ML19294B773

Response to Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York First Set of Interrogatories.Includes Submittal of County Emergency Response Plans & Assumption of Evacuation Distance Based on NUREG-0396.Affidavits & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19294B773
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/15/1980
From:	Carter K MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
Shared Package
ML19294B772	List: ML19294B771 ML19294B773
References
NUDOCS 8003050629
Download: ML19294B773 (21)

Text

' -  %

pnyty connEsPcNDCC3 ff 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Uc;W50 /

tt y3gsc 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CHEISSION -

7 96 N ggg y Z e.rOEu:, 'IEE ATOMIC SAFETI AND LICENSING BOAF@

S{ $

In the lhtter of )

% e

) * "s lEIPDPOLITAN EDISON (H4PAIE ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

('Ihree Mile Island tbclear )

Station, Lhit No.1) )

CatOtEAL'IH OF PENTEYLVANIA'S RESPOtEE TO INIERROGATORIES (FIRST SET) OF ANII-NUCLEAR GROUP fown.StSTING YORK (ANGRY)

1. State whether or not Annex E of the Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan (DOP) has been subnitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission for the purpose of receiving the latter's " concurrence therein".

RESPOtSE No. However, appropriate copies of Annex E plus all TMI county emergency response plans were provided in September,1979, to the Regional Advisory Ccmnittee (RAC), for informal review. RAC consists of representati7es of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE4A), Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), Food and Drug Adninistration (FDA), and Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).

a. If not, when is such submission contemplated to occuri

. RESPOtEE Formal subnission is scheduled after receipt of formal findings frcm

. ~

.the Governor's Ccmnission on TMI and receipt of the revised Federal guidelines for state nuclear facility planmng to be transmitted to the Cwuvugealth by Fa%. These guidelines ~ tray be in the form of a FER/NRC docunent.

8003050 b

b. - If. it has, was Appendix 8 thereof, the Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP) Plan for Nuclear Power Generating Incidents, also suhnitted at the same time and for the same purpose?

RESPOtlSE tb response required.

c. If it has, were the Emergency Response Plans of Lancaster, York, Cumberland, Dauphin and labanon Counties also suhnitted at the sam time and for the same purpose?

RESPOtEE tb response required.

d. On what date did these suhntssions occur?

RESPOtEE tb response required.

e. Has such concurrence been granted or denied with respect to any of the aforenentioned plans? Attach copies of all correspondence, memoranda or other documentation received or issued by the Ccxmonwealth relating to compliance or non-compliance of any of the aforenentioned plans with NRC concurrence standards and criteria.

RESPONSE

No, such concurrence has been neither granted nor denied.

2. According to DOP Section IX(A) (2) (c) the Pennsylvania Emergency Managenent Agency (P&R) has the responaibility to " review and approve county "RERP" (Radiological Emergency Response Plans) .

a.

~

Specify in detail the standards and criteria that PDA enploys in such review and approval procedure.

RESPONSE

P@A and appropriate State agency representatives provide a page-by-page review with county representatives. Constructive criticism of the county plans is provided. NRC guidelines and the taskire requirements of Annex E provide the basis for the acceptability review.

b. Has such approval been granted or denied with respect to the "RERP" of Dauphin, York, lancaster, Cuierland or Lebanon Counties? If so, when? Attach copies of all correspondence, renoranda or other documentation received or issued by the Ccmuraalth relating to ccupliance or non-co::pliance of any of the aforenentioned plans with PB4A approval standards and criteria.

RESP 0 TEE tb, such approval has been neither granted nor denied. The plans of Dauphin, York, lancaster, Cuierland and Lebanon Counties have been under review, with the latest forrni review in Decenber,1979. These plans are presently being revised.

3. D3P Section VIII (G) states that the Governor " retains directiorcl authority" over decision-making in the event of an "energency nuclear incident". Yet the Governor is totally absent from the notification sequence set forth in DOP Appendix 3. Ibes Appendix 3 accurately .

reflect the role of the Governor in nuclear emergency decision-making?

If not, please describe his place in the Appendix 3 notification sequence as precisely as possible.

RESPONSE

The notification sequence describes the initial notification of an incident. All State agency actions are essentially under the direction of the Governor. He will be informed as the situation progresses--and will provide such guidance and direction as he deems appropriate.

4. What are the factual and analytical bases for the "assu:Iption" that "the 10-mile evacuation distance includec an adequate safety rargin which precludes the need for evacuation of institutions, facilities, or people beyond the 10-mile radius?" (DOP, IV (F))

RESPONSE

mis assu:ption is based upon the development of the 10-mile radius in NUEG 0396 and the general acceptance of that distance by other Federal

.s agencies.

5. That are the factual and analytical bases for the " assumption" that

" adequate lead time wi.ll be available to implement the provisions of this plan?" (DOP, IV (E))

RESPOIEE The assumption is based upon the response options available to us and the time necessary to implemnt appropriate protective actions.

a. What is the mininun " lead time" that the Cctmrtwealth considers to be " adequate" for DOP implenentation?"

RESPOtEE Adequate lead time depends upon what specific energency response is implenented and the existing situation.

b. How was the answer to interrogatory #5 (a) derived?

~RESPO!6E Variables in the situation and different energency responses preclude the designation of a specific time.

6. Identify the emergency response capability of'the 5 " risk counties"

~ in terms ? radial distance from the TMI site at the time of the March 21 1979 accident.

RESPOtGE A 5-mi.le protective action radius was prescribed for Dauphin, Lancaster and York Counties.

~

a. To what distance were such counties instructed to extend such capability in the period during and 1rtnediately following the accident?

RESPOtEE On March 30, the three counties--plus Curberland and Lebanon--wre advised to plan ~for 10-miles. Then, later in the everdrg, the five

e cocntie$, plus Perry, were advised to increase the radius to 20-miles.

b. What was the basis for the distance defimng such extended capability that was chosen?

RESP 01EE Nuclear Regulatory Coctm.ssion advisories.

c. Will counties Wich have developed emergency response capabilities

' to a distance which exceeds that specific in DOP Section IV (F) be required to maintain such capability?

RESP 0 TEE Maintaimng such capability is a county option, and not a requirement.

d. What is the reason for the answr to interrogatory #6 (c)?

RESPONSE

. Elected officials have the legal responsibility for the health and safety of citizens under their junsdiction--and, thus, the rightful authority to make such judgments.

~

7.

Does the Connenwealth have plans to obtain, stockpile and develop distribution methods for a thyroid bloclung agent such as potassium iodide?

RESP 01EE

. Yes.

~

a. If yes, by what date will these steps be ccepleted?

RESP 0 TEE The s Department of Health was informed by Carter-Wallace Pharmaceutical Company that the Food and Drug Adtrdnistration approved a new drug application for Potassiun Iodide on Novenber 30, 1979.

Contact was made with Carter-Wallace prior to that date urging the manufacturing of a tablet form of KI for thyroid blocking purposes because of the unsatisfactory experience with SSKI follcwing the 'IME incident.

Presently, the Secretary of Health is consulting with those physicians and health physicists so have expertise in radiological health on this subj ect. 'Ihe National Poison Control Center has also been contacted and

, a reply frcm then is expected within the next week. Lbder consideration are predistribution of the drug to those within 5-10 miles of the reactor sites and the possibility of stockpiling it in other areas. -

After the final ccnclusions have been made, the proper authorization and funding meelunism will be sought via the Governor's Office and the Legislature,

b. If no, give reason.

RESPOtGE ,

No response required.

c. Is the availability of such a thyroid blocking agent in sufficient quantities necessary to effective energency response capability?

RESPOISE

. Yes.

d. What is the reason for the answer to interrogatory #7(c)?

RESPONSE

At(the present time, it is the only known effective means of preventirg, the uptake of I-131.

-5a-

8. The York County RERP states at p. IV-2 that 50 - 2 passenger ariulances will be supplied by " State C.D." to assist in evacuation of nursing hcees. '

a. Identify the Camuumalth agency that agreed to provide such service and attach a copy of letter, if any, ccafirming such agreement.

RESP 01EE

'Ihe Pennnsylvania Emergency Panagement Agency.

b. What arrangements are in effect for providing drivers for such vehicles in the case of a nuclear accident?

RESPONSE

Federal Disaster Assistance A&nnistrative representative in Farrisburg agreed to provide required araulances with drivers during IMI.

e e

-5b-

9. 'Ihe York County RERP reflects at p. VII-l the selection of em time frames, five and twenty-four hours in duration, upon which to base its er.ergency planning. Identify the asst =ptiens and bases underlying the selection of these two tire frames.

RESPOtEE Before the York plan was em:plete the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission mna known that a 30-hour warning tire would be available for a precautionary evacuation, under any foreseeable scenarios. Other time factors were periodically dissersnated to counties based upon information from Nuclear

-Regulatory Connission representatives.

a. What is the basis for the conclusion that "we do not believe that the five--hour plan could be acccnolished if schools were ir session.

RESP 0 TEE

'Ihe quoted conclusion reflects a judgnent made by York County authorities, and the Cuaa;ueealth is not able to supply the basis for that conclusion.

b. What contingency plan (s) exist for use in the event of a nxlear accident that occurs while schools are in session?

RESPO!EE At this time, the Cocuuuaealth does not know the status of each plan

1. cr each school. However, the Cuaivueealth does know that local school authorities have energency plans at each school, and that efforts are

, being made to upgrade those plans. Detailed informatica should be obtained through York County authorities.

10. Wh'At are the factual and analytical bases underlying the assumption that "the majority of people within the evacuation area will elect

.to stay with friends and relatives within or outside York Co'mty?"

RtSPOtEE Various experience factors, including the recent Canadian evacuation of 250,000 people, with only 10,000 requiring public shelter. Other disaster experiences do not indicate greater than 507. of evacuees require mass care accocuodations.

a. hhat muld be the inpact upon the plan's effectiveness if either nere or fewer people behaved as stated in this assunption?

-PISPONSE Additional enss care facilities exist in adjacent counties if nere are required--expansion of available facilities is also possible. Lesser requiranents could be accourodated by consolidating into fewer facilities.

Overall, no overriding inpact on plan effectiveness is expected.

11. khat is the time required for the evacuation of each of the seven

" hospitals located within a 10-mile radius of 'IMI" as listed in Table 3 of the Licensee's Emergency Plan. Explain fully the reasons for the time given in each case?

RESPO!EE There are three hospitals located within the 10-mile radius of 'IMI:

Cmnunity General Osteopathic Hospital, Milton Hershey Medical Center, and Elizabethtown State Hospital for Crippled Children. Medical authorities are currently reviewing hospital evacuation times.

12.

What is the basis for belief in the effectiveness of the principal method of warning arployed by the County FERP's Civil Defense sirens?

RESPOBEE Sixens are not the only means for alerting the populace. Also to be utilized are telephones, loudspeakers, knocking on doors, radio, IV. Sirens have been the trainstay of the civil defense systen for years. bbst can be collectively activated fran a central point.

a. khat measures have been taken to insure that persons who are so warned have the knowledge necessary to enable than to receive further instr'x ticrs?

RESPO!EE Public information programs at local, county and State levels are a nest effective means--as~ is the distribution of appropriate informatica materials. Efforts are underway to improve such programs.

b. khat is the time required for such notification procedures to be completed?

RESPONSE

Present estimates indicate approximately 2 to 3 Fours may be required to notify nere than 907. of the populace witlun 10-miles.

c. Describe the special procedures, if any, that have been adopted for the notification of Old Order Amish. khat is the time required for such special procedures to be carried out?

RESPONSE

'Ihe Mennonite Disaster Services organization has indicated that no Old Order Amish are within 10-miles of EI. A " pyramid" system of notification is planned for other areas.

13. Explain how the decision will be made whether to order sheltering or evacuation during an atnespheric release of radioactive rmterials.

Factors such as " time to release" or " time required for relocation" should be quantified, if possible.

.RESPOISE Assuming that protective actions are indicated, shelterire will be considered as a protective action when:

1.' Release tune is expected to be short (puff release) (less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />).

2. Evacuation could not be well under way prior to expected phne arrival, due to short warning time, high wind speeds, and/or foul weather.

3. For any reason evacuation cannot be effected so as to avoid a significant fraction of expected exposure.

4. Sheltering appears to be the best option available.

For core melt accidents which release particulates, sheltering wuld

, be follami by evacuation after plume passage.

Assuming that protective actions are indicated, evacuation will be considered when:

1. Release t1me is expected to be long (greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />).

2. Evacuation could be well under way before plume arrival, based on wind speed and travel conditions.

3. Projected doses are expected to approach or exceed 1 Rad whole body and/or 5 Rad thyroid.

4. Evacuation appears to be the best option available.

- 14. khat does the Cumuuwealth understand the tents " precautionary" and

" selective" evacuation, respectively, to mean? hhat facters, quantified if possible, muld lead to the choice of each as an appropriate protective action?

RESP 0 TEE

" Precautionary evacuation" is interpreted by this agency to mean a reccxumendation for evacuation based on a perceived and expected but not yet realized henrd which is severe enough to require evacuation if the bn7nrd occurs. It is assumed that sufficient time is available to effect the eva,cuation before the anticipated hnenrd arrives.

" Selective evacuation" is interpreted by this agency to mean a recocmendation for evacuation of certain segments of the population

_g_

on a precautionary basis or a real basis. The basis of the selectivity may be increased radio-sensitivity as in the case of childbearing women (fetuses), infants and young children. It may also be based on i:mcbility or decreased physical capacity as in the case of the sick, aged and institutiembed.

15. State whether or not an atrospheric Release Advisory Capability Systen (ARAC) was placed in operation at Three Mile Island during the accident.

RESPO!EE The Atrospheric Release Advisory Capability (ARAC) Systen was placed in operation h g the accident.

a. Kho made the decision to install this systen and what ws the basis for such decision?

RESP 0 TEE The system was installed by DOE as part of the IDE response to the event.

b. khat are the advantages of ARAC over conventional methods of dose assessment and projection?

RESPONSE

ARAC has the advantages of being able to take into account the effects of terrain and the various mechanisms causing cloud depletion.

c. khat is the opinion of the Cua.uumalth as to how the absence of the infomation analysis capability provided by ARAC affects the Licensee's ability to provide prompt and accurate dose assessment info mation to off-site authorities?

RESPO!GE The absence of ARAC does not necessarily have a negative effect on dose projection. Conventional techniques in use are known to be conservative to a certain degree. khether the same is true for the ARAC systen is unclear.

Conventional methods are believed to be :mre acerate at distances to several kilometers. ARAC, on the other hand, becomes nere ace.: rate at distances beyond several kilometers.

USNRC is supporting a study of the feasibility of using ARAC services to augment emergency manager ~at programs at comercial licensed facilities.

A followup study will investigate the generic factors involved in nationally implementing ARAC services at nuclear plants.

16. How much time muld be necessary to evacuate all persons wit':in a 10-mile radius of 'IMI? Include the estimated t1me for notification, for preparation, and for actual transit time.

RESPONSE

Evacuation time for 10-miles: notification - 2 to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, preparation - 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, and roverent - 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />. Notification and preparation take place simultaneously. The 6-hour preparation time is desired to assure resource availability, assignment and positioning of emergency forces (to include Nati aal Guard), preparations by local officials and their agents. Of course, evacuation of a'ge portions of the populace can take place during preparation, if necessarf.

Movement time for 1007. of the populace requires about 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> for 'IMI.

Totals: 6 (includes notification and preparation) plus 7, ecuals 13.

Adverse weather would increase covement times.

a. Identify all assumptions used in arriving at such estirates, such as road capacities and traffic volume over given egress routes.

RESPONSE

Dblognent of travement time for a 10-mile evacuation was based on noving 1007. of 1970 census tract population; assuming three people per auto; utilicing route capacity by specific highways; coordinating PennDCfr

recocmendations with each Cotmty plan to assure no conflicting guidance; continuing two-way traffic cn routes; assuming prior nobilization and statien1ng of energency forces frca State and cctmty; excluding consideration of traffic using secondary roads; assumirg,no adverse weather ccruplications; and a speed of 30-35 mph.

b. Hw would such estimates be affected by each of the following conditions: (1) Inclement weather, (2) Rush-hour congestion,

, and (3) Traffic accidents?

RESP 01EE (1) Adverse weather: I:ovenent time may triple, (2) Rush-hour traffic:

probably has linited effect on overall nuvenent, and (3) Traffic accidents:

preparation time includes location of wreckers and other devices to assure clearing traffic choke points enroute.

17. Wat action has the Cauusealth taken, if any, to comply with the following recocinendation of the President's CocInissica on the accident at Three Mile Island:

Planning should involve the identification of several different kinds of accidents with different possible radiation consequences. For each scenario, there should be clearly identified criteria for the appropriate responses at various distances. . . response plans should be keyed to various possible scenarios. . . (pp. 76, 77) .

RESPOIEE levels of incident are included in Appendix 8, Annex E and in risk county plans.

18.

Identify all documents and studies relied upon by the Canonwealth in answering the foregoing interrogatories.

RESPOldE

a. The following were relied upon by PRIA:

Ccumonwealth of Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan (DOP)

Annex to DOP

NLTIG 75-111 NUREG 0396 NUREG 0578 IMI Ccnmty energency response plans

b. The followi.ng were relied upon by the Bureau of ParHntion Protection:

NUREG 0396 UCRL 52802 - ARAC update - 1979 9

Pespectrully submitted, J '

1

/4 h A s. I O' - Dt,Lh.z, KARIN W. CARIER Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Cearcruealth of Pennsyhmia Dated at Harrisburg, Pennsyh-ania this 15th day of February,1980.

P

=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGLLUCRY CottESSION BEEDRE 'nE A'IDEC SAFETY AND LICD4SDU BOARD In the Matter of )

)

MEIBOPOLITAN EDISON ENPANY, )

) Docket !b. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit No. 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF EtE'IT E. kE.fH Comtalth of Pennsyhmia

)

) SS County of Dauphin )

atEIT E. WELH, being duly smrn according to law, deposes and says that he is Deputy Secreta y for Administration of the Pennsylvania Departmznt of Health; that the information contained in Cormonwealth's response to Interrogatory No. 7 is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

c v (f ~

fBh.n f(E.hELH( ,

, Deputy Secretary for Administration Department of Health Sworn to and subscribed before me this /d' day of February, 1980.

p hhl? W.'$ Ym'

~

WIARY PUBLIC 7 ADIN D. C'J'RK. JR.. tht ry MEc e rcc,wi.on Empires nne rit ..1:3 v ar,,iburg. F A Cc.i.,:.iei (.*i-t, N

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tUCLEAR REGLM IGRY CO!ESSION BEFORE THE AIDEC SAFETf AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of )

)

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON CD4PANY, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Staticn, Unit No. 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MARGARET A. REILLY Connonmalth of Pennsylvania )

) SS County of Da'phin )

MARGARET A.'REILLY, being duly smrn accorc'ing to law, deposes and says that she is Chief of the Environmental Radiation Division, Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pemsylvmua Departnent of Environmntal Resources; that the informtion contained in Cuauuuwealth's response to Interrogatories tbs.13,14 and 15, and response B to Interrogatorf Ib.18 are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, infon:ntion and belief.

- k: I-

) W. .un,y,Clf$

(

( ,. (. ? t J MARGAREI A. REILLY Chief, Envirerental Radiation / Division Bureau of Padiation Protection Departmnt of Environmental Resources Smrn to and subscribed before m this /S day

.of February, 1980.

~

/)

s a < o. m 6';. -6, ta W&

u,a<

a

. g% 3%%

m # ,coaw

UNITED STATE 3 0F AtERICA IUCLEAR REGULA'IORY C0tMISSION BEEDRE 'mE AIOt4IC SAFEIY AfD LICD; SING EOARD In the Matter of )

)

MEIROPOLITAII EDISON 024PANY, )

) Docket tb. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit Ib.1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF ORAN K. HBOERSON Cumuumalth of Pennsylvania )

) SS County of Dauphin )

ORAN K. HENDERSON, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is Director of the Pennsylvania Frergency Management Agency; that the information contained in Ccuronwealth's response to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, '+, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and response A to Interrogatory tb.18 are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

OPAN K. HENDERSON Director Pennsylvania Emergency Manage: Tent Agency Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of February, 1980.

tUrARY PUBLIC s

UNITED SIATES OF AME?lCA 11UCLEAR REGLUTORY OCMESSION EEFORE TE A'KMIC SAFEIY AND LICEISIliG POARD In the Matter of )

)

MEIPDPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY, )

) Docket tb. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit tb.1) )

Lt.ruir1CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Comcmealth of Pennsylvania's Response to Interrogatories (First Set) of Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 15th day of February, 1980.

(/ ,- ,

,k d & J . . l ( * ,'

[ 'd .*t~bR KARIII W. CARTER Assistant Attomey General Dated: February 15, 1980 e

S

88E%vng -

UNITED STATES OF MERICA e7 D NUCLAR REGUIAIORY (HMISSION BEFORE THE AICMIC C M AND LICENSING BOARD,S - g~ Wg@ P~~.

^ -

7  ?@ \g In the Matter of ) 7, ap A 3

) C* M gg -

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON 02@ANY, ) g e (Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

)

Docket No. 50-289 (Restart) sg " a Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST

-George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Mr. Steven C. Sholly Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 304 South Market Street 1800 M Street, N.W. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvan:t.a 17055 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Ms. Marjorie M. Aanedt Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler R.D. #5 P. O. Box 1547 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Ms. Holly S. Keck, Leg. Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Anti-Nuclear Gmup Representing Chairnun York (ANGRY) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 245 W. Philadelphia Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission York, Pansylvania 17404 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan Coalition for Nuclear Power Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Plant Postpone nnt 881 West Outer Drive 2610 Grendon Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Wilmingcon, Delaware 19808 Dr. Linda W. Little Mr. Robert Q. Pollard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Chesapeake Energy Alliance 5000 Hermitage Drive 609 lbntpelier Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Baltirere, Maryland 21218 Docketing and Service Section Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Secretary Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555

.Strawterry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 'Ellyn R. Weiss Sheldon, Ha.ren, Roisran & Weiss Dr. Chauncey Kepford 1725 I Street, N.W.

Judith H. Johnsrud Suite 506 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Washington, D.C. 20006 Power' 433 Orlando Avenue Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. (PANE)

State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Sheldon, Harnen, Roisman & Wei.ss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006

James A. Tourcellotte, Esquire Jchn E. Mirrich Office of the Executive Legal Chai=an, Daudin Cotrty Ecard of Director Ccmissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission Dauphin County Ccurthouse Washing"ca, D.C. 20555 Frcnt and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Assistant Counsel Jordan D. Cunningha:n, Esquire Pemsylvania Public Utility Attorney for NeAerry Tomship Ccnmission T.M.I. Steering Ccrittee '

P.O. Box 3265 2320 March Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvan2.a 17110 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Mardn I. Lads

. Assistant Solicitor 6504 Bradford Terrace

, County of Dauphin Philadelphia, Pmyh?.nia 19149 P.O. Ecx P 407 lbrth Front Street Jane Lee Harrisburg, PA 17108 R.D. 3, Box 3521 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 G

%