ML20008D471
| ML20008D471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1989 |
| From: | Gram G PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| OL-I-MAG-103, NUDOCS 9003050145 | |
| Download: ML20008D471 (13) | |
Text
y
'l my,,
4
- g.,g3
[7-
- j So-WJVWA 1
3 4 j u g.g
/
00CKETED.
y IMS 4 v0$1.S$C. 0 0 j g SEP8880407
- 90 JAN 18 P4 :32 GW&M%'#
- = sen*= m m. we==*.
4 r,-: qu New Hampshire Yankee Division May 8, 1988 l
To:-
Distribution
Subject:
April 20, 1988 FEMA Graded Exercise Scenario ' Review j;
Meeting at Seabrook Station l
Enclosed are the meeting notes from the April 20. 1988 meeting held at l'
't Seabrook Station between representatives of'the: Federal Emergency Management-
. Agency (FEMA), New Hampshire Yankee (NNY), and the States of New Hampshire
~,
and Maine and other parteipating organizations.
These notes include the requested and accepted scenario package revisions developed.as a result of
. FEMA's and NRC's review of NNY's April 11, 1988 scenario submittel..It should be noted that these meeting notes contaita extent of play information.
which should be confidentisily enintained.
y
["
To obtain final exercise scenario review comments. a'oeeting will; be held by Seabrook Station at the General Office Building Mediagraphics-Conference Room et 10:00 a.m. on.May 20, 1988.- Representatives.of the participating organizations are requested to attend with review comments.
Should you have any questions arising from our interpretation of the April
[
20,1988' meeting minutes, please contact Diane Sovino at (803)d74-9521, Ext.
I 3810. - Your cooperation in this endeavor is greatly appreciated.
o Sincerely yours,
/
.. /
/
l,,, h/) h' k A
Gf, Gram W utive Director of Energency Preparedness and Community Relations-I 9003050145 890525 PDR ADOCK 05000443 1
o PDR a
L l
pA(q \\ gj 1
L/8K4027 4L-aasmm -
y;.,
- ;q,
.m e c m
)
(
x '-
r.pj i.-
ff.
N 5.5 *I'.')'
?..
s t
t s
}]; I " '1,9 "i
\\
+'N
[
f-l "ss
.>.,s av, 1
'r q;
(h,:*
8 r
e i
I' I
.m.-
p P
P k' ';
?
e
'Q; h'
A E
l
'd
'i g;-
s 1-3 1
tA 2:
6
.C
. 99
\\
LP c
~ -
h r
n Ylo..
0 f.'x s
..D E
o E
sd.E 5 @--
j LJ O.
llF.O-N u.
.t g
w
.p2 ra;; roS a-W ";e. \\
,j 8.3;.9 e m o$g '
l' t{-A?m 3 - g Q t' N
!!&,a C
Qy.m g d
~t
=
- g.@
S.. '
z
- oS n
Z d%
23 hU m
O II 2: h
.?"S '. G
?"'
- ..*'de, r
- -u -af;
.M C'u
% en s
H u
- d 11
,,1 e
c't - n o o su M5y 4.M O O O -, E 4
i
4 APRIL 20, 1988 MEETING NOTES A.
Ooenine Remarks An introduction of attending personnel was conducted and the objective of the meeting was reviewed.
G. Gram requested any comments on the meeting notes of the April 1,1988 meeting.
- 8. Bores (NRC) mentioned that for the Day 2 activities, NRC would be evaluating the assistance provided by the Licensee Group in Ingestion Pathway concernt, not only coordination of field monitoring.
No other add-itions, deleti'sas or changes were raised by any organization or individual.
8.
Exercise toaistics 1.
Several locations for NRC/ FEMA critiques / briefings were suggested by G. Gree. These were:
o Critique locations - Luka's Greenhouse, Hampton Falls capacity of approximately 340 people
- Yoken's in Portsmouth approximately 800 people o Briefing locations - NHY Education Center approximately 100 people
- General office Building Mediagraphics Conference Room approximately 100 people
- 0.E.T. Classrooms - various capacity-up to 80 people 2.
It was-identified that currently FEMA National is revising its evalu-ation material and therefore, E. Thomas recommended NHY temporarily suspend any assistance efforts. According to E. Thomas, it does not appear FEMA will need any further NHY assistance except for Controller guides, maps, etc.
The revision to the NH Plan would need to be distributed by_that time.
The current schedule for distribution is during the week of April 25, 1988. RAC member copies in the Boston area would be hand delivered those outside the area would be mailed.
3.
Second scenario development was discussed and E. Thomas relayed that the second scenario does not need to be submitted under the same constraints as the primary nor be dramatically different. It should be a " canned" predeveloped scenario, kept under lock and key, that contains sufficient
" traps" to identify any unauthorized use of the original scenario.
If needed for use.. a review could be conducted just prior to the exercise.
D/S84031 S
m, yy ~.=,,.
+
=3
-.4 b
.I
^_
.s 1
.S 4
4 ei 1
ii f
f
'{...
J if 5f
-f:
~
.e u^^
...f
_t
'4 1
D E
4 t
p 2.)
.k
-6 s
' f.
f r
. k.
4 ba
'I 9;
I; h
'a c:..
g F.
x
.T k
u
's t-41 4
>e
,4
[
.s pb.
w-g_
b
- 3..,
. t
.O '
t L
T-f\\
t k-a ll i
s J
a
- n. :
g, b
I J
- h. '...
6 enL
~
r_
n__
,,uAY
.S WA5 #5v.%5A +M1d_thade.
io?
k 4.
Although a-formal request for Intervenor observation of the exercise has not been received, it was strongly suggested by J. Dolan and E. Thomas that ground rules-for such be developed in advance of the request.. This allows NHY the opportunity to establish what will not interfere with play, not only.in EOCs, but for buser, disruptions, etc. NHY will look into developing' instructions concurrent with this recommendation.
C.
Exercise Obiectives and Extent of Plav 1.
PANS / VANS A tentative demonstration of this system is currently scheduled for-April 27, 1988 at 10:00 a.m.
FEMA Region I for NH was invited to witness this test. Prior to this demonstration draft copies of Procedures IP 2.15 and IP 2.16 were requested'for review. NNY's proposal for exercise extent of play is that procedures will be in place, all positions manned by trained personnel, notification would be demonstration, and mobiliza-tion from Staging Areas to acoustic _ locations, however actual operation would be demonstrated onsite.
E. Tanzman stated that R. Oonovan may want to see this demonstrated at an actual acoustical location. Awaiting rep)y from R. Donovan. Additional comments included:
The helicopter will not be utilized during the exercise, as~it is o
a backup.
Extent of play definition for the hearing-impaired notifications o
need to include that routes will be run, and required messages will be read to an evaluator,
-EBS messages will not actually go out over air waves. However, o
receipt ofEthe message from NHY ORO or State of NH.and subsequent preparation of messages are to be performed per procedure. ' Broad-cast of message will be done into a tape recorder to simulate actual broadcast.
o EBS releases would not be issued in Maine.
-2.
Department of Interior (D01) Update A meeting was held with DOI to review their notification capabilities and a plan for their agency.
E. Thomas requested that NHY review the Plus Island off-season entry policy and revise notification methodology accordingly.
3.
American Red Cross (ARC)
Currently a memorandum from FEMA National to upper ARC Management is circulating requesting participation in planning.
J. Hayes offered to provide status to NHY within (1) week. Scenarios should be developed to allow demonstration either way - participating vs. non-participating.
0/S84031.1
g
- - p..
j, l
~I l'
l s:
4.-
Congregate Care Centers (CCC) i 7
It was determined at least two (2) Congregate Care Centers and one.(1)~
Host Facility for MASS ORO and NH would be opened up and evaluators would talk to facility landlores, and tour facilities to de ermine adecuacy, althougn set-vo would not be demonstrsted.- E. Tanzman was to a
confirm through Donovan whether the facilities could be pre-selected
{
thereby minimizing the impact.on existing businesses.
Items to be L
discussed with landlores include:
L o
Bus Arrangements Familiarity to existing Letters of Agreement o
7 o
Knowledge of Procedures Knowledge of Operations (validate training)
{
o 5.
Total Population Oose i
conflicting opinions exist between how E. Thomas and R. Donovan interpret this function.
G. Gram asked for clarification on what' 4
exactly NHY, ORO, NH and ME were required to demonstrate.
Option 1 - completed dose calculation 30-46 days after the exercise o
l o
Option 2 - a demonstration of estimation on the day of exercise E. Thomas and J. Hayes are to provide NHY with a definition of scope on this objective.c NHY, OR0, NH, and ME all requested FEMA to provide
!~
sample fornat/ methodology.
. 6.
Positions requiring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> staffing for ORO Personnel were pro *nded with OR0 organization Chart 'as part of the ini-f tial handout, which outlines those positions for.which a shift change would be demonstrated, those which are manned by activation of YAEC.
Mutual Assistance Plan for second shift and those which as evacuation specific positions,-only require one shift.
t
'i. Representative Sample Methodology In an effort to ensure a uniform awareness.in the generation of repre-I sentative sample statistical methodologies and formulas, Dr. Bruce D.
Spencer conducted a brief. Dr. Spencer, one of the subject matter' experts contracted to perform statistical evaluations, introduced the-statistical basis methodologies. Special elements currently under evaluation are vehicles, evacuee monitoring, special facilities, ano traffic / access control points. During this presentation the following
+
items were discussed:
Methodology and formula for generating statistical extent of play o
C numbers. All parties agreed to the proposed methodology and formula.
0/S84031.2
.. -. ~ ~ -
'1 4
< y,
\\;
identification of statistical numbers for various groups.
o Identification of reasonably achievable numbers and specific 4
o limitations (as not to impact public safety).
E. Thomas feels bus routes are the most sensitive issue and wants to o
maintain a high confidence level while minimiting community impact.
NHY to submit proposal to FEMA on extent of play for concurrence o
or comment (for representative sample numbers).
FEMA (J. Dolan) and the State of NH (S. McCandless) request o
receipt of' proposed representative sample numbers prior to next j
meeting.
e D.
Exercise Scenario Comments Specific section comments from the April 11, 1988 exercise scenario submit-tal_have been recorded in the sections which follow. The following general.
j items were also discussed.
o-Because some confu:41on existed in interpreting the intent of Section 2.0 vs. Section 3.0, review of Section 3.0'by.the NH RAC was not conducted. The RAC had however reviewed Section 2.0 and found it acceptable. FEMA recommended placing Section 3.0 Limitations into'Section 2.0 Objectives; NHY committed to do this.
l o'
E. Thomas was concerned that maybe ME is proposing to exercise.
more than is required for partial participation in ingestion pathway, but'less than'necessary for full participation, and espe-cially so-in traffic control.
-0 NNY requested a full participation exercise be demonstrated on the-Part of the State of Maine, in light of future litigation. Maine-requested guidance from-FEMA in the definition of " full partici--
pation."' FEMA recommended including as peri of the Section 2.0 Objectives.IN-1 Guidance Objectives'8,13,16 and 25.
FEMA-(E. Thomas) also agreed to sending a memorandum to Maine estab-lishing this.
The State of Maine indicated that support was probable for a full o
participation exercise. They would.not consider demonstrating implementation of relocation PARS. Recommendation'from E. Thomas was to demonstrate all evaluated areas with a higher degree.of participation to adequately satisfy licensing criteria. Maine' stated that it is currently planned that only (1) Traffic Control Point would be established and ary changes to this would require confirmation of responsible authorities (Maine State Police).
o When comments were solicited from State personnel on Sections 2.0 Objectives and Section 3.0 Extent of Play, Maine (R. Malaney) indicated no problem with Section 3.0, and NH (S. McCandles) stated they had no problems with Section 2.0 or 3.0.
D/SB4031.3
'T s '
j-s.
t n
I s
e f, l
1-ATTACHMENT 1.0 EXERCISE SCENARIO COMMENTS l'
This attachment identifies those areas' targeted for revision within Section 2.0
" Objectives" and Section 3.0 " Extent of Slay."
These items reflect agreements r
reached between all participating reviewers.
I 1.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE A.
SECTION 2.5 COMMENTS I
1.-
2.5-2 87 - Not reflected on matrix - revise to address background checks performed by Decon Monitors.
g 2.
2.5-4
- 15 - Delete Stating Area from matrix.
L 3.
2.5-5 818 - Day Care is not checked on matrix, check is on 819 -
need to change.
4.
2.5-6
- 21 - Hospital checked on matrix, not listed in narrative -
i remove from matrix.
L 822 - Nursing Homes on matrix, not listed in narrative -
remove from matrix..
5.
2.5-7 824 - Are names of Hospitals correct? Lists Elliot/ Wentworth as MS-1.
'6.
2.5-1 82 - Add Monitoring /Decon and add Staffing to be-demonstrated capable to implement Plan and scenario conditions.
7.
2.5-3
- 12 - State that " Primary" notification method to be used, back-up will not be'used unless Primary fails during demonstration. Also identify Tone-Alert Radios as back-up.
8.
2.5-3 813 - Include EBS Station involvement.
9.
2.5-5
10.
2.5-5
- 19 - Reference EV-2 Guidance, identify participating.
11.
2.5-5
- 18 - Add only participating.
k' 12.
2.5-9
- 34 - Submit more information and clarification on how a shift change will be performed.
13.
2.5-9 826 - Make actual calls.
0/S84031.4
'J:
- /
f k
8.
SECTION 3.5 COMMENTS
.c 1.
3.5-11 21 Reflect that initial calls;will actually be made to Federal Agencies rather than Phone 0 ell with all subsequent calls being simulated to the Phone Cell.
(8. - Bores indicated that he would like to see the DOE at.Brookhaven called directly, the RAP Captain.
{
to actually perform this callout, give an estimated time of arrival, etc. Due to timeline concerns with j
incorporating live answer from 00E into scenario'and
-l also that the-ORO plan is not written to directly i
call 00E, it was determined that the above extent of
.I play was appropriate.)
2.
3.5-13 (0)#4 - Actual dispatch will not occur.
5
\\
\\
3.
3.5-13 (F)#2 - Reword to be concise.
l 4.
3.5-13 (F)S3 - Revise to identify shift change.
5.
3.5-14-(F)s6 - Calls vs. no calls, representative sample, no public 3
calls.
l 6.
3.5-14 (F)#8 - Revise to reflect that participants will report transportation needs in accordance with scenario con-ditions. The use'of:defaultudata will be demonstrated as identified in the Plan.
7.
3.5-14(F)#13-Need to ensure roster generation.
8.
(F)S15-Reword entire response and delete last sentence.
9.
3.5-17 (M)s3 - Include statements about other monitoring. Define monitoring process at Reception Centers, i
10.
3.5-17 (M)S4 - Define that all monitoring facilities (4) will be tested using a sample of approximately 3 monitors at' each to demonstrate a frisking criteria of 33 per hour.
2.
MASS ORO A.
SECTION 2.3 COMMENTS k
1.
2.3-2 85 - Delete reference to Teams, objective.is facility specific.
2.
2.3-2 86 - Add Field Teams protective equipment, dosimetry etc.
(also for NH/ME) 3.
2.3-2 89 - Identify that this will be demonstrated as an out *f sequence activity.
Include sample transport of filters back to EOF Lab /YAEC for processing / counting.
[
0/884031.5 O
-w
'e---
+=
3
' LY"
.j t
4.
2.3-3
- 12 - Revise text to reflect that actual taping of EBS
'7" oessages will actually be done. Each message will be verified per call back procedure, airway brosecast to be simulated, evaluator to pick up tapes-at end of' I
exercise, evaluator to observe steps taken by broad-
-caster to initiate sessage. Add clarification of
"{
PANS / VANS Procedure / interface - a demonstration of j
Procedure.
?
5.
2.3-3
- 14 - Define call f requency - 5 calls per hour, per commun-icator, will be demonstrated by the Media Center and Rumor Control.
\\
6.
2.3-4 816 - Identify that NHY can. demonstrate the ability to get KI.to affected personnel (thought process),during an emergency situation requiring protective measures.
I 7,
2.3 #18 - Revise to identify actual vehicle numbers from reaso-p nobly achievsele list.
Identify results or eva-lustion process. FEMA request (3) special needs population vehicles.
Identify Hospital and Health Care evaluation criteria.
FEMA requests 1 of each..
8.
2.3-5 819 - Identify number of schools to be exercised and how many buses per school will be dispatched.
(Check-with Appendix M) 9.
2.3-5 820 - Add definition for 2 Traffic impediments per State, one of which will be a reroute.
1 10.
2.3-6 321 - Remove MS-1 from response, clarify Reception Center monitoring trailers.
1 1 '.
2.3-6
- 22 - Revise to account for actual facilities to be acti-vated.
(3) ende available for evaluation (2 CCC and 1-Host-Shriners) evaluation from LDA stage to set-up familiarity.
Identify American Red Cross par-ticipation and actual interface with NH.
i i
12.
2.3-6
- 24 - Specify exactly which Hospitals will demonstrate this (only 1).
13.
2.3-6 826 - Delete sonitoring trailers at Reception Centers.
14.
2.3-6 826 - Make actual calls.
1 15.
2.3-6 827 - Define sampling requirements - 2 samples per sampling seasonal medium per team. Where team members have equal qualifications, each oseber will demonstrate sampling.
Identify.where milk samples will be taken.
Animal feed sampling to be simulated.
16.
2.3-7
- 28 - List limitations for out of sequence mini-scenario e'
D/S84031.6 h>
4 p
4 1(-
Ik l
s 17, 2.3-7 830 - Delete second sentence and last sentence, correlate with IN-1 guidance.
it.
2.3-7 331 - Awaiting resolution from FEMA.
1 19.
2.3-8 832 - Embelish material from Section 3.3-6 #19 thru 21-into' body of response. Define ending point.
20.
2.3-8 537 - Identify interface with non-participating organizations.
21.
2.3-9 Matrix - Eliminate ambulance services. bus yards, day care centers, nursing homes, recreational facilities, schools from Objective 834 column.
8.-
SECTION 3.3 COMMENTS 1.
3.3-1 84 - Add Shriners, and EBS Stations.
2.
3.3-2 s15 - Delete t
3.
3.3-2 s17 - Delete 4.
3.3-2
- 14 - Revise to reflect that the offsite notification time clock will start when the Main Control Room Outy Shift Supervisor completes the Notification Form.
5.
3.3-3 818 - Make Controller plural-(s).
i 6.
3.3-3 321 - Incorporate actual numbers to be demonstrated.
7.
3.3-5 (C)s5 - Incorporate actual numbers to be demonstrated, a.
8.
3.3-6 (C)#11 - Revise and incorporate actual numbers to be
-l demonstrated.'
i 9.
3.3-6 (C)s14 - Determine exact status and incorporate direction into statement'.
10.
3.3-6 (C)#15 - Revise to reflect direction defined in Plan (as per Plan) and list limitations, as necessary.
11.
3.3-6 (C)316 - Change from three (3) traffic impediments to two (2),
one (1) of which will be a reroute.
/
12.
3.3-8 (0)s8 - Requires clarification, state.what is-meant.
13.
3.3-8 (0)s9 - Define only one (1) monitor need demonstrate this.
14.
3.3-9 (F)s8 - Delete last sentence.
15.
3.3-9 (F)s9 - Clarify ingestion.
D/S84031.7
g.
Ydlg
- i e'%
y k
i 16.
3.3-10(H)s2 - Delete E85 Activation.
17.
3.3-10(H)s5 - Delete entirely.
18.
3.3-11(J)si - Revise to reflect actual motlodology.
19.
3.3-13(L)s2 - Revise to reflect-three (3) facilit4es to be eval-ustec, one (1) of which will be the Shriners facility.
i 20.
3.3-15(N)s2 - Revise to include observation not by Controller.-
1 21.
3.3-15(0)44 - Revise to include observation not by Controller..
4,
.y 3.
ONSITE SEABROOK STATION A.
SECTION 3.2 COMMENTS 1.- 3.2-3
- 15 - Revise to acccunt for communication links and suo-sequent Control Cell' communications required if any j
ogency-(i.e., MA, DPHS) decides to participate upon receipt of initial or follow-up notification.
'a 2.
3.2-3 316 - Revise statement to accurately reflect why there is an elevation of radiological dsta.
j 3.
. 3.2-3 818 - Add a second part defining that. security be required 1
to implement alternate actions for back-up facilities.,
4.
3.2-3(8) #2' - Revise to reflect that the actual clock for delivery of offsite notifications starts once the Outy Shift
_ Supervisor completes Form ER 2.08.
l j,
5.
3.2-4(8)2,b,2-Revise to state what to do if real MASS OPHS decides to participate. Communications will be performed /
established per. procedure.
16.
L 3.2-6(B)3,b,2-Revise to denote that all non-essential or.non-l emergency response personnel.will evacuate the site.
7.
3.2-7(B) #6 - HPN interface to be driven via Phone Cell interface.
Wilt be demonstrated,as demanded by-actual NRC participation or as required by scenario via phone cell. Correct typo 6th line.-
8.
3.2-11(F)89 - Revise to reflect joint decisions required from l
Evaluators / Controllers / Control Cell so as not to impact scenario.
-9.
3.2-11(F)B10 - Need to be reworded and improve syntax.
10.
3.2-12(F)817 - Spelling corrections.
D/SB4031.8 i
V
W
.gr A
SCENARIO COMMENTS 1
Several specific comments arose from a review of the exercise scenario.
These initial comments are:
A.
NRC (R. Bores) recommenos evaluating the half hour currently allocated in Day 2 for the period prior to the three (3) Day time jump.
NHY may want to give players a longer assessment period.
.=
8.
Need to ensure that any Player information generated by the scenario group for time jumps coes not contain material that would have been developed by players. Provide sample results - don't formulate their actions.
C.
State of Maine needs deposition activity or het spots to be elevated prompting preventive PA0's.
L D.
Mismatch on certain isotopic ratio's from RCS to deposition.
m E.
Need to identify associated decontamination factors for any vegetation that can be peeled.
F.
Need to clean-up radiological deposition date found in Section K-disconnect.
G.
Iodine activity shown in milk for Oey 6 is more representative of Day 10 or 11 activities.
H.
Need specific messages generated to control IEPZ portion ano associated time' jumps.
GENERAL COMMENT
S 1.
The fol bwing comments were recorded throughout various times during the meeting and provide definition or reinforcement to certain areas:
A.
The method of determining p&rticipating vs. non-participating' agencies of organizations needs to be defined and changes to extent of play limi-s tations revised to accurately reflect this.
~
B.
Due to the consents received in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, it was proposed by NNY, and confirmed by FEMA, that these revisions would be incorporated in a May 6, 1988 submittel.
In combination with these sections. the extent of play numbers would also be included. FEMA (E. Thomas) stated that this confirmation would not affect or compromise the existing May 23, 1988 Exercise time frame. The final part of this submittel would be a
a proposed FEMA Evaluator piecesent plan.if possible, to identify those critical positions requiring evaluation, and maximizing itoes evaluated by FEMA while at the same time holding down the number of FEMA evaluations required.
D/584031.S l
K_
+
g.:
i l
l
[
APRIL 20, 1968 MEET!NG ATTENDANCE ROSTER N.,$M,![
ORGANIZATION t
O. Sovino NNY B. Thorsen NNY i
T. Ferranco NNY
- 8. Caspole MEMA t
- 8. Melaney MEMA-OPS i
W. Dunlap NNY i
P. Carty NNY T. Harpster NNY l
l.
S. McCandles NMEMA I
- 8. Sores NRC: Reg. 1 l-
- 8. Weiss NRC: AE00 l
T. Essig NRC: HPR-PEPS
- 8. $almonson INEL E. Tanaman Argonne National Laboratory ~
f S. Ropgenos Argonne Netiona1 Laberatcry e
E. Thomas FEMA R 1 J. Hayeta FEMA R-1 J. Dolan FEMA R-1 J. Quinley FEMA R-1 S. Dorth FEMA R-1 C. Ogilvie NN DPMS
- 0. Gram NNY
[
t l
f.
T l
l l
l l
f l.
+
t 1
t 4
4 0/884031.10 1.
i -
- -, - ~
- -, - -- -