VSNAP RERP Update

1. VSNAP RERP Update Erica Bornemann Planning Chief Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security

2. Enhancements to Shelter Capacity • History • Late 2012 American Red Cross presented to VSNAP on current abilities to shelter in response to an incident at Vermont Yankee • ARC current capability- 3,000 people (10% EPZ Population) • FEMA RERP Program Manual 2012- Set the requirement to shelter 20% of the EPZ population

3. Shelter Goals • Increase the capacity of the ARC to shelter 20% of the EPZ population (6,000 people) • Identify and enter into agreements with 22 facilities to receive survivors • Creates a scalable approach to congregate care • Builds capacity within Vermont to meet needs until regional and federal resources are brought in

4. FY ‘14 Allocation • VT legislature granted $250,000 of the RERP Fund for ARC • Implementation • Begin working with Host and Sending Towns -to develop sheltering plan– provide foundational overview and develop plans for moving forward with project. • Begin working with Host town shelter facilities-to develop shelter facility agreements and surveys to support the plan • Begin working with partner state agencies – to develop interim approach and foundation for a final solution to challenges presented by development of this sheltering plan. • Hire personnel – Hire the Deputy Chief Response Officer – RERP and the Volunteer Coordinator – RERP • Begin purchasing of equipment and supplies – Purchase 1000 cots and 2000 blankets in first year of project. • Start volunteer recruitment process – to support bringing shelters “on-line” • Multi-Year plan- over 2 years

5. Questions?

6. 2013 Graded Plume Phase • June 5, 2013 Vermont participated in a FEMA graded exercise • 6 EPZ towns, SEOC, JIC, 2 SWP, EOF, VY Sim Control Room, 211 Call Center Plume Tracking Teams evaluated • MA and NH also evaluated • 4 lead-up exercises conducted to prepare • Seminar, Tabletop, 2 Functional Exercises

7. 2013 Graded Plume Phase • Deficiency: An observed or identified inadequacy of organizational performance in an exercise that could cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness is not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of an NPP. • ARCA: An observed or identified inadequacy of organizational performance in an exercise that is not considered, by itself, to adversely impact public health and safety. • Plan Issue: An observed or identified inadequacy in the ORO’s emergency plan/procedures, rather than in the ORO’s performance.

8. 2013 Graded Plume Phase • Results- 1 ARCA, 6 Planning Issues • ARCA- Rockingham SWP technological issue • JIC- Plan and relocation procedures • Plume Tracking- Recommends covering instrument with plastic, Field air sample equipment use • 211- Using “host school” and “reception center” interchangeably • Brattleboro EOC- Procedures on using CDV-700 and 715 instruments, Sounding the sirens

9. Questions?