ML20077F166
| ML20077F166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1983 |
| From: | Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308010156 | |
| Download: ML20077F166 (16) | |
Text
-
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNEmSMIP Or peorgssaONAL CompOmATIONS 1600 M STREET. N. W.
TELEM WASHINGTON. D. C. 20035 uC= TELseepsam aa o en.eanee
..a. 3c.wAwbAww.m CAeLE "sMAwbAw" h
f Tats!om July 27, 1983 p
,",^*^4*,
x/
qe,y wom esuso 9;
~/
ROBERT E. ZAHLER P. C. '
.[
O U
53.,-5 D;a _%,_,,% 3 hEa Q ' <g, Mr. Samuel J. Chilk s d Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission V N,, Washington, D.C. 20555 ~ '~ g g, In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The emergency planning portion of the TMI-l Restart proceeding presently is before the Commission on the Staff's appeal relating to the stationing of the Emergency Support Director. Pursuant to the procedures outlined in Licensee counsel's letter to the Appeal Board of October 1, 1981, the following correspondence is being provided for the Commis-sion's information and the information of the parties to the restart proceeding: 1. Letter from Zack T. Pate (INPO) to John R. Thorpe (GPU Nuclear),. dated June 30, 1983. 2. Letter from P.R. Clark (GPU Nuclear) to Zack T. Pate (INPO), dated July 20, 1983. Both of these letters relate generally to emergency planning at TMI, but in Licensee's view do not address the specific emergency planning issue currently before the Com-mission. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Z er Counsel for Licensee cc: Attached Service List 8308010156 830727 h-PDR ADOCK 05000289 PDR
2 a institute of l P@ Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Cirde 75 Parkway Suite 1500 AUanta Georgia 30339 Telephone 4C4 953 3600 June 30, 1983 Mr. John R. Thorpe Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsipp ny NJ 07054
Dear Mr. ~horpe:
Enclosed is a copy of the trip report from the IN?O assistance team that visited Three Mile Island Unit 1 during the week of June 6-10, 1983. This information was discussed wth Dr. Long, Mr. Hukill, and Mr. Rogan during a meeting.at the site on June 10, 1983. It is forwarded for your information and use as desired. If there are any questions regarding this report or in any areas where we may be of assistance, please call ma (953-7644), Pete Lyon (953-5350) or Jim Forsyth (953-7671). Sincerely, ,A, Zack T. Pate Executive Vice President ZTP jkc Enclosure cc Mr. Herman M. Dieckamp Dr. Robert Long ,,,.,.---,-,,_.n--.--
Institute of 3 i Nudear Power-w Operations Memorandum o=- June 1s; 1983 P. W. Lyon/A. S'. Howard F** A. F. Nelson /R. D. Testa /W. E. Carnes - sW TRIP EEPORT - EMERGENCY PREPAREDemSS' ASSISTANCE VISIT TO TMI-l i As. a result of a February 1983 discussion with Mr. Robert Regan, manager of emergeng preparedness, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU), and subsequent. correspondence between Dr. Zack T. Pate, executive vice president INPO, and Dr. Robert L. Long, vice president nuclear assurance, GPU Nuclear, a special assistance visit was made to Three Mile Island - Unit 1 (TMI-1) on June 6-10, 1983. The purpose of the visit was to review the emergency preparedness program of TMI-l in preparation.for restart. The assistance team members were Mr. Alan Nelson, team manager, Emergency Preparedness Department; Mr. Eldan Testa from the Emergency Preparedness Department; and Mr. Earl Carnes from the Public Aff airs Department.- In preparation for the visite the most recent revisions of the site emergency plans.and procedures were requested and reviewed. Similar materials were reviewed in the emergency public information area. A preliminary schedule was sent to Mr John R. Thorper director licensing and regulatory affairs, INPO point of contact. Approximately 400 hours of INPO staff time were devoted to. this special assistanca visit, including preparation, on-site time, and follow-up activities. While on site the team reviewed l selected aspects of the emergency program, conducted interviews with various GPtT personnel, and observed demonstrations of selected emergency operations. The team did not have the opportunity.to observe the operation of the emergency plan during a drill or' exercise Discussions concerning the emergency propiredness program J were held with the following GPU personnelt Mr Robert Rogan, Manager - Emergency Preparedness Mr. George Giangir Emergency Planning Coordinator Mr. Nelson Brown, Emergency Planner (Unit 1) Mr. Jeff Whitehead, Emergency Planner i Mr. Dale Laudermilch, Training l
TMI-L A0sistenca Vicit Trip ROport June 15, 1983 Page Two e Dr. Gary Baker, Director - Environmental Assessment Coordination Center (EACC) l Mr. John Garry, EACC Off-site Test Leader Dr. Ray Donaby, EACC Dose Calculator Mr Tim. Bradley, EACC Manager, Radiological-Off-site Programs Mr. Art Palmer, Radiological Control Foreman Mr. Gary Frank, Dosimeter and Calibration Foreman Ms. Lynn Flynn, First Aid Nurse Lt. John Enders, Security Mr. Ken Weachter, Radiological. control Technician Mr. Joe Brady, Emergency Planner (Unit-2) Mr. Earl Gee, Respiratory Protection Technician Mr. Billie DeArmond, Instrumentation and Control Technician (Meteorological Tower) Mr. Gary Beavor, Emergency Planner Document Control Mr. Bill Edwards, Radiological Control Foreman Mr. Ralph Ehrets, Health Physics Engineer Mr. Mike Rossi, Plant Chemist Mr. Paul Kovach, Emergency Planner Shif t Supervisor Unit-1 (day shift) June 9,1983 Mr. W. L. Gifford, Vice President - Communications Mr. Jack Guerin, Director - Special Projects Mr. Douglas Bedell, Manager - Communications Services Mr. Philip Fine, Manager - Public Information .Mr. Sandy Polone Manager - Employee Communications Mr John Fidler, Senior Media Represe'ntative Mr. George McKelvy, Senior Public Affairs Representative Mr. Don Echumaker, Senior Photographer Mr. John Mickar Media Representative Mr. Jack Thorne Public Affairs Representative Ms. Eileen Sharkeyr Coordinator - Public Information Ms. Sue Todd, Information Specialist Mr.. Dan Weimee. Tour Support Clerk r Ms. Rosemary Troebliger, Administrator I - Communications Mr. Dave Hawsey, Communications Co-op student (Drexel University) Daily debriefings on the team'r activities were held with Mr. Brown (6/6 - 6/7) ant Mr. Rogan and Mr. Giangi (6/8 - 6/9). The communication evaluator also debriefed Mr. Guerin (6/8 - 6/9). Entrance and exit meetings were conducted 6/6 and 6/10, respectively. Mr. Rog'an was present at both meetings. Also present at the exit were Mr. Hukill and Dr. Long, representing GPU senior management, and members of the site and communications staffs. The exit was conducted by Mr. Jim Forsyth, manager, INPO r-- ,-.,--.--,-.-,-,-,-_m .--..,,-,-,.-..----.~,.--,,..--.,,-m, -._-,.--#-.----..---_--,---m, - - - - -. - - - -
- TMI-L Aceistenco visit Trip Rcport June 15, 1983 Page Three Emergency Preparedness Department. Mr. Rogan requested that an INPO team be provided to observe and comment on a full-scale drill to be conducted in the fall. An INPO commitment to provide a drill observation tema was made subject to staffing availability" at the time of' the drill. A number of recommendations for improvement in the emergency, preparedness program were identified during the visit and discussed with GPU mana'gement during the 6/10/83 exit meeting. These recommendations have been reviewed by# a broader range of experienced personnel at INPO. The-refined recommendations are as follows: Recommen ad tions The emergency planning action item Iist used for follow-up o tracking of items should be reviewed to ensure that all emergency planning items.are included on the action ite.1 system. i The emergency plan should be reviewed to correct terminology, o delete obsolete references, and ensure consistency with implementing. procedures. A program should be developed to ensure that revisions to o. procedures are current and distributed to assigned locations.,- The Environmental Assessment Coordination Center (EACC) -dose o assessment procedures should be reviewed and approved in accordance with site administrative procedures. The emergency preparedness training program should be revised o to ensure that all aspects of the emergency plan are covered and that personnel assigned emergency responsibilities have received the training required. The calibration cycle of the meteorological instrumentation a in: the control room should coincide with the meteorological. tower calibration cycle. Provisions should be made for periodic checks to ensure o operability of portable instrumentation used for off-site surveys. 9 e -,r,-__,---.m.,_-- ,,,,-,m., ,, - ~ -,.,, _,,. ____-,__,,,,,._,,n
( TMI-l Acciotenco visit Trip R'; port June 15, 1983 Page Four o The human factor tags. ("E" tags) used in the control room as indicators of emergency action levels should be reviewed to ensure that. the tags are located properly. l The ptioposed expansion of the Technical Support Center should o be completed-to provide adequate working space. i Procedures should be established to conduct radiological o monitoring in the Technical Support Center area tio ensure habitability during an emergency. A uniforar dose assessment procedure should be developed. All o dose assessment personnel should be trained in' that procedure. Appropriate personnel' dosimetry should be provided for EACC o personnel. The proposed expansion of the-Media Center should be o completed to provide adequate space to accommodate the large number of media representatives that could be expected during a serious emergency. During the course of the assistance visit the team concluded th&t the emergency public-information program is comprehensive ~ and maintained in a high state-of readiness and that instrument calibration, respiratory protection, and mini-drill programs are thorough. APN/EDT/WEC:jke l e O ^m ,------~~--,-..-m,,~.---,.,r,--,-,.---,-,,-c.--
GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear aufnvann 48o Middletown. Pennsylvania 17057 1 717 944-7621 TELEX 84-2386 Wnter"s Direct Dial Number: July 20, 1983 Mr. Zack T. Pate Executive Vice President Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30339
Dear Mr. Pate:
This is in response to your letter to Mr. John R. Thorpe, dated June 30, 1983, which transmitted a copy of the Trip Report-Emergency Preparedness Assistance Visits to TMI-1. The Company appreciates the INP0 Team's frank discussion and constructive criticism. We have reviewed the report looking particularly for evidence of potential programmatic deficiencies--none have been identified. In addition, while you did not request a response, we have in-cluded in Appendix A coments and additional clarifying information bearing on the matters addressed in the report. To help ensure that we fully understood your recommendations and that our responses address them completely, we reviewed them in j detail with your Team Leader on July 18, 1983. We remain confident that our internal audit system, complemented by the INPO assistance visits, will continue to ensure the main-tenance of a high state of emergency preparedness at Three Mile Island. Sincerely, P. R. Clark l Executive Vice President Attachment 1 cc: Director-Nuclear Assurance, R. L. Long j Manager-Emergency Preparedness, R. E. Rogan r l GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
e Appendix A GPU Nuclear Response to INPO Recommendations For Improver.31t of the Emergency Preparedness Program i 1. Recommendation: The emergency planning action item list used for follow-up tracking of items should be reviewed to ensure that all emergency plan-related items are included on the action item system. Basis: There were three observations underlying this reconnendation: 1[fTl(11 emergency plan-related items, including those listed on other tracking systems (e.g., QA Audit), should be included in the Emergency Preparedness Action Item Tracking System (AITS); (2) Major ongoing programs and management objectives (e.g., review, revision, and standardization of Emergency Preparedness Training Programs) should be included on the AITS; and (3) Drill observer comments should be reflected on the AITS.
Response
We agree fully with the objective of assuring that all actions identified to be done to improve emergency preparedness are completed. However, our method of assuring this does not call for listing all such items in a single tracking system. By design, the AITS does not include emergency preparedness items reflected in other internal tracking systems. This eliminates multiple listings which previously resulted in confusion concerning the status of those items. 4 The Company intends to continue the current practice and discourage redundant tracking. Although all programs are not tracked utilizing AITS, many of them are tracked as part of the formal Goals and Objectives Program, the Office of the President Action Item List, or the Licensing Department, or other internal systems. It is not considered appropriate to in-corporate these lists in the AITS. Any such programs with significance to emergency preparedness which are not covered by other formal system will be included in AITS. With regard to specific drill observer comments, observations and comments are carefully reviewed and translated into appropriate action . items to be assigned for follow-up by designated responsible individuals. Frequently, a particular observer comment does not lend itself to listing as a separate AITS item. However, Emergency Preparedness will assure that all connents are dispositioned by reviewing each individual comment and, as appropriate, comparing it with the current list of action items to determine if it is being tracked as a previously identified comment, including it with another related comment or entering it into the AITS as a separate item. 9 ,-..---,m- .ve-- ..--...-,,----,.-..,4
i ' 2. Reconnendation: Tha emergtncy plan should be reviewed to correct tarininology, d21ete obsolate references, and ensure consistency with implementing procedures. Basis: The Team reviewed the recently publisheif Revision 4 to the TE E Mile Island Unit 1 Emergency Plan and annotated a copy of the plan with editorial comments, one of which was that the Low Popu-lation Zone (LPZ) is an obsolete term and should be deleted. It was recommended that all acronyms unique to TMI be included in the glossary. In addition, the Team suggested that inconsistencies existed between the recently published plan and current implementing procedures: although no specific examples were cited. Response: A review of the annotated plan indicated that the acronyms identified by the Team are listed in the " Abbreviations" section of the glossary and are defined in the text of the plan. The Company intends to conduct an additional editorial review of the Plan prior to publication of Revision 5 later this year. The Company does not agree that the terminology " Low Population Zone" is obsolete. It is defined in 10 CFR 100.3 and is used at TMI to describe the area en-compassed within a two mile radius of the plant for dose assessment purposes. Copies of Revision 4 of the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures were submitted to the INPO team, prior to their visit, for their review. However, the procedures did net' reflect the proposed changes (Procedure Change Requests) that were initiated to make them consistent with Rev-ision 4 of the Emergency Plan. Due to the recent publication of Revision 4 of the Emergency Plan and the necessary time it takes to process and finalize procedure change requests, the procedures that were reviewed by the team were not com-pletely consistent with the Emergency Plan. Appropriate procedure modifications have been submitted and the Company intends to conduct and complete an additional review by September 1,1983 to ensure thoroughness. In the future, an effective date for implementing a revision to the Emergency Plan will be established to allow sufficient processing time for procedural modifications. 3. Recommendation: A. program should be developed to ensure that revisions to procedures are current and distributed to assigned locations. Basis: The Team discovered three copies of implementing procedures which were outdated or unofficial copies. Response: The Company has a document control and distribution system which insures the timely dissemination of revisions to plans and pro-cedures to all locations designated to receive " controlled" copies. Although the Team's observations were valid, both locations are recipients of " controlled" copies of the procedures and current official copies were also available. The Company has discouraged the use of unofficial copies of procedures and continues to direct management attention to this matter. This issue will continue to be specifically addressed in General Employee Training as well as in day-to-day supervision on-the-job.
4. Recommendation: The Environmental Assessment Coordination Center (EACC) dose assossment procedures should be reviewed and approvad in accordance with site administrative procedures. Basis: The Team observed that dose assessment procedures in use at the EACC were not reviewed and approved in accordance with plant administrative procedures. Responsc: All procedures have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the applicable administrative requirements. The EACC maintains two distinctly different types of procedures. The first type, the . Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures, (e.g., onsite/offsite moni toring, environmental monitoring, and activation of the EACC) undergo the plant review and approval process. Included in this set'of pro-cedures will be a revised dose projection p'rocedure which is currently under development. The new procedure will establish a standardized dose assessment methodology, incorporating identical hardware and software, for use by the Radiological Assessmint Coordinator and the EACC. It is expected that this procedure will be published in October 1983. The procedure now in use by the RAC (EPIP 1004.7) has undergone the plant review and approval process. The procedure in use at the EACC is an Environmental Controls Department procedure that had been reviewed by the Emergency Preparedness Department and was found to be consistent with EPIP 1004.7, as verified by the INPO Team. Once the i equipment is standardized both organizations will use EPIP 1004.7. The second type of procedures maintained by the EACC is the departmental procedures dealing specifically with environmental sampling and related technical issues. These procedures are reviewed and approved in accordance with Corporate Policy No. 1291.01 which defines the requirement for the safety and technical review and approval process. 5. Recommendation: The emergency preparedness training program should be revised to ensure that all aspects of the emerge'ncy plan are covered and that personnel assigned emergency responsibilities have received the training required. Basis: There were three general observations. Departments other than the Training Department were conducting emergency plan-related training and this training was not' documented. The current system for informing personnel of revisions to implementing procedures does not include feedback to ensure adequate training on the revisions. Selected members l of the emergency response organization were identified as not having com-pleted the training required by the Emergency Plan Training Program. l
Response
The Company has carefully reviewed the training program during its development and is unaware of any area not covered. No specific pro-i gransnatic deficiencies were cited by INP0. This program repeatedly has been found to meet or exceed NRC guidance during inspections and audits. Informal programs conducted by several departments other than the Training Department are conducted as complementary training to that required by the formal program and are not required by the Plan or relied upon in meeting it. These programs are conducted at the initiative of the individual l departments to improve the overall state of training and there is no re-quirement to formally document the training. Therefore, no action is planned.
There is a mechanism by which individuals involved are notifiGd of revisions to implementing procedures. By Advanced Change Notice (ACN), individuals are notified that a procedure revision has been effected and a synopsis of the revision is provided. No feedback or acknowledgement is required. For minor revisions, (i.e., no substantive changes to procedures or technical content) which do not require any training, this will be noted in the synopsis. For revisions which are substantive in nature, (e.g., the new dose assessment procedure), the Emergency Preparedness Department will coordinate a training program with the appropriate departments and will assure that the ACN identifies the requirement to attend training by a certain date. Documentation of the training will be by the Training,& Education Department. The Company acknowledges that selected members of the emergency response organization at the time of the INPO visit were not fully trained in accordance with the prescribed program. For the onsite organization, excluding the Public Affairs Representatives, 54 of 57 personnel were fully trained. The remaining three individuals had been partially trained. In the special case of the Public Affairs Representatives, a new training requirement has been established; however, 5 of 7 individuals had been trained under a prior program. A similar situation exists with respect to the Parsippany-based members of the Corporate Engineering Staff. A new course has been developed to meet their special needs and two sessions of the training are scheduled on July 21-22, 1983. Other individual training deficiencies related to the offsite response organization are being addressed, as appropriate. A concerted effort is being directed to completing and main-taining the required level of training for all personnel consistent with the limitations imposed by personnel attrition, revised training requirements, and publication of a new offsite roster effective July 4, 1983. TMI-l Admin-istrative Procedure 1014 and TMI-2 Administrative Procedure 1058 require that personnel be fully trained prior to assuming an emergency response role and maintain a current status. By September 1,1983 GPUN will review and implement appropriate management controls ~to assure compliance with the requirements in the above procedures. 6. Recommendation: The calibration cycle of the meteorological instrumentation in the control room should coincide with the meteorological tower calibration cycle. Basis: The Team observe ~d that the strip recorder for meteorological infor-mation located in the control room is maintained on a two year calibration cycle and that I&C procedures call for a quarterly inspection. of the instrumentation.
Response
In accordance with the guidance in NUREG 0654, Appendix 2, Company procedures call for calibration of meteorological measurement instrumentation on a quarterly basis. As part of this process, the proper readout of the meteorological instrumentation is verified on the strip recorder. If readout on the strip recorder is outside the calibration tolerance, a calibration would be performed on the strip recorder. However, the routine requirement is that the strip recorder be calibrated on a two year cycle since it is not measurement instrumentation.
7. Rscommendation: Provisions shsuld be made for psriodic chscks to ensure ' operability of portable instrumentation used for offsite surveys. Basis: Inspection of a radiological monitoring kit revealed that the battery for a survey instrument had failed and that no spare batteries were available in the kit.
Response
The Company already has formal provisions for periodic checks to ensure operability of emergency equipment. Administrative, Procedure 1053, entitled " Emergency Equipment Readiness", specifically assigns requirements for the inspection and maintenance of emergency equipment and specifies the required minimum frequency of. inspections. Implementation of this procedure is tracked by the Emergency Prepar-edness Department. However, based on the INP0 observation, we have proceeded to place spare batteries in emergency kits for all battery-powered equipment. 8. Recommendation: The human factor tags ("E" tags) used in the control room as indicators of emergency action levels should be reviewed to ensure that the tags are located properly. Basis: The Team observed that, in the process of implementing a human factors-designed emergency tagging program ("E" tags) to identify alarms associated with specific emergency action levels (EAL's), an "E" tag was erroneously positioned on the RM-A4 Alert Alarm rather than on the RM-A4 High Alarm. Response: A validation of proper placement of the tags had been planned and will be carried out. At the time of the INP0 visit, the program was in the process of being validated. It should be noted that the EAL's related to the RMA-4 alarms. changed with Revision 4'of the Emergency Plan. The tagging of the alarm was consistent with EAL's in Revision 3. We believe the error would have been discovered during the validation of the tagging program in accordance with the newly published EAL's. The tagging and validation program is ongoing and the misplaced tag will be relocated to the RM-A4 i High Alarm. i 9. Recommendation: The proposed expansion of the Technical Support Center should be completed to provide adequate working space. Basis: The Team observed that the interim TSC does not provide an octimum work environment and is not conducive to efficient operations.
Response
As recognized by the Team, a program is in progress to significantly expand and upgrade the TSC. This program has been described in our response to NRC Generic Letter No. 82-33 which outlines Company plans to comply with Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737. l
[ 10. Reconnendation: Procedures should be establishsd to conduct radiological monitoring in the Technical Support Center area to ensure habitability during an emergency. Basis: The Team observed that there was no Area Radiation Monitor TA15fT located in the TSC area. Response: Administrative Procedure (AP 1055) calls for a Continuous Air Monitor (CAM) and an ARM to be positioned in the TSC area. The CAM is present. The ARM will be installed in the TSC area as part i of the ongoing upgrade of the facility. Normal plant operating procedures also provide for the dispatch of Rad Con personnel to the TSC to conduct area surveys in the event of a potential hazard or if alann setpoints are exceeded. 11. Recommendation: A uniform dose assessment procedure should be developed. All dose assessment personnel should be trained in that procedure. _B_ asi s : The Team observed that several dose assessment methodologies and procedures are currently in use. In partiQJiar, the Team noted that the RAC utilized a TRS-80 for initial dose assessment and that a Tektronix 4054 and TI-59, each with its own software, were in use at the EACC. i
Response
The Team was briefed on the plan to standardize dose assessment procedures for the RAC and EACC by implementing a program utilizing standardized hardware and software. We anticipate full implementation of this program, including standardization of the dose assessment procedures, by October 1983. The standardized dose assessment procedure will be published as an Emergency Plan l Implementing Procedure and will undergo the plant review and approval process. 12. Recommendation: Appropriate personnel dosimetry should be provided for EACC personnel. Basis: The Team observed that offsite monitoring teams were dis-patched without thermoluminescent dosimetry.
Response
Existing procedures call for TLD's to be distributed to the EACC personnel by the Radiological Controls Support Group upon activation of the offsite emergency response organization. In addition, the procedure requires, and provisions exist for, self-reading dosimetry to be issued immediately. The TLD's'have not always arrived at the EACC until after the initial monitoring teams have been dispatched. Procedures are now being developed to provide TLD's on an immediately available basis to the EACC monitoring teams so that all personnel will be equipped with TLD's, in addition to the self-reading dosimetry. l .my -..,.m- _t .,-____....__..,...,_,,m ~ ._,.-..,,,,_,..-~,..__._,.m...
\\ ~ 13. Reconnendation: The propestd expansion of the Media Center should be completed to provida acequate space. Basis: The Team noted that the current Media Center did not provide sufficient space to accommodate the large number of media represen-tatives that could be expected during a sericus emergency.
Response
Planning for the proposed expansion is currently underway and it is anticipated that actual construction will be completed in the 4th Quarter 1983. 4 e w
.-r
,.,-g-, ~,n
t ~ . / ** UNITED STAES CF AMERICA NOCLEAR REGULATORY CCMfISSICN BEECRE DIE CCMESSICN In the Mattar of ) ) METBNCLITAN EDISCN C24PANY ) Docket Ib. 50-289 ) (Bastart) ,(1hree Mile Islarxi pelaa" ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) SERVICE LIST 92nzio J. Pa11=A4e, &=4 man Administrative Jbdge Gary J. Edles U.S. Nelaar Bagn1=+m Ccanissian O=4 man, Atcmic Safety arxi Licensing Washingten, D.C. 20555 Apceal Boani U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Ccmtu.ssion Victor 414nsky, remn4==iener Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 r U.S. Belaar Bagnla*m"I Cen=i aim W==hi m ton, D.C. 20555 AA=4"4 =trative Judge Jchn H. Buck Atcznic-Safety and Tensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Begulatory remni"icn nrman M. Rigo.i 5, ec=ni== inner Wa=hingtcn, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Ccmnissicn Waeimtcm, D.C. 20555 AA=4niatrative Judge Chr.tstine N. I(chl pemie Safety and ri-=4g Arreal Boarti Janos K. Asselstina, re=a4 =4**" U.S. primar Begulatory remn'ainn U.S. Nelaar Bagn1M remniaim W==hiettm, D.C. 20555 W==hi m ten, D.C. 20555 Annini-Lative Judge Begin=1 A L. Gotchy Administrative Judge Ivan W. Stnith Atcmic Safety and r.i-aim Ap1 Board maiman, Atcmic Safety and U.S. Nel==v Begulatory re==4 =icn r,i = =ig Board W==hi_m ten, D.C. 20555 U.S. Delaar Bef'l=*mey remm mmim Wahimten, D.C. 20555 Joseph Gray, men'4m (4) AM4m of the Executive Iagal Directctr AA=4ni-Louve Judge Walter H. Jordan U.S. Bela=" Begulatory re=niaicn Attsnic Safety and Licensing Board Washingtcm, D.C. 20555 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, '11annan=== 37830 Dod=Eing and Service Secticn (3) office of the S tory Annin4=trative Judge Linda W. Little U.S. De1.=v Bagulatory Ccmnissicm Atcmic Safety and rJ-=ig Board Washington, D.C. 20555 5000 mmitage Drive Baleigh, North Carolina 27612 p emie Safety and r.i-*ing Amaal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Begulatory re==4 asicn Washingtcn, D.C. 20555
}. ~^ Atmic Safety and M-=47 Beard Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, F7_ 'im U.S. Niv-1_==v Pw'1 =+ew97 ce=n4==4 m Mamen & Weiss Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 W==h4mten, D.C. 20006 Doug.las R. Blazey, Esquire Steven C. Shelly Obiat of co " c" SCJ.antists Chicf Counsel Decartment of Emrimm-A41 Resources 1346 O_-- ;- h Avenue, N.W.. #1101 Cw m.a d th of Pennsylvania Washingtt:n, D.C. 20036 514 hae'*_ive House, P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 ANGRY / M PIPC 1037 Maclay Street John A. Imvin, M'4va DM *hr7, PA 17103 Assistant cE ma=1 Pennsylvania Public Utility reneimaim P. O. Scx 3265 Mr. and !ts. Norman Aauodt M=M *ht7, PA 17120 R.D. 5 Coates6i lla, PA 19320 Jordan D. O m4mb=n, M'i m Fcx, Farr & mmimham Im4 =a Bradford 2320 North W Street Mg WaM *ht7, PA 17110 1011 Green Street MaM *NL7, PA 17102 W4114=n S. Jordan, III, Famire Hazscn & Weiss m=me=y Kepford 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Jadith J. Johnsrud W==himten, D.C. 20006 Emrimmend41 Coaliticn on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State @11==, PA 16801 m l l-l - -.}}