ML20086U286
| ML20086U286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1984 |
| From: | Cordaro M, Edward Robinson, Weismantle J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086U072 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8403070211 | |
| Download: ML20086U286 (71) | |
Text
- . . - _ . . . -- -
f LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa: d
- Zn the Matter of ) l 4 )
- LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)
Unit 1) )
a TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE AND ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY FOR PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING q CONTENTION 74 (LOCATION OF RELOCATION CENTERS)
- Hunton & Williams -
707. East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23219 (804).788-8200 5
l fS3Soo$kO T
l
LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE, AND ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE LONG ISLAND '
LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 74 (LOCATION OF RELOCATION CENTERS)
PURPOSE The Suffolk County Chapter of the American Red Cross has agreed to provide relocation centers in Suffolk County for use should an emergency occur at Shoreham. The five locations listed in the LILCO Plan are the facilities being considered by the Suffolk County Red Cross. Unless the Red Cross advises LILCO otherwise, these facilities will be used by LILCO in plenning. LILCO is confident that these or similar facilities will be the subject of. agreements with the Red Cross, similar to the many facilities that have been found in Nassau County.
! LILCO has also obtained.a letter of understanding with the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross. The Nsosau Red Cross has also agreed to provide relocation centers
in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. The Nassau reloca-tion centers are available for use as back-up centers, and as primary centers in the unlikely event that the Suffolk County Red Cross is unable to provide facilities.
Of all these relocation centers, only two are within 5 miles of the EPZ boundary -- Suffolk County Community College at Selden and the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
These two facilities are within 3 and 4 miles of the EPZ bound-cry. Suffolk County Planners originally designated these cen-ters, and the State approved them. The advantages of excellent highway access, on-site security forces, emergency generators, extensive cafeteria and sanitary facilities, parking space, recreational facilities, and medical facilities offered at these sites clearly outweigh the distance from the lO-mile EPZ boundary.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Letter of Understanding between LILCO and Suffolk County Chapter of American Red Cross, dated June 24, 1983 Attachment 2 "The Ameri'can Red Cross Suffolk County Chapter Emergency Response Plan Peacetime Radiological Emergencies / Nuclear Nuclear Accidents" Attachment 3 Letter of Understanding between LILCO and N:ssau County' Chapter of the
'American Red Cross, dated February 11, 1984
Attachment 4 Letter from Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross to LILCO, dated January 23, 1984 Map Showing Locations of Designated helocation Centers Contract between LILCO and Suffolk County to Prepare an Offsite Emergency Plan Deposition of Lee D. Koppelman dated October 6, 1983, pages 44-48 Report on Relocation Centers by the Suffolk County Department of Planning to the New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group, dated April 29, 1981 Letter from New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group to Region II of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), dated May 19, 1981 0 Letter from FEMA Pegion II to New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group dated June 4, 1981 1 Letter from Suffolk County Department of Planning to the New York State Department of Health, dated September 2, 1981 1
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
LILCO, March 2, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE, AND ELAINE D. ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF'THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 74 (LOCATION OF RELOCATION CENTERS)
- 1. Q. Please scate your names and business addresses.
A. [Cordaro) My name is Matthew C. Cordaro and my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, l
175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.
[Weismantle) My name is John A. Weismantle and my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 1
100 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, l
11801.
[ Robinson) My name is Elaine D. Robinson and my address is Long Island Lighting Company, 100 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801.
- 2. Q. Please summarize your professional qualifications and your role in emergency planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
A. [Cordaro] I am Vice President of Engineering for LILCO and have held this position since the spring of 1978. My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document enti-tied " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witness-es." I am sitting on this panel to provide the LILCO management perspective on emergency planning and to answer any questions pertinent to manage-ment. My role in emergency planning for Shoreham is to ensura that the needs and requirements of emergency planning are being met and that the tech-nical direction and content of emergency planning are being conveyed to corporate management.
[Weismantle) I am Manager of the Local Response Implementing Organization for LILCO. My profes-sional qualifications are being offered into evi-dence as part of the document entitled " Profession-l al Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses." My familiarity with the issues surrounding Contention
! 74 stems from my work in developing and imple-menting the LILCO Transition Plan.
[ Robinson] I am employed by LILCO as Manager of j the External Organizations Division of the Local 4
Emergency Response Implementing Organization (LERIO). My professional qualifications are being offered into evidence as part of the document enti-tied " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witness-es." I manage the LERIO team that is responsible for incorporating outside organizations, including the Red Cross, into the emergency planning effort.
As such, I am familiar with the issue of the loca-tion of relocation centers.
- 3. Q. What is the "Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77?"
A. The "Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77" reads as follows:
Further Preamble to Contentions 74-77. An offsite emergency plan must include means of relocating evacuees and must provide for relocation centers lo-cated at least five miles and preferably 10 miles beyond the EPZ. NUREG 0654, Sections II.J.10.g and h. Such reloca-tion centers are essential to provide food and shelter to those evacuees who have no alternative places to stay and also to provide radiological monitoring and decontamination for evacuees and their vehicles. The relocation centers must'have sufficient personnel and equip-
- ment to monitor evacuees within a 12-hour l period. NUREG 0654,Section II.J.12.
l The LILCO Plan calls for the estab-lishment of relocation centers outside the EPZ at the following-facilities (Plan, Hat 4.2-1; OPIP 4.2.1):
Suffolk County Community College (primary)
BOCES Islip Occupational Center (primary)
State University of New York at Stony Brook (primary)
State University of New York at Farmingdale (backup)
St. Joseph's College, Patchogue (backup).
The Intervenors contend that LILCO will be unable to provide adequate relocation centers and services for evacuees, and thus the Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(8),
50.47(b)(10), and NUREG 0654.Section J.
The specific deficiencies which lead to this conclusion are set forth in Conten-tions 74-77.
- 4. Q. What is Contention 74?
A. Contention 74 reads as follows:
Contention 74. Two of the three pri-mary relocation centers designated by LILCO are well within 20 miles from the Shoreham site. Both Suffolk County Com-munity College and the State University of New York at Stony Brook are only three miles beyond the EPZ boundary contrary to the requirements of NUREG 0654,Section II.J.10.h.
- 5. Q. What is the legal standard cited in Contention 74?
A. The legal standard cited in Contention 74 is the following:
NUREG-0654, II.J.10.h The organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume expo-sure pathway shall include:
- h. Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles and preferably 10 miles beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone.
- 6. Q. What are the relocation centers designated in the LILCO Transition Plan?
A. The primary relocation centers presently designated in the Plan are Suffolk County Community College, Boces Islip Occupational Center, and the State Uni-versity of New York at Stony Brook as primary relo-cation centers, and the State University of New York at Farmingdale and Saint Joseph's College in Patchogue as secondary relocation cente'rs. As explained in the testimony filed by LILCO on Con-tentions 24.0, 24.P, 74, and 75, the American Red Cross has agreed to provide relocation centers in Suffolk County for use should an emergency occur at l Shoreham. Attachment 1 to this testimony is the lettsr of understanding'between LILCO and the i Suffolk County Chapter of the American Red Cross. )
1 \
Attachment 2 to this testimony is a statement by the Suffolk County Chapter of its role and responsibilities in a radiological emergency. The i l
Suffolk County Red Cross has not yet finalized written agreements with the relocation centers listed in the LILCO Transition Plan, but those are the centers the Red Cross is considering to provide shelter during an emergency at Shoreham. LILCO will continue to use these facilities in planning.
Of course, if the Suffolk Red Cross advises LILCO that it has designated other centers in Suffolk County, the Plan will be amended to reflect those centers. Prior to operation above 5% power, the t
LILCO Transition Plan will include the letters of agreement between the Red Cross and the facilities to be used as relocation centers in Suffolk County.
LILCO is confident that the facilities listed in the Plan, or similar facilities will be-the subject of agreements with the Suffolk Red Cross, similar to the many facilities that have been found in ,
Nassau.
i In addition to the centers being pursued in Suffolk County, LILCO has obtained a letter of understand-ing with Nassau County Chapter of the Red .ss to provide relocation centers in Nassau County (At-tachment 3 to this testimony). A letter listing the 52 facilities available as relocation centers in Nassau is Attachment 4 to this testimony. If,
i
)
prior to operation above 5% power, sufficient Suffolk County facilities are not available for whatever reason to LILCO for use as relocation cen-ters, the Nassau County centers will be relied upon in the LILCO Transition Plan to the extent neces-sary to ensure adequate relocation center facili-ties. Public information and educational materials would be revised to reflect any change.
- 7. Q. Do the locations of the centers identified in the Plan meet the NUREG-0654, II.J.lO.h guidelines?
That is, are all of the relocation centers at least 5 miles beyond the EPZ?
A. Three of the relocation centers designated in Suffolk County are at least 5 miles beyond the EPZ, as indicated on the attached map (Attachment 5).
Two are not: the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, which is approximately 4 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the Suffolk County College (SCCC) at Selden, which is approximately three miles from the EPZ boundary.
1
- 8. Q. Do you think that SCCC at Selden and SUNY at' Stony Brook are satisfactory relocation centers for li-l censing' purposes even though they are less than.5 l miles beyond'the EPZ?
A. Yes. There are_several reasons for concluding that SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook are satis-- )
factory _ relocation centers. The reasons are best
understood by explaining how and why the suffolk County Community College at Selden and the State University of New York at Stony Brook were selected as relocation centers.
LILCO did not originally select the relocation cen-ters. LILCO adopted the judgments of planners in Suffolk County's own Planning Department. At the time, the County planners were developing an emer-gency plan. The agreement to develop a plan, in part using funding from LILCO, was ultimately for-malized in a contract (Attachment 6). The " Scope of Services" section of the contract provides that the County would prepare a plan "as required by Federal Regulations in effect on the date of this Agreement." The County Planning Department repre-sented that "it has read and is familiar with the applicable Federal Regulations . . . and that the DEPARTMENT believes it can develop a County Ra-diological Emergency Response Plan which complies with such regulations." Exhibit B to the contract states that "[a]ll finalized plans and procedures will be developed to meet NRC, FEMA, EPA and any other applicable regulatory requirements . . . ."
In a deposition taken October 6, 1983, the Director of the Planning Department, who had signed the I
1 contract and had been responsible for the " direct supervision" of the work, testified that the prin-cipal planner had proceeded "in full faithfulness, with the scope of secvices that wr.s set forth in the contract." The applicable part of the deposi-tion is appended to this testimony as Attachment 7.
The basis for selecting SCCC at Seldon and SUNY at Stony Brook as relocation centers is explained in the report transmitted by the Suffolk County'De-partment of Planning to the New York State Nuclear i
Emergency Planning Group 1 April 99, 1981 (Attach-ment 8). This report states that the facilities have many advantages, these including excellent highway access, on-site security forces, emergency generators, extensive cafeteria and sanitary facil-ities, parking space, recreational facilities, and medical facilities. Both facilities have been des-ignated as civil defense shelters. The Suffolk County Planning Department's report recognizes that SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook do not sat-isfy the distance criteria in NUREG-0654, II.J.10.h, but strongly recommends the facilities nevertheless:
)
. m y
Because the University has so much to
- offer, we feel that it would be a griev-ous error to prohibit its use solely be-cause it falls shy of the distance criteria, particularly when talking in terms of half a mile.
As with the University, we feel we have a reasonable request in asking to use this College [SCCC at Selden) for re-location.
Attachment 8 at I-3, 4. The report also says of SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook that "lo-cally they are the best of the choices available."
Attachment 8 at I-4.
- 9. Q. How did the New York State Nuclear Emergency Plan-ning Group respond to the County's recommendation that SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook be used as relocation centers?
A. The State of'New York endorsed the recommendations of the County's planners. In a letter of May 19, 1981, from the New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group to Region II of the Federal Emergen-cy Management Agency, the Project Manager of the i Group stated:
The first issue pertains to the choice of certain college facilities as relocation centers. Attached for your information is a five page memorandum which supports the proposition that fa-cilities at Stony Brook and Suffolk Coun-ty Community College should be used as relocation centers. We endorse the posi-tion taken by Suffolk County, and I hereby urge your approval.
The letter from the State of New York is appended to this testimony as Attachment 9.
- 10. Q. How did FEMA respond to the recommendation by the New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group that SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook be a relocation center?
A. FEMA responded to this recommendation by letter of June 4, 1981 (Attachment 10). In that response, FEMA indicated that it does not provide approval of relocation centers, and that the approval of relo-cation centers is the responsibility of state and local authorities. In a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning to the New York State Department of Health, dated September 2, 1981, the County's plaLner indicated his understanding that neither FEMA nor the New York State Department of Health had any objection to these facilities and that the County would proceed to finalize their plans for the use of the facilities as relocation centers (Attachment 11).
- 11. Q. What is your conclusion as to whether SCCC at Selden and SUNY at Stony Brook should be used as a relocation centers even though they do not meet the NUREG-0654, II.J.lO.h guideline?
A. We agree with the Suffolk County Planning Depart-ment and the New York State Nuclear Emergency Plan-ning Group that the Community College and the
University have so much to offer that they should be used as relocation centers, if they are avail-able, even though they do not quite meet the NUREG-0654, II.J.10.h guideline. It should be remembered that NUREG-0654 is merely a guideline and not a re-quirement. See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 22, 17 NRC 608, 616 (1983); Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAB-698, 16 NRC 1290, 1296-1298 (1982).
- 12. Q. Please summarize your testimony.
A. The Suffolk County Chapter of the American Red Cross haa agreed to provide relocation centers in Suffolk County for use should an emergency occur at Shoreham. The five locations listed in the LILCO Plan are the facilities being considered by the Suffolk County Red Cross. Unless the Red Cross ad-vises LILCO otherwise, these facilities will be used by LILCO in planning. LILCO is confident that these or similar facilities will be the subject of agreements with the Red Cross, similar to the many facilities that have been found in Nassau County.
LILCO has also obtained a letter of understanding with the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross. The Nassau Red Cross has also agreed to provide relocation centers in the event of an er..er-gency at Shoreham. The Nassau relocation centers will be used as back-up centers, and as the primary i
l centers in the unlikely event that the Suffolk County Red Cross is unable to provide sufficient facilities.
Of all these relocation centers, only two are with-in 5 miles of the EPZ boundary -- Suffolk County Community College at Selden and the State Universi-ty of New York at Stony Brook. These two facili-ties are within 3-4 miles of the EPZ boundary.
Suffolk County Planners originally designated these centers, and the State approved them. The advan-tages of excellent highway access, on-site security 1
forces, emergency generators, extensive cafeteria and sanitary facilities, parking space, recre-ational facilities, and medical facilities offered at these sites clearly outweigh the distance from the 10-mile EPZ boundary.
I l
l l
1
ATTACmiENT 1 l
I (
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY L[,#4,g j _ _ ,4 ne sasi oto cou= var moao nicusvsLLs. waw vonx isso
~
Dhest Dhl Number -
June 24,.1983 Mrc. Patricia Nocher Ex0cutive Director American Red Cross 475 East Main Street Patchogue, NY 11772 Letter of Understanding Between LILCO and the American Red Cross
Dear Mrs. Noc))er:
This letter confirms recent discussions regarding the role of th2 American Red Cross as determined by Charter of the U.S.
Congress during an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Ctotion. It is our understanding that in response to a radio-logical emergency at Shoreham, the Red Cross will fulfill its ucual emergency response functions, including setting up and operating relocation centers for the public.
Ev0n though LERO personnel will handle radiological monitoring cnd decontamination assignments; to assure preparedness in an octual emergency, the Red Cross should also participate as cppropriate in training, drills, and exercises.
M:ny thanks for your continued contributions to the emergency plcnning effort.
Sincerely, A .
Charles A. Daveric Emergency Preparedness C9ordinator EDR/kv APP-B-9
- - - w
v I ATTACHMENT 2
- FEB 2 ' EM THE AMERICAN RED CROSS SUFFOLK COUNTY CHAPTER EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PEACETIME RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES / NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS I. PURPOSE To define the role and responsibilities of the American Red Cross when peacetime radiological emergencies / nuclear accidents occur within the State of New York.
II. SCOPE The American Red Cross will cooperate with all agencies, whose activities are directed toward the alleviation of suffering and needs caused by peacetime radiological emergencies / nuclear accidents, public and private, at the local, state and national levels.
lIII. DEFINITION OF DISASTER:
I Disaster is any Natural or Man-made disaster - fire, flood, hurricane, chemical spill explosion, nuclear accident, earth-quake, blizzard, transportation wreck. American Red Cross must be prepared to provide emergency assistance; open shelters and feeding operations if a large number of people affected, i
IV. RESPONSIBILITIES The American Red Cross will provide assistance in accordance with the Statement of Understanding between the State of New York and the American National Red Cross.
The American Red Cross regulations require that the administra-l tive and fiscal controls be inseparable, and it will.not assume costs for commitments made by other agencies or organizations.
A. Preparedness Measures - The American Red Cross will:
- 1. Maintain liaison with the Office of Disaster Preparedness coordination of peacetime radiological emergencies /
nulcear response planning and operations, and partici-pate in planning, preparedness and operations meetings and exercises.
- 2. Receive from that agency listings of designated mass care r shelters and feeding centers, evacuation routes, re-l ception centers, first aid staticns, and requirements for and designations of transportation and communications
I l
p- t1 )
I equipmsnt and facilities.
3 Recruit and train shelter managers, disaster feeding personnel, nurses, liaison personnel and supervisors to serve in Red Cross operated mass care shelters and feeding centers.
- 4. Assist in developing agreements involving the Office of Disaster Preparedness and the owners or officials of the buildings to be used as shelter facilities for mass care operations.
B. Emergency Response - The American Red Cross will:
- 1. Conduct mass care shelter and feeding operations in centers and facilities designated in advance by the Office of Disaster Preparedness. These operations will consist of:
-The registration of evacuees who elect to go to mass care shelters so that there is a census at all times of the individuals and families who remain there.
-Food service
-Sleeping accommodations
-An emergency medical station supervised by an RN and the service of referring shelter occupants to a doctor or hospital if needed.
-Recreation services if the evacuees remain for an extended period of time.
- 2. Assign liaison representatives to the Emergency Opera ..
tions Centers and receptions centers.
3 Maintain contact and coordination with the Office of
- 4. Disaster Preparedness and the departments of Welfare, Education and Health.
C. Agreements have been made at appropriate local facilities for adequatic mass care shelters and feeding operations.
AUTHORITIES AND
REFERENCES:
U. S. Public Law 4, 58th Congress, January 5, 1905 U. S. Public Law 93-288, Disaster Relief Act of 1974 Statement of Understanding between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American National Red Cross - January 22, 1982 r
APPENDICES:
Am3rican Red Cross Organization
.__ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_____A
ATTACHMENT 3
~
{
J EJ O LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY k_ . . , , t7s cAsv oLo couNTay nono Micksvs LLE. NEW YORM 11808 Direct Dial Number
)
February 11, 1984 l Mr. Frank Rasbury Naccan County Chapter Am;rican Red Cross 264 Old Country Road Minsola, N.Y. 11501 Letter of Understanding Between LILCO and the American Red Cross Daar Mr. Rasbury:
This letter confirms our recent discussions regarding the role l of the American Red Cross as determined by Charter of the U.S.
Congress during an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. It is our understanding that there are agreements be-twccn the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross and the fccilities named on the attached These list to use the facilities, facilities therefore, for shelter during an emergency.
cro cvailable to provide additional space as relocation If centers j the in tho event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
, cp co in these f acilities were needed during an emergency at Shorcham, the Red Cross would fulfill its usual emergency re-cponso functions at these facilities.
Evan though Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) per-connal would handle radiological monitoring and decontamination eccignments at relocation centers during an emergency at Shorcham, the Red Cross will participate as appropriate in an octunl emergency.
M:ny thanks for your continued contributions to the emergency plcnning effort.
Sinenrely, L d. d E cina D. Robinso LERIO EDRrpr Attcchment
. . ATTACHMENT 4 l
l l
+ ATT1Ah M M ,
Nassa's county Chapter 264 Old Country Road Mineola. N.Y. I1501 (5I6) 747-3500
,, d.;. .V.Y JAN 20 $84
"
- 4 c , , .. .,. U N ff Y L U', ~ O N S Ms. Elaine D. Robinson, Manager Community Relations Dept.
Long Island Lighting Co. '
550 Stewart Avenue Garden City, NY 11430 Daar Elaine:
Please forgive my tardiness in getting this material to you.
Attached hereto is a copy of our listing showing shelters available to us for disaster purposes, their capacity, contact persons and dates of agreement.
Understand that in those instances where the capacities are quite large---several schools in the respective districts are involved.
I hope this is of some help to you.
Sincerely, ft
%L_
Frank M. Rasbury Executive Director FMR:hg encl.
l l
l The Nassau County Red Cross is also affiliated with Garden City Community Fund.
& Great Neck United Community Fund inc.. Fiw Towns United Way.
Marthasset United Fund. Inc.
I .
- f. hAU COUNTY CHAPTER AMERICAN RED CROSS SIELTER INFORMATEN 1982-1983 264 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 1
MINE0LA, NY 11501 (T & CAPtCITY
Contact:
Sheldon Fuchs Baldwin Public ScMols 223 8100 ext. 207/208 Bigh School Drive Baldwin, New York n510 .
M . Ellinger Bellmore.41errick Central B.S. Dist. 623 8900 1691 Meadowbrook Road Herrick, N.Y. 11566 George Boyh1 Carlo Place Unica Free Sekol 334.1900 ext. 224 j Carlo Place, N.Y. H514 \
Cliude Stringham East Meadow Union Free Semel Dist. -
Mr. Canyo Carman Ave. 794 7000 ext. 206
, East Headow, New York n554 Edward lattare East Rockaway Public ScMols o 599-7589 East Rochway H.S. ,
Robert Horse
~
Ocean Ave.
. Enat Roekaway, N.Y. H518
. 599-7589 p 334 8020 East Winiston Sekol District no E. Winiston Ave.
East Winiston, N.Y. H596 354 4 917 Elmont Public Schools Elmont Road Elmont, N.Y. H003 .
752.6512 Farmingdale Public Schools 249-7680 Van Cott & Grant Ave. '
Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735 .
Mr. Russen Floral Park Bellrose Union Free ScMol Dist. 352 0768 1 Pbppy Place
- Floral Park, N.Y. H001 .
George Reynolds Franklin Square Union Free ScMol Dist.
Washington Street 354-1045 Franklin Square, N.Y. 11010 .
Robert Swanson Freeport Public Schools 62 g 00 235 North Ocean Ave. -
Freeport, N.Y. 11520 Garden City Public Sekols Mr. Heimisch
, 248-7700 Garden City, N.Y. n530 .
Anthony Frizziolo .
Glen Cove Public Schools 671-3272 Doeoris Lane -
Glen Cove, N.Y. n542
(
- , h
~ - _ _ _ _ _ _
- 2. -
t 1 I Seericks Public Schools
Contact:
741 7800 Shelter Rock Road New Hyde Park, N.Y. 21040 Hewlett'High School Fred DePa2ma 60 Everit Ave. 374 5200 .
Bowlett, N.Y. n557 Gus Bruno Bowlett Woodnere Union Free School Dist.
Harry Richter 1 Johnson Place 374 5200 art. 213 Woodaares ,N.Y. 2 598 Eicksvine Public Schools 733 2100 Kathleen Eogan Division Ave.
Eicksvine, N.Y. n801 Island Park Schools . 432.8933 Island Park, N.It H558 431 8100 Island Trees Union Free' School Dist. Mr. Fred Neist Owl Place & Condor Road 73114020 Stena Clark Levittown, N.Y. 11756
. 73L.7247 Berton Thorp Lawrence Jr. B.S.
Lawrence, N.Y. 295 2700 ext. 283/253 locust Vaney Central School James DiGionamel Incust Valley, N.Y. 11560 Richard Smith 676.8430 long Beach H.S. Winian Soldan Lido Blvd. & A11evard Street 889 2410 Iarry Bourger Iong Beach, N.Y.
889 2167 b Lynnbmok Union Free Scicol Dist. Iouis Pearsan l
Waverly Ave. . LY 3 4861 -
l East Rockaway, N.Y. H518 Massapequa Grace Episcopal Church Father John Jobson 4750 Herrick Road 79R-n22 Massapequa, N.Y. n?58 Massapoqua High School William A. Eldard 4925 Merrick Road 541.6600
- Massapequa, N.Y. 23358 Iavrence Chapnan
,Malverne U.F.S.D.
Woodfield Road
- 887 7733 -
Rockvine Centre, N.Y. 13570 Y.anhasset Public Schools Dr. Owen Hill Memordal Plaee 627 4400 har. basset N.Y. 11030 Dr. Donald Gate 627.)+400 O
h
a b -
s r, ,.) ..i Mineola Town Han
Contact:
F.ayor Smith Jericho Turnpike 747 2232 Mineola, N.Y. 21501 Mineola Union Free School Dist. 747 6700 200 Encry' Road Mineola, N.Y. 21501 N2ssau County B.O.C.E.S. 997 8700 Salisbury Center Valentines Rd. & The Plain Rd.
W:stbury, N.Y. 22590 No. Bellmore U.F.S.D.
- 221.2200 2616 Eartin Ave. -
No. Bellmore, N.Y. n710 North Merrick U.F.S.D. 379.A070 1775 Old Mill Road No. Herrick, N.Y. 21566 ,
Nsrth Shore Schools 671 5500 Sea Cliff, N.Y. .
Casanside Marie Ave. School 678 1200 Marie Ave.
Oscanside, N.Y. 21572 Oycter Bay East Morwich School Dist. 922 3170 Oyster Bay, N.Y. H771 Plainedge Public Schools -
Norman Black Hickv111e Road 735 4100 eatt.304 Bethpage, N.Y. 21714 Plainview Old Bethpage Central School 938-5400 Plainview, N.Y. 21803 Pbrt Washington U.F.S.D. Harolddhampol 27 Iongview Road 886.2517 Ibrt Washington, N.Y. H050 Francis Banta 883 4000 Roasevelt Public Schools 378 7302 288 Nassau Road Ro2sevelt N.Y.
Roc 1yn Public Schools 621 4900 Iceust Lane ..
Roslyn, New York St.' Ignatious Rectory '
Father Harrer
- 229 Emadway 931.0056 Eleksvine, N.Y. 11801 e
9 e
4.
- L' s
, )~ _
Edward Voorhees Seaford Union Free Scho&1 Dist. CA 1 0700 2147 Jacken Ave.
Seaford, N.Y. n?83 328.J+878 Sewanhaka Central H.S. Dist.
555 Ridge Rd.
E2mont, N.Y. n003 Joseph Singleton Syosset Central Sebool Dist. 922 5500 Fen Lane Syosset, N.Y. 21791 485 9804 Uniondale Public Schools Goodrich Street Uniondale, N.Y. 22553 Rev. George Caar United Methodist Church .'
~
485 6363 40 Washington street ,
Hampstead. N.Y. 22550 George Hilton .
United Methodist Church l
- WE 14345 192 Bmaday WE 24 977 Bethpage, N.Y. 21714 825 8545 Vaney Stream U.F.5.D.
Corona Ave.
Vaney Stream, N.Y. 22580 Dom Ciervo Vaney Stream U.F.3.D. f30 - 483 3969 Vaney Stream N.Y. 21580 Elwood Webster .
Westbury U.F.3.D. 876.20'16 Jericho Tpke. & Hitchcock Lane Westbury, N.Y. 12590 Barry Natov West Hampstead U.F.S.D. 489 8425 450 Nassau Blvd. -
' W. Hempstead, N.Y. 22552 l ANDRIll R. TYP.A!: SKI
~
516 876 3146 aus I
NY Ces *
'16 433 3459 'cRK N
OLD t/EST3UNY N.Y s e 4 8
G G
G O O
9
-. , ._. , , , . . _ . , , ._.__._,,7 _. . ..
- -- x -_-
N U
9 *4 is- e5 5 im n ,a ,,.9 l ' I
-m-2' #]qu y ,
=w~.wnompma/r,f
~\%
20 ar 13 31 .
~ ,= hp; ; f~Q m >.
,._ 10 MI
~
/y- 5 ui
,< 3 '~snionsuws z i I.A Wpj mnW4!? ' wp w,
-}M
~ h ,f. Y h, gp M u.a s
,u, K ' so / h,um[ ;
tes
' x. $' 'E'h f - r 1 - c b *
\
hg ""I N
,The State University of gr . I *** J y y;
$. L
- pY'.tkk^*
f'NewYorkatStonyBrook's t i , 4,g _y,. ?. %"
f p
nu'?., M""
y
, N'6:"""n/ Tq%g*Y
~=
"O % v ;)(a{gh . .
v,. 7*
p' iti < , r*
g 'y
'"O
'3p l p;7w i ' 1 3 6 i ,. t C , ( . ,9%g.e'f f <,~ g@
-Qp g[ceani)A b%t*'!e d'
' r
%, , .. d .
" *? ,e .
g.
9,T"m%,3 ' A J '~ 3 -
1 .
!, ne Suffolk County Community q
' ,in
- 9 ~
College [SeldenCamhs b
.1 k' kgO e ,
"- f I,
a w r.n w e N
a 1 @ m[Iem
'The State University of. '"
~* "
f ,
- '^ N M 4' .
P,h's,, College, Patchogueh
. wr ' ' ' c A
,,hh* [t [f. -
l'
E < N'
_N W York at Farmingdale 1 L. . .
1, - '
h'W '~t[ d eh fi M ,,-
Qo
'"The BOCES Islip Occupational $- ~
P g *- nu Is e,p -
so / Center ComplW chik + u a 1,.
o k itt V
l x
1 j"
E ,
- j;,, y g4r Q. , .-pY " -
l fe w~~c,aAggR30 BMam& 9pf. .
4 reppy. %w,# & ,7 s - astoCirro,ces,,,s tec ,,,,
- ,p e%
- m x.
so p --
mu
- na.- s~5 u
s o
o
- - - --_ 9 - - - - ~~^ --
i - --
. .. . . s.. .r m.... ATTACIH4ENT 6
~
Tuls. AcaEEMorf, = .eter.d tate = .f this 15% day .fs.yt.3-w.,1s31 -
by and between the Lees Island Ligating Company (heroinetter referred to as "LILC0") and the Cemety of Selfolk, settag threegh its Departaeet of Planning *
(herelaatter referred to as the "D D ARTMENT").
1rtTNESSETE TMAT: .
ifRERFAS, LILCO desires to ester into a contract with the DEPART:II:IT
- to reader certata technisal and professional services heroisaf ter described, El[lf. TIERRORE, the parties herete de outually agree as followet
- 1. Eseleveest of Concracter. LILCO hereby agrees to engage the DUARTMENT and the DDAE!Norf hereby agrees to perfers the serWees herele=
after set forth. The relatieaship of the parties herete shall be that of cliest and i";-- tt toetraeter eetther the D DAE!MclT ser any perses hired by the DDAREtttf shall be coesidered employees of LILCO for any Purrese.
- 2. Scope of Services. The DDAlttE3T shall prepare a County Radio ==
lesteal Emergency Resposee Plae, se rweired by Federst Regulattens ia effect ,
es the doce of this Agrecreet for the LILCD shoreham helaar Power Staties.
Said Plaa shall be prepared ta accordance with the descripties contained is slause 3 "verk Statement". The DDAtttEIT represents that it has read and is familiar with the applicable Federal Regulatieas set forth ta Eskibit 3 attached herete and that the DDAtttE3T believes it saa develop a Cavaty Radiological Energency Response Plan which compt tee with such regulattene.
!! reviatene to the aforesaid Federst tegulatione shall be mt.le Juring the perted of this Agreement, r:111eg for than,,cs 14 the meeft of amrt, ef:ma the prweintene of clawee 10 "Changen ta deepe" of thle Agreement naL1 apply. *
- 3. y.3, S,ta, egg
- a. The DDantunff ehell perform the activities dewribed ta the SCDFE OF 180RK appvedad herete me Enhibit A. .
- b. The Okraanscrf shall toefers to the Tvderal hs=14ticas red
- etJelinus listed in Ez.htbit 3 apereded hurete, la the fararattee of outputs .
of .mtleitius Jesertbed la Ezhibit A.
- t **
e MM .aem .eDes memmene , e
.y . . . .
. i . . . . s .
P % *
)
- c. Wherever specialised technical and ccicatific inputs are *
~
necessary, the DEFAACT.XT will retain, af ter consultation with L1LCD, the, ,
services of appropriate experts, at the DDARDtCff's expense. .
4 Time of peeforw nce.
a N DDAE01CET will selvt every effort to complate ,the tasks
. ' listed la Exhibit A withia 6 acachs from the date of executies of this Agreement, subject to the timely response by Federsi and State agencies to retsasts for Lafermetion, and the timely receipt of Tederal and State ,
concurrescas with the draf t and final Zeergency Radiological taspense Flass. .
In the enest the DDAM fails to receive timely response frea Tederal and State stencies to roguests for Laformatios, the ODAIDENT shall proeptly notify LILCD is writing of such failure. .. *
- b. h DDA:22NT will issue mecchly progress reports, and distzibute them to LILCS, the suelaar Regulatary cemaission, the Federal .
Emerunacy w.anagement Agency, the New York Stata Departaast of Health, the Suffelk County Legislature, and other lavelved and interested agencias
- as specified by L:L::3 and agreed to by the DDArt237. h DDAESGNT agrees N
) to provide LIL::3 with reaseamble access to all semeranda, correspondence,
( professional qualification records of employees performing under the centract, papers, reports, studies and similar documenta prepared by or obtained by the DDARDENT is tennection with the perforanoca of its obligations under this contrset. LILCD 'shall give the DDAEDENT 7 days' antice of its intia=
ties ta exercise its rights under this parastsph.
- 1. Suoervisten and personnel.
- a. All work performed bythe DDAE 2NT shall be under the direct supervistaa of Lee E. Esppelans. . .
- b. The DUARDENT. represeets that it bas, or will securs at its -
own espesse, all personnel required to perform the services covered by this Agreenest. Such perseenel shall set be employees of, or have any contractual .
relatieaship with, LILCD. * * ~
. g e .
8
$. g 2- *
) .
- .. , s.
)
. . q s ,
- 6. Coseensation* LILCD agrees to reimburse the DEFAATMDff es a fixed price basis; total compen aties shan be Tim MTORZ2 AND TORTT.TIVE TEDUSAND (3243.000.00) DDLLARS for the serviese described is clacse 3 !
" Work Statemaat" of this Agreement malees this Agressent is am'eeded as provided herois. The DEFAEC!I3T shall be secreaseted asserding to the
~
fellewing peyueet askedulet .
~
8130,000.00 en esecuties of this Agreemest;
- Eslasse sa Coupleties. .
- 7. seediscriminaties. m DEPAs:MEst shan est discriminate.
dizestly or indirectly, sa the greemds of rass, seier, religies, sea, age, astional origia, or physiaal handicap La.its employeest practicas related to tiis Agreement. The DDAIZMENE shall taha affirmative steps to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated duriss employeest without regard to raes. seier, religies, se.;. age, er national origia.
- 8. tatereer of Costracter. The DEFA represents that it O
,( .
presently has as interest and will est acquire any interest, direct er indirect, whiah would . conflict is any -aaner er degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. The DDARTMENT further represents that, is the perforasses of this Agreenest, as perses having any such 1starest sha n be employed.
s 9. Title of Preoortv. Title to property acquired under this Agreement vests with the D DARTMEET.
- 10. Chasses is Scese. If during the period of this Agressant, any chasse is the relevant Tedersi regulatiese saeses na saaresse er decrease in the DDARTMENT's cost of. er the time required for, the tarformasse of any part of the work under this Agreement, an eteitable adjusteest small be ande and this Agreement modified La writing accordissly. No sharge shall be ande to LT1c0 for any change se Laareams in the ebligatises of
. . the DDARTMENT restuiriss estra work under this Agreeenac, Mees the parties
- esseste such as Agreement specifying the work to be dess thereender sad ene cost thereof. Disputes ever susk as adjustment sha'11*be resolved as provided .
in classe 11 " Remedies" of this Agreemest.
- . q l * .
= .
3 s
.y i.. .
*
- 4,,
, , -_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , ,__ , , - - _ . . , , . , -..--.v
N
- 1. Resedtee. This Agressent shall be interpreted according to to the lave of the ' State of New Terk. All claims, counter-slaims, disputes ,
sad other mettere is questies between LILCO and the DEPARDECrf arisias out .
of or relaties to this Agreesent er the breach thereof shall be deelded by .
. arbitratise la asterdamse with the ' rules for Ersial disputes of the
~
American Arbitraties Asses 14 ties is the City of New York. The parties herete agree'that the determinaties of said arbitrattee shall be final and
. biading spes the parties herete and that a judgment es said averd may be
. essered as a judgecas of record is the Supress Court of the State of
- Eow'Terk. The fees and espeeses of thaarbitere shall be bores equally by the parties. Claims and disputes shall be defined as any formal writtes seaplaint which runnias unresolved between the parties after ressasable afferts to tesolve such easters have failed. -
l IN 1r!TIESS 1mIIIDF. LZ1CD and the COUNTY have esecuted this Agreeseet i
e as of the date first above writtee. -
APPROVED G. M. BARRETT lans Istaan LICmst cmFAmr GEN *L CCUNSEA.i 3, S T.7- ca.e TIstri .-
\ *
.s . . /
j sy f'If r*":'./. r VMs l Nattaew C. Cerdare. Vice-Prestaans I
i
(
- SOFFOLE CDUXTT DEramarwrMT OF FIAltrINC l
,y, . L r. A A Tee E. Esppeimas. Dittster '
. CDCETT OF SUFFULE
-1 30! REVIDTED AS TO EIECUTION Sys O
Sha C. Ga11agner g.g /
. Chief Deputy Ceuary EmeWutive Alf red .Lochssp, Jr. 3*[g/ff Deputy County Astersey ,
4 ,
i
. ' I
. s. . . . -
--ea . . i. . .. , ; ,,,, , , ,
l
. ~
STATE OF KW Y0tE) es.:
cousTT or sASSAs ) ,
On this 1 0 day.ef t.C/n64$ 19s1, before se perseea117 game i
MATTMW C. CORDAAO to es hoewe, and knows to se to be the perses describeJ,
- is red who esecuted the foregotes teatrument as Vice-President of,the IJMcC 151AED 1,1CUTI.W COMPAlff, and he duly acknowledged to se that he
' eteewted,the same.
d.f_0a P.f __
( _
/ Ilotary Pui.14e ,
g ;,;., . -
.. ..M .'. J
- STATE OF NW Y0as) *- -
I... - N i .s.:
COWITT OF SCTFOLE) .
Onthis[.[daye 1981, before se personally game LII E. E0FFE12 FAN to se kaswe, who betog by as duly swore did depose
'and s:ys That he resides at Suffolk Cemety. New York 1 that he is the
- Directcr of the SCff0LE COUNTT SEFARTMENT OF FLxEst3C. described herete.
and which esecuted the aheve teatrueest, and that it wee easewted by lced:t af thee, and that he signed his ease therete by like order.
[ Xetary Pub
,,L_ gg _
taneens essestseauhaswase sua seWeessg sumuks:a anseet.as STATE QF K W TORE) h ans= w a uf 7 so.3 GOL*3TY 0F SETTOLE)
Onthis@[Jaye 1941, before se perseestly e.se l Jous C. CALI.WMIX. to se koeve, who belas by se duly swore did derese red says That M restees at Suffelk Cemety. New Yorht that ha is the Chi:s Deputy Cavety Esecutive of Soffolk Covery. and that be emeested the withis teatrumeet, and that he signed his some therete by order of the Cowety Czeewtive of Suffolk Co.iety. ,
- A suA -
. p, mas.aos se ese W -
new eM
= ~= = ** %'* C : y v
.s 4
-, - .- n. ..-- - - - ~ - , - - , - . - - - - . - . --.. , - - - - -- -
[ _
i I'tRI!T* A ICDpterVc2K
- The preparaties cias phases. of the County Radiological E=ergency Response Plae censists of In carrytag eet the nine phases, the Suffolk County Depart:aat of plccaing (the DEFA10:Z3T) will provide everall casagesent and technical direc-tica. and will be respeestble for preparing document draft taput (ey modifica-tiens to existing" dactstents), typing, printing, and distribution. Is the de-veldyment DgFAtt: and effectuaties of the E=argency Radiological Respease plan, the .
meets toINT themaymaximumutilize degree and e=possible. ploy the responsibit Councy agensies and Separt- -
The verk already perferned by LILCD. ,
$sifolk County emergency planaias organisations.. the State of New Tark, and ether New Terk counties surrounding operating anclear plants in tow York State will be utilised to the fullest estaat practicable.
Each phase and its asaatiated tasks is discussed belswa .
mee 1 - t...ss i.eroth couare use,eae. riaani.e ...de .' .
1 The purpose of this phase is to review sad assaes the present status of the
! Couary emergency preparedness progras and to saka ree edacians for a de .
Respense Flaa and its Implemmating Procedures.tailad progras conceraias schedules for both Rased spes the results of this analysis. Suffolk Couary would have clear understanding of how best to acesa-plish ftrtherits energency phases and tasks plaanias described respeasibilit.as below. and sould add to or modify the fellow. The specific tasks to be perfsrmed I
T.sk se. 1 -
O Review .ad' evaluate existing suffolk Couary plass and procedures and deter =ine the level tion:. of effort needed to bring them into compliance with existing regula-Develop a schedule and an acties plan that would accomplish &&is.
Ta*k No. 2 .
Review existing evacueties plaas evacuaties tina estimates and public estifica.
[
g ticc/ communication systems with these parties involved. Develop a detailed progras for existing upgrading er requirassets. develaying these plass and systems in order to aset Task Me. 3
- Ev:1uate Suffolk Couary's independent environ matal radiological moeitertag
- capthilities and decernine stape necessary to bring this capability up to the level amats.required by Suffolk Couary ta meet applicable federal and State require-LZics and New Terk State.This task shall*be caerdinated with other work La this area done by 1: Methods and equipment required to perfernt radia-31c21 assessments to a degree desired by County efficials is order to aset
<pp11 table laws and regulations will be deceraiand.
Tash Me. &
- Pr:pste a needs analysis report which would address each aseect of Tasks 1-33 d:velop a detailed recommended approach to meet stase needs: and provide a re=
fined schedule for both the plan and its respective Laplaneacias procedures.
. e
- 4 6-e G
. 48
. .. .w
=
+. *,.
- u ,
- . i ,
1 Phese II - Develoonsat of Draf t suffolk County Radiolottest Emergency messonse Puns no purpose of this phase would be to develop a County RE1F that tacorporates all necessary infor ation and which is suitable for review by an appropriate 4,sencies. De specific task.s to be performed fenow.
T u k se. 1 -
F:rform as la-depth review of participatias Caunty government organizations sad 'their amisting radiological amargency response plass. .
yrrk No. 2 . -
Identify County agencies involved is emergaacy planaias, define the authoriza-tion and responsibilities of these agencies, and identify the cognizant ia-dividuals withis each agency.
Establish technical and nasagerial liaises with the responsible individuals in the Couary preparedness agency. LEC3. New Tark State, the Nuclear Regula- -
tary Commissios , and the Tederal Emergency Management Agency.
T-"k No. 3 23 DDAAN will conduct facularization asetists with the cognisaat indi-viduals la the County energency preparedness agencies. De DEFA10!ENT will provide guidance and background conceraias the role and contribution of each aginev in the emergency planning process, and recm:nend asasures which will result in the most efficisat planains activity.
I O
'lTrakNo.&
Idratify i list of available County resources se that the overan emergency pl:a viu aske maxista use of these resources. De DEFA12tDff wiu develop chick 11sts and prepara discussion agenda to ensure that the initial survey information is obtained la as orderly fashios, is properly documented and is
[(omplete. Dese discussione vill help deterales assigaseet of various respons:
i bilities to applicable energency preparedness agencies and win aise provide as l cffective format for identifying special emergency planaids Attuatiosa and/or
- problems.
Tuk h. S Manage the 311F development effort. De DEPAROGMT win identify individual egency tasks, responsibilities and interf" aces to ensure maxinus coordination cad to facilitate the preparatica of the draft plaa.
33 azacution of Task No. 5 will require the completies of the fellowing Sub-tasks. . . .
Subtask Me. 5.1 guilding se the work dose in Phase 1. Task 3, these agencies er organizations h:ving some radiological assees=ent rela during the emergency win be identif ts and their respasibilities win be delisested. Discussions will be hel.1 with sks Department of Emergy Regisaal Coordinating Office to deteraise their assia.
tance role. De specifications, procurement and installaties of this equipeest is set included as part of this. program.
. . 7-Y g . '.
e.
- m. .--...L 3 _
~ _ - - _ -
Subessh w e . 5.2 ,
Review the existing or proposed co==unications ' network between the responsible Tederal agencies. State and local officials LILCD and field survey teams to ensure that the system is effective and reliable.
Subessk Mo. 5.5 -
Review and outline existing development of an early warning system for the general public. Individuals respec.sible for caintaini,g and actuating this system will be identified and their specific roles will be determined. Twenty-four (2&) hour per day operational capability of the systes shall be a program .
~
requirement. .
Subtask No. 3.1 Incorporate into the County 222F the energan-y action levels developed for the Shershan Nuclear Fever Station in accordanca with NETRIG-0610.
Subensk No. 5 5 Tecorporate the prepared evacuatica pins and associatad time estimates into
. the Ca uty Flaa.
yask Me. $ .
This task will be performed La parallel with Task No. 5. and will comprise the I
j fo11 swing subcasks:
jsahtaskNo.61 o
3the RZIP will also include the use of protective naasures other than general
& evacuation. The following protective action respons4 opsi as will be developed f
- IafPfat Fr cautionary Operations (i.e., institution of road blocks, etc.)
- Selective Evacuation
- falective Sheltering
- General Sheltering
- Indioprotective Drug u f aistration l
= Isolation of Ingestion Fachways and Sourcas 4 iSeensk No. 6.2 The emergency planning needs for special facilit:ies and/or problems will be
! addressed in this subcask along with the development of preliminary approaches l for dediss with thes.- Tac 111 ties having special emergency planning needs and/
or problems include, but are not limited to, the isllowingt
- Rospitals
- Nursing /Ratirement Roses
- Jails a - Recreacional Areas
- Airpercs Task No. 7
- Fespere eut issue the draf t RZ2F for Licensee, State and local agency review
- and comment. This RIRP shall sophasize preper and effective coordination be-
' tween the responsible emergency preparedness agencies. All authorities and responsiblities, as deternised La Task No. 2. will be clearly delinested ta the
= plass. .
3
~ _ . . . ..- - -. -
g.a...... _n---...--.- - - . - - - -
- . e. . e
. . 8..
- phase 111 - presarstion of Tinal trettenew Ressense F1&n Th3 abjective of this phase.vould be to flaalise the emergency plan for sub-airsion to the Nuclear Regulatory Cascissies and to the Federal Energency Manas most Assasy. The following taks will be completed during this phase.
Ta'sk Me. 1 , .
Coudset meetiass with the reopensible Cauty emergesey plamains officials, the Liseases, and New York State efficials to discuss their seemeats en the desf t plan' and to secure as, ties, where necessary, to resolve eetstandias conceres. ,
Task Me. 2 , ,
Cather inputs and other informaties free County and State plaeming representa-tives and the 11cessee as necessary to resolve outstanding differences.
Task No. 3 Finalise the Couary and State emergesey plans by tacorporating the taformaties
- developed in Task No. 2. the SEPAR=2XT will print and distrihets the final.
ised plass to all parties.
sTask Me. & .
!Caiscident with Task No.1 abeve, the DEFAEIMCrf and the esgsisent emergency I plamains agencies will finalise the devolepasst of plans for the previously
' identified special emergency plaasing situatises andsor salutions to problees.
l Task Me. S 3
- Coordinate final plaa sign-off asettags, print and distribete final plans to
, the Licensee, Stata and local agencias and other organisations as designated by the Comty.
Phase IT - Assist to Chenining Federal Atency Staff Concurreece Uith T.nertenev I
I,The .1A!!f.
objective of this phase is to esafer with the reviewing Federal agency
. staffs to disease their consents and to develop a program for obtaisias agency eencurrence with the plans developed La Phases I throwsk III.
Task Me. 1 -
Pcrticipata in meetings with the Itc. TCE, DOT and other reopensible agency staffs to discuss the plans and, to the estest possible, resolve seemissies and (seasy conceras.
- Task Wo. 2 -
1 Discuse agency ceasents with the County and State emergency plannist representa- l tives and the Licensee to develop a program to resolve entstanding differesses. l 1
Phase V - Presaration of RE1F Taslesenties Precedures The objective of this phase is to develop detailed implenosting procedures for the Couty Radiological Emergesey Response Plan. ,
.g.
e G
- ,3.
. = %.'.
_m . __ - ___ _ *_ - _ _
l ..
- i. .
- t. .
[TaskNo.1 ,
h Develop a listing of all ne.cessary implanenting procedures for the County .
- emergency response plan. Any available local specific operating procedures I win be utilized to the maainua extent feasible.
- i .
I .
Task No. 2 -
I *
( Beld discussions with the County emerseecy planalag organisations to ensure that they are fully swcre of the latest Tederal requiressats for preparing
{ satisfactory implementing procedures. Develop detailed outlines for each in-
- h piemoeting procedure ia cooperation with Ceuery emergency planning coordinators a.h N.. 3 i .
, De DUA322NT will prepare draf ts of the implementing procedures and distrib- '
p, cts them to the respective agencias for review and approval.
P g Task No. 4 s
- Coordinate connents free the ageIncias and prepare final draf ts of the proca-p durse. .
0 .
, Task No. 5 ,
i De DDAX 2NT win sesist the County agencies is meetings held with the NRC, TDfA, New Tork Stata, or other reviaving agencias se secessary to attain final approval of the procedares.
Phase TT - Neef fi:,arion Sveres Teestration Is cooperation with Lt.CD and verk which UL 3 contracted to as indepen est
,- (easultant experienced La site evaluation. systas design and rystes specifica-tion, the .:DA2 2NT shan determine the resources, both administrative and i physical, that are required to comply with the NEC 15-einute DZ notification la r:sulation and assist is review of the preparatics of specification and pro-
. curement of the necessary har6 tare. Installation aa4 test procedures vould 7 aise be developed upos selecties of a vender. Actual instanation vould be
-, tacesslished by otters. ,
Jask No.1 Review survey of the 10-e11e DZ3 includias demographic, topographic and geo-
. graphic considerations that datermine the characteristics of the required
- . wiraing/necificatico system. Also, review the evaluation of existing notifica.
f tion capabilities, such as town and village fire departseat stress. -
g .
- Ta.h N. 2 -
1 l The DUAR223T win verk jotacly with IILCD to: -
- 1. salect the sofilication systes(s) thsc vill be utilised:
- 11. review list of caemerciauy available equipment and vender selecties/
qualificaciang and 111. develop systes tastanaties and test procedores.
O +. .
1o . , ,
W e %I,
' = -. .... . .
. _ l
! 8 L . .
L Phase TTI - Pubite Eduestion 7s otran .
Tash No.1 - te fine Prograa See,e ,
thering this task. the detailed sce7e and testest of t$e public education infor-nation program will be identified af ter censultation with and concurrence by L11CD. Verk cas,1sted er in Fregress by LILCD shall aise be reviewed and eval-usted. Examples of items which will be addressed taclude:
- brief factual information en radistica
.- seurtes for additional informaties during energency (i.e.. Zaergencf Broadcasting Systan)
- guidsace se respiratory protecties
- protective acties response optiese such as shaItering and evacuation ,
- emergency response plaening areas (map)
- evacuation restas (map)
- reception center assignaest and locaties
- provisions for identify 1ag trassic captivee and these individuals requiring special handling ube 11.ve is private residences
= ingestion aspeeure safeguards
- teist plans and preparations can be made new *
- things to take during evacuation (checklist) ?
- setificaties er alerting systes details (airess, ets.)
- method for setifying authorizias that residents have lef t their he=as (varificatina/confirmaties)
Task No. 2 - Method of Mn a.-4 m g e.
During this task, the means of disseminating the information to the public will be developed and suppersed by detailed precedures formalated jointly by the DEPAlcENT and L 1CD. These escheds could tacludet 3
- = regional infordation esacers
. - periodic informatise is stility bills
- public service anoeuscaments (radio and TT)
- ads is periodiests (lecal nevrpagars and engazinas)
- pasting La public areas
- pamphlets distributed es a partedia basis s '
- information is the telepheme book
- distributies to scheel childrea/FTA seetings
- local governnest/com=usity meetings
- telephone informaties service T'sk No. 3 - Program Taeleeestattee During this tark. the program will be implenested via precedures Lacorporating details develsped in Tasks se.1 and 1.
Phase YTTI - Testisontal Servicae At the request of Suffolk Cessaty or appropriate yederal er State agencias having jurisdiction or supervision ever E=ergency gaspense Flaas, the DI? ARSES will provide expert witnese castinear before local. State and/or Tederal regula t:ry agency boards concernies all energency plaenias work performed by the DgFA32 MENT.
-Ha ,
. . u.
=. .- . . . . .. . . . .
- - - - 6
- l. . .. -
.g
_Fhree TT - Radiological t: ergnee Passense Trainina Is eseperaties with 1It,CO and New Terk State. where practical. and in support cf the everall Radiological'Esergency Rassense Frogram the DEFuntENT will i provide perseasel training services for all progran participaats. Emphasis will be placed on the following disciplines .
- energency plan and precedure fastliarisatica *
- use of radielegical survey tastruments
- radioassive weste disposal sethods and techniquee
- radiaties pretee, ties asasures
- decentasiasties .:recedures i
- radielegical espesure control record keepias
- j
= desfastry
- motificatise precedures *
- evacuaties methodelegy
- radiological accident ptegnesis
- protective acties response e; time evaluatism, process I
l i 0
8
- -- - ~ - - - - . - . . . . , . . . . . . . . .
4 -
I s
-u- i
. . I
- 4
. -l
. l
= = - - - - - - - - . . _ _
,, *'t **., ,
6 . .
\
t.U T*tT 4 t .
Cuideline Deeveenes .
l I
l* All finalised plane and procedures will be developed to meet etc. FEMA. EPA and
( any other applicable regulatory regirements La effect at the date of the esses i tism of this Agreenest. It is the Latestion of the DEFAIfMENE therefera, to esilise the fellowing criteria as the basis guideline doeuments for the develop east of the appropriate plans and taplementing procedures.
E 303E0-0394 .
l . "Flaantag Basis for the Develefeest of State and Lesal Coverseest Radio-
- i lesiaal Emergeoey Response Flaas in Seppert of Light Ifator Nusisar Power Flaass"
- m - a. , 1973
- b. NURIC-0610
" Draft taersesey 'Astian Level Caideliens for w=1== Power Flames" Sepsischer 1979 .
- s. EFAr 520/1-75-401
% of Protective Aetism cuides and Protestive Assions for Buslear Insidents" September. 1975
& le CFR 30. O -'*- E . Q "Emergener Flaes for Prodesties ami Utilisatian Fasilities"
- c. unass-0654. FEMAr-RIF-1 Bev. 1 .
"triteria for Freparaties and Evsisatism of Radiological Emergency Respeass Flaas and Prepareds* in Support of Neslaar Feuer F1 ants" Bevoder. 1990. e
.- i .
E
- . 4(
3 . . - . . . - . ._ .,
---r-- , ---,,wn.m,..,--,-n-e,,m---mm,p,-mwg--w-- r-w,- n,
ATTACHMENT 7 1 j '
. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
..---------- )
i In the matter of: ,
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DOCKET NO.
. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,: .
50-322-L-3 Unit 1) (Emergency Planning)
,------- 1 1:
Hauppauge, New York -
October 6, 1983 -
i I
!i a Depo 3ition of LEE D. KOPPELMAN, called '
F
'. for examination by counsel for Suffolk County in the M
I ;
above-entitled action, pursuant to notice, the witness having been duly sworn by NICHOLAS J. TORRE, a Notary Public in and for the Stae of New York, at the offices of the Suffolk County Executive, H. Lee Dennison i
Building, Veterans Highway, Hauppauge, New York, at .
9:30 a.m.,
the proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by' NICHOLAS J. TORRE, and transcribed under his direction.
I i'
i' l'
li h
i i
i i TANKOOS-BIRNBAUM REPORTING COMPANY l' l
uu;. .iURICllO TURNPIKE 130 NAssAU STalEIL' W '
M1NEGLA. NEW YORK 11301 NEW YORh. NEU YOnK 2003e
, 44 1
separate question, or is a separate question.
?
Q Did you have questions as to whether he had proceeded in an intelligent way?
A He had proceeded, in my opinion, in full f
faithfulness, with the scope of services that was set C
fcrth in the contract.
But, my reservations about that scope of 5
services were not shared by Meunkle. Meunkle had 9
absolute confidence in what he was doing.
10 I remember I got a letter, and I get them quite often, from one of our legislators, Ferdinand Giese, and I get a letter from him about once every three weeks, and he had raised questions on this whole issue of evacuation.
I sent him a response and indicated some of the reservations that I had had and there was no follow up. T didn't get anything further from Legislator Giese.
But I had expressed strong reservations to Mr. Jones on one occasion, in fact, I had sought a -- I had sort of suggested that perhaps that shouldn't have been assigned to the planning department in the first 2:
l l
F 44A
- stance. I wasn't exactly happy with the direction 2 it was taking. I didn't control the design of the
- study. That was a given. .
That was the limit of my discussions.
i Normally, I don't go around broadcasting to everyone and t
his cousin.
7 (Continued on Page 45.)
E i.
10 j' ii l' h
1:
n 1;
.u t'
l' t'
22 II I 22 ..:-
20 N
05
[ 45 il
i Q Several times, sir, you have referred to the limit of the design of the study or terms to that effect. I'm not sure I understand you.
- Are you referring now to the various guide-lines that Meunkle used as the basis on which to e develop the plan?
- - A That, in part. Let me back up for a y moment, if I can.
p Q Yes.
3g A In doing a comprehensive plan, in my judgment,'
3 it has to be, at least at the beginning, totally open-
. ended. The whole purpose of the planning is to develop all of the conceivable array of alternatives, including those that look promising as well as those that look patently unworkable.
,, But in the beginning one shouldn't foreclose g g the future by making an intuitive judgment that this !
I:
g ;l will work or that won't.
3g Once you start that way, the process of planning, through its iterative procedures, is to weed ;
,1 I
out those that prove to be unworkable for economic, i -
I social, political reasons.
22 24 25 l
I : ,
i
! 46 1l.
j Out of that you develop those alternatives 2 !! that conceivably can work. It isn't necessary for
- ' them to como to a final conclusion.
- You can come and say, here are six different
- ways of addressing the same problem; here are the trade- l
" offs and consequences of each.
t i .-
7 f You then leave it up to the elected officials il t !! to make a choice. With this, the program was constrained, li s ;i It had been in process several years before it came to ,
kk io j: my attention.
h i
- p l! So, I had no participation in the actual
- design of the project.
O Sorry. Would you repeat the last little bit.
t.. A This was an effort that had been in process u for two or three years prior to my being given the
- v. ;; assignment. I had no participation in the original scope 2:
I n h of work that was laid out.
1: i In the work that Mr. Meunkle was doing, all ir ll of the givens were basically in place, in terms of things b
- , i, such as ten-mile limit and so on.
I E '
21 1 So that, then, narrowed or constrained the 22 array of choices.
I 23 i
^
24 l i
25 ;
i s
47 i
Q All right. If I understand you correctly,
. !! you are saying that as a planner then, if you had D
2
[ approached this the way you ordinarily approach projects, 1 1 you would not want to be constrained by these ;
- i. regulations that you have referred to? You would want .
I: l
- e. !! to have an open-ended process? l 1
l:
- A That is my preference, yes.
si I
r ! Q Your concern, I take it, with the plan that i
s ! is part of Koppelman Exhibit 1 is that that plan was w : developed within those constraints that you don't
. n 1if! necessarily accept as proper constraints. Is that g l: correct?
b e l, A I can't say if they are proper. If they l!
u , are part of federal law, I wouldn't say they are illegal.
15 i From a planning point ~of view, I find it uncomfortable y n to work in a straightjacket, yes.
17 Q A moment ago you were giving us instances ;
is !- of specific problems that you had raised with Mr. Meunkle 19 and he had responded, in effect, "I am doing it in ;
1 7g accordance with the Federal Regulations."
I g Now, one was school children, sir, and you 22 were about to give us others. I may have interrupted you, i
23 f 2$
25 i
,! a
48 I
Would you tell us what those were?
2 A I don't recall them all.
3 Q You mentioned the ten-mile EPZ.
A Yes, that was a big one.
t I remember there was a question about the c communications. He had prepared a separate document, you know, how do you get the word out. That is always s' a concern when you are on an island, say, where you ask, e ii do you do it by sirens or announcement over the radio.
I:
t'
- o ; Do you have a communication center and u U so forth. This is an area that I have no expertise in.
y It seemed to me to be an important area of
- 2 i concern. This was an area that I asked him to pay u particular attention to and treat it--rather than g i. treating it in summary fashion, as it were.
b u.
2; Those are the only ones that stay in my n , mind.
i n Q Did you ever inquire as to whether or not l'
39 it was feasible to evacuate the entire ten-mile planning 7g zone, if that became necessary?
21 A I don't follow your question.
I 22 . Q Well, y u indicated a moment ago that you had i
l l'
i 20 l, b
25 !; .
i: I L '
l.
P
- ?
l l ATTACH 11ENT 8 (
1 l
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
\
@f)
DEPARTMENT OF PL ANNING Evt.cuation Planning Group 65 Jetson I_ane, Box G b"E E. K o PPEL.M AN Central Islip, N. Y.11722 De*? ECTO R OF PL A N NING April 29,1981 1
i
$r. Donald B. Davidoff, Project Manager
{uclear Emergency Planning Group pate of New York Department of Health
,ffice of Public Health .
ower Building Room 1750. !
he Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza {
lbany, New York 12237 {
)
ear Mr. Davidoff:
1 As per our meeting of April 14, 1981, please find the three sets of tnchments enclosed for your consideration. The first set contains our.
nsoning and documentation concerning the use of two couege campuses as
- location Centers. As we discussed, since these facilities do not conform the distance requirements stipulated in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, we
>uld appreciate your office presenting our case in support of these facilities FEMA in hopes of obtaining a variance for Suffolk County because of its igue circumstances, i The second set of attachments regard our long time struggle to secure the of the IRS facility in Holtsville as a relocation Center. As you know, ike the two colleges, the IRS Building meets all Fede.ral criteria for to cation.
However, we are having great difficulty obtaining permission to lize the building in an emergency. We are grateful for your pledge to sist us in obtaining this facility, and we hope the enclosed information win of use to you in this pursuit.
fl 7~.e =,4nt f
r .m .
' %. %s ; wo ? yr e % p.g_-),:
-' k '" C7i c s- ' .
- 5 0 . $ [,", (ey { ?,.=,sg
- s * . .i[' . k. e.:;hi Q .,'tj y tej ,* * .. .
MJM3Qt AL HIGNW AY e H A UPP A UG E. L. I, N EW YO R K e 979-2920
The third set is in reference to our recent discussions focusing on the validity of the State's requirements for percent relocation. We fully agree that a meeting between ourselves, the Office of Disaster Preparedness, and yourself will be the best way to try to resolve our difficulties. So that you may better understand our objections with the State's requirement to provide siternate housing for 50% of the population in an evacuation, we have enclosed aur pertinent documentation.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in these matters. Please keep us informed of your progress and if you require further information o nc'. besitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours, t) y LLW LL01M'-
Laura L. Palmer Evacuation Planning Group
_P:dh
- nc.
c: Mr. Larry Czech Nuclear Emergency Planning Group Mr. Charles Daveria LILCO, Nuclear Licensing Division
Statements in Support of the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the Suffolk County Community College Campuses as Relocation Centers for Evt.cuees ane ral
Introduction:
I It would be an erroneous oversimplification to consider either of these impuses independently, totally on their own merits, without first examining eir role in the overall evacuation strategy or without fully understanding the tique complexities involved in developing an evacuation plan for Long Island.
Site specifically, the maximum width of Long Island is a scant 15 miles, hich presents a severe geographical restriction to evacuation and evacuation anning. This phenomenon, coupled with the fact that Shoreham's EPZ has a highest population density of any nuclear power station in New York State, akes a number of " routine" Federal requirements extremely difficult to tis fy at the local level.
Unlike those sites surrounded by land areas, enabling evacuation and tlocation 360 around a plant, the Shoreham site is encircled by water rrowing not only the evacuation direction and possible routing, but the ailability of resources such as suitable Relocation Centers.
.cic Philosochv: ;
In erder to maximize available resources end minimize the impacts of ographical and demographica11 imitations, we developed a distinct philosophy th respect to Relocation Centers. Primarily, we are attempting to utilize
'aw large locations which are uniformly distributed across the width of the and as opposed to numerous scutered small locations.
This is advantageous from a local perspective in'that it: allows more atrol to be exercised and maintained over evacuation routing so that routes il not adversely impact one another; missing or separated family members t ba located more readily; the school district where the student population to be relocated in an emergency (Shoreham-Wading River) can be assigned
- same Relocation Center as the entire residential population within that trict so that parents and children end up at the same location; it becomes sier to provide and maintain s pportive assistance (cots, blankets, food);
iit minimizes the number of agreements which must be executed and intained throughout the life of the plant.
.ection Criteria:
Since there are no Federal or State criteria regarding what connotates a table Relocation Center, other than distance from the site, we developed our celection criteria for linking a particular zone with an appropriate Relocation ter. These include, but are not limited to: reasonalAe highway access; sita security force; on-site independent power generation capability; adequate
anitary facilities; adequate cafeteria facilities; recreational facilities; basic n-site medical serviccs; and a logistical site location to facilitate the ontinuity of routing out of the EPZ and maximize bus availability and tilization with short turn-around times between zones and Relocation Centers.
his latter concept will be explained in greater detail in the " Alternate Sites" ction of this report. )
cific Sites:
The State University of New York at Stony Brook The University is unequalled in its potential as a Relocation Center for ffolk County residents. The 1100 acre campus has excellent highway access ovided by two State routes (Rt. 25A: Rt. 347) and a four-lane divided County ghway (CR 97, Nico11s Road) which in itself is capable of accommodating ore than 1800 vehicles per direction per hour. There are four main entrances the campus off CR 97, enabling traffic from any direction to be dispersed ficiently throughout the University.
This huge complex has an on-site security force, twenty-four hours-a-day; nerators to supply its own electrical power; adequate cafeteria and sanitary cilities (which currently accommodate a student enrollment of 17,000); and er 8,000 designated pr.rking spaces, with the ability to expand this figure by ilizing open grass areas in an emergency.
The University also affords ample room for recreational activities so that acuees, who could conceivably be housed for several days, will not be nfined to cramped quarters during an incident. In addition to the basic dical services provided by the standard campus infirmary, Stony Brook has omplete medical center on campus. The University Hospital is the County's signated emergency care facility for all people who incur injuries during an cuation.
Although the University may sound ideal, it has one inherent quality that rently precludes its use as a Relocation Center. The State University at ny Brook does not satisfy Federal criteria for minimum distance from the rehr.m site.
The 1100 acre site spans a distance of 13. 5 to 14. 5 miles from the plant is represents the nearest and farthest points of the University property line, necessarily the buildings in which evacuees would be housed), making it
-half to one mile shy of the 15 mile minimum. However, aside from the itive aspec'ts of the campus previously mentioned, there are 'several items e presented in its defense to justify its use as a Relocation Center.
Primarily, it is our understanding that the Federal distance criteria of miles is not necessarily to imply that the University would be unsafe at 14 es, bu+ rather, it is intended to obviate the need for a second relocation in event a situation worsens. To this end, it is important to note that the ,
I-2
miversity has designated civil defense shelter space capable of accommodating
),000 people. This means that the full contingent of evacuees we would like l relocate to the University could be accommodated in this shelter space, if _
scessary. Based on our conversations with Brookhaven National Laboratory,
'ase shelters would provide adequate protection from radiation regardless of a University's distance from the site. Therefore, should the situation become itical, the evacuees would not have to be moved a second time - rather, their cation within the University itself would be modified.
Furthermore, in the area of radiation protection, it is important tc note at studies have been done which conclude that outside five miles the best otective action for the public would be sheltering. I Furthermore, it is car ppression that studies on this subject show that outside ten miles, individual ses are dominated by ground contamination. Ground contamination is not so uch a function of distance, but rather a function of specific meteorological nditions and the time spent in the contaminated area. Therefore, whether a elocation Center is within 15 miles or just outside 15 miles has a smallimuact
. the overall dose assessment.
Because the University has so much to offer, we feel that it would be a avious error to prohibit its use solely because it falls shy of the distance iteria, particularly when talking in terms of half a mile. Disallowal would riously jeopardize the County's planning efforts. We feel we are not unjust asking FEMA to review the facts pertinent to the University and allow the ,
>unty some flexibility in regard to satisfying the distance criteria at the local al to accommodate Long Island's unicue situation - more people per square le and significantly less area to move them through, or relocate them to.
The Suffolk County Community College Selden Camous A majority of the characteristics possessed by Stony Brook C tiversity tich make it an ideal Relocation Center, are also applicable tc. ;he Selden mpus of Suffolk Community College, on a lesser scale. The College is cessible from State Route 25 and County Road 97 (the same two-lanc divided
- hway servicing the University to the north).
Like the University, this 150 acre campus has twenty-four hour a-day *
- urity; independent power generation; cafeteria and sanitary facilities for the
)00 full-time and 10,000 part-time students enrolled; and over 4,000 signated parking spaces. As with Stony Brook University, the grass areas can utilized for parking in an emergency. The Suffolk Community College Campus o has recreational facilities and basic medical services which can be made tilabic to evacuees housed there.
AND 78-045 Examination of Offsite Radiological Emergency Measures for uclear Reactor Accident Involving Core Melt. D. C. Aldrich, P.E. McGrath,
.C. Rasmussen, June 1978 I- 5
l While the College shares all of the positive advantages of Stony Brook sversity, it also exhibits the same problem - distance from the Shoreham 2 The 150 acre campus spans an area between 12 and 13 miles from the 2 (again, this represents the nearest and farthest points of the College
>perty line, not necessarily the buildings in which evacuees would be housed).
wever, the sr.me arguments are applicable in defending its use.
Although it is 2 miles shy of the Federal minimum, the College has
- ignated civil defense shelter space (as does the University) capable of
- ommodating 6000 persons. Again, this would be adequate for the population would like to house there which consists of the five zones (A through E) hin 2 miles of the plant and the student population of the Shoreham-Wading rer School District. Theoretically, the only way in which all five zones fund the plant would be asked to evacuate simultaneously, is under a "no
.d" situation. Therefore, relocation to 13 miles should be sufficient te ction. In addition, the meteorology is similar to that of the University, wind is toward the College approximately 5% of the time and usually brings cipitation thereby minimizing the risk to airborne contaminants.
As with the University, we feel we have a reasonable request in asking to this College for relocation. While both of these facilities may be less irabic from a Federal perspective, locally they are the best of the choices ilable. We have thoroughly pursued the alternatives and would not be aesting an exception if we could comply with the regulations as they are '
tte n. We would like to point out that even when a facility meets all the eria, there in still a problem with obtaining permission to utilize it. In case of both the College and the University, we already have their concurrence triting and their pledge to cooperate and participate to the extent of their
.lable resources.
rnate Sites:
Islip MacArthur Airport - 17 miles radially from the site - this facility ires permission to use 5 separate hangars in which to house evacuees. We attempted to secure agreements from the individuals concerned and to have: I refusal (from the National Guard which operates the largest bangar) 4 private leasees who have not responded at all. The road access to the oi t is acceptable however road access into and around the facility is less a dequate. There are also. limited cafeteria and sanitary facilities available.
Mcw York State Office Bldg. /H. I.ee Dennison (County Office) Bldg. - 22 o radially from the site - while road access at the complex is adequate, ss to the general area is unsatis factory. Two of the major roadways ding access to the area merge into one several miles from the relocation Thia will result in significant queues and extensive delays. In addition, bus service for residents without transportation is also a consideration, I- 4
Dus will have to travel in excess of 40 miles (round trip) just to complete
) ingle run. Under the stated conditions of t.n emergency this run will take 52 hro. (exclusive of loading and unloading). With the lack of buses and !
. vers, relocation centers at this distance are impractical and will severely inper an evacuation by needlessly tying up the buses available with Icngthy J vel and turn-around times, delaying evacuation of zones. In addition, l se facilities provide essential services to the community which will not j:ecsarily be terminated in an emergency thereby limiting available parking l building space.
. Kings Park, Pilgrim State, and Central Islip State Hospitals - between and 25 miles radially from the site - the facilities will be used to capacity nursing home and adult home patients evacuating the EPZ.
. Dowling College - 23 miles radially from the plant - road access is ylly unacceptable and incapable of handling routine college traffic.
. Colonic Hill - 20 miles radially from the plant - has the same bus vice and road accessibility problems as those exhibited by the State and inty office buildings. It is a private hotel - banquet - catering facility ch presents serious economic and liability impacts to the owners.
Ae a general rule, the further west the relocation center, the more gested the area and the poorer the highway system. In addition, we can not ird to lose the service of buses by taking them out to distances of 20 miles more. In doing so, we. can not guarantee the efficient removal of residents acut per: ens! tran:portatien out cf the EPZ.
- dh 8/81 I- 5
The IRS Facility in Holtsville: a Relocation Dilemma face:
Relocation Centers have become the premier challenge in our evacuation ming efforts. On the one hand, we have two facilities which possess ellent characteristics for relocation and are willing to cooperate, but they sot meet the Federal distance criteria. And on the other hand, we have a lity that meets the Federal criteria, and our own criteria, but refuses to end its cooperation and participation in an emergency. That facility is the Building in Holtsville, and it is in this regard that we are seeking assistance acuring its use.
torical Prosoectus:
The IRS debate began a ye'ar ago when a field check of the surrounding area caled a perfect location we had previously overlooked - the IRS facility Iolts ville. It has excellent road access provided by two County roads, 19 and CR 99; the former is a high design four-lane roadway, the latter, ur-lane divided highway with grade separated access to the facility The tsville center has on-site security, twenty-four hours-a-day; generates its electrical power on a permanent basis; has ample parking, cafeteria and Ltary facilities; and is in an excellent position in terms of facilitating cuation routing and bus service between zones and the center. 1 Our initial contact was May 5,1980 when we telephoned the Public Affairs ca at Holtsville to explain our p'lanning responsibilities, and to ask their paration in relocating rbsidents. They responded the following day, stating "
r willingness to participate and that they would discuss the degree of ictance possible with their Security Office.
On May 15,1980 the Public Affairs Office called and rescinded their offer ouse evacuees, citing security requirements as the reason. After a series e12 phone exchanges, we obtained their consent to meet and discuss the alc m . This meeting took place on May 23, 1980 but it was more of a etssy than a desire to hear cur arguments. On June 5,1980 we received r final decision, the answer was no.
Finding it difficult to accept the fact that a Federal public service agency
,d refuse to provide assistance in an emergency to the citizens and cycrs of the County it supposedly serves, we decided to make a final mpt to plead our case. We did this in a letter addressed to Thomas J.
cock, Director of the Holtsville facility, with copies to the Commissioner la Internal Revenue Service and the Secretary of the Treasury.
Tho latter explained the overall evacuation plan and the role we envisioned tha IRS facility. We explained that after an initially positive response to ecqu2st, the IRS apparently rescinded its offer and we would like him to
l 1 .
1 raconsider and reverse that decision. We pointed out that we fully understood the securit'; problems associa.ted with providing shelter for evacuees, but felt that c compromise could be reached based on the following: (1) the low probability of an incident occurring which would necessitate an evacuation out to ten miles: (2) the specific zones routed to the IRS would be the perimeter zones, therefore the least likely to ever have to relocate; (3) that these perimeter zones had the lowest population densities and for any given wind direction, the number of people using the facility would be minimal. We felt these evacuees could easily be accommodated in two low-risk, non-security areas - the cafeteria (which seats 900 persons), and the classroom / training wing of the fa cility. It has always been our contention that recidents forced to relocate under the stated conditions would be concerned with their homes and their families, not classified tax information.
Two months later on August 28, 1980 we received Mr. Laycock's response.
This letter confirmed their refusal and cited the Department of the Treasury Circular No. 3 (April 18,1973) as the reason stating it recommended " local schools or colleges be used as primary relocation housing facilities during emergency conditions which warrant mass evacuat:on". The letter also reiterated their security concerns.
Sensing this was merely an effort to pass the buck, we requested a copy of Circular No. 3 from Washington. It is actually a revision of a circular written Jcnuary 20, 1970 and its planning scope was a nationwide emergency based on an cttack on the United States - hardly applicable to our request. Howe ver, i further reading disclosed more than the brief section Mr. Laycock quoted. It
- ttted one cf the me:sures te he taken by the f cility in an emergency was,
" Provide for the care of dependents or relocatees within the emergency operating facilities where space is available and where it will not interfere with emergency operations, or compromise security".
With this information it seemed we still stood half a chance in obtaining use of the IRS facility. In this regard, we wrote to the Federal Emergency Manngement Agency on September 26, 1980 requesting their assistance in our ondenvor believing another Federal agency might be able to achieve greater results. On October 28, 1980 FEMA responded. In essence the letter stated that FEMA had contacted the IRS, was informed the IRS was not witting to cooperate because of security concerns, and felt they had done their part in pursuing'our request.
Conclucion:
Although a year has passed since our initial request, we stin feelit is worth pursuing, particularly with the lack of relocation center sites available.
To have a facility which would be ideal refuse to participate in an emergency, especially a Federal facility, is unconscionable. Our general feeling is that p2cple are unwilling to confront the IRS and challenge its decision, perhaps in font cf retribution. However, our concern is for the safety of Suffolk County rasidents in an emergency, and we feel their welfare far outweighs any security problems that may inconvenience the IRS.
LP:dh 4/28/81 II- 2
~
ATTACHMENT 9 STATE '-OFi NEW YORK rN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 3 OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH TOWER BUILDING G THE GOVERNOR N ELSON A. ROCKEFELLER EMPIRE ST ATE PL AZ A 9 ALB AN Y, N.Y.12237 Davec A AELnoo. M.o.
comm #.. #.,.., LOCAL H EALTH MAN AGEMENT GLENN E. H AU GHIE, M.D. WILLI AM F. LE AVY Dire <eo, et Public Health **#
May 19, 1981 Mr. Vincent Forde Acting Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Forde:
We are in the process of working with Suffolk County and Long Island Lighting Company in the development of the Shoreham radiological emergency preparedness plan. County staff is undertaking this important project by means. of a grant from Long Island Lighting.
The Suffolk County Department of Planning has established an Evacua-tion Planning Group. We have met with representatives of the group, and have agreed with them that we would support certain specific program matters and bring those matters to your attention.
The first issue pertains to the choice of certain college facilities as relocation centers. Attached for your information is a five page memorandum which supports the proposition that facilities at Stony Brook and Suffolk County Community College should be used as relocation centers. We endorse the position taken by Suffolk County, and I hereby urge your approval. If you need further infor-mation, I am sure that either Suffolk County or members of my staff can provide the necessary information.
The second issue upon which I need your consultation also per-tains to a relocation center. This involves the IRS facility at Holtsville, which was previously not made available by the Internal Revenue Service. I have discussed this matter with the Suffolk Planning Group, and I concur in the logic of their two page memorandum on this subject which is also attached for your information. I hope that you will be able to convince IRS to permit us to use this facility within the context of a nuclear emergency accident at a ccmmercial power plant, and not within the context of an atomic attack, which are clearly two different situations.
t' Mr. Vincent Forde May 19, 1981 i
As we move further into the details of the various county plans, I am sure that we will encounter more issues of this cort. I trust that you will assist us whenever you can in solving these specific problems.
Sincerely yours,
,s, m.sll,//,~.7L/ /
Donald B. Davidof Project Manager Nuclear Emergency Planhing Group Attachments [_~~,'j.
cc: Mr. Leavy Mr. Grushky Evacuation Planning Group of Suffolk County - Att: Laura Palmer Mr.,Daverio - LILCO .
Mr. Husar - FEMA p
i t
i i
e T
~ = y y- -%n- .-y. gje
ATTACHMENT 10 l
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY l Region il 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 June 4, 1981 Mr. Donald B. Davidoff Project Manager Nuclear Emergency Planning Group New York State Dept. of Health Tower Bldg. - Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12237
Dear Mr. Davidoff:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 19, 1981.
Wiui respect to your Eequest for FEMA approval of relocation centers, we do not provide such approval. That is the responsibility of state and local civil authorities. Our agency's role on this subject as well as other aspects of radiological emergency planning has been to provide guidance.
Accordingly, I suggest you consider asking the Red Cross to help you develop a relocation center criteria checklist, just as was done for Westchester County through the coordination of Joe Hein, ODP, in July of 1980. A copy of the checklist that was developed to identify schools as relocation centers,-
is furnished for your information.
Regarding Suffolk County's request to reconsider utilizing the IRS Holtsville facility as a relocation center, I have personally discussed the subject with Mr. Laycock on June 3, 1981. He is receptive for another meeting on the subject, with the understanding that he is not authorized to .
l render a decision on the facility's availability as a re-l location center. That decision will have to be made by a higher authority based on submission for consideration.
Please coordinate a mutually agreeable date for meeting with l Suffolk officials. A date in the latter part of July will l be preferable according to my work schedule.
p?)
$t.,t r,' f". ;K. Ip,i _Sincerelyfg f/
Attachment Ihor h. usa Chairman Regional Assistance Committee
, ,' ; . . d.n " . -
. . n. t
~
HAulutoclCAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SURVEY Name of Facility:
Address: '
Location by Nearest Cross Strect:
L. Housing Capacity for congregate care use at 40 Sq. foot per person.
L Room Dimentions Useable Area Capacity (L x W) (7.)
Gym Auditorium o Lunchroom Classrooms Corridors Other Total Capacity
- 2. Utilities Type Power , -
Heating Fuel Water Source Auxiliary Power
- 3. Toilet Facilities . . _ _
No. Toilets No. Washbasins No. Showers Men Women 4 Feeding Facilities Existing Seating Capacity Existing Per Meal capacity of Kitchen Type of Facility Size Fuel No. Stoves Burners
~
No.
No. Ovens No. Refrigerators ~
No. Freezers Other
- 5. Important Phone Numbers Facility Access Business Home Name Primary Contact # _
Alternate Contact .#
Alternate Contact #
ATTACIIMENT 11 f COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l r fr%?!!
%/
DEPARTMENT OF PL ANNING Evacuation Planning Group 65 Jetson Lane Lec c. xorectuan
'" * " " ' ^ " " ' "
Box G Central Islip, N.Y. 11722 September 2,1981 Mr. Donald Davidoff N.Y.S. Department of Health Office of Public Health Tower Building, Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12237 Deae Don:
This is in further reference to the use of the State University at Stony Brook and Suffolk County Community College in Selden as relocation centers in the event an evacuation is the recommended protective action in response to an incident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Predicated on telephon.e conversations with Mr. Czech of your office, it is our understanding that FEMA has indicated they have no objection to either of these facilities provided the State and County concur on the acceptability of these schools as relocation centers. Since we know of no opposition to this use by your agency, we are proceeding to finalize our plans incorporating both of these facilities as relocation centers.
If, for any reason, the State is not in concurrence with the use of the University and/or College as relocation centers please notify this office immediately.
Very truly yours, r$ WfmN Robert C. Meunkle RCM:dh EvacuationPlanning{ Group r SE? 8 1931 UEJ WK STATE DEPT. OF HEALTil NUCLEAR Ef. ERGENCY PLANtilNG GROLIP N3 MEM ORI A L *e WAY e H AUPPAU GE. L. I NEW YOR K e 979-2920
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __-__ _. _ _ .. )