ML20053D068
| ML20053D068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206040025 | |
| Download: ML20053D068 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA er,qip NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD qgg Administrative Judges:
Gary J.
Edles, Chairman h6 Dr. John H. Buck Dr. Reginald L.
Gotchy
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 - SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
ORDER June 1, 1982 Our preliminary review of the record and the briefs of the parties in preparation for the oral argument on June 24 has raised several questions which we believe could be usefully addressed in advance of oral argument and, as necessary, developed further at that argument.
We have only begun our review of the record and our request for addi-tional elaboration should not in any manner be construed as suggesting our views on any issues.
1.
The partial initial decision on emergency planning relies on the staff's proposed findings of fact is 60 and 61
+o address the adequacy of the staff's incident response plan.
Our prelininary review of the g5d 1
8206040025 820601
/
PDR ADOCK 05000289
/
Q PDR I
i 2
record shows that under cross-examination staff witnesses observed that many phases of their plan and the implemen-tation thereof were incomplete at the time of hearing, i.e.
as of March 24, 1981.
See generally Tr. 16,107-16,201.
For
- example, a.
NRC response plans call for the placement of 8 NRC people but where these people are to be stationed had not been coordinated with the licensee.
Tr. 16,117-19.
b.
NRC response plans have only been partially reviewed internally (Tr. 16,122).
No review yet by FEMA or coordination with other Federal agencies had been made (Tr. 16,125).
The witness did not know if ACRS had reviewed the plan (Tr. 16,126).
c.
The resident inspector would be expected to be the first NRC person to report to the site and he would be located in the control room.
However, no coordination had been done with the licensee as to where the NRC inspector would be located or how he could get information.
The staff witness knew of no instructions to the resident inspector as to whether he should talk to operators.
(The
r 3
licensee's plan contains a statement that certain personnel will be assigned as liaison to NRC.)
Tr. 16,140-42.
d.
Staff witnesses were uncertain about new equipment required at regional headquarters l
by the response plan.
Apparently no inventory exists (Tr. 16,148-16,160) nor were witnesses sure of the availability of needed expertise at Regional Headquarters.
e.
The staff had no knowledge that Region I or other I&E regions had held response drills.
We therefore request the staff to give us, in affidavit form, a complete update of its response plan and implementa-tion thereof as well as the status of coordination of this plan and its implementation with the licensee, and federal, state and local agencies.
2.
The staff advocates a requirement that the licen-see's Emergency Support Director report to the Emergency Operations Facility within one hour of the beginning of an accident.
We would appreciate further explanation of the staff's reasons, in view of the Licensee's accident response organization, for transferring the protective action
r 4
decisions to the Emergency Operations Facility in the first hours of an accident.
3.
The licensee currently plans to activate the EOF approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the commencement of the accident and expects representatives of the following to report by that time:
a.
Emergency Support Staff b.
Emergency Preparedness Department c.
Environmental Assessment Command Center d.
Technical Functions Group e.
Communications Department f.
A primary communicator Lic. Ex. 58, p. 2.
Under management's plan the Emergency Support Director would not arrive until 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> later.
Until that time his functions are to be performed by the Emergency Director located on site at the Emergency Control Center.
The licensee should apprise us of who, during that interim period, coordinates the activities of the personnel at the EOF.
The licensee should explain fully how it intends communications with the Emergency Director to be handled.
We do not expect that responses to questions 2 & 3 will go beyond the existing record. The responses to this order 3
e 5
shall be in writing and be in our hands and in the hands of all parties to this proceeding no later than close of buhiness Thursday, June 17, 1982.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
%hN C. JQn Sh6emdker Secretary to the Appeal Board l
l l