ML12262A335

9.13.2012 TMI Alert Presentation Nreg 0654 Public Mtg

ML12262A335
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/13/2012
From:	Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
To:
Shannon King
Shared Package
ML12185A180	List: ML12262A328 ML12262A335 ML12262A341 ML12263A309
References
Download: ML12262A335 (26)

Text

Emergency Preparedness Survey Of Childcare Facilities Located Near Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility GettyImageTM & EyeWire ¨. Images shown are models used for illustrative purposes only.

Prepared by EMFR Monitoring Group February 15, 2005 Section 1 Introduction GettyImageTM & EyeWire ¨. Images shown are models used for illustrative purposes only.

PURPOSE AND PROTOCOL OF SURVEY The EFMR Monitoring Group, a nonpartisan community based organization established in 1992, conducted a Radiological Emergency Preparedness survey of child care facilities located in the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) established around the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power facility.Federal law requires that state and local officials protect people in the custody of institutions such as schools, nursing homes and prisons.Child-care facilities were not included in the state's emergency plans.In the event of nuclear evacuation, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed legislation in July, 2004, that requires emergency preparedness plans at licensed, for-profit child care facilities.

According to Governor Rendell, 183,000 children (2/3 under supervision) in licensed nonprofit or family-care entities are not covered under this new law. Further, this law requires the child care facilities to do their own emergency planning.This survey was conducted to insure preschool children located inside the 10-mile EPZ were provided the required radiological emergency services by the appropriate state and local agencies as federal law requires.The EFMR Monitoring group is a nonpartisan community based organization established in 1992. EFMR monitors radiation levels at Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations, invests in community development, and sponsors remote robotics research. www/

efmr.org PURPOSE AND PROTOCOL OF SURVEY Map shows the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone located around the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant.

PURPOSE AND PROTOCOL OF SURVEY¥ The EFMR Monitoring Group surveyed for-profit and not-for-profit day cares sites located ten miles from Three Mile Island (TMI) based on on the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfares (DPW) data base.¥ All sites were licensed by the DPW and cared for at least 12 children;¥ All sites were sent a survey during the week of December 20, 2004;¥ In January-February, 2005, all sites that did not respond, received either a follow up site visit, telephone call(s) or a second survey;¥ Out of 74 targeted sites, 38 responded (51.35%), but EFMR was able to account for a total of 44 facilities (59.45%) (2);¥ The maximum capacity for children under care at these locations was 3,644, and responses covered 1,480 kids (40.61%).

EFMR was able to account for a total of 1,952 children (53.56%);¥ The cost of the study, including postage, copying, reimbursement, and potassium iodide tablet distribution, was approximately

$1,500;¥ Over 2,000 KI tablets were dispensed to approximately 1,000 children and day care workers (Expiration date: February 2008)

PURPOSE AND PROTOCOL OF STUDY Childcare response information by county.Cumberland County: 4 facilities representing a total of 348 children were surveyed All responded Dauphin County: 45 facilities representing a total of 2,114 children were surveyed 18 facilities representing a total of 602 children responded Lancaster County: 14 facilities representing a total of 675 children were surveyed 7 facilities representing a total of 241 children responded York County: 11 facilities representing a total of 507 children were surveyed 9 facilities representing a total of 289 children responded Total number of licensed sites Surveyed: 74 Children under care: 3,644 Total number of respondents:

38 Children under care: 1,480

SUMMARY

OF CONCLUSIONS We conclude from the results of this survey the following:

¥ The state does not review plans or coordinate transportation as the federal law requires;¥ Few state and local entities provide for or coordinate transportation as the federal law requires;¥ In some instances, transportation for day care children is only available after other populations have been moved;¥ Many facilities assume they can evacuate to some locations as public schools and presume those schools will provide transportation;

¥ Many facilities depend on the phone book for planning;¥ Frequent expressions of exasperation and frustration included:

Who do we contact?, Where do we go?, and How do we get there?;¥ Several facilities were unaware that they were within the ten mile zone;¥ Numerous sites were confused by the separate regulations the Rendell administration promulgated in 2003 requiring all day-care facilities to have an emergency plan in place by July 1, 2004. Senate Bill 922 passed in July 2004 exempting non-profits from compliance;

¥ Even though the Federal Law was established nearly 20 years ago, emergency planning for Pennsylvania child care facilities is a recent development.

Section 2 Background BACKROUND ON RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PLANNING December 1979, due to the accident at Three Mile Island nuclear power facility, President Carter directed FEMA and the NRC to implement Radiological Emergency Response Plans (RERPs) for all populations located near operating nuclear power stations under Presidential Executive order 12148.

Since then, each utility that owns a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is required to have a Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) as a condition of maintaining a license.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS The Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP)are required to have in place means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement.

These special populations are defined in the following Federal Guidance documents: GM EV-2 Protective Actions for School Children and FEMA GM 24 Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons They include, preschool and nursery school children, populations in nursing homes, group homes for the mentally impaired, hospitals and prisons.

WHOS RESPONSIBLE The organizations responsible for supplying the required emergency services are outlined in 10 CFR Part 50 and are defined as:

the appropriate State, local, and Federal agencies.PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION The penalties for violating these Federal Laws are loss of state nuclear power license with in four (4) months of determination of noncompliance.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS The following must be included in the off site Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP):

1. Identification of organization and officials responsible for both planning and effecting the protective action; and

2. Institution-specific information; and

3. Means of effecting protective action; and

4. Specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources; and

5. Name and location of relocation centers, and transport routes if applicable; and

6. Means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and groups associated with the schools and students including.

Section 3 Survey Results

1. Does your child care facility reside within ten miles of a nuclear power plant?

100% Said Yes Comment about Question 1 from respondent:

No way youre going to evacuate the area...I told them I was not going to participate.

Why bother doing an emergency evacuation plan you cant carry out (Y; P)

2. If YES, please identify the nuclear power plant.

100% Said Three Mile Island Comment about Question 2 from respondent:

We do have an evacuation plan. We however did not receive anything from other agencies. (D; P)

3. Have State or Local Agencies provided your facility with emergency planning in the event of radiological incident?45% Said No Comment about Question 3 from respondent:

Only to ask how many people they would have to provide transportation for. (D; P)

4. Have State or Local Agencies provided transportation vehicles for your facility for a radiological evacuation?

66% Said No Comment about Question 4 from respondent:

Our local agency representative did meet with us and inform us we were on his list of vulnerable facilities.

(L; NF)

5. If YES, who will be providing the vehicles and how many have been provided?79% Could Not Answer Comment about Question 5 from respondent:

Not sure how many.(Y; NF)

6. Have State or Local transportation providers sent you supporting letters or agreements that they have planned for and will provide emergency transportation for a radiological evacuation?

87% Had No Supporting Letters From Transportation Providers Comment about Question 6 from respondent:

We made our own plan. (L; P)

7. If YES, please identify the date of the letter.

97% Could Not Identify The Letters Date or Were Not Sure Comment about Question 7 from respondent:

Cant locate @ this time but do send update letter annually for us to update. (D; NF)

8. Have State or Local Agencies provided directions and assignments to a prearranged relocation centers five to 10 miles outside of the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone for a radiological evacuation?

58% Said No Comment about Question 8 from respondent:

State indicated we can call if we need help on the day of the emergency if our plan fail[s]...We hired & paid for a group to develop a plan for us before we were told non profits were exempt. (L; NF)

9. If yes, where is your relocation center.63% Were Not Sure or Unable to Answer Comment about Question 9 from respondent:

Most facilities with a plan also identified a relocation site outside of the evacuation zone.Some responses were more dramatic:

Bunch of crap too. If this thing melts down...Ten mile radius is not enough. (Y; P)

10. Have State or Local Agencies provided prearranged emergency notification for protective actions in the event of radiological emergency?

32% Said No Comment about Question 10 from respondent:

Responses were split evenly between for-profits and not-for-profits.

One not-for-profit stated that one support agency, Indicated they would not phone us. (L; NF)

11. How many years has your child care facility been provided planning for a radiological evacuation?

39% Were Not Sure Comment about Question 11 from respondent:

Of those sites with plans in place, only 5 out of 34 (14%) facilities have had a plan in place for more than 24 months.

Comment about Question 12 from respondent: We werent sure who to ask

.(C; NF) I have been having difficulty arranging appropriate transportation for the children in our care...No one seems to be willing to help. If you have any contact persons...please let me know. Thanks! (D; P)

[No]. Only if bus employees show up to work (L; NF)

Whats the difference? [between a for-profit and a non-profit]...That's ridiculous! (Response from a non-profit in York County who was told that they werent required to have an evacuation plan.)

12. Have any State or Local Agencies refused to provide any of these protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency?

13% Said Yes