ML20204F549
| ML20204F549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1988 |
| From: | Agnes P MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204F555 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810210597 | |
| Download: ML20204F549 (222) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:[ >
- ro g
She $nunonwea#h of'dr.s.sachuse#s l
$rrexAbe hl/lce fbl/$c $ / lf l Michael S. Dukalds 0e Y.A$$Nr/en hace
"" e$J/en, v!IJJWclMJfNJ (k9/0S Charles V. Bany sunwy i
I
/.
J September 29, 1988 William T. Russell, Regional Administrator i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ; Region I
/ 475 Allendale Road l
/ King of Prussia, PA 19406 [
[
Dear Mr. Russell:
As you may already know, Governor Dukakis has requested I that we prepare another comprehensive report on offsite : emergency preparedness for an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear > Power Plant. I have enclosed a copy Of the draft report for
! your review. ;
1 In order to give as many people as possible an opportunity
- to bring their concerns to our attention, we will be hosting a !
public meeting on Thursday, October 6, 1988 at 7:00 p.m., at I the Duxbury High School in Duxbury, MA. I hope you will be able to attend and discuss these issues with us. 1 i i S ce oly, }l tdW. Agnes,'Jr. ! Assistant Secreta ' of Public Safety PWA/cas enclosure 1 sfi b 8910210597 830929 / l PDR ADOCKODOOg3 F
A REPORT ON PROGRESS MADE IN
, ~ 'S EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR RESPONSE TO
( ,] AN ACCIDENT AT PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION INMEEPfNGWITHOURCOMMITMENTTOLOCALGOVERNMENT AND RESIDENTS OF THE PILGRIM EMERGENCY PLANNING 20NE, WE WILL NOT PRESENT OUR FINAL REPORT TO THS GOVERNOR UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC MEETING TO BE HELD IN DUXBURY HIGH SCHCOL, COMMENCING AT 7:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988. SO THAT THIS REPORT MAY BE PdESENTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE UNITED STATE NUCLEAR ' REGULATORY COMMISSION PR70R TO THE NRC*S SCHEDULED " DISCUSSIONS OF PILGRIM RESTART, PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD BE JUBMITTED BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY. OCTOBER 7. 1988, AND BE DIRECTED TO! Mr. Peter W. Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 I. INTRODUCTION This is the third of e. series of reports on propress made in emergency preparednesa for response to en accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, Messachusetta. This report was preceded by onen issued in December, 1986 and December, 1987. Both my 1986 and 1987 reports made the finding that plana for off-site raaponse to en acident at Pilgrim Station were not adequate. That is, that the Commonwealth cannot give reasonable assurance to the public that their health and safety can be adequately protected. Notable progress han been made in many areas of rs emergency preparedness, a number of which are discussed in this ( ) L report. However, we continue to make the finding today that no DRAFT DRAFT
D ' AFT DRAFT { reasonable assurance exista t'.at the public health and safety ; i can be protec;ed in the event of a radiological accident with l off-site consequences at the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station. l j Prior to the 1986 shut-down, off-site emergent,y l response plans had last been revised in April and May of 1985. i The 1985 plans were revisions to plans which were dwveloped in . 1979, subsequent to the accident at Three Mile Island, and were f i the first plana written under NUREG-0654, the principal l i l regulatory guidance document for off-site emergency i preparedness published Jointly by the Nuclear Regulatory : I ; j Commiazion and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. My i 1 J December, 1986 report fully documents the inadequacies of the I i
- 1985 plans. In that report we detailed gaps, deficiencies and !
I weaknesses in the folowing aspects of off-site emergency [ preparedness ! l f j The general approach to emergency preparedness j Planning beata and esausptiona l j -- 2n.d m .se ....u.uon u.. ..u..te i 1 !
]
Absence of implementing procedures ! i j -- Absence of plena to protect school children l l 1 -- Inadequate plans to protect beech populations ! Inedequate plans for transport dependent ; l populations I
! (
I l - Inadequate plans to identify and care for special : I ] needs popu1ations i s 2n.d.,u.t. pro.pt .1.rt a,.t.. l DRAFT DRAFT l i
. l
I D9 AFT DRAFT , Poor system for energency communications i l Need for a comprehensive shelter survey and shelter } utilization plan ] ! Need for leproved off-site radiological monitoring f i
.y.t... .nd l
) -- Need to conalder empension of the Emergency I i Planning Zone. t d l The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible i for making findings on the adequacy of off-site emergency I j preparednese under a memorandum of understanding with the NRC. ; 4 1 In 1942, FEMA laaued a en "Interim Finding" of adequacy for the t i ;
; Pilgrim plans. However, after completing a "Self-Initiated l I
Review," in August of 1947 FEMA reversed its interim finding, ) i j O declaring that the Pilgrim plans as most recently revised in I I f 1945 would no longer provide reasonable assurance that the public can be adequately protected in th 7 event of an accident at Pilgrim Station. In their Self Initiated Review, FEMA cited j l
- the following areas of deficiency; j I
l l i
- 1) 1.ack of reception center for people evacuating to the
, north,
, l
- 2) lack of evacuation plana for public and private schoola j and day care center a, l
l 3) lack of identifiable public shelters for the beach
) population, i
j 4) inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special
; needs population, 1
l j DRAFT DRAFT 4
, e l 4 D3 AFT DRAFT a l
- 5) inadequate planning for evacuation of the transport- [
t dependent population, and I
- 6) overall lack of progress in planning and apparent l !
l diminution in emergency preparedness. l
, It should be noted that FEMA findings of adequacy, l l i either in the case of a newly liconaed plant or in the case of i
a licensed plant for which final approval of emergency plena is ; being sought, generally are made after a full-scale exercise ! ] 4 ; has been held. Since the process we are following at pilgrim l ] ainee 1946 is akin to the planning process for a newly licensed i i l Plant in that a total reconstruction of the plana is underway,. l l we believe that FEMA abould not consider restoration of their l j interim finding of adequacy without first holding an exercise l' J j of off-site plans, personnel, and facilities. We recently l 1 j requested auch a commitment from FEMA and are awaiting their l l l l response. (See attached letter dated Septoeber 6, 1944 to F3MA I ,i l
- Region I Director Henry Vickers.) The issue of the need for en l I exercise a explored in depth below and in other sections of
} this report.
! In September of 1947, Governor Dukakia and Attorney I
i General Shannon filed a 10 CFR 2.206 petition with the Nuclear
, Regulatory Commission whien sought enforcement action against 1
j the loston Edison Company for, among other things, off-site
) emergency preparedness. As recently as September 29, 1948, NRC ; Region I Director, Dr. William T. Russell stated that action J
l has yet to be taken on that petition. h j DRAFT DRAFT l t 1 i
l l " DRAFT DRAFT l i Beyond this litany of emergency planning problema, we believe it is significant to note that there has been no full-scale off-site exercise of emergency plans for Pilgrim for , more than three years. Federal regulations require that a l auccessful exercise be held once every two years. Since the ; I plant was closed in April of 1986, Boston Edison has twice sought and received from federal authorities exemptions from 1 e this exercise requirement. Under the present exemption, the ! NRC has given Boston Edison until December 31, 1988 to meet the exercise requirement. I also want to take this opportunity to correct a minimpression created by the latest NRC "Systematic ; Assessment of Licensee Performance" for Pilgrim Station. The Commonwealth of Massachusetta has not Joined the Boston Edison ! Company in seeking an exemption from exercise requirements for Pilgrim Sation. , Obviously, an exercise cannot take place until the plana are complete. Neverthelena, en exercise is a critically important milestone in our program to develop the best possible l l off-site emergency plan. Thus, apart from whatever progress may have occurred in developing planning materials, in training
}
and in logistica, the Commonwealth cannot and will not consider ' making a finding of reasonable assurance in this case unless I and until a full scale off-site exercise la succesfully i completed, i l O DRAFT -S- DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT II. STATE ACTIONS REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
/7 In 'v December, 1986 report, the Commonwealth took the lead in declaring that plans for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station were not adequate. Since that time the state has acted aggressively to develop the best possible plans to protect the lives and property of people living, working, and visiting the Pilgrim area.
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NUCLEAR SAFETY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM Perhaps the most significant and lasting action taken by the Commonwealth was the Governor *a initiative to establish l e permanent Nuclear Safety Emergency Preparednema Program 1 (NSEPP) within the Marae.chiasetta Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedntaa. This program was established to oversee all activities of the state regarding development and maintenance of emergency plans, training of emergency response personnel, and participation in emergency response c;.. 1;.s. The NSEPP fulfilla these activities for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Meissachusetta and the Vermont Yankee Nuc1 war Power Station in Vernon, Vermont, as well as for Pilgrim Station. For Fiscal Year 1989, Governor Dukakia requested over s800,000 and twenty-five full-time positions tor the operation of the NSEPP. The final appropriation was slightly more than
~~
DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT I half of this. Within the limits of our resources. very effort () will continue to be made to develop the very best emergancy plena as rapidly as possible. It should be noted that all ; l L costa of the Nuclear Safety Emergency Preparedness Program are reimburned to the Commonwealth by the operators at the nuclear facilities. Thus, there is no direct cost to the taxpayers of Massachu&etta for the program's activities. !
! In keeping with the Governor's emphasia on exercising ,
the full authority afforded to the staten by the federal
. l government in this area, the Governor also elevated the State i ; i Liaison officer to the NRC -- the principal state contact to I i
the regulatory agency -- to cabinet status and designated the
; Secretary of Public Safety to fulfill that role.
B. PLANNING PROCESS i : I
- Beginning in March, 1987, the Massachusetta Civil l
, Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness established a comprehensive process to revise local emergency response ! l i i plans for the towns within the Pilgria Emergency Planning Zone p ) and the reception communities. In this process, each communit,y ! has cusvened a planning committee of all key local department ; heads who work on and review plans and procedures for local response under guidance from state authorities. Plana and l t procedures are then reviewed and approved by the Selectmen or l , Mayor and forwarded to at, ate and federal officisle for informal i technical review. 4 1 O DRAFT DRAFT l .l
DRAFT D? AFT A critical element of the planning process la the i I weekly meeting held at MCDA/OEP offices in Bridgewater for all ! concerned state, local and utility officials to discusa common i problema. These meetings have been held every week since March, 1987. State officials have apent literally hundreds of ' hours in discusatone with local public safety officials through l these meetings. In addition, a gs at many meetings have been held with town planning committees and Jndividual officials , regarding planning inauen. Special meetings were held with planning committees, public safety officials, concerned i 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 plena are thcae which have O been developed with the full partii:1pation of the non and women f responalble for their implementation. Thus, local selectmen. [ civil defense directors, police and fire chiefs, and department of public works directors -- the individuals who beat ! understand the capabilities of local agencies to respond to ' i emergencies -- are involved with every aspect of planning. l t Section VII of this report gives the status of plans, ; procedures, and other documents which have been forwarde1 to FEMA at the reuqsat of local officiala for informal tec',anical review by state and federal authorities. > i h
\
t DRAFT DRAFT f
1 DRAFT DRAFT l C. PLANNING Ab3ISTANCE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES Both tM Foderal Emergency Managemer.t Agency and the U.S. Nuclear N, ory Commission urge that nuclear utilities bear at laea ' of the costs of off-site energency preparednes, s 0654/ FEMA REP 1 at page 25, paragraph G states, in paco:
"The nuclear utility may have an incentive based on its own self interest as well as its responsibility to provide electric power, to assist in providing i manpower, items of equipment, or other resources that the State and local governments may need but are themselves unable to provide."
O V Therefore, the Commonwealth urged and Boston Edison has agreed to provide assistance to local governments for development and possible implementation of local emergency plans. This assistance is provided through an agreement which BEco has concluded with each community. These agreements were arranged under the provisions of section 15 of Chap *,er 639 of the acts of 1950 of the Massachusetta General Laws, which enables local governments to accept resources from pr ivate entities for enhancements to public safety. Under the section 15 agreements, BECO has provided each community with funds to hire a full-time civil defense director j or staff, is reconstructing each of the seven local emergency l 1 operations centers (EOC), and provided each community with the
)
I DRAF- DRAFT l 1
. - - - - - -_, - _ . - . _ - . --_-_---__-_.-_-_ _ -._--.-._ -..-- ------.- - 1
DRAFT DRAFT services of professional planners to assist the local planning f')T s, committee with its planning activities. In addition, BECo is . providing such other equipment as radios, personnel pagers, telephone and telephax equipment, et cetera, as required to implement emergency plans. III. STATUS OF THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM Since my December, 1986 "Report on Emergency i preparedness for an Accident at pilgrim Station," virtually . j every aspect of the emergency response system has been reviewed with revisions planned or undertaken in every important area. , Several new initiatives have been undertaken to improve public l r j safety, and they are discussed oisewhere in this report. The - results of this effort are that the state, local govert.ent, l and the Boston Edison Company have agreed to an approach whereby a whole new omergency plan and response system is being created as opposed to a revision of the earlier 1979 to 1985 approach. All local plans have been reformatted and are being l l l completely rewritten since we declared that the 1985 plans were inadequate. New implementing procedures have been or are being drafted for every entity with a responsibility for plan implementation, including schools, nursing homes, day care 1 centers, and other special facilities. Many of these procedures have been prepared in draft form where none existed , before. One indication of the enormity of the undertaking is I
) that the total volume of the draft material produced since 1986 j DRAFT DRAFT
w i i DRAFT DRAFT is several thousand pages.
\
We have had two objectives in rewriting the plans and procedures; e) that the "ad hoc" elements of emergency response be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent possible; that is, that every aspect of emergency response be covered by plans and procedures, and b) That all plans and procedures be backed up with demonstrated capabilities; that is, that all responsibilities and resources which are detailed in plans and procedures must be known to exist and can be demonstrated. In pursuit of objective "b", a great deal of new equipment has been installed, such as an entirely new system for notifying off-site authorities of an accident at pilgrim Station. The EOC in each community has been or is being reconstructed and provided with new telephone systems, facsimile transmissions equipment, radios, maps and displays. Another aspect of the emergency response system which is being completely revised ic, the plan for traffic management in the event an evacuation is declared. A new traffic i nanagement plan is under development along with an Evacuation Time Estimate, both of which are discussed in greater detail in section V.E of this report. Based upon the new traffic I management plan, procedures are being developed for state and l
}
local police, departments of public works, and other concerned organizations to manage traffic as peoplo leave the Pilgrim () area. Note, however, that as of this writing we have not DNAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT received the latest draft traffic management plan for areas ten
/~'s
(_j/ miles and more from pilgrim Station. Since the pilgrim plans were last revised and tested in 1985, there have been many changes among the personnel staffing local emergency response and public safety organizations. In addition, by expanding the scope of emergency plans, a great many individuals have been brought into the overall response system to fill newly created roles or designated to fill a role which was previously handled on an ad hoc basis. Thus, while local emergency response plans and procedures are not yet complete it is now clear that such significant changes have been made to the system in which they would be implemented in the event of an accident at pilgrim Station, that we cannot possibly vouch for the effectiveness of the system without a full scale exercisc of all plans, personnel, and facilities. IV. STATUS OF EMERGENCY PLANS A,o PROCEDURES The general structure of emergency planning and response in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts works from the bottom up. Each level of government uses all tesources it has available to protect public safety and calls upon assistance from other sources when its abilities are exceeded. Thus, local government has the first responsibility to protect public safety in any emergency and calls for support from the state when additional assistance is needed. Similarly, when state
) resources are not sufficient to respond to public needs, the DRAFT DRAFT
l J DRAFT DRAFT Commonwealth can call for federal aid.
\
. (,j The Governor of Massachusetts has general command of eme gency response when a "Gubenatorial Declaration of Emergency" has been declared. The Governor may delegate command rssponsibility to the Secretary of Public Safety or the state Director of Civil Defense. The Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness is the - state agency responsible for overall coordination of emergency response throughout the Commonwealth. Locally, the Selectmen or Mayor have command responsibility, which may be delegated through the local Civil Defense Director. Existing plans which cover this entire chain of responsibility are being revised. For the Pilgrim area, these plans include; a) STATE PLAN. The State Radiological Emergency Response Plan details overall coordination of emergency response, the duties of state agencies in support of local response activities, and relationships with fiederal agencies and adyacent states, b) AREA II PLAN. The MCDA/OEP maintains four area offices throughout the state. The Area II office covers the Pilgrim communities. The Area II Plan provides for coordination of j l response among EP2 and host communities, and details how state resources shall be requested and provided to support local response, and O DRAFT DRAFT
l DRAFT DRAFT c) LOCAL PLANS. Plans detailing local emergency rosponse for ! each of the five EP2 communities (Carver, Duxbury, Kingston, Marshfield and Plymouth), and for the two designated host communities (Bridgewater and Taunton) are being fully revised. In order that one may appreciate the scope of the work performed under the planning process, we have attached copies j of the tables of contents for sample local plans and the Area II plan. Following is a general discussion of the status of each of these levels of planning. A. STATE PLAN The State Radiological Emergency Response Plan has been written to address activities for three licensed nuclear power stations which have emergency planning zones within Massachusetts; Pilgrim Station, Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vermont. i Many changes are being made to the state plan in response to requirements of the revised local and Area II plans. These changes cover such items as new Emergency Broadcast System announcements, the new off-site accident alert l system for Pilgrim Station, and revised responsibilities of l state agencies which will support local response. Action of l some of the state agencies which will support local response are detailed in letters of understanding with MCDA/OEP and () these letters are being revised as part of the planning DRAFT DRAFT J
DRAFT DRAFT j process. l I(,j However, since revisions to the State Plan are dictated in large part by changes to the local and Area II plans, we cannot consider the state plan ready for technical review by FEMA until all local and Area II plans and procedures have been subject to technical review by FEMA and state authorities. B. AREA II PLAN The MCDA/OEP Area i Plan and Implementing Procedures have been revised in harmony with the seven local plans. As i local plans are made more specific, especially as they regard additional resources and assistance that will be provided through the state, the Area II Plan has been enhanced to reflect the same obyectives and mechanisms. The Area II Plan has also been made more specific in respect to how activities will be carried out and the sources of vicarious resources, through enhancements to the Implementing Procedures. The Area II Plan has been submitted to the Federal ! Emergency Management Agency for informal technical review. C. LOCAL PLANS The local plan for each EPZ and host community consists of two basic documents -- the plan and its implementing procedures. In addition, the five EP2 communities are each 1, developing a "Shelter Utilization Plan" which are discussed in j section VI.E, following. Each community will siso submit a r ( "NUREG 0654 Cross Reference" to demonstrate that all federal l l l
; DRAFT DRAFT I
DRAFT DRAFT regulatory requirements are fulfilled.
-3
,) We have not yet recei"ed a fina.! copy of any one community's plan as endorsed by the local geverning body, consistent with the planning process described .n section II.B, above. However, we have received a "Draft" p.*a from each of the seven communities, and they have all been forwarded to FEMA for informal technical review. In March of 1988, the draft plans -- but not the implementing procedures or any other supporting documents --
for Bridgewater, Carver, Duxbury, Kingston, and Plymouth were sent to FEMA, FEMA has returned the results of their informal review to MCDA/OEP and those. results have been shared with each community for use in further revising their plans. Staff of MCDA/OEP have been doing a
~h simultaneous technical review with FEMA of all documents, and ,
s) \ the results of the state review have been discussed with coch , community. On September 6, 1988, the draft plan and implementing I procedures for Marshfield and Taunton were forwarded to FEMA by ' MCDA/OEP. In addition, the draft Marshfield Shelter 5 Utilization Plan and both the Marshfield and Taunton NUREG 0654 Cross-Reference were also forwarded to FEMA. As I have indicated, we have yet to receive a final plan from any one community. While this is due in part to the ! heavy burden of ongoing work and review by local officials, there are also several planning issues which remain to be resolved before local planning can be complete. Most of these l ( issues -- such as assistance for special needs populations, DRAFT DRAFT
1 s DRAFT DRAFT agreements for buses and ambulances, and traffic management and evacuation time estimates -- pertain to all local plans or both host community plans. These outstanding items are discussed in section V and VI, following. V. CRITICAL ISSUES REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS There are several mayor issues which broadly apply to emergency preparednees. These issues are discussed below, individually. A. PLAN IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES Implementing procedures are checklists which are followed by individual emergency response personnel as they fulfill their activities described in the Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Implementing procedures assure that all personnel have a means to be certain that they carry out all assigned emergency response tasks, be they selectmen commanding local response, civil defense directors coordinating first responders in the field, or police officers manning s traffic control points. They also help determine that no element of emergency response is left te ad hoc action, and that all activities are backed up by an actual operational ! capability. Implementing procedures have been prepared or are under preparation for each individual with a role designated in the 1 Area II plan or any of the local plans. In addition, ( procedures are available for state personnel through their own DRAFT DRAFT
l DRAFT DRAFT I agencies. For certain key state agencies such as the Ltate 1 ("'i l ( ,) Police or State Department of Public Works whose personnel have critical duties early in emergency response, new, detailed implementing procedures are under development. Neither the state police nor state DPW procedures are complete because they are dependant on completion and review of the "Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan" which is being produced for the Boston Edison Company. A revised ETE was received by MCDA/OEP in the first week in September of 1988, however, it lacked the critical traffic management plan for directing vehicles to reception centers. Boston Edison officials have told us that the missing portion of the traffic management plan will be available on October 7, 1988. The ETE is discussed further in section V.e, following. N/ The Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness is working with representatives of these key state agencies to improve implementing procedures and, where appropriate, to enhance letters of agreement under which ] the agencies participate in emergency response. Work with state agenciem is conducted under the Governor *o Executive Order 144, which directs that each state agency designate a representative to participate in state emergency preparedness programs.
- Every local community will have a separate volume of l
implementing procedures for its personnel. In addition, all special facilities such as schools, nursing homes, day care () centers, summer camps, et cetera, will have their own i DRAFT DRAFT 4
- = . . _ - ._, - , . . - , .-
DRAFT DRAFT procedures to follow in the event of an accidont at Pilgrim. l p) i
\s These procedures cover all actions from initial notification to shelter in place to evacuation to long term congregate care.
Because it is the largest town within the EP2, Plymouth has the greatest number of implementing procedures, a total of 89. The only draft implementing procedures which have been aubmitted to MCDA/OEP for informal state and federal technical review are those of the EP2 toun of Marshfield and the host caty of Taunton (see section IV.c., above). Staff of MCDA/OEP are reviewing the procedures with each community and we are awaiting the resulta of the FEMA informal technical review. Until recently, there were virtually no implementing procedures prepared for any emergency personnel and those that g- accompanied the 1985 revisions to the Pilgrim plans were at U best rudimentary. Thus, progress has been made in this vital area through the planning process established by MCDA/OEP. However, it will be impossible to determine if the procedures are sufficient or the best possible until we have received, reviewed, and tested all implementing procedures. l B. OFF-SITE COMMUNICATIONS 1 As I indicated in both my December 1986 and 1987 reports, one of the weakest areas in the emergency response system was communications. Since my last report, much has been l l done to improve the entire system. In fact, the Boston Edison ' Company has installed or is installing new radios, telephones, () and facsimile trent, mission equipment in all emergency DRAFT DRAFT l 1 i
DRAFT DRAFT j i facilities. Most critical emergency response personnel have ( x-)' been provided with pagers. Tone alert radios are being i
)
installed in special facilities and other facilities in which I it may prove difficult to hear warning airena. One additional item that we think is very important is the provision of a facsimile transmission machine to the air wing of the Massachusetta State police since they play a critical role in helping to move key state officials to ther assigned posta durin7 a nuclear emergency, and may supplement our emergency notification ayatem. This la not to say that all communications equipment requested by EPZ and host communities has been provided. Under the section 15 agreements discussed in section II.C, Boston Edison works with each community to see that all of their O '- communications and other equipment needs are fulfilled. We have asked each community to report to us on the status of their equipment requesta and the results of their reports are presented in sections V.F and VII.A through G. However, as of this writing, we are awaiting testa to determine if a secure and dependable communications ayatem has been established between and among all local EOCs, the State and Area II EOCa, and with local civil defense directors in the field. This has been addressed in part through a ayatem called BECONS which was provided by Boston Edison. It must be noted that neither implementing procedures for the use of BECONS nor training in the ayatem's operation have been completed, and ) [ j\ x that a full test of system-wide communications cannot be held DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT until they are. MCDA/OEP is working to produce these s procedures and complete requisite training as quickly as possible. C. PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM l Under federal regulations, it is the responsibility of utility and off-site (state and local) authorities together to notify officials and the public of an accident at a nuclear facility. Off-site officials must all receive notification of an accident classified as an "Unusual Event" or greater within fifteen minutes. If an off-site release of radiation is anticipated, authorities have an additional fifteen minutes to distribute a message to the public, usually by the sounding of ; sirens and tone alert radios followed by a message over the Emergency Broadcast System. On November, 1987,, Pilgrim Station had an incident which was classified as an "Unusual Event." However, not all off-site officials were notified within the fifteen minute regulatory limit. In discussions between state officials and l Boston Edison, it was decided to redesign the off-site initial notification system. New equipment has been installed so that notification goes directly from the Pilgrim Station control room to state and local facilities via a dedicated "ring down" telephene. Each state and local facility also will receive "hard copy" confirmation of the event over a dedicated facsimile transmission machine. DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT While Boston Edison intends to complete installation O ( ,) and testing of system hardware by the middle of October, final procedures for the operation of the new off-site initial notification system have not been developed, nor have personnel been trained in its use, nor has a system-wide test been held. Thus, I cannot say with certainty that we have adequately and I fully addressed the issue of alerting officials to any accident et Pilgrim Station in a timely manner. D. THIRD -- NORTHERN -- RECEPTION CENTER One of the most critical issues addressed in my December, 1987 report was the need for a third reception center [ to provide services for evacuees from the towns of Marshfield and Duxbury and from the Saquish Neck district of Plymouth. A third reception center had been designated at the Hanover Mall, but in response to a request from the owners of the mall, a private facility, they were relieved of this obligation. In spite of a study produced by the Boston Edison Company which purported to show that the two reception centers in Bridgewater , and Taunton were sufficient, we determined that a third t reception center indeed was necessary to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the EP2. The state then undertook an 2 extensive search for another northern facility. The result of our search was the preliminary i designation of the state Department of Public Works facility in Wellesley as the third center. Wellesley DPW was our preliminary choice because it lies at the intersection of two DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT major highways -- Routes 9 and 128 -- because it is O \ ,/ sufficiently distant from Pilgrim Station, it is a state owned and operated facility, and it could minimize the traffic impact on the host community. Having made this preliminary designation, MCDA/OEP in cooperation with other state agencies is undertaking a feasibility study to determine if the state DPW facility in Wetlesley can in fact adequately serve as a reception center. Part of this feasibility study involves discussions with DPW, DCPO, and BEco officials to determine if Boston Edison can and will develop the operational capability at the site for its full use as a reception center. It must be noted that officials of both Marshfield and Duxbury have indicated that they feel Wellesley DPW is too distant from the EP2 to serve as a reception center for their residents, and that an alternative, closer to the EPZ should be sought. As part of the feasibility study, staff of MCDA/CEP are investigating the distance of reception centers from other EP2s around the country. The state Department of Public Health has been asked to investigate the public health conse;.uences of using Wellesley DPW as a reception center, and Boston Edison, as part of their revisions to the Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan, is investigating the traffic issues attending its use. The feasibility study is not yet complete, so no final l determination can be made on this matter. If the Wellesley () [ State DPW facility receives final designation, we must still q DRAFT DRAFT l l J
develop plans and implementing procedures for its use, be certain that all improvements will be made to develop its operational capabilities, and prepare a traffic management plan which assures that the facility is accessible to evacuees. If the study finds that it is not feasible to use the facility os a reception center, we must then resume the search for an adequate and feasible alternative. E. EVACUATION TIME ESTINATE AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN My December 1986 report found that the Evacuation Time Estimate for Pilgrim Station which had last been revised in 1981 was thoroughly inadequate and needed to be completely redone. Subsequently, Boston Edison contracted with the Huntington Station, New York firm of MLD Associates to do an entirely new ETE and Traffic Management Plan. On August 8, 1987, state officials were presented with the first draft of a new ETE and Traffic Management Plan which we reviewed and which we found lacking for various reasona discussed in my December, 1987 report. In the first week of September, 1988, we received a new draft of the ETE, but that draft is not complete, lacking traffic asnagement information on areas beyond the tan milo EP2. Nonethelena, it is a lengthy and complex document currently under review by state and local personnel. In addition, MCDA/OEP is contracting wi'.h the traffic engineering firm of Resource Systems Group of Vermont to evaluate the effectiveneas and practicality of the traffic management plan DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT recommended by KLD Associatsa to the Boston Edison Company.
,n
( Once the Traffic Hanagement Plan has been evalur'_ - and if it is found effective -- implementing procedures must be developed for all authorities responsible for its implementation. These authorities include the EP2 and host community public safety and public works departments, state a police and DPW personnel, as well as public eafety and public works departments for the communition lying between the EP2 and host facilities. Finally, all personnel responsible for implementation of the traffic management plan must receive i training in their duties and some test held to determine if traffic can be adequately managed in the event of an evacuation of the Pilgrim EP2. The last evacuation time estimate for the Pilgrim EP2 was prepared in 1980. However, the previous ETE did not include a thorough traffic management plan, nor did it detail how varying weather and time of day, week, or year conditions , would effect evacuation times. Neither an ETE nor a traffic l management plan individually form a sufficient basis for j developing evacuation plans. It is essential to understand how quickly an area can be evacuated as well as to understand how i that evacuation will take place and what are the l vulnerabilities of the evacuation system. That is why the : state has sought a completely new approach to these issues by Boston Eo!. son. 1 DRAFT DRAFT l i
DRAFT DRAFT
- The new Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan are superior to'any ever done in the Commonwealth.
However, until the conditions discussed above are met, I cannot say with certainty that we have developed the best possible plans and procedures to manage traffic in the event of an emergency at Pilgrim Station. F. EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE In our discussions with local officials in preparation for this report, every community expressed a need for additional emergency response equipment. Under the planning process established by MCDA/OEP, Boston Edison has entered into legal agreements with each community, and part of that agreement is to supply all emergency response equipment the town or city will need to implement their emergency plans. Section VII of this report includes a listing of unfulfilled equipment requests to the Boston Edison by each town. G. TRAINING The basic elements of an emergency preparedness and response system are plans, implementing procedures, adequate equipment, and adequate personnel. However, none of these elements are individually or together satisfactory without a thorough and continuous training program. Training and exercises are the elements through which we can be sure that the complex system we are devising can actually work. O 1 DRAFT DRAFT , i
DRAFT DRAFT It is our policy that every individual with a role in emergency response be trained in her or his particular activity. Training will be provided to, among many other groups, selectmen, civil defense staffa, department of public works personnel, police and fire departments, teachers and other school personnel, bus and ambulance drivers, as weil as the state police, state DPW, and the National Guard. Further, this training does and will correspond to implementing procedures developed to reflect actual response plan actions, and involve the equipment that she or he will use in an emergency. l MCDA/CEP and Boston Edison together have developed a I comprehensive program to provide this training for people who will respond to an accident at Pilgrim Station. MCDA/0EP officials review and approve all training modules which are developed for each discipline and group to be trained. i MCDA/CEP also certifies all trainers who teach modules to state, local, and volunteer organizations, and monitors the l quality of their training. While numbers are constantly being revised, our present i estimate is that approximately 6,000 individuals will require ! i more than 25,000 hours of training. As of this writing, we j have provided about seventeen percent of total training hours. 4 This doea not include training for towns lying between the EP2 l and reception communities. I l l DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT H. NEED FOR A FULL-SCALE OFF-SITE EXERCISE (3 () Section III of this report discusses the extent to which state and local officials have developed an entirely new plan and system for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station. The last full-scale off-site exercise of emergency plans, personnel and facilities for Pilgrim Station was held in September of 1985. The Federal Emergency Management Agency found, as a result of the 1985 exercise, reasonable assurance that the public could and would be adequately protected in the event of an accident at Pilgrim Station. Since 1985, FEMA has Joined the Commonwealth in declaring those same 1985 plans inadequate. Federal regulations require that an off-site exercise be held every two years. However, the NRC has granted Deco a dispensation from this rule since the plant has been in , O- cold shut-down. The plans which were the basis for the last exercise are universally acknowledged to be inadequate, so it must surely follow that a full-scale, off-site exercise has to be held to determine if present plans are adequate. This is especially true since it is now three years since any plans, personnel or facilities have been tqsted, notwithstanding new , plans, personnel and facilities. In addition, since the last Pilgrim exercise was held, FEMA, the agency responsible for ' grading off-site response, has implemented a new exercise l evaluation program. As a result, FEMA's 1985 findings regarding the last exercise are cast in further doubt. l O DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT Therefore, it is my finding that we can never determine ( if there is reasonable assurance that the public can and will be adequately protected and if we have developed the best possible plans to protect the public in the Pilgrim area until and unless a full-scale, graded exercise is held by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I. EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING 2ONE To enable state officials to better and more effectively implement protective action recommendations -- for instance, to shelter or evacuate -- the Commonwealth retains i the right and ability to make protective actions on a "whole 4 town basis." That is, even if conditions indicate that a release of radiation will effect only a portion of a community, state officials might still recommend that the entire town take
- the same action. This will provide a conservative margin of safety, and it will avoid confusion regarding which parts of the community need to act.
Prior to my 1986 report, only portions of the towns of 1ershfield and Carver were included in the EP2. We have now l designated Marshfield and Carver in their entiraties as part of the EP2 for the purpose of emergency planning. See St. 1979, i 2 chapter 796, which authorizes the Director of the State Civil
- Defense Agency to designate certain areas of the Commonwealth as "Nuclear Power Plant Areas." Detailed plans have been drafted for protective actions in the newly designated part of Carver. However, we remain concerned that detailed plans and 1 DRAFT DRAFT I
l I i a
.. =_ _ .-
{ DRAFT DRAFT procedures for all beach areas in Marshfield have not been ; completed. Thus we cannot provide reasonable assurance that l the public can be protected in this area. We have informed FEMA and the NRC of our action on this matter. Small portions of the towns of Bourne, Plympton cnd ! Wareham lie within ten alles ol Pilgrim Station. It is our l l intention to see that some level of.radilogical emergency response planning be undertaken for these towns. However, we s 4 . must first complete detailed emergency planning for the five i j communities already within the Ep2 before undertaking this ' l 1 4 additional task. , i l i We remain aware of the implications of the Chernobyl ;
- nuclear accident to emergency preparedness. These issues were ;
j addressed in my 1986 and 1987 reports. No information yet . 3, received about that event indicates that we should place any l l l a 1ess importance on emergency plans for the tan mile Ep2. In fact, the Chernobyl accident indicates that emergency preparedness in areas beyond ten miles from a nuclear power plant should be enhanced to some level. In particular, l 1 1 evidence indicates that programs should be considered, for i
- i instance, to monitor for radiological "hot spots" beyond ten l I i
, miles which may result from local weather conditions. ] A bill has been filed with the state legislature which 1 j would mandate expansion of the emergency planning zone. The i bill would require that more detailed planning be completed for j areas beyond the present ten mile EPZ than presently undertaken () for control of the food chain through ingestion pathway 3
- DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT response. The bill also mandates enhanced radiological monitoring of reeleases from nuclear power piants. i J. EMERGENCY PERSONNEL One comment which has recurred throughout the discussions we held with local authorities in preparation of this report is that communities generally feel that they do not have adequate personnel to fulfill all emergency functions detailed in their draft emergency plans. For instance, the town of Duxbury has indicated that they may need as many as 30 additional men and women to staff all emergency response positions. It is our belief that no plan can be adequate unless it is backed up by true operational capabilities, including adequate staff fully trained in emergency response and their particular response activity. There are a number of sources from which emergency response personnel may be recruited, including neighboring communities, volunteer organizations, state and county agencies, and the Massachusetts Nations 1 Guard. Once emergency plans for each community have been completed and we have determined the actual need for additional staff, including the exact positions which must be filled, we will be better able to recruit and train the full cadre needed to assure public safety. O DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT Another important concern which has been repeatedly () voiced is that municipal employees, especially teachers but including employees of other departments, will not fulfill their duties in the event of an emergency at Pilgrim Station. ! State law speaks directly to this matter in sections 16 and 20 of chapter 639 of the acts of 1950. All public employees are ' required to cooperate with state and local emergency I preparedness and response activities, regardless of the nature of an emergency. If, in spite of state law, any public > r i employees indicate an intent to refuse to participate la emergency preparedness for and response to an accident at pilgrim Station, that is a matter which should be settled in the first instance betdeen the elected authorities of the i community and their employees. O K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO RECEPTION CENTERS We have found that neither of the two designated [ j reception centers at Bridgewater State College and Taunton ; I j State Hospital had the operational capability to serve , reception functions despite their previous designation. Nor is the state DpW facility in Wellesley presently in a physical condition to serve as a reception center should it ultimately ] be designated one. Therefore, at our insistance, Boston Edison i f $ has agreed to make the physical alterations and renovatAons to I 1 i' each reception facility which will be required for them to
- fully provide for public safety.
a t i I j DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT proposed improvements range from the installation of showers for decontamination of the public to the complete renovation of an abandoned building. In addition, BECo will provide all essential special equipment to the reception facilities that are needed. This equipment include s bladders to capture decontamination wash water, radiological monitoring equipment, dry sipes to clean automobiles, traffic management devices, et cetera. Boston Edison has assumed responsibility for development of engineering plans for renovations and l improvements, and they estimate that the total cost will be more than s250,000 per facility. None of these renovations or alterations have been begun as yet. Because these are all state owned and operated facilities, any physical improvements must be made with the approval of the state Division of Capital Planning and Operations, and under DCPO supervision. MCDA/OEp has initiated the process under which DCPO will review the engineering plans proposed by BEco for the reception center improvements. We do not know at this writing when construction can begin, however, once begun, improvements should require at least three months to complete. L. TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES AND LETTERS OF AGREEMENT WITH TRANSPollTATION COMPANIES Boston Edison has assumed at our request responsibility to hold discussions with many bus, ambulance, and chair van , operators both within and without the EPZ to get their agreement to provide the transportation resources needed in the DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT 1 event of an evacuation. The Commonwealth has insisted that the
~%
(J l
) availability of all transportation resources be documented by ,
l letters of agreement signed by the operators of the , 4 I transportation companies. IJe a)so have insisted that the letters demonstrate informed consent on the part of the i transportation providers and issurance that the resources will be available when required. In return, the state will see that all drivers are given thorough training in emergency preparedness, the use of radiological dosimitry, and their i individual roles in emergency response. : , Nearly double the anticipated number of buses needed to support emergency response have been identified, and training has been given to some of the drivers. However, the letters of agreement which Boston Edison has proposed that the transportation providers sign has been sent back for revision
- by the Executive Office of public Safety because they did not j indicate informed consent on the part of the drivers. Several months have passed since Boston Edison agreed to have revised t
letters of agreement prepared, yet we are still awaiting action ! I J 2 on this matter by the Boston Edison Company. t l i
- VI. MAJOR LOCAL PLANNING ISSUES I Both my 1986 and 1987 reports investigated certain !
issues which had never been adequately addressed or resolved in I. emergency planning. Most of these issues are common to all Ep ' I i plans. Following is an item-by-item discussion of progress l I j which has been made on these issues through our planning i 3 () procees. ' 1 DRAFT DRAFT i j ? ) 4 j >
i l .
?
DRAFT DRAFT A. IDENTIFICATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS i Special needs populations consiac of people with one or more disability -- either permanent or temporary -- which would make it difficult to act in behalf of their own protection I' during an emergency. It is the policy of the Commonwealth that ' in emergency planning we do not discriminate agt nat any group, t l and that equal prote'ction will be offered to all residents of and visitors to the emergency planning cone. In response to {
- this policy we have embarked on what is probably the most 1
( ambitious program of emergency preparedness for special needs l poeple in the nation. However, resolution of this issue has l [ proven to be perhaps the most difficult aspect of emergency preparedness and it remains incomplete as of this writing. l i It is our policy that every individual who has a l l special need regarding emergency response be given ample l opportunity to identify him or herself and his or her need to public safety officials, and have that information maintained i in strict confidence. Therefore, MCDA/CEP has arranged for an i I advertisement to be run in all EP2 newspapers which requests f that people with special needs contact their local civil ; I defense office. This advertisement was developed in l cooperatien i+1th the Plymouth Commission on Handicapped Aff airs ' and the State Office of Handicapped Affairs. ; In my December, 1987 report, it was recommended that Boston Edison conduct a comprehensive survey of special needs populations within the Pilgrim EP2. A task force of state (:) officia1s work.d with oston Edison to d.veio, . .,u.st for DRAFT DRAFT l l l i
DRAFT DRAFT proposala" from qualified consultanta. This RFp resulted in a ( ,) proposal from the Cambridge, Massachusetta firm of HSRI to undertake a study which, among other things, would identify to the greatest extent possible special needs individuals and make a statistical analysis of expected special needs people in each community. In March of 1988, MCDA/OEP and the state Office of Handicapped Affairs fully supported the study propoced to be undertaken by HSRI. However, without consulting either state agency, Boston Edison unilaterally rejected the HSRI proposol. That same month, Boston Edison proposed a study to be conducted by a market research firm. MCDA/OEp opposed this proposal because the firm selected by BEco had absolutely no experience with nor expertise in either special needs inaues or c wrgency (~w preparednean. Since April of 1988, staff of MCDA has been working with the State Office of Hendicapped Affairs, plymouth Commission on Handicapped Affairs, and the Boston Edison Company to develop a mutually agreeable Roquest for Propeaals. We have concluded that work and expect that an RFP will be laaued by the middle of October. In cart it has proven difficult to initiate a study of l special needs populations because a study of this kind has never before been undertaken anywhere. However, absent the critical information the study will mcke available, work has proceeded on plans and procedures to provide assistance to
) people with special needs. Each of the f2ve Ep2 plana details DRAFT -36+ DRAFT
I DRAFT DbiFT i the activities of a "Special Needs Coordinator" and staff who, I
) et the time of an emergency, will take cella on a bank of dedicated telephones from people requiring exceptional amnistance.
I i In addition, the state has insisted that the Boston j Edison Company Anstall teletype devices for the deaf (TDD) at ! j 4 each town warning point and Emergency Operating Center to ; assure that emergency natification ens information is available j r
\
to people who cannot hear. The company has agreed to donate
- 4 TDDa to all people within the EP2 who are so profoundly dea' !
that they would be unable to detect other warnings or liste'.t . [ Emergency Broadcast System messagen. In spite of repeated requesta from MCDA/OEP, BEco officials have refused to divulge t l whether and how many requerta fr TDDS they have received, or if I u-l any have been placed in EPZ hom9a. I Anyone who thinks that he, she, or a family memeber is in need of a TDD is encouraged to j contact their local civil defense director for details. B. PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CARE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN : i Both my 1986 and 1987 reports detailed deficiercies in i , i plans foe the care of school children in the event of an emergency. Over the past year local planning committees for ! each EP2 town have worked on developing enhanced plans and ! 1 I procedures, and draft plans have been produced for each school. I It la imperative that school administrative personnel and employees be involved with every aspect of developing plans j and implementing procedures, and training for the protection of i school children. Our survey of school administratra indicates DRAFT DRAFT j
, ..,n.--,--_.- . - . - , - . . _ , . . . - - . - , . . , _ - . , - . . . - . - - _ , , . -
1 DRAFT DRAFT that degree to which they have participate varries from town to
/~
k ,x) town. This item is discussed in the individual community reporta in section VII. As plana are now proposed, all of the children from each individual school will be taken to a host school outside of the EP2, where they would r emain in the custody of teachers and oth(r school employeen until reunited with parents. Twice every year, a letter would be mailed to all parents detailing care of their children in the f.ent of an emergency, and including information on the school to which their children would be taken and where they could be picked up. Parents would be discouraged from trying to pick up their children at school because of the traffic problems this could cause. In some communities, concern has been expressed over school evacuation policies. In proposed plana, school buses will be moved to staging areas at the "Alert" emergency level, the second lowest of four emergency cleasifications, and authorities retain the option of evacuating the schools at the Alert level. However, plana do not call for announcements over the Emergency Broadcast System nor protective actions for the general population until the next highest emergency level,
- "Site Area Emergency." Thus, parents might not be alerted to l
the fact that their children had been ovacuated until after the { i evacuation was underway. l In et least two communities, authorities want to retain the ability to close schools and dissias children to their
) homes at the early stages of an accident at Pilgrim Station.
i DRAFT DRAFT l i
f.me n>. DRAFT DRAFT 1 However, the feeling of state officials is that children will be st?er if they remain in'the custody of school authorities and employees rather than being sent home where the parent or guardian may be absent. We feel that this is the most prudent approach to protecting the safety of children, among the most vulnerable people within the population. As discussed in section V.G., teachers and other school personnel will receive comprehensive training in emergency plans and their specific roles and responsibilities for the care of children in their charge. Issues regarding whscher or not teachers will maintain care of their pupila during an emergency are addressed in section V.J. It is our policy that enough buses must be available that all school children can be evacuated without any bus making more than one trip. Arrangements for the provision of the additional buses needed are discussed in section V.L. Buses would have predesignated pick-up schools and drivers would receive a pre-printed map to the host school before begining his or her trip. Just as with teachers and other emergency response personnel, school bus drivers must receive extensive training in emergency response and their specific duties. C. SPECIAL FACILITIES PLANS Special facilities include nursing homes, centers for the developmentally disabled, 3 ails and prisons, day care centers, camps and other recreation areas. Any of these facilit1[acanhouseanumberofindividualswhoareunableto DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT ; i act to protect thomaelves in the event of an accident at O Pilgrim Station. Hospite.la might also be clanaified as special r 4 facilitica, however, as a prerequisite for accredidation, hospitala must have developed and tested their own evacuation plena independently. Similarly, schools might be considered
- i special facilities but; because of the large numbers of school I children within the EP2, they have been treated separately as discussed in section VI.B., above. i Local officials with support from the Boston Edison Company have developed comprehensive lists of special i facilities within each Ep2 town. A separate plan and implementing procedure has been proposed for each special facility which covers alert and notification, shelter, and >
evacuation. The Town of plymouth, for instance, is reviewing draft implementing procedures for 39 special facilities. l Boston Edison will also make available Teletype Devices for the Deaf and tone alert radios to special facilities where alert ! i and emergency information may not be readily received. The i special facility plans also include details on procuring ) necessary transportat!.on. ! The MCDA/OEP training program will offer comprehensive training to all special facility personnel. This training will cover introduction to radiation, introduction to emergency planning and response, as well as training in their particular roles and responsibilities as detailed in plans and implementing procedures. O DRAFT DRAFT l J
DRAFT DRAFT The special facilities plans and implementing procedures are contained in each town's plan. They are reviewed and approved by people responsible for each fac'.11ty before they are forwarded to the town'a planning committee and selectmen. However, none of these plans has been subject to en i actual test or evaluation and training for special facilities , personnel is far from complete. The percentage of traaning completed varies from town to town and changes weekly. i D. PROTECTION OF BEAC:I POPULATIONS AND RESIDENTS OF SAQUISH HEAD L Protection of visitors at beach areas in the event of 4 an accident at Pilgrim Station remains one our greatest i concerna. This is because during the summer beach areas can be difficult to evacuate quickly and may have little immediate shelter available. There are several public beaches within the ten mile EP2 of Pilgrim Station and they are heavily used by residents and transient visitora during warm weather. As the analysis in my two previous reports has indicated, protection of the Pilgrim area beach users is not the same problem as it is in the Seabrook EP2. The Pilgrim area has a better road network than Seabrook*a, there is more shelter near the Pilgrim beaches, and the beaches at Pilgrim are arrayed in different directions around the plant so, given specific wind conditions, the entire beach population would not be expected to be at risk at any one time. Nonethelena, we have insisted that ayecial planning be done to determine if beach populations eaa and will be protected. O DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT
- One step that has been taken to help protect beach
, populations is to include a provision in the local plans for precautionary early closing of the beaches. Most postulated nuclear power plant accidenta evolve over a number of hours, if 1 not days, and as an accident evolves, the degree of the emergency escalates through four levels; Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency, and General Emergency. In general, i off-site onsequences will not occur and off-site protective j actions will not be taken until the Site Area Emergency level.
, Plana and implementing procedures have been develope (. to close the beaches at the Alert level to insure that the maximum amount of time la available for people on the beaches to leave for more protected areas within or outside the emergency planning zone.
O~ However, it must be acknowledged that it is possible to ; have a nuclear power plant accident which could escalate i rapidly and have an early off-site release'of radiation (NUREG 0654, at page 13, paragraph I.D.3, indicates that planning ) should conalder en accident resulting in an off-site release in as little am 30 minutes). In this case, early closing of the i beaches alone would not provide adequate protection to the i beach population. Therefore, we have insisted that Boston ' Edison easiat the EP2 towns in developing "Shelter Utili=ation i Plana" which would demonstrate that the maximum beach population could be given adequate shelter in a relatively '
- short time. The Shelter Utilization Plana are discussed in i
() greater detail in section VI.E., following. l l 4 l i DRAFT DRAF' , 1 '
DRAFT DRAFT , Saquish Neck and neighboring Clark *a Island form a i
/\
k ,) m district of the town of Plymouth which lies at the end of a f l 4 long peninsula extending from Duxbury Beach, and which la as I close as three miles from Pilgrim Station. Saquish is not i connected by land to Plymouth and the only terrestrial accesa l 2 is via a "four wheel drive vehicle only" beach road fron f L Duxbury Beach. In the summer it la estimated that up to 9,000 j people may be in the Saquish Neck area, and that there are at i i least a few full-time, year round residents of this remote ! j location. This situation presents serious problems for f emergency preparedness and response. f 1 The first problem concerning Saquish is jurisdictienal, I i !
; that la that Saquish is a part of Plymouth, but la connected by y i
i J 1and to Duxbury. As the latest revisions to the local plans [ have been configured, responsibility for emergency response in i Saquish has been delegated to the Town of Duxbury, although l I public safety officials in both Duxbury and Plymouth have l indicated to us that no formal agreement has been reached on ; ) this matter. f
, The problema concerning evacuation of so remote an !
I area, especially under adverse weather conditions, have not f I i j been addressed at this time. For instance, elevating the l l Saquish access road should be considered if such action would i ( j not be prohibited by environmental regulations. During extreme l high tides this road la virtually impassable by any vehicle.
\
In addition, communications w.** Saquish and Clark *a Island ! l depend upon citizona band radios, and a more dependable 1
- i j DRAFT DRAFT ,
1 ! 1 I
DRAFT DRAFT ! t communications system must be established. State and local . planners and public safety officials are continuing to discuss solutions w4th residents of the Saquish area, but we have not yet developed plans and implementing procedures we can be t
- certain will provide reasonable protection. ;
We are grateful to Messrs. Quaid and Cavanaugh who have provided us with substantial information concerning conditions in Saquish. Some of the information paavided to us by Mr. Quaid is attached to thin report.
- i E. SHELTER UTILI2ATION PLANS [
1 Shelter can be the best protective action if there is a short daration "puff" release of radiation, and can be effective for about two to two-and-one-half hours. To shelter i
; in place, one would go inside a solid structure and close all j access to outside air exchange such as windows, doors, air 4
conditioners, fans and vents. Different types of structures provide different degrees of radiological protection. While we have been most concerned about available shelter for highly l J , vulnerable beach population, we also want to be certain that 1 j viable shelter is available for anyone living, working or ! i i i l visiting anywhere within the ten mile EP2. i i At the insistance of MCDA/OEP the Boston Edison Company 4 j has conducted a series of studies of shelter throughout the l I Pilgrim EP2. The first of these studies was submitted to
- MCDA/OEP in August, 1987. It was returned to Boston Edison as inadequate because it dealt only with beach areas and did not
) provide sufficient information to identify the best quality and DRAFT DRAFT
) I
DRAFT DRATT most appropriate shelter anywhere. Staff of MCDA/OEP insisted /" 'N '(_j) -- and continues to insist -- that each town have the ability to predealgnate buildings which provide the highest radio-protective factor and which are avaiable for public occupancy with the minimum potential for juriadtetional problems. Thus, we would be seeking buildings with heavier as opposed to lighter construction and' aunicipal buildings as opposed to private property and businesses. In response to these policies, Boston Edison has been working with each EP: community to develop a "Shelter Utilization Plan" (SUP) as a separate annex to its emergency response plan. Each SUP should identify the maximum demand for shelter and identify the best space available in each town to meet that demand. As of this writing, only the the Town of {a} Marshfield has submitted a Shelter Utilization plan for informal technical review by state and federal authorities. Therefore, we cannot yet may that adequate shelter la available for the entire EP2. In a recent exchange of communications between the Executive Office of Public Safety and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA has indicated that shelter as a protective action asy not be needed among the array of protective actions in an adequate emergency response plan. These lett7rs are attached as an appendix to this report. Regardless cf the position taken by federal regulatory authorities, the policy of the Commonwealth remains unchanged; l ( that there must be demonstrably adequate shelter for all DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT populations within the Pilgrim EP2. F. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT One of the most critical functions that must be fulfilled by local government in the event er. avacuation la , declared in response to en accident at Pilgrim Station is i r traffic management. It is essential that, control be maintained . ? , over local and regional roads to assure a smooth and orderly I flow of traffic. Traffic management is not Just an assue for a , ] EP2 and host communities, but must be implemented by all ! l l communities lying between the EP2 and the host communities. Up to 35 communities would implement traffic management if the l i Wellesley State DPW facility la designated as a northern r reception center. l
- In conjunction with the Evacuation Time Estimate discussed in section V.E of this report, the Boston Edison t I
Company has asked their traffic engineering consultanta, XLD ' i Associates of Huntington, N.Y., to draft a traffic management l
- f plan for review by local and state police officials. A first i
I { draft of the evacuation time estimate and traffic management j 1 , plan was received from BEco on August 18, 1987. That draft was f
- reviewed by state officials and KLD Associaten discussed it i i '
l with local police officials. Based upon this review, defficienciew were identified and a second draft was , j undertaken, which was submitted to MCDA/CEP in the first week I
?
- of September, 1988. i i l 4
l DRAFT DRAFT i i i I !
DRAFT DRAFT i However, the September, 1988 draft is incomplete it l does not contain any traffic management evaluation and
- recompiendations for areas beyond the ten mile EP2. Thus it is 1
l not presently possible to evaluate traffic management to the reception centers. Boston Edison has assured MCDA/OEP that the , J remainder of the second draft traffic management plan will be i available on October 7, 1988. The ETE and traffic management plan are long -- running to three volumes of several hundred pages each -- and complex documents which require careful review and evaluation. This evaluation is presently under way i by state officials, and local officials will have the [ q opportunity to comment on their draft traffic management plan once we have received full documentation. In addition, the t t i
- Vermont traffic engineering firm of Resorree Systema Group is ;
l being retained to evaluate the traffic management strategy ( recommended by BECo's consultanta. I It will be at least several weeks before state, local, , I
- and expert consultant review of the ETE and traffic management l j plan is complete. t t
N r 1 l VII. STATUS OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANS AND COMMUNITY PROFILES ! i l i This section will give a community by community ) l i evaluation of the status of emergency plans and programa in I
- each EP2 and host community. Officials of the Executive Office !
l of Public Safety and MCDA/OEP met with elected and public l
! u
] safety authorities in each community as well as with numerous () concerned groups and individuals in compiling these reports. I DRAFT DRAFT . I. ,
DRAFT DRAFT
, Every effort has been taken to solicit the widest range of
> \ opinion and information so that this report c .' make a fair evaluation of the status of local emergency preparedness for en accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. It should be noted that our planning process requesta E ] local elected officials take two steps towards plan approval. a First, they may ask that the state and Federal Emergency Management Agency make an informal technical review of draft plans once an initial draft has been completed. Such a rquest , in no way impliam official approval or endorsement of the draft plan, and every Ep2 and designated reception community haa forwarded a draft plan for technical review. Second, local elected officials will be asked to review final plana, q implementing procedures, and supporting documents and inform us j whether they find them to be adequate auch that the state can ' I 6 a review them in preparation for their formal submiazion to ' i federal regulatory authorities. As of this writing, no I i community has informed us that their pienning is sufficiently l l complete to consider making such a submission. f t Each of the attached community profiles contains the i following information: I
, 1. Town i
, i
- 2. County !
i
! 3. Location
- 4. Population and denographic characteristica
- 5. Area --
land and water O 6. population density I I
\
. DRAFT DRAFT j 1 l l
i
. DRAFT DRAFT 4
f
- 7. Climate i
- 8. - Elevation !
- 9. Topographical characteristica 3
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topographical Pir.tes l i
- 11. Availability of Aerial Photography l 1?. Type of-government i
- 13. Legislative districts ,
r ! 14. Transportation systems and characteristica ! 15. Public utilities I i
- 16. Status of agreements between the community and the [
l Boston Edison Company
- 17. List of implementing procedures, including a list of l
5 Special Facilities by implementing procedure r 4 L ] 18. Description of evacuation routes i 4 f l 19. List of public and private schools, and nursery and f' 1 , day care centers ; ] The profiles also contain charts of communications ayatoms, the ! I l local emergency response organization, and a map of the l community. ! 1 Following ta a report on the status of emergency j planning and related inaues in each EP2 and host community. We i spoke with dozens of local agencies, committees, organizations. [ i 1 and concerned citizens to compile these reports. Many times i 5 i 1 the same issues surfaced in town after town, and these matters i l of universal concern have been discussed in ther sections of f 4 this report, especially in sections V and VII. t 1 4 l i ) \ DRAFT DRAFT 1 a
- . . . , , . _ - - - -------,v-.,n--,-, r -
DRAFT DRAFT A. BRIDGEWATER
) The reception community of Bridgewater has submitted a draft plan for informal technical review by the state and FEMA.
The results of the FEMA technical review have been discussed with Bridgewater planners by staff of MCDA/OEP. A revised draft plan along with draft implementing procedures were l r received by MCDA/EP from the Bridgewater selectmen on September , 27, 1988. These documents have been forwarded to FEMA for j ] further informal technical review. [ The reception center will be at Bridgwater State a College. The physical alterations necessary to develop the actual operational capability for the college.to function as a reception center have not been begun as of this writing. This remains a major outstanding item in emergency preparedness, j O however discussions are underway between the Boston Edison l } Company, MCDA/OEp, and the State Division of Capital Planning l and Operations regarding these improvements, and they will i require at least three months of work to complete after they i i are initiated. 1 f Bridgewater officials have indicated to us that they
, are concerned that the town may not be able to recruit ,
i sufficient staff to fulfill all emergency response functions. ; 1 Once plans and procedures are complete, a full inventory will l I be made of manpower needs and the state will work with t Bridgewater on a plan to fill all roles with assistance from a I state agencies and other sources. In this regard it also 1 () should be noted that Bridgewater authorities feel that they DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT i i need to develop comprehensive mutual assistance agreements with
\
East and West Bridgewater and have communications equipment to maintain contact with these towns. It is the responsibility of l l the Boston Edison Capany to meet all essential equipment needs , of local government under their section 15 agreementa. ; A selectman in Bridgewater has informed un that the J superintendent of schools has been involved with planning and I has made reviatons to the plans to use Bridgewater schools to l > i support evacuation of EP2 school children. A new draft of the ;
, plans for Bridgewater, including plans and procedures for the l l schools has just been received by MCDA/OEP and will be forwrded {
1 I i to FEMA for informal technical review. ! i Bridgewater public safety officials have indicated to ' i , us that they have requested the following equipment from BECo I 4 i l which ha- ;.ot been supplied as of this writing: 11 radios for the police department ! i 15 radios and 2 antennas for the fire department i I 30 personnel pagers for the fire department ( l ; traffic management equipment as detailed in the r traffic management plan, and L Storage van for equipment , i B. CARVER The EP2 town of Carver has submitted a draft plan for l informal technical review by state and federal authorities, and staff of MCDA/OEP has discussed the results of these reviews j with Carver officials. However, Carver has submitted neither () l implementing procedures nor a shelter utilicttion plan for DRAFT DRAFT ] l 1
DRAFT DRAFT review. Among the inaues brought to our attention in discussions with Carver officiala la that the police Department does not wish to permit any traffic other than emergency vehicles to enter the town after an evacuation has been declared. This remains an unresolved issue since most of the other communities have plans which permit citizona to return , during an evacuation to pick up family members in need of transportation. It is our view that decisions regarding access to the EP2 should be made in the first instance by local public safety officials during the time of an emergency, but based upon the accident assessment, radiological monitoring, and public health recommendations of the radiation control program of the Massachusetta Department of Public Health, the state reserves the right to overrule local officials on this matter. According to the Deputy Civil Defense Director of Carver, the school committee had delayed "signing off" on plans and procedures, but now would like to have them submitted for technical review by FEMA. As soon as MCDA/OP receives the draft prcedures and the next draft plan from Carver, they will oe sent to FEMA for informal technical review. The school committee la especially anxious to have an exercise to test plans and procedures. Carver public safety officials have indicated to us that they have requested the following equipment from BEco which has not been supplied sa of chia writing: I 2 radios for school busea DRAF, DRAFT l*iPN%df
DRAFT DRAFT Radios'for Council on Aging buses O One generator for the Council on Aging l i
-- 5 remote radios for the Fire Department i
. f
-- 15 radios for the Police bepartment f
-- Traffic management equipment, and l Storage van for equipment C. DUXBURY i
The EP2 town of Duxbury has submitted a draft plan for , informal technical review by state and federal author ities, and i : staff of MCDA/OEP have discussed the results of these reviews f with Duxbury officials. However, Duxbury has submitted neither ! l a jnplementing procedures nor a shelter utilization plan for i
- review.
[ t Several matters of concern emerged in our discussions [ 4 I with officials and residents of Duxbury. One of the most ! aubstantial problema noted was that the town has a shortage of ! personnel for emergency response and may need as many as 30 f f j additional men and women to fill all roles for two shifts. Aa [ i l l plans and procedures near completion, staff of MCDA/CEP will l 4 i work with Duxbury planners to fill out staff rosters with ( j assistance from state agencies and other sources. f The Duxbury police department has informed un that in j i i ) order to make their best effort to provide needed easiatance , j ' j for the residents of the Saguish area the department must be l t supplied with a four wheel drive vehicle and radio equipment to I j communicate with the Saquish security force. However, it must j i l be noted that no final agreements have been concluded regarding j DRAFT DRAFT : 1 I I 1
l DRAFT DRAFT the roles of Plymouth and Duxbury public safety forces in serving the Saquish area. Town officials have informed us of their concern over i I the process to identify special needs populations. We share the4r concern, and the Commonwealth's actions to address this ] problem are discussed in section VI.A. ebove. The Superintendent of Schools has also indicat.ed to us that he still has some reservations about policios in the school plans, particular3y regarding early dismissal versus evacuation of the i Duxbury schools. l The superintendent of Duxbury schools has been involved with the planning process and has reviewed plans and the 1987 1 implementing procedures. However, the procedures have not been , reviewed or approved by the school committee. Before the q procedures are presented to the school committee, they will be j i
- discussed with the PTA and school administrators at a joint l meeting.
I The citizens of Duxbury have been very active in j following both on-site technical and off-site emergency. li ! preparedness issues se they relate to safety at Pilgrim Station, especially through the town's nuclear matters ' committee. We are grateful for the information which this j 1 j group has shared with us over the past several months. Duxbury public safety officials have indicated to us that they have requested the following equipment from BEco 3 which has not been supplied as of this writing: () -- Radios for the police department j DRAFT DRAFT 1
DRAFT DRAFT i One generator for the police department l
\ --
Loran radio for the Harbor Master i Traffic sanagement equipment, and 1 Storage van for equipment , l t l Also, as of this writing, EOC renovations at the Duxbury fire l house havs not been completed. 1 D. XINGSTON { The EP2 town of Kingston has submitted a draft plan for j e , informal technical review by state and federal authorities, and ( staff of MCDA/OEP have discussed the results of these reviews l with Xingston officials. However, Xingston has submitted - [ neither implementing procedures nor a shelter utilization plan : for review. f Xingston public safety officials remain concerned that the draft Evacuation Time Estimate is not accurate. However [ i since the latest draft was only received from BEco in the first [ week of September, no local authorities have had adequate time to determine if appropriate changes have been made in response i to their earlier review of the August, 1987 ETE. Nonethelena, I Kingston officials have informed us that in 1990 Route 106, a prime evacuation route, will be rebuilt and no alternate plena j
\
for the duration of construction have been developed. I In addition, the Kingston chief of police feels that j i trafff.c should only be permitted to exit the town after an j evacJation has been declared and that only emergency response ) vehicles should be allowed to enter the community. We have addressed this issue elsewhere in this report. { l DRAFT DRAFT ! 1 l l l
DRAFT DRAFT Both the school committee and *.he superintendent have s
\ j participated in development of plans and procedures, however, the school committee has not yet approved them. The Kingston Civil Defense Director has indicated that the school committee still has reservations over plens for sheltering children.
Similar to concerna expressed in other towns, some teachers in Kingston have indicated that they would not stay j with their class in the event of an emergency at Pilgrim Station, out of concern for the safety of their own children. We have addressed this matter in section V.J of this report. In brief, the Commonwealth's position is that public employees are bound by state law to fulfill their Joba during times of emergency. If any public employees indicate that they will not
! r~' respond to their community's needa during an emergency, that la a matter to be settled in the first instance between the community's elected officials and its employees. {
Xingston public safety officials have indicated to us j l that they have requented the following equipment from BEco which has not been supplied as of this writing! Radio for the civil defense agency 20 radios for the police department 6 radios for the fire department 1 repeater 1 antenna ' 2 blue light bara for Harbor Master Traffic management equipment, and Storage van for equipment DRAFT 3 RAFT
DRAFT DRAFT E. MARSHFIELD
/(,,)
The EP2 town of Marshiloid has submitted its draft plan, implementing procedures and shelter util1=ation plan to MCDA/CEP and all of these documents have been forwarded to FEMA for informal technical review. The results of the FEMA review have not yet been received. Officials of Marshfield have informed us that they share our concern for the ability to implement protective action recommendations on a whole town beats (see section V.I of this report). Marshfield officials are particularly concerned because, while only one school is within ten miles of Pilgrim Station, they feel that it might be advisable to evacuate all schools if an emergency was so severe as to
- require evacuation of any children.
('] V The Marshfield Superintendent of Schools has expressed reservations about the plans under development. The last time the Superintendent reviewed plans and procedures was in 1987, at which time some schools were to be evacuated to Marshfield's Governor Winslow School which ta only fourteen miles from Pilgrim Station. The Marshfield Superintendent received three l implementing procedures from BEco in July, but no one has since l tuld him what to do with them and he has not reviewed them. It is possible that other Marshfield authoritten independently have reviewed and approved school plans and implementing procedures. DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT In addition, Marshfield officials have told us that they feel the proposed reception center in Wellesley is too far from the EP2 to serve the safety of their constituents. Similar to concerna expressed in other towns, employees of the Marshfield Deparetment of Public Works have indicated that they would not respond to en emergency at Pilgrim Station. We have addressed this matter in section V.J'of this report. In brief, the Commonwealth *a position la that public employees are bound by state law to fulfill their Joba during times of emergency. If any public employees indicate that they will not respond to their community's needs during an emergency, that is a matter to be settled in the first instance between the community's elected officials and its employees. Other Merahtield departments have expressed concern over both initial and second shift staffing for posit..lons established through emergency plans and procedures. Marshfield public safety authorities are concerned that in the event of an evacuation of the ten mile EP2 boaters will seek the first safe harbor available beyond ten miles, which would be the North River in Marshfield. No provisions have bewn made for this eventuality, and Boston Edison has indicated that auch planning ta not their responsibility because the area under discussion is more than ten miles from Pilgrim Station. The Commonwealth's position remains unchanged, that detailed planning should be completed for all shore areas within Marshfield, especially considering that we have officially designated Marahtield in its entirety an part of the EPO, DRAFT DRAFT W
DRAFT DRAFT _ consistent with state statute. l )
\/- Marshfield public safety officials have indicated to us that they have requested the following equipment from BEco l
i which has not been supplied as of this writing: i l -- EOC construction la not complete l l -- Traffic management equipment, and l l Storage van for equipment It should be noted that since EOC renvations which BEco I la making in Marshfield have Just begun, so unanticipated equipment needs are likely to arise. I F. PLYMOUTH l The EP town of Plymouth has submitted a draft plan for l informal technical review by state and federal authorities, and 1 fN staff of MCDA/OEP have discussed the results of these reviews b l with Plymouth offic.ala. However, Plyme.uth has submitted neither implementing procedures nor a shelter utilization plan for review. Identification of special needs populations is a l prominent tasue in Plymouth, and the town has a very active Commission on Handicapped Affairs under the leadership of Ma. l Anne Waitkua-Arnold. l As discussed elsewhere in this report, Plymouth is l l concerned about the town'a ability to respond to public safety ! needs in Saquish Neck. Formal Mutual Assistemece agreements 1 with the town of Duxbury must be completed, and it la possible l 1 I that special equipment will be needed to communicate with and 1 x) respond to this remote area. l DRAFT DRAFT l
DRAFT DRAFT Concerna have been voic'a r v.m. individuals in s q,) Plymouth about care of school cro. .<.- an the event of an emergency at Pilgrim. The concern is over whether or not i school and day care children can and should be kept in the custody of school authorities and employees in the early stages of an accident at Pilgrim, before an evacuation of the schools has been declared. It is the Commonwealth's position that during an emergency at Pilgrim Station children shoold not be sent home because too many of them might not have a parent or guardian at home to see to their protection. The Plymouth superintendent of schools and the school i committee have reviewed and commented on plans and implementing procedures. The Plymouth Civil Defense Director will present N the latest revision of the school plana und procedures to the school committee before the end of September. r As of this writing, Plymouth Civil Defense anticipates approximately a 304 shortfall in the personnel needed to fill all emergency response roles. The Plymouth Civil Defense Director la trying to recruit additional volunteers to be i i trained for emergency response. At present. 24 emergency responder positions remain to be filled, and Plymouth may request state eaaistanca in this endeavor. 1 Plymouth public safety officials have indicated to us that they have requested the following equipment from BEco which has not been supplied as of this writing: 135 Minotaur pagers for the fire department () -- Personnel pagera for cicil defense staff and DRAFT DRAFT
- -__-- 1
DRAFT DRAFT selectman n(_/ -- 2 radios for the police department Blue light bara for Harbor Master *a boat Facsimile transmission machine for Selectmen's office
-- Traffic management equipment, and Storage van for equipment l
G. TAUNTON The reception community of Taunton has submitted a draft plan for informal technical review by the state and FEMA. The resulta of the FEMA technical review have been discuased with Taunton plannera by staff of MCDA/OEP. A revised draft plan along with draft implementing procedures were received by x MCDA/EP form the Taunton selectmen and these documents are CLt] being forwarded to FEMA for further informal technical review. The reception center will be at Taunton State Hospital. The physical alterations necessary to develop the actual operational capability for the hospital to function as a reception center have not been begun as of this writing. This remains a major outatanding item in emergency preparedness, I however discussions are underway between the Boston Edison Company, MCDA/CEP, and the State Division of Capital Planning I and Operations regarding these improvements, and they abould be complete within three months after they are initiated. l The Taunten Civil Defense Director has expressed hia l l concern that plans are being made to provide servicer for only
) 20% of the EP2 population in the event of an emergency at DRAFT DRAFT l_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . ._. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
) DRAFT ' DRAFT i Pilgrim. If any more people than established in the planning
) beats request assistance at the Taunton reception center. their needa -- especially for radiological monitoring and decontamination -- can only be served on an "ad hoc" basta.
l Also, according to the Taunton Civil Defense Director, 1 the town has had no problems with implementing procedures for j j use of Taunton schools in support of the evacuation'of children i 4 t
- from Ep2 schools.
l .; i j As of this writing, Taunton public safety officials [ ! I j have not provided ua eith a list of emergency response i i l equipment requested from SEco which has not been supplied. I i 2 IIX. RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 21, 1944 LETTEN FROM R. VARLEY l 1 f ]U } i e, OF RECO TO P. AGNES. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF pURLIC SAFETY On August 22, 1944 Assistant Secretary of pubite l j Safety Peter W. Agnes, Jr. not with Monars. Craig Conkling and ! j i William Lazarus of NRC Region I to discuss the status of l { ( emergency preparedness for an accident at pilgrim. FEMA was [ ) I ] invited to attend this meeting but chose nnt to send a l r.,r...ntative. nr. Agne.. minut.a of that m...ing .h,ch eere provided to Boston Edison are attached. On September 21, 1944, i
)
Mr. Ronald Varley of BECo sent a letter to Mr. Agnes which ! challenges several conclusions from the August 22 meeting I i minutes. Mr. Varley*a letter la also attached. I want to take j this opportunity to respond to the pointa raised in Mr. l i I j Varley*a letter, i , I i j DRAFT DRAFT j 1 ! I
l l 1 j-(
)
ATTACHMENTS l
- 1. COMMUNITY PROFILES
- 2. Letter from Secretary of Public Safety Charles T.
i Barry to FEMA Regional Director Henry Vickers rated l September 6, 1988 i 3. Letter to Secretary Barry from Director Vicke s dated ) August 22, 1988 4 Tables of contents for MCDA/0EP Area II plan .snd a sample draft local plan l ! 5. Communications between Mr. David Quaid of Duxbiry j and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 6. Assistant Secretary Peter W. Agnes' minutes of meeting with NRC staff to discuss off-site
,_ emergency preparedness status
(
\- 7. Letter fro Mr. R. Varley of BECo to Assistant Secretay Agnes regarding the status of off-site amergency preparedness
- 8. Letter dated September 6 from Assistant Secretary Agnes to Mr. S. Collins of NRC Region I.
- 9. Letter dated September 1 from Mr. Collins to Secretary Barry l 10. Letter dated September 6 1988 from Secretary Barry I to Dr. William Kerr of the Advisory Commitee On Reactor
! Safeguards l l l l i 1 I t% \
)
i
__ --. _ -: . _.. ~. .r. - s l' r Septe:ber 1C04 , 4 1 IQWN QE Ge8YEB Eb6HE i O RERP, Rovision 3 dated October 30, 1947 I I IHELEHEMIIHQ.EBQGEQVBE LISIING l j A. Response Agen.'/ Individual , IE.Hei Eresedurs.I111e 01 Soard of Selectmen ! , 02 Civil Defense Agency ; 2 t l 03 Police Department f a 04 Fire Deportment l i 05 l l Department of Public Works t I j 06 School Department [ F 07 Board of Health f ! 04 Radiological Officer !
- 09 Transportation Officer i i
?
! 10 Shelter Officer j 11 Emergency Medical Services ] j 12 Council on Aging ; i 13 I i Communications Officer 14 RACES 4 8. Functional Activities t
- IE.He2 '
Erasedute IAtle l '
- 21 Public Information 1
22 Monitoring and Decontamination l 23 Handling Contaminated Injured Persons f 24 Message Control 1 } O i
- 1
S:ptcabor 1933 IQWH_QE_GABMEB l t Ir5kEHEMIING_EBQGEQMBE_LIMIING (continued) l
- 3. Functional Activities [
IE_He2 Eressdurs_Iltis l
- 25 Siren Activation f 26 Training i
27 Drills and Exercises t i 28 Program Maintenance l 29 Special Needs Program Maintenance ! I C. Special Activities l IE_Hs2 Eressdurs_Iltis [ t 41 s .anberry Crossing Nursery and Day Care
- 42 Web of Life Day Care 43 Captain Pal 9reachool i~ O 44 Kida Count
[ i 45 Camp Clear 46 Hilltop Nurs!.ng Home i 47 Betty's Placa I
\
l O _n..,. , - . . , . . . . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - -- - - - . - - - - . . . . .. !
_ _ . . _ _ _ . . ~. _ . _ _ _ . . .... . Septcobar 1980 IQWM_QE_ GAB 2EB E2AGMAIIQM_BQMIE_DEEGBIEIIQH essana_te_Irmannt_ Bend > Take the best possible route to Tresont Road. Take Tresent Road to Route 58. Take Route 58 south from the EPZ boundary to Route 25/495 westbour' Exit Route 495 onto northbound Route 18/28 (Bedford St.) Continus Jrth on Route 18/28 and follow signs to the Bridgewater Receptiun Center. Assena_te_Beuts_Ea_asuth_sf_Esuth_Hendew_ Bend Take the beat possible route to Route 58. Take Route 58 south from the EPZ boundary to Route 25/495 westbound. Exit Route 495 onto northbound Route 18/28 (Bedford St.). Continue north on Route 18/28 to the Route 44 Rotary. Exit the Rotary northbound on Route 18 and follow signs to the Bridaewater Reception Center, assaan.19_B9 Win _Ea_astth_9f_299tb_Handew_ Bend Taka Route 58 north to Route 106 in Halifax. Turn left (west) onto Route 106. Proceed on Route 106 to Route 104. Turn right onto Old . Plyacuth Road and proceed to Roberts Road. i O e l 1
Scptcab r 1988 IQWM_QE_GABMEB 4, 1 FIGURE J-8 SCHOOLS IN THE TOWN OF CARVER EMBLIG_3GHQQka Carver High School Gov. John Carver Elementary School i Benjamin Ellis School HQH-PUBl.,IG_3GHQQLE (None) ' i HUBHEBI AND_ DAY _GABE_GENIEBE l Captain Pal Pre-School ! Cranberry Crossing l [ ] Kida Count
' l i
Web of Life i i 4 i f
,-w. , e-, - - - -,, ,-- , . , , -. - - -. - - - - , , - _ , - , . . _ , , , - ,,,,,,,,n, 4m.,.,-,,....,--mm. . , . , __, _,,,-,nn,-.,,w, n.,.e- -n,--
Scptonbar 1988 ) IQWH_9E_963YEB O' Assena_te_Irssent_ Take the best possibleBend route to Tremont Road. Take Tremont Road to l Route 58. Take Route 58 acuth from the EPZ boundary to Route 25/495 westbound. E::it Route 495 onto northbound Route 18/28 (Bedford St.) Continue north on Route 18/28 and follow signs to the Bridgewater Reception Center. essass_te_Bsats_MA_neuth_sf_fenth_Handew_ Bend Take the best possible route to Route 58. Take Route 58 acuth from the EPZ boundary to Route 25/495 westbound. Exit Route 435 onto northbound Route 18/28 (Bedford St.). Continua north on Route 18/28 to the Route 44 Rotary. Exit the Rotary northbound on Route 28 and follow s ig nr, to the Bridgewater Reception Center. ossana te_Beuts_2A_nertb_sf_Heuth_dsadsw_ Bend Take Route 58 north to Route 106 in Halifax. Turn left (west) onto Route 106. Proceed on Route 100 to Route 104. Turn right onto Old Plymouth Road and proceed to Roberts Road. O l t l l
..-,m. - - .- .
3 Figuro J 2: 10 Mile EPZ with Sub. Areas l d l
. ........,j
)
'. \ .
~
(M .
\ ~%'
SUB-AREA # 1 I 5 ' g
/ .....e.,
{ !
- j/ s g SUS-AREA o
fv i i y 7 " l assestea / '
- -- S US- A R EA 40 9 l I AA
< %g !n O 4 SUS-AREA g 3 1
\ .\, **
*e N
'h '
L '" ' SUS-AREA
\ SUS-AREA 6
,sd to
/
,e SUS-AREA 91
,- Ns kp L' 2
}
L O U 7*
,p . ..
9 >,
] l~ _ ?
.s e s s
!!!!!1
['
% / S.c ,,
,s SUS -AREA C .* v
~ / . . ,g'
/ ,/ ,,
o SUS - A R E A j s
~
f-
$ ) \
t Q *. 4 m m .x bb* . k ..- ;; il II-J-26
Carver Communications Net ) FIGURE F-1 4 ' JPIC O ~ , ' t "I t , Other Town < g h-n
" c > Ambulances i EOC's O_
n Hospital late of Public
< > EOC # n' U
- Rhode Island Works n state T Area ll
! EOC n FEMA 4 CPublic State EOC 7 EOF j Leaend T = Telephone y S m n = Radio
' * , # F =Telefax J!~)3cbgf]"
IL O = a '- > c -- 'c - i"" O, ' ga 4 ",imeny -"X O
- y. ,
_ f
i b
! Figure E-3 l I Prompt Notification System for the Public EPZ Towns MCDA b '#
Headquarters = EBS Station Siren Activation Senior Engineer Time EBS i MCDA Area 11 EBS Mestege & Activation Time ) Alert EPZ Aiert ) N Signal / Signal j
/
4 Plymouth < ,
& Carver > -
i - Police N Fire Dispatcher Fire Di a ispatcher erS I
/
/
Alert Alert 'I \ Signal /
= Marshfield Duxbury I Signali .e - / _
N Fire Dispatcher Fire Dispatcher l Alert j Signal / i Kingston m i - N . ! Fire Dispatcher l . I 11 -E- 8 i i - -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ - - __- __ _ _ . _ __ __ - - - -
l Figuro A-1 Carver Emergency Response Organization Board of 1 Selectmen l l l Public l Information Officer i i \ Civil i Defense i = i
- l
- i
- i Police i Fire i Public ! Emergency i Schoo! l Department i Department i Works ! Medical i Department j '
i i Department i Service Board of Radiological Transportation Shelter Council on Health Officor Officor Officof Aging l l Commend .....,,, Coordination l l l l ll A 22 j
I l 1
. 1 l
i IQWH_QE_QUXBUBY Profile September 1988 l l 1 l I 1 1 l l
_ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . ~ - . . . . -. . . . _ _ . _ . _. ... . S:ptcaber 1903 IQWM_QE_QUXRUBY GENEBak_INEQBHAIIQM O V A-1. Town: Duxbury
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Eastern Massachusetta, bordered on the west by Pembroke, on the north by Marshfield, on I the south by Kingston, and on the east and I southeast by the Atlantic Ocean. It is 33 miles from Boston, and 246 miles from New a
York City.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 11,807 (Note: ETE has 1980 census as 11,087)
- a. Sex Composition: Female - 5,974 (50.64), Male - 5,833 (49.4%)
- b. Projections: 1985 - 13,100; ETE estimate 1988 -
14,199; 1990 - 14,400; 2000 - 14,600; 2C10 - 15,100
- c. Transients: Summer homes -
1283; Hotel / Motel. - 73; Campers - 631; Day-trippers - 4t37; Boaters
- 515; Total - 7439
- 5. Area (in sq. miles) Land - 24.32; Water - 0.19; Total -
24.51
- 6. Density: 1980 - 485 persons per aquare mile (land arte)
O 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 30.9'F. Normal temperature in July - 7 2 . 2* F . Normal annual precipitation - 46.32 inchen
- 8. Elevation at Approximately 36 feet above mean sea level Town Hall:
- 9. Togsgraphical The land surface is gently rolling to level, Characteristica: aloping down to Duxbury Bay in the southeast. Elevations rise to about 100 feet above mean sea level. The soils are predominantly loamy sands and sandy loama.
The first are somewhat droughty. Sizeable areas of wet soils are associated with the numerous streams and tidal inleta. The town has a tidal shore line of 37.4 miles.
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Duxbury, Hanover graphical Plates:
- 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial Photor,:
survey photos for sections of the state may be obtained from the Geodetic Survey Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 O Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114.
, - - - - - - - - - - , - . . - , , . . - ,, - , - , - . , , , - , , . - - ----.a ,c.--,- -- - -
(- _ _ _ _ - __ = _ - . . . _ . . . . _ . - . - ... ............-.x...-. . ....-. ..... . S pto=bor 1938 j IQWM_QE_QUXaHBX GENEBaL_INE98HaIIQN_Isentti l B-1. Established: June 7, 1637 C-1. Type of Government: Town Meeting
- 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetts Congressional District 4th Councillor District Norfolk & Plymouth State Senatorial District 6th Plymouth State Representative District Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority t
i I 4 i i 4 i i i l l l i 1
Swptsmber 1983 IQWH_QE_QUXAMBZ IBANHEQBIaIIQH A. Qgngggl* The public roads and highways serving Duxbury meet the requirements of modern trannportation. The town is a member of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, a state agency, established to assure adequate mass transportation. B. Egil: There is no rail freight or passenger service in the town. Freight service only, is available in adjacent Kingston on the Bay Colony Railroad. C. Higbygg: The network of numbered highways serving the town may best be understood by cont'J1 ting the map accompanying this monograph. The principal highwayw serving the town are State Routes #3, #3A, #53, l #14, and #139. D. Bys: The plymouth and Brockton Street Railway Co. is franchised to serve the town. The town is a member of the Masnachusetts Bay O Transportation Authority which is authorized to provide bus, rapid transit, trolley, trolley bus and train service in various combinations. E. Qthgg: Established trucking firma previda competitive freight service to mocal and long distance points. In neighboring Marshfield is the Mcrshfield Municipal Airport with a runwey of 3,000 fest. l MIILIIIEE ' l A. Elggtgig_3gggigg: Commonwealth Electric Company, 2421 Cranberry Highway, Wareham, MA ! 02571. B. Qgg_ggryigg: Commonwealth Gas Company, 120 Royal Street, Canton, MA 02021 C. Water asrxiss' Water servict plied to the town of Duxbury by the Duxbury Fire and Water Distr .. om ground water sources. O
Scptcob r 19D0 IQWH_QE_92MB28Y Agreements signed with BEco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) Personnel and (3) O Training May 1988.
, 1. EOC: Fire Dept. Hdqtra., Duxbury, MA 02331-1153 EOC is an addition to the Fire Station . It is completed except for telephone installation. Other equipment is in place.
- 2. personnel:
Full time person and clerk projected in near future.
- 3. Training:
25 of 604 (44) of town department hauda have received Introduction to Radiation, Introduction to Emergency Response and Siren Activation. O O
. --n- ... . . .
Septonbar 1938 IQWM_QE_QMMBMBY EQHQQL_ENBQLLMENI O ISh991 LSES$19D EDE911*RDA Duxbury H.S. St. George Street 1016 NNW 9 miles Duxbury Int. St. George Street 657 NNW 9 miles Chandler Chandler Street 581 Elementary NW 10 miles e Magic Dragon St. George Street 39 Childrena Center NNW 9 miles Duxbury H.S. Alden Upper Alden Street 250 Elementary NW 9 miles School Alden Lower Alden Street 423 Elementary NW 9 miles i School " j i I 1 O
-- c -. . ..
l kpt \ . 's . l l l IQWE QE_u.t'Xak l EYAGUALL . 4 1O Esel ef_Beuts_26 Proceed north on Route "JA to .' vi e .. '3. a v. in Routa ?73 ond proceed to Route 3. Enter Route 3 nw . , h 'm . Contin - north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston , Txit to A.. . i. s ' l west and proceed 1/2 r*1 to the propo- k- <ption C.ntry. l Wsat_9f Beuts_26 Proceed north on Route 3 from the Ep2 , cy to Re4te AL Continue north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Bo.c : ester Tpke.). Ex, to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 alle to the prc . Nallesley Reception Center. , 1 l ossman_te_Beuts_in_wsnt_sf_Beuts_2 l Take the best possible route to Route 14. Proceed west on Route 14 to Reute 53. Proceed north on Route 53 from the EP2 boundary to Route 139. Turn west on Route 139 and proceed to Route 24. Turn north on Route i 24 and proceed to Route 128. Enter Route 128 nortishound. Cont.nue north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston Worcester Tpke.). Exit to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 mile to the proposed Wellesley Reception Center. i 8 SERES t9_B2utR_22 i Proceed north on Route 53 from the EPZ boundary to Route 139. Turn !
- west on Route 139 and proceed to Route 24. Turn north on Route 24 and I proceed to Route 128. Enter Route 128 northbound. Continue north on '
Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston Worcester Tpke.). Exit to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 mile to the proposed Wellesley Reception Center. l l l I l l 1 ()
y -- .. _ - . - - - - . . . . - l .. w e .* {de - N ,o
~
Q - s.. . [ ' e" f i t'
~
.. / ; *".(j' i.
\,
- y t' r** _
J < < :.:-c
-F (e . . . . . . . . .
l :M ^ Y 1 . N b
/ \./ g a t es e a f 0. .a
, s-
/ .
Q# ', '
./ /
i / -
\
),' ' '
r . . . l .
/. . ,r' .
10
......) . ,
y
/* r.
g N ) l l,.. .,
, P l. '. O U h
~
/ _ .,M ,
.s.' -
7 #*
\ >
/
7 ,.
, ..s . e stanei N .' ..
- 'Q
{ state s eenset , 4
.* \
l f . g .,
., j%l ,
i
. *; d' J l
c .
/,"
/ a,h~ '/ '
b et-- 2. Evacuation w . e e to a n6 i Ibuts .4p - Dtabury I k e, l {
-so h' s , \ [ t
/ 'ff \
i.e .W . -
.- \
']) '&*\, **., "
.,' s. -
's, ,,. ,,
'% .%. . . e e . v i e . s w e n e sl .. M.N c
....... .ve6 .. ,6. ... ..se=
-c_____.. . . .. . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _.
l l 1 l l l , i 1 IQWH_QE_KINGHIQH , Profile ! 1 September 1988 I f l a 1 1
?
1 l l n
)' i 1
4
_ _ _ _ . . , ....._.4...... . _ . . . . . . . . l S ptcab0r 1930 i IQWH_QE_KIHQSIQH l GENEBak_INE98HoII9H A-1. Town: Kingston
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Southeastern Massachusetta, bordered on the west by Plympton, on the southwekt by Carver, on the southeast by Plymouth, on the northwest and north by Pembroke and Duxbury, and on the east by Plymouth Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 7,362
- a. Sex Composition: Female - 3,791 (51.1x), Male - 3,029 (48.9x)
- b. Projections: 1985 - 8,137; ETE estimate 1988 - 7,506; 1990 - 8,912;
- c. Transients: Summer homes - 400; Hotel / Motel -
192; t Campera - 210: Day-trippers - 150; Boatera - 125; Total - 1077
- 5. Area: (in sq. miles) Land - 18.55; Water - 0.49; Total -
19.03
- 6. Dennity: 1980 - 397 persons per square mile (land area)
O 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 30.9'F. Normal temperature in July Normal annual precipitation
- 72.2*F.
- 46.32 inches
- 8. Elevation at Approximately 50 feet above mean sea level <
Town Hall: '
- 9. Topographical Land surface la hilly with elevations ;
Characteristics: ranging from the shores of Kingston Bay in ' the northwest to about 180 feet above mean sea level in the south-central section. Soils are mixed with rough and stony phemes predominant in the higher elevation; sandy loana and loamy sends on the slopes and wet soils along the stream couraea in the north. The town has a tidal shore line of 3.8 miles.
- 10. U.S.C.S. Topo- Duxbury, Hanover, Plympton, Plymouth graphical Plates:
- 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial Photos: survey photca for sections of the state may be obtained from the Geodetic Survey l Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 i Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114.
\
DRAFT DRAFT Following are individual paragraphs from the Varley s_) letter followed by our respnse. RV: "First, in item 2 of the August 22 minutes, you state that "a completed draft of the Pilgrim Plans has yet to be
.producto." Ccapleted plans have, in fact, been developed by each of the five EP2 and two reception center towns and forwarded to the Commonwualth for transmittal to FEHA for informal technical review. As you know, FEMA has commented favorably on each of those reviewed to date and provided specific comments which have been incorporated.
In addition, based on our recent conversations, it is my understanding that a revised draft MCDA Area II plan has 4 now been empleted and is being forwarded to FEMA as well." (~' t While it is true that we have received draft documents from each of the seven communities, we consider a complete draft plan to consist of the descriptive portion -- informally j referred to as "the plan" -- a full set of implementing
- procedures, and, in the case of EP2 towns, a Shelter l Utilization Plan. Thus far we have received descriptive plans i
from all seven communities and they have been forwarded to FEMA I for informal technical review as requested by each community. FEMA has returned comments on only five of those documents and is still reviewing two others. As of this writing, wo have , only received draft implementing procedures from one EP2 and , one reception community and a shelter utilization plan from one 4 community. These documents have all been submitted for
) informal review, however, we have not yet received comments 1
DRAFT DRAFT I
DRAFT DRAFT from FEMA. A
\s,) One must bear in mind that FEMA in their comments on the dcaft plans noted that there were numerous aspects of the plans which could not be evaluated until implementing procedures are submitted. Mr. Varley is correct that a draft l
Area II plan has been submitted to FEMA for informal technical review. l RV: "Second, item 3 of the minutes states that the planning process "was designed to initially permit '6ocal officials to review draft planning material..." This statement suggests that the Commonwealth is "permitting" local officiula to merely "review" materia 11,, when in fact such officials have been intimately involved in the preparation of such materials, working closely with Boston Edison
- representatives for well over a year. It is, of course, l the Commonwealth which is undertaking the "review" of the l
l draft planning documents prepared by the towns, with Boston Edison assistance." BEco's interpretation of this point form the minutes is misleading at least. My December 1987 report gives a thorough t ! description of the planning process which we established after 1 the release of my December, 1986 report. In all instances, we have taken every effort to cite and commend the active ( participation of local officials in the planning process. l Contrary to Mr. Verley's implications it was MCDA/OEP which in l designing the planning process suggested that each town form a planning committee consisting of local agency heads and elected l DRAFT DRAFT L
DRAFT DRAFT officials to work in the towns behalf in plan development. () Mr. Varley further implies that the Comanwealth is "merely" reviewing the plans as assisted by BECo. We wish to point out the active participation in plan development of a great many state officials and employees including staff of , MCDA/CEP, the State police, the Massachusetts National Guard,
.+.he state Department of public Works, and the Department of public Health, to name but a few. This report and my previous two reports document our activities in this regard.
- RV
- "Third, item 5 of the minutes states that "most implementing procedures exist in draft forms many have been provided (by BECo) to towns, but have not been
( i formally reviewed or approved." It is important to understand that each of the town implementing procedures was prepared in a collaborative effort with the cognizant , local officials and agency heads, and modified until the responsible officials were satisfied with the fidelity of the procedures and indicated so in with their signature. l The impression left by the quoted segment is that Boston ' i j Edison has "provided" materials to the towns with which ' i they are not familiar. On the contrary, the implementing I procedures are the product of considerable interaction and cooperation between local officials and Boston Edison." 1 Item 5 of the Agnes minutes deal primarily with FEMA'S l policy regarding sheltering as a protective action. We do not ) deny that BEco has provided essential assistance to the towns in plan development, consistent with the directives of NUREG DRAFT DRAFT l t
2 DRAFT DRAFT 0654 (at page 25, paragraph G). The fact remains, however, (n) s-that to date only two communities feel sufficiently comfortable with their implementing procedures to have requested informal technical review by state and federal authorities. RV: "Fourth, item 6 states that six of seven draft plans have been completed and that "plans and procedures for schools have been completely revised and the local review process - is not yet complete." Draft plans for all seven towns'are now complete. In addition, the specific reference to the l school procedures (there is no separate school plan) creates, in our view, the misimpression that the school program is not as far along as other elements of the revised planning program. This is not accurate since school related planning documents were prepared contenporaneously with other planning documents." We give credit where it is due. progress has been made in revising school plans, which was one of the most critical items discussed in both my 1986 and 1987 rapt >rts. However, we wish to point out once again that we have not received complete plans from five of the seven EP2 and reception communition, so we cannot determine the degree to which local authorities I l consider planning issues relating to schools fully resolved. I Refer to section VI.B for further discussion of these issues. RV: "Fifth, item 7 refers to the possibility of a third reception center. Boston Edison did not recommend the use i of two reception centers, but did assess the feasibility () of relying on two and did issue a report summari=ing its DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT analysia. We believe that it should be noted that the k_) Commonwealth's feasibility analysis of the proposed Wellesley facility has been underway since March, 1988." BEco'd analysis did indicate that there was no need for a third reception center, however, my December, 1987 report documents our position that a third reception center is essential to protecting the public health and aafety. The Commonwealth's feasibility study regarding the State DPW facility's use as a reception center is nearing completion. In fact, Boston Edison has been a participant in this study and we are grateful for their support. However, the rigorous demands of the public regarding their safety -- especially in this, the "not in my back yard" era -- requires that we be as careful and
"% thorough as possible in assessing the capacity of a particular x_]
^ location to serve as a reception center and to develop the confidence of the people who will have to staff it. RV: "Next, item 9 of the minutes states that the "apecial needs lista currently in use by local Civil Defense { Directors are woefully inadequate..." Secretary Barry's 1987 report to the Governor stated that "it may not be necessary or prudent to compile exhaustive lists of special needs populations." In any event, it should be noted that Boston Edison stands 1 l ready and willing to commission the new apacial needs ! murvey to provide information to upgrade the lists as soon as MCDA/OEP forwards the modifirsd Requent for Proposal t% ( ,) (RFP), and we have received and reviewed the DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT Commonwealth's policy on protection of the_special needs (_/ population (which is referenced in the RFP). We have been awaiting both the MCDA/OEp modified RFP and the cited policy for some time. . In addition, we have encouraged the towns to upgrade their existing lists through telephone I contacts with individuals and social service agencies, and , i are aware that some of the l'ists have been upgraded. ; i-Moreover, we have assisted in the development of the Town f Implementing procedures which permit "self-identification" l i j in the event of an emergency. In addition, while we agree a
- with your apparent recognition that there has not been a
! "lack of progress in planning", we think that there are numerous areas where Commonwealth action would most assuredly help speed the planning process." These observations by BECo are truly disingenuous. l 1 i First of all, Mr. Varley fails to mention that in March, 1988, Boston Edison unilaterally and against our strong advice rejected a proposal by the Cambridge firm of HSRI to do a ! ! comprehensive study of special needs populations in the Pilgrim 1 ' l EP2. MCDA/OEP, the state Office of Handicapped Affairs, and ~ the plymouth , Commission on Handicapped Affairs all endorsed the l j HSRI proposal. Boston Edison's counter proposal in April for a survey to be undertaken by a marketing research company, First i 1 Market Research Corporation, was rejected by MCDA/OEP because i
; the firm sulected by BEco had absolutely no experience with i
either emergency preparedness or special needs issues. DRAFT DRAFT l J i
DRAFT DRAFT Providing for the public safety needs of people with s
) special needs is one of the most difficult and controversial aspects of emergency preparedness, and it has proven difficult to engender a consensus on an approach to its resolution.
MCDA/CEP has been working diligently to gain the cooperation and agreement of all concerned parties in a study of special needs populations. However, it understandably has proven most difficult to earn that cooperation after the experience with the HSRI study. We are in full support of local planning efforts regarding assistance to special needs people. MCDA/OEP has j Joined with the Plymouth Commission on Handicapped Affairs and 1 the State Office of Handicapped Affairs in publishing e i newspaper advertisement throughout the EP2 asking for ' individuals to cooperate with their local public safety officials in identifying people with special needs. MCDA/OEP ! J ' 1 has been able to develop an RFP which has the support of I constituent groups; it was delivered to BEco on September 23. ! It is our hope that ' Eco will finally Join with the other l
- concerned parties in agreeing to an approach to this issue and cooperating in its solution.
i RV: "Next, item 10 refers to agreements "between BEco and private (transportation) providers for emergency response l resources." As you know, the form of those agreements is between the providers and the Commonwealth, not Boston Edison. MCDA authored the agreements and MCDA () representatives participated in their negotiation. While DRAFT DRAFT 4 4
J i4 4 .-.4 f 3: - DRAFT DRAFT transportation providers representing a large number of () resources.have entered into such agreements, the agreements have been in the Commonwealth's hands for signature since March, 1988." From the beginning of our planning process, BEco has ; taken responsibility for identifying transportation resources ! and making arrangemennts to assure that they are available to , i support emergency response. Wh i), e it is true that staff of MCDA/OEp participated in discussions with transportation ; i providera and has participated in training programs for bus
; drivers, BEco drafted the letters of agreement which were j signed by transportation providers and then forwarded to i
MCDA/GE.D for signature. ] In a meeting between Messrs. Varley and Agnes in July of 1988, Mr. Varley was informed that we could not sign the t 1 I i j letters of agreement which had been presented to MCDA/OEP l l i i because they failed to indicate "informed consent" on the part l ~ ! of company operators and drivers and ild not provide adequate ! 1 assurances that buses would be ava:. aale when required. At l that meeting, Mr. Varley agreed to takt responsibility for
- r having additional decumentation sent by the transportation I i r
providers prior to signature by the State Director of Civil 1 4 Defense. Since that time we have heend nothing else from BEco l i on this matte;r. (
; RV: "Mext, w' tile item 13 points out that the Taunton State i
Hospital and Bridgewater State College reception centers () are in .ieed of capital improvements, it should be noted DRAFT DRAFT i i
DRAFT , DRAFT that we have been awaiting authorization from the y ,- Commonwealth to begin improvements since December, 1987, when our feasibility study listed what we believed were the appropriate improvements." This matter has been deleyed for two reasons. First, State officials had to intercede between Boston Edison and officials of Bridgewater State to develop a consensus'on the phyiscal improvements to be made to the college r,nd the legal i arrangements under which the college would make its facilities available to support emergency response. Second, improvements ' to state facilities must be made with the approval and under l the supervision cf the state Division of Capital Planning and Operations of the Department of Administration and Finance. We t have finally concluded initial arrangements with DCPO O concerning'theco improvements, and a meeting of all parties will be held shortly to discuss final constructJon contracting. RV: "Next, item 14 states that Cape Cod (which is outside the j, EP2) would be isolated in the event of a plant accident. i On the contrary, planning provisions call for one of the two bridges over the canal to remain open at all times to . I t provide access from Cape Cod and for the other to be , t ] opened at the Commonwealth's discretion." Here Mr. Varley has cited Mr. Agnes' comments out of
! context. In item 14, Mr. Agnes was discussing the importance of the Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan to i
j the planning process, noting in passing, as an example, our
,() concern for Cape Cod. i DRAFT DRAFT i l, I
1 l DRAFT DRAFT My December, 1986 report recommanded that Boston Edison
) undertake a new Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Plan. On August, 1987, BECo delivered the first draft of an ETE/TMP which our review indicated had several inadequacies, -
including treatment of peripheral areas, including the 'Ja pe Cod bridges and routes between the EP2 towns and reception
- communities. Not until the first week of September, 1988, din the Commonwealth receive the second draft ETE/TMP, which ta j itself incompletn, lacking the traffic management plan foe-areas beyond the ten mile EP2.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the new ETE/TMP is presently under review. However the Commonwealth cannot , $ begin to make a careful evaluation of the ETE/TMP until BEco supplies all relevant documentation. O RV: "Item 15 refers to "substantial revisions" to the PIB (Public Information Brochure) made by the Commonwealth. [ The numerous revisions made by MCDA to date, have not in I our opinion significantly altered the original format or 4 content, and MCDA has not scheduled a meeting on this a issue until October 17." Here, Mr. Varley appears to refer to revisions to the ,
"Facts On Radiation" section of the Emergency Public i
i Information (EPI) brochure which by federal regulation must be
)
dist.ributed annually in each EP2. A complete EPI crochure has not been distributed in the Pilgrim EP7. since 1985, and the l l last brochure lacked a section discussing the risks of i () radiation even though it is a requirement of federal DRAFT DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT i regulations (see FEMA REP-11). Because there is substantial controversy on how to a portray.the riska of radiation to the public, Mr. Agner formed a group to try to develop a consensus on werding for a section addressing this inaue in the brochure. Private citizens, as well as representatives of the state Department of Public Health and BEco actively participate in that committee. The group will meet again in mid-October, as noted by Mr. Varley. - i Mr. Varley fails to note that BEco has received an I exemption from FEMA for distribution of an EPI brochure. We f are certain that remaining differences can be resolved before f that exemption expires. RV: "Finally, item 18 states that an exercise is required [ t I oefore final approval of the plana can be given, and that ! I such an exercise is "premature given the unfinlahed state l of the plana." We believe that given the considerable , lead time associated with the preparation for an expreise, l it is not at all too early to becin temphasia Varley*a) ! l to work toward that objective. While we have broached l. this sub3ect on several occasions with the Commonwealth, I it has been unwilling to act to even initiate the exercise , planning proc 5su." f i The position of the Comanwealth regarding this matter i I
- is clear and remains unaltered. We do maintain that a full-scale, graded exercise is essential to determinir.g the !
t 4 adequacy of emergency plans and preparedness. However, we do ( () not believe that an exercise can or should be considered until DRAFT DRAFT l
r DRACT ' D' ( we have neared ccupletion of all emergency response plan- and procedures, and have had the opportunity to train all personnel with a role in the plans. We believe this report documents i that we are nowhere near that state. l The process to hold an off-site exorcise takes approximately 100 days. The licensee -- BEco -- would be I responsible for many of the advanced preparations such as , scenario development, and these activities can be initiatea by the licensee if BEco ao wishes. Once we feel that sufficient progress has been medo in emergency planning and training, the Commonwealth is fully prepared to cooperate in preparations for a graded exercise. IX. TECHNICAL ISSUES The Commonwealth has conciatently commented on and reviewed matters relating to technical issues and plant i management. In addition, Massachusetts had two observers at the Integrated Augmented Team Inspection which the NRC
- conducted at Pil, rim Station in August, 1988. Massachusetts officials have also raised questions regarding Boston Edison *e -
l continued mediocre to poor perfraance on Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfromance (SALP) reports. Most notably, we have pointed out that for the period 1985-1987, Pilgrim's average a
- SALP grades were the fourth lowest in the nation and that w l ,
latest, 1988, Pilgrim SALP grade was bellow average for a. l I nuclear facilities. l DRAFT DRAFT
- i DRAFT DRAFT We have appeared before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguarda et their subcommittee meeting in Plymouth and presented written comments to the full ACRS at their f meeting this month. Please see the attached letter to Dr. Kerr j i
of the ACRS. While we appreciate the response of Mr. Sam Collina to our inquiries on technical inaues (attached), our i. aubstantive concernes have not been addressed in the ACRS
! letter recommending that Pilgrim'ia ready for restart. [
l t X. CON.CLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
; () Conclusions and recommendations will be formulated i
- after the close of the public comment period on October 7, ;
- 1988.
E 1 i i e I f 1 d 1 1 I l l i DRAFT DRAFT l
l l l
)
i j l l I
- i l
I l l l IQWH_QE_RBIDGEWAIg8 Profile September 1988 1 I l e
_ _ _ _ _ . ~ . - _ . .#,a . S;ptocOOr 1900 IQWH_QE_BBIDGEWAIES GEMEBAL_IlfEQBHAIIQN O A-1. Town: Bridgewater
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Southeastern Massachusetta, bordered onthe north by East Bridgewater and West Bridgewater, on the east by Halifax, on the south by Middleborough, on the west by Raynham. It la approximately 8 miles from Brockton, 27 miles from Boston, 29 miles from Providence, R.I., and 210 miles from New York City.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 17,202
- e. Sex Composition: Female - 8,567 (49.84), Male - 8,635 (50.24) l
- b. Projections: 1985 - 19,442: 1990 - 22,292; 1995 - 24,531
- 5. Area (in aq. miles) Land a 27.29: Water - 0.85: Total - 28.14 j r
- 6. Density: 1980 - 630 persons per square mile (land area) ;
- 7. C11aste: Normal temperature in January - 28.6*F. I
- 71.5*F.
() Normal temperature in July Normal annual precipitatir - 43.98 inctaa ; i Elevation at
- 8. Approximately 104 feet above mean sea level Town Hall: '
- 9. Topographical The terrain is generally level with maximum Characteristics: l elevation of about 160 feet above mean sea i level. The prevailing elevation la about !
100 feet above mean sea level. The : predominant soils are well watered loems and i loamy sanda. Large areas of wet soils are ' associated with the numerous stream courses.
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Bridgewater, Whitman, Taunton )
graphical Plates: '
- 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial Photos: survey photos for sections of the state may be obtained from the Geodetic Survey Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114.
O
_. _ _ . . _ _ _ - .__~m, ... .. .. _ _... ~ .. _ ._. . - S:ptonbor 1948 IQWM_QE_RBIDGEWAIiB GENEBAL INEQBBAIIQH_Isentil h-1. Established: June 3, 1656 C-1. Type of Government: Town Meeting l l
- 2. Special Districts: 9th Massachusetta Congressional District ,
1st Councillor District ; 2nd Plymouth State Senatorial District ! ath Plymouth State Repremontative District ! Brockton Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area f f ( l l f i I i I l l b- -^
- ._-6___...... - - - -
. . . . . v- - - = - -
! 50ptcabar 1900 l IQWN QE_BBIDGEW6IEB i Basic Plan was submitted ------ and reviewed by MCDA and FEMA. (?) Fourth '
draft'is currently in preparation.
- Implementing Procedures are under review by the town selectmen and have not yet been submitted to MCDA.
I 24-hour notification point moved from Police Department to Fire Department. ] 4 j j l .a t l i l 1 i i ) i i i i I l l 1 1 i 4 i 4
..-v,-- . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . _ . - -.
5:ptccb:r 1988 IQWH_QE_RBIDGEWAIEB Agreements signed with BEco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) Personnel and (3) O' Training May 1988.
- 1. EOC: School Street, Bridgewater, MA 02324.
Construction is complete, but no office on communications equipment has been installed. Equipment has been ordered, but only 2 generators and an EBS monitor have been received. Other equipment not expected to arrive before November 1988.
- 2. Personnel:
Currently have part-time civil defense director and have not made other hiring decisions.
- 3. Training:
As of September 2, 1988, 104 (644 of total) number of public, fire, civil defense, and highway departments have received Introduction to Radiation, Introduction to Emergency Response, Dosimetry and Siren Activation training modules. Seven school department members have received training. O
)
i l I O
-.. - - --.~. -----
O TCHN OF BRIDGEWATER RADIOLCGICAL EMERGENr.f RESPONSE PLAN FIQJRE I-1 PRIMARY LOCAL ENERGENCY CHAIN OF COMMAND MUNICIPAL SELECTNCN w CIVIL PCLICC TIRC O' DCTENSC DCPARTHCNT DCPARTNCNT DCPARTMENT 9P BRIDGCVATCR SCHCXL HIGHVAY STATC AMERI N DI! ASTER AND 3 CARD RC CRCSS DCPARTNENT DCPARTNENT CVACUATICN CT C::LLEGE CHAIRMAN HCALTH { MEDICAL i Cr71CCR l
)
i I
- . - - . _ - - * . .~-
O (I.D. 81) DRAFT REVISIO; MAY 1987
~
, o o 0 -
. .t. .c 1.
~
Emit rendes as=1 receptiosicceders...
- c h aup dwes tin receptunicesders for . ,g your asca eut scramuncads rouses toget "
tiaere. If pas are directed to evacuaic, pro-cccd in ahe ocarcst receptinn censer er ** J*
; thesuu casest fas~ yms to Jtet 14A '{ , _ , , ,
i - Ilow to ges shcre. . . - ! - L ll.asun er 31.all: ICesasients ut Dim-7 .
> q p3 ,
) fairg Kingstawi. Massidseid (xadh of Route 139. CarcswetStreett and ,
,a l rv:: heastern I'lyssmatic Take Rouse 3 ' ' u a*==
Martis or Handc3A Martie to Hamsver Malt cxis. Mg ^ ^ - -
. f St;;3e *
- L f teidgcuascs St.dc College: .
i Ibalents ot euthwisern I'lymmaah. -
- Palgrissa i
- Carver (east d House SB). and wessern Station <
Kinguorc Take Rende 44 West and u g f 5(ouse 58 Mwsh so Ramste 106 se C== RodesiH Weg. psy,,,,es, s
. Ta T andum'uaselim pital: """"""' ,
Resa lents of sundhern l'>pnois h- Take 6 I" Carwar
~
[ Nousc 3 er3A Seush,leanettbad ~ ' ' ~ 4 4 Road South Nouse 6 %.4. Neuse 9"' _ 4185 North so Rende 138 South. ,,,,,, w se My rvacwimm anec e.: sm-.si.
) ..
=
- - - _ _ ~ - - - - , .
_._.~.____ ua tus Myac(c[pMMt ccatcr IS' [ k. a _ _ . . _ _ - s l _ Rn- w mm , n . _ _n.- -
., _ _ -m __ . -;_--,,m_m.
-.,s- 4ea< ..-d-e.,-
O o e O Att achensat, 3 MQ*y Nfh'R* y A ma,n= == = b O~~% i b u
~t iK 7
i s %,. ;
. 1 NM j i b
y/ *O
's
/ % \
r j ,
\, .
('~.s)%. l l l I ev .. .. -, . - ,
- . . . - ~
I TCHN OF BRIDGEMATER RA0!0 LOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN APPENDIX B RECEPTION CENTER ACTIVATION AND OPERATION FICLlRE B-3 SKETCH OF RECEPTION CENTER LAYOUT
'TD'-=t xxxx 5A4044WATIA STATE COLiggg
[ *** 7-1==58 i
- Er3 .=. 5--
* ~~ ~ ~ ' ,
//
. /' / . y% g. g' ,
. .~-
- - ~ - // ~=
~
k.]
*, , p . . M t - - - _ , ,, 59-+.-
,, , .. . - . a;.p .
%N, _ = , =
e I ' N N y.- r __ .,,ean** ' . kk "Q/ ..
/
]" .
i
'%er N /*
\
.::::~
r =====
.&)
l
%/,
\
, W = le08elfonesse AmeA , ,
.NN -= VEHICLE Pamstsee4 2 =AEC N agmarnatioaggag43 3 = 8HEkTER AAEA E = N/044ASL5a macase sugtygg anga
\
B-39 (I.D. 118) DRAFT REVISIO MAY 1987 l l
_ _ . - _ _ _ ._ m. _. TONN OF BRIDGENATER
, RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN APPENDIX B BECEPTION CENTER ACTIVATION AND OPERATION TABLE B-2 LIST OF AVAILABLE SHELTERS IN BRIDGENATES AND IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Shelter Seaces canaci ty Locatien Bridaewater State Collece Tillinghast Hall 300 Bridgewater State College Student Union 1,500 Bridgewater State College Maxwell Library 3,000 Bridgewater State College Grove Street Building 500 Bridgewater State College l Boyden Street Building 1,000 Bridgewater State College l Art Building 250 Bridgewater State College ,
Conant Science Building 600 Bridgewater State College ' O' R. Burnell Campus School / Academic Classroom Complex L30Q Bridgewater State College TOTAL SPACES AT BRIDGEHATER STATE COLLEGE 9,500 l Town of Bridaewater Shelter Snaces i Academy Building 200 Bridgewater Center AF Hunt School 300 School Street William Middle School 600 South Street Bridgewater Raynham Regional , High School E MT Prospect TOTAL SPACES IN BRIDGENATER PUBLIC BUILDINGS 1,350 BRIDGEWATER GRAND TOTAL 10.900 Shelter Spaces s 1 O B-51 (I.D. 118) DRAFT REVISlO MAY 1987
3 Septorb0r 1900 IQWH_QE_BBIDGEW6IEB IB6HIEQBIAIIQH O A. QgDRES1: i Bridgewater has access to the rail, bus and highway networks of the Boston and Brockton Metropolitan Areas. The public roads meet the requirGaents of modern transportation. B. Es11: ; i Freight service only in furnished by CONRAIL. C. HishwSx: The network of numbered highways serving the town may best be understood by consulting the map accompanying this monograph. Principal highways serving the town are the Fall River Expressway Route #24, Route #25, i.oute #28, Route #18, Route #104 and I-495 (the outer belt around the Boston area). D. Sys: Baystate Bus Commuter Lines, Inc. La franchised by the state to serve the town. E. Qthat: O Trucking service is provided by over 35 established lines to local and long distance pointa. The Boston Docks, and the Logan International Airport, and Fall River Harbor are easily accessible from Bridgewater. The neighboring town of Middleborough has a commercial airport with a runway of 2,850 feet. In nearby Taunton la the Taunton Municipal Airport with runways of 2,350 feet and 3,500 feet. 9 O
S:ptc DCr 1988 IQWH_QE_BBIDGEW6IEB UIILIIIES O A. Elegtgig_gggylgt: Eastern Edison Company, 36 Main Street, Brockton, MA 02403 B. Q33_gggvigg: Day State Gas Company, 120 Royal Stra. , Canton, MA 02021 C. W3teg_gggylgg: Water service is supplied to the Town of Bridgewater by the Watar Department from ground ano surface water acurces. A chemical analysis made in 1981 by the Massachusetta Department of Environmental Quality Engineering showed the following results: 51111stama_nsr_111er Tap in osadasy_Bldst Turbidity 0.2 Color 0.0 pH 6.0 Alkalinity 20.0 Hardness 34.0 0' Calcium Magnesius Sodius 14.0 4.7 18.0 potassius 3.8 Iron 0.13 Manganese 0.24 Silica 8.1 Sulfate 18.0 Chloride 38.0 Ammonia -N 0.02 Nitrate -N 2.5 Copper ) 0.23 4 Spec. Cond. 230.0 l I
~-)
l
l l l I i I i i i 1 i b l 1
- i i
r J IQWN_QE_GoBYEB i l l Profile ; i September 1988 t i I i I l 1 l 1 l l l l l 1 1
Septccber 1C08 IQWH_QE_9ABYEB GENEBAL_INEQBHAIIQH i O A -1. Town: Carver
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Southeastern Massachusetts, bordered by Niddleborough on the west, Plympton on the north, Kingston on the northeast, Plymouth on the east, and Wareham on the south. It is about 40 miles from Boston, 39 miles from l Providence, Rhode Island, and 219 miles from New York City.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 6.988
- a. Sex composition: Female - 3,494 (504), Male - 3,494 (504)
- b. Projections: 1985 - 7,370; ETE estimate 1988 - 10,487 (with'6,083 in the EPZ): 1990 - 8,170
- c. Transienta: Summer homes - 546: Campers -
125 Campaites - 1000 Day-trippers - 4600: l Total - 6271
- 5. Area: (in sq. miles) Land - 38.41 Water -
1.17: Total - 39.58
- 6. Density: 1980 - 182 persona per square mile (land area)
- 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 30.9*F.
Normal temperature in July - 7 2 . 2* F . , Normal annual precipitation o 46.32 inches
- 8. Elevation at Approximetely 96 feet above mean sea level Town Hall: !
- 9. Topographical The terrain is flat to gently rolling. ,
Characteristics: Generally elevations are about 100 feet above mean sea level. The soils are , predominately loamy sanda and sandy loema; ; tending to be droughty in the sandy areas. , Considerable areas of wet marsh soils occupy ! the low areas amaociated with the numerous stream courses.
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Plymouth, Plympton, Snipatuit Pond, Warehen I graphical Plates: l 11, Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial ;
Photos: survey photos for sections of the state may r be obtained from the Geodetic Survey l Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 . Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114. l l ru-c=w
s:ptocher 1C00 ] IQWM_QE_GABYEB 5 GEMEBAL_INEQBHAII9H_iG901A1 i l l 5-1. Incorporated as a Town June 9, 1790 C-1. Type of Government: Town Meeting i 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetta Congressional District ] ist Councillor District l 2nd Plymouth State Senatorial District i 2nd Plymouth State Representative District i . l I 1 3 O O
. _ - _ . . . ~
SeptccbCr 1903 IQWN.QE.G6BMEB IB8H3E9BI6IIQN A. QgDRESA: Public roads ind highways around the town are generally in good condition, meeting the requirements of modern transportation and connecting with major highways leading to all parts of the country and Canada, s B. 8311: There is no rail passenger or freight service into carver. Freight service on the Bay Colony Railroad is available in nearby Plymouth, Kingston, Middleborough and Wareham and on CONRAIL in Middleborough. C. 81ShWAY: The network of numbered highways serving the town may best be understood by consulting the map accompanying this monograph. The principal highways serving the area are State Route #58, in a north-south Direction, and U.S. Route #44 in and east-west direction. D. IME: The town does not have any commuter bus service. 1 E. Qther: Ten established trucking firme provide competitive freight service to ' local and distant points. t In the adjacent towns of Middleborough and Plymouth there are commercial airporta! Middleborough has a 2,850 foot paved runway and Plymouth has a 3,500 foot paved runway and a 2,500 paved runway. UIILIIIES l A. Elegtgig_Eggylgg: l Commonwealth Electric Company, 2421 Cranberry Highway, Wareham, MA 02571.
- a. Gas EsrY1ss:
Commonwealth Gas Company, 157 Corday111e Road, Southborough, MA 01772 C. Water terYist: The town's citizens obtain their water from private sources, i.e., springs, dug wella, etc. O l
50ptcotcr 1904 IQWW.QE.GABYEB t 4 i Agreements signed with REco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) personnel and (3) Training November 1987. l
- 1. IOC: Main Street, Carver, MA 02330.
Construction complete, waiting for communications gear.
- 2. Personnel:
l Deputy Director active. 1
- 3. Training:
I 161 of 341 (424) of school, DPW and Fire Department have received i Intro to Radiation, Intro to Emergency Response and Siren Activation. I o I i i O O
--m_-.-- .. . . . ..- . . .. .. .
Septccher 1900 IQWN_QE.KINGEIQM IBAHEEQBIAIIQH O A. QgD9tSA: Public roads and highways in the area are generally in good condition and meet all modern transportation requirements. The town has excellent connections to most of the major highways in the eastern part of the state. B. Ball: The Bay Colony Railroad provides freight service. C. Hishwar: The network of numbered highways serving the town may best he understood by consulting the map accompanying this monograph. The principal highways serving the Kingston area are State Routea #3, and
#106.
D. Sys: The Plymouth and Brockton Street Railway Co. La franchised to serve the town. E. QAhtt! Xingston is within easy trucking distance of Boston docks, sir, rat 1 and bus terminals, so it can avail itself of the many services provided by the metropolitan center. Competitive trucking companies provide local and distant service to all pointa in the United States. The Plymouth Airport near the town's southern border has two asphalt runways - 2,500 feet and 3,500 feet. The town of Halifax to the west has 2 water runways of 3,200 feet and 5,400 feet. MIILIIIE3 A. Elegitig.3strigg: Commonwealth Electric Company, 2421 Cranberry Highway, Wareham, MA ! 02571.
- a. Goa Intrism:
Commonweele.h Gas Company, 157 Corday111e Road, Southborough, MA 01772 i l C. Watet_Isrxige: Water service is supplied to the town of Xingston by the Kingston Water Department from ground sources. O
,m- ~.-. ~,m.,-,,~ .,-----~~-.,,-_-.-.-----.-,-n,,.--cn , ---ir----.m----w,,1-.---, . -, , - , - ,
- .. .. -- . ~. . . ... ..... .......v. . . . . . . . - _ . _ . ...
5 pto bar 1933 IQWM_QE_HIN9EIQH l IH EL E H E MIIH9_ E B 99 E EMBE_l:IEIIN9_:_IQ_ e E_IE EM E 9 O A. Response Agency / Individual IE_Het Ereseduts_Iltle t 01 Board of Selectmen 02 Civil Defense Agency 03 Police Department 04 Fire Department / Emergency Medical Services 05 Highway Department 06 School Department 07 Board of Health 04 Radiological Officer ' 09 Transportation Officer 10 Shelter Officer () 11 12 Harbormaster Special Needs Officer , 1 13 Communications Officer 14 RACES [ 15/20 Open l B. Functional Activitiae ' IE_ Hex Ereseduts_Iltle i 21 Public Information 22 Monitoring and Decontamination i 23 Open r 24 Message Control 25 Siren Activation i i O
__.---- - .. - - - _ . - _ . . _ = _-_ n _ _. .. Septccbar 1904 GIIY.QE_ KING 3IQN IEELE!!!IIH9_E!9919EBE_kIIIINE_:_I9_lf_IEEEE9_(continued) O R. Functional Activities IE.Ne4 Ereseduts_Iltin 26 Training 26 Drilla and Exercises 24 !>rogram Maintenance 29 Special Needa Maintenance 30/40 Open C. Special Facilities 41 Sacred Heart Schoola 42 Growth Unlimited Preachool 43/44/45 Open 46 Camp Mishannock 47 Camp Norse Boy Scouta 48 Evanswood Retirement 49 Meadowerest Apartments j 50 Provencial Residence : 51 Blueberry Hill Rest Home j 52 Margaret W. Carter Vets Home D. Shelter Procedurea 55 { Sacred Heart Elementary School 56 Sacred Heart High School 57 Stop and Shop Plaza 54 Charlie Horse Restaurant O
Septoeber 1988 IQWH_QE HINQ3IQH eye 996II98_B99IE_QEEGBIEII9H East ef_Beuts 2 Take Route 3 north to Route 53 in Hanover. Turn north on Route 53 in Hanover and continue to Route 123. turn left (west) on Route 123 and proceed to Route 14. Turn left (south) onto Route 18 and continue south to Route 106. Turn left (east) onto Route 106 and continue east to Roberta Road. Take Route 3A north to Route 123. Turn left (west) on Route 123 and proceed to Route 18. Turn left (south) onto Route 18 and continue south to Route 106. Turn left (east) onto Route 106 and continue east to Roberta Road. Wsat ef_Beute_2 Take Route 106 west from the EP: boundary to Route 104. Turn right onto Old Plymouth Road and proceed to Roberta Road. Asssas te Beuts_22 t Take Route 27 west from the EPZ boundary to Route 14. Turn left ! onto Route 14 and continue west to Route 18. Turn left (south) O o(west) nto Route 18 and continue south to Route 106. Turn left (east) e . ', s t l Route 106 and continue east to Roberta Road. [ i
\
assnaa.as_Ela_Ittsst ; Take Brook Street west to Elm Street. Proceed west from the EP: l boundary to Colchester Street and continue west to Mayflower Road. Turn ; right (west) onto Colchester Street and continue west to Mayflower Road. ' Turn right (west) onto Mayflower Road and continue went to Route 53. Turn i right (north) onto Route SS, and continue north to Route 106. Turn left ' (west) onto Route 106 and continue west to Route 104. Turn right onto Old ' Plymouth Road and proceed to Roberta Road. I f i ( l l l i
b l .( ./, s _.)~~ \ (
.d_. '
O $* ... x\ s' .. 7 '- ' v i .. /.9 ' L/ '
'g
.i / 9 w-&t'
"~ -
'X"]
Qg
,/ '
., / $I
........... w, 9
/- /* m l ..s
.. --c-1 _./ /
)
[ jg l
*J .
f " O ,
*- 1
,(h n .. -
i
~
/,./
P L
.. O u $0
.)-
s.. p i x 1 u ....s
.f -
- l
.- . , . . . . . ql so . . ;
& "'" r4
- 6 i
sh y /d ;
/ .,
ffr 'W%)Ni ,
> i.-
a ,. i I.h.(' E n m x-2, v cuaticn i. e...... ,I 3 ,
, amt. .w - xinaten
>. r -
i -, o [ j,
%g s .
o ;;
...............................;................W? f g?
i Pigure A-1 Kingston Emergency Response Organization i i t ! Board of . l Selectmen i I , Public i information 1 Officer !
- r Civil !
- Defense 4
Agency 1 J v : : i O erstions i i
'"''"""'''i 1
Of ficer i : i i : 4 :
.....................;..................7.........{.......................................,........... I J.
ponco i Arwtus ! so.d.i j w enway i Harbor i smoot
- e. .nm.n, ! Depenment j Neees : Depenment i Master ! Decamment 1
. : W i i i k ! ! ! ! !
i : : : : : 4 j : : : '
! Hea.'in Reeloqsal Traneponation Smelter ComrNNcatons I i Depenment Officer Otticer Ctficer offi sr i
i l 1 .i I ! v Command ,,,,,,,, Coordination i ll A 22 'l
Figure A.2 Emergency Response Organization Interrelationships v r oevernor's Office t NRC MDPH MCDA FEMA (Technical) ....... ......... (Technical) ............ (Non. ............., t Technical) i
! ! I i i !
- : : : : i i ! i. ! ! !
Federal PNPS State State /oderal Agensles Utility Agency atenelse Ageneles (Tecnnleel) (Technteel) (Techcical) v 4 State ' MCDA ,
............... , AEenolee AREA ll AmaA 11 l
i i
- 1 l
,................)..................,...............7.I...............,..................f................,
- t t :
Plymouth Cerver K!ngelen Oustwry Morenfleid Sriegewater Townten Civil Civil Civil Civil Civil Civil Civil De(ense Deferee Defecee Defense Defeese oeforce De4nse Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agoney Agency i i i i i i i j
! i i i i ! !
Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Decenmente Decertmente Departmente Decertmoete Decenmeme Departmente Decertmente Commend .. ,,,,, Coordinetlen Il A 23
FIGURE K-1 ,O - RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL ORGANIZATION v MCDA MASS l HEADQUARTERS _ DEPARTMENT
) RADIOLOGICAL OF l CFFICER PUBLIC HEALTH l
-, I
} 1 MCDA, AREA ll 4 RADl0 LOGICAL l OFFICER l 1 : I ) l i 1 l I O i 1 * ' 1 TOWN 1 RADIOLOGICAL l 0FFICER J l 1 I i l I I I _ I Pouce Firo/EMG Hgnway Traneeenaqon Oosimetry Doelmotry - Department Doelmetry Coordinatoi Coorvinatoi Doelm6try Coorelnator "oort lnator
~
L1w, [J.LL A L. A L
. .I .L
. . ~ ~ . 4, - n ,, p .L .. 1..
- ~ :.
O v EW. Genetts Other Emergency Workers
1 (O (O c 0 . Kingston Communications ' Net l l FIGURE F-1 , Media Center 4 n ( [ tbor Master h,
' $ ~ -
/ Traf fic Control i
1
= > s ..( Town f,=
) M#8 / i 1 / O -G-@ ; Highway m m - I l Dept. n a RM Islan "l Area 11 Pubilc 4 Y Regio l ' MCDA v Headquarter y EOF M M -sEcous h 7 F EBS Stations Y -Tes. phon. ! ::::::_ emeA L 3
- _ o_ ~ - - _
II
~ r ' 'e-""""' ~
V .' " 2 " /
]
_{- -{ _ ( _ l d . l Noufication of Offsite Emergency Response Organizations i l STATE POLICE TROOP D l RECEPTION D PLYMOUTH i CORESUNITY aY l 1
. h ay
\I i l D PNPS o l 44CDA CARVER I HEADQUARTERS is y LR =v EOF u av DUXBURY i i ! MARSHFIELD @ " n :- aT KINGSTON l _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __.,__._. ,_.._ _ ._ _ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ u _ _ __ ____ . . _ . _
=Pslanary Notification Method il =BECONS Radio Y =Cornenercial Telephone
{ H = Dedicated Telephone Line
- Wink Dodecated Teleceptar mNotification il -E- 7 =v.ritication i
(O (O (O . Figure E-3 l - l Notification of Kingston Emergency Response Organization I ' I PNPS Control I Hoom & EOF o y <O Cosimunications Officer
<O P
J( e P y s o Ya 'l i m b Shelter b I ,
- Board of Selectmen
{l l, V ' Officer 'e Klaesto 833C I Ginavanart I s e Pubile Info. b Civil p Officer p Kingston @>
, Defense g s Y Fire ***"**
m g Transportation @ ' "' '
~
Oefic , , D.ispatcher
'e+'
Y s v "
' Radiological a stees I'l l , o oedican*d T*6*- y Special Y' Officer e naaedo== -
q m g, s y a =BEcONS - y (: [
- h Health Department
-Y F -Pas.r u =a.4:*
P Oflicer
' n i I Chauman l Y = Telephone Shay s
l A v volunteers y
& Department Y I s "@
School UY 4-g =veratic.alen I Department isuoenremoans l P i i e=ua.ss uana,1< 1 Q =Y =Netificationhy r,s..,y Nointscation u.th.d Harbor Master s ( et
Figure E-4 l - Prompt Notification System for the Public EPZ Towns MCDA HF1DOUARTERS* 1F 7 MCDA EBS Station AREA 11* se,,,e , ,,,,,,e., ,, Stree Activallen ***U* Time 1 I EBS Message & Activat6en Time g
\
Aler Signal
~~ EPZ Aiort
"" Sg g ,,g /
/
Plymouth 4 , > Carver > - Police x Dispatchere - aa * * * ' * * *
; l 1
Alert Alert x Si .i Marshfield Duxbury I sie.oi .
$/I
=D',
Fire Dispatcher Fire Dispeecher i Alert i Signal / ) Kingston > - N l Fire Dispatcher H -E-10 ;
- - _ , _ . . . .___e_._____......- . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
J . 1 l l IGWH_QE_HoBaBEIELD i Profile September 1988 1 l l l l l 1 l l 1 1 l 1 1
S:pto=ber 1923 IQ'dH_QE_H6BEHEIELD GEHEBAL_INEQBHaIIQH A-1. Town: Marshfield
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Eastern Massachusetts, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the east, Duxbury on the south and southeast, Pembroke and Norwell on the west and Scituate on the north. It is 32 miles from Boston, 18 miles from Brockton, 48 miles from providence, Rhode Island, and 225 miles from New York City.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 20,916
- a. Sex Composition: Female - 10,625 (50.8%), Male - 10,291 (49.2x)
- b. Projections: 1985 - 23,300; 1988 ETE estimate is 22,507 (with 1,821 in the Ep2); 1990 - 23,700
- c. Transients: Summer homes - 3302; Day-trippers - 3820; Boaters - 173; Total - 7292
- 5. Area: (in sq. miles) Land - 28.35; Water - 0.17; Total - 28.52
- 6. Density: 1980 -
738 persons per square mile (land area)
- 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 30.9*F.
Normal tempersture in July - 7 2 . 2* F . Normal annual precipitation - 43.97 inches
- 8. Elevation at Approximately 16 feet above mean sea level Town Hall:
- 9. Topographical Settlement in Marshfield is scattered. The Characteristics: topography is hilly in the north and west, but fairly flat in the south, particularly along the shore. Large areas of rough and stony soils in central section with moist soila of good texture in west and wet soils along streams. The tidal shore line is 18.5 miles in length.
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Cohesset, Duxbury, Hanover, Scituate graphical Plates:
)
- 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial Photos: survey photos for sections of the state may be obtained from the Geodetic Survey Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 l Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114. '
l l t i
S3ptonber 1908 IQWN_QE_HABEHEIEkQ GENE 86L_INEQBHaIIQN_Issat21 ; B-1. Established: March 2, 1640 C-1. Type of Government: 'own T Meuting ;
- 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetta Congressional District 4th Councillor District Norfolk & Plymouth State Senatorial -
Districts i 4th Plymouth State Representative District Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical ; Area Massachusetts 3ay Transportation Authority i j 1 r l I i I l 4 h l j 1 I t t t
, k l
l t i _-._.1.m.._........_7 _ _ , _ - . - - - , _ . ~ . -
Figure J 3 Evacuation Routes MR N
. t
,. . < ., / '
' l
" I 10 Mlle l l
/ . in )
!,M \ !
, 'l .
f YY '
*?l"
,./ s, -
/W, . y g l
[' *" " '- g , yi,, m o o , e.
/
3 2 Mlle
]
b .. a ARVER ,
'$ PYd, OUTH
\
.\ ,
@ J +
to 5 Mlle
._ p U'1- 9 9
- y. ,
_ muu g
.. q -
4 A s 'o MH* , C c " . 3 'f \
" b .i 9 '~"
\
ms. ,,46 ..
~~ '-
I b 26
( l I p.-. ... ..,_ - . . . . . Attochment 3 ' ~~ ~ '~ MarshfleM SUMrea _. Q , V I Subarea 10 Marshfield/Duxbury Town Line at coast, west and northwest to l
- Route 139. Route 139 east to coast, south along coast to '
l Marshfield/nuxbury Town Line. _, c t . . . . .. . 1 s.
/
O KM cc-tA , ]* y ... -j j N g i l
\ ,,,. Green ts = .. Harbor
% .wd*#.
88 4 as W
\ l l
\s s.
O . i i v 's 17
Ssptecbor 1938 IQWH_QE_HAB3HEIEkQ EMoQuaIIQH_BQ2IE_DEEQBIEIIQHS O V Asuses_19_Beuts_122 Proceed west along Route 139 to Route 24. Turn north on Route 24 and proceed to Route 128. Enter Route 128 northbound. Continue north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston Worcester Tpke.). Exit to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 mile to the proposed Wellesley Reception Center. Asssan_te_B99ts_2 - Proceed north on Route 3 from the EP2 boundary to Route 128. Continue north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston Worcester Tpke.). Exit to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 mile to the proposed Wellesley Reception Center. Asssan_te_Beuts_2A proceed north on Route 3A to Route 123. Turn west on Route 123 and proceed to Route 3. Enter Route 3 northbound to Route 128. Continue north on Route 128 to Route 9 (Boston Worcester Tpke.). Exit to Route 9 west and proceed 1/2 mile to the proposed Wellesley Reception Cente.r. O i l 1 l O ' F** ' e e M w m m m M gag g ag, mg" M e g a==* ee , ,. p .. _
S0ptcy.ber 1983 l I IQWH_QE_H6BEHEIELD 3 Grant Agreements under Section'15, Chapter 639, Acts of 1950 - signed in i April 1988.
- 1. EOC
- 2. Training
- 3. Personnel I
- 1. EOC: 1639 Ocean Street, Marshfield, MA 02050 l Ground breaking took place on Thursday, September 8, 1988. The EOC is an addition to the Police Station and in expected to be completed by January 1989.
- 2. Training:
The Police, Fire and DPW have received the Intro training. Total to be trained, 297. At present, 115 or 38.7% have been trained.
- 3. Personnel:
No one has been hired to date for Civil Defense. 4 I l l l 1 l i j a
~ '
__.-[,___
~
SOptcober 1980 IQW'_QE_H6BsHEIELD H
~
ELANS 10 V RERP, Revision 5 dated July 11, 1988 IHELEHEMIING_EB9GEDMBEE_IIEnl 155ugd IE_He_ Iltis' 01 Board of Selectmen 02 Civil Defense Agency ; 03 Police Department i 04 Fire Department 05 Public Works Department 06 School Department i 08 Radiological Officer 09 Transportation Officer i 10 Shelter Officer 11 Harbormaster , 12 Special Needs ' 13 Communications Officer 14 RACES I 21 Public Information j 22 Monitoring & Decontamination 24 Message Control ; 29 Special Needs Maintenance . r Met _Innued 25 Siren Activation 20 Training 27 Drills & Exercises i 28 Program Maintenance There are no Special Facilities in the EPZ. FEMA Cross Reference Shelter Implementation Plan { I O t b
--= .~. _
(O (O (O Figure E-3 l Notification of Marshfield Emergency Response Organization ) 1 PNPS Control ) Room & EOF l j y c Communichtions = j hT Board of 1 Officer P P selecamen j y : T Shelter 4 h Q T" y Civil v Manager y \
> s i
Derent.e ! Y " Agency l s PubMc Info. I Director I I Officer y Marshfield O,, s ! ! Police ' ) y m b Transportation Dispatcher Coordinator r Fire l @ - Department s j , 7 y ' Radiological \
, # =Dedic.aed \ Special T j
I Officar TW sene es. a maEcoMS s \T m g, y g p,,,,, Coordinator I N = Radio i Suoemsor I T =Teloptione h< y s
, c e Sc o. e r:';;,=,.. '
oe,.rtme.t Department P
'-@ -' "e a r g 1
I ^ 5* 5** ****" O Y =Nottucanon'-- y Master
+
M
=
l II -E-9 i. i . I 'l T." " ' - 7T" .- k
Saptonbar 1989 IQWH_QE_HaB3HEIEkQ attssbannt_1 () EQG_outhorizatien_Ebsst EQG_ staff . .. Primary Alternate EQG_Essitlen* Qifiser Qifisst Civil Defense Director Communications Officer Commun,tcations Runner Departs.ent of Highways Fire EOC Representative Harbormaster , Message Control Clerk Message Runner Police EOC Representative Public Information Assistant Public Information Officer Radio Operator l Radio Operator l Radio Operator Radio Operator Radio Operator Radiological Officer l
- Identified Position, assignment to be made. j i
I 1 1
, S ptc=bor 1983 IQWN..QE_HAB3HEIELD attsshesot_1 ,
() EQQ_eutherlant190_3bset (continued) , EQQ EtEff Primary Alternate EQQ_Essitien* Qifisst Qifiser Rumor Cpntrol Officer i School EOC Representative ! Selectmen ; Selectmen
- Selectmen r
Shelter Manager Special Needs Coordinator Special Needs Assistant Special Needs Assistant l Status Board Keeper I f Transportation Coordinator l i Word Processor /Citrk I I i 4
- Identified Position, assignment to be made.
O __. -- ....... ...~... .._.. . _ _ _. . _
Figure A-1 v Marshfleid Emergency Response Organization Board of Selectmen i Public Information officer Civil ! Defense i V :
~
- i
- 1
...........,...................p........,.........o...................;..............................,
- : : : : : : I : .
Postee ! Fire ! specisi ! Poetic Worxs ! ! Scroot Department Department j Neeos j Decartment j j Decartment i
- : Coord'ne:or : ;
; . 4 . . . :
Harbor : Master : : : : : 4 Rodological Tran spottetton Shelter Communications g Officer Coorelnator Marager ortleer i 1 v Commend ,,,,,,,, Co o r dination I MAA.Pl av .ll. A.14. A 1 072381 l Mareneld Emettucy Reswne Ovn i Cf I ?B II*A*24 '
'* September 1988 IQWH_QE_HABEHEIELD GQHHUNIGoIIQHE
- 1. The Ring Down Phone has been installed in the Police Station along
, with the Notification'Telefax sachine.
e'
- 2. The BECONS syntes has been installed in the Police Station and is operational.
- 3. No radios are operational for the EOC due to construction.
i i i d
)
a i ) i 1 l l t i I 1 l
Marshfield Communications Net l FIGURE F-1 Porta
- Control Other Town < h ,
Y Policel
= subulances EOC's y
O-u Hospital A State of p,gg, EE "' * * *
- OWorks g ucoa Area II u' h ,' *
, FEMA I
4 / 1 T Region i OPublic , MCDA Headquarter y i M W CHarbor Master se saaron each Shelter h u za. die u Stations D = B Eccess F =Telefax m -
- Prismary Communicattores Method II -F-7 Cha ya
....e , 1
., September 1988 I
i
. IQWN_QE_HABEHEIELQ e
Esbeslial_Inside_sf_EEE Esbeel Het ef_atudente Gov. Winslow Elementary School 569 : t Eshesla_Quinide ef_EEE (but within Town of Marshfield) , 1 Marahtield High School , ; Martinson Junior High School , t Furnace Brook School t Eaasa Way Elementary School l 1 l Daniel Webster ! l i l South River School ; i f I i ! 4 l 1 i 4 i I i l 4 I i i I f 4 I I ! l 4 4 4 1 s I I l l __ i
- - - - . . - - . . - , - --.--,2 CT_~: Q '~~~~~**~~' '
' ' ' =2L ~
Saptcabar 1988 IQWH_QE_HAB3HEIELD IBAH329BI6II9H r (3 ,/ A. 9tDRESA: Transportation facilities in Marshfield are limited to bus, but the railroad, dock and airport terminals of Boston are easily accessible from the town. The public roada and highways meet the requirements of auto, bus and truck transportation. B. 8311: There is no rail service in Marshfield. Piggy-back service is available in Providence, R.%. on Providence and Worcester Railroad and in Boston on the Boston & Maine Railroad and CONRAIL. C. Highway: The network of numbered highways serving the town may best be understood by consulting the map accompanying this monograph. The principal highways serving the town'are State Routes #3 and #139. D. BME: plymouth and Brockton Street Railway Company is franchised by the atste to serve the town. E. Qabir: About 13 trucking firms provide competitive freight service locally and to distant points. Marshfield is within a short distance of the railroad and bus terminals of Boston, the Boston docks, and the Logan International Airport, thus providing national and international land, ocean and air carrier service. Marshfield Municipal Airport with a 3000 foot paved runway, is located in the southeast section of the , town and is available to aircraft. It is the nearest airpor'. outside q the Ep2. VIILIIIES A. Elggggig_gggvigg: Commonwesith Electric Company, 2421 Cranberry Highway, Wareham, MA
'02571.
B. Qgg_gggylgg: 4 Bay State Gas Company, 120 Royall Street, Canton, MA 02021. C. Watsr_3srY1ss: Water is supplied by the Water Department of Morahtield from ground water sources. O
i l . . Septonbor 1938 '
, i IQWN_QE_HAB3HEIELD j EHELIEas >
l i 4 Lotters of Agreement with the /111owing: ______ Benewtss______ ______Erexider______ ___Gnassitr___ i Shelters 1. St. Anna by the Sea 680 i f
- 2.* Qur Lady of the Assumption 1010
{ l 3.* Gov. Winslow Elementary 1910 l j School 4 I i
- Handicapped accessible /toileta.
I i I l l 1 l l I l l l l l I 4- - - ~ . . _ - . . . . . _ _ -
- - .. . . . . . . = w-.-..... .- -
I l i 1 1 l i l 1 l l
. 1 i
IQWH_9E_ELYug2IH l Profile l September 1988 l i
)
1 1 i 1
, . , . _ . - _ _ - - _ . .. . - . , . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _____--_=____~_u_--~z:--~~:-_, , - , - _ _ , . . _ , _ - - _ _ - _
. S ptccbcr 1988 IQWN-QE_ELYHQUIH TRANSPORTATION A. QgDsEs1*
The town of P1'/ mouth has bus, harbor and airport facilities
- available. The public roads and highways are generally in good condition and meet the requirements of all modern transportation.
B. 8311: Bay Colony Railroad provides freight service only to Plymouth. C. BishwaZ:
~
State Route 3, a limited access highway, and U.S. 44 are the principal roads serving Plymouth. The network of numbered highways serving the town may best be understood by consulting the map accompanying this monograph. D. By3: The Plymouth and Brockton Street Railway Co. is franchlaed to serve the town. E. Qthat: () Established trucking lines provide competitive service locally and to distant points. Plymouth is within commuting and trucking distance of the Boston docks and the Logan International Airport, thus having available national and international ocean and air carrier service. An airport with runways of 2,500 and 3,500 feet 1.s operated by the town. Plymouth Harbor has a controlling depth ranging from 6 to 18 feet, and is used primarily by fishing vessels and pleasure craft. MIILIIIES A. Elggtrig_gggvigg: Commonwealth Electric Company, 2421 Cranberry Highway, Wareham, MA 0257L. B. Q33_gggvigg: Commonwealth Gas Company, 157 Cordav111e Road, Southborough, MA 01772 C. Watst Int 21gs: Water service is supplied by ground sources of the Aqua Corp. and the Water Department of the town of Plymouth from both surface and ground water sources.
Septocber 1983 IQWH_QE_ELYHQMIH GENEBAL_INEQBHAIIQH' O A-1. Town: Plymouth
- 2. County: Plymouth
- 3. Location: Southeastern Massachusetts, bordered by Bourne on the south, Wareham on the southwest, carver on the west, Kingston on the north, and the Atlantic Ocean on the seat. It is 38 miles from Boston, 24 miles from Brockton,'44 miles from Providence, Rhode Island and 219 miles from New York City.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 35,913
- e. Sex Composition: Female - 18,639 (51.94), Male - 17,274 (48.14)
- b. Projections: 1988 - 40,665
- c. Transients: Summer homes - 2970; Hotel / Motel - 1384; Campers - 3440; Campsite - 3658; Day-trippers - 7598; Boaters - 290; Total -
19340
- 5. Armat (in sq. miles) Land - 97.57; Water - 5.63; Total -
103.20 0 6. Density: 1980 - 368 persons per square mile (land area) (417 - 1988 est.)
- 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 30.9 F.
Normal temperature in July - 72.2 F. Normal annual precipitation - 46.32 inches
- 8. Elevation at Approximately 50 feet above mean sea level Town Hall:
- 9. Topographical Fairly level along the south and southeast Characteristics: and with some elevations ranging from 100 to 200 feet along the central and west, and going to over 300 feet in the Pine Hills.
Soil is mostly of sandy loan with some rough and n*.ony along the east and northeast. The town has a tidal shoreline of 36.9 miles.
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Duxbury, Menomet, Plymouth, Plympton, graphical Plates: Sagamore, Wareham
- 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial Photos: survey photos for sections of the state may be obtained from the Geodetic Survey Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114.
O .
- -_. - -- n . - . . __ _
. Septcabar 1980 IQWM_QE_ELYHQUIH l .
GENEBok_INE9856II9H_1 cont:1 B-1. Established as a town: December 21, 1620 C-1. Type of Government: Representative Town Meeting
- 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetta Congressional District ist Councillor District 2nd Plymouth State Senatorial District ist Plymouth State Representative District l I
I i l i a I I I I 1 l 4 i i i 5
. !=u.: J_" -
~
Evacuation Routes MR y
),
l
" I '
10 Mlle
\ s
/ .
,f y ,
/
/&, . . 3y h reuns .
,0 g ,.kg , .
5 Mlle x Q;kc / g . .D , '\ o %-
+4~9\Q
- p o
h
=
9 _e 1 AR VER ., , YMOUTH ,
& l6 Sa M 5 Mlle b
~
.. 'l .
y ,
. ~. .
, o warma (
4
" ' 1 0 Mile
= i <
M # m/.< I
,- .' , , )'.. -
- w. G .
g-M ____ g e "- y __ , 6.J.N ~~ _- .:-~ - _ -
September 1988 IQWH_QE_EkXHQUIH Agreements signed with BEco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) Personnel and (3) Training January 1988. 1
- 1. EOC: 83 Court Street, Plymouth, MA 02360 !
Facility is 90x complete. Awaiting communications gear.
- 2. Personnel: j Full time Director. and part time (25 hr./ week) secretary since January i 1988.
- 3. Training: l I
376 of 1920 (204) of DPW, Police, Fire, Civil Defenau, Selectmen and Harbormaster have received Introduction to Radiation, Introduction to Emergency Reapcase, Dosimetry, BECONS, and Siren Activation. i
, I i
4 1 0 h i i i, 4 I 1 I i l I l I l l i l 1 i
- - - - - - , - . . . - , , . , . - , , , _ - . . _ - _ . _ , , . , _ . _ - _ . . _ , _ _ . . . - - ,. - ,_ ,, . ._.-yy,,,___s ... - - - . . __. ,y___
Scptocbar 1988 IQWH_QE_ELYHQUIH , 1 IMEkEHEHIIHg_gggcgDggg_LIsIIgg O A . Response Agency / Individual (Series 01-20) F IR Het Eressdurs_Iltle 01 Board of Selectaea 02 _ Civil Defense Agency ' 03 Police Department 04 Fire Department
=05 Public Works Department }
06 School Department 07 Board of Health 08 Radiological Officer i 'i
=09 State Police Troop D
*10 Shelter Officer 11 Harbormaster 12 Council on Aging
*13 Communications Officer B. Functions 1 Activities (Series 21-40)
I2_ Hex Eressdurs_Iltic 21 Public Information 22 Moultoring and Decontamination 23 Handling Contaminated Injured Persons
=24 Message Control 25 Siren Activation 26 Training
=0n hand September 1988 O
Laptochor 1980 GIII_9E EkXdQUIH IHELEHEMIIME_BB99E92BE_kISIIgg (continued) O IE_ Hem Eressdurs_Iltis 27 Drilla and Exercises 28 Program Maintenance 1 C. Special Vacilities (Series 41-79) 41 Tiny Town Ch11d Care 4 42 Jack and Jill 1 43 Kinder College 44 Busy See Nursery and Day Care 45 Kidsport, Inc. 46 Seven Hilla Nursery School 47 Methodist Nursery School i j 48 Cooperative Child Care 49 First Baptist Church ( 30 Zion Christian Pre-School j J1 Little People's Place
=52 Happy Day Nursery, Inc.
53 Kinder Haus Nursery
- 54 Pilgria Manor Child Care e55 New Testament Christian School
? l 56 Plymouth Reck Bible School i 57 Pinewood School of Monteanori
.,i 58 South Shore Indu?tries l 59 Jordan Hospital 1 son hand September 1988 O
5 4 w~ -m. .-_-----%-- - - - - - - -
Scptccbsr 1918 GIII_QE_26YdQUIH , l IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE LISTING (continued) l () IE Het Eressdurs_Iltin ' 60 Mayflower House 61 Pilgrim Manor 62 Beverly Manor l 63 Newfield House f 64 Plymouth Nursing Home , 65 Chilton House j 66 High Point ! 67 Plymouth Day Habilitation i 68 Rainbow
; 69 Cachalot Scout Reservation 70 Camp Clark 71 Camp Massamoit l 72 Camp Squanto 1
i 73 Camp Child i 74 YAD l
)
75 Pinewood Camp 4 76 Camp Bournadale 1 < 77 Baird Center i i ] 78 Wind in the Pines 79 Plymouth Jail 80 Shelter Manager eon hand September 1988 i
}
a l 1; 1 1
S ptonbor 1988 IQWH_QE_ELYdQUIU Eyggg6Ilgy gggIE_gESgg]EIIgg rh Vg dED9BSt_8tSS Take Route 3A soutu from the EPZ boundary to the Sagesore Rotary. Exit the rotary onto Cranberry Mighway going west and continue west to Route 25/495. Enter route 25/495 going west and continue west to Route 138. Turn left (south) onto Route 138 and continue south to West Britannia Street. Turn right (west) onto West Britannia Street and continue west *o Danforth Street. Turn left (south) onto Danforth Street and continue sout.5 to Taunton State Hospital. Take Route 3 acuth from the EP2 boundary to the Sagamore Rotary. Exit the rotary onto Cranberry Highway going west and continue west to Route 25/495. Enter Route 25/495 going west and continue west to Route 138. Y,rn left (south) onto Route 138 and continue south to West Britannis Street. Turn right (west) onto West Britannia Street and continue west to Danforth Street. Turn left (south) onto Danforth Street and continue south to aunton State Hospital. dxine_Etantiab_atsas_Estant_aren Take Route 58 south from the EP2 boundary to Route 25/495. Enter Route 25/495 going west and continue west to Route 138. Turn left (south) onto Route 138 and continue south to West Britannia Street. Turn right Os (west) onto West Britannia Street and continue west to Danforth Street. Turn left (south) onto Danforth Street and continue south to Taunton State Hospital. OSEta5_19_89919_3d Take Route 44 west from the Ep2 boundary to Route 25/495 going west and continue weit to Route 138. Turn left (south) onto Route 138 and continue south to West Britannia Street. Turn right (weat) onto West Britannia Street and continue west to Canforth Street. Turn left (south) onto Danforth Street and continue south to Taunton State Hospital. Herth_9f_B991s_dd 1 Take Route 3 north Route 53 in Norwell. Turn north on Route 53 in Norwell and continue to Route 123. Turn left (west) on Route 123 and proceed to Route 24. Enter Route 24 south and proceed to Route 495. Enter Rnute 495 westbound and proceed to Route 138. Turn left (south) onto Route 138 and continue south to West Britannia Street. Turn right (west) onto West Britannia Street and continua west to Danforth Street. Turn left (south) onto Danforth Street and continue south to Taunton State Hospital. O 1
t w \ M\ ' 9v f S , '
}_
\ .
a w ,. ,. .
.. > e u s w). , i f 3
)
) %-
y Ji......,.., f .
): 1
\.,... /
/
'f'
~
, Qi
)
., / ........... w,
~
./ \/. i .
o &,.....,.. 9 ,- l ,
/.. - .
. =
' './ ,
lj.- .
^ '
ov 1. a . T hM (/ to i-N o i
~3 ( p
~ .. ..
/ _ ./ ,
L
.. o u &O s
f ..' f) 1 s3 N '
/
j~.
/; , 'e6.. ,
f . 91 ,/
)j .. % P .t.s.t .t.
/ : a.
\.,*(,./ , , LjN / / .
/ \. /,
h,o. e,
....... o e 1. meaum N n',
L = =.* -ety:= ^
, l '
( Ao 9 4,. p ~- r 4\ l \..
"f' r J\
,s
........'.gs.s....b...........&....,s.......
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - ._..m-- ~
l . (O - __ - -_ _ (O , _ (O . Figure E-2 l- ~l Police Notification of Plymouth Emergency Response Organization L State Police istch8- as Troop D b T m Board of IDe W I Selectman jk M
, a cru , = i Health T N
'z Department , ([ ._ ,
I '
> Defense s ,
T 2 . Agency 'j i Drector I J Plymouth j L Town k s I' j s [ 1 School separtmen _O 1 Dispatcher
- j , m . -; i Fire
! Laemed Y Department T ! S = staff - 2 = Personal Centact l 0 .mEcoNS P =Pages PubliC s =g Harbor
...e, g u - m ds.
1 -1 P
& Works oe ,a,.en:
y s i - - . . v. . . . , . . - . J ,
, A v.an..u..
],
O "y .........t ..
"~~~"""- ~ ~ ' -
_1 '!
--- d_--_._-i-I .
(O - ___ (O' (O _
~
Figure E-3 l Civil Defense Notification of 1 Plymouth Emergency Hesponse Organization jdd A Plymouth N Police Dispatcher v Comemusications b Special Needs _ y z 'z C ' z z' '
- l U
Civil N z Shelter hi Defense enc
\ Radiological I ,
- officer g z z'
\ ! it ll Pasbile trifo { h Transportation m Officer 'y z' Officer [ 1 =e .... c .c
, , {j r a...,
_j u ma.es. y a..pn... g s si it ./ " v .voi ...... l y i O ""-~ ~""~" ~~'
== :: _ - d-i -I 1
= = = =
4"s;W i 1 Plymouth Emergency Response Organization V j Board of Selectmen ' 1 t i Public information Officer i <_
.i Civil !
Defense l 3 Agency , l J 4 i
..................................................I...................................................
j podse %e i i treweter ! (toome j Mu j j maroor 3*eartmoet Desaament j m ! M i &s : Master i i _ Suvice ! 0 **M**"I i 0**M* *e t j _
- : j :
tensel Hestn t?f^;:M Tren.pertatten i Department Department S%ter i Offleer Offleer Offteer i __ i l 4 1 i 1
.i l i i l
1 i Commend ,,,,,,,, Coordinellen i l J J, ll.A 22 i
I ( _ __ _ _ _ _ ( ( Plymouth Communications Net l FIGURE I F-1 1 JPIC 4 # a m Police m m ' 1 Control Points Town 1
= >" bulance l w r
,y N a "
@ =o my-
=
og e .
=9=o -
, =4,L I Area Il
), E, FEMA d' Pubilc < State [Y' Region I i 2h EOC y Eoe Harbor m Lammed Master " h '"*"*"" ^ EBS n ,> stations o .. (- y y .Tes sam /,k
- j. -
o.,- m_ ____ M'l8 O/=- 0 i O_CUW'W
"~
h (O _;-- _ __- - _ _ _ _ (O ., __ (O_._ Figure E-4 f Prompt Notificatior; System for the Public in 1.,,,, i i peu l' h ++ , - MCDA I = EBS Station { j Headquarters ._ _ cas
' Giren Activatka , **
- Tis ** ,
i , 1 I EDS "- - ;: & Activasion Tisne < r AI.r { EPZ 4.. Po c l' l AI.rt
' \ AI.rt Sign.I
$8gs.I /
j, o
= Marshfield Duxbury 2 -
1 tj ,,,, w, ! rir. oup.wwr As.ru j Kingston h**> - x
.p.ich r
] .
- - - - - - - " - - ~ * * - ~ - ~ ~ ^ ~ - - -
' * ~ ~ " ~ " ~
- = -
_ = - . .-- _ -. . - _ _ _ _. .- 5:ptccb0r 1988 IQWH_QE_ELYHQUIH EGH996_EMB96kHEMI Esbeel kessilen Entellment Plymouth South Long Pond Road NA High School SSW 6 miles i Plymouth-Carver Obery Street 1348 High School W 3.5 miles Plymouth-Carver Long Pond 1844 ; Intermediate WSW 4 miles Nathaniel Morton Lincoln Street 921 W 4 milea Cold Spring Alden Street 354 WNW 5 miles Pupil Personnel Development 130 Court Street 28 X & Pre School WNW 5 miles Oak Street Oak Street 83 W 5 miles O Manomat Elementary Point Road SE 2 miles 432 l Federal Furnace Federal Furnace Road 622 , School WSW 8 miles l Indian Brook State Road 670 SSE 3 allen South Elementary Bourne Road 640 School SSW 3 miles West Elementary Plymouth Road 700 School Route 80 W 7.5 miles Pinewood School Federal Furnace Road 30 l Montessori WSW 7 miles 4 l l l l
- _ . _ . . - - _ . . ._ -__. - . - . . _ _ . ~ . . - - - _ - . . _ ~ . - - _
50ptenbar 1980
- l IQWH_QE_2bYdQUIH 1
l .) HUBEEBI_AND_QAI_G6BE_GENIEBE Tiny Town Child Care , Jack and Jill f Kinder College, Inc. f Busy Bee Nursery and Day Care j Kidsport, Inc.
}
! Seven Hilla Nursery School Methodist Nursery School l
\ l
] Cooperative Child Care j i First Baptist Church , t Zion Christian Pre-School i [ Little People's Place ; Happy Day Nursery f l i i Pilgria Manor Child Care l 1 i j Pinewood School of Montessori , t l l C i i HQH:EUBLIG_3GHQQL3 l I i
- l New Testament Christian School !
l 1 Plymouth Rock Bible School 1 I i l 1 I .' i r :c -- _____. ___--_-..___..._._.___
1 i t 1 i 4 I i I GIIL9E_Ie!!NIg8 4 i J Profile ' September 1988 i J ) 9 4 1 J l
~ = - -
Septcabor 1008 GIIY_QE_IAMMI9H ' 95HEBAL_IHfi98HSII9H s A-1. City Taunton
- 2. County: Bristol
- 3. Location: Southeastern Massachusetts, bordered by Rehoboth and Norton on the west, Easton on the north, Raynham and Lakeville on the
, east, Berkley and Dighton on the south. It i la 37 miles from Boston, 193 miles from New York City, 14 mi.\es from Fall River and 16 miles from Providence Rhode Island.
- 4. Population: 1980 - 45,001
- s. Sex Composition: Female - 23,671 (52.6x), Maio - 21,330 l
(47.44)
- b. Projections: Not available 1 5. Area! (in sq. miles) Land - 47.29, Water - 1.30, Total - 48.59
- 6. Density: 1980 - 952 persons per square mile (land area)
[
- 7. Climate: Normal temperature in January - 28.6*F. ,
Normal temperature in July - 71.5'F. l Normal annual precipitation - 43.98 inches
- 8. Elevation at Approximately 43 feet above mean sea level.
City Hall 1
- 9. Topographical Fertile land broken by rocky outcrops. The l Characteristica: tidal shoreline is 21.8 miles in length. t
- 10. U.S.G.S. Topo- Assawompaatt Pond, Ansonet, Bridgewater, j q graphical Plates
- Norton, Somerset, Taunton -
) i 11. Aerial Survey Information on the availability of aerial ! l Photos: survey photos for sections of the state may l j be obtained from the Geodetic Survey Division, Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 100 ' Nashua St., Boston,. MA 02114. l i { J 1 a l 4 1 a
- 2 -
l
--- - :.-: a _ _ . _. .. . , . . , . . _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
s:ptc=ber itos QIIY. QE_IAUNIQH GEMEB86_INEQBHAIIQH_Isent 1
+ B-1. Established: March 3, 1639
- 2. Incorporated as a City: May 11, 1864 C-1. Type of Government: Mayor-Council
- 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetta Congressional District ist Councillor District
. lat Bristol Stote Senatorial District 3rd Bristol and 8th Plymouth State Representative District O
1 O
-3 -
sa pred;:ed. Thus, .: was pointed out that anile there may ce iifferences between the circumstances of an unlicensed plant ; O and a 11 ensed plant in terns of a state's off-site responsioilities and authority, the situation at Pilgrim more closely resembles the circumstance of an unlicensed plant due , to the need to totally tewrite, review and test the RF.RP ; plana. :: also was pointed out that it has been and is our
.;ea thtt it remains to be seen whether an adequate RERP plan !
for Pilgrim can be developed. Finally, it was noted that it t would not be possible to characteri:e any RERP plan that might ce completed as ' adequate" without a satisfactory full scale
! exercise.
1
- 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 i
- -itially permit local officials to review draft planning t material which would be forwarded to the state and then on to :
} FEMA for informal technical review. Thus, it was emphasi:ed
; 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 not the state had approved it as final ' planning material. With that preface, Mr. Hausner gave a brief ! j summary of their status of planning activities. [ r j 4. Since the 1986 'Barry Report,' a division within i 1 MCDA/CEP was created to deal with emergency i 1 response / preparedness issues for the two licensed Llants in Massachusetts, as well as the plant in Vernon, Vermont, whose r EP: overlaps Massachusetts communities. The governor created l t the N9 clear Safety Emergency Preparedness Program within !
; MCDA/0EP, which currently has nine professional staff dedicated l to nuclear accident planning and response. Boston Edison r should be credited for their off-site emergency planning staff l of employees and consultants. The final elements of the I planning process were put in place in March 1987. Since t' hat !
time, MCDA/OEP planners have held weekly meetings with town l civil defense directors and have met with town selectmen and, i j RERP committees regularly. Paase I of the planning process !
! involves development of the preliminary draft plans and.thett I i
submission to FEMA for informal technical review: Phase II i
! will involve the refinement of the draft plans in the light of l i the FEMA informal technical review, which may lead to a fqrmal l submission after local and state approval, ,
- 5. With regard to FEMA sheltering policy, the state needs l
! to know what the
- rules' are that FEMA will apply. The state i j has sent two letters to FEMA on the sheltering issue and its l 1 sapparent turnaround at Seabrook, but has not recei'ved a 1 i response to date. Plans are being withheld f rom FEMA cy the j j state until the matter is cleared up. Meanwhile, communities j
l
l
, 1 cont . nue to work c.. tnear p;ans. :tos implementin? procedures /~' exist in' draft form;:rany have been provLded (by BECo) to towns, but have not been formally reviewed or' approved.
t' 6.- Mr. Jeffrey Hausner reported that the towns of Taunton , and Marshfield have reviewed and preliminarily approved their ' draft implementing ptocedures. Draft basi: plans have been i completed f or six of the seven communit '. H . MCDA/CEP received Marshfield's and Taunton's plans and is.p;t anting procedures last week and may be submitting them for TIMA
- informal ;
technical review,' if the agency answers tne Commonwealth's : inquiry on sheltering in a satisfactory manner. MCDA/0EP awaits the arrival of draft implementing procedures from the other five towns. It should be noted that plans and procedures l for schools have been completely revised and the local review process is not yet complete, f I 7. The next item for discussion was the third northern I reception center. Mr. Agnes said that Boston Edison initially recommended that only two reception centers te used, but the state determined that three were necessary. The state designated a state-run facility in Wellesley -- approximately 45 miles from the plant. A comprehensive f easibility study is currently underway. If a satisfactory grade is received by the ! site, (report due in late September), MCDA/0EP must organi:e I the operational capabilities of state resources, DCPO must l approve recommended capital improvements to the facility, and l MCDA/0EP must approve implementing procedures for the reception l O center, { j r
- 8. In regard to sheltering the beach population, only one l
' Shelter Implementation Program' plan has been submitted to l MCDA/0EP to date. The state, l.as major concerns about the road network in the area and is waiting for the revised evacuation time estimate (ETE) from Boston Edison before judging i evacuation from coar.tal areas. The revised ETE has been in the ;
works for more than six months. There are some extremely i difficult places to evacuate (e.o., Saquish Neck, Gurnet Point, ! Clark's Island) that must be taken into consideration in . -l judging the overall adequacy of any plan. ;
- 9. In the old discarded plans, provisions for special f needs populations were ' atrocious.' This also was idtntifigd !
I as a major weakness in the plans by FEMA in their 1987 (: ! Self-Initiated Review. MCDA/0EP has yet to give final approval ( to the wording of a survey instrument to be used to identtfy ! special needs people in the EPt. The special needs lists currently in use by local civil defense directors are woefully inadequate and there are not assurances that they represent the special needs population of the EPZ. In addition t1 the ! identification process, implementing procedures for special i s needs populations will be necessary. In response to any charge that there has been a lack of progress in planning, the 1
-I-l l
i ! l
- mplext:y Of ;; sues :cdresse: .s t :ni: . eet;ng snouic n:w wny 7_ the planning process is taking :o nucn t;me to complete.
) \_/ 10. Another major concern of our off-site planning program is the form of agreement betEeen BECo and private providers for emergency response resources. Some of the questions include now can the rtsto :e sure that buses will ce avai'able when needed, tnat .c. irs will drive the buses ano that drivers will follow throuin ??. tneir assignments.
While there can never be "guarantees," reasonable assurances must exist. Worn is continuing on the content of agt;eements between BECo and private companies.
- 11. There has been substantial progJess made in the area of communications and notification. However, hardware is still being delivered to EOCs and communications implementing l procedures are not yet complete, l
l
- 12. With regard to the training program, Mr. Ed Fratto reported that over 6,000 people will require training. Aoout 22% of them have received roughly 14% of the required training. There is an undetermined number of people from towns surrounding the EPZ who sill require training to respond to an accident via mutual aid. Evacaation routes run through some of these towns.
l 13. The other planned reception centers (Taunton and Bridgewater) are in need of over $250,000 in capital i ( improvements. No cost calculations of improvements to the l Wellesley site have been computed. Furthermore, the state l would like to see the capital improvements WVt4vbh made to the reception centers before their-plans and procedures are e proved. I
- 14. The state is most anxious to see the revised ETE and traffic management plan. The southeastern part of l Massachusetts is the fastest vrowing 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, ; noted that Cape Cod, which will be isolated in the case of.a : plant accident, is of great concern to planners. There are, l only two bridges over the Cape Cod Canal and in addition to the ' state's concern about a risk of exposure to Cape Cod's ,, populatien during a severe accident, there is a great concern about the impact of a spontaneous evacuation of the Cape Cod population in the Ep2 during an accident given the road network configuration. l -
- 15. In regard to the EP: Brochure (public information.
brochure), Mr. Agnes reported that the state has made substantial revisions to the document in its effort to develop s the best possible brochure, but there is more Vork that needs to be done before it is complete. The last brochure published was an ' interim brochure,
- not a substitute for an annual l
l I l
1 ,l l l urcenure. ?!r. Hausner added :r.at 3ECs has purchased :pa:e :n the inside cover of EP2 town pnone cooks and is committed to i printing EPI information there. ' [\-)T
- 16. Mr. Tom Matthews from the Department of Public Health said that procedures used by other states for public health l issues surrounding a nuclear power plant accident will be used ;
ior Hassachusetts. However, Mr. Agnes noted that public health [ l implementing procedures have not been written for mtjor I planning issues, e.g., detailed procedures for thyroid ; monitoring, the collection, transport, and fate of radioactive l wastewater freu decontamination stations, as well as care for ' injured contaminated indivduals at local hospitals. In sum, l Mr. Agnes noted that until procedures are written, they cannot be said to be satisfactory. t
- 17. Since the 1986 *Barry Report,' the Commonwealth has been on record as favoring expanded planning beyond ten miles, [
as well as substantially expanded and improved off-site !
, nonitoring. Mr. Hausner said that Massachusetts reserves the f option to make "whole town" protective action recommendations and that the proposed expansion of the EP: is an essential part ;
of the planning process. 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 for the towns of plympton, Wareham, O and Bourne, whose corners touch the EPZ. *
- 18. Mr. Agnes, noting again the abse.ce of FEMA from this t meeting, requested FEMA's response to the two letters sent from !
the state. An exercise is needed before any final approval i could be given to RERP plans, but an exercise now is premature given the unfinished state of the plans. The state cannot L judge the adequacy of plans until an exercise is conducted, t particularly given the 'new' licensee organi:ation, ! substantially revised plans, and new local officials. In ! September, 1987 MCDA/CEP met with FEMA on local plans. No f timetable was set for completion of these plans. The state has t not heard from FEMA on the progress of local plans. The sta.te has invited FEMA to attend the weekly meeting of local civil defense directors and MCDA/CEP, but TEMA never responded. Mr. Agnes expressed disappointment that FEMA, which is supposed to ( advise the NRC on Pilgrin's p10ns, has had virtually no direct l involvement with the process. Considering the concerns wr.ich i the NRC has had about one of the five worst nuclear plants in ) tha country, FEMA's lack of participation is ' unfortunate.' l There did seem to be some commitment from FEMA last year to ) uenitor the planning process, but no follow through effort has ensued. l e e e e l ) ' 1 l l l - 1 f J qw +-,-v_,--- , , - -,---,,,...-.._e,,,..--..e., , , , , . .--,_.--.y.. .-1 --or,,
Scptcob r 1000 IQWH_QE_HINGEIQM - i GENEBek_INEQBBAIIQH_isental i O t -1. Established as i a town: June 16, 1726 C-1. Type of Government: Town Meeting
- 2. Special Districts: 10th Massachusetta Cengressional District ist Councillor District f 2nd Plymouth State Senatorial District !
1st Plymouth State Representative District Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical : Area l t l l i i [ t i I [ p l i i t i I . ( l d 3 9 .w,---
,,*n--v+v.ww--gy w y-~wr---,--w.~~--w..-e----.--m%~.-+..-mr--n----
- } Flcure J.3') l Evacuation Routes A
. 3- /
(& . 1 i
/ / ,t . ..
~ 10 Mlle
(~
- ,/ ,
a'm*' k
- / w./ .; , N nrumw ., / . o N,s <
m , g S Mlle l
,,N I. i 3 b -
i , . s / f..~ 7 g-2 Mlle s l 1
\
1 ,4 .. 4
\
' y.
l ARVER A y40ym l
*\ t Y' ji~
S Mlle i 1 i i
$r /
i ,. y ~
' Tf 4( J .. q f f \ cJ ,
\ \. , a
&- i
/, ,
$. - N -
)A " ,1 _
,o m.
)
O
!#Y 9 ^/ W- +
[r%%e c3e ~. on y !
- _ _ m.. _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . . .
5 ptenb:r 1900 , IQWH QE_HINGEIQN l l Agreements r,19ned with SEco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) Personral and (3) [ Training January 1944. I i
- 1. EOC: 6 Maple Avenue, Kingston, MA 02364 ;
Foraal opening of feuility to be held October 1, 1984. i
- 2. Personnel: i l
Deputy Director since March 1984 and clerk (20 hr./ week) since July i 1944. j l
- 3. Training: L 115 of 483 (244) of the Civil Defense, Police, Fire, Highway, Harborraster and Selectaen have received Introduction to Radiation, Introduction to Energency Response, Dosiaotry and Siren Activation.
I i 1 I 4 t t l l t I 1
I
~~
an a,a i Enserev P ooarooness oecwom sa r$stral Paa %ec 4 P'ymoun Yassac.seets c2360 I September II. 1988 EP 88-1160
! Mr. Peter W. Agnes. Jr. ,
j Assistant Secretary of Public Safety i Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1 i Executive Office of Public Safety '
! One Ashburton Place Soston, Massachusetts 02108 '
] l
Dear Peter:
{ He are in receipt of your minutes of the August 22. 1988 meeting between Commonwealth officials and NRC Region ! representatives. The minutes describe the Commonwealth's impressions of the status of offsite emergency Around Pilgrim Station (as presented during the August 22 meeting) , andpreparedness state j inat a report for the Governor is currently being prepared on that subject. Cur review of the minutes indicates that the Commonwealth may be under some O misimpressions regarding the status of offsite emergv:y preparedness. Since we are aware that you are engaged in preparing the ruort to the Governor. I thought it might be useful if I pointed out some of tie rcre important aspects of the minutes which we believe to be in error. ! should acte. however, that I have not attempted to address every issue raised in the minutes, or to take
- issue with the Cosmonwealth's apparent criticisms on the overall adequacy or 1 status of the program. Nevertheless I felt that providing the comments below might aid you in your effort to compile an accurate report to the Governor.
First, in itirm 2 of the August 22 minutes, you state that "a completed draft , of the Pilgrim plans has yet to be produced." Completed draft plans have, in fset, been developed by each of the five EPZ and two reception center towns and forwarded to the Comenwealth for transmittal to FEMA for informal i
' technical review. As you know, FEMA has commented favorable on each of those revismed to date and provided specific comments which have been incorporated.
i In addition, based on our recent conversations. it is my anderstanding that a revised draft MCDA Area II plen has now been completed and is being forwarded to FEMA as well. 1 Secon(.. Item 3 of the minutes states that the planning process "was desi ! to initially permit loca) officials to review draft planning material...gned . i i 1 l a '
l i Page 2 EP 44-1160 ] This statement suggests that the Commonwealth is "permitting" local officials i to merely "re>1ew" materials, when in fact such officials have been intimately involved in the preparation of such materials, working closely with Boston Edison representatives for weil over a It is, of course, the Commonwealth which is uncertaking the "year. review" of the draft planning docum prepared by the towns, with Boston Edison assistance. ! Third, item 5 of the minutes states that "most implementing procedures exist
- in draft form; many have been provided (by IECo) to towns, but have not been i
formally reviewed or approved." It is important to understand that each of l the town implementing procedures was prepared in a collaborative effort with 1 the cognizant local officials and agency heads, and modified'untti tha i responsible officials were satisfied with the fidelity of the procedures and i indicatedsowiththeirsignature. The impression left by the quoted segment ] is that Boston Edison has provided" materials to the towns with which they are not familiar. On the contrary, the implementing procedures are the l product of considerable interaction and cooperation between local officials . I and loston Edison. Fourth, item 6 states that six of' seVen draft plans have been rempleted and that "plans and procedures for schools have been completely revised and the
! local review process is act yet complete." Draft plans for all seven towns j are now complete. In addition, the specific reference to the school 1 procedures (there is no separats school plan) creates, in our view, the misiegression that the school program is not as far along as other elea.ents of the revised planning program. Th : is not accurate since school related 1
planning docuaents were prepared contemporaneous 1y with other planning l i documents. l Fifth, item 7 refers to the sessibility of a third reception center. Boston
-l Edison did not "recommend" tie use of two reception centers, but did assess
{ the feasibility analysis. of relying We believe ' haton two and it should bedid issue noted thata tie report summartainI Commonwealth n its i feastbility analysis of the proposed Hellesley facility has been underway I since March, iget. } Next. item 9 of the minutes states that the "special needs lists currently in inadequate ...." Setretary use Barry's by1947 local Civil report Defense to the Governor Directors stated that are woefull{it may not be nec ] prudent to complie exhaustive lists of special needs populations." i In any event, it should be noted that Boston Edison stands ready.and willing j to comission the new special needs survey to provide information to upgrade 4 the lists as soon as MCDA/CEP forwards the modified Request for Proposal j (RFP), and we have received and reviewed the Conssonwealth's policy on protection of the special needs population (which is referenced in the AFp). Me have been awaiting both the MCDA/0tP modified RFP and the cited policy for i some time. In addition, we have encouraged the towes tc upgrade their i
' existing lists through telephone contacts with individuals and social service agencies, and are aware that some of the lists have been upgraded. Morw/er, we have assisted in the development of Town Implementing Procedures which permit prompt "self-identification" in the event of an emergency. In jO addition, while we agree with your apparent recognition that there has not bsen a "lack of progress in planning", we think there are numerous areas where Comonwealth action would most assuredly help speed the planning process.
i
Page 3 EP 88-1160 0 Next, item 10 refers to agrooments "between BEco and private (transportation] providers for emergency response resources." As you know, the form of those agreements is between the providers and the Comenwealth, not Boston Edison. MCCA authored the agreements and MCDA representatives participated in their negotiation. While transportation providers representing a large number of rescurces h1ve entered into such agreements, the agreements have been in the Commonwealth's hands for signature since March 1988. Next, vnile item 13 points out that the Taunton State Hospital and Bridgewater State College reception centers are in need of capital improvements, it should be noted that we have been awaiting authorization from the Commonwealth to begin imsrovements since December 1987. when our feasibility study listed what we salteved were the appropriate improvements. Next, item 14 states that Cape Cod (which is outside the EPZ) would be "isolated" in the event of a plant accident. On the contrary, planning provisions call for one of the two bridges over the canal to remain open at all times to provide access from Cape Cod and for the other to be opened at the Comonws41th's discretion. Item 15 refers to "substantial revisions" to the PIB made by the Comonweelth. The numerous revisions made by HCDA, to date, have not in our opinion significantly altered the original format or content, and MCDA has not scheduled a meeting on this issue until October 17. Finally, item 18 states that an exercise is required before final approval of O the plans can be given, and that such an exercise is "premature given the unfinished state of the plans." He believe that given the considerable lead time associated with the pre;eration for an exercise, it is not at all too early to hagin to work toward that objective. While we have broached this subject on several occasions with the Commonwealth act to even initiate the exercise planning process., it has been unwilling to ' Moreover, FEMA has now respondee to the two referenced Comonwealth letters. and has commented extensively on the draft 1ccal plans. While the program does remain "unfinished" to some degree, this is not due to intransigeance on the part of Boston Edison, the towns, or FEMA. In conclusion. I hope that my coments provide you with useful insights on come of the issues raised in the August 22 minutes and that they will assist you in preparing an accurute report to the Governor. Recognizing the significant progress that has been made in offsite planning over the last year, we look forward to reviewing the Secretary's report. Sincerely. R aidA.Varly cc: Samuel J. Collins William Kerr O N1111am Lazarus Jack Dolan AS/cs 104 1811
s .- A -- ( 3 ' NY [. t (/M/Mf/H/W U ff e
' DJUC //JhYJ VGNi a 9p e , - g ,ci s a , x ,:9 w a, ,g&y,,,,, ga,,
Michael S. Dukabs ,
~~
$cJ /en. vbJJacIuse//J N/N Charles V. Barry sumet
)
September 6, 1988 Samuel J. Collins, Deputy Director i Division of Reactor Projects l N.R.C. Region One j 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
Dear Mr. Ccilins:
This is in reply to your letter dated September 1,1988, regarding the Commonwealth's participation in the recently completed IATI inspection at Pilgrim Station. . The Commonwealth's observers, Mr. Sholly and Ms. Chan, ("m) generally concur with the findings of the IATI tr,am. The Commonwealth's observers followed the prescriptions of i paragraph three of the "Guidelines For Accompaniment On The Integrated Assessment Team Inspection' by communicating their observations, concerns and comments about matters considered I during the inspection to appropriate N.R.C. parsonnel during the inspection. The only additional comment we wish to aad about the IATI at this time is a recommendation by Mr. Sholly, that in view of the difficulty in one case with implementation of a satellite EOP, that there should be an effort to validate all new plant procedures before restart. Any specific reaction we may have to the written IATI report will, of course, have to await our review of the document. l Dowever, as I painted out during the recent S.A.L.P. i meeting, the Commonwealth reserves the right to disagree with the conclusions drawn by the N.R.C. or the licensee about th'e IATI findings. For example, notwithstanding what might be considered unmistakable evidence of progress by Boston Edison Company, the Commonsealth remains skeptical of the licensee's readiness to restart at this time. In addition to our concerns l about offsite emergency preparedness which have been outlined recently in letters to Mt. Eenry Vickers cf F.E.M.A., Regional Administrator William Russell, and to the A.C.R.S. Ad Hoc sSubecmmittee on the restart of Pilgrim, the Commonwealth is i concerned that mediocre scores by the licensee during the last I pd I i
. @a- i I J
~s santeel Collins, N . F. . ? .
Septencer 6, 1985 ( ') Page Two S.A.L.P. period coupled with a history of poor performance by the licensee have not been taken seriously enough in the staff's evaluation of readiness to restart. If the licensee is unable to achieve S.A.L.P. scores that even equal the national average for licensed commercial nuclear power plants in this country while Pilgrim remains shutdown, why should we believe that the plant is ready to restart? Some of our other concerns, which transcend the scope of the IATI, are outlined in oar let ter ' o the A.C.R.S. , a copy of i which will be forwarded to you tomorrow. l We appreciate your acknowledgment of the professionalism ! exhibited by Mr. Sholly and .v.s. Chan during the IATI and the i cooperation extended to them ey the team members and the licensee. ne r ly, g
, f
(,1 w,, k ser W. Agnes, Jr. Assistant Secretary) of Public Safety ( j PWA/cas 1 i l l l
. i 1
1 l l 1 l (~h l 1 1 1
l l { [ p c % g' ; y*. UtHTED sTATi s NUCLEAR REGUl.ATORY COedMISS40N b I t e usa ; ut ALLsaf.naAE aCMD V % sjue Cs PseutelA. PehserYLVAatu Idee 6
%..... 0i SEP 988 I l
The Cocoonvealth of Kassachusetts I Executive Of fice of Public Sa fety " i ATTN: Mr. Charles Vi Barry
'~
One Ashburton Place Boston, Kassachusetts 02108 i t
Dear Mr. Barry:
This refers to our letter of July 13, 1988, regsrding the Cos'ocnwalth of Massachusetts' participation in the Integrated Assessment Tets inspection (IATI) conducted at the Ptigriri Nuclear Powr Station. 1 As the NRC Senior Manager responsible for the inspection, I would like to ac- ' inowledge the conduct of the oesignated state representatives Ms. Pamela J. Chen and Mr. Steven c. Sho11y as being professionai and contributing '.o " w'~ r-r.ance of the inspection. The established protocol (enclosad) provided to you on June 1, 1988, clarified I by our letter of July 13, 1983, and discussed directly by myself with Mr. Peter Agnes of your staff on August 9,1988, provides for collection and coordination of the concerns from the various interests within the Consionwealth. As stated in our July 13, 1988 letter, the NRC placed the burden on tbt Coamon-
/
vtalth's representative to present the many views, be they from the local 4
' governments or froe the State's Attorney General's of fice, to the NRC for consideratico during developsient of the inspection scope. In this regard, w understand that. Mr. Agnes conducted a public meeting on August 4,1988, with a destgrated state representative to the IATI present.
On August 9,1988, having received no issues from the Commonnalth as an additional input to the ettsting inspection plan,1 contacted the Assistant , Secretcry of Pubite Safety dirtetly and was assured that no formal inout to the IATI inspection plan wuld be submitted by the Connonwealth, the Cocoonwealth wovid vork through the designated representatives for any issues and thea issues brought to the Comonetalth's attention wre no dif ferent than those previously noted. Also, the team leader has nott fied me that at no tire curing the inspection did he mceive i m diate notificatton of any different state observation or conclusion as wouW be called for under Protocol . Guideline 3 if any such differences nre identified during the inspection. l i 51nce the IATI exit resting conducted on August 24, 1988 which was att.en& d by Ar. Agnes and Ms. Cher , the Cossonwealth has expressed on several occasions l' both to the media and at pubite meetings that technical issues and management concerns continue to esist. Thne statements appear inconsistant with the Cocesonwealth's response to repeated NRC requests for IATI inspection scope input and eoreover inconsistent with thc Commonwalth views expressed at the IATI exit resting.
, In orter to better understand and addrea.s the areas of concern, the ARC requests that in accordance with the protocol agreement accepted by the O- Coenonwaith, as provided for by Guideline 3, that the Conanonwealth rate available in writing t. hose conclusions or observations that are suestantially i
i different frcm those of the NRC inspectors is or-Jer that the NRC can tate t.Me necessary actions to meet its regulatory responsibilities. M y ] G ?j h l. i 3,- S P j'.
Hr. Charles v. aarry 2 bq 01 SEP GS3 It is ntcessary that the Co.sonwealth's response be provided to the NRC Regicn I by senter.ber 6.1988, to be considerec in conjunction with the cocumentation
~
of the results of the recently cor.pleted IATI. This request was discussed with Mr. P. Agnes of yove staff on August 26 and August 31, 1988. ' If you have any questions regarding the above matters, please centact ce at (211) 337-5125 or the State Liaison Of ficer for Region I, Ms. Marie Miller at (215) 337-5246. J Sincerely, l puty Director Division of Reactor Projects '
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enc 1: R. Bird, Senior Vice President - Vuclear K. Hightill, Station Director R. Anderson, Plant Manager J. Keyes, licensing Division Manager a E. Robinson, Nuclear Information Manager s
- 4. Swansca, Nuclear Engineering Department Manager i 7te Honorable Edward J. Marley The Honorable Edward P. Kirby The Honerable Peter V. Forsan i B. McIntyre, Chairsan, 04pgrtment of Public litt11 ties Chairman, Plymouth Scard of telectmen Chaleman, Dunbury Board of selectmen Plymouth Clvt1 Definse Otrac+or P. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Saftty, Cossmorrwealth of Mas sactusetts
- 5. Pollard, Massachusetts secretary of Energy Resources R. Shinshak, MAS 5PIRC Public Document Rome (POR)
Local Public Document Roca (LPOR) . l Nuclear safety Information Center (NSIC) i NRC Resident Inspector . l Coersonvesitn of Massachusetts (2) 1
. l i
l l 1
I b) EELOSUPE l Guidelines for Accommanirent on the Integrated Assessment Team Inspection l The following are guidelines for acccupaniment during MRC's Pilgrim Integrated ; Assessment Team Insoection. i
- 1. The observer is to mate arrangements with t.he licent?e for site access :
training and badc %g. ;
- 2. The obsery0 'A aVailable throughoVt the inspection and Vill ACCDe" pany NRC ind. . Coanunication with the Itcensee will be through the appropriate NRu uam member, preferably the tasa leader.
- 3. When the conclusicos or observations made by the Ceemonwalth of '
Masstchusetts observer are substantially differeat from those of the NRC inspectors, Consonwealth of Ma ssachusetts will make its :bse rvations istnfediately known to the inspection tete leader and available in writing to the NRC Snd the licensee, in order that NRC can take the necessary actions to meet its regulatory responsibilities. These communications will be publicly available, similar to NEC inspection reports. >
- 4. NRC inspectors are authorized to rafuse to permit continued accompaniment by the Cosmonwealth of Massachusetts observer if his conduct interferes O with a fair and orderly inspection.
- 5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts c5 server in acemnying NRC inspectors !
will not normally be provided acce u te proprietary information. No l license material may be recoved from the site or licensee possession ;
, without NRC approval, j
The coernonwalth of Massachusetts observer in accoepanying the NRC l inspectors pursuant to these guidelines does so at his own rist. The NRC will accept no responsibility for irduvies and exposures to harsful i substances which r,ay occur to the act.aspanying individual during the inspection and will assume no liability for any incidents associated with the accomp4ninent.
\
G
' h 9 p 5e $mmona:eadh o .bssachuse/4 f $zeca/ke h f ce l $ $/$c h ele Michael 55 Dukabs he h/aNbn bce Charles t Barry oJ/on, vffas4aclaJesb hhlhC?
swmn Septemcer 6, 1988 Dr. Milliam Kerr, Chairman Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, F C. 20555 2 ear Chairman Eerr: As the State LiaiJon Officer to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state's chief emergency preparedness official, I wish to express our reservations to you and the members of'the A.C.R.S. about the readiness of Pilgrim Station to resume operations. I\ \# The Commonwealth's concerns about offsite emergency preparedness are substantial. There is no offsite plan at this time despite the vigorous efforts made by local and state officials to address along with the licensee over the past several years the problems. The materials submitted to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Peter W. Agnes, On The Restart Of Pilgrim by Assistant Secretary Jr. explain this problem in detail. I't is important to note that F.E.M.A. has withdrawn its interim approval of the previous offsite plan, that we are attempetng to develop a wholly new plan (not a revision of the earlier plan declared inadequate by both the Commonwealth and F.E.M.A.), exercise atand that Station Pilgrim there has forbeen threeno full scale offsi'te years. While progress has been made, there is much work left to be done before a : complete draft of plan is in place. l l I have enclosed the minutes of a recent meeting with N.R.C. Region one officials that explains the status of offsite I planning issues. I also am in the process of preparin'g a report for the Governor on this subject that I expect to make available to the N.R.C. staff later this month. I hope that I your deliberations will include consideration of this vreblem and that you will conclude like us that in no event should Pilgrim Statirm be allowed to resume operations until an I~D soffsite plan ..as been completed, approved and tested by a full NJ scale, offsite exercise. ! 4
Dr. William Kerr, Chairman () f Septem=er 6, ;988 Page Two With respect to on-site issues, tnere is ,certainly evidence that progress has been made by Boston Edison Company during this shutdown. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth remains skeptical of the plant's readiness to restart because the licensee has such a record of poor performance over the long l term. For example, as Assistant Secretary Agnes pointed out to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee, a nationwide analysis of S.A.L.P. I scores from 1985-1987. reveals that Pilgrim ranks as fourth . I worst. The scores on the last S.A.L.p. completed in May, 1988 find that Pilgrim is still performing below the national average while the plant remains shutdown. We also are concerned about the N.R.C.'s response :o two aspects of ne licensee's Safety Enhancement Program. In the
- nformationaA Advisory issued for the Commissioners by Victor Stello, Executive Director of Operations for the N.R.C. on July 15, 1988 thereafter, SECY-88-206), the most significant of the I severe accident challenges to BWR Mark One Containment were identified as:
O (1) very early failure due to steam overpressurization (in the absence of wetwall venting) leading to core damage (i.e., containment failure before core melting); , (2) failure by meltthrough of the steel containment liner, l especially under dry containment conditions; ; (3) failure by overpressucitation due to non-condensible gas gene ration and system blow-down f ollowing RPV 1 failure at high reactor coolant system pressure; and (4) failure by overtemperature/ overpressure due to , core-contrete interactions. SECY-88-206 at 5. Under the staff's "balanced approach,' enhancements were proposed to help prevent, manage, and mitigate against such accidents. One of the leading enhar aments in the category of accident prevention that also coC lerve as an sccident management and mitigation ;echnique is Miedened vent. Mr. Stello indicated that as part of its SEP, " Edison had planned to install a hardene~d vent at its ... .- plant. However', Mr. Stello noted thac "(t]he licensee recently notified the N.R.C. that it has decided not to complete. installation of the hardened torus vent pending the a
' N.R.C. 's decision on the Mark I program." SECY-88-206 at 7 C)
,~ 3r. Milliam Kerr, Chairman Septemoer 6, 1988 (L') Page Three On July 22, 1988, there was a Commission briefing titled
' Briefing On Interim Report On BWR Mark One Containment Issues" (hereafter, :nterim Briefing Report) (references are to the unofficial transcript). Dr. Thomas Murley, head of N.R.R. for the Commission, described the "hardened vent' enhancement (literally, a hard pipe from the torus to the stack) as something he had come to believe would be an important safety feature for Mark One'Contain,aents. "So we find yet when the studies are all done, I have become convinced that venting is beneficial for accident prevention. There is little question that that's the case. But, it has to be implemented carefully, and by carefully, I mean it has to have a pipe size that's
'.arge enough to take away decay heat, and it also should not Olow out into the Reactor Building where it can damage equipment or people that cre out there trying to cope with the accident. So my conclusion -- we still -- this is not a firm recommendation yet, but it's certainly the way that we're headed -- is that venting is a good sensible procedure, it needs to be implemented carefully." Interim Briefino Report at 31-32.
(> \_) Dr. Murley later elaborated. 'As the r udies were done, and particularly with the Boston Edison seu.y, what emergec was that the vent in a BWR Mark I would be used approximately 99 percent of the time to prevent a core melt accident, and only less than 1 percent of the time would it be used in mitigation. So that's what, as I said, convinced me of the importance of its use, and so most of the time, 99.4 percent of the time, it would be venting steam and not any substantial
'ission products." Interim Briefing Report at 50.
Later in the briefing, Dr. Murley described Boston Edison's efforts to install a hardened vent as part of their SEP. 'It is not mentioned here, but they (Boston Edison Company] have gone and hardened their vent, but they have not installed it. There is some confusion on this matter. I think there's some thought that maybe the N.R.C. staff is preventing them from i 1 installing it and that's not the case. I confirmed this with them just this week. They are holding themselves up., They l l said they want to wait until the N.R.C. staff completes our l review and approval of Revision 4 of the emergency operating procedures." Dr. Murley then continued. 'They,(Boston Edison Company! have installed the hardware. There's one more piece { that would need to be ;. called to make it operational, plus, I ! I
' think, some elect rict 1 connections and so forth. I think the ;
(~N ( ,) valves are in already, it's just that they need to be 1 co nne ct e d. . i l l
Or. Milliam Kerr, Chai: man (]j g Septemoet 6, 1988 Page Four
- r any case, it's -- once they decide to move ahead then presumably we will review it and approve it." Interim Briefing Report at 40-41.
There is some indication that the next N.R.C. staff report on this matter will take place on Septemoer 21, 1988. Interim Briefing Report at 45. In our view, if there is ovidence that containment venting can play an important role in preventing a core melt accident and the engineering work to make such a device operational is largely completed at Pilgrim Station, then snould not the licensee be required to complete the project and should not the N.R.C. staff review it before restart? We hope you vill inquire about this issue during your deliberations. On a related note, Mr. Ste11o's Informational Advisory notes that "Ia] separate filtered vent of the type being used in some European countries is not considered warranted for the Mark I because of existing suppression pool scrubbing capabilities." JECY-88-206 at 6-7. I have enclosed an excerpt g3 from a recent issue of Inside the NRC in which there is a
;' ,) discussion about the efforts of France, West Germany and Sweden to adopt filtered containment venting for their commercial nuclear reactors. It is our understanding that a filtered vent was installed at the Shoreham, Long Island plant which was planned to be a BWR f acility. Presumably the design for such a system was approved by the N.R.C. It would be helpful to understand the rationale that led to N.R.C. approval in one case, plants.
but a staff recommendation against the idea for other BWR We also understand that the Boston Edison Company's SEP omits one of the accident mitigacien enhancements under' study by N.R.C. staff -- namely core debris controla. According to Mr. Stello, "if technical feasibility could be established, curbs in the drywell could reduce the likelihood, or delay the occurence at 7 of containment shell meltthrough." SECY-88-206 Boston Edison has advised us that beyond the drywell spray modifications that are part o.f the SEP, such core debris ; controls are unnecessary due to the results of scale model j experiments conducted by a consultant, Mr. Robert Henry of Fauske and Associates. Mr. Henry reported on these experiments
)
at a February, 1988 N.R.C. sponsored Mark I Containment' l Workshop. Mr. Henry professed to have established through these experiments 'that water in containment (drywell sprays)
~~ \would provide effective protec'. ion of the drywell wall' and
[v } that the existing SEP modifications at Pilgrim represent 'an I
n N Dr. William Ferr, Chairman T 5eptemce 6, 1988
,,) Page Five ,
optimitation of the plant capacilities to both prevent and mitigate severe accidents." Viewgraphs By Fauske and Associates presented to my staff by Mt. Henry on April 7, 1988. It is my ur.derstanding, however, that this conclusion is open to douot. I am enclosing a memorandum prepared for Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon by MHB Tecnnical Associates which indicates that there is reason te doubt the validity of the Faunke and Associates conclusions and that in a core melt accident the drywell shell would not,be preserved, Again, it would be helpful for us to have the
'cenefit o. ,our consideration of these issues. .
Our purpose here is not to offer definitive assessments of N.R.C. staff work or initiatives undertaken by the licensee. However, we think these are important. matters that you and your colleagues should consider during your deliberations acout the proposed restart of pilgrim Station and request that you fully inform us of your resolution of these matters before any proposed restart.
/
Since ely,
'm/
Cha rles V. BaYry Secretary of pubi c Safety CVB/cas ene.: cc: Samuel J. Collins, Deputy Director, N.R.R., N.R.C. Region I Ralph Bird, Senior Vice President, Boston Edison Company e B ( 1
Septo =b r 1980 GIIY_QE_IAUNIQH IMELEM5HIING_EBQGEQUEE_kIEIING
.s A. Response Agency / Individual IE_He2 Ernendwrs_IltIn 01 Mayor / City Council 02 Civil Defense Agency 03 Police Department 04 Fire Department 05 Department of Public Worka 06 School Department 07 Board of Health 08 Radiological Officer 09 Communications Officer 10 American Red Crosa l' RACES 12 Aniaal Control Officer 13 City of Taunton Reception Center 1T Tranaportation Officer 18 Hospital Representative B. Functional Acta ..'-
IE_Het Ernsssurs_Iltle 21 Pub).ic Information 22 Monitoring and Decontamination 23 Emergency Medical Services 24 Message Control 4 .
--------~_m.mme-.--.-.-..- - - - - - - - - - - -
Septo =bor 1930 GIIX QE_IAMHIQM IHELEHENIIMQ_EBQGEQUEE_LIIIIHQ (continued) ' O ,B . Functional Activities IE_Hs4 Eressdurs_Iltis 25 Reception Center Medical Support 26 Training i . 27 Drills and Exerciser i 28 Program Maintenance ,i a i
- O O
-5 -
.~ Scptc bcr 1988 l GIIY_QE_IAMHIQH Agreements signid with BEco for (1) EOC renovation, (2) Personnel, l and (3) Training November 1987.
( ,
- 1. EOC: City Hall, 15 Summer Street, Taunton, MA 02780 EOC is completed and operational except for installation of cable TV l
The following communication's apparatus are installed and operational: ; From EOC To Bad 49_Qasrator Qssertzent_Etasien Pol 4ce/ EMS Police / EMS Fire Fire Dispatcher
*71re Field Monitoring Station RACES State Area II EOC RACES Town of Plymouth EOC RACES Town of Carver EOC
- RACES Reception Center e
- RACES Mass Care Shelter Public Works Public Works RACES Media Center Esulaennt EsEnenial Telephones All Staff O* Radios BECONS Radio Operators Civil Dsfense Director Word Proceanor Civil Defense Director Telefax Civil Defense Director Copier Civil Defense Director Packet Radio To all EOC
- 2. Personnel:
Full time Director since 1976, full time secretary since 1905. l
- 3. Training:
194 of 312 (62x) of Police, Fire, Board of Health and DPW have received Introduction to Radiation, Introduction to Emergency Response, Dosisotry and Siren Activation. O
Septc=bsr 1988 l GIII_QE_IAMMIQH l Attashment_1 ' (~T EQ9_Etaff_ kist ) %-) E951119D HSER , i
- 1. Mayor P Richard Johnson A Mark Pacheo l
- 2. C.D.D. P Robert Spearin ,
1 I A Richard LaFrance
- 3. Police Chief P Dave Westcoat ,
A Robert Smith
- 4. Police Official (EOC) P Edmund Finnigan A Richard Pimental
- 5. EOC Security P Joseph Anteil A Mark Anteil
- 6. Fire Chief P George Dexter A Stanly Czepiel !
- 7. Fire Representative EOC P John Andrade l A Tom Downing
- 8. Fire Dispatcher P Richard Costa A William King
- 9. DPW Director P Craig Sherman A Frank Sharkus
- 10. EOC School Official P Donald Cleary A Leonard Walsh
- 11. EOC Board of Health P Russell Heap O 12. Radiological Officer A
P Theckla Snell Barry Emond A Daniel Faria
- 13. Communication Officer P Dave Rezendas I A John Sikorski
- 14. ARC EOC Roprosentative P Ernest Bunker A Cha"les Gardelle
- 15. RACES Coordinator P Antnony Novas A John Daly
- 16. Animal Control Officer P James Buffington A Frank Meetia
- 17. RC EOC Representative P TBD A TBD '
- 18. EOC f.eception Center P Gregg Pratt Transportation Officer A Rodney LaFrance i
- 19. Public Information P Roger Nacimento i Officer A Thomas Manning
- 20. Hospital EOC Rep. P Thomas Porter A Dennis Keeke
- 21. Ritmor Control Officer P Pam Conant A Martha Conner
- 22. Message Control Clerk P Beth LaFrance A William Mason
- 23. Message Legger P Leonard Oliver A Frank Richeinburg O 24.
25. Message Runner Status Board Keeper A P Joyce Doherty Laurie Grabarz P John Beaulieau A George Bradford I i
., .= _ = = = = = ~ - _ = _ - - . -- = = - . . , .
- = = = = -
CITY OF TAUNTON k RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN l FIGURE A-2 l l EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION l MAYOR , I l MUNICIPAL i COUNCIL , 1 CIVIL ' l DEFENSE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ASSISTANT [ l i i i
$ I I I I I 1 I l
. a,m 5"c' warm wsm :sp4a w mm ym, I~~ ==
. mb. e gl -.-
O
-. -- 1 i
' '- " ~ ' ' ~ ' ' '""'
. ll ?.7us t.. A.1 f
(O- - _ _ _ _ _- (O u (0 - Figure E-1 l l PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTETA ' ' l STATE POLICE 'i TROOP D DGEWATER ,7 [=r MOUT i U (
~
l j I HEADQUARTERS ucoA
.aT PNPS y>h - cAavea ij
] TAUNTON h
,y 8Yf XBURY SHF 7 GST
, _ . _ _ _ - _ - - ausx - - - - --
Leaend
"~ ~~
i '~ ) = Primary Notification Method D =IiECONS $dio Uilltzed As back-up T = commercial Telephone 4 0 =Decicated Telephone Lin* U Htzed as back-up i with Dedicated Telecopler :: 11
= vers 6 cation
{ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- _-E-4h _
t 'e i l 4
(O - cO <O
- i. _ -- -- _-
a - ] Notification of Taunton Emergency Response Organization PNPS Control l{ Z y 4 g CornmunicatJons c @ R oorn
> "I #
Councol Z Officer z A c y ,, , [ y g cues os w r Y" Q*
, Defense r s
0, - z Agency operassoas i oi,.aor i 5 O ^ " * ' *" O 1
~
z Red Cross z Taunton l Police O> ""***""'*"y VyO S
* >@ p ces Dispatcher , ostecer x
'z 2 4
q Officer w h_ ,- Department Fire y s y a =ssare P y : Radiological z ,p,, c sus z Oflicer Z A Office of Y ] B =aEccedS V 2 Handicapped s T P =Pager " ,. Health T At:ssrs s n massie z Department
, y ,y ,,,p , ta l l Chamemn I PM =Prosept Notteicatleen j Department Of y s s
t,g School Q Syslaa y" Pubile Works s , W v yesens..ra m i z Department x A = veris 4 cati.= j i sean<4end.nt I Jen 88 Animal Control _> Q s Q =V =uotersca: Primary MelitecMlen 40.thed y Officer ta i 4 ,,_ ,, , ; - - _ - - -
,,_ e_3 j - -- -
1 - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - -- - - - - - ---
i k FIGURE F-1 7 l ntrol ; q edla h7 , a Hospita; Ambulance l a l l Other , ' 8 Fire Recep
" 3 Dept Centerf ,
I E 's M [ Mass Ta 1 / ' Shelters ente P a M ubli 4 - Y*d*ral I tate Agenoles , f-- A r e a ll i EOF EOC g unu @3 3
> Stato l,
l ,, Eoc
*T.I. phon.
i f 3 eMadio
, .r...,..
a ';g"' tr- "~e a r "~a u.,,,, 0 e + x comm ei..u... Oltice of andicapped Chairlif t ! l M V ans l Af f airs r
/ School i I 3 Capt l
i
'E 3.>.s.o.y__
- n. e ,4
, ___..--._ _..-- -~ . __._ --- _ _ .
l
. 1 J l & 2 j !
4 i E E ! I t
- i1 \
/
~
l , ( .. l 3
\a ,
i l y te I i
1 i t,
,1 J
11 iib - 1ii*
- b. L , [ .......e ,L l
\
3
) Y, 3 l ll 'h!
$3 /;/
-l
=%
c
.! j )
ks i D
\
hw, me >.
~
. ,/
s
.i e,i 0
O 'at l o\ n a a N=3 C
\\\, s\ ~
sa og l1
,i ,,
......I!:
l,, J et g\ I! e ' N./h
- .u/ \
1 s . , 8
\ t u.. ;
,:i/4 a
,4 i g . . .,V :
/ [, , , ""
q\ : [E lll1
\,\b ..p't,[,:
f
.\
. I i dej '
~ ' 0, \. ,' s
'L O !_!!
\
Septcobcr 1988 GIIY_QE_I6ugIgg i FIGURE J-4 l 5633_GABE_EHELIEB_LIEI abnitsr_ Hams Lewskien Geessitz
- 1. Catholic Middle School 61 Summer St. 2 389
- 2. Our Lady of Lourdes School 52 First St. 338
- 3. Coyle & Cassidy High School Hamilton & Adams St. 1500
- 4. Bristol Plymouth Regional 940 CoJnty St. 1000 Technical School
- 5. James Mulechey School 28 Clifford St. 597
- 6. Elizabeth Pole School 110 County St. 595 i
- 7. Bennet School 47 North Walker St. 520
- 8. Cohannet School 120 Cohonnet St. 372 S. Taunto'.s High School 50 Williams St. 2336
- 10. Galligan School 15 Sheridan St. 293
- 11. Hopewell School 16 Monroe St. 300
- 12. Leddy School 36 Second St. 282
- 13. Leonard School 354 West Britannia St. 196 i
- 14. Martin School 131 Caswell St. 904 ,
- 15. Maxham School 121 Oak St. 260 l
- 16. Summer Street School 66 Summer St. 65
- 17. Walker School 145 Berkley St. 254
- 18. Saint Mary's School 106 Washington St. 303 l
l l l 1 l l 0
- 8
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
. s[ptonbor 1988 ;
GIIY_QE_IoMNIQH , BQE21Iaks i
, The Morton Hospital (Taunton) serves as the primary medical facility outside the 10-mile EP2 to receive and treat contaminated injured individuals. The hospital, which is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH), is adequately equipped to handle contaminated injured individuals and is a full service 207-bed comprehensive diagnostic and treatment center. ~
The Morton Hospital will also accep' Special Needs as space permits. ) l A 4 l () O
-7 -
bbh GW
*E :
-g
. Se $mmwweed/ o bssac usedds
- = $recdNe hfet 9lh$ ff Michael S. Dukakis he //yfen hdzee
" hoJfon, JJacluJe//J 08/0c?
Chules V. Bun sunum September 6, 1988 Mr. Henry G. Vickers, Regional Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 442 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Vickers:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 22, 1988, in response to my letters of May 27 and July 7, 1988, about the evaluation criteria employed by F .E.M. A. in reviewing Radiological Emergency Response Plans f or Pilgrim Station. Your observation that there is a great deal of work to be done (s') to complete the development of these plans, prior to an assessment
'/ regarding their adequacy, is corract. I am currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive report for the Governcr on all aspects of emergency preparedness for an accident at Pilg' rim Station. My report will spell out in detail the status of the issues ref erred to in your letter, as well as others, and what remains to be done to complete preparation of a draft plan for state and local government.
In response to your .*equest for a work plan and a specification .. cm . - . _ of deadlines .f or completing work on of f site planning f or Pilgrim - Station, I repeat what we have said time and again. The Commonwealth, along with local governments and the licensec, is following a planning process established after our December, 1986 report to the Governor. It is unfortunate that F.E.M.A. had been unable t6 attend any of the numerous planning sessions and conferences that the Commonwealth has hosted over tae past s'everal years.
~
It is our strong conviction, however, that even if a completed plan appears to meet the applicable federal standards, a determination of adequacy cannot be made unicss and until it has been tested by a full scale offsite exercise. Such a requirement is particularly appropriate and necessary in this case because
,s there has been ne such exercise for three years and a completed .
plan would constitute not a revision to an earlier plan, but rather ( ) a completely new plan, based upon a new approach, with new procedures designed for a large number of new eme rgency personnel schooled under an entirely new training regimen.
=-
Henry G. Vickers 7 September 6, 1988 (3,) Page Two The Commonwealth believes strongly that Pilgrim should not be permitted to restart without an approved offsite plan that has withstood the rigors of a full scale, graded exercise. There is great concern among local residents and officials, which we at the ntate level share, regarding the lack of reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected'in We, the absence of urge therefore, a completed, tested and approved emergency plan. F.E.M.A. to withhold any restoration' of interim approval to of f site plans until the new Pilgrim plans have been finally completed and approved by local and state government and tested by a full scale, graded exercise. To date, neither N.R.C. Region I Administrator William Russel nor N.R.R. Director Dr. Thomas Murley have been w(lling to state with precision what in their opinion must be demonstrated to resolve the N.R.C.'s concerns about the offsite emergency preparedness problems. For example, they have not stated whether approved plans and implementing procedures (particularly for the special needs populations), the emergency worker training program, letters of agreement, three fully equipped and operational reception centers, the procurement of radiological monitoring and p( ,s) communications equipment, a new E?I publication, and transportation resources all must be in place bef ore restart or whether some, but Neither not all, of the above must be demonstrated before restart. have Regional Administrator Russell nor Director Murley stated whether a graded, full scale exercise must take place before restart. Instead, we have been advised by N.R.C. staff that these are matters for F.E.M.A. to address in the first instance. Since we is scheduled to take up the matter are aovised that the full N.R.C. of the Pilgrim restart on October 14, 1988, we believe it is time for F.E.M.A. and the N.R.C. staff to provide us with answers to these questions. I look forward to a prompt response. Si ely, Charles V. Ba r ry V Secretary of Public Safety 1 i CVB/cas ! Dr. Thomas Murley, Director, N.R.R. '( cc: Mr. William T. Rutisell, Region I Adminis t r a to r I I
I y 5-
.~ . q u' 8
- y'p % Federal Emergency Managemsi$kgEEcy -
#r v
%g42- ,b a Region ! J.W. McCormack Post OfGee and Court HdiTse gjl Bosten. Massachusetts 02109 f( ;
l u/ [ August 22, 19 b 2 0 Charles V. Barry, Secretary . l j D<ecutive Office of Public Ssfeti Carmonwealth of Passacnuset ((._. ;
#, ,s., q Cne Ashburton Place Besten, bassachusetts 02108 I J9 l 1
Cear Pr. Ba. y: his is in response to your letters of Pay 27 and July 7,1988, concernirq of f-site radiolwical emergency plannirq and preparedness for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plar. .' ':he efforts cf the C:r.enwealth of Passachusetts and the local ca.... unities to upgrade plans and preparedness around Pilgrim are reccgni:ed and appreciated by the Federa.1 D.ergency Panagement /gency (FDM) . Inf c. .a'. technical assistance reviews of tr.e draf t local radiclcgical e. ergency respense plans fer Pipouth, Carver, and Ki qston, Passachusetr.s and of the Faceptien Ce:cer Plan for Taunten, Passachusetts were ccepleted by FDM and the results were forwarded to Pr. Pebert Eculay, Passachusetts D.ergency Panagement Director, en Parch 30,: 1988, te results cf the infon al technical assistance reviews of the bridgewater Faception Center Plan and the Cuxbvry Padiolcgical Emergency Pasp0nse Plan were forwarded to Pr. Eculay on August .*t, 1988, and August 8, 1953, respectively. Info =al technical assistance plan reviews have now been completed for all of the' Pilgrim caergency planning zcce (EP ) ccr= unities (V) except for Parshfield. Le Parshfield plan and the plan for a third reception center have not yet been sutmitted for review. ; ! l he reviews ' indicate that there nas been sane pregress made in improvirg and upgrading the 1ccal plans, cveral.1, however, the plans remain inca plete, lack specific details in certain areas, and do net include required implementirg procedures. l In addition to these issues in the local plans that : ust be ad-status of the Passac..usetts Civil Cefense Agency Area II Plan and dressed, the C rrrenwea l*:h cf Passachusetts Plan must be clarified.
- te Area II Plan the; is rcs edsolete irp .any respects and neads upgrading and republishing. Ey our records, the' July 1981 editicn of the Comenwealth Plan rerrains the effective versien, sinca the 1984 revised edition was never i :plemented. Since the r l
Carcnwealth' and Area II Plans bcth centain elements that affect and are critical to the 1ccal plans and their imple-entatien, a full fc=al tecnnical review cf l cffsite planning for Pilgrim cannet be cc:pleted by F.M until revised Cc cnwealth and Area II Plans are sunnitted alerg with c=plete suppcrting 1ccal plans. As indicated in' cur letters to Pr. Eculay, 11 1: plementing procedures, Imtters c' Agrectant, revised Pablic Info =ation Brochures, and trainirg mcdules must als l l be submitted for a full, fc=al technical review. . !. t I W enceurage' ycu to enntinue purscing your goal cf develepirg the best possible eme'.gency plans for protectirg the public health ard safety in the vicinity of I tne Pilgrim Nuclear Fewer ?lant. W can aise appreciate tne intricacies cf the pr: cess and interacticn among the Sm.o and lccal jurisdictions and the licensee that is required to develep such plans. A arut recuestirn, howver, tha; (]> (- you ;revide a schedule er mileste .es indicatinc Mn tne everaddt: site p.annir W
7ew M a-
~
process for Pilgrim will be We ccrdopleted and w;en not believe thatrevised plans this action will be would be submitted arcitrary crto FD S for f r al review. that it would imply that considerations other than public safety are paramount. In fa::, w have fcund schedules and milestones to be useful for planning purposes and for monitoring progress at other sites and we believe that the Cronwealth, the local jurisdictions, and the' licensee could better organize the planning ef fort and w:uld iind that producing a r.:hedule would help facilitate the process. I In your letter you questioned whether the plans that are ultimately developed will provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures "can and will" be taken to protect the puclic. You alsc requested that FD% provide you with a state-
- ment of the criteria FD% intends to c: ploy in making a determination ci reasonable assurance associated with a review of the plans for Pilgrim. FD If M continues to use the intent of 44 CFR 350 as the basis for its raasonable assurance finding.
FDM's regulation 44 CFR 350 ard the planning standards and related evaluation cri-
' teria contained in NUFICr-0654/FDG-PIP-1, Fevision 1, are met, based on the prc-fessional judgment of FDM and other Federal reviewrs, then we are able to make the determination that energency plans adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reascnable assurance that appropriate protective As a point measures can of clari-be taken etfsite in the event of a radiolo;ical e.ergency.
fication, 44 CFR 350 dces not require a FFG resserdle assurance determina icn that protective measures "will" be taken, caly that they "can" be taken. , I In regard to your discussion of planning eptiens and dose savings, the overall ebiective of any radiological emergency res;cnse plan related to a' nuclear powr (x ' plant is to a'ssure reasenable and feasible dose savines for a soectrum of radic-- ( '/ logeal accicants t.na could pro uce offsite coses in excess of Protective Action fuidas (PAG's). ' A PAG is defined as a projected absorbed dose to individuals i in the general population which ' acts as a trigger point to warrant protective ' action. A PAG under no circu= stances implies an acceptable dose. 'Ihe Nuclear, Regulatory Cer: mission (NRC) cenf_ir ed the above resitien in a rulino en Julv l
- 24. 1096, and s:stM that emer ency olta.nine racuirements qq recuire ena;,,
an adecuate olan achieve a erg-gsp T= radiation cese-savings,c,r a minimd levacua- .cn time f c- tne plume exocsure (10-mi.le) rA in tne event of 'a sericus accident (I.cn; Islar.c i.lgntino Co (Sncreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 24 . N'c 22 (C:I-86-13, 1986). 'Ihe orete--ive artices taken af ter a nuclear incidert
- are intendad toiminimize thEadiatico exTsure of the ceneral oublic resultirc_
frottne
, en an a:in;Mul, and witncut nec basis enus a:nleve emergency cOseplanning.
savings in co the ELq parisen to actions bast e-e taxen he w clans ' f
. and preparedness cannot assure that radiaticn ex esure wl"ll not cceur fer tre }t j worst case at:idents.
gl- , In your let:.er you raised the issue of the teach p:pulation in the vicinity' cf;' Pilgr!= and questioned unether FD% continue to stand by the results of the Self-Initiated Paview ant Interin Firdin;. 'lhere are several facters that will ~ be censidered by FDM in reviewing the revised Pilgrim plans regarding the teach population ard other special populatiens within the EP2. One factor involves i Planning Standard J in 1NP.EG-0654/FDG-REF-1, Favisien 1, wttich requires tMt ; a "rwe of erotective ac-icas" be censidered in developing effsite radiolegical emergency response plans. As part of the Pilgrim plan revision process, FD% i 73 r. Ge:ts of fsite cf ficials to develop pr0tective acticn eptions, based en site-i cpecific chars teristics and lccal capabilities, and to provide the technical ' (u) 1
~ w; w a uy d .i . s, e I A- 4 g~t. , b rationale for whatever protective action option or options are selected It is FDM's ecsiticaandtnatadopte as the nest appropriate planning appr ach for the site. a "ran~_e of crotective actions" coul_d be satisfied by' evacuation alone.
~ .
Also, in the Self-Initiated Paview and Interb Finding FD% stated, based on certain f actors, that protective actions for the beach ;cpulation "ray well be adequate cur-rently and, if not, readily correctable." It ray be, based on It is our expectation that once this cption is tified to offset tha difference. clan for the transient beach populaticn fully explored, an ad-Jate shelterin:Yowever, tf tnis is not' the case, to require shelter can be develcoed_. transient cea n tcpulation as a condition c_' a finding o' i reasonable assurance is inconsistent with the precept that e ergency planning require-aents do not require that an adequate plan achieve a pre-set mini :.:n radiation dose savingsh or us,a our minim = evacuation tire. This apprcach is being applied to all EP2's nationwide, res;cnse to your questien as to whether or net w stand behind our finding is two
- 1) we centinue to believe that an adequate sheltering plan for the transient beach population can be develeped for the linited ciret:nstances where shelterirg would be the preferred protective action; and 2) that this issue, in and of itself, would not support a negative finding for the afore entiened legal and policy reasons and for the technical reascns stated A1 w. ,
I c=- In severe accident sequences, the total dose potential is cc: prised of several nese are the direct exposure frat 1=ersion in the plume, cloud-shine ponents. frc: a plume overhead, ex;csure frc: inhalation of the pine, and ground-shine fra: de;csited radienuclides. ,ne exae relatienship areng the In varicus co penents severe accident will sequences, O vary with time anf distance fra: the point of release'. ("j however, the ground-shine campcnent is most likely to becases, the major centributor to total dose if no protective actions are taken. In th'ese if the dese reducticn strategy is sheltering first, feliced by an evacuatien af ter plume passage, the total dese reduction would not be as great as that for the in-ediate evacuation strategy. In an in:sfiate evacuation, to move tce pcpulatien relatively short distances in the a
~
D/en movin; cress-wind directicn wou? d great'.y decrease er eli=inate ex;csure. pcpulation demwind relatively sner distances sculd decrease the dose rate by a fa ter of 3 cr 4. Be sheltering pan cf the strategy It is generally reduces dose prir.arily fr= ac:tpted, depending en the plume irrersion and inhalatien :=penent. n-ene quality of tne shelter, that the effectiveness of a shelter to reduce At sate ' point, shelte' red individuals tne halation would haveex;csure to be degrades relecated.af ter two hours.During this evacuation af ter plume passage, indi previcusly sheltered would still receive the ground-shine dose, pctentially the ma;cr c=penent. terefore, sheltering fclicwed by evacuation is likely to be .a less effe :ive reans of achieving dese reduction than evacbatien' alene, particulcly f r t severe accident sequences. t
'I Generally, the closer an c6a is to the point of release cf radiatien the By greater irple enta-the potential dose savin;s that can be achieved by early evacuatien.tie l derived frce. a "shelter first-evacuate later" concept; can be cocained by movement ,
]
cf the ;cpulation relatively short distances, even in tne extremely unlikely case (q in whien tre plu .e track and the evacuation routes coincide. j ( l In additien to the fa:ters cutlined ab:ve, the NR Staff has advised 7C% that l its interpretation cf NRC emer;ency plannin; regu'.stiana is that ene re;ulatices l
..C
' do not require that shelterinj ba provided for all accidents, at all !!:es, and at Stated diff erently, the NRC all locations within the plu .e exposure pathway EP2.
Staff views the regulations as not requirirg that there be a range of prctec:ive actions that includos btth sneltering and evacuation opticns, fcr all accidents, at all times, and at al.' locations within the EP2. NRC has also advised TE:A that its regulations are not contravened by the absence of shelter in the case of the beach population. In consideration of FEG's interpretation tha't "range of protective acticos" could be satisfied by evacuation alone, the pot,entially great.er dose savings; ft:m an in-nediate evacuation versus sheltering strategy, and the tE's interpretation of its <, regulations, the lack of sheltering for a special, segment of the pcpulation will not, by itself, necessarily be cause for a negative reasonable assurance fi, din;. These standards were applied to reviewing plannirg for the beach'pepul'ation in the 4 Seabrock case ard are being applied to all reviews nationwide.' -l t Mr. Richard Kri.m's recollection of the quotation in your letter is that the state-ments were made in the context of shelterira as a preplan .ed, chcsen protective action and referred to sheltering for the pen.snenr. population. We expert the coracnwealth of Massachusetts and 1ccal jurisdictions to censider' a range cf protective actica ' cptions and to technically justify these eptions that are selected as 7.ne Pilgrim plans are revised and upgraded. In selected instances, sheltering r.sy' ce a Icgical ! and appropriate appecacn. ! ' I would like to reiterate, as str.ted earlier, that FC% encourages the' develegnsnt of a comprehensive schedule for ccepletion of the emergency plans for Pilgrim and that this process is net "arbitra:y" ner does it imply "that considerations other l than public safety (are) paramount." If the schedule, once developed,i needs to be r { y [ adjusted subsequently in order to improve the plans, FDM could acecrpate such . i , mcdifications. i f Once again, additional technical assistance frcm FU% will be readily available to ! I you should you desire it in ccepleting the Pilgrim planning effert. If veu need
- cs/ additional infc=ation, please centact ice at 223-9540 in Boston. f
, + l i Sinca' rely f f' f ' / ,
.. .V dW 1 p:,/ CT. Vickers
. 'l l' Fag'onal Director ,
. . . ,l ', ,
k j .1 d
'i i
I 1 . i i l
- i 1 ,
i 1 i
*t Ar3a II - Radiological, Eme,rgincy Respono Pirn
- : : : .-e
__. m... 1 s V v . c. : 2t Table of Contents ..................... . . i Dcfi.0 :ie-s Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri SECTION I - GENERAL A. Background ........... . . . . . . . . 1-1 E Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 C. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
- 0. Purpose . . . . . ............ . . . . 1-3 E. Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :4 F. Support of Emergency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9
'SECTION II - FUNCTIONS PART A - ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
- 1. Pur:cse ....................... II-A-1 g-~s 2. Au:nority ...................... II *-1
( ') 3. Succession of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-A-3 4 Primary Organi:ations . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . II-A 4 Figure A-1, Emergency Response Organi:a*. ion Interface ................. . . . . . II A-15 Figure A-2. Emergency Organization Responsibilities . . . !!-A-15 PART 8 - ONSITE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . II-S-1 PART C - EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUPPORT AND RESOURCES
- 1. Purpose .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-1
- 2. Federal Support and Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-1
- 3. Radiological Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-3 4 State Support of Federal Response . . . . . . . . . . II-C 4
- 5. Local Support .................... II-C 4
- 6. Laboratory Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C 4
- 7. Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) Representation . . II-C 4 t 8. Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-5 l
l PART D - EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
- 1. Purpose .. ...................... II-C-1
- 2. Emergency Classification Levels . . . . . . . . . . . II-D-1
- 3. Response Actions by Classification Level . . . . . . . !!-C-2 s Figure D-1, Respon'.e Actions by Classification Level . . . !!-: 4 i
4/15/85
_ ~ Arca'II n
..s.
. _ _ - - - - . . - _ , _ _ _ . m. .
/ (' pARt [ - EMERGINCY NOT.fFICATION e
'). Purpose ..... . . ... .............. II-E 1
- 2. Initial Notification . ~ . . . . . . ... . . . . ..
II-E-1
- 3. Follo -Je ho:5fication . ........... . . II-E-3 4 Verificition . . r. . . . .. ... .. .II-E 4
!. fubli: hotification . ... .
....... . ':-i 4
- 6. Special Notif)c Ation of Public . . . . . . . . . . . . II-E-6 Figure E-1 Pilgrim NPS' Prompt Notification System Flow . II-E-8 Figure E-2, kotification of MCDA Area II .
Emergency Response Organization . . . . . . II-E-9
+
Figure E-3 Prompt.Notifttation System for the Public . II-E-10 Figure E-4, Prctective Action Recommendation (FAR)
, Decition Chain and i'ublic Dissemination . . II-E 11 Figure E-5, Emergency Broaocast System Sample Messages *. . II-E-12 PART F - EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-F-1
- 2. Emergency Communications Coordination ........ II-F-1
- 3. Communication Network Descri +. ion .......... II-F-1 4 Emerger.cy Notifications ............... . II-F-2
- 5. Federal Agency Link . . ......,........ !!-F-2
- 6. Contiguous State Link . ............... II-F-3
- 7. Inter-Agency Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... II-F-3
- 8. EOF Comn.un i c a t i on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-F-3
- 9. MCDA Area II Response Agency Links . . . . . . . . . . II F-4
- 10. Medical Support Links . ............... II-F-4 11 General Public Link . . ............... II-F-4
- 12. Field Monitoring Team Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' II-F-4
- 13. Communications Network Testing and Maintenance . . . . II-F-5 Figure F-1, MCDA Area II Communications Ne t. . . . .. II-F-6 PART G - PUBLIC INFORMATION
- 1. Purpose .......................
II-G-1
- 2. Concept of Operations . ............... II-G-1
~
3. 4 Media Rumor Control Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-2
... . . ............... II-G-3
- 5. Media Orientation and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-4
- 6. Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-4 PART H - EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
- 1. Purpose ......... ............ II-H-1 2.
3. Area II EOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . .. Radiological Equipment . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . .
. II-H-1 II-H-3 4 Communications Ecuipment . . . . . . ........ . !!-H-4 1
- 5. Emergency Su: plies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-H-5
- 6. Receipt and Coorcination cf Field Monitoring Data .. II-H-5 Figure H-1, Facility E;uipment . . ,. . . ........ !!-H-6 11 4/15/85
Area II i
? . .-..-. __
. . . . . - . Ut Pt.RT I - ACCIDLNT A.SSESSMENT q
- 1. Nrna . . . . . . . . . ......... .. !!-I-.
- 2. Radiologickl Monitoring-Accioent Assessment ..... ~II-I-l FART ] PROTECTIVE RESPONSE
), P rpose . . . . . . . .. ............... II-s-1
- 2. Protective Action Decision-Making ........ . II-J-1 "
4 3. Protective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . !!-J 4 4 Sneltering and Evacuation of Special Populations . . . II-J-8 ;
- 5. Evacuation Route Capacities ............ II-J ! 6. Traffic Control . . . . ............... !I-J-:2 '
- 7. Impediment Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3-22 S. EPZ Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-J-23
- 9. Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) . ,. . . . . . . .. !!-J-:3 .
- 10. Potentiai Problems in Evacuation .......... !*-J-23
- 11. Security Patrols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-24 ,
.12 . Reception Centers . . . .............. II-J-25 '
1 13. Mass Care Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-26 ) 14 Ingestion Exposure Pathway Protective Measures . . . . II-J-27 l Figure J-1, Radiological Sampling and Ponitoring Points jl (Mac) . . . . . . . . . ............... 4'-J-2, t Figure J-2,10 mile EFZ vith Subareas (Mac). ....... II J-30 Figure J-3 Evacuation Routes (Mao) ........... II-J 31 l i Figure J-4. Captcities of Evacuation Route (List) .... II-J-32 ; Figure J-5, Subarea Population Distribution (Maps) .... II-J-33 i ll
- Figure J-6. Evacuation Time Estinate Summary . . . . . . .
Figure J-7. Reception Centers and Care Centers . . . . . .
!!-J-36 II-J-37 PART K - RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTR08 J i
- 1. Purpose . . . . . . . . ............... II-K-1 i 2. Equipment . . . . . . . ............... II-K-1 j 3. Reading, Reporting and Recorvkeeping . . . . . . . . . II-K-3
! 4 Whol e Body Exposure Limi ts , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-K 4 { 5. Thyroid Exposure Limits . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-K-5
- 6. Contamination Monitoring and Decontamination . . . . . II-K-6
- 7. Medical Support and Treatment Facility . . . . . . . . II-K-7 Figure K-1, Radiological Exposure control Organi:ation . . II-K-9 l Figure K-2, Contamination Levels I, Recuire Actions . . . . II-K-10 1
{ PART L'- HEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEN TH SUPPORT i 1. Purpose . . . . . . . . ............... II-L-1 l l 2. Medical Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-L-1 l l 3. Evaluation of Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . I*-t-2 l 4 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-t-2 l 1
- 5. Transportation of Contamina'.ec Injured Incivicuals . . !I-t-3
- 6. Orills and Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-L 4 l 1
I 111 4/'.5/88 ] [
Arca II 1 l l .e-
- . s l ~
l [ ;- ! \_-) PART M - RECOVERY. RE-ENTIY AND RETURN PLANN!hG AND POST - l
*CCIDEN OPERITIONS
- 1. Purpose ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-K-1 l 2. Criteria for Re-entry ar.d Recovery . . . . . . . . II-H-1 l 3. Re-Entry . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . II '-2 4 Rcturn . I . . .
1 .
.scovsri .
a ....... . . . . . . . . . ..-r -z PART N - EXERCISES AND DRILLS . , 1. Purpose ..................... . II N.1 l 2. Criteria . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . II-N-1
- 2. Communication Drills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-N-3
- 4. Medical Emergency Orill . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.' I - N 4 l 5. Radiological Monitoring Drills . . . . . . . . . . !!-N
- l 6. health Pnysics Orills .......... . . :I-N 4 l 7. Evaluation . ..................... I!-N-5
- PART 0 - RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING I 1. Purpose ............. . . . . . . . II-0-1 l 2. Scope of Training ........ . . . . . II-0-1
- 3. Training Receirements ...... . . . . . . II-0-5
/h 4. Frequencv of Training ............. . . II-0-$
i \m,) 5 Training"Program Review and Evaluation . . . . . . . II-C-6 i Figure 0-1. Emergency Response Personnel Training Matrix . II-C-7 l PART P - RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PLANNING F.FFORT: l DEVELOPHENT. PERIODIC REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION l OF EMERGENCY PLANS l l
- 1. Purcose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-1
- 2. Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-1
- 3. Plan Update and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-2 4 Annual Letter of Certification . . . . . . . . . II -3
- 5. Training of Emergency Planners . . . . . II-P-3
- 5. Sue:orting Documents to the Plan . . . . . II c-4 Figure P-1 Plan Distribution List . . . . . . . . . II P-5 l Figure P-2, Supporting Documents List . . . . . . . . . . II-F-7 l
l SECTION III - LETTERS OF AGRE!HENT , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 i S!; TION IV - NUREG-0654 CRITERIA / PLAN CPOSS REFERENCE . . . . . . . IV-1 SECTICN V - IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE 'ISTING . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 l l l l (],m iv i '/15/S8 1 l
Town of Marahficld - Padiological Emerg0ncy Responte Pirn I TABLE OF CONTENTS
'T
. (G ) Item -
?.1g1 l
J T6ble of Contents ......................... 1 Definitions ............................ Vi Acronymt .............................. xiii SECTION I - GENE M A. Background ........................ I-1 B. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 C. S,$pe . . . . . . . ................... I-3 D. P pose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4 E. Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4 F. Support Area; . . . . ,................. I-9 SFCTION 11 - FUtlCTIONS PART A - ASSIGNHENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-A-1 ,
3 (" 2. Authority . . . ................... II-A-1 i
\ 3. Succession of Authority ............... II-A-3 ;
- 4. Primary Organizations ................ II-A-4 l Figure A-1, Marshfield Emergency Response Organization . . II-A-24 1 Figure A-2. Emergency Response Organization Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-A-25 Figure A-3 Emergency Organization Responsibilities (Town) 'I-A-26
! Figure A-4, Emergency Organization Responsibilities (M hers) II-A-27 l PA'ti B - ONSITE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-B-1 t PART C - EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUPPORT AND RESOURCES j
- 1. P$rpose ....................... II-C-1 l
- 2. Town of Marshfield Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-1 !
- 3. Sources of Additional Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . II-C-2 !
- 4. Re"esentation at the Emergency j
; . wittons Facility ................ II-C-2 1 PART D - EW..or.r.? .LASSIF1't ION SYSTEM i
- 1. Pt ................ II-D-1 l
- 2. El ' ; '. -
)n Levels .. ........ II-0-1 1
- 3. R * .c ' -
~
issification Level . . . . . . . II-D-2 l Figure D- 7 $ Actions by Llassification I o 1 tevei . . . . . . . . . . . . II-0-4 L) l l 1 k 07/28/ % 10 116 l n -
Town of Marchtiold Item EAg1 (m
') . PART E - EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION - HETHODS AND PROCEDURES
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-E-1
- 2. Initial Information ................. II-E-1
- 3. Follow-up Information ................ II-E-3 4 Verifying Notificatinns to Response Organizations. . . II-E-4
- 5. Public Notification ................. II-E-4
- 6. Special Notification of Public . . . . . . . . . . . . II-E-6 Figure E-1, Notification of Offsite Emergency Respense Organization . . . . . . . . . . . II-E-7 Figure E-2, Initial Notification Form . . . . . . . . . . . II-E-8 Figure E-3. Notification of Marshfield Emergency Response Organization . . . . . . . . . . . II-E-9 Figure E-4, Prompt Notification System for the Public. . . II-E-10 i
Figure E-5, Emergency Broadcast System Messages ..... II-E-11 ( PART F - EHERGENCY COHHUNICATIONS
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-F-1
- 2. Emergency Communications Coordination ........ II-F-1
- 3. Communication Network Description .......... II-F-1 ,
- 4. Emergen:y Notifications ............... II-F-2 ;
Federal Agency link ................. II-F-3 5.
- 6. Contigucus State Link ................ II-F-3
- 7. State Agency link .................. II-F-3
- 8. Marshfield EOC to the Plant's Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and other Town E0C's ......... II F-4
- 9. Marshfield Response Agency links . . . . . . . . . . . II-F-4
- 10. Medical Support Links ................ II-F-5 i 11. General Public Link ................. II-F-5
- 12. Field Monitoring Team Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.r-5 1 13. Commuaications Network Testing and Mainter ance . . . . Il-F-6 3
Figuro F-1, Town Communications Network ....... II-F-7 PART G DUBLIC INFORMATION
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-G-1
- 2. Concept of Operations ................ II-G-1 i 3. Media Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-2
- 4. Press Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-4
- 5. Rumor Control .................... II-G-4 i
- 5. Media Orientation and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-5
- 7. Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-G-5 :
Figure G-1, Emergency Public Information Flacard . . . . . II-G-8 . Figure G-2. Telephone Directory Emergency ) Informatica Notice . . . . . . . . II-G-9 l Figure G-3 Emergency Public Information . . . . . . . . . II-G-10 ) l 1 1 4 m 07/28/88 - ID 116 1 i
Town of Marchfiold Item g PART H - EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-H-1
- 2. Ma r s h f i e l d EOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-H-1
- 3. Other Town Facilities ................ II-H-5
- 4. Raujological Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-H-5
- 5. Communications Equipement .............. II-H-7
- 6. Emergency Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . c . .... II-H-8
- 7. Receipt and Coordination of Field Monitoring Data .. II-H-8 Figure H-1, Facility Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-H-9 PART I - ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-I-1
- 2. Radiological Monitoring-Accident Assessment ..... II-I-I PART J - PROTECTIVE RESPONSE
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-J-1
- 2. Protective Action Decision-Making .......... II-J-1
- 3. Protective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-4
- 4. Sheltering and Evacuation of Special Populations . . . II-J-8
- 5. Evacuation Route Capacities ............. II-J-16
- 6. Traffic Control ................... II-J-16 O 7.
8. 9. Impediment Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EPZ Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-17 II-J-18 Evacuation Time Estimates .............. II-J-18
- 10. Peter.tial Problems in Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-18
- 11. Security Patrols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-19
- 12. Reception Centers .................. II-J-20
- 13. Mass. Care Shelters ................. II-J-21 14 Ingestion Exposure Pathway Protective Measures . . . . II-J-22 l Figure J-1 Radiological Sampling and Monitoring Points . . II-J-24 Figure J-2, 10 Mile.EPZ with Subareas .......... II-J-25 Figure J-3, Evacuation Routes .............. II-J-26 Figure J-4, Peak Employee Population . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-27 Figura J-5, Peak Resident Population . . . . . . . . . . . II-J-28 Figure J-6, Peak Transient Population .......... II-J-29 Figure J-7 Evacuation Tim Estimate Study by Region . . . .II-J-30 Figure J-7a, Regional Evacuation Groupings and Scenarios . II-J-31 Figure J-8, Reception Centers and .Nass Care Shelters . . . II-J-32 Figure J-9, Schools Located in the Town of Marshfield .. II-J-33 O
() 111 07/28/88 - ID 116 l u _
Town of Marehfield It1m P_Lgg PART K - RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL
- 1. Purpose ..... ................. II-K-1
- 2. Equipment ...................... II-K-1 r
- 3. Reading, Reporting and Record Keeping ........ II-K-3
- 4. -Mhole Body Exposure Limits . . . . . . . . . . , . . II-K-4
- 5. Thyroid Exposure Limits ............... II-K-5
- 6. Contamination Monitoring and Decontamination . . . . . II-K-6
- 7. Medical Support and Treatment Facility . . . . . . . . II-K-8 Figure K-1, Radiclogical Exposure Control Organization . . II-K-9 Figure K-2, Raciation Exposure Personnel (REP) Form ... II-K-10 ;
PART L - MEDICAL AND PUBLIC NEALTN SUPPORT
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-L-1
- 2. Hospitals ...................... II-L-1 ;
- 3. Evaluation of Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . II-L-2 ;
4 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-L-2
- 5. Transportation of Contaminated Injured Individuals . . II-L-3
- 6. Drills and Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-L-4 PART H - RECOVERY, RE-ENTRY, AND RETURN PLANNING AND POST ACCIDENT OPERATIONS
- 1. Purpose ....................... II-H-1
- 2. Criteria for Recovery, Re-entry and Return .. . . . . . II-M-1 .
\ :
PART N - EXERCISES AND DRILLS
- 1. Purpose ........................ II-N-1
- 2. Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-N-1
- 3. Communication Drills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-N-3
- 4. Medical Emergency Drill ............... II-N-5
- 5. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-N-5 PART 0 - RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING i
l. Purpose ............... ....... 11-0-1
- 2. Scope of Training .................. II-0-1
- 3. Training Requirements ................ II-0-5
- 4. Frequency of Training ................ II-0-6
] 5. Training Program Review and Evaluation . . . . . . . . II-0-7 Figure 0-1. Emergency Response Personnel Training Matrix . 11-0-8 l
\
tv 7/11/88 - 10 116
t Tows of Marshfield { , Item EIS.t PART P - RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT: OEVELOPMENT. PERIODIC REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMERGENCY PLANS
- 1. Purpost ....................... II-P-1
- 2. Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-1
- 3. Plan Update and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-2 :
; 4 Annual Letter of Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-3 : ! 5. Training of Emergency Planners . . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-3 l 6. Supporting Documents to the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-5 Figure P-1, Plan Olstribution List . . . . . . . . . . . II-P-6 Figure P-2. Supporting Documents List . . . . . . . . . . II-P-8 SECT!0N III - LETTERS OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 SECTION IV - NUREG-0654 CRITERIA / PLAN CROSS REFERENCE , . . . . . . IV-1 SECTION V - IMPLCHENTING PROCEDURES LISTING . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 lO
} i i 3 L 1 i i : I i j e L O ! y 7 /1 Uf.B e 10 116 : i I _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _}}