ML20151Y720
| ML20151Y720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1988 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6219 OL, NUDOCS 8805050086 | |
| Download: ML20151Y720 (132) | |
Text
_
f; Zl9 cetxErE0 Dated:
April 27, 1MdT gyIED CORRt.WunutfLQR
'88 MAY -2 P5 :21 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0Ffic' 0; natioy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKfhNG l. 'iERVICE BRANCM before the
-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
ERRATA to Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 (Sheltering)
The following changes have been made to the testimony filed April 15, 1988:
Pace Ling Errata 3
4 Replace "includes" with "will include".
3 5
Insert "are to" before "call".
22 23 Replace "includes" with "will include".
22 25 Insert "are to" before "identify".
23 1
Replace "also" with "are also to".
8805050086 880427 PDR ADUCK 05000443' T
E
- s 0% METED REEATED COMESMDM April 1988 18 MY -2 P5 :22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f0ChiIEG Ib lb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' DIRECT TESTIMONY NO. 6 (Sheltering)
Panel Members:
John W. Baer, Emergency Planning Specialist, Aidikoff Associates l
Donald W.
Bell, Senior Nuclear Technology Engineer, l
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
l John D.
Bonds, Assistant Director for Planning, Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency Planning, New Hampshire Yankee l
Paul R.
Frechette, Jr., Senior Emergency Planner, New Hampshire Yankee James A. PacDonald, Radiological Assesseunt Manager, New Hampshire Yankee Dennis Mileti, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Hazards Assessment Laboratory, Colorado State University Richard H. Strome, Director, New l
Hampshire Office of Emergency i
Management William T. Wallace, Jr.,
M.D.,
M.P.H.,
Director, Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services l
l l
I
r O
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace INTRODUCTION 1
PLANNING BASIS FOR PROTECTIVE ACTIONS 4
1.
Concept of Protective Action Decisionmaking 4
a.
Purpose of Protective Actions 4
b.
Protective Action Guides and Projected Doses.
5 c.
Protective Action Recommendation Decisionmaking for the General Public.
7 d.
Decisionmaking Criteria for Seasonal Beach Populations 10 2.
Implementation of Precautionary and Protective Actions for the Summer, Seasonal Population 13 a.
Public Alert and Notification.
13 b.
Precautionary Actions 15 c.
Evacuation As A Protective Action.
17 d.
Shelter-in-Place 18 (1)
General Considerations.
18 (2)
Transients Without Transportation 20 (3)
Stone & Webster Shelter Study, August 1987 21 3.
Implementation of Protective Actions for Campgrounds 22 a.
Notification 23 b.
Actions.
23 1-I L
i.
I Page 4.
Sheltering for the General Public 24 a.
Concept of Shelter-in-Place 24 b.
Assessment of Existing Shelter Adequacy.
25 (1)
Shelter Effectiveness of Residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ 26 (2)
Shelter Effectiveness of Schools and Day Care Centers.
27 APPENDIX 1:
Letter of Richard H. Strome to Henry G.
Vickers dated February 11, 1988 with, Attachments I and II ATTACHMENT 1:
State of New Hampshire Protective Action Decision Criteria, NHRERP, Vol.
4, Appendix F (identical to Vol. 4 A, Appendix U)
ATTACHMENT 2:
NHRERP, Vol.
1, Sections 2.6.7, 2.6.8 ATTACHMENT 3:
Supplemental Analysis of Potential Shelter Capacity of the Seabrook EPZ Beach Areas t
9 I
INTRODUCTION The NHRERP provides for a range of protective responses that may be implemented to protect the health and safety of the public, including summer, seasonal populations.
- Further, this range of responses has the flexibility to ensure dose savings in response to a wide spectrum of accident conditions.
The concept of protective action recommendation decisionmaking employed by the NHRERP is patterned on the emergency planning guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and emergency planning regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Protective Action Guides (PAGs) of the U.S.
j Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been incorporated in the NHRERP and provisions have been made for calculation of projected dose which permits reliance on the PAGs for protective action decisionmaking.
Decision criteria have been developed and committed to procedures to aid accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers in making choices among available protective action options including that of sheltering.
The NHRERP provides for precautionary actions intended to avoid exposure of the beach population to potential radiological risk.
Plans and procedures, including decision criteria, have been put into place specifically for implementation of these measures.
Accident assessment
personnel of the State of New Hampshire are prepared by procedures and training to ascertain from utility emergency response personnel the status and prognosis of plant conditions and safety systems for the purpose of recommending precautionary actions prior to the manifestation of radiological consequences.
While the preferred protective action for the seasonal beach population is the precautionary measure of early beach closure or evacuation, the State of New Hampshire is prepared to recommend the protective action of sheltering in a limited number of circumstances.
These are described in the New Hampshire Response to FEMA Supplemental Testimony, Enclosure 1 to letter of Richard H.
Strome to Henry G.
Vickers dated l
February 11, 1988 (Appendix 1 to this testimony).
The NHRERP provides the method and means to ensure prompt notification of the summer, seasonal population of precautionary and protective actions to be taken.
This is primarily accomplished by a system of fixed sirens providing coverage of the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
In addition, sirens providing coverage for beach areas of concern have public address capability for which a taped, voice message containing instructions for the beach population has been developed.
Each campground in the EPZ will be offered a tone-alert radio to supplement notification by the siren system.
Both beach areas and campgrounds will be supplied with public information materials in the form of
-2
durable signs in the beach area, posters, and brochures that provide instructions to the public on actions to take in an emergency.
The NHRERP will include a special facility plan for each campground in the EPZ.
These plans are to call for campground operators to ensure that campground users are notified of an emergency.
The campground operators will either close the campgrounds as a precautionary measure or evacuate them based on the protective action recommended for the general population.
Campground users constitute neither a significantly large segment of the population nor an inordinate concentration of persons in any one area of the EPZ so as to impede their rapid departure from the EPZ in the event of an emergency.
The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6.5, contains a discussion of the relative, representative values of dose reduction factors for typical structures to be found in the Seabrook Station EPZ.
This discussion concludes that essentially any residential structure in the Seabrook Station EPZ affords a dose reduction factor of at least 0.9 which is assumed by the NHRERP for the purpose of choosing between the protective action options of evacuation and sheltering.
Furthermore, schools and day care centers are presumed to share the characteristics of structures that prevail in l
the Seabrook Station EPZ and to have at least the same dose reduction factors.
Because protective action recommendations
-3 l
l
for the general public apply also to schools and day care centers, evaluation of the protection afforded by the individual structures is not considered as part of the decisionmaking process.
PLANNING BASIS FOR PROTECTIVE ACTIONS The NHRERP Volume 1 and the local plans, Volumes 16 through 32, and specifically plans for the Towns of Seabrook and Hampton, Volumes 16 and 18 respectively, provide for a range of responses that may be implemented to protect the health and safety of the public, including the summer, seasonal populations, in the event of a radiological emergency.
This range of responses has the flexibility to achieve dose savings in response to a wide spectrum of conditions.
The plans are premised on the basic concept of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 that any one or a combination of responses will be taken to achieve the maximum dose savings to the public.
The responses prescribed by the NHRERP range from precautionary actions for the beach population at the early stages of an emergency to the protective actions for the general public of shelter, evacuation, and control of access to affected areas.
1.
Concept of Protective Action Decisionmaking a.
Purpose of Protective Actions The NHRERP is based on the planning guidance of NUREG-0654, which states at page 6:
The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs).
The NHRERP is predicated on the understanding that emergency planning for a nuclear plant is not required to be designed to address any particular accident sequence or a "worst case accident".
NUREG-0654 states further at page 6:
No specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in degree and nature.
The protective action decision criteria of the NHRERP take into consideration plant conditions, evacuation clear times, dose reduction factors, and other conditions that may exist at the time of an accident.
b.
Protective Action Guides and Projected Doses Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are criteria provided for use by public health officials and decisionmakers to determine the need for protective actions and for choosing appropriate protective actions.
The U.S.
EPA promulgated PAGs on the basis of projected doses which act as trigger points to initiate protective actions.
The U.S. EPA Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents, EPA - 520/1-75-001, cautions:
A Protective Action Guide under no circumstance implies an acceptable dose.
Since the PAG is based on projected dose, f
it is used only in an ex post facto effort to minimize the risk from an event which is occurring or has already occurred.
(Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Action for Nuclear Incidents, U.S.
EPA, September 1975 (Revised June a
1980), pg. 1.1.)
In sum, PAGs are guidance tools for use by decisionmakers and are not levels of acceptable or unacceptable risks.
The NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.3 incorporates the U.S.
EPA PAGs for direct exposure to radioactive materials within the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ.
The range of PAG doses delineated by the U.S.
EPA for the general public are indicated in Table 2.6-1 of the NHRERP.
The guidelines incorporated in Table 2.6-1 consider the most sensitive members of the general population:
women who are pregnant and infants.
As expressed in Section 2.6.3, New Hampshire has chosen to base its protective action decisions on the lowest values cited by the U.S. EPA, that is, a 1 rem whole-body projected dose, and a 5 rem thyroid projected dose.
In order to utilize the PAGs, projected doses to the general public must be determined.
Projected doses must be j
determined following the incident based on data from (i) plant conditions, (2) release and meteorological conditions, (3) offsite radiological measurements, or (4) combinations of these three factors.
(Manual of Protective Action Guides, l
U.S.
EPA, p. 5.1.)
The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.2 provides for estimating the projected doses for the Plume :
Exposure Pathway EPZ and for reporting projected doses as quickly as possible in terms of whole body and thyroid doses.
NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.3 describes the means by which State of New Hampshire officials will determine projected doses.
Calculation techniques for this purpose are explicated in procedures contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendices N, 0,
P, and Q.
Each of these procedures incorporates the factors identified in the U.S.
EPA Manual for determining projected dose, c.
Protective Action Recommendation Decisionmaking for the General Public NUREG-0654, criterion J.
9 provides that:
Each State and local organization shall establish a capability for implementing protective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria.
This shall be consistent with the recommendations of EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes The utility will classify an event based on plant conditions.
At a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency classification level, predesignated plant conditions will result in specific protective action recommendations from the utility to the State of New Hampshire.
If the event is classified as a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency, and plant conditions do not result in a specific protective action recommendation from the utility to the State, then the l
appropriate protective action will be reached by utilizing the decision criteria described in modified Section 2.6.7, as discussed infra.
These criteria are used by decisionmakers for choosing between sheltering and evacuation, and are sufficiently flexiole to be applied to any type of projected or actual release from a nuclear power plant.
The decision criteria depicted in modified Figure 2.6-7 of the NHRER" consider the time to release, time of plume arrival at a specified location, time of exposure at the reference location, projected dose, EPA PAGs, time available to make protective action decision, time available to implement protective actions, constraints to implementation of protective action decision, and dose reduction facters pertinent to either sheltering or evacuation.
At the final decision step in the process, the decision criteria call for detailed analysis and calculations to determine the compa'Jative effectiveness of shelter and evacuation.
NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U contains procedures to be used by accident assessment personnel of the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) in applying the NHRERP decision criteria.
A revision to this procedure is being incorporated into an update of the NHRERP and is provided as Attachment 1.
The State of New Hampshire protective action decisionmaking procedures recognize that the utility will evaluate plant status at the Site Area Emergency and General Emergency classification levels which may result in a protective action recommendation.
DPHS accident assessment personnel at the State Incident Field Office (IFO), co-located with the Utility Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) in Newington, New Hampshire, will obtain plant data in conjunction with utility accident assessment personnel and verify the utility protective action recommendation.
The State Emergency Operations Center (EOC), IFO, and EOF are activated at the Alert emergency classification level.
Prior to the activation of there facilities, the DPHS Emergency Response Initiator is instructed to contact the plant control room for plant status information immediately after being notified of an emergency classification level.
The data to be obtained are identified on the notification form utilized by both utility and Division of Public Health Services' procedures.
These data will be evaluated by State of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and 1
decisionmakers to determine the advisability of precautionary actions. Accident assessment will be initiated at the State EOC and continued through the duration of an emergency at both the State EOC and at the.IFO/ EOF.
DPHS accident assessment personnel at the IFO/ EOF will receive firsthand projected dose data and field measurement data, assess the data with utility accident assessment personnel in conjunction with energency management personnel, perform independent calculations of projected doses and formulate protective action recommendations to be conveyed to the State EOC where the public protective action recommendation
( i l
i
decision will be made.
d.
Decisionmaking Criteria for Seasonal Beach Populations The protective action decision criteria discussed in NHRERP, Volume 1, modified Section 2.6.7, contain decision criteria designed for summer, seasonal populations, including seasonal beach populations.
These decision criteria incorporate considerations for precautionary actions for the summer, seasonal population based on the status and prognosis of plant conditions.
These provisions of the NHRERP represent a cautious approach to the implementation of the emergency planning requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1.
They are intended to remove the beach population before the potential for exposure beyond the PAGs exists.
To accomplish this, they are implemented based on plant status and conditions that may lead to a release as determined by accident assessment personnel of the utility and conveyed to State of New Hampshire decisionmakers, i
l The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.2 advises accident assessment personnel that complete radiological assessment l
data may not be available or no release may yet be projected when they are considering early, precautionary actions for the summer, seasonal population.
Therefore, the current l
plant status and a prognosis of anticipated plant conditions would be the best indicator of the need for precautionary actions.
Procedures contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, as l l
modified, facilitate consideration of plant status and prognosis of plant conditions by providing for early reporting of plant status data by the utility emergency organization to State of New Hampshire emergency management and public health officials.
State of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers will consider implementation of precautionary measures as early as the Alert emergency classification level.
The description of Alert in NUREG-0654, Appendix 1, says in part:
Any releases [at this classification level are) expected to be limited to small fraction of the EPA Protective Action Guidance exposure levels.
At this classification level, no offsite action would be ordinarily warranted to protect the public, but its consideration here affords additional time to clear the beaches or prevent additional public access to the beaches.
The decision criteria of the NHRERP are not intended to dictate automatic implementation of precautionary actions at this classification level.
They are intended to facilitate the exercise of judgment on the part of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers as to the most prudent course of action given the particular circumstances of an accident situation.
The NHRERP, Revision 2, Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 is being updated to reference the emerg e.y classification and plant conditions under which preca::> -nary and protective action 11 -
recommendations would be made (Attachment 2).
Figure 2.6-6 of the NHRERP, as modified, see Attachment 2, indicates that for these conditions during periods of summer, seasonal population, the recommended precautionary action would be closure or evacuation of Hampton and Seabrook beaches.
The intent of this provision is the implementation of measures for the beach population at the first indication of a potential for offsite populations to be affected.
Under these conditions, any projected doses to the public would be expected to be below the lowest values of the EPA PAGs.
At the Site Area Emergency classification level, offsite protective actions would not be expected to be necessary to protect the public.
At this classification level, however, the State will recommend precautionary or protective actions a
for the beach population.
The description of Site Area i
Emergency of NUREG-0654, Appendix 1 provides foundation for this decisionmaking concept where it says:
Any releases (are) not expected to exceed EPA Protective Action Guideline exposure levels except near site boundary.
The emergency classification levels are intended to be anticipatory in nature.
They are initiated by plant conditions that allow anticipation of later consequences if conditions are not mitigated.
Decisionmakers are thereby led to appropriate courses of action before offsite consequences are expected.
In summary, to reach a protective action recommendation, i
l
- 12 l
l i
l
(
the initial consideration is bared on plant conditions.
If a recommendation is not made as a result of plant conditions, then projected doses will be calculated and compared to the PAGs.
2.
Implementation of Precautionary and Protective Actions for the Summer, Seasonal Population Actions prescribed for implementation of precautionary and protective actions for the public, and specifically for the seasonal beach populction, are contained in appendices to both the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management and the Division of Public Health Services procedures (Volume 4, Appendix F and Volume 4A, Appendix U as modified).
These procedures establish explicit actions for implementation of early, precautionary measures and protective actions for the Hampton and Seabrook beaches, a.
Public Alert and Notification A key provision for initiation of protective actions is prompt notification of the public.
This is achieved by activation of a system of fixed sirens situated throughout the 17 New Hampshire communities.
These sirens provide audible alert coverage of the New Hampshire EPZ communities.
For beach areas where precautionary actions may be recommended (i.e., Hampton and Seabrook beaches), sirens have l
been designated for potential activation in early stages of I
an emergency for the purpose of initiating precautionary l
actions.
Procedures are in place for these sirens to sound an alert signal and to broadcast a voice message in both English and French to advise beach populations of actions they should take.
Procedures provide for immediate (within 15 minutes of the State's decision) activation of the audible alert system by either Rockingham County Dispatch Center or as a backup, by the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook after precautionary or protective action decisions are made for beach areas.
Activation of the audible alert signal would be followed by a voice message over the siren public address system containing emergency instructions for the public.
The script of the voice message is:
"Attention.
. Attention.
Because of a problem at Seabrook Station, the beaches are now closed.
Please leave the beach immediately.
Listen to a local radio station for more information."
(NHRERP, Vol. 16, pg. IV-18h; Vol. 18, pg. IV-26g.)
In addition to the audible alert system, a series of permanent signs which display emergency instructions will be posted in recreation areas, including on the beaches, throughout the EPZ.
Currently 18 locations for placement of these signs have been identified in cooperation with the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development.
The instructions explain what to do,when sirens are heard and identify the emergency broadcast stations from which further information and instructions can be obtained.
This information is also displayed in both English and French.
Additional public information materials containing the same
- 14
information, again in both languages, will be available to transients at motels, hotels, and business establishments throughout the EPZ.
Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) messages would be broadcast at 15-minute intervals over radio stations identified on the public information signs and in other informational materials for transients.
The content of the EBS message would depend on the actions recommended by State of New Hampshire decisionmakers.
EBS messages containing instructions for the transient population, including transients without their own means of transportation, are presently being prepared.
b.
Precautionary Actions Precautionary actions planned for implementation for Hampton and Seabrook beaches are delineated in NHRERP, Volume 4,
Appendix F and Volume 4A, Appendix U as modified in.
(See also generally Appendix 1.)
Those actions pertain particularly to the beach areas in an approximate 2-mile radius of Seabrook Station, in other words, those areas that could potentially be most immediately affected.
This area is bounded by Great Boar's Head at l
Hampton Beach to the north and the New Hampshire-I Massachusetts border at Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard at i
Seabrook Beach to the south.
(The procedures contained in NHRERP, Rev.
2, define the northern boundary of this area as Little Boar's Head which is in North Hampton.
The plan and I
procedures are being amended to identify this boundary as Great Boar's Head which is consistent with traffic control and public notification provisions for precautionary actions for the beach.)
Precautionary actions prescribed for this area are:
(1)
Closing beaches that attract seasonal populations and which are in close proximity to the plant; (2)
Implementation of traffic control to discourage transient traffic from flowing into the affected areas, including beach areas; (3)
Issuance of public announcements of actions taken through emergency broadcast and normal media channels; and (4)
Monitoring of traffic flow and local conditions in affected areas.
To facilitate implementation of these actions, the following arrangements have been made:
(1)
The Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED), which has jurisdiction over State beaches and parks, has been designated to assist with closing beaches and parks and adjacent parking areas under its control.
Procedures are in place for DRED to utilize lifeguards, park managers, and other available personnel for this purpose.
(2)
Specific traffic control points have been designated for State and local police to discourage access of transient traffic into beach areas and to facilitate egress l
l of outgoing traffic.
These points are specified for implementation of early precautionary actions.
(3)
Procedures are in place at the Rockingham County Dispatch Center and in the RERPs for the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook for activation of public alert sirens and public announcements for the beaches.
Additionally, public information personnel at both the Media Center and the State EOC are activated at the Alert classification to issue public announcements to the media.
(4)
Utility, State and local emergency response organizations will be activated at the Alert Emergency classification level, to monitor conditions in the plant and in potentially affected areas.
c.
Evacuation As A Protective Action In the event that accident conditions preclude implementation of early precautionary measures for the beach populations, evacuation continues to be the preferred response.
NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6, at page 2.6-11 says:
If all potential radiological exposure can be avoided by implementing a timely evacuation, evacuation may be the preferred protective action.
Where implementation of protective action is deemed appropriate, and where time and plant conditions permit, evacuation will generally be the selected course of action.
Numerous factors can influence the effectiveness of l
evacuation.
They include the delay time between accident warning and initiation of evacuation, the radius within which 4 4
the public is evacuated, evacuation speed, and changing meteorological conditions during the evacuation.
Specific and detailed procedures are provided in the NHRERP to ensure early notification and evacuation of the beach population.
Administrative provision for and coordination of emergency instructions to be broadcast have been provided in NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.1, and Volume 4, NHCDA procedures, and Volume 4B, State Police Communications Center procedures to ensure the flexibility to got the most appropriate message aired in a timely manner for the spectrum of accident conditions.
The conditions covered by these provisions range from when the emergency organizations are fully staffed and are following a slowly developing situation to the case when a severe situation is developing rapidly 4
prior to emergency organizations being able to fully staff or j
assess the situation.
d.
Shelter-in-Place (1)
General Considerations NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6.5 sets forth the shelter-in-place concept an which New Hampshire relies as a protective action option.
The use of sheltering as a protective action for the beach population is dealt with in Appendix 1.
The shelter-in-place concept provides for sheltering at the location in which the sheltering instruction is received.
The NHRERP, Volume 1, at page 2.6-6 explains this to mean:
Those at home are to shelter at home, those at work or school are to shelter in the work place or school building.
Transients located indoors or in private homes will be asked to shelter at the locations they are visiting if this is feasible.
Transients without access to an indoor location will be advised to evacuate as quickly as possible in their own vehicles (1211, the vehicles in which they arrived).
Beach closure or evacuation of the beach areas are the preferred courses of action for the beach population.
Sheltering as a protective action option for this segment of the population would be considered in only a very limited number of circumstances characterized by one or more of the following conditions as described on pp. 7-8 of Appendix 1:
1.
Dose Savings Sheltering could be recommended when it would be the most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction.
New Hampshire has chosen to base its protective action decision on the lowest values 1
cited by EPA guidance, that is 1 rem whole body dose and 5 rem thyroid dose.
The protective action guidelines contained in EPA 520/1-75-001, Manual of Protective Action Guides for Nuclear Incidents, Revised 1980, have been adopted in the protective action procedures of Appendix F and Appendix U.
2.
Consideration of Local Conditions The protective action recommendation procedure of the NHPERP ((modified) Appendix F, Volume 4 and Appendix U, Volume 4A) considers impediments to evacuation when evacuation is the result of the detailed evaluation utilized in the decision-making process.
3.
Transients Without Transportation When evacuation is the recommended protective action for the beach population, certain transients may be without their cwn means of transportation.
Shelter will be recommended for this category of 19 -
l l
transients to ensure they have recourse to some protection while awaiting transportation assistance.
For implementation of this protective action option under any of the three conditions, New Hampshire decisionmakers will rely on the mechanisms now in place, or to be put in place, in the NHRERP for recommending shelter to the public whether on the beach or any place else.
These mechanisms include rapid assessment of accident conditions; activation of the public alert system, which include the beach public address system; and EBS announcements.
It is expected that people will comply with EBS announcements to take shelter and that owners / operators of public access facilities will make their facilities available for this very limited purpose.
(2)
Transients Without Transportation When evacuation is the recommended protective action for the beach population, certain transients may be without their own means of transportation.
Their number is estimated at 2%
r of the peak beach population, as set forth in NHRERP, Volume l
6, page 2-in.
Recent estimates of the peak beach population for Hampton and Seabrook were made using the results of l
(
vehicle occupancy rate surveys and counts of projected peak number of vehicles.
The summer weekend peak population estimates calculated 23,841 for Hampton Beach South and 7,398 for Seabrook Beach.
Using the 2% estimate and the peak population figures yields estimates of peak numbers of -
x.
transients without transportation of 477 at Hampton Beach and 148 at Seabrook Beach.
These are considered to be peak numbers because they do not take into account ride sharing which FEMA's Regional Assistance Committee advises is a significant factor in estimating transportation resource requirements.
With ride sharing considered, it is believed that more than enough capacity exists for all transients without their own transportation.
However, bus routes have been planned and sufficient bus resources identified to provide transportation for persons in the beach areas including summer transients who may lack their own.
The NHRERP is being amended to provide protection to the transients while they are awaiting transportation assistance.
The NHRERP will identify potential shelter locations for the transient beach population without transportation.
The f
shelter study referenced in Section (3), infra, was provided to the State as a resource document.
In its review, the State found the document to be of some value.
It identified a large number of shelters that may serve as a pool from which public shelter choices will be made.
The appropriate EBS message will be modified to provide for instructions to persons on the beach who have no means of transportation to go to public shelters to await assistance in the event evacuation of the beach is recommended.
Appendix 1, pg. 10.
(3)
Stone & Webster Shelter Study, August 1987 "A Study to Identify Potential Shelters in the Beach Areas Near Seabrook Station August, 1987," was performed for New Hampshire Yankee by Stone & Webster Engineering corporation.
This study was performed to identify and approximate sheltering capacities that appear to be suitable for use by the beach population along the Massachusetts and New Hampshire EPZ coastlines.
This study is provided as Applicants' prefiled Exhibit 2.
An analysis of this study has been performed by New Hampshire Yankee and is provided as The State of New Hampshire does not intend at this time to incorporate the August, 1987 Stone & Webster Shelter Study or the analysis of this study into the NHRERP nor rely on the shelter study as a planning basis.
As a compilation of available resources, the shelter study may be used to assist in identifying those public buildings to which beach transients without their own means of transportation may be directed for shelter while awaiting transportation assistance.
3.
Implementation of Protective Actions for Campgrounds Specific plans for special facilities within the Seabrook Station EPZ are contained in appendices to the local plans of the NHRERP, Volumes 16 - 32.
These appendices are labeled Appendix F of Volumes 16 - 32.
Appendix F will include plans for campgrounds located in the respective municipalities.
The plans are to identify the campgrounds to which they pertain and contain descriptive information about the campgrounds.
They are also to explain the method of notification and the actions to be taken, a.
Notification All campgrounds in the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ are covered by the system of fixed sirens.
As a supplement to the sirens, campgrounds will be offered tone-alert radios which will enable proprietors or managers to be advised of any protective measures recommended for the public.
The tone-alert radios are activated by the EBS radio signal over which emergency instructions will be transmitted.
A supply of public information materials, including posters and i
brochures, will be provided to all campgrounds; and the plans call for campground operators to ensure that public information materials containing emergency instructions are available for users of their facilities.
Therefore, there are two methods of notification.
One is the siren signal.
Second, the operators will be alerted by tone-alert radios which provide notification and emergency instructions.
b.
Actions The campground plans provide that at a Site Area or General Emergency, campgrounds may be directed to undertake a protective response or to close on a precautionary basis.
If the facility is advised to close as a precaution or if there l
I is a sheltering recommendation announced for any part of the t
EPZ, campground operators would instruct campers to leave the area.
If an evacuation is recommended in any part of the EPZ, campground operators would make an accounting of all current users of the campground and instruct campers to evacuate the area by evacuation routes specified in the campground plan.
The total maximum capacity of campgrounds in the Seabrook Station EPZ is approximately 8500 campers.
This maximum capacity of campground users is distributed over a total of 1889 camp sites in 18 campgrounds situated within 11 of the 17 municipalities of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
- Thus, campground users constitute neither a significantly large number nor an inordinate concentration of persons in any one area of the EPZ.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that campground users would be able t.o depart the area rapidly whether this was to occur prior to an evacuation of the general population or during such an evacuation.
Maximum total vehicle capacity of campgrounds is approximately 2950, or 1 vehicle for every 2.9 campers.
Five of these campgrounds are day and youth camps for which nineteen buses have been allocated.
Consequently, there is ample vehicle capacity for campground users to depart from the area.
4.
Sheltering for the General Public a.
Concept of Shelter-in-Place As explained previously, New Hampshire employs the shelter-in-place concept as a protective action option for
- 24
the general public.
This concept provides for short-term sheltering at the location in which the sheltering instruction is received.
Those at home are to shelter at home, those at work or school are to be sheltered in the work place or school building.
Except for institutionalized populations, sheltering and evacuation will be implemented on a municipality by municipality basis in New Hampshire.
One town may be advised to take shelter, while an abutting town is advised to evacuate or take no protective action.
Therefore, shelter areas in New Hampshire are defined as municipalities.
The decision to implement sheltering or evacuation of a particular municipality in the EPZ would be based on a prediction that projected doses to the general population would equal or exceed EPA PAGs for these areas.
b.
Assessment of Existing Shelter Adequacy The NHRERP, Volume 1, Table 2.6-4 provides representative values of cloud dose reduction factors for typical structures that can be found in the Seabrook Station EPZ.
On the basis of these values, New Hampshire decisionmakers can approximate the level of protection that would be afforded to the population by a protective action recommendation to shelter.
The values range from 0.2 or less (80% protection) for large office or industrial type buildings to 0.9 (10% protection) for wood-frame houses with no basements.
Based on the documents, Structure Shieldina !
from Cloud and Fallout Gamma Rav Sources for Assessina the Consecuences of Reactor Accidents, EG&G, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, EGG-1183-1670 (1975) and Public Protection Stratecies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidentst Shelterina Concents With Existina Public and Private Shelters by Aldrich, et al.,
February 1978, and their analysis of typical structures to be found in the Northeast region of the United States, Seabrook Station EPZ structures have a cloud dose reduction factor of at least 0.91 and this is, therefore, a reasonable dose reduction factor to be assumed by the NHRERP.
As an assumed dose reduction factor, New Hampshire decisionmakers would apply this factor to calculations of projected doses to determine the level of protection that would bn provided by implementation of sheltering.
The only exceptions to this rule are certain institutions, including hospitals, nursing f
homes, and correctional facilities, where risks from evacuation are higher than that for the general population.
For these institutions, shielding factors of the individual structures have been determined and would be applied to calculation of projected doses to the resident populations according to instructions contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U.
(1)
Shelter Effectiveness of Residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ Because of their location in the Northeast region of the United States, year-round residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ residences can be expected to consist of substantial..
+
construction materials and to be of airtight construction.
Essentially any indoor location, even a wood-frame house with no basement, provides at least a 10% reduction for a cloud source.
This assessment of the relative shelter effectiveness of structures in the Seabrook Station EPZ indicates that typical residential structures afford a cloud shielding factor of at least 0.9.
(2)
Shelter Effectiveness of Schools and Day care Centers It is reasonable to assume that schools and day care centers share the prevailing characteristics of typical structures of the Seabrook Station EPZ, and are airtight, winterized structures.
Further, because protective action recommendations for the general population are applied to schools and day care centers, evaluation of protection afforded by these structures would neither make them more suitable for sheltering, nor affect the choice of the sheltering option.
Specific protective action recommendations would not be made for schools (which, for the purpose of the plan, include day care centers) based on the relative sheltering factors of their structures.
The NHRERP explicitly says in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U that sheltering factors other than 0.9 are not to be considered for school facilities.
Schools (and day care centers) will follow the same protective actions prescribed for the general population.
i Appandix 1, Paga 1 of 47 STATE OF NEW H AMPSHIRE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
- c f' ' 4 cn>c er tre,seacy wenagement i
E siete ca.c Par sewin
'R y-l*?
1019'esstat Street y
- Conwd. New Maepsmo 03301 m
- 601 271 2231 JOHN H. SUNUNU 1 400-852 3793 Rich Amo H. STROVE c e,e a,,
C er:'
JAMES A. s AGG:oTES
- e:s,: ee::-
February 11, 1988 Mr. Henry G. Vickers Regional Adninistrat:r Federal Emergency Manage ent Agen:y 422 McCormack Post Office Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Vickers:
In the Succle emtal Testi.onv of Dave v Louchlin, Edward A. The as and william R. Cummine en Behnif of the Federal Etercencv Manace ent a en v en c
Shelterino/ Beach Peculatien Issues, filed on January 25, 1988, the Federal Emergency Manage ent Agency (FEMA) stated its current position with resce:t to its review of sele:ted oortions of the New Hampshire Radiological Etergency Response Plan (NMRERP). FEMA sum arized its position as follows:
Briefly out, FEMA's position is (a) that it is accrocriate to consider further the adequacy of the emergency response plan for the transient population of the beaches within the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) during the summer, that is, from May 15 to September 15, as indicated in the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP); (b) that the requirement of NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, for a "range of protective actions" mav er may not be satisfiad by evacuation alone; (c) that FEMA cannot conclu e that the NHRERP is adequate with resce:t to that beach population until it is clear that the State of New Hampshire has considered the use of sheltering for the transient beach population and explains what use, if any, it intends to make of sheltering. This latter point should not be interpreted to mean that FEMA has imposed a requirement that sheltering be available.
If the State of New Hampshire intends not to emoloy sheltering for the transient beach population (which is not DIesently clear from the NHRERP), then FEMA expects the State to develop the rationale for such a choice and provide it to FEMA for review.
)
___. __ a
Appendix 1, Page 2 of 47 i
1 Ouring the January 29, 1988 conference call among the carties in the Seab:cek 0;erating License Preceeding, the State of New Hampshire ~1ndicated
)
that it would respond, within two weeks, to the concerns raised by FEMA in its sucole ental testimony.
The State's respense to FEMA's Questions about protective actions for the Seabrock EP2 beach oc ulatien is set forth in the accompanying enclosure.
New Ha Oshire accreciates the ecmrents and assistance provided by FEVA relative to the New Ha Oshire Sheltering policy, We believe the encloseg material addresses the concerns raised and we welcome the continued opportunity to work in concert with FEMA in develeping Quality emergency plans j
for the people of New Ha :: Shire.
4 Sincerely, p
)
i Richard H. Strome i
Director j
RHS/MMN/cjf Seabrook Operating License Proceedings Service List cc:
7848 i
I i
i i
i l
Appsndix 1, Pago 3 of 47 En:losure 1 New Ha*0 shire ReSO:nSe to FEVA Suc0le*. ental Testi eny At volume 1, Section 2.6, the plan adcresses "protective res:onse." Tne plan explains tnat tne coje:tive of protective responses by tne State is "...
to control the radiological exposures to wnien One puolic may te suojecte: in the event of a signifi: ant release of radiologi:al materials fron a fixec nuclear fa:ility." Tne se: tion explains that there are various radiati:n exposure patnways, ano outlines tne feceral protective acti:n gui es (PAGs) for cotn plume exposure EPZs an: ingestion patnaay EPZs. At Section 2.6.5, the plan outlines tne specific protective a:tions a:catec cy the State fc:
reducing di:ect exposure of the puoli within the plume exposure EPI.
New Ham;snire will rely on tao prote0tive a:tions for limiting tne oirect exposure of the general puoli: within tne Plume Exposure EPZ. These are sneltering and eva:uation. Eitner of tnese pictective actions will be coupled witn ac:ess control to prevent unautnorized entry into tne area in whi:n the prote:tive a: tion is teing implemented.
( W ERP Vol 1. p. 2.6-4) inis general statement of policy was drafted to be the basis of state policy for either of tne two nuclear power plants with plume exposure EPZs witnin the State. It snould not be inferred f cm this statement of policy, however, that sneltering is afforded the sa*e weight as evacuation as a means to effect dose savings. Subsec;uent portions of the plan descrice the relative merits of tne two prote:tive actions and descrites the rationale anc procecures for chcosing protective actions. Sneltering is a protective action of limited usefulness in realizing dose savings for the population, regardless of the season. For a limited range of conditions, however, the protective action of sheltering is not without benefits.
Appendix 2, Page 4 of 47 Sheltering is a valua:le c::te:tive res ense for several reas ns. It can ce implemente: cuic<ly, usually in a matter of minutes.
In a::iti:n, it is less ex:ensive and less cisru::ive of normal a:tivities tnan evacuation.
Ir:lementation an canagement of sheltering is also less cemancing en the resources of ne e e:gency res ense o;;aniza:1:n since n venicles, traf fic centrol and cis:atening of e:vi;;ed emergency a::4ers is requhee.
(te;E:,F, Rev. 2, V 1. 1 at c. 2.6-5)
To make sure sneltering is tas: an0 easily canage, as tnis statere :
intencs, tne 5: ate nas a::st. a s:ecific sneltering conces:.
c "New Ham:snire e :1'fs tre 'Snelte:-in : lace' c nce::.
Tnis ::ovi:es f::
sneltering at tne 10:a:1:n in ani:n tne snel:ering inst:w::1:n is receive 0.
Tnese at nome are to snelte: a: nome; : nose a: a::< :: s:n::1 are to e snel:ere: in w a::<pla:e c: s: noel cuilcing.
Transients locate: ind:::s or in private n: es will Oe asked to snel:e: at tne locations tney are visiting if :nis is feasicle.
Transients witn:u:
a::ess to an in::ct 10 ati:n aill ce a:visec to evacuate as cui:kly as possiele in tneir can veni:les (i.e., tne venicles in ani:n :ney arrives). Ce:s: ting transients aill ce a: vised to close tne winc:as of tnel veni les ano use re:ir:ulating air until they nave cleared tne a:ea suoject to raciation.
If ne:essary, transients witnout transcortati:n ray seek cire::icns to a nearoy pu:li: ouilding from local emergency w :ke:s.
(NHRE.3 Vol 1. p. 2.6-6) i Implicit in a :: ting tnis position are tnree key fa:: cts. First, tne State wanted a sneltering concept tnat aas uncomplicated an0 manageaole.
Tne shelter-in-pla:e c ncept meets tnis criteri;n. Secono, the State aante: a sheltering :nce:t that it C0uld rely upon to be implemented QJickly.
Tne snelter-in-place concept meets this criterion; a sheltering concept that requires the movement of people to a remote snelter locati:n may not. Thir,
tne State feels that if a release of radiati:n warrantec ecvement of tne puolic, tney are mu:n more likely to ce afforced meaningful dose recu:tions cy moving out of tne EFZ than by moving to a snelter witnin toe EFZ.
Inis is tne case since the me cers of the puolic would ce, in effect, "eva:uating" to a snelter.
This a: tion would re;uire forming family groups or social units prior to moving, ce: icing ahetner to seek shelter or evacuate spontaneously, ch:csing a moce of transportation (i.e., walk or rice), seeking a destinati:n (i.e., home or shelter), and uncertaking the pnysical movement.
Appendix 1, page 5 of 47 Furtnermore, since sneltering is a ter.corary prote:tive action, tnese tnat sovent puoli snelte:.0uld be faces itn tne p::sce:t of assuming s: e cose anile see<ing snelter, more anile sneltering, and even more curing a sucse:: vent evacuati:n.
Su:n consicerations cissuade tne state from consicering tne movement of large numcers of pe:ple to puoli: snelters as a primary prote:tive a:tien for tea:n transients, given tnat evacuation is seen as p : vicing cose savings in nearly all a::ident s:enaries.
inis p:siti:n c:es not pre: luce tne State f: m consicering anc selecting sheltering as a p::te:tive action f:: One cea:n peculation. Neve:tneless, evacuation is a mucn mere likely p :te:tive a: tion ce:isien curing tne sum.mer months wnen s0me cea:n transients cannet shelter in place, but must leave or move to puolic shelters.
in:cugn tne RAC review p ccess, FEMA mace it known to tne State tnat it f
.as con erned atout a snelter-in pla:e concept that could, in fact, result in a nasty evacuation of the transient tea:n population snortly cefore, or curing, a release. For example, tne FEMA tecnnical review comments on tne Ce:emce: 1934 craft of the thRERP contained tne followiq cox,ent regarding the ceach population:
Early a: cess control and cea:n instructions may have to be implemented, and this must be consicered in a:vance botn in terms of prote:tive a: tion cecision ma<ing and publi:
notification of such.
At FEMA's suggestion, the State, in Revision 0 to the NhRER?, a: Opted additional means for ad::essing this concern. Those means consist of closing or evacuating the bea:nes and establishing access control as early "precautionary actions." The pre:autionary a: tion process is a cetailed 3
l i
Appendix 1, Page 6 of 47 p :ce:ure use: Oy ce:isi:n rakers fron May 15 tn: ugn Septence: 15, tne ncntns ine p ::e:ste in wnien enere is p::ential f:: a significant cea:n p::vlati:n.
01:se :: eva:ua:e a_.ises cecisi:n akers to cl:se tre :ea:nes curing Alert c:
tne cea nes during Site A:ea Ener;ency con itions cefore p:::e::ive acti:n inis would mean tnat tne cea:n p;pulati n a ul:
consicerations are arran:e:.
Tne ce g:ne cef::e an eva:uation/snelter de:isien ceca e ne:essary.
availacility of tne pre:auti: nary acti:n p:::ecure is cite: in Se:ti:n 2.6.5 of :ne plan:
la "ine ::nci:1:ns unce; ani:n su:n an a::icn may te taken are ces::1:e:
teAERP vol. 4 hnC A Pro e:ures, Ap;encix F."
A:ta:n..en: I).
A ::py of tne pre:auti: nary a:tien p:::ecure is atta:ne:. (see:
Tne a::lti n of these pre:autionary measures alleviates m:st :ncerns Tne State's position is case, in a:out sheltering tne cea:n p;pulation.
part, upon the RAC evaluation of tne State Response to the RAC review of tNREA? Rev. 2.
At page 64/134, tne RAC evaluation state::
Accorcing to the State res:ense and the plan revisions, the use of puoli Tne only snelters is not propose: curing a Seabrook Stati n energen:y.
exception is tne poss1 Die use of public cuildings for snelte:s for Transients witn trans;o::ation an:
transients witnout transportation.
'without access to an indoor location' will te acvised to evacuate in The use of puolic cuiloin;s or sheltering of tneir own venicles.
transients without transportation is acceptacle since tne transients l nunser.
witnout t:snsportation are expe:tec to te a very snal These pre:auti: nary actions and the State enphasis on getting tne populati:n out early are consistent alth a:tions planned at other nuclear p0wer plant sites with transient p;pulations.
.4
Appendix 1, Page 7 of 47 On:e a General Emergency is declared, State of New Hampsnire ce:isien nakers cegin a cetaileo evaluation of the prote:tive actions to te re:0-dended. Since tne General Emergency as cefine ty NUREG-0654, FEvt,-REo-1 is a c:ndition wnere "releases can te reasonaoly ex e:ted to ex:eec EPA Protective A ti:n Guiceline exposure levels for.ote : nan the ime:iate site area," it is at tnis ceint tnat relative c:se savings tetaeen eva:ua:1:n an:
sneltering are evaluated in a::c :ance altn the prote:tive a :icn ce:isi:n criteria of tMER? Volume 4 A :endix F anc volume AA Ascencix U f:: tne generai : ;ulati:n including the cea:n populati:n.
For the af0rementioned reasons, it is the 5:Ste's positi:n tna; evacuation is the protective res00nse tnat would Oe used in resp:nse to tne majority of emergency scenarios a: Seac:::k, en: tnat the p::te:tive a:tien of sneltering may ce preferacle to evacuation in only a very limite: num e: of a::icent scenarios.
Tne State is currently prepared to re cmmene implemen:a:icn of its snelter-in-place con =ept at citner of the two plume exposure EP2's in New Hampsnire. Tne snelter-in-pla:e advisory will n:: ally ce issue 3, fc: ei:ner EPZ, only under s:enarios that are chara:terized by one or more of tne following three conditions:
1.
Dose Savings Sneltering could ce recommended wnen it would be the more effective option in a:nieving maximum oose reduction. New Ham 0$nire has Cnosen to case its protective action decisions on the lowest values cited oy EPA guidance, tnat is i rem whole body cose and 5 rem tnyroic dose.
The protective a: tion guidelines contained in EPA 520/1-75-001, Manual of Prote:tive Action Guides for toelear Incidents, Revised 1980, have teen a :pted in tne protective a: tion pro ecures of Appendix F and Appendix U.
App 3ndix 1, Page 8 of 47 2.
Consiceration of Lc:al C:ncitions Tne prote:tive a: tion re: mnencation p:::ecure of tne twisp
( Appendix r, vol. 4 and Appendix u, vol. 4A) c:nsicers 1 eciments to i
evacuati:n wnen evacuation is the result of tne cetailed evaluati:n utill:ec in :ne ce:ision making process.
3.
Transients Witncut Transportation wnen eva:uation is the re:cmmenced protective acticn f0: ne cea:n p :>ulati:n, certain transients may te without their own meane of transportation. Snelter will ce proviceo for tnis category of transients to ensure tney have re curse to some prote:ti:n. nile awaiting trans:c:tation assistan:e.
i A major reason for the State's reliance en evacuation is the re::gnition that, curing the s c.e: months, the large transient cea:n peculati:n potentially present c nstrains the use of the snelter-in-place option as a means of a:nieving c:se savings f:: that segment of the entire p::ulation.
Many of tne bea:n transients are cay tri::ers witncut ready a::ess to a resicence for sheltering as envisione: in the shelter-in-pla:e cencept. Tne a;;ption of early Oea:h cl: sings and tne pre:autionary a: tion of cea:h evacuations (an: their attendant a::ess c nt:01 to stop the influx of teach g ers) is intenced by the State to minim!Ze tne populati:n that could De sucject to possiDie protective actions at a later time.
Tne State plans to continue its use of the shelter-in-place concept. It continues to assume that the shelter-in-place con:ept can be aug,ented. It can be augmented by the pre:autionary tea:h closures, and it can be augtentec ey retaining the ability to use s me publi: shelters if a need to shelter transients without transportation occurs.
Appondix 1, Page 9 of 47 Tne utility has sponsore: a bea:n area Snelter Study un:ertaken :y St:ne and Webste; Engineering Cor; oration.
Tnis stu:y =as ;;cvi:e: to the State as a rescur:e c :u ent.
In its revie, the State f:an the c::u ent to :e of some value.
It identified a large nuncer of snelters tna ey serve as a ;;;l f:0m wnien puoli snelter enoi:es will be ma:e. Basec u :n its revien cf tne Snelter Stucy, tne State is conficent that unforeseen ceman for snelter can te met provided tnat the limits of usefulness inherent in any shelter (e.g.,
sneltering fa::::s, weatne:ization, ca;6:ity, et:.) are c:nsicere: in :ne ce:ision-making ::::ess.
W9en evacuati:n is tne re: nmenced p :tective a: tion f:: the cea:n population, certain transients may ce witncut tneir can means of trans:c tation.
An estimate of tne num:e: of ces:n transients who may not have their Own trans;;; tat 100 is 24 of the peak bea:n p DJlation, as set fortn in NHRERP, Volume 6, page 2-1 n.
Tne State agrees with tne RAC's advice to i
consicer rice sha:Ing as a significant fa:ter in estinating transportation resource requirements, and celieves tnat sufficient rice snaring capa:ity exists for transients without their own transportation.
In a:dition, cus
- utes have teen planned and bus resources icentified to p::vi:e transportation f : persons in the cea:n areas wne may la:k neir can.
However, tnera is a concern that some me:nanism Oe provide 0 fc: tnis cate; cry of transients to ensure they have sone prote: tion anile awaiting transportation assistance.
h Using the 24 estimate and the 1987 peak population figures cerived by KLD for the bea:n areas of concern, the numcer of transients witnout transportation mignt ce as hign as 480 in Hampton Beach and 150 in Seat:c:a 7
__.m..
Appendix 1, Page 10 of 47 Sea:n. On the casis of the Snelter Stu y, there is ca:a:ity in existing cuildings at ha ;t:n Des:h anc Seac:c k Sea:n to snelter th:se J
trams;ortation :e:encent t:ansients at tne cea:n until trans:ortation assistance is mace availacle, ne p :cose to amend the plan to 1:entify potential shelter 10:ati:ns f::
the transient cea:n p: ulation witnout trans;; tatien. The a::::oriate E65 message will ne ::ifies to p;cvice'for instructi:ns to persons :n tne cea:n no nave no reams Of trans; :tation to go to puoli: shelters to aaait assistan:e in tne event eva:usti:n of tne tes:n is re:c.anceo.
In its int ::u: tion, FORE 3 06% FEMA-REP-1, Rey, 1 ::iteri:n J. F:gtective Resp:nse suggests tnat emergen:y planning sh:ulo ensure tnat:
t A range of protective a:tions have been develo;ed for the plu.e exposure patnaay EPZ for emergen:y workers and the puolic. Guidelines for tne encice of protective actions caring an emergency, consistent nitn fe:eral guicance, are cevel pec and in pla:e...
As previously explained, the State nas developed cotn eva:uation and i
sheltering options for ;::te: ting tne puolic. Eitner of these cations may te couplec witn a::ess control. Tne tNAER? states that eitner of tnese prote:tive actions "... will be implemented on a tNnicipality-by-municipality basis." (NhAERP Vol 1.p. 2.6 11) Furtne:more, the range of prote:tive a:tions availasle to the State is expanced of tnree spe:ial consicerations. One is spe:ific consiceration given to spe:ial fa:llities:
1 i
For institutionali:e: pooulations (including those in hospitals, nursing hotes and jails), a more cetailed evaluation of prote:tive action l
reco nencations is uncertaken :ased upon fa:ility-s:ecific sneltering l
p ctection fa: tors. Sneltering in pla:e mill nr x. ally ee tne preferre:
I (
~-
Appendix 1, Page 11 of 47 protective action for. institutional facilities. tne nature of wnicn require tnat the implementation of protective actions, particularly evacuation, ce considered very carefully with respect to associatec ris<s and derived-benefits.
Tne actual dose criteria (PACS) utilized in choosing between sneltering and evacuation will De the same for tne general-population and institutionalized incivicuals.
(NnAERP vol. 1, p.
2.6-7) i A second special consiceration is tne potential precautionary acti:n of closing or early evacuation of beaches before protective actions are necessary. A third s:ecial censideration is the State's ability to uncerta<a additional protective responses, inclucing using puoli: snelters for tne transient populati n without transportation. Tc;stner, tnese various optiens provice New Hampsnire with a oroad range of protective acti ns frCm whiCn to Choose.
Tne State als telieves that its casis for selecting protective actions is sound.
The basis is described in NHRERP Rev. 2 Vol. 1 Section 2.6.7 Criteria for Selectino Protective Actions for Direct Excesure Witnin the Plume Excesure EPZ (p. 2.5-24).
Since FEMA has founc these criteria to fall short of being clear, however, tne State has attempted some draft clarifications to key elements of tne protective action decision criteria. The draft revisiens are attached. (See: Attachment 2).
Should FEMA find these craft improvements remove its doubts about the process for selecting protective actions, the State is prepared to adopt them as plan enanges.
In using the procedure as modifiec, decision makers are directed to Figure 1A of the procedure to consider factors related to the actual or potential radiological release. These variables are derived from the guicance of ESA 520/1-78-0018. Considered specifically are: the time to release, time of plune arrival at a specified location, time of exposure at the reference location, projectec dose, EPA PAGs, evacuation times, ano shelter dose 9
. y i '
Appendix 1, Page 12 of 47 reduction factors. 'At the General Emergency classification, tne evaluation is first performed for tne area of most immediate concern, that is witnin acout two (2) miles of the plant. After the radiological consequences are evaluated, a recommendation will be reachec.
It is at this point that tne local conditions that may affect tne recommendation are considered. Tnese conditions are descriced in Attacnment C to Acpendix F, Vol. 4, N6RERP, and includes local meteorolegical ccnditicns, conditions of the 100al read network, and any natural or manmace impediments to evacuation.
Once the evaluation prccess is completed, a recommendatien to tne public will be made by decision makers.
It must ce r.cted that tne prccecures will caution decision makers that if precautionary closure or evacuation cf tne beacnes has been recommended, then such measures must continue to oe the recommended protective action.
\\
4 l
I t
I
' 78638 I
...------.-n
1 1
Appendix 1, Page 13 of 47
.+
1:
AITACRMENT I i
i i
A:.:E.NOIX F FROTECT:vE ACTILN CECISICN CRITERIA 4
l l
l
[
Vol. 4 Rev. 2 e/85
Appendix 1, Page 14 of 47 STATE OF t;EW HAPPSHIRE
!.s P 0TECTIVE ACTION CECISION CRITERIA 1.
Fur:cse This accandix establishes criteria and guidance to facilitate protective acticn de:isi:ns f r the ;eneral ;;;ulation within the Plums Ex;:sure Pathway Emergency Planning 2:ne fer the Seatt::k Stati:n. Criteria en:
guidance f:r pr:tective a:ti:n ce:isions are also previce: f:. cer:ain s;s-cial pe;ula'tiens and fer ssnrer : ;ula:icns.
II. Rese:nsibility A.
A ident assessment pers:nnel of the Division of Public Health Services are rescensi le fer impler.enting parts III. A. and III.S. cf this a;;endix.
L f,.c,.
B.
Cecisicn making pers:nnel of the Governer's office, Tne New Haceshire Civil Cefense Agency, and the Divisien of Public Health Services are resp:nsible fer implementing deci:icn guidance contained in Part IV of this appendix.
III. Prctective Action Cecisiens fcr General Peculation l
A.
Use cf Protective Action Re:3nnendation Worksheet f:r General Population 1.
Obtain a ce;y of Figure 1A, Protective Action Re:antendation Werksheet fcr General Pcpulation.
2.
Using inferration fran the nuclear facility cperate., IFO per-sonnel will complete a worksheet for each distance of interest.
r:i.
Vol. 4 F-1
. Rev. 2 B/SS
Appendix 1, Page 15 of 47 3.
Repert the results of the evaluaticn to the CFHS IFO Cecrdinatcr and the NHCCA ECF Liaisen.
8.
Additienal Consideratiens fer Special Facilities with Significant Shielding Characteristics 1.
Cbtain a ccpy of Figure 18, Special Facility Frctective Action Werksheet.
2.
C plete tne wcrksheet.
l 3.
Repcrt the results cf the evaluatien to the CF-S IFO Cecedinater and the NHCOA EOF Liaisen.
CAUTION SPECIAL FACILITY SHELTERING FACTCRS LISTEC CN FIGURE 5 AFS NOT TO EE CCNSICERED FOR SCHCCL FACILITIES.
SC"CCLS WILL FCLLOW TkE Sari PROTECTIVE ACTIONS 3
FRESCRIEED FOR ThE CEfERAL PCOULATICN, C.
Plant Systen Considerations for early PDjtective actiC0 decisich making in the event of a fast moving incident are centained in AttacN ent A.
i.
O.
Potential offsite constraints to be censidered in determining action time for implenentation of protective acticns are contained in j
Attachesnt C.
2 IV. Fratective Action Cecision Making fer Seasonal Beach Poculations A.
General Considerations 1.
Precautionary actions affecting seasonal beach populations may be warranted at en early stage of an energency.befere protec-tive actions fcr the genaral pcpulation are warranted.
l 2.
Radiological assessment data may not be available er useful when considering early precautionary action decisicns for
(
seasonal beach populations.
[
Vol. 4 F-2 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 16 of 47 3.-
Pregncsis of detericrating plant conditions may co cel imple-mentatien of precauticnary acticns, withcut censideratien of PAG ranges, when seascnal beach pcpulatiens are pctentially affected. Pertinent plant systern censideratices are indicatec' in Attach.ent A.
4 Frecauticna y acticns for seascnal beach pcpulaciens wculd include:
a.
Cicsing beaches and c:ner rec: a tienal facilities that att. ace seasonal populatiens and whien are in c1cse proxi-mity tc the plant, i.e. within an appecxi ate 2 mile
- radius, c.
Imple entatien of access and traffic centrol at readway points leading to these affected areas tormniter traffic and to advise pecple of acticns taken.
c.
Issuance of public anncunes ents of acticns taken through
.nc:Tnal r edia channels.
d.
Continued recnitcring of traffic ficw and local ecoditions in affected areas.
1 CAUTICel s
PRECAUTI'.7]ARY ACTICfl$ SHOULD EE CONSICERED FOR THE PERIOD MAY 15 THROUGH EEPTEMEER 15.
B.
Precautionary and Protective Actions by Emergency Classification Level 1.
Alert a.
Initiating Cenditions Vol 4.
F-3 Rev. 2 8/85
e Appendix 1, Page 17 of 47 (1) Wind direction is toward tne teach (from 2000 ::
, n 03' 2
(2) Plant c:nditiens as cetenmined y plan: pers:nnel indicate tnat a majer plant system is unsts le er cegrading.
c.
Acti:ns (1) Advise Capartment of Res:urces and E::nami:
Cevel:pmen: (CRED) :: close tee nes an: s ate park areas in hampt:n Seach and in See:re:k Sea n ce: ween Little Stars Hea: Avenue to tne N:rtn anc R:ute 255 (NH/f% bercer) to tne Scutn.
Reccarenc tnat tne Towns of Ham;; n an Sea:reck cl:se any t:wn-supervised teaches in c ncurrence with the state's decision.
(2) Advise CRED to implement special patr:ls to e: vise teach and state park populations of cicsing anc to assure that cea:nes and parks are cleared.
(3) Cequest Rockingham C0unty Dispaten Center to active e the Puelic Alert and Notification System alcng the beaches in Karpten and Seabrock to ann unce the cic-sings.
(4) Cecrdinate witn State Police btplenentation of a: ess 2
control (i.e., to facilitate movement cf departing traffic and to control incoming traffic) at the follewing locations:
+
(a) Intersection of Routes 51 and I-55 ( lese exit 2) 2 (b)
Intersection of Routes 107 and I-55 (clcse exit 1)
Vol. 4 F-4 Rev. 2 8/85
Appandix 1, Page 18 of 47 (5) Advise Har.pton Police Cepartment to estaclish traffic centrol points at:
(a) Intersection of R:utes 51 and U.S. 1 (c) Ocean Eculevarc (Route 1A) and Reute 51 (c) Landing Read and Route 51 (d) Otner traffic centrol points witnin Ham;t:n as dested necessary to facilitate tne firs of traffic.
(e)
If required, the NH State Police will esta:lish these traffic control points.
(5) Advise Seatrcck Police Cepartment to esta:lish traffi:
control peints at:
(e) Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Eculevard (Route 1A and R0ute 2S5)
(c) Washington Road and Route 285 (d) Other traffic centrol points within Seabrock as dested necessary to facilitate the flew cf traffic.
(e)
If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
NOTE:
Seabreck Police Departnent should request Salisbury, Massachusetts Police Department to establish traffic control at Lafayette Rved and Route 2SS.
2 Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 8/85
Appendix 1, Page 19 of 47 (7) Issue the fellowing news release through tne t'edia Center at Newingt:n Tcwn Hall: TrERE HAS EEE'l AN ALERT CECLARED AT THE SEAERCCK STATION. AS A FRECAUTICN, TriE STATE CF f'EW HAMFSHIRE HAS CLCEED SEACH AND STATE FARK AREAS IN FMFTCM EEACH AND IN SEAERCCK BEACH. FRECAUTIONARY ACTICNS IfCLUCE RESTRICTING ACCESS TO SEAERCCK EEACH '.:0 HAMPTCN EEACH. THERE IS Q REASCN FCR Tr2 FUELIC TO TAKE A'.Y FURTrER ACTIONS AT LIS TIME.
Site Area E. ergency with Sta01s Flant 'Conditiens 2.
a.
Initiating Conditions (1) Wind cirecti:n is tcsarc tne ::sa:n (CCC3 to 3009, 2
(2) Plant ecnditions are stable witncut indication of further degradation.
t:.
Actions (1) Advise Ce;: art.snt of Rescurces and E:en:rnic Develc rent (OREO) to close beaches and state park areas in Hepton Beach and in Sea::reck Esach bet een l
Little Ecars Head Avenue to the N0rtn and Route 2EE to the South.
Recomend that the tearis of Hepten and Sea::reck cicse any town-supervised beaches in concurrence with the state's decisien.
t l
(2) Advise CREO to irrpler.ent special patrols to assure beaches and parks in these areas are cleared.
I l
(3) Request Rockingham County Dispaten Center to activate the Public Alert and Notification Systern along the beaches in Hanpten and Seabrock to aancunce the clo-l
(~
sings.
l (4) Cecrdinate with State Police irrolatentation of access 2
centrol and to restrict access en the part cf non-residents to Hanpton Beach and to Seat:reck Eeach frorn
~
- .s the follesing locations
Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 8/55 L
Appendix 1, Page 20 of 47 (a) Intersection of Routes 51 and I-95 (clcse exit 2)
(b) Intersection cf Reutes 107 and I-95 (clnse exit 1)
(5) Advise Hampt:n Police Deparbtent to establish traffi centr:1 points and to restrict access en tne part cf non-residents to Hampt:n Beach at the foll wing 1005-ticns:
'(a)
Intarsection of Reutes 51 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean 5:ulevard (Reute 1A) and R:ute 51 (c) Landing Road and Route 51 1
(d) Ocean E0ulevard at Hampton Har:cr Eridge (010se bridge to ingressing traffic)
(e) Other traffic centrol points within Hampton as deemed necessary to facilitate ficw of 1
traffic.
(f) If required, the NH State Police will estadlish these traffic centrol points.
I i
(6) Advise Seabr::k Police Capardient to establish traffic control pointe and to restrict access en the part of f
non-residents to Seatreck Beach at the following 1cca-tiens:
e (a) Intersection of Reutes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Sculevard (Reute 1A) and Route 285 1
Vol. 4 F-7 Rev. 2 8/66
Appendix 1, Page 21 of 47 (c) Washington R:ad and R:ute 235.
i (d) All other traffic centrol points witnin Seatr ck as deemed necessary to fa:ilitata the flow Of traffic.
2 (e) If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic c:ntr:1 peints.
NOTE:
Advise Seatrock Police to re;ues: the Salis:ury Massachusetts Police Ce:artment t: restrict a::ess en the par cf ncn-residents to Reute 255 fran R:ute 1.
i (7) Prepare the appr:priate EBS Message, in a:::rdance 1
[
with Appendix G, for release.
p (S) Autheri:e activation of Nes Hampshire EPZ sirens.
2 (9) Provide ESS cassage to Media Center at Nesington Tcwn Hall.
3.
Site Area Energency with Degrading Plant Cenditiens a.
Initiating Conditions (1) All matecrological conditions (2) Pregnesis of plant status indicates degradation of a
~
majcr plant systen.
l b.
Actions (1) Advise local ECCs and Massachusetts ECC cf Governce's declaration of state of energency.
(2) Reconnend evacuation of general public cf Fbmpton Beach and Seabreck Beach fran Ocean Eculevard and Little Bears Head to the North and Ocean Boulevard and l
Route 285 to the South. Advise E00s of Seatrcck, 1
l Kanpten, and Karpton Falls.
(3) Advise State Police to establish access control points l
for 2 mile radius. See Attachment B.
..i.
l Vol. 4 F-8 Rev. 2 6/65
- .i.
~
Appendix 1, Page 22 of 47
~*
(4) Advise Ham; ten Felice Cepart, ant to esta:lish traffi c:ntrol points and to restrict entry to Ear; ten Sea:n at the follcwing Iccations:
(a)
Intersection of Reutes 51 and U.S. 1 (c) C ean Eculevard (Route 1A) and R:ute 51 (c) R:ute 51 and Landing Read (d) C:ean 50ulevard at Hampton Har::r Eriege (: lese Oridge to ce;arting and entering traffic, an:
r:ute traffic Nor:n from the Ori:ge).
~
(e) C:ner traffic c=ntrol peints witnin Fampton as deemed necessary to facilitate flew cf traf-fic.
(f)
If required, tne NH State Feli:e will esta:lish these traffic centrol points.
t I
s i
I Vol. 4 F-9 Rev. 2 8/85 w
Appendix-1, Page 23 of 47-
<fa.
e (S) A' vise Seabrcck Police Departx.ent to establish traffi:
d centr:1 ;0ints and.to restrict a: sss to Seatr:ck Seach at the following locations:
(a) Intarsection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1
(:) Ocean Sculevard (R ute 1A) and R:ete 255 (c) Washington Road'and R:uta 2SS (c) Advise Seabre:k Police to re;uest Salis:ury Massa:nusetts Police to restrict a::sss to R:ute 255 from Reute 1 and to facilitate flew of traf-fi: West en R:ute 256 and Seeth en Route 1 (e) C:ner traffic c:n:r:1 points witnin Sea:reck as deemed necessary to facilitate the flew of traffic.
2 (f) If re;uired, the NH State Police will establish these traffic centrol points.
(S) Advise Oe artment HHS to activate Reception Centers at Manchester and Salem. Advise CPHS to activate
~
Cecentamination Centars at Manchester and Salem.
(7) Prepare the appropriate SSS Message, in ac: rdance with Appendix G, for release.
2 (8) Provide SSS massage to Media Center at Nesington Town Hall.
(9) Considar extending protective acticns to other areas of Seabrcok, Hampton, and Hanpton Falls based en:
(a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiolegical Assessment (c) Local Ccnditiens (Attachment C)
(d) Erergency Response Organizatien Status l
(e) Plant Status and Pregnesis i
Vol. 4 F-10 Rev. 2 8/SS l
l L
Appandix 1, Page 24 of 47 i
4 General Er.ergency a.
Initiating c:nditiens (1) All ccnditiens b.
Actions (1) Advise local ECCs and F.assachusetts ECC cf G:vern:r's declaration of state of energency.
(2) Re:3nrend evacuatien of general publi: from all bea:-
areas along 00ean Eculevard within tne t wns of Hampt:n and Seabrock from Ccean E0ulevar: and Nor:n Shere Read to the North and Ocean Eculevard and R:ute 255 to tne 5:uth.
(3) Recantend sheltering f:r all i smaining areas of Ha pten, Hampton Falls, and Seabrcok.
1 (4) If wind is from the South, South-Southeast, f
Scutn-Southwest er Southwest, recantend sheltering fer North Hsept:n.
(5) If wind is from the East-Northeast, East, East-5:utheast, recocrand sheltering Kensingt:n and South Hampton.
(6) Advise the Depart.vant of Rescurces and Economic Cevelepr.ent to close beaches and state park areas in d
Ha pton and Seabrock fron North Shere Read and Ocean 80ulevard to the North and R:ute 285 and Ocean Sculavard to the South, and to 1 ple ent special patrols to assure that beaches and parks are cleared.
(7) Advise State Police to establish a::ess control points fer affected areas in a 2 mile radius and 5 miles t
downwind according to Atta:Nnent 8.
i l
i Vol. 4 F-11 Rev. 2 8/36
n.
Appendix 1, Page 25 of 47 (8) Advise Hanpten Police Cepartesnt to establish traffic centrci points at the fellcwing specific locatiers:
4..
(a) Intersection cf Reutes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ccean Eculevard (Peute 1A) and Reute 51 (c) Reute 51_and Lancing Read (c) Ccean Eculevard at Hampten Herber Eridge (cicss bridge to departing and entering traffic and traffic Ncrth fra? the bridge)
(e) Cther traffic centrol peints within Hampten Eeach as cected recessary to facilitate ficw cf traffic (f) If re;uired the f!H State Police will establish these traffic Centrcl pCints.
(S) Advise Seabrcok Pelice Cep?.rtmei t to establish traffic centrcl peints at the fellcwing specific 1ccatiens:
(a) Intersecticn of Reutes 107 and U.S.1 (b) C een Eculevard (Reute 1A) and Reute 286 (c) Washingten Read ar.d Rcute 286 2
1-I Vol. 4 F-12 Rev. 2 8/86 l
{
F Appendi 1, Page 26 of 47 (d) Seatr:ck Police shculd request Salis:try Massachusetts Police to restrict access en tc Reute 255 from Rcute 1 and to facilitate ficw cf traffic West en Reute 285 and Secth en Rcute 1 (e) Other traffic centrcl points within Seebr:ck as des ed necessary te facilitate the flew cf traf-fic.
2 (f)
If required the f.H State Pelice will establisn these traffic centrcl p0ints.
4 (1C) Advise CapartEent HMS to activate Re:spti:n Cen;ers at i
Salem and Manchester. Advise CPHS t: activate Cecente-iratien Centers at activated Fece:tien Centers.
(ii) Prepare the apprcpriate ESS Message, in a ::rdance with Appendix G, fcr release.
2 (12) Authcrize activation cf sirens in tlsw He pshire EFZ.
(13) Previde EES message te Media Center at tlewingten Tcwn Hall.
(14) Ccncider extending protective actices to cther areas of the EFZ tased en:
(a) Metacrclegical Ccnditices (b) Radiclegical Assessment (c) Lccal Ccnditiens (Attacheent C)
(d) Emergency Respense Crgenizatien Status (e) Plant Cenditiens Vol. 4 F-13 Rev. 2 8/85
Appendix 1, Page 27 of 47 V.
FIGURES A.
FIGURE 1 A Fr:tective Action Reccatendati0n W rksheet 8.
FIGURE 18 S ecial Fecility Frcts:tive A tien Workshes:
C.
FIGURE 2 Frotective Acticn Recannendation By Town O.
FIGURE 3 Eva:ustien Clear Times By Wind Directi:n E.
FIGURE 4 Fratective Action Re:3ntendatien Guidan:e Cnar:s F.
Figure 4A Special Facility Frcte:tive Acti:n Re:3ntentati:n Guidan:e Cnarts G.
FIGURE 5 Special Facility Sheltering Fact:rs 2
VI. ATTACKMENTS ATTACHMENT A Flant Systen c:nsideratiens fer Early Frctective A::icn Decision Making
+
ATTACHMENT S A: cess Centrol F0ints for Nes Hampshire EFZ ATTACHMENT C E ergency Organization Status and Local C:nditions J
l t
t
[
' i i
I I
i
't l
Vol. 4 F-14 Rev. 2 8/85 i
Appendix 1, Page 28 of 47 FIGURE 1A Prctective Acticn Recam.encatien Werksheet Fcr General Populaticn 1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hcur clock) hcurs 2.
Time of release start hours 3.
Release duration hours 4.
a.
Wind S;eed mph b.
Wind cirectico frem cegrees 5.
Cistance to reference location miles 6.
Affected sucareas (use Items 45 and 5 and Figure 2) 7.
Plume travel time (Item 5/ Item 4a) 8.
Time until ex;csure (cncese a er b) a.
If release has begun:
(1)
Difference (I:n 1 - Item 2) hcurs (2)
Time (Itan 7 - Itn Sa(1))
hcurs b.
If release will begin later (1)
Difference (Iten 2 - Itan 1) hcurs (2)
Time (Itern 7 + Itn 8b(1))
hours 9.
Evacuatien Cenditions a.
Seascn (circle ene)
(1)
Smmer: May 15 - Sept 15 (see Protective Actions fcr Seasonal Pcpulations)
(2)
Winter Sept 15 - May 15 b.
Weatner (circle ene)
(1)
Nennal seasonal weather (mild, light rain, light sn m)
(2)
Adverse (SunTner s heavy rain /feg - Winter heavy snow / ice)
- 10. Eva';catien Ti.me hours (Use item 6 and 9 and Figure 3, Evacuatien Time Estimates to determine evacuation time.)
- 11. Exposure Time hcurs
[ Item 10 - Iten Sa(2) er 8b(2)]
Vol. 4 F-15 Rev. 2 8/85
Appendix 1, Page 29 of 47 FIGURE 1A (cent'd) i,
- 12. Evacuatien Exposure Peried hcurs (smaller of Iten 3 cr Itan 11)
- 13. Projected Whcle Ecdy Ocss Rate R/hr
- 14. Monitering Tean Whcle Body Ocse Rate R/hr
- 15. Most Reliable Whole Ecdy Ocse Rate R/hr (Itan 13 cr Iten 14)
- 16. Projected Thyrcid C se Rate R/hr
- 17. Monitcring Tesn Thyroid Ocss Rate R/hr (fran calculations)
- 18. Mest Relia::le Tnyrcic Ccse Rata R/nr 2
(Iten 15 cr I:en 17)
- 19. Whole Ecdy Evacuation Ccse R
(Iten 12 x Item 15)
- 20. Thyrcid Evacuatien Ocse R
(Iten 12 x Iten' 18)
- 21. Whole Ecdy Shelter Cose R
(Iten 15 x Iten 3 x 0.9) 2
- 22. Thyroid Shelter Dese (cheese a er b) a.
Fcr release duration of less than t
i hour (Item 18 x Iten 3 x 0.5)
R b.
Fcr release duration of greater than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Iten 18 x Iten 3 x (1- 0.51 R
Itsn 3 2
- 23. Whole Ecdy Indicated Action -
refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action, shelter, er evacuation)
- 24. Thyroid indicated action -
refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action, shelter er evacuation)
- 25. Recomnended Protective Action l
(Reccrd mcre severe action frcrn Item 23 cr Itan 24 en Figure 2.)
l l
N.. '
Vol. 4 F-15 Rev. 2 8/86 i
l
Appendix 1, Page 30 of 47 ci Figure 1S SPECIAL FACILITY PROTECTI'M ACTIC'l WORKSHEET 1.
Facility fire T wn 2.
Release Duration hrs (Item 3 from Figure 1 A) 3.
Whole Ecdy C:se Rate R/hr
~ (Itan 15 fran Figure 1A) 4.
Whole E::y C:se R
(Itan 3 x I:en 2) 5.
Thyrci 0:se Rate R/hr (Itan la fr:m Figure 1A) 6.
Thyroid C:se R
(Itan 5 x I em 2) 7.
Whole E dy Snelter Facter (Obtain fr::m Figure 5) r 8.
Thyrcid Sneltsr Facter (Cbtain fr:m Figure 5) r 9.
Whole Sedy Shelter Ocsa R
f (Itsn 4 x Item 7)
- 10. Thyroid Shelter Ocss R
j_
(Itan 6 x Itsn 8) i
- 11. Whole Body Indicated Action
)
(Refer to Figure 4A)
- 12. Thyroid Indicated Action (Refer to Figure 4A)
- 13. Recamnanded Fratective Actions (List actions from both Item 11 and 12) 2 Time of Calculatien
- , r;..
Vol. 4 F-17 Rev. 2 8/86
4 Appendix 1, Page 31 of 47 FIGURE 2 P: etective Action Recomendatices by Tcwn DISTAtJCE WINO DIRECTION TC'#JS SHELTER EVACUATE (FRCM) 0-2 miles All SE.iEROCK,NH HA"PTON, tN
()
()
HAPPTON FALLS,NH 2-5 miles Et.5, E, ESE, SE KENSINGTCN, fiH
()
()
SOUTH HAPPTON, fN SSE,S,SSW,SW tSRTH HAPPTCN, t.H
()
()
5-10 miles ENE,E,ESE ERENTWCCO, NH
()
()
SE,SSE EAST KINGSTON, FN EXETER, FN
.ch KINGSTCN,TN t;E'JIELOS, PM teEWTGN, fM STRATHAM, tN i
()
()
NEW CASTLE, NH PORTSMOUTH, fM RYE, tN
.-~
vol. 4 F-18 Rev. 2 8/55
,./. /.
FIGURE 3 Total Evacuation Clear Times (Inclearling Notification) Ily Wiral Dirrction Normil Weather (1) (2) 0-2 Males D-2 Miles 0 ', Mile.
Plies 7-5 Miles Ormmisul Plass 5-l'PI ikwirmiar y Orm,4wirs t WlM)
IIT (INNilS)
IIN (IdufG)
Ilfti (t s u sG) rlurt
([Yt71Ers) 951-M10AS WINTER (1) 98T1ER (?)
Gil-NarAS WINIfH (1) 9tT1 H (?)
D Wl-NWAS WINlER (1)
Str1rTR (?)
l NPM N 32ii to A.fl.C q
NNE. NE SG A.B 2.97 S.75 II.E 3.75
- 6. Oft j
SG to A.B.C i
ENE. E 101 A.B.C 2.92 5.75 n.E.F 3.75 G.na 101 to A.il.C ESE 124 A.C 2.58 5.0n n.F 3.75 G.nn 124 to A.H.C l
SE 146 A.C.n 7.50 S.75 H.F.
3.75 G. Ort 14G to A.ll.C SSE. S 191 A.C.0 2.58 5.75 H.F.C 3.75 G,0tt 191 to A.O.C SSW SW 236 A.D 2.58 5.?S n.C 3.25 6.08 23G to A.ll.C Wr;w 25n A.D 2.58 5.25 0
3.08 G.08 258 to A.B.C W, upW 303 A
2.58 5.75 0
3. 04:
G.Otl
~ 303 to A.II. C NW 326 A.B 2.92 5.75 0
3. 0 11 G.0ft l'
Oirection A
2.58 S 75 Any g.
tu D
Etes: (1) for winter afverse wather con 11tions (heavy Grww) akl 2.5 twxars.
D.
r-X (2) For sunner ajverso wather cordtions (heavy rain ania fog] akt 2.0 terwar-a.
- u>
m Vol. 4 F-19 Rev. 2 n/06 r0 Ors L.
4
=
6 Appendix 1,. Page 3 3 of 4 7 FIGURE 4 Frctective Acticn Recorrendatien Guidance Charts WHOLE BCDY CUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Projected dese (Itan 16) is No action less than 1 ran meltar dese (Itan 21) is Shelter less tnaq 5 ren Sneltar case (Iten 21) is a:ual to er -
ran enc evac 0reater than 5 Shelter atien ecss (Itan 19) is eaual to er greater than snelter desa i
Sheltar dese (Itsn 21) is e:ual to cr greater tnan 5 ren and evacuation ecse Evacuate (Itan 19) is less than sneltar ctse THYROIO C'JICA'CE CWART Dese (Itsn 16) is less than No Acticn
(
5 ren Shelter dcse (Itan 22) is Shelter less than 25 ran Shelter dose (Iten 22) is equal to er greater enan 25 ran and evacuation dose Shelter (Itsn 20) is equal to er greater than shelter dese)
Sheltar desa (Item 22) is equal to or greatar tnan 25 ran and evacuation dose Evacuate (It. 20) is)less than she ar dese Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilation centrol caans turning off air conditionars er fans, which draw upon cutdecr air, elesing decrs and windows, thus preventing access of curdecr air. Procead 2
to a baserent if available.
Vol. 4 F-20 Rev. 2 8/a6
Appendix 1, Page 34'of 47 FIGURE 4A
-l SPECI AL FACILITY FROTECTIVE ACTICN RECCf1MENOATION CUICANCE CHART WHOLE SCCY GUICAfCE CwART IF THEN Sheltar dose '(Itsn 9, Figure 18) is less than 5 ram Shelter L.21 tar d se (Item 9(nan 5 rem and. Figure 18) is equal to cr greater eva:uati:n cose (Item 19, Fi ure 1A) is equal to cr greater tnan Inelter d se Shelter Shel ar dese (Item 9 Figure 15) is 3
equal to er greater. nan : rem anc evacuation case IItem 19, Figure 1A) is less than shelter dose Evacuate THYROIO GJICANCE CMART i
-'S IF THEN Sheltar c:se (Item 10, Figure 18) is less tnan 25 ram Shelter Sheltar dese (Item 10, Figure 18) is greatar than 25 rem and evacuation ccse (Itsn 20, Figure 1A) is equal te cr greater than sneltar dose Shelter l
Sheltar d:se (Item 10, Figure 15) is greater tnan 25 rem and evacuation Evacuate er i
dose (Item 20, Figure 1A) is less censicer KI than sneltar dose issuance Sheltar is to be with ventilation centrol. Ventilatien c:ntrol means turning off air conditionars er fans which draw upon cutd r air, clesing doces and wind u, thus preventing access cf cutside air. Proceed to a basement if available.
2 i
lG)
\\
r.-
(
Vol. 4 F-21 Rev. 2 8/85 i
I I
Appendix 1, Page 35 of 47
- - =
e e.
3 h
5' i '*
- j i s
s Ess sages
- enests c
ur h c ccccc ccccc c cccccc c b G '
$a t 5
.i k -
<<.ee e eeeeee e
e r h-e e e
e E
ee e e. c e. e e me.ecen e
s-ne g C
-, c
'. t E=
ge se a uses5:
s a Es E=*
=
ces s
ccc c cccc c cccccc c
- s. e.
c wc 734 35 55555 55555 5 555555 5
5I e
0 s g.>
e
)
.r i
F f
$d i
I$Y.
!E!E!
- Ess!!!
8e2 ccccc ccccc c cccccc c w e
_e e K K. s. s.
R N- = ~..C e. =
A-
- e. e. e e -.. e. r. n
.e e
eg'
~.
=
e s e
e
-ece ee-e e
c
_e 4
5w
.t,
- s e
<s.
E 5
f
~5' e
e t
5
~-
~~
h e -.
r w
i ct a e
< <.- e e ces.-
e s- - e.- e e
c
>=
c eccea eeeeb e ebecas e g y 7 l b A*"'~~'
"~~~A
$ b$$$$$
b 0
f c $
a C
ew bl a
c.c.
L
.e e L, a e e.t' s* e e e e r s* e e e e r ' e.*
e >
w Y bb
$$C$$
$5 e
= s:
o n
gs I,
s
?
<=
-a a
G
[
d G
a Wu d
=n u
C
>e S
u
.$. 6 wa
=*
s C
w' t.
R
.e d
_a t.
~
W b '
u<
96 k
C
". 3 e
e h-
- e. e. s. e. e. e.
e.
e a
,D-8
- c. e. e. c. k-N. e. v.. e. s.
4 g
-b c
CCCCC CCCCC C CCCCCC C
l g i X
c c W"
u w
W D
9 30 h
f E w
1 3 W
6 c
C
(
Y 3
$ q l
,w p gj
=
w 0 j-
_I h
D. U. D. D. D. D. D. e.
[
ch C. C. C. C. C.
N. N. N. N.
A s
y n
~~~~~
emee e
e-weee s
e.
e eewwww u
l we weeee
=
6 C.
b b Y
41 a
=
.f, u
e
.e 6*.
89 e
9 a
c L
w
".a 6..
4*
c e
4'.
E 5
.c. h a
-=
E g
t
.Cy
-I
, rz C
@C M
=
C
- 0. c
- y c
a
- k' 4
y gf
- D u
% *e
~
.S c
h*
I
.PC L ",
~
c so
=
w
'8 f
ai r.
O h. L L
$ 3 Uw
,I
-.A s
w i
I" 6
5C c
r
> tJ
- tJ h i
s e.,p t u ass 5
a w.
g
-1 "E g ccc
-c 3u g
M = lg J
U ti. **
W6 p
C W - -l _,l {s g
a a a 8 =. C u
Gw wiwww
.-Cw i
C w
s -
E 70 4
i a
--15I -
- s. u g 3,l.. *l d*
0-www
(
j a
, g
.esoc:
a 2
-e
[u i
-g *C E-J a--
m.
g
u., I L. " s a
t,) p h bh.s*u*a j
S
- f 3
g 1
g
=
S E
3
- d' Cwtg-E ;, w c
w g
gsg I
$wY 0 0 - s c, d
I aI5 e
N o
k 000g a
wu C
w e
w wwww c
i.<
Appendix 1, Page 36 of 47 ATTACHMENT A PLANT SYSTEM CCNSICERATICNS~
FCR EAR.Y PROTECTIVE ACTICN CSCISICN MAXING When censidsring early r ectactive actions, particularly' fer seasonal p:pu-lations, primary c:ncarns are plant conditiens and pregnesis rather than pr:-
jected er r.easured radiclogical nseguences. Particular attenti:n en the par:
).
of the decision cakers should, thsrefore, be directed to the f:ll wing per-I
.tinent plant systars and conciti:ns, t
}
a.
Rea:ter Co lant Systen 1.
What is reae: r vessel level? Is reacter c:Oling ade;ua:s?
l 2.
What is reactor core exit c cling tenperature. Is reacter I
i c cling effective?
.[
3.
What is reactcr ecclant pressure? Are pressures increasing er decreasing beyond nornal operational pressures?
I 4.
Confinn whethar reacter has been shut dean.
I B.
Turbine Generater Systen 1.
What are Stest Line Monitcr readings?
2.
Ce readings indicate primary systen to secondary systen leakage with radica:tivity?
I C.
Electric Posar Systens I
1.
Are energency buses - buses E-5 and E-S - pesered?
i 2.
Are the buses powered by off-site power s:urce or by en-site j
diesel generater source?
l O.
Radiation Cata Managenent Systen 1.
What are readings on Wide Range Gas Monitors en the Primary
(
Vent Stack that would indicate release rates from containment?
I i
Vol. 4 F-23 Rev. 2 8/85C f
/
-Appendix 1, Page 37 of'47 ATTACH.ENT A (cent'd) 2.
What are readings en Main Stesnline Moniters that wculd indi-cate significant levels of activity in the secondary systern?
3.
What are In-Centairrnent Pcst-LOCA Moniter readings that wculd indicate increase of activity inside.the contair. ant structure?
E.
Engineered Safety Features 1.
Status of centain ent integrity? Is contair. ant isolatect j
2.
Activation of E m ~gency Cere Ccoling Systen? Is tnere safety injection?
.l 3.
Status of containment air pressure? Is pressere inside cen-tairt. ant increasing, decreasing, er steacy?
t 4.
If pressure inside containment is a concern, what is status cf Centainment Spray Systen? Is it availadle?
F.
Metecrolcgical Measurenants' Systen 1.
Wind Speed?
2.
Wind Direction?
3.
Frecipitation?
4.
Atmespheric Stability Class? Affect that stability class would have en pltrie dispersion?
NOTE ON ATMCSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS:
The ruteorological measurstent systen will provide atm:spherie data leading to classification of atmospheric conditions ranging fran l
relative turtulence to relative stability. Atmospheric Stability Classes are:
A - extremely unstable
'~
8 - moderately unstable C - slightly unstable 0 - neutral l-E - slightly stable l
F - moderately stable G - very stable Vol. 4 F-24 Rev. 2 8/85 f-
Appendix 1, Page 38 of 47 ATTACHMENT B 9
ACCESS CCNTRCL FOINTS FCR tEW PAPSHIRE EFZ Reference traffic management manual Scr traffic and access centrc1 points.
NOTE The Traffic Managrent Manual a11ccates rec:cnlibility fcr Inplementation cf Traffic and Access :0 9:c1 Pcints, 1
4 t b.*
Vol. 4 p.25 g,,,y,gg
Appendix 1, Page 39 of 47 l
ATTACHMENT C r.
EMER3ENCY CFCAtlIZATICtl STATUS N;C LCCAL CCt:CITICtJS A.
Rescense State cf the State ead Tcwn E: ergency Crgani catiers 1.
The prctective acticn decisien rnest take inte censideratien the status of state and t wn e ergency persennel and rescurcas ard the timirg cf the pretsetive acticn anncunes ents to the public.
2.
Cf particular impcrtance te precautienary acticns fer the teach areas is the status cf the State Pelice and 1ccal pclice te ir;1e ent traffic
.~i and access centrols.
3.
Status censideratiens include:
a.
Availability of persennel b.
Time required fer ecbilication c.
Cegree te which rcbilicatien has prcgressed d.
Time regt. ired fer irrele entatien cf mergency acticns B.
Lccal Cenditiers 1.
Lccal cceditiens within an affected area rney ecnstrain protective action decisiens and their implementation.
2.
Lccal ccnditiens should be nperted te decisicn makers by 1ccal ECC penennel threugh the IFC at Newingten.
3.
Pertinent 1ccal conditiens include:
I a.
Cenditiens of med and evacuatien mutes censidering:
(1) Seesenal u avel irpediments (2) Status of read repairs (3) Surface ccnditiens due to weather Vol. 4 F-25 Rev. 2 6/85
Appondix 1, Page 40 of 47 ATTACWINT C (cent'd) n
(4) Natural er ren-made ic;cdiesnts (5) Affect' cf traffic signals en traffic flew in directicn cf evacuatien.
b.
Fepulatien density and distributien c.
Evacuatien rcute. ca; abilities d.
Incis cnt weather c:nditiens that wculd affect travel (snew, f:g, heavy rains, etc.)
e.
L :al.svents whi:5 eay present re uire ents fer s;scial r.ctifica-I tien, traffic c:ntrol, trans;crtati:n assistance f.
Status of schecis ar.d ether sps:ial fa:ilities.
4 i
i i
j, l
l l
/ ! 1.
\\[?
Vol. 4 F-27 Rev, 2 e/es
- p i' :.
Appendix 1, Page 41 of 47 ATTACHMENT II Pr0:osed 'odifi^ cation of Protective Action Cecisien Criteria Procedure Volume 4, A00endix F Volume 4A, Accendix U Upon adoption of the prc00 sed modification Attachment I would ce inserted into Appendix F and Appendix U, Vol. 4A and replace pages F11-F16 and pages Ull-U16 respectively, f
l 1
r I'
i c
l r
l 78638 l
. - =.
Appendix 1, Page 42 of 47 ATTACKMENT II (1 of,5)
(Modification of Protective Action Decision Criteria Procedure
_ Volume 4. Appendix F; Volume 4A. Appendix U1 4.
General Emergency a.
Initiating conditions (1) All conditions b.
Actions (1) Advise local EOCs and Massachusetts EOC of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Determine protective actions for Hampton. Hampton falls and Seaorook using Figuce 1A and Attachment C:
(a) For seasonal beach populations in Hampton and Seabrook recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
CAUTION If precautionary beach closure or beach evacuation has been recommendec at an earlier Emergency Classification Level, evacuation must centince to be the re emmended erotective action.
(b) For the remainder of Hampton, Hampten Falls and Seabrook. recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
(3) Advise the Department of Resources and Economic Developsent to close beaches and state park areas in 1
Hampton and Seabrook from North Shore Road and Ocean 1
Boulevard to the North and Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard to the South, and to implement special patrols to assure that beaches and parks are cleared.
1 (4) Advise State Police to establish access control points for affected arear in a 2 mile radius and 5 miles downwind according to Attachment B.
(5) Advise Haspton Police Department to establish traffic control points at the following specific locations:
(a)
Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Boulevard (Route 1A) and Route $1 (c) Route 51 and Landing Road e
L/435BK.13
Appandix 1, Pago 43 of 47 ATTACKMENT II (2 of 6)
(d) Ocean Boulevard at Hampton Harbor Bridge (close bridge to departing and entering traffic and traffic North from the bridge)
(e) Other traffic control points within Hampton Beach as deemed necessary to facilitate flow of traffic (f)
If required the NH State Police 6ill establish these traffic control points.
(6) Advise Seabrook Police Department to establish traffic control points at the following specific locations:
(a)
Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) 5'*an Boulevard (Koute 1A1 and Route 286 (c) Wasn.3gton Road and Route 286 (d) Seabrook Police should request Salisbury Massachusetts Police to restrict access on to Route 286 from Route 1 and to facilitate flow of traffic West on Route 286 and South on Route 1 (e) Other traffic control points within Ceabrook as deemed necessary to facilitate the flow of traf-fic.
(f)
If required the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
(7) Advise Department HMS to activate Reception Centers at Sales and Manchester. Advise DPHS to activa:e Decontamination Centers at activated Reception Centers.
(8) Prepare the appropriate EBS Message, in accordance with Appendix G for relense.
(9) Authorite activation of sirens in Taw Hampshire EPZ.
(10) Provide EBS message to Media Ctater at Newington Town Hall.
(11) Consider extending protective actions to other areas of t.he EPZ based on Figure 1A and updated information regarding:
(a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment (c) Local Conditions (Attachment C)
(d) Emergency Response Organization Status (e) Plant Conditions L/tb5BX.14 5
Appendix 1, Page 44 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (3 of 61 V.
FIGURES A.
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet 8.
FIGURE IS Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet l
l l
l l
l l
l s
L/435BK.15 1
l l
Appendix JL, Page 45 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (4 of 6)
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet For General Population 1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> clock) hours 2.
Tir.e of release start hours 3.
Release duration hours 4.
a.
Wind Speed sph b.
Wind direction from degrees 5.
Distance to reference location miles 6.
Affected subareas (use Items 4B and 5 and Figure 3) 7.
Plume travel time (! tem 5/ Item 4a) 8.
Time until exposure (choose a or b) a.
If release has berun:
(1)
Difference (Item 1 - Item 2) hours (2)
Time (! tem 7 - Item 8a(1)]
hours b.
If release will berin later (1)
Difference (Item 2 - Item 1) hours (2)
Time (Ites 7 + Item 8b(1))
hours 9.
Evacuation Conditions a.
Season (circle one)
(1)
Summer: May 15 - Sept 15 (2)
Winter: Sept 15 - May 15 r
b.
Weather (circle one)
(1)
Normal seasonal weather (mild, light rain, light snow) i (2)
Adverse (Summer:
heavy rain / fog - Winter: heavy snow / ice) l I
f L/4358K.16 L
Appandix 1, Page 46 of 47 ErfACEMENT II (5 of 6) 10.
Evacuation Time hours (Use items 6 and 9 and Figure 3. Evacuation Time Estimates to determine evacuation time.)
11, Exposure Time hours (Item 10 - Item 8a(2) or 8b(2))
12.
Evacuation Exposure Period hours (smaller >>f Item 3 or item 11) 13.
Projected Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 14.
Monitoring Team Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 15.
Most Reliable Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr (Item 13 or Item 14) 16.
Projected Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr 17.
Monitoring Team Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (from calculations) 18.
Most Reliable Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr
(! tem 16 or Item 17) 19.
Whole Body Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 15) 20.
Thyroid Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 18) 21.
Whole Body Shelter Dose R
(Item 15 x Item 3 x 0.9) 22.
Thyroid Shelter Dose (choose a or b) a.
For release duration of less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Item 18 x Item 3 x 0.5)
R b.
For release duration of greater 0.5 than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (! ten 18 x Item 3 x 1-Item 3)
R l
L/435BK.17
-Appendix 1, Page 47 of 47 I
- L ' *
- ATTACHMENT. II (6 of 6)
'23.
Whole Body Indicated Action hourd refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action, shelter, or evacuation) 24.
Thyroid Indicated Action -
hours refer to Figure 4 (indicates no action, shelter, or evacuation) 25.
Recommended Protective Action (Record more severe action from Item 23 or Ites 24 on Figure 2.)
i t
I i
l
[
t I
f l
l I
i
[
L/435BK.18 l
Attachmsnt 1, Page 1 of 35 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROTECTIVE ACTION DECISION CRITERIA Purpose This appendix establishes criteria and guidance to facilitate protective action decisions for the general population within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Seabrook Station.
Criteria and guidance for precautionary and protective action decisions are also pro-l2 vided for certain special populations and for summer populations.
II.
Responsibility A.
Accident assessment personnel of the Division of *ublit Health Services are responsible for implementing parts III.A. and III.B. of
.this appendix.
B.
Decision making personnel of the Governor's office, the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management, and the Division of Public Health l2 Services are responsible for implementing decision guidance contained in Part IV of this appendix.
III. Protective Action Decisions for General Population A.
Use of Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet for General Population 1.
Obtain a copy of Figure 1A. Drotective Action Recommendation Worksheet for General Population.
2.
Using information from the nuclear facility operator. IFO per-sonr.el will complete a worksheet for each distance of interest.
REVIEW COPY APR 14 t988 Vol. 4 F-1 Rev. 2 2/88
i Attachmsnt 1, Page 2 of 35 3.
Report the results of the evaluation to the DPHS !FO Coordinator and the NHOEM EOF Liaison.
l2 B.
Additional Considerations for Special Facilities with Significant Shielding Characteristics 1.
Obtain a copy of Figure 18. Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet.
2.
Complete the worksheet, t
3.
Report the results of the evaluation to the DPHS IFO Coordinator and the NHOEM EOF Liaison.
l 2
CAUTION SPECIAL FACILITY SHELTERING FACTORS LISTED ON FIGURE 5 ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES.
SCHOOLS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME PROTECTIVE ACTIONS PRESCRIBED FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION.
C.
Protective action recommenda*lons will be provided by the utility emergency response organization based on emergency classification t
level or plant status in accordance with Attachment A.
2 D.
Potential offsite constraints to be considered in determining action time for implementation of protective actions are contained in Attachment C.
IV.
Protective Action Decision Making for Seasonal Beach Populations i
A.
General Considerations l
1.
Precautionary actions affecting seasonal beach populations may oe warranted at an early stage of an emergency before protec-tive actions for the general population are warranted.
l 2.
Radiological assessment data may not be available or useful I
when considering early precautionary action decisions for seasonal beach populations, pggy]Ey/ cops, APR 14 $88 Vol. 4 F-2 Rev. 2 2/88 l
Attachm3nt 1, Pega 3 of 35 3.
Prognosis of deteriorating plant conditions may compel imple-mentation of precautionary actions. without consideration of PAG ranges, when seasonal beach populations are potentially affected.
Plant status and prognosis of plant conditions will be provided by utility emergency personnel in accordance with Attachment A.
2 4.
Precautionary actions for seasonal beach populations would include:
a.
Consider closing beaches and other recreational facilities l2 that attract seasonal populations and which are in close proximity to the plant, i.e.,
within an approximate 2 alle radius.
b.
Implementation of access and traffic control at roadway points leading to these affected areas to monitor traffic and to advise people of actions taken, c.
Issuance of public announcements of actions taken througn EBS and normal media channels.
l d.
Continued monitoring of traffic flow and local conditions in affected areas.
CAUTION PRECAUTIONARY ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PERIOD MAY 15 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15.
B.
Precautionary and Protective Actions by Emergency Classification Level 1.
Alert a.
Initiating Conditions i
REVIEW COPY l
APR 141988 l
Vol 4 F-3 Rev. 2 2/88 1
l l
Attachmant 1, Page 4 of 35 Plant conditions as determined by plant personnel indicate that a major plant system is unstable or degrading.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) to close beaches and state park =
areas in Hampton Beach and in Seabrook Beach between Great Boars Head to the North and Route 286 (NH/MA l2 border) to the South.
Recommend that the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook close any town-supervised beaches in concurrence with the state's decision.
(2) DRED will advise beach and State Park population of closing.
2 (3) Request Rockingham County Dispatch Center to activate the Public Alert and Notification System along the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook to announce the clo-sings.
l (4) Request State Police to implement access control in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual.
2
{
i l
REVIEW COPY APR 141988 1
l l
l Vol. 4 F-4 Rev. 2 2/88
{
9 Attcchm2nt 1, Paga 5 of 35 (5) Advise the Hampton and Seabrook Pol.ce Departments to establish traffic control points identified in the Traffic Management Manual.
(6)
If local police departments are unable to establish traffic control points, notify State Police to establish priority traffic control pointe.
(7) Authorize broadcast of pre-recorded "Alert" Message S. Appendix G over EBS radio channels.
Provide a l
copy of the text to the Media Center at Newington Town Hall, if activated.
2 2.
Site Area Emergency Without Degrading Plant Conditions l2 a.
Initiating Conditions Plant conditions are stable without indication of further degradation as determined by plant personnel.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) to close beaches and state park areas in Hampton Beach and in Seabrook Beach between Great Boars Head to the North and Route 286 to the l2 4
South.
Recommend that the towns of Hampton and Seabrook close any town-supervised beaches in concurrente with the state's decision.
(2) Request Rockingham County Dispatch Center to activate the Public Alert and Notification System along the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook to announce the i
closings.
REVIDV COW APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 2/88
t
?*
Attcchmant 1, Pego 6 of 35 i
(3) Request State Police to implement access control in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual and restrict access on the part of non-residents to Hampton Beach and to Seabrook Beach.
(4) Advise-the Hampton and Seabrook Police Departments to establish traffic control points in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual and restrict access on the part of non-residents.
(5)
If local police departments are unable to establish traffic control points, notify State Police to establish priority traffic control points.
(6) Authorize broadcast of pre-recorded "Site Area Emergency" Message 5. Appendix G. over EBS radio channels.
(7) New Hampshire EPZ sirens will be activated.
(8) After releasing EBS message, provide a copy of the text to the Media Center at Newington Town Hall. if activated.
2 3.
Site Area Emergency with Degrading Plant Conditions a.
Initiating Conditions Prognosis of plant status as determined by plant personnel indicates degradation of a major plant system (see Attachment A).
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise NH local EOCs. Massachusetts EOC and the NHY ORO of the Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
REVIEW COFS 2
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-6 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachm3nt 1, Page 7 of 35 i
4.
General Emergency l
a.
Initiating conditions All Conditions j
2 NOTE Protective action recommendations may be provided by the utility emergency response organization based 1
on emergency classification level or plant status in accordance with Attachment A.
Verify before proceeding.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise NH local EOCs. Massachusetts EOC and NHY ORO l2 of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Determine protective actions for Hampton. Hampton Falls and Seabrook using Figure 1A and Attachment C:
(a) For seasonal beach populations in Hampton and Seabrook recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
CAUTION If precautionary beach closure or beach f
evacuation has been recommended at an r
earlier Emergency Classification Level.
l evacuation must continue to be the recommended protective action.
l i
t (b)
For the remainder of Hampton Hampton Falls and Seabrook, recommend sheltering or evacuation in i
accordance with the results of Step (2),
i 2
i l
REVIEW COM l
APR 14 $88 P
Vol. 4 F-8 Rev. 2 2/88 i
l
Attachm2nt 1, Pago 0 of 35 (3) Advise the Department of Resources and Economic Development to close beaches and state park areas in Hampton and Seabrook from Ocean Boulevard and Great Boar's Head to the North and Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard to the Sointh.
2 (4) Advise State Police to establish access control points for affected areas in a 2 alle radius and 5 miles downwind.
Refer to the Traffic Management Manual for identification of points in the affected area.
2 (5) Advise the Hampton and Seabrook Police Departments to d
establish traffic control points in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual.
2 (6) Advise Department HHS to activate Reception Centers at Salem and Manchester. Advise DPHS to activate Decontamination Centers at activated Reception Centers.
(7) Prepare the appropriate EBS Message, in accordance with Appendix G, for release. Activate ESS and authorize broadcast.
2 (8) New Hampshire strens will be activated.
l2 (9) After releasing EBS message, provide a copy to Media Center at Newington Town Hall.
2 (10) Consider extending protective actions to other areas of the EPZ based on Figure 1A and update information regarding:
2 (a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment REVIEW col' l
APR 141988 l
Vol. 4 F-9 Rev. 2 2/88 i
i l
<,,_, Page 9;of 35 Ici Local Conditions (Attachment Cl (di Emergency Response Organization Status (e)
Plant Conditions V.
FIGURES I
A.
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet B.
FIGURE IS Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet 1
i C.
FIGURE 2 Map of Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA)
D.
FIGURE 2A Evacuation Scenarios i
E.
FIGURE 3 ETE Values l
F.
FIGURE 4 Protective Action Recommendation Guidance Charts i
G.
Figure 4A Special Facility Protective Action Recommendation Guidance i
Charts H.
FIGURE 5 Special Facility Sheltering Factors i
t VI.
ATTACHMENTS i
t ATTACHMENT A Plant Status Information and Protective Action f
Recommendations i
2 i
1 ATTACHMENT B Access control Points for New Hampshire EPZ I
ATTACHMENT C Emergency Organization Status and Local Conditions i
i i
i-REVIEW COP'
[
APR 14 $88 i
t; Vol. 4 F-10 Rev. 2 2/80 l
,, -... - -, -. -. -. ~ - - _ =
I.*
Attachmant 1, Pago 10 of 35 i-..
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet For General Population 1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> clock) hours 2.
Time of release start hours 3.
Release duration hours 4.
a.
Wino Speed sph b.
Wind direction from degrees 4
5-Distance to reference location (2. 5 or 10 miles) miles
[2 6.
Affected ERPA (use Figure 2) l2 7.
Plume travel time (! tem 5/ Item 4a) 8.
Time until exposure (choose a or b) a.
If release has berunt t
(1)
Difference (!tes 1 - Item 2) hours 1
(2)
Time (! tem 7 - Item 8a(1 hours b. If release will berin later 4 j (1) Difference (! ten 2 - Item 1) hours (2) Time (! tem 7 + Item 8b(1)] hours 1 9. Scenario (use Figure 2A) l l 1 l REVIEW COFY I APR 14 GS8 i i Vol. 4 F-11 Rev. 2 2/88 l l i l
r ti' t i'* Attachm1mt 1, Page 11 of '35 FIGURE 1A (cont'd) i l 10. Evacuation Time hours [ v (Use items 6 and 9 and Figure 3) [2 [ 11. Exposure Time hours i ) (! ten 10 - Item 8a(2) or 8b(2)] r L 12. Evacuation Exposure Period hours l l (smaller of item 3 or Item 11) 13. Projected Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr i 3 j 14. Monitoring Team Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr. t 15. Most Reliable Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr (! tem 13 or item 14) I L j 16. Projected Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr l l 17. Monitoring Team Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (from calculations) Most Reliable Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr l 18. i -(Item 16 or item 17) .j 19. Whole Body Evacuation Dose R (Item 12 x Item 15) i 3 l e 20. Thyroid Evacuation Dose R (! ten 12 x Item 18) t e I 4 j REVIEW COPY i l APR14SBB I f I 1 l Vol. 4 F-12 Rev. 2 2/88 i
Attcchmsnt 1, Pa9a 12 of 35 FIGURE 1A (cont'd) 21. Whole Body Shelter Oose R (Item 15 x Item 3 x 0.9) 22. Thyroid Shelter Dose (choose a or b) a. For release duration of less than 1 hour (Item 18 x Item 3 x 0.5) R b. For release duration of greater than 1 hour (Item 18 x Item 3 x (1-TTeili-"3) 0.5 R 2 23. Whole Body indicated Action - 1 refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action. ,l shelter or evacuation) 24. Thyroid indicated action - refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action. l2 shelter or evacuation) 25. Recommended Protective Action (Record more severe action from Item 23 or Item 24 on Figure 2.) New Hampshire Communities within Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA): ERPA A ERPA F Seabrook Brentwood Hampton Falls East Kingston Hampton Beach Exeter Kingston I ERPA C Newfields Kensington Newton South Hampton ERPA G ERPA D Greenland REVIEW COPv: I Hampton (except for Hampton Beach) New Castle North Hampton Portsmouth APR 14 t988 Rye l l Strathan Vol. 4 F-13 Rev. 2 2/88 l l
~ Attachment. le Page 13 of 35
- i.. g f,
Pigure 2. Map of EP:' Delineating all E: ergency Response ' g/ (W gg Planning Areas (ER?A)
- I *.'h r.
a A%,5%, ~ f b> ? 7,.y 1 '.,,. ( '1 %* **
- q s..
u y l l W i6 ,'~%, % <: / .s - e. s f,. /. < ' l ~- \\ p -. ) *
- m 45'
.7 ,~ ser i. / .8 MILE o/ Aa e / 5 ,.e'<(. e '. \\ l 4 u ( ., b WL -t .r - a, s Wm \\ t I %( )I j %.}ri \\ c 'K, i e g l na ke N B e b um % ( l .. + - ~... ., %.) c.--- 'y% ,,%, z. m i ~- 5 w b M J... J sim'W. / /,, . ~.9 set 7, rr \\ %o -d 'VQ ,A ,)h,,y'.Q'\\,.4-f. k'/ r. s "' l c.', ~ p' 4 \\]l.Y ~ %s / (.g( ~
FIGURE 2.A EVACt!ATION SCENARIOS 1-10 Sc W rio Season D_ay Time Weather Comments 1 Summer Weekend Mid-day Good Beach area population at capacity. Employees are at 70 pct. of mid-week in towns with l>each areas. 40 pct. In remaining towns. Tourists fill available seasonal and overnight facilities, with half of them at the beach areas. 2 Summer Weekend Mid-day Rain As above. Sudden rain occurs with beach popislat ion at capacity con-current with accident at Seabrook Station. 3 Summer Mid-week Mid-day Good Beach area and tourist population at 75 pet. of capacity. Employees are at 100 pct. of mid-week work force. 4 Summer Mid-week Mid-day Rain As above. Sudden rain occurs. 5 Off-Season Mid-week Mid-day Good Tourist population at 50 pet. of yearly capacity (i.e.. facilities which remain open the entire year). No beach area transients. Employees at 100 pct. 6 Off-Season Mid-week Mid-day Rain As above, but for inclement (rain) weather.
- p et et 7
off-Season Mid-week Mid-day Snow Conditions the same as for Scenario 5 except that there is inclement D' weather (snow). Evacuees must clear driveways. Or ~_1 o 8 Off-Season Mid-week Evening Good Tourist population at 50 pot. of yearly capacity. No beach area t r.su - D Weekend All day sients. Employees at 25 pct. of mid-week, mid-d.sy. e-. 9 Off-Season Mid-week Evening Rain As above. but for inclement (raint weather. Weekend AII day [ d2e 10 Of - enson Mid-week Evening Snow As above, but for inclement (snow) weather. Evaceaees misst clear Ie IIOV (ilOprynd Al1 day driveways. [ APR14 gag P-ta en Vol. 4 F-1G l Hev. 2 2/un l )
Attechmont 1, Pcgo 15 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From): NW & NNW & N & NNE Degrees: 303* - 34' 3 Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-n11e radius. 5-mile radius. 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10-M11e Downwind Sector ERFA: A, 8 A,B.C,D,E t Distance froa Seabrook (ai): g 5 Scenar133 1 6:00 6:40 2 7:25 4:05 1 3 5:10 5:15 4 6:40 6:50 l 5 3:55 4:00 6 5:05 5:10 i 7 5:50 6:00 4 3:30 3:35 9 3:55 4:00 l i 10 4:35 4:45 2 REVIEW COP': APR i 41988 Vol. 4 F-17 Rev. 2 2/88
.s Attachm3nt 1, P&ge 16 of 35 [ i i FIGURE 3 1 1 1 ETE VALUES I Wind Direction (Froml: E & NE & ENE i Degrees: 34' - 101' E Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles l Reference; t Configuration: 2-mile radius. 5-mile radius, 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: A. B, C A-F 1i Distance from l Seabrook (mi): 5, 1q l, t $cenarlos ] 1 6:20 6:40 2 7:45 4:10 3 5:15 5:35 i 4 6:50 7:05 5 4:00 5:30 I 6 5:10 6:40 7 6:00 7:25 i 4 t I 8 3:35 3:55 j 9 4:00 4:20 I 5 10 4:45 6:00 i 2 i Rm WVCom t r APR 14 $88 i ) I l Vol. 4 F-18 Rev. 2 2/88 j m
Attachmont 1, Pago 17 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (Froml; El{ Degrees 101' - 123' Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-mile radius, 5-mile radius, 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: AC A 8.C.D.F Distance fron l Seabrook (al): } 12 Scenarios 1 6:20 6:40 2 7:45 8:10 3 4:40 5:20 4
- 6:10 7:05 5
4:00 4:05 i 6 4:25 5:25 7 5:25 6:25 8 3:35 3:55 4 9 3:35 4:20 i 10 4:45 6:00 2 REVIEW COPY APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-19 Rev. 2 2/88 i
i d.'? ' h k _'e ' Jn Attachmsnt 1, Pago 18 of 35 l rIctRE 3 ETE VALUES .i ; ~i Wind Direction (from): SE & SSE Degrees: 123' - 168' Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-n11e radius. 5-n11e radius. 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: A. C. D A.B.C.D.F.G Distance from Seabrook (al): 5 12 i Scenarios 1 6:35 6:50 9 2 8:05 9:55 3 4:45 5:50 4 6:10 8:05 5 4:00 4:50 + 6 4:25 5:45 7 5:25 6:55 8 3:35 4:25 9 3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2 REVIEW COF APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-20 Rev, 2 2/88
~ Attachm3nt 1, Paga 19 of 35 F10URE 3 ETE VALUES 4 Wind Direction (Froml: 1 Degrees: 168' - 191.5* Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-mile radius. 5-alle radius. 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: A. O A,8.C.D.F.O Distance from Seabrook (mi): } ig Scenarios 1 6:35 6:50 2 8:05 9:55 3 4:45 5:50 4 6:10 4:05 5 4:00 4:Sn 6 4:25 5:45 7 5:25 6:55 8 3:35 4:25 9 3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2 REVIEW COF APR14$8B Vol. 4 T-21 Rev. 2 2/88 m
l l+, Page 20 of 33. FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From): SSW & SW & WSW Degrees: 191.5' - 259' Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Cont guration: 2-mile radius. 5-mile radius, 5 Mlle Downwind Sector 10 Mile Dowrca ind Sector ERPA: A. D A,B C D,O Distance from Seabrook (mi): 5 10 Scenarios 1 6:35 6:50 2 8:05 9:50 3 4:45 5:50 4 6:10 8:05 5 4:00 4:50 6 4:25 5:45 7 5:25 6:55 i 6 3:35 4:25 9 3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2 REVIEW COPY APR 14 t988 Vol. 4 F-22 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachmer.t 1, Page :21 of 35 6 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From): W Degrees: 259' - 281.5' Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles i
Reference:
Configuration: 2-mile radius. 5-mile radius. 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: A. D A,B.C,D. Dista'nce from Seabrook (mi): 5 5 i i Scenarios 1 6:35 6:35 2 8:05 8:05 3 4:45 5:15 4 6:10 6:50 5 4:00 4:00 6 4:25 5:10 7' 5:25 6:00 8 3:35 3:35 9 3:35 4:00 10 4:45 4:45 2 REVIEW CGr APR 141986 Vol. 4 F-23 Rev. 2 2/88
"* *-, Page 22 of 35 e5 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From): WE Degrees: 281.5* - 303* Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-mile radius. 5-mile radius. 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector t. ERPA: A A,B,C,D. Distance from Seabrook (mi): 2 5 Scenarios 1 6:00 6:35 2 7:25 8:05 3 4:30 5:15 4 5:50 6:50 5 3:55 4:00 6 4:20 5:10 7 5:10 6:00 8 3:30 3:35 9 3:30 4:00 10 4:35 4:45 REVIEW t.,u a APR 141988 i Vol. 4 F-24 Rev. 2 2/88
- 5. -
Attachment'1, Page 23 of 35 FIGURE 3-ETE VALUES Wind Direction (Froml: ALL POINTS Degrees: All (0*-360*) Location Distance: 2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration: 2-mile radius, 5-mile radius. No Downwind Sector No Downwind Sector ERPA: A A-D Distance from Seabrook (mi): 2 5 Scenarios 1 6:00 6:35 2 7: 25 8:05 3 4:30 5:15 4 5:50 6:50 1 4 5 3:55 4:00 6 4:20 5:10 .I 7 5:10 6:00 i 8 3:30 3:35 9 3:30 4:00 10 4:35 4:45 2 RE\\Tc,W COP. APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-25 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachmont 1, Page 24 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (Froml: E A Degrees: All (0*-360') <.4 Distance Reference Location 10 Miles Configuration: 10-mile 5 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA: A-G (All ERPAs) Distance from Seabrook (mi): JO i Scenarios t 1 7:05 2 9:55 3 5:50 4 8:05 5 5:30 6 6:40 t 7 7:25 1 8 4:25 9 5:30 10 6:25 2 REVIEW G, l APR 14 G86 i Vol. 4 F-26 Rev. 2 2/88
i Attachmant 1, Page 25 of 35 l FIGURE 4 l2 Protective Action Recommendation Guidance Charts WHOLE BODY GUIDANCE CdART IF THEN Projected dose (Item 13 x No action Item 12) is less than 1 rem Shelter dose (Item 21) is Shelter less than 5 rem Shelter dose (Item 21) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose Shelter (Item 19) is equal to or rrenter than shelter dose Shelter dose (Item 21) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose Evacuate (Item 19) is less than shelter dose THYROID GUIDANCE CHART Projected Dose (Item 16 x No Action Item 121 is less than 5 ren 2 Snelter dose (Item 22) is Shelter less than 25 rem Shelter dose (Item 22) is l equal to or greater than 25 rem and evacuation dose Shelter (Item 20) is equal to or greater than shelter dose) Shelter dose (Item 22) is equal to or greater than 25 rem and evacuation dose Evacuate (item 20) is less than shelter dose) Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilation control means turning l off air conditioners or fans which draw upon outdoor air, closing doors and win-I dows, thus preventing access of ourdoor air. ?roceed to a basement if available. l REVIEW COE - i APR 14 $88 Vol. 4 F-27 Rev. 2 2/88 l
,, Page 26 of 35 l* FIGURE 4A SPECIAL FACILITY l PROTECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATION GUIDANCE CHART WHOLE BODY GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Shelter dose (Item 9, Figure 18) is less than 5 rem Shelter Shelter dose (Item 9. Figure 1B) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose (Item 19 Figure 1A) is equal to or greater than shelter dos Shelter Shelter dose (Ites 9. Figure 18) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose (Item 19. Figure 1A) is less than shelter dose Evacuate THYROID GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Shelter dose (Item 10. Figure 18) is less than 25 rem Shelter Shelter dose (Item 10. Figure IB) is greater than 25 res and evacuation dose (Item 20. F1 pre 1A) is equal to or greater than shelter dose Shelter Shelter dose (Ites 10. Figure 1B) is greater than 25 rem and evacuation Evacuate or dose (Item 20. Figure IA) is less consider KI i than shelter dose issuance l l Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilation control means turning off air conditioners or fans which draw upon out-door air closing doors and windows, thus preventing access of outside air. Proceed to a basement if available. MEW LU; APR14EMM3 Vol. 4 F-28 Rev. 2 2/88 i
FIGURE 5 SPECIAL FACILITY SHELTERING FACTORS Outside Projected Outside Projected Thy-Distance from Seabrook External (whole body) Inhalation (thyrold) Whole Body Dose rold Dose to Warrant Frcility Station (m11es) Sheltering Factor (I) MalteringFactor(2) to Warrant Evac. Evac. or KI 01strib. Hampton til hr 121 hr til hr t>l hr Seacoast Health Center 3-4 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 rea 50 rea 35 rem Brentwood Rockingham County Nursing Home o Bistsdell B1dg. 12-13 0.35 0.5 0.65 14.3 rea 50 rea 35 rem o Fernand Bldg. 12-13 0.35 0.5 0.65 14.3 rea 50 rea 35 ren o Hitchell Bldg. 12-13 0.6 0.5 0.65 8.33 rea 50 rea 35 rem o Underhill Bldg. 12-13 0.6 0.5 0.65 8.33 rea 50 res 35 rem Rockingham County Jall 12-13 0.25 0.5 0.65 20 rea 50 ren 35 rem Exiter Ex:ter Hospital 6-7 0.2 0.5 0.65* 10 rea 50 rea 35 rem E::cter Health Care 6-7 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 rem Eventide of Exeter (Original Bld 6-7 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 rem Eventide of Exeter (Brick 81dg.)g.)* 6-7 0.4 0.5 0.65 12.5 rea 50 rea 35 rem Goo &lns of Exeter 6-7 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 rea 50 rea 35 rem Porismouth Portsmouth Regional Hospital 11-12 0.25 0.5 0.65* 20 res 50 rea 35 rem Edgewood Centre o Ecst and West Wing y 11-12 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 rem e South Wing c 11 12 0.5 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 rea 35 rea Clipper Home (Wings) "23 11-12 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 res 50 rea 35 ren y Cllpper Home (Center 81dg.) M 11-12 0.5 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 rea 35 rem n g Wentworth Home M 11-12 0.4 0.5 0.65* 12.5 rem 50 rea 35 ree Parratt Avenue Home [g 11-12 05 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 ree 35 rem <o a Rye w 3' u Webster at Rye 7-8 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 res 50 rea 35 res (1) Developed from guidance provided in "Structure Shielding from Cloud and Fallout Gamma Ray Sources for Assessing the Consequences of Reactor Accidents." EG & G Inc. Las Vegas (2) Taken from "Pub 11c Protection Strategies lie the Dent of a Nuclear Reactor Accident...Hulticompartmental Ventilation Model for Shelters." I
- u SAND-77-1555 m
(*) These facilities are capable of 100% air recirculation. i could be substantially greater than 35%. With cracks around doors and windows sealed. acrual inhalation sheltering protection U I O l Vol. 4 rw F-29 Rev. 2 2/88 w un
- .. ', Page 2b of 35 f
ATTACHMENT A PLANT STATUS INFORMATION AND PROTECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS Pirures (from NHY Emergeticy Response Procedures) 1. ER 2.0C - Follow-Up Information Form 2. ER 5.4 (Figure 2) - Plume Exposure Protective Action Flow Chart for Site Area Emergency 3. ER 5.4 (Figure 3) - Plume Exposure Protective Action Flow Chart for General Emergency 2 i-l l ,i gygw COP'i APR 14 8% l l Vol. 4 p.30 Rev. 2 2/88 l l
l' l,,, Page 29 of 35 FOLLOW-UP !N"0PRATION FOP 3 To be co:ple:ed by STED to the ex:en: infor:ation is known. Caly s:e;s !-Sa are necessary when issuing a terzination update. 1. Na:e of Co==unica:or:, 2. Location: Seabrook Station. Seabrook. New Ha:eshire 3. Classifica:i:n Level: ( l Unusual Event ( ) Site Area E:ergen:y ( ) Aler: ( ) General I:ergency [ ] "The I:ergency has been Ter=ina:ed" 4 Declaration Da:e: Declaration Ti:e: Ter ina:1on Da:e: Termination Ti e: 5. Brief Descrip: ion of Event: fa. 3rief escrip; ion of reason (s) for Ter:1 nation Meteorological Infor:ation Ucoer L ver 6. Windspeed
- ph (C0784)
(C0733) 7. Wind Direc:ien FROM__ (degrees) (C0736) (00755) S. Stabili:y Class (Circle) -1.74 -1.55 -1.37 -0.46 +L.36 -3.64 Upper Delta-T (C0733) A B C D E F G Lower Del:a-T A 3 C D E F G (C0737) -1.12 -1.0 -0.89 -0.30 +0.88 +1.34 9. Precipitation ( l Yes ( l No Radioae:ive Release Rate (NA if none, or not available)
- 10. Radioac:ivity [
] Has ( l Has not been released
- 11. Noble Gas Release Rate:
uCi/sec (RDMS)
- 12. Iodine Release Rate:
uCi/sec
- 13. Particulate Release Rate:
uCi/see ER 2.0C Rev. 03 Page 1 of 1
Page 30 of 35 FOLLOW-UP ' !N70RMATION FORM (Cont 'd )
- 14. Ti:e release started:
- 15. Release Ter inated:
[ ] YES [ ] NO ( ) N/A
- 16. Ti=e release cer=inated
- 17. Esti ated total release duration hours Offsite Excesure Data Site Soundarv 2Mi
$Mi 10Mi
- 18. Whole body dose race (:R/hr)
- 19. Thyroid dose rate (=R/hr)
- 20. Whole body dose (:res) (Step #17 x #18) l
- 21. Thyroid dose (:res) (Step #17 x #19)
- 22. Surf ace Spill Infor:ation: Volu=et liters Concentration:
uCi/=1 Location:
- 23. Surf ace Contamination: a.
Onsite: dps/100c=2 Location: b. Offsite: dp:/100c=2 Location: 24 Prognosis f or Worsening or ter=ination:
- 25. Authorized by:
STED/ SED / RM Date/Ti e 26.
Contact:
New Hampshire Name Organization Time Phone No. Massachusetts Name Organization Tine Phone No. NHY ORO Name Organization Ti e Phone No. ER 2.0C Rev. 03 Page 2 of 2
........ _ _ _ _ _... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..A t t a c hment..h. e a s e. ).l..qt. 3 5.. .NHY_EPLANEP070032. DON:1 REV. CATE: 24/25/h, l FIGURE 2 PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOW CHART FOR SITE AREA EMERGENCY SAE UNMITIGATED S-RED.C-ORANGE NO NO PROTECTIVE Z-ORANG Z-RED ACTION RECOMMENOATION EXIST? YES IS TODAY BETWEEN MAY 15 NO AND SEPTEMBER 15? YES RECOMMENO EVACUATION OF HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACHES AND CLOSING SALISBURY BEACH AND THE PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILOLIFE REFUGE ON PLUM ISLANO i l PROJECT DOSES AS OIRECTED BY SECTION 2 OR SECTION l 3 OF FORM ER-5.4A
inn f tt"L HINIC r'id / iOVJJ4.UUINil REY. DATE: 04/05/8
- , Page 32 of 35
) i FIGURE 3 PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOW CHART FOR GENERAL EMERGENCY l GENERAL EMERGENCY IS CONTINUE CCSE yg3 POST LOCA NO ASSESSMENT i M0hlTCR
- - USING SECT *CN
- 0 03 R/hRt 2 GR 2 C.:
g) FCRM ER-5.4 A IS POST LCCA No MON] TOR >10.000 R/HR?[ ';/ YES l (1).:? ? CST LCCA MONITCR5 FA:L.MAKE CEC:51CN USING HATCH MCNITCR
- EECC.'jM;N. HAMP,i v,4 e -}v,,-EMC E'!ACUAT*
- 1 2F j BRCCX.
iHAMPiv . w.,. H lHAMPTCN. XE:lSINGTCN. NCRT-MMPTC.V. (2).:F ?OST LOCA MONITORS.:C..MAKE S ALI5 EURY. AME35URY. NC TOWNS E_EC:5 ION USING HAICH MONITOR i COWNWINO TO 10 MILES. (3) DING OF B.000nM. h THIN ED LIC D (3). THIS INCLUDES RECOMMENDING CLOSING l ON FORM ER 2.08 THE PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE i REFUGE ON PLUM ISLAND BETWEEN l NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR TOWNS OCWNWINO. MAY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15. RECOMMENC EVACUATION OF SEABR00X. (4).THIS INCLUDES RECOMMENDING CLOSING HAMPTON.HAMPTON FALLS.ANO SALISBURY BEACH AND THE PARKER TOWNS 00WNWINO TO 5 MILES. (4) RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ON 4 RECOMMEND SHELTER ALL OTHER AREAS PLUM ISLAND BETWEEN MAY 15 WITHIN EPZ LISTED ON FORM 2.08 AND SEPTEMBER 15* NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR TOWNS DOWNWINO. AN AUTOMATIC PAR SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY THE STED. (SHELTER 0-2 MILES. 5 MILES CCWNWINO WITH BEACH EVACUATION AND CLOSING OURING THE SUMMER BETWEEN MAY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15).
Attachmsnt. 1, Page 33 of 35 ATTACHMENT B ACCESS CONTROL POINTS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE EPZ Reference traffic management manual for traffic and access control points. NOTE The Traffic Management Manual allocates responsibility for Implementation of Traffic and Access Control Points. REVIEW COF. APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-31 Rev. 2 2/88
__-_______________________l________________________________
_ _3
e Page 34 of 35 ATTACHMENT C EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION STATUS AND LOCAL CONDITIONS-A. Response Status of the State and Town Emergency Organizations 1. The protective action decision must take into consideration the status of state and town emergency personnel and resources and the timing of the protective action announcements to the public. i 2. Of particular importance to precautionary actions for the beach areas is the status of the State Police and local police to implement traffic and access controls, t 3. Status considerations include: a. Availability of personnel b. Time required for mobilization c. Degree to which mobilization has progressed d. Time required for implementation of emergency actions B. Local Conditions 1. Local conditions within an affected area may constrain protective action decisions and their implementation. 2. Local conditions should be reported to decision makers by local LOC personnel through the IFO at Newington. 3. Pertinent local conditions include: a. Conditions of road and evacuation routes considering: (1) Seasonal travel impediments g.g. (2) Status of road repairs APR 141988 (3) Surface conditions due to weather Vol. 4 F-32 Rev. 2 2/88
- *, Page 35 of 35 ATTACRMENT C (cont'd)
(4) Natural or man-made impediments (5) Effect of traffic signals on traffic flow in direction of evacuation. b. Population density and distribEtion c. Evacuation route capabilities d. Inclement weather conditions that would affect travel (snow, fog, heavy rains, etc.) Local events which may present requirements for special notifica-e. tion traffic control, transportation assistance f. Status of schools and other special facilities. 4 s REVIEW COP 3 APR 141988 l Vol. 4 F-33 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 1 of 12 Maps for recording Ingestion Pathway data, including locations of key land use. agricultural facilities, water supply location and related information, are kept at the State and local EOCs and at the IF0/EOFs. These maps which are too large to be included in the plan proper, are suitable for use in identifying areas and facilities where protective actions may be necessary and for recording survey and monitoring data. 2.6.7 Criteria for Selecting Protective Actions for Direct Exposure Within the Plume Exposure EPZ One purpose of developing a RERP is to reduce the response time in the event of an emergency at a nuclear power station. To facilitate planning, a number of accident scenarios have been developed by NRC. These are the basis for the pro-tective action decision criteria discussed in this section. It should be noted. however, that these criteria are sufficiently flexible to be applied to any type of radiological release from a nuclear power plant. Procedures for application of these criteria are contained in Protective Action Decision Criteria for the State of New Hampshire. See NHRERP Volume 4. NHCDA Procedures. Appendix F. In addition to the criteria contained in this section, plant status and prognosis are considered for early precautionary actions for seasonal popula-tions. Figure 2.6-6 is a flow diagram of the process by which plant status and l2 prognosis are considered to determine early precautionary actions. If an ALERT is declared and plant conditions indicate that a major plant system is unstable or degrading, the beaches will be closed in Hampton and Seabrook and access control will be established. If a SITE AREA EMERGENCY is declared and plant :onditions are stable, the beaches will be closed in Hampton and Seabrook and access control will be established. If a SITE AREA EMERGENCY is declared and plant conditions indicate that a major plant system is unstable or degrading, the Hampton and Seabrook beach areas will be evacuated and access control will be established for areas within 2 alles of Seabr ook Station. 2 The discussion below explains the decision process for choosing evacuation or shelter as a protective action during an emergency response. The eight variables involved in choosing between shelter and evacuation are: REVIEW COM Vol. 1 2.6-24 APR 141988
PEV. DA7ts 84/13/88 ' Nny geta,eEP97387%DC#el Page 2 of 12 ALERT IS A MAJOR PLANT YSTEM UNSTABL NO = NO ACTION OR DEGRAOING YES U CLOSE HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACHES AND CONTROL ACCESS SITE AREA EMERGENCY IS A CLOSE HAMPTON AND MAJOR PLANT NO :- SEABROOK BEACHES YSTEM UNSTABL OR DEGRA0 LNG AND CONTROL ACCESS YES i N EVACUATE HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACH AREAS AND CONTROL ACCESS l U l EVALUATE 00SE PER l FIGURE 2.6-7 i FIGURE 2.6-6 PRECAUTIONARY DECISION CRITERIA FOR SEASONAL POPULATIONS I l
- c..., n.
r, Page 3 o f 12 REVIEW COPY APR 131988 A m 1 g pre,eeten osee scru No l I'*"e w tema pas ser PAGtw Me Action Acepaared -l P AC,,, w *ne.e seev t a seers t YES FOR Ckt CR BOTH mecommene OPMS Nettfy C "'. ee.c or A,nevnure to Place Oatry Animate on Storen Feed O 2 g can e.n.eaan 7,,
- Time to meseese Recomenend ivocumuon
- Pivme Amvei Time
% ' mud
- Deiar Dme
- Accen Time
- Ottsite Constresnes
,No WS 3 p g FCR SHELTER Can 6" ONtY Ae= essa ***** NO Conovat Monrtorms I R.ee .no sn.it.,
- e. % e en. eme,,te,,,
t. M YES CR9 '" l FCM ECTN EVACUAnCN nyg "9 o AND SM1 TEM i WNCLE SC0Y w*ana ren'*es TH YR otD l m smere eueenaar? I Recomrnoed Shoner d gygegg -r 3*" I 8 ,, s e e 5 Sr.au u NOT CEC:3.W NOT ggg $jyg gs,ey,, 8*"'*3'******* ansesaea mm. ee aus ..... ees., -... g, % ,,,,e,_,,, 3 o- .ee, 0 o EVA CUA DCN EVAC:44 DCN gyA m ncy I , R e e.mn,o..- FIGURE 2.6 7 Decision Criteria for Selecting between Evacuation and Sheltering Recommendations l Vol. 1 2.6-26 Rev. 2 2/88
I i REVIEW COPY .~ APR13tgag Page 4 of 12 l ~7 _e l ~o vme n -= ""*'"a- ~ l "] ee ee es . ?T3 2 mars mesegne acans no Vie meneease Le es m PAGar u.nsums -l PN'esme Deee M ##'*" g, s % pw a M 7 r e saw Fans I O Weur C a bgi ygg pe, gue,aCl W PCA uu rys PCR CTkin 9000 R*I13SV**LY f t o-. ~e.e es oe e< e, a,,.e_ - e... e om. .e S ~..ee., s.ee,. to mese Caw, aa.me.e Peees me.s sa seems, one e C. Camm. se Conwee une es en star,epoes Anwee Geeeeaere NoneSunees new swee=ee one poe,t se rien one Game se v s Messa Ceare sneansa s e,ve cas. Aenee Poene sa -eee, use 9' P namem me.e Teena, se 'a'"******f*~** in<tieve ne.w..Teenas e,
- , :e~ ~
wee e e. ~ e ' 3a D 3c Detasvg De faseg 8*'a******* e meanse ts.ee a wo uo e punces La.se e 8' planemar.e, een tu me ee uum
- a. swa re
= ser*e, ses erw carwng as mesmos wrwe, sea are newers 8******'*' IJcess bwter, sensi Lunes uweer, aaan t U** 8aG3isas w pass er es asunus? 1' 3b / De Emmerg se e u a swee..ee..so, e hemmme Ls.us W NC me ees Ft3 Cese.eiacaevn m Aammresesevevu meewee metvu.ory ceaww seres, saa era sermeve to eserees Emmest w,er,Aann PAG 3 as as mamms? Ip 1P toewe news me eee sae O.eeesemea er .mesinet.un.e es Nees uo . ee.... - ene shed menery a,ees ees o,','e,,eees 4 va o.ees.<., g, e ~,, i,.ea.o.e, e. 1 .e.,e. N.e, e.e,..ee., o ee,~y meessessoas e.e o..e. t j ( iI ise.e.e.e me.see,e e oisee,,ee e m e, eoes l FIGURE 2.6 8 Decision Criteria for Recommended Ingestion l Pathway Protective Actions l l \\ Vol. 1 2.6-27 Rev. 2 2/88 t -- ~ -.
--, Pace 5 of 12 1. Protective Action Guides - These have been described and presented in
- i.ble 2.6-1 presents the PAGs for the direct exposure path-Section 2.6.3.
i way. 2. Projected Dose - The amount of radiation received through direct exposure to the plume assuming no protective actions are taken. The projected dose is determined by UPHS according to ac.cident assessment procedures described in Section 2.5. 3. Time to Release - An estimate of the time remaining between the present and an anticipated release of radioactive materials from the plan *.. This esti-mate is provided to DPHS by the power plant operator-4. Plume Arrival Time - The time period between release of radioactive material into the atmosphere and the arrival of the leading edge of the plume at the reference location. DPHS will obtain this information from the Utility, through its own monitoring, and from independent plume dispersion modeling 2 undertaken by DPHS from the State EOC. 5. Plume Exposure Time - The elapsed time between plume arrival at the reference location and the time when it has pr.ssed the reference location. DPHS will obtain this information from the Utility in accordance with established Utility procedures and from its own accident assessment acti-vity. The cloud exposure time is determined by the duration of the release and meteorology. 6. Delay Time - The elapsed time between the determination that a release will l occur and the issuance of protective action instructions to the public. 2 7. Action Time - The estimated time required to complete an esacuation of an area, or to implement sheltering. NHOEM will use these estimates, which are l2 based upon an assessment of actual road conditions existing during an emergency. Offsite constraints to evacuation will also be considered. Vol. I 2.6-28 REVIEW COF Rev. 2 2/88 APR 14 $88
~', Page 6 of 12 8. Dose Reduction Factor (DRF) - The DRF is the amount of protection offered by a protective action. It is measured as the proportion of the projected dose that is expected after a protective action has been taken. The DRF can range from zero (complete protection) to 1.0 (no protection). The PAGs have been predetermined as outlined in Table 2.6-1. DRFs fcr typical structures in both Plume Exposure EPZs have also been predetermined. The values for the other six variables will be determined during an emergency response. Figure 2.6-7 is a flow diagram of the process in which these eight variables are used by DPHS and NHOEM to derive protective action recommendations l2 for the Governor. This New Hampshire protective action selection process is based upon EPA guidance (EPA 520/1-78-0018). The process is built around six chronological decision steps, represented by the numbered diamond-shaped blocks in Figure 2.6 ~ At each of these alx steps one or more of the eight decision variables, previously outlined, is required as input, and the output is either a direct protective action decision, or a determination to move to the next decision step. The following discussion traces the six-step decision process. NOTE: Special consideration is given to the advisability of closing the public and private beaches within the EPZ at ALERT classification, as a precau-tionary measure, regardless of the availability of a projected dose data. (See Volume 4. Appendix F. Protective Action Decision Criteria.) Block al - At Block si. DPHS must determine whether projected doses exceed PAGs for whole-body or thyroid doses. Input data needed for this determination are 1.!sted in Box A. They are the PAGs, from Table 2.6-1, and the projected doses based on present and anticipated releases. The projected doses are com-pared to the comparable PAG doses. If neither PAG is exceeded, the decision, as noted in Box B, is that no protective action is required. If either PAG is exceeded for any municipality, DPHS will notify the Department of Agriculture of the need to place dairy animals that are within the plume exposure EPZ on stored feed (Box B). This action is to be taken automatically upon an affir-native response in Block one since this particular action would have to occur prior to completion of either sheltering or evacuation within the plume exposure EPZ. DPHS and NHOEM will then proceed to the second decision step. 2 REVIEW COF" Vol. 1 2.6-29 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 7 of 12 Block e2 - At Block 82. DPHS and NHOEM must determine whether evacuation of the area in which whole body and/or thyroid PAG doses will be exceeded can be completed prior to the arrival of the plume. The input data fo'r this deter-aination are outlined IN Box D. These variables are Time to Release, Plume Arrival Time, Delay Time, and Action Time. The Action Time variable will include NHOEM assessment of offsite constraints to evacuation. as indicated in l2 Attachment C to Appendix F, Volume 4. If evacuation of the area in which PAGs are exceeded can be completed prior to plume arrival, then evacuation will in all likelihood be the recommended protective action as indicated in Box E. The final evacuation recommendation will be based on the degree to which the PAGs are projected to be exceeded and the DRF effectiveness of evacuation. If eva-cuation cannot be completed prior to plume arrival, DPHS and NHOEM aust proceed l to the third decision step. i REVIEW COF APR 0 61983 Vol. 1 2.6-30 Rev. 2 2/88 l I Pace 8 of 12 Block 83 - At the third decision step DPHS and NHOEM must determine whether l2 protective action can be implemented before the plume has passed. At this point. DPHS and NHOEM must consider Time to Release. Plume Arrival Plume Exposure l2 Time. Delay Time and Action Time for the alternative protective actions. There are three possible types of conclusion for this determination. First, it may be determined that there is insufficient time to implement either protective action for the area being considered. In this case. DPHS must advise that corrective rather than protective actions (i.e., monitoring and decontamination) should be taken. This case is represented in Box G. Second. DPHS and NHOEM may l2 determine that there is sufficient time to derive some protection from shelter. but insufficient time to implement evacuation. In this case, shelter will be advised, as shown in Box F (evacuation may be considered following passage of the plume due to exposure from ground deposition as discussed in Section 2.9.2). If both sheltering and evacuation begin only after arrival of the Plume, and both can be implemented before the plume has passed. DPHS and NHOEM must proceed l2 to the fourth decision step. Block e4 - At this point in the decision process NHOEM and DPHS begin to l2 address the tradeoff between evacuation and shelter. It has been determined in Block 83 that both sheltering and evacuation can begin only while the population is exposed to the plume. The question that must be addressed by NHOEM and DPHS l2 is, "Which protective action provides the best protection under these circumstances?" Evacuees will be exposed while evacuating, but exposures will drop to zero when they have cleared the area. Sheltering provides protection quicker, but its effectiveness decreases as plume exposure time increases. The decision to be made in this step concerns a determination of which pathway is most important. If only one pathway exceeds the PAG in Block *1. this decision is automatically determined. When both pathways are involved, the decision is made by comparing the whole-body and thyroid doses received after protective i actions have been taken. If the whole-body PAG exceeds the thyroid PAG, all l2 l subsequent decisions are based on the whole-body dose. If the reverse is true, subsequent decisions are based on the thyroid dose. If both are equally impor-tant, subsequent decisions can be based on either dose. REVIEW COP' Vol. 1 2.6-31 Rev. 2 2/88 l i 1 Pace 9 of 12 Block s5 - Parallel decisions are made at the fifth decision step. This 1 parallel path is shown by the pair of Blocks numbered Block s5. These blocks address the same question. The decision in one is referenced to thyroid dose. and in the other to whole-body dose. The question asked in this step is "Does shelter or evacuation provide the greatest protection?" This decision is made by using fast and simple screening calculations that compare the effectiveness of sheltering versus evacuation. If evacuation provides the best protection, then evacuation is chosen as the protective action (Box J). The DRF for evac-untion considers the fact that individuals must drive through the Plume and are protected only by their automobiles until they clear the area. The DRF for sheltering considers the fact that as the duration of exposure increases, sheltering effectiveness decreases. The criteria used in this decision block are simplified to facilitate rapid analysis. The simple screening calculations are biased away from evacuation, thus. If evacuation is indicated, evacuation should be ordered. On the other hand, if these criteria do not indicate evac-untion, the results are inconclusive and a more detailed comparison of the two protective actions must be undertaken at next decision step. Block s6 - This decision asks the same question, "Which protective action offers the greatest protection?" The analysis is based on more complete data and detailed calculations. It provides a better evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of shelter and evacuation. If evacuation is still indicated. It will be recommended (Box J). If shelter is indicated, then shelter will be recommended (Box I). The decision process above contains assumptions in Blocks 84, s5, and s6 that sheltering occurs in small structures such as residential dwelling units. Sheltering may also occur in large structures such as schools, institutional facilities, and office buildings. Large structure sheltering can be viewed as a separate protective action which requires separate evaluation. Because there are a limited number of large structures in both Plume Exposure EPZs, this option is not being considered by New Hampshire for the general population. For institutional facilities whose population may already be in large structures, sheltering may be the preferred protective action. To evaluate this case, the large structure DRF may be substituted in the above decision procesi and a separate evaluation made for the institutional facilittel. 2 REVIEW COP' Vol. 1 2.6-32 Rev. 2 8/86
Page 10 of 12 As mentioned above, the decision to shelter or evacuate must be made with reference to a specific location. New Hampshire will use local government boundaries to define the reference locations. Therefore. protective actions will be decided and implemented on a municipality-by-municipality basis. New Hampshire has chosen this option because implementation of protective actions on any other basis is considered less manageable. 2.6.8 Decision Process for Selection of Protective Actions for Ingestion Pathway Exposures The decision process for determining protective actions for Ingestion Pathway exposures is similar to, but considerably simpler than, the decision pro-cess for determining protective actions against direct exposure in the Plume Exposure EPZ. Figure 2.6-8 is a flow diagram of the process used to determine l2 which of the protective actions is to be used for each of the Ingestion Pathways. The process is built around three chronological decision steps for each of three ingestion paths. The decision steps are represented by the num-bered diamondshaped blocks in Figure 2.6-8. Input to each step is a comparison l2 of dose to the Ingestion Pathway PAGs which are listed in Table 2.6-2. To facilitate rapid decision making, a radioactivity level, which corre-sponds to the PAG for a particular food pathway, will be used. This level is the amount of radiation in food, water, or animal feed that would ultimately result in exceeding the PAG if it was allowed to pass up through the food chain to the human consumers. For example. If the level of Iodine-131 on a pasture exceeds the precalculated radioactivity level, the human dose resulting from the pasture-animal-milk pathway would exceed the PAG if preventive actions were not taken for milk. This radioactivity-level-to-PAG-dose-conversion calculation has been described by FDA/HHS in 43 FR 58790. Precalculated levels for speci-j fic pathways are contained in DPHS procedures. Total dose committment from all pathways and for all nuclides taken together will be calculated in determining exceedance of preventive and emergency PAGs. l The following discussion traces the three-step decision process for Ingestion Pathway exposure. The term "response level" refers to the precalcu-l lated radioactivity levels discussed above. l l REVIEW COP 3 bb Rev. 2 2/88 Vol. 1 2.6-33 I Pace 11 of 12 Block *1 - At Block
- 1. DPHS must determine whether any Ingestion Pathway may be exposed to radiation.
The decision is a simple determination of whether or not there may be a radioactive release which affects areas beyond the site boundary of the power plant. Input consists of advisories from the Utility. If the answer is no. further consideration of protective action for the Ingestion Pathway is not required. If the answer is yes. DPHS must progress to the next decision step. Block *2 - At Block *2 DPHS must determine whether a Preventive Action PAG may be exceeded for one or more of the three Ingestion Pathways taken together. This entails using the response levels for (a) milk. (b) other foods. and (c) water to determine whether the Preventive Action PAGs. listed in Table 2.6-2. may be exceeded. If the answer is negative, nu protective action is required. If the answer is positive for the three Ingestion Pathways. Preventive Actions will be recommended will be recommended until more definitive 2 analysis can be undertaken. Volume 4 Appendix D lists all commercial agri-cultural facilities within the 50-mile EPZ. Figure 2.6-8 lists the preventive actions in parallel for the three ingestion paths. Each involves control of the ingestible material by the appropriate State Agency followed by field testing to more accurately define the levels of contamination. For example, DPHS has the authority to close shellfish harvesting areas. In the event that harvesting of shellfish should not be done because of contamination, the Director, DPHS will invoke this authority by notifying the Department of Fish and Game to restrict harvesting and to control access to harvesting areas. Collection of field samples is further described in Section 2.5.3. Upon activating Preventive Actions, DPHS aust proceed to the third decision step. Block #3 - At Block #3 DPHS aust determine whether Emergency Action PAGs are, or may be, exceeded. The determination is based first on a comparison of dose projections to the Energency Action PAG levels. If predictive techniques i show potential for exceedance of PAG levels of the ingestible connodity, DPHS will advise control or condemnation pending verification by field data. If field data confira predicted contamination DPHS will advise condemnation or storage for suitable future use. If field data show levels below the appropriate response levels. State control of the ingestible material will be REVIEW COPS APR 141988 Vol. 1 2.6-34 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 12 of 12 O relinquished. In either event, DPHS will issue advisories on the nature of the controls for each ingestible material and means for minimizing ingestion of radioactive materials. PIVIEW COP' APR 141988 Vol. 1 2.6-35 Rev. 2 8/86
Attachmant 3, Page 1 of 4 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Shelter Capacitt of the Seacrook EPZ 8each Areas 1. Shelter Study and Updated Population Estimates The total avadlable shelter scace has been determined by the Shelter Study performed for New Hamoshire Yankee by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corocration. This study assessed the potential available shelter space in commercial, municioal, tax exempt, and residential buildings in the beach areas of the Seabrook Station EPZ. Potential shelters were considered to ce ' hose structures that met the dose reouction factor criteria of tne NMRERP. The study separately evaluated the total capacity of the potential i shelters for the two grot 6 of structures, public and residential. Public structures are buildings that are normally accessible _co the pub'ic for commerical or business use. Recognizing that not all but iding space would be et r lable, the gross area derived f rom tax record; was reduced by an availability factor to yield a net area that reoresented available space not taken up by equipment, sales stock, internal features, etc., and that could be occupied by persons taking shelter. When the potential avaiinole shelter space was totaled, the number of persons that can be provided short-term shelter was estimated by dividing the total by 10 equare feet per person (see Federal Emergency Management Agency, Radirtion Safety in Shelters, CPG 2-6.J, Septemoer
- 3, 1983).
For residentiai cuildings, it was assumed they would be occupied at their rormal rate of 6.24 persons per building. T5is occu-pancy rate was determined from the work of KLO Associates. The total potential shelter space in residences was determined by multiplying tne occupancy rete by the number of residences. In orde.- to arrive at the total number of persons who could be { sheltered, puolic and residential shelter caeacities were added together. For the beach areas of Seabrook and Hamoton, south of Great Boar's Head, there is a totai of 91,527 cotential shelter spaces. This available sneiter soace can be comoared to the size of the beach poou-lation derived from aerial photograons taken on a crowded, good Jeather, surser weekend in July, 1987 For tha sate areas of Hamoton 6 Seaorook, the estimateo ceak population was determined to be
- )
Therefore, available potential shelter capacity is almost .imes the estimated peak neacn ocoulation, a i L/43958.1 J
., Page 2 of 4 2. Distrioution of Shelter As a means of showing the relative distribution of identified potential shelter capacity and the beach population, a map and chart of tne areas of concern have been developed. These are presented as Attachments 1 and 2. The t.ttacaments show graphically the number of potential shelterees that can be accommooated in public and residential shelters along the beach and tne numoer of observed persons actually on the beach and in beach areas east of Route 1A counted from the aerial pho-tographs discussed above. The shelteree capacities and persons on the beach are shown in increments of two-tenths of a mile. These graphics show that the population on the beach is distributed in approximately direct proportion to the availability of shelter capacity. The graphics show that sufficient shelter capacity is located in all areas within one-half mile of the populated beach areas. This distribution of shelters is such that shelter capacity can be accessed by beach goers within a matter of minutes and certainly within one-half hour. 3. Oose Reduction Factors of Beach Structures Each of the potential public shelters identified by the Stone & Webster Shelter Stuoy was visually inspected externally by a health physicist who estimated the structure's cloud shielding factors. The purpose of this examination was to ensure that identified structures conform to the dose rcouction factor assumed by the NHRERP. Aldrich, et al., Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents; Sheltering Concepts with Existing Public and Private Structure, SAND-77-1725 was used as the reference for the purpose of assigning cloud shielding factors. The seasonal residences in the Hampton and Seabrook Beach areas were i visually inspected ar.d found to be of wood frame or more substantial construction and therefore have the dose reduction factors (DRF) used Dy the NHRERP. l For dose reduction factors associated with an exter.1al cloud, it is reasonable to assume that beach unwinterited area structures meet at least the 0.9 dose reduction factor (a wood frame structure without a basument) on the easis of information provided in EPA 520/1-78-001A, I Protective Evaluation, Part 1, The Effectiveness of Sh?lturing as a Protective Action Against Nuclear Accidents Ir.volving Gaseous Releases at page 18. l l Further, the thyroid dose reduction factor assumed by the NHRERP assu-mes an air exchange rate of 2 changes per hour. This it a reasonable assumption for unwinterized structures since the maximum air exchange for a structure without ventilation, weatherstripping or storm sashes is 2 changes per hour (see EPA 520/1-78-001:, page 8. Table 2). L/43938.2 ( l
-, Page 3 of 4 SEABROOK SHELTER STUDY iTENTIAL SH ELTER CAPACITY (PERSONS) c3 $t t'.t S t ACM -
== g ' SMELTEREE5; pe g.,utic y l'w bu g a n d (y.g,ggg7 R e tic e nt
- 8
..3g g) TOTaut) t!2 MILg FROM COAST m R E 3:0 EN0!$,:) MAYPTON f, PUBL:Cl5N / 640 "f '{%j T,6 'I 23.728 \\ I
- .600 15.260 2 *AtLE R ADIVs 4192 "E
l IMI MAMPTON g10 1!46 14,566 7,530 516 5.674 \\ I 1,101 \\ Ai TOTAL \\. ( 13,255 s 83.2 7 3'I m 655 '3 33$ /g 2311 sr.Asnock
- g he -N 5'. %;#
\\li s STATION ~- g i.
- g l-6 )g " j r.
f i 1C60 g \\g 9 3s1 I (' .3 tra l o W T,At 1 WS TetAL 8" 1f.10,'(o 6 a310 7 .2 3 s ' h, / go, $EAs#00K RCUTEtil / / 's) Tho total shelter capacity (persons) in public buildings (i.e. churches, restaurants, motels,etc... Tho total shelter capacity (persons) in private residences. (c) (a) + (b). ' Tha total number of people on the beach,in the water,and on the ocean side of Route 1 A on July 18,1987 at approximately 12:20 P.M., in.2 mile increments.
l, Page 4 of 4 4 6 Attacnment 24,000 - Distribution of Beach Population and Potential Shelter Capacity (Public & Residences) 1 .. \\ 20,000 - 15,000 - Potential Shelter N Capacity 10,000-Beach Population 4,000 - 3,000-2,000-
- s 1,000-I M::' ii:.
......s:,,.Si:::. i@jigf8!..g:ipeg($!!:. . i '.:.r: j f g.;:.,, O i i i i i - i i i i i i i i h -- 0.2 mile H AM PTON j m sEABROOK
O 00CnETED USNPC 1 gg my s2 P5:22 eElATED CORRESPONDENCG rg %,. FFIC g AprilbY,396ti UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ) In the Matter of ) ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Dockat Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL ) i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency ) Planning Issues) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, George H. Lewald, one of the aticorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on April 27, 1988, I made service of Applicants' Direct Testimory No. 6 and Errata to Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to): Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen Licensing Board Panel Town Office i U.S. Nuclear P.egulatory Atlantic Avenue l Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 East Wect Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda., MD 20814 Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W. East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 Enst West Highway r Bethesda, MD 20814 7 4--. -. - - - - ---7
- G o
i Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of General Counsel Board Panel Docket {2 copioa) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building One White Flint North, 15th it. 4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.
O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir. Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 i Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street l Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire I
U.S. Senato Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 l l, I
4 m i i
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 442 John W. McCormack Post Newburyport, MA 01950 Office and Court House Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham, Esquire Leonard Kopelman, Esquire Murphy and Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C. 33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 376 Main Street Haverhill, MA 01830 84$4 sACC George H. Lewald (*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail) <}}