ML20235T793

Advises That Informal Technical Review of Four Draft Plans for Towns of Plymouth,Carver,Kingston & Taunton Conducted, Per 880318 Request

ML20235T793
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/30/1988
From:	Eric Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Boulay R MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
CON-#189-8160 2.206, NUDOCS 8903080478
Download: ML20235T793 (2)

Text

~

l

' r h ~ %p_ O D ,- n / y -

1

' 1 DOCKET NUFABER 'g

' f fi/. H FederaPEd19g'sheyNakement Agency Region I J.W. McCormack Post Omce and'Coun House m . 7,. / . Boston, Massachusetts 02109 . P -

.n - < :. .A< . ::.

~

.w '

' - - '; 'a M !.:,. . . .

r:.g ,, March 30, 1988

. . .e- ,u

. . . a .. . :L@3 -

. ..r . ,

- Mr. Robert Boulay er 'Q

. State Emergency Management Director Massachusetts.. Civil Defense Agency .

g gg D%*

h '

and office of Emergency Preparedness : s I P.O. Box 1496 4 -

I FE3,9 )gggy Y - - I 400 Worcester Hood -

..;e 7 pocimnm I-Framingham, MA 01701 3  ::. . . pu"jjggM]'

Dear Mr.*.Boulayi.s. ; ~

/

s sf/

i

)

,. p., .v . " p .: %.. . .

As you requested in your letter of March 18, 1988, we have conducted an, informal technical review of the four draft plans for Plymouth.. Carver, Kingsten, and Taunton. As you realized.

this cannot be considered a full technical review without a concurrent review of the revised state plan, the revised Area II plan, the Implementing Instructions, the Letters of Agreement, the revised public information brochures, the latest ETEs, and' a review of,the training modules alluded to in your letter and in ,

the plans.r. Consequently., the preliminary < ratings and comments in 1 our. review can not be a final committment as to which elements are acceptable, inadequate, or in question.~ 7,. -

y,

q. i -

our reviewers generally agreed that the content and format of the l Plans had been improved and that the cross reference to NUREG J 0654/ FEMA REP-1 were generally accurate. We make the following specific observations: 1) Reception community plans are expected to contain.more specific data.11s, and itemization of resources for -

transportation, reception center operation, decontamination, and

. pro,cedures, than they currently have. 2) Since the plans submitte

~

are generic for the EPZ communities. and are so nearly identical,

.. further submission of EPZ consnunity draft plans would serve no

~useful purpose at this time.

Plan elements are rated as "A", "I", "7", or "A". The elements rated as A in this review are those which appear to satisfy the requirements of NUREG 0654. Elements rated as I'are considered tc be Inadequate and require ma: lor improvement or clarification, thos rated as A7 or 7 require additional information as indicated in th comments.

One reviewer felt that the caneric Section I should be expanded te ~

l provide specific information about the community, population, road network, bus routes and service', etc..

m Wa NS$h DS '3 o

f

• 65LM -

9

l. .,

L . s ,/ : ,

W 4 -8 Subject to the considerations menticews above, we believe smo outstanding l

improvements are noe unde::way in the PNPS emergency plans and we are hopeful l that this preliminary review will da helpful to you. . Should you have any I questions aboat specific cormoenta, please feel free to contact Jack telan at ETS: 223-9567. -

Sincerely, t

~

r* .,

/

Beward A. 'Ihamas, Division Chief Natural & Technological Hazards CC: Charles W. Barry, Secretary -

Office of Public Safety William kasell,*Aagion I Administrator, NRC Ralph G. Bird, aceton B$ison i

4 O l h

a O 1 o

_ .