ML25261A086
| ML25261A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/2024 |
| From: | Tierney M Policy and Oversight Branch, US Dept of Homeland Security, Region III |
| To: | Dobitsch S US Dept of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| Download: ML25261A086 (1) | |
Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Region 3 - Philadelphia, PA 19106 May 29, 2024 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Stephanie Dobitsch Assistant Administrator, National Preparedness Directorate FEMA THROUGH:
David Gudinas Director, Office of National Exercises and Technological Hazards FEMA FROM:
MaryAnn Tierney Regional Administrator FEMA Region 3 MARYANN E TIERNEY Digitally signed by MARYANN E TIERNEY Date: 2024.05.29 09:56:23
-04'00'
SUBJECT:
Significant Change to Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) Alert and Notification Plan for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station I am writing regarding the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias proposed implementation of FEMA Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) as the primary alert and notification method for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
FEMA Region 3 has reviewed the State Plan submitted by PEMA, as well as plans and procedures submitted by Luzerne County and Columbia County, and the Alert & Notification System (ANS) Design Report submitted by Talen Energy. The plan changes and updated ANS design reports propose the elimination of sirens as the primary alerting method in the 10-mile emergency planning zones (EPZs) for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. The changes also included replacing route alerting (a system of police or fire vehicle driving in areas of a failed siren and announcing emergency information through a public address loudspeaker) with a separate electronic notification system called CodeRed. The primary notification method will remain the Emergency Alert System (EAS) initiated by PEMA. Route alerting also remains in the plans as a tertiary, supplemental, alert and notification system.
FEMA Region 3 has determined that that the state plan, county plans, and ANS Design Report are adequate and meet the intent of the planning standards contained in NUREG 0654 REP-1,
Rev. 2. Additionally, the state plan, county plans, and ANS Design Report were reviewed by the FEMA Technological Hazards Division, Engineering and Technology Section, and were determined to be adequate to meet the design objects contained in planning standard E.3 of NUREG 0654 REP-1, Rev. 2 and the FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP)
Program Manual, December 2023.
Under the authorities provided to me as Regional Administrator under 44 CFR 350.14 (c), I directed my staff to coordinate an exercise of the new alert and notification systems (both primary and back-up), and to conduct a public meeting prior to me forwarding my recommendation for approval to the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Administrator for Resilience. On May 9, 2024, FEMA Region 3 executed an exercise to test the ability of PEMA, and the risk counties of Luzerne and Columbia, to implement the significant plan change in accordance with required design objects. The exercise was supported by the FEMA IPAWS Technical Support Services Facility. The results of the exercise revealed no deficiencies, and the activation of the primary method (FEMA IPAWS-WEA) and backup method (CodeRed) were both activated successfully. The IPAWS Technical Support Services Facility provided evidence of receipt of the WEA message to the IPAWS Open Gateway and live monitoring of PBS-WARN (PBS - WARN) indicated that the IPAWS-WEA alert had gone out.
During the exercise, the FEMA evaluation team deployed to areas approximately 5 and 10 miles from the SSES to validate that receipt of the WEA message could be obtained within the required timeframes (15 minutes within 0-5 miles of the station, and 45 minutes for the entire EPZ). Fourteen (14) FEMA evaluators were provided a test code from the IPAWS Technical Support Services Facility and utilized both their FEMA-issued device and their personal device so that a variety of cellular providers, as well as make/model cell phones, could be utilized.
Talen Energy also had staff serving as exercise controllers and were positioned with the FEMA evaluators. The Talen Energy staff also recorded receipt of the WEAs and CodeRed messages.
The result of the field activity revealed that all FEMA evaluators received the IPAWS-WEA alert on their government-issued iPhone devices. All FEMA evaluators, except one, received the IPAWS-WEA alert on their personal devices. All of the Talen Controllers received the first IPAWS-WEA alert, but three did not receive the second IPAWS-WEA alert. It was discovered that because the two test alerts were identical, that some providers may not send a duplicate message. The counties then changed the templates so that they were slightly different and conducted another test and recorded a 100% receipt rate. All messages were received by the evaluation team within the required timeframes as stated in the design objectives. This included both the primary (FEMA IPAWS-WEA) and backup (CodeRed) methods.
Since the two risk counties, Luzerne and Columbia, are the alerting authorities under the proposed change, this office requested letters of endorsement of the proposed change. The letters of endorsement from both the Luzerne County Commissioners and the Columbia County Commissioners were received on September 7, 2023 (attached).
Under the authorities provided to me as Regional Administrator under 44 CFR 350.14 (c), I directed my staff to coordinate a public meeting after the exercise to present preliminary findings and to solicit input from the public regarding the switch from sirens to IPAWS. On May 10,
2024, at 10:00 a.m. my staff conducted the public meeting. The public meeting was advertised aggressively in targeted outlets in each EPZ by FEMA Region 3 External Affairs.
There were 14 people that attended the public meeting, all of whom were federal, state, and local emergency management officials. There were no members of the general public that attended.
There were two media outlets that attended and interviewed the Technological Hazards Branch Chief at the conclusion of the meeting. The meeting was held at the Talen Energy East Mountain Business Center, which is located near the EPZ. Subsequent to the public meeting, my staff received a total of eight comments. We received one email response to the FEMAR3 News Desk, and the Technological Hazards Branch Chief received seven comments via email, phone conversations, and voicemail messages. All of the comments received except for one, were either opposed entirely to implementing FEMA IPAWS as the primary alerting system or favored keeping both the sirens and IPAWS as redundant methods of alerting the public during an emergency at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Its important to note that the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station EPZ has as a population of 66,974 (based on 2020 census);
the comments received are a small representation as compared to the total population in the EPZ.
I have conducted a comprehensive review of all of the data received from the plan changes, exercise, public comments, and outreach initiatives. I also considered the current state of the existing primary alerting method, sirens and EAS, as well as the backup method of route alerting for failed sirens. Given the totality of all the above, it is my recommendation that FEMA approve this significant plan change.