Capability Target 1.6: Protective Action Decisions for the Post-Plume Phase

ASSESSMENT – DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION GUIDANCE

By observing the OROs’ capability to address the appropriate bullet points below and while considering the overall capability being assessed, the following key points of review and associated questions should be considered and will support an evaluation of this capability target.

OROs demonstrate the capability to:

  • Make post-plume phase decisions in a timely manner.
    • Who has the authority to make ingestion exposure pathway decisions?
    • Who has the authority to make decisions for relocation, reentry, reoccupancy, or return?
    • What Federal guidance was utilized in the decision-making process?
    • What additional resources, if any, were requested or anticipated?
    • Were there any precautionary protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway considered prior to  analytical data?
    • Did ingestion exposure pathway assessment include analysis of water, food, and release characterization?
    • What times were decisions regarding the ingestion exposure pathway made, including precautionary  protective actions?
    • How were boundaries of temporary embargo zones identified?
    • How were the boundaries of the deposition footprint determined (e.g., field and/or aerial measurements, deposition projections or a combination of sources)?
    • Were crops grown in affected areas identified? Was there a determination on how crops would be harvested  or tracked?
    • How were water supply sources identified?
    • Were sample results obtained from specified labs? Were dose assessments based upon sample results?  Were locations plotted on a map to identify areas that exceed PAGs?
    • What watershed and agricultural data was used to make decisions?
    • Did ANI participate and did they address compensation of loss?
  • Make relocation decisions for the post-plume phase in a timely manner.
    • How were integrated doses in contaminated areas estimated? Were they compared to the PAGs?
    • How were the areas to be restricted identified/determined? What factors were used to make the decision (e.g., the mix of radionuclides in deposited materials, calculated exposure rates vs. the PAGs, field samples of vegetation and soil analyses, etc.)?
    • Was the optional approach (230 μR/hr) to determine the restricted area boundary utilized?
    • How was access to evacuated and restricted areas controlled? What agencies have that responsibility?
    • How was the area of interest identified?
    • If aerial measurements were used, what method or procedure will be used to identify the area of interest that is below the detection limit of the aircraft?
    • How did the ORO relocate members of the evacuated public who lived in areas that now have residual radiation levels in excess of the PAGs?
    • How did the ORO determine the area(s) to be restricted?
    • What resources are available for providing medical and social assistance for relocated individuals?
  • Make reentry decisions for the post-plume phase in a timely manner.
    • What was the coordinated strategy for authorized reentry of individuals to the restricted zone? What was considered when forming the strategy (e.g., established exposure limits, maintenance of essential services and/or property, security, retrieval of possessions, etc.)?
    • How did the ORO determine location of control points, who should be allowed to re-enter the restricted zone, and what provisions were made to determine and control their exposure?
    • How did the ORO provide for exit from the restricted area, including monitoring of persons, vehicles, and equipment?
    • What were the exposure limits, including the time period over which the dose would accumulate?
  • Make return decisions for the post-plume phase in a timely manner.
    • What were the return boundaries based on? (e.g., political boundaries, physical boundaries)
    • Was return permitted to the boundary of the restricted area or was a buffer zone established?
    • Did decision-makers consider restoration of services for areas where return was allowed? (e.g., medical facilities, schools, utilities, roads, and intermediate housing).
  • Make reoccupancy decisions for the post-plume phase in a timely manner.
    • What considerations are made for reoccupancy?
    • What factors were taken into account to consider reoccupancy?
    • What community organizations were part of the decision-making process?
    • What instructions were provided to the population allowed to reoccupy areas?
    • Were any additional actions necessary for populations to reoccupy an area? (e.g., washing down buildings, restricting use of backyard produce gardens)
  • Coordinate PADs as appropriate.
    • What arrangements were made to coordinate potential decisions?
    • How were decisions coordinated internally and with other jurisdictions?
    • How were decisions communicated?