ML20216K027

Forwards FEMA Updates to FEMA Dec 1988 Consolidated Finding on Util Emergency Preparedness

ML20216K027
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/08/1990
From:	Joyner J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Ellen Brown PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
CON-#490-11068 OL, NUDOCS 9011200013
Download: ML20216K027 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, a q_ S w NOV 0 01990 s Docket No. 50-443 Licensee No. CPPR 135 Public Service Company of New Hampshire ATTN: - Mr. Edward A. Brown, President Chief Executive Officer Post Office Box 300 Scabrook, New Hampshire 03874 ,s Gentlemen:

Subject:

TRANSMITTAL OF TWO REPORTS UPDATING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN FEMA'S DECEMBER 1988 CONSOLIDATED FINDING i ON THE SEABROOK POWER STATION This letter transmits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reports updating materials included in FEMA's Decemoer,1988 consolidated finding on Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The first report, Review and Evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC), datad May,1990, updated the December,1988 review and evaluation of the SPMC. The report is based upon Revision 1 of the SPMC and the evaluation' continues to support FEMA's. findings of reasonable assurance for the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The second report, Findings and Determinations for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, dated May,1990, updatet the December,1988 Report. it ieflects FEMA's updated plan review reports on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 3, - and the SPMC, Revision 1. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Craig Conklin of my staff at (215) 337-5083. l Sincerely Original Signed By: James H.' Joyner James H. Joyner, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch -[

Enclosure:

As stated si v I y,_, 3 y 7.,, y\\ PDR ADOCK 05000443 i 1,3, -h, E.,., i.

i...

h V. I 14 9011200013 901108 .i 4 .F PNU

New Hampshire Yankee 2 cc wo/ encl: L E. Maglathlin, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, PSNH T. C. Feigenbaum, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, NHY J. M. Peschel, Regulatory Compliance Manager, NHY T. Harpster, Director of Licensing Services, NHY R. M. Kacich, Manager of Generation Facilities Licensing, NUSCO J. F. Opeka, Executive Vice President, NU G. Garfield, Escluire R. Hallisey, Director, Dept. of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts S. Woodhouse, Legislative Assistant Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) NRC Resident inspector State of New Hampshire, SLO Commonwealth of Massachusetts, SLO Designee Seabrook Hearing Service List bec wo/ encl: Region I Docket Room (with concurrences) Management Assistant, DRMA R. Joyner, DRSS E. McCabe, DRP N. Dudley, SRI - Seabrook (with concurrences) J. Johnson, DRP J. Caldwell, EDO V. Nerses, NRR l Co I g yner 11Q90 11/7/90 [hf90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

o i SEABROOK HEARING SERVICE LIST Thomas Dignan, Esa Diane Curran, Esq. Robert K. Gadd, Ill, Esq Harmon, Weiss & Tousley Ropes and Gray 2001 S Street, N.W. 225 Franklin Street Suite 430 Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 Washington, D.C. 20009 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Panel U.S. Senate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 531 Hart Senau Office Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, M. 20510 1 Robert A. Backus, Esq. Judith H. Mirner, Esq. Backus, Meyer and Solomon Counsel for West Newbury 116 Lowell Street 79 State Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03106 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 William Armstrong Suzanne Breiseth Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town of Hampton Falls 10- Front Street Drinkwater Road Exeter, New Hampshire 03833 Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 Honorable Peter J. Matthews Anne Goodman, Chairman Mayor, City. of Newburyport Board of Selectmen City Hall 13-15 Newmarket Road Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Edwin J. Reis, Esq. H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. i Mitzi A, Young, Esq. Assistant General Counsel l Office of the General Counsel-Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20472 Jane Doughty Gary W. Holmes. Esq. Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Holmes and Elits i 5 Market Street 47 Winnacunne.t Road Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801' Hampton, Ntw Hampshire 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq. Allen Lampert Shaines and McEachern Civil' Defense Director ~ { 25 Maplewood Avenue Town of Brentwood ~ P. 0. Box 360 20 Franklin Street Portsmouth', New Hampshire 03801 Exeter, New Hampshire 03833

q Operations 50-443 23 l Seabrook Hearing Service List Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esq. ) Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1107 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74057 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Administrative Judge Board of Selectmen Ivan W. Smith, Chairman (2) Town Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atlant Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Hampton, New Hampshire 03870 Washington, D.C. 20555 John Traficonte, Esq. Mr. George L. Iverson, Director Assistant Attorney General New Hampshire Office of Emergency Office of the Attorney Genera *e Management One Ashburton Place State House Office Park South 19th Floor 107 Pleasant Street -Boston, Massachusetts 02105 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 l Ashod N, Amirian, Esq. Geoffrey Huntington, Esq. Town Counsel for Merrimac Assistant Attorney General 145 Main Street Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 38 25 Capitol Street Bradford, Massachusetts 08135 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Administrative Judge George Hahn, Esq. Richard F. Cole Attorney for the Examiner Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hahn & Hesson U 4.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 350 5th Ave., Suite 3700 Wa hington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10118 Richard R. Donovan Peter J. Brann, Esq. i . Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General Federal Regional Center Office of the Attorney General 130 228th Street, S.W. State House Station, #6 Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Augusta, Maine 04333 Michael Santosuosso Office of the Secretary (2) -Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board of Selectmen Washington, D.C. 20555 South Hampton, New Hampshire 03827 ATTN: Docketing and Service Section R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi Board (6) 79 State Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Washington, D.C. 20555

i ) i j i Operations 50-443 23 Seabrook Hearing Service List Jack Dolan Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq. Federal. Emergency Management Agency Kopelman and Paige, P.C. Region I Counsel of Amesbury, Newport, &- j 'J. W..McCormack Post Office & Salisbury Courthouse Building 101 Arch Street J ' Room 442 Boston, Massa: usetts 02110 L. . Boston, Massachusetts 02109 ) r d ? -4 j f at a s t 'i e;; .2 ) w g l} ym t -f q 1 .l \\ -h s,. c i i k N 9 s Y , fi', E 3. ..t, '.i'; 5 l 7 y t b 6 ,k e '} .. l s 'I 4. E

P i 4,. s e L Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington. D.C. 20472 Yfu3Y g Q(*$re*:: Mr. James M. Taylor Dcacutive Director for Operations U.S. Wclear Hagulatory Commissicri Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This is to transmit the enclosed two reports updating materials included in the M Dnargency Marey-

t. Agency's (FDR) Doomnber 1988 consolidated finding on the Seabrtx)k Nuclear Power Station. 'Ihe first report is the May 1990 Review ard Evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cormunities (SPMC). 'Ihis imit. updates the Doomber 1988 Review and Evaluation of the S mC. It is haasr1 on Revision 1 (December 1989) of that plan. 'Ibe evaluation continuas to support FDR's findig that the Smc is adequate to protect the health ard safety of the public living in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Dnargerry Planning Zone, by ptwidig reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be than offsite in the event of a radiological amargency and are capable of being inplemented.

'Ihe second report is the May 1990 Findings and Detarminations for the Seabrook Nuclear Fewer Station. This updates the Daoumber 1988 Findings and Determinations for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, and reflects IDR's updated plan rw/iew reports on the New Hanpahire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 3, and the SMC, Revision 1. will be forwarding additional copies of-Its under te cover. . L If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on 646-3692. We Sincerely, // , // l /44a.bb N late Director State and local Prograns and Support Enclosures As Stated-ll0 L 4 \\

l i REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF TER SEhBROOK PLAN FOR MAS 8ACIUSETTS CONNUNITIES l p o o i Federal Emergency Management Agency May 1990 (fe e,,, m_ m,,,, x ) ,n m

4-Hay 1990 CONTENTS ACRONYMS . xvi FIGURE 1 SEABROOK PLUME EXPOSURE EPZ . xix FIGURE 2 SEABROOK INGESTION EXPOSURE EPZ xx INTRODUCTION 1 REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA. 5 A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control) (Planning Standard A) 6 A.1.a. Evaluation Criterion 6 Statement 6 Plan Reference 7 Evaluation 7 A.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 7 Statement 7 Plan Reference 8 Evaluation 8 A.1.c. Evaluation Criterion 8 Statement 8 { Plan Reference 9 i Evaluation 9 i 4 A.1.d. Evaluation Criterion 9 Statement 9 Plan Reference 10 Evaluation 10 A.1.e. Evaluation Criterion 10 Statement 10 Plan Reference 10 Evaluation 10 A.2.a. Evaluation Criterion 10 Statement 22 Plan Reference 12 Evaluation 12 A.2.b. Evaluation Criterion 12 Statement 12 Plan Reference 13 Evaluation 13 A.3. Evaluation Criterion 13 Statement 13 Plan Reference 14 i lii l

.gg-i May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Evaluation 14 l A.4. Evaluation Criterion 14 Statement 14 Plan Reference 14 Evaluation 15 4 .C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C) 16 9 C.1 Evaluation Criterion 16 C.1.a. Evaluation Criterion 16 Statement 16 Plan Reference 16 Evaluation 16 C.1.b. Evaluation Criterion .16 Statement 16 Plan Reference 17 Evaluation 17 C.l.c. Evaluation Criterion 17 Statement 17 Plan Reference 17 Evaluation-1 */ C.2. Evaluation Criterion 18 Statement. 18 Plan Reference 18 Evaluation-18 C.3. Evaluation Criterion 18 Statement 18 Plan Reference 19 Evaluation 19 1 C.4. Evaluation Criterion 19 Statement 19 l Plan Reference 20 Evaluation 20 C.S. -Evaluation Criterion 21 Statement-21 Plan Reference 21 Evaluation 21 D. Emergency' Classification System (Planning Standard D) 22 D.3. Evaluation Criterion 22 Statement 22 Plan Reference 22 iv

l ev May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Evaluation 22 D.4. Evaluation Criterion 22 Statement 22 Plan Reference 23 Evaluation 23 E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E) 24 E.1. Evaluation Criterion 24 Statement 24 Plan Reference 25 Evaluation 25 E.2. Evaluation Criterion 25 Statement 25 Plan Reference 26 Evaluation 26 E.3. Evaluation Criterion 26 Statement 26 Plan Reference 27 Evaluation 27 E.4. Evaluation Criterion 27 Statement 28 Plan Reference 29 Evaluation 29 E.5. Evaluation Criterion 29 Statement 30 Plan Reference 30 Evaluation 30 E.8. Evaluation Criterion. 30 l Statement 30 Plan Reference 31 Evaluation 31 F. Emergency Communications (Planning. Standard F) 32 F.1 Evaluation Criterion 32 i 'F.1.a. Evaluation Criterion 32 Statement 32 Plan Reference 32 Evaluation 33 F.1.b. Evaluation Criterion 33 Statement 33 Plan Reference 33 Evaluation 33 v i I

t 9_ May 1990 i CONTENTS (Cont'd) i I.8. Evaluation Criterion. 52 Statement 52 Plan Reference 53 Evaluation 53 I.9. Evaluation Criterion 53 Statement 53 Plan Reference 54 Evaluation 54 I.10. Evaluation Criterion 54 ) Statement 54 Plan Reference 55 Evaluation 56 I.11. Evaluation Criterion 56 Statement 56 Plan Reference 56 Evaluation 56 1 J. Protective Response (Planning Standard J) 57 J.2. Evaluation Criterion 57 Statement 57 Plan Reference 57 Evaluation 57 ? J.9. Evaluation Criterion 57 Statement 58 Plan Reference 61 q Evaluation 61 J.10 Evaluation Criterion 61 5 J.10.a. Evaluation Criterion 61 Statement 61 Plan Reference 62 Evaluation 62 .r. P ~ p J.10.b. Evaluation Criterion 62 Statement . =................... Plan Reference' 62 Evaluation 63 'J.1U.c. Evaluation Criterion 63 Statement-63 Plan Reference-63 4 Evaluation' 63 1 1 l viii

r 1 May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) J.10.d. Evaluation Criterion 63 Statement 63 Plan Reference 65 Evaluation 65 J.10.e. Evaluation Criterion 65 Statement 65 Plan Reference 66 Evaluation 66 J.10.f. Evaluation Criterion 66 Statement 66 Plan ReferLnce 67 Evaluation 67 J.10.g. Evaluation Criterion 67 Statement 67 Plan Reference 68 Evaluation 69 J.10.h. Evaluation Criterion 69 Statement 69 Plan Reference 69 Evaluation 70 l L J.10.1. Evaluation Criterion 70 L Statement 70 Plan Reference 70 Evaluation 70 J.10.j. Evaluation Criterion 70 Statement 71 Plan Reference 71 Evaluation-71 J.10.k. Evaluation Criterion 71 Statement 71 72 Plan Reference Evaluation 72 72 J.10.1. Evaluation Criterion .1. Statement-72 Plan Reference 73 Evaluation-73 J.10.m. Evaluation Criterion 73 Statement 7 <4 Plan Reference .~. 74 Evaluation 74 b

May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) F.1.c. Evaluation Criterion 34 Statement 34 Plan Reference 34 Evaluation 34 F.1.d. Evaluation Criterion 34 Statement 34 Plan Reference 35 Evaluation 35 i F.1.e. Evaluation Criterion 35 Statement 35 1 Plan Reference 36 i Evaluation 36 F.2. ' Evaluation Criterion 36 Statement 36 i Plan Reference 36 1 Evaluation 37 37 F.3. Evaluation Criterion Statement 37 Plan Reference 37 Evaluation 37 G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G) 38 G.1' Evaluation Criterion-38 Statement 39 Plan Reference.. 39 Evaluation-39 4 G.2.- Evaluation Criterion 39 Statement 40 Plan' Reference 40 ' Evaluation 40 G. 3. - Evaluation Criterion 40 41 ' Statement iL Plan Reference 41 Evaluation 41 'G.4.a. Evaluation Criterion. 41 41 Statement Plan Reference 42 Evaluation -43 G.4.b. _ Evaluation Criterion 43 43 Statement ................ =....- 43 Plan Reference Evaluation 43 l l l l l. vi 1.

'? MQy 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) i G.4.c. Evaluation Criterion 43 Statement 43 Plan Reference 44 f Evaluation 44 G.5. Evaluation Criterion 44 Statement 44 Plan Reference 44 Evaluation 45 H. Emergency Facilities and Equipment (Planning Standard H) 46 H.3. Evaluation Criterion 46 Statement 46 Plan Reference 46 l1 Evaluation 46 h e L H.4. Evaluation Criterion 46 Statement 46 Plan Reference 47 Evaluation 48 H.7. Evaluation Criterion 48 Statement 48 Plan Reference 48 r Evaluation 48 i H.10. Evaluation Criterion 48 l Statement 48 Plan Reference 49 Evaluation 49 H.11. Evaluation Criterion 49-t 49 Statement Plan Reference 49 Evaluation-49 H.12. Evaluation Criterion 49 Statement 50 Plan Reference 50 L Evaluation SCF I. Accident Assessment-(Planning Standard I) 51 I.7.- Evaluation Criterion 51 Statement-51 51 Plan Reference Evaluation 52 vii s

l May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) J.11. Evaluation Criterion 74 Statement 75 Plan Reference 77 Evaluation 77 J.12. Evaluation Criterion 77 Statement 77 Plan Reference 79 Evaluation 79 K. Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K) 80 K.3.a. Evaluation Criterion 80 Statement 80 l Plan Reference 81 Evaluation 81 K.3.b.-Evaluation Criterion 81 Statement 81 Plan Reference 82 Evaluation 82 K.4. Evaluation Criterion 82 Statement 82 e Plan Reference 83 s Evaluation 83 ) K.5.a. Evaluation-Criterion. 83 ' Statement 83 Plan Reference 83 Evaluation 83 g K.5.b. Evaluation Criterion B d. l Statement' 84 Plan Reference 84 j Evaluation 04 L. Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L) 85 d L.1. - Evaluation Criterion 85 Statement 85 Plan Reference 85 Evaluation 85-L. 3. - Evaluation Criterion 86 l Statement ' 86 Plan Reference 86 Evaluation 86 1 X t_ r +.

May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) L.4. E'/aluation Criterion 86 Statement 86 j Plan Reference 87 Evaluation 87 M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations (Planning Standard M) 88 M.1. Evaluation Criterion 88 Statement 88 Plan Reference 88 Evaluation 88 M.3. Evaluation Criterion 88 Statement 89 Plan Reference 89 Evaluation 89 M.4. Evaluation Criterion 89 Statement 89 Plan Reference 89 Evaluation 89 N. Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N) 90 N.1.a.' Evaluation Criterien 90 Statement 90 Plan Reference 90 -Evaluation 90 i .1 N.l.b. Evaluation Criterion 90 l Statement 91 Plan Reference 91 Evaluation 91 N.2. Evaluation Criterion 91 N.2.a. Evaluation Criterion 92 Statement 92 Plan Reference '92 Evaluation 93 N.2.c. Eve'Aation Criterion .- 93 Statement 93 Plan Reference 93 Evaluation 93 N.2.d.-Evaluation Criterion 93 Statement-94 Plan Refnrence 94 Evaluation 94 xi l

w May-1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd)- O.4.k.' Evaluation Criterion . 106 Statement 106 g Plan Reference 106 Evaluation. 106 j 1 106 l

0. 5. -

Evaluation Criterion 1 Statement 107 Plan.Keference 107 4 Evaluation 107 i .O.6. (Evaluation Criterion 107 l Statement-107 I ~ Plan Reference

107, i

--Evaluation 107 P. _ Responsibility for the Planning Ef fort: Development, Periodic heview and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Standard t P) .L._. 108 l P.1. Evaluation Criterion 108 s ._108 i Statement .J. Plan Reference 108 EvaluationL ..-................. 108 P.2.

Evaluation Criterion 108 i

Statement. 108 Plan Reference-109 ' Evaluation ~ . 109 b, I E P. 3.: Evaluation Criterion 109 F Statement 109. PlaniReference 109-Evaluation..~ 109-d ... -...... ^......... -. s -l a 109_ P.~ 4. - Evaluation Criterion ..1. i Statement. -....... -..-.~. 109 i .1.. c. Plan Reference . '110 . Evaluation. . 110 .......... -.........=-... i P. 5 ' Evaluation Criterion. 110 "i . Statement ... 110 Plan-Reference > 1.- .-110 ! Evaluation' 110. r P. 6.. Evaluation Criterion .'110 Statement' .1.-110 i t Plan Reference 111 Evaluation. 111 P ' 7. Evaluation Cr'iterion 111' -Statement 111 Plan Reference . 111 xiv f

[h; ' o 3 +ii May.1990

1. 9 L

CONTENTS (Cont'd) l i Evaluation-111 P.8. Evaluation-Criterion ' 111 l Statement - 111 Plan Reference .........-......... 111 Evaluation 112 I P.10. Evaluation Criterion 112 .) Statement 112 i PlanLReference 112 i Evaluation 112 i P.11. Evaluation Criterion 112 Statement 112 Plan Reference 112 -Evaluation .................... - 112 Review and -Evaluation of -Seabrook Plan for. Massachusetts.

Communities:.

Rating Summary 113 4 cc i I i, i b 4 ,d-j ? E O m t b ' i s J! ( iE j

. l

'I Ye l t I .'\\ 6 d XV I .i,.

rr C May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) _N.2.e.[ Evaluation Criterion 94 Statement 94' Plan Reference 94 Evaluation-94 N.3. Evaluation Criterion 94 N.3.a. Evaluation Criterion 95 Statement-95 Plan Reference 95 Evaluation 95 ( N.3.b._ Evaluation Criterion 95 Statement-95 Plan Reference 95 Evaluation-95 'N;3.c. Evaluation Criterion 96 1 Statement 96 -Plan Reference..- -.. -.............. 96 Evaluation 96 .c ~- N.3.d.' Evaluation Criterion 96 Statement 96 Plan Reference -.................... 96 Evaluation: .96-N.3.e.-Evaluation Criterion 96 Statement 97 Plan Reference --. -................ 97 Evaluation 97 N 3.f. Evaluation Criterion 97 -.. -. ~....... - -.....- Statement 97

Plan Reference 97

Evaluation 98 g-N.4. Evaluation Criterion 98-Statement-98 Plan Reference 98 " Evaluation 98 N.S. Evaluation: Criterion 98 Statement ~ 99 Plan Reference 99 .s. . Evaluation 99 ..........~........... N.6. Evaluation Criterion.. 99 Statement- . - 19 9 - Plan Reference 99 Evaluation. 99-xii ---..--,a,,. a .w.

'@a ( May 1990 l CONTENTS (Cont'd) ( ~ O. Radiological' Emergency Response Training (Planning Standard-y 10) 100 0.1. Evaluation Criterion 100-Statement 100 Plan Reference 100 y i ' Evaluation 100. s, 0.4. Evaluation Criterion 101 i O.4.a. Evaluation Criterion 101 Statement 101 "J Plan-Reference 101 Evaluation 101 0.4.b. Evaluation Criterion 101 Statement 101' Plan Reference-102 .n. Evaluation-102 13.4.c. Evaluation Criterion. 102 Statement 102 Plan Reference-103 y,. Evaluation-............ -........ 103 . 103 ? -0.4.d. Evaluation Criterion 103 l Statement- . -.......~........... Plan. Reference 103 Evaluation . 103 O'14.f.' Evaluation Criterion .-103 3 Jy Statement .............. <....~. 104 W Plan Reference ~ 104 4 Evaluation . 104 .. - 10 4 - l 0.4.g. Evaluation Criterion Statement ..:104 ' Plan Reference 104 .. 104 I Evaluation-i ,uc O.4.h. Evaluation. Criterion . 105-Statement 1105 Plan Reference . 105 l Evaluation 105 4, 0.4.j. Evaluation Criterion 105 Statement ...-105 Plan Reference . 106 Evaluation 106 s xiii l

4 May 1990 ACRONYMS ] ACP Access Control Point .) AMS Aerial Measuring System ARAC Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability ARC-American Red: Cross 1 BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory CDC Center for Disease' Control CPM Counts per minute DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of the Interior H DOT ~ U.S.. Department of Transportation DRD Direc,t Reading Dosimeter EAL Emergency-Action Level 1 EBS Emergency Broadcast System ECL = Emergency Classification Level EMS Emergency Medical Services EMT! Emergency Medical Technician EOC Emergency Operations Center EOF; Emergency Operations Facility. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERPA Emergency-Response Planning Area ETE Study.Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study EPZi Emergency Planning Zone-EWF- , Emergency.WorkeriFacility; FAA-Federal Aviation Administration cFDA U.S.JFood and Drug Administration

FEMA

-FederaliEmergency Management-Agency FRC Federal Response Center; FRERP Federal' Radiological: Emergency Response Plan FRMAP Federal'- Radiological Monitoring and Assessment = Plan } Interagency Radiological ' Assistance (formerly IRAP Plan), DOE GE -General Emergency; GM Guidance-Memoranda HHS' O.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development l i L l l xvi

) May 1990 [IP Implementing Procedure IFO Incident Field-Office JCAH' Joint Committee-on Accreditation of_ Hospitals \\ i KI Potassium Iodide MAGI -Massachusetts Governmental Interface MCDA/OEP-Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency / Office-of Emergency Preparedness MDPH Massachusetts-Department of Public Health METS Melita-Emergency Telenotification System MOU Memorandum of Understanding mR M1111Rcentgen MREM Millirem-NAS Nuclear-Alert System NCRP ' National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements-NCS. National Communications' System NESPERN Northern Essex County Police Emergency Radio Network NEST Nuclear Emergency Search. Team NHY Public Service of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division m NHY ORO New Hampshire Yenkee Offsite Response Organization-NIAT-Nuclear Incident Advisory Team- ~NMCC. Nstional Military Command Center NMFS National: Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOUE-Notification of Unusual Event NRC-Nuclear Regulatory Commission -ORO Offsite Response Organization PA-Protedtive Action ij: PAG; -Protective Action = Guide. i PAR ' Protective Action Recommendation lPNS: -Prompt Notification l System

l s

PSNH Public Service of New Hampshire 3.. i R Roentgen RAC Regional Assistance Committee ~ RACES Radio ~ Amateur Communications Emergency Services F _ REM . Roentgen Equivalent Man RERP Radiological Emergency Response Plan RETCO Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinators RPU Remote Programming' Unit s p SA Staging Area-SAE Site-Area Emergency SPMC Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities b 1 xvii 1-1 ~

---

___J

May 1990' ETCP 'Truffic Control Point -{ -TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter i _TMI Three Mile-Island TP Transfer Point 'TSC. Technical Support Center -USAF U.S. Air Force USCG U.S. Coast Guard-l ,USDA U.S. Depart:aent of _ Agriculture USGS U.S. Geologic Survey VANS Vehicular-Alert and Notification System WSI-Weather Service International YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric Company f YAEL Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory l YAMAP Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Plan i I oz i , lj xviii

May 1990 l ' i i y 1 mag i ~ NEW HAMPSHIRE N ~ am l saw\\ ~ am / samme 101 j m[ 4 -] \\ am som M g gyg amma, anna as 51 -i 125 m_ - g N SEA 8 ROOK STA110N mwm I am am" waan enac -j'- SEABROOK STATION 10-MILE .J,. ,g EMERGENCY-j 5 PLANNING ZONE (EPZ) enn 8W 2 l $$d(NE ) ~ ( FIGURE 1 Seabrook Station Plume Exposure Emergency Planning-Zone xix

c. :- May 1990-i oc t TLAND + 16 ~ 95

j:

33- _.x ,E y CONCOto 1 01 3 tissolmi

• MANCHESTiti

-NEW-93- - b SEAlt00X STATION "[, ' HAMPSHIRE - Th 8' 1

u. sum 10 WE

\\ .,es q to MASSACHUSETTS. Amont 128 L 495 nY -SEABROOK STATION 50-MILE = +. 128 lNGESTION PATHWAY a msta . ZONE (IPZ)-

WOKEUit L b:',

50 Wl.E - H [,G, i-l L FIGURE 2 Seabrook Station Ingestion Exposure Emergency - Planning Zone xx

g ll* l s + l 3] {L.. May 1990 l!.~ Iq h. 1), N REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SEABROOK PLAN 2 FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES INTRODUCTION' This review was-conducted.by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I (FEMA I), with the assistance of the ' Regional Assistance Committee (RAC). The RAC is chaired by FEMA c and has the ;following members: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);' U.S. Department of. Commerce (DOC); U.S. Department of l Energy-(DOE); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); ]' U.S. . Department of the Interior (DOI); U.S. Department of M Transportation (DOT);. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and-the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The RAC ( functions in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Part 351, " Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Response." On November'3, 1987,:the NRC amended its rules to~ provide criteria for the evaluation--of utility prepared emergency plans in situationst in which state and/or local governments decline. to - L . participate further.in emergency planning. On. December 2,

1987, FEMA ^ and the, NRC promulgated an-interim-use document. entitled

" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of. Radiological Emergency . Response? Plans and Preparedness in. Support of Nuclear Power Plants r )

(Criteria: for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness)".

The L document'was. published in November 1987 as Supplement 1 to_NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, = Rev. 1. Supplement 1 'was issued ' as - a final document'in September 1988. The guidance contained in Supplement 1-.is to be used for the development', review, and evaluation of~ offsite! utility radiological planning and preparedness for accidents at' commercial nuclear power plants. ll y L This FEMA review'and evaluation used-NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,. E, .Rev. 1, Supp. 1,' September 1988, as the' basis'(planning standards L Land. specific' criteria) for determining the adequacy of-the ? ,New Hampshire Yankee-Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts. Communities'. ~- FEMA ' Guidance 4 Memorando - (GM) and : FEMA REP-series documents: were 4 Lutilized to ' interpret and: clarify the criteria contained-in Supplement 1. -t Following. is. a summary of the' material. that has.been J D -submitted.to FEMA for' review and evaluation: O Service Company of New L On--September 18,-

1987, Public-Hampshire,-New? Hampshire Yankee Division (NHY),-submittedito the

' NRC - Revision 0 of the "Seabrook Plan for. Massachusetts Communities,." hereafter referred to as the Plan or SPMC.' The Plan-4 consisted of 10' volumes, and one. envelope with Public Information 3 ( Materials. The volumes are-as follows: Plan; Procedures; Plan L Appendices : A through G; Plan Appendix H; Plan Appendix I;- Plan L 1 ~. . ~

~.- May 1991 Appendix J; Plan Appendix K; Plan Appendix L; Plan Appendix M; and Plan-- Appen lix N. _.It should be noted that certain proprietary 'informatiot was redacted from the submitted material. On' November 27, 1987, the NRC forwarded the Plan to FEMA. Under provisions of the FEMA /NRC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) fof - April 1985, the NRC requested FEMA to review the Plan and i provide findings (interim finding). The NRC requested that FEMA utilize'the Supplement 1 criteria document as the basis for FEMA's review,. evaluation,.and FEMA findings. On December 2, 1987, the NRC supplemented its November 27, ) 1987-request to FEMA. The NRC requested FEMA to use the following assumption in reviewing and evaluating the Plan: FEMA should o assume-that in an--actual' radiological emergency, State and-local officials that have declined to participate'in emergency planning will:=. exercise-their.best ef forts to protect the health and safety of the public; cooperate with the utility and follow the utility. of fsite plan; and have the resources suf ficient to implement those portions of-the utility of fsite plan where State and local response J is necessary. On December 18, 1987, NHY wrote the NRC stating that NHY expected NRC and FEMA to utilize Supplement i for the Federal review and evaluation. On December 30, 1987, NHY provided to the NRC certain information that was redacted from Revision 0 of the Plan. L On December 30,-1987, FEMA Region I requested the RAC and, the FEMA 'staf f to review -the Plan. FEMA Region. I designated Mr. Richard W. Donovan to servo as the RAC Chairman for the review p and evaluation of the Plan (Seabrook RAC Chairman).. r. p .On January 7, 1988 the-Deputy Assistant General. Counsel for. l the NRC notified interested parties that ' the - Alerting System L .(sirens.in the plume-EPZ. portion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) described in the Plan will no longer be relied upon .by NHY. On: January 15,'1988,- the'Seabrook RAC Chairman requested that the FEMA Region I-RAC utilize Supplement l'for their review. 1 The Seabrook RAC Chairman-informed the RAC that the following assumptions were to be applied to the review and evaluation of'the L Plan:. in an actual radiological emergency, State and local L officials.that have declined to' participate in emergency planning will: exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the. public; : cooperate with the utility and' follow the utility 'I of fsite plan;-and have the-resources sufficient to implement those ) portions of the utility of fsite plan where State and loca1' response l-is necessary. 2

May 1990 i i i - On January -20, 1988, NRC provided certain redacted material -to FEMA. -On February 12, 1988, NHY provided additional.information in response to the NRC letter, dated February 5, 1988. The following information was provided: Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study and Traf fic Management Plan Update (August 12, 1986)' -(ETE Study); Documentation on the Seabrook METPAC Computer Sof tware Package and the_ backup HP-41 CX Calculator-EPROM System (these-systems provide the means to evaluate the consequences of an off-site radioactive airborne release); dummary of. the NHY ORO Training Classes, dated 2/8/88; the draft Farmers Brochure, " Emergency Information for Farmers," and a copy of the existing Massachusetts Department of Agriculture's Farmers. Brochure; a copy of the Yankee Atomic. Environmental Laboratory Procedures and a copy of the draft Yankee ?.tomic Mutual Assistance Plan; NHY ORO lesson plans as ' refer:,nced in Appendix K of the Plan; status report on preparedness -efforts for Special. Populations in the Massachusetts Communities; and a status' report on congregate care f acilities/American Red Cross. On February 16, 1985, NHY provided plan updates, referred-to-as-Amendment 11. On February 19, 1988, NHY provided plan updates, referred to as Amendment 2. On April 1,1988, NHY: provided planL updates,. referred to as 3 -Amendment 3.- i on April 14_, 1988, ' NHYl provided plan : updates, referred.to _t l as Amendment 4. .. On April 29; 1988,- NHY.provided :he Seabrook' Station-Public Alert ; and Notification _ System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report,E dated ' April 30, 1988.- . Amendment 5; NHY provided p:.an updates,. referred to as i On May.23,.1988,. { i On. July 29, 1988, NHY provided proposed ? revised public a linformation. materials.

On August 2, 1988, NHY-provided plan updates, referred to

.as-Amendment 6. On September-22,'1988,_NHY provided FEMA with copies of-leases!and' agreements-for-VANS as well-as copies of prescripted Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) messages. 3

Y., ;. 'May 1990 T - On' September 27, 1988, the NRC notified FEMA'by memorandum of-<:ertain information regarding the role of the American Red Cross 'in offsite radiological emergency planning-at SNPS. On' September-28,

1988, NHY notified the Seabrook RAC Chairman by letter of the plan of NHY ORO to resolva issues in the October 1988 draft Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan. for Massachusetts Communities.

On October 6, 1988, NHY provided a letter to the Seabrook RAC Chairman enclosing updated letters of agreement. On October 11, 1988 NRC provided FEMA with-updated letters l of agreement provided to NRC by NHY. i On October 14, 1988, NHY provided to FEMA Addendum 1 to the Seabrook. Station - Public Alert and Notification System. NHY provided_to the Seabrook RAC Chairman the revisions to the proposed farm' brochure. - On October 28, 1988, NHY provided the Seabrook RAC Chairman a revised. position.concerning a time. dependent dose conversion- . f actor. and an outline of the ' promised revision to the priority _ - scheme for7the notification;and the provision of transportation-assistance to special populations in-the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts communities. On' December 1, 1989, HHY provided-plan updaten, referred to as Revision 1 to the'SPMC. t In December 1989', NHY provi&d.the Seabrook Station' Evacuation Time - Study and the.. Seabrook Station. Evaceation Time ' Study; Handbook. ~ On March 30,-1990, NHY.provided Addendum;2-to the FEMA-REP-10 ' Design ' Repor+.. On : Arril : 13,: 1990, NHY provided the status and additional .informatior-on ' specific-Letters-of. Agreement and Contracts contained Un SPMC,,AppendixLC,to the Seabrook'RAC Chairman. On April 20, 1990, NHY notified the Seabrook RAC Chairman of NHY's plans to revise the SPMC (as part of the 1990.SPMC annual ~ update) _ based:.upon technical -assicitance and review comments provided 'by the :Seabrook RAC Chairman ori the. SPMC, Revision 1. 4 g. y g &e-w i.- --,vw su-w- t

May. 1990 i REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING' STANDARDS AND-EVALUATION CRITERIA-The-- review and evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Co.tmunities is attached. The format reproduces each planning = standard and specific criterion of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. _1,, Supp. - 1, followed by - a statement-of the Plan contents related--to each review criterion, a Plan reference, and an evaluation section. s 5 l l

g 1 4 A. May 1990 j A REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINST PLANNING STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control) (Planning Standard A): o Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear l facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various-supporting organizations have been specifically - established, and each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial q . response on a continuous basis. u ~ ' Evaluation Criterion A.1. a. The offsite plan shall identify the elements of the 1 i offsite response organization for Emergency Planning Zones (see_ Appendix 5 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1).' Statement A.1. a. The - Plan- (Table 2.0-1)- defines the offsite response organization as including the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY ORO), supported by the h U.S. Coast: Guard (USCG), the Department of the Interior (DOI), the-Federal Aviation : Administration (FAA), the i! American Red Cross, and various private' organizations. Table. ' 2. 0 and ~section-3.1 indicate that - NHY ORO' communications with the -USCG and the' FAA will be coordinated through the - host state-for L Seabrook,- New Hampshire.. Portions of the' State ~of New Hampshire and the commonwealth of Massachusetts are situated within the plume exposure EPZ~. Portions - of the State of. New Hampshire, the State of Maine, and the-Commonwealth of Massachusetts are situated within the ingestion exposure i EPZ. LAccording-to Section 1.11of the~ Plan,--the' Commonwealth l' ~ f Massachusetts, the City of.Newburyport, and the Towns o j Offolte response organization is defined as the utility offsite L. emergency. response. organization along with other participating voluntary and private organizations, and local, State and Federal governments engaging in the development of offsite emergency plans i for a nuclear power plant. l 6

'i May :1990 o -of Amesbury,

Merrimac, Newbury, Salisbury, 'and West Newbury: are - not currently participating in emergency planning for Seabrook Station.

The Plan includes the _American ked Cross as a participating organization and ,T the Red Cross 'has stated in - a-letter to NHY dated l) September 1 0,. 1 9 8 7-that-it will respond in case of an l. ' emergency. However, a discussion on February 23, 1988-3 L -between FEMA staff and Red Cross Southern New England s t a f f. i n.d i c a t e d that the Red Cross is not presently participating ~in this planning process. The Plan has been developed.in ' recognition of, and to n' - compensate for_.the fact-that,; the Commonwealth of Mar 7Tchusetts-and above-mentioned local communities are 1 l" not currently participating in emergency planning for the Seabrook Station. Plan-Referent,e h A'.1.a.' Section l 1.1; Section

2. 0 ; Section '3.1; Figure 1.3-1; Figure 1.3-2; Table 2.0-1; and-Table 2.3-1.

Evaluation A.1. a. Adequate. The NRC has addressed the role of the American Red Cross- .(ARC) in CLI-87,-5: e.g., the American Red Cross. charter f rom. Congress, as well as' > American Red. Cross policy, require - the' ARC to : provide aid in.any radiologicallor natural' disaster. NRC indicated to,. FEMA- (9/27/88-l memorandum)'that this ruling is. applicable to the FEMA review of the-SPMC. D4 a a 4' Evaluation Criterion A.1. b. The offsite response ' organization shall _specify its: concept of operations,_ and'its. relationship to the total' effort. The concept ~of: operation will explain-how.the ~ ' of fsite response 1. organization will' function with. non-participating State - and :. local-~ governments,.and ^ will specify_the various modes of operation. Statement A.1.b. The Plan describes the concept of operations of the NHY 7 =:

1 May.1990 i ORO in;Section 3.1. A flow chart, Figure 3.1-1, depicts how the. NHY ' ORO ' will function - with nonparticipating Commonwealth'and local governments during a radiological emergency.- The Plan states that the NHY ORO will function in one of three' Modes.- Following is a brief j description of the three modes: Standby and continue accident ' Standby Mode assessment and monitor State /locallresponse; Mode 1 - Supplies needed resources only; Implements specific - authorized actions, ' Mode 2 supplies any needed resources, integrates _ response into-State / local response; or takes-. control if authorized. Integrates NHY, State,-localj and Federal h.

Response

into Seabrook Plan .for Massachusetts Communities. Plan Reference i A.1.b. Section 3.1; Figure 3.1-1; IP~1.1; and IP 2.14. Evaluation-i .s L - A.1.b. Adequate. 1 . Evaluation-Criterion A.1. c. The - offsite-plan: 'shall illustrate-these. ~ interrelationships in a block diagram. This diagram will -define the. roles'for the offsite response: organization 1 and non-participating State'and' local, governments, and identify the lead-interfaces. ~ ll i } -Statement L A.1.c. The Plan illustrates relationships between the -NHY. ORO, p the' participating organizations,:and the nonparticipating- ' organizations in Figure 2.0-1. Personnel c assigned '. to each'NHY'ORO position are set out.in Figure 2.1-1. The 2 1 l lead interfaces between the NHY ORO and nonparticipating h Commonwealth and. local governments are. summarized in Table:2.2-1 and-Table 2.2-2. 1, I [ -I 8 i (..

May 1990_ i P Plan Reference A.1.c. Section 2.0; Section 2.1; Section 2.2; Figure 2.0-1; Figure 2.1-1; Table 2.2-1; and Table 2.2-2. Evaluation A.1.c. Adequate. i Evaluation Criterion A.1. d. The offsite response organization shall identify a specific individual by title who shall be in charge of .the emergency response. 1 i ' Statement A.1.d. The Plan states : that the Offeite Response Director is responsible. for - directing the NHY ORO

Response

j -Organization. The Offsite . Response Director i responsibilities include the following: working with the' Governors of New Hampshire and Massachusetts; working with the'Seabrook Station Response Manager;' determining- . protective _ action recommendations (PARS) for Massachusetts; obtaining approval from_ _ Governor of 4 -Massachusetts'to implement. pas and~ response activities in-Massachusetts;' issuing public information material-concerning; _ response -activities; approving exposures greater 'than 25 rem for'NHY ORO- ' personnel only; committing resources from New '. Hampshire, Yankee, t and

requesting Federal assistance and working with FEMA.

There are two-NHY Assistant Offsite~ Response Directors for each shif t.. One is responsible for implementing' pas. ~ The - other ~is responsible for providing ' communications between ' NHY ORO' and: the various< Federal and state - ! organizations'and the utility. In the event the: Offsite Response Director has-to le' ave the facility,.one ofthe Assistant Offsite Response-Directors will act as.Offsite Response' Director. 4 The Offsite

Response

Director-is: _ responsible for supervising. six. subordinates (Fig.. 2'.1-1)., IP 1.1 describes 1the. actions for the NHY ORO Offsite-Response Director and. Assistants in the-event ofian emergency at? Seabrook Station. of fIP'1.1 (Federal-Support Coordination) addresses-the interfaces with the .Various Federal agencies.. - of IP 1.1 (Conditional

Response

Activities) addresses the 9

d 7 q May. 1990 _j interfaces with the Commonwealth of_ Massachusetts, the six local Massachusetts communities,-the-State of New I Hampshire, and Seabrook Station. of IP 1.1 addresses the--ongoing activities of the Offsite Response Director and describes. the management style - of the -Offsite: Response Director.- The management functions include, among other things, a briefing;of key staff following.each. change in classification (ECL).'and each j authorized PA. j i Plan Reference - A.1.d. Section _2.1; Figure 2.1-1; Section 3.1; and IP 1.1.. Evaluation A.1.d. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion l> ' A.1' e. The of fsite response organization, shall provide for 24-hour per' day: emergency response, including 24-hour.per day _staffingLof communications links.- Statement 1 A.1.e. The -- Plan '(Section 2.1.1). states. that the - NHY ORO is' .j structured for'and capable of-providing;and-maintaining-24-hour _ staf fing, for ' a protracted emergency. The. communications" link between Seabrook Sta ion and the NHY ORO is designated as the NHY ORO'EOC. Contact Point, -which - ) .is staffed on=a 24-hour basis. J a Plan-Reference-A.1.e. Section - 2.1.1; Section 3. 2.1; Section - 3.2. 2 ; ; and IP 2.1.- f .) Evaluation. u "l

A.1.e. - Adequate..

In Evaluation Criterion A. 2.a. The offsite response organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key 10 _=-

. -i May 1990 individuals'by title, of emergency response, including the following: Command and

Control, Alerting and Notification, Communications, Public Information, Accident Assessment, Public Health and Sanitation, Social Services, l'

Fire and Rescue, Traffic Control, Emergency ' Medical

Services, Law. Enforcement, Transportation, Protective i

Response _ (including authority to request Federal 1 assistance and to initiate other protective actions)', and Radiological. Exposure Control.- _The description of-these functions shall include a clear and concise summary such a [ as a. table of primary and support responsibilities using l L the agency as one. axis, and the function as the other. ~~ -This description shall specify those functions-which require State and local authorization before implementing, i such as: 1. Directing traffic; ii._; Blocking roadways, erecting barriers in roadways and channeling traffic; l 111. Posting traffic signs on roadways; ,f 1 iv. Removing obstructions from public roadways, including towing vehicles; v.- Activating sirens'and; directing the broadcastinc of' t EBS messages; vi. Making' decisions _and reco'mmendations to the'public concerningl protective.' actions for the plume exposure pathway; i 4 Lvii. Making decisions and recommendations-toitheLpublic concerning, protective actions for the ingestion 4 exposure pathway; viii. Making _. decisions'and recommendations to the public-j concerning recovery and reentry; ix. Dispensing fuel from_ tank trucks to automobiles along roadsides; l

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

m a-11

4 May. ~ 3 990 w: l i Statement A.2.a.'The-Plan describes the NHY ORO emergency response functions and responsibilities for key individuals (Table 2.0-1).. The functions-. include command and control, communications, notifications, public alerting, public j information, accident assessment, shelter-in-place, evacuation, access and traffic control, food, water and ~ milk control, radiological exposure control, emergency' u ' medical. services, congregate care, law enforcement, fire-j . and rescue, public health and sanitation, and reentry and j recovery. Tables 2.0-l', 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.3-1 in Section 2, indicate J the primary and support responsibilities for NHY ORO, l' . Commonwealth,. local, Federal, and' private organizations. 'to:IP:2.14 includes textual descriptions of the functions which require Commonwealth 'and local-authorization before-implementation. i 1* Plan Reference A. 2.a.< SectionL2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5; Table 2.0-1; Table 2'.2-1; Table 2.2-2; Table 2.3-1; and IP~2.14. Evaluation A. 2. a.? Adequate, f l Evaluation criterion A. 2.b.' Thei of f site -. plan shall'_ contain where applicable. _(by I reference to. specific: acts, codes or' statutes) the legal-basis for.such authorities including those that reserve ~ b functions-to State and local governments.. Statement-A. 2.b. The Plan. identifies legal authorities-'regarding the. i rL, involvement of the Commonwealth of: Massachusetts'in plans-and preparedness-for' a radiological emergency at a ~ commercial nuclear power plant. The Plan-identifies an. ~ NRC - regulation' regarding - the involvement of NHY ORO in L plans and: preparedness for a radiological emergency at a commercial. nuclear power plant.- 12

__7_____._ y May - 1990 I i + i Plan Reference A. 2.b. Section 1. 2. l Evaluation - A. 2.b. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion A.3. The offsite plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of. operations developed between Federal agencies, the offsite response organization, and other-support organizations having an emergency response role within-the Emergency Planning _ Zones. The agreements-shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and-7 the mutually acceptable criteria' for their implementation, j and specify the arrangements _for exchange of information. These. agreements;may be provided in ' an appendix to the

offsite plan or ' the offsite plan 'itself may - contain descriptions ~of these matters and a signature page in the offsite plan;may serve to verify the ~ agreements.

.The

signature page format is appropriate. for-organizations.

'where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders lwhere separate written agreements are i not necessary. ) Statement-A.3., The 4 Plan indicates that: the NHY and the State of-New s Hampshire have-executed' a:LLetter _-of . Agreement "to establish radiological emergency preparedness notification _and response.".It specifies concepts of operation between^ .the-two regarding-alert-and notification, exchanges of: 1 'information, evaluation, 'and implementationL of-precautionary actions for special populations, accident-

assessment. measures for ~ both the plume and ' ingestion-

' exposure EPZs, and the coordination of public information and-rumorJ control activities. Spec'ific ' lead L functions - 3", 1are assigned to the State of New Hampshire concerning the = notification and coordination of emergency activities with .the State of Maine, the USCG, the-FAA, and the-Boston & Emine. Railroad.. The USCG _ has signed a Memorandum, 'of Understanding with the State of New Hampshire to provide control', notification, and restriction - of waterborne traffic. 13 u l l

3: :.; .- n 1 May 1990 T m 4 The NHY ORO has an agreement with the Department of the- ~ Interior (DOI), which is verified by a signature page acknowledged by New Hampshire Yankee and the Parker River . National Wildlife Refuge. This document provides for NHY- -~ ORO to communicate directly with DOI in the event ot a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station. Plan Reference A.3. Section-3.1; Section 7.2.2; Appendix C; and Appendix F. Evaluation A.3.

Adequate, w

' Evaluation criterion A.4. ' The of f site response organization shall be capable of vcontinuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period. The individual in-the offsite response. organization who ,^ willebe responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, ' administrative, and material) shall. be. specified by title. Statement ~ A. 4 '. The. Plan stittes that the NHY OROfis capable of providing - and maintaining La: continuous :(24 hour) staffingcfor a protracted. emergency.- Twosshifts of personnel'have been: designated for'most. positions.- Figure 2.1-l' summarizes-E ~ the various positions and' numbers of-personneliassigned Lto each. - The. Support Services Coordinator, is responsible for. procurement of. manpower'and resources to= support the emergency response. The Plan states (Section 2.1.1).that - certain' -evacuation ' support-related positions as s e identified,in! Figure-2.1-1,-'only require one. shift.. ~ In - addition, the Plan provides a 20% staffing cushion for the: single-shift positions-to-account-for those'.who might-be unavailable at:any-particular time. 7 Plan Reference t l A.4. Section 2.1.1; Figure 2.1-1; and staffing rosters. 14 4 ,1

J. i

p 1

May 1990-j C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard.C): Arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance - resources have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and-local staff at the - licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility: have been made, and other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified. .l Evaluation Criterion C.1. -The Federal government maintains in-depth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the j ' Federal. Radiological'- Emergency. Response Plan. Each' offsite response ' organization and licensee shall make provisions - 1 for - incorporating the Federal response capability into -its operations

plan, including-the f ollowing::

l C.1.a. specific. persons by title authorized. to re' quest Federal- -l assistance; see-A.1.d, A.2.a;. + j Statement-1 C.1.a. The l Plan states that the New Hampshire-Yankee of fsite - Response Director, through the Assistant Offsite Response. Director' (Support Liaison), swill request . Federal assistance wnen: authorized by the State of. Massachusetts. 4 Plan-Reference

n,,

C.1'. a. - Section 2.1.1.' 1 Evaluation: C.1.a. Adequate.. <l - Evaluation. Criterion C.1.b. specific Federal resources L expected, including expected y^ times of arrival at-specific nuclear. facility s,ites; and Statement = C;1.b.. Specific Federal resource's are identified for each Fe'deral: agency that is expected to assist in the offsite response.. 16 + 6 e e en.

.v 'F May ' 1990 su Specific-- times ' of arrival are estimated to be between three and ' eight hours for the lead Federal response

agencies, t

Plan Reference C.1.b. Section 2. 3 ; Table 2. 3-1; and Table 2.3-2. Evaluation ( C.1.b. Adequate. L Evaluation Criterion-c.1.c. Specific - licensee and offsite response-organization --resources available to' support the Federal response, e.g., air

fields, command " posts,_ telephone -lines,

. radio i frequencies,and telecommunications centers. i - Statement C.1.c. The Plan-lists a number of airports available for Federal- -;use._ Space and telephone lines:have been designated for FEMA and;NRC--in the NHY ORO EOC. and Media Center., The a -Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, is'

responsible for;providing communication : links. between NHY-ORO and Federal agencies, and other non-technical-support forL thei Federal response..

.If directed:by'the Offsite-Response Director or Assistant Offsite Response:Directorf ~ (Support Liaison), the Emergency Preparedness Advisor will~ assume'a liaison role for the. coordinationt._of federal

resources.

Plan' Reference 'i C.1.c. Section-2'.1; -- Section 2. 3. 2 ; Section~ 4. 6 ; Section 5.1.2; Section -5.2.1; Section-5.4; IP 1.1 ;, Figure ~4.0-1;: Figure l5.2-2;Eand-Figure 5.2-12.- Evaluation C.'1.c. Adequate. 17 1 4 -w,a .w.. . er

May 1990 L Evaluation Criterion-l- C.2. The offsite ' response ' organization may dispatch representatives to the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility. (Technical analysis representatives t at'the near-site--EOF are preferred.) Statement C.2. The Plan indicaties that the NHY ORO "OC and the Seabrook Station EOF'are located within the same? facility. Key interfaces for these two organizations. occur between-the Seabrook Station Response Manager and the' NHY Offsite Response Director (which can-be via the NHY ORO Technical Advisor) and between the Seabrook Station EOF-Coordinator ^ and the NHY ORO:, Assistant Of f siteL Response - Director, Support Liaison. ' Plan' Reference C. 2 ~. - Section 2.1; Section 5.'l; and Section 5.2. Evaluation C.2. Adequate. . Evaluation Criterion. C. 3 '. -- The^ of fsite. response. : organization. shall-identify ' j radiologicalolaboratories:and their general = capabilities-1 and: expected availability to :-. provide radiological: monitoring and analyses 1 services which:can-be used-in an-emergency. Statement C.3' The' Plan: identifies a radiological ' laboratory - (with : multiple f acilities),- 'and its L general capabilities. and expected availability for analysis' service. Air sample cartridges and particulate f11ters are to be delivered to the Seabrook Station - EOF in Newington, New Hampshire, i where they -are -to be analyzed.for radioiodine -and particulates by. personnel and equipment from Yankee Atomic Electric Company. A mobile laboratory equipment -van-(belonging to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory) is identified in the-Plan for analysis of air samples and 18

r May ~ _1990 environmental samples. The NHY ORO will -deliver environmental and food samples to the Yankee Atomic Environmental - Laboratory in Westborough, _ Massachusetts, [ for-analysis. The laboratory sample analysis capacities p. are as-follows: for the Mobile Laboratory Equipment Van,_ gamma spectroscopy for screening samples, average time for _ r screening is-10-15 minutes, _ and 96. samples can be analyzed : per-day; :and for the Yankee. Atomic Environmental 1 i,,

Laboratory, gamma spectroscopy analysis for radioiodines, W

cesiums and other fission products, in average time for- , sample analysis of'4, hours,.and 50-100 samples can be analyzed per day,.and analysis for strontium,. average time j for sample analysis-of 1-2 days, and 10-20 samples can be s. L handled. per day. The -Plan states that additional L ' laboratory assistance capabilities can be obtained' by i' activation-of the New England Compact.by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State.of New Hampshire, - and -[ additional Federal laboratory support can be obtained through the activation of the FRERP. l H Plan Reference l C. 3. - Section~3.3.4; Table 3.3-3; and Appendix B. h v r Evaluation q 4 m-C.3.- Adequate.. Evaluation Criterion-C.4.. The'offsite response organization shall' identify nuclear .and other. facilities,-organizations'or-individualsowhich m -can be relied upon in'an emergency to. provide assistance. i .Such assistance ' shall be ' identified and ' supported by appropriate-letters;of agreement. ] -Statement cC.4.. : The: Plan states that NHY ORO has contracts and letters of agreement with various support organizations, Land .i

individuals. These' support groups. include:7(1). Emergency Broadcast-System -(use of-EBS'Lstations to broadcast emergency or public information messages); (2) hospitals

_l .(hospitals' outside the Plume Exposure EPZ to ' treat contaminated injured individuals or accept evacuees from special . facilities within the EPZ); (3) ambulance companies (provide emergency' vehicles capable of 19 _ i _. y . $.s .n- --,e s

.,; a- =, May 1990 j.' The NHY ORO has an agreement with the Department of the Interior (DOI), which-is verified by a signature page acknowledged by New Hampshire Yankee and the Parker River -National-Wildlife Refuge. This document provides for'NHY _ORO to. communicate directly with DOI in the event of a. = radiological emergency at-Seabrook Station. Plan Reference A.3.. Section 3.1; Section 7.2.2; Appendix C; and Appendix F. Evaluation- 'A.3.- Adequate.= Evaluation Criterion A.4 ;. The of f site - response organization shall be ' capable of continuous (24-hour.) operations for a protracted period. The individual in:the offsite response organization.who -will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be-specified by title. 1 StdatementJ ~ -A.4.- The Plan states that the-'NHY OROtisicapable of providing L< and. maintaining a. continuous.(24 hour); staf fing for a protracted emergency. Two shifts ~of; personnel have'been-1 .' designated for most positions. Figurr ? 1-1-summarizes-thenvarious positions;and numbers of',..rsonnel-assigned ~ ito each. The support Services Coordinator is responsible- .for procurement.of manpower and resources to support the emergency response..;The'. Plan ~ states (Section.2.1.1) that-certain' evacuatio-support-related. -positions', ' as - 1dentified in' Figure 2.1-1,'only. require one.-shift. In-f addition, the Plan provides a 20% staffing cushion for the- > single-shift positions to account for those'who'might be-. ' unavailable at any particular. time.. 4 .. Plan Reference A.4. Section 2.1.1;. Figure 2.1-1;.and staffing rosters. 3 14 c

d,s.a M. Hay 1990 Evaluatic. A.4. Adequate. FEMA has reviewed staffing rosters in 1988, 1989, and 1990. FEMA found that adequate numbers of staff were identified and trained to staff all designated positions (24-hour per day operations basis or evacuation support-related basis). { 4 7 d + I e )i i 4 15

Hay 1990 { C. Emergency Response Support and Resources (Planning Standard C): Arrangements, f or requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and other organizations capable of s augmenting the planned response have been identified. g Evaluation Criterion i'F C.1. The Federal government maintains in-depth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Each offsite response organization and licensee shall make provisions 'for incorporating the Federal response capability into its operations

plan, including the following:

C.1.a. specific persona by title authorized to requent Federal assistance; see A.1.d, A.2.a; Statement C.1. a. The Plan states that the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Director, through the Assistant offsite Response Director (Support. Liaison), will request Federal assistance when authorized by the State of Massachusetts. Plan Reference C. ) a'. Section 2.1.1. s Evaluation C.1.a. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion. c.1.b. specific Fe'deral resources expected, including expected times of arrival at specifiq nuclear facility s,ites; and' Statement C.1'.b. Specific Federal resources are identified for each Federal agency that is expected to assist-in the of fsite response. 16 u r

May 1990 i t Specific times of arrival are estimated to be between three and eight hours for the lead Federal response agencies. Plan Reference l C.1.b. Section 2. 3 ; Table 2. 3-1; and Table 2.3-2. Evaluation C.1.b. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion c.1.c. Specific licensee and offsite response-organization resources available to support the Federal response, e.g., air

fields, command

posts, telephone

lines, radio.

frequencies and telecommunications centers. Statement r C.1.c. The Plan lists a number of airports available for Federal use. Space and telephone lines.have been designated for FEMA and NRC in the NHY ORO EOC and Media Center. The Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, is j-responsible for providing communichtion links between NHY ORO and: Federal agencies, and other non-technical support for the Federal response. If directed by the Offsite Response Director or Assistant'Offsite Response Director t (Support Liaison), the Emergency Preparedness Advisor will q assume a If aison role for the. coordination of federal resources. Plan Reference, C.1.c. Section 2.1; Section 2.3.2; Section 4.6; Section 5.1.2; Section 5.2.1; Section 5.4; IP 1.1; Figure 4.0-1; Figure 5.2-2; and Figure 5.2-12. Evaluation C.i.c. Adequate. P 17

May 1990 Evaluation criterion l C.2. The offsite response organization may dispatch representatives to the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility. (Technical analysis representatives at the near-site EOF are preferred.) Statement i C.2. The Plan indicates that the NHY ORO EOC and the Seabrook Station EOF are located within the same' facility. Key interfaces for these two organizations occur between the Seabrook Station Response Manager and the NHY Offsite Response Director (which can be via the NHY ORO Technical Advisor) and between the Seabrook Station EOF Coordinator and the NHY ORO Assistant Offeito Response Director, Support Liaison. Plan Reference C.2. Section 2.11 Section 5.1; and Section $.2. Evaluation C.2. Adequate. i Evaluation criterion C.3. The offsite response organization shall identify ~, radiological laboratories and their general capabilities and expected availability' to. provide radiological monitoring and analyses services which can be used in an emergency. Statement C.3. The Plan identifies a radiological laboratory (with multiple facilities), and its-general capabilities and expected. availability for analysis service. Air sample cartridges and particulate filters are to be delivered to the Seabrcok Station EOF in Newington, New liampshire, .where they-are to be analyzed for. radiciodine and particulates by personnel and equipment from Yankee Atomic Electric ~ Company. A mobile laboratory equipment-van (belonging to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory) is identified in the Plan for analysis of air samples and 18

May 1990 environmental samples. The NHY ORO will deliver environmental and food samples to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory in Westborough, Massachusetts, for analysis. The laboratory sample analysis capacities are as follows: for the Mobile Laboratory Equipment Van, gamma spectroscopy for screening samples, average time for screening is 10-15 minutes, and 96 samples can be analyzed per day; and for the Yankee Atomic Environmental i Laboratory, gamma spectroscopy analysis for radiciodines, cesiums and other fission products, an average time for sample analysis of 4 hours, and 50-100 sampics can be analyzed per day, and analysis for strontium, average time for sample analysis of 1-2 days, and 10-20 samples can be handled per day. The Plan states that additional laboratory assistance capabilities can be obtained by activation of the New England Compact by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire, and aduitional Federal laboratory support can be obtained through the activation of the FRERP. Plan. Reference C.3. Section 3.3.4; Table 3.3-3; and Appendix B. Evaluation C.3. Adequate. Evaluation criterion C.4. The offsite response organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities,. organizations or individuals which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assictance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement. Statement C.4. The Plan states that N!!Y ORO has-contracts and letters of . agreement with'. various support organizations, and individuals. These support groups include. ( 1)'. Emergency Broadcast System (use.of'.EBS stations to broadcast emergency or public information messages); (2) hospitals (hospitals outside the Plume Exposure EPZ to treat contaminated injured individuals or accept evacuees from special facilities within the EPZ); (3) ambulance companies (provide . emergency vehicles capable of 19 .i + .t

May 1990 s transporting nonambulatory and contaminated and/or injured individuals); (4) bus companies (vehicles and drivers 'i capable of transporting

evacuees, including school children out of the Plume Exposure EPZ); (5) Yankee Atomic Electric Company (support available from Yankee Atomic Laboratory and regional nuclear utilities, e.g.,

laboratories, instrumentation, and monitoring and field sampling personnel, traffic

guides, route

guides, reception center personnel and other non-technical Yankee

] personnel); (6) road crew companies (towing service during an evacuation); (7) helicopter service (helicopters for surveillance of evacuation, road impediment spotting, transportation of key personnel, and field sample transportation); (8) snow removal (snow removal from NHY ORO facilities); (9) leases / letters of agreement for the VANS staging areas; (10) radiological waste disposal and transportation, if required, from the decontamination facilities; and (11) the American Red Cross, which will operate and provide staff for Congregate care centers (if extra staff are available, will provide staff for the Reception Centers). See comments in A.1.a regarding the ARC and the NRC memorandum of September 27, 1988 to FEMA regarding the NRC's position (CLI-87-5). Plan Reference 6 C.4. Section 2.4 and Appendix C. Evaluation C.4. Adequate. FEMA has received frc:': New Hampshire Yankee in January of-1989 and January of 1990 annual letters of certification. + -The 1990: annual letter of certification states that the i various agreements contained in Appendix.C are current. FEMA has. discussed the status of certainL letters of - agreement and specific purchase orders with NHY. FEMA has [ reviewed the records of NHY with regard to these letters-of agreement and purchase orders.- _NHY has indicated i (letter-dated. April 13, 1990) that comments on specific- ' letters of agreement and purchase orders will be ' addressed with the letters of agree.aent/ purchase orders are renewed. Following the renewal of letters of agreement / purchase orders, the revised or updated documents'will be issued as part of the: annual plan revision, as appropriate. 20

I May 1990 t Evaluation Criterion C.S. The offsite response organization shall identify liaison personnel to advise and assist State and local officials during an actual emergency in implementing those portions of the offsite plan where State or local response is identified. Statement C.S. The Plan states that NHY ORO has identified personnel that will accompany, advise, and/or assist commonwealth and local officials in implementing portions of the NHY ORO l Plan. 1 Personnel assigned to advise and assist Commonwealth and local officials include: (1) Local EOC Liaisons (ono liaison reports-to each local EOC and assists in the response ef forts of that community); -(2) Dosimetry Record l Keepers.(one record keeper to_ issue dosimetry for local emergency workers); (3) State Liaisons (one liaison reports to each of the following f acilities: the State EOC i L in-Framingham, the Area I EOC in Tewksbury, and the MDPH office in Boston to better support the State's emergency response and to provide. status reports of tne State's emergency response directly to the NHY ORO); and (4) Public Information Coordinator / Advisor (reports to the Media Center) and is responsible for assisting Common-1 -wealth and local government-officials with public l information and rumor control activities. 1 Plan Reference C.S. Section 1.1; Section 2.1; IP 1.8; IP 1.11; IP 2.8r IP l 2.12; and IP 2.14. t Evaluation i h C.S. . Adequate.; N h i 21

M3y 1990 D. Emergency Classification System (Planning Standard D): A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by f acility licensees for determinations of minimum initial of fsite response measures. Evaluation Criterion D.3. The offsite response organitation shall establish an emergency classification and emergency action level scheme consistent with that establishe t by the f acility licencee. statement D.3. The Plan establishes four emergency classification levels: (1)' Notification of Unusual Event; (2) Alert; (3) Site Area Emergency; and (4) General Emergency. The Plan states that this emergency classification system is based upon the Emergency Action Levels established by the Seabrook Station. Plan Reference 1 D.3. Section 1.3.2. i Evaluation L D.3. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion L l D.4.. The offsite response organization should have. procedures in place-that provide for implementing emergency actions i' and that-provide for advising State and local officials' on emergency actions to be taken which are consistent with L -the emergency actions recommended by the nuclear f acility I licensee, taking-into account local offsite c.onditions 4 l- -that exist at the time of the emergency. l l-Statement s D.4. The Plan states that NHY ORO has procedures in place to implement emergency actions. 22

t My 1990 'The Plan states that NHY ORO will advise the Commonwealth and local officials on appropriate emergency actions. Plan Reference D.4. Section 3.1 and IP 2.14. Evaluation D.4. Adequate. i e 23 J 4

V 1990 l' E. Notification Methods and Procedures (Planning Standard E): Procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations; the content of initial and followup messages to j response organizations and public has been established; and means i to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plune exposure pathway Emergency Planning 8 Zone have been established. I. Evaluation Criterion E.1. The offsite response organization shall establish 1 procedures which describe the bases for notification of all response organizations consistent with the emergency classificatinr. and action level scheme set forth in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. These procedures shall include means for verification of messages. The specific details of verification need not be included in the offsite plan.

E Statement' f

E.1. The Plan states that the notification of appropriate response organizations is triggered by the standard'four-level ECL scheme from Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-T 1, Rev. 1. Initial notification of the NHY ORO is addressed in Section 3.2.2. It is perfcrmed by the Seabrook Station ( Control Room. Communicator contacting the NHY ORO EOC l Contact Point, using the NAS or one of two backup systems. Verification will not be performed:if notification is via since it is a secure systems.if~a backup system is NAS used, verification will be ; by cr,11-back over the same i 4 system. At ECLs of Alert or

higher, receipt of notification will be'taken over by the NAS Communicator L

upon arrival at the NHY:ORO'EOC. i. t Notification of Massachusetts state and local government i agencies 'is-addressed in section 3. 2.3. The: Seabrook

i-Station' Control Room Communicator.' will' notify the i

L Massachusetts State - Police. _ The Plan references the 4

Massachusetts Radiological - Emergency Response Plan. with respect to notification of other Commonwealth and local 'l n government units by the State-Police. The NHY ORO EOC Contact will also provide backup notification to local government dispatchers at ECLs of Alert or higher. 24

i: l l May 1990 i i i 1 i Notification of Federal and support organizations is addressed in section 3.2.4. Responsibility for notification of Federal agencies is placed With the State of New Hampshire as the host state (p. 3.2-14), except that the NHY ORO EOC Contact or the NAS Communicator will notify the DOI at the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge. ] The NHY ORO will also notify contracted support j organizations (section 3.2.4): e.g., bus companies, road l crew companies, ambulance companies, and the Red Cross. Table 3.2-1 indicates who within the NHY ORO is responsible for contacting each type of support organization, and at what ECL. All support organizations are contacted at Alert or higher ECLs, but many are only , notified af ter the responsible notifier has arrived at L their response facility. Plan Reference h E.1. Section 3.2.1; Section 3.2.2; Section 3.2.3; Section l 3.2.4; Figure 3.2-1; Figure 3.2-2; Table 3.2-1; IP 2.1; i Appendix G; Appendix H; and Appendix M. E-Evaluation i E.1. Adequate. - Evaluation criterion E.2.- The offsite response organization shall -establish 1 procedures for alerting, notifying, and mobilizing its own emergency response. personnel, and for alerting and notifying non-participating State and local governments. St'atement E.2.- The Plan (section 3.2.2) states.that notification and mobilization of NHY ORO is initiated-by the NHY ORO EOC Contact-Point. Key personnel carry pagers. and_ are contacted =at NOUE. The rest of the NHY ORO are contacted-at the-Alert ECL via an aut0 mated telephone dialing system,: the Melita Emergency Telenotification System -(METS). Table 3.2-1 indicates which personnel are notified and which are mobilized at each ECL., Procedures have been established for alerting and - notifying non - 25 k

May 1990 participating State and local governments. Telephone tree notification systems have been set up as a backup personnel notification system. See comments dnder F.1.e. Plan Reference E.2. Section 3.2.2; IP 2.1; Appendix G; and Appendix H. 1 Evaluation E.2. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion E.3. The offsite response organization shall establish a system for disseminating to the public appropriate information contained in initial and followup messages received from the licensee (see Evaluation Criteria E.3 and E.4 in NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1) including the appropriate notification to appropriate broadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). Statement J

E.3.

The Plan (section 3.2.5) states that the primary system for' disseminating information to the public is a designat *d EBS radio. station. In event of an emergency,. 1 the NHi DRO Offaite Response Director. will. request authority from the commonwealth of Massachusetts. to utilize the designated EBS radio station to broadcast emergency information and instructions to the public. Each' instructional message broadcast over the designated-EBS radio station will also be released as a news release by the Media center. In February '.1988 and September 1989, FEM 7 isrsonnel visited the designated EBS radio station to decernine its capabilities. The current'capabi)ity'of.the designated ~ EBS radio station-includes the ability ' to record. and y broadcast emergency instructions and information-to the public.- The designated EBS radio station has?a backup power supply. ~ i i The'PubliciNotification coordinator, once the NHY ORO is activated, begins preliminary planning with the-Radiological Health Advisor and the Technical Advisor regarding the possible PARS..Upon the-orders of the NHY Offsite-Response

Director, the Public Notification

.i 26

May 1990 coordinator selects the appropriate EBS message, completes the appropriate sections, reviews the message with the NHY Offsite Response Director, coordinates the message with the State of New Hampshire, and the appropriate Massachusetts official, obtains the NHY offsite Response Director's approval for broadcasting the EBS message, faxes the EBS message to the designated EBS radio station, requests the EBS radio station to broadcast the message three times consecutively, and then every 15 minutes thereafter. The Public Notification Coordinator has the responsibility to direct the Communications Coordinator to activate the siren system and to advise the Special Population Coordinator on the need to initiate notification of hearing-impaired people. Actual broadcast y L of the message is monitored by tne Public Notification Coordinator..The Public Notification Coordinator also supplies copies of the EBS message to the Public Information Advisor, the Support Services Coordinator, the School Coordinator, and the Special Population Coordinator. In a fast breaking emergency, the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director can request authorization from the . Governor of-Massachusetts and perform the EBS functions ordinarily performed by the Public Notification Coordinator. (See discussion under element E.4.) Plan Reference E.3. Section'3.2.5; Section 3.7.3; IP 2.12; and IP 2.13. Evaluation E.3. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion E. 4. - The 'offsite response-organization shall establish administrative and physical means, and the time required for notifying and - providing prompt : instructions. to the public within: the plume exposure pathway Emergency-s Planning Zone-(see Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and FEMA-REP-10). - It shall. be the licensee's 0> responsibility - to ' demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements-this requirement. _The offsite -response organization shall ~ have the administrative and physical means to activate the system. t 27 i

MQy 1990 Statement E.4. The Plan (section 3.2 5) describes the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) for alerting of the general population, the beach transient population at Salisbury Beach and Plum Island Beach, and persons on inland waterways. The VANS system is a fixed-siren concept. The VANS system uses trucks fitted with a notification cargo package consisting of a lifting device and a siren. The VANS system consists of 16 VANS vehicles located at six VANS staging areas throughout or near the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook plume EPZ. FEMA notes that a V.M :: vehicle will be deployed to a satellite stagina area curing the weekends and holidays from May 15 to September 15. During i g this portion of the year, the 16 VANS vehicles will be deployed at 7 VANS staging areas. There are 22 VANS vehicles. Sixteen (16) VANS vehicles are at duty stations (VANS staging areas), 4 VANS vehicles are held as backup capability (at Seabrook Station), and 2 VANS veb.cles are assumed to be unavailable because of periodic *aaintenance. There are two shifts of personnel at the V4NS staging areas on a 24-hour a day basis. In

addition, additional staff St Seabrook Station are designated as backup staff.

The VANS system was . operational effective January 3, 1990. In a fast-breaking emergency, the Plan calls for the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director to request authorization from the Governor of Massachusetts, to activate the Vehicular. Alert and Notification System and EBS. In cases when the NHY.090 EOC is activated, the NHY

ORO, upon authorization-by the; officials -of the

- Commonwealth of Massachusetts, will direct the activation of the vehicular-Alert and Notification System. See discussion on-notifyirg - and providing pr'onpt-instructions to the public within the plume exposure EPZ 'under E.3. The'NHY ORO has established the following supplemental alertir.g: systems: (1); Tone alert radio receivers have been offered, and provided when accepted, to schools, day. care. centers, . nursing

homes,

. hospitals, medical facilities, campgrounds, businesses with 50'or more employees at- .one location, other selected. facilities, and hearing impaired individuals (as needed) within the plume EPZ. 28 .,m - ~ - - c s

May 1990 (2) The transients within the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plura Island are to be notified by a route alerting system performed by the DOI; (3) Persons on the Atlantic Ocean within the plume EPZ will be notified by the USCG; and (4) Persons in the air within the plume EPZ will be notified by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. New Hampshire Yankee has an agreement with the State of New Hampshire for the establishment of marine safety zones and air space restrictions. New Hampshire will request such alerting and notification for ocean waters and air space for the Seabrook plume EPZ. Plan Reference E.4. Section 3.2.5; Section 3.6.1; Section 3.7.3; Section 5.2.5; 'IP 2.13; IP 2.15; IP 2.16; FEMA-REP-10 and FEMA REP-10 Addendum Reports. j u Evaluation E.4. Adequate. The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) became operational on January 3,1990. ' The Seabrook Station VANS system design-has been-found to meet tne specific. design requirements of FEMA-REP-10.- The current administrative and physical means meet the 15-minute design objectives i of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. The VANS system ~has been installed as specified in the. FEMA REP-10.and' FEMA REP-10 Addendum reports and as described in section 5.2.5. l . Evaluation Criterion-E.5. The offsite' response organization shall-: provide written messages intended for the public, casistent with the licensee's classification scheme. In particular, draft y messages to the public giving instructions with regard to specific protective ections to be taken by. occupants of affected-areas shall be prepared and included as part of-the offsite plans. The prescripted messages should address the.various conditions such as.the delegation of. authority by the State and local governments to the offsite-response organization to. issue prompt 29 i L: J

May 1990 instructions. Such messages should include the appropriate aspects of sheatering, ad hoc respiratory protection, e.g., handkerchief over

mouth, thyroid blocking, or evacuation.

The role of the licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages. For ad hoc respiratory protection see " Respiratory Protective Devices Manual" American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1963, pp. 123,126. Statement E.5. The Plan (section 3.2.5) states that there are prescripted messages for a combination of emergency conditions. Most messages include a variety of choices among PA options and areas to which they apply. The prescripted messages are contained'in the Public Notification Coordinator Position

Packet, upon electronic media stored at the NHY ORO EOC, and copies of the prescripted messages can be found in IP 2.13.

Plan Reference E.5. Section 3.2.51 Section 3.7.3; IP 2.13. Evaluation .'E.5. Adequate. FEMA discussed the format of certain prerecorded EBS messages and the format - and instructions of _ certain prescripted EBS messages with NHY. NHY has agrwed (letter dated April 20, 1990) 'to revise certain prerecorded t messages and revise certain'prescripted messages as part of.the 1990 plan. update'. Evaluation Criterion E.8.. -There shall be provisions ' for coordinating emergency messages with participating and non-participating State and local governments. Statement 'E.8.. The Plan-describes the provision for coordinating emergency messages. Coordination with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts consists of requesting authorization from the Governor to issue the prescripted messages. 30

M3y 1990 Responsibility for coordinating with New Hampshire and appropriate Massachusetts officials is assigned to the Public Notification Coordinator. Plan Reference E.8. -2Jtion 3.2.5; IP 1.1; IP 2.13; and IP 2.14. Evaluation E.8. Adequate. t i ) 6 l-l i 31

l Mcy 1990 i F. Emergency Communications (Planning Standard F): Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public. Evaluation criterion F.1. The communication plans for emergencies shall include organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the communication links. Reliable primary and backup means of communication for the utility and the offsite response organization shall be established. The utility and the offsite response organization shall establish the capability to communicate with non-participating State and local governments via normal emergency telephone number (s) L (e.g., 911) and via one other backup mode such as the ability to transmit via existing emergency radio frequencies. Each offsite plan shall include: F.1.a. Provision for 24-hour per day notification to and activation of the offsite response organization's emergency response network;- and at a minimum, a telephone ' link and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication. links that initiate emergency response actions; Statement F.1. a. The Plan provides that. initial. notification of an emergency classification be received by the NHY ORO EOC Contact Point which. is manned on a. 24-hour basis by security personnel. This notification is to be sent by l the Seabrook Station Control-Room Communicator by means of the Nuclear Alert System (NAS)-(see Figure 3.2-1),'a system of microwave and telephone links with conferencing capabilities.. Backups for NAS are (1) the Dimension-2000 system, a NHY microwave telephone that does not rely solely on telephone company' central office switching; and, (2). commercial telephone lines. j Plan Reference j U' F.1.a. Section

3. 2. 2, Figure 3.2-1; Section 4; Sectilon 4.1; Section 4.2; and Figure-4.0-1.

.1 l 32 i

May 1990 j Evaluation F.1. a. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion F.1.b. Provision for communications with contiguous States and local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones; Statement F.1.b. The Plan describes the provision for communications with the State of New Hampshire EOC, New Hampshire State Police, New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency Management, and the ' New Hampshire IFO as being NAS with commercial telephone as backup. NAS extensions and commercial telephone numbers are given for these New Hampshire ~ agencies and facilities in Appendix H. Appendix H gives the commercial telephone numbers of the Division of Public Health Services of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. The NHY ORO Of fsite Response Director or the NHY Assistant Offsite Response Director, Support Liaison, have respor.sibility for most communications with New Hampshire. Thes Plan does not address communications with local governments in New Hampshire. The State of New Hampshire will coordinate any actions necessary on behalf of local New Hampshire governments. The Plan duscribes the provision for communications with l the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as being NAS with commercial telephones,.and the MAGI as backups. Appendix l L, H contains-commercial telephone numbers of the offices of other relevant Massachusetts agencies. The Plan provides-that communications'with local Massachusetts EOCs will be L by means of commercial telephone as the primary system, and the MAGI-system as backup. Plan Reference ' F.1.b. Section 4 ; Figure-4.0-1; IP 1.1; and Appendix H. Rvaluation F.1.b. Adequate. i 33

May 1990 t-Evaluation Criterion F.1.c. provision for communications as needed with Federal emergency response organizations; Statement F.1. c. The Plan (section 4.6) addresses communications with Federal agencies. Three Federal agencies have primary response responsibilities: USCG; the FAA; and DOI, whose Fish.and Wildlife Service administers the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island. Commercial telephone is identified as a communication link with these l Federal agencies, as well as with FEMA and several other Federal agencies. In Appendix H, the statement is made that other Federal communications links are available through the Seabrook Station EOF, which is located in the same building as the NHY ORO FOC. The Plan states that the communications links to the Federal. agencies in the EOF are described. in the State of New Hampshire Radiological Energency Response Plan. t Plan Reference F.1.c. Section 4. 6 ; Figure 4.0-1; and Appendix H. l n Evaluation' r F.1.c. Adequate, j, . Evaluation Criterion L F.1.d. provision for communications between the' nuclear facility. L and-the-licensee's. near-site. Emergency' Operations L

Facility, offsite response organization's-emergency operations centers, and radiological monitoring teams; r

Statement F.1.d. The. Plan '(section 4.'5)' provides for three communications. links with each of three Seabrook Station facilities: the control room, the Technical Support Caater, and the EOF., r .These' links.are NAS,- Dimension 2000, and. commercial telephone. These- ' systems are located in_ the 34 i

l j May 1990 Communications Room of the NHY ORO EOC and are manned by the NHY ORO EOC Contact or the NAS Communicator. The primary communications link with the ra logical monitoring teams and sample collection teams is t,1 Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) Radjo Network, with ) commercial telephone as backup. The THY ORO EOC staff person with responsibility for communicating with the field monitoring teams and sample collection teams is the Field Team Dispatcher, who reports to the Accident Assessment Coordinator. The Plan addresses communications between the NHY ORO EOC and the Staging Area, the Emergency Worker Facility, the Reception Centers, and the Monitoring Trailers at the Reception Centers. For all these facilities, one communications link is the NHY ORO Emergency Radio Network, which. consists of four paired frequencies. For the - Emergency Worker Facility and Monitoring Trailers 1 another communicatiens link is cordless telephone. For j the : Staging Area and Reception

Centers, commercial j

telephone is' another communications link. For the Congregate Care Centers, commercial telephone is the only communications link specified. .) 1 Plan Reference \\ l F.1.d. Section 4.5; Figure 4.'0-1; and Appendix H. 2 Evaluation-F. l'.d. Adequate.. l l ~ Evaluation Criterion- .F.1.e. Provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in each response organization. L Statement ] - F.1. e. The Plan states that NHY Offsite Response - EOC Contact p Point 'is responsible for initial receipt and verification L of the initial notification from Seabrook Station. Upon activation of._the NHY ORO EOC, the NAS Communicator is responsible for receipt and verification of notifisations from-Seabrook Station.- The NAS-Communic,or is j i l: 35 p a L

May 1990 responsible for notification for the NHY ORO response personnel. NHY ORO will be notified in three stages: Stage 1 at Unusual Event by pager and Melita Emergency Telenotification System (METS), Stage 2 at Alert by pager and METS, and Stage 3 at Site Area and General Emergency by pager and METS. In the eve.it the METS is inoperative, there is a backup telephone callout tree notification system. Plan Reference i F.1.e. Section 3.2; Section 4; IP 2.1; Appendia G; and Appendix H. Evaluation F.1.e. Adequate, t Evaluation Criterion F.2. The offsite response organization. shall ensure that a coordinated communication. link for fixed and mobile medical-support facilities exists. . Statement. F.2.. The Plan states that communications links-with hospitals and ambulance companies are commercial telephone and medical radio frequencies. Communications with hospitals and other'special facil~ities are responsibilities of the Special Population Liaisons (stationed at < the staging . Area).- The Special Population Coordinator (sta2ic7ed at ~ the'NHY-ORO EOC) is responsibleLfor' contacting ambalance-companies, host hospitals, and.the backup' hospital. Plan Reference F.2. Section-4; IP 1.10; Appendix C; Appendix H; and 1 Appendix M. + l-: [- 36 L -a 3 .1s ~ .r y

May 1990 Evaluation F.2. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion F.3. The offsite response organization shall conduct periodic testing of the entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10, N.2.a and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1). Statement F.3. The Plan provides for periodic testing of the NHY ORO communications systems and contains testing checklists and logs. Depending on the specific system, tests are performed weekly, monthly, quarterly, or semiannually. These are: EBS Tone Alert Radios (weekly); NAS (monthly); commercial Telephone.

System, NHY Offsite

Response

Organization Pager System, Siren Control Equipment, Field Radio Communication System, Centrex Telephone System, Telephone Operator'c

console, Ring-down Telephone Circuits, Massachusetts Governmental Interface Console (quarterly); and Melita Emergency Telenotification System (semi-annually).

y Plan Reference F.3.- Section 4; Section 7.4; IP 4.4; and Table 7.4-1. Evaluation F.3. Adequate. 4 h F 37

- -. _ ~ .g-May 1990 G. Public Education and Information (Planning Standard G): Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their initial actions shall be in an emergency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining indoors), the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of information during an emergency (including the physical location or locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of information to the public are established. Evaluation Criterion G.1. The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at least annually) dissemination of information to the public -regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emergency. This information shall include, but not necessarily be 1 limited tot s 1 a. educational information on radiation; b. contact for additional information; c. protective

measures, e.g.,

evacuation routes and relocation centers, sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprotective drugs, (and protective measures related to the ingestion pathway);' d. special needs of the handicapped; and e. special steps to be taken to describe the role of the offsite response organization vs..the State and local . organizations during.the emergency. r Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not necessarily limited to: information in the telephone booki posting in public areas; and publications distributed on an annual basis. 'l This language has been added to Evaluation Criterion G.1 in accordance with FEMA Guidance Memorandum IN-1, _to' stress applicability to ingestion' pathway concerns. According to current FEMA guidance, the public information materials designed to meet - the-requirements of FEMA Guidance-Memorandum IN-1 do not have to be published until June 12,-1990. 38 w w a n

l l-May 1990 l l Statement G.I. The Plan (section 7.5) states that the New Hampshire Yankee Emergency Planning Coordinator is the designated official of the NHY ORO who is responsible for the public information program. This includes the annual review, uriate, and distribution of public information material to the general population. l The Plan (section 3.7.2) describes the documents for educating and preparing the public in affected Massachusetts communities for a radiological emergency at Seabrook. .The publ, education program (Emergency Plan Information Calendar) does. describe the relationship of NHY ORO to j. Massachusetts State and local officials. The public L education program does not include the provision of information in telephone books. i Plan Reference G.1. Sectior 3.7.1-Section 3.7.2; Section 7.5; and the public i. education material. L i Evaluation L l G.1.

Adequate.

FEMA has reviewed the information calendar and the

supplementary materials for the plume EPZ, and the farmers L

brochure for the ingestion EPZ. FEMA's REP-11 review and evaluation has found the documents adequate.- Copies of the reports-(REP-11 review and evaluations) are available - at FEMA Region I. Evaluation criterion G.2. The public information program shall provide the permanent O and transient adult population within the plume exposure i EPZ. an adequate opportunity to become aware of the information annually. The programs should. include provision for. written material that is likely to be available in a residence during.an emergency. Updnted information shall be disseminated at least annually. n L Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, posted notices, or other means placed in hotels, motels, gasoline: stations l' and phone booths) shall also be used to disseminate to any L transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ L l. 3 39 t w e r -e

May 1990 t appropriate information that will be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs. Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency information and gui6e the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies. Statement G.2. The Plan (section 3.7.2) describes a program for annual distribution of public information materials to residents, transients, and Special Populations. Mail distribution of calendars.is the major means of educating the residents of the plume exposure EPZ. Farmers and food processors within the pluue EPZ have been provided the Farmers Brochure. The. transient population is to be proviced information by the distribution of supplementary materials to various public facilities. The distribution program is planned to include media advertisements sensitizing the public regarding the importance of ' the public information material. Plan Reference G.2. Section 3.7.1; Section 3.7.21 and Section 7.5.1. - Evaluation G.2. Adequate.. j Calendars were distributed to the public in the plume EPZ I in.1988 (1989 Calendar) & 1989 (1990 ' Calendar). The fliers,. posters, and labels were distributed.to special facilities in.the plume EPZ in the fall of 1989. Signs - have been placed at the Parker River National. Wildlife Refuge and billboard space was rented in the fall of 1989.. FEMA notes that the State of Massachusetts and the local' governments.have not-cooperated with New Hampshire Yankee's request to erect; signs-at-the' beaches in Massachusetts. The farmers brochure was distributed to farmers ~and' food ~ processors located in the plume EPZ-in the fall of;1989.. A supply; of farmers brochures has been established for distribution in the event of an emergency. - Evaluation Criterion j G.3. The. of f sits response organization shall' designate the 1 points of contact and physical locations for use by news j 40 =

May 1990 I i media during an emergency. This should include provisions for accommodating State and local governiaent public information personnel assigned a role under the offsite plan. statement G.3. The Plan (section 3.7.3) designates the Media Center, located in the Town Hall in Newington, New Hampshire, as the single point of contact between the NHY ORO and the media during a radiological emergency at Seabrook. NHY v ORO has made provision for accommodating officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plan (section 3.7.3) designates the Joint Telephone l Information Center (JTIC), located in Newington, New Hampshire,-es a location at which media representatives o can make telephor.a inquiries. The Media Relations -Assistants at the JTIC have been designated to interface with the. media via telephone. -There are instructions to i call the various wire services when releases are issued. There are references, policy guidance, and provisions to assign personnel to staf f telephones and respond to media inquiries. Plan Reference 1r 'G.3. Section 3.7.3(B) and IP 2.12'. Evaluation l-G.3. Adequate.- h -Evaluation criterion _ i G. 4. a '. The offsite response organization shall: designate. a spokesperson who _ should have access.to all necessary-infornation.- Statementi G. 4. a. The Plan - (IP ' 2.12) istates that - the ' Public Information-Advisor, who is assigned to the NHY Offsite Response EOC, is~ responsible for coordinating; emergency public- 'information activities. The-Public Information Advisor directs the _ activities of preparing and -issuing news-releases for.the public and media, interfacing with the 41 r.

MQy 1990 news media,. and responding to rumors or misinformation the public may have. IP 2.12 (section 5.1.3) also provides for the Public Information Advisor to be briefed by the NHf Offsite Response Director, which helps assure that the public has access to all necessary information. The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for directing the NHY ORO operations at the Media Center. The Public Information Coordinator is the official spokesperson for NEY ORO and participates in medit, briefings. The Public Information Coordinator is responsible for keeping the Public Information Advisor informed of all news media activities and news releases by other organizations at the Media Center. The Media Center Administrative Staff are responsible for assisting the Public Information Coordinator at the Media Center. The Public Information Staff, who are assigned to the NHY Offsite_ Response EOC, are responsible fr,r obtaining information, developing news releases, and. transmitting approved news releases to the Public Information coordinator, the JTIC, the Seabrook Station Emergency Communications Coordinator, and the Seabrook Station Document Control Coordinator. The' Public Infornation Advisor will receive the Public Information Coordinator's concurren.e and then obtain the NHY offsite Response Director's approval of each release. After obtaining the NHY Offsite_ Response Director's approval, the Public Information Advisor will instruct the Public Information ' Staf f to disseminate the news release to the Media Center, Joint Telephone Information Center, Seabrook Station Emergency Communications Coordinator, and Seabrook Station Document Control Coordinator.- The. NHY ORO will also reissue all EBS. messages.as news releases. 'EBS messages releases will be. transmitted to the Media Center and JTIC for immediate release. The Media Relations / Rumor-Control. Supervisor is - responsible for providing supervision and resource support .to the Media Relations and Rumor Control Assistants'at the JTIC. 2The Media Relations Assistants are responsible for interfacing with the media. via telephone. The Rumor Control Assistants are responsible for receiving and responding to:public inquiries about an emergency. Plan Reference G. 4. a. - Section 3.7. 3 ( B). and IP 2.12. 42

1 llfy g May-1990 q o 4 4 1; l 1 i<> i ? Evaluation V: + b :1 G. 4. a. : Adequate. 1 2 L i h n i '6 4 Euclua61on criterion .G.4.b. The of fsite response- ' organization: shall establish j 4; . arrangements for timely exchange of information - among w designated spokespersons. v s. N, (' [Statament'

1. +

g ' i G. 4.b. The ' Plan (section 3.7.3). states that. the.'Public 4 4'

Information. Coordinator: at-the. Media Center, is to coordinate news: releases approved for release by the,NHY-

=! Q' ORO Lwith the Media Center spokespersons-for Seabrook 2 _ Station', ' State media _ representatives, 'and < Federal' y g,'

• organizations prior to their. release'to the media'.-

kN e ;@m f 'l ,I. m. YPlanLReference, l Mg @ ;P- .m... 1 j 'L L G. 4,b. Section.3. 7. 3 (B) ; ' IP ~ 2.12. .] a. 1 %w O! n. 1 Evaluation! j

• 4 q; 9 1

@l. J' G.4jb. Adequate. y' +< @( K i fUp -1 il-41. i s d >g;K,, ' l Evaluation Criterion 1 y 3 > l jg: ;,. . ~. , l G. 4'. c L The offsite -response-organization. shall establish y { L

coordine'adiarrangements-for dealing-with rumors...

1 . y j:,: w 1 h:.:p % ' FS*.adement o MQ1 . ~ G. 4.c. The a Plan' ( section.- 3.'7. 3 ) Ftates thaththe. NHY.ORO, rumor lg* .y ( Jcontrol activities-are to bs: carried out at the JTIC under 1 Phe' overall supervision of the' Public Information: Advisor s _,. j@

andsthe. direct'

supervision-of'the:MAdia Relations /Rumorf j

[fiE ~ Control l Supervis'or. ~ LThe Publici Information Advisor Lis- ? tresponsible--for. coordinating'rumoricontrolimeasures.cThe .gm,. , process /of, utilizing!the media'and EBS-to: address rumors 7lh ' 4 17 7 Lis specified'in the Plan. y n , 3 , ::,9 )x$, t<. '" l

l x;

.})- k-%M ' _i j ;- i a i L . lr m j. . 'l t 29; Wl: gy- . _ hm __y,'., A .z 4- -

e.< w m May 1990 ] v ' Rumor Contro' Assistants are responsible for interfacing. with the pubi'.c..They respond to and document telephonic public:inwiries,-using officially released infornation, u oral -information f rom the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor, or' generic information. in = their : position manua.;S.- If-a caller's inquiry is not covered by the off:td.1 information, the Rumor: Control Assistants are-7 inst

ced to refer the call to the Media Relations / Rumor contcol Supervisor or to the appropriate State or plant i

rumorJcontrol personnel. In addition, an Assistant who detects a-false rumor " trend" is instructed to repert'iti j to the Media Relations / Rumor Control Supervisor,- who ~ s forwards it up through the chain of command to the Public m Information Coordinator so that the media can be asked to i ~ help-prevent its proliferation. 4 Plan Reference' ' G. 4.c. ' Section 3. 7. 3 (C) and IP 2.12. i < 1 Evaluation q s t mV G. 4.c.L Adequate. Q, j 4 ,7, [ Evaluation Criterion 1 s 4 L G. 5 '. - The-offaite responte- ' organization' shall conduct icoordinated programsLat least annually to acquaint news-yK i media' with ithe~:offsite_ emergenew tlans, information f concerning-radiation,nand pointsoof contact-(see G.1.e.)- 'far release:of public:1.aformation in an emergency. t 3 p 'y b ' htatement V .) G. S.: e The (Plan (sectioni 7.5.2), states that the: NHY Executive ? p LDirector of' Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations hlp

isi responsible ' f or.

coordinating an'. annual' media j" $g infornation1 program. The'medialintornationiprogram will %h =i n c l u'd e P l a n E u p d a t e s l a n d.' m e d i a ' c o n t a c t s L a t the : Media. -Center. .-The:: media program iwill:'be carried outin-4 ..: ~,. .q p m+

conjunction with the'Seabrook Station and the' State of New a

n

't Hampshire y (, PlanLReference' ,L IG)5. .Section 7.5.2. \\ W gm h% ; er V 44 '0 n l m s.. s< t ______1.

=. - - 1 ) 3 1 / - May.1990; .j t i:. 'l - 1 Evaluation t J

G. 5. -.

Adequate. i

New Hampshire Yankee began its participation-in 1988 with s

-Seabrook: Station:and the State'of New Hampshire in the I -annual media briefings for'Seabrook Station. $ {'- '(o' 1 -i Ys ~ i } ! ~ ..i; 1 .+ h ); i ', ? \\ :.

t I'

., W ,,\\ ,E b ? j.' i -hlt :, '. ') ( I t -c, i p, n M. lp y: -r y pr i,, d l-i s ,ll i n ph',d t=

6 yp,

=; i j! : i l l; \\lY e e g'; ' -),. 't j{e- 'F ,4 g

4 '.

36 i b e hc1 ,;s .u q [' ', I 1,' y );'; e r ' n y J. 6 i 4 r g 4 f) I [[>'. W"' %, p 3 f}4, O} ' if y;: ! I s.. $$)f }?7.1 s hk 0 a }.~. ' l I, e i ' .I 5g 4 I

• ? ~')j ', ;

I \\ s a i ' g :. '[M ' q

.\\ 5 4o.,,:0; b. :.

+'f ,f n i < '5' ff' l '. .,[j )# i' lDi$ M;;h d 3. ':y,kAs ;; W l),, . e i st s !!bNp.. u x;, l i c ;y.'h;k i ' A.. s i di, !,- - f s ' -i ^ r ,; )i : ': s p 'il j y'[O y.; , a "';, t t, ^q m,, ?f g:i i - - ', ~ -i

),..

8 .l r[il fQWf ', i ..1; $ 3.'U t ~i l (. . \\ t.g,,. x, .c; 2 t >sii..,,, t i

lpj % i..P r

2-y

• >l<

l ;f " o r*N.,,. r 2 u:,,;6 w @. m.:)w;.;!o.,.c ;\\ s ',,:p p' z.<j}r ,c.t '! klij i./ 1 e . (> i. r -- J: 3y s 04 !d:

• 7-g.

m

m HQy 1990 e d* . H. Eacrgency Facilities and Equipment (Planning; Standard H):

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

Evaluation : critierion H.'3. The 1 of fsite respons+ organization shall establish an emergency _ operations center for. use in directing and 1 controlling offsite. response functions. l* d 4 Statement. l H.3..- The~ Plani (section 5.2.1) states that the NHY ORO.EOC is- ]L co-located ~with the Seabrook Station EOF and the' State'of-New Hampshire. IFO on Gosling. Road in Neuington,. NewL Hampshire at the.Newington Station Unit No, 1: facility.. )) (,, 'y, .This-facility isElocated approximately 15; miles north of-F the:Seabrook Station ~. y Plan R'eference 1 f.i, H. 3l.' (Section 5.2.1;LFigure-5.2-1;'and Figure 5.2-2. 1 4wi ,1 l -Evaluation; g t . Adequate, . H. 3 '. : _;r' s L valuation criterient:

• W R

i +y H.' 4.- The of fsite response organization shall provide for timely s activation. and Cataffingl of athe: facilities and:- centers,

described.inLtheLoffsite1 plan'..

m I'? Statement-l d H. 4 '. TheiPlan U(section 45' 2)istates ;that thelNHY' ORO' EOC1 willi Mg'. 'be L activated bupon : the. declarationTof ' an Alert J or; higher / 'e ECL.O The NHYxOffsite Response? Director will declare the 77 NHY: ORO. EOC operationalJ when! thel.followingi.: group ,i g, leade'rs/ advisors inforr him that they ha_ve determined that 'lj gll' suf fici_entistaffing :l exists: for them to Jperform :their- ~ functions:i -Radiological: Health officer,1. PublicJ A u Notification Coordinator, Public lInformation = Advisor, and - i N 1 J -e .l

y;s'n g

i m> 46 i ib 11 a 4(),@j V"' 1!. ,/ d [g " ' ! ,d

y May 1990-1 f. the two Assistant Of fsite Response Directors. - The Support s Services. Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the staff.. set. up the NHY ORO EOC in accordance-with i Attachment'2 of IP 3.1. Various functional < groups are assigned to. set up telephones; set out sets of plans and .orocedures; prearrange office supplies; and ensure that . photocopier. is cperational. The. Support Services f'i coordinator;will ensure that sufficient resources (desks, ? chairs, etc.) exist and procure any additional equipment as necessary. The' Support Services Coordinator will y; -provide support to responding l organizations and Federal f -agencies including

vehicles, food and. lodging, :and

' procurement support. -The Security Officer is-responsible-N, c K for establishing; access. control at the NHY ORO EOC, y' l establishing,a.-log ofjall personnel admitted to:the NHY OROIEOC,-and-maintaining security for the facility.- The Staging Area-(located.at 145. Water Street in m' g WD Haverhill, Massachusetts) is-to be activated at an Alert y 7 or-higher classification.' @ i Emergency. field workers'are;to-be activated at the. Site y

Area Emergency or higher.

The Emergency. Worker Facility; j Q" ' J E (mobile: trailer 'for:l monitoring and' decontaminating. u .3, ' emergency workers-and vehicles)-ir 'o be set uplat-the-PM -Staging Area at.an Alert and is to w fully activatediat I 4m

thetSite AreaTEmergency.t

~ B,.* The: Reception Centers we to be' activated at a Site Area: ' W Emergency:. classification.Landt higher. Two; Reception j

Centersi;to

provideEaniassembly; point and locationLfor t

i@ O, 1 =p regi_stering ; evacuees,- Dwill: be established,at locations ( ' 3about.'20. miles' from the LSeabrook Stationf(one: atJ1101i i m TurnpikeJStre'et,in3 North;Andover,iMassachusetts, and the. V s $f,, secondLone;at 441 River. Street?in3Beverly,lMassachusetts):. G ~O JATdedicatedaMonitoring?TraileriComolex,(tolmonitor and [q

f decontaminate; evacuees)"is to be set up at each Reception; y

M@i A > Center and"be fully? activated-~att the! declaration of a Site 7 ' Area Smergenc'y._ yG CongregateL ) Care (Centers 0 will b e " a c t i v,a t e d at the: i t* The hneral. Emergency-ECLe -Congregate Care: Centers'will. bel 4 Lf g

established? atT leased if acilities r formwhichiLetters L of r

, aNe v$ ~ Agreement haveLbeen signed.D These' Centers are to be set > 9 N MlM 1 RJ^ M (:up and-staffed by" the.cAmericanlRed Cross. j 4 ,M' $$$[ Plan Reference 5 &V Kgp ~ j% s m H.4~

• Section 3.6; Section~5'.2; IP 3.1;.IP 3.2;:IP 3.3;-IP'3.4; qu ' n

--IP 3'.5; and" Appendix ~C' w c '\\ _ 'l n- "? g 47 w.. ; pg! D sn

e May. 710 1 I t i j .h t . Evaluation-H.4. ' Adequate.. ~ Evaluation Criterion- + H.~ 7. The offsite response organization, where appropriate, ) ' )" "4-shall provide 'for offsite radiological monitoring _ equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility. i ~ Statement 'The. Plan (section 3.3.2)_ states that provisions have been ' H. 7. - made for offsite.' radiological monitoring equipment to be

vailable for, both environmental monitorir.g - and for z

2' ' 4

personnel

exposure uonitoring,

-u -r n ~. < ~ g -~ . Plan Refer;ence: j H.7. r s, . -Section?3.3.2;ETables 3.3-1 & 3.'3-2; Section 5.2.4;-and , g; ! Appendix I.- Q q (3 1 i 6i I w Evaluation. 4 .y ~ H.7... Adequate.- s .. + n s t 3 66 1.. m,( '^ EvaluNtion; Criterion w ,d H.1'O.j iThe o'f'fs'ite /responsef ordanization shall[make provisions > g jF tol inspect, inventory l and p operationally J check :; emergency: / equipment / instruments at leastionce each calendar, quarter : p$ g. t:- dand!after. Leach use'.o,There shall.be sufficient"reservesL ~ @4 7 c of s > instruments / equipment: :to - replace i those iwhich :: are; ~ J removed 9 from y emergency Lkits - for : calibration (or repair. ..g; g.1 , Q '. sCalibration 'of: equipment shallibe at! intervals recommended 1 <f ~ " MW, by the supplier of the ; equipment.: 1 "; g ' a * ' 'm,>V . Statement, m.

q 1

"y"; .c Thei Plan ~(section 5 5). states thatt provisions have3been" ,' N.10'. ' m ?made; to'. Inspect, : inventory, t and (operationallyf check;all n ,4 .' m (" s emergency l. equipment;- quarterly and after each use.- ' - "g Radiological: monitoring. equipment and dosimetry is.to.:be' calibrated' on" a ' semiannual: basis.

Calibration of' y) y 48 i

s n l a, a ..I - p ;-- i

t-

,.q 'Y h,, a a g 3

~ ?" e g= M9y 1990 6 ,jv r 4; monitoring instruments will be done:~(1) upon receipt of' i new instruments, (2) after any repair, (3) in accordance with National Standards or the manufacturer's l p ' recommendations, and- (4) in accordance with: Seabrook-S t a t i o n p o l i c i e s, operational checks on radiological monitoring equipment will be conducted monthly. The Plar. l states that sufficient reserves of equipment are available to' replace equipment that is removed for calibration or repair. . The-Plan states that equipment can only be 3 removed for repair and calibration when replacements.are available. ) 1 1..c - 2 Plan-Reference H.10. - Section 5.5; Section 7.3; and IP 4.3. q [ . Evaluation N;f -W ji j<

I L.

/ ' H.10.. Adequate. .i i k:N h;i W, i + N,. a iEvaluation' Criterion l")," < N. a The-offsite. plan shall,. in-an.. appendix,- include H.11'. - /,,., " identification, of. emergency kits by general category nyW, (protective. ' equipment,; = communications: equipment, hc radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies).. ] ,x M ,K Statement $, %, = n, 4-i H.11. The, Plan 1 ( Appendix I) does l contain listsiof f emergency 44 kits according to the general categories specified in this: 1 4 s %@y"- - criterion.:: The Plan lists l equipment by facility and where ij appropriate, by' kit.- q y Plan Reference 'g M, .O "1 H.11'.:. ~ Appendix I. N ri;W hih ] Ii, 2 Evaluation'

l a

A B a jg .-H.11. : Adequate. J .j 54 ' Evaluation Criterion' W e t H.12. The Hof fsite response organization shall: establish a; 'i j , central point (prefr.cAly associated with the licensee's j 3 49-hh-g s D tb -i e

3/4

..e May 1990 V. a-l b y .e 'near-site Emergency Operations-Facility), for the receipt P, and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination ?.. of sample media. i i

Statement

,.g : 1 4 H.12. The Plan (section 3.3.2) states that thel NHY ORO has 1 established the EOF as the central point for the receipt L and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination .f of sample media. ] 'X_.f pp 8 ,i;/ M } l -1 3 IA Plan' Reference

k,. r

:;,9f;h ',

H.12. - Section 3.'3.2. gx-. re g w, .MM Evaluation s [% 3 H.12. Adequate. 4. o, d i.4,5 '.. .,p 4l 1 (, t' A .i ; y j f-e;< l i<

u; ;

Mw f;I d h ,.1 8 -- 1 ,3 [ I 5 t ,3 ifi! ! f J u, g y '; l s f;k. s r' ' 15 I g hii $j s 1 sy7

i i*'

,) . ' -1< i 1 h l. Il ) + q= j b'l

l

\\ y o i

l 50 5

i i ')) s s f + e-r-

MQy 1990 e

• .AccidentiAssessment (Planning Standard I):

Adequate _ methods,E systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring. actual or ' potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. 4kfk Evaluation Criterion I.7. The offsite response organization shall describe the M, 1 capability and resources for field monitoring within the V plumeL. expostre Emergency Planning Zone which are an intrinsic ' part of the concept of operations - for the

facility,

_n . Statement t > d, 3.3 2) and procedures (IP 2.3 & 2.4) y' I.7. The Plan'(section describe;.the capabilities and -resources for field i,, o ^'L ' monitoring within the plume EPZ. The Field Teams (2 teams _at 21' persons.- per - team) and Sample Collection' Teams ( 5' r 3 teams:at 2 persons-per team)-. report to the Field Team. 4 l Dispatcher. The; Field Team Dispatcher and-the. Dose; J -f 'nici' tr oprt.to the. Accident. Assessment' i eW Asoessmen @? .Coordinat6. .ne= Aucluent Ass.essment Coordinator reports ,Xo LtoJthe1 Radiological Health Advisor. The typical field .,5 imonit'oring-kit sinventory is listed 'in. Table 3.3-1. ' The' W Plani indicates'.that each. field monitoring teaml will be 73 assigne'd a' vehicle for transportation in the field. The o [?. ,I' fleld. teams will use.the same grid maps as-used by' the. ~ ' Ds ' State of New HampshireLand Seabrook. Station ~..Theifield' w' ' team; monitoring-kits contain-- instruments -which are . comparable to the surveyfinstruments Tused Eby 1 the State. i y, g i f Lof New Hampshire.and SeabrookrStation.. l{ ?Q' ', b.n t J NHY ORO, Seabrook' Station, and the State of New Hampshire i E have" agreed - toicoordinate a field monitoring. activities. F.D Therefore',1 the various organizations field teams J will;

receive specific - assignments..

.The: field. survey; z data o ' 7' . collected.by the NHY~10RO' monitoring -tenas willi be . t &,, T.., integrated with the datavcollected'by the New Hampshire iState and':Seabrook Stationiteams. ^ Rg jpi ~ sc y o tlan Reference h>,, J ' Section ~ 3. 3-2 ; Section ! 3. 9 ; ' Figure ' 2.1-1;E Table -'3.3-1; {Jg'! -I. 7..

IP 1.12; IP 2.3; and IP 2.4.

~ 3-, 51 .1 i-S it gy%. 1 't >l - ? p

y p?.s - u. May 1990 ,gm .[ u" y g Y Evaluation-i w

( M :

M; LI.7 Adequate.- ' FEMA has' recommeded that IP 2.3 (section 5.3.7)' be revised i -to include a precautionary note: "Always assemble the 2 J . sampling head and attach it~toithe portable air sampler-1 in a location which is outside the plume". NHY has J h' ' indicated (letter dated April 20, 1990)-that they will -incorporate this recommendation in the 1990-plan update. s jjh Evaluation Criterion m 4. -- I.8.. The 'offsite response organization, w h e r e _ a p p r o p r i a t e,- shall - provide methods, equipment.and expertise to make rapid assessments of-the actual or potential magnitude and. l 4 locations of..any radiological haL_ ads through' liquid or Jgaseous release pathways. This shall include activation, 3; 'notifiestion

means, field team composition,-

transportation, communication, monitoringiequipmentr and . estimated deployment times.- .1 .Statementt, s I.8. The' Plan (section 3. 3.2) describes the methods',Lequipment,. t andi expertise ~ to make. rapid assessments of ' actual. or - ,.~ potential; magnitude and locations of radiological hazards. The?NHYJORO has made provision and' developed methods,. equipment, and, expertise to_.make assessments of the magnitude andslocationsiof radiological hazards through 4 thrt : gas'eous f release ' pathway. This includesiactivation^1 ~ 1

notification means,. field team formatJ on,> transportation,

communications,. monitoringJ equipment, and ' estimates L of ?

,u' p' ' l deployment: times from the arrival at the Staging. Area. I 4 Estimates ~oficomplete deploymentLtima are-included.- ?, l n -IP 2 L3 describes duties',i resp sibilities, 'and the concept s of operation for the AccidentiAssessment: Coordinator, the 9, Field Team 7 Dispatcher, - and the / Field ' Monitoring Teams; j'n The i Accidenti Assessment Coordinator ist responsible-'.for ,4 11mplementing the procedure and supervisirig,the Field. Team: A Dispatcher.JThe Field Team l Dispatcher is responsible for: g~ . directing the) Field Monitoring Teams' including monitoring locations,frecording field data,'Ltracking Field, Monitoring; it . Team exposure h and relaying L this data ' to the - Accident - D gg ' . Assessment: Coordinator. ;ThelField Monitoring Tera.s are b T responsible for performing monitoring surveys in the plume - 1 ' exposure EPZ, collecting samples, and monitoring / reporting y 7 E as. theirl doses. p> 7 K 'y 52 LU s ' j" y.p .b l m

m - L N M9y - 1990 - w mb .y l e y,; _ *y' 'The Field -' Monitoring Teams are responsible for: plume definition: e.g., define-plume boundary as 1 mR/hr, 100 3 mR/hr,'and highest centerline numbers. Note, the NHY ORO i has adopted a turnback number of 500 mR/hr. The Field 1 . Monitoring Teams; are responsible for taking.gamme and l gamma / beta surveys at waist. level, and gamma / beta supeys s at two' inches above ground at each survey location. The-i f gf ' Field Team Dispatcher will give-assignments to the Field r [ Monitoring Teams. The assignments - will be to proceed between various locations, taking appropriate l 1 measurements, rather.- than to be' assigned to a. general - 9 area:' l.e., management strategy; is ' point-to-point I V monitoring. The Field Monitoring Teams kits have.a map with u grid system for the plume exposure EPZ. I a r - Plan Reference i y e i n. l i I.8 : 'Section 3.3.2; Section 3.9; Section 4.5; Table 3.3-1; i Apk.

Table 3. 3-2; Appendit I; IP 1.2 ; IP.1.12 ; - IP 2.1; IP 2. 3 ;

L MW r Land IP'2.4. J , m N. I (y 4 \\ Evaluation 1 g, A = I. 8 ".' Adequate. 4'q', 1 W_ 8 ,, S Eval'uation criterion O m + L ,,3 ~. I. 9.- The of fsite response organizat' ion. shall have' a capability j to detect and= measure radioiodine conc ytrations in air 1< ~ in the plumefexposure EPZ?as low-as,10 1microcuries=per oa 7 -from the-presence-.ofanoble gas and:backgroundiradiation-M cubic ' centimeters under D field conditions.- Interference 1

c

.shall not decrease the stated minimum detectable activity. g 'ji n +

f

' O;c a .) " ~ Stat'esent j l Ty o LIl.9( The' Plan "(section 03.3.'2).describesi thef capabilitiesi to ? i

• 1

-detect)andimeasureiradiciodinetconcentrationsninfairfini n m*. the plumuSEPZ. LNHY:ORO has: made provisioniforyequipmentf l a / ;7 .and; methods: to". detect ay measure-radioiodine

1. ./

' concentrations? as:Llow;'as '10 microcuries Eper: cubic-d ~ "M centimeter.; The typical' field!monitoringLkitt nventory-i i M .(Table 3,3-1)'and the1 field. monitoring:kitiinventoryiand- -E y operational 1 checklist -(IP 2.3)..shows Lair' sampling 3

equipment and includes 25 silver zeolit's cartridges.

l j <; li 53 1 j ,n y R- _'1-

.. ~ i u n. c & y' May 1990 j

i?

t

.'m i 3 Plan Reference- [ I. 9. - -Section 3.3.2; Table'3.3-1; IP 2.2; IP 2.3; and Appendix I. j po t, c 1 i ~ . Evaluation. q 1. I.9. Adequate. s.;m e ' Evaluation Criterion

• .m I.10. - The offsite response organization shall establish means for relating the various-measured parameters (e.g.,

1 1 . contamination, levels,, water and air activity levels) to dose rates =for key isotopes-(i.e., those given in-Table ~ (] *.. M 3, page.18 - of ' NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1)-and gross 'sg radioactivity measurements. L Provisions shall be made. for V Q~,, estimating integratedidose from the projected andLactual do_se. rates - and for? comparing - these estimates with the. ,) E protective, action < guides.1 sThe. detailed provisions shall j beidercribedfin-separate procedures.- .J Qy 9 Statement

, Q LI.

10.

The Plan' (section 3.3.2) describes the provision for p equipment,. methodology, and means-.to relate-various 1 -measured. parameters to dose ratesi and gross radioactivity. measurements. 'NHY ORO;has:made, provision for. estimating' integrated. doselfrom' the projected and' actual: dose rates 1.. and"for comparing.these estimates.1 with protective. action- ~ . guides.: ~ ~ .w c1 Section 3.3.2Lof: the Plan'statest that the Dose Assessment' ,Techn'ician-'is to 'use the'METPAC data provided by NHY staff. V at the EOF..TheEtypeLof-information that can be:obtained1. 1 from the METPAC:printoutiincludesLplumel arrival time for. p . downwind distances up to?10; miles, whole-bodyf and thyroid. j

u. dose rate projections,-atmospheric, dispersion and plume-s L

depletion factors, and:'whole body and thyroid integrated;

y i

sdoses for'2,1,J6,'-or'Sihours of-exposure. J N, 4 3J ~

IP - 2.2 describes duties' for 1the Accident ' Assessment!

.l M, Coordinator L andf the HDose s Assessment' JTechnician; !The procedure Ldescribes' the methodologies used -for predicting <x .l .offsite dosesL(whole body land thyroid), for--calculating projected iodine ground. deposition,: and Lfor projecting first-year integrated whole. body dose from radioactive t 54 .+ E/ i!. g 'f - O p' ' .}'. 1 t g

MGy 1990 l t 'W 1 N M q.s. deposition.. The current procedures (IP 2.2) do'have.a i time ' dependent dose conversion - f actor to be used in "g developing-the-projected thyroid dose rate calculations. E IP 2.5 provides guidance for making PARS. This procedure calls for predetermined special PARS at a Site Area Emergency er General Emergency..The predetermined special PARS are* t Consider recommending early evacuation of schools; and p Closure' of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island, Plum-Island Beach, Salisbury Beach,. and the f establishment of an marine safety zone. t The ' Radiological Health. Advisor.is responsible' for L implementing this procedure. The Ar:cident.' Assessment Coordinator is responsible for collecting and summarizing L s< radiological and meteorological .information.- The [~,y, Technical Advisor is; responsible' for ' collecting and. j summarizing.' data on the accident status-and plant /" ., ' ~ ~ conditions,i and providingi.this information .to > 'the %[ t * .?RadiologicaliHealth Advisor lforfformulating a PAR. The J . L' m ERadiologi' cal Health Advisor checklist (IP 1.2) states that (the.. Radiological Health' Advisor. is: responsible. for i " formulating precautionary PARS.and' PARS for both the plume o .t y~ P

and ;; ingestion L _ exposure. pathways.

The. PAR L procedure.' " indicates that the Technical Advisor.will confer with the ,E -Radiological Health Advisor:in developing'aaPARL(IP 2.5, t4 ssections~' 5.2.2, and 5.4.). Thei' Technical'. Advisors yp "ichecklist L(IP 1.7) states that!the Technical, Advisor 'will: fdevelopo PARS. based.upon tplant a status < and.~ advise the gg LRadiologicall Health-Advisor of th's need for PARS; based on' "Q W^f iplant conditions. g a O i; [ ,lTheiRadiologicalt Health Advisor checklist has'a briefing ,j 4 m, w sheet'( Attachment 3 to'IP 1'.2) for the Radiological 1 Health 4 ,5 Advisor lto Lcomplete. and 'deliveri t'o 4 the. NHY Offsite-g 1 Response Director.. - This form.hasrcombinations :ofi ~ no >j m sp / action,j shelter,- evacuati'on, and recovery for each, of the ,4 s ,#*Ii ERPAs (within the plume ' exposure ' EPZ. This form f also' 7 / g :n ' cont.ains an:incastion PARyandia secti'on for.re'ommending 'a 5 c 3g 7,, A > emergency! worker exposure controls.. j . M -n ,,seesg==11t for discussion of-dose projections for' the a;

g y[*,

,S[ iingestion pathway. L ~ r 4 ,g N; lLPlan Reference 4 ,+ o ,g ~ IP 1. 2 ; IP l t7 ; ' IPL i' I.10. Section-3.2; Section 3.3; dection<3.9; y i d / ; 55 + 1 ,,I hf /

=- ~' .e May 1990 +

6:

/ f 1.12; IP 2.2; IP.2.5; and IP.2.6 1 ^ Evaluation {;.r. s I.10.. Adequate. t lr FEMA has discussed the fact that a 1990 EPA document has produced revised guidance on initial dose rate conversion factors found in. Figures 1 & 2 of Attachment 7 to IP 2.2. i s b. NHY has indicated (letter dated Aprilj20',.1990) that this' revised guidance will be incorporated as part of the 1990 e plan update. t-Evaluation Criterion. i (- .I.11. Arrangements to locate and -track the airborne radioactive . plume c shall be. made, using either or both Federal. and offaite? response organization resources. ?o . Statement .I' 11.. LThel P! sn n.. (section L 2.3; 2)! in'dicates tthat NHY ORO will: [s,' ., reques.t i Federal - assistance; to; perf orm - aerial' monitoring.- a W NHYJ OP.O E will : provide two : field ; monitoring '.. teams: withl , vehicles for: ground. transportation. Thes'e teams, along-1 'with tnose of NewLHampshire(State'and Seabrook Station, C,., t citn : bel used 'for1. locating 7 and-tracking: an airborne-a radioactive plume from the ground.: ys' _. i ,1 Plan'Referencel h,A' m 9" m ii! ' I.11'. t : Section 2. 3. 2 ; Section 2. 3..~3; Section 3.3. 2; IP 1.12; and ' 1 4 w IIP.'2.3. ~ a ff'p [ ' Evaluation) , Adequate;.; 4, I.11'. 11 I ipi '~ 5 did,, n.: (1 + V j 1;t g L l' riy, \\ fk; s J 4

y %f f,j May :1990 .q a. 4 H ~ Protective Response (Planning Standard J): J. I[b A' range of protective actions have been developed for the plume ~ exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for. the _ choice of-protective - actions during ' an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance,.are developed and '4, in - place,. and protective actions for the. ingestion exposure pathwayLEPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed, i n.! > Mo Evaluation Criterion j M 'J.2. Each licensee and ofruite response organization shall make i E @g , onsite'~. individuals. to some suitable ~offsite location, provisions for'evacuatior. routes and; transportation for i '} u- ' including alternatives. for inclement weather, high traf fic density'and specific radiological: conditions. 4 u, % J . Statement Q-4 1 m

J.2.

_ The Plan (section - 3 ^ 6.3) indicates' that' the: evacuation of - ' '., l onsite personnel is incorporated into the ETE Study.. The-1 Seabrook" Station;is~ located in the State of.New Hampshire' .,j W" , PlanL

Reference:

O I[i w b', SM J.2.. Section -3.6.3-and 'Seabrook Station ' Evacuation Time it ,%pf 1 'b' sEstimat'e : (ETE) ' Study. 4 3 :y G W, s hhs' Eva'lu'ation syE9,

NotJApplicable.

+ 4 y 7:-

J.2.

?jy $~, + a u .o. 'w I lg! E. ',, Rvaluation Criterion'- ,~1 m + hh L' J. 9 '. iThe5 offsit'e' response.organdzation i shall:. iestablish? av M ~ capability for implementing protectiveimeasures' based uponL ,1 7Q . protective! action guides:and other criteria. The offsite gM' ' response Jorganization shall) describe the::means;lforj q y/R jrecommending!{ protective < actionsiLto theLcpublic, for' j 4 4 activatings the;' alert and# notification esystem,, and for- ,f; 7y* M' Jnotifying the' public of protective: action recommendations. This;shalldbeLconsi' stent withithe recommendations'of. EPA' 1 i, regarding; exposure.resultingLfrom passage of radioactive gg! airborne" plumes,- (EPA-520/1-75-001) and: ~with. those 6of +. ' DHHS/FDA regarding radioactive contamination'of human food 'gF ( [ J,jji' ght, -( j [' 57 t k ]n, fWy - d(-:hlg D a he V -

h, c =c May -1990 1 and anima) 'eeds as published in the Federal Recister on October:22, 1982 (47 FR 47073). Statement J.9.. The Plan describes the Massachusetts communities affected by the Seabrook Station plume exposure EPZ as follows: .a The land area is completely within Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All land area in the Seabrook-Station plume EPZ is said ' to be under the I L" jurisdiction.of the following communities:

Amesbury, j

Merrimac, 'Newbury,,- Newburyport,. Salisbury, and West 1 e. E Newbury.- A' portion of Plum ' Island is under the jurisdiction'of-the DOI. The navigable waters of the 2 Atlantic Ocean and-the Merrimack River-are undar the m* . jurisdiction-of the USCG. The -FAA maintains . jurisdiction' over; the 1 airspace within the' plume ,p . exposure EPZ'. '-See' Figure 1 on page xix. q H The' general public population (source is Table 1.3-1) b' is' stated to be.as follows: l J y,' 'l COMMUNITY-PERMANENT SUMMER PEAK W j ,t -Amesbury 14,717 ' -19,818 ? Merrimac- '4,971' 6,'630J 7 .Newbury; 5,706 11,247-s as ', Newburyport 16~,816 .23,700 I ( Salisburyi ~7,960-20,510:

West Newbury.

3,413' 4'746 / i TOTAL ' POPULATION 53,583 - 86,1651 1 J i ~ lb Portions of Salisbury and Amesbury-areolocatediIdithin. .[J 1 + the two1 miler.and five mile"distanceJfrom the Seabrook. [ Station inithe:5 to the1WSW compas's. sectors.' Portions- + .of f Salisbury 1 and J Amesbury and' all/most.of7 errimac, M Q W West Newbury,. Newburyport; yandi Newbury,are locatedJ b 'between: the'-five and ~ ten smile Ldistance: from. thel i R >a,'* Seabrook; Station in,the:S toLthe;WSW compass' sectors.s 1, x .;t (h 5The transientipopulation'mainly1 visits SalisburyLBeach7 c < ~ and0 beaches ~ on., Plum Island, which - are : located...in: IN p ' m iSalisbury, ?Newbury, E and - Newburyport, as well! as' the ' j N ' Parker. River.:Nationalt Wildlife. Refuge, which is: located T .in;Newburyport,.Rowley,(and Ipswich.. j ~ y TheiPlan, describes' the ' Ingest, in Exposure' EPZ as. follows: y s The '. Seabrook! Station Inge" ion Exposure ' EPZ affacts q; 4& l[ OE 58-- i n 7 (' + 3 x~

x l XT May 1990 ii 4 ' g% portions. of the States of Maine and; New Hampshire ~ and-

g 7'

portions of the' Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plan identifies all.or portions of the following Massachusetts Counties - as being part of the Ingestion Exposure EPZ: g

Essex, Middlesex,

Suffolk, Plymouth,

Norfolk, and

-Worcester. See Figure 2 on page xx. m J NHY ORO. has adopted the concept of operation for Protective Actions (pas) in the Plume Exposure EPZ as M, 'follows:- .'NHY ORO.will_ rely;upon a combination of precautionary and protective' actions. ,w LPlant-status and prognosis are the basis' for precautionary andi protecLive actions. .NHY ORO: will m. utilize ' dose projections to confirm the adequacy.: of L - protective - action ' decisions based upon assessment of $4R plant' status and prc..aosis as described in section 3.4. a4 Ffg ~ Precautionary actions at SAE EC1;: Recommend that Plum F-Z LIsland-Beach,. Salisbury Beach, and Parker River National i Wildlife Refuge.'be closed between May.15 and September

15 and access. control

be : established.

Recommendithat-1 - the ' USCG establish a marine safety zone. Consider: ,r

recommendingLearly evacuation'of schools or closing of-1

[. schools'if they are.not open. $d k Precautionary actions:atEGE-.ECL: Recommend that Plum-f, Island -Beach, Salisbury. Beach,' and Parker' River National Wildlife l Refuge.be--closed:,and' access! control. be

/-

established.- Recommend that the USCG establish a marine-I!" safety zone. Consider recommending early: evacuation of 1 t pj ' 3 f" schools or; closing _of schoolsLif theylare not'open'.- 4l Protective actions at GE ECL:: Recommend combihations j y1

offshelter.and. evacuation.coupledfwith acce'ss control, j

^ . depending upon assessment: of emergency, for the general o 3' 4

pitblic and Special Populations. -Recommendationsswill 1

belby ERPA; 4ME + , p" qiC s' j NHYLORO hes. established the capabilities for effecting thei @,, it

evacuation

of;the ' general public and Special' Populations.

F + ;

NHY ORO

has designated staff, equipment, ard. resources to s

6 4, offeet evacuation;and,to. establish access controlfpoints i*; (ACPs) Eforl evacuated areas; NHY ORO.will provide N do'simetry and KILto'those Special Pophistions'whotcannot j -evacuate. Transients : without tranhortation will. be. "$"W treated the same as residents without transportation and W iwill be' directed to:use the predesignated route buses. },~, 'l; 59 [h L x I

)pi' pf zy.

i S

4 u May 1990 1 NHY: ORO employs the " Shelter-in-Place" concept. This concept provides for sheltering at.the location in which the sheltering instruction is received. Those at home are to' shelter at.home; those at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace or school building. Transients located indoors or in private homes will be asked to shelter at the locations they-are1 visiting. Transients .without access-to an indoor location-will be advised to-leave the area as quickly as possible in the vehicles in which they arrived. NHYgORO has made arrangements to notify the Commonwealth of-Massachusetts'and the various: local governments. NHY ORO.has made arrangements to notify the DOI and to. notify the USCG'and.the FAA'through the State of New Hampshire. i

NHY ORO has made. arrangements to notify, ' assess needs,

and provide' transportation assistance, if required to Special.

Populations (public:and private schools, day care centers,- q nursing homes,' hospitals,. medical facilities, other. J special' facilities, and hearing-impaired individuals).. -NHY;ORO hasiestablished the capability.to alert and notify .i the.;nublic. - NHY: ORO has made arrangements to notify the: i .public through the use ofia designated EBS. radio station', ' TheJ Plant describes a '. Vehicular Alert and' Notification: H I system;that wouldfbeLut!lized:to alert the public. FEMAP notes: that the-Vehicular-- Alert and Notification System is -,= -operational at this time.. q Y NHYAOROfhas adopted the conceptlof operation:for pas'in

l 6

the' Ingestion. Exposure EPZ-as=follows: n +LPrecautionary Protective" Actions:; Recommend that milk) y animals >'in1thecplume EPZ:be'placed on: stored. feed;and: }nsheltersLat.GE.ECL.. m + 1 Preventive' 'Protecti e Actions: Recommend: pas if j c 4 . measured; contamination of, food b stuffs-- exceeds the. preventive! derived response? levels.< { M . : EnergencyT Protective. Actions:' 1 Recommend pas - if~ the! .i hmeasured contamination;.of foodstuffs exceeds-the. 9 >LemergencyJderived resnonse-levels.=. 4, y. 'NHYlORO williassist'the Commonwealth of' Massachusetts (in 1 c m i h i . t e' mplementation of. Ingestion Exposure Pathway pas. The ' H NHYaOffsite' Response Director;has authority'to. purchase. foodstuffs -with-contamination 4 levels ~ exceeding the e em'ergencyXderived response' levels. j

l 60-L

~

r I /

j Y

'4 iN a May 1990L 4 i I ij ;' i [

r. l S

3e' has adopted the concept of operation for pas for tt s Reentry and Recovery period as follows: recommend the designation of restricted zones,-relocation of the general; public, and decontamination campaigns.- NHY ORO will base .the Reentry and Recovery. Protective Actions on the-measurement 'of. contamination that-would result in the. projectc' knele body dose exceeding the various relocation -PAGs.. 4 NHY ORO has adopted the EPA PAGs: for the general public - I b and emergency. workers lin the plume exposure EPZ. NHY ORO has adopted the FDA PAGs for-foodstuffs in the ingestion 1 exposure EPZ.. The NHY ORO PAGs are consistent with those of thefCommonwealth of Massachusetts-and the State of New-Hampshire. NHY ORO has adopted. the draf t EPA PAGs for L> c relocation. i I.' ', ' iPlan. Reference. ~ a L,li, T 3 J. 9 ~. Section ! 3.3; Section - 3.4 ;. Section' 3.5; Section 3.6;. $", Un

Section 3.7; Section 3.8;. Section 3.9; Table 1.3-1;.and h6 ,,

'IPn2'.16'.- Ly' f:, n ; h,f ~Eva'luation-pp J.9.. Adequate. 4 b,, M 3 Evaluation Criterion b;h; re'sponse' < organization ':s plans.. to ~ implement gj7 EJ.10. Theioffsite 1 $F M, ' protective measures for;thel plume exposure pathway,' hall l s Linclude'.

1. ,w

~ p M g <- ,J;10.aL Maps 4.showingi evacuationa routes,- evacuation. areas, $M preselectedi radiological; : sampling and. monitoring. L M (.

points,irelocationicentersrinchost' areas', and shelter

%;p - areas ' (identification b of1 radiological sampling ~ : and ,d ~ M '. M e monitoringspoints 'shall4. includeL theidesignations'. 'in.,. AT

Table J-100f 5 "NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,. Rev..

l' -or : an E y.pQ:. Wg - equivalent uniformf system': described' in ' the' offaite- /NON , plan).; ; Mnp lW{\\fkN,w.,, ' i TStatement Efg ?J.10.a. The-Plan contains several types or; maps.. A map, titled g.g d 7f ." Plume Exposure EPZ"= '( Appendixf A).'.shows, evacuation M k.,f' l areastund shelter areas (locations' of the host facility 1 a k &:px '61' + yn 2 2/1 W-n .L'

.. ~ p ;.. Ym w May K1990 - g p.:B;uis ( /* ; <

• li t

Y E1 and congregate care centers) for the six towns. Maps 1 'y of each town in Appendix.J show traffic control-points. g'A; marked'.. Evacuation routes are shown-in the'ETE Study. _A map of preselected radiological : sampling and 4C monitoring points was not found. A comparable grid ? y system _ and appropriate maps have been established. ^ly : -This, grid system has been adopted by the State's;of New- ' Hampshire and Maine,- as-well 'as the-onsite j i. organization. 4 N, s + a ,,gt-r hM., Plan Reference d W( J'.-10.a.- , Appendix A; Appendix J; and ETE Study. 1 i .!E? ' I L4 Evaluation! e W% w ~ J.10.a.1 -Adequate. f{ 3 m d , v} j 4, ' 1Bvaluation Criterion-I 4i

i ls 3 J.10sb'.

Maps. showing population distribution;around the'nucleart m F* f acility.-- This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees. w a-. 1shallialso present the information'? inia sector' format);; J y1 ( 1 y 5 e, ,t p ' y/ 1 m Statement' [.W.m 'Jf10.b. $The

Plan' contains

information:

on population. M, s 3 $ _g ' 'distributionj 'by:.l evacuation' , area... Population 3 Edistrib'ution aroundLseabrook StationJis shownlinL mapi c fQ S iformV for.- the : six L towns. inj the d plumef exposure J EPZ L in Table 4 1;3-2. 1 Table: = 3. 6 'contains populations; p .distributionL n tabular! form.. Tables 11.3-1 and 3.'6 a U

• f,

i Lgives _ ; figures? for T " permanent residents"7 and W " peak j m yy 4 gy M *.

populati~on stotal J i defined 1as : summer, midweekKdata'. ;

j TheselFfiguresi are-derivedifroml thel Massachusetts: + s e y,,b ,'5 . Institute; for Social 'and' Economich Research " and are t _q t' estimates for 1990.: O ~

v w

l-h m y} 7, m. A,.'., 'f, b._ \\ V,, '* JPlan< Reference 1: ,a F. t/ LJ.1,0.bL Table 11.3-2;'<and: Table 13.6-1. q 4 q q 4 : t .,1 in' , [ i i, g. h$' '. t A.N m n, ,) L &n 14 '62 v d, '- Lv m1.- y. m; , m a;i f; w S h l [i j.'l l A

wn x.,

~ +

L, May: 19907 ti; - '-t 'N l

Evaluation l

c L J.10.b.. Adequate. h ' Evaluation Criterion j J.10.c. Means;for, notify' =11 segments of the transient and 4 > resident populatwn. -l f y ,[ ' ' Statement \\;. O b J.10.c. The Plan describes the means.for: notifying all segments of;the plume EPZ population. See comments under E.4. r, fs Plan:

Reference:

J.10.c..iSection 3.2.5; Section" 3. 7-. 3 ; IP 2.13; and IP 2.16. a v. v Evaluation-l LJ.10.c.;. Adequate. pc o @p Evaluation / Criterion J.10.d'.ciMeansifor protecting lthose_; persons whose mobility may B LM[- y' 'be 41mpairediduel to ' such f actors > as - institutional or. g g"

other" aconfinement.

.iThese' -means shall include' q p*. .notificationy supportDand assistance in. implementing 3 protectivecaeasures'whereiappropriate' f e M iStatement 4 p;j;, f e M', !J.10.d., 'TheK Plani l(Sectidn; 3l6);cdescribes' the means for

1. y

.protectinyl those; personsy1whose mobility mayj be a pX impaired..-The'means include: notification,:and support-P~ and assistance.;1 i E 'The;EvacuationDSupport Coordinator.is responsible 3fo.ra directingltheifunctions~of1the/ School Coordinator and;

m

'm' Special' ?opulation JCoordinator. IP ' .% 7 -- provides ' t

m. ' '

-Q guidance r for noSifyingi the: Special ~ Popalations > ' of j LP

• 1 recommended /

pas-anda assessing transportation r quirements. The"Special' Populations.are; defined as J school? childrenillving, and attending school sin the Lj, plume' exposureL EPZ L school. children'living in the plume ln j u q 63 q W i lt r L,' 4

.. ~ - 4 f May ~ - 1990 l ~n x r y- ) o; E l>Rt exposure EPZ and attending school outside the plume t ;' . exposure EPZ,-medically homebound individuals, hearing- ? ' impaired individuals, individuals in hospitals, and p persons in other-special care facilities. f: [, The School Coordinator is responsible for directing the Q School Liaisons and referring' transportation f~ y requirements to the Bus Company' Liaison. Section 5.2.2 of IP 2.7 states that the School Coordinator requests w buses from the;. Bus Company ~ Liaison. . The'. School l coordinator receives, the bus needs from the six School 1 g4 -Liaisons.- Each School Liaison' is responsible; for V notifying schools in the-designated communities,. j U relaying PARS to the schools, and informing the School-J? Coordinator of-transportation needs and the status of-fp PAlimplementation.- Attachment 1 of IP 2.7'is used by. .theJ School Liaison to notify schools, and to inform l% them of-PARS.- The attachment contains. the-PAR [M e "no...spaning/ ~ ' cancellation" of ' school sessions-and ?W . school related activities. School-Liaisons are also 4 h M' responsible for notifying-. schools ~ outside - the plume 3 sh.. exposure. EPZ :( Attachment 2 of IP 2.7) that are c.ttended - kN

by students'living in the: plume' exposure EPZ.

w j 5% The'Special.Populatior. Coordinator.is responsible for: g: directing the-activities: of the Speciali Population-fi Ay Liaisons,z -ensuring 1. notifications of' Lthe hearing-W' impaired;are made,: referring busirequirements to the i Bus : Company Liaison, ;and : obtainingG special vehicles t h - (ambulances / wheelchair;. vans).; Special. Population. 3 %g ( > ' -Liaison' J are 'assignedato" make Dnotifications to the. i s a i 3 - e.oninstitutionalized special: populationsi including the i hearing-impaired,Landato;special facilities other than-Q!k, schools.3._ Route Guidesoat the.': Staging ' Area are - toEbel g Ws available after' declaration.of'alSAE.for dispatch?to-H y% the. homes.of-the hearing -impaired to~ inform them of, the dps,, need to take protective actions. Lists;of persons:with M $]@W " M special' needsl are to a bea maintainedEvia 'an- ' annual special1 needs (survey L (mail-ink cards, - posters,i phone pp inquiries," and personal visits)'. j These and other? lists j pK[g .of-special,faciliti'es arel.to be"Luaintained in 'y i; ~ Appendix.M.. M 1 dk< The' ' Plan " states i that- ~ NHY! ORO lhas 'the means for $!Q"'y conducting > simultaneous evacuationt of all special g:%! populations within E the Massachusetts o plume" exposure %d EPZ. Provision Chas been ' made for buses, ' vans, 'and c VTy -ambulanc'es to evacuate special populations to reception

7' centers a for monitoring Land" decontamination',; and

.to 1

i$ relocate special1 populatio'ns' to host f acilities; and ?% congregate care. f acilities, as appropriate. - FEMA notes 3 i l[! %:. .l 64- %m t m $ )., @s k. x4 s

l.

~ 4 m ,a. M9y 19901 i 3 J l, that the Plan _does not rely on. the ' school buses routinely used by the school districts. ] . Maps ' to direct those assigned to evacuate: special- ^ . populations have been developed'. Provisions have been- . made to store the maps at the ' Staging Area and to . provide the maps to Route-Guides. I ' Appendix' M. indicates that there are needs for: 235 g i l buses ' and ' 2 vans to evacuate 10,889 persons from i ' schools; !20 L. evacuation bed

buses, 68 buses,-_ 63 1

1 ambulances _, and'51 wheel chair vans to evacuate-2,471 {. ' persons from - special, f acilities;' 6 evacuation: bed 1 4 g %' gl

• buses,'4; buses, 8 wheel chair vans, and.23. ambulances l

l 'to' evacuate 219-258 persons from medical facilities; ' and 6 evacuation ~ bed buses, 69 passenger vans,'17 wheel j R ' chair vans, and 2 ambulances.to evacuate special needs persons fromntheir residences. i' Q> + ' %w Plan: Reference. ti J i 10. d '. Section13.6; IP 1.3;-IP 1.9; IP'1.10; IP 2.7; IP 2.10; 1 j! .IP"2.11; and" Appendix'M. l ]^4 s y R ? J'

Evaluationi 1

2 v. ,~ ') @3 J.10.d. > Adequate;;o, .u ' I .u j

New

Hampshire Y:nkee= conducted'a'special needs survey' q

D ~ . inn 1986..' LNHYfeonducted - twos speciali needs -surveys t in -- ( ji !1989.-- ' ' ! FEMA's' review'f)the[ Letters of Agreement 1(Appendix lC) )) o 4 indicates!thatiadequate resources areLavailable. H '1 d ^ 'Evaluationicriterion' j;li g xz y g. 4.10.' e., LProvis'ionsi fore the?.use.of-radioprotective

drugs, N

i Jg .:; par ticularly '. .for- . emergency _ workers and a P< . institutionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ : d; jwh'ose11mmediate - evacuationl may be Linfeasible or-.very _. e -difficult,(including) quantities, storage, and means5of .m I! M 4 d

distribution'; % ' '

t' y $jg, Statement, m+ 1 t J.10.e.

The:Planf(section 3.5.4) describes the provisions for-

~ the use'ofdradioprotective drugs. KI tablets are to;bes d>f 4 a 6 'iss'ued along,with dosimetry to emergency personnel;who-musti enter lJthe plume ' exposure EPZ. Dosimetry 7 q 65 ^ q l 0 e r .,__h ,,l' 1

9.3 .v + 4 1 -- M a y ~ 1 9 9 0 : v y ,G i at Recordkeepers'are to deliver a set of dosimetry and KI ai to each bus driver at their, respective bus. yards. All other emergency workers. at the Staging ' Area are to receive;both dosimetry and KI. ,w The NHY ORO..Lwill: -provide dosimetry and KI for 5

• 1

~1nstitutionalized individuals who cannot be evacanted if requested by lucal emergency. officials (section ~ I 3.6.3). ? Dosimetry Recordkes s are. to deliver 50. sets of. i . dosimetry with KI to each~ local EOC, if requested.to do .g y, so. a N '% Plan-Reference I i i f q:,w. J.'10.e. SectionJ3.5.4; Section 3.6.3;. IP.2.8;'and Appendix I. = ~ egy Ai;= - ,c

p c

. lL:g % ' Evaluation- ^a J.10.eE - Adequate. ,i g'lS.. a ',s. % . Evaluation: Criterion: "g (J.10.f.:.The. offsite response' organization's : plans:.should. 'i W . include o the' method. by; which? decisions; by1 the State Health l DepartmentD for administsring. :radioprotective ' i i $g drugsfto-the-general population.can:be'madecduring an PQ ! emergency. : ; The' plan shallf adopt the method used1by the N StateE where L such 9 a ;l method jisha'vailable~., The plans 1 'g g j > y - shalle provide'.for Eadvising jSt' ate Health (Departments My

regarding; such..., decisions;; fand1 - the E predeterminad-m gg,

4 4 . condition under: which ~such _ drugs' may 'be used -by, of f site - m myj N emergency' workers;* w p ,e bJy ' ;i ~ f>.ii Ni i ! il 13 S$ O h..s. Statement. l m, m m.

~~

1J;10if~..;The' Plan Rstates :thatR theDlNHY nORO 1has-notHmade Provisions- ~forotheidistributionLof4KIJto<the generalt: g y @'?@p 6 N U" ' public,;L which' -is ? consistent 1 ithz the n commonwetlths of-cs w k 'g j, Massachusetts l RadiologicalJEmergency : Responcat Plan., g q y 4 ga<... I ,l} #;; y } f, 1 ,y 9 'Alli NHY ORO1 emergency.. personnel fwhoc aust enter - ths r V W J i w(a ' b [(4 [ ISee-DHHS1 Federal. Register noticeiofTJuly 24, 1985[(50tFR J l[p'W !30258) entitledEFederal PolicyjonlDistribution of' Potassium; Iodide-i ~ f, 'Around Nuclear Power. Sites for UseJas?a' Thyroid Blocking Agent. 'J w i, e? 66. + k@ k ',g n u O ,s; ) ggr@m - 3 m3 " ^ a' mm

~ i May 1990 ,v c .ib i ?vi t r; plume-EPZ will be given KI tablets :along with

• n dosimetry.

The Radiological Health Advisor will use the evaluation of projected thyroid exposures in-the. decision to authorize the ingestion-of KI by NHY ORO emergency -' personne t. The Plan 'specifiet, that any emergency-worker whose dose exceeds 25 rem -is to. be - . Yi authorized to take KI. j pw ym EPlan Reference 1 ~m( J.10.f. Section:3.5.4 and IP 2.8. s s 1 'h. I' Evalhation i 1 ,j4 J 10.f.;. Adequate. 9 > y ';- G Mb p" Evaluation Criterion j T N 4 Jf10_.gp lMeansiof relocation. 1

Statement

il ' lj J.10.g. LThe Plan (Section 3.6.1)' describes means for relocation - s of the' general public'(via-automobile), residents and- ,l l l %. ' 9 h -; transients? requiring: assistance - (automobile. orJ bus),..

M L*

"Special? Population /special? f acilities : ( bus, ' ambulance,1 ]

ortvan)ieand schoolsi-(buses)., 'The' numbers of' buses, O

%< m. Q-. " g. ambulances, Land;vanst requiredLare tabulated in Appendix: i ' M.;=See commenta under J.10.d.: ,1 Mg...~. ; m t

• m 5

ef @' h 'W.. o s .IP 1.'3, 1.9, 1.10,2'.10, land 1221bprovideguidanceLand! N 4 b % $ j; m $ W : control for_ implementing; evacuation protective actions.; y 4 s' g'{ -mg Qy m p - i

ThelStaging T Asea ELeader.xisi responsib$ for fbriefing.-

,f .personneli; dispatched E to V bus E yards, fThe= Bus - Company; 4 4',< y fg . L Liaisoni isi responsible ( for _. obtaining : buses 4 toi s'upport. ?,'q a, ' y[ L thefevacuation of _ general and Special: Popul'ationsl.- Thec, 3}l', W(7-LBus;companylDispatchers~areLresponsible.for taki'ngiBus 5 ' Driver? Packets.to/busLyards kbriefingibus drivers,iand;' g g; )ig dF {. Jy-@/M ,.ji 3' y,, Loverseelna theE. dispatch ' of gbuses b

TheLBus Company-

',~ { Dispatcher..is to takeiDosimetry: Record KeepersEtojthe( ,j Of~% fassigned: bus;zyards.'. The. Route ;Guidef procedureL j ~ f '(

Attachment:

3 =, IP ; 2.10)c atatesi that that Route' Guides: 4

• N *i Lwill ' report to the assigned Ebus'.yardiwithf the; Bus T

q_f'

company. Dispatcher._-The'Specialf. Vehicle! Disp'atcher'is

'7Mf responsible for; briefing ambulance / van ' drivers,. q? ! }Q W L, g (assigning. pickup points, and dispatching them from thet +, Staging LArea.~ _ Transfer; Point Dispatchers K i are - + il 'll l' 67 f

y

. g{f' i [1 rh~ im. f k as h' %;Qff Q I

j May 1990-responsible for assigning bus

routes, assigning dosimetry to road crews, dispatching / briefing Route

=1 l Guides and bus drivers who are assigned to Transfer Points. The Bus Company Liaison is tasked to determine the availability of buses, and the mobilization time. This information'is to be recorded on Attachment 1 of IP 1 2.10. This form provides for an indication of the availability of equipment and the, identified bus requirements by community for' transit dependent, special facilities, and schools. When there are more -bus companies and/or bus yards than Bus Dispatchers, IP 2.10 directs the Bus Company Liaison either to request buses from smaller bus companies to go to designated bus yards for dispatch, or to request NHY ORO to-provide additional Bus Dispatchers.. The Bus Company Liaison must interface with. the Special Population Coordinator and the School Coordinator in order to determine the actual number of buses required for these groups.cf Special Populations by community. The Route Guide procedure ( Attachment 2, IP-2.10) calls [ .for the Route Guides to check out radios in order to-I provide communications capabilities for the buses. The-Route Guides have'to provide' evacuation assistance to the -general public, schools and special, facilities -simultaneously. The Route Guides also are assigned the i responsibility to notify .the hearing-impaired individuals. i The Transfer. Point Dispatchers will pick up radios and proceed to-their predetermined Transfer Point.- The f . Transfer Point Dispatchers are also to: pick up.enough I I radios to provide radios to the Road' Crews. Transfer Point Dispatchers will brief bus-drivers and. I Route' Guides as they arrive at the transfer points. Bus drivers, Route Guides, and. buses will be assigned to specific' routes. Appendix M indicates that 64 buses J will be; assigned to the Transfer Point' Dispatchers to effect transportation assistance / evacuation for transit-dependent persons.

Plan' Reference J.10.g.

IP.1. 3 ; IP 1.9 ; IP 1.10; IP 2.10; IP 2.11; Section 3. 6 ; L Appendix I; and Appendix'M. L i f L 68 h ]

May 1990 Evaluation J.10.g. Adequate. FEMA's review of the Letters of Agreement (Appendix C) indicates that adequate resources are available. Evaluation Criterion J.10.h. . Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, bevond the boundaries of the plume. exposure emergency planning zone (see J.12.); Statement (; The Plan describes the provision for relocation centers J.10.h. (reception centers and congregate care centers)..Two Reception Centers, 3 Host Facilities, and 26 Congregate Care Centers (some co-located) have been - identified ( Appendix M). All are at a distance.of at least 5 miles, and.- most greater than 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure EPZ. According to ARC Form

1. 3074,. completed by NHY personnel for each' Congregate Care Center, the 26 Congregate Care Centers L

have space for 15,846. people. The Reception' Centers-will be managed by the NHY ORO (Section 5.2.6). The .l l Congregato Care Centers will be managed by the American 3 p Red Cross (Section'5.2.7). . Haps directing the public from the Reception Centers to the Congregate Care Centers have been developed. 1 L Provisions ' have been 'made to store the maps at the L Reception Centers and-to provide for the distribution of the appropriate maps to evacuees requiring l - congregate care. j A. generic plan for Congregate Care Center setup has been developed. l l1 See oiscussion under J.12. !~ L Plan Reference h ? J.10.h. Section 3.6; Section 5.2.6; Section 5.2.7; IP 1.6; IP 3.5; and Appendix M. 69

May 1990 4 -l i Evaluation J.10.h. Adequate. FEMA visited the various host and-congregate care centers. FEMA interviewed the managers of the l designated facilities and verified that the facility operators were aware of the steps and measures necessary for setup. FEMA found that the spacial arrangements at the various designated facilities-was accurately represented in Appendix M. Evaluation criterion J.10.1. Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions; i Statement J.10,i. The Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study provides estimated traffic capacities of evacuation routes. The capacities of each route segment are tabulated in Sec. 3. Reductions in the capacities due to rain (20%) and snow-(25%) are presented. According to the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study, the highway system in the Seabrook plume EPZ' consists primarily of the following three categories of route segments: Two-lane roads; -Multi-lane expressways; and Freeway ramps. l-Plan Reference J.10.1. Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study. Evaluation J.10.i. Adequate. t Evaluation Criterion l J.10.j. Control'of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibilities for such control; 70 i

May 1990. a Statement ~ J.10.j. The Plan (Section 3.6.7) describes the means to establish access control and assigns organizational responsibilities for such control. NHY ORO will establish. Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) Detailed sketches of each TCP and ACP are included in Appendix J, Traffic Management Manual. The listed ACPs are both on the periphery of the plume EPZ and internal to the plume EPZ. Specific TCPs are alno converted to internal ACPs. When an area has been evacuated, reentry will-be restricted to farm owners, business operators, and emergency workers. ) l -In addition to access control of automobiles on

highways, additional access control measures are presented in the Plan (section 3.6.5).

The NHY ORO i will request the U.S._ Coast Guard through the State'of New Hampshire to establish marine safety zone (5-or I 10-m,ile, marine' safety. zone). Plan Reference-J.10.j.. Sections 3.6.5 & 3.6.7; IP 2.11; and Appendix J. Evaluation J.10'.j. Adequate. l Evaluation: Criterion L J.10.k. Identification of-and means for dealing with potential-impediments (e.g.,. seasonal impassability of roads) to L -use of. evacuation routes, and contingency measures; Statement J.10.k. The Plan- (section 3.6.7) describes the means and process. for identifying and ' dealing with potentiali j impediments to'the.use of evacuation: routes. NHY ORO will preposition 12: road crews at 6 Transfer Points to L clear road impediments and ensure. that roads remain passable (Section 3.6.7 & IP 2.10). Traffic guides will be stationed at predetermined TCPs to expedite the flow of traffic. If alternative evacuation routes 71

May 1990 r become necessary, Traffic Guides will be repositioned by the Evacuation Support Dispatcher (Section 3.6.7, IP 1.3, IP 2.10, and Appendix J). ( - Appendix M lists three_ companics with a total inventory I of 21 towing vehicles. Plan Reference J.10.k. Section 3.6.7; IP 1.3; IP 2.10; Appendix J; and Appendix M. Evaluation L 'J.10.k.

Adequate, i

Evaluation Criterion J.10.1. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and e' distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for tue plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (see Appendix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.-1); and Statement J.10.1. The Plan - (IP 2.5, Attachment 3) contains evacuation time-estimates for various planning sectors in the

r l

Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook-plume EPZ. h A Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Study-was-performed for the entire plume exposure-EPZ, .J including the six Massachusetts communities. In the ETE. Study, =two-Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) were-defined to' include the six Massachusetts communities: ERPA B ~, comprising Amesbury and j Salisbury; and ERPA E, comprising Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, and West. Newbury. Evacuation time j estimates were calculated for these ERPAs. The overall -evacuation time-estimates for ERPAs B' and E include the evacuation time. estimates-for" the persons at the'. L Massachusetts. beaches, for transit-dependent persons, and for special facility populations. The Plan (section 3.6.3) assigns priorities for evacuating (providing transportation assistance to) special populations. The methodology used to assign 72 2

4 May 1990 those priorities is based upon the proximity of the-special' populations to Seabrook Station and the mobilization times. Provision of transportation assistance will be implemented by ERPA in the following Salisbury, Amesbury; and ERPA E order: ERPA B Newburyport, Newbury, West Newbury, and Merrimac. FEMA notes that the above order corresponds to radial distance from the Seabrook plant. Bus transportation assistance will be provided, based on the following' priority scheme: schools and day care centers; transit dependent routes; special facilities; and hospitals. We note that NHY ORO will consider recommending early. evacuation of schools or closing of schools if they are 'not open at both a SAE and GE ECL. Plan Reference J.10.1. Section 3.6.3; IP 1.3; IP 2.5;- IP 2.10; Appendix J; Appendix M; Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study; and. Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study Handbook. + l. 8 I l; Evaluation 1 J.10.1. . Adequate. I p ' Evaluation' Criterion [ -J.10.m. The = basis for the choice of recommended protective actions from the plume exposure ~ pathway during L emergency conditions. This. shall z include expected L. local protection af forded in residential units or other l: shelter for direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.* l' L L

• The following reports may-be considered in determining protection y

afforded. '(1)"Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents'" Sheltering Concepts with Exit. ting Public and Private-Structures" (SAND 77-1725),- Sandia Laboratory. L (2)" Examination of Offsite Radiological Emergency Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents Involving Core Melt" (SAND 78-0454 ), 1 Sandia Laboratory. l-(3)" Protective Action Evaluation Part II, Evacuation and ? Sheltering as Protective Actions Against Nuclear Accidents 73 + . l.

May 1990 L i i ? L l~- Statement-J.10. m.- The Plan (sections 3.3 & '3.4) describes a PAR process that is based on both plant status and dose C projections. Field measurements are inputted as they become available in order to refine PARS. The EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are used as a basis for selecting protective actions for the plume exposure pathway. The METPAC program used for dose projection contains shelter protection factors for a wood frame house without a basement, used in both whole-body and thyroid dose calculations. Plan Reference J.10.m. Section 3.3; Section 3.4; IP 1.2; IP 1.7; IP 2.5; and IP 2.6. Evaluation J.10.m. Adequate. . Evaluation Criterion -J.11. .The offsite response organization shall specify the protective measures to be used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protecting the - public from consumption of, contaminated' foodstuffs. .This shall include. criteria-f or deciding whether dairy animals should be-put on. stored feed. The of* site plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination,' for estimating the dose commitment consequences.of-. uncontrolled ingestion, and for. it;ving. protection procedures 'such as impoundment, decontamination, processing,. decay, product-diversion, and preservation.- Maps for recording survey and monitoring data,. key land:use. data (e.g., farming), dairies, food processing plants, water sheds, water supply intake and treatment plants and reservoirs shall be-maintained. Provisions for maps showing detailed crop infoimation may be by including reference' to their-availability and location-and;a plan for their use. The maps shall start at the facility and include all of the' 50-mile ingestion' pathway EPZ.~ Up-to-date lists.of the. 'name and location of all' facilities which regularly Involving Gaseous Releases" (EPA 520/1-78-001B). U.S. Enviremnantal Protection Agency. 74

May 1990 t-1 process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall be ll maintained. Statement J.11. The Plan (section 3.4 & IP 2.6) specifies the protective neartres to be used for the ingestion pathway. NHY ORO has adopted the concept of operation for pas in the Ingestion Exposure EPZ as follows:

• PRECAUTIONARY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS:

Recommend that milk animals in the plume EPZ be placed on stored feed and in j shelters at GE ECL. . PREVENTIVE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the i L measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the preventive derived response levels. u EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS: Recommend pas if the' R measured contamination of foodstuffs exceeds the emergency derived response levels. -The Plan (IP 2.6) specifies the process for detecting contamination and estimating dose commitment consequences. NHY ORO has -identified procedures for detecting contamination from the quantitative field data collected by. Sample collection Teams and/or Field Monitoring Teams, i and from laboratory analysis of the field samples. NHY. i ORO has procedures for developing Preventive and Emergency L PARS. The Plan.:in Section 3.4.2 provides for ingestion PARS and . pas to be communicated to the ' general public and' food processors by means of news. releases and.EBS message. IP-2.6 assigns; :the Radiological Health Advisor. the responsibility to assist in the development of appropriate news releases. After recommending an. ingestion exposure L pathway PAR,, the NHY Of fwite Response Director will direct ~ L the Public Information Advisor'toLdevelop a news release. i. Af ter authorization from' the Commonwealth, the Public-Information, Advisor will be instructed to issue.the news. relecse. NHY-ORO will request that the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, the USDA, and the FDA implement ingestion exposure pathway pas. IP 2.6 directs the NHY Offsite Response Director, upon authorization ' from the Commonwealth, to instruct the Radiological Health Advisor 75 .,_.,:..-.,l

a May 1990 i to begin contacting farms and food processors / distributors affected by the pas..The Plan references the process to' provide written public instructions; material to be directed at farmers, farm workers, food processors, and distributors within the ingestion exposure EPZ. The ingestion pathway database-(Appendix L) does contain appropriate information for accident assessment and implementation of i'ngestion pathway pas. FEMA staff i reviewed the -material that is being placed in a J computerized data base, the format of the data base, and l sample outputs of the data base. The reporting formats 1 (outputs) and data base will provide for complete coverage (lists of farms, producers, processors, distributors, I etc.) of ' ingestion pathways within the Massachusetts 1 portion -of the Seabrook ingestion exposure EPZ. 'l Provisions have been made for maintaining maps for p recording survey and monitoring data, and for maintaining ^ key land use data, dairies (Appendix L), etc. at the NHY s ORO EOC. IP 2.4. establishes guidelines for the Sample Collection Teams-(SCT)'to follow in the collection of water, snow, i milk, vegetation, meats and meat products, eggs, soil, food

crops, animal

feeds, and shellfish ~.

Sample -Collection Teams will be directed by the Accident ? Assessment Coordinator through the' Field Team Dispatcher. t i Figure 2.1-1 indicates that. there-are 12 persons i (6 teams). There are 6 team kits. The Plan -(Section 3.3 ) a states that there are 5 Sample Collection Teams. The sixth. team will be used to' collect samples and transfer them to collection points (EOF). 3 Sample Collection Teams are directed to take gamma and. 1 gamma / beta survcys at waist height at each sample S . location ~. Sample Collection Teams are directed to take i-gamma / beta surveys at two inches' above ground at each sample location. .There are various procedures for the different types'of samples. 'The milk sampling procedure includes the required collection of necessary.information- .on' feeding protocol,. volumes of milk in tanks from which the sample was taken, and' times at which milk was added to the tank relative to the time-of the accident. The~ procedure calls for the Sample Collection Team to complete-The Sample collection Teams have-USGS maps. L for the ingestion ' exposure EPZ' and maps _for the plume ') l: exposure EPZ. A grid system is used for both maps. [ !~ ll u L f

l May 1990 ' Plan Reference J.11. Section 3.3; Section 3.4.2; Section 5.2.1; Figure 2.2-1; j IP 2.4; IP 2.6; IP 2.12; IP 2.13; Appendix L; and Appendix l H. I Evaluation J.11. Adequate. ~ Evaluation Criterion J.12. The of fsite response organization shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available shall be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers. Statement J 12. The Plan (section~3.6.3 & IP 3.5) describes the process for. registering evacrees. The Reception Center Coordinator / Assistant Reception Center Coordinator (IP l . 6) are responsible for.ar:tivating and-operating the two - Reception Centers, reuniting evacuees with their f amilies, tracking the number of evacuees reporting to each center and directing _ evacuees to appropriate: Congregate - Care Centers operated by the American Red Cross (ARC). The Reception Center. Coordinator.will notify-the ARC and Congregate Care Centers.at Alert. They will inform the ARC and Congregate Care ' Center of the emergency status and-assess availability of staff and -facilities. The: l Reception Centers will be ~ activated at SAE. The l Congregate Care Centers will be activated. at ' GE. The Reception Center Coordinator 'will notify the Public-Information Advisor of the Congregate care Centers which will be opened. L The Reception Center Leaders -(IP. 3.5) are responsible for the activs, tion, operation, and-deactivation of the Reception Centers.. Each Reception Center has i leader and - 18 staff persons per shift. A31 evacuees must be I.- processed through the monitoring and decontamination l process before they can gain access to the reception I center via the issuance of a clean tag (Attachment 3 of 77 - l -.g 4 s-,w ,,e-.gav,.y+h- + v

p-% May 1990 + -IP 2.9).. The monitoring and decontamination staff issue the clean tags. There are two security staff assigned-to the reception center. The Reception Center Liaison is to assign a staff person to perform a security function at the ingress and egress points-to the Reception Center. There are two staff assigned to the function of directing i traffic in the parking lots. The-Monitoring and Decontamination operation has. staff assigned to monitor vehicles. 1 The evacuees, once they have been issued a clean '.ag,_ will l proceed to the registration area. The registration form (Attachment 7 of IP 3.5) contains an area for name, resident address, persons living in your home, and the temporary shelter location. The evacuees have the option i of completing a message form (Attachment 10 of IP 3.5). The Reception Center staff will complete the message log .(Attachment 11 of-IP 3.5) and post the log for arriving evacuees to see. When persons request to see the message, after receiving appropriate identification, the staff will o deliver the message. The Plan-(section 3.5.3 & IP 2.9) describes the means for monitoring of evacuees. NHY ORO will use Monitoring Trailer Complexes at each Reception' Center. All arriving-4 . persons will be monitored. Each Monitoring Trailer-Complex has-20 monitoring stations.. There are procedures for decontamination of evacuees in the Plan. TheLlayout of the Monitoring Trailer Complexes shows a' -decontamination area with a double sink and two decontamination showers. The. Plan indicates thar addi-q tional monitoring capability is available to.NHY ORO from t Yankee -Atomic Electric

Company, other Ne%

England utilities, and Federal resources. j - The Plan describos the personnel and~ equipment available d to monitor the public. A Monitoring Team in assigned to each of the two. Reception Centers._ Etch.~ team has 1 41 persons per. shift. Each Monitt':cing Tear. reports to a i l' . team leader. The Monitoriry Team Le & c. report to the-Radiological Health Adviser. IP - 2.9 calls for the use of ' the FT126B instrument for g initial monitoring and the HP210 instrument for monitoring after decontamination. The contamination level' for= personnel and equipment is 200 cpm above background. '15e - L NHY ORO has made provisions to deal-with' contaminated clothing, personal articles, and wastewater.- The. Plan states that the NHY ORO monitoring productivity is 24,686 persons in 12 hours (both Reception Centers). 78 1 .~..

j MQy 1990 -. ) The Plan (section 3.5.3) describes-a radiological scraening program which will be used to determine whether. contamic9ted persons need further medical evaluation. Persons enter the program who cannot be decontaminated below acceptable limits. The Radiological Health Advisor is' responsible for all subsequent actions (e.g., bioassays or whole body counts). Plan Reference J.12. Sections 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.6; Figure 5.2-6; Figure 5.2-8; IP 1.2; IP 1.6; IP 2.9; IP 3.4; and IP 3.5. 1 Evaluation J.12. Adequate. FEMA.has discussed two items with NHY: 1.) consistency between IP 2.9 & section 3.5.3 (add to section 3.5.3, page 3 5-12, "... decontaminated below acceptable limits or are suspected af having internal. contamination"; and, 2.) addition to vehicle. monitoring process (section_5.6.2.a-of IP 2.9)- hhe monitoring of. wheel-wells. NHY has indicated (letter dated April. 20, 1990)-that they will incorporate these-items in the 1990' plan update. b l 1 t 79 e et- ---w-w +- w w- -m--

May 1990 K. Radiological Exposure Control (Planning Standard K): Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, 'are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling 2 radiological exposures shall include exposure guidelines. consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides. Evaluation Criterion K.3.a. The offsite response organization shall make provision for 24-hour-per-day capability to determine the doses reaeived by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear accident, including volunteers who are part of the offsite response organization. They shall also make provisions for distribution of dosimeters, both self-reading and permanent record devices. Statement l K. 3.a. The : Plan (section 3.5.2) describes the provisions for determining doses'receitred by NHY ORO emergency personnel. Provisions have been mada for distribution of both direct reading dosimeters and permanent record devices for I emergency workers. Emergency Workers are responsible for monitoring and recording their own exposure.. There are administrative reporting levels. The reports will be used by the Exposure Control Coordinator to track the exposures received by. NHY ORO; personnel. There are Dosimetry Recordkeepers assigned to maintain dosimetry records for emergency workers. The Dosimetry Record Keepers report to the Exposure Control Coordinator. The Exposure Control 4 Coordinator reports'to the' Radiological Health Advisor. Each emergency worker (as defined in the' plan) is to be provided with one ' thermoluminescent dosimeter and two direct-reading dosimeters (0-200.mR, and 0-20 R), except for monitoring / decontamination personnel' assigned.to the. . monitoring trailers and EWF, who are to receive a 0-200 mR T dosimeter and a TLD. The TLD will provide the official. radiation exposure to be record'd on. the emergency. e worker's permanent record. a' The Transfer Point Dispatchers, Traffic Guides, Local EOC Liaisons,. Ambulance Drivers, Monito" ng/ Decontamination Personnel, Field Monitoring Teams, anu Sample Collection Teams' are to re'ceive dosimetry from Dosimetry L. Recordkeepers at the Staging Area. Bus Drivers are to l, receive dosimetry from the Bus Dispatchers who, assisted 80 t =-

May 1990 by Dosimetry Recordkeepers, are to deliver and distribute dosimetry at the-bus yards prior to the dispatch of buses. The Local EOC Liaisons and Dosimetry Recordkeepers are to j take dosimetry to the local EOCs for distribution to the local emergency workers if needed. Transfer Point Dispatchers are to take dosimetry.to the Transfer Points for distribution to the Road Crews and if necessary Snow Removal Crews. i Plan Reference i K. 3.a. Section 3. 5. 2 ; IP 2.8; and Appendix I. Evaluation. K.3.a. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion l K. 3. b. The offsite response organization shall ensure that dosimeters are read at appropriate frequencies and provide for maintaining dose records for emergency workers I involved in any nuclear accident. ' Statement !L K. 3.b. The Plan -(section 3.5.2).. describes-the: process for l, . ensuring that ~ dosimeters are read at appropriate frequency. and for the maintenance of.' dose records. NHY. ORO i Emergency Workersshave been trained to. read the direct-reading dosimeters at frequent intervals while performing 4 their emergency ~ duties. The term " frequent intervals" has j ~been; specified

in.

emergency.. worker training. as "approximately every 15 minutes.!' The TLD will provide the - of ficial radiation exposure - to be recorded on the - l ~ o emergency-worker's permanent- . record. Dosimetry Recordkeepers will maintain' dosimetry records for emergency, workers on forms'for;a shift basis.. Emergencyi 4 personnel are responsible for L aonitoring and recording their.own exposure while'in the field, and for notifying their' appropriate contact point - if exposure reporting-l leve1sf are. reached. The procedures require. emergency l ~' workers to record their own readings on work sheets. The various forms provided to the EW allow them to' log and track their dose. ~ 81 L

May 1990 Plan Reference K.3.b. Section 3.5.2; and IP 2.8. Evaluation ] 1 K. 3.b. Adequate. Evaluation Criteria K.4. The offsite response organization shall establish the decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to incur exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action Guides (i.e., EPA PAGs for emergency workers and u l-lifesaving activities). l-o Statement K.4. The Plan (section-3.5.2- & IP 1.1' & 1.2) describes the . decision chain for authorizing _ emergency-workers to incur-exposure in excess of EPA PAGs. The NHY ORO has established criteria and set up a decision chain for authorizing emergency worker exposures.- The-Plan -indicates that the exposure limits adopted by the NHY ORO are.the emergency worker whole-body exposure -PAGs j established by the EPA. -The NHY ORO has - established various administrative '. limits NLween 5 rem and 25 rem with the objective of limiting the numberi of emergency-_ workers who may reach 25: rem. The - Exposure. Control- .t Coordinator, the-Radiological-Health Advisor, and the NHY i Of f aite Responsei Director are : responsible - for exposure - control-decisions affecting -all emergency' workers, according to the_ plan.- The' Exposure Control Coordinator (or, for the field teams, ;the -Accident Assessment Coordinator). approves. exposures up to~ 5 rem; _the ' Radiological Health Advisor approves exposures from 5 rem ~ to 25 rem; and the NHY Offsite Response Director approves- [- exposures beyond 25. rem for lifesaving _missionr.. NHY ORO staff. qualifications, as specified in the Plan, do assure that there will be an individual in the decision ~ chain suitably qualified to authorize' exposures in excess of the EPA general public FAGS. 82

May 1990-i Plan Reference K.4. Section-3.5.2; Table 3.5-1; IP 1.1; IP 1.2; IP 1.12; and IP 2.8. Evaluation K.4. Adequa t;e. Evaluation Criterion K.5.a. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall specify action levels for determining the need-for-decontamination. i, Statement-K.5.a. The Plan (section 3.5.2) contains specified action levels ~ for determining the need for decontamination.- For emergency workers, areas of the body, personal articles .and equipment will be considered contaminated if the detected levels exceed.200 cpm above a normal background. The procedures (IP 2.9) specify.the use of the APTEC FT126B probe, which is-a large area (126 sq cm) detector. j-and-count rate meter. A Personnel Monitoring Team (13 persons) is-assigned to the EWF. The Personnel. Monitoring Team reports to its team leader. The Monitoring Team leader reports-to the Radiological Health Advisor-. The trigger levels -(IP: 2.9, section~ 5.3.12) for enrolling emergency workers in..the radiologi' cal screening program are when an individual l's suspected of having internal contamination or when ' contamination cannot be removed-after three decontamination attempts. Plan Reference 1 K. 5.a. Section 3.5.2; IP 1.2; and IP 2.9. Evaluation K. 5. a., Adequate. 83 h m

M2y 1990 Evaluation' Criterion K.5.b. The of f aite' response organization, as P ppropriate,. shall establish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel wounds,

supplies, instruments and l

equipment, and for waste disposal. Statement K.5.b. The Plan (section 3.5.2 & IP 2.9) describes the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel',

including emergency workers with contaminated. wounds; personal articles and equipment. The policy is to address medical needs before decontamination issues. Arrangements have been made for the appropriate disposal of contaminated waste.

l 1 l~ Plan Reference K. 5.b. Section 3. 5. 2 and IP 2.9. y L Evaluation l K. 5. b. Adequate, t I 1 1. l l ) l 84 1 lt !L m

1 May 1990 L. Medical and Public Health Support (Planning Standard L): LArrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured. individuals.' Evaluation criterion L.1. The offsite response organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and i e uptake, including assurance that persons: providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals. Statement i L-1. The Plan (section 3.8.1) describes the arrangements for local-and backup hospitals-with medical services an3 capabilities for evaluation of radiological. exposure antt uptake. Letters of Agreement (Appendix C) hav e beer signed between New Hampshire Yankee and support hospitals -outside the Plume Exposure EPZ that. will treat j contaminated, injured or overexposed-individuals. Both a primary and backup hospital are listed (Appendix.M). Plan-Reference-L.1. Section 3.8.1; Appendix C; and Appendix M. 1 JL Evaluation y L.1. . Adequate. l L The availability.of an -integrated emergency medical services. system -and a public health emergency plan serving the area in :which the facility.is' located and,.as a minimum, equivalent to the Public Health Service. Guide for Developing Health Disaster Plans,-1974, and to the requirements-of an emergency medical services system as outlined in the Emergency Medical Services System Act of 1973 (PL 93-154 and. amendments in 1979 PL 96-142), should be part of and consistent with overall State or local disaster control plans and should be compatible with the specific overall emergency response 'f plans for the facility. 85 --w=

May. 1990 t Evaluation Criterion L.3. The offsite response organization shall develop lists indicating the location of public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical services f acilities within the State or contiguous States considered capable i of providing medical support for any contaminated injured individual. The listing shall include the name, location, type..of facility and capacities and any special. radiological capabilities. These-emergency medical t services should be able to radiologically monitor contamination personnel, and have facilities and trained personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons. i Statement l. L.3. The Plan (Appendix M) contains a list of hospitals with

appropriate information.

Plan Reference j L.3. Appendix M. Evaluation ~ -i L'. 3.. Adequate. l Evaluation Criterion' L.4.. The offsite response organization shall arrange for transporting victims of radiological accidents.to medical support facilities. Statement .L.4. . The Plan (section 3.8.1) describes the arrangements for. L - transporting victims of radiological. accidents to medical l: . support facilities.. NHY ORO has made provisions (Appendix 1 C & Appendix 'M) for the' transportation ~ of injured contaminated or overexposed individuals from a Reception Center or the Emergency Worker Facility to a designated hospital. NHY Offsite Response staff vehicles may also be used, if necessary. L I L 86 j 1

May 1990 i Plan Reference L.4. Section 3.8'.1; Appendix C; and Appendix M. Evaluation L.4. Adequate. t t i f 4 87

May ' 1990 M. Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations (Planning Standard M): General plans for recovery and reentry are developed. Evaluation Criterion M.1. The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall develop general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by which decisions to relax protective measures (e.g., allow reentry into an evacuated area) are reached. This process should consider both existing and potential conditions. Statement M.1. The Plan (section 3.9) describes means by which decisions to' relax protective measures will be reached, including field surveys,- sample collection and

analysis, and' 7

-interpretation of results. NHY ORO has developed general ~ plans and procedures for reentry and recovery. This process considers both existing' conditions and potential changes' in conditions. The Plan cites ' the' EPA draft . relocation PAGs (December 1988) as criteria 'to be used. (Table 3.9-1). The Plan contains a statement that the NHY - Offsite; Response Director, through the Assistant'Offsite-p i Response Director, Supp:ai. Liaison, will request guidance - from the. State or local government as to whom should be allowed t'o reenter an evacuated or. restricted area. I Plan' Reference. 'i M.1.. Section;3.9; Table 3.9-1; and. Appendix J. Evaluation l' L p .M 1.. Adequate. L l-l- ' Evaluation Criterion 1 ? M.3. The of fsite plan shall 'specify means for informing members of the offsite response organization that a recovery-operation is to be initiated, and of any changes in the organizational structure that may occur. 4 88 l' ~ l

~ . - ~ .l a M9y 1990 I ~ Statement i i M.3. The Plan (section 3.9.2) describes the means for informing - l staff that a recovery operation is to be initiated. l Members of the' NHY ORO are to be informed of recovery l operations by -emergency communications which have been operational throughout the emergency. Restructuring of the NHY ORO, as appropriate, will be directed by the NHY l Offsite Response Director, j Plan Reference 'l M.3. Section 3.9.2. j i p Evaluation l M.3. Acequate. l Evaluation Criterion -l M. 4 ~. The of fsite plan shall establish a method for periodically. estimating total population exposure. l 1 i Statement i -s -l M.4.- The Plan (section-3'.9.'5, Total Population Exposure

l Estimates) assigns the respons!bility and-describes the j

general basis for estimating total 1 population doses, -i.e., ) field : monitoring results,. ; dispersion calculations, population data,' and exposure! times. 'Section ~ 3.9.5 of the t ] Plan' defines-total population exposure estimates as an 1 = integrated dose exposure commitme_nt from.both the plume t and ingestion exposure pathways l for : the population atL risk. Total ' population exposure estimates will be L calculated at the conclusion of a radiological emergency. l 3 j Plan Reference i M.4. Section 3.9.5 and IP 2.2. ) Evaluation i M.4. Adequate. 89 h U

May 1990 I I 7 N. Exercises and Drills (Planning Standard N): Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities, periodic drills are-(will' be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected. Evaluation Criterion N.1. a. An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency preparedness plans and organizations. The emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite radiological releases which will require response by offsite response organizations. Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC'and FEMA rules. Statement a N. l. a. - The Plan (section 6.5) indicates that the Director, Emergency Response and Implementation (or designee) is responsible for ensuring that exercises (and drills) are conducted according to NRC and FEMA guidelines. Plan Reference N.1.a. Section-6.5 and Appendix K. Evaluation . N.1.a. Adequate. o Evaluation Criterion . ) N.1.b.- An exercise'shall include mobilization of offsite response organization resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring-' response, This includes 'the demonstration of' offsite response o l: organization' capabil'ities to' interface with non-J participating State and' local government. The offsite response organization shall provide for a critique of the biennial exercise by Federal and offsite -response organization observers / evaluators. The scenario should l be varied from exercise to exercise such that all major l l 90 t

May 1990 f elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six-year period. Each organization should - make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m. and 4 :00 a.m. Exercises should be conducted during different seasons of the year. At~ least one. exercise shall-be unannounced. Statement N.1.b. The Plan (section 6.5) commits NHY to conduct an exercise of the offsite plan at least once annually; with a full-scale Federally-observed exercise conducted once overy two years. NHY is' committed, according to the Plan,-to vary the scenario used for the exercise, the time of osy, and weather-(season) conditions under which the exercise is conducted. The Plan states that some exercises will be 1 unannounced. The Plan indicates that the Director, - Emergency Response and Implementation (or designee), is-responsible for ensuring that the exercises (and drills) are conducted at-the required intervals. The Plan commits NHY ORO to have Federal agencies observo, evaluate, and critique FEMA-graded exercises; while~tte. NHY--Drill and Exercise Group' will - assemble a, team cf controllersL to' conduct and evaluate. all-exercises and -drills. The Plan commits NHY ORO to exercise mobilization of offsite response organization resources adequate to: verify the-capability-.of the NHY ' ORO (and offsite ' support organizations)' to respond to an accident-scenario- .I requiring response. This includes opportunities for State-and local-organizations to ' participate. If these ' organizations do not participate in the exercises- (or H

drills), state,and local participation will be simulated through the use of a scenario drill message.-

-l Plan Reference

N.1.b. Section 6.5 and Appendix K.

Evaluation-N.1.b. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion N.2. A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed-at 91

i May 1990 testing, developing and maintaining skills in a particular

operation.. A drill is often a component of an exercise.

A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a qualified drill instructor. The offsite response organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the biennial. exercise at the frequencies indicated below: N.2.a. Communication Drills Communications between the licensee and the offsite j response organization within the plume exposure pathway. Emergency Planning Zone shall be. tested

monthly,

-Communications with . Federal emergency responra-organizations and offsite response: organizations within the' ingestion pathway shall be-tested quarterly. Communications between the nuclear facility, 'offsite response organization's operations centers, and field assessment teams shall be tested annually._ Communication drills shall also. include the aspect of understanding:the content of messages. If-prar,ticable, attempts should be made=to include non-participating organizations in'the monthly _ communication dri)is.- L i Statement N.2.a. The E Plan (section 6.5.1) commits NHY ORO to conduct drills. These drills are to include-communication. drills 2 'which will test: (1) communications (to the-extent-possible based ~~ on participation) with -Commonwealth and local governments on a monthly. basis;'(2) communications- -with Federal emergency. response organizations and - the statesLwithin the ingestion plume pathway on a quarterly L' basis (to'the extent-possible based on the-participation 1 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts); .and-L (3) communications among Seabrook Station,. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the NHY ORO EOC, and field . monitoring teams'on an annual-' basis. l The. communication drills will include operation-Of I. communication equipment and relaying 'information prepared - l-in advance to simulate actual emergency communication L conditions and to ensure that the' content of the message is understood. Plan Reference l ' N.2.a. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K. l l 92 y x:

May -1990 i m Evaluation N. 2. a. Adequate. r Evaluation Criterior. N.2.c. Medical Emeraency Drills A medical emergency' drill involving a simulated contaminated individual which contains provisions' for. participation - by the local support services agencies (i.e., ambulance and offsite. medical treatment facility) shall be conducted annually. The offsite portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required' biennial exercise. Statement - N. 2.c. ' The Plan (section 6.5.1) commits NHY ORO to conduct an, annual medical emergency drill that will involve the participation-of ambulance services,- offsite medical treatment facilities,. and other support services as 3 necessary. The Letters of Agreement between NHY and the L local support services agencies stipulate that these agen.:les will be participating in such drills. The offsite portion of the medical drill may be performed'as part of the required annual on-site drill. Plan Reference. N. 2.c. Section ' 6.5.1; Appendix C; and. Appendix K. Evaluation N. 2.c. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion N.2'.d. Radioloolcal Monitorina Drills . Plant environs and radiological monitoring drills (onsita - and offsite) shall be conducted annually. These drills shall include collection andianalysis of all sample media (e.g., water, vegetation, soil and air), and provisions for communications and record keeping. Where appropriate, ~ local organizations shall participate. 93 4 ~ _.s

MGy 1990-q ~.. Statement N. 2.d. The Plan (section

6. 5.1 ) - commits NHY - ORO to conduct semiannual radiological monitoring drills.

These drills. - will include collection and analysis of sample media, and provisions. for communications and record keeping. The drills are to include. Seabrook Station personnel, radiological monitoring teams, and radiological assessment personnel. Plan Reference N.2.d. Section 6.5.1 and Appendix K. -Evaluation 3 N. 2.d. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion N.2.e. Health Physics Drills Health Physics drills. shall be conducted - semiannually - which involve response to, and analysis of, simulated-elevated airborne :and liquid samples and direct radiation l measurements'in the environment. L-Statement N. 2. e. The - Plan (section 6.5.1) - c o m m i t's N H Y ORO ' to conduct [. semiannual Health Physics Drills ~. These drills are to.- ' include analysis of simulated airbornei and liquid

releases, and direct. radiation measurements in the environment.

1 Plan Reference I ' N. 2.e. Section 6. 5.1 and Appendix. K. Evaluation N. 2.e. Adequate. 'N Evaluation Criterion N.3. The offsite response organizaticn shall. describe how 94 f. l 1

.1 T' 3 M9y 1990 exercises and drills are to be carried out te, allew free s. play for decisionmaking and to meet the follosing objectives. Pending the development of exercise scenarios and exercise. evaluation guidance by NRC ' and FEMA the scenarios for use in exercises and drills shall include but not be limited to the following. N. 3.a. The. - basic objective (s) of.each ' drill and exercise and-appropriate evaluation criteria; 0-Statement 1 N.3.a. The Plan commits NHY ORO to establish the objectives. Objectives will be explained in terms. of emergency response functions to be exercised. Evaluation criteria will be developed. t Plan Reference 1 l N. 3. a. Section 6. 5. 3. L 1 l J L-Evaluation-N'. 3. a. Adequate. -Evaluation-Criterion i N. 3. b. - The date ( s ), time' period, place (s) and. participating organizations; I i Statement L ' N.3.b.L The~ Plan commits NHY ORO t.o schedule the date(s), time period, place (s), and participating organizations for each exercise and drill. i Plan Reference e N. 3.b. Section 6. 5. 3. i t -Evaluation

i N. 3.b. Adequate.

!i 95 ~ 1 l f

May 1990 Evaluation Criterion N.3.c. The simulated events; i Statement N.3.c. The Plan commits NHY ORO to develop a scenario with simulated events for exercises and drills that will include escalation through the emergency classification levels. The

Director, Emergency

Response

and Implementation will ensure that sufficient of fsite events are added to meet the objectives of the exercise. Plan Reference N. 3.c. Section 6.5. 3. Evaluation N.3.c. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion N.3.d. A time-schedule of real and simulated initiating events; . Statement N. 3. d. The Plan commits NHY ORO to a schedule of real and simulated events. -The timeline of offsite events will be developed and integrated with initiating events prepared for Seabrook Station. Plan Reference l N. 3.d. Section 6. 5. 3. 1 l l Evaluation ? N. 3.d. Adequate. Evaluatic,n Criterion N. 3.e. A narrative summary describing the conduct of the l exercises or drills to include such things as simulated 96 l .x.

+ May 1990 [ I casualties, of fsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective clothing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams, and public information activitiest and Statement N.3.e. The Plan commits NHY ORO to develop a narrative summary that describes the conduct of the exercise. The summary will include real and simulated events, anticipated response, and the extent to which the activities will be exercised or simulated. Plan Reference N. 3.e. Section 6. 5. 3. ' l Evaluation l N. 3.e. Adequate. j Evaluar, ion Criterion N. 3.f. A. description of. the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers. i Statement N.3.f. The Plan commits the NHY ORO to work with FEMA to schedul the placement of evaluators during drills and exercises. The Drill and Exercise Group will assemble a-team of controllers to. conduct and. evaluate all drills and exercises. Evaluators and controllers will be provided with copies of the scenarios and any required plans and procedures prior to the exercise or drill. Evaluators and controllers will be briefed as to the schedule of events and evaluation criteria for each location, and will be provided with evaluation sheets and guidelines applicable I to their locations. Plan Reference L N. 3. f. Section 6. 5. 4. 97 L

i i MOy 1990 1 Evaluation N. 3. f. Adequate. i 1 Evaluation Criterion N.4. Of ficial observers from Federal government and the of fsite response organization shall

observe, evaluate, and critique the required exercises.

A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise to evaluate the ability of organizations to respond as called for in the offsite plan. The critique shall be conducted as soon i as practicable af ter the exercise, and a formal evaluation shall result from the critique. Statement N.4. The Plan commits NHY ORO to have evaluators from Federal agencies observe,

evaluate, and critique FEMA-graded exercises.

The Drill and Exercise Group of NHY will assemble a team of controllers to conduct and evaluate all drills and exercises. The Director, Emergency Response and Implementation will ensure that a critique of the NHY ORO personnel is conducted at the conclusion of each exercise. The

Director, Emergency

Response

and Implementation will ensure that a formal Post-Exercise Critique Report is prepared and distributed. Plan Reference 4 N.4. Section 6.5.4; Section 6.5.5; Section 6.5.6; and Appendix K. Evaluation i l' N.4. Adequate. P Evaluation Criterion N.S. The offsite response crganization shall establish _means for evaluating observer and participant comments on areas needing improvement, including emergency plan procedural l changes, and for assigning responsibility for implementing corrective actions. The offsite response organization i l shall establish management control used to ensure that corrective actions are implemented. 98 i x.

Mcy 1990 I i Statement N.5. The Plan commits the Director, Emergency Response and Implementation, to review all controller / evaluator comments on exercises and drills and to prepare a response stating his concurrence or disagreement with any listed issue. The Director will then prepara a schedule that trac'ts assigned responsibilities for providing corrective actions for valid issues. Corrective actions may include revisions of the Plan or implementation procedures, upgri.es in equipment or facilities, and additional trai. ng and drills, i Plan Reference N.S. Section 6.5.6. Evaluation N.5. Adequate. Evaluation criterion N.6. The of fsite response organization shall attempt to involve the nonparticipating State and local government in the exercises and drills, but their participation is not required. Statement N.6. The Plan states that Emergency Response Training will be offered to State and local emergency officials and-workers. Exercises and drills are considered'part of the emergency response training offered by the NHY ORO. I Plan Reference L N.6. Section 6.1, L Evaluation N.6. Adequate. 99 'U

4 May 1990 O. Radiological Emergency

Response

Training (Planning Standard O): Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency. Evaluation Criterion 0.1. The offsite response organization shall assure the training of appropriate individuals. The offsite response organization shall participate in and receive training. Where mutual aid agreements exist between local agencies such as fire, police and ambulance / rescue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the muttial aid district.' 1 Statement 0.1. The Plan describes a program to train appropriate individuals assigned to the position descriptions within the organization. Training is to be received by all members of the NHY

ORO, unless individuals are specifically qualified for exemption, and is offered to other local agencies and departments.

The training is conducted by the NHY ORO Training Group under the supervision of the Director, Emergency Response and Implementation. Plan Reference 0.1. Section 6.2; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. 9 Evaluation 0.1. Adequate. l l ' Training for hospital personnel, ambulance / rescue, police and fire department shall include the procedures for notification, basic radiation protection, and their expected roles. For those local services support organizations who will enter the site, training shall also include site access procedures and the identity (by l position and title) of the individual in the onsite emergency organization who will control the organization support activities. I offsite emergency response support personnel should be provided with appropriate identification cards where required. 100

May 1990 B Evaluation criterion O.4. The offsite response organization shall establish a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans.' The specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs (including the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the following categories: 0.4.a. Directors or coordinators of the response organizations; Statement 0.4.a. The plan describes a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who. will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization, i Plan Reference 0.4.a. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. Evaluation I O.4.a. Adequate. Evaluation criterion { O.4.b. Personnel responsible for accident assessment; Statement i O.4.b. The Plan describes a training program for instructing and j qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3- ' If the offsite response organization lacks the capability and i resources to accomplish-this training, they mav look to the licensee and the Federal government (FEHA) for asslstance in this training._ j l L t 101 I l 3 1U

May 1990 l 1 4 1 1). Personnel responsible for accident assessment include the Technical Advisor, the Radiological Health Advisor, j Accident Assessment Coordinator, Dose Assessment Technician, and Exposure Control Coordinator. The Technical Advisor receives the Dose / Accident Assessment module. The Accident Assessment Coordinator receives the Dose / Accident Assessment, Radiation Surveys & Analysis, and Dosimetry Recordker. ping modules. The Dose Assessment Technician receives the Dose / Accident Assessment and Radiation Surveys i Analysis modules. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness, EOC operation and tr.iining on their procedures. j Plan Reference 0.4.b. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. 1 Evaluation i O. 4.b. Adequate. l Evaluation criterion j O.4.c. Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel; Statement 0.4.c. The Plan describes a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological l emergency response plans. ' Specific training modules, out of a-total of 21 modules, are assigned for-each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-l 1). The Field Team Dispatcher, the Field Monitoring Teams, and Sample Collection teams receiva the Radiation Surveys & Analysis module. The Reception Center and Emergency' i Worker Facility ' Teams receive the Monitoring' Decontamination Operation module. The-Emergency Worker Facility Team receives the Staging Area operations module. Both these groups receive the basic overview on emergency 3 preparedness and training on their procedures. 1 102 i i l ' 1 1

3 May 1990 t Plan Reference O.4.c. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. i t Rvaluation O.4.c. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion O.4.d. Police, security and fire fighting personnel; Statement O.4.d. The Plan des::ribes a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). The Evacuation Support Coordinator receives the EOC Operations, Traf fic and Access control, and Transportation modules. The Staging Area Leader, Evacuation Support Dispatcher, and Traffic Guides receive Traffic and Access Control modules. The Bus Company Liaison, the Staging. l-Area Leader, the Evacuation Support Dispatcher, the Special Vehicle Dispatcher, the Bus Dispatcher, the Transfer Point Dispatcher, and the Route Guides receive the Transportation module. The road crews, ambulance, bus, and VANS drivers receive job specific training. All these groups receive the basic overview on emergency preparedness and training on their procedures. Plan Reference 0.4.d.- Section 6.3 ; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. i Eva1Luation O. 4.d. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion O.4.f. First aid and rescue personnel; 103 j i

i May 1990 Statement o.4 f. The Plan describes a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). The Ambulance Drivers receive the Medical Emergency module, the basic overview on emergency preparedness, and-training on their procedures. r Plan Reference y 0.4.f. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. j i . Evaluation O. 4. f. Adequate. Evaluation criterion I

o. 4.g. Local support services personnel including civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel; Statement f

0. 4.g. The local organizations are not participating in the planning effort.

See statement under O.6. i l Plan Reference l-O. 4. g. None. i Evaluation O.4.g. Not Applicable. l 104 u

May 19^0 l Evaluation Criterion O.4.h. Medical support personnel; Statement

0. 4.h. Ambulance drivers are considered in this review under criterion O.4.f.,

first aid and rescue personnel. Designated support hospitals have incorporated appropriate training into their own training programs. Plan Reference O. 4.h. Section 6. 3. Evaluation I-0.4.h. Not Applicable. Evaluation Criterion O.4.j. Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency information and instructions; and Statement l l 0.4.j. The Plan describes a training program for instructing and l qualifying personnel w.ho will implement radiological emergency response plans. Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the o*ganization (Table 6.3-1 1). The Public Information

Advisor, Cormunications coordinator, Public Information Coordinator, Public Notification Coordinator, and the VANS Operators receive-the Public Alert and Notification System. Activation module.

The-Public Information

Advisor, Public.

Information Coordinator, Public Information Staff, Rumor Control Staff, Media Center Staff, and Joint Telephone Information Center-staff receive the Public Information module. All these groups receive the basic overview on. i emergency preparedness and training on their procedures. 105 i ib

Hay 1990 l Plan Reference 0.4. j. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. Evaluation O.4. j. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion O.4.k. Liaison personnel responsible for interf acing with State and local responders. Statement i 1

0. 4.k. The NHY ORO has established a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans.

Specific training modules, out of a total of 21 modules, are assigned for each of the position descriptions within the organization (Table 6.3-1). The Local EOL Liaisons receive the Staging Area Operations module. The State liaisons receive the EOC operations, Dosimetry Recordkeeping and Emergency Management moduler. i In

addition, the State Liaison assigned to the l

Massachusetts Department of Public Health receives the Dose / Accident Assessment module. All these groups receive the basic. overview on emergency-preparedness, Transportation, and Dosimetry Recordkeeping modules, as well.as training on their procedures. Plan Reference b O 4.k. Section 6.3; Table 6.3-1; and Appendix K. i Evaluation i O. 4.k. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion 0.5. The offsite response organization shall provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with emergency I response responsibilities. 106 i b

i HQy 1990 { l Statement 0.5. The training program described in the plan provides for the initial and annual retraining (Appendix K, p. K-8) of personnel with emergency response responsibilities. j i Plan Reference 0.5. Section 6.1 and Appendix K. Evaluation l 0.5. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion i O.6. The offsite response organization shall offer training to 11 non-participating State and local governments and other l organizations. l Statement 0.6. The Plan makes a commitment to of fer training to non-participating State and local governments and other organizati.e*,. NHY has offered training to non-participating State and local governments. A suggested training matrix for such organizations is .l given in the pla.% identifying specific modules appropriate to each agency or position (Table 6.6-1). Plan Reference 0.6. Section 6.6 and Table 6.6-1. Evaluation O.6. Adequate. The RAC Chairman for the Seabrook Site has reviewed NHY correspondence that was sent to non-participating State and local governments. This correspondence offered to j provide training. l 107 ~ l

Hay 1990 P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans (Planning Standard P): Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distribution of emergency plans are established, and planners are properly trained. Evaluation Criterion P.1. The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of individuals responsible for the offsite planning effort, Statement P.1. The Plan indicates that the NHY ORO will provide for the training of appropriate staff to assure that personnel remain qualified and aware of current issues in emergency preparedness. Plan Reference P.1. Section 7.1.4. l j Evaluation P.1. Adequate. 1 Evaluation Criterion P.2.- The offsite response organization shall identify by title the-individual with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning. Statement P.2. The Plan indicates that the NHY Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has overall responsibility for -Seabrook Emergency Preparedness, including offsite emergency planning. 108 "i

M3y 1990 Plan Reference P.2. Section 7.1.1. Evaluation l P.2. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion P.3. The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Coordinator with responsibility for the development and updating of emergency plans and coordination of these offsite plans with other response organizations. Statement P.3. The Plan indicates that the NHY Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relations has responsibility for the maintenance of the Plan and coordination of the Plan with other response organizations. Plan Reference l-P.3. Section 7.1.2. l Evaluation P.3. Adequate. l-Evaluation Criterion P.4. The offsite response organization shall update its plan I and agreements as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis. The update shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises. Statement P.4. The Plan describes the provision for annual updates of the Plan and review of appropriate agreements. An annual letter of certific tion uill be sent to FEMA by January 109 i

M3y 1990 31 of every year. Plan Reference P.4. Section 7.2 and Section 7.6. Evaluation P.4. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion P.S. The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes j to the plans shall be forwarded to all participating organizations and appropriate individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans. Revised pages shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been made. Statement i P.5. The Plan describes the provision for promulgating revisions. The Plan describes the provision-for 'I forwarding revisions to plan holders of record. l Plan Reference P.5. Section 7.2.1. Evaluation P.5. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion P.6. The offsite plan shall contain a detailed listing of supporting plans and their source. 1 Statement P.6. The Plan contains a list of supporting plans. 110 U

M0y 1990 Plan Reference P.6. Appendix F. Evaluation P.6. Adequate. Evaluation criterion P.7. The offsite plan shall contain as an appendix listing, by title, procedures required to implement the of fsite plan. The listing shall include the section(s) of the offsite plan to be implemented by each procedure. Statement P.7. The Plan contains an appendix

list, by

title, of procedures required to implement the plan.

Plan Reference P.7, Appendix E. Evaluation P.7. Adequate. ] .l Evaluation Criterion P.8. The offsite plan shall contain a specific table of j contents. Plans submitted for review should be cross-referenced to these criteria. Statement P.D. The Plan. contains a specific table of contents. Appropriate sections of the Plan are cross-referenced to 1 these criteria. Plan Reference P.8. Appendix'D. l l 111 k I U

May 1990 Evaluation P.8. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion P.10. The offsito response org6nization shall provide for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures at least quartorly. Statement P.10. The Plan describes the provision for updating the t Communication Directory quarterly. Plan Reference P.10. Section 7.4.3 and IP 4.4. t Evaluation P.10. Adequate. Evaluation Criterion The offsite response organization shall provide copies of P.11. the offsite plan and its revisions to non-participating State and local government entities where interfaces are identified in Planning Standard A. Statement' P.11. The Plan describes the provision to provide copies of the complete Plan to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the L six Massachusetts plume exposure EPZ communities. J I Plan Reference P.11. Section 7.2.1.- I Evaluation P.11. Adequate. 1 112 U

M3y 1990 Review and Evaluation of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities: Rating Summary Element Rating Element Rating Element Rating l A.1.a N H.3 A M.4 A H.4 A N.1.a A A.1.b A.1.c a H.7 A N.1.b A A.1.d A H.10 A N.2.a A A.1.e A H.11 A N.2.c A A.2.a A H.12 A N.2.d A A.2.b A I.7 A N.2.e A A.3 A I.8 A N.3.a A A.4 A I.9 A N.3.b A. C.1.a A I.10 A N.3.c A C.1.b A I.11 A N.3.d A C.1.c A J.2 NA N.3.e A C.2 A J.9 A N.3.f A e C.3 A J.10.a A N.4 A C.4 A J.10.b A N.5 A C.5 A J.10.c A N.6 A D.3 A J.10.d A O.1 A D.4 A J.10.e A O.4.a A E.1 A J.10.f A O.4.b A E.2 A' J.10.g A O.4.c A l E.3 A J.10.h A O.4.d A l E.4 A J.10.1 A O.4.e A E.5 A J.10.j A O.4.f A' E.8 A J.10.k A O.4.g NA F.1.a A J.10.1 A O.4.h NA. F.1 =. b A J 10.2 A O.4.j A 'F.1.c A J.11 A O.4.k A F.1.d A J.12 A O.5 A F.1.e A K.3.a A O.6 A F.2 A K.3.b A P.1 A F.3 A K.4 A P.2 A l G '.1 A K.S.a A P.3 A l G.2 A K.S.b A-P.4-A l G.3 A L.1 A P.5 A-L G.4.a A L.3 A P.6 A G.4.b A L.4 A' P.7 A G.4.c A M.1 A P.8 A l G.5 A M.3 A P.10 A 1 P.11 A 113 L i:

_ _._.. _ _. _. _. _... _. ~.. o c 4 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSRCEUSETTS COMMUNITIES t ( g 4' ll ll l 4- '%wer/ o o Federal Emergency Management Agency May 1990 l j[{yy g Lu

M0y 1990 CONTENTS 1 I INTRODUCTION A Identification 1 I 1 Facility... 1 2 Governmento in the Plume EPZ. 3 Governments in the Ingestion EPZ. 1 1 4 Response Organization 5 B General Background 5 1 Plans 5 2 Special Circumstances 6 3 Socio-Economic Factors............... C Materials Available for Examination 9 II REVIEW AND EVALUATION AGAINS'i PLANNING STANDARDS 10 11 II.A THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIR?.. i A ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBI,*ITY (Organization control) 11-Planning Standard A B ONSITE EMERGENCY' ORGANIZATION 11 l_ Planning Standard B C EMERGENCY, RESPONSE SUPPORT AND RESOURCES 11 Planning Standard C D EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 12 i Planning Standard D 1 h E NOTIFICATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES 12 Planning Standard E............... F EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 13 Planning Standard F............... I G PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 13 Planning Standard G............... H EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 14 ' Planning Standard H I ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT 15 Planning Standard I i J PROTECTIVE RESPONSE l 15 Planning Standard J i K RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL 16 Planning Standard K 111

May 1990 f CONTENTS (Cont'd) J I L MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPORT 16 Planning Standard L M RECOVERY AND REENTRY PLANNING AND POSTACCIDENT OPERATIONS 16 Planning Standard M N EXERCISE AND DRILLS 17 Planning Standard N 0 RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING 17 Planning Standard O P RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT: DEVELOPMENT,. PERIODIC REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMERGENCY PLANS 17 Planning Standard P 18 II.B THE STATE OF MAINE. A ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (Organization Control) 18 Planning Standard A B ONSITE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION - + 18 Planning Standard B C EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUPPORT AND RESOURCES Planning Standard C 18 l D EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 19 Planning Standard D 'E NOTIFICATION-METHODS AND PROCEDURES 19 Planning Standard E F EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 19 Planning Standard F G PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 20 Planning Standard G H EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1 20 Planning. Standard H I ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT 20 Planning Standard I J-PROTECTIVE ~ RESPONSE -20 Planning Standard J K RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL 21 Planning Standard K iv U

May 1990 OONTENTS (Cont'd) L MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPORT i Planning Standard L 21 M RECOVERY AND REENTRY PLANNING AND POSTACCIDENT i OPERATIONS Planning Standard M 21 N EXERCISE AND DRILLS 22 Planning Standard H O RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING Planning Standard O 22 P RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT: DEVELOPMENT, PERIODIC REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMERGENCY PLANS 22 Planning Standard P II.C THE NEW. HAMPSHIRE YANKEE OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIEATION23 A ASSIGNNENT OF RESPONSIBILITY (Organization control) Planning Standard A 23 B ONSITE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION Planning Standard B 23 C EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUPPORT AND RESOURCES Planning Standard C 23 4 D EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 3 Planning Standard D 24 E NOTIFICATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES 24 . Planning Standard E F EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 25 i Planning Standard F G PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION l Planning Standard G 25 t l H EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ...............- 26 ] Planning Standard H l I. ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT t '27 j l Planning Standard I J PROTECTIVE RESPONSE 27 Planning Standard J K RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL 28 Planning Standard K V 1 r - - + m-.

May 1990 CONTENTS (Cont'd) L MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPORT 28 Planning Standard L l M RECOVERY AND REENTRY PLANNING AND POSTACCIDENT OPERATIONS 28 Planning Standard M N EXERCISE AND DRILLS 29 Planning Standard N............... h O RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING 29 l Planning Standard O i P RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT: DEVELOPMENT, PERIODIC REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMERGENCY PLANS I 29 Planning Standard P ( 30 l III TABULATION OF ITEMS JUDGED INADEQUATE. / III.A The State of New Hampshire. 30 i 30 III.B The State of Maine III.C The New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response 30 Organization FIGURES 3 1 Seabrook Station Plume Exposure EPZ 4 2 Ingestion Pathway Emergency Planning Zone TABLES 1 Population of Emergency Response Planning Area (ERPA) Wholly or 8 Partially within 10 Miles of Seabrook Station 8 2 Organization of Municipalities into ERPAs l 1 l I vi

l l

.g

t i May 1990 \\ [ FEMA Findings and Determinations for the Seabrook Site i lL, I. Introduction l The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible L l for reviewing, evaluating, and approving offsite radiological t emergency plans and preparedness for commercial nuclear power I plants. FEMA reviews of fsite plans and preparedness against NUREG l 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and/or NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 1, which are the joint criteria of FEMA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). FEMA's Findings are provided to the NRC pursuant to 44 C.F.R. 5 350.3(e), 6 350.3(f), 6 350.12(b)(2). The purpose of FEMA's Findings-and Determinations is to provide a statement on whether reasonable assurance exists that the public health and safety of the citizens living in the vicinity of commercial nuclear power plants can be protected in the event of an incident or accident at the nuclear power plant. A. Idantification: 1. Facility. The Seabrook Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) is located in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The licensee is the New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company, an electric utility jointly owned by utility organizations serving the six-state New' England Region. It is located on a peninsula two miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean, forty miles north of Boston, Massachusetts and eleven miles south of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 2. Governacnts-in the Plume EPE. Two states-are affected by the plume emergency planning zone: New Hampshire, including Rockingham County and the Towns of New Castle, Portsmouth,. Greenland, Newfields, Brentwood, Exeter, Stratham, Rye, North Hampton, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Seabrook, L South Hampton, Kensington, East Kingston, Kingston and l Newton; and Massachusetts, including the Towns of p

Amesbury, Salisbury, Newburyport,

Newbury, West Newbury, and Merrimac.

See' Figure 1 (page 3), Table 1 (page 8), and Table 2 (page 8)..

3. Governments in the Ingestion EPE.

Three states are'affected by the ingestion emergency planning zone: New-Hampshire,

Maine, and Massachusetts.

See Figure 2 (page 4).

4. - Response Organization.

The State of New Hampshire's lead agency for directing l 1 ~. - -

l May 1990 the State's energency response efforts is the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management (NHOEM). NHOEM will work closely with other state agencies to assess the potential and/or actual consequences of an incident and to direct the State's and local governments' response efforts. The State is responsible for both the plume and ingestion emergency planning zones. The State of Maine's lead agency for directing the State's emergency response efforts is the Maine Emergency Management Agency (MENA). MEMA will work closely with other state agencies to assess the potential and/or actual consequences of an incident and to diract the State's and local governments' response efforts. The State has the responsibility for the ingestion emergency planning zone. The State of Massachusetts had participated in the planning efforts until the fall of 1986 when a decision was made to withdraw cooperation and participation in the preparedness efforts for the Seabrook site. The New Hampshire Yankee Division of the Public. Service Company - of New Hampshire (NHY) formsd the Of fsite Response Organization (ORO).and prepared the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SP.lC) to compensate for the lack of participatior and cooperation from the Commonwealth of Massachu9etts. The NHY ORO is responsible for assessing the potantial and/or actual consequences of an incident. The SPMC has been developed under the concept of= realism and the set of assumptions set forth.in the NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 50). - This concept and assumptions are based on the principle that State and l local officials will respond in the event of an incident at a nuclear power plant. Under this-principle, the NHY ORO will ascertain'the manner in which the State and local governments of Massachusetts will commit resources, f acilities, ' equipment, and staff to implement the response efforts. The NHY ORO, based upon this determination of Massachusetts response efforts, will commit all or portions of its response capabilities (personnel, resources, equipment and f acilities). The NHY ORO has responsibilities for both the plume and ingestion emergency planning zones in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. l 'l 2 - L.

Msy 1990 \\ Ts7 MAINE -M NEW HAMPSHIRE s ' usta $n I wmes om,u 1 w a I I 7* mirwooo 101 i ( notfM El MMlPfou j \\ ana un unrom

annon, nata mu 51 4

125 It00K STATION j 3,, f unra ifWTom "Sa' maar SEABROOK STAT!0N maa j 10-MILE EMERGENCY ess - ",,,,, g3 PLANNING ZONE (EPZ) '+ user 10 mi-WASSACHUSETTS f 1 i j i FIGURE 1 Seabrook Station Plume Exposure RPE. 3 N 4 u

Hay 1990 1 9 i e ILAND 16 f 95 93 4 j 20CHl5 Tit ( p 4 MAINE CONC 0tO 00ER L 101 ~ twm MANCNtifft'

NEW, 93 00K M ON 3

HAMPSHitt gti,f '~ o 10 W LE 3

u. sus 95 towitt fem (HUSETTS anoont 128

" Mis i str. SEABROOK STATION 50-MILE 12s INGESTION PATHWAY ZONE (IPZ) e WOICESHR b i ( 50 WLE l FIGURE 2 Ingestion Pathway Emergency Planning Eone. 4 j --.mm,-.--......,... ~. _, _ _ - - - t

M3y 1990 B. Ganaral Background 1 1. Planc. The State of New Hampshire's plan is entitled "The State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" (NHRERP). The Plan was developed by the NHOEM and.was issued in February 1985. It was submitted to FEMA for review and evaluation in December 1985.- It has been' updated in February 1986, April 1986, June 1986, August 1986, June 1988, October 1988, November i 1988, December 1989 and February 1990. The State re-quested a formal FEMA Finding under 44 C.F.R. 5 350 in August 1988. FEMA issued a positive finding in December 1989. The title of Maine's plan it "The State of Maine Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station" (MIPP). The Plan was developed by the MEMA and was issued on February 12, 1987. It was first submitted to FEMA on February 12, 1987. It was updated in July 1988 and October 1988. The State requested a - formal FEMA Finding vnder 44 C.F.R. I 350 in October 1988. FEMA approved thet Maine Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station !? sccordance with 44 CFR 350.12 on March 16, 1989. The title of.5e New Hampshire Yankee plan is "The Seabrook Plan tor Massachusetts Communities" (SPMC). The Plan was developed by NHf and was issued in September 1987. It was submitted.to FEMA for review through the NRC on November 27,- 1987. It has been updated in February, 1988, April 1988, May 1988, August 1988, and December 1989.- On April 29, 1988, NHY provided the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report, dated April 30, 1988. On October 14, 1988, NHY provided to FEMA Addendum 1 to the Seabrook Station Public Alert I and Notification Systen Design Report.- FEMA issued a 'i 1 positive finding in January 1990. i [ 2. Special Circumstances.- Geographical and Meteorological features of the plume EPZ. e 5 L t' i a

-...~. May 1990 The State of New Hampshire roughly resembles a right triangle. ' The longest side of the triangle is on the j west and is approximately.190 miles north to south, The eastern apex of the State is the Atlantic ocean. The State's frontage on the Atlantic is 18 miles of which 12 are within.the Seabrook station plume emergency planning zone. This seacoast frontage is lined with beaches._ The plume EPZ extends approximately 8 miles into Massachusetts. The State of Massachusetts is bordered by the State of New. Hampshire on the north, by the State of New York on the west, by the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island on the south, and by the Atlantic Ocean on the east. The Appalachian Mountains cut across western Massachusetts, forming a natural barrier between the-western third of the State and the eastern two-thirds. The eastern portion is characterized by low hills and valleys. The climate of the plume ~ exposure emergency planning mone is-character:. zed by cold winters-and wara summers. The average annual snow f all is in excess of i' 75" and. the total annual precipitation is f approximately 40 inches. Winter temperature extremes l are tempered by the relatively warm water and' summer j temperatures are moderated. by. a sea-breeze. Precipitation amounts are uniform throughout the year, with an occasional heavy rainfall during a northeast 4 storm. The. site is not usually subjected to the full-strength of east coast hurricanes.. Such storms usually move either offshore or inland before they reach the Seabrook latitude. i J The -dominant wind direction.is from the north-northwest. During the= fall and winter, winds from the l west through the northwest' directions account for 50 i to 60. percent of the winds. This. peak is reduced in the spring to 30 to.40 percent:due to the increased. occurrence of northeast winds, usually associated with storms moving up the coast.' Winds are more. evenly-distributed during the summer with an increased 1 incidence of east to southeast sea breezes, especially, during daylight hours. Southwest and west-southwest winds also occur more frequently during the summer. l: 1' 3. Socio-Economic Factors Table 1 presents population data by Emergency Response Planning Area (ERPA). Table 2 presents the assignment of each community to an ERPA New Hampshire's chief manufactured products are 6 l t i t

May 1990 electric and electronic products,. machinery, plastics, , f abricated metal products, instrumentation, f ootwear, and>other leather goods. Nurser L;rs and greenhouse products, : lawn products,. and hay yield about 55 percent of the farm income. Vegetables,

apples, poultry,; and home - products add another 25' percent.

Berries are an _ expanding crop most often made available through pick-your-own-operat ans. Forests cover 86 percent of tho' land area. -The chief commercial minerals are _ sand - and gravel, building granite, feldspar, and mica. Maine's chief industry is forestry productc. Lumber,- l' pulp, and paper operations are located throughout the State. Woolens and woven cotton goods are the other major industry. Potatoes are Maine's largest crop after timber. Maine is among the three top producing potato states. The cultivation of hay, peas, oats,- beans, apples, and' blueberries are the other major crops. Lobster, flounder, haddock, herring, mackerel, and perch are caught in large numbers in the coastal-waters.- Maine-produces one, fourth of the nation's feldspar as well as-sand,: gravel, stone, mica, copper, zinc, and peat. Massachusetts' five leading manuf acturing industries,1 based upon employment figures, are machinery, electric and electrical equipment, instruments, and:related J products,-fabricated metal products, and printing and publishing. About 13%'of the-land is suitable for agricultural purposes. Commercial crops include potatoes, cats,. hay,. tobacco, orchard fruits, eggs and dairy products, and cranberries. Among the minerals, l sand, gravel, and: building stone are significant industries.= Massachusetts' fisheries rank first among the.New England States.in commercial value.

Cod,

i flounder, haddock, halibut,. mackerel, tuna, and q

scallops are the primary species that are harvested E and. processed by. Massachusetts finheries. lL l' o a 1 l 7 I ? i 1 i l m... e

May 1990 TABLE 1~ POPULATIONS OF ERPAs WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN 10 MILES OF SEABROOK STATION -- 1990 [ FEMA notes that the State of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization will decide upon and-implement Protective Actions (for the plume exposure EPE) on an Emergency Response Planning Area (ERPA) basis.) l Resident Summer Peak i ERPA Population Population A 9,442 46,284 l B 22,677 41,553 C 2,439 3,286 l D 15,865 29,782 E 30,906 44,330 -l i F 26,060 28,399 G 40,651 53,114 l Source: Figure-6.5-1, NHRERP, Vol. 8, Rev. 3. . TABLE 2 ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPALITIES l-INTO ERPAs I i Municipalities ERPAs Hampton Falls, Seabrook Hampton Beach -- NH A 'Amesbury, Salisbury -.MA B .f Kensington,. South Hampton'-- NH C Hampton, North Hampton, -- NH -D 1 Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, West Newbury -- MA E l Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Kingston, Newfields,. Newton -- NH. F 1 l Greenland, New Castle, Portsmouth, Rye, Stratham -- NH G Source: Table C1.1-1, NHRERP, Vol.- 9, Rev. 3. 8 .E

May 1990 C. Materials Available for ermaination: l FEMA has reviewed the.Interin Evaluations of FEMA Region I.- These evaluations included the review and evaluation of the' plans and preparedness program of each organization and the report of the Seabrook Station FEMA graded-exercise held in June 1988. The Region has produced a report of the public meeting which'was held on' July 2, 1988'in accordance with FEMA's.44 C.F.R. t 350.9(a). E l Following is the' listing of the materials that. support this FEMA Finding and Determination: aReview and Evaluation of the State nf New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Station, dated February 1990;

• Review and Evaluation of the State of Maine ~ Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station, dated December 1988; kReview and Evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts' Communities, dated May 1990; istatus'of Corrective Actions, First Exercise & Drill'

_ Cycle, ' 1988-1994, of the States of Maine' and' New Hampshire and the-New Hampshire Yankee offsite ' Response' Organization for the Seabrook Station, dated January 1990; . FEMA Region I Report of.the Public Meeting for the SeabrookzNuclear Power Station, dated December 1988;- and .Seabrook Exercise. Report, : dated September - 1,

1988, and as amended on September 6, 1988 and on June 9,-

s 1989. . FEMA's positive finding for the State of. Maine to the-NRC on. December 14, 1988.

• FEMA's positive finding for the State of New

] Hampshire to the NRC on December 18, 1989. . FEMA's-positive finding for New Hampshire Yankee (SPMC) to the.NRC on January 12, 1990. -1 9 q i B U

~ May-1990 . II. Review and Evaluation Against Planning Standards Following is ~ FEMA's integrated evaluation of.the plans and preparedness for.'the States of New Hampshire and Maine,..and the New-Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization. The evaluation is structured and formatted by organization against the fifteen offsite planning standards identified in FEMA's 44 C.F.R. E'350.5(a) and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and/or Supplement 1. The evaluative statement.is an integration of FEMA's~ assessment of the adequacy cf plans-and capabilities of the organizations to implement them. ';1' l i 1 1 I [. i l i i 1 l. 'I s ,u I> k 10 .i.

May 1990 1 -II.A The State of New Hampshire A. Ammian= ant of n==nonsibility foraanization control) t-(Plannina standard A): primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility

licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency : Planning zones - have been. assigned, the -emergency responsibilities of the l"o various supporting organizations have been specifically W'

established, and each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial-response on a continuous-basis. 'The State has developed plans that assign primary and' R supporting responsibilities to State agencies andglocal p communities for emergency response. The State 'has l developed appropriate agreements that ider.tify primary I responsibilities. Each organization has identified staff to provide initial and continuous response.- m-In the FEMA graded exercise, the State demonstrated abilities to staff and augment its staff for omergency m response on'a continuous basis. + B. Onsite h vaancy oraanization fPlannine B+mndard B): c, on-shift facility licensee responsibilities for emergency. r l: response are unambiguously. defined, adequate staffing to i provide initial facility accident response-in key-. -i functional -areas is maintained at all -times, timely augmentation of response capabilities is available, and the interfaces:among various onsite response activities. i" and offsite support and response. activities are specified. 7 This planning standard islused by.the NRC. It is for the evaluation of onsite' plans and is not applicable to the -evaluation of offsite plans. C. Wancy

n. :=.ma st. - -- - -et and amA~

(Plannina g Standard C):- Arrangements for: ' requesting and,-effectively using: assistance resources have been made, arrangements - to -accommodate State and flocal staff at the licensee's near-'-

• 4 site Emergency Operations > Facility have - been made,, and l,

other organizations capable of augmenting the planned I response have been identified. l-l The State has made -arrangements for requesting and I effectively using-assistance resources'. The State has made arrangements for incorporating the various support organizations. The State has made arrangements for i p i-11 l-l3 L I-I. r. .4.

.-~ May 1990 j accommodating State and local staf f ' at the licensee's O near-site Emergency Operations Facility. The State has j identified'other. organizations capable of augmenting the planned response. The State - has - made provisions for incorporating expected federal radiological resources and nontechnical assistance. D. & =ra_ancy c1===ification sys&== fPlannina s& mad =ed D): A standard emergency classification and action level scheme,. the bases of which 11clude facility system and effluent parameters, is in us e ' by the nuclear f acility licensee, and State and loca L response plans call for reliance on information providad by facility licensees for determinations of minimum .nitial-offsite response measures. The State has incorporated the standard emergency classification level (ECL) and action level-(EAL) schemes into its Plan. The bases for the ECLs and EALs include the facility's system and ef fluent parameters. The State's Plan. calls for reliance on information provided - by the facility for determinations of minimum initi'al ' offsite response measures. E. Motification Mathad= and PraramAures (Plannina standard E): Procedures have been established.for notification, by the licensee of State and local response organisations and for notification' of emergency personnel by all response organisations;. the content-.of initial and followup messages to response organisations and the public has been establishedicand means to. provide early notification and H l ' clear. Instruction to the populace within~ the-. plume exposure. pathway Emergency' Planning Bone have-been established. i The State'has established p'rocedures'for the notificati'on-of-the State by the licensee. The State;has established procedures for the notification of the local communities. Procedures have been ~ developed for-the notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations.- The content :of ; initial and. followup messages - to response organizations and to the publicLhas been established. The State has established means to provide early nctification and' clear-instruction to the populace within-the.' plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The Alert f . System, consisting of some 94 fixed sirens, is established' and operational. The Seabrook Alert and Notification E System design has met. the design requirements - of l' FEMA-REP-10. In the FEMA graded exercise, June 28-29, 1988, the State demonstrated the ability to alert, notify, and mobilize 12 Y

May 1990 g its emergency response personnel'. The State demonstrated r the ability to provide early notification, develop public instruction, deliver the public instruction to the Notification System, and simulate the activation'of the Alert System. l-F. Laergency Ce mications (Plannina StmMard F): Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to-emergency personnel and to the public. The State has established the means and has made provision - for prompt communications among the pri.ncipal response organizations, to emergency personnel, and to the public. The State's procedures call for prompt and continued communications among the principal response organizations, to emergency personnel, and to.the public. Compatible primary and backup communication systems exist between and. l '. among the Mew Hampshire Yenkee's Emergency Operations Facility, and the Emergency Operation Centers -(EOCs)..of the States of~New-Hempshire and Maine.and the NHY ORO.. n Compatible primary and backup communication systems. exist . between; the ' State EOC and the. local community EOCs. Appropriate and compatible communication systems exist for use--in the field. The FEMA graded exercise demonstrated the ' adequacy and compatibility of the. communication systems that exist among the three response organizations, to emergency personnel,:and to the public. ~G; - Public Education' and Tnformation f Plannina St=Mard 'G): Information is>made available to the public on a periodic-basis.on how they will be notified and what their initial-actions.shall' be ' in' an emergency - (e.g., listening; to ; a p' local.-broadcast station. and remainingi indoors),.the principal ~ points of' contact with the news ' media for i dissemination

of-Linformation.duringL an emergency.

(including the physical-location ;or' locations). are. established in advance, and procedures for-coordinated ; ' l dissemination of information. to the-public. are; established.. ~ The : State's ' Plan contains commitments for = an annual ' distribution of educational ? material 1 to all residents l within the plume.EPZ. Public educational material-for the a plume pathway was distributed to the public in the plume' EPZ in 1988 and 1989. Public education material for the ingestion pathway was distributed to the public in the plume EPZ in 1989. The Region has reviewed the 13 m p.

t i May 1990 -) s educational material prepared by the State.of New Hampshire for the plume EPZ. The Region has reviewed the educational. material prepared' by the State of New Hampshire for the ingestion exposure EPZ. The Region has i found the:public educational material for the plume and ingestion EPZs to be adequate. The' State's Plan and procedures contain commitments for the-coordination and exchange of-emergency public I information during an emergency, and for the briefing and training of the media on an annual basis. New Hampshire Yankee (licensee), the State of New Hampshire and NHY ORO have established a Media Center. and a Joint Telephone. Information Center. In the FEMA graded exercise, the State of New Hampshire demonstrated that the State could coordinate the preparation and distribution of emergency information to the public and rumor control activities. H. b-cannev Facilitian and Ennir mt (Planninn S&mndmed H): Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained. The State's-Plan describes emergency response facilities and, equipment. The various physic.sl structures have adequate

space, security, furniture, equipment,.and supplies for extended emergency operations. The licensee has-made the necessary arrangements for establishing a Media Center and a Joint Telephone Information Center for

' emergency public information operat4ons. iThe State has made arrangements to coordinate ' field radiological monitoring' activities at the SNPS EOF.- The various-kits =for. the radiological-monitoring teams and - other. emergency response personnel contain equipment that meets the various requirements-contained 'in NUREG l -0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. l- .The State of New Hampshire and the local communities have 6. made. arrangements'for field facilities:-such as staging l - Areas -- and equipment - to support the implementation of.. [ protective measures. -The FEMA graded exercise demonstrated the adequacy of the various facilities and equipment to support their L emergency response effort. i H L 14 ~ + -

_.. - - - - - - - -. - ~ M9y 1990 I. Accident Assessment _lPlannina Standard I): Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. The State has made provisions and developed procedures for estimating integrated doses for projected and actual radiological releases. .In the FEMA graded exercise, the State demonstrated its ability to respond to and provide analysis of a simulated radiological airborne. release.- This demonstration included-ambient field measurements and detection of the simulated plume. The State demonstrated the collection and analysis of-various sample media-(water, milk, and assorted vegetation). The State demonstrated its ability to translate radiological monitoring data and assessments of plant status into appropriate PARS. J. ProtMtive umannn- : fplanninn B+=adard J): A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPE for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines fer the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are. developed and in place, and protective actions for-the -l l: ingestion-exposure pathway EPE appropriate to the locale have been developed. i The State has adopted Protective Action Guides (PAGs) that are consistent with Federal guidance. The State-has developed a-range of Protective - Actions. (pas) for the plume' and ingestion - EPZs.. The pas. for the plume-and . ingestion EPZs are consistent.with Federal guidance and are' incorporated into implementing procedures. Detailed evacuation.- plans and traffic management plans E have been. prepared by the. State.of 'New -Hampshire. Evacuation. Time Estimates (ETEs).for various= evacuation scenarios have been developed.' Appropriate implementing-procedures' have. been incorporated into the respective State and local community procedures, j; 'The various agricultural enterprises and food processors / producers within the' ingestion EPE have'been i y identified. Appropriate maps and data base of agriculture land

use, potable water, -etc.

have been ' developed-i Procedures have been-developed for implementing l precautionary, preventive, and emergency pas for the ingestion EPZ. L 15 .-,w,, s L

~May 1990 In the FEMA graded exercise, the State demonstrated the i ability to implement appropriate pas for the plume and ingestion EPZs. K. Radioloalcal Ernasure control (Plannina stmMard g): F Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. Re. means for controlling radiological exposures shall include exposure. guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides. The State has established the means. of controlling radiological exposures for emergency workers. The means for controlling radiological exposures includes exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and' Lifesaving Activity PAGs. In the ' FEMA. graded exercise, the State ' demonstrated appropriate means for controlling' radiological exposure of emergency workers. L. Medical and IMhlic Health Snanart (Plannina 'stmM=rd L) :. -Arrangements. are-made' for-medical services for contaminated injured individuals. The State of New Hampshire has made arrangements for primary and backup hospital services that have the 1 capabilities for the evaluation of radiation exposures and uptake. Arrangements are made for transportation-services for contaminated-injured individuals. In the FEMA-gradedt exercise, appropriate transportation services, - and hospital services and capabilities,- were. . demonstrated. M. Recoverv and Ramntry Plannina and Poetaccident Onaratiana w. f Plannina StaMard M): a General plans for recovery and reentry'are developed. The State has developed: general' plans ' for recovery and reentry. 4 In the FEMA graded exercise, the State demonstrated the ' capability for initiating recovery actions, relaxing protective actions, estimating total population exposure, and establishing recovery operations. u 16 i.

May 1990-N. Exercise and' Drills (Plannin'a Standard N):~ 1 Periodic _ exercises - are (will be)' conducted to evaluate najor-portions of emergency : response capabilities, periodic' drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain, key skills, and deficiencies identified.es a result of exercise or drills are (will be) corrected. The State's Plan describes commitments to establish and maintain a drill and exercise program that meets the j requirements of NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. O. Radioloalcal

• =araancy Maanonaa Trainina (Plannina

~ Standard 01: Radiological emergency' response training is provided.to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency. The State has-assigned responsibilities to oversee the l initial and annual training of all indiv uals assigned a role in the-State's radiological emergency response Plan. The State-has developed training programs that address the appropriate response categories. Classes are scheduled and attendance records are maintained for all individuals-assigned a role in the State's radiological. emergency response Plan. In the FEMA graded exercise, the State demonstrated the abilities and-capabilities of the assigned staff. l l - P.- Rannonsibility for ' the Plannina Effort: DavalGE-- nt. Periodic Ravnew and Distribution of

• =araancy Plana (Plannina Standmed P)

Responsibilities for plan ~ development and review'and for L distribution of; emergency plans,.are established, and L planners are properly trained.- The State has assigned responsibilities for emergency plan development, for plan review and' revision, -and for. distribution of emergency plans. l L L H i 17 h +.l o 2

3.. c May 1990 II.B The State of Maine (Ingestion Pathway Planning tone only) A. 1==lan==nt-of n==nonsibility foramnimation control) fPlannina standmed A): 3 - Primary responsibilities for emergency response by.the L nuclear-facility

licensee, and by State and local organisations within the Emergency Planning Sones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organisations have been specifically l'

established, and each principal' response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on _a continuous basis. H According to-FEMA policy, only a portion of this standard is applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. i The State has developed plans that assign primary and supporting responsibilities to State ' agencies. for-emergency response. The State has developed appropriate agreements that identify primary responsibilities. Each . organization has identified staff to provide initial and' continuous response.

In the FEMA-graded exercise, the State demonstrated abilities to staff for' emergency response.

= B. onsite m==raenev Oramnimation (Plannina standard B): on-shift facility licensee responsibilities for emergency . response-are unambiguously-defined, adequate staffing to 3 provide initial' facility accident response. in key functional areas -is maintained?2 at all times, timely 9 l augmentation of response capabilities islavailable, and-the interfaces-among various onsite response activities T and offsite support and response activities are specified. This planning standard is used by the-NRC;.It is for thei i evaluation of onsite plans and'is not applicable to the l . evaluation of offsite plans. 'l L c.

ramncv n= === = = ' sna-rt and n-P rc

fPlannina Standard C): Arrangements for requesting _ and,offactively using assistance resources have been - made, ' asi-5-; -- 7.t.s to e accosmodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified. I 18

~. . ~_.. l^ May 1990 p The State has made arrangements for requesting and effectively. using assistance resources. The' State has made arrangements for incorporating the various support organizations. The State has made arrangements for accommodating the State's staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility. Other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified. The State has made provisions for incorporating expected federal radiological resources and nontechnical assistance. D.- ' h raency c1===ification Sve&a= (Plannina S&mndard Di:- A standard emergency classification and action Llevel'- scheme, the bases of which. include facility system and effluent parameters, is -in use by - the nuclear facility - licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on information provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial' offsite. response measures. In ~accordance with FEMA policy, this standard is not-applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans.

t E. ' Notification Methad_a and Premdures (Plannina S+mndard E):

Procedures have been established for notification, by the licensee of State and local response organizations and.for notification of-emergency personnel by. z all response i t . organizations;. the' content of-initial-and followup messages to response organizations and the public has been established; and means to provide early' notification and clear. instruction to-the = populace.within the plume: exposure. pathway Emergency Planning' Eone have1 been established. In!. accordance with FEMA policy, this - standard is not' rpplicable to the, review and evaluation of. ingestion-only. i offsite plans. 'F. hraency ' c--- mications (Plannina Standard F): - i I Provisions exist for prompt consunications among principal ~ response organizations to emergency personnel and to the l public.- ~ In' accordance with FEMA ~ policy, this standard is not applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. 19 k .n. -w

.. ~ _ -. May 1990' G. Public Education and Information iPlannina S&mMard G): Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their initial actions shall' be in an emergency (e.g., listening. to a - local broadcast station and remaining indoors),- the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of. information during an emergency (including the physical. location. or locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of information to the public are established. In accordance with FEMA policy, only a portion of this standsrd is applicable to the review and evaluation of I ingestion-only offsite plans. The State of Maine has developed an Agricultural brochure '(fall, 1989) for both the Seabrook Station and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants. The Region has reviewed the education material for the ingestion exposure EPZ. The Region found the public educational material for the ingestion EPZ to be adequate. H.

• - raancy Facilities and Eauir-- nt f Plannina ShmMard H):

~ Adeguate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained. According to FEMA policy, only a portion of this standard is* applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans'. s o L The State has made arrangements: to coordinate field radiological monitoring activities at the SNPS EOF. i I. Accident _1====mant (Plannina StanAmrd I); Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring' actual,or potential offaite: consequences.of a-radiological emergency condition are in use. In accordance with FEMA's policy, this standard is not-applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only L offsite plans. L J.. Protartive *- manae fPlannina S&mndard J): A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice'of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are 20 x

4 May 1990 i developed and in place,.and protective actions for the ' ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed. In accordance with FEMA's policy, only portions of this planning standard are applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. - I The State has adopted Protective Action Guides (PAGs) that are consistent ~with Federal guidance. The pas.for the ingestion EPZ are consistent with Federal guidance and are incorporated into implementing procedures. The various agricultural enterprises and food-processors / producers within the ingestion EPZ have been-identified. Appropriate maps and data base of agriculture land use, potable water, etc. have been developed. Procedures have been developed-for implementing pre-3' cautionary,: preventive, and emergency protective actions for the-ingestion'EPZ. In the FEMA graded exercise,- the Stnte demonstrated the-ability to implement appropriate ~ pas. for. the - ingestion - EPZ. K. n=dioloalcal mwna=ure control fPlanninn Stsind m ed K): Means.for controlling radiological' exposures, in an -emergency, are established for emergency workers. The i L means for controlling radiological exposures shall include f exposure-guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Morker 1 and-Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides.- .In accordance with FEMA policy, this: planning standard is not applicable-to-the review and' evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. L.- Medical and Public ""--lthi S5 -- - -Et fPlannina S+mndmed L):. ' Arrangements-are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.- ~. In accordance with FEMA's policy, this planning standard L is not applicable to the review and evaluation :of' ingestion-only offsite plans. M. M-r-verv and - trv Pl anni ns ' and hi mar'l'= t n==rati---- l fPlannine Standard M): General plans for recovery and reentry are developed. l l 21 l.

w I MQy 1990 s -In accordance with-FEMA's policy, this. planning standard is not applicable to the review and evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. { N. Exercise and Drilla (Plann{na stanAmed 3) Periodic exercises are (will. be) conducted to evaluate major-portions. of emergency response. capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercise.or drills are (will be) corrected. The State has made commitments to establish and maintain ~ a drill and exercise program which. meets the requirements of-NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. i O. n=dioloalcal ' vaanc v n===a=== Trainina (Plannina Standard O): Radiological emergency' response training is provided-to H those who may be called on to assist in an emergency. l In accordance with FEMA's policy, this planning standard j is-not applicable-to. the review and evaluation' of.. ingestion-only offsite plans. l kg )* P. n==nonsibility for 1he Plannina Effort: Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of h eaancy Plana (Plannina standard P):- Responsibilities for plan development and! review and ford I "7. distribution Lof emergency plans. are established, and L planners are properly trained. L In accordance with FEMA's policy, this planning standard is-not applicablei to the review and, evaluation of ingestion-only offsite plans. j ( y 22 L-- ___ _ _ j f

.q l May 1990 II.C New Hampshire' Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY ORO) 'A. Assianment-of ' Responsibility-(Oraanization Contrnli fPlannina Standard A):- Primary responsibilities for. emergency response by the . nuclear facility

licenses, and by State and local organizations within the Energency ' Planning zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have' been specifically established, and each principal response organization'has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on

.a continuous basis. I The NHY ORO has developed plans that assign-primary and .j supporting responsibilities to various organizations for i emergency response. The NHY ORO has developed appropriate agreements.that identify primary responsibilities. Each organization has identified staff to provide initial!and continuous response. In the - FEMA graded exercise, the NHY ORO demonstrated abilities to staff and augment ' its staff for emergency response on a continuous basis. O .{ B.' onsite *--vaancy oraanization fPlannina S+madard B): On-shif t facility licensee responsibilities for emergency response are unambiguously' defined, adequate staffing to-L provide. initial facility. accident response -in key functional. areas is maintained at all times,. timely L

augmentation of. response capabilities is available, and L

.the1 interfaces among variousLonsite response activities-i and offsite support and response activities are specified. j This. planning standard:is used by the NRC. It is for the ~ evaluation of'onsite plans land is not applicable toLthe f evaluation of~offsite plans. C.,

• =araenev Resnonse Sunnart and namanrr'a='fPlanninn Standard C):.

Arrangements for. requesting and.. offactively - using i assistance resources-have been made, arrangements.to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site ' Emergency Operations Facility have been made, ' and other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified.- u The NHY ORO has made arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources. The NHY ORO has made arrangements for accommodating the Offsite Response Organization at the licensee's near-site Emergency 23

May 1990 t Operations Facility. The NHY ORO has identified other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response, The NHY ORO has.made arrangements for incorporating the i various support organizations. The NHY ORO has identified . liaison personnel to advise and assist the State and local of ficials in implementing the Plan in an actual emergency. The NHY ORO has made provisions for incorporating' expected iederal radiological resources and-assistance. ' .( D. 2 =rsency cimanification Sys+== (P1manina StmMard D): A standard l emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility' system and ef fluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility. licensee, and - State and local response plans call - for i reliance on information provided by facility licensees-for determinations of minimum initial offsite response measures. g L L The NHY ORO has. incorporated the standard emergency classification;1evel (ECL) and action level (EAL) schemes into its Plan. The bases for the ECLs.and EALs include the facility's system and affluent parameters. The SPMC calls for reliance on information provided by the f acility L for determinations of minimum initial' offsite response measures. L E. Motification W.sthnd= and Frc adures (plannina StmMard E): Procedures have been established for notification, by.the O licensee of State and. local response organizations and for. notification of. emergency personnel by all response ' organizations; the content of; initial and' followup - massages to response organizations and the public has been= established;'and means to provide'early-notification and-clear : instruction to -the populace -within:.the. plume exposure' pathway Emergency Planning Sone-have: been established. The NHY ORO has established procedures for-notification of NHY ORO by'the licensee. The NHY'ORO has' established' . procedures for the notification of appropriate response organizations. Procedures have been developed for-the notification; of emergency. personnel. by all response organizations. The content-of initial and followup -messages to response organizations and to the public has been established. The NHY ORO has the means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the-populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone a (EPZ). The Vehicle Alert Notification System (VANS)'for the Massachusetts portion of the plume EPZ ~ has been installed -(consisting of some sixteen truck-mounted sirens) and is operational. The Seabrook Alert and 24 ~p

-~. May 1990 Notification System design.has Fet the design requirements .of' FEMA-REP-10. t In the FEMA graded exercise, June 28-29, 1988, the NHY ORO i demonstrated the ability to alert, notify,,and~ mobilize its emergency responsr. personnel. The NHY ORO ~deuonstrated the abilit.y'to develop public instruction, k deliver the public instruction to the Notification System,. and simulate the activation of the Alert System. F. h raancy cc--- mications (Pinnnina S+=Mard F) : Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal-response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public. ~ The NHY ORO has established the-means and has made provisions for prompt communications between and among the principal response organizations, to emergency personnel, and to the public. The-NHY ~ ORO procedures call for prompt and continued communications-between and among the principal response organizations, to emergency personnel,- and to. the public. Compatible primary -and-backup communication systems exist between and among the New Hampshire Yankee's Emergency Operations Facility, and the Emergency Operation Centers-(EOCs) of the States of-New Hampshire and Maine and the.NHY ORO. Appropriate and l compatible communication systems exist.for use in ' the field. The-FEMA graded. exercise demonstrated the adequacy and . compatibility of - the-communication systems that exist 'between - and among the three response _ organizations,. to ' emergency personnel, and-to'the public. G. -Public Edieration and Tnformation f Plannina stmMmed c): .Information^is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they.will,be notified and what their. initial actions shall be in-an emergency _ (e.g., listening to a .localt broadcast station and' remaining indoors), the principal points of. contact with the news imedia, for dissemination - of information during an emergency (including the physical. location' or: locations) are established in advance,- and = procedures for coordinated dissemination of information" to the public are-established. The NHY ORO Plan contains commitments for an annual distribution of educational material to all residents within the plume EPZ. Educational material for the plume EPZ was distributed to ' the public in 1988 and 1989. Public education material for the ingestion EPZ was 25 t e

_ _ _. _ _ ~ , ;.w w-7 May 1990 distributed to the'public in the plume EPZ in 1989. The Region has reviewed the educational material prepared by the NHY ORO for the plume EPZ. The Region has reviewed the educational material prepared by the NHY ORO for the ingestion exposure EPZ. The Region has found the public educational material for the plume and ingestion EPZs to be adequate. The NHY ORO Plan and procedures contain commitments for l the coordination and exchange of emergency public information during an emergency, and, for the briefing and training of the media on an annual basis. New Hampshire i Yankee (licensee), the State of New Hampshire, and NHY / ORO have established a Media Center and a Joint Telephone Information Center. i In the FEMA graded exercise, NHY ORO demonstrated that it could-coordinate the preparation and distribution ' of ' emergency = information to the public and rumor control activities. H. erg &ncy Facilities and Em11r nt f Planniner SWed B): Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency. response are provided and maintained.

The NHY_1ORO Plan.. references and describes emergency-response facilities and equipment.

The various physical structures have adequate ~ space, security,. furniture,: equipment, and supplies for' extended emergency operations. The -licensee -has made the necessary arrangements for establishing a ' Media Center.and a Joint Telephone Infornation Center for. emergency public.'intornation operations. j t The NHY L ORO: has made arrangements to coordinate field ~ radiological monitoring activities at the SNPS EOF. The various kits for the radiological monitoring teams contain equipment'.that. meets the various requirements contained-in NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1,, Supplement 1. '1 The NHYLORO has made-arrangements forifield facilities (Staging Area', - Reception Centers, VANS Staging. Areas,. etc. ) ' and ' equipment to - support the implementation of .i J protective measures. The FEMA graded exercise demonstrated the adequacy of the various facilities and equipment to support the emergency f response. effort,-although the fixed. physical' attributes cf tho-Staging Area facility specified in-the SPMC could not be-evaluated at that time. FEMA has verified the adequacy of the designated Staging Area during a technical assistance visit. 26 .~ y

~- i May 1990 I

1. LAccident Assessment (Plannino Standard I):

y Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. The NHY ORO has made provisions and developed procedures-for estimating. integrated doses for projected and actual radiological releases. In the FEMA graded exercise, the.NHY ORO-demonstrated its-ability to respond;to and provide analysis of a simulated radiological airborne release. This-_ demonstration J included. ambient field measurements and detection of the simulated plume. The NHY ORO demonstrated the collection and analysis of various sample media (water, milk, and assorted vegetation, etc.).. The NHYLORO demonstrated its ability to translate radiological 1 monitoring. data and - assessments of plant status into appropriate PARS. J. Pro + M ive n==nonna (Planniner stInndard J) : 'A range of protective actions.have been developed for!the plume exposure pathway.EPZ for' emergency workers and the public. Guidelines:for the choice of-protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance,- are l ) developed.and in-place, and. protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ-apprcpriate to the-locale-1 p have been developed. k The NHY.ORO has' adopted. Protective Action: Guides (PAGs) that-are consistent with Federaliguidance.. The NHYEORO i has developed'a range of Protective' Actions-(pas) for the plume E and. -ingestion. EPZs. The pas forl.the plume and l L. ingestion EPZ are. consistent with' Federal guidance and are incorporated'into implementing procedures. j ( -Detailed evacuation plans and. traffic management splans j have been prepared by the ' NHY. ORO.. Evacuation---Time Estimates' (ETEs) ~for' various' evacuation scenarios have l been developed. Appropriate implementing procedures have 1 been . incorporated into thel respective. plans and-j . procedures. 1 g m L The .vario'us agricultural enterprises. and food processors / producers within the ingestion EPZ'have,been. identified. - Appropriate maps and data base of agriculture land' use, potable water, etc. have been developed. Proccdures have been developed for implementing.precau-tionary, preventive, and emergency protective actions for l the ingestion EPZ. t 27 L w

j t,; May 1990 In the FEMA graded exercise, the NHY ORO demonstrated the ability to implement appropriate-pas f or the plume and ingestion EPZs. K. Radioloalcal Ernamura control (Plannina S+mndard K): Neans for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling radiological exposures shall i.oclude exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency harker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action. Guides. The: NHY ORO has established the means of controlling ladiological exposures for emergency workers. The means for controlling radiological exposures includes exposure guidelines consistent with LEPA Energan' y, Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective-Action Guides. In_. the FEMA graded ' exercise, the NHY -ORO demonstrated l [' appropriate means for controlling radiological exposure of= emergency workers. a. Li Medical and Public Health Bunnart fPlannina s&mndmed L): S. ~ .are made for. medical services for -Arrangements. contaminated injured individuals. g d h The NHY ORO has'made arrangements for primary and backup b hospital- - service-that have the capabilities for the h evaluation. of radiation exposures- 'and uptake.- ' Arrangements.are-made _ for transportation services for l' contaminated injured = individuals. -In the FEMA 1 graded exercise,; appropriate transportation services, and: hospital services and capabilities,,' were 1 -demonstrated. 1 R u M. Recovery and Reentry Plannina and'Postaccident Onarations (Plannina' standard M): General; plans for recovery and reentry.are developed. The NHY ORO has developed general plans.for recovery and reentry. j In the FEMA graded exercise, the NHY ORO demonstrated the capability for initiating recovery. actions, relaxing protective actions, estimating total population exposure, and establishing recovery operations. 28 L ~ --= e.,--,

,9. MayL1990 j N.. Exercise and Drills (Plannina Standard N): Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate

najor, portions of emergency. response capabilities, periodic drills-are (will be) conducted to develop.and maintain;' key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercise or drills are-(will'be) corrected.

The'NHY.ORO Plan describes commitments to establish and maintain a drill and exercise program which meets the requirements of NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 1. O. Radioloalcal ' h raancy n==nanae Trainina (Plannina Standard O): Radiol.ogical emergency response training is provided to those.who may'be called on to assist in an emergency. The NHY ORO has' assigned-responsibilities to~ appropriate ~; staff for the -monitoring of the initial and annual e training of all individuals ' assigned a role in the NHY ORO-emergency response Plan. -The NHY:ORO has developed training programs thtt address the. appropriate response categories.' classes ' are. scheduled and attendance records.are maintained:for all individuals assigned a role ~in the NHY. ORO emergency = response Plan. NHY-ORO has offered training to State and, local officials. -In the FEMA graded exercise, the NHY ORO demonstrated the abilities and, capabilities of'the.. assigned staff. y P. - Resnonsibillt'r for the Plannina ' Effort: Daval =- nt. Periodic Ravnew and Distrihntion-of-h vaancy-Plans N ~(Plannina S&mndard P): I L Responsibilities.for plan development and review and for-L distribution 'of. emergency plans - are established,t and L planners are properly trained. { The NHYEORO has assigned responsibilities for emergency plan-development, for; plan review and revision, and'for-distribution of emergency. plans. 3 l l' 29 e ~ ' 1

l. ;

M . - -. ~.. - ~ ,m

..i., T;.

~ May 1990 III. Tabulation of Planning Standards Judged Inadequate Planning 1&Aug Standard Comment A. The State of New No issues NA NA Hampshire were identified as inadequate. B. The State of No issues NA NA e l Maine were identified as inadequate. C. The NHY ORO No issues NA -NA were identified as inadequate. =- { m pr 30 = 1}}