ML20038A732
| ML20038A732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1981 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111160239 | |
| Download: ML20038A732 (17) | |
Text
-.
STAFF 11/ 81
),n.f UNITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMilSSION
((g, f 'p
N
~
gT d'0Vj BEFORE THE AT0filC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARP g ISBN
%' Ndisl%,,
?
- J In the fiatter of
)
q'Q
)
ttETROPOLITA'1 EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF f10 TION TO THE LICENSING BOARD FOR REVIEW 0F SPECIAL ttASTER'S RULING WITH RESPECT T0 " STAFF ATTITUDE" I.
INTRODUCTION On October 27, 1981, the Special Master, appointed in this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR Q2.722, denied in its entirety the NRC Staff's " Motion for Reconsideration Or, In the Alternative Motion for Directed Certification" dated October 15, 1981.
"tiemorandum Order",
dated October 27, 1981. The Staff's Motion asked that the Special fiaster reconsider his ruling that the Staff is to provide evidence on Staff " attitude" or that, in the alternative, the Special Master certify the question of the need for " attitude " testinony to the Licensing Board. The Staff believes the Special Master erred in denying the fiction and, because of its immediate impact on the Staff, asks the Licensing Board i
to reverse the ruling.
II.
BACKGROUND On October 2,1981, the Special Master distributed a document l
entitled " Additional minimun evidentiary presentations specified by the Special ! taster at the Conference of October 2, 1981."
In this document, l
the Special Master indicated that the evidence listed was to be presented i
., 7,. m,
?
8111160239 811104 g
PDR ADOCK 05000289 cert';; S L D_ <f / /> ' _
O PDR 3
v Ib i
"in addition to the natters previously naninated by the parties in their letter of September 24, l981 to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board."
At the conference of parties on October 2 and 3,1981, the Staff objected to certain of the additional evidentiary requirements set forth in the Special Master's October 2,1981 ruling and formally requested him to modify or delete portions of the requirements.
Tr. 23238-45.
Judge f1ilhollin ruled favorably on the Staff's oral motion to modi fy one requirement (Tr. 23279) but declined to make the deletions requested by the Staff (Tr. 23280-82).
In its October 15, 1981 Motion, the Staff requested that the Special Master reconsider his ruling with respect to the one requirement which asks for evidence as to the " attitude of the NRC Staff." The Staff 1
stated its position that such an evidentiary presentation would be out-side of the scope of the reopened proceeding.
In the alternative, the Staff moved that the question of the presentation of evidence on the Staff's attitude be ce.rtified to the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 CFR 92.722(a)(2) and the Board's directive in its " Memorandum and Order Reopening Record on Tbtters Related to Cheating, Appointing a Special Assistant, and Scheduling a Conference of the Parties" dated September 14, 1981, a t 3-4.
Denying the Staff's Motion for Reconsideration and declining to certify the question to the Board, the Special Master took issue with the argunents made in the Staff's Motion regarding the scope of the issues, i
the effect of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision (PID) dated August 27, 1981, and the scope of the proceeding as authorized by the Comnission.
Memorandun at 2-5.
He also stated that the Staff's Motion "comes nowhere near meeting the standard laid down by the
Licensing Board for interlocutory review of the Special Master's decisions." g at 5.
The Special Master erred in continuing to require the Staff to present testimony concerning its " attitude" as well as in not certifying the question to the Licensing Board.
In its present Motion, the Staff will demonstrate that the " attitude" of the NRC Staff is not a proper subject for litigation in the reopened proceeding and that the standards for interlocutory review are met in this instance.1/
III.
DISCUSSION A.
The " Attitude" of the NRC Staff Is Not A Proper Subject For Litigation In This Proceeding 1.
This matter is not within the scope of issues established by the Licensing Board.
On October 2,1981, the Licensing Board in this proceeding presided over a discussion by the parties concerning the scope of the issues to be heard in the hearing on the cheating incident at TMI-1.
Following this discussion, the Board ruled on the issues to be litigated in the reopened proceeding.
Tr. 23133-62.
In explaining the Board's view as to the scope of the issues to be I
litigated, Chairman Snith stated that an issue to be brought before the i
Special Master should have "a clear nexus to the issue of cheating" because it was "the issue of alleged cheating which has been the sole basis for reopening the evidentiary record." Tr. 23127.
Fu rther,
-1/
Because a final decision has not been issued in this phase of the hearing, the Staff's request for review by the Licensing Board is interlocutory. The Staff believes, as is discussed in detail infra, that such an interlocutory appeal is proper in these circumstances, l
4 1
j '
l 2/ that the " inquiry Chairman Smith explained in reference to Issue 10 t
I into the substance of the examinations will be limited to permit evidence on whether the NRC exams are, because of their content, amenable to cheating or otherwise subject to defeat of their intended purpose." Tr.
23127.
In a subsequent discussion of Issue 10, Chairman Smith also stated that:
we were concerned that there is a possibility, without knowing until we hear the evidence, that the NRC testing requirements could be met and yet, the substantive purpose of the examination could be defeated by some mechanism in the examples which we gave hut not to a full inquiry into whether the substance of the test is
[ sufficient] to' train operators adequately to protect the public heal th and safety.
Tr. 23145-47.
(
In his " Additional minimum evidentiary presentation", however, the Special Master seeks to inquire into the attitude of the Staff under Issue 10. / Specifically, the Special fiaster stated that:
i
[t]he Kemeny Commission found that operator training was greatly deficient; that the depth of understanding was far too shallow.
It also found that the branch of NRC that monitored operator training i
2/
Issue 10 states:
The adequacy of the administration of NRC licensing examinations for TMI-1 personnel, including proctoring, grading, and safeguarding the integrity of examination materials; in addition, the adequacy of the Staff's review of the administration of Licensee's Category T examinations; also the adequacy of the Staff's plan for retesting operators and monitoring its NRC examinations to assure proper adherence to NRC testing requirements and to provide reasonable assurance that TMI-1 can be operated safely.
3/
In explaining this evidentiary requirement, Judge Milhollin made reference to Issue 11. That issue, however, concerns the adequacy of staffing at TMI-1.
From the discussion surrounding the " Attitude of the NRC Staff" it is clear Judge Milhollin intended this subject to be included in Issue 10.
See Tr. 23281.
. was " weak and understaffed," and that NRC limited itself to "giving routine exams."
It concluded that no quantity of " fixes" would cure the basic problem, which it found to be the attitude of the people who were involved.
Because the cheating incident occurred after the Staff had responded to the Kemeny Conmission and promised to improve, what does the possibility of laxity in the Staff's procedures indicate about the Staff's attitude?
Ff. Tr. 23187, at 3.
Judge itihollin explained that the attitude of the Staff "is relevant to determining the adequacy of NRC plans in the fu tu re. "
Tr. 23281.
The concerns outlined by the Special Master which relate to the
" attitude of the NRC Staff" are outside the scope of the reopened proceeding and outside the scope of Issue 10 as it was set forth by the 1.icensing Board.
The Staff's argunent to this effect was presented orally to the Special Master at the conference of parties (Tr. 23244-45) and in its October 15, 1981 Motion.
The purpose of the reopened proceeding is to inquire into the adequacy of operator testing at TMI-1.
A major concern of the praceeding should be, and in fact will be, whether the examinations are administered in such a way as to give reasonable assurance that those who pass thc examination are competent and able to operate the plant safely.
- Thus, the adequacy of the procedures used te administer NRC exaninations at THI-1 prior to restart is a proper subject for litigation in the reopened hearing.
An inquiry into how, if at all, these procedures reflect upon the attitude of the NRC Staff is not appropriate.
The Special fiaster, in his itemorandum, rejects the Staff's argument that " attitude" is not within the scope of issues in this proceeding and states that the Staff's " attitude" is evidence of how the Staff's testing procedures will be administered. Memorandun at 2.
Such a conclusion is
- err]neous. The only objective assessment of the flRC's testing procedures would be an inquiry into the actual procedures themselves and their implementaiton. Moreover, there is no inherent correlation between the
" attitude" of the Staff and its ability to properly develop and implement its procedures or the applicable regulations.
Clearly, the Staff's attitude could be exemplary but poor and inadequate test administration procedures could nevertheless provide the opportunity for cheating on the NRC examination.
Finally, the Staff has administered its October 1981 re-exaninations in accordance with a revised set of procedures.
The Special Master and the parties may inquire into the actual implementation of those procedures N ring the October exanination.
The actual implementation of the revised and upgraded test administration procedures is the best and only objective evidence on the issue of the " adequacy of the administration of NRC licensing exaninations for Tf11-1 personnel, including proctoring, grading, and safeguarding the integrity of exanination materials," which is the focus of Issue 10.
Consequently, there is no need to use, and nothing is served by using, the subjective concept of " attitude" as some tenuously related circumstantial evidence of the adequacy of the administration of NRC examinations.
To the extent the Special itaster ruled that testimony regarding the Staff's " attitude" is necessary because it will provide reliable evidence concerning the l
administration of the Staff's testing procedures, the ruling is clearly and simply erroneous.
T,
2.
The bases on which the Special Master seeks to have " attitude" Iltigated in the reopened proceeding have already been considered in the full THI-1 restart proceeding.
In his " additional nininum evidentiary presentations" the Special Master cites the Kemeny Comnission's findings with respect to operator training and the NRC licensing examination as the reasons why an inquiry into the Staff's attitude is relevant.
Specifically, he ststes that the "Kemeny Connission found that operator training was greatly deficient; that the depth of ut.derstanding was far too shallow."
Id. He also quotes the Kemeny report as concluding "that the branch of NRC that monitored operator training was ' weak and understaffed' and that the NRC limited itself to 'giving routine exaninations.'" Id. These bases, however, were the subject of extensive testimony, cross-examination and proposed findings during the initial TMI-1 restart hearing.
In fact, the Licensing Board in its Partial Initial Decision on management issues dated August 27, 1981 made specific findings as to the sufficiency of operator training and the improvements made in the NRC licensing exaninations.
With respect to operator training the Licensing Board stated:
On the basis of the extensive record developed on training, the Board finds that Licensee has in place at TMI-1 a conprehesnsive and acceptable training progran.
Since the accident, Licensee has substantially augmented its training department and headed it with professional educators who have backgrounds in nuclear training.
Licensee's programs have been reviewed by NRC and by highly qualified independent consultants.
The TMI-1 licensed operators have been trained, retrained, audited and reaudited by Licensee's training personnel and independent consultants.
The operators have been exposed to training in the areas they should naster before operating the plant.
PID at 276. The Board went on to say that, in addition to completing the I
Licensee's " comprehensive" training program, all candidates for NRC
~-
. operating licenses must pass NRC-administered examinations, both oral and written, with NRC's present grading criteria.
Id.
The remarks concerning the NRC examination, however, were qualified by a footnote which indicated that the validity of the NRC examination was called into question by the " lack of safeguards and integrity in the testing process...."
PID at Paragraph 204, note 18.
The Board did find the Licensee's training program to be adequate.
PID at Paragraph 276.
Concerning the NRC exaninations, the Licensing Board found that the substance of the examinations had been modified since the T!!I-2 accident to incorproate new subject natter, including thennodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid flow; that time limits had been imposed for completion of the examinations; that oral exaninations had been instituted for senior reactor operators; and that the passing grade criteria had been increased.
PID at Paragraph 206.
While the Board quoted a Staff witness as explaining that the NRC examinations give reasonable assurance that operator candidates can operate the plant safely and competently, this conclusion was qualified, as discussed j
above, by indicating that the integrity of the examination process had
(
been called into question by the cheating incident. Id.
The substance of the NRC examination, however, was not included in that qualification.
The issue of operator training and the issue of the substance of the NRC examination were raised in the initial restart hearing and were resolved, without qualification, in the Board's PID. These issues, which were not left open pending the hearing to be held on the cheating i
[
incident, should not be relitigated, and, indeed, are not issues in the reopened hearing.
. In his Menorandun the Special ifaster chides the Staff for not I
mentioning certain footnotes in the Licensing Board's findings in the PID. The Special fiaster concludes that "[a]nyone who reads footnotes can see that operator testing is open to be litigated." fienorandun at 5.
In this instance, the Staff agrees with the Special Master that, from a reading of the PID and its accompanying footnotes, the issue of operator testing is clearly an issue to be litigated in the reopened hearing.4I Where the Staff differs with the Special Master, however, is in his assertion that Staff " attitude" is somehow related to operator testing.
As the Staff attempted to show in its earlier Motion, the bases for the Special liaster's desire to litigate " attitude" have been the subject of findings, unqualified by footnotes, in the Board's PID.
That is, without determining that the examinations were given properly and without detennining the weight which should be given to the fact that an operator passed the April 1981 NRC examination, the Licensing Board found that the Licensee's training program which prepares candidates for the NRC exanination had been improved and that the NRC examination itself had been modified to include new material.
These concerns, raised by the Kemeny Comnission and specifically cited by the Special fiaster as reasons l
why the Staff's " attitude" was important to this proceeding, have already i
4/
It is beyond question that the matter of operator testing is an l
issue in the reopened proceeding.
Operator testing and cheating on operator tests is the very reason for reopening the hearing.
The staff is at a loss to understand how the Special Master came to believe that the Staff was somehow claining that operator testing does not remain as an issue.
I i
been litigated and resolved, without qualification.
PID at Paragraphs 206 and 276.
Because the bases for the Special Master's request for tettinony on this subject have previously been addressed, this is not a natter which should be raised in the reopened hearing on cheating, contrary to the Special Master's ruling.
3.
The Conmission did not delegate authority to the Licensing Board to inquire into the " attitude" of the Staff.
As the Staff argued before the Special Master, the Conmission's
" Order and Notice of Hearing" dated August 9,1979 sets forth "short-term" and "long-term" requirements to be net by the Licensee and authorized the Licensing Board to conduct a hearing into whether these requirements were necessary and sufficient.
10 NRC 141, 146 (1979).
The
" attitude" of the NRC Staff clearly was not included as an issue to be considered by the restart Licensing Board.
The Special Master, in his Memorandum, asserts that the adequacy of the NRC's examination is placed directly in issue by the Commission through its short-tenn item requiring an augmented training program for reactor operators and all licensed personnel. Memorandum at 3.
He also states that the Staff's attitude is relevant to predicting whether the examination process will be adequate in the future.
Id.
The Staff agrees with the Special Master that the adequacy of the NRC examination process is an issue set forth by the Commission in its August 9, 1979 Order and that such an issue is of great concern in this reopened proceeding.
In contrast, however, the question of the Staff's
" attitude" is the responsibility af the Commission itself and the authority
to inquire into that matter was not delegated to the Licensing Board in the August 9, 1979 Order.E/ The Commission has had ample opportunity to exercise its supervisory authority in the many meetings it has held with the Staff since the TMI accident in revising and reshaping the operator licensing exanination process.
Should the Cannission perceive an "atti-tude" problem on the part of its Staff, it is the respoqsibility of the Commission to take the appropriate actions to correct that problem.
In i
this context, any " attitude" problems on the part of the Staff would be considered by administrative actions which are not a part of any adju-dicatory proceeding unless the Commission delegates the authority to inquire into such attitude problems to the Licensing Board.
This the Comnission has not done.
Nor is there any reason for the Commission to do so fran the standpoint of the Special Master's apparent bases for inquiring into Staff " attitude." The Scard, and consequently the Special Master has no authority from the Commission to direct the Staff with regard to its attitude in the performance of its administrative functions.
To the extent that the Special Master's ruling requires otherwise, that ruling is erroneous.
5/
Adjudicatory boards may not act beyond their delegated authority.
In this regard, boards may not direct the Staff in the performance i
of its administrative functions.
Rather, that is a matter for the Commission, based on its inherent supervisory authority even over natters in adjudication.
Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon HarrisNuclearPowerPlant, Units 1,2,3&4),CLI-80-12,11NRC 514, 516-17 (1980). While an adjudicatory board can and should bring to the Commission's attention concerns it may have about the conduct of the Staff's administrative function where such concerns arise in the course of an adjudicatory proceeding, Id. at 11 NRC 517, that does not mean that a Board may, in the first instance, require the affirmative presentation of evidence on a matter (such as Staff " attitude") over which it has not been given authority.
B.
The Special Master's Ruling Threatens The__ Staff With Immediate Irreparable Impact and Affects The Basic Structure of the Proceeding The Staff suggests that review of the Special Master's October 27, 1981 ruling by the Licensing Board is proper under 10 CFR 92.722(a)(2),
the Board's Menorandum dated September 14, 1981, and the Appeal Board's rulings relatino to interlocutory appeals.
Section 2.722(a)(2), in pertinent part, states that appeals from evidentiary rulings made by a Special Master "may be taken to the presiding officer in accordance with procedures which shall be established in the presiding officer's order appointing the Special Master." The Board's tiemorandum dated September 14, 1981, which appointed Judge Milhollin as Special Master in this proceeding, statec:
Parties may seek discretionary review by us of a significant evider.tiary ruling by the fiaster under the guidelines applicable to requests for directed certification to an appeal board pursuant to 10 CFR 2.718(i).
However, we establish the rule in this proceeding that it shall be a prerequisite to a request to us for directed certification that the fiaster has first been requested to certify the question or refer the ruling to us pursuant to 10 CFR 2.718(i) or 2.730(f), and has had an opportunity either on the record or in writing to rule on the request.
[ footnote deleted]
Memorandum at 3-4 In the instant case, the Special Master has made a "significant evidentiary ruling" (Id.) requiring the Staff to present testimony on a subject which goes beyond the scope of issues set forth by the Licensing l
Board.
Further, the Staff has presented its objections to the directive that evidence be presented on Staff " attitude" both orally at the conference of parties held on October 2,1981 and in its written fiotion of October 15, 1981. The Special Master has had the opportunity, both on the record and in writing, to rule on the Staff's objections.
Thus, the t rerequisites for
. requesting review of the Special Master's ruling by the Licensing Board have been satisfied.
With respect to interlocutory review of evidentiary rulings, the Licensing Board has stated that it views its relationship to the Special Master as being analogous to the role of an appeal board.
" Memorandum and Order" dated September 14,1981, at 3.
Thus, in asking the Board to review the propriety of litigating the attitude of the NRC Staff, the Staff must show that an interlocutory appeal would be proper.
An Appeal Board will undertake discretionary interlocutory review only where the ruling below either (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irrep-arable impact which, as a practical matter could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual nanner." Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977).
In the Staff's view, both standards are met in this instance.
The Licensing Board in this proceeding set forth the scope of the issues to be heard in the reopened hearing. The Board ruled that an issue litigated in the hearing should have "a clear nexus to the issue of cheating." Tr. 23127.
With respect to Issue 10, the Board limited the discussion of the NRC examination process to an inquiry on whether that process could be defeated by some mechanism, including cheating.
Tr. 23146-47.
By asking the Staff to present testimony on its " attitude" in the context of Issue 10, the Special Master has gone beyond the boundaries
set by the Licensing Board for the reopened hearing and for Issue 10.
Further the Staf f's attitude has no relevance to the procedures which were used in the recently completed examinations and those which will be used to administer the NRC licensing examinations in the future. The Staff is directly impacted by this request for testimony in that it has been required to prepare, and will be required to present such testimony on a matter which is not relevant to the issues in the reopened proceeding.
This impact is immediate, irreparable and cannot be alleviated by subsequent appeal since the Staff resources, nanpower, and time required to present the requested testimony as well as the hearing time required for litigation of the issue are needlessly lost once the testimony has been presented at hearing. Thus, the first standard for interlocutory review is net.
In addition, by requiring the presentation of testimony on a natter which is well beyond the scope of issues in the reopened hearing, the Special Master's request for testimony on the Staff's attitude improperly expands the scope of the proceeding and inserts an additional and unnecessary issue for litigation. Such litigation on a natter i
beyond the scope of issues originally established clearly affects the l
l basic structure of the reopened proceeding in a pervasive and unusual nanner. Thus, the second standard for interlocutory review is also met.
Having met the applicable standards, the Staff respectfully requests the Licensing Board to exercise its discretion and to review the Special Master's ruling with respect to Staff " attitude."
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff believes an interlocutory appeal, in these circumstances, is appropriate and that the Special
15 -
!! aster erred in his decision to require testimony from the Staff concerning its " attitude". The Staff requests the Licensing Board to accept review of the Special fiaster's ruling and to reverse that ruling.
Respectfully sutxaltted, n
)
~
f L 6 b fC fd p; O C.LA LE0b Lucinda low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda,fiaryland this 9th day of November, 1981.
1 e
l s
-F+---
N--'
y-%v.
.ieg.--
y,y,y g
,_4 9
-__9.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO THE LICENSING BOARD FOR REVIEW 0F SPECIAL MASTER'S RULING WITH RESPECT TO ' STAFF ATTITUDE'", dated November 9,1981, have been served by the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, and, as indicated by a double asterisk, will be hand-delivered on November 10, 1981 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 9th day of November,1981:
- Gary J. Edles, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. John H. Buck Dr. Linda W. Little Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Washington, DC 20555
- George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
- Christine N. Kohl Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 1800 M Street, N.W.
Board Panel Washington, DC 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Robert Adler, Esq.
505 Executive House
- Ivan W. Smith P. O. Box 2357 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honorable Mark Cohen Washington, DC 20555 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge
- Gary L. Milhollin, Esq.
Mr. Thomas Gerusky 1815 Jefferson Street Bureau of Radiation Protection Madison, WI 53711 Dept. of Environmental Resources P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120
!!r. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terroce
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Philadelphia, PA 19149 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Metropolitan Edison Company ATTH:
J. G. Herbein, Vice President
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P. O. Box 542 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.uaission Reading, PA 19603 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Jane Lee
- Secretary R.D. 3; Box 3521 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Etters, PA 17319 ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
l Walter W. Cohen, Consuraer Advocate Department of Justice William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Strawberry Square,14th Floor Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, PA 17127 1725 I Street, N.W.
+
Suite 506 Thomas J. Germine Washington, DC 20006 l
Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 John Levin, Esq.
1100 Raymond Boulevard Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
Newark, New Jersey 07102 Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Allen R. Carter, Chairman Joint Legislative Committee on Energy Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Post Office Box 142 Fox, Farr and Cunningham Suite 513 2320 North 2nd Street i
Senate Gressette Building Harrisburg, PA 17110 t
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
l Chauncey Kepford Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Juaith Johnsrud Harmon & Weiss l
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 1725 I Street, N.W.
433 Orlando Avenue Suite 506 State College, PA 16801 Washington, DC 20006 l
Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Mr. Steven C. Sholly Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Union of Concerned Scientists Postponenent 1725 I Street, N.W.
l 2610 Grendon Drive Suite 601 l
Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Washington, DC 20006 Gail Phelps ANGRY 245 W. Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17401 y
'b, t t hl L
_ 4D kith Lucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff
- - - - -