ML20032B495
| ML20032B495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Calvert Cliffs, Peach Bottom, Salem, Nine Mile Point, Indian Point, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Pilgrim, Susquehanna, Seabrook, Limerick, Vermont Yankee, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, FitzPatrick, 05000363, Shoreham, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1981 |
| From: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050603 | |
| Download: ML20032B495 (13) | |
Text
T klhf
,s
{d
.1
[ DVD 4 jggg 1
d p; "8 g y
OCT 2 31981 MEMORANDUM FOR: Brian K. Grimes, Director, Division of Emergenc Preparedness, IE:HQ g
FROM:
Ronald C. Haynes, Director, Region I
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES AND PROPOSED REVISION OF IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS (EPL-81-03)
Region I letter dated October 26, 1981 (Enclosure 1) was transmitted to the holders of a power reactor operating license and construction permit in Region I (Enclosure 2).
Lw b' M onald C. Haynes l
Director
Enclosures:
As Stated CONTACT:
H. W. Crocker 488-1208 cc w/encls:
S. Schwartz, DD, EP B. Weiss, Chief, Incident Response Branch R. Rosano, Incident Response Branch G. Patrick, FEMA, Region I V. Forde, FEMA, Region II V. Adler, FEMA, Region III bec w/encls:
Deputy Director J. P. O'Reilly, RII Division Directors J. G. Keppler, RIII Director, EI Staff K. V. Seyfrit, RIV H. W. Crocker R. H. Engelken, RV J. J. Mc0 scar I:EP&OSB RI:D-RI:DD RI: DIRECTOR
)
HaynepF Snyder/mjd S
eo.
Alla 10/28/81 1/t8/81 10/ /81 10///81 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8111050603 811029 PDR ADOCK 05000003 F
PDR JE 3f sh
o Gentlemen:
Subject:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES AND PROPOSED REVISION OF IMPLEMENTAiION DATE FOR PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS As you are aware, the revised emergency planning rule published on August 19, 1980, requires that emergency preparedness be upgraded and maintained both at and around nuclear power plants.
In determining the adequacy of offsite preparedness, the NRC consults with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has the federal lead in improving offsite preparedness.
Final FEMA findings are based on reviews and approvals which are accomplished according to proposed 44 CFR 350.
In this approval process, FEMA will not consider any state or local plan for final approval until a fullscale exercise has been conducted with the site in question.
The exercise must include the state, appropriate local government entities, and licensees.
Should FEMA notify the NRC that timely progress is not being made under its proposed 44 CFR 350 procedures with respect to the upgrading of offsite plans, NRC may determine that this constitt.tes a significant deficiency in emergency preparedness and ir.itiate actions.ader the NRC regulations.
As you are also aware, for continued compliance with the rule, annual, fullscale or small scale joint exercises, as defined in the rule, are also required.
Further, a fullscale exercise must also be onducted before any new license can be granted. The scheduling of these exercises will be largely at the initiative of state end local governments and licensees in coordination with FEMA regional offices.
The NRC will provide observers for the oasite aspects of these joint exercises and the NRC regional offices will cor.sult with the FEMA regional offices on the adequacy of proposed scenarios and schedule conflicts.
It is in your best interests to coordinate your exercise schedule with that of State and local government and with the FEMA regional offices.
If you have any problems in this coo,rdination, we will attempt to assist you.
Further, I have attached a copygFEMA's REP Guidance No.17 which speaks to the need
/
ct RI: DIRE h Haynes$R HQ: EP RI
&OS RI:D Grimes S
mjd Alla 10/23/81
/81 10 81 10 Q /81
~
OFF IAL RECORD COPY 0
2 to supply a copy of the exercise scenario, which has been coordinated with the appropriate state and local authorities, to both the FEMA and NRC Regional offices.
FEMA's Guidance No. 17 provides a' realistic schedule for supplying the scenario and permits sufficient time to review the scenario for: 1) adequacy of scope (testing of major areas of emergency response), 2) adequacy of scenario in. terms of eliciting response of major portions of offsite emergency preparedness plans, and 3) coordination of both onsite and offsite observer. teams by NRC, FEMA and state agencies. Previously, some scenarios were provided only two weeks in advance of the exercise and we found that this did not provide sufficient time if the scenario required changing to better meet the exercise objectives of all participating parties; therefore, we suggest that you submit scenarios on a schedule which is consistent with the FEMA guidance.
Additionally, the-following comments concerning the conduct of exercises reflect FEMA and NRC observations during some recent exercises.
1.
The content of the exercise scenarios should be handled on a "need-to-know" basis, such that individuals who may be exercise " players" do not have access to the scenario to be used. We will treat the scenario content in like manner such that should we choose to participate in a response to the scenario, our " players" will also not have seen the scenario.
2.
In order to make the exercise a valid test of emergency preparedness, the particular scenario to be run should not be used in " practices". While certain functions are similar regardless of the scenario, certain others (assessment, protective-action-decision-making, in plant surveys, etc.)
may differ significantly. Therefore, to the extent practical, training or practices scenarios should differ from the scenario used for the annual, fullscale exercise.
3.
Careful consideration should be given to the manner in which scenario cues are presented to the players and to the content of the cues, such that inadvertent coaching or direction to the player is minimized. The content and timing of cues should be consistent with information and sources that would be available to the players in a real emergency (e.g.,
simulated alarms, instrument readings, survey data, etc.).
This will result in the most realistic participation and interaction by everyone; the operating staff and their offsite support elements, the NRC, FEMA, state and local governments, and others.
Exercise controllers should also be cognizant of actions necessary to ensure continuity of the exercise without unduly hindering nor aiding the participants' initiative, free play and decision-making processes.
On a related subject, as you have probably already heard, the NRC is proposing to change the implementation date of prompt notification systems from July 1, 1981 to February 1, 1982.
I have enclosed a ccpy of the proposed rule change for your information. This appeared in the Federal Register for comment on September 21, 1981.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
-3 4
- The information contained in.this letter regarding responses is not-subject to
}
the clearance procedures ~of the Office of Management and Budget as required by 1
' the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL.96-511.
Sincerely, Ronald C.:Haynes Director
Enclosures:
1.
FEMA REP Guidance Memorandum #17 2.
Proposed Rule Change 4
4 t
i J
l L
i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY a
+
-,._-.-,.-...-_-.---e,-._.,,,--,_.
. ~.
=
Guid'ance Memorandum 17 Radiological ~ Emergency Preparedness Division e
JOINT EXERCISE PROCEDURES i:
In the interest of assuring that the: health and safety of the public is protected in the event of an ~ accident. at a nuclear power plant, it -
is necessary for the licensee (applicant), to conduct an emergency preparedness exercise jointly with appropriate State and local agencies..
1 The role of the Federal government' at such exercises is to evaluate the capability of the utility and the State and local: governments' to protect the public health and safety in the event of an accident at the facility'.
The FDIA official responsible for this activit'y is the appropriate Regional Director.
Over the last few months there have been several joint exercises where FH4A and NRC have made reviews both. orally in an open meeting, and in' written
~
form.
We find however, significant ' variation among regions in the procedures used:for providing the evaluation.
The need for.a standardized approach I
is evident"and the following'is a guide for both FD4A and NRC-personnel j
involved in exercise evaluation.
v i
Assignmerits - for offsite observers will be-made by the RAC Chairman.
Onsite.
observers will' be; assigned locations by the NRC Team-Leader. A meeting of all parties should be conducted prior to the. exercise to assure that all 3'
observer locations are ~ staffed-by an evaluator, as wellTs to make whatever last minute changes are necessary ~ based on field conditions, number of j
evaluators available, etc.
i.
The exercise should.be followed as soon as possible by a critique.
The critique is a working session for preliminary review of the exercise between the participants (State and local officials and utility representatives and
}
the Federal observer teams headed by FE4A and the NRC).
It should be open to the public and the media.
They should, however, attend an observers, and not participate in the discussions.
If local circumstances dictate that a private session be held with the State authorities, it must be scheduled in l.
L advance and the information provided by the RAC Chairman at the private meeting should be repeated in the open session.
5 I
l I
e 4 It is desirable to conduct the critique with all the principal parties present, (e.g. the RAC, the involved State'and local authorities, the licensee and NRC).
There may be situations where such a joint critique.
is not feasible and separate sessions (one related to licensee participation and one related to State and local participation) are necessary due to logistical or funding constraints.
These situations are to be cleared in advance thru the FD4A/NRC Steering Committee.
In such cases the RAC Chairman should be available for both critiques.
The joint cr\\tique should be chaired by the RAC chairmen and should be within or near the 10 mile EPZ.
As part of the overall format the RAC Chairman will discuss observations of the offsite response and the NRC will discuss observations of the onsite response..The Stare, local governments and utility should be present at this meeting to mako pre-sentations.
For the joint' critique to be effective, it should take place within the 24-hour period immediately following the exercise.
There should also be opportunity for' clarification, questions or comments by licensee, State and local of ficials.
The RAC Chairman's overview statement should be based on comments from RAC members and other FE4A observers as well as his own observation.
It should include the strong points as well as a general statement on the deficiencies noted.
Under no circumstances will the RAC Chairman's comments indicate'that the State or local plans passed or failed.
He/she should indicate that the comments are preliminary to be followed by a comprehensive evaluation within 14 days.
The final FC4A findings and determination, as well as approval of a State and/or local plan, submitted according.to 44 CFR 350 of which the exercise is a part, is reserved to the Associate Director for Plans and Preparedness in Washington.
~
The principal milestones for FE4A and NRC exercise obser ation and critique are given in Fnclosure 1.
These milestones are for planning purposes and actual schedules may need to be different because of local circumstances.
Enclos"u>a No.~
1 MILESTONES FOR EXERCISE OBSERVATION AND CRITIQUES 75 days
- State and licensee jointly submit exercise objective to FD4A at NRC. Regional Offices.
60 days FD4A and NRC Regional Offices discuss and meet with licensee / State as necessary'and prepare response.
- 45 days State and licensee scenario developers submit exercise scenario to FE4A,and NRC Regions for review.
35 days FB4A and NRC Regions notify State and -licensee of scenario acceptability.
30 days FE4A and NRC Regions develop specific post exercise critique schedule with the State and advise FEMA and NRC headquarters.
15 days The RAC Chairman and NRC team leader will meet to develop observer action plan (where stationed, how many from each organization, what to.look for).
- 1 day Meeting, in the exercise area, of all Federal observers both onsite and of fsite to finalize assignments, and give instructions.
E day Exercise E day FE4A and RAC observers caucus to collate observations.
NRC observers also caucus to collate observations.
3 day RAC Chairman and NRC tema leader meeb, a.,soo.. af ter Ll.eir respective caucuses as practical, to coordinate Federal participation in critique.
E to + 1 day Joint RAC/NRC critique General Agenda A.
State, locals and licensee present their views.
B.
Critique of offsite actions, by RAC Chairman.
C.
Critique of onsite actions, by NRC.
D.
Critique of Federal response (if applicable), by RAC Chairman.
E.
Opportunity for clarification questions or comments by licensee, State and locals (press and public questions will not be entertained during the critique).
+ 15 days Written critiques by FD4A Region to State, with copies to FEMA headquarters and NRC and by NRC Region to licensee with copies to NRC headquarters and FE4A.
(Recommended Suspense Dates)
r/
1 V
1
}ederal Register / Vcl. 48. No.182 / Monday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules 4658'7 j
~
10 CM Part 50 By July 1.1981, the nuclear power reactor the extended time period for
!!censee shall demonstrate that compliance.
t Emergency Planning and administrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and established for sternns and providing prompt De Commission's decision to defer i
instructions to the public within the plume the date for requiring fu!1 Utszation Facilities exposure pathway EPZ.The design objective implementation of the prompt public AcaNCv: Nuclear Regulatory shall be to have the capability to essential!T notiBeation capability requirement was Commission.
complete the initial notification of the public made as described above, after ACTH>ec Notice of proposed rulemaking.
- idia 6e plume exposure padway EPZ additional consideration of industry-within about is minutes.
wide difficultyin acquiring the suesasAny:%e Nuclear Regulatory
%e NRC staff has evaluated the level necessary equipment. permits and Commission is proposing to amend its of compliance by the industry and noted clearances.nis proposed deferral does regulations to extend the date by which that only about 12% of NRC power not represent any fundamental prompt public noti!! cation systems must reactor licensees have been able to meet departure from the rationale the be operational around all nuclear power fully the July L 1981 da te for installation Commission used in adopting and plants. De proposed extension is based of a prompt public notiUcation system sustaining the publicnotificatica en industry wide difficulty in acquiring which meets the critents in 10 CFR 50.47 capability requirement.See Final Rule th] net.essary equipment, permits, and 50.54, and Appendix E to Part 50.The on Emergency Planning. 45 FR 55402 clearances.If adopted the proposal licensees inability to meet the July 1.
55407 (Aug.19.1980). reconsiderotion would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. Cll-80-40.12 NRC 636 (1980). It these systems from July L 1981 to no unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued judgment later than February t 1982.
surrounding the designing, procuring, that prompt public notification is an carts: Comment period expires October and instaHing of the prompt notincation important consideration in the oEsite 21,1961. Comments received aftp iis systems. In estahH=hing the protection of the public in the event of a date will be cons. '.ered if it is practical implementation date, the (%= mission nucieer accident. This offsite protection to do to, but assurance of consideration was concerned that these factors would of b public facludes a numoer of cannot be gived except as to comments Inhibit the ability to comply with a short separate stsp; rea-aition of the received on or before this data, schedule and set the July 1981 dcts with potential severity of be accident by the Acon====v Interested persons are this in mind (45 m 554071-utility, communicition of the paremved invited to submit written comments and While licensees' co=d-a~ with the threat to offaite auticrf ties, d, cision by suggestions on the proposal to the -
prompt notffication requirement has' offsite offidals on the need for Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
been delayed. the NRC considers that protective action, capshiHty to spread Nuclear Regulatcry Commission, emeip ancy plans and preparedness have public warmng, and actual r==p-= by Washington. D.C. ::0535. Attentiam signif;cantly improved within the last the public.De emergency al-nnba rule Docketing and Service 3 ranch. Copies of year at and around every nuclear power is premised on reducmg to the extent comments received by the Commission plant site. Dis in=ke-="t possible-and to the extent the NRC can i
I may be examined in the Commission's improvement has been confirmed by regulate-the time required for and the Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NRC teams who have visited a number racertainty associated with each step.
NW., Washington. D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the *ule, including the F;n PVRTHER INFOMstATICM CO*frACTt compliance with the upgraded prompt noti $ cation systt*m. is still Brian K. Crimes. Director. Division of emergency pf=nning regulations of '
required. In ^=n=Me the Emergency Preparedness. OfHee of August 1980. In addition, the Federal -
implementation date of the prompt Inspection and Enforcement. U.S.
Emergency Management Agency punlic noti!! cation espability Nuciear Regulatory Commission.
(FEMA) and the NRC have monitored requirement, the Commission recognizes Washington. D.C. :0555 (telephone: 301-numerous nuclear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4614).
involving State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the and the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as l
SUPPLanstxTARY INPCaneATtoec witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February L The Proposed Rule onsite and offsite emergency L 1982. However, the Commission
{
On August 19.1980, the Nuclear preparedness.
intends to take appropriate enforcement Regulatory Commiesion published in the Based on the above information and action against IIcensees who did not.
Federal Register (45 FR 55402) on a recognition that there exist prior to July L 1981 notify the amendments to its regulations (10 CFR customary warning systems (police.
Commission of their inability to meet Part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the July L 1981 deadline.
upgreding of emergency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated The effective date of these regulations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significant licensee performance was November 3.1980. Among other proposing to defer the implementation.
strengths and weaknesses are evaluated things, the regulations required licensees date of the prompt public notification in the NRC Systematic Assessment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requirement from July 1.1981 L!censee Performance (SALp). The SALP Jandary 2.198L submit implementing to February L 1982. In view of the program speciScally includes evaluation j
procedures by March 1.198L and above, the Cornmission finds that there oflicensee performance in emergency l
implement the emergency plans by April exists sufHe'ent reason to believe that preparedness. Accordingly, a !!censee's l
appropriate protective measures can efforts in attempting to meet the July 1.
One element that must be and will be taken for the protection of 1901 date forinstalling the prompt demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the public in the public notification capability will be a licensee's emergency plan is that:
event of a radiolc P.al emergency during factor in that licensee's SALP.
l' - --
i 4
/
48583 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.1st / Manday. September 21, test / Proposed Rules IL hoposed Application of the Final final rule, when effective, will be-1244.12a tu UAc ses1. ses2. sees), unless Rule applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwise noted. Section soJs also issued umier sec.122 as stat. sas (42 UAC assa).
now pending and to issues or secdon m alas issued under sec.1s4, De Comadssion alsois proposingla contentions therein. Union of Concerned as stat.sse, as i-i (u uac 22ss).
this rule that the four. month period for
'
- F.2d 1
.C.
_;;.4 eficiencies, provided in
$**"8741-d sectione satoo so.zaz issued under sec.1ss, 1
a stat. ass (a UAC 22ss). For the porposes 6 30.54(s)(2). should not apply to any sec.
se sta licensee not in compliance with the
" r' -, Flexibility Certification l
public notiScation system requirement in accordance with the Regulatory -
es stat. see (a UAC 22o1(ilh li 3030. 30.71.
l
..by February 1.19e2 the new deadline Flexibility Act of1980. 5 U.S.C. 805(b).
and se3s issued under sec.1sto, as stat. sea.
date. If a licensee is not in compliane*
the Commission concludes that this rule as amended (as W 22pt(ol, and thelawe l
l with this requirement by Februar7 L will not if promulgated, have a referred to la.^
1982, the Commission willconsider signiacant economicimpact on a L Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to tsidng appropriate enforcement actions substantial number of small cntities. De Part 50is revised to read as follows:
promptly at that time. In deternumnt proposed rule concerns an extension of Appem4x % Plamming and l
cppropriate enforcement action to the operational date forpublic for Pmdecdos and WEsados initiate, the Comml== ion will take into notification systems for nuclear power account among other factors, the plants licensed pursuant to Sections los damaantrated diligence of the licensee and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of l
1:. Ettempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134b.
D M**d"
- l notification capability requirement. He ne electric utility companies owning
- 3. A Heennes shaR how te capab6Hty to I
r'a==lanun will consider whether the and operating these c.aclear power 4
8'*" *"d M licensee haa kept the NRCInformed of plants are da-famat in their service s " '" "
tin steps that it has taken. when those areas and do not fallwithin the ener u
steps were taken and any signiBeant defiaition of a small business found in sha!! demonstrate that the state / local problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Businese Act.15 of5cials have the espebhity to make a puhue timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 832, or within the Small Business notif! cation d-, a= promptly on being wG1 he met in achieving full templiance Size Standards set forth in $3 CFR Part informed by the h=== of sa emnergency w;th the prompt public notification 121. In addition, since the===adment condition. By February 1.19s". each necieer extenc s for one arbdate.by which power p H8h'd g % ** y g g,,.
captbility requirements.
8 du meanshe With respect to requests for the pubtle notiff on systems are to be.
d cxsmptions that NRC has received from operational, the sinesses and statc 3
nuclzar power reactor licensees and local governments involved in the uxpoema pathway EPZ.11w four month concerning the prompt public manufacture and installation of these period in 13 CFR SEMsX21 for the correction l
notification requirement and deadlines.
systems are not economically affected in of emergency plan deficiencies shall not for installation and operational any significant manner. Accordingly.
apply to de6ciencies in the initial installation cr.ptbility, the Commission has decided there is no significant economic impact of this pubuc notification system that is to deny these requests in light of the on a srbstantialnumber of small required by February 1.19a2.The design i
i proposed extension of the July 1.1981 entities, as defined in the Regu: story objective of the prompt public notification ditz. Any licensee not able to meet the Flexibility Act of1980.
. system shall be to have the capability to essentially comp!nte the initial notification of nrw deadline date of February 1. 2982 will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the public within the plume exposee efter the new date. This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the pa a
uf"cedon b ty climinate unnecessary and costly Paperwork ILduction Act of1980 (Pub.
frons immediate notification of the public administrative actions needed to L.9M11). Qe NRC has made a (within is minutes of the time that stee and consider present exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officials are notified th'st a situetton thzt will essentially become moot by the does not impose new recordkeeping.
exists requiring urgent action) to the me v proposed extension of the July 1.1981 information collection, or reporting hkely events where there is substarial time dats. This approach will also permit the requirements.
evailable for the State and Ic al NRC to focus its consideration upon a Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of governmental of!!cf als to make e judgment reduced number of noncompliance 1954, as amended, the Energy whether or not to acuvate the public situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act ofi974, as ametaded, notification systent where there la a decision the new deadline. it is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the Uruted
*',y* 'dd g
le e etherta most efficietit use of NRC resources will States Code. notice is hereby given that activate the enure notification system be schieved by this t eatment of present adoption of the following amendment to simultaneously or in a graduated or staaed exemption requests relating to 'he July 1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E is m.m.r.The responsibility fe,r activating 1981 operancnal date requirement.
contemplated.
such a public notification system shall remain if the proposed rule is subsequently with the appropriate government authorities.
promulgated as a final rule. it is the PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF Commission's present intention to make PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION It effective immediate4y upon FACILITIES Dated at Washingtu. D.C this 16th day of publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
September 19e1.
553(d)(1), since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
y licensees with respect to the present Authority: Secs.103.104.151.182.183.189.
Secremy@e G tmission.
July 1.1981 deadline for operational es Stat. 936. 937. 948. 953. 954. 955. 956 as amen =d f42 U.S.C.:133.:1:3.::01. ~
PD"" *'N
- '****"I public notification systems. In that d
- Lees cooe me w regard. the Commission notes that the 2:33. ~,. cs.201. 02.:De. 8s stat.1:43
LIST OF HOLDERS OF A' POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PEPMIT RECEIVING REGION I EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS LETTER (EPL-81-03)
DATED OCTOBER 26, 1981 CONCERNING EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS EXERCISES AND PROPOSE 0 REVISION OF IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-317 ATTN: Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
50-318 Vice President, Supply P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Boston Edison Company M/C Nuclear Docket No. 50-293 ATTN: Mr. A. V. Morisi Nuclear Operations Support Manager 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-213 ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Vice President - Nuclear Engineerirg and Operations P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Consolidated Edison Company of Docket Nos. 50-03 New York, Inc.
50-247 ATTN:
Mr. John 0. O'Toole Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Quality Assurance 4 Irving. Place New York, New Yo.4 10003 Ouquesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 ATTN: Mr. J. J. Carey Vice President Nuclear Division P. O. Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Jersey Central Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-219 ATTN:
Mr. Philip R. Clark Vice President - Nuclear GPU Nuclear 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
+
2 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-309 ATTN: Mr. Robert H. Groce
. Senior Engineer-Licensing 1671 Worcester Road-
-Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Metropolitan. Edison Company Docket No. 50-289 ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill Vice President and Director of TMI-l P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Metropolitan Edison Company Docket No. 50-320 ATTN: Mr. J. J. Barton Acting Vice President and Director of TMI-2 P. O. Box 480.
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Docket No. 50-220 ATTN: Mr. T. E. Lempges Vice President Nuclear Generation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York-1.3202 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Docket Nos. 50-336 ATTN:
Mr. W. G. Counsil 50-245 Senior Vice President - Nuclear 50-423 Engineering and Operations Group P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Philadelphia Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-277 ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff 50-278 Vice President Electric Production 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Power Authority of the State of New York Docket No. 50-286 Indian Point 3 Nucicar Power Plant ATTN: Mr. J. C. Brons Resident Manager P. O. Box 215 Buchanan, New York 10511
r-cc s,
e
/
.3' Power Authority of the State of New Y'rk DocekNo.50-333 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant ATTN: Mr. John D. Leonard Resident Manager P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Public Service Electric and uas Company Docket Nos. o0-272 ATTN: Mr. F. W. Schneider_
50-311-Vice President - Production 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 Rochester Gas and Electric C0rporation Docket No. 50-244 ATTN: Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production
.89 East avenue Rochester, New York 14649 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Docket No.'50-271 ATTN: Mr. Robert L. Smith
~
/
Licensing Engineer
. s
'No 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 c,a Yankee Atomic Electric Compan/
Docket No. 50-29 3
ATTN: Mr. James A. Kay Senior Enginuer-Licensing e
1671 Worcestar Road s
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 h
Duquesne Light Company Docket No. 50-412 ATTN: Mr. E. J. -Woolever 4
Vice President
b 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 s
Jersey Central Power & Light Company Docket No. 50-363 s
ATTN:
Mr. J. T. Carroll Acting Director Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating-Station P. O. Box 388 Forked.."iver, New Jersey 08731 Long Island Lighting Company Docket No. 50-322 ATTN:
Mr. M. S. Pollock Vice President - Nuclear 175 East Old Country Road dicksville, New York 11801
.- u.
V...
z.
7..
i ca-
$W 1.<
%- { l
. 4 L
\\
'NiagsraMohahPowerCorporation
,v.
Docket No. 50-410-y*yTN: Mr. Gerald K. Rhode E
Vice Fr:eside~rit
", System Project Management
~~
4..f c/o Miss Catherine R. Seibert 300 Eri9 'doulevard', West
- ^ <$. ?'%
, Syracuse, NY 13202 y
' * ' ~ ", '
Pennsyl'vania Power & Light Company Docket'Nos. 50-387' V ATTN:
Mr.' Norman W. Curtis 50-388 i
'vice President Engineering and' Construction - Nuclear 2 North Ninth Street.
J
, Allentosn, Pennsylvania 18101 Philadelphi r tilectric - Comoany Docket Nos. 50-352 ATTN: Mr. John S. Kemper 50-353 Vic M resicent Engin'eering and P,esearch
,t. 2301' Market Streat Philadelphia, Pernlylvania 19101 3
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Docket Nos. 50-354 ATTN: Mr. T. %J. Martin 50-355
' Vice.fFe side,nt Er.gtneerifig find Construction 80 Park'!Flaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Pub 1'ic Compa'ny of New Harrpshire Docket Nos. 50-443 ATTN:
- a. C."Tallman 50-444 Chat? man and Chjef Eiecutive Officer
. g.-
t 1000 Elm Street Manches+ erg:New Hamps6fra 03105
-T'-
t s
\\
i
.c i
c.
i d
DP
~
s m#~
p?
\\
~ t t
,f
.^*
4
'g -
%C, ' - -,,
._. 's, [ N -. _.
=-
i..-+.
-