ML20033D015
| ML20033D015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D009 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112040592 | |
| Download: ML20033D015 (12) | |
Text
.-
w
+
f' i Federal Emergency Management Agency 8
Washington, D.C. 20472
.v DEC 1 19 81 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Brian Grimes Director Division of Emergency Preparedness U. S. Nuclear Re ulatory Commission FROM:
m"~
Acting Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards
SUBJECT:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Plant 1
Attached is a copy of a current findings evaluation of plans and implementation capabilities of State and local governments for the San Onofre (Cal) Nuclear Generating Plant.
4 Attachment 1
i
/24 -3;
%303 8112040592 811202
{DRADOCK 05000361 PDR L
-[N Federal Emergency Management Agency 3,#
y Region IX 211 Main Street, Room 220 San Francisco, CA 94105 NOV i 6 G81 MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSOCI/GT. DIRECTOR, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAV..S AND SUPPORT DIPJA",TORATE
~
Attention:
Robert T. Jaske, Acting Chief Technological Bazards Division
/&
FROM:
Francis S. Manda, Acting Regional Director a
SUBJECT:
TEMA Region IX Update Evaluation with Respect" to the Adequacy of Plans and the Icplementation Capabilities of State and Local Governnents Related to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station s
Subject update evaluation is attached for your infor=stion and action. Acco=plishment of the corrective action identified in the body of the update evaluation should provide a reasonable assurance of a capability to respond to an off-site emergency at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statiota.
Attachment N O 3 /-? ~ a 9,-
M
/
Novonber 13, 198i FEMA REGION II UPDATE EVALUATION WITE RESPECT TO THE ADEQUACY OF PLANS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPA31LITIES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RELATED TO SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION I.
INTRODUCTION This evaluation serves to update the FEMA Region II evalua-tion for the period ending May 22, 1981.
Its purpode is to relate actions taken by Southern California Edison Company and the local jurisdictions and reflects upon only those, actions taken and products generated since May 22, 1981.
It does not address events or products before that date.
II.
BASIS FOR EVALUATION A.
The basis for evaluation consists of docundnts submitted by Southern California Edison Company in their October 15, 1981, letter to the FEMA Region IX Regional Assistance Committee Chairman (attachment 1, without enclosures), and personal contacts, commun-ications, and products received from the Utility *and local juris-dictions between May 22, and November 5, 1981.
B.
No drills or exercises were conducted during the period, nor are any scheduled as of November 5, 1981.
Neither the State of California nor FEMA Region II have attended or monitored any
. training to evaluate scope and content due to no formal advice of training nor' formal submission of course schedules or related infor=ation.
III.
STATUS OF EVENTS A.
General:
Subsequent to the initial review of the response capa-bility related to the San Onofre Nuclear Cenerating Station (SONCS),
the Interjurisdictional Planning Committee (IJPC) (comprised of all jurisdictions involved, as well as the Utility), was formalized and began a comprehensive review of the response capability.
They have made great progress in addressing the corrective action items identified in the vario'us assessments of the exercise and plan i
reviews.
The jurisdictions reported on October 30, 1981, that they anticipated the identified Standing Operating Procedures (SOP's) and p l.* n changes would be submitted to t!; e respective governing bodie.' around or before the first of 1982.
Draft SOP's submitted by the Utility served only as a starting point as they were not cooperatively developed.
The IJPC meets conthly, and through continued work of sub-committees is actively working in developing SOP's and a totally coordinated response capability that when finally established, should offer an optimum cooperative response capability.
2 3.
Ecuipment:
Equipment requested from the Utility is reported by Orange County and San Clemente to be about 90 percent delivered.. San Diego County reported 100 percent delivery.
yEMA Region IX utility representative provide Project Officer requested that a a
listing of equipment identifying delivery addressees, dates of delivery, remaining equipment due-in dates, and related information to assist in an assessment of corrective action.
The request was partially fulfilled, and requires further response to the above requested information.
C.
Warning:
The Utility has chosen sirens as a means of alerting the population during an emergency.
Wh il e the sirens hav.e been installed within a 10 mile planning area, they have not been (ested.
A testing date was cancelled in late October, a few days prior to the test, and no schedule for testing has been identified.
Operation of the system remains in the control of the Utility at this date.
Sirens do not cover all of the city of San Juan Capistrano and the community of Dana Point.
FEMA Region II recomme'nds,.ar does California Of fice of Emergency Services, that the Plume Exposure Pathway include entire jurisdictions opposed to bisecting some as (e.g.,
San Juan Capistrano) along the 10 mile radius.
This would agree with current Orange County plan instructions.
Some form of alerting of the area of San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point outside the 10 mile radius of the Emergency' Planning Zone should be provided.
D.
Standing Operating Procedures (SOP's):
The SOP's submitted by the Utility were represented as "a
copy of all SOP's which have been developed by local government...."
In fact, post jurisdictions reported that SOP development was done by the Utility's contractor; coordination of the SOP's with local l
government was minimal.
All jurisdictions report that the submitted i
documents have not been approved, nor represent local jurisdictional plans.
As such, while the submissions represent an ef fort by the Utility, it does not appear to improve the of f-site response capability at this time.
Further review o f the SOP's reflects a number of inconsistencies.- For example:
(a) in at least three cases SOP's for different jurisdictions reflec ted duplicate informa-tion where such should not have occurred (Table 1, Agricultural Land Use, and Tables 7 and 9,
Ingestion Pathway Sampling to SOP 13); and (b) the ODAC SOP was considered confusing, lacked clarity, and objectives were not clear.
I 1
i l
3 E.
State Planning:
The State of California Plan SOP's are being reviewed in draft fo rm and considered to be due out in final around the end of January 1982.
F.
Training:
Generally, the Utility submitted to Region II an incomplete set of draft lesson plans.
The submission lacked organization and an overview and a long term schedule of courses.
G.
Corrective Action Compliance:
The Utility submission of corrective actions relates to some seven items identifying general action necessary to correct deficiencies developed in the initial evaluation process.
(Reference attachment 2,
Utility letter to B.
GrimesT NRC, June 26, 1981.) An assessment of those actions as they relate to the format are identified below:
1.
Training and equipment concerns have partially been met as referenced above.
SOP development still remains to be finished by the State and local jurisdictions.
SOP's submitted by the Utility require major modi fi c a t i on s as discussed.
2 Emergency Operation Facility (EOF) procedures and development of an operations facility are satisfactory.
3.
SOP development for monitoring and assessment duties is in its final stages by the jurisdictions.
Drills remain to be conducted to demonstrate their applicability.
4.
Siren tests remain to be conducted, although they are installed.
An alerting capability for the balance of the San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point jurisdictions is recommended.
The Utility is still working on this issue.
5.
Equipment lists submitted were not clear as to what promised locals as opposed to what has been delivered.
Juris-was dictions report about 90 percent has been delivered.
6.
Training is being conducted and local jurisdiction personnel haved attended courses.
However, training program l
l information submitted was confusing and unclear regarding courses, length of course, schedules, etc..
Further program clarification is requested for assessment.
No drills have been conducted to date.
7.
The Public Information progran was submitted and is satisfactory.
4.
IV.
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA The criteria for review and approval of radiological plans as cited in 50.47 and 44 CFR 350.5 (proposed) and preparedness were addressed in the initial review.
Items previously found satisfactory were not restated.
Those issues remaining open for further action are addressed below:
A.
350.5a(1).
Due to the status of SOP development by the State and the local jurisdictions, this item remains to be reviewed and a finding reached upon completion of SOP's.
This is estimated to occur in January 1982.
At that time a clarifica-tion of monitoring and assessment duties may be determined.
While a concern, this item i s considered to be one that may be resolved within the next 90 days.
Orange County has reported actions being taken to resolve general jurisdictional response support to San Juan Capistrano during an emergency.
When finalized, the ' cooperative response planning should alleviate the problem of personnel requirements in support of an emergency.
3.
350.5a_(3).
The interim EOF has been relocated to another area of the San clemente Fire Department, facility, increasing working space and separating the function from the San Clemente EOC.
Procedures (SOP's) have been established for its operation.
Communications systems have been added or =odified to improve the general operations of the facility.
A drill is recommended to test facility and personnel functions.
EOF, ODAC, and Liaison SOP's need review by State and FEMA, and concurrence by all jurisdictions to validate operations and provide the basis for training users.
A drill should be scheduled by January 31, 1982, conducted b.efore April 1, 1982, and evaluated by State and FEMA personnel.
Completion should reflect a reasonable assurance of meeting the standard.
C.
350.5a(5).
The means for notification to the public remain t o -b e tested.
Th e ins talla tion of siren"s h a s been completed, b'ut tests have not been run.
Further, sirens or alternative designed to cover all of the~
systems have not been installed or city of San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point.
The Utility should provide complete alert coverage of the city of San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point as part of the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
Assuming the Utility meets the February 1982 date established by NRC and the tests are successful, this and related pl an ning actions should assure compliance with standards.
i D.
350.5aC7).
The Utility has submitted a Public Informa-tion package that is comprehensive and addresses those areas of concern.
Mailers have been sent out within the Plume Exposure Pathway, including all of the city of San Juan Capistrano.
A continued program of information, resupply, and verification is recocoended to. assure thorough coverage of all of the affected population.
Compliance with this standard is considered to have been met.
m E.
350.5a(8).
The Utility has procured and delivered to jurisdictions an estimated 90 percent of promised e q u i pm e n t.
Assuming a favorable clarification regarding conflicts between submitted statements of the October 15, 1981, letter versus reports from jurisdictional personnel and/or final delivery of all equipment within a reasonable period of time, there is reasonable assurance this standard will be met.
F.
350.5a(9).
While equipment has been procured and reportedly delivered, training and drill demonstration has not been completed.
An Ingestion Pathway spapling drill should also be demonstrated when State and local procedures are esolved.
These items should be scheduled by January' 31, 1982, and drills conducted before April 1,
1982 (with the possible exception of Ingestion Pathway due to State plan / SOP support). These drills should also be monitored by State and FEMA personnel.
G.
350.Sa(14).
should be conduc ted _
As indicated in 3 and F abover drills l
to train, test, and demonstrate an ability to coordinate and execute necessary SOP's and plans.
The Utility should establish drills in conjunction with State and local juris-dictions (giving priority and emphasis to their, schedules and requirements) to meet drill requirements.' Coordination and review by FEMA Region IX is recommended to assure satisfactory accomplish-
=ent of requirements.
H.
350.5a(15).
The training materials provided by the Utility have not clearly demonstrated an organized program with clear definition of objectives, outline of courses, schedules of training and concurrence involved parties in course selection, content, or schedules.
Lesson plans were in draft and did not have titles, course times, or detail to clearly define a training program.
The Utility should revise or reorganize their training program in conjunction with State and local agencies, and forward a product addressi'ng the above nentioned items on"or before March 1, 1982, to FEMA Region IX.
Assuming this is accomplished and that predetermined subjects are included as identified in prior dis-'
cussions and correspondence, this standard could reasonably be considered to h'av e been cet.
I.
350.5a(16).
Loca) jurisdictions and the State are contemplating delivery o f revised plans and finished SOP's around February 1,
1982.
Assuming these estimates are generally met, the requirements for 50P's and revised plans can be presumed to be cet in the near future.
The Utility submission of SOP's relating to EOF actions should be considered to require f u r t h'e r coordination with local, State, and FEMA Regien IX personnel and a revision to those SOP's developed for review by March 1,
1982.
A ceeting to discuss the nature of the revisions should be scheduled by January 1,
1982.
6 V.
INTERIM RE-EVALUATION A.
The actions voluntarily taken by the local jurisdictions in response to the initial findings and their accomplishments at this juncture have been excellent.
Staff members are currently working to update SOP's and revise plans, and have attended train-ing offered by various organizations.
The Utility corrective actions have r e fl ec t e d an interest in meeting.the standards but require a redirection of effort to take advantage of other avail-able sources of informatica regarding planning and training.
A reassertion of cooperation and coordination by the Utility towarde all parties involved is highly recommended to enhance and expedite corrective actions identified.
3.
Assuming that the efforts identified continue-to fruition and that drills are conducted within the identified time frames, there is a reasonable assurance that a capability to provide emergency response will exist uitbin the near futuresas regards San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station off-site emergency response.
Attachments 2 e
e w-_
W p-w w
-,y
- vgar - gre sr - 9 '
c e ma
3 Southern California Edison Company
._ g 5 q P.O.DOK800 1244 WALNUT GRCVE AVENUE MCSEWEAD C ALsFO8tNB A 91770 I'
m.,.... m
.u..
October 15, 1981 c
e..
ucge...
n i,,,,,...,
Mr. Ronald H.
Sandwina
\\
Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee' s s.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX 211 Main Street, Room 220 San Francisco, Ca,11fornia 94105
~
Dear Mr. Sandwina:
SUBJECT:
Final Report Action Plan to Address FEMA's Evaluation Dated June 3,1981
REFERENCES:
(a) SCE (K.P. Baskin) letter to the
's NRC (Brian Grimes) dated June 26, 1981,
~
subj ect:
Emergency Planning, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,'
Unit No.
1, Docket No. 50-206.
x
??
(b) FEMA (R.T. Jaske) memorandum to the NRC (Brian Grimes)' dated July 14, 1981, subject:
Emergency.
Preparedness and Support of. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
l (c) SCE (K.P. Baskin) letter to you dated July 16, 1981, subject:
Progress Report, Action Plan to Address FEMA's Evalua tion Dated June 3,1981.
(d) SCE (K.P. Baskin) letter to you l
l dated August 14, 1981, subject:
Progress l
Report, Action Plan to Address FEMA's Evaluation Dated June 3, 1981.
(e) SCE (K.P. Baskin) letter to you L
dated September 15, 1981, subject:
Progress Report, Action Plan to Address FEMA's Evaluation Dated June 3, 1981.
1 l
fil$ /2.2-p l
M E
I
}
v Mr. Ronald H. Sandwinn October 15, 1981 2
sx
'\\ '
\\
(f) Federal,Re'qister,tVol. 46,
~
~
page 46587-46$88, (September 21, 1981),
NRC Notice of..$roposed Rulemaking.
j,,
a (1) Standard Cperating Procedures of
-9 1ENCLG50RES:
~
e local: government with radiological
' J 'm '
emergency response plans ~or San s
Onofre.
~
,c (2) Listing of radi,ation monitoring and related equipme'nt in the possession c
of local government'with radiation mon-itoring res,ponsibilitics around San Onofre.
s 3
y (3) Description of/~ upgraded communi,.
cations capability involving San s
__ (
Onofre Emergency Response Organizations.
N (4) Description of the Emergency Operati'ons Facility for San Onofre.
O.
(S)' Description 5f public alerting s
(siren)' system fac persons within z' 6:
$s sthe' Plume Exposu're Pathway'EPZ.
~3 s
,ss
.., s
'i 1(' ) Description of training programs 6
\\,
and training accomplished for personnel having emergency response responsibility for San Onofre.
(7) Description of public information programs and completed public informa-tion dissemination.
The purpose of this letter is to report the ccmpletion of all action which was agreed upon at our meeting on June 15, 1981, as being necessary to resolve the FEMA concerns set forth f n the " Interim Findings and Determination Relating to the Status of State and Local Emergency Preparedness for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station" dated June 3, 1981.
Enclosure (2) of reference (a) provided a summary of the intended r.ction, and reference (b) confirmed that such measures would constitute sufficient corrective action.
References (c), (d), and (e) pro-vided reports of progress made towards the accomplishment of the, agreed-upon objectives.
l
Mr. Ronald H. Sandwina 3-October 15, 1981 The enclosures to this !atter provide documentation of the actual resul ts achieved.
Each enclosure is keyed to the seven numbered action items set forth in the " Summary of Plan-ned Action" (enclosure (2) of reference (a)) as discussed below:
1.
Enclosure (1) consists of a copy of all 50P's which have bee.n developed by local government (with SCE support) and are considered to have sufficient breadth and scope to satisfy FEMA's concerns with respect to procedures expressed in items (1), (2),
(3), and (4) of enclosure (1) o'f reference (a).
Additional 50P's have also been drafted covering subjects beyond those identified by FEMA, copies of which are also included.
These correspond to item 1 (i) given in enclosure (2) of reference' (a) for.which the schedule was final draf t by November 1, 1981, and implementation by December 1, 1981.
2.
Enclosure (2) sets forth the lists of equipment relating to radiation monitoring functions which are now in the possession of,the appropriate local governmental organizations.
This is considered to fully resolve FEMA's concerns regarding equip-ment weaknesses expressed in item (1) set forth in enclosure (1) of reference (a).
3.
Enclosure (3) is a description of enhancements made to the emergency communications systems.
This is considered to fully respond to FEMA's recommendation for additional communications equipment expressed in item (5) set forth in enclosure (1) of reference (a).
4.
Inclosure (4) describes the arrangsments which have been made to improve the EOF operations.
The present opera tional procedures,. staffing, and physical arrangements are considered to entirely meet FEMA's recommendations expressed in item (2) set forth in enclosure (1) of ref-erence (a).
5.
Enclosure (5) describes the engineering of the public alert (siren) system.
This system is completely constructed and will undergo acceptance testing early in November.
This system, in conjunction with the notification procedures given in enclosure (1), is consid-ered to fully resolve FEMA's concerns expressed in item (4) of enclosure (1) of reference (a).
'w~
x w
-wm
~
w w e-m r
v-a m
e a-e-
Mr.. Ronald H. Sandwina October 15, 1981 It should also be noted tnat reference (f) sets forth the NRC's intentions to revise its regu-lations to defer until February 1,1982, its requirements for prompt notification systems.
6.
Enclosure (6) sets forth SCE's programs for the training of offsite emergency response person-nel.
Actual training which has been accomplished as well as future training which has a definite schedule is described.
SCE's commitment to provide training is considered to fully respond to FEMA's recommendation given in item (6) set forth in enclosure (1) of refdrence (a).
7.
Enclosure (7) sets forth SCE's public education program and provides samples of public informa-tion material which has been distributed to local population groups.
The action taken to date in conjunction with SCE's commitment for continuing public education fully resolves FEMA's concerns expressed in item (7) set forth in enclosure (1) of reference,(a).
It is believed that the foregoing completes the immediate action previously agreed to which will serve as a basis of revised FEMA findings of overall adequacy.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours, K.P. Baskin l
Enclosores l
cc:
R.H.
Engelken, NRC, Region V l
J..J. Kearns, California OES IPC Representatives l
l l
l l
l l
l
~
s.'
Southctn California Edison Compa.,y e o coxsoo 2:44 wa.uur onovt Avesus 9
hC SEMCAD. CALIFORNI A 91770 t p.sasti=
wa=est e or awcLea4 twas =st ain.3,
'I#
u,i n..~o vetu w.
June 26, 1981 Mr. Brian K. Grinas Office of Ins-den and EnfwQs.unt U.S. Ncclear.egulatory Ccrmtission Washingten, D.C. 20555
Dear Px. Mm:
STOSCT: Emergency Planning San Cnofre Naclear Gensrating Station t No. 1 t No. 50-206 We have reviewed the " Interim to the Status of State and Iccal Dnergen, Findings and Determination Ib.lating cy Prepa.hss for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station" prepared by the Federal Energency Managerrent 7,gency (FDR) dated Jtme 3,1981.
Copies of this status report have also been distributed to the affected local jurisdictions for their rev.ew.
The purpose of this letter is to re;crt en fellowup actici wS. ich is contemplated by SCE to support Stata and local jurisdictions to acnieve substantial inprovements in certain areas identified in the EDS reperc, and to set i
forth the schedule for the acem=lish: ent of these irprovements.
~
At' the time of IDR's " Interim Findings ani Determinatien" SG recognized that several topics requizeci'further develcomnt.
lest of the required action involved develegnent of procedures.
Indeed, the lac 5c of SCP's covering various activities appears to have u.d.ily influenced the severity of the adverse FDR cccclusions.
leetings were held cn June 10 and June 17, 1981 involving all local jurisdictions and SG to develcp a plan of action for the centinuing develogrent of emergency prepaedness.
In addition, SCE net with FI2R Regicn IX representatives on June 15 and June 19, 1981 to reach an understanding as to the relative significance of its findings aM recem.-
nendations.
Enclosure (1) to this letter entitled "Ccrrective Actions Recuired to ;,ddress EDM Dete.rainations of June 3,1981" sets forth the secpe of the significant areas and a descripticn of the acticns whict1 will form the basis of updated FDn finding of overall adequacy.
Enclosure (2) is an updated su.~ mary of the corrective acticn to wF ass all areas
\\
nesiiing devole;: cent and a schedule fer the ace:m=lishm.nt of ca6 tcpic.
W.cse ite::s choc with n ec=lstien date en er before Octdber 15, 1981 )
are considered to be sufficient to yield fave:7ble PDan fi M 'ngs.
(
W censider that state and local yever:: ents have done a
- r.markably good jcb in achieving a goed state cf preparedness in the critical areas irportant for the protection of the public.
9.is wed.
has included preparatien and fer: al adeption by the hignest a2tWty for each local jurisdicticn (except for staa age: ries) of radiological energe:ry respcnse pla:.s and es'2h15ht of a local i.:taragerf coordinstian grcrg.
Me intend to give the strengest possible support to the local a:;encies in undertaking planned imm.ts.
We are ccnfident that the c:rbined SC/ local g::vemt agency effort will fully satisfy NBC requa.recents for A oy,cy preparedness in a tirely manmr.
Very tady yours,
/
K.'P. Baskin
~
r i
Attach: rents cc:
~chn E. Dickey, m Francis S. Manda, m2, Pr_S on IX i
R. H. I:ngelken, NIC, I & E Begion V R. Saddna, M, Pegicn IX Ms. Barbara Fox, Orange County I,
J. H7.nt, San Diego Ccunty R. Cole:.an, City of San Cler: ente
.8. Cynthia Fe.rgusco, City cf San Juan Capistrana J. Stoa, State Parks & Pecreaticn - Pendletcn Area Lt. Col. J. Wallace, WC, Ca. p Pendleten J. Kearns, Sta*a CES s.
i e
4 e p
= h
- ene. - h
=*
L m.
I CORRECT.IVE ACTIONS REQUlllED TO ADDRESS FEMA UETERMINA110NS OF JUNE 3, 1981*
EHCLOSU FEMA C0liCERNS TEMA REC 0flMENPMIOrt RESP 0_NSE**
[
FEMA Region IX Evaluation of Plans and Capabilities "Mo s t C ri t i ca l Conce r_n_ _"
\\
1.
The assessment and -
Develop a multi jurisdic-Continue to install the llealth Physics Computer i
monitoring of actual
- t. tonal respnnse capability which will provide. a prompt conservative assessment of fstte radiological to assure adequate coverage the actual radiological consequences of an accident consequences of a of plume pathway and stan-lhis will be operational to a limited degree by fut radiological emergency dardized procedures which load with full operation cmpected by July, 1902.
condition through allow flexibility'in (metiioiis. syst' ems"and Further develop standard radiological monitoring response.
equ ipmenpis -cons l.dered_
p procedures (50p's) for the local jurt'sdictions and t to be v/cak and in need Of f site Dose Assessmarit Center (ODAC) by August, 1981.
of irnprovement to meet g
S'CE additi:nally will assess the local minimum criteria.
jurisdictions' current equipment against their needs and identify any deficiencies noted.
SCE wil, provide staf fing to assume a role of leadership in function.
SCE will provide training ' programs for p Involved in use of the SOP's, "Scrious Concern" 2.
The interim - EOF Until the permanent EOF is SCE will develop 50P's to make current EOF operatlo!
shows a' lack of clear completed, the Interim EOF clearer and more manageable alcng the lines or the -
operating procedures, should be relocated to a current planning arrangements., Limited physical fragmentation of the -
single location separate facility, lack of from the San Clemente EOC improvements of the present f acilities will be idenl fled and accomplished.
management direction and staffed with management, comunications, size comunicators and other of the facility, and support personnel necessary is a significant for EOF operations.
impedance to the San Clemente EOC op2 ration.
l
- lha schedule for these actions is identitled in EffCLOSURE (2) scAs a respit of a meeting between FEMA and SCE on June 15. I'381, it is SCE's understanding that the significant concer
.tddressed in the FEMA Heglon IX Evaluation of the 14uy 13 1901 Egrcf se are covered in thw n12nnM 0
4 FEMA COHCERNS FEMA REC 0ftMENDATiori RESP 0ff5ES I
" Major Concerns
i3.
A need to clarify
. Develop a joint standardized (See item (1] above).
SCE will develop standardia j
monitoring and assess-multi-jurisdictional respon4e procedures for the five involved counties to obtair
' mcnt duties for both team.
i plume and Ingestion obtain samples, conduct analyses, and take necessar i
pathways as they pertain protective actions for the Ingestion path,ny emergs to State UES, State planning zone consistent with tne State RadlologicG llealth proposed ingestion pathway procedures.
DevG 4
y i
Radiological Health and ar) Integrated radiological response team to be dirG local jurisdiction.
by the Offsite Dose Assessment Center.(00AC) to col field monitoring.
4.
Means to provide early Install strens andhrovide SCE will proceed with current plans for stren instC notification and clear warning dissemination capacity SCE will develop SUP's for public notification via instructions to the to remote areas where public Emergency Broadcast System (EDS) and local stations!
public within the plume address systems from surface identified in the plans.
SCEwilldevelopSOP'sfol exposur' pathway EPZ or' airborne vehicle is e
coordination and decision making in use of strens. !
have not been installed required..
{
or tested.
3.
Adequate emergency SCE provide response equip-Agreements have been made between SCE and local age; facilities and equip-ment which was promised to that specific equipment will be ordereil by the loca; ment to support. the the local jurisdictions, dictions and billed to SCE.
Equipment procurement R emergency response including strens and addt-begun and is continuing.
SCE will follow up with r have not been provided, tional communications eq'uip-status of equipment received or on order.
SCE will; ment.
equipment needs and status of equipment procurement; activities.
?.
Radiological emergency SCE, in conjunction with the (See items'[1] and [3].above)..SCE will develop an(l response training has State of Callfornia, should implement a program (of training in the critical ared essentially not been develop the necessary train-provided to those who ing to meet the identified ra d i a t i on mon i to ri ng 'ind"a s se s s min t, c ommun i ca t ion s )
decision-making and coordination regarding protectis may be called upon to needs in the local jurls-actions,*'etc.
assist in an emergency.
dictions.
i
?
i l
.j
. a *'
FEMA CONCERNS FEMA RECOMMENDATION RESP 0HSES "Suf ficient Concern to Remain a Major issue" 7.
500 has not made infor-Olsseminate advance public SCE will proceed with the public edut tion progras.
nation available about information, how the public would be that includes an einergency response brechure and i; tion information brochure mailer, preparation and notified or what the distribution of flyers and posters, new ads, conm!
public's initial actions meetings, etc.
shouId be fn an emergency.
e e
s.
l
~
I t
o 4
i
[
J e
e e
e S
l l
1 G
e
. * ~
SUMMARY
OF PLANNED ACT10'N l
e SCHEDULE
~
Items (a)throuch
- 1.. Develop 50P's covering the following topics:
=
1st draft - 7/15/&
Operation of the Offsite Dese Assessment Center (CDAC)
Final draft - 9/1/
a.
b.
Radiation surveys by field monitoring teams Implement - P /2/3 f
/
c.
Ernergency Cortmunications
/p /D 8,/
d.
Use of the siren alerting system and public notification Coordination relating to protective actions e.
f.
Acquisition, display and use of meteorological data g.
Operation of the EOF Item (1):
h.
Ingestion pathway monitoring '
ist draft - 9/15/8:
v Existin['50P's covering other plan' elements Final draft - 11/1, i.
Implement - 12/1/8.
2.
Obtain equipment required to carry out radiati,on monitoring functions Survey types and quantities of equipment actually in place 7/15/81 a.
Initiate procurement of equipment shortagesh/k/81 h
/O#T8/
b.
j
\\
3.
Develop adoitional coccionications capability Expand interagency phone network to include CHP a.
7/15/81 dix h b.
Provide speaker monitors at EOC's 7/15/81 b N+<
' c.
Provid'e teletype message system network between all 10/15/81 principal centers d.
Provide aoditional cor:nanication circuits 10/15/81 4.
Make physical improvements to the EOF a.
Identify possible improvements 9/1/81 b.
Obtain agreements to make irrprovements 9/1/81 c.
Construct improvements 10/15/81 5.
Install Si rens 50% Dy 7/1/81 90% by 9/1/81.
100% by 10/15/81 lY g.
.e.,
SCHEDULE 6.
Accomplish' training in use of new and existing procedures, facilities, and equipment.
Develop training program (long and short tem) 7/15/81 a.
b.
Develop training material (short tem program) ff/
8/ ~
- "/!/01 Conduct training and drills (short term program) c.
9/1/81 through
[,
10/15/81 Implement long term training program d.
~
11/1/81 through Z/1/82 7.
Public Information Program
- Ongoing, Initial program complete 9/1/81 j
/
C 9
I e
e s
6 e
4 0
e S
O e
9 s
=
^
I