ML20084Q671

Forwards Part 1 Final Rept Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Exercise,830525

ML20084Q671
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/26/1984
From:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20084Q664	List: ML20084Q671
References
NUDOCS 8405210389
Download: ML20084Q671 (18)

Text

,

f g Federal Emergency Management Agency 5

Washington, D.C. 20472 APR 261984 5

MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. ucles, Regulatory Commission m 4 s, FROM: gryW. um [/ <

Assrs(ant Associate (Director fice of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Final Exarcise Report for the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise conducted on May 25, 1983 Attached is the final exercise report for the joint offsite radiological -

JE emergency preparedness exercise conducted on May 25, 1983, at the ijJ,j,- Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. This was a smal?. participation exercise for the State of Michigan and Berrien County, and a full participation exercise for Allegan and Van Buren Counties. This report cites that the

[ State of Michigan and the Counties of Allegan, Berrien and Van Buren t

demonstrated the capability to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.

1 :,

D., Although there were deficiencies observed at the exercise, the attached

d. '7 deficiencies. Based on the exercise and the State's schedule of corrective Ip b ".:.,,x response submitted by the State of Michigan adequately addresses the j'?, actions, we cannot identify any impediments to protecting the public in hs.:p

fthe event of an accident at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. Therefore, the approval under the F,ederal Emergency Management Agency Rule 44 CFR 350

.: p.;4,.bwill remain in effect.

( i;f d.3.~

l4

~

.If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Wilkerson, Chief, l . Technological Hazards Division at 287-0200.

L . , . .A.ttachment i As Stated

• I l i i

l I

, . t E

t l

l 5

l h

F OC O

a Federal Emergency Management Agency 60606 (312) 353-1500 L

l

- Region V 300 South o Wacker,24th Floor, Chicago, IL h

' t ijAR 30 $

!. t i

Peter R. Basolo, Captain  !

Deputy State Director i Emergency Management Division Michigan Department'of State Police l

'lli South Capitol Adenue l Lansing, Michigan 48913 \

. i

Dear Captain Basolo:

J j

TEMA Region V Technological ~

HazardE branch st 25, 1983, Palisades Radiological Emergency I of corrective actions'to the MayThis further explanation was requested in FEMA

-Preparedness exercise. FEMA; Region V's review comments Region V's letter of December 14, 1983. l are reflected below: '

i.

I. SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES -

i

. I A. State of Michigan I The Stat'e response concerning corrective action

1. E-6 l 1

, to, the delay in the 15 minute Frompt 25,Alert 1983, and l Notification identified in. the May  !

, exercise is acceptable. This criteria item l remains open pending FEMA's formal certification.

,~

\ N.1.b. FEMA Region V takes exception to the State of

2. Michigan's statement that FEMA Region-V has' not l

providedguidancetothe'StateconcerningREP Numerous  ;

objectives and scenario development. i

~

• discussions and meetings have been held over the past several months. l l

- ~.  ;

7.* 3: ate's remark that FEMA approved the  ;

a:n.asrio pri'r to the exercise is incorrect. .  ;

F .;1osed ie MA Region V's letter of May 4, l' ,143, where FEMA Region V found ti.e scenario to In this letter several recom-L . m inadeqv.are. l E sendations"were, again, made for State and l

. FEMA Region V l! - utility writer consideration. l u

also requested a revised scencrio be provided c

c to FEMA Region V addre ding FEMA Region V's j 4 I

i

,s ';

3 i

t . d- . . - . . , , _ , _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . . . - - . _ _ --_ _ __

~

Pcgo 2 .

recommendations by May 13, 1983. The revised Palisades exe:: cise scenario was not provided by the deadline requested. Most of tHe recom-mendations were not incorporated into the Consequently Allegan '

actual exercise scenario.

County had minimal involvement in the exercise .

and actually terminated their involvement 15 minutes prior to State exercise termination.

'. FEMA Region V is cogni: ant of 44 CFR, Part 351.

20(J) . In the absence of its implementation, the responsibility has fallen on the State and l

utility exercise planners.

Heetings between FEMA Region V and the State and utility scenario writers were held approximately ,90-100 days prior to the Palisades exercise. '

Similar meetings were held within the same time frame for consequent exercises for theFEMA Big Rock Region V Point and Donald C. Cook exercises.

is pleased the State plans to continue these pre- -

exercise meetings since improvement in exercise .

scenario development has been noted in the Donald C. Cook exercise scenario.

Given the State's comments in its February 6, 1984, letter outlining its schedule of corrective actions and given the actual improvement in the preparation of exercise scenarios since the Palisades exercise, FEMA Region V concludes the State of Michigan's corrective actions are acceptable. .

/

B. ,Allegan Countv_ -

State corrective actions are acceptable.

1. J.10.1 Stat'e corrective actions are acceptable.

2. J.10ib

3. E.1, This is a good example of how the objectives E.2, previously written by the State were confusing F.1.a. when applied during the exercise evaluation.

F.1.e, FEMA Region V was impressed by the State's l and corrective action demonstrated in the develop-l H.4 ment of objectives and the scenario and the demonstration of them at the Donald C. Cook i .

i- +

I l

t t

l

'~

Wm' - ~

_ ~

'* v.e A , o.. ,nmy _

.u .:w; ,

Pcgs 3 exercise. As a result, the State's corrective action on these criteria itedIs is acceptable.

4. M.l. This was an exercise objective ~ that vad not .

fully demonstrated during the exercise.' FEMA '

Region V accepts your suggestion that it be an objective during the next Palisades exercise.

State corrective action is acceptable.

C. Berrien County No schedule of corrective actions required.

l D. Van Buren County

1. E.7. State corrective action is acceptable. FEMA l

. Region V does encourage, though, the full activation of the Pro =pt Alert and Notification System to include EBS at some future exercise so the system effectiveness can be demonstrated.

2. J.10.c State corrective action is acceptable. ,i

3. J.10.d State corrective action described in their -

October 18, 1983, letter and their explanation of criteria ites E.7. in their February 6, 1984, letter is acceptable.

4. E.1, State corrective actions are acceptable. See E.2, comments above for Allegan County.

E.1.a, F.1.e, and '

B.4 -

~

II. MINOR DEFICIENCIES ,

FEMA Region V did not require the State of Michigan to provide a i schedule of corrective actions'to minor deficiencies. Since a l schedule of corrective actions was submitted by Michigan, FEMA Region V has conducted an evaluation and found the schedule of corrective actions to be adequate, as reflected below.

A. State of Michigan

. 1. G.4.a State corrective action is acceptable.

2. H.3 State corrective action is acceptable.

G j} _ ' 'qA( b~ "'- & '" & '1' k --

• 4"*" sm nTd *e ,-- r, -

~---,

.'.2

^

~~

Y~~~' _

.a..--.___ ==:. . :: r -- . ..., x . . _

Pcga 4 .

t

, t

'3. J.lO.a State corrective action'is acceptable. l B. Allegan County i

1. D.4 State corrective action is acceptable. ,

i

2. K.3.b State corrective action is acceptable.

3. A.4 -

State corrective action is acceptable. l 4.' F.1.d State corrective action is acceptable as  !

described in the State's October 18, 1983, '

letter.

i

5. G.3.a State corrective action as described in the  !

State's October 18, 1983, letter is ,

acceptable. ,

C. Berrien County -

No corrective actions were required.

r D. van Buren County i

l. A.1. a . State corrective actionsas described in the ~!

State's October 18, 1983, letter of corrective actions are acceptable. l.

2. J/10.b State corrective action described in their l February 6, 1984, letter of corrective , ;

actions is acceptable.

3. J.10.f State corrective action described in their i I

February 6, 1984, letter (schedule of corrective actions) is acceptable.

( 4. K.3.b JState corrective actions described in the

' letten of October 18, 1983, and February 6, j l

l .

1984, ,(schedule of corrective actions) are

' acceptable.  ;

- 5. J.10.J State corrective actions described in their letter of February 6,1984, (schedule of corrective actions) are acceptable. FEMA i r

!- Region V notes this was demonstrated rather-  :

than simulated'in the Donald C. Cook

~

exercise by Berrien County.  ;

6. A.4 State schedule of corrective actions described in their lettens of -October 18, 1983, and February 6,.1984, are acceptable. i i

Page 5 .

7. T.1.b State schedule of corrective ections as described in their letter of October 18, 1984, are acceptable.

8. K.3.a State schedule of corrective actions as described in their letter of October 18, 1984, are acceptable.

', Sincerely, Wallace Weaver, Chairman Regional Assistance Committee )

Enclosures '

s t

e 6

i t

i

..s I

i l

' ' I j j

• i .

9 I

l '

l l

l i

i I e I

.s' .

h 1 .

~

i l!.AY s  ;  !

l l.333  :,

l -

l Captain Peter R. Basolo  :

Energency Management Division  :

Michigan State Police , ATTN: Lt. Tyler j 111 South Capitol Avenue l Lansing, Michigan 48902

Dear Captain Basolo:

The scenario for "che Palisades Nuclear Power Plant offsite exercise has L been reviewed and found inadequate. At the scenario meeting of March 10, l l 1983, attended by FDR a reconnendation was made to have the wind going ,

l to a North or Northwesterly direction in order to invoka a full response in Allegan County as well as Van Buren County. The scenario as presented does not meet this goal.

The scenario does not provide for the opening of the Joint Fuhlic Informa- <

tien Centar (JFIC). .

! The scenario does not provide for any supplementary incider.ta to those generated by the utility that could be impeM-ts to themt of the population from the rist area and otherwise involve the EOC staff.  ;

r

! While the scenario outlines a series of activities that should be considered *I I during Recovery and Reetry it does not present any problems to be ,

i considered and acted upon by the EOC staffs. ,

In order for this azereise to N conducted as sebeduled, please provide the  ;

Technological Bazards Branch, Battle Creek, with a revised scenario that  ;

addresses these daficiencies by May 13, 1983.

/Lacarely,

/

. :: . f h h 2'

. m ant

• 4

/ Actfag Chief Technological Bazards Branch i

~

cc: RD .

Ch/NTE  ;

$CD R5/TH/R(athony/sn/x6021/5-4-83 l

[ 4 1-

s.  !

l l

CTATE OF MicHIDAN 5 EMERcENcY MANAGEMENT DIV!stS Lows = tave s.

, J AMEs J. BLANCH ARD, GOV ERNOR [n',$; *, g*nI ",*n",",,",3  ;

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE '"*"':"""*"'  :

cos eenaus t novan,ainscrom p  !

February 6, 1984 l l i

i Mr. Wallace Weaver, Chairman I Regional'Asaistance Committse -

Federal Emergency Management Agency l Region V - Chicago {

300 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor '

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Ueaver:

j Attached is the Emergency Management Division's response to the December J4, [

1983, letter from Frank Finch regarding the Palisades 1983 radiological *

[

emerg'ency preparedness exercise.  ;

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office.  ;

Sincerely, l l

i l I i

PETER R. BASOLO, CAPTAIN I Deputy State Director of i Emergency Services

[

PRB:DMS:cah ,

7 Attachment ec: an Bement, F.E.M.A._- Battle Creek i

. k I

- [

f

~

10 til 19 Ed i

- I

~i 4

-- 2-1-84 f l

Revision #1 to the Emergency Management Division response to the Palisades  !

radiological emergency preparedness 1983 exercise.

l f

I

-I. SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES ,

I i

A. State l

1. E.6.: The original FEMA critique comment was that it took  !

longer than 15 minutes for the state to demonstrate prompt ,

alert and notification and that the initial message from the l facility was incomplete and confusing. The state response j (10-18-83) was that the delay was analyzed by the state and . l the utility and that changes had been initiated as of the j Big. Rock Point full-scale exercise (July 26, 1983). Therefore, in regards to the 15 minutes notification, the deficiency .

should be considered resolved.

A second issue is raised in this latest set of comments from FEMA. The response is that resolution of this deficiency  ;

is depende?.t on FEMA's forar.1 review of the prompt alert -

j notification system; therefore, the issue is not closed and l

. is dependent on FEMA's review and evaluation of the system. l

2. N.1.b.: The original FEMA comment was that the scenario was  !

inadequate. The state response was that FEMA approved the . .

scenario prior to the exercise. There is no guidance available from FEMA on the development or content of scenarios beyond  ;

4 element N.3. of NUREG-0654. All items listed in element N.3.  :

of NUREG-0654 were provided to FEMA prior to the exercise.  !

State requests for written guidance from FEMA on scenarios l has not been answered

• Therefore, the state response was that this was not a deficiency  !

and no correction action was necessary from the state. Rather, t 4 FEMA needs to provide written guidance to* the state on scenario development and content. Also, FEMA's suggestion on page 62 of the critique for a meeting 90 to 100 days prior to the  !

exercise .to discuss exercise objectives and scenarios was  ;

implemented for the D.C. Cook radiological emergency preparedness exercise.' ]

i In 44 CFR, Part 351, 351.20(j), FEMA is charged with developing I

" representative scenario's from which . . . state and local govern- !

ments may select for use in testing and exercising radiological  :

emergency plans." In the absence of such scenarios or guidance, l the state vill continue to attempt to address FEMA's request for .j information on scenarios, and operate on the time table set forth l

• ~

in FEMA Guidance Memo 17 until new guidance is provided. '

I

~

i I

F

. . ,__m.,._ - ~ - _ . _ , _ . . . . . _ . . , _ . _ . . . , _ _ _ . . _ . .

e

=

e. *

- B. Allegan County .

J.10.i._: The Allegan County Plan (page F8) establiphes road 1.

blocks on both routes I-196 and A-2. More care will, be taken during drills and exercise to ensure that all access control points that are manned are marked on status boards. These items l

will be covered in the offsite training program prior to the next

' exercise-(August 1984).

2. J.10.b.: . 1980 population figures will be incorporated into the next update of the Allegan County Emergency Oparations Plan prior to the next exercise (August 1984).

3. E.1., E.2., F.1.a., F.1.e., R.4.: In its initial critique, FEMA listed these elements as "Significant-Deficiencies," as " exercise <

objectives," as "specified in the exercise objectives," etc.

As has been repeatedly stated to FEMA, these were not exercise objectives nor were they implied objectives. Th'erefore,,in terms of the exercise and scenario approved by FEMA, these 4 are not deficiencies. No corrective actions are necessary.

In this latest letter, FEMA states that "esch criteria was cited l- to focus attention on our recommendation that this capability should be demonstrated during the next exercise." If FEMA would like to see these elements demonstrated, FEMA should make this recommendation during the 90 day meeting prior to the next

' Palisades exercise. In addition, many of these items are being addressed in the D.C. Cook exercise on January 25; 1984.

Based on the original TEMA critique, the state does not feel that there was a deficiency because these elements were not exercise objectives.

4. M. l' . : If FEHA would~1'ike to see this eleident demonstrated during the August 1984 exercise, the state would agree. However, this i

would preclude notification and activation of EOCs because of time l constraints. ,

l . .

C. Berrien County

- No deficiencies listed.

D. Van Buren County

1. E.7.: Transmission of data to JPIC and EBS would be via phone from

- the Van Buren County EOC. Calls to EBS are simulated as is the prompt alert notification system (sirens) so as to avoid any possibla confusion. EBS'is used for non-radiological emergencies frequently enough to allow familiarization for users and to detect problemB and have them corrected. In addition, the siren control board was demonstrated to the evaluators up to the point of actualig sounding the sirens.

-m _ _. _ _ _ _ ._ _ -- ___

w- ~+~i,-.r-- , _ _ , , , . , , , , . , . _ . _ _ _ , , _. __

?

.. c-

2. J.10.c.: The state's response is, again, to see above comment.

3. J.10.d.: No additional response necessary. l

4. E.1., E.2., E.1.a., 7.1.e., H.4.: No additional' response is necessary for these elements. See Allegan County comments. {

j II. MINOR DEFICIENCIES A .- State  !

i

l. *

1. G.4.a.: The state has additional personnel at the JPIC in  !

support of the state snokesman as demonstrated at the Big [

Rock Point full-scale exercise. .

2. H.3.: The status b.oard will be placed in a more visible position  ;

as of the January 25, 1984 Cook Exercise. '

3. J.10.a.: Radiological Health is currently updating their l field sampling monitoring points. These will be provided to- l the Emergency Management Division as they are completed.  ;

4 B. Allegan County I

1. D.4.: Correction, the latest update of the Allegan County E0P  !

has been provided to FEMA as of 10-17-83. This was for the  ;

purpose of maintaining controlled distribution of current ' '

, plans.

2. K.3.b.': Correction date - during adnual training program - l July / August, 1984.  !

i

3. A.4.: Correction date - next exercise F August 1984. ,

4. F.1.d.: No correction needed. I l

5. c.3.a.: No correction needed.  !

1 C. Berrien County No response required.

D. jVan Buren County

1. A.1.a.: No additional response necessary.

2. J.10.b.: As soon as data is available from NRC, FEMA, or the utility..the maps will be updated to show the population distribution in the 5-10 zones.

.. x .

g. __

-=_

~. . .

3. J.10.f.: This issue will be resolved by the next exercise in August 1984.

4. K.3.b.: As stated in the state response, the dosimepters will be removed from the County EOC since they are inappropr:iate and were placed there o'riginally based on FEMA's recommendation. The plans and procedures will be revised if necessary by the next exercise (August 1984) to reflect this change.

5. J.10.1.: The state does not believe it is necessary to move vehicles during an exercise. If, however', FEMA will not accept state policy, an attempt will be made to resolve this issue during the August 1984 exercise if the problems of time, cost, and liability can be resolved with the involved counties. <

6. A. 4._ : Correction date August 1984 exercise.

i

7. F.1.b.: No response necessary.

8. K.3.a.: No response necessary.  ;

III. COMMENTS ON FEMA'S CRITIQUE

-[

FEMA did not address the state's comments on its critique. The statement  !

"the critique system has changed as a result of the new 44 CFR 350," does There still seems l not address all of the issues raised in the comments.

to be confusion on the issue of whether alerc, notification, and mobilization l l

was an objective or not for the Palisades exercise. FEMA did not address l this. The new exercise critique module still contains subjective evaluations though it is an improvement. Issues raised in IIIB of the state response were not answered by TEMA. ,

/ .

l.

l f

. '. 4

{

l i L

I i

5 I

l t t l

f I r m [ges

. . . . . . . . - mm , . o.,.. c .. - i w CTATE CF MICHISAN l

f EMEnGENCY MANAGEMENT

s. ..

saMrs .r. mi.awenano sovanNon ,l',',';,* ag,=;...

, ,v,= ag' DEPARTMENT c w...u OF' STATE POLICE ~+= m n~m 6.n.v.w.m..sv..

February 6, 1984 Mr. Wallace Weaver, Chairman Regional Assistance Committee -

Federal Emergency Managemarit Agency Region V - Chicago

-300 5. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor .

Chicago. Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Weaver:

Attached is the E=argency Management Division's response to the December 14, 1983, letter from Frank Finch regarding the Palisades 1983 radiological

• emergency preparedness exercise.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely, PETERR.Sh0LO, CAPTAIN -

Deputy State Director of Emergency, Services PRB:DMSace.h - -

h Attachment ,

ec: t n Bement, F.E.M.A. Battle Creek l

i l

,d l '

t l Revisita #1 to ths Em:rstncy Manag:Ocnt Divisicn'rceptnea to ths Policcdoc +

radiological emergency preparedness 1983 exercise.

I. SIGNIFICANT DETICIENCIES  !

l A. State i

1. E.6.: The original TEMA critique comment was that it took 6 longer than 15 minutes for the state to demonstrate prompt  ;

alert and notification and that the initial message from the ,

, facility was incomplete and confusing. The state response  !

l (10-18-83) was that the delay was analysed by the state and 3 the utility and that changes had been initiated as of the Big Rock Point full-scale exercise (July 26, 1983). Therefore, in regards to the 15 minutes notification, the deficiency should be considered resolved. <

i A second issue is raised in this latest set of_co=ments from FIMA. The response is that resolution of this deficiency is dependent on FEMA's formal review of the prompt alert .

notification system; therefore, the issue is not closed and '

is dependent on FEMA's review and evaluation of the system. f i

2. N.1.b.: The origins 1 FEMA comment was that the scenario was ,,

inadequate. The state response was that FEMA approved the j scenario prior to the exercise. There is no guidance available from FEMA on the development or content of scanarios beyond l element N.3. of NUREG-0654. All items listed in element N.3  !

of NUREG-0654 were provided to FEMA prior to the exercise.  :

state requests for written guidance from FEMA on scenarios [

has not been answered.  ;

Therefore, the state response was that'this was not a deficiency l and no correction action was necessary from the state. Rather, FEMA needs to provide written guidance to the state on scenario  !

development and content. Also, FDIA's suggestion on page 62 1 of the critique for a meeting 90 to 100 days prior to the  :

exercise to discuss exercise objectives and scenarios was l implemented for the D.C. Cook radiological emergency preparedness l exercise. 1 i

in 44 CFR, Part 351, 351.20(j), FEMA is charged with developing "representativescenario'sfromwhich...stateandlocalgovern-ll nants may select for use in testing and exercising radiological i emergency plans." In the absence of such scenarios or guidance, the state will continua to attempt to address FEMA's request for ,

. information on scenarios, and operate on the time table set forth  ;

in TEMA Guidance Memo 17 until new guidance is provided. l l

yI 9

l

[

--- --.:- v- - = -- -

...... . .... . ..~..... . .... - . . . ~ t t

3. Allegan County 6  !

k

1. _J.10.1. The Allegan County Plan (page F8) establishes road [

blocks on both routes I-196 and A-2. More care will be taken  !

' during drills and exercise to ensure that all access control i points that are manned are marked on status boards. These items l will be covered in the offsite training program prior to the next i j exercise (August 1984). j j 2. J.10.b.: 1980 population figuras will be incorporated into the next update of the Allegan County Emergency Operations Plan prior to the next exercise (August 1984).

4

3. E.1. E.2.. F.1.a.. F.1.e.. H.4._ In its initial critique, FEMA -

listad these elements as "Significant Deficiencies," as " exercise objectives," as "specified in the exercise objectives," etc.

As has been repeatedly stated to FEMA, these were not exercise objectives nor were they implied objectives. Therefore, in terms of the exercise and scenario approved by FEMA, these are not deficiencies. No corrective actions are necessary.

In this latest letter, FEMA states that "esch criteria was cited to focus attention on our recommendation that this capability should be demonstrated during the next exercise." If FEMA -

would like to see these elements demonstrated, FEMA should make this recommendation during the 90 day meeting prior to the next Palisades exercise. In addition, many of these items are being addressed in the D.C. Cook exercise on January 25, 1984 Based on the original FEMA critique, the state does not feel '

that there was a deficiency because these elements were not

! exercise objectives.

I 4. M.I.: If FEMA would like to see this e1ement demonstrated during the August 1984 exercise, the state would agree. However, this would preclude notification and activation of EOCs because of time i

constraints. -

C. Derrien County No deficiencias listed.

1 D. Van Euren County

1. E.7.: Transmission of data to JFIC and E55 would be via phone frG:

~

the Van Buren County EOC. Calls to EBS are simulated as is the pro =pt alert notification system (sirens) so as to avoid any possible confesion. EBS is used for non-radiological emergencies frequently enough to allow familiarization for users and to dere:t proble=s and have them corrected. In addition, the siren control board was de=onstrated to the evolustors up to the point of actus1) sounding the sirens.

Il S

2. J.10.c.: The state's, response is, again, to see above comment.

3. J.10.d.: No a'dditional response necessary.

4. E.1.. E.2. E.1.a.. F.1.e.. H.4.: No additional response is necessary for these elements. Sea Allegan County comments.

i II. MINOR DETICIENCIES i

i A. Stata

1. _C.4.a.: The state has additional personnel at the JPIC in support of the stata spokesman as demonstrated at the Big <

Rock Point full-scale exercise.

2. H.3. _

The status board vill be placed in a more visible position as of the January 25, 1984 Cook Exarcise.

3. J.10.a.: Radiological Health is currently updating their field sampling monitoring pointa. These will be provided to the Emergency Management Divisien as they are completed.

l

3. Allegan County .

[ 1. D.4.: Correction, the latest update of the Allegan County E0P has been provided to FEMA as of 10-17-83. This was for the i

purpose of maintaining controlled distribution of current l Plans.

2. K.3.b.: Correction date - during annual training program -

July / August, 1984.

1

3. ft.;4. :. Correction ddte - next exercise ' August 1984.

4. F.1.d.: No' correction needed.

5. C.3.a.: No correction needed.

C. Berrien County No response required.

D. Van Buren County

1. A.1.a.: No additional response necessary.

2. J.10.b.: As soon as data is available from NRC, FEMA, or the utility, the maps vill be updated to show the population distribution in the 5-10 zones. t lLl u

3 l

.x

3. J .10~. f . : This. issue will be resolved by the next exercise in l August 1984.

4. K.3.b.: As stated in the state response, the dosimenters will be '

removed from the County EOC since they are inappropriate and were placed there originally based on FEMA's recommendation. The plans ,

and procedures will be revised if necessary by the next exercise (August 1984) to reflect this change. .

I

5. J.10 3. The state does not believe it is necessary to move i vehicles during an exercise. If, however, TEMA vill not accept  :

state policy, an attempt will be made to resolve this issue  !

during the August 1984 exercise if the problems of time, cost,  ;

and liability can be resolved with the involved counties.

6. A.4.: Correction date August 1984 exercise.

}

7. F.1.b.: No response necessary.  ;

8. K.3.a.: No response necessary. - i III. COMMINTS ON FEMA'S CRITIQUE t i

TEMA did not address the state's con =ents on its critique. The statement '!

!. "the critique system has changed as a result of the new 44 CFR 350," does  !

not address all of the issues raised in the camments. There still seems l to be confusion on the issue of whether alert, notification, and mobilization i was an objective or not for the Palisades exercise. TEMA did not address i this. The new exercise critique module still contains subjective evaluations '

though it is an improvement. Issues raised in IIIB of the state response ,

were not answered by FEMA.  !

,/

O G

< . s. ,

l  ?

i

~

f

[

i

?

.t.

p.w . .. - - ._ -

' h Federal Emergency Management Agency i

- Region V 300 South Wacker,24th Floor, Chicago,IL 60606 (312) 353-1500 SEP 141983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Attention: Megs Hepler FROM: Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee

SUBJECT:

Palisades Exercise Final Report Attached is the Final Report for the Palisades Exercise, conducted May 25, 1983. This report indicates the State of Michigan and the Counties of Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren have demonstrated a capability to protect the health and safety of the citizens and  !

the property in the area at risk. ,

In view of the fact that this report had,been developed prior to receiving the new guidance, and in order not to expend more staff ,

time redoing the report in the new format, we are submitting this under the old procedures. t i

A schedule of corrdetions of deficiencies noted in Part IV has been i requested from the State of Michigan by October 28,1983.

44 N

[ Frank Finch .

Attachment '

D 9

_. . . . - - - , , . . - - . ,- - - - - , - . , - . - - . , . . -