ML20039F757
| ML20039F757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1982 |
| From: | Eldridge J Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F747 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201130310 | |
| Download: ML20039F757 (25) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i UNITED STATES OF A! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!?.ISSION
_BEFOR.E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mattar of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
) 50-323 0.L.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2 '
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. ELDRIDGE. JR.
Q.1. State your na:oe and title..
A. I a:n John W. Eldridge, Jr. , an Esargency Management Specialist for the Federal Tsargency Managacant Agancy (FEMA) assigned to FI21A Region IX, San Francisco, California.
Q.2. Do you have statements of professional qualifications?
A. Tes. My statesent of professienal qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Q.3. 'w' hen did you first become invcived in ecergency plannirs for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant?
A. I first becaz.a involved in offsita energency response planning for i nuclear power in California during October 1979 when the Nuclear Regulatory Corsaission (NRC) still chaired this process. Based on the President's Dece ber 1979 request that FEMA take the lead in
- offsite planning and review all existing plans.I assisted in the FD!A Region IX review of all plans including the San Luis Obispo County plan.
$2 [ $of 050 T
- t
. sent Please describe the nature of that involve =ent up to the pre Q.4. have engaged in, persons nm time, including the various activities you had.
you have com=unicated with, responsibilities you TZ2'l have In ny capacity as an Emergency Management Specialist for A. l tion of as Region IX, I have been respensible for the review and eva ua facilities in California State and local planning for fixed nuclear j ct representa-general and in particular have acted as the FEMA pro e .
In cu s capacity I work closely with State and tive for this site. d Pacific Gas .
County Office of Emergency Services (OES) personnel an t and l
and Electric Ce=pany (PG&E) representatives on the deve opmen
- drills review of these plans as well as on the associated training I also ccordinate the activities of the Regional and exercises. i and developmental Assistance Co==1ttaa (RAC) for their review .
assistance at this site.
i at Diablo In the course of your review of offsite ecargency plann ng I j
Q.5.
canyon, what documents have you reviewed, particciarly t l tion?
you view to be of primary i=portance to your eva ua d on The Nevenber 2,1981, evaluation and status report was base A.
review of the following documents: l Response Plan I San Luis Obispo County Nuclear Pever Plant Emergency l (Parts I and II), dated May 1981. l onse Plan State of California Nuclear Pever Plant Emergency Resp Revised March 1981 Nuclear Pcver Plant FEMA Region II t'aluatien Findings. Diablo Canyon 19, 1981 Of f aite E=ergency Response Plans Exercise, August 1 I
3 In addition. I have f amiliarized myself vich the plan that ves "
It should current as of the December 17, 1981, p;blic meeting.
he noted that this plan will be given a complete review by FEMA af ter it is submitted, um What tasks have you cospleted, and what recain to be completed?
Q.6.
(relates to last question)
Under the full 44 CFR 350 process FEMA has provided assistance in A.
ld a the development of the plans, observed an exercise, and he Renaining to be done is the application by the public Esating.
- State for review and approval of the plan and the FD'A Region and -
l Headquarters review process based on that request. '
In accordance with the FEMA Memorandum of Understanding with NRC have ,
to provide assess:nents, findings, and determinations, we When provided a FEMA Region II ev'aluation dated November 2,1981.
lished I the corrective actions discussed in that document ara acccmp through to the satisfaction of FDiA Region II, we will notify NRC FEMA Headquarters.
What is the purpose of your testimony 7 Q.7.
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to address the scatus of of fsite State planning at the Diablo Canyon site at this point in ti:se.
and County emergency plans are currently undergoing revision, f
modificarico, and upgrading based on FEMA /RAC co :nents as part o the informal review and assistance precess.
What is the basis for the evaluation of offsite emergency planning n Q.S. .
at Diablo Canyon which you are about to make?
A.
The FDIA review is based on the provisions of the FEMA Proposed Rule,
" Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plana
- and Preparedness " 44 CFR Part 350 and the " Criteria for Preparation -
and Evaluation of Radiolgoical Emergency Response Plans and Nuclear Pcwer Plants," NUREG-0654 /TENA REP-1. Rev.1.
l Enen would you anticipate that each of the plans and 50P's referred Q.9.
t to above vill be completed, approved by local authorities and .
submitted to the State?
A.
At this time ir appears that the County plan and SOP's will be completed and submitted to the State by mid-February 1982.
J Q.10.
Are you f amiliar with the do'cument entitled. FEMA REGION II EVALUATION i
j AND SIAIUS REPORT ON STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY PR DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, dated November 2.1981, which is attached to a FEMA memorandum of the same date from Francis S. Manda, Actin 5 Regional Director for the Associate Director, State and Local Robert T. Jaske. Acting Prograns and Support Directorate. Attention:
Chief Technological Hazards Division, with the same title, which in 17, 1981, from turn is attached to a memorandus, dated November Richard W. Kri==, Acting Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technologien1 Hazards for Brian Griraes, Director, Division of Energency Preparedness, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. on the subject.
Interim Evaluation and Status Report - Diablo Canyon?
A. Yes.
Q.11.
Ehat was your role in tha prsperction of tha Evolustion cad Stetus Report itself!
During as A.
I wrote it based on my analysis of the existing infomation.
that analysis I did maintain contact with FEMA, State OES, County OES, and PG&E staff as is customary during the planning process.
W Q.12. Are the statements and conclusions contained therein correct? . . .
A. -- issv Q.13.
Has anything to your knavledge changed since that report was prepared which would alter the accuracy of any of the statements or conclusiens contained therein? ..
A. No.
Q.14.
Do you speak for FEMA today;- does your opinion represent those of FEMA; are you authorized to speak for FD'.A?
A. Yes.
Is it correct then to say that your tastimony today reflects all the Q .1.5 .
information currently in your possession, including any such new information?
A. Yes.
Does the Novenbar 2,1981, FEMA REGION II EVALUATION AND STATUS EEPORT.
Q.16.
FEMA's findings and .
together with the acco=panying memoranda represent decernisations as to whether State and local emerEency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, as provided for under the terms of the November,198'), Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and FEMA.
A. Yes.
_ _ . . . . ~ . _ _ . - _ . . - - - _ . _ .
4 In the November 2,1981, TDiA report,12 significant corrective e Q.17. .
actions are identified. which are related to 7 different planning objectives contained in Section 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP Rev. 1. Apart from these actions, are there any other deficiencies which IDiA haa identified which would cause you to modify the cenclusien stated therein, "When these corrective actions are accc=plished to the satisfaction of IEMA Region II, and the County plan is completed and submitted to the State for formal review, we believe with reasonable assurance that an adequate level of emergency.,
preparedness will exist in San Luis Obispo County"? .
A. No.
Q.18, What is meant in the report by the phrase "when...the County Plac is completed"?
A.
It is =y understanding that the County Supervisors vill review the plan for conceptual approval and then submit it to the State OES for review in February 1982. .
9 4 ,4 9' I
i j
I I
i d in the Q.20. Has FD!A discussed the 12 correctiva the County, actiona or the identifie ,,
November 2,1981, report with ,the Applicant, ill satisfy State in order to decernine a ' schedule of actions which FZMA? ,
Yes.
A schedule for accczplishing these corrective actions was A.
developed in coordination with State OES, County OES, and P representatives and was submitted to FEMA National office on Decenber 15, 1981.
f these What means have been provided fer verifying completion o .
Q.21.
actions? tive FEMA Region II staff will verify the co=pletion of through each correc A.
action and when all have been . completed vill notify NRC FEfM Headauarters. {
to items IV.E of the November 2,1981, report, which Q.22. Referrin5 / FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1, correspends to plaming standard II.E in NtTREG-0654 four corrective on the subject of notification methods and procedures, The first states, "The technical specifications acticns are specified. h ld be
~
for the design and maintenance of the proposed warning system l by FDfA." Have these submitted for preliminary review and approva technical specifications been 'rsceived? tly This material has been received by FEMA Region II and is presen A. .
under r.: view.
i these technical specifications, if adequately Does FDM anticipate that Q.23 i tion idencified?
implacented, will resolve the first correct ve ac A. Tes.
.,8 The second corrective action under item IV.E star,es, " Pagers Q.24.
s,
~
should be provided for alerting key County response personnel."
Eow many and what type of pager are recom:sended? Who will take
. this corrective action?
The ,
A. This is a joint responsibility between the County and PG&E.
County deter =ines what peeple require pagers and PG&E vill furnish the equipment.
I Q.25.
What cec: nit =ents have been rec.eived pertaining to the above catter, and are these satisf actory to FE214?
The >
A. This is a joint responsibility between the County and PG6E. J County determines what people require pagars and PG&E will furnish the equip =ent.
Q.26. The third ccrrective action.under itec IV.E states, A reliable e-mications lin'q consisting of both a two- way radio capability and a dedicated telephone line must be established between the EOC add the two Frargency Broadesst Systes stations. Co:cunicatidns lines to both radio station 10TEC and radio station KSLT a::e required in order to provide full 24-hour coverage. Also, an agreement between the two radio stations and San Luis Ot ispo County regarding disse:aina-tion of emergency instructions to the public needs to be for=ulated.
What cccnic=ents have been received pertaining to these actions, and are these satisfactory to FEMA?
A. Based on =utual discussions it is my understanding that the Ccunty will chtain the agree =ents with the radio stations and PC&E will I
purchase and install the equi;tzent referred to.
9 Q.27.-
The fourth corrective action tnder item IV.E states, "The public =
varning system must be cocpleted and operational in accordance with Of what does the public warning /
the NRC established deadline.*
notification syste:n consist? m A. The public warning /notificaticn system consista of the siren system s to activate the system) and the link (which includes the radio seat from the Emergency Operating Canter to the E:nergency Broadcast System stations KVEC and KSLY (this is a_ radio link).
Q.28.
What actions must be con:pleted on the warning /notificatien systes? .
A. The review of the technical specifications must be cc=pleted by FEMA Region II and found satisfactory. ' training by PG&E and County personnel on the use of the system should be scheduled and underway.
The system must also be fully installed in accordance with the schedule dictated in the NRC rule.
Q.29.
What co=mitments have been received pertaining to the completing and making operational of the system? Are these conznitments satisfactory to FEMA 7 A. The County and PG&E are addressing these actions as the schedule submitted by FEA Region IX or December 15.1981, shows. FEMA will verify these corrective actions vben they are completed.
0
November 2,1951, report, which Q.30.,
Referring to item IV.F of the um P1 ,
i corresponds to planning standa,rd II.P in NUREG-0654/ FEMA RE following Rev.1, on the subject of emes sency communications, the corrective action was identifj ed by FEMA: as id The County radiological monitt ring teami kmembers to the County should be supp with radios to establish a di2!ect con =sunications l n Unified Dose Assessment Cental Supervisor.
What sort of radio is needed?
Does each team member need a radio? dio on d PG&E is that a hand-held ra A.
The agreement by the County an her to a County frequency will be prcvided to each County team mec h at the enable them to talk directly to the County person in c arge
- In addition, PG&E will add (UDAC).
Unified Dose Assessment Center ide a rapeater installation to that County frequency to prov exposure zona.
PEMA will verify adequate coverage of the pluna they are cocpleted .
these correctiva actions when .
November 2, 1981. report, which Referring to ite:n IV.G of the Q.31. / % REP-1, Rev. 1 corresponds to planning standard II.G in NUREG-0654 FD tion and information, t he following on the subject of public aduca corrective action was identified by FDM:
nse The public infor: nation progran required under this planningobjective must be instructions are made availabl populations. i rogram i ency in the public informat on p Have you identified any defici pertaining to emergency planning at described in any of the plans Diablo Canyon? but the ;
a public information program The County plan does cor=tir to A. d at this point layouts and associated materlata have not been complete ien reviewed by all part ies involved.
nor hanthe plan and layouts b
__ ___ , _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ~ __ . . _ _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _
i whom, at contacplated by this item i khat specific actions, and by "
Q.32.
- ble "to ensure that emergency response instructions are made availa ]
populations"?
to both resident and transient A.
The layouts for the public iniorsation progras and the emergency an eloped by the County, State, and PG&g instruction packet must be dev The public in accordance with the provisions of the County plan.
reviewed by FD'.A for adequacy and infor=ation caterial should be kten that review is checked for consistency with the County plan.
completed and any modifications made, the County, State, and PG6E should proceed with the dissemination to the public of these .
caterials.
to the above matter, and k' hat schedule is anticipated parraini=5 Q.33. I f
are these satisfactory to FEMA
~
A.
The schedule set forth in the fDR Region II memorandum of December 15, In 1981, shews the Eoal for initial completion of this activity.
addition, an annual update and disse:mination of this infor=ation is t vill verify the adequacy of contant required by the criteria. FDi
- ions are cospleted.
and distribution when these ec' Bovesbar 2, 1981, report, which Q.34.
Referring to itas IV.H of the rd II.H in NUREG-0654/ FEE \ REP-1, Rev.1, corresponds to pisaning standa on the subject of emergency facilities and equipment, the following dentified:
three corrective actions were i
- 1. The additional telephone c4 pability needed for operaticas ind the ECC should be established a:d those lines should be insta11a .
- 2. The EOC should have backup power source to ensure continuing a coc=ercial power failure.
operations under conditions of
-: .2-
- 3. Develop and install a syste:m that vill allow the cities involved be kept informed of the develeping in the plume exposura zone to situation from the EOC. .
9 ctive acticus, what specific actions As to the first of these corre "
Q.33.
and by who:n, are contemplated:
A.
The County vill identify the nu=bar of additional telephone linas needed and PC&E will furnish them in accordance with the sc in the FDA Region IX cemoranc u:n of Dece=ber 15. 1981.
Q.36.
Is this satisfactory to F FA7 .
A. Yes. TSA vill verify thasa (orrective actions when they are completed.
Da the second of these corrective actions, what specific actions Q.37.
and by vbo:a are contemplated?
The County will verify the nature of the service needed in the EOC.
A.
only service that now needs emer5ency If lighting in the EOC is the kpile of portable battery powered power, TEMA will accept a stoc fluorescent lights stored in the UDAC and properly maintained.
Is this satisfactory to FEMA?
Q.35.
A. Tes. Tw.A vill verify when et is corrective action has been completed.
Q.39. As the third of these correctJve actions, what specific actions are
- i conte =placed and by whom?
A. It is my understanding that the County and PG5E have agreed to resolve this problso by installing a dedicated telephone line from the EOC i
to the cities involved.
Q.40. Is this satisfactory to FD%7 A. Yes. FEMA will verify this corrective actico when it has been completed.
Q.41. Referring to item IV.K of th: 9 eve =ber 2,1981, reporr, which corresponds to planning stands ed II.K in hTREG-0554/TDR RIP-1, Rev.1, on the subject of radi logical exposure control, the folloving coriective action was identifi ed:
Provisions uust ha made for 'the distribution of desiaaters, both scif-reading and permanent reefrd devices, to emergency workers.
This equipment should be permacently located in the Cc mty.
~
What coczitments have been recuived pertaining to this matter, and are these satisfactory to PD'X A. It is try present understanding that the County will provida desi:neters through the resources of the Si. ate OES and PG&E will provide therm 1-lu=inascent desi=eters (TLD's)< The County will determine the outber needed and select the most suitable stcrage sites. FDil vill verify this corrective action when it is cc=pleted.
14-1 November 2,1981 report, which Q.42.,
Ref arring to ite:n IV.N of the rd II.N in NUREG-0654/TIMA REP-1, Rev.1, corresponds to planning standa on the subject of drills and alxercises the following corrective action .
is identified: an schedule of the County should be The annual drill and trainin5 established and activities under that schedule begun.
What is the scopa of the drill and training schedule for the County which is intended by this corrective action?
A.
The criteria in EUREG-0634/FD.A REP-1, Rev.1, provide :nininun
. standards for exercises, drills, and training in Part II, Sections N The plannin5 standard for N states "Pariedic exercises are (will and O.
be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emargency response capabilities, periodic' drills are (vill b2) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficieneles identified as a result of eaercises or drills are (vill be) corrected." The planning standard for o states " Radiol ical energency response training is alled on to assist in an energency."
provided to those who say be c Additional detail is provided in the critaria eier.ents under each of these headings.
Eas an annual drill and trainigg schedule for the County been created?
Q.43.
A. It is under develop nent by all parties involved and sone drills have been held for the radiological assessment and monitoring personnel.
Wat is the status of drills nd trai.ning in the County at the present i
/).44.
l time?
A. An initial cycle of drills and trainin5 was coupleted prior to the August 19, 1981. exercise (see attached schedule). The second annual l
i l
. ' t cycle is under developoent by County OES, State OES, and PG&E and e
the date projected on the EEML Region II, December 15, 1981, schedule appears reasonable.
Q.45. When this schedule is implemet ted, will it be satisfactory to TE.MA? m A. Yes. FF.A vill verify when tl:is corrective action is cczpleted.
Q.46. khat provisions are found in the County plan to ensure the ability of perso=nel to 1=ple:nent their assig5ia'd tasks?
A. The County plan must cc xsit te a drill end training cycle. All public espicytes assigned tasks under the plan vill be asked to participate in ,
the annual training, drill, and exercise process established.
Q.47. With respect to itec IV.O which corresponds to planning standard II.0 in NUREG-0654/FIMA REP-1, Rev. 1, pertaining to radiolog %al emergency response training, the sazne corrective action specified in itas IV.N is cited, i.e. , establish:nent af annual drill and training schedules for the County and comc:encement of activities thereunder.
What radiological emergency re aponse training has already been provided to those who may be called upo-2 to assist in an emergency in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon?
A. An initial cycle of drills and training was completed prior to the August 19. 1981. exercise (see attached schedule).
~
The second annual cycle is under development by County OES, State OES, and PG&E and the date projected on the FEMA Regica IX. December 15, 1981, schedule appears reasonable. Radiologii:al training for the assessment and monitcring par sennel was begun in Decenbar 1981 under the second cycle.
. i s
6-Wat cc:nmit=ents or actions are centemplated in respense to this Q.48.,
- h ceasures satisfactory to ff2tA?
corrscrive action, and sra suc A.
All parties involved, State, County, and PG&E, are developing this 15, 1981, schedule as indicated by the ID!A Region IX December as se':edule.
FDfA vill verify ut:en this corrective action is completed. ,
Q.49.
Are thera any othar corvective actions pertaining to the County plan 'ehich are necessary for FDil to conclude that there is reasonable i
assurance that an adequate lesel of a:Dergency prepared =ess will ex st in Sao Luis Obispo County? .
A. No.
What emergency planning is nee.ded in Santa Barbara County as it Q.50.
pertains to an emergency at Diablo Canyou?
None. Santa Barbara County'is in the ingestion pathway zone for A.
Diablo Canyon.
The State is responsible for ingestien pathway planning and the Staca representatives should coordinate with the County to assist in identifying potential a5ricultural receptors in that area. The result of this coordination should be reflected in the State plan.
1 e
. m Q.51. Have you reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Plan insofar as it deals with avacuation and the report entitled " Evacuation Ti:nes Assessz.ent for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant." by FRC Voorhees, dated September 1950?
A. Yes.
Q.52.
Do these caterials satisfy the guidelines found in Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654/FEfA REP-1, Rev. 17 A. Yes. I have concluded that the methods and approach described in Appendix 4 were addressed. Wi th reEard to the inherent technical accuracy of transportation for:mlas used and actual times obtained, an NRC co=missioned study shows in NUREG/CR-1856 indicates that the technical accuracy of this evacuation study is considered to be quite good by an independent IJansportation authority.
Q.53.
Was the evacuation time assessment adequately incorporated into the decision makers under various emergency plan and 50P's so as to enable conditions to make the appropr Late judg_. ant as to whether evacuation is the proper protective respeuse, and if so,'what sort of evacuation to imple:nant?
A. Generally, yes. The evacuation time assessments are incorporated into the plan showing times for normal and heavy rain conditiona.
FDfA is asking that they add a colu=n showing evacuation time under heavy fog. The place 2ent and display of this information in the SOF's and the EOC is normally worked out and modified in the drill and exercise cycla. 1 I
l l
Eave you also reviewed the capability of the County and various Q.54. ,
~
local organizations and resources to effectively implement an What is your conclusion?
evacuation if required?
ted that the capability to eff ectively 1 A. The exercise evaluation indica xist.
1:splement an evacuation does e t From an e:nergency planning penspective, what la the purpose of Q.55.
determiMng the estimated time 'for evacuatice.?
A. Prcrective action decisions aria nade on theThebasis of what action will provida the least possible exposure to radiation.
knowledge of evacuation times al lows the decision zakers to (shaltar, evacuation, or seca I deternine what course of actio,a f
most effectiva in 11:niting exposura, combination of the two) will be l 1
G
- . 1
' i
-]9-l
. ,l l
Q.56. A county corrective action plain was prepared to implement recommen-dations tiade in the course of critiquing the Augest 1981 full field i exercise. This is referred te on page 2 of the November 2, 1981, TEM Evaluation and Status Report. How are the actions and the schedule for cczpleting them related to FEMA's overall findings of " reasonable assurance that an adequate level of emergency preparedness will exist?"
A. The County corrective action plan is based or. reconcendations resulting ,
from the evaluation of the exercise. That evaluation included reconnendations ranging in importance from significant to convenient or " nice to have" sugg::tions sa is customary in a full evaluation of any exercise. The FEMA finding of November 2.1981, took into account the County corrective action plan. Six of the significant corrective actions discussed in the FEMA L' valuation and Status Report are i
related to the corrective acci m list developed from the exercise I
evaluation. j Q.57. Mave potential problems relating to emergency response workers -
experiencing role conflicts (e .g. , mothers who are school bus drivers, etc.) in the event of en acergancy been adequately addressed in the County e=er5ency plans?
A. The criteria in NURIG-0654/FD4 ?.EP-1, Rev. 1, do not require the plan to address role conflicts . Ecwever, FZMA's experience has shown that adequate ' training for scergency response does allow people in all walks of life to take reasonable responsible actions in an emergency situation.
itoring Does the County possess all the necessary equipment for mon Q.56, ,
the equipment specified in the and coessunications, apart f rom e November 2.1981, eva lua tion and corrective actions noted in th dditional equipment is needed to statua report? If not, what a f emergency as that an adequate level o provide " reasonable assurance preparedness will exist?"
A. Tes.
dical What provision in County emergency plana has been dmade for ma Q.59 e general public who may be injure f acilities for treatment of th
- In your opinion are thaas adequate?
in a radiological emergency?
d in rho were injured and, contaminate A.
Me:sbers of the general public a radiological emergency would be treated at tb5 same codical d Sierra Vista liospiral, as PG&E f acilities, French Hospitsi an employees.
k In your opinion. As there adequate preparedness to evacuate or ta Q.60. Montana .
other protective actions on bebsif of persons who cay be in
, and ochar downwind beach areas beyond de Oro State Park, Avila Beach Avila Beach?
sed at the Alert level as a courtesy Yes. State parks would be clo A.
Scate Parks representatives participated in the to area residents. h fanonstrated a capability to take t at August 19, 1981, exercise and action.
l ,
-?1-Are notification procedures acl equate to provide warning for persons a Q.61..
located in the back country of Montana de oro State Park 7 A. Tes. Four-wheel drive vehicias and a helicopter would be used to If needed, the cover remote areas of Montana de Oro State Park. a Sheriff has the option of caljing on the members of the nounted posse to assist in that area.
Q.62. The County plan provides that the F4S may be activated only tu conjunction with a Site Area Etnergency or a Ceneral E:nergency classification. Is it a deficiency in the plan that it does not .
provide for use of the rds at the Alert level?
A. No.
.j -
Has adequate planning been done to provide for the warning and Q.63.
evacuation, if necessary, of c 1e 1:ssobile population (e.g. nursing homes, hospitals)?
A. Tes. There are no hospitals 12 the plu:ne exposure zone and persons with li: sited cobility will be asked to register with the County during the public information program.
This registration vill allow the:s to be addressed induvidually during the evacuation j
process. People who are not rogistered can contact the County l l
phone assistance centar for transportation during an evacuation. ,
4
- l l
Q.64., Could you briefly describe the nature of the emergency exercise a cenducted on August 19, 19817 A. The Au5ust 19,1981, exercise was designed to test the integrated capability of a major portion of the basic elements in the emergency i
plans and organizations. It included mobilization of S:ste and local persec=e1 to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario.
The scenario began with an Unulsual Event and escalated to a Gene i
Imergency requiring protective action decisions and implenentation by public officials. The exercise . included staffing and operatien of the linified Dose Assessment Center, the Energency Operating Center.
the Emergency Operations Facility, a Reception and Care Center, and the Media Center. It also inc.luded field c:onitoring, a sanple evacuation, closing of State Parks, and a hospital exercise with injured and conta::inated patients.
Q.65. Could you briefly state the re suits of FEMA's evaluation of the emergency exercise?
A. Overall, each jurisdiction and agancy demonstrated a very active, dynanic and highly enthusiasti : level of play during the exercise.
The participants de=onstrated a good capability to bandle the exercise events and challenges.
All of the concerns identified in this exercise evaluation are correctable through training, drills, plan revisions, or purchase of equipsent. We believe that the necessary corrective actions s-ill be taken as part of the ongoinI; emergency planning process in the County.
l
~
- 3-The evaluation conclusion is that due to the planning effort to date and the full participatic o by all participants, tLt extreise succeeded in its three basic goals. First, it demonstrated a capability to respond to a developing emergency situation, second, as it served as an excellent tralstug device, and third, it high-lighted potential problem areas to be corrected.
Q.66.
Could you describe briefly, with referance as appropriate, the I
significant deficianeles identified in offsite preparedness as e result of the exercise?
- A. Six of the twelve significant corrective actions identified in the TEMA menorandum of November 2, 1981, are related to findings from the August 19, 1981, exercise evaluation. The six are as follows: ,
IV.F The County radiological monitoring taan members should be supplied with ' radios to establish a direct cce:runica-tions link to the Cr.:nty Unified Dose Assess:nent Center Supervisor. ,
IV.R.1 The additional tale 7 hone capability needed for operations in the EOC should bi established and those lines should be installed.
IV.H.3 Develop and install a system that will allev the cities involved in the piece exposure zone to be kept informed of the developing s.Ltuation from the EOC.
IV.K Provisions cust be stede for the distribution of dosisatars, both self-reading and permanent record devices, eo e:nargency workers. This equi =ent should be perr.anently located in the County.
-;S-IV.N ne annual drill sed training schedule for the County
~
l
- should be establisled and activities under that schedule begun.
IV.0 The annual drill a d training schedule for the County m
should be established and activities under that achedule bagun.
S e
Se e
se
+ ==
- - y DIAB 1D CNUCN EXERC7SE SC11EDUIE LOCATION n
DATE ACTIVITY French flospital les June 8 -9
.31 Crill SLO June IV -19 ringa (2) SLO / San Jose week of June 22 .
icin:ry Assessment Training CSTI July fl at:p (kcy county people) Sheriff's/ Field July 9 .
toring/ECF Drill CSTI week o f July 13
- Paso Robles Fairgrounds id:nt Assess =ent Course / Drill July 3 4 eptier/ Care racility Drill - 22 SLO _.
July 2 ct/Wcrning Evaluation Sherif!'s office July 23 eustion/ Control Drill sherif f's of fice August 5 Ll-Scolo EOC Drill Sheriff's office .
August 19
- SLO bFIELDEXERCISE August 21 '
- rcise Critique SID Sept .!O atc/TEMA Public Moeting O
I c -
_. - - , . , ,,- ,