ML20135D879
| ML20135D879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Bates A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Shelburne B NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A956 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703060088 | |
| Download: ML20135D879 (1) | |
Text
__ - - - _ ___
f
[ -
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O $ W ASHINGT ON,0.C. 20555
- $ h GQ' 90
" November 18, 1988 0[,]CE qE RY MEMORANDUM FOR: Betsy Shelburne, Chief Public Document Room THRU: Sandy Sho C f
d'
/
Corresponde ecords Branch FROM: Andrew Bates, Chief Operations Branch
SUBJECT:
RELEASE OF DOCUMENT TO PDR Attached for placement in the PDR is a copy with all enclosures of:
EDO memo dated November 15, 1988
" Pilgrim Status Update" This document is being placed in the PDR at the +. guest of the staff and concurrence of the Commission o b ces.
Attachment:
ggem10?"""% Kr.id,d T,
As stated uil Em..~dF:i*t t. ra cc: DCS - Pl-124 N n
Pb4- E sm N
,Qb4 U i
T , -< i gogmay 9703060088 881118 PDR ADOCK 05000293 P PDR '
050021
'o l
jf ~ g UNITED STATES g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l \, . . . . . / November 15, 1988 l MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech l Comissioner Roberts I Comissioner Carr
! Comissioner Rogers Comissioner Curtiss l
FROM: Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations '
SUBJECT:
PILGRIM STATUS UPDATE At the October 14,198E. Comission Meeting to discuss the Pilgrim Nuclear j Power Station, the staff comitted to continue to assess progress, particu- I larly in the area of emergency preparedness. '
Subsequent to the meeting, the Comission has received statements from various -
officials that the staff was not accurate regarding its factual representa-tions on the status of emergency preparedness and that the staff had not met with local officials to obtain their emergency preparedness concerns. Enclo- ,)l suras 1 and ? respond to these statements. Enclosure 1 is the October 14, !
1986, meeting transcript pages78-104 annotated with the clarifying remarks I provided to the Comission on October 21, 1988 and footnotes to provide the basis for factual information, not already supported. Enclosure 2 identifies meetings where the staff and state, local officials, and/or members of the I public were present and at which emergency preparedness issues were raised.
Meeting participants and the subjects discussed are also identified.
i In order to continue to assess progress and further ensure that the factual [
basis on which the staff relied in making its recomendation was accurate, the staff met with each of the EPZ community Civil Defense Directors and again toured the local beaches this time with the responsible local official.
Enclosure 3 sumarizes the staff's findings and attaches each meeting sumary.
Each official has verified the accuracy of the staff's respective meeting sumary. The Comonwealth was nstidegegarding these meetings and had an observer present at seve % 4f W e e t'1Tigs . The Comonwealth did not desire a one-to-one technical Meeting with the staff.
ul 03M39 The staff is not aware of any new information related to emergency preparedness which would change its recomendation regarding Comission approval of a controlled and phased startup of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant l over the next 4-6 months. The staff has evaluated progress for each of the ygf(p -)(W 1
l l ;
d 4
deficient areas identified by FEMA in their self-initiated review and i concludes that substantial and significant progress has been made and is continuing.
As of November 7,1988, all restart open items are resolved and the plant is
- physically ready for restart with one exception related to recently identified loose anchor bolts for containment penetration pipe supports. The licensee is continuing its evaluation of this problem and has indicated that they would not restart until it is satisfactorily resolved. NRC Region I staff will indepen-dently review this issue prior to Regional Administrator release from the first NRC holdpoint (rod withdrawal for criticality) in the power ascension program subject to Connission authorization to restart.
The staff's review of the Barry Report is being transmitted concurrently. Our review of the report has not identified anything that would change the recom-mendation.
-r g ,
I< -
/ C 7, tetor @tello, 4rf t
l i
Executive Diregte for Operations '
Enclosures:
As stated cc: SECY OGC 1
__A_a- .
f EliCLOSURE 1 Contents
- 1. Transcript pages78-104
- 2. Transcript References
- 3. Letter, Lando W. Zech, Jr. to Peter W. Agnes, Jr., dated October 27, 1988, transmitting the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting transcript and additional clarifications.
l 78 1 the off-site plans, and the NRC staff has observed the 2 demonstration of.sota key elements of the plans. We'll discuss 3 those details in a moment. Boston Edison, es you heard, has 4 spent $1dmillionalreadyonimprovementstotheplansand 5 facilities in the local communities. They intend to spend 6 about $5 million more. I 7 Nonetheless, we recognize that there is more work 8 that needs to be done before we can receive a FEMA finding of 9 adequacy. In some cases, Massachusetts'wants to go beyond NRC '
10 requirements. We don't object to that, of course, but it does 11 delay the state in finalizing the plans. The next steps are i
12 that the state will have to submit final plans to FEMA. FEMA 13 must review them and approve them and schedule an exercise.
14 The state and the licensee and FEMA and the NRC then 15 must conduct the exercise. If there are any deficiencies, they 16 must be corrected. Finally, we would get a formal report from 17 FEMA to the NRC of the finding of adequacy. We estimate that it 18 would take about six months after Massachusetts submits the 19 final plans before we could receive such a formal FEMA finding.
20 In the meantime, the staff believes that we have 21 sufficient information to come to our own conclusions 22 concerning the significance of the outstanding issues, pending 23 completion of the formal FEMA process. The last full exercise, 24 as I mentioned, was in 1985. We have issued an exemption to 25 the regulation requiring a full participation exercise every I
79
- 1 two years.
l l 2 of course, we cannot schedule an exercise until the i
3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts submits revised plans to FEMA.
4 Ron Bellamy will now summarize the improvements that have been l'
5 made in the plans and the NRC observations of theap l
6 improvements.
I 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. You may 8 proceed.
9 MR. BELLAMY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the 10 regional branch chief with the responsibility for the review of 11 emergency preparedness issues. Next month will complete six 12 years that I have been charged with that responsibility. If l 13 you'll turn to the next slide, the next slide will discuss the i
- . 14 status of emergency preparedness.
15 [ Slide.)
16 MR. BELLAMY: Although emergency preparedness was not l 17 an issue of the Pilgrim plant shutdown in April, 1986, the NRC 18 staff has continuously monitored the status of emergency 19 preparedness. [The Federal Emergency Management Agency began 20 their self-initiated review in September of 1986, due to a lack EA 1 21 of progress toward resolution of document, concerns.3 The FEMA 22 self-initiated review was issued in August 1987, and identified 23 six specific issues: [the lack of evacuation plans for certain j 24 public and private schools and daycare centers; the lack of a
, 25 reception center for people evacuating to the North; the lack
1 .
80 l 1 of identifiable shelters for the beach populations inadequate 2 planning for the evacuation of the special needs population:
3 inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation 4 dependent population and an overall lack of progress and 5 planning and apparent diminution in emergency preparedness.] l I
6 [This report was immediately transmitted to the Boston 7 Edison company by the staff 3and aIvritten plan for resolution 8 was received by the staff on September 17, 1987.]4[ Based on 9 these FEMA identified deficiencies, FEMA in its report, l
10 withdrew its interim finding of adequacy for off-site emergency 11 preparedness and concluded that there was no longer adequate 12 assurance that public health and safety could be protected.]
l 13 [This previous finding of adequacy was based on plans and l
l 14 procedures being in place, and demonstration of the i
15 implementation during full-scale exercises.]
16 [In order to assess progress, the NRC staff has
- 17 reviewed local plans and procedures, discussed the issues with t
18 FEMA Region I staff, commonwealth offic'ials, local town 19 emergency planning officials, local residents, and Boston l
. 1 20 Edison representatives.]7[We have atitended numerous public l
l 21 meetings in the area and have toured the area, with special 22 emphasis on the beaches and the local emergency operating 23 centers.]
24 [ Considerable progress toward resolution of the issues l 25 pertaining to the schools and daycare centers, the special
a 81
(
1 needs population and the transportation dependent population is 2 evidenced by the. drafts of plans and implementing procedures 3 that have been prepared. Draft plans for all five communities 4
within the ten-mile emergency planning zone, as well as plans i
t 5 for the two reception communities have been sent to the 6
Commonwealth and from the Commonwealth to FEMA for a technical
{ 7 review.
i 8 Implementing procedures for three of the EPZ l
- 9 communities and.the two reception communities have also been 4
2 l 10 forwarded to the Commonwealth and of these, the procedures for j 11 one of the EPZ communities and the two reception communities t
i i 12 have been forwarded to FEMA for a technical review. The 1
a 13 Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency Area II Plan, which covers i
j 14 the area around Pilgrim, has been sent to FEMA for technical
{
15 review and work is progressing on the Commonwea'lth statewide l 16 plans and proceduresJ' j 17 7t is noted that the statewide plans and procedures e
18 a e were demonstrated at full-scale exercise at 3 Yankee Row ,
in
] ,
19 April, 1988, and at Vermont Yankee in August, 1988.] The i
20 progress in generating revised plans and procedures is due to 21 the e'fforts of local ' officials, including selectme'n, town a
22 managers, civil defense directors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, j phis w uks
- 23 department of geveenment officials, school administrators, I
j OJ nursing home administrators, hospital administrators, day care l
25 center administrators, harbor masters, owners of private i
) .-- __ ___ .
I,e. uuArg.h coao by & lo .I e4 ii215, a g % 3,. }
p,oceau,c as wall es cll +M pacedores for % se rLPE m ann 82 1 buildings identified for use as shelters and members of the 2 general public working in concert with licensee employees.
3 As such, these individuals are thoroughly familiar 4 with the contents of these documents and could implement these 5 plans and procedures if necessary. [There are five procedures b buvg 6 for two EPZ communities for Plymouth and ::: k:b:rry that, 7 althoughprepared,fhavenotyetbeenapprovedbythelocal 8 officials for forwarding to the Commonwealth for technical 5
9 review "fd* b M 'C"
- s 10 [Although in draft, the revised plans and procedures 11 are in sufficiently final form that a training program, 12 approved by the Commonwealth, is being conducted.]lhhe NRC 13 staff has audited this training program, including the 14 individual lesson plans and staff from both Region I and NRR 15 have observed the training of bus and ambulance drivers from 16 companies providing transportation for school and daycare 17 centers, the special needs population, and the transportation-18 dependent persons.
19 This training includes use of route maps and travel 20 on the actual routes to be used in an emergency. The staff has 21 audited six different training sessions and witnessed 22 implementation of the training for approximately 50 l
l 23 transportation providers, which is 25 percent of that training 24 that has already been conduct iM These limited demonstrations 25 provide the staff with the basis to conclude that significant l
l
- 83 j 1 progress has been made in improving the emergency plans and
. 2 procedures for schools and daycare centers and for the special 3 needs and transportation-dependent populations in the emergency 4 planning zone.
- )
! 5 [Regarding lack of a reception center for' people l
6 evacuating to the north, the Commonwealth has tentatively 7 designated a state-run facility in Wellsley as a northern i
8 reception center and has conducted a feasibility study that
. 9 indicates the facility is feasible for use as a receptice i 10 centerN [ Boston Edison has performed an analysis which 11 concludes that the two reception centers that are presently in
! 12 existence at Taunton and Bridgewater, with appropriate l
- 13 renovations and additional equipment, have the capability to
- 14 support an evacuation from the emergency planning zone, yet l 15 theyaresupportingthepotentialforathirdcenter.f l
16 The Bridgewater State College facility is capable of
}
} 17 serving as a location for evacuees from the emergency planning 18 zone to assemble and lacks improvements W hardware for 19 monitoring of radioactive material to be able to monitor the 20 20 percent of those arriving at the reception center within 12 l
1 21 hours. These modifications could be completed in a short 22 timeframe, and by a short timeframe I mean approximately one 23 month after approval by the Commonwealth.
~
i 24 The reception center at the Taunton State Hospital is 25 an existing structure that needs modifications including i
84
- 1 monitoring equipment that would take three to four months to 2 complete after approval by the commonwealth. [The Taunton civil 3 Defense Directer has documented his belief that he would use
- 4 portions of the fa.cility in an emergency, even if the f 5 renovations were not complete and he also stated th'at there are j 6 no outstanding program issues that would interfere with ;
7 implementation of workable plans and procedures.]
8 [Regarding a lack of identifiable beach shelters for 9 the beach population, Boston Edison completed a shelter survey]"
10 and [ developed a shelter implementation program, including
^ '
11 shelter identification, letters of agreement with the providers l l
12 and shelter procedures.] HEMA's position, which the NRC staff 4
1 13 supports, is that a range of protective actions are required 14 and that sheltering is only one protective action to be
- 15 considered and is not, in and of itself, a requirement.
16 Therefore, FEMA has removed this issue as a concern.]
I 17 [Nonetheless, a shelter program for the beach population is is continuing.]2he deficiency regarding an overall lack of
. 19 progress and support in emergency preparedness is being 20 resolved by the progress being made in correcting the other 21 specific FEMA-identified issues, including the development of 1
22 revised state plans.
- 23 I'd like to quickly summarize the information already i
- 24 provided for the FEMA self-initiated deficiencies and the sub-
! 25 issues. The next slide.
85 l
! - 1 [ Slide.)
~
2 MR. BELIANY: The next slide shows the status for 3 resolution of a school children concern and the third reception l 4 center, and I have hard copies of this slide if you'd like to l 5 see them. .
i 6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. You'd better give us copies of 7 to explain it. Do you have that passed out for the audience or 8 not? .
9 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, this is an abbreviated l
10 form of the materials that were available in the room when 11 people came in. It was in the memorandum that the staff has 12 forwarded to you.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, explain it first.
14 MR. BELLAMY: This first slide shows the status for 15 resolution of tha school children concern and the third i 16 reception center. It is evident that the required information 17 has been included in the draft plans and procedures and that 18 approval by the commonwealth is still required for other 19 issues.
20 Now by complete on this slide, I mean that if the 21 information was supposed to be included in the plans and 22 procedures, it is now in those draft plans and procedures.
23 [ slide.)
24 MR. BELLAMY: The next slide shows the status of
\
j 25 resolution for the beach sheltering issue and the concerns with i
4
- . - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - _ . - . . - . . - . . _ . - . - - . . - - ~ . - .
i 86
. I t'te mobility impaired. The shelter program is ongoing, even 2 though sheltering.is not specifically required. The 3 infor=ation has, agal.7, been provided in the draft plans and 4 procedures.
5 (slide.)
6 MR. BELIANY: The next slide shows the status for the 7 concerns for the transportation-dependent population and the l
8 overall lack of progress. Once again, information has been l 9 included in the draft plans and procedures with, again, certain 10 issues needing approval by the commonwealth.
11 In conclusion, the NRC review of the status of l
12 emergency preparedness of Pilgrim indicates that while all l 13 tasks have not been completed, progress is being made toward 14 resolving the issues identified by FEMA in their August 1987 l 15 report. In particular, significant progress has been made in 16 improving the emergency plans and procedures for schools and l 17 daycare centers and for the special needs and t'ransportation-18 dependent populations in the emergency planning zone.
l ~
19 The development of these plans and procedures, in i !
i 20 conjunction with the training program directed toward the 21 transportation providers responsible for evacuating school !
22 children and the special needs and transportation-dependent i
23 populations, indicates that the off-site response plans include i
24 measures to protect these groups.
i l 25 The NRC staff will continue to assess the progress i
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _
87 1
being made for fully resolving the FEMA-identified issues in 2 off-site emergency preparedness. '
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
3
, MR. MURLEY:
Our findings then on emergency 4
First.. based on 5 preparedness at Pilgrim are the following.
6 several previous successful exercises at Pilgrim over the ye 7
where FEMA has found the phans to be adequate, the 8
infrastructure to handle emergency preparedness is still .
9 largely in place. Mostofthelocalindividualswhowould'f !
10 part in emergency actions, that is civil defense authoritie 11 police authorities, school authorities, have been working 12 closely with Boston Edison in developing the revised plans, 13 Dr. Bellamy described.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that those 14 15 individuals can and would implement the revised plans, ove 16 though the plans are still in draft and even though there of 17 not been a full scale exercise with the revised plans.
18 six major deficiencias identified by TEMA, the NRC staff L
' ( 19 reviewed improvements in the plans and observed some C 20 demonstrations of these improvements and we have conclude 21 adequ, ate progress has been made on the deficiencies.
( 22 Based on successful exercises at Yanken Rowe 23 Vermont Yankee within the past year, the Commonwealth of 24 Massachusetts has demonstrated capability to manage en Based on the findings abos 25 emergency at the state level.
)
4 88 1 then, we believe there is reasonable assurance that even with 2 the lack of a recent exercise adequate protective actions can 3 and will be taken in the event of an emergency at the Pilgrim 4 Plant.
5- rurthermore, we expect that the status or emergency l
6 preparedness will continue to improve in the coming weeks as 7 Massachusetts and local officials continue to finalize the 8 plans in preparation for a full scale exercise. In summary l
9 then, our overall conclusions with regard tn Pilgrim are that 10 the staff believes the Pilgrim Plant is substantially safer 11 today than at the time of the shutdown in April of 1986.
l l 12 There are more licensed operators and they are better l
13 trained, a greater depth of management experience. There are 14 improved emergency operating procedures in place. There are 15 improved safety attitudes among the plant worxers. There are l
, 16 improved conditions of plant equipment and there have been 17 safety enhancement improvements made. We further believe that 18 emergency preparedness is in better shape today than it was in 19 April 1986.
l 20 We believe that the Pilgrim Plant is ready to restart 21 and can and will be operated safely. We also believe, however, 22 that there must be continued progress in finalizing the 23 resolution of outstanding emergency preparedness issues. In
! o
- 24 light of the extended shutdown of-the-plant, we will closely f
25 observe the plant and the operating staf f performance as well 6
89 1 as the expected continuing progress in emergency planning to 2 assure ourselv'es that our findings remain valid.
l 3 MR. STELIO: We are through, Mr. Chairman, i
4 CHAIRMAN EECH: All right, thank you very much.
5 Questions from my fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts?
6 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Two quick ones. The increased i
j 7 NRC oversight, if I've got the numbers'the right, an average a plan would be 2,500 to 3,000 up to 11,000, where is that coming L
l 9 from, out of Region I or from Washington?
10 MR. RUSSELL: It has principally thus far come from 1
11 Region I, although we have had substantial support from NRR and 12 also we have had commitments from NRR to provide additional 13 support from both NRR and/or the other regions to support the j l
14 augmented inspection activities during power ascension. l 15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Second question. Is Pilgrim 16 the only Mark I BWR to affect the torus venting?
17 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. There are other facilities 18 which have that capability, but not hardened. That has been in 19 existence since Revision 2 of the Emergency Operating
^
20 Procedures for General Electric and the change in this instance 21 is piping systems which are designed to handle the elevated 22 pressure rather than using installed duct work associated with 23 standby gas treatment systems, which would likely fail under 24 the increased pressures. Nine Mile Point 1, for example, has a l l
! 25 hardened vent that is similar. Peach Bottom has a venting l
l 1
m _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ . , . -
i 90 1 capability. Some vent paths are capable of handling the higher 2 pressures, i 3 This is one that is designed specifically for that 4 purpose. 'It does include a rupture disk in the design. So f
i 5 even though it is a vent, it would not be used until you got to 6 elevated pressure so that there is not a potential for an 7 inadvertent release through that path.
4 l 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Thank you. That's all I have.
]
9 MR. STELLO: I might add, Commissioner Roberts, that l
s 10 that's the best one we've seen.
i
! 11 CHAIRMAN EECH: Mr. Carr?
i .
j 12 COMMISSIONER CARR: [Yes. I would like to ask about 13 the Area 2 state plan. You said it was submitted to TEMA for a 14 technical review. My understanding is it was jast going down 15 there for information and comment rather than for any official 16 review. Is that right?
17 MR. BELLAMY: Sir, I think that's a term that we've
] 18 used a great deal over the.last couple of months in our W
19 discussions with both FEMA and the Commonwealth of 20 Massachusetts.
1 21 COMMISSIONER CARR: It wasn't down there for i
22 approval, I guess, is what I'm told.
23 MR. BELLAMY: The plans and procedures and the 24 Massachusetts civil Defense Agency Area 2 plan have been I
25 forwcrded with documentation from Massachusetts Civil Defense
! I i l i I 91 4
- 1 Agency to FEMA for what they term a technical review.
- t. It does I 1
~
. 2 not imply that the Commonwealth has approved those plans and 3 that caveat is'in ea:h transmittal letter.3 21 <
l 4 CHAIRMAN EECH: Commissioner Rogers.
l 5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I've heard a* number of
- 6 presentations here today, people from Massachusetts and people
- 7 from the staff and we've been asked to consider them all very i
- - 8 carefully and to weigh them in making a decision. I'm trying i i i 9 to sort out in.my own mind whether I'm hearing the same things 10 from everybody.
I 11 I heard that there are no plans for dealing with an 1 12 emergency at Pilgrim in place and that none of the local l 13 ' agencies are ready to deal with any of this. I first wonder 14 whether Massachusetts seems to be in that happy circumstance l 15 that it never has any natural disasters or it can anticipate no 16 natural disasters and if it does face the reality of those, how l 17 does it do it if there are no plans in place.
18 [I wonder, Dr. Bellamy, if yod could just say a few 19 words to try to put into some context your views and statements 20 with' respect to the cooperation of local officials and their 21 ability to deal with an emergency plan with the statements that 22 we heard from other folks from Massachusetts earlier before the 23 NRC and licensee presentations.
24 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, I'd be glad to.
25 I think the caveat that you heard earlier today a number of w-.. - . . - - , . - , , . . . , -, -.- ,- , .r-.. . - ~ -.r-r
t l l l
92 i
- 1 times that there are no plans and procedures in place
! I j 2 specifically 'aplies or specifically states that the 3 Commonwealth has not officially approved those plans and 4 procedures and sent them to FEMA with that approval'and until l
- 5 the commonwealth gives those plants and procedures'that
- 6 official approval, they will continue to state that there are j 7 no plans and procedures in place.]22 i
! 8 I have been intimately involved in this review for i
9 six years. As I've indicated, the last three years have been -
! 10 - a lot of time spent on Pilgrim. I have personally met with l 11 some of the local planning officials in the Plymouth area. I l
1 2., bo n3
{
12 have toured the Duxbury beaches. [I have visited the, local 13 emergency operating cente nd those facilities are there and a
l 14 they are ready to be used in an emergency.]23 j l f i 15 [ The people that are generating the procedures and the ;
l l l 16 people that have generated the plans are the specific a
I 17 individuals, the local emergency planning officials, the select l
18 men, the mayors, fire chiefs, the civil defense directors who I
l ,
19 would be charged to use those plans and procedures in the event j
i .
20 of an emergency.
21 '
So, they are aware of the information in those 22 procedures and would be prepared to use them if necessary.]
23 COMMISSIONER CARR Do they have copies of them?
i 24 MR. BELIAMY: The individuals who have been preparing l 25 procedures at the administration level -- yes, sir. They do.
Y 1
f l
l l
93 l 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: [ Just with respect to another l -
l 2 statement that was made, I guess by Senator Kennedy, Dr.
l 3 Murley, I wonder if you could comment on his statement that you l
l 4 had made'a commitment that emergency preparation plans 5 including a demonstration exercise of such plans would be held i
6 before restart.
7 MR. MURLEY: Yes. That was -- what he was referring a to was in my testimony in Plymouth in J.anuary of this year.
9 What I said was.that we would expect to see progress in 10 improving the plans and that we would expect to have -- to 11 observe a limited demonstration of those improvements.
12 What Dr. Bellamy described -- what his staff and my 1
13 staff have done over the last I believe month or two have been I
14 in fact the demonstrations that we mentioned. The school bus 15 drivers and that sort of activity.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: In other words, you feel you l 17 have --
i 18 MR. NURLEY: We did not say -- we never had an I l
19 intention that there would be an exercise or a limited 20 exercise. Of course, that can only happen once the state 21 submits plans to FEMA and ht'at gets scheduled. We did have in 22 mind and we have completed our observation to our satisfaction 23 that the key elements necessary to implement this plan, that 24 is, bus drivers and routes and ambulance drivers have taken f 25 place and we have observed that.
i l
- 4
l .
i 94 l
1 CONNISSIONER ROGERS: Is that in fact what you were 2 talking about when you made that statement?
l 3 MR. MURLEY:
Absolutely, yes.]
4 )GR. RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, if I could expand on l
5 that because I had a meeting in Region I with various 6 representatives from the Commonwealth including the Governor's l
office, the legislature, the Attorney General and others and I 7
8 described quite clearly at that meeting.that there are a range 9 of ways that the staff can evaluate deficiencies. It can be 10 from a tabletop exercise. It can be from a review of the 11 plans. It can be from a limited demonstration with staff 12 members riding buses with bus drivers.
13 So, we made it quite clear in each case that the 1
l 14 standard we would use for judging is that which is necessary I l
15 for the staff to get the information it needs to reach its 4
16 conclusion. In each case, the Commonwealth has taken the 17 position that they, the Commonwealth, would only be satisfied 1
18 with a full-scale exercise.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think I heard something that l 20 I'd like you to repeat just once again, Dr. Murley, if you 21 could.' Did I hear you say correctly, emergency procedures are 22 in better shape now than they were in 19867 23 MR. NURLEY: That is our conclusion. Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Dr. Bellamy, it sounds to se like i 25 from what you're telling us is that you've received a fair I
95 i -
1 amount of cooperation from the state and local officials; is 2 that correct? '
3 [MR. BELIAMY: Mr. Chairman, the cooperation that I 4 have receive'd is in the lines of making sure that I'm aware of 4
5 the stnius of the information and the cooperation in making 6 sure that I know exactly who has done what, what plans and )
7 procedures have been written, where they stand in the review 8 and the fact that they are going to FEMA now for a technical li . j 9 review without the --
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you've had a fair amount of 11 interface with the local officials.
I 12 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And they seem to bo conversing with
. 14 you and working with your is that correct?
15 MR. BELLAMY: Pretty much so. I have a number of the 1 16 public that call me quite regularly, that are here today and we !
- 17 converse probably on a daily basis. Yes, sir.
1 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Do you have any difficulty as far as l 19 the local officials are concerned with articulating the federal l 20 responsibilities as they might be in working with the state and i 21 local, responsibilities?
22 MR. BELLAMY: No, sir. There's been no problem in 23 that area. We have held a number of public meetings up in that 2 24 area and I have in any number of occasions been up in front of 25 a large number of members of the public and elected officials i O
96 1 to make sure that they understand the responsibilities of the 2 federal community, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 3 Commonwealth and the local officials. Some of these meetings 4 have dragged on till 1:30 in the morning, sir.]26 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Could you talk to me a li'ttle bit 6 about the training and perhaps when do you think that the 7 training might be completed and could you talk a little bit 8 about any other plans and procedures that should be exercised 9 at least to the extent that you might have satisfaction that in 10 a real emergency, the public health and safety would be_
. . rd.eu by A 6 4' 11 protected. Pi w Aceg.;-3 -e tot b um . N oloc.l u im p to...$ p roc.,4s etm,otu3 4 -s C.p .utk
< pt s ..A k a~A M 1o ur s 12 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, sir. There are approximately 300 13 as a round number of required implementing procedures and as I /
14 indicated, there are five of those procedures t$dbI have yet 4mr beew 15 4mr sent to the commonwealth with any type of approval from the 16 local officials. These3 procedures deal specifically with the 17 schoolchildren and some of the special needs populations in 18 Plymouth which is the town.that the Pilgrim Station is in and 19 in Duxbury which is also in the Emergency Planning Zone.
20 The -- to use the term, training is complete, I think 21 is mi41eading. You will never complete the training for 22 emergency preparedness. Emergency preparedness is a living 23 area and you always will be training new people and you always 24 have new people becoming involved in the process.
25 I would think that by the end of the year, there will
-. .- ...-.- . - . - - . . - . . - . - . - ...- - - - -- - .- - - ~ - . . - - ..
97 i
l 1 be the overwhelming majority of the 6,000 people trained that i
j 2 have been specified in the Commonwealth-approved training :
3 program.
]
- 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- How about some of these areas that i
l 5 are difficult to evacuate in the area. Could you discuss that I 6 a little bit?
l l 7 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, sir. I think the two specific s
- 8 concerns that come up -- one is for the schoolchildren and I'd ,
l 9 like to comment on that first. The draft plans and
! l l 10 implementing procedures now indicate that at the alert stage of t
l 11 a nuclear emergency, they will begin to assemble the necessary i 12 transportation for evacuation of the schoolchildren and at the 13 site area emergency stage, they would implement that i
j 14 evacuation.
15 That's a ssary and needed and far-reaching l 16 improvement over what's been seen in the past whereas you could I i
17 wait until that general emergency stage to actually consider
! 18 that evacuation. The schoolchildren will be moved out long 19 before that stage.
! 20 [The beach population area -- I have toured that beach i
! 21 population -- it is required to get on and off that beach with I
i 22 a four-wheel drive vehicle. You could not take your car on it.
- 23 So, there is some limited access. There are a fair number of i -
! 24 permits that are issued to those four-wheel drive vehicles.
25 The number is in the several thousands and they have i
l I u -- -
8 98 1 made sure that the plans and procedures indicate that those l 2 beaches will be closed at an early stage so that you would not 3 put more people on those beaches if there is any type of event i 4 at the Pil'gria Station.]
! 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: Do they overnight on those l 6 beaches?
l 7 MR. BELLAMY: No, sir. They do not.
I 8 COMMISSIONER CARR: So they must clear out between 9 high tides.
i
- 10 MR. BELLAMY
- [The high tide issue is for a very small 11 section of that beach and there are approximately 2,000 to 1
12 4,000 people at the most that would be there during a bright, 13 sunny. summer weekend.
i j 14 COMMISSIONER CARR: No, but I mean if they can't stay l 15 overnight, it's only twelve hours between low tides. They must i
l 16 come off in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
- hi3 (
) 17 MR. BELLAMY: The 41ne tide issue is not for every i
18 tide. That is only for flood tide type conditions. So, if you i
19 got the perception from some of our earlier speakers that every l 20 twelve hours that beach is isolated, I think that's a j 21 misconception.
f 22 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, even if it is shorter than 23 that, that would be the longest if they have to clear out by 24 dark.
i g
l 25 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, sir, and those beaches are 77 only j
1 i
i
4 99 1 approximately four hours a month.]
2 MR. MURLEY: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I 3 would like to add that might help to clarify. The deficiencies j 4 that were.fo'und by FEMA were planning type deficiencies, not 5 execution deficiencies. Generally, as I said, thage have been 6 many exercises up there, both full and partial. I mentioned I j 7 that I personally observed one.
l 8 The authorities know how to do their job. Bus I
9 drivers know how to drive buses. Ambulance drivers know how to 4
10 drive ambulances. The problems have been that not all the t
i 11 places were accounted for in the plans that they had to go to l 12 and so forth. That is what we have been focusing on, to make j
(
13 sure that those plans are in draft form have been updated. ,
t 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. To --
15 A VOICE: Mr. Chairman.
i 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Dr. Bellamy.
17 A VOICE: Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Dr. Bellamy.-
s
! 19 A VOICE: I wish to challenge that this presentation l
l
~
20 has b'een made, and it's full of half-truths. I'm not going to l 21 stand here and listen.to this, Mr. Chairman.
! 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You don't have to stand here.
1 l
23 Dr. Bellamy, you have told us that you believe they 24 have made considerable progress and there has been a fair
. 25 amount of interface, at least I would consider a lot of good i
H
i . .
100 1 working relationship between you and the people that are doing 2 the job in that area; is that correct?
3 MR. BELLAMY: Yes, sir; it is. l 4 : CHAIRMAN ZECH: On the other hand, how long would it 5 take you do you think or how much time would we need to make 6 the progress that perhaps would be necessary for a little more 7 confidence that all of the emergency planning procedures could l
l 8 be satisfied and in your interfaces, can you give us any l
9 estimate of how long it would be before the state, far example, 1
l 10 would be satisfied that their procedures are in place to the 11 point where they could submit them to FEMA and we would have 12 what I would term a closure on this? Can you give any estimate 13 at all?
14 MR. STELLC Mr. Chairman, we talked about the issue l 15 of the amount of time, the schedule it will take to complete 16 it. In my opening comments I said we talked about whether we 17 could make that estimate. We can't. We don't have that 18 schedule. Dr. Murley has indicated that once the plans have 19 been submitted to FEMA, our estimate, with no extra effort, in 20 order to get the plans reviewed, the exercise planned for and 21 conducted, would be about six months. How long it will be 22 before the Commonwealth will submit the plans, Dr. Murley has 23 indicated in our conversations when I have asked the question 24 that he has been unable to get that schedule. We will continue 25 to try to get it. The candid answers, we don't know.
l l
1
l 101 l
1 COMMISSIONER CARR: Six months after submission of '
2 the plans by the state before the exarcise could be scheduled?
3 MR. STELLO: Without doing anything unusual. I think 4 if we tried, we could do better.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR: Normal. ,
l 6 MR. RUSSELL: I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that l
7 issue has been requested several times in correspondenco from 8 FEMA to the Commonwealth requesting the schedule and the 9 Commonwealth has not responded to that.' We specifically I
10 requested that of the Commonwealth on the October 5th meeting
. . 11 ard they would not give us a schedule at that time as to when i
12 they would be willing to commit to submitting plans.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are you telling us, is it the staff's 14 conclusion that in your considered opinion that the Pilgrim ,
15 plant is ready to re-start in view of what we have heard 16 regarding emergency planning and all other issues?
17 KR. STELLO: Yes, sir.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other comments from my fellow 19 Commissioners?
20 (No response.)
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just say first that I would 22 like to thank the Boston Edison Company for their participation 23 here today and for their addressing these issues over the past 24 months and years. It looks like progress has been made, 25 significant efforts have gone into it, management efforts as
l l
102 1 well as equipment improvements. I'd also like to commend the l 2 staff for their very close and extensive work in this area on l 3 the Pilgrim plant. I know an awful lot of effort has gone into l 4 it, in Region I as well as Headquarters.
5 I believe that the earlier presentations'we heard 6 today are important for us to consider, too. Certainly it 7 would appear from what we have heard I believe that protection I 8 of the public health and safety at the Pilgrim plant has been 9 substantially enhanced by the corrective actions that have been 10 taken since the plant was shut down.
11 I'd also like to commend the continuing efforts of l 12 the state and local officials for their work especially in the i
j 13 area of emergency plans for the Pilgrim facility. The states' 14 ability to participate in and execute emergency planning l 15 responsibilities has been demonstrated repeatedly at various l
16 nuclear facilities within and bordering the State of 17 Massachusetts.
18 I would encourage' continued efforts of the state and 19 local governments in order to complete the work on the proposed 20 improvements to the Massachusetts' portion of the program 21 emergency plans.
22 I would like to thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry i 23 for his efforts to be here today also, Lieutenant Governor
! 24 Murphy for coming to appear before us today as well as I
- j. 25 Representative Studds.
1 ,
103 1 Frankly, from what I've heard today and given the 2 information we'have heard, I would propose to my fellow 3 Commissioners that we not make a re-start vote today but I 4 would ask:my fellow commissioners to carefully consider all' i 5 that has been said towards reaching a conclusion considering 6 re-start of the Pilgrim facility. I hope we can come to a i
7 timely conclusion.
- 8 On the other hand, I do believe we need time to 9 ' reflect on what we have heard today and perhaps a little more 10 time to make more progress to enhance what we have done already 11 towards emergency planning.
12 The commission does indeed have to have the 13 confidence that emergency plans could be executed if necessary.
14 I'd ask my fellow commissioners if they would agree 15 with as that we not hold a vote today. Any opposed to that?
16 (Commissioners nodding in agreement.)
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see none opposed. The decision is l l
18 that we not have a re-start vote today.' I would ask Boston l l
19 Edison, the state and local officials with the involvement of 20 the NRC staff and FEMA as necessary, I would encourage you and 21 commend you to continue working together on this emergency 22 planning issue at the Pilgrim site so that the Commission can l 23 be confident that we will be making a proper decision. We need l
24 time to reflect on this. That is the decision of the l 25 Commission today. I would ask the:e who are involved in this I
e
- - - - , - . e
~
I .
l l
104 1 very important matter to continue their efforts and in the 2 seantine the Co'maission will reflect on this issue and we will 3 expect to be hearing from the staff as progress continues in 4 the future.
5 Anything else to come before us? -
6 (No response.)
- 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, we stand adjourned. Thank 8 you very much. l 9 [Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.)
l l l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1
20 l 21 .
l 22 l 23 24 l 25 l
)
i e CERTIFICATE OF TFANSCRIBER I
This is to certify that the attached events
~
of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
i TITLE OF MEETING: DISCUSSI'ON/POSSIBLE V0TE ON PILGRIM RESTART PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1988 i
i were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best l
- of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
k k \
l i
, Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
1 4,
e 4
0
References in Support of Statements Made During the October 14, 1988 I
Comission Meeting
. (Copies of references are attached) l
- 1. Transcript (hereinafter Tr.) at 79, Line (hereinafter 11) 19-21.
l Memorandum to Frank J. Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, NRC, from Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, dated August 6, 1987,
Subject:
Offt.ite Emergency Planning at Pilgrim, Attachment at 2-8.
- 2. Tr. at 79,11 23-25 and Tr. at 80, 11 1-5. Id at 1.
- 3. Tr. at 80,11 6-7. Letter to Ralph G. Bird, Senior Vice President -
Nuclear, Boston Edison, from Steven A. Varga, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, NRC, dated August 18, 1987,
Subject:
FEMA Report on Offsite Emergency Planning for Pilgrim.
- 4. Tr. at 80,11 7-8. Letter to NRC from Ralph G. Bird, Senior Vice President - Nuclear, Boston Edison, dated September 17, 1987,
Subject:
i Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues.
- 5. Tr. at 80,11 8-12. Richard W. Krimm, Supra at 1.
- 6. Tr. at 80, 11 13-15. Id. at 1, Attachment at 2-8.
i
- 7. Tr. at 80,11 16-20. Memorandum to James M. Taylor, Deputy Executive !
Director for Regional Operations, NRC, from William T. Russell, Regional :
Administrator, Region I, dated October 19, 1988,
Subject:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station: Emergency Preparedness Public Coments; and Memorandum to William J. Lazarus, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, Region I, from i
! Craig J. Conklin, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I, j dated November 1, 1988,
Subject:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Veetings
~
Regarding Emergency Preparedness.
. 8. Tr. at 80,11 20-23. Id.
- 9. Tr. at 80,11 24-25 and 81,11 1-16. Numerous letters to Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency from EPZ towns forwarding planning documents including: i i Town of Duxbury, dated March 9, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; ;
Town of Carver, dated January 12, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; l Town of Plymouth, dated January 8, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; l
, City of Taunton, dated January 4,1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; Town of Kingston, dated December 30, 1987,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review;
- 1 1
Town of Marshfield, dated August 12, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Shelter Implementation Program Sumary, and Cross Reference Table review; City of Taunton, dated August 15, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, i l
Implementing Procedures and Cross Reference Table for review; Town of Bridgewater, dated September 21, 1988
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Corrective Action Response, and Cross Reference Table for review; Town of Kingston, dated October 5, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Corrective Action Response, and Cross Reference Table for review; and Town of Carver, dated October 4,1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Sheltering Implementation Program and Cross Referer.ce Table for review.
Letters to FEMA Region I from Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) '
forwarding planning documents including:
MCDA to FEMA Region I, dated February 4,1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan for the towns of Plymouth, Carver, Kingston and the city of Taunton for review; )
MCDA to FEMA Region I, dated September 6,1988
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Shelter Implementation Program and Cross '
Reference Table for the Town of Marshfield and Emergency Plan, Implementation Procedures and Cross Reference Table for the City of Taunton for review; MCDA to FEMA Region I, dated September 23, 1988,
Subject:
Area II .
Emergency Plan for review; and l MCDA to FEMA Region I, dated September 30, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, l Implementing Procedures and Cross Reference Table for review.
l
- 10. Tr. at 81,11 17-19. NRC Inspection Report 50-29/88-08, Yankee Atomic Power Company, dated June 7,1988; and NRC Inspection Report 50-271/88-13, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, dated October 6, 1988. Although ,
FEMA reports on these two exercises have not yet been issued, the NRC, by l its participation in the Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC) process, was !
aware at the time of the October 14, 1988 Comission Meeting that '
deficiencies identified in the statewide plan had been corrected.
. 11. Tr. at 82,11 5-9. Letter to NRC from Ralph G. Bird, Senior Vice President-Nuclear, Boston Edison, dated October 7, 1988
Subject:
Boston Edison Company Comments on Draft of "A Report on Progress Made in Emergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station", Attachment at 49 and 58.
- 12. Tr. at 82, 11 10-12. Letter from Michael S. Dukakis, Governor Comonwealth of Massachusetts, to Lando Zech, Chairman, NRC, dated October 11, 1988,
Subject:
Forwarding of "A Report on Progress Made in Emergency Planning l
for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station", Attachment l
at 38 and 39.
I i
. ~ . . . .
l
)
l l
l 4
l l )
- 13. Tr. at 82,11 12-24. Memorandum to William Russell, Regional Administrator, Region I, from William Lazarus, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section.
Region I, dated September 9,1988
Subject:
Status of Offsite Emergency
, Preparedness at Pilgrim; and Memo to William Lazarus, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section Region I from Craig Conklin, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I, dated October 20, 1988
Subject:
Hands On Training for Transportation Providers for the Pilgrim EPZ.
- 14. Tr. at 83,11 5-10. Dukakis, Su ra at Attachment 32; and Letter to Charles V. Barry, Secretary, Executive ce of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from John L. Lovering, Deputy Director, Massachusetts Civil ,
Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness, dated October 11, 1988, '
Subject:
Feasibility Study Involving the Suitability of the State Depart-ment of Public Works Garage located in Wellesley, Ma. as a Potential Reception / Processing Center for Evacuees in the Event of an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, MA, at Attachment at 2-8.
- 15. Tr. at 83,11 10-15. Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts from Ronald A. Varley, Staff Assistant to Senior Vice President - Nuclear, dated December 23, 1987,
Subject:
Reception Center Feasibility Analysis, At Attachment at 1-3.
l 16. Tr. at 84,11 2-7. Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts from Robert C. Spearin, Director, Department of Civil Defense, City of Taunton, dated October 5, 1988,
Subject:
comments on the draft "A Report on Progress Made in
. Energency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power l Station".
- 17. Tr. at 84, 11 8-9. Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts from Ralph G. 81rd, Senior Vice President - Nuclear, dated October 26, 1987, Sebject: Pilgrim EPZ Public Beach Population Analysis; Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachuseti.s from Ralph G.
l Bird, Senior Vice Fresident - Nuclear, dated June 30, 1987
Subject:
information to resolve concerns in FEMA Self-Initiated Review; Letter !
to Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Committee, FEMA 1
. Region I from Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radio-
, logical Protection Branch, Region I, dated June 12, 1987,
Subject:
l " Evacuation Time Estinate and Beach Population Sheltering", " Mobility l
Impaired", and "Special Facilities", and Pilgrim Station Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffic Management Plan Update, dated August 25, 1988.
- 18. Tr. at 84,11 10-12 Marshfield Shelter Implementation Program, submitted j for review August 12, 1988. Dukakis, Supra at Attachnent at 61-64 The l Marshfield program is representative of programs for each of the other EPZ ,
communities that the staff was aware were in various stages of preparation !
at the time of the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting.
1 l t
I i
- 19. Tr. at 84, 11 12-16 Letter to to Charles V. Barry, Secretary, Executive Office of Public Safety, Comonwealth of Massachusetts, from Henry G.
Vickers, Regional Director, FEMA, Region I, dated August 22, 1988,
Subject:
Response to Comonwealth concerns on Emergency Preparedness issues.
- 20. Tr. at 84, 11 17-18. Supra at Item 18.
- 21. Tr. at 90,11 12-25 and Tr. at 91, 11 1-3. Among the numerous letters I referenced in Item 9 See letter from Robert J. Boulay, Director, Civil l Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness, Comonwealth of Massachusetts, to Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Comittee, FEMA, Region I, dated September 23, 1988.
- 22. Tr. at 91, 11 18-25 and Tr. at 92, 11 1-7 Numerous letters previously cited in Item 9.
- 23. Tr. at 92, 11 12-14. This statement referred to a specific visit made to the Duxbury E0C on October 6, 1988 (see Enclosure 2, Attachment 4), and was not meant to imply all the E0Cs had been toured prior to October 14, 1988. Since that time, the staff has toured each of the seven local E0Cs for the Pilgrim Station (see Enclosure 3). !
l
- 24. Tr. at 92, 11 15-22. Dukakis, Supra at Attachment at 11. l
- 25. Tr. at 93, 11 1-25 and Tr. at 94, 11 1-3. Testimony Before the Senate l Labor and Human Resources Committee Regarding The Pilgrim Nuclear Power i Station, by Dr. Thomas Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 1 Regulation, NPC, dated January 7,1988, at page 8 of prepared statement. l
- 26. Tr. at 95, 11 3-25 and Tr. at 96, 11 1-4 Prior to the October 14, 1988 meeting, the staff had interacted primarily with the Commonwealth I on technical issues related to emergency planning. The staff was aware !
of local officials' concerns regarding emergency preparedness through l the staff and others at which emergency I attendance preparednessatissues the meeting held by(see enclosure 2).
were raised After the October 14, 1988 meeting, the staff met with all seven Civil Defense Directors, two Selectmen and others (see enclosure 3).
- 27. Tr. at 97,11 20-25 and Tr. at 98, 11 1 4 See information provided in Items 7, 9 and 17.
- 28. Tr. at 98, 11 10-25 and Tr. at 99, 11 1. See information provided in 17 and 11. Letter to Ronald Bellamy, NRC from Mary C. Ott and Donald M.
Muirhead Jr., M.D., Co-Chairmen, Citizens Urging Responsible Energy, dated
, September 30, 1988
Subject:
Report on the Problems of Evacuation and l Sheltering of Beach / Transient Populations Due to the Proximity of Pilgrim l
1 Station, i
l
maas:o O
/ e,, UNITED STATES
, - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C.20065 3 g- . ;n
(,
/ October 27, 1988 CHAIRMAN ,
i Mr. Peter W. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary l Executive Office of Public Safety The Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Bosten, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
In response to your reouest of October 17, 1988, I am enclosing !
a cecy of the transcript of the Octcber 12, 1988 Commission l meeting on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The NRC staff has identifieo statements made at the meeting that they believe may need clarification. A copy of their suggested clarifi- ,
cations is also enclosed. ;
1 Sincerely, !
l
[44r44 k [k, Lando W. Z h, Jr Enclesures. l (a) Commission Peeting Transcript (b) Staff Proposed Clarifications.
cc: The Honorable Evelyn Murphy Originated: NRR:Wessman p g y q6f IP
A 4
qp. ( Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 AUG 6 1987 MDORANDlM FOR: Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Dnergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. uclea 1 ry Ccnmission l FEM: ilun Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs SUiUECT: Offsite Emergency Planning at Pilgrim In my namorandum to you on July 13, 1987, I stated the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FD%) would deliver to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission (NRC) a firding on the ade;luacy of the of fsite energency preparedness plans for the Pilgrim Nuclear P::wer Station on or abcut August 15, 1987. 'Ihis is an update of our previous interim firding which was transmitted to the NRC on November 2,1983, along with a copy of the exercise report evaluating the initial joint State ard local offsite radiological emergency preparedness exercise. 'Ihese reports were provided to the NRC pursuant to the NRC/FD%
Mecorardum of Understanding of November 1980, and in response to the NRC's request for assistance concerning energency preparedness issues at Pilgrim dated September 6,1983. In addition, in a nemorand.am to NRC on March 31, l 1987, FD% indicar.ed that the response to the related 2.206 petition would I be consolidated with the results of FD%'s self-initiated review of the overall state of of fsite emergency preparedness and other relevant information.
! FD%'s report, entitled "Self-Initiated Review and Interim Firding for the Pilgrim Nuclear P:>er Station" dated August 4,1987, is attached. Incits$ed as attach ents to the re;crt are "FD% Coments on the Tseport to the Governor l on Dnergency Preparedness for an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Pcwer Station"
! dated July 29,1987 (located at Tab 1 in the attached bin $er), and FD%'s'
" Analysis of Emergency Preparedness Issues at Pilgrim Nuclear Powr Station Raf ud in a Petition to the NRC dated July 15, 1986". FD%'s analysis of i
the mes raised in the 2.206 petition is dated July 29, 1987, and is located I at Tab 2 of the attached binder.
Based on the Self-Initiated Feview ard Interim Finding, FD% has concluded that !bssache,etts of fsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness
( are iradeqw.e to protect the public health and safety in the went of an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Because of the changed cir-l cunstances discussed in the re; ort, the firding of adequacy contained in l
FDR's previous interim finding no longer applies ard that interim finding is hereby superseded.
If you have any questions, please contact N '4t,',646-R87,1
/ .
Attachrents i.
l As Stata$ .,"'-.,..g Q-()Nb
I.
SUMMARY
On September 5, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) informed the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that it was undertaking a review of its September 29, 1982 Interia
- Finding for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station because of concerns raised during meetings in the Spring of 1986 and information received subsequent to those meetings from local i officials, the Commonwealth, and other interested parties.
FEMA identified six issues during the course of that review:
- Lack of evacuation plans for public and private
- schools and daycare centers.
- Lack of a reception center for people evacuating to the north. ,
l
- Lack of identifiable public shelters for the beach population.
- Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs population.
- Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the
- transport dependent population.
- Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent i dimirution in emergency preparedness.
i 1
i FEMA has analyzed these issues pertaining to the radiological emergency response plan and has reviewed the plan and exercise reports in conformance with applicable standards.
j FEMA concludes that the plan and preparedness for the state 1
i l
I l
and local governments within the plume exposure pathway for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station are not adequate to protect j l l
( the health and safety of the public in the event of an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. This Interim Finding supercedes the Interim Finding of September 29, 1982.
1 II. BACEGROUND on June 16,- 1981, the Director of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Energency Preparedness (MCDA) submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
on behalf of the Governor, the State Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, together with its Annexes, for Massachusetts and the local communities within the Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located in Plymouth, Massachusetts. In his letter of transmittal which accompanied this plan he stated, as required by Federal Regulation (See, 44 CFR 350.7), that "this plan is, in the opinion of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency, adequate to protect the public health and i safety of the Commonwealth's citizens within the designated emergency planning zones of the Pilgrim Station and provides i
2
j d
i for appropriate protective measures to be taken by the State and local governments in the event of a radiological emergency at the Pilgrim Station". -
FEMA and the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) reviewed l
I this plan and issued a report review in October, 1981.
j As a consequence of this report the Commonwealth revised the l plan. FE>1A and the RAC reviewed this revision and issued a second report containing an analysis of areas where the plan i was weak in September, 1982. FEMA has received no response from the Commonwealth regarding further revision of its plan.
i l
In the interim, FEMA sponsored a public meeting, held on June :
3, 1982, to discuss the Commonwealth's Radiological Emergency 4
Response Plan for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The
! following issues were raised by the public at the meeting:
i The ability to evacuate communities within the 10-mile EPZ.
- The ability to evacuate Cape Cod beyond the 10-mile EPZ.
- Reliability and effectiveness of the sirens.
- Training and education of teachers, school bus drivers, and hospital personnel.
l Information brochures for the public, including transients.
l 3
/
4 4
I l
- Policy on the use of radioprotective drugs.
- Protection of the elderly and others with special needs.*
The Commonwealth responded to all these concerns, stating that the plan." provide (s) adequately for safe and orderly evacuation of communities within the 10-mile EPZ"8 and pledging to work toward further improvement of the plan.
FEMA then issued an Interim Finding for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station on September 29, 1982. It found that although there were problems with the plan, "the state plan and local plans together are adequate to protect the health and safety of the publie."2 2xer ises testing this plan were conducted on March 3, 1982 June 29, 1983,.and Septemb& 5, 1985; a Remedial Exercise was conducted on October 29, 1985; and FEMA observed a Drill on August 15, 1984. " Deficiencies", " areas requiring corrective action", and " areas recommended for improvement" 1 Follow-up to the June 3, 1982 Public Meeting, FEMA, p. 1 8 Ibid., p. 1 8 Interim Findings Joint State and Local Radiological Emergency l
Response Capabilities for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Plymouth, Massachusetts, FEMA, September 29, 1982, p. 5.
i 4
1 i
i l
were identified. As FEMA now uses the ters, " deficiencies" are problems identified in plan implementation which preclude a finding that a plan is adequate to protect the health and safety of the public. " Areas requiring corrective action" 1
are defined as inadequacies in State and local government
)
performance observed during an exercise; although their correction is required, they are not considered, by themselves, to so adversely impact public health and
, safety, as to preclude a finding that the plans and preparedness are adequate to protect public health and safety. " Areas recommended for improvement" are defined as i
problem areas observed. during an exercise that are not considered to adversely impact public health and safety. No deficiencies remain outstanding from FEMA's evaluation of these exercises. Many " areas requiring corrective action" and
" areas recommended for improvement", however, have not been addressed to date.
By March, 1985, status of off-site radiological emergency
,i response planning for the pilgrim Nuclear Power Station was: (1) many planning problems remained unresolved from the October, 1981 RAC Review; (2) the Commonwealth had not responded to the September, 1982 RAC Rev,iew; and (3) it had not provided FEMA with schedules of corrective actions for the problems identified in the 1982 and 1983 5
j exercises, which (as required by FEMA guidance) had been due within 30 days following the issuance of the exer'eise I reports. On March 6, 1985 FEMA, therefore, informed the Commonwealth by letter that, because of unresolved emergency l planning issues, it was suspending processing of the l
Massachusetts request for formal emergency plan approval ande i,
- pursuant to 44 CFR 350. On June 20, 1985 the Commonwealth l
sent FEMA a schedule, both of actiona it had taken and )
specific measures it was planning to take, to correct the problems identified in the 1983 exercise; plus general steps l taken to correct problems identified in the 1982 exercise.
However, the plan improvements the State promised have not yet been delivered to FEMA.
i 1
In its evaluation ut the September 5, 1985 pilgrim Exercise FEMA found that many of the previously identified problems had been corrected, but it identified new problems and four
~
" deficiencies". The Commonwealth corrected the "deficien-i cies", as evidenced in an October 29, 1985 Remedial Exercise.
i' It has not yet, however, provided FEMA a schedule of corrective actions for the 1985 exercise. FEMA guidance requires the submittal of a schedule of corrective actions
- within 30 days of the issuance of the exercise report.
i 4
6 4
l
. ._ . _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ - _ . . . _ . _ .m. ___ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . , , , , _ _ _
l i
l I
I On October 30. 1985, FEMA again informed the Commonwealth by l l
letter that the processing o'r the " 350" request was not progressing because of the many, unresolved issues identified in the 1981 and 1982 RAC Review, and observed during the exerciaes. FEMA also requested copies of the 1985 version of the local plans, which were provided in June 1986. The Commonwealth replied to FEMA's letter on June 6, 1986, at which time it outlined the initiatives it was taking in order to resolve the outstand 1'ng issues, and indicated the areas in which improvements had been made in the state plan j and procedures. This reply did not, however, constitute a schedule of corrective actions'because it did not provide a date by which plan improvements were to be completed. In sum, the Self-Initiated Review was based on the 1982 Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan and the 1985 version of the local plans.
FEMA first became aware of potentially serious problems with the Commonwealth's plan during a series of meetings with the Commonwealth and local communities in the Spring of 1986.
Issues raised at these meetings, and information received subsequently, indicated that FEMA shoul$ review its Interim Finding concerning the emer:ency response plan for the l pilgrim Nuclect Power Station. Based on the information.it 7
I l
received. FEMA decided to conduct a review of the emergency response plan and preparedness for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and so informed the Commonwealth in a letter to MCDA on September 5, 1986.
On December 22, 1986, the Secretary of Public Safety, Charles Barry, forwarded to FEMA a copy of the " Report to the j Governor on Emergency preparedness for an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear power Station" (hereinafter called the Barry Report). This report stated that the Massachusetts plan and j its preparedness are inadequate to protect the health and l 1
safety of the public in the cvent of an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. FEMA was subsequently informed that the Governord and the Director of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agencys had endorsed the Barry i
Report. In the course of its self-initiated review. FEMA has l treated this report as the authoritstive and current position of the Commonwealth.
- Letter from Charles Barry, Secretary of Public Safety to Edward A. Thomas, December 22, 1986. ,
5 Letter from Robert J. Boulay, Director MCDA, to Edward A Thomas, April 10, 1987.
8
~
O&i99 m:44
-- 7W2 ..
to.003 002 6
'g
[ UNITre STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION manworow, s. c. soses August 18., 1987
- Docket No. 50-293 Mr. Ralph 6. Bird Santor Vice President Nuclear 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 SimJECT:
FEMA REPORT ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING FO
Dear Mr. Bird:
Enclosed is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) re "Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding fo? the Piigrim Nuclear Power mmorandum dated August 6,1987 Station." which was transmitte offsite emergency preparedness Based on a review for Pilgrim FEMAof the hasoverall state that concluded -
of Massachusetts offsite radiological emergenc,y plan at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
for Pilgrim. previous interim finding of adequacy regarding offsite e FEMA has identified six issues during the course of its review:
1.
Lack of canters. evacuation plans for public and private schools and daycare 2.
Lack of a reception center for people ev6cuating to the north.
, 3.
Lack of identifiable public shelters for the beach population.
4 Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs population.
S.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation dependent population.
6.
Overall prepa lack redness. of progress in planning and apparent dirninution in eraergen
/
d '
v
m m:e Y [..
t * *
- to.ac3 003 _ l 1
~:
l planning identified in William P. Golden's JulyThe FEM!
15,1986 FEMA found that while these areas of plan weakness were o not suffic sustain the contentions raised in the Petition, would enhance the $tste's ability to prvtect the public. resolution of these weak We view serious the emergency planning issues identified by FEMA to be concem. 1 in part, consideration of the FEMA identified emergency We are of aware that pertaining Massachusetts you are providing to several ofassistance these issues. and information to the Co respond to us with an action plan and schedule for assisting the State a local for governments Pilgrim. in addressing the FEMA identified emergency 1
Please contact the Project Manager if you have questions.
$1ncerely, e . ir tor Division of PeactbrJrojects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated 1
1
R C \
somwamov I
- Esecutre Offeces '
sod no/ston street Boston. Massachusetts o2199 l
Ralph G. Bird Sensor Vice Pres. dent - Nuclear I
September 17,1987 BECo Ltr.#87-148 e
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mashington, D.C. 20555 Docket 50-293 License No. DPR-35
SUBJECT:
Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues
Dear Sir:
As requested by Mr. Varga's letter of August 18, 1987, transmitting a copy of the FEMA report entitled "Self Initiated Review and Interia Finding of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station", we are enclosing an action plan and schedule 4
for assisting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and local governments in addressing the FEMA identified emergency planning issues for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
- as presented in the Theaction Commonwealth has reviewed and concurs with our assessments plan and schedule.
The enclosed action plan and schedule identifies various "subissues" derived from the FEMA report and sets forth the current status, the planned assistance to be provided by Boston Edison to the Commonwealth and local governments, the target schedules for resolution, and as necessary, an explanatory comment. As explained more fully in the introduction, the action plan and schedule is part of a comprehensive program of assistance by Boston Edison to the Commonwealth and local governments in upgrading the offsite emergency response programs relating to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
y
/ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/ Page 2 i
Please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. Ron Varley at (617) 747-8544 if any additional information is required.
1 R 1ph . Bird RGB/dlw Enclosure
! cc: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II
' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C. 20555 Mr. R. H. Nessman, Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Richard Krim, Assistant Associate Director FEMA {
500 C Street - Federal Plaza Nashington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Edward Thomas 1 FEMA - Region 1 2 J. H. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Commonwealth of MA Assistant Secretary of Public Safety j 1 Ashburton Place - Room 2133 )
Boston, MA 02108
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region 1 - 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia PA 19406 Senior NRC Resident Inspector l' Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station '
Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, MA 02360 Henry Vickers, Regional Director FEMA - Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, MA 02109
S g u .um -
[ === a=== caaaam 00T 191988 t \,.... . vtvu. ..a.
) MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Deputy Executive Director for '
) Regional Operations 4 ;
j FROM: William T. Russell '
Regional Administrator, Region I l
SUBJECT:
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PUBLIC !
! CG94ENTS The attached tables identify speakers, their affiliation and the general Energ-ency Preparedness subject area discussed during meetings between NRC officials
- and the public and local and state officials. This is a partial list of meet-l ings based upon a best effort over the last few days.
i A listing of those meetings considered is noted below:
- 1. August 1 1987 - FEMA Region I, Boston, MA
- 2. October 8, 1987 - Commonwealth of MA Meeting, Region I
- 3. January 7, 1988 - Senator Kennedy Field Hearing, Plymouth, MA February 9,1988 l j 4 - Commonwealth of MA Meeting, Boston, MA 1 j 5. February 18, 1988 - Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA i
! 6. May 11, 1988 - Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA j 7. August 15, 1988 - Plymouth Board of Selectmen Meeting, Plymouth, MA j 8. August 22, 1988 - Commonwealth of Massachusetts Framingham, MA
! 9. August 25, 1988 - SALP Management Meeting, Plymouth, MA i 10. August 26, 1988 - ACRS Subcommittee Meeting, Plymouth, MA i
- 11. September 8, 1988 - ACRS Full Committee Meeting, Bethesda, E
- 12. September 29, 1988 - Public Meeting, Plymouth, MA i 13. October 4, 1988 - Plymouth 80 erd of Selectmen Meeting, Plymouth, MA i 14. October 5, 1988 - NRC Meeting with BEco and the Commonwealth of MA,
~
Rockville, E i
f This listing does not reflect all meetings or visits in which EP issues were i discussed but rather provides for reference to those meetings during which
! transcripts were taken or meeting notes were available. The staff is continuing to develop a complete list of all meetings during which emergency
! preparedness (EP) issues were discussed. This review will be completed by
) November 1, 1988.
i William T. Russell
, Regional Adstnistrator gQ()@W Y' l
Memorandum for James M. Taylor 2 00T 191988
'- Attachments:
- As stated
! cc w/ Attachments:
T. kriey, NRR bec w/ Attachments:
4 W. Kane, ORP l S. Colitas, DRP i i:L. Doerfietn,
!! R @ DRP ".
- 5. Ebneter, DR55 R. Bellasy DRSS l
1 e
e 1
1 j
i 4
d i
4 I . .-
a i
~
i i
h I i
- l i
1 i
]
i ATTACMENT I Meeting
Title:
FEMA Self-Initiated Review Discussion Location: FEMA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts Date: August 14, 1987 Speaker Position / Title EP 1ssue/ Reference i
Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of l Facts /judgements in FEMA Report Public Safety, l
Commonwealth of Review process. 44 CFR 350 i Massachusetts j Ability of Commonwealth to respond to questions on the issues Commonwealth planned response to issues Need for an exercise Expanding the Pilgrim EPZ I
e l
l .
l l
1
ATTACHMENT 2 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: Region I ;
Date: October 8, 1987 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference 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. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary Working in good faith to gather of Public Safety information with BEco. Don't know yet if adequate plans are possible William Russell Regional Administrator FEMA EP deficiencies would be ad-dressed prior to restart Meeting Summary dated December 4,1987 e
e S
0
i i
ATTACHMENT 3 l
Meeting
Title:
Senator Kennedy Field Hearing 3 Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts i Date: January 7, 1988 i
! Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Senator Kennedy U.S. Senator
- NRC considering restart despite FEMA and Massachusetts provides that EP is not adequate 4
Concerned Re: > 10 miles (Cape Code,etc.)
William Abbott President, Plymouth Offsite radiation monitoring is Co. Nuclear Committee unsatisfactory Ann Waitkus-Arnold Chairperson, Disabled Has seen little real efforts by j Persens Advisory Board responsible agencies to ensure
~
on Nuclear Evacuation health and safety of special needs for State Office on population
' Handicapped Affairs
- Inadequate special needs survey
-- by BECo : .
i Dr. Grace Healy Chairperson, Plymouth Committee Report. in 3/87 finds Nuclear Matters offsite EP unsatisfactony 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
. Evacuation difficult
- Rachel Shimshak KASSPIRG Citizens not informed on emergency response procedures j No plans for private schools Delay restart for workable plans
- and implementation I
k d
Attachment 3 2 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference i Senator Golden State Senator
' EP for Pilgria extremely difficult (
Lt. Governor Murphy Acting Governor l Commonwealth of Absurd that NRC can over-rule FEMA Massachusetts !
William Shannon Attorney General Commonwealth of St;te is supposed to be heavily Massachusetts involved in decision of EP adequacy Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary Existing plans not adequate of Public Safety '
Commonwealth of Massachusetts NRC unclear on EP restart criteria Some EP progress long way to go - lots of inade-quacies i Don't know if adequate EP is pos-sible .
Dr. Prothrow-Stith Secretary of Public Health, Commonwealth Massachusetts would like to estab-of Massachusetts lish better off-site radiation (real-time) monitoring Richard Krimm Assistant Director, FEMA Made statements and answered a variety of EP questions for Senator Kennedy with respect to FEMA's role Dr. Thomas Murley NRC:NRR Director William Russell NRC:RI Regional Made statements and answered various questions from Administrator Senator Kennedy NOTE:
The following NRC representatives spoke and answered questions Dr. Thomas Murley William Russell NOTE:
The following individuals spoke at the Kennedy hearic.g 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 Forman, State Representative Lawrence Alexander, State Representative, House Chairman of Joint Legislature Committee on Energy Sharon Pollard, Secretary of Energy, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
ATTACIMENT 4 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: Boston, Massachusetts Date: February 9, 1988 I
speaker Position / Title EP !ssue/ Reference Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director Metting was conducted at the Division of Reactor request of the Cossenwealth to Projects, RI explain the NRC process being con-l ducted for the February 18, 1988 l Public Meeting to obtain consents :
on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Sta- !
tion Restart Plan Commonwealth of Massachusetts was Although the seeting was not to represented by Local Officials / Elected discuss EP, many individuals Officials and staff / CURE /MCDA and the expressed concerns and raised EP Office of Public Safety issues. Commitments were made to provide EP 10 CFR references and to conduct a EP process conference ;
call with Mr. Agnes l
i 0
l l
ATTACHMENT 5 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: Februt*/ 18, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference 1
Ms. Houghton Citizen Wants to see evacuation tested prior to restart Ms. Petrocelli Citizen Evacuation plans should tee 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 condition:
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 workable 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 Dumbury beach impossible Roads are inadequate for evacua-tion of area I
l I
Attachment 5 2 l
l Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Mr. Sangster/ Citizen Dr. Muirhead Co-Chairperson, CURE Will NRC allow restart without i
being satisfied that evacuation
( facilities are adequate for any
' accident?
q
! Does the emergency planning spec- i trum of accidents include a breach l of containment? l Ms. Fehlow Citizen Energency plan needs to be revised 1 and tested prior to restart Mr. McClusky Citizen , Evacuation of any kind would not be effectively handled due to human element Mr. Peter Forman State Representative Presented for the record, a copy of the State Legislature's Report by the Special Committee on Pilgrim Recommendation VI deals with EP l (copy provided)
Mr. Veracca Citizen .
Sirens and speakers are unintel -
ligible during tests Ms. Cook Citizen Evacuation plan is terrible Roads are inadequate 1
Hospitals not capable of treating radiation victims Mr. Jerry Hayes Carver Civil Defense Emergency planning is inadequate Agency DPS Officer for restart; in particular, evac-and Chief Planner uation time estimates and shelter
, surveys are in error 1
Attachment 5 3 l
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference 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 preparedness measures are '
(Written 12/18/87) in place, fully tested and ready for implementa N Kathy McKenna Citizen Opposed to restart without a work-(Written 10/28/87) able evacuation plan Susan Littlefield Citizen Opposed to restart for:
(Written 2/12/88) ;
- 1. Lack of evacuation plan i
- 2. Lack of shelters
- 3. Inadequate roads to evacuate i Cape Cod and Duxbury Beach Donald Leach Citizen Inadequate road system for evacua-(Mailed 2/18/B8) 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 Strens and speakers unintelligible (Mailed) during tests Genevieve Osborn Citizen There can be no safe evacuation (Mailed 3/4/88) plan because of gridlock on roads in addition to the comment / questions noted above on EP, there were 11 other individuals who specifically included resolution of EP issues in their request for an adjudicatory hearing.
i
~ - _ - - - .
ATTACHMENT 6 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: May 11,1988 l
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Peter Forman State Representative NRC appears comfort:ble in not going along with a state or local ;
determination on the adequacy of .
the emergency plan 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 l 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: I beach evacuation James Petros Citizen Evacuation of people with special needs Training of emergency personnel Ron Bellamy Chief, Facilities Committed to assuring some demon-Radiological Safety stration that the mobility tapaired and Safeguards and special needs population could Branch, NRC:RI be adequately protected prior to restart Ann Arnold Chairperson, Disabled Any plans for special needs around Persons Advisory Board the Rowe area are a joke for Nuclear Evacuation for State Office on Responsibility of EP re FEKA and Handicapped Affairs who makes final decision on ade-quacy Do any plants have EP plans with i
final approval?
(Answer Connecticut) i
(
Attachment 6 2 Speaker Position / Title EP issue / Reference 1
Steve Conley President, We the people Appropriateness of sheltering and administration of potassium todine i 1
David Vogler Selectmen, Town of Duxbury has not approved any draft 1
i Duxbury emergency response plan l
Two of fhe communities did not submit any plans for review Exchange followed with Dr. Bellamy on who submitted plans, what's draf t " approved" etc.
Gerald Hayes Carver EP Coordinator Discussion on EP plan development and review - BEco intimidation and control of process Selectmen I never approved any plans for sub- !
mittal to FEMA t
Mary Ott Chairpersons, CURE No evacuation plans Dr. Muirhead '
- 1. Ability to evacuate based on plume speed
- 2. Status of shelters
- l 4
4 4
l l
l l
ATTACHMENT 7 1
Meeting
Title:
Plymouth Board of Selectmen Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: August 15, 1988 Speaker Position / Title l
EP Issue / Reference Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director I Meeting was conducted to brief tha !
Division of Reactor Board of Selectmen on the Inte-Projects, HRC:RI I grated Assessment Team Inspection l
process and subsequent meeting schedule
, Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board Expressed general EP concerns on l
l of Selectmen behalf of town l
l i
l l
i l -
l l
l e
l l
l 1
l ATTACHMENT 8 l l Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: Framingham, Massachusetts ,
Date: August 22, 1988 Speaker Position / Title EP !ssue/ Reference l
P. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Need to rewrite plans and planning l i
l Public Safety process following the "Barry Commonwealth of Report", FEMA sheltering policy.
Massachusetts third reception center, beach sheltering Public Information brochures i Approval of RERP Plans J. Hausner Massachusetts Civil Draft implementing procedures for Defense Agency towns reviewed / approved Agreement between BEco and private providers for EP resources i
Communications / noti fications Expansion of the EP2 E. Fratto Not Known Training of people within the EP2 Reception center improvements l Traf fic management plan T. Mathews Department of Public Public health procedures Health l
1 e
i 4
t l
l ATTACHMENT 9 Meeting
Title:
SALP Management Meeting Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: August 25, 1988 l
l Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Peter W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Major deficiencies exist in EP, l
Public Safety not enaplete, not an adequate plan Commonwealth of Massachusetts Full scale exercise needed
! Reference to SALP statement Re:
exemption for exercise on Page 37 l
1 I \
m I
l .
e l
l t
i ATTACHMENT 10 l Meeting
Title:
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting i
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 l
Samuel J. Collins Deputy Director Discussed FEMA and state coopera-Division of Reactor tion and outstanding issues Projects, NRC:RI J. Douglas Hatfield 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 l
Public Safety not have a revised emergency plan, Commonwealth of but a totally new plan Massachusetts 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 prepgredness plan Selectmen is in effect Diane Buckbee Citizens Urging Massachusetts has left her children l 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 l for Safe Energy resolutions or spirit of resolu-tions t
I i
l ATTACHMENT 11 Meeting
Title:
ACRS Full Committee Meeting Location: Bethesda, Maryland Date: September 8, 1988 l
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 Projects, NRC:RI Outstanding EP issues E0P Rev. 4, containment vent hard-wire installations
{
l Responds to Mr. Carroll's ques-tions on emergency exercise exemp-tion I
Discussion on FEMA withdrawal of
~
approval of emergency plan and FEMA deficiencies Mr. Carroll ACR5 Committee, NRC:HQ Emergency exercise exemption Ralph Bird Senior Vice President- Impleoentation of new E0Ps Nuclear, BEco Roy Anderson Plant Manager, BEco Use of simulator for EP drills and E0P training Mr. Ward ACRS Committee, NRC:HQ
- Discussion on restart without approved emergency plan Ron Varley EP Manager, BEco Clarification on FEMA deficiencie.
4
l ATTACHMENT 12 Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: September 29, 1988 l 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 Saquish area Kathi Anderson Representing !
i
' Senator Kennedy Premature to be evaluating restart without approved exercise offsite 1
emergency preparedness plan Monica Conyngham Representing Senator Kerry Issue of a workable evacuation plan for the area has not been resolved Mary Lou Butler Representing Congressman Studds Don't allow restart untti tested evacuation plan has been completed Lawrence Alexander State Representative Adequate 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 yea r. " Fault for plans not being ready is with the State. Want emergency response planning com-pleted prior to restart. Talked of the "90%" possibility of
. breaching containment or meltdown Peter Forman State Representative Questioned authorizing restart without emergency plans in ef fect.
Will the staff recomend startup without an approved emergency plan in place 4
l Attachment 22 2 l
l Speaker
- Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Senator Golden State Senator 2.206 Petition and why wasn't an emergency preparedness plan a restart ites Pat Dowd
- Chairman, Duxbury Board Finding several errors in draft of Selectmen plans as they are reviewed George Cameron Plymouth Board of Selectmen No one from NRC or FEMA has visited J. Douglas Hatfield Plymouth Civil Defense Discussed status of plans and Director problems with training, especially school coenittee 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 coements 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) l l
1 I
l
' 1 l
l l
l ATTACHMENT 13 Meeting
Title:
Plymouth Board of Selectmen Meeting Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: October 4,1909 Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference Alba Thompson Chairman, Plymouth Board NRC should not be asking BEco of Selectmen about EP at 10/5 meeting.
i I
Lack of FEMA involvement
! lack of direct NRC interface with l
Plymouth on EP matters 1 Only drafts of basic plans I l l Selectmen have ng yet approved the dra f ts of: schools, police and fire depa rtment procedures NRC is responsible if anything goes wrong David Maliguti Selectmen Plans are only conceptual until proven in exercise Could NRC allcw plant restart without fully approved plans?
George Cameron Selectmen 1 All issues should be adjudicated Ann Waitkus-Arnold We The People NRC does not care about special l needs --
Connecticut plans, we approved, are unsatisfactory with respect to special needs popula-tion Diane Buckbee Citizen
- Unfair to meet in Rockville in- i stead of local area !
REFERENCE:
R. Blough's notes -- Selectmen meetings are transcribed, but we don't get copies.
l 1 NOTE: R. Blough appeared before Selectmen to provide an overview of staff review and recommendations on meeting and technical issues, as followup to 9/29/88 pubic meeting, since 9/29 was inconvenient for most selectmen. About 2/3 of comments were on EP; however, R. Blough provided only brief comments and clarifi-cations (i.e., not complete answers or explanations) on EP l issues.
ATTACHMENT 14 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 pore interested in views of Public Safety licensee on technical issues Commonwealth of Massachusetts NRC lets licensee make presenta-tion first in public meetings 4
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 i
Concerned about FEMA efforts and self-initiated review (SIR)
Does not understand " objective measures" as applied to EP No plan in existence to provide 3 reasonable assurance of public health and safety i
- Comments and concerns on six FEMA identified issues of SIR:
- a. Evacuation plans for schools and day care centers not ade-quately addressed in an exer-cise
- b. More people, automobiles;
, changes in response personnel
t Attachment 14 2 1
Speaker Position / Title EP Issue / Reference PeterW.Agnes(Continued)
NRC/ FEMA say 2 reception centers adequate; Massachusetts needs 3, plus improvements on 2 existing !
ones NRC aware of Sequish Gurnett area; locals think evacuation can't be carried out Agnes question of how bus drivers understand where they have to go No letters of agreement with bus companies Bus driver training incomplete to W. Russell i
BEACONS system not completed
{
All equipment requests not ad-dressed to all EPZ towns New evacuation time estimates and traffic management study - incom-
_. plete
{
NRC did not afford Massachusetts ;
proper adjudicatory process '
Summary of Issues: )
Procedures incomplete, shelter utilization plans, local plan training needs to be finished. l then conduct exercise I
e l
Meetings Involving Emergency Preparedness Between NRC and State / Local Officials and/or the Public Date Event 2/18/87 Meeting, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) officials, BEco and R. Bellamy (NRC).
5/27/87 Meeting, Plymouth Board of Selectmen with R. Bellag, W. Kane and M. McBride.
7/14/87 Meeting with MCDA to discuss EPZ expansion.
7/23/87 Meeting between NRC and Connonwealth representatives.
- 8/14/87 Meeting in FEMA I with BECo, NRC, FEMA and the Commonwealth to discuss FEMA Self-Initiated Review issues.
10/7/87 Meeting between NRC and Connonwealth officials.
- 10/8/88 Meeting between NRC and Commonwealth officials at NRC Region I.
10/29/87 Public meeting in Duxbury, Ma.
12/9/87 Pilgrim Exercise. Interface with Connonwealth officials and at the EOF.
12/29/87 Meeting, NRC and Senator Kennedy's staff in preparation for 1/7/88 meeting.
- 1/7/85 Senator Kennedy Hearing in Plymouth. NRC, State and Local officials and members of the public testified.
- 2/9/88 Meeting between Commonwealth and Massachusetts and NRC Restart ,
Panel.
- 2/18/88 NRC public meeting to obtain public connents, i 3/10/88 Meeting, R. Bellamy (NRC) and D. Quaid (Resident) to tour Duxbury beaches.
3/23/88 Meeting, R. Bellamy and B. Hausner at MCDA to discuss Pilgrim status.
- 5/11/88 NRC public meeting to provide NRC responses prior to public comments.
i
- Identified in 10/19/88 memorandum W. T. Russell to J. M. Taylor.
i 1
l j
7
- 8/15/88 Meeting. Plymouth Board of Selectmen and NRC Pilgrim Restart Panel.
- 8/22/88 Meeting, MCDA and W. Lazarus and C. Conklin to discuss offsite emergency preparedness.
4 8/23/88 NRC staff observed training for Ingle Bus Company. I 8/24/88 NRC staff observed trained for Warrenton Bus Company.
- 8/25/88 NRC Public SALP Meeting.
- 8/26/88 ACRS subcomittee meeting in Plymouth.
, *9/8/88 ACRS Full Comittee Meeting.
9/24/88 NRC staff observed training for Trans Network Ambulance Company.
- 9/29/88 NRC Public meeting on restart recomendation.
i
- 10/4/88 Meeting with Plymouth Board of Selectman and NRC.
l
- 10/5/88 Meeting between BECO and NRR with Commonwealth participation.
10/6/88
~
Meeting, R. Bellamy and C. -O'Neill, M. Dinan and K. O' Brian at !
Duxbury EOC. '
10/8/88 NRC staff observed training conducted at Swansea Ambulance. I 10/9/88 NRC staff observed training conducted at Stevis Ambulance.
i 10/10/88 NRC staff observed training conducted at Rogers Bus Company i
(with some Ingels Bus Company personnel also present).
I i .
1 Y
I 2 1 I
1 e
[ \ UNITED STATES l
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I i 475 ALLENDALE ROAD g g jgg KINO oF PAUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19400 i
I MEMORANDUM FOR: William L , Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section, RSS S FROM: a EPS,g Conklin, FRSSB, DRSSSenior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, l
1
SUBJECT:
PILGRIM NUCLEAR PREPAREDNESS POWER STATION MEETINGS REGARDING EM I
The attached tables identify speakers, their affiliation and the general emergency preparedness officials and the public,subocal ect area discussed during meetings between NRC and Commonwealth officials. 1 A listing of those meetings considered is noted below: !
- 1. February 17, 1987
- 2. Ma 27, 1987 Comonwealth of Massachusetts
- 3. Ju 17, 1987 Plymouth Board of Selectmen, Plymouth, Ma. i
- 4. Jul 23, 1987 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Framingham, Ma.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, Ma. 1
- 5.
- August 14, 1987 FEMA Region I, Boston, Ma.
- 6. October 29, 1987 Public Meeting, Duxbury, Ma.
- 7. December 9, 1987 Pilorim Exercise, Plymouth, Ma.
- 8. December 29, 1987
- 9. March 10, 1988 Senator Kennedy Staff Meeting, Washington, D.C. i
- 10. March 23, 1988 Private Resident Meeting, Duxbury, Ma '
- 11.
- August 22, 1988 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, framin ham Ma.
12 August 23, 1988 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, framin ham, Ma.
- 13. August 24, 1988 Transportation Provider Training Transportation Provider Training 14.
- 15. September 24, 1988 Transportation Provider Training October 6, 1988 Duxbury and CURE, Duxbury, Ma.
- 16. October 8, 1988 Transportation Provider Training
- 17. October 9, 1988 Transportation Provider Training j
- 18. October 10, 1988 Transportation Provider Training i i
Except where noted by an asterisk, this list is in addition to those noted in the October 19, 1988 Russell to Taylor memorandum.
l l
l l
i 2
Meeting
Title:
Comonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location:
Date: February 17, 1987 Attendees Position / Title i
Peter W. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Comonwealth of Massachusetts l R. Boulay Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) i l
J. Lovering .MCDA G. Parker MCDA '
B. Hausner MCDA E. Fratto MCDA J. Dolan FEMA Region I R. Bellamy NRC Region I BECo Representatives j
Sumary 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.
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 comit to a schedule. EPZ expansion was also discussed.
l I
I
t Attachment ] 3 i
Meeting location:Title: Plymouth Board of Selectmen Meeting P1 uth Ma.
l Date: Ma 27,1987 i
Attendees Position / Title D. Malaguti Plymouth Board of Selectmen !
A. Thompson Plymouth Board of Selectmen R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB W. Kane Director,DRk,NRCRegionI 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.
t l
l
Attachment 1 4 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting location: NCDA Offices Date: July 17,198}Framingham,Ma.
Attendees Position / Title l P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts '
R. Boulay MCDA J. Lovering MCDA B. Hausner MCDA T. Rodgers MCDA A. Slaney MCDA 1
W. Lazarus !
Chief. EPS, NRC Region 1 '
R. Varley BECo C. Fuller BECo R. Lewis BECo Summary of Meeting Primary purpose of the meeting was to 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.
l l
l l
i i
Attachment 1 5 Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, Ma.
l Date: July 23, 1987 Attendees Position / Title l P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of i
. R. Boulay MCDA R. Blough Chief, DRP Section 3B, NRC Re ion I 1
M. McBride t
R. Wessman Senior Resident Inspector Pil rim, NRC Region I !
Licensing Project Manager, NR Summary of Meeting ;
Primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NRC inspection process.
l
. l i
4 i
4 0
3 Attachment 1 6 Neeting Location:Title: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting FEMA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts Date: August 14, 1987 Attendees Position / Title i l
H. Vickers FEMA Re ion I Regional Director E. Thomas J. Dolan FEMA Re ion I RAC Chairman FEMA Re ion I }
J. Quinlan FEMA Re ion I !
W. Lazarus Chief, PS NRC Region I l P. Agnes Assistant $ecretary of Public Health, Commonwealth of i Massachusetts i J. Lovering MCDA ,
- 8. Hausner MCDA Summary of Meeting Primary purpose of meeting was to discuss judgements made in the FEMA Self-Initiated Report and to correct certain facts. Mr. Agnes stated that he had been without delay.instructed by the Governor to develop the best possible plans i Mr. Agnes discussed a senebile that would complete all activities by 12/31/87. )
l expansion. Di:cusrions were aisc held on an exercise and EPZ 1
4
- Identified in 10/19/88 memorandum W. T. Russell to J. M. Taylor.
l
}
l l
l a
l l
Attachment 1 7 '
Meeting
Title:
Public Meeting Location: Duxbury, Massachusetts Date: October 29, 1987 4
Attendees Position / Title W. Kane Director, DRP NRC Region I J. Wiggins Chief,DRP,NkCRegionI R. Bellamy Chief FRSSB, NRC R B. Boger Associate Director,gion I NRC, NRR P. Agnes Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts -
D. Volger Duxbury, Board of Selectmen Chairman Suenary of Meeting Pur ose was to discuss NRC activities. Other attendees included: BEco-Duxbury Emergency Response Committee; and the Nuclear Matters Commi i The NRC, Commonwealth and BEco responded to comment on hardware, !
management and emergency preparedness issues.
i i
i I
l l
0 6
i i
i
Attachment 1 8 !
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 i 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.
l l
i l
l e
l l
l l
l l
l
.- .= - - . _ __ . _ . .. . ..
i Attachment 1 9 i
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,NkCRegionI
- 8. Boger Associate Director NRR R. Wessman ProjectManager,NkR F. Combs Office of Congressional Affairs 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 of emergency preparedness;FEMA's process; legal role; andissues; progress safety guidelines; status to date.
1 Attachment 1 10 Meeting
Title:
Private Resident Meeting Location: Duxbury/Sa
- Date
- March 10, quish, 1988 Massachusetts 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 of the emergency Beach planning concerns area for this to gain first hand knowledge area. R. Bellamy toured this area with D. Quaid. The Saquish area is accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles only (permit required .
two days a month for two hours)a day, the Point can be isolated.During The only very h 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 4
' 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. 1 l
1
Attachment 1 11
.c -
Meeting
Title:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: MCDA Offices Framingham, Massachusetts Date: March 23,19E8 l Attendees Position / Title i R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB, NRC Region 1
- 8. Hausner MCDA E. Fratto MCDA Summary of Meeting Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of plans and implementin procedures for the risk and host comunities affected by Pilgrim Station.g I
f i
f I
l i
e 5
I 4
I e
Attachment 1 12 Meeting
Title:
Comonwealth of Massachusetts Meeting Location: MCDA Offices Framingham, Massachusetts Date: August 22.l$88 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 T. Matthews Massachusetts Department of Public Health R. Boulay MCDA B. Hausner MCDA E. Fratte MCDA .
A. Slaney MCDA l Sumary of Meeting P. Agnes sumarized the Comonwealth and Local pro Self-Initiated Review and other identified issues.gress on both he Additionally, !
sumarized the Comonwealth position on restart and emergency l preparedness, as well as outstanding problem areas meeting, Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Conklin reviewed seve/ issues. After the ral 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 11 plan. FEMA Region I had agreed to attend, but was prevented by FEMA headquarters.
Attachment I 13 Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location: Ingle Bus Company Date: August 23, 19 M i
Attendees Position / Title W. Lazarus Chief. EPS, NRC Region I C. Conklin NRC Region I ;
R. Hogan NRR t I
Summary of Meeting The training was conducted by BEco consultants. The trainig program and lesson plans had been approved by the Commonwealth. The training is quite !
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 the i drivers and company, were adequately covered. '
I i
i i
l I
i
_ _ - , - _ _- .. . - __ , = -- -.
Attachment 1 14 !
t Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location: Warrenton Bus Company l Date: August 24, 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 quite 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 the drivers and company, were adequately covered.
e h
t i
4
Attachment 1 15 I
i Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location: Cresent Ambulance Company l Date: September 24, 1988 Attendees Position / Title C. Conklin NRC Region I Summary of Meeting Cresent attendeesAmbulancewere ENT s. (Trans Network). There were 13 attendees. All Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were:
Introduction to Radiation and Implementing Procedure;s. Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; 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 Junior High School Staging area in Marshfield (37 minutes , to the Baypath Nursing Home in Duxbur 22 minutes , to the Cardinal Cus)hing Hospital in Brockton normallyhavetwoEMT'sineachambulan(46 l minutes).y[hisprovide) ce. The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
. - - . . _ . .. . __ - - . _ ~ . . . - _ _
Attachment 1 16 Meeting
Title:
Duxbury and CURE Meeting
' Location: Duxbury, Massachusetts Date: October 6, 1988 Attendees Position / Title R. Bellamy Chief, FRSSB NRC Region I C. O'Neill Duxbury Civil Defense Director R. Dinan Resident i
K. O' Brian Resident l
Summary of Meeting A comment would was not be made at the habitable 9/29/88 public meeting that the Duxbury E0C in the Pilgrim. In response to that comment, event of a radiological emergency at 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 EOC. The Duxbury fire Station,E0C about is eig a frame,ht miles from Pilgrim Mr. .
Stationtwo Bellamy story str and Mr. O'Neill discussed EOC habitability and Mr. O'Neill stated that the Plan and Implementing Procedures address E0C habitability, an Alternate EOC and relocation of staff to that Alternate EOC.
4 I
i
i i
l Attachment 1 17 l
neeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location: Swansea Ambulance Date: October 8, 1988 Attendees Position / Title j C. Conklin NRC Region I Summary of Meeting ,
Swansea Ambulance.
There were 13 attendees. All attendees were EMT's.
i Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual 3erformance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to i
Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures.
i Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were
' adequately forms.
appropriate covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and 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.
l l
i l
l
I Attachment 1 18 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 EMT's. Ambulance Service. There were 5 attendees. All attendees were Training consisted actual performance of tasks.of a combination of classroom lecture and The lessons covered were: Introduction to Procedures. Risk and consent, for bothResponse; Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Dosimetry; and Implementing 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
Attachment 1 19
' Meeting
Title:
Transportation Provider Training Location: Rogers Bus Company Date: Dctober 10, 1988 Attendees Position / Title C. Conklin NRC Region I i
Summary of Meeting 4
Rogers Bus Company. There were 8 attendees. Some attendees were from Ingle Bus Company. All attendees 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 Ememency 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, warm holiday moncay 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 i
staging the area staging in 50 area Marshfield minutes .()12 rou and to Bus Bus minutes)te M-4route M-4 and included return to and Marshfield Duxbury beaches. (This provider will normally have one driver in each bus.
The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were 4
encountered running the entire route.
+
j
, =
UNITO STATES
.f \ >
NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY COMMISSION
- % RE010N I
, i C5 ALLEWoALE ROAD x No or Pnuss A.PopesVLVANIA 1H06 November ),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 CA DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAP.EDNESS 27, 1983 ON OCTOBE BACKGROUND A meeting was conducted in the Carver Town Hall on October 27, 1988. The purpos 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 Carver. In Carver, Mr. Frank Mazzilli is the Chairman Defense. of the Board of Selectmen in addition to Director of Civil previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emerg to attention of the NRC. The meeting was followed by a tour of the E0C.
ATTENDEES
...a..
Frank Mazzilli, Chairman, Board 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 ]
Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist Office of NRR DISCOS $10N Mr. Mazzilli and Ms. Copello presented the following status summaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Carver.
. Imolementina Procedures (IP)
The town plan and all IPs (32) have been through 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 EOC.
Plan, and Evacuation Time Estimate are available in the Schools:
The procedural concern which remains to be resolved is one involving the Carver Regional High School. A joint committee is attempting to resolve differences between Carver and Plymouth in this procedure.
Police:
The police have a concern regarding the ETE/ Traffic Management !
Plan allowing people to re-enter the town while an evacuation is in A QQY
t progress. They believe that traffic flow should only be permitted out of town.
Eouioment and Facilities Mr. Mazzilli indicated that they have pretty much everything they need.
Some things are still on order, but everything is falling into place.
Qttpatamination Facility: The biggest probles is the lack of a decontamination facility for emergency workers.
19[1 The EOC is complete, although radios are still being hooked up.
Everything shculd be complete ir. 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 that they are not aware of. ,
Special Needs Pooulation
)
' The town has a list with about 105 names. All these were recently l resurveyed to update the list. There may be others who have not been )
identified, but they feel pretty satisfied with the list. i 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. j Barry ReDort )
i The third Barry Report contained a reasonable presentation of the status for the town of Carver, however it was lacking ia some specifies regarding equipment.
Imolementation In response to a question of whether they thought they could implement the plan and procedures, they indicated that they would try to implement it but would not be comfortable because it had not been tested.
Summary Things are going along smoothly. They still need to get the decontamination facility completed, complete the training, and 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 11 and Boston Edison are very good.
3 Mr. Mazzilli and Ms. Copello reviewed this memorandus and indicated tha were satisfied that it accurately reflected the status provided during our discussions.
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR ,
l
, . ~
. 1 e s =
l cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I i
s
4 y
[ \ tmlTED STATES NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSH)N
- ] REGION I
% 475 ALLENoALE AoAD
%, KINO oF PMUSSI A. PENNEYLVANIA IMOS i November 1, 1988 i
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 OfflCIALS IN THE TOWN OF DUXBURY TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON OCTOBER 26, 198 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 the town of Duxbury. The Director of Civil Defense was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to the attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES i
Carl O'Neill, Duxbury Civil Defense Director and Fire Chief Alfred Slaney, . Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency:(MCOA)
William J. Lazarus, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section, NRC Region 1 Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR DISCUSSION Mr. O'Neill presented the following status sumaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Duxbury.
Implementina 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 l been reviewed by cognizant Department Heads. The three IPs which are still under development are: Selectmen; Town Manager; and Public i 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 the Board of Selectmen for their review. 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: The school comittee does not agree with the school procedure l as drafted, but are considering early dismissal of school children at the i 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 j i
l
&j h0
l l
l c g
, and would in some cases require three round trips of the school buses.
i This is contrary to the recomendation 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 i
There are a few personnel shortages which need to be illied. The EOC staff does not have a complete second shift cosplement 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.
{guioment and Facilities i The EOC is nearing complation.
The facility is expected to be complete i in four weeks when the comunication equipment is installed. Some portable aradios, a repeater and a LORAN navigation radio should be delivered within few weeks.
comunity. The Board of Selectmen have not approved a reception center Although the current plan provides for evacuation to I 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 comunity would be blocked delaying evacuation.
TheGurnet-Saquish the police need aBeach 4 wheel drive vehicle to be used for route alerting of area.
Trainino Training has just begun, but is progressing very smoothly.
Barry Report Mr. O'Neill thought the Barry report and the transcript of the Comission
. meeting accurately preparedness reflected the concerns and the status of emergency in Duxbury.
Ability to Imolement The Civil Defense Director does not believe the plan could be implemented at the of thisplan timehave because been so little training has been completed. No portions tested.
The Civil Defense Director has notified the Selectmen that he believes that training, equipment installation, plan and IP development, middle of February,mini-drills 1989. and a town drill could be complete by the Special Needs Population l
3
> Identification of the special reluctance of that population to highlight their handicaps.needs Repeated advertise:wnts in the local papers requesting self-identification is continuing.
them. TD0s are available to be delivered to deaf people who request Special needs population evacuation was not identified as a major concern provided resources arranged by the state are actually available.
Beaches i
The Gurnet-Sa Association. quish procedure is still under review by the Gurnet-Saguish i
Concerns are that siren coverage may be inadequate. There police up for siren dofailure.
not have sufficient resources to run route 4
4 complete. Route alerting would take at least 45 minutes to the Gurnet-Saquish beach area he has seen have been thepeak on number days. for the Saquish Beach at about 4,000 maximum (2,000 typic 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 of are 4,000 to 5,000 people on the Duxbury Beach during the peak pa the season.
The Powder Point Bridge has been re-opened and provides a second beach area.evacuation route for those evacuating the Duxbury Gurnet-Saquish This greatly improves the situation. People are requested to evacuate at the ALERT and the beach is closed.
Summary The major concerns are getting equipment in place and working, completi the training and drills, and resolving the school evacuation issue, and final approval of procedures and plans.
, 1 Mr.
O'Neill was provided an opportunity to review this memorandum and his ccments for clarification have been incorporated. '
1 1
4
\
l 4 l
l t
l William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief Region I l
Rosesary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I
e
[ k UNITED STATES 4 1 NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N REGION I
$ 478 ALLENDALE ROAD Kiko oF PAUSSIA. PENNSYLYANIA 19485 November 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator THRU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FROM:
W. Lazarus, Emergency Pieparedness Section Chief, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 26, 1988 ON O BACKGROUND A meeting was conducted in the Kingston EOC on October 26, 1988.
of this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information re The purpose of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, garding directlythe fromstatus the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Kingston.
Defense also provided an opportunity to bring any previously The Director of Civil unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC.
ATTENDEES Dennis Tavares, Civil Defense Director Fred Woodworth, Assistant Civil Defense Director-Alfred Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCOA) - -
William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief NRC Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR DISCUSSION Mssrs. Tavares and Woodworth presented the following status summaries and
- encerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Kingston.
Implementino 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.
not mean that all local concerns regarding the procedures have This does resolved. been Copies of the Plan ,lPs, Shelter Implementation Plan, and Evacuation Time Estimate are available in the EOC.
The follcwing are specific concerns which remain to be resolved.
Schoolst The school committee wants to change the school 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 them at SITE AREA EMERGENCY.
No technical justification has been presented for this position, which is opposed by both the CD Director and the state.
@}OO 4
4 2
4 The procedure for Silver Lake Regional High School procedure is still under review by the school committee.
The school coenittee for the high as school includes representatives from three non-EPZ towns as well Kingston.
Police:
procedure The police chief wants to change the traffic management to prevent anyone from entering the town after an evacuation is ordered. The present ETE reflects the fact that parents are permitted to re-enter to get children at home.
Personnel Resources The24town for houriscoverage.
presently short six people to man the positions in the EOC The police have indicated that they can't cover all traffic management and access control points without outside assistance.
Sheriff's Department.They will have to coordinate with the Plymouth County Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE)
The new ETE has been received but it has not been thoroughly reviewed.
- There is a personnel.
dependent concern regarding changes to the bus routes for transportation
- Eouioment and Facilities The EOC was recently completed, however the telephone system is not yet fully operable (calls can't be transferred or routed properly). All the radios are in and operating.
' the portable radios they would need.The police department has received half of There is a reliability problem with the police radio repeater shared by Kingston, Duxbury, and Plympton, which Boston Edison has agreed to correct.
' There are no problems with other departments in this area that have been brought to the attention of the Civil Defense Director.
There presently is no reliable system (pager Director in event of notification of an even)t.to notify the Civil Defense Trainino Little training has been done yet. Training of the EOC staff is just starting; of The highway, police, and fire departments have had one module the training. The teachers at the elementary school have had one module but there was very light turnout. Reports from people who have received the training are very positive.
will be complete; the schedule is still under development.There is no estim
- Barry Reoort Mr. Tavares thought that the Barry Report reasonably presented the status for the town of Kingston; there were only minor discrepancies.
i
3 Ability to Imolement 4
Mr.
the PlanTavares indicated that he was skeptical of the ability to implement and procedures. He believes that the plans are good, and a lot of improvements have been made, but training is still needed. He would attempt to follow the procedures rather than rely on guess-work.
Special Needs Population Approximately 120 people have been placed on the spec *ial 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.
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I i
1 .
j Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR l
i i
cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region 1 1
+
g; UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS ON j ] REGION i 478 ALLENDALE ROAD KINO OF PRUB84A, PENNSYLVANIA THW 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 MARSHFIE 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 t.he status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities 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 P.Gonagle,. Director, Office of Civil Defense, Marshfield William Lazarus, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section, NRC Region I Rosemary Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR 01SCUSS10N During the meeting on October 25, 1988 and in a subsequent telephone i conversation on October 31, 1988 which was used to clarify some of the 1 information, Mr. McGonagle presented the following status sumaries and '
concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Marshfield.
, Irolementina Procedures (IPsl 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 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 4 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 i
involvement of the school superintendent may delay emergency preparedness
- development. At this point the superintendent is not saying that the l
procedure wont work, but he has some concerns.
gp.S&0 f
. l l
2 Personnel Resources i Mr. McGonagle is concerned with the ability of the Harbormaster to accomplish his duties with the limited staff available to him. The 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. I 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 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.
preliminary review of the 10/11/88 revision His doubts of the ETE.are He based on a 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 Saguish area and passing through Marshfield have not been considered in detennining the ETEs. He has some minor concerns regarding appropriate traffic routes.
Reception Center The plan currently designates Bridgewater as the reception center comunity for Marshfield. The Board of Selectmen and Mr. McGonagle adamantly oppose the proposed change to Wellseley. Bridgewater is satisfactory.
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.
Sarry Report Mr. McGonagle stated that the Barry Report accurately presented the status for the town of MarshfieM.
, Commission Briefina Mr. McGonagle had not read the transcript of the October 14, 1988 Commission, and was not able to conr,ent on the representation provided by Lt Governor Murphy, Senator Kennedy, or Representative Studds.
Ability to Imolement 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.
1 l
l 3
1 Both the police and fire departments have stated that would be comfort #M in implementing the plan. Except for resolution of the concerns wm tre school procedure, operational he feels1988.
by late December that the IPs will be completed and the EOC IP_Z Mr. McGonagle does not believe that the affect of emergency response but outside of the EPZactivity in the part of Marshfield within the EPZ on have been satisfactorily addressed. He believes actions taken by some ,of the population outside of the EPZ may disr evacuation within the EPZ. There are about 28,000 year round residents in Marshfield the part of theand 70,000 town withintothe 75,000 EPZ during the summer (2500 residents in prob' em with emergency response perso)n. He perceives an administration the town. nel functioning in only en part of He is concerned that Marshfield resources for responding to an ;
l but rather much farther away in another part of town. emergencyi Facilities and Ecuioment The EOC, which is being erected as an additivn esto 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.
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region 1 Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I
UNITO STATES l .f ,
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N neoxmi j as answatt nono xmo onnussia.n.WSYLYAMA mes )
I 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 TOW DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 25, 1988 ON BACKGROUND :
This meeting was conducted in the Plymouth EOC on October of the meeting was to obtain the latest factual infomation25, re1988. The purpose of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, garding directlythe status from the Director of Emergency Preparedness for the Town of Plymouth.
unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergen attention of the NRC.
1 ATTENDEES !
J. Douglas Hadfield, Director, .0ffice of Emergency Pr_eparedness' ~
Alba C. Thompson, Selectran .
William J. Lazarus, Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, NRC Region i .
I Rosemary T. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR DISCUSSION i
Mr. Hadfield, and Ms. Thompson presented the following status sumaries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Plymouth.
Implementino Procedures (IPs)
. This status is based on Mr. Hadfield's coments, review of the IP status list that was provided at the meeting (attached), and a telephone conversation 1988. with Mr. Hadfield to clarify discrepancies on October 28, Of the 57 IPs identified on the attached list, all exist at least in draft form.
The review process involves a review by the cognizant department head, then review by the RERP Comittee, and finally review and approval 'in concent" by the Board of Selectmen.
As of the date of this meeting, 34 IPS ha w completed this process and have been approved in concept.
Of the remaining procedures,17 have been through the RERP l
Comittee and are awaiting review by the Board of Selectmen. That leaves 4 procedures which have not been reviewed by the RERP Comittee. One of the 4 (Special Neecs Officer) has been approved at the department head ppf05 Y'
t
! level and is awaiting review by the RERP Committee.
i IPs on the attached Itst, there are 34 shelter procedures.In addition to the The model for these 34byprocedures concept" (Shelter Manager the Board of Selectmen. Procedure) has been ' approved at the local level is expected to be complete in 10 to The 12 IPs weeks. R which have not yet been approved at the department head level include 1 Saguish, Monitoring and Decontamination, and Jordan Hospital.
be resolved before some of these IPs can be approved:T Police:
Division of responsibilities between the Plymouth Police 40 access points and 40 traffic control points a 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:
review theTheschool Joint School procedures.Committee met on October 24, 1988 to intermediate, and 2 high schools involved. There are 8 elementary, 1 review was not known at the time of this meeting.The outcome of that In a telephone conversation on 10/28/88, Mr. Hadfield related that the committee did not approve the school procedure, but that they had authorized training for the elementary school teachers.
Concerns have been raised regarding the appropriate way to notify parents of evacuation of the children; legal. questions regarding transportation of ~ school children out of th'e town; and the question of whether teachers would l participate in the evacuation of the school children.
considered is a change to the school procedures which would haveStill b children sent home at the ALERT level rather than holding them at the school and then evacuating 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 resolve differences between Carver and Plymouth in the procedure for the Carver (Regional) High School (which is shared by Plymouth and Carver).
Hosoital:
Jordan Hospital has serious problems with their implementing procedure as it deals with the evacuation of patients.
Details of the concern was not known at this time.A second concern raised by Mr.
hospital Hadfield was that the Jordan Hospital is also the which would be used for treatment of any injured / contaminated workers from the site in case of an accident, andevacuated.
was he wasn't clear on how they would be handled if the hospital The Jordan Hospital procedure was considered by Mr.
Hadfield to be the biggest obstacle to the completion of the IPs.
Mr. Hadfield acknowledged that he had copies of the latest drafts of all implementing procedures in the EOC.
l They were presently contained in 7 l
2 1/2 inch binders whereas the total previous town plan was a little more i
i '
)
4 3 !
than an inch thick.
, Personnel Resources 4
I Police need to work out division of responsibilities with the state police i
- because there are too few Plymouth police to handle all the access control and traffic control points.
Special Needs Pooulation '
l
!. The town is still working to get people with special needs to "self- i
- 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 placed l t
on a confidential an accident. This listprocess which could be used to assist them in the event of !
maintained by the town. is hoped to completely Update the list j 2arry Resort
)
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 report.
that if the concerns with the Jordan Hospital procedure were reflected in
{ '
5, Reoresentation at the Comission Briefino on October 14. 1988 1.
Mr. Hadfield ar.d Mrs. Thompson both indicated that the Lt. Governor, Senator Kennedy, and Congressman Studds had fairly represented their concerns at the Comission briefing, although there coments lacked the 4 specifics which they were bringing out in our meeting.
Saouish - Gurnet Point Area t
- At the present time there is not an adequate procedure for the. protection of the 200 - 400 sumer residents plus another 200 - 300 campers who would be in the Saguish - Gurnet Point area. The homeowners are working on
. development of a plan. The concern is that part of the 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.
- - Imolementation of the Plan a
When asked whether he thought he could implement the plan and 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.
i Mrs. 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 1
l
.-~ - - - -- -.
- - - - . - , _ . _ - . _ - _ = . - . . . - . . . - - ._ . . -
~
4 heregreat made theyimprovements.
were in the planning process a few years ago, and that they had t
Mr. Hadfield was provided a copy of this memo and indicated that it accuratel reflected the status he presented during our discussions.
William J. Lazarus, EP Section Chief, Region I Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region I
-4 p
[ \ UNITED STAMS
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N REGKWl
'e 475 ALLENDALE ROAD
%,..... KING OF PRUBS4A. PENNEYLVANIA 19400 November 1, 1988 REMORANDUM 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 OFFl'CIALS'IN THE TOWN DISCUSS THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 26, 1988 ON OC BACKGROUNJ A meeting was conducted in the Taunton EOC on October 26, 1988.
4 this meeting was to obtain the latest factual information regarding the statusThe of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Taunton.
was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified conce regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC. )
ATTENDEES Robert Spearin, Director, Office of Civil Defense, Taunton j
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.
1molementino procedures (Ips)
There are 25 IPs required for the plan. The Plan and all 25 procedures have completed through MCDA. the local review process and have been forwarded to FEMA 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 i Plan in theand E0C.a set of procedures, as well as the Evacuation Time Estimate ace l
In addition each department head has a copy. l f acilities and Eouloment FOC: The E0C is essentiall
- some status boards, maps,y complete; only a few minor items are needed and other small miscellaneous items.
Reception Centen The renovation of the reception center (to be located in an unused building at the state hospital - Cain Hall) has not been )
i
)D0Y ff i
t started.
order for outside funds to be expended on it.As this is a state i Mr. Slaney indicated that granting approval before Boston Edison can begin th ,
willfamilies.
of be used for the survey and decontamination of evacuees,(a ,
i Congregate care is handled by other facilities.) Examples gutters be restored. and downspouts, handicap access, and installed. Survey equipment and decon facilities will also need to be Traffic Control Eouioment equipment needed. t The town still hasn't received traffic control three weeks. They have been told that it will be provided in two to I Comunications Eouioment:
installed, tested, and it works.All needed comunications equipment has been Trainino Training is progressing well.
. Fire Department should be done November 4, 1988. ,
Police Department is about 50 % complete.
Health Department is complete.
1 DPW is complete.
Emergency Medical (EMS) is not started.
Schools (congregate care) is not started.
Civil Defense is about 50 % complete. '
EOC 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 receptio center, but also is still looking forfor working workers.
volunteer at transportation and staging areas. The town Barry Report Mr. Spearin thought that the third Barry Report contained a fair
~
, representation of the situation for Taunton.
transcript of the Comission briefing so could He nothad not read the coment on the presentations Studds. made by the Lt. Governor, Senator Xennedy, or Representative
- Summary Mr. Spearin's biggest concerns were the lack of readiness of the reception facility and the fact that training was not complete.
there was no comparison to where the town was in the He indicated that 1982-1985 time frame.
i 3
They previously procedures. had only a set of plans and now had detailed implementi Cooperation from Boston Edison was greatly improved. With the reservations noted about the status of the reception center, he thought!
that the procedures were adequate and could be used.
Str.
Spearin was provided a copy of this memorandum and indicated that it accurately reflected the status provided during our discussions.
William J. Lazarus, i EP Section Chief, Region I l I
l h
Rosemary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR
~
i l .
l l
cc: J. Dolan, FEMA Region 1 4
e as-W-10 t H51PN i
.: 215 337 526938 2
%n of % duty, 7bssachuseus
~ 9, Ofice/ o cSe ec/ men
\
l 1
- c. MARTIN DELANO '
PATWCIA A DOWD 9 March, 1988 Mr. Robert J. Doulay, Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 400 Worcester Road F.O. Box 1496 Framingham, Mass., 01701-0317 Dear Mr. Boulay The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Duxbury are submitting two draf t copies of the Town of Duxbury Radiological Energency Response Plan for .
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Ravision 2, dated October 30, 1987. We are sub- {
mitting these draft copies for technical reviews by the Massachusetts Civil Defense tency and the Pederal Emergency Management Agency.
draft The Duxbury Radiological Response Plan conesittee has been reviewing these plans and we have included comments fros-this committee and Duxbury Civil ,
Defense Director Carl O'Neil for your information. l The Board of Select:en vant it clearly understood that this information is being submitted for technical review only. The Board of Selectmen, the RIRP Committee, and the Civil Defense Director have a strong opinion that these plans should not be evaluated for approval until procedures are in place, training has been completed, shelters have been defined and approved, evacuation time estimates I have been scrutinised, and finally, the plan has been exercised in order to assess the workability of the plan.
Ve appreciate your interest and efferts to help Duxbury davelop the best possible emergency response plan for the Pil trim Nuclear Power Station.
Very truly yours, David J. Ve
../ <
~
)
. Chai an
'_ .dxM CT tin Delsio Patricia A. Dowd '
30s/thk Enclosures 9
, },k'
- January 12, 1988 l i
Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director i MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY 400 Worcester Road P.O. Box 1496 Framingham, MA 01701-1496 l
l
Dear Mr. Boulay:
The draft plan is the product of considerable effort, and was prepared and structured in accordance with applicable federal emergency planning guidance. It describes the policies, functions j and resources which, when in place, will provide a fully effective emergency preparedness program for Carver. The planning process is s till unde rwar, , a r.d it is therefore important to understand that the program described in the plan represents the " design" or goal to be achieved through, among other things, development of procedures, training of individuals, securing of resources and upgrading of facilities. We will continue to further refine the plan as well as to upgrade the overall emergency preparedness program.
t l
l l
l l
~f ltage t
/
In order to permit the planning process to continue, I recommend that you determine whether the basic program and policies embodied in it are appropriate. With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we can develop implementing procedures which accurately reflect the policies of the Town of Carver. While I am certain that the draft plan is not perfect. I think that it represents'a significant and positive step in the 6ffort to uhgrade the state of emergency preparedness for Carver.
l The Commonwealth has expressed the desire to obtain the draft plan and provide it to FEMA for informal review as soon as possible. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if you would indicate your concurrence on the program design represented in the plan by signing below so that I can forward the plan to the Cc. renwe al th.
i Sincerely,
' e' -
Davidf. Pierce Ulk' , /- /2 - f T' Ch Bo d of Selectmen Date
/&y1//f M .I hy!C , l ** ) L "
u Selectman Date
,T ,/_ / ,//f,2.L //, -
~
/- > 2 F9 Sei ect:an Date
.1
' ' ~ ~ ^ ~ ~
TOWN OF PL MOUT i
(%! OFFICE OF SELECTMEN qphg THE SELECTMEN gn=. NotAN;u"es w1Lt.iAM r 1I Lincoln Street AL Ouh MamChuW ME DA D F. A LTT . Chosrma n l LLtAM R CitirnN xtttrrnt SECHETARY (61'7) 747 1620 ,
i January 8, 1988 ;
}
i Robert J. Boulay, Director Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Commonwealth of Massachusetts ;
Executive Department l 400 Worcester Road r P.O. Box 1496 Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-0317 l i
Dear Mr. Boulay:
Please be advised the Board of Selectmen voted to authorize Doug Badfield, Civil Defense Director, to forward to FEMA through your office the phase I - draft emergency plan for l Plymouth. The Board would also request the document be reviewed by the Massachusetts Civil Defense Office. It is l understood FEMA will forward comments to the Selectmen once they have reviewed the plan.
Very truly yours, FOR THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN
=
William R Griffin Executive Secreta y WRG/1t cc D. Hadfield l
l
CITY CF TAUNTCN
.pske DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE
" i . kj CITY HALL i s suwwen stnerT TAUNTON. M ASS ACHUSETTS O2780 no m c. smo.
c=. ;
l January 4, 1988 c_ -
E c>
Mayor Richard Johnson .c7 City of Taunton m City Hall .$
15 Sum =er Street Taunton, MA. 02780 Q
Dear Mayor Johnson:
As you know, for the last several months, I have been engaged (with the cssistance of the various municipal agencies and professional planners provided by Boston Edison) in the preparation of the revised Taunton Radiological Emergency Response Plan. A complete draft of that plan which l incorporates my comments has been previously provided to you. '
a draft plan is the product of considerable effort, and was prepared and
.ructured in accordance with applicable federal emergency planning guidance.,
It des.:ribes the policies, functions and resources which,-when in place, vil; ,
p7 ovide a fully effective emergency preparedness program for Taunton. The' l planning process is still underway, and it is therefore important to l understand that the program described in the plan represents the " design" or l goal to be achieved through, among other things, development of procedures, training of individuals, securing of resources and upgrading of facilit:.es.
We will continue to further refine the plan as well as to upgrade the overal.
emergency preparedness program.
In order to permit the planning process to continue, I recommend that you determine whether the basic program and policies embodied in it are appropriate. With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we '
, can develop implementing procedures which accurately reflect the policies cf the City of Taunton. While I am certain that the draft plan is not perfect, think that it represents a significant and positive step in the effort te upgrade the state of emergency preparedness for Taunton. .
l The Commonwealth has expressed the desire to obtain the draft p3an and previ I
it to FEMA for informal review as soon as possible. Accordingly, I would l cppreciate it if you would indicate your concurrence on the program design l represented in the plan by signing below so that I can forward the plan to t commonwealth.
wh # C #^ I Sincerely, ' ^'
Richard Joh /cn Date
% #D
( Mayor h [ ,, k , mm3 Robert C. Speid-in City of Taunton
a vviis v e~ _
. . . nT .
,. o t 0 s 4 %2 O 4 U t 4 6 l
CCWW'iNhEALTH GP MASS ACHUSSTTS
(;; e m TOWN HOUSE. KINGSTON. MASS.
, atta Y ciatCfon or C8viL Oteteest
. December 30, 1987 Mr. Joseph H. Costa h-Chairman, Board of Selectmen m icwn of Kingston Town House 23 Green Street 03 i Kingston, MA 02364 -
B )
> l
Dear Hr. Costa:
j ES As you know, for the last several months I have been engaged (with the assistance of the various municipal agencies and professional planners l provided by Boston Edison) in the preparation of the revised Kingston Radiological Emergency Response Plan. A complete draft of that plan which incorporates my comments has been previously provided to you.
The draft plan is the product of c~onsiderable effort, and was prepared and .
structured in accordance with applicable federal emergency planning guidance.
It describes the policies, functions and resources which, when in place, will provide a fully effective emergency preparedness program for Kingston. The planning process is still underway, and it is therefore important to l understand that the program described in the plan represents the design" or goal to be achieved through, among other things, development of procedures, training of individuals, securing of resources and upgrading of facilities.
He will continue to further refine the plan as well as to upgrade the overall emergency preparedness program.
ag 013 avsUh m
M n*2-1 l
/
l
( -
Page 2 i In order to permit the planning process to continue, I recommend that you determine whether the basic program and policies embodied in it are appropriate.
With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we can develop implementing procedures which accurately reflect the policies of i
the Town of Kingston. While I am certain that the draft plan is not perfect, t
I think that it represents a significant and positive step in the effort to upgrade the itSte of emergency preparedness for Kingston.
1 The Commonwenith has expressed the desire to obtain the draft plan and provide it to FEHA for informal review as soon as possible. Accordingly, I would l i appreciate it if you would indicate your concurrence on the program design l represented in the plan by signing below so that I can forward the plan to the Commonwealth.
Sincerely, Frederick Hoodworth i
Deputy CD Director, Town of Kingston lY
\ Doseph HjQYta!/V Datl{
Chairmarf, Acard of Selectmen Town of Kingston
^ ^ ~~
000000 W508 747 9549
~ OCT 26 '98 54:33 BOSTON EDISeti P.2 I
9 $wn o $rd 44/
COMMONWEALTM OF MASSACHUSETTS
\
August 12, 1988 -
Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Coemonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department 400 Worcester Road, Box 1496 Framingham, MA 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
As the attached letter indicates, the Marshfield Board of Selectman has voted to forward technical to FEMA, through your office, the following documents for informal review:
a.
Ten copies Rev. S. July draft of Marshfield Radiological Emergency Response Plan, 11, 1988 ^
b.
Ten copies Marshfield Implementing Procedures ~
~-~-
- c. -
t
- d. Ten copies Marshfield Shelter Implementation Program Summary Ten copies Marshfield Draft PlardProcedure Cross Reference Table The Draf t Marshfield RERP and Implementing Procedures address the latest FEMA and MCDA plan comments made to date.
TheDefense Civil BoardAgency.
has also included three sets of documents for the Massachus He would appreciate it if you would proeptly forward these documents to FEMA.
Very truly yours, f.h' Ca iel McGonag e 1 Civil Defense Director cc: Harshfield Board of Selectmen Richard Agnew. Town Manager i
T. Rodger . Director, MCDA Area II (3)
Enclosures
f.
oCT 26 *W 14:33 BOSTON EDISON l f.S Y i
P.3
\
TOWN OF MARSHFIELD e7o womaac star.st wAmsena. wassacHuerrte oeoso en en swi August 8, 1988 Mr. Daniel A. McGonagle, Chairman Emergency Response Comitten 107 Stagecoach Drive Marshfield, MA 02050
Dear Mr. McGonagle:
Marshfield Radiological Emergency Response e Town of Plan We have offered suggestions and have agreed to forward the plan ower f Station".
and comment to the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency or andfurther review F.E.M.A It must be endorsed the plan, anc we still have major reservatio Realizing that neither the Board of Selectmen nor any other ca offi i l i viability.
n town is proposal, prof essional input.we feel the time has come for the M.C.D.A. a s
. to have direct The1.
issues of greatest concern to the Marshfield 3 card of Selectmen ar e as follows:
Ade:;uecy of evacuation to Wellesley as opposed to Weymouth
- 2. University of Massachusetts.,in.Dorchestar or_ otherAirmore Base appropriate or sites.
Concerns relative to actual traffic flow in a worst r ngcase scen evacuation.
3.
Although the plan'is specific concerning the Governor Winslow School (within the 10 mile zone), we believe general eheos could occur the at 4 ether schools as well with parents rushing to pick up children.
We need greater clarification of the ongoing training tinetable and
! 5. agenda with more attention given to inevitable personnel changes.
other e ployee groups to remain atWe have serious doubts s and regarding th l the evacuation. their posts and to cooperate during l Under no circumstances can this Board approve this docu:ent and until a written letter of agreement is received fro: in good conscience unless involved employee groups perform any approval or in by this the alternative, personnel beingAdditionally, provided by B.E i Board would require a concurrent l bu-hired " Emergency Response Consultant". endorsecent by our yet-to-Although we agree that the current plan demonstrates a good faith effort by B.E.C.O., we feel any support for premature at this time. e it would We ask that you forward this draf t their constructive analysis, to the appropriate state and federal agencies for ery uly yours, i
// / f ; b i
Richard 1 -
T
~
Chairman . Levin ~ John F. MacMahon Daniel F. Mcdonald JTM:1 1
l .
CITY OF TAUNTON 9
monem c. essaan.
==
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE CITY MALL 1e SUMMER stattT TAUNTON. M ASSACHUSETTS 02750 1
1 l
CITY OF TAUNTON CIVIL DEFENSE Delivered to MCDA Framingham August 15, 1988 the following: .
16 copies City of Taunton Implementing Procedures 16 copies City of Taunton RERP Revision 5, July 28, 1988 l 16 copies Corrective Action Response to l l
Technical Review Document 8/11/88 16 copies Table of Cross References between documents provided to FEMA and FEXA SIR issues Revision l l C. 5/2/88 I -
j Received By:
Dates k K D. '
b d t d$ -
1 e
=
U00000 WOU5 (4( VD49 i OCT 26 '08 13:42 BOSTCr1 ED850t4 l P.2 !
l CITY OP' TAUNTON DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE t
CITY MALL l t a sux>sa STREET !
TAUNTON MASSACHU5ETTS O2780 moose c.w u ==
l 1
August 15, 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency &
Office of Emergency Preparedness 400 Worcester Road Post Office Box 1496 Framingham, MA. 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
This past May, the City of Taunton forwarded to the State a revised draft emergency response plan, a se~t of implementing procedures and a cross-reference table. The MCDA rubrequently provided us with comments on the draft plan which have nov been incorporated in the State's contents, ve veu;d appreciate l
it if you would prcept.'y transmit the enciesed documents to FEMA for infermal technical review.
Sincerely, ,
obd C .S[h*
Robert C. Spearin Civil Defense Director t
ocr as >eega:a gosym m P.4 1
9 f.AtoLrN MoLW1CK. Chevons AOCR P. saoVOST. Chek DAVID A CANEPA. Ember 1O98 OF BRIDCsy OFFICE OF SELECTMEN BRfDGEWATER. MASS 02324 TELEPHONE 69f.3100 l
1 September 21, 1988 Mr. Frank Maher Laergency Management Officar Town Hall Central Squara Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Mr. Maher Radiological Emergency ResThe Bridgewater Board of Selectmen have r are in basic concurrence. ponse Plan and Implementing Procedures and We authorize you to submit this plan, ITMA for an informal technical review.trocedures ort to MCDA andand supporting e present form these are draft documents subject to change.We understand -
docu:ents to support technical reviev since
- ackage. our e it is integra submittal is f or informational review purpcses y only and i indicates for a1 or approval by Bridgevater State College We realize thectiations.
ne BSC procedure is a separate entity and subjaet to separate state and federal agencies for their constructive priate review,W Very truly yours.
' Mistd Carolyn Morvick, Chairman Board of Selectmen CM/ am i
i
wwuu wdes 747 9549 l
. oct 26 's soss msTm cDism P.5 Of ID o
4 Cry %
4 omCE OF C1YJL DEFEN$t ++
BRIDGEWATER, MASS.02324 cow ma on n, nas m t.,., wr u on ,,
can.,
ritme: nue:
September 21, 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Commsenvaalth of Massachusetts Erseutive Department 400 Worcester Road, Box 1496 Frar.ingham, MA 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
The Town of Bridgewater is submitting to TEMA, the following documents for infor:a1 technical review:through your office, a.
Plan, Rev. 4, AugustSixteen 18, 1988. (16) copies Bridgewater Radiological E=e b.
Sixteen (16) copies Bridgewater Implecenting Procedures c.
Sixteen (16) copies Corrective Action Response to Technical Review Document d.
Sixteen (16) copies of Cross References betvean decu:ents provided to FEMA and FEMA SIR issues Revision O. 8/26/88 TEMA and MCDA plan comments esde to date.The Draf t Bridgevater R is previded for informational review purposes only.The Bridgewa Bridgewater Stata .
College negotiations.
separate is a separate entity and their formal approval is subject to 5 infernal technical review and to show the interfaces with tevnThe procedu precedures.
Of the sixteen (16) copies listed above ten (10) are for TEMA , and sir (6)II.for the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency; Tramingham and Area i
l i
OCT 26 '8014:35 BOSTON EDISBN P.6 l
l l Mr. Robert J. Boulay September 21, 1988 Page 2 i
i i *1 1 docua t y 7 u would promptly forward these l
l 1 Sincerely, f nk Maher '
Emergency Management Officer FM/mam I
l l
4 MO
~ ~ ~ * * ' "*
, E.
, , ., , , e o
, e * , .* . ~e ; a * *
- E* *
~
ee9m 6
. e 1 I
e l
l l
l l
l i i I
i
OCT 26 #88 84:36 IKSTON EDISON o P.7 TOWN OF KINGSTON, MASSACHUSETTS E
office of l
6 M 385 M THE SELECTMEN l rowN sovse 23 GMEN 57REET KINGSToN, MA 023H October 5, 1988 ,
l :. !
i Ar. Dennis Tavares
- Civil Defense Director Office of Emergency Preparedness Town Hall Annex Six Maple Avenue .
- i 1
Kingston, MA 02364 '
i<
Dear Mr. Tavares:
i The KingstonEmergency Radiological Board of Selectmen
Response
has reviewed the draft Plan and Implementin !
. Procedures and are in '
tent and framework. basic concurrence with their cong We authorize you to submit this plan, forr.s procedures to and supporting the Massachusetts material in their present ,
the Federal Emer Civil Defenie ~ Agency 'and ~ ' i technical reviews .gency Managment ' Agency for infomal .
drafts and are subject We understand these documents are to change. '
We ask that state eppropriate you forward and these draft documents to the structive reviews. federal agencies for their con '
these reviewers that We ouralso ask that you indicate to School Department Procedure (IP-06) is undergoing further scrutiny by the Kingston Elementary School Committee, and we expect to resubmit the current comments. draft of IP-06 to include the commi t tee 's Si erely J'Y '< l Edward H. Valla t
e%
Chairman ,
EHV/p !
Enclosures t
'80 14:36 BOSTON EDISOi P.B e 4 .
TOWN OF KINGSTON l : M m
-e civil DEFENSE
" OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 6 Maple Avenus Kingston, Massachusetts 02364 l Phone 617 585 3135 Telefax 617 585 7624 1
( The following items were delivered to the i Massachusetts on Tuesday, October Civil Defense Agency (McDA) Framingham 11, 1988:
16 copies i Town of Kingston Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), Revision 5, 10/4/88 16 copies Town of Kingston Implementing Procedures, Volumes 1 and 2 16 copies corrective Action Response to Technic)1 Review Document, 10/4/88 1 16 copies _ ~~ ~
i Table of Cross References between ~
documents provided'to FEMA and' FEMA SIR issues, Revision 0, 10/4/88 16 cop ~ies Shelter Imple=entation Program Received By: // g e
mudh i
Arh.W deli. Erg
! 4 e e + w a d. o u P h b<. UJLd.,Oc.f.(2.
880000 W508 747 9549
,, p , oCT 26 '80 14:37 BOSTON EDISON 7, P.9 Ms G j s
l Carver Massachusetts 02330 l
Telephone 666 2561 October 4, 1988 Mrs. Helen M. Copello .
Administrative Asst./ Deputy Director Civil Defense Main Street & Emergency Preparedness Agency Carver, Ma. 02330 Daar Mrs. Copello:
\
i Emergency concurrence. Response Plan and Implementing Procedures a f* the Civil Defense Director to submitPier.se prepare the documents and the this plan, procedures and 1 ortingtechnical arma material in their review. present form to MCDA and FEMA for an these are draft documents subjectWe to understand change. that in their present. form ~ ~ '
We esk that you forward this draft documentation to the apprcpriate state and federal agencies for their constructive review.
Very truly yours, CARVER BOARD OF SELECTMEN 1
/JGNm
- fanY R. MafiiM1, Chairman kd, d_,-
Francis J. Kane
^ ~ hl. M $
Paula M. B9tbin '~3
~ ~~
000000 W508 747 9549~
p OCT 26 '88 14:37 BOSTCN EDISON , P.10 1
~
^
TOWN OF CARVER CIVIL DEFENSE Carver, MA 02330 46&5219 October 5, 1988 l
l Mr. Robert J. Boulay i
Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department 400 Worcester Road, Box 1496 Framingham,'MA. 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
The Town of Carver is submitting to FEMA, through your. office, the following documents for informal technical review:
- a. Sixteen (16) copies Carver Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Rev. 4, August 18, 1988.
- b. Sixteen (16) copies Carver Implementing Procedures _
- c. Sixteen (16) copies corrective Action Response to Technical Review Document.
- d. Sixteen (16) copies of Cross References between documents provided to FEMA and PEMA SIR issues Revision 0. 8/26/88.
- e. Sixteen (16) copies of Sheltering Implementation Program.
The Draft Carver RERP and Implementing Procedures address all TEMA and MCDA plan comments made to date.
Of the sixteen (16) copies listed above ten (10) are for FEMA,
.and six (6) for the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency; Framingham and Area II.
We would appreciate it if you would promptly forward these documents to FEMA.
Sincerely, l %R A b l Civil Defense Director FRM/hme
~
000000 W508 747 9549
! .. OCT 26 '88 14:30 BOSTOH EDISBN . P.11 l
TOWN OF CARVER H
l , CIVIL DEFENSE Carver, MA 02330 802-5219 -
The following items were delivered to the (
j Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) Framingham on Wednesday, October 12, 1988:
1 16 copies Town of Carver Radiological Emergency l Response Plon (RERP), Revision 4, 6/24/88 16 copies Town of Carver Implementing Procedures, Volumes 1, 2 and 3
~ 16 copies corrective Action Response tc Technical
-Review Document, 10/3/88 -
16 copies Table of Cross Feferences between "'
documents provided to FEMA and FEMA SIR issues, Revision 0, 10/3/88 16 copies Shelter Implecentation Program ,
Received By: W/4 I-cate: htf L , MM 4
l 'rC3.17 'te 13:56 FCt% KG10N I IO$T0tt 1 ,gg g . '
l b
l Q -
THE COMMONWEALTH OF WA&&ACHUSETTS FIECUTfvt DEPAntisewT A l
cw overwie sonner ano emes os ansiomer patPAntonese ; I l ess womary meas i
va nons e mAasusemeed, kaak tift 14st?
\
t'ICMAEL 8 DunAsus hottMT J. SoutAY l opvspessi aperrom !
February 4, 1988 l
=> Ii an
. g > '
r e --
E 1
? :: .2-
$M L Edw.ard A. Thomas, Chief
- N H ur'a.; and Technological Hazards Division ,
1 f agert*r' Emergency Mana gemen t Agency l R63 ion I ,
J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House '
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Enclosed please find Fart One of the Draf t Radiological Emergency Response Plans for the communities of Plymot.th, Carver, Kingston and Taunton, associated with the Pilgris Nuclear Power Plant. We have begun to review these plans ourselves and would !
like the benefit of an informal technical review by TEMA. Our i
submission of this r.aterial does not constitute an application l for review and approval under 44 CTR 5 350.7 and does not repre-sent er imply final approval of the plans by the Comconwealth or by the local communities.
It also shcule be noted that the enclosed material repre-sents only a portion of the revised, proposed plans for the com-munities in question. Implementing procedures have not been prepared even in draft form for these communities. Furthermore,
, work remains te be done on the state and area plans for Pilgrim ,
before these cccuments are ready for informal technical review.
Sincerely, sj p
b co '
Director
, [RJgkh t r- .
- Entlosttre l
- cr> P '
Pc e :,Ch~SCrma n , Boa rd s o f Se l e c tme n , E F Z a n d Host coccunities
- 2111ac Russell, ReElon I Administrator, NRC Ralph G. Bird, Boston Edison Company l
~~ ~ ~ ~
SENT 8v:8ECO
. . 8-21-88 ; 2:42PN ; ~
ev. ., . . .c .
.e..n. ... % . ou ... e ie- ghM 528,ps,1 b THE COMMONWEALTH OF MAS 8ACHUSETTS
!*' EXScilTW1 espAnfugNT d aesmer paygemens
- 4 ssPthu Aeswerans j
FA&M emet A048RT J.80VLAY CICMatt e. DUKAMis *"""'
""""" September 6, 1988 s
Mr. Edward A. Thomas. Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Raergency Management Agency Region ! .
J.W. McCorasot Post Of fice and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Enclosed please find 3 copies of the following:
Town of Marshfield:
o Draft Radiological Energency Response Plan, two volumes of Impissenting Procedures, the shelter Implementation Program, and the Table of Cross Reference 6 Between Documents provided to FEMA and FEMA $1R Issues.
~
City of Taunton o Draft Radiological Response-Plan two volumes of Implementing Procedures. Table of Cross References Between Documents Provided to FEMA and TEMA SIR Issues, and the corrective Action Response to Technical Review by FEMA of the City of Taunton Radiological Emergency Responso Plan for Pilgrim (Revision 3, 11-14-s7).
These documents are being submitted only for informai ,
technical review. Our submission of this material does not i constitute an application for review and approvst under 44 CFR, section 350.P and does not represent or imply final approval of
- the plans by the Commonwealth or by the local communities.
Sincerely, i
~~~, '
- E ett J. Boulay
- Director i 1
RJB/le Enclosure l cc: Chairman. Board of Belectmen EPZ and Host C.ommunities l William Russell, Region 1 Administrator. NRC Ralph G. Bird, Boston Rdison Company
SEP.28 '88 13:93 FCm REGION 3 BOSTON 1 pg b
h' ,e V
- d i THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DOCUTIVE DEPARTMENT ca careNet Aspicy amo omat op awaneeNCY PREPAGGDNge$
me wascesvaa meno
[M k
}g a ..
F8uw 917014e57 MHllMAEL s. DUKAKis RottRT J. 500 LAY owensoa naseron September 23, 1988 Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazardo Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the MCDA Area II Draft Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Revision 4, August 15, 1988).
This document is being submitted only for informal technical review. Our submission of this material does not constitute an application for review and approval under 44 CFR, section 350.F and does not represent or imply final approval of the plans by the commonwealth or by the local communities.
Sincerely,
.0%
obert uimy N Director RJB/le Enclosure ec: Chairman, Board of Selectmen EPZ and Host Communities William Russell, Region ! Administrator NRC Ralph G. Bird, Boston Edison Company
1 c(}
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE DEPARTZENT _,,
cmt otFENSE ACENCY AND omCE of EMER0ENCY PmtPAREDNES$
(i ao womcastin noAo P o sox less s
]
\( F RAM 6NGHAM. MASS. 017014317 g
MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS ROsERT J. BOULAY N DIRECTom September 30, 1988 l
Mr. Edward A. Thomas. Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division ,
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J.W. McCormack Post Of fice and Court House i Boston, Massachusetts 02109
)
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Enclosed please find 3 copies of the Town of Bridgewater Draft Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Rev 4, August 18, 1988), two volumes of Implementing Procedures and the Table of Cross References Between Documents Provided to FEMA and FEMA l SIR Issues.
These documents are being submitted only for informal technical review. Our submission of this material does not constitute an application for review and approval under 44 CFR, l
Section 350.F and does not represent or imply. final approval of l the plans by the Commonwealth or by the local communities. i Sin erely.
l
\
kl
. Robert J. Boulay Director RJB/le Enclosure cc: Chairman, Board of Selectmen EPZ and Host Communities William Russell, Region I Administrator, NRC .
Ralph G. Bird, Boston Edison Company O
- o g \ 1
~
- UNITO STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION l
Ti -
RE010N I ;
475 ALLENOALE MOAD KING OF PRUM1A, PENNeVLVANIA te400 JUN # 7 7983 Docket No. 50-29 Yankee Atomic Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Bruce L. Drawbridge Vice President and Manager of Operations 1671 Worcester Road
, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 This letter refers to the routine safety inspection of your Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise conducted by Mr. T. Tuccinardi of this office and other members of an NRC team on April Station, Rowe, Massachusetts. 26-28, 1988, at the Yankee Atomic Power Tuccinardi with you and your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The areasReport Inspection examined during the inspection are described in the NRC Region I (enclosed).
Within these areas, the inspection consiand of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of the emergency exercise by team members.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed. Yankee 4 Atomic Power Station performance during the exercise demonstrated the ability to implement the Emergency Plan and the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in a n:anner safety of thethat would provide adequate protective measures for the health and public.
No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
\ -
Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief
(
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
i Region I Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 l
1
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 2 C: j;y g #
f
' cc w/ enc 1:
J. E. Tribble, President I N. N. St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent I i
G. J. Papanic, Jr., Senior Project Engineer - Licensing P. W. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Massachusetts bec w/ enc 1:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
M. Perkins, Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)
D. Haverkamp, Section Chief, DRP J. Kaucher, Project Engineer, DRP H. Eichenholz, SRI - Yankee (w/ concurrences)
G. Grant, SRI - Vermont Yankee R. Bores, Technical Assistant, DRSS i M. Fairtile, PM, NRR l
i e
_ .. s. , tr m. ' . -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report No. 50-29/88-08 l Docket No. 50-29 l License No. DPR-3 Category 1 Licenses: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road ,
Framinoham, Massachusetts 01701 I Facility Name: Yankee Atomic Power Station '
1 Inspection At: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: April 26-28, 1988 Inspectors: O- M //
h29)PP T.T. Mcci a?Si, Emergency P@aredness date l Special , FRSSB, DRSS <
C. Conklin, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS W. Lazarus, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS R. Christopher, EPS, FRSSB,,DRSS ,
H. Eichenholz, SRI Yankee !
C. Carpenter, RI Y kee Approved b A 5[#/8 W La reparedness date Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 26-28, 1988 (Inspection Report No.
(50-29/88-08)
Areas Inspected:
A routine, unannounced emergency preparedness inspection and
- observation 1988. of the licensee's annual emergency exercise performed on April 26, The personnel. inspection was performed by a team of six NRC regional and resident Results: No violations were identified. The licensee's emergency response actions for this exercise were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
gDH W Y'
. I 1
l Details 1.0 Persons Contacted W. Riethle, Manager, Radiation Protection Group W. McGee, Public Affairs Director J. Gilman, Radiation Protection Group J. Hawxhurst, Radiation Protection Group J. Kay, Technical Services Manager A. Xadak, Vice President ,
J. Gedutis, Senior Chemist R. Mellor, Technical Director T. Henderson, Assistant Plant Superintendent J. Robinson, Director, Environmental Engineering G. Babineau, Radiation Protection Manager A. Tatro, Training Instructor B. Wood, Administration Manager D. McDavitt, Radiation Protection Engineer G. Morgan, Technical Services i K. Jurentkuff, Plant Operations Manager B. Drawbridge, Vice President N. StLaurent, Plant Superintendent i The above listed persons were present at the exit meeting.
In addition, other licensee personnel were contacted, interviewed and observed during the inspection." - "- ~~ " ,
2.0 Emergency Exercise The Yankee Atomic Power Station unannounced, backshift exercise was conducted on April 26, 1988, from 4:30 to 11:00 p.m. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of Vermont participated fully. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and New York '
conducted field monitoring activities and a ingestion pathway exercise on April 27, 1988.
2.1 Pre-exercise Activities The exercise objectives, submitted to NRC Region I on January 20, 1988, were reviewed and determined to adequately test the licensee's Emergency Plan. On March 2, 1988, the licensee submitted the complete scenario package for NRC review and evaluation. Region I representatives had telephone conversations with the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content of the scenario. As a result, minor revisions were made to the scenario 4
which allowed adequate testing of major portions of the Emergency Plan (EP) and the implementing proceduree., and also provided the opportunity for licensee personnel to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in need of corrective action.
l t
{
3 T
NRC observers attended a licensee briefing on April 26, 1988.
Suggested NRC changes to the scenario were made by the licensee in the areas of technical support and radiological data. The licensee stated that certain emergency response activities would be simulated and preventthatdisruption controllers wouldplant of normal intercede in exercise activities to operations.
2.2 Scenario The exercise scenario included the following key events:
- 1. Loop 1 pressure indicator failure; 2.
Plant mode reduction in accordance with Technical Specifications; 3.
Switchgear Room Fire Suppression System " TROUBLE" indication;
- 4. Fire Emergency;
- 5. RCS pump begins to vibrate;
- 6. Control rod drop incident;
- 7. Second control rod drop incident causes a reactor scram signal initiation; the reactor fails to scram, however, a manual scram of the reactor from Switchgear Room is successful; 8.
Loss of feedwater, Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTk) radiacion alarms, and safety relief sticks; 9.
Release to atmosphere begins several minutes later; 4 10.
Release of radioactive materials to environment; and 11.
Relief valve closed and plant stabilized, commence recovery.
2.3 Activities Observed
. During the conduct of the licensee's exercise NRC team members made detailed observations of the emergency respons,e organization activation and augmentation, the emergency response facilities ;
(ERFs) activation and operations, and the actions of emergency l
response personnel during the operation of the ERFs. The following
, activities were observed.
i 1.
Recognition of initiating conditions, correlation of these with l Emergency Action Levels (Eats), selection and use of emergency l operating procedures, and completion of notification to offsite governmental authorities; l
l l
[
t 4
- 2. Staffing and activation of ERFs;
- 3. Communication between and within ERFs;
- 4. Formulation of Protective Action Recommendations; l
- 5. Performance of technical support, simulated repair and corrective actions;
- 6. Capability of the Health Physics organization to maintain radiological controls; i
l 7. Communications with offsite agencies; and
- 8. Interaction between Emergency Director, and state and county representatives in the E0F.
3.0 Exercise Observation 3.1 Exercise Strenoths The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response facilities, and use of the facilities, were generally consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing procedures. Tne team also noted the following actions of the licensee's emergency . .
response organization that were indicative of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions.-- -
- 1. Excellent communication with, and utilization of, offsite teams for offsite survey data and plume tracking.
- 2. Frequent and quality briefings were conducted in the Technical Support Center (TSC), and overall, TSC command and control was excellent.
- 3. Plant methods, procedures, and performance of emergency notifications was very good.
3.2 Exercise Weaknesses The NRC identified the following exercise weaknesses which need to be evaluated and corrected by the licensee. The licensee conducted an adequate self critique of the exercise that also identified some of these areas.
! 1-.
l Communication between the Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs) vas weak. Numerous instances of poor communication were in evidence, both between and within ERFs as evidenced by the following examples:
l
- - ~ ~
\ .
5 r ,
When discrepancies were found at the Emergency Operations Facility between the METPAC dose assessments model and field survey team results, a conservative decision to use the field team data was made. However, the rationale for this decision was never communicated to the Technical Support Center (TSC) or Control Room (CR). TSC and CR should be kept abreast of offsite issues.
offsite radiological data in the TSC is also referenced inThe reco procedure OP3324, "TSC Operations".
TSC was not kept abreast of the scenario event " loss of feedwater". Knowledge of the loss of feedwater should have caused the TSC staff to examine and project affects on the reactor. Though this event made little difference on the progress of the scenario, the TSC was not aware of this and a loss of feedwater could have had major effects.
The Engineering Support Center (ESC) had indication of minor core damage prior to the declaration of the General Emergency (GE). This knowledge was never available to the staff in the TSC.
the GE may have been declared earlier.Had the TSC examined The CR was not kept abreast of what issues were being examined in the TSC or in the EOF. Since the CR is in fact running the plant, they should be kept advised of
- corrective measures being censidered in the -TSC, and the -
effects of-the accident offsite.; - '
The area of communications between ERFs will be examined in a subsequent inspect:an (50-29/88-08-01).
2.
The Recovery Manager in the EOF used forms for notification of state andProcedure".
Operation local officials that were not in the official " EOF The licensee stated that the forms it had used had been agreed upon by the licensee, and state and local officials, but had not yet been included in the EOF Operation Procedure.
The inclusion of the authorized notifica-tion forms in current procedures will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-29/88-08-02).
3.3 Other Areas Requiring Follow up
- 1. Recovery Manager (RM as well as the " orang)e phone" communications. performs routin This often left the RM unavailable to confer with his staff, as well as interact with state officials in the EOF. The licensee stated that this arrangement was made with the affected states. However, the RM could be relieved of many of these administrative duties, allowing him time to maintain better command of the EOF as well as interact with state and local officials, i
l
r _ . __ __ _ _
- i 1
I 6
l 2.
Protective Action Recommendations (PAR's) were not developed and presented in a structured manner. As an example, while the licensee was relaying a PAR to state officials, new information ;
resulted spot.
in an attempt to analyze and change the PAR on the :
Although the licensee and state t,ffitials stayed with the l original PAR, several minutes were spent discussing a change in the PAR. Additionally, the RM was not incit4ed in the discussion, nor was the data validated.
3.
no method of tracking technical issues being examined For example, when the ESC suspected that there may have been fuel overheat and potential degradation, the issue was not pursued by TSC staff nor was a record of the data kept for follow-up.
4.
The scenario had the potential to adversely affect licensee performance.
In particular, plant data did not accurately I reflect operator actions, and there were significant differences between projected versus actual field seasurements.
4.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) 50-29/87-03-02 (IFI) Field team results were not displayed or distributed to response personnel in the EOF.
During the exercise, data flow from the field teams through the communications system to health physics (HP personnel was observed. The data flowed well and HP personnel were l supp)ied with a constant stream; i
information. The data was analyzed and used to modify Protective Action Recommendation decisionmaking. The states were constantly involved and did in fact receive the data and its implications. Dose assessors i aggressively pursued disparities between projected and actual doses, and made conservative decisions in view of these differences. Plume tracking during the scenario was made difficult by constant scenario wind shifts, however, offsite teams performed well in spite of the difficulty. Based on these observations, this item is closed.
5.0 Licensee Critique
- The NRC team attended the licensee's post-exercise critique on April 28, 1988, during which key licensee controllers discussed observations of the exercise.
Theappropriate evaluated and licensee indicated thatactions corrective these observations taken. would be 6.0 Exit Meeting and NRC Critique The licensee was informed no violations were observed. Although weak-nesses were identified as noted in detail 3 above, the NRC team deter-mined, that within the scope and limitation of the scenario, the licensee's performance demonstrated they could implement their Emergency Plan and l emergency procedures l
l
i
. i 7 l 3 ;
r i
in a manner that would adequately provide protective measures for the l health and safety of the public. '
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate them and take appropriate action regarding the items identified.
i I
1 l
4 1
l 1
l l
1
1 UNitsesTAtas -
5 ; NUCLEAR RE00LATORY Resmal COMMt3800N es ALLammata nom
....* KINE OF PatmeA PenmSYLVANAA M OCT 4 61988 Docket No. 50 271 License No. DPR-28 Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. Warren P. Murphy Vice President and Manager of Operations ,
RD 5 Box 169 Ferry, Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 j Gentlemen: !
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-271/88 13 A routine safety inspection of your annual emergency preparedn conducted by Mr. Christopher of this office, and other members of a on August Station, 30 to September Brattleboro Vermont. 1,1988, at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pow ,
Mr. Christopher to yo,u and others of your staff at the conclusi inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection included observation of the a exercise and follow-up of findings identified during previous emergen preparedness inspection reportinspections and exercises which is enclosed as described in the NRC kegion with this letter.
records, interviews with personnel and observatio by team members.
Within the scope of this inspection !
no violations were observed. It was l protective measures for the health and safety of the pu No reply to this letter is required.
is appreciated. Your cooperation with 'us in this matter Sincerely Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Factitties Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch
Enclosure:
NRC Region 1 Inspection Report No. 50-271/88 13 g() [ 3 h '
_. --- - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
T
\
~~~~'R l
Vermont Yankee Nuclear 2 OCT e s tags j Power Corporation i
cc w/ enc 1:
J. Weigand, President and Chief Executive Officer J. Pelletter, Plant Manager i i
J. deVincentis, Vice President, Yankee Atomic Electric Company R. Capstick Licensing Engineer i J. Gilroy, 6trector Termont Public Interest Research GYankee Atomic Electric C '
Inc.
C. Sterzinger Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public a,rvice l
P. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Consenwealth of Nassachusetts Public Document Room POR local Public Document (Room) (LPOR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident ,:nspector State of New Hampshire State of Vermont Cosmonwealth of Massachusetts bec w M.gio/
Re encl:Room (with concurrencesl n I Docket Perkins,ManagementAssistant,DRMA(w/0 encl)
D. Haverkamp, Section Chief, DRP G. Grant, SR1 H. Eichenholz,, SRI, YankeeVermont Yankee (w/ concurrences)
V. Rooney PM, NRR R. Bores,, Technical Assistant DRSS X. Abraham, PA0 (2)
/: K. . ~ p. ,..
s l
l t
i 1-____ -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C089115S10N REGION I Report No. 50-271/88-13 Docket No. 50 271 License No. DPR-28 Priority Category ,, C Licensee: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
RD 5 Box 169 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302 Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Brattleboro, Vermont Inspection Conducted: August 30 to September 1,1988 l
l Inspectors k- AlAA R. Keith Christopher, Team Lebcer, EPS date FRSSB, DRSS i traig Conklin, Senior EP Specialist Geoffrey Grant SRI Larry Cohen, PEPB, NRR I
Approved By: b- ID W- @arughief, LPs, FR558, DR55 M[date
~
f( - - "" '
l Inspection Sumary: Inspection on August 30 to September.1,1988 (Report No. 50-271/88-13) ,
t Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection and observation 31, of the licensee's annual emergency exercise performed on August 1988. The inspection was performed by a team of four NRC Region I and Headquarters personnel Results: No violations were identified. Emergency response actions were adequate to provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
t
d DETAILS j 1.0 Persons Contacted j The following held on September key licensee 1,1988. representatives attended the exit meeting
- J. Gary Wei and, President and Chief Executive Officer Warren Nu , Vice President and Manager of Operations James Pell er, Plant Manager Reid Smith i
EdwardPorferVice President for External Affairs Stanley Jeffer,sonEmergency Preparedness Coordinator Exercise Coortfinator j William Riethle, droup Manager, Radiation Protection l
Other licensee representatives, including exercise controllers and 4
observers attended the exit meeting as well.
i l 2.0 Emergency Exercise f
The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station partial participation exercise was conducted on August 31 New Hampshire fully participated 1988and fromthe6:00 AM of States to 1:30 VermontPM. and The State of
- Massachusetts participated at the EOF and the News Media Center. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not observe the exercise.
2.1 Pre-Exercise Activities i
! Prior to the emergency exercise, NRC Region I and Headquarters
{ representatives held meetings and had telephone discussions trith -
the licensee to discuss objectives, scope and content of the exercise scenario. Minor changes were made to the scenario to 4
make certain technical inforsation consistent with the scenario.
t I NR; observers attended a licensee briefing on August 30, 1988, and participated during in discussions of emergency response actions expected the exercise. The licensee's controllers were responsible for controlling exercise activities to prevent deviations from the scenario and to ensure that normal plant operations were not disrupted.
The exercise scenario included the following events:
1.
! Loss of coclant from the primary coolant system evidenced by unidentified leakage greater than 5 gallons per minute
] (GPM);
i i
i
. -- ~- -_. -- . - . - -
, 3
- J. Failure of the main turbine mechanical pressure regula:'.or resultig in reactor vessel water level swell and substgoent turbine trip;
- 3. Containment radiation levels exceeding 1000 Uhr indicating i
actual or potential significant incore fuel damage;
! 4. Declaration of Unusual Event, Alert and Site Area Emergency
- (SAE);
- 5. Recommendation of protective actions to state officials;
- 6. The licensee also performed several mini-scenarios requiring
' on-site assistance teams to be dispatched to investigate problems associated with plant equipment. Mock-ups of the l postulated damaged equipment was available to permit plant personnel to perform corrective maintenance. Mock-9ps included the electrical backseating of drywell valves in accordance with OT 3111
- and RHR pump inspection a(nd breaker repair.High Drywell Pressu 4
2.2 Activities observed During the conduct of the exercise, four NRC team members made observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency s
organization, activation of emergency response facilities, and actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of i the emergency response facilities. The following activities were observed: '~~:i i
- 1. Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario ~~
j events;
- 2. Direction and coordination of the emergency response;
- 3. Augmentation of the emergency organization and response j facility activation;
- 4. Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent plant status information:
- 5. Conmunications/information flow, and record keeping;
- 6. Assessment and projection of offsite radiological dose and
- consideration of protective actions;
- 7. Provisions for inplant radiation protection; l
1 l
J 4
l
- ' 8. I Performance of offsite and inplant radiological surveys; g.
Maintenance of site security and access zontrol; I
10.
Performance of technical support, repair and corrective actions; 11.
! Assembly, accountability c;;a evacuation of personnel; and 12.
4 Preparation of information for dissemination at the Emergency News Center.
4 3.0 Exercise Observations 3.1 Exercise Strengths i
The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of the emergency response facilities, and use of the facilities were generally
, consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing
{ procedures. The team also noted the following actions that provided strong abnormal plant positive indication of their ability to cope with conditions:
- 1. Extent of play by the States of Vermont, Massachusetts and l New Hampshire was substantial and added depth to scenar,io realism and provided training in state / licensee .
interactions; l
- 2. . .
Dose assessment activities were proactive and aggressively
{ attempted to evaluate potential radiolgical conditions based on projected trends in plant conditions; j 3. EAL's were effectively utilized and classifications were correct;
- 4. Emergency Response Facilities communications, interaction
! and overall command and control was effectively 1
demonstrated; i
- 5.
In-plant mini-scenario mock-ups permitted the operating !
! staff to diagnose and correct plant problems in accordance with the recommendations and intent set forth in Information j Notice 87-54 (Emergency Response Exercises) regarding interactive scenarios; A
i '
i l
i 1
a
5 7"
- 6. .
In plant team communications with respiratory equipment was successfully demonstrated; and '
7.
The relocation of the Emergency News Center to the corporate offices demonstrative 1y improved the efficiency and effectiveness give appropriateofbriefings.
the licensee to deal with the media and to 3.2 Exercise Weaknesses The NRC identified the following exercise weaknesses which need to be evaluated and corrected by the licensee. The licensee conducted an adequate self critique of the exercise that also identified these areas.
- 1. The licensee properly classified clock time an Unusual Event UE at :
0630 from t (he primary) coolant system in excess of 5 G unidentified leakage. During the UE, the reactor scramed at approximately 0745. While this event does not by itself cause an escalation in the event classification requirin status of the UE. Under these conditions, it would be i appropriate to promptly update the NRC Operations Center of j such a change in plant status; '
2.
The Vermont and Massachusetts press releases did not include a date/ time stamp which could cause some confusion as to which press release. took precedence as an accurate update of plant conditions; 4
l 3.
The Emergency News Center could improve its capacity to use ~
visual aids taking into consideration lighting conditions and size of the facility; and I 4.
The licensee properly classified a SAE based on containment radiation levels greater than 1000 R classification process, the licensee properly
/hr. During trackedthis and discussed the implications of a very clear upward trend in ,
radiation levels but elected not to declare the SAE until the EAL level of 1000 R was actually reached. In the face of clear and convincing evidence that an EAL is going to be ,
~
exceeded, the licensee should consider making it s reclassification based on the trend rather than waiting until the EAL is actually exceeded.
6 4.0 Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items The following item was identified during a previous inspection Jlnspection Report No. 50-271 dhe NRC team during the exerc/87-22). Based upon observations made by demonstrated and is closed:
ise, the following open ites was acceptably (Closedl50-271 approvat by the/87-22-01: Initialdirector.
plant emergency notification foms do not allow for The licensee has modified the notification foms and incorporated ,
procedural changes to assure proper approval by the plant emergency director. l 5.0 Licensee Critioue The NRC Team Leader attended the licensee's post exercise critique on September 1,1988, during which the key licensee controllers discussed observations of the exercise. The licensee indicated these observations ;
would be evaluated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
6.0 Exit Meetine and NRC Critique The NRC Team Leader met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report at the end of the inspection. The Team Leader ,
summarized the observations made during the exercise.
The licensee was informed that previously identified items were '
adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there were areas identified for corrective action, the NRC -team determined '
that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's 1 performance demonstrated that they could implement their Emergency Plan '
and Energenc, *lan Implementing Procedures in a manner which would adequately pieride protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate the NRC comments and observations and make changes where appropriate.
At no time during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written infomation to the licensee.
l
- .M B061DNED60N
. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l Rocky Hill Road i
Plymouth. Massachusetts 02360 Ralph G. Bird Senior Vice President - Nuclear October 7 I988 BECo Ltr. #88-143 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Attn: Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C. 20555 I Docket No.: 50-293 License No.: DPR-35 Re: Boston Edison Company Comments on Draft of "A Report on Progress Hade in Emergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilorim Nuclear Power Station"
Dear Sir:
The enclosed letter was transmitted today to Mr. Agnes of the Commonwealth of Hassachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety. It provides Boston Edison's comments on the draft report entitled "A Report on Progress Hade in Emergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station." This transmittal is for your information.
Please contact Mr. Ron Varley, Manager of Emergency Preparedness, with any questions.
.'G.
d
- caw Enclosure l
l .
I
~
p a s r ,.
l l
l
i .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l October 7. 1988-Page Two i
I cc: Mr. Hilliam T. Russell Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I ,
475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 j Mr. D. G. Mcdonald Project Manager l Division of Reactor Projects I/II '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop #1401 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Senior NRC Resident. Inspector Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l
I I
b I
C. Duxbury (Draft Recort ec. 53-55) i 39. The EPZ Town of Duxbury has submitted a draft plan for informal technical review by state and federal authorities, and staff of MCDA/0EP have discussed the results of these reviews with Duxbury officials. :
However, Duxbury has submitted neither implementing procedures nor a l Shelter utilization plan for review. (p. 53) ~
l COMMENTS: In Duxbury, 38 of 40 draft procedures have received concurrence from the responsible individuals. Many must still be reviewed by the town RERP Committee. All of the municipal authorizations for shelters in Duxbury have been signed.
4 l
l 4
o 1
- 4
i l
F. Plymouth (Draft Report on 59-61) l
~ '
- 48. The EPZ Town of Plymouth has submitted a draft plan for informal l technical review by state and federal authorities, and staff of HCDA/0EP have discussed the results of these reviews with Plymouth officials. However, Plymouth has submitted neither implementing
)
procedures nor a shelter utilization plan for review. (p. 59)
COMMENTS: While the draft Plymouth procedures and Shelter l
Implementation Program description have not yet been l submitted for informal review, it should be noted that'87 of 90 draft procedures have received concurrence by responsible agency heads or facility administrators, and most of the shelter LOA's and municipal authorizations have been obtained.
I l
i 1 ,
i l
l l
l l
l 1
l 1
b y +Ma $de $mmou:eadd o/bssachase#s l
\ \ se.n. op. ./as m e
.- l e $bdM Ce l
Michael S. Dukabs
- $.dM, 4AacluJeNJ Of/CE Charles V. Bany swm, A REPORT ON PROGRESS MADE IN EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR RESPONSE TO AN ACCIDENT AT PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION I 1
> i EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l This is the third in a series of reports on progress made in emergency preparedness for response to an accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Staticn, Plymouth' MA.
, Th'is _
report was preceded by ones issued in December, 1986 and December, 1987. Both my 1986 and 1987 reports made the !
finding that plans for off-site response to an accident at Pilgrim Station were not adequate, i.e., that the l Commonwealth cannot give reasonable assurance to the public that their health and safety can be adequately protected.
-i-
x
[
This report is based upon hundreds of hours of staff consultation with local officials and residents of the pilgria EPZ. Draf ts of this report were circulated and several discussions took place with representatives of the licensee. Finally, a public meeting was held on October 6, 1988 in Duxbury to give federal authorities, legislators, local officials, residents and the licensee an opportunity to respond to the draft report.
. m . , e a.- ._ __ ,
Unf= ortunately,
,u s,ca .. a no
. representa.tive.~.
.......ew..~ .
.f ryhthe.NRC4 EEMA,Agj3)4 l licensjs clioose'to part1cjpate in}h@bllyJJey(M Undeniably, a great deal of work has been undertaken by the state and local governments and the licensee to develop the best possible emergency response plans since I issued to you ry reports'of Decekber:1936 and'D'e'cember
~ ~ '
1987. In particular, we must acknowledge a strong effort and substantial financial commitment by the licensee. We also give the highest marks to the dedication and full-faith efforts that local officials and personnel and state authorities have demonstrated in this pursuit.
Nonetheless, I believe that this report documents three things:
1 ~
1 t
- 11 -
I l
l .
- i l (7 -
- 1. That significant but incomplete progress has been made in enhancing off-site energency preparedness for an I accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; l I
l
- 2. That we are far from being able to say that we have developed adequate and implementable plans to provide I
reasonable assurance that public health and safety can be protected in the event of an accident at Pilgrim l Station; and 1
- 3. That under no circumstances should the Boston Edison Company be permitted to restart Pilgrim Station unless and until fully,a,dequate plans have been developed and are in' place, and a graded, full-scale off-site exercise has been held which demonstrates the effectiveness of all emergency plans, personnel, and facilities.
Therefore, it is my recommendations that you urge the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to authorize the restart of Pilgrim Station until the following conditions are met:
- s l
l
- lii -
t i I
I (O.
- a. There is an emergency response plan and set of implementing procedures as approved by elected officials in place for each EPZ and reception community; and
- b. A successful, full-scale emergency exercise has been held of all off-site emergency plans, procedures, personnel and facilities, which has been observed and graded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I I
Only after these conditions have been met will we be in a position to determine whether reasonable assurance can be provided that public health and safety can be adequately protected in the event of an accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Notable progress has been made in many areas of emergency preparedness, a number of which are discussed in this report. However, we continue to make the finding today that no reasonable assurance exists that the public health and safety can be protected in the event of a radiological accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station with off-site consequences.
! - iv -
i i
3 1
1 j safety officials, concerned citizens, and other groups as )
l part of preparations for this report.
i, 1
{
i This approach to planning was devised because state t
and local officials agreed that the best 'lans are those j
4 l
which have been developed with the full participation of the men and women responsible for their implementation.
l Thus, local selectmen, civil defense directortojipj}de .and fire chiefs, and department of...public worksj ice ~c Qcp --
{
the individuals who best understand the capabili_ ties'ef local agencies to respond to energencies -- are involved i
with every aspect of planning.
d Section VII of this report gives the status of plans, i
j procedures, and other documents which have been forwarded l
to FEMA at the request of local officials for informal l
1 technical review by state and federal authorities.
l i
l i
j C. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES i
I 1
Both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission urge that nuclear utilities bear at least a part of the costs of off-site i
1
- 11 -
L i,
-'~ T j
$so ;
/
/
sh s'co~nd'u'cEV8 Yy M'CDA/OEP.
- However. FEMA has not withdrawn the finding of its 1987 Self-Initiated Review that i # the lack of a Northern Reception Center constituted i
i
- [ an RERP deficiency.
The state then undertook an I extensive search for another northern facility.
! The result of our search was the preliminary i
{ ? designation of !
- !d.
the state Department of Public Works l
i facility in Wellesley as the third center. Wellesley DPW i
was our preliminary choice because it lies at the
! intersection of two major highways -- Routes 9 and.128 --
because it is sufficiently distant from Pilgrim Station, it
! is a state-owned and operated f acility, and it would
- minimize the traffic impact on the host community.
{
1 Having made this preliminary designation, MCDA/OEP in i
i 1
cooperation with other state agencies has undertaken a i feasibility study to determine if the state DPW facility in Wellesley can in fact i
adequately serve as a reception center.
- Part of this feasibility study involved i
i . discussions with DPW, DCPO, and BECo officials to i
determine if Boston Edison can and will develop the 4
operational capability at the site for its full use as a reception centr,r.
t i
l j
- 32 1
i 3 , *
~ ' -
e satisfactory without a thorough and continuous training program. Training and exercises are the elements through which we can be sure that the complex system we are devising can actually work.
It is our policy that every individual with a role in emergency response be trained in her or his particular activity. Training will be provided to, among many other groups, selectmen, civil defense staffs, department of public works personnel, police and fire departments, teachers and other school personnel, bus and ambulance drivers, as well as the state police, stateDPh,andthe National Guard. Further, this training does and will correspond to implementing procedures developed to reflect actual response plan actions, and involve the equipment that she or he will use in an emergency.
MCDA/OEP and Boston Edison together have developed a comprehensive program to provide this training for people who will respond to an accident at Pilgrim Station.
MCDA/OEP officials review and approve all training modules which are developed for each discipline and group to be trained. Since September 22, 1988, MCDA/OEP has received 38 lesson plans to be reviewed and approved and is evaluating the material as rapidly as possible.
MCDA/OEP also certifies all trainers who teach modules to state, local, and volunteer organizations, and monitors the quality of their training.
While numbers are constantly being revised, our present estimate is that approximately 6,000 individuals I will require more that 25,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of training. As of this writing, we have provided about nineteen percent of total training hours.' This does not include training for towns located between the EPZ and reception communities.
H. NEED FOR A FULL-SCALE OFF-SITE EXERCISE Section III of this report discusses the extent to which state and local officials have developed an entirely new plan and system for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station.
The last full-scale off-site exercise of emergency 4
plans, personnel and facilities for Pilgrim Station was held in September of 1985. The Federal Emergency Management Agency found, as a result of the 1985 l
l
is evaluating the material as rapidly as possible.
MCDA/OEP also certifies all trainers who teach modules to state, local, and volunteer organizations, and monitors the quality of their training.
While numbers are constantly being revised, our present estimate is that approximately 6,000 individuals I will require more that 25,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of training. As of this writing, we have provided about nineteen percent of total training hours.' This does not include training for towns located between the EPZ and reception communities.
H. NEED FOR A FULL-SCALE OFF-SITE EXERCISE Section III of this report discusses the extent to which state and local officials have developed an entirely new plan and system for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station.
The last full-scale off-site exercise of emergency plans, personnel and facilities for Pilgrim Station was held in September of 1985. The Federal Emergency Management Agency found, as a result of the 1985
know at this writing when construction can begin, however, once begun, improvements should require at least three months to complete.
L. TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES AND LETTERS OF AGREEMENT WITH TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES At our request, Boston Edison has assumed responsibility to hold discussions with many bus, ambulance, and chair van operators both within and without the EPZ to obtain their consent to provide the transportation resources needed in the event of an evacuation. The Commonwealth has insisted that the availability of all transportation resources be documented by letters of agreement signed by the operators of the transportation companies. We also have insisted that the letters demonstrate informed consent on the part of the V
transportation providers and assurance that the resources will be available when required. In return, the state will see that all drivers are given thorough training in emergency preparedness, the use of radiological dosimetry, 4 ,
and their individual roles in emergency response.
l 1 ,
l L
, - 47 -
E
_2.
. - _ . - ~ '-~
} ?. Nearly double the anticipated number of buses ee ne d
{ to support emergency response have been identifi d e , and training has been provided for some of the driv ers.
! However, l the letters of agreement which Boston Edison
'f proposed the transportation providers sign have beenent s I
back for revision by the Executive Office of Publi c Safety
' because they did not
' indicate informed consent on the part i
of the drivers.
} Several months have passed since Boston Edison agreed to prepare revised letters of agre ement and i we await j further action on this matter by the Boston 1
Edison Company.
I 1
k
! VI.
MAJOR LOCAL PLANNINO ISSUES i
[
i Both my 1986 and 1987
{
i reports investigated certain j issues which had never been adequately addressed or resolved in emergency planning.
{ Most of these issues are 1 common to all EPZ plans.
l Following is an item-by-item i
discussion of progress which has been made on the se issues through our planning process.
\
- 48 -
0 n
g s.
September 9,1988 p
! ~~ H NEMORANDUM FOR: William Russell, Regional Administr tor FROM: William Lazarus, Chief. EPS THRU: bn Stewart Ebneter,llanty, Chief FRSSB Direc, tor, DRSS
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF OFFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT PILGRIM The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with the most recent status of resolution of off-site emergen y preparedness deficientes in the Cosmonwealth Planning Zone EPZ of Massachusetts and local Review performe(d by). These deficiencies were identifiedlans FEMA Region I and are sumarized below:n a Self-Initiated for th 1.
Lack of evacuation plans for public and private schools and day-care centers.
2.
Lack of a reception center for people evacuating to the north.
- 3. Lack of identifiable shelters for the beach population.
4.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs population.
5.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation cependent population.
6.
Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent diminuation in emergency preparedness.
~
~
Deficiency No. 3, regarding the lackTo7 shelters for the beach population has ~
been removed as a concern by FEMA due ~to the position taken that both i i
l sheltering and evacuation do not have to be demonstrated as feasible for all !
segments of the population in order to demonstrate a " range of protective
- actions". A shelter survey has also been completed b the licensee, which apparently demonstrates adequate shelter capacity.
in nature and will largely be resolved by the progress made on the otherD ficiency No. 6 l
specific issues.
l That leaves the 3 deficiencies regarding evacuation planning for the school children, special needs population, and transportation dependent j
population and the one deficiency regarding the lack of a northern reception center.
I Considerable progress has been made in drafting plans and procedures for the EPZ and host comunities to correct these deficiencies, and the present status is as noted below: ,
FEMA, in conjunction with the primary RAC members has reviewed and comented on the draft plans for P ymouth, Kingston, Carver, Duxbury, l l
f$
l 2 l
t
! Taunton and Bridgewater. Coments from the RAC, as well as additional comments from MCDA have been incorporated in the plans and procedures l drafted for these towns as well as Marshfield.
- 1. Marshfield - the Plan, Implementing Procedures (IP's), Shelter Implementation Program and SIR cross reference have been approved by the selectmen and forwarded to MCDA.
i
- 2. Taunton - the Plan Implementing ~ Procedures and SIR cross reference andcorrectiveactionplanhavebeenforwardedtoMCDA.
1
- 3. Duxbury - all documents are complete except for three IP's. These are in draft form and are to the planning comittee for review.
- 4. Plymouth - all documents are complete except for three IP's. These are in draft form and are to the planning comittee for review.
- 5. Kingston - all documents are complete and ready to be forwarded to MCDA.
- 6. Carver - all documents are complete except for one IP. All documents should be forwarded to MCDA by September, 1988.
- 7. Bridgewater - all documents are complete except for one IP. All documents should be forwarded to MCDA by September,1988.
Although not specifically identified as deficient in the FEMA Report, renovations are being conducted at the town Emergency Operations Centers.
with those in P.lymouth, _Kingston Bridgewater Carver and Taunton complete.
and the one in Duxbury approximafely 907, complete. Renovation of the last one
- Marshfield began September,1988, and should be complete in about two months. .
A northern reception center has been tentatively identified by the Commonwealth in the town of Wellesley, however the decision to locate the center there will not be made until completion of a feasability study. The schedule for the completion of the feasability study is nat known. Planned renovations of the remaining two reception centers in Taunton and Bridgewater not yet started, but again these reception centers have not been identified by FEMA as inadequate. The lack of the third reception center may also be resolved by demonstration that the present two centers are adequatt for the population and the development of evacuation planning for the two centers rather than three.
The ETE study was completed and the report was distributed to the local town planners and MCDA on August 26, 1988. Copies will be forwarded to NRC the week of September 11, 1988.
l l
l 3 i The Comonwealth has not yet found a satisfactory method to ensure that ;
the special needs population has been identified. MCDA will be conducting a i
j detailed special needs population survey in the near future.
The plans and procedures are in what the licensee considers to be sufficiently final form that training is being conducted in accordance with a training program approved by the Commonwealth. In preparation for reviewing j i training >eing conducted for off-site response personnel at Pilgris, Mr.
l Conklin and I attended a meeting on August 22, 1988 at the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA). This meeting was at our request with the purpose of briefin i of off g the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on our plans,to observe the training site response personnel that had comenced. A secondary purpose was to determine from the Cosmionwealth the status of the plan and procedure revisions l which were in
! deficiencies. progress to correct the FEMA Region I Self-Initiated Review Commonwealth of Massachusetts attendees included:
l Peter Agnes, Undersecretary Department of Public Safety Robert Boulay, Director MCDA Jeffery (Buz)(Hausner, Program Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering Preparedness NSEPP , MCDA Tom Matthews, Emerge)ncy Response Planner, Department of Public Healt Al Slaney, Regional Planner, MCDA i
The meeting had been discussed and coordinated with FEMA Region I and an agreement reached with that office for them to send a representative to attend the meeting, however, the individual who had planned to attend was prevented from doing so shortly before the meeting by directi.on from FEMA. headquarters.
........u.
An outline of discussion points prepared by Mr. Agnes is attached. A sumary of the principle points of discussion presented by Mr'.~ Agnes is as follows.
Massachusetts considers the plans previously reviewed and evaluated by TEMA in the Self-Initiated Review (SIR) to be inoperative, and that the plans and procedures currently in draft represent a total re-write and may be fundamentally different from the previous versions. They do not know if these plans are adequate and will not be in a position to mare that determination until they have been completed and tested in a fp.ll-scale i
exercise. He reiterated that it remains to be seen whether an adequate
! plan can be developed that will protect the health and safety of the public in the Pilgrim emergency planning zone.
All those present concurred that the licensee has demonstrated comitment and support for the planning effort.
4 The Commonwealth is currently soliciting input on the current status of emergency planning, and plans to issue an updated status report in mid September,1988.
MCDA has conducted weekly meetings with the locals en planning issues and status.
(hostcityCurrently, the town of Rarshfield and city of Taunton (risk town) dures and have completely finished their plans, proce supporting) documents and have forwarded them to MCDA with have FEMA review them. All other towns' plans and procedures are essentially complete, and should be submitted to MCDA in the immediate future.
MCDA summarized their refusal to submit the completed doceents to FEMA as a result of FEMA's non-responsiveness to their letters regarding FEMA's position on sheltering of the beach population in the Pilgrim EpZ. (At an unplanned 1988 contact with Mr. Agnes at' the Plymouth Sheraton on August 24, Mr. Agnes was asked if he would now forward the c leted documents to FEMA for review as they had received FEMA's reply on ust 23, 1988.
Mr. Agnes replied that he didn't know since he hadn't had ime to carefully review FEMA's letter.)
Wellseley has been designated as the third Reception Center. It is approximately 35 miles from the EPZ. A feasibility study is currently being conducted to determine if it will serve the purpose. This study should be completed by the end of September. After the study the Commonwealth will undertake capital improvements and procedure development.
MCDA is waiting for the revised ETE to make determinations of beach evacuations and possible other population pocket aressa .
MCDA hasn't agreed on a method to identify the special needs populations.
Letters of Agreement are essentially in place, however MCDA believes that they need to further strengthen this area.
MCDA is still considering an expanded EPZ with the priorities on Marshfield beaches, Duxbury and Carver, and the Cape. The desire to perform Protective Actions on a town wide basis.y expressed a The training program has been approved by MCDA. Approximately 6000 individuals have been identified for training. To date approximately 25%
of the 6000 have been contacted with approximately 15% completed.
The public information program is essentially complete except for some rework on the facts of radiation section.
l
g, -
5 I At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Agnes indicated that he was very I I disappointed in the fact that FEMA has been very unresponsive in reviewing the progress that has been made in correcting the deficiencies identified. We indicated that FEMA was involved, as he knew, in the informal technical review of the plans and procedures which had been forwarded to them, and that we had expected their presence at the August 22nd meeting.
After the meeting had adjourned we requested and were provided copies of the Marshfield and Taunton plans and procedures to review in preparation for i evaluating the training that was being conducted over the next two days.
t(mt had not been forwarded to FEMA for review.)These plans and p On August 23 and 24, 1988 Mr. Craig Conklin, Ms. Rosemary Hogan and I met with the licensee transportation and his contractor who is conducting the training o,f providers. We reviewed the scope of the training program the individual lesson modules that were to be used in the training that was lo be conducted on those two days, and witnessed the training of bus drivers from two companies that would be providing transportation to scnool children, or I transportation dependent, or special needs population. Findings are noted below.
l i
I Training program development is ongoing. Essentially, as draft procedures are complete, a training plan is developed, including contacts, lesson plans and hands-on training.
to actual training beginning. This program is then approved by MCDA prior l Training has been conducted for many organizations most notably the general overview training. Specific trainin including that for transportation providers.g is also being conducted 1
Several bus and ambulance companies have been contactc6 and training has i
' begun. Scheduling is continuin probably the rest of the year. g and will be an ongoing process for The training is quite detailed and in fact included the actual running of bus / ambulance routes by various drivers. Formal classroom training is conducted, followed by hands-on training. On August 23 and 24,1988 we observed training of drivers for two bus companies which would be used for school children or transportation dependent individuals. The training included demonstration of the drivers use of the materials developed and provided to assist them in accurately running their routes. These materials are deemed to be adequate to allow the drivers to complete their assigned routes without difficulty. Training also included hands-on dosimetry use and oral questions regarding their roles. The drivers are receiving high quality training and demonstrated a high retention level from previous classroom training.
l I
. . s - !
l 6
1 s
j//A-- ~
! William J ,
Chief Emergency Preparedness Section
Attachment:
As stated i
1 l
l l 1
i I
i l
l 1
l l
l cc: S. Collins l C. Conklin l F. Congel NRR i W. Travers, NRR l
R. Hogan, NRR J. Dolan, FEMA I i
0 REOl0AM68G 0 G C N d f //d
$ zees /ke ce f h ll4 $
l Michael S. Dukalds b e Y d ls d en b ee
.WIW, JJaclsJe#3 Of/OS Charles V. Bany Secntem September 6, 1988 William Lazarus -
Emergency Preparedness Section Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Lazarus:
I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of our August 22, 1988 meeting on offsite emergency planning issues concerning the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.
Secretary Barry is currently preparing a comprehensive report on this matter for the Governor. As soon as it is completed, we will forward to your office. ,
[
~
er ly,
/
~
.t_r W. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretarl of Public Safety
/pwa cc: Ronald Varley, Director, Offsite Preparedness, BECo.
Jack Dolan, FEMA l 4
y __ _ _ _
$ Ol/NOAM6G 0 djgG gjdj e.co. op .. m m ;
Midael S. Dukakis l OJ/M, aclste#4 08/0S chades v. sany s==wr .
l 2
l l
MEMORANDUM ;
i i
l TO: FILE I FROM: Peter W. Agn ' )
Assistant Se ar of Public Safety DATE: August 22, 1988 i RE: Meeting With NRC Staff To Discuss Off-site Emergency Preparedness l
- 1. As a result of a request by NRC Region One, there was a meeting today between state and NRC of ficials to discuss the ,
status of off-site emergency preparedness in connection with l the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. In a'ttendance at:the meeting
~
l were the following persons: -
l Assistant Secretary Peter W. Agnes, Jr.
MCDA/OEP Director Robert J. Boulay NSEPP Director Jeffrey Bausner NSEPP Deputy Director Edward Fratto NSEPP Planne r Slaney l NSEPP Planner Gabaldon i DPH Staff Member Tom Matthews j NRC Region One Craig Conklin NRC Region One Bill Lazarus ,
, 2. Mr. Agnes opened the meeting by stating that it was. l l important for all to recognize that the Commonwealth's position '
j is that the 1985 RERP plans for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power i
Plant, which were deemed to be inadequate in the December, 1986 1 "Barry Report," are not operative and that the planning process that has existed since the "Barry Report" involves going back to the drawing board in an effort to develop the best possible PERP plans. Mr. Krimm of FEMA acknowledged this position in testimony before Senator Kennedy in January 1988. FEMA reached the conclusion that the 1985 Pilgrim plans were inadequate in their 1987 Self-Initiated Review. The planning process is ongoing, but a completed draft of the Pilgrim plans has yet to
, ~
1 be produced. Thus, it was pointed out that while there may be differences between the circumstances of an unlicensed plant and a licensed plant in terms of a state's off-site responsibilities and authority, the situation at Pilgrim more closely resembles the circumstance of an unlicensed plant due to the need to totally rewrite, review and test the RERP plans. It also was pointed out that it has been and is our view that it remains to be seen whether an adequate RERP plan f or Pilgrim can be developed. Finally, it was noted that it l
would not be possible to characterize any RERP plan that might be completed as " adequate" without a satisf actory full scale ,
exercise.
- 3. Mr. Agnes also described the~ planning process i
' instituted following the "Barry Report.' It is a process involving local and state government and the licensee in a structured planning effort in which the state reserves the right to make the ultimate judgment about the adequacy of any RERP plan. It was pointed out that the process was designed to initially permit local officials to review draft planning material which would be forwarded to the state and then on to l FEMA for informal technical review. Thus, it was emphasized that the meterial provided to FEMA earlier this year from the EPZ towns was merely draft planning material and that neither )
the local communities nor the state had approved it as final planning material. With that preface, Mr. Bausner gave a brief summary of their status of planning activities. l
- 4. Since the 1986 'Barry Report," a division within l
MCDA/OEP was created to deal with emergency response / preparedness issues for the two~ licensed plants 'in l
Massachusetts, as well as the plant ~ in Vernon, Vermont, whose !
EPZ overlaps Massachusetts communities. The governor created l the Nuclear Saf ety Emergency Preparedness Program within '
MC DA/OE P , which currently has nine professional staff dedicated to nuclear accident planning and response. Boston Edison should be credited for their off-site emergency planning staff of employees and consultants. The final elements of the planning process were put in place in March 1987. Since that time, MCDA/OEP planners have held weekly raeetings with town 1 civil def ense directors and have met with town selectmen and, l RERP committees regularly. Phase I of the planning process involves development of the preliminary draft plans and their submission to FEMA for informal technical review; Phase II i will involve the refinement of the draft plans in the light of the FEMA informal technical review, which may lead to a formal l submission after local and state approval.
- 5. With regard to FEMA sheltering policy, the state needs to know what the " rules" are that FEMA will apply. The state has sent two letters to FEMA on the sheltering issue and its 1 apparent turnaround at Seabrook, but has not received a I response to date. Plans are being withheld f rom FEMA by the ;
state until the matter is cleared up. Meanwhile, communities l 1
I s
. .' ~
continue to work on their plans. Most implementing procedures exist in draft form; many have been provided (by BECo) to towns, but have not been formally reviewed or approved.
- 6. Mr. Jeffrey Hausner reported that the towns of Taunton and Marshfield have reviewed and preliminarily approved their draft implementing procedures. Draf t basic plans have been completed for six of the seven communities. MCDA/OEP received Marshfield's and Taunton's plans and implementing procedures last week and may be submitting them for FEMA
- informal technical review," if the agency answers the Commonwealth's inquiry on sheltering in a satisfactory manner. MCDA/OEP awaits the arrival of draft implementing procedures from the other five towns. It should be noted that plans and procedures for schools have been completely revised and the local review process is not yet complete.
- 7. The next item for discussion was the third northern reception center. Mr. Agnes said that Boston Edison initially recommended that only two reception centers be used, but the state determined that three were necessary. The state designated a state-run facility in Wellesley -- approximately 45 miles from the plant. A comprehensive feasibility study is currently underway. If a satisfactory grade is received by the site, (report due in late September), MCDA/OEP must organize the operational capabilities of state resources, DCPO aust approve recommended capital improvements to the f acility, and MCDA/OEP must approve implementing procedures for the reception center.
~ ~
__ .. ..i..
- 8. In regard to sheltering the beach . population, only one.
" Shelter Implementation Program
- plan has been submitted to MCDA/OEP to date. The state has major concerns about the road network in the area and is waiting for the revised evacuation time estimate (ETE) from Boston Edison before judging evacuation from coastal areas. The revised ETE has been in the works for more than six months. There are some extremely difficult places to evacuate (e.g., Saguish Neck, Gurnet Point, Clark's Island) that must be taken into consideration in judging the overall adequacy of any plan.
- 9. In the old discarded plans, provisions for special *
, needs populations were " atrocious." This also was identifie,d as a major weakness in the plans by FEMA in their 1987 Self-Initiated Review. MCDA/OEP has yet to give final approval to the wording of a survey instrument to be used to identify special needs people in the EPZ. The special needs lists currently in use by local civil defense directors are woef ully inadequate and there are not assurances that they represent the special needs population of the EPZ. In addition to the identification process, implementing procedures for special needs populations will be necessary. In response to any charge that there has been a lack of progress in planning, the s
g 9-complexity of issues addressed at this meeting should show why
. the planning process is taking so much time to complete.
- 10. Another major concern of our off-site planning program J 4
is the f orm of agreement between BEco and private providers for 7
emergency response resources. Some of the questions include j
- how can the state be sure that buses will be available when (
- needed, that drivers will drive the buses and that drivers will follow through on their assignments. I while there can never be " guarantees," reasonable assurances must' exist. Work is continuing on the content of agreements between BECo and private companies. -
- 11. There has been substantial ' progress made in the area i' of communications and notification. However, hardware is still being delivered to EOCs and communications implementing
- procedures are not yet complete.
i 12. With regard to the training program, Mr. Ed Fratto reported that over 6,000 people will require training. About 22% of them have received roughly 14% of the required training. There is an undetermined number of people from towns i
surrounding the EPZ who will require training to respond to an l- accident via mutual aid. Evacuation routes run through some of
}
d these towns.
i
- 13. The other planned reception centers (Taunton and {
}
Bridgewater) are in need of over $250,000 in capital !
improvements._ No . cost, calculations of improvements to the )
Wellesley site have been computed. Furthermore, the state '
would like to see the capital improvements must be made to' the -
reception centers before their plans and procedures are i I 4
approved.
.l 14. The state is most anxious to see the revised ETE and i traffic management plan. The southeastern part of i
Massachusetts is the fastest growing area of the state and i i
there are concerns about the adequacy of road networks, etc.
Mr. Agnes, pointing to the map of Massachusetts on the waII, i noted that Cape Cod, which will be isolated in the case of a !
t plant accident, is of great concern to planners. There are, i
only two bridges over the Cape Cod Canal and in addition to the state's concern about a risk of exposure to Cape Cod's '.
population during a severe accident, there is a graat concern
- about the impact of a spontaneous evacuation of the Cape Cod
- population in the EPZ during an accident given the road network
) configuration.
I 15. In regard to the EPI Brochure (public information j brochurer, Mr. Agnes reported that the state has made j substantial revisions to the document in its effort to develop the best possible brochure, but there is more work that needs to be done before it is complete. The last brochure published was an " interim brochure," not a substitute for an annual
- l 1 s
/it brochure. Mr. Hausner added that BECo has purchased space on the inside cover of EP2 town phone books and is committed to printing EPI information there.
- 16. Mr. Tom Matthews from the Department of Public Health said that procedures used by other states for public health issues surrounding a nuclear power plant accident will be used for Massachusetts. However, Mr. Agnes noted that public health implementing procedures have not been written for major planning issues, e.g., detailed procedures for thyroid monitoring, the collection, transport, and fate of radioactive '
wastewater f rom decontamination stations, as well as care for injured contaminated indivduals at local hospitals. In sum, Mr. Agnes noted that until procedure's are written, they cannot be said to be satisfactory. I l
- 17. Since the 1986 "Barry Report," the Commonwealth has been on record as favoring expanded planning beyond ten miles, as well as substantially expanded and improved off-site monitoring.
Mr. Hausner said that Massachusetts reserves the option to make "whole town" protective action recommendations and that the proposed ex of the planning process.pansion of the Enhanced EPZ isbeyond planning an essential ten milespartis !
required for Marshfield beach areas as well as Carver schools.
In addition to Marshfield beaches and Carver schools, Duxbury schools and the Cape Code population are of great concern to the Commonwealth. Our goal is ultimately to conclude an enhanced planning eff ort f or the towns of Plympton, Wareham, and Bourne, whose corners touch- the EPZ.
.:_h p . y . ._;- r_._-.---.- .
- 7. , . .- 3 = i
- 18. Mr. Agnes, noting again'the absence of FEMA ~from this meeting, requested FEMA's response'~to' the two letters sent from the state. An exercise is needed before any final approval could be given to RERP plans, but an exercise now is premature given the unfinished state of the plans. The state cannot
-judge the adequacy of plans until an exercise is conducted, particularly given the "new" licensee organization, substantially revised plans, and new local of ficials. In september, 1987, MCDA/OEP met with FEMA on local plans. No timetable was set for completion of these plans.
not heard from FEMA on the progress of local plans.The state has The sta,te has invited FEMA to attend the weekly meeting of local civil defense directors and MCDA/OEP, but FEMA never responded. Mr.
Agnes expressed disappointment that FEMA, which is supposed to advise the NRC on Pilgrim's plans, has had virtually no direct involvem. nt with the process. Considering the concerns which the NRC .as had about one of the five worst nuclear plants in the country, FEMA's lack of participation is " unfortunate."
There did seem to be some commitment f rom FEMA last year to monitor the planning process, but no follow through effort has ensued.
0, OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR PILGRIN NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCUSSION POINTS August 22, 1988 1
- 2. Development of a whole new emergency preparedness and 1
response program for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station vs.
revisions to the 1985 plans
- 22. Status of development of Emergency Response Plans and '
j Programs
- I'
- a. Establishs ent of Nuclear Safety Emergency Preparedness Program
- b. Local planning process
) c. Status of local plans j d. Status of implementing procedures _
] III. Status of FEMA "Self Initiated Review" findings i
- a. Evacuation of Schools j
- b. Third, Northern Reception Center 4
- c. Protection of Beach Populations -- Shelter Utilization Plans
} d.
Emergency Preparedness for Special Needs Populations l e. Overall Lack of Progress in Planning and Apparent j Diminution in Emergency Preparedness i
1 j IV. Other areas of concern being addressed through the
}
P l anning process <
3
- a. Agreements to assure the availabi31ty of buses,
' ambulances, and chairvans for transport dependant populations i
- b. Improved " prompt notification" system
- c. Training for all emergency workers
- V. Public Health emergency preparedness issues
- a. Accident assessment
- b. Off-site monitoring of radiological releases
- c. Plans and facilities for care of injured-contaminated individuals
- d. Plans for disposal of radioactive waste from decontamination of emergency workers and equipment, and the general public
- e. Plans for reentry into contaminated areas f.
Plans for control of the food chain in the 50 mile ingestion pathway continued...
pt; a
VI . Other Issues
- e. Revised Evacuation Time Estimate I
- b. Special Needs Population Survey
- c. Revised Emergency Public Information Brochure ;
- d. Installation of enhanced prompt notification system f
s d
l l
l l
l l
l 1
o 4
1 l
)
I i
l i
l i
I end. l s
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCUSSION POINTS l l 1
! August 22, 1944
- 2. Development of a whole new emergency preparedness and response prograr for Pilgris Mucit M Power Station ve.
revisions to tra 1985 plans II. Status of development of Emergency Response Plans and Progress !
- a. Estat11ehment of Nuclear Safety Emerge cy i
- b. Preparedness Program - 7gN M Ab
! Local p1anning process - sed /e m. # .-/- g
- c. Status of local plena Jd*#2 e 2. c_ %. -
l d. Status of implementing procedures l W)Werel'nW. 0 l
III. Status of FEMA "Self Initiated Review" findings
- a. Evacuation of Schools -
b.
c.
Third, Northern Reception Center - /#ML4 ? WM I l Protection of Beach Popu}ations -- Shelter Utilization Plans [/g)
- d. Emergency Preparedness for Special Needs Populations
, e. Overall Lack of Progress in Planning and Apparent
! Diminution in Emergency Preparedness IV. Other areos of concern being addressed through the planning process
! a. Agreements to assure the availability of buses, l ambulances, and chairvans for transport dependant l populations
- b. Improved " prompt notification" system
- c. Training for all emergency workers l V. Public Health emergency preparedness issues vs . Acci d en t a s sessm ent ' Anf ow- asuns
- b. Off-site monitoring of radiological releases Ma--*.
- c. Plans and facilities for ca e of inj^ur9'd-contaminated
^<
l d.
individuals - %^#'I/ d* r Plans for di p6 sal of radioactive waste from
~ - '
-N# @
decontamination of emergency workers and eq ment, and the general public M - L*dh
- M h j e. Plans for reentry into contaminated areas /*4/~ w,h%^-
- f. Plans for control of the food chain in the 50 mile.-%/.-
ingestion pathway M*~4 i
continued...
Attachment i
l VI. Other Issues a.
Revised Evacuation Time Estimate
- b. Special Needs Population Survey i I
- c. Revised Energency Public Information Brochure ;
d.
Installation of enhanced prompt notification system i
4 i
1 1
t i )
l
)
)
1 l
l l
end.