ML20235N122
| ML20235N122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1989 |
| From: | Asher J, Crocker D, Kelly R, Kozak J, Stovall C HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., ROY F. WESTON, INC., VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIV., BLACKSB |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235N111 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-5, NUDOCS 8903010044 | |
| Download: ML20235N122 (104) | |
Text
__ ..
- WFET MUMBER .
F200. L UTIL FAC..
g9. 77,=p(-3 RELA 1ED CO,RftE,SfygDM @f[.'/-
'89 FEB 27 All :54 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5hdy . %,,,' 7 n, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u att Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5R-
) (1988 Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. ASHER, SR.,
DOUGLAS M. CROCKER, ROBERT B. KELLY, JOHN J. KOZAK, AND y
CHERYL L. STOVALL ON CONTENTION 1(SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE)
)
) Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
)
February 24,1989 i
f f
L h groWei MoMis" e l T }
C____-------.----____--._______----------.---------
_- _ - - J
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5R
) (1988 Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
)
Unit 1) )
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. ASHER, SR.,
) DOUGLAS M. CROCKER, ROBERT B. KELLY, JOHN J. KOZAK, AND CHERYL L. STOVALL ON CONTENTION 1 (SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE) i
)
) -
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
)
February 24,1989
)
D
LILCO, February 24,1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
) In the Matter of )
)
.LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5R
) (1988 Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. ASHER, SR.,
DOUGLAS M. CROCKER,' ROBERT B. KELLY, JOHN J. KOZAK, AND CHERYL L. STOVALL ON CONTENTION 1 (SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE)
)
- 1. Q. Please identify yourselves.
A. (Asher] My name is James R. Asher, Sr. I am a retired professional city Fire Chief and a retired Radiological Assistance Committee (RAC) Chair-
).
man of FEMA Region III. I am now self-employed as a consultant.
[Crocker] My name is Douglas M. Crocker. I am Manager of Nuclear
) Emergency Preparedness for LILCO. Full statements of my professional qualifications and of the qualifications of the other witnesses have been provided in the separately bound volume entitled " Professional Qualifica-
) tions of LILCO Witnesses on Exercise Contentions," which is being filed along with this testimony.
). (Kelly) My name is Robert B. Kelly. I am a Project Director for Roy F.
Weston, Inc., an environmental engineering consulting firm.
)
> i
[Kozak] - My name is John J. Kozak. I am retired chief of the Operational L
Planning Bureau, New Jersey State Police, Office of. Emergency Manage-ment. I am now a self-employed consultant. !
[Stovall] My name is Cheryl L. Stovall. I am Contract Manager at Vir-
)
. ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg, Virginia.
- 2. Q. Please describe your experience in emergency planning.
L -A. [ Asher] As the RAC Chairman of FEMA Region III for over ten years I or-ganized, participated in, and evaluated more than 30 Regional emergency planning exercises. Of the Regional exercises, four were for near-term op-
)
erating license plants (NTOL's). The Limerick Nuclear Plant in Montgom-ery County, Pennsylvania, was the last plant to be evaluated while I was RAC Chairman.
} There are eight nuclear sites in Region III:
. Maryland
- Calvert Cliffs Pennsylvania
- Three Mile Island
)
- Beaver Valley
- Peach Bottom
- Susquehanna
- Limerick Virginia
- North Anna y
- Surry Also, Delaware (which is in FEMA Region III)is involved in planning for the Artificial Island site in New Jersey (which is in Region II) and participates
): in exercises for that site in different years from New Jersey.
I have conducted exercises for the following sites: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the Beaver Valley power plant in Pennsylvania, the Peach
[ Bottom plant in Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna plant in Pennsylvania, the Limerick plant in Pennsylvania, the Hope Creek and Salem plants in New Di
Jersey as they affected the State of Delaware, the Calvert Cliffs plant in
> Maryland, and the Surry and North Anna plants in Virginia. I have also par-ticipated in an exercise of the Indian Point plant in New York and in the I Federal Field Exercise conducted for the St. Lucie plant in Florida and the
) federal tabletop exercise of ingestion pathway emergency response actions for Beaver Valley. I have served in chemical spill exercises conducted by EPA and in evacuations from actual chemical spills.
).
[ Kelly] Prior to my employment at Weston, I worked for FEMA and the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. I have reviewed and developed state-level emergency plans for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including the State Emergency Broadcast System Plan, the State In-Place Shelter Plan, the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and the State Disaster Recovery Plan. I also directed the development of 165 local com-
)
munity emergency plans. I have also developed and conducted emergency preparedness training programs and conducted capability assessments and hazard analyses studies.
)
I have been involved in radiological emergency planning exercises for the Pilgrim, Seabrook, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. During the exercises, I was the Massachusetts official in
)
charge of the EBS: I draf ted EBS messages based on the prescripted mes-sages in the State plan, obtained necessary approvals, and actually read the
) messages to the radio stations over the phone. In the case of the Yankee Rowe exercises, I had to coordinate EBS message content with Vermont of-ficials; in the case of the Vermont Yankee exercises, I coordinated message i
) content with both Vermont and New Hampshire officials.
)
). -4 . i i
R
~
- During the'several months that preceded the. June 1988 Shoreham !
) exercise, LILCO retained my firm to provide training to LERO personnel on ]
interfacing with government officials. I'.was manager of this project. I was present,during all three days of the June 1988 Shoreham Exercise,
) dividing my time between the EOC and the ENC. .
. [Kozak) I became involved in emergency planning in-the State of New Jersey beginning in 1962. In 1976 I became Chief of Plans and Operations (now Operations Planning). I assisted in the original development of the State Radiological Emergency Response Plans for Oyster Creek and Salem 1 and 2 nuclear generating stations.
As Operations Chief I was in charge of all emergency operations in the State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during exercises, drills, and
)
actual emergencies, including federally observed and non-observed exer-cises involving the Oyster Creek, Salem 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. My duties included directing and coordinating the ac-
)
tivities of all operations room staff, State Department Emergency staff, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and New Jersey Transit personnel to ensure
. timely response to all emergency manpower and resource requirements.
). My responsibilities also involved directing the operation of the EOC during actual emergencies including major floods of 1971, '73, '75, '76, '84 and '86, all of which were federally declared major disasters. I was also in-
) volved in droughts, water shortages in Trenton and Jersm' City, major fires, civil disturbances (Newark, Plainfield, Trenton, and Asbury Park), chemical accidents and hazardous materials spills, and nuclear attack and post-
)- nuclear attack planning and exercises.
).
,(
- < )
i 1
I have developed and assisted in the development of scenarios'for. d e
various types of drills and exercises and established standards and check -
'i lists for the development and review of State, county, and municipal Emer -
gency Operations Plans and Standard Operating Procedures. _I have taught
( and developed lesson plans for various courses, including planning and op-1 erations, creative financing, basic emergency management, resources man- '
agement, and others.
1 I recently assisted in 'the development and implementation of the Passaic River Basin early flood warning system. I retired from service with the State on April 18,1988. Since then I have been a self-employed consul-F tant preparing emergency -management essay-type examinations and grading them for the New Jersey State Department of Personnel.
-[Stovall] I have been an active participant in the emergency management profession for over nine years. Specifically, from 1980 to 1986 I was em-ployed by FEMA Region IV as an Emergency Management Specialist. I pre-y pared formal evaluation findings under 44 CFR Part 350 for three nuclear facilitics in Florida, and I assisted in the findings on dozens of special is-sues. I reviewed seven state plans and all county plans for the 17 nuclear y facilities in FEMA Region IV. I also conducted exercise evaluations and wrote evaluation reports for Region IV. I have evaluated plans and over 40 exercises for the following iacilities:
) Alabama
- Browns Ferry
- Farley Florida
- St. Lucie
- Turkey Point
- Crystal River
)
- Hatch
- Vogtle
) l
_ fl
). ,
4 Mississippi <
- Grand Gulf -
- Brurowick
- Harris
- McGuire South Carolina
- Oconee-
);
'
- Catawba
- V.C. Summer
- Robinson --
- Watts Barr
- Sequoyah I was also involved in an exercise for the Zimmer Plant in Ohio, which is in ' -
~ Region V. I was the FEMA staff support to the scenario development com-mittee for the first Federal Field Exercise at St. Lucie in March 1984.
)
I have been involved t detually every aspect of offsite emergency management for nuclear facilities. Since leaving FEMA Region IV I have continued to stay current in the profession, because I am ' currently em-h ployed in a research laboratory at VPI specializing in emergency manage-ment.
p 3. Q.' - Why have you been asked to testify?
A. [ Kelly, Asher, Kozak, Stovall] We have been asked to render an opinion, independent of FEMA, on the adequacy of the 1988 Shoreham Exercise as a
). test of the LERO offsite emergency plan with respect to those aspects of the plan addressed in Contention 1.
We have not been asked to review the LERO Plan itself, nor to eval-
) uate the 1988 Exercise as to plan elements and exercise objectives not covered by Contention 1. But with respect to the issues raised in Conten-tion 1 we have applied our professional judgment, informed by our knowl-
);
edge of how exercises are evaluated by professionals in this country, to de-cide whether the 1988 Exercise was a test adequate to decide whether O
l r-_._--__.__---_____-__- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ ._. - __. _ . _ _ . ._ _ J
l' g ,
1 there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions can and will l L
be taken in the event of an emergency. That is, we have been asked.to give our opinions as to whether the 1988 Exercise tested the major observa-- .
ble portions of the LERO Plan addressed in the admitted parts of Conten-- l Y tion 1 and whether, with respect.to the admitted parts of Contention 1, personnel were mobilized in sufficient numbers to verify their integrated. >
capability to assess and to respond to the Exercise scenario, y
[Crocker] I am on this witness panel primarily to answer any questiors that may arise during cross-examination about the LERO Plan and proce-dures or details of what happened during the Exercise.
[ Kelly] As part of this effort, I was asked by LILCO to research the
" scope" of other prelicense FEMA exercises that have been held throughout
)t
.the country. At LILCO's request, people under my supervision and I re-
- viewed FEMA exercise evaluation reports and scenarios in order. to analyze the scope of each exercise with regard to the issues raised by Contention 1.
)
- 4. Q. What exercises did you review?
A. [ Kelly] We reviewed all federally evaluated exercises for Near Term Op-
) erating License plants (NTOL's) that occurred af ter July 6,1984, but prior to a license being issued, the sites of which had not been previously quall-fled by FEMA. A total of 13 exercises for 10 plant sites were evaluated.
) These were the Braidwood 1985 and 1987 exercises, the Clinton 1985 and 1987 exercises, the Limerick 1984 exercise, the Palo Verde 1984 exercise, the Perry 1984 and 1986 exercises, the River Bend 1985 exercise, the
)1 Shearon Harris 1985 exercise, the South Texas Project 1987 exercise, the Vogtle 1986 exercise, and the Wolf Creek 1984 exercise.
)
.g.
- c
'1.A' Public' Alerting and Notification
~
- 5. Q. Have you reviewed Subpart A of Contention 1 and Interveners' testimony on Subpart A?
A. [ All] :Yes.
L 6.- . Q. Have you reviewed LILCO's written testimony on Subpart A? -
A. [ All] Yes.
- 7. Q. In your opinion, did the 1988 Exercise provide an adequate test of LERO's
- b. . ability 'to initially alert the public - within the 10-mile EPZ~ and begin :
dissemination'of an instructional message within 15 minutes of a decision, by the appropriate officials?
- A. ( All] Yes.
1
-8. Q. Please explain.
A. [Asher] Based on what I have read in the FEMA Report and the LILCO-y written testimony on Contention 1 and what I know to have occurred at the exercises that I have been a part of, either as RAC chairman in FEMA Re-gion III or as an evaluator in other Regions, I judge that what LERO did in
). the 1988 Exercise was an adequate test of LERO's ability to initially alert and begin dissemination of an instructional message within 15 minutes of a decision by the appropriate officials and is in keeping with FEMA practice.
y
[Kozak] Based on the FEMA Report, the facts as set out in LILCO's writ-ten testimony, and my own experience in New Jersey nuclear generating station exercises, in my opinion the objective of initially alerting the public
)
within the 10-mile EPZ and the dissemination of an instructional message within 15 minutes of a decision was adequately met. ,
l 1 [Stovall] In full participation exercises it is normal practice to simulate the use of the public alerting system throughout a simulated emergency and actually to demonstrate the capability only once.
)- ,
I. have witnessed exercises where -the single demonstration of the i public- warning system was done out of sequence and implemented at a specified time. This was the case for off-hours exercises. ' The other, pre-:
ferred way to demonstrate this capability is to activate the system wh'en a
). General Emergency is declared; this provides a more effective test of the ,
I capability. '
Based on what I have read in the FEMA Report and LILCO's w'ritten
)
testimony, I understand that LERO did demonstrate the capability to ini-tially alert the public within the 10-mile EPZ and begin dissemination of in-structional messages within 15 minutes. This was simulated two times and g
)
actually demonstrated once at the General Emergency stage during the -
June 1988 Exercise.
- 9. Q. How many other NTOL exercises involved the actual broadcast over the air
)-
of an EBS Message (prerecorded or otherwise)?
A. [ Kelly] .Three of the 13 exercises clearly included the broadcast of some type of message. Eight exercises did not involve a broadcast (although in I
the Braidwood '87 exercise two of the counties clearly simulated the broad-casts, and it is not clear whether the third county simulated this function ,
or not). In the remaining two exercises (Perry '84 and River Bend) it is not clear from the FEMA reports whether the broadcasts were actual or simu-lated. i l
- 10. Q. I
) Nonetheless, Interveners allege that the Shoreham Exercise was inadequate because WPLR declined to broadcast an actual EBS message over the air-waves. Do you agree?
A. [ All] No.
)
l
) I
j l
-10 ~ .
- 11. Q. Why not?'
i 1: A.: [ Asher) It has been the practice in Region'III and in other regions not to use the warning systems in every exercise, and this includes the EBS sys-
.tems. It has repeatedly been demonstrated that radio stations are able to b
broadcast over the airwaves, and if a station can air the message inside the station, then the ability to flip a switch or turn a dial can reasonably be'as-sumed.
)
[Kozak] I agree that it is normal practice to simulate the public alerting system in some exercises. If the FEMA Regional Office agrees during pre-
). exercise conferences, the broadcasting of the EBS message can be simulat-ed. In the case 'of New Jersey nuclear generating station exercises, a pre-pared EBS- test message is broadcast after the initial sounding of sirens,
); telling residents about the exercise and informing them _ that if an actual emergency occured at the nuclear station they should tune to the EBS for instructions. All other EBS messages are simulated.
). !
. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] Even in exercises in which an EBS message is ac-tually broadcast over the air, the message is only a test message. The test message is not picked up and carried by the other stations in the EBS net-
)
work.
The purpose of the prompt notification system test in a full-participation exercise is to validate the capability of emergency response
)' !
managers to implement procedures for activating the system. This activation includes the decisionmaking to activate the system, the activation of the sirsns and tone alert receivers, and the coordination of
)
the EBS message (test message) within the 15-minute requirement. It is not
]
d required that an exercise verify tliat the public actually heard the sirens, the tone alert receivers, or an EBS message. The broadcasting of a test message over the airwaves is not essential to fulfill the purpose of an exer-cise.
I As stated in the FEMA Report at 44, dissemination of instructional !
I messages during the 1988 Exercise was effectively coordinated and timely.
The 15-minute criterion for siren activation and simulated broadcast of EBS ]
messages was met. During the Exercise the EBS station (WPLR) was pre- !
pared and equipped to carry out all phases of EBS message broadcast. The fact that the EBS test message was not actually read onto the airwaves
}
does not constitute a problem. Since WPLR is part of an EBS system and broadcasts EBS test messages routinely, its personnel should be well experi-enced and therefore able to broadcast a message over the airwaves.
)
- 12. Q. How does the scope of the 1988 Shoreham Exercise compare with the 13 other NTOL exercises with regard to public notification?
A. [ Kelly] Quite favorably. LILCO actually tested its siren system. LILCO's
)
Exercise, like most of the other exercises reviewed, did not involve the broadcast of a message over the public airwaves. LERO went through the entire process of draf ting and transmitting messages to the radio station,
)
and the station broadcast the message internally. This is in line with previ-ously established exercise precedent. .
)- 13. Q. Interveners also allege that the Exercise was deficient in scope because ;
LERO used WPLR instead of WCBS, its primary lead EBS station. Do you '
agree?
A. [ Asher, Kozak) We disagree. As long as the organization implemented its
) procedures to issue an EBS message in coordination with the public alerting system in the proper time, it is unimportant whether it used a primary or a J
L backup lead EBS radio station. ' Back-up units are of ten used in exercises L
for various reasons. The practice is encouraged. We find it a plus when m
this occurs. We understand that LERO followed its procedure.
[Stovall]' I also disagree. The purpose of an exercise is to test plans and procedures and demonstrate the ability of the emergency response manag-ers to implement their plans and procedures. The scope of the 1988
) Shoreham Exercise adequately allowed for a complete demonstration of the public alerting system.
Whether the primary lead EBS station or the alternate was tested is
) not the important issue. Commercial radio stations are regulated by the FCC and have stringent requirements to meet to maintain an operating 11-cense; therefore we can assume that they are capable of broadcasting a
) message. The important issue is whether the emergency response manager
.can coordinate the broadcast of the EBS instructional message with the activation of the alert signal - that is, to get the system to the point of
) broadcasting the message shortly af ter the alert signal is activated.
Testing an alternate system is one way of demonstrating this.
1.B Schools
).
- 14. Q. In your opinion, did the 1988 Exercise provide an adequate test of the abili-ty and resources necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for school children in the plume EPZ?
A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] Based on the FEMA Report and the facts as we
)
understand them from LILCO's written testimony, yes, the exercise was ad-equate to provide a test of protective actions for school children within the plume EPZ.
l (
l i
i D
i
D; -
- 15. Q. Please explain.
D A. -[ Asher] L As for actually moving children, FEMA's policy has always been to cause the least amount of disturbance to the. normal operation of the school routine. The degree of exercise play by' participating schools in the 1988 Shoreham exercise meets the norm in other Regions and is in accor-dance with FEMA practice. j School children " evacuate" schools every day, in 'a sense, at day's b end, and at other. times under unusual circumstances such as fire drills and-weather-caused early dismissals. Most states require by law a certain num-ber of school drills per year. The professional evaluator can and should be 1 able to determine the level of efficiency of the school systems' ability from:
a very small sample. It is not unusual in a FEMA graded exercise to inter-view only one school official in a district.
) .
.[Kozak] The communication link was demonstrated. FEMA does not, to my knowledge, require student or teacher participation. FEMA has never
) rerpired movement or evacuation of school children, mobility-impaired people, or the general population in exercises.
[Stovall] It is not required that school children actually be moved in an
)- .
exercise. School children are members of the public. It is not the purpose of an exercise to test school children's response but rather to test the ade-quacy of plans and procedures.
)
- 16. Q. Interveners allege that the level of the participation during the Exercise of the Shoreham Wading River Central School District was " extremely limit-ed." Do you agree?
l
) A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall) No, the Shoreham-Wading River Central School I District's participation was in conformance with the exercise Objective 19.
i
'h
.17. , Q. - Why?. ,
L A. - [ A' sher] Establishing a. communication link is the most important thing.
This communication link was established during the 1988 Shoreham Exer--
cise. The Shoreham-Wading River. School Superintendent and his back-up 7
)
- took calls and functioned according to the Plan. 'I understand that FEMA-evaluators also observed five school buses drive by all five schools in that.
District (FEMA Report at 4, 34), indicating the bus drivers' knowledge of
)'
the locations. As long as the corrmunication link between the organization and the school officials is estar lJshed and the school officials and organiza- I tion function'in accordance with their plans and procedures, the demon-L stration is satisfactory.
[Stovall) During the Exercise LERO demonstrated the ability to establish -
a communication link with all the schools that agreed to participate. To further demonstrate plans and procedures LERO continued this interface (with Exercise controllers), as would be the case in a real response. A suf-p ficient' number of school personnel participated in the exercise to verify their integrated capability to respond to the accident scenario. The com-munication link was demonstrated during the Exercise by calling the
) Shoreham-Wading River Central School District. I have observed similar exercises where this demonstration was accomplished by interaction with ;
just one school
) But LERO demonstrated more than just the initial call. It continued this interface with the controllers for the exercise. This use of controllers is a basic principle commonly used in exercise design, because of ten "real" '
) resources cannot be used during exercises or cannot play for extended peri-t ods of time. The controller technique is a way to allow responders the I
' ~
l A
PS '
W
. opportunity to demonstrate plans and procedures with the least impact on g normal operations.
i
[ Kelly] According to my observations and the FEMA Report, a communi-cations link between LERO and the school district was established, there.
W w
. ere ongoing communications throughout the Exercise, buses were actually dispatched to run the designated school evacuation routes, and school offi-i> cials displayed a knowledge of their plans. The participation of the school !
district and the overall demonstration of school evacuation capabilities not only. met FEMA's criteria, it equalled or surpassed the level of activity at other NTOL exercises.
)!
Most of the other NTOL exercises I researched involved some degree of participation by schools or school districts. The nature of this-in-
)1 volvement tended to be limited to the receipt of notification phone calls at individual schools or the involvement of school department officials at the EOC. Four of the exercises (Perry '84, Perry '86, Vogtle, and Wolf. Creek) involved the simulated evacuation of a school, at least to the extent of pro ~
cedurally testing the evacuation plan. (This typically included notification calls, making arrangements for the use of buses, and discussing evacuation plans.) The South Texas Project had school evacuation as an objective (no actual movement of students planned), but there is no mention of how or if this was done. The Clinton '87 exercise involved the actual movement of 21 students to a reception and care center by bus, but they apparently were l volunteers simulating general population evacuees. The Braidwood '87 ex-L i.
ercise used 30 local high school students as simulated evacuees; they were registered and monitored upon their arrival at the high school used as a re-
~
ception center and congregate care center for the general public.
[ ,
<e .
L J
)j ,
i18. . Q. : In your opinion, was it necessary for school teachers actually to participate
, :in the Exercise? p i
- [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] No. School teachers do not perform any unique or significantly different emergency response. They perfor'm their normal du-ties as. teachers maintaining order among the students. Therefore there is y
no need for their participation in an exercise. The basic action expected of schools in an emergency is to act in their own interest to protect the chil-dren from radiation by either sheltering or evacuation.
- 19. Q. In your opinion, was it necessary for school children actually to participate in the Exercise?
4 A. [ Asher] No, school children need not participate in an exercise by leaving school and getting on a bus (something they do all the time). The possibility of an accident resulting in an injury to a child during the exercise, while small, is an unnecessary risk.
' [ Kozak] Moving of children in an exercise requires prior parental signed approval (not easily obtained) and involves a huge liability risk (and addi-I tional very expensive insurance coverage) because of the risk.of injury to children.
)- [Stovall] No. Again, school children are members of the public, t
[ Kelly] Based on my experience and research, I would say that FEMA's policy discourages the use of school children in exercises. Also, the
)
legal /11 ability considerations (not to mention common sense safety reasons) counsel against the use of children in an exercise. While school officials were involved in the other NTOL exercises, there appears to have been no 1-involvement of students in these exercises, other than the Clinton and
).
_ _ - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - . - _ . - - - . - - - - - 1
Braidwood exercises mentioned above. Since school children were not actu-ally moved, no teachers accompanied them.
I
- 20. Q. Interveners also allege that the exercise was inadequate with respect to private schools. Do you agree?
) A. [ All] No. <
1
- 21. Q. Please explain.
1 (Asher] LERO demonstrated that it could contact the participating pri-l vate schools. Establishing initial communication with schools would be the critical thing in any exercise and in case of a real emergency. i 1
l
)' [Stovall] No. Again, the adequacy of plans and procedures is what has to be tested. Each school need not participate. ,
- 22. Q. Does it bother you that these private schools did not participate beyond
)
receiving of an initial telephone call?
A. [Asher] No. The ability to contact these schools initially is what is most important. Once this is done, followup communications can be accom-plished as necessary. Showing that the emergency organization can estab- '
lish the initial contact has been acceptable in exercises in Region III and other FEMA Regions around the country.
)
(Stovall] A significant number of schools did participate and receive noti-fication, providing the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of
) plans, procedures, and LERO response personnel.
- 23. Q. How does the scope of the 1988 Shoreham Exercise compare with other ex-ercises with regard to participation of students, teachers, and school offi-cials?
)
A. [ Kelly] I cannot see a major difference in the scope of any of these
)
a
}l exercises with regard to School participation. Generally the amount of
) participation was limited to telephone notifications or involvement of a school official at an EOC. LERO contacted all the participating schools and demonstrated, through the use of controllers, notification of nonpartic-
} 1pating schools.
1.D School Reception Centers
- 24. Q. Interveners allege that the scope of the Exercise was inadequate because
). LERO did not activate and staff the school relocation centers. Do you agree?
A. [ Asher] School relocation center activation is rarely, if ever, done in an l exercise. This is not considered a major observable portion of any emer-
)
gency plan.
[Kozak] In New Jersey, school relocation centers are not designated for
)
use of children only. School children are taken to congregate care facill- ,
I ties (shelters) for the general public.
)
[Stovall] It is accepted practice to activate and staff a relocation center (reception center or shelter as they are called in some localities). Howev-er, it is not necessary to activate all the centers. Capability is established
) based on the ability of emergency responders to. adequately demonstrate that plans and procedures are in place to activate and operate a relocation center. As documented for the Shoreham 1988 Exercise, on Day 1 LERO
) activated three reception centers for the public. On Day 2 LERO demon-strated the resources and procedures necessary to activate the school re-ception centers. Therefore it can be concluded that activation and staffing
) of school relocation cetners, as well as those for the general public, can be accomplished. ;
l
I k -
[Crocker)- In addition, in~ the 1986 Shoreham exercise LERO successfully
}; demonstrated its ability to activate the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center for the general public.
25.- .Q. Did the 13 other prelicense exercises involve the actual activation'of J? school relocation facilities?
A. [ Kelly]' In 12 of those exercises there appears to have been no actual :
i activation of school relocation facilities. FEMA's report for the Limerick j D- exercise states that host school resources were demonstrated, but the exer- .
cise did not involve actual school evacuation. (' Schools were closed at the time the evacuation was ordered.) The Perry '84 exercise involved the sim- i I
3 ulated evacuation to host schools but apparently no actual activation of .
i host schools.
1 The only actual activation appears to have occured in the River O- Bend exercise, during which " evacuation of school children was simulated-by having some individuals (not actual students) report to the Centroplex ,
[also used for general population] in Baton' Rouge."
O.
- 26. Q. How extensively were the plans for this facility (the Centroplex) demon- l strated?
A. [ Kelly] The staff was knowledgeable, and things went well(other than the 0: fact that the Centroplex manager did not report and that there was inade-quate seating). FEMA's report does not specifically mention the care and l supervision of school children. I O.
1.E School Evacuation l
- 27. Q. Interveners allege that LERO's Plan for school evacuation was inadequately tested during the Exercise. Do you agree?
A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] No, we do not agree.
O
L ' 20-
'28. Q.- Please explain.
g A. [ Asher] Based on the FEMA Report and LILCO's written testimony, I con-clude that this was as thorough a demonstration of a school evacuation plan
. as I have ever encountered.
)'
[Kozak, Stovall] The evaluation 'of 40 bus drivers as they drove their as-signed routes past each of the public schools and six of the private schools is an extensive demonstration.
p 1.F Special Facilities
' 29. Q. Interveners allege that the preparedness of special facilities was inade-
)
quately tested because those special facilities that had agreed to partici--
pate in the Exercise only took an initial telephone call in which a script was read, allegedly precluding any interplay between LERO and the special' facility. Do you agree? -
A.
[ Asher] No. As is the case with schools, it is the initial call that is impor-
) tant. The initial call activates the facilities. The facilities are staffed by professionals who are able to prepare their evacuees to board vehicles pro-vided by LERO.
y (Kozak, Stovall) The plans and procedures for special needs facilities were tested in the Shoreham Exercise. The telephone contact.with' the special facilities that agreed to participate demonstrated that communica-tions could be established. Notification to the facility in accordance with procedures provides the means for special facilities to prepare for protec-y tive actions.
[ Kelly)
LILCO's Exercise exceeded the norm when it came to de- ,
monstrating its capability to assist special facilities. LILCO's Exercise in-
)
volved the participation of 25 of 34 special facilities, and LERO actually
)
,i o - !
made calls to all the facilities (actual or to controllers) during the Exercise.
Five vehicles were sent to six special facilities in the Shoreham EPZ.
- 30. Q. Interveners also allege that the test of special facilities preparedness was insufficient because not enough ambulances and ambulettes were used.- Do you agree?
)
A. [ All] No.
- 31. Q. Please explain.
). A. [ Asher] Sufficient contractual agreements with providers of ambulances and ambulettes, whether used in the exercise or not, demonstrate the abili-ty to mobilize and effectively evacuate the special facilities, not how many i
) vehicles were used in an exercise. As a practical matter, we do not want too many of these vehicles to participate in an exercise because they might be needed for real emergency calls. The important thing to evaluate is the
)
response organization's ability to implement its procedures with respect to ambulances.
[Kozak, Stovall] We agree with Mr. Asher. The number of vehicles used-to simulate the evacuation of special facilities in the 1988 Shoreham Exer-cise was equal to or greater than those used in any other full-scale exercise l
in our experience.
)
The purpose of ambulance and ambulette companies is to protect the health and safety of the residents. It would be unwise to use a greater y number of the community ambulance and ambulette resources, which might be needed for real everyday emergencies.
)
i
)
i
- t. ,
[Kozak) The number of ambulances and ambulettes used to simulate evac-
) uation in the Shoreham Exercise was greater than those 'used in full-scale nuclear generating station exercises in New Jersey.
- 32. Q. How many other prelicense exercises involved the participation of special
) f acilities in the EPZ during the exercise?
A. [ Kelly] Special facilities were not involved in seven of the 13 exercises.
Four exercises (Clinton '87, Limerick, Wolf Creek, and River Bend) involved
)' notification calls to special facilities or EOC discussions of evacuations or distribution of KI.
The Palo Verde exercise report discusses the evacuation of two to
) three people with special problems.. The Perry '84 exercise report discusses the evacuation of six senior citizens, but there is no mention of whether these people were from special f acilities.
)
- 33. Q. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacu-ate special facility populations (M, residents of nursing homes and hospi-tals)inside the EPZ?
A. [ Kelly] There was no mention of the actual' use of ambulances, ambulettes, or other vehicles to evacuate special facility populations in any of the exercises. The six senior citizens evacuated in the Perry '84 exer-
) cise were moved by private vehicle. i 1.G Homebound
- 34. Q. Are you familiar with the term " homebound"? i
) A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] Yes. A homebound individual is what FEMA nor-mally would refer to as a "noninstitutionalized mobility-impaired person."
)
J
l i ] l 35.. ' Q. Interveners allege that the Exercise provided an inadequate test of LERO's ability to implement the evacuation of the homebound. Do you agree?- .1
) --
A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] - No. l I~
- 36. Q. . Please explain.
). : A. [ Asher] The evacuation of infirm individuals is not necessary to prove the-ability of LERO to implement an evacuation. Nor is it necessary to use a simulated victim. In the exercises in which I have been involved, this part h . of an evacuation either was not demonstrated at all or was demonstrated by sending one vehicle to drive by the home of one homebound person.
[Kozak] Exercises in New Jersey in my experience did not involve the large number of vehicles LILCO used to simulate the evacuation of home-bound individuals.
) [Stovall] As I recall, in Region IV exercises I have observed the demon-stration normally' consisted of drivers driving the routes (not necessarily in an ambulance) or merely stating how pickup would be handled.
)
- 37. Q. Interveners allege that LERO's homebound evacuation demonstration was insufficient because no actual person was transported. Do you agree?
A. [ Asher, Kozak] It is not necessary actually to transport people to prove that ambulance personnel can do their normal everyday jobs. Ambulance drivers by their training and everyday emergency activities know what to do and how to do it.
) i
[Stovall] Once again, the public is not required to participate. In emer- l l
gency exercises we are not trying to test normal capabilities of profession-
) als. j
)
- t. 4
- 38. Q. Is it necessary to evacuate a volunteer or a simulated homebound person? -
i- , A. [ Asher, Kozak] Again, this would de'monstrate only that a trained ambu-lance driver knows how to care for, and to carry out to and place safely. !
into an ambulance, a homebound person. The object of an exercise is to
)- demonstrate the procedures in the plan.
[Stovall) - The ability of the homebound to be physically picked up is not.
the issue. The issue is _whether the plan and procedures establish a way for this' action to be initiated if needed.
I
- 39. Q. Interveners also allege that LERO did not dispatch enough ambulances and ambulettes to demonstrate the evacuation of homebound individuals. Do
) you agree?
A. [ Asher] In most exercises it is customary to use only one ambulance. I feel six was more than sufficient. I have had problems convincing state
} and county governments to use even one,instead of simulating.
[Kozak, Stovall] No, the capability and adequacy of the plans and proce-
.dures were more than adequately demonstrated with six ambulances.
)
I
- 40. - Q. : How does the scope of LILCO's. Exercise compare with other NTOL exer-cises with regard to the homebound or mobility-impaired?
y . A. [ Kelly] Again, LILCO compares very favorably. Although it is common practia to demonstrate the evacuation of mobility-impaired people by simulatica at the EOC or, at most, by placing vehicles on standby, LERO y dispatched several buses, ambulances, and ambulettes to simulate the evac-uation of the mobility-impaired or homebound.
} )
]
y 1.H Receptio' n Facilities for Special Facilities .j
'In subpart H, Interveners allege that'the scope of the Exercise was inade-
~
- 41. Q.
, quate because reception facilities for evacuating special facilities did not participate. Do you agree?.
- A. [ Asher, Stovall] This has never been a major observable portion' of an j F
emergency plan. In our experience, reception facilities are for the most j part preplanned areas where evacuees are received and processed and possibly sheltered. These facilities are generally located well outside of the
)
EPZ at a point where radiological health and safety are not an issue. Ad -
vance identification of adequate reception facilities is usually the responsi-bility of the operators of the evacuating special facilities.
)-
[Kozak) In New Jersey special relocation facilities for the mobility-impaired, shut-ins, or nursing home residents are not activated during exer- _
). cises.
- 42. Q. In other prelicense exercises, how many reception facilities (that is, hospi-tals or other facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations from inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
)-
A. [ Kelly) Nine of 13 exercises apparently did not involve the use of special facility reception facilities. The Limerick exercise report states that des--
ignated host hospital resources were demonstrated. The Perry and South -
}
Texas Project exercises involved hospitals, but.the FEMA reports do not ,
say if these are reception facilities outside the EPZ.
} 1.-P Ambulance and Ambulance Companies
- 43. Q. Interveners allege that.the scope of the Exercise was inadequate because not enough ambulance companies provided ambulances and ambulettes for the Exercise. LILCO has testified that LILCO has contracts with 11 ambu- )
i lance companies and that 6 of these companies provided ambulances and
) ambulettes for the Exercise. Do you agree with Interveners that this is an k insufficient number?
, I i
4 m
, N gm '
,@ - 1
(
A. [ Asher] No, I believe the number is sufficient, based on my knowledge of l E other exercises around the country. The important' thing.is that agree- j ments or contracts with the companies be in place. It can reasonably be expected that they will live up to their agreements at the time of an emer-
) ,
gency. These are professional emergency service personnel. In my experi-ence.with fire services, these sorts of resources 'are always available in emergencies.
): o (Stovall] No. Again, not all resources are tested in an exercise., Only a sufficient number should be tested to demonstrate capability. This is usu-ally one ambulance. The fact that six of the 11 companies participated clearly establishes capability.
- 44. Q. LILCO's testimony states that LERO mobilized eight ' ambulances and six ambulettes and actually used 11 of these vehicles in the Exercise. Interve-1 nors allege that this was an insufficient number. . Do you agree?
A. [ Asher, Kozak, Stovall] No. We would have reached the conclusion that .
this is more than adequate. The exercise objectives for evacuating special 1 - populations were amply demonstrated in this exercise.
- 45. Q. What percent of ambulance companies under contract to the response orga-nization actually participated in the 13 NTOL exercises you researched?
3-A. [ Kelly] It was not possible to determine the percentage of ambulance companies that participated in the 13 exercises. In three exercises (both Braidwood exercises and Clinton '87) no ambulances were involved. In the j
}
other 10 exercises, only one or two ambulances were used. These ambu-lances were used for transporting simulated " contaminated injured" vic-tims.
)
) .
- 46. Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
' A. [ All] Yes.
I
(
)
)
)
) ,
CELAIED CUf(RESPQNUtLtCA wm rtUMEER NOD, & UTIL ww TACg gggf-g es y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
). .
In the Matter of )
) "
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5R '
) (1988 Exercise)
- (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
): Unit 1) )
ATTACHMENT
). TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. ASHER, SR.,
DOUGLAS M. CROCKER, ROBERT B. KELLY, JOHN J. KOZAK,'AND CHERYL L. STOVALL ON CONTENTION 1 (SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE)
)
}
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Streat P.O. Box 1535 k- Richmond, Virginia 23212 j Febrlary 24,1989
)
C ___. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ ___--__.____m__.-____.__-___m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
l d
). -
l L
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
)
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensirgt Board I
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5R
) (1988 Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
) Unit 1) )
ATTACHMENT
) TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. ASHER, SR.,
DOUGLAS M. CROCKER, ROBERT B. KELLY, JOHN J. KOZAK, AND CHERYL L. STOVALL ON CONTENTION 1 (SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE)
)
)
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 L Richmond, Virginia 23212 February 24,1989
)
1 i
l l
l l
ANALYSIS OF NTOL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES
)
)
PREPARED FOR:
) LONG ISLANDLIGHTING COMPANY
) PREPARED BY:
ROBERT B. KELLY ROY F. WESTON,INC FEBRUARY,1988
)
)
I I
l
)
Table of Contents TOPIC PAGE
> In trod u ction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ;
B rai d woo d '85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B rai dwood '87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
) Clin ton '85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cli n t o n '8 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Lim eri ck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Pal o Verd e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
)
Perry '84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Perry '8 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FU v er B en d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6
) Shearon Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 So u th Texas Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Vog tl e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Wolf Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
)
)-
)
)
)-
__ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ A
l Introduction f i
l'
> Introduction This report summarizes the results of research of FEMA (federally) evaluated exercises for NTOL's that occurred after July 6,1984 but prior to the operating license being is-sued. This analysis is based on the review of FEMA exercise evaluation reports and sce-
) narios in order to analyze the scope of each exercise with regard to certain issues raised by the interveners in the LILCO Shoreham 1988 exercise litigation. These issues are generally described below:
- Contention Ia: Public Notification
)
- Contention Ib: School Preparedness
- Contention Id: School Relocation Facilities
- Contention le: School Evacuation
- Contention If: Special Facilities
- Contention Ig: Homebotmd (mobility impaired)
)
- Contention Ih: Reception Hospitals / Facilities
- Contention Ip: Ambulances / Ambulance Companies A total of thirteen exercises for ten plant sites were evaluated. These included the fol-
)
lowing exercises:
- Braidwood 1985 exercise;
- Braidwood 1987 exercise;
- Clinton 1985 exercise;
- Clinton 1987 exercise;
)
- Limerick 1984 exercise;
- Palo Verde 1984 exercise;
- Perry 1984 exercise;
- Perry 1986 exercise;
- River Bend 1985 exercise;
)
- Shearon Harris 1985 exercise;
- South Texas Project 1987 exercise;
- Vogtle 1986 exercise, and the
- Wolf Creek 1984 exercise.
) What follows is a report on each exercise that answers questions concerning exercise scope for each of the contentions listed above. These answers are brief but contain ref-erences to the FEMA report which can be referred to for more details.
) ,
D
,Y.-
Braidwood 85
.2 Braidwood '85 r
State: IL y., FEMA Region: 5 Date of Exercise: November 6,1985
)E .
Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: February 4,1986 i
Date of License: July,1987
). ..
Number of Federal eval'uators used in this exercise: 19 (pp 7)
}
Number of Daysin Exercise: 1 Number of Deficiencies: 0
)
Numberof ARCAs: 6 Numberof ARFIs: 6 1
)-
)-
_j
' ~
b < , Braidwood 85 .,
"3 ,
- I. Exercise Related Documents
) 4 D
' Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document used in this analysis: h i
Document Name .Ra_ts. ? Author / Agency Exercise Evaluation Report 2/4/86 FEMA-Controller Handbook -
State ofIllinois 1
II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No - Simulated (pp 4,6,13,14,36) .
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or otherwise)?
)
No - Simulated (pp 4,5,6,13,14,36)
IIL Contention 18: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exercise?
~
Simulated notifice. tion of schools in Braidwood (pp 28)
)- EOC in Coal City, South Wilmington, & Mazon (Grundy County) planned for school evacuati<m contingency (pp 33). Gardner City (Grundy County) dis-cussed the notification of school administrators (pp 34).
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or sim-F ulated)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
I
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
h 4
(
Braidwood 85 4
. Not Applicable -
)
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
None identified
)
IV. Contention ID (school relocation facilitiesh
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
) Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
)
Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
) Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
)- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
None identified
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
J' None identified Most other evacuation related functions were limited to simu-
)
Braidwood 85 5
lations.
r 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate '
special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside .
the EPZ?
None identified
)-
VII. Contention 1G .(homebound, mobility impaired):
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
)
Not an exercise objective (pp 15). In Braidwood, location and special require-ments of mobility impaired are known by officials. Proper steps to assist these people were followed (pp28).
).- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual? - ..
Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
?
-VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities): j
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in
) the exercise? i None identified Most other evacuation-related functions in this exercise were limited to simulations. -
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
).
)
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response !
organization actually participated in the exercises? .
) Not an exercise objective (pp 15).
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
Not an exercise objective and None identified Most other evacuation-related y functions in this exercise were limited to simulations.
)
J
i,i Braidwood 85 l 6 1
.l
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, 1 hospital, and other special facilities? - ;
a Not'an exercise objective and None identified - Most other evacuation-related 1 I
functions in this exercise were limited to simulations.
), :
x
\
)<
I
)
y y
)
) .
) 4 1
. =__:------ . . _ - _ $
s
_jy l
Braidwood 87
, 7' .
- Braidwood 87- '
i State: IL FEMA Region: 'V i l
1 Date of Exercise: M' arch 18,1987 -
l 1
Date of FEMA Eval.' Rep.: June 10,1987 R
]
Date of License: ' July 1987 '.
q l
Number of Federal evaluators '
usedin this exercise: 14 (pp 9)
) o Number of Days in Exercise: one day (8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />)
)-
Number of Deficiencies: 2 [ Note: Reasonable Assurance finding wasissued in spite of deficiency.)
Numberof ARCAs: 9 Number of ARHs: 11
)
).
= _ _ __ -- - _ _____-
1 Braidwood 87, 8
I.. Exercise Related Documents !
l L Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis-Document Name Date Author /Acency l
y FEMA Exercise Evaluation report 6/10/87 FEMA II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
).
Probably Simulated
- Will County only simulated siren sounding (pp 25)
- Grundy County - Sirens were activated in Grundy County at about 7:12 am (un-
).
known actual or simulated)(pp 27).
- Kankakee County - Sirens simulated at 0725 (pp 32)
- 2. - Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-
)
wise)?
Probably Simulated
- Grundy County contacted 2 EBS Stations (p 5 - doesn't mention actual or simulat-
). ed). EBS was activated (unknown actual or simulated) at 7:20am and 7:25am. A pre-scripted message was used to inform the public of the area to be evacuated. (pp u
27).
e Kankakee County - EBS simulated at 0728. Kankakee dem: . Arated ability to ,
communicate w/ EBS Station (pp 7) by phone (pp 33).
)
- Will County prepared message (p 24) but only simulated EBS and sirens (pp 25)
III. Contention IB: School Preparedness
) 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
l Schools evacuations were not part of exercise but several counties had school su-perintendent at their EOC.
?
) Braidwood 87 9
i
- Kankakee County schools were simulated to have been closed. Schools buses were later simulated to provide transportation to those requiring assistance (pp 7 &
) 34). The decision to close schools was delayed for more than three hours because l the School Superintendent had not arrived.
- The Will County EOC had a rep from the School Superintendent's Office (pp 4 &
24)
- The Grundy County School Superintendent brought 18 buses to alert status and
) 53 additional buses were available if needed (pp 28).
- Coal City schools did not have a Rep at the city EOC but schools were contacted by phone (pp 29)
FEMA Objective 19 (evacuation of schools) was not tested in any county during this
) exercise (pp 10-13).
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
) None involved except as noted in #1 above.
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
) No. Students were not evacuated during exercise.
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
) none identified.
IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilities):
) 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
No . Thirty students served as simulated evacuees during exercise and were pro-cessed at the R/C in Streator High School (pp 3 & 22) [also serves as a congregate care facility]. 20 staff members responded w/in 30 minutes. Students were regis-
> tered and monitored upon arrival. It seems that students acted as simulators for general population evacuees, not as school student evacuees.
FEMA Objective 19 (evacuation of schools) was not tested in any county during this exercis2 (pp 10-13).
)
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
)
Braidwood 87 10 Not at all
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated '
buses?
No
}
l I
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
) No . See #1 above.
V. Contention IE (school evacuation): ,
) 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ? ,
None. FEMA Objective 19 (evacuation of schools) was not tested in any county during this exercise (pp 10-13).
)
- Kankakee County schools were simulated to have been closed. Schools buses were later simulated to provide transportation to those requiring assistance (pp 7)
- Will County - Schools were (simulated) closed prior to the site area emergency. :
(pp 25)
- The Grundy County School Superintendent brought 18 buses to alert status and
) 53 additional buses are available if needed (pp 28).
4
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
None. The Grundy County School Superintendent brought 18 buses to alert status
), and 53 additional buses are available if needed (pp 28).
VI. Contention IF (special facilitiesh
) 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
Aparently none
) 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
)
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ l
[ Braidwood 87 '
II n/a L
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
). -None mentioned VII.Confention 1G (homeboundh
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the ,
) homebound population?
None .
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
). in'dividual?
Simulated st EOC only - no movement of vehic'les mentioned.
> '
- Grundy County - The ability to evacuate the mobility impaired was procedurally.
demonstrated (pp 5). It did not completely demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility impaired indi-
. viduals within the plume EPZ (pp20). The location of mobility impaired individu-als is known and transportation plans have been planned (pp 28).-
). .
- Gardner had a list of the mobility impaired and were aware of need for transpor-tation and special care.
- Will County - mobility impaired individuals were not evacuated during this ex-ercise (pp 25).
- Coal City discussed matter of evacuation of mobility impaired individuals but
)- did not show any in-depth preparation - didn't know the names, addresses, or needs of mobility impaired individuals. The County had this info and would pre-sumeably deliver it to the city by car within 30 minutes (pp 29).
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. - How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the
). . exercise?
Y 1_____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ . _
Braidwood 87.
l
.22 i
None t
e c XI. Contention 1P (ambulance's and ambulance companies):
- 1. . What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response' l organization actually participated in the exercises?
)
-0%-
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation? -
) n/a i
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-tal, and other special facilities?
)
. None
). .
T 1
7 4
)L
't Ginton 85 13 Clinton '85 State: 85-FEMA Region: 5 p Date of Exercise: December 4,1985 Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: March 21,1986 Date of License: April 1987
)
Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 16 (pp 6) 1 Number of Days in Exercise: 1 Number of Deficiencies: 0 Number of ARCAs: 4
) Numberof ARFIs: 7
) l 1,
q J
l i
l
). I
,i
)
Clinton 85 ;
14 1 Exercise Related Documents 1
j 1.
t !
Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency y ,
Exercise Evaluation Report 3/21/86 FEMA II. Contention 1A: Public Notification p
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No - Simulated Activation of PNS (pp 12 & 23)
> 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?
- No. ' Simulated activation only (pp 3 & 23)
Administrative procedures for PNS were demonstrated (pp 22)
III. Contention 1B: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-
) cise?.
Noneidentified
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat
? ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
None
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
No - n/a
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
);
)- Clinton 85 <
25 NoneIdentified
)
IV. Contention ID (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
) Not an objective nor demonstrated in exercise (pp 13)
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
) n/a - Not an objective nor demonstrated in exercise (pp 13)
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses?
)- No
= Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
> n/a - Not an objective nor demonstrated in exercise (pp 13)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
) 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
Not an objective nor demonstrated in exercise (pp 13)
Evacuation of School children was procedurally demonstrated (pp 23)
) 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
n/a - Not an objective nor demonstrated in exercise (pp 13)
) VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
None Identified
)
)
Clinton 85 :
16
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities? ,
) n/a -NoneIdentified
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the
) EPZ?
None Identified.
) VII. Contention 1G (mobility impaired - homebound):
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound (mobility impaired) population?
) None. Demonstration'of the evacuation of mobility impaired was not an objective in DeWitt County (pp 13). The DeWitt County EOC had a list of mobility impaired in-dividuals and arrangements for transportation was simulated (pp 23)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
) individual?
No. Demonstration of the evacuation of mobility impaired was not an objective in DeWitt County (pp 13). The DeWitt County EOC had a list of mobility impaired in-dividuals and arrangements for transportation was simulated (pp 23) 1-.
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to
) which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the ex-ercise?
NoneIdentified
)-
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the responre organization actually participated in the exercises?
)
DeWitt County demonstrated ability to treat injured / contaminated persons - One
)
i -a
- Clinton 85.
17 ambulance lwas used.(pp 4).
p ,
- 12. What was the nature and extent of this participation? .
- 3. How many ambulances ~ and ambulettes were'actually used for homebound, hospi-tal, and other speaal facilities?-
y, '
NoneIdentified
).
).
l.. .
3
)
7 J
Clinton 87- ,
-Is.
, Clinton '87 Plant Name! Clinton
).
State: IL FEMA Region: 5
. Date of FP Exercise: January 13,1987 ,
-i Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: February 23,1987 Date of License: April 1987 Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 14 (pp 6 )
). .
Number of Days in Exercise: 1
)
Number of Deficiencies: 0 Number of ARCAs: 2 Number of ARFIs: 0
)
1-
)-
1
__ -- - _ _ _ _ ----- __ ___- __ ______---_--____- = - -
- Cinton 87 19-
'I.- - Exercise Related Documents
~ Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency b
Exercise Evaluation Report 2/23/87 FEMA
- II. Contention 1Ai Public Notification
)-
- 1.: Did' this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No. Simulated in DeWitt County (pp 4 & 11). DeWitt County has responsibility for g
public alerting and instruction for the EPZ population in all four EPZ counties (pp 5) .,
' 2. ' Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?.
} ' No. Simulated in DeWitt County (pp 4 & 11). DeWitt County has responsibility for -
public alerting and instruction for the EPZ population in all four EPZ counties (pp 5) .
' III. Contention IB: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
Evacuation of EPZ schools was not an objective of this exercise. Objective 19 was 1 noted as being an objective not vet demonstrated in the current exercise cycle (pp .
12).
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-1 ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
A mention was made of 21 students from Lincoln HS being used to simulate general evacuees. They arrived at the Beason Elementary School Reception and Congregate Care Center by bus and were processed through the center. They were not treated
). as if they special or distinct from other evacuees who might have arrived at the cen- ;
y
1
- i I
Clinton 87 '
20" ter. (pp_4 & 16)] -
- r. .
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
' None identified -
) .
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA' evaluators concerning school
~
. preparedness?
None identified-1-
'IV. Contention ID (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
1 .
None identified Evacuation of EPZ schools was not an objective of this exercise. A mention was made of 21 students from Lincoln HS being used to simulate general evacuees. They arrived at the Beason Elementary School Reception and Congregate Care Center by bus and were processed through the center. They appeared to be -
); used to simulate general population evacuees and were not treated as if they special or distinct from other evacuees who might have arrived at the center. (pp 4 &16):
~ 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
). n/a e Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses? ,
). Decon of vehicles was not demonstrated - not an objective (pp 12).
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
)' See #1 above.
.V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
) 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
4
Clinton 87 j 21 None. Evacuation of EPZ schools was not an objective of this exercise. ;
l I
> 2. ' How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
Nonefor evacuating students (other than the one bus used to bring 21. students to j' R/C, CCC). (pp 16 &l7)-
). VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise? ,
Unknown. Only mention of a special facility was the Clinton Nursing Home. The f decision of issuing KI to patients was discussed and decided against.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
None mentioned.
)-
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
) None mentioned.
VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
) 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
None mentioned.
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
) individual?
Not Mentioned.
The Dewitt County ESDA Coordinator has a list of mobility impaired individuals
) (pp 4). No mobility impairedpersons reside within the Macon County portion of the EPZ (pp 22)
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
)
)
4 Clinton 87 22
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the ex-ercise?
None mentioned.-
3' XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
y None mentioned.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
) n/a
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-tal, and other special facilities?
)-
None mentioned.
)-
y 2
)
umerid 23 Limerick Plant'Name: Limerick g State: PA FEMA Region: III L
Date of Exercise: July 25,1984 Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: September 19,1984 y Date of License: Aug 1985 -
Number of Federal evaluators usedin this exercise: 55 (pp xviii) 1 Number of Days in Exercise: -1 Number of Deficiencies: 5 CAT A Deficiencies y
88 CAT B Deficiencies 51 CAT B Recommendations J
)';
y J
4 I
i
O. Limerick 24 O I. Exercise Related Documents
(
1 Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
O Document Name Date Author / Agency Exercise Evaluation Report 9/19/84 FEMA II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
Yes O
Siren and EBS system resources were demonstrated (pp xxv)
At 2045, sirens were activated (pp 2,5).
Not all sirens were operable [not yet installed] (34 & 36).
State and County officials activate PNS (pp 27)
O State EOC coordinated the sounding of sirens and EBS Activation (pp i)
Montgomery County EOC - siren and EBS activation went smoothly (pp iii & 18).
Chester County - ten siren failures (67)
Lower Frederick Township - public alerting and instruction was demonstrated at the EOC (pp iv). Sirens sounded for 3 minutes (pp 30).
O Upper Providence Township - Fire Crews confirmed siren operations (pp vi)
West Pikeland - Sirens were clearly heard (pp xii).
Columbia Borough - Sirens were activated and verified (pp 24)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-O wise)?
Yes (pp 5), a test message only. (pp 33 & 66)
State EOC coordinated the sounding of sirens and EBS activation (pp i).
O Montgomery County EOC - siren and EBS activation went smoothly (pp iii).
Che e Gunty - A radio station other than that designated in the plans was used as primary EBS station - an appropriate test message was broadcast (pp vii & 71)).
Collegeville Borough - EBS were activated and verified (pp 24)
Perkiomen - EBS station failure observed by monitoring station (p 39)
O East Vincent - EBS was monitored at the EOC (85)
O
Limerick 25 III. Contention 1B: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
Schools were often involved in notification calls earlier in the day, but by the time
) the evacuation was ordered, school evacuation was unnecessary becuase they had closed for the day several hours earlier.
Designated risk schools resources were demonstrated (xxv)
- Montgomery County - evacuation of school children will need to be addressed at
> a later time, as school was not in session during the exercise [ evacuation order was at 2045] (pp 19)
- Chester County - Evacuation of school children unnecessary - was not in session dur-ing the exercise (68)
- Pottstown school district officials were well versed on their plans but had concern
> over obtaining the necessary buses to evacuate all students in one lift (pp iv).
- Upper Providence Township - private schools in town were notified by EOC dur-ing exercise (pp vii)
- Lower Frederick Township - school was called as a formality, since school was closed (pp 30).
)
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
Unknown. Many schools received telephone notifications.
)
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
n/a
) 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
Unknown.
)
IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilities): ,
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
Report states that designated host schools resources were demonstrated (xxv); but
)
no mentioned of school evacuation.
)
Limerick 26
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
See #1 above.
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses?
)
No. n/a
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
)
No, n/a i V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
) 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
I None.
Schools were closed before alert stage - but Pottstown school district officials antic-
) ipated problems with the number of school buses available (pp 22).
Berks County - schools were closed, but they simulated acquisition of 20 buses (pp l 113)
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized? l
)
There was some simulation of the acquisition of buses but no mention of mobiliza-tion of drivers.
) VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
A number were involved with receiving notification calls, but no facilities simulat-ed evacuations.
)
Designated risk nursing home and hospital resources were demonstrated (pp xxv)
Communications with hospitals was demonstrated throughout exercise (pp 11)
Chester County - Behind the scene activities - no actual evacuation - (pp 68)
East Vincent - calls were place to institutions (pp ix)
) Schulylkill - calls were place to institutions (pp x)
)
1
Limerick j 27 )
l
.I Spring City Borough - calls were place to institutions (pp x)
Limerick Township - checklist SOPS insured that special facilities were contacted .
(pp 26)
Lower Frederick Township - day car / camp called (pp 30).
Lower Pottsgrove - Chemical co and a park were notified (pp 32)
New Hanover - special facilities were notified (pp 36)
Pottstown - calls were made to special facilities (pp 42)
) Upper Providence-(pp 56) i
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
Receipt of notification calls
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
)
None VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
)
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
A few were put on standby.
)
Chester County - mobility impaired Evacuation simulated - no actual demonstra-tion that the necessary vehicles were actually available (pp 68)
Limerick Township EOC officials were aware of the need to arrange transportation of the mobilityimpaired (pp iv).
) Upper Providence Township - mobility impaired and transportation needy were telephoned. (pp vi)
East Nantmeal - transportation needs were identified (pp ix).
East Pikeland - mobility impaired were notified by phone.
Spring City- arrangements for transporting those with special needs, if performed, were not observed. (pp x).
)
Lower Frederick Township - 2 ambulances were put on standby to evacuate mobili-ty impaired (pp 30).
New Hanover - no list of mobility impaired available - assistance for transport nec-esse.ry from county (pp 36)
Pc:itstown - there were drive bys of homes of persons known to be hearing im-
) paired (pp 43)
)
Limerick 28 Upper Salford - mobility impaired were contacted (pp 60)
Washington Township - An ambulance was put on standby (pp 131)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual? -
No persons were moved - just behind the scenes activities.
)
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to
> which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
Designated host hospital resources were demonstrated (xxv). Three Hospitals were involved but not related to evacuation (pp 11).
Chester County Hospital (referred to as a Support facility, as opposed to two risk facilities also mentioned) (pp ii). No patient was transported to Chester Hospital (pp 11). Patients (injured / contaminated) were transported to two other hospitals, but they were treated and released before an observation could be made (pp 11).
Communications with host hospitals was demonstrated throughout exercise (p 11).
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
)
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
Unknown percentage -
)
Patients were transported to two hospitals (injured / contaminated) and were treat-ed and released before an observation could be made) (pp 11 & 12)
Lower Frederick Township - 2 ambulances were put on standby to evacuate mobili-ty impaired (pp 30).
)
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
See #1 above.
)
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-tal, and other special facilities?
)
q Limerick f t
29 1
A few were placed'on standby - no actual evacuations.
)
)
.j
)
) .
)
)
h
' Pelo Verde -
30
. l .,
Palo Verde
> Plant Name: Palo Verde State: AZ FEMA Region: 9 1;
. Date of Exercise: September 26,1984 p Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: October 10,1984' Date of License: June 1985
)
I
. Number of Federal evaluators
)
used in this exercise: 27 (attachment B) y Number of Daysin Exercise: 1 Number of Cat A Deficiencies: 0
) Number of Cat B Deficiencies:: four
)
i l
7 7
q Palo Verde 'o-
- 31 I.- ~ Exercise R' elated Documents
(
- Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency FEMA Evaluation Report 10/10/84 FEMA' IL - Contention 1A: Public Notification 4
b 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No. Simulated (pp 6)
)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?
No. Report says EBS messages were simulated broadcast (pp 7).
)
i: III. Contention IB: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise? '
)
Three schools were called by phone by the Maricopa EOC (pp 7).
The school evacuation was well demonstrated (pp 7).
)-
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
None identified
):
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
Noneidentified
)-
d
' Palo Verde .
- l
" 32 1
,l 1
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?-
):
None identified '
)-- IV. Conten' tion ID (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
.None identified
)
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
Noneidentified
)'
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses?
Noneidentified
)
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation.
center?
None identified
)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
y - None identified
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
Noneidentified
)
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
)-
Unknown Percentage. Evacuation of 2-3 people w/ special problems (unknown)
)~
h b Palo Verde:
33 was to be demonstrated (pp Attachment C, p 6).
L 2. _What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
- Noneidentified
)
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
y Noneidentified.
VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
y 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the '
homebound population?
Evacuation of 2-3 people w/ special problems (unknown) was to be demonstrated (pp Attachment C, p 6).
)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacut tion of an actual or simulated homebound individual? i 1
Not Mentioned.
)
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
l
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to
)
which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
Noneidentified
)'
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
- 1. ~What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
)
Not Mentioned. Probably one ambulance (see IX (1) above).
)
,j. -
. - g7
~
r
, - ' 'I
- Palo Verde -
34 J
+,
L
- 2. I What was the nature and extent of this participation?
' Not Mentioned.
- 3. Ho.w many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-
>- tal, and other special facilities? '
^
- Noneidentified -
).
L
)-
)-
4 J
J l
D
(;w ,
'l b/ : Perry 84 :j
' 35 i 4
i p
Perry '84. '
3 y) l y State: OH
-l FEMA Region: 5.
E Date of Exercise: November 28,1984 Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: January 18,1985 '
Date of License: November 1986
[
Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 23 (pp 15) -
) .
Number of Days in Exercise: 1 1:
Number of Deficiencies: 0 ir
)
).
f^ )'z a :
' Peny 84 36-L- Exercise Related Documents :
u o Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency ,
, . Exercise Evaluation Report' 11/18/85 FEMA - y II. Contention 1A: Public Notification U 1.' Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
Yes and No - It was a " silent test" ' (pp 7,17, & 44)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast ef an EBS Message (canned or other-H
)
wise)? ,
Provided EBS message to EBS station but no mention was made of actual message
' broadcast (pp 7,10,13,65)
Y ..
IIL Conterition IB: School Preparedness
- 1. - How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise? -
Lake County - Procedurally demonstrated through the notification of tlse two school district superintendents.' Buses, including special buses for the MI, were ;
identified and placed o' n standby status. Actual evacuation of personnel was not i an exercise objective. (pp 8). 2 school districts.
).
Ashtabula County - Procedurally demonstrated. Only one affected school district.
EOC coordinated with the school district regarding the alerting of scifool bus driv-ers and preparation of buses for potential evacuations. They coordinated the simu-lated relocation of Madison students to Ashtabula City Schools. (pp 10)
)
, Geauga County - Buses were available to procedurally demonstrate the evacuation of Ledgement schools (pp l3). Procedurally demonstrated at the EOC.
Communication between a Geauga County Transit bus driver and his dispatcher was demonstrated. The transportation officer and his supporting staff had avail-3 able lists of resources necessary to accomplish this tast ( pp 65).
3
1 i 1;
' Perry 84 37
' 2. How'many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-
) ed)/ teachers /and/or other school ^ supervisory personnel? --
Number of Schools: One (Madison)- Simulated (pp 10) 3.' Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses? -
)
- n/a-
- 4. How many school officis it were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness'
). .
Not mentioned.-
IV. - Contention ID (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
No. Simulated relocation of Madison Students to Ashtabula City schools however.
(pp 10). All other schools mentioned in report were general population reception facilities.-
7
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
Not mentioned.
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses?
None identified
}-
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
Noneidentified
)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EFZ? j
)
None l
).
j Perry 84 ]
38- ]
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
)
Lake County - Buses, including special buses for the mobility impaired, were iden- -
tified and placed on standby status. Actual evacuation of personnel was not an ex-- 1 ercise objective. (pp 8).
)' Ashtabula County - Procedurally demonstrated. Only one affected school district.
EOC coordinated with the school district regarding the alerting of school bus driv-ers and preparation of buses for potential evacuations. They coordinated the simu-lated relocation of Ma'dison students to Ashtabula City Schools. (pp 10)
). Geauga County - Buses were available to accomplish the evacuation of Ledgement schools (pp l3). Procedurally demonstrated at the EOC. Communication between a Geauga County Transit bus driver and his dispatcher was demonstrated. The transportation officer and his supporting staff had available lists of resources neces-sary to accomplish this task.
?
VI. Contention 1F(special facilitiesh
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
)
None mentioned. Counties were supposed to notify all special facilities @ 0805 (pp attachment - narrative scenario summary) but its not mentioned if they were (nor whetherit was actual or simulated)
[ Note: There was a limited demonstration of the evacuation of six senior citizens,
)
via privately owned vehicles, from within the EPZ to the reception congregate care center at Conneaut Ohio, but not known if this was from a special facility. (pp 10)]
)
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
See #1 above.
y 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ7 None
)
)
Perry 84 ;
VII. Contention 1G '(homebound):
L 1. . How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the -
homebound population?
None i Lake County '- Buses, including special buses for the mobility impaired, were iden-
'tified and placed on standby status. ' Actual evacuation of personnel was not an ex-ercise objective. (pp 8).
Geauga County EOC had lists of mobility impaired individuals and others needing J' , transportation. Lists of wheel chair lift vans and buses to provide transportation for these people were available in the EOC. -- No discussion of actual evacuations. (pp 13 & 65)
Lake and Ashtabula Counties did not plan to demonstrate their ability to effect an
) orderly evacuation of mobility impaired individuals within the plume EPZ (pp 25)
- 2. ' Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual?
)
No VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
y None - Hospitals during exercise did decontamination only, not evacuationrelated functions. Lake County Memorial Hospital East (pp 8,49). Ashtabula County Medical Center (pp 12,58).
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
)
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
y Unknown percentage but two ambulance crews.
D i
Perry 84 .
40 Geauga County did not select as an exercise objective the demonstration of the ade- 3 quacy of ambulance facilities and procedures for handling contaminated individu-
>- als (pp 26)
Ashtabula County Medical Center and ambulance crew from the Saybrook FD demonstrated the treatment and decontamination of anindividual. An ambulance brought the victim from the Saybrook Decon Station to the Hospital. (pp 58 - 59) 1 Lake County - One ambulance crew transported one contaminated victim to Lake County Memorial Hospital East (p 8).
)! 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
See #1 above
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-
) tal, and other special facilities?
None
) .
1 J-J' !
D
I - Perry 86 L 41:
Perry l'86 .
p State: OH
). . FEMA Region: -
5 Date of Exercise: 4/15/86-y..
'Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: 7/14/86 Date of License: 11/86
)
Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 21 (pp 12)
).
i Number of Days in Exercise: 1
)
Number of Deficiencies: 0' b Numberof ARCAs: 1 Number of ARFIs:
l
).
)
=________________ ___
Perry 86 42 I. Exercise Related Documents L
Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency Exercise Evaluation Report 7/14/86- FEMA -
II. Contention 1A: Public Notification 1
I L Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No. " simulated activation of ANS was handled effectively" (pp 46) ,
Sirens activated (pp 6,33) .
ANS was activated twice during the exercise (pp 8,33,45)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other- :
wise)?
No - The EBS messages were telephoned to radio station but were not actually 2 broadcast (pp 46) - This is despite talk of " broadcast on pages 6 & 33 Counties used prescripted messages during the exercise (pp 41)
III. Contention IB: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
Three. Ashtabula County - 1 (Spencer Elementary School in the Geneva School ' !
2- District) (pp 7,36). Geauga - Discussion of the one EPZ school being closed at alert level (pp 9) which was then decided (at 9:15 am)(pp 41) Call was made to the one school's principal (pp 41). Lake - One (the Madison School District) has the neces- I sary resources & organizational ability to effect an evacuation of schools within the plume EPZ (pp 11) !
) i
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
No students were moved on the bus (pp 7) l
) !
i
)
Perry 86 43
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
No, because no students were actually moved (pp 7).
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
Three (pp 7).
IV. Contention ID (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
No
> 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
n/a - not demonstrated
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated y buses?
no
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation
)
center?
No
)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
Two (Ashtabula - two (pp 7)). Geauga - has one school in EPZ and says it has enough buses - no demonstration of capability however (pp 42).
)
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
Two (Ashtabula - two (pp 7)).
)
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
)
4 i Perry 86 ;
e u 'i
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
e None identified. U
- 2. What was'the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
); None identified.
~
~ 3. ' How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate 1 special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the 1 4
EPZ?
g None identified. i H
- VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
) 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
None. Ashtabula County were aware of the location of mobility impaired and their needs but no talk of actual evacuation demonstration (pp 34). Geauga County.- List 7 - of mobility impaired is available and procedure for evacuating by ambulances was _
' discussed, there was'no actual demonstration. (pp 9) The county simulated ar-rangements for the required number of buses and ambulances needed to accommo-dr.te mobility impaired individuals (pp 42). Lake County - The procedures for
. evacuating mobility impaired were procedurally demonstrated at the EOC (pp 11)
)
- 2. - Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual? -
No (pp 9)'
J' VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to -
which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
)
None identified.
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
7
}
1 Perry 86 45 l L What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
1 The number is two, percentage is unknown.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
) Geauga - one ambulance used - brought injured to Geauga Community Hospital (pp 10 & 43). Lake - Yes, ambulance crew knew procedures for transporting the contaminated / injured plant worker to the hospital (pp 11,51).
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-
) tal, and other special facilities?
None. Ashtabula County were aware of the location of mobility impaired and their needs but no talk of actual evacuation demonstration (pp 34). Geauga County - List of mobility impaired is available and procedure for evacuating by ambulances was
) discussed, there was no actual demonstration. (pp 9) The county simulated ar-rangements for the required number of buses and ambulances needed to accommo-date mobility impaired individuals (pp 42). Lake County - The procedures for evacuating mobility impaired were procedurally demonstrated at the EOC (pp 11)
)
)
J D
D
s : River Bend 46:
River Ben'd.
State: LA.
FEMA Region: - VI
)
Date of Exercise: January 1985.
p Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: July 1985 Date of License: November 1985 ~
Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 19 (page 3)
)- >
Number of Days in Exercise: 1 day (8 total hours)
)' Number of Deficiencies: No Cat A but several Cat Bs i
) u
).
J J
4 l
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _. a
, H River Bend' 47
- 1j I. Exercise Related Documents ]
d Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:.
c Document Name ' Date Author / Agency 7
j FEMA Evaluation Report July,1985 FEMA :I II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
)
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing ~of sirens?
No.
I West Feliciana Parish - Simulated East Feliciana Parish - Simulated Pointe Coupee Parish - Simulated - Failed to activate sirens (simulated) and follow-up with verification.
West Baton Rouge Parish.- Simulated .j
). East Baton Rouge Parish -
- (pp 38; 44; 49& 50)
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-
)' wise)?
FEMA report says the ability to formulate and distribute appropriate instructions to q the public in a timely fashion was not tested by the State nor parishes. However, other sections of report are not entirely clear on the use of the EBS (pp 83)
West Feliciana Parish - Possibly actual but probably simulated (39 - see also pp. 61).
East Fehciana Parish - Possibly actual but probably simulated (44 - see also pp. 61).
Pointe Coupee Parish-No.
West Baton Rouge Parish- No. .j 1 East Baton Rouge Parish - EOC has broadcast facilities which are generally used for -
release of EBS messages but during this exercise, the Parish only simulated one call to the EBS station. (pp 58 & 61).
I 1 j i
)
y l j
River Bend 48 III. Contention 1B: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
Evacuation of schools was not selected as an objective to be demonstrated (pp 11,
- 9). Pointe Coupee and East Feliciana may have discussed their provisions for
) school evacuation at the EOC. West Baton Rouge had a school district official as part of the EOC team (pp 54)
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-
) ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
n/a - (pp 11, #9)
) 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
n/a - (pp 11, #9)
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning
) school preparedness?
None at actual schools. Possible a school district official at the EOC). See #1 above.
In West Feliciana, there are not enough buses to evacuate the children and they would contact other school districts for additional buses during an emergency (pp
)
39).
IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilities):
2
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
Probably yes - One reception center (Centroplex - also used for general public) demonstrated that " evacuation of school children was simulated by having some individuals report to the Centroplex in Baton Rouge." (pp 58)
)
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
"Some individuals" simulated school children (pp 58). The R/C staff was knowl-3 edgeable and things went well except for the absence of a Center manager and ade-D
f River Bend .
49' quate seating but nothing was specifically mentioned about the care and 'supervi-sion of school children.
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses?
Yes,1 bus and 1 private vehicle were decontaminated (pp 62).
Y .
.* Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
Apparently, but nothing was specifically mentioned about the care and supervision
) of school children (pp 58).
V. . Contention IE (school evacuation):
), : 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
.None - Evacuation of schools not tested (pp 11, #9). Pointe Coupee and East Feliciana may have discussed their provisions for school evacuation at the EOC but no buses were actually dispatched. The report states that the " organizational abili-
) ty and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EPZ" was not tested during the exercise (pp 83)
- 2. ' How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
1 None VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
) 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
Unknown percentage.
The EOC called special facilities (pp44).
) i According to the report, "the State would be responsible for sheltering and admm- l istering KI to 1200 persons in the hospital and state prison located within the East Feliciana Parish" but no mention is made of their actual involvement in this exer-
. cise. (p44).
)
3
River Bend 50 The West Feliciana Hospital was mentioned as being involved in the exercise. Its role was to provide treatment to one Gulf State Utilities (GSU) injured employee.
(p65).
The West Feliciana EOC called the hospital to check on the number of people who would have to be evacuated and to determine if special transportation arrange-ments would be necessary. (pp 39)
)
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
See above #1.
)
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the !
EPZ?
> None VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the
) homebound population?
None (pp 39).
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
)
individual?
No The report discusses only the EOC's ability (or inability) to identify the loca-tion of the " mobility impaired." No actual movement or simulated movement of the mobility impaired using actual vehicles.
)
West Feliciana Parish - Deficiency #3 (pp 41). Parish doesn't know where the mo-bility impaired are located (pp 39)
Pointe Coupee Parish - Deficiency # 7 (pp 50 & 52)
East Baton Rouge Parish - (pp 56,59) Deficiency #8 (60)
Objective met by West Baton Rouge (the location of 2 mobility impaired persons
)
were located on the map) and East Feliciana (pp 92)
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
) i. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to i 3
' River Bend -
52~
'i which special populations inside'the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
. None XI.: Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
)
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization 'actually participated in the exercises?
In West Feliciana, the hospital operates local ambulance service (2 ambulances) and
) only one of these ambulances was involved in the exercise (pp 65).
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
~
) Transport of injured.
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-tal, and other special facilities?
) 'None
)
)
2 2-
O '
Shearon Harris --
52 .f ShearonLHarris p.
State: NC
)
' FEMA Region: 4
- .1 Date of' Exercise: May 17-18,1985 7
Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: June 28,1985 Date of License: January,1987
)-
Number of Federal evaluators ,
used in this exercise: 21 (pp 1 and Appendix A)
)L Number of Daysin Exercise: 2
) Number of Deficiencies: No Cat A Deficiencies 5 Cat B Deficiencies (pp 31)
)
y.
i
)-
T 1
Shearon Harris 53 L Exercise Related Documents Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date Author / Agency
)
Exercise Evaluation 7/25/85 FEMA Exercise Scenario 2/26/85 CP&L II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
)
Scenario called for actual sounding of sirens (pp. b-3) (Appendix B, D-2)
- Discussion of 3 siren activations (no mention of actual or simulated) (pp 12)
- Delay in use of sirens (pp 3)
- Again on pp 16
)
- Siren soundings in Lee County were monitored
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?
) Apparently yes.
According to the scenario objectives, EBS was to be used in exercise (pp. B-3)
- Effective, coordinated use of the EBS was not achieved (pp2)
- Initial activation and verification of the EBS need improvement, which was made 'i during the course of the exercise. Lengthy delays in receiving hard copy messages,
) and equipment did not function at all between the Media Center and Wake County EOC (pp 3)
- EBS activation needs to be reviewed & streamlined in Wake County (pp l8)
- Wake County - EBS was apparently activated because there was talk of verifica-tion by listening to radios -- not certain however (pp 18)
- Chatam County - PNS worked well except for one EBS station failing to comply
) with EBS procedures (pp 20)
- EBS in Lee County were monitored
- Harnett County - EBS messages were " canned" (pp24)
IIL Contention IB: School Preparedness
)
D
Shearon Harris 54
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise?
None mentioned
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
See #1 above.
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
See #1 above.
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
See #1 above.
IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
Schools were used as shelters but not specifically mentioned for EPZ student popu-lations (pp 5,22,25)
> 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
)
See #1 above.
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated
)
buses?
3 Discussion of decon of " vehicles" but not buses specifically (pp 4)
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
)
)
See #1 above.
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
)
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
)
)
)
ShearonItrris t 55 None mentioned (relative to school children)
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
See #1 above.
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
None mentioned.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
See #1 above.
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate -
special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
See #1 above.
VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
>- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the y homebound population?
Noneidentified y 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
) individual? ,
Notidentified
)
VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
)
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
)
Shelters in Wake county were activated and provisions for wheel-chair bound and
)
nursing home residents were present (pp 19)
)-
D-
' 1;,v ( .
s, 1 Shearon Harris -
' 56 ;
'1
' XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
, 1. LWhat percentage of ambulance companies under. contract to the response '
L organization actually participated in the exercises? -
Ambulances were supposed to be used in exercise (pp. B-3). No specific number mentioned
- 2. ' What was the nature and extent of this participation?- ,.
Only reference was to care of injured employee at the plant. i
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-
!- tal, and other special facilities?
e Noneidentified l
s ,
_._ )
)'
i
)._
).
). ~
L
)
).
y y:
-_:-2____---_._____.__. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.i ,
South Texas Project , j 57 :: j South Texas Project d,
State: . f.
FEMA Region: 6 Date of Exercise: April 8,1987 Date'of FEMd Eval. Rep.: August 27,1987 Date of License: March,1988 Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 23 (pp 1)
) .
Number of Days in Exercise: 1
) 0 Number of Deficiencies:
Numberof ARCAs: several
) several Numberof ARFIs:
1
).
)
)
)
)
) l
.r.
South Texas Project
_58 iI I. Exercise Related Documents Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
~ Document Name Date . Author / Agency 3
Exercise Evaluation Report .8/17/87 FEMA
- II. Contention 1A
- Public Notification
- 1. , Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
No. Sirens and Tone-Alert Radios were not activated (pp 12) .
- 2. Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast c,f an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?
' No. EBS message were to be prepared but not broadcast. (pp 12 &l4) ,
III. Contention IB: School Preparedness L 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer -
)- cise?.
None mentioned.
)- The county planned to demonstrate objective #19 (evacuation of schools) (pp 9).
1 The FEMA report states "In order to demonstrate the capability to conduct an evac-uation, the movement of people will be simulated. The organizations ability and resources necessary to manage the evacuation will be demonstrated. Evacuees are 1- not essential to demonstrate shelter management." (pp 15).
T This objective was met (pp 60).
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-
) . ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
).
).
-_ _ ___ . __ _ l
South Texas Project None mentioned (other than for R/C - CC Centers)
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
n/a - In order to demonstrate the capability to conduct an evacuation, the move-ment of people will be simulated. The organizations ability and resources neces :
sary to manage the evacuation will be demonstrated. Evacuees are not essential to demonstrate shelter management. (pp 15).
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
None identified IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilitiesh
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?-
None identified General population R/C - CCC were activated but not specifically mentioned for students.
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
See #1 above. R/C - CCC for general population was demonstrated but not specif-ically mentioned for students.
)-
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated buses? ,
None identified So[ne Decon personnel did not understand procedures to decon 7
)
vehicles in general (pp 42) but buses not mentioned.
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation center?
None identified R/C - CCC for general population was demonstrated but not spe-f' cifically mentioned for students.
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
7
) 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
)
)
l
l 1
1 South Texas Project 60 !
i
)
None, however the County EOC Transportation Officer successfully demonstrated 'I (simulated) effective and timely capability for arranging transportation for evacu-ees, including school children. (pp 38) a f
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
They put an unknown number of bus drivers on standby. (pp 38)
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
. None identified
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
Not mentioned.
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the 3
EPZ?
Mention of ambulance service was only made in relation to transport of injured vic-tim from the plant to the hospital.
)
VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
- 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the
)
homebound population?
)
Not mentioned. The only mention of ambulance service was only made in relation to transport of injured victim from the plant to the hospital.
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound
)
)
individual?
Although not an objective (#18), this was demonstrated (pp 39) apparently because the Transportation officer checked to see if there were any special needs people in the evacuated area. (pp 38 & 55).
)
) i
)
)
1
.~__s _._ _ - _ . - - - _ _ . . - - _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _
l South Texas Project 62.
VIII. . Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
None specifically mentioned with regard to receiving patients from risk area hospi-tals or other special facilities. Matagorda Hospital (unknown if inside or out of EPZ) participated but mentioned only in relationship to treatment of injured / con-tamination, not as reception hospital for special populations.
XI. Contention 1P (ambulances and ambulance companies):
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
Unknown percentage. One company - Taylor Bros. Ambulance service - responded to a Sheriff's office call to respond to an accident victim at the STPEGS plant. One ambulance only.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
)
See #1 above.
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi-c tal, and other special facilities?
None mentioned.
)
)
)
)
)
) l
)
a
.Vogtle -
62
, '~ -l:
Vogtle j d
q g:,
State: GA FEMA Region: 4 D' ate of Exercise: 4/30 to 5/1,1986 Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: 9/19/86 Date of License: March 1987 t
Number of Federal evaluators -
used in this exercise: 19 (pp 1)
Number of Days in Exercise: 2 (day one plume EPZ; day 2 Ingestion EPZ
& Reentry & Rec)
Number of Deficiencies: 0
)
} Numberof ARCAs: 0 Number of ARFIs: several
):
1-
).
7 Y
).
_ __J
O <
l qf ,
i s,
Vogtle 1 63 .]
, . I.: Exercise Related Documents ;
a >
Name, date, and Author / Agency of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date . Author / Agency Exercise Evaluation Report 9/19/86 FEMA -
II. Contention 1A: Public Notification
.i'
- 1. Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
Apparently no sirens are used. NOAA and EBS only.
GA - PNS demonstrated effectively (pp 13)
Burke County - PNS demonstrated effectively (pp 17) i' No sirens or tone alert radios in SC but tone alert radios are planned - Tone alert ra-dios activated by SC FEOC (pp 23) r Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-2.
wise)?
Actual (St of GA scenario attachment 4)
L EBS messages were drafted by SC-FEOC and forwarded to EBS station (pp 23)
Allendale County - Ability to alert and instruct public not demonstrated (pp 28)
Barnwell County - Ability to alert and instruct public not demonstrated (pp 30)
III. Contention 1B: School Preparedness 3
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise? '
School officials were generally involved from a general sheltering perspective.
Burke County - Evacuation of Elementary School was simulated (pp 17) f
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
)
) None identified.
i
)-
)-
I Vogtle 64
- 3. Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
None identified.
- 4. How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning school preparedness?
None identified.
IV. Contention 1D (school relocation facilities): ,
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
No
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
- Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated
)
buses?
No mention of bus decon, just " vehicles."
- Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation
)
center?
No 3
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
)
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
None identified.
)
)
- 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
None identified.
)
VI. Contention IF (special facilities):
)
)
)
l Vogtle
. 65
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise?
> None identified.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
n/a L
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations, i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the EPZ?
> None identified.
VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
> 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
None identified. Burke County -Info about MI and their needs is available, but no discussion of simulated evacuation.
)
2: Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual?
No l VIII. Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to
)
which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the
)
exercise?
Noneidentified. !
)
)
XI. Contention IP (ambulances and ambulance companies):
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization actually participated in the exercises?
)
)
Only one ambulance was apparently used l
)
)
e,; ,
e i s y'
6 '
Vogtle 66
- 2. What was the n'ature and extent of this participation?
F Transport ofinjured plant employee
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for homebound, hospi- -
tal,' and other special facilities?
L None identified.
)1
);
- c. ,
h
)L
(
e f I'
}.
Y 1.
)-
).
) .-
r_
Wolf Creek
.q -. ,
67, J
Wolf Creek-State: KS
! FEMA Region:- 7 Date of Exercise: November 7,1984 (Remedial- December 19,1984) -
Date of FEMA Eval. Rep.: - January 10,1985 Date of License: June,1985 -
Number of Federal evaluators used in this exercise: 19 (pp 2).
Number of Days in Exercise: 1 i
)
Number of Deficiencies: 1 Cat. A (corrected at remedial drill)
)-
)..
)
)
J:
1 u
)
)
4p. . t s
-a o .
']
,o
- - wolf Creek l m y
- m. ,
,4
' I. L Exercise Related Documents
.o 5.0 Name, date, and Author /Agen~cy of each document collected and used in this analysis:
Document Name Date ~ Author /Apency
./ FEMA
< Exercise Evaluation 1/10/85-II. Contention 1Ai Public Notification
- 1.~ Did this exercise involve the actual testing of sirens?
y
- Yes - ' [One siren failed to sound during the exercise because the antenna on the
' : siren was insufficient to pick up the' activation signal. Since the sirens had never-been tested before, FEMA thought a CAT. A deficiency was warranted. This defi -
ciency was corrected by the installation of a new antenna and a subsequent' drill to demonstrate the correction. (pp vi)]
y.
- 2. ' Did the exercise involve the actual broadcast of an EBS Message (canned or other-wise)?
No . Broadcast of EBS messages was simulated (pp X,23)
III. Contention 1B: School Preparedness
- 1. How many schools and/or school districts inside the EPZ participated in the exer-cise? -
Schools in the county were notified of Site Area Emergency at 1038 and 1045. (pp ,
R 24). Arrangements for buses from three school districts were made through the re-spective school superinter dents (pp 24) i
- 2. How many schools involved the participation of school children (actual or simulat-f" ed)/ teachers /and/or other school supervisory personnel?
Unknown. Simulation of county school evacuation (pp 24).
k 3. _ Did teachers actually accompany students on evacuating buses?
?
)
1
l.+
- Wolf Creek 69 No . School buses from three neighboring school districts were acquired in a simu-lated evacuation of school children (pp xi). q
, 4. . How many school officials were interviewed by FEMA evaluators concerning ; l school preparedness?
None identified IV. - Contention 1D (school relocation facilities):
- 1. Did the exercise involve the actual activation of school relocation facilities?
I None identified. Evacuation of schools was simulated so the relocation facilities ware probably not activated.
- 2. How extensively were the plans for these facilities demonstrated?
n/a
- - Did the exercise demonstrate the direction & decontamination of contaminated - ..
buses?
)
None identified
+ Did the exercise demonstrate the supervision of children at the school relocation -
center?-
)
None identified
)
V. Contention IE (school evacuation):
)~
- 1. How many buses were dispatched to participating schools inside the EPZ?
No discussion of actual dispatch.
) !
{ - 2. How many school bus drivers were mobilized?
Noneidentified l
) Contention IF (special facilities):
VI.
)
)
3:
l
- _ _ . = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _
-a Wolf Creek 70
- 1. What percentage of special facilities in the EPZ participated in the exercise? j Unknown percentage. The Coffey County Road and Bridge Department was in- ,
I volved in in public alerting and notification of the hearing impaired. A simulated evacuation of the Senior Citizen's Center, acre ss the street from the department, I
was also simulated (pp 26).
) 2. What was the nature and extent of participation by special facilities?
The Coffey County Road and Bridge Department was involved in in public alerting and notification of the hearing impaired. A simulated evacuation of the Senior Citizen's Center, across the street from the department, was also simulated (pp 26).
- 3. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate special facility populations,i.e., residents of nursing homes and hospitals inside the .i
-EPZ? J l4
> Noneidentified
. VII. Contention 1G (homebound):
) 1. How many ambulances, ambulettes, and other vehicles were used to evacuate the homebound population?
Arrangements for using ambulance services from three neighboring counties to -
evacuate mobility impaired residents were made (pp 24). No discussion of actual
): use or number.
- 2. Did the exercise involve the evacuation of an actual or simulated homebound individual?
)
Not mentioned. The addresses of mobility impaired residents were available at-
) .
County EOC and arrangements were made for there subsequent evacuation (pp xi)
VIII.- Contention 1H (reception hospitals / facilities):
)
- 1. How many reception hospitals / facilities (hospitals / facilities outside the EPZ to which special populations inside the EPZ are to be evacuated) participated in the exercise?
)
)
None identified
)
)~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
_ = _ - _ _ _ _ ._ . _ - _ - _ .__ -___- __-______ - - _
I
- e '
d Wolf Creek' j 77 XL Contention 1P (ambulances and ambulance companies): . ]
i
- 1. What percentage of ambulance companies under contract to the response organization 'actually participated in the exercises?
One ambulance, unknown percentage.
Arrangements for using ambulance services from three neighboring counties to '
evacuate mobility impaired residents were made (pp 24).- No discussion of actual.' '
it use.
- 2. What was the nature and extent of this participation?
I One ambulance was dispatched to plant to' assist injured victims (pp 21).
- 3. How many ambulances and ambulettes were actually used for hc.mebound, hospi-tal, and other special facilities?
No discussion of actual number. Arrangements for using ambulance services from three neighboring counties to evacuate mobility impaired residents were made (pp .
24). No discussion of actual use.
'. i
)-
4 e
).
J
):
T
? l
)' -t