ML20151W950

Forwards Addenda to FEMA Evaluation Rept of Prompt Alert & Notification Sys

ML20151W950
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	08/17/1988
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Deddens J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
References
NUDOCS 8808250179
Download: ML20151W950 (10)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _

AUGl7 %

In Reply Refer To:

Docket: 50-458 Gulf States Utilities ATTN: Mr. James C. Deddens Senior Vice President (RBNG)

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Gentlemen:

Attached is a copy of an addenda to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) evaluation report of your Prompt Alert and Notification Systems.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Nemen Tere at (817) 860-8129.

Sincerely, Gif N I S lil d Q ;

A: B. BEACH L. J. Callan, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachlaent:

Chief, Te::hnological Hazards Branch FEMA Region VI Federal Center 800 North Loop 288 Denton, Texas 76201-3698 cc w/ attachment:

Gulf States Utilities ATTN: J. E. Booker, Manager-River Bend Oversight P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 RI M EPS C: C:RPB C: D: AI 88-241 NTeW:cd RJ ett BMurray LCofrstable LJCallan 8/$/88 8/ /88 8/p/88 8/lW88 8/15/88 g55 8808250179 000817 '

I PDR ADOCK 05000450 f i F PNU i i

_ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

r Gulf States Utilities .

Gulf States Utilities ATTN: Les England, Director .i Nuclear Licensing - RBNG 't P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 <

i Louisiana State University, .

Government Documents Department t Louisiana Radiation Control Program Director ydectoDMB(A045)  !

i bec distrib. by RIV w/ report:  !

Resident Inspector i

' Inspector W. Paulson, NRR Project Manager ,

SEPS:RPB File RIV File i i

bec w/o report: i R. D. Martin ,

R. L. Bangart R. E. Hall B. Murray  !

R. J. Everett SEPS:RPB File Project Engineer DRP/C ,  ;

DRP MIS System C. A. Hackney

• W. D. Travers, NRR 1

I i

f i

f r

- - - +

TABLE OF CONTENTS V- ,

~

I. IN'. '"UCTION 1

"ification 1

e Information 1 avernments Within The 10-Mile

[~ Emergency Planning Zone 2 B. Scope Of Review 3

1. Emergency Plans For Offsite

Response Organizations 3 J

2. Alert And Notification System Des,ign Report 3 l

3. FEMA Evaluation Findings 3

_j II. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERION E.6 5 A. Administrative Means Of Alerting

] (E.6.1, FEMA-REP-10) 6 J -

B. Physical Means Of Alerting (E.6.2, FEMA-REP-10) 6

" 1. Sirens (E.6.2.1, FEMA-REP-10) 6

2. Special Alerting (E.6.2.4, FEMA-REP-10) 18

-}

III. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERION N.1 20 l IV. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERIA

~,

E.5, F.1, N.2, N.3, AND N.5 26

.z REFERENCE LIST 27 j

APPENDIX A: OSPM Siren Topographical Profile Charts OSPM Siren Topographical Input Data

~]i OSPM Siren Sound Pressure Level Input Data m OSPM Siren Meteorological Input Data

'~

1 OSPM Siren Sound Pressure Level Output Data APPENDIX B: Sample Size Determination l

,2

., t 2.}

m Y'

m 4 .

.1 III. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERION N.1 1

J On June 25, 1987, the physical means (sirens) used to alert the population within the River Bend Statiun EPZ were 7

j demonstrated to satisfy the alert and notification aspects of 44 CFR 350.9(a). This demonstration was conducted by

]. using the methods specified in Section N.1.(a,b).2 of FEMA-REP-10. The results indicate that this portion of the

,]a .

alert and notification system evaluation conforms to 2- FEMA-REP-10 and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.

$) The June 25, 1987, demonstration of the River Bend Station alerting system consisted of a triple activation of all

d. sirens and a subsequent telephone survey to estimate the proportion of EPZ households actually alerted. The first

{

siren activation was iritiated at approximately 10:01 a.m.

Central Daylight Time (CDT) and continued for 3 minutes.

C The sirens were activated a second time beginning at lb 1 approximately 10:07 a.m. and a third time beginning at approximately 10.12 a.m. CDT. It was reported that siren U' nomber EF6 failed to activate. All other sirens were reported to have operated properly during all activations.

The telephone survey of EPZ residences began at approxi-jh mately 10:15 a.m. and was completed within 63 minutes.

This survey was conducted by 36 telephone interviewers,

[] each with a separate WATS line and computer terminal.

t.1 C. The universe of households to be surveyed was determined by t-

'L establishing a 12-mile-radius circle around the latitude

!r and longitude of the plant. All households known to be out-1 ih side the EPZ boundary (a 10-mile-radius circle) were elimi-L nated from tne sample. The sample incorporated a sorted 1m Li master list of approximately 2,500 households (addresses a

and telephone numbers) believed to be within the

[ establisned boundary.

20

,_m

.I

~

. . . _ . .m

']'a Figura 6 ,

13594Q-

Gilton.R2saarch Services- Study f6952 bdnor, Pe' ,ylvania June 125, 1987 7-OMB=#3067-0103 (FEMA 9/86)

-TEMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ALERTING 5j , AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: PUBLIC TELEPHONE 4 SURVEY .

9 RIVER BEND

'l Time Began AM PM Interview #-

(1-5) m a Time Ended ' AM PM Zip Code

- (6-10)

Sample Type (11)

]

~

RECORD BEFORE DIALINO -Telephone #

, (Area Code) (Exchange) (Number) (12-21) i

_ IC10 DUCTION:

.i ,

d Hello, my name is . We're calling households long distance from Chilton Research Services as part of a survey. This survey is sponsored by The

' ~

Tederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States Government in cooperation

[ 4th your parish civil defense of fice. ~

Tour answers are veluntary and will be kept strictly confidential.

$l 1.' First of all, it this (REPEAT # DIALED)? _

7q Yes 1 a

TERMINATE AND DIAL AGAIN Io N 2

2. As you may or may not know, there was a test of the parish warning sirens around the

-) River Bend Station. Did you, or any other me=ber of this household, hear the J{ siren / warning sirens from this tect today?

~~

22-SKIP TO Q. 4 Yes 1

]

' .J .

SKIP TO Q., 4A No 2 Heard from

} ~} CONTINUE another 3 1g; secree

- ASK IF ANY OTHER HOUSEHOLD D 'now 8 L MEMBER IS MORE KNOWLEDOEABLE o9

!1 22

'.d t -,

d

m

. REr RENCE LIST

1. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1986.

Letter from William H. Spell, Administrator, Nuclear Energy 7 Division, Office of Air Quality and Nuclear Energy, to Al j Lookabaugh, FEMA, Region VI, dated June 6, 1986, enclosing four copies of "River Bend Station prompt notification 3 system design report, prepared by Gulf States Utilities, j June 1986."

_ 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1983.

.1 1980 census of population. Volume 1, Chapter A, Part 1, d "United States summary." PC80-1-A1. April 1983.

~. 3. Gulf States Utilities. 1985. "River Bend Station final

safety analysis report." June 1985.

- 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Letter to the j Honorable Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, signed by Robert H. Morris, Acting Director. October 1, 1985.

T( 5. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Letter to 2 William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signed by Samuel W. Speck, Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support.

j October 8, 1985.

_, 6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Emergency s Management Agency. 1980. "Criteria for preparation.and evaluation of radiological emergency response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear power plants."

']L NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Revision 1. November 1980.

7. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. "Guide for the n evaluation of alert and notification systems for nuclear jg} power plants." FEMA-REP-10. November 1985.

7 8. International Energy Associates Limited. 1983. "Analysis of siren system pilot test." IEAL-333. November 2, 1983.

.a

.d l b

!d 27 7

J

+ .

1 J -

4-1 l

.I J

APPENDIX B s;

a-Sample Size Determination m,

e a' }

J L

L r

m O

L l

a u

i r i

t ans .

1.

4 l

n l  !

O'

s ..

APPENDIX B

$j SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION, i The number of households that need to be surveyed is determined a

based upon the need to obtain a sample size sufficient to obtain a 954 confidence interval with precision (half-width) of 0.05

].

for the estiuate of the propo'rtion alerted. The exact number of

~

households to be surveyed can be derived from the following statistical considerations. For relatively large sample sizes (n 2 30), taken without replacement f rom a population (N) , the j sampling distribution for proportions (e.g., the proportion of the population alerted) is near:1y a normal distribution, the

} mean of which is the proportion (p) of the population alerted and the variance of which is p(1 - p)/n

"~

3 If P is the observed sample propo'rtion, then for a particular i confidence level with confidence coefficient Ze,

'I.

~"

(P - p) $Z p(1 - p)/n ,

( :.

l Thus, for this confidence level, the actual proportion of the L} population alerted satisfies the following inequalities:

2

• 2 ..} , : :

, , 2n [n (n

-} ,.

~

P(1-?) [u a \,9 - 1/ ,;n g t

[:u - af

-i f J , $ ; ed .

q ,-

0 N ~ ^\

j ..

N.

e.

d

c N-n\ c P(1 - P) n N-n\ c N-n\

, 2n N - if N - 1/ 4,2 N - 1/

Pd 2 3

N-n  ;

1+en N-l 3

j .

Thus, the precision (W) is simply given by j i

- f I

l P(1 - Ps N-n ,

c N += n Z n N-1/ 4n N-1 i W= 2 e I N-n '

.I ,n N-1'

}

i 1 j This equation can be. solved to determine the sample size (n) required to yield a given precision (W) with a given observed sample proportion (P) as follows:

]

d - .

2 Z

.f P(1 - ?) - 2W ,

2 y. 1 , 4,41 , p)

. p 2g1, p) 2 2 = =

.W , ,

3"~

2 1+ "e 2 s 3 3 '

j P(1 - P) - 2W' 1+

+ W' 1 - 4P(1 - P) + P'(1 - P)'

2w s Z,2

~ ~

l}2 1

l-i'! Although this expression for n can be used directly, it is customary to make several approximations. First, since the term in N in the denominator (the finite population term) is positive

- definite for all reasonable values of W (0 < W < 0.5) , omitting ,

1

. this term will result in an approximation to n that is slightly

, larger than its true value. This is an acceptable practice in j si:ing the sample since a larger sample gives greater precision.

2 l 1

1 'l l

l

y -

1 ,

A'second approximation that can be made is to neglect the terms in W2 within the bracket in the numerator. Analysis demonstrates

~] that this underestimates n when P < 1/2 - 1/4 $[2 + 8W2 .

2 or P > 1/2 + 1/4 $[2 + 8W2 and overestimates n for P between q- those two values. For the case of interest (a 95% confidence d interval with precision of 0.05) , this approximation provides an

, overestimation of n when a sample size greater than 191 is

r equired. Since the sampling plan calls for a minimum sample size of 250, regardless of th'e value of P, this approximation is

] acceptable because it also yields an estimate of n larger than the true value. Therefore, for the purposes of the pilot test i and subsequent surveys, the following approximate equation can be used to determine whether a sample size larger than 250 is 9 required: '

J O z d a= P (1 - P) w-n u

or using 1.96 for Ze and 0.05 for W,

~

n = 15 36. 64 P (1 - P) 3l Data f rom the pilot test can be used to illustrate the eff ects q of these approxim&tions. In the pilot test, the population of d tone alert households f rom which the sample was to be drawn (N) rr was approximately 4500 and the observed proportion alerted (P)

[j. was 0.675. This yields 311 as the exact result for n.

Neglecting the finite population term yields an estimate of 33 4

( for n, and the simplified final approximation estimates n as 338. Thus, the final simolified approximation overestimates the t required sample size by 27 in this case.

_l -

, SOURCE: International Energy Associates Limited. "Analysis of d Tone Aler: Pilot Test." EAL-221. Septemoe: 27, '982.

i