ML20244D706

Applicant Rebuttal Testimony 23 Re Scope of Graded Exercise.* Responds to Admitted Contentions Re Adequacy of Scope of Prelicense Plant 1988 FEMA-graded Exercise of Offsite Emergency Organizations.Related Correspondence

ML20244D706
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/18/1989
From:	Baer J, Callendrello A, Gram G AIDIKOFF ASSOCIATES, INC., PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:
Shared Package
ML20244D592	List: ML20244D589 ML20244D605 ML20244D617 ML20244D632 ML20244D644 ML20244D657 ML20244D666 ML20244D669 ML20244D678 ML20244D706 ML20244D734
References
OL, NUDOCS 8904240082
Download: ML20244D706 (154)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I .

gU. TEDcOasEsPoNDENS l ce,cxute n;

'89 APR 20 PS :22 April 18, 1989

l. F ; C UNITEDSTATESOhihMER'ICN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E

)

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444-OL I (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

) (Off-site Emergency

) Planning Issues)

I >

APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 23 I REGARDING SCOPE OF GRADED EXERCISE I Panel Members: John W. Baer, Emergency Planning Specialist, Aidikoff Associates Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency Preparedness Licensing, New Hampshire Yankee George R. Gram, Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations, New Hampshire Yankee i

I 8904240082 8904!B PDR ADOCK 05000443 T PDR

I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 g A. Purpose of Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 'I B. Regulatory Requirements for Exercise Scope . . 3 C. FEMA Guidance on Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. DETERMINATION OF SEABROOK EXERCISE SCOPE . . . . . 8 A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Interactive Process to Determine Scope . . . . 9

1. Exercise Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Exercise Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . 12

a. Demonstration of Plan Components . . 12

b. Demonstration of Sufficient Numbers 15

c. Demonstration of Reasonebly Achievable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

d. Influences on Scope . . . . . . . . 18 I~

III. ISSUES RAISED IN CONTENTIONS A. Implementation of Protective Actions for

. . . . . . . . . . . 22 Impacted Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 23

2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 27

a. Notification, Assignment, and I Deployment of Resources . . . . . . 27 '

I

I-

'I

b. Field Demonstration of Wheelchair vans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

c. Field Demonstration of Ambulances . 28

! B. Transporting Contaminated Injured Individuals 29

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 29 I

2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 31 C. Environmental Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 32

2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 34 D. Implementation of Traffic Control . . . . . . 34

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 34 Influences 35 i

2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 o

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 36

a. Notification and Coordination with Law Enforcement Organizations . . . 36

b. Assessment, Assignment and Field Deployment of Police Resources . . 36

c. Demonstration of Traffic Control in Hampton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 E. Monitoring and Decontamination for Emergency Workers; Disposal of Decontamination Center Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 40 I -iii-

..)

E I

l 2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 t

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

! 4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 42

a. Demonstration of Monitoring and I

Decontamination Functions for Emergency Workers . . . . . . . . . 42

b. Evaluation of the Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 i c. Disposal of Wastes Generated at Monitoring and Decontamination Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 F. Staffing of Emergency Response Facilities . . 44

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 44

2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 46

a. Facility Staffing . . . . . . . . . 46

b. Second Shift Staffing . . . . . . . 48

c. Representation of the Governor's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 G. Implementation of Protective Actions for School Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 50

2. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 51

a. Notification and Coordination of Emergency Information With Schools . 51

b. Provision of Transportation .

Assistance to Schools . . . . . . . 51 I -iv-I -

I I c. Teacher Participation . . . . . . . 52 I H. Implementation of Protective Actions for Impacted Populations in New Hampshire . . . . 54

1. FEMA Exercise Objective . . . . . . . . . 54

2. Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 -

3. Extent of Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4. Exercise Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 58

a. Transportation Resources for Special Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

b. Ability of Host Facilities to Receive Special Facility Evacuees . 61

c. Radiological Monitoring of Special Facility Evacuees . . . . . . . . . 61

d. KI Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . 61 (1) Extent of Play . . . . . . . . 62 (2) Influences . . . . . . . . . . 62 (3) Exercise Demonstration . . . . 63 Attachment A: FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to F. Begley, Radiological Monitoring, Dated January 5, 1988 Attachment B: FEMA Memorandum from R.W. Krimm for NTH Division Chiefs, All FEMA Regions, GM MS-1, I Dated February 9, 1988 Attachment C: FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to E.A.

I Thomas, Guidance for the Qualifying, Full-Participation Exercise at Seabrook Dated May 19, 1988 Attachment D: PSNH Letters from G.R. Gram to R. Boulay, Director of Mass. Civil Defense Agency, Dated January 15 and January 18, 1988; Records of Conversation - J.A. MacDonald, Dated January i 27 and March 25, 1988

-v-a

I g.

I Attachment E: Participation Matrix for ORO Exercise h

Attachment F: FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to F.J.

Congel, Objectives for the Seabrook Exercise, Dated June 22, 1988 Attachment G: NRC Memorandum From F.J. Congel to R.W. Krimm, Objectives for the Seabrook Exticise, Dated l June 23, 1988 Attachment H: FEMA Letter From R.W. Donovan, RAC Chai'rman to G.R. Gram, PSNH, Summary of Survey of Seabrook I Facilities and Services, Dated October 21, 1988 I J I

I I

i .

I I

I I .

I I -vi-

= = - - -

l '

I I I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGRGUND A. Purpose of Testimony The purpose of this testimony is to respond to those admitted exercise contentions that concern the adequacy of the scope of the pre-license Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA l

Graded Exercise of offsite emergency response organizations -

(the Exercise). Specifically, the interveners assert that

}

J the Exercise was too limited in scope because:

• The Massachusetts portion of the Exercise did not include demonstration or evaluation of major portions of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) in that there was no tes/t of the Of fsite Response Organization's (ORO's) ability to muster the appropriate personnel and vehicles in order to evacuate special facilities in Massachusetts. (MAG EX-2, Basis E) e I -

The Exercise failed to demonstrate that the ORO had ,

adequate vehicles, equipment, procedures, and personnel to transport contaminated, injured individuals in that only one ambulance was tested. (MAG EX-21, Basis B) '

= The Exercise failed to demonstrate sufficiently the k ability of equipment and procedures in the State of New /.

Hampshire to sampla food and water appropriately by the testing of only two State Sample Collection Teams.

(SAPL EX-4).

\-

m x

I 1

The Exercise failed to demonstrate that there would i

! be sufficient numbers of personnel in New Hampshire to staff both the Traffic Control Posts and Access Control Posts l

because too few of these posts were adequately demonstrated.

(SAPL EX-6; TOH/NECNP EX-1, Basis d)

The Exercise failed to demonstrate the capability for decontaminating emergency workers in New Hampshire because a monitoring / decontamination facility (Hillside Junior High School) was not opened and, further, there was no provision for waste disposal. (SAPL EX-7)

The Exercise failed to demonstrate adequate staffing (24-hour and key positions) of Staging Areas, Reception Conters, local and host EOCs and the IFO in New Hampshire. (SAPL EX-8)

The Exercise did not demonstrate adequate protection in New Hampshire of persons in nursing homes, hospitals and other special facility institutions. The l

L limited testing of special vehicles in the New Hampshire portion of the Exercise failed to demonstrate the ability to provide a sufficient number of buses and ambulances with properly trained drivers for transit-dependent persons, and that the buses would be properly routed. (SAPL EX-13; TOH/NECNP EX-1, Bases f and g)

The Exercise failed to demonstrate that protective actions for schools in New Hampshire can be implemented I

because teachers did not participate in the Exercise.

('11H/NECNP EX-1, Bases a and b)

The following sections of this testimony discuss the regulatory requirements and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance which pertain to the scope of a pre-license or qualifying exercise. Section II infra discusses the process by which the organizations involved in development of the Exercise applied the regulatory requirements and guidance and determined the scope and extent of play for the Exercise. Section III infra addresses each of the admitted contentions concerning scope of the Exercise in the following sequence:

Section III.A. -

MAG EX-2, Basis E Section III.B. - MAG EX-21, Basis B

+

Section III.C. -

SAPL EX-4 I -

Section III.D. - SAPL EX-6 and TOH/NECNP EX~1, Basis d Section III.E. -

SAPL EX-7 a

Section III.F. - SAPL EX-8 Section III.G. -

TOH/NECNP EX-1, Bases a and b Section III.H. -

SAPL EX-13 and TOH/NECNP EX-1,

. Bases f and g B. Regulatory Requirements for Exercise Scope The required scope of a pre-license or qualifying exercise finds its roots in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, 6

I I ,

- . , t

I (I

l' i s IV.F.1 which requires "a full participation exercise which tests as much of the . . . emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation." "' Full participation' includes testing the major observable portions of the onsite and offsite emergency plans and mobilization of State, local and licensee personnel and other resources in nufficient numbers to verify the capability to respond to the '

I accident scenario." Id., fn. 4.

C. FEMA Guidance on Scope With respect to the scope of pre-license or qualifying exercises necessary to meet the above regulatory criteria, FEMA, with the concurrence and approval of the NRC, developed a list of exercise objectives and capabilities that off-site radiological emergency response organizations must demonstrate. The objectives were developed from standards contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 44 CFR S 350.5 and NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (1980). FEMA Guidance Memorandum EX-3, Managing Pre-Exercise Activities and Post-Exercise Meeting (February 26, 1988), as supplemented by FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EX-3 Amendment (March 7, 1988). sets forth the objective statements applied to the Seabrook Station Exercise. The FEMA exercise objectives functionally restate the intent of the evaluation criteria in NUREG-I ,

I I

0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, as supplemented by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, that can be observed and evaluated in exercises. FEMA has equated the " major observable elements" with tile exercise objectives: "the major elements of plans -

and preparedness are incorporated in the '. . . exercise objectives. . . .

" FEMA Guidance Memorandum PR-1, Policy on ,

NUREG-0654/ FEMA ~ REP- 1 and 44 CFR 350 Periodic Requirements (1985) at pg. 2.

Although the thirty-seven (37) offsite objective statements are grouped in three categories in GM EX-3 based ,

on their need to be demonstrated in biennial exercises, FEMA has indicated in GM EX-3 that a pre-license exercise, such as that conducted at Seabrook, should demonstrate all but one of the applicable objectives. FEMA guidance indicates that the I one objective (#36) that need not be demonstrated is the ,

ability to carry out emergency response functions during an unannounced off-hours drill or exercise. See GM EX-3 Amendment, page 2. Two other objectives were eliminated as inapplicable to the Seabrook Station Exercise. It is not the policy of either the State of New Hampshire or the commonwealth of Massachusetts to recommend the use of KI for the general public. Therefore, KI for the general public is not a provision of either the SPMC or the NHRERP.

Accordingly, the associated FEMA Exercise Objective (No. 17) ,

was not demonstrated. FEMA Exercise Objective No. 35, which I I -

i I

I deals with the evacuation of onsite personnel, was demonstrated by the onsite emergency response organization, and evaluated by the NRC.

FEMA, therefore, han provided guidance as to which objectives are applicable and should be demonstrated during a qualifying exercise. The extent to which objectives or major portions of the plans should be demonstrated is a function of the specific characteristics of the plan and the site. As to the extent of required demonstrations, which is referred to as the " extent of play," GM EX-3 Amendment provides the following guidance:

• The scope of the demonstration should include E personnel, facilities and resources required by the scenario and extent of play;

• The degree of demonstration of individual exercise objectives should test the workability of that aspect of the plan;

- The demonstration and evaluation of the objectives should follow the specific provisions of the plan being tested; and

- The demonstration of knowledge and liaison capabilities between response organization personnel will be evaluated based on the timeliness, compiateness and effectiveness of interfaces.

I I

i I

The extent of play, as defined by FEMA guidance, relies g on implementation of plans and procedures, including l demonstrations of personnel, facilities and resources, as required by the exercise scenario. Verification of the l workability of the demonstrated processes is based on the timeliness, completeness and effectiveness of the required responses. To this end, FEMA has developed an Exercise E Evaluation Methodology (EEM) for use by FEMA exercise evaluators in evaluating exercises conducted pursuant to 44 CFR 350, 10 CFR 50, and the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding (50 FR 15485). The EEM is utilized to ensure uniformity in the observation and evaluation of exercises.

For each exercise objective, the EEM identifies points of review which are derived from functional evaluation criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 1. These points of review direct the evaluators' attention to specific emergency response functions which fall within the purview of the applicable exercise objectives.

In addition to the guidance for extent of play in GM EX-3 Amendment, FEMA has provided supplemental guidance on the scope of demonstrations for (1) radiological monitoring capability (FEMA Memorandum from R. W. Krimm to F. Begley, dated January 5, 1988 (Attachment A hereto)), (2) medical services (MS-1) capability (FEMA Memorandum from R. W. Krimm I I

i I

to NTH Division Chiefs, dated February 9, 1988 (Attachment B hereto)), (3) alert and notification capability (FEMA GM AN-1, dated April 21, 1987) and, (4) protective actions for school children (FEMA GM EV-2, dated November 13, 1986). -

FEMA recognizes that site-specific factors of organizational planning and preparedness are further influences on extent of play. See FEMA Memorandum from R. W. Krimm to E. A. Thomas, dated May 19, 1988 (Attachment C hereto). With respect to l the Seabrook Exercise extent of play, the various site-specific factors which were considered are discussed generally in Section II below and specifically concerning the contentions in Section III below.

II. DETERMINATION OF SEABROOK EXERCISE SCOPE A. Overview Determination of the scope of the Exercise followed a sequential process. The process conformed to milestones established in FEMA GM EX-3 for completion of required actions preceding the conduct of the Exercise. The sequence of actions included generally:

1. Selection and development of Exercise objectives by 4

New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) and participating state governments for submission to FEMA and NRC regional offices. The selection and development of objectives were determined primarily by the pre-I ,

I requisites for qualifying exercises of GM EX-3 and GM EX-3 Amendment. s

2. Development and submission of an Exercise scenario l which would be sufficient in scope to address the selected objectives and to prompt demonstration of the corresponding major observable portions of the plans.

3. Specification of an extent of play which defined the actions to be taken and resources to be employed for demonstration of the major observable portions of the plans.

4. Contacts and meetings among representatives of FEMA, NRC, NHY and the participating state governments to discuss modifications to the extent I of play and to complete the scenario.

B. Interactive Process to Determine Scope

1. Exercise Objectives The planning process to determine the proper scope of a qualifying exercise included the consideration of what major I observable portions of the plan will be demonstrated and the extent of the demonstration. FEMA Exercise objectives, developed to meet regulatory requirements, provide the mechanism by which major observable portions of a plan are identified. The extent of play is derived from the specific provisions of the plans. Determination of the scope of the I I

.1_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ _ _ . _

I exercise required an interactive process by the planning and evaluating organizations involved in the exercise.

New Hampshire Yankee (NHY), State of New Hampshire, State of Maine, FEMA and the NRC, each provided representatives who were involved in the planning of the

, Exercise and contributed to the defined scope of the Exercise. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was invited to participate in the Exercise planning process but declined to do so. See Letters from G. Gram, NHY, to R. Boulay, MCDA, dated January 15, 1988 and January 28, 1988; Telephone v

conversation memos of J. A. MacDonald, NHY, dated January 27, 1988 and March 25, 1988. (Attachment D hereto) In addition, all public school districts, and many private schools, special facilities, and governmental entities in Massachusetts would not participate in the Exercise planning process. Attachment E hereto is a matrix showing the facilities that were contacted prior to the Exercise to determine their willingness to participate in the Exercise and the responses received from each of them. This failure to participate influenced the def.icition of the boundaries of what was reasonably achievable to be demonstrated for many of the major observable portions of the plan. Other influences are discussed in Section II.B.2.d. infra.

Using the applicable FEMA objectives as a guide in delineating major observable portions of the offsite plans, t ..

6 I

I NHY drafted an Exercise scenario which set forth a logical

(

sequence of events that might result from the postulated accident at Seabrook Station. The sequence of events prompted actions required by the emergency response organizations to demonstrate their integrated capability to respond to the escalating Exercise scenario. Scenario events were designed to generate responses by personnel and rescurces which, if performed properly, would address and meet the stated Exercise objectives. The objectives, in I turn, were keyed to those major portions of the plan that could be reasonably observed, assessed and evaluated.

Representatives from the State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine reviewed the Exercise scenario and contributed to the determination of how the objectives would be demonstrated. The results are set forth in Section 2 of the Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise Scenario.

(Applicants' Exhibit 61) For each Objective, the Exercise scenario generally indicates:

1. The exercise objective that is to be demonstrated. ,

2. The major portions of the plan that will be observed.

3. The personnel who will be involved in the demonstration.

4. The actions that should be taken by Exercise participants.

I '

I

I I

5. The resources that will be used to respond to the event.

The Seabrook Exercise Objectives were reviewed and accepted by FEMA and the NRC. S.e_q FEMA Memorandum from R. W. Krimm to

! F. J. Congel, NRC, dated June 22, 1988 (Attachment F hereto);

and NRC Memorandum for F. J. Congel to R. W. Krimm, FEMA, dated June 23, 1988 (Attachment G hereto).

2. Exercise Extent of Play

a. Demonstration of Plan Components Development of the extent of play for the Seabrook Exercise involved the design of exercise activities that would demonstrate, test, and verify the capability of particular offsite emergency response functions relied upon in the offsite response plans for Seabrook Station. The extent of play for the Exercise was designed to conform with FEMA guidance which states: "The degree of demonstration of individual exercise objectives should test the workability of that aspect of the plan." (Emphasis added.) GM EX-3 Amendment, page 3. The scenario development process which determined the type and number of demonstrations (i.e., the extent of play), involved an extensive interactive process on the part of the representatives of the organizations involved in the Exercise.

NHY drafted a proposed extent of play. A systematic approach was undertaken by NHY for the selection and I

I

I I

evaluation of emergency response functions which should be tested to verify the capability to respond to an actual emergency at Seabrook Station. This approach contemplated a that all functional areas to meet an applicable objective l. 6 l Federal guidance was used to would be demonstrated. l cstablish the basic framework of the functional demonstration. See, pg. 5, suora.

The initial step in developing the extent of play was to identify the functional areas within the purview of the exercise objective. For example, Exercise Objective 18 states:

" Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to I implement appropriate protective actions for the impacted permanent and transient plume EPZ population (including transit-dependent persons, special needs populations, handicapped persons and institutionalized I persons)."

A discrete observable element within this objective would be a demonstration of the ability and resources to implement protective actions for transit-dependent persons.

The next step in developing the extent of play was to identify the processes, and their components, required to demonstrate the plan element during the Exercise. The same components are generally applicable to most plan elements and may be defined as follows:

decisionmaking conveyance of the decision I I

I I

. Implementation of the decision by, among other thingis ,

determination of needed resources mobilization, allocation and deployment of needed resources verification of the deployment process.

Where the plan required responders to perform actions unique to a radiological emergency response, those actions were to be performed unless precluded by external influences.

I The external influences, therefore, set the upper bound on what was reasonably achievable. In certain cases, however, the actual implementation in the field consists of responders performing actions which they are essentially trained to do or that they perform as part of their normal employment (e.g., ambulance drivers, bus drivers, law enforcement personnel). Actual field deployment of resources in these cases could be limited to the extent necessary to:

demonstrate the extension of the decision process e to the point of deployment in the field.

demonstrate procedures and communications for coordination of field resources and for their integration with the emergency response organization.

demonstrate the workability of field procedures.

I I

I I

• demonstrate the effectiveness of training of field personnel in RERP specific actions.

Because the functions to be performed by these ,

responders were similar to their normal employment functions,  !

an adequate demonstration of this particular functional area did not require extensive deployment of resources.

b. Demonstration of Sufficient Numbers 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E.IV.F.1 requires that the qualifying exercise scenario be designed to test sufficient numbers of plan components and processes, personnel, and other resources to ensure that the plan can be implemented and that problem areas in the major portions of the plans and I procedures, if present, would be revealed. The Seabrook '

Exercise scenario was designed and developed to ensure that ,

proper response implementation was the result of effective and workable plans and procedures -- not mere chance.

Representatives of the organizations involved in development of the Exercise scenario considered a variety of factors and approaches in their determination of what constituted a sufficient demonstration to permit verification of the integrated response capability. NHY preliminarily considered a statistical approach. The use of a statistical application, for example, indicated that a certain sample size of Traffic Control Points (TCPs) in Massachusetts and

I

! ~

__A_________ _

l bus routes in New Hampshire could be demonstrated so that the results could be statistically interpreted.

) The statistical approach did not, however, control the level of demonstration. Rather, the level of demonstration was expanded to what was reasonably achievable or contracted based on constraints or external influences. The extent of play in any functional area was designed to test the l

} workability of a plan process or resource -- a test that is based largely on factors other than adherence to a statistical approach to determine the needed scope of the demonstration. With respect to the demonstrations noted above, for example, the Exercise extent of play was developed to:

=

demonstrate all TCPs and associated SPMC traffic guide personnel in Massachusetts because this process is RERP specific and no constraints existed to reasonably I limit the demonstration; and a

demonstrate virtually all New Hampshire bus routes, independent of the Protective Action Recommendations (PARS) resulting from the Exercise scenario, because FEMA requested a full demonstration in order to resolve FEMA findings from the previous 1986 exercise,

c. Demonstration of Reasonably Achievable In the process of reaching consensus on the extent of play, representatives of the organizations participating in 3

.I I

the Exercise met in a series of joint coordination meetings for the purpose of defining what was reasonably achievable and, therefore, establish the extent to which the demonstration of any functional area would be performed.

This interactive process resulted in a major coordination meeting of all the organizations on April 20, 1988 at which the Exercise objectives and the majority of the extent of play for all response organizations were determined. Those

implementation aspects of the plans intended to meet an Exercise objective that were not affected by external influences were to be demonstrated in full as dictated by scenario events. An example of this would be the decisionmaking process associated with the formulation of protective action recommendations (PARS).

Those components of the major observable portions of the plans found to be impacted by external influences were reviewed and discussed by the organizations' representatives to ensure that these components would be demonstrated to the extent reasonably achievable or necessary to test their ability to be implemented. Scope expansions were evaluated to ensure that they would be useful. Scope contractions were evaluated to determine whether the remaining extent of. play was sufficient to test what needed to be verified.

This deliberative process of defining the extent to which these various components or functional areas would be I I

I I

demonstrated resulted in an extent of play agreement which became Section 3 of the Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA /NRC Graded I Exercise Scenario. (Applicants' Exhibit 61) The organizations' participants in the process agreed that the I

extent of play founded on the criteria discussed above, subject to the external influences discussed in section II.B.2.d. infra, was adequate to test the major observable portions of the plans. '

d. Influences on Scope Representatives of the organizations involved in the development of the Exercise scenario considered a number of external influences affecting the extent of play. They considered whether demonstrations of certain activities  %

associated with the plans were not required because they were normal day to day functions or were required because they 6

were unique to a radiological emergency response plan. An activity would be unique to the response plan if the function performed in a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station would be different than a normal day-to-day function. If it was not different, the demonstration of that function could logically be limited in the Exercise. The Exercise extent of play contemplated that these activities would be performed in their normal manner; therefore, demonstrations of these

~

activities were not, in and by themselves, required to test I I

I I

the workability of major observable portions of the plans.

The Exercise extent of play relied on the fact that:

police know how to perform traffic control, special vehicle / ambulance crews know how to perform iI functions pertaining to the transport of special population individuals, special care facility personnel know how to perform functions pertaining to the care of their wards,

~

bus driverc know how to drive buses, and I

tow truck crews know how to locate and tow vehicles.

The extent of play was further influenced by the fact that the Exercise was a simulation. The organizations' representatives assessed what was reasonably achievable in a non-emergency situation. Among external influences which were assessed and factored into the extent of play were:

1. The need to reasonably limit the participation of public health and safety personnel (firemen, police, medical, and other emergency responders) so that they are not unduly away from normal public duties during a non-emergency situation.

2. The need to avoid impairing or closing down normal state and local agency operations in a non-emergency situation.

I I I

1

3. The need to reasonably limit the participation of all Exercise participants and evaluators so th;y do not bsve l prolonged absences from normal duty stations during a non-emergency situation.

4. The need to reasonably limit the extent of use of public resources (e.c., buses, ambulances, schools, hospitals, etc.) so that their absence or use during the Exercise will not cause impacts to the public or unreasonably interfere with public use.

5. The need to otherwise minimize any impact to or l inconveniease of the general public.

6. The inability to demonstrate during the Exercisc certain aspects of the SPMC caused by the lack of participation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, state and local authorities and other entities (e.g. school officials, special facility personnel). Certain facilities relied upon in the SPMC or NHRERP were not available during the Exercise.

The impact of unavailable facilities was assessed to determine whether compensating measures should be taken. For example, the ORO Staging Area contemplated in the SPMC, located on River Street in Haverhill, Massachusetts, was not available to demonstrate its functions. To compensate,. NHY modified an existing facility located at the Salem Industrial Park, Salem, New Hanipshire, to simulate the Haverhill facility. This simulated NHY ORO Staging Area was used l

\

l

) during the Exercise to demonstrate functional areas associated with the deployment of emergency workers and the l

performance of the ORO local liaisons. The use of this

, simulated facility allowed functions to be demonstrated as )

I dictated by the Exercise scenario and, hence, is consistent l with general FEMA guidance regarding the scope of demonstration of facility functions. Egg GM EX-3 Amendment, p.3.

7. The availability of FEMA and NRC personnel to physically observe and evaluate a large number of concurrent Exercise " events." FEMA, for example, required limitations or modifications to demonstration sequencing of certain events in some functional areas so that its evaluators could observe and assess demonstrations of more than one event.

This is common FEMA practice due to resource limitations and evaluation priorities. But it is important to note that only certain field demonstrations were out-of-sequence.

Decisionmaking ir. support of these response functions was done in sequence with the Exercise scenario to test the integrated response capability in these areas.

These external influences were balanced with the competing goal of demonstrating " sufficient numbers" of personnel and resources to verify that the emergency plan processes are workable. This balance involved a collective judgment of what is reasonably achievable in an exercise and i

h_______________ _ _

l l

what. level.of participation is necessary to' test the workability'of the plans. A significant factor in this collective judgment was FEMA's expertise and experience as to what and how elements should be tested, a professional- -

opinion that was. carefully considered by the other organizations' representatives in the' development of the Exercise scenario.

Irrespective of the external influences on the extent of play, the Exercise was a large event. During the two days of the Exercise, 1525 persons participated as players in the three offsite organizations, 338 persons simulated evacuees, and 274 NHY controllers, 151.FIDU4 evaluators, and 40 NRC observers participated. Notwithstanding the fact that' FEMA put more' evaluators in the field for the Seabrook Exercise than for any other previous exercise, the availability of evaluators did influence the number or sequencing of events that could reasonably be observed.

III. ISSUES RAISED IN CONTENTIONS Each of the various issues addressed in this testimony falls within a specific FEMA Exercise Objective.

A. . Implementation of Protective Actions for Impacted L Populations MAG EX-2, Basis E alleges that the NHY Offsite Response Organization (ORO) did not attempt to demonstrate that it could muster the appropriate vehicles and personnel for the I

i t

j

f l

timely and proper evacuation of patients from EPZ hospitals, nursing homes, and other special facilities. It also alleges that the Exercise failed to test the preparedness of the bus, ambulance, and wheelchair van companies for the evacuation of patients.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective s

l MAG-EX-2, Basis E alleges issues that pertain to fella I Exercise Objective No. 18 which states:

" Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement protective actions for the impacted permanent and transient plume EPZ population (including transit-dependent persons, special needs populations, l handicapped persons and institutionalized persons.)"

Exercising the process of implementing protective actions for special populations for the SPMC is comprised of several components. These components include:

a. Proper decisionmaking regarding the need for protective actions for special populations and conveying that

, decision in a timely and effective manner to appropriate personnel; .

b. Demonstrating notification of special facilities by j/

either communications with actual participating facilities or j with a NHY control cell simulating non participating facilities;

c. Notifying all transportation providers;

d. Allocating, assigning, and deploying simulated

R

'I transportation resources in accordance with the needs determined by the scenario; and

e. Demonstrating this process in the field by the processing and dispatching of a number of actual vehicles to designated special facilities as dictated by the extent of play.

2. Influences I The extent of play for this objective was influenced principally by FEMA-guidance. The FEMA Memorandum, dated May 19, 1988 (Attachment C hereto) provided guidance with respect to the proper evaluation of the availability and training of bus drivers and the availability of buses. The FEMA Memorandum noted that the focus of this issue is pre-exercise evaluation of the availability of buses and training of bus drivers. The Memorandum said further that such an evaluation can be accomplished by examining the training component of the organization's emergency plans, examining letters of agreement (LOA) for buses and bus drivers and by making telephone calls to LOA providers to confirm capability to provide specified resources.

The extent of play was further influenced by the fact that providing transportation is a routine function of the resource providers. The purpose of the Exercise is to test portions of the plan that are specific to a radiological I

i l

i i

response, and not to demonstrate repeatedly the normal functions of these supporting companies and organizations. i The failure of many special facilities.in the Massachusetts EPZ communities to participate in the Exercise [

influenced the degree to which actual notifications and contacts with the facilities could be demonstrated and the i extent to which reliance was placed on the NHY Control Cell for simulation of this activity. The matrix at Attachment E hereto indicates that 1 of 37 special facilities contacted in  !

the Massachusetts EPZ communities agreed to participate.

3. Extent of Play Participants in the development of the extent of play for the Exercise determined that the ability to implement protective actions would be demonstrated by performing the i following functions:

+ the protective action decisionmaking process;

• the initial notification of all companies providing i

special transportation resources;

- notification of special facilities by contact with participating facilities or by simulated contact of j non-participating facilities by calls to the NHY Control Cell; ,

l 1 l - the assignment of transportation resources to meet i the identified requirements; and I

)

l 1

l

\

l

I

+

the extension of that process into the field by the deployment of a representation of resources.

As stated in Section II suora, the extension of this process into the field serves the purpose of testing the ability to implement the plans and procedures. Since the extension of this process into the field can be adequately demonstrated with a limited number of public safety resources, NHY, with FEMA's concurrence, contracted for the services of four (4) special vehicles to be deployed by the ORO during the Exercise. These vehicles consisted of three (3) wheelchair vans and one (1) ambulance. One additional ambulance was contracted to demonstrate MS-1 capability on Day 2 of the Exercise.

The demonstration of transport capabilities by these resources was sufficient because (a) the use of more vans and ambulances during the Exercise would expand only marginally an isolated component of a major observable element of the RERP, and (b) the addition to the number of FEMA evaluators to observe and further assess this function would have reduced the number of evaluators assigned elsewhere to evaluate other important functional areas of the Exercise.

In order to assess the preparedness of transportation resource providers relied upon for implementation of the SPMC, FEMA, during its evaluation of the SPMC, conducted an survey of transportation resource providers documented in a I B

letter from Richard W. Donovan, RAC Chairmen for Seabrook Station, to George R. Gram of New Hampshire Yankee dated October 21, 1988. This letter, and attached' survey, is Attachment H hereto. The survey included information on the I type and quantity of' manned vehicles, vehicle capacities, mobilization and dispatch information and estimated response times. Based on this survey, FEMA determined that the I-transportation resources relied upon for implementation of the SPMC.do exist-and are adequate. Therefore, the survey results provided further information that FEMA considered in assessing the preparedness of these transportation resource providers in conjunction with the assessment of the adequacy of the SPMC.

4. Exercise Demonstration

a. Notification, Assignment, and Deployment of Resources During the Exercise, the capability'of the NHY ORO to coordinate and integrate with the ambulance and van functions was demonstrated. As a result of the declaration of an t

l ALERT, ORO personnel initially contacted all bus, wheelchair van and ambulance companies under agreement with NHY for resource support during an emergency at Seabrook Station to determine available transportation resources. Concurrent

/

with the notification process, Special Population Liaisons contacted participating special facilities or, in the 1

u - 3

i 4

i alternative, made simulated contact of non-participating special facilities by calling the NHY Control Cell to determine their specific transportation requirements at the time of the event. Transportation resources were assigned-accordingly. Special vehicle dispatch personnel at the ORO Staging Area filled out dispatch forms for all of the assignments for special vehicles included in Appendix M of I the SPMC for.the' entire Massachusetts portion of the 10-mile EPZ. Thus, the major functional elements of the plan pertaining to the notification, allocation and deployment of '

transportation remources for special needs populations were demonstrated. i i

b. Field Demonstration of Wheelchair Vans Three (3) wheelchair vans were mobilized to the ORO Staging Area. At the Staging Area, they received assignments (previously selected with FEMA) to evacuate patients from special care facilities (two nursing homes and one elderly

) housing. unit). Upon completing the transport of simulated

! patients to Reception Centers for monitoring and subsequently to host facilities, the NHY Controller directed the drivers of the vans to proceed back to the ORO Staging Area for further assignments.

)

} c. Field Demonstration of Ambulances The Exercise demonstrated one ambulance assignment to support evacuation for special populations in Massachusetts. l i

l I

i j

The ambulance was dispatched to the ORO Staging Area where an assignment was received to evacuate a patient from Amesbury He, spital and transport that patient to the host facility, Deaconess Hospital. After completion of this i

assignment the ambulance was directed to return to the Salem ORO Staging Area where it was released from exercise participation.

B. Transporting Contaminated Injured Individuals MAG EX-21, Basis B alleges that the scope of the Exercise was insufficient because only one of the ambulances relied on by the NHY ORO to transport contaminated injured persons was tested.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective I

Contention MAG-EX-21, Basis B alleges issues that pertain to FEMA Exercise Objective No. 23 which states:

" Demonstrate the adequacy of vehicles, equipment, procedures and personnel for transporting contaminated, injured or exposed individuals."

) Demonstration of this Exercise objective involved the

, process required for properly handling, transporting and treating a contaminated, injured individual. This process involves the following components:

a. The participation of an ambulance crew to properly attend to the individual's injury and to implement appropriate precautions for the control of the spread of contamination during transport.

b. The proper handling, monitoring, treating and decontaminating of the injured individual and the implementation of precautions to control contamination by the receiving hospital.

2. Influences The extent of play for this objective was influenced principally by FEMA guidance. The FEMA guidance on this l issue is provided in a February 9, 1988 memorandum regarding the " Clarification of Selected Provisions of Guidance i

Memorandum (GM) MS-1, Medical Services" from Richard.Krimm, Assistant Associate Director of FEMA's Office of Natural and Technological Hazards, to the NTH Division Chiefs of all FEMA Regions (Attachment B hereto). The guidance states:

"A simulated contaminated individual, either from onsite or offsite areas, will be transported to each activated medical facility."

The transport of one simulated contaminated injured individual is consistent with this clarification memorandum.

I The need to limit the involvement of public safety resources, such as additional ambulances, the ability of the assigned FEMA evaluator to observe each of the medical aspects of the  ;

Exercise, and the impact on the resources of the MS-1 hospital during a non-emergency situation were further l

)

} influences. In addition, ambulance personnel of ambulance companies under contract to NHY receive the same training in

emergency medical care and handling individuals who are contaminated.

3. Extent of Play The purpose of the Exercise objective was to demonstrate that the training and processes employed for transporting and handling contaminated, injured individuals are correct and capable of being implemented. Extent of play negotiations i

I determined that one ambulance and ambulance crew would be i sufficient for this purpose and in accordance with FEMA guidance. The extent of play for this Exercise objective is l provided in Section 3.2.14 of Applicants' Exhibit 61.

4. Exercise Demonstration Transport of a contaminated, injured individual was demonstrated by the ORO on the second day of the Exercise out-of-sequence with the scenario time line. To demonstrate this capability, an accident was simulated where a victim was injured and potentially contaminated. ORO ambulance

) personnel demonstrated procedures to implement precautions for controlling the spread of contamination and to provide transport to an MS-1 hospital where the victim would be treated for injuries and decontaminated if necessary. The demonstration of this aspect of the plan included the proper I

handling of the individual simulated to be injured and contaminated and the use of the appropriate equipment by the ambulance and MS-1 hospital personnel.

l

.j C. Environmental Sampling i SAPL EX-4 alleges that only two (2) State of New Hampshire sampling teams were utilized during the Exercise and, therefore, sample collection and transport were not adequately demonstrated.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective SAPL EX-4 raises issues that pertain to FEMA Exercise L

Objective No. 27 which states:

" Demonstrate the appropriate use of equipment and procedures for collection and transport of samples of vegetation, food, crops, milk, meat, poultry, water and animal feeds (indigenous to the area and stored)."

Components associated with this objective include:

a. Briefing and dispatching sampling teams to sampling locations with the appropriate equipment to collect samples;

b. Demonstrating proper sampling techniques and logging of information; and

c. Transporting collected samples to the proper I locations for analysis.

2. Influences i

The NHRERP contemplates the use of up to three two-man l I

environmental sampling teams to collect and transport various samples. All environmental sampling personnel receive l-

) identical training. During the development of the extent of 1

play portion of the Exercise scenario, representatives of the l l

New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services (NHDPHS)

}

l requested the participation of two sampling teams on Day 2 of the EPercise in order to limit the impact on normal state l

agency operations. Further, NHDPHS had previously i demonstrated the deployment of six environmental sampling i

teams for a FEMA evaluated ingestion pathway exercise in 4 1

December, 1987, six months prior to the Seabrook Exercise. i l

FEMA agreed that two teams would be sufficient to demonstrate sampling on Day 2 of the Exercise.

3. Extent of Play The extent of play as provided in Section 3.3.20 of Applicants'. Exhibit 61 reflects the proposed use of two environmental sampling teams to demonstrate sampling equipment and procedures as a result of the NHDPHS request discussed above. The purpose of the Exercise objective was to demonstrate that equipment and procedures are adequate for the proper collection and transport of environmental samples and that the training provided to sample collection teams is l adequate to ensure proper utilization of equipment and procedures. Two sample collection teams are sufficient for 1

this purpose, because equipment, procedures and training for all sample collection teams designated in the NHRERP for Seabrook Station are the same. The NHDPHS sampling teams are

)

[ experienced and trained in sampling equipment, techniques, i

and procedures.

1

^- __ _____ _ _

4. Exercise Demonstration On Day 2 of the Exercise, two environmental sampling  ;

teams (four persons) were dispatched from Concord, N.H. to the NH IFO, co-located with the NHY EOF, in Newington, N.H.

From there, the environmental sampling teams were dispatched to sampling locations in the field by NH accident assessment personnel. In the field, the two teams demonstrated the l

procedures for collecting environmental samples, collected examples of environmental samples, and demonstrated procedures for labeling, logging, and delivering the samples for analysis.

D. Implementation of Traffic Control SAPL EX-6 and TOH/NECNP EX-1, Basis d, allege that Traffic Control Points and Access Control Points staffed by New Hampshire State Police and local law enforcement officers were too few in number to demonstrate adequately all that is necessary to provide traffic and access control functions in

! the New Hampshire portion of the 10-mile EPZ or to support FEMA's conclusion that the State and local police had adequately shown the capability to deploy the required number of officers.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective

}

} Contentions SAPL EX-6 and NECNP EX-1, Basis d raise issues pertaining to FEMA Exercise Objective No. 20 which states:

1 i

- - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \

I

)

I

\ 1 f " Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources I necessary to control evacuation traffic flow and to

) control _ access to evacuated and sheltered areas."

The process of implementing traffic and access control in New Hampshire is comprised of several components including proper' notification, coordination, assessment, assignment and L field deployment of personnel and resources.

2. Influences The process of directing traffic and controlling access is a normal day-to-day function of the law enforcement organizations involved in the Exercise. Similarly, the  !

ability to use radio communications, dispatch personnel, locate various intersections, and direct and control traffic are routine law enforcement activities that these personnel are trained to perform.on a regular basis.

Traffic control personnel in New Hampshire receive identical training. The extent of deployment of police personnel into the field during the Exercise necessarily considered the impact on normal state and local law enforcement operations in a non-emergency situation.

3. Extent of Play The extent of play for this major observable portion of the NHRERP is provided in Section 3.3.9 of Applicants'  ;

{

Exhibit 61. The organizational ability and identification of  !

resources necessary to implement traffic and access control q i

functions were to be demonstrated. This demonstration was to

p

{

! include notification, coordination, assessment, assignment p e and field deployment of personnel and' resources. The influences discussed above resulted in the allocation ~of four New Hampshire State Police Troopers and one local-police officer in each of the 11 participating New Hampshire EPZ L communities having traffic control responsibilities to

demonstrate traffic or access control functions in the field.

I The purpose of the. field deployment was to extend-demonstration of organizational ability into the field and to demonstrate the adequacy of procedures and training for field personnel. As.the procedures and training are the same for all field personnel, the. number of officers to be deployed

~

was sufficient to attain this objective.

4. Exercise Demonstration

a. Notification and Coordination with Law Enforcement Organizations During the Exercise, notificationLand coordination functions were demonstrated. This demonstration showed that I

the various law enforcement organizations could properly notify, assess and assign resources in support of protective 1 i

action recommendations. NHRERP procedures for this function l

were demonstrated. j i

b. Assessment, Assignment and Field Deployment of Police Resources The actual field implementation aspects of traffic and ,

l access control functions were demonstrated by at least one l

d police officer for each of the eleven participating New Hampshire communities with traffic control responsibilities and four State Troopers. (In several instances, local communities deployed more than one police officer into the field resulting in the field participation of a total of sixteen local officers.) The use of additional police personnel to test these functions was neither required nor appropriate. Consistent with the NHRERP, Volume 4B, State Police Communications section, a State Police EOC Liaison was notified to report to the NH Emergency Operations Center (EOC) located in Concord at the ALERT emergency classification level. This State Police representative serves as the coordination point between the State of New Hampshire emergency response organization and State Police l

operativas. One of the actions the State Police EOC Liaison at the State EOC performs is to establish communications with State Police Headquarters in Concord.

In order to assess State Police personnel resource f availability, the State Police EOC Liaison requested State  ;

i Police Headquarters to transmit a copy of the daily trooper i roster. This roster included information regarding on-shift police personnel duty locations throughout the State for that I specific day. Additionally, this roster included information with respect to off-duty personnel, e.g. State Troopers off-shift, on vacation, or on sick leave.

j

(

1 j

During the Exercise, the State Police Troop A IFO Representative at the New Hampshire Incident Field Office (IFO) utilized information in coordination with the State Police EOC Liaison to make priorities and assignments of actual personnel. In an actual emergency, these personnel would be dispatched to Troop A headquarters from various State Police barracks throughout the state. At Troop A headquarters, they would receive dosimetry and field assignments and be dispatched into the field. The actual assignment of available State Police personnel resources as they were on the day of the Exercise provided the basis for a determination that the New Hampshire State Police had demonstrated the capability to deploy sufficient State Police Troopers for implementation of access and traffic control functions. Exercise controller messages identified the specific Access Control and Traffic Control Point assignments to be demonstrated in the field and their respective activation times.

Similar actions were taken on the local level by personnel in participating municipalities which have the responsibility for traffic control functions. That is, local resources were determined and then at least one local officer from each of these municipalities demonstrated field implementation.

1 I 1 I

Provisions for the distribution of traffic control equipment were also demonstrated. During the Exercise, in addition to the twenty (20) State and local police officers

~

demonstrating access and traffic control, four (4) State and seven (7) local support personnel were also deployed to demonstrate distribution of equipment.

c. Demonstration of Traffic Control in l Hampton j Intervenor's specific assertion that personnel from the Town of Hampton did not staff any traffic control location is 4

correct. As the Town of Hampton did not participate in the i Exercise, traffic control responsibilities for the town fell to the New Hampshire State Police. New Hampshire State

{

Police, in conjunction with the State Department of Transportation, demonstrated traffic control at TCP D-HA-01, I

located in the Town of Hampton at the intersection of High I Street and Lafayette Road (See Applicants' Exhibit 61 at i

Section 3.3.9). i E. Monitoring and Decontamination for Emergency Workers; Disposal of Decontamination Center Wastes I SAPL EX-7 alleges that the exercise of the NHRERP failed

]

to demonstrate the capability to provide for the decontamination of emergency workers, equipment and facilities because the Hillside Junior High School in l

Manchester was not opened and demonstrated during the I Exercise. Furthermore, interveners assert that there was no I I ,

1 I

1 I

showing of adequate provisions for the disposal of contaminated wastes.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective SAPL Contention EX-7 raises issues that pertain to FEMA Exercise Objective No. 25 which states:

" Demonstrate the adequacy of the facilities, equipment, supplies, procedures and personnel for decontamination of emergency workers, equipment and vehicles and for waste disposal."

The process of assessing the adequacy of the capability to provide decontamination of emergency workers is comprised of several components. These include monitoring and decontamination processes, the identification and handling of contaminated materials and vehicles, and the adequacy of the facility layout, its operation and its equipment and supplies.

2. Influences The NHRERP contemplates the use of four host communities. Due to resource considerations and the potential impact to the normal operations of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services and the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, it was agreed that not all communities would activate and operate their respective reception / decontamination centers. This decision was influenced by the fact that the training and operating 1

1 a

procedures of the NHRERP for all monitoring / decontamination activities are identical in technical content. i

3. Extent of Play Monitoring and decontamination activities for emergency workers were to be demonstrated at activated Reception /

Decontamination Centers as discussed in Section 3.3.19 of Applicants' Exhibit 61. Emergency workers were to be directed to report to one of the activated Reception / Decontamination facilities for evacuees to be monitored after the completion of their assignment. This demonstration was reasonable because the procedures for l monitoring and decontaminating both members of the public and emergency workers are identical. Furthermore, identical training is provided to emergency response organization members who staff the monitoring and decontamination functions for Reception Centers and for the Emergency Worker Decontamination facility. The demonstration was to include monitoring and decontamination techniques, the identification, tagging and bagging of contaminated articles, and handling of contaminated vehicles.

l Subsequent to the Exercise, it was recognized that FEMA was unable to evaluate the physical adequacy of the Hillside

}

Junior High School to serve in this capacity. An inspection

}

of the facility was conducted by FEMA on July 22, 1988 in

l i

order to assess the adequacy of the facility and its ,

1 supplies, equipment and staffing arrangements. .

4. Exercise Demonstration l- a. Demonstration of Monitoring and i Decontamination Functions for Emergency Workers There is no requirement that each and every emergency response facility participate in an Exercise. On the day of l i

the Exercise, the Hillside Junior High School, which serves  !

as a secondary Reception / Decontamination facility for the I

host community of Manchester and as the Emergency Worker  !

Decontamination facility, was not demonstrated. Monitoring and decontamination activities for emergency workers were demonstrated at the activated Reception / Decontamination ,

facilities in the host communities of Salem and Dover. ,

i

b. Evaluation of the Emergency Worker Facility In order to assess the adequacy of the emergency worker facility and its associated supplies, equipment and staffing, representatives of FEMA inspected the Hillside Junior High School. This inspection was conducted on July 22, 1988 and  ;

i included observation by a representative of the Joint l i

Interveners. The facility, its operational layout, procedures, staffing, equipment and supplies were assessed in conjunction with FEMA's Exercise evaluation and found to be l

adequate. (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit 43F, page 199 of 428).

c. Dispos 01 of Wastes Generated at Monitoring and Decontamination Facilities The NHRERP contemplates the identification and decontamination or retention of contaminated materials such as vehicles and other personal effects. During the Exercise, clothing and personal effects simulated to be contaminated were removed, inventoried, bagged, tagged and stored in a secure place (see FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit 43F, page 192 of 428). Parking areas for contaminated vehicles were also identified and utilized. .

With respect to the ultimate disposal of contaminated wastes, the Exercise did not include a physical demonstration of this isolated portion of those elements of the NHRERP concerning radiological monitoring and decontamination. The ultimate disposition of contaminated wastes is considered to ,

be a post-emergency response function which results from 1

decontamination activities and, as such, is included as part of a recovery action plan developed at the later stages, or end, of an actual emergency response pursuant to recovery procedures. Accordingly, at 1400 on Day 2 of the Exercise, 1 NH State EOC officials discussed the matter of decontamination waste materials and contaminated vehicles. ,

At 1452, they requested assistance from New Hampshire Yankee 1

l

?

l l

for removal of decontamination wastes in accordance with the  !

existing agreement for this purpose. Subsequently on Day 2, ;

l NH State EOC officials developed a long-term sampling and recove'ry plan that included provisions for periodic '

monitoring of contaminated vehicles held in restricted areas j and for disposal of decontamination waste materials by New Hampshire Yankee.

F. Staffing of Emergency Response Facilities SAPL EX-8 alleges that there was no demonstration of 24-hour continuous staffing of the New Hampshire Staging Areas and Reception Centers and that continuous staffing of local and host EOCs was not shown to be adequate. Furthermore, interveners assert that key positions in the NH IFO were not fully staffed, there were no provisions employed for filling vacant positions, and the Governor's office was not properly represented.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective SAPL Contention EX-8 raises issues that pertain to FEMA Exercise Objective Nos. 2 and 34 which respectively state:

" Demonstrate the ability to fully alert, mobilize and activate personnel for both facility and field-based emergency functions."

" Demonstrate the ability to maintain staffing on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift change."

The demonstration of staffing levels at emergency i

response facilities and the demonstration of continuous I I

l l

l 1

l l

staffing sufficient to provide for an adequate emergency response is comprised of the following components:  ;

The notification and mobilization of emergency a.

response organization members. j

b. The manning and activation of emergency response j facilities.

1

c. The demonstration of a continuous operation '

capability.  ;

d. The demonstration of the briefing of incoming replacement staff.

2. Influences The ability to demonstrate staffing of emergency response organizations in the State of New Hampshire was affected by the need to avoid impairing or closing down normal state and local agency operations in a non-emergency situation. It was further affected by limitations on individual participants imposed by their normal public duties and other pre-existing commitments.

3. Extent of Play Staffing levels to be demonstrated at New Hampshire response facilities were established by the extent of play and were intended to demonstrate reasonable assurance that an adequate response capability would be provided in the event of a real emergency. Mobilization and staffing of emergency

(

response facilities as contemplated in.the NHRERP was ,

demonstrated during the exercise.

The Exercise was to includeLa demonstration of an

. ' extended operations capability though a combination of the-physical changeout of personnel and the presentation of f

' ~

personnel rosters for select emergency response facilities.

~ 4. Exercise Demonstration

a. Facility Staffing j Approximately 575 responders in the New Hampshire organizations participated in the Exercise. This was a significant number of participants for a demonstration of an integrated emergency response capability during a non-emergency situation. Generally, full response facility activation was demonstrated within approximately one hour of 1

.the initial notification of an ALERT classification. See

• FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit 43F (hereinafter Exercise Report), page 146 of 428.

Due to the various pre-existing commitments and the non-emergency nature of the Exercise, several participants could not or did not report to their emergency response facility

assignments. For example, the Town of Seabrook staffing of the local EOC was observed to be not in accordance with the Seabrook RERP (Volume 16 of the NHRERP). FEMA noted in the Exercise Report that

" Specific staff could not be present due to prior engagements: The Fire Chief and school Principal were out of town; the Health Officer had a court appearance; and other persons (Road Agent, Water Superintendent, and Town Clerk) could not leave their offices. It was noted that the personnel present in the EOC assumed multiple duties and that the telephone contact was maintained with those individuals who were at work. We also noted that the Building / Health Officers arrived at the EOC after his court duties." Exercise Report at page 148 of 428.

Response facilities and positions were, however, adequately staffed to demonstrate the appropriate response to events dictated by the Exercise scenario. While there may have been personnel shortages in isolated areas of the overall response organization, these absences did not impact-the organizational ability to implement the assigned response-functions. Shift changes for key staff positions were demonstrated in all but two of the eleven participating local New Hampshire EOCs. In the NH State IFO, three of the nine Local Liaison Officers were not replaced on the second shift.

The Exercise Report, at page 207 of 428, indicates that the

)

plan specifies a maximum of nine Local Liaison Officers if all seventeen communities do not participate. Eleven EPZ communities in New Hampshire participated in the Exercise.

The Exercise Report, at page 207 of 428, indicates that, on the second shift, the Local Liaison Officer Functions were handled with six Local Liaison Officers. Thus, the Exercise provided a test of the organizational ability to perform I

! 1 i

i response functions, ensuring that the emergency plans and

) procedures are flexible and adaptable to meet both expected h

and unexpected circumstances.

Host facilities also were sufficiently staffed and operational in a timely manner. This includes demonstrated I i

} host community EOCs and Reception Centers. The Exercise demonstrated the ability to alert, mobilize and activate personnel necessary for facility functions. See Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 25 (New Hampshire Exercise L

Performance) for a description of staffing represented at the

[ demonstrated host community EOCs. On May 23, 1988, FEMA conducted an inspection and review of personnel rosters compilnd in support of the NHRERP.

b. Second Shift Staffing 1

A'.tthough second shift staffing of transportation staging areas . ras not part of the extent of play, the State Transportation Staging Area Supervisor presented rosters to 1

FEMA evaluators showing sufficient personnel for protracted staffing of positions and explained arrangements that would be made for protracted staffing. The same method was utilized to demonstrate protracted staffing capability at

).

Reception Centers.

The Exercise of NHRERP included a demonstration of a second shift capability through a combination of the physical change out of personnel and the presentation of personnel

I i

E rosters. In this way, FEMA Exercise Objective #34 was met.

g .

See Exercise Report at pages 206-208 of 428.

c. Representation of the Governor's Office #

The Exercise Report at page 146 of 428. states that

"[t]he Governor's office was not represented according to the Plan." This statement refers specifically to the provision of the NHRERP that briefing the press is a non-delegable duty i for the Governor. During the Exercise, the New Hampshire t Public Information Officer provided briefings to the press.

The applicable language in the NHRERP was revised in the October 1988 amendment of the plan to make press briefings a delegable responsibility.

G. Implementation of Protective Actions for School Populations TOH/NECNP EX-1, Bases a and b, allege that the June 28-29, 1988 Exercise of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Stati.'n failed to meet a primary objective because the availability and participation of school teachers relied upon under the NHRERP was not demonstrated. It further asserts that this lack of participation by teachers resulted in FEMA's inability to observe an adequate demonstration of the organizational ability of resources necessary to effect an early dismissal, sheltering or evacuation of school children.

I I I

\

1. FEMA Exercise Objective TOH/NECNP Contention EX-1, Bases a and b, raises issues pertaining to FEMA Exercise Objective No. 19 which states:

" Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for school children within the plume EPZ."

The components associated with demonstration of this objective are:

a. Notification of school administrative personnel of an emergency situation.

b. Communication and coordination between the State of New Hampshire emergency response organization and school administrative personnel,

c. Provision of transportation resources.

2. Extent of Play l

The process of notification, communication and coordination between members of the New Hampshire emergency  !

response organization (state and local) and school superintendents and administrators was to be conducted according to the provisions of the NHRERP. The major observable portion of the NHRERP to be demonstrated was the implementation of protective actions for school children. As contemplated in the NHRERP, the administrative responsibility

> for each school facility lies with the superintendent of the public School Administrative Units (SAU's) and the administrator of the individual private schools. The

l Superintendent / Administrator is part of the emergency response organization and provides coordination with state I and local emergency response officials. The extent of play which governed the demonstration of this aspect of the NHRERP is included in Section 3.3.1 of Applicants' Exhibit 61.

l i

3. Exercise Demonstration

a. Notification and Coordination of Emergency Information With Schools Notification of and coordination with the SAU's and private schools during the Exercise was provided by NH Department of Education representatives at the State EOC in Concord and by the participating towns and/or the local liaisons at the IFO in Newington. Communications and coordination were demonstrated with at least one administrative representative of each of the five SAU's.

FEMA noted in the Exercise Report that EPZ schools and potential host schools were promptly notified of changes in situation by New Hampshire Department of Education representatives. See Exercise Report, page 181 of 428.

b. Provision of Transportation Assistance to Schools Transportation' Requirements for schools were simulated by the Exercise scenario based on default values for schools contained in the NHRERP. These transportation requirements were provided by Exercise controller messages to the local EOC transportation coordinators or to the IFO Local Liaison s

I .

I Officers in the case of schools in non-participating communities. The transportation requirements were communicated to the IFO Resource Coordinator by these personnel in accordance with their procedures. The IFO Resource Coordinator then made assignments from the total vehicle pool indicated by the Exercise scenario to be

, available at the State Transportation Staging Areas at the Rockingham County Complex and at the Portsmouth Circle Business Center. The IFO Resource Coordinator communicated these assignments to the State Transportation Staging Areas _

and directed the deployment of the required number of vehicles for schools to the local transportation staging areas. The vehicles were directed from the local staging 7 areas to the schools. A representation of vehicles for schools was actually deployed from the transportation staging areas to the schools. These vehicles traversed the bus routes from the transportation staging areas to the schools and then to the appropriate host community reception centers.

See Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 25 (New Hampshire Exercise Performance) for a description of the extent and results of the demonstration of transportation resources for schools.

c. Teacher Participation Within each SAU and private school, there is an internal

.I emergency operations procedure. Under these procedures, I _

superintendents / administrators receive notification and protective action recommendations from state and/or local emergency response officials and coordinate the implementation of the appropriate actions,. including the provision of transportation resources, with the individual school facilities under their jurisdiction.

The' administrative structure, therefore, provides that a decision regarding school protective actions is made by the superintendent or facility administrator who, in turn, directs its implementation. In this context, the implementation of an administrator's decision by teachers does not' require unusual or extraordinary skill. The actions required are consistent with those that would be taken, at the direction of administrators, for other emergency related i situations such as early dismissal during a winter storm, l

sheltering during a power outage, or evacuation demonstrated '

during a fire drill.

Teachers are " relied upon" in the NHRERP during implementation of school protective actions only to the I

extent that they are expected to carry out their professional ,

responsibilities to supervise students under their jurisdiction during any type of emergency situation. As such, teachers are expected to take direction from their administrative supervisors and to provide direction and control of their students. The purpose of the Exercise

objective was accomplished by the participation of representatives of the New Hampshire Department of Education and of each of the affected School Administrative Units and by demonstration of transportation resources for schools. 1 1

H. Implementation of Protective Actions for Impacted {

Populations in New Hampshire f SAPL EX-13 alleges that there was no test of the capability to transport hospital and nursing home patients to host facilities by ambulance and an insufficient test of evacuation bed bus capability in that only two mini-scenarios were conducted for this purpose during the New Hampshire portion of the Exercise. It further alleges that there was no test of: (1) the ability to make decisions regarding the administration of KI to institutional populations; and (2) the capability of host facilities to receive, monitor and decontaminate patients. TOH/NECNP EX-1, Basis f asserts that insufficient regular buses (18 of 453), special needs buses (2 of 71) and ambulances (1 of 48) were demonstrated; Basis g 1

asserts there was no demonstration of actual availability of transportation resources.

1. FEMA Exercise Objective Contentions SAPL EX-13 and TOH/NECNP Ex-1, Bases f and I

g, allege issues that pertain to FEMA Exercise Objective No.

18 which states:

" Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement protective actions for the impacted

{

]

l

i.

. permanent and transient plume EPZ1 population (including transit-dependent persons, special needs.

populations',. handicapped persons.and institutionalized persons.")

The exercise components associated'with.this' objective are explained.in Section III.A.1. supra. .

SAPL Contention EX-13 also raises issues that pertain-to FEMA Exercise Objective No. 16 which states:

"Demonstratefthe ability to make.the decision to recommend the use of KI to emergency workers and ,

institutionalized persons, based on predetermined criteria, as well as to distribute and administer it once the decision is made, if necessitated by radiciodine-releases."

2. Influences The-FEMA Memorandum, dated May 19, 1988 (Attachment C hereto) provided' guidance with respect to the proper evaluation of the availability and training of bus drivers and the availability of buses. The FEMA Memorandum noted that the focus of this issue is pre-exercise evaluation of the availability of buses and training of bus' drivers. The Memorandum said further that such an evaluation can be accomplished by examining the training component of the l

organization's emergency plans, examining letters of agreement (LOA) for buses and bus drivers and by making telephone calls to. LOA providers to confirm capability to I provide specified resources.

FEMA findings from the previous 1986 exercise further influence the extent of play. Other external influences l

l i

l_i__ _ __E_ _ ___i______._ _ l

l affecting the extent of play for Exercise Objective No. 18 are described in Section III.A.2. suora. None affected the  !

l demonstration of Exercise Objective No. 16.

3. Extent of Play )

l The decisionmaking process associated with providing i

transportation resources for special populations was to be demonstrated by the State of New Hampshire emergency response organization. Notification of special facilities was to be demonstrated with participating facilities and simulated for non-participating facilities by Exercise participants calling into a NHY Control Cell. Vehicle providers were initially contacted, and transportation resources were assigned in accordance with the requirements determined by contact with special facilities. Field demonstrations of transportation resources were conducted to allow for the observation and evaluation of one or more events by any one FEMA evaluator.

For example, most of the actual buses run during the Exercise I ran multiple routes, allowing the essociated FEMA evaluators to observe more than one route.

It was determined by the organizational representatives during the development of the extent of play portion of the  :

Exercise scenario that the simulated deployment and dispatch

{ of these evacuation vehicles would be sufficient to support the demonstration of the transport and evacuation capability 1

I of special facility and special needs populations in New Hampshire for the following reasons:

(1) The primary objective of the Exercise scenario was to test the sufficiency of the coordination and integration of the various personnel (State and local) and resources needed to evacuate special populations pursuant to the NHRERp. A main focus of this portion of the Exercise was to test information flows, decisionmaking functions and coordination aspects of the entire process and ascertain whether communications, maps, and other processes would be sufficient to implement protective actions. As indicated in the Exercise Report, page 173 of 428, these plan processes were sufficient to mobilize more than enough transportation resources to meet demand.

i (2) The actual process of transporting persons to and from hospitals, nursing homes, or other special care facilities is a normal day-to-day routine of the wheelchair I

van and ambulance company personnel who would report to the 1

l State TSAs. Accordingly, the ability to drive to various l

locations, to load and unload patients, and to transport special care persons properly are functions that these companies and drivers demonstrate daily. l The extent of play for demonstrating the State of New Hampshire's ability to provide transportation resources to

1 l

1 l

l evacuate special populations is described in Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 of Applicants' Exhibit 61. ,

i

4. Exercise Demonstration i

a. Transportation Resources for Special Populations During the Exercise, the process of providing transportation assistance for special populations was demonstrated by a range of actions. They were:

(1) Procedures were implemented at the NH State EOC by the EOC Resources Coordinator, the Pupil Transportation Safety representative, and the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services to contact transportation resource providers. l l

(2) Special facilities (nursing homes and hospitals) were contacted at least once, in accord'ance with the extent  !

of play, by either a Local Liaison Officer in the IFO or a local emergency response official in participating communities to demonstrate the ability to notify these facilities and to determine their transportation requirements.

i (3) The results of the actions described in item (2) above were relayed to the IFO Resources Coordinator who I

assigned the appropriate transportation resources to the I

i participating local communities or to the individual special 1

). l facilities in non-participating communities. !I

)

-ss- )

) 1

i l

l l

i (4) Buses for traversing bus routes for transit dependent persons were assigned to local communities in accordance with the numbers allocated in the NHRERP.

(5) Twenty buses, 1 wheelchair van, and 1 ambulance )

l were deployed from transportation resource providers to State l I

Transportation Staging Areas at the Rockingham County Complex and the Portsmouth Circle Business Center according to the provisions of the NHRERP. This deployment occurred at the SITE AREA EMERGENCY classification in accordance with the plan.

Vehicles for special populations were dispatched from the State Transportation Staging Areas to the local communities and to special facilities, and subsequently j l

proceeded to either host community reception centers or to host facilities. j l

After transportation resources were identified and mobilized, and assigned on the basis of identified l requirements, the demonstration was extended to the field by the actual deployment of vehicles from the State Transportation Staging Areas for special populations and for traversing transit dependent bus routes in the local communities. This deployment included eighteen buses for )

various bus routes, two buses for conversion to evacuation bed buses, one wheelchair van, and one ambulance.

l

The wheelchair van was dispatched to the Town of Seabrook local Staging Area. From there, the van simulated the pick-up of a handicapped person from the Pine Street Trailer Park and then continued on to the Salem Reception Center. The two conversion bed buses were dispatched to-nursing homes for transport of evacuees to host health care facilities. These nursing homes (where conversion beds were installed on the bus) were the Eventide Nursing Home in Exeter and the Edgewood Center in Portsmouth (where patient

' loading was demonstrated by the use of a mannequin). Both conversion bed buses completed the routes from the nursing homes to their respective host facilities.

The one ambulanen and crew that was mobilized by the State EOC Resources Coordinator was directed to the State Transportation Staging Area at the Rockingham County Complex in Brentwood. There, the ambulance crew was issued dosimetry )

and instructions. The TSA Ambulance coordinator assigned the i Upon answering I

ambulance to the Hampton Local Staging Area.

questions posed by FEMA evaluators, the ambulance crew was )

released from participation in the Exercise.

Sixty-six of the total of 77 bus routes (86 percent) for ;

special populations in the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ were demonstrated. Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 25 <

(New Hampshire Exercise Performance) explains the results of this demons'tration.

l

1 i.

l l

b. Ability of Host Facilities to Receive Special Facility Evacuees Vehicles which demonstrated evacuation routes for special facilities on Day 1 and Day 2 of the Exercise j completed the routes from the special facilities to the designated host facilities. On Day 1 of the Exercise, two evacuation bed buses traversed routes from two EPZ nursing homes to the host facilities of these nursing homes. The i actual receipt of special facility evacuees by the host j facilities was not demonstrated. 'These host facilities are hospitals and nursing homes which receive hospital patients }

and nursing home residents daily.

c. Radiological Monitoring of Special Facility Evacuees  ;

The personnel assigned this function under the NHRERP are equipped and trained according to the procedures currently contained in the NHRERP for radiological monitoring at reception centers. The monitoring equipment and procedures were demonstrated at two reception centers during the Exercise. Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 25 (New Hampshire Exercise Performance) describes the results of this demonstration.

d. KI Decisionmaking With respect to the decisionmaking process associated with the adminstration of potassium iodide (KI) to institutionalized persons, as delineated in the NHRERP, l

Volume 1, 5 2.7.3, Thyroid Protection, the Director of DPHS located at the State EOC in Concord is responsible for making recommendations on the use of KI as a thyroid blocking agent  ;

for the public and emergency workers pursuant to the nature-of the emergency situation.

1 i

(1) Extent of Play 1

The Exercise scenario required demonstration of two functional areas regarding the administration of KI' l

(a) That adequate and timely information regarding the emergency and the evacuation process is coordinated with and communicated to DPHS personnel responsible for making KI decisions.

(b) The DPHS Procedures for the authorization and administration of KI to affected persons in a specific area of concern can be properly implemented.

(2) Influences Affected persons who might be administered KI within a defined area of concern are emergency workers and institutionalized persons that cannot be evacuated for physical or medical reasons. The guidance and instructions for the State decisionmaking process for the administration of KI to these potentially affected persons are identical (Appendix K to the DPHS Procedures, NHRERP Vol. 4A). In either the case of emergency workers or institutionalized persons, the decision to administer KI is based on a

calculation of the projected thyroid dose using the KI l l

Worksheet in Appendix K.

(3) Exercise Demonstration During the Exercise, DPHS personnel responsible for recommending the use of KI recommended its use for emergency workers in municipalities located within two (2) miles of the plant. As a result, the direction for emergency workers located within this area to take KI was given at 1629. At 1409, over two hours earlier, New Hampshire had recommended the evacuation of towns located within five (5) miles of the ,

l plant. The only health care institution that could have potentially been affected by the KI directive, the Seacoast Health Center in Hampton, had already undertaken to evacuate. l l

The purpose of this Exercise scenario, in part, was to demonstrate the ability of DPHS personnel to make appropriate i

decisions for the administration of KI to potentially j affected persons based on the available information and the DPHS Procedures in the NHRERP. The information available to the State decisionmakers was that radiciodines were a concern 1

in towns located within two (2) miles of the plant and that at the time of concern only emergency workers were present in this area due to the evacuation recommendation previously i

provided to the public. The appropriateness of the KI DPHS Procedures and the DPHS personnel to properly implement them was demonstrated by the decisionmaking process that resulted i

___ A -_._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _

l I  !

i in the recommendation of the ingestion of KI to emergency  ;

1 workers within the identified specific area of concern. See Exercise Report at pages 171, 172 of 428.

I I

I l

l l

1

i 1'

I '

ATTACHMENT A  !

(FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to F. Begley, Radiological Monitoring, Dated January 5, 1988)

I '

i I

i i

)

I, l I  !

l I

l l i

3 l

i l

Attachment A (Page 1 of 3).

""^' 5' a a v v aaanagc112c11L ngt:rtty y.'

'i Washington, D.C. 20472 a s 1988

/, A N' 9

f-l MEMORANDUM TOR 4 Frank Begley, Chief Naturalegion FEMA and VI Technological Harards Division

' FROM: 4R1tW J .

ma

-- Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Razards Programs SUBJECTt Radiological Monitoring This memorandum monitoring. provides guidance on the issue of ra This issue is being litigated as part of the' Shoreham Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board hearings. When Headquarters will ;: ovide a statement promu policy as impacted by these activities.

Current Guidanes

• h The State and local radiological emergency preparedness pla should include previsions at relocation center (s) in the form of trained personneW and equipment to monitor within 12-hour period a minimum of 20 about a j l EPs population to be evacuated. percent' of the estimated Tor highly improbable rad 1 levels of radiation ence=iological releases involving high '

passing a relatively large aces it may 20 percent of the population. a greater number of svacuses,beyon be necessary to moniter local goveramant In such a situation, state and ad hoc response =s would be expected to develop and implement j

) State, Federal and private sector resources.easures, supplemen The following guidance is provided in response to questions submitted in your memorandum r;ething clarification of NUREG-1985, memorandum.0854/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation criterion J.12

• This policy was established in the memorandum from Mr. Krima to the NTE Division Chiefs dated December cencerning Crite rion 'Quidance J.12.' on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation 24, 1965,

]

i I

1

_- _ _ _ _ - - - _ . - - - - - - - - . - J

Attachment A (Page 2 of 3) ,

.--.u _ .. . . _ - _ .. _ . .. ._-

1 1 .

,l 1. g Eg gID POPULATION 22 3E GACE4EED. ,

m The estimated population to be evacuated which will provide q the basis for determining the' resources required for

_. 'y .

monitorine includes the total alume EP3 poculation (permanent and transient populations). I5 is f rom this total that the 20 percent is applied to determine the amount of resources

, needed, i.e., trained personnel and equipment, to provide the monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period. The 20% of the plume EP5 population to be monitored in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is I considered to include evacuees from the CPI requesting sheltering at relocation centers and those who desire ,

monitoring only.  !

2. 21&ggIHg COMaIDERATIONE We have established that, for planning purposes, . capability to i

monitor 20 percent of the plume EP3 popu1*ation in about 12 "y

4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> is adequate. Once this figure has been determined, the approximate number of monitors needed can be ascertained based on the f ollowing time-related f actors: 90 seconds (1.5 minutes) for monitoring each evacuee and a 10-minute break for each monitor per hour, thus leaving 50 minutes for monitoring. If it was determined that 20 percent of the total plume EPs populatien was 6000 persons and 33 evacuees could be monitored per hour 50 minutas divided by 1.5) each monitor working at 6-hour shif t, would monitor ap houra X 33 persorts per hour). proximately 200 evacuees In this example, (6 take it would 30 monitors to monitor the 6000 evacuees in about a 12-hour period, i.e., two shifts of 15 monitors. This figure would l be less conservative if a 10-minute break was not included I in the calculations; thus, 40 evacuees could be monitored per hour by a single monitor and 240 in a 6-hour shift.

Using this example, if two shifts were used 25 monitors l would be needed (6000 divided by 240). }

3. 3 DEMONSTRATION QZ 'tADIOLocIcit MONI*0 RING CAPABILITY

.tadiologiesi monitoring capabilities should be tested at each biennial arertise. A special scenario to demonstrate radiological f sonitoring is not necessary. The scenario for the biennaal I exercise will normally incorporate a significant offsite release that necessitates the evacuation of portions or all of the EPs. -

\ .

Activation of a reception center (s) with trained personnel and equipment sufficient to staff the reception center and demonstrate this capability during an exercise is requifed. The l location and number of reception center (s) to be activated and staffed is dependent upon the scenario, i.e., those reception centers which support the sectors of the EPS to be evacuated.

At least one monitor with a survey instrument should be present at each activated reception center to demonstrate his/her Q l

Attachment A (Page 3 of 3)

?-

J' monitoring capability.

rester of trained personnel and an inventory of availableThis survey instruments that reflect the capabilit of the estimated population to be evacuated. y Cnce to monitor every 206 6 years a shift change should be demonstrated by each offsite

' organization with radiological monitoring responsibilities.

4.

Alata and Lasal 21ana State and local radiological emergency preparedness plans should include appropriate agreements per NOREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 evaluation criterion A.3. to incorporate arrangements for expanding radiological monitoring capabilities if necessitated by accident consequences. Federal assistance for expanding these capabilities is provided for in Part :I

' Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan (FRMAP)]

, of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP).

t

5. nearstnierow 1

Arrangements should be made to register all evacuees who arrive at reception centers for radiological monitoring.

While no time period is set f orth for the registration of 1 Svacuees in NUREG-0654/TEMA-REP-1, it is reasonable to expect j

.: that this would radiological occur simultaneously and continuously with tne monitoring.

both registration and monitoring of evacuees.Thus, the 12-hour period sncemp If you have any further questions on this. matter, please contact Bill McNutt at 546-1857.

).

h CC: '1) ?!MA Regional Officss (2) Prank J. Congel, oirector s

Division of 3adiation Protection

,r and Emergsney Preparedness ,

Nuclear P.egulatory *:ommission  !

f' I

L. 1 j

l 1

Y k

\

l l

t i

ATTACHMENT B (FEMA Memorandum from R.W. Krimm for NTH Division Chiefs, All FEMA Regions, GM MS-1, Dated February 9, 1988) i r

Attachment B (Page 1 of 4) l '

39

. .g j i Federal Emergency Management Agency j }ypi l

y. - -

Washington, D.C. 20472 Y.s t c a g sgg MEMORANDUM FOR:

!?t' -

NTH Division Chiefs All FEMA Regions .

5 FROM:

.K

1 ,*. 7( ,

Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards

SUBJECT:

Clarification of Selected Provisions of Guidance Memorandum (GM) MS-1, Medical Services

,' On November 13, 1986, I .f Since that time, provisions.

we issued GM MS-1, Medical Services.

questions have arisen regarding some of its those provisions.The following information is provided to clarify Primarv And Backuo Hospitals I' GM MS-1 is silent on the issues of the location of primaryan care for the offsite population. While it would be preferable located outside that of boththeprimary and back5p medical facilities be plume EP2, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 evaluation criterion J.10.h. providesthis may not

- thatpreferably and relocation 10 centers miles, should be located "at least 5 miles ,

I exposure emergency planning zone".bevond the boundaries of the plume be located at least 15 miles f rom nuclear power plants toRelocation centers are to preclude or minimize further radiological exposure to evacuees and the need for reevaluation.

should also be applied to medical facilities.This rationale I- is FEMA policy that at least one, either the primary Therefore it or ,

backup medical outside the plume EPZ. . facility, should be located at least 5 miles I,. This policy should be implemented notwithstanding those situations where the primary and/or backup medical f acilities are the same as utility contrac:

hospitals.

I ' ,: '- - Medical Facilitv/ Transportation Resources Acreements) (Lis t s add I- On page 3 of GM MS-1, evaluation criterion L.3. states that lists should be developed of the f acilities within the State or contiguous States considered capable of providing medical support for any contaminated injured individual. The i '

" Areasthat states for Review and Acceptance Criteria" for this section the lists should be annotated to indicate the ambulatory-nonambulatory capacities f or providing medical support for contaminated injured members of the general

1 Attachment B (Page 2 of 4)

?) *; '-

V f)hh "- public and any special radiological capabilities. Further,'it fl states that this will direct members enable of the generalState andtolocal public thoseofinstitutions ficials to J capable of handling contaminated injured patients. The

.... - " Areas for Review and Acceptance . Criteria" for A.3. indicates l

. 5. . ', -

that written agreements should be obtained for'the designated i t.- primary providers.and backup medical f acilities and transportation  !

/ * * ?l Organizations that have responsibility for l

• l*

transporting contaminated injured persons should specify the '

types and numbers of specialized and non-specialized vehicles necessary.

.'3-If additional vehicles and other. transportation

.' 's. / resources are needed by an organization, they should be secured with letters of agreement.

.. .- i Amhulatorv/Non-Ambulatorv Canacitv_ '

The terms as explained " ambulatory follows: /non-ambulatory capacities", are

" Ambulatory capacity" means the medical f acility's capacity to treat individuals on an -;

outpatient basis and "non-ambulatory capacity" means the.

facility's inpatient capacity. The outpatient capacity is  !

the during day number anof individuals emergency that the facility can handle per without regard to hospitalize treatment of radiological contamination or exposure. tion The for

., inpatient capacity is the total number of available beds in a j

. facility without regard to treatment of radic

• gical contamination or exposure.

I-I Convevance E2I contaminated Iniured Individuals.

Transporting contaminated injured persons is addressed in GM MS-1. It provides for specialized (e.g.,  !'

ambulance) and non-specialized (e.g., auto, van or bus) transportation resources.

) which type of vehicle is appropriate are the type andThe key factors in de severity of the medical problems encountered and the need for y

trained emergehcy medical services personnel. Members of the i public who are physically injured or appear to be sick would I i be transported directly to medical facilities medical treatment. Members of the public who are not for specialized i physically injured or do not appear to be sick would proceed

}

to relocation centers for radiological monitoring. It is

, assumed that if they are determined at relocation centers to be contaminated and/or internally exposed and need further diagnosis or treatment, they would be transported to a medical facility (les).

Bveassino Relocation Centers As indicated above, relocation centers may be bypassed for

. members be sick. of the public who are physically injured or appear to Such persons should be transported directly to a j medical facility unless the injuries are minor in nature. i I

l

Attachment B (Pago 3 of 4) 3

. i i

v7 /

p. ,, J. This would cover those suf fering from an a' cute radiation 4.y 3- exposure syndrome and would not require a trans s c.

s provider to assess radiological contamination. portation IN

! !X . t,. .

Medical Personnel n'*f

' ".~.* g4'.7, On page 4 of the GM, the " Areas for Review and Acceptance i

. criteria" states that each hospital listed under evaluation

.,.. . criteria L.L and L.1 shall have at least one doctor and w

one nurse whoinjured contaminated can supervise patients.theThe evaluation and treatment of

~y e degree to which a a

- medical facility has trained personnel beyond the minimum k '. one doctor and one nurse is a matter between the State and local governments and that f acility's management. We

..., have not prescribed numbers beyond the stated minimum.

Medical Emercenev Drills and Exercises

,f . ;

.i.. The demonstration of capability to provide medical services should be done in annual medical emergency drills and biennial exercises.

~

An annual medical emergency drill involving a simulated

'. contaminated dangerous levels injured individual (including one exposed to of radiation) should be conducted and contain provisions for participation by local services agencies (i.e.,

facility). ambulance and offsite medical treatment The simulated contaminated injured person should be transported directly to either a designated primary or backup medical facility for the public. If the medical facility is designated for both onsite and offsite use, then one drill can be used to test the facility's capabilities to

- handle both onsite and offsite personnel. The drill should also include appropriate offsite emergency communications support.

i Simulation of a relocation center (s) may be included required. althoggh the activation of relocation centers is not {

The offsite portions of the medical drill may be <

i .

performed as part of the required biennial exercise. l When medical emergency services components are integrated

' into the biennial exercise, it is necessary to include the f ,:', activation facilities.

of relocation centers and designated medical

.. The scenario *and exercise play will determine 7

which relocation centers and hospitals should be activated.

This activation backup should include participation by primary and facilities, including appropriate support functions.

- simulated contaminated injured individual, either f rom onsiteA

. or offsitefacility.

medical areas, will be transported to each activated e

l l

-_ O

Attachmsnt B (Paga 4 of 4)

A 2.s 4

2.,

m,

,. Annual medical emergency drills must be evaluated by FEMA

.,,  ?'

L-f Regional on page 2).staff as required in GM EX-2, Rev.1

.' n

Ll-

, ' drills should be forwarded to FEMA Headquarters.The Reg

' j:pJt * .

Implementation

, . . '., Y'!'

TQ-j - '<

• The time frame for incorporating the provisions of

- l

. .p . to reflect the provisions of GM EX-2 (August

' 11, 1987 All

.S', of GM MS-1 by Decemberplans 31, 1987. should have been revised isions to incorporate

't ; ' These medical service measures should be demonstrated either at the next annual i medical year 1988.emergency drill or biennial exercise held in calendar If changes to REP plans are necessitated by the policy that at least one medical facility be located 15 miles f rom the change site, the plans by December should be revised to reflect this 31, 1988. The change should be demonstrated in a drill or exercise during calendar year

. . 1989.

This memorandum has been coordinated and concurred NRC staff. in by th If you have any questions please contact Bill e McNutt at 646-2857.

9

. CC: Frank J. Congel NRC.

G 4

l j ..

{.

l

_ . . 4 l

.l I

ATTACHMENT C (FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to E.A. Thomas,'

, Guidance for the Qualifying, Full-Participation Exercise at Seabrook Dated May 19, 1988) ,

1 l.

I i

)

I h.

I

).

t I l

\

l

>. l l

Attachment C (Page 1 of 3) 1 1

=

' e s e' '

! 9 Federal Emergency Management Agency .

Af Washington, D.C. 20U2 j

~  ;

i MAY l 9 !988

, MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards

~ ,--J

~'

FROM: RichEc7. Kri .

Assistant Asseciate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Guidance for the Qualifying, Full-Participation Exercise at Seabrook (Also Addresses the Shorenam Exercise)

This responds to your request of March 15, 1988, on guidance for use in the upcoming Seabrook qualifying, full-participation exercise. This confirms the guidance provided to you in a conference call with Joan Hock, Marshall Sanders and Craig Wingo for the four issues raised.

Because of the relevance of this guidance to the Shoreham exercise, our response is applied to both the Seabrook and Shoreham exercises.

Issue 1. With resoect to the carticioating State a'nd local governments (i.e., New Hamosn1re ano Maine), guldance snould be oeveloceo alono the lines of that 01str1buted by memoranoum dated Maren 7, 1988, frem Grant Peterson to tne Regional Directors for evaluating exerc1ses wnere State and/or local governments decline to partic1pate.

Resoonse. The same scope of exercise objectives delineated for utility offs 1te response organizations in the referenced March 7, 1988, memorandum applies to participating State and local governments. As set forth 'in this memorandum, 35 of the 36 exercise objectives of Guidance Memorandum (GM)

EX-3 apply, the only exception being objective 36. Of course, the new j objective contained in the " Guidance Memorandum (GM) EX-3 Amendment" does '

not apply as it pertains only to utility offsite response organizations.

} We understand that the State of New Hampshire has agreed to this extent of play in order to be consistent with the extent of play on the Massachusetts side. You should secure this understanding in writing, if you do not have

> l l it already. The specific objectives of the 35 that would need to be l demonstrated by participating State and local governments are, of course, dependent upon their emergency functions as documented in their emergency response plans and procedures for their respective plume and ingestion

{ exposure pathway roles and responsibilities. The use of the exercise objectives in conjunction with the testing of plume and ingestion measures should be implemented in accordance with the guidance on pages 14, 15 and 16 of GM IN-1 for the Seabrook and Shoreham exercises. l

__________A_____.______ _ _ _ _ - _

Attachment C (Page 2 of 3) n r. . ,

o issue 2. Witn resoect to cualifying exercises involving either part1ctoating or non-partic1oating governments. quidance snouTo be develooed on now to oroperly evaluate the ava11aD111ty ano tra1nino of bus or1 vers and tne availability of buses.

Resoonse. The focus of this issue is pre-exercise evaluation of the ava11eo111cy of buses and training of bus drivers. Such an evaluation can be accomplished by examining the training component of the organization's emergency plans, examining letters of agreements (LCA) for buses and bus drivers and by making telephone calls to LOA providers to confirm capability to provide specified resources. Guidance for determining the extent of exercise demonstration and evaluation for bus drivers and buses (and route guides) is provided in the attachment.

Issue 3. With respect to the evaluation of decontamination and relocation facilittes, we believe tnat procecures for crecerly encosing the numoer of decontamination teams and registrars snould be deveioceo.

Response. Functions associated with relocation facilities include

~ reception centers for registration and monitoring, decontamination centers and congregate care facilities. These functions may be integrated into the operations of a single facility or may carried out in physically separate facilities and locations. Guidance for determining the extent of demonstration and evaluation of these functions is provided in the attachment.

Issue 4. Finally, with respect to the New Hamoshire cortion of the exercise, a dects1on must be made as to wnether correct 1on of the deficiencies and ARCA's identified in the Feoruary 1986 exercise should be an objective of the next SeaDrook exercise.

Resoonse. All identified deficiencies from previous Seabrook and Shorenam exercises should have already been corrected prior to the upcoming exercises. If they have not, they should be demonstrated during these exercises. Likewise, any ARCA's from the 1986 exercises that have not been corrected should be redemonstr.tiJ, and if plan corrections are required, they too should be demonstrated :n the upcoming exercises.

Any questions about this memorandum should be referred to Vern Wingert at 646-2872.

Attachment 1

cc: All Regional ONTH Chiefs

Attachment C (Paga 3 of 3) e

..i, t

L Attachment. May 9, 1983 L ,

GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION p REQUIRED FOR QUALIFYING, FULL-PARTICIPATION EXERCISES

~

The following guidance is provided for determining the extent c'f demonstration -

and evaluation required for all organizations, facilities and field activities in exercises. An objective of this guidance is to provide a fra.9ework for [

ascertaining the level o# exercise demonstration that is "reasonat.ly acnievacle' '

in order to assure an adequate demonstration of organizational pla..iing ano preparedness. This guidance is applicable to only qualifying, ful?- )

participation exercises. Guidelines are provided below for making the {

l determination of the extent of exercise demonstration and evaluation.

I

1. Because 'of the site-specific nature of organizational planning and preparedness, decisions on the extent of offsite demonstration and evaluation of exercise functions and activities should be made by FEMA Regional staff in consultation with FEMA Headquarters.

. 2. For exercise demonstration and evaluation purposes, the extent of l activation and staffing for all types of facilities, field teams (e.g., radiological monitoring) and field activities (e.g., traffic control) should be determined on the basis of a representative numoer of j facilities, staff and functions. A representative number may vary - l from 1007, to a portion of the total activity. The basis for determining a representative number is the documentation of organizational planning and preparedness, the type and level of participation required by scenario events and other relevant factors such as Federal evaluator resources.

3. The type and extent of additional documentation required to support limited demnstratiori of exercise activities and functions may be addrfcsea through suen means as providing rosters of trained personnel and inventories of available equipment and instruments.

This guidance supersedes that contained in one part of section 3 of the attached January 5, 1988, guidance on " Radiological Monitoring" as j follows: "At least one monitor with a survey instrument should be present ,

at each activated reception centar to demonstrate his/her monitoring j capability." '

i l

1

.g.

i i

i 1

ATTACHMENT D (PSNH Letters from G.R. Gram to R. Boulay, Director of Mass. Civil Defense Agency, Dated January 15 and January 18, 1988; Records of Conversation - J.A. MacDonald, Dated January 27 and March 25, 1988) l l

l

)

I

}

4

} i 1

4 I

l Attachment D (Page 1 of 4)

'.Pl . .N /h !

~* .9EP! S80003 i

PENHI j New Hampshire Yankee Division l j

January 15, 1988 i

Director Robert Boulay '

Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts:1 01701-I

Dear Director Boulay,

1 j

New: Hampshire Yankee is in the process of preparing for a Federally observed exercise of the emergency response organization which would respond to a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station. We have tentatively selected i the week of 23 May, 1988 as a target date for this exercise.

To support an exercise in this time frame it will be necessary to submit to the cognizant Federal authorities proposed exercise objectives and a sus-mary.of_the extent of play for each participating emergency response orga-nization no later than 25 January, 1988. To facilitate the development cf the materials required for this submittal New Hampshire Yankee is requesting you and the appropriate members of your staff to schedule and attend a coordination meeting with New Hampshire Yankee, prior to 23 January, 1988, at a place and time of your convenience.

Upon completion of this meeting we expect to have finalized the proposed exercise objectives for the Massachusetts Emergency Response Organization and an outline of its extent of play. To assist you in preparing for_this meeting and to serve as a starting point for discussions I have enclosed a 3_

draft of proposed exercise objectives for your state's response organiza-tion and a suggested meeting agenda.

i If by January 23, no response to this request is received, New Hampshire Yankee must assume continued non-participation in the radiological emergency response planning and exercise process by the Commonwealth of Messachtsetts and will make alternate preparation for the exercise in accordexe with recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule changes.

j If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you in this natter please contact me at (603) 474-9521, ext. 4399.

i Sincerely, 0 W

. Gram Executive Director

, Emergency Preparedness I and Community Relations '

GAG /WO/cc

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . i

Attachment D (Page 2 of.4)

L ' As o ,./'

• SEP# 880047

)e 1

t &i Public Service of New Hampshire L New Hampshire Yankee Division i i

i

) January'28, 1988 i

l

}

1 L Director Robert Boulay  !

Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701

Dear Director Boulay,

I have received no response from you to my letter of January 15 4 1

1988 and additionally you have indicated to Jim MacDonald of my staff, in a telephone conversation of January 27th, that your intention is not to provide a response to the letter. With this in mind, New Hampshire Yankee has in'itiated internal preparations to make alternate arrangements for an exercise in accordance with recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule changes. .

As Mr. MacDonald related to you in the above referenced telephone conversation, New Hampshire Yankee has delayed submission of exercise objectives to Federal authorities until at least February 5, 1988.

If it is possible for you to reconsider your position in this matter within this time frame, New Hampshire Yankee stands ready to meet with you or other representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at a time and place of your convenience.

Sincerely, /

uG Ge e R. Gram utive Director Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations l

l L/5K3061 mm m_ m - . ,_ - ___ -- -

Attachment D (Page 3 of 4) i d

p- RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I

. d l

Standard Distribution Additional Distribution )

Georae Gram Patty Torr T. Haroster Jeff Crafts Debra Vanderbeek P. Stroup

. l Mike Hawkins Tom Byrnes Cathy Franks Millie Munroe l

DATE: 1/27/88 CALL TO: Bob Boulav CALL FROM: J.A. MacDonald COMPANY: MA-CD PHONE NO: 617-875-1381

SUBJECT:

1) East Kinoston Siren Yest and

2) Jan. 15, 1938 Exercise Participation Notice letter.

OA. Summary of Conversation:

1) In accordance with our East Kingston siren test procedure, I called Bob to ,

alert him to the fact that a siren test is scheduled to La held this Saturday, January 30th between 1000 and.1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br />. He thanked me for the courtesy notice.

l

2) I informed Bob that the response period mentioned in our January 15th exer-cise participation letter (by Jan. 23) was being stretched for an additional l

period, and that a second letter was going to be sent to him to explain.

He said fine but that he could not respond to our inquiry under the -

non-participation stature that he is forced to be in, f

He agreed with me that he hoped and expected that MA-CD would be working l

. With NHY in emergency planning, like the situation used to be,'but that for j i now that was not possible. l

) 1 He told me to stop in and see him anytime I was in the neighborhood.

. N 9

) R/SS3051

Attachment D (Page 4 of 4) 1 1

I

. . . =

l Standard Distribution Additional Distribution hsW '

/ 0 A 56 7

Ad frAss ~

, DATE: IdF '

"1 CALL TO: hd&!d'u CALL FROM:

• COMPANY: 7d [ PHONE NO: M[~ [E#

SUBJECT:

///7 /$$ b l $ W /3 G / W W $A b *f O

S arv .< Co .rsatio

,z a&r ag hk #

4 eb '

> 4e eezrea af/.x w es & a/

W & Mf&NNf

\

eau / p Brar i & Um pga si 4 dae 4 /W

\ j,y & MeJkt stea 0 &

dkrabf 4y of 9P9"#* /**h

es rht 4 am /*v W -

i I

o 64 &&f a & &# ""g"*"i y, _.

is< r W ,

e G'k"#+At a a a a- -

I ATTACHMENT E (Participation Matrix for ORO Exercise) l l

l l

I l

l

)

Attachment E (Page 1 of 24)

PARTICIPATION MATRIX FOR ORO EXERCISE PUBLIC/ PRIVATE SCHOOLS Amesbury

^

Participated in Egge the Graded Exercise Source of Data

1. Amesbury H.S. No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88, from George R.

~

Gram to Stephen J.

- Gerber, Superintendent

- of Schools, Amesbury Public Schools, Amesbury, Massachusetts.

No response for sebools listed 1-5.

2. Amesbury Middle No

3. Amesbury Elementary No

4. Cashman School No

5. Horace Mann No

6. 7th Day Adventist No-1 Record of Conversation (ROC)-2/23/88, 3/29/88 (Training / Exercise Acceptance); Training done on 4/22/88 Merrimac

1. Dr. F. N. Sweetsir No ** Letter - SEP880174, 7 3/14/88, from George R.

(( Gram to Thomas F.

Jenkins, Superintendent

-- of Pentucket Regional School District, West gg Newbury, Massachusetts.

Letter - 3/17/8&,

response from Thomas F.

Jenkins to George R.

Gram declining to participate for schools listed 1-2.

__ 2. Donaghue School No S

M E

' Attachment E (Paga 2 of 24).

b b .

[

Newbury l

• Letter - SEP880174, Byfield School

~

g 1. No 3/14/88,.from George R.

Gram to Gerald W. Kohn, Superintendent of "

Schools, Triton Regional Union 68 School District, Byfield, i Massachusetts. Letter'-

3/21/88 response.from-l Gerald W. Kohn to George R. Gram declining to .

participate for schools listed 1 4.

2. Newbury Elementary No

3. Woodbridge School No 4 Triton Reg. School No

5. Gov. Dummer Academy No ROC - 5/2/88, between Chris Patrinos, NHY, and Laurence Platelli', Asst.

Headmaster. (Limited participation in planning)

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - Response Received.

• • • - Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • w'- Unclaimed (not delivered) 1 - Did not participate because school was not in session 2-

. Attachment'E (Pago 3 ,of 24) l I

l t

PUBLIC/ PRIVATE SCHOOLS (continued)

Newburvoort Participated in Eggg the Graded Exercise Source of Data

1. Brown School No Record of Conversation (ROC), 3/31/88 between Chris'Patrinos, NHY, and Joseph Donnelly, Asst.

Superintendent of Schools, Newburyport, Massachusetts-informing NHY of decision not to participate in emergency planning for Seabrook for schools listed 1-5.

2. Belleville School No  ;

I 3. Kelly School No

4. Ruport A. Nock No

5. Newburyport H.S. No

6. Greater Newburyport No Inactive during ARC Summer Spec. Ed. Exercise Planning

) (Summer only)

7. Greater Newburyport No Inactive during Educ. Coll. Summer Exercise Planning (Summer Program) summer only)

} 8. ' Immaculate Conception No ROC-3/18/88 (Training / Drills i

Participation) l ROC 4/25/88 (Planning Refusal) i Salisbury -

1. Memorial Elementary No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88, from George R.

Gram to Gerald W. Kohn,

o Attachmont,E'(Pago 4 of 24)

Superintendent of Schools, Triton Regional-l Union 68 School.

District, Byfield,

)

Massachusetts. Letter -

-- 3/21/88, response from Gerald.W. Kohn to George R. Gram declining to participate-for schools listed 1-2.

I'

2. Plain Schools No j p.

[. =

West Newbury f! 1. Pentucket Regional No ** Letter - SEP880174, Sr/ H.S.- '3/14/88, from George R.

Gram to Thomas F.

Jenkins, Superintendent

+ of Pentucket Regional School District, West Newbury, Massachusetts.

Letter 13/17/88, response from Thomas F.

Jenkins to George R.

. Gram declining to participate for schools i listed 1 3.

2. Pentucket Regional No

- Jr. H.S.

3. Dr. John C. Page No School

4. Essex North Christian No ROC 4/7/88 (Participation pending; no further response)

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - - Response Received-

• • • - Refused (Facility would not sign for it).

• • • • - Unclaimed (not delivered) 1 - Did s,ot participate because school was not in session

)

. 1 Attachment E (Paga 5 of 24) 1 1

l.

i

~

DAN CARES / NURSERIES l

t Amesbury f i

Participated in Name the Graded Exercise Source of Data i

)

1. Sheila Taylor No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

2. Vickie Cook ~ No

• Letter - SEP880174,-

3/14/88

3. Sherrie Davey No'

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

4. Stephanie Dragonas No ROC-3/8/88 (' Exercise-Acceptance).

ROC-4/25/88 (Exercise Refusal)

5. Denise Toleos No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

6. Elizabeth Howe No *** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

7. Kerry Muse No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

8. Karen Fournier No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

9. Donna Blades No ROC 2/25/88 (Exercise Acceptance)

ROC-4/28/88 (Training / Exercise Refusal)

10. Donna Perkins No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

11. Dianne Dore No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

12. Pamela Clark No *** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 5-

r Attachment E'(Paga'6.of'24)-

13'. June McIntire' No

• Letter'- SEP880174', ,

3/14/88 14 Nancy Elander No-

• Letter.- SEP880174, )

3/14/88'

15. Denise Millette No *** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

16. Linda ~McDormand No'

• Letter'- SEP880202, '

3/15/88; ROC 3/5/88 (Exercise Refusal)L l

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - Response Received

• • • - Refused-(Facility would not sign for it)'

-**** - Unclaimed (not delivered).

i l

l i

l I

6-

Attachment E (Page'7 of 24) ')

l DAY CARES / NURSERIES (continued)

Amesbury (cont'd)

Participated in Eams. the Graded Exercise Source of Data

17. Jane Fournier- No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88. Returned letter - 3/17/88,- ,

declining participation

18. Katherine Scott No

• Letter - SEP880174, 1 3/14/88 q

19. Karen Miele No *** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88.

20. Annalises Hutchinson No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

21. Katherine S. Ferruzza No *** Letter - SEP881075, 3/14/88

22. Evelyn Fournier No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

23. Geralyn Willett No -* Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 24 Debra Notargiacomo No ROC-3/10/88 (Exercise Acceptance)

ROC-4/25/88 (Exercise Refusal)

25. Ruth Terry No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

26. Deborah Fournier No

• Letter - SEP880174, l

l, 3/14/88

27. Kathryn Marchitelli No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

28. Jeanne Yasi No ROC-3/8/88 (Exercise Acceptance)

ROC-4/25/88 (Exercise Refusal)

Attachmont E-(Page 8 of 24)

I J

l

\

29. Amesbury Country Day No

• Letter - SEP880176, 3/14/88

f. ROC-3/24/88 (Planning

)

Refusal).

.30. Windmill Country Day No *Lettwr - SEP880176, 3/14/88

31. Amesbury Headstart No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - Response Received

• • • - Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • • - Unclaimed (not delivered)

L 1

~

l L

l l-8-

Attachment E (Page 9 of 24)

DAY CARES / NURSERIES j (continued) j Merrimac Participated in Name the Graded Exercise Source of Igig

1. Gayle Leblanc No

• Letter - SEPf dol 76, 3/14/88 ROC-4/6/88 / Plan Acceptance' Exercise Refusal)

2. Lillian Stuart No Letter - SEP88020, 3/15/88 ROC-3/10/88 (Exercise Refusal)

3. Carol A. Goss No **** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

4. Eileen Lawler No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

5. Shirley Innis No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

6. Michelle Boyer No **** Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

7. Jean Gatchell No

• Letter - SEP88020, 3/15/88 ROC-2/24/88 (Possible Participation)

ROC-3/7/88 (Exercise Refusal)

8. Eileen Flynn No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 Newbury

1. Maureen Haley No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 9-

' Attachment E'(Paga.10 of 24)- <

l

, 1 1

4 1

2. Debra Dash Yes. ROC-3/7/88, 5/17/88, f

6/16/88 (Exercise

}

Acceptance)

3. 'Mrs. A. Hilton No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3 /14/88

4. Creative Playhouse No. **** Letter - SEP880302,

l. 4/11/88 I

~

J-

- Signed Mail Receipt Received l ** - Response Received

• • • . - Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • • - Unclaimed-(not delivered)

I L

o

{

1 10-

n L-Attachment E (Page 11 of~2'4) r 1

DAY CARES / NURSERIES (continued)

L l - Newburvoort Participated in Egag the Graded Exercise Source of Data

1. Susan Bradford No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

2. Sue White No

• Letter - SEP880174,

.3/14/88

3. Elizabeth Cox No

• Letter - SEP881074, 3/14/88 ROC-3/16/88 (Planning Refusal)

4. Maureen Albert No

• Letter - SEP880174,.

3/14/88

5. Laura Martel No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 Letter - SEP880202,

.3/15/88 RC.,3/77/88 (Training / Exercise Refusal)

6. Janet Cooke No *** Letter - SEP880202, 3/15/88

7. Dianna Parkinson No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

8. Janet Meloon No *** Letter - SEP880202, 3/15/88 ROC-3/7/88 (Training / Exercise Refusal)  ;

9. Karen Degou No

• Letter SEP880174, . I 3/14/88 -i

10. Judy Lacroix No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

Attachmsnt'E (Pago 12'of 24).

i i

1

11. Kathleen Charpentier No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88-

12. Nancy MacNeill Yes

• Letter - SEP880176, 3/14/88 ROC-5/19/88 (Planning, Training, Exercise Acceptance)

13. Newburyport No

• Letter - SEP0174, Montessori' 3//14/88 Letter-4/12/88, Maureen Daley, Director,:to George R. Gram declining participation

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - Response Receiveo

• • • - Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • • - Unclaimed (not_ delivered) ,

i i

h l

f .

> -12

Attachment E'-(Page 13 of 24)-

DAY CARES / NURSERIES (continued)

Newburvoort (cont'd)

Participated in EADIA the Craded Exercise Source of Data-

14 . Kinder-Care Learning No ROC-3/7/88 (Exercise Acceptance)

ROC 5/4/88-(Deferring-participation)

15. Knoll Edge Nursery .No *

• • • • Letter - SEP88/0174, 3/14/88

16. Children's House No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/889

17. .My School Day Care- -No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

18. Mrs. Murrays No

• Letter - SEP880174,

- 3/14/88

19. Circle of Friends No

• Letter - SEP880174, (Milk St.) 3/14/88

20. Circle of Friends No Same as above (Federal St.)

21. .Pamela Standley No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 ROC-3/22/88, (no longer providing day care)

-Salisbury

1. Alice Perry No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

2. + Margaret Allard No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 I

3. Susan Cuilbert No **** Letter - SEI880202, 3/15/88' ROC-3/5/88 (Training / Exercise

Refusal)

~'

o. , u Attachment - E- (Pago114 ~ of .24):

1

-1 4 .' Cynthia Lee- No

• Letter - SEP880202,.

3/15/88 ROC-3/5/88 (Training / Exercise Refusal)

5. Donna'Spaneas: Yes ROC 3/5/88.(Exercise-Acceptance)

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received

• • - Response Received

~

• • • .- Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • • - Unclaimed (not delivered) d i:

l b

L l

-14

Attachmont E.(Paga 15 of'24) t DAY CARES / NURSERIES )

(continued)

Salisbury (cont'd)

Participated in Egag the Graded Exercise ' Source of Data

6. .Tracey Durkeee No

• Letter - SEP880174,

--3/14/88

7. Kiddie Corner No

• Letter - SEP880174,

• 3/14/88 ROC-3/7/88 (Training / Exercise Refusal)

West Newbury l

1. . Puddle Duck Place . No Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88

2. Madelyn Cirinna No *** Letter - SEP880202, 3/15/88. ROC-3/15/88 (Refused participation)

3. Lynn Wilson No

• Letter - SEP880174, l

)

3/14/88

4. Children's Castle No

• Letter - SEP880174, 3/14/88 l

5. Kids World Limited No

• Letter - SEP880174', 1 3/14/88

• - Signed Mail Receipt Received l ** - Response Received ,

• • • - Refused (Facility would not sign for it)

• • • • - Unclaimed (not delivered) h l

I h

L l-

D 1 1 1 1 1 1/ .uen 1

/ / / / / /2CcGin /

f 3 3 3 3 3 32 e l o 3 o ,/rxoci 3 uEtet ,

e - 5 4 5 5 4 4 h da 6 c 7 7 7 7 7 7 t ,r p 7 r r1 r1 r1 1 1 r1 roomi r1 r u e0 e0 e0 r0 r0 e0rActac e0 e o t8 t8 t8 e8 e8 t8 e rcri t8 t S t8 t8 t8 t8 t8 t8tmaeGt t8 t eP eP eP tP tP ePtoMr r eP e LE LE LE eE eE LEerii.a LE L

• S *S *S LS LS *SLfDDRp *S

• ne is i

dc er te ax pE i

cd o o o o o o o o ie N N N N N N N N td ra ar S PG E

I T

I L y y y I t t t C i i i A e l l l F o e e e e i i i L v m m m m c c c A T o o o o a a a I H H H H F F F y l

- C t a g g g g l l l E i t n n n n a a a P l i i i i i i i i S i p s s s s c c c c s r r r r e e p

e p

a o u u u u p F H N N N N S S S

)

r y e t

- t i n r

- C e

e e h o

l m m ) t

_ a g o o . u t n H H r d A o R

- i p

s i

s r

t s

t s

n a

l oy eg l n l a

o u e e M oe ai l H N R R hl Vs i u V

- e m

y r

u y

r u

d o

o d

i e

d o

o w

cl Sa r

V eo gH a

w o

a b b w s e ot ty W y N s s t l l bn ir r e e s l p ra ru w u m m a i a as eb o b A A E H M Ha Hs P s e e e l m m . .P .A A 1 2 3 4 5 6( 7( 8

1 r e

/8 eCe 38 xOr

. / erg

, 8 , 1 A 6 2 g ,)()

7 / n gd = e r13i ne8 s e0 nit 8i t8 - nnp/c t8 aie5r ePCl ac1e LEOPrc/x

• SR(TA6E -

_ s e

Y y

t i )

l t i i c

a r F o f

l a n i g c i e s p d S e t v o i n) e d c de e l r R ue ov t wi

- p l idye

- eetd cvi eilt Reio ccn e l ea(

c iRF

• n a (d e Me e d sdm

- i s

e dnei eosa npul R gsf c ieen

. SRRU

- I M

9 ****

) Oc

/8 n / / Rr Rr f 38 o 3 3 f 8 e 8 e o ,/ i o 8 ) x 8 ) x 4 gt , ,

/ eE / eE e 61 na 5 6 e 9ec( 9ec(

c 7 /i p 7 7 c /sn ) /sn') -

r r13 ri r1 r1 r 3i a8l 3i a8l u e0 rc e0 e0 u ct8 a ct8a o t8 - ei t8 t8 o rp/s rp/s S t8 ft t8 t8 S ee0u ee0u ePCer eP eP Cxc3f Cxc3f LEODa LE LE OEc/e OEc/e

• SR( p

• S

• S R(A3R R(A3R ne ne is i s i .i dc dc

, er er te te ax ax pE pE i i cd o o o cd o o ie N N N i e N N td tt ra ra ar ar S PG PG E

I T

I)

L de y y y y y I

C u t t t t t A in i i i i i F t e l l l e l l o i i i D i i Lno v c c c v c c A T a a a T a a F F F F F IC (c y y E t l l l t l l P i a a a i a a l i i i l i i S i c c c i c c c e e e c e p

e p

a p p p a F S S S F S S

)

y t

i s r i o s h y t u

l

_ a A i

D g -

n y i e g e e s g n

_ n d

s u

eu go l a i s

i o aH l u K H l i o V He

~

l y c c ir y

g e a a Vu e yd m

a mr ie i m

is b m a

r u

li rR c N rt r re N b e

- i a

m rn ee MC r

e M

rm eA M(

y r

u N w

e dk l a EO r b r w e e M 1 2 3 N 1 2 l j;

Oc 1 1 nn Rr / / i n)

-e 3 3 ray

) x ull eE , ,

dPn ec( ~ - 4 4 O sn ) 7 7 ee i a8l ct8a r1 e0 r1 e0 vsr ii e rp/s t8 t8 tcm ee0u t8 t8 crm xc3f eP eP aeu Ec/e LE LE nxS

( A3R

• S *S IE(.

o o o N N N y y y t t t i i i )

l l l t i i i i c c c a a a r F F F o f

l l l a a a n i i i g c c c i e e e s p p p d S S S e t v o i n) e d c de e l r R ue t

ov wi p l idye

- eetd t cvi a eilt e Reio

~.

) ) t r ccn l ea(

l e le e iRF on on R a (d l oa oa Me e ~

l hL hL d sdm

~ i H

c Sf l

c Sf l

o o

r dnei eosa npul r 'r o ro n y

gsfc e oR oR ieen k b b l SRRU

- a u

Q r4 a2 H(

r8 a2 H(

d A

e 4 5 6 ****

lli l

D 1 1 e 1 1 ) 1 8 ) 1

/ /8 s / /8 n /8un 8 n /8 f 3 38i 3 38 o 38fo / o 38 o ,/c ,/ i

,/ei 8 i

,/

, 5r , 6 t 6Rt 1 t 5 e 5 62 e - 5 61 a 61( a /ea 61 c 7 7/x) 7 7 /d p 7/' p /l p 7/

r r1 r13El r1 r13 ei r138i 3bir13 u e0 e0 /a e0 e0 sc e0 - 8c ice 0 o t8 t8 ns t8 t8 - ui t8 /i sit 8 -

S t8 t8 au t8 t8 ft t8 4t stt8 eP ePClf eP ePCer ePC2 r CorePC LE LEOPe LE LEORa LEO /a OPaLEO

• S *SR( R

• S *SR( p *SR3 p R( p*SR ne is i

dc er te ax pE i

cd o o o o o o o ie N N N N N N N td

- ra ar S PG E

I T

I)

L de y I

C u t A in i

- F t e l p e e e e e i Lno y m m m m m c A T o o o o o a H H H H H F IC (c y l g g g g g E t a l P i t n n n n n a l i i i i i i i S i p s s s s s c c s r r r r r e a o u u u u u p F H N N N N N S r r d

. o o e

- f f l l

~ y y i t t k e e S i i l c c d l o o nr i r r S S ae M o o t s n n t t . n. m e a a r rn be a o oe e

- t r

e u

q a

M m

a M

y r

pn ye rM pm yo rW h

aC eg Rn t

S m J o a h t u u i s p N a g n bd bd ts e

- y r

u n

n A

i r

B u

o C

we eg NA we eg NA rr ou PN J m

a b

w e

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If

) ) )

n 8 n 8 n o 8 o 8 o i / i / i t 0 gt 0 gt ea l p /ip 1na 1 na

/ip bi 5ri 5ri ic rc rc si - ei ei st ft ft or Cer Cer Pa ODa ODa

( p R( p -

R( p o o N N y y t t i i )

l l t i i i c c a a r F F o f

l l a a n i i g c c i e e s p p d S S e t v o i n) e d c de e l r R ue ov t wi p l i dye g gn eetd nn nr cvi ia io eilt sv st ur Reio ccn ui ol oo l ea(

Hl HH iRF u a (d tS t- Me e r- r oy sdm oy dnei pt yi pt yi eosa npul rr rr gsf c t

o. uo ieen bh SRRU

'w 't wt eu eu - -

NA NA 8 9 ****

lll fl l t l llll

t / l / / /

a 4 l 4 4 4

- D ) 1 i ) 1 1 ) 1 8 n / m ,M n / /8l /

f 8 o 3 o ,

o 3 38 a 3 o / i rsoY i

,/

0 gt , f stH t ,

4 us ,

e 1 na 5 i Nga 5 61f - 4 c /i p 7 r,er np 7 7/e 7 r 5ri r1 e8Wo ,i i r1 r13R r1 u rc e0 t8 tesc e0 t8 e0 t8 - n e0 t8 o ei t8 t/zcoui S ft t8 e3terft t8 t8 a t8 Cer eP L1i rner eP ePCl eP ODa LE * /riura LE LEOP LE R( p *S

• 4FDM( p *S *SR( *S ne is i

dc er te ax pE P i cd ie td N

o N

o o N

o N

o N

o N

ra ar S PG E

I T

I)d L e y y y y y y I t t t C u t t t i

A in i i i i i )

e l l l l l l t F t p i i i i i i i Lno y c c c c c c T a a a a a a r A F F F F F F o IC (c y l l l l f

t l l E i a a a a a a n P l i i i i i i g S i c c c c c c i c e e e e e e s a p p p p p p d F S S S S S S e t v o i n) e d s c de e e l r i R ue t ov t i t wi r r . v p p l ge oc i o id y e nh pn t h eetd ii yI c s cvi sl r A k eilt

) ul u , r Reio d oe e bs y o ccn

' HK s we a W t n

l ea(

t u ec D y

iRF a

n t- o Ni i (d o r H /v s t o Me e c oy l r ' i P sdm

( pt e l e l n dnei yi g iS u u g eosa t e rr a h a t n npul r m uo t rn P r i gsf c o a bh i ea o n ieen p N wt r vm . p p u r SRRU y eu e au t r NA H HH S O T - - - -

u

• b **

w . . . . . .

e 0 1 2 3 4 5 ***

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 ****

, l

n u

_ f o

/

3 8

8

/

on;f iaee tl cR e 5 6gaPn c 7 /np ae

_ r u

o r1 e0 t8 4ii8ts n c 8 pi

- ni/ e c S t8 at2 cr eP Clr2ce LE OPa/Ax

_

• S R(P4(E ne is i

dc er te ax n pE o i i cd o o s ie N N s

_ e s

td ra ar PG

n. S i E I

t TI) oL n de y I

s A C un t

i )

a F i e l t w t p e i i L n y m c r l

A o T o a H F o o

o C I (c y g

f

_ h E c P t

i n l

a n s S l i i g i s c i s

e c r e p

s a u d

, u F N S e t a v o c i n)

_. e e d b c de e l r y R ue l ov n e t wi

_ o m p l o e idye g eetd

_ e H cvi t a a g l s seilt p n l e eReio ccn

_ i i i i i c s V t tlea(

i r i iiRF t u w l l a (d r N o i iMe e.

a d c c sdm p f a

a e y F a adnei Feosa t e e M r npul o m l u l l gsfc

_ n v a n t b a aieen r N e a w i iSRRU d u e e e c c

_ i b r r N e p

e-p D s G G i t S S *

- l s **

a . . e o o * **

s 1 S 1 2 W N N****

t!

i

)J Attachment'E (Pago 24.of 24)

-1 i

I I- FACILITIES IDENTIFIED POST EXERCISE Amesbury

, 1. Katheryn Cook 4. M.R. Residence (T.P.)

2. Patricia Younger Heritage Towers

3. Bonnie Noyes f

!. Merrimac t- 1. Janet Michaud i

Newbury i

1. Salen Mauro L Newburvoort l- 1. Margaret Yuhasz y

Salisbury

1. Diane Marie Champlin

2. Mary Sergi

3. Danielle Hajjar West Newbury

1. Mary Brown

2. Early Intervention r

)

I l

i t

) ATTACHMENT F l

(FEMA Memorandum From R.W. Krimm to I F.J. Congel, Objectives for the Seabrook Exercise, Dated June 22, 1988) l 9

I L

)

l i

I r

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

l Attachment F (Page 1 of 2) 0 '. .m

/ 'O 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency I Washington, D.C. 20472 JUN 22588 MEMORANDLN FOR: Frank J. Congel Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nucle e egulatory Counission l i

FRG4: A r .

Assistant Associate Director Office -

of Natural

- and Technological Hazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Objectives For The Seabrook Exercise On April 22, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inquired whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could support a change in scheduling of the full-participation exercise of offsite preparedness plans' for the Seabrook and Shoreham nuclear power plants. As you know, the Shoreham exercise was conducted during the week of June 6,1988.

The Seabrook exercise is scheduled for the week of June 27, 1988. It will involve the testing of offsite plans for the New Hampshire Maine r

and Massachusetts portions of the Emergency Planning Zone. Since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not participating in the planning and preparedness process for Seabrook, the exercise will test the Seabrook i Plan for Massachusetts Communities developed by the utility.

Attached are the proposed objectives for the exercise. They have been reviewed by FEMA Region I, the Regional Assistance Committee and FEMA Headquarters. We have also included the June 7,1988 matrix sisenary, by jurisdiction and location, of the objectives to be demonstrated by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization, the State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine. This. updates the matrix in the objectives / extent of play document. ,

All objectives identified in FEMA Guidance Memorandtsa EX-3 and its March 7, 3 1988, Amendment are proposed for demonstration, with the exception of:

Objective 17 - This is consistent with the policy of the  !

Cannonwealth of Massachusetts in that the distribution and i administration of potassitan iodide to the general public is not a protective action option in the Commonwealth.

Objective 36 - This is consistent with the Amendment to Guidance Menorandtsu EX-3 which states that an of f-hours, unannounced ,

i exercise is not a requirement for a qualifying exercise.

Although it is FEMA's position that there are no impediments to the conduct of the exercise, there does remain an open issue concerning Objective 34 The issue concerns the demonstration of continuous 24-hour operations capability by an actual shift change. Depending on the outcome of ongoing j

discussions with the State of New Hampshire, there is a possibility that an exercise deficiency could result in connection with this objective.

Attachment F (Page 2 of 2)

)

0 .:.. o 2-It is our position that the proposed objectives are sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities of the above-mentioned of fsite organizations in a full-participation exercise. Please inform us as soon as possible whether these objectives are sufficient to constitute a qualifying exercise under NRC's regulations.

Since she attached documents also contain information on the extent of l play, we ask that you keep the documents confidential until af ter the i exerci se. As you know, although certain aspects of extent of play are subject to modification right up to the time of the exercise,'it is important that any version be kept secure in order to preserve the integrity of the exercise play.

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

Attachment As. Stated el i

l  %

f

)

i 1  ;

5

t '!b

.1

-l

.: 1 i

.I ATTACHMENT G.

-(NRC. Memorandum From F.J. Congel' to 4

'R.W. Krimm, Objectives for the Seabrook Exercise, Dated June 23, 1988).

1 L i

! .1 I

b 1

1 1

_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ = _ _ _

1 Attachment G (Page 1 of 1) 1

M

.13 ;a:06 .R : -;. ,I- r : . ? : 3. .;;;

f..tl

/, . . . ,'o, UNITED STATES

[ ,  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1 m s w crow o.c. n n 1

% . . . . .* l MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krisen

• Assistant Associata Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM: Frank J. Cong,1, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Energency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

08 JECT 1YES FOR THE SEA 8R00K EXERCISE This responds to your June 22, 1988 memo concerning the proposed objectives for the upcoming Seabrook emergency preparedness exercise. We agree that the pro-posed objectives are sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities of the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY-ORO) and the States of New Hampsnire and Maine in a full-participation exercise. Specifically, we believe that these objectives are sufficient to constitute a ' qualifying" exercise under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 in that it should test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without sansatory public participation.

We appreciate the intensive efforts of FD4A Region I, the Regional Assistance Cormittee, and FEMA Headquarters in preparing for the Seabrook exercise.

)

Frank J. Congel Director Division of Radiation Protaction and Emergency Preparedness Office of Muclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:

Donald J. Perrotti, NRR

• 492 3166

________________._______________.___________._._.______m_

s

(

ATTACHMENT H (FEMA Letter From R.W. Donovan, RAC Chairman to G.R. Gram, PSNH, Summary of Survey of Seabrook-Facilities and Services, Dated October 21, 1988) i j

L

)

i l

1

Attachment H (Page 1 of 35)

=c vv

- .o : .oo n c C, 3%, '

.f 4 9(;.l a Federal Emergency Management ,

Agency S e % U '. . d . @ M M P P .. Bothell. Washington 980219796

\ g' ) . ;..t. .. . 5 7 .d..- {

c-

- .o. - - . . -

.,,.y,*, .

e f. ,,,. - 1 *-Y.~

Q '.; ,'** -_ ;d;, ,yu.--* --- - 7 n e tnhar 21, 19AA

--.. {

...t My e * * .

• -~ 'i

ygg.oi$ *J __ _ --

..

.vt t Ut "". IfC gg4({ '~~] _

4 i f g;preur rl? EcEIVED.D. C. C. I!

Genrge R. Cham k , , . i r e r- r n r 1/ -

Emergency Preparednenn and ensmunity Relations .

PSNH. ';H Yankee Olvininn - Mal) Code 04-44 P.O. Rnx 700 Seabrnnk. Ww Hampnhire GaA74 :3E5CT*vCK STATION  !

Dane Mr. Genet SITR. JECT : Summary of Survey of Sentirnnk Fattilltles and Services  !

As recluest ed by your s t a f f, I as forwarding a copy nf the summary und individual call wheein inmed in nier F.=hruary 23-26, 19AA, nurvey of j faellit(en and services in ynor Seabrnnk Plan.

Theme will annwer the individual facilit y renponne-i lme vlnention presented l

to un.

Plenne f**1 free en en11 If further information in rerluired.

I Sincerely,  !

$ _. _ $_3_ D_ .

Richard W. Donnynn RAC Chairman (nr the Review and i Evaliintion of the Seabrnnk Offsite Radiological Emergency Plans and  !

Preparedness 7 i

) Enclosuren (2) i Cc: Terry Harpater, PSNH

[ c.orge Thomas. PsNH Michael I.ewis, PSNH s I

- (g lo

}

i

Attachment H (Page 2 of 35) rFMA R*4/NTM/RFP/pe st R73/0297 /3-A-AA 9tIWMARY OF At*RVFV 0F AFARROOK FACTT.fTTFS AND SFRVICES Fahrnn e y 23-2:i . 1 ARA Rien / Tow i ng ComeiisenI anel Con Vn Fica Mamp Aphnlwnea Annenw fatu4citv ww. unit T,0A t rmr 1 Ruef k i nghn e Run Aprviel* RuweseVanx 14 Rumem:(47-40 en.) Yes Yes 2 VHun - (11-14 pH)

2. De* Run Cnspany Rumen 20 Schnni Runem Ven V*n (43-47 Adultw A5-71 Ch ilil . )

3. Fox Bum CompMny Romew 13 (46 wental Yes Yes

4. Marnthon Run Ruweaw Signeel up 36 now have 40 Von Ven (49 n majority, ramt have 20 M*ata) 5 Parent Rum RumexiVann 9Igned up 3A now have 40 Yes Yes 30 huwen (A5-71) 5 VnnM 1 Wheel Chair Yen Yen A. Patnn Rum Rumpu Slgneel up rne la but wiwh Yes Yes i n mee t and nigti up rne A.

(65 to 71 Menik)

7. Den (Me inc Run Co. Rumen 104 Runen (14 Adults) Ven Yen 18 Wheal Chair Vans (18-22)

A. Wengle Run Ruwen/Vann Committed 100 but have 115 tn Ven yen I 1] A now winh to sign up.

(A5 bu.sen hold 44-48 en.

1 Wheel Chair Vnn - holds A 2 Wheel Chnte Vann Inid 3 2 Half-hunes hnlil 14-22 8 Minl-enschen 30 en.

10 Vann 14 each

9. Park Transportation Binnew/ Vans 170 Vehicles Yes Yes 25 Bunen 43-65 en 125 Vann 11-19 en 20 Wheel Chair Vans 9 en.

10. Big W. Transportation BumewiVann An Bumew 47 Yen Yes 10 Vants 30

)

4 Attachment H (Page 3 of 35) i l

Roweinwing commeamenI wsui Con-

% rire N,i m. Amhn i w ne Annenu c.inwe i l u ww nuit f.nA armet '

• 1 WrC.regne 8;mlih Row Ruupw 120 Rnwww 65 r,e V*n Nn

12. On n ha t- Row Cm Rumex 16 Rnwww - 65 *n Vem Will 1 Van - 25 niini t w

13. Finre Ron Cn Rumpu,Vanw 114 Roxes 4A en Yen Nn 15 Venu 15 6 WC Rowww R *n

14. W Xinney Row Cn Anwww None.

• awywr re#lnespenipel Ven No not in nign A efHncel TOA

15. %Hlunn Ruw Co Reempw 25 huwww A3 and Yen No severx1 over-6he ennel lnMchew.

16. Rysler Run Cn Rum *w Commil l eel t o 105 houen hoi Ven* No now (* I they whnuld ont have w i gnpel ag re***n t ps c State Achnni how lnntrHell finlica t *w enneelling i.04.

17. nereiru Ambn1 Hen p Ambulane* 3 Anholancux (2.) Yes Yen 5 R*hnhilitntino Ve.hleles Islep*suling on wn**1 # hn i r patientx (2-3) 1A. Wrlbnen mulunn Ambnineue 10 Ambulancem Yen Yen 5 W.C. VMnN 12 2 CrIi ical Care Vann - 1

19. Anywinte Ambulance Amhulance Prnaiweel 20, now han 22 Yes Yes Vann 10 W.C. Vann Prnmixevi nnw knN 12 A en.

20. ralMido AmbulMnrp AeluelHnce Penn iNevi 2, enHIsl Ilit*D ittli YPE No up in 6 more Mahulancen a nti op tn 5 W. Chair Cars

21. Rocklughne Anhulance Ambulances Promisesi 2. has a for I,0A Yes Yes anel nwnn 4

22. Medje Ambulance Ambu]nnCem 2 AshHlHHePR, 1 Van - 3 PR. Ye5 Y6s 23 RAI, AmbulMnce Ashulanceu A Ambulance.m . I WC Van - 4 Yen Yen

24. Stavjm Ambninnen Anhulances Prns j uevi 1, han 16 avall- Yes Yes able if needed.

Attachment H (Page 4 of 35) i l

AnwiTnwing insmitment ,erni a

Con- l

: ,.. u,. .. 2. h. , i , . . . 2,,,...,,, .,,...n... nnii rna i r. ,. .

?M "..a n e. c w i A mine l,inc e Amhninen *** Amhnlarn *w 1

.1 Vem Vem l 2A, 2 .f . niluvin A mini i ,e n e* w l L lel he basi sf a nt p i l eaal f.OA Vess Nn au st r i v* rx wnnlil nnt wign.

I

27. 'inwini ry gin r i Towing Tnw Truckx T Tnw Trnckx - 2 Truckx Vem Yes will inw 2 vehiclen *n.

2A. Vo l guine. Towing Tow Trucum % 3:1 they have in cHncel ven* Nn T.0A sw vi r i ve ru wentlei not wign.

M. ."naeiy ' w Towing Tnw Trnew 15 Tnw Trucka - wnee e;a n Yen Von ca rry 2 ve*h ic l e** .

10. 2.* ele

• en i Ani n Rogm a r Tow Trurkw 1 Tow T rin. k x (1 nrriew 21 Yea m Yes I

I I

I a

I

ie

' Attachment H (Pago 5 of 35) y A t

Wnrk irig Panar On eint c i t e . Qont e nr Cnriy Rev i pee of the Ernhennk pinn i n Vue l f v Fur I l i t leet wriel Reevirow Februa ry 24-25. 19AA One Ange fnr FN#lh Fuc i l i t y .9urveyesi, j

i l

] .

t Attachment H (Page 6 of 35) i l

FEMA RK*/ecc/ Can t ip-D-83Senbrnnk/2/24 / AA NRY says have f.nA Va* Contract van Helin. I'm Eleanor Cant le and T work for t he Federal Emergancy Management.

Agency nmi we are r. viewing Ihe Seahrnnk Plan nn prepared by New Haapanire Yankee and unhaiitud in I he Nuclesr Regn in t ncy Cnssium inn anel our Agency.

I woul:1 like in verify ynne fncillt J un nfid nervican, ierid hnve a few eptent intin ihnt T wnuld appreciate ynne asimwar irig .

1 Company Rurkinwhmm Rn= 4.rvire Date: 2/24/14RR. Time: In nM.

2. Wee of ind iv isina l upunk i ng i n f.Inda f. l e.h i v h 3. Phnner617-adR-AnA7 Town?

A. Do ytne have a nigned f. tter nf Agre* merit with New Hampnhire Yankee? Vaq R. Ramnnreen; What regnurtem have yem enemi e f eel for use whenild an emergency responMe he rarpij red for Sunbrnnk? Rumme ida Vann 2 (Vehirlaw with nelve.nw n Avaj]nblet R ewa rel l e.w g of Hnor C ." CMpaci t y of Veh ic lmn? Runen J7 tn 40 Van 11 tn 14 Ambulance Etc.-

D. MnhllIzntinn and D*pinymentt

• Are all rennuccen dispatched frna nne ningle point? Ye4 (8;tarinn Avenne in Gentan.)

If at more than one location. name locatinns and how many at each locatinn; N/A What is the ynur nnemal buninenn une fnr these vehicles?

Charter 8; rvira Day Shift Off Hnurs or Night Shift E. Pernnnnel:

How many drivnes (quallfled) do you have? 15 full time drivera.

F. Communientions and/nr Call Out Proceduren Row do ynn enesuniente with Delvern during nneeni whifta (rndin/beepor/ phone)? nn radina. They narindienlly call in.

How dn ynn enmanniente with nf f-dnty Drivern? Phnne call nut.

Response time ahnnld Senbrnnk requent dispatch of your hunen, etc.,

right nnw? Appenw. 40 minute =. Off-duty employeen? An minutas anw.

2

Attachment H (Page 7 of 35) l l

l FFMA RX/ecc/CanfIe-D-83SpMhrnnk/2/24/88 NHV MHyn have (,0A vue enntract Ven Hello. I ' m Eleanne can t le- und I work rne the F .iarni Faergency Management.

Agency nnd we are reviewing the Seanbrnnk Plan an preparest by New Hampshire Vanke* Mnd rz.hmitted in the Nuclear Regittninry romatuninn anel nur Agency.

I would 1Ike in ve riry ynnr facilJ t (en and nervicen. anal have n few ettient jons that I wonlel wppreeiaie yenir HftnWMrifig.

1 CnapMny; Deae Anu connee n v . DMte; 2/24/1ARR. TIset in?1A.

2. Nam

• of incliv isinn i speaking in F.*neva ne.

3. Phnner F.17-AA4-A423 Town?

A. On ynn hwve.

• w ignevi T.pl i s r of Agreemen t. wiih N*w HampMnire Yankee? Ypn R. R *xon rr e.n i Whnt rewoncepw have yens enem il i pel for une uhnt Isl an *mergency renponse he runn i reet for Seanbrnnui 2n Schnni Anuww IVahicipw w e nr ivearn t Availwhlet R *irw rei l m w w nr Hnne 0,.1 1 e.el .

C. Ca pac i t y of Vph j e l **e? Runen 43-47 Aelni t t u n ti AM-71 Children.

D. Mnhlt Ivas inn arnt no pinyment : ,,

Are all resonreen allspat cheel frna noe single point? Nn Hnw many inen t. innn ? 2 If at enre than one Inention, name toent.lons and hnw many at ench locatinnt 4 to A at one I nra t ion anti 12 I n 14 at other inration.

What in the your nneeni huninean une inr these vehicles?

Ret n i n st of grhoril wi nelen t a Day Shift wame nrf Hnurs nr Night Shift E. Pernonnel:

How many strivern (epinlif[eri) In ynn havn? 25 delvearn F. Communication enri/or Call nut Procerturen:

Hnw sin you enmanniente with Drivers cluring norant uhlf ts (reclin/heaper/ phone)? Rarlina nn mont huunn. (otherwine rall In)

Hnw sin ynn enesuniente wit h of f-ilut y Drivers? Telenhnne f, Int Responne time whnolti Seabrnnk rertuant tilspatch of your husen, etc.,

right nnw? M sinnto= tn an minute = denendini, nn t Ime of rinv anti Inentinn nr huu. Of r-,in t y empj nyre.M? game.

3

Attachment H (Page 8 of 35)

FDIA RX/ecc/ Can t Ip-D-83Senbronk/2/24/AA NMV unyn have f.nA Yan Contreet Yen H*11n. T ' m F. l ean nn r Ca n t l e and I worw for the Fetieral Fmpegency Management Agency nnel wp nre reviewing t he Sunhennk Plan an prepareil by New Hempshire Ynnkp* nnd unhaiitwel In I hn Noelene Reagtil.w t nry Comeinu inn anel nur Agency.

I woulil like in verify your f acj)l t (en and servican. and hava a few questions that I would apprec in ta ynor annwearing.

1. Cnapany t Fnr Rum Da t e r 2/24/14AA. Ilmer10'27.

R. Vam* nf T rni l v i slun i wpenir ing i n Arinn Fnu

.1. Phnne! A17 "Q1-A10A Townt A, nn yens have n n ignpel T.* 4 t er o f Agreemen t with New Hampnhire Yankn*? Van R. R*nnnecent idhn t regnurrp4 have you comm i t l ed for nun whnulel an *mprgency rugponne h* rpetn i red Ine Sunbrnnk ? Roupu t1 howwu - mv full r1**4 w/nrivpegl Avnlinble for: nny Shift? Vight Shirl? 24 Hour? V*=

C. Capacity of Vehicles? Runen Conch *q - d A men t e D. Mnhill7ntinn anel n*pinyment:

Are M ll reannure**n 'ij npni ched f rns one n inEle point? Van What is the you* normni huninnan une for t hes* vehiclen?

Chart er Tnne nnern e ne Day Shift unmo Off Hours or Night Shift E. Personnel:

How many drivern (eguni t ried) ein ynn have? 25-35 full and onet tima.

P. Communientions and/or Cn)) Out Pencedurent Rnw dn ynn enesun tente wiih Drivern during onran1 nhif tn (radlo/h**per/ phone)? talenhona Inn radinni How sin ynes enesunlent.n wiih nf f-duty Detvera? Talenhnne.

Responum t ime shoulel Snehrunk requent dJapatch of your humes, etc..

right now? 15 in 2n min. Off-duty employees? 20+ minuten. Have 24 hnur nnuwarinu wurvice ene nhone snel beenwr _ _ _ _

I l

)

FFMA RX/ece/ Cant le-D-43Renhenok/2/24/88 VHY naya have LOA Veg Contract Ve. =

Hello, i's Elennor Cast 1* and i work fnr t h e. F*elea rn i Emergancy Manngement f

t Agency and 've are reviewing t he Seahronk Plau un prepared by New Hampnhj re Yank ** Hent nuheli t eel t o t he Nnelene R*gu la tory Commimm ion anti nur Agency.

- T would like in verify your facilil len and services, and have a few rinnst ions 1

that i would appreciHie. your annwear irig.

I

1. Compa ny : Marnehnn Anw. nale: 2/24/14AR. Time: 10?34 2, %se nr Tenilvieluni w pen'u t ete in Ma rv n.wirrav

3. Phnne:817-R72-42SS Tnwn:

A. nn ynn have. a w igned T.* t t er nr Age ** men t wiih New Hampanirp Vanken? Van

?

j R. Rennurcen:

Whnt epanure*w have ynn enemitte.el for nwe whnnld an emergency re.gponne he. reaepi j rpel f or Senbronk? Ru w e.g . Ha v e. w i ene.ei nn (nr 3A. nnw hwve en avnilwhl* wiih nrIvaru  ! % i el i he v wnn hl m**t to channa ennt emet i Avnjinhility: _Wheneveer nni alrandv nue on enn.

C. Capneit y of Vs hiclen? Runen 40 nn maineltv ra si t have 20 nanta.

i D. Mnhillzation and Dep]nyment:

Are Mll rennurcen dinpatchael from one single point? A Row many Incntjonn? 2.

If at more Ihan on* Inentinn, name Inentionn anti hnw anny at ench InCation: 3/4 of huusag at Chewtnut u nei 1/4 wt Reiton.

What in your nnraal businean une for t hene vehiclen?

Re,rielar Cnannter f. i ne Runn Day Shif t Hnd off Hours.

R. Persnnnel: How many elrivern (ejuullfieri) do ynu have? An a lvneet un ,

wnuld have in che.ck on hnw many have alrendv taken Mesbronk trainine.

! F .' Cnemunientions nnri/nr Onli Out Pencediscen t How <ln you ensmunjente with DrJvers during nnraal shifts (radin/be*per/phnne)? Rndios on nom *. nthern enll In nerindically.

How do you communiente with off-duty Drivern? t alenhnne Renponne i tan shoulel Senbrnnk reeluent d ispa t ch of your bunen , etc..

l right now?  !=nedintelv (Have Drive rm Avnlinhie)

Off-ilnty espinyeen? 4 en an minnie., ele.nnnel i ng on hnma Inentinnn.

Notet Crystal Transport (Linda Carroll) 232-1375-76 now gernges with Marathon nnd has 60 hunen. Wnuld 1ike to meet. and nign up for the Senbrnnk Respnnne.

i f 5

Attachment H '(Page: 10 of 35).

1

.q

< i FEMA RX/*cc/ Can t lp-0-83Senbrook/2/24 /AA NNY nnyn have f.nA veg Contract Van i Hello.

I'm F.lennnr C,ent le snel I work rne t he F* lern t Emergency Managneent AE ency nnd w* nre reviewing ihp Sembronk Plan an prepared by New Hampshire Ynnk** nnel anheilt*si in t he Nuclear Regula t ney Commisnion anti nur Agency.

-' I would like in verify ynnr (nei) Ji l*n and servicen, and have n few questionn that T woulti appreciate ynne annwaring.

1. Cnepenyt parent Run

2. nal e r 2/24/19mm. Time:Inr42.

Name nr Todivishin t npanning in -Rohin parent

3. Phon *: A17-47M-7123. Town:

A. nn ynn have a w igneel T.*i l er or Agr** men t with New Hampshire Ynnken? Va*

R. Resensreen :

What r*=nnrepw hav* ynn enemi t t eel for nww whnnial an emerg*ncy renponne he rpepaired rne A*nbronk? Runaw siwnw.1 nn rne AA. have 40+ trave an+

hum ** M'Vang u nel 1 Wheel chair Van now. fV* hie 1*w with nrivergl?

]

Aveljable ine: Day Shirt? Might Shift?

'l

'24 Hour? i C. Capneity of V*hIelen? Runen AM-71 Van-

~

Wheel Chnie Rus nl Mnhilivat inn weni n*ployment :

Are all r*nnuccen ellapat chael f rne one single point? Jin,,, How many j locationn? 2 inwnn? Antinva r and Nneth Redritne.

What. In the ynne nnemal businens une for these vehicles? I Mehnni childepn nay Shift ~

l.

l nff Hanirs or Night Shif t E. Peennnnel How anny drivmen (<1unilfleel) In ynn have? 2n vninnteerpri fna aaerwancy remonnue t raininsr, nnt une, unerfrien nn next t raining wension. '

I  ;

F.

1 Cneeunications anet/nr Call Out Proceslures:

How do you ensmunienie wIth Drjvern during norenJ uhjfts?,, redInn How do you communicate with nff-duty Drivnes? nhone Response time uhnnld Sembrook requent djupatch of your humen, etc.,

right onw? 5+ minuten rne einy snel niwht duty denentiiny on locatinn nr l Drivern hnen.  ;

i A

Attachment-H (Pago.11.of 35) i FFMA RX/ecc/ Cnx t le-0-83Renbrnnk/2/24/AA 4

NHV xnyn have f.OA Ve* Contract Van l Heiln, i'm F,lennor (nutie and i work for the Federni Emergency Management Agency and we are j reviewing t he Sunbronk Plan as prepared by New Hampunire '

Vankee and muhaitteri to the Nucienr Reguintory Commimmion and nur Agency, i I would like tn vertry your racilllien and servitten, und have a few eluentinna i that i would appreciale your nnnwaring.

1. Cnspa n y t Anton Run Untet 2/24/1AAA Timet _tn,M7

2. Namn nr inelivielun i spank ing les Rpenip Pwinn

3. Phoner A17-MA2-QQ43. Town:

A. Do you have a wigned f.etter nr Agreement with New Hampshire Ynnken? Voeg R. Remnurep9-What reanurep i have I ynn enemittpd for nwe uhnold an emergency remponne l ha rpetn i reel ' rn e Sunbronu? Roupw foriuinallv wivnavi un for 1A hot wlmhpu to appe asul chanup in A ww sinpa nne real he can enemie mnept 1 Avniinhle for: D,ey ShIri? Night ShIfi? 24 Hour?

C. Capnelly or Vehicien? W in c i t y muut AM. re=t apat 71.

1

. I DT %nhi1Ivniinn and Deployment:

Are all remnurcen ellspatcheel from one Mingle point? yen What J u lhe your normal liuulneux une for t hese vehle.len?

Schnni chIleiren Day Shift.

Off Hours or Night Shift P. , Parnonnei!

l How many elrivern (#1unlif!*d) do you have? All 13-14 nee certirled Perulme driverw. A migned un for Fenersrene v Reunnnue.

F. Communications and/or call Out Prnceelurent L

How do you communicule with Drjvers during noren) whifts

( rad in/heeper./ phone)? 2-way radion Mow do you communicate with off-duty Drjvern? Telenhone Rempnnse time ahnulel Renhrnnk resguen t dispatch of your hunna, etc.,

right now? M, 10, or 15 minuten. Off-duty eeninyeen? At night could take 1M minuten hernre remelv i n el l m on t e'h .

) ,

t.

Attachment H (Page 12 of 35) i FFMA RX/peefCaxile-D-s3Senbronk/2/24/AA i

j i

NHV Mayn have LOA V** Contract Y++ n Hello. I'm Flennor Cnnt le anal T wnric for the Feilera l Fuergency Management.

Agency nnel wea nre reviewing the Sembrook Plan nM prepared by Now Hampunire Yankee anel unhal t test in tl.e Nuc tene Reguint ury Comeimmion nrni nur Agency, f would like in verify ynor racilitten and services, and have a few stuent lona that i would appreciale your nnnwering.

1 Coaguiny : Danime i n s- (RnN Connnnvl Datet 2/25/10AA. Time: 10?O0.

2. Wee of inelividuni spenking to ine k Reil l

3. Phnner R 17-M.95 - 2 4 R3 Town:

A. no ynn have n w i gnesi f.. aller of Agreement with New Hampshire Yankee? Vem

.I R. R*Moure**:

What regeners ew have you enemi t l *<l for uma whnulel nei emer geariety renponen h* r*<tuired f o r- Aenbrnnw? Row w inA how w 15 Who.el rhnte V, inn Avnilable for: Day Ahlit? Might Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capnej t y of Vs hie} en? Rumen 47 Arin i l u Vasis la 21 n r ?.9 .

i

n. Mnhil izn t inn nnsi neployment '

Are all remunrees djMpulched from on* Mingle point? Vem ( Pean hnd v ) .

What la lhe your normal luisinenn on* for these vehtelen?

Sthnni Children Trnnunnetation and Snecini Fdur n t ion Day Shjft Off Hours or Night Shift E. Perannne1:

Hnw many tir Ivers (eguniif ted) ein you have? Variem itn t n 150.

F. Communientions and/or Call Out Prneedures :

How do you enesuniente wiih Detvers during nhtftn? 2-wny rndlom.

l f How do ynn communiente with of f-iluty Drivers? Phone Avuten Response time shoul:1 Senhrnnk rettuent dispatch nf your huses, etc.e right now? Fu t i na t ea 15 in 30 minuten day ne nicht

}

R

.__.__-.m- _ _ - - _ - _ .

Attachment H (Page 13 of 35) 1 FEMA RX/sern Cantle-n-s3S*nhrnnk/2/24/AA l

NHV nayn have f.0A Yan Contract Van f

Helin, i'm Flennne C,ent le and T wnck for Ihea Feeleta l Emergency Wnngement Agency nnel we are Wnkp* nnsi anhoi t t reviewing

• ei in th* Seabrnok Plan un prepared by New Hampshir*

ih* Nucione Regulatory Comminninn anal nur Agency. j

- i wou l ti like in verify ynne (nel]Ji f en and nervicen, and have a few questionn that I wensiel apprecin t a ynur annwering.

1. Cnepany: Wan v i e. Ann 2.

nata: 2/24/14AA' Time 11 1A.

han of inelivivinn t wpenk ing i n nnwn anet a lun Wanv ie.

3. Phone! A17-Ad5-7211. Town; A.

On ynn hav* a x igneel f.et t er nr Agr** men t with New Humpnhir* Vanken? Vas R. R*nnurepwr i

What r*wnnreeg have you enemi t t eil rne une ahnulst an emergency responna h* r*qu i reri rue Swnbrnnk? Ann *w enemilled in 100 hnt now have 115 t ri 11A hun == 1hnI can he enem i a t att wii1 have 120 en 125 hv Anri1 IV*hicle= wiah n r i ve rw l')

C. Capac i t y of Vehiclen? Bun *n Han A5 Instelina 44 in dA nelnite. I wheel l ehnir van hnialinu A two whe.*i chnir vann huidina .1 2 hair-hunen holslinu 14-22. han 5 mini ennehme hnisiina 25 en. I hnisling 24.

I hnhlina .10 u n e 6 I hnistina 21. 2 Vann hnirlina 14 nunmenapew u nti A Wnu hn iel i nw 12 nummenverg.

D; Mobilization and Depinysantt i

)

Ara all runnurcen dinpatchwel from s>n* ningle point? One i

What in the your noren) huulneux use for these vehicles?

All wrhnni t h ilstran tvnen Day Shift

[

Orr Houru nr Night Shift )

E. Parannnel:

How many sirivern (#1unilfled) ein you hava? Ov*r 100 full anri part' tien.

AR have enne Ibrnnah Rambennk Trnining.

F .- Cneeunientinnn anti /nr Call Out Pencerturent Row do you communjente with Drivers during shifts: 2-way endina.

Hrm ein ynn enesuniente wiih nf C-eluty Deivern? Telenhnne.

Responue flea should Seabrook requent stjupatch of your husen, etc.,

right now? T ==*.i l u s e. In 15 minut*=. Ofr-<luty employ **n? Mont Ilva in

) town. wn r'on ial til wnn t ch in 15 minute =

} o

1 i

Attachment H-(Page 14 of 35) l l

1 FEMA RX/ecc/ Castle-D-83Seabrook/2/24/88-NNY says have LOA Yes Contract ',Yel, e j Hello. I'm Eleanor Castle and I work for the Federal Energency Management Agency and we are reviewing the Seabrook Plan as prepared by New Hampshire  ;

Yankee and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Cuneission and our Agency, I would like to verify your facilities and services, and have a few questions that I would appreciate yuur answering.

1. Company : Park Transportation (Rus) Date: 2/24/1988. Tlee: 11:35. ]

2. Name of Individual speaking tn Vincent Savill j

3. Phone: 617-580-1355 Towns .

A. Do you have a signed Letter of Agreement with New Hampshire Yankee? Yes B. Resources:

What resources have you enemitted for une should an emergency response be required for Seabrook? Buses 170 IVehicles with Drivers W Available for: Day Shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capacity of Vehicles? Buses 43 adults and 65 childgen. Has two tvoes Vens. unen holding 12. nthers 15. Station Warons hold 9+ (He-comettted for 25 buses and 125 Vans (Mot 11 wested and 504 19 seated) and 20 wheni chair vann).

D. Mobilization and Deployment:

Are all resources dispatched from one single point? No How eeny I locations? 2 If at more than one location, name locations and how many at each  ;

l.

l location: 30 at Wooster and 175-180 at Avon What is the your normal business use for these vehicles?

School Children transportation. Special Needs and Appointment work for l

l' Sr. Citizens (to shop, medical appointments and hospital runs E. Personnel:

f How many drivers (quallfled) do you have? 200 plus F. Communications and/or Call Out Procedures:

How do you communicate with Drivers during shifts 2-way radios _

How do you communicate with off-duty Drivers? Telephone Response time should Seabrook request dispatch of your buses, etc.,

right now? Have cellular phones. with 3-4 line managers and A Dispatch would coordinators each with a 20 driver notification list. Same as above.

be immediate after notification. Off-duty employees?

/

10

.e Attachment H.(Pag-a 15 of'35)

.6 FFWA RX/ere/ Cantle-n-a3Seabronk/2/24/AA VRY wayn have f.OA Vaw Contreet Van '

Hallo. I'm F lennne Can t l* Meul I work for lhe FederM I Fewegancy Manngement.

Agency and we Yankp* M nti nuhailtpd wr* reviewing in shpthe Senhrnnk Pinn Ma prepar*<i liy New Hampishlie Nuclear Regulainry Comminnion Mnal #Hir Agency

- I would llic* in verify your facilli f en and 'werviern, and have a few stuestionn that i wnuirl apprecia te your annw* ring.

1 Companyt tily W Trwnunnesation fM*w R istnuu n Delet 2/24/1AAA. -Time

2. We* of Tnstivistuni up*nking in Karen

'3. Phoner A17-RA1-4827 Town! .

A.

On ynn have a w igned I.pt t er nf Agreempn t wi t h New Hampsh t ra Vanlree? Vas  ;

\

R. Rennurcen: '

Whnt regnurcpq have ynn enmeestpil rne una uhnold on emergent:y ranpnnna I he reflu i ret) for Spahrunm'? Rumpu An V,e n u In Avn l lable fort Day Rhift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

' C .' Capac i t y of Vehicle.q? Runew 43-47 Vann: 10. 71 i n '30 in mini-hun.

D. Mnhil izna inn anel neploymen t ? --

Are Mll reunure*M d inpul ched f rne on* x ing]* point ?

lew;n s innn?

No Now many 3

if ni more ihan nn* Inentiun, name Inentinna and how many nt ench locatinn: la at Wilford. 2n at trni nwn . 3A at A wh l a nti What in the ynur'nnem=1 huminens une for theng vehic1hn?

Schoni. I rann i e chneter I Alwmt - 33 1/3 nerewnt anch) Ony Shlft, l Off Hours or Night Shift g E. Perunnn*1:

How anny dr(veen (etuniifled) do you havn? 70 (WI11 ha irninad at l-Senhrnnk in snrinir loAA.) l f i F .* Cnemuntentions and/nr Call Out Pencedures: .

j How do you communtente with Drivern during noren) shifts Telephonen. l 2-wny endinn and Can.

How do ynu communicate with off-duty Driverte? Talenhnna i Responne t ime uhnulel Senhrnnk rarpsent allapntch of ynur husen, etc..

right now? M+ minut*u Off-duty empIny*wn? Maximum 15 minutpu (enut  ;

delverg 11va eina, in rueillev.

11 \

i r

_ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ )

-Attachment H (Page i'6 of 35) -[

i 1

5 FFMA RX/*cer CM a t le-D-83Senbronk /2 /24 / AA NRY MMyn have [.OA Vea m ' Contrac t Nn l

Helin. T'a Fl*Mnor Cantle nnel T work for Ihp Feaslern ) Feargency Management Agency nnd wea nre reviewing the Senhennk Plan am prepared by New Hnepshire Vnnk** Mnel wuheieipsi in Ihe Nuclene Reguintnry Cneeisininn'anel our Agency. ]

l

~ T would lika in verify your facilit1*n und uprvicen, and have a few stuent ions lhnt f . wnesid Mppreciat e your nnewering.

1. Oneguin y t MrGreenr/Melth nate: 2/25/14AA. Tleet 2f30

2. 'inea_nf inclivisluni <ppaking in 9ienhean nadel 3 Phone: An3-3A2-9225. Town: .

4 l On ynn have M m ignesi f. i t er of Agr** ment wi t h New Hampsh i r* Yank **? Vas  !

R. R*Mourt;en r What r*=nurceg hMvp yens enemi t t earl for une ahnold an peergency renponne h* rettuirrel rnr S*Mhronk? no meam 190 ( Vaah i c 1.w with Driverg)o Available fort nny Ahlfl? Might Shifl? 24 Hnur?

C. Capaci t y of Vrh iel**? Runew 43 Mrioll unri AM childran . . . . _

, n. Mohillxntinn Mnst D*pinyment?

Are n)) renoure*w d impni ched f rne une u lng]* point? Mn How many inentinnn? a Tf ni more than nn* Inentinn, name locations anel how enny at each locaa t lon ?M-AM no Warrione Mnd 4n-4n nt n*neretnwn.

( What in t he yeuir noren t huninenn une for t hese vehicles?

i- _ Rehnni chltIr n.'sn.c.'N elm Tennuenietation A charter Day Shift off Hours or Night Shift E. Personnel:

i Haw many drivarn (cluallfled) do ynu have? Currantiv 90 With navative uneenloveent hard in keen full Mtaff.

F .- Cneeunientinna and/nr Call Out Penceduren:

How do you enesunicate with Drivers during normal shifts: 252 have 2-ony radina. Now do you enesunicate with nff-duty Drivers? Telephone Response time ahnold Senbronk requent dispatch of your buses, etc.,

right now? n tn An ein. Off-duty employees? same, f f 7 underwtond his enrreactiv McGr*,nr-9mit h ion in MA nnd Tleherline Trnnannetation is in Neaw Heenshir*. Onennny hnn 500 hitleen. Schoni Rnned in MA said their eneetteent wn ee tn wehnni firut. nave the lepreunion they were willine to ennnpent, in any way they engelal with NWV. hut did have to inka intn j cons idearn e inn nhl lan t ion en Schon) nlmtrict, 12

- Attachmsnt' H -- (Page 17 -of 35), .

FFMA.RX/pectsCantlp-D-83A*nhrnnk/2/2A/AA 1

NNY wayu have T.0A Vag: Contrnet inn *

'(

l Hello. I'm'Flennor Cantle anal T work for t h* ' F*elern i Fe*rgency Manngement Agency and wp pr*

revie. wing t he Senhrnnk. Plan an pretwred by New Hampshire f '

Vnnkwe. unal muhei t' t *d t n I hp Nortlene .Regu la tory CHeelmM Inn nnft nier Agency,

/

~ f would likn'tn verify ynor fsellitjeu and servicen, and have a few ttuestionn that 1 would Mppr*CintM your Hflmwaring.

1. Cnegany t nunhar Anu Cn. nale: '2/2A/1 Ann. Tleet 10 04,

2. Vne* of inellvidunt 4penking to Thnema nunhar

3. Phone: A17-?M1-7445 Town:

A, On yent hnvp M Migned f.elier o( Agr**een1 wiih New HnspahIre Yankn*?

Vast , ,stul w i l 1 ~ n igri n Cnnt rnet 8 R. Rennnec*g:

What rescuirepa have ynn enesi t real for unn uhnnisi nn pesargency respanna he rettui red .for Senbronk? 1 A Retue.w A 1 Van. (Veh le law with nelvpral.

Available inct Ony Shlft? When n ee.d ead .

5 I'

CT CMgmeity of Vehiclen? Rumpu AM Veen. 25 Atluli M .

1 i ,

Di Mahl11e niinn and napinyment:

'Are n)) reunureen dlmpat ched' f rne one wintle point ? Na How enny localInna? Tvnerahnennwh t.nwe l l anet Driveen Hneen.

l What la the your nors=1 huminesu une for' theme vehiclen?- 1 7Mt for erhnni hne n u e. . 2Mt rne nelull c h n e t ea rm . A liniv. of f.nwell.

E. Persunnel:

How anny deiv*rn (quaiifled) do ynn hav*? 2n Deivarm F. Communientions Mnd/or Call Out Prneeduren:

l How ein you enesuniente with Drivars riuring onenn t ahlf ts? Have nn I endfnu on humem *weent M with 2-way enetinu used Mt fin i v o f t,nwe l l . i i

Now sin ynu communtente with nff-duty Drivarn? T*1aphone Call-out i

)

Response flee should Seahrook rectuent dispatch of your buses, etc. ,

right nnw? 0 in 30 min. Off-eluty employees? anoa. f l

13 1

.1

Attachment H'(Page 18 of 35) I i

j

.]

j 1

FEMA RX/*cefCantle-D-83Senbronk/2/24/AA NMV nnyn have !.0A V*n Contrnet Nn Hallo,.T'e E1*nnne Cantl* nent I work for'Ihn F*,1*ral Fenrgency Manag* ment Ag*ney ment we 'arp r* viewing the Senhennk Plan an prepared by N*w Hnepshire Yankp* Mnel anha i t t pel I n ihe Nucienr R*gulat nry Cometaninn nnel nur Agency.

~

T would like to verify ynur facilitten and nervicen, .ind have n few questionn that I wonist apprec in t

• ynne annwerleig.

1. Cnepany: Tinr* Row nale: 2 / 25 /1 CI A A . Tlee: 11:30.

2.  % en of inriividual-up*nking in if a t h y Flor *

3. Phone: A17-322-349A Town .

A. nn ynu have a w ignpel f.p t t er n f Agreemen t with New Hampnhire Ynnken? Van

.R. Resourcen:

What- r*gnore*4 hMu* ynes eneel t l eet for eine whenilei Mn eenrgency renponne he reclui reti for S*nbronk? Row *w 114 V,a n n 13 W.C. Run 3 and W C.-Bun 6 (Vehic1*n with nelveren1 Avnllahin fort nny Shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capacit y of Vehicles ? Rouen 43-dA Van 12-1M W.C. Iw. hnlds A and -

men 11*r W.C. hol.1 4 ,.uch.

D. Wohilly.ntion and Depinyment:

Are all resourcen dispat ch*el f rne nne ningle point ? No How enny-Inentinnn? 3 if nI more ihan one toen inn name locatinns and how many at. nach a

loemtlon: Sauvow. ne**ka. Wakprl*1d What is t he ynne normal huninean up* for thes* vehicles?

Cnehinntinne SchonIw. Snec N *rin , and Chure*r Day Shift I off Hours nr Night Shift E. Personnel:

How many delvern (qualtfl*d) do you have? 120 Snurunt 40 Or**kat 15-20 et Wakerielri.

F. Coesunicationn and/or Call Out Procedurent How dn you comenniente with Drivers during noren1 shifts: Vann 100t endin *nuinn*d. Annenx. M0 of hnnen entiin *nni nneri .

Hnw do you comenniente with off-duty Drivern? T*1*nhnne ]

j- Responna tinn ahnold Sembrnnk requent ellspatch of your huses , etc. , 1 right now? Can contact at R mi. radium with is en no min. tfee

). frema. Of f-shity employ **n? Snen 14 1

Attachment H (Page 19 of 35) t FFMA RX/ece/ Can t le-D-83S*Hhrunk/2-26-AR NWY wayM have f.OA V*w* Contract No Hee l l o , I

• m Flennne Can t in s tisi T work fair I hea Fe elprM 1 Fmprgently MHnng* ment Agerley nnd we. sta enviewing the Seahrnnk Plan as p repa reri by New HHopuhire Vanir** Hnd unhallied in t he Nucione Regu la tnry C#.mminn ion anr1 nur Agency.

- I would lik* In vearify your facillileM Mnd Mprvicen, and I,Hve a few questinnM that I would appreciate your annwering.

1. Compan y t Me*Kinnov Anu Date 2/2R/14AA. Time:

2. VHe* of inclivialuM 1 wpenk ing t o Rnhurt MeKinnev

3. Phone: 617-AAA-A117 Town:

A. On ynn have n s i gnoni T. plier of Agree.mpnl with New Hampshire Ynnkee?

Ypw. hot w ra pe wtanina warppenne f waid T wam unina to talk in nur lawvpc unet he. wiiv i ve.d og not in upt invnived. 9n i de canepillna av H u cpp Mpf t l l B. Rwanurcen: ,

1 What runnurcem have ynn commit led for une ahnul:1 Hn emergency response he required for Senbronk? Rumpu .10 ( Wah i r l e w w i t h nciveacu l9 AVRilable fnet Day Shirl? Night. Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capnejty nf Vehiclex? Busen Van Mini-Bun AmbulMnce Etc.:

D. MnhilIvation and nepinyment:

A rea H ll ressu!rceen clinpn tchpri frne one ningle point? Hrm many inentinnn?

If al enr* than nne inentlon, name locat.innn anel hnw many at. *nch locneinn:

What is t he ynor nnreal businenn use for these vehicles?

Day Shift Off Hours or Night Shift E. Personnel How many drivern (<guallfleri) In you have?

F. Communtentionn and/or Call Out Procedures:

How sin you enmountente wIth Drtvera during normal shif ts (radjo/beepar/ phone)?

How rin you commun tente wit h of f-duty Drivers?

Response time should Senbronk request djupatch of your huucs, etc..

right now? Of f-dut y employmen?

16

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

Attachment H (Pago 20' of '35)

FFMA RX/pec/ Cant IP-0-43Ss nbrnrik/2/24/AA NHY unyn havn I.0A Wan Contrnet Vn H*11n, I'm F.lennne Cantle Mini i work.reir the Feelern i Empegancy Manngement Agency wrun we. ntp .

t saviewing t h* Senbrnisk Plan an tu'*pareil by New Hnepnhire -

Ynnkee nnn nuhellipel in t he Nncienc Rege:Inleiry Comeinnion and ruar Ag*ncy. '

~ f wou n ci like in verify ynur facilitien and nervicen, nud have a few questions thal 1 woul:1 apprecin te . ynur ariswer ing.

1 Cnepuny .Mudunn Ann f.Inen Deter 2-28-19AA. Time:10ronn.e.

2. hem nr inallv islun i npenking in frennet h Horlann . 9c.

3. Phnne: 417-39M-AnA2 Town: .

A. On you hnve n n igneel f.pt t er nr Agreement with No.w Hampnhire Ynnken? Van R. Rennurces!

What r*nnurepn bnvp ynn enneittetl rne une uhnislal nn peergency response he' required for Senbronk? Ritupu 25. and neverni over-the-rnnd ensichen t%.hielen with Drivsrne)

Availnlile rne! Day Shift? When avear vanu i read .

C. Capacil y of Valilelen? Busen .ts-Aa

~

D. Mnhilj zation nnd Deployment :

Are all rennureen elinpatcheri frne one ningle point? Van, Merirned . WA What in th* your normal humineum use for theme vehiclew?

Schnol Run unel schnni Ar l ivi t ten un ine uno. noen rhnraer. Day Shift comunear Runa.m. r. i en me.rv i ce . Off Hours nr Night Shift E. Parannnel:

Hans anny eleIvern (qun 1 i f leel) In you have? JM fnot v s. t t en innti hy l j Aenhennk.

Osmuntentinnn and/nr Call Out Procetturen:

New do' you communicate with Drivers during normal shif tn

( rad io/heeper/ phone)? Telephone i.

Now do you communicate with off-duty Drivers? Telephone Call-out Response time ahnul:1 Senbronk requent allspatch of your husen, etc. ,

right now? Varfen, un en 2n-30 minut en. Off-duty employeeu? Ssee.

Notee Thin enn punrennpel his t neplat a ennparation, n very will f nsr a t t i tud*.

18

Attachment H (Page 21 of 35) l FEMA RX/*eefiCantle-0-43Senbrnnk/2/24/AA NHV wayn have T,0A W4 Contract No M*lln, T's F.lennor Paulip Mnel I work for the Feaele rn i Faergency Manngsament Agency anti we H r* reviewing th* Sunbrook Plan eu preparest by New Hampnhire Vank** anel muheil l wel l o t hea Nist lpne Reagulat ory comeimminn nnel nur Agency.

- T wensiel l ike in verify ynne raellillen einel nervicen, and have a few stuentionn that i wonial apprec ia s

• yenir aniiw*c itig .

1. f. I n t Companyt R veie r Ron en naip: 2 /2.5 /RR Tlent 10tM7.

2. Va an o f Tnellvistun i sp*nking en .fle Wnneta i nsaw mir itnnn nnennt tennarperpel)

• 3. Phone 7 41 -9 R O.1 Town ,

A. Do ynn have a wigneel f.* iter nr Agr** ment with New HHepahlr* Vankee?

Vam*

B. Reannu rewn :

What rpmnnreen hav* ynn enan t i t oast for nme whnulei an emerg*ncy response he required fnr Sen bronec ? Rom *w 105 C. Capaci t y of Veahiclem? Rumen Van Mini-Bun 1

I D2 MohllJration and Deployment-o -

i l

1 Are all resnureen ellapnicheavl rene nne mingle point ? Vem What 18 lhe your normal hominewn une for thman vnhicles?

Schnni Rum anet Rehnni Anttvillem unine nam. mnen chneter. Day Shift R Personnel:

How anny elrivera (einni l fleel) ein ynn havea?

F.

Cneennientinnu unel/or Call Gut P rneestu ren t How sin ynn ennennien t e wit h Drivern eluring nnreal ahtf ts XM 2-way Wariin

- P f rartneane v l

How ein you enneuniente with of f-eluty Driverm? Telephnna l

Hesponne time ishould Senbrook request djupatch of your buses, etc. e right now? t/2 hr. Off-eluty employees? 9At elrivera locaterl within city limitw.

• Mot *? These pentile mnv l hav H ep t timait teel tri mehnril evncunt ion in enan of pearFent len snel wiwh t o take their evntuntion innstrurrinnu frne the State. For pril 1 t i t?n 1 purpnmem. envh*, Ihev sin not wimh t n hnvn a lerneri NRrecuent ne t'nn t rn t? t .

17

k l

I l

l FFMA RX/ecc/ Cantle-D-43S*Mhrnnk/2/25/8A NHV wayN hMvp I.OA V6 44 OnntrMet VpM Hallo, I'm Fl*nnnr Cant le Mnti i work rur t he FeelprM I Fa*rgency Management Agency M'Hi wp Mre opviewing t he Senbronk P1Hn MM pr*pa reti by New Hnspuhjre Yank ** nnd muhaitteel in ih* Nnciene Regislatory Cnemimminn and nur Agency.

- T would like in veri fy your racil i t ien and w*cvic*m. and have a few questionn l

thai T wnolel appreelaie ynur annwaring.

1 Companyt neerplew Amhninnen natp; 2/2M/10AA. Tien; A'42a.m.

?. We* nr Tnsliv islun i upunking in nennie Rnver

3. Phnner 603-A?d-1434 Town: M a nt h east e r NH A. no ynn have a nignpel f.piter or Agreement with New Hampshire Ynnken? Yem R. Remnurces:

What epmnureps hav* y:He commil l ed for uns* mhnu lti an *mergency rpspnnne 1

ha rartuired for Spahrnnk? 3 Amnblancea *. Rsanhilitatinn V* hit 1**

(Vehicle = with nelveren9 Avntlable fner Day Shift? Night. Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capacity of VehicleM7 Van 2_,Q *n Ambulance 2 If utretcher natienta D. Mobilizarinn and nepinympnt:

Are Hil reunurces sljupatched frne one single point? Ven.

What in the your normni huminemn une rne theme vehielen?

Fearennev wnri tranunnreation nr rehnhilitatinn natients. Day Shift

• mma Off Hours nr Night Shif?

E. Perunnnel:

How anny drivers (slunilfleel) ein you have? 20-25 Rs**u l a r ( 20+ as iirneri sin for Sanhrnnk irainInsr F.

Communication and/or Call Out Prneedurent How do you communicate with Drivern durJng normal shifts 2-way Radina 9X orr ranenter phon *m.

Now do you communicate wJth off-duty Drivers? Call t, int Responaa t!an ahnulel Seabronk request elimpatch of ynur husen, etc.,

right now? pun ihan hr. Off-duty employeen? Snee.

l i 18

Attachment H (Page 23 of 35)

I I

FFMA RX/e.ce/ Cant le-0-83Senbrnnir /2/24 / A8 NHV xaym have f.0A Va* Contrnet Van Helin, T's Flpnnor Canalp and T work fue the Federal Fmprgency Management I Agency and w* nre revie. wing the Senbrook Plan as prepared by New Hampshire Yanken and unheilled to the Nuc l*ne Reagn ia t ory Commi nu inn Henri nur Agency.

I would like in verify ynne racilit Jen and services. and have a few questionn that I wonisi HppreciMie ynur Hnnwpcing.

1. Company Marlhnen Hodunn Ambulanew nale; 2/25/1ARR. Timer Qt3R

2. Wem nr individual apenking in Arthne Arunn

3. Phnner A17-5R2-774Q Town:

A. Do you hHvp a mlgned T.piter of Agree.mpnt with New Hampshire Ynnken? Van R. Reunnrewg?

What re.nnn re** have you enemitted for uns whnn l:1 Hil emprgpney rPapnnne I he rettuired rne s*nhrnnw? */a n u AWc

( V*h i c l e = with n e l ve.cg i o

? reitfral carp. Ambulanceu 10 Avnilah19 rnr: nay shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capneity of Vehicles? W.C. Vanu varv 4 no in 12, averava 5. Ashulnneen 2 *nch Ir nn niratrher til he rw i ns. morp. CrittenI care 1 D. Mobl1Izatinn and Deployment I Are Mll rs*nnurcen dinpatched from one ningle point? Nn InCatjnnn? 3 Hnw many ff ni more lhan one localinn, name locatinns and hnw many at ench location; 1 Clininn. 1 Warlhnennah, the rugt Hudunn What. in the ynne nnemal huninenn unn rne thenn vehicien?

Fe*raenev and non-*merennev cont ract trannn. Day Shlft Off Hours or Night Shift E. Perunnnel:

How many drivers (quallfled) do ynn have? 40-AM F. Communicatinnu and/or Call Out Proceduren:

How do ynis enesunicate with Drivers during nnemal shifts (redjn/heeper/phona)? radinu und nairerw.

How do ynn communtente with off-duty Delvers? Telenhnna Response time should Senbrook request djupatch of your husen, etc.,

right now? 1 Immediately and rent un tn 1 hnite . Of f-clu ty : Sama.

I -

\

Attachment H (Page 24 of 35) l l

) FEMA RX/*ce/ Cant le-0-83Senbrnnk/2/24/AA

{

NNY unyn have LOA Van Contract lag Hello, T'e Flynnor CMallM neul T work rne t he Feel *ral Emergency Management.

Agency and w* nre reviewing t he Senbrnok Plan an prepereti by New Hampnhire Ynnk**

1. wouldnnd likanubei t ied In i h* Nuciene R*guininry Cnee tan inn and euer Agency. 1

- to verify ynnr facilities and servicen, and have a few queurionn-that I wnniel Mppreciale ynne annw* ring.

1 Cnepany; Rayutal* Amhnlane** Onte;

2. Nnow of indivieluni npenking to 2/24/10AA. Ilmet 2tAA

.fav 4vivnin

3. Phone d l .'t-7.1 A-0 A00. Town .

A.

On you hMvn a nigned T,*t t er nr Agrepsent. wit h New Hampnhlre Yankne? Van R. Rennureent What remonreen hnv* yem eneeli t eel rne une ahnu tel nn ee*rgency renponse he r*rluired for Senhennk? Runen 20 Ambulancen anet to W.C. Vann (Nnw lin n 2 2 A s hu la ne** = and 12 W C. Vann availablel Vntp' f. i cen n wei rne 50. j Avalinhl* rner All shirin. . .

C. ' y.y gu 4 Capacity of Vehicien? ,Vnn A-A Walkpra (hnn alln-elnwn ment) _

Ashu l a nce 2,,,,,,, _ #

D. Mnhilization and Deploye*nt t *

)

Y-Are all resourceu djupatched frne one ningle point? No How many incations? A ir nt enre ihan one Incat. inn, nam

• Inenttons and how many at auch locatinn: 9 at t.nwerunre/7.nw ll, 0-10 at Werryonx Valley; e at Northahnre Olv.- IA Rn. Shne* Olv.= A-7 nt Centen1 Mann Div.* 15 Wentern Nann niv. nnel a in salen nept E .- Personnel:

How anny delvern (elunlit teri) ein you have? All R** tat erari (Drr ha n ir ,

Pmrnamel f r , T n t e rspel i n t e ,

F .~ Cneennientionn and/nr Call Out Penceslurest How do you ennennient.e with Drivers during normal shif ts Portables /A00 Con. Syntest Pnensadle ONF Abenrest A0-0 trucir nystem, VWF nyttee.

How do you enesuniente with off-duty Drivers? ('nll-up

• Respnnne t ime ahnuld Senhrnnk requent elinpatch of ynur hunes, etc. ,

right now? 15-20 minuten (with A arenn could take 21/2 hnurn)

Off-duty employees? anon. J 20

, )

Attachmont-H (Pago 25 of 35)

FEMA RX/pec/ Cant.le-O-s3S*Mbrnnk/2/24/AA NMV xnyn have (.OA V6w Contrnet Nn M*llo, T's F,lennor CMutie nnel T work One the Farlera l F.mpegancy Management Agoney and we are reviewing the Senhennk Plan ax prepnred by New Hnepunire Ynnkew and Muheillesi in the Nuclene Regulainry Commimsinre ansi nur AgpnCY.

- I wnnld lika in verify ynne (neil il len und starviceau. Mnd have n few queurinna that i would apprecia t e ynnr arimwering.

1. Cuspany: Catnldn Ambularo*p 2.

noter 2/24/14AR. Timet .itna We* nr Trulividual up*nk ing i n .inhn Muna riplel

3. Phnnet A17-A2M-0042. Town:

A.

On ynn have a mignesi T.plter nr Agr** ment with New Hampshire Vnnkm*? Ye'n B. Rumourceu?

What rpunurcen have ynn ense il i pel rne unp whnni.! Mn es*;gency renponne he rpetui red for sembrnnk? Ashulance* 2 anti enn l ri rurniwh un in A more Mehnianew= unel nn in M chnic rwen.

C. Capneity of Vehicles? Ashuluneet 2 euch i

0; Mnhilizatism anel neployee.nt :  !

Are all reunurces djupatched f rne one single point? Hrw anny i loca t. i nnn? 4 Tf nt enr* than on* Inent. inn, nnen locat temn Mnd how enny at each locatinnt 2 - Winthenna 1 Chelumne :1 Ryerptt. A Mnemerville arifj 11 Ce l t i r?n ) Carp.

What in tha ynor normal hominenn use for t hese vehiclan?

Reyu la r Fearerenev and t runnenset a t inti eir F1 deriv. Day Shlft innt erhnnia)

Off Hourn or Night Shift l F. PersonneJr I i

finw anny drivern (egunlified) ein you have?

F.

Communient ionn and/or Cn)) Out Procedurent Row do you ennenniente with Drivern sluring onrent shif ts (redJn/ beeper /phnne)? 2-wnv comennIcmtinnu.

How do you ennenniente with nrf-eluty Drivers? T*1cohnna itesponse t laa nhould Seabrook requent dispatch of your buses, etc. ,

right now? Tammellul a n i m on t ch . anri 24-hnne envernsra.

21

Attachment H (Paga'26 of 35) j l j

) i 1

4 l

FFMA RX/ pee / CMa r l*-D-83S*nbrnnk /2/24 / AA l

j I NNY says havn I.OA Ypx \

Contract Ven i H*lln.

AgencyI'm andF.lennne wp Cantla anel T work for the Ferlern i Fmprgency Management Ynnk** Hriel midwini e i nel e oMr* reviewing t he Senbronk Plan nn prepared by New HHopuhire

- T would like in verify yone racilltlaw and wervicen,ehe that T would appreciat a your answering. and have aNuc1*Mr R*gulatnry Co few clueurjonn L.

I 1

Cnepunyt #nckinwhne Amhniune

2. Nuese or inclivisinH I speaking in Only; 2/24/ torr. Tien: 3 41 Chrim M i n wee n,

, 3. Phon

• r R03-AR2-M30 j

, Town; A. nn ynn have a nigne.d t.+. iter nr Agr** ment w i t h N*w Hampsh i re Vanir**? ' Ve.m R. Reunnreux What. ru nnu re* =a have ynn commil l est for um* mhantid an emergency response he rectuired for S*whinnk? rnne rne te.d for'2 AmbulHnr*M. han 3 rne T.* t t er nr Aur**mene unei nwn. 4 Available for? Day Shif t ? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C.

Capacit y nr Vehicl*m? _ Ambulance 2 f n a nat tenta Mobilization and Dep)oyment:

Are all reanurcen ellspeechad f rne nna mingle point?

Vas.

j

' What is the your normal huulneun use for these vehicles?

Esarsrancy Day Shift Off Houru nr Night Shift E. Personnelt i

How many deiverm (slun1ifleil) do ynu have? 10-12 fmannad 24 hnure)

F.

Cneeunicationn und/or Call Out Proceduren:

Mnw do you eneennient* with Drivers during normal shifts (radjo/heeper/ phon *)? 2-way rudin Hnw do you commun tente with of f-duty Drivers? T*1*nhnna

Response

right now? tles should Seabrook request djepatch of your buses, etc..

Tomadinto off-duty employmen? 15 ein, acornu.

l 22 -

l

Attachment H (Page 27 of 35)

I I

FEMA RX/ece/Can t le-D-43Senhrnnk/2/24/88 NKV wayu have I.0A Van Contrnet Van I H*11n. I'm F.lennair Cantly anti i work for the Freieral Emergency Manngement agency wrul we. s ee.

reviewing the S*nbronk Plan 84 prepared by New Hampshire Yankee snel nubellIpel in t he Nnclenr Reagula t ory Comminnion nnel tuir Agency.

- T would like in vearif y your rnellit f ew and servicen, and have a few questionn that f would appreciHip ynor Hnnwaring.

1. Cnepany: M*ri l e Ambolwnew I Ne*w Alunp*) Date: 2/2d/1ARR. Tien: '1957,

2. Vne* nf inclivleina l up*nking to nave < nn o l sl i nu

'3 . Phone: 2n7-777-4450 Town: Porelunet. vaine A. Do ynn havn H x i gnpri f. plier of Agr** ment with New Hampnhire Yankee? Van R. Roannn reen :

What rpmunreeg have ynn enmai t i pel for uwe ahnolel Hn emergency renponne he required for Senbrnnko Van 1 4 e ho l a n cea u 2 Iveh rt I o.w w/nriveen Available for nay shift? Night Shift? F*w wwtra minntea.

C. Capncity of VehjeleM7 Van 3 whopi chair nonnie Ashulance L n t ret cher 1 fnlelinu wtretcher a nri unsetisen i puten.

D. Mnhilizatinn Hnd Deployment:

Arn all rennurcen allspatcheri frne one ningle point? Van What la the your normal businean use for these vehicles?

Ee*renney time snel Reurt Inp Tennnfern. Day Shift Off Hours or Night Shift E. Pernnnnn1:

How anny drivers (egualifie<l) do you have? 3 nn en11.

F. Onesunientionn and/or Cal) Out Proceduren I Rnw ein ynn enesunient.e with Drivarn during normal shif ts? Reenta, multi-chnnnel rudinn. nnetuhlew, enhile endinw.

How do you comennicate with off-duty Drivern talephone/nnapra.

Response tien uhnuld Sanbrook requent dispatch of your huses, etc.,

right. now? Tennella t e ntnnatch Off-duty e*epinyeen? 1/2 hr. for d i urus t eh .

.I I -

_ _ , _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - ~ - ' - " " - " - - " - ~ - ' - - - ' ~ ' -

l

~

)

Attachment H (Page 28 of 35) l

! l l

l l I

FFMA RX/ Hec / Cantle-D-a3Snabrnnk/2/24/8A NMV xaya have LOA Van Contract Vas Hello, I T's F.lennor Cant le nnd I work (nr the Ferieral Emergency Management Agency and we are reviewing t hm Senbrook Plan ax prepared by New Ham (shire Vanke* nnel nubelt t est t o t he Nuclene Regulatnry Cneminnion and nur Agency.

j ~

T wnuld like to verify your racilities and services, and have a few questions I, that I wnetid apprecinte your annwMring,

1. Cnepanyt R A f. Amhnlanea (New Atenaal.

2. Date: 2/24/1nAA. Tleer 3:14 i Nnea of Intlividual spenk ing in T.pn Rntu hned

3. Phnner 200007-775-3116 Pnctlanel. W i n* .

A.

On ynn have a nign*d T.etter nr Agrece*nt wit h New Hampnhire Yanken? Van R. Remou rr:pm ;

What  !

reanurepa have ynes e.nmeittwel rne une ahnold an paargency ranponse ha e*<tuired for Sanbrnnk? Vann 1 We+ Ashulantew A with nrivern.

Available fort Ony Shift.? Night Shif t ? 24 Hnur?

I ,' C. Capac1ty of Vehjeles? Van 9 Ashulances 2 nr 3 es- .n ; g. QT,, '

4k L

.xf3y[g:v Di Mnhill7.ation and Deployment.

• Mflf5.h, Are all resources dispatched frne one single point? Yen

"~.

c ,

_. What la the your normal huninnan une for these vehiclan? diU5&":Eh

-':+ -

Faerrencieu in Area. Tranunnetatinn nf F1 deriv. Day Shift Off Hours or Night Shift E. Personnel:

How anny drivern (rpialified) ein you have? All Faergency Mad.

I Technicians and critical Care Technicinna.

FI Communications anti /nr Call Out Proceduren ,

u..

e I

\

How do you enesunicate with Drivers during noren] shifts l (radin/heeper/phnne)? portuhl* rnellon anri rart i nn in vehiclen.

Now do you communicate with off-duty Drivers that are? Telephona and Pawer.

Responna t toe ahnulel Smahrnnk request clinpatch of your huses, etc. ,

l I right now? Clear within 1/2 hour. Could deploy off duty within 1 br.

l I

m, . _

I I

FFMA RX/pec/ Cantle-D-43Sembrnnk/2/24/AA NHV unyu have [.0A Yan contrnet Van I M*llo, T ' m E l ea ntic Ca n t l e* nnel I weirk fnr t he Federn t Emergency Manag* ment Agency nnd we are reviewing the Senbrnnk Plan an prepared by New Hampshire Ynnke* arni anhei t teri to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn and nur Agency.

I would like to verify your facilltjen und nervices, and have a few riuestjons that T wnulst appreciate your Hnnwering.

1. Cnepany: 9tuvin Amhninnc* 2 / 24 / A A N*.ael Ca l l ba ck nn 2/2M Timer AtMO

2. Name of inalivisluni npeaking in Reenned T..alpziu

3. Phone: A 17-2 '42- 1071 Town: Rnis t n.i .

A, On ynn have a nignest T.piter eif Agreement with New Hnspnhire Yankee? Yan R. Renonreen:

I What reannecen have* ytin e. eimm i t t pet f air- nne ahnnial an *mpegency renponse he reelnired for Sunbrunk? 1 Asho l m en. , (Han IA nunilable if opeded in same rvene*v i IV hlelug with netvuren?

I '

'C' 1 Avalinhle fort nay shift?

Capseity nf V.*hleIns? Ashulance

.,NIE ht Shift?

2 24 Hour?

, ,s r

IjI

' DP Mnhilly.ntion nnd Deployment:

' Are all rennurcen ellspatched frne nna ningle point? Van, Bennk1tne, MA I _ , _ ' What la the your normal humineum use for these vehicles?

Esarvancy Day Shif t Off Hours or Night Shift I Row enny strivers (stuallfled) do you have? M0-60 with 30-40 trained hv Senbronk.

F. Coseunicattnna nnet/nr Call Out Pencedurest How do you enesuniente with Drivers during normal shif ts (radin/heeper/phnne)? 2-wny; 2 hane-1 t ne and C-Mad Radin Network with Hnupitnin.

How rio you communicate with nff-duty Drivers? Telephone I Response time should Senbrook requent djupatch of your humes, etc. ,

right now? 24 hennen a dav ntaf fed and nvallable.

I to 2 hnurn rne ensnipte rennurcen.

Off-duty employees?

I

_ E =

.  ?

i Attachment H (Page 30 of 35)

\

i i

I i

I F19tA RX/*Cc/ Cast.le-D-43Seahrnnk/3-4/88 i NMV anyn have LOA van Contract Yes M*lin, I'm Eleanor Cami le Mori I work for the Ferleral Emergency Management Agency and Yankee unti we are reviewing the Senbronk Plan nu prepared by Fev Hampshire submitteel in the Nuclear Regulatney Cometssion and nie Agency.

~

f would that like tn verify your facilities and i would nervices, and have a few questionn apprecint e yenir annwaring.

1. cnepany n*ner=1 Ashulante

2. Name nr Tntlivislun t apenk ing i n nater eallhnek 2/25/AA. Time: Atta

3. R t t hn eri Ruellumn Phone: 617-449-A707 Tnwn:

• A.

no ynu have a m ignearl f.el l er o r Agrepe**n t. with New Hampshire Yankne? Va*

R. Reunurcese What. r*nnurcen have ynu eneelt t eel for une ahnulti an emergency renponse he requjred for Sembronk? A shu l n en.p.e .1

(%*hitlen with Drivern)? 3 Avntlable rnr: Ony shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C. Capacity of Vehiclen? Ambulunce 2 D. Mahilizatinn anet D*ployment i'

' Are all resourcen dispatched from one single point? Yes What is the your normal huniness une for these vahicles?

Roerranev Day Shift off Hours or Night Shift E. Personnel:

How many elrivers (rlualified) rio you have? Davat 9 r! rivers plus cart timers.

F.

1 Communication and/nr Call Out. Pencetturen How do you enesunicate with Drivers during normal shifts (radio / beeper / phone)? 2-way ra<ttna (40+ el1* - woen hayanti Sales, NN)

How do you coesunicate with off-duty Drivers? Telephone Response t ime should Seabronk request distwitch of your hunes, etc. ,

right unu? Tes*dinte i Off-duty employeeu? nne immediately, Rent on Call = 15-20 min.

l 26 3 -_ _ - . _ _ - _ - _ - .

I I

FEMA RX/ecc/ Castle-0-83Seahronk/3-2-88 NNY says have LOA Yes* Contract No Halln, I'm Eleanne Castle anti I work (nr the Feriaral Emergency Management Agency and we are reviewing the Senbrook Plan as prepared by New Hampshire Yanken and submittert tn the NuclHMr Regulatory Cnmainninn and our Agency.

- I would like to verify your facilities and services, and have a few questions that I wnuld appreciate your annwaring.

1. Company Datet R.J. Diluzin 3/2/AA. Tima Ambulnnee (Owns Funeral Parlor Alan) .

ca l leri from Rnthell, WA a.m.

( 2. Name of Individual speaking to R. .f . Oflurin, Owner

3. Phone: A03-352-0341-1100 ' Town .

A.

Do you have a signed Letter of Agreement with New Hampshire Yankee? It in nn innaar in effect, unvm he t hinka he nrivinert New Hampnhire Yanken late in Deceaner nr puriv .rununtv inAn B. Resnurcen: .

What renourcen have you committed for une ahnold an emargency responen

'I ' be required for Seabronk? Had committedt Van.) 4 (3 Ambulancen & 1 Wheelchsfr Available inr: Day Shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour?

C; Capacity of Vehicles? Ambulance Etc.:

Dr Mobilization anti Deploymant:

Are all resources dispatched from one single point? ves I If at anrn than one lucation, nana locations and how many at each location:

What is the your normal huninnen use for thnen vehicles?

Day Shif t off Hours or Night Shift E .* Parsonnel:

Row many drivers (rlualified) do ynu havn?

F .~ Communications and/or Call Out Procedures: '

I Now do you communicate with Drivers during nnesol shifts?

How do you communicate with off-duty Drivers?_

Responsa time ahnulti

.d.

right now? Saabrnnk raquest tilspatch of your huses, etc. .

Off-duty employees?

Notee Mr. niluzin wnn very relenttiv. statert him fire was willine tn ennoernte I in any way possible but only 1 driver would sign un when they had staff maa t i nst . nn he maid they felt with nn ririver conoaration they enulti not sien contrnet for non-penvidable mervice.

Felt if niened Contrel/Arreement he would ne couirl he nuhicet to law nuit with ririver nnnennneration.

27 '

=

Attachment H (Paga 32 of 35) l l

l I

I FEMA RX/ Hec / Castle-D-43Seabrnnk/3-4/88 NNY usys have LOA Yes Contract Yes i Halln, t'e Eleanor Castin and I work for the Federal Emergency Management l

Agency and me are reviewing the Seabronk Plan as prepared by New Hampshire '

i Vanken and nuhaitted tn the Nuclear Regulatney Commission and our Agency.

~ I would like tn verify your facilities and services, and have a few questione that I would appreciate ynur answering.

1. Cnapany t Newburynnet Tnwine Service i

2. Date: 2/26/1988. Timet,91gg_.

Name of Individual speaking to Kimbarly towall

3. Phone: 817-4A2-7100 Town .

A. Do you have a signed t.ettar nf Agreement with New Hampshire Yanken?

Yes. hur have not niened contract.

B. Rnenurcent What resources hava you eneeltted for una should an amargency responna he required for Seabrnnk? 7 Trucks Available Vehiclem with Drivers)?

Available fort Day Shift? Night Shif t? 24 Hour?

1. . .^'

\ , -%lcw' m ,

C.

Capacity of Vehicles? Can Tow 9 vehiclen nu 2 will carry 2 vehicles.

D. , J 9; :y-Mobilization and Depinyonnt: -

y;j+::J';dY Are all resources dispatched from one single point? Central Location.

If at more than one location, name locations and how many at nach inention:

What in the your nnemal businnes una for these vehicles? Towine.

E. Personnel:

i How many drivers (qualified) do you hava? Verten, 5 full time and 14 I

nort time.

F. Cnemonications and/or Call Out Procedurest l,

Now do you communicate with Drivers during normal shifts 2-wey radios <

coerstine on sneetal emarrency f requency (FCC for emner.)

Now do you communicate with off-duty Drivers? Seepers and Telechones Nesponse time should Seabrook request dispatch of your buses, etc.,

right now? Maximus 1/2 hour Off-duty employees? SE 1

1 ..

_ ~ . ,

Attachment H (Page 33 of 35) 1 1

1 1

i FgMA RX/ecc/Castin-D-83Snabrook/3-4-AA NNY unys have LOA Yes* Contract No -

I Hallo, I'm Eleanne Castle and I work for the Federal Esergency Managnonnt Agency and we are reviewing the Srsbronk Plan as prepared by New Hampshire l Yankn* and subeltted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nur Agency.

~ I would like tn verify your. facilities and services, and have a few questions that I wnuld appreciate yn'r u annwaring.

1

1. Company: Vn1 pane Tnwine

2. Date: 2/25/19AA. Time:2.33 n.e..

Namn of Individual speaking to " Jane" for G*rald Vnlonne

3. Phone: 611-465-1433 Town: .

• A. Do you have a signed I.ntter nf Agrenennt with New Hampshire Yankee?

Yes, but says wants tn cancel and anys did not sign contract.

B. Rnanurces:

What rasnurces have ynu enemitted for una should 'un eenrgency response he required for Seabronk? Rusen Vans Ashulances Etc.

(Vehic1*n with nelvern)?

.. - a.

.  ;- . . ,. W n ? 2 . ' .

Available for: Day shift? Night Shift? 24 Hour? ~ '

, .,[ 30 .. '

, . "$;d ? ..

, ,j ; , ,, C .' capselty of Vehicles? Ruses Van Mini-Bus  %,

Ashulanen . Etc.:

m. -

'~ f ~; . , ,, )

i ,

.m. . :, e

., w D .' Mobilization and Depinyment: - ,

,',,,,,p.

t  ; 2 .^- . -

Ara all resnurces dispatched frne one ningle point?

t How many locations?

If at more than one location, namn locatinns and how many at nach location:

What is the your normal businnes use for these vnhicles?

Day shift

, El Personnel: '

Row eeny drivers (qualified) do you havn?

F .' Communications and/or Call Out Procedures How do you communicate with Drivare during normal shifts ?

How do you caseualcate with off-duty Drivers?

Responne tien should Snabrook request dispatch of ynor bosas, etc.,

right now? Off-duty employees?

Notat f,ady amid they had nwread tn t,OA and than tniked tn their drivers and thev enuld not met drivers tn neree. WIthout drivern they cannot coesit to

{

amreeennt t o furnish resources without drivers. Said they should have talked  ;

to drivers first. I 29 I

, 3:s .p;. ; . . .

Attachment H (Page 34 of.35)

FIDIA RX/ecc/Castin-D-83Snahrnnk/2/26/AA j NNY unye have LOA Yes Contract Yes Hello, I's Einanor Cantin and I work for the Federal Emergency Manageonnt Agency and we are reviewing the Seabrook Plan as prepared by New Hampshire Yankne and submitted to the Nucinar Regulatnry Commission and our Agency.

I would like to verify your facilities and services, and have a few questions that I would appreciate your answering.

1. Company: Cnadv's Tnwine Date: 2/28/198R. Time 9t28 a.m.

2.' Naen nf Individual speaking to: Sandy Bouchard.

3. Phone 617-6A5-4138.

Town: Lawrence. M4 .

f A.

Do ynu have a signed' Letter nf Agennennt with New Hampshire Yanken? Yes R. Resources:

What rasnurces have ynu enemitted for une should an eenrgency responen  !

he required for sembronk? 15 Tnw Trucku IVehiclew with Drivers)

• ~. . .

, Availabla (nr: 24 Hour? .j Yns '

i

. : .s . .. "..? _,' . .

'. . - . h% W C;- Capacity of Vehiclen? 15 Tow Trucks, unen can carry 2 vehicles.

u.- y :-- " , .

D .- Mohillr.ation and neployment:

~

AW -' .c '

Are all resources' dispatched from one single point? Yes, but nrivern do take hnea even i nses . .

}

j

. . @ . ' ~'

. What is tha your normal hustnnen use for thnen vnhicles? Routina Towine E .- Personnel:

How eeny drivnes (qualifind) do you havn? 15 I i F .- Coesunications and/or Call Out Procedures:

l How do you communicate with Drivers during normal shifts: 2-way Radios Now do you communicate with off-duty Drivers? Telephone and 2-wey i radios, t,

1 Response time should Snabrook request dispatch of your buses, etc., l right now? O to 20 minute aversre. Off-duty employees? same;  !

! l i

t t 30

. . e *

'st y'.4 -

• r'_____-_ -

I. Attachment H (Page.35 of 35)

I I

FEMA RX/nec/ Cantle-D-83Seabronk/2/26/88 NNY says have LOA Yes Contract Yes I Halln, I'm Elnanne Cast.In and I work for t ha Faderal Emnegancy Nanagnonnt Agency and we are reviewing the Seabrook Plan as prepared by New Hampshire Yanken and submitted in the Nucinar Regulatory Commission and our Agency.

l g - I would like to verify your facilities and services, and have a fen questions that I would appreciate your annwaring.

i E

1. Company: Federal Auto Renair (Towing)

2. Namn of Individual apaaking in Date: 2/26/1988. Time:9t30 a.m.

Alan Whitford '

3.~ Phone 617-485-5854 Town: .

A. Do you havn a nigned Letter of Agreement with New Hampshirn Yanken?

Yes, with enntentt.

B .* Rasnurenn:

What rennurces havn you committed for use should an amargency ranponsa

.be required for Seabrook? 2 Tow Truckx (Vehicles with Drivers)?

.Available for Day Shift? All Night Shift?

~~ . ' ~ ' '

24 Hour?

Il x. ~

CT Capacity nf Vehicles? 2 inw Trucks and one. can carry 2 vehicles. q.a.

I -z, D; Nobilizat. inn and Onployment: .

,.,~ .sm .: .

.1,;? Q ' h l -

Are all resources dispatched from one single point? Yes. Drivers dn

', not taka tnw trucka hnen. '

igr - -

What is the your normal business use for these vehicles? Towinz E .- Personnel:

How many drivers (<1ualiffnd) do you havn? 3 F: Communications and/or call Out Procedures:

How do you communicate with Drivnra during normal shifts (radio / beeper / phone)? Telephone.

How do you communicate with off-duty Drivers? Telnohnna Response time should Seabrook request dispatch of your buses, etc.,

right now? 10 to 15 minutne off-duty employees? h I

I g ,,

__n_______---_--------------------------------------------

_ - - - - - - - - _____....... _ . _ _ _ -