ML19344A631
| ML19344A631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1980 |
| From: | Aamodt M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008210373 | |
| Download: ML19344A631 (2) | |
Text
f'.
~
6,
- coC4ETED MNRc 4
AUG 151980
- MA 8/11/80
~
sh UNITSD STATES OF AMERICA e
..ings 8'$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w*
4 RE THE ATOMIC St.FETY AND LICENSING BOARD, In the Matter of Metropolitan Compay, Three Nile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket 50-289 AAMODT RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS PER BOARD ORDER MAY 22, 1930 We have carefully c'onsidered the validity of continuance of our accepted contentions as required by Board Order of May 22, 1980.
We attended the July 11, 1930 meeting in Iancaster to discuss with licensee the changes that were made in revision 2 of their Emergency Plan.
We contacted the staff to discuss Contention 4 in view of the SER; several members of staff and the Aamodts had two conference each call.s/of about one hour duration to ascertain whether the staff s
recommendations satisfied our expressed concerns.
Due to entirely
"'?*"..
personal reasons, we have not notified the Board in a timely manner
=
of theue considerations.
We request. iniency and submit our consider -
ations herewith.
Both the SER.amd the licensee's revision 2 Emergency Flan skirt the issue of direct notification of the emergency agencies of the surrounding counties, making an exception of Dauphin County.
1.icensee's revision includes immediate notification of their Public Affairs Representative.
Staff channels notification through the state Department of Environmental Resources.
Both plans do not provide for direct notification.
We are thinking of the many fann families, in particular, for whom a General Emergency would pose infinitely more problems than for the general public.
Each farm with an average of 50 lives requiring protection needsevery minute
][j{II in which to plan and cope with an emergency.
The protective actions suggested in the state's agricultural plan take time to accomplish, 80082103 73 WS
.5 */
' 3 1
- o if they can be.
We consider Contention 4 worthy to be heard.
a=_
iiERA i
5ll."
Regarding Contention 5 ;
The alternatives to evacuation, various sheltering procedures recommended in the report of the state Department of' Agriculture, are unworkable.
We, therefore, the case for consider that/ evacuation of livestock should be heard.
We consider Contention 2 important both because of its relation to the TF.I Unit 2 accident and the perception of both the licensee and staff that training and testing are separate do to from job performance.
I have considerable research to/ develop this contention and am willing and able (by education and experience) to do this, however i request assistance-in accomplishing this.
For instance, the licensee has offered to open their records on lengths of shifts.
I forsee many hours of work.
I need help to do this, or I wou2d request that thi's contention be adopted by staff a=_
- E;'.~
with suitable personnel assigned.
We motion for Contention 8 to be dropped as'the area of our interest was mis;y.derstood by the Board in acceptance of this contention.
We.j were interested in accuracy of forecast of quantities.
Tais difference in view was evidenced during Discovery.
Contention 9 was accepted under psychological stress category.
We accept consolidation on this contention with Pane and others in the' lead.
P spectfully submi ted,
~
d.L L
Ne W+tz4 August.11, 1980 m
i h_