ML20031H552
| ML20031H552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Sanders M Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031H550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280116 | |
| Download: ML20031H552 (2) | |
Text
.,
' s%
afGOw Federal Emeroenc)7 Mana5ement A encY
{c'n:;Md @y/'.y Washington, D.C. 20472 b
5 s
00,T 151331 Judg2 Jcmen L. Kelley Ad:ainistrative Judge Momic Safety a Licensing Board Panel rlachington, D.C.
20555
Dear Judge Kelley:
During the hearings on the licensing of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statiens 2 and 3, you asked Mr. Spence Perry, FEMA Staff Counsel, to have FEi!A Hendquarters respond by letter to come questions you raised.
This letter is in compliance with this request.
. Cue'stion #1:
What further steps does FEMA plan to take in evaluating the offsite emergency plans?
Answer:
FEMA Region IX will continue to monitor the progress of Southerr California
. Edison's ef forts in working with the local jurisdictions to correct th2 deficiencies noted in the June 3, 1981, evaluation of offsite plcns and preparedness. Monthly reporte will be made by FEMA Region IX to FEMA Hecdquarters.
FEMA Region IX will determine whr.t limited exercises and drills are needed to demonstrate that the deficicneies have been corrected.
h'nen the corrective actions cutlined in a June 26, 1981, letter from Mr. K. P. Baskinc, Scuthern California Edison to Mr. Brian Grites of the NRC are completed, FEMA will make an interim finding, under the terms of the November 1980 NRC-FEMA Memornndum of Understanding, concerning the adequacy of offsite emargency plans and preparedness.
Question #2:
Does FEMA consider that it is premature to consider qu6stions of of fcite c!c.ergency preparedness for San C ofre at this time?
Anner:
FEMA does not telieve that it is premature fu the Board to consider
~ofinite emergency preparndness.
Mich planning has been done, a full exercise has been herld, cod interim FDIA findings have been nade end FEMA has continued to monitor and update its views as is reficcted in its testimony.
Question #3:
What is the status of the Neuman testimony, should it be charac-terized as a national view or a regionnl view?
Answer:
Mr Nauman's testimony represcnts a FEMA Regional view, except where he reflected his knowledge of Headquartces views provided to him.
He represents a Regional view because FEMA Headquarters has delegated to its Regions the recponsibility for working with State and locyl guvernments in developing their plana and preparedness cnd in evaluating these ef forts.
Typically, Headquarters mkes findings and deterainations en adequacy based on the evaluations by the Region.
Mr. Nauman's tectimony will become a part of this evaluation process and as cuch have a bearing on the FEMA findings and determinations on of fsite prcparedness.
. 0$00 PDR-
Curation 04:
Is the July 14, 1981, memorandu a to Mr. Brian Crim?s (subject:
cargency preparedness and support of Sen Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), signed by fir. Jacke) still an accurate reflection of FEMA's propoced ceticos and timing?
/,nswer:
Yes, this memoraMum is an accurate reflection of the actions to be taken by TEllA.
The timing, however, is contingent upon South;... California Edison being able to meet the schedule for correcting the defi; > 7cies detailed in the enclostre to Mr. Baskin's letter of June 26, 1981, to Mr. Brian Grirres.
Du ntien (!5:
Does the Nauman testimony to the extent that it differs from the June 3, 1781, FEMI, findings, supercede those findings?
Answer:
No, the Nauman testimony does not represent new or different findings from those of June 3.
The present delegation of authorities to the FEMA Regions do not include the making of findings which is reserved for the FEMA National Headquarters.
The Nauman testimony, to the extent that it differs frca the June 3 FEMA fincings, reflects actions that have bezn taken by Southern California Edicon and local jurisdictions to correct the deficiencies noted in the June 3 findings.
Question (!6:
Was the target date of November 1,1981, for the issuance of new FEMA findings, set in the Jaske tremorandum of July 14, 1981, the recult of external activitics by the Southern California Edison Company or internal FEl considraLions?
Answer:
FEliA was given October 15, 1981, by the company as a trrget for ec::.pleting the improvement activities to correct the deficienciec.
On the cscum.ption that this schedule was met, FEliA added 15 days for procassing and forwarding to FEliA Headquarters an evaluation by the Region and for the preparation or find.ings by FEtP. Headquarters.
Thus, the target date was the result for a combination of factors, those c0toide its control and those within its control.
i I hope that the foregoing is recponsive to your questions.
i Sincerely, Qikhb.vt-4b&v<'d Marshall E. Sander's Acting Chief Technological Hazards Division Offics of Natural and Technological Hazards ll m
m.
.