ML20238B422
| ML20238B422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1987 |
| From: | Papile J NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Kowieski R Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| OL-5-A-020, OL-5-A-20, NUDOCS 8709010211 | |
| Download: ML20238B422 (5) | |
Text
r g
1-STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CORNING tower e THE GOVERN OR N ELSON A. ROOKEFELLER EMPIRE ST ATE PL AZ A a ALb ANY, N.Y.12237 DLco Smf Nzo Q A vt 3 Ax CL aoc, u.Q.
- r. --
3j 12 DEPOS: TION 4 c m....,-., li EXHISIT '67 E 21 ra M Y 1 y,_ f f l A/_P//7 e, e w-February 12, 1986 y-32 2-0& b Mr. Roger B. Kowieski, P.E. d~ 2 2 /g 7 RAC Chairr.an f FEMA-Region II Natural A Technological Hazards Division , i y g 26 Federal Plaza New Yor'X, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Kowieski:
Since writing to you on January 28, 1986, reference Guidance Memoranda (GM), I received a copy of Draf t G1 dance Memorandum EV-2, " Evacuation and Early Dismissal Options for School Children." This is another case of the GM being sent to licenseas by other agencies and we in the State ( and local governments.not having prior knowledge of the document. After receiving the Draft GM-EV-2, I sent a copy to each County involved in emergency planning for nucicar power plants and requested their comment. Before stmaarizing their co::mnts, I want to once again re-emphasize that we need your assistance to insure that the State and the counties be reauested by FEMA Regional Offices to ctenent on any draf t Guidance Memoranda before riublication of the Memorandum. Jn_ reviewing the Guidance Memorandum EV-2, it is evident that the FEMA is not aware that school districts in New York are separate political entities and the planning for the school districts is not necessarily the responsibility of the local governments. Although the guidance addresses the local government responsibility for coordinating with school officials, there is no assuratee that school officials will adopt reconsnended emergercy procedures. The issuance of EV-2 guidance by FEMA indicates that the schools in New York, as part of the State School System, should be required by law to cooperate with local government officials. In the past six years, local officials have worked closely with school officials and they have reached i agreements on risk assessment. The State of New York has no doubt that in the event of an energency, local and school officials will implement the protective action option most compatible with the protection of the school children and potential general population evacuation. j j. e70901o211h[oh22 PDR ADOCK PDR G J
m-- l L ( \\ ) I i l 1 H hg N S rg g & f, = ; s I w .. i., c3 g. N-ans .J .h C (- Il 3 ] 3 E-O 4. %. I-9 N 96 M D $, - p 3 s = i g I as tap N 4 ans 's '.o sb i n 5 e l ,( i g E IO I 2 T 2 1 ~} 3% 3 .M h-h % 4 82 : #2 3Se us j i
f.' I' Mr. Kowieski - 2.- February 12, 1986 We have and vill continue to include local school officials in our planning process but as previously stated Inere is no guarantee snet cese school officials have to abide by a FEMA Guidance Memorandum. The Department of Education at Federal and State levels have certain authorities. FEMA snoulo explain wnat tnese authorities are oerore putting out guiuance. su attempt to mandate is not the. solution. The hands of the Emergency Manager at local.and state levels are tied unless enoperation is guarenteed. Attached are specific comments received from local governments. Since rely, YM, l James'O. P5 pile l Director / l Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group JDP/sm /' Attachment cc: Mr. Brower Maj. Bates Mr. McGuire Mr. McBride REPG 1 I n 1
b i SPECIFIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS i. "The evacuation of scnooi cniiaren unaer the continuous supervision of teachers and administrators from a school to a relocation center is a valuable and reasonable approach when confronted with a radiological eme rg ency. " The wording on this is weak and its meaning debatable. It is imperative that the evacuated school children be under constant supervision and .c ontrol. This applies for both the transportation phase and the reunification phase. The schools responsibility ends only when the school reception center has been closed and the ch'1dren reunited with their parents, or transferred to a congregate ca e center. 2. " School officials may select one of the three options for protecting their students including: etc." While GM-EV-2 deals with evacuation and early dismissal options for school children, it is necessary to maintain that school officials have four options. The additional option is SHELTERING. In order to maintain continuity when discussing the plan i strongly suggest that this paragraph be amended to include " sheltering". 3. Early dismissal criteria should not be restrictive. Some Counties have ( agreements with school officials that all school options will be discussed. at the alert stage,'early dismissal at this stage is a viable and necessary alternative. Other counties make provisions to release their children at early stages and send their students to other schools or shelters outside the ten mile EPZ where they may be picked up by parents at a later time. The guidance must pennit the local official in ennrdinatinn a s e-wee, n <<4 -4 1 e W +w: p.+e 4 e -~.:::: g :: determine the optimum choice for each individual case. 4. " Evacuation Combined with Early Dismissal". The combining of both options (Early Dismissal and Evacuation) can best be described as " Pandora's newe 2.- rn choni
- ni s tra tn r.
- he plan has pit falls.
For example: A) Improper communications with the schools and the EOC. B) Children leaving school with friends and entering exposed areas. This combined option should be stricken and the control and integrity of the entire school district maintained. The option of sheltering may be pre f erred. 5. It is not necessary for schools to be contacted by local government at specific times. County Executive should evaluate conditicns within EPZ by receiving reconnendations from the Emergency Operations staff and then conferring with the school superintendent in regards to evacuation. Evacuation could be earlier than Site Area Emergency depending on weather and road conditions, etc. J
{ r 6. The problem of evacuating all or part of the student population in the 10 mile EPZ should be left to the loca-1 authorities. First, you have to remove the any.iety of the parents and school officials regarding the safety of the children with the proper edu:ation of parents (peblic) and scnooi admini >.. a i.a. crt r esiuents woulu oireauy xnow tnot tneir children would be loaded on to buses and taken to a predesignated school reception center outside the EPZ where they could be picked up and taken witu Lnem. 1 l \\ l ) e s . -}}