Date 8/17/05 Congressman Todd Platts – Lisa Flanagan (Director of

Date 8/17/05
Congressman Todd Platts –
Lisa Flanagan (Director of Constituent Services)
[email protected]
(717) 600-1919
Dear Ms. Flanagan:
On May 3, 2005, an emergency drill designed to test Pennsylvania’s ability to respond to
a nuclear emergency was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the Three Mile Island
Nuclear Facility.
FEMA’s detailed analysis of the May 2005 emergency drill was released August 4, 2005.
We have reviewed this report and found major omissions which continue to leave
Pennsylvania’s preschool children without the required radiological protections listed in
GM EV-2.
Please send our report outlining omissions in the May 2005 TMI Exercise directly to the
Commissioners of the NRC and the Directors of FEMA seeking a remedy and a
response in a timely manor (2 weeks).
Chairman Nils J Diaz, Ph.D.
Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield
Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko
Commissioner Peter B. Lyons
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C., 20555-0001
Under Secretary Michael D. Brown
Craig Conklin Branch Chief of Nuclear and Chemical Hazards
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472
Respectfully submitted,
Eric J. Epstein
TMI-Alert Chairman
4100 Hillsdale Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
8/17/05
Chairman Nils J Diaz, Ph.D.
Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield
Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko
Commissioner Peter B. Lyons
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C., 20555-0001
Under Secretary Michael D. Brown
Craig Conklin Branch Chief of Nuclear and Chemical Hazards
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear honorable NRC & FEMA Representatives,
On March 24, 2005 we received a letter from Roy P. Zimmerman, Director of NRC Office
of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Mr. Zimmerman’s letter was in response to
our concerns regarding REP planning for preschool children. In this letter Mr.
Zimmerman promised us that during the upcoming Three Mile Island emergency
exercise in May 2005, FEMA would evaluate the capabilities of the OROs, including
compliance of the plan and procedures with FEMA’s protocols contained in GM EV-2.
(See attached letter)
Upon our review of FEMA’s Final Report on the May 2005 exercise, this promise was
not kept because no day care centers were directly included in the exercise. This
oversight is sited on page 87 of FEMA’s report which states: “Private schools, private
kindergartens, and day care centers do not participate in the REP exercise.”
Due to this major oversight, we conclude that the evaluation criteria FEMA used render
the exercise out of compliance with the two main contexts (developing emergency
response plans; and for conducting and evaluating exercises requirements) for
preschool children as outlined in Guidance Memorandum EV-2 “Protective Actions for
School Children”.
Attached is a detailed overview of our findings and concerns.
SECTION 1 – REFERENCES TO OMMISSIONS IN FEMA’S MAY EXERCISE
Omissions include (but are not limited to) of the following:
1. No day care centers or nursery schools were tested in the May 2005 drill
because they were not required to participate.
On page 87 of FEMA’s final report it states: “Private schools, private
kindergartens, and day care centers do not participate in the REP exercise.”
On Table 2. Section 4.0 School Districts on pages 19 & 20 of FEMA’s final report,
no childcare facilities appear in the chart.
The only schools tested were: public High Schools, Middle Schools, or
Elementary Schools. No day care centers or nursery schools were listed as being
included in the exercise.
CONCLUSION: Due to this omission the May 2005 exercise was fundamentally
flawed. Please refer to Section N. Exercises and Drills in GM EV-2. None of the
exercise evaluation criteria listed on pages 6-13 of GM EV-2 were tested for day
care centers and nursery schools, because no day care centers were required to
participate in the REP exercise.
The State of Pennsylvania has not had radiological planning for preschool
children even though GM EV-2 was implemented in 1986, because FEMA and
the NRC has been improperly implementing GM EV-2 for more than 19 years.
FEMA’s report does not provide reasonable assurance that preschool children
are protected.
2. The only notation listed for preschool children in FEMA’s final report was
notification of day care centers of an emergency.
From page iv of the FEMA report: “An item of special interest during this exercise
was the notification of day care centers located in the 10-mile EPZ of Three Mile
Island…. Each municipality had a Notification and Resource Manual that lists the
names, address, point of contact and phone number of the day care centers
located in their portion of the EPZ. In every case, the municipalities simulated
notification of the day care centers in a timely manner pursuant to their codified
plans and procedures.”
The only consideration for preschool children given in the May 2005 REP
exercise was notification of an emergency.
This exercise did not show that these child care facilities have been provided the
outlined protective measures listed in GM EV-2 such as:
•
•
•
Means for effecting protective actions;
Specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting letters of
agreement if resources are provided from external sources and
Name and location of relocation center(s), and transport route(s), if
applicable.
This exercise also fails to show how day care centers and nursery schools have
been integrated into the state’s offsite plan.
From GM EV-2: Local governments should ensure that appropriate
organizational officials assume responsibility for the emergency planning and
preparedness for all of the identified schools. Local governments should also
ensure that the emergency planning undertaken by these organizations is
integrated within the larger offsite emergency management framework for the
particular nuclear power plant site.
CONCLUSION: There is no proof given in FEMA’s report that childcare facilities
have prearranged transportation, relocation centers or any of the other protective
requirements listed in GM EV-2. FEMA’s report does not provide reasonable
assurance that preschool children are protected.
3. Only 1 public school per district was tested in the May 2005 drill.
In the Extent of Play section on page 87 it states: “At least one school in each
affected school system or district, as appropriate, needs to demonstrate the
implementation of protective actions.
On Table 2. Summary Results of the 2005 Exercise Evaluation Under Section
4.0 School Districts on pages 19 & 20, only 1 (one) school per district is
tested.
CONCLUSION: FEMA and the NRC cannot state that all preschools in each
district have appropriate measures in place to protect preschool children because
they are only testing 1 school per district (of which none were preschools). There
is no proof given in FEMA’s report that preschools have meet the requirements
listed under GM EV-2. FEMA’s report does not provide reasonable assurance
that preschool children are protected.
4. Criterion 3.c.2 was the only Protective Action Implementation shown as
“Met” for the few schools that were tested.
Criterion 3.c.2: OROs/School officials decide upon and implement protective
actions for schools was the only mark that showed up in Table 2 as being “Met”
by the few public schools that were tested.
Transportation sources for preschool children were not confirmed; and
Relocation Centers for preschool children were not confirmed.
Again, please refer to Section N. Exercises and Drills in GM EV-2. None of the
exercise evaluation criteria listed on pages 6-13 could be verified as being tested
because Criterion 3.c.2 was the only one listed as being tested and “Met”.
CONCLUSION: FEMA and the NRC cannot verify that preschools in each district
have all the required measures in place to protect preschool children because
they are only testing 1 criterion per school (of which none were preschools).
There is no proof given in FEMA’s report that preschools have meet all the
requirements listed under GM EV-2. FEMA’s report does not provide reasonable
assurance that preschool children are protected.
SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND
One September 11, 2002 we submitted petition PRM 50-79 which asked for new
requirements to include childcare facilities in federal Radiological Emergency Planning.
This petition for rulemaking changes was submitted because, at the time, Pennsylvania
had no such protective requirements for school children.
Acting director of PEMA, Carl Kuehn, submitted a public comment on January 10, 2003
(Docket Number PRM 50-79 67FR 66588) requesting rejection of our petition on the
grounds that childcare facilities were privately run business who could opt to participate
in the RERP on a voluntary basis. (See attached letter)
In a July 30, 2004 letter from PEMA Director David Sanko, that states: “Childcare
facilities are, for the most part, private business entities who, in conjunction with parents,
should assume responsibility for the safety of their charges. Local government will not
treat these business any differently than it does any other citizen. Especially in rural
areas, municipal government simply may not have the resources to provide shelter”.
(See attached letter)
These two statements by PEMA administrators serve to validate our concerns that
Pennsylvania is not following the requirements listed under GM EV-2.
Also see the attached letter from Governor Rendell to the PA Senate in which he states
“Nine months after I took office, I learned the state did not require emergency planning
as a routine aspect of childcare licensure”.
On January 22, 2005 we submitted via Congressman Todd Platts’ Office the results of a
survey conducted of childcare facilities located in the EPZ located around Three Mile
Island. The results of this survey showed that:
•
87% don’t know who would provide transportation for their children; and
•
58% don’t know to which relocation center they should take children; and
•
Two-thirds have not been provided prearranged transportation by the state, count
or municipality in the event of a nuclear disaster.
We have received little actions or responses from the NRC and FEMA based on any of
the letters, communications, petitions, surveys that show preschool children are not
being planned for as GM EV-2 requires.
SECTION 3 – SUMMARY
Since 1986 GM EV-2 has outlined the requirements to protect school children, including
preschool children attending day care centers and nursery schools. Yet Pennsylvania,
by it’s own admission, has not meet the planning requirements of GM EV-2 for over 19
years. (See attached letter from Governor Rendell to the PA Senate)
An immediate determination of noncompliance with GM EV-2 should be made.
Therefore, reasonable assurance that preschool children can be protected in the event
of a nuclear disaster cannot be meet at this time.
Please respond and take immediate actions to bring Pennsylvania into compliance with
GM EV-2 so our preschool children can be protected in accordance federal law 10 CFR
50.47; 10 CFR 50.54; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E; and 44 CFR 350 as implemented
under Presidential Executive Order 12148.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric J. Epstein
TMI-Alert Chairman
4100 Hillsdale Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Mr. Epstein is the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., a safe-energy organization based in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania and founded in 1977. TMIA monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, and Three Mile Island
nuclear generating stations.