ML20244D605

Applicant Rebuttal Testimony 17 (Radiological Monitoring Process).* Testimony Developed in Response to Joint Intervenor Contention 56 Re Procedures for Radiation Monitoring of General Public.Related Correspondence

ML20244D605
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/18/1989
From:	Bisson J, Callendrello A, Cotter R, Littlefield P ABB IMPELL CORP. (FORMERLY IMPELL CORP.), AIDIKOFF ASSOCIATES, INC., PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20244D592	List: ML20244D589 ML20244D605 ML20244D617 ML20244D632 ML20244D644 ML20244D657 ML20244D666 ML20244D669 ML20244D678 ML20244D706 ML20244D734
References
OL, NUDOCS 8904240026
Download: ML20244D605 (65)

Text

, _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ____ -_ - . _ _ _ _ _

j,,h

.E Fffn'93DM .gc.t g[;r e uwe 189 APR 20 P5 37 April 18, 1989__

GrFM "U, T' 00CKEi n ' ~i# M UNITBD STATES OF AMERICA 2 N

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter ~of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

) .

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency

) Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 17 (RADIOIDGICAL MONITORING PROCESS)

Panel Members: Joseph Bisson, Emergency Planner, Impell Corporation Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency L Preparedness Licensing, New Hampshire Yankee Robert Cotter, Emergency Planning Specialist, ]

Aidikoff Associates j i l i Peter Littlefield, Manager, Radiological Engineering Group, Yankee Atomic Electric L Company l >

8904240026 890418 PDR 7 ,

T ADOCK 05000443? l PDR i

I o- 1 A i d  !

! l TABLE OF CONTENTS l

l

~

l I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 )

II. SPMC FACILITIES AND PROCESS FOR RADIATION l MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l A. Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1

a. Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .

l

1) Anticipated Number of Evacuees 2

2) Evaluation of Monitoring Stations in Trailers . . . . . 6

3) Anticipated Number of Private ,

Vehicles, School Buses And Vehicles From Special Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 6

4) Evacuee Registration . . . . . 10

b. Physical Description of the i Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . 11

c. Equipment Used at Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . . . . 14

! a. Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 i

b. Physical Description of the Emergency Worker Facility . . ' . . .

c. Equipment Used et the Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

a. Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . 17 l

I I

_ii_

i

fn~ .

1 5 {

w: V d I

J j

)

b. Emergency: Worker Facility . . . .. -18 B. Radiation Monitoring Process . . . . . . . - 19' )

1. General Public .. . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . 19 2'. Emergency Workers . . . . + . . .. ... . . -25

3. Special Needs Evacuees . . .. . . . . .. 26-L Attachment A: Memorandum From S.L. Dodge to P.J. Stroup, 1 April 6, 1988, re Test Evaluating the L

Performance of the Aptecl Probe Conducted by the NHY Health Physics Department, and Attachments Thereto Attachment B: Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise, Evaluation Worksheet for Extent of Play,.Section Number 2.18 (Reception Center Monitoring Trailer)

Attachment C: ORO Reception Center Monitoring Record Sheets, o I

Exercise Tests Results For Beverly And North Andover

-I i

-111- l

l e

I. INTRODUCTION i l

This testimony was developed in response to Joint l l

Intervenor (JI) Contention 56 regarding the procedures, personnel, equipment and facilities for' radiation monitoring  ;

of general public evacuees, and for radiation monitoring and i decontamination of emergency workers and special facility populations. Radiation monitoring and decontamination of special facility populations is also described in. Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony Nc- 6 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations).

II. SPMC FACILITIES AND PROCESS FOR RADIATION MONITORING  !

A. Facilities and Equipment

1. Monitoring Trailers

a. Design Basis The two Monitoring Trailers were initially designed with a capacity to accommodate 20% of the peak population in the Massachusetts portion of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) which is 0 2 x 82,944 (SPMC, Table 1.3-1) or 16,589 individuals.

Subsequently, a more detailed evaluation which focused i on the expected number of evacuees, or " load," arriving at i

each Reception Center was performed. The approach taken for I i

this evaluation used logic similar to that detailed in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's December 30, 1988, l

i

________L______________.___ _

e Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire Radiological  !

Emergency Response Plan (LBP-88-32). The facility, equipment and personnel additions that resulted from this analysis will l be reflected in a future revision of the SPMC Implementing Procedures (IP) 2.9, 3.4 and 3.5. .

The evaluation examined the evacuee loads expected i during summer months and off-season months for each Reception ,

Center. The results are detailed below. The largest value ,

i for the anticipated evacuee loads was selected as the  !

planning basis for each Reception Center.

1) Anticipated Number of Evacuees In determining the evacuee loads for the Reception l Centers'and Monitoring Trailers, the numbers for special facility and special needs individuals (Applicants' Rebuttal j Testimony No. 6), school and day care populations (Applicants' Robuttal Testimony No. 6), and transit-dependent individuals (NHRERP, Vol. 6, Table 11-7) were subtracted from '

the resident population (or peak rummer population) of the Massachusetts communities (SPMC, Table 1.3-1). The numbers i

for off-season transient population (NHRERP, Volume 6) were added to the resident population. The remaining population was then multiplied by 20%. As a final step, 100% of the subtracted populations were added back to the total because all of these people are transported to the Reception Centers, not just 20%.

The Massachusetts EPZ communities that have beaches are informed that monitoring and decontamination services are 1

o available at the Beverly Reception Center. In the determination of the summer evacuee load for the Beverly Reception Center, it was assumed that 50 percent of the transient beach population were day-trippers (NHRERP, Vol. 6, I l

page 2-12). This value was then subtracted from the summer peak population because if the day trippers live in the EPZ, they were already accounted for and if they live outside the EPZ their evacuation destination would be outside the EPZ.  !

This also holds true for individuals who work in the EPZ or 5, individuals traveling through the EPZ at the time of the evacuation order.

The determination of the summer evacuee load for the Beverly Reception Center also accounted for persons in l vehicles traveling on the roads in the beach areas. The  !

total number of " vehicles in transit" for Salisbury, Newburyport and Newbury is 245 (Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 16, Evacuation Time Estimates). Using 2.4 persons per vehicle as the occupancy rate (NHRERP, Vol. 6 at page 2-12), the 245 vehicles would carry a total of 588 persons. As was done for the transient beach population, it was assumed that 50 percent of these people were day-trippers. Therefore, 294 additional people were added to the value for the peak summer population in the calculation of the Beverly evacuee load. )

I u

.t.

The mathematical model used for determining the. total; avacuee load is:

1' Total Evacuee Load = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP + VP]'+

, TD + S + DC + SF, where:

RP = the resident population (or peak summer.

population)-of the Massachusetts communities assigned to the Reception Centers, TD = the transit-dependent population, l S = the school population (not considered for-calculation of summer total evacuee load),

DC-= the day care population, SF = the special facility, special needsland hospital populations ("In-Vehicle" Load),

BP = 50 percent of the transient beach population

= 10,121 persons. (Applies only to Beverly Reception Center for calculation of summer total evacuee load), and VP = 50 percent of the vehicle-in-transit population = 294 persons. (Applies only to Beverly Reception Center for calculation of summer total evacuee load.).

Using this formula, the largest total evacuee loads for the Beverly and North Andover Reception Centers are expected to occur during the off-season months and are 12,830 and 9,793 persons, respectively. The planning for staffing, facility size and amount of equipment for both Reception Centers is based on the Beverly evacuee load, which is the larger of the two values. Based on the population figures given in SPMC, Table 1.3-1, the combined capacity of the i

i

.__A.__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6.

Reception Centers can provide monitoring for.approximately 30% of the summer' population and.approximately-50% of the resident populati'on in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ in a 1$2-hour period. .

The Monitoring Trailer load is defined as the anticipated number of evacuees passing through the Monitoring Trailer (i.e., general public evacuees, transit-dependent general public evacuees, school and day care populations).

The numbers for special facility, special needs and hospital populations are not included in the determination of the evacuee load for the Monitoring Trailer because these population groups are monitored in their vehicles (SPMC, IP. 2.9, Step 5.4.4). Thus, Monitoring Trailer Load = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP + VP] +

TD + S + DC, and "In-Vehicle" Load = SF,.

where the terms RP, TD, S, DC, SF, BP and VP are as defined previously.

A summary of the evacuee loads for each Reception Center is as follows:

Beverly N. Andover Off-Season Summer Off-Season Summer Monitoring Trailer 10,712 9,360 8,698 6,981 Load "In-Vehicle" Load 2.118 2.118 1.095 1.095 Total Evacuee 12,830 11,478 9,793 8,076 Load

1

2) Evaluation of Monitoring Stations in Trailers The Monitoring Trailer load for Beverly, 10,712, was used to establish the required number of monitoring locations  !

in each trailer. Assuming a 70-second monitoring time, which is comprised of a 60-second frisk plus 10 seconds for the individuals to step up to and away from the monitoring ,

l location, 51 persons per hour can be monitored at each location yielding a total of 612 individuals per monitoring location over a 12-hour period. See Section B.1, infra, for a detailed description of personnel monitoring rate. The Monitoring Trailer load of 10,712 evacuees divided by 612 evacuees / monitoring location equals 17.5 locations or, rounding up, 18 locations. This number of monitoring locations at each Reception Center would ensure that the anticipated number of evacuees are monitored in approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Currently, the SPMC provides 14 locations in each Monitoring Trailer. However, four additional locations and i

associated personnel and equipment will be added at each i Reception Center. i

3) Anticipated Number of Private Vehicles, School Buses And Vehicles From Special '

l Facilities The number of evacuees arriving at the Reception Centers in private vehicles was determined using the same formula as i

j l

I'

\ .

used for total evacuee load. However, the population segments transported by bus or special vehicle were not added after 20% of the resident population was-taken, and the 1

' 1 school population was assumed to be zero (i.e., S = 0).for , l i

the summer months since schools are not in session. In I addition, the anticipated number of day care evacuees j arriving at the Beverly Reception Center during summer months )1 was assumed to be zero (i.e., DC = 0) because the . total peak summer population for the EPZ communities served by this facility occurs on the weekend when day cares are assumed not to be in session. The formula used for this calculation is:

Anticipated Number of Evacuees Arriving in Private Vehicles = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP +

VP]

.A summary of the anticipated number of evacuees arriving in private. vehicles for each Reception Center is as follows:

Number of Evacuses ,

Arrivina in Private Vehicles j Off-Season Summer  :

Beverly 4,074 8,606 l

North Andover 3,099 5,498 l The anticipated private vehicle loads for each Reception Center (summarized below) were obtained by dividing the numbers for evacuees arriving in privato vehicles by vehicle i occupancies of 2.6 persons per vehicle for the resident

)

'e

a f

e

. population (NHRERP, Vol. 6 at page'2-5) and 2.4' persons per vehicle for transient populations.

Ntimber of Private Vehicles Off-Seasen Summer .

Beverly 1,570 3,377 North Andover 1,193 2,115 The anticipated numbers of school buses and vehicles from special facilities (e.g., wheelchair vans, ambulances, passenger vans, evacuation bed buses) were obtained from Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 6 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations). For Beverly, which serves the larger number of these vehicles, the number of school buses is 127 and the number of vehicles from special facilities is 205. The 205 vehicles from special facilities would carry a total of 2,118 evacuees who are to be monitored in their vehicles.

The monitoring time for each private vehicle, wheelchair van, ambulance and passenger van was assumed to be one minute l

while that for buses was assumed to be two minutes, and the .

f monitoring time for each passenger on a vehicle was assumed f 1

to be 70 seconds. The latter consists of a 60-second frisk 4

and 10 seconds for the Monitoring / Decontamination person to move from one passenger to the next. The Monitoring /

i Decontamination person monitors each passenger on special  !

l l

l

.O

'b facility vehicles by placing the. emphasis of the scan on  ;

head, _ shoulders, hands and feet (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.4.4).

l The one-minute time for private vehicles, wheelchair i vans, ambulances and passenger vans is adequate to' meet'the-procedural requirement for the vehicle to' drive up to the I

monitoring area and to monitor the vehicle's front grill area-and door handles of private vehicles (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.6.2). The two-minute monitoring time is estimated to be' adequate to meet the procedural requirement to conduct gross contamination surveys on the front grill and back of buses and on seats, floor and entryways of buses (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.6.2). i The number of monitoring personnel required to meet the i monitoring need for vehicles and special facility evacuees was determined from the sum of anticipated private vehicles, f

wheelchair vans, ambulances, and passenger vans divided by 720 (which is the number of vehicles that can be fris):ed by  !

one monitor during a 12-hour period based on a 60-second monitoring time) plus the sum of buses from special j facilities and schools divided by 360 (which is the number of l  ;

I buses that can be frisked by one monitor during a 12-hour j period based on a two-minute monitoring time) plus the sum of special facility evacuees divided by 612 (which is the number of evacuees that can be frisked by one monitor during a 12- l hour period based on a 70-second monitoring time). This

I s i I

calculation was performed using the numbers associated with )

the Beverly Reception Center for off-season and summer months. The results indicate that 6.4 monitors are needed during the.off-season months and 8.5 monitors are needed

., during the summer months.

Currently, the SPMC provides thirteen Monitoring /

Decontamination Personnel to perform emergency-related activities outside the Monitoring Trailers. Eight of these personnel are assigned specifically to monitor private vehicles, buses, school buses and vehicles from special facilities (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9.B). This distribution i

of personnel provides adequate coverage for these activities I during the off-season months. The SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9, will be revised to include a statement indicating that Monitoring / Decontamination Leader may reassign personnel to assure adequate coverage for monitoring activities as needs arise.

4) Evacuee Registration l

All general public evacuees (except special populations) are registered at the entrance of the Monitoring Trailer j (SPMC, IP 3.5, Step 5.2.7.G). Multiple copies of the l Monitoring Trailer Registration Form (SPMC, IP 3.5, c 1

Attachment 12) are provided by Reception Center staff for  !

evacuees to register themselves. The information obtained l

' i

from evacuees at this particular registration point is name and address.

Registration of special needs populations and school and day care populations is achieved through resters of the i

passengers in special vehicles and school buses (SPMC, IP 2.9, Steps 5.4.4 and 5.4.5, and IP 3.5, Step 5.2.7.D).

b. Physical Description of the Monitoring Trailers The outside of the trailers used for monitoring of evacuees measure approximately 45 feet in length, 8 feet in width, and 13 feet in height. The inner dimensions of the trailers are approximately 44 feet 3 inches in length, 7 feet 8 inches in width, and 8 feet 7 inches in height. The ,

l layouts of the Monitoring Trailers are provided in the SPMC j l

as Figures 5.2-9 and 5.1.10 and Attachments 2, 3, and 4 of IP l

)

3.4. Each trailer is equipped with exterior hook-ups for j water and power.

I The monitoring area in these trailers is approximately )

i 34.5 feet long and provides 14 monitoring locations. There are two monitoring locations at each of the seven frisking l stations, thus allowing 14 persons to be monitored simultaneously. A frisking station consists of a platform, which supports two Bicron Frisk-Tech meters and Aptec probes, permanently mounted on a waist-high railing. The railings of the frisking stations are approximately 2 feet long and

o establish monitoring lanes. Two individuals can be monitored simultaneously at each frisking station by standing to the left and right of the railing. The distance between the railings of two frisking stations is approximately 53 inches.

Climate control in the trailers is achieved through the use of an air conditioner and three thermostat-controlled overhead quartz heaters. Lighting is provided by twelve overhead fluorescent light fixtures.

The Monitoring Trailers are in position at the Reception Centers, which eliminates the necessity to dispatch them in the event of an emergency. The trailers are simply unlocked and set up by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY ORO) personnel at a SITE AREA EMERGENCY (SPMC, IP 3.4). The " pre-positioning" of the Monitoring Trailers and its associated equipment at the Reception Centers is a planning philosophy incorporated into the SPMC.

Therefore, in an actual emergency, the Reception Centers and Monitoring Trailers will be activated in a timely fashion as demonstrated during the Exercise (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, page 235 of 428).

As stated previously, four additional monitoring locations will be added to each Reception Center to bring the total number of locations to 18. The design of these additional locations will be similar to the ones presently in the Monitoring Trailers, but will be contained in a separate

1 1

trailer. The trailer will be limited solely to monitoring 1

activities and will have comparable lighting and climate control features to those in the larger Monitoring Trailers. I

c. Equipment Used at Monitoring Trailers SPHC, Appendix I, shows the typical numbers and types of equipment available to the NHY ORO during an emergency. The numbers of radiation detection instruments and quantities of supplies are sufficient to support the monitoring activities in accordance with SPMC, IP 2.9. The numbers of radiation detection instruments will be increased appropriately to meet the requirements of four additional monitoring locations at each Reception Center.

NHY has developed a policy of having surplus radiation detection instruments used for monitoring at the trailers to allow expansion of monitoring capabilities. This surplus equipment is in the process of being procured and deployed and Appendix I will be revised to reflect the additional equipment.

The primary radiation detection instrument used in the SPMC for monitoring evacuees and emergency workers is the Bicron Frisk-Tech meter with an Aptec FT-126B probe (SPMC, Section 3.5.3). This combination of equipment couples a count rate meter with a range of 0 to 500,000 counts per minute (cpm) with a large area (126cm 2) probe.

i 6

l L

o L

There ,re 26 Bicron neters with Aptec probes (not including apare instruments) available at each Monitoring Trailer (SPMC, Appendix I), which is the number required to i  !

l perform vehicle and personnel monitoring activities at the Monitoring Trailers in accordance with SPMC, IP 2.9.

2. Emergency Worker Facility l

The SPMC provisions for the setup and operation of the Emergency Worker Facility (EWF) are described in detail in implementing procedures IP 2.9 and IP 3.3.

a. Design Basis The EWF was designed to accommodate NHY ORO field personnel returning to the EWF for monitoring upon the completion of a full evacuation of the six Massachusetts j communities. NHY ORO field personnel returning to the EWF on a single shift are Field Monitoring Team members, Sample Collection Team members, Dosimetry Recordkeepers, Road Crew I

members, Transfer Point Dispatchers, Special Vehicle Drivers, Route Guides, Traffic Guides, VANS Operators and Local Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Liaisons. j The assumed monitoring time for emergency workers is the same as that for the general public evacuees, 70 seconds.

This rate allows the monitoring of 51 emergency workers per hour per monitoring location. Thus, an overall total of 306 )

l emergency workers can be monitored per hour at the EWF (51 l emergency workers per hour per location x 6 locations = 306

L .;

. .i >

.n-emergency workers per hour) . However, there is no' required time frame for the completion of emergency worker monitoring H or decontamination. This capacity also allows for the monito' ring and decontamination of State or local personnel..

b. Physical' Description of the Emergency Worker Facility The EWF has the same outer dimensions, interior area, air conditioning and overhead lighting and heaters as the-Monitoring Trailers. However, the interior layout is different in that there are three frisking stations (SPMC,

~Section 5.2.3, Figure 5.2-10 and IP 3.3), which allow six emergency workers to be monitored simultaneously. The decontamination area of the EWF is equipped with two showers,.

each with its own privacy booth, two double stainless-steel sinks, counter space, and storage cabinets for decontamination supplies.  ;

i

The resources available in the SPMC are sufficient to j 1

implement emergency response efforts for the entire l

Massachusetts portion of the EPZ without reentry of emergency i workers (other than field monitoring and sample collection  !

teams) or reuse cf their equipment once outside the EPZ. i i

This planning approach eliminates the need to plan for f

extensive capability for decontamination of emergency worker equipment, vehicles, and supplies during the initial response phase of an emergency.

i l

l

_____________. _ _ i

1 The EWF will be in position at the Staging Area, which. q l

eliminates the necessity to dispatch it in the event of an j

{

emergency. The trailer is simply unlocked and used by the NHY Offsite Responce' Organization personnel at a SITE AREA l!

EMERGENCY (SPMC, IP 3.3).

c. Equipment Used at the Emergency Worker Facility The primary radiation detection instrument used at the l EWF to monitor emergency workers is the Bicron Frisk-Tech meter with an Aptec FT-126B probe (SPMC, Section 3.5.2).

There are 12 Bicron meters with Aptec probes (not including spares) at the EWF (SPMC, Appendix I).

Emergency workers who are found contaminated at the monitoring stations will be re-monitored with the RM-14 meter and HP-210 probe in the decontamination area of the EWF. The EWF'has two RM-14 meters and four HP-210 probes on hand for monitoring and decontamination activities (SPMC, - Appendix I) .

This combination of equipment couples a count rate meter with a range of 0 to 50,000 cpm with a 15.5 cm2 probe.

The decontamination supplies at the EWF consist of mild hand soaps, wipes, shampoo, waterless hand cleaner, tape, paper clothing, sponges, towels, cotton swabs, gloves, foam cleanser, cotton glove liners, disposable shoe covers, plastic bags for waste material, and cotton overalls (SPMC, )

Section 3.5.2, IP 2.9 at Step 5.5 and Appendix I).  !

I n______._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _

3. Staffing

a. Monitoring Trailers Each Monitoring Trailer for the Reception Centers is staffed with a Monitoring / Decontamination Leader and 30 -

l l

Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel (SPMC, Figure 2.1-1). l The Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel number will be i

increased by 8, to allow staffing of the four monitoring I

stations to be added to each Reception Center plus additional l personnel for rotation (see supra Section A.1.a.2 and infra Section B.1). j The Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders and Dosimetry  !

Recordkeepers are notified at the ALERT classification and report to the Staging Area (SPMC, Section 2.1 and Table 3.2-1). Upon the declaration of a SITE AREA EMERGENCY, the Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders along with Dositetry Recordkeepers proceed to their assigned trailer.

Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel are notified at a SITE AREA EMERGENCY and report directly to their assigned trailer (SPMC, Section 2.1 and Table 3.2-1).

The Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders are responsible for the overall operation of the Monitoring Trailers and for keeping the Radiological Health Advisor at the NHY EOC l apprised of the activities at the trailers (SPMC, IP 2.9).

Tha Monitoring / Decontamination Leader is assisted by two Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel who are assigned to act

as lead individuals, one overseeing activities inside the trailer and the other overseeing activities outside the trailers (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step 5.2.9).

The following table details the personnel assignments f

made by the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9): l Number of l Location Assianment Personnel Assioned l Inside Trailer Trailer Lead 1 Evacuee Monitoring 14* l Evacuee Decontamination 2 i Outside Trailer Lea & 1  ;

Automobile Monitoring 4 Special vehicle / School ,

Bus Monitoring 4 l Vehicle / Article l Decontamination 4 i

(* This number will increase to 22 to include the 4 additional personnel described in Section A.1.a.2 supra and the 4. additional personnel described in Section B.1 infra.)

b. Emergency Worker Facility The EWF is staffed with a Monitoring / Decontamination Leader ':7d 13 Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel (SPMC, Figure 2.1-1). The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader is l

responsible for the overall operation of the EWF and for keeping the Radiological Health Advisor at the NHY EOC apprised of the activities at the EWF (SPMC, IP 2.9). The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader assigns 8 Monitoring /

Decontamination Personnel to activities inside the EWF (one

4....

J per monitoring station and two at the decontamination area), 1 and 5Lpersonnel to monitor and decontaminate returning

~

I vehicles (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step 5.3.7)..

B '. Radiation Monitoring Process

1. General Public The monitoring process involves evacuees stepping up to a station inside the Monitoring Trailer where they are scanned by NHY ORO personnel using the Bicron meter and Aptec probe previously described. The monitoring process itself entails a frisking which focuses on the areas of the body that are most likely to be contaminated'such as head, face, shoulders, buttocks, hands and feet. The process starts with a frisk of the individual's head, face and shoulders, followed by a scan of the remaining front of the body from top to bottom using a single sweep. The individual is asked to turn in place for a similar frisking of the back of the body. (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.4.3) This type of personnel survey takes about 1 minute to complete.

The 1-minute monitoring time is achievable because of i

the radiation detection instrument selected for use in the l I

SPMC. The large area of the Aptec probe allows movement of l

the probe at a faster rate while still retaining a detection efficiency equal to a standard pancake probe moved at a slower rate. The performance of the Aptec probe was evaluated in tests conducted by the NHY Health Physics

____$-_-._-____._-----___ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . . - - . . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - . _ - _ _ . - - _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ - _.-----_a

1 4

Department under the direct observation of Dr. Joseph Ring of Harvard University Radiation Protection Office. A memorandum- j 1

from S. L. Dodge to P. J. Stroup regarding these tests is l I

Attachment A hereto. Dr. Ring provided a review of the data, j which is included in Attachment A. The tests indicated that the performance of the Aptec probe, even at a frisking rate three times the standard frisking rate of 2 inches per i second, exceeds the performance of the HP-210 pancake probe at 2 inches per second.

The actual monitoring rate experienced during the Exercise was compared to the planning basis monitoring time.

Two 20-minute tests employing 5 monitoring locations (D2t 7 as asserted by Interveners) were conducted at each Monitoring j Trailer to demonstrate the monitoring process for evacuees. I A description of the tests was included in the FEMA-approved l

extent of play section of the Exercise Scenario (Applicants' Exhibit 61), Attachment B hereto. The average monitoring rate was 54.7 evacuees per hour per monitoring location, which compares favorably with the 51 evacuees per hour per monitoring location used as a planning basis. Moreover, during the Exercise some of the mock evacuees who passed through the trailers had hidden radioactive sources (i.e.,

Coleman lantern mantles). Seventy-eight out of seventy-nine sources were found during the monitoring process (ORO

• i Reception Center Monitoring Record Sheets, Exercise Test Results For Beverly and North Andover, Attachment C hereto).

The evacuee flow path for the Monitoring Trailers is shown 'in Attachment 4 of IP 3.4. The lead Monitoring /

Decontamination person in the trailer holds evacuees at the trailer's entrance when all 14 monitoring locations are occupied. ' Evacuees awaiting monitoring are directed to monitoring locations as the locations become available.

Evacuees are able to walk from the trailer's entrance to any monitoring location within the 5 seconds allocated for this action. In the event that contamination is found on an evacuee at a monitoring location, the lead Monitoring /

Decontamination person holds incoming evacuees at the trailer's entrance. Therefore, a contaminated evacuee has an unobstructed path to the trailer's decontamination area and there is little chance of cross-contaminating evacuees waiting to be monitored.

The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader establishes a rotation of staff to ensure that Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel assigned to monitor evacuees inside the trailer receive a 10-minute break after fifty minutes of monitoring (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9). Initially, this was to be accomplished through the use of excess personnel outside the trailer. However, because the four monitoring locations which are to be added to each trailer place new demands on

l I

l personnel available to establish a rotation, four personnel (in excess of the four to staff the additional monitoring locations) will be assigned to each trailer to ensure that

~

the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader can establish a rotation without compromising activities outside the trailer.

The monitoring process for evacuees will not be significantly delayed by personnel breaks, dosimetry checks or decontaminating a monitoring location as asserted by Interveners. Additional staff will be available to establish a rotation for Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel assigned to monitoring locations inside the trailer. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shut down a monitoring location as assumed by Interveners, or to subtract the time for a 10-minute break from the time available for monitoring evacuees as done by Interveners in their calculations.

The personal dosimeters (i.e., direct reading pocket dosimeters) used by Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel can be read within the time allowed for evacuees to walk up to or away from a monitoring location. Therefore no additional time need be allocated for dosimetry checks.

Contrary to Interveners' testimony, it is not necessary to allocate time for Monitoring / Decontamination staff assigned to monitoring locations in the trailers to perform self monitoring. " Controlled" and "noncontrolled" areas are identified for the monitoring areas of the trailers (SPMC,

._._________1_._ _ _ - . _

IP 3.4, Attachment 2.). Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel stand in the "noncontrolled" area facing evacuees at the monitoring locations, which are part of the " controlled" area. Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel are not in -

physical contact with evacuees in the " controlled" area.

Therefore, they are unlikely to become contaminated while performing monitoring. Moreover, only clean evacuees are allowed to step into the "noncontrolled" area and so, if by chance they brush against Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel, there will not be a transfer of contamination.

It is also not necessary to allocate time for Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel to hand out clean tags (SPMC, IP 7.9, Step 5.4.3 and Attachment 3) as asserted by Interveners. The clean tags can be handed to evacuees during the time allocated for them to walk away from the monitoring station.

The use of the 1 minute per hour time estimate provided by Interveners to decontaminate a monitoring location still leaves 59 minutes of each hour as effective monitoring time 1

at each monitoring location. This leads to an effective I monitoring rate at each location of 50.6 person per hour per i

location which, when rounded, equals the SPMC planning basis  !

of 51 persons per hour per monitoring location.

70 seconds per person for 59 minutes per hour = 50.6 persons per hour.

l

I

.y .

i I

i Additionally, adding 3 seconds to the monitoring time for the monitoring of personal items such as purses, as suggested by Interveners, still allows the monitoring of 20%

of the Massachusetts population inside.the EPZ "within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" (NUREG-0654, J.12 at page 65).

73-seconds per person for 59 minutes per hour =

48.5 persons per hour.

This 48.5 persons per hour yields an overall monitoring rate of 873 persons per hour based on 18 monitoring locations.

Applying this overall hourly rate to tha anticipated numbers of evacuees expected at the Beverly and North Andover trailers (see Section A.1.a(i) supra) yields total monitoring times of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 10 minutes and 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> 55 minutes, respectively.

Beverly: 10,611 persons - 873 persons per hour = 12.16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> (or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 10 min 0tes)

North Andover: 8,655 persons - 873 persons per hour = 9.91 hours0.00105 days <br />0.0253 hours <br />1.50463e-4 weeks <br />3.46255e-5 months <br /> (or 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> 55 minutes).

l The adequacy of the monitoring process for evacuees was l_ evaluated by FEMA during the Exercise. FEMA concluded that "the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization demonstrated adequate procedures, facilities, and equipment for registration, radiological monitoring, and

! decontamination of evacuees." (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, page 235 of 428.)

Io

2. Emergency Workers The monitoring process for emergency workers is the same as that described for the general public described in Section D.1, supra.

Emergency workers returning to the EWF are monitored for external contamination with the Aptec FT-126D probe and E i Bicron meter. Emergency workers who are found contaminated at the monitoring locations are remonitored with the RM-14 meter and HP-210 probe-in.the decontamination area of the EWF and the contamination is removed by one of several methods.

Wipes and weshing with mild soap and water are used if the extent of contamination is limited to a localized area of the body _(SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.5.5). If the contamination is limited to outer clothing, the individual is instructed to remove the clothing and is provided temporary paper clothing (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.5.4). Showering is used only if the easier, less disruptive decontamination methods fail.

Decontamination supplies at the EWF consist of mild hand soaps, wipes, shampoo, waterless hand cleaner, tape, paper clothing, sponges, towels, cotton swabs and plastic bags for waste material. (SPMC, Appendix I, and IP 2.9 at Step 5.5).

Monitoring / Decontamination personnel at the EWF have gloves, cotton glove liners, disposable shoe covers and cotton coveralls for use in decontamination activities (SPMC, Appendix I).

The SPMC makes provisions to enter emergency workers who cannot be decontaminated below acceptable limits in a Radiological Screening Program which will provide additional i services such as whole body or thyroid counts, bioassays and a

follow-up monitoring to these individuals (SPMC at page 3.5-6). The Radiological Screening Program provides services similar to those provided by the Radiological Screening Program used by the State of New Hampshire in the NHRERP.

The processing of emergency workers through the EWF was evaluated by FEMA during the Exercise. FEMA concluded that the NHY ORO demonstrated adequate facilities, equipment, supplies, procedures and personnel for monitoring emergency workers (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, at page 240 of 428).

3. Special Needs Evacuees Evacuees from special facilities are monitored in their vehicles. NHY ORO Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel place the emphasis of a 1-minute scan on head, shoulders, hands and j feet (SPMC, IP 1.9 at Step 5.4.4). If contamination is found )

on special needs evacuees, decontamination is performed in j i

the special vehicle by Monitoring / Decontamination personnel l under the direction of: the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader j at the Reception Center. (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step 5.4.4.)

If a determination is made that a special needs evacuee may require decontamination which cannot be performed by the

I Monitoring / Decontamination personnel at the Reception Center facilities, they would be diverted to an MS-1 Hospital for l further processing (SPMC, IP 2.9, Section 5.4.4, and

~

I Attachment 1).

Those individuals evacuated from hospitals or other special facilities by ambulance are transported directly to an MS-1 Hospital (Section 3.2.1.C) where monitoring, and 1

decontamination if necessary, is performed by trained hospital personnel. These special facility evacuees either remain at the MS-1 Hospital or are then transported to a host hospital or facility.  !

i i

1 I

e

. ATTACHMENT A (Memorandum From S.L. Dodge to P.J. Stroup, April 6, 1988,.re Test Evaluating the Performance of the Aptec Probe Conducted by the NHY Health Physics Department, and Attachments Thereto) 4

_____.._A_______________._.._.__._.._

. ;.. 2. -;. Attachm g g g ago 1 of 24)

I.MS V.02.06.04 niii.,

'y (

New Hampshire Yankee Divi ion INTRA COMPANY BUSINESS MEMO Pubse service et New HomrnNro Subject APIEC IT126 PROBE PERFOPENCE From s, L, pedge District ,, Date April 6,1988 To P. J. Stroup Reference .

Tests were conducted to establish the effectiveness of using the Aptec i ET126 large area G-M detector with the Bicron Frisk-Tech ratereter as the principle contamination nonitoring equipment at the Reception Centers ,

associated with the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Camunities. I These terts, conducred under direct observation by Dr. Joseph Ring of the Harvard University Radiation Protection Office, clearly indicate that this monitoring equipcent exmeds the performance of the HP-210 pancake probe even at three times the " standard" frisking rate of two (2) inches per second. )

Attachment (1) is the test procedura developed for and used in the evaluation. Attachment (2) includes a surmary of the observed data and the individual data sheets for edch test conducted. Attachment (3) is an independent review of the test process and data provided by Dr. Joseph Ring.

The use of a sixty (60) second per person frisking pace is satisfactory and may be conservative.

Please contact ce with any questions.

S. L. Dodge 1 Health Physics Supervisor l

SLD:lsp i

- \

cc: R. Sherwin '

T. Cotter i H. M. Hawkins "

J.A.M W ld ,

J. J. Rafalowski E. L. Darois .

W. B. Island D. E. Moody R. M. Thurlow 1

_. 2 9 <

1 l..;'...: ./ Attachm%nt A (Pags 2 of 24) l 1

i I "

I

.1 l

ATTAONENT (1)

TEST PROCEDURE NWEE TESTDC OF GM PROBES AT VARICUS FRISKDG RATES O

W e

O M

e W

M e

r.

1 ; , ' . ' . . ). : ' . . l'

'Attachmsnt A (Pags 3 of.24)

,7

-Title Perfercance Testino of G4 Probes at Various'Friskino Rates

-- Originator R. M. 'Ihurlow Health Physics Review:

Title Signature Date Hf $2sasw< en -Yd,

<1 f EVS 0

Yea l0kl-riEr$w.. - i Ye g

Y *E~f$

Independent Paview:

Title Signature Date rOr NJ Y:.L/ _

7/f//f u

~ e xwst-4 ( /

e Im N

e 0

i

l J .. '

., Attachment A (Pagn 4 of 24)

Page 1 of 5 1.0 Obiective To ccupare. the response of the Aptec FT-126 frisker probe used with the Bicron Frisk-Tech A769K count rate meter to that of the Eberline HP-210 frisker probe used with the Eberline RM-14 count rate neter at various frisking rates.

2.0 References 2.1 Aptec 126 Probe Efficiency and LLD Analysis '

)

DiSt V02.06.01 NHY Menorandem SSI 41180 7-27-87. l 2.2 ' HP-210 Efficiency Determination IMSI V02.06.04 m Menorandem SSI 44130 4-1-88.

2.3 Aptec.!T126BH Effeciency Determination IMSI V02.06.04 NHY Memorandcm SSI 42344 11-5-88.

2.4 " Guidelines For Radiological Protection at Nuclear Pcwer Stations",

INPO Guidelines 185-004, February 1988.

2.5 Registration and Radiological Manitoring of pacuees (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, J.12).

2.6 Procedure HD0963.31 Calibration of the Eerline RM-14 and RM-20 Radiation bbnitors.

2.7 Procedure HD0963.32 Efficiency Determination of Pancake Geiger Mueller Tubes.

2.8 Procedure HD0963.10 Calibration of the Bicron Frisk-Tech Ratemeter.

2.9 Procedure IP 2.9 Radiological Manitoring/ Decontamination.

t 2.10 Record of telephone conversation dated March 21, 1988 between Guy Taibi representing NHY and Richard Donovan of FEMk.

2.11 Certificate of Radioactivity Calibration Odorine-36, NHY Source Ntznber E-81-2.

3.0 Discussion Gn W w found in Reference 2.4 indicates that a stIndard frisk for per-sonnel contamination should be perfogued using a nane =% GM detector and a count rate neter at a frisk rate of less than 2 inches p.r namari, or, an equivalently sensitive technique. Reference 2.10 acknowledges that the 1.75" diameter pancake GM detector is the accepted device which i applies to the rate of 2 inches per second. The test described in this procedure is used to naasure rate specific efficiencies. 'Ihe purpose of this test is to determine the frisk rate at which the larger GM probe will have a eqaivalent sensitivity (i.e. similar efficiency ) as the smaller GM probe, at a frisk rate of 2 inches per second. 'Ihe addi-tional difference between the two systems is the response time of the scalers (RM-14 versus Frisk-Tech). For nornal use the b l4 is used in the " slow" response node which corresponds to a response time of 20 seconds. Reference

_____ m __

2.9 specifies m m _.

the use of the Bicron

.m .e e m m_mo__

Frisk-hch at aa m

m

, ,., .l Attachmsnt A (Paga 5.of'24)

Page 2 of~5 4.0 ,

Acceotance Criteria ,

N/A 5.0 Precautions N/A 1

,6.0 -Prerequisites To perfom this test procedure the following equiperent is required and i must be calibrated in accordance to NRY procedures.

System 1 Eberline HP-210 Flat Gi probe and a Eberline RM-14 ratameter System 2 Aptec FT-126 Flat Gi Probe and a Bicron Frisk-Tech A769K ratemeter Source Cl-36 (Reference 2.11) 7.0 Initial Ccnditiens The above e:;uipment is calibrated in accordance with applicable MfY pro-cedures (References 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8).

8.0 Procedure 8.1 Frisk Pate Centrol 8.1.1 Attach tape Irarked in 2 inch increments across the testing area.

8.1.2 Use a variable audible timing device to establish an incremental sound such that for each " click" the probe is moved past one-mark on the tape at the desired frisk rate.

For example: To nove the probe consistently at 2 inches per second the variable timing device w:mid be set to click once per second and the probe would cross a nark en the tape each click. -

8.1.3 The person noving the probe.should ret be able to see or hear  ;

the frisker being tested. -

j 8.1.4 Another garson should verify the frisk rate by observing the notion and timing, it with a stop watch.

l 8.2 Measurements 8.2.1 Attach spacers to the probes such that the distance frca the source to the probe housing is the sane for the HP210 and the Aptec FT126 and the detector surfaces are not shielded.

53.2.2 Set the RM-14 response switch to slow (i.e., normal use position). i

- - - - - - l

p

'Attcchm3nt A (Pags 6'of 24)

Page 3 of 5~

(~

8.2.3 Record the detector nedel and serial number on the data sheet.

1 8.2.4- Once stable, cbserve and record _the background count rate.

Repeat this process to collect ten background nuasurements.

8.2.5 Place the test sources face up on the table'.

8.2.6 Pass the detector over thlt source at the desired testing rate.

8.2.7 Observe and record the peak count rate.

8.2.8 Repeat steps 8.2.6-8.2.7 nine nere times.

8.2.9 Set the Frisk-Tech response at 1/4 turn to left frcm fast. - This is approximately a 7 second response . time.

8.2.10 Perform steps 8.2.3 to 8.2.8 for frisking rates of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 inches per second.

8.3 Calculations

'8.3.1 Calculate the Average Peak Net Count Rate using: q Average Peak Net Count Rate = (Average Peak Gross Count Rate -

Average Background Count Rate).

8.3.2 Calculate the rate-specific efficiency for each Data Sheet using: .

Rate Specific efficiency = Averace Peak Net Count Pate Source Activity (dpm) 8.3.3 Record these values on the data sumary sheet.

8.3.4 The traximum frisk rate for the'large area Aptec probe is the I highest rate a* which the average rate specific efficiency is j greater than the average rate specific efficiency of the HP-210

• at 2 inches per second.

9.0 Final Conditions . ..

- o N/A

. 10.0 Figures k N/A .

11.0 Forms Test Data Form Data Sumary Sheet i

_ _ _ ___ _ ___ A__

r ::- ,

b Attechm:nt A (Paga'7.'of'24) )

Pige 4 of 5

.. 1 TEST DATA FORM

-i Detector Model 1 i

Serial Number Backcround (CPM)

-1

{

1 Frisker Pate (inches /sec)

Response Settings Trial Peak Gross Count Rate  !

CPM .

-l

{

i

~

Analysis: -

O e

O S

e e Performed by:

'I

_ - . . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __-_-_______----___-_-__-______a

'l Attachannt A (Paga 8 of 24) )

Page 5 ct 5 '

Sumary Data Sheet a

1.0 HP210/RM-14 Evaluation Frisk Rate Gross Count Rate Net Count Rate Counting Efficiency (in/sec) i 1SD (cyn)- i1SD (cpn) c/d

. I 1

i I

2.0 AFTEC/Frisktech Evaluation Frisk Rate Gross Count Rate Net Count Rate Countina Efficiency~

(in/sec) i 1SD (cpm)- i 1SD (cpm) c/d 1

)

3.0 Conclusion f j l  %

2in/sec (HP210/RM-14) = -

in/sec (APIEC/BICRON)

Prepared by:

Reviewed tri:

j L-___.----_-________-___-______--______---__________ _ __ _. ._

E-Attachment A-(Pags 9 of 24) 4 I,

4 t

S 4

i 4

l ATTACHMENT (2) I PERFORMANCE TESTI!G OF GM PROEES '

AT VARIOUS FRISKDG RATES DATA SUfEARY A!O TEST DATA S'EETS r

i O

=

4* M i

(

I

• Attachmsnt A

( s g 10 of 24) l l

Sumrary Data Sheet f./cyf/

l 1

1.0 HP210/RM-14 Evaluation

, Frisk Rate Gross Count Fate Net Count Rate Counting Efficiency (in/sec) i 15D (cpm) i 1SD (cpm) ,

c/d A /d90 [ //O j.gi;; c si0,if , g,y ,

E fICL 63 '7s2263.7 .0/70 V /,25 C 52' S21 = 57.7 -0/ W }.

[ 3/f227 A47 tA2.5 .00f0

(:7 282LA8 2 4 0 t 2 7. y .60541 l

2.0 APT!r/Frisktech Evaluation Frisk Rate Gross Count Rate Net Count Rate Counting Efficiency (in/sec) i 150 (cpm) i 1SD (cpm) c/d 2 3700 t 22l 3 YG't 233 ,07ga E

A760 C 349 A b/C.t37f. , OS 92 9 A % D t 2 CS" 2205t 2 d .0499

( A/80 2 /93 19172204 - <0430

& / 92 0 L 20'l /f 75t 2)l> . 0379 b.bf ) < 022/

3.0 Conclusion h 2in/sec (HP210/RM-14) = [.Ih in/sec (APTEC/BICRON)

(t)Th la c Mu Y

-s ,ad d me/pejgoatie$k Prepared by: .. I 8 {

Reviewed by: a e..  ;, i 6 -

- j

,. Attachm:nt A (Pcgn 11 of 24')

Page 4 of 4.

d TEST DATA FORM / / L. }

O j i

i Detector M: del  !< l ; / . . .c * . .

l 1

Serial Number s'. . ' <, 9.r*.5 t

u' 2.

• P.'& r Bac5cground(CPM) 4 / .' ? n '

t.* '

Frisker P. ate (inches /sec) e Ph Response Settings a m; ,

fg.'r.~.?(w'<

l Trial Peak Gross C, f,*,. . f . ; r. .

Count Rate CPM pA.J.G j l

/ 59 l

?

? O 1 en v 96 .

W e $

WA ', c 9').'

l T co i

, ye --,f: n. . D D. . :.h *seo -

=

.? r?)y i

/@

Analysis: -

/

/ .. .

Performed by: zu - . . - P '

,,_ - - .k%' - ~l. L-

p . _ - _ ______--- - _-- - - - - - -

4 -

L. . 1. ,- Attachmsnt ; A (Paga 12 of 24) l i?

2ag2 4 of 4 TEST DATA IDRM 2. - !4 Detector Hcdel  : J'. ' : . - ~)

i; i

Serial Number / ' et? > ..

' ' . * ' ? ' 9 M 3. 67,.;</ '

BMround(BPM) 4- >- # '7 . ."

Frisker Rate (inches /sec) 2 Response Settings >e 4/ w Trial s

Peak' Gross Count Rate CPM

/ /ve u

} 3 0 '.)

O l 1. ^ *.

</ . /3 o 4 d' /zec

/c ,-4 M

c,

,/ ** y y si J f . / L. : o i

7 , , h d h! //C. M / i so s2 c o Ana1yais: o voibf) ~ n' n f. Y/'4 r y- .

.r I

,.s . -/ .

Perfomed by: <

,-a -

.s. Reviewed bys A -

/ W@/ 8E

-l

. t 1

.c '.- c Attachannt A (Pags 13 of' 24)* l Page 4 of 4 i TEST DATA EDRM 3 . 4-c Detector Model h 9 J.l.: i / th tv J Serial Ember /WI4 ra. a > Js 4 c.o 1. 4 '/,w/ c/

Background (CPM) 'l f I 9. i 4 -

Friskar Rate (inches /sec) 1 Response Settings 'u : s /r. w

~

Trial Peak Gross Count Rate -j CPM I

I ICL i i

1 $o u 3 70 c.

t/ fc o  !

T *H *

• 6 '?. c. u W,

• VI f.c.- .

o

'& 90 o q t3s M D. Nu' c, x . rru y '

l

/= 900 I i

O e . _ .

Perfomed by: I, ,

, 4 ', .,3Y

'^

h i W by v M-M'

\

L . _

j .. . . . .

' Attachment A (P:gs 14 of 24)'  :

Page 4'of 4 TEST DATA FORM 9 . -1 l

?

l j

1 Detector Po:lel +,*-:.-  : 7. . c 1

. l i

' l Serial Number /'m . / :- . r .~ "'.S+' Ef *:,

-; ./ /  !

4 e? f .i /::

Background'(CPM) ,

l: ' Friskar Rate (inches /sec) ** '

\ l l, 2asponse Settings , . * .* f 5 . v _

i Trial Peak Gross l

\

Count Rate '

CPM i 200 2 ?o o 1 (oe v ).s t.

[ ')s o i

6 pe o )

1

(

1 WA

• 0 G l'C oc l F 4oo 9 gn .ak4u)D ~'L i ( ? ?:'[

/O Tbo .

Analysis:

1

(

/$

Performed by: o , t, _ -

i Reviewed by:

-v

, . / .Ms Y $2P

.- Attachmsnt A (Pcgn 15 of 24)

Page 4 of 4

• d TEST DATA ICRM 'I 2 Detector M:xiel I4+ .)' -

L / 4. A

\

Serial Number ().H '~ c<<~#rTN c " \ b l''

l i

Background (dPM) 4i E9 t 1#

, -i Frisker Pate (inches /sec) b~

Pa v nse Settings /X s/s u Trial Peak Gross Count Pate CPM l lio 1 ~3 P =

~3 19c y 'l v o l

T 72.o.

G HOC

~1 7/c

. Ws

• c.

3ll1 P 1Yc q qyy s W D- -l A_. _Ih ',  % **} , 'f u ! .

jo 330 i i

Analysis:

M e

/ n/

~

Performedbjy.Jk P W)

Reviewdd$y W y/

i

'Attachasnt A (Paga'16:of 2'4) ..

1 l

Pag 4 of 4 1 i

M 0

~

TEST DATA EURM- L.

b l

q Detector Mxbl 14 P w e ' / d.N ' M l w ial Number e m->v n t. = ' 4 5'" c'd 3/*r/*' 1

.Bacliground(CPM) 98 A 4 l'I -

Frisker Rate (inches /sec)' 6 i Response Settings /x - /, w Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM i

I )I2 1 3eu t 3iC L/ le c T %t, e b l t, e

• l'" Wj d y g.y o

} 7ee 1 l 9 .z , e N D- D Ys ' n , $cr i

/C %3C 1

- 1 Analysis:

l

~

i I

1

/ ':

Performed by: m,[ . '

j Reviewed byshx, Jkf35 l

. Attachmsnt A (Paga 17 of 24)  ;

Page 4 of 4

.. I TEST DATA EDRM ' , 2.

Detector Model A otes / ~r . M, / /3 '.v. ,s n f r .. L - he L. i

/

Serial Number Ao+ca. A 144h /Z : s r c., r= h k i

Background (CPM) D 'f f - 71 I '

Frisker Rate (inches /sec) c ( u- n....T .

Response Settings Xl ~ 9-s n . c o p ... g

'{,$t'.i.;;.,- , ' 2.

j .

~

Trial Peak Gross t c ! C * ~.' 5.~-

Count Rate ..

CPM T 4 '

l Aco 1 7c o 1 ~>. T O '

4 %cc

~

a 170 C 3e.o WS * '

1 r< 3 "

(- 43 s 9 4 e c, -

aAP-!L12w: p . N re.

ia He o l

O

-4,- --e "&vLs.u 1

,' Attachmsnt A (Paga 18 of 24)

Paga 4 of 4'  ;

.. l 1

TEST DATA FORM l' - ,t-l l Detector bbdel r1ofet f~ r I A / 6? .uc, f, i 4 !c 4 Serial Number A 34 et 4 3Nn O, u., m .ylW s

Background (CPM) > (4 5 f D I N Frisker Rate (inches /sec) 'A Response Settings x<> s c ., l e s 7- 5.s. . qpe n j Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM i 3Jt o ,

1 34eo 3 "'A 5" o e, y ~J f e o f %eo C 37o0

~l L1 yc c WM

• e, 3 to o

) ) bC D q 3 g. , c -

a:JL.!L12%;

f yx;

/c 'lJ 6 o

~

An lysis: i i

I O

e

/4 Performed by: .

- ".- 9'J',.k

~~

mt w dy:'/< -h N cd /)F

- .x  ; Attachmsnt-A (Pagn 19 of 2d)

Pap 4 of 4 l

., i TEST DATA IDRM 'N A Detector Mcdel - M n 'e < FT i .. '. / 6 . < < - .s 9, . s k

• e. i . ' .

Serial Number A *<s F 7 m 5 u- /? . t , ... .= 74L 5<

Bacidground (CPM) 44fi~D'5 -

Frisker Rate (inches /sec) 3 1 i

Response Settings ke6 sVsn mp. o m .

~

Trial- Peak Gross Count Bate ,

CPM I i~ *t oc o

% 3ee c a 76ec

& > ? t: o

( ). 'l 0 0 c l i- c e 1 I t c c. '

1. 1 #ts Q o

? 15C(.

4 1iec n#'-' A Y" i q

/0 19ch Analysis:

Performed by:

f A eyl. /' / ' '.7 94.8/,

ggg , p

Attachmtnt A (Paga20of.'2d)

Page 4 of 4 v

TEST DATA EURM /: ,2 Detector M: del A ,f es FI 8- t. / /S .c r o ' b*4* E ' h Serial Number A ,4 n e 1 e i . t. R. ,, .. * "h'(' Ist Background (dPM) 1 */ f r t 2 f Y _

Frisker Rate (inches /sec) 4 P= & se Settings y, c ~7 s et . rew. .ise .

Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM i > 7- o o 1 1 to c.

3 A1oe

'l 3. A e o f 3L1 e t, C. b V c. c

. WA * , yH yc f 1. 2. c c o .L 7 o c

,kL .j Qw s 6

~L $ '4 ttTl

/c  % $< :. e ysis:

9 a e

O O

4 /-

Pereerm.ay E.f?f% M'e- '

k .

.a. ~ 4 M % % ak4r - - ,

1* ./ '. Attachmant A'(Page 21 of 24)

Piga 4 of 4 J.

TEST. DATA FORM n .A Detector M:xial A ,, + ,t F T 8; L / a , g.% fe: . 4 - t n b.

Serial Number Anm a '3 H f ! L ,

6 .* r ., d' ~7- % i<

B A scand.(CPM) 1 'lI f ~7 A S V Frisker Rate (ini:hes/sec) _ $~

Response Settings ) , e. . %Pr s ec .

Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM ,

x vc.

3 17ou t/ 3 Leo f } 940 L / t/c o I ~A%u t' y Sc 8  % 3c, o c; jJ c c 8 D-') A ~W t lQ ,1, L t ?

/u _

~2 7oo 6

0 e e # 0 f 1

,o R-1 a 4 & G %.6 9k/a

.. . Attachmsnt A (Paga 22-of 24)

Page 4 of 4 TEST DATA FORM M /4 Detector Mcdel Aolet FT r a L / 8 .$ .. . .. fa4-f th,

/ .

Serial Number A, l'et a 2 r+ i i c . G .c e..s + 'f % f<

BacNround(CPM)

J h r r M .f 'J - -

Frisker Rate (inches /sec) C Response Settings V, c. .sT s -( . r cpc.a .

6 Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM l 11cc 1 / C. O O 1 110o Q ' Loos T /90c L /foo 3 / '7-0 C Ws '

$ / $~C O 0 /9AO q *1.%c o M E I xcq , f 9q to /qco e

A e o $

• Performed by . fr et, t.M/P'

_gg_ -['_ Q ' ] . o LK

./ -I Attachm:nt'A.(P293 23 of 24) q l

"4 i

I l

l l

3 l -

i 1

ATIAQ M Nr (3)

DOEPEDDTI REVIEW MtOM DR. JOSEPH RIM -

SR. HEALTH PHYSICIST HARVARD UNIVERSITY e

9

. 4 h

M s*

e

, .. 1

' *. , Attcchannt A (Page 24 of 24) --

4 Eric Darois and Stephen D' cdge I

Dear Gentlemen:

, I have reviewed the data collected bing our meeting cri April 5,1988 at Seabrook Station and the methods used for the experinant. I believe this experiment is valid to determine the ability of the APTE: probe to detect spot contamination at varying scan rates. The data was collected using a chlorine-36 1

source which is considered a standard contamination reference source and the methods of verifying the scan rate were reasonable and independent which ensured the proper scan rate. By establishing this test criteria I believe we conducted an unbiased test of the two detectors and were able to verify that the APTE:

probe can te used to survey for contamination at a higher scan rate than the HP-210 probe. If, in fact, one were to choose the same rate specific efficiency.

for the APTEC probe, one would have to scan at a rate greater than six inches per second. Based on this experimental data it is reasonable that you scan at a' rate of three inches per second eventhough the APTE: probe cr. yield the same results as the reference HP-210 at 2 inches per second at a scan ute in excess  !

of 6 inches per second.

j i

Sincerely,

/-

~

ai a

./ ~ Joseph R. , Ph.D.

i

________._.___A-. - -

'J. : .S.i 4

4. ,

9 ATTACHMENT B (Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise, ,

Evaluation Worksheet for Extent of Play, Section Number 2.18 (Reception Center Monitoring Trailer) i t

i h

(

I Attachmsnt B.(Paga 1 of 2) j l

d Objective EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR EXTENT OF PLAY 21 Section Number: 2.18 '

i I

Title:

RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING TRAILER *

~

State Involved: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (ORO) .i I

1 Resources To Be Evaluated: MONITORING FACILITY, RECEPTION CENTER Total Resources Required / Involved: FEMA EVALUATORS, NHY CONTROLLING ORGANIZATION Sub-category: Monitorino/Decon Personnel Statistical Formula Samole size: 5 hediation Monitorino Personnel cer facility FEMA Proposed Number Of Evaluatots For This Resource: 1 of 2 oer Receotion Center of crocosal NOTE: Include Cross Reference, As Applicable: Telefax 4/13/88 from Donovan to Tim Cotter Comments: N/A Proposed Solution Summary: The crocess of demonstrating monitorino and decontamination of arrivino evacuees at the Receotion Center will be evaluated by use of mini-scenarios. Mini-scenarios will be iniected bv the NHY Controller on a random basis to the evacuees. All eersonnel at the Receotion Center may be utilized to 4

demonstrate the rate of cersonnel monitored'.

~

=

i~'  %' A:i:8;t:s:

l 2;,c i.. g.g, l

Attachment B (Page 2 of 2)

Secticn Number: 2.18 Page 2 of 2 Constraints To Reasonably Achievable:

1

1. The number of FEMA Evaluators. '

~

2. The number at eersonnel arrivino at the Reception Center is deoendent on the buses sent cut and route cuides.

Methodology Description / Sequence Of Events:

1. Arrivino personnel are initia11v processed to demonstrate the crecess of i

vehicle monitorino and eersonnel crecessino.

2. After all scheduled eersonnel have arrived at the Receution Center thev will be crouced at the entrance to the monitorino/decen trailer.

3. 5 monitorino stations will be selected to crocess the eersonnel.

4 Personnel will be monitored at a rate of 55 per hour oer station for one hour.

5. At the comoletion of the demonstration eersonnel will continue erecessinc  !

in accordance with the scenario.

e O

N

.. ~ . -

~00~

u & ^ A.AA

l hi J

.. , e.

A ATTACHMENT C (ORO Reception Center Monitoring Record Sheets, Exercise Tests Results For Beverly And North Andover) l 8

l l

Attachm:nt C (Pcg3 1 of 6)

NHY ORO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING

~ ~

Trailer Flow Rate Test i ~ ~ -4 e . .I I FACILITY: Beverly N. Andover ,

l MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER EVAC!iEES PROCESSED CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd*

.Y f .l s

l;' l .

, 't f f' ,

Nl-l-

~

h.(- s

) I

/ /

/o.

-. es

/

M col #T'.A w p 6 kW.I8WLL mis ,4 l

l[

T*f [g&lU / .

s. ,,, ._ ;

Honttoring Trailer Exit Controller tD Signature N

@T*" 9 Ao "$$

i i

• l

~

\ If s%O i

e p*" {g M j .

l

O.  !

'Attachmsnt c.(Page-2 of 6) 6: ,

NHY ORO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORINQ Trailer. Flow Rate Test i J

/"~ ...

FACILITY: Beverly) N. Andover -s+

V 1

MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER

(

EVActIEES PROCESSED -

k

• CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd l l ,h l llQ NN l l

'X/! ,10 hys }lf '

Nl

,/

y WADb N$ INNT U gm to i

{@ b O Mb# ,

i

.j' s.

h 7CM b 'tonitoring Trailer Exit Controller Signature J 2 t.

Q . - -

t.a c-  ;

we E

I

-se-

__ ____L___.__..__._._ _ _ _ . n_

Attachm3nt C (Paga 3 of 6) o

_ NHY ORD YECEPTIDM CENTER MONITORIRC Trailer Flow Rate Test #

- ~

.1 _

TACILITY: 3everly(N."Ando e i,

MUNITORING TRATLER EXIT TONTROLLER

' TYACUEEh TROCESSED -+ CLdAA/ CMLY CONTAMINATED TVACUEE 'WUT TD'd W&' h, g- f 3k' m, <gY k;-

h ./

. _q #

l u ,

J' I - I

,5,; I

.q j l '. >

g unv 9. Sh u.oiroring Ipigt exu cooer Signature

~ uer i

i W

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . cscetTY3 0

, , Attachmsnt C (Pago 4 cf 6)

NHY ORO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING d

Trailer Flow Rate Test i /

.'. TACILITY: Beverly N. Andover CONTAMINATED EVACUEE IDENTIFIED h% ist -

Nu i

/

/

b 4A91'$2t>Sk'k' Monitoring Trailer Lead Controller

. c.

p%:,*  !

l l

f

-h ,  ;

O

%g

• pr/996-

6- Attachmtnt C (Pagn 5 of 6) d NRT, ORO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING Trailer Flow Rate Test i 1 FACILITY: Beverly Andoy MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER EVACUEES PROCESSED CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd a / , ( b* l {0 '

W

- m x /\ y\ o,

/1 .

s J /

, # \

i i I l b

y 1' r.

.Y.) bY FN3 M.. u.rio. Tr m r E g e Covu.ner i Ea...r.

p e

\ .,

r.

,.,,. Attachm3nt C (Paga 6 of 6)

.' NHT ORO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING

~

Trailer Flow Rate Test i 1 FACILITY: Beverly An CONTAMINATED 'JACUEE IDENTIFIED FF r.

/9 T t W /t (/ g R- I I

VN Y Monitoring Trailer Lead Controller 4 g i

e e

pr/996 -

El___________________