ML20127A952
| ML20127A952 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1988 |
| From: | Conklin C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Lazarus B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A956 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811210061 | |
| Download: ML20127A952 (23) | |
Text
.
i
(
10/20/88 MEM0:
Bill Lazarus, Chief, EPS FROM:
Craig Conklin, EPS
SUBJECT:
Hands On Training for Transportation Providers for the Pilgrim EPZ All training observed was conducted by Boston Edison Company consultants.. This training, including individual lessons plans, is approved b The training instructors were knowledgeable and proffessional. y MCDA.
All attendee's were l
cooperative and several demonstrated a high rettntion level from previous classrom training.
9/24/88 Cresent Ambulance (Trans Network). There were 13 attendee's, with 4 women. All attendee's were ENT's. Training consisted at e combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The 1ressons covered l
were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; l
Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures.
Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered.
Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sunny warm saturday late morning to early afternoon.
Maps and instructions were,provided and a bus was run from Cresent Ambulance in Brockton to the Martinson JRHS Stagin minutes), to the Baypath Nursing Home in Duxbury (g area in Marshfield (37 l
22 minutes), to the Cardinal Cushing Hospital in Brockton (46 minutes)The maps and in This provider will normally have two individuals in each ambulance provided were~ accurate and no problems were enco.untered running the entire- ~
route.
~' - ~ ~
'~
I 10/8/88 Swansea Ambulance. There were 13 attendees, with 8 womc-n. All attendee's were EMT's. Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to l
Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and i
I appropriate forms. Actual routes were not run, however routes were analyzed and map reading techniques employed.
This provider will normally have two individuals in each ambulance.
l l
l l
d,p75jw67~ XR i
1D/9/88 Stavis Ambulance Service. There were 5 attendee's with 3 women. All attendee's were ENT's. Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks.
The lessons covered were:
Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; t
and Implementing Procedures.
Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of 4
dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sunny, cool sunday late morning to early afternoon.
Maps and instructions were >rovided and a bus was run from Stavis Ambulance in Brookline to Silver la ce HS sta ing area in Kingston (65 minutes)l Cus to the I
Sister Divine Providence Nursin Home in Kingston, to the Cardina Hospital in Brockton (bulance.
57 minute ).
This provider will normally have two individuals in each am The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
10/10/88 Rogers Bus Company. There were 8 attentee's, with 4 women. Some attendee's were from Engle Bus Company. All attendee's were bus drivers.
Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing i
Procedures.
Risk and consent, for kth the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes.
The routes were run on a sunny, warm holiday monday late morning to early efternoon. Maps and instructions wer provided and a bus was run from VF ers Bus Company in 4
Hanover to 'the Martinson JRHS stagig area in Nat a ield.{l2 minutes) and to Bus route M-4 and return to the staging area (50 minutes). Bus route i
M-4 included Marshfield and Duxbury beaches. This provider will normally _
have one individual in each bus.
The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
~
i i
e
m IW-W-BUTU451%D 3 301 {S2 1137;s 2 i
s***J LP APPaovat StmxAny Nodule /Ageney.
sent to Statept-Approved PRIORITY 1
(1-1) Intro to Radiation 3
(1-2) Intro /Emerg. Response 1
(2-1) Dosimetry 1/15/88 3/21/88 f
1 (2-2) Sarai mters i
1 42-3) Siren Activation i
1 (2-4R) Becaps 1/22/88' 1/25/88 l
1 (2-4XEP) EB00N8 1/22/88 1/25/88 3
(7 P) Dept. of Public Works 3/17/88 4/22/88 1
.(14 P) Day care /Prvt schools 7/7/88 7/11/88 f
5 (12) Transportation Providers 7/7/88 7/20/88 j
5 (4 C) Fire Department 7/7/88 4
(9 T) De 7/7/88 3
1 1
(20-3) State PIO 8/8/88 2
(6 B) Civil Defense 8/8/88 I
(14/C,D,K,M) M$$8(chools 9/8/88
{
1
(_7 T) Dept. of Public Works 8/8/88
'l
{
1 (19 T) Board of Health 8/8/88 1
(? B) Highway Dept.
8/8/8B t
i 2
(210) 55 altars R/8/R8 4
(110) School ' Dept.
8/8/88 1
(26-1S) Mass. DPW 8/8/88 1
(5 P) Police Dept.
9/1/88 i
j 4
(9 C) IMS 9/1/88 4
(20) EPZ Wie centers 9/1/88 7
(3 P) ECC 9/22/88-9 i
(6 P) Civil Defense 9/22/88 5
(12P) Tra.urportation 9/22/88 2
k 1
(19P) Board of Health 9/22/88 2
i 2
(21P) 5%1ters 9/22/8_R i
1 (20-5) News Statement Writing 9/22/88 1
1 Digital Notification Network 9/16/88 -
1 i
4 (4 T) Fire Dept.
10/4/88 1
1 (190) Council on Ageing 10/4/88 6
(3 T) IOC 10/4/88 1
2 (6 T) Cidil Defense 10/4/88 3
1 4
(IOT) Reception Canter i
10/4/88 i
g J23T) Animal Control 10/4/88 3
4 i
v,
e LP MPaavat stakARY Module /Agoney.
e seat to State:'s:
App roved pag e (5 7) Potteerma.:9 "t r r 10/6/8e 3
1127) Transnortat' ion 10/6/88 3*
(9 P) BS 10/11/88 k
e e e
9 l-W" l
i e
[
l l
l l
l l
e e
1 9
9 I
l i
j j
emme I
O esem l
essa som
- e*
+ee m e
.w-.,.
,-.a
-.y v.,
.7-...
g.
f.a%,
4%
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
]
Jq EXECUTTVE DEPARTMENT com statwat notwey amo orret or turnetwer PatPmo=tes J [ **b I h
.I ase woacastsa moao i.
50 g
(
G Po non taas raammonau unas eimem p
a MICHAEL 5. DUKAKIS RotERT J. BOULAY govgamoa centcfon 1
l TO:
Secretary Charles V.
Barry f
Executive Office of Public Safety ATT:
Peter Agnes, Assistant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety b
FROM:
John L. Lovering, Deputy Direc e Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emerg,ency Preparedness DATE:
October 11, 1988
SUBJECT:
Feasibility Study Involving the Sultability of the State Department of Public Works Garage located in Wellesley, MA as a Potential Reception /ProcessinE i
Center for Evacuees in the Event of an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, MA.
2 i
JLL/kmb Attachments cc: Director Robert J. Boulay MCDA/OEP s
u
BA CKG ROUND The 10 alle Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for all Nuclear Generating Power Stations was established in 1979 as a result of the issuance of new Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Guidelines.
These Planning guidelines were pro-mulgated in a document known as NUREG 0654 and were fina-lized and issued in October 1980.
Consequently, new I
i radiological emergency response plans were developed for a l
potential accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located in Plymouth, MA.
Three (3) Reception / Processing Centers were established for evacuees from the five (5) emergency planning zone (EPZ) communities of Plymouth, 5
Carver, Kingston, Duxbury and Marshfield namely:
State Hospital, Taunton, MA.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA.
Hanover Mall, Hanover, MA.
I The public officials of these communities agreed to " host" 4
the Reception / Processing Centers and accepted the obliga-tion of the operation of the processing centers.
In 1986, the owners of the Hanover Mall (a private sector facility) requested to be relieved of the Hanover Mall's assignment as a processing center for evacuees and the Commonwealth Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness (MCDA/0EP) granted this request.
A subsequent study produced by the Boston Edison Company (BECO), the owners of the Pilgrim Station purported that the two (2) remaining reception centers located in Taunton 2
j cnd Bridgewator, MA would b3 auffic1Gnt in the ovont of cn evacuation of the EPZ communities.
The Commonwealth MCDA/0EP nothwithstanding this report from the utility takes the position that a third processing center is necessary in order to take full advantage of the road i
system leading away from the EPZ communities.
MCDA/0EP is convinced that the availability of a 3rd northern pro-cessing center results in a more effective departure program thereby enhancing the public's safety in the event of an accident requiring total evacuation of all 5 EPZ 3
communities simultaneously.
In MCDA/0EP's search for a northern Reception Center to replace the Hanover Hall, it became obviously apparent that the best site would be to find a processing center that would have a minimum impact on the community in which it would be located so the following ideal criteria was established:
1 NEW FACILITY CRITERIA 1
The facility be beyond the 15 mile distance from the EPZ communities as recommended by FEMA.
2.
The facility be owned by the State.
3.
The facility be preferably located adjacent to an interstate or State highway thereby eliminating the travel by assigned evacuees over community roadways.
4.
The facility be operated by State personnel and con-sequently avoid community operational responsibility as a ' host community'.
5.
The facility could accommodate and would serve eva-cuees from the towns of Marshfield, Duxbury, and the Saguish Neck-Gurnet District of Plymouth, MA.
On the basis of the above criteria a facility survey was conducted by MCDA/0EP 3
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY The MA State Department of Public Works garage located at the intersection ol' Route #128 (Interstate #95) and State Route #9, located in Wellesley, MA appeared to be an ideal 1
site based on the above stated criteria.
Distances from EPZ communities involved:
Marshfield - 34 miles from Exit 12 of Route 3 at Route 139 Duxbury - 38 miles from Exit 11 of Route 3 a t Route 14.
Saquish/Gurnet Plymouth Line - 48 miles from the bet of the Saquish-Gurnet area of Plymouth, M/
Consequently MCDA/0EP requested of you Mr. Secretary to 1
allow us to conduct a feasibility study in order to deter-mine whether the facility and State Personnel under the provisions of Executive Order #144 could perform the mission of receiving and processing evacuees from the above named EPZ communities with a high degree of opera-tional capability providing appropriate public safety response services / activities in the event of an accident at the Pilgrim Power Plant.
FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS Ms. Judith Kazunas MCDA/0EP Agency Planner was assigned as the coordinator of the feasability study effort:.
Step #1 A request was made of BECO to survey the facility in cooperation with facility Superintendent John Sullivan in order to determine whether this four (4) plus acre site l
and its buildings could be utilized as a processing center 4
l 1
^
i for ovccuses.
ATTACHMENT A roflGets tho basics of the BECO l
l survey with their roccamendaticns for physical enhtn-cements to the main building which is a garage, and j
reflects other operational resources identified.
l l
Step 02 l
A meeting was held on March 31, 1988 with the State Agency I
representatives (Executive Order #144), Red Cross, Civil Air Patrol, et al to task the representatives with the feasibility study guidelines / operational assignment tasking and that they study the potential objectives and inform MCDA/0EP if the missions were feasible.
A follow l
i up meeting was held with the same group for the purpose of ascertaining State agencies concerns relative to missions assigned.
The agenda for this meeting and other related meetings with pertinent meeting material and requirements are contained in, ATTACHMENT B.
i Written responses from the State Agencies, Civil Air 1
Patrol, Red Cross, et al are contained in ATTACHMENT C and reflects their official comments / concerns to whether the missions / tasks assigned are feasible.
A written com-munications contained in ATTACHEMENT C from:
National Guard Public Her.lth (Radiation Control Program)
MCDA/0EP Communications Officer Department of Education Department of Public Works Department of Mental Health Department of Public Safety Public Health (Emergency Medical Services)
MA Bay Transportation Authority Civil Air Patrol American Red Cross i
t CAUTION: IN MANY INSTANCES THE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES COMMENTS ADDRESS OPERATIONAL PLANNING CONCERNS GOING BEYOND THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY REQUEST AND THE REVIEWER OF THIS REPORT SHOULD TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.
5
1 Step 83 i
Analysis of all of the activities and materials emanating from Steps 1 and 2 and the beginning of the formulation of
)
this report which involves a recommendation.
Step 94 Indicated in the material and information we have analyzed is a concern for the distance the Wellesley State DPW facility is away from the EPZ communities which it would serve.
As a result I assigned Donald Remkrk an MCDA/0EP planner to ascertain nationwide if there are other situation / plans that would reflect the same or similar distances.
The results of that study appear to indicate three (3) Reception Centers in other states are at least 35 miles from nuclear power plants and ten (10) plants in other states have reception centers 40 to 50 mil,es away from the nuclear power plant.
We have requested that the related States EmerEency Management AEencies of Virginia, Florida, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Kansas and Louisiana send us copies of their response plans in order that we be familiar with the public safety features of these individual state reception facility utilitization plans.
The preliminary results of Mr. Remarks efforts can be found in ATTACHMENT E.
GENERAL Allow me to emphasize that local officials of Wellesley le.
Selectmen, Civil Defense Director, Police and Fire Chiefs and Legislative Representatives were informed of the 6
feasibility study, its objectives and goals.
Particular care was taken to ensure that State employees assigned to the MA Department of Public Works Garage Wellesley, MA./their Union Representatives were periodically briefed.
Miscellaneous letters / records whic.h could be considered important for the record are contained in ATTACHMENT D.
CONCLUSIONS The results of the feasibility study contained herein appear to indicate that a plan with implementing proce-dures coupled with an honest to goodness operational capa-bility and a recurring training, and exercise program for related State agency personnel et al can be developed for the utilization of this fa,.lity as a processing center for evacuees from the towns of Marshfield, Duxbury and the Saguish-Gurnet Area of Plymouth.
The development of this plan is predicated on:
A committment by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to assign full time personnel to the Director MCDA/0EP from the State i
Agencies involved as determined by the Director MCDA/0EP for the purpose of assitting in the overall plan development.
Contractural planning assistance personnel from the Boston Edison Company for the pur-pose of producing the written documents.
A realistic BECO sponsored enhancement program for the Wellesley State DPW facility in order that the site can be utilized as a processing center.
It's only a garage now, and has to have significant physical impro-vements in order to perform the emergency response functions.
State agency supplemen-tary resource requirements should also be considered by BECO.
7
CONCLUSIONS (Centinund)
A training program for the State Agency per-sonnel assigned et al supported by BECO.
A preliminary public information program for all local / state officials involved, espe-cially for the officials and townspeople / residents of Wellesley which reside adjacent to the facility.
I call your attention to a letter from the Wellesley Board of Selectmen found in ATTACHMENT D which should be answered.
As an answer I suggest forthwith a meeting with the Secretary of Public Safety for local and state officials in order that these key people be briefed.
RECOMMENDATION That the Secretary of Public Safety allow MCDA/0EP to con-tinue to pursue this planning endeavor for the purpose of producing the plan.
The Secretary of Public Safety con-tinue to withhold any final designation of this State DPW facility as a Reception / Processing Center unless and until MCDA/0EP can a bsolutely certify 'that' the plan is workab1e,
~
implementable and enhances and does not detract from the public safety of the people involved in the event of an emergency necessitating its implementation.
\\.
na)
, s Re'opectfully r ecommenced John L. Lovering l
s
==
8 l
h'
~
o l
SOBRWESCW EmmenacyOpermersFedkr d
OberyNg(s mymouth.namnachuwtuenso i
i December 23, 1987 EPC87-988 I
Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
i Commonwealth of MA Assistant Secretary of Public Safety One Ashbur*on Place - Room 2133 i
i Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
By letter dated October 26, 1987 to you in response to certain issues identified in the Federal E i
Management Agency's (FEMA) August 4,1987 "$ elf-Initiated Review and Inter Finding for the Pilgris Nuclear Power Station" ($1R).
facilitate FEMA's review of the resolution of the SIR issues i
i forwarding additional information in response to the FEMA SIR issues.Ne are now i
i Feasibility Analysis" dated DecemberIn particular, we are enclosing a cop 22, 1987
^
identified in the " Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule forwhic i
Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues' dated September (Boston Edison Action Plan).
17, 1987 reception center must be found to replace Hanover.*In subissue S.), FEMA state l
(Page 19 of SIR).
The Action Plan stated that an ' evaluation of the feasibility of using two reception centers
- would be undertaken.
Plan). The enclosed report documents that analysis.(Page 12 of the Boston Edison A The analysis summarized in the enclosed report assesses the capability of the two reception centers designated by the Commonwealth -- Taunton State Hos (Taunton) and Bridgewater State College.(8ridgewater) - to monitor the population for contamination in the Pilgris plume exposure pathway emerge planning zone (EPZ) in accordance with applicable federal guidance.
~
purpose of the analysis was to determine whether the objec While the guidance could be achieved using two, rather than three travel times, and identifies traffic access and control points.
It is important to stress that the report does not purport to address the entire reception center planning process, but is instead only a step in that As you know, Boston Edison is assisting the Comonwealth and local process.
governments in upgrading their plans and procedures and is confident that will be developed. appropriate plans and procedures governing the operation of re
l f
- = = - - -
d The analysis suuntr1 Red in the attached rooort was tenhtted kr planners provided b officials,y 80ston (dison, in coordination with Tauntas and gridgeutter and concludes that the Tavaton and Brid appropriate renovations and eqv1peent procurement)goutter facilities (with have the capability of monitoring the requisite number of persons evacuating from the EPZ in the event of an emergency at Pilgria.
that a third reception center be found to replace Manover lin11.Thus, the v11) continue to work with town and facility officlals to assere thatBoston Edison appropriate plans and procedures governing reception center operations are developed, and will provide whatever resources are necessary to support reception center operation.
He understand that, as stated in the Action Plan (pa@ 12), the Commonwealth is continuing its review of the possibility of ident' fyleg a third reception center.
If those efforts result in the identification of such a center, Soston Edison will be pleased to cooperate in its laplementation, including the procurement of necessary facilities and equipment, the development of i
necessary plans and procedures, and the training of personnel. 00:11e such taplementation steps are being taken, the enclosed feasibility analysis demonstrates that the available two reception centers can adequately serve any emergency needs.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Albert Samano at (617) 747-0439.
Sincerely.
Ronald A. m ivy Staff Assistant to Sr. Y.P.
Nuclear 1
RAV/div 10#988 Attachment cc: R. Boulay - MCDA S. Varga - NRC A. Nessaan - NRC NRC Region 1 Senior NRC Resident Inspector Mayor Richard Johnson - Taunton R. Spearin - C.D. Director - Taunton D. Canepa - Chatraan - Board of Selectmen - Bridgewater D. Ford - C.D. Director - Bridgewater E. maney - Bridgewater State College Taunton State Ibspital - Administrator
r a
j 6
RECEPT!D CENitt l
FEAtttftffY ANALY111 Boston Edison Company December 22, 1987 I.
Introduction In the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FDM) August 4,1987
- Self-Initiated Review and Interia Finding for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station", a number of issues were identified with respect to the state of offsite emergency preparedness'for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l
(Pi lgria).
In Boston Edison Company's September 17,1987 ' Action Plan and i
Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FDM !ssues", Boston Edison l
identified a number of discrete "subissues" which collectively comprise FEM Subissue 8.1, in particular, stated that "a new reception center concerns.
must be found to replace Hanover."
In response, the Action Plan stated that an " evaluation of the feasibility of using two reception centers" would be undertaken.
Boston Edison Action Plan at 12.
This report summarizes that analysis.
At the outset, it is important to clarify that the purpose of a reception center is to provide a location where monitoring, decontamination and registration of evacuees can be performed, rather than to provide long-ters congregate care for the EPZ population. Accordingly, except for activities such as vehicle decontamination that can, if necessary, take place during the l
1 l
l l
l
- m
{
recovery and reentry phase of an accident, a facility Csignated as a i
reception center will only be utilized for the relatively short period of tfee needed to monitor, decontaalnate as necessary, and register evacuees.
Such a i
facility would not be used for longer-tera needs (such as non-energency l
i medical care, temporary quartering, or other social services), which would be
. provided by congregate care centers to which evacuees would be referred.
1 t
The principal purpose of this report is to assess the capability of
}
Taunton State Hospital (Taunton) and Bridgewater State College (8rldgewater) to monitor the population evacuating from the Pilgris plume exposure pathway 1
i emergency planning zone (EPZ) in accordance vith applicable federal guidance.
Mhile the report summarizes the overall process of managing traffic and monitoring, registering and decontaminating evacuees, as described in greater depth in Appendix A to this report, the federal guidance provides that reception centers should be capable of monitoring 20% of the population evacuating from the EPZ in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Thus, the central purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the capability of the Bridgewater and Taunton facilities to achieve that objective.
The assessment was conducted by planners provided by Boston Edison, in i
coordination with Taunton State Hospital and Bridgewater State College e
]
]
officials, and those officials have concurred with the conclusions stated in this report.1 The report also provides (in Attachment 2) preliminary results of traffic management analyses currently being undertaken by KLD Associates, 1
Given the recent resignation of the Bridgewater State College President, Boston Edison is continuing to work with the current College administration.in order to ensure that its views are reflected in any plans to utiltre the College as a reception center, t
i Inc., to assess, among other things, the ability of the road systes outsid the EPZ to accomodate the anticipated traffic to the two facilities, and thus to support timely monitoring of evacuees. Attachment 2 provides planned
{
traffic routes, estimated travel times and traffic management plans (includ an identification of access and control points).
j This report concludes that the Taunton and Bridgewater facilities have the capability to monitor persons evacuating from the EPZ in accordance with federal guidance, and that those facilities could effectively serve as reception centers.
In fact, although the federal guidance provides that there 4
j should be sufficient reception center capacity to monitor 20f, of the i
~
population "in ha evacuated" in an energency, and an evacuation of the entire EPZ is extremely unlikely, the analysis shows that the Bridgewater and Taunton facilities can accomodate 201, of the entire EPZ population.
Thus, the analysis was based upon conservative assumptions.
Facility renovation (principally at Taunton) and equipment procurement for both facilities will be necessary. A listing of anticipated personnel, and resource needs is included as Appendix 8.
In addition, the preliminary results of the traffic management analyses (Attachment 2) show that anticipated traffic flow into Taunton and Bridgewater can be accomodated and that timely monitoring of evacuees at the reception centers can be supported.
The next section of this report describes the general analytical approach that was used in the evaluation.Section III sumarizes the analysis and results for Bridgewater and Section IV sumarizes the analysis and results for l
Taunton. Conclusions are presented in Section V.
3
CITY OF TAUNTON l
' DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE CRY MALL is suuMan sTnsar
)
~
TAUNTON. MAssACHUSETTC 01780 noems, s. see4aan ammmason October 5, 1988 Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Assiatant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
On Monday October 3, 1988 my office received a draft copy of a document entitled "A Report on Progress Made in Emergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station". Comments were requested by October 7, 1988. This is an extremely short turnaround time for a report that is over 100 pages in length. Our comments are, by necessity, based on a.very cursory review.
Specific comments are as follows:
1 Section VII.G, page 61, pertains to Taunton. In the second paragraph of that section it refers to the fact that renovations to Taunton State Hospital have not been undertaken. It is only fair to point out, that Boston Edison has been prepared to conduct these renovations for quite some time, pending authorization by State DCPO. Further, I have stated that I would use at least some portions of this facility in an energency even if the rencvations vere not complete.
- 2. The last paragraph of Page 61 states that, "the Taunton Civil Defense Director has expressed his concern that plans are being made to provide services for only 20% of the EPZ population...." and that anything over 20% vould be addressed on an and hoc" hasis. This paragraph in no way reflects the statements I made during my interview with Mr. Agnes.
The Taunton plans and procedures vere drafted to meet NUREG-0654 and FIMA guidance memoranda as they pertain to receiving, monitoring and decontamination of evacuees. I am fully aware of the planning criteria, support it, and feel my plans are more than adequate.
In fact, after being questioned repeatedly at that meeting by MCDA officials I mentioned that I felt confident our emergency personnel could handle more than the 20% planned.
"Ad Hoc", is not an appropriate term since existing plans and procedures establish a framework and plannin'; basis for expanded emergency operations.
Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
October 5, 1988 page Two By way of more general observations regarding the report, it appears to grossly under' state the working relationship of Boston Edison emergency response pe.sonnel and the City and overstates the role MCDA has played in determining response policy, strategy.and problem solving. Further, tt, report tends to stress perceived problems and neglects to highlight the progress made to develop comprehensive plans and procedures, initiate a training program, construct emergency operations centers and put needed equipment in place. Although this program is not complete, it is certainly well-established and moving in a positive direction. There are no outstanding program issues that we feel vould interfere with implementation of verkable plans and procedures.
Sincerely, b-o Director i
ec: Mayor R. Varley l
4 e
~
M L
.os====
Executive offices 800 Boylston street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 October 26, 1987 Ralph G. Bird Senior Vice Pre 9 dent - Nu; lear Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Assistant Secretary of Public Safety One Ashburton Place - Room 2133 Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
As you and I recently discussed, periodic submittal of the information developed in response to the issues identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) August 4, 1987, "Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station" (SIR) should facilitate FEMA's review of the resolution of those issues. Accordingly, we are forwarding a copy of a report entitled " Pilgrim EPZ Public Beach Population Analysis,"
dated October 14, 1987, which addresses subissues C.1 and C.2, as identified in the " Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing j
Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues," dated September 17, 1987 (Boston Edison i
Action Plan). He are also enclosing for your consideration a draft letter of transmittal to FEMA and a suggested distribution list.
In subissue C.1, FEMA requested, "(1) an updated geographical description of the beaches (within the Pilgrim EPZ) and their capacity." (Page 26 of SIR)
The Boston Edison Action Plan (Page 14) stated that preliminary esikates of the expected maximum number of people on the public beaches within the LF2 had been developed and were being verified.
It also stated that updated geographical descriptions of the beaches were being developed. The results of those efforts in response to FEMA's request are contained in the enclosed report.
In subissue C.2, FEMA requested, "(2) a detailed analysis of the beach population, including the number of permanent and temporary residents aiid the number of~ day _yisitors, together with their geographical dispersion."
(Page 26 of ~ SIR) The Action Plan (Page 15) stated that the geographical dispersion of the population of each of the public beaches was being developed.
It also indicated that a breakdown between permanent and temporary residents and day visitors did not need to be developed since the current planning process is based on the conservative assumption that sufficient sheltering capacity will be identified for the entire beach population.
Thus, the enclosed report provides the information requested by FEMA as to geographical dispersion of the population on the public beaches within the EPZ.
. u ;.
PILGRIM EPZ PUBLIC BEACH POPULATION ANALYSIS KLD Associates, Inc.
October 14, 1987 The purpose of this report is to respond to certain issues raised in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) August 4, 1987 "Self-Initiated i
Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (SIR)." In particular, the report addresses SIR subissues C.1 and C.2 as identified in the " Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues" dated September 17, 1987 (Boston Edison Action Plan).
l Subissue C.1 stated:
FEMA and the RAC... must receive the following additional information:
(1) an updated geographical description of the beaches i
and their capacity.
Attachments A-G are relevant portions of United States Geological Survey quad sheets (modified as described under Subissue C.2 below) which identify each of the major.pubjic beaches in the EPZ as follows:
Attachment A - Brant Rock Beach and Green Harbor Beach Attachment B - Duxbury Beach Attachment C 'Saquish Neck
msnweason Executive Offices i
800 Boyiston street I
Boston, t/assachuseta 07199 June 30, 1987 Ralph G. Bird EPC# 87-356 Senior Vice President - % clear i
Hr. Peter W. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of Public Safety The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety One Ashburton Place Room 2133 Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
i The attachments to this letter are Emergency Preparedness Materials developed recently by my staff based on our understanding of perceived weaknesses in
)
offsite planning. He believe this information resolves the major concerns being addressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in their self-initiated review:
Beach Population and Sheltering, Mobility Impaired and Transportation Dependent Individuals, Special Facilities Planning and a Northern Reception Center.
He recommend that your agency send this information directly to FEMA for consideration during their self-initiated review. Prompt review of this information should preclude an unnecessary negative finding concerning offsite emergency planning for the protection of the health and safety of the general public around the Pilgrim Station, and in turn avoid creating unnecessary public concern.
He also recommend that the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency use this information to update the State's Emergency Plan and Procedures as well as those of the five towns within the ten mile Pilgrim Emergency Planning Zone.
He are prepared to assist you in quickly achieving this objective.
JFC/cae Attachments
- ~.
O
/*
i TABLE OF CONTENTS I
l List of Tables
-/
i List of Figures i
List of Attachments I.
BEACH POPULATION / SHELTERING 3
A.
Location B.
Population f
C.
Shelters D.
Notification
)
E.
Resources II.
MOBILITY IMPAIRED / TRANSPORT DEPENDENT A.
Studies Overview B.
Survey Process C.
Staging Area Utilization
~
D.
Resources vs. Needs Hatrix E.
Town Resources III.
SPECIAL FACILITIES A.
Campground Areas B.
Schools D.
Prisons E
Nursing Homes
]
i IV.
RECEPTION CENTERS A.
Facility B.
Equipment & Personnel C.
Training D.
Capability i
. _ _ = -
c me eq$*g UNITED STATES F,
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
REGION I 831 PARK AVENUE KING OF PAUS$lA, PENNSYLVANIA 19408 JUN 121987 Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Committee l
Federal Emergency Management Agency i
l John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102 i
Dear Mr. Thomas:
SUBJECT:
EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE AND BEACH POPULATION SHELTERING, MOBIL IMPAIRED AND SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR THE PILGRIM NUCLEA Enclosed for your review and consideration is a letter from Boston Edison Company to the NRC, and its attachments, " Evacuation Time Estimate and Beach Population Sheltering", " Mobility Impaired", and "Special Facilities".
This information addresses some of the outstanding issues related to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station emergency planning zone and may be useful in your review of Pilgrim emergency preparedness issues.
Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed material, please feel free to contact me at (215) 337-5200 or FTS 488-1200.
M (?.
i Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Errergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch cc w/ enc 1:
W. Lazarus J. Schumacher
}&-hh F.N'pa1f p W a w Oy s*N r y- --E w-
--j.-
-dTr- - --
--sm--
.... c;.,......
l E M TION TIME ESTINATE AND f
BEADI POPULATION SHEL1 ERIE i
The following information resolves FEMA concerns involving an updated Evacuation itoe Estimate and the sheltering of beach populations within the EPZ.
This information updates that presented in the 1981 Commonwealth of i
Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan and the 1985 Radiological Emergency Response Plans for the Town of Carver, Dumbury, Kingston, Marshfleid and Plymouth.
I.
Evacuation Time Estimate A.
Sumnary of the Issue An Evacuation Time Est' mate (ETE) ':- the Di* grim Nuclear *:=er Station was performec in 1981.
TY s ETE was cased upon the 1970 Census data.
An updated ETE shouis be prepared based upon consideration of the most recent census data (198D), a traffic pattern analysis and a population density analysis (with attention to sucyr.er beach and tourist populaticns).
B.
BEco. Resconse BEco. has contracted with KLD Associates (July 1986) to provide an updated ETE.
This firm is recognized nationally as an expert in providing evacuation time estimates and comprehensive traffic t.anagement plans.
The' ccmouter c:e's have :een salidated sgahst dashington D.C. interc!:y :raffic ws anc are presently uses ey TEMA as part of their Integrated E:ergency Management Information System (IEMIS).
KLD has conducted ETE's for uttitties including Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham) Pubile Service of New Hampshire (Seabrook), Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse) and Rochester Gas and Electric Co. (Ginna).
Their analytical work has been substantiated by several ASLB hearing panels.
While the final ETE report for the pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is scheduled for receipt by BEco. In June 1987 (ref 1), substantial preliminary information was obtained during meetings and telephone conversations with KLD in May.
The report's table of contents (attachment 1) and summary of analytical methodology (attachment 2) are provided as the results of these discussions.
Information
~
gathered during these meetings and the final report will be made available to the town and state emergency planning personnel.
Table 1 provides comparative Evacuation Time Estimates for several nuclear facility sites using conservative assumptions (see the Table 1 footnotes).
The Pilgrim estimates are on the low side of the norm and within the expected bounds for this population.
709
>\\ :O R V A" DN 0\\LY e
i 4
l TPII4 RIM STATION EVAct.fATION TIME ESTIMATES l
AND TkAfFIC'3LANAGEMENT FIMO WDATE
'-tre$e.ref by EL AsecciotU4 ;Inc.
400 Err 4t ty
{
Ihant.inq4Gn Statin, NF 137(G l
mcpu.e c..e Noton Ed.i.em (Jr.
Off e.: t c, het W.*ncy F:( i,+rtA ei Croup E.IJv%otrici )%r? 90:.0
'H.yrr51th, 4R 023G0 oe
,g Aggyst'.25, 196(
Rev. 0
FOREWORD l
The Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan for Pilgrim Station presented herein is a
document which has undergone extensive reviews since August, 1987 when a c'.ra f t report was issued.
The contents of the report were updated to reflect comments received from a variety of sources; state and local agencies, town RERP committees, and the general public.
The contents of the RERPs and Implementation Procedures, developed to date, were used to update the planning assumptions utilized.
The Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan remains a
"living document" to be revised as planning assumptions change, new informa' tion becomes available, or as population and development patterns within the area change over
- time, This document references the use of three reception centers; t
Bridgewater State College, Taunton State Hospital, and a proposed site in Wellesley.
The proposed Wellesley site is currently being studied to determine its feasibility.
It is important to note that the number and location of reception centers does not effect the ETE as long as the reception centers are located.a sufficient distance from the Emergency Planning Zone boundary.
- [fB ap.
e,
- ew O'
mr e
I
\\
l
)
Pilgrin Station
^
i Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffic Management Plan Update List of Effective Pages Table of Contents i to xiii Rev. O Chapter 1 1-1 to 1-10 Rev. O Chapter 2 2-1 to 2-48 Rev. O Chapter 3 3-1 to 3-11 Rev. O Chapter 4 4-1 to 4-26 Rev. O Chapter 5 5-1 to 5-20 Rev. O Chapter 6 6-1 to 6-3 Rev. O Chapter 7 7-1 to 7-5 Rev. O Chapter 8 8-1 to 8-10 Rev. 0 Chapter 9 9-1 to 9-62 Rev. O Chapter 10 10-1 to 10-35 Rev. O Chapter 11 11-1 to 11-5 Rev. O Chapter 12 12-1 to 12-2 Rev. O App 2ndix A A-1 to A-5 Rev. O Appendix B B-1 to B-3 Rev. O Appendix C C I to C-7 Rev. O Appendix D D-1 to D-8 Rev. O Appendix E E-1 to E-19 Rev. O Appendix F F-1 to F-5 Rev. O Appendix G G-1 to G-18 Rev. O Appendix H H-1 to H-4 Rev. O Appendix I I-1 to I-185 Rev. O Appendix J J-1 to J-6 Rev. O Appendix K K-1 to K-5 Rev. O Appendix L L-1 to L-62 Rev. O Appendix M M-1 to M-29 Rev. O Appendix N N-1 to N-12 Rev. O Appendix o 0-1 to 0-36 Rev. 0 A
\\
i m
1
]
L.
Sh@ 2@T l
l M p.@ M@R 2880@ R
\\
PT@g TG M i
Su M Mg ry 4
e MARSHFIELD
Shelter implementation Program Summary Purpose of Shelter Implementation Program:
To provide an alternative 10 evacuation where such actions will result in l
I greater dose savings than if the public I
were evacuated.
\\
V."-,. : i{j. ]. ~.~ _. - :-- : - ; --
- -. -. = -
r.
~ ~ ~
_... x....
l l
l
_. Y_
l
_-----------q__-
Shelter Implementation Program Summary I
i Three Goals i
of the Shelter 3
j Implementation Program:
i t
i i
e Meet Federal Regulations i
8 Utilize a Joint Effort by State / Town / Utility
'8 Provide a Systematic program toe.
Implement Short Term Shelte~ ring 7
F
l Shelter implementation Program Summary a
-J L
i NRC & FEMA l
Regulatory Requirements i
I i
i NUREG J.10.M:
l Requirement that sheltering effectiveness l
in the EPZ be addressed.- to allow planners i
to put data in the hands c: local officials i
sufficient for the development of shelter i
implementation plans for all areas of the 5 EPZ towns.
~
10 CFR N6.Wlb)(10)
~
j and l
' 44 CFR 350.5 (a) (10)
...and require that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure zones (EPZ).
3
Shelter Implementation Program Summary l
J L
l Short term Sheltering l
e An approximate period of one to two hours j
- No sleeping or feeding arrangements VS i
Mass Care Sheltering l
4 Can last for longer periods of time
- involves sleeping and feeding j
arrangements i
0 l
Often carried out with the protective l
action of evacuation e
j Shelter Implementation Program Summary l
l m.a 2 Main Protective L-Actions I
N Sheltering Evacuation Identify Population Buses 4
1 l
Identify PotentialShelters Staging Areas i
i Perform Visual inspections Reception Centers I
j LO.A?s
~
Monitoring Develop, Review and Approve Mass Care l
Shelter Procedures i
Provide Shelter Kits l
and Training t
i l
Shelter implementation Program Summary l
J L
l i
i 9 Identification of Population that may l
need Public Shelter 9 Identification of Potential Public Shelters i
i 9 Visuallnspection of Buildings i
e Letters of Agreement with Building l
Owners 1
4
., Shelter Procedure Development, Review and Approval f
i i
Provision of Shelter Kits for Shelter
- Coordinators / Training I
4 1
L 6
1 4
Shelter Impl@ mentation Program Summary Identification of Population that i
may need i
Public Shelter l
Resident Population Transient Population
- 1 i
Beach Persons in Population Homes, Businesses,
)
i Etc.
i Boaters l
"7y.~
o s:,
9;.
l Sh@00@F l
0" Day I
P08@@
Trippers 3
Sh@D0@7 On D@eOgns0@d PubODc Sh@00@re 4
l-1 F-7 i
Shelter Implementation Program Summary i
l l
l:
identification L-
-J of l
Potential Public Shelters i
l Criteria:
j e Location 8
1
)
G Good Shelter Protection f
i O Suitability for use I
l O Size Types of Buildings n _ ---
~;~
l 9 Municipal i
I G Semi-Public l
e Private Sector
- Commercial i
- Non-Profit i
i 4
a
Shelter implementation Program Summary
-~
Perform l
a VisualInspection l
Determine Usable Determine Shelter l
Space Capacity i
i l
9 Measure Total e Divide Usable i
Square Footage Space By FEMA 10 ft2 i
G Apply Room 9 Allow for Normal Usability Factors Ropulation in c
j Building
~
l 9 Arrive at # of Persons that could be Sheltered in Building During Normal Operation Hours (In Addition to Normal Population) b
)
Shelter implementation Program Summary i
i I
Marshfield 4
l Shelters i
4 i
1 Municipal Building 3
Semi-Public Buildings 1
i 4
Shelters
~l i
i i
1 F-
Shelter implementation Program Summary Marshfield Peak Populations for Beach Areas l
- Green Harbor 2,609 4
e t
Brant Rock 1,211 f
i Boaters 170 Day-trippers 660 I
Total 4,650
- Based on information recerved from local officials, there are no commercial parking lots at Green Harbor or Brant Rock, the masrity of beach goers have touses nearby, and the non-resident population for these areas cornprises approximately a third of the total peak population. A third of the peak population for Green Harbor is 869; for Brant Rock is 403.
The total non-resident population for toth locations is 1272.
l Shelter implementation Program Summary l
l
-u Shelter I-l Letters of Agreement i
4 i
i G Voluntary Participation by Building Owners r
!j 8 Protection Against Liability for Building Owners l
Fi air -
7 i
i l
-1 F-
i Marshfield -
Beach Areas and Shelters
- musm.e.. summa n
....h,
.h......
c.........
c.....,
,.,e.....n c.....,
n....n.n.i
,,,....r.
. e.
n 4,...
ni on-n....
o,
. o, o,
n u.v enm i. o..ua. us.
- r.,......
wi. w..
i..r i.
i...
n,a n,a Seel-Pu
- n. o., t h11a. r c
i..i s.
i..i.
i...
Brent Rock 1.z i t 3.anil-Puhila j
.. av.n..,
.e.
,i....
i....
i...
i....
l 4.
.,.nt M.ek Uns ch e.h
- 1....
2.34.
29.v.*
1 Day-trippere l
i i
.i r
i
...i.
--g Total 4..s.
g.
43,43.
q,ggg y,,,,
Th.
Iteme er. nos epse-de einc..w beech popuisson i m ehesier.d *duren. opweein. have. p.; eseng ocho.s y.or) is.wy inw.
I Aner con un. con ween church omcsese, no deducson. from.vesses cap.cisy hev to.n tak.a sor bu.en.
,1-de. 8..* ehort hours thee. evnen er. In vee.
i
.. se d upon insormenien f.e.ev.o prom soc.e omcs.o., shw. are no commweses parkin. see..e er n Horte, or arent Rock; ein wu$rresy.e l
b.ech go.re hev. hovees neartiy. and the non f.eident PvW for Ih.e. er e wo.kl tempree. only e.itre of pi. toest peek pay.leean. A
.wd of.i. po h poput. Won for Gr n tierbor le 94.; W brent Races le 403. Th. total rionW popueston to, be.,Iscatone le 1 73.
i
1
[ Attachment 2 I J
L Municipal Authorization for Governor Edward Winslow School
. - +
- =. -
See attached Sheet
l BUILDINO:
Governor Edward Winslor School /Marshfield ADDERS 8:
Regis Road off Caresvell St. (tte.139)
INDIVIDUAL (8)IN CRARGE:
Fred Hubbard, Administration Alan Scott, Maintenance i
Thank you for assisting the Office of Emergency Preparedness by providing energency resource inforestion necessary for short tera shel.ter planning in the event of na eccide Pilgria Nuclear Power Station or any other energency.nt at Your cooperation in providing information uma most helpful in completing shelter survey forms and in ascertaining shelter l
space for the public should an energency arise.
l Please review the completed shelter survey form to ensure that the information recorded is accurate.
A visual inspection of Wrnor Echtard Winslow School taken to determine a USASLE SERLTER ARIA of _19.210 we, feet.
square TRANSIENT POPULATION CAPACITY:
Off-hours /off season:
1,910
%4 easts SIOKATURE(8) OP INDIVID'JAL(8)IN CBAAGE OF BUILDING l
N ?/fPP i
(DATE)
I Attachm.m a Lettors of Agreement
J L
- 1. Saint Ann's by the Sea
- 2. Our Lady of the Assumption i
- 3. Brant Rock Union Chapel l
\\
F ERN OUitid A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AT PILGRIM NUCLEAR PONEA STATID
~
This Agreement is made this 22nd day of March,1988, by and between St.
I Ann's by the Sea (RC), at Marshfield, and 80ston Edison Company, a Massachusetts electric company, with its principal place of business at 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199.
WHEREAS, Boston Edison Company (" Boston Edison") is the owner and operator of the P11gris Muclear Power Station ("P11gris Station"), located in Plymouth, Massachusetts; and NHEREAS, it is in the public interest that in the event of a radiological emergency at Pilgria Station that members of the pubile have adequate short-tors energency shelter fact 11 ties; and WHEREAS, the shelter facilities described herein are owned by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston ("the Owner") have been determined to be
~
suitable for the purposes of providing emergency shelter; and NHEREAS the Owner has agreed to maka said facilities available for an emergency shelter in the event of a r&diological emergency at P11gris Station; NON TNEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1.
Permission te Use Facilities: The Owner agrees that in the event of a radiological emergency at Pilgria Station and Upon the direction of the Emergency Operations Canter for the Town of Marshfield (Town), the facilities described in Section 2 may be used by the general public as an emergency shelter.
2.
Shelter Facilities: The Owner's facilities which may be used as an emergency shelter (" Shelter Facilities") are described as follows: St. Ann's by the Sea (RC)
(Church building and Parish Center 591 Ocean St.
butiding available for sheltering)
Marshfield, MA
3.
Shelter. Facilities Canacirv: Based upon applicable st:ndards and inspection by Boston Edison, the Shelter Facilities have a capacity cf up to 1,080 persons.
4.
Resnonsibilities of Owner: When directed by the Emergency Operations Center for the Town to activate the Shelter Facilities, the Owner shall do the following:
a)
Post in a visible, public area the shelter placard, which is contained in the Shelter Procedures Kit; and b)
Use best efforts to follow and carry out the Shelter Procedures, which are contained in the Shelter Procedures Kit.
5.
Leased Premises: In the event the Shelter Factitties are on premises which are leased by the Owner, the Lessee, by signing this agreement, agrees to fulfill the responsibilities of Owner as se: forth in Section 4.
6.
Shelter Manaaer: The Owner or, in the case of Leased Premises, the Lessee may designate a Shelter Manager. The Shelter Manager's name, address and telephone number shall be provided to the Emergency Operation Center for the Town; and he or she shall be the primary person to contact for all matters pertaining to the Shelter Facilities.
7.
Oblications of Boston Edison: Boston Edison shall do the following:
a)
Provide a complete Shelter Procedures Kit and other pertinent emergency instructions and information as may be necessary to assist the Owner, Lessee and Shelter Manager; and b)
Provide one tone alert radio; and c)
Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Owner, Lessee and Shelter Manager for and against any clain, damage, action, suits, losses, costs or expenses for loss or damage to property.
or injury to persons, including deatn, and reasonable attorneys' fees, caused by, connected with, or arising out of the actions or omissions of the Owner, Lessee or Shelter Manager in !
connectt'on ulth the use of the Shelter Fact 11ttes as an emergency shelter during a radiological emergency at Pilgrio Station.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hand and seal on the date first stated herein.
i Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boste Soston Edison Coupany (owns r ' s =-- )
By
[
Attorney R.G. Bird Senior Vice President _ Nuclear Its Lessee (If Shelter Facilities are on Leased Prestses) 1 Shelter Manager 4
l 4
i J
L
(
Letter of Agreement 1
Brant Rock Union Chapel d
(In Process) d 4
I i
I i
l d
e
.f 1
i i
l i
e 3
1 i
}
m d
i
)
I i
i 1
[*
1 L
M i
j Letter of Agreement Our Lady of the Assumption
,i 1
(In Process) a 1
e i
J l
I J
i f
j i
l I
I
Att5 chm:nt 4 l Marshfield Shelter Procedures
-J L
Shelter Manager IP-10 Shelter Coordinator for:
Governor Edward IP-41 Winslow School Brant Rock IP-42 Union Chapel
~
Saint Ann's IP-43 by the Sea Our Lady of the IP-44 Assumption
h
(
- 4 g p*
l Federal Emergency Manageme~i#Mgencf g
8 m
Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court H6Uie p
l A
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 August 22, I M 2 O Charles V. Barry, Secretary P
Dcecutive office of Public Safety i
(( ;
- p&
Ccrronwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place 3
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. Barry:
his is in response to your letters of May 27 and July 7,1988, concerning off-site radiological emergency planning and preparedness for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. The efforts of the Ccuronwealth of Massachusetts and the local comunities to upgrade plans and preparedness around Pilgrim are recognized and appreciated by the Federal Dnergency Management Agency (FEMA). Informal technical assistance reviews of the draf t local radiological emergency response j
plans for Plymouth, Carver, and Kirgston, Massachusetts and of the Reception Center Plan for Taunton, Massachusetts were carnpleted by FEMA and the results j
were forwarded to Mr. Bobert Boulay, Massachusetts Dnergency Management Director, on March 30, 1988. he results of the informal technical assistance reviews of the Bridgewater Reception Center Plan and the Duxbury Radiological Dnergency Response Plan were forwarded to Mr. Boulay on August 3,1988, and August 8, 1936, respectively.
Informal technical assistance plan reviews have now been ccr:pleted for all of the' Pilgrim emergency planning zone (EP2) ccr:rnunities except for Marshfield. 'Ihe Marshfield plan and the plan for a third reception center have not yet been sutznitted for review.
The reviews indicate that there has been scme progress made in improving and upgrading the local plans. Cverall, however, the plans 'emain inecrnplete, lack s;ecific details in certain areas, and do rot include mired implementing prccedures. In addition to these issues in the local pa.as that must be ad-cressed, the status of the rassachusetts Civil Defense Agency Area II Plan and the Ccrmonwealth of Massachusetts Plan must be clarified. The Area II Plan is now obsolete in many respects and needs upgrading and republishing. By our records, the July 1981 edition of the Ccrmonwealth Plan remains the effective version, since the 1984 revised edition was never implemented. Since the Ccrronwealth and Area II Plans both contain elements that affect and are critical to the local plans and their implementation, a full formal technical review of offsite planning for Pilgrim cannot be ccrnpleted by FINA until revised Ccrronwealth and Area II Plans are submitted along with canplete supporting local plans. As indicated in our letters to Mr. Boulay, full implementing procedures, letters of Agreement, revised Public Information Brochures, and training trodules must also be subnitted for a full, formal technical review.
We encourage you to continue pursuing your goal of developing the best possible e,ergency plans for protecting the public health and safety in the vicinity of l
the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. We can also appreciate the intricacies of the j
[ prccess and interaction among the State and local jurisdictions and the licensee l
that is required to develop such plans..m are acain requesting, however, that yoc provide a schedule or milestones indicating QIeh the overall otisite planni l
\\
1
process for Pilgrim will be ccmpleted and when revised plans will be submitted to FD M for formal review. We do not believe that this action would be arbitrary or that it would imply that considerations other than public safety are paramount.
In fact, we have found schedules and milestones to be useful for plannirg purposes and for monitorirg progress at other sites ard we believe that the Commonwealth, the local jurisdictions, and the licensee could better organize the planning effort ard would find that producing a schedule would help facilitate the process.
In your letter you questioned whether the plans that are ultimately developed will provide reasonable anurance that adequate protective measures "can and will" be taken to protect the public.
You also requested that FDM provide you with a state-ment of the criteria FD% intends to mploy in making a determination of reasonable assurance associated with a review of the plans for Pilgrim. FD % continues to use 44 CFR 350 as the basis for its reasonable assurance findirg. If the intent of FDE's regulation 44 CFR 350 and the plannirg standards and related evaluation cri-teria contained in NUREG-0654/FDM-REP-1, Ibvision 1, are met, based on the pro-fessional judgment of FDM and other Federal reviewrs, then we are able to make the determination that emergency plans adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency. As a p) int of clari-fication, 44 CFR 350 does not require a FD% reasonable assurance determination that protective measures "will" be taken, only that they "can" be taken.
In regard to your discussion of planning options and dose savings, the overall I 'obiective of any radiological emergency response plan related to a nuclear power
~
plant is to a'ssure reasonable and feasible dose savirus for a spectrum of radio-Icnical accidents that could produce offsite coses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAG's).'A PAG is defined as a projected absorbed dose to individuals in the general population which acts as a trigger point to warrant protective action. A PAG under no circumstances implies an acceptable dose. 'Ihe Nuclear Ibgulatory Ccrmission (NRC) confirmed the above position in a ruliro on July 24_, 1986, and stated that emergency pl.annino requirements d_o not require thal an adequate plan achieve a~ pre-setJ.inimum radiation dose-saVirgsy _a minimum evacuatiori time for the plume exposure (10-mile) t;PZ in the e' vent of 'a serloJs accident (long Island Lightiro Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 24 NRC 22 (CLI-86-13, 1986).
ge__ protective actions taken af ter a nuclear incident
_are intended tyminimize the radiation exposure of the general public resultirr:L fro _the inciden't, gthus achieve dose savirgs in ccrrparisori to actions taken on an ad hoc basis without emergency plannirg. Egrn the best errernenev olans f and preparednessannot assure that radiation exposu,re will rot occur for the warst case accidents.
4 In your letter you raised the issue of the beach population in '
vicinity of Pilgrim and questioned whether FDM continues to stand by
.ts of the Self-Initiated Review and Interim Firdirg. 'Ihere are seven etors that will s
be considered by FDM in reviewirg the revised Pilgrim plans regardirg the beach population ard other special populations within the EPZ. One factor involves Plannity Standard J in NURECr0654/FD%-REP-1, Revision 1, which requires that l
a "ranoe_of protective actions" be considered in developirg offsite radiological l
emergency response plans. As part of the Pilgrim plan revision process, FDW expects offsite officials to develop protective action options, based on site-specific characteristics and local capabilities, and to provide the technical I
l rationale for whatever protective action option or options are selected and adopted as the most appropriate planning approach for the site.
It is FDG's position that a "rarne of protective actions" could be satisfied by evacuation alone.
l Also, in the Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding FD% stated, based on certain factom, that protective actions for the beach population "may well be adequate cur-rently and, if not, readily correctable." It may be, based on the relatively low numbers of people who.aay be without shelter, that nearby buildirgs could be iden-tified to offset the difference. It is our expectation that once this option is fully expload, an adecuate shelterire plan for the transient beach population can be develope 1. lowever, if this is not' the case, to require sheltering for the transient besch population as a condition of a firdirg of reasonable assurance is inconsistent with the precept that emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan achieve a pre-set minimum radiation dose savirgs or a minimum evacuation time. Wis approach is beirg applied to all EPZ's nationwide. R us, our response to your question as to whether or not we stand behind our finding is twofold:
- 1) we continue to believe that an adequate sheltering plan for the transient beach population can be developed for the limited circumstances where shelterirg would be the preferred protective action; and 2) that this issue, in and of itself, would not support a negative findirg for the aformentioned legal and policy reasons ard
& the technical reasons stated belcw.
l In severe accident sequences, the total dose potential is emprised of several em-ponents. Rese are the direct exposure from imersion in the pime, cloud-shine frm a plume cuerhead, exposure frcra inhalation of the plume, and ground-shine frm deposited radionuclides. ne exact relationship amorg the various ccraponents will vary with time ard distance frcm the point of release.
In severe accident sequences, however, the ground-shine cmponent is most 'likely to be the major contributor to total dose if no protective ~ actions are taken. In those cases, if the dose reduction strategy is sheltering first, followed by an evacuation af ter plume passage, the total dose reduction would not be as great as that for the immdiate evacuation strategy.
In an imediate evacuation, to nove the population relatively short distances in a cross-wind direction would greatly decrease or eliminate exposure. Even moving the population downwind relatively short distances would decrease the dose rate by a f actor of 3 or 4.
Se sheltering part of the strategy reduces dose primarily frcm the plume irrersion and inhalation ccr1ponent.
It is generally accepted, depending on the quality of the shelter, that the effectiveness of a shelter to reduce the in-halation exposure degrades af ter two hours. At sone point, sheltered individuals would have to be relocated. Durirg this evacuation af ter plume passage, individuals previously sheltered would still receive the ground-shine dose, potentially the major conponent. Berefore, shelterirg followed by evacuation is likely to be a less ef fective means of achieving dose reduction than evacuation alone, particularly for severe accident sequences.
Generally, the closer an area is to the point of release of radiation the greater the potential dose savirgr, that can be achieved by early evacuation. By implementa-tion of the innediate evacuation strategy, dose reductions greater than those to be derived fran a " shelter first-evacuate later" concept can be obtained by movment of the population relatively short distances, even in the extremely unlike t,se in which the plume track and the evacuation routes coincide.
In addition to the factors outlined above, the NRC Staff has advised FDG that its interpretation of NRC emergency planning regulations is that the regulations
do not require that sheltering te provided for all accidents, at all times, and at all locations within the plu e exposure pathway EP2. Stated differently, the NRC Staf f views the regulations as not re:;uiring that there be a range of protective actions that includes both sheltering and evacuation options, for all accidents, at all times, and at all location within the EPZ. NRC has also advised FDiA that its regulations are not contravened by the absence of shelter in the case of the beach population.
In consideration of FD4A's interpretation tha't " range of protective actions" could be satisfied by evacuation alone, the pot,entially greater dose savings frcn an im-mediate evacuation versus sheltering strategy, and the NRC's interpretation of its regulations, the lack of she} tering for a special segment of the population will not, by itself, necessarily be cause for a negative reasonable assurance finding.
These standards were applied to reviewing planning for the beach population in the Seabrook case ard are being applied to all reviews nationwide.
Mr. Richard Krimm's recollection of the quotation in your letter is that the state-ments wre made in the context of shelteriry as a preplanned, chosen protective action and referred to sheltering for the pannanent population. W expect the Carmonwealth of Fussachusetts and local jurisdictions to consider ~ a range of protective action options and to technically justify those options that are selected as the Pilgrim plans are revised and upgraded.
In selected instances, sheltering may be a logical and appropriate approach.
r I would like to reiterate, as stated earlier, that FD4A encourages the developnent of a comprehensive schedule for completion of the emergency plans for Pilgrim and that this process is not " arbitrary" nor does it imply "that considerations other
{
than public safety (are) paramount." If the schedule, once developed, needs to be adjusted subsequently in order to improve the plans, FD4A could accamodate such L
madifications.
4 Once again, additional technical assistance fran FD4A will be readily available to you should you desire it in completing the Pilgri:n planning effort. If you need any additional infonnation, please contact me at 223-9540 in Boston.
Sincdrely J
/
/,.
A'sf.V w.,
U. Wckers Reg'onal Director t
FEMA ISSUES ISSUE 1 SilBISStIE STATUS A.]
Private schools and day-care centers not identified in town plans.
Complete
_40 E
/
A.2 Plans and procedures needed.
Plans, procedures in place and transportation arranged.
74g g
A.3 Early dismissal and evacuation concerns.
Plans describe early transfer.
TA6 E
A.4 Letters of Agreement (LOAs) needed.
LOAs have been signed. Need state approval.
A.5 Driver training.
740 6 P v >/yp Drivers are being trai
'TA 8 G
,5 Ted H.
ISSUE 2 B.1.
Reception center needed.
Two centers identiffed, improvements are reconsnended. Northern Center detemined feasible by the Consnonwealth.
B.7 Plans and procedures needed to register and monitor evacuees.
Complete.
'l T40 E i,
O
~l
)
FEMA ISSUES t
ISSUE 3 SURISSUE STATUS I
C.1 Updated geographical description of beaches
[
and their capacity.
Complete.
In the plans and procedures.
TA6 & M T#o L.
l C.2 Analysis of beach population.
Information incorporated into plans and procedures.
g C.3 Estimate of time to evacuate (ETE).
Revised ETE completed.
j 746 4
i C.4 Shelter details.
Shelter information updated. LOAs signed.
744 M C.5 Accessible shelters.
Shelter Implementation Program in place.
TM3 m l
ISSUE 4 i
D.1 Procedures and current information needed Complete.
i to identify mobility impaired.
TAS E,
D.2 Transportation needed.
Transportation resources available.
746 C D.3 LOAs needed.
LOAs signed. Need state approval.
j
..L TAC G pm vhr l
i l
f i
FEMA ISSilES ISSUE 5 StlBISSUE STATUS E.1 Plans and proocedures and ETE needed for transportation - dependent population.
Complete.
TN3 6 W
T46 (
E.2 Resources needed.
- Complete, gg E.3 LOAs needed.
LOAs signed. Need state approval.
746 G f7 O/W ISSUE 6 F.1 Lack of progress.
Complete.
Conce,oS ted F.2 No updates to state plan.
State Area II plan provided to FEMA.
t 748 6 F.3 No training.
Training in progress.
7A6 6 m 7A6 H F.4 Inadequate public information.
Interim provided, final in process.
77+e H F.5 No Annual letters of Certification (ALC).
Future ALC incorporated in upgraded EP program. 7,p3 g F.6 State and local plans are inadequate.
State position. Cooperating in improvements.
F.7 State unable to answer questions from public.
Cooperating in improvements.
F.8 KI policy not clearly stated.
Complete.
...215 337 5368..
P DEC 30 '87 10:21 HRC KING OF PRUSSIA P03 h-l f
i
{
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE REGARDING IHE PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION I
(
)
DR. THOMAS MURLEY, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PLYMOUTH, MAS 5ACHU5ETT5 l
JANUARY 7, 1988 l
--- www wvvg
'87 10:25 HRC KING OF PRUSSIA P11 Jv - The Oratt Massachusetts Civil Defense Authority Area 11 Plan is complete and in review.
Submittal to FFMA is expected in January 1988.
- The draf t of the Commonwealth Plan is approximately 75% complete.
Additionally, Boston Edison submitted an exemption request to NRC on the requirements 1
j for conducting their Biennial Full participation Exercise, lhis exemption was approved.
l December 9, 1987, with the stipulation that the exercise be conducted no later than June 30,1968.
As I statec la a recent letter to Mr. Malaguti of the Plyrouth Board of belectmen, NR; will not permit Filgrim to resvee operation until we determine tr.at the health and safety of the public can be protected.
The i
determination whether to restart the Pilgrim plant will involve consideration of each cf the emergency planning issues identified by FEMA.
In particular, resolution of the deficiencies identified with respect to the evacuation of schools and daycare centers and the evacuation of special needs and transporation cependent population eust be demonstrated prior to power cperations.
The quality of off site e9ergency preparedness at the pilgrim plant will depend heavily on how well the Commonwealth of P.assachusetts is able to l
~~
especially under adverse weather conditions, 29*
this time.
For instance,' elevating the Saguish access road should be considered if such action would not be prohibited by environmental regulations.
impassable by any vehicle.During extreme high tides this road is virtual (p. 43)
C0694ENTS: Provisions for the evacuation of $44uish have been incorporated into the draft plans and procedures, and include roles for the Plymouth Police Department, Saquish Special Police, Plymouth Harbor Haster, Duxbury Public Herks k
Department, Duxbury Harbor Master and Duxbury Police i
Department.
The Duxbury Police Department has not yet concurred with its draft procedure.
With respect to the " virtual impassability" of the Saquish access road during high tides, that condition occurs on approximately two '6ays a month for about 'two hours on each-occasion.
In any event, based upon numero'us discussions with the Saguish Association and aerial photography commissio Boston Edison, we believe that with the addition of a simple cross-over between the front beach road and back road, fell
(
access can be provided to and from Saquish at all times.
There are of course details that must be worked out but, we are continuing to discuss this matter with the Saquish Association.
l
S3ptonbar 30, 1988 I
Mr. Ronald Bellamy, Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA. 19107
Dear Mr. Bellamy:
As' you know, Duxbury Citizens Urging Responsible Energy is opposed to the restart of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
However, regardless of our position on that issue, we support the development of the best emergency i
response plan which can be achieved due to the fact that i
16 years of highly radioactive waste remains on site at Pilgrim.
The town of Duxbury's Emergency Response Committee has made an extraordinary commitment, t
as have many individuals to insure that the public's health and safety are provided in the event of an emergency at Pilgrim.
Nonetheless, for our plan is far from implementation, and it remains to be seen, as the Governor has stated, if workable plans
~
can be developed to safely provide for the evacuation the population within ten miles of Pilgrim.
We object of to the NRC and Boston Edison conclusion that draft plans in any state are satisfactory to protect this area.
i We are pleased to provide the enclosed report, photographs and nautical charts prepared by Duxbury resident, David Quaid.
We concur with his findings and commend him for tireless efforts to present factual information on the problems of evacuation and sheltering of the beach / transient populations.
In addition, Mr. Quaid has offered to provide t:urs of the Gurnet/Saguish area to interested officials.
We trust that you will give these materials careful consideration when making decisions on emergency planning.
We look forward to your comments.
Sincerely yours, Q
Y.
f f]C.d k h
- 9-r,,,,e Mary C. Ott Donald M. Muirhead Jr., M.D.
Cc-Chairmen CC:
Governor Michael Dukakis Senator Edward Kennedy Senator John Herry Congressman Gerry Studds Assistant Secretary Public Safety, Peter Agnes Selectmen:
Duxbury Mr. Cramer, Federal Emergency Management Agency g
I h
i
21 Summer Stieet.P.O. Box 1617 Duxbury, MA 023311617 t
l September 17th.'1988 REPORT ON PROBLEMS OF EVACUATION AND SHELTERING OF BEACH / TRANSIENT POPULATIONS DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF PILGRIM 1 STATION.
This report and the aerial photographs contained with the report were occasioned by the irresponsible letter of October 21st., 1987 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning beach / transient populations by Admiral Bird of Boston Edison.
Quote: "In our submittal of June 4th., 1987, we conclude that adequate planning is possible for i
sheltering beach / transient populations (estimated at approximately 9000 people).
Our position was then, and remains, that there is more i
than sufficient sheltering capacity available for sheltering the I
population of concern".
In a letter to Chairman Zech, of the NRC, I asked for representatives of his agency and of Boston Edison to tour the beach areas with me to see for themselves that absolutely no sheltering, whatsoever, exists and that much of the beach area harboring a large summer population is just three miles, downwind from Pilgrim 1 Station.
Dr. Ronald
- Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch made an appo.ntment with me and on March 10th., 1988, we toured the entire area.
It being winter most of the area was quite abandoned except for some all-year residents at Gurnet Point.
He mentioned that he would like to see the area on a summer's weekend.
Tne aerial photographs were made to fulfill his request and those of others.
The photos enclosed were made on July 3rd., 1988, during the period between 2:30pm and 3:30pm.
The day was chilly so the beaches were about 50% under-utilized.
This fact is obvious, when considering the pnotos of the 1/2 empty town parking lot and the same condition at the DJxbury Tublic Beach lots.
Mr. Albert Samano, Supervisor of Off-site Safety, reported at a Duxbury Emergency Response Committee meeting, that BECO in 1987 had also made an " overflight", on a l
plea s a nt summer's weekend, of the beach areas near Pilgrim 1 Station and from the photographs estimated the beach population at 16000 people.
Photo 41:
Shows the proximity of Pilgrim 1 Station to Gurnet Point, slightly over three miles distant.
The NRC estimates that the speed of a radioactive plume f rom a reactor accident would be 10 miles per hour, which would allow but 20 minutes to evacuate the area.
During the summer months the prevailing winds are from the southwest making the beach area downwind of the plant for the entire season of maximum recreational use.
Photol2:
Is typical of the Duxbury Beach road.
As can be seen, the road is cabled for its entire length to preclude access to the conservation This fencing is broken in only two places along 4 miles of steas.
Joad for access to the beach and are are referred to locally as cr ossover s.
These crossovers are in extremely soft sand, under some 4
conditions even four-wheel drive become stuck.
Photof3:
One of only two crossovers in 4 miles of beach.
Photo 04:
At bottom of photo, a car can be seen exiting a crossover to the beach.
The vegetation and the dunes are protected by fencing both on the beachside and the roadside.
Cars exiting from the beach can leave only through the crossover at the bottom of the picture or through the one out of frame at the top.
Photo 05:
At this hour on a holiday weekend, 2:30pm, the parking lot would normally be full and overflow cars' turned away at the far end of the bridge.
The chilly day held down attendance.
Photo 06:
The entire parking lot is normally full at this hour, capacity, 2500 When viewing these photos a factor of +1/3 to +1/2 should be cars.
added to obtain a realistic impression of the population.
Photo 07:
It was estimated by the Gurnet/Saguish security that there were 3500 people and 400 to 500 vehicles on Saguish Beach on the afternoon of July 3rd.,1988.
Photo 08:
During the monthly astronomically high tides, the marsh area between Gurnet Point and Saguish Beach :is inundated preventing [B) vehicular traffic across road at
)
[A] and the back road at (C).
is the one-lane soft sand principal access to Saguish Beach.
At-the best of times getting through [B) without meeting another vehicle coming from the other direction is by chance.
Someone must back up.
In an energency [B) would prove to be avery difficult situation indeed, t
Reco mendation for Saguish Beach:
The roads at [A] and [C), see Photof8, must be raised for all-weather access.
The gap at [B) must be double-tracked to make evacuation at all possible.
For Duxbury Beach:
An additional crossover to make a total cf three.
General recommendation:
Due to prevailing southwest summer winds, l
close Pilgrim 1 Station, June 1st. to October 1st, yearly.
Respectfully. submitted, David L. Quaid Resident of Town of Duxbury/Gurnet Point.
4
)
l ij
)
i i
b M
2 y
7-,
1 I
l l
i i
j l
i l
h i.l 2_
i l
/), i., [
)-
i W
2 e
j c
i g
o '..w. d'.
1 I.
j i
Y
,5 u.c Q. ! J..,
n x
, ? I i p. l i,. h-
- 3.,
- g'M l
'4
' ~' [. '. ',. :..$
I2
., f, %jd" 5
3 jflJ..[,, ]
l g.
)
j d
~'
's.A
.)
,f, p#
[*,.', ' J [ h... (c,k. o -.y 3
g
+
.,,-.:,..et#
w r
.: -. /,7,.g.
3 j
9,,
f s
{
'[, '.' - l. f., :...
j '\\
y'
, y 7.. g,' ' s.}*9 %,
t l
'e,, -
,g%..
g
+,
6' 4
~
~..3
'b
. '. l.
r,.,J _...-
q.a' i
gg, -,
i l
m'.(",fi-Ag e
-. 3* K, ~fa j
'. -..,.i 4
vt t
n q.-
p'..h[.',
j
,y[
?
t s :<
e l
),d p[,J.}t '
- ).
7
.g.y 1
i,.>
m...,
r-
? - { '.* f 't
' h, -[
3
~., c c,1, -)?f !y.*yl[. '
~
.Y.
{
l J....'
1-Ijf,..h.. c
{-
'}
l 4
(
i 4
{
g
,, '. f s, 8 4.,
t
(
7
- c -i, p '4 j 'j:t
^;M l
3 i
- %8r p 4 t %'t
~
- c. t > ) y J. 0
?"
i
. d!!<
k).
,G
- t.S.
m
< V E...,.. (. e a j
..'#.;.+
.%.,4; t
c
.,.jc e.
>}.
~
4 ke a. ' ;g l
'*d.
Ng
- +
' '.i f.;.y ;.;.n j f
-.y,
- ?.
i s.
.... 4
- , g$ a l
L' I!':, h g/. 3gy)lp$
b4 5 i
a
. Q,\\114 7 7 t yg,.i.pg g
.,-...-.-...e==..
i l
' ih.
M t w. }.
- 1,
~
i
. n. :.
lh,4Lg.,..
q:
.;i
- j
.,y ;
1 1
i) *
- z
'3 I J^,f e
^.
f' j
u[f.u i
~
t 1 -
4.
l
$ "l, h l,
'., }t 7' :
l.
J. :
j
(
Ku i :!.
( i
} { h.-
. -i I
J i
'. ; 2:
' b
- e.${;'
d' 'j {
s y
I 5
y ll t.
s i
u I.
88 g
i h
s-
~
.[,1 (
.if t/
d 9
.fj;.,
f b;,h;'
i ldp;".~I[gr ~
,. Vi x
.;;;j.
l-i
'g 3
y:
g.,.
A Py ayf'
];p
'Tfd t
l &
t v.
i j
l
)!
j.
l
!h
~j.
1 m
3 1
'1 l
.[g
~
i 3-1; l
my' G
'., /
~i 1
h
- e. '.
\\
n.
$ s' l
l
/
w tQ
/
2 th k
i 3
k 4'
4 4
l 4
l 1
i
l 4
j a
1
'l Q
}
- p. [,
j
.P s
.- n.
. ?, -' /,. g
' k',' '
. I,i[,
l
..,.. ~.
g.
.,..c. '... 1 '
Y I
}
y
- fi$fh*,n 9}
... -,.;$..+ ;vj'
'.1 4 ' sl 3
t.
.e.
+
h f
. [ j ',$.,Ic-
,1 J
)
l s".
}.
t
hk U.W';... 6g '..- ','
[-
l
, z.,l :f 9}r f
-?.3 I, -
s.
' '.Ji j. g K
sj e.-
h s r ? + L.'
i
,t.
l
..[R
.. ' h.
4 344 -.,.
.jt e
=
o s.a.;.
' t'p,.
O' l
1
..; i-.
+
y
- 5. '.
t g.
h: - Q,.
g-p A)
_3 ',
=. <.., '*
',y-
' 1:,g E
k :,
~
.3 i
.E' h'.,'~,
d
,1
' L h. 4
, ~
i
,e i.. g..
~ $-
'd N
,go t
'1
. f i.,,.r v 3 4-i 1
- I *..., ~., 4 e
a
,e
.c
'1
,t v
)]
{
i O
.v.~
],{E -.
l 2
'e et r
a..
- ~
, l[.
- e 5
w?
4 t
.~
4'=
I 3
3. :
j
~
cl2 l
- j. * ' 3 et f
.b
_. ?,
\\
Q i
'is#
t e...a),f.
t, e
f(
- 93 T *.]
-443 i
I p '.
.. '*R 's i
? r..!i t.' % ;.
..t
-,,f.'},'
.
- v :,. '
.g; w., f, P.
ge y
j
.'f
.(
3
" i g
, i
- i,
. " if 9
.;8 3
Is
- j4 i-jii
)
.I
.s 3*
e g gY I
', i
% h',L,-
{gg '
K s
4 m i. J,f, ;i d i, f..
c:*
e j
4
..u.
. r e
1
)
i t.,.
g ym g, m.,,ww--ws..,umm.
sw~w-
-awww-w---
www--w-w,
--ww I
(
4 g ;
l 1:
f y
i l
,9 l
4 e
- 6.
1 i
g
-)I j) i t
i I
1,9 l i
. - {3 l
i
'N j
k
.. (
f.I
I
'[
X
.. h i,! d.
l
[.
..b r f -
t s,
fa j
5 1
i i
r
,K y
i L
c l
.. y '.
t t
a
./
,7.:-
i g i-l 4
)*
b r
+.
., I J.j,1 j
i:
.\\
s
,W
\\,
l
! [ l'. I y)
,:,,f.,,. '.;,
'\\,.\\f?([.:i]Qiik.
k;
. R, 1,
i
~1
,1 l
'I e
'.;,s,,_
{
\\
+
sY.,
. -t a
I.
4
, ',l-
'}
i g[;.:,
' 4
..i 4e 4
g M..
1 I 9
i i
.l
}*
s [,
i.k>.o' I I 's.I.g h
l 2,
g
, 3
- 'g
,f' i
', [ ! ',*
T i. ' %,..A
- h.. [. * -Q' q 'a ',I,' ' -
]3 t
n I
S'i ?4 i
i.
t s 0:
q' s.c m..
e,. i m
- <y ) Y
'g g
\\)
,, [s e..;.-l,g
- 'J
-'k' 1,j.,
G.,
y n l,,
i i
c i
a t.
(
27' -' s..
t:,. -
4.1 t
' s.i h: p'.\\'. ji' -\\y,.:9 ',.
m 6
p3 i
' \\ lI
-_,. f
.:;;.?
L'1 v.
' '.[
'3;..,, ',', - ( k [tk : ~ d ;. ' ' [,
- 9...
-g
. ).
1.
3 j
1 4
f 1
j i..
(
/
E Y
i i
3 l
2 I
l l
1a -
l O$
$gj I
l
=!!
o Alf 9
a h
3
_d.
5 i
s e
u 36' j
4 D
\\
---,,,,,,--,-,w m-
s i
I.
l g
4 i
i
)N i
l i
l-i
.2 i
b i
i
}
I i
3 4
W
?
l l
xo 4
9
\\
W.
i t
9 i
'l s
4 1
2 Gr I
- r Vh j
i i
l 1
._.m
. ~. _. _.
!.i t
l l
t ENCLOSURE 2 l
i PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION MEETINGS REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
}
\\
i l
A listing of those meetings considered is noted below 1.
October 10, 1988 Transportation Provider Training 2.
October 9, 1988 Transportation Provider Training 3.
October 8, 1988 Transportation Provider Training 4.
October 6, 1988 Duxbury and CURE, Duxbery, MA.
5.
October 5, 1988 NRC Meeting with BECo and the Commonwealth of MA.,
Rockville, MD.
l 6.
October 4, 1988 Plymouth Board of Selectmen, Plymouth, MA.
l 7.
September 29, 1988 Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA.
8.
September 24, 1988 Transportation Provider Training l
9.
September 8, 1988 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Bethesda, MD.
- 10. August 26, 1988 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting, Plymouth, MA,
- 11. August 25, 1988 SALP Management Meeting, Plymouth, MA.
- 12. August 24, 1988 Transportation Provider Training
- 13. August 23, 1988 Transportation Provider Training
- 14.
- August 22, 1988 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Framingham, MA.
- 15. August 22, 1988 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Framingham, MA,
- 16. August 15, 1988 Plymouth Board of Selectmen, Plymouth,'MA.
- 17..May 11, 1988 Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA.
- 18. March 23, 1988 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Framingham, MA.
- 19. March 10, 1988 Private Resident Meeting Duxbury, MA.
- 20. February 18, 1988 Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA.
21.
February 9, 1988 Commonwealth of MA. Meeting, Boston, MA.
- 22. January 7, 1988 Senator Kennedy Field Hearing, Plymouth, MA.
- 23. December 29, 1987 Senator Kennedy Staff Meeting Washington, D.C.
24..
December 9, 1987 Pilgrim Exercise, Plymouth, MA.
- 25. October 29, 1987 Public Meeting, Duxbury, MA.
- 26. October 8, 1987 Commonwealth of MA. Meeting, Region 1
- 27.
- August la, 1987 FEMA Region I, Boston, MA.
- 28. August la, 1987 FEMA Region I, Boston, MA.
- 29. July 17, 1987 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Framingham, MA.
- 30. May 27, 1987 Plymouth Board of Selectmen, Plymouth, MA.
- 31. February 17, 1987 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Those meetings noted by an asterisk provide additional information for meetings already covered.
ATTACHMENT 1 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Rogers Bus Company Date:
October 10, 1988 Attendees Position / Title j
C. Conklin NRC Region I Summary of Meeting Rogers Bus Company. There were 8 attendees.
Some attendees were from Ingle Bus Company. All attendees were bus drivers. Training consisted of I
a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adecuately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sunny, warm holiday Monday late morning to early afternoon. Maps and instructions were provided and a bus was run from Rogers Bus Company in Hanover to the Martinson Junior High School staging area in Marshfield (12 minutes) and to Bus route M-4 and return to the stagino area (50 minutes). Bus route M-4 included Marshfield and Dud ury beaches. This provider will normally have one driver in each bus.
The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
l l
I
~
4 l
f ATTACHMENT 2 I
I Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Stavis Ambulance Service Date:
October 9, 1988 Attendees Position / Title C. Conklin NRC Region I Summary of Meeting
]
Stavis Ambulance Service. There were 5 attendees. All attendees were EMT's. Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sunny, cool Sunday late morning to early afternoon. Maps and instructions were provided and a bus was run from Stavis Ambulance in Brookline to Silver Lake HS staging area in Kingston (65 minutes), to the Sister Divine Providence Nursing Home in Kingston, to the Cardinal Cushing Hospital in Brockton (57 minutes). This provider will normally have two EMT's in each ambulance. The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
l I
1 l
i ATTACHMENT 3 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Swansea Ambulance Date:
October 8, 1988 Attendees Position / Title C. Conklin NPC Region I Summary of Meeting Swansea Ambulance. There were 13 attendees. All attendees were EMT's.
Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing i
Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately co'ared. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and i
appropriate forms. Actual routes were not run, however routes were analyzed and map reading techniques employed. This provider will normally have two EMT's in each ambulance.
.=-
ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting
Title:
Duxbury and CURE Meeting Location:
Duxbury, Massachusetts Date:
October 6, 1988 Attendees Position / Title R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I f
C. O'Neill Duxbury Civil Defense Director M. Dinan Resident K. O' Brian Resident Summary of Meeting 1
A comment was made at the 9/29/88 public meeting that the Duxbury E0C would not be habitable in the event of a radiological emergency at Pilgrim.
In response to that comment, R. Bellamy, NRC, met with C.
O'Neill, Duxbury Civil Defense Director and Fire Chief, and CURE representatives M. Dinan and K. O' Brian at the Duxbury E00. The Duxbury E00 is a frame, two story structure connected to the Duxbury fire Station, about eight miles from Pilgrim Station. Mr. Bellamy and Mr. O'Neill discussed EOC habitability and Mr. O'Neill stated that the Plan and Implementing Procedures address E00 habitability, an Alternate EOC and relocation of staff to that Alternate EOC.
J
i i
d l
ATTACHPE;lT 5 f
Meeting
Title:
NRC Meeting with BECo and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
October 5. 1988 Speaker-Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of NRC more interested in views of Public Safety licensee on technical issues Ce monwealth of Massachusetts NRC lets licensee make presenta-tion first in public meetings NRC never went to Massachusetts to invite State and locals to dis-cuss EP Expect to deliver results of 10/6 public meeting in Plymouth NRC emphasizes and spends more time on technical and not EP issues No FEMA involvement since Fall 1987 Concerned about FEMA efforts and self-initiated review (SIR)
Does not understand "obiective measures" as applied to EP No plan in existence to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety Comments and concerns on six FEMA identified issues of SIR:
a.
Evacuation plans for schools and day care centers not ade-oustely addressed in an exer-cise b.
More
- people, automobiles; changes in response personnel 4
Speaker position / Title Ep Issue / Reference Peter W. Agnes (Continued)
NRC/ FEMA say 2 reception centers adequate; Massachusetts needs 3, plus improvements on 2 existing ones NRC aware of Saquish Gurnett area; locals think evacuation can't be carried out J
Agnes question of how bus dri+cces understand where they hat e to go No letters of agreement with bus j
companies Bus driver training incomplete to W. Russell 2
BEACONS system not completed All equipment reauests not ad-dressed to all EPZ towns New evacuation time estimates and traffic management study incem-plete NRC did not afford Massachusetts proper adjudicatory process j
Summary of Issues:
Procedures incomplete, shelter utilization
- plans, local plan
~'
training needs to be finished, then conduct exercise l
i
l l
ATTACHMENT 6 l
Meeting
Title:
Plymouth Board of Selectmen Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
October 4, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board NRC should not be asking BECo I
of Selectmen about EP at 10/5 meeting.
Lack of FEMA involvement Lack of direct NRC interface with Plymouth on EP matters Only drafts of basic plans Selectmen have _not yet approved the drafts of:
schools, police and fire department procedures NRC is responsible if anything goes wrong David Malaguti Selectmen Plans are only conceptual until proven in exercise Could NRC allow plant restart without fully approved plans?
George Cameron Selectmen All issues should be adjudicated Ann Waitkus-Arnold We The People NRC does not care about special needs Connecticut plans, wa approved, are unsatisfactory with respect to special needs popula-tion Diane Buckbee Citizen Unfair to meet in Rockville in-stead of local area
REFERENCE:
R. Blough's notes -- Selectmen meetings are transcribed, but we don't get copies.
NOTE:
R. Blough appeared before Selectmen to provide an overview of i
staff review and recommendations on meeting and technical I
issues, as followup to 9/29/88 pubic meeting, since 9/29 was I
inconvenient for most selectmen.
About P/3 of comments were on l
EP; however, R. Blough provided only brief comments and clarifi-cations (i.e.,
not complete answers or explanations) on EP issues.
l l
ATTACHMENT 7 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
September 29, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Emergency planning not complete.
Public Safety Specifically, training, letters of Commonwealth of MA agreement, and reception centers.
Evacuation of Jaquish area Kathi Anderson Representing Premature to be evaluating restart Senator Kennedy without approved exercise offsite emergency preparedness plan Monica Conyngham Representing Issue of a workable evacuation plan Senator Kerry for the area has not been resolved Mary Lou Putler Representing Don't allow restart until tested Congressman Studds evacuation plan has been completed Lawrence Alexander State Representative Adeouate and capable response plans are required prior to restarting Edward Kirby State Senator Quoted Mr. Russell as saying "these improvements must address plans to evacuate school children and hand-icapped and other so called special needs people and should be completed before the end of the year."
Fault for plans not beino ready is with the State.
Want energency response planning com-pleted prior to restart.
Talked of the "90%"
possibility of breaching containment or meltdown Peter Forman State Pepresentative Questioned authorizing restart without emergency plans in effect.
Will the staff recommend startup without an approved emergency plan in place
1 t
Speaker Position / Title EP issue / Reference Senator Golden State Senator
?.206 Detition and why wasn't an emergency preparedness plan a
restart item Pat Dowd Chairman, Duxbury Board Finding several errors in draft of Selectmen plans as they are reviewed George Cameron Plymouth Board of No one from NRC or FEMA has visited Selectmen J. Douglas Hadfield Plymouth Civil Defense Discussed status of plans and Director problems with training, especially school committee Ann Waitkus-Arnold We The People Spoke on special needs, people evacuation Neal Johnson Chairman, Duxbury Duxbury EOC dose reduction factors Nuclear Matters Committee David Quaid Citizen Talked on difficulty of evacuating beaches and lack of available protective clothing Shawn Dunsell Citizen Designed plan requires 80% of com-mittee to participation by public employees.
30% design evacuation of these employee's have refused to plan for Plymouth participation Mary Lambert Citizen General comments on EP Rita Donahoe President, Kingston Comments regarding evacuation of Education Association school children in Kingston (Mailed 9/23/88)
James & Lynn Abbott Citizens Comments on EP covering the Cape (Mailed 9/23/88)
Cod area (outside EPZ) i I
l 2
ATTACHMENT 8 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Cresent Ambulance Company i
Date:
September 24, 1988 Attendees Position / Title C. Conklin NRC Region I Summary of Meeting Cresent Ambulance (Trans Network). There were 13 attendees. All attendees were EMT's. Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were:
Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sur.ny, warm Saturday late morning to early afternoon. Maps and instructions were provided and a bus was run from Cresent Ambulance in Brockton to the Martinson Junior High School Staging area in Marshfield (37 minutes), to the Raypath Nursing Home in Duxbury (22 minutes), to the i
Cardinal Cushing Hospital in Brockton (46 minutes). This provider will normally have two EMT's in each ambulance. The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
5 4
4 1
d 4
ATTACHMENT 9 Meeting
Title:
ACRS Full Committee Meeting Location:
Bethesda, Maryland Date:
September 8, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Dr. Kerr ACRS Chairman, NRC:HQ Unapproved emergency plan concerns of Dr. Murley and public Lack of emergency plan as it re-lates to restart Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director EP deficiencies Division of Reactor Pro,iects, NRC:RI Outstanding EP issues E0P Rev. 4, containment vent hard-wire installations Responds to Mr. Carroll's cues-tions on emergency exercise exemp-tion Discussion on FEMA withdrawal of 4
approval of emergency plan and FEMA deficiencies Mr. Carroll ACRS Committee, NRC:HQ Emergency exercise exemption i
Ralph Bird Senior Vice President-Implementation of new E0Ps Nuclear, BEco Poy Anderson Plant Manager, RECo Use of simulator for EP drills and E0P training Mr. Ward ACRS Committee, NRC:H0 Discussion on restart without approved emergency plan Ror Varley EP Manager, BECo Clarification on FEMA deficiencies
l l
ATTACHMENT 10 Meeting
Title:
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
August 26, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Ron Varley BECo, Manager of EP Discussed BEco's involvement with the emergency preparedness plan and the current status of the plan Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director Discussed FEMA and state coopera-Division of Reactor tion and outstanding issues Projects, NRC:RI J. Douglas Hadfield Plymouth Civil Defense Angry that team did not look at Director emergency preparedness or talk to him Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board Don't allow restart without ade-of Selectmen quate emergency preparedness Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of 3 years since an exercise.
We do Public Safety not have a revised emergency plan, Commonwealth of but a totally new plan Massachusetts i
Lawrence Alexander Chairman, Massachusetts Approved and tested emergency pro-Joint House Committee cedures prior to startup on Energy Ann Waitkus-Arnold Handicapped Affairs Emergency planning is inadequate concerning handicapped people Robert Read Town Administrator Opposes restart until approved and Kingston Board of tested emergency preparedness plan Selectmen is in effect Diane Buckbee Citizens Urging Massachusetts has left her children i
Responsible Energy defenseless because of a lack of (CURE) an evacuation plan Joe Kreisburg Research Director Emergency evacuation plans are Massachusetts Citizens unworkable.
NRC violation its own for Safe Energy resolutions or spirit of resolu-tions i
i l
l l
ATTACHMENT 11 1
L Meeting
Title:
SALP Management Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts i
Date:
August 25, 1988 i
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Major deficiencies exist in EP, Public Safety not complete, not an adequate plan Commonwealth of Massachusetts Full scale exercise needed Reference to SALP statement ke:
exemption for exercise on Page 37 t
i i
l I
l
\\
ATTACHMENT 12 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Warrenton Bus Company Date:
August 74, 1988 Attendees Position / Title W. Lazarus Chief, EPS, NRC Region I C. Conklin NRC Region I R. Hogan NRR Summary of Meeting The training was conducted by BEco consultants. The training program and lesson plans had been approved by the Commonwealth. The training is ouite detailed, and in fact included the actual running of bus routes by various drivers. Formal classroom training is followed by hands on trainina including dosimetry and appropriate forms. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered.
i l
i 0
-=.
ATTACHMENT 13 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location:
Ingle Bus Company Date:
August 23, 1988 Attendees Position / Title W. Lazarus Chief. EPS, NRC Region I' C. Conklin NRC Region I R. Hogan NRR Summary of Meeting The training was conducted by BEco consultants. The training program and lesson plans had been approved by the Commonwealth. The training is cuite detailed, and in fact included the actual running of bus routes by various drivers. Formal classroom training is followed by hands on training including dosimetry and appropriate forms. Risk and consent, for both tha drivers and company, were adequately covered.
ATTACHMENT 14 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
MCDA Offices, Framingham, Massachusetts Date:
August 22, 1988
~
Attendees Position / Title W. Lazarus Chief EPS, NRC Region I C. Conklin NRC Region I P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1
T. Matthews Massachusetts Department of Public Health R. Boulay MCDA B. Hausner MCDA E. Fratte MCDA A. Slaney MCDA Summary of Meeting P. Agnes summarized the Commonwealth and Local progress on both Self-Initiated Review and other identified issues. Additionally, he summarized the Commonwealth position on restart and emergency preparedness, as well as outstanding problem areas / issues. After the meeting, Mr. Lazarus and Fr. Conklin reviewed several documents that had been forwarded to MCDA, but not yet to FEMA, including the complete emergency plan and implementing procedures for Marshfield and Taunton, the shelter implementation program for Marshfield and the Area II plan.
l
t I
ATTACHMENT 15 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
Framingham, Massachusetts
)
Date:
August 22, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference P. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of Need to rewrite plans and planning Public Safety process following the "Barry Commonwealth of Report". FEMA sheltering policy.
Massachusetts third reception
- center, beach sheltering Public Information brochures Approval of PERP Plans J. Hausner Massachusetts Civil -
Draft implementing procedures for Defense Agency towns reviewed / approved Agreement between BEco and private providers for EP resources Communications / notifications i
Expansion of the EP7 E. Fratto Citizen Training of people within the EPZ Reception center improvements Traffic management plan T. Mathews Department of Public Public health procedures Health i
. - -. ~ _ _ _
l l
l l
l ATTACHMENT 16 l
Meeting
Title:
Plymouth Board of Selectmen Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
August 15, 1988 l
t Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director Meeting was conducted to brief the 1
l Division of Reactor Board of Selectmen on the Inte-Projects,NRC:RI grated Assessment Team Inspection process and subsequent meeting schedule Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board Expressed general EP concerns on of Selectmen behalf of town l
l i
I
ATTACHMENT 17 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting e
Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
May 11, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
Peter Forman State Representative NRC appears comfortable in not going along with a state or local determination on the adequacy of the emergency plan
'l Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board FEMA technical review is of drafts, of Selectmen not approved at state or local levels.
Plymouth only has 2 of 80 implementing procedures Senator Kirby State Senator Prior to restart, there should be full emergency response plans in place David Quaid Citizen Discusses FEMA report and RAI Re:
beach evacuation j
James Petros Citizen Evacuation of people with special needs Training of emergency personnel Ron Bellamy Chief, Facilities Committed to assurino sorre demon-Radiological Safety stration that the mobility impaired and Safeguards and special needs population could Branch, NRC:RI be adequately protected prior to restart Ann Waitkus-Arnold Chairperson, Disabled Any plans for special neels around Persons Advisory Board the Rowe area are a joke for Nuclear Evacuation for State Office on Responsibility of EP re FEMA and Handicapped Affairs who makes final decision on ade-quacy Do any plants have EP plans with final approval?
(Answer Connecticut)
J 2
4 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Steve Camley President, We the People Appropriateness of sheltering and administration of potassium iodine David Vogler Selectmen, Town of Duxbury has not approved any draft Duxbury emergency response plan Two of five communities did not submit any plans for review Exchange followed with Dr. Bellamy on who submitted plans, what's j
draft " approved" etc.
Gerald Hayes Carver EP Coordinator Discussion on EP plan developmert and review - BECo intimidation and Selectmen control of process i
never approved any plans for sub-mittal to FEMA 1
Mary Ott Chairpersons, CURE No evacuation plans Dr. fiuirhead 1.
Ability to evacuate based on plume speed 2.
Status of shelters 4
3
(
i d
i
4 ATTACNMENT 18' Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting 3
Location:
MCDA Offices, Framingham, Massachusetts 4
Date:
March 23, 1988 Attendees Position / Title R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I
?
B. Hausner MCDA E. Fratto MCDA Summary of Meeting 4
Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of plans and implementing procedures for the risk and host communities affected by Pilgrim Station.
ATTACHMENT 19 i
Meeting
Title:
Private Resident Meeting Location:
Duxbury/Saquish, Massachusetts Date:
March 10, 1988 Attendees Position / Title R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I D. Quaid Resident Summary of Meeting Mr. Quaid made a request at the 2/18/88 public meeting to have NRC officials tour the Duxbury/Saquish Beach area to gain first hand knowledge of the emergency planning concerns for this area.
R. Bellamy toured this area with D. Quaid. The Saquish area is accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles only (permit required). During very high tides, approximately two days a month for-two hours a day, the Point can be isolated. The only road from the Point is narrow and floods. There are no motels, restaurants or concession stands on this beach. Overnighters are limited to residents. The Duxbury beach is a public beach with a paved parking lot, approximately eight miles from Pilgrim. There is a paved road running from the Duxbury beach due north. Both beaches would be closed at the Alert stage in the event of an accident at Pilgrim.
j
ATTACHMENT 20 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
February 18, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Ms. Houghton Citizen Wants to see evacuation tested prior to restart Ms. Petrocelli Citizen Evacuation plans should be tested prior to restart Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board No effective emergency plan; draft of Selectmen plan under review, implementing procedures nowhere near draft form Evacuation routes are often over-loaded under normal conditions Shelters for transient population not identified.
Senator Kirby State Senator Restart should not be allowed un-til adequate emergency response plans are in place-Ms. Treenkle Citizen A workeble approved evacuation plan must be completed prior to restart Kathy Anderson Aide to Senator Kennedy Wants FEMA approved evacuation plan prior to restart Mr. Quaid Citizen Insufficient sheltering for beach population High tide makes evacuation of Duxbury beach impossible Roads are inadequate for evacua-tion of area i
j
l Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference 1
Mr. Sangster/
Citizen Will NRC allow restart without Dr. Muirhead Co-Chairperson, CURE being satisfied that evacuation l
facilities are adequate for any i
accident?
Does the emergency planning spec-l trum of accidents include a breach of containment?
Ms. Fehlow Citizen Emergency plan needs to be revised and tested prior to restart Mr. McClusky Citizen Evacuation of any kind would not be effectively handled due to human element l
l Mr. Peter Forman State Representative Presented for the record, a copy I
of the State Legislature's Report by the Special Committee on Pilgrim
)
l l
Recommendation VI deals with EP l
(copy providedi l
l
- Mr. Veracca Citizen Sirens and speakers are unintel-l ligible during tests Ms. Cook Citizen Evacuation plan is terrible Roads are inadequate Hospitals not capable of treating radiation victims l
Mr. Jerry Hayes Carver Civil Defense Emergency planning is inadequete Agency OPS Officer for restart; in particular, evac-and Chief Planner uation time estimates and shelter surveys are in error l
l l
i Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
John Barrows Citizen People on Cape Cod should be (Written 2/18/88) given respirators to give them to evacuate to safe location John MacMahon Selectmen, Town of Opposed to restart until all local Marshfield emergency prepar'edness measures are (Written 12/18/87) in place, fully tested and ready for implementation Kathy McKenna Citizen Opposed to restart without a work-1 (Written 10/28/87) able evacuation plan Susan Littlefield Citizen Opposed to restart for:
(Written 2/12/88) 1.
Lack of evacuation plan 2.
Lack of shelters 3.
Inadequate roads to evacuate Cape Cod and Duxbury Beach Donald Leach Citizen Inadecuate road system for evacua-(Mailed 2/18/88) tion Francis J. Kane Selectmen, Town of Cities improvements; however, feels Carver much still to be done in areas of (Written 2/17/88) evacuation and training of local civil defense personnel Deanna Gregory Citizen Sirens and speakers unintelligible (Mailed) during tests Genevieve Osborn Citi7en There can be no safe evacuation (Mailed 3/4/88) plan because of gridlock on roads i
)
In addition to the comment /cuestions noted above on EP, there were 11 other individuals who specifically included resolution of EP issues in their request for an adjudicatory hearing.
i t
i l
. ~
l ATTACHMENT 21 l
Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting l
Location:
Boston, Massachusetts l
Date:
February 9, 1988 l
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
l Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director Meeting was conducted at the Division of Reactor request of the Commonwealth to l
Projects,RI explain the NRC process being con-ducted for the February 18, 1988 l
Public Peeting to obtain comments l
on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Sta-l tion Restart Plan l
Commonwealth of Massachusetts was Although the meeting was not to l
represented by Local Officials / Elected discuss EP, many individuals l
Officials and staff /CIIRE/MCDA and the expressed concerns and raised EP Office of Public Safety issues.
Commitments were made to provide EP 10 CFR references and i
I to conduct a EP process conference call with Mr. Agnes l
l
)
i
~
l I
i l
1
.- ~ - -
.-.- ~ --
~
t ATTACHMENT 22 Meeting
Title:
Senator Kennedy Field Hearing l
Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts l
Date:
January 7, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
Senator Kennedy U.S. Senator NRC considering restart despite l
FEMA and Massachusetts provides l
that EP is not adeouate Concerned Re:
10 miles (Cape
~
Code,etc.)
William Abbntt President, Plymouth Offsite radiation monitoring is Co. Nuclear Committee unsatisfactory Ann Waitkus-Arnold Chairperson, Disabled Has seen little real efforts by l
Persons Advisory Poard responsible agencies to ensure l
or Nuclear Evacuation health and safety of special needs l
for State Office on population j
Handicapped Affairs Inadequate special needs survey by BECo l
Dr. Grace Healy Chairperson, Plymouth Committee Report in 3/87 finds l
Nuclear Patters offsite EP unsatisfactory and Committee makes specific recommendation in-cluding revised plan and full exercise before restart Offsite monitoring unsatisfactory David Malaguti Chairmen, Plymouth Board Plant should not restart until of Selectmen revised town response plan in place i
Evacuation difficult Rachel Shimshak MASSPIRG Citizens not informed on emergency-response procedures l
No plans for private schools l
Delay restart for workable plans and implementation 3
1 l
l t
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference l
Senator Golden State Senator EP for Pilgrim extremely difficult Lt. Governor Murphy Acting Governor Absurd that NRC can over-rule FEMA l
Comonwealth of Massachusetts William Shannon Attorney General State is supposed to be heavily Commonwealth of involved in decision of EP adequacy Massachusetts 1
(
Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary Existing plans not adequate of Public Safety I
l Comonwealth of NRC unclear on EP restart criterie l
Massachusetts Some EP progress l
Long way to go - lots of inade-l quacies Don't know if adequate EP is pos-sible l
Dr. Prothrow-Stith Secretary of Public Massachusetts would like to estab-Health, Commonwealth lish better off-site radiation of Massachusetts (real-time) monitoring Richard Krimm Assistant Director, FEMA Made statements and answered a l
variety of EP questions for j
Senator Kennedy with respect to FEMA's role Dr. Thomas Murley NRC:NRR Director Made statements and answered William Russell NRC:RI Regional various questions from Admir.istrator Senator Kennedy NOTE:
The following NRC representatives spoke and answered questions Dr. Thomas Murley William Russell NOTE:
The following individuals spoke at the Kennedy hearing but did not directly raise EP issues:
Neil Johnson, Chairman, Duxbury Committee on Nuclear Matters Mary Ott, Co-Chairperson, Citizens Urging Responsible Energy (CURE)
Peter Forran, State Representative I.awrence Alexander, State Representative, Heuse Chairman of Joint Legislature Committee cr. Energy Sharon Pollarc', Secretary of Energy. Commonwealth of Massachusetts l
l
l l
t ATTACHMENT P3 Meeting
Title:
Senator Kennedy Staff Meeting Location:
Washington, D. C.
Date:
December 29, 1987 Attendees Position / Title S. Collins Deputy Director, DRP, NRC Region I R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I B. Boger Assistant Director, NRR l
R. Wessman Project Manager, NRR F. Combs Office of Congressional Affairs i
M. Callahan Office of Congressional Affairs B. Olmstead Office of General Council Summary of Meeting Region I and NRR staff met with Senator Kennedy's staff in Washington, D.C. to prepare for the 1/7/88 committee meeting. Topic included:
technical issues; restart process; legal issues; safety guidelines; status of emeroency preparedness; FEMA's role; and progress to date, f
f i
1
t ATTACHMENT 24 l
Meeting
Title:
Pilgrim Exercise Location:
Plymouth, Massachusetts Date:
December 9, 1987 Attendees Position / Title R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I W. Lazarus Chief. EPS, NRC Region I C. Conklin NRC Region I Various NRC Incident Response Team T. Matthews Massachusetts Department of Public Health D. Yaffe Massachusetts Department of Public Health Various BECo Emergency Response Organization Summary of Meeting Scheduled partial participation exercise at the Pilgrim Station.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), T. Matthews and D.
Yaffe, participated for training and interface purposes. NRC Region I Incident Response Team participated with the licensee and Commonwealth personnel. No observable problems with the licensee /MDPH/NRC interface.
i l
i 1
l i
ATTACHMENT P5 j
i l
Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location:
Duxbury, MassacSusetts 1
Date:
October 29, 1987 Attendees Position / Title l
W. Kane Director, DRP, NRC Region I l
J. Wiggins Chief DRP, HRC Region 1 l
R. Bellamy Chief FRSSB, NRC Region I l
B. Boger Assistant Director, NRC, NRR l
P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of 1
Massachusetts D. Volger Duxbury, Board of Selectmen Chairman Summary of Meeting l
Purpose was to discuss NRC activities. Other attendees included:
f,Eco; Duxbury Emergency Response Committee; and the Nuclear Matters Committee.
l The NRC, Commonwealth.and BECo responded to comment on hardware, j
management and emergency preparedness issues.
l l
t k'
I i
t i
ATTACHMENT 26 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
Region I Date:
October 8, 1987 i
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference 1
John Judge Governor's Office Request hearing on EP*
Lawrence Alexander State House EP should be approved by Governor Representative and local Selectmen Peter W. Aones, Jr. Assistant Secretary Working in good faith to gather of Pu'ulic Safety information with BECo. Don't know l
yet if adequate plans are possible William Russell Regional Administrator FEMA EP deficiencies would be ad-dressed prior to restart Peeting Summary dated December 4, 1987 l
l l
l 8
I f
I ATTACHMENT 27 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
FEMA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts Date:
August 14, 1987 Attendees Position / Title H. Vickers FEMA Region I Regional Director E. Thomas FEMA Region I RAC Chairman J. Dolan FEMA Region I J. Quinlan FEMA Region I W. La:arus Chief. EPS, NRC Region I P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts j
J. Lovering MCPA i
B. Hausner MCDA
)
Summary of Meeting Primary purpose of meeting was to discuss iudgements made in the FEMA l
Self-Initiated Report and to correct certain facts. Mr. Agnes stated that he had been instructed by the Governor to develop the best possible plans without delay. Mr. Agnes discussed a schedule that would complete all activities by 12/31/87. Discussions were also held on an exercise and.EPZ expansion.
- Identified in 10/19/88 memorardum W. T. Russell to J. M. Taylor.
i l
l
ATTACHMENT 28 Meeting
Title:
FEMA Self-Initiated Review Discussion Location:
FEMA Region 1 Boston, Massachusetts Date:
August 14, 1987 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Facts /,iudgements in FEMA Report Public Safety, Commonwealth of Review process, 44 CFR 350 l
Massachusetts Ability of Commonwealth to respond to questions on the issues Commonwealth planned response to issues Need for an exercise Expanding the Pilgrim EP7 1
I J
ATTACHMENT 29 Meeting
Title:
Connonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
MCDA Offices, Framingham, Ma.
Date:
July 17, 1987 Attendees Position / Title P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Health, Commonwealth of i
Massachusetts R. Boulay MCDA J. Lovering MCDA B. Hausner MCDA T. Rodgers MCDA A. Slaney MCDA W. Lazarus Chief. EPS, NRC Region 1 R. Varley BEC..
C. Fuller BECo R. Lewis BECo Summary of Meeting Primary purpose of the meeting was tn discuss the EPZ and potential expansion. FEMA was invited, but declined to attend due to conflicts, but suggested alternative dates at FEMA to discuss the issue.
1
\\
t i
ATTACHMENT 30 Meeting
Title:
Plymouth Board of Selectmen Meeting Location:
Plymouth, Ma.
Date:
May 27, 1987 Attendees Position / Title D. Malaguti Plymouth Board of Selectmen A. Thompson Plymouth Board of Selectmen R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region I W. Kane Director, DRP, NRC Region i M. McBride Senior Resident Inspector Pilgrim, NRC Region i Summary of Meeting Primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss hardware issues. Selectmen Malaguti and Thompson expressed their opinion that the status of emergency preparedness was not adequate to support restart.
i i
e i
l l
I 1
l
ATTACHMENT 31 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
Date:
February 17, 1987 Attendees' Position / Title Peter W. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of 4
R. Boulay Massachusetts civil Defense Agency (MCDA) i J. Lovering MCDA 1
G. Parker MCDA
)
B. Hausner MCDA E. Fratto MCDA J. Dolan FEMA Region I R. Bellamy NRC Region I BECo Representatives Summary of Meeting:
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss outstanding emergency preparedness issues at Pilgrim. Mr. Agnes stated we must all work together, and no plans will go to FEMA until MCDA approval is given. Mr.
l Agnes also indicated he wanted to arrange and attend all meetings with local officials. Mr. Agnes stated he " supports development of offsite plans", and insisted an exercise is required prior to restart. He would not commit to a schedule. EPZ expansion was also discussed.
_ ENCLOSURE 3 Summary Subsequent to the Comission Meeting on October 14, 1988, some local officials requested meetings with the NRC staff to review information regarding emergency plans, implementing procedures, facilities and resources. In response to these requests, the staff offered to meet and subsequently met with all seven Civil Defense Directors between October 25 and November 2, 1988. Discussions were held in the offices of the Civil Defense Directors and included tours of the E0Cs for the five towns within the 10 mile EPZ and the two reception communities.
In two cases, selectmen were involved in the discussions (A. Thompson of Plymouth, and F. Mazzilli of Carver), and a representative of Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency was present for the majority of the meetings.
In addition, the staff toured the Duxbury, Gurnet and Saouish Beaches with Mr. Brad Martin, head of the Duxbury Department of Lands and Natural Resources. Eight meeting summaries have been prepared and are enclosed as Attachments 1-8. The local officials present have verified the accuracy of the factual information as represented during the discussions. Attachment No. 9 is an October 25, 1988, summary of the Regional Administrator's telephone conversation with the MCDA Director regarding these meetings and his offer to hold a technical meeting with the Commonwealth.
All of the local officials appeared to be pleased that the NRC staff was meeting with them, and all discussions were forthright and cordial.
All Civil Defense Directors (CDDs) have a complete set of the plans and implementing procedures, and they were available in the E00, but indicated that they were in varying stages of approval. Bridgewater, Kingston, Carver, Taunton and Marshfield plans and procedures have been completed and transmitted to FEMA for technical review. All CDDs expressed the opinion that the state of emergency preparedness is much improved over the 1987-1985 time frame. When cuestioned if they could carry out the plans, two CDDs stated the documents were adequate and could be implemented, three CDDs said they would try to implement the Plans but would prefer more training, and two CDDs said they couldn't answer due to the incomplete state of development and training. All CDDs or their assistants had reviewed the third report from Secretary Barry and believed it to be complete with some minor inaccuracies. When ouestioned about the October 14, 1988 Commission meeting and whether they were fairly represented by the Lieutenant Governor and Congressional Representatives, five CDDs had not seen the comments made, and two CDDs (Plymouth and Duxbury) stated their views were fairly represented.
Each CDD was asked whether there were any new items to present to the NRC.
Mr. Hadfield of Plymouth stated that the Jordan Hospital procedure is not complete l
for evacuation of patients, and for treatment of injured / contaminated workers l
if the hospital were to be evacuated. The NRC was aware this procedure was not i
approved at the Department Head level. Mr. Hadfield considered this to be the biggest obstacle to completion of the procedures, yet believes review and approval of all Plymouth procedures can be completed in 10-1? weeks.
l t
l l
2 l
l In addition, four of the CDDs clarified the status of their EOCs.
In order to obtain first hand knowledoe of that status the staff toured all of the E0Cs.
The E0Cs for Plymouth, Carver, and Taunton are operational. The E0C for Kingston is nearly operational with telephone call routing problems noted and being corrected; this E0C could most likely be used in an emergency with minimal difficulty.
The E0C for Duxbury is far enough along that it would also likely be used now rather than attempting to use the old E0C which is still available.
In Bridgewater the renovation to the space is nearly complete and communications equipment is being installed. The previous E00 was another room in the same building which could be used, if necessary, by installing some telephones. At this point the new E0C is better equipped than the old one and most likely could be used successfully.
In Marshfield, the old E0C is still functional and could be used, but construction on the new E0C is considerably behind the other towns.
It should be noted that the condition of the old E0C's was not identified by FEMA as being a concern, and the new E0C's appear to be state-of-the-art.
Significant improvements have been made in the ability of Boston Edison to notify the local towns of an event. The previous system relied on notification from Boston Edison to the state police dispatcher in Middleboro, MA. The state was then responsible for relaying information to the towns.
In order to improve the timeliness of notification a new Digital Notification Network (DNN) has been installed and is operational. This system automatically rings down to the local 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> warning points - the 7 town police departments, the E0Cs, as well as the State police and Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency when the phone is i
picked up in the control room.
Other concerns rai>ed by the CDDs included the status of plans and procedures, and availabilities of personnel. With respect to the status of plans and procedures, draft plans for all seven committees have been forwarded to the Commonwealth and subsequently to FEMA for technical review. Draft procedures have been developed for all areas. Many of the procedures have been forwarded to FEMA for technical review, but in some cases this was done with ouestions still unresolved. The philosophy on how and when school children would be evacuated is a concern in most of the towns. Some school administrations would like to see the children sent home at the ALERT rather than take the responsibility for evacuation. This is in conflict with the Commonwealth and CDDs position as well as the police desire to prevent traffic from re-entering the towns once an evacuation is ordered (parents would nut be able to get home to pick up the children). The Emergency Plans for the five risk towns within the 10 mile EPZ, state that transportation is staged at the ALERT, and evacuation occurs at the SITE AREA EMERGENCY.
With respect to personnel, most CDDs indicated they would have the majority of people necessary to implement the plans, but several of the towns are short of volunteers to complete their staffing plans primarily in second shift and non-technical resources.
In particular Bridgewater, a reception center conmunity, 4
indicates that they have recruited 50 out of about 300. Training is also a significant concern in most of the towns. Most indicated that it was just getting started.
I l
r I
3 The status of on-site and off-site emergency preparedness as stated by the staff at the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting is that significant improvements i
have been made since the FEMA self-initiated-review, including improvements in areas which were not identified as being deficient.
It is clear that the towns and the Commonwealth have several procedural questions to resolve, however, the present version of the plans and implementing procedures (with the exception of 5 implementing procedures) have been reviewed by knowledgeable officials responsible for implementing the plans (e.g., Civil Defense Directors and department heads).
In fact, some of the changes being considered such as early dismissal of school children may be less desirable than the evacuation from the schools at SITE AREA EMERGENCY. All the town officials would be more comfortable with every procedure approved and tested.
Based on projected schedules from civil defense personnel in the five EPZ towns the remaining incomplete areas can be complete in two or three months. The staff's conclusion, as stated at the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting, that the existing facilities and equipment could be used to adequately protect the health and safety of the public during the controlled and phased startup period, is unchanged.
- -. ~.
?
4 4
Attachments j
No. 1 Meeting Summary with Bridgewater No. 2 Meeting Summary with Carver i
No. 3 Meeting Summary with Duxbury i
No. 4 Meeting Summary with Kingston i
No. 5 Meeting Summary with Marshfield No. 6 Meeting Summary with Plymouth 4
No. 7 Meeting Summary with Taunton j
No. 8 Meeting Summary of four of Duxbury, Gurnet and Saquish Beaches l
.No. 9 Summary of October 25 1988 Telephone Call with MCDA 4
i r
I i
h l
l F
l i
l l
November a 1988 3
(
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, FRS&SB S. Peleschak, Emergency Preparedness Specialist j
1 l
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON NOVEMBER 2, 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was held at the Bridgewater Town Hall on November 2, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status l
of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities directly from the i
Emergency Management Officer for the Town of Bridgewater. The Emergency Management Officer was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously i
l unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to the attention of the NRC.
Following the discussion the new E00 spaces were toured.
ATTENDEES Frank Maher, Emergency Management Officer, Bridgewater Roderick Walsh, Fire Chief, Bridgewater 1
Alfred Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA)
William Lazarus, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, NRC Region I Susan Peleschak, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRC Region I DISCUSSION During the meeting on November 2, 1988, Mr. Maher presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Bridgewater, which is a host community for the Pilgrim EPZ.
Implementing Procedures (IPs) i The town Plan and IPs, as well as the State college procedure were forwarded to MCDA (and subsequently to FEMA Region I) for informal technical review. The procedures received only a cursory review before i
forwarding because it was felt important to get the feedback from the technical experts. The state college does not come under the authority l
of the town, but is a separate entity directly under the authority of the state, therfore the town is not directly involved in the review of the college procedure.
There are some concerns th,t the evacuation traffic into town on Route 104 may be a bigger problem than is reflected in the planning process. Iraffic within town is still a concern.
N h
I i
i i
Availability of Documents Copies of the Plan, IPs, and Evacuation Time Estimate are available.
Facilities and Equipment The EOC is located in the basement of an old school building owned by the town and near the Town Hall. The renovation of the space is nearly complete, however the equipment is not yet installed. Telephones are almost complete and a few of the radios have been installed. The space still has not been turned over to the town from Boston Edison.
Approximately 30 to 50*: of the equipment necessary to implement the plan has been received.
It is estimated that all of the eouipment should be received by mid-January to early February,1989.
Some work is necessary at the state college which will require state approval before Boston Edison can start the work.
Personnel Resources / Training The town is still trying to locate volunteers to accept positions to implement the plan.
So far only 50 out of 300 have been identified.
Training is just getting started. The quality of training being received is excellent. Most groups have only received one or two of the modules.
The fire department has received 8 modules.
Barry Report i
The Parry report contained some inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The location of the Bridgewater E0C was not correct and the demographic figures cited were wrong.
Commission Briefing Mr. Maher had not read the transcript of the remarks presented by Senator Kennedy, Representative Studds, or Lt Governor Murphy at the October 14, 1988 Commission briefing and could not comment on whether they represented the views of the town of Bridgewater.
SUMMARY
~
Mr. Maher did not believe that the Bridgewater plan and procedures could be implemented at this time because of the lack of a sufficient number of trained people to fill the positions needed. The town would, of course, respond to an i
emergency and do the best they could. The town has had an excellent relationship l
with Boston Edison, bewever, at the present pace of activity by Boston Edison, the town wont be ready for a full scale exercise until next June or July. Mr.
Maher indicated that he believed the plant should be allowed to restart when all the safeguards are in place. Mr. Maher was not directly involved with emergency preparedness during the 1982-1985 time frane, but based on his discussions with i
i those who were he believes that significant progress has been made.
m i
l 1
Mr. Maher was provided a draft copy of this memorandum, and his comments have l
been incorporated into this final copy. He indicated that it accurately reflects i
l the information provided by him.
I
/s/
William J. Lazarus, l
EP Section Chief, Region I p/
Susan Peleschak, l
EP Specialist, Region I L
l cc: J. Dolan. FEMA Region I l
l l
l i
l l
1 l
l i
l i
November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: William Russell, Regional Administrater THRU:
R. Bellamy Chief, Facilities Radiation Stifety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF CARVER TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 27, 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was conducted in the Carver Town Hall on October 27, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding i
the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, i
directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Carver.
In Carver, Mr. Frank Mazzilli is the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen in addition to Director of Civil Defense.
During this meeting he was also l
provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC. The meeting was followed by a tour of the E0C.
ATTENDEES Frark Mazzilli, Chairman, Roard of Selectmen, and Civil Defense Director Helen Copello, Assistant Civil Defense Director Alfred Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA)
William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief NRC Region I Posemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRP i
DISCUSSION Mr. Mazzilli and Ms. Copello presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Carver.
Implementing Procedures (IP)
The town plan and all IPs (3?) have been throuah the local review process and have been forwarded through MCDA to FEMA for technical review (forwarded to FEMA on 10/24/88).
Copies of the Plan,IPs Shelter Implementation Plan, and Evacuation Time Estimate are available in the E0C.
Schools:
The procedural concern which remains to be resolved is one involving the Carver Regional High School. A joint connittee is attempting to resolve differences between Carver and Plymouth in this procedure.
%TN
t Police: The police have a concern regarding the ETE/ Traffic Management Plan allowing people to re-enter the town while an evacuation is in progress. They believe that traffic flow should only be permitted out of tc vn.
Equipment and Facilities l
Mr. Mazzilli indicated that they have pretty much everything they need.
l Some things are still on order, but everything is falling into place.
l Decontamination Facility: The biggest problem is the lack of a decontamination facility for emergency workers.
E0C: The E0C is complete, although radios are still being hooked up. Everything should be complete in about 2 weeks.
Personnel Resources The lack of personnel to carry out the decontamination procedure is the biggest problem. There may be other departmental weaknesses of which they are not aware.
Special Needs Population The town has a list with about 105 names. All the persons on this list were recently resurveyed to update the list. There may be others who have not been identified, but they feel pretty satisfied with the list.
Schedule The procedures, facilities, and training should be far enough along for a test about the first of the year. The schedule for completion of the decontamination facility is the biggest unknown.
Barry Report The third Barry Report contained a reasonable presentation of the status for the town of Carver, however it was lacking in some specifics regarding equipment.
Commission Briefing Neither Mr. Mazzilli or Ms. Copello had reviewed the transcript of the October 14, 1988 Commission briefing and could not comment on the statements made by Senator Kennedy, Representative Studds, or Lt.
Governor Murphy.
l l
Implementation l
In response to a question of whether they thought they could implement l
1
l l
l 1
the plan and procedures, they indicated that they would try to implement it but would not be comfortable because it had not been tested.
I
SUMMARY
l Things are going along smoothly. They still need to get the decontamination facility completed, complete the training, rnd test the plans and procedures.
They have come a long way in the last two to three years. The citizens of the town now know what to expect.
Relations with both MCDA Area II and Boston Edison are very good.
Mr. Mazzilli and Ms. Copello reviewed this memorandum and indicated that they were satisfied that it accurately reflected the status provided during our discussions, i
M William J. Lazarus.
EP Section Chief, Region I
/9/
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR i
cc:
J. Dolan, FEMA Regio,, I e
I l
l
Attachment. 3 November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, FRSSB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF DUXBURY TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 26, 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was held in the Duxbury Fire Station on October 26, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Civil Defense for we town of Duxbury. The Director of Civil Defense was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency j
preparedness to the attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES Carl O'Neill, Duxbury Civil Defense Director and Fire Chief i
Alfred Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (PCDA)
William J. Lazarus, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, NPC Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist Office of NRR l
DISCUSSION Mr. O'Neill presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Duxbury.
Implementing Procedures There are approximately 38 implementing procedures (IPs), none of which have been sent to FEMA for review. All of the IPs, except'three, have been reviewed by cognizant Department Heads. The three IPs which are still under development are: Selectmen; Town Manager; and Public Information Officer. The RERP has reviewed the Fire and Civil Defense IPs and are reviewing the School IP. All IPs will be sent in segments to t'ne Board of Selectmen for their review. Copies of the Plan, IPs, Shelter Implementation Plan and Evacuation Time Estimate are available in the E0C.
The following are specific concerns which remain to be resolved.
Schools: The schcol committee does not agree with the school dh procedure as drafted, but is considering early dismissal of school children at the ALERT, rather than have the buses in standby and evacuate the children at a SITE AREA EMERGENCY. There is no sound technical basis for the position e.nd in some cases would require three round trips of the school buses. This is contrary to the recommendation of the Civil Defense Director and MCDA who would like to see the procedure remain as it is. There are a few*other minor concerns involving role conflict of teachers and the guarantee of sufficient buses which remain to be resolved.
Personnel Resources There are a few personnel shortages which need to be filled. The E0C staff does not have a complete second shift complement and the police department needs two additional staff for Gurnet-Saquish route alerting
)
if necessary. All other departments appear to have sufficient staff.
Evacuation Time Estimate The new ETE has been received, but it has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Equipment and Facilities j
The E0C is nearing completion. The facility is expected to be complete in four weeks when the communication equipment is installed. Some portable radios, a repeater and a LORAN navigation radio should be delivered within a few weeks.
The Board of Selectmen has not approved a reception center community.
Although the current plan provides for evacuation to Bridgewater or Wellesley, the Selectmen are opposed to Wellesley. There are reservations on the use of Bridgewater, as well, because the evacuation routes to that community would be blocked delaying evacuation.
The police need a 4 wheel drive vehicle to be used for route alerting of the Gurnet-Saquish Beach area.
Training Training has just begun, but is progressing very smoothly.
Barry Report Mr. 0'Neill thought the Barry report accurately reflected the concerns l
and the status of emergency preparedness in Duxbury.
Commission Briefing Mr. O'Neill indicated that the statements made by Senator Kennedy, Representative Studds, and Lt. Governor Murphy reflected the status of l
emergency preparedness for the town of Duxbury, i
Ability to Implement The Civil Defense Director does not believe the plan could be implemented at this time because so little training has been completed.
No portions of the plan have been tested. The Civil Defense Director has notified the Selectmen that he believes that training, equipment installation, plan and IP development, mini-drills and a town drill 1
could be complete by the middle of February,1989.
Special Needs Population Identification of the special needs population is slow due to the reluctance of that population to highlight their handicaps. Repeated advertisements in the local papers requesting self-identification is continuing. TDDs are available to be delivered to deaf people who request them. Special needs population evacuation was rot identified as a major concern provided resources arranged by the state are actually available.
Beaches The Gurnet-Saquish procedure is still under review by the Gurnet-Saouish Association. Concerns are that siren coverage may be inadequate. There 1s no feedback method to determine if the sirens have actuated and Duxbury police do not have sufficient resources to run route alerting as a back-up for siren failure. Route alerting would take at least 45 minutes to complete.
Chief O'Neill indicated that some of the estimates regarding the Gurnet-Saquish beach area he has seen have been inflated.
He estimated the number for the Saquish Beach at about 4,000 maximum (2,000 typical) on peak days. The road to this beach is under water from high tides for a part of 2 days per month (2 to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />). The water may be waist high in that section.
There are 4,000 to 5,000 people on the Duxbury Beach during the peak part of the season. The Powder Point Bridge has been re-opened and provides a second evacuation route for those evacuating the Duxbury-Gurnet-Saouish beach area. This greatly improves the situation.
People are reouested to evacuate at the ALERT and the beach is closed.
SUMMARY
The major concerns are getting eouipment in place and working, completing the training and drills, and resolving the school evacuation issue, and final approval of procedures and plans.
Mr. O'Neill was provided an opportunity to review this memorandum and his comments for clarification have been incorporated.
William J. Lazarus,.
EP Section Chief, Region I
/s/
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I
l November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator
.THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief. Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief. FRS&SB R. Hogan Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF KINGSTON TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DN OCTOBER 26, 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was cenducted in the Kingston E0C on October 26, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Kingston. The Director of Civil Defense also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES i
Dennis Tavares, Civil Defense Director i
Fred Woodworth, Assistant Civil Defense Director Alfred Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA)
William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, NRC Region I Dosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR i
DISCUSSION Mssrs. Tavares and Woodworth presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Kingston.
Implementing Procedures (IP)
The town plan and all IPs have been through the local review process and have been forwarded through MCDA to FEMA for technical review. This does not mean that all local concerns regarding the procedures have been resolved. Copies of the Plan,IPs, Shelter Implementation Plan, and Evacuation Time Estimate are available in the EOC.
The following are specific concerns which remain to be resolved.
Schools: 'ihe school committee wants to change the school I
procedure (for the elementary school) to have an early release of the school children at the ALERT declaration, rather than having the buses brought in at the ALERT and then evacuating then at SITE l
p
%0 Y
i
..=
I AREA EMERGENCY. No technical iustification has been presented for this position, which is opposed by both the CD Director and the state. The procedure for Silver Lake Regional High School is still under review by the school committee. The school committee for the high school includes representatives from three non-EPZ towns as well as Kingston.
Police: The police chief wants to change the traffic management procedure to prevent anyone from entering the town after an evacuation is ordered. The present ETE reflects the fact that 1
parents are permitted to re-enter to get children at home.
Personnel Resources The town is presently short six people to staff the positions in the EOC for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> coverage.
The police have indicated that they can't cover all traffic management and access control points without outside j
assistance. They will have to coordinate with the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department.
Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) t The new ETE has been received but it has not been thoroughly reviewed.
There is a concern regarding changes to the bus routes for transportation dependent personnel.
2 Equipment and Facilities The E0C was recently completed, however the telephone syster is not yet fully operable (calls can't be transferred or routed properly). All the radios are installed and operating. The police department has received half of the portable radios they would need. There is a reliability problem with the police radio repeater shared by Kingston, Duxbury, and Plympton, which Boston Edison has agreed to correct.
4 There are no problems with equipment or facilities in other departments that have been brought to the attention of the Civil Defense Director.
There presently is no reliable system (pager) to notify the Civil Defense Director of an emergency.
Training Little training has been done yet. Training of the E0C staff is just starting; The highway, police, and fire departments have had one module of the training. The teachers at the elementary school have had one module but there was very light turnout. Reports from people who have i
received the training are very positive. There is no estimate when the trainino will be complete; the schedule is still under development.
j
... - ~ _... -
E
{
Barry Report l
Mr. Tavares thought that the Barry Report reasonably presented the l
l status for the town of Kingston; there were only minor discrepancies.
Comission Briefing Nr. Tavares had not reviewed the transcript of the October 14, 1988 Commission briefing and was not able to comment on the presentations made by Senator Kennedy, Representative Studds, or Lt. Governor Murphy.
Ability to Implement Mr. Tavares indicated that he was skeptical of the ability to implement the Plan and procedures. He believes that the plans are good, and a lot of improvements have been made, but training is still needed. He would l
attempt to follow the procedures rather than rely on guess-work.
j Special Needs Population Approximately 120 people have been placed on the special needs list for the town. They are still working to get people identified.
SUMMARY
The major concerns are getting equipment in place and working, completing the training, and resolving the issue of how the school children will be protected.
Mr. Tavares and Mr. Woodworth were provided with a draft copy of this document and indicated that it accurately reflects our discussions.
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I M
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I
-m,-
.__m l
)
November 4, 1988 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief. Facilities Radiation Safety and-Safeguards Branch, DRSS l
FROM:
W. Lazarus, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, FRSSB l
'R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist,'NRR l
l
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE 0FFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF MARSHFIELD TO l
DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 25. 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was held at the Marshfield Police Station on October '25.1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities l
directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Marshfield. The Civil Defense Director was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to the attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES Daniel McGonagle. Director Office of Civil Defense Marshfield William Lazarus, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, NRC Region I Posemary Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR DISCUSSION During the meeting on October 25, 1988 and in a subsequent telephone conversation on October 31, 1988 which was used to clarify some of the information, Mr. McGonagle presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Marshfield.
Implementing Procedures (IPs)
The Plan and all procedures have been submitted to MCDA (and subsequently forwarded to FEMA for technical review). The only specific concern identified related to the status of the school procedure.
Until last week, the school superintendent was not involved in any emergency plan development. All plan and IP development had been i
l delegated to the assistant superintendent.
He is opposed to a plan that he has not approved and that has not been discussed with the teachers and school staff who'would implement it. He has received a copy of the plan to review, but has not received a school procedure.
Mr. McGonagle thinks the late involvement of the school superintendent may delay emergency preparedness development. At this point the j
t i
l l
superintendent is not saying that the procedure wont work, but he has some concerns.
l l
Personnel nesources Mr. McGonagle is concerned with the ability of the Harbormaster to l
accomplish his duties with the limited staff available to him. The l
Harbormaster is tasked with notification of the beach, notification of the coastal waters out to a quarter of a mile and management of Green Harbor. He has only one boat, four assistants and lifeguards during the summer season. The details of harbor evacuation have not been developed.
Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE)
Mr. McGonagle's major concern involves the credibility of the ETE study.
From his observations of traffic during the summer season, he does not believe the evacuation times in the study. He is not sure that the ETE i
considers that the EPZ population of 2500 doubles in the summer, that there are only two major routes out of the town proper, and that they feed into only two evacuation routes heading north (routes 3 and 3A) which will already be full with evacuation traffic. His doubts are based on a preliminary review of the 10/11/88 revision of ths ETE. He plans to complete a more detailed review and has provided copies to the Board of Selectmen for their review as well.
He has concerns that the population evacuating from the Saquish area and passing through Marshfield have not been considered in determining the ETEs. He has some minor concerns regarding appropriate traffic routes.
Reception Center i
The plan currently designates Bridgewater as the reception center community for Marshfield. The Board of Selectmen and Mr. McGonagle adamantly oppose the proposed change to Wellesley. Bridgewater is 4
sctisfactory. Marshfield has proposed other locations to the Commonwealth for a northern reception center. Wellesley is considered to be too far away and there are no hospitals nearby.
Barry Report Mr. McGonagle stated that the Barry Report accurately presented the status for the town of Marshfield.
Commission Briefing Mr. McGonagle had not read the transcript of the October 14, 1988 Commission briefing, and was not able to comment on the representation l
provided by Lt Governor Murphy, Senator Kennedy, or Representative Studds.
i
l Ability to Implement Mr. McGonagle believes that there has been a marked improvement in emergency preparedness in the past fifteen months. There have been no tests of any portion of the revised plan. He plans to conduct a series of tests before he can determine if the plan and IPs can be implemented.
Both the police and fire departments have stated that they would be comfortable in implementing the plan. Except for resolution of the concerns with the school procedure, he feels that the IPs will be completed and the E0C operational by late December 1988.
EPZ Mr. McGonagle does not believe that the effect of emergency response activity in the part of Marshfield within the EPZ on the areas adjacent, but outside of the EPZ, have been satisfactorily addressed. He believes actions taken by some of the population outside of the EPZ may disrupt evacuation within the EPZ. There are about 28,000 year round residents in Marshfield and 70,000 to 75,000 during the summer (2500 residents in the part of the town within the EPZ). He perceives an administration problem with emergency response personnel functioning in only one part of the town. He is concerned that Marshfield resources for responding to an emergency, such as the fire department, are not located within the EPZ, but rather much farther away in another part of town.
Facilities and Equipment The E0C, which is being erected as an addition onto the police department building, is incomplete at this writing, but is progressing.
Installation of communications and other equipment will occur when the E0C is completed.
Mr. McGonagle was provided with a copy of this memorandum and indicated that it accurately reflected the information he provided during our discussions.
He also indicated that he was preparii19 some additional comments that he would provide by November 8, 1988.
/1/
William J. Lazarus, Ep Section Chief, Region I M
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Recion I l
November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief. Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FP,0M:
W. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL-DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF PLYMOUTH TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 25, 1988 BACKGROUND This meeting was conducted in the Plymouth E00 on October 25, 1988. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Emergency Preparedness for the Town of Plymouth.
The Emergency Preparedness Director was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to the attention of the NRC.
i ATTENDEES I
Douglas Hadfield, Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness Alba C. Thompson, Chairman, Board of Selectmen William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, NRC Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist. Office of NRR DISCUSSION Mr. Hadfield, and Ps. Thompson presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Plymouth.
Implementing Procedures (IPs) i This status is based on Mr. Hadfield's comments, review of the IP status list that was provided at the meeting (attached), and a telephone conversation with Mr. Hadfield to clarify discrepancies on October 28, 1988.
Of the 57 IPs identified on the attached lisc, all exist at least in draft form. The review process involves a review by the cognizant department head, then review by the RERP Committee, and finally review and approval "in concept" by the Board of Selectmen. As of the date of this meeting, 34 IPs have been " approved in concept". Of the remaining procedures, 17 have been through the RERP Committee and are ewaiting review by the Board of Selectmen. That leaves 4 procedures which have not been reviewed by the RERP Committee. One of the 4 (Special Needs WW ff
i l
I
(
Officer) has been approved at the department head level and is awaiting review by the RERP Comittee.
In addition to the IPs on the attached list, there are 34 shelter procedures. The model for these 34 l
procedures (Shelter Manager Procedure) has been " approved in concept" by the Board of Selectmen. Review and approval of all of the IPs at the local level is expected to be complete in 10 to 12 weeks. The IPs which have not yet been approved at the department head level include Saquish, Monitoring and Decontamination, and Jordan Hospital.
The following items were identified as specific concerns which remain to be resolved before some of these IPs can be approved:
l Police: Division of responsibilities between the Plymouth Police l
and state police needs to be determined, as the procedures identify 40 access points and 40 traffic control points and there are only 78 police officers available from Plymouth. The need for protective clothing for police manning positions in the EPZ during radiological emergencies has not yet been determined.
Schools: The Joint School Committee met on October 24, 1988 to review the school procedures. There are 8 elementary, 1 j
intermediate, and 2 high schools involved. The outcome of that review was not known at the time of this meeting. _In a, telephone 1
conversation on 10/28/88, Mr. Hadfield related that the committee l
did not approve the school procedure, but that they had authorized training for the elementary school teachers. Concerns have been raised regirding the appropriate way to notify parents of evacuation of the children; legal questions regarding transportation of school children out of the town; and the question of whether teachers would participate in the evacuation of the school children. Still being considered is a change'to the school procedures which would have children sent home at the ALERT level rather than holding them at the school and + hen evacuating j
them at the SITE AREA EMERGENCY as the state would like. This is apparently being considered because children would be moved before the parents knew there was a problem, since there is no EBS broadcast at the ALERT level. A joint committee is attempting to j
resolve differences between Carver and Plymouth in the procedure for the Carver (Regional) High School (which is shared by Plymouth and Carver).
Nospital: Jordan Hospital has serious problems with their implementing procedure as it deals with the evacuation of patients. Details of the concern were not known at this tipe. A second concern raised by Mr. Hadfield was that the Jordan Hospital is also the hospital which would be used for treatment of any injured / contaminated workers from the site in case of an accident, and he wasn't clear on how they would be handled if the hospital was evacuated. The Jordan Hospital procedure was considered by i
l l
Attschment 6 i
l Mr. Hadfield to be the biggest obstacle to the completion of the IPs.
l Mr. Hadfield acknowledged that he had copies of the latest drafts of all l
implementing procedures in the E0C. They were presently contained in 7 l
2 1/2 inch binders whereas the total previous town plan was a little l
more than an inch thick.
Personnel Resources Police need to work out division of responsibilities with the state police because there are too few Plymouth police to handle all the access control and traffic control points.
Special Needs Population The town is still working to get people with special needs to "self-identify". An advertisement is being placed in the local newspaper once per month for the next six months requesting that people with special needs contact the Emergency Preparedness Office to have their names l
placed on a confidential list which could be used to assist them in the event of an accident. This process is hoped to update completely the list maintained by the town.
l Barry Report Mr. Hadfield indicated that although he had a problem with the state speaking generically for the towns, the third Barry Report was generally complete regarding the status and problems faced by Plymouth. He was not sure if the concerns with the Jordan Hospital procedure were reflected in that report.
Representation at the Commission Briefing on OctoLer 14, 1988 Mr. Hadfield and Mrs. Thompson both indicated that the Lt. Governor, Senator Kennedy, and Congressman Studds had fairly represented their concerns at the Commission briefing, although their comments lacked the specifics which they were bringing out in our meeting.
Saquish - Gurnet Point Area At the present time there is not an adequate procedure for the protection of the 200 - 400 summer residents plus another 200 - 300 campers who would be in the Saquish - Gurnet Point area. The homeowners are working on development of a plan. The concern is that part of the j
only road off the Saquish Beach area is under water for some period of time during the full moon each month, and that a boat is the only way out during that time.
i 1
l Implementation of the Plan When asked whether he thought he could implement the plan and l
procedures, Mr. Hadfield indicated that he honestly couldn't answer the question due to the incomplete state of development, review, and training.
Individual department heads would be in a better position to make such an assessment. Ms. Thompson indicated that restart should not be permitted until effective plans are in place, but that she was not saying that a full-scale exercise was necessarily required to make that determination. Mr. Hadfield did indicate that there was no question that they were ahead of where they were in the planning process a few years ago, and that they had made great improvements.
Mr. Hadfield was provided a copy of this memo and indicated that it accurately
)
reflected the status he presented during our discussions.
/s/
William J. Lazarus.
EP Section Chief, Region !
j M
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I i
l l
~.
l i
j November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: William Russell, Regional Administrator Y
THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety and l
Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF TAUNTON TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 26, 1988 BACKGROUND A meeting was conducted in the Taunton E0C on October 26, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Taunton. The Civil Defense Director was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES Robert Spearin, Director, Office of Civil Defense, Taunton Albert Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA)
William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief. NRC Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR DISCUSSION Mr. Spearin presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Taunton.
Implementing Procedures (IPs)
There are ?S IPs required for the plan. The Plan and all 2S procedures have been reviewed on the local level and have been forwarded to FEMA through MCDA. There are no sticking points or concerns regarding the IPs. They are waiting to get back the comments from FEMA's technical review so that any necessary changes can be incorporated into the procedures. The Plan and a set of procedures, as well as the Evacuation Time Estimate are in the E0C.
In addition each department head has a copy.
Facilities and Equipment E0C:
The E0C is essentially complete; only a few minor items are l
needed - some status boards, maps, and other small miscellaneous i
items.
dOY
.~.
l l
Reception Center: The renovation of the reception center (to be located in an unused building at the state hospital - Cain Hall) has not been started. As this is a state facility Stata approval must be given in order for outside funds to be expended on it.
Mr. Slaney indicated that the plans still need to t'e approved by.
the state agency responsible for granting approval before Boston Edison can begin the work.
(This facility will be used for the i
survey and decontamination of evacuees, and reuniting of families.
Congregate care is handled by other facilities.)' Examples of repairs noted by Mr. Spearin and Mr.'Slaney are painting, repair of gutters and downspouts, handicap access, and recor.,iection of heat and water. Survey equipment and decor facilities will also need to be installed.
Traffic Control Equipment: The town still hasn't received traffic control equipment needed. They have been told that it will be provided in two to three weeks.
Communications Equipment: All needed communications equipment has been installed, tested, and is functional.
Training Training is progressing well.
Fire Department should be done November 4, 1988.
Police Department is about 50 % complete.
Pealth Department is complete.
DPW is complete.
Emergency Medical (EMS) is not started.
Schools (congregate care) is not started.
Civil Defense is about 50 % complete.
E0C has not started.
All training should be complete in about six months.
Personnel Resources The town is short about a dozen people, mainly for working at the reception center, but also for working at transportation and staging areas. The town is still looking for volunteer workers.
Barry Report Mr. Spearin thought-that the third Barry Report contained a fair representation of the situation for Taunton.
l Comission Briefing He had not read the transcript of the Comission briefing so could not comment on the presentations made by the Lt. Governor, Senator Kennedy, or Representative Studds.
SUMMARY
Mr. Spearin's biggest concerns were the lack of readiness of the reception facility and the fact that training was not complete. He indicated that there was no comparison to where the town was in the 1982-1985 time frame. They previously had only a set of plans and now had detailed implementing procedures. Cooperation from Boston Edison has greatly improved. With the reservations noted about the status of the reception center, ne thought that the procedures were adequate and could be used.
Mr. Spearin was provided a copy of this memorandum and indicated that it accurately reflected the status provided during our discussions.
n/
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I
/2/
Rosemary T. liogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I e
W
1 i
I November 4, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator l
THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR l
SUBJECT:
TOUR OF THE DUXPURY, GURNET, AND SAQUISH BEACHES C
BACKGROUND Followino the meeting with Mr. Carl O'Neill to discuss the status of emeroency preparedness in the town of Duxbury, Mr. O'Neill arranged for us to visit the Duxbury, Gurnet, and Saquish beach areas which have been frequently identified as a ma,ior evacuation concern. Mr. Brad Martin, the head of the Duxbury Department of Lands and Natural Resources, agreed to drive us out to Saguish.
Responsibilities of Mr. Martin's department include controlling access and patrolling the Duxbury beach to assure that people do not enter the restricted areas such as bird nesting locations. As a result of his duties he is quite familiar with the area and its problems. Mr. Martin provided the following observations during the trip.
The total number of # cur wheel drive vehicles allowed access to the Duxbury beach is limited to 500 (by permit). These vehicles have been seen to evacuate the beach in about a half-hour due to a thunderstorm.
Rased on the numbers of 4 wheel drive vehicles allowed (500) plus parking capacity for about 400 cars at the entrance to Duxbury Peach, the typical number of persons at the beach would number about 3,000.
In addition to the check for a beach permit at the Duxbury beach, persons who wish to enter the Gurnet-Saguish area (during summer months) must also pass through a security point, further limiting access to that area.
The area of the road between Gurnet and Saquish which has been identified as impassable due to periodic high tides is under water for
~
perhaps two hours during consecutive high tides for two days each month (during the full moon). During these high tides the road floods to a depth of 1 to ? feet and covers about 100 yards of the road.
In Mr.
Martin's opinion, this shculd not present a serious impediment to most I
four wheel drive vehicles.
In any event it would be passable on foot and people could be picked up by vehicles on the Gurnet Point side.
There are about 250 cottages bevend the section of the read that is sub,iect to periodic flooding. The area is only open to reoperty owners and their guests, limiting the number of people who could be in that area to 400 to 500. The Gurnet-Saquish area is very lightiv inhabited i
in the off-season months.
j k
O
/
The contents of this memorandum were discussed with Mr. Martin by telephone on November 4,1988, and Mr. Martin indicated that it accurately reflected the information he provided.
/s/
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I
/s/
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR A
[
[# "*%k UNITED STATES
?.
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON ENCLOSURE 3 d
neoloNI 475 ALLENoALE ROAD mino or enuestA. PENNSYLVANIA tMOS l
e...*
October 25, 1988 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: File FROM:
William T. Russell, Regional Administrator, RI
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT BOULAY, DIRECTOR OF j
MASEACHUSETTS CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY I returned a telephone call to Mr. Robert Boulay, Director of Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency regarding NRC staff meetings with local Civil Defense Directors in the vicinity'of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.
He had been advised by some local Civil Defense Directors that such meetings were taking place.
I explained that the meetings were initiated at the i
request of Mr. Hadfield, Civil Defense Director for Plymouth and Alba Thompson, Plymouth Board of Selectmen. Based upon those requests, on Friday and Monday l
their concerns one,-to-one. contacts were mede with local officials to meet to hear 4
l I indicated that the staff would be pleased to i
seet with the Commonwealth to discuss technical issues of concern regarding emergency this time. preparedness.
The staff will not participate in public meetings at The Commission is currently considering Peter Agnes' request for a 3
i public meeting in the Pilgrim area. Mr. Boulay indicated that some Civil Defense Directors had requested technical staff from the Commonwealth N
participate in the meetings with NRC this week.
I advised Mr. Boulay that the I
staff had no objection to their participation in such technical meetings and reconfirmed that the staff would be willing to meet with the Commonwealth if so requested.
i A copy of this Memorandum For File is being provided to Mr. Boulay.
i 1
I
/
l William T. Russell l
Regional Administrator s
cc:
V. Stello, EDO 4
S. Collins, RI i
R. Bellamy, RI i
R. Boulay, Mass. Civil Defense Agency 1
l j
pt f'
N i
-.