ML20045E935
| ML20045E935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-098, SECY-A-80-98, NUDOCS 9307060213 | |
| Download: ML20045E935 (17) | |
Text
.
UNITED 87ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMM11310N 3
ADJUDICATORY ITEM CONSENT CALEND AR ITEM
~
SECY-A-80-98 July 11, 1980 The Commissioners For:
James A. Fitzgerald From:
Assistant General Counsel Subiect:
INDI AN ' POINT (COOLING TOWERS)
To provide the Commission with an analysis of the issues raised in ALAB-487, relating to Puroose:
'y 5 the issue of the cooling system at Indian t.
Point Unit 2,"
s Discussion:
I.
Background
On November 15, 1978, the Commission issued a.
on its memorandum and order taking review, of the Appeal Board's decision in own motion, ALAB-487.
No party had requested review.
the Appeal Board summarily In ALAB-4 87, affirmed a Licensing Board decision that held, among other things, (a) that Consolidated-Edison of New York (Con Ed) could proceed its with construction of cooling towers at Indian Point Unit 2 facility, and-(b) that operation of the plant with once-through 1982.
-1 cooling could continue until May 1, A license condition imposed by the NRC requires termination of once-through cooling by that date in order to protect the eggs and fry of the striped bass which spawn in the
- )
~
Hudson River.
The Commission's decision to take - review i
reflected a conundrum which has the. following essential components:
Contact:
Peter Crane, OGC IMorm3: ion in this record was d::eled x41465 in accordance with the freedom of Information f0l4 A s _@#
Act, exemplicn
[6 ~~
7/ $ ts I- )o f
~
9307060213 930317
/).
The Commissioners 2
1.
The NRC license condition, adopted pursuant to the NRC's NEPA responsibilities, is designed to protect the fish in the Hudson River.
2.
The NRC stated in its Seabrook decision (Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 5 NRC 503, (1977)) that in accordance with the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, or EMPCA) and the NRC-EPA Second Memorandum of Understanding, it would defer to EPA as to the proper type of cooling system for nuclear power plants.
3.
A major objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, reflected by the Commission in the seabrook opinion, was the elimination of duplicative agency reviews of water quality issues.
Congress specifically had the Indian Point license condition in mind when it acted.
4.
EPA currently has underway a proceeding to determine the proper type of cooling for Indian Peint Unit 2 and three other Hudson River facilities.
That proceeding was on appeal from EPA's initial decision, which agreed with NRC that cooling towers were needed at Indian Point Unit 2.
5.
The effectiveness of the initial EPA decision was automatically stayed when an appeal was taken, and the final EPA decision may not be rendered for some time.
6.
It takes approximately 3-1/2 years - to
)
build cooling towers.
7.
If the Commission retains unchanged the license condition barring once-through cooling after 1982, con Ed may be forced to shut down Unit 2 in 1982 unless and until it has cooling towers in place.
i l
l 4
The Commissioners 3
]
8.
If Con Ed builds cooling towers now in order to be sure of being able to continue operation after 1982, any future decision by EPA permitting once-through would render the cooling towers unnecessary.
9.
If the NRC decides that in deference to EPA's ultimate decision on cooling systems, it will now drop its requirement for changeover from once-through cooling in 1982, EPA will not be able to fill the regulatory void left by NRC until it reaches its decision on Hudson River cooling; until unen, neither agency may be protecting the river's fish.
10.
If the Commission decides that it will now conduct a further NEPA analysis to determine whether the facility can continue to operate with once-through cooling after May 1982, it will be duplicating the effort now going on in the EPA proceeding, and drawing away NRC resources that are now assisting EPA.
11.
The Commission's decision on the license condition at issue here will affect the legal status of license conditions in other NRC permits and licenses, dealing with such non-radiological water quality matters as discharges of chlorine.
Thus the licensee is placed in a dilemma:
should it build towers that may turn out to be unnecessary, or should it instead risk being forced to shut down Unit 2 in 1982 for lack of towers?
This in turn places the Commission in a pre.dicament:
does the Commission have the responsibility to extricate its licensee from a dilemma that has its origin in the overlapping responsibilities of two federal agencies (but which was exacerbated by EPA's inability, in part because of its own procedural requirements, to act expeditiously)?
When the Commission took review of ALAB-487, it asked the parties to address two questions:
the implications of the Seabrook decision (in which the Commission had reaf firmed the
The Commissioners 4
primacy of EPA in water quality matters) with respect to closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point Unit 2, and the continuing validity of the license condition requiring termination of once-through cooling by +by 1, 1982.
The filings and counter-filings of the parties have been received.
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe these documents, and to propose a solution to the problem presented.
Before doing so, it may be useful to review briefly the identity and essential objectives of the parties to this complicated proceeding.
1.
Consolidated Edison.
Con Ed does not want to build cooling towers if it can avoid doing so, because they are costly and cause a loss of operating efficiency.
It is participating in the ongoing EPA proceeding to determine the proper type of cooling for Hudson River plants.
In the meantime, it wants the NRC to relieve it of the obligation to end once-through cooling by May 1982.
2.
Hudson River Fishermen's Association (HRFA).
HRFA is concerned to protect the striped bass fisheries of the Hudson from the effects of once-through cooling on eggs and fry.
Fearing that NRC deference to EPA will cause severe harm to the Hudson fisheries, it wants NRC to enforce the license condition requiring termination of once-through cooling by 1982.
3.
Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY).
As a licensee'of Indian Point Unit 3, PASNY entered into a stipulation by which once-through at Unit 3 must terminate in September - 19 82.
It wants NRC to defer to EPA's ultimate decision, and to eliminate all conflicting regulatory requirements from all NRC permits, including the license conditions requiring termination of once-through cooling by 1982 at both Unit 2 and Unit 3.
~
The Commissioners 5
4.
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA wants NRC to accept its view that the 1972 amendments to the Water Act divested NRC of any jurisdiction to set effluent limitations odaer than those established by EPA.
5.
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG).
DRAG, a group of NRC-licensed utilities filing a brief as friends of the court, wants the elimination of all NRC-imposed license conditions, from all NRC permits and licenses, that deal with non-radiological water quality matters.
It favors complete NRC deference to EPA on such issues.
6.
NRC Staff.
The Staff is prepared to follow EPA's decision on Hudson River cooline once it is rendered, but in the meantime, does not want to remove the license condition that was imposed to protect the biota of the river.
7.
Village of Buchanan.
No longer an actor in this proceeding, the Village originally opposed construction of towers, citing aesthetic and environmental harms.
A state court later ruled daat the Village did not have the legal power to block construction of towers.
With that as background, we turn to a presentation of the views of the parties.
Though the parties filed initial' briefs and reply brief s, their views, including their responses to the contentions of other parties, are presented here in consolidated form.
II.
Contentions of the Parties A.
NRC Staff.
By way of history, an AEC licensing board determined that as part of the operating license for Indian Point Unit 2, the plant should be required to terminate once-through cooling on May 1, 1978, in order to protect the fisheries of the Hudson River.
Th e termination date um.s subsequently extended.
In. response to an Appeal Board decision, the c,
The Commissionors 6
4 NRC staff took a fresh look at the likely impacts on the Hudson fisheries, and prepared a Final Environmental Statement dealing with the impacts on the river of the simultaneous operation of Units 1, 2 and 3.
This FES served as the basis of a stipulation, agreed to by all parties and approved by the Licensing Board in 1975, that once-through cooling at Unit 3 would end on September 15, 1980.
Under a provision of the stipulation allowing for necessary extensions of time, the. termination date for Unit 3 is now set for September 1982.
In 1977, Con Ed applied for a license amendment eliminating the requirement to convert Unit 2 to closed-cycle cooling; it also requested an extension of the date for termination of once-through cooling.
The staf f has not acted on the request for a licen'se amendment, and it has denied the request for an extension.
The basis for its denial was that NRC would be required to conform the Unit 2 license to the decision reached by EPA.
Since that decision was expected in advance of the 1982 date for termination of once-through, the staff expected it would have time to take appropriate action.
Thus Con Ed would not be harmed by denial of the relief requested.
PASNY subsequently requested an extension of the termination date for once-through at Unit 3, and its request was denied for the same reasons.
The EPA proceeding, which is examining the same issues that have concerned NRC ( that is, the effect of once-through cooling on the Hudson. fisheries), will result in a decision j
by the Regional Administration establishing an approved mode of cooling and a compliance date.
NRC is 'not a party, but has been giving substantial assistance to EPA.
Turning to the questions posed by this case, the NRC is required to defer to EPA's -decisions on cooling water intake and discharge, once EPA takes a final agency action.
Since EPA's decision requiring closed-cycle at Indian Point is stayed, however, the NRC can condition the licenses for Units 2 and 3 to minimize -
y
The Commissioners 7
the impact on the Hudson River biota.
As a matter of discretion MRC should take actions calculated to minimize conflict with the potential requirements of the EPA decision.
In Seabrook, the Commission decided that in its overall NEPA cost-benefit analysis of whether to license the f acility, it could accept without independent inquiry EPA's judgment as to the impacts of the plant on -
the marine environment.
Here, in contrast to the situation in Seabrook, EPA has not taken final agency action.
Section 511(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act states that NEPA does not authorize agencies daat issue licenses to-impose, as a condition for receiving the license, "any effluent limitation other than any such limitation established pursuant' to this Act. "
Here, no such limitation has Eeen -
" established", since EPA's. decision is not final.
NRC is therefore not precluded from imposing its own license conditions for the protection of the river, pending final action by EPA.
Until EPA acts, the Commission should attempt to preserve the status quo, and in recognition of the fact that EPA will ultimately be the decisionmaker, NRC daould avoid taking actions which might lead to conflicts.
Thus the NRC staff has refused requests from Con Ed and PASNY that the licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 be amended to extend the termina-tion date for once-through cooling.
The staff denials were based on the staff's expectation th at there will be suf ficient time, once EPA has acted, to tcke appropriate action in advance of the 1982 termination dates.
Policy considerations also played a role in the staff's denial of the Con Ed and PASNY requests.
- First, the staff's consultants at Oak Ridge are intensively involved in the EPA proceeding, as part of NRC's assistance to EPA in dnat proceeding.
Diverting them to work on the requested : license amendment would limit or prevent their. assistance to EPA.
Second, since all parties have been involved actively in the EPA proceeding, it is in the best interests of all that it remain the sole forum for investigating the effects of the plant on the Hudson fisheries.
Finally, the staff
The Commissioners 8
could not conduct the necessary analysis for the l
proposed license amendments widaout speculating I
both as to the effluent limitations EPA will promulgate and the compliance schedule it will-set.
Since NRC is not recuired by the Clean Water Act to modify the license conditions terminating once-through cooling in 1982, the question then remains whether the NRC should modify them. -
The staff believes the conditions should be lef t in effect.
The license conditions do not require the commencement of construction of. cooling towers.
The licensees thus suf fer no prejudice f rom NRC 's leaving the conditions in effect, pending a final decision by EPA.
With regard to Indian Point Unit 3, the termina-tion of once-through cooling was stipulated' by all. parties including the NRC staf f.
The Commission explicitly approved this stipulation.
EPA endorsed the staff's recommendation in favor of closed-cycle cooling, and at no time suggested that NRC. lacked authority to require such a condition.
Since the time Obat the stipulation was executed, the stay of effectiveness of -
the EPA decision has made the September.1982 compliance unrealistic, but it would nevertheless be premature to alter that date in advance of the EPA decision.
B.
Consolidated Edison.
The Commission's decision in Seabrook should be followed, and the NRC should therefore defer to EPA's judgment as to whether cooling towers are required.
Until that decision is ' rendered, NRC should either delete altogether the license condition requiring changeover.from once-through cooling, or at least approve Con Ed's application for an extension-of. the termination date for once-th rough.
The legislative history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 specifically identifies the AEC's imposition of a cooling tower requirement at Indian Point as the sort of duplicative action which those Amendments were designed to prevent.
The purpose of the law was to give EPA sole authority for
. - :e
-.x The Commissioners 9
setting effluent limitations, not subject to j
second-guessing by such _ agencies as the AEC.
Not only are other agencies barred from second-guessing EPA decisions that have already been.
made, Oney are also prohibited from " beating EPA to the punch" by making water quality ' decisions in situations where EPA has yet to act.
The approach taken by the Commission in Seabrook should be taken here as well.
The factual-distinctions between the two cases are not material, even though _ Seabrook involved a plant seeking a_ construction permit, and an EPA proceeding that was further along daan is die EPA Hudson River proceeding.
The NRC Staff incorrectly distinguishes between the two cases on grounds that in Seabrook, though not here, the Admini--
strator had made a " final" decision.
The f act th at the Administrator's decision in Seabrook was not in fact final was demonstrated when the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it.
The Staf f is also incorrect in stating (in the July 24, 1978 letter from Harold Denton to Con Ed) that Con Ed is not harmed by the Staff's refusal to process its application for an extension-of - the termination date.
The Staff's reasoning --
that a decision can be expected 'from EPA before the May 19 82 termination-date -- ignores without -
an adequate basis for doing so, the f act that
~
it takes up to four years to build cooling towers and assumes, that EPA will set a compliance schedule and that the license can then be amended accordingly.
j By leaving the license condition: in-place,
~
the Staf f is ef fectively_ establishing 1m effluent limitation, contrary to Congressional intent.
Staff should not be exercising any authority whatever related to water pollution control, such as requiring the non-radiological 1
monitoring conditions of the Environmental Technical Specifications Requirements.
The Staf f. should follow the. example it set for itself regarding the Brunswick facility, where it amended the license-to provide that
_l 1
the date for installing cooling towers would not be established finally.until EPA made its final decision on the type of cooling.to-be used.
The Commissioners 10 C.
Hudson River Fishermen's Association.
The license condition requiring termination of. once-through cooling in May 19 82 should be retained.
Seabrook does no't require any other result.
In Seabrook, die Commission ruled that it would not allow an issue which had been properly decided by EPA to be relitigated before the NRC.
Indian Point, on the other h and, involves a determination properly made by NRC before EPA entered the picture.
That j
NRC determination should not now be set aside simply because at some undetermined point in the future, EPA may rule on yhe same. issue.
Congress did indeed intend to prevent duplicative agency proceedings, and the second-guessing of EPA determinations by odner agencies; it did not intend that in the name of avoiding duplication, the job of protecting Hudson River biota would be performed by neither NRC nor EPA.
Yet that would be the result if the NRC deleted a license condition effective in 1982 in deference to an EPA-imposed requirement that might not be effective until years later.
The legislative history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 does not bar maintenance of the NRC license condition.
In the first place, the Congress was concerned with ef fluent limitations imposed by agencies.
other than EPA.
The changeover from once-through cooling was not mandated in order to protect the river from effluents, but to limit the intake of water.
The discussion of the Indian Point case which appears in the legislative history of the Bf PCA, consisting of a colloquy among three Senators, reflected inaccurate accounts in that day's newspapers, incorrectly characterizing the AEC license condition as being directed at thermal pollution.
1 When EPA addressed the issue of cooling systems for Indian Point, its proposed solution i
tracked NRC's exactly: it specified the same termination date for once-through cooling.
However, under EPA procedure, a request for an adjudicatory hearing automatically stays the effectiveness of the agency's action.
In that adjudicatory proceeding, Con Ed is a
The Commissioners 11 challenging EPA's authority to impose a closed-cycle cooling requirement.
Thus, if the NRC decides it will wait for EPA to act, these essential measures for the protection of the Hudson may remain in abeyance forever.
In 1972, after the FWPCA Amendments were passed, the Licensing Board asked the parties to brief the issue of the effect of the new law on the Indian Point 2 proceeding.
Con Ed argued unsuccessfully that the new law had deprived the AEC of jurisdiction.
HRFA argued that the law did not deprive the AEC of jurisdiction, because the issue was one of intake, not discharge.
Moreover, said HRFA, even if the AEC license condition were viewed as an effluent limitation, the AEC retained its jurisdiction because EPA had yet to set any effluent limitation.
The new law was designed to prevent other agencies from second-guessing previously established EPA effluent limitations, but that was not the case here.
When the Licensing Board ruled in 1973 that the license condition would continue in force, and thus that the FWPCA had not deprived the Commission of jurisdiction, Con Ed chose not to appeal that ruling.
It should therefore i
be treated as res judicata, and Con Ed should l
not now be' allowed to.relitigate the issue.
-l Likewise, PASNY is successor in interest to a i
stipulation which set a termination date for once-through cooling at Indian Point Unit 3 on the understanding that NEPA authorized the Commission to impose such requirements, i
The EPA hearings on Hudson River plants are proceeding under Section 316(b) of the FWPCA to determine the proper intake structures for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, in a case to which Con Ed was a party, that Section i
316(b) regulations are not " effluent limitations",
as they deal with withdrawals of water, not discharges.
(VEPCO v. Costle, 566 F.2d 446 (1977)).
Thu s, the NRC is not required to defer to -EPA either now or in the future, since Section 511(c) of the FWPCA does not apply.
The Commissioners 12 Neverth eles s, the EPA proceedings are a convenient forum in which Con Ed and PASNY can attempt to demonstrate that closed-cycle cooling is not necessary.
The NRC should, however, set a date certain, no later than the end of 1980, for deciding whether to grant the utilities' applications to lift the present license requirement.
While that decision must be made by NRC, it should'use the evidentiary record developed in the EPA proceeding.
This assumes that EPA will not have acted by that time.
D.
Environmental Protection Agency.
NEPA does not authorize the NRC to impose any cooling requirement other than that established by EPA (or a state) under the Clean Water Act.
This is clear both from the face of the statute and the legislative history.
The clear intent of Congress was to nullify the AEC-imposed license condition.
Senator Muskie, principal author of the Clean Water Act, stated explicitly, in response to questions from Senator Buckley, that the purpose of Section 511(c) of the Act was to prohibit the AEC from using its NEPA authority to impose controls more stringent than those imposed by EPA under the Act.
Senator Jackson, principal author of NEPA, agreed.
Congressman Dingell stated that the purpose of the section was "to overcome that part of the Calvert Clif f s
~
decision requiring AEC or any other licensing or permitting agency to independently review i
water quality matters".
From the beginning, 1
EPA has taken the position that Section 511(c) requires odher egencies to accept EPA' decisions as conclusive.
On the other hand, nothing in the Clean Water Act prohibits NRC from requiring cooling towers, provided it does not do so on grounds of water quality.
In addition, the NRC _could require cooling towers, even on grounds of water quality, but its legislative authority
)
fer doing so would have to be some statute other dian NEPA.
I
a-~..p.
s The. Commissioners 13 i
E.
Utility Water Act Group.
There is no question d1at once EPA acts to establish. what type of cooling. system Indian j
Point must use, the NRC will be required to 1
follow that determination.
The_ question here is whether prior to the - EPA determination, the NRC can impose a license condition whichL
~
may conflict with the later EPA judgment.
.The answer is emphatically no.
It would undermine the. purpose of Section 511(c) if 1
the.NRC were permitted to require the' construction of an expensive and possibly unnecessary coolingcsystem, or to initiate-proceedings, simply because EPA had yet to make a final decision.
The legislative history makes clear that.
u Congress enacted Section 511(c).specifically to overturn, and prevent a repetition of, th e:
1 AEC's action in ordering _ closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point.
Years after Congress. acted, however, the Indian Point license still includes that license condition.
There is no R
regulatory gap that would-- justifyf this disregard for Congress' intent:
_ EPA has ample' authority _
to assure that the environment is protected, pending full implementation of the Clean Water Act and final Clean Water Act determinations.'
i The NRC should act promptly _ to deleteithis and all other non-radiological water-quality-
_i related conditions from this - and all other NRC permits and' licenses..
F.
Power Authority of the State of' New York (PASNY)
The NRC is barred by Section 511(c)(2) 'of the clean Water Act from exercising any responsibility over non-radiological wateriquality matters.
The Commission's Seabrook decision supports this.- Thus ' the NRC does 'not have the-legal
~l power to impose license cor.ditions at Indian Point.UnitsE2 and 3 requiring termination of-u once-through. cooling.
The Comnission should' take action to withdraw: fron' areas' that are properly the; responsibility of EPA. or~.the states under the Clean Water Act.
In this case, that means either eliminating those license conditions or modifying: them to-conform ther to the EPA (or state) determination, whenever'it may come.
In urging such a
- m:
i The Commissioners 14 modification, PASNY is not conceding that the NRC has jurisdiction to impose any. non-radiological water quality-related license condition.
Nor is it conceding that NRC decisions with regard to Indian Point Unit 2 are binding on Unit 3, of which PASNY is licensee.
In August 1978, PASNY requested an extension of the date - for termination of once-through cooling at Unit 3.
In October of the same year, the NRC staf f denied the relief requested.
The Staff cited several grounds, including the necessity of conforming the Unit 3 license to whatever compliance schedule EPA dec' ides on.
While PASNY does-not agree with - all of the assertions in the staff reply, the reply nevartheless provides as a practical matter the " firm commitment" PASNY has sought. (in that the staff stated that it ~would withhold enforcement action until EPA acted).' 'However, the need for a climate of " regulatory certainty" 1
nevertheless makes it =important that the. NRC act to eliminate or modify the license condition.
HRFA erroneously distinguishes Indian Point j
from Seabrook on the grounds that in Indian Point, the decision to order termination of once-through cooling was " final" agency action.
It makes no dif ference whether the NRC-imposed license condition is orfis not final j
agency action, if, the NRC either lacks jurisdiction -
to take that action or.is otherwise obligated by law to defer to EPA.
By law, only EPA;or j
a state can require cooling towers at Indian j
Point.
Znat was decided by Congress, - which-i was not confused about-the facts at Indian i
Point.
The Congressional intent. to overturn the AEC's action in imposing a cooling tower requirement wasLexplicit.
It is wholly j
immaterial that the AIC's decision against open-cycle was based' onL the ef fects of the 1
intake, rather than the discharge, of cooling:
)
water.
Contrary to thel suggestions 'of HRFA and the.
Staff, Congress. did.not make the legality. of
'l the AEC-imposed ' license conditions hinge on-the_ timing of the EPA' decision.
7t the : time of the Senate ' debates, EPA had ' taxen no' action regarding ~ the type of cooling at
. Indian Point.
Congress' intent was. simply to i
j l
l z
.. m
j
-The Commissioners
'15 keep other agencies out of an area-reserved for EPA.
There -is ;thus no reason :to distinguish -
i Indian Point from-Seabrook on the basis that in Seabrook, EPA had taken final action,'
whereas in Indian Point, 'it has yet to do so.
The Staff misinterprets that portion of Section 511(c)(2)(b) which. states that nothing in NEPA will authorize any Federal license--
I granting agency to impose, as a' condition l
precedent, to the grant ofia license or. permit,-
" any ef fluent 14.mitation odher dran any such >
limitation established pursuant to this Act" i.e., established by' EPA or a state.. The Stuff assumes incorrectly Onat " established",-
as used in that. clause, refers to a limitation that has already been established.
- Again,
- i the specific references in the legislative history to the Indian Point situation make clear that Congress intended daat no odier agency should have the power eidher to alter.
an EPA decision already made, or to preempt by prior action a decision that EPA had yet to make.
i The NRC should 'not accept ERFA's suggestion that the Commission commit itself to make its l
own decision' by-the end of 1980.
In the-first place, die.NRC does not have" jurisdiction to make daat decision.
Second,. that decisioni would have to be conformed to.the EPA decision once. EPA acts.
Th ird, if NRC1 required 1 cooling towers, compliance 1would be. expensive and..
might turn out to.be unnecessary.
Fourth, it is possible that.the EPA hearings may not. be.
complete within the period suggested by ERFA, so that the NRC would be. required to make a e
decision on an incomplete' record, j
III.
Analysis and Recommendations.
- 5. < d I
1
.i. 7 I* i
t t 5 V
24 The Commissioners t
e, 9
M i
P 1
1
' i
- 1 1
Recommendations
,.{
.~.
James A.
Fitzgerald
.. Assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
t' Draft Order j
a i.
e l
t
25 Connissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, July 29, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July 22, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it recuires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when conments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of August 4,1980..Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Con?,issioners OGC OPE OCA SECY
\\
l i
.