ML20216H059
| ML20216H059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1999 |
| From: | Quinn V Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216G975 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910010263 | |
| Download: ML20216H059 (6) | |
Text
n..,
U UFederal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 L Thomas H. Essig, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Section -
OfBee ofNuclearReactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission W Magton, D. C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Essig:
This letter is in response to your [[letter::05000423/LER-1999-003-01, :on 990505,identified That 18 Month EDG Surveillance Test for LOP with ESF Start Did Not Initiate Test.Caused by Inadequate Understanding of Regulatory Guidance. a & B EDG Returned to Status.With|June 4,1999, letter]] concoming issues submitted by Mr. Scott Cullen, on behalf of several petitioners, Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR), t'je Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), New York State Senator Ken IaValle, and New York St:.te Assembly members Fred 'Ihiele and Patricia %
Specifically, there were two separate issues raised regrading the offsite emergency preparedness (EP) for the Millstone
' Nuclear Power Station. In the first issue, it is alleged that the Millstone site is not in compliance with the emergency planning requirements because Fishers Island, New York, does not have a functional emergency plan due to inadequate planning for the evacuation of the island residents by ferry transport. In the second issue, the petitioners contend that the factors of" demography,
- topography, land characteristics, access route, andjurisdictional boundaries" were not properly taken into consideration in the determination of the 10-mile emergency planning zone (IPZ).
The Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Chair of FEMA Region I has prepared the enclosed document that reflects a thorough review and mana=amant of the emergency evacuation planning for Fishers Island, New York. Fishers Island is included in the State of Connecticut's approved Radiok,gical Emegency Response Plan 44 CFR 350, and has been tested several times since it was ap;noved, most recently during the August 21,1997, plume exercise.
. Based on the enclosed documentation, we support the Regional OfEce's assessment of the energency evacuation plan for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, and conclude that there is couhe,d reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken to protect the public health and safety in the event of a radiological anergency.
Please contact me at (202) 646-3664 should you have questions or require additional information.-'-
Sincerely, M
s Wanessa E. Quinn Actmg Chief Radiological Emergency Preparedness Branch Enclosure -
9910010243 990928 PDR ADOCK 05000336 9
- .s.
i Fcderal Emergency Management Agency
{
L Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Counhouse Building, Room 442 Boston,MA 02109 DATE:
August 18,1999 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vanessa E. Quinn, Actin.g Branch Chief, PT-CR-RP FROM:
Daniel McElhinney, egion I
SUBJECT:
R in one etition 2.206 from STAR
REFERENCE:
NRC Memo dated June 14,1999 to FEMA Hqs. attn:
Vanessa E. Quinn, EP issues for Millstone NPS, petition 10 CFR 2.206 This in response to the NRC request for information concerning allegations made by STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) about alleged dysfunctional and inadequate emergency evacuation planning for the people of Fishers Island, New York. The following information is provided:
i The State of Connecticut includes Fishers Island in an approved 44 CFR 350 plan. The Fishers Island plan has been tested several times since it was approved, most recently during August 1997, for the State ofConnecticut. In the unlikely event of a Millstone nuclear incident, the citizens of Fishers Island would be directed to shelter in place or to evacuate. If directed to evacuate they would be moved by ferry to New London, then transported by bus to the host community in Windham, Connecticut. The protective actions of sheltering and evacuation are the same two protective actions that are in all other Connecticut response plans. The choice for the New London Port was based upon
{
the fact that the Fishers Island Ferry District is based on Fishers Island and that normal everyday traffic originates in New London and proceeds to Fishers Island. Should there be an incident at Millstone, residents on Fishers Island would evacuate the island using
]
the regular ferry service, and would be provided with transportada.. to d.e ilost Community in Windham, Connecticut via the Port of New London. Should New London
{
not be tvailable to the Fishers Island evacuees then a management decision would be made between the Connecticut Emergency Management Director (CT-EMD) and SEMO-
]
NY to ( set the ferry service to another port such as Stonington, Connecticut, which is
{
further, the North of New London.
Responding ta CT/."S : :: :a.; & bout the last Millstone exercise (1997) in which New London and Fishers Island were required to evacuate, the postulated condition of the Millstone plant was such that the Governor of Connecticut ordered residents in all EPZs
{
(Emergency Planning Zones) communities to evacuate. At no time during the conduct o,f.
)
i j
(,..
'6.
Subject:
Response to Millstone Petition 2.206 from STAR y
E this exercise order were the people of New London or Fishers Island in danger. The plume was traveling Westerly away from New London. This allowed exercise play for the people offishers Island to traverse through New London without any threat of being contaminated.
In addition to approved plan and exercising of the plan, Connecticut is consistently looking for ways in enhancing the program, such as:
July 1998 Northeast Utilities, CT-OEM, FEMA Regions I & II participated in a demonstration of a ferry run from Fishers Island to Stonington, Connecticut. The objective was to determine the feasibility of the ferry to pick up people from Fishers Island and bring them to Stonington Nonh ofNew London. The plan and preparations for adding the Port of Stonington, Connecticut as a receiving port for inhabitants of Fishers Island, to the Fishers Island plan, is projected to be completed by year end 1999. This change does not effect the original host community support from the town of Windham.
September 1998, a summit meeting was held in Hartford, Connecticut. Attending this meeting were representatives from NRC Hqs, NRC Region I, CT-OEM, NY-SEMO, FEMA Regions I & II. The objective of this meeting was to inform NRC of the amount and degree of coordination and communications that has been and continues to go on between the two state emergency management agencies. October 1998 CT-OEM and NY-SEMO discussed further ways ofimproving communications in making appropriate protective action decisions for Fishers Island.
Jnne 1999 a quarterly meeting was held on Fishers Island discussing Millstone emergency response issues. Attending this meeting were emergency management directors from Millstone EPZ communities including those from Fishers Island, Town of Southold, New London, Stonington,'and the Host Community of Windham, Connecticut.
The major significance of this meeting was that this was the first time that EPZ EMD's from Fishers Island, NY, Stonington, Southold, NY and Windham the Host Community met face to face.
An agreement exists between CT-OEM and the Fishers Island Ferry District for the exclusive use of their ferries in the event of a Millstone incident.
Negotiations are in process for a use agreement, with CT-OEM and the Cross Sound Ferry Company to utilize five of their ferries that could be accommodated at Fishers Island to be used in the event of a Millstone nuclear incident. This agreement should be completed by the end of September of 1999.
Communications with representatives from NY-SEMO, discovered that the Town of Southold, Long Island, New York had written an evacuation and host community response plan in 1997, for the hamlet of Fishers Island, This plan is in draft stages with no immediate updating planned.
i
}
2 i
)
g...
y
- : w:,
Subject:
Response to Millstone Petition 2.206 from STAR f;y._
The point of contact and Project Omcer for the Millstone Plan is, Roben Swanz at 617.223.9578, Fax 617.223.4742, e-mail is robert.swanz@ fema gov INCL -
Extract -CT ETE repon ef:
FEMA Region II e
c H
s J
j j
3 1
m.
]
c
[g.
,. i typical summer weekend day', for a tota: EPZ population of 183,288. The park is located in the Town of Waterford, along the leng Island Sound,just south of Great Neck Road. His event results in a greater than normal number of vehicles attempting to enter the network and then exit through the most populated sections of Waterford and through downtown New London. The increased traffic volume would increase the summer weekend, fair weather evacuation time for the entire EPZ by approximately 30 minutes for an overall evacuation time of 436 minutes.
6.5.2 WaterfordDay i
g Waterford Day at the Waterford Beach Park increases summer weekend transient
)
population by about 9,500, or a total population of 188,588 for the entire EPZ.
Similar to Harkness Memorial Park, Waterford Beach Park is locsted on the lang Island Sound in the Town of Waterford, south of Great Neck Road. Evacuation on a summer weekend under fair weather conditions during this event is predicted to require 446 minutes for the entire EPZ, a 40 minute increase over a typical summer weekend. Contributing factors are the same as those discussed above in regards to the special event at the Harkness Memorial State Park.
'6.3.3 Sailfest
{
l Sailfest, in the New London Harbor, occurs over a period of three days in July, with f
the highest attendance on Saturday night for the fireworks display. New london Harbor is located between the towns of New landon and Groton in the Thames River. Based on an estimated three-day attendance of 350,000 persons, the maximum attendance at any one time was assumed to be 100,000 persons.
Assuming four (4) persons per vehicle, evacuation would require an additional 218 minutes over a typical summer weekend under fair weather conditions. De great increase in the number of vehicles attempting to enter the network in the most populated towns of the EPZ result in significant queuing throughout the area. This evacuation time generally assumes normal traffic controts are in place. As wie o
other evacuating scenarios, however, special traffic management measures are undertaken during some Sailfest events that might reduce evacuation times if those measures are coordinated with overall traffic management included in the RERPs.
6.5.4 FishersIsland Fishers Island is located partmily within the EPZ at 7.5 to 10 miles from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station with an enimated population of 418,329, and 2,554 for winter weekday, win
- weeknight, and summer weekend, respectively.
It was estimated that it would require approximately 255 minutes or 4.25 liours to evacuate Fishers Island during a winter weekday or a winter weeknight. His evacuation allows for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> notification, preparation, mobilization time,1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> for the ferry to travel round trip to and from the Island, I hour to load and unload Analysis ofEvacuation Times Page 6-6 miliere (k c L /
. ryfgAc T' fit m c T.- Om FTAr pc py
Qs j-
}f
}.
passengers, and I hour to bus evacuees cut of the EPZ. During a typical summer weekend this evacuation time would be er:pected to increta by 2 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to allow
![
. for a second ferry trip which would be necessary in order to accommodate the high
!a seasonal population of the Island.
l{
While the vinter times of 4.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> would have no impact on the total EPZ j
evacuation times for those cases, the summer time of 6.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> is almost the same as the EPZ evacuation time of 6.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. De estimated Fishers Island evacuation times were calculated assuming that no vehicles would be transported by the ferry during the evacuation, allowing for maximum passenger transport, that passengers would be bused from the New London Ferry Terminal to reception centers outside the 10-mile EPZ, and that only one ferry would be available for transport. The use of additional public or pnvate marine transportation would most likely yield shorter evacuation times, specifically when a second ferry trip is necessary. In addition, the use of a destination outside the EPZ such as Stonington would also serve to reduce the evacuation time.
j 6.5.5 Plumisland Plum Island is located approximately 8 miles south of the Millstone Plant and is the site of the Department of Agriculture facility. Population for Plum Island is 256 on a typical winter weekday, and 5 people for both winter weeknight and summer weekend.
Plum Island is accessible via ferry to Orient Point located within the town of Southold, NY on Img Island. According to the RERPs this area could be evacuated within 45 minutes by utilizing this vessel. Even accounting for required notification, preparation, and mobilization the evacuation time for Plum Island is significantly shorter than that of the entire EPZ and would therefore be =W to have no impact on any other evacuation times.
6.6
- Times for 90% Evacuation
. Table 6-1 also provides a comparison of the evacuation times for 90% and 100% of the evacuating vehicles for selected analysis areas. In general,90% evacuation times are close to 100% evacuation times where road capacity is not the controlling f
L factor for the evacuation time or where c.apacity constraints are distributed evenly
- over the analysis area. Where send capacity at only one or two locations is the controlling factor, the difference bn ;;a 90% and 100% evacuation times can be substantial.
j The 9i)% clearance times for all scenanos are very similar among the three zones for
- a given scenario. Dis similarity is the result of New London Ning the major congestion area that is ' common to all three zones.
~
Analysis ofEvacuation Times Page 6-7 miliere a
,