ML19290E613

Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Licensee.Includes Inquiry Re Installation of Instrumentation of Offsite Operations Ctr & Notification Sys Satisfying Design Objectives of NUREG-0654

ML19290E613
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/25/1980
From:	Bowers J ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
To:	METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML19290E615	List: ML19290E613 ML19290E616 ML19290E617 ML19290E618 ML19290E623
References
NUDOCS 8003140288
Download: ML19290E613 (2)

Text

-

REI.iTED CORREST%'DFm 9I& .

f3 @

N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , [

M 'S.(C8-

'd .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIDN ~

o -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD g

~

~ he yv

g. -

/

M,g{#

6h In the Matter of ) e A 608

)

METROPOLITs EDISON COMPET ) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuc1 car )

Station, Unit One) )

)

INTERE0GATORIES OF ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK TO LICENSEE (SECOND SET)

Intervenor Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY) hereby propounds'pur-suant to 10 CFR g2.740b its second set of interrogatories to Metropolitan Edison Company. These interrogatcries are deemed to be continuing, and shall be supplemented where appropriate in accordance with 10 CFR 2.740(e).

15. What determinations has the licensee made, if any, as to the existence in the environs surrounding TMI of conditions such as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries that warrant departure from a circular EPZ defined uniformly by a 10 mile radius from the plant?

a. Does the licensee agree or disagree with the following conclusion reached by the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group (Vol.1, p.113):

Therefore, at the very least, significant centers of population beyond 10 miles from the plant must be considered in the planning as well.

Explain fully the reasons for any disagreement. If there is agreement, explait with reference to specific sections of the licensee's emergency plan how this conclusion has been incorporat6d into emergency planning around TMI.

16. At present is there a notification system in place in the TMI EPZ capable of satisfying the " design objectives" of Appendix 3 to NUREG 06547 If yes, describe in detail the functioning of such system and give the bases for the licensee's belief that the standards of NUREG 0654 are satisfied.

a. What measursn- has the licensee taken for assuring that the means, financ'ial or otheroise, exist for putting such a system into place?

17. Has the licensee engaged in discussions with Lancaster County with respect to the possibility of transmitting effluent and/or other radiation monitoring information directly to the County Emergency Operat*,ons Center? If,yes, what has been the outcome of these discussions?

18. Describe fully the instrumentation the 'censee intends to install in its off-site Emergency Operations Center in terms of ,;he specific items of information (i.e.,

8003140 2 Q

radiation monitoring; essential plant status parameters such as pressure and tempera-ture) such instrumentation will be able to furnish.

19. State whether or not there has been any interruption in electrical service to any part of the area embraced by the 10-mile EPZ at any time since the initial criticality of TMI-1. For each such interruption specify date(s) of occurrenc9, duration, and area affected.

20. Add to interrogatory #2 the findings of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group (Vol.1, pp. 122-128) and of NUREG CR-1270.

21. What criteria does the licensee intend to use in making " protective action recommendations to State officials" (EP Q4.6.4.1(2)) . In particular, assuming an atmospheric release causing calculated offsite doses which equal or exceed EPA PAG levels, what factors will determine the recommendation 3of either sheltering or evacuation as an appropriate action? The factors listed should be quantified.

a. What is the time that will be required between the initial-recognition of an emergency condition and the selection and transmittal to the State of a. protective action recommendation? What role is assumed for the NRC in making this time estimate?

How would a greater or lesser role than that assumed affect the estimate?

Respectfully submitted, Anti-Nuclea Grour4tepresenting York By: 4  ! #6%

J6hn' Bowers 245 W. kh11adelphia St.

York, Pa. 17402 DATE: February 25, 1980

.