ML13302A870

Summary of 801020 Meeting W/Fema in Los Angeles,Ca Re Emergency Planning

ML13302A870
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/24/1980
From:	Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8012100046
Download: ML13302A870 (3)

Text

NOV 2 4 1980 Docket Nos. 50-361/362 APPLICANTS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE)

SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (SDG&E)

FACILITY:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3

SUMMARY

OF NRC-FEMA MEETING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING The NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staffs met in Los Angeles, California on October 20, 1980, to discuss review matters related to emergency planning of the San Onofre Nuclear Plants. Other participants in these meetings were: Southern California Edison Company (SCE), California State Office of Emergency Services (OES), and Orange County. Attendees at the meeting are given in the enclosure. Highlights, agreements, and conclusions of the meeting are summarized below.

The meeting was held in the Hacienda Hotel, El Segundo, California. The dis cussion was centered around the development, dates of completion and review of the California State, Orange County and San Diego County emergency plans.

Mr. J. McConnell,-Assistant Associate Director for Population Preparedness, FEMA, stated that FEMA is not directly involved in the nuclear plant licensing process. FEMA, however, has been directed by the President (December 7, 1979) to review offsite emergency plans of all nuclear plants and give NRC its review results. Mr. B. Grimes, Director of Emergency Preparedness Program Office, NRC, indicated that FEMA review results of offsite emergency plans are used by NRC in its overall evaluation of emergency planning at each nuclear reactor site.

f:r. 0. Pilmer of SCE indicated that even though the California State emergency planning zone requirement may exceed that in 10 CFR 50, SCE is prepared to act accordingly. The projected exercise date of the San Onofre plan is some time in January 1981. To his knowledge, Orange County and Camp Pendleton are both revising their existing plans.

Mr. J. Kearns, California State Office of Emergency Services, stated that the draft of the revised California State plan will be ready for comment in the near future. Criteria for developing county and local plans will be published on November 10, 1980; county and local governments will have until May 1981 to complete their plans. The state OES will work with the counties to "expeditiously produce their own plan."

Mr. T. Meade (Regional Assistance Committee Chairman, FEMA) requested that the State, counties and FEMA should keep communication channels open while plans are being developed. Mr. Kearns agreed that the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) could proceed to review drafts of these plans. Mr. McConnell added that FEMA would, under reasonable request, provide NRC with interim assessment/

evaluation results of State/local plans. (It was generally agreed by all parties O FFOF F IC E SU RNA M E a

x DATE

76)

-R..20.-OV RN E T.R N-NG O F

.NC F-ORM 318 (9-6 sRCM 024n

• U.S GERMN PmnRIN-rN OFFI-CrE:ams 1979-289-369

-2 that drafts of county plans will be ready for-a RAC working session in the week of November 17.

Such a working session, according to Mr. McConnell, will not constitute formal FEMA review of these plans. Mr. Kearns agreed that the California OES will take the lead in coordinating county efforts and in setting up the RAC working session.

Mr. McConnell indicated that FEMA will review plans against NUREG-0654 criteria.

If California or other states impose larger emergency planning zone (EPZ) requirements than NUREG-0654, FEMA will still use the 10-mile plume exposure and 50-mile ingestion EPZ criteria. In such cases, FEMA will check to see if the extended EPZ will impact the 10- and 50-mile EPZ in a negative way. Both SCE and Orange County, however, indicated that their plans will be affected by the yet-to-be finalized State requirement on EPZs (e.g., they will need more time to review plans for extended EPZ).

Mr. Pilmer said that SCE has sent all correspondence regarding planning of meetings to tbe State OES, but Mr. Kearns said that he has not seen any.

Mr. Grimes suggested that SCE should assure that in the future the State OES receive timely copies of such documents.

H. Rood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page LB3:DL O F F IC E O.....................

HRood:ch Ft a

SU RNAM EO 0..

.DATEp 1f 80 11 80 3A118 (0.76) NDPAA 0240.

IfS G O\\/ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369

REGULAWY D0CK0 LE COPY, METLTING SUflMARY DSTRI BUT ION Docket File~

G. Lear NRC PDRG.Le Local PR V. Noonan Local PDR S. Pawlicki TIC/NSIC/Tera S. PeaIyC NRR e

'V.

Bontaroya NR Redi nn LB#R Reading Z. Rosztoczy LBH!3 Reading aH. Haass H. Denton D. Muller E.Case

. E s e R. Ballard D. Eisenhut

.Rea R. Purple 1-D. Ross B. J. Youngblood P. Check A. Schw.encer P. Chc A S c h w e n c e r aR

. S a t t e r f i e l d F. Miraglia0.Pr J. Miller

0. Parr GF.

Rosa R. L o m W. Butler J. V.Knight

. Krege r C

R. P.o s n kR.

Houston R. osnak

. Murph F.

Jcac L. Rubenstein Sch son ti Proje E Jac nq T. Speis Project Manager H. Rood J. Jhnstonm

Attorney, OELD o

Mz J. Lee J. -Stol z a

OIE (3)

S. Hanauor ACRS. (16)

1. Cmmi11 ACRS(13)T.

Murley R. Tedesco K

c-rle F. -Sch roodor D. Skovhul t NRC

Participants:

M. Ernst_

R.Bacr C. Berlinger H. Rood K Kniel F. Pagano G. Kniuhton B. Grimes A. Thadani P.~

Ta

. Tondi PTam D. Davis

.J.

Kramer D. Vassallo P. Collins D. Ziemann bcc:

Applicant & Service List