ML20195C939
| ML20195C939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1988 |
| From: | Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Duffett J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811040086 | |
| Download: ML20195C939 (4) | |
Text
.
OCT 2 51988 Docket No. 50-443 Mr. John C. Duffett President & Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
Dear Mr. Duffett:
SUBJECT:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REPORT OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES Enclosed is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) letter dated October 14. 1988 that forwards FEMA's review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachu:;etts Communities (SPMC).
Please continue to coordinate with FEMA Region I to ensure that the inadequacies in the SPMC identified by FEMA are corrected.
IS Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION: Docke File, NRC& local PDRs PDI-3 r/f, SVarga, BBoger, RRushbrook OGC, EJordan, EGrimes, ACRS(10), RVessman, JWiggins,Rg.!
es11040086 es1025 PDR f4 DOCK 05000443 i p PDC l OFC : P D I .; 3, , :DIR/PDI-3 -
NAME :Vf r s mw :RWessmt : : : : :
.... f.... .......:............:............:............:............:............:...........
DATE:10/9988 :10/78/P9 : : : : :
I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
9
, pS*% UNITED STATES 1 %, ,
!g p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
-l
% , , , , , #' OCT 2 51988 Docket No. 50-443 Mr. John C. Duffett President & Chief Executive Officer Public Servict. Company of New Hampshire Post nffice Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
Dear Mr. Duffett:
SUBJECT:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REPORT OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES l
Enclosed is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) letter Ctsd October .4 1988 that forwards FEMA's review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Comunities (SPMC).
Please continue to coordinate with FEMA Region I to ensure that the inadequacies in the SPMC identified by FEMA are corrected.
/ l
, / ,*Ef 'Ls ' h .'. O i q icEor Nerses, Project Manager
( Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next p:ge
t s ..
s John C. Duffett Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Public Service Company of New Hampshire cc:
Thomas Dignan Esq. E. Tupper Kinder, Ee,q.
JoFn A. Ritscher, Esq. G. Dana Bisbee, Esa.
Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire Resident Inspector Post Office Box 330 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Post Office Box 1149 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Dr. Maeray Tye, President Sun Valley Association Mr. A. M. Ebner, Project Manager 209 Sumer Street United Engineers S Constructors Haverhill, Massachusetts 01830 Post Office Box 8223 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Robert Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer and Solomon Steven Oleskey, Esq.
116 Lowell Street Of' ice of the Attorney General Manchester, New Hampshire 03106 One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 330 Diane Curran, Esq. Boston, Hawachusetts 02108 Hamon and Weiss 2001 S Street, NW Carol S. Sneider, Esc.
Suite 430 Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20009 One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 330 Philip Ahren Esq. Bosten Massachusetts 02108 Assistant Attorney General State House, Station M D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
Augusta, Maine 04333 General Counsel Public Service Company of New Hampshire Mr. E. Brown Post Office Box 330 Public Service Company of Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Regional Administrator, Region I Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comistion 475 Allendale Road Ms. Jane Doughty King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, N2w Hampshire 03801 M. Brock, Esq.
- Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Ave.
Portsmouth, N.H. 03801 Ms. Diana P. Randall 70 Collins Street Mr. T. Feigenbaum Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
s-d *.
) .. ,
Edward A. Browr , Public Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Service Company of New Hampshire cc:
Mr. Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Mr. Alfred V. Sargent, City Hall Chaiman 126 Daniel Street Board of Selectmen Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Town of Salisbury, MA 019f0 Board of Selectmen Senator Gordon J. Humphrey RF0 Dalton Road ATTN: Tom Burack Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 531 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Washington, D.C. 20510 Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire j Drinkwater Road Mr. Owen B. Durgin Chaiman l Hampton Falls, New Haapshire 03844 Durham Board of Selectmen l Town of Durham 1
Mr. Guy Chichester, Chaiman Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Rye Nuclear Intervention Comittee Jane Spector I c/o Rye Town Hall Federal Energy Regulatory 10 Central Road Comission Rye, New Hampshire 03870 825 North Capital Street, NE Room 8105 Chairman, Board of Selectmen Washington D. C. 70426 RF0 2 South Hampton, New Hampshire 03827 Mr. R. Sweeney R. Scott Hill - Whilton Three Metro Center Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Suite 610
& McGuire Bethesda, Maryland 20814 79 State Street Newburyport, Pa. 01950 Mr. Richard Strome. Director Ms. R. Cashman, Chairman New Hampshire Office of Emergency Board of Selectmen Management Town of Amesbury State Office Park South Town Hall 107 Pleasant Street Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Adjudicatory File (2)
Honorable Peter J. Matthews Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mayor, City of Newburyport Panel Docket City Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Washington. 0.C. 20555 Mr. Donald E. Chick, Town Manager Congressman Nicholas Mavroules Town of Exeter 70 Washington Street 10 Front Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Exeter, New Hampshire 03823 Mr. G. Thomas Mr. John C. Duffett Public Service Company of President and Chief Executive Officer New Hampshire Public Service Company of New Fwpshire Post Office Box 330 1000 Elm St., P.O. Box 330 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
_ - - - - - - - _ ----- - --- -- - -- - A
Qv]
g z
' o j
.D . '
Federal Emergency Mansgement Agency y
% / Washingmn, D.C. 20472 017 i A 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Congel Director Division of Radiatien Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office c' Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nucle Regul,atory Cuni 1,on
. m ., T, u FROM: Rich rd W. #inm Assistant Associate Director Of fice of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs
SUBJECT:
Review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities This is in response to your memorandum of September 9,1988, which confirmed a modified schedule for the issuance of FEMA 's evaluations of various portions of the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. That memorandum confimed dates agreed to
, in discussions between our respective staffs and in the August 3 - 4, 1988, pre-hearing cenference on the upcoming litigation.
As agreed, attached is a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review, dated October 1988, of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) including Amendment 6 and the additional plan materials sich you transmitted to us on October 11, 1988. The review was conducted against the assumptions, criteria and planning standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supplement 1. It was prepared by FEMA Region I and reflects coments of the Region I Regional Assistance Committee.
As we also agreed, FEMA.will provide the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission on
. November 18, 1988, with a consolidated finding on the offsite plans for the entire Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, including the plans for the States of New Hampst l ire and Maine and the utility-developed Seabrook Plan
' for Massachusetts Communities.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 640-2871.
Attact,.nent
. As Stated y
x------__ _ . _
1 - Jb .
r ,
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNrflES Q> l4 4_
g
< 111 x
\o o /
Federal Emerget.cy Management Agency October 1988
)'I 43 7
\
, e. .
Octobsr 1988 f ,.
CONTENTS ACRONYMS.............................................................. xiv I N T R O D U C T IO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALU ATION C RITERIA . . . . . . . ..................................... 4 A. Assignment of Respr htty (Organization Control)(Planning Standard A) .......................................................... 4 A.1.a. Evaluation Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Statement.................................................... 4 P ltn R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A.1.b Evaluation Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Statement.................................................... 5 Plan Re f ere nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 E v a l ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A.1.c. Evaluation C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Statement.................................................... 6 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6
. E v al u a t i o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.1.d. ' Evklua tion C:l t e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Statement.................................................... 7 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Evaluation................................................... 7 A.1.e. Evaluatio n C ri te rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Statement.................................................... 8 P l a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3
A.2.a. E . alua t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- Statement.................................................... 9 P la n Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 o
A.2.b. Evalua t ion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Statement.................................................... 10 Plan Re f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.3. E valua tion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Statement.................................................... 11 P l a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Evaluation................................................... 11 s
i
_ _ _ - ~ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ __.-- _ ~ - ___ __ _ _ _ __ _.
Octcbar 1988 4
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
A.4. Evalua tio n Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Statement.................................................... 12 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C) . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.1 Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.1.a. Evaluat ion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Statement..................................................-. 13 Pl a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
, E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.1.b. Evalua t ion Celt e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Statement.................................................... 13 Pl an R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.1.c. Evalua tion Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Statement.................................................... 14 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.2. . Evaluation Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
~
Statement.................................................... 15 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C.3. Evalua tion Crit erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Statement................................................... 15 P l a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.4. Evalua tion Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Statement.................................................... 16 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Ev al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 e C.5. Evalua tion Cri t erlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 St a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 18 D. Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 D.3. Evalua t ion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Statement.................................................... 19 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Evaluation...................................................
19 11 l
k r
--- --- . . . - - .. -,n .- - - ,,, . . - - . - , . , - , . , , ,
,' - 8 t o Octob3r 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)
D.4. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Statement.................................................... 19 P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 E.1. Evaluation Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Statement.................................................... 21 Plan R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E.2. Evaluation C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Statement.................................................... 22 Pla n Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E.3. Ev aluation Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Statement.................................................... 23 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E v al u a t i o n .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E.4. Evalua tion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Statement.................................................... 24 Pl a n R e fe r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 E.5. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Statement.................................................... 26 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E.8. Evalua tio n C ri t erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Statement.................................................... 26 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 F. Emergency Communications (Planning Standard F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 F.1 Evaluation C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 r
l F.1.a. Evalu ation C rit e r ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Statement.................................................... 27 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 F.1.b. Evalu a t ion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statement.................................................... 28 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Evaluetion................................................... 29 i
i 111 l
l
~ ' '
October 1988 i s
- CONTENTS (Cont'd) .
F.1.c. Evalua tio n Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Statement.................................................... 29 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 e,
F.1.d. Evalua t ion Cel terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Statement.................................................... 30 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 F.1.e. Evalua tion Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
. Statement.................................................... 31 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 F.2. Evaluation Crite rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Statement.................................................... 32 Pl an R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 F.3. , Ev alua tion C ri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Statement..................................................... 33 Pl a n )R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
-G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 0.1. Evalua tio n Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Statement.................................................... 34 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 0.2. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Statement............................,....................... 36 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 36 0.3. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Statement.................................................... 37 Plan R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 G.4.a. Evalua tio n Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Statement.................................................... 37 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 E v al u a t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 t G.4.b. Evalua t ion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Statement.................................................... 39 1 P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 L E v alua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 39 !
iv !
7 e e e u .. s.
Octobar ;988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)
G.4. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Statement.................................................... 39 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 0.5. Evaluation Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Statement.................................................... 40 Plan Reference . ... .......................................... 40 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 H. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H.3. Evaluation Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Statement.................................................... 41 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Ev al ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H.4. Evalua tion Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Statement.................................................... 41' Plan R e f er e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Evaluation................................................... 42 H.7. Evaluation C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Statement.................................................... 43
. Plan R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
~
E v al u k t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 H.10. Evaluation C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Statement.................................................... 43 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 H.11. Evalua tion C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Statement.................................................... 44 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Evaluation................................................... 44 H.12. Evaluatio n Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Statement.................................................... 45 Plan Re f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
' E v al ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 I. Accident Assassm ent (Planning Standard I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . 46
!.7. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Statement.................................................... 46 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 L
V !
i . ,
Octcbar 1985 1
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
- 1. 8. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Statement.................................................... 47 Pl s n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 I.9. Evalua tio n C ri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Statement.................................................... 48 Plan R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ev alu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1.10. Evalua; lon Criterlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Statement.................................................... 49 Pl an R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
!.11. Evalua tion Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Statement.................................................... 50 Pl an R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 J.2. Evaluation C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Statement.................................................... 52
. , Plan R e f e re nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 F v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 J.9. Evaluation Cri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Statement.................................................... 53 P l an R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Ev alu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J.10 Evalu a tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
, J.10.a. Ev alua tio n C rite r lon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Statement.................................................... 55 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 J.10.b. Evalua tion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 i S t a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
, Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 J.10.c. Evalua t ion Cri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Statement.................................................... 57 P l a n Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 >
p h
vt L
m, .-___ - ,. _ , .m. ._. . . . , _ _ _ . . , , - - . . - . . . < ...~ - - . - - --
7,;. ,
4 _ .. ;
Octobor 1988 l r .,
l 1
CONTENTS !
J.10.d. Evalua tion C ri te rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ,
Statement.................................................... 57 l Plan Re f e re nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 J.10.e. Evaluation Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 St a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Pla n R e fere nc e . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s. . .. 59 E v al ua t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 J.10.f. Evalua tion Critsrlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Statement.................................................... 60 Pla n R e f e re n c e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 J.10.g. Evaluation Cri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Statement...........................................'......... 60 Plan Re f ere nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4!
J.10.h. Evaluation Cri te rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 S ta t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Plan Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
- J.10.l. Ev al ua t io n C'ri t e r io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 S t a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 P
J.10.J. Evalua tion Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Statement.................................................... 63 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
. J.10.k. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Statement.................................................... 64 ,
Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Ev al ua t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 J.10.1. Evaluat ion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 St a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Plan Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 J.10.m. Evalua tion Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Statement.................................................... 66 Plan R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
. Evaluation.................,................................. 66 vi1 4
e v -
>e -- en---,-n, - + , , , , , .,,--.,,,,..,--.,,_--,_,.---.,w.,, ,--_.-,,,,-,,en - ---, , 7-,.n.,, a .-,----,m, --mv-rnn-- - - - - - , - , -
Octobar 198$ '
CONTENTS J.11. Evalua t ion Cri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Statement.................................................... 67 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 J.12. Evalua t io n C r' t e r io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Statement.................................................... 69 Plan Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Ev al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 K. Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 K.3.a. Evaluation Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Statement.................................................... 71 Pla n Re f ere nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Ev al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 K.3.b. Evaluation C ri t erlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
, Statement.................................................... 72 Plan Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 K.4. Evalua tion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Statement.....................,.............................. 73
. Pl a n R e f e r'e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 K.5.a. Evaluat ion Cri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Statement.................................................... 73 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 K.5.b. Evaluation C ri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Statement.................................................... 74 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 E v alu a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 L. Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
~
L.1. Evalua tion Cri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Statement.................................................... 75
. Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 L 3. Evalua t ion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Statement.................................................... 76 P l a n R e fe re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 76 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 vill mr - - - - - - - . - , - - .-- . , , . , - .g.-.- ----. -,c ,,. ... -.-----------.,-.-.._,,,,n
r Octob3r 1988 CONTENTS L.4. Evalua tion C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Statement.................................................... 76 P l a n lR e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 E v al u a t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations
( Pl a n ning S t a ndard M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 M.I. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Statement.................................................... 77 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Ev al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 M.S. Evalua t ion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 dtatement.................................................... 78 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Eysluation................................................... 78 M. 4. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Statement.................................................... 78 Plan R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
,, N. Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
~
N.1.a. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79 Statement.................................................... 79 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 N.1.b. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Statement.................................................... 80 Pl an R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Evaluation................................................... 80 N.2. Ev aluatio n Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 N.2.a. Evalua tion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Statement.................................................... .
81 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
' E v al ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 N.2.c. Evalu a tion Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Statement..........s......................................... 82 "hnReference............................................... 82 S v al u s t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 N.2.d. Evalu a tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Statement.................................................... 82 P l a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 E v a l ue t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 in t
j -- _ - _ . _ _ _ - - - - -- , . - - - _ . _ _ , - - - . - - ,
Octobsr 1988 3 CONTENTS N.2.e. Evalua tio n C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Statement.................................................... 83 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Ev a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 N.3. Evaluation C ri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 N.3.a. Evalua tion Cri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Statement.................................................... 84 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 N.3.b. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Statement.................................................... 84 Pla n Re f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 N.3.c. Evaluat ion C ri terion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Statement...........,........................................ 84 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Ev al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 N.3.d. Evalua tio n C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Statement................................................... 85
~
Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 85 N.3.e. Evalua tion Cri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Statement.................................................... 85 Pla n R e fe r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 N.3.f. Evalua tion Cri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Statement.................................................... 80 Pl an R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 N.4. Evalua tio n Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
' Statement.................................................... 87 P l a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 N.b. Evalua tion Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Statement.................................................... 87 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 N.6. E' a lu a t io n C r i t e r i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 S.atement.................................................... 88
'!! a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Evaluation................................................... 88 1
Octobst 1988 CONTENTS O. Radiological Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard O) . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 0.1. Ev al ua t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Statement.................................................... 89 P lan R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 O.4. Evalua tion Crit erlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 0.4.a. Evalua tion C ri t erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Statement..................................................... 90 Plan Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 0.4.b. Evalua tion C ri t er ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Statement.................................................... 90 P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 O.4.c. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Statement.................................................... 91 P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Ev al ua t'l o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 0.4.d. Evaluation Criterio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Statement.................................................... 92 P l an R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 0.4.f. Evalua tio n Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Statement.................................................... 92 Pim R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 0.4.g. Ev alua t ion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Statement................................................... 93 P l an Re f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
' 93 O.4.h. Ev al ua t ion C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement.................................................... 93 P lan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 E v al ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 E valuation Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 0.4.J.
Statement.................................................... 94 P l an R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 mi
n .- .
Octob3r 1988 s CONTENTS O.4.k. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Statement.................................................... 95 Pl an R e f ere nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 E v al ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . 95 0.5. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 State ment . . . ............................................... 95 Plan R e f e re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 E v al ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 0.6. v alua t io n C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 datement..3................................................ 96 P la n )R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Pla'u (Planning Standard P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 P.1. Evalua tion Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97' Statement.................................................... 97 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 97 E v al u a t l o c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 97 P.2. Evaluation Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
. Statement.................................................... 97 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 P.3. Evalua tion C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Statement.................................................... 98 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 P.4. Evalua t ion Cri te rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Statement.................................................... 98 Plan R e f ere n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
,. P.S. Evaluat ion Cri te rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Statement..........................................-......... 99 Pl a n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 P.6. Evalua tion C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Statement.................................................... 99 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Evaluation................................................,.. 100 P.7. Evalu a tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Statement.................................................... 100 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 E v a l t. a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 31(
t ,
Octobst 1988 '
\
l CONTENTS P.8. Ev alu a tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Statement.................................................... 100 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 P.10. Evaluation C riterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Statement.................................................... 101 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 P.11. Evalua tion Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Statement.................................................... 101 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities:
k a il ng Su m m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 APPENDIX As FEMA-REP-11 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Pubile Education Materials for Plume Exposure Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B: FEMA-REP-11 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Public Education Materials for Ingestion Exposure Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 l amemp e
a 4 .
(l1 l
,w Octcber 1988 $
ACRONYMS ACP Access Control Point AMS Aerial Measuring System ARAC Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability ARC American Red Cross BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory CDC Center for Disease Control CPM Counts per minute DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DO! U.S. Department of the Interior DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DRD Direct Reading Dosimeter EAL Emergency Action Level EBS Emergency Broadcast System ECL Emergency Classification Level EMS Emergency Medical Services EMT Emergency Medical Techntelan
~EOC Emergency Operations Center EOF Emergency Operations Facility EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERPA Emergency Response Planning Area ETE Evacuation Time Estimate study ,
EPZ Emergency Planning Zone i EWF Emergency Worker Facility FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration :
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FRC Federal Response Center FRERP 'W l Radiological Emergency Response Plan FRMAP & Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan nere d.y IRAP -Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan), DOE GE General Emergency GM Guldanco Memoranda l l
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HUD Departme of Housing and Urban Development IP Implementing Procedure IFO Incident Field Office alv
o Octobdr 1988 JCAH Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals KI Potassium lodide MAGI Massachusetts Governmenta1 Interf ace MCDA/OEP Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency /Offlee of Emergency Preparedness MDPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health METS Melita Emergency Telenotification System MOU Memorandum of U iderstanding -
mR MilllReentgen MREM Millirem NAS Nuclear Alert System I NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 4
NCS National Communications System NESPERN Northern Essex County Police Emergency Radio Network NEST Nuclear Emergency Search Team .
NHY Public Service of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division :
NHY ORO New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization !
NIAT Nuclear Incident Advisory Team ;
NMCC National Military Command Center .
NMFS National Marine Fisherlas Service i 140AA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOUE Notification of Unusual Event
- NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission - t ORO Offsite Response Organization PA Protective Action PAG Protective Action Guide PAR Protective Action Recommendation PNS Prompt Notification System 1,
PSNH Public Service of New Hampshire R Roentgen RAC Regional Assistance Committee
, RACES Radio Amateur Communleations Emergency Services REM Roentgen Equivalent Man -
i RERP Radiological Emergency Response Plan RETCO Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinators ,
RPU Remote Programming Unit SA Staging Area i SAE Site Area Emergency SPMC Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities TCP Traffic Control Point TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter
! TMI Three Mlle Island
- av
Octobsr 198h ...
TP Transfer Point '
TSC Techalcal Support Center USAF U.S. Air Force USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geologic Survey VANS Vahleular Alert and Notification System WSI Weather Servlee International YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric Company YAEL Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory l YAMAP Yarhee Atom!c Mutual Assistance Plan ,
s 9
k emew=
h k
4 i
l l
1 i
i b d
\
l svl l l
i
+ . --. _ _ - _ . _ . . _ _ - - - . _ , _ _ -
Octoboi 1988 1
RF, VIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES INTRODUCTION t This review was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I (FEMA I), with the assistance of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC).
The RAC is thlred by FEMA and has the following membero U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC): U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); U.S. Environmental Protection ,
Agency (EPA): and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The RAC functions ,
in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Part 351, "Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Response."
On November 3,1987, the NRC amended its rules to trovide criteria for the !
evaluation of utility prepared emergency plans in situat!ons in which state andhr local !
governments decline to participate further in emergency planning. On December 2, -
1987, FEMA and the NRC promulgated an interim ~use document entitled "Criteria for i
- Preparation and Evaluation of Radiologleal Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness j in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness)". The document was published in November 1987 ss Supplement 1 to l NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. Supplement I was issued as a final document h l
September '1988. The guidance contained in Supplement 1 is to be used for the
.developrtent, review, and evaluation of offsite' utility radiological planning and peparedness for at.eldents at commercial nuclear power plants.
l This FEMA review and evaluation used NUREG-Of!$4/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 ,
! Supp.1, September 1988, as the basis (planning standards and speelfle critarla) for determintng the adequacy of the New Hampshire Yankee Seabrook Plan for !
Massachusetts Communities. FEM A Guidance Memoranda (GM) and FEM A REP-series documents were utillred to interpret and clarify the criteria contained in Supplement 1.
I Following is a summary of the material that has been submitte1 to FEMA for l
review and evaluations ;
On September 18, 1987, Public Servlee Company of New Hampshire, New r
- Hampshire Yankee Division (NHY), submitted to the NRC Revision 4 of the "Seabrook l Plan for Massachusetts Communttles," hereafter referred to as the Plan or SPMC. The Plan constated of *0 volumes, and one envelope with Publie Information Materials. The volumes are as follows: Plant Procedures Plan Appendizes A through GI Plan Appendix Hi Plan Appendix la l'lan Appendix J Plan Appendix K Plan Appendix Li Plan Appendix Mi and Plan Appendix K. It should be noted that certain proprietary
( Information was redacted from the submitted material, t On November 27,1987, the NRC formeded the Plan to FEMA, Uncer provisions of the FEMA /HRC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of April 1985, the NRC 1 requested FEMA to review the Plan and provide findings (Interim finding). The NRC i
P l
. _ _ _ _ _ - - - . --_ __ a
Octobor 1984 .
2 ,
requested that FEMA utilize the Supplement 1 eriteria document as the basis for FEMA's review, evaluation, and FEMA findings.
On December 2,1987, the NRC supplemented its November 27, 1987 request to FEMA. The NRC requested FEMA to use the following assumption in reviewing and evaluating the Plan: FEMA should assume that in an actual radiologleal emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning wills exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the publici cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plang and have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.
On December 18, 1387, NHY wrote the NRC stating that NHY expected NRC and FEMA to utilize Supplement 1 for the Federal review and evaluatlon.
On December 30, 1937, NHY provided to the NRC certain information that was I redacted from Revision 0 of the Plan.
On December 30, 1987 FEMA Region I requested the RAC and the FEM staff to review the Plan. FEMA Region I cesignated Mr. Richard W. Donovan to serve as the l RAC Chairman for the review and evaluation of the Plan (Seabrook RAC Chat'rman).
On January 7,1988 the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for the NRC notified Interested parties that the Alerting System (strens in the plume EPZ portion of the
. Commonwealth of Massachusetts) described in the Plan will no longer be relled upon by NHY.
On January 15, 1988, the Seabrook RAC Chairman recuested that the FEMA Region 1 RAC utilize Supplement 1 for their review. The Seabrook RAC Chairman informed the RAC that the following assumptions were to be applied to the review and evaluation of the Plant in .n actual radiologleal emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning wills exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the publici cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan: and have the resources suffielent to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.
On January 20,1988, NRC provided certain redacted material to FEMA.
,, On February it.1988 NHY provided additional Information in response to the NRC letter, dated February 5,1988. tw following Information was provided: Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffle Manageme $t Plan Documentation on the I
Seabrook METF AC Computer Software Package and the backup HP-41 CX Calculator EPROM System (these systems provide the means to evaluate the consequences of an off-site radioactive airborne release): Summary of the NHY ORO Training Classes, dated 2/8/881 the draft Farmers Brochure "Emargency infor' nation for Farmers," and a copy of the existing Massachusetts Department of Agriculture's Farmers Brochure a copy of the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laborstory Procedures and a copy of the draft Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plant NHY ORO lesson plans as referenced in Appendix K of the Plant status report on preparedness efforts 'or Speelal Populations in the
~
- October 1988
- O )
Mass.tchusetts Communities; and a status report on congregate care facilities /American Red Cross.
On February 16, 1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 1.
On February 19,1988, NHY provided plan updates, refiered to as Amendment 2.
On April 1,1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 3.
On April 14,1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 4.
On April 29, 1988. NHY provided the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report, dated April 30,1988.
On May 23,1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 5.
On July 29,1988, NHY provided proposed revised public information materials.
On August 2,1988, NHY provided plan <pdates, referred to as Amendment 6.
On September 22, 1988, NHY provided FEMA with copies of leases and agreements for VANS as well as copies of prescripted Emergency Broadcast System (EDS) messages.
On September 27, 1988, the NRC notified FEMA by memorandum of certain Information regarding the role of the American Red Cross in offsito radiological en}ergency planning at SNPS.
On September 28, 1988 NHY notified the Seabrook RAC Chairman by letter of the plan of NHY ORO to resolve issues in the October 1988 draft Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communttles.
On October 6,1988, NHY provided a letter to the Seabrook RAC Chairman enclosing updated letters of agreement.
The review and evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities is attached. The format reproduces each planning standard and speelfle criterion of NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1, Rev. 1. Supp.1, followed by a statement of the Plan contents related to each revier criterlon, a Plan estveence, and an evaluation section.
~
The svaluation section contains an evaluation which will be une or the following:
- 1. "Adequate"
- 2. "Inadequate"
- 3. "Not Applicable" The evaluation under criterion G.1 (public information material) was made in accordance with "A Guide to Preparing Emergency Public Information Materials," FEM A-REP-11 (June 1987). FEM A-REP-11 became official FEMA guidance for such evaluations pu-Suant to a July 10, 1987 memoeandum to all Regional Directors from the Deputy Associate Director, State and tact! Programs and Support Directorate, entitled "Regional Periodle Revfew v! REP h@lc Information Material."
Octob3r 198'8 .
4 , ,
REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING 1rrANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Assignment of Responalbility (Organization Control)(Planning Standard A):
Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have been speelfically established, and each principal respcnse organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis.
Evaluation Criterion A.1.a. The offsite 71an shall Ider.tify the elements of the offsite response organizat!on t ir Emegene Planning Zones (see Appendix 5 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-R' T-1, Rev.1)
Statement A.1.a. The Plan (Table 2.0-1) defines the offsite response organization as including the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY ORO),
~
supported by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the DO!, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Amerlean Red Cross, and sarious private t organizations. Although Table 2.G-1 inJteates that NHY ORO communicates with the USCG and the FAA, the Plan states in Section 3.1 that "[rlequests to t! e U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration will be coordinated through the host state for Seabrook, New Hampshire." According to Section 1.1 of the Plan, the Comn.onwealth
, of Massachusetts, the City of Newburyport, and the Towns of Amesbury, Merrimme. Newbury, Salisbury, and West Newbury are not currently participating in emergency planning for Seabrook Station. The Plan l Includes the Amerlean Red Cross as a participating organization and the Red Cross has stated in a letter to NHY dated September 10, 1987 thatit l will respond in case of an emergency. However, a discussion on ,
February 23, 1988 between FEMA staff and Red Cross Southern New '
England staff indleated that the Red Cross is not presently wrticipating in i
this planr.ing process. The Plan hc.s been developed in recognition of, and ,
to compensate for the fact that, the Commonwealth of Marsachusetts and above-mentioned local communities are not currently participating in ,
I Offsite response organization is defined as the utility offsite emergency response organization along with other participating voluntary and private organizations, and local. State and Federal governments engaging in the development of offsite emergency j i plans for a nuclear power plant.
]
1 l
l l
l
._ .-_. i
'. Octcber 1988 5
r ,
emergency planning for the Seabrook Station. Portions of the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are situated within the plume .typosure EPZ. Portions of the State of New Hampshire, the
- tate of Maine, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are situated wit.iln the Ingestion exposure EPZ.
Plan Reference A.I.a. Section 1.01 Section 2.08 Section 3.11 Figure 1.3-1 Figure 1.3-2:
Table 2.0-1 and Table 2.3-1.
Evaluation -
A.1.a. Adequate.
The NRC has addressed the role of the Arr.erican Red Cross (ARC) in CLI-87-5: e.g., tne American Red Cross charter from Congress, as well as American Red Cross polley, require the ARC to provide aid in any radiological or natural disaster. NRC Indleated to FEMA (9/27/88 i memorandum) that this ruling is applicable to the FEMA review of the SPMC. ,
' We recommend that Table 2.0-1 be revised to correctly reflect the process .
~
for coordinating communications _with the USCG and FAA.
NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Table 2.0-1 will be revised in the next amendment to correctly reft et the communications with the USCG and FAA.
Evaluation Criterion A.1.b. The offsite response organization shall speelfy its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total efiort. The concept of operation will explata how the offsite response organlaation will function with non-
.- partielpating State and local governments, and will specify the various
.-modes of operation.
Statement .
A.1.b. The NHY ORO concept of operations is discussed in section 3.0 of the Plan. A flow chart, Figure 3.1-1, depicts how the NHY ORO will furetion with ncnparticipating Commonwealth and local governments during a radiological emergency. The Plan states that the NHY ORO will function in one of three Modes. Following is a belef description of the three modes:
October 1988 ,
s
- l' l
!'
- Staney Mode - Standby and continue accident assenment and monitor State / local responses
- Mode 1 - Supplies needed resources only
- Mode 2 - Implements speelfte authorized actions, supplies any needed resources, Integrates response into State / local responses or takes control if authorized. Integrates NHY, State, local, and Federal Response into Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
t i
Plan Reference A.1.b. Section 3.0; Figure 3.1-13 and IP 2.14.
Evaluation A.1.b. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion f
l
[
A.I.e. The offsite plan shall Illustrate these Interrelationships in a block diagram. This disgram will define the roles for the offsite response organlaation and non-participating State and local governme,nts, and
- Identify ;he lead Interfaces.
Statement I
A.1.e. The relationships between the NHT ORO, the participating organizations, and the . nonparticipating organisations are Illustrated in Figure 2.0-1.
Personnel assigned to each NHY ORO position are set out in Figure 2.1-1.
The lead interfacSe between the NHY ORO and nonpartielpming Commonwealth and local governments are summarleed la Table 2.2-1 and Table 2.2-2.
. I Plas Refereaee l A.1.e. Section 2.08 Section 2.11 Section 2.23 Figure 2.0-11 Figure 2.1-1 Table 2.2- l 18 and Table 2.2-2. I i
Evaluation A.1.e. Adequate.
5 0
I Octobor 1983 7
Evaluation Criterion A.1.d. The offsite response organization shall identify a specific Individual by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response.
Statement A.1.d. Il 1.1 describes the actions for the NHY ORO Offsite Response Director and Assistants in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station.
The Offsite Response Director is responsible for directing the NHY ORO Response Ottanization in Massachusetts. The Offsite Response Director ,
msponsibilities include the following working with the Governors of New Hampshire and Massachusetts working with the Seabrook Station Response Manager determining protective action recommendations (PARS) for Massachusetts obtaining r.pproval from Governor of Massachusetts to implement pas and response activities in Massachusetts: Issuing public Information material concerning response activities approving exposures greater than 25 rem for NHY ORO personnel only: committing resources r from New Hampshire Yankee, and requesting Federal Assistance and working with FEMA. There are two NHY Assistant Offsite Response ;
Directors for each shif t. One is responsible for implementing PAq. The other is responsible for providing communications between NHY ORO and the various Federal and state organizations and the utility. In the event -
~
the Offsite Response Director has to leave the facility, one of the Assistant Offsite Responso Directors will act as Offsite Response Director.
The Offsite Response Director la responsible for supervising six subordinates (Fig. 2.1-1). Attachment 1 of IP 1.1 (Federal Support '
Coordinationi addresses the interfaces with the various Federal agencies.
Attachment 2 of IP 1.1 (Conditional Response Activities) addresses the Interfaces with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the six local Massachusetts communities, the State of New Hampshire, and Seabrook Station. Attachment 3 of IP 1.1 addresses the ongoing activities of the Offsite Ret.ponse Director and describes the management style of the '
Offsite Response Director. The management style includes, among other things, a belefing by key staf f following each change in classification (ECL) and each PAR and PA.
Plan Reference A.I.d. Section 2.11 Figure 2.1-11 Section 3.1 and IP 1.1.
i Evaluation A.1.d. Adequate. l 1
Octobeh 198d*
8 s s
~
I Evaluation Criterion A.1.e. The offsite response organization shall provide for 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day staffing of communications links.
Statement t
A.1.e. NHY ORO states that it is structured for and capable of providing and maintaining 24-hour staffing for a protracted emergency. The
) communications link between Seabrook Station and the NHY ORO is designated as the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point, which is staffed on a 24-'
hour basis.
a Plan Reference ,
A.1.e. Section 2.1.11 Section 3.2.11 Section 3.2.23 snd IP 2.1.
Evaluation A.1.e. Adequate.
- l Fialuation Criterion A.2.a. The offsite response organization shall speelfy the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title, of l emergency response, including the following: Command and Control, Alerting and Notification, Communications, Public Information, Accident Assessment, Public Health and Sanitation, Social Services, Fire and Rescue, j Traffic Control. Emergency Medical Services, Law Enforcement, I Transportation, Protective Response (including authority to request Federal assistance and to initiate other protective actions), and Radiological l Exposure Control. The description of these functions shall include a clear and concise summary such as a table of primary and support responsibilities using the agency as one axis, and the function as the other. This description shall specify those functions which requira State and local authorization before implementing, such as:
- 1. Direct:ng traffici
- 11. Blocking roadways, erecting barriets in roadways and channeling traffici 111. Posting traffic signs on roaoways 84
/
Octcber 1988 9
IV. Removing obstructions from pub!!c roadways, including towing vehicles;
- v. Activating strens and directing the broadcasting of EBS messages; vi. Making decisions and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the plume exposure pathway; vil. Making decisions and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway 1 vill. Making decisions and recommendatlons to the public concerning recovery and reentry:
17.. Dkpnsing fuel from tank trucks to automob!!es along roadsides !
- x. Performing access control at an EOC, relocation centers and the EPt perimeters; and The offsite plan shall also identify sim!!ar f' unctions and responsibilities and Interfaces for an anticipated State and local response to an emergency.
Statement
~
A.2.a. The NHY ORO emergency response functions and responsibilities for key individuals are specified in Table 2.0-1. The functions include command and control, communications, notifications. public alerting, public information, accident assessment, shelter-in-place, evacuation, access and traffic control, food, water and milk control, radiologleal exposure cortrol, emergency medical services, congregate care, law enforcement, fire and rescue, public health and sanitation, and regntry and recovery.
- We find Table 2.0-1 to be incompletes the DOI is not listed as a Federal response agency, and the USCG and FAA are not listed as being assigned the primary responsibility assigned them in the concept of operations.
' Table 2.01 omits the responsibilities asaltned to regional utilitles by the Yankee Atomic Mutual As11 stance Plan in Section 2.1.1 for notification.
radiological exposure control, and traffle control. We could not locate the functions of social services and transportation. ,
Tables 2.2-1,2.52,2.3-1, in Section 2, Indicate the primary and support responsibilities for NHY ORO, Commonwealth, local, Federal, and private organizations. Attachment 7 to IP 2.14 includes textual deset!ptions of the functions whleh require Commonwealth and local authorization before luglementation.
4
october 198'S ,'
10 ,
Plan Reference !
A.2.a. Section 2.1.1 Table 2.0-1 Table 2.2-1 Table 2.2-2: Table 2.3-1 and IP 2.14.
Evaluation A.2.a. Adequate.
We recommend that Table 2.0-1 be revised to include the DOI and tc include the primary responsibility designations for the DO!, USCG, the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance PJan, and FAA. We recommend that Section 2.1.1 be revised to specify the responsibilities assigned to the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan. NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Table 2.0-1 and Section 2.1.1 will be revised in the next amendment to reflect the role of the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan.
Evaluation Criterlon I
A.2.b. TI'm offsite plan shall contain where appliccble (by refere'nce to specific acts, codes or statutes) the legal basis for such authorttles inclutling those that reserve functions to State and local governments. -
Statement i t
A.2.b. The Plan identifies legal authorities regarding the involvement of the I Commonwealth of Massachusetts in plans and preparedness for a ;
radiological emergency at a commercial nuclear power plLnt. The Plan identifies an NRC regulation regarding the involvement of NHY ORO in r plans and preparedness for a radiological emergency at a commerelal j nuclear power plant.
I Plam Reference !
(
A.2.b., Section 1.2. l l
Evaluation ,
i A.2.b. Adequate. l t
l l
e
Occcber 1988
.
- 11 Evaluation Celterion A. 3.~ Tne offsite plan shall include written agreemente raferring to the concept of operations developed between Federal agencies, the offsite respona 1 organization, and other support organizations having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones. The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of informt.tlon. These agreements may be provided in an appendix to the offsite plan or the offsite plan itself may contain ,
descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the offsite plan may serve to verify the agreements. The signature page formtt is appropriate ,
for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders where separate written agreements are not necessary.
Statement .
A.3. NHY and the State of New Hampshire have executed a Letter of 4 Agreement "to establish radiologleal emergency preparedness notification and response." It specifies concepts of operation between the two regarding alert and notification, exchanges of information, evaluation and implementation of precautionary settons for special populations, accident assessment measures for both the plume and ingestion exposure EPZs, and .
- the coordination of public Information and rumor ' control activities.
- Speelfic lead functions are assigned to the Str,te of2New Hampshire concerning the notification and coordination of emergency activities with the State of Maine, the USCO, the FAA, and the Boston & Maine Railroad. The USCG has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of New Hampshire to provide control, notification, and restriction of waterborne traffic.
The NHY ORO will communicate directly with the DOI. NHY ORO has an agreement with the D0!. This agreement is verified by a signature page acknowledged by New Hampshire Yankee and the Parker River Nattenal Wildlife Refuge.
Plan Refetenee A.3. Section 3.18 Section 7.2.28 Appendix Ci and Appendix F.
l Evaluation l
A.3. Adequate. ,
I I t
( .
l . I
Octcher 198'8*
- 12
. i Evaluation Criterion A.4. The offsite response organization shall be capable of continuous (24-hour) ,
operations for a protracted period. The Individual in the offsite response organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technleal, administrative, and material) shall be speelfled by title.
Statement A.4. The NHY ORO states thet it is capable of providing and maintaining a continuous (24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) staffing for a protracted emergency. Tw9 shifts of personnel have been designated for most positions. Figure 2.1-1 summarizes the various positions and numbers of personnel assigned to -
each. The Support Servlees Coordinawr is responsible for procurement of manpower and resources to support the emergency response. The Plan states (Section 2.1.1) that certain evacuation related positions, as identified in Figure 2.1-1, only require one shift. In addition, the Plan provides a 20% staffing cushion for the single-shift positions to account for .
those who might be unavailable at sny particular time.
l \
\
Plan Reference A.4. Section 2.1.1 and Figure 2.1-1. .
A.4. Adequate.
t 9
._-_---_x--_--_-_-.- -
- Octobor 1988
' , 13 C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Plannt.,g '1+.c dard C):
Arrangements for requesting and effectively using assutance resources have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Fscility have been made, and other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified.
Evaluation Criterion C.1. The Federal government maintains indepth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Each offs'.te response organization and licensee shall make provisions for incorporating the Fedaral response capability into its operations plan, includhg the following C .a. speelfic persons' by title authorized to request Federal assistance see A.1.d. A.2.as Statement C.1.a. The New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Director, through the Assistant Offsite Response Director (Support Liaison), is authorized to request Federal assistance.
] _
Plan Reference C.1.a. Section 2.3.2.
I Evaluation C.1.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion C.1.b. speelfic Federal resources expected, including expected timet of arrival at specific nuclear facility sites and Statement C.1.b. Specific Federal resources are identified for each Federal agency that is expected to assist in the offsite response. Specific times of arrival are estimated to be between three and eight hours for the lead Federal response agencies.
oceober 1988 e 14 . .
Plan Reference C.1.b. Section 2.3 Table 2.3-1 and Table 2.3-2.
Evaluation C.1.b. Adequate.
Evaluat!on Criterion C.1.e. speelfle lleensee and offsite response organizatloa resources available to support the Federal response, e.g., alt fielc.s, command posts, telephone lines, radio frequencies and telecommunleations centers.
- Statement C.1.e. The Plan lists a number of airports available for Federal use. Space and telephone lines have been designated for FEMA and NRC in the NHY ORO
- EOC and Media Center. The Assistant O'fsite Response Director, Support Liaison, is responsible for providing communleation links between NHY ORO and Federr.1 agencies, and other non technical support for the Federal
__ response.
I 1 Plan Reference
, Co l.c. Section 2.11 Section 2.3.2 Sectiore 4.0; Section 5.1.2 Sectiot. 5.2.1 Section 5.43 IP 1.!: Figure 4.0-1: Figure 5.2-2 and figure 5.2-11.
l Evaluation i
C.I.e. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion C.2. The offsite response organisation may disyteh representatives to the lleensee's near-site Emergency Operations Faellity. (Technical analysis representatives at the near-site EOF are preferred.)
Octobir 1988 15 Statement C.2. The NHY ORO EOC and the Seabrook Station EOF are located within the
- same facility. Key Interfaces for these two organizations occur between the Seabrook Station Response Manager and the NHY Offsite Response Director (which can be via the NHY ORO Technleal Advisor) and between the Seabrook Station EOF Coordinator and the NHY ORO Assistant Offsito Response Director, Support Liaison.
Plan Reference C.2. Section 2.1: Section 5.11 and Section 5.2.
Evaluation C.2. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion C.3. The offsite response organization shall identify radiological laboratories and their general capabilities and expected availability to provide radiological monitoring and analyses services which can be used in an ,
emergency.
Statement C.3. The Plan identifies a radiological laboratory (with multiple facilities), and its general capabilities and expected availability for analysis service. Air semple eartridges and partleulate filters are to be delivered to the Seabrook Station EOF in Newington, New Hampehlte, where they are to be analyzed for radiolodine and particulates by personnel and equipment from Yankee Atc:nle Eltetric Company. A mobile laboratory equipment van (belonging to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory)is identified in
" the Pla' for analysis of air samples and environmental samples. The NHY ORO will deliver environmental and food samplee to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory in Westborough, Massachusetts, for analysis.
The laboratory sample analysis capacities are as follows: for the Mobile Laboratory Equipment Vs,n, garama spectroscopy for screening samples, average time for screening is 10-15 minutes, and 96 samples can be analysed per day; and for the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory, gamma spectroscopy analysis for radiolodines, cesiums and other fission products an arterage time for sample analysis of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, and 50-100 samples can be analyzed per day, and analysis for strontium, average time for sample analysis of I-2 days, aad 10-20 samples can be handled per day.
- _ , - _ - - - ,_m . . - - - - - - - _ ,,___,__m, ._ ._--.-,_-m_._-,, -
_ , -W
October 3988 -
16 *
- NHY ORO states that additional laboratory assistance capabilltles can be obtained by activation of the New England Compact by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire, and additional. Federal laboratory support can be obtained through the activation of the FRERP.
i Plan Reference C.3. Section 3.3.4 and Table 3.3-3.
i r
Evaluation .
C.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion C.4. The offsite response organization shall identify nuclear and other fsellities, organizations or individuals whleh can be relled upon in an emerget4cy to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement.
Statement '
C.4. NHY ORO has cor. tracts and letters of agreement with various support organizations, and tradividuals. These support groups includes (1) the Amerlean Red Cross, whleh will operate and provide staff for Congregate Care Ca.'ters (if extra staff are available, will provide staff for the r Reception Centers): (2) EmerTency Broadcast Wstem (use of EBS stations to broadcast emergency or public Informat.on messages): (3) hospitals I (hospitals outside the Plume Exposure EPZ to treet contaminated injured i Individuals or accept evacuees from speelal faellities within the EPZ): [
(4) ambulance companies (provide emergency vehicles capable of i transporting nonambulatory and contaminated and/or injured Individuals):
(5) bus companies (vehle',es and drivers capable of transporting evacuees, ;
.- including school children out of the Plume Expesure EPZ): (4) Yankee Atomic Electrie Company (support available from Yankee Atomie Laboratory and regional nuclear utilities, e.g., laboratories, '
instrumentation, and monitoring and field sampling personnel, traffic guides, route guides, reception center personnel and other non-technical .
Yankee personnel): (7) road crew companies (towing servlee during an '
evacuation): (8) helicopter service (helleopters for sorveillance of '
evacuation, road Impediment spotting, transportation of key personne', and field sample transportation): (9) snow removal (snow removal from NHY ORO faellities): and ',10) leases / letters of agreement f or the VANS staging areas. NHY has a letter of agreement for radiological waste disposal anu i transportation, if required, from the decontamination faellities. j i
i I
Octobor A988 87 0 e See comments in A.1.a regarding the ARC and the NRC memorandum of 9/27/88.
Plan Reference C.4. Section 2.4 and Appendix C.
Evaluation C.4. Adequate.
NHi has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that the VANS leases and updated letters of agreement will be included in the next amendment.
!? valuation Criterion
! C.5. The offsite response organizstion shall Identify llatson perronnel to advise and assist State and local officials during an actual emergency in implementing those portions of tha offsite plan where State or local response is identified.
s Statement
. C.5. NHY ORO ha* Identified personnel that will accompany, idvis i, and/or assist Commonwealth ated local officials in implementing portions of *he NHY ORO Plan.
Personnel assigned to advise and assist Commonwealth and local officials includes (1) Local EOC Liaisons (one liaison reports to each local EOC and assists in the response efforts of that community): (2) Dnsimetry Record Keepers (one record keeper to issue dostmetry for local emergency workers): (3) State Liaisons (one liaison reports to each of the following faellities: the State EOC in Framingham, the Area ! EOC in Tewksbury, and
- the MDPH offlee in Boston to better support the State's emergency stesponse and to pec, vide status reports of the State's emergency response directly to the NHY ORO) and (4) Public Information Coor<'Instor/ Advisor (reports to the Media Center) and la responsible for assisting Common-wealth and local government officials with public information and rumor ,
- control activities.
We note that Attachment 4 to IP 2.14 directs the Local EOC Liaisons to request authorization from Local EOC officials for School and Special 4 Population Llaisons to report to local EOCs, which is inconsistent with the l concept of operations for this function that was changed in Amendment 6.
9
October 1988 18 3
Plan Reference C.5. Section 1.1 Section 2.2: !P 1.8: !P 1.9 !P 1.10 !P 1.11: and IP 2.14.
Evaluation C.5. Adequate.
We recommend that IP 2.14 be revised to correctly refleet the duty station for school'and special population liaisons. '
NHY has Indleated (9/28/88 letter) that IP 2.14 will be revised in the next amenfment to correctly reflect that the School and Special Population Liaisons do not report to the local EOCs.
h 1
I I
t i
6 i
i
- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , _ - - . . - - - - - - , , - , , . , - , - - - - - - - - - . , - . - - -e- - , - - - , - - - , .,- - c n. - - - - -- - - - - .
Octobsr 1988 19 D. Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D):
A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility syrtem and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facilf ty itcensees for determinations of minimum initlal offsite response measures.
Evaluation Criterion
. D.3. The offsite response organ!zation shall establish an emergency classification and emergency action level scheme consistent with that established by the facility licensee.
Statement ,
D.3. The Plan establishes four emergency classification levels (1) Notification of Unusual Events (2) Alerts (3) Site Area Emergency; and (4) General Emergency. The Plan states that this emergency classification system is based upon the Emergency Action Levels established by the Seabrook Station.
Plan ' eference D.3. Section 1.3.2.
Evaluation D.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion D.4. The offsite response organlaation s' .uld have procedures in place that provide for implementing emergency actions and that provide for advising State and local offielais on emergency actions to be taken which are consistent with the emergency actions recommended by the nuclear facility lleensee, taking into account local offsite conditions that exist at the time of the emergency.
Statement D.4. NHY ORO has procedures in place to implement emergency actions.
20~
NHY ORO. plans to advise the Commonwealth and local officials on appropriate emergency actions.
Plan Reference D.4. Section 3.1 and IP 2.14. >
Evaluation ;
D.4. Adequate. !
i 1
?
4 i
e 1
k r
i L r
i r
I i
\
t i .*
J I
I i
l f
f i
i n
i
. _ _ - - . , _ , . _ - - _ . _ , . . - _ . --,_-, ,-, . - _ - . - . _ _ . . . . . _ - . , - _ - -' _ .,- . _ . _ _ _ - . , , ~ . . . - , - - - ._ .,
' ocBober 1988
. 31 E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E):
Procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations; the content of initial and followup messages to response organizations and public has been established: and means to provide early notification ano clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established.
Evaluation Criterion E.1. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures which desertoe the bases for notification of all response organizations consistent vith the emergency classification and action level scheme set forth in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. These procedures shall include means for wrification of messages. The specific details of verification need not be included in the offsite plan.
Statement E.1, Notification of response organizations is triggerr d by the standard four-level ECL scheme from NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.
Initial notification of the NHY ORO is addressed in Section 3.2.2. It is performed by the Seabrook Station Control Room Communicator contacting the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point, using the NAS or one of two backup systems. Verification will not be performed if notification is via NAS since it is a secure system If a backup system is used, verification will be by call-back over the same system. At ECLs of Alert or h!gher, receipt of notification will be taken over by the NAS Communleator upon arrival at the NHY ORO EOC.
Notification of Massachusetts state and local government agencies is addresse , in section 3.2.3. The Seabrook Statlan Control Room Communleator will notify the Massachusetts State Pollee. TM Plan references the Massachusetts Radiologleal Emergency Response Plan with
' respect to notification of other Commonwealth and local government units by the State Pollee. The NHY ORO EOC Contact will also provide backup notification to local government dispatchers at ECLs of Alert or higher.
Notification of Federal and support organizations is addressed in section 3.2.4. Responsibility for notification of Federal agencies is placed with the State of New Hampshire as the host state (p. 3.2-12), except that the NHY ORO EOC Contact or the NAS Communicator will notify the DOI at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge in order to implement public notification.
Oceeber 1938 22 The NHY ORO will also notify contracted support organizations: e.g., bus companies, road crew companies, ambulance companies, and the Red Cross.
Table 3.2-1 Indicates who within the NHY ORO !s respoasible for contact-ing each type of support organization, and at what ECL. All support orguizations are contacted at Alert or higher ECLs, but many are only notitled after the responsible notifier has arrived at their response facility.
Plan Reference E.1. Section 3.2.11 Section 3.2.21 Section 3.2.38 Section 3.2.41 Figure 3.2-1 Figure 3.2-2: Table 3.2-1: IP 2.11 Appendix G Appendix Hi and Appendix M.
Evaluation E.1. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion L2. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures for alerting, notifying, and mobilizing its own emergency response personnel, and for alerting and notifying non-partletpating State and loc! governments.
Statement Lt. Notification and mobillaation of HHY ORO is initiated by Security at the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point or by the NAS Communicator. Key personnel carry pagers and are contacteel at NOUL The rest of the NHY ORO are contacted at the Alert ECL via an automated telephone dialing system, the Melita ' Emergency Telenotification System (METS).
Table 3.2-1 Indicates which personnel .re notified and whleh are mobill ed at each ECL. Procedures have been established for alerting and notifying non-partletpating State and local go ernmenta. Tele;, hone tree notifleation systems have been set up as a beelrup personnel notification system.
Procedures have been established for alerting and notifying non-participating State and local governmenta. See comments under F.1.e.
Plas Reference E.2. Section 3.2.21 IP 2.11 Appendix G and Appendix H.
Evaluation L2. Adequate.
[. .
october 1998 l 23 l Evaluat!on Criterion )
l E.3. The offsite response organization shall establish a system for disseminating 4 to the public appropriate information contained in Initial and followup messages received from the lleensee (see Evaluation Criterla E.3 and E.4 in NUREG-0454/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.1) including the appropriate notification ;
to appropriate broadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast Syst sm !
(EBS).
l Btatement E.3. The primary system for disseminating Information to the public is EBS. In event of an emergency, the NHY ORO Offsite Response Director wl)I request authority from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to utilize EBS ,
to broadcast emergency Infurmation and instructions to the public. Each :
Instructional message broadesst over EBS will also be released as a news !
rebase by the f4edia Center. l In February 1988 FEMA personnel visited the primary EBS station to determine its espabilities. The current capability of the identified EBS i radio station includes the ability to record and broadcast emergency lastructions and Information to the public. The primary EBS station has a e backup power supply. ;
l
'~ The Public Notifleation Coordinator, once the NHY ORO is activated, ;
begins preliminary planning with the Radiologleal Health Advisor and the l Technical Advisor regarding the possible PARS. Upon the orders of the !
NHY Offsite Response Director, the Public Notification Coordinator i selects the appropriate EBS message, completes the appropriate sections, i reviews the message with the NHY Offsite Response Director, coordinates }
the menage with the State of New Hampshire, and the appropriate i Massachusetts offletal, obtales the NHY Offsite Response Directer's r approval for broadensting the EBS message, faxes the EDS message to the !
EDS redlo station, requests the EBS radio station to broadcast the message three times consecutively, and than every 15 minutes thereafter. The ;
Public Notification Coordinator has the responsibility to direct the ;
- Communleations Coordinator to activate the steen system and to sovise the [
Speelal Population Coerdinator on the need to initiate notifloation of i hearing-tmpaired people. Actual broadeant of the message is monitored by i the Public Notifleation Coordinator. The Public Notification Coordinator l also supplies copies of the EBS messe;e to the Public information Advisor, l the Support Servlees Coordinator, the School Coordinator, and the Speelal Pupulation Coordinator. l L
in a fast breaking emergency, the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Diree'or can request authorization from the Governor of Massachusetts and i pe* form the EBS functions ordinarily performed by the Public Notification l Coordinator. (See discussion under element E.6.) [
i
[
I
Ceteber 198'$ * '
24 Plan Reference E.3. Section 3.2.51 Section 3.7.3 IP 2.128 and IP 2.13.
Evaluation E.3. Adequate.
Evalation Criterion E.4. The offsite response organization shall establish administrative and physical means, and the time required for notifying and providing prompt litstructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (see Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 and FE M A-R E P-10). It shall be the licensee's responsibil!ty to demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement. The offsite response organization shall have the administrative and physical means to activate the system.
Statement E.4. The Plan references the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) for alerting of the general (resident) population, the beach transient
_ population at Salisbury Beach and Plum Island Beach, and persons on inland .
waterways. The VANS is not operational at this time. Administrative '
procedures exist for deploying and activating the VANS.
We could not locate Figure 5.2-17, which is supposed to be the VANS Staging Area layout.
The NHY ORO has established six supplemental alerting systems:
(1) Tone alert radio receivers are to be offered to schools day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical facilities, campgrounds. l businesses with 50 or more employees at one location, and other selected
.. facilities within the plume EPZ as a backup system (p. 3.215), prior to full i power operation of Seabrook Station. These tone alert radios have not been [
distributed at this time.
(2) The transients within the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island are to be notified by a route alerting system operated by the DOI:
(3) Noninstitutionalized special populations, including he; ring-tmpaired individuals, are to be telephoned Individually by NHY ORO If telephone l contact is not made, the back up system is fot NHY ORO personnel to be i
. . Octeber 1988 25 l dispatched to perform door-to-door alerting and notification and to offer assistance P
(4) Schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical faellities, and other special facilities are to be telephoned individually by NHY ORO:
(5) Persons on the Atlantic Ocean within the plume EPZ will be notified by the USCC: and (6) An Alrborne Alert System (he!! copter mounted stren system).
In a fast breaking emergency, the plan calls for the Seabrook Station Short-term Emergency Director to request authorization from the Governor of Massachusetts, and activate the Vehleular Alert and Nottf' cation System and EBS. In cases when the NHY ORO EOC is activated, the NHY, upon authorization by the officials of the Commorwealth of Essachusetts, will direct the activation of the Vehleular Alert and Notification System.
Plan Reference E.4. Section 3.2.51 Section 3.6.11 Section 3.7.3: Section 5.2.5: IP 1.91 IP 1.10s, IP 2.7; IP 2.11; IP 2.13: IP 2.15; and IP 2.16.
~
Evaldation E.4. Inadequate.
The Vehicular Alert and Notifica(4. System (VANS) is not operational at this time. '
We recommenct that Figure 5.2-12 be provided. l NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that the VANS Stagsng Area layout diagram will be included in the next amendment.
Evaluation Criterion E.5. The offsite response organization shall provide written messages intended for the public, consi~stent with the lleensee's classdcation~ scheme. In particulv, draft messages to the public giving instructions with regard to speelfic protective actions to be taken by occupants of affected areas shall be prepared and included as part of the offsite plans. The prescripted i messages ,1hould address the various conditions such as the delegation of authority by the State and Iccal governraent, to the offsite response organization to issue prompt instructions. Such messages should include
ocesber 1983 * -
26 the appropriate aspects of sheltering, ad hoc respiratory protection, e.g.,
handkerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking, or evacuation. The role of the lleensee is to provide supporting information for the m',ssages. For ad hoc ,
respiratory protection see "Respiratory Protective Devices Manual" American Industrial Hygiene Association,1963, pp.123-126.
Statement E.5. There are prescripted messages for a combination of emergency conditions. Most messages include a varlety of cholces among PA options and areas to which they apply. The prescripted messages are contained in the Public Notification Coordinator Position Packet and upon electronic media stored at the NHY ORO EOC.
i Plan Reference ,
E.5. Section 3.2.51 Section 3.7.31 IP 2.133 and copies of prescripted messages prov:ded to FEMA.
Evaluation E.5. Adequate.
Evaluation t:riterion E.8. 7t.re shall be provisions for coordinating emergency messages with
! .grticipating and non-participating State and local governments.
i Statement E.8. Responsibility for coordinating with New Hampshire and appropriate Maarachusetts officials is assigned to the Public Notifleation Coordinator.
.. The coordination proccas is built into the EBS procedure. Coordination with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts consists of requesting i
authorization from the Gove,rnor to lasue the prescripted messages.
Plan Reference E.8. Section 3.2.5 IP 1.11 IP 2.13: and IP 2.14.
l Evaluation E.8. Adequate.
I 4
l
OcBober 1988 o .
F. Emergency Communications (Planning Standard F):
Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.
Evaluation Criterion F.1. The communication plans for emergencies shall include organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the communication links. Rellable
, primary and backup means of communleation for the utility and the offsite response organization shall be established. The utility and the offsite response organization shall establish the capability to communicate with non-participating State and local governments via normal emergency telephone number (s) (e.g., 911) and via one other backup mode such as the ability to transmit via existing emergency radio frequencies. Each offsite plan shall includes .
F.1.a. Provision for 24-hour per day notification to and activation of the offsite response organization's emergency response networks and at a minimum, a telephone link and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication links that initiate emergency response actions:
Statement F.1.a. The' Plan provides that initial notification of an emergency classifiestion be received by the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point whleh is manned on a 24-hour basis by security personnel. This notification is to be sent by the Seabrook Station Control Room Communicator by means of the Nuclear Alert System (NAS), a system of microwave and telephone links with conferencing capabilities. Backups for NAS are (1) the Dimension 2000 system, a NHY microwave telephone that does not rely solely on telephone company central office switchingt and (2) commercial telephone lines.
Plan Reference F.1.a. Section 3.2.2: Section 4: Section 4.1: Section 4.23 and Figure 4.0-1.
Evaluation F.1.a. Adequate.
Oc2ober A96'8
. ga Evaluation Criterion F.1.b. Provision for communications with contiguous States and loca' governments within the Emergency Planning Zones; Statement F.1.b. The Plan provides for communications with the State of New Hampshire EOC, New Hampshire State Police, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management, and the New Hampshire IFO by means of NAS with commercial telcphone as backup. NAS extensions and commercial telephone numbers are given for these New Hampshire agencies and facilities in Appendix H. Appendix H gives the commercial telephone I numbers of the Division of Public Health Services of the New Hampshire Department of Heelth and Human Servlees. The NHY ORO Offsite Response Director or the NHY Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, have responsibility for most communications with New Hampshire. The Plan does not address communications with local governments in New Hampshire. The State of New Hampshire will coordinate any actions necessary on behalf of local New Hampshire governments.
Figure 4.0-1 states that MAGI is an additional backup communications link between the New Hampshire State EOC and the ORO EOC, which is Inconsistent with the' statement in Appendix H (p. H-91) that RACES is the link. Massachusetts Government Interface (MAGI) is the collective name given to several radio networks that can be used to coordinate emergency response activities of Federal, state, local, and private response organlastions. We note that RACES is one component of MAGl.
The Plan addresses communications with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by means of NAS, with commercial telephones, and the MAGI as backups. Appendix H contains commerelat telephone numbers of the offices of other relevant Massachusetts agencies.
The Plan provides that eommunlestions with local Massachusetts EOCs will
, be by means of commercial telephone as the primary system, and the MAGI system as backup. For five of the six local governments there are five elements for MAGli state-to-local radio frequency; local dispatch radio networks command and control radio frequeneyt RACES: and NESPERN.
For Amesbury, there are only the first two elements.
Plan Reference F.1.b. Sectis 4 IP 1.11 Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H.
- ' Octcber 1988 29 Evaluation F.1.b. Adequate.
We recommend that the inconsistency noted in Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H be resolved.
NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Figure 4.0-1 will be revised in the next amendment.
Evaluation Criterlon F.1.e. provIslon for communications as needed with Federal emergency response organizations Statement F.1.c. The Plan addresses communleations with Federal agencies. Three Federal agencies have primary response responsibilities: USCGI the FAAt and DO!,
whose Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island. Commercial telephone is identitled as a communication link with these Federal agencies, as well as with FEMA and
~
~
several other Federal agencies. The only Federal agencies for which backup systems were found were the USCO and FEMA. In Appendix H, the statement is made that other Federal communleations links are available through the Seabrook Station EOF, which is located in the same building as the NHY ORO EOC. The Plan states that the communleations links to the Federal agencies in the EOF are described in the State of New Hampshire Radiologleal Emergency Response Plan.
Flgure 4.0-1 states that MAGI is a communications link between the ORO l EOC and FEMA, whleh is inconsistent with the statement in Appendix H i (p. H-82) that RACES is the link. l l
Plan Reference ,
- t F.1.e. Section 4 Figure 4.0-18 and Appendix H. , ;
! - t Evaluation l F.1.c. Adequate.
We recommend that the inconsistency noted in Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H de resolved.
i
Oct:ber 1988,
- 30 NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Figure 4.0-1 will be revised in the next amendment.
Evaluation Criterion F.1.d. provision for communications between the niclear facility and the lleensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility, offsite response organization's emergency operaticas centers, and radiological monitoring teams:
Statement F.1.d. The Plan provides for three communlestions links with each of three Seabrook Lation faelll*:c (ne control room, the Technical Support Center, and the EOF, These links are NAS, Dimension 2000, and commercial telephone. These systems are located in the Communications Room of the NHY ORO EOC and are manned by the NHY ORO EOC Contact or the NAS Communicator.
The primary communications link with the radiological monitoring teams and sample collection teams is the Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) Radio Network, with commercial telephone as backup. The NHY ORO EOC staff person with responsibility for communicating with the field monitoring teams and sample collection teams is the Field Team Dispatcher, who reports to "le Accident Assessment Coordinator.
The Plan addresses commun! cations between the NHY ORO EOC and the Staging Area, the Emergency Worker Facility, the iteception Centers, and the Monitoring Trailers at the Reception Centers. For all these facilities, one communleations link is the NHY ORO Emergency Radio Network, which consists of four paired frequencies. For the Emergency Worker Facility and Monitoring Trallers another communications link is cordless telephone. We could not locate the Legend on Fig. 4.0-1 for cordless telephones. For the Staging Area and Reception Centers, commercial telephone is another communications link. For the Congregate Care Centers, commercial telephone is the only communleations link speelfled.
From the Figure showing the layout of the Staging Area (Figure 5.2-4), it has 20 commercial telephones, an Emergency Medleal Service (EMS) radio, and four ORO Emergency radios. Special Vehicle Dispatchers. Evacuation Support Dispatchers, Local EOC Liaisons, Special Population Liaisons, and School Liaisons share telephones (two per extension). However, Appendix H (p. H-77) Indicates that the Special Population and School L!alsons each have their own telephones. We note that Local EOC liaisons are provided cellular telephones. The figures showing the layout of the Monitoring Trailers (Figure 5.2-9) and the Emergency Worker Facility (Figure 5.210) do not show any communications equipment in these trailers. From the
. . Octcber 1988 3g figures showing the layout of the Reception Centers (Figures 5.2-6 and 5.2-8), thtre are at least two telephones and two NHY ORO Emergency radio frequeneles at s. 7h Reception Center. One telephone is for the Reception Center Leaders the other communications equipment are manned by Reception Center Staff.
Plan Reference F.1.d. Section 4: Figure 4.0-1 Figure 5.2-2 Figure 5.2-4, Figure 5.2-6, Figure 5.2-88 Figure 5.2-9 Figure 5.2-10s and Appendix H.
Evaluation F.1.d. Adequate.
We recommend that Figures 5.2-9 and 5.210' be revised to refleet the communication systems for the monitoring trailers and EWF Indicated on Figure 4.0-1. We recommend that the communleation resources and communleation systems be reviewed for the Staging Area. Figure 5.2-4 and Appendix H should be revised to be consistent.
NHY has Indicat'ed (9/28/88 letter) that it will add cellular and cerdless phones to Figure 4.0-1 and that Figures 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 will be revised in
~
the next amendment.
Evaluation Criterion F.1.e. Provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in each response organizations 1
1 Statement i
F.1.e. The NHY Offsite Response EOC Contact Point is responsible for initial j - receipt and verifleation of the initial notification from Seabrook Station.
l Upon activation of the NHY ORO EOC, the NAS Communicator is responsible for receipt and vertfleation of notificatiens from Seabrook Station. The NAS Communicator is responsible for notification for the NHY ORO response personnel.
NHY ORO will be notified in three stages: Stage 1 at 11nusual Event by peger and Melita Emergency Telenotification System (METS), Stage 2 at Alert by peger and METS, and Stage 3 at Site Area and General Emergency by pager and METS.
October 196'8 .
32 . .
in the event the METS is inoperative, there is a backup telephone callout tree notification system.
Plan Reference F.1.e. Section 3.2: Section 4:IP 2.11 Appendix G and Appendix H.
Evaluation F.1.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion F.2. The offsite response organization shall . ensure that a coordinated ,
communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities exists.
Statement F.2. The Plan states that communications links with hospitals and ambula'nce companies are commercial telephone and medical radio frequencies.
~
Communications with hcspitals and other speelal facilities are responsibilities of the Special Population Liaisou (stationed at the Staging.
Area). The Speelal Population Coordinator (stationed at the NHY ORO EOC) is responsible for contacting ambulance companies, host hospitals, ;
and the backup hospital. ;
Plan Reference F.2. Section 4.0; IP 1.10: Appendix C: Appendix Hi and Appendix M.
I l
Evaluation ;
i ..
F.2. Adequate.
k Evaluation Criterion F.3. The offsite response organization shall conduct periodle testing of the !
entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10 N.2.a and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1). t i
t l
, e octcher 1938 Statetuent F.3. The Plan provides for periodle testing of the NHY ORO communications systems and contains testing checklists and logs. Depending on the speelfle system, tests are performed weekly, monthly, quarterly, or semikanually.
l These are: METS, EBS Tone Alert Radios, and NAS (weekly): Dimension 2000, NHY Offsite Response Organlaation Pager System, Siren Control System, and NHY ORO Emergency Communleation System (monthly):
Centrex Telephone System, telephone operator's console, dedlested ring down etreult, and MAGI (quarterly); and NHY ORO Emergency Communleation System (semi-annually).
Plan Reference .
F.3. Section 4 Section 7.43 IP 4.43 and Table 7.4-1.
Evaluation F.3. Adequate.
g .
e 40 e
e
Octobsr 1985 34 G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G):
Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their initial actions shall be in en emergen7y (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining Indoors), the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of information during an emergency (including the physical location or locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of information to the public are established.
Evaluatloa Criterion G.I. The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodle (at least. annually) dissemination of Information to the public regarding how they will be notifled and what their actions should be in an emergency.
This Information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:
I
- a. educational information on radiations ;
l
- b. ,
contact for additionalinformation
- e. protective measures, e.g., evacuation routes and relocation centers, sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprotective drugs;
- d. special n'eeds of the handicapped; and
- e. speelal steps to be taken to describe the role of the offsite response organization vs. the State and local organizations during the e mergoney.
Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not necessarily limited to information in the telephone book; posting in putlle ,
areas; and publications distributed on an annual basis.
Statement
- G.I. The Plan states that the New Hampshire Yankee Emergency Planning ,
Coordinator is the destgaated offletal of the NHY ORO who is responsible l for the public Information program. This includes the annual review, update, and distribution of public Information material to the general population. The publie information materials are to be revised prior to the operation of Seabrook Station above five percent power (NHY letter of 9/28/88).
The Plan includes a publie Information package containing fourteen i different items for educating and preparing the public in affected Massachusetts communities for a radiologleal emergency at Seabrook. The l
October 1988 35 0 .
Emergency Plan Information Calendar does describe the relationship of NHY ORO to Massachtsetts State and local officla!s.
Among these materials are:
- 1988-89 Emergency Plan Information Calendars
- Decals - English
- Decals - Eng!!sh/ French;
- Telephone Book Insert - Newburyport/Amesbury Area
- Telephone Book"Insert - Merrimac Area
- Fold-out Brochure depleting Massachusetts Emergency Plan Information
- English/ French ,
- Special needs survey form
- Special needs poster or ad
- Emergency Bus Information Poster - English/ French
- Massachusetts Emergency Plan Information Poster - Eng!!sh/ French
- Form letter to hotel / motel / restaurant owners and managers to enclose emergency information for posting:
- Form letter to employers to enclose emergency information for posting:
- Request card for additional materials; and
- Farmers' Brochure.
Plan Referenee G.I. Section 3.7.11 Section 3.7.2 Section 7.5 and the public edccation material.
Evaluation -
0.1. Adequate.
See Appendices A and B for the text of FF"s REP-It Review and Evaluation of the public information materials spe..Iled in the Plan.
1
. October 1988 .
36 . .
Evaluation Celterion G.2. The public Information program shall provide the permanent and transient adult population within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to
[
become aware of the information annually. The programs should include i provision for written material that is likely to be available in a residence during an emergency. Updated information shall be disseminated at least l annually. Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, posted nottees, or other means placed in hotels, motela, gasoline stations and phone booths) shall ;
also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume .
exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that will be helpful if an i emergency or aceldent occurs. Such notlees should refer the transtent to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequeneles. '
i Statement s G.2. A program for acual distribution of pubtle information materials to !
residents, transients, and Special Populations is described in the Plan. Mall
'l distribution of ealendars to utility bill reelplents and telephone book Inserts are the major means of educating the residents of the plume exposure ,
EPZ. Farmers and food processors are to be provided the Farmers' Brochure. The transient population is to be provided information by its distribution to various public facilities and through the telephone book ,
. Inserts. The distribution program la planned to include media [
advertisements sensitising the public regarding the importance of the publie information material.
The milestone designated for implementation of the pubtle education ;
i program is prior to the operation of Seabrook Station above five percent j
- power. [
Plan Referenee G.I. Section 3.7.11 Section 3.7.21 and Section 7.5.1. f
- i Evaluatloa i
, G.2. Inadequate, l i
The public education program has not been implemented. l
, I i l i !
4 L
l l
i
~ _ _ . . _ _ _ __._.._ _ _ ._ . _ - _ _ . _ _ . , . _ . , _ _ _ _
s.
October 1988 37 1
Evaluation Criterion G.3. The offsite response organization sha!! designate the points of contact and ,
physicallocations for use by news media during an emergency. This should l Include provisions for accommodating State and local government public '
information personnel assigned a role under the offsite plan.
Statement 0.3. NHY ORO has designated the Media Center, located in the Town Hall in Newington, New Hampshire, as the single point of contact between the ,
NHY ORO and the media during a radiological emergency at Seabrook.
NHY ORO has made provision for accommodating officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
NHY ORO has designated the Joint Telephone Information Center (JTIC), ,
located in Newington, New ampshire, as a location at which media representatives can make telephone inquiries. The Media Relations Assistants at the JTIC have been designated to Interface with the media via telephone. There are Instructions to call the various wire servlees when releases are issued. There are references, polley guidanes, and provisions to assign)ersonnel to staff telephones and respond to media Inquiries.
1 , ,
j Plan Reference ,
l G.3. Section 3.7.3(B) and IP 2.12. l t
Evahsation -
b I
G.3. Adequate. [
i Evahsation Criterion ,
G.4.a. The offsite response organisation shall designate a spokesperson who should i have access to all necessary information. ,
. I Statement l
l G.4.a. The Publie Information Advisor, who is assigned to the NHY Offsite
] L /onse EOC, is responsible for coordinating and implementing IP 2.12.
The Publie Information Advisor directs the activities of preparing and ;
l issuing news releases for the public and media. !
r I
l
October 598'8 38 ' '
. O l The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for directing the NHY ORO operations at the Media Center. The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for keeping the Pub!!c Information Advisor informed of all news media activities and news releases by other organizations at the Media Center. The Publie Information Coordinator is the official spokesperson for NHY ORO and participates in media briefings.
! We could not determine from IP 2.12 how the NHY Offsite Response EOC and the JTIC receive copies of other organlaatiot.s' news releases from the j Media Center.
l i
The Media Center Administrative Staff are responsible for assist,Ing the l Public Information Coordinator at the Media Center.
l The Public Information Staff, who are assigned to she NHY Offsite 1 Response EOC, are responsible for obtaining information, developing news l releases, and transmitting approved news releases to the Pubtle Information l Coordinator, the JTIC, the Seabrook Station Emergency Communications l Coordinator, and the Seabrook Station Document Control Center. The Publie !nformation Advisor will receive the Public Information l Coordinator's concurrence and then obtain the NHY Offsite Response i Director's approval of each release. After obtaining the NHY Offsite kesponse Director's approval, the Pubtle Information Advisor will Instruct i the Public Information Staff to disseminate the news release. The NHY :
.ORO will also reissue all EBS messages as news releases.
The Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor is responsible for providing supervision and resource support to the Media Relations and Rumor Control Assistants at the JTIC. The Media Relations Amststants are responsible for !
Interfaelng with the media via telephone. The Rumor Control Assistants are responsible for receiving and responding to public inquiries about an j emergency.
Plan Reference i G. 4.a. Section 3.7.3(B) and IP 2.12.
Evaluation ,
G.4.a. Adequate.
We recommend that IP 2.12 be revised to Indleate how the EOC and JTIC ;
receive other organizations' news releases, i i
i NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that IP 2.12 will be revised in the next (
l amendment to indicate how the EOC and JTIC receive other organizations' [
! releases. t l '
l 1
l
Oc8ober 1988 39 s
Evaluation Criterion G.4.b. The offsite response organization shall establish arrangements for timely exchange of information among designated spokespersons.
Statement ,
0.4.b. The Plan states that the Publie Information Coordinator at the Media
, Center is to coordinate news releases approved for release by the NHY ORO with the Media Center spokespersons for Seabrook Station State media representatives, and Federal organizations prior to their release to [
the media. ,
Plan Reference ;
G.4.b. Section 3.7.3(B): IP 2.12 and Appendix C. I l
f Evaluation G.4.b. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion ,
G.4.e. The offsite response organization shall establish coordinated arrangements for dealing with rumors. l Statement G.4.e. NHY ORO rumor control setivities are to be married out at the JTIC under i the overall supervision of the Publie Information Advisor and the direct !
supervision of the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor. The Publie !
Information Advloor la responsible for coordinating rumor control measures. !
The process of utillaint the media and EBS to address rumors is speelfled. j t
Rumor Control Assistants are responalble for Interfacing with the public, i They respond to and docrment telephonic public inquiries, using offielally released information, oral information from the Media Relations / Rumor .
Contaof Supervisor, or generle information in their position manuals. If a l caller's inquiry is not covered by the official information. the Rumor l Control Agistants are instructed to refer the call to the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor or to the appropriate State or plant 7 rumor control personnel. In addition, an Assistant who detects a false !
rumor "trend" is instructed to report it to the Media Relations / Rumor l
October &98'8 .'
40 , ,
-1 Control Supervisor, who forwards it up through the chain of command to the Public Information Coordinator so that the media can be asked to help prevent its proliferation. ,
i Plan Reference 0.4.e. Section 3.7.3(C) and IP 2.12. I
?
Evaluatlee t i.
G.4.e. Adequate. [
r Evaluatka Criterion ,
a 7
0.5. The offsite response organlaation shall conduet coordinated programs at least annually to EMusint news media with the offsite emergency plans, information concerning radiation, and points of contact (see G.1.e.) for ;
release of publie informhtlon in an emergency. l Statement ,
~
4 G.S. The Plan states that the NHY Massachusetts Emergency Plannlag [
Coordinator will coordinate an annual media information program. The media Information program willinclude Plan updates and media contacts at ,
the Media Center. The media program will be carried out in conjunction !
with the Seabrock Station and the State of New Hampshire.
f l Plan Referenee f
- G. 5. Section 7.5.2 and Appendix C.
e t
, 1
)
Evahastlea !
5 l
G.5. Adequate, i l
r I
i t
I t
f n
t
- Octob:r 1988
/,1 .
H. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H):
Adequate emergency faellities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained.
Evaluation Criterlon H.3. The offsite response organlaation sha!! establish an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling offsite response functions.
Statement H.3. The NHY ORO EOC is co-located with the Seabrook Station EOF and the State of New Hampshire IFO on Gosling Road in Newington, New Hampshire at the Newington Station Unit No.1 facility. This facility is ,
located approximately 15 miles north of the Seabrook Statloa. '
Plan Reference H.3. Section 5.2.1 Figure 5.2-1: and Figure 5.2 2. f
. I Evaluation i H.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion. l l
H.4. The offsite response organlaation shall provide for timely activation and [
staffing of the faellities and centers described in the offsite plan.
. tat. at l o . i H.4. NHY ORO will activate the EOC upon the declaration of an Alert or higher ECL. Upon the declaration of an Alert or higher ECL the NHY ORO EOC i will be activated (IP 3.1). The NHY Offsite Response DirectoF will declare the NHY ORO EOC operational when the following group leaders / advisors '
Inform him that they have determined that sufficient staffing exists for them to perform their functions: Radiologleal Health Offleer Public ,
Notification Coordinator, Public Information Advisor, and the two l Assistant Offsite Response Directors. The Support Servless Coordinator it responsible for ensuring that the staff set up the NHY ORO EOC in i accordance with Attachment 2 of IP 3.1. Various functional groups are t
October 1983, r
v-assigned to set up telephoness set out sets of plans and procedures ,
prearrange office supplies and ensure that photocopler is operational. The i Support Services Coo-dinator will ensure that suffielent resources (desks, !
ehairs, etc.) exist and procure any additional equipment as necessary. The -l Support Servlee Coordinator will provide support to responding }
organlaations and Federal ageneles including vehicles, food and lodging, and i procurement support. The Security Offleer la responsible for establishing i access control at the NHY ORO EOC, establishing a log of all personnel i admitted to the NHY ORO EOC, and maintaining soeurity for the faellity. l 1
The Staging Area beested at 145 Water Street in Haverhili, Massachusetts) ;
is also to bs activated at an Alert or higher elassification. Emergency fleid :
sockers are to be activated at the Site Area Emergency or higher. The f Emergency Worker Faellity (mobile trailer for monitoring and decontaml- I nating emergeney workers and vehicles)is to be set up at the Staging Area {
at an Alert and la to be fully activated at the Site Area Emergency. ;
i A dedicated Monitoring Treller (to monitor and decontaminate evacuees) is L to be set up at each Reception Center and be fully activated at the !
declaration of a Site Area Emergency. l Two Reception Centers, to provide an assembly point and location for registering evaevees, will be established at locations about 20 miles from ;
the Seabrook. Station .(one at 1101 Turnpike Street in North Andover, J Massachusetts, and the second one at 44 River Street in Beverly, i
- Massachusetts). The Reception Centers are to be activated at a Site Area f Emergency classification and higher. f Congregate Care Centers will be established at leased feellities, for which Letters of Agreement have been signed. These Centers are to be set up ;
and staffed by the Amerlean Red Crees. The Congregate Care Centers will i be activated at the General Emergency ECL. ;
l i
Plas Referesee N.4. Section 3.48 Section la IF 3.18 IF 3.31 IF 3.3s IF 3.41 IF 3.51 and Append!x C.
(
H.4. Adequate. {
l i
i l
. . . - - - . - - - - , - _ . -, - - - ,m - -
October A95i i
43 Evaluation Criterion H.7. The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall provide for offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear faellity.
Statement H.7. NHY ORO has made provision for offelte radiologleal monitoring equipment for both environmental monitoring and for personnel exposure monitoring.
Plan Reference H.7. Section 3.3.2 Table 3.31 Section 5.2.4 and Appendix 1.
Evaluatlon H.7. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterton H.10. The offsite response organization shall make provisions to inspect, inventory and operationally check emergency equipment / Instruments at least once each calendar quarter and after each use. There shall be sufficient reserves of instruments / equipment to replace those which are removed from emergency kits for calibration or repair. Calibration of equipment shall be at intervals recommended by the supplier of the equipment.
Statement l
l H.10. NHY ORO has made provision to inspect, inventory, and operationally i
.. check all emergency equipment quarterly and after each use. Radiol gical monitoring equipment and dosimetry is to be calibrated on a semiennust basis. Calibration of monitoring instruments will be done (1) upon receipt l
of new instruments. (2) after any repair. (3)in accordance with National i
Standards or the manufacturer's recommendations, and (4)In accordance j with Seabrook Station polleles. Operational checks on radiologleal l monitoring equipment will be conducted monthly. NHY ORO has stated l that they will make sufficient reserves of equipment available to replace equipment that is removed for calibration or repair. The Plan states that equipment can only be removed for repair and calibration when replacements are available.
1 1
I October 398's 44 O
Plan Reference H.10. Section 5.51 Section 7.3 and IP 4.3.
Evaluation H.10. Adequate.
Evaluatloa criterion H.11. The offsite plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emergency kits by general category (protective equipment, communications equipment, radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies).
Statement .
H.11. The Plan does not contain lists of emergency kits according to the general categories speelfled in this criterion. The Plan lists fact!!ty equipment alphabetically with separate columns for quantitles of a givsn piece of equipment or supply located at a partleular NHY ORO faellity. A separate list alphebetleally tabulates supp!!es found in the field team kits (separate columns for field 'nonitoring kits, environmental sampling kits, and environmental supply locker).
Plan Reference H.11. Appendix 1.
Evaluation H.11. Adequate.
We recon 1 mend that the format of the Inventory lists be revised.
NHY has indleated (9/28/88) that the format and content of the inventory lists will be reviewed and revised, as necessary, for the 1989 annual update.
Evaluation Criterkm H.12. The offsite response organization shall establish a central point (preferably associated with the lleensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility), for the receipt and analysis of al! fleid monitoring data and coordination of sample media.
- ___________________ ___ ____ I
October 1988 o .
Statement H.12.. The NHY ORO has established the EOF as the central point for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media.
Plan Reference H.12. Section 3.3.2.
Evaluation H.12. Adequate.
S i
I i
4 4
October 1988 '
46 .
. r
- 1. Aeeident Assessment (Planning Standard I): l 1
Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or I potential offsite consequences of a radiologleal emergency condition are in use. !
Evaluation Criterion
! 1.7. The offsite response organisation shall describe the espability and resources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone whleh are an intrinste part of the concept of operations for the faellity, i l
Statement '
l l.7. The NHY ORO espabilities and resources for field monitoring with!n the !
plume ~ eposure EPZ are desertbed in the plan and its accompanying !
proe. Cee.- N field Teams (2 teams at 2 persons per team) and Sample j
, Col .1 ! # ' ~ (L teams at 2 persons per team) report to the Tleid Team Dispa tchs '. The Field Team Dispatcher and the Dose Assessment Tef hnician .epet to the Accident Assessment Coordinator. The Accident 6sessment f ccidinator reports to the Radiologleal Health Advisor. The 1 typleal field moni'oring kit inventory is listed in Table 3.3-1. The plan {
indleates that eaco field monitoring team will be assigned a vehicle for j
- transportation in the field. The field teams will use the same grid maps as ;
- used by the State of New Hampshire and Seabrook Station. The field team I monitoring kits contain instruments whleh are comparable to the survey (
! Instruments used by the State of New Hampshire and Seabrook Station. !
I l i NHY ORO, Seabrook Station, and the State of New Hampshire have agreed to coordinate field monitoring setivities. Therefore, the various organisations' field teams will receive speelfle assignments. The field I
- survey data co!!eeted by the NHY ORO monitoring teams will be integrated l' l with the data collected by the New Hampshire State and Seabrook Station teams.
I
\ .' . i Plan Reference !
j !.7. Section 3.J-2 Section 3.3-3 Section 3.9; Figure 3.1 1 Table 3.311 IP 1.12 IP 2.38 and IP 2.4. ,
?
Evaluation !
i !
j !.7. Adequate.
}
I
[
l l
i l
. __ a
~ -
OcBober 1988 s
47 s .
j Evaluation Criterion :
l l 1.8. The offsite response organlaation, where appropriate, shall provide
! methods, equipment and expe=tise to make rapid assauments of the actual l or potential magnitude and locations of any redlological hazards through -
Ilquid or gaseous release pathways. This shall include activation.
notifleation means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and estimated deployment times.
r Statement ,
- 1. 8. The NHY 010 has made provision and developed met, hods, equipment, and expertise te, make assessments of the magnitude and locations of 1 radiological hasards through the gaseous release pathway. This includes activation, notifleation means, field team formation, transportation, ,
communleations, monitoring equipment, and est{ mates of deployment times '
from the arrival at the Staging Area. F.stimates of complete deployment time are included. ;
IF. 2.3 describes duties, responsibilities, and the concept of operation for j the Aeeldent Assessment Coordinator, the Field Team Dispatcher, and the :
Fleid Monitoring Tea ms. The Aeeldent Assessment Coordinator is [
responsible for inplementing the procedure and supervbing the Field Team [
Dispatcher. The Field Team Dispatcher is responsible for directing the !
- Field Monitoring Teams including monitoring locations, recording field !
data, treeking Field Monitoring Team exposure, and relaying this data to >
the Accident Assessment Coordinator. The Field Monitoring Teams are l responsible for performing monitoring surveys in the plume exposure EPZ, [
eo!!eeting samples, and monitoring / reporting their doses. (
The Field Monitoring Teams are responsible for plume definitions e.g., [
define plume bounder) as 1 mR/hr,100 mR/hr, and highest centerline ,
numbers. Note, the NHY ORO has adopted a turnback number of 500 mR/hr. The Field Monitoring Teams are responsible for taking ganma ud gamma / beta surveys at waist level, and gamma / beta surveys at two
- nebes above gre ad at each survey neestion. The Field Monitoring Teams
- will t*e assigned to take air samples at various locations by the Field Team l
. Dispatcher. The Field Team Diapateher will give assignments to the Field i Monitoring Teams. The assignments will be to proceed between various :
locations, taking appropelate measurements, rather than to be' assigned to a {
geness! area: 1.e., management strategy is point to-point monitoring. The Field Monitoring Teams kits have a map with a grid system for the plume [
exposure EFZ.
l l
l l l l
g,g,, g .
48 . . ;
. e ;
Plan Reference L
!. 8. Section 3.3.21 Section 3.91 Section 4.51 Tabte 3.3-1 Table 3.3 2: Appendix II l IP 1.2 IP 1.12 IP 2.13 IP 2.31 and IP 2.4. l l
Evaluation I
I.8. Adequate.
l I
Evaluetten Criterien ,
t I
!.9. The offsite response organisation shell have a espability to detect and ;
meas $e radiolodine eoncentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low ;
as 10' bCl/ee (mleroeuries per euble centimeter) under field conditions. !
Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radiation shall I not decrease the stated alnimum detectable activity. l
?
Statement !
l 1.9. NHY ORO nas made provision for equipment and measure radiolodine concentrations as low as 10'pethods to detect wCl/ec. The and tyyleal .
field monitoring kit inventory (Table 3.3-1) and the field monitoring kit inventory and operational checklist (IP 1.3) shows air sampling equipment f
_ i and includes Il silver soollte eartridges. l The Table 3.31 eheektist and the IP 2.3 ehecklist should be consistent with [
respect to quantitles of supplies e.g., suggest using 30 silver neollte !
eartridges for both ehoekilsts. !
Plan Reference f
1.9. Seetlen 3.3.2 Table 3.313 IP 2.21 IP 2.31 and Appendix 1. I
! Evaluatise !
i 1.9. Adequate. l i
We recommend that Table 3.31 and the IP 2.3 ehecklist be revised to be !
eonalstent. I NHY has indicated (9/28/88) that Table 3.3-1 and the IP 2.3 checklists for [i field test kit inventory will be revised in the next amendment to be consistent. I I
i f
I
+ , - - - *-v -__ _ _ _
7- . .
October 1944 49 Evaluation Criterion P
!.10. The offsite response organisation shall establish means for relating the various measured parameters (e.g., contamination levels, water and air activity levels) to dose rates for key (sotopes (i.e., those given in Table 3, page 18 of NUREG-0454/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.1) and gross radioactivity ;
measurements. Provisions shall be made for estimating Integrated dose from the projected and actual dose rates and for comparing these estimates ;
with the protective action guidea. The detalled prowlsions shall be :
deseribed in separate procedures. ,
l Statement ;
!.10. IP. 3.3. describes duties for the Aeeldent Assessment Coordinator and the s Dose Assessment Technielen. The procedure describes the methodologies j used for predleting offsite doses (whole body and thytold), for calculating j projected lodine ground deposition, and for projecting first-year integrated ,
whole body dose from radioactive deposition. [
Section 3.3 of the Plan states that the Dose Assessment Technlelan is to [
use the METPAC data provided by NHY staff at the EOF. The type of [:
Information that een be obtained from the METPAC printout includes plume arrival time for downwind distances up to 10 miles, whole-body and f thyroid dose rate projections, atmospherie dispersion and plume depletion ;
~~
factors, and whole body and thyrold integrated doses for 3, 4, 4, or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> I of esposure. The Dose Assessment Technlelen should have a time (
dependent dose eenversion factor to use la developing the projected thyroid !
dose rate calculations. b i
IP 3.5 provides guidance for making PARS. The PAR procedure calls for '
i predetermined speelal pas at a Site Area Emergency or General Emer-geney. The predetermined speelal par are:
- l t
- Consider recommending early evreustion of seheelst and I I
e Cleeure of the Parker River National W11dlife Refuge en Plum laland, l
- Plum taland Beneh, Sallabury Beseh, and the seean safety none.
l The Radiologleal Health Advisor la responsible for Implementing this t procedure. The Aeeldent Assessment Coordinator is responsible for [
eollecting and summarising radiologleal and meteorologleal Information. ;
The Techn!eal Advisor is responsible for collecting and summarising data l
on the aceldent status and plant eenditions, and providing this information to the Radiologleal Health Advisor for foemulating a P A R. The Radiologiest Health Advisor checklist (IP 1.3) states that the Radiologleal Health Advisor is responsible for formulating precautionary PARS and PARS for both the plume and ingestion exposure pathways. The PAR I
l I
f I I
i 1
50 ,
procedure Indicates that the Technical Advisor will confer with the Radiologleal Health Advisor in developing a PAR (IP 2.5, sections 5.2.2, 5.4.1, and 5.4.3). The Technical Advisor checklist (IP 1.7) states that the Technical Advisor will develop PARS based upon plant stktv4 and advise the Radiological Health Advisor of the need for PARS cased on plant conditions.
The Radiological Health Advisor checklist has a briefing sheet (Attach-ment 3 to IP 1.2) for the Radlological Health Advisor to complete and deliver to the NHY Offsite Response Director. This form has combinations of no action, shelter, evacuation, and recovery for each of the ERPAs within the plume exposure EPZ. Tiils form also contains an Ingestion PAR and a section for recommending emergency worker exposure controls.
See J.11 for discussion of dose projections for the ingestion pathway.
Plan Reference
!.10. Section 3.21 Section 3.38 Section 3.93 IP 1.23 IP 1.71 IP 1.12 IP 2.2 IP 2.5 and IP 2.6.
Evaluation
~
I.10. Adequate.
We recommend that a time dependent dose conversion factor should be used in thyroid exposure rate calculation.
l Evaluation Criterion 1.11. Arrangements to locate and track the airborne radioactive plume shall be made, using either or both Federal and offsite response organization resources.
State ment 1.11. NHY ORO will provide two field monitoring teams with vehicles for ground transportation. These teams, along with those of New Hampshire State and Seabrook Station, can be it ed for locating and tracking an airborne radioactive plume from the ground. The Plan indleates that NHY ORO will request Federal assistance to perform serial monitoring.
October 1944 Plan Referenee
!.11. Section 2.3.2 Section 2.3.38 Section 3.3.21 (P 1 12: and IF 2.3.
Evatustlen
!.11. Adequate.
7 d
.A
.c 1
Y P
4 i
1 l
1 h
4 1
J 1
a i t i .
Oc2obtr 198'8 *
- 52 J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J):
A range of protective eetions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective actions for the Ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to [
the locale have been developed.
i Evaluation Criterion J.2. Each lleensee and offsite response organlaation shall make provi- for evacuation routes and transportation for onsite Individuals to some . N ,
offsite loestion, including alternatives for inclement weather, hig, ter.
density and speelfic radiological concitions.
Statement J.2. Evacuation of onsite personnel is incorporated into the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffle Management Plan Update. The Seabrook Station is located in the State of New Hampshire. The onsite plan callt '6e personnel to be evacuated to the State of New Hampshire.
Plan Reference J.2. Evacuation Time Estimate study, i i
Italuation !
t J.2. Not Appilcable.
Evaluation Criterion l J.9. The offsite response organlaation shall establish a capability for i implementing protective measures based upon proteettve setton guides and ,
other criteria. The offsite response oegenlaation shall describe the means '
for recommending protective setions to' the public, for activating the alert i and notification system, and for notifying the public of protective action l recommendations. This shall be consistent with the recommendations of f EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radionettve airborne {
plumes. (EPA 520/1-75-001) and with those of DHHS/FDA regarding '
radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds as published in l the Feders! Register on October 22,1982 (47 TR 47073).
Octobsr 1988
. . 53
. 1. .
f Statement J.9. The Plan describes the Massachusetts communities affected by the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ as follows:
The land area is completely within Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All land area is said to be under the jurisdiction of the following communities: Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, and West Newbury. A portion of Plum Island is under the jurisdiction of the DOI. The navigable waters of the Atlantle Ocean and the Merrimac River are under the jurisdiction of the USCG. The FAA maintains jurisdiction over the airspace velthin the plume exposure EPZ.
Note: Portions of Plum Island outside of Newburyport (Rc.vley and Ipswich) are not included in plume exposure EPZ.
The general public population is stated to be, as follows:
COMMUNITY PERMANENT PERMANENT & TRANSIENT Amesbury 14,258 19,359 Merrimac 4,420 6,079 Newbury 5,479 10,476 Newburyport 16,414 23,481 Salisbury 6,726 18,919
__. West -Ne wbut y 3,296 4,630 TOTAL POPULATION 50,593 82,944 Portions of.. Salisbury and Amesbury are located within the two mile and fivv mile distance from the Sesbrook Station in the S to the WSW compass sectors. Portions of Salisbury and Amesbury and all/most of Merrimac, ;
West Newbury, Newburyport, and Newbury are located between the five and ten mile distance from the Seabrook Station in the S to the WSW compass secto.
.. The transient population mainly +1 sits Sellsbury Beach and beaches on Plum
.!sland, which are located in Sallabury, Newbury, and Newburyport, as well as the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in '
Newburyport, Rowley, and Ipswich.
The Seabrook Station ingestion Exposure EPZ affects portions of the States of Maine and New Hampshire and portions of the Commonwealth of Massachasetts. The Plan Identifies all or portions of the following Massachusetts Counties as being part of the Ingestion Exposure EPZ:
. F.ssex, Middlesex, Suffolk, Plymouth, Norfoik, and Worcester.
. - - _ __ - _, , - - - - - - - - - _ _ . , - - - - _ _ - _ _ , , . --n____ _
r Octcbx 1988
$4 NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for Protective Action in the Plume Exposure EPZ as follows:
- SAE and GE ECL: Recommend that the DO! notify the transients at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge to leave. Recommend that the USCG establish a marine safety zone (ocean safety zone). Recommend that Plum Island Beach and Sallsbury Beach be closed. Consider recommending early evacuation of schools or closing of schools it they are not open.
- GE ECL: Recommend ecmbinations of shelter and evacuation, depending upon assessment of emergency, for the general public and Special Populations. Recommendations will be by ERPA. A recommen-dation will be made to place milk animals within 10 miles in shelter and on stored feed.
L
.NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas In the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as follows:
- PREVENTIVE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if measured contamination of food stuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels.
- EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the emergency derived response levels. '
NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas for the Reentry and Recovery period as follows: recommend the designation of restricted zones, relocation of the general public, and decontamination campaigns.
NHY ORO will base the Reentry and Recovery Protective Actions on the measurement of contamination that would result in the projected whole body dose exceeding the various relocation PAGs.
i NHY ORO has established the espabilities for effecting the evacuation of ,
the gancral public and Special Populations. NHY ORO has designated staff, equipment, and resources to effect evacuation and to establish access !
.. control points (ACPs) for evacuated areas. NHY ORO will provide doelmetry and KI to those Special Populations who cannot evacuate.
NHY ORO will assist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the implementation of Ingestion Exposure Pathway pas. The NHY Offsite Response Director has authority to purchase foodstuffs with contamination i levels exceeding the emergency derived response levels.
NHY ORO has made arrangements to notify the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the various local governments. NHY ORO has made arrangements to notify the public through the use of EBS. NHY ORO has l
l
-w- - - , - - ,= m -. . . - - - --% . . -y- ---.--------,,=,vv..----+---,,---w--.w+-- - -.-,--------mi--we=e- w--,---+- -----------w- =,pr-+-e-- er " y-
- Octobar'1988
'. '. $$ l made arrangements to notify Special Populations (public and private schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical. facilities, I other special facilities, and hearing-tmpaired individuals). NHY ORO has made arrangements to notify the USCG, the FAA, and the DOI.
The Plan describes a Vehicular Alert and Notification System that would be utilized to alert the public. We note that the Vehicular Alert and Notification System is not available for use.
NHY,ORO has adopted the EPA PAGs for the general public and emergenc3 workers in the plume exposure EPZ. NHY ORO has adopted ths FDA PAGs for foodstuffs in the ingestion exposure EPZ. The NHY ORO PAGs are consistent with those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire. NHY ORO has adopted the draft EPA PAGs for relocation.
Plan Reference J.9. Section 3.3 Section 3.4; Section 3.5; Section 3.61 Section 3:7; Section 3.8; Section 3.9; and IP 2.16.
Evaluation
___ J.9. Adequate.
Evaluation C.'Iterion J.10. The offsite response organization's plans to implement protective measures for the p!ume exposure pathway shallinclude J.10.a. Maps showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, preselected radiological
, sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas (Identification of radiological sampling and monitoring points shall include the designations in Table J-1 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 or an equivalent uniform system describ<.d in the offsite plan):
Statement J.10.a. A map titled "Plume Exposure EPZ" (Appendix A) shows evacuation areas and shelter areas (locations of the host facility and congregate care centers) for the six towns. Expanded maps of each town in Appendix J show evacuation routes, with traffic control points marked.
l .
l
Octcbsr 1983 -
56 . .
A map of preselected radiological sampling and monitoring points was not found. A comparable grid system and appropriate maps have been established. This grid system has been adopted by the States of New Hampshire and Maine, as well as the onsite organization.
Plan Reference J.10.a. Appendix A and Appendix J.
Evaluation J.10.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion .
J.10.b. Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear facility. This shall
- be by evacuation arena (licensees shall also present the information in a ,
sector format):
Statement
_ J.10.b. Population distribution around Seabrook Station is shown in tabular (rather' than map) form for the six towns in the plume exposure EPZ in Table 1.3-1 and Table 3.6-1. Tables 1.3-1 and 3.5-1 gives figures for "permanent residents" and "peak population total," defined as summer, midweek data.
These figures are derived from the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study.
Plan Reference J.10.b. Table 1,3-1: Table 3.6-1 and ETE (Section 2 and Section 10).
l Evaluation J.10.b. Adequate.
We recommend that population distribution data be provided in map form.
NHY has Indleated (9/28/88 letter) that population distribution data in a map form by ERPA will be provided in the next amendment. ,
O
_ - - - - , v .-__,-_._,,._.-_m,-- - _ . - - - , . _ , , - - . . , _ - _ _ . _ _ , , , , , , , _ _ .' -
- ._. ~
. oe g e'oo r' . 3988 ',
.. ." 57 'tl 1
Evaluation Criterlon l J.10 e. Means for notifying all segments of the transient ar.d resident ppulttlon. ,
p Statement J.10.c. See comments under E.4.
Plan Reference J.10.c. Section 3.2.5 Section 3.7.3 IP 2.13: IP 2.15; and IP 2.16.
Evaluation J.10.e. Inadequate.
The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) is not operational at this time.
Evaluation Criterion *
- J.10.d. Means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as Institut{onal or other confinement. These means shall include notification, support and assistance in implementing protective measures where appropriates Statement .
J.10.d. IP 2.7 provides guidance for notifying the Specla! Populations of recommended pas and asse5 Jing transportation requirements. TM Special Populations are defined as school children living and attending school in the plume exposure EPZ, school children living in the plume exposure EPZ and attending school outside the plume exposure EPZ,
,, medically homebound Individuals, hearing-tmpaired Individuals, Individuals in hospitals, and persons in other special care facilities.
The Evacuation Support Coordinator is responsible for directing the functions of the School Coordinator and Speela! Population Coordinators. The School Coordinator is responsible for directing the School Llaison and referring transportation requirements to the Bus Company Liaison. Each School Liaison is responsible for notifying schools in the designated communities, relaying PARS to the schools, and Informing the School Coordinator of transportation needs and the status of PA Implementation. School Liaisons are also responsible for
Octobhr.1968 '
i 58 ;
o notifying schoc!s outside the plume exposure EPZ that are attended by students living in the plume exposure. EPZ. The Speelal Population Coordinator is responsible for directing the activities of the Special !
Population Liaisons, ensuring notifications of the hearing-tmpaired are ;
made, referring bus requirements to the Bus Company Liaison, and !
obtaining special vehicles (ambulances / wheelchair vans). - l
, p The Speelal Vehicle Dispatchers are responsible for dispatching j ambulance / van drivers to various . speelat faellities. The Dosimetry i Recordkeepers will provide doelmetry to the Special Vehicle drivers. :
Appendix M indleates that there are needs for 107 wheelchair vans and ~ l ambulances and 57 buses to evacuate 2,438 persons plus staff who are ;
either in speelal faellities and hospitals or who have mobility impairments. j i
The Plan states that NHY ORO has thu means for conducting simultaneous evaeustion of all schools within the Massachusetts plume exposure EPZ. !
NHY ORO bus drivers will be beleted, lasued doelmetry, and dispatched to i appropriate schools. The NHY ORO does not rely on the school buses l routinely used by the school district. The plan makes provision to provide !
- the means to communicate with the buses by lasuing radios to the Route Guides, who will be assigned to the lead bus dispatched to each school. l Attachment 1 of IP 2.7 is used by the School Liaison to notify schools, and ,
to lnform them of PARS. The attachment contains the PAR "nonopening/ [
eencellation" of school sessions and school related activities. Section 5.2.2 i
- of IP 2.7 states that the School Coordinator requests buses from the Bus Company Liaison. The School Coordinator receives the bus needs from the' [
six School Liaisons. Provision has been made for buses, vans, and ;
ambulances to evacuate these Individuals, for monitoring and l decontamination, and for a host fac!!!ty and congregate care faellities. l Appendix M Indicates that there are needs for 245 buses to evacuate 10,371 ;
persons from schools.
Special Population Liaisons are assigned to make notifications to the ;
noninstitutionalized speelal populations, including the hearing-tmpaired, ;
and to speelat facilities other than schools. Route Guides at the Staging l Area are to be available after declaration of a SAE for dispatch to the ;
homes of the hearing-lmpaired to inform them of the need to take i protective actions. Lists of. persons with speelal needs are to be '
maintained via mall-in cards, posters, phone Inquiries, and personal visits. !
These and other lists of special faellities are to be maintained in Appendix M.
i Maps to direct those assigned to evacuate speelat populations have been developed. Provisions have been made to store the maps at the Staging Area and to provide the maps to Route Guides.
i !
i i i I
~
. Octob3r 1988
. - 59 o
Plan Weference J.10.d. Section 3.6; IP 1.9; IP 1.10 IP 2.7; IP 2.10; IP 2.111 and Appendix M.
Evaluation J.10.d. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.e. Provisions for the use of radioprotective drugs, particularly for emergency workers and Institutionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose immediate evacuation may he infeasible or very difficult, including quantitles, storage, and means of distribution; Statement J.10.e. K! tablets are to be issued along with dosimetry to emergency personnel who must enter the plume exposure EPZ. Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to deliver a set of dosimetry and KI to each bus driver at their respective but yards. All other emergency workers at the Staging Area are to receive both dosimetry and Kl.
_.- The NHY ORO will provide dosimetry and K! for institut!cnalized individuals who cannot be evacuated if requested by local emergency officials.
Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to deliver 50 sets of dosimetry with K! to each local EOC, if requested to do so.
Plan Reference J.10.e. Section 3.5.41 Section 3.6.1 IP 2.81 and Append's I.
Itvaluation J.10.e. Adequate. _
Evaluation Criterion J.10.f. The offsite response organization's plans should include the method by which deelslons by the State Health Department for administering radioprotective drugs to the general population can be made during an
October 1988 60 emergency. The plan shall adopt the method used by the State where such a method is available. The plans shall provide for advising State Health Departments regarding such decisions; and the predetermined condition under which such drugs may be used by offsite emergency workers I Statement J.10.f. NHY ORO has not made provisions for the distribution of K! to the general pubile, which is consistent with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan. The predetermined condition level for KI use by emergency workers is stated to be 25 rem.
- All NHY ORO emergency personnel who must enter the plume EPZ will be given K! tablets along with dosimetry. The Radiological Health Advisor will use the evaluation of projected thyroid exposures in the decision to authorize the ingestion of K1 by NHY ORO emergency personnel.
Plan Reference J.10.f. Section 3.5.4 and IP 2.8.
Evaluation J.10.f. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.g. Means of relocation:
Stateenent J.10.g. The plan (Section 3.6.1) describes means for relocation of the general pubtle (via automobile), residents and transients requiring assistance (automobile or bus), Special Population /special facilities (bus, ambulance, or van), and schools (buses). The numbers of buses, ambulances, and vans required are tabulated in Appendix M. See comments under J.10.d.
IP 1.3, 1.9 1.10, 2.10, and 2.11 provide guidance and control for implementing evacuation protective actions.
I See DHHS Federal Register notice of July 24,1985 (50 FR 30258) entitled Federal Polley on Distribution of Potassium lodide Around Nuclear Power Sites for Use as a Thyroid Blocking Agent.
t
. , , - - -_----,-,..--.--.---.w,- n - - - . --.-n. , - -, -, . - - , ..- -w- - - - - - - - --
-. ~. _. __ _ . .
- *- Octobsr 1988 61 The Staging Area Leader is responsible for briefing personnel dispatched to bus yards. The Bus Company Liaison is responstble for obtaining buses to ,
support the evacuation of general and Special Populations. The Bus '
Company Dispatchers are responsible for taking Bus Driver Packets to bus yards, briefing bus drivers, and overseeing the dispatch of buses. The Bus ,
Company Dispatcher is to take Dostmetry Record Keepers to the e utgned bus yards. The Route Guide proceoute (Attachment 3, IP 2.10) states that the Route Guides will report to the assigned bus yard with the Bus Company Dispatcher. The Speela! Vehicle Dispatcher is responsible for belefing ambulance / van drivers, a'ssigning plekup points, and dispatching '
4 them from the Staging Area. Transfer Point Dispatchers see responsible !
for assigning bus routes, assigning dosimetry to road crews, dispatching /
briefing Route Guides and bus drivers who are assigned to Transfer Points.
The Bus Company Liaison is tasked to determine the availability of buses, and the mobilisation time. This information is to be recorded on Attachment 1 of IP 2.10. This form provides for an Indication of the availability of equipment and the identified bus requirements by community
- for transit dependent, special facilities, and schools. When there are more bus companies and/or bus yards than Bus Dispatchers, IP 2.10 directs the Bus Company Liaison either ^o request buses from smaller bus companies to go to designated bus yards for dispatch, or to request NHY ORO to provide !
additional Bus Dispatchers. The Bus Company Liaison must interface with the Special Population Coordinator and the School Coordinator in order to determine the actual number of buses required for these groups of Special
- Populations by community.
2
- The Route Guide procedure (Attachment 2, IP 2.10) calls for the Route i Guides to check out radios in order to provide communications capabilities for the buses. The staffing chart (Figure 2.1-1) indicates that 166 persons 1 are assigned duties as Route Guides. These 166 Route Guides have to
- provide evacuation assistance to the general public, schools and special i facilities simultaneously. The Route Guides also are assigned the responsibility to notify the hearing-Impaired Individuals. i
! The Transfer Point Dispatchers w!!! pick up radios and proceed to their predetermined Transfer Point. The Transfer Point Dispatchers are also to i
- l. plek up enough radios to provide radios to the Road Crews.
i . ,
Transfer Point Dispatchers will belef bus drivers and Route Guides as they . ;
i arrive at the transfer points. Bus drivers Route e Guides, and buses will be :
assigned to speelfle routes. Appendix M IndleateJ that 64 buses will be l assigned to the Transfer Point Dispatchers to effect transportation '
assistance / evacuation for 1,864 persons identified as transit-dependent. ,
t
} [
i l
l i
l
OctcMr 1988, ,
' 62 Plan Reference J.10.g. IP 1.3; IP 1.9; IP 1.10; IP 2.10; IP 2.11; Section 3.6; Appendix I Appendix M; and Evacuation Time Estimate study.
Evaluation J.10.g. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.h. Relocation centers in hast areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond tne bounderles of the plume exposure emergency planning zone (see J.12.);
Statement J.10.h. Two Reception Centers and 27 Congregate Care Centers (some co-located) have.been identified (Appendix C). All are at a distance of at least 5 miles, and most greater than 10 miles, beyond the boundarles of the plume exposure EPZ. According to ARC Form #3074, completed by NHY personnel for each Congregate Care Center, the Congregate Care Centers have space for 24,714 people. The Reception Centers will be managed by the NHY ORO (Section 5.2.7). The Congregate Care Centers will be managed by the American Red Cross (Section 5.2.8).
Maps directing the public from the Reception Centers to the Congregate Care Centers have been developed. Provisions have been made to store the maps at the Reception Centers and to provide for the distribution of the appropriate maps to evacuees requiring congregate care.
i A generic plan for Congregate Care Center setup has been developed.
Plan Reference J.10.h. Section 3.6; Section 5.2.71 Section 5.2.8; IP 1.6; and IP 3.5.
EvaJustion J.10.h. Adequate.
i
, , - - - . , - - . , , , - - _ _ . - _ . . - . , - . . , - . , . - - . - . , . , . - _ . , - _ - _ _ - - . , - . , , . ._ - - , y -- . . __,
. l Octob2r 1988 63 Evaluation Criterion J.10.1. Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency '
conditions:
Statement J.10.l. The Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study describes the method used to estimate traffic capacities of evacuation routes (ETE, Section 3) and lists the estimated values of capacity for each route segment under fair weather conditions (ETE, Appendix N). For inclement weather, capacity reductions of 20 percent for rain and 25 percent for snow are used (ETE, p. 3-11).
Plan Reference J.10.l. Evacuation Time Estimate study.
Evaluation J.10.1. Adequate.
~ Evaluation Criterion J.10.J. Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibilities for such control Statement J.10.J. The following statements are based on our review of the Plan, IP 2.11 Appendix J of the Plan, and the ETE.
NHY ORO will establish Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) (Section 3.6.5). Detailed sketches of each TCP and ACP are
.. Included in the plan (Appendix J. Traffic Management Manual).
The listed ACPs are all on the periphery of the EPZ. Specific Internal TCPs are designated as Internal ACPs.
Plan Reference J.10.J. Section 3.6.5 IP 2.11: Appendix I Appendix J: and ETE study.
^
Octob2r 19C8 64 . .
Evaluation J.10.J. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.k. Identification of and means for dealing with potential Impediments (e.g.,
seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation . routes, and contingency measures L
Statement J.10.k. NHY ORO will preposition 12 road crews at 6 Transfer Points to clear road impediments and ensure that roads remain passable (Section 3.6.5). Traffic guides will be stationed at predetermined TCPs to expedite the flow of traffic. If alternative evacuation routes become necessary Traffic Guides will be repositioned by the Evacuation Support Dispatcher (Section 3.6.5, IP 1.3, IP 2.10,'and Appendix J).
See statement under J.10.1.
Appendix M lists three companies with a total inventory of 24. towing vehicles.
Plan Reference J.10.k. Section 3.6.5 IP 1.3 IP 2.10: Appendix J and Appendix M.
Evaluation J.10.k. Adequate.
.. Evaluation Criterion J.10.1. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a
, dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (see Appendix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1); and
o Octob2r 1988 6)
Statement J.10.1. An evacuation time study was performed for the entire plume exposure
! EPZ, including the six Massachusetts communities, Seabrook Station i Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE).
In the ETE, two Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) were defined to include the six Massachusetts communities: ERPA B, comprising Amesbury and Salisbury; and ERPA E, comprising Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, and West Newbury. Evacuation time estimates were calculated for these ERPAs. The overall evacuation time estimates for ERPAs B and E include the evacuation time estimates for the persons at the Massachusetts beaches, for transit-dependent persons, and for special facility populations.
IP 2.10 (Attachment 2) assigns priorities for evacuating special facilities.
We could not locate in the Plan the methodology used to assign those priorities. ' NHY indicated during conversations with FEMA staff that the following methodology was used to assign prioritim schools were prioritized strictly based on distance from Seabrook Ste:.on. The hospitals were all considered high priority, both because there are only two, and because of the criticality of their population. The priorities were established on a town-specific basis, whereby each town has several prlority levels, from highest (1) to lowest (4). We note that NHY ORO will consider recommending early evacuation of schools or closing of schools if they,are not open at both a SAE and GE ECL.
Plan Reference J.10.1. Section 3.6tlP 1.3 IP 2.5; IP 2.10: Appendix J and ETE.
Evaluation J.10.1. Adequate.
We recommend that the Plan be revised in the next amendment to state the
. basis for determining the special facility evacuation priorities.
NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Section 3.6 will be r$ vised in the 1989 annual update to state the basis for determining the special facility priorities.
Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. The basis for the choice of recommended protective actions from the plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions. This shall include
Octob;r 198d '
)
66 *
- l
\
l l
expected local protection efforded in residential units or other shel direct and inhalatien exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.ger for l l
Statement J.10.m. The Plan describes a PAR process based on both plant status and dose projections. Field measurements are inputted as they become available in order to refine PARS. The EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are used as a basis for sc! eting protective actions for the plume exposure pathway. The METPAC program used for dose projection contains shelter protection factors for a wood frame house without a basement, used in both whole-body and thyroid dose calculations (p. 3.3-6).
Plan Reference J.10.m. Section 3.3; Section 3.4; IP 1,21 IP 1,7; IP 2.5; and Evacuation Time Estimate study.
Evaluation J.10.m. Adequate. .
' Evaluation Criterion J.11. The offsite response organization shall specify the protective measures to be used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protecting the public from consumption of contaminated foodstuffs. This shall include criteria for deciding whether dairy animals should be put on stored feed.
The offsite plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled ingestion, 2
The following reports may be considered in determining protection afforded.
(1) "Pubtle Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents "Sheltering Concepts with Existing Public and Private Structu es" (SAND 77-1725), Sandia Laboratory. -
(2) "Examination of Offsite Radiological Emergency Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents involving Core Melt"(SAND 78-0454), Sandla Laboratory.
(3) "Protective Action Evaluation Part II, Evacuation and Sheltering as Protective Actions Against Nuclear Accidents involving Gaseous Relekses" (EPA 520/1-78-001B).
U.S. Environmental Proteethn Agency.
67 Oesober 1988 and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundinent, decontamina-tion, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation. Maps for recording survey and monitoring data, key land use data (e.g., farming),
dalries, food processing plants, water sheds, watsse supply intake and treatment plants and reservoirs shall be maintained. Provistes for maps showing detailed crop information may be by including reference to their availability and location and a plan for their use. The maps shall start at the facility and include all of the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ. Up-to-date lists of the name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall be maintained.
Statement J.11. NHY ORO has identified procedures for detect (ng contamination from the quantitative field data collected by Sample Collection Teams and/or Field Monitoring Teams, and from laboratory analysis of the fleid samples. NHY ORO has procedures for developing Preventive and Emergency PARS.
IP 2.6 contains two worksheets for calculating whether protective actions are called for (Attachment 2 for milk and drinking water; Attachment 5 for other foods). IP 2.6 also contains attachments with preventive (#3) and emergency (# 4) pas.
~~
NHY ORO has adopted the concept df operation for pas in the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as follows:
- PRECAUTIONARY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend that milk animals in the plume EPZ be placed on stored feed and in shelters at GE ECL.
- PREVENTIVE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels.
- EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the
- measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the emergency derived response levels.
The Plan in Section 3.4.2 provides for ingestion PARS and pas to be communicated to the general public and food processors by means of news releases and EBS message. IP 2.6 assigns the Radiological Health Advisor the responsibility to assist in the development of appropriate news releases. After recommending an ingestion exposure pathway PAR the NHY Offsite Response Director will direct the Public Information Advisor to develop a news release. After authorization from the Commonwealth, the Public Information Advisor will be Instructed to issue the news release.
'Octob3r 19C8
. 68 . .
NHY ORO will request that the Massachusetts Department of Food and v Agriculture, the USDA, and the FDA implement ingestion exposure pathway pas. IP 2.6 directs tne NHY Offsite Response Director, upon authorization from the Commonwealth, to Instruct the Radiological Mealth Advisor to begin contacting farms and food processors / distributors affected by the pas. The Plan references the process to provide written public Instructions material to be directed at farmers, farm workers, food processors, and distributors within the ingestion exposure EPZ.
The Ingestion pathway database (Appendix L) does contain appropriate information for accident assessment and implementation of ingestion pathway pas. FEMA staff reviewed the material that is being placed in a computerized data basei the format of the data base, and sample outputs of the, data base. The reporting formats (outputs) and data base will provide for complete coverage (lists of farms, producers, processors, distributors, etc.) of ingestion pathwayr within the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Ingestion exposure EPZ. Provisions have been made for maintaining maps for recording survey an'd monitoring data, and for maintaining key land use data, dalries (Appendix L), etc. at t'1e NHY ORO EOC.
IP 2.4 establishes guidelines for the Sample Collection Teams (SCT) to follow in the collection of water, snow, milk, vegetation, meats and meat products, eggs, .soll, food crops,' animal feeds, and shell!!sh. Sample Collection Teams will be directed by the Accident Assessment Coordinator
__ througn the Field Team Dispatcher. Figure 2.1-1 Ind'estes that there are 12 persons (6 teams). There are 6 team kits. The Plan (Section 3.3) states that there are 5 Sample Collection Teams. The sixth team will be used to collect samples and transfer them to collection points (EOF).
Sample Collection Teams are directed to take gamma and gamma / beta surveys at waist height at each sample location. Sample Collection Teams are directed to take gamma / beta surveys at two inches above ground at each sample location. The Sample Collection Teams have USGS maps for '
the Ingestion exposure EPZ and maps for the plume exposure EPZ. A grid
- system is used for both maps.
There are various procedures for the different types of samples. The milk ,
i sampling procedure includes the required collection of necessary l Information on feeding protocol, volumes of milk in tanks from which the !
sample was taken, and times at which milk was added to the tank relative '
to the time of the accident. The procedure calls for the Sample Collection Team to complete Attachment 5.
Plan Reference J.11. Section 3.3: Section 3.4.2: Section 5.2.1 Figure 2.2-1: IP 2.4 IP 2.6 IP 2.12 IP 2.13: Appendix L and Appendix H.
l
October 1988 69
. . t Evaluation J.11. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion J.12. The offsite response organization shall describe the means for reglstering I
and monitoring of evseuses at relocation centers in host areas. The i personnel and equipment available shall be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers. i i
1 Statement (
J.12. NHY ORO will use mobile Monitoring Trailers at each Reception Center. I All arriving persons must process through the Monitoring Traller. Each ,
Monitoring Trailer has 14 monitoring stations. The plan Indicates that additional monitoring espability is available to NHf ORO from Yankee Atomic Electric Company, other New England utilities, and Federal !
- r. sources. j I
There are procedures for decontamination of evacuees in the plan. The l layout of the Monitoring Trailers shows that each Monitoring Trailer has a t
-~
i decontamination area with a double sink ard two dtcontamination showers. ,
! A Monitoring Team is assigned to each of the two Reception Centers. Each !
team has 30 persons per shif t. Each Monitoring Team reports to a team {
leader. The Monitoring Team Leaders report to the Radiological Health Advisor. l IP 2.9 calls for the use of the FT126B instrument for initial monitoring and l
! the HP210 instrument for monitoring after decontamination. The eontamination level for personnel and equipment is 200 epm above i background. The NHY ORO has made provisions to deal with contaminated elothing, personal articles, and wastewater. The Plan states that the NHY
" ORO monitoring productivity is 16,000 persons in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (both Reception l l . Centers). ;
A radiologleal screening prograc. Is established to determ'ine whether l eontaminated persons -need further medical evaluation. Persons enter the l
program who cannot be decontaminated below acceptable !!mits, or if he or j she has external contamination greater than 2,000 epm above background :
(ten times the contamination trigger level, whleh is 200 epm above !
background). The Radiologleal Health Advisor is re*ponsible for all [
following settons (e.g., bloassays or whole body counts). !
I t
f
- i i
I l !
- , , . . . . ~ . - . , ~ , . _ _ . . . _ . - . . , _ . _ , _ _ . - _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ , . . _ , _ _ , , . _ _
.~ .. - .- . ..
. Octcht 1988 ' *
- ~ '
70-f The Reception Center Coordinator / Assistant Reception Center Coordinator are responsible for activating and operating the two Reception Centers, reuniting evacuees with their familles, trackin6 the number of evacuees reporting to each center and directing evacuees to appropriate Congregate Care Centers operated by the Amerlean Red Cross (ARC).
The Reception Center Coordinator will notify the ARC and Congregate ,
Care Centers at Alert. They will inform the ARC and Congregate Care Center of the emergency status and assess availability of staff and ,
faellities. The Reception Centers wit! be activated at SAE. The Congregate Care Centers will be activated at GE. The Reception Center-Coordinator will notify the Publie Information Advisor of the locations of the Congregste Core Centers that should be included in the news releases.
The Reception Center Leaders are responsible for the . activation, operation, and deactivation of the Reception Centers. Each Reception [
Center has 1 leader and 17 staff persons per shift. All evacuees must be
- processed through the monitoring and decontamination process before they can gain access to the reception centu via the lasuance of a clean tag (
, (Attachment 3 of IP 2.9). The monitoring and decontamination staff do [
- lasue the clean tags. There are two security staff assigned to the reception !
center. The Reception Center Liaison is to assign a staff person to !
i perform a security funetton at the ingress and egress points to the
- Reception Center. There are two staff assigned to the function of i l directing treffle in the parking lots. The Monitoring and Decontamination l
-. . operation has staff assigned to monitor vehicles.
l The evacuees, once they have been issued a clean tag, will proceed to the j registration area. The registration form (Attachment 7 of IP 3.5) contains l
, an area for name, resident address, persons living in your home, and the -l l temporary shelter location. The evacuees have the option of completing a i message form (Attachment 10 of IP 3.5). The Reception Center staff will l j complete the message log (Attachment 11 of IP '3.5) and post the log for l l arriving evacuees to see. When persons request to see the message, after !
j receiving appropriate identification, the staff will deliver the message.
4
[:
. Pian Reference l
f J.12. Section 3.5.38 Seetion 5.2.43 Section 5.2.73 IP 1.2 IP 2.9 iP 3.41 and IP 3.5.
l
! sensmation
! i j J.12. Adequate.
j i 1
i :
1 I i
i
, .' 71 Octob:ir 1988 K. Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K):
Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling radiological exposures shall incit;de exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity .
Protective Action Guides.
Evaluation Criterion K.3.a. The offsite response organization shall make provision for 24-hour-per-day capability to determine the doses received by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear ace! dent, including volunteers who are part of the offsite response organization. They shall also make provisions for distribucion of dosimeters, both self-reading and permanent record devices.
Statement K.3.a. NHY ORO has made provisions to determine doses received by NHY ORO emergency personnel. Provisions have been made for distribution of both
,, direct reading dosimeters and permanent record devices for emergency workers. Emergency Workers are responsible for monitoring and recording l
their own exposure. 'There are administrative reporting levels. The reports
- will be used by the Exposure Control Coordinator to track the exposures
' ~
received by NHY ORO personnel. There are Dosimetry Recordkeepers
- assigned to maintain dosimetry records for emergency workers. The Dosimetry Record Keeper
- report to the Exposure Contro' Coordinator.
The Exposure Control CMrdinator reports to the Radiological Health Advisor.
Each emergency worker (as defined in the plan]is to be provided with one thermoluminescent dosimeter and two direct-reading dosimeters (0-200 mR, and 0-20 R), except for monitoring / decontamination personnel assigned to the monitoring traliers and EWF, who are to receive a 0-200 mR dostmeter and a TLD. The TLD will prov!de the official radla-tion exposure to be recorded on the emergency worker's permanent record.
The Transfer Point Dispatchers, Traffic Guides,14 cal EOC Liaisons, q Amt:ulance Drivers, Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel, Fleid i Monitoring Teams, and Sample Collection Teams are to recelve dosimetry from Dosimetry Recordkeepers at the Staging Area. Bus Drivers are to receive dosimetry from the Bus Diapatchers who, assisted by Dosimstry Recordkeepers, are to deliver and distribute doelmetry at the bus yards l prior to the dispatch of buses. The Local EOC Liaisons and Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to take dosimetry to the local EOCs for distribution to the local emergency workers if needed. Transfer Point Dispatchers are to take dostmetry to the Transfer Points for distribution to the Road Crews and if necessary Snow Removal Crews.
I l
October 1988*
- 72 Plan Reference K.3.a. Section 3.5.2 Section 3.6.5 IP 2.8; and Appendix !.
Evaluation K.3.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion K.3.b. The offsite response organization shall ensure that dostmeters are read at appropelate frequencies and provide for maintaining dose records for emergency workers involved in any nuclear accident.
4 Statement K.3.b. NHY ORO Emergency Workers have been trained to read the direct-reading dosimeters at frequent Intervals while performing their emergency duties, The, term "frequent intervals" has been specified in emergency worker training as "approximately every 15 minutes." The TLD will provide the official radiation exposure to be recorded on the emergency worker's permanent record. Dosimetry Recordkeepers will maintain dosimetry records for emergency workers on forms for a shift basis. Emergency personnel are responsible for monitoring and r6 cording their own exposure while in the fleid, and for notifying their appropriate contact point if exposure reporting levels are reached. The procedures require emergency workers to record their own readings on work sheets. The various forms provided to the EW allow them to log and track their dose.
Plan Reference K.3.b. Section 3.5.2 and IP 2.8.
Evaluation K.3 b. Adequate.
Evaluation Criteria K.4. The offsite response organization shall establish the decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to !ncur exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action Guides (i.e., EPA PAGs for emergency l workers and lifesaving activities). ,
October 1988 .
g Statement K.4. The NHY ORO has established criteria and set up a deelslon chain for authorizing emergency worker exposures. _ The plan Indicates that the l exposure limits adopted by the NHY ORO are the emergency worker whole- 1 body exposure PAGs established by the EPA. The NHY ORO has !
established various administrative limits between 5 rem and 25 rem with [
the objective of limiting the number of emergency workers who may reach !
15 rem. The Exposure Control Coordinator, the Radiologleal Health Advisor, and the NHY Offsite Response Director are responsible for exposure control deelstons affecting all emergency workers, according to .
the plan. The Exposure Control Coordinator (or, for the field teams, the +
Aceldent Assessment Coordinator) approves exposures up to 5 rem the l Radiologleal Health Advisor approves exposures from 5 rem to 25 rems and I the NHY Offsite Response Director approves exposures beyond 25 rem for [
lifesaving missions.
NHY ORO staff qualifications, as specified in the plan, do assure that there !
will be'an individual in the deelslon chain suitably quallfled to authorize ;
exposures in excess of the EPA general public PAGs.
c Plan Reference ,
'_ K.4. Section 3.5.21 Table 3.5-13 IP 1.11 IP 1.21 IP 1.121 and.IP 2.8. !
Evaluation K.4. Adequate. ,
Evaluation Criterlen '
K.5.a. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall speelfy action levels for determining the need for decontamination. ,
Statement X.S.a. NHY ORO has speelfled setion levels for determining the need for decontamination. For emergency workers, areas of the body, personal artleles and equipment will be considered contaminated if the detected levels exceed 200 epm above a normal background. The procedures speelfy the use of the APTEC FT1268 probe, whleh is a large area (126 sq em) detector and count rate meter. ,
October 1988, ',
74 ,
A Personnel Monitoring Team (13 persons) is assigned to the ENF. The Personnel Monitoring Team reports to its team leader. The Monitoring Team leader reports to the Radiological Health Advisor.
The trigger levels for enrolling emergency workers in the radiological screening program are when an Individual receives 5 rem or greater whole body exposure, when an Individual is suspected of having internal contamination, or when an Individual has external contamination greater than 2,000 epm above background (ten times the contamination trigger level, which is 200 epm above background).
Plan Reference K.5.a. Section 3.5.2 IP 1.2 and IP 2.9.
Evaluation K.5.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterlon
. K.5.b. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall establish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal.
Statement K.5.b. The plan has established means for radiological , decontamination of emergency personnel, including emergency workets with contaminated wounds: personal articles and equipment. The polley is to address medical needs before decontamination issues. Arrangements have been made for the appropriate disposal of contaminated waste.
Plan Reference K.5.b. Section 3.5.2 and IP 2.9.
Evaluation K.5.b. Adequate.
I
^
October 1988 75 L. Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L):
Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured Individuals.I Evaluation Criterion L.1. The offsite response organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals.
Statement L.1. Letters of Agreement have been signed between New Hampshire Yankee and support hospitals outside the Plume Exposure EPZ that will treat contaminated, injured or overexposed Individuals. Both a primary and backup hospital are listed.
Plan Reference L.1. Section 3.8.1 and Appendix C.
Evaluation L.1. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion L.3. The offstte response organization shall develop lists Indicating the location of public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical services facilities within the State or contiguous States considered capable of providing medical support for any contaminated injured Individual. The
, listing shall !nclude the name, location, type of faellity and capacities and
,any speclal redlological capabilities. These emergency medical services 1The availability of an Integrated emergency medical services system and a public health emergency plan serving the area in which the facility Is located and, as a minimum, equivalent to the Public Health Service Guide for Developing Health Disaster Plurts, 1974, and to the requirements of an emergency medical services system as outlined in the Emergency Medical Services System Act of 1973 (PL 93-154 and amendments in 1979 PL 96-142), should be part of and consistent with overall State or local disaster control plants and should be compatible with the speelfic overall emegency response plans for the facility.
Octcber 1988, 76 should be able to radiologleally monitor contamination pers,onnel, and have facilities and trained pusonnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.
Statement L.3. The Plan contains a !!st of hospitals with appropriate Information.
Plan Reference L.3. Section 3.8.11 Appendix Ci and Appendix M.
Evaluation I r
L.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion L.4. The offsite response organization shall arrange for transporting victims of .
~ '
radiological accidents to medical support facilities.
Statement L.4. NHY ORO has made provisions for the transportation of injured contaminated or overexposed Individuals from a Reception Center or the Emergency Worker Facility to a designated hospital. One ambulance will be kept at each Reception Center. NHY Offsite Response staff vehicles !
may also be used, if necessary.
Plan Reference L.4. Section 3.8.1.
Evaluation L.4. Adequate.
i i
Oc8ober 1988 77 1
M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Pcstaccident Operations (Planning Standard M):
General plans for recovery and reentry are developed.
Evaluation Criterion M.1. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall develop general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by whleh deelslons to relax protective measures (e.g., allow reentry into an evacuated area) are reached. This process should consider both existing and potential conditions.
1 Statement M.1. NHY ORO has developed general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery. The plan describes means by which deelslons to relax protective measures will be reached, including field surveys, sample collection and analysis, and Interpretation of results. This process considers both existing conditions and potential changes in conditions. The plan eltes the EPA 1 . Jraft relocation PAGs as criteria to be used (Table 3.9-1). The Plan contains a statement that the NHY Offsite Response Director, through the Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, will request guidance from the State or local government as to whom should be allowed to
~
reenter an evacuated or restricted area.
Plan Reference M.1. Section 3.51.Section 3.9; Table 3.9-13 and Appendix J.
i Evaluation
{
i M.J . Adequate.
I ..
i Evaluation Criterion M.3. The offsite plan shall speelfy means for Informing members o'f the offsite response organization that a recovery operation is to be initiated, and of
) any changes in the organlaational structure that may occur.
i 1
Octcber 1988*
- 78 Statement M.3. Members of the NHY ORO are to be Informed of recovery operations by emergency communications which have been operational throughout the emergency. Restructuring of the NHY ORO, as appropriate, will be directed by the NHY Offsite Response Director.
Plan Reference M.3. Section 3.9.2.
Evaluation M.3. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion M.4. The offsite plan shall establish a method for periodically estimating total
. population expcsure. -
Statement M.4. The offsite plan assigns the responsibility and describes the general basis for estimating total population doses, i.e., field monitoring results, dispersion calculations, population data, and exposure times. Section 3.9 of the Plan defines total population exposure estimates as an Integrated dose exposure commitment from both the plume and Ingestion exposure pathways for the population at risk. Total population exposure estimates will be calculated at the conclusion of a redlological emergency.
) Plan Reference
- M.4. Section 3.9.4 and IP 2.2.
Evaluation ;
M. 4. Adequate. :
t 4
. , Decetcr 1988 79 N. Exercises and Delus (Planning Standard N):
Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency ,
response capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected.
Evaluation Criterion N.1.a. An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans e ar.d organizations. The emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite radiological releases which will require '
response by offsite response organ!zations. Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.
Statement N.1.a. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and implementation (or designee) is responsible for ensuring that exercises (and drills) are conducted according to NRC and FEMA guidelines.
~
Plan Reference .
N.1.a. Section 6.5 and Appendix K.
Evaluation N.1.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterlon N.1.b. An exercise shall include mobillration of offsite response organization resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. This includes the demonstration of offsite response organization capabilltles to Interface with non participating State and local government, but does not include the use of standins for the ,
anticipated State and local response. The offsite response organization shall provide for a critique of the biennial exercise by Federal and offsite response organization ohrvers/ evaluators. The scenario shall be varied !
from exercise to exercise such that all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six year period. Each organization shall make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m.
. Octeber 1988, ,
and 4:00 a.m. Exercises shall be conducted during different seasons of the year. At least one exercise shall be unannounced.
Statement N.1.b. The Plan commits NHY to exercise the full Plan capability at least once annually: with a full-scale Federally-observed exercise conducted once every two years. NHY is committed to vary the scenario used for the exerelse, the time of day, and weather (season) conditions under whleh the exerelse is conducted. NHY has stated that some exercises "will" be unannounced. The Director Emergency Response and Implementation (or designee) is responsible for ensuring that the exercises (and drills) are conducted at the required intervals.
The plan commits NHY ORO to have Federal agencies observe, evaluate, and critique FEMA-graded exercises while the NHY Drill and Exercise Group will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all exercises and drills.
, The plan commits NHY ORO to exercise mobillsation of offsite response organlaation resources adequate to verify the espability of the NHY ORO (and offsite support organizations) to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. This includes opportunttles for Stete and local
, organizations to. participate.' If these organizations do not participate in the exercises (or drills), state and local participation will be simulated through the use of a scenario drill message.
Plan Reference N.1.b. Section 6.5 and Appendix K.
I Avaluation 1
N.1.b. Adequate.
l i
Evaluation Criterion N.2. A dell! Is a supervised Instruction period aimed at testing, developing and maintaining skills in a partleular operation. A drill is often a component of an exercise. A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a quellfled drill Instructor. The offsite response organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the biennial exercise at the frequeneles Indicated belows i
l l
)
1 - , . ,. - . , . . . - . . . . - . . _ . _ .. ,,-_, ,.. , . - - , _ - , - - . - . - ,. ., ,.,.,----wn, . - - - - , - . , , . - , , .
OcBober 1983 lc g 33 ;
I N.2.a. Co,mmunleation Drills Communications betwee a the licensee and the offsite response organization within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone shall be tested monthly. Commurkations with Federal eatergency response organizations and offsite response organizations within the ingestion pathway shall be tested quarterly. Communications between the nuclear facility, offsite response organization's operations centers, and field assessment teams shall be tested annually. Communication drills shall also include the aspect of understanding the content of mthsages. If practicable, attempts should be made to include non-participating organizations in the monthly communication drills.
Statement N.2.a. The Plan commits NHY ORO to condvet drills. These drills are to include communication drills which will tests (1) communications (to the extent possible based on participation) with Commonwealth and local governments on a monthly basist (2) communications with Federal emergency response organizations and the states within the ingestion plume pathway on a quarterly basis (to the extent possible based on the participation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts); and (3) communleations among Seabrook Station, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the NHY ORO EOC, and
.. field monitoring teams on an annual basis.
The communication drills will include operation of communication equipment and relaying information prepared in advance to simulate actual emergency communication conditions and to ensure that the content of the message is understood.
Plan Reference N.2.a. 3.otion 6.5.1 and Appendix K.
, Eealuation N.2.a. ' Adequate.
Evahation Criterion N.2.e. Med!ej Emergency Drills A medical emergency drill involving a simulated contaminated Individual which contains provisions fe participation by the local support services L
~
October 1983 , .
82 agencies (i.e., ambulance and offsite medical treatment facility) shall be conducted annually. The offsite portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required biennial exercise.
Statement N.2.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct an annual medical emergency drill that will involve the participation of ambulance services, offsite medical treatment facilities, and other support services as necessary. The Letters of Agreement between NHY and the local support services agencies stipulate that these agency will be partletpating in such drills. The offsite portion of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required annual on-site drill.
Plan Reference N.2.c. Section 6.5.1: Appendix C and Appendix K.
Evaluation N.2.e. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.2.d. Radiologleel Monitoring Drills Plant environs and radiological menitoring drills (onsite and offsite) shall be conducted annually. These drills shall include collection and analysis of all sample media (e.g., water, vegetation, soll and alr), and provisions for communications and record keeping. Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.
. Statessent N.2.d. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct samlannual redlological monitoring drills, These drills will include collectlen and analysis of sample media, and provisions for communications and record kelping. The drills are to include Seabrook Station personnel, radiologleal monitoring teams, and radiological assessment personnel, t
. . Octeber 1988 83 l
Plan Reference N.2.d. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K.
2 valuation N.2.d. Adequate, i
Evaluation Criterlon N.2.e. Health Physics DM Health Physics dellls shall be conducted semlannually which involve response to, and analysts of, simulated elevated airborne and liquid samples and direct radiation measurements in the enviropment.
Sta'tement N.2.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct semlannual Health Physles Drills.
These drills are to include analysts of simulated airborne and liquid ,
releases, and direct radiation measurements in the environment.
Plan Reference Y.2.e. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K.
Evaluation ;
N.2.e. Adequate.
Evalentloa criterion i N 3. The offsite rosponse organisation shall describe how exercises and drills are to be carried out to allow free play for deelstonmaking and to meet the follo ving objectives. Pending the developmen't of exercise scenarios and i exercise evaluation guidance by NRC and 12MA the scenarlos for use in exerebes and drills shall include but not be limited to its following:
N.3.a. The basic objective (s) of each drill and exeretse and appropriate evaluation criteria:
I
' Octcb 6 T968 .
34 ' .
Statement N.3.a. The Plan commits NHY ORO to establish the objectives. Objectives will be explained in terms of emergency response functions to be exercised.
Evaluation criteria will be developed.
Plan Reference N.3.a. Section 6.5.3. '
Evaluation N.3.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.b. The date(s), time period, place (s) and participating organizations: l Statement .
N.3.b. The Plan commits NHY ORO to schedule the date(s), time period, place (s),
' r
._. and participating organizations for each exercise and drill.
Plan Reference N.3.b. Section 6.5.3.
Evaluation N.3.b. Adequate.
Evaluatloa criterion N.3.c. The simulated events:
Statement ,
N.3.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to develop a scenario with simulated events for exercises and drills that will include escalatior. through the emergency ,
,c- -~ -
- - - - w- - ,w , - - - - - , - - ---,w- - - - - - --- - -- . -- - - - - -
) c 03coDJr 8000
- 33 o .
l 4
classification levels. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementitica will ensure that sufficient offsite events are added to meet i the objectives of the exercise.
Plan Reference N.3.e. Section 6.5.3.
Evaluation N.3.e. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.d. A time schedule of real and simulated initiating events:
Statement N.3.d. The Plan commits NHY ORO to a schedule of real and simulated events.
The timeline of offsite events will be developed and integrated with i Initiating events prepared for Seabrook Station.
Plas Referern -l N.3.d. Section 6.5.3.
Evaluation t N.3.d. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.e. ,A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exere!ses or drills to (nelude such things as simulated carualties, offsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective clothing, deployment of rad!ological monitoring teams, and public Information activitiest and Statement N.3.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to develop a narrative summary that describes the conduct of the exercise. The summary will include real and' I
i
Octchte 1968 86 -
simulated events, anticipated response, and the extent to which the activities will be exercised or simulated.
Plan Reference N. 3.e. Section 6.5.3.
Evaluation N.3.e. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.3.f. A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers.
Statement N.3.f. The Plan commits the NHY ORO to work with FEMA to schedule the placement of evaluators during drills and exercises. The Drill and Exercise Group will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all drills
.__ and exercises. Evaluators and controllers will be provided with copies of f the scenarios and any required plans and procedures prior to the exerelse' or drill. Evaluators and controllers will be briefed as to the schedule of events and evaluation criteria for each location, and will be provided with ,
evaluation sheets and guidelines appilcable to their locations.
Plan Reference N.3.f. Section 6.5.4. l l
.. Evalention .
i N.3.f. Adequate. ,
Evaluation Criterion l N.4. Offielal observers from Federal government and the offsite response organization shall observe, evaluate, and critique the required exercises. A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise to evaluate the -
ability of organizations to respond as called for in the offsite plan. The ;
I l
Oc8ober A988 ,
- 87
.l l
critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the exercise, and a formal evaluation shall result from the critique.
Statement N.4. The Plan commits NHY ORO to have evaluators from Federal agencies i observe, evaluate, and erltique FEMA-graded exercises. The Drill and ,
Exercise Group of NHY will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all drills and exercises. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation will ensure that a critique of the NHY ORO personnel is conducted at the conclusion of each exercise. !
The Director. Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation will ;
ensure that a formal Post-Exercise Critique Report is prepared and distributed.
Plan Reference <
N.4. Section 6.5.41 Section 6.5.51 Section 6.5.41 and Appendix K.
l Evaluation
. N.4. Adequate. ,
Evaluation Criterion l
N.5. The offsite response organization shall establish means for evaluating observer and participant comments on areas needing improvement, including emergency plan procedural changes, and for assigning respnsibility for implementing corrective settons. The offsite response organlaation shall establish management control ased to ensure that corrective actions are Irnplemented.
,, Statement ,!
N.5. ' The Plan commits the Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation to review all controller / evaluator comments on exercises and drills and to . prepare a response stating his concurrence or [
disagreement with any listed issue. The Director will then prepare a !
schedule that tracks assigned responsibilities for providing corrective actions for valid lasues. Corrective actions may include revisions of the Plan or implementation procedures, upgrades in equipment or faellities, and additional training and drills. ,
l l
October 1983 '
88 ,
Plan Reference N.5. Section 6.5.6.
Evaluation N.5. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion N.S. The offsite response drganlaation shall attempt to involve the non- i participating State and local government in the exercises and drills, but their participation is r.st required.
Statement N.S. The Plan states that Emergency Response Training will be offered to State and local emergency officials and workers. Exercises and drills are considered part of the emergency response training offered by the NHY ORO.
- Plan Reference I
N.6. Section 6.1.
l l
Evaluation N.S. Adequate.
r f
~ .
I r
i c
o 8 October 1988 89 O. Radiologleal Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard O):
Radlologier.1 emergency response training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in a.s emergency.
Evaluation Criter.a O.1. The offsite response organization shall assure the tralning of appropriate Individuals. The offsite response organization shall participate in and receive training. Where mutual a!d agreements exist between local agencies such as fire, police and ambulance / rescue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the mutual aid district.1 Statement
! O.1. The NHY ORO has established a program to train appropriate Individuals assigned"to the position descriptions within the organization. Training is to be received by all members of the NHY ORO, unless individuals are speeltically quellfled for exemption, and is offered to other local agencies -
and departments. The training la conducted by the NHY ORO Training I Group under the supervision of the Director, Emergency Preparedness / i
. Response and Implementation. , ,
- L Flan Reference l O.1. Section f,.1 Table 6.3-1 and Appendix K.
Evaluation ;
O.1. Adequate. l i
1 Training for hospital personnel, ambulance /reaue, pilee and fire department shall include the procedures for notification, basle radiation protection, and their expected roles. For those local servlees support c.vanifations who wit! enter the site, training shall also include site access procedures and the Identity (by position and title) of the -
Individual in the onsite emergency organizetion who will control the organization suppert activities. Offsite emergency resporse suppert personnel should be provided ;
with appropriate identification cards where required. l l
f
. October IGJ8' 90 Evaluatton Criterion O.4. The offsite response organization shall estabitsh a training program for instnJeting and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans.2 The specialized initir.1 training and periodic retraining programs (including the scope, nature c.ad frequency) shall be provided in the following categories:
0.4.a. Directors or coordinators of the response organizations:
Statement h- O.4.a. The NIIY ORO has estab!!shed a tralning program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the positia descriptions within the organization.
, P!hn Reference 0.4.a. Section 6.3: Table 6.3-1 and Appendix K.
1 Evaluation O.4.a. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion ,
0.4.b. Personnel responsible for aceldent assessment; Statement O.4.b. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and 4
.. qualifying personnel who will implement radiologleal emergency rc,sponse plans. Speelfle training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). }'
Personnel responsible for accident assessment include the Technical Advisor, the Radiological Health Advisor, Accident Assessment Coordina-tor, Dose Assessment Technician, and Exposure Control Coordinator.
1 2
1f the offsite response organization lacks the capability and resources to accomplish this l training, they 'may look to the licensee and the Federal government (FEMA) for l assistance in this training.
l l
9
,--w m- ,w--wr .-w ,-y- -e 4e--------- , ,, - -
octcber 1988 91 The Technles! Advisor receives the Dose / Accident Assessment module.
The Accident Assessment Coordinator receives the Dose / Accident Assessment. Radiation Surveys & Analysis, and Destmetry Recordkeeping modules. The Dose Assessment Technician receives the Dose / Accident Assessment and Radiation Surveys & Analysis modules. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness, EOC operation and training on their procedures.
Plan Reference 0.4.b. Section 6.3: Table 6.3-11 and Append!x K.
Evaluation O.4.b. Adequate. ,
4 Evaluation Criterion O.4.e. Radiological monitoring teams and radiologleal analysis, personnel Statement l 0.4.e. The NHY ORO has established a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who w!!! Implement radiologleal emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are aasigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).
The Field Team Dispatcher, the Field Monitoring Teams, and Sample Collection teams receive the Radiation Surveys & . Analysis module. The Reception Center and Emergency Worker Faellity Teams receive the Monitoring & Decontamination Operation module. The Emergency Worker Facility Team receives the Staging Area operations module. Both these groupa receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness and training
.. on their procedures.
Man Reference 0.4.c. Section 6.31 Table 6.3-11 and Appendix K.
Evaluation O.4.e. Adequate.
octcber 1988 92 Evaluation Criterion O.4.d. Police, security and fire fighting personnel:
Statement O.4.d. The NHY ORO has established a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will Implement radiologleal emergency response plans. Specifle training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the poeltlon descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). l The Evacuation Support Coordinator receives the EOC Operations, Traffic and Access Control, and Trar.sportation modules. The Special Population '
Coordinator, the School Coordinator, and Bus Coinpany Liaison receive the ;
EOC Operations module. The Staglag Area Leader. Evacuation Support '
Dispatcher, and Traffic Guides receive the Traffic and Access Control module. The Bus Company Llatson, the Staging Area Leader, the Evaluation Support Dispatcher, the Special Vehicle Dispatcher, the Bus Dispatcher, the Transfer Point Dispatcher, the Route Guides, the road crews, the ambulance, bus and van drivers receive the Transportation '
module. All these groups receive the basle overview on emergency preparedness and training on their procedures. ,
- Plan Reference 0.4.d. Section 4.3 Table 8.3-1 and Appendix K. ;
Evaluation i
O.4.d. Adequate. .
j l
Evahntion Criterion
. O.4.f. First aid and rescue personnel !
Sta,tement 0.4.f. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and l qualifying personnel who will implement radiologleal emergency response
- plans. Speelfle training modules, out of a total of 21 modules. are assigned i for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). !
l i
I I
l
, October 1988 93 The Ambulance Drivers receive the Medical Emergency moduh, the basic overview on emergency preparedness, and training on their procedures.
Plan Reference O 4.f. Section 6.1 Table 6 3 ~1 and Append!x K.
Evaluation O.4.f. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O 4.g. Local support services personnel including Civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel Statenment 0.4.g. The local organ!zations are not participating in the planning effort.
See statement under O.6. ,
, Plan Reference 0.4.g. None. "
i Evaluation O.4.g. Not Applicable. i 1
. Evaluation Criterion O.4.h. Medical support personnel ,
Stateunent l O.4.h. No medical support personnel are included in the NHY ORO. according to [
the position descriptions given in the plan (Section 2.1.1). A mbuia5.ce drivers are considered in this review under criterion O.4.f., first aid and rescue personnel. j i
l
[ - . - - -
October A988 -
94 .
Plan Reference 0.4.h. Section 6.3.
Evaluation O.4.h. Not App!! cable.
Evaluation Criterion .
O.4.J. Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency information and instructions: and Statement O.4.J. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).
The Public Information Advisor, Communleations . Coordinator, Public Information Coordinator, Public Notification Coordinator, the VANS
- Operators, and the Airborne Alerting Pilot receive the Public Alert and Notification Sy. tem Activation module. The Publie Information Advisor, Publie Information Coordinator, Pubtle Information Staff Rumor Control Staff, Media Center Staff, and Joint Telephone Information Center staff receive the Public Information module. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness and training on their procedures.
Plan Reference 0.4.J. Section 4.3 Table 8.3-1: and Appendix K.
Evaluation O.4.J. Adequate.
oc8eber 5988 95 Evaluation Criterlon O.4.k. Liaison personnel responsible for interfacing with State and local responders.
Statement O.4.k. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will Implement radiological emergency response plans. Speeltic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).
The Local EOC Liaisons receive the Staging Area Operations module. The State liaisons receive the EOC operations, Dosimetry Recordkeeping and Emergency Management modu;as. In addition, the State Liaison assigned to the Massachusetts Department of Publlg Health receives the Dose / Accident Assessment module. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness. Transpcrtation, and Dosimetry Recordkeeping modules, as well as trainir.g on their procedures.
Plan Reference 0.4.k. "oection 6.3 Table 6.3-11 and Appendit K.
Evaluation O.4.k. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion 0.5. The offelte response organization shall provide for the Initial and annual retraining of perscnnel with emergency response responsibilities.
Statement 0.5. The training program described in the plan provides for the initial and annual retraining (Appendix K, p. K-8) of personnel with emergency response responsibilities.
Plan Reference 0.5. Sectior. 3.1 and Appsndix K.
October 1988 -
96 . .
Evaluation 0.5. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion O.8. The offsite response organlaation shall offer training to non-participating Stats and local governments and other organlaations.
I Statement O.8. The Plan makes a commitment to offer training to non-participating State and local governments and other organlaations. NHY has offered training '
to non-participating State and local governments.
A suggested training matrix for such organlaations is given in the plan, i identifying specific modules appropriate to each agency or position l (Table 6.6-1). L l
i Plan Reference t i
O.8. Section 8.6 and Table 6.6-1. l
~
l Evaluation
., 0.6. Adequate.
. i l
I l
[
. l 1
i 4
- Octobee 1988 97 P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Periodle Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Sta%mt P):
Responsibilities for plan development and review .nd for distribution of emergency plans are established, and planners are properly trained.
Evaluation Criterion P.1. The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of Individuals responsib e for the offsite planning effort.
Statement P.1. The NHY ORO will provide for the training of appropriate staff to assure that personnel remain quallfled and aware of current Ish, .s in emergency preparedness.
Plan Reference P.1. Section 7.1.4. '
Evaluation P.1. Adequate.
Evaluation Criterion .
i P.2. The offsite response organlaation shall Identify by title the individual with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning.
l t
.. Statement P.2. The NHY Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has overall responsibility for Seabrook Emergency Preparedness, ;
including offsite emergency planning. t Plan Reference P.2. Section 7.1.1. l r
i !
I
Cetober 5968
- 98 Evaluation P.2. Adequate.
Evaluatica Criterion P.3. The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Coordinator with responsibility for the development and updating of emergency plans and coordination of these offsite plans with other response
. organizations.
Statement P.3. The NilY Executive 71 rector of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has responsibility for plan maintenance and coordination of the Plan with other response organizations.
Plan Reference P.3. Section 7.1.2.
i Evaluation P.3. Adequate.
I Evaluation Criterion t i
P 4. The offsite response organlaation shali update its plan and agreements as i needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis. The update shall take into account changes identified by dellts and exercises.
.. Statessent j P.4. The NHY ORO has made provisions for annual updates of its plan and I review of its agreements. An annual letter of certification will be sent to FEMA by January 31 r" 'ery year. l I
Plan Ruterence '
P.4. Section 7.2 and Section 7.6.
1
, October 1968 99 o .
We recommend that Appendx F be revised to reflect the current status of
- vpporting plans.
Evaluation P.4. Adequate.
Evaluatles Cettedes P.S. The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans shall be forwarded to all participating organlantions and appropriate Individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans. Revised pages shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been v.ade.
Statement P.S. The NHY ORO has made provisions for promulgating revisions. The NHY ORO has made provisions for forwarding revisions to plan holders of record.
9 Plas Referenee -
- P.5. Section 7.2.1.
Evaluation P.S. Adequate.
Evaluaties Cetteden P.S. The offsite plan shall contain a detailed listing of supporting plans and their sourse.
Statement P.6. The NHY ORO plan contains a llat of supporting plans. Reference to the Yankee Atomie Mutual Assistanee Plan could not be located in Appendix F. The Parker River National Wildilfe Refuse Emergency Response Plan and the EBS Station Plan are listed as being "under development."
October 1968 '
100 Plan Reference l l P.S. Appendix F.
l l
Evaluation P.S. Adequate.
l l
We recommend that Appendix F be revised to refleet the current status of i
supporting plans. ,
NHY has indiented (9/28/88 letter) that Appendix F will be revised in the I l next amendment to refleet the current status of the Parker River and EBS ,
l Station Plans, and to include the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan. '
1 Evaluation Criterion ;
i P.7. The offsite plan shall contain as an appendix !! sting, by title, procedures l required to implement the offsite plan. The listing shall include tha section(s) of the offsite plan to be implemented by each procedure.
Statement ,
P.7. The NHY ORO plan contains an appendix list, by title, of procedures required to implement the plan.
Plan Reference P.7. Appendix E. I Evalutlen P.7. Adequate.
Evaluntlea Criterien .
P.S. The offsite plan shall contain a speelfle table of contents. Plans submitted f l
for review should be cross referenced to these criteria. j
, F l
Statement >
l I P.8. The NHY ORO plan contains a specific table of contents. The plan sections i are cross referenced to these criteria.
l l
1 l ,
- ' October 1988 101 Plan Reference P.8. Appendix D.
Evaluation P.S. Adequate.
i r
Evaluation Criterion P.10. The offsite response organlaation shall provide for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures at least quarterly.
2 Statement P.10. The NHY ORO has made provisions for updating the Communication .
Directory quarterly. l Plan Reference P.10. Section 7.4.3 and IP 4.4. l
- i Evaluation P.10. Adequate. I Evaluation Criterion i
P.11. The offsite response organlaution shall provide copies of the offsite plan ,
and its revisions to non-participating State and local government entitles where interfaces are identified in Planning Standard A.
, i Ssatement P.11. The NHY ORO has made provisions to provide copies of the complete Plan !
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the six Massachusetts plume j exposure EPZ communities. ;
1 i
I
0 Oc2ober 19S3, ,
102 Plan Reference P.11. Section 7.2.1.
Evaluation P.11. Adequate.
m 90
w . .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 03209'J 1698 10C 34Al8M tup 3AW[n3)jOU OJ geSqJ004 diWW J0J gvsseaynettis somsnulptse yspuS gnmmorA 2
steenus yt2 jus 3tseeus y' }uS 3tseeus yttluS Y' t U Y N'C Y N't V V*t'9 Y N't Y N' t P V V'I'3 Y N'l V N*t'9 V V*t'P Y H'lO Y N't P V y't*e y y'tt V N'E*3 V V'Z U Y H'tt Y N't'P Y Y't'9 Y !'l y N*g*e y '
Y'C V !'l Y N'C V V*t Y 1'6 Y N'C'9 Y 3*t Y !'tO Y N'C'3 Y 3'I'9 Y !'tt Y N't'P Y 3*t'3 V t'C NV N'C** Y '
3't V f*6 Y N'C'J Y ,
3'C V t'tO Y N'9 Y 3't V f*t0'9 V N'5 Y 3*( Y f*t0'3 I N'9 Y s O'C V f*t0*P V 0'l Y d't Y f*!0** V 0't P V 3't V T tO'J V 0't'9 Y I'l Y rtO'8 Y 0't's Y 3'C V t'10'M V 0't'P V 3*t I t'10'1 V 0't** Y 3's V f 10'I Y O'?'J Y 3'8 V t'10*M V 0't'l MV J*1** V f*tO'1 V 0't'M NV J*t'9 V T'10** V 0*t'i V '
J't'3 V f*tt V 0*t'M Y J*t'P V f*tt Y 0'S V J*t'8 V M'C V O'9 Y :
J't Y 3'C'9 V d't V J'C Y 3't V d't Y S'l Y X'C** V d'C V :
3*t I 3*('9 V d '. 9 V
' S'C V 1'1 V d't Y 3*t Y 1'C Y d'9 Y "
4 3't'9 Y 1*t V d'l Y 3*t'3 V H*1 Y d'8 V }
S'l Y N'C .V d'lO Y d'tt V i
1 i
l i
OCtsber 1988' A-1 . .
l i
i APPENDIX A:
FEMA-REP-11 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SRA3 ROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIAL 8 t FOR PLUME EXFOSURE FATHWAY :
i i
l I
{
s t i
f I l
i d
k i
I i
I t
i .
t I
v I
I f
i October 1983 ,
O o A-2 !
l I
i e
i s
f a
i 1
h i
e es a l
! M i
k i
l 1
7
\.
4 f
(
9 w*
l i
a I
l
October 1988 ' .
A-3 . .
APPENDIX A:
PEMA-REP-11 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIAL 8 POR PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY We have reviewed the proposed changes to the Massachusetts public information materials, dated July 27, 1988, that were submitted with your letter of July 29, 1988, using PEMA's REP-11. "A Guide to Preparing Emergency Publie Information Material", as a basis for review and evaluation purposes.
The Seabrook Plan for Massuhusetts Communities contained the 1988-89 Emerteney Plan Information Calendar and a variety of supporting materials. Please see Attachment A for our revised comments on these materials. This aprendia contains our review and evaluation of the 1988 89 Emergency Plan Information Calendar.
The following evaluation rating scheme Identifies the rating system used to evaluate the Emergency Plan Information Caletidart Yes, fully meets identifled criteria, Martinally acceptables could be improved.
Inadeouste or Missing. .
~
Insuffielent Information to evaluates item should be checked for.
consistency with FEMA criteria or for being acceptably addressed through another medium.
This report is divided into three categories:
CATECORY la These items are critical to the effectiveness of a pubil information document. All items identified as not fully meeting the identified criterla (eg., those items marked I, M, or ?) must be leproved prior to publication and distribution in 1988.
CATBOORY E: These items are important to the effeettveness of a publie information document. Items in this eategory identified as alsaing (?), inadequate (I), c! as maff nally i acceptable (M), should be
/eviewed and revision considered pelor to the distributlen.
CATEGORY 3: These items are enhancements to the overall quality of a public emergency Information documents, items in this estegory identlfled as missing (?) or inadequate (I), or as marginally acceptable (M), should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.
Note: We have sequentially numbered the review critaria of FEM A-REP-11 in order to provide a point of reference.
a
A-4 oceeber 1988 CATEGORY 1 CONTENT Evaluation Criterion
- 1. Document has a clear emergency focus. It should tell the reader what to ;
expect, in what sequence. It should tell what actions, in order of priority, should be taken if notifleation is given.
s I
Statement None. ,
t Evaluation Yes. ,
i Evaluation Criterion
- 2. The content is consistent with the emergency plan and EBS messages.
Statement The proposed text changes and additions / deletions (Attachment A.Section I., ,
items E T. G H, I, J. & K,1/27/88) would speelfyt that the public (permanent l and transient) would have to evacuate the beaches at Site Area Emergency or General EmerTency: that the pubtle may be asked to shelter at the SAEs and ,
Informs / educates the public that certain precautionary pas for Special l Populations and livestock would be recommended at SAE and GL Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
I
October 1988'
- A-S Evaluation Celterlon
- 3. There is a clear statement of purpose.
Statement The proposed statement of purpose (Attachment A.Section I, Item A, 7/27/88 ) ,
will clearly state the purpose of the calendar to the reader. ,
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed. '
Evaluation Yes. r l
Evalaation Criterion i
- 4. If the emergency plan calls for an emergency phone number, it is given, !
along with Instructions on the procedures to be followed relative to its use.
Be sure to distinguish "hotline" numbers for use during emergencies as t separate from information numbers during non-emergency times. !
Statement i
The current document does contain and reference spaces for "Emergency and HOTLINE" phone numbers. The document does contain phone numbers to call -
I for additional Information. The proposed revision (Attachment A Section I, j ltem B,7/27/88) provides updated phone numbers.
Roeommendation: Revise text as proposed. We assume that the appropriate !
phone numbers will be placed in the document when it is published and distributed. j 1 ,
! Evaluatles ;
Yes. ;
i l Evajestion Criterion l
S. There la a contact given for additionalinformation.
i l
l l
l .. _ - - ._ . - - _ - -_ .-. __-
, October 1988 A-6 i
Statement See #4.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 6. Information is given regarding notification procedures. ,
Statement The notification procedures are cleara <xplained for permanent residents. The proposed revision to the notification pr A:ess for boaters on the Merrimack River and those port,lons of the Atlantic Ocean (Attachment A Section I, item D, 7/27/8%) will clearly explain their notification procedure within the plume EPZ.
Tne proposed revision to the notification description (Attachment A Section I, item D,7/27/88) on how the transients on the beaches and visit!ng those portions of the Prrker River Wildlife Refuge will b2 notified will be clearly explained.
- Recommendation novlse text as propsed.
Evaluation Yes.
Evahation Crite. ion I
- 7. Identification of EBS stations is gwen, with stations / channels.
Statement ,
The radio stations. WHAV 1490 AM and WLYT 92.5 FM, are identified on page 2 of the document. The proposed revision (NHY letter, 7/29/88) provides for the addition of EBS radio station WCGY.
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed. f I
i
{
-y, . ---- + -
-,,.,-n-,- . , . - , , - - - , . -
. . _ , , - - _ - - -- n,, - - --e - - , -- , - - - - - -->
e
. 4 Octobar 1988' *
- A-7 Evaluation Yes.
~
Evaluation Criterlon
- 8. There is a highly visible statement on the cover about keeping the document for tue in the event of an emergency.
Statement A retention statement appears on the front and back addressed side of the ,
self-maller. The proposed revision to the cover (Attachment A,Section I, i 7/27/88) will provide the instruction to "READ" as well as to "SAVE" the document.
Recommendation: Revise cover (s) text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterlon
- 9. Educational Information. The very basic information on radiation must be included in the emergency brochure to convey a sense of health risk.
Statement This Information is presented in a question and answer format (pages 10 & 11).
The questions are well chosen, simple, and sequenced to provide useful Information. The information tr; largely in text form, and the language een be
, complex. Tables and diagrams are used effectively to summarize co tain informaticn. The proposed revisions to the amounts of radiation quoted in this section (Attachment A.Section I, items P & Q) are appropriate.
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.
l Evaluation Yes.
9
-m ,c ., - , - ,- ., , - - . , , - - - - - - - - - , - - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Octobar 1988
- A-8 THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:
Ev:Justion Criterion
- 10. Sheltering.
Statement None. ,
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 11. Evacuation routes, both writtsn explanations in the text and illustrated directions on an evacuation map of the plume EPZ.
. Statement The proposed text and proposed enlarged plume map (Attachment A,Section I,
, items L, & M,7/27/88) will provide appropriate directions and illustrations of the evacuation routes.
s Recommendation: Revise the map and text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
~
Evaluation Criterion
- 12. Transportation provisions. -
c Statement l
l Emergency bus route instructions and maps for each major bus route by community are contained in the document (pages 7-10). The information is j
organized in such a way that those needing transportation assistance could easily locate emergency buses.
l l
l l
Octob2r 1988 .
A.9 . .
Recommendattom NONE.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 13. School provisions; including guidelines and/or instructions for parents.
Statement The proposed text (Attachment A,Section I, items G, J, K, L, and N, 7/27/88) clearly describe the provisions and plans for school children.
Recommendation: Revise text e3 proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
~
Eval'uation Criterion
- 14. Instruction on the care and feeding of livestock,if appropriate, in the area. !
Statement The document outlines simple steps for the protection of pets and livestock and references source of additional Information for farmers about the protection of ,
livestock and crops (page 3).
.. Recommendation: NONE.
Evaluation Yes.
b
. ,r. ,. _ _ _ _ - . _ ..,__.__-__-,__,.____-__-__.______-___,_--.--r .
Octobsr 1988 A-10 Evaluation Criterion
- 15. Reception Centers, relocation and/or congregate care centers.
l Statement The document Identifies reception centers (pages 3,4,5 & 6). The proposed text (Attachment A,Section I, item L, 7/27/88) does adequately describe the distinction between reception centers, host facilities, and shelters. The Plan identifies, host facilities for schools, host facilities for Special Groups, and Congregate Care Centers for the general public, who may need temporary shelter.
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
, '16. Provisions for the handicapped.
~
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterion -
- 17. The emergency instructions occupy a highly visible place in the front of the document.
e
Octobar 1988' A-ll l l
l Statement '
None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 18. The Information is logically sequenced.
Statement The order of presentation is appropriate if the reader progresses through the information in the intended sequence. The proposed revisions to format (Attachment A. Section !!, 7/27/88) will Improve the order of presentation and provide logical sequencing of information.
Recommendation: Revise the format and arrangement of Information as proposed.
~
Evaluation Yes. ,
Evaluation Criterlon
- 19. Information is clearly organized and relevans to the purpose of providing emergency guidance.
> , Statement Overall, the document is well-organised for the purpose of providing vital emergency information. -
Recommendation: NONE.
Evaluation i Yes.
- . - - . _ _ , - _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ - . - . _ _ . - . . . . -..__ _ , ,-.--,__._m., _ , , _ - - . . . - . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - , , m.m ,
. Octob3r 1988 A-12 Evaluation Criterion
- 20. Public education passages, if included, are not distracting.
Statement The bulk of educational information appropriately follows the emergency action sections. The proposed revisions to format (Attachment A, Section !!, 7/27/88) will improve the order of presentation and provide logical sequencing of Information.. -
Recosamendation: Revise the format as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Celterlon
- 21. The document layout is such that the text is easy to follow from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page. Page and section breaks are consistent with the logic and organization of the material.
Statement The double panel format of the opened pages causes the columns to read vertically down two pages instead of across horizontally. The proposed table of contents and use of icons (Attachment A,Section I, item C, 7/27/88) should assist the reader in following the _ text from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page.
Recommendation. Revise format and add table of contents as proposed.
Evaluation Yes. ,
t
~,
Octobsr 1988' A-13 . .
Evaluation Criterion
- 22. The information is presented in such a way that there is a logical sequence of toples. The "flow" of information is smooth and not disjomted.
Statement See comments under "Format" (#18), "Public Education Material" (#20), and "Layout" (# 21).
Recommendation: None. -
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 23. Within a given tople, actions to be taken come first, followed by rationale or explanation.
. Statement Vital emergen'cy instructions precede other related information in each section of the document.
Recommendation: None.
Evaluation Yes.
.. gvaluation Criterion
- 24. Vocab91ary is simple, comprised of non-technical terms likely to be found in the vocabularles of the intended population.
Statement None.
r -
,,-,_,--,-y-- - - - ------ - - -
c - - - - - - .- -
Octob3r 1988 A-14 Evaluatlan Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 25. Sentences are belef and concise.
Statement None.
Evaluaticn Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 26. Typography is legible and easy to perceive.
Statement .
None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
.. 27. The cover clearly states that the document contains important emergency
.. Instructions.
Statement .
Both front and back covers indicate the emergency nature of the document.
Recommendation: NONE.
Octob3r 1988' A-15 . .
Evaluation Yes.
l Evaluation Criterion
- 28. The choice of colors is appropriate for color-blind individuals.
Statement The proposed use of blue, yellow, black, white, and gray colors (Attachment A,Section II, 7/27/88) will be appropriate for color-blind individuals.
Recommendation: Select colors as appropriate.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 29. The. reading level is appropriate. This is based on one of the following:
Statement A Dale-Chall evaluation of readability indicated that the entire emergoney procedures section of the document has a reading level of grade 9 or below, as characterized by the Dale-Chall readability formula.
Recommendation: NONE.
. Evaluation l
Yes.
Octobar 1988 A-16 CATEGORY 2 CONTENT Evaluation Criterion
- 30. Information is given regarding emergency action levels, and enough educational Information on radiation is given to provide an understanding of sources and relative effects, or provision is made in a separate document.
Statement The proposed text changes and additions / deletions (Attachment A Section I.,
items E, F, G, H, I, J, & K 7/27/88) would speelfy: ,that the public (permanent and transient) would have to evacuate the beaches at Site Area Emergency or General Emergency; that the public may be asked to shelter at the SAE and Informs / educates the public that certain precautionary pas for Special Populations and livestock would be recommended at SAE and GE.. The document does contain an excellent discussion of radiation and radioactivity in the educational section. The proposed revisions (Attachment A,Section I, Items P &
Q, 7/27/88) would enhance the already excellent discussion or radiation and radioactivity.
- Recommendattom Revise text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterlon -
- 31. Information has twen provided for transients and visitors through appropriate means. <
t Statement
- Information has been provided for transients and visitors via the production of ancillary materials.
Recommendation: See Attachment A for review and evaluation comments.
l l
l l
Octob2r 1988*
- A-17 .' '
1 Evaluation ,
Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 32. A method of Identifying special ner,ds has been provided in suct a y ay that it cannot be lost during shipment or during the Initial reading.
Statement
%.:t rating (Yes) is based on the assumption that the survey card and sticker will ultu.sately be firmly bound into the calendar.
Re vamendattom In order to avoid the possible loss of the survey card / sticker, prior to the initla! reading of the document, we recommend that the postage-paid card be either sewn in or stapled to the document.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 33. ConsMeration has been given to needs of the special population.
Statement See our comments under "Schools"(#13) In Category 1 and "Method of Identifying Special Needs"(f 32) in Category 2.
Recommendatlom None.
Evaluation Yes.
4
.' .'
- Octabar 1988
- . A-18 THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:
Evaluation Criterion
- 34. Respiratory protection.
Statement Respiratory protection is addressed (page 2) In the last bulleted item in the section "How to Take Shelter."
Recommendation: NONE.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 35. Radioprotective drugs (if adopted by State or local government agencies
- for use by the general public).
Statement There is no mention made of the use of radioprotective drugs for the general public, which is in agreement with current State (s) policies.
Recommendation: NONE. -
Evaluation
, Yu. ,
Evaluation Criterion -
- 28. Encouragement to alert neighbors, by means other than the telephone, to ensure that they also heard and understood the warning signals.
Octebor 1988. ',
A-19 . .
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterlon
- 37. Emergency supplies checklist to have in the home.
Statement The proposed section on advance planning (Attachment A,Section I, items N &
- 0) would provide a means to educate and Inform the public on items and processes for being prepared for any emergency.
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.
Evaluation
~
Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
.18. Supplies checklist for use in the event of evacuation.
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes. .
Evaluation Criterion
- 39. Home preparation for sheltering.
l i
Octob:;r 1988 Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 40. Home preparation for evacuation. ,
, Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
i ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterion
- 41. General educational material, if included, is placed after the emergency procedures information.
Statement See comments on "Format" (#18) and "Layout" (#21).
1 Reeosamendation: None.
Evaluation .
Yes.
l l
1
October 198,8 ' ,.
A-21 COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion
- 42. The cover design encourages one to open the publication and to read what ,
it contains. '
Statement None.
Evaluation ,
t Yes.
Evaluation Criterion f
- 43. The format is appropriate for the emergency information included by the j document, and the size is appropriate. [
~8tatement The type of document (calendar) and size of the document is appropriate.
Recommendation: None.
Evaluation i i Yes.
i 1'
Italuation Criterion !
- 44. Photographs, maps, charts, tables and artwork are used effectively to i enhance the text and are not distracting.
1 Statement l
! The drawings and illustrations are effectively done and mesh well with the
, adjacent subject matter, reinforcing the content. The plume map is clearly i
labeled, with proposed revisions (Attachment \,Section I, item L,7/27/88). The bus route maps are clearly labeled , ad easy to use.
1 l
a
.m OctobCr 1988
- A-33 Recommendation: Revise plume map as prot.osed.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 45. The various elements of graphie design work together harmoniously to r
achieve the desire effect.
Statement ,
The various elements of graphic design whleh have been incorporated serve to enhance the utility, comprehensibility, and attractiveness of the document.
Recommendation: None.
Evaluation ,
. Yes. -
0 5
L Octcher 1988*
- A-23 * -
CATEGORY 3 CONTENT Evaluation Criterion
- 46. The document contains the date of lasue and the name of the issuing agency.
Statement The calendar format insures current dates, and the name of the lasuing organization appears on both the front and back cover.
Recommendation: NONE. l l
1 Evaluation l Yes. ,
-Evaluation Criterion
- 47. Document contains blank space in the emergency procedures section for j personal notes.
Statement ,
The document includes both a note taking form to be used in recording family Information as well as a general notes page.
Recommendation: NONE. I t
l i
Evaluatloe P
1 Yes. t t
l Evaluation Criterlon
- 48. Document contains a section on family preplanning.
, l l
October 1988-A-24 Statement The proposed section on advance planning (Attachment A,Section I, item 0) will provide an appropriate section on family planning.
Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.
Evaluation Yes.
COMPREHENSION FAC'M)RS ,
Evaluation Criterion
- 49. Key symbols or graphie Images are used to assist the reader in locating and/or understanding the text.
i .
Statement
- Graphic images are used well. The proposed table of' contents and use of icons (Attachment A.Section I, item C) will assist the reader in locating and understanding the text.
Recommendations Revise text as proposed. ,
Evaluation Yes, ,
Evmination Criterion
- 50. The format encourages retention.
Statement The use of ttn attractive calendar format is typically a good aid to retention.
Recommendation: None.
Octebar 1988- -
A-25 . .
Evaluation l
Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 51. Color has been used effectively to enhance and highlight Important details relative to the emergency information.
Statement The proposed color use appears to be satisfactory for color-blind persons. We cannot judge the use of color at this time.
Recommendation: None at this time. ;
Evaluation Insufficient information.
I I
< i d
I i
i I
j i
i l
I t
f i
5 P
i
. . . . - . . _ , - - . _ _ . . . .. - - - . - _ - _ .- _ ..._-. .. - _.-._ ,_ _ _._. _ _--__.. _ ._-.__.. ,~ -.- .- _.
. e Octobar 1988 A-26 ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS INTRODUCTION: Most of the supplementary materials are intended for distribution to the transient population. Many of the materials have been produced in French and English versions, due to Seabrook's proximity to the Can dlan border. The French versions are Identical in format and design to their English counterparts. Examination of the Frer.ch translations reveals that they are accurate, use appropriate vocabulary, and though written in the French of France, they are comprehensible to Canadian
- French-speaking readers.
The following reviews and evaluations are on the set of documents identified as part in the Plan as part of the public education program.
A FOLD-OUT BROCHURE ENTITLED "MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY PLAN INFORMATION" This brochure, printed in both English and French, is apparently intended for distribution to the Massachusetts transient population. The content is appropriate to the Intended
- audience. The document is logically sequenced and simply worded (the reading level of most passages is 5th-6th grade). Provisions of this brochure should enable transients to protect themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency at Seabrook. The issues are as follows:
- the proposed changes to the section on notification "How you Would be told About an Emergency" (Attachment 3, section A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M, 7/27/88) would make this document appropriate for the intended audiences eg., there is a discussion of appropriate actions to take.
- the proposed changes to the format (Attachment B, section !!,7/27/88) would provide for easier handling.
e the proposed changes to 'he map (Attachment B, section L and M) would deteribe and Indicate the appropriate evacuation routes.
- the propose.: changes to text of the evacuation route for Salisbury (Attachm?nt B, section L and M) would make the map and text in the flyer consiste.it with that described in Appendix J.
Octobor 1988 * -
A-37 . .
EMERGENCY INFORMATION DECALS !
These decals, available in both English and bilingual English/ French, use a simple format ;
to provide s brief description of nctification procedures and identification of EBS '
stations. Primarily intended for display at places of business and at special facilities, '
they are also mailed to EPZ residents and are a useful addition to the calendar document. !
"LETTER" TO HOTEL / MOTEL / RESTAURANT OWNERS AND "LETTER" TO t EMPLOYERS [
t
- These virtually identical letters request cooperatfort in distributing an accompanying set ,
of materials (stickers, posters, brochures, etc.). The letters are straighforward, factual, I and should pose no problems in interpretation. The proposed changes (Attachment C, f 7/27/88) to these letters would enhance their purpose in that encouragements are ,
i provided for the letter recipients to develop plans and Inform their employees. !
i "EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS" FOR RESIDENTS OF MERRIMAC, MA. AND NEWTON, NH - A PHONE BOOK AD.
- This phone book ad consists of Information taken from the text of the emergency
. brochure for Massach'usetts and placed in an 8.5" X 11" back-to-back format. It includes ,
I information about nottfloation, EBS systems serving the area, sheltering, evacuation, I reception centers, procedures for school children and those with special needs. The ad !
Includes contact phone numbers for further information as well as the addresses for reception centers for the towns of Merrimac and Newton. The proposed changes (Attachment C, item A, B, C and format,7/27/88) would enhance the instruction quality i of the ad and provide a map of the plume EPZ. The ad is action oriented and well l I sequenced to povide emergency information to the reader. See comments in following !
j section.
' (
4 "EMEROENCY INSTRUCTIONS" FOR RESIDENTS OF AMESBURY, NEWBURY, NEWBURYPORT, SALISBURY, AND WEST NEWBURY, MA., AND SEABROOK AND l SOUTH HAMPTON, NH ~ A PHONE BOOK AD. l l
! I
! This ad is identleal to the one above except it is revised to include information relevant l i to appropriate towns. The proposed changes (Attachment C,7/27/88) would enhance the [
j instruction quality of the ad and provide a map of the plume EPZ. ;
i I
J !
l !
l l I
Octob3r 1988 A-28 REQUEST CARD FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l This card apparently accompanies t'.1e earlier identified letters to businesses and employers. It is simple and straightforward. The card is a valuable 3djunct to the dissemination effort.
POSTERS ENTITLED "MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY PLAN INFORMATION" WITH EPZ MAP These large,17.5" X 23", and impressive posters provide a summary of emergency actions, school and bus routes Information, a clearly marked EPZ map, and explicit evacuation instructions. An English-only and a bilingual version are provided. These posters, if appropriately posted, could provide persons who are in places of work or leisure with access to needed information at the time of an emergency. The proposed -
changes (Attachment. C, item A, B,C, D, and format, 7/27/88) provide appropriate instructions and Informations.
FOLDOUT POSTER TYPE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EMERGENCY BUS INFORMATION" This 8.5" X 11" (opens to 17" X 22") poster type document is produced in both English and French versions and provides specific bus route maps for six Massachusetts communities. The document is two-sided with detall maps for three towns on each side.
The maps are legible, and bus information is clearly presented.
IF YOU HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS POSTER OR AD This is a single page notice of a special needs survey in the area. Graphics and typography are effectively used to reinforce the message. The distribution of this notice to newspapers, social agencies, rellglous organizations, etc., should assist in compiling a more complete database of special needs populations.
, SIGNS i 'this document apparently is intended to be a Slgn. The sign provides Information about what to do if a stren is heard. Specifically, the reader is advised to tune 'to an EBS station for instructions. This sign is bold, uncluttered, and effective in its format and design. A double-sized, bilingual version is also provided.
l l
( . .
Octobar 1988' -
A-29 . -
EMERGENCY INFORMATION FOR FARMERS This document couV. serve as the.public education document for the entire Seabrook Ingestion EPZ. The document is prepared on the basis of a joint issuance between NHY ORO, the State of New Hampshire, and the State of Maine. It contains a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> information hotline and contains rumor control numbers for each organization. The document describes the means of notification for those farmers living within the plume EPZ and it describes the means of notification for those farmers living between 10 and 50 m!!es. The document describes protective actions for persons and for farm animals.
The document describes a process for reentry into an evacuated area in the event farmers need to return to their farms. The document describes the two levels of emergency actions that could be taken in the event there was measured contamination in foodstuffs. The document contains advice for assisting the farmers in preparing an emergency plan for their farms. :
Note: See Appendix B for FEMA-REP-11 review and evaluation of Farmers' Brochure.
M i
1 l
l l
\
Octobst 1988 APPENDIXBr FEMA-REP-11 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK ,
PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIAL 8 FOR INGEarTION EXPO 6URE PATHWAY ames O
e e
a 6
Oct bar 1988* .
3-2 . .
4 e
O O
enme 90 e
r t
i, 6
Y 1
i l
i b
I
. t
\
. . Octobar 1988 l B-3 ,
j i
l APPENDIX B FEMA-REP-11 REYlEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIALS FOR INGEFTION EXPOSURE PATHWAY The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities indicated that this Brochure '
will be diselbuted to farmers and food processors. This Brochure will be provided along with speelf.'c written Ingestion instructions to farmers, food processors and food distributors within the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as appropriate in the time of an ,
emergency, and could serve as the Public Education Document for the entire Seabrook Ingestion EPZ. The Brochure is prepared on the basis of a joint issuance between NHY ,
ORO, the State of New Hampshire, and the State of Maine. It contains a 24-hour information hotline and contains rumor control numbers for each organization. The i document describes the means of notification for those farmers living within the plume EPZ and those farmers living between 10 and 50 miles. The document describes protective actions for persons and for farm animals: describes a process for reentry into i an evacuated area in the event farmers need to return to their farmst describes the two levels of emergency actions that could be taken in the event there was measured contamination in foodstuffs, and contains advice for casisting the farmers in preparing an emergency plan for their farms. ,
This contains our review and evaluation of the draft Brochure "Emergency
- Information for Farmers," dated October 24,1986, and marked DOC. 9526A. , ,
The following evaluation rating scheme identifies the rating system used to evaluate Emergency Information for the Farmers Brochure:
Yes, fully meets identitled criteria.
Marginally aceeotables could be improved.
Inadequate.
l Insufficient Information to evaluate ltem should be checked for consistency with FEMA criteria or for being acceptably addressed
( ,, through another medium. .
I NA Not apolleable to this document. i I . .
, This report is divided into three categories: j CATEGORY 1: These items are critical to the effectiveness of a (
publie Information document. All items identified as not fully meeting f
- the identified criteria (e.g., those items marked marginally acceptable.
inadequate, or Insufficient information must be improved prior to pubtleation and distribution).
- i 1
v
Octob3r 1988 B - I.
CATEGORY 2: These items are important to the effectiveness of a public information document. Items in this category identifled as marginally acceptable, inadequate, or insufficient information, should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.
CATEGORY 3: These items are enhancements to the overall quality of a public emergency Information document. Items in this category ,
Identitled as marginally acceptable, inadequate, or Insufficient Information, should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.
Note: We have sequentially numbered the review criteria of FEMA-REP-11 in order to provide a point of reference.
9 ese 1
1 i I I
t
!' i i !
1
)
4 r I l 1
l
} !
i l l
i
. . Octsber 1988 B-5 CATEGORYI CONTENT Evaluation Criterios l
- 1. Document has a clear emergency focos. it should tell the reader what to t expect, in what sequence. It should tell what actions, in order of priority. l should be taken if notification is given. l t
Statement None. !
l i
Er.luation l
\
Yes.
i Evaluation Criterion
- 2. The content is consistent with the Emergency Plan and EBS messages. !
Statement [
None. .
Evaluation Yes.
l
~
- Evatustion Criterion
- 3. There is a etear statement of purpose.
(
j -
l Stateme.t None.
i l
I I
I i
k * )
8 .
October 198,8 ,
B-6 Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 4. If the Emergency Plan calls for an emergency phone number, it is given, !
along with Instructions on the procedures to be followed relative to its use.
Be sure to distinguish "hotline" numbers for use during emergencies as separate from Information numbers during non-emergency times.
I Statement None.
Evaluation ,
1 Not applicable, n
I Evaluation Criterion
- 5. Thors is a contact given for add!ttonal Information.
i Statement ,
l None.
Evaluation i
Yes. ,
[
Evaluation Criterion I
- 6. Information is given regarding notification proced Statement 1
None.
I h
J r ,,- . . . - -
, - . - - - - . . . , _ . - - - . , - - - - . . . ._.- - - - . . . - . - . . . - . - ~ .
October 5988 o . B-7 Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterlon
- 7. Identification of EBS stations is given, with stations / channels.
Statement ,
None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion ,
- 8. There is~ a highly visible statement on the cover about keeping the docum'ent for use in the event of an emergency.
Statement t
A retention statement appears on the introductory page immediately inside the i front cover. There is no retention statement on the outside cover.
Recommendatiom Consider including the word "READ AND SAVE" in the retention statement. Place retention statements on the front and back siges of the document.
! Evalention (
Martinally acceptable. i l
Evaluation Criterion j
- 9. Educational Information. The very basle information on esdiation must be included in the Emeriency Brochure to convey a sense of health risk.
I u
Octeber 1988 , ,
8-8 , ,
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:
Evaluation Criterion
- 10. Sheltering.
Statement None.
Evaluat!on
)
Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 11. Evac:.ation routes with both written explanations in the text and illustrated dir.:ctions on an ovacuation map of the EPZ.
Statement None.
l Evalentlom
',, Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 12. Transportation provisions.
l
~
l
.. -- , - _ . - x so. , ,, . . _ . ,_-.._ . -._ _ _ __. ,_, . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . , _ _ - _ _ . _ . , - , ___.
October 1988 g.9 Statement None.
Evaluation
- Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion ,
i
- 13. School provision.*: Including guidelines and/or instructiou for parents.
t i
Statement s
Nons. !
l Evaluation Not app!! cable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 14. Instruction on the care and feeding of livestock, if appropriate, in the area.
j Statement i
None.
i !
Evaluation Yes, ,
i Evaluation Criterion . . !
- 15. Reception Centers, Relocation and/or Congregate Care Centers. [
l
October 1988 .
5-10 . .
Statement None.
Evaluation Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 16. Pro tisions for the handleapped.
Statement None.
Evaluation Not applicable.
ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterion
- 17. The Emergency Instructions occupy a highly visible place in front of the document.
Statement The location of the information on radiation and its effects delays the presentation of important Emergency Information. ,
Recommendation: Change the location of the Information on radiation and its ,
effects. I Evaluation l
Inadequate. !
. ,..--.---1-- ,- ,-- - e - .--_, - - - , - ---- - , . - , , - . . . -
October 1988 Evaluation Criterion
- 18. The information is logically sequenced.
Statement The order of presentation is not appropriate. See above comment.
Recommend? 60 Revl'.m the order of the information in the document.
Evaluation Marg!nt 4 + .:c; tat.
Evaluation Criterion
- 19. Information is clearly organized and relevant to the purpose of providing emergency guidance.
Statement ,
None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 20. Public education passages, if included, are not distracting.
Statement The bulk of educational information appropriately follows the emergency action sections. However, the order of presentation of the sections "about safety at Seabrook" and "About Radiation" distracts and interrupts the presentation of more vital Instructions and information.
Recommendation: Reposition the referenced page elsewhere in the document.
l
Octrier 5988 - -
5-12 -
- Evaluation Marginally acceptabic.
COMPREHENSION FACTCRS Evaluation Criterion
- 21. The document layout is such that the teat is e#3y to follow from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page. Page and section breaks are con:! stent with the logie and organization of the material. .
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
3 valuation Criterion
- 22. The inforraation 1; presented in such a way thtt there is a logical sequence of toples. The "flow" of information is smooth and not disjointed. i Statement !
None. !
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 23. Within a ativen tople, actions to be taken come first, followed by rationale or explanation.
i i
o .
Octobor 1983 8-13 Statement Generally, this is true in those sections that provide Emergency Instructions for the farmer.
Recommendation We recommend that the appropriate order of sections be reviewed and revised to ensure that vital Emergency instructions precede other information.
Evaluation Marginally acceptable.
EvaJustion Criterion
- 24. Vocabulary is simple, comprised of nontechnical terms likely to be found in the vocabularies of the Intended population.
Statement ,
The vocsbulary could be simplified. The use of certain agricultural terms is unavoidable and such terms should be f amiliar to farmers and food processors.
~
However, there are many difficult terms that could b9 replaced with simpler word choices.
Recommendation: Review and revise vocabulary with simpler word choices.
This restructuring of the text would significantly improve the readability of the i document. .
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 25. Sentences are brief and concise.
Statement Some sentences could be shortened and simplified.
i t
Octob3r 1988 * -
B-14 . .
I
! Recommendation: Restructure sentence length. This effort would enhance j readability and emergency utility.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion i l 26. Typography is legible and easy to perceive.
Statement ,
i None.
l Evaluation '
l l
Yes. ,
l .
1 Evaluation Criterlon l l
- 27. . The cover clearly states that the document contains important EmerTency Instructions.
I Statement None.
- l i
Evaluation Yes.
! l l
Evaluation Criterion j
- 28. The choice of colors is appropriate for color-blind Individuals.
l 1
Octcber l'988 B-15 Statement Since the draf t document was in black and white Xerox copy, it is impossible to judge how colors will be used.
Recommendation: We recommend the selection of colors that will enhance the readability of the document.
Evaluation Insufficient Information.
Evaluation Criterion
- 29. The reading is appropriate. This is based on one of the followings Statement A Dale-Chall evaluation of readability indicated that the entire Emergency
' Procedures Section of the document has a reading level of Grade 11-12 or above, as characterized by the Dale-Chall readability formula. -
- Recommendation: As mentioned elsewhere, resincture text, vocabulary, and sentence length. Target re'adability for grade 9 or below. Unfortunately, the current reading level of many of the passages may present problems for marg lnal readers and hamper the emergency utility of the document.
Evaluation Inadequate.
9 l
l
Octsber 1988 * .
8-16 . .
CATEGORY 2 CONTENT Evaluation Criter!on
- 30. Information is given regarding Emergency Action Levels, and enough educational Information on radiation is given to provide an understanding of sources and relative effects, or provision is made in a separate document.
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 31. Informat!0n has been provided for transients and vis! tors appropriate i means. .
Statement ,
None.
4 Evaluation Not applicable. l t
. i Evaluation Criterion
- 32. A meeting of Identifying special needs has Wen pavided in such a way that it cannot be lost during shipment or during the la!tlal reading.
Statement None. I l
l f
.- _- - - - - _ . . _ . ~, _,_,m__, __._,_. .._-.,..- .._ . _ . . . . . _ . _. _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _
Octcber 1988 B-17 Evaluation Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 33. Consideration has been given to needs of the special populations.
l Statement This document haa been speelfically prepared to address the needs of a particular population, farmert.
Recommendation: None.
l Evaluation 1
Yes.
THE ENERGENCY IN1rt' RUCTIONS SECTION INCI.DDES A DISCUSSION OF:
1 1
Evaluation Criterlon l 34. Respiratory protection.
1 Statement None.
I Realastloa .
Yes.
1 Realuation Criterion
- 35. Radioprotective drugs (if adopted by State or local government agencies for use by the general public).
t
Oct bar 1988 *
- 8-18 *
- Statement There is no mention made of the use of radioprotective drugs for the General Public, which is in agreement with current State (s) policies.
Recommendation: None.
Evaluation Nat applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 36. Encouragement to alert by means other than the telephone to ensure that !
they also heard and understood the warning signals. [
8tatement None.
t
_._ Evaluation l i
Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 37. Emergency supplies checklist to have in the home.
r Statement !
, None.
Evaluation l
Not appilcable. ;
Evaluation Criterion !
- 38. Supplies checklist for use In the event of evacuation. '
i l
[
i
. '. e October 1988
- 5.19 ,
Statement None.
Evaluation Not applicable.
Evaluation Criterion
- 39. Home preparation for sheltering.
Statement None.
Evaluation .
Not applicable. .
Evaluation Criterlon
- 40. Home preparation for evacuation.
Statement None. -
,. Evaluatlas Not appilcable.
I ORG ANIZ ATION Evaluation Criterlon i 41. General educational material, if included, is placed after the Emergency I
Octsbar 1988 .
- B-20 Procedures Information.
Statement Generally, the reverse is true. See comments on "About Safety at Seabrook" and "Radiation Effects."
Recommendation: Revise order of presentation. l Evaluation l Inadequate. i i
COMPREHENSION FACTORS l Evaluation Criterion -
- 42. The cover design encourages one to open the pub!! cation and to read what ,
it contains. .
Statement None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluatica Criterion '
, 43. The format is appropriate for the Emergency Information included in the document, and the size is appropriate. I Statement i l
None.
Evaluation f
(
I I
, , ~ . . ,.._ , . - , ,m - c.--..- _-., _
October 1988
- Ba21 Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 44. Photographs, maps, charts, tables and artwork are used effectively to enhance the text and are not distracting.
Statement The draft contains many blank spaces yet to be filled in with phone numbers.
page number references, charts and diagrams. This made it diffleult to make a :
complete and accurate evaluation of the document. "
Recommendation: Develop appropriate charts, tables, maps and artwork.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
__ 45. The various elements of graphic design worn together harmoniously to achieve the desired affect.
Statement The draft contains many blank spaces yet to be filled in with phone numbers, page numbar references, charts and diagrams. This made it difficult to make a complete and accurate evaluation of the document.
Recommendation: Develop appropriate charts, tables, maps and artwork.
Evaluatloa ,
Yes. . !
October 1988 - .
B-22 . .
CATEGORY 3 CONTENT Evaluatlun Criterion
- 46. The document contains the date of issue and the name of the issuing agency.
Statement l None.
Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
. 47. Document contcins blank space in the Emergency Procedures Section for personal notes.
~
1 8tatement i
None.
i Evaluation i
Not applicable.
,. Evalenties Celterion l
- 48. Document contains a section on family preplanning.
h Statement (
i l
None.
l l
. .. i Octcher 1988 i B-23 Evaluation Yas.
COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evalmtlen Criterion
- 49. Xey symbols or graphic Images are used to assist the reader in locating and/or understanding the text. ,
Statement See e tiller comments. .
Recommendation: We recommend the use of graphic symbols to visually reinforce textval material.
Evaluation ,
. Ir(sufficient information.
Evaluation Criterion
- 50. The format encourages retention.
Statement None.
.- Evaluation Yes.
Evaluation Criterion
- 51. Color has been used effectively to enhance and highlight important details relative to the Emergency Information.
4
I l
l October 1988 '
l B-24 -
l l Statement l
Color use cannot be judged at this time.
1 Recommendation: See comments under Category I, Comprehension Factors, l cholee of colors.
Evaluation Insuffielent Information i .
l The lasues identified in this attachment (rating of "Inadequate") are suffielent to warrant a rating of Inadequate under NUREG-0454/TEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. Supplement 1, Flanning Standard G. We do request that those items rated
- inadequate," "Marginally Aeeeptable," or "Insuffielent Information" be satisfactorily addressed before the revision and distribution of the document. We will expect the opbrtunity to review proposed drafts to ensure that these items are satisfactorily addressed before pubtleation and distribution.
lo l
l 1
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
1 l
[