ML20238A074
| ML20238A074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1987 |
| From: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-5-I-SC-042, OL-5-I-SC-42, NUDOCS 8708280302 | |
| Download: ML20238A074 (4) | |
Text
t 36 - 3 2 z - OL-5 g/g/g7 SCffy
/f g l:
z-se-fz LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham - Revision 8 Key to Consolidated RAC Review l
Dated December 15,1986
'87 AUS 24 A9 :23 The Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) review of the LILCO, Transition Plan for Shoreham (Attxhment I) is based upon planning criteria specified in NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, h v.
1; Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants2 November,1980. The plan has been evaluated against each planning element specified in NUREG-0654 applicable to State and/or Local jurisdictions. These evaluations are keyed l
to the following rating system:
1 ADEQUATE RATING 1
A (Adequate)
A* (Adequate - concerns pertaining to LERO's legal authority identified
.during this review) l The element is adequately addressed in The element is adequately addressed in l
j the plan.
Recommendations for the plan provided concerns pertaining l
Improvement shown in italic are not to LERO's legal authority are resolved.
mandatory, but their consideration The issues of legal authority affect-would further improve the LERO plan.
Ing these elements are described in These recommendations include to the RAC review of revisions to the NUREG-0654 cross-Revision 5.
reference, and other minor improvements.
1 f2 DR DD.
O R
1 O
j
O e
l l
c M
3
)
(.
. *r p
A r
x 4
tr at
)
w e
d
".d.
c d.
s 3
w a o
. U I
$. +-
p "w_
E 4
e u
u I
i w
w T. -
=8"2 N2 N
l"= E2
- U "I
5a4 t
c ea q d) i e
6 a d d X
E y d.
-e e
ce U" * *w e e n.,a~5=1 II tS 4
eI e o
- u
_ _ _J
i ATTACHMENT 1 t
LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham - Revision 8 Consolidated RAC Review Dated December 15,1986 Page 11 of 15 NUREC-0654 Element Review Comment (s)
Rating J.10.k In response to an exercise issue, the plan has been (Cont'd) revised to add a traffic engineer to the staff at the EOC to evaluate any possible impediments to evae-ation and to make recommendations on necessary changes to evacuation routes in response to poten-tial impediments.
Procedures for field workers, i.e., bus drivers, traffic guides, etc., have been modified to include instructions to make prompt notifications through their communication network of any potential impediment. Provisions have been made to issue an EBS message in the event that changes to evacuation routes are necessary.
Internal communications within the LERO EOC regarding assessment of an response to evacuation impediments has been. adequately addressed through modification to the procedures (esp. OPIP 3.6.3, Traffic Control). The Evacuation Route coordinator is responsible for obtaining periodic updates from the Evacu ' on Route Spotters, and for immediately reporting road impediments or other problems to the Traffic Control Coordinator and Road Logistics Coordinator (See OPIP 3.6.3, Section 5.6.7) Lead Traffic Guides (at the staging areas) are to report.
any incident.
J.10.1 See review of Revision 5.
A J.10.m See review of Revision 5.
A J.11 See review of Revision 5.
A J.12 See review of Revision 5. In addition, the following I
comments are now applicable.
The LERO Reception Center previously designated at the Nassat County Veterans Memorial Coliseum has been changed to three (3) LILCO facilities located in Bellmore, Hicksville and Roslyn. The adequacy of these facilities as reception centers i
must be evaluated at a future exercisc.
j
I ATTACHMENT 1 l
LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham - Revision 8 Consolidated RAC Review Dated December 15,1986 Page 12 of 13 NUREC-0654 Element Review Comment (s)
Rating J.12 In addition to the change of Reception Center (s)
(Cont'd) location, the plan specifies (see page 3.!>-5 of Revision 8) that a screening process will be used to check evacuees ~ for contamination.
Incoming j
vehicles will be directed to monitoring stations where the vehicle and driver wDI be checked for contamination.
According to this screening procedure, passengers of the vehicle will also be assumed to be uncontaminated and a clean tag will be issued to them if the driver is below contamina-tion limits. This screening procedure is inadequate since the applicable guidance requires the capability of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients in the plume EPZ arriving at tlk Reception Centers.
LZRO is responsib?e for monitoring all evacuees arriving at reception centers. it is not adequate to plan for this monitoring with personnel and equipment when available.
It is not possible to evaluate the number of personnel required for monitoring at the special population reception centers since the plan shows in procedure OP.'P 3.6.5 pages 21-37, "to be arranged" for most of tte special population reception centers.
K.
Radiological Exposure Control Z.3.a See review of Revision 5.
Several issues involving I
emergency worker knowledge and use of do=imetry were identified at the February 13, 1986 exercise.
This element has been rated inadequate because dosimetry and training were not provided to the Bus Drivers used for school evacuation.
(1)
Bus Drivers used for school evacuation should be trained in me use of dosimeters.
(2)
Adequate supplies of dosimetry should be provided for Bua Drivers used for school evacuation.
_