ML20052G843
| ML20052G843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1982 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 78-365-01-OL, 78-365-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205190055 | |
| Download: ML20052G843 (3) | |
Text
.
w-7:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Tl P.b 17 M7 52 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m
m Before Administrative Judges:
James L. Kelley, Chairman i
Elizabeth B. Johnson SERVEDMAY<171982
\\
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
3
\\'
.f M
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-361-OL' '
)
50-362 0L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPANY,
)
78-365-01 OL-et al.
)
ASLB No.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating x..
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
May 14, 1982 ORDER (Soliciting Comments on Siren Coverage In San Clemente)
The Order is being issued simultaneously with the Board's Initial Decision on emergency planning issues.
In that decision, we are approving the siren system for San Onofre, as described in the record, subject to (1) Staff confirmation that the sirens have been tested and conform to their 1
technical specicifications, and (2) the result of this Order.
We recently received a copy of a letter from the Mayor of San Clemente, California, to the Comrrission dated April 26, 1982, stating that the siren system there is inadequate and requesting that other forms of emergency notification be installed.
We are retaining jurisdiction of the question of
$0h G20S190055 820514 f
PDR j
f D
L 0'
u-(
- s.,
l
+
' E' R
/
Q
~
n R
7 4,
siren adequacy, pending receipt of comments from the parties, and the City of San Clemeni.e, on the following questions:
d
~
1.
Are the sirens as presently installed consistent with their description by th'e Applicants in the record? Do they meet the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and Appendix E, part 0.37 2.
If not, how and where are the siren signals deficient? Would l
the alternate means'of notification referred to in 1 G 11 of p
our decision compensate fsr any such differences?
,3.
Can and will any such deficiencies be remendied?
4..
How would installation of a NOAA-type radio system or a cable-vision override system improve notification capabilities for b
San Onofre? Would the proposed EBS system serie essentially the same purpose as cablevision override?
In this regard, is San Cicmente concer'ried only with people who may not hear a i
i s,N siren because they are watching television?
5.
In the light of your comments, what action, if any, should
. E' '
this Board take?
San Clemente is not a party to this on-the-record proceeding, although they could have petitioned to intervene long before this.
It is-late in the day for this Board to be looking at this question again.
It would be unfair to the Applicants to allow this matter to drag on indefinately without a resolution.. Comments of the parties and the City of San Clemente must be
7.
l i
1 l
in our hands no later than June 1, 1982. We expect to determine what l
i
)
further action we should take, if any, by June 10, 1982.
i FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
O i
IK. James L. Kelley, #flairman l
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGC~
May 14, 1982, j
a Bethesda, Maryland.
l i
P I
I i
l 4
i t
?
l
'l 4
i I
i t
!L i
....... _, _.., _,