ML20195F194

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to Pilgrim Station Evacuation Time Estimates & Traffic Mgt Plan Update
ML20195F194
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 08/25/1988
From:
KLD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20195F131 List:
References
TR-203A, TR-203A-R, TR-203A-R00, NUDOCS 8811210070
Download: ML20195F194 (33)
v • d • e


Text

!.R-2;;A 1

oa A 30W A"DX

.ONLY iPILCRIM S7ATION EVACUATION TIME E.97IN).TES AND 7tAIFIC'3(ANAGEMINT FIN.':tTPDATE

'-he5 0.1 ;.' by XLb Asc.i t t (.a,- ;Inc.

.* C0 Err 4& 'ty nue.t. irs;4co 8 tat 1N, ri :374s 7PIcptred f..c Poston Ed!. Mi t. r.

Ci'f. ' :c WA4 W ecy P.< [+rtAt. at Creer.

5.'.IMutr A r.1 hir* -N G r

nyrranth e 9.

03:< G U s

n:

,g

~

Rev. 0 Augvst~25, 196(

l

. @ i/2lM78 3I

  1. N f1

FOREWORD The Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan for Pilgrim Station presented herein is a

document which has undergone extensive reviews since August, 1987 when a draft report was issued.

The contents of the report were updated to reflect com=ents received from a variety of sources; State and local agencies, town RERP committees, and the general public.

The contents of the RERPs and Implementation Procedures, developed to date, were used to update the planning assumptions utilized.

The Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan remains a "living document" to be revised as planning assumptions change, new informa' tion becomes available, or as population and development patterns within the area change over time.

This document references the use of three reception centerst Bridgewater State College, Taunton State Hospital, and a proposed site in Wellesley.

The proposed Wellesley site is currently being studied to determine its feasibility.

It is important to note that the number and location of reception centers does not effect the ETE as long as the reception centers are located.a sufficient distance from the Emergency Planning Zone boundary.

  • * * # El
  • 9 e

a er e

l 1

{

i

Pilgrin Station Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffic Manag. ment Plan Update List of Effective Pages Table of Contents i to xiii Rev. O Chapter 1 1-1 to 1-10 Rev. O Chapter 2 2-1 to 2-48 Rev. O Chapter 3 3-1 to 3-11 Rev. O Chapter 4 4-1 to 4-26 Rev. O Chapter 5 5-1 to 5-20 Rev. O Chapter 6 6-1 to 6-3 Rev. O Chapter 7 7-1 to 7-5 Rev. O Chapter 8 8-1 to 8-10 Rev. O Chapter 9 9-1 to 9-62 Rev. O Chapter 10 10-1 to 10-35 Rev. O Chapter 11 11-1 to 11-5 Rev. O Chapter 12 12-1 to 12-2 Rev. O Appendix A A-1 to A-5 Rev. O Appendix B B-1 to B-3 Rev. O Appendix C C-1 to C-7 Rev. O Appendix D D-1 to D-8 Rev. O Appendix E E-1 to E-19

. Rev. O Appendix F F-1 to F-5 Rev. O Appendix G G-1 to G-18 Rev. O Appendix H H-1 to H-4 Rev. O Appendix I I-1 to I-185 Rev. O Appendix J J-1 to J-6 Rev. O Appendix K K-1 to X-5 Rev. O Appendix L L-1 to L-62 Rev. O Appendix M M-1 to M-29 Rev. O Appendix N N-1 to N-12 Rev. O Appendix o 0-1 to 0-36 Rev. 0 l

l l

[

l

m J

L

@ h @.2@ ?

M p @M@H2K20@H PT@g 71M N

bbf i

I MARSHFIELD l

la

..---..--9 e,..--

,y-.--

Shelter Implementat on Program Summary Purpose of

~

Shelter implementation Program:

i To provide an alternative to evacuation where such actions will result in greater dose savings than if the public were evacuated.

1

\\

._.._,. q.... _ -..

- 1,. i - - -.-.. -

l l

i i

a I

1 eSL------m--

mv-v-w

-w-v---e---w--+-w-

_-u-aw.g-w

_-,yg.

_ww.

ry' ey

Shelter Implementation Program Summary Three Goals of the Shelter implementation Program-e Meet Federal Regulations j

  1. Utilize a Joint Effort by State / Town / Utility
' Provide a Systematic program to.-

Implement Short Term Shelte' ring i

l i

Shelter Implementation Program Summary L

NRC & FEMA Regulatory Requirements NUREG J.10.M:

Requirement that sheltering effectiveness in the EPZ be addressed...to allow planners to put data in the hands of local officials sufficient for the development of shelter implementation plans for all areas of the 5 EPZ towns.

~

10 CFR 50.'4f(b) (1b)

~

and 44 CFR 350.5 (a)(10)

...and require that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure zones (EPZ).

1 I

i L

Shelter Implementation Program Summary 1

L Short term Sheltering e An approximate period of one to two hours

  1. No sleeping or feeding arrangements VS Mass Care Sheltering 0 Can last for longer periods of time
  1. involves sleeping and feeding arrangements
  • Often carried out with the protective action of evacuation 6

4

~

Shelter Implementation Program Summary 2 Main Protective Actions Sheltering Evacuation identify Population Buses identify Potential Shelters Staging Areas Perform Visual Inspections Reception Centers LO. A.'s

~

~

Monitoring Develop, Review and Approve Mass Care Shelter Procedures Provide Shelter Kits and Training 5

--.--,--,,-w-y 9-w

--,w--

e.

m,

Shelter implementation Program Summary J

L e Identification of Population that may need Public Shelter e Identification of Potential Public Shelters e VisualInspection of Buildings e Letters of Agreement with Building Owners

., Shelter Procedure Development, Review and Approval Provision of Shelter Kits for Shelter I

  • Coordinators / Training i

l l

l 6

Shelter Implementation Program Summary L

identification of Population that may need Public Shelter Resident Population Transient Population Beach Persons in Population Homes, Businesses, Etc.

.., Boaters

..=:.,--

,..., ~.

Shs00s:

0^

Day h.i@@

Trippers

$XsMs? b Ds25pI0sf

[0Mb05c SN@00s7e

Shelter Implementation Program Summary identification of Potential Pubile Shelters i

Criteria:

e Location 9 Good Shelter Protection e Sultabliity for use l

l 9 Size Types of Buildings

_7 _ ; _.. -

~-

l e Municipal t

1 l

e Semi-Public e Private Sector

  • Commercial
  • Non-Profit i

I

Shelter Implementation Program Summary Perform a

Visual Inspection Determine Usable Determine Shelter Space Capacity 9 Measure Total e Divide Usable Square Footage Space By FEMA 10 ft2 e Apply Room 9 Allow for Normal Usability Factors Ropulation in Building l

e Arrive at # of Persons that could be Sheltered in Building l

During Normal Operation Hours (in Addition to Normal Population) l l

9 l

i

Shelter Implementation Program Summary Marshfield Shelters l

1 Municipal BuildLng 3

Semi-Public Buildings 4

Shelters l

10

(2@

Shelter Implementat on Program Summary Marshfield Peak Populations for Beach Areas l

  • Green Harbor 2,609
  • Brant Rock 1,211 Boaters 170 Day trippers 660 Total 4,650 1
  • Based on informa!on receNed from local offdals, there are no commercial pahung bts at Green Hartcr or Brart RO:1, the maonty of beacf1 goers have touses nearby, ard the rcn resdort populaton for these areas correnses approximatePy a tNrd of the totalpeak popvfaton. A ttned of the peak pcQutatM for Green Hartor b SM; for Brant Rock is 403.

The totaj ron resdent fcQutaten for both bca!ons is 1272.

a 1_

11

i Shelter Implementation Program Summary Shelter Letters of Agreement G Voluntary Participation by Building Owners

  1. Protection Against Liability for Building Owners

~

.5

~ 1 --

~

12

Marshfield -

Beach Areas and Shelte c

e...

.......~.......

Recreetlenet Pepelessen

- Est. Ft2 m.t Dwring Dwetag during Arese weebse t:2 ott.heore oporessas Oper=tias heure he r.

I Green Herber

2. * *
  • Eublic F

sessor

s. Govern.r Edward rep sess

,y, win. seer seemees 2 s,o so is.21e 1.e t e MsA

$6s4 j

S emi-Eubila

2. ow t.dy e The j

, e.n e..

c

.r.

... s o

...u.

i...

j Brent Rock 1.211

%)),,a I :

L Semi-Euhlin

[(

s. si Am.. by the see 13,soo so ese 1.e s e e

i.ees 4.

see.e n.e=

unsen ch rch 1.000 2.2 *

  • Eg9819ratt 4

[

Dey-trippers ese b

Total 4.e s s 4 2. 4 3 e 4.2e9 2.2ee These isome are *not apphceede elace the beach populoeon era be shehered *during opereeng hours * (I e ; aksrtng eie edioos year) le very lo

(

Arant consultadon seen church e1Melo, no deductinne froni eveAshle cepedey have been taken for buedng,, ' "_ ese to sie short l

houre tiene buddrige are he wee

  • Bened upon ensormeeon seceived from Iecal ofbriele. cheee are ne c-

-_J.: parkeng loes et Green Herter er Brerie Anck, she motor **y of teerb gnore hews hovese sneertpy, ered the non ree& dens pog=W for tuees eroes wouki coenpense o,dy a pierd of pie spW peak popus.ge,, A twd of the posh ;:; "

. for Groma 6sertww to ase erw filvens Rodn 6e 403 The anel soon voeldent ;, '_'_ par been aereenne is 8272.

{

d l

a

l Attachment 2 l

._i L.

Municipal Authorization for Governor Edward Winslow School r

i See attached Sheet

4 BUILDINO:

Governor Edward Winslor School /Marshfield ADDRESS:

Ra5 s Road off Careevell St. (Ete. 139) 1 INDIVIDUAL (S)!N CRAEGE:

Fred thbbard, Administration Alan Scott, Maintenanca Thank you for assisting the Office of Emergency Preparedness by providing energency resource information necessary for short term shelter planning in the event of an accident at Pilgria Nuclear Power Station or aar other energency.

Your cooperation in providing information was most helpful in completing shelter survey forms and in sacertaining shelter I

space for the public should an emergency arise.

Please review the completed shelter survey form to ensurs i

that the information recorded is accurate.

A v i s ua l i n s pe c t i o n o f Cove rno r Ekard Wiae low S chool was t a k e n t o d e t e rm ine a USASLE S ERLTRA ARIA o f _19.210 feet.

square TRANSIINT POPULATIOW CAPACITY:

I Of f-hours /off season:

1.910

& s:1e A rss sloxArvt:(s) or INDIVIDUAL (3)IN CRAAGE or BUILDLWO i

(DAT11 i

4 l

l i

y r---

I anew.m a i Letters of Agreement (s

newswe>

1. Saint Ann's by the Sea
2. Our Lady of the Assumption
3. Brant Rock Union Chapel WG I

I i

l 1

i A

i

~_-

1

l

'idiLiTIE5'5'$dfER5'0URid A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AT PILQtIM NUCLEAR PCHER STATIO This Agreement is made this 22nd day of March,1988, by and between St.

Ann's by the Sea (RC), at Marshfield, and Boston Edise Company, a Massachusetts electric company, with its principal place of business at 800 Soylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199.

NHEREAS, Boston Edison Comotny ("Soston Edison') is the owner and operator of the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station ("Pilgrin Station'), located in Plymouth.

Massachusetts; and NHEREAS, it is 1.1 the public interest that in the event of a radiological emergency at Pilgris Station that members of the public have adequate short-ters energency shelter facilities; and NHEREAS, the shelter facilities described herein are owned by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ecston ('the Owner') have been deterutned to be suitable for the purposes of providing emergency shelter; and NHERCAS the owner has agreed to mala said facilities available for an emergency shelter in the event of a radiological emergency at Pilgria Stattor.;

.. ~.,

NCH THEREFORE, in consideration of the autual prostses and agreteents contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1.

Pemission to Use f acilities:

The Owner agrees that in the event of a radiological energancy at P11gris Station and Upon the direction of the Emergency Operations Canter for the Town of Marshfield (Tcvn), the facilities described in Section 2 may be ustd by the general public as an taergency I

shelter.

2.

Sheltar Facilities:

The Owner's facilities which may be used as an i

emergency shelter (' Shelter Facilities") are described as follows: St. Ann's by the Sea (RC)

(Church building and Parish Center 591 Ocean St.

building available for sheltering)

Parshtteld, P.A

1 3.

Shelter. Facilities Canacity:

Based upon applicable standards ud inspettton by Boston Edison, the Shelter Facilities have a capacity of up to 1,080 persons.

4.

B,tscentibilities of owner: When directed by the Emergency Operations Center for the Town to activate the Shelter Facilities, the owner shall do the following:

a)

Post in a visible, public ares the shelter placaro, which is contained in the Shelter Procedures Kit; and i

b')

Use best efforts to follow ud carry out the Shelter Procedures, which are contained in the Shelter Procedures Kit.

5.

Leated Premitet: In the event the Shelter Facilities are on premises which are leased by the Owner, the Lessee, by signing this agreement, agrees to fulfill the responsibilities of Owner as set forth in Section 4.

6.

ihtit.. dant ti:. The Owner or, in the case of Leased Premises, the Lessee cuy designa, i, Shelter Manager. The Shelter Manager's name, address and telse one riuaber shall be provided to the Emergency Operation Center for the town; and he or she shall te the primary person to contact for all matters i

pertaining to the Shelter Facilities.

7.

Oblientient of Boston Edison:

Boston Edison shalt do the following:

i a)

Provide a complete Shelter procedures Kit and other pertinent j

emergency instructions and information as may be necessary to assist the owner, Lessee and Shelter Manager; ud I

b)

Provide one tone alert radio; and I

c)

Indeanify, def end and hold harmless the Owner, Lessee and Shelter Manager for and against uy clais, daange, action, suits, losses, costs or expenses for loss or damage to property, or injury to persons, including death, ud reasonable attorneys' fees, caused by,. connected with, or arising out of the actions or omissions of the Owner, Lessee or Shelter Manager in i

2-t

connection cith the use of the Shelter Facilities as an emergency shelter during a radiological emergency at Pilgrio Station.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have herento set their hand and seal on the date first stated herein.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Beste Soston Edison Company (ownsr's M = )

By

[

At torney 1.C. Sird Senior Vice President _ Nuclear Its LessH (If Shelter Facilities are on Leased Prealses)

Shelter Manager i

. l l

Letter of Agreement Brant Rock Union Chapel (In Process) t l

l 4

1 l

l l

mummme I

mummma

_-,_,,y,

._,_,________,___,3

J L

Letter of Agreement Our Lady of the Assumption (In Process)

+6

  • S S e

e 1

I l

l l

ununm.nol Marshfield Shelter Procedures L

Shelter Manager IP-10 Shelter Coordinator for:

Governor Edward IP-41 Winslow School Brant Rock IP-42 Union Chapel i

Saint Ann's IP-43 by the Sea 1

Our Lady of the IP-44 Assumption 1

mamme mummme l

/

p T6N.T Federal Emergency Manageme4%gency N

U

[

Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Omce and Court Heiuie Boston. Massachusetts 02109 August 22, I b 2 O Charles v. Barry, Secretary

{

Executive Of fice of Public Safety

((._,_

  1. p&

Coronwealth of Passa:husetts One Ashburton Place Ecoton, Massachusetts 02108

(

Ibar P.r. Barry:

his is in response to your letters of Ksy 27 and July 7,1988, conce ning of f-site radiological ecurgency planning and prepte 3dness for the Pilgrim Nuclear Powar Plant. We ef forts of the Cm.onwealth of Ksssachusetts and the 1ccal ccrmnities to upgrade plans and preparedness around Pilgrim are cecognized aM appreciated by the Federal Dnergency Mamgement Agency (FDiA). Informl technical assistance reviews of the draf t local radiological ernergency response plans for Plrouth, Carver, aM Kingston, Missachusetts aM of the Teception Center Plan fer Taunton, Passachusetts were ccnpleted by FD4A and the results wre forwarded to Pz. Ibbert Poulay, Passachusetts Dnergency Kanaganent Director, on Paren 30, 1958. he results of the informl technical assistance reviews of the Bridgewater reception Center Plan aM the Euxbur'y Radiological Dnergency Fes;cnse Plan wre forvarted to Mr. Boulay on August 3,1988, and August 8, 1955, res y :tively.

Infor al technical assistance plan reviews have now been ccr:pleted for all of the' Pilgrim vergency planning zone (CP2) ccrrunities exovpt for Marshfield. De nsrshfield plan and the plan for a third reception center have not yet been sutnitted for review.

De reviews indicate that there has been same progress made in improving and up;rading the local pla*.s.

Cverall, however, the plans rcrain inexplete, la:k sp2:ific details in certain areas, and do rot include required impleentin; pr:cedures.

In addition to these issues in the 1ccal plans that must be ad-cressed, the status of the Passa husetts Civil thfense Agency Area II Plan and tne Ccrronwalth of Passachusetts Plan nust be clarified. De Area II Plan is rew obsolete in many respects and needs up;rading and republishing. By our records, the July 1961 edition of the Ccmonwalth Plan rerains the ef fective version, since the 1984 revised edition was never irrpirerted. Since the Ccrronwalth and Area II Plans teth contain elments that af tect and are critical

'o the 1ccal plans and their irpleentation, a full fomal technical review of of h,i'e plannin; fc,r Pilgrim canrot to empleted by FD'.A until revised Ccrronwealth and Area li : 1:.; are sutnitted along with ceplete supporting Iccal plans. As indicated in our letters to Mr. Boulay, full impicmenting procedures, Letters of Agrement, revised Public Infomation Brochures, and training modules must also te sutnitted for a full, femal technical review.

W2 encourage you to continue pursuin; your goal of developing the best possible e ergency plans for protecting the public health and safety in the vicinity of the Pilgrim NJ: lear Power Plant. N2 can also appreciate the intricacies of the

/ pr: cess and interaction a on) the State and local jurisdictions and the licensee that is required to develop such plans. D are qp reensting, hewaver, that you provide a schedule or rilestones indicitin? En the overall ottsite plannir f

(

. prccess for Pilgrim will be ccrpleted and when revised plans will be subn'.tted to FDM for fo:ral review. bb do rot believe that this action wauld be arbiuary or tMt it would imply that considerations other than public safety are para ount.

In f act, w have found schedules and r-ilestones to te useful for planning purposes and for rnonitoring progress at other sites and w believe that the Cm.onwealth, tre local jurisdictions, and the licensee could tetter organize the planning effort and would find that producirn a schedule would help facilitate the pro:ess.

In your letter you questioned whether the plans that are ultimately develo;ed will prcuide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures 'can ard will" be taken to protect the public, ha also requested that FD% pruvide you with a state-rent of the criteria FD% intends to mploy in making a deterniiksti,9 of reasonable assurance associated with a review ot the plans for Pilgrim. FD% continues to use 44 CFR 350 as the basis for its reasonable assurance firding. If the intent of FD%'s regulation 44 CFR 350 m3 the plannin; standards and related evaluation cri-teria contained in tNRIL-0654/FDtA-REP-1, Fevision 1, are met, based on the pro-fessional jud; ment of FD% and other Federal reviewrs, then we are able to rake the detemination that crergency plans adequately protect the public health and s.afety by providin; reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can te taken of fsite in the event of a radiolo;ical energency. As a paint of clari-fication, 44 CFR 350 d:es rot require a FDM reasonable assurance detemination tMt protective measures "will" be taken, only that they "can" be taken.

In regard to your discussico of planning options and dose savings, the overall

/

ceiective of any radiolo;ical mergency res;onse plan related to a nuclear p>cr

~

'p' ant is to a'ssure reasonab_le and feaslble dose savims for a spectrar of radic-lo:ical accicens tnat could proiuce of f site dases in excess of Protective Action

~

Gu ide s ( PA3's ). ' A PA3 is defined as a projected absotted cbse to irdividuals in the general population which acts as a trigger paint to warrant protective t

action. A FA3 under no circumstances implies an acceptable cbse. 'Ihe Nuclear Fu;ulator/ Ccr-ission (NRC) e__nf_ireed the atme pasition in a rulin; on Julv_

o 2,4,;_l% 6, and state 1_Wt emr;:ency pj.apnin recuircrentQ2gt. require tM1

,hlayachtue aa_ry-stair.cr. radlation oose-ssytrgs,e;; a mintnr.

SvaMtion ti. e f o_r tr4e plu"e expcMure (10*-c11e) EFZ in the e_verst of 'a serlois a: ident (Lon; Islan:TUjhE5; Co (Sho'rehan Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 24 tC-C 22 g CL1-6t-13, 1966).

73e__. protective actient taken af ter a nuclear incident e

~~

_are inteMei tg! mini-ize tre rajiation exrosure of' the 'ceneral rub.lic resultint t ra _the incident, a nd tnas achieve cose savings in camparis.:n to acticos taken j

'on an ad hx tosis Eut coergency planning. Lita the best memenev olans /

and preparedness _cannot assure that radiatico ex;osu,re will ror cecur for the]

J j

worst case accidents.

gi-In your letter you raised the issue of the teach population in the vicinity of P11; rim and q,.;esticoed whether FDM continues to stand by the reaults of the Self-Initiated Peview and Interim Findirg. There are severa.

-tors that will te considered by FD% in reviewing the revised Pilgrim plans vardirg the teach pcpulation J.,; other special populations within the EPZ. One factor involves Plannin; Sta. :ard J in N'.TCG-0654/FD%-REP-1, Fevision 1, which requires tMt a ",grue _cf rrotective act iem" te considered in develepin; of fsite radiolo;ical crergen:/ res;cnse plans. As part of the Pilgrim plan revisico prcetss, FD%

eqects of fsite cf ficials to develop protective action eptions, based on site-specific characteristics and 1ccal capabilities, and to provide the technical rationale for wtatever protective action option or options are selected and adcpted as the rest appropriate planning approach f or the site.

It is FDWs position that a "ran;e of protective actions" could be satisfied by evacuation alone.

Also, in the Self-Initiated Paview and Interim Finding FDiA stated, based on certain factors, that protective actions for the beach population "my wil be adequate cur-rently and, if not, readily correctable." It may be, based on the relatively Icw nabers of pecple who my be without shelter, that nearby buildings could be iderr-tified te of fset the dif ference.

It is our expectation that once this option is fully explored, an aiecuate shelterina plan for the transient beach population can te develcoei. Yowver, if this is rot'the case, to require sheltering for the transient beach population as a condition of a firding of reasonable assurance is incmsistent with the precept that crengency planning requireraents do not require that an adequate plan achieve a pre-set minimm ra31ation dose savings or a minimm evacuation tire. This approach is being applied to all EPPs naticnwide. Thus, our response to your question as to whether or not w stand behind our finding is twfold:

1) w continue to believe that an adequate sheltering plan for the transient beach population can be develeped for the linited ciremstances where sheltering would be the preferred protective action; and 2) that this lasue, in and of itself, would not support a negative finding for the aformentioned legal and policy reasons and for the technical reasons stated belcu.

In severe a::ident sequences, the total dose potential is ecnprised of several cow pment.s. INse are the direct exposure frcn irrersion in the p1me, cloud-shine f rcn a pire cuerhead, exposure f rcn inhalation of the pime, ard ground-shine frcn de;osited radicou:lides.,The exact relaticnship a on; the various ccrponents will vary with tine and distance frcn the point of release.

In severe accident seqxnces, hcwever, the ground-shire co pcnent is ecst likely to be the mjor ccotributor to total dose if no protective actions are taken.

In those cases, if the dose redxtion strategy is shelterin; first, folicwed by an evacuation af ter pime passage, the total dose reduction would not be as great as that for the irrediate evacuation strate;y.

In an i rediate evacuation, to rove the population relatively short distances in a cross-wind direction would greatly decrease or eliminate exposure. Even roving the population d:vwind relatively short distances would decrease the dose rate by a f actor of 3 cr 4.

The shelterin; part of the strategy reduces dose pri.arily frx.

tne pime i.rersicn and inhalation ccrionent.

It is generally accepted, depending on t.he quality of the shelter, that the ef fectiveness of a shelter to reduce the in-halation expmure degrades af ter tw hours. At sxe point, sheltered individmis would have to te relo:ated.

Darin; this evacuation af ter pire passage, irdividuals previcusly sheltered woud still receive the grcund-shine dose, potentially the mjor ex;onent. Iterefore, sheltecin; follcmed by evacuation is likely to be a less ef fective reans of achieving dos, reduction than evacuation alone, particularly for severe accident sequences.

Generally, the closer an area is to the pint of release of radiation the greater the potential dose savings that can t< achMved by early evacuation. By 1 plerenta-tien of the i mdiate evacuation strategy, o se reductions greater than those to te derived frcn a "shelter first-evacuate later" concept can te c6tained by mcue.ent of the pcpulation relatively short distances, even in tne extreely unlikely case in which the pire track and the eva:uation routes coincide.

In a$dition to the factors cutlined ab:ve, the !GC Staff has advised FWA that its interpretation of !GC e ergency plannin; regulaticos is that the re;ulaticns

~

r 4

do ret require that sheltering 63 prcvided for all accidents, at all times, and at all locations within the pire ex;csJre pathway EPZ. Stated differently, %e tK Staf f viess the replations as not requiring that there de a range of prctective a:tions that includes both s.elterin; and evacuation optiens, for all accidents, at all tines, and at all locetions within the EP2. tac has also advised FDS that its regulations are not contranned cy the absance of shelter in the case of the beach population.

In consideration of FDG's interpretation thit "range of protective actions" could te satisfied by evacuation alone, the pot,entially greater dose savings frcra an 1:n-nydiate evacuation versus shelterin; strategy, ard the imC's interpretation of its regulations, the la:k of sheltering fcr a s;ecial segment of the population will not, by itself, necessarily te cauw for a negative reas.onable assurance finding.

These standards were applied to reviewing planning for the beach ppulation in the Seabrook case and are teing applied to all reviews nationwide.

Mr. Richard Krit.T.'s recollection of the gtetation in your letter is that the state-nants wre made in the context of shelterin; as a preplanned, chosen protective action and referred to shelterin; for the per..inent population. 93 expect the CcrTxnwalth of Massachusetts ard 1ccal jurisdicti0ns to consider a range of protective action opticos and to technically Nstify thase options that are selected as the Pilgri.m plans are revised and up;raded.

In selected instances, shelterin; may be a lo;ical and appropriate appros:n.

I would like to reiterate, as stated earlier, that FD% encourages the develc$ rent

/

I of a cceprehensive schedule for ex.pletion of the mergency plans for Pilgrin end

[

t.at this prccess is not "arbitrarj" nor d:es it imply "that considerations other

/

than public saf ety (are) para cunt."

If the scredale, once develcped, needs to be adjusted sabsequently in order to in; rove the plan',, FD% could acecrodate such I,

rodifications.

i Cnce again, additional tecnnical ass. stance frcrn FD% will te readily available to y:e sho ld you denire it in expletirt; the Pilgri.. plannin; ef f ort. If you need a., additional infec,atic., please c: ta:t me at 223-9540 in Ecston.

Sireirelyf l

~

...., w, ///

.a, a..v U. D ckers Fe31cnal Director h "

FEMA ISSUES ISSUE 1 SffRISStfC STATils A.1 Private schools and day-care centers not identified in town plans.

Complete T40 E

A.2 Plans and procedures needed.

Plans, procedures in place and transportatim arranged.

7ag g

A.3 Early dismissal and evacuation concerns.

Plans describe early transfer.

A.4 Le*:ers of Agreement (LOAs) needed.

7Ad E

LOAs have been sfgned. Need state approval.

A.5 Driver training.

740 G r v >hr Drivers are being traf

'TA 8 G i TA d ti.

issue 2 R.I.

Reception center needed.

Two centers identifled, improvements are recoasmended. Northern Center determined feasible by the Commonwealth.

R.2 Plans and procedures needed to register and monitor evacuees.

Complete.

T40 fE a

O

i rrmA r%5UES 1551fE 3 51m1551JE STATils C.1 Updated geographical descriptton of beaches

,ad their capacity.

Complete.

In the plans and procedures.

TA0 E-J Too L C.?

Analysis of beach population.

Infomation facorporated into plans and procedures.

C.3 Estimate of time to evacuate (ETE).

Pevised ETE completed.

^746 L

C.4 Shelter detafis.

Shelter information updated. LOAs sfgned.

74M M C.5 Accessthie shelters.

Shelter Implementation Program in place.

^ TAO M

155tfE 4 D.1 Procedures and current infomation needed Complete.

to idectify mobility impaired.

TAS 6,

D.2 Transportation needed.

Transportation resources available.

'TA6 C D.3 LOAs needed.

LOAs signed. Need state approval.

..L

~iA O G pm vitt I

i i

FEM 15stlES 155t!E 5 SIfPISSilE STATUS E.1 plans and prnocedures and FTE needed for transportatina - Oprai..t population.

Complete.

Tm3 6

  • --J

~746 (

E.7 Resources needed.

Complete.

7gg g E.3 LOAs needed.

LOAs stoned. Need state approval.

Teo e e.7 n/sr issut s F.1 Lack of progress.

Cnaplete.

Co m estw T.7 Mo updates to state plan.

State Area II plan provided to FEMA.

746 6 F.3 No training.

Training in progress.

7A6 6 m '7A6 H F.4 Inadequate pubifc inforweation.

Interim provided, final in process.

ins H T.5 No Annual Letters of Certification (ALC).

Future ALC facorporated in upgraded EP program. 744 g F.6 State and local plans are inadequate.

State position. Cooperating in improvements.

f.7 State uneble to answer quest fons from pubife.

Coopetating fn improvements.

T.8 K! policy not clearly stated.

Complete.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195F194&oldid=4120496"