ML20079D581
| ML20079D581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1991 |
| From: | Kwiatkowski D Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079D582 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107180070 | |
| Download: ML20079D581 (3) | |
Text
. - _
}I derill l$rliergeticy Mtiritigeriierit Agericy C
f
,[
Washington, ILC. 20472 x
JLN I O 1991 Mr. Frank J.
Congol Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Offico of Nuclear Regulation U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dear Mr. Congol As requested in your June 4,
- 1991, memorandum, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has reviewed a copy of the April 15, 1991, letter and attachment from New llampshiro Yankee (NilY) to the U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) outlining a
transition plan for replacing the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) with fixed polo-mounted sirons in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Huclear Power Plant Emorgency planning Zono (EPZ).
As explained in the letter ani attachment, the transition plan for reinstalling fixed, polo-mounted sirens has boon drafted because of an Executivo Order from the Governor of Massachusetts to Commonwealth Agencies directing them to ensure the establishment of an effective warning and notification system in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ and because several of the Massachusetts communitics, as well as the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency, have approached HilY regarding the reinstallation of polo-mounted sirens.
Because of the significance of the alert and notification system modifications and the fact that the modifications will affect a largo portion of the EPZ population, a full technical review and analysis will have to be conducted by FEMA and our technical assistance contractors beforo the modifications can be approved in accordance with Title 44 CFR, Part 350; NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 3; FEMA REP-10; and FEMA Guidanco Memorandum AN-1.
A review and analysis of the system modifications will be required in order to continuo the September 7, 1990, FEMA approval of the Seabrook alert and notification system.
The transition plan provided by NilY contains only general information on their overall objectivos at this point:
- The VANS will be replaced with fixed, polo-mounted sirens to provide the alerting coverage;
- The decibol levels that will be provided by the modified system will be either 60 dBC, 70 dBC, or 10 dBC above background ambient noiso levels;
D d The replacement of the VANS with fixed, pole-mounted sirens will take place on a town-by-town basis; The siren system modifications will be designed using the same acoustical model as the model used to design the currently installed and approved alert and notification system in both Massachusetts and New llampshire; and, HilY Offsite Response organization (ORO) activation procedures from the Emergency Operations Center will remain unchanged at this time.
In order for FEMA to review and approve the modified alert and notification system design and implementation, all of the supporting technical data, methods, equipment specifications, and acoustical analyses required in any FEMA REP-10 Design Report submission to document the phy.aig_ql means of alerting must to provided for review.
In addition, in the aventuality that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts develops their own offsite radiological emergency response
- plans, procedures, and capabilities; acquires and dedicates the required facilities and resources; and satisfies the other administrative alert and notification system requirements, documentation would have to be submitted to FEMA at that time, in a FEMA REP-10 Design Report
- Addendum, to document the administrative Dr_qq1du re s.
These procedures would havo to be reviewed and exercised before approval.
The transition plan seems to indicate that several different analyses or addenda will be submitted for review as the VANS are replaced and fixed, polo-mounted sirer,1 are installed in each town.
We would strongly prefer the Advance submittal of one comprehensive, FEMA REP-10 Addendum 4uoviding an analysis that incorporates, describes, and documci%s the entire integrated, proposed, newdesignthroughouttheo(hireMassachusettsportion of the EPZ.
The April 15, 1991, letter and attachment included a flow chart which indicates that the FEMA REP-10 Addendum or Addenda with the new design will be submitted as the last step in the transition process.
We understand that a town-by-town siren installation approach may facilitate and be the most feasible way to physically transition to a new system; however, an incremental approach to reviewing the system changes as they are completed and implemented will make the FEM ^ review of the new design more dif ficult and will likely increase the time required to complete and approve the entire review process.
Ideally we would like to be able to review an overall proposed FEMA REP-10 Design Addendum, consisting of the proposed, new, integrated system design (physical muons) in its totality as early in the transition process as possible.
Otherwise, FEMA may be in the position of issuing several findings as the system is transitioned from the VANS to the pole-mounted sirens.
I
Wo believe it is important to emphasize that a significant portion of an operating alert and notification system, approved by PEMA, is being replaced with a totally now system.
As such, the transition from the VAlis to the fixed, polo-mounted siren alert and notifiestion system should ensure the followings At a minimum, the sama alert and_ notification system coverage o
and capabilition currently provided by the VAlis and npproved by FEMA should continue to be provided by the now fixed, pole-mounted siren system; and o
Thoro should be an integrated transition from the VAlis to the fixed polo-mourted siron system including a
three-month overlap period during which the now fixed siron system is testod and its operability confirmed before the VAliS are removed from service.
There should be no lapse in alert and notification system ceverago at any point.
Consideration saould be given to implomonting the system transition during a schoduled outago at Soabrook Station.
This would further minimize any potential public health and safety throats if thero were to be any alert and notification system problems during the transition phase.
We are prepared to assist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and lilly in this very important undertaking with any possible technical assistanco.
Wo look forward to coordinating closoly with them during the transition and review process.
If you have any questions please call me at (202)-646-2871.
Sincoroly, 3j*
g an2 s 11. Kw! t owski Assistant Associate Director of fice of Technological llazarda l