ML20153B665

Forwards Addenda to FEMA Evaluation Rept of Prompt Alert Notification Sys

ML20153B665
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/24/1988
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8808310041
Download: ML20153B665 (10)

Text

. .

. . AUG 2 41988 i .

In Reply Refer To:

Docket: 50-382 Louisiana Pcwer & Light Company ATTN: J. G. Dewease, Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 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 Terc at (817) 860-8129.

Sincerely, Original Signed By A. B. Beach gs L. J. Callan, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

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

Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN: G. E. Wuller, Onsite Licensing Coordinator P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 RIV@PS C:

w C:RPB X

&I C:DRP/A D:Q thM AI 88-241 NTerF.cd RJ tt BMurray DChamberlain LitallaN 8/16/88 8/i0/88 8Ap/88 8//t/88 8/g3/88 8808310041 080824 PDR ADOCK 05000382 P PNV h

y

o .

~ Louisiana Power & Light Company Louisiana Power &' Light Company ATTN: N. S. Carns, Plant Manager P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana -70066 Middle South Services ATTN: Mr. R. T. Lally P.O. Box.61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN: R. F. Burski, Acting Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs 317 Baronne-Street P.O. Box 60340 New Orleans, Louisiana '70160-Louisiana Radiation Control Program Director bec to DMB (A045) bec distrib. by RIV w/ report:

Resident Inspector Inspector D. Wigginton, NRR Project Manager SEPS:RPB File RIV File bec w/o report:  !

R. D. Martin R. L. Bangart R. E. Hall B. Murray R - J. Everett i S'.PS:RPB File 1 Froject Engineer DRP/A DRP MIS System  :

C. A. Hackney I W. D. Travers, NRR 1

l l

, ,, -, .--r-- ,- ,.- .,, - g. - - ---- .-

TABLE OF CONTENTS I l

,, 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1 -

A. Identification 1 I

1. Site Information 1

2. Governments Within The 10-Mile Emergency Planning Zone 2 B. Scope Of Review 3 q 1. Emergency Plans For Offsite 1

Response Organizations 3

2. Alert And Notification System Design Report -

3 m

3. FEMA Evaluation Findings 4 II. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERION E.6 5 A. Administrative Means Of Alerting (E.6.1, FEMA-REP-10) 6 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) 20

- III. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERION N.1 25 IV. FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION CRITERIA E.5, F.1, N.2, N.3, AND N.5 31 i REFERENCE LIST 32 r APPENDIX A: OSPM Siren Topographical Profile Charts OSPM Siren Topographical Input Data OSPM Siren Sound Pressure Level Input Data "

OSPM Siren Meteorological Input Data OSPM Siren Sound Pressure Level Output Data APPENDIX B: Sample Size Determination APPENDIX C: Evaluation of Helicopter Airborne Warning System p e ---e-- - -e , , - - - , g,,- q - , - ,m - - e me

• 8 L 9 e

e e

IJPENDIX B SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

'I MO O

i.e f6 L) bO I

J P

l m

e Wi

[

q '

o.

~ ' ' ~~ ^ ^ - - - - - n --. -

) - ,

APPENDIX B ,

SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION .

The number of households that need to be surveyed is determined based upon the need to obtain a sa:aple size sufficient to obtain

'I a 95% confidence interval with precision (half-width) of 0.05 I

for the estimate of the proportion 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 from a populatiol (N), the j sampling distribution for proportions (e.g., the proportio'n of the population alerted) is nearly a normal distribution, the mean of which is the proportion (p) of the population alerted and the variance of which is I

~"

p(1 - p)/n ,

t

_ If P is the observed sample proportion, then for a particular j confidence level with confidence coefficient Zet (P - p) $Z p(1 - p)/n ["

L 9 Thus, for this confidence level, the actual proportion of the population alerted satisfies the following inequalities:

• c

[N-n\~ P(1 - P) N-n e N-n 2n (N - if c n N-1/ 4n \"~ /

S p ud

,2 e

n

[N-nk

\N - 1,)

1

p c

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

-j P$

2n (N - 1/ "c n (N - 1/ g 2 N-1)\ ~

! 2 n

c N-n\ '

N - 1/

l Thus, the precision (W) is simply given by n

P(1 - P) I N-n , c N-n W=

Z n g N-1/ 4n \" ~ /

2 e I N-n 1, + ,

This equation can be solved to determine the sample size (a)'

required to yield a given precision (W) with a given observed sample proportion (P) as follows:

l Z .

• 2 i"t 2

P(1 - P) - 2W + W 3 , 4p(y , p) + p2 (3 , p) 2

' 2W _

- n= -

2 1+

2 P(1 - P) - 2W l+ 2

+ H 1 - 4P(1 - P) + P (1 - P) a 2W N Z b

r l Although this expression for n can be used directly, it is j customary to make several approximations. First, since the term  !

) in N in the denominator (the finite population term) in positive definite for all reasonable values of W (0 < W < 0.5), omitting -

this term will result in an approximation to n that is slightly l larger than its true value. This is an acceptable practice in sizing the sample since a larger sample gives greater precision.

2 l i

, 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 $ 2l + 8W2 or P > 1/2 + 1/4 )[2 + 8W2 and overestimates n for P between '

those two values. For the case of interest (a 95% confidence interval with precision of 0.05), this approximation provides an ,

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

required. Since the sampling plan calls for a minimum sample size of 250, regardless of the 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

and subsequent surveys, the following approximate equation can be used to determine whether a sample size larger than 250 is

- required:

2 z

n= P (1 - P)

J w 1

or using 1.96 for 2c and 0.05 for W, I

J n = 1536.64 P(1 - P)

- 1 g Data from the pilot test can be used to illustrate the effects  ;

of these approximations. In the pilot test, the population of j tone alert houcehelda f rom which the sample was to be drawn (N) l was approximately 4500 and the observed proportion alerted (P) was 0.675. This yields 311 as the exact result for n.

' Neglecting the finite population term yields an estimate'of 334 for n, and the simplified final approximation estimates n as 9

338. Thus, the final simplified approximation overestimates the required sample size by 27 in this case. .

SOURCE: International Energy Associates Limited. "Analysis of Tone Alert Pilot Test." IEAL-321. September 27, 1983.

3

f -

i l

,_ APPENDIX C

- I I,

Evaluation of Helicopter Airborne Warning System D j I

1

> , l

')

. l 1

.. l l

l

>i I

[ .

4 em N

P S

-w--------.,--, r,--- , - , , . ,- - ,- . , , , , , . , - - - , - , . , . - - . , . - , . . , . ~ . , . . - , , .- ,-av- - . . .. ,--

i 1

Federal Emergency Management Agency ,

Region VI, Federal Center, 800 Noah Ioop ,288

+

• Denton, Texas 76201 3696 '

NTH November 18, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD ,

FROM: ry ones, Chief Technological Hazards Branch

SUBJECT:

Waterford III Aerial Alerting Test Observation and Timing l j

On November 13, 1987, Waterford 3 representatives conducted a test of the Aerial Alert and Notification Warning System which was evaluated and timed L..

by Region VI personnel to ensure that the 45 minute requirement could be j met.

" All participants met at the Holiday Inn in Laplace, Louisiana, at 700 a.m.

for a briefing on the test, routes, equipment and time elements. Mr. Reda

- Bassioni, consultant, Acoustic Technology, Inc., Boston, Massi, was also 1 invited by the utility to perform an audio evaluation of a test message before we actually timed the four routes to ensure compliance with the 45 minute ,

l requirement. He discussed the test tape and equipment which was to be used.

to evaluate the audio portion of the message. He also, remarked on the positioning j of the Parish-owned PA speakers that are attached to the underside of the helicopter.

, l "j Mr. Ron Perry, Emergency Planner, Louisiana Power and Light, provided maps outlining quadrants the helicopter would travel during the actual testing.

He also briefly discussed the testing runs the helicopter would make initially to determine the audibility of the alert message. l The entire party then departed the motel in a motorcade enroute to departure point from which all the helicopter audibility test runs would originate.

After participants were positioned on a deserted levy road, several flights were made back and forth at 75-80 mph and at an altitude of 500' while both (g auricular and electronic readings were taken to ensure the alerting message was audible to anyone on the ground. The FEMA evaluators could clearly understand the test message being given.

Following the completion of this phase of the test, a fisherman who had been inspecting his trot line approximately three miles away from the test site, appeared at the temporary helicopter pad and volunteered inforihation that ~

he had heard and fully understood the alerting message emitted from the helicopter.

..o I

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 2 l

Once the confirmation of the message audibility was complete, the helicopter was then timed as it travelled the four quadrants. The helicopter began each quadrant run at the local EOC's at which time the clock started in an attempt to complete the aerial alerting for each quadrant in the 45 minutes allowed.

(It should be noted that for the purpose of this test and due to the expense involved, only one helicopter was used. Whereas in reality there would be -

four helicopters used - one for each quadrant.)

The flight times for the helicopter emergency alerting runs were as follows:

i Quadrant A -

29 min Quadrant B -

43 min /15 sec Quadrant C -

45 min (Since this route utilizes the entire alotted time, the Quadrant A helicopter will be used to run a 15 minute portion of this quadrant.

Quadrant 0 -

35 min /21 see

-) The aerial test clearly demonstrated that the four routes can 'lui covered

~j within the 45 minute time requirement. Also the message from the helicopter is clear and understandable from ground level.

a U

u 6

m e

_ . . . . _ . _ _ . . . , _ . . . _ . . .