IA-85-563, Forwards Listed Info Re Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Listed Info Re Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning
ML20141H012
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, 05000000
Issue date: 05/02/1985
From: Merrill O
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20140C992 List:
References
FOIA-85-563, FOIA-85-653 NUDOCS 8601130290
Download: ML20141H012 (2)
v • d • e


Text

,

t -? A ,

/pa a8:g 'o UNITED STATES M g

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W .E . ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3 [ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

    • .....*#, May 2, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: ACRS Members FROM: g S 1, Staff Engineer

SUBJECT:

PERTINENT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE

SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES IN EMERGENCY PLANNING The following support materials are provided in this Tab.

1. Earthquake Emergency Planning at San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
2. Earthquake Emergency Planning at Diablo Canyon.
3. Foreign Earthquake Emergency Preparedness Considerations.
4. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Regarding Consid-eration of Earthquakes in Emergency.

c'a s

5. Draft of Site Evaluation Subcommittee Letter considered at

- 298th ACRS meeting, but held over until after the Public ggRS&/jg3 Comment period closed on February 27, 1985.

NOTE: The Proposed Rule change is included with Item 3,' Attachment F-1, under Foreign Earthquake Emergency Preparedness Consid-erations.

8601130290 e51125 B$LB 653 PDR

!" A TAB S EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY PLANNING AT SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 In a letter from NRC to So. Cal. Edison Co. dated December 17, 1980, a request was made for the applicant to evaluate the potential complicat-ing factors which might be caused by earthquakes which either initiate or follow the initiation of earthquakes (Attachment 50-1).

A second letter from NRC to SCE (Attachment 50-2) clarified the original letter, in response to a request for additional information. Four items were specifically identified to be considered.

1. Transportation
2. Communication
3. Ability to obtain damage estimates, and
4. Recommendations as a function of various degrees and locations of damage to the plant environs.

SCE responded to the request as reported in NUREG-0712, SER Supplement No. 3, Section 13.3, (especially Sub-section 13.3) (Attachment 50-3).

After reviewing the SCE response, the Staff concluded that "the appli-cants have adequately considered the effects of earthquakes in their emergency plans."

The overall considerations of Emergency Plenning, including consid-eration of seismic and other " abnormal conditions" is reported in detail in the following references:

1. SER, NUREG-0712, (Feb. 1981,) Section 13.3.
2. Suppl.1 (to the above) February,1981, Section 18 and Appendix C (ACRS Review of Geologic and seismic aspects of San Onofre 2 and 3 on Dec. 31, 1980 and during its 250th meeting on Feb. 5-7,1981).
3. Suppl. 2 May, 1981, Section 13.5.1.
4. Suppl. 3 September 1981, Section 13.3.
5. Suppl. 4, January,1982, Section 13.3.
6. Suppi. 5, February 1982, Section 22, III.A.2.
7. Suppl. 6, June, 1982, Section 13.3. j These references can be provided as a handout if desired.

I

~

I L TfiM /

- a

l.: .:

.h DEC 1 h 1980 .

Pocket Nos.: 50-206/301/362

. . i l'r. Rcbert Dictch Fr. D. P. Gilman Vice President Vice Posident - Power Surrly Scuthern California Edisen Cor.pany San Diego Cas .t Electric Corrany 2244 Valnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street P.O. Ecx E00 P.O. Fox 1831 .

Reseread, California 91770 San Diego, California 92112

Dear Genticten:

SUEJECT: EFFECT 0F FACTliQUAKES CH EFERCEf?CY RESP 0f:SES AT SAfi ONCFRF FUCLEAP.

GENERATINC STATION, Uf:ITS 1, 2. E 3 Vc are requesting'that you evaluate the potential complicating facters which might be caused by earthquakes which either initiate or follou the initiation of accidents. Two general cases should be considered. First, e severe carthquake' at the site which could disrupt norr.al power and auxiliary services -

and thereby cause the plant to be in a degraded mode should be censidered.

An Alert or higher emergency class, depending on specific plant damar'e wculd be dcclared in such a case in accordance with Appendix 1 cf MURTG-p6s4, Rev.1.

Y, The facility emert;cncy plans should be capable of functioning under such A conditions. Of principal importance under such conditions would he aupr.:entation ,

of the facility staff and supporting rescurces to assure that a nere severe accident did not develop. Factors to be considered for your facility plans should include the impacts due to potential disruption of ccomunications networks and transportation routes. Your concern should be the availability of resources and personnel to augment onsite staff, transit to and among erergency response facilities and corsunications with offsite organizations. Arrangements shculd be gade such that equipment to be used in such circumstances (such.as helicopters, offrcad vehicles, etc.) will be dedicated for use by the plant even under pressing and cornpetinD needs such as offsite rescue missions. These aspects must be satisfactority addressed prior to the issuance of a full pover license for Units 2 and 3. Consideration of this issue should be included in the revised Emergency Plan to be implemented for Unit I by April 1,1981.

The second case which should be considered is an earthquake offsite which disrupts cer!r.:unications networks and transportation routes in particular locales. In California, such occurrences appear to be frequent enough to warrant consideration in your emergency plans. The procedures to be used .

to deterinine the protective actions recornrended to offsite authcritics should be revised to incorporate consideration of carthquake effects offsite. s Evacuation time estimates should incorporate consideration of local -

transportation route disruptio .

l &' .

m~ '

/) rW1 Cw egr Sl?- I

b. v r m .-. . - . _ . _

% % T na;& e r n s i m m,., ..____..._._ sidm%%wa , _ ,.,,,,_ d,, i & ib n

. . , REC.17 (980 m\

) .

qy.y g .. . . .

f , .: -

We are requesting FLiw to review the auequacy of State and local capabilities .

with respect to response during carthquakes. A copy of our riac.no to Ff.M is enclosed.

Sincerely, '

g.. .. a , e A M 5 hrt L. TM -

Roisert L. Tedesco, Assista.it Of rector .

for Licensinu

. ,5;.

Division of Licensin.

Enclosurc: '

b Nc.ic to FLM dtd. '

d.' > 11/03/50 y/

4- cc: See next pauc.
  • y,

?W: -

. .s,a..

?

@,'c, -- x ,

\,

.(ig s, -. -,

e,. .

.~

' ~

' .4t. :

.l i

l 4,

[s~! -

.ss*)... .

'.,7 . . .

,,t.v.,.,1.'y g , . .

.. . .. c. 7. .. 4

,..9,..~~

% .h. .s e

..) fy:n. i. . %.~!Q 4 . ') _' ,

, r. F- *9.,'?.fy S;19y.5., .,..e'"s

. ; o 9 "' 'Z.,$,;- Q. . ,

_ :l3 . . _

g s t".

.t ~. .

s

.s .".

,.v..,,- . ...:. .

4 , __

1 n

, .g r-

..g e

e

4. -

g '.

    • t.. ,

.,.. *.i.

k. $ .

Sr. , ,

s g) 7( ( h. , .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO'MMISSION

' nasmNCTcN.O.C.20555

,g W ).E .

e....

MVEEBER ' 8 HEMORANDUM FOR
John McConnell, Assistant Associate Director for Population Preparedness, FEMA FROM:

Brian K. Grimes, Program Director Emergency Preparedness Program Office, NRR '

SUBJECT:

'.'e REQUEST FOR FEMA ASSISTANCE TO REVIEW EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE AND YOLCANIC ERUPTION ON STATE / LOCAL

.,, EMERGENCY PLANS

![.:- As we have discussed, in the course of our review of licensed utility emergency plans, volcanic eruptions and catastrophic earthquakes have emerged as two I,Q  :

1,ssues of high public interest. To insure that these issues are being

'gi adequately addressed, we request that FEMA review the State and local planning N efforts for the areas around California nuclear power plant sites and the

$ Trojan site with respect to the complications which might arise in the

!{4 .

f.y . . -

y.,

event of extreme natural phenomena and how these can best be addressed in the planning process, f( !

In conjunction with the Trojan plant' evaluation for compliance with the new NRC emergency planning regulations, the Commission has directed that -

the problems of effective protective, measures and evacuation during or ,

?  ; soon after volcanic eruption (giving due consideration to the possible effects of severe ashfall, mudflows, floods, and landslides) be closely examined. In this regard, we are requesting the' licensed utility to revise J,.f[, '

its emergency plan to explicitly address the. possible problems associated h;,. with an eruption. This will include considerations of site access during

' fz" - an emergency, assured comunications and appropriate revision of the '

.{ . . evacuation time estimates used in protective action determinations. The Oregon State Department of Energy, has already addressed the feasib'ility of implementing effective protective measures during an eruption (enclosure llp/.

. 1). .

" The earthquake issue has particular relevance to nudiear plants in l

'. California (i.e., Diablo Canyon. Humboldt Bay, Rancho Seco and San Onofre).

We understand from the FEMA news release of September 29, 1980 that FEMA will lead a team consisting of personnel from Federal State and local y agencies to accelerate efforts towards improving the state of readiness O.3 to cope with potential major earthquakes in California. 'In this regard W: we request that FEMA include in its evaluation of offsite emergency plans. ; -

O l I >)l:n l r

. ,g ,r.

by -

earthquakes for California nuclear power

.Specifically, reactor:

1.J ff,.

A. '

. t .r.

'L'

, ~

3. T ',~, ., .- '

=~

1., ..

'h l

40 i_ Moom - -

e 4- *

. p .; ,

John McConnell . ,

n s ig -

such evaluation should include the impacts on State / local emergency plans' due to potential disruption of comunications networks and evacuation roytsg.

In inis regard, we are requesting the affected licensees to revise their

~

emergency plans to explicitly address the possible problems associated with an earthquake to include the type of potential compli. cations discussed above for the Trojan facility. .

, Thank you for your assistance in these matters. .

~

,,A Brian K. Grimes, Program Director '

'.< ~

Emergency Preparedness Program Office Office of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation y.; .

. \

d

Enclosure:

Oregon DOE Study

[Aj.. , Report Heasures y

.s .

blr.' .: , -

Y N.

?

$..?. '.

~ .

A i '.

os**

A i ..

[' , , . . .

, .?

G. . .

r

? '.

j 'i _ . * *

~

.e 55' ' h::. *

.h<..*y.. f. ' . yi%.

. ;. . i . ~ - .: wg

$.I.f .:. t V

t' e o) v .

,, g .

s .

~' *

,, w

s *

, . s, :

4 -

p UNITED STATES (3 n[.3 ,, gf [', ' k g NUCLEAR REGULATO9Y COMMISSION waseawcToN. o.c.aosas gy 131981 .

. Docket Nos.: 50-361/352 Mr. Robert Dietch Mr. D. W. Gilman Vice President - Power Supply Vice President San Diego Gas & Electric Company Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street P. O. Box 800 P. O. Box 1831

Dear Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

CLARIFICATION OF STAFF LETTER OF DECEMBER 17, 1980 REGARDING EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKES ON EMERGENCY RESPONSES AT SAN ONOFRE GENERATING S This letter is to provide clarification of the subject staff request for additional -

information. The intent of that request is to assure that adequate consideration has been given to the complicating factors which might be caused by earth' quakes in the development of the emergency plans for your facility. We believe that planning for that eventuality should be part of your emergency plan in view of the relatively high frequency of severe earthquakes in California. Accordingly, as

\ indicated in our December 17, 1980 letter, you are requested to evaluate the .

effects earthquakes would have on your emergency response,: capability and s include these considerations in your emergency plan. Sfor purposes}of avaluation,,as _a planning basis you may assuae that the'*

eriences plant's'it

%Erthquake' effects"no%re ' severe _than:the. Safe' Shutdown Earthit6ake? While

~

you need not' assume"that"a reactor accident occurs simultaneously with the

~

earthquake event, you should include in your planning basis the consideration that the plant might have been adversely affected by the earthquake (e.g.

through failures or degradations in non-seismically qualified systems and .

components) and may, therefore, be more prone to the potential for an incident that might result in off-site releases of radioactive material.

Specifically the following items should be considered in the evaluation of the effect of earthquakes on your emergency plan:

~

1. Ability to transport necessary personnel to the plant to cope with degraded modes of plant operation.
2. Comunication between the plant and outside agencies.
3. Ability to obtain damage estimates, both to the plant and to transportation /

comunication facilities off-site. This information should be available to factor into the decision making process, including recomendations to offsite authorities for protective actions after an earthquake.

O

-1r s tj> i 9 y ) & 19 rm cemed

A i*

j Mr. Robert Diem -

.s. . .

2 .

~

4. Develop a range of recommendations to off site authoritier that takes into account various degrees and locations of damage to the plant environs.

. . . Sincerely

.,. V{. 'c s'.s .

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director ,  ;

' for Licensina Division'of Licensing '

9

,

  • cc: See next page.

6

.".?- '

d!~ .

J. :

\

4}J hk.Y

.' y

- S

.*E D,

g G

[*lta, .s .

a :,,.. ~ . -.

. .. 'y

.  : ,. . - ' ' ' ~ a~

g. 4 .

. . . . . .r '. .

.W. '

.-9 o *

-t

m

' .: . . . \

NUREG 0712 Supplement No. 3

-i%N. '

a f*.V ' - t sm.

.w 1s. . . ,

ir':;.? .' l

(;

Safety EvakmGon Report related to the operation of 4

<t San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, il Units 2 and 3 J Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50 382

(

Southem Califomia Edson Company, et al.

  • f.

55 h

f, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . .. ,

omo. e Noca.or neoca,e  :./2.

5.i.

Septemcor 121 '

? !

y Wh.

'll

%{?. 3 L.' . ,*

Y

,; i SM'

' p, w -

)

a s ,_a-1

~

v.- -- -

. . w- --- - - - - - - - - - -

t ,.,;

,d4 .4';i .-

v _

E ar'- __ _1__ ..

t

. . . . ~ . . . . ..

p k -l[

- - ,. sr. .

)

i ,

9/16/81 g w;,

4. : '.54 . . ..

.r.l. It * .

h he' . -

. 1 l l TABLE OF CONTEN15 f.82! }

1. INTR 00uCT10N AND GENERAL DISCUSSION ..... .... . ..... .. . . 1-1 l I

1-1 -; c 1.1 Introduction ....................................... ....

6

3. DESIGN CRITERI A - STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS, EQUIPMENT d AND SYSTEMS .................................................... 3-1 . 1 3.11 Environmental Design of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment ........................................ .. . 3-1 ,,

p 13-1 l 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS .......................... ........... . 4 13.3 Emergency Preparedress Evaluation ....... ............. . 13-1 'j

'it 13.3.1 Ir.troduction .............................. ... . 13-1 f; .f 13.3.2 Evaluation of Applicants' Energency Plan . . .... 13-1 13.3.3 Earthquake Cons iderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-3 .

13.3.4 Evaluation of State and Local Plans ....... .. . 13-4 j]

13.3.5 Conclusions ...................... ........ . .. 13-4  ;.

) ,

APPEN0ltr5 y 4 l A. CONT INuAT ION OF CKRON0 LOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 t F

B. ENVIRO

  • ENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ,

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ..... .......................... .... .... B1 ,

- ,l

.io

'1 1

J5 y l

i A?

r 1

- T-

~.

9 l

..e.

)

, 4g $.i ?y[- g:r-t 't.

= u 4 :..e. ?h. gy': a c. .

.W't  %. rscV:$ T2d

.~ '

' g-j .f ' _*$g ' -

m

~: .io

l 1

.. ... f eg .

h5 h!

F { ...

xs. v; -

13 C0euCT OF OPERATIONS P 13.3 Emergency Preparedness Evalus'. ion 1 13.3.1 Introduction The staf f's review of the applicants' emergency plans is documented in  !

Section 13.3 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated February 6,1981 ~

(NUREG-0712),

February 25, 1981.

and in Section 22 of Septement No. I to the SER, datedThe Onsite aents of the sixteen planning standards of 10 CFR Part 50.47(b) Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and Part !! of the " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of .

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of NuclearThe 1 Power Plants, NUREG 0654, Rev. 1, 1980."

that the San Onofre Onsite Emergency Plan, when reviseo in accordance with the applicants' commitments, will provide an adequate planning basis for an accept-able state of emergency preparedness and will meet the requirements of 10 Cf 2 Part 50 and Appendtx E to thereto. However, the SER also states that the ensite plan must be revised to address (1) the final criteria and implementation schedule for the Ese gency Response Facilities and their function, (2) emergency

' manpower levels, (3) the seteorological program, and (4) Theprotective aretton Emergency Response detereination and implementation after an earthquake.

Facilities are also discussed in Section 22, Ites fl!. A.I.2 of Supplement No. I to the SER. The applicants submitted a revised Onsite Emergency Plan IU dated Apell 1961, ond further information in letters. Our review of the recently submitted information is given in Section 13.3.2, below.

13.3.2 Evaluation of Applicants' Energency Plan (2) Onsite Energency Organization b The applicants' plans for augmentaion of the on-shif t capabilities af ter r j declaration of an emergency provide for meeting the minimum emergency .

' staf fing augmentation require.:.nts specified in Table 8-1 of MUREG-0654, TI.e applicants state that the call-in of Rev. I within 60 minutes. }

personnel will be made immediately, and all required personnel will beWith ~t present in 60 minutes.

specified in Table t-1 within 30 minutes, qualified personnel necessary '

to perfore the functions Ifsted in Table B-1 under " Capability forIn the staff's view, this 30 minutes" will be present in 30 minutes.

l

' capability satisfies the intent of NUREG-0654.

Perledic, unannounced call-in dellis will be conductedThe to WRC verifystaff thehas staff augmentation times reported by the appitcants.

compared the applicants' time estfeates with the guidance contained in IR) REG-0654 and on that basis we conclude that the appilcants' plans for on-shif t staf f augmentation are acceptable. We consider this issue to be eesolved.

13-1 e

k N' 9.

Another area of concern is the delegation of authority in the event of an emergency on shif ts other than the day shif t.

The and responsibility h%.?

5 applicants have stated that the Watch Engineer assumes

  • the po of senior plant personnel, and he has tenedtate responsibllity and written ~* T'- s i authority to direct the initial response to an energency, including This arrangement is making recommendations to offsite authorities.

x ceptable since it provides assurance that the Energency Coordinator pnsition will not be vacant in an emergency during of f-shif ts.

(8) Emergency Response Facilities and Eeulpeent NRC acceptance criteria for emergency response facilities were published l in February 1981, in NUREG-0696, " Functional Criteria for EmergencyThe ap Response Facilities."

of their emergency response facilities in the July 1, 1981 letter to the NRC staff. Completion The of the final factitties is not required prior to applicants' submittal is currently under review and the licensing.

results of our evaluation will be transmitted to the applicants in the near future. The interia emergency response facilities, which are required prior to licensing, meet the criteria set forth in NUREG-The applicants have submitted a description of the present primary meteorological sonitoring systes and have stated that a backup tower is being engineered and constructed. The backup tower is expected to be operational by July 1, 1982.

Appendix 2 to NUREG-06 M requires an applicant to take compensating The applicants actions if only a primary or a backup systee is in use.

have described the compensating actions they will take, including a calibration and inspection schedule, checks with the National Weather Service in Los Angeles and San Ofego and an alternate source of data The NRC staf f finds these compensating during systes unavailability.

actions to be acceptable and consequently concludes that the methods, j

systees and equipment of the applicants' esteorological program eget the critairs of milestones 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix 2 of NUREG-06 M.

Based on the above-described information and coseitsents provided by the applicants, the staff finds that the final criteria and implementa is the San Onofre 2 and 3 meteorological program.

, Sevelopment. Periodic Review (16) Responsibility for the Planning Effort:

&nd Distribution of Emergency Plans In the revised Emergency Plan, the applicants have changed the frequency of the independent audit of the overall emergency preparedness We find the revised frequency to be acceptable, Section P.S.

p.

13-2 .

~ . . . . .g

. . . . . , . 3 h ... '

13.3.3 Earthouake Considerations g;,,.g, ,, ,

By letter dated December 17, 1980, the MRC staff requested that the applicants' ' M' evaluate the potential comp 1(cating factors which might be caused by earthquakes.,$esat ew f -

Further clarification was provided by the staff in its letter of May 13, 1981, -' - I in which several itees were identified for consideration in the evaluation of the effects of earthquakes of a magnitude equal to or less than that of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) on energency, preparedness. The items identified were (1) the appilcants' ability to transport necessary personnel to the plant to cope with degraded modes of plant operation (2) the ability to communicate between the plant and outside agencies, and (3) the ability to obtain offsite and onsite estimates of damage.

The applicants responded to these itees by stating that, in the event that normal access to $0NGS 2 and 3 should be restricted due to an earthquake, emergency personnel and equipment can be transported to the station via helicopter. SCE maintains five helicopters and one twin engine fixed wing _ .

aircraf t capable of carrying six passengers. The fleet is based at Chino Airport. Provisions have been made for the dedicated use of two helicopters

=

- for the transport of emergency personnel and equipment to 50NG5; however, all of the aircraft could be dedicated to SONGS, based upon the pa titular need.

g.

With regard to consunication, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of the Emergency Plan list the location, the systee and the function of an extensive and diverse communi-cations systee for both onsite and offsite communications. The rystem is described on page 13-6 of the SE;. The NRC staf f judgmer.t is that simultaneous failure of these diverse facilities is unlikely, even in the event of an earthquake.

With regard to post-earthquake damage estimates onsite, the applicants have committed to assemble teams to survey the plant and its environs to assess damage. With regard to offsite damage estimates in the event of an earthquake, SCE can draw upon the cis(1/ structural expertise within the company's engineering

j and construction depart'aent to inspect key highway bridges and overpasses.

= The California Department o Transportation has organized response teams that j are immediately assigned to assess an/ highway structural damage. liiformation on road conditions will become available to the Energency Coordinator f rom the

" CAtTRANS response teams and the $CE teams. Such information would be available for protective action recommendations.

In addition, the a;pitcants have prepared Revision 2 to their evacuation analysis for the 10-mile Emeegency Planning lone. This analysis (1) identifies j

areas where potential problems may arise that would disrupt primary transporta-

' tion routes, e.g. , brid2e structural failures or unstable bluf fs, (2) identifies

~

alternate route which bypass tw notential prootees areas, and (3) assesses the impact of poter.tial transportatti,n rou'e disruptlJn on evacuation time estimates. The appilcants' report concludes that, under severe evacuation route disruption, evacuation of the 10-mile ecrt5 sector would require Theup to report 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, and much of this time would be sr nt waiting in queues.

provides additional information which could be used to make protective action

' recommendations after an earthquake. -

1 We have reviewed the information presented t'y the applicants, and, for the 7 reasons given above, conclude that the applicants have adequately considered the effects of earthquakes in their emergency plans.

13-3 r

m

7

.,.- -: ,;  % v , s m h

[vdd9fWh ~ . ~49_

. y  :

g g 4 '

. {$. :

g _

13.3.4 Evaluation of State and Local Plans .g. ,

The current status of the review of State and local emergency plant is as .' .*i *f.

follows. A joint exercise was conducted on May 13, 1981, to evaluate the

  • I offsite capabilities of the State and local jurisdictions to .espond to a l

. nuclear emergency at the San Onofre station The exercise was evaeunted by .

I the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEFA), and a number of deficiencies were identified in a FEMA letter to the NRC (J. Dickey to 8. Grimes) dated j June 3, 1981. FEMA concluded et that time that State and local government radiological emergency response plans were minimally adequate, but that offsite g capshility for implementation of the plans was inadequate. In a Setter dated  ;

June 26, 1981, the applicants identifier 1 the corrective actions they plan to '!

take. in .onjunctivn with of f site authorities, to address the Jur. 3,1981 FEMA determinations. In a letter to the NRC dated Jely 14, 1981 (R. .iste te '

8. Grimes), FEMA stated that the applicants' June 26, 1981 letter - its enclosure represent agreed positions concerning FEMA's major conc- ehat -*J needs to be done to correct them, and SCE's proposed actions to ,n -#

correcting the deficiencies. f ,1 13.3.5 Conclusions ). ..

In the SER we stated that the San Onofre onsite emergency pla, must be revised Y to address the final criteria and implementation schedule for the emergency .,l.

response facilities and their functions, emergency r.anpower levels the mete- . '; .

crological program, and earthquakes. As discussed in Sections 13.3.2 and {

13.3.3, above, the applicants have addressed all these issues, and the staff -

has reviewed the applicants' submittals and found them acceptable. Therefore, we conclude that the San Onofre onsite emergency plan provides an adequate -

planning basis for an acceptable state of esercency preparedness, and meets j the requirements ef 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E thereto, and conforms to the g guidance centaineo in NUREG-0654. Further, provided that the corrective t actions discussed ir Section 13.3.4, above, are carried out prior to full .d 4

power operation, we conclude that the state of onsite and of fsite emergency preparedness at San Onofre 2 and 3 provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological ,

emergency. J) i s

hl N I I

~

13-4

~h

. .; - ' ?. .

. .* f ' i h .7. ( .-i yh h[ f

I l TAB 5 EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY PLANNING AT DIABLO CANYON The efforts in this area for Diablo Canyor. were not, to the best of our knowledge, requested by the NRC. The wcrk was performed for the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. by contract to the TERA Corporation. The September 2,' 1981 report consists of three volumes, Volume 1 being the main body of the report, Volumes 2 and 3 being appendices. Pertinent pages from Volume 1, including the Introduction and Executive Summary are attached (Attachment DC-1). The Tables of Contents for the Appendices, Volumes 2 ~

and 3, are also attached for your information (Attachment DC-2).

The conclusions drawn from this study are given on pages 1-5 and 1-6 of the Executive Summary.

Copies of all three Volumes are available in the ACRS Files.

1 I

e

. . __ . _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IA-85-563,_Forwards_Listed_Info_Re_Consideration_of_Earthquakes_in_Emergency_Planning&oldid=2937388"