ML20195F180
| ML20195F180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1988 |
| From: | Hogan R, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195F131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811210045 | |
| Download: ML20195F180 (26) | |
Text
[
UNITED STATES e
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
{
REGIONI t
/
m Atteworte moAo mo or ess:4.erwusytvAma tuas November 1, 1988 MD90FANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administrator T14RU:
R. Bellamy, Chief, facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch, DRSS FRON:
W. Lazarus Emergency Preparedness Section Chief, FRS&SB R. Hogan, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN THE TOWN OF TAU DISCUSS THE STATUS Of EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS ON OCTOBE 26, 1988 BACKGROUND A peeting was conducted in the Taunton EOC on October 26, 1988. The purpose of this meeting was te obtain the latest factual information regarding the status of emergency plans, implementing procedures, and facilities, directly from the Director of Civil Defense for the Town of Taunton.
The Civil Defense Director was also provided an opportunity to bring any previously unidentified concerns regarding the status of emergency preparedness to attention of the NRC.
ATT ENDf ES Robert !pearin, Director, Office of Civil Defense Taunan Albert Slaney, Planner, Massachusetts Civil Defense. Agency (MCOA)
William J. Lazarus, Er.argency Preparedness Section Chief, NRC Region 1 Rosemary T. Hogan, Energency Preparedness Specialist, Office of NRR Q150VSSIOS Mr. Spearin presented the follewing status sue.9 aries and concerns regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the Town of Taunton.
Irrpletentine Procedures ilPs)
There are 25 IPs required for the plan.
The Plan and all 25 procedures have com;1eted the local revien process and have been forwarded to FEMA through K01 There are no sticking points or concerns regarding the IPs.
They are waiting to get back the covents fror FEKA's technical review so that any necessary changet can be incorporated into the procedures.
The Plan and a set of procedures, as well as the Evacuation Time Esticate are in the EOC.
In addition each department head has a copy.
Dj;i1i t ieLin_flgdrenl n
RC.1 The EOC is essentiall sore status boards, raps,y complete; only a few minor itets are needed and other small miscellaneous items.
EtiepMpn_(enleri The renovation of the reception center (to be located in an unused tiuilding at the state hospital Cain Hall) has not been
).].l () O Y A b
\\
t started.
order for outside funds to be expended on it.As this is a state fa Mr. Slaney indicated that the plans still need to be approved by the state agency responsible for granting approval befora Boston Edison can begin the work.
will be used for the survey and decontamination of evacuees,(and r of farrilies.
Congregate care is handled by other facilities.) Examples of repairs noted by Mr. Spearin and Mr. Slaney are painting, repair of gutters and downspouts, handicap access, and that heat and water need to be rettored.
installed.
Survey equipment and decon facilities will also need to be Jraffic Control fouiement:
The town still hasn't received traffic control equipment needed.
three weeks.
They have been told that it will be provided in two to Corrunications Eouiomenti All needed cornunications equipment has been installed, tested, and it works.
Trainino Training is progressing well.
Fire Department should be done November 4, 1988, police Department is about 50 % complete.
h ultF Department is complete.
D,., is complete.
Emergency Medical (EMS) is not started.
Schools (congregate care) is not started.
Civil Defense is about 50 % complete.
E00 has not started.
All training should be corplete in about six conths.
Pe rsenrei Resources The town is short about a dozen people, mainly for working at the reception center, but also for working at transportation and staging areas. The town is still looking for volunteer workers.
Barry RME1 Mr. Spearin thought that the third Barry Report contained a fair representation of the situation for launton.
He had not read the transcript of the Corcission briefing so could not coment on the presentations ende by the Lt. Governor, Senator Kennedy, or Representative Studds.
LC' 41.1 l
Mr. Spearin's biggest concerns were the lack of readiness of the reception facility and the fact that training was not complete.
He indicated that there was no co parison to where the tewn was in the 1932 1985 tire frate.
i I
3 l
They previously had only a set of plans and now had detailed implementing l
procedures.
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.
Mr.
Spearin was provided a copy of this memorandue and i>4icated that it accurately reflected the status provided during our discussions.
William J. Lazarus, 1
EP Section Chief Region I f
Rosecary T. Hogan, EP Specialist, NRR i
cc: J. Dolan, FfKA Region !
l
SEC By:BEC9
- 5-15-88
- 1:51PW i 215 339 52591s 2 a
$0lunOfbu.Thury Q33CChuSGN3 0
ice o cSe ec/ men DA J VOGLD how C Mumb DCA'c PAT 10C% A 00%D 9 March. 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay. Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 400 Vorcester h ad P.O. Box 1496 Framingham Mass.
01701-0317 Dear Mr. Boulay4 The Beard of Seleetmen of the hovn of Duxbury are submitting two draft copies of the ton of Duxbury Radiological Isergency Reaponse Plan for Pilgria Nuclear Pever Station Revisico 2. dated cetober 30. 1987. Ve are sub-mitting these draft copies for ter5nical reviews by the Massachusetts Civil Defense toncy and the Tederal Inorgency &.sgenent Agency.
The Duxbury Radiological Response Plan Committee has been reviewing these draft plans and we have included con:nects fros this comittee and Duxbury Civil Defense Director Carl O'Neil for your intorn.ation.
The hard of Selectuen vant it clearly understood that this infermatien is being cubmitted for to:hnica_: review only.
The Scard of Selectmen. the RIRP Coesittee, and the Civil Defense Director have a strong opinion that these plans should not be evaluated for approval until procedures are tu place training has been completed, shelters have been defined and approved. evacuation tins estimates have been scrutinised, and finally, the plan has been exercised in order to assess the verkability of the plan.
Ve anteciate your in:erest and efforts to help Duxbury develop the best possible energency respense plan for the F11gris Nuclear Pcver Station.
Tory truly yours.
5):;.- /. d. / <
1 l-9
_ g~ -
David J. Veg'
_ b 4/
Patricta A. Devd 10$/thk Inclosures
?
,/
t c*
January 12, 1988 I
l
[
t Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY 400 Worcester Road
[
P.O. Box 1496 f
I' Framingham. MA 01701-1496
[
Dear Mr. Boulay:
i The draft plan is the product of considerable effort, and was f
prepared and structured in accordance with applicable federal l
emergency planning guidance.
It describes the policies. functions l
i I
t and resources which. when in place, will provide a fully effective i
i emergency preparedness program for Carver.
The planning process is f
still unders.ay, a r.d it is therefore important to understand that the 1
program described in the plan represents the "design' or goal to be l
l 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 1
t to upgrade the overall emergency preparedness program.
(
a i
l t
a i
I s
fosgc2 i
In order to permit the planning process to continue, I recommend that you detemine whether the basic,,rogram and policies embodied in it are a; pro:riate. With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we can develop irplementing procedures which accurately reflect the policies of the Tc.n of Carver. While I am certain that the draf t plan is not perfect, !
think that it represents'a significant and positive step in the 6ffort to uhgrade the state of emergency preparedness for Carver.
1 l
The Cor.cnwealth has expressed the desire to obtain the draf t plan and provide it te FtvA for informal review as soon as possible. Accordingly, I would 1
i 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 3
l C:m.e a 1
.t.
Stacerely, 1
1 c-i 3
esvieg. pierce I
0$
/~ /% = ? V i
Cdse /d er select en case r
h i
.ww n i+e-l - > 2 - t* b 9
u
..' e c te&S Date i
r f
2 J
']) !
^
^
se ect a.
oite r
I
(
1
TOWN OF PIXMOUTH omct or setectues Tip;3 THE SELECTMEN
- ntram, I I IJncoln Street
%1LLuu r. NoLAN
~*
AL Pipnouth. Massachusetis 02360 DA r A c
. chamon gg
_stcLTut. E ccHET AFi 16171747 1620 January 8, 1988 Robert J. Boulay, Director Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department 400 Worcester Road P.O. Box 1496 Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-0317 l
J Dea r fir. Boulay Please be tdvised the Board of Selectmen voted to authorize Doug Hadfield, Civil Defense Director, tu forward te FE!!A through your effice the phase I - draft emergency plan for l
Plymouth.
Tha Board would also request the document be l
reviewed by tne Massachusetts Civil Defense Office.
It is i
understood TEMA will forward comments to the Selectmen once 1
they have reviewed the plan.
Very truly yours, FOR THE BOARD Or SELECTMEN r
a
/.,
kM$94 tiilliam R.
riff n Executive Secreta WRC/It ec D. Hadfield l
l 1
i i
CITY CF YAUNTON
. MS -
DEPARTMENT OF CIYlL DEFENSE I igN..#:
c m e u.
\\Qy 1 s suww t m s7 mart W.P TAUNTON. M A55 ACHt/DETT5 02780 c.
u..
- c, January 1988 u
Q es hayor Richard Johnson a
City of Taunten N"
City Hall 15 surser Stree*
- Taunton, W..
(l /~0 g
Dear Mayor Johnsen As you know, fer the last several menths, I have been engaged (with the assistance of the various municipal agencies and professional planners provided by Beston Edisen) in the preparation of the revised Taunten Padiolegical Emergency Respense plan.
A complete draft of that plan which
.ccrporates my corrents has been previously provided to you.
3 draft plan is the product cf considerable effert, and was prepared and
.rurured in accordance with applicable f ederal energency planning guidance.
It describes the policies, functions and resources which, when in place, wil:
previde a fully ef fective emergency preparedness program f or Taunten.
The plannin, process is still underway, and it is therefore important to understand that the program described in the plan reprecents the "design" c:
geal to be achieved through, among other things, development of precedures, training of individuals, securing of resources and upgrading of facilities.
We will continue to further refine the plan as well as to upgrade the overal:
emezy cy preparedness program.
In order te permit the planning process to continue. I recernend that you determine whether the basic program and policies e:. bodied d.n it are appropriate.
With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we can develop implementing precedures which accurately reflect the polic:es cf the City of Taunten.
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 energency preparedness for Taunton.
The Co.amenwealth has expressed the desire to obtain the draft plan and previ it to FEMA fer inf ormal review as soon as pc.- s ible.
Accordingly, I wculd appreciate it if you would indicate your cone trence on the program design represented in the plan by signing below so th at I can forward the plan to t Commonwealth.
/
w 017
, Lg -,
c hw' _.
/b f!
sincerely, T W'u Richard Johnsen Cate Mayor
[
hN
,Orn%
an,i g City of Taunton Robert C. Speakin
b/ t o t y %e 8%lli b3 0 8 UIN i
6 a
- /
e f
GCwwCNiet ALTH CP WASSOCHUSETTS
'C b
r pI %
m b
~
TOWN HOUS E. KINoSf oN. W AS S, s'e4 Y oisectea ce cava otet=st December 30, 1987 Hr. Joseph M. Costa Chairenn, Board of Selectmen co Tcwn of Kingston Tcwn House. 23 Green Street to Kingston, MA 02364 3
~>
Dear Hr. Costa:
E5 As you knc=, for the last several conths, I have been engaged (with the assistance of the various municipal agencies and professional planners previcec by Ecsten Edison) in the pre;nration of the revised Kingston Radiological E ergency Response Plan. A complete draft of that plan which incer; orates ry coments has ber:. previously provided to you.
9 The draf t pit.n is the product of considerable effort, and was prepared and structured in accordance with appitcable federal emerg,ency planning guidance.
It cescrites the policies, functic s and resources which, when in place, will previce a fully effective emergency preparedness program for Kingsten.
The plannin; crecess is still underway, and it is therefore 1eportant to undt' stand that the program described in the plan represents the ' design" or goal to te achieved through, among other things, de.,elopment of procedures, training of individuals, securing of resources and upgrading of fact 11 ties.
He vill continue to further refine the plan as well as to upgrade the overall e ergency pre;aredness program.
u Old v
e Q* p M-m.&:.
sitn 7 -
Page 2 In order to permit the planning process to continue, I recommend that you determine whether the basic program and pclicies embodied in it are appropriaie. With your concurrence on the basic elements of the program, we can develop implementing procedures which accurately reflect the policies of the Tcwn of Kingston. While I am certain that the draft plan is not periect.
I think that it represenes a significant and positive step in the effort to upgrade the state of emergency preparedness for (logston.
The Co.onwealth has expressed the desire to obtain the draft plan and provide it te f t% for inforeal review as soon 45 possible. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if you would indicate your concurrence on the program design represented in the plan by signing belcw so that I can forward the plan to the Co.:n=ealth.
Since ely, M %> 1 Frederick. Woodworth Deputy CD Director.
Town of Kingtton
/
/Y Jose;h F/ Qi'tnl/V Cat (
Chairraf,404rd of Select en Tc.n of Kingston e
000000 W508 747 9549 ocT 26 *EG M:33 ECSTeri CD8504 P.2 9*#
$wn o $ rd kbl couwoNweaLTe or wAssACHVsETTs August 12, 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Coenenwealth of Hassachusetts Executive Department 4CC Wercester Road, Box 1496 Franingham, MA 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
As the attached letter indicates, the Marshheld Board of Selectran has voted to forward te FEHA, through your office, the following documents for informal technical review:
Ten co;ies draft of Marshfield Radiological Emergency Response Plan, a.
Rev. 5. July 11, 1988 b.
Ten copies Marshfield Irplementing Procedures Ten cooies Marshfield Shelter Implementation Program Sumary c.
Ten copies Marshfiele Draf t Pit"./Frocedure Cross Reference Table c.
Tre Craf t Mars".fiele RERP anc le;1ementin; Procedures adertss the latest FEMA an: H:DA plat co.. ents c.ade to date.
The Board nas also included three sets of documents fer the Massachus Civil Cefense Agency.
He sould a;;reciate it if you would proeptly forward these docu.ments to FEMA.
Very truly yours, f.7x c
Cantel McGonag e Civil Defense Cirector ec: Harshfield 5:ard of Selectmen Richard Agnew, Tean Manager T. Rodger, Director, HCCA Area II (3)
Enclosures
ceuuuu WdOS 747 9249 ocT 26 '06 14:33 DDSICN CDIson P.3 0
TOWN OF MARSHFIELD 1
T s,o -t mm w=s eno. manosams caca:
emsat sm August 8, 1988 Mr. Daniel A. "cGonagle, Chairman E ' rgency k n.nse Cor:.ittes 10; stagecoach Drive Lrahtield, MA 02050 Dear Mr.icGonagle The Marshitaid Ecard of Selectmen has reviewed the dra Marshfield Radiological I=argency Response Plan for Pilgris Nuclear P ovn of Ve have off ered suggestions and have agreed to forward the plan fation".
and co::nent te the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and F.E.M.Aor further review clearly understeed that the Marshfield Board of Selectcen has not appro It nust be endersed the plan, and we still have e.ajor reservations regarding its via Realizing that neither the Board of Selectmen ner any other official iy.
proposal, vs feel the time has co e for the M.C.D. A n tevn is professienal input.
The issues cf greatest cencern to the Marshfield ?:ard of Select =er are as folle 1.
Adequecy of eva:uation te Velles'ey as oppcsed te Vey= uth Cen: erns relative te actual traffic' flow in a worst Air Base or 2.
evacuatien.
3.
Altheuth the plan is specific concerning the Governer Vinslev Scheel (within the 11 :11e zent'.
cther s h:els as veil v!.th parents rushing to pick u; children.We be:.ie
- i..
We nee greater clarification cf the engt:ng training ti:etable and agenda with nere attentien given t:
inevitatie persennel thanges.
5.
other erpicyee greups te re.. sin atVe havs sericus dcubts regarding the v the avatsatien.
their pests and to cooperate during Under ne circus. stances can this Ecard appreve and until a vritten letter of agreement is receiv+d f rc:this d nutent in good conscience unless perf ore er in the alternative, personnel being provided by 2.E involved e=picyte groups a.y appreval by this Response Consultant".3:ard would require a concurrent endorse be-hired "Erergency de:: ens trates a good f aith ef fort by B.E.C.O., we f eel any support for it prenature at this eine.
Ve ask that you ferverd this draf t their cc:structive analysis.
to the appropriate state and federal agencies for ery
- uly ycurs, Ask:
A w
oD J:hnT.MacMahenq Aichard f.
Levin Chair =an Daniel T. h:0:nald JTM:1
CIT', OF TAUNTON DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE CITY MALL 15 SUMwan smerT TAUNTON MASSACHUSETTS 02780 w s.a. w o.
=.r
CITY OF TAUNTCN CIVIL DEFENSE Delivered to MCDA Framingham August 15, 1988 the folleving:
16 copies City of Taunton Implementing Procedures 16 copies City of Taunten RERP Revisier. 5, July 28, 1988 16 ee;1es Corrective Action Response to Technten* Reviev Decurent 8/11/88 16 c:;ier Table of Cross References between decueents provided te TEP.A and FEM.A S:3 issues Fevision C. 5/2/89 9
Rece;ved By _ _ _
! ate NM. b d d%
g 9
000000 W508 747 9549 o:t a es a:c resta4 colso<
p.e CITY OF TAUNTON DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE I
CITY M ALL t a sumwem starrT TAUNTON. M ASS ACHUSETTS O2780 e eese r. a== =
e sma August 15, 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay, Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency &
Cffice of Emergency Preparedness 400 Korcester Read Post Office Box 1496 Framingham, MA.
01701-0317
Dear Mr. Eculay:
This past May, the City of Taunton forwarded to the S; ate a revised draft e.tervency response plar., a set of it;1esenting precedures and a cross-reference table.
The MCDA subrequently provided us with concer.ts on the draft plar. Which have nov been inccrpcrated in the State's conter.ts, vc veu*d a;;teciate it if y;; vcult Frcr;tly trar. snit the ene.cset doeurents te FEMA for it.ferr.a* techt.. cal review.
Sincerely,
%cNh 0. hJm+
Ecbert C.
Spe'arin Civil Defer.se Director
~
uu0000 W508 747 9549 Oct 26 'EE 34:34 licSTCr4 CD2534 D'd 9
sow OFBEGgy OFFICE OF 5ELECTMIN BRTDGEWATER. MA$$ 02324 L A10 LYN WQLMOK, Chese BCCR P. MOVCtr. Carl DAVID A CAN!?A Mem rILIPN ONI tt'. Pac Septa:bar 21, 1988 Mr. Txaek Maher T.nargency Management Officar Tovt Hall Central Squara Bridgevater, PA 02324 Daar Mr. Maher 14dielegical 1:ergency ResThe Bridsevater leard of Select:sn have reviewe are in basic cencurrence. ponse Plan and 1:ple:enting Frecedures and We authortie you te sut it TIya for an informal technical review.tro:edures and supporting rateri to MGA and these are draf t docutants subject to change.We understand tha present fer:
docu:ents te sup;crtThe Bridgewater $tata College procedure vill be prcvided w
- ackage.
technical reviav einca it is integral to our submit tal is Ier inf errattonal review puty:ses ecly and i indi:stes fcr:41 or a;;reval by Bridgevater State Cellege the 151 pre:edure is a separate entity and subjaet te ae;arate We realtre tejettatichs.
state and f ederal agen:les for their constructive review.Ve ate Very truly yours.
I
.ftst*5SN s
Carolyn Morvick. Chaircan 3eard of Selectmen CY.l:a:
000000 W508 747 9549
. Oct 26 'EE 8.t: 35 EOSVCr4 EDISCy<
P.5 of 883DC 8A 9
tg 4
dy++
o omca of cyn,osmn BluDGIWATER. MA55.01324 ee=
%me m %%
a m esegeart asanges.ee etfluer rnet as September 21. 1988 Mr. Robert J. Boulay Civil Defense Agency 4 Office of Isergency Preparednese Cmnvaalth of Massacht;setts Irecutive Department 400 Veresster Road Ber 1496 frat.icgha. MA 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Seulay:
The Tew. of Bridgewater is submitting to 7;FA. through your effice, the felleving deeutetts !ct inf er:a1 tschaf cal res tevt Sixteen (16) copios Bridgevator Radielegie.at E=ergetty Respense 4.
Plan. Rev. 4. August 18. 1988.
b.
Sixteen (16) teples Iridgewater leple:enting Precedures Stateen (. D tepter Corrective Actie:
c.
Respcase te Technical Reviev 1,.utent d.
Sixteen (16) ceptes of Cress References betveen decutetts previded to TE"A a.M TD'A $1R issbes Revisiet C. 0/21/86 TIwA and F.00A plan cc: ents cade te date.The Cittt Bridgevater PlRF and Ie;1e The Sr1>.!gevater State College Re:eption Cents; precedure (IF - 13) i is previded fe: infer stional rsview putycees caly.
Iridgevater State Cellege is a separate entity and their for al approval is subject i
separate nogetiations.
te 1:!creal technical review and to show the interf acea with tenThe precedure is pr 1
precedures.
Of the sixteen (16) copies listed abeve ten (10) are for TIMA. and six (6) fer the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency; Trar.inghan and Area II.
I f
udowe0 W508 747 9549 OCT 25 'se tot 35 loSTCr4 CDIson P.6 l
l I
Er. Robert J. Boulay september 21. 1944 Page 2 i
We would appreciate it if you would promptly forward these documente to FEMA.
1 4
1 Sincerely,
./
1 i
M Prank Maher tuergency Management Officer FW/maa l
i t
q
.i I
J d
i A
J
..y
]
1 l
i i
l i
i I
(
d i
I t
1, i
I I
l o
i l
i i
l l
l e
il f
I
wwvvvu t:JVD (Q/ VD49 CCT 26 *EE 14: X KSTCr4 CDISO4 e.7 TOWN OF KINGSTON, MASSACHUSETTS ofpte of THE SELECTMEN
+ 1 W D 883 M row mu n oms sur IuW3foN. MA 02W october 5, 1988 4
Mr. Dennis Tavares Civil Defense Director office of Emergency Preparedness Town Hall Annex Si.x Maple Avenue Kingston, MA 02364 Cear Mr. Tavares:
t The Kingsten Board of Selectmen has reviewed the draft Radiological Emergency
Response
Plan and Irrplemen tin
. Procedures and are in basic concurrence with their cong tent and frarawork.
We authorize you te submit this plan, procedures and supporting rnatorial in their present forms te the Massachusetts Civil Defenie ' Agency 'and' the Federa' Exergency Hansgment Agency for informal technical reviews.
We understand these docu ents are draf ts and are subject to change.
We ask that you forward these draft docunents to the app ropria t e state and federal agencies for their cen s t ruc tiv e
- eviews.
We also ask that you indicate to these reviewers that our Schoc1 Department Procedure (2P-06) is undergoing further scruttny by the Kingsten Ele.sentary S:hool Comi t t e c.
and the current draft of IP-06 to include the ecmmittee's we expect to reaubmit cc.v.c e n t s.
Siacerel)
J '3s '<
Edvard H. Valla Chiinan
\\
EHV/p Enclosures l
l l
eB0000 W508 747 9549
'EG 1 :x 3 STCri CDISCti P.9 TOWN OF KINGSTON a
civil DEFENSE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 6 Maple Avenw Kkgston, Maluchwutts 02364 Phone 617 545 3135 Telefu 6173857624 The following iters were delivered to the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency (McDA) Framingham on Tuesday, October 11, 1968:
16 copies Town of Kingston Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP), Revision 5, 10/4/88 16 ce;ies Tovn of Ringston Ieplanenting Procedures, Volu: es 1 and 2 16 copies ccrrective Aetien Res;0nse to Technical Feviev Occur.ent, 10/4/68 16 copies Table of Cross References between docueents provided'to FEMA and TEMA SIR issues, Revision 0, 10/4/86 16 copies Shelter I.tplorantation Progra:
'^
/
ysh,/
re=civ e er,_
pw/
tate
/k.
A M Adu,wi dehury c(-Ae
-fwiv.d. cu F h
b <-
WLd.,0dN.(2.
000000 W508 747 9549
., j, OCT 26 'EG 14t 37 33Tcr4 CDIscr4 P.9 O
@M wwre Carver Massachusetts 02330 To:ephone 666 2561 October 4, 1998 Mrs. Eelen M. Copello Administrative Asst./ Deputy Director Civil Defense & Emergency Preparedness Agency Main Street Carver, Ma. 02330
Dear Mrs. Copello:
Emergency Respense Plan and Inplementing Procederes and a cencurrence.
f-the Civil tef ense Directer te submitPlease prepare the documents and the let this plan, procedeces and crting caterial in their present form to MCDA and TEMA for an a
greal technical review.
We understand that in their present. form these tre draft documents subject to change.
We ask that you forward this draft decamentation te the apprc;riate s:a:e and f ederal agencies for their constructive review.
Very truly yours, CARVER BOARD OF F LECTMEN s// Ms r ani R. Mafz /di, Chairman s
_7AWM-d ~\\
W.
AMA.
y___
Francis J. Kane s, h!,
O<t D<
~Paula M. ~ Bytbin
'~~i
000000 U508 747 9549 oct 2s 'se 14:r mm totsm p.te TOWN OF CARVER CIVIL DEFENSE Carver, MA 02330 866-5219 Octobir 5, 1988 Mr. Robert J.
Boulay Civil Defense Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department 400 Worcester Road, Box 1496 Tramingham, MA. 01701-0317
Dear Mr. Boulay:
The Town of Carver is submitting to TEMA, through your office, the following documents for informal technical reviews a.
Sixteen (16) copies Carver Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Rev. 4, August 16, 1968.
t.
Sixteen (16) copies Carver Implementing Procedares c.
Sixteen (16) copies Corrective Action Response to Technica.' Review Docu. Tent.
d.
Sixteen (16) copies of Cross References between documents previded to FEMA and TEMA SIR issues Revision C. 6/2E/65.
e.
Sixteen (16) ce;ies of Sheltering Inplementatien Program.
The Draft Carver RERP and Implementing Procedures address all TEY.A and MCCA plan comments made to date.
Of the sixteen (16) copies listed above ten (10) are for TEMA,
.and six (6) for the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency: Tramingham and Area II.
We would ap;reciate it if you would promptly forward these doCunentS to TEMA.
Sincerely, R
A I
Civil Defen:e cirector FTWh.:
000000 W508 747 9549 XT 26 'SS 84: 38 CtsTcri CD250N P.11 TOWN OF CARVER CIVIL DEFENSE Carver, MA 02330 800 5219 4
The folloving items were delivered to the Macsachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) Tramirigham on Wednesday, Cetober 12, 1988:
16 copies Town of Carver Radiological Icergency Response Plan (RIRP), Revision 4, 6/24/88 16 copies 7evn of Carver Implementing Frocedures, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 16 copies corrective Action Respense te Technical Review Docu.ent, 10/3/88 16 copies Table of Cross Feferences between de:uments provided tc TEMA and FE.MA SIR issues, Eevision 0, 10/3/88 16 ccpies Shelter I.mplementation Fregrar.
bf-Feceived Eye
- 4 hei.
L, IGU cases i
rLD At 00 A ve J A rv4 a rts.17 'et,13:% Ftt9 stG1;e4 2 gotte'd 1
.82
'M.
W cr THE C0WWONWEALTH OF W A4&ACHUSETT8 f;
guevfwe seaarwrwt.
4.
I e.wim soie u.e ems w :=ame teme m est usO'cE9"t2 hCue p
e y
e4 eme mAass.einaas. tua e@ et wenan s ous.asus 404 pit J. sowAY ee.we.
esamm 1
February li, 1988 E
g sh C
9E e =
c.
5 H L E.cx. arc A.
Tnocas, Chief NTt'ur4 and Technological Haaards Division
- re rt*:- t e e r g e n c y P.a n a g e m e n t Agency R4@Tien I J.W. M c C or r.a c k Post ef fice and Court House Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Thocas:
Cnclosec please find Part One of the Draf t Radiological Emergency Respense F;ans for the cozzur.ities of Plymouth, Carver, Kingston anc 7aunten, associated with the F11gris Nuclear Power Plant.
We have begun to review these plans ourselves and would like the tenefit of an informal technical review by TEMA.
Our sub=1331on Of tnis raterial does not constitute an application for review and appreval under lik CFA 5 350.7 and cces not repre-sent er 1: ply final approval of the plar s by the Co::enwealth or i
by the Iceal cec.: unities.
It also shcule te noted snat the enciesed material repre-sents only a pertion of the revised, propcsed plans for the coa.
i tunitie in question.
Implementing procecure s have not been prepares even in craft fort for these cotsunities.
Fur t he rm o r e,
work re:alns te be cone en the state and area plans for Pilgrit
'0e fore thes t cceu=ents are ready for informal technical rey tew.
S t r.c e r e l y,
ob Director co s
3,;
y.
o 69Jgkb I
- In6 csbe 1
s e Ed e :,C hW:a n, Bear:s of Select en. EFZ anc Host coe.= unities d aillac Aussell, Region I Ad:1nistrator, NRC Fal;h G.
51re, Boston Edison tc=peny i
SE,U e,c8Ecp I 0-21-il i 2 42PW i 4[),n 52s,pa, i
~
.........e %.
s.,
k THE 00MMONWEAl.fM 0F MA44ACHUSETT8 I
't 1
00cWTW194PAnfMINT 6 A po'LW 6tt e em:4 toe g ras.use eue 4
i 6
,. S'"J,...,
i PetlM L eWW wcmat.e supos September 6. 1984 s
Mr. Edward A. Thomas. Chief Isatural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region !
J.W. McCornaet Po.at Ctfice and Court House Boston. Massachusetts 02109 Dear Mt. Thomas!
Inclosed please find 3 copies of the folieving:
Town of Marshfield Radiological Emergency Response Plan, two volumes et Dratt o
Implementing Procedures, the Shelter taplementation Program, and the Tabit of Cross Ref erences Estween Documents previded tc FEMA and TEMA 51R tesues.
City of Tauntoni Dtart Radiological Response-Pitn two volumes of c
Impinnenting Procedures. Table of Ctess References Between Provided to TEMA and TEMA SIR Issues, and the Documen.
Corrective Action Response te Technical Review by FF.MA of the City of Taunton Radiological Energency Response Plan i
i for Pilgrit (Revision 3 11-14 97).
These documents are being subsitted only tot inf ormal Out submission of this material does not technical review.
l constitute an application f or toview and approval under 44 CFR, lootion 350.F and does not teptosent or imply final appreval of the plans by the Contocwealth or by the local cos>tuntthee.
Einearely, N
a ett J. Boulay Director RJB/le Enclosure cc:
Chaittan. Scard of Oslectmen EPZ sad Host Co:tunities Williat Russell. Region 1 Administrator. NRC Ralph G.
Bird. Ecston Edison Cot;&ny I
l
SCF.20 'EE 13:!! rcm stG;cri 1 MSTCet 1 p,g3 THE COMMONWEALTH OF WASSACHU8tTTS
@Fo p
EstCVTTvt spAmsxt f]%.,
- a ***;=' r ~-
9, 4 J..
3
^
4*llL.,
i w & Asss.c w os mottarJ.soVLAY m
> = resa September 23, 1984 Mr. Edward A. Thomas. Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Energency Management Agency Region !
J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Mr. Thecas:
Enclesed please find three (3) copies of the MCDA Area !!
Draft Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Revision 4, August 15. 1988).
This dccument is being submitted only for informal technical review.
our submission of this material does not constitute an application f or review and approval under 44 Crt, section 350.T and does not represent or imply final appsoval of the plans by the Commonwealth or by ths local communities.
5incerely, 0%
obeWt.J :
N Director RJ B /le Enclosure ec:
Chairman, Board of Selectmen EPZ and Hest Communities William Russell. Region ! Administrator NRC Ralph G. Bird Boston Edison Company
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 6ttL84 lQ[ '
EXECUTIVE DEPARTWENT h'
(
Crv4 M8lient ast%:t awo catiCl OF Iwth3th v PettattDNEM
,l y
er Wo*Ctltsa h0A0
/
.f g
eo ooiim 6
raaw =smaw.wass etment
/
s 4
MicHatt s DukAkis mostmi t soutAv We
>=tetoa
$9ptember 30, 1988 i
Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division j
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House 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, 1986), 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 i
constitute an application for review and approval under 44 CTR, Section 350.F an( does not represent or imply final approval of the plans by the Commonwealth or by the local communities.
Sin,carely, k
.NN Robert J. Boulay l
Director RJB,le Enclosure cc:
Chairman, Board of Selectmen EPZ and Host Communities William Russell, Region 1 Administrator, NRC Ralph G. Bird. Boston Edison Company l
l j
I r
,e
- \\
UNITIO $7AYE8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION At0M38t l h
476 ALLeBsDALe ROAD Kl4 OF PMUIsiA.PeMessvLVANIA 39408 JUN # 7 ;ggg Docket No. 50-29 i
Yankee Atomic Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Bruce L. Drawbridge Vice President and Manager of Operations 1671 Worcester Road I
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 l
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-29/88-08 This letter refers to the routine safety inspection of your Annusi Emergency Fre;aredress Exercise conducted by Mr. T. Tuccinardi of this office and other rembers cf an hR: team on April 26-28, 1985, at the Yankee Atomic Pone.-
Station, Rewe, Massachusetts.
Discussioits o' cur findings were held by Mr. T.
Tuccinardi with you and your staf f at the conclusion of the inspection.
The areas esatined during the inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report (enclosed).
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews witt perscnnel, an: cbservation cf the emergency exercise by tese members.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.
Yankee Ateett pc.er $tation perforrance during the esercise demonstrated the ability to teple ent the Energency Plan and the Energency Plan Implementing Procedures in a narrer that would growice adequate protective reasures for the health and safety of the public.
I NC rerly to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us ir t,his eatter is a;; eciate:.
$1ncerely,
\\
Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Region ! Inspectien Report No. 50-29/83-08 M WGf f.
f
~
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 2
II ec w/ enc 1:
J. E. Tribble, President W. N. St. Lawrent, Plant Superintendent G. J. Papanic, Jr., Senior Project Engineer - Licensing P. W. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts l
Pubite Document Room (POR) i l
Local Public Document Room (LPOR) i Nuclear Safety 7nformation Center (N$1C)
L NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Massachusetts bec w/ enc 1:
i Region 1 Docket Room (with concurrences)
N. Perkins, Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)
D. Haverkamp, Section Chief, DRP J. Kawcher, Project Engineer, DRP H. Eichenholz, SRI - Yankee (w/ concurrences)
G. Grant, $RI Veraent Yankee i
R. Bores, Technical Assistant, DR$$
I h
i t
1
t U,$. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N f
REGION I i
Report No. 50 29/88-08 k ket No. 50-29 i
License No. OPR-3 Category C
licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company i
1671 Worcester Road Freetnahar, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Nare:
Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Cenducted: April 2(-28, 19h3 l
Inspecters:
O--
MN
//
t s)//
- 1. T. K c c f a757, Emergency f f aredness t
date i
SpecialtTt, FRSSE, OR$5 i
i t
C. Corklin, Ets, FR5SE, OR$5 V. Lazarus, EPS, FR$55, OR$5
'i R. Christopher, EP5, FR558, 0455 H. Eichenholz, SRI Yankee I
C. Carpenter, R!
Lee t
Approved t b
\\
A N/M g freparecness case In spection $wr-a ry: Inspection en April 26-28, 1988 (Inspe: tion Report No.
~
(50-29/85 06)
Areas inspe:ted:
A rout,ine, unannounced emergency preparedness inspection and observation ofthe licenste's annual energency exercise perforced on April 26, l
1968.
The ir.spection was perforced by a tear, of sin NRC regiont,1 and resident personnel.
Results: No violations were identified. The licensee's teargency response t
actions for this exercise were adequate to provide protective ressures for the health and safety of the public.
i l
i 1
i I
-ff
Details 1.0 Persons Centacted W. Riethle, Manager, Radiation Protection Group W. McGee, Public Affairs Director J. Gtimen, Radiation Protection Group J. Hawahurst, Radiattor, Protection Group J. Kay, Technical Services Manager A. Kadak, Vice President J. Gedutis, senior Chemist R. Mellor, Technical Director T. Henderson, Assistant Plant Sw;erintendent J. Robinser, Director Environmental Engineering G. Babineau, Radiatier. Protection Manager A. Tatro, Training Instructor B W:od, Adeinistration Manager D. McDavitt, Radiation Protect, ion Engineer G. Morgan, Technical Services K. Jeanttuff, Plant Operations Manager E. Ora. bridge, Vice Fresident N. StLawrent, Plant Superintendent The above listed pe* sees were present at the exit reeting.
Ir adcitien, other licensee personnel were contacted, intervie.ec and observed during the inspection.-
~ ' ~ "
2.0 Ereecercy Eiereise Tre Yarkee Ateric Fe.er Statice. unannouncec, backshift esercise was tenesttee er April 2(.195!, f re-4:30 to 11:00 p.m.
The Com en.ealth of Passacnwsetts and State cf Vermont participated fully. The Co?. ton.ealth o' Massacnwsetts and the States of Vereent, hew Hampshire and hew York co'cstted fielc ronitering activities and a ingest, ton pathway esercise on Apr0 27, 19S5.
2.1 Pre-enercise Activities The esercise objectives, subaitted to NRC Region I on January 20, 1958, were revie.ed and deterrined to adequately test the licenste's Erergency Plan. On March 2, ISSS, the licensee submitted the cotplete scenario package for hRC review and evaluation. Region !
re; resent,atives had telephone conversations with the Itcenste's erergency preparedness staff to discuss the scope and content of the scerario. As a reswit, einer revisions were made to the scenario which alto ed adequate testing of enjer portions of the Erergency Plan (EP) ar.d the irplementing procedures, and also provided the cepertunity for licensee personnel to demonstrate those areas previously identified by the NRC as in r,eed of corrective action.
s
3 I
t e
NR; observers attended a licensee briefing on April 26, 1948.
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 situlated t
and that controllers would intercede in esercise activities to prevent disruption of normal plant operations.
2.2
-Scenarie The esercise scenario included the following key events:
l 1.
Loop 1 pressure indicator failure; 2.
Plant mode reduction in accordance with Technical i
Specifications; 3.
$witchgear Acor Fire Suppression System "TROUBLE" indication; l
4.
Fire Erergency; 5.
R:$ pur; begins to vibrate; 6.
Control rod drop incicent; 7.
Se: ore contrei roc drce in:icent causes a reactor scrae signal initiattor.; the reactor fails to scrar, however, a manual scrar of the reactor f rom $witchgear Room is sectessful; E.
Loss of feet. ate, 5 team Generator Tube Rw;ture (5GTR) ra:14 tion alares, anc safety relief sticks; 9.
Release to ate: sphere begins several rinutes later; i
10.
Releast of racioactive raterials to environeent; anc i
11.-
Reitef valve closed and plant stab 1112ec, commence recovery, 23 A:tivities Observed t
t i
D rtng the conduct of the Itcensee's esercise NR team rerbers rade detailed observations of the emergency respons,e o ganization i
r acttwation and awgsentation, the emergency response facilities (ERF6) activation and operations, and the actions of trergency 1
response personnel during the operation of the ERFs. The following attivities were observed.
i Re:ognition of initiatin 1.
Eeergency Action Levels (g conditions, correlation of these with EALs), selection and use of emergency operating procedsres, and completion of notification to offsite l
gewernmental authorities;
{
i I
4 2.
Staffing and activation of ERFs; 3.
Communication between and within ERFs; 4.
Formulation of Protective Action Recommendations; 5.
Performance of technical support, simulated repair and corrective actica.s; 6.
Capability of the Health Physics organization to maintain radiological controls; 7.
Communications with offsite agencies; and 8.
Interaction between Emergency Director, and s' ate and county representatives in the EOF.
3.0 Esercis# Observation 3.1 Eierets) Streacths The NRC t. ear noted that the li:ensee's activation and augmentation of the teergency organization, activation of the energency response f act11 ties, and use of the facilities, were generally consistent with their emergency response plan an: implementing procecures. The tese else notec the fc11cwing actions of t,he licensee's ess gency response organization that were indicative of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions.- -
1.
Excellent cousa.icatice with, and utilizattor of, offsite teams fer offsite s.rvey cata an: plume tracking.
2.
Frecuert aa: cwality briefings were conducted in the Techrical Sweport Center (15C), an: cverall, T5C covand and centrol was ence11ent.
3.
Plant rethods, prc:edares, and performance of erergency notifications was very good.
3.2 Eiereise Weaknesses The hRC identified the following esercise weaknesses which reed to be evaluated and corrected by the licensee.
lhe licensee condweted an aceowate self critique of the exercise that also identified soet of these areas.
1.
Corewnication bet een the Esergency Response Fac111 ties (ERFs) was weak. Nsterous instances of poor comunication were in evidence, both between and within ERFs as evidenced by the felle. irs esat;1es:
5 t
When discrepancies were found at the Esergency Operations Factitty between the METPAC dose assessments model and l
field survey team results, a conservative decision to use the field team data was made However, the rationale for this decision was never commu.nicated to the Technical
$wpport Center (TSC) or Control Room (CR). T5C and CR should be kept abreast of offsite issues.
The recording of offsite radiological data in the T5C is also referenced in i
procedure 0P3324. "T5C Operations".
15C was not kept abreast of the scenario event "loss of feed ater". Knowledge of the loss of feedwater should have caused the TSC staff to esamine and project affects on the reactor.
Though this event made little difference on the progress of the scenario, the T5C was not aware of 1
this and a loss of feedwater could have had major ef fects, The Engine, ring Support Center (ESC) had indication of einer core Amage prior to the declaration of the General i
Emergency (Gtl This knowledge was never available to the i
staff in the Td.
Had the 15C examined these indications, the GE may have been ceclared earlier.
The CR was met keet abreast of what issues were being esatirec ir the 75C er in the E0r.
Since the CR is in f act running the plant, they should be kept advised of corrective peasures being considered.in the T5C, and the effects of the accident offsite.",
i The area of costsnications betweet ERFs will be enarire in a subsecsent irste:tice (50-29/EE CE 01),
5 2.
Tre Recovery Maeager in the EOF ned fores for notificatics cf l
state and local officials that were not in the official "EOF Creration Fro:eewre.
The Itcenset stated that, the fcres it r
hac used had been agreed upon by the licensee, cnd state and i
local of ficials, but had not yet been included in the EOF Operation Protecare, The inclusion of the awthortred notifica-I tion forts in current procedures wil) be esamined in a swbseawent inspection (50-29/86 08-02),
l 1
)1 Otker Areas Requirine Fellow-up i
(
1, Recovery Manager (RM) performs rowtine administrative functions as wel) as the "orange phone" comunications. This often left i
the KV unavailable to confer with his staff, es well as interact with state of f tetals in the EOF, The licensee stated that this arrangere% was race with the affected states. Hometer, the RM 1
Cowid be relieved cf rany of these administrative ddies, alle ing him tire to riaintain better to.?. and of the ECF as well as interact with state and local officials, t
l l
l l
6 2.
Protettive Action Recoscendations (PAR's) were not developed and presented in a structured sanner.
As an example, while the licensee was relaying a PAR to state officials, new informat'on resulted in an attempt to ana*yze and change the PAR on the Although the licensee and state officials stayed with the spot.
original PAR, several mirut.es were spent discussing a change in the PAR. Additionally, the R)1 was not included in the discussion, nor was the data validated.
3.
The 15C has no method of tracking technical issues being examined by the T5C staff.
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 perforaaece.
In particular, plant data did not accurately reflect operator actions, and there were significant dif ferences between protected versus actual field seasurerents.
4.0 t.icensee Ac'.ien on Previews 1y Ice.ifted items (Closed) 50-29/67-03-02 (IFI) Field team results were not displayed or distributed to response eersonnel in the EOF.
Dwrirs the enercise, cata flew from the fiele tears through the coveicat, ions system te health physics data ficwed well aed HF personnel were su(HP) personnel was observed.The pplied with a constant streat of i nf e rr a t i er..
ihe cata was analyzed and used te roodify Protective Action Re:orsencatter eteistenraking.
The states were constantly irvolved and i
ett ir fact rectise the cata and its ir:11 cations. Dese assessers a;;ressively twrsud cisparities between projectec ame actual costs, and L
race ccrse'vativt cetisions in view of these dif ferePCts. Plutt tracking
)
dw*in; the seemario was race difficult by ccestant scerario wind shif ts, he=eter, cf f site tea s prferred well in spite of the difficulty.
Basec or these observations, t,his itet is closed, i
5.0 Licensee Criticse The Mt tea = attended the licensee's post-enercise critique on Ap-1128, 1955, during which key Itcensee controllers discussed cbservations of the esercise.
The licensee indicated that these observations would be eva16ated and appropriate corrective actions taken.
l 6.0 {sitFeetineandNR Critique l
i The licensee was inforred no violations were observed. Althewgh weal-I eesses were ident,1fied as noted in detail 3 above, the NRC team deter-mined, that within the scope and limitation of the scemario, tFe Itcensee's i
perferrance detonstrated they could irplement their Erergency Plan and erergency proced.res I
(
[
7 in a ranner that wovid adequately provide protective seasures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee Panagement acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate them and take appropriate action regarding the items identified.
9 i
- % g$
tMITED STATES NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMIS840N g
j Reexm i
(..... /
es auseo4tr mono Kiwo or enuss A.esmesysvAnia was OCT 0 $ 1988 Docket No. 50 271 License No. OPR 28 i
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. Warren P. Rur by Vice President an Manager of Operations RD 5 Box 169 Ferry, Road Brattleboro, versont 05301 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspectio6, Report No. 50 271/88 13 A routine cafety inspectis.1 of your annual emergency preparedness exe cnducted by Mr. Christopher of this office, and other members of an NR August 30 to S n tember 1 1988, at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
! tation, Brattleboro, Vermon,t.
Mr. Christopher to you and others of your staff at the conclusion of inspectioa.
Areas exar'ned during this inspection included observation of the annual exercise i.i follow up of findings identified during previous emeroency pretaredness inspections and exercises as described in the NR Region 1 inspection repo-which is enclosed with this letter.
insp' ection c&ns. *ed of selective examination of procedures and represent records, intarvitws with personnel and observation of the emergency exerc&tive by teart members.
ise Within ti.e scop * :(
determined the your.. sis inspection, no violations were observed.
It was emergency response action:
protective e.easures for the health and safety of the public.were adequate to provide No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us in this mattar is appreciated.
Sincerely 0
Ronald R. Bellary Chief Facilities Radiation Safety and Safeguards Branch
Enclosure:
NRC Region i Inspection Report No. 50 271/88 13 gqg"7DO-6Y
/
Vermont Yankee Nuclear 2
' 8 II88 Power Corporation cc w/ enc 1:
J. Weigand, President and Chief Executive Officar J. Pelletier, Plant Manager J. deVincentisLIctnsingEngineerVice President, Yankee Atomic Electric Company R. Capstick Yankee Atomic Electric Company J.Gilroy,61 rector Vermont Public Interest Research Group Inc.
cosalssioner, Vermont Department of Public se,rvice C. Sterzin,er P. Agnes, Asilstant Secretary of Public Safety, Cosmonwealth of Massachusetts Public Document Roos POR local Public Document (Room) (LPOR)
NuclearSafetyInformationCenter(NSIC)
NRC Resident lnspector State of New Hampshire State of Vermont Cornonwealth of Massachusetts bec w M.gio/erel:
Re n 1 Docket Room (with concurrences Perki35, Management Assistant, DPM (?
w/0 encl)
D. Haverkcmp, Section Chief, DRP G. Grant, 3RI, Vermont Yankee (w/ concurrences)
H. Eichenho'z, SRI, Yankee V. Rooney, PM, NRR R. Bores, Technical Assistant, DRSS K. Abraham, PA0 (2)
. : x, 2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM IS$10N 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 Insoectors
- k. Y
)A.n Nf(l> Y R. Keith Christopher, Team Le60er, EPS date FRSSB, DRSS Craig Conklin, Senior EP Specialist Geoffrey Grant, SRI Larry Cohen, PEPB, NRR
/U!
I'~
Approved By:
m-W. G faru hief, LP5, FR555, DR55 date Inspection Sumary:
Inspection on August 30 to September. 1, 1988 (Report No. 50 Ul/8513}
Areas inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection and observation of the licensee's annual emergency exercise performed on August 31, 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 reasures for the health and safety of the public.
-ge1m (7&5% 6 fit
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted The following key licensee representatives attended the exit meeting held on September 1, 1988.
J. Gary Wei and, President and Chief Executive Officer Warren Murp, Vice President and Manager of Operations James Pelle er, Plant Manager Reid Smith, Vice President for External Affairs Edward Porter Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Stanley Jeffer, son Exercise Coordinator William Riethle, droup Manager, Radiation Protection Other licensee representatives, including exercise controllers and observers attended the exit meeting as well.
2.0 Emergency Exercise The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station partial participation exercise was conducted on August 31 1988 from 6:00 AM to 1:30 PM. The State of New Hampshire fully participated and the States of Vermont and Massachusetts participated at the EOF and the News Media Center.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEKA) did not observe the exercise.
2.1 Pre Exercise Activities Prior to the emergency exercise, NRC Region I and Headquarters representatives held meetings and had telephone discussions with the licensee to discuss objectives, scope and content of the exercise scenario. Minor changes were made to the scenario to make certain technical information consistent with the scenario.
NR observers attended a licensee briefing on August 30, 1988, and participated in discussions of emergency response actions expected during 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 coolant from the primary coolant system evidenced by unidentified leakage greater than 5 gallons per minute (GPN);
\\
3 i
Failure of the main turbine mechanical pressure regulator resulting in reactor vessel water level swell and subsequent turbine trip; 3.
Containment radiation levels exceeding 1000 R/hr indicating actual or potential significant incore fuel damage; 4.
Declaration of Unusual Event, Alert and Site Area Emergency (SAE);
5.
Recoaraendation 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 equipeent. Mock ups of the postulated damaged equipment was available to permit plant personnel to perfore corrective maintenance. Mock-ups included the electrical backseating of drywell valves in accordance with OT 3111 and RHR pump inspection a(nd breaker repair.High Dryvell Pressur 2.2 Activities observed During the conduct of the exercise, four NRC team members made observations of the activation and augmentation of the emergency organization, activation of emergency response facilities, and actions of emergency response personnel during the operation of the er.ergency response facilities. The following activities were observed:
w -
1.
Detection, classification, and assessment of scenario events; 2.
Direction and coordination of the emergency response; 3.
Augmentation of the emergency organization and response facility activation; 4.
Notification of licensee personnel and offsite agencies of pertinent plant status infonr.ation:
5.
Comunications/inforzation flow, and record keeping; 6.
Assessment and projection of offsite radiological dose and consideration of protective actions; 7.
Provisions for inplant radiation protection; l
4 8.
Performance of offsite and inplant radiological surveys; 9.
Maintenance of site security and access control; 10.
Performance of technical support, repair and corrective actions; 11.
Assembly, accountability and evacuation of personnel; and 12.
Preparation of inforsation for disseelnation at the Emergency News Center.
3.0 Exercise Observations 3.1 Exercise Strenoths The NRC team noted that the licensee's activation and augmentation of the emergency organization,f the facilities were general activation of the emergency response facilities, and use o consistent with their emergency response plan and implementing procedures.
The team also noted the following actions that provided strong positive indication of their ability to cope with abnormal plant conditions:
1.
Extent of play by the States of Vermont, Massachusetts, and het Hampshire was substantial and added depth to scenario realist and provided training in state / licensee interactions; 2.
Dose assessment activities were proactive and aggressively.
attempted to evaluate potential radiological conditions based on projected trends in plant conditions; 3.
EAL's were effectively utilized and classifications were Correcti 4.
Emergency Response Facilities cornunications,ly interaction and overall comand and control was effective demonstrated; 5.
In plant mini-scenario mock ups persitted the operating staff to diagnose and correct plant problems in accordance with the recort endations and intent set forth in Infomation Notice 87 54 (Emercency Response Exercises) regarding interactive scenarlos;
5 i -
6.
In plant team comunications with respiratory equipment was successfully demonstrated; and 7.
The relocation of the Emergency News Center to the corporate offices demonstratively improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensee to deal with the media and to give appropriate briefings.
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 an Unusual Event UE at 0630 (clock time) based upon indications of loss of(coo)lant frot the primary coolant syster. in excess of 5 GPM unidentified leakage, r ing the UE, the reactor scramed at approximately 0745 Yhile this event does not by itself cause an escalation i
.w event classification requiring additional notificati it is a significant change in the Un w r,these conditions, it would be status of the UE.
appropriate to prompt'y update the NRC Operations Center of such a change in plant status; 2.
The Vermont and Hassachusetts 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; 3.
The Emergency News Center could leprove its capacity to use visual aids taking into consideration lighting conditions and size of the facility; and 4
The licensee properly classified a SAE based on containment radiation levels greater than 1000 R classification process, the licensee /hr. During this properly tracked 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 reclassificationbasedonthetrendratherthanwaiting until the EAL is actually exceeded.
6 4.0 Licenset. Actions on Previously Identified items The followig item was identified during a previous inspection
' Inspection Report No. 50 271 the MRC team during the exerc/87 22).
Based upon observations made by demonstrated and is closed:
ise, the following open ites was acceptably (Closed) 50 271 Initial notification forms do not allow for approval by the/87 22-01: plant emergency director.
The licensee has modified the notification forms and incorporated procedural changes to assure proper approval by the plant emergency director.
5.0 Licensee Criticue 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 Keeting and NRC Criticue The NRC Tear Leader met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report at the end of the inspection. The Team Leader sunnarized the observations made during the exercise.
The licensee was inforved that previously identified items were adequately addressed and no violations were observed. Although there were areas identified for corrective action, the NRC -tene determined that within the scope and limitations of the scenario, the licensee's perfortance demonstrated that they could implement their Erergency Plan and Energency Plar. Implementing Procedures in a ranner which would adequately provide protective measures for the health and safety of the public.
Licensee ranagement acknowledged the findings and indicated they would evaluate the NRC comments and observations and rake changes where appropriate.
At no tira during this inspection did the inspectors provide any written inforzation to the licensee.
i l
l
{(
nosnmanson Plgrim Nuc!eaf %r st4 tion Rocky Wil Road Ptymouth, Massachusetts 0236o Ralph G. Bird senior Vice Pres. cent - Nuc! car October 7, 1988 BECo Ltr. #88-143 U.S. Nucleac Regulatory Comission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Docket No.: 50-293 License No.: DPR-35 Re:
Boston Edison Company Comments on Draft of "A Report on Progress Made in Emergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilarim Nuclear Power Station"
Dear Sir:
The enclosed letter was transmitted today to Mr. Agnes of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts 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 qt'estions.
.L W l caw l
Enclosure i
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 7. 1988 l
Page Two l
l cc: Mr. William T. Russell Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear R6gulatory Commission Region I i
475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. D. G. Mcdonald Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Hail Stop #1401 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 l
Senior NRC Resident Inspector p
Pilgrim huclect Power Station l
f
C.
Duiturv (Oraft Recert ee. 53-55) 39.
The EPZ Town of Duxbury has submitted a draft plan for informal i
technical review by state and federal authorities, and staff of MCOA/0EP have discussed the results of these reviews with Duxbury officials.
However, Duxbury has submitted neither implementing procedures nor a shelter utilization plan for review. (p. 53)
C0wwENTS: In Duxbury, 38 of 40 draft procedures have received concurrence from the responsible individuals. Nany must still be reviewed by the town RERP Committee. All of the municipal authorizations for shelters in Duxbury have been signed.
-49
F.
P1veouth (Oraft Reecrt ec. 59-61) 48.
The E'P2 Town of Plymouth has submitted a draf t plan for informal technical review by state and federal authorities, and staff of HCA/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)
COwwENTS: While the draf t Plymout' procedures and Shelter
[
Implementation Program description have not yet been 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 -
p 6
MUNORK'60 O
ddGC Nd6SJ
$rredhe ce f 0NC k h e $ N e den hace Mchael 5. Dhhi e$cs/en, JJacluse//s ON0S Cheles V. Em
- ,creu3 A REPORT ON PROGRESS MADE IN EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR RESPONSE TO AN ACCIDENT AT PILGRIM NUCLEAT.' POWER STATION EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This is the third in a series of reports on progress cade in emergency preparedness f or tesponse te an accident Pilgric Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth', MA.
Th'is at report was preceded by ones issued in December, 1986 and Decembe:. 1987.
Both my 1966 and 1967 reports r.ade the finding that plans for off-site response to an accident at Pilgrim Station were not adequate, i.e.,
that the Cocconwealth cannot give reasonable assurance to the public that their health and safety can be adequately protected.
t
-i-i t
[
This report is based upon hundreds of hours of staff consultation with local officials and residents of the Pilgrim EPZ.
Drafts 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 of ficials, residents and the licensee an opportunity to respond to the draft report.
. m ~..,. ~.
Unfortunately, no repres,n..ta.tive. fro hthe.NRC,: FEMA E d. la, en e- -
..,,, s..,..a..
licease;e]crioose' to participate in'thqub}J{ieetlE;@
Undeniably, a great deal of work bas been undertaken by the state and local governments and the licensee to develop the best possible emergency response plans since I issued to you my reports of December:1936 and'De~cember
~ -
~
1967.
In particular, we must acknowledge a strong effort and substantial financial co titment 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:
11 -
'*k -
)
1 1.
That significant but incomplete progress has been made in enhancing off-site energency preparedness for an accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; 2.
That we are f ar f rom being able to say that we have developed adequate and implementable plans to provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety can be protected in the event of an accident at Pilgrim Station; and 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 l
authorize the restart of Pilgrim Station until the following conditions are met:
[
- 111 -
(:
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 f acilities, which has been observed and graded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Only after these conditions have been mot will we be in a position to determine whether reasonable assurance can be provided that public health and saf ety can be adequately protected in the event of an accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Notable progress has been made in many areas of e ergency 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 saf ety can be protected in the event of a radiological accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station with off-site consequences.
- iv -
safety officials, concerned citizens, and other groups as part of preparations for this report.
This approach to planning was devised because state and local officials agreed that the best plans are those which have been developed with the full participation of I
the men and women responsible for their implementation.
Thus, local selectmen, civil def ense direc,t.orgt.jplice and 4
{
fire chief s, and department of public works dice ~ctocs --
the individuals who best understand the capabilities'of local agencies to respond to emergencies -- are involved j
with every aspect of planning.
l
)
l Section V11 of this report gives the status of plans,
)
procedures, and other documents which have been forwarded
)
i to FEKA at the request of local officials for informal technical review by state and federal authorities.
i l
C. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES l
i i
l Both the Fedatal 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 11 -
1 1
/
Eis*conductV8 b'y MCDA/OEP.
However, FEMA has not withdrawn the finding of its 1987 Self-Initiated Review that the lack of a Northern Reception Center constituted an RERP deficiency.
The state then undertook an extensive search for another northern facility.
The result of our search was the preliminary designation of the state Department of Public Works
- f. '.
facility in Wellesley as the third center.
Wellesley DPW was our preliminary choice because it lies at the intersection of two major highways -- Routes 9 and 128 --
because it is sufficiently distant from Pilgric Station, i
it is a state-owned and operated facility, and it would ciniti:e the traffic impact on the host community.
Having n.ade this pr elir:inary designa tion, MCD;./OEP in i
cooperation with other state agencies has undertaken a feasibility study to deterr.ine if the state DFW facility in Wellesley can in fact adequately serve as a reception center.
Part of this feasibility study involved discussions with DPW, DCPO, and BECo officials to
(
determine if Ecston Edison can and will develop the operational capability at the site for its full use as a reception center.
32 i
a thorough and continuous training satisfactory without Training and exercises are the elements through program.
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 responso be trained in her or his particular Trainine will be provided to, among many other activity.
of groups, selectmen, civil def ense staf f s, department public works personnel, police and fire departments, bus and ambulance teachers and other school personnel, state DPW, and the drivers, as well as the state police, l
this training does and will National Guard.
- Further, correspond to implementing procedures developed to actual response plan actions, and involve the reflect 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/CEP officials review and approve all training i
modules which are developed for each discipline and group to be trained.
Since September 22, 1988, MCDA/OEP has lesson plans to be reviewed and approved and received 38
)
i is evaluating the material as rapidly as possible.
MCDA/CEP also certifies all trainers who teach modules to 1
l state, local, and volunteer organizations, and monitors 1
j the quality of their training.
l While numbers are constantly being revised, ou-
[!
present estimate is that approximately 6,000 individuals I,/'
will require more that 25,00_0_ hours of training.
As of l
4
}
this writing. we have provided about nineteen percent of
- \\
j
(
j total training hours.' This does not include training for l
a i
towns located between the EP and reception communities, i
l l
I i
l a
{
H.
NEED TOR A FULL-SCALE OFF-SITE EXERCISE I
l l
Section 111 of this report discusses the extent to
(
Which state and local officials have developed an l
entirely new plan and system for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station.
i The last full-scale off-s%'e exercise of emergency t
plans, personnel and facilities for Pilgrim Station was l
held in September of 1985.
The Federal Emergency i
i Management Agency found, as a result of the 1985 l
)
.l know at this writing when construction can begin.
however, once begun, improvements should require at least three months to complete.
l L.
TRANSPORTATION RESCURCES AND LETTERS OF AGREEMENT WITH j
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES 1
At our request, Boston Edison has assumed
'l responsibility to hold discussions with 9any bus, l
ambulance, and chair van operators both within and without l
the EPZ to obtain their consent to provide the transportation resources needed in the event of an evacuation.
The Commonwealth has insisted that the 1
availability of all transportation resources be documented by letters of agreement signed by the operators of the i
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 i
j will see that all drivere are given thorough training in l
emergency preparedness, tht use of radiological dosimetry, j
and their individual roles is emergency response.
I i
4 i
i l
l 47 i
I r
I
Nearly double the anticipated number of
?
buses needed to support emergency response have been identified, and training has been provided for some of the drivers.
- However, the letters of agreement which Boston Edison proposed the transportation providers sign have been sent back for revision by the Executive Office of Public Saf t ey because they did not indicate informed consent on the part of the drivers'.
i Several months have passed since Boston Edison agreed to prepare revised letters of agreement and we avait further action on this matter by the Boston Edison Company.
l
\\
V:.
MAJ0F LOCAL PLANNING ISSUES
\\
Both my 198( and 1987 reports investigated certain issues which had never been adequately addressed or reselved in emergency planning.
Most of these issues are l
common tc all EP plans.
Telleving is an item-by-item discussion of progress which has been made on these issues through our flanning process.
i t
I t
4 8.'
e
~~
- ~ ~ ~
~ ' '
September 9, 1988 H
~
NDORANDUM FOR:
William Russell, Regional Administr tor FROM:
William Lazarus, Chief. EPS bnbilamy, Chief. FRSSB THRU:
Stewart Ebneter, Director, DRSS
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS AT PILGRIM The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with the most recent status of resolution of off-site emergency preparedness deficienies in the Connonwealth of Massachusetts and local plans for the Pilgria Emergency Planning Zone EPZ Review performe(d by). These deficienctes were identified in a Self Initiated FEMA Region I and are,sumarized below:
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 population. planning for the evacuation of the special needs 5.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation dependent population.
6.
Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent diminuation in emergency preparedness.
Deficiency No. 3, regarding the lack of ~4helters for the beach population has oeen removed as a concern by FEMA due to the position taken that both 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 by the licensee which apparently demonstrates adequate shelter capacity.
in nature and will largely be resolved by the progress made on the otherDeficie specific issues.
That leaves the 3 deficiencies re for the scnoel children, special needs population, garding evacuation planning and transportation dependent population and the one deficiency regarding the laLk of a northern reception Centir.
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:
FEKA, in conjunction with the primary RAC rembers has reviewed and comented on the draf t plans for Plymouth, Kingston, Carver, Duxbury, l
2 Taunton and Bridgewater.
Coments from the RAC, as well as additional coments from MCDA, have been incorporated in the plans and procedures drafted for these towns as well as Marshfield.
1.
Marshfield the Plan, Implementing Procedures (IP's), Shelter Implementation Program and SIR cross roference have been approved by the selectmen and forwarded to MCOA.
2.
Taunton the Plan Implementing Procedures and SIR cross reference and corrective action plan have been forwarded to MCDA.
3.
Duxbury all documents are complete except for three IP's. These are in draft fore and are to the planning coenittee for review.
4.
Plymouth all documents are complete except for three IP's. These are in draft form and are to the planning coenittee for review.
5.
Kingston all documents are complete and ready to be femarded to NOA.
6.
Carver - all documents are complete except for one IP. All documents should be fomarded to MDA by September,1988.
7.
Bridgewater all documents are complete except for one IP. All documents sheuld be forwarded to MCOA by September,1988.
I Although not specifically identified as deficient in the FDM Report, renovaticns are being conducted at the town Emergency Operations Centers.
Bridgewater Carver and Taunton complete.
with those in Plymouth,lingston and the one in Duxbury approximalely 9% coeplete. Renovation of the last one Marshfield began September,1988, and should be cosplete in about two months.
A northern reception center has been tentatively identified by the Ccmorwealth in the town of Wellesley, hcwever 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 not known.
Planned renovations of the remaining twc reception centers in launton and Bridgewater not yet started, but again these reception centers have not been identified by FDtA as inadequata.
The lack of the third reception center may also be resolved by demonstration that the present two cencers are adequate for the population and the development of evacuation planning for the two centers rather than three.
The [1[ study was completed and the report was distributed to the local towr. planners and N OA on August 16, 1988. Copies will be forwarded to NRC the week of September 11, 1988
3
)
The Coepenwealth has not yet found a satisfactory method to ensure that the special needs population has been identified. MCDA will be conducting a detailed special needs population survey in the near future.
)
The plans and procedures are in what the licensee considers to be sufficiently final fors that training is being :onducted in accordance with a training prograr approved by the Cosponwealth.
In preparation for reviewing training being conducted for off-site response personnel at Pilgria, Mr.
Conklin and 1 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 of off g the Coemonwealth of Massachusetts on our plans to observe the training site response personnel that had coeseenced. A secondary purpose was to determine fror the Coeenonwealth the status of the plan and procedure revisions which were in deficiencies. progress to correct the FEM Region 1 Self Initiated Review Coernonwealth of Massachusetts attendees included:
Peter Agnes, Undersecretary Robert Soulay, Director MCDA Department of Public Safety Jeffery (Buz)(Hausner, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering Preparedness Program NSEPP, MCDA Tom Matthews, Emerge)ncy Response Planner, Department of Public Health Al Slaney, Regional Planner, MCDA The meeting had been discussed and coordinated with FEKA 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 f rom doing se shortly before the meeting by direction from FEM headquarters.
m...
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 FEK'. in the Self Initiated Review (SIR) to be inoperative, and that the plans an: procedures currently in draft represent a total re write and may be f unda?entally different free the previous versions. They do not know if these plans are adequate and will not be in a position to take that determination until they have been coepleted and tested in a full scale exercise. He *. iterated that it retains to be seen whether an adequate plan can be F eloped that will protect the health and safety of the public in th Pilgrim emergency planning zone.
All those present concurred that the licensee has dironstrated cornitment and support for the planning effort.
l
G 4
The Corrnonwealth is currently soliciting input on the current status of September, planning, and plans to issue an updated Status report in aid emergency 1988.
MCOA has conducted weekly meetings with the locals on planning issues and status.
Currently, the town of Marshfield (risk town) dures and and city of Taunton (hostcity supporting) documents and have forwarded them to MCD4 with a have completely finished their plans, proce have FEM re'tiew them.
All other towns' plans and procedures are essentially complete, and should be submitted to MCDA in the Isenediate future.
MCDA sumarized their refusal to submit the completed docuinents to FEMA as a result of FEM's non responsivaness to their letters regarding FEM's position on sheltering of the beach population in the Pilgria EPZ. (At an unplanned contact with Mr. Agnes at the Plymouth Sheraton on August 24, 1988, Mr. Agnes was asked if he would now forward the completed documents to FEV for review as they had received FEM's reply on August 23, 1988.
Mr. Agnes replied that he didn't know since he hadn t had time to carefully review FEM's letter.)
Wellseley has been designated as the third Reception Center.
It is approximately 35 miles from the EPZ. A feasibility study i being conducted to determine if it will serve the purpose. s currently This study should be completed by the end of September.
After the study the Comonwealth will undertake capital improvements and procedure development.
MCOA is waiting for the revised ETE to make determinations of beach evacuations and possible other population pocket areasn MCOA hasn't agreed on a method to identify the special needs populations, letters of Agree?,ent are essentially in place, however MCDA believes that they need to further strengthen this area.
M:Os is still considering an expanded Ep2 with the priorities on Marshfield beaches. Durbury and Carver, and the Capt.
The desire to perfort protective Actions on a town vide 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 re.stk on the facts of radiation section.
.q:,.
l 5
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Agnes indicated that he was very disappointed in the fact that FEM has been very unresponsive in reviewing the progress that has been sade in correcting the deficiencies identified. We indicated that FEM was involved, as he knew, in the informal technical review of the plans and procedures which had been forwarded to thee, 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 evaluating the training that was being conducted over the next two days.
(These plans and procedures had been submitted to MCOA by the respective towns, but had not been forwarded to FEM for review.)
On August 23 and 24, 1988 Mr. Craig Conklin, Ms. Rosesary Hogan, and I met with the licensee and his contractor who is conducting the training of transportation 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 coepanies that would be providing transportation to school children, or transportation dependent, or special needs population.
Findings are noted belew.
Training program development is ongoing.
Essentially, as draft procedures are complete, a training plan is developed, including contacts, lesson plans and hands on training.
This program is then approved by MCDA prior to actual training beginning.
Training has been conducted for many organizations most notably the including that for transportation providers.g is also being conducted general overview training.
Specific trainin Several bus and ambulance companies have been contacted and training has begun.
Scheduling is contiruin 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 /a-bulance routes by various drivers.
Formal classroorr training is conducted, followed by hands on training.
On August 23 and 24.1983 we observed training of drivers for twc 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 a31st them in accurately running their routes. These raterials are deemed to be adequate to allow the drivers to complete their assigned routes without difficulty. Training also included hands on desiretry use and oral questions regarding their roles.
The drivers are receiving high quality training and demonstrated a high retention level fro? previous classroom training.
% *ery e..
.n n.
w
)
-,2 a -
6
/A _
4 WdBasJ O +e2 Chief Deergency Preparedness Seclion l
Attachment:
As stated i
f i.
s l'
I 1
i i
l 1
I i
i l
cc:
S. Collins C. Conklin F. Congel, NRR W.
Travers. NRR l
R. Hogan J. Dolan, NRR l
]
, FEM I
(
'I l
L a
i h
I t
i l
l<
l
b q $de $mme,wea/// of/&achiae/s
$res/he ce f h l/$b $ &
0e sY.slle.>/tw hace Michael 5 Daabs 0J/tu, JJac.lsJe//s GNOS Charb Y. Bam
%m September 6,1988 William La:arus Energency Preparedness Section Chief U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
==Dear
- ==
r. La:arus:
I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of our August 22, 1986 meeting on offsite emergency planning issues concerning the Pilgrir Nuclea r Power Plant.
Secretary Barry is currently preparing a comprehensive reper: en th:s matter for the Governor.
As soon as it is completed, we will forward to your office.
. erply, p
/ -
I W.
Agnes, Jr Ass:stant Secretar.'
of Public Safety
/p.a ec:
Ronald va rley, Director, of f site Preparedness, SEco.
Jacr. D0lan, FEMA
RUNOND6GYOf JJGC //Je//J 0
boCM/Ne ce f bSc l}
a, MJu 9hc, Muheel S. Duhids
$cJAw, kwac$sse#J C2/0S c h,. v. sm S*"m MEMORANDUM TO:
FILE C'
FROM:
Peter W. Agn%
Assistant Sec f ar),of Public Safety DATE:
August 22, 1965 RE:
MeetAng With NRC Staff To Discuss Off-site Emergency Preparedness 1.
As a result of a request by NRC Region One, there was a meeting today between state and NRC of ficials to disci'ss the status of off-site emergency preparedness in connection with the Pilgrin Nuclear Power Plant.
In attendance at the meeting were the following persons:
~
Assistant Secretary Peter W. Agnes, Jr.
MCDA/OEP Director Robert J. Boulay NSEPP Director Jeffrey Hausner NSEPP Deputy Director Edward Fratto NSEPP Planne r Slaney NSEP7 Planner Gabaldon DPH Staff Member Tom Matthews NRC Pegion One C aig Conklin NFC Region One Bill Lazarus 2.
Mr. Agnes opened the meeting by stating that it was, important for all to recognize that the Con.monwealth's position is that the 1985 FERD plans f or the Pilgrim Nuclear Power P' ant, which were ed to be inadequate in the December, 1986
'Ba r ry Repor t,'
t operative and that the planning process that has existed
. the 'Barry Report' involves going back to the drawing boaco in an effort to develop the best possible RERP plans.
Mr. Krimm of FE!A acknowledged this position in testimc7y bef ore Senato: Fennedy in January 1988.
FEMA reached the conclusion that the 1985 Pilgrim plans were inadequate in their 1957 Self-Initiated Review.
The planning process is ongoing, but a completed drsft of the Pilgrim plans has yet to
be produced.
Thus, it was pointed out that while there may be differences between the circumstances of at 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 RER? plan f or Pilgrim can be developed.
Finally, it was noted that it would not be possible to characterize any RERP plan that might be completed as ' adequate' without a satisfactory full scale exercise.
3.
Mr. Agnes also described the' planning process 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 of ficials to review draf t planning material which would be forwarded to the state and then on to FEMA for informal technical review.
Thus, it was emphasized that the material provided to FEMA earlier this year f rom the EP: towns was merely draft planning material and that neither the local communities nor the state had approved it as final planning material.
With that pref ace, Mr. Bausner gave a brief sumnary of their status of planning activities.
4.
Since the 1966 'Barry Report,' a division within MCDA/0Ep was created to deal with emergency response / preparedness issues for the two licensed plants in Massachusetts, as well as the plant in Vernon, Vermont, whose EP: overlaps Massachusetts communities.
The governor created the Nuclear Saf ety Emergency Preparedness Prograc within MO DA/OE P, which currently has nine professional staff dedicated to nuclear accident planning and response.
Boston Edison j
should be creditec for their of f-site emergency planning staf f of employees and consultants.
The final elements of the 1
planning process were put in place in March 1987 Since that j
time, MCDA/0EP planners have held weekly meetings with town civil def ense directors and have met with town selectmen and, RERP conmittees regularly.
Phase I of the planning process involves develeprent of the preliminary draft plans and their submistion to FEMA f or inf ormal technical review Phase II will involve the refinement of the draft plans in the light of the FEMA informal technical reviev, which may lead to a formal submission af ter local and state approval.
5.
With regard to FEMA shelterina policy, the state needs to know what the ' rules' are tnat FEMA will apply.
The state has sont two letters to FEMA on the sheltering issue and its apparent turnaround at Seabrook, but has not received a response to date.
Plans are being withheld from FEMA by the r tate until the matter is cleared up.
Meanwhile, communities s
continue to work on their plans.
Most implementing procedures exist in draft formt many have been provided (by BEco) to towns, but have not been formally reviewed or approved.
6.
Mr. Jeffrey Bausner 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 satisf actory 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 nee nsary.
The state designated a state-run f acility in Wellesley -- approximately 4 5 mi;es from the plant.
A comprehensive feasibility study is currently underway.
If a satisfactory grade is received by the site, (report due in late September), MCD?./9EP eust organize the operational capabilities of state res;.tces, DCp0 zust l
approve recommended capital improvements to the f acility, and i
MCDA/OEP must approve implementing procedures for the reception l
center.
l
~
S.
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 ir. the area and is waiting for the revised evacuation time estimate (ETE) from Boston Edison before judging f
evacuation f rom coastal areas.
The revised ETE has been in the works for more than six months.
There are some extremely difficult places te e cate (e.c.,
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 rajor weekness in the plans by FEMA in their 1987 Self-Initiated Review.
MODA/OEP has yet to give final approval to the wording of a s trvey instrument to be used to identify special needs people
.n the EP3.
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 EP2.
In addition to the identification process, implerenting procedures for special needs populations will be necessary.
In response to any charge that there has been a lack of progress in planning, the
-3 s
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 is the form of agreement between BEco and private providers for emergency response resources.
Some of the questions include 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.
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 of communications and notification.
However, hardware is still being delivered to EOCs and communications implementing procedures are not yet complete.
12.
With regard to the training program, Mr. Ed Fratto repor ted 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 surrounding the EP: who will require training to respond to an accident via mutual aid.
Evacuation routes run through some of these towns.
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 approved.
14.
Tne state is most anxious to see the revised ETE and t raf fic management plan.
The southeastern part of Massachusetts is the fastest growing area of the state and there are concerns about the adequacy of road networks, etc.
Mr. Agnes, pointing to the map of Massachusetts on the wall, no'. e d t ha t Cape Cod, which will be isolated in the case of a plant accident, is of great concern to planners.
There are, or.ly 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 great concern a bou t the impact of a spontaneous evace: tion of the Cape Cod population in the EPZ during an accivent ?iven the road network configuration.
15.
In regard to the EPI Brochute (public information brochute), Mr. Agnes repo:ted that t he state has made substantial revisions to the document in its effort to develop the best possible brochure, but thete is more work that needs i
to be done before it is complete.
The last brochure published was an ' interim brochu re,' not a substitute for an annual 4
4 s
~
/z brochure.
Mr. Hausner added that BECo has purchased space on the inside cover of EP2 town phone books and is committed to printing EP1 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 Massachaset ts.
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.
17.
Since the 1986 'Earry Report,' the Commonwealth has been on record as f avoring expanded planning beyond ten miles, as well as substantially expanded and improved of f-site monitoring.
Mr. Bausner said that Massachusetts reserves the option to make 'Whole town' protective action recommendations and that the proposed ex the planning process.pansion of the EP2 is an essential part of Enhanced planning beyond ten miles is 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 effort f or the towns of Plympton, Wareham, and Bourne, whose corners touch the EP2.
=.y.y:-,.--
16.
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 RERF 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 organitation, substantially revised plans, and new local officials.
In September,1967, MCDA/0EP met with FEMA on local plans.
No timetable was set for completion of these plans.
The state has not heard from FEMA on the progress of local plans.
The state has invited FLMA to attend the weekly meeting of local civil defense directors and MODA/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 involvement with the process.
Considering the concerns which the NRC has had about one of the five worst nuclear plants in the country, FEMA's lack of participation is ' unfortunate.'
There did seem to be sore commitment from FEMA last year t4 monitor the planning process, but no follow through effort has ensued.
.j.
a t-s w/
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANN2NG FOR PILGRIN NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCUSSION POINTS August 22, 1988 2.
Development of a whole new energency preparedness and response program for Pilgria Nuclear Power Station vs.
revisions to the 19J5 plana 22.
Status of development of Emergency Response Plana and
~
Progress Establishment of Nuclear Safety Energency s.
Preparedness Program b.
Local planning process c.
Status of local plana d.
Status of implementing procedures _
222.
Status of FEMA "Self Initiated Review" findings a.
Evacuatien of Schools b.
Third, Northern Reception Center Protection of Beach Populations -- Shelter c.
Ut111 stion Plana d.
Emergency Preparedness for Special Needa Populations e.
Overall Lack of Progress in Planning and Apparent Diminution in Energency Preparedness IV.
Other areas of concern being addressed through the planning procesa a.
Agreements to assure the availability of buses, ambulances, and chairvana for transport dependant populations b.
Improved "prompt notification" system c.
Training for all emergency workera V.
Public Health emergency preparednesa laaues a.
Accident saaesament b.
Off-alte monitoring of radiological releases c.
Plans and f acilities 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 angestion pathway continued...
i l
VI.
Other Issues l
s.
Revised Evacuation Time Estaaete b.
Special Needs Populettor. Survey 3
c.
Revised Emergency Public Information Brochure l
d.
Installation of enhanced trompt notification ayatem i
e i
4 l
1 i
i
[
a d
l 1
i t
i I
i l
j i
i 4
l F
G i
l i
t l
end.
l l'
s F
OTF-S2TE EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCUSSION POINTS August 22, 1988 2.
Developasnt of a whole new emergency preparedness and response program for Pilgria Nuclear Power Station vs.
reviatons to the 1985 plana 22.
Status of development of Emergency Response Plana and Programa a.
Establishment of Nuclear Safety Energepey Preparedness Program - 7 <* // Md %M km _,
b.
Local planning process. kid./'% #c, 9 g4 c.
Stetus of local plana JEf/4
,t e_
- - - -;r d.
Status of implementing procedures W)%& 'O S".
O 222.
Status of FEMA "Self Initiated Review" findinga a.
Evacuation of Schools b.
Thard, Northern Reception Center - 4AL A) ?
WM my c.
Protection of Beach Popu}ations -- Shelter Utilazation Plana (c/g) d.
Emergency Preparedness for Special Needa Populations e.
Overall Lack of Progrena in Plannang and Apparent Dinanution an Emergency Preparedness IV.
Other areas of concern being addressed through the plannang process a.
Agreemente to assure the avellability of buaea, ambulances, and chairvana for transport dependant populations b.
2aproved "prompt notification" system c.
Training for all energency workera V.
Public Health energency preparedness lasuna a.
Accident assessment-A+t# %. w u b.
Off-alte monitoring of radiological relevaes -d D'
c.
Plans and facilities for ca e of in ur d contananated i nd i v i d u a l s - d/hW'#j #
1 * <j^~ y
M M
- 7 d.
Plans for daipbaal of radioactive waste from decontamination of energency workara and eq h
t' C.*
- Slh4 [h' '3gpg e n t,
and the general public e.
Plans for reentry into contaminated areas M b e h f.
Plans for control of the food chain in the 50 mile.,%/,
ingestion pathway A*~4 continued...
Attach.ent
'g (
VI.
Other Iseues a.
Revised Evacuation Time Estimate b.
Special Weeds Population Survey Revised Emergency Public Information Brochure c.
Instellation of enhanced prompt notification system d.
l l
l and.
10/20/88 MEMO:
Bill Lazarus, Chief. EPS FROM:
Craig Conklin, EPS
SUBJECT:
Hands On Training for Transportation Providers for the Pilgrim EPZ All training observed was conducted by Boston Edison Company consultants. This training, instructors were knowledgeable and proffessionalincluding individua training All attendee's were cooperative and several demonstrated a high retention level from previous classrom training.
9/24/88 Cresent hbul uce (Trans Network). There were 13 attendee's with 4 women. All attendee's were ENT's. Training consisted of a c,ombination of classroom lectare and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered Dosimetry; a',d Implementing Procedures.Introdu,: tion to Radiation; In were:
Risk and consent, for both t 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 froe Cresent Ambulance in Brockton to the Martinson JRHS Stagi g area in Marshfield (37 minutes), to the Baypath Nursing Home in Duxbury 22 minutes), to the Cardinal Cushing Hospital in Brockton 46 minutes. This provider will normally have two individuals in each a(mbulance.
The saps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
~
10/8/85 Swansea A,tbulance.
There were 13 attendees, with 8 women. All attendee's were EM1's. Training consisted of a combination of classroorr lecture and actual perfcrmance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and Implementing Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms. Actual routes were not run, however routes were analyzed and map reading techniques employed. This provider will normally have two individuals in each ambulance.
i i
t I
e
10/9/88 Stavis Ambulance Service. There were 5 attendee's with 3 women. All attendee's were ENT's. Training censisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks.
The lessons covered were:
Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dosimetry; and implementing Procedures. Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered.
Hands on training included use of dosimetry and appropriate forms and actual running of routes. The routes were run on a sunny, cool sunday late morning to early afternoon. Maps and instructions were provided and a bus was run froe Stavis Ambulance in BrooklinetoSilverLakeHSstaingareainKingston(65 minutes)lCushing to the Sister Divine Providence Nursin Home in Kingston, to the Cardina Hospital in Brockton (57 minute ).
This provider will norsally have two individuals in each ambulance.
The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problers were encountered running the entire route.
10/10/88 Rogers Bus Company.
There were 8 attentee's, with 4 women. Some attendee's were from Engle Bus Company.
All attendee's were bus drivers.
Training consisted of a combination of classroom lecture and actual performance of tasks. The lessons covered were: Introduction to Radiation; Introduction to Emergency Response; Dostmetry; and Implementing Procedures.
Risk and consent, for both the drivers and company, were adequately covered. Hands on training included use of dosimetr.y and appropriate forms and actual running of routes.
The routes were run on a sunny, warm holiday monday late morning to early afternoon. Maps and instructions wer provided and a bus was run from Rogers Bus Company in Hanover to the Martinson JRHS staging area in Marshfield (12 minutes) a..d to Bus route M 4 and return to the staging area (50 minutes). Bus route M 4 included Marshfield and Duxbury beaches.
This provider will normally have one individual in each bus.
The maps and instruction provided were accurate and no problems were encountered running the entire route.
a:s, ot.o:gg 31G-14-48 i 4:lCAW i
).
3,01 All 11373s 2 f' /
J f.
LP AppnevAt std%ny Mo d ule / Ag en ay.
sent t o S t at o pt-Approved P3!0RITY 1
(1-1) Intro to Radit '. 'en 3
(1-2) Intro /Imerg. Reeponse 1
(2-1) :osimet.ry 1 /15/88 3/21/88 3
(2-2) kirvey Hatars 1
(2-3) Sirw. Activaticri
)
(2-4R) Es%N5 1/22/88' 1/25/88 i2-4XIP) BBXNS 1/22/88 1/25/&8 3
(7 P) Dept. of Atblic Waru 3/17/88 4/22/88 1
(14 P) Day Care /Prvt 5:hool,) _7/7/88 7/11/88 5
(12) Tra.w;ortation Prwiders
,,7/88 7/20/68 5
(4 C) Fire Deprt.rer.t 7/7/88 4
(9 T) DS 7,O/85 3
1 (20-3) State P:0 8/8/88 2
(6 B) Civil tefe.se 8/8/88 1
(14/C.D,K M) $N.lgs l,
,lsj,, _
1
.f 7 T) Deet. _of Public W:.Ws 8/8/89 3
I (19 7' Earf of Fenith 8/8/f!
(1 B) Hi evav re +,.
8/8/8m 2
(210) 5N!*4rs 8/!/89 4
(lic) t.:M:1 > t.
8/!/!!
1 (26-15i Fess. tW 8/9/!!
1
(? Pi Poitee M et.
9/1/88 4
it 01 M 9/1/89 4
(201 F7 %s? t a Ce '.*.e r e 9/1/82 7
(3F)ICC 0/27/!! _
7 3
(6 P1 Civil refe.se 9g22/88 5
(12P) Ta*.s;cr a tier.
9(22/8e 2
1 (19?) bard et Health 9/27/88 2
2 (21P) Ehelters 9/22/88 1
( 20-51 hh1 Sta t e e.t Writirs 9/22/88 1 Oigital %:tificatior. Netverx 9/16/88 -
I 4
(4 ?) Fire rept.
10/4/89 1
1
(:92) Coc.nril o. A;eir; 10/4/88 -
6 (3 7) IOC 10/4/88 1
2 f6 Tj Civil Dnfer.se 10/4/88
- 3 4 i 11'-) MNpt10*. Ctater M'4/88 i
g f 217) A.-L-al Co-trol 10/4
-.-- - i./ 8 8 3
a_
W
l SLM 8Y;6e;9 319-14-40 i 4:b1AW 191 462 11371: 3 o
1 LP AspnovAL SuMkAny Module / Agency.
sent to Statapt Approved PRIORITY f 5 7 ) Pot teg
- BoM't * ' " "7_
10/8/88 1
J127) TraNr:crtati&,
10/6/88 3*
($ P) EME 10/13/98 L
6 e e D-w's t
1 m
e j-. -
.=v.
' i sue.
_r-
= w:!$ tw
-7 7__ _ - _ -. -.
[ $'h lq THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
]
at d
e UECUTTVE DEPARTMENT tlj*h}
{.
avs Met =68 aose ano or not e peeeingo.gu
'f
(
6
/ *=%,,
mostRT J. DOULAY WICMAEL $ DVUKls pat gton etwg as oe l
70:
Secretary Charles V.
Ba rry Executive Office of Public Safety ATT:
Peter Agnes, Assistant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety FECM:
John L. Lovering, Deputy Direc vr Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness DATE:
October 11, 1985 S'J EJ E C T :
Feasittlity Study Involving the Sultability of the State Departr.ent of Public Works Garage located in Wellesley, MA as a Potential Eeception/ Processing Center for Evacuees in the Event of an Accident at the Pilgric Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, MA.
JLL/ksb Attachments cc: Director Eobert J. Boulay MCDA/0EP
BACKGROUND The 10 r!1e Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for all Nuclear Generating Power Stations was established in 1979 as a result of the issuance of new Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NBC) and Federal Energency Management Agency (FEMA) Guidelines.
These Planning guidelines were pro-mulgated in a document known as NUREG 0654 and were fina-lized and issued in October 1980.
Consequently, new radiological emergency response plans were developed for a potential accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located in Plymouth, MA.
Three (3) Reception / Processing Centers were established for evacuees from the five (5) e:ergency planning zone (EPZ) communities of Plymouth, Carver, Kingston, Duxbury and Marshfield namely:
State Hospital, Taunton, MA.
Bridgewa ter State College, Bridgewa ter, MA.
Hanover Mall, Hanover, MA.
ine public efficials of these com: unities agreed to "nosta the Feception/ Processing Centers and accepted the obliga-tien of the operation of the processing centers.
In 1966, the owners cf the Hanover Mall (a private sector facility) re:uested to be relieved of the Hanover Mall's assign =ent as a processing certer for evacuees and the Co::enwealth Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness (MCDA/0EP) granted this request.
A subsequent study produced by the Eoston Edisen Company (BECO), the owners of the Pilgric Station purported that the two (2) re aining receptien centers located in Taunton i
P 2
and Bridgewater, MA tould be aufricient in the event of an evacuation of the EPZ communities.
The Commonwealth MCDA/0EP nothwithstanding this report from the utility takes the position that a thi.'d processing center is necessary in order to take full advantage of the road system leading away from the EPZ consunities.
MCDA/0EP is convinced that the availability of a 3rd northern pro-cessing center results in a more effective departure program thereby enhancing the public's safety in the event of an accident requiring total e'.acuation of all 5 EPZ com= unities simultaneously.
In MCDA/0EP's search for a northern Reception Center to replace the Hanover Mall, it becace obviously apparent that the best site would be to find a processing center that would have a mini:um impact on the come. unity in which it would be located so the following ideal criteria was established:
NEV FACILITY CFITEFIA 1
Tne facility be beyond the 15 elle distance fro: the EF; coc: unities as recoc: ended by FEMA.
2.
The facility be owned by the State.
3 Tne facility be preferably located adjacent to an interstate or State highway thereby elicinating the travel by assigned evacuees over coc: unity roadways.
4 The facility be operated by Sta te personnel and con-sequently avoid coe= unity operational responsibility as a ' host ecc: unity'.
5.
The facility could acco=modate and would serve evc-cuees from the towns of Marshfield, Duxbury, and the Saquish Neck-Gurnet District of Plymouth, MA.
On the basis of the above criteria a facility survey was conducted by MCDA/0EP 3
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY The MA State Department of Public Works garage located at the intersection of Route #128 (Interstate #95) and State Route #9, located in Wellesley, MA appeared to be an ideal site based on the above stated criteria.
Distances from EPZ communities involved:
Marshfield - 34 miles from Exit 12 of Route 3 a t Route 139.
Duxbury - 38 miles from Exit 11 of Route 3 a t Route 14 Saguish/Gurnet Plymouth Line - 48 miles from the bet of the Saquish-Gurnet aren of P1ycouth, Mi Consequently MCDA/0EP requested of yoc Mr. Secretary to allow us to conduct a feasibility study in order to deter-eine whether the facility and State Personnel under the provis' ions of Executive Order #144 could perfore the tission of receiving and processing evacuees from the above named EPZ coccunities with a high degree of opera-tional capability providing appropriate public safety response services / activities in the event of an accider.t at the Pilgric Power Plant.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FPOCESS Ms. Judith Ka:unas MCDA/0EP Agency Planner was assigned as the coordinator of the feasability study effort:
l Ste; #1 A request was cade of EECO to sr sey the facility in cooperation with facility Superantendent John Sullivan in l
order to determine whether this four (4) plus acre site
(
and its buildings could be utilized as a processing center 1
a l
i l
i_
for evacuees.
ATTACHMENT A reflects the basics Of the SECO survey with their recommendations for physical enhan-cements to the sain building which is a garage, and reflects other operational resources identified.
Step 02 A meeting was held on March 31, 1988 with the State Agency representatives (Executive Order #144), Red Cross, Civil Air Patrol, et al to task the representatives with the reasibility study guidelines / operational assignment tasking and that they study the potential objectives and inform HCDA/CEP if the missions were feasible.
A follow up coeting was held with the same group for the purpose of ascertaining State agene es concerns relative to missions assigned.
Tne agenda for this meeting and other related teetings with pertinent meeting material and require =ents are contained in. ATTACHMENT E.
Vritten responses fro: the State Agencies, Civil Air Patrol, Fe: Cr:ss, et al are contained in ATTACHMENT C and re flects their efficial cec:ents/ concerns to whether the 21ssicts/ task s assigned are feasible.
A written coc-cunica tions contained in ATTACHEMENT C from:
National Guard Public Health (Fadiation Control Program)
MCDA/0EF Coc:unications Officer Department of Education Department of Public Works Department of Mental Health Department of Public Safety Public Health (Emergency Medical Services)
MA Bay Transportation Authority Civil Air Patrol A erican Red Cross i
_C A UTI ON : IN M ANY INSTANCES THE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES COMMENTS ADDRESS OPEFATION AL PLANNING CONCERNS COING EIYCND THE ORIGINAL TEASIEILITY FEQUEST AND THE FEVIEWEE OF THIS REPORT SHOULD TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDE AATION.
i 5
r Step #3 Analysis of all of the activities and materials emanating from Steps 1 and 2 and the br* Inning of the formulation of this report which involves a recommendation.
Step ik Indicated in the ma terial and information we have analyzed is a concern for the chatance the Wellesley State DPV facility is away from the EPZ communities which it would serve.
As a result 1 assigned Donald Remark an MCDA/0EP planner to ascertain nationwide if there are other situation / plans that would reflect the same or similar distances.
The results of that study appear to indicate three (3) Reception Centers in other states are at least 35 =iles frc: nuclear power plants and ten (10) plants in other states have rece; tion centers 40 to 50 =11,es away fro: the nu: lear power plant.
i Ve have requested tha t the related States E:ergency Manare:ent Agencies of Virgir.!a, Flcrida, Maryland, New Ycrk, 1111ncis, Kansas and Louisiana send us copies of their response plans in order that we be fa:111ar with the public safety features of these individual state receptice facility utiliti:ation plans.
The prell=inary results of Mr. Ee: arks efterts can be found in ATTACHMENT E.
i l
GENERAL I
Allow =e to e=phasize that local officials of Vellesley le.
1 Select:en, Civil Defense Director, Police and Fire Chiefs and Legislative Representatives were infer:ed of the 6
1
feasibility study, its objectives and goals.
Partiaular care was taken to ensure that State employees assigned to the MA Department of Public Works Garage Wellesley, MA./their Union Representatives were periodically briefed.
Miscellaneous letters / records which could be considered important for the record are contained in ATTACHMENT D, CONCLUSIONS The results of the feasibility study contained herein appear to indicate that a plan v2 th implementing proce-dures coupled with an honest to goodness operational capa-bility and a recurring training, and exercise program for related State agency personnel et al can be developed for the utilization of this facility as a processing center fer evacuees fec: the towns of Marshfield, Duxbdry and the Saguish-Gurnet Area of Plymouth.
Tne development of this plan is predicated on:
A committment by the Com:envealth of Massachusetts to assirr. full time personnel te the Directer MCDA/0EP fro: the State Agencies involved as determined by the Director MCDA/CEP for the purpose of assisting in the overall plan development.
Contractural planning assistance personnel from the Boston Edison Co:pany for the pur-pose of producing the written docu:ents.
1 A realistic BECO sponsored enhance =ent progran for the Wellesley State DPW facility in order that the site can be utilised as a i
processing center.
It's only a garage now, and has to have significant physical impro-I ve:ents in order to perfore the e ergency I
response functions.
State agency supple:en.
l tary resource requirements shodd also be considered by BECO.
7
CONCLUSIONS (Continued)
A training program for the State Agency per-sonnel assigned es al supported by BECO.
A preliminary public information program for all local /sta te officials involved, espe-cially for the officials and townspeople / residents of Wellesley which reside adjacent to the facility.
I call your attention to a letter from the Well tsley Board of Selectmen found in ATTACHMENT D which should be answered.
As an t.nswer 3 suggest forthwith a meeting with the Secretary of Public Safety for local and state officials in order that these key people be briefed.
RECOMM END A TION That the Secretary of Public Safety allow MCDA/0EP to con-tinue to pursue this planning endeavor for the purpose cf producing the plan.
The Secretary of Public Safety con-tinue to withhold any final designation of this State CFW faellity as a Feception/Frocessing Center unless and ur.til i
MCDA/0EF can a bsolutely certify 'that' the' plan is workable, 1 ;1e:er. table and enhances and does not detract fro: tne public safety et the pec;1e invclved ir, the event c f a r.
e:ergency r.e:essitating its 1 ;1e entation.
i t
i Ee >tectf ully r tcommence:
John L. Lovering
(
E
t p.
.i aos30Wmeer I m o w s ereFec8'r otory M*We Pyroe naamacNwen02Mo 1
December 23, 1947 (PC87 M4 Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Commonwealth of MA Assistant Secretary of Pubite $4fety One Ashburton Place - Room 2133 loston, M 02104
Dear Mr. Agnes:
By letter dated October 26, 1987 Boston (dison Company transattted information to you in response to certain istues identified in the F6deral Energency Manaceeent Agency's (FEM) August 4,1947 '$ elf-Inittated Revtev and Interte finding for the Ptigria Nuclear Power $tation* ($!R).
The purpose of that letter was to provide inforutton for subetssion to FEM in an effort to fact 11 tate F[Ka's review of the resolution of the $1R issues. Me are now forwarding additional information in response to the FCM $!C tisves, i
In particular, we are enclosing a copy of a report entitled ' Reception Center reasibility Aralysts' dated December 22, 1967 which addresses subissue B.) as identtited tr the 'Soston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FCMa !ssues' dated September 17, 1987 (Boston Edhon Action Plan).
In subissue 3.1 FCW stated that 'a ntv reception center must be found te replace Hanover.'
(Page 19 of $!R). The Action Plan stated that an ' evaluation of the feastbility of using two reception centers
- would be undertalen.
Plan). The encicsed report docuwnts that analysts.(Page 12 of the kston Idtson Acti The analysis susmartred in the enclosed report assesses the capability of the (Taunton) and Bridgewater State College (Iridgewater) - to mon planning zone (EPZ) in accordance vith appitcable federal guid Whule the report addresses other aspects of reception center operations, the primary purpose of the analysts was to determine whether the objective of that guttance could te achieved using two, rather than three, reception centers, l
The report also provides planned traffic routes out of the (PZ and esttNted i
t avel tires, and identif tes traffic access and control points.
i l
It is trportant to stress that the report does not purport to address the entire reception center planning process, but is instead only a step in that As you know. Boston Edison is assisting the Ccecnvealth and local process.
govereents in utgrading their plans and procedures and is confident that appropriate plans and peredures governing the operation of reciption centers will be devele;ed.
t I
i
i N analysit numentized in the attached report was conducted h planners Provided b of ficials,y loston (dison, in coordination with Taustas and tr< dpeutter and concludes ti.4% the Taunton and Brid appropriate renovations and equipment procurement)gmater facilities (with have the capatt t t ty of monitoring the requisite number of persons evacuating from the EPZ in m event of an emergency at Pilgria, thus, the report addresses FDR's concern that a third reception center be found to replace Manowr Mall. Boston (dtson vill continue to wort with town and fact 11ty officials to assere Nt appropriate plans and procedures governing reception center operations are 4
developed, and will provide whatever resources are necessary to support reception conter operation.
1 Me understand that, as stated in the Action Plan (paw 12), the Commonwealth is continuing its review of the possibility of ident' fying a third reception If those efforts result in the identification of such a center, center.
loston Edison will be pleased to cooperate in its tapiamentation, including the procurement of necessary fact 11ttes and equipment, the development of necessary plans and procedures, and the training of personnel.
mile such implementation steps are being taken, the enclosed feastbtitty analysts demonstrates that the available two reception centers can adequately serve any emergency needs.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Albert Samano at (617) 747-0439.
$1f'erely.
i Ronald A.
J Staf f Assistant to Sr. Y.P. - Muclear RAV/dlw 10d988 Attachrent cc: R. 84Wlay - C a
- 5. Varga - NRC j
R. Nessman. hitC l
NR; Region 1 Senior MitC Resident Inspector 4
Mayor Itchard Johnson - Taunton i
R. Spearin - f.0. Otrector - Taunton D. Car. epa - Chairman. kard of Selectmen - Bridgeister D. Ford - C.D. 01 rector - 8tidgewater E. Mwcy - Brid;e-ater State College i
Taunt:r. State Ibspital - Wditistrator l
AtCEPT!] CtNTtt Ft.AlltfLifY ANALY111 i
Boston (dison Company December 22, 1947 1.
Introduction i
In the Federal [sergency Management Agency's (FDM) August 4,1947
- Self-Initiated Review and Interia finding for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station', a number of issues were identified with respect to the state of offsite emergency preparedness for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station (Pt igria).
In Boston Edison Company's September 17,1987 ' Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FDM !ssues'. Boston Edison identified a number of discrete "subissues' which collectively comprise f(Ws Subissue 8.1, in particular, stated that 'a new reception center concerns.
i must be found to replace Hanover."
In response, the Action Plan stated that an 'evaluatior v' ihe feasibility of using two reception centers' would be s,nd e r t ak en, wr'.dison Action Plan at 12.
This report surrarizes that analysis.
l At the cettet, it is teportant to clarify that the purpose of a reception center is to provide a location where monitoring, decontta16ation and registratten of evacuees can be performed, rather than to provide long-tern congregate care for the EPZ population. Accordingly, except for activities such as vehicle decontamination that can, if necessary, take place durlog the i
1 i
1 recovery and reentry phase of an accident. 4 fact 11ty Cstpated as a reception center vill only be utilfred for the relatively short period of tfee needed to monitor, decontaalnate as necessary, and register evacuees. Such a facility would not be used for longer-ters needs (such es non-teergency aedical care, temporary quartering, or other social services), which would be provided by congrtgate care centers to which evacuees sould be referred.
The principal purpose of this report is to assess the capability of Taunton State Hospital (Taunton) and Bridgewater State College (Iridgewater) to monitor the popdation evacuating from the Pilgria plume esposure pathway emergency planning toie (EPZ) in accordance with applicable federal guidance.
While the report sumartres the overall process of ranaging traffic and acmitoring, registering and decontaalnating evacuees, as described in greater depth in Appendia A to this report, the federal guidance provides that reception centers should be capable of monitoring 2M of the population evacuatin; free the (P2 ir about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Thus, the temtral purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the capability of the Bridgewater and Taunton f acilities to achieve that cbjective.
The assesstent was conducted by planners provided by 5.cston (dison, in cccedination with lawnton State Hospital and Bridgewater State College of ficials, and those officials have concurred with the conclusions stated in thi s report.1 The report also provides (in Attachment 2) prellsinary results of traffic ranagement analyses currently being undertaken by KLD Assectates, 1
Civen the recent resignation of the Bridgewater State College President, Boston (dison is continuing to work, with the current College administration in order to ensure that its vlevs are reflected in any plans to utillet the College as a reception center.
2
ICc., to assess, among other things, the ability of the road systee ortside the (PZ to tetomodate the anticipated traffic to the tw facilities, and thus to support timely m>nitoring of evacueet. Attachment 2 provides plahntd traffic routes, estimated trarel times and traffic nanagement plans (lacluding an identification of access and control points).
This report concludes that the Taunton and Bridgewater facilities have the capability to monitor persons evacuating from the EPZ in accordance with federal guidance, and that those feel 11 ties could effectively serve as reception centers.
In fact, Although the federal guidance provides that there
^
should be sufficient reception center capacity to monitor 2M of the repulation *1c kg evacuated' in an energency, and an evacuation of the entire EP2 is extresely unilkely, the analysis shows that the Irldg* vater and faunton facilities can acceeodate 2M of the entire EPZ population.
Thus, the analysis was based upon conservative assumptions.
i 1
facility renovation (principally at Taunton) ans etwipment procurerert fer t>oth f acilities will be necessary. A listing of anticipated personnel, and resource needs is included as Appendi 8.
In addition, the preltsinary results c,f the traf fic rana;erent analyses (Attachrent 2) show that anticipates traf fic flow into Tawnton and Bridge =4ter can be acccccdoted and that tirely witoring of evacuees at the reception centers can te supported.
The nest section of this report describes the general analytical approach that was used in the evaluation. Section !!! suvarizes the analysts an; j
results fer Bridgevater and Section IV suvartres the artlysts and results for
)
Taunton. Conclusion.t are presented in $ection V.
l 3
CITY OF TAUNTON K
9
' DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE l
CITY MALL 18 8WWWER 874 SET TAUNTON. M ASS ACHUS ETTS 01780 mee e s. seem e==ma october 5, 1988 Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety one Ashburten Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Mr. Agnesi i
on Henday cetcher 3, 1986 ry effice received a draft copy of a doeunent entitled "A Report en Pregress Made in Itergency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrie Nuclear Power Station". Com=ents were requested by October 7, 1988. This is an extremely short tu naround time f or a report that is over 100 pages in length. Our cemeents are, by necessity, based on a very cursory review.
Specific ecreants are as folleva
- 1. Saetien V::.3. page Ei, pertains te Taunton. I-he secend
- aragraph of that secticn it ref ers to the f r. i t '.at rencvations to Taunten State Hospita' have no* beer undert.nen. It is cnly fair to point cut, that 1csten Idison has been prepared to conduct these rencvations fer quite sore tir.e, pending authorization by State DOPO. Further. I have stated that ; vould use at least scre pcrtions of this facility in an energency even if the rencvattens vere not ccepiete.
- 2. The last paragraph of Page ti states that, "the Taunton Civil Ortense 01recter has expressed't.is concern that plans are being eade tc provide services f or only 20% cf the IP:
anythin; ever 20% vculd te addressed en an "population....a and that ad hec hasis. This a
para raph in no vay reflects the statements 2 nade during my interviev vith Mr. Agnes.
The Taunten plans and precedures vere draf ted to rest f. TRIG-06!4 and TIMA guidance rescranda as they pertain to receiving, nonitoring and decenta !natten of evacuees. I a fully avare of the planning criteria, support it, and feel ey plans are scre than adequate.
In fact, after being questiened repeatedly at that resting by MODA cfficials I rentienst that I felt confident our energency personnel ceuld httdle rcre than the 20% planned.
- Ad Ece", is net an apprcpriate tern since exissing pisne and precedures estat11sh a franeverk and planning tasis for expanded energency operations.
(
Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
October 5, 1988 page Two By vay cf nore general observations regarding the report, it appears to grorsly understate the working relationship of Boston Edison emergency response personnel and the City and overstates the role MCDA has played in determining response policy, strategy and problem solvir.g. Further, the repcrt tends to stress perceived problems and neglects to highlight the progress made to develop comprehensive plans and procedures, initiate a training program, construct energency operations centers and put needed equipment in place. Although this program is not complete, it is certain3y well-astablished and moving in a positive direction. There are no outstanding program issues that we feel would interfere with impler.entation of verkable plans and procedures.
Sincerely, 0 Y 0-Director L
cc: Mayor R. Varley l
i
i neamam Esecutw offices
)
800 Bcy'ston street Boston P/assachusetts 02199 October 26, 1987 Ralph G. Sird 5ew v,ce Preweet - %c:ev Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Assistant Secretary of Public Safety One Ashburton Place - Room 2133 Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
As you and I recently discussed, perioou.am; I of the information developed in response to the issues id w tW the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) August 4,1987. ". -Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Fower Station" (SIR) should facilitate FEMA's review of the resolution of those issues. Accordingly, we are forwarding a copy of a report entitled "Pilgrim EPZ Public Beach Population Analysis,"
dated October 14, 1987, which addresses subissues C.1 and C.2, as identified in the "Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues," dated September 17, 1987 (Boston Edison Action Plan). He are also enclosing for your consideration a draf t letter of transmittal t6 FEKA.nd a suggested distribution list.
In subissue C.1, FEMA requested, "(1) an updated geographical description of the beaches (within the Pilgrim EPZ) and their capacity."
(Page 26 of SIR)
The Boston Edison Action Plan (Page 14) stated that preliminary estimates of the expected maximum number of people on the public b(aches within the EPZ had oeen developed and were being verified.
It also stated that updated geographical descriptions of the beaches were being developed.
The results of those efforts in response to FEMA's request are contained in the enclosed report.
In subissue C.2, FEMA requested, "(2) a detailed analysis of the beach population, including the number of permanent and temporary residents and the number of'd43.yisitors, together with their geographical dispersion."
(Page 26 of SIR) The Action Plan (Page 15) stated that tne geographical dispersion of the population of each of the public beaches was being developed.
It also indicated that a breakdown between pertranent and temporary residents and day visitors did not need to be de"eloped since the current planning process is based on the conservative ass 9mption that sufficient sheltering capacity will be identified for the entire beach population. Thus, the enclosed report provides the information requested by FEMA as to geographical dispersion of the population on the public beaches within the EPZ.
~ ~ ~ ~~
l
[
i PILGRIM EPZ PUBLIC BEACH POPULATION ANALYSIS KLD Associates, Inc.
October 14, 1987 The purpose of this report is to respond to certain issues raised in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) August 4, 1987 "Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (SIR)." In particular, the report addresses SIR subissues C.1 and C.2 as identified in the "Boston Edison Company Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEKA Issues" dated September 17, 1987 (Boston Edison Action Plan).
Subissue C.1 stated:
FEMA and the RAC... must receive the following additional information:
(1) an updated geographical description of the beaches and their capacity.
Attachments A-G are relevant portions of United States Geological Survey quad sheets (modified as described under Subissue C.2 below) which identify each of the majof.pubjic beaches in the EPZ as follows:
Attachment A - Brant Rock Beach and Green Harbor Beach Attachment B - Duxbury Beach Attachment C 'Saquish Neck
I 00$TCW EDISON bacwtweo nces 800 Boy: sten street Bosto+. t/assa Asetts 0215'9 June 30, 1987 Ralph G. Bird EPC# 87-356 see or v.ce %s cent - scw Mr. Peter H. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of Public Safety The Comonwealth of Hassachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety One Ashburton Place Room 2133 80ston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Agnes:
The attachments to this letter are Emergency Preparedness Materials developed recently by my sta1f based on our understanding of perceived weaknesses in offsite planning. We believe this information resolves the major concerns being addressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in their self-initiated review:
Beach Population and Sheltering, Hobility Impaired and Transportation Oependent Individuals, Special Facilities Planning and a Northern Reception Center.
He recomend that your agency send this information directly to FEMA for consideration during their self-initiated review.
Prompt review of this information should preclude an unnecef sary negative finding concerning offsite emergency planning for the protection of the health and safety of the general public around the Pilgrim Station, and in turn avoid creating unnecessary public concern.
He also recommend that the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency use this information to update the State's Emergency Plan and Procedures as well as those of the five towns within the ten mile Pilgrim Emergency Planning Zone.
He are prepared to assist you in quick 1;' achieving this objective.
4 JFC/cae Attachments
i
./
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables
'./
List of Figures List of Attachments I.
BEACH POPULATION / SHELTERING A.
Location B.
Population C.
Shelters D.
Notification E.
Resources II.
HOBILITY IMPAIRED / TRANSPORT DEPENDENT A.
Studies Overview B.
Survey Process C.
Staging Area Utilization D.
Resources vs. Needs Matrix E.
Town Resources III.
SPECIAL FACILITIES A.
Campground Areas B.
Schools 0.
Prisons E
Nursing Homes IV.
RECEPTION CENTERS A.
Facility B.
Equipment & Personnel C.
Training 0.
Capnellity i
.