addressed. '
to Federal support organisettone. le there a due
, date for request for resourcest C1b (S) Adequate I*l e (S) Back-up system only durias work (S) Ne response from State. RAC comment et!!! applies.
day. Feettities/ resources spect-fic for Federet use, as wett as ,
a laterogency communications (radio) ;
mechantes not addressed. l
' l (C) Besponse does not addrese criteria element.
~
(C) Not addreen.. (C) State !!ateos officer to Federet i agencies will provide leformattee s
requested.
3 I C2a (S) (C) Adequate
- pa .
.8%
8 (S) Correctione to be made. Paragraph (S) Response eJequate. l C.3. (S) Not found where referenced.
Arrangements-inseetion pathuey lab pertaining to ingestion pathway ,
analpole useatisf actory due to .leb analyste reworded.
ti.e 4.i., for ,r- .. sing.
1 I
(S) Letters of Agreement ret received.
C.4. (5) Aargement Lettere missing for Statt (S) MOUs util be listed where appro-support (i.e. USCC) priate. MOUa between NFO end heept-tale are la NFO site plan. Letter l
of Agreement with USCC will be 11sted in Plaa .
(C) Agreement Letters are not avail- (C) sufficient resources identified. (C) sebuttet of BAC comment unacceptable
- Discription of for all organtastions Itated It00s beleg sought. resources needs to be articulated.
See comment for A.1.a.. above.
. 8 1
{
t l
l t
' ,i t ' ! i e
. . d' n t w a nr h f S
t arc =
t eie a eurle f r a=
i t
a ln qei a e
a g dli ensg e At e S u
q e
l d A
i g
[eee _
e a
F y
t n
u o
C
/
e t
a t
sae l s eno np '
es a t e tp e
u l
D o N v*
A E %
lNA A Et -
TCF S .
E C T 'S N AE Il TIS A n i ,
R K u F R N O F T w
C R WU R EO
_ A NF e
s ED e r HN s u TA n M o FC p ,
T OI s e M F e 1 NI R 0 OC )
F I E TP C 6 N AS ( n A # yi o
I lE D AT t t M VI n c I ES u A o
C C A /
R )
S
(
e t
a t
S e
M E
e c T n i S a f Y nl i S
_ oP c e
l e e
_ ey cr c I
t e
t t i S nn eu ee r T A p m o nt C o e mC ei I d o CS y F A t Cd I a
_ n eet S ) u q
Ca t t n S C A aau A ( e
_ t d R e t t o & A
_ t SSC C
_ a ) )
t))) T
_ S SSC C S C I
S (
_ (S( D (
_ ( &
C
_ oee R ,
) )
_ E S S D ( (
,gjo 3 4
_ .1,gju D n D ,
1 iHU1 G
e lHill_ Art PHINT NilCl EAlt 1 lNFilA'llNC STATIONS Fage [ of gl .
RAC EVAL.llATItWI OF THE NIM YuMK STATE 4.I Nt.NIC AND SITF SrtCIFIC AMit Ft41k CIHfNilt.$' Fl. ANN 6
- . .p
___ .it
,Ac C. .nt
, State and County Plans State (S)/rount y gj_Agg RAC 1; valuation el State / County [lenning Standasd ag o . (S) State (;eneric Artton Itesponse e AJequate j gy o (SS) State Site Specalle e Minor er i
- o (C) County o Significant AM deficicarv _
llieer E IloTIFICATIoll HETHODS AND PROCEIMJitES gg,
, _ _ p
, E.1. (S), (SS) No provision for notifica- (S) (SS) FEMA has agreed to notify ($1 Flan hag been revised to improve procedures for con-tion of EFA and USDA - appropriate Federal agencies. NYS will contact tarting Federal agencies, contacts. No provision for mes- Federal agencies directly when sup-
, sage verification. Port is needed. EPA /NYS HDU under e review. Disagree with message vert-fication requirement.
($) The State rien will include the (5) praft revision pages furnished during 9/22/82 bi-telephone numbers of Federal agency weekly meeting.
office numbers. These numbers are e
currently listed primarily in con-
- I trolled copies at the State Warning j! Point.
(C) Adequate 1 E.2. (S) ($$) Adequate (C) Improvements have been made in procedural steps for g
(C) Adequate alerting, notification and mobilitation of emergency respon=c personnel in Rockland County includina use _
E.5. (S) (SS) Adequate 8T P8 sin 8 'qulP eent, l
(C) Discussion of EBS stilisation in- (C) Cross reference will be corrected. (C) Only Appendin F of the CRERFs remains deficient. All adequate. Appendia F. CRERPs other det telencies related to this element have been l Will indicate'which radio stations merely repeat data in EBS Local operational on 24-hour basis. 4Jequately addressed.
Operational Area Plan. No ,
Agreement Letters from Orange, Putnam and Rockland Counties to author 8:e Westchester County I Executive to activate EBS. Sparce taformation for coordinating all ESS messages among the four i counties.
e
)
y__ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . = _ ___. . _. _.
IM1))AM PUINT NtiCIFAN ytNtNATING S1ATION*i Page k of M
- RAa EVAL.llATitMe DF 1HE Ntv VnME STATE E.FNINIC AND SITE SPEt:t FIC AND FtNIN is4ING 1E$' l'l.ANS NAC Cunesents use
. ]
State and County rians State (5)/ County (C) Newponse NAC Evaluation of State / County ((. ann _in1. Standard Itasponse o Adequate a, y o (5) State Generic Actton e Minor or gy o ($$) Stat,e Site Specific o Signitscant
- e (C) County _ dgiars.orv ;
i
.a E.S. coatinued i
(51 FEMA was provided with copy of Et$ ($1 Iludson Valley and Catskill. New York operat teenal Area '
Operational Area Plan during 9/8/82 1 Plan has been received. Authenticator code enve.
bi-weekly meeting. The Plan is 3. pen are available on a need to know basis. ,
currently under review by FEMA.
(S) All revisions necesstaated by (5) Procedures for Flos are being revised.
Interim Finding regarding FIO
. procedures will be incorporated or referenced in the State and .
County F10 procedures.
(S) Upon the completiva of the FIO (S) rio stalw ang on revised procedures has been completel.
procedures revisions, all State and County Flos will be trataed on such procedures.
(S) The specific details of ERS actt- (S) New ESS procedures draf fed by State were found to be vation for the four county areas. acceptable.
I not reflected in the EBS Flan.
' (noted above) shall be detailed in
[ each State and County.rlan and g
provided to the lead ERS station.
(S) Meettags will be arranged with EBS (5) He'etings with EBS stations have been held to emplain r
station management to emplain the EBS system to station management.
EBS system, its importance and its operation.
E.6 (S) Nottitcation system s.ot installed. (S) toute alerting demonstrated. (5) (for Indian Point only) Suffletent documentation has Alert and Nottfacation will be been received f rom the State / utility certif ying that i I
accomplished by system of strens the stren system, now in place, is operable, ,
l and tone alert radios. .
la r (C) Adequate, lAnat is actual date for (C) The utilities will provide documen-(C) totion that the strens, that were gnetallation lete cogance. FFMAwith Appengie esign for comp , Ingtgg/
installation of supplemental nott- FEttA REP-l.
I patinue on nest paa-4 o
S l
IUDIAN P0 TNT MUCLFAs CFNFRATING STATIONS Fagt_fgi ] ,
SAC EVALUATION OF THE NEW YURE STATE CfMLilC AND SITE SFECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' FLANS ,
RAC Commente er. '
RAC Evaluettoa of State / County Flemalna Stander (
State end County Flems Sc3te (S)/ County (C) Response e Adeqvati Ac tion . Beerensel
$g a (3) State Generic e Minor er
$ e (SS) State $1te Specific e Significent 3.
m
}w,ee (C) County d,f er a ..,.
E.6. (C) continued fication devicest part of the originet deqign, are la place and now work. Accept ance teettag will come later. 1
. I (S) Bevised public worbing notices te (S) Criterte for the content of ESS meseeges and neue
. E.7. (S) ($$) No draft bese*see releases along with ESS messages beve been developed e be Ascluded la FIG fe cedures. I All protective action ordere and
- e11 octione effecting the pubtle wi!! be included la EOS meseeges.
A system will be developed to loeure the content of all EDS meenages and the prompt and sc-curate trameter of such messages to the BBS stations. Meus re-leases v111 supplement infersetton given la the EDS messages.
1 (C) Draf t messages metther adequate in' ,
number er content.
i t
h (I
e t
Fag) $ El tuntAll FOINT NUCLEAR CFut9ATINC STATIONS _
BAC EVAREATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CENERIC AND ,
SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR CouMT!ES' Ft.ANS Fiennipa Standard _
RAC Comments on RAC Evaluation of Stgte/ County e Adequate j State (S)/ County (C) Besponse seaponse State and County Flame e Niner er I
, Action e Significant Jg __ o (S) State Ceneric ,
e (SS) State Site Specific aertes..r.
g]
,e e (C) Countf f y timer dettelency i
F EMERCENCY ColeRAftCAff0NS F.1. i (S) Adequate j (C) At 24-hour warning pointe, RECS, (C) See AAC evaluation for A.1.e.
(C) Unclear as to what alternate NAWAS, commercial phone and?!ecal - 2
- communications method to for government radio set suiste. ?
notification and activation of IJemtification of indlwiduale re-emergency response network. Who.
by title, le responalble et each sponsible for redte links not end of coemunicatione llaki adopted.
l l
- F.1. .(S) Adequate (C) NUREC 0634 requires thle eteneet to be addressed in (C) The plane have not provided for (C) RAC coment not responsibility of " local plane." Reference to appropriate portion of ,
communications between contiguove county. Clarification requested on of State plan should be sufficipat. p States and counties in the 30 alternate communiestione llake.
alle Er2. Prowlsion for alternat4 communicottene links between States and counties not clearly g defined.
g W (S) Telephone numbers are on file with (S) Adequate. However, action not complete. See RAC I F.1. (S) No telephone numbero given for Evaluation of State comment for A.3.
3rd and 9th USCG Dietricts or IITS 00F. Flen inclueton 1s- not
] CONRAIL, accordingly, it le not tiecessary, clear it the correct USCG of fice will be cetted, since there is no written agreement specifying point of contact. (C) This criteria element deale with emergency communt-i (C) Although plan states that there (C) TEMA responalbia for notifying Federet agencies. If specille cations, not notificetten. Desposee not incorporate <
in plan revision. See RAC evaluation for A.I.e.
lo to be communications with Federal agency support le requested Federal agencies, there le no in- comtect will be made by commercial dication how this will be ec- telephone.
complished.
s f
l e -
9 i
t
8 o t un t AN FolMT NpftFAs CFMFkATINC STATIONS Fagej),ofy(f .
RAC gVAB.UATION OF THE NEW YDRE STATE OkdERIC ANb SITE SPECIFIC AND Foun onHNTIES' Ft.ANS j .
RAC Comuments on .RAC Evaluation of Skate /Cieunty ((annina Standasd State and County Plans State (5)/ County (C) Response o Adequate
, , , Response j[ g o (S) State Ceneric Action o Minor or j] o (SS) State site Specific e Sigel f icant ll *
- n. m e (C) CouAty der:r a .., .
,F,_ (Continued) *
(S) EOF so State or county communi- (S) Reference addresses State- County- ($) No prowlsions for communications with RM team. EOF
- F.1. , contact references incomplete.
cations or field assessment taane NFO eommunications. ,,
not addressed.
(C) Now will communicat ions be main- (C) Communications with munitoring tessa (C) unacceptable. No discussion of procedures, radio toined with field monitoring will be maintained by radio or equipment to be used, frequencies, etc. See RAC teses. telephone. Evaluation for A.I.a.
E!i! (S) #dequate I (C) Where not dealsnated, alternate (C) Vague reply. Will be able to judge compliance (C) Alternate ladividuals for each better when plan revisione are furnished.
emergency response agency have individuals will be identified.
not been designated. Also de- FIO will be included.
signated FIO should be included
' in Frocedure 1. Att. 3. CEERF.
F.2. (S) Adequate g
bJ (C) Not clear from plans whether (C) Flan will clarify communication (C) Without plan revisions adequacy cannot be determined ,
h communications !!ake for fised Itake, and mobile medical support facilities estat. Specific in-formation on methodology or equipment not discussed or pro-vided.
(S) No. discussion of periodic testing (5) Avalting informattom of FEMA's role (5) FEMA furnished State requested information. The F3 State's REFF revisions submitted j/92. odequately, of entire communications system.
USDA point of contact needs to address this element.
be added to test. (C) Hain comment ignored. "Feriodic test for entire (C) No provision for periodic testing (C) Cross reference to drille sad ex- . communications system" must be addrese in plan.
of entire communications system. arcises wt!! be made.
t i
. I i
o e I
i
. f I
I i I
, {
I.
e t
pig 1 et IMDIAll pollff IP1 CLEAR CfMEDATING STATIONS RAC EVARAATION OF Tut New ToaK STATE CENEntC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR CDUNTIES' Ft.ANS ,
RAC Ceaunente on RAC Evoluettoa of State / County gjennina Standard '
State and County plane State (S)/ County (C) Response
- f e Adequate o Action Resposee
- e. $ o (S) State Generic . nia.c or 81 = (SS) State Site S,ecific o Signitscent j$ o (C) County dern,s.-rw p, en Minor deficienc3
_g.
C puBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATICII C.1. (S) No specificieueples of eJacetion (S) Hethode for program being developed (S) C (C) The public education progree bee been taproved Methodology for further brochure by the see of radio pub 11e service announcemente and progree implementation provided. newspaper ode. Newspaper ede and speakers' progree No schedule provided., USDA re- distributtom beleg developed.
uill give Reforsettaa to reefdente on how to sources not mentioned. obtain the brochure. Indies point and Tou.
(C) As of plea review date, no public (C) Completed and transmitted to PIMA.
! leformation brochure yubtlehed.
Implementation could not be evel- l usted. (Methodology for distri- =
bution, verification of receipt. ,
t end fe!!ow-up actione not die-cussed). '
(S) Need for second language bre, chute (S) The Ilmited number of non-English speaking residente being considered. Survey to be eekee pubiteettom of the inforsettom brochures to-conducted. practical. Ilouever, en outreach progree bee been started for non-English speeklag reefdente.
C.S. (S) Could not locate where refereoced (S) The public education progree de- IS) See RAC Evaluation of C.1. (
(See comment on C.1. above). veloped by the State. County and ut111ttes u111 be Septemented.
implementation of the progree will h
p settsfy the 120 day requirement.
1 (S) Crese-reference entractione teill J' be ende.
included in the plan to additionel inforestion on 8 a
C3e (S) (SS) Adequate arrangemente end procedures for the Joint Medte (C) Adequate f*ent e r .
C4e (S) ($$) Adequate (C) Adequate 9 .
e k
I 4
Ju1 AN F0lNT NtN*t FAs CPNFR ATINC STATIONS Pagi k ci h RAC LVAIAfATION OF THE IsEW YORE STATE CFMERIC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' Ft.ANS ,
RAC Commente on , ,
state and County Plane State ($)/ County (C) peeponse RAC gwaluation of 5 ste/ County [l M g Stendard o . Resposee . e Adequate as, g e (5)
- tate Generic Action
- e Intner er g] e (SS) State Site Specifte
. o Significant ee e (C) County defR4tence en **
C (continued)
C4b (S) (SS) Adequate ,
(C) Specifice not provided as to hou (C) As outline of the pubite informatios (C) Additlegal information on pubtle taformation, meus information will be enchanged program, news media briefings and . media briefing and information programe for tran-among spokeepersons. notification of transients will be siente are being included in the plan.
In the State end County Plane.
Specific detette of this program will be forwarded to FEMA upon completion (i.e. pamphlete, posters etc.). Correct cross-reference quoted.
C4c (5) Adequate (C) Specifice of rumor contret opere- (C) The "Deuego Modet " tested and (C) Adequate procedures have been developed and plan approved by all parties et the rev&olone to reflect the new procedures are bein*, a tiene not discussed. Plane do not reflect full understanding of August lith JAF Eserclee v111 serve made to deal with rumore. i rumor control. Information not se a beets for the Rumor Control provided on location er stelfing Program at Radian Foint. This I of Rumor Control Centers. program vill be tattered and them l
- added to each State and County Flan 1
to (5) Iso specifics provided for annual (S) At the oct. 7, 1941, RAC meeting, (S) In light of agreement rasched at the 10/7/01 meeting PJ C.S. and provisione provided in plan reviefone deted briefing of neus media. this item wee found to be accepta-l 1
ble.
7/02 this element le adequately addsessed.
(C) Flen merely seeigne responelbility (C) llee'ttng held with medie prior te (C) Original RAC comment appites.
Detailed program not presented in exercise. Detailed program being Plane, developed.
4 !
l
~l t
e m
e
i) 'Ill il' i
' ;, , !s d
r y
, + c d n e
n t e ar j
d t
S a
a e sri e t e1t sa f r i
i f
l i
a n urlt d i qoef n enga r ds i
ndiid eAMS
[eee i
o M
n g
i F
e vde inb ga e s m t se
- a eic r
f mht y c y e sra t i m aou ef q n t l e u pnd o st aa C i y yl
/ - t t Pe e ti n r t
e al ueo hi ohf t
- j. Wba ct e b
e p ,o f s .a ytd ono ec t e .
np t ag new une oe i e un ooi tB qi cl v a ep ae u d o nt r l al e
ovae
_O a* ev spb M v se e t A E nd l C ops l '.t s S C enu.
N A s s temd O irs A e 'e e El e I
T A
L A.
Rr a e t 7. ni t a T
Et CF
)t SS am1m t r r S S S foee E ( r et C T 'S o f at e N AE 6f ItId ITI TST ) )
A M S R Ku ( C F So ( .
M OC - d F T pg e C a h
~
e e m Eo Wu t t a v t nun i ai i
l i r eh gt p a NF eweo .re- p e e gn 0nSd n ED e ssT hf noori eet n u s i pt M r e t eti s e HN n at g rs ohel n m
TA o en n e e d ytTtFod e rq p e ce .i t mtd t reni I e
me b T Oi s I ern l nan d l
N r e rou aenpo . ehyu l Nt R e e a m m d tl I
O OC n u pf oep msl o e l,t nc i P I S ) nue npcystf un w TF C sese se ccinooi s N AS ( n em s ect anl e c A U o ki o eimn e l t LE yi l
l eee t s ol nl gt potb o .
n AT t t onrr t eauiie b u VI n c ried Sasn- iait qrgl ut l my t ES u A ddd s o - e ot oeonipi.w n C
A C
/
. eoea.
tlF a t g r lt el n I rat y t e n eI o R )
s tedrn St eaprnoi et t n p eresti r oti np i
( t
)l ee ue emyy . . atat al emy a u
e Sfl rt Bet t esrSd pt ein t S a t l innmo ,l e
heul qi oueabet e e a h uu a ( r c8 a v t oo0o a q o S Tebcttltd eC S
&fl7 n
) )
1 C s ( (
y . g t t b .
t i n e forelunag n f
i . d rsi m a
- ac e e uerdaeg hd n el f e e . p r . cioeebnnti yi f cpry ol e f repoe t et t wt io cftI n ost cy f nf sut o orircip eefl e t p oeo dol gt ot oacm rt a t
f e a s e ydi t
m d ol n t as ee .eaee nh stl n e p y n y m a iJ i cil psnf t t roeSi e c l U iWdaiei ti caf r- nivaS n i d eeli c aua il eo onrn air ke r a Q muei nl f
i E o t .lPb mlifi d quet v n eqnnc i abt mpf .l ta .fo ga n op c yi l e eoeil n ymu ldcy e D eHni et gd i d gl occosoeeot ey cp N . e ott nt tt s natI oim nc t nsli n i"s or t t iS A t e
t a iune ti a l w O of egt tdoe nu sit liom t a nn r S u u sl ec . e erf r o eu ee q q abetaei csc l oob .ioF aeansetbrie eo sC nt E I e e habt l t t edhNn-iaebil m epo ont Cd o
ei GS y T
I d
A d
A p
eal rdrh e co et nt gaW t aoaar yat i
nht ho om t A. demrodn t nee mdl n eet L - t a
cl il ao enuc sal cm nmestd eladp . acut mel e ct apt ne Ce t t n I ) ) nt oaoi A aau C C C t nwc sy i neme m f eneeiif R e t t o A (' ( So eneb t un yeceminoby oomet rrt tSSC F s
& )t e isdor i y l csmoancibtt sms nspyeoit pay a S tti prrocr m t))) Y C ) ) S ert et ccet asi cgdif t sacd aeieil eest t asus rdn apau S SSC S S ( t uacel ee u r (S( N eot ohi pl oqyf eoeseahsqnt pro
( E s
(
S
( 6dsSl tb SeNet optputd ceeeSa" c C
ooe n ) )
)
e i
)
S (
S S
(
C
(
r (
,g]" 3 4 7
- e. S g$. Ma u N N ,
[t i r l llII ii ,(j jl l ijll
Il(DIAN P0fMT MUrtrAs CFNFRATING STATIONS fig:n h ed f '
RAC EVAL.UATION OF THE WDi VORK STATE CF2Ealc AND
- SITE SFECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' FLANS ,
RAC Comments on RAC Evaluetten of tete / County tiennina Standard State and County Plano State (S)/ County (C) Respones e Adequate Action
- Response jf,g, o (S) State ceneric o Hinor er e (SS) State Site Specific e $lanificent j3 }, o (C) County d*ftei-=
JhJ2 N.F. (C) (Continued) support items which are not.
- available la sufficient quantity for team members. Evolustion symbol missing la Table 111 -
- 3. Rocklend CRERF.
M.10 (S) & (C) Adequate -
(S) Response edequate M.ll (5) Equipment lists are part of State (S) DEC equipment is kept at Dept.
vide inv'entory. laternation on offices. ODP teventory tiettage maintenance end acceselbility of are at ODP office. Frequencies I kite necessary. unclear if radio will be included af ter completion a
communicatione con take place due of survey, etetement concerning to differences la operating redte maintenance will be added, frequencies. (Part 111. Sect. Il
- p. 14-19). Specify titles of persono responsible for mainten-ence and distributtom of equip- ,
ment referenced.
, (C) The edequacy of the resposee connot be evaluated hJ (C) Identification of emergency (C) Attachment 17 will be reviewed end until the chenges are furnished.
j' kite inadequate. Procedures are Incorrectly referenced. In clartiled. Some plane had missing poses. Crose reference will be pochtend County, no radiological corrected. Plan will be revised equipment evellebte se of this to incorporate Rockleed County report. All plane deficient in agulpment.
Identifying use of personnel, transportation and communicatione equipment with respect to vertone emergency response actions on '
l rien.
t t
i t
I
1i i ,T .
i r
s . d' n t w a ne t am S arl e t eit a f e t
E i n wrl qeaf f
n ensn ndiiA eAIS t
)
g Deee F' .
t r n
e my et l n eu o
sc y i t he n th u .t o
C da
/ el e w t ed e i e t vs es e re f s r one ed rd .
ep aa ee t e ey * .
tS nl e ee u l t l ea g u
.D a* ,q
.N v A* E ee rd 'J S C C n _
\ N I A na O RS S al I EN l pe T JA A EL n.
TCP gl e S g n E g a. a c T 'S a,l gy p n TI I
AE T ST )
A N C R KU (
E RO N OC e E Y C R s WU Crno R EO eOeat A NF bRtl E nPd ED e 1
c u HN TA s
n l
l iieet ei.te v
M o FC p wthti ct ar T OI s ae t a M F e t pySl 1 NI R 0 OC asa c P I E ) deld TP C rend N AS ( n d ran A
o l s a l E yi et1F I
n lAT t t '1i!Od
( lee u VI n c ow w t ES u A st ee .
o shis C C 'y d C t vi A /
t eO eh R )
5 ntRortt
( ut ot e et e cehnbc t st o e a hn i!l t cadt!f S arna! e Et anwr
)
C
(
d.
dee l rt eea e ihn f wi d
ndt o c ens n i hao a f w c nl i d oP c yee e f sb ey cp i y t t iS cll nn r eal pni eu ee saw s o nt sac o
ei t ea cS obi Cd y n d n eet l e Ca t t n e el m A aau ) t di R e t t o a we tSSC d a e q q
e nep l .
t))) u S SSC n e at m (S( i d l ae
( t A Pds n
eeo o ) )
C S C
( ( (
- 2
.g]3
- 1
. 3g,8 M M .
8oI tVi e
i Figi el tuntAN rolNT MuciFAs CENFRATING STA MONS RAC EVALUATION OF THE 18EW 10nK STATE CE/ERIC Ape
$1TE SPECitic AND FOUR CuuMTIES' Ft.ANS .
RAC Commente on State (S)/ county (C) Resposee RAC Evaluation of S ete/ County Plannina Stenderd j
State end County Flene Seeponse , e Adequate 3g ,, e (S) State Generic Action .
e Minor er j
' 3 e (SS) State Site Specific i e Sigelticant 5 j ]$ e (C) County a,r s e s .-.r.
stet Minor delictency 1 ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT i
(8) 6 (SS) See response to N.7. (S)& (SS) The NFO's meet,tering capab!11 ties and proced-I.T. (S) & (SS) Net addressed wher's refer- ures shoulde be reflected is the State Flee, until the enced. If State has no capabi- State develope its own espebilities. Such data i.
11ty, plan should no state end would be required if the State bed on established specify what field monitoring monitoring program. Since the RAC does not review date State intende to use for ,
the MFO plan this information should he made part Its evolustion of various stages j .
of accident. Fina not specific of the State's Flen.
on how date w!!! be attained.
j; .
i (C) The field monitoring tense. re- (C) Adequacy of response ceneet be seeeeeed sett!
(C) Unclear !! monitoring tese in- changes are provided.
etructione developed in coopere- sources, activaties and operatione tien with Mr0 and DOE. the two will be reviewed and esponded me s
orgentantione that w!!! be doins appropriate.
- the actual monitoring. Separate Sore necessary for each type of monitoring equipment. Mepe necessary for monitoring teams that will provide information on locele for personnet unfo-miliar with locatione. _
I bJ CN I.S. (S) & (SS) Specifice are not provided (S) & (SS) Attachment $ refers to the (S) See evaluation of I.7.
I where referenced. No specific 11censees cereb111 ties. This com- (SS) Attachment $ to not specific concerning the State's facilities or resources allocated meet addresses itene evaluated by for Federal (FhMAF) use. Aasen- NRC in their review of the !!ces- monitoting capabilittee within the EFE. To what bly points, command sad controle sees emergency procedures. entent are the State's monftering resources utill ed; er le the Itcensee eleo responelble for bete, geese off-duty notification not addrese- air particulate end TLD monitoring and semple ed. Discuse order of vieltation
] to of f-site monitoring locations collectioni
'l -
and decision procese for this selection. Are teams familler with locations of f amed monitor-
' ing location 1 4
0
.
- I e
i j
t
PJge el tun:AM FOINT Murtrae CFNFRATINC STATIONS RAC EVALUATION OF TME NEW YORK STATE CEZERIC %MD SITE SPECIflC AND Foun COUNTIES' Pi.AMS .
f RAC Commeste on Flsantaa Stendere
' State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) Beepense RAC Sveleetion of tote / County Seaposee e Adetu,ete sl g o (S) State Generic Action .
e Minor er i
gj o (SS) State Site Specific o (C) County e Sig'aificant Jelic.1*ar w er
- I.8 (Continued) i (C) As of revleu date of Flans, cor- (C) Crose reference u!!! be corrected. (C) The adequacy of the response esanot be evelseted ebilities for thle eteneet 1sch- See !.7. for additiomet commente, until the correctione are furnished.
- ! 6 Eng in all counties. Procedure !
- 3. Attachment 2 does not settely '
criterie. Transportettom er-ren.e. ente for .o.it ri.. too.e (
not discussed. No evidence of ;
l I
back-up communicatione. No 8 j
!: discueston of cormunication for l field monitoring tense. Nomitor .
l}
ing equipment liste. l
!! ~
l1 (S) & ($$) State does not have may (S) & (SS) Refer to comment in W.7. (S) & (SS) See evaluation of M.7.
I.9. '
field monitoring capability for lodine. If such capability le
.I enticipated it should be indi-
!} cated.
%J l
(C) Since State bee elected to depend on county for this
,} date, the county plane should fully address this ij function. At this time. they de not.
jj ji O
e t
g4 I
f .
e e
o tunian rotNT Nurf ras CENFRATINC STAflDNS . Fase))[of,3f ,
RAC EVALDATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CENEulC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR nlUNTl[$' l'l.ANS RAC Comments on . !
State and County riens , State (S)/ County (C) Response RAC Evaluation of State / County Flannina Standard 8% o (S) State Generic Action Response o Adequate, gi o (SS) State $tte Specific e Minor er
- o (C) Coun*ty o $8sn.ificent J FROTECTIVE RESPONSE
. J.2. (S) (SS) Adequate *
(S) Daview and revise as necessary in
. coordination with licensees.
(C) No proviaton for evacuation routes (C) Frovisions to be included in mest (C) FEMA has furnished State requested clarification.
and transportation for onsits in- revielen to Westchester and Futman To data, no corrective actione provided to FEMA.
dividuals to suitable offsite Plane Clartiteetion requested from loc at ion. FEMA on test comment.
).9. (S) (SS) Plan unclear as to who will ($) (SS) Clarification of responses to (5) ($$) Adequate.
make dectaton to implement protec- A.1.e. and A.L.d. should resolve tive measures State or Couettee. element.
Both State and County Flens contain
]l statemente they will make decision
, g i
to implement a particular action.
State heavily dependent on assie-tance from utilities and Federal government.
'I I J.1(1 a(S) (SS) Adequate bJ 00 g (C) None of mape referenced depict pre (C) Necessary maps found in App. J. (C) Maps are in Fig. 3-1. However requireeent of use selected radiological enspling and (Fig. J-1) Cross-reference will be of 0634 Table J-l for use of sampling location 1i monitoring pointe. Mape are not corrected. dentsnators to not met.
) found where referenced.
I!
li s
e
. [
s j ...... *.
- IMC STAfl0NS past sf J
RAC EVAL.UAfl0N OF TuE NEW YORE STATE CLNFRIC AND .
$1TE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' Ft.Ah5
- i i RAC Comments on .
! State and County Flene State (S)/ County (C) Response 'RAC Ev,etuat toa of Ste's/ County [lannina Standare
. Responee' s Adequate jg o (S) State Generic Action e Minor er g o (SS) State Site Spectile e Sigetficent j} e (C) County derare..,.
- n. w
- . J (Continued)
J.10: - (S) Adequate.
(SS) Maps se described could not be (S) Mare with population distribution b) (S & (C) Here with populattom informatten by ERFA are avellable in counties' SpCo.
- tocated in plos. ERFA are avetlable for use et State and County EOCs. REFC will provide i-informattom on EOC population mare to RAC.
) (C) Mape se required in App. 4. NUREC- (') Information la tabular form in 0654, could not be located in App. 6. Population by BAFA die-i! CRERfe. Sector sepe should be played on maps.
- superimposed over ERFA maps to facilitate coordination of pro-i tactive measures with contiguove counties in Flame trZ and with State.
I J.10: (S) Adequate (C) Means for notifying all segmente (3) Copy and dieseminatics schedule for (C) Fosters end a telephone book insert beve been of trenelent and reefdent popu- posters and telephone book insert prepared to get information to transients.
1stion not adequate. (See com- w!!! be forwarJed to FEstA upon
([o ment for element E.5) complottoa.
1 J.10 8 (S) Ade (C) D *ctest te determine (S) Revise State and County plans to (S) & (C) Each county EOC is menned by a representative e 'otecting mobility reflect the program to identify & of the respective county agency responsible for i .. ano do not addrese evoluete such persons. opecial psoblems of the mobility sapetred. If t = als who are in- evacuation le recommended these esencies will re-pa N. t imetitutionalis .d. spond. Additionet public information progress will j
(C) The brochure bee a mail-in poet be used to lefore mobility impaired persons of -
card to identify these people. methode of receiving sealetance.
!l Each county will be reviewed.
b i
9
.p5g1 g(
lifDIAN rotNT NornFAa Ct N RATING STATIONS RAC EVALUATION OF THE NEW TORK STATE CENEplC Aug ,
l SITE 5pECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' PLANS BAC Evoluettee. of St. *ate / County planale2 Standard BAC Commente on l State and County plane State (5)/ County (C) Seesense
- Seepense o Adequate Actier e flinor or 3,y e (S) State Generic o Signif.1 cent g1 o (ss) State site Specific h re,a - u t
o (C) County e m.8,
['
J (Cestinued) '
i (S) At October 1.1981 meettag BAC
. J. IO< (S) Criteria calla for use of radio- members agreed that documentation e
'. protective drugs. Alternate for the State police decleton does seems for protecting emersency
, workers not discussed, pave not belong in the plan, j
recommendettone made in 9/29/81 (s) State pottee now calle for the pre- [5) (C) The State and conties have adopted the FDA recom f .
I****'* sendetton on use of K1 for emergency workers and i
vision and dieeeetnetton of El to captive populations.
energency workere sad special pop-f ulottene. This policy allt be r included in the State plan.
I (C) ~ See State comment.
(5) Same se J.10.e. (S) (C) In BAC Evoluetton for J.10.e.
- J.10 (5) See comment on J.10.e.. above i
j (C) See state comment.
(S) Compensating meequres u!!! be de- (s) In RAC Evaluation for p.1 J.10 , (5) Adequate.
, t 2 veloped and included in piene for the provision of supplemental ,
- g personnel.
, w (SS) innen thle element le revised in f the county plane the information
. utit be reforested in the este I
specille plon.
(C) Negotiations are continuing. (C) It is uncertete whether bus drivere used for eveess- '
(C) No commitment referenced for tion in Westchester County esill responds benever, to public and private bue operators plan for that contingency the State bee developed a to tropeport personnel, if so compenesting measure uhtch calle for deployment of' ordered. Now many operational military (State National.Cuerd) forces to sperate buses evettablet la each gereget unmanned buses pursuant to e Cubernatorget Emergency I Declaration. In a worst case situation, i.e. an (See attadusend .
evacuation required for all sectors and no reopense l
e
- k e
l 1
~
d o . r a
d n t .
a a,
[
[g t a.
S a. r c .
g te eitf e
}
f.
s - i n urit qonf n enga n diid
[J l a AMS 3
g p eeo a
P .
ee en llf eho eg bbot t yr o aa i etk esfl al hpr n oi a t eoot vsn cwiel aea tll erl rc oaaaoah up y f tP s t d pi et ae n
u deomnceeh e gli anomt t o rdelii dS m n C i uv lf e
/ ujel n d aoi e q d aI nn
. eomi c
t ee rbot c
e s pi ef
.('
t t eheet yt mdiid t e S et e meth i d f s i nrpot edsy
- ono t no af e t
no nail ht np ecfhl oil t n
.i oa e h
td et eiti nt at
,a c ts nyt nc unli s ,or uoucuef y spebsca vf l r mv rav ,ea D e eeeeeveel r pe s n l
_N v vt A E i eu rod syenia sol a S C N
'C A
dt aarl meabicon ot ce O IRS S ed mtl t ali a I EN t r a i ec T NA a e o gl sal em A EL vubnio ahe T CF iC i mpect r S r et vo E pl t ageil td C T 'S aasnst ar NAE ynt niacy a I Tt noSegeel nd T S i ai pnrt een A n t emicomk a e K u foNTcbi ahornriatptt s E R v N O o F s C R M EO WU A NF E
L ED e C MN s O 1A n N o p
FC T 0t s N r e I II I R O OC P I E )
t E ii n RAT t t u Vl n c t E$ u A o e C C A /
)
B 5
(
e t
a t
S e c m i a f
_ nl i eF c
_ e ey cp t tis 5, nn r eu ee mo nt mC e1 o G$ y Cd n eet )
Ca t t n t A aau n Re t t o e .
t SSC m a h t))) c S5SC a (S( t
( t A
eee (
g g w 0
%jg*h j [jm, 1
3 i Ja e LV
, ,, . f
e Ffgt el J iltAN F0lNT NUCf.FAR CfMFRATINC ETATIONS RAC EVAL.UATION OF THE IIEW TORE STATt; CF.NfllC AND
. SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' FLANS ,
RAC Commente on Plannina Standard State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) Response RAC Evaluation of 5) ate / County es ,,
. Reepense ? e Adequate e3 o (S) State Generic Action e Minor er o (SS) State Site Specific
,,g]
e Significant
' e o (C) County de r ni a.-r .
- p. w i J (Continued) i J.10i (S) Adequate g (C) Some relocation centers may be (C) Balocation centers identified by (C) All relocation centere are outside the 10 mile less then 5 miles beyond boundary FEMA have been esamined and found Flume Esposure EFZ.
of Flume EF1. semely le Orange to be more then 5 miles beyond the County. Flume EFI.
l ,
(5) Will be provided whee received (S)($$) FEMA bee reviewed document furatsbed by REFC.
J.101 (S) entitled. Methodolony to Calculate Evacuation Travel from coneuttent.
Time Estimates for the ladian Fotnt Emeraency plannina (SS) Projected traffic capacities of (SS) See comment to J.10.1. of tone, pregared by Fersons Srin6erhoff. Quede & Douglas,
' evacuation routes under emergene county plane. Inc., November 1981. Appendia E sedresses road cepe-conditione, could not be located cittee for several'diflerent types of sondways, he where referenced. cepecities are then presented for car rompe of dif-forent design. The calculations appear to be bened on accepted transportettoa engineering principale sad methodologies. However. FEMA connet accept thle date es being approved and promulgated by the State.
Corrective action will require plan revisione reflect-
- ing traf fic capacity date being furalehed to FEMA for l approval.
LJ 63 I (C) Projected traffic capaciales of (C) Traffic capacities were submitted (C) See RAC avaluation for State and Site Specific i'
to FEMA. response.
evacuation routes under emer-ll gency conditione could not be located where referenced in any of the CBERFe.
J.it I (S) Adequate
' (C) Adequate
}
e Jjg POIIIT NtlClFAR CtNtilATIN4; 5TAllHN$ ' Fage Q of g
- SITE SPECIFIC AND Foult (1MINa t t:5' Pl.ANS RAC Consecute on
. E '.
State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) liemponse itAC Evaluation of State / County flannina Standard o Adequate n flesponse f, g o (3) State Ceneric Acttua
- a Minor er
$1 o (SS) State Site spectisc e Significant j* a (C) County def k a ,.c.
3 (Continued) .
I J.101 (S) Adequate
($$) See comment to J.10.k. of county (SS) & (C) rians are belos revised am give additional in- .
(SS) Insufflctent information to de- formation on meann for clearing impediments on termine aJequacy. plans.
ev.ecuatton routes.
(C) Insuffletent information in (C) Cross reference,l.aw Enforcement CRERPS to make determination. Procedure. Attachment 1. Public
-l niorks has responsibility for debris li clearance and emergency repair
'l- (See p.17-A).
.P J.10 . (S) Adequate.
(SS) Evacuation Time Estimates de- (SS) Appendia 4 was transdattted to FEMA (SS) & (C) The document provided to FLHA, entitled
[
y plet data by sector and distance Nethodology to Calculate Evacuation Travel Time Estimates for the indlan Point Emergency Planning l
- from NFO. Dats as required by Appendia 4. IluREC 0654, not Zone marked " DRAFT" and prepared by Parsons, Brinkes -
Provided. M , QuaJe & Douglas, ine, discusses this element.
Although it addresses the criteria of Appendia 4, si (C) Same comment as for State Flan. (C) Appendix 4 was transmitted to FEMA cannot he considered a part of the plan. Plan re-vjgngncorporating data contained herein are (S) Standard Operating Frecedures for (S) SOPS and t raining schedules will be reviewed when
' J.fre (S) Chain of cossmanJ between State receiveJ. Effectiveness of training will be eval-and counties must be clartfled. collection and transmienton of uated at ment exercise,
, field date will be developed.
Specify to whom State is recom-County EOC staff will be trained.
iI sending protective actions.
Indicate location of State Com-s
- MIN *Sf'tR$USNkInhringeach
- I E
i i
i i
l i
P h
i l
tunfAM POINT Nthl_ EAR Ct.NfRATING STATION $ Page Q mt
- RAC EVAL.UATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CtNrRIC AnD
' SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR SDUNTIES' Fl.ANS MAC Coeusente on
- f State (5)/ County (C) Nesponse RAC Evaluation of State / County M anning Standard State and County Plana a Adequate
. o ltesponse 5y o ($) State Ceneric Actton o Minor or g] o (SS) Stat,e Site Specific e SigulfIcant o (C) County defletemew n, we J (Continued)
(S)(SS) Contaminattoe detection proce- (S) Deficieseles identitled in RAC (S) AJequate Inf ormation on surf ace watar inventary and
- . J.!!
dures, maps for recording survey member field trip to State Agricul- lacettuu of produce and dairy farms has been fur-and maattering data. Itste of f act- ture and Markets Offlee on 9/10/02* nlahed tu complete information requirements for
- l lities regularly processing food will be corrected, nametyt maps gngention pathway protective action. *
. products originating in ingestion showing dairy f arm locations in 50 pathway, but located elsewhere, mile ErZ. surface water inventory could not be located (No provisions for Indian Point, maps shoutng for tagestion pathway protective location of produce farms in 50 measures, where portions of NT mile EPZ.
State are in the 50 mile EPZ of other reactor sites - CT Yankee, Millstone. VT Yankee and Yankee Rowe, and Oyster Creek).
Have any estimates of ingestion pathway PAC potential dose been incorporated into projected public
- dose for protective action dect-stons? Discuss provisions that have been made for decontaetnation >
6 of food stuff..
J.12(S) Specify arrangements for monitoring (S) Procedures for monitoring evacuees (!!(SS) Frecedures have been developed for monitoring evacuses and equipment available at will be developed. Plan reviatons capability at congregate Carn Centers and for relocation centers. will cIsrtly which State term (re- ' transmission of field dass to decistna makers.
Criteria mot addressed where re- ception center, coogregate) is forenced and could not be found synonomous with the IsUREC term elsewhere in plan. (relocation center). Equipment .
requirements will be developed.
(C) Isot clest what purpose form serves. (C) Begistration form is provided as (C) Referenced portion of plan still does not give a Methodology for registerint and Attachment 5 to Procedure 6. clear esplanation of the p"urpose the form serves.
performance of evacuee moottoring Procedures are being reviewed for at relocation centers in host areas needed changes.
could not be located in plan.
e O
e
,. p
,Pagihsi[
JDIAll FOINT Murt1AR CFMERATINC STITlotes _
RAC EVAL.UATION OF TIE MEW TORK STATE $EiERIC AND 6 SITE SPECSFIC AND FOUR CouMTIES' PLANS - !
RAC Commente en RAC Evaluation of State / County Elgnalna Standa 4 State and County plane State (S)/ county (C) Reasoase Reeponee) o Adequate i Action e Minor er d j$ o (S) State Generte l] o (SS) State Site Specific e Significent d re,s..,.
- o (C) County je == -
Minor doggegency K RADIOLOGICAL EEFOSURE CONTROL (S) permanent doetsetere (TLDe) and (S) The State bee agreed to obtain immediately the E.3. i. (3) plan discussed what le planned self-reading pocket doelmeters (0- permanent record doeinetere seguired for a re-for future but does not give opense at -Indian point and have eterted a phased i
detee of espected capability 5R) with chargere have been ordered The capability for 24-hour operatio' acquiettion of low range self-reading doelmeters.
nor does it discues interte .(1.e., shift changes) will be de-Migh range civil defense doelmeters will be used procedures or what instrumente monstrated during the mest esercise in the interia.
and capabilittee presently estat
- What are the locatione of per-sonnel monitoring centeret The incorporation of personnel monitoring statione se State pies might lead to confusion. +
(5) Now will doelmeter charging be (S) The counties will clarity the leeue (S) Draf t procedure submitted to FEMA on !!/19/s2 dur-of doelmeter charging in their plea tag bi-weekly poetings were found acceptable, accomplisheet plan does not Action te not considered complete until plan revi.
addrese program for permanent i record divices for State workere. (C)gjgge,areformallytransmitted,toallplanrecp-County did not respond to RAC comment.
(C) No mention of personnel perma- (C) Standardisation by use of State neat dose recording devices form for local emergency personnel la any plan. Specify where will be incorporated in the seat Jose records will be bept revision of county piene.
and how long. Not clear if ,
doelmeters are avellable on a 1
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> beels. Dose record y fgrge,grevision to be 1
E.3 b. (S) This element watt be settafled (S) The plan will be amended to require (S) (C) See RAC evaluation for K.3.a.
when poet emergency storage that coptee of all personnet men-location of record te stated. Storing records relating to the i
emergency will be subeltted to NYS
- Don for review and permanent stores I.
(C) None of the CREkpe provide for (C) Refer to K.3.e., above.
doelmetry activities by organt- .
sation f or emergency workers.
e f Mat as FOINT anu1 eae CENERATING STATIONS Fast hat RAC EViUIATIDM OF T4E NEW YORE STATE CENEpiC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' FLANS ,
RAC Commsente on RAC Evolustion of S ete/ County Plannina Stemderd State and County Flens State (S)/ County (C) sospense Response e Adequate 3 ff,g o (S) State Generic Action e Minor er o (SS) State Site Specific e Signi(icoat
}
, e (C) County a.aa.t..,.
E (Contlewed) l E.4. 6 (S) Adequate
. (C) Adeguate -
2 i K.S. (5) Specify minimum action level for (S) At RAC meeting on 10/7/81, this (S) gg,q,,g ,, '
personnel decontamination. equip- element wee found to be acceptable. (
ment, soll and other surfaces. The comment reisting to decontami-nation of equipment, foodstuffe.
seit and other surface meterial ves withdreun.
(C) Frocedures do not estisfy spect- (C) Will review with comelstency (C) Revisions in deconteetnetton procedures are being fic instrumentation to be util- with State procedures. made in the plan and in the State training taed for measurement. CRERFe do **""'I' not state et what level of con-teminetton fo11ow-up is neces-sery. Discueston of contemine-
!i tion recorde la insufficient.
Action levels for decontamine-tion are erroneously referenced.
OJ K. S. b (S) Are the personnel monitoring cen- (S) See response to E.1.e. for loca- (S) & (C)' The Stats is deveteping numeric requiremente jf tion of FMC. Monitoring equipment for both trained personnel and equipment for use et ters the decontamination facili- monitoring and deconteetmetton facilities and this tiest Where are they locatedt to be used w!!! be discussed in
'l
'i Discuse monitosing equipment to Frecedure & to be added to crose- information otti be included in the pleas on com-be used to determine need for reference. The comment concerning pietion, and effectiveness of decoatset- identification of medical fact 11-ne'tton. Discuse monitoring equip- ties wee agreed to be withdrawn at ment. If first aid kite eveliabl e. RAC meeting on 10/07/01. Comment indicate storage locations. If en first aid kits la e suggestion not, indicate enticipated eve 11- and is not required by this element .
shiitty and future storage tec.=
tiene.
4
n FIgihhh[athg INDI AN POINT NUr1 EAR CFNFR ATlWC STATIONS RAC E El.UAitDN OF THE NEW YORK STATE CEHtBIC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND FOUR COUNTIES' Ft.ANS .
RAC Comnents on SAC Evaluat$on of State / County [lennina Standard State and County plane State (S)/ County (C) ReePonce o Adequate
, , , . Response) j" o (S) State Generic Action o Minor or g e ($$) State Site Specific l e Significant j]*
me =
o (C) County deficiency K (Continued)
(.5.t . conte.
(S) Frecedures util be revise) to re-flect a single diettact step. The procedure will state that*1f that step does not bring the contamina-tion down to the established level '
the person will be referred to another facility for further de-l' contnaination treatment.
(S.C) Decoatsmination procedures are belas reviewed and modified. per-sonnel at appropriate locatione vil i
be trained in new methods.
' (S.C) The plane will describe methods i for dispostag of solid westes.
(C) Spectly means for redtological de- (C) Ut11 rewtew and revloe se appro- (Cp 'arvietone are being made in the plan and State j contaminetton of emergency person- priate. training manuel with regard to disposet of contaminated westee generated by decogtaminating net, woundo supplies teatrumente and equipment and weste disposal. activities.
, g Describe medical treatment arrange- ,
La
-J mente for personnel who beve been I contaminated er esposed to high levels of radiatten. Discuse de-contamination statione, especially locations, facilities ave 11eble, and waste dispoest menne.
o
t
(
tuntAM POINT MUCIF_AR (:ll4FRAflNG STAileNS Fage {*f of M BAC EVAL.UAllOH OF 1HE 80fM TORK STATE OFutulC AND SITE SPECIFIC AND tous tausNTIF.5' Ft.ANS RAC Comumente un RAC Evaluation of State / County & nny tStandard State and Counsy riane State (S)/ county (C) temponse
% Response o Adequate f, y o (S) State Ceneric Action e Minor o'r g] o (SS) Stat,e $tte Specific o Stantlicant
- 3 o (C) County '
defArtemcw nLtt E (Continued)
- # (C) Emergency worter staf fing and (C) FEMA suatts terwipt of data addressing these details.
(CW1'acusssourcesoftenseseeded equipment data for these factittles j'
to monitor emergency workers and evacuees to determine need for (rMC. CC and RC) utlt be subelsted decontamination and to assure to FEMA,
- results.
(C) Explain or discuss medical or (C) Bio response. (C) FEMA is avatting response.
- radiological autherttles to which contaatnated personnel util be referred for additional consulta-tion or thestment.
I k
h I
s' ,
0 f, L->
5!'
CO I
i e
e e
O e
t
=
IM13f aN POINT NUC1.FAR CFMIRATING STATIONS Fage M of M
- RAC EVAI.UATipN OF THE NEW YUdK STATE I;F.NtatC AND ,
SITE SrLC8FIC AND FOUR C8 HINT 8ES' ri.ANS RAC Omments on [lanning Standase State and County Flene State IS)/ County (C) Response RAC Evatwation of State / County Response e Adequate oy o (S) State Generic Action .
< e Minor or l ji o (SS) State Site Specific e Significant i
- 3 o (C) Count'y defittence
- a ,,
Minor deficiency L 4EDICAL AND FUSLIC HEALTH SUFFORT (S) State response f ound adequate. FEMA will verif y
~
L.) (S) No details regarding quattfled (S) New York State has requesta hospitale to handle contaminated received from forty seven hr e capability of listed hospitals to treat conteetnated, individuale. throughout the State informa e injured patients during early past of calanJer year their capabilities to treat pu.sm- 1981.
tially conteminated injured patient ,
A tiet of these hospitale is includ -
ed in Port Ill Section II, pages
- 12. 12a. 12b. and 12c. The New York State Department of Health's Office of Health Systems Management to enneining the edequacy of these hospitals capabilities.
(C) Unable to locate in CRERFe any (C) Lists of hospitale with radiologi- (C) See co'menta e A.l.a. above.
faellities with radiological cat treatment capabilities as i, evaluation and treatment capabili- reviewed by DON-OliSM.
ties where referenced.
L.3 (S) Not available in plans furnlohed (S) Some se for L.1. (S) Additional information is required to satisfy
- criterie element. to factudettype of facility for review g and capacity and any special radiological capabilitto e.
LJ ND I
(S) Information will be included when (S) Means of transportetton and Hous for tronoporting L.4 (S) No sareements found to establish off-site vicates not present.
commitments to transport radio- available.
logical accident victime to ordt-
- cat support facilities.
(C) Insufficient information furatsbed (C) Require clarification from FEMA. (C) See footnote I to Planetag Standard L. page 69 to determine adequacy of arrange- 0654/ FEMA REP-l. The guidance contained in the mente. referenced documents should be datsited in the county plane.
!i 4
. t l !
tnantam raggy annen was creasmATtesc STAT 80005 Page h CE h RAC EVAIDAf test OF Tut uru 700E STCTE untLIC AsID SITE SPECIFIC AstD FOUS COUNTIES' rt.AMS ,
RAC Comments on
.t.te <SuC _ tr <C, .ee - e .AC ... .et8 .t p .t., - , n .t d.r.
,, St.t. c ntt . ...
- Seepease e h te *
- a. e (5) State Generic e (SS) 5 tete Site Spectile Actles e Nie=r er e Significent
$] e (C) Cour.ty kinre - .
8, 3 ,
- m. m SECOVERY AND BEENTRY Ft.AsdIING AIID Minor dettelency JI POST ACCIDENT OPraaftesis (8) Buttag the October 1.1931 =eetles (S) Seepense ado p e.
- N.1. (5) No ladicettee what a radiettee RAC concurred in the State's poet- t
- monitoring program ceneiste of. i
- tien that moetterlag progrene ic-Stieted during the reopense pheme l
- will continue unt1E acceptable
- levele era reached.
, l (C) Although procedures described to- (C) County staff will provide support (C) Sec comment A.I.e. ' ,
suffletent informatten formished. to State en ro w et. County plans l v111 be revised. ,
g a M.3 (5) Adequate 6
s (S) Bevistene to the 0654 crose reference have met been M.4. (0) Flen does not estabtleh method for (S) During the October 1.1931 meeting present wording in the Plan wee received. l periodically setteeting totet l population esposure. found acceptable.
1 i .
4 O
I I
- j. -
I. . f
( , s .
l i . .
l.
I
- Fage M e* [
t?ful A!t POINT fMKI FAR CENFeATINC ST?. Titers DAC IXI.UATION OF THE prW Tone ST11E CrNEstC AND SITE SriclFRC ANB IOua COUNTIES' PLANS -
BAC Commente se RAC Evaluaties of gtete/ County flaanlaa Standerf State end Co=nt,riese state (S)/Commt, (C) meseemse
- e Ade p te
, Seepease.
Artsen
- 3
, e (S) State Generic e Isimer er g] e (55) State $tte Specific e Significant J.ta,s c 8* e (C) County
- e. ==
tileer deficiency N EEERCISES AND D818.1.5 (S) IIe resposee.
(S) Criteria met met for conducting of esercise by N.1. . (S) Flan does not meet criteria of NBC-FEMA rules.
"enercise shall be condweted se set f orth by IIBC-FEMA Rules".
(C) See coment A.I.e. above. }
(C) Conflict estete between 11.B.3.a. (C) Walt be reviewee end clarified and made constetent with Federal Seide-
- which celle for an saamat en- ,
arclee for County and flate and lines.
Frecedure 12. Section 3.2.1 ,
In Westchester. Orange, and Eackleed CBERPs and Frecedure !!
Secties 3.2.1. Putnam CREhr. .
wl.ich celle for test every 3 years. There is crees reference probles an Orange CBERF.
I Flame de not state that esercise ehell be condected as set forth
}- la WRC/ FEMA Rules.
(5) IIe response (5) Ito provistem for esercise once every sin years bet-N.1. i. (S) We provieton for en esercise ween 6:00 Pet and eldelsht and sidatght end 6:00 AM.
, o,nce
,8 .e4every 6 tyeere
.id. . between
.e4 .id.i t 6:00 d
l' d= 6:00 AM. ;
F^ (C) We provisieme in y,lans for es- (C) Will review and revise se appropr!- (C) See comenet A.1.e. above.
l ercles to be conducted under ate.
verlous weather conditiene er for a ====aunced esercises.
qualificatione to be en ebeerwer should be listed. Crees refer-
- ences need to be added.
e 4
. .....: * ., l 8 I i
l i_______ __ _ _ _
e vunnan rotut uurt oAs rMra_AflWC SrtTIoses Faseksfh BAC EY4LUATIcet OF THE ptu ToeK STATE cr tilc AleD SITE SPECIFIC Alep FOUR COUNTIES' Fl.ANS ,
I RAC Cr.semente en RAC Evaluettee of tete / County Ugamina Standard State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) Rassense a a peepense e Adequate jg o (S) State Generic Actica o Minor er g e (SS) State Site Specific ,
e Significest j e (C) County ha s, e m.
I a.
p (Continued)
N I.2.a. (S) Adequate (C) Flame de met centela specific (C) Will review and restee to make com- (C) See comment A.I.a. above.
,. eletent with State plan. County precedures for conducting teste.
Aloe, a crees reference probles. plane appear to confers to 0654
- 4. 2. e . (C) Flene de set specify whether (C) Fre-emercise material will state (C) Berly not adequate. The criterie element calle for medical dr!!!e to be performed whether a medical det!! wt!! be thse material ~te be addressed in the pieme.
as part of annual esercies. If part of esercies.
not, se state and provide prece-dure outlining step by step how drill le to be carried out. -
i
,i (S) The State does met agree with (S) seepense adequate, 42.d. (3) Criteria vill be satisfied when comment. Personnel who mermelly the werd "may" en page F-2 ,.
Fort III, Sectien 1. Item 2 collect water er milk esoples se line 2 is corrected to "shall" en onseing actietty should not as stated in NUREC-0654. have to cellect osaples duries an asemal drill, reroennel required , ,
ii to collect emergency semples who i l permally de met cellect semples should participate la perledic ,
h g
drille. All State semples will be analysed by the Dost padielegIcel Seleeces Isetitute which is nation-i
' ally recogained and routine testing of lab during an enoual drill seems I unnecessary.
(C) Specify when mechanism to imple- (3) Comment met relevant to thie ment resulte of esercise and secties.
drill will be implemented.
ll 1
e 8
i l
l t
a
tilu1 Art tHINT Nurt EAe CtMeAllNC STATIre85 Par.2 h h -
BAC EVAIAIATIDII OF Tite IsEW Yost STLTE CE teIC AleD SITE SPECtflC AND FOUs CDUllilES' Pl. Alls e RAC Coassente en RAC Evaluetten of State / County Planning Stendard State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) Be eponoe_ e Adequate Action
. Responee!
$$ e (S) State Generic e Minor or g] e (SS) St_ste Site Specific e Sigetticent n
j* e (C) County __ defa,e..,.
&m II (Continued)
D are to me dioceselee of collect- .
toe of and smalyste of semple media and provietone for recorde keeptes.
- II . 3.m (3) Adequare (C) This material to provided prior te (C) We agree that specists material relattog to each (C) The CRERFe should include en es- esercles and d:111 should be provided prior to the
. plenattoa of hos eseretees and enanal eseretees in accordesce utth event. Nomever, the reopense does not adequately drille util be carried out. FEMA /NRC seidee. Meterial should set be la rien. address the criterte element. It does met contata a discuenten el the procese by which scenarios are developed, in general, for all esercises and drille.
N. 3.b. (S) Adequate (C) See teamente for II.3.e. (C) See FEMA evismation for af.3.a.
(C) See seassente for N.3.s.
N.3 c. (3) Adequate (C) See IEMA evaluation for N.3.a.
I (C) See cosamente for N.3.e. (C) See commente for N.3.a.
I bJ l N.3 4. (S) Adequate (C) See cosaments for N.3.a. (C) See IEH4 evaluet ten for N.3.e.
(C) See coemeente for N.3.a. 6 (3) peoponse adequate.
U e. (S) Flan needs narrative ousemery (S) Flan util be emended to include statement that each esercise util desestbing conduct of esercises and drt!!e. ettempt to conduct se easy actual activities se poselble and within the resources avallebte for the eseretoe.
h I
e b
I I
l l
l l
I
tunfAM POtMT emartFAa CrataAftpC STAfl0NS Fet1 M of "
RAC E!AIMTION OF THE plU TORK STATE CEmLRIC Allt
$1TE SPECIF8C AIIS FOUR CDUNTIES' FLANS ,
RAC Commente en State and County Flame State (S)/ County (C) Ressense RAC Evaluetten of S te/ County plannina Standard
, , ,
- Respesos e Adequate 3$ e ($) State Generic Action e Niner er e ($5) State Site Specific
- 3) e Sigelticent
.j e e (C) County a.s a, e .e.
- n. w N (Continued)
. N. 3, (C) See commente for N.3.o. (C) See comments for II.3.a. (C) See BAC evaluetten for N.3.e.
N.3. I. (S) Nore dete11 mecessary on errenge - (S) The Flee w!!! be amended to in- (S) Beepense adequets
, ment and advance material to be clude statement that ebeerwere wil provided to offietet ebeervers. be qualified and will be provided .
addittenet traiains if required.
- A11 eh?ervers will be briefed ;
prior to the esercles. Rating sheets and a detested list of activities to be ebeerved will be provided. Ceepleted ebeervattom reporte util be returned me 1 ster than one week after complettee of the esercles. Observetten sheete will be changed for esercises se required.
(C) See comments for N.3.e. (C) See co m ets for N.3.e. ( d See RAC evaluetten for N.3.e. .
N.4. Is1 Incorporate USDA pelat of con- (S) Beforence E.1. above. ($) Response adequate,
[
a tact la alert precedures.
I 8C) Nethod met described by which (C) See Section 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 of (C) Little derett er cesantement te theme sectione.
State and local governmente will precedure 12.
eboerve, evaluate end critique esercise. Discuse deadlines for incorporating reentte of formal evaluaties into the CRERFe.
0 S
i i
. I
_ _ . _ _m o
1M13t AH _l'OINT 18UCRJ AR CrNFRATING ST*TitmS Feas M of k7 RAC EVJ.lSATit:0 Ol' THE NEW TfMIK STATE CENE2tC A809 .
SITE SrtCEFIC AND FOUS CIMMTIES' Ft.ANS RAC Coasmente on .
, , , state and County rione State (5)/ County (C) Reepease RAC Evoluet tee of $ tete / County fjennina Stenderd a$ e (5) State Generic Action , peepense j e Adegaste e seiner er
$1 e (55) Store Site Specifle e Significant
, e (C) County
- e. m a.s n, n ,.
N (Centtaued)
! 18 . 5 _ (S) Part III. Secties I. Procedure l5) Upon completten of an esercise the (S) Persen reopenetble for impleseattag correcttwe F-5 (4.2. 4.3) eerely repeate evalueter and' observer commente will actionet penagement eestrete for taplementation of word for nord the contents of be reviewed and included te en after corrective actiemet element W-5 in gluhEC-0654. 10 0 actien report. A porttee of the "seene" are estabitehed. report wall highlight the lessene learned. Fles revleien estalag
- free teesene learned will be esece- '
ted. Corrective actions will be administered by the RErc.
(C) Inouffletent safermetten forate WCC) Witt review and revlee se appre - (C) See RAC . evalmettee for A.I.e.
- to determine whether seems estet priate.
for evaluating observer and per ~
l ticipent commente. Flame do not eestas reopensiblitty for imple-
} meeting corrective actlene.
g
- t. Management controle to encure corrective actione are taptemented
. es result of acceptance of ob-i server causente met dioeveeed.
'{ g i .p. .
, i e
e B
l I
(>
Tunt au rotNT IILIrt_FAs M31FRAfl9W; %i4TiteIS page M of y ,
F AC EVAll3ATICII OF THE IseM YnaK ST ATE CfMeIC AND ,
SITE SFLCIFIC Asse losset omesTIE5' rt.Asts ,
- _ _) '
RAC Cosamente on State and County riane State ($)/Ca.enty (C) peeponse BAC EvaluanIon of State / County H an ln eg g e_ndand benyonee o Adequate o (S) State Generic y a, g Acttan o teteor or g] o (SS) State Site Specific
- o (C) County o 58setticent a.1e,a - .
- e. == , ,
O RADIOLOGICAL. glERCEleCY REstoIISE , gg,,,
IRAINIIIC ,
f
- 0.1 ($) Adequate (C) REpG has recently taken over trata- (S) b ath who will State agenctee coordinate their trate-(C) Insufficient information to eval-i uste element. List all response ing of State and local sLP. Tble ing effortal
- [ agencies and training courses that section to being reviewed and re- (C) See comment A.t.a. above.
cover activities for uhtch they are wised to confers to gAC guideltmeo i responsible. Ile detailed lesson .e plane. Present training statue of g emergency response personnel should ;
be specified. Timetable for bring-ing training levels of emergency ,
personnel up to readinese levele should be furstehed. Attachment 4 should include 1932 list of la courses instead of 1931. tilthout personnel assigned to specific . l*
dettee one cannot determine trata-tag needs by position and who wBil conduct tratales.
i l 0.1 b (S) Adequate A (C) See casament A.I.e. above.
' Ch (C) Inadequate where referenced. (C) See rerpense to 0.l.
g Each offette resposee organisatla n obstl furticipate in rece!ving i treintag. Also, training for mutaal aid organisatione.
0.4 (5) Establish retraining schedule. Annual County and m (S) e Each organisation training progreeshall establieba(S) State and local egeactee are re-for instructic the i evaluating and identifying all the State reporte are acceptable.
0.4 j. and qualtiteation of response areas that need treintas improve-personnel who will implement meet. BEpc is responsible to eval-radiological en.rgency resposee esote the ef fectivenees of training.
prop ane in a number of catego* Tratains progrars will require ,
rtea.
O .
k l
9 i' . 6 i
i I
l I.
l I
_ d r
a 6 e d n t .
a a o
t S 3rcw I ae t
e ft e, E aurls l qear a eng diih b*
l F
m a ANS eee S
F t_
y _
t n
u e
C
/ _
e _
t O a _
t S3 e
f s oae e np v _
ee o t e b t B a - .
e e . .
t
- e. e.
D e.
v 1 t
N A E A p S C C e NI A t d O RS A .
n a EN e I
TN m e
- ELA. m m TCF o m S c o p
E e e C T 'S e e N AE S B I TI T ST ) )
A N C S n EU ( (
a SO m OC l .
- c. Y e R l ee e
WU EO i et wl s a NF ue e sdb .
ED e ee
- t e HN s thc e
m TA n e
aci l sd d".
e es FC p e e T OI m ,
rsl ret H F e t ar oa l NI t et e tl o OC Rap P I E ) t e TP C aa . dr M AS ( n .r 1 et A E o sTn d nr I I E yi e o 0 ee l
D LT t t o
M 1 I a c a .d eb sa 1 ES v A td e t e
o ~eed e er C C rti s bt A / t av R ) r or o ae e
(
S "n p p p l r l
oroe o il e e we
- t ecb r u a a nn
_ t S
Wtl e l e
e aa l s S P"
.bbw ei ) )
C S
( ( .
s
- e i
t t e i .
u l a i nhb etl i a e c rwn m i o e a f fl p tl i eo eF c ene ey ep e d nr i e t t t S . vae nn r t ors e u ea e ran ppe mo mC ei nt p o
Cd CS y m
e tf o ooe r n eet c n g Ca t t n say A aau e S e t t o ) t el c t SSC d a oan a e t dt eg e t))) u S SSSC n . nrr (S( i e e et e
( t t e i em n n S rre eoe o o C c ) )
( C S i . ( (
5 n)g];
8,g Aa.
w 0
4 ."4.
0I0 0,
I e
1A4I I l
. ! ll i
l l 4 luDI AN rotNf Nurt ras CFNEBAflNC $TATf DNS ,
Fage e' KAC 9: val.UAllDN M THE ptW TORE STATE CtatBIC Amp
$1TE SPECIFIC AMO FOUR COUNTIES' FLAMS l; r
! PAC Comments ou .
Planning St andard State and County Plane State (S)/ County (C) Beepease PAC Evaluatloa of State / County fl
- g e ($) State Generic Acates . Desponeet e P.dequate e Minor er
$ e ($$) State Site Specif8c I
- 888alIEC***
l I- j }u.
e (C) County def e r s,ar.
1 Sigalitcant i F RESPONSIBILITT.FOR PLANNING EFFORT da r ar a..;.
j F.1. (Revloed as of Interie Findies)
. - (g) Rock 1 sad County's non-participettei (S) Reckleed County docteten makers (S) Rockland County 1.egtelsture has disavowed the plea .
i i
- in the four county plan raises e ut!!'be treteed on redtelegical formally embattted to FEMA in Auguet. 1981 for question se to decialen maker emergency responses necessittee. review. The county to currently la the procese of I capablitty to respond in se emer- Compensatteg measures till be out- preparing a plea of its own. Although the State hae
- gency. lined la the State Flan.' developed compenenting meneures le draft, there ore
.j avestione regarding viability of deployment times.
. (C) Training of individuale responet- (C) Ut!1 revise se required. State Agency precedures. As generet. lack specificit< .
ble for planning effort wee not addressed where cross-referenced (C) Original RAC,$omment.for Ormese and Westchester otti in orsage, Rockland sad Westek2s.e apply.' For Rechtend la light of the eseaty's
'I plane.
- pursuit of their own plea. which has not been (C) The Futnam plan references trelain completed to date. no deteretmettee ces be made et
'j - et Individuele involved la the L
thte time.
I planning effort. Nowever, ylen (C) Original RAC coement appline does not centela e progree for trataleg individuals.
F.2. (Revised as of laterte f andtag)
(S) Rockland's non-certicipatt'.a la (S) In the ebeence of a Beckland ytos e (5) The Rechtend officiels and etsff are participettag g
the eseretse and planning effort compensating mesoures will be in- in training and beve had a table to esercise of Ste
, 45 requires componeettag measures to cluded in the State plan to insure plan, until sew plan to reviewed, this element CD be taken. odequate emergency response la the wtgl remata inadequate.
I county.
e e
f s
tumf AM PO!MT_ mv1 sas CFNFRATIIBC ST*TIcNS Fase sf h '
irAC FDfIf4T100f Ef THE NEW 10eK STATE CENEelC MIS Sl4F SPECIFIC ANO FOJN LDLTFTIES' Fl.A80$
- SAC Ceemente em RAC Evaluettom of State / County ((enalma Standard State and County Pleae State (5)/ County (C) Ecosamme
, Desponse ) e Adequate e, 3 e (S) State ceneric Action .
o Inteer er e ($$) State Site Specif te
,l g}
,o e (C) County e Sigalficent d.fa,a ,.
- e. we F (Coattaued)
(C) See comment for A.1.e., above for the Orange,
, F.2. (C) Althovah county of ficiale reopen- (C) Will revise se required. Westchester and Futama piano. See F.1 and F.2 for alble for adelaistrettom of CatRFo 1
to stated la each plan, it le me- sockleed Flen.
clear whether er mot he hoe autho-tity for radiological energency response pienstas.
I F. 3. (Revised se of lateria Flading)
(5) & (SS) to the abosace of a Rock- (S) & (SS) In the sheence of a sockload (S) & (SS) See co m et for F.1., above.
and County Plea. there to en la- County Plea, provietone utit be in-herent teck of cerebility to ur- cluded la the State Fles for updatta i date auch a plea. Rockload resposee requiremente.
l (C) Who, by title, le respeesible la (C) U111 revise se required. (C) See cessent en A.I.e., above for the Grease West-i each county by agency, for meta- cheet'er and Futama plano. See F.1 and F.2 for the e toistag and updating emergency Rockland Flen.
plans.
F.4. (Revloed se of lateria Flading)
LS & (SS) la the obsence of a Beckland (3) & (SS) See comment for F.1. and F.2., above.
(S) & (SS) In the ebeenee of a County Flea, provisione vill be g
Rockload County Flea, there is se j A Saberent lambility to keep the tecluded la the State Flen for keep-W tas Rockleed reopense requiremente 4
I plea current.
current.
(C) Adequate.
t I
i .
l l
(
6 e
a .
d r
> T a d
n t w a ee sm t
s etI e
(*
.- t eBt f a n urtt a t e c qoei la engm ndiiA a AMS
- l 2 Peoe S
e r F
o e e
- f mh n
. at a
,2 n ,lp t r eF uo e g Pf ne nd ah an .. l t P .
ra e2 g on y O 1 nF rt a t
n e a enl tiP u hF rd o t On a s C e r edd hen
/ a e e eS o.
f1 ct e t at t s a srh tI e e. e F eoc Wpe S
e v v e rR f s en b a bo e do one el aS nce anh np ,P ,
e it ee .re .
aer I
't l e a
S e. st e.na o. nbo t f t
l a
- u. I.
A h e .
can I. l AP uo.
Ft 2
l N v sl r r .s A E rs e
F f
o te n. edF ge 9 C C Wd n sa ned N l A a t t el ann r a 0 sS nd a nhF ec Oe r .
5 E N e nl T
X N A.
1 mak c mtd m s n eu1 T
- I 0r o m
ee o ea hd t eF c eR cWl k S
E n c G T 'S et e ed c ree
- N AE TI e uh e ne S aR or e F pS I
T ST SFt
- t. N ) ) )
- Ki l C C C F eD ( ( (
N uC F Y 0 s .
d.
wU e y R rO . t l A pF d c r E e e e .
l ED e t r t n fP HN s s r re L T A n o at N o p
! c ut rC qe T OI s e e N F e e b dt I NI m b et H LOC 1 l ki F E 1 1 l cr f
t P AS {C n 1 i ee f
A H _o = w h v l E ri c r 1
e s 0AT 0Vt t
n c t
n e eo a c bf 1 P 5 u A l n o p e 1t C C r 1 p A / g e 1 e R )
n f =k S i e
(
t r ss e r re op s el t
a e b t
p e r
ed un S u pa S C
) ) )
C C C
( ( ( 4 .
g
- n d e i ed r nb e l a p ii is - re a sy gct t e en nsh en ea iet e e de rm dd r g n i c a
l f ap n onn .
nl i yi wai eP c ng l hh e in ed et s t e t i ey cp ai arl t t at t t iS nr ua . t er nn r oo qt s she eu ee cp est et e mo nt p . d n rac mC et t us ase rc ler5'4.a
_ o C$ y ose nam y Cd i m
_ n eet n f rc d o r .
_ Ca t t n eou e eec on A aa u ) ee ed ee erc ee6f e R e t t o ge t t t ang t m0 t t SSC d t t aa t
asn aa a en a d r a e uu ueri usCoe s))) u uu qq uFir qq qmed qnEht
$ SSC n qRti ee eaf e eaRti (S( i ee eE se dR!h dd Jl eo dl uer
( t dd AFpmc n AA AC! t AA AFrc eeo o )) )) )) ))
C ))
SC SC SC
( SC SC (( (( ((
(( ((
k
,g]8 n
,a g f,n.
e 5 6 7 S. t.
F F F F F F y
hl
. . llji! ! : I ; if;<it tl II1 .t i
. ' '