ML20136B875

Discusses Concerns Re Proposed Evacuation Plan for Greenland School

ML20136B875
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/26/1987
From:	Murphy M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20136B785	List: ML20136B781 ML20136B875
References
NUDOCS 9703110179
Download: ML20136B875 (4)

Text

. . _ . _ _

1 October 26, 1987 DOCKETING AND SERVICE United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

J Washington, D.C. 20555 -

To Whom It May Concern, More than a year ago I addressed the attached letter to Dr. Carl Wood, the principal of the Greenland Central School. Greenland is within the ten mile evacuation zone surrounding the Seabrook nuclear plant.

Since I wrote the letter neither Dr. Wood nor anyone else has been able to enswer any of the questions I raised, except that Dr. Wood has polled the teachers and discovered that not one will agree to remain at the school in the event of a nudlear emergency.

Dr. Wood is faced with the real possibility of standing alone with 250 children waiting for busses that rav never come.

I have asked these questions directly and in letters to Governor Sununu, Civil Dafense Director Strome, the Civil Defense Director of Greenland and numerous officials of the NRC. Nobody, absolutely nobody has any answers. l l

I ask you, as a responsible agency of the United States Government, to insis t tha t if we must have an evacuation plan then we must have one which has a reasonable chance of working if we ever need it.

g What, can you do , what can I do? l

\

s Sinc erely, ,

\

\ I (N%s Meurice M. Murphy Great Bay Drive Greenland, NH 03840 9703110179 871201 I PDR ADOCK 05000443 H PDR

February 5, 1986 Carl Wood, PhD ,

Principal -

CREENLAND CENTRAL SC110,0L Post Road Greenland, SH 03840 Dea r Dr. Ucod, In several of our recent conversations I lave voiced my concerns about the present preposed evacuation plan for Greenland, particularly as it relates to the evacuation and safeguarding of the children in our school. Because you are in a positien of considerable influence in the planning process, and more pointedly, you are the Individual responsible for protecting our children in the event of a life threatening emergency,1 thought it worthwhile to put my J most serious concerns to you in writing.

Fundamental to the concept for evacuating the school is the decision to remove all the children, as a body, in busses to the assigned receiving center. A moment's censideration of the limited number of possible alternatives will make it apparen: that this decision is not a selection of the best alternative, but rather an a:ceptance of the only alternative. Built on this shaky foundation the rest of the plan requires us to make assumptions which the real world suggests are risky assumptions indeed.

First, since Greenland does not have exclusive use of sufficient busses, or for that matter any busses, how can we guarantee that effective transportion will be availab'.s, that drivers will remain on station, or worse, that drivers will actually re-enter a threatened area? Should we be concerned with fuel, should we have backup busses, will persons other than children try to use our busses?

How soon af:er an alert will busses be available. At what radiation threshold would we ne: load busses, at what level would we return to the school for shelter? Are we prepared for an extended transport time, food water, 1 supervision, security? How will our busses enter the traffic stream, will they have priori:y or an escort?

l 1

j l

Carl Wood, February 5, 1986 page 2.

Second, assuming a high level of anxiety during an alert, which of our teachers would remain at the school, what procedures are in place to account for childern who are picked up, what authorization is required for pick up, how will we prevent children from wandering away, what of handicapped children, what of kindergarden children.? If we are required to shelter at the school, do we have stocks of food and water, is the building radiation resistant, is there sufficient space to shelter, do we have backup power, can we filter the air, is the staff prepared to stay on duty for extended periods, what is "the

, maximum " extended period"?

The entire subject of communications is lef t to wide latitude assumptions. How will the nature of the emergency be communicated to you, who has the authority to order busses and evacuate, what are the criteria for the decision, what if you are absent, what if busses don't arrive within a reasonable time, what is reasonable, what if the plume arrives without warning? Shouldn't the school have a private, dedicated phone link that could not be jammed with incoming panic calls.?

Carl, these are just a few of the questions that come to mind, imagine if someone put real thought to the problem. I am profoundly concerned that my son could be lef t at the school because there weren't enough busses or because someone forgot to properly account for him. We are, facei with a potential problem of unspeakable proportions and so far no one har tone anything realis tic about it. What con I do to help?

Sincerely, Maurice M.. Murphy Great Bay Drive, East j

l Greenland, NH 03840 g 1 -

p p- __.

9- .-. -. - ,

NELJ ENGLANDERS PETITI ONING OUR CONGRESS We are the teachers who work at schools in communities within the 10 mile EP2 of Seabrook Station. We DO NOT accept the conflicting duty which the Emergency Response (Evacuation) Plan assigns us.

We believe it is inappropriate to expect us to provide emergency support i for our students curing a nuclear accident which would simultaneously place our fami1ies in dancer.

Signatunc Pr i n i Name School

/

i 1J r 4_.AI. iM 0 ( k fD ht A N ervifBY Sre e!)lON $enfral.

/

f U n>k fAnjh N L b G'lA l- ka1l~ '~ eenland 0en bra -

W 444 M, "

Carol

(,wfimL Jan- Fun "

f/L - M ,J = '

n.am Alsa s<enland (>&A 1 & li T /W Gud %c%"~

ML L- A,w LL u~ x u res dL,,L [5! tan, nn,>c- asci,,,,A -

L/_, A:. aA Ao -

.k;,u Chit, e,,lk Gnaw n%ebs ,w % d PiAr/D 1

l l