Earthquake Fire and Rescue Earthquake Prediction Law Enforcement Oil Spill Medical Nuclear Blackmail Utilities Reactor Accident Military Support Radioactive Material Incident Flood SUPPORTING SYSTEMS EMERGENCY RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Warning Construction and Housing Emergency Broadcast System Economic Stabilization Emergency Public Information Food Intelligence Operations Health Radiological Defense Industrial Production Manpower Petroleum Telecommunications Transportation Utilities Based on this planning concept, the review assessed quantitatively the preparedness activities of the 34 State agencies that have preparedness responsibilities in accordance with the CEP. The quantitative data are listed in the following table. TABLE 4 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF STATE PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Percent of Preparedness Element Agencies 34 Agencies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Existence of Plan 22 65 Conduct of Exercises 27 79 Public Education Activities 10 29 Public Information Activities 9 26 Operational Capability 32 94 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The quality of the plans, activities, and operational capabilities were then evaluated on a scale of 1 (expected to fail/inadequate) to 5 (expected to succeed well/adequate). The qualitative results are shown below. TABLE 5 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF STATE PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Preparedness Element Capability Rating ---------------------------------------------------------- Planning 2.67 Exercises 2.64 Public Education 1.44 Public Information 1.50 Operational Capability 2.91 ---------------------------------------------------------- It should be emphasized that these ratings apply to the State's _present_ level of planning and preparedness for response to a major destructive earthquake (magnitude 8), not a moderate (San Fernando-type) event. C. FEDERAL RESPONSE