ML20094B026
| ML20094B026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1984 |
| From: | Zitzer P LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094A993 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8411060633 | |
| Download: ML20094B026 (26) | |
Text
.
RELATED E Mai'ONDEtiCE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s
4, In the Matter of
)
[;((0 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-352 (Linerick GeneratiSg Station,
)
50-3g*II/-6fy.g3
-Units 1 and 2)
)
REQUEST OF LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION FOR ISSUANCE-OF SUBPOENAS TO 0BTAIN TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE STATUS OF RISK SCHOOL DISTRICT REDIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS COVERED BY LEA'S ADMITTED CONTENTIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR g 2.720, Limerick Ecology Action respectfully requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue the following subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining testimony from School District Superintendents within the Emergency Planning Zone for Limerick, with regard to LEA contentions LEA-11, LEA-12, LEA-14, and LEA-15.
LEA is making this request because we recently became aware that testimony would not be presented by the Montgomery County Of' ice of Emergency Preparedness with regard to these matters. LEA esires to insure that a thorough record is deveopled in the upcoming hearings on these issues, and believes that the testimony of the responsible school officials involved would be of great assistance to the Board and the parties.
LEA has had continuing discussions with many of those individuals their designated emergency planners, and is aware that the or School DistrJct Superintendents have direct knowledge of the status of their RERP development, while at the same time being sensitive to the concerns of the school staff. LEA believes that without this information, that the record on these issues will be deficient, and therefore makes the following requests for witnesses to be subpoened to appear at hedrings to be held by this Board at the United States Customs Court House, Second and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pa.
according to the following schedule, with the understanding that School officials would be kept on telephone standby alert by LEA TIME as the hearings progress, so as to minimize any inconvenience.
REQUESTED TO Dr.-Roy C.
Claypool, Superintendent Current information is APPEAR: Owen J.
Roberts School District attached as an exhibit to Administration Building document the status of unmet 11/26 RD#1, Route 23 needs relating to LEA's 9:00 Pottstown, Pa. 19464 (215-469-6261) contentions am Dr. Robert B.
Murray, Superintendent letter from Aug.
6, 1984 is 11/26 Phoenixville Area School District provided, although another 9:00 1120 S.
Gay Street one was just written (11/1/84) am Phoenixville, Pa. 19460 (215-933-8861) which LEA has not received a copy of 11/28 Dr. Laird P. Warner 9: 00 Superintendent Attached are copies of recent Methacton School District surveys sent out to school gn Kriebel Mill Road staff and bus drivers. LEA is n t y e aware f the results.
Fairview Village, Pa. 19403 (215-489-5000)
O
...o DATE REQUESTED Dr. William'Wescott, Superintendent Some of the school staff APPEAR **Perkiomeu Valley School District have questioned the adequacy Box 338 of training sessions.
11/26 Schwenksv111e, Pa. i9473 9:00
'215-287-7862)
Ca Dr. Ray Feicht, Superintendent 11/28 Pottstown School District 9:00 Beech and Penn Streets ca Pottstown, Pa. 19464 (215-323-8200)
Dr. Royden S.
Price, Superintendent 11/28 Souderton Area School District 9:00 139 Harleysville Pike ca Souderton, Pa. 18964 (215-723-6061) 11/26 Dr. William Welliver, Superintendent 9:00 Spring-Ford School District ca 199 Bechtel Road College.ville, Pa. 19426 (215-489-1666) 11/28 Dr. Thomas Pershing, Superintendent School officials have questioned 9:00 Upper Perkiomen School District Administration Building the adequacy of training co provided; there are many 210 West Fifth Street other concerns.
East Greenville, Pa. 18041-1598 l
(215-679-7961)
LEA is willing to provide more specific information to the Board before ruling on this request about the subject matter that LEA would seek to cover in cross-examination if subpoenas wore granted. Generally, we are making this request to obtain factual information about the status of development of the plans and any information that the Superintendents might have knowledge of with regard to teacher, staff, and bus driver participation and involvement in the planning process.
Respectfully submitted, cc: Service List Subpoenas sent only Phyl s Zi t zFr to Board LEA President Nov.
2, 1984 s
/
x
- ]
s a
b UWEN J. ROl0RIS SCillXL DISTRICT R.D. 1, PUTTSTOWN, PA 19464
[]lSCt'SSil#4 tr UtM;_T HESOUNCE te(Et6 EH;Hlitti:V HADilt (UICAL lt *41EL ltAN August 1, 1984 - 1:00 P.M. Heting Hepresentatives From:
Pennsylvania Emergency Hnaging ikjency Chester County Department of Emergency Services (hven J. Roberts Citizens' Task Force School Administration Identified Ibsic teeds Current Available thunet liesource Needs As Validated by Citizens' Task Force Hesources as of June 5,1984 CQUIPPENT 55 - 72 Passerger thsses 30 (25] 72 Passerger Duses PERSONPEL 55 Ojallfled Bus Drivers 18 (37] Quallfled Bus Drivers 156 lbsponsible Student Supervisory Persorrel 65
[91] Hesponsible Student Supervisory Persomel 22 On Site traffic Coordinators [22] On Site Traffic Coordinators trF S11E LOCATION An Appropriate llost School Site Hore An Appropriate Host Sdiool Site ASSilRANCE OF H ETING UteET HESOUHCE PEEDS - IVSill0N OF CITIZEt6' TASK FulCE Ato DISTRICT StPERINTEM)ENT 1.
Any statements regardirg the location of these additional resources most be thorourply (locumented in detall Ireludirg letters of agreemtnt with transportation providers, school bus drivers, supervisory personnel, traffic coordinators, host school arrargements, arul all other needs establisted as real and valid by tie Citizens' Task Force.
i 2.
Assurarce that all resources of acklitional equipment and personnel are of sufficient quality to evacuate our students and employees within adequate parameters of time and safety.
4 It3 fit 0 if PLAN AFTUt uteET IE. SOURCE la EDS IIAVE if~Lil IDENTIFIED Ate) VALIDATED DY ClilZENS' TASK FifCE 1.
At lease one (1) plarred evacuation drill te scleduled durtry tie school day with movement of all internal arw]
extermi resources to determire if swetgescy procethares aruj resuurces will adequately provide for sttalent safety and welfare.
2.
We felieve that at least one unscluWied evacuation drill le attempted to provide further assurasce of tie h'.
a<bquacy ur the emergency plan.
Discussion of Unmet Rescurce Needs Emercency Radialeqical Resconse Plan s
August 1, 1984 Meeting with representatives frcm:
Penna. Emergency Managing Agency Chester Co. Dept. of Emergency Sves.
Owen J. Rcberts Citizens' Task Force School Administration Ecuicment:
1.
Statement of Unmet needs list not received by PEMA frem county -
cannot resolve.
2.
Position of centractor will be determinant en availablility of buses and drivers.
Response to survey will be different frcm emergency response based en experience.
More people will respond then anticipated.
Great faith that people will do what needs to be done in tbs event of an emergency.
Transcortation Resources:
Campbell - Statement of Status:
PH & OJR need buses - cnly 1 verbal ccmmitment for 29-164 buses frcm SEPTA; no buses ccmmitted as of this date.
15 municipalities to submit unmet needs.
Submit agreements and submit unmet needs to PEMA.
PEMA will make commitments to provide resources and frcm where buses are to ccme frem.
Response to be received in approximately 60 days frcm submissicn of unmet needs to PEMA.
Perscnnel:
PEMA rely on develcpment of emergency incicent over a period of days to enable staged response.
Rely on bus contractor for cetermination of numcer available drivers.
Will not ccmmunicate identity of drivers or buses.
Only pool of drivers and buses will be develcped within time parameters.
l
c.
Page 2 August 1, 1984 Meeting Key - comemnicate with Bill Gross.
cuses and drivers will be statement frem PEHA Occumentation available within a period of time.
RCC need for documentation.
PEMA - host schools to provide supervision not oreviously discussed.
Host schcols to provide supervision until 8:00 PM ano cnildren nct picked up will be transported to mass cave centers.
No practical solutien to unmet needs for personnel in shelter needs.
School districts must provide for ' supervision in a consolidated area within the school buildings.
Traffic coordinators.
Host School:
Dr. Claypcol to contact Twin Valley Include staff requirements Set-up meeting with 01 ester County Summary:
PEMA to respond to needs after receict of unmet needs from Chester County EM Association.
Exercises:
Full exercise not possible due to limited resources How big an exercise is required to demonstrate that the plan will work witnin resource constraints?
Limited exercise to validate problem.
C.
- /
$ ". R 3
is a Q *g d Owen J. Roberts School District
[)%\\g D
R.D.1. Pottstown, Pepnsylvania 19464 V co Administration Building (h **
Telephone (215) 469 6261
'U4 i -3,o2:13 09 June 27, 1984
- c. z :..., i w D:ANC-
- f..:. :.. s. :.:...........
_,j.C 64 t=.7---'
5 b-3s 2 SERVED JUL 5 88p Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Reference:
Incomplete Inadequate Nuclear Evacuation Plan For The Owen J. Rocerts School Dist:Ict Within The Limerick Nuclear Planning Area
Dear Sir:
Nineteen (19) months ago the Owen J. Robs:ts School District estaolisned a Citizens' Task Force for the purpose or the development or school emergency planning guidelines involving p::entially nazardous conditions including a nuclear emergency at the Limerick nuclear facility.
This Citizens' Task Force is comprisec of representatives from the seven (7) townships comprising the School District; township supervisors; NORCO Fire Company; Technical School; employes union representatives from custodial, secretarial, teachers, and care:eria; parent representatives from all of our schools; and a number of corcerned citizens.
All of the task force meetings have been advertised in Ine local newspapers and open to the general public.
On June 6,1984, the School Board held an open forum on the status of the nuclear evacuation plan.
This meetinc ivas widely advertised in the local media.
The Citizens' Task Force presented its status report which, in summary, states they have identitled the human and otner resources neeced for an evacuation; the actual available resources :n hand; the unmet needs; ano the alarming fact that the County Departren; of Emergency Services has not been able to meet any of tne 10entified unnet nesos.
The Task Force made the following recom:encation to the Board of School Directors.
"We cannot submit the current c aft of the Owen J.
Roberts School District Radiological Emergency Resp:nse Plan for approval.
As it currently exists it is not adequate and wil' r.ot be effectivt in the event of a developing radiological emergency."
Page 2 June 27,1984 Citizens were then given an opportunity to comment on the status of the evacuation plan and to give additional input.
Between two and one-half (2 1/2) and three (3) hours of testimony was receiveo. oy the Board of School Directors.
A summation of the input revealed unanimous agreement by all present to the following:
the identifieo human and other resources needed for a nuclear evacuation as presanted are real; the calculations and procedures identified by the task force over a nineteen (19) month period to identify unmet needs are valid; and, the School District must look beyond the county to both state and federal governments for immediate help in not only meeting our unmet needs, but to also demonstrate to those empowered with the authority to make change the serious deficiencies in the overall master plan for a general evacuation of this School District.
I am attaching a copy of the testimony presented by the Citizens' Task Force and also by my office.
We solicit your aid in notifying all governmental agencies of our unmet needs and the serious deficiencies in the overall master plan for a general nuclear evacuation for the citizens and chilcren of this School District.
Both memoers of the Citizens' Task Force and I~ are prepared to give testimony on this most serious matter.
Your immediate attention and response will be appreciated.
Respectfully, Roy C. Claypool, Ed.D.
District Superintendent Attachment
/ho e
m._
e
.T OWN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT R.D. 1, POTTSTOWN, PA 19464 TO:
Members of the Board of School Directors, Administrator.s, a Members of the Emergency Planning Task Force FROM:
Dr.'Roy C. Claypool, District Superintendent
(
SUBJ:
Testing of Existing Parent Call Chain in the Event of Unexpected Emergency 1
Communications to Elected Officials, Regulatory Agencies, and others
Subject:
Incomplete Inadequate Nuclear Evacuation Plan DATE:
June-12, 1984 As most of you are aware by now on Frf day, without warning, I announced an early
. dismissal on the criteria of expected heat within classrooms to exceed 95 to 97 degrees.
The standard operating procedures were used in notifying each principal, radio stations, bus contractor, and parents.
The following is my evaluation of that activity for the p'urpose of demonstrating the problems we would face in the event of an alert related to nuclear or a chemical spill in our local area.
In order to ensure that the buses would be here by 11 a.m. it was necessary for me to notify the bus coordinator by 8:30 a.m.
If I had not, according to the coordinator, it may take hours before we could round up the bus drivers.
a The radio stations had little difficulty in receiving my communications because of the codes used for an emergency.
The parent chain calling system failed to operate adequately because many of the parents have allegedly thrown away their call systems lists because inclement weather is now over.
==
Conclusions:==
Unless we notify bus drivers while they are physically in their buses [via two-way radio), we may face at least two (2) hours delay before having adequate number of buses available for an early dismissal.
It is quite apparent from the experience we had on Friday that the call system not only is inadequate, but that many parents do not recognize the need to maintain this call system other than for a major inclement weather situation.
It is interesting to note that in a number of cases, unless these people were alertcd to an emergency situation via the TV the night before, many have been unable to find their lists for the next morning.
(CVER PLEASE)
June 12,1984 Page 2.
Recomendations:
1.
The bus transportation department must. upgrade our communication contacts with bus drivers in order to decrease the time needed to notify bus drivers when they are not behind the wheel.
2.
Our building principals and especially PTA/PTO's must--structure chain call systems that can be implemented at any time during a twenty-four (24) hour period.
3.
it is recommended that one of the. first projects to be. addressed by local PTA/PTO's in September would be the structuring and implementation of an emergency planning notification system.
Enclosed please find a communication sent to a number of elected of ficials, regulatory agencies and others on the subject of,
- The Incomplete Inadequate Nuclear Evacuation Plan For The Owen J. Roberts School District Within The Limerick Nuclear Planning Area."
Enc.
cc:
B. Kersch K. Rice 4
9 1
I t.
s_.
, =.
f j
3.
,r EXECUTIVE SLwARY ::E20RT
. RADIOLOGICAL EMERGEBCY RESPON$E DLAN
- Preparec and P' resented Ey Dr. Roy C. Claypool, District Superintendent June 6, 198 A The statements contained within this Executive SummaIy Report have not been shared, in total, with anyone prior to their release tonignt. They are my statements, ano I stand accountable ano reacy to cefend them as Superintencent of Schools.
In the Summer of 1982, the School District received a directive from tne Department of Education establishing a need for a Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Owen J. Roberts Schcol District.
Snortly thereafter, on August 31, 1982, the Chester County Department of Emergency Services sent a communication to the School District offering its services.
At the follcwing September 20, 1982, School Ecarc Meeting ca open discussion took place on the need for the. School District to cevelop such a plan.
The Board scught ' input from citizens and at the next School Scard Meeting October 18, 1982, the School Board established a Citizens' Task Force for the purpose of cevelopment of school emergency planning guidelines involving potentially hazardous conditicns including a nuclear emergency.
At the same meeting the School Board requested financial support from the Philacelphia Electric Company for the adoitional ccsts wnich would be incurred by tne School District in the development of such a plan.
The Eoard also insisted that the task force meetings be open to the public ano therefore, by resolution passed a motion advertising in the newspapers the first meeting of the task force would take place en November 30, 1982.
. Representatives from the following agencies met on November 30, 1982.
Department of Education, Harrisburg; PEMA; Chester County Department of Emergency Services; Emergency Coordinators from the seven (7) townships comprising the School District; NORCO Fire Company; Emergency Consultants, Inc.;
Northern Chester County Tech School; Friencs of the Arts; PTA and PTO's from all schools; employee union representatives from custodial, secretarial, teacners, and cafeteria; township supervisors; parents; ano a number of concerned citizens.
During these nineteen (19) months this task force nas osen extremely active in attempting to accomplish their task.
This task force has made a supreme. effort to honestly appraise both human and other needs.
On July 20, 1983, seven (7) months into the planning process, this committee informeo the Chester County Department of Emergency Services of the number of human resources and vehicles required for an evacuation plan.
i From that point until March 13, 1984, sixteen (16) months into the plan, this committee attempted to realistically identify the' numoer of employees who woulo participate and the actual number of venicles wnich would be available during an emergency.
This information was nen sent to the Chester County Cepartment of Emergency Services indicating urret neecs.
Executive Surnnary Repcrt June 6, 1984 Page 2 On May 1,1984, I, as Superintencent of Schools, sent a ecmmunication to the Chester County Cepartment of Emergency Services identifying additional unmet needs, and requested a detailed respcase by June 1st on how tnese needs would be met.
On May 25, 19 84, the Chester Ccunty Department of Emergency ' Services informed the District that the identified neeos have not teen met at this point in time.
On Monday, June 4th, I met witn the Citizens' Task Force for a period of approximately two (2) hours for the purpose of reexamining the additional unmet needs as identifieo by my office en May 1,1984 At the conclusion-of that meeting all previously identified unmet needs were classified as real and valid.
As we have heard this evening, the task force is recommencing that they continue their efforts.
The nuclear plant is tentatively scheculee to go en-line within the next ten (10) months. - The agency responsible for meeting our untret needs (the Chester County Department of Emergency Services] has been unable over the past four (4) months to meet any of our unmet needs.
Can a limited operation such as the Chester County Department of Emergency Services (given even the' most dedicated and ccmpetent staf f] reet our unmet needs within the next ten (10) months??
Can they deliver the additional buses? Can they provice the adoitional human resources?
Will they train these people for the specific functions needed such as ous orivers, traffic coordinators, ano acult volunteers? Do they have sufficient funds to meet these uneet needs?
Both my analytical mind and my intuition say no to all of the above.
These unmet needs have been public knowledge for at least five (5) weeks.
To date not one governmental bocy, regulatory agency or individual has contacted my office to challenge the valioity of these needs.
I can only assume that there is either concurrence on these needs or a celiberate decision has been made to ignore these documented unmet needs.
(
I will not' recommend any plan that first, does not meet these documented unmet needs; second, does not guarantee parents access to their chiloren; third, oces not address the resolution of the added expense to this School District; and fourth, dces not answer the following additicnal questicns.
Why are school age children not incluced in a selective evacuation along with preschool age children?
I When an orcer to prepare for an evacuaticn eccurs, our switchocard will be rendered useless in the first five minutes. We rely solely on telepnones for botn internal and external ccmr:unications.
Can the switenbaaro handle this overload and can the general telephone utility cover the overloaa?
l l
......~~...
..g......
00 Executive Summary Report June 6,1984 Page 3
.Sericus enallenges to sheltering as a safety cetion have been raiseo with no satisfactory answers.
If PEMA,crcers sheltering, now safe, how long before centamination and/or rays penetrate? Parents will surely converge on our schools to gain access to their chilcren.
Is Twin valley, our alleged host school, far enougn away?
Is it not in the ingestion exposure pathway?
What provisions are being plannec by municipalities for alternative routing in the event of inclement weather such as ice, snow, etc. Routes 23 and 100 usually provices us with one or two accidents celaying our bus runs, whose time frames are we going to use to cetermine the absolute minimum time neeced to properly evacuate students anc employees?
Where in this country has a greater effort been mace over a nineteen (19) month period,to develop an adequate evacuation plan?
As the time draws nearer for the opening of the plant, parents are feeling and. exhibiting increased stress over the healtn anc safety of their children.
We will not compromise either the health cr safety of our chilcren or employees in arcer to have an evacuation plan that is not adequate and implementable.
what are. the. legal liability exposures of the Scncol District,. the School Boaro, incivioual Schcol soard tremcers, District Superintendent, employees, and volunteers? If acditional liability insurance is neeced, wno will pay for the insurance?
State and federal planners have been quick to identify, in detail, local-responsibilities both financial and legal, but no visible effort to meet any of our unmet needs.
It is my opinion that we must look beyond Chester County to both the state and federal governments for immediate help in not only meeting our unmet needs, but to also cemonstrate to those empowered with the authority to make Change the serious deficiencies in the overall master plan for a general evacuation of this School District.
Let us not spend these next few months debating how to rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
Instead, join forces with the task force in seeking a resolution to our unmet neeos, as well as educating those in a decision making role the sericus deficiencies in the existing planning structure, and the attitude that given an emergency of this magnitude citizens will rise up and solve the problem.
O.m f46-bl 6 fi'l
- l Signature Cate i
,r y
OWEN J. RCEE:,TS SCHCO. DISTRICT
~
R.D. #1, POITSTOWN, PA.
19464.
i TO:
Scard of School Directors Owen J. Rccerts Schcol District FROM:
Citizens Task Force for Develcpment of Schcol Emergency Planning Guidelines RE:
Interim Prcgress Report en Cevelcpment of Emergency Radioicgical Respense Plan CATE:
.L'ne 5,1984 This ccr.munication will inform ycu of the current status of the deve'.cpment of the Radiclogical Emergency Respense Plan.
As ycu know, the Citizens Task Force has worked sericusly and conscientcusly over the past. nineteen (19) m nths in an honest effort to develcp cur District Emergency Plan.
All activities of this Task Force have been completed within guidelines established by the Emergency Planning Act, the Pennsylvania ET.ergency Planning Agency, and the Department of Emergency Services.
As directed by these agencies, the primary cbjectives of the Task Force were to identify rescurces needed for. student evacuaticn or sheltering; determine existing District rescurces; and then report all unmet resource needs to tr}e Chester County Cepartment of Emergency Services.
The cle of the Chester County Cepartment of Emergency Services is to locate and identify additicnal rescurces required for a schoci district evac :ation.
These resources wculd then be appropriately dccumented and attached to cur' District and County Radiological Emergency Respense Plans.
The following cutline will summarize the results of the needs assessment completed by the Citizens Task Force and subsequent recommendaticns for Ecard censideratien.
I I.
Findings of Fact A.
Resources Needed for Evacuation
.l.
Fifty five (55), seventy two.(72) passenger buses 2.
Fifty five (55) bus drivers 4
3.
One hundred fifty six (156) student supervisory persennel h.
Twenty two (22) traffic coordinators 5.
Establishment of an appropriate host schcol site P
B.
Current 01 strict Rescurces Cetermined After Extensive Study, Training, and Survey of District :erscrnel 1.
Thirty (30), seventy' two (72) passenger buses 2.
Eighteen (18) bus drivers 3.
Sixty five (65) student sucerviscry perscnnel 4.
No available traffic ccordinators 5.
No agreement has been reached regarding the establishment of a host school site 3
C.
Uncet Resource Needs Ccnfirmed by the Citizens Task Force at a i
Meeting Held en June 4,1984 1.-
Twenty five (25) additicnal schcol buses 2.
Thirty seven (37) additicnal school bus drivers 4
3.
Ninety one (91) additional student sucervisory perscnnel 4.
Twenty two (22) traffic centrcliers 0.
Occumentation of this Needs Assessment 1.
Meeting en subject of District transportaticn needs and
~
rescurces with representatives f:cm the Chester County Department of Emergency Services - March 1983 2.
Teacher survey - May 1983 3.
Bus driver survey - May 1983 4.
Joint sub-ccmmittee of Rccerts Education Associaticn and Citizens Task Force during the month of July 1983 5.
Teacher and bus driver training program - Novemoer 1983 6.
Teacher survey - November 1953 7.
Sus drive survey - Cecember 1983 E.
Occumentaticn of Ccmmunicaticns Fe;arding Establishment of t.rcat Resource Needs 1.
Meeting with representatives cf Cepartment of ' Emergency Services - March 25, 1983 2.
Letters to Chester County Cepartment of Emergency Services dated July 20,1983, March 13,1984, and May'1, 1984 3.
A representative of the Cepartment of Emergency Services has attended. all but two (2) regular meetings of the Citizens Task Fc:ce of the Gwen 2.
Rccerts Schcol District and Pe994einerad 'n. =11 Aiscussic0s of rescurces. -
1 r
(
]
q I
'A.
Letter f cm Cecarement cf Emergency Services inferning cur Task Force that acditicnal resources have not been identified - May 25, 198A F.
Ccnclusiens of Fact
-1.
As a
result of thorough investigatien and study of rescurces,.the unmet rescurce needs of the Owen J. Rccerts School District are real and valid.
)
2.
Ncne of cur unmet resource needs have, as of this cate, been identified and dccumented for us by the Chester County Department of Emergency Services.
3.
Our emergency planning cannot move forward until all identified rescurce needs are provided by the Chester County Department of Emergency Services.
Any statements recarcing the location of these additional rescurces must be thercughly documented in detail including letters of agreement with transportaticn p cviders, scheci cus drivers, supervisory perscnnel, traffic ccordinators, hest schcol a rangements, and all other needs estaclished as real and valid by the Citizens Task Force.
3.
If cur respcnsibility is to ~ provide for the safety and welfare of cur students during a cevelcaing :sdiological emergency, it is also then cur obligation to have assurance that all resources of additional equipment and perscnnel are of sufficient quality to evacuate cur students within adequate parameters of time and safety.
II.
Reccmmendat'icns of the Citizens Task Force A.
We cannot submit the current draft of the Owen J. Rccerts School District Radiological Emergency Response Plan for approval.
As it currently exists it is not adequate and will not be effective in the event of a developing radiological emergency.
B.
Since the Philadelphia Electric Corporation is scheculed to begin on-line operatiens of the Limerick NJelear Pcwer Generating Station in April of 1985, it is necessary to take an aggressive apprcach toward resolving the aforementioned emergency plarning issues.
We, therefore, reccmmend that ccmmunicaticns be initiated with the Federal. Emergency Plarning Agency inic ming them of our detailed review of unmet rescurce reeds and the lack of any respense by the Chester Ccunty Department of Emergency Services.
O e
We also reccmmend that no Emergency.Respense Plan be sucmitted C.
for-Scard acc:cval withcut ecmclete and thercugh drill and F
exercise.
If the unmet
.:escurce *needs are eventually identified, we would ask ths; at least ene planned drill be f
scheduled during the scheci cay with movement of all internal j
and external resources to dete :: tine if emergency precedures and will-adequately
- cvide for student. safety and rescurces In additien, we. telieve that at least ene unscheduled welfare.
drill be attempted to p;cvide' fu-ther assurance of the acequacy of the Emergency Plan.
D.
We also recommend that the Citizens Task FC:ce for Schecl Emergency Plarning Guidelines centinue to functicn tritil all emergency plarning issues ae resolved and the Emergency the Response. Plan is determined to be adequate to p cvide fc:
protection of the student en:climent 'of the Owen J.
Roberts Schecl District.
9 e
D e
h gwhsh hh hhdQQgQgQg
%[3. RO p
Owen T. Roberts School Disuic:
g CO Administration Builcyng y%g D
g R. D.1, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Telephone (215) 469-6261 U/0 3 May 1, 1984 Mr. John McNamara Chester County Department of Emergency Services la E. Siddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 RE:
Need for Cetailed Response to Citizens Task Force Letter Dated March 13, 1984 Request to Respcnd to Additional Unmet Needs As Perceived By District Superintendent As Centained Within This Document D, ear Mr. McNamara:
Over the past couple of months, I have had extensive interacticn witn - e Scard of School Directors, individual Board members, and Joseph Clar<,
Administrative Representative to the Citizens' Task Force for Scncol Eme.~;ercy planning for the Dwen J. Rcberts Schcol District.
Last Friday, April 27, I*
Spent three (3) hours with Mr. Clark reviewing in detail the status of Draft 7.
During this session Mr. Clark informed me that he had telephoned ycur office to see if any response was forthcoming in reference to his letter cf March 13, 1984.
Since my meeting with Mr. Clark I have spent an additional six (6) to l
eight (8) hours thoroughly reviewing Draft 7, and Mr. Clark's communication to you dated March 13, 1984 i
I met with the Board of School Directors last evening, April 30th, to present my concerns which will be amplified in this communicatien.
I, therefore, request that a detailed response be presented, in writing, to bc-h the Citizens' Tasx Force letter of March 13th, as well as my accitic. al ccncerns identified herein.
The Dwen J. Roberts Citizens' Task Force has spent approximately a year and a half examining this mest difficult cencept.
Prior to the end of t-is fiscal year I am requesting that the Scard of Schcol Directors meet witn ne Task Force for a thorcugh and ccmplete update of the proposed Emeze cy Respcnse Plan.
Therefore, it is imperative that we receive frcm you a writ en corr.T.unication no later than June 1, 1984 Before presenting 'my cencerns, I realize the difficult functicn ycu c.st perform, but I am also tware of Murpny's Law in an emergency situaticn.
va 1,-1984 vr. Jenn McNamara, Chester County Geoartment cf Emergency Services
- a;e 2 In reference to Mr. Clark's letter of March 13, 1984, I believe the Citizens' Task Force identificiaticn of needs are minimal and reflect cotimum That is to say, after thorough review and investigation I believe ccnditiens.
- heir needs are in scme cases understated.
In order to expedite your cc. rnunication, I will restrict my icentifica:icn of unmet. needs to vehicles recuirec for evacuation,- bus crivers neeced for evacuation, teachers and neeced for evacuatien, traffic ccordinators, and last,.but not i
ecoloyees least, the fact that Owen J. Robe:ts dces not have a host center.
Until such time as these unmet needs identified herein are thoroughly delineated by your agency as being available under the most adverse ccncitiens, no valid evacuatien plan (in my cpinien] could possibly be feasible.
A general statement that these t.. met neecs will be resclvec, or nave been resolved without specific details involving how these needs have caen met will be unacceptable due to the sericusness of the situation, and our i
ccmplete reliance en cutside resources to cer. duct an evacuation under the mest cptimum conditicns.
~
SEVENTY-TWO (72) PASSENCER VEHICLES NEECEO FOR EVCCUATION i
ALL PERSONNEL ANO STUCENTS Total Vehicles Needed, Fiftv-Five (55) Seventy-Two (72) Passencer Euses.
+
Vehicles available thirty '(30).
Please note' this is smaller number This than that identified by the censultant and the District Task Force.
A number.
figure is reduced by ten (10) vehicles fer the following reason.
of centracted drivers keep school buses at home.
If this evaucation shculd take place between the period of 9:30 A.M.
and 1:30 P.M., it is very likely that at least fifty percent (SC%) of these buses will not be j
cperating because the driver either cannot get back to the bus or has elected to take care of higher family needs.
Therefore, I concluce the unmet vehicle needs amcunt to twenty-five (25) buses.
Please identify where these twenty-five (25) buses will be coming as well as, will the twenty-five (25) drivers bringing the buses
- from, into our District drive thase buses during evacuation??
4 BUS ORIVERS The initial survey indicated that twenty-five (25) of cur District drivers will drive a school bus during a radiological emergency.
- However, i
many of these orivers did preface their statement stating that tneir families would ccme first, and they must be assured that their particular had been taken care of.
Knewir.g Murphy's Law in emergency children situations, I believe that the twenty-five (25) figure more realistically i
wculd be a maximum of eighteen (18).
Therefore, I cenclude that cur ur.me: driver needs to ce thirty-seven (37) drivers.
If.you are successful in acpuirirg twenty-five (25) cuses and twenty-five (25) drivers frem cutsice cur area, there is still a need I
fc: twelve (12) additional drivers.
Please icentify where these drivers I
wculo be ecming from.
f
...........-....m,
., ~.,_..
- t, May 1,1984 Mr. Ochn McNamara, Chester County. Depa-tment of Emergency Services a;e 3
,^,
-TEACHER NEEDS EVACUATION As you are aware, the Task Force did survey our teacners at least twice.
The second survey ecming after an extensive ~ inservice on the duties and responsibilities of teachers during an evacuation.
Our. teachers were very cpen, and I believe hcnest, in their respenses to this survey. Human nature is to first of all secure unmet family needs.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of our professional staff responded to this survey.
This sixty-six percent (66%) respense equates to cne hundred thirty-seven (137) individuals.
Please be advised, however, that only sixty percent (60%) of those respcnding signeo the dccument.. Therefore, a more realistic teacher need will be based on the number who signed the survey.
A summary of the survey is as follows:
QUESTION: Will you be willing to acccmpany students by bus to the host center or mass care center?
The number who signed the document equates to approximately thirty-eight (38) teachers.
QUESTICN: Will you be willing ' to drive your own vehicle (without students) to the host school.or mass 4
care center to provide supervision fc
~ our students?
The number who signed the document equates to apercximately fifty-six (56).
Teacher absences were not factored into the estimate.
During November, for example, we had a daily absence of 13.5 teachers.
From the data available, I would conclude that, again giving Murphy's
- Law, human reaction to emergency situations and family needs, that internal staff resources accompanying students and attending to students at host centers will be more in the neighborhood of sixty (60) to sixty-five (65) teachers.
i Our total teaching staff to date is two hundred eight (208) teachers to supervise cur current enrollment.
If we were to reduce our supervisor ratio by twenty-five percent (25%), we would still have a total need for approximately one 11undred fifty-six (156) teachers.
With only sixty-five (65) anticipated local teachers, there is a cefinite need for at least ninety-cne (91) adult volunteers to assist students by bus or by car to the host schcol or mass care center.
Who are these ninety-one (91) volunteers and where will they be ccming from?
I have not attempted to address the issue of sheltering for I believe we need to have the rescurces determined for evacuaticn' and if they be resolved, then sheltering would be resolved.
-.-,,_.,--m,
.,e-..
w.
m 4
a usy 1, 1984 Mr.,"cnn McNamara, Chester Ccunty Department cf Emergency Services Page A TRAFrIC CCCRDINATCR$,
As the time draws near for the cpening of the plant, it -is quite clear that our citizens have every intention of ccming directly to cur-in order to pick up their chilcren in the event of an facilities In no way will the School Administration prevent parents from emergency.
picking to their children.
Therefore traffic controllers will be an absclute must at each of cur educaticnal centers.
I predict the need for the following traffic controllers, in addition to school employees, at each of the following educational centers:
WARWICK ELEMENTARY CENTER 3 Traffic Centrollers FRENCH CREEK ELBENTARY CENTER 3 Traffic Controllers VINCENT ELEMENTARY CENTER 3 Traffic Centro 11ers EAST COVENTRY ELS ENTAhY CENTER 3 Traffic Centrollers NCRTH COVENTRY ELEMENTARY CENTER A Traffic-Centrollers a minimum of 6 Traffic Controllers CENTRAL CAMPUS
'Zf Traffic Centrollers TOTAL In addition to traffic centrollers, I raise a sericus questien as to the traffic controlling, activities that will take place at the intersection of Routes 23 and 100, Route 100 and Cadmus Rcad, and Rcute 23 and the exit from Owen
,J. Roberts. My personal interaction with a number of parents indicates that the first response will be to converge on cur ecucational centers for the purpose of gaining access to their children.
Unless this need is met, we will experience mass hysteria, confusion, and
~
total bicekace of any pessible evacuation frem our school facilities by school buses.
HOST SCHOOLS As of this date we still do not. have any agreement with another school district in the case of an evacuation.
I request your immediate attention to these ecst sericus questions.
at Members of my staff and I would be more than happy to sit down with you, your convenience, to discuss in detail cur concerns as well as the content of
[
this communication.
l Respeetfully, l
I'b Roy C. Claypcol, D.
District Superintendent Q
===.*+=-m. - -
(215)489-5000
(
'k,'h s
her METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT DR. LAIRD P. WARNER Fairview Vi!! age, PA 19403 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SURVEY FOR BUS DRIVERS TO:
Methacton Bus Drivers FROM: Emergency Evacuation Planning Committee RE:
Attached preliminary driver questionnaire DATE: October, 1984 A committee made up of representatives from the administration, teaching staff, bus drivers and community people is currently in the process of preparing a radiological emergency response plan for the Methacton School District. This plan is necessary because all three elementary and the Arcola School are within the ten-mile radius of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) of the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. Procedures for evacuating and' sheltering students are included in the plan.
Bus drivers of the district will be called upon to move students to a host
~
school from each of these four areas in the event of an emergency situation.
In addition, bus drivers may also be asked to in turn, transport students from the host school to a mass care feeding center at 8:00 pm.
'In addition to the threat of a nuclear accident at Limerick, a good emer-gency plan will also be useful in the event of any other emergency that might occur at or near any of our schools.
Such emergencies could occur at any time and we should be prepared.
It is vital to the committee that we have some idea of how many drivers would be willing to complete emergency driving assignments in any type of emergency.
Therefore, we are asking you to complete the attached survey. This survey should be returned to Mr. McMenamin as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about the survey, you may direct them to Mr. McMenamin or to Tyrone Johnson who serves as a member of the committee.
The committee is very grateful to you for spending a few minutes to complete j
this important survey.
Oct:ber, 1984
[- '.
~ g-METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT PRELIMINARY DRIVER QUESTIONNAIRE AVAILABILITY FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Please read each of the following questions carefully and answer with sincerity. We would welcome any comments you would have concerning any aspect of the topic of emergency preparedness.
1.
In' the event of an accident.at the Limerickt Power Generating
~
station which require student evacuation to a host school during school hours:
A.
I will' complete emergency driving assignments as directed by the supervisor *of transportation in accordance with Energency Response Plan of the Methacton School District.
1 B
I will not participate in the' student evacua-tion.
Comments:
2.
In the event of an ' accident it the Limerick Power PlaEt which red quires student evacuation past regular school hours to a host school and/or a feeding center up until 8:00 pm:
. A.
I will complete emergency driving assignments as direct 2d by the supervisor of transportation in accordance with the Energency Re-sponse Plan of the Methacton School District.
B I will not participate in the student evacuation.
q, Comments:
i 3.
In the event of an emergency situation (other than nuclear accident),
t such as a toxic waste spill, flood, fire, etc., which requires student evacuation during school hours:
s A,
I will complete emergency driving assignments as directed by the supervisor of transportation in accordance with the Energency Re-sponse Plan of the Methacton School District.
B I will not participate in the student evacuation.
Comments:
e 4
a MS DMETHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT (215)489-5000
's DR. LAIRD P. WARNER sies,en.nm,w Fairview Vmage,PA 19403 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SURVEY FOR FOR STAFF MEMBERS TO:
All Methacton Staff Members (excluding bus drivers)
FROM: Emergency Evacuation Planning Cor:rdttee RE:
Attached preliminary staff questionnaire DATE: October, 1984 A committee has been formulated to develop a radiological emergency re-sponse plan for the Methacton School District. This plan is necessary because all three of our elementary and the Arcola school are in the ten-mile radius of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) of the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant.
Procedures for evacuating and sheltering students are,i...:1uded in this plan.
Staff members of the school district will be asked to supervise students during emergency situations. This may require sheltering within a build-ing or evacuating school students on buses to a host school outside the EPZ. An evacuation of school students will be followed by an order to evacuate the entire population from the ten-mile EPZ surrounding Limerick.
In addition to the threat of a nuclear accident at Limerick, a good emer-gency plan will also be useful in the event of any other emergency that might occur at or near any of our schools.
Such emergencies could occur at any time and we should be prepared.
The committee is comprised of representatives from the administrative and teaching staff, parents,and interested community persons. This group has reviewed drafts of an emergency response plan, and will be making recommendations for improving the plan to the board of education.
It is vital that the committee have information as to the availability of staff members for supervising students in an emergency situation. The Methacton bu.s drivers,also being surveyed, are using a separate instrument.
Your cooperation in taking a few minutes to complete the attached ques-l tionnaire is gratefully appreciated. Completed questionnaires should be returned to your building principal as soon as possible.
If you have any questions relative to the contents of this questionnaire, please direct them to Mr. James P. Brown, Rrincipal of Arrowhead School, who is serving as the chairperson for the committee.
It is also important to note that the questionnaire is simply preliminary.
It is possible a more specific survey will be devised later in the year.
I METHECTON SClOOL DISTRICT EMERGENCY EVACUATION COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE a
o PlNase read each of the following questions carefully and answer with sincerity. We would welcome any comments you would have concerning any aspect of the topic of emergency preparedness.
Name of School In Which You Work
- 1..Would you be willing to remain at the school beyvnd regular hours with students until they are released to their parents or transported to a host school or mass care center in the event of an accident.
at the Limerick Power generating station?
Yes No For how long?
Hours As long as necessary 2.
Would you be willing to accompany students by bus to the host school or mass care center?
Yes No Eor how long?
Hours As long as necessary 3.
Would you be willing to drive your own vehicle (without students) and remain at the host school or mass care center to provide supervision for our students?
Yes No, For how long?
Hours As long as necessary 4.
Are you an emergency worker for any other agency?
Yes No If.yes, please list (e.g., ambulance crew, fire company, CB unit, National Guard) 5.
Are you a resident of the anergency Planning Zone (approx. 10-mile radius of Limerick)?
Yes No If yes, can your family be evacuated safely without your assistance?
Yes No 6.
General Comments:
k t.
0 a
i
,i
~
1 f
vening_phosnt Wednesday, October 17,1984 -
Phoenixville, Pa.
30 In S-F district ~
]
)
(*({(*({[{j{ {J((
nothing in their hands was being 9hg considered as a final draft, and that
(
j ) f'j( { [ l O ( ) l [ l 0 copies of the consultant's plan would M
8 IComtinuedfrom Pagej) not be given out.
s In a letter dated Oct.10, however.
s l
May to be on a parent committee,and John I. Patton, director of PEMA.
fl {}lg } {3f*p' so far nothing has happened...I don't told Welliver that his agency "un-think we can Just put this thing in derstood" that the draft had been By E.J. BROWN mothballs and refuse to deal with it."
given to them through the Mon-Staff Writer Welliver responded, "We would tgomery County Office of Emergency ROYERSFORD - Despite low-welcome a group that would like to Preparedness "with the district's power testing at the Ilmerick nuclear develop'a plan thatis reasonable."
knowledge."
generating station being on the' He said that. he expected the Last April, Robert Bradshaw, of i
horizon.. the Spring-Ford School district to have a plan by the time Energy Consultants, a Harrisburg Board is refusing to go to work on a-Ilmerick goes to full-power next area company working (or PE, said district evacuation plan, since it feels spring. When asked when the process that he had already met with it may beimpossible to complete.
would begin, board President Dr. Welliver, although r,t with the school "We have not taken any steps to Bruce I. Burns told Kreider, "You organize a committee," Superin-willhear from usin the future."~
board, to discuss ideas for the plan.
Patton said that PEMA has already tendent Dr. William A. Welliver told a The school district is protesting the been involved with reviewing the on-parentyho questioned the status of use ofits name on a preliminary draft going drafts of the Spring-Ford plan the pSrfist the board meeting Mon-plan made up by a consultant for since last October. The agency has day night. He added that as far as he Philadelphia Electric Co., that has released copies of it to a " service knows, only one school district ac-been submitted to the Pennsylvania list" designated by the NRC's tually has a plan at this point, and Emergency Management Agency as licensing board.
mentioned the frustration that has the district's plan. Welliver recently When asked why the leard was.
plagued the development of a plan in the Owen J. Roberts School District.
wrote a letter to both state and. refusing to work on the plan Burns federal emergency management shrugged. "No one has ever conie to Roberts was hampered by Chester offices saying the plan in their hands us and said we haw to doit."
County's inability to provide enough was not from the district, and asking ile said, however, that the board's buses and drivers to support the that it not be distributed to other lack of action is not an attempt to evacuation.
agencies as such.
keep the I.imerick facility frcia School board members seemed to Federal officals assured him that obtaining its license to operate.
be of the same mind, and would not commit themselves to the for-mulation of such a plan in the near future.
Karen Kreider, of Mason Street in Royersford, who has been monitoring the progress of the district's response I
to nuclear emergency preparedness, I
was annoyed that nothing was being done.
"When my children are in school.
I'm at work in Philadelphia," she said. "If there's an emergency, I can't leave and come back. You are responsible. I submitted my name in l
(See PLAN,P2)
J
Town and Country A Gannett Newspaper w percopy
- w.. - -.
..u
. g.c,..s.. ca,es servina nc vover rcr&iomen vatica since iss" weanessau, uarch 21, i881
! School officials c aim no training given for
~
By VIC ATTARDO Bigelow's statement comes on the ~ While this contingency is not the
.g4 ~8y pglu aul M g m
heels of two other problems which the case at the present time, there was j
Staff Writer Upper Perkiomen school officials school district has faced regarding the confusion regarding the rumor. A wI u
ww w tu Wsa emergency evacuation plans.
'Marlborough Township officialwent so ara disputing a statement issued by the Last month superintendent Dr.
far as to say at a public meeting that.
"I would not say that was training. I -
Montgomery County Office of Emerg.
ency Preparedness (EOP) that school Ihomas E. Persing questioned the the high school was now included in ' don't consider myself trained ' Train.
i
- personnel have been tramed for an wording of a draft evacuation plan for
- the evacuation contingency.
Ing' is not correct as far as I'm emergency in the event of a nuclear, the Upper Perk schools. On the cover The EOP press release published in : concerned."-
j, accident at the Limerick power plant
- of a plan was the claim:" Prepared by: Town and Country on March 7 stated' Fry agreed with Bonekemper's and i
Th2 statement, issued in a press Upper Perkiomen School District." that " training, based on emergency Dietzel's assertion, "That's er-j releasd by EOP coordinator A. Lindley When the wording was questioned,' plans being prepared by county and. roneous," said Fry. "That's not true.
Big: low, claims that " training has that the plan was " prepared by" the local governmental units, consists of 2 They gave us some information."
j l!,beyn ' completed school district when in fact the district information relating to the effects and for school ad-had had little to do with the draft measurement of radiation as well as At the Montgomery' County EOP j
document, it was generally agreed by training in specific actions that might Bigelow and a assistant on a bint j
ministrators, teachers, schoci bus-drivtrs and other school staff person'. the Upper Perklomen school board have to be undertaken.,
telephone hookup characterized the 4
nel from throughout the county."
l that the plan should read, " prepared According to the three district ' evacuatin plans... as to what has to be school program as an " overview of the But three Upper Perk ad-for." Persing contacted the authors of officials, school personnel were given a ministrators - Dr.. George the draft plan, Energy Consultant Inc. " presentation" on the plans and, in the planned for who are thepartici ants "
Bonskemper, assistant super-I j
intendent; Fred O. Dietzel, high school of Harrisburg, who agreed to change words of Dr. Bonekemper, "we don't The E01 says it has begun radio-h' d"
f dr f consider that training."
g,gica3 emergency response training to principal; and Anthony Fry, Tl d
with the Bonekemper first commented about aassist emergency organizations should l l. coordinator of nuclear emergency corr t on of a ap ch the draft the E0P press release on Monday.
ccident at the Limerick plans and assistant high school princi-
- pal - say there has been no such plans were based. Until a few weeks "Some of our people took some p
,elve tr ing c ude ire, police, training.
aE
- the so-called " circle of evacu-eXeeption to that," he said. "They All three school officials disputed ation'. did not include Upper Hanover didn't think they were trained."
rescue, emergency medical, public Township. But an error of a quarter oL.
Bonekemper said that Emergency wrks personnel, county and munici-l the EOP statement saying it was a mile was found on the maps and. Consultant Inc. put on a program for. pal officials and staff, employes of t.,
suddenly a larger area. of Upper the teaching staff during a February health-care facilities, communicati (Bonek mper); ot correct a ar as Hanover Township was included in the. in-service day. Bonekemper said that dispatches and those associated in t the staff did not consider the program emergency zone. The Upper Perki, to be "a training session" adding, -
(Continued on page 5) '
t issue i the di p te is whether omen High School is located in the Upper Perks, omen school officials teachers and staff consider themselves' borough of Red Hill, but a small area "How could we be trained when the to be tramed well enough to handle of the school district's land lies in final plan hasn't been accepted yet and problegs that might arise during a adjacent Upper Hanover Township.
we are stillin a rtate of flux. Training i
nuclear accident. In addition.
Rumor spread that the Upper-is more than just giving information."
Perkiomen High School would now be Dietzelsaid the Emergency Consult-included in the list of schools to be. antgogram was a " presentation."
g; evacuated in the event of a nuclear ~.
e emergency.; an_ a-a_- -- c g
(
j
I School 1
\\
has 'no t r a m..mg, (Continued from page 1) field of agriculture.
Bigelow erd his as tant said that Fry said the high school could be training differed with each group.
used as a host school for students from
- Itey repeated that Upper Perk "has the Montgomery County Vo-Tech in been tramed,
Limerick. But legal agreements for the I can't say if they weren't in host schcol plan and a proposed mass attendance," he added.
care center have not been signed by Beside theissue of what constitutes the school district making neither adequate training for a nuclear emerg-Unal, Fry emphasized.
ency, high school principal Fred Fry said he will participate in the Dietzel said the draft plan he heard decision on whetherornot Green Lane reviewed during the presentation was Elementary is to be evacuated in the impossible."
event of a nuclear accient. Fry said "The plan did not make sense," he his recommendation would be based said. "It was so complicated I can't on a decision by Marlborough Town-remember it. I told them it was ship officials whether or not the impossible."
townsNn will participate in drafting Dietzel said the plan called for emerge cy plans. (Green Lane someone to announce, through the Elementary is located Marlborough.)
high school intercom, that Limerick "They way theygo would determine was having an emergency.
what we do," he said.
"Can you imagine the panic," he Fry said Limerick's evacuation said. "If you have to think in a crisis plans are a long way from completion.
situation it is not going to work."
"We're dealing with a very complex Dietzel criticized the draft saying a problem. These are drafts and there more " practical" plan was needed.
will be mistakes made along the way,"
Liking the situation to a fire drill, he said. "It's like war you have to Dietzel said school evacuations work adjust to the situation."
because they are simple, practiced and an automatic response.
"They (the planners) have to de-velop a plan where you deal'with people who might get emotional. The procedure they were outlining to me was completely impossible," he said.-
Each school official interviewed emphasized that the ptans are only in draft form and that no action can be taken until they are approved by the Upper Perklomen School Board aftera public meeting.
But many of basic possibilities that -
might occur in the event of a wide -
spread nuclear evacuation have not been agreed upon though the plan is in its third draft.
While it is generally agreed (at this time) that the Upper Perklomen High School would not be evacuated in event of an emergency, there are still I questions regarding Green Lane Elementary School and the use of the high schml as a relocation center.
j Bigelow said it is up to the school district to decide whether or not to evacuate Green Lane Elementary. He also said that there is a proposal for the high school to become a relocation cinter for emergency services.
-.