ML20154L901
| ML20154L901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1988 |
| From: | Gordon Peterson Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809260338 | |
| Download: ML20154L901 (29) | |
Text
= _ _ __ -
- o ,
a' u*
- m Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 s
N i SEP - 91988 l1 v
Mc. Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations [
, toclear Regulatory Ccmission >
Washirgton, D.C. 20555
- l
Dear !:
- r. Stellos
! ?
On January 27, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccrnmission (NRC) requested i that the Federal Ebergency Management Agency PEMA) review Revision 9 of i
- Iorg Islam Lightiry Ccmpany's (LI!ro) offsito preparedness plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS), under the provisions of the April 1985 l FEMA /NRC Memorards of Understardirn and the criteria and assumptions t i of NURE
- G-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supplement 1. FEMA was also requested to .
l provide a firdity, i.e., irdicate whether in the framework of those criteria l
- and asstrnptions, FEMA had reasonable assurance that the plans can protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the plant.
j That finding was delivered to the tN on May 31, 1988.
I i on February 8,1988, NRC requested that FEMA evaluate a full-participation exercise of LIICO'e offaite preparedness plan for Shoreham. On May 20, 1988, ,
' ard May 26, 1988, tE staff agreed that the proposed objectives submitted i by FEMA on May 13, 1988, were sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities of l LIICO's local Dnergency Response Organization in a full-perticipation exercise. (
1 They also stated their position that the objectives were sufficient to constitute l
}
' a "qualifyirg " exercise under 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 in that l it six)uld test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable :
without mardatory public participation. '
i s
on May 23,1988, NRC requested that FENA conduct a review of Revision 10 of ;
the LIICO offrite plan against the criteria of PA!Rm-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, i l Supplement 1 and the three asstreptions stated belcw. NRC also requested that '
3 kvision 10 charges be incorporated into the exercise play of the upccruiry (
} Shoreham exercise. Since a full bgional Assistance Ccanittee (RAC) review I could not be ccMucted in the short time frane remaining before the exercise, I l FEMA Begion II agreed to review the changes, coordinate with the RAC where i j necessary, ard incorporate than into the evaluation of the exercise. The i
)
asstinptions upon which the plan review and the exerci.se were based are that !
J in an actual rMiolcgical emergency, State ard local officials that have I l declined to participate in emergency planning wills
' l l i
- 1) Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety :
I 4
of the public ,
)
i
- 2) Cocperate with the utility ard follow the utility plan, aM f 3) Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State ard local response is l g necessary. l 9260338 sco909 -
j p ADOCK 05000322 '
j FDC ,, L,3 7 ,
j i i I
It is further understocd that in any subsequent hearirns or litigation related to the plan review or exercise, NRC will defend the above assumptions. .
On August 31, 1988, you also requested that FD% review certain updated letters l of agreement in conjunction with FD%'s orgoirg review of atvision 10. L
. Enclosed is a report on the results of a full review of Revision 10 of the ;
LIICO plan ard the abovementioned letters cif agreement, . conducted by FD% i Ibgion II ard the PAC. The Shoreham exercise was conducted en June 7-9, 1988. l
- Enclosed is a copy of the Post-Exercise Assessment , dated Septreber 2,1988, ;
containirg the results of FD%'s evaluaticn. It was prepared by FmA Region II. !
There were no deficiencies identified in the exercise. However, there are j scme areas requiring corrective action. FDW is requesting LIICO to submit [
a schedule of actions that they have taken or interd to take to correct both l plan-related and exercise-related inadequacies.
As irdicated in the plan ruview, Revision 10 contains 94 plan elements rated ;
adequate and 7 plan elements rated inadequate. Scne of the inadequacies were !
revealed as shortecnirgo in the exercise requiring further implementin2 detail [
in the plan. ik:Never, the exercise demonstrated adequate overall preparodness (
on the part of ISBO personnel, and therefore, based on the evaluation of the !
plan aM the exercise, ard the reccmendation of FDW Region II, FD% has reached j a findirg of reasonable assurance. l By way of clarification, we would like to note for the record that the enclosed l plan review did not tvevaluate Elements C.2.b, C.2.c, E.3 and E.4 a-n, since they are to be removed frcn the final version of NURDG-0654/FD%-REP-1, Re".1, Supplement 1. The review also does not take into consideration any possible l reifications of orgoirg litigation in the State of thw York concernirg LIIro's -
reception center at Bellmore. Although the Suprem) Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, has ruled on that issue, it is our understardity that LIICO is appealiry that rulirg. Finally, the review also did not consider the ,
so-called ministerial charges listed as part of Revision 11 of the LItro plan, f although incorporated in Revision 1 of the SNPS Prupt tbtification ard tusign !
Ihpart. You requeated that FD% review that revision to the design report on ;
August 16, 1988. Our consolidated report on the SNPS t.lert and notification i system will contain wr evaluation of those charges, unless a full PAC review l of any potential Revision 11 of the entire plan is prcduced first.
W hope that the above information 10 useful. If you have any questions, !
please feel free to call me at 646-3692. :
1 I
[
Sin ,
l l
. terson Associate Director State ard Iccal Prtgrams ard Support Enclosures As Stated
l l
Federal Emergency Management Agency
I September 8, 1988 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Grant Peterson Associate Otractor i
state and Local Programs and Support FROM: Jack M. Sable Regional Director
'/7/?
i SUBJECTS: (1) Regional Assistar e Comittee (RAC) Review Comments for the LILCO Local Offsite Radiol teal Emergency Response Plan for Shoreham, Revi ion 10 dated September 6, 1988.
j .
(2) Post Exercise Assessment for the June 7-9, 1988 '
i Exercise of the L!LCO offslu Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station dated September 2, 1988.
J !
In response to your earlier requests, Region !! herewith transmits three copies of the captioned documents.
) As referenced on each page of the plan review, Revision 10 of LILCO's Offsite i Rndiological Emergency Response Plan has been reviewed in accordance with the l interim use and coment document ointly develosed b FEM and NRC entitled:
- Criteria for Preparation and Eva untion of Raciolo ical Emerg ncy Response Plans and Preparedness in support of Nuclear Power Plants Criteria for 4
Utility Offsite Plannin Supplement 1. November,g and Preparednets):NUREG 0654/ FEM R P 1, Rev.1.
1987.
Revision 9 of the LILCO plan transmitted to you in May 1988.This review up
- Da HayEmer Federal 23, 1938, the Nuclear Regulatory Coenission (NRC) requested that the cy Management A cy i
the LILCO of to slan against t a cr(iter a of NUREG 0654/ FEM REP
} Supplement I and tie three assuretions stated below. NRC also requested that 1, R i
l Revision exercise.
10 changes be incorporated into the exercise p ay of the upcoming l Shoreham !
Since a full RAC review could not e conducted in the l short time frame remaining before the exercise, FEM Regio l review the chang s, coordinate with the RAC where necessary,and n 11 agreed to incorporate them into the eva untion of the exercise. !
review and the exercise were based are thatThe assumptions upon which the plan l
- in an actual radiological 1 emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in l a
i 49%
emergency planning will:
- 1) Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the publici
- 2) Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility plan, and
- 3) Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.
After the RAC.theAlso exercise,luded inc in the review were additional materials which NR formally retuested FEM to revtew on August 31, 1988. A RAC mweting, chaired by FEMA Reg <
10 of the plan. on !! was held in our offices on September 1,1988, on Revision All of the previous outstanding issues have been reviewed including those (1) for which elements were previously rated inadequate and those for which recomendations for improvements of the plan were ,made.(t)For clarity, the following nomenclature has been carried over from the previous reviews:
A(Adequate) The element is adecuately addressed in the plan.
Recomendations for < mprovement shown in Italfes are not mandatory, but their consideration would further improve the utility's offsitt emergency response plan.
1(inadequate) The element is inadequately addressed in the plan for the reason s stated in bold type. The plan and/or procedures (mu)st be revised before the element can be considered adequate.
As a means cf sumarizing this rather lengthy review and for ease in understanding abbreviations used, Acronyms are provided at the end of the document,an Element in accordance Rating w;th Sumary and List of Richard Krim's memorandum of July 27, 1988 to ther Husar of my staff, elements C.t.b.
C.t.c E.3, and all parts of E.4 have been removed from this review, since they wi'l Supplement not1. appear in the final version of NUREG 0854/ FEMA REP 1, Rev.1, As mentioned above, we also transmit a co Assessment report dated September 2,1988.py of the Shoreham Post Exercise classified as deficiencies. There were no exeretse issues However, there were some areas requiring corrective action.
in response to NRC's request dated February 8,1988. FEM Objectives for evaluated the the full par exercise were developed by LILC0 and submitted to FEMA and NRC for review.
On May 20, 1988, and May 24, 1988, NRC staff agreed that the proposed objectives submitted by FEMA on May 13, 1988, were sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities participation of LILC0's Local Emergency Response Crgi;nization in a full-exorcise. They also stated their were sufficient to constitute a ' qualifying
- position that the objectives exercise under 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.Section IV.F.1 in that it should test as much of the emergency, plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation.
Based ~upon this detensination and changes to the plan which were incorporated in Revision 10 in response to the RAC r6 view of Revision 9 Region !!
finalized its plans to evaluate the exerette. The exercise was conducted on June 7 9, 1988 with plume exposure pathwa activities primarily conducted on June 7th,y emergency planning ingestion pathway zone EPZ (EPZ) activities conducted on June 8th, and recovery / reentry activities conducted on June 9th.
A public meeting was held on June 15, 1988 at the Mediterranean Manor in Patchogue, New York. The pubite meeting was held to acquaint the public with the content of offsite plans and FEM's preliminary observations on the June exercise. Representatives from offsite organizations participated with FEM Region !! and NRC Region I at the public meeting.
LILCO was provided a cosy of the draft report dated August 8,1988 and their coments were received >y the RAC Chatruan at a meeting with representatives of the utility in the Region !! office on August 17, 1988. Prior to finnitting the Post Exercise Assessment, the report was reviewed and discussed in detail at the RAC meeting on September 1,1988.
It should be noted that the plan has been substantially improved by LILC0 in response to the RAC's previous reviews. Ninety-four plan elements are currently rated adequate. Seven plan elements are currently rated inadequate.
Some of these inadequacies were revealed as shortcomings in the exercise requiring further implernenting detail in the plan. However, the exercise demonstrated adequate overall preparedness on the part of LERO personnel, and therefore, based on the evaluation of the plan and the exercise, Region !!
recommends a finding of reasonable assurance.
- l If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Thor W. Husar Chairman, !
Regional Assistance Comittee, at FTS 649 8200.
I l Attachments i.
i i i
l Review Comments Based on l IRRIG 0684/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.1, '
Supp. 1 Local offsite Radialasical remreanev Rannanna Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regidnal Assistance Conesittee (RAC)
Dated September 6,1988 Page 1 of 19 NUREG 0654 i
_ Element Review cc- nt(s) Ratina l A. Annianannt of Rannannihility formanization contra' ) !
A.2.s to the plan could not be leested in response A I Change to an ear (s) lier ceanent en ?ev. 9 that uMer the I.Efo plan (see figure 3.3.7), FEMA is dest .1sted as having the primary respensibf1fty for netif ng the public of the Federal response. The lead F ral agency for this function is the Cognizant federal Agency. This should be clarffled in SGetten 2.2, page 2.2 4s, lines 1015 and acknowledged in Section 3.3 as appropriate.
C. Emeraancy Rannanna tunnart and Rasaurces C.1.c As reconenended in the review of Rev. 9, the outdated A designation of USDA responsiblitty (under FRERP) for the National Radio Fire Cache has been removed from page 2.2 4d of the plan.
C.3 As noted in the revfw of Rev. 9, the designatten of A who will transport field seaples :n the laboratories (i.e., Clean Herbers Analytical Services leented in Massachusetts eM Teledyne Isetepes in New Jersey) could not be located in hev. 10.
C.4 Updated executed leases have been included in Rev. 10 A for the following transfer points:
Expiration DAlt i
Riverhead(alsoknownas 3/31/89 WarehouseOxtors' Path)
. Middle Islan6 /31/89
. shirley Mall 3/31/89
. Coras 3/31/89 Miller Place 2/28/89 i Evidence of valid leases for the Riverhead and Coran ,
transfer points which were unsigned in Rev. 10 were formally provided to FEMA on 8/31/88.
The expiration date for the executed agreement (lease) for the Expressway Plata Transfer point was incorrectly
, reported in the Rev. 9 RAC review. The correct
Review Conuments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supp. 1 local Offsite Radiolooical Emeroency Resoonse plan for Shoreham l Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 -
Page 2 of 19 NUREG 0654 Element Review Coment(11 &Lting expiration date for that agreement was 6/30/88 (see Page App B 66 Rev. 9) . On June 27, 1988, this lease agreement between LILCO and Plaza 63 Associates, Inc. ,
was renewed for the period 7/1/88 through 6/30/89. A copy of this updated lease agreement was formally provided to FEMA on 8/31/88, l
i LILC0's purchase order hgreement with Gulf 011 Gasoline expired as of 6/30/88. This agreement has been replaced by an agreement with the Rad Oil Company, Inc. of New i Rochelle, NY for the period 7/1/88 through 6/30/89. A !
copy of this lease agreement was formally provided to ,
FEMA on 8/31/88. ;
A letter of agreement dated 3/30/68 has been-executed by LILCO with KLD Associates, Inc. to provide qualified ;
volunteer personnel to fill the LERO Traffic Engineer d
i position.
l With regard to the manner in which LILCO responded te
] FEMA's cossents on letters of agreement with bus i i companies to obtain "first call' rights, see comments for element J.10.g. ,
! Based on the demonstration of a sample of resources 1 (i.e., ambulances and ambulettes) to implement an evacuation of mobility impaired persons, this objective ,
was met at the 1988 exercise. However, FEMA did not I have an opportunity to review a copy of the confidential l computerized Honebound Evacuation Listing prior to the 1 exercise. Therefore, a final determinatten of the 1 overall adequacy of ambulance resources aust await
! comparison of the nu.sber of vehicles with the needs of ,
1 persons listed in the coeputerized Homebound Evacuation l listing.
I l
I I
. Review Cossents Based on
. NURE8 0654/ FEMA-PEP 1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeroency Resnonse Plan for Shoreham j i Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Connittee (RAC) t i Dated September 6, 1988 l
- Page 3 of 19 t
\
)l NUREG 0654 Ratina l
l Element E3 view Comment (s) l l >
! D. Eneroency classification Sntas l l 0.4 Procedure OP U L 1.11 Attachment 1, page 7 of 13, has A l a been changed M insure that the D< rector of Local ;
i Response cora. P. sith the Radiation Health Coordinator l l (if this po av. is staffed at the EOC) to obtain an I
- assessment of cne radiological emergency at the Site i Area and General Caergency ECLs before contacting the
< Suffolk County Executive to obtain approval to initiate
- notification of the public. Also, telephone numbers for '
l the Governor of New York and the Suf f M and Nassau !
j County Executives are included in procom SPIP 3.1.1, !
i Attachments 1 and 10.
1 E. Notification Methods and Procedures E.5 Ett messages developed at the 1984 exercise rally I !
l followed prescripted messages contained in E3.8.2 ,
1 of Rev. LO of the plan and they were detailed and i j comprehensive. However, new and tapertant information 1 was sually inserted in the middle or at the end of l
information contained in previous messages rather than j at the beginning of the sessage where new information l
should be carried. Due to the excessive length of Els i i mersages, listeners any potentially miss critical infor- !
j an'. m Accordingly, the exercise revealed that the !
- formas of Ess messages should be revised to make '
- messages more concise and to emphasize tapertant j information at the beginning of messages.
The plan and procedures have been revised to specify i
){ that in accordance with tin New York Statt Emergency l Broadcast Systea Operational Plan (July 1941), WCs3 in l New York City will be used as the Cosmon Pcint Control 1
Station (CPCS-1) for disseminating initial and follow-
- up messages to the public. Op!P 3.8.2, Sections 5.1 and 5 5.1.4 specify procedures through which the WC85 EBS j
network would be activated when LER0 is authorized to i do so by State officials.
! The plan also (see page 3.8 7, lines 34-38) specifies
- that WPLR, an FM bar.d radio station in Handen, Connec-
{ ticut has agreed to serve as the CPCS for the Shoreham
) local EBS network until the issuance of a full power operating license, and, if needed, to remain a uneber i EBS station thereafter, 1
\
l
Revicw Cosseents Based On NOREG-0654/ FEMA REP 1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radiolooical Em.fraency Retoonte Plan for Shoreham
. Review of Revision 10 by Regional Asstatanca Comistes (RAC)
Dated September 6 1988 3
Page 4 of 19 NUREG 0654 heg_, Review Coventfsi Ett.ing The Shoreham local emergency broadcast network con-sisting of ten (10) radio stations on Long Island a.id Connecticut provide . backup network far use in issuing EBS messages in the event that a problem or delay is encountered in activating the MCBS based EBS network.
The Shoreham Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)
OL 3 proceeding has this plan elem3nt under active consideration (EBS litigation).
E.7 As recomended in *he review or Rw. 9, Sectier. 3 A (item 1) has been res 4 sed tu inciade a precaution &ry statement that EBS need not be activated for an Unusual Event.
F. Emeroency Comunicatbu F.1.b The plan .(Section 3.4 and Figures 3.3.5 ar.6 3.4.1) and A srocedure 0 PIP 3.1.1 have been revised to specify lat
- WAS*will provide backno to comercial telephor,e for cosununications with Ne+t York Sttte and Nassau Couaty.
According to Attachment 7. Section B.12 of OPIP 3.1.1, if difficulty is encountered in contacting Nassau Cobnty or the State, by consercial telephore. the LERO land Coewunicator is responsible for racoaneending thst coassunicatione are relayed by either Suffoik County or the U.S. Department of Energy. Brookhaven Area Office (BHO) Security Station via MAWAS.
The Shorehan Control Roon NAWAS line specified in the pl.1n (see page 3.4 2, line 25) should be added to figure 3.3.5. Also, availability of the N MAS link which can he accessed by the EOC via the SNPS Csntrol Roon or the "4E Bre^thave. Area Office lBH0) should be specified in Attachsent I of CPIP 3.1.) for ti4 Ofrectos' of local Response in the event that the lead Conaunicator is not available to provide this information.
Telephone numbers for the Governor of New York and the Nassau County Executive are now specified in (d!P 3.1.1. s Attichments 1 and 10. However, according to the sunnary of revisions subettted by LILC0 with Rev. 'Q of the plan, telephone numbers for New York: Connestlcut and '
Nassau County have been added to the LERG Emergtney Telephone Directory, in response to FEM's coment on . 1 this element in Rev. 9 of the plan. This directory 4 i
n a .I 4
y _ _
l l
l Review Comments Based On )
NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 j Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radiolooical Emercency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revisicn 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 5 of 19 NUREG 0654 Element Review Coment(s) Ratina should be submitted to FENA in order to verify that the l points of contact to be used for initial communications '
include telephone numbers for the New York, Connecticut, Suffolk County and Nassau County warning points. ;
F.1.d In response to coments on Rev. 9 of the plan, A Attachment 2.2.1, lines 26-27 have been changed to be consistent with Figure 3.3.5 and OPIP 3.3.5, Section 5.11 which specifies that the Brookhaven Area Office (BHO) is notified by the Hicksville Supervising Service Operator.
Also, page 4.1-4 of the plan has been revised to clarify that the LERO EOC is linked to the DOE-RAP field monitoring teams via BHO radio which is stationed at i Brookhaven National Laboratory. If DOE relocates to the '
LERO EOC, this radio link to the DOE-RAP teams will be j direct. l F.1.e In res'ponse to Exercise ASLB PID findings, procedures A OPIPs 3.3.3, 3.6.3, 4.2.3, and 4.5.1 have been revised ,
as follows to facilitate the mobilization / deployment of '
emergency workers to the field:
.- Traffic Guides are dispatched from Staging Areas imediately ;
after their briefing at the 1 StagingAreaiscomplete(OPIP 3.6.3, pago 5 of 77);
1
. Road Crews are mobilized to the !
Staging Areas at the Alert ECL rather than the Site Area ECL (OPIP 3.3.3, Attachment 1, page 2 of 3);
. Reception Center management personnel are mobilized to the centers at the Alert ECL (0 PIP 3.3.3, Attachment 1, page 1 of 3 and OPIP 4.2.3, Section 5.2).
The Emergency Preparedness Advisor and the Radiation Health Coordinator are now listed in Figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 as affiliated with both LILCO and Other Organ-izations. This change should be made in Fig. 3.3.2,
.__ . _ - - _ - - - _ __ -.O
Review Comments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical .Emeraency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Connittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 6 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Coment(s) Ratina which still ifsts the Energency Preparedness' Advisor only as a LILC0 employee.
F.2 In response to earlier comments on Rev. 9, Figure A 3.3.5 has been revised to show the radio communication links to hospitals from ambulance dispatch stations and mobile ambulance units. Figure 3.4.1 has also been revised to show the radio links between hospitals and ambulance dispatch stations.
G. Public Education and Information G.1.a-e In response to connents on Rev. 9, the section of the A section of the plan on "Media Awareness" (Page 3.8-3) has been revisec and now refers to biennial rather than annual exercises.
. A revised draft of the Shoreham public information
. brochure was provided to FEMA and its contractor. Based on recossendations and technical assistance p'rovided by FEMA's contractor, the new draft had a much cle&rer
, emergency focus and had been reorganized to place emergency instruction sections in the front of the booklet. The information in the brochure was consistent with instructions that may be given to the public via EBS messages and correlated with sample EBS messages contained in the plan. One important change was the addition of a single, suemary instructions page to be
. placed directly inside the front cover that also serves to index additional information. Language simplifica-tion and more effective use of graphs and other design elements also greatly enhanced the utility and compre-hensibility of the public infomation brochure.
Subsequent to the above review, on 7/28/88 FEMA informally obtained LILCO's updated, public information brochure. ' FEMA and the RAC will conduct a detailed review and provide the results at a later date.
See comments for element J.11 in this review regartling +
the evaluation of pubitc information for the agricul-tural community. ,
See comments for element J.10.g in this review regarding the manner in which the previous discrepancy between the number of nursery schools listed in the plan and the
Review Coeusents Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 7 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina public information brochure has been adequately ad-dressed by LILCO.
G.2 Provisions for the public information program and pro- A visions for its dissemination as described in Section 3.8 of the slan are adequate. The public information materials saould not be sent out until coments from FEMA's contractor have been incorporated into the brochure (See also coments for element G.I.a-e in this review). It is FEMA's understanding that LILCO intends to distribute the public information brochure prior to the formal demonstration of the alert and notification siren system for telephone survey purposes.
G.3 In response to earlier coassents on Rev. 9, the NUREG- A 0654 cross referencs has been revised to include appropriate citations where this element is addressed in the plan and procedures.
G.4.a The 1988 exercise revealed that the Energency News A Center (ENC) staffing chart does not define a role for
. radiation health spokespersons, two of which were assigned to the LER0 staff to handle briefings related i to radiation health issues. The ENC staffing chart \
. should be accordingly revised to reflect that radiatio health spokespersons will be assigned to this factitty.q G.4.b Copying capabilities for the distribution of hard A I copies of EBS messages to the media were found to be l adequate at the ENC during the 1988 exercise. l G.4.c Procedure OPIP 3.8.1 has been revised (see Section A 5.4.3) to specify that the LERO Spokesperson at the ENC will designate a LERO Rumor Control Coordinator from the 13 Public Information Support Staff (see Figure 2.1.1 and OPIP 2.1.1, Attachment 3, page 1 of 5). This LERO Rumor Control Coordinator will be assigned to the LILCO rumor control room in the ENC at the LILCO Training Center, Hauppauge, NY where offsite relatea rumors will be routed to him/her by the LILCO Rumor Control Ad-ministrative Staff.
Although this exercise issue is not sufficient to rate the element inadequate, this issue should be corrected.
l Riview Comments Based on :
NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeroency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 8 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina In response to Rev. 9 review connents, detailed rumor control procedures are provided in onsite procedure EPIP 4-4 which has been provided for information only behind Attachment 3 of OPIP 3.8.1. When the LERO Rumor Control Coordinator arrives at the ENC, he/she will be respon-sible for ensuring that offsite rumor control ressonses are transmitted to the District Offices and Call >oards via TSO computer (see EPIP 4-4, Section 2.4) and that responses are forwarded back to the initial caller (see OPIP 3.8.1, Section 5.6.4). LILCO Rumor Control staff at the District Offices and Callboards are accordingly available for use by LERO in the control of offsite rumors. The effectiveness of the system for controlling offsite related rumors was evaluated during the 19C8 i exercise and found to be adequate as discusseo in the Post Exercise Assessment (PEA), Nevertheless, informa-tion regarding the number of runor control staff and the ,
number of telephone Ifnes allocated for this function should be provided to FEMA.
G.5 Section 3.8 (Page 3.8-4) of the plan has bee'n' revised A i to specify in accordance with NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, 1 Rev.1, Supp.1, that the "role of offsite response l organizations vs. the State and local organizations i during an emergency" will be reinforced during the I annual orientation program for members of the news media.
H. Emeraency Facilities and Eautonent H.4 The LER0 Energency Telephone Ofrectory should be sub. A nitted to FEMA in order to verify that the point of contact to be used for initial communications with New York State includes the telephone number for the State Warning Point (see also connent for elenent F.1.b in this review). l i
H.7 In response to earlier comments on Rev. 9, the NUREG- A 0654 cross reference has been revised to indicate that the field monitoring equipment for the Offsite Radio-logical Survey (ORS) teams is listed in Attachment 2.2.1 of the plan. 1 l
1 .
Review Cosuments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham
, Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 9 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina I. Accident Assessment l 1.7 In response to earlier coments on Rev. 9, reference A i to OPIP 3.5.1, ' Downwind Surveying" which has been deleted from the plan, has been removed as a reference from Section 6 of OPIP 3.5.2.
l.9 Provisions for transporting field samples to laborato- A ries located in New Jersey (i.e., Teledyne Laboratories) and Massachusetts (f.e., Clear Harbors) could not be found in the plan.
J. Protective Response !
J.10.a Figure 3, whfch is referenced on page 11-5 of Appendix A A as outlining the 19 Energency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) that comprise the plune exposure EPZ needs to be added to Appendix A. >
A 11st of the preselected radiological sampling locations is given in Table 3.5.1 of the plan. However, as mentioned in the earlier connents for Rev. 9, a map showing these locations was not ccntained in the plan l subattted for this review of Rev. 10. ,
j J.10.e In response to earlier comments on Rev. 9,. the Lead I Traffic Guide briefing form (OPIP 3.3.4, Attachment 8, Fage 16c of 16) has been revised to clarify that anly Route Alert Drivers are to be instructed to ingest KI prior to leaving the Staging Area or. when a General t Emergency is announced via EBS. Although K! administra-
, tion procedures are now consistent for Route Alert Drivers, the use of KI by any emergency workers is unacceptable without a dose projection of thyroid
- exposure first being made by a responsible health official (i.e., Lato Radiological Health coordinator?.
, see additional comments for element J.10.f in th9s review. i 4 -
j Procedures OPIP 3.6.2 (Section 5.2.2.d) and OPIP 3.6.5 ;
i (Attachment 14, Section 5, page 64 of 75) are inconsis- i tent with regard to when all school bus drivers will I l
d take their KI tablet. OPIP 3.6.2 states that school bus 4
drivers will take a K! tablet upon hearing of a declart, tion of a General Emergency on Ell radio or when 1
_. - - - .. . - - - - ---- N
l I
Review Comments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, ;
Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeroency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) l Dated September 6, 1988 1 Page 10 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina i actually implementing a school evacuation. OPIP 3.6.5 i states that school bus drivers will gnly take KI upon hearing of a General Emergency (via E85). Regardless of the inconsistency of these procedures, the use of KI by any emergency workers is unacceptable without a dose projection of thy,oid exposure first being made by a responsible health official (i.e., LERO Radiological Health coordinator). See additional comments for element J.10.f in this review.
KI has been added to the equipment inventories in OPIP 5.3.1 for all of the companies slated to supply buses for school evacuation.
OPIP 3.6.5 also specifies that two (2) KI tablets have been added to the LERO School Bus Driver Assignment Packets (Attachment 14, p.1 of 3).
Copies of the LILCO letters that. offer training to non-LILCO organizations that do not receive training have l been provided to FEMA.
J.10.f Procedure OPIP 3.6.2 specifies the means by which I emergency workers will be instructed to ingest KI after iodine dose equivalent has been determined by the LERO Radiation Health Coordinator. As provided in Section 5.2.2.a of this procedure, the Dosimetry Coordinator is responsible for communicating KI instructions to the Traffic Control Coordinator who is in turn responsible for contacting Tra'fte Guides if they have already been deployed to the field from the Staging Areas. This means of administering XI has been clarified in OPIP 3.3.4, Attachment 8 which now delineates instructions given by Lead Traffic Guides to Route Alert Drivers as l distinguished from other emergency workers at the l Staging Areas.
The airective for specified emergency workers (e.g.,
school bus drivers and route alert drivers) to take KI i at the declaration of a General Emergency ECL is not in j accordance with Federal guidance which states that the '
s use of KI is appropriate at orojected doses of 25 Ren thyroid. Although the more conservative 10 rem trigger level contained in the LILC0 plan is acceptable, the use of K! without a dose projection of thyroid exposure l
Review Consents Based on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan f)r Storeham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 l NUREG-0654 .
Element Review Comment (s) Ratina first being made by a responsible health official is not acceptable. 1 During the 1988 exercise there was misunderstanding among school bus drivers about the use of KI. The LER0 :
controller information was unclear as to the status of j the emergency at the start of the school evacuation which was out of sequence with the plume portion of the exercise. In addition, some school bus drivers wera unaware of the use of the KI record form for recording their use of KI. This result reinforces the need for KI use to be based upon a dose projection of thyroid exposure first being made by a responsible health ,
official.
J.10.g Nursery schools have been added to OPIP 3.6.5 Attach- A l ments 3,3a and 19 and nave had buses allotted for their '
evacuation. The plan and the public information l brochure are now consistent excest that the public information brochure also lists tie Maryhaven Thera- -
peutic Pre-school / day Residential School and the St. '
Charles Exceptional and Therapeutic Center as nursery i schools. The plan in OPIP 3.6.5, Attachment 2, lists Maryhaven and St. Charles as handicapped facilities.
LILCO clarified in an informal transmittal to FEMA dated 7/25/38 that for planning purnoses, several schools have been listed as Health Care Facilities in OPIP 3.6.5, Attachment 2 because of their special transportation needs for evacuation. However, since parents send children to these facilities for educational purposes, they are listed as schools in the public information brochure. The facilities treated in this manner are as follows:
. Little Flower U.F.S.D.
and Children's Services
. Maryhaven
- Thera,eutic Preschool
- Day Residential Schcol i J .
Preschooler's Place for Learning 1
l l
Review Comments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeroency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 12 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina
. St. Charles
- Educational and Therapeutic Center
- Learning Center of BOCES II (See also connents on element G.I.a-e regarding nursery schools).
Results of the confirmatory letters sent to bus companies citing the number of first-call buses available from each were provided to FEMA in LILCO's .
informal transmittal of 7/25/88 and these confirm a number of 200 spare buses (i.e., not used by school districts on a daily basis) which is 47 in excess of the 153 first-call buses required by the plan. It is understood that the bus yard contracts in question are going to be renegotiated. When these contracts are ,
finalized by 12/31/88, they will specify first-call ;
buses to be supplied by each yard. At that time all '
contracts with )us yards providing first-call buses will specify the number of these vehicles. -
It has been determined in view of the fact that OPIP 3.6.4, Attachment 3 and OPIP 3.6.5, Attachment 3a contain a list of the bus companies where buses for school evacuation are obtained, that it is not necessary to include this information in Table XIIIC of Appendix A as requested in the Rev. 9 review comments. However, if this information is not to be included in that table, the statenent on page IV-180 of Appendix A that "Table XillC presents ... (the third bullet) Bus companies ,
where vehicles are obtained* should be removed. l Section 2.1, page 2.1-1 of the plan has been revised to l specify that "LER0 School Bus Drivers will provide a 10M backup of the Regular School Bus Drivers that normally transport EPZ school children. At bus yards that do not normally support EPZ transportation LERO will assign 150% of the complement required." This is consistent with the previous statement in the Plan that it is LER0's goal to have approximately 150% of the personnel available to respond to an emergency.
However, the enumeration of school bus drivers assigned to bus yards should be provided to FEMA. A suanary of assignments from the LER0 School Bus Driver call out sheetsspecifiedinAttachment14(itenp.1of3,01) of OPIP 3.6.5 could satisfy this request.
Review Comunents Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 13 of 19 NUREG 0654 Element Review Comment (s) Ratina The plan has been revised (see OPIP 3.6.4, Attachment 1, Section 10; and OPIP 4.1.1) to provide direct radio communications from the Transfer Point Coordinators at their Transfer Points to the Bu: Coordinator at the LERO E00.
The comprehensive needs vs. resources charts for the vehicles intended for relocation have not been provided to FEMA. Also, inconsistencies previously noted in the .
number of buses available for Suburbia, Bruno, Coran, ;
WE Transport and Towne bus companies have not been addressed.
J.10.h No change of the plan could be located in response to A an earlier connent on Rev. 9, regarding inclusion in the l Pl an of a itst of potential reception hospitals. ,
J.10.j The 1988 exercise revealed that Rev.10 of the plan I l does not contain preplanned access control points to
< restrict access to evtcuated ERPAs when a sheltering advisory is rescinded. Such an access control plan i should be developed for any subset of ERPAs where an l evacuation advisory is in effect. j 1
In addition, the 1988 exercise revealed that during the reentry phase, traffic guides at access control points were not fully knowledgeable about who should be allowed access and what areas were specifically restricted. The plan should be revised to include instructions for traffic guides regarding how they are be informed of restricted areas and how they are to handle allowing access to restricted areas.
The plan has been revised (see OPIP 3.6.3, Sec. 5.2.7) ;
to provide Traffic Guides with direct radio communica- -
l tions to the Evacuation Support Communicators at the '
LER0 EOC.
Per comments on Rey,9, revision of Procedure OPEP 3.6.3 regarding directions for the Evacuation Coontinator to ;
contact FM as called for by the plan (see Figure 3.4.1) could not be located in Rev. 10.
J.10.k Procedure OPIP 3.6.3 has been revised to include proc- A edures for the Traffic Engineer (Section 5.11).
=
. - . . _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _
Review Cosusents Based on NURES 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1,
,j Supp. 1
local Offsite Radiolooiem1 Emeroency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham ;
1 Roview of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 14 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review coment(s) Ratina The Towns of Brookhaven and Riverhead have been added to ths list of local snow removal organiutions to bo notified per OPIP 3.6.3, Section 5.1. l. This addresses one of the areas for improvement suggested in the Rev.
9 review.
The 1988 exercise revealed e discrecancy between the description of route spotter route 91004 in Attachment 6 of OPIP 3.6.3 and the route nep provided to the route spotter during the exercise. The pr mapshouldberevisedsotheyagree.gcedureand/orthe J.10.a The current LERQ plan is not in accordance with A' I current FEMA policy regarding PARS for severe core nelt sequences. FEMA, and the NRC, have concluded that for the population within 2 3 niles in severe core melt accident sequences, the PA should be evacuation, unless external conditf ans absolutely prohibtt evacuation. The ?
CPIP :.:;.1 , does not use .
LER0 this PAplan,hilosophy.
p (Attachment The plan should5 and 6)be revised to I reflect this position.
J.11 Procedure OPIP 3.6.6 (Section 5.1.3 has been revised A to specify that pas for milk or any)other food should not be taken until response levels are actually exceeded in sampled foodstuffs.
The' plan specifies in Section 2.2 and 3.8 and in OPIP that LERO will 3.1.1 rely upon (Attachewnt 8, Ingestion the States of New York Pathway) and Connecticut to distribute written instructioni to the agricultural l consnunity within 50 miles of the plant in an emergency.
According to Section 3.8, s. 3.41 of the plan, LILCO will assure that a broc1ure of ingestion pathway information is distributed to all farmers, distributors and food processing facilities within 10 miles of Shoreham on an annual basis. To comply with FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) IN 1, the final version of the 8
Although this exercise issue is not sufficient to rate the element inadequate, this issue should be corrected.
8 The plan must be revised to address this issue in order to conform with I FEMA policy prior to the next plan review.
- _ -- --___ _ - - - _ _ -- - - _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ . -. J
Review Comments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1
, Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emercangy_Rq, sguts,e Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 15 of 19 NUREG 0654
. Element Review Coment(s) Ratino brochure should be ready by December 31, 1988. In attempting to finalize its writtel materials, for FEMA evaluation and for distribution, LILCO should consider the following:
. USDA's comments, FEMA's and its contrac-tor's consents, and
. The Guidance of GM IN 1, It should also be noted that USDA is developing a "generic' agricultural brochure which will be applic:ble to the entire 50 mile ingestion zone and could be used to satisfy the GM IN 1 public infomation requirements.
LILCO should submit its agricultural brochure within 60 days after the final publication of the USDA generic agricultural brochure.
During the 1988 exercist, an actual allk sample was take nt the Poole residence in Shorehaa. This location '
is sh un as a sampling site in the LilC0 on sita plan, l but is not shown in Rev. 10 of the LER0 off-site plan (seeOPIP3.6.6). During the exercise, it was learned that two dairy locations in an eastern direction, identified in OPIP 3.6.6, Attachment 9, page 1 of 3, ere no longer allk-producing locations. The plan should be reviewed and revised to include acurate, up to date information for Neq York and Connecticut concerning the ingestton pathway.
Section 2.2, pages 2.2 6 and 2.2 6a list respon-sibilities in the ingestion pathway that 'are to be carried out (1) by the State of New York under the "best efforts" assumption of the NRC regulations and (2) by the State of Connecticut under letters of agr u ment or the "best efforts" assumption depending on the status of agreements between LILCO and Connecticut.
3 Although this exercise issue is not sufficient to rate the element inadequate, this issue should be corrected.
_ _ _ _ . -._ _ . - -. - .- - . . - . - - -._- - - - _.-_~_.
Review Corments Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Reva 1, Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 10 of 19 NUREG-0654 Elemer L Review Comment (s) Ratina In response to coments on Rev. C., OPIP 3.6.6 has been revised and Section 2.5 of that procedure now contains reference to the Connecticut Radiological Emergency Response Plan that would be used by the Connecticut Department of Health to implement PARS for the ingestion pathway.
In response to coments on Rev. 9. reference to OPIP 3.5.3, which does not exist in the LERO plan, has been removed as a reference in Section 6 of OPIP 3.6.6.
J.12 Procedure OPIP 3.6.5 (Se: tion 5.2.2.d) has been I revised in response to the earlier RAC coment regarding 3rovisions for school evacuations in the event there has seen a release of radioactivity. If populations in particular zones are directed to report to reception centers for monitoring, the School Relocation Super-visors, are instructed by the Special Facilities Evacuation Coordinator to direct buses arriving from schools in these designated zones to report to the Hicksville reception center for monitoring. This adequately addresses the probless of unnecessarily risking additional exposure to school children in affected zones while they await being reunited with their parents at the School Relocation Centers.
However, procedures for the receipt, tracking and handling of school children forwarded to the Hicksville Reception Center could nct be located in the plan.
During the 1988 exercise, there was no demonstration of how school children and other bus passengers (e.g.,
teachers and administrative personnel) would be directed after disembarking their buses a.t the School Relocation Center (s). A school bus driver was unaware of the need to give school officials a schel children log out fors or relocation center location assignment diagrams and
- harts from his packet. Procedures should be developed for the receipt, tracking and handling of school children at the School Relocation Centers.
No change in CPIP 3.9.2 could be located which responds to the Rev. 9 connent that decontanination efforts should be halted if the skin becones abraded or broken.
Review Comments Based on ,
NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, l Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resnonse Plan for Shoreham :
Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC) !
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 17 of 19 ;
NUREG-0654 Element Review Coment(s) Ratina LILCO daes not have written agreements for a sufficient -
number of buildings beyond the 10 mile EPZ for shelter-ing and feeding relocatees. Also, as noted under element J.10.h (page 58 of 90) of the Rev. 9 review, it '
is not clear that the facilities to be utilized for i congregate care of relocatees by the American Red Cross
. (ARC) are known to LERO. Nevertheless, this issue has !
l been resolved based on NRC interpretation (see CLI ;
i 05) of the level of coope ation required to be demon- ,
strated by ARC with LERO in the planning effort. Based i upon these decisions which interpret ARC policy to adequately proyue assistance in a radiological emerg- ,
ency, planning for the availability of ARC resources !
(i.e., buildings for the sheltering and feeding of l relocatees) is considered adequate. i K. Radioloaical Ernosure Control l 4 ,
K.3.a In response to Rev. 9 comments, OPIP 2.1.1, page.14 of A 79, paragraph C has been revised by deleting the
. reference to Record Keepers calibrating dosimeters. :
Copies of the LILCO letters that offer training to non- f LILCO organizations that do not receive training have -
.been provided to FEMA (see also comments for J.10.e in thisreview). !
I K.3.b Emergency worker radiological exposure control proc- I t edures have been specified in greater detail in 0 PIP 3.6.5 for school bus drivers. Section 7 of Attachment 14 of procedure OPIP 3.6.5 instructs school bus drivers to read their DRDs at 15 minute intervals. However, as l'
rocosmonded in the Rev. 9 review consents, the Emergency .
Worker Dose Record Form (Attachment 2 of OPIP 3.9.1) has !
not been revised to specifically instruct emergency '
l workers to read their DRDs at 15 minute intervals.
l i
I l
l 1
Review Cosaments Based on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1, supp. 1 i
Local Offsite Radioloaical Emeraency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 18 of 19 NUREG-0654 Element Review CommentIs) Ratina During the 1988 exercise, at least four school bus \
drivers believed that they could stop reading their DRDs ;
when they had left the 10 mile EPZ, which is not stated '
in the LER0 procedures. Revision of the Energency ,
Worker Oose Record Form is needed to reinforce training '
that will be given to LER0 school bus drivers as well as those regular school bus drivers that are to be accompanf nent 14) f by LER0 personnel (per CPIP 3.6.5, Attach- ;
K.4 School Bus Drivers are now included in the drill in I
- the drill matrix (OPIP 5.1.1, Attachment 2) for LERO J Integrated Facility Drills (DR 1) and training continues to be offered to non-LERO personnel with emergency ,
responsibilities envisioned by the plan. In addition, ,
where real school bus drivers are to be utilized for -
l school evacuation, these drivers will be accompanied by 1 LERO personnel trained in emergency worker exposure .
control procedures (OPIP 3.6.5, Attachment 14). ,
l During the school evacuation demonstration for the 1988 ~ l exerc'se, a bus driver who was approximately four and '
one-half months pregnant and accompanied by a LERO back-up driver was allowed to drive the route without question. Upon FEMA's review of training rosters, the driver was found to have attended LER0 training at which
- the dangers of radiation exposure to an unborn child had been covered. However, the driver was not reminded of the subject at the time of the simulated evacuation.
MRC Regulatory Guide 8.13 and the Amendix thereto were 4
not listed among the materials included in the assign-
, ment packet (LERO School Bus Driver Procedure OPIP 3.6.5, Attachment 14). Regulatory Guide 8.13 and the 3 Appendix thereto should be listed in the LERO school bus driver assignment packet. Materials issued to female bus drivers should include a specific query and/or consent form to assure that they are aware of this information.
, No change (s) to pages 3.9 2 and 3 of the plan could be 1 located which respond to the previous Rev. 9 connent i that the plan should be revised to remove the impression l
$ 8 Although this exercise issue is not sufficient to rate the element
- inadequate, this issue should be corrected. ,
I j
1
(_~__-_______. . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ _ , _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ - -
0~ \
R3 view Cossents Based On NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 j Supp. 1 Local Offsite Radiolooical Emeroency Resoonse Plan for Shoreham Review of Revision 10 by Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Dated September 6, 1988 Page 19 of 19 huREG-0654 l Element Review Commcht(s) _Ratino 1 that an energency worker could be authorized by an inmediate supervisor to remain in the EPZ with an off-scale 0-SR dosineter.
1 K.5.6 No to CPIP 3.9.2 could be located which A l change responds tq (s) t he previousRev. 9 connent that no instructions are given for what to do with an essential vehicle which is contaminated above the 1inits after three (3) decontamination attempts. l L. Medical and Public Health Sucoort i L.1 Section 2.2 (page 2.2-8) of the plan has been revised A to specify that Mid-Island Hospital has been added as the backup hospital for the evaluation and treatment of contaminated injured persons. #owever, the language in i
Section 3.7 (page 3.7-1) concerning which hospital is l primary or backup needs to be clarified.
P. Eggonsibility for the Plannina Effort P.5 The Table of Contents section of Rev. 10 has been A updated to include documentation of the pages changed for this revision. Page vitt specifies that Rev.10 became effective 5/16/88. .
P.8 The NUREG 0654 cross reference has been revised as A recosumnded in the review comments for Rev. 9.
1 1
1 l
,--,w-- - . , - - - - - - -
1 l
. I Element Rating Summary page 1 of 3 1
NUREG 0645 Element Rating Rev. 10 )
J
. I A.1.a A
- A.1.b A A.1.c A A.I.d A A.1.e A A.2.a A A.2.b A A.3 A A.4 A
- C.I.a A C.1.b A C.I.c A C.2.a A C.3 A C.4 A C.5 A ;
D.3 A .
D.4 A E.1 A
E.2 A E.5 I-E.6 A E.7 A E.8 A F.1.a A i F.1.b A F.1.c A j' F.1.d A F.1.e A l F.2 A l F.3 t. l l
G.1.a e A )
G.2 A G.3 A G.4.a A I G.4.b A G.4.c A G.5 A 4
e 9
0 1
Elseent Rating Summary page 2 of 3
, NUREG 0645 Element Rating Rev. 10 H.3 A H.4 A H.7 A H.10 A H.11 A H.12 A I.7 A !
!.8 A :
I.9 A ;
I.10 A r I.11 A l J.2 A J.9 A ;
J.10.a A ;
J.10.b A J.10.c A J.10.d ,A J.10.e !
J.10.f I L J.10.g A l J.10.h A '
J.10.1 A J.10.j I J.10.k A J.10.1 A J.10.m A . :
J 11 A J.12 I K.3.4 A K.3.b I K.4 I X.5.a A
, K.5.b A L.1 A 1
L.3 A i L.4 A M.1 A M.3 A
l M.4 A 4 .
f l 4
I i l
_ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ .___.__l
l l
Element Rating Summary page 3 of 3 s
NUREG 0645 Element Rating Rev. 10
'
- A N.1 i N.3 A !
N.4 A [,
N.I.a A .
N.1.b A
, N.2.a A >
N.2.c A N.2.d A ;
N.2.e 'A N.3.a f A N.4 A f
i N.5 A N.6 A !
I 0.1 A 5 0.4 A 4 0.5 A 0.6 . A P.1 A l P.2 A P.3- A i P.4 A I
^
P.5 A
- P.6 A :
4 P.7 A :
2 P.8 A
- P.10 A !
P.11 A
- l I l 1 i 4 ,
1
- !I t
i l
l l
4
~
U
- LIST OF ACRONYMS - page 1 of 2
-A-i ARC Am.iican Red Cross i ASLB Atost(. Safaty and Licensing Board 1
-B-BHC DOE's Brookhaven Area Office
-C-CPI Coordinatos cf Public Information CPM counts per minute 0
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 000 U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DRD Direct Reading Dosimeter
-E-EBS Emergency Broadcast System ENC Emergency News Center EOC Emergency Operations Center EOF Emergency Operations Facility EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPC Emergency Preparedness Coordinator EPIP Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure .
EPZ Emergency Planning Zone l
ERPA Emergency Res1onse Planning Area ,
EWDF Emergency Worter Decontamination Facility
.F-FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Cosaunications Comeission
! FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan l FRMAP Federal Radiation Monitor <ng Assistance Program
- .H. l HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services l 1
.K. i l
X! Potassium todine l l
J i i w J
- LIST OF ACRONYMS . page 2 of 2 i
.L- '
o LERO Local Emergency Response Organization LILCO Long Island Lighting Company
. LIRR Long Island Railroad
.N-NCS National Communications System NEST Nuclear Ememency Search Team NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
OPIP Offsite Plan Implementing Procedure
! ORS Offsite Radiological Survey
.p.
PA Protective Action-PAG Protective Action Guide PAR Protective Action Recommendation e
.R-RAC Regional Assistance Committee RAP Radiological Assistance Program RECS Radiological Emergency Communications System REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
.S.
SNPS Shoreham Muclear Power Station
.T- i TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TSC Technical Support Center TSO TimeSharingOption(computer)
.y.
USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
.y.
VA U.S. Veterans Administration
_-.,-.,__-_.v,-.._-
- - - . -- . , y, . . . , _ .--- --_. ._., - - ,,... . . - . .