ML19305D065

Response to Anti-Nuclear Group Respresenting York Second Set of Interrogatories Re Restart Proceeding.Includes Info Re Offsite Emergency Operations Ctr & Interruption of Electrical Svc.Gf Trowbridge 800331 Forwarding Ltr Encl

ML19305D065
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/31/1980
From:	Trowbridge G, Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
Shared Package
ML19305D049	List: ML19305D048 ML19305D051 ML19305D058 ML19305D060 ML19305D062 ML19305D065 ML19305D070 ML19305D073 ML19305D077 ML19305D082 ML19305D089 ML19305D096 ML19305D102 ML19305D108
References
NUDOCS 8004140023
Download: ML19305D065 (7)

Text

T)

\" '.

Lic 3/31/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES FROM ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK INTERROGATORY NO. 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 j plant?

(a) Does the licensee agree or disagree with the follow-ing conclusion reached by the NRC/TMI Special In-quiry Group (Vol. 1, p. 133):

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, explain with reference to speci-fic sections of the licensee's emergency plan how this conclusion has been' incorporated into emergency planning around TMI.

RESPONSE

A general discussion of the factors identified in this inter-rogatory is included in sections 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 of the Emergency Plan. In addition, further information on these factors is included in the TMI-l FSAR'and the'TMI-l FES.

8004140o73 . . .

other than the studies necessary to generate this information, Licensee has made no special study of local conditions which might warrant a departure from a 10-mile circular EPZ.

Precise definition of the 10-mile EPZ boundary is the re-sponsibility of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Licensee has relied upon the expertise of the state in considering local con-ditions which might warrant a departure from a 10-mile circular EPZ. As a voluntary matter, the five affected counties have de-veloped 20-mile evacuation plans.

(a) Licensee neither agrees fully nor disagrees fully with the referenced statement. The basis for the statement appears to be the Special Inquiry Group's view that the 10-mile planning zone is "relatively arbitrary" and thus " inadequate". Licensee dis-agrees with these observations. They fail to con-sider the bases provided in NUREG-0396 and -0654 for the 10-mile EPZ. Further, such observations evi-dence a misunderstanding of the role played by EPZs. The existence of a 10-mile EPZ does not mean that evacuation, or other appropriate pro-

' tective measures, may not be implemented beyond that distance if plant conditions so warrant.

Rather, the 10-mile EPZ constitutes a sufficient distance for-detailed emergency planning so that, if necessary, measures beyond 10 miles can be im-plemented on the basis of the preexisting emergency planning.

l l

. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 At the present is there a notification system in place in the TMI EPZ capab:.e of satisfying the " design objectives" of Appendix 3 to NUREG-06'347 If yes, describe in detail the functioning of such system and give the bases for the licensee's belief that the standard 9 of NUREG-0654 are satisfied.

(a) Wnat measures has the licensee taken for assuring chat the means, financial or otherwise, exist for putting such a system into place?

RESPONSE

The present system does not sati fy fully the design objec-tives of Appendix 3.

(a) Licensee has undertaken a study to determine how best to provide adequate warning to the public.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17

~

Has the licensee engaged in discussions with Lancaster County with respect to the possibility of transmitting effluent and/or other radiation monit6 ring information directly to the County Emergency Operations Center? If yes, what has been the outcome of these discussions?

1

RESPONSE

Licensee has engaged in discussions of this type with Lan-caster County officials. Licensee is continuing to consider the feasibility of providing Lancaster County officials with offsite radiation monitor readings. No final resolution has been made.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18 ,

Describe fully the instrumentation the licensee' intends to install in its offsite Emergency Operations Center in terms of the specific items of information (i.e., radiation monitoring; essential plant status parameters such.as pressure and temperature) such instrumen-tation will be able to furnish.

_4_

RESPONSE

Licensee is installing remote monitoring devices in the offsite Emergency Operations Center which will have the same monitoring capability as the devices proposed for the Technical Support Cester (TSC). The capabilities of such devices are de-scribed in Amendment 13 to Licensee's Restart Report, Section 10.3.3.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19 State whether or not there has been any interruption in electri-cal 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 occurrence, duration, and area affected.

RESPONSE

Interruption to customer. electrical service has occurred to customers served by Metropolitan Edison Company within an area embraced by the 10-mile EPZ since the initial criticality of TMI-1. A computer printout entitled "GPU Disturbance Outage Re-port System, Listing of Select Control Cards", and appropriate supporting information for interpreting dates of o_ccurrence, duration and area affected, are being placed in Licensee's Dis-covery Reading Room. Licensee does not have data on interruption of electrical service within the 10-mile EPZ to customers served by other utilities.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Add to interrogatory #2 the findings of the NRC/TMI Special In-quiry Group (Vol. 1, pp. 122-128) and of NUREG-CR-1270.

l o .

RESPONSE

The long-range review described in Licensee's response to j ANGRY Interrogatory (First Set) No. 2 will consider the Rogovin Report findings, including NUREG-CR-1270.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21 What criteria does the licensee intend to use in making " protective action recommendations to State officials" (EP S 4.6.4.l(2)) . In particular, assuming an atmospheric release causing calculated offsite doses which equal or exceed EPA PAG levels, what factors will determine the recommendations of either sheltering or evacua-tion 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 condi-tion 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?

RESPONSE

The determination of protective actions is a state responsi-i bility. Licensee has the primary responsibility to project doses  !

based on effluent monitor and meteorological readings. The Li-I censee will also qualitatively _ assess the confidence level of the initial dose estimates (pending confirmation by offsite moni-toring teams) and provide this information to the s' tate. Further, Licensee will provide information relating to the possible future course of events so as to anticipate the impact of offsite re-leases, and the projected stability of the situation. The quanti-tative and qualitative infommation would form the basis for Li-

! censee's recommendations for protective actions.

(a) Every event which may ultimately require a recom-l mendation is different, and no consistent time can i

1 l

be provided. Licensee does not depend on the NRC in making protective action recommendations.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PIT MAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: Mj Worg6 F.

' _ kbYu Trdwbridge Robert E. Zahler Dated: March 31, 1980 e

e r

e 9

S H Aw, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E 18 0'O M STR C CT, N. W.

WAS HIN GTON, D. C. 20036 cAMSAv o POTTS STEPHEN e. HuTTLER (204) 331 A100

$1TEU ART L. PITTM AN wlNTHRom N. SRowN _

OCORCE F. TROwsRf DG E J AM E S 8. H A A LIN 4;T C PM E N D. PQTT S RoeERT E. 2AMLER TELECoptER

"?."E'"?.20'.'!,':,S 2'."LJf !".'0STW C. aCa>=S. O ..*2..-noo

@, TIMOTHY HANLON STEVEN M,LUCAS _

Q EORGE M. RooERS. JR. M ATIAS F. TRAvstSO.DIAZ JOMN O RMIN C LA N D E R VICTORI A J. DE RR INS TELEX ERUCE W CMURCHILL JOHN M. O'N EILL. JR LESLIE A, NICMOLSON. JR. JAf A. E PSTIE N

• O 'I" * ** "'

M A RTIN O. K R ALL RAND L. ALLEN CA B LE "S H AWLAW "

ETCH ARO J. M ENOALL TIMOTHf a Me sRIDE JAY E. SILBERG ELI S AG ETM M.PENOLETON CARBARA M. RO S SOTT LUCY G. ELlasOF G EORG E V. A LLEN. JR .I RAU L A. M A PLAN COWARO S. CROSLAND WM. G RAOFORO REYNOLDS M A R RY M. O LA S S Ps [G E L COUNSEL F R E D A. LITTLE THO M A S M. McCORMICK FKED ORASNER SUSAN O.FALMSON hf ATM APelEL P $ 2E ED. JR w t L LI AM p.BARR MARN AUQ E N G LIC K JOHN L. CAR R, J R.

E RN E ST L. B LAn t. JR. PMILip J MARvCy CA RL ETON S. JON ES ROBERT M. GORDON THOM A S A. SAMTER JCANNE A. CALDERON JAM E S M. 8U RGER BA R g A A A J. MORG EN

• SHELOON J. wtlS EL SONNIC S. GOTTLsES JOHN A. McCULLOUQM ALFRED M *0STELL J. PATRIC K MsC K EY SETH M. MOOGASI AN JAM ES THOM AS LENMART SHEILA E.McCAFFERTY STEVEN L. M E LT2 E R C ELIS SA A. RIOQwar DEAN D. AULICK R E N N ETH J. H AUTM AN JOHN ENGCL QAvlO LAWRENCE MILLER

~ov . ..<vEo ,M o e.

March 31, 1980 Ms. Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Re: Three Mile Island Unit 1 Docket No.'50-289 (Restart)

Dear Ms. Keck:

I enclose Licensee's responses to ANGRY's second set of interrogatories, dated February 25, 1980. Copies of signed affidavits for these responses are not enclosed, but will be forwarded soon.

Sin ely y 'rs,

/

eor e F.

f rowbridge

/

Enclosure cc: Service List O