ML20237L022

Applicant Exhibit A-13,consisting of Undated marked-up Question & Answer Pages Re Emergency Plans & EPZs

ML20237L022
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/14/1987
From:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
OL-5-A-013, OL-5-A-13, NUDOCS 8708270385
Download: ML20237L022 (7)

Text

___

z-os s.

taco

• a q

soyhv W

A ~/3 17c

'87 AUS 20 P4 :25

34. Q.

What was the purpose of tne exercise sur/ey?

A.

[ Daverio, Behr ] We reviewed the exercises at other plants ihat have been accepted by NRC as full participation exercises, in order to determine whether the alleged omissions contained in Contentions EX 15 and 16 were also omitted at those exercises and to compare the number of those omis-sions with those omitted at Shoreham.

55. Q.

Specifically, what did your survey of exercises reveal as to the inclusion or exclusion of the elements alleged by the Interveners to be missing in the Shoreham Exercise?

A.

[Daverio, Behr] Our research revealed the following:

a.

Puclic Notification Procecures Of the 34 full participation exercises which we reviewed:

Wias

1. *ca-did not include a siren test:

Avl

2. & did not include EBS System tests; streen

3. *~rn did not include actual Croadcast of EBS messages:

4. The SNPS Exercise did not include siren or EBS System tests nor cic it include an actual broadcast of EBS messages.

)

I b.

Notification of Public in Water Portion of EPZ Of the 34 full participation exercises which we reviewed:

L eurv-Twe,

1. T ecn 7 *". c; did not demonstrate notification of the population in the water portion of tne EPZ:

~Iwear v - NE

2. Thirw-did not include participation by the Coast Guarc:

3. The SNPS Exercise included a demonstration of notification of the population in the water portion of the EPZ in wnich the Coast Guard did participate.

c.

PAR for Transients on Water Pornon of EP and on Beacns Parks 1

Of the 34 full participation exercises whien we reviewed:

8708270385 870514 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O

PDR

^'

/-

3 5 _. _ n o.2s.- S m e tu.u w

, _ ere%%A m mens _

m.m.__.__ /..

_ Joesus_

yw Jearse temmeer Coorg Otri b~b~

MIE teatracter __

--a_

on 5

etM i)M & J

..p, n,,,,,, MEL L

..a.a 9

L

. I'swry - Two

1. T an:, :. ca did not demonstrate protective action recommen-cations for tne transient population on the water portion of tne EPZ, or on beacnes and parxs:

TwCvT 4 ftJC

2. E..., did not incluce participation by the Coast Guard:

3. The SNPS Exercise included Protective Action Recommendations l

wmch incluced the transient population on the water in wnich the I

Coast Guard participated.

d.

Procedure for Public Education (Brochure)

Of the 34 f ull participation exercises which we reviewed:

1. Sixteen did not evaluate public information brochures:

2. The SNPS public information brochure was not evaluated during f

the Exercise.

l l

e.

Proceduros for Evacuatine EPZ Hoscitals Of the 34 full participation exercises wnich we reviewed:

1. Thirty-one did not demonstrate or simulate evacuation of hospital patients:

2. The SNPS Exercise did not demonstrate or simulate evacuation of hospital patients, f.

Procedures for Sheltering, Early Dismissal. Evacuation of School Children Of the 34 full participation exercises which we reviewed:

% m-ous

1. Thir,

cc did not demonstrate or simulate sheltering of school children:

7~.a ecry - o w6

2. ~@ did not demonstrate or simulate early dismissal of schoo!5 children:

SIG HT65J

3. ~"cr*, anc did not demonstrate or simulate evacuation of school cnildren; kr Ecu

}

4. Twcn*, had no mention of the participation of school officials:

i I

5. Twenty-four did not activate school bus drivers:

6. The SNPS Exercise did not demonstrate or simulate the sneltering of senoot cn:1cren Out did include demonstrations of early dismiss-al and evacuation of senool enildren which involved Ine -

l

}.

part:cipancn of senool of ficials and scnool bus crive..

3

'.*.=s y

+-

I

____ j

47_

g.

Procecures Concerning Protection Actions for Ingestion Pathway EPZ Of the 34 full participation exercises that we reviewed:

Saxicca

1. Ercar:cca exercises had no ingestion pathway implementation in tne home state:

2. Thirty-three exercises had no participation of any border state:

Tw* enm-one

3. bc.n, f our exercises did not implement sheiter/ stored feed and for cairi cattle:

Twssmt did i

4. ]?J+=. exercises did not include PAR's for non-dairy animals; ilasurt-ElG HT

5. T u ;.-, L.. exercises did not include PAR's for drinking water and food chain;

6. Thirty-two exerc:Ses had no mention of performing ground deposi-tion calculations:

7. The SNPS Exercise included no demonstrations of ingestion path-way activities cy eitner home or border states. Ingestion pathway Protective Action Recommendations were made for both dairy and non-dairy animals but not for drinking water. A ground depo-sition calculation was performed.

b.

Procedures Relating to the Radiological Monitoring and Decontamination of Evacuees f rom Soecial Faciljties Of the 34 full participation exercises wnich we reviewed:

1. Virtually no exercise demonstrated special procedures relating to radiological monitoring and decontamination of evacuees from special f acilities:

2. The SNPS Exercise did not include demonstration of special pro-cecures relating to the radiological monitoring and decontam-ination of evacuees f rom special Iacilities.

I-Recoverv/Re-entrv Procedures Of the 34 full participation exercises we reviewed:

Sescuresa 1 Ei...hn exercises did not simulate recovery and re-entry activi-s ties:

2. The SNPS Exercise did not simulate recovery and re-entry activi-I:es.

_ _. _ _ _. - _ -. _... ~. _ _ _

m m

. j.

Parricication of Certain Bus Comoanies Of the 34 f ull participation exercises we reviewed:

1. Twenty-eight exercises did not specify that bus operations were demonstrated:

2. Of the exercises that did specify this information:

at Indian Point-2 (June 4.1986), 8 bus companies wcre telephoned 4

i and 11 buses were requested:

at Indian Point-3 (August 24-25, 1983), 5 bus companies were tele-pnoned and 10 buses were requested:

1 at Indian Point-3 (November 28, 1984), 9 bus companies were tele-J pnoned and it was not specified how many buses were requested:

at Nine Mile Point (September 23. 1983), 2 bus companies were telepnoned and 2 buses were requested; at Nine Mile Point (November 13, 1985), it is not specified how many bus companies were specified, but two buses were re-quested; at Salem (October 23. 1984). 1 bus company was telephoned and 2 buses were requestec.

3. Eighteen exercises did not specify the number of buses that par-ticipated:

4. The SNPS Exercise included the participation of 9 yards which provide 10 buses.

k.

Verification of Siren Operation by Marketing Evaluations Inc.

Of the 34 full participation exercises reviewed:

1. No exercise report mentioned a contract organization:

2. Twenty-three exercises verified by field observation that sirens sounded, of wnien two had personnel stationed to provide verifi-cation (i_.e., interview of EPZ resident / transients or observations mace for purposes of the exercise):

3. One exercise verified by verification signal;

4. The SNPS Exercise did not include a siren test and Inerefore LERO did not utilize its contract organization. Marketing Evalta-tions. Inc.. to ver:fy S;ren operations.

~;

=

/

1. Participation of Certain Ambulance Comcanies 01 the 34 fuJ participation exercises we reviewed:

1. Six\\een exercises did not specify tnat ambulance operations were demonstrated:

2. Where ambulance company operations were demonstrated:

as compared to tne six amculances and six acculettes run at the

)

i Shorenam Exercise, 2 ambulances participated in 7 exercises: 1 ambulance participated in 9 exercises; and more tnan 2 amcu-lances participated in 2 exercises.

t s

In summary, of the 34 full participation exercises reviewed, 23 exercises

('had qie of the alleged omissions than the Shoreham Exercise.

l

56. Q.

What do you concluce from the data generated from the exercises re-viewed?

A.

[ Daverio. Behr]

We can conciude two things from our review of tnese data:

1.

Eacn of the non-demonstrated elements, alleged by the Interveners to be a fundamental flaw in tne LILCO Plan. was also not demon-strated at other full participation exercises at licensed nuclear power plants.

2.,

The total num::er of allegedly non-demonstrated elements at the Shoreham Exercise is comparable with the number of elements not l

demonstrated at these other full scale exercises. Sej Attachment Q.

)

For example, it appears from the Exercise Report of the November s

23.1984 exercise at the Pe.- y Nuclear Plant, which the NRC clerly 4

six found was a full participation exercise, that all but m of the ele-meats Interveners allege were omitted at Shoreham were in f act.

(

not tasted during the Perry exercise. See Cleve!and electric Illu-minatir.7 Cn. (Per.y Nuclea.- Power Plant. L' nits 1 and 2), CLI-86-22.

slip 09. at 4 (Novencer 7.1956).

(

)

1 il 1.

, Specifically, the sirens were not tested at Perry: EBS messages were not broadcast; no PARS were issued for persons in the water portion of 10e EPZ or for transients in beaches or parks; the Coast Guard did not partici-pate: FEMA did not evaluate public education materials curing the exer-cise: hospital evacuation was not simulated; scnool children were not shel-tered; the early dismissal of schools was not demonstrated; :hcr:

- x ;c s dcmars;rnica a: % ;;acuatian af w.mc. m...idre;.. ;choci Of fic!

did ? _

Cs participa;;f school bus drivers did not participate; no borcer state partici-pated in ingestion pathway activities: chcMcr'stcr;d fecd rec;mmandaticnc (

f: da!ry ca "';.cre not impicm:nt;;; if.tTtrwere no PARI m..cr. dairy Q w

tr<W there were no PAR's f or drinking water and food chain: ground deposition calculations were not done; recovery / reentry procedures were not demonstrated: neither the numcer of ambulance companies telephoned nor the number of ambulances requested is specified, and only 2 ambu-lances - compared with 6 at Shoreham - participated: siren operation was not vertfied by a contract organization (a silent siren test was done)t and neither tne number of bus companies telephoned nor the number of buses recuested nor the number of buses that participated was specified in the Exercise Report. See Attachment R.

Thus, the Shoreham Exercise is al-most identical to an exercise that NRC has clearly found to be full partici-pation.

. Does this conclude your Testimony on Contentions EX 15 and 16?

$_ p DaveriG.

d.

Behr. Hockert]

Yes.

We conclude that the February 13 7=2:?

R mham Exercise was indeed a full participation exercise.

l