ML20155H420

Forwards Review & Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Commonwealth of Ma Communities, Dtd Oct 1988.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20155H420
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/14/1988
From:	Flynn H Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#488-7278 OL, NUDOCS 8810200143
Download: ML20155H420 (180)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s.0 9

![k h Federal Emergency Management Agency.m

$  ! Washington, D.C. 20472

'E8 OCT 17 P6 ;51 October 14, 1988

. r:

i. 0 C c .

Docket and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Iluelear Regulatory Com.tission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Public Service Co. of !!ew ifaapshire (Seabrook Station) (Offsite Issuec)

Docket ?!os. 50-443-OL. 50-444-OL _

Gentlemen:

• Enclosed are three copies of the Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cominunities, dated October 1988, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has forwardea today to the !!uclear Regulatory Commission.

We are serving this document today on the service list for t).e above hearing.

If you have any questions please call me at 646-4102.

Sincerely.

!! s ph nn, A sistant General Counsel Enclosures 0810200143 831014 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR h

4 mtit0

'; 4M

's DCT 17 P6 :51 Octobe 14, 1988

.KN' ..

UllITED STATES CF NCRICA L- '

!!UCLEAR REGULATORY CO!CiISSICN BEFORE TME ATOMIC SAFETY MJD LICENSING BCARD JUDGE IVAff W. SMITH, CHAIRPMJ JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINDIBERGER, JR.

)

Ir. the Matter of )

)

Public Service Co. of flew Hampshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. )

50-444-OL

) Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the enclosed Review and Evaluation of Sebrook Plan for Massachusetts Connunities by the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been served on the following through the U.S. Dostal Service, by first-class mail, on this 14th day of October, 1988.

Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Ato.nte Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 i

I

s Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Robert R. Pierce, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Nashington. D.C. 20555 l

Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Bethesda, Maryland 20555 l

l Atomic Safety and Licensing A; peal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cashington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Fanel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coe. mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas G. Dignari, Jr., Esq.

Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Carol S. Snieder Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney Generai One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

Ilarmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 Robert A. Backus. Esq.

Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Loweil Street Manchester, !.H 03106 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

Shaines & McEachern Fos'. Office Box 360 Poetsmouth, l.H 03801

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ -- _ _- J

k Barbara St. Andre, E3q.

Kopelean & Paige 77 reanklin Street Boston, MA 02110 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

Lagoulis, Clark,Ilill-Whilton

& McGuire 79 Jtate Street

!! awl:uryport. MA 01950 Ashod !I. Amirian. Esq.

Town Counsel for Merrmac 376 Mair Street Haverhil, :'.A 08130 '

G.:y W. Itolmes, Esq.

l(olees & Ellis .

47 91nnacunnet Road Hampton, ini 03842 .

J.P. !!adeau. Esq. r Selectmen's Representative Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road ,

Rye, N!!03370 I

Charlet /. Graham, Esq.  ;

4 Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street Newburyport, MA 01950 I Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

Hampe and McNichols ,

35 Pleasant Street i Concord, Nil 03301 i

I Philip Ahrens Assistant Attorney General J

Office of the Attorney General State House Station, a6 i Augusta, ME 04333 Geoffrey Huntington Assistant Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord !SI 03301-6397 i

1 1

4 0

' ' - ' - w---- -_ , , _ _ _ _ , _,_

. t L

t Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D.C. 20555 l l

Jane Doughty ,

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street ,

Portsmouth, !Td 03301 .

~

f 91111am S. Lord ,

Board of Selecteen l Tosm Hall - Friend Street ,

Mesbury, MA 01913 Sandra Gavutis Chairman Eoard of Selectmen RFD 1. Box 1154 Route 107 e Ken ington. tid 03527 ,

Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director

• Town of Brentwood 20 Franklin Street Exetar,itH 03933 j Angie Machiros. Chairman Board of Selectmen 25 High Road Newbury, MA 01950 Jerard A. Croteau, Constable j 82 Beach Road P.O. Box 5501 Salisbury, PA 01950 l 1

Michael Santosuosso, Chairman  !

Board of Selectmen South Hampton, N!! 01913 t

Calvin A. Canney, City Manager City Hall 106 naniel Street .

Portsmouth !at 03801  :

(

Mr. Robert Carragg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office t Atlantic Avenue I

!ortn !!ampton. 131 03862 i

n e

O.

William Armstrong Civil Defense Director Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, tal 03S33 Mrs. Anne E. Good: nan. Chairr.an Board of Selectmen 13-15 flewmarket Road Durham. 131 03824 Crentwood Board of Selectreen RFD Calton Road

'arentuood, tal 03333 Peter S. Mattheus Mayor City llall

!!ew uryport , M 01950 Richard R. Conovan Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.

Bothell. Pashington 93021-9796 Senator Gordon J. liumphrey U.S. Senate 531 Flart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dated: October 14, 1988 5 h

11. Jpf, Pli F M___

Assistant eneral Counsel Federal Emergency Management Arency

g Cb *'

y?.  ; Federal Emergency Management,.ggency

> Washini; ton, D.C. 20472

'88 OCT 17 P6 :52 IX 7 I A 19 5 U

[0C$l g g  !

MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Congel Director ,

Division of Radiation Protection and ,

Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nucle Regul,atory Connie ton

.m 4, " uy FROM: Rich rd W. inm /

Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Prograns i

SUBJECT:

Review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities l l

This is in response to your memorandum of September 9,1988, which confirmed ,

a modified schedule for the issuance of FEMA 's evaluations of various portions of the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the

Scabrook Nuclear Power Station. That memorandum confinned dates agreed to in discussions between our respective staffs and in the August 3 - 4, 1988, pre-hearing conference on the upconing litigation.

As agreed, attached is a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review, dated October 1988, of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities I (SPMC) including Amendment 6 and the additional plan materials sich you j transmitted to us on October 11, 1968. The review was conducted against the assumptions, criteria and planning standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supplement 1. It was prepared by FEMA Region I and reflects coments >

I of the Region ! Regional Assistance Committee. l 1 , I j As we also agreed, FEMA will provide the Nuclear Regulatory Comission on

. November 18, 1988, with a consolidated finding on the offsite plans for

' the entire Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, including the plans for the States of New Hampshire and Maine and the utility-developed Seabrook Plan .

for Massachusetts Comunities.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 646-2871.

Attachment 7 As Stated  :

i i

i l l j

ety y :-

t w a.

'M OCT 17 P6 52 crs-Cia : ,

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEADROOK PLAN FOR MASSACIIUSETFS COMMUNITIES

1. 6,

%yerer pf o o Federal Emergency Management Agency October 1988

-$-l'-L l SYdff f '), _]

Octobsr 1988  ;

t i

l CONTENTS ACRONYMS.............................................................. xlv  ;

i INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1 REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS A N D E VA LU ATIO N C RIT E R I A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1

l l A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control) (Planning 4

Standard A) .......................................................... 4 A.1.a. Evalu ation C elt erton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Statement.................................................... 4 i Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E v a l ua t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 l l i A.1.b. Evaluation C ri t erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4

Statement.................................................... 5  :

Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 t

E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ,

i

A.1.c. Evaluation C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 [

l Statement.....e.............................................. 6  !

Pla n Re f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 L i E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6  ;

4 A.1.d. Evaluatio n C ri t erloa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 +

l. Statement.................................................... 7

[

l P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 '

i E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7  ;

I l l A.1.e. Evalua tion Celt erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i i Statement.................................................... 8  :

Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 l

[

l Evaluation................................................... 8

! A.2.a. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Statement.................................................... 9 i

! Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10  !

1 Evaluation................................................... 10 i

! A.2.b. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (

j Statement.................................................... 10

Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 i

Evaluation................................................... 10 1

! A.3. Ev alua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 Statement.................................................... 11

! Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11  :

l Evaluation................................................... 11 l

[

i t L

t I

- - . - - - - - _ - . _ _ . , - - . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . .-L

Octobsr 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd) >

A.4. Evalua tion Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Statement.................................................... 12 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 E v a lu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ,

r C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C) . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ,

C.1 Evalua tion Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l

C.1.a. Evalua tion C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l Statement.................................................... 13 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 (

E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 J k

C.1.b. Evaluation Criterlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13  ;

Statement.................................................... 13 r Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14  !

Ev a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.1.e. Evalua tion Cri t e r!on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

• Statement.................................................... 14 l Pl a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.2. Evaluation Celt erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Statement.................................................... 15 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E v alu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C.3. Evalua tion Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15  !

I Statement.................................................... 15 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16  :

Evaluation................................................... 16 i C.4. Evalua tion Criterlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Statement.................................................... 16 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17  :

Evaluation.................................................. 17 l l

C.S. Evalua tion C rit erlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 l Statement.................................................... 17 t P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18  :

Evaluation................................................... 18 f D. Emergency Classification Syste m (Planning Standard D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 i D.3. Evalu a tion C elt e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ,

Statement.................................................... 19 i Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Evaluation................................................... 19 t I

i ii l t

t

t t

Octobsr 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)

D.4. Evalua tion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Statement.................................................... 19 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Evaluation................................................... 20 E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 E.1. Evaluation C riterien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Statement.................................................... 21 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ev a lua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E.2. Evaluation Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Statement.................................................... 22 Plan R e f e e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E v a l u a t io n . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E.3. Evaluatio n Crit erlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Statement.................................................... 23 Pla n Re f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E v a l u a t !o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E.4. Evaluation C rite rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Statement.................................................... 24 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

, E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 E.5. Evalua tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 l Statement.................................................... 26 l Pla n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 i E.8. Evalua tion C ri t e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Statement.................................................... 26 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Evaluation................................................... 26 4

F. Emergency Com munications (Planning Standard F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 l

i F.1 Evaluation C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

]

i F.1.a. Evaluation C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1 Statement.................................................... 27 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

)

! Evaluation................................................... 27 1

F.1.b. Ev a lm t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statement.................................................... 28 P la n R e fe r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 i

i ili l

i

[

Octobsr 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)  :

0 i F.1.c. Evalua tion Celt e rloa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 i Statement.................................................... 29 -

Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Evaluation................................................... 29 l F.1.d. Evalua tion Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Statement.................................................... 30 Plan R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 -

F.1.e. Evaluation Crite rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 i

Statement.................................................... 31

. Pla n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 l Evaluation................................................... 32 t

) F.2. Evalua tion C riterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Statement....................................<............... 32  ;

Pla n R e f e re n ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 '

i, E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 t

I i

F.3. Eve lua tion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Statement.................................................... 33  :

P l a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 l E v a l u a t io n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 0.1. Evalua tio n C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Statement.................................................... 34 Pla n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 f E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 I

G.2. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Statement.................................................... 36  ;

Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36  !

E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 l G.3. Evaluation Criterion . . . . . .................................... 37  !

Statement.................................................... 37  !

P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e ...... 37  !

Evaluation................................................... 37  ;

i G.4.a. Evalua tion C ri te rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37  :

Statement.................................................... 37  !

Pla n R e f e re nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38  !

Evaluation................................................... 38 l i

G.4.b. Evalu a tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 i Statement.................................................... 39 P la n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Evaluation................................................... 39 LV l

l l

, _ _ - ~ ~ _ _ - - . ----i

October 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)

G.4.c. Evalu a tion C rit e rlo n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Statement.................................................... 39 Pla n R e fe r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 0.5. Evalua tion Crite rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Statement.................................................... 40 P l a n R e f e tc n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 E v al u a t io n < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 H. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H.3. Evaluation Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

! Statement.................................................... 41 Pla n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 1

1 H.4. Evalua tion Celte rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

! Statement.................................................... 41 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 l

Evaluation.................................................. 42 H.7. Evalu a tion Celt erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Statement.................................................... 43 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 H.10. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Statement.................................................... 43 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Evaluation................................................... 43 H.11. Ev alua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Statement.................................................... 44 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Evaluation................................................... 44 H.12. Evalu a tion Crite rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Statement.................................................... 45 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Evaluation................................................... 45

1. Accident Assessment (Planning Standard I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < . . . . 46

!.7. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Statement.................................................... 46 PlanReference............................................... 46 Evaluation................................................... 46 V

Octobsr 1988 CONTENTS (Cont'd)

1. 8. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Statement.................................................... 47 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Evaluation................................................... 48

!.9. Evalua tion C rite rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Statement.................................................... 48 Pl a n R e fe re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1.10. Ev alua tion C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Statement.................................................... 49 Pl a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1.11. Evalua tion C rit erlo n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 50 Statement.................................................... 50 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 J.2. Evaluation C rit erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 -

Statement.................................................... 52 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Ev a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 J.9. Evalua tion Crite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Statement.................................................... 53 P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Ev a lu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J.10 Evalu a t ion Celt e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 J.10.a. Evalu atio n C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Statement.................................................... 55 Pl a n R e fe re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Ev al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 J.10.b. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Statement.................................................... 56 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Evaluation................................................... 56 J.10.c. Evalu a tio n Celt e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Statement.................................................... 57 P.t a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Evaluation................................................... 57 vi

Octobsr 1788 CONTENTS J.10.d. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Statement.................................................... 57 PlanReference............................................... 59 Evaluation................................................... 59 J.10.e. Ev alua tion Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 S t a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 59 P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Evaluation................................................... 59 J.10.f. Ev alua tion C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Statement.................................................... 60 Pl an R e fe r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Evaluation................................................... 60 J.10.g. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Statement.................................................... 60 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Evaluation................................................... 62 J.10.h. Ev alu a tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Statement.................................................... 62 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 J.10.1. Evalu a tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Statement................................................... 63 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Evaluation................................................... 63 J.10.J. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Statement.................................................... 63 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Evaluation................................................... 64 J.10.k. Evalu a t ion C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Statement.................................................... 64 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Evaluation................................................... 64 J.10.1. Ev alua tio n C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Statement.................................................... 65 PlanReference............................................... 65 Evaluation................................................... 66 J.10. m . Evaluation Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 65 Statement.................................................... 66 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Evaluation................................................... 66 l

vii 1

l L

Octobsr 1988 CONTENTS J.11. Eval ua t ion C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Statement,................................................... 67 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Evaluatio t .............. 4 ........... ....................... 69 J.12. Ev aluation C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Statement.................................................... 69 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Evaluation................................................... 70 K. Radiological Exposur e Controi (Planning Standard K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 K.3.a. Ev aluation C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 flatement.................................................... 71 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 EValuatlon................................................... 72 K.3.b. Evaluation Crite rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Ststement................................................... 72 P la n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 K.4. Evaluation C rit erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Statement.................................................... 73 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 K.S.a. Evalua tion C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Statement.................................................... 73 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Evaluation................................................... 74 K.5.b. Evalua t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

.i Statement................................................... 74 P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Evaluation................................................... 74 L. Medical and Public licalth Support (Planning Standard L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 L.1. Evalu ation C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Statement.................................................... 75 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Evaluation.................................................. 75 L 3. Ev alu a tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Statement.................................................... 76 PlanReference............................................... 76 Evaluation........................................-.......... 76 viii

October 1983 CONTENTS L.4. Evalu a t ion C ri terio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Statement.................................................... 76 P I E n P. e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Evaluation . 3 . . . . . . . . . ....................................... 76 M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations

( P l a n n i n g S t a n d a rd M ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 M.1. Evalua tion C rit erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Statement..................:................................ 77 PlanReference............................................... 77 Evaluation................................................... 77 M.3. Evalu a tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Statement.................................................... 78 l

PlanReference............................................... 78 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 M.4. Evalua tion Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Statement.................................................... 78 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Evaluation................................................... 78 N. Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 N.I.a. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Statement.................................................... 79 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Evaluation................................................... 79 N.I.b. Evalua tion C ri t e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Statement.................................................... 80 P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Evaluation................................................... 30 N.2. Evalua tio n C ri t e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 N.2.a. E valu ation C r i t e r io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Statement.................................................... 81 P l a n R e fe re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Evaluation................................................... 31 N.2.e. Ev al ua tio n C r i t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Statement.................................................... 32 P l a n R e fe r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Evaluation................................................... S2 N.2.d. Evalua t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Statement.................................................... 82 P la n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Evaluation................................................... 93 l

l t

in i

I l

l

octobar 1988 CONTENTS N.2.e. Evalua t io n C ri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Statement.................................................... 83 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Evaluation................................................... 83 N 3. Evalu a tio n C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 N.3.a. Evalua tio n C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Statement.................................................... 84 Pla n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Evaluation................................................... 84 N.3.b. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Statement.................................................... 84 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 E v a l u a t Io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 N.3.c. Evalua tion C rit e r!cn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Statement.................................................... 84 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 EValuatlon................................................... 85 N.3.d. Evalua tion C rlt e aton . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Statement.................................................... 85 P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 N.3.e. Ev alua tio n C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Statement.................................................... 85

' P la n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Evaluatlon.................................................. S6 N 3.f. Ev alua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Statement.................................................... 86 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Evaluation................................................... 86 N.4. Ev alua tio n C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Statement.................................................... 87 PlanReference............................................... S7 Evaluation................................................... 37 N.5. Ev alua tio n C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S7 Statement.................................................... 37 P la n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Evaluation................................................... SS N.6. Ev alu a t io n C ri t e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Statement.................................................... 38 PlanReference............................................... R3 Evaluation.................................................. 38 I

l l

l Octobse 1988 CONTENTS O. Radiologleal Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 0.1. Evalua tion Crit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Statement.................................................... 89 Pl a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Evaluation................................................... 89 0.4. Ev alua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 0.4.a. Evalua tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Statement.................................................... 90 P la n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Evaluation................................................... 90 0.4.b. Evalua tio n C rit e rlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Statement.................................................... 90 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Evaluation................................................... 91 0.4.c. Evalua tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Statement.................................................... 91 Pl a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Evaluation................................................... 91 0.4.d. Evalu a tio n Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Statement.................................................... 92 P la n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Evaluation................................................... 92 0.4.f. Evalua tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Statement.................................................... 92 PlanReference............................................... 93

Evaluation................................................... 93 0.4.g. Evalua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Statement.................................................... 93 PlanReference............................................... 93 Evaluation................................................... 93 0.4.h. E valua tion C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Statement.................................................... 93 P l a n R e f e re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Evaluation................................................... 94 Ev alu a t ion Cri t e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 0.4.J.

Statement.................................................... 94 P l a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Evaluation................................................... 94 1

l l

october 1988 CONTENTS 0.4.k. Evalu a tion C rite rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Statement.................................................... 95 Pl a n R e f e r e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

0. 5. Evaluation C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Statement.................................................... 95 Pl a n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Evaluation................................................... 96 0.6. Evalua tion Celt erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Statement.................................................... 96 P la n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Evaluation................................................... 96 P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development. Periodle Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Standeed P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 P.1. Evaluatio n Crit erio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Statement.................................................... 97 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 E v al u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 P.2. Ev aluatio n Crit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Statement.................................................... 97 Pla n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 E v al u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 P.3. Evalua tion C rit erion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Statement.................................................... 98 P l a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 P.4. Evalu a tion C rit e rio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Statement.................................................... 98

? l a n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 P.5. Ev alua tio n C ri te rloa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Statement.................................................... 99 P la n R e fe re n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Evaluation................................................... 99 P.6. E v alua tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Statement.................................................... 99 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 P.7. E v alu atio n C rit e rie n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Statement.................................................... 100 P l a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Ev a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ali

October 1988 CON'I t.NTS P.8. Ev alua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Statement.................................................... 100 Pl a n R e f e r e nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Evaluation................................................... 101 P.10. Evalua tio n C rit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Statement.................................................... 101 P la n R e fe re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 E v a l u a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 P.11. Evalua tion Crit e rion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Statement.................................................... 101 Pla n R e f e re nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Evaluation................................................... 102 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities:

R a t i ng Si i m m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 APPENDIX At FEM A-RE;'-11 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Public Education Materials for Plume Expostare Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B FEMA-REP-11 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Public

. Education Materials for Ingestion Exposure Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 6

0 l

l I

4 I

alli i

l~ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ , _ - _ - - , . , _ . . , , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .

October 1988 ACRONYMS ACP Access Control Point AMS Aerial Measuring System ARAC Atmospneric Release Advisory Capability ARC American Red Cross BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory CDC Center for Disease Control CPM Counts per minute ,

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DO! U.S. Department of the Interior DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DRD Direct Reading Dosimeter EAL Emergency Action Level EBS Emergency Broadcast System

. ECL Emergency Classification Level EMS Emergency Medical Services .

EMT Emergency Medical Technician EOC Emergency Operations Center EOF Emergency Operations Facility EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERPA Emergency Response Planning Area ETE Evacuation Time Estimate study EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EWF Emergency Worker Facility FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FRC Federal Response Center FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan FRMAP Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan (formerly IRAP -Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan) DOE GE General Emergency GM Guldance Memoranda fills U.S. Department of liealth and lluman Services llUD Department o.'liousing and Urban Development

e Implementing Procedure IFO Incident Field Office alv

k Octobsr 1988 JCAH Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals K! Potassium todide  ;

MAGI Massachusetts Governmental Interface ,

MCDA/OEP Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency / Office of Emergency Preparedness ,

MDPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health METS Melita Emergency Telenotification System &

MOU Memorandum of Understanding  !

mR MlillRoentgen  !

MPEM Millirem NAS Nuclear Alert System l NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements l NCS National Communications System NESPERN Northern Essex County Police Emergency Radio Network NEST Nuclear Emergency Search Team i

! NHY Public Service of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division

• 1 NHY ORO New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization ,

. NIAT Nuclear Incident Advisory Team  !

) NMCC National Military Command Center l NMFS National Marine Fisherles Service

] NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration <

i NOUE Notification of Unusual Event l NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

j j ORO Offsite Response Organization t

i 1 PA Protective Action  !

) PAO Protective Action Gulde  !

PAR Protective Action Recommendation

! PN3 Prompt Notification System j PSNH Public Service of New Hampshire j R Roentgen ,

i RAC Regional Assistance Committee I RACES Radio Amateur Communications Emergency Services [

j REM Roentgen Equivalent Man l

RERP Radiological Emergency Response Plan j RETCO Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinators j

! RPU Remote Programming Unit i

! SA Staging Ares  ;

i SAE Site Area Emergency i SPMC Seabrook Plan for Massachustits Communities TCP Traffic Control Point i TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter I TMI Three Mlle Island av l

l

octobor 1988 TP Transfer Point TSC Technical Support Center i

USAF U.S. Air t'orce USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geologic Survey VANS Vehicular Alert and Notification System WS! Weather Service International YAEC Yanked Atomic Electric Company YAEL Yankee Atomic Environ'.nental Laboratory YAMAP Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan k

i h

4 I

i I

1 1

6 i

! i i

k IVI l

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

ottobsr 1988 I 1

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEAllROOK PLAN '

FOR MASSACHUSETFS COMMUNITIES I

It!TRODUCTION i

This review was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,  ;

Region I (FEMA I), with the assistance of the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC).  !

The RAC is chaired by FEMA and has the following members: U.S. Department of  !

Agelculture (USDA): U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC): U.S. Department of Energy l

(D0E)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (IIHS): U.S. Department of the f Interior (DOI): U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT): U.S. Environmental Protection  !

Agency (EPA): and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The RAC functions  !

In accordance with 44 C.F.R. Part 351, "Radiological Emergency Response Planning and l Response."

[

! On November 3,1937, the NRC amended its rules to provide criteria for the [

l evaluation of utility prepared emergency plans in situations in which state and/or local  ;

j gowrnments decline to participate further in emergency planning. On December 2, i 1987, FEMA and the NRC promulgated an interlm-use document catitled "Criteria for '

! Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness (

In Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and L Preparedness)". The document was published in November 1987 as Supplement 1 to ,

NUREO,-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. Supplement I was issued as a final document in {

) September 1988. The guldance contained in Supplement 1 is to be used for the  !

development, review, and evaluation of offsite utility radiological planning and t preparedness for accidents at commercial nuclear power plants. I

) l l This FEMA review and evaluation used NUREG 0454/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. t, Supp.1. September 19a8, as the bests (planning standards and speelfle criterh) for i determining the adequacy of the New Hampshire Yankee Seabrook Plan for

! Massachusetts Communities. FEMA Guidance Memoranda (GM) and FEM A REP-series  !

l documents were utilized to Interpret and clarify the criteria contained in Supplement 1. l t

Following is a summary of the material that has been submitted to FEM A for i revlew and evaluation:

I .

! On September 18, 1987, Public Service Company of New Hampshire. New f l llampshire Yankee Division (NHY), submitted to the NRC Revision 0 of the "Seabrook [

Plan for Massachusetts Communities " hereafter referred to as the Plan or SPMC. The

}

Plan consisted of *.0 volumes, and one envelope with Pub!!c Information Materlats. The l l volumes are as follows: Plant Procedures Plan Appendixes A throutlh Os Plan l j Appendix H Plan Appendix 1: Plan Appendix J Plan Appendix K Plan Appendix La Plan [

j Appendix Mi and Plan Appendix N. It should be noted that certain proprietary L information was redseted from the submitted material.  !

l l On November 27, 1987, the NRC forwarded the Plan to FEM A. Under provisions ,

j of the FEM A/NRC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of April 1985, the NRC t I requested FEMA to review the Plan and provide findings (Interim finding). The NRC  !

l i

l'

October 1983 2

requested tht FEMA utilize the Supplement 1 criteria document as the basis for FEMA's review, evaluation, and FEMA findings.

On December 2,1987, the NRC supplemented its November 27. 1987 request to FEMA. The NRC requerted FEMA to use the following assumption in reviewing and evaluating the Plant FEMA should assume that in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning willi exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the publict cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plant and have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local ,'esponse is necessary.

On December 18, 1987, NHY wrote the NRC stating that NHY e>pected NRC

• and FEMA to utilize Supplement 1 for the Federal review and evaluation.

On December 30, 1987 NHY provided to the NRC certain information that was  !

redacted f.am Revision 0 of the Plan, On December 30, 1987 FEMA Region I requested the RAC and the FEMA staff to review the Plan. FEMA Region I cesignated Mr. Richard W. Donovan to serve as the RAC Chairman for the review and evaluation of the Plan (Seabrook RAC Chairman).

3 On January 7,1988 the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for the NRC notifled interested parties that the Alerting System (strens in the pluma EPZ portion of the  !

Commonwealth of Massachusetts) described in the Plan will no longer be relled upon by NHY.

On January 15,19R8, the Seabrook RAC Chairman requested that the FEMA l Region i RAC utilize Supplement i for their review. The Seabrook RAC Chairman

informed the RAC that the following assumptions were to be applied to the review and i evaluation of the Plant in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning willi exercise their best efforts

, to protect the health and safety of the publict cooperate with the utility and follow the I utility offsite plant and have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.

On January 20,1988 NRC provided certain redacted material to FEM A.

1 On February 12, 1988 NHY provided additional information in response to the  !

i NRC letter, dated February 5,1988. The following information was provided: Seabrook l Station Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffic Management Plant Documentation oa the  ;

! Seabrook METPAC Computer Software Package and the backup HP 41 CX Calculator j l EPROM System (these systems provide the means to evaluate the consequences of an ,

! off site radioactive airborne release): Summary of the NHY ORO Training Classes, dated  ;

2/8/88: the draf t Farmers Brochure. "Emergency Information for Farmers." and a copy of {

the existing Massachusetts Department o.' Agriculture's Farmers Brochuce a copy of the l Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory Procedures snd a copy of the draft Yankee j Atomic Mutual assistance Plant NHY ORO lesson plans as referenced in Appendix K of L l

the Plant status report on preparedness efforts for Special Populations in the I

l

4 Octobst 1988 ,

3 I

Massachusetts Communidest and a status report on congregate care facilities /American Red Cross.

On February 16,1988, NHY provicM plan updates, referred to as Amendment 1.

On February 19,1988. NHY provLied plan updates, referred to as Amendment 2.

On April 1,1988, NHY provided san updates, referred to as Amendment 3.

On April 14,1988, NHY provided plan updates,'sferred to as Amendment 4.

On April 29, 1988, NHY provided the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System FEMA REP-10 Design Report, dated Aprl! 30,1988.

On May 23,1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 5.

On July 29,1988, NHY provided proposed revised public Information materlats. -

On August 2,1988. NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 6.

On September 22, 1988, NHY provided FEMA with copies of leases and  !

agreements for VANS as well as copies of prescripted Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) mesuges. ,

On September 27, 1988, the NRC notifled FEMA by memorandum of certain information regarding the role of the American Red Cross in offsite radiological emergency planning at SNPS. t l

On September 28, 1988 NHY notified the Seabrook RAC Chairman by letter of the plan of NilY ORO to resolve issues in the October 1988 draf t Review and Evaluation  :

of Seabrooh Plan for Massachusetts Communities. .

f On October 6,1588. NHY provided a letter to the Seabrook RAC Chairman [

encic .Ing updated letters of agreement.

The review and evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities is attached. The format reproducen each planning standard and speelfic criterion of i NUREG 0654/TEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, Supp.1, followed by a statement of the Plan [

contents related to each review criterion, a Plan reference, and an evaluation section.

The evaluation section contains an evaluation which will be one of the following:

1. "Adequat e"

2. "!nadequate"

3. "Not Applicable" The evaluation unca criterion 0.1 (public Information material) was made in accordance with "A Oulde to Preparing Emergeacy Pubtle Information Materials." FEMA-REP-11(June 1987). FEMA-REP-11 became official FEMA guidance for such evaluations pursuant to a July 10, 1987 memorandum to all Regional Directors from the Deputy Associate Director. State and Local Programs and Support Directorate, entitled "Regional Periodle Review of REP Public Information Material."

Octobo 1988 l 4

t REVIEW AND EVALUATICN AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITHRIA A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control)(Planning Standard A):

Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the var.'ous supporting organizations have l been specifically established, and each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, a

1 Evaluation Criterion i

j A.1.a. The offsite plan shall identify the elements of the offsite response organization for Emergene Planning Zones (see Appendix 5 of NUREG-

0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev.1)

] Statement l

i A.1.a. The Plan (Table 2.0-1) defines the offstte response organi.:stion as including the New liampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (li!!Y OP.0),

supported by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCO), the DOI, the Federal Aviation a Administration (FAA), the American Red Cross, and various private I organizations. Although Table 2.0-1 Indicates that NifY ORO

! communleates with the USCO and the FAA, the Plan states in Section 3.1 j that "(rlequests to the U.S. Cr.,ast Guard and Federal Aviation 1

Administration will be coordinated through the host state for Seabrow i New }{ampshire." According to Section 1.1 of the Plan, the Commonwealth i of Massachusetts, the City of Newburyport, and the Towns of Amesbury,

! Merrimac, Newbury, %llsbory nd West Newbury are not currently

] participating in emerger.cy planning for Seabrook Station. The Plan includes the American Red Cross as a participating organization and the

]

< Red Cross has stated in a letter to di!Y dated September 10, 1987 thatit i vill respond in case of an emergency.  !!owever, a discussion on i February 23,1988 between FEMA staff end Red Cross Southern New l England staff Indleated that the Red Cross is not presently participating in J

this planning process. The Plan has been developed in recc'gnition of, and to compensate for the fact that, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and i above-mentioned local communities are not currently participating in I Offsite response organization is defin,td as the utility offsite emergency response

]

organization along with other participating voluntary and private organizations, and

]

local. State and Federal governments engsging in the development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear power plant.

October 1988 5

emergency planning for the Seabrook Station. Portions of the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are situated within the plume exposure EPZ. Portions of the State of New Hampshire, the State of Maine, and the Commo:, wealth of Massachusetts are situated within the ingestion exposure EPZ.

Plan Reference A.1.a. Section 1.0; Section 2.0; Section 3.1; Figure 1.3-1; Figure 1.3-2; Table 2.0-1; and Table 2.3-1.

Evaluation A.1.a. Adequate.

The NRC has addressed the role of the American Red Cross (ARC) in CLI-87-5: e.g., the American Red Cross charter from Congress, as well as American Red Cross policy, require the ARC to provide aid in any radiological or natural disaster. NRC Indicated to FEMA (9/27/88 memorandum) that this ruling is applicable to the FEMA review of the SPMC.

We recommend that Table 2.0-1 be revised to correctly reflect the process for coordinating communications with the USCG and FAA.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Table 2.0-1 will be revised in the next amendment to correctly reflect the communications with the USCG and FAA.

Evaluation Criterion A.1.b. The offsite resrense organization shall specify its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total effort. The concept of operation will explain how the offsite response organization will function with non-participating State and local governments, and will specify the various modes of operation.

Statement A.1.b. The NHY ORO concept of operations is discussed in section 3.0 of the Plan. A flow chart, Figure 3.1-1, depicts how the NHY ORO will function with nonparticipating Commonwealth and local governments during a radiological emergency. The Plan states that the NHY ORO will function in one of three Modes. Following is a brief description of the three modest

Octobar 1988 6

• Standby Mode - Standby and continue accident assessment and monitor State / local response;

• Mode 1 -- Supplies needed resources only;

• Mode 2 - Implements specific authorized actions, supplies any needed i resources, integrates response into State / local response; or takes control if authorized. Integrates NHY, State, local, and Federal Response into Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.

Plan Reference A.1.b. Section 3.0; Figure 3.1-11 and IP 2.14.

Evaluation A.1.b. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion A.1.c. The offsite plan shall Illustrate these interrelationships in a block diagram. This diagram will define the roles for the offsite response organization and non-participating State and local governments, and identify the lead interfaces.

Statement A.1.c. The relationships between the NHY ORO, the participating organizations, and the nonparticipating organizations are illustrated in Figure 2.0-1.

Personnel ascigned to each NHY ORO position are set out in Figure 2.1-1.

The lead interfaces between the NHY ORO and nonparticipating Commonwealth and locas governments are summarized in Table 2.2-1 and Table 2.2-2.

Plan Reference A.1.c. Section 2.0; Section 2.11 Section 2.2; Figure 2.0-1; Figure 2.1-1; Tabic 2.2-1; and Table 2.2-2.

Evaluation A.1.c. Adequate.

~, _ .

October 1988 7

Evaluation Criterion A.1.d. The offsite response organization shall identify a specific individual by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response.

Statement A.1.d. IP 1.1 describes the actions for the NHY ORO Offsite Response Director 1

and Assistants in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station.

The Offsite Response Director is responsible for directing the NHY ORO Response Organization in Massachusetts. The Offsite Response Director responsibilities include the following: working with the Governors of New l Hampshire and Massachusetts; working with the Seabrook Station Response Managers determining protective action recommendations (PARS) for Massachusetts; obtaining approval from Governor of Massachusetts to implement pas and response activities in Massachusetts: Issuing public information material concerning response activities; approving exposures greater than 25 rem for NHY ORO personnel only: committing resources l from New Hampshire Yankee, and requesting Federal Assistance and working with FEMA. There are two NHY Assistant Offsite Response Directors for each shif t. One is responsible for implementing pas. The other is responsible for providing communications'between NHY ORO and the various Federal and state organizations and the utility. In the event the Offsite Response Director has to leave the facility, one of the Assistant Offsite Response Directors will act as Offsite Response Director.

The Offsite Response Director is responsible for supervising six subordinates (Fig. 2.1-1). Attachment 1 of IP 1.1 (Federal Support Coordination) addresses the interfaces with the various Federal agencies.

I Attachment 2 of IP 1.1 (Conditional Response Activities) addresses the

( interfaces with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the six local l Massachusetts communities, the State of New Hampshire, and Seabrook Station. Attachment 3 of IP 1.1 addresses the ongoing activities of the Offsite Response Director and describes the management style of the l Offsite Response Director. The management style includes, among other l things, a briefing by key staff following each change in classification (ECL)

! and each PAR and PA.

l

[ Plan Reference l

! A.l.d. Section 2.11 Figure 2.1-1 Section 3.11 and IP 1.1.

i Evaluation A.I.d. Adequate.

l

October 1988 8

Evaluation Celterion A.1.e. The offsite response organization shall provide for 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day staffing of communications links.

Statement A.1.e. NHY ORO states that it is structured for and capable of providing and maintaining 24-hour staffing for a protracted emergency. The communications link between Seabrook Station and the NHY ORO is designated as the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point, which is staffed on a 24- .

hour basis.

Plan Reference A.1.e. Section 2.1.1; Section 3.2.1; Section 3.2.2; and IP 2.1.

Evaluation A.I.e. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion A.2.a. The offsite response organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title, of emergency response, including the following: Command and Control, Alerting and Notification, Communications, Public Information, Accident Assessment, Public Health and Sanitation, Social Services, Fire and Rescue, Traffic Control, Emergency Medical Services, Law Enforcement, Transportation, Protective Response (including authority to request Federal assistance and to initiate other protective actions), and Radiological Exposure Controt. The description of these functions shall include a clear and concise summary such as a table of primary and support responsibilities using the agency as one axis, and the function as the other. This description shall speelfy those functions which require State and local '

authorization before Implementing, such as:

1. Directing traffici

11. Blocking roadways, erecting barriers in roadways and channeling traffic; 1

111. Posting traffic signs on roadways:

1 1

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

Octobar 1968 9

IV. Removing obstructions from public roadways, including towing vehicles;

v. Activating strens and directing the broadcasting of EBS messages; vi. Making decisions and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the plume exposure pathway; vil. Making deelslons and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the Ingestion exposure pathway; vill. Making decisions and recommendations to the public concerning recovery and reentry; lx. Dispensing fuel from tank trucks to automobiles along roadrides -

i x. Performing access control at an EOC, relocation centers and the EPZ perimeters; and The offsite plan shall also identify similar functions and responsibilities and interfaces for an anticipated State and local response to an emergency.

Statement A.2.a. Tne NHY ORO emergency response functions and responsibilities for key Individuals are specified in Table 2.0-1. The functions include command and control, communications, notifications, public alerting, public .

Information, accident assessment, shelter-in-place, evacuation, access and traffic control, food, water and milk control, radiological exposure control, emergency medical services, congregate care, law enforcement, fire and rescue, public health and sanitation, and reentry and recovery.

! We find Table 2.0-1 to be incomplete the DOI is not listed as a Federal response agency, and the USCG and FAA are no' listed as being assigned the primary responsibility assigned them in the concept of operations.

Table 2.0-1 omits the responsibilities assigned to regional utilities by the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan in Section 2.1.1 for notification, radiological exposure control, and traffic control. We could not locate the functions of social services and transportation.

Tables 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.3-1, in Section 2, Indicate the primary and support responsibilities for NHY ORO, Commonwealth, local, Federal, and private organizations. Attachment 7 to IP 2.14 includes textual descriptions of the functions which require Commonwealth and local authorization before implementation.

l l

l t

T October 1988 10 Plan Reference A.2.a. Section 2.1.1; Table 2.0-1; Table 2.2-1; Table 2.2-2; Table 2.3-1; and IP 2.14.

Evaluation A.2.a. Adequate.

We recommend that Table 2.0-1 be revised to include the DOI and to include the primary responsibility designations for the DOI, USCG, the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan, and FAA. We recommend that Section 2.1.1 be revised to specify the responsibilities assigned to the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan. NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Table 2.0-1 and Section 2.1.1 will be revis9d in the next amendment to reflect the role of the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan.

Evaluation Criterion A.2.b. The offsite plan shall contain where applicable (by reference to specific acts, codes or statutes) the legal basis for such authorities including those that reserve functions to State and local governments.

Statement A.2.b. The Plan identifies legal authorities regarding the' involvement of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in plaris and preparedness for a radiological emergency at a commercial nuclear power plant. The Plan identifies an NRC regulation regarding the involvement of NilY ORO in plans and preparedness for a radiological emergency at a commercial nuclear power plant.

Plan Reference j 1

A.2.b. Section 1.2.

Evaluation 1

A.2.b. Adequate. l l

l October 1988 11 ,

i Evaluation Criterion A.3. The offsite plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of operations developed between Federal agencies, the offsite response organization, and other support organiza11ons having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones. The agreements shall Identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of lidormation. These agreements may be provided in an

. appendix to the offsite plan or the offsite plan itself may contain descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the offsite plan may serve to verify the agreements. The signature page format Is appropriate for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders where separate writter agreements are not necessary.

Statement A.3. NHY and the State of New Hampshire have executed a Letter of Agreement "to establish radiological emergency preparedness notification and response." It specifies concepts of operatloa between the two I regarding alert and notification, exchanges of information, evaluation and l Implementation of precautionary actions for special populations, accident assessment measures for both the plume and ingestion exposure EPZs, and the coordination of public Information and rumor control activities.

l Specific lead functions are assigned to the State of New Hampshire l concerning the notification and coordination of emergency activities with the State of Maine, the USCG, the FAA, and the Boston & Maine Railroad. The USCG has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the l State of New Hampshire to provide control, notification, and restriction of l waterborne traffic.

t The NHY ORO will communicate directly with the DOI. NHY ORO has an agreement with the DOI. This agreement is verifled by a signature page acknowledged by New Hampshire Yankee and the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.

Plan Reference A.3. Section 3.11 Section 7.2.2; Appendix Cl and Appendix F.

l Evaluation Adequate.

A.3.

l l

l l

l

octobsr 1988 12 Evaluation Celterlon A.4. The offsite response organization shall be capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period. The individual in the offsite response organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be speelfled by title.

Statement A.4. The NHY ORO states that it is capable of providing and maintaining a continuous (24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) staffing for a protracted emergency. Two shifts of personnel have been designated for most positions. Figure 2.1-1 summarizes the various positions and numbers of personnel assigned to each. The Support Services Coordinator is responsible for procurement of manpower and resources to support the emergency response. The Plan states (Section 2.1.1) that certain evacuation related positions, as identified in Figure 2.1-1, only require one shif t. In addition, the Plan provides a 20% staffing cushion for the single-shift positions to account for those who might be unavailable at any particular time.

Plan Reference A.4. Section 2.1.1 and Figure 2.1-1.

Evaluation A.4. Adequate.

i l

l l

l l

i i . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ __. _ _ _ . . _ , . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

October 1988 13 C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C):

Arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and otF.. > organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been iden'ified.

Evalut.tlon Criterion C. I. The Federal government maintains in-depth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the Federal Radiologfcal Emergency Response Plan. Each offsite response organization and licensee shall make provisions for incorporating the I <deral response capability into its operations plan, including the following:

C.1.a. specific persons by title authorized to request Federal assistance; see A.1.d, A.2.a; Statement C.1.a. The New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Director, through the Assistant Offsite Response Director (Support Liaison), is authorized to request Federal assistance.

Plan Reference C.1.a. Section 2.3.2.

Evaluation C.1.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion C.1.b. speelfic Federal resources expected, including expected times of arrival at specific nuclear facility sites and Statement C.1.b. Specific Federal resources are identifled for each Federal agency that is expected to assist in the offsite response. Specifle times of arrival are estimated to be between three and eight hours for the lead Federal responso agencies.

Octobne 1988 14 Plan Reference C.1.b. Section 2.3; Table 2.3-1; and Table 2.3-2.

Evaluation C.1.b. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterlon C.1.c. specific licensee and offsite response organization resources available 'o support the Federal response, e.g., air fields, command posts, telephone lines, radio frequencies and telecommunications centers.

Stateuent C.I.e. The Plan lists a number of airports available for Federal use. Space and telephone lines have been designated for FEMA and NRC in the NHY ORO EOC and Media Center. The Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, is responsible for providing communication links between NHY ORO and Federal agencies, and other non technical support for the Federal response.

Plan Reference C.1.c. Section 2.11 Section 2.3.21 Section 4.0: Section 5.1.2 Section 5.2.1; Section 5.41 IP 1.1; Figure 4.0-1; Figure 5.2-2; and Figure 5.2-11.

Evaluation C.1.c. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion C.2. The offsite response organization may dispatch representatives to the

!!censee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility. (Technical analysis representatives at the near-site EOF are preferred.)

October 1988 15 Statement C.2. The NHY ORO EOC and the Seabrook Station EOF are located within the same facility. Key interfaces for these two organizations occur between the Seabrook Station Response Manager and the NHY Offsite Response Director (which can be via the NHY ORO Technical Advisor) and between the Seabrook Station EOF Coordinator and the NHY ORO Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison.

Plan Reference C.2. Section 2.1: Section 5.1; and Section 5.2.

Evaluation C.2. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion C.3. The offsite response organization shall identify radiological laboratories and their general capabilities and expected availability to provide radiological monitoring and analyses services which can be used in an emergency.

Statement C.3. The Plan identifies a radiological laboratory (with multiple facilities), and its general capabilities and expected availability for analysis service. Air sample cartridges and particulate filters are to be delivered to the Seabrook Station EOF in Newingten, New Hampshire, where they are to be analyzed for radiolodine and particulates by personnel and equipment from Yankee Atomic Electric Company. A mobile laboratory equipment van (belonging to the Yankee Atom!c Environmental Laboratory) is identified in the Plan for analysis of air samples and environmental samples. The NHY ORO will deliver environmental and food samples to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory in Westborough, Massachusetts, for analysis.

The laboratory sample analysis capacities are as follows: for the Mobile Laboratory Equipment Van, gamma spectroscopy for screening samples, average time for screening is 10-15 minutes, and 96 samples can be analyzed per day; and for the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory, garr.ma spectroscopy analysis for radiolodines, ceslums and other fission products, an average time for sample analysis of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, and 50-100 samples can be analyzed per day, and analysis for strontium, average time for sample analysis of 1-2 days, and 10-20 samples can be handled per day.

Octobar 1988 16 NHY ORO states that additional laboratory assistance capabilities can be obtained by activation of the New England Compact by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire, and additional Federal laboratoiy support can be obtained through the activation of the FRERP.

Plan Reference C.3. Section 3.3.4 and Table 3.3-3.

Evaluation C.3. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion C.4. The offsite response organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities, organizations or individuals which can be relled upon in an emergency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement.

Statement C.4. NHY ORO has contracts and letters of agreement with various support organizations, and individuals. These support groups include: (1) the American Red Cross, which will operate and provide staff for Congregate Care Centers (if extra staff are available, will provide staff for the Reception Centers); (2) Emergency Broadcast System (use of EDS stations to broadcast emergency or public information messages); (3) hospitals (hospitals outside the Plume Exposure EPZ to treat contaminated injured individuals or accept evacuees from special facilities within the EPZ);

(4) ambulance companies (provide emergency vehicles capable of transporting nonambulatory and contaminated and/or injured Individuals);

(5) bus companies (vehicles and delvers capable of transporting evacuees, including school children out of the Plume Exposure EPZ); (6) Yankee Atomic Electr!c Company (support available from Yankee Atomic Laboratory and regional nuclear utilities, e.g., laboratories, instrumentation, and monitoring and field sampling personnel, traffic guides, route guides, reception center personnel and other non-technical Yankee personnel); (7) road crew companies (towing service during an evacuation): (8) helicopter service (helicopters for surveillance of evacuation, road Impediment spotting, transportation of key personnel, and field sample transportation); (9) snow removal (snow removal from NHY ORO facilities); and (10) leases / letters of agreement for the VANS staging areas. NHY has a letter of agreement for radiological waste disposal and transportation, if required, from the decontamination facilities.

Octobsr 1988 17 See comments in A.1.a regarding the ARC and the NRC memorandum of 9/27/88.

Plan Reference C.4. Section 2.4 and Appendix C.

Evaluation C.4. Adequate.

NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that the VANS leases and updated letters of agreement will be included in the next amendment.

Evaluation Criterion ,

C.S. The offsite response organization shall identify liaison personnel to advise and assist State and local offiolais during an actual emergency in implementing those portions of the offsite plan where State or local response is identified.

Statement C.5. NHY ORO has identified personnel that will accompany, advise, and/or assist Commonwealth and local officials in implementing portions of the NHY ORO Plan.

Personnel assigned to advise and assist Commonwealth and local officla!s includes (1) Local EOC Liaisons (one liaison reports to each local EOC and assists in the response efforts of that community); (2) Dosimetry Record Keepers (one record keeper to issue dosimetry for local emergency workers) (3) State Liaisons (one liaison reports to each of the following facilities: the State EOC in Framingham, the Ares ! EOC in Tewksbury, and the MDPH office in Boston to better support the State's emergency response and to provide status reports of the State's emergency response directly to the NHY ORO): and (4) Public Information Coordinator / Advisor (reports to the Media Center) and is responsible for assisting Common-wealth and local government officials with public information and rumor control activities.

We note that Attachment 4 to IP 2.14 directs the Local EOC Lla! sons to request authorization from Local EOC officials for School and Special Population Llaisons to report to local EOCs, which is inconsistent with the concept of operations for this function that was changed in Amendment 6.

Octobar 1988 18 Plan Reference C.S. Section 1.11 Section 2.2; IP 1.8; IP 1.9; IP 1.10; IP 1.11; and IP 2.14.

Evaluation C.S. Adequate.

We recommend tliat IP 2.14 be revised to correctly reflect the duty station for schcol and special population liaisons.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that IP 2.14 will be revised in the next amendment to correctly reflect that the School and Special Population Liaisons do not report to the local EOCs.

r i

October 1988 19 D. Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D):

A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures.

Evaluation Criterion D.3. The offsite response organization shall establish an emergency classification and emergency action level scheme consistent with that established by the facility licensee.

Statement D.3. The Plan establishes four emergency classification levels: (1) Notification of Unusual Event; (2) Alert; (3) Site Area Emergency; and (4) General Emergency. The Plan states that this emergency c:assification system is based upon the Emergency Action Levels established by the Seabrook Station.

Plan Reference D.3. Section 1.3.2.

Evaluation D.3. Adequate.

i

. Evaluation Criterion D.4. The offsite response organization should have procedures in place that provide for implementing emergency actions and that provide for advising l State and local off!clals on emergency actions to be taken which are l consistent with the emergency actions recommended by the nuclear thllity licensee, taking into account local offsite conditions that exist at the time of the emergency.

Statement D.4. NilY ORO has procedures in place to implement emergency actions.

l

Octobsr 1968 20 NHY ORO plans to advise the Commonwealth and local officials on appropriate emergency actions.

Plan Reference D.4. Section 3.1 and IP 2.14.

Evaluation D.4. Adequate.

October 1988 21 E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E):

Procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations; the content of initial and followup messages to response organizations and public has been established; and means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established.

Evaluation Criterion E.1. The offsite. response organization shall establish procedures which describe the bases for notification of all response organizations consistent wi*h the emergency classification and action level scheme set forth in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1, Rev.1. These procedures shall include means for verification of messages. The specific details of verification need not be included in the offsite plan.

Statement E.1. Notification of response organizations is triggered by the standard four-

! level ECL scheme from NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.

Initial notification of the NHY ORO is addressed in Section 3.2.2. It is performed by the Seabrook Station Control Room Communicator i

contacting the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point, using the NAS or one of two backup systems. Verification will not be performed if notification is via NAS since it is a secure s'/ stem; if a backup system is used, verification will be by call-back over the same system. At ECLs of Alert or higher, receipt of notification will be taken over by the NAS Communicator upon arrival at the NHY ORO EOC.

Notification of Massachusetts state and local government agencies is addressed in section 1.2.3. The Seabrook Station Control Room Communicator will notify the Massachusetts State Police. The Plan references the Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan with l

respect to notification of other Commonwealth and local government units by the State Police. The NHY ORO EOC Contact will also provide backup notification to local government dispatchers at ECLs of Alert or higher.

Notification of Federal and support organizations is addressed in I section 3.?.4. Responsibility for notification of Federal agencies is placed

! with the State of New Hampshire as the host state (p. 3.2-12). except that tne NHY ORO EOC Contact or the lfAS Communicator will notify the DOI at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge in order to implement public notification.

l l

Octobsr 1922 22 The NHY ORO will also notify contracted support organizations: e.g., bus companies, .*oad crew companies, ambulance companies, and the Red Cross.

Table 3.2-1 Indicates who within the NHY ORO is responsible for contact-iny each type of support organization, and at what ECL. All support organizations are contacted at Alert or higher ECLs, but many are only notified af ter the responsible notifier has arrived at their response facility.

Plan Reference E.1. Section 3.2.1; Section 3.2.2; Section 3.2.3; Section 3.2.4; Figure 3.2-1; Figure 3.2-2; Table 3.2-1; IP 2.1; Appendix G; Appendix H; and Appendix M.

Evaluation E.1. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion E.2. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures for alerting, notifying, and mobilizing its own emergency response personnel, and for alerting and notifying non-participating State and loci governments. ,

Statement E.2. Notification and mobilization of NHY ORO is initiated by Security at the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point or by the NAS Communicator. Key personnel carry pegers and are contacted at NOUE. The rest of the NHY ORO are contacted at the Alert ECL via an automated telephone dialing system, the Melita Emergency Telenotification System (M ETS).

Table 3.2-1 Indicates which personnel are notified and which are mobilized at each ECL. Procedures have been established for alerting and notifying non-participating State and local governn.ents. Telephone tree notification systems have been set up as a backup personnel notification system.

Procedures have been established for alerting and notifying non-participating State and local governments. See comments under F.1.e.

Plan Reference E.2. Section 3.2.2; IP 2.1; Appendix G; and Appendix H.

Evaluation E.2. Adequate.

Octobar 1988 23 Evaluation Criterion E.3. The offsite response organization shall establish a system for disseminating to the public appropriate Information contained in initial and followup messages received from the licensee (see Evaluation Criteria E.3 and E.4 in NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.1) including the appropriate notification to appropriate broadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS).

Statement E.3. The primary system for disseminating information to the public is EBS. In event of an emergency, the NiiY ORO Offsite Response Director will request authority from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to utilize EBS to broadcast emergency information and Instructions to the public. Each instructional message broadcast over EBS will also be released as a news i release by the Media Center.

i l

In February 1988, FEMA personnel visited the primary EBS station to determine its capabilities. The current capability of the Identifled EBS radio station includes the ability to record and broadcast emergency instructions and Information to the public. The primary EBS station has a backup power supply.

The Public Notification Coordinator, once the NIIY ORO is activated, begins preliminary planning with the Radiological liealth Advisor and the Tec%nical Advisor regarding the possible PARS. Upon the orders of the Niii Offsite Response Director, the Public Notification Coordinator selects the appropriate EBS message, completes the appropriate sections, reviews the niessage with the NIIY Offsite Response Director, coordinates the message with the State of New liampshire, and the appropriate Massachusetts official, obtains the NiiY Offsite Response Director's approval for broadcasting the EDS inessage, faxes the EBS message to the j EBS radio station, requests the EBS radio station to broadcast the message three times consecutively, and then every 15 minutes thereafter. The Public Notification Coordinator has the responsibility to direct the Communications Coordinator to activate the stren system and to advise the Special Population Coordinator on the need to initiate notification of hearing-tmpalred people. Actual broadcast of the message is monitored by the Public Notification Coordinator. The Public Notification Coordinator also supplies copies of the EDS message to the Public Information Advisor, the Support Services Coordinator, the School Caordinator, and the Special Population Coordinator.

In a fast breaking emergency. the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency

Director can request authorization from the Governor of Massachusett', and perform the EBS functions ordinarily performed by the Public Notif' cation Coordinator. (See discussion under element E.6.)

i l

october 1988 24 Plan Reference E.3. Section 3.2.5; Section 3.7.31 IP 2.12; and IP 2.13.

Evaluation E.3. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion E.4. The offsite response organization shall establish administrative and

, physical means, and the time required for notifying and providing prompt irstructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (see Appendix 3 of NUREO 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. I and FEM A-R E P-10). It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement. The offsite response organization shall have the administrative and physical j means to activate the system.

I Statement

E.4. The Plan referenen the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) for alerting of the general (resident) population, the beach transient population at Salisbury Beach and Plum Island Beach, and persons on inland waterways. The VANS is not operational at this time. Administrative procedures exist for deploying and activating the VANS.

We could not locate Figure 5.2-12, which is supposed to be the VANS Staging Area layout.

The NiiY ORO has established six supplemental alerting systems:

l (1) Tone alert radio receivers are to be offered to schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitsis, medical facilities, campgrounds, j businesses with 50 or more employees at one location, and other selected facilities within the plume EPZ as a backup system (p. 3.2-15), prior to full power operat!on of Seabrook Station. These tone alert radios have not been l distributed at this time.

l (2) The transients within the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on

) Plum Island are to be notified by a route alerting system operated by the dol; (3) Noninstitutionallzed special populations, including hearing-tmpaired individuals, are to be telephoned Individually by N!!Y ORO: If telephone contact is not .nade, the back up system is for NilY ORO personnel to be 1

l

)

Octobar 1988 25 dispatched to perform door-to-door alerting and notification and to offer assistance (4) Schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical faellities, and other special facilities are to be telephoned Individually by NHY ORO; (5) Person) en the Atlantic Ocean within the plume EPZ will be notified by the USCGI and (6) An Airborne Alert System (helicopter mounted stren system).

in a fast breaking emergency, the plan calls for the Seabrook Station Short-term Emergency Director to request authorization from the Governor of i Massachusetts, and activate the Vehicular Alert and Notification System  !

and EBS. In cases when the NHY ORO EOC is activated, the NHY, upon k authorization by the officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, will [

direct the activation of the Vehicular Alert and Notification System.

i i

Plan Reference

. E.4. Section 3.2.51 Section 3.6.1; Section 3.7.3 Section 5.2.5 IP 1.91 IP 1.10: IP 2.71 IP 2.11; IP 2.13 IP 2.15 and IP 2.10.

Evaluation E.4 Inadequate.

The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) is not operational at this time.

We recemmend that Figure 5.2-12 be provided.  ;

NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that the VANS Staging Ares layout I diagram will be included In the next amendment.

Evaluation Criterion E.5. The offsite response organization shall provide written messages intended for the pubile, consistent with the licensee's classification scheme. In particular, draft messages to the public giving Instructions with regard to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of affected areas shall be prepared and included as part of the offsite plans. The prescripted messages should addres; the various conditions such as the delegation of authority by the State and local governments to the offsite response organization to issue prompt instructions. Such messages should include

Octobst 1988 26 the appropriate aspects of sheltering, ad hoc respiratory protection, e.g.,

handkerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking, or evacuation. The role of the licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages. For ad hoc respiratory protection see "Respiratory Protective Devices Manut.1" American Industrial Hygiene Association,1963, pp.123-126.

Statement E.5. There are prescripted messages for a combination of emergency conditions. Most messages include a variety of choices among PA options and areas to which they apply. The prescripted messages are contained in the Public Notification Coordinator Position Packet and upon electronic media stcred at the NHY ORO EOC.

Plan Reference E.5. Section 3.2.5: Section 3.7.3 IP 2.131 and copies of prescripted messages provided to FEMA.

Evaluation E.5. Adequate.

I Evaluation Criterion i E.8. There shall be provisions for coordinating emergency messages with participating and non-participating State and local governments.

Statement E.8. Responsibility for coordinating with New Hampshire and appropriate Massachusetts officla!s is assigned to the Public Notification Coordinator.

The coordination process is built into the EDS procedure. Coordination with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts consists of requesting authorization f.'om the Governor to issue the prescripted messages.

l Plan Reference 2

E.8. Section 3.2.5: IP 1.1 !P 2.13: and IP 2.14.

e Evaluation E.8. Adequate.

Octobar 1988 27 F. Emergency Communications (Planning Standard F):

Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.

t Evaluation Criterion F.1. The communication plans for emergencies shall include orgenizational titles and alternatea, for both ends of the communication links. Reliable primary and backup means of communication for the utility and the offsite response organization shall be established. The utility and the offstte response organization shall establish the capability to communicate with non-participating State and local governments via normal emergency telephone number (s) (e.g., 911) and via one other backvp mode such as the ability to transmit via existing emerger.cy radio frequencies. Each offsite plan shall include:

F.1.a. Provision for 24-hour pce day notification to and activation of the offsite response organization's emergency response networks and at a minimum, a

! telephone link and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication links that initiate emergency response actions:

Statement F.1.a. The Plan provides that initial notification of an emergency classification be received by the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point which is manned on a 24-hour basis by security personnel. This notification is to be sent by the 1 Seabrook Station Control Room Communicator by means of the Nuclear

Alert System (NAS), a system of .nicrowave and telephone links with conferencing capabilities. Backups for NAS are (1) the Dimension 2000 system, a NIIY microwave telephone that does not rely solely on telephone company central office switching

and (2) commercial telephone lines.

r Plan Reference i

F.1.a. Section 3.2.21 Section 4: Section 4.11 Section 4.21 and Figure 4.0-1.

l l Evaluation L 4

F.1.a. Adequate.

1 .

4

] i

Octobsr 1988 '

28 Evaluation Criterion F.1.b. Provision for communications with contiguous States and local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones; Statement F.1.b. The Plan provides for communications with the State of New Hampshire EOC, New Hampshire State Police, New Hampshire Office of Eniergency Management, and the New Hampshire IFO by means of NAS with commercial telephone as backup. NAS extenstuns and commeNial telephone numbers are given for these New Hampshire agencles and facilities in Appendix II. Appendix H gives the commercial telephone numbers of the Division of Public Health Services of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. The NHY ORO Offsite Response Director or the NHY Assistant Offsite Response Director.

Support Liaison, have responsibility for most communications with New Hampshire. The Plan does not address communications with local  ;

governments in New Hampshire. The State of New flampshire will ,

coordinate any actions necessary on behalf of local New Hampshire l governments. j Figure 4.0-1 states that MAGI is an additional backup communications link l

~

between the New Hampshire State EOC and the ORO EOC, which is Inconsistent with the statement in Appendix H (p. H-91) that RACES is the link. Massachusetts Government Interface (MAGI) is the collective name given to several radio networks that can be. used to coordinate emergency response activities of Federal, state, local, and private response organizations. We note that RACES is one component of MAGt.

The Plan addresses communications with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by means of NAS, with commercial telephones, end the M AGI as backups. Appendix H contains commercial telephone numbers of the offices of other relevant Massachusetts agencies.

The Plan provides that communications with local Massachusetts EOCs will be t'/ means of commercial telephone as the primary system, and the MAGI i

,ty'.em as backup. For five of the six local governments there are five e,ements for M AGli state-to-local radio frequency: local dispatch radio networks command and control radio frequency RACESI and NESPERN. '

For Amesbury, there are only the first two elements.

i i

Plan Reference F.1.b. Section 4: IP 1.1 Figure 4.0-11 and Appendix H.

l t

i  !'

- October 1988 29 Evaluation F.1.b. Adequate.

We recommend that the inconsistency noted in Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H be resolved.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Figure 4.0-1 will be revised in the l next amendment.  :

i Evaluation Criterion .

F.1.c. provision for communications as needed with Federal emergency response organizations  :

Statement F.1.c. The Plan addresses communications with Federal agencies. Three Federal agencies have primary response responsibilities: USCGI the FAA: and DOI, ,

whose Fish and Wildlife Servlee administers the Parker River National  !

Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island. Commercial telephone is identified as a i communication link with these Federal agencies, as well as with FEMA and '

several other Federal agencies. The only Federal agencies for which  ;

backup systems were found were the USCO and FEMA. In Appendix H, the r statement is made that other Federal communications links are available through the Seabrook Station EOF, which is located in the same building as 6 the "HY ORO EOC. The Plan states that the communications links to the L F .ral agencies in the EOF are described in the State of New Hampshire Radiological Err.ergency Response Plan. ,

Figure 4.0-1 states that MAGI is a communications link between the ORO l EOC and FEMA. which is inconsistent with the statement in Appendix H l (p. H-82) that RACES is the link. l f

1 Plan Reference i

! I i

F.1.c. Sect!on 4: Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H. [

4 i l Evaluation  !

l F.1.c. Adequate. [

l i

We recommend that the inconsistency noted in Figure 4.0-1 and Appendix H l f

De resolved. [

[

October 19M 30 NHY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Figure 4.0-1 will be revised In the next amendment.

Evaluation Cr!terion F.1.d. provision for com mt.nications between the nuclear facility and the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility, offsite response organization's emergency operation: centers, and radiological monitoring teams; l i

Statement d

F.1.d. The Plan provides for three communications links with each of three Seabrook Station facilities: the control room, the Technical Support Center, and the EOF. These links are NAS, Dimension 2000, and commercial telephone. These systems are located in the Communications Room of the NiiY ORO EOC and are manned by the NHY ORO EOC

Contact or the NAS Communicator.

i  !

The primary communications link with the radiological monitoring teams and sample collection teams is the Public Service of New Hampshire

, (PSNH) Radio Network, with commercial telephone as backup. The NHY i ORO EOC staff person with responsibility for communicating with the field

! monitoring teams and sample collection teams is the Fleid Team Dispatcher, who reports to the Accident Assessment Coordinator.

4 The Plan addresses communications between the NHY ORO EOC and the l Staging Area, the Emergency Worker Facility, the Reception Centers, and '

i the Monitoring Trailers at the Reception Centers. For all these facilities, one communications link is the NHY ORO Emergency Radio Network, ,

j whlen consists of four paired frequencies. For the Emergency Worker l Facility and Monitoring Trailers another communications link is cordless  :

4 telephone. We could not locate the Legend on Fig. 4.0-1 for cordless telephones. For the Staging Area and Reception Centers, commercial t telephone is another communications link. For the Congregate Care Centers, commercial telephone is the only communications link specified.

From the Figure showing the layout of the Staging Area (Figure 5.2-4), It has 20 commercial telephones, an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) radio, and four ORO Emergency radlos. Special Vehicle Dispatchers. Evacuation i Support Dispatchers Local EOC Listsons, Special Population Liaisons, and '

School Llatsons share telephones (two per extension). However. Appendix H '

(p. H-77) indicates that the Special Population and School Llaisons each have their own telephones. We note that Local EOC liaisons are provided cellular telephones. The figures showing the layout of the Monitoring Trailers (Figurc 5.2 9) and the Emergency Worker Facility (Figure 5.2-10) do not show any communications equipment in these trailers. From the l

gn-9 -My. -gy,- .------y..

,.c,y--,,w-y9 y ---n-%-g -q3, p -

wy

Octobsr 1988 31 l

)

flgures showing the layout of the Reception c nterse (Figures 5.2-6 and 5.2-8), there are at least two telephones and two NHY ORO Emergency radio frequencies at each Reception Center. One telephone is for the Reception Center Leaders the other communications equipment are manned by Reception Center Staff.

Plan Reference l F.1.d. Section 4: Figure 4.0-1 Figure 5.2-2 Figure 5.2-4, Figure 5.2-6, Figure 5.2-8; Figure 5.2-91 Figure 5.2-10s and Appendix H. l Evaluat!on F.1.d. Adequate.

F We recommend that Figures 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 be revised to reflect the communication systems for the monitoring trallers and EWF Indicated on Figure 4.0-1. We recommand that the communication resources and

• communication systems be reviewed for the Staging Area. Figure 5.2-4 and Appendix l{ should be revised to be consistent.

NiiY has Indicated (9/28/88 letter) that it will add cellular and cordless i phones to Figure 4.0-1 and that Figures 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 will be revised in the next amendment. i Evalustion Criterlon ,

F.1.e. Provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in each response i organization:

P b

Statement F.1.e. The NilY Offsite Response EOC Contact Point is responsible for initial ,

receipt and verification of the initial notification from Seab.cok Station.

Upon activation of the NilY ORO EOC, the NAS Communicetor is responsible for receipt and verification of notifications from Seabrook Station. The NAS Communicator is responsible for notification for the N!!Y ORO response personnel.

NilY ORO will be notified in three stages Stage 1 at Unusual Event by pager and Mellta Emergency TC motification System (METS), Stage 2 at Alert by pager and METS, and Stage 3 ct Site Area and General Emergency by pager and METS.

-. -+ J s..A -

J:4 Octobar 1988 32 In the event the METS is 1:toperative, there is a backup telephene callout tree notification system.

Plan Reference F.1.e. Section 3.2 Section 4: IP 2.11 Appendix G and Appendix H.

[

Evaluation I

4 F.1.e. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion F.2. The offsite response organization shall ensure that a coordinated communication link for fixed ar.d mobile medical support facilities exists.

Statement F.2. The Plan states that communications links with hospitals and ambulance companies are commercial telephone and medical radio frequencies.  :

Communicat!ons with hospitals and other special facilities are  !

responsibilities of the Special Population Liaisons (stationed at the Staging  :

Area). The Special Population Coordinator (stationed at the NHY ORO EOC) is responsible for contacting ambulance compantos, host hospitals, and the backup hospital.

l Plan Reference l l

F.2. Section 4.0; IP 1.10: Appendix C Appendix H and Appendix M.

f I

Evaluation i F.2. Adequate. l

{

Evaluation Criterlon j l

F.3. The offsite response organization shall conduct periodic testing of the t entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10, i N.2.a and Append!x 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1. Rev.1).  !

I F

,-_ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m . . _ _ _

Octobst 1988 33 Statement F.3. The Plan nrovides for periodic testing of the NHY ORO communications systems ar.4 contains testing checklists and logs. Depending on the specific system, tests are performed weekly, monthly, quarterly, or semlannually.

These are: METS, EBS Tone Alert Radlos, and NAS (weekly); Dimension 2000, NHY Offsite Response Organization Pager System, Siren Control System, and NHY ORO Emergency Communication System (monthly);

Centrex Telephone System, telephone operator's console, dedicated ring down circuit, and MAGI (quarterly); and NHY ORO Emergency Communication System (semi-annually).

Plan Reference F.3. Section 4: Section 7.4; IP 4.4; and Table 7.4-1.

Evaluation F.3. Adequate.

'l i

i I

1 l

I l

i

October 1988 34 -

G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard C):

Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be

notified and what their initial actions shall be in an emergency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining Indoors), the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of Informat!on during an emergency (including the physical location or locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of information to the public are established.

x i Evaluation Criterion i

4 G. I. The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at  !

3 least annually) dissemination of information to the public regarding how j they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency.

This Information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: -

1 1 a. educational Information on radiation; i

j b. , contact for additionalinformation 1

c. protective measures, e.g., evacuation routes and relocation centers, sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprotective drugst

)

j d. special needs of the handicapped; and i

e. special steps to be taken to describe the role of the offsite response l

organization vs. the State and local organizations during the ,

] emergency.

1 Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not

necessarily limited tot information in the telephone book; posting in public areast and publications distributed on an annual basis. ,

.  ?

1 1 Statement l i  !

l G.I. The Plan states that the New Hampshire Yankee Emergency Planning Coordir.ator is th designated offletal of the NilY 0110 who is responsible i i for the public Infor.n+ tion program. This includes the t.nnual review.

] update, snd distribution of public Information material to the general population. The public info mation materials are to be revised prior to the

^

operation of Seabrook Station abovo five percent power (NHY letter of ,

, 9/28/88).

i i The Plan includes a public information package containing fourteen I different items for educating and prepa~ r ing the public in affected l j Massachusetts communities for a radiological emergency at Seabrook. The  !

}

i f

I I

October 1988 35 Emergency Plan Information Calendar does describe the relationship of NHY ORO to Massachusetts State and local officials.

Among these materials are:

i

• 1988-89 Emergency Plan Information Calendars

• Decals -- English;

,

• Decals -- English/ French;  ;

• Telephone Book Insert -- Newburyport/Amesbury Area

• Telephone Book Insert - Merrimac Area; c

• Fold-out Brochure depleting Massachusetts Emergency Plan Information

- Eng!!sh/ French 1

• Special needs survey form

• Special needs poster or ad;

• Emergency Bus Information Poster - English/ French;

• Massachusetts Emergency Plan Information Poster - English/ French

'

• Form letter to hotel / motel / restaurant owners and managers to enclose i emergency information for posting:

• Form letter to employers to enclose emergency information for postin'; g

• Request card for additional materials: and

!

• Farmers' Brochure.

I 4

Plan Reference

)

! G. I. Section 3.7.1 Section 3.7.21 Section 7.51 and the public education material.

Evaluation l G.I. Adequate.

) See Appendices A and B for the text of FEMA's REP-11 Review and i

Evaluation of the public information materials specified !n the Plan.

Octobsr 1988 36 Evaluation Criterlon i

G.2. The public information program shall provide the permanent and transient i adult population within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to  ;

become aware of the information annually. The programs should include provision for written material that is likely to be available in a residence 1 during an emergency. Updated information shall be disseminated at least i annually. Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, posted notices, or other means placed in hotels, motels, gasoline statlons and phone booths) shall also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that will be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs. Such netices should refer the transient to  !

the telephone directory or other source of local emergency Information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies.

Statement .

G .2. A program for annual distribution of public Information materials to residents, transients, and Special Populations is described in the Plan. Mall distribution of calendars to utility bill recipients and telephone book inserts are the major means of educating the residents of the plume exposure  !

EPZ. Farmers and food processors are to be provided the Farmers' ,

Brochure. The transient population is to be provided Information by its i distribution to various public facilities and through the telephone book {

inserts. The distribution program is planned to include media  !

advertisements sensitizing the public regarding the importance of the public information material.

The milestone designated for implementation of the public education program is prior to the operation of Seabrook Station above five percent power.

]

2  !

Plan Reference '

G.2. Section 3.7.1 Section 3.7.2; and Section 7.5.1. I

~

h Evaluation r G.2. Inadequate.

The public education program hrs not been implemented. ,

I ,

I i

I 1

1 r

i l

Octobsr 1988 37 Evaluation Celterion  :

G.3. The offsite response organization shall designate the points of contact and physical locations for use by news media during an emergency. This should include provisions for accommodating State and local government pubile information personnel assigned a role under the offsite plan. l Statement G 3. NHY ORO has designated the Media Center, located in the Town Hall in  ;

Newington, New Hampshire, as the single point of contact between the  !

NHY ORO and the media during a radiological emergency at Seabrook.

NHY ORO has made provision for accommodating officials of the  ;

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

NHY ORO has designated the Joint Telephone Information Center (JTIC),  ;

located in Newington, New Hampshire, as a location at which media ,

representatives can make telepone Inquiries. The Media Relations  ;

Assistants at the JTIC have been designated to Interface with the media via telephone. There are instructions to call the various wire services when releases are issued. There are references, polley guidance, and provisions .

to assign personnel to staff telephones and respond to media Inquiries.

1

[

Plan Reference G.3. Section 3.7.3(B) and IP z.12.

4 Evaluation G.3. Adequate.

j Evaluation Criterion G.4.a. The offsite response organization shall designate a spokespersen who should ,

j have access to all necessary information.  !

i

) [

Statement

! G.4.a. The Public Inf ormatlon Advisor, who is assigned to the NHY Offsite l Response EOC, is responsible for coordinating and implementing IP 2.12. l The Public Information Advisor directs the activities of preparind and 1

issuing news releasm for the public wi media.

i  !

I i

Octobse 1988 38 The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for directing the NHY ORO operations at the Media Center. The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for keeping the Public Information Advisor loformed of all news media activities and news releases by other organizations at the Media Center. The Public Information Coordinator is the official spokesperson for NHY ORO and participates in media briefings.

We could not determine from IP 2.12 how the NHY Offsite Response EOC and the JTIC receive coples of other organizations' news releases from the Media Center.

The Media Center Administrative Staff are responsible for assisting the Public Information Coordinator at the Media Center.

The Public Information Staff, who are assigned to the NHY Offsite Response EOC, are responsible for obtaining Information, developing news releases, and transmitting approved news releases to the Public Information Ce ,rdinator, the JTIC, the Seabrook Station Emergency Communications

'aordinator, and tbo Seabrook Station Document Control Center. The Public Information Advisor will receive the Public Information Coordinator's concurrence and then obtain the LHY Offsite Response Director's approval of each release. Af ter' obtaining the NHY Offsite Response Directo.'s approval, the Public Information Advisor will Instruct the Public Information Staff to disseminate the news release. The NHY ORO will also reissue all EDS messages as news releases.

The Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor Is responsible for providing supervision and resource support to the Media Relations and Rumor Control Assistants at the JTIC. The Media Relations Assistants are responsible for interfacing with the media via telephone. The Rumor Control Assistants are responsible for receiving and responding to public inquiries about an em ergency.

Plan Reference G 4.a. Section 3.7.3(B) and IP 2.12.

Evaluation G.4.a. Adequate.

We recommend that IP 2.12 be revised to indicate how the EOC and JTIC receive other organizations' news releases.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that IP 2.12 will be revised in the next amendment to indicate how the EOC and JTIC receive other organizations' releases.

OctobGr 1988 39 Evaluation Criterion G.4.b. The offsite response organization shall establish arrangements for timely exchange of information among designated spokespersons.

Statement G.4.b. The Plan states that the Public Information Coordinator at the Media Center is to coordinate news releases approved for release by the NHY ORO with the Media Center spokespersons for Seabrook StatMn, State media representatives, and Federal organizations prior to their release to the media.

Plan Reference G.4.b. Section 3.7.3(B) IP 2.121 and Appen11x C.

Evaluation G.4.b. Adequate. ,

Evaluation Celterion G.4.c. The offsite response organization shall establish coordinated arrangements for dealing with rumors.

Statement G.4.c. N!!Y ORO rumor control activities are to be carried out at the JTIC under the overall supervision of the Public Information Advisor and the direct supervision of the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor. The Public Information Advisor is responsible for e ordinating rumor control measures.

The process of utilizing the media and c.8S to address rumors is specified.

Rumor Control Assistants are responsible for Interfacing with the public.

They respond to and document telephonic public inquiries, using ot'ficially released information, oral information from the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor, or generic Information in their position manuals. If a caller's inquiry is not covered by the official Information, the Rumor Control Assistants are Instructed to refer the call to the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor or to the appropriate State or plant rumor control personnel. In addition, an Assistant who detects a false rumor "trend" is instructed to report it to the Media Relations / Rumor

Octobor 1988 40 i.

Control Supervisor, who forwards It up through the chain of command to the Publie Information Coordinator so that the medla can t,e asked to help prevent its proliferation.

Plan Reference G.4.c. Section 3.7.3(C) and IP 2.12.

Evaluation G.4.c. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion 0.5. The offsite response ortsnizr.tlon shall conduct coordinated programs at least annually to acquaint news media with the offsite emergency plans, 1 Information concerning radiation, and points of contact (see 0.1.e.) for release of public Information in an emergency.

Statement

G.5. The Plan states that the NHY Massachusetts Emergency Planning Coordinator will coordinate an annual media information program. The media information program willinclude Plan updates and media contacts at the Media Center. The media program will be carried out in conjunction with the Seabrook Station and the State of New Hampshire.

i Plan Reference

{ G.5. Section 7.5.2 and Appendix C.

! Evaluation G.5. Adequate.

l,

Octobsr 1988 41 l

H. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H):

Adequate emergency facilitles and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained.

Evaluation Criterion H.3. The offsite response organization s.." , estatslisn an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling offsite response functions.

Statement H.3. The NHY ORO EOC is co-located with the Seabrook Station EOF and the State of New Hampshire IFO on Gosling Road in Newington, New Hampshire at the Newington Station Unit No.1 facility. This facility is located approximately 15 miles north of the Seabrook Station.

Plan Reference H.3. Section 5.2.11 Figure 5.2-11 and Figure 5.3-2.

Evaluation H.3. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion  ;

i H.4. The offsite response organization shsll provide for timely activation and staffing of the facilities and centers described in the offsito plan.

Statement H 4. NHY ORO will activate the EOC upon the declaration of an Alert or higher ECL. Upon the declaration of an Alert or higher ECL, the NHY ORO EOC will be activated (IP 3.1). The NHY Offsite Response Director will declare the NHY ORO EOC operational when the following group leaders / advisors inform him that they have determined that sufficient staffing exists for them to perform thele functions: Radiological Health Officer, Public Notification Coordinator, Public Information Advisor, and the two Assistant Offsite Response Directors. The Support Services Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the staff set up the NHY ORO EOC in accordance with Attachment 2 of IP 3.1. Various functional groups are l

i i

i

[

Octobst 1988 42 assigned to set up telephones; set out sets of plans and procedures; prearrange office supplies; and ensure that photocopter is operational. The Support Services Coordinator will ensure that sufficient resources (desks, chairs, etc.) exist and procure any additional equipment as necessary. The Support Service Coordinator will provide support to responding organizations and Federal agencies including vehicles, food and lodging, and procurement support. The Security Officer is responsible for establishing access control at the NHY ORO EOC, establishing a log of all personnel admitted to the NHY ORO EOC, and maintaining security for the facility.

The Staging Area (located at 145 Water Street in Haverhill, Massachusetts) is also to be activated at an Alert or higher classification. Emergency field workers are to te activated at the Site Area Emergency or higher. The Emergency Worker Facility (mobile trailer for monitoring and decontami-nating emergency workers and vehicles) is to be set up at the Staging Area at an Alert and is to be fully activated at the Site Area Emergency.

A dedicated Monitoring Traller (to monitor and decontaminate evacuees)is to be set up at each Reception Center and be fully activated at the declaration of a Site Area Emergency.

Two Reception Centers, to provide an assembly point and location for registering evacuees, will be established at locations about 20 miles from the Seabrook Station (one at 1101 Turnpike Street in North Andover, Massachusetts, and the second one at 44 River Street in Beverly, Massachusetts). The Reception Centers are to be activated at a Site Area i Emergency classification and higher.

Congregate Care Centers will be established at leased facilities, for which

Letters of Agreament have been signed. These Centers are to be set up and staffed by the American Red Cross. The Congregate Care Centers will i be activated at the General Emergency ECL.

Plan Reference H.4. Section 3.6 Section 5 !P 3.1 !P 3.2: !P 3.3; 1P 3.4: !P 3.51 and Appendix C.

Evaluation H.4. Adequate.

1

Octobsr 1988 43 Evaluation Criterion H.7. The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall provide for offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility.

Statement H.7. NHY ORO has made provlslon for offsite radiological monitoring equipment for both environmental monitoring and for personnel exposure monitoring.

Plan Reference H.7. Section 3.3.21 Table 3.3-1; Section 5.2.41 and Appendix 1.

Evaluation H.7. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion ,

H.10. The offsite response organization shall make provisions to inspect, inventory and operationally check emergency equipment / instruments at least once each calendar quarter and after each use. There shall be sufficient reserves of instruments / equipment to replace those which are removed from emergency kits for calibration or repair. Calibration of equipment shall be at Intervals recommended by the supplier of the equipment.

Statement H.10. NHY ORO h s made provision to inspect, inventory, and operationally check all emergency equipment quarterly and after each use. Radiological monitoring equipment and dosimetry is to be calibrated on a semlannual basis. Calibration of monitoring Inytruments will be done: (1) upon receipt of new instruments, (2) after any repair, (3)In accordance with National Standards or the manufacturer's recommendations, and (4)In accordance

, with Seabrook Station policies. Operational checks on radiological I monitoring equipment will be conducted monthly. NHY ORO has stated i that they will make sufficient reserves of equipment available to replace equipment that is removed for calibration or repair. The Plan states that equipment can only be removed for repair and calibration when

! replacements are avsflable.

I 1

l l

T Octobor 1988 44 Plan Reference -

H.10. Section 5.5; Section 7.3 and IP 4.3.

Evaluation H.10. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterlon H.11. The offsite plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emergency kits by general category (protective equipment, communications equipment, radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies).

Statement H.11. The Plan does not contain !!sts of emergency kits according to the general categories specified in this criterion. The Plan lists facility equipment alphabetically with separate columns for quantitles of a given piece of equipment or supply located at a particular NilY ORO facility. A separate list alphabetically tabulates supplies found in the field team kits (separate columns for field monitoring k!ts, environmental . sampling kits, and environmental supply locker).

Plan Reference H.11. Appendix 1.

Evaluation H.11. Adequate.

We recommend that the format of the Inventory lists be revised.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88) that the format and content of the inventory lists will be reviewed and revised, as necessary, for the 1989 annual update.

Evaluation Criterion H.12. The offsite response organization shall establish a central point (preferably associated with the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility), for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media.

Octobsr 1988 45 )

Statement

11. 1 2 . The NilY ORO has established the EOF as the central point for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media.

Plan 'iference

11. 1 2. Section 3.3.2.

Evaluation

11. 1 2. Adequate.

- - .. _- - _ . - _ __ __. ____, _ _ _ ~ - _ - ~ . - - . . _ - .

Octobsr 1988 46

!. Accident Assessment (Planning Standard I):

Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use.

f Evaluation Criterlon ,

i  !

!.7. The offsite response organization shall describe the capability and resources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone which are an letrinsic part of the concept of operations for the facility. '

Statement l

l 1.7. The NHY ORO capabilities and resources for field monitoring within the l plume exposure EPZ are described in the plan and its accompanying i procedures. The Field Teams (2 teams at 2 persons per team) and Sample Collection Teams (5 teams at 2 persons per team) report to the Field Team Dispatcher. The Field Team Dispatcher and the Dose Assessment l Technician report to the Accident Assessment Coordinator. The Accident Assessme 1t Coordinator reports to the Radiological Health Advisor. The '

typical field monitoring kit inventory is listed in Table 3.3-1. The plan Indicates that each field monitoring team will be assigned a vebicle for transportation in the fleed. The field teams will use the same grid maps as

used by the State of New Hampshire and Seabrook Station. The,fleld team ,

j monitoring kits contain Instruments which are comparable to the survey l

instruments used by the State of New Hampshire and Seabrook Station.  ;

1 NHY ORO, Seabrook Station, and the 3tste of New Hampshire have agreed '

j to coordinate field monitoring activities. Therefore, the various ,

j' organizations' field teams will receive specific assignments. The field  ;

survey data collected by the NHY ORO monitoring teams will be integrated t with the data collected by the New Hampshire State and Seabrook Station [

teams, i

Plan Reference  !

j  !.7. Section 3.3-2: Section 3.3 3: Section 3.98 Figure 2.1-1: Table 3.3-1 IP 1.12:

3 IP 2.31 and IP 2.4.

Evaluation [

< 1 i i i 1.7. Adequate.

l  !

l l

i i n

Octobsr 1988 47 Evaluation Criterion

1. 8. The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall provide methods, equipment and expertise to make rapid assessments of the actual ,

or potential msanitude and locations of any radlological hazards through liquid or gaseous release pathways. This shall include activation, notification means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and estimated deployment times.

Statement ,

i

!. 8. The NHY ORO has made provision and developed methods, equipment, and expertise to make assessments of the magnitude and locations of radiological hazards through the gaseous release pathway. This includes activation, notification means, fleid team formation, transpertation, communications, monitoring equipment, and estimates of deployment times from the arrival at the Staging Area. Estimates of complete deployment >

time are included.

, IP. 2.3 describes duties, responsibilities, and the concept of operation for e the Accident Assessment Coordinator, the Field Team Dispatcher, and the I Field Monitoring Tea ms. The Accident Assessment Coordinator is responsible for implementing the procedure and supervising the Field Team Dispatcher. The Field Team Dispatcher is responsible for directing the  :

Field Monitoring Teams including monitoring locations, recording field data, tracking Field Monitoring Team exposure, and relaying this data to the Accident Assessment Coordinator. The Field Monitoring Teams are responsible for performing monitoring surveys in the plume exposure EPZ, .

collecting samples, and monitoring / report.nc M. ele doses.

The Field Monitoring Teams are responsible for plume definition: e.g.,

define plume boundary as 1 mR/hr,100 mR/hr, and highest centerline [

numbers. Note, the NHY ORO has adopted a turnback number of 500 mR/hr. The Field Monitoring Teams are responsible for taking gamma i and gamma / beta surveys at waist level, and gamma / beta surveys at two I inches above ground at each survey location. The Field Monitoring Teams will be assigned to take air samples at various locations by the Field Team Dispatcher. The Field Team Dispatcher will give assignments to the Fleid i Monitoring Teams. The assignments will t e to proceed between various  ;

locations, taking appropriate measurements, rather than to be assigned to a  !

general aren: 1.e., management strategy is point-to-point monitoring. The L Field Monitoring Teams kits have a map with a grid system for the plume exposure EPZ.

i

- - ~ - , _ _ - - _ - , , - _ _

October 1988  ;

48

• t a

Plan Reference 1.8. Section 3.3.2 Section 3.91 Section 4.5 Table 3.3-1 Table 3.3-2: Appendix !;

• IP 1.2 IP 1.12: IP 2.1; IP 2.33 and IP 1.4.

l Evaluation I.S. Adequate.

I  !

Evaluation Criterion i

!.9. The offsite response organization shall have a capability to detect and measure radiolodine concentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low t I as 10*I uCl/cc (microcuries per cuble centimeter) under field conditions. I

! Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radiation shall  !

, not decrease the stated minimum detectable activity. I 1  !

j 8tatement [

4

i.9. NHY ORO has made provision for equipment and j measure radiolodine concentrations as low as uCl/cc. 10'pethods to detect and The typleal r i field monitoring kit inventory (Table 3.3-1) and the field monitoring kit

. Inventory and operational checklist (IP 2.3) shows air sampling eoulpment 4

and includes 25 silver zeolite cartridges.

l The Table 3.3-1 check st and the IP 2.3 checklist should be consistent with l l respect to quantit: of supplies e.g., suggest using 30 silver zeolite i cartridges for both checklists. .

j 4

l j Plan Reference l

,i l

!  !.9. Section 3.3.2 Table 3.31 IP 2.2 IP 2.3 and Appendix 1.

l l i I  !

Evaluation l f

I 1.9. Adequate. l l We recommend that Table 3.3-1 and the IP 2.3 checklist be revised to be i consistent.  :

NHY has indicated (9/28/88) that Table 3.3-1 and the IP 2.3 checklists for

] field test kit inventory will be revised in the next amendment to be j

consistent, I

i 1 1

3 r..~, n .e-, ,_ ,~ ~ . , _ , , wen, --,-- .,-_ _ n n ,,-,,,,--nw-_ n , -,---m.,--m-e..~

Octobst 1988 49 Evaluation Criterloc f .10. The offsite response organization shall establish means for relating the various measured parameters (e.g., contamination levels, water and air activity levels) to dose rates for key isotopes (i.e., those given in Table 3, page 18 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1) and gross radioactivity measurements. Provisions shat'. be made for estimating integrated dose from the pr:sjected and actual dose rates and for comparing these estimates with the protective action guides. The detailed provisions shall be described in separate procedures.

Statement 1.10. IP. 2.2. describes duties for the Accident Assessment Coordinator and the Dose Assessment Technician. The procedure describes the methodologies used for predicting offsite doses (whole body and thytold), for calculating projected lodine ground deposition, and for projecting first-year integrated whole body dose from radioactive deposition.

Section 3.3 of the Plan states that the Dose Assessment Technician is to i use the METPAC data provided by NHY staff at the BOF. The type of

, information that can be obtained from the METPAC printout includes l plume arrival time for downwind distances up to 10 miles, whole-body and

thyrold dose rate projections, atmospheric dispersion and plume depletion j factors, and whole body and thyroid integrated doses for 2, 4,6, or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />

of exposuee. The Dose Assessment Technician should have a time dependent dose conversion factor to use in developing the projected thyroid dose rate calculations.

l IP 2.5 provides guidance for making PARS. The PAR procedure calls for I predetermined special pas at a Site Area Emergency or General Emer-

! gency. The predetermined special pas ares

• Ccnsider recommending early evacuation of schools; and I

j

• Closure of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island, j Plum Island Beach. Salisbun 11each, and the ocean safety zone, l

l The Radiological Health Advisor is responsible for implementing th's I procedure. The Accident Assessment Coordinator is responsible for collecting and summarizing radiological and meteorological Information, j The Technical Adviror is responsible for collect! rig and summarizing data I on the accident status and plant con,11tions, and providing this trformation j to the Radiological Health Advisor for formulating a PAR. The l

Radiological Health Advisor checklist (IP 1.2) states that the Radiological Heslth Advisor is responsible for formulating precautionary PARS and

{

PARS for both the plume 2nd Ingestion exposure pathways. The PAR

Octob:r 1988 50 procedure Indicates that the Technical Advisor will confer with the Radiological Health Advisor in developing a PAR (IP 2.5, sections 5.2.2, 5.4.1, and 5.4.3). The Techr.ical Advisor checklist (IP 1.7) states that the Technical Advisor will develop PARS based upon plant status and advise the Radiological liealth Advisor of the need for PARS based on plant conditions.

The Radiological Health Advisor checklist has a briefing sheet (Attach-ment 3 to IP 1.2) for the Radlological llealth Advisor to complete and deliver to the NHY Offsite Response Director. This form has combinations of no action, shelter, evacuation, and recovery for each of the ERPAs within the plume exposure EPZ. This form also contains an Ingestion PAR and a section for recommending emergency worker exposure controls.

See J.11 for discussion of dose projections for the Ingestion pathway.

Pitn Reference 1.10. Section 3.2; Section 3.31 Section 3.91 IP 1.2 IP 1.73 IP 1.12: IP 2.2; IP 2.5; and IP 2.6.

Evaluation I.10. Adequate.

We recommend that a time dependent dose conversion factor should be used in thyroid exposure rate calculation.

Evaluation Crit:rlon I.11. Arrangements to locate tnd track the airborne radioactive plume shall be made, using either or both Federal and offsite response organization resources.

Statement I.11. NHY ORO will provide two deld monitoring teams with vehicles for ground transportation. These teams, along with those of New Hampshire State and Seabrook Station, can be used for locating and tracking an airborne radioactive plume from the ground. The Plan Indicates that NHY ORO will request Federal assistance to perform aerial monitoring.

i

Octobar 1988

$1 Plan Reference

!.11. Section 2.3.2 Section 2.3.?: Section 3.3.2 IP 1.12 and IP 2.3.

Evaluation 1.11. Adequate.

october 1988 '

$2 i l

J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J):

A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are daveloped and in i place, and protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to I the locale have been developed. (

Evaluation Criterion f J.2. Each licensee and offsite response organization shall make provisions for f evacuation routes and transportation for onalte Individuals to some suitable l offsite location, including alternatives for inclement weather, high traffic density and specific radiological conditions, i

Statement r

J.2. Evacuation of onsite personnel is incorporated into the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan Update. The  :

Seabrook Station is located in the 3 tate of New Hampshire. The onsite plan calls for personnel to be evacuated to the State of New Hampshire.

Plan Reference f i

J.2. Evacuation Time Estimmte study. l Evaluation

(

l J.2. Not Applicable.

Evaluation Criterion j l

J.9. The offsite response organization sball establish a capability for l Implementing protective measures based upon protective action guides and j other criteria. The offsite response organization shall describe the means for recomm.ending protective actions to the public, for activating the alert and notification system, and for notifying the public of protective action  ;

recommendations. This shall be consistent with the recommendations of ,

EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive alrborne ,

plumes, (EPA-520/1-75-001) and with those of DHilS/FDA regarding ,

radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds as published in l the Federal Register on October 22,1982 (47 FR 47073).

1

' 1

J' October 1988 53 i

! Statement 1

J.9. The Plan describes the Massachusetts communttles affected by the

Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ as follows

The land area is completely within Essex County, Commonwealth of i Massachusetts. All land area is said to be under the jurisdiction of the j following communities: Amesbury, Merrimac, Neivbury, Newburyport,

! Salisbury, and West Newbury. A portion of Plum Island is under the

jurisdiction of the DOI. The navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean and

- the Merrimac River are under the jurisdiction of the USCO. The FAA maintains jurisdiction over the airspace within the plume exposure EPZ.

Note Portions of Plum Island outside of Newburyport (Rowley and Ipswich) i are not included in plume exposure EPZ.

I' The general public population is stated to be as follows:

i COMMUNITY PERMANENT PERMANENT & TRANSIENT

! Amesbury 14,258 19,359 Merrimac 4,420 6.079 Newbury 5,479 10.476 Newbur)prt 16,414 23,481 j Salisbury 6,726 18,919 West Newbury 3,296 4,630 l

i TOTAL POPULATION 50,593 82,944 I

i Portions of Salisbury and Amesbury are located within the two mile and i five mile distance from the Seabrook Station in the S to the WSW compass l sectors. Portions of Salisbury and Amesbury and all/most of Merrimac,

{ West Newbury, Newburyport, and Newbury are located between the five and ten mile distance from the Seabrook Station in the S to the WSW compass sectors.

The translent population mainly visits Salisbury Beach and beaches on Plum J lsland, which are located in Salisbury, Newbury, and Newburyport, as well as the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in

] Newbur)prt, Rowley, and Ipswich.

I The Seabrook Station Ingestion Exposure EPZ affects portions of the States of Maine and New Hampshire and portions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plan Identifies all or portions of the following l Massachusetts Counties at being part of the Ingestion Exposure EPZ:

Essex, Middlesex Suffolk, Plymouth, Norfolk, and Worcester.

Octobsr 1988 54 NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for Protective Action in the Plume Exposure EPZ as follows:

• SAE and OE ECL Recommend that the DO! notify the transients at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge to leave. Recommend that the USCO establish a marine safety zone (ocean safety zone). Recommend that Plum Island Beach and Sallsbury Beach be closed. Consider recommending early evacuation of schools or closing of schools if they are not open.

• GE ECL: Recommend combinations of shelter and evacuation, depending upon assessment of emergency, for the general public and Special Populations. Recommendations will be by ERPA. A recommen-dation will be made to place milk animals within 10 milis in shelter and on stored feed.

NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas in the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as follows:

• PREVENTIVE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if measured contamination of food stuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels.

• EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the measured conta.nination of foodstuffs exceeds the emergency derived response levels.

NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas for the Reentry and Recovery period as follows: recommend the designation of restricted zones, relocation of the general public, and secontamination campaigns.

NHY ORO will base the Reentry and Recovery Protective Actions on the measurement of contamination that would result in the projected whole '

body dose exceeding the verlous relocation PAGs.

NIIY ORO has established the capabilities for effecting the evacuation of the general public and Speela! Populations. NHY ORO has designated staff.

equipment, and resources to effect evacuation and to establish access control points (ACPs) for evacuated areas. NHY ORO will provide dosimetry and K! to those Special Populations who cannot evacuate.

NHY OIW will assist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the implementation of ingestion Exposure Pathway pas. The NHY Offsite Response Director has authority to purchase foodstuffs with contamination levels exceeding the emergency derived response levels.

NHY ORO has made arrangements to notify the Commonwealth of  ;

Massachusetts and the various local governments. NHY ORO has made  !

arrangements to notify the public through the use of EBS, NHY ORO has

Octobsr 1983 55 t

made arrangements to notify Special Populations (public and private 1 schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical facilltles, ,

other special facilities, and hearing-tmpaired Individuals). NHY ORO has I made arrangements to notify the USCG, the FAA, and the DOI.  !

The Plan describes a Vehicular Alert and Notification System that would be utilized to alert the public. We note that the Vehicular Alert and ,

Notification System is not available for use. l NHY ORO has adopted the EPA PAGs for the general public and emergency workers in the plume exposure EPZ. NHY ORO has adopted the FDA PAGs for foodstuffs in the Ingestion exposure EPZ. The NHY ORO PAGs are consistent with those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State ,

of New Hampchire. NHY ORO has adopted the draft EPA PAGs for l relocation.

Plan Reference J.9. Section 3.38 Section 3.41 Section 3.51 Section 3.61 Section 3.73 Section 3.83 Section 3.91 and IP 2.16, 1 l

Evaluation l J.9. Adequate. l Evaluation Criterion i

J.10. The offsite response organization's plans to implement protective measures [

for the plume exposure pathway shall include: f r

J.10.a. Maps showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, preselected radiological f sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and ,

shelter areas (Identification of radiological sampling and monitoring points [

shall include the designat!ons in Table J 1 of NURCG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, j Rev.1 or an equivalent uniform system described in the offsite plan): J I

t i

Statement [

[

J.10.a. A map titled "Plume Exposure EPZ" (Appendix A) shows evacuation areas i and shelter areas (locations of the host facility and congregate care  !

centers) for the six towns. Expanded maps of each town in Appendix J [

show evacuation routes, with traffic control points mar!*e::. i i

i i

i

Octobor 1988 56 i

I A map of preselected radiological samp!!ng and monitoring points was not found. A comparable grid system and appropriate maps have been ,

established. This grid system has been adopted by the States of New l Hampshire and Maine, as well as the onsite organization, i I

Plan Reference l J.10.a. Appendix A and Appendix J. [

Evaluation  :

J.10.a. Adequate. f i

Evaluation Criterion f I

J.10.b. Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear facility. This shall be by evacuation areas (lleensees shall also present the Information In a  !

sector format): (

f Statement l l

J.10.b. Population distribution around Seabrook Station is shown in tabular (rather '

than map) form for the six towns in tne plume exposure EPZ in Table 1.3-1 i and Table 3.6-1. Tables 13-1 and 3.6-1 gives figures for "permanent i residents" and "peak population total." defined as summer, midweek data. I These figures are derived from the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time I Study.  !

Plan Reference  !

J.10.b. Table 1,31: Table 3.6-1 and CTE (Section 2 and Section 10). l

[

Evaluation l l

J.10.b. Adequate.

f i

We recominend that population distribution data be provided in map form. l l

NiiY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that population distribution data in a j map form by ERPA will be provided in the next amendment.

Octobsr 1988  !

57 t J

i

. Evaluation Criterion l l t J.10.c. Means for notifying all segments of the translent and resident population, l

Statement I t J.10.e. See comments under E.4. l l Plan Reference  !

I I

) J.10.c. Section 3.2.5 Section 3.7.3 IP 2.13 IP 2.15 and IP 2.16.  :

i  :

I Evaluation l

f i

l J.10.e. Inadequate. ,

1 i l The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) is not operational at (

1 this time. I

[

i  !

Evaluation Criterion h l

! {

l J.10.d. Means for protecting those persorts whose mobility may be impaired due to  !

such factors as Institutional or other confinement. These mesns shall include notification, support and assistance in implementing proteettve measures where appropriates i t j Statement l i

q I J.10.d. IP 2.7 provides guidance for notifying the Speelal Populations of  !

recommended pas and assessing transportation requirements. The  ;

j Special Populations are defined as school children living and attending [

t school in the plume exposure EPZ, school children living in the plume j j exposure EPZ and attending school outside the plume exposure EPZ, ,

i medically homebound Individuals, hearing tmpaired Individuals, I i Individuals in hospitals, and persons in other special care faellities. l l  !

! The Evacuation Support Coordinater is responsible for directing the fttnettons of the School Coordinator and Special Population

Coordinators. The School Coordinator is responsible for directing the l

School Listson and referring transportation requirements to the Dus

! Company Liaison. Each School Liaisoa is responsible for notifying f schools in the designated communttles, relaying PARS to the schools, i and informing the School Coordinator of transportation needs and the i status of PA implementation. School Liaisons are also responsible for i

l

Octob:r 1988 58 notifying schools outside the plume exposure EPZ that are attended by students living in the plume exposure EPZ. The Special Population Coordinator is responsible for directing the activities of the Special Population Liaisons, ensuring notifications of the hearing-tmpaired are made, referring bus requirements to the Bus Company Llatson, and obtaining special vehicles (ambulances /wheelcha!r vans).

The Special Vehicle Dispatchers are responsible for dispatching ambulance / van drivers to various special facilities. The Dosimetry Recordkeepers will provide dosimetry to the Special Vehicle drivers.

Appendix M Indicates that there are needs for 107 wheelchair vans and ambulances and 57 buses to evacuate 2,638 persons plus staff who are i either in special facilities and hospitals or who have mobility impairments.

The Plan states that NilY ORO has the means for conducting simultaneous evacuation of all schcols within the Massachusetts plume exposure EPZ.

NHY ORO bus drivers will be briefed, Issued dosimetry, and dispatched to appropriate schools. The NilY ORO does not rely on the school buses routinely used by the school district. The p!r.t. makes provision to provide the means to communicate with the buses by issuing radios to the Route Guides, who will be assigned te the lead bus dispatched to each school. of IP 2.7 is used by the School Liaison to notify schools, and to inform them of PARS. The attachment contains the PAR "nonopening/

cancellation" of school sessions and school related activities. Section 5.2.2 of IP 2.7 states that the School Coordinator requests buses from the Dus Company Llatson. The School Coordinator receives the bus needs from the six Schcol Llatsons. Provision has been made for buses, vans, and ambulances to evacuate these Individuals, for monitoring and decontamination, and for a host facility and congregate care facilities.

Appendix M Indicates that there are needs for 245 buses to evacuate 10,371 pe.esons from schools.

Special Population Liaisons are assigncd to make notifications to the noninstitutionalized special populations, including the hearing-tmpaired, and to special facilities other than schools. Route Guides at the Staging Area are to be available af ter declaration of a SAE for dispatch to the homes of the hearing-tmpaired to inform them of the need to take protective actions. Lists of persons with special needs are to be maintained via mall-in cards, posters, phone inquiries, and personal visits.

These and other lists of special facilities are to be maintained in Appendix M.

Maps to direct those assigned to evscuate special populations have been des elope d. Provisions have been made to store the maps at the Staging Area and to provide the maps to Route Guides.

Octobor 1988-  !

59 i 1

Plan Reference J.10.d. Section 3.8 IP 1.93 IP 1.10 IP 2.73 IP 2.10 IP 2.113 and Appendix M.

Evaluation

J.10.d. Adequate.

l Evaluation Criterion i

i J.10.e. Provisions for tha use of radioprotective drugs, particularly for emergency i workers and Institutionallred persons within the plume expcsure EPZ whose i immediate evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult, including j quantitles, storage, and means of distribution Statement I

J 10.e. K! tablets are to be issued along with dosimetry to emergency personnel l

j who must enter the plume exposure EPZ. Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to j deliver a set of dostretty and K! to each bus driver at their respective bus 4 31rds. All cther ei.iergency workers at the Staging Area are to receive both dosimetry and K!.

j The NHY ORO will provide dostmetry and K! for institutionalized l Individuals who cannot be evacuated if requested by local emergency

officials.

1 l Dostmetry Recordkeepers are to deliver 50 sets s f dostmetry with K! to j each local EOC, if requested to do so.

l

! Plan Reference

J.10.e. Section 3.5.4 Section 3.6.1 IP 2.83 and Appendix !.

l Evaluation l J.10.e. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion j

l J.10.f. The offsite response organization's plans should include the method by 1 which deelstons by the State Health Department for administering j radioprotective drugs to the general popu!stion can be made during an 1

I

Octobst 1988 60 1

eraergency. The plan shall adopt the method used by the State where such

a method is available. The plans shall provide for advising State Health l Departments regarding such deelslons and the predetermined condition under which such drugs may be used by offsite emergency workers I 8tatement J.10.f. NHY ORO has not made provisions for the distribution of KI to the general public, which is consistent with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan. The predetermined condition level

, for K! use by emergency workers is stated to be 25 rem.

l All NHY ORO emergency personnel who must enter the plume ::PZ will be j given KI tablets along with dosimetry. Tne Radiological Health Advisor a

will use the evaluation of projected thyrold exposures in the decision to

authorize the Ingestion of KI by NHY ORO emergency personnel.

Plan Reference i .i.10.f. Section 3.5.4 and IP 2.8.

t l

I Evaluation J.10.f. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion i

1 J.10.g. Means of relocationi Statement i

j J.10.g. The plan (Section 3.6.1) describes means for relocation of the general j public (via automobile), residents and transients requiring assistance j (automobile or bus), Special Population /special facilities (bus, ambulance, i or van), and te:hools (buses). The numbers of buses, ambulances, and vant required are tabulated in Appendix M. See comments under J.10.d.

1 i IP 1.3, 1.9 1.10, 2.10, and 2.11 provide gulcance and control for

) implementing evacuation protective settons.

I See DHHS Federal Reg.ister notice of July 24,1985 (50 FR 30258) entitled Federal Policy on Distribution of Potassium todide Around Nuclear Power Sites for Use as a Thyrold Blocking Agent.

Octobar 1988 61 The Staging Area Leader is responsible for briefing personnel dispatched to bus yards. The Bus Company Liaison is responsible for obtaining buses to support the evacuation of general and Special Populations. The Bus Company Dispatchers are responsible for taking Bus Driver Packets to bus yards, briefing bus delvers, and overseeing the dispatch of buses. The Bus Company Dispatcher is to take Dosimetry Record Keepers to the assigned bus yards. The Route Guide procedure (Attachment 3, IP 2.10) states that the Route Guides will report to the assigned bus yard with the Bus Company Dispatcher. The Special Vehicle Dispatcher is responsible for briefing ambulance / van drivers, assigning pickup points, and dispatching them from the Staging Area. Transfer Point Dispatchers are responsible for assigning bus routes, assigning dosimetry to road crews, dispatching / ,

briefing Route Guides and bus drivers who are assigned to Transfer Points.

The Bus Company Llatson is tasked to determine the availability of buses, and the mobilization time. This information is to be recorded on Attachment 1 of IP 2.10. This form provides for an Indication of the availability v. .sipment and the Identified bus requirements by community for transit depe .. dent, special facilities, and schools. When there are more bus compan'es and/or bus yards than Bus Dispatchers, IP 2.10 directs the Bus Company Liaison either to request buses from smaller bus companies to go to designated bus yards for dispatch, or to request NHY ORO to provide additional Bus Disaatchers. The Bus Company Liaison must interface with the Special Population Coordinator and the Schoo! Coordinator Iri order to determine the actual number of buses required for these groups of Special Populations by community.

The Route Guide procedure (Attachment 2, IP 2.10) calls for the Route Guides to check out radios in order to provide communications capabilities for the buses. The staffing chart (Figure 2.1-1) Indicates that 166 persons are assigned duties as Route Guides. These 166 Route Guides have to provide evacuation assistance to the general public, schools and special facilities simultaneously. The Route Guides also are assigned the responsibility to notify the hearing-tmpaired Individuals.

The Transfer Point Dispatchers will pick up radlos and proceed to their predetermined Transfer Point. The Transfer Point Dispatchers are also to plek up enough radios to provide radios to the Road Crews.

Transfer Point Dispatchers will brief bus drivers and Route Guides as t*ey arrive at the transfer points. Bus delvers, Route Guides, and buses will be assigned to specific routes. Appendix M indicates that 64 buses will be assigned to the Transfer Point Dispatchers to effect transportation assistance / evacuation for 1,864 persons identified as transit-dependent.

l

October 1988 62 Plan Reference J.10.g. IP 1.3; IP 1.9; IP 1.10; IP 2.10; IP 2.11; Section 3.6; Appendix I; Appendix M; and Evacuation Time Estimate study.

Evaluation J.10.g. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion J.10.h. Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone (see J.12.);

Statement J.10.h. Two Reception Centers and 27 Congregate Care Centers (some co-located) have been identified (Appendix C). All are at a distance of at least 5 mile.4, and rest greater than 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure EPZ. According to ARC form #3074; completed by NHY personnel for each Congregate Care Center, the Congregate Care Centers have space for 24,714 people. The Reception Centera will be managed by the NHY ORO (Section 5.2.7). The Congregate Care Centers will be managed by the American Red Cross (Section 5.2.8).

Maps directing the public from the Reception Centers to the Congregate Care Centers have been developed. Provisions have been made to store the maps at the Reception Centers and to provide for the distribution of the appropriate maps to evacuees requiring congregate care.

A generic plan for Congregate Care Center setup has been developed, i Plan Reference J.10.h. Section 3.6; Section 5.2.7; Section 5.2.S; IP 1.6; and IP 3.5.

Evaluation J.10.h. Adequate.

l l

October 1988 63 Evaluation Criterion J.10.l. Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions; Statement J.10.1. The Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study describes the method used to estimate traffic capacitics of < 'on routes (ETE, Section 3) and lists the estimated values of capa t each route segment under fair weather conditions (ETE, Appendix N). For inclement weather, capacity reductions of 20 percent for rain and 25 percent for snow are used (ETE, p. 3-11).

I Plan Reference J.10.l. Evacuation Time Estimate study.

l 2 valuation J.10.l. Adequate, i

Evaluation Criterion

, J.10.J. Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibilities for such control; Statement

, J.10.J. The following statements are based on our review of the Plan, IP 2.11, l Appendix J of the Plan, and the ETE.

NiiY ORO will establish Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) (Section 3.6.5). Detailed sketches of each TCP and ACP are included in the plan (Appendix J. Traffic Management Manual).

The listed ACPs are all on the periphery of the EPZ. Specific internal TCPs are designated as internal ACPs.

Plan Reference J.10.J. Section 3.6.5; IP 2.11; Appendix !; Appendix J and ETE study.

1

{

l l

October 1988 64 Evaluation J.10.J. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion J.10.k. Identification of and means for dealing with potential Impediments (e.g.,

seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation routes, and contingency measures; Statement J.10.k. NHY ORO will preposition 12 road crews at 6 Transfer Points to clear road impediments and ensure that roads remain passable (Section 3.6.5). Traffic guides will be stationed at predetermined TCPs to expedite the flow of traffic. If alternative evacuation routes heeome necessary, Traffic Guides will be repositioned by the Evacuation Support Dispatcher (Section 3.6.5, IP 1.3, IP 2.10, and Appendix J).

See statement under J.10.1.

Appendix M lists three companies with a total inventory of 24 towing vehicles.

Plan Reference J.10.k. Section 3.6.5; IP 1.3; IP 2.10; Appendix Ji and Appendix M.

Evaluation J.10.k. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion J.10.1. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (see Appendix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1, Rev.1); and l

October 1988 65 Statement J.10.1. An evacuation time study was performed for the entire plume exposure EPZ, including the six Massachusetts communities, Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE).

In the ETE, two Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) were defined to include the six Massachusetts communities: ERFA B, comprising Amesbury and Salisbury; and ERPA E, comprising Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, and West Newbury. Evacuation time estimates were calculated for these ERPAs. The overall evacuation time estimates for i ERPAs B and E include the evacuation time estimates for the persons at, the Massachusetts beaches, for transit-dependent persons, and for special facility populations.

IP 2.10 (Attachment 2) assigns priorities for evacuating special facilities.

We could not locate in the Plan the methodology used to assign those priorities. NHY Indicated during conversations with FEMA staff that the '

following methodology was used to assign ' priorities: schools were prioritized strictly based on distance from Seabrook-Station. The hospitals were all considered high priority, both because there are only two, and because of the criticality of their population. The priorities were established on a town-specific basis, whereby each town has neveral priority levels, from highest (1) to lowest (4). We note that NHY ORO will consider recommending early evacustion of schools or closing cf schools if they are not open at both a SAE and GE ECL.

Plan Reference J.10.1. Section 3.6; IP 1.3; IP 2.5; IP 2.10; Appendix J; and ETE.

Evaluation J 10.1. Adequate.

We recommend that the Plan be revised in the next amendment to state the basis for determining the special facility evacuation priorities.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Section 3.6 will be revised in the 1989 annual update to state the basis for determining the special facility priorities.

Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. The basis for the choice of recommended protective actions from the plume exposure pathway during emergency condltions. This shall include l

l

octobsr 1988 66 expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelger for direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates Statement J.10. m . The Plan describes a PAR process based on both plant status and dose projections. Field measurements are inputted as they become available in order to refine PARS. The epa erotective Action Guides (PAGs) are used as s basis for selecting protective actions for the plume exposure pathway. The METPAC program used for dose projection contains shelter ,

protection factors for a wood frame house without a basement, used in both ,

whole-body and thyroid dose calculations (p. 3.3-6).

Plan Reference J.10.m. Section 3.3; Section 3.41 IP 1,2; IP 1,7; IP 2.5; and Evacuation Time Fatimate study.

Evaluation J.10.m. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion J.11. The offsite response organization shall specify the protective measures to be used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protecting the public from consumption of contaminated foodstuffc. This shall include criteria for deciding whether dairy animals should be put on stored feed.

The offsite plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled Ingestion, i

2 The following reports may be considered in determining protection afforded.

(1) "Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents "Sheltering Concepts with Existing Public and Private Structures" (SAND 77-1725), Sandla  :

Laboratory.

(2) "Examination of Offs'.te Radiological Emergency Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents involving Core Melt"(SAND 78-0454), Sandla r.sboratory.

(3) "Protective Action Evaluation Part !!, Evacuation and Sheltering as Protective Actions Aganst Nuclear Accidents involving Gaseous Releases" (EPA 520/1-78-001D).

U.S. Environmental Protect!o t Agency. l 1

, ,. , - , , . - - - - . . - . . . . - . - - - - - - _ , . - . - - - - - - - - - - , , , .n -- - - ---.

Octobar 1988 67 aiid for imposing orotection procedures such as impoundment, decontamina-tion, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation. Maps for reccrding survey and monitoring data, key land use data (e.g., farming),

dalrics, food processing plants, water sheds, water supply intake and treatment plants and reservoirs shell be maintained. Provisions for maps showing detailed crop information may be by including reference to their availability and location and a plan for their use. The maps shall start at the facility and include all of the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ. Up-to-date lists of the name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall be maintained.

Statement J.11. NHY ORO has identified procedures for detecting contamination from the quantitative field data collected by Sample Collection Teams and/or Field Monitoring Teams, and from laboratory analysis of the field samples. NHY ORO has procedures for developing Preventive and Emergency PARS.

IP 2.6 contains two worksheets for calculating whether protective actions are called for (Attachmer.t 2 for milk and drinking water; Attachment 5 for other foods). IP 2.6 also contains attachments with preventive (#3) and emergenc y (#4) pas.

NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas in the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as follows:

• PRECAUTIONARY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend that milk animals in the plume EPZ be placed on stored feed and in shalters at GE ECL.

• PREVENTIVE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels.

• EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the emergency derived response levels.

The Plan in Section 3.4.2 provides for ingestion PARS and pas to be communicated to the general public and food processors by means of news releases and EDS message. IP 2.6 assigns the Radlological Health Advisor the responsibility to assist in the development of appropriate news releases. Af ter recommending an ingestion exposure pathway PAR, the NHY Offsite Response Director will direct the Pubtle Information Advisor to develop a news release. Af ter authorization from the Commonwealth, the Public Information Advisor will be instructed to issue the news release.

Octobtr 1988 68 NHY ORO r 'l request that the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, the USDA, and the FDA implement ingestion exposure pathway pas. IP 2.6 directs the NHY Offsite Response Director, upon authorization from the Commonwealth, to Instruct the Radiological Health Advisor to begin contacting farms and food processors / distributors affected by the pas. The Plan references the process tc provide written public instructions material to be directed at farmers, farm workers, food processors, and distributors within the ingestion exposure EPZ.

The ingestion pathway database (Appendix L) does contain appropriate information for accident assessment and implementation of ingestion pathway pas. FEMA staff reviewed the material that is being placed in a computerized data base, the format of the data base, and sample outputs of the data base. The reporting formats (outputs) and data base will provide for complete coverage (lists of farms, producers, processors, distributors, etc.) of ingestion pathways within the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook ingestion exposure EPZ. Provisions have been made for maintaining maps for recording survey and monitoring data, and for maintaining key land use data, dalries (Appendix L), etc. at the NHY ORO EOC.

IP 2.4 establishes guidelines for the Sample Collection Teams (SCT) to follow in the collection of water, snow, milk, vegetation, meats and meat products, eggs, soll, food crops, animal feeds, and shellfish. Fampic Collection Teams will be directed oy the Accident Assessment Crordinator through the Field Team Dispatcher. Figure 2.1-1 Indicates that there are 12 persons (6 teams). There are 6 team kits. The Plan (Section 3.3) states j that there are 5 Semple Collection Teams. The sixth team will be used to collect samples and transfer them to collection points (EOF).

Sample Collection Teams are directed to take gamma and gamma / beta surveys at walst height at each sample location. Sample Collection Teams are directed to take gamma / beta surveys at two inches above ground at each sample location. The Sample Collection Tet.ms have USGS maps for the ingestion exposure EPZ and maps for the plume exposure EPZ. A grid system is used for both maps.

There are various procedures for the different types of samples. The milk sampling procedure includes the required collection of necessary information on feeding protocol, volumes of milk in tanks from which the sample was taken, and times at which milk was added to the tank relative to the time of the accident. The procedure calls for the Sample Collection Team to complete Attachment 5.

Plan Reference J.11. Section 3.3: Section 3.4.2: Section 5.2.1 Figure 2.2-1: IP 2.4; IP 2.6; IP 2.12; IP 2.13; Appendix Li and Appendix H.

l

[ .

Octobar 1988 69 Evaluation J.11. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion J.12. The offsite response orgsalzation shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available shall be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers.

Statement J.12. NHY ORO will use mobile Monitoring Trallers at each Reception Center.

All arriving persons must process through the Monitoring Trailer. Each Monitoring Traller has 14 monitoring stations. The plan Indicates that additional monitoring espability is available to NH7 ORO from Yankee Atomic Electric Company, other New England utilities, and Federal resources.

There are procedures. for decontamination of evacuees in the plan. The layout of the Monitoring Trailers shows that each Monitoring Trailer has a decontamination araa with a double sink and two decontamination showers.

A Monitoring Team is assigned to each of the two Reception Centers. Each team has 30 persons per shif t. Each Monitoring Team reports to a team leader. The Monitoring Team Leaders report to the Radiological Health Advisor.

IP 2.0 calls for the use of the FT1268 instrument for initial monitoring and the HP210 instrument for monitoring after decontamination. The contamination level for personnel and equipment is 200 cpm above background. The NHY ORO has made provisions to deal with contaminated clothing, personal articles, and wastewater. The Plan states that the NIIY ORO monitoring productivity !S 16,600 persons in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (both Reception Centers).

A radiological screening program is established to determine whether contamisted persons need further medical evaluation. Persons enter the program who cannot be decontaminated below acceptable limits, or if he or she has external contamination greater than 2,000 cpm above background (ten times the contamination trigger level, which is 200 cpm above background). The Radiological llealth Advisor is responsible for all following actions (e.g., bloassays or whole body counts).

Octobar 1988 70 The Reception Center Coordinator / Assistant Reception Center Coordinator are responsible for activating and operating the two Reception Centers, reuniting evacuees with their. familles, tracking the number of evacuees reporting to each center and directing evacuees to approprie.te Congregate Care Centers operated by the American Red Cross (ARC).

The Reception Center Coordinator will notify the ARC and Congregate Care Centers at Alert. They will inform the ARC and Congregate Care Center of the emergency status and assess availability of staff and facilities. The Reception Centers will be activated at SAE. The Congregate Care Centers will be activated at GE. The Reception Center Coordinator will notify the Public Information Advisor of the locations of the Congre' gate Care Centers that should be included in the news releases.

The Reception Center Leaders are responsible for the activation, operation, and deactivation of the Reception Centers. Each Reception Center has i leader and 17 staff persons per shift. All evacuees must be processed through the monitoring and decontamination process before they can gain access to the reception center via the issuance of a clean tag (Attachment 3 of IP 2.9), The monitoring and decontaminntlen staff do issue the clean tags. There are two security staff assigned to the reception center. The Reception Center Liaison is to assign a staff persen to perform a security function at the ingress and egress points to the Receptio.n Center. There are two staff assigned to the function of directing traffic in the parking lots. The Monitoring and Decontamination operation has staff assigned to monitor vehicles.

The evacuees, once they have been Issued a clean tag, will proceed to the registration area. The registration form (Attachment 7 of IP 3.5) contains an area for name, resident address, persons living in your home, and the temporary shelter locat!on. The evacuees have the option of completing a message form (Attachment 10 of IP 3.5). The Reception Center staff will complete the message log (Attachment 11 of IP 3.5) and post the log for arriving evacuees to see. When persons request to see the message, after receiving appropriate identification, the staff will deliver the message.

Plan Reference J.12. Section 3.5.3; Section 5.2.4; Section 5.2.7; IP 1.2: IP 2.9; IP 3.4; and IP 3.5.

Evaluation J.12. Adequate.

l l

l

October 1988 71 K. Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K):

Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling radictogical exposures shall include exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides.

Evaluation Criterion K.3.a. The offsite response organization shall make provision for 24-hour-per-day capability to determine the doses received by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear accident, including volunteers who are part of the offsite response organization. They shall r.lso make provislans for distribution of dosimeters, both self-reading and permanent record devices.

Statement K.3.a. NHY ORO has made provisions to determine doses received by NHY ORO 1 emergency persor.nel. Provisions have been made for distribution of both direct reading dosimeters and permanent record devices for emergency workers. Emergency Workers are responible for monitoring und recording their own exposure. There are admin:strative reporting levels. The reports will be used by the Exposure Control Coordinator to track the exposures received by NHY ORO personnel. There are Dosimetry Recordkeepers assigned to maintain dosimetry records for emergency workers. The Dosimetry Record Keepers report to the Exposure Control Coordinator.

The Exposure Control Coordinator reports to the Radiological Health Advisor.

Each emergency worker [as defined in the plan] is to be provided with one thermoluminescent dostmeter and two direct-reading dosimeters (0-200 mR, and 0-20 R), except for monitoring / decontamination personnel assigned to the monitoring trailers and EWF, who are to receive a 0-200 mR dosimeter and a TLD. The TLD will provide the official radia-tion exposure to be recorded on the emergency worker's permanent record.

The Transfer Point Dispatchers, Traffic Guides, Local EOC Liaisons.

Ambulance Drivers, Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel, Field Monitoring Teams, and Sample Collection Teams are to receive dosimetry from Dosimetry Recordkeepers at the Staging Area. Bus Drivers are to receive dosimetry from the Bus Dispatchers who, assisted by Dosimetry Recordkeepers, are to deliver and distribute dosimetry at the bus yards prior to the dispatch of buses. The Local EOC Liaisons and Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to take dosimetry to the local EOCs for distribution to the local emergency workers if needed. Transfer Point Dispatchers are to take dosimetry to the Transfer Points for distribution to the Road Crews and if necessary Snow Removal Crews.

l

- - _ _ - - _ - - - _ - _ - - - - - _ - =,

4 Octobsr 1988 72 Plan Reference K.3.a. Section 3.5.2; Section 3.6.5; IP 2.8; and Appendix I.

Evaluation K.3.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion K.3.b. The offsite response organization shall ensure that dosime!PS 2re read at appropriate frequencies and provide for maintaining dose records for emergency workers involved in any nuclear accident.

Statement K.3.b. NHY ORO Emergency Workers have been tralaed to read the direct-reading dosimeters at frequent intervals while performing their emergency duties.

The term "frequent intervals" has been specified in emergency worker training as "approximately every 15 minutes." The TLD will provide the official radiation exposure to be recorded on the emergency worker's permanent record. Dosimetry Recordkeepers will maintain dosimetry records for emergency workers on forms for a shift basis. Emergency personnel are responsible for monitoring and recording their own exposure while in the field, and for notifying their appropriate contact point if exposure reporting levels are reached. The procedures require emergency workers to eecord their own readings on work sheets. The vaelons forms provided to the EW allow them to log and track their dose.

Plan Reference K.3.b. Section 3.5.2; and IP 2.8.

Evaluation K.3.b. Adequate.

Evaluatloc Criteria K.4. The offsite response organization shall establish the decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to incur exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action Guides (i.e., EPA PAGs for emergency workers and lifesaving activities).

October 1988 73 Statement K 4. The NHY ORO has established criteria and set up a decision chain for authorizing emergency worker exposures. The plan indicates that the exposure limits adopted by the NHY ORO are the emergency worker whole-body exposure PAGs established by the EPA. The NHY ORO has established various administrative limits between 5 rem and 25 rem with the objective of limiting the number of emergency workers who may reach 25 rem. The Exposure Control Coordinator, the Radiological Health Advisor, and the NHY Offsite Response Director are responsible for exposure control decisions affecting all emergency workers, according to the plan. The Exposure Control Coordinator (or, for the field teams, the Accident Assessment Coordinator) approves exposures up to 5 rem; the Radiological Health Advisor approves exposures from 5 rem to 25 rem; and the NHY Offsite Response Director approves exposures beyond 25 rem for lifesaving missions.

NHY ORO staff qualifications, as specified in the plan, do assure that there will be an individual in the decision chain suitably quallfled to authorize exposures in excess of the EPA general public PAGs.

Plan Reference K.4. Section 3.5.2 Table 3.5-1; IP 1.1; IP 1.2 IP 1.12; and IP 2.8.

Evaluation K.4. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion K.5.a. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall specify action levels for determining the need for decontamination.

Statement K.S.a. NilY ORO has specified action levels for determining the need for decontamination. For emergency workers, areas of the body, personal articles and equipment will be considered contaminated if the detected levels exceed 200 cpm above a normal background. The procedures specify the use of the APTEC FT1268 probe, which is a large area (126 sq cm) detector and count rate meter.

Octobsr 1988 74 A Personnel Monitoring Team (13 persons) is assigned to the EWF. The Personnel Monitoring Team reports to its team leader. The Monitoring Team leader reports to the Radiological Health Advisor.

The trigger levels for enrolling emergency workers in the radiological screening program are when an Individual receives 5 rem or greater whole body exposure, when an Individural is suspected of having internal contamination, or when an Individual has external contamination greater than 2,000 cpm above background (ten times the contamination trigger level, which is 200 cpm above background).

Plan Reference K.5.a. Section 3.5.2 IP 1.2; and IP 2.9.

Evaluation K.5.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion K.5.b. The offsite responso organization, as appropriate, shall establish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments ano equipment, and for waste disposal.

Staternent K.5.b. The plan has established means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, including cmergency workers with contaminated wounds; personal articles and equipment. The po!!cy is to address medical needs before decontamination issues. Arrangements have been made for the appropriate disposal of contaminated waste.

Plan Reference K.5.b. Section 3.5.2 and IP 2.9.

Evaluation K.5.b. Adequate.

i

- October 1908 75 L. Medical and Pubtle IIealth Support (Planning Standard L):

Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured Individuals 1 Evaluation Criterion L.1. The offsite response organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, includir.g assu;ance that persons providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated Individuals.

Statement L.1. Letters of Agreement have been signed between New llampshire Yankee '

and support hospitals outside the Plume Exposure EPZ that will treat contaminated, injured or overexposed Individuals. Both a primary and backup hospital are !!sted.

Plan P,eference L.1. Section 3.8.1 and Appendix C. l Evaluation L.1. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterlon L.3. The offsite response orgsnization shall develop lists indicating the location of public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical ,

i services facilities within the State or contiguous States considered capable

) of providing medic 01 support for any contaminated injured Individual. Tbe listing shall include the name, location, type of facility and capacities and any special radiological capabilities. These emergency medical services I

i The availability of an Integrated emr,rgency medical services system and a public het.ltit i emergency plan serving the area in which the facility is located and, as a minimum, equivalent to the Public ifealth Service Guide for Developing liealth Disaster Plans, 1974, and to the requirements of an emergency medical services system as outlined in the Emergency Medical Services System Act of 1973 (PL 93154 and amendments in 1979 PL 96-142), should be part of and consistent with overall State or local disaster control plants and should be compatible with the speelfic overall emegency response plans for the facility.

Octobar 1988 i 76 should be able to radiologically monitor contamination personnel, and have facilities and trained personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.

Statement i

L.3. The Plan contains a list of hospitals with appropriate information.

Plan Reference  !

I L.3. Section 3.C.11.\ppendix C; and Appendix M.

l Evaluation L.3. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion L.4. The offsite response organization shall arrange for transporting victims of radli .ogical accidents to medical support facilities.

Statement i

L.4. NHY ORO has made provisions for the transportation of injured contaminated or overexposed Individuals from a Reception Center or the Emergency Worker Facility to a designated hospital. One ambulance will be kept at each Reception Cente?. NHY Offsite Response staff vehicles may also be used, if necessary.

Plan Reference L.4. Section 3.8.1.

Evaluation L.4. Adequate.

Octobsr 1988 77 M. R3covery and Rcentry Planning and Postaccident Operations (Planning Standard M):

Genera plains for recovery and reentry are developed.

Evaluation Criterlon M.1. The offsite rerponse organization, as appropriate, shall develop general plar.s and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by which decisions to relax protective measures (e.g., allow reentry into an evacuated area) are reached. This process should consider both existing and pctential cor. cit'.ons.

Ststement M.1. NilY ORO has developed general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery. The plan describes means by which decisions to relax protective measures will be reached, including field surveys, sample collection and analysis, and Interpretation of results. This process considers both existing conditions and potential .tianges in conditions. The plan cites the EPA draf t relocation PAGs as criteria to be used (Table 3.9-1). The Plan contains a statement that the NHY Offsite Response Director, through the Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Llaison, will request guidance from the State or local government at to whom should be allowed to Peenter an evacuated or restricted area.

Pisn Reference M.1. Section 3.5: Section 3.91 Table 3.9-1; and Appendix J.

Evaluation M.1. Adequate.

Evaluttlon Criterlon M.3. The offsite plan shall specify means for Informing meittbors of the offsite response organization that a recovery operation la ta be initiated, and of any changes in the organizational structure that may cecur.

Octobsr 1988 78 Statement M.3. Members of the NHY ORO are to be Informed of recovery operations by emergency communications which have been operational throughout the emergency. Restructuring of the NHY ORO, as appropriate, will be directed by the NHY Offsite Response Director.

Plan Reference i M.3. Section 3.9.2.

Evaluation M.3. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion M.4. The offsite plan shall establish a method for periodically estimating to;al population exposure.

Statement M.4. The offsite plan assigns the responsibility and describes the general basis for estimating total population doses, i.e., field monitoring results, dispersion calculations, population data, and exposure times. Section 3.9 of the Plan defines total population exposure estimates as an integrated dese exposure commitment from both the plume and ingestion exposure pathways for the population at risk. Total population exposure estimates will be calculated at the conclusion of a radiological emergency.

Plan Reference M.4. Section 3.9.4 and IP 2.2. i Evaluation M.4. Adequate.

October 1988 79 N. Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N):

Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key sxills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected. .

i Evaluation Criterion N.1.a. An exercise is an event that tests the Integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans and organizations. The emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite radiological releases which will require response by offsite response organizations. Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.

Statement N.1.a. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation (or designee) is responsible for ensuring that exercises (and drills) are conducted according to NRC and FEMA guidelines.

Plan Reference N.1.a. Section 6.5 and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.I.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.1.b. An exercise shall include mobilization of offsite response organization resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. Thic includes the demonstration of offsite response organization capabilities to interface with non-participating State and local government, but does not include the use of standins for the anticipated State and local response. The offsite response organization

shall provide for a critique of the biennial exercise by Federal and offsite 1

response organization observers / evaluators. The scenario shall be varied from exercise to exercise such that all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six-year period. Each organization shall niake provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m.

l l

l l

Octob2r 1988 80 and 4:00 a.m. Exercises shall be conducted during different seasons of the year. At least one exercise shall be unannounced.

Statement N.1.b. The Plan commits NHY to exercise the full Plan capability at least once annually; with a full-scale Federally-observed exercise conducted once every two years. NHY is committed to vary the scenarlo used for the exercise, the time of day, and weather (season) conditions under which the exercise is condueced. NHY has stated that some exercises "will" be unannounced. The Director Emergency Response and l'nplementation (or designee) is responsible for ensuring that the exercises (and drills) are conducted at the required Intervals.

The plan commits NHY ORO to have Federal agencies observe, evaluate, and critique FEMA-graded exercises; while the NHY Drill and Exercise Group will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all exercises and dell!s.

The plan commits NHY ORO to exercise mobilization of offsite response organization resources adequate to verify the capability of the NHY ORO (and offsite support organizations) to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. This includes opportunities for State and local organizations to participate. If these organizations do not participate in the exercises (or drills), state and local participation will be simulated through the use of a scenario drill message.

Plan Reference N.1.b. Section 6.5 and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.1.b. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.2. A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed at testing, developing and maintaining skills in a particular operation. A drill is of ten a component of an ex2rcise. A delli shall be supervised and evaluated by a quallfled drill

. Instructor. The offsite response organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the blennial exercise at the frequencies indicated below

f October 1988 81 N.2.a. Communication Drills Communications between the licensee and the offsite response organization within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone shall be tested monthly. Communications with Federal emergency response organizations and offsite response organizations within the Ingestion pathway shall be tested quarterly. Communications between the nuclear facility, offsite response organization's operations centers, and fleid assessment teams shall be tested annually.' Communication drills shall also  ;

include the aspect of understanding the content of messages. If 1 practicable, attempts should be made to include non-participating

) organizations in the monthly communication drills, l  :

Statement N.2.a. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct dellis. These drills are to include '

communication dellis which will tests (1) communications (to the extent 4 possible t,ased on participation) with Commonwealth and local governments  !'

i on a monthly basist (2) communications with Federal emergency response [

organizations and the states within the Ingestion plume pathway on a J quarterly basis (to the extent possible based on the participation of the '

] Commonwealth of Massachusetts): and (3) communications among Seabrook Station, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the NHY ORO EOC, and 4 field monitoring teams on an annual basis. ,

1  :

3 The communication dell!s will include operation of communication  ;

equipment and relaying information prepared in advance to simulate actual emergency communication conditions and to ensure that the content of the message is understood.

i Plan Reference ,

5 N.2.a. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K. [

Evaluation l t i N.2.a. Adequate.  ;

1 ,

Evaluation Criterion 2

, N.2.e. Medical Emergency Drills

1. A medical emergency drill involving a simulated contaminated Individual I which contains provisions for participation by the local support services 1

C,_,,-,.. m

Octobar 1908 82 agencies (i.e., ambulance and offsite medical treatment f acility) shall be conducted annually. The offsite portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required blennial exercise.

Statement N.2.c. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct an annual medical emergency drill that will involve the participation of ambulance services, offsite medical treatment facilities, and other support services as necessary. The Letters of Agreement between NHY and the local support services agencies stipulate that these agency will be participating in such drills. The offsite portion of the medical dellt may be performed as part of the required annual on-site drill.

Plan Reference N.2.c. Section 6.5.1; Appendix Ci and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.2.c. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterlon N.2.d. Radiological Monitoring Drills Plant environs and radiological monitoring drills (onsite and offsite) shall be conducted annually. These delils shall include collection and analysis of all sample media (e.g., water, vegetation, soll and ale), and provisions for communications and record keeping. Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.

l Statement N.2.d. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct semlannual radiological monitoring drills. These <*'llis will include collection and analysis of sample media, and provisions fo' eommunications and record keeping. The drills are to include Seabrook Station personnel, radiological monitoring teams, and radiologleal assessment peraonnel.

Octobar 19.88 83 Plan Reference N.2.d. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.2.d. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.2.e. Hea'th Physics Drills Health Physics drills shall be conducted semlannually which involve l response to, and analysis of, simulated elevated airborne and liquid samples I and direct radiation measurements in the environment.

I Statement N.2.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to conduct samlani.tal Health Physics Dellis.

l These drills are to include analysis of simulated airborne and liquid releases, and direct radiation measurements in the environment.

Plan Reference l

N.2.e. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.2.e. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion l

N.3. The offsite response organization shall describe how exercises and drills are to be carried out to allow free play for decisionmaking and to meet the following objectives. Pending the development of exercise scenarios and exercise evaluation guidance by NRC and FEMA the scenarlos for use in exercises and drills shall include but not be limited to the following:

N.3.a. The basic objective (s) of each drill and exercise and approp.-late evaluation criteria l

, Octobar 1988 84 Statement N.3.a. The Plan commits NHY ORO to establish the objectives. Objectives will be explained in terms of emergency response functions to be exercised.

Evaluation criteria will be developed.

Plan Reference N.3.a. Section 6.5.3.

Evaluation N.3.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.3.b. The date(s), time period, place (s) and participating organizations:

Statement N.3.b. The Plan commits NHY ORO to schedule the date(s), time period, place (s),

and participating organizations for each exercise and drill.

Plan Reference N.3.b. Section 6.5.3.

Evaluation N.3.b. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterson N.3.c. The simulated events; Statement N.3.c. The Plan commits NIIY ORO to develop a scenarlo with simulated events for exercises and drills that will include escalation through the entergency

l Octobse 1988 85 classification levels. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation will ensure that sufficient offsite events are added to meet the objective of the exercise.

Plan Reference N.3.c. Section 6.5.3.

Evaluation N.3.c. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.3.d. A time r,cheduto of real and simulated initiating events; Statement N.3.d. The Plan commits NIIY ORO to a schedule of real and simulated events.

The timeline of offsite events will be developed and Integrated with Initiating events prepared for Seabrook Station.

Plan Reference N.3.d. Section 6.5.3.

Evaluation N.3.d. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterlon N.3.e. A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exercises or frills to include such things as simulated casualties, offsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective llothing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams, and public Information activities and Statement N.3.e. The Plan commits NilY ORO to develop a narrative summary that describes the conduct of the exercise. The summary will include real and

October 1988 86 simulated events, anticipated response, and the extent h which the activities will be exercised or simulated.

Plan Reference N.3.e. Section 6.5.3.

Evaluation N.3.e. Adequate.

i Evaluation Criterlon N. 3.f. A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers.

Statement N.3.f. The Plan commits the NHY ORO to work with FEMA to schedule the placement of evaluators during drills and exercises. The Drill and Exercise

. Group will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all drills and exercises. Evaluators and controllers will be provided with copies of the scenarlos and any required plans and procedures prior to the exercise or drill. Evaluators and controllers will be belefed as to the schedule of  ;

events and evaluation criteria for each location, and will be provided with 1 i evaluation sheets and guidelines applicable to their locations.  ;

i Plan Reference ,

! N.3.f. Section 6.5.4.  !

Evaluation l 1 i j N.3.f. Adequate.

I Evaluation Criterion N.4. Official observers from Federal government and the offsite response  :

organization shall observe, evaluate, and critique the regulred exercises. A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise to evaluate the t 4

ability of organizations to respond as called for in the offsito plan. The J

i

October 1908 87 critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable af ter tha exercise, and a formal evaluation shall result from the critique.

Statement N.4. The Plan commits NHY ORO to have evaluators from Federal agencies observe, evaluate, and critique FEMA-graded exercises. The Drill and Exercise Group of NHY will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all drills and exercises. The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation will ensure that a critique of the NHY ORO personnel is conducted at the conclusion of each exercise.

The Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and Implementation will ensure that a formal Post-Exercise Critique Report is prepared and distributed.

.?lan Reference h ,4. Section 6.5.4; Section 6.5.5 Section 6.5.61 and Appendix K.

Evaluation N.4. Adequate.

l l Evaluation Criterlon N.5. The offsite response organization shall establish means for evaluating a observer and participant comments on areas needing improvement.

[ Including emergency plan procedural changes, and for assigning responsibility for implementing corrective actions. The offsite response

organization shall establish management control used to ensure that corrective actions are implemented.

l 1

Statement l N.5. The Plan commits the Director, Emergency Preparedness / Response and

( Implementation to review all controller /eatuator comments on exercises and drills and to prepare a response stating his concurrence or disagreement with any listed issue. The Director will then prepare a i schedule that tracks assigned responsibilities for providing corrective actions for valid issues. Corrective actions may include revisions of the l

Plan or implementation procedures, upgrades in equipment or facilities, and additional training und drills.

V l

l l

. Octobar 1988 8L Plan Reference N.S. Section 6.5.6.

Ersluation N.S. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion N.6. The offsite response organization shall attempt to involve the non-participating State and local government in the exercises and drills, but their participation is not required.

Statement N.6. The Plan states that Emergency Response Training will be offered to State i and local emergency officials and workers. Exercises and dellis are I considered part of the emergency response training offered by the NHY ORO.

Plan Reference i

N.6. Section 6.1. i 4

J 9

Evaluation I 4

i 4

N.6. Adequate. ,

i I

i i

4 l

[

i i I

1 1

, f l,

t j l

Octobsr 1988 89 O. Radiological Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard O):

Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency.

Evaluation Criterion 1

0.1. The offsite response organization shall assure the training of appropriate individuals. The offsite response organization shall participate in and receive training. Where mutual aid agreements exist between local agencies such as fire, police and ambulance /re.scue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the mutual aid district.1 Statement 0.1. The NHY ORO as established a program to train appropriate Individuals assigned to the position descriptions within the organization. Training is to be received by all members of the NHY ORO, unless ind!viduals are speelfically quallfled for exemption, and is offered to other local agencies and departments. The training is conducted by the NHY ORO Training Group under the supervision of the Director, Emergency Preptredness/

Response and Implementation.

l Plan Reference 0.1. Section 6.11 Table 6.3-11 and Appendix K.

j Evaluation

! O.1. Adequate.

l

1 Training for hospital personnel, ambulance / rescue, police and fire department shall

include the procedures for notification, basic radiation protection, and their expected roles. For those local services support organizations who will enter the site, training shall also include site access procedures and the identity (by position and title) of the Individual in the onsite emergency organization who will contrcl the organization support activities. Offsite emergency response support personnel should be provided with appropriate identification cards where required.

i 1

- , _ . , -,.r, n-- -n,

Octobsr 1988 90 L

Evaluation Criterion 0.4. The offsite response organization shall establish a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radlological emergency response plans. The specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs (inc!uding the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the following categories:

0.4.a. Directors or coordinators of the response organizations Statement O.4.a. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and I

quellfying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response F plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned  ;

for each of the position descriptions within the organization. i 4

L l Plan Reference O.4.a. Section 6.3 Table 6.3-13 and Appendix K.

4

Evaluation 1

1 0.4.a. Adequate.

Evaluation Celterion a

4 0.4.b. Personnel responsible for accident assessments

, i r

Statement i 1  !

0.4.b. The NHY ORO has established a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned i l for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

Personnel responsible for accident assessment include the Technical l

! Advisor, the Radiological Health Advisor, Accident Assessment Coordina-  !

l tor, Dose Assessment Technician, and Exposure Control Coordinator. l I

2 1f the offsite response organization lacks the capability and resources to accomplish this [

training, they may look to the licensee and the Federal government (FEM A) for i j assistance in this training.

l 1

i I

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

octobsr 1988 91 The Technical Advisor receives the Dese/ Accident Assessment module.

The Accident Asseument Coordinator receives the Dose / Accident Assessment, Radiation Surveys & Analysis, and Dosimetry Recordkeeping modules. The Dose Assessment Technician receives the Dose / Accident Assessment and Radiation Surveys & Analysis modules. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness, EOC operation and training on their procedures.

Plan Reference 0.4.b. Section 6.3: Table 6.3-1: and Appendix K.

Evaluation O.4.b. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion O.4.c. Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel Statement O.4.c. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Soecific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

The Field Team Dispatcher, the Field Monitoring Teams, and Sample Collection teams receive the Radiation Surveys & Analysis module. The Reception Center and Emergency Worker Facility Teams receive the Monitoring & Decontamination Operation module. The Emergency Worker Facility Team receives the Staging Area operations module. Both these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness and training I on their procedures.

1

Plan Reference I

O.4.c. Section 6.3: Table 6.3-1 and Appendix K.

l j Evaluation O.4.e. Adequate.

I l

l

Octobsr 1988 92 Evaluation Criterion O.4.d. Police, security and fire fighting personnel Statement O.4.d. The NHY ORO has established a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

The Evacuation Support Coordinator receives the EOC Operations Traffic and Access Control, and Transportation modules. The Special Population Coordinator, the School Coordinator, and Bus Company Liaison receive the EOC Operations module. The Staging Area Leader, Evacuation Support  ;

Dispatcher, and Traffic Guides receive the Traffle and Access Control module. The Bus Company Liaison, the Staging Area Leader, the Evaluation Support Dispatcher, the Special Vehicle Dispatcher, the Bus Dispatcher, the Transfer Point Dispatcher, the Route Guides, the road

! crews, the ambulance, bus and van drivers receive the Transportation l module. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency .

q preparedness and training on their procedures.

Plan Reference 0.4.d. Section 6.3 Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K.

Evaluation 7

O.4.d. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion O.4.f. First aid and rescue personnel Statement  ;

0.4.f. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological (mergency response  ;

plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned  !

for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

t

October 1988 93 The Ambulance Drivers receive the Medical Emergency module, the besic overview on emergency preparedness, and training on their procedures.

Plan Reference O.4.f. Section 6.3 Table 6.3-1 and Appendix K.

Evaluation O.4.f. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion i O.4.g. Local support services personnel including Civil Defense / Emergency

] Service personnel Statement l

O.4.g. The local organizations are not participating in the planning effort.  !

See statement under O.6.  ;

! i Plan Reference  !

O.4.g. None. l i

Evaluation

O.4.g. Not Apptler!>le. t i

Evaluation Criterlon i

O.4.h. Medical support peraonnell

(

Statement I O 4.h. No medical support personnel are included in the NilY ORO, according to i the position descriptions given in the plan (Section 2.1.1). Ambulance j drivers are considered in this review under criterion O.4.f., first aid and i rescue personnel.

l l

I Octobar 1988 94 Plan Reference O.4.h. Section 6.3. '

4

(

Evaluation i O.4.h. Not Applicable.

Evaluation Criterion 0.4.J. Personnel responsible for transtalssion of emergency information and  ;

instructions: and l Statement t

i O.4.J. The NHY ORO has estab!!shed a training program for instructing and  !

g qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency respons i

! plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned  !

for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

l The Public Information Advisor, Communications Coordinator, Public j ,

j Information Coordinator, Public Notification Coordinator, the VANS  ;

! Operators, and the Airborne Alerting Pilot receive the Public Alert and ,

! Notification System Activation module. The Public Information Advisor, l l Public Information Coordinator, Public Information Staff, Rumor Control l Staff, Media Center Staff, and Joint Telephone Information Center staff receive the Public Information module. All these groups receive the basic  !

overview on emergency preparedness and training on their procedures, i

l Plan Reference [

O.4.J. Section 6.33 Table 6.3-1 and Appendix K. l l Evaluation  !

! O.4.J. Adequate.  !

l; f

l

. l l

l i

i

Octobsr 1988 95 Evaluation Criterlon O.4.k. Listson personnel responsible for Interfacing with State and local responders.

Statement O.4.k. The NHY ORO has established a training program for Instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Speelfic training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1).

The Local EOC Llaisons receive the Staging Area Operations module. The State !!alsons receive the EOC operations Dosimetry Recordkeeping and Emergency Management modules. In addition, the State Liaison assigned to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health receives the Dose / Accident Assessment module. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness, Transportation, and Dosimetry ,

Recordkeeping modules, as well as training on their procedures.

Plan Reference .

O.4.k. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-11 and Appendix K. ,

Evaluation O.4.k. Adequate. i Evaluation Criterion 0.5. The offsite response organization shall provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities.

Statement O.5. The training program described in the plan provides for the Initial and annual retraining (Appendix K p. K-8) of personnel with emergency '

response responsibilities.  !

l Plan Reference 0.5. Section 6.1 and Appendix K.

1

,e---. e--,-...--..~-.,---,-,-,--n.c ,.,.n_,-,,- --,-,-e- - - - - , - ,.,

Octobsr 1988 96 Evaluation O.5. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion O.6. The offsite response organization shall offer training to non-participating .

State and local governments and other organizations.

Statement O.6. The Plan makes a commitment to offer training to non-participating State and local governments and other organizations. NHY has offe ed training to non-participating State and local governments.

A suggested training matrix for such organizations is given in the plan, Identifying specific . nodules appropriate to each agency or position (Table 6.6-1).

Plan Reference O.6. Section 6.6 and Table 6.6-1.

Evaluation O. 6. Adequate.

October 1938 97 P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Perlo.lle Review and Distribution of Emergency Pirres (Planning Standard P):

Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distribution of emergency plans are established, and planners are properly trained.

Evaluation Criterion P.1. The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of Individuals responsible for the offsite planning effort.

Statement P.1. The NHY ORO will provide for the training of appropriate staff to assure that personnel remain quallffed and aware of current issues in emergency preparedness.

Plan Reference P.1. Section 7.1.4.

Evaluation P.1. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion P.2. The offsite response organization shall identify by title the Individant with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning.

Statement P.2. The NHY Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has overall responsibility for Seabrook Emergency Preparedness.

Including offsite emergency planning.

Plan Reference P.2. Section 7.1.1.

l

. ~ .- .- -. . . .- __

Octobsr 1988 98 Evaluation P.2. Adequate.

Evaluallon Criterlon P.3. The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Loordinator with responsibility for the development and updating of emergency plans and coordination of these offsite plans with other response organizations.

. Statement P.S. The NHY Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has responsibility for plan maintenance and coordination of the '

Plan with other response organizations.

Plan Reference P.3. Section 7.1.2.

s i Evaluation P.3. Adequate.

s Evaluation Criterion P.4. The offsite response organization shall update its plan and agreements as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis. The update q shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises. ,

i i Statement '

P.4. The NHY ORO has made provisions for annual updates of its plan and review of its agreements. An annual letter of certification will be sent to FEMA by January 31 of every year.

I Plan Reference

+

l P.4. Section 7.2 and Section 7.6. <

i l

Octobsr 1988 99 We recommend that Appendix F be revised to reflect the current status of supporting plans.

Evaluation P.4. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion P.S. The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans shall be forwarded to all participating organizations and appropriate Individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans. Revised pa.ges shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been made.

Statement P.S. The NHY ORO has made provisions for promulgating revisions. The NHY CRO has made provisions for forwarding revisions to plan holders of record.

Plan Reference P.S. Section 7.2.1.

Evaluation P.S. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion P.6. The offsite plan shall contain a detailed listing of supporting plans and their source.

Statement P.6. The NHY ORO plan contains a list of supporting plans. Reference to the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan could not be located in Appendix F. The Parker River National Wildlife Refuse Emergency Response Plan and the EDS Station Plan are listed as being "under development."

l l

l

Octobar 1988 100 Plan Reference P.6. Appendix F.

Evaluation P.6. Adequate.

We recommend that Appendix F be revised to reflect the curren! status of supporting plans.

NHY has indicated (9/28/88 letter) that Appendix F wl!! be revised in the next amendment to reflect the current status of the Parker River and EBS Station Plans, and to include the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan.

Evaluation Criterlon P.7. The offsite plan shall contain as an appendix listing, by title, procedures required to implement the offsite plan. The listing shall include the section(s) of the offsite plan to be implemented by each procedure.

Statement P.7. The NHY ORO plan contains an appendix list, by title, of procedures required to implement the plan.

Plan Reference P.7. Appendix E.

Evaluation P.7. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion P.8. The offsite plan shall contain a specific table of contents. Plans submitted for review should be cross-referenced to these criteria.

Statement P.S. The NHY ORO rIan contains a speelfic table of contents. The plan sections are cross-referenced to these criteria.

'1

Octobar 1988 101 Plan Reference P.8. Appendix D.

Evaluation P.8. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion .

P.10. The offsite response organization shall provide' for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures at least quarterly.

Statement i' P.10. The NHY ORO has made provisions for updati.ig the Communication Directory quarterly.

) . Plan Reference P.10. Section 7.4.3 and IP 4.4.

Evaluation 2

P.10. Adequate.

Evaluation Criterion P.11. The offsite response organization shall provide copies of the offsite nlan and its ravisions to non-participating State and local government en. oes where interfaces are identified in Planning Standard A.

Statement P.11. The NHY ORO has made provisions to provide copies of the complete Plan to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the six Massachusetts plume exposure EPZ communities.

i l

October 1988 103 Plan Reference P.11. Section 7.2.1.

Evaluation P.11. Adequate.

6 i

e k

l

i October 1988 j 103 t i

i Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communitiest Rating Summary ,

Element Rating Element Rating Element Rating i

i A.1.a A H.3 A M.4 A A.1.b A H.4 A N.1.s A  !

! A.1.c A H.7 A N.1.b A  !

t A.1.4 A H.10 A N.2.4 A i

! A.1.e A H.11 A N.2.c A A.2.a A H.12 A N.2.d A ,

A.2.b A  !.7 A N.2.e A A.) A  !.8 A N.3.4 A ,

l A.4 A  !.9 A N.3.b A i i C.1.a A  !.10 A W.3.c A [

! C.1.b A  !.11 A N.3.d A l

! C.1.c A J.2 NA N.3.e A  !

1 C.2 A J.9 A N.3.f A l C.3 A J.10.4 A N.4 A '

} C.4 A J,10.b A N.5 A C.5 A J.10.c  ! N.6 A l D.3 A J.10.d A O.1 A i

) D.4 A J.10.e A O.4.a A i E.1 A J.10.f A 0.4.b A [

! E.2 A J.10.g A 0.4.c A ,

i E.3 A J.10.h A 0.4.d A I

l E.4 I J.10.1 A 0.4.e A f

]

E.5 A J.10.j A O.4.f A l 4 E.8 A J.10.k A 0.4.g NA

{ F.1.a A J.10.1 A O.4.h NA

F.1.b A J.10.m A O.4.j A I

l F.1.c A J.11 A 0.4.k A I F.1.4 A J.12 A O.5 A i F.1.e A K.3.4 A O.6 A i F.2 A K.3.b A P.1 A j F.3 A K.4 A P.2 A j C.1 A K.5.s A P.3 A C.2 I K.S.b A P.4 A i C.3 A L.1 A P.5 A 1 C.4.4 A L.3 A P.6 A t

C.4.b A L.4 A P.7 A I C.4.c A M.1 A P.8 A l C.5 A M.3 A P.10 A l f P.11 A e

1 l l f

1 1

'Jctober 1988 A-1 I h

j<

i I

t i

I t

I i

.  ?

1-  !

J c

s APPENDIX As i i

FEMA-REP-11 REYlEW AND EVALUATION OP '

, SEABROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIA 1A i FOR PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY  !

t I

'3 i

[

I

. t i

l I

t i

f l

i k

p l

t r

I l

(

l l.

I Octob3r 1988 ,

A-2 e 6

+

4 I

J '

d k

< l 1

i f

I 1

1 i

I I 1

t t

r i

I  !

i i

l I

a ',

i l h

l I

l I g i

' I j  !

i j t i

i L

l l l

1 f

I f u

i l

. t i >

} I 1

h l r

i. t l I i F l .

5 1

-l t i

d 4

t i e i i r

, t

, i t l

Octobse 1988 A-3 APPENDIX At FEMA-REP-11 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIA!E FOR PLUME EXPOSURE PATilWAY We have reviewed the proposed changes to the Massachusetts public information materlats, dated July 27, 1988, that were submitted with your letter of July 29, 1988, using FEM A's REP 11. "A Guide to Preparing Emergency Public Information Material", as a basis for review and evaluation purposes.

The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities contained the 1988-83 i Emergency Plan Information Calendar and a variety of supporting materials. Please see Attachment A for our revised comments on these materials. This apoendix contains our review and evaluation of the 1988-89 Emergency Plan Information Calendar, e

j The following evaluatica rating scheme identifies the rating system used to evaluate the Emergency Plan hformation Calendar Yes, fully meets identified criteria.

Marginally acceptables could be improved. I Inadequate or Missing, s

insufficient Information to evaluates item should be checked for consistency with FEMA criteria or for being acceptably addressed

] through another medium.

I This report is divided into three categories:

.i 1 CATEGORY 1: These items are critlest to the effectiveness of a ,

{ public Information document. All items identified as not fully meeting the Identitled criteria (eg., those items marked I, M or 7) must be ,

improved prior to publication and distellaution in 1988.

i CATEGORY 2: These items are important to the effectiveness of a l public information document. Items in t'nis category identified as l missing (?), inadequate (1), or as mnrginally acceptable (M), should be i l reviewed and revision considered prior to the distribution.

I j CATEGORY 3: These items are enhancements to the overall quality of ,

a public emerger.;y informat!on documents. Items in this category '

identified as missing (?) or inadequate (1), or as marginally acceptable (M), should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.

]  ;

i l Note: We have sequentially numbered the review criteria of FEM A-REP-11 in order to j provide a point of reference, i ,

)

i .  ;

Octobor 1988 A-4 CATEGORY 1 CONTENT Evaluation Criterlon

1. Document has a clear emergency focus. It should tell the reader what to expect, in what sequence. it should tell what actions, in order of priority, should be taken if notification is given.

Statement  !

None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

2. The content is consistent with the emergency plan and EBS messages.

Statement z

The proposed text changes and additions / deletions (Attachment A.Section I.,

Items E, F, G, H, I, J, & K, 7/27/88) would specify

that the pubtle (permanent ,

and transient) would have to evacuate the beaches at Site Area Emergency or  !

General Emergency; that the public may be asked to shelter at the SAEt and informs / educates the public that certain precautionary pas for Special Populations and livestock would be recommended at SAE and GE.  ;

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Evaluation i

Yes.  ;

l t

Octobsr 1988 A-5 Evaluation Criterlon -

3. There is a clear statement of purpose. '

Statement I The proposed statement of purpose (Attachment A, Scotton I, item A, 7/27/88,)

will clearly state the purpose of the calendar to the reader.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

i Evaluation l 1

Yes. i i

f Evaluation Criterion i I

4. If the emergency plan calls for an emergency phone number, it is given, along with Instructions on the procedures to be followed relative to its use.

Be sure to distinguish "hotline" numbers for.use during emergencies as j separate froin information numbers during non-emergency times. ,

Statement The current document does contain and reference spaces for "Emergency and ,

HOTLINE" phone numbers. The document does contain phone numbers to call for additional information. The proposed revision (Attachment A. Sectlen I, item B,7/27/88) provides updated phone numbers.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed. We assume that the appropriate phone numbers will be placed in the document when it is published and .

distributed.  !

4 Evaluation 4

Yes.

l Evaluation Criterion [

5. There is a contact given for additional information.

i 1

l J

i

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

Octobsr 1988 A-6  !

• L Statement i

See R4. >

t I

Evaluation  ;

Yes. ,

Evaluation Criterion 4

6. Information is given regarding notification procedures.

Statement The notification procedures are clearly explained for permanent residents. The proposed revision to the notification process for boaters on the Merrimack River and those portions of the Atlantic Ocean (Attachnient A,Section I, item D,

7/27/88) will clearly explain their notification procedure within the plume EPZ.

The proposed revision to the notification description (Attachment A, Faction I, j ltem D,7/27/88) on how the transients on the beaches and visiting those portions of the Parker River Wildlife Refuge will be notified will be clearly explained.

]

Recommendation

Revise text as proposed.

t

)

I Evaluation l

j Yes.

3 i

j Evaluation Criterion i

7. Identification of EBS stations is given, with stations / channels.

4 1 Statement I

l' The radio stations, WHAV 1490 AM and WLYT 92.5 FM, are identified on page 2 of the document. The proposed revision (NHY letter, 7/29/88) provides for the addition of EBS radlo statie - WCGY.

t

! Recommendation: Revise text as proposed, i

1 I

l l

Octobor 1988 A-7 Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon 1

8. There is a highly visible statement on the cover about keeping the document for use in the event of an emergency.

l Statement A retention statement appears on the front and back addressed side of the self-maller. The proposed revision to the cover (Attachment A.Section I, 7/27/88) will provide the instruction to "READ" as well as to "SAVE" the 4 document.

Recommendation: Revise cover (s) text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

ll Evaluation Criterlon j

i 9. Educational Information. The very basic Information on radiation must be i included in tha emergency brochure to convey a sense of health risk.

Statement ,

This Information is presented in a question and answer format (pages 10 & 11).

The questions are well chosen, simple, and sequenced to provide useful i information. The information is largely in text form, and the language can be

.j complex. Tables and diagrams are used effectively to summarize certain i information. The proposed revisions to the amounts of radiation quoted in this j section (Attachment A.Section I, items P & Q) are appropriate.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

! Evaluation l Yes.

I 1

0 1

4

. - - . _ _ _ . . . . - , _.,.,mm._ _ , _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Octob3r 1988 A-8 THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:

Evaluation Criterlon

10. Sheltering.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

11. Evacuation routes, both written explanations in the text and illustrated directions on an evacuation map of the plume EPZ.

Statement The proposed text and proposed enlarged plume map (Attachment A.Section I, items L, & M,7/27/88) will provide appropriate directions and illustrations of the evacuation routes.

Recommendation: Revise the map and text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

2. Transportation provisions.

Statemont Emergency bus route instructions and maps for each major bus route by community are contained in the document (pages 7-10). The information is organized in such a way that those needing transportation assistance could easily locate emergency buses.

Octob2r 1988 A-9 Recommendation: NONE.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

13. School provisions; including guidelines and/or instructions for parents.

Statement The proposed text (Attachment A.Section I, items 0, J, K, L, and N, 7/27/88) clearly describe the provisions and plans for school cl.lldren.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

14. Instruction on the care and feeding of livestock, if appropriate, in the area.

Statement The document outlines simple steps for the protection of pets and livestock and references source of additional Information for farmers about the protection of livestock and crops (page 3).

Recom mendation: NONE.

Evaluation Yes.

Octobsr 1988 A-10 Evaluation Criterion

15. Reception Centers, relocation and/or congregate care centers.

1 Statement i

The document identitles reception centers (pages 3

4,5 & 6). The proposed text (Attachment A,Section I, item L, 7/27/88) does adequately describe the distinction between reception centers, host facilities, and shelters. The Plan

Identifies, host facilities for schools, host facilities for Special Groups, and Congregate Care Centers for the general public, who may need temporary shelter.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

16. Provisions for the handicapped.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

.ORG A NIZATION Evaluation Criteric,n

17. The emergency instructions occupy a highly visible place in the front of the docu ment.

Octobsr 1988 A-11 Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

18. The Information is logleally sequenced.

Statement

! The order of presentation is appropriate if the reader progresses through the c Information in the intended sequence. The proposed revisions to format

, (Attachment A, Section !!, 7/27/88) will improve the order of presentation and provide logical sequencing of information.

i Recommendation: R2 vise the format, and arrangement of Information as

] proposed.

l l

i Evaluation Yes.

i

) Evaluation Criterion

] 19. Information is clearly organized and relevant to the purpose of providing emergency guidance.

! Statement i

i Overall, the document is well-organized for the purpose of providing vital emergsney information, j Recommendation: NONE.

4 l Evaluation l

i Yes.

1 s

Octobsr 1988 A-12 Evaluation Criterlon  :

r

20. Public education passages, if included, are not distracting. I t

Statement  ;

The bulk of educational Information appropriately follows the emergency action ,

sections. The proposed revisions to format (Attachment A,Section II, 7/27/88)  !

will improve the order of presentation and provide logical sequencing of i Information..  :

Recommendation: Revise the format as proposed. ,

t Evaluation Yes.

COMPREHENSION FACTORS ,

Evaluation Celterion ,

21. The document layout is such that the text is easy to follow from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page. Page and section breaks are i consistent with the logic and organization of the material. I Statement i i*

'! The double panel format of the opened pages causes the columns to read 1 vertleally down two pages instead of across horizontally. The proposed table of l

) contents and use of leons (Attachment A.Section I. Item C, 7/27/88) should l

! assist the reader in following the ' ext from paragraph to paragraph and from  :

j page to page. ,

I Recoramendation. Revise format and add table of contents as proposed. I 1 i Evaluation j Yes.  !

] I l

l  !

l l

?

v

t Octobst 1988  !

A-13 i i  :

! Evaluation Criterion f l  !

22. The information is presented in such a way that there is a logical sequence l

] of toples. The "flow" of Information is smooth and not disjointed. [

t i

Statement I See comments under "Format" (#18), "Public Education Material" (#20), and

! "Layout" (# 21),

1 f Recommendation: None.

?

Evaluation

]

Yes.  !

F 1 Evaluation Criterion [

i I

]

23. Within a given tople, actions to be taken come first, followed by rationale  !

or explanation. j 1 i

! Statement i

.j Vital emergency instructions precede other related information in each section 5 of the document. {

l i Recommendation: None.  !

9 i t

1 Evaluation i i

Yes.  ;

i  !

l I

Evaluation Criterlon I i l

', 24. Vocabulary is simple, comprised of non-technical terms likely to be found In the vocabularier, of the intended population.

l ,

j f

i I

l Statement

] None.  !

i i

1 i

r 4 1 i  !

4 L

i ;

Octobsr 1908 A-14 Evaluation Yes.

i Evaluation Criterion

25. Sentences are belef and concise.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion 26.,

Typography is legible and easy to perceive.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

27. The cover clearly states that the document contains important emergency instructlors.

Statement Both front and back covers indicate the emergency nature of the document.

Recommendation: NONE.

t 4

October 1988 A-15 Evaluation i

Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

28. The choice of colors is appropriate for color-blir.:1 Individuals.

L Statement

~

The proposed use of blue, yellow, black, white, and gray colors (Attachment A, Section 11,7/27/88) will be appropriate for color-blind individuals.

Recommendation: Select colors as appropriate.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

29. The reading level is ap topriata. This is based on one of the following:

Statement l

A Dale-Chall evaluation of readability indicated that the entire emergency procedures section of the document has a reading !cvel of grade 9 oc below, as characterized by the Dale-Chall readability formula.

Recommendation: NONE.

Evaluation

) Yes.

i

October 1988 A-16 CATEGORY 2 CONT 1QE Evaluation Criterion

30. Information is given regarding emergency action levels, and enough educational information on radiation is given to provide an understanding of sources and relative effects, or provision is made in a separate document.

Statement The proposed text changes and additions / deletions (Attachment A,Section I.,

items E, F, G, H, I, J, & K, 7/27/88) would specify: that the public (permanent and transient) would have to evacuate the beaches at Site Area Emergency or General Emergency: that the public may be asked to shelter at the SAE; and Informs / educates the public that certain precautionary pas for Special Populations and livestock would be recommended at SAE and GE.. The document does contain an excellent discussion of radiation and radioactivity in the educational section. The proposed revisions (Attachment A,Section I, items P &

Q, 7/27/88) would enhance the already excellent discussion or radiation and radioactivity.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

31. Informutton has been provided for transients and visitors through appropriate means.

Statement information has been provided for translents and visitors via the production of ancillary materials.

Recom mendation: See Attachment A for review and evaluation comments.

i

October 1988 A-17 Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

32. A method of identifyir.g special needs has been provided in such a way that it cannot be lost during shipment or during the initial reading.

Statement l

This rating (Yes) is based on the assumption that the survey card and sticker will l ultimately be firmly bound into the calendar. l l

Recommendation: In order to avoid the possible loss of the survey card / sticker, prior to the initial reading of the document, we recommend that the postage-paid card be either sewn in or stapled to the document.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Celterion

13. Consideration has been given to needs of the special population.

Statement See our comments under "Schools"(#13)in Category 1 and "Method of Identifying Special Needs"(#32) in Category 2.

Recommendation: None.

Evaluation Yes.

l l

l i

]

Octobar 1988 A-18 ,

THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OP:

Evaluation Criterion

34. Respiratory protection.

Statement Respiratory protection is addressed (page 2) in the last bulleted item in the section "How to Take Shelter."

Recommendation: NONE.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

35. Radioprotective drugs (if adopted by State or local government agencies for use by the general public).

i Statement There is no mention made of the use of radioprotective drugs for the general public, which is in agreement with current State (s) policies.

Recommendation: NONE.

l l

Evaluation 1

Yes.

l Evaluation Criterion 4

36. Encouragement to alert neighbors, by means other than the telephone, to ensure that they also heard and understood the warning signals.

l l

1 . .. -

Octobar 1988 A-19 Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

37. Emergency supplies checklist to have in the home.

Statement The proposed section on advance planning (Attachment A,Section I, Items N &

O) would provide a means to educate and inform the public on items and processes for being prepared for any emergency.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Euluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

38. Supplics checklist for use in the event of evacuation.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

29. Ilome preparation for sheltering.

1

1 l

October 1988 A-20 Statement Nono.

Evaluation l

Yes.  ;

Evaluation Celterion

40. Home preparation for evacuation.

Stater. :nt None.

Evaluation Yes.

ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterlon

41. General educational material, if included, is placed after the emergency procedures information.

Statement See comments on "Format"(#18) and "Layout"(#21).

Recommendation: None.

Evaluation Yes.

f

October 1988 A-21 COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion

42. The cover design encourages one to open the publication and to read what it con'... 's, Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

43. The format is appropriate for the emergency information included by the document, and the size is appropriate.

Statement The type of document (calendar) and size of the document is appropriate.

Recommendation: None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

44. Photographs, maps, charts, tables and artwork are used effectively to enhance the text and are not distracting.

Statement The drawings and illustrations are effectively done and mesh well with the adjacent subject matter, reinforcing the content. The plume map is clearly labeled, with proposed revis!ons (Attachment A Section I, item L,7/27/88). The bus route maps are clearly labeled and easy to use.

Octobar 1988 A-22 Recommendation: Revise plume map as proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

45. The various elements of graphic design work together harmoniously to achieve the desire effect.

Statement The various elements of graphic design which have been incorporated serve ' .r enhance the utility, comprehensibility, and attractiveness of the document.

Recommendation: None.

Evaluation Yes.

Octobsr 1988 A-23 CATEGORY 3 CONTENT Evaluation Criterion

46. The document contains the date of issue and the name of the issuing agency.

Statement The calendar format insures current dates, and the name of the issuing organization appears on both the front and back cover.

Recommendation: NONE.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

47. Document contains blank space in the emergency procedures section for personal notes.

Statement The document includes both a note taking form to be used in recording family information as well as a general notes page.

Recommendation: NONE.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

48. Document contains a section on family preplanning.

I

October 1988 A-24 Statement The proposed section on advance planning (Attachment A,Section I, item 0) will provide an appropriate section on family planning.

Recommendation: Revise text as proposed.

Evaluation Yes. ,

COMPkEllENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion

49. Key symbols or graphic Images are used to assist the reader in locating and/or understanding the text.

Statement Graphic images are used well. The proposed table of c1ntents and use of icons (Attachment A,Section I, item C) will assist the reader in locating and understanding the text.

Recommendation: Revise text es proposed.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

50. The format encourages retention.

Statement The use of an attractive calendar format is tyoically a good aid to retention.

Recommendation: None.

I l

October 1988  !

A-25 l Evaluation l

Yes.

l l

1 Evaluation Criterion .

l

51. Color has been used effectively to enhance and highlight important details l relative to the emergency information. l Statement .

The proposed color use appears to be satisfactory for color-blind persons. We cannot judge the use of color at this time. l Recommendation: None at this time.

Evaluation Insufficient information.

I I

l l Octobar 1988 A-26 ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS INTRODl!CTION: Most of the supplementary materials are intended for distribution to the transient population. Many of the materials have been produced in French and English versions, due to Seabrook's proximity to the Canadian border. The French versions are identical in format and design to their English counterparts. Examination of the French translations reveals that they are accurate, use appropriate vocabulary, and though written in the French of France, they are comprehensible to Canadian French-speaking readers.

The following reviews and evaluations are on the set of documents identified as part in the Plan as part of the public education program.

A FOLD-OUT BROCHURE ENTITLED "MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY PLAN INFORMATION" This brochure, printed in both English and French, is apparently intended for distribution to the Massachusetts transient population. The content is appropriate to the intended audience. The document is logically sequenced and simply worded (the reading level of most passages is 5th-6th grade). Provisions of this brochure should enable transients to protect theniselves in the event of a nuclear emergency at Seabrook. The issues are as follows:

• the proposed changes to the section on notification "How you Would be told About an Emergency" (Attachment D, section A, D, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J K, L, and M, 7/27/88) would make this document appropriate for the intended audiences eg., there is a discussion of appropriate actions to take.

• the proposed changes to the format (Attachment B, section !!,7/27/88) would provide for easier handling.

• the proposed changes to the map (Attachment D, section L and M) would describe and indicate the appropriate evacuation routes.

• the proposed changes to text of the evacuation route for Salisbury (Attachment D, section L and M) would make the map and text in the flyer consistent with that described in Appendix J.

October 1980 A-27 EMERGENCY INFORMATION DECALS These decals, available in both English and bilingual English/ French, use a simple format to provide a brief description of notification procedures and identification of EBS stations. Primarily intended for display at places of business and at special facilities, they are also mailed to EPZ residents and are a useful additlun to the calendar document.

"LETTER" TO HOTEL / MOTEL / RESTAURANT OWNERS AND "LETTER" TO EMPLOYERS These virtually identical letters request cooperation in distributing an accompanying set of materials (stickers, posters, brochures, etc.). The letters are straighforward, factual, and should pose no problems in Interpretation. The proposed changes (Attachment C, 7/27/88) to these letters would enhance their purpose in that encouragements are provided for the letter recipients to develop plans and inform their employees.

"EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS" FOR RESIDENTS OF MERRIMAC, M A. AND N"WTON, NH -- A PHONE BOOK AD.

This phone book ad consists of information taken from the text of the emergency brochure for Massachusetts and placed in an 8.5" X 11" back-to-back format. It includes Information about notification, EBS syste7s serving the area, sheltering, evacuation, reception centers, procedures for school children and those with special needs. The ad includes contact phone numbers for further information as well as the addresses for reception centers for the towns of Merrimac and Newton. The proposed changes (Attachment C, item A, B, C and format,7/27/88) would enhance the instruction quality of the ad and provide a map of the plume EPZ. The ad is action oriented and well sequenced to provide emergency information to the reader. See comments In following section.

"EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS" FOR RESIDENTS OF AMESBURY, NEWBURY, NEWBURYPORT, SALISBURY, AND WEST NEWBURY, MA., AND SEABROOK AND SOUTH HAMPTON, NH -- A PHONE BOOK AD.

This ad is identical to the one above except it is revised to Include information relevant to appropriate towns. The proposed changes (Attachment C,7/27/88) would enhance the instruction quality of the ad and provide a map of the plume EPZ.

Octobst 1988 A-28 l

REQUEST CARD FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This card apparently accompanies the earlier Identified letters to businesses and ,

employers. It is simple and straightforward. The card is a valuable adjunct to the dissemination effort.

I POSTERS ENTITLED "MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY PLAN INFORMATION"  !

WITH EPZ MAP i These large,17.5" X 23", and Impressive posters provide a summary of emergency actions, school and bus routes information, a clearly marked EPZ map, and explicit evacuation Instructions. An Engilsh-only and a bilingual version are provided. These ,

posters, if appropriately posted, could provida persons who are in places of work or leisure with access to needed information at .he time of an emergency. The proposed i changes (Attachment C, item A, B,C, D, snd format, 7/27/88) provide appropriate ,

Instructions and Informations. ,

1 FOLDOUT POSTER TYPE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EMERGENCY BUS INFORMATION" This 8.5" X 11" (opens to 17" X 22") poster type document is produced in both English and  ;

French versions and provides specific bus route maps for six Massachusetts communities. The document is two-sided with detail maps for three towns on each side.

The maps are legible, and i Js Informatlon is clearly present3d.

i IF YOU HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS POSTER OR AD This is a single page notice of a special needs survey in the area. Graphics and i typography are effectively used to reinforce the message. The distribution of this notice  !

to newspapers, social agencies, rellglous organizatinns, etc., should assist in compiling a i more complete database of special needs populations, j

(

SIONS This document apparently is Intended to be a sign. The sign provides Information about l what to do if a stren is heard. Specifically, the reader is advlsed to tune to an EDS station for instructions. This sign is bold, uncluttered, and effective in its format and deign. A double-sized, bilingual version is also provided.

I l

l I

l

i October 1988  :

A-29 l

r EMERGENCY INFORMATION FOR FARMERS  !

This document could serve as the public education document for the entire Seabrook i Ingestion EPZ. The document is prepared on the brais of a joint iscuance betweet NHY

] ORO, the State of New Hampshire, and the State of Maine. It contains a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> infor. nation hotline and contains rumor control numbers for each organization. The i document describes the means of notification for those farmers living within the plume l EPZ and it describes the means of no'!fication for those farmers living between 10 and [

50 miles. The document describes protective actions for persons and for farm animals.

]

1 The document describes a process for seen.ry into an evacuated area in the event i

farmers need to return to their farms. The document describes the two levels of  ;

j emergency actions that could be taken in the event there was measured contamination in  ;

! foodstuffs. The document contains advice for assisting the farmers in preparing an  !

j emergency plan for their farms.

s Note: See Appendix B for FEMA-REP-11 review and evaluation of Farmers' Brochure.

l t  :

i Ii i

I 1 l t

1 i

j ,

I ,

I I

i l

l i

\ l l 1 t _ -- . _ _ _ .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .

October 1988 8-1 APPI NDIX 8:

FEMA-REP-11 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIA!J FOR INGESTION EXPOSURE PATHWAY

Octobsr 1988 B-2 4

4 P

i l

t J

l a

l i

i i

Oct.ober 1988 B-3 APPENDIX B:

l FEMA-REP-11 REYlEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK l PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERf ALS FOR INGESTION EXPOSURE PATIIWAY The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities indicated that this Brochure will be distributed to farmers and food processors. This Brochure will be provided along with specific written ingestion Instructions to farmers. food processors and food distributors within the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as appeerlate in the time of an emergency, and could serve as the Public Education Document for the entire Seabrook Ingestion EPZ. The Brochure is prepared on the basis of a joint issuance between NHY ORO, the State of New IIampshire, and the State of Maine. It contains a 24-hour information hotline and contains rumor control numbers for each organization. The document describes the means of notification for those farmers living within the plume EPZ and those farmers living between 10 and 50 miles. The document describes protective actions for persons and for farm animals; describes a process for reentry into an evacuated area in the event farmers need to return to their farms; describes the two levels of emergency actions that could be taken in the event there was measured contamination in foodstuffs, and contains advice for assisting the farmers in preparing an emergency plan for their farms.

This contains our review and evaluation of the draft Brochure "Emergency Information for Farmers," dated October 24, 1986, and marked DOC. 9526A.

The following evaluation rating scheme identifies the rating system used to evaluate Emergency Information for the Farmers Brochure:

Yes, fully meets identified criteria.

Marginally acceptable; could be improved.

Inadequate.

Insufficient Information to evaluate; Item should be checked for consistency with FEMA criteria or for being acceptably addressed through another medium.

NA Not appilcable to this document.

This report is divided into three categories:

CATEGORY 1: Ther items are critical to the effectiveness of a public Information document. All items identified as not fully meeting the identified criteria (e.g., those items marked marginally acceptable, inadequate, or insufficient Information must be improved prior to publication and distribution).

October 1988 B-4 CATEGORY 2: These items are impor+ ant to the effectiveness of a public information document. Items in this category identified as marginally acceptable, inadequate, or insufficient information, should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.

CATEGORY 3: These items t.re enhamoments to the overall quality of a public emergency information document. Items in this category identified as marginally acceptable, inadequate, or insufficient Information, should be reviewed and revision considered prior to distribution.

Note: We have sequentially numbered the review criteria of FEMA-REP-11 in order to provide a point of reference.

i i

l l

l i

l i

1

(

l l

i Octobsr 1988 B-5 CATEGORY 1 CONTENT Evaluation Criterion

1. Document has a clear emergency focus. It should tell the reader what to expect, in what sequence. It should tell what actions, in order of priority, should be taken if notification is given.

Statement None.

Evaluation

Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

2. The content is consistent with the Emergency Plan and EBS messages.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

3. There is a clear statement of purpose.

Statement None.

Octobsr 1988 B-6 Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

4. If the Emergency Plan calls for an emergency phone number, it is given, along with Instructions on the procedures to be followed relative to its use.

Be sure to distinguish "hotline" numbers for use during err.ergencies as separate from information numbers during non-emergency times.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

5. There is a contact given for additional information.

-l Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

6. Information is given regarding notification procedures.

Statement None.

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

October 1988 B-7 l

l Evaluation l Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

7. Identification of EBS stations is given, with stations / channels.

Statement ,

j None.

Evaluation ,

Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon I

8. There is a highly visible statement on the cover about keeping the document for use in the event of an emergency.

Statement A retention statement appears on the introductory page immediately inside the front cover. There is no retention statement on the outside cover.

Recommendation: Consider including the word "READ AND SAVE" in the retentlon statement. Place retention statements on the front and back sides of the document. ,,

Evaluation Marginally acceptable.

Evaluation Criterlon

9. Educational Information. The very basic information on radiation must be included in the Emergency Brochure to convey a sense of health risk.

Octobar 1988 B-8 Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:

Evaluation Criterlon

10. Sheltering.

Statement None.

Evaluation ,

Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

11. Evacuation routes with both written explanations in the text and illustrated directions on an evacuation map of the EPZ. i Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

1 Evaluation Criterion

12. Transportation provisions.

l l

y _- + ____ . .u. -

_e3

Octobor 1988 B-9 Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

13. School provisions: Including guidellr:es and/or instructions for parents.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

14. Instruction on the care and feeding of livestock, if appropriate, in the area.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

15. Reception Centers, Relocation and/or Congregate Care Centers.

Octobsr 1988 B-10 Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

16. Provisions for the handicapped.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterion

17. The Emergency Instructions occupy a highly visible place In front of the document.

Statement The location of the information on radiation and its effects delays the presentation of important Emergency Information.

Recommendation: Change the location of the Information on radiation and its effects.

Evaluation inadequate.

Octobor 1988 B-11 l Evajustion Criterion

18. The information is logically sequenced.

Statement The order of presentation is not appropriate. See above comment.

Recommendation: Revise the order of ine information in the document.

Evaluation Marginally acceptable.

l i Evaluation Criterlon l 19. Information is clearly organized and relevant to the purpose of providing emergency guidance.

Statement .

None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

20. Public education passages, if included, are not distracting.

Statement The bulk of educational Information appropriately follows the emergency action sections. However, the order of presentation of the sections "about safety at Seabrook" and "About Radiation" distracts and interrupts the presentation of more vitalInstructions and information.

Recommendation: Reposition the referenced page elsewhere in the document.

~ .

Octobar 1988 B-12 Evaluation Marginally acceptable.

COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion

21. The document layout is such that the text is easy to follow from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page. Page and section breaks are consistent with the logic and organization of the material.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

22. The Informaiion is presented in such a way that there is a logical sequence of topics. The "flow" of Information is smooth and not disjointed.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

23. Within a given topic, actions to be taken come first. followed by rationale j or explanation.

I

Octobsr 1988 i B 13  ;

Statement Generally, this is true in those sections that provide Emr,rgency Instructions for the farmer.

Recommendation We recommend that the appropriate order of sections be reviewed and revised to ensure that vital Emergency Instructions precede other Information.

Evaluation Marginally acceptable.

Evaluation Crite-lon

24. Vocabulary is simple, comprised of nonte - . terms likely to be found in i

the vocabularies of the interi ' popul,o +.

Statement The vocabulary could be simplified. The use of certain agricultural terms is unavoidable and such terms should be familiar to farmers and food processors.

However, there are many difficult terms that could be replaced with simpler

. word choices.

i

Recommendattom Peview and revise vocabulary with simpler word cholces.

, This restructuring of the text would significantly improve the readability of the l document.

I l

Evaluation l Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

25. Sentences are brief and concise.

Statement

! Some sentences could be shortened and simp fled.

l

Octobar 1988 B-14 Recommendation: Restructure sentence length. This effort would enhance readability and emergency utility.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterlon

26. Typography is legible and easy to perceive, testement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

27. The cover clearly states that the document contains important Emergency Instructions.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

28. The cholce of colors is approp= late for color-blind individuals.

Octobsr 1988 B-15 i

Statement Since the draft document was in black and white Xerox copy, it is impossible to  :

Judge how colors will be used.

Recommendation: We recommend the selection of colors that will enhance the readability of the document.

Evaluation Insufficient Information.

Evaluation Criterion

29. The reading is appropriate. This is based on one of the following:

Statement A Dale-Chall evaluation of readabilley Indicated that the entire Emergency ,

Procedures Section of the document has a reading level of Grade 11-12 or above, '

as characterized by the Dale-Chall readability formula. I Recom mendation: As mentioned elsewhere, restructure text, vocabulary, and '

sentence length. Target readability for grade 9 or bwow. Unfortunately, the current reading level of many of the passages may present problems for marginal readers and hamper the emergency utility of the document.

Evaluation Inadequate. I i

i t

I l

I t

[

l g----,,, w ,n,----,n , .---,-r- - , , . - - - , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - , - - - . - - . - . ~ . -

October 1988 B-16 CATEGORY 2 CONTENT i

Evaluation Criterion

30. Information is given regarding Emergency Action Levels, and enough educational information on radiation is given to provide an understanding of sources and relative effects, or provision is made in a separate document.

Statement None.

Evaluation ,

Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

31. Information has been provided for transients and visitors appropriate means.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable, i Evaluation Criterion

32. A meeting of Identifying special needs has been provided in such a way that i it cannot be lost during shipment or during the initial reading.

Statement None.

I

1 Octobsr 1988 8-17 Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

33. Consideration has been given to needs of the special populations.

Statement This document has been specifically prepared to address the needs of a particular population, farmers.

Recommendation: None.

Evaluation Yes.

THE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTIONS SECTION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF:

Evaluation Criterion

34. Respiratory protection.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Celterion

35. Radioprotective drugs (if adopted by State or local government agencies for use by the general public).

t

Octobst 1988 B-18 l Statement There is no mention made of the use of radloprotective drugs for the General Public, which is in agreement with current State (s) policies.

Recom mendation: None.

E, valuation 7

Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion 2

36. Encouragement to alert by means other than the telephone to ensure that they also heard and understood the warning signals.

Statement None. '

Evaluation Not applicable.

i Evaluation Criterlon

37. Emergency supplies checklist to have in the home.

Statement i  !

i None.

1 Evaluation  ;

i Not applicable.  !

Evaluation Criterlon I 38. Supplies checklist for use in the event of evacuation. [

i l i

i

,.,.- --- ~. , - , ,.. ._ , ,-,,,- ,, , ,- - e,, , - - - _ _ , . .,,-,,.-_,,,,--,_...mw,

,, - ~ , . - - - - - ~ , . , - - . - - - - - -

Octobar 1988 8-19 Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

39. Home preparation for sheltering.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion

40. Home preparation for evacuation.

Statement None.

Evaluation Not applicable.

ORGANIZATION Evaluation Criterion

41. General educational material, if included, is placed after the Emergency

October 1988 B-20 Procedures Information.

Statement Generally, the reverse is true. See comments on "At,out Safet' /at Seabrook" and "Radiation Effects."

Recommendation: Revise order of presentation.

Evaluation inad.quate.

COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion

42. The cover design encourages one to open the publication and to read what it contains.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes. ,

i  !

Evaluation Criterion . [

43. The format is appropriate for the EmeNency Information included in the document, and the size is appropriate.

l Statement None.

Evaluation i

, October 1988 I

B-21 Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

44. Photographs, maps, charts, tables and artwork are used effectively to enhance the text and are not distracting.

Statement The draft contains many blank spaces yet to be filled in with phone numbers, page number references, charts and diagrams. This made it difficult to make a complete and accurate evaluation of the document.

Recommendation: Develop appropriate charts, tables, maps and artwork.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Celterion

45. The various elements of graphic design work together harmoniously to achieve the desired affect.

Statement The draft contains many blank spaces yet to be filled in with phone numbers, page number references, charts and diagrams. This made it difficult to make a complete and accurate evaluation of the document.

Recommendation: Develop appropriate charts, tables, maps and artwork.

Evaluation Yes.

Octob2r 1988 B-22 CATEGORY 3 CONTENT Evaluation Criterior.

46. The document contains the date of issue and the name of the issuing agency.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

47. Document contains blank space in the Emergency Procedures Section for ,

personal notes.

Statement None. '

i Evaluation Not applicable.

Evaluation Criterion 1

48. Document contains a section on family preplanning.

Statement None.

l t

, - - , . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , . ,_m., . . ~ . , _ _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ __.,____._,_r,,_, _ _ - - ._.-

Octobsr 1988 B-23 Evaluation Yes.

COMPREHENSION FACTORS Evaluation Criterion

49. Key symbols or graphic Images are used to assist the reader in locating and/or understanding the text.

Statement See earlier comments.

Recommendation: We recommend the use of graphic symbols to visually reinforce textual material.

Evaluation Insuffic' ant information.

Evaluation Criterion

50. The format encoureges retention.

Statement None.

Evaluation Yes.

Evaluation Criterion

51. Color has been used effectively to enhance and highlight important details relative to the Emergency Information.

Octobsr 1988 B-24 Statement Color use cannot be judged at this time.

Recommendation: See comments under Category I, Comprehension Factors, choice of colors.

Evaluation insuffielent Information The issues identified in this attachment (rating of "inadequate") are sufficient to warrant a rating of Inadequate under NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supplement 1, Planning Standard G. We do request that those items rated "Inadequate," "Marginally Acceptable," or "Insufficient Information" be satisfactorily addressed before the revision and distribution of the document. We will expect the opportunity to review proposed  !

drafts to ensure that these items are satisfactority addressed before publication and distribution.

i

+ f i

l I b l

1 I

l 1

. - . _ . .- - - _ _ _ _ .