ML20244E452

Discusses Evaluation of Plant Alert & Notification Sys. Requests Verification of Some Statements Made Re Acceptance Criterial Currently Being Used by FEMA to Determine Adequacy of Alert & Notification Sys

ML20244E452
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	06/08/1989
From:	Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Dolan J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
Shared Package
ML20244E417	List: IR 05000309/1989012 ML20244E415 ML20244E452
References
NUDOCS 8906200345
Download: ML20244E452 (2)

Text

____ _.______.____-_ _ -_ - _ -

L-O /D% 9 4 , ., ,g . UNITED STATES g  ;, E, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N E REGION 1 lN '

g _ 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 DUN 0 8 1989 Mr. John Dolan-Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee Federal' Emergency Management Agency, Region I J. W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts'02109

SUBJECT:

Evaluation of. Maine Yankee Alert and Notification System

Dear Jack:

At.a meeting in NRC Region I on June 1, 1989 you met with representatives of.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the State of Maine, and members of the NRC' staff, including myself, to discuss the proposed corrective actions and schedule to correct the-eight deficiencies identified by FEMA in the report of the June 1987 Maine Yankee exercise. Of particular concern to the NRC is the deficiency regarding the alert and notification system. I want to take this opportunity to request verification of some statements made by you regarding acceptance criteria currently being used by FEMA to determine the adequacy of alert and notification systems.

We understand that the Maine Yankee alert and notification system has been in operation for several years based on a two tier approach in which fixed sirens are used to provide notification within 5 miles of the plant in 15 minutes.

Notifier teams or route alerting is used beyond 5 miles with a design goal of -

completing notification in 45 minutes. This appears to be consistent with

- guidance published in NUREG-0654 and FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-l' as long as those areas where. route alerting is used are rural with very low population.

It is our understanding that FEMA has not defined what is meant by very low population. If FEMA has defined this term, that information would be appreciated.

During the meeting you made two statements regarding FEMA policy that I would like you to confirm. The first was that because of repeated problems in completing the notifier routes in 45 minutes during the June 1987 and previous exercises, FEMA was no longer going to accept that design concept, but now will require 15 minute notification for the entire EPZ regardless of distance from the plant or population density (except by specific exemption for areas which can be shown to be very low population). The second statement involved the method by which FEMA determines whether the population has been alerted following test of a system. Two conditions were presented and you were asked whether each would have constituted acceptable notification of the public. The first involved 8906200345 890608 PDR ADOCK 05000309 Q PDC

m_--_-_-_______-_

r Sg

.m. .

Un: .' * , , . .

g, JUN 0 81989 Ql ' 2

..a' condition where 95% of the notifier routes were completed in 45 minutes. The second involved a condition where 95% of the population was known to be alerted

, 'regardless of whether the routes-had been completed. You indicated that both y conditions had to be met for the system to be acceptable. .Further, if 95% of

', a route was completed in 45 minutes, that' route was considered by FEMA to have failed to have been covered, even though 95% of. the population on that route had i

been notified. (We understand 90% is the appropriate. acceptance level; 95% was Lr only usedr as an example).- Any clarification of this discussion that you can-L

.provide would be helpful.

At the June I meeting, Maine Yankee stated they plan-to provide fixed sirens at 16 new locations by December of 1990, and to have plans and procedures in place so that .all route alerting is completed within 15 minutes. You stated FEMA

[ considers that until- such actions are complete they cannot find- reasonable N ' assurance that adequate protective measures to protect public health and safety can and will be taken in .the event of a radiological emergency at the Maine Yankee Station. Thus, you do not foresee a finding of reasonable assurance by.

FEKA before December 1990. Since you stated that a successful exercise is then necessary for FEMA to reiterate its reasonable assurance finding, we would like yoti to provide us documentation that the plans and schedule for corrective action are - acceptable to FEMA, and that, if implemented, the concerns will be eliminated.

Finally, we discussed the policy that a telephone survey is done routinely after an alert and notification system test to determine what percentage of the population had been alerted. You indicated that although one such test had been done following a . test at Maine Yankee you were not aware of the results. If L those' results are available, they would .be very helpful to the NRC in the analysis that is being performed of this subject.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I would be pleased to discuss these issues with you in person or via telephone (FTS 346-5283).

c >* h/ S Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

- -. . __ _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _