ML20207G864

Forwards FEMA Confirming Adequacy of Alert & Notification Sys.State & Local Plans & Preparedness for Plant Adequate

ML20207G864
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/25/1986
From:	Speck S Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 NUDOCS 8607230204
Download: ML20207G864 (1)

Text

- - - - - - - -

Y(p *

&bs a

L

y. f s -

O 5

es\ Federal Emergency Management Agency 2 Washington, D.C. 20472 Q

g% -

D

^

JUN 2 519Er0 Q'g\ A q k) Cwl----

Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmunission Washirgton, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Stello:

In accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) rule 44 CFR 350, the State of New York submitted its State and associated local plans for rMiological energencies related to the Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Generatirg Station to the Regional Director of FEMA Region II for FEMA review and approval.

We Regional Director forwarded his evaluation of the New York State and local plans to me on June 17, 1985, in accordance with section 350.11 of the rule. His submission included an evaluation of the full-scale exercises conducted on January 21, 1982, and June 22, 1983. It also included a report of the public meetirg held on May 5,1982, for the Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Generating Station which exclained the site-specific aspects of the State aM local plans. Since the Septenber 26, 1985, exercise was coMucted after the "350" package was submitted to FEMA Headquarters, its evaluation was submitted in a separate report.

Based on an merall evaluation, I fiM and determine that the State and local plans and preparedness for Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Generatiry Station are adequate to protect the health and safety of the public in that there is reasonable assurance that the appropriate protective measures can be taken of fsite in the event of a rMiological energency. We adequacy of the public alertiry and notification system has also been verified by FEVA in accordance with the criteria in FD4A 44 CFR 350 aM in Appendix 3 of NURH3-0654/FD4A-REP-1, Rev.1, and in the " Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants" (FD4A-REP-10) . For your information, we have enclosed a copy of our March 7, 1986, letter confirmira the adequacy of the alert and notification system.

Sincerely, en-Samuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Incal Prograns aM Support Enclosure 8607230204 860625 PDR ADOCK 05000244 F PDR 7"

[ h

b v2g& #

f y /q Federal Emergency Management Agency Igk. y Washington, D.C. 20472 NAR 7 1986

&. Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrrmission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear W. Stello:

The Federal Emergency Mnagement Agency (fem) has conpleted an analysis of the prcurpt alert and notification system for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station in Ontario, New York. Eis review has been ccrrpleted pursuant to FE m rule 44 CFR 350; selected evaluative criteria and Appendix 3 in NUREG-0654/ FEM-REP-1, Rev.1; and FEM-43, the " Standard Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants" (now published as FE M-REP-10). % e enclosed report entitled "R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station Site-Specific offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness Alert and Notification System Quality Assurance Verification" sunmarizes the engineering design review, incorporates the results of the telephone survey of the public conducted ime-diately following activation of the alert and notification system on August 15, 1985, and confirms the adequacy of the applicable evaluative criteria from NUREG-0654/FE M-REP-1, Rev. 1, and FE m-43.

Based on the engineering design review and the results of the telephone survey, FE m has determined that the alert and notification system installed around the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station satisfies the requirements of NUREG-0654/FE M-REP-1, Rev.1, and FE M-43. Herefore, there is reasonable assurance that the system is adequate to prcmptly alert and notify the public in the event of a radiological emergency at the site. A ccurplete review of the offsite radiologi-l cal emergency plans and preparedness site-specific to R. E. Ginna will be ccm-l pleted by FE m at a later date.

l l

Sincerely,

$ - um esvr w w- -

r & C'" f i Samuel W. Speck Associate Director l State and Incal Programs and Support l Enclosure l

hhbh I  ?