Letter Sequence Other |
|---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML19256G2531979-12-20020 December 1979
Notifies That NRC Guides & Criteria Cannot Be Adequately Incorporated Into Site Emergency Plan Before 800101.Requests Delay in Submittal Data for Revised Emergency Plan Until 800131
Project stage: Other
ML19260D3701980-02-0404 February 1980
Forwards Estimate of Evacuation Times for Areas Near Facility,In Response to NRC
Project stage: Other
ML19321B1811980-07-21021 July 1980
Advises That 800718 Emergency Plan Upgrading Per NUREG-0654 Will Be Delayed Until 801001.Requests Rept from 800422-23 Emergency Preparedness Team Review
Project stage: Other
ML19331D7121980-08-28028 August 1980
Notifies That Final Version of Upgraded Emergency Plan Will Be Submitted by 810102
Project stage: Other
ML19332A5901980-09-12012 September 1980
Informs of Util Concept of Physical Means for Alerting & Providing Clear Instructions to Populace within Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone.Design Concept Is to Provide Tone Alert Receivers for All Establishments in Zone
Project stage: Request
ML19345B0031980-11-0707 November 1980
Forwards Summary of 801104 Meeting W/Util Re Proposed Sys to Provide Prompt Notification in Event of Emergency.Meeting Satisfies Request for NRC Response to Util
Project stage: Meeting
ML19345B0061980-11-0707 November 1980
Summary of 801104 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Licensee Proposal for Sys Providing Prompt Notification of Public in Event of Emergency.Plan Is Predicated on NOAA Willingness to Participate
Project stage: Meeting
ML20037C2381981-01-15015 January 1981
Forwards Facility Emergency Planning Info for Placement in Lpdr.W/O 8101070522
Project stage: Other
ML20003E7541981-04-0303 April 1981
Provides Info Re Schedules for Implementation of Emergency Response Facilities.Conceptual Design Description for Technical Support Ctr & Emergency Operations Facilities Will Be Submitted by 810601
Project stage: Other
ML20037D1681981-05-0505 May 1981
Approves Ga State & Local Plans for Emergency Preparedness. Approval Subj to Implementation of Alert & Notification Sys That Meets Criteria of App 3 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1 by 810701
Project stage: Other
ML19352A8691981-05-29029 May 1981
Submits Info in Response to Generic Ltr 81-10 Re Conceptual Design Description of Emergency Offsite Facility. Functional Design Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities Available in Central Files Only
Project stage: Other
ML20039C1771981-12-0303 December 1981
Requests Review of Encl Matl to Assess Util Capability for Providing Prompt Alerting & Notification of Response Organizations & Population
Project stage: Approval
ML20039E0361981-12-31031 December 1981
Discusses Proposed Improvements for Meteorological Measurements & Assessment Capabilities of Radiological Releases.Effluent Transport & Diffusion Estimates Will Be Provided by 830630
Project stage: Other
1980-09-12
[Table View] |
Similar Documents at Hatch |
|---|
|
Text
Georgia Power Cornpany 230 Peachtree Street Post Office Box 4545 At' nta, Georgia 30302 a
Telep'
's 404 522-6060 A
December 20, 1979 a.a.x.ny Georgia Power Vice President and General Manager O
Power Generaton the soahern electic sys:em U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2 EMERGENCY PLAN Gentlemen:
Due to the large number of guides and criteria issued by the Commission to be incorporated into a revision of the Emergency Plan for Plant Hatch, Georgia Power Company is concerned about the workability of any plan which could be submitted by January 1, 1980.
Implementing procedures and personnel training cannot be dequately completed prior to January 1, 1980. A plan submitted in such a fashion could result in a lower overall state of emergency preparedness. Georgia Power therefore requests a delay in the recuired submittal date for a revised Emergency Plan to January 31, 1980.
Our site visit by the NRC is expected in late April or early May,1980 to review our submittal. We believe the three months which this schedule would allow for review by the NRC prior to the site visit will be adequate, and at the same time will provide a more complete, well thought out and implemented plan.
Very truly yours,
\\
R. J. Kelly RDB/mb xc: Ruble A. Thomas George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Roger F. Rogers, III Aov3 s
/o C
1653 286 nn eso
