ML20213A075
| ML20213A075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Collison M LAGUNA BEACH, CA |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2355 2.206, NUDOCS 8702030085 | |
| Download: ML20213A075 (2) | |
Text
-.
.. i January 29, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362 (10 CFR 2.206)
Ms. Martha Collison, Mayor City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Dear Ms. Collison:
This is in response to a Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 filed by you on May 27,1986 on behalf of the City of Laguna Beach.
The Petition requests that the fluclear Regulatory Commission extend the 10-mile radius of the emer-gency planning zene (EPZ) for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to include Laguna Beach and South Laguna because of concerns related to the adequacy of e;nergency planning for the residents of the two communities.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" the Petition has been denied.
A copy of the decision will be referred to the Secretary of the Conmission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).
j Sincerely, Original Syned By, James M. Taylor James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Director's Decision w/ attachments DISTRIBUTION enclosures w/o attachments
- 2. Federal Register Notice See Next Page N
p \\p y
g
%W DD/IEs k D
RWSt rbstecki JM y1or 01 87 01/p87 y
f EPB/IE EPD %
TECH ED Bf i
10 IE I
OGC Q
RTHogan:sc FL tor DGable DlMitthews 'A5ch vartz Jordan JLieberman fl
/87 01/ /87 01/9/87 01/ 0/87 01/ 0 /87 01/9/8701/5/87 7
,m,wo h s
2 DISTRIBUTION enclosures w/o attachments
"#.. _ _:^ whiz,nn DBMatthews, IE MMals'ch', OGC ~
KEPerkins, IE JScinto, 0GC JAAxelrad, IE JLieberman, OGC CRVan Niel, IE JGDavis, NMSS FKantor, IE JBMartin, RV RTHogan, IE FAWenslawski, RV EDO - 1835 DFKirsch, RV CDeliso, IE 86-359 HRood, NRR MLReardon, IE JMTaylor, IE RWKrimm, FEMA RWStarostecki, IE *S.JResner,PPMB JGPartlow, IE DCS:./
BKGrimes, IE DEPER R/F ELJordan, IE EPB R/F SASchwartz, IE PDR LPDR W
DD-87-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
~
James M. Taylor, Director In the Matter of
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.
50-206 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
50-361 Station, Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
50-362
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION By Petition dated May 27, 1986, the City of Laguna Beach, California (Petitioner) requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) extend the 10-mile radius of the' emergency planning zone for the San Onofre
~
Nuclear Generating Station ~to include South Laguna and Laguna' Bea'ch.
The bases for the action requested in the Petition are concerns about the lack of emergency planning for Laguna Beach, the topography of the South Orange County coastline as it relates to the transportation network, and the effect on the residents of Laguna Beach as others who live to the south drive through Laguna Beach as part of an evacuation procedure.
The Petition also referred to the "recent circumstances in the Soviet Union" as a basis for reconsidering the emergency planning zone issue for San Onofre.
Notice of receipt of the Petition indicating that a final decision with respect to the requested action would be forthcoming at a later date was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 1986 (51 FR 26484).
Because the Petition 1
b2 i < g e [, ' _' /
/3 l
l c. - - - - - - - - - - -
2-involved matters related to offsite emergency planning, the NRC requested the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in responding to the issues raised in the Petition. 1/ The FEMA response, dated October 21, 1986, is attached to this document.
In addition to the response from FEMA, the Southern California Edison Company (Edison or licensee) provided a response to the Petition. The licensee's response of October 3,1986 is attached also.
DISCUSSION The size of the emergency planning zones (EPZs) for commercial nuclear power plants is established by NRC regulations.
The EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to. ensure that prompt and. effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an acc_ident.
The choice of the size of the EPZs (about 10 miles in radius for the plume exposure pathway and about 50 miles in radius for the ingestion pathway) represents a judgment on the extent of detailed planning which must be performed to ensure adequate protective action and is based on an in-depth study of the technical issues by a joint NRC/ EPA Task Force. 2/
1/ FEMA,byPresidentialdirective,hasbeenassignedtheresponsibilityfor assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency plans for the area surrounding a nuclear plant.
The NRC is responsible for assessing the adequacy of onsite emergency plans and has the final licensing authority.
2/" Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological
_ Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants,"
NUREG-0396/ EPA 520/1-78-015, December 1978.
The size of the plume exposure pathway EPZ for San Onofre was litigated in the emergency planning portion of the licensing proceedings.
In that portion of the proceedings, the intervenors contended that, in determining the exact size of the EPZ, emergency planning officials failed to consider specific local con-ditions including topography, land characteristics, population and evacuation routes.
In support of its position that the EPZ had been properly determined, the licensee introduced an evacuation time analysis report 8/ that specifically considered the effect of local topography in determining the traffic capacity of roadways designated as evacuation routes.
The Licensing Board's decision, issued in May 1982, found that the boundaries of the EPZ for San Onofre were drawn in accordance with relevant local conditions and comply with the appropriate emer-gency planning regulations.
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP 82-39;.15 NRC 1163, 1228, aff'd ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) See also ALAB 680, 16 NRC 127, 132 (1982).
The FEMA and licensee responses (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively) provide information on emergency planning for Laguna Beach and South Laguna.
The California State Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan and the Orange County Incident Response Plan for San Onofre Generating Station identify a
-8/" Analysis of Time Required to Evacuate Transient and Permanent Population from Various Areas within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station," by Wilbur Smith and Associates, July 1981.
(This study has subsequently been updated in June 1982 and November 1985).
. public education zone (PEZ) which is defined as that arca outside and adjacent to the plume exposure pathway EPZ extending for a distance of approximately 20 miles from the plant.
As described in the Orange County plan, the PEZ for San Onofre encompasses the communities of Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, South Laguna, El Toro, and Mission Viejo in Orange County.
The PEZ was estab-lished by the State of California to ensure that the public would be informed in advance about how it would be notified of an emergency and what protective actions, if any, should be taken.
The California plan requires Edison to create a public education program for the PEZ.
As part of this program, Edison annually distributes an " Emergency Information Handbook" which includes information on the levels of emergency that could arise, emergency planning for San Onofre, notifi-cation methods, and the steps the public can take to avoid or greatly reduce the potential effects.of a radioactive release.
FEMA reports that the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement provides for support from adjacent jurisdictions and would be implemented during an emergency.
Orange County would coordinate mutual aid between jurisdictions within Orange i
County, including the cities of Laguna Beach and South Laguna.
FEMA notes that under this arrangement both communities would be protected in a radiological emergency at San Onofre.
In a letter to FEMA dated September 22, 1986, the l
Director of the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
. states:
"The position taken by the State of California is unchanged; we feel the existing emergency planning zone around San Onofre is adequate and the residents of the City of Laguna Beach are adequately protected."
On the basis of an evaluation of emergency planning information for the State of California and Orange County, FEMA concludes that offsite radiological emergency preparedness at San Onofre for the current plume exposure EPZ is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the public in the event of an emergency; the level of offsite planning and preparedness provided for the cities of Laguna Beach and South Laguna in the existing emergency response plans for Orange County and the State of California is adequate; and th'ese plans seem adaptable to supporting response
' ~
activities beyond the current EPZ boundaries if it would ever be necessary to expand the response base.
The NRC is currently engaged in evaluating the co,nsequences and implications of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union, particularly as they relate to U.S. nuclear regulatory policies and practices, including emer-I gency planning.
Reviews performed to date of the accident and the Chernobyl plant design have not identified any aspects of the accident which show a clear-cut nexus to U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.
NRC studies, in coordination l
i
, with many other ongoing national and international activities, are receiving priority attention to either confirm that the Commission's current regulatory practices and policies are sound or to identify improvements.
Any new require-ments arising from these investigations, including emergency planning require-ments, will be carefully evaluated by the Commission.
At this time, it is too early to determine whether any changes to current emergency planning regulations will be required.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, I find no substantial basis for taking the action requested by the Petition.
The NRC supports the FEMA conclusion that the current plume exposure pathway EPZ for San Onofre is adequate and that Laguna Beach and South Laguna, which lie within the public education zone for San Onofre. are adequately addressed in the existing emergency plans for Orange County and the State of California.
Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review.
/
1 rna J es M. Taylor Director
/
fice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of January 1987 4
e-e
,w e
---*-mi----pa w-w,w r
---r--v
-m
--'T--?- - -e
= -
n-
[7590 01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket Nos. 50-206/361/362 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station)
ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has issued a decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 concerning a Peti-tion dated May 27, 1986 filed on behalf of the City of Laguna Beach, California (Petitioner) by Mayor Martha Collison.
The Petition requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extend the 10-mile radius emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to include South Laguna and Laguna Beach.
The bases for the action requested in the Petition are concerns about the lack of emergency planning for Laguna Beach, the topography of the South Orange County coastline as it relates to the transportation network, and the effect on the resi-dents of Laguna Beach as others who live to the south drive through Laguna Beach as part of an evacuattor, procedure.
The Petition also referred to the "recent circumstances in the Soviet Union" as a basis for reconsidering the emergency planning zone issue for San Onofre.
The Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has denied the Petitioner's request.
The reasons for this denial are set forth in the " Director's Decision 4g
~I]f
4 1.~
, Under 10 CFR 2.206" (00-87-01), issued today.
A copy of the decision will be available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and in the Local Public Document Room for the San Onofre facility located at the University of California-Irvine, General Library, Irvine, California 02713.
A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for Commission review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), the decision will become the final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion takes review of the decision within that time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a s M. Taylor, irector Of ice of Inspe tion and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this29thday of January 1987.