ML20078A515

Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 830906 Request for Hearing on Decision to Lift Suspension of License DPR-76.No Legal or Factual Basis Provided.Precedent Re TMI Restart Hearing Inapplicable.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078A515
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/21/1983
From:	Oglesby D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8309230299
Download: ML20078A515 (19)

Text

uer

~ '

00CNETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '83 SEP 22 All:05 BEFORE THE COMMISSION b,hIY %f;E; ,

~ '

In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS )

and ELECTRIC COMPANY Diablo ) Docket No. 50-275 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant )

Unit 1. )

)

OPPOSITION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO JOINT INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR HEARING ON REINSTATEMENT OF LOW POWER TEST LICENSE ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.

RICHARD F. LOCKE DOUGLAS A. OGLESBY Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 (415) 781-4211 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 (602) 257-7288 BRUCE NORTON

/ Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

P.O. Box 10569 Phoenix, AZ 85064 (602) 955-2446 i Attorneys for

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

/

Dated: September 21, 1983 8309230299 830921 l PDR ADOCK 0500027g l o e

p503 t

0 *

. e 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

j- 3 Page 4

4 I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

II A FORMAL HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW 6 OR THE FACTS OF THIS CASE . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 III CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

- 17 t 18 I

19 l 20 1

21 22 l

l 23 1

24

! 25 t

26 i-

- .,.y .- , , ,. .,---,.----..n-- - - - - - - - - . . , . - - - - , - , - - - - - , . - - .

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2

3 Page(s) 4 CASES S

Federal Court Cases 6

Sholly v. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 7 Com'n, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 8 vacated and remanded sub nom.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n 9 v. Sholly, U.S. ,

103 S.Ct. 1170 (Feb. 22, 1983),

10 remand, F.2d (D.C. Cir. April 4, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . 7,8 11 12 Administrative Cases 13 Kerr-McGee Cor3 oration (West Chicago Rare Earta Facility), 15 NRC 232, 14 aff' d, Wes t Chicago, Ill.

v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n, 15 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . 12 16 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

17 NRC , Nuclear JRe . Rep. (CCH) 1 30,794 (June 30, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . 4 18 Metropolitan Edison Company 19 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), 10 NRC 141 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . 3,8 20 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 21 (DiaElo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 22 .

13 NRC 361 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 23 14 NRC 598 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 24 16 NRC 1712 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,11 25 Nuclear Reg. Rep. (CCH) 26 1 30,629 (ALAB, Sept. 14, 1981) . . . . . . . . 4

-ii-

1 Table of Authorities (continued) 2 3 Page(s) 4 STATUTES 5

Atomic Energy Act section 189(a) . . . . . . . . . . 1,5 7 6

7 REGULATIONS 8 10 C.F.R. 5 2.104(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 C.F.R. 6 2.105(a)(6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 MISCELLANEOUS 11

" Emergency Planning and Preparedness for 12 Production and Utilization Facilities,"

46 Fed. Reg. 61132 (Dec. 15, 1981) . . . . . . 4 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 f

20 21 22 23 l 24 l

25 26 l

l l -iii-i l

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3

4 In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS )

and ELECTRIC COMPANY Diablo ) Docket No. 50-275 5 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant )

Unit 1. )

6 )

7 8 OPPOSITION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO JOINT INTERVENORS' 9 REQUEST FOR HEARING ON REINSTATEMENT OF LOW POWER TEST LICENSE 10 11 12 I 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Joint Intervenors requested, on September 6, 1983, 15 "a formal adjudicatory hearing prior to a Commission l 16 decision to lift the suspension" on Facility Operating 17 License No. DPR-76 for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 18 ("PGandE") Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ("Diablo 19 Canyon"), Unit 1. However, their supporting arguments, set 20 forth in their September 1, 1983 comments to the Commission 21 on the status of the on-going Diablo Canyon design 22 verification program, provide no factual or legal basis for 23 granting the request, and accordingly it should be denied.

24 The Joint Intervenors argue that such a hearing is l 25 required by section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"),

26 and that since a formal adjudicatory hearing was ordered

- ._. n.. _ _ , , - . _ _ - . . . . - _ _ . -. ,

1 1 prior to restart of Three Mile Island ("TMI"), Unit 1, one 2 therefore is required to be held here.1_/ Neither the AEA 3 nor the rationale for the TMI-1 restart hearing, however, 4 mandate a formal hearing in a proceeding for the 5 reinstatement of a previously suspended license.

6 II 7 A FORMAL HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW OR THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

8 9 The hearing this Commission ordered in the TMI-1 10 restart proceeding was to determine whether, and, if so, 11 under what conditions, TMI-1 would be allowed to resume 12 13 If Joint Intervenors have adroitly, but improperly, at-tempted to intertwine two independent issues: their 14 request for a formal adjudicatory hearing on (1) the reinstatement of PGandE's authority to load fuel and 15 conduct low power testing; and (2) PGandE's request for an extension of the term of the Facility Operating 16 License from one year from the date of issuance to three years from the date of issuance. These are, 17 however, two separate issues, and the question of whether Joint Intervenors are entitled to a hearing, 18 and, if so, what kind of hearing, on the lifting of the license suspension in no way bears on whether a hearing 19 must be held on the extension to the term of the li-cense. Indeed, most of Joint Intervenors' legal argu-20 ment in their September 1 comments to the Commission is germane only to their request for a hearing on the 21 extension of the low power license term, and has no bearing whatsoever on their request for a hearing on 22 the reinstatement of that license. The answer to the request for a hearing on the license extension is that 23 there is an ongoing licensing proceeding which Joint Intervenors may seek to reopen to litigate issues they 24 regard as pertinent to the license extension, as this Commission recognized in denying their request.

25 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), 16 NRC 1712, 1715-6 26 (1982).

1 operation, given the unique circumstances of that case.

2 Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear 3 Station, Unit 1), 10 NRC 141 (1979). The situation here is 4 entirely different, involving instead the restoration of a 5 previously suspended low power test license. The safety 6 considerations for fuel loading, pre-criticality testing, 7 initial criticality and low power testing are much less 8 significant than those for full power operation. Moreover, 9 the two-step process for restoring the Diablo Canyon low 10 power license contemplated by the Commission provides even 11 further assurances that protection of the public health and 12 safety will not be compromised by the limited activities 13 which will be authorized.

14 Under step 1, after certain requirements relative 15 to the Diablo Canyon design verification program ("DVP") are 16 satisfied, the Commission will vote whether to reinstate the 17 license, but the initial authority granted would not be to j 18 conduct low power tests, much less to operate the facility.

l 19 Rather, PGandE would be authorized only to load fuel and 20 conduct pre-criticality tests, involving no irradiation of 21 the nuclear fuel and no generation of fission products.

j 22 Under step 2, after certain additional DVP requirements are l 23 met, the Commission would then vote to authorize criticality 24 and low power tests up to five percent of rated power.

l 25 Altdiough the vehicle for the Commission's action is a l

j 26 suspended low power test license, the substance of that l

1 action will not be to authorize operation, nor, under 2 step 1, even criticality or low power testing.

3 Further, there is little cafety significt. ace to 4 low power tests, and virtually none as to fuel loading and 5 pre-criticality tests. As the Commission recently stated, 6 "several factors contribute to a substantial reduction in 7 risk and potential accident consequences for low power 8 testing as compared to the higher risk in continuous full 9 power operation." Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, "Eraergency 10 Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization 11 Facilities," 46 Fed. Reg. 61132 (Dec. 15, 1981). See also 12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear 13 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Nuclear Reg. Rep. (CCH) 14 S 30,629 at 30,067-68 (ALAB, Sept. 14, 1981) ("Nothing in 15 either stay motion [ filed by Joint Intervenors and then 16 Governor Brown] suggests to us a basis for any possible 17 safety concern with respect to the carrying out of the

! 18 pre-criticality preparatory activities."); M., 14 NRC 598, 19 601 (1981) (endorsing ALAB's September 14, 1981 order). y 20 ///

21 22 y We note that the Commission in the Shoreham case stated on a generic basis that any doubts about whether a 23 safety issue may ultimately be resolved so as to allow full power operation cannot operate to deny a low power 24 test authorization when the issue can be resolved adequately for low power tests. Long Island Lighting 25 Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

NRC

, Nuclear Reg. Rep. (CCH) 1 30,794 (June 30, 26 1983).

t 1 Turning to Joint Intervenors' legal argument, 2 stated simply, section 189(a) of the AEA does not confer 3 upon Joint Intervenors a right to a formal hearing in this 4 case. Section 189(a) provides that a hearing must be 5 granted on request "[i]n any proceeding under this Act, for 6 the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any 7 license . . . .

" This is not a " proceeding. . . for the 8 . . . suspending" of a license. That proceeding was held in 9 November, 1981, when the license was suspended. This 10 Commission's pending action to reinstate the Diablo Canyon 11 low power test license can at best be characterized as a 12 proceeding to lift the previous license suspension.

13 Accordingly, section 189(a) does not require a hearing upon 14 request.

15 Contrary to Joint Intervenors' suggestion (Joint 16 Intervenors' letter to Commission at 20 n.21 (Sept. 21, 17 1983)) the NRC's Executive Legal Director agreed in the 18 TMI-1 restart proceeding with this construction of section l 19 189(a). H. Shapar, Memorandum to Commission re Proceedings 1

20 On Start-Up of Three Mile Island Unit 1 (July 25, 1979).

21 Joint Intervenors have played fast and loose with Mr.

22 Shapar's advice to this Commission by selectively quoting it 23 out of context. Although the quote is accurate, the thrust 24 of the legal conclusion is. precisely the contrary of what 25 Joint Intervenors imply. Mr. Shapar concluded that section 26 189(a) did not require a hearing prior to Commission action

1 authorizing restart of TMI-1 because such action would not 2 be a proceeding for the suspending of a license, but would 3 instead be a proceeding to lift a license suspension. Id.

4 at 1-2. The paragraph immediately preceding Joint 5 Intervenors' quote says:

6 The immediate license suspension imposed by the Commission in its July 2, 7 1979 Order could be lifted without any prior hearing if the Commission could 8 find that the public health and safety no longer required license suspension.

9 See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), 6 AEC 1082 (1973). In 10 fact we have so argued in response to a request for a hearing in the proceeding 11 suspending operation of Rancho Seco and However, the Commission Davis Besse.

12 may determine in this case that it will not make the safety findings necessary 13 for reactor restart without having had the benefit of a formal hearing record.

14 This decision is clearly within the Com-mission's authority -- indeed, licensees 15 concede as much. The Commission could, in theory, adopt some other form of pub-16 lic proceeding prior to start-up. How-ever, as explained more fully below, 17 this could give rise to substantial confusion and, in any event, would not 18 obviate the need for a formal hearing at some stage on the license suspension 17 19 an interested person requested one under 20 section [189(a)]. -Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original).

21 Mr. Shapar then went on to make the statement 22 Joint Intervenors' quoted. But in saying that "[t]he matter 23 at hand involves just such a proceeding," he was not 24 referring, as Joint Intervenors would have this Commission 25 believe, to a proceeding to restore previously suspended 26 operating authority, but instead to the ongoing proceeding 1 initiated by the Commission's July 2, 1979 order suspending 2 the TMI-1 license. This is made clear by the following:

3 As suggested above, the Commission could elect to separate the proceeding 4 to be held prior to reactor start-up (a proceeding that does not necessarily 5 entail a formal hearing) from the pro-ceeding on the suspending of the license 6 (a proceeding that must entail a formal hearing). Id. at 3.

7 8 The Diablo Canyon license suspension proceeding 9 has ended. The pending proceeding is one to restore the low 10 power test license, a proceeding which does not require a 11 formal hearing.

12 This Commission has apparently endorsed such a 13 construction of section 189(a) . Sholly v. U. S. Nuclear 14 Regulatory Com'n, 651 F.2d 780, 790-91-(D.C. Cir. 1980),

15 vacated and remanded sub nom. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 16 Com'n v. Sholly, U.S. , 103 S.Ct. 1170 (Feb. 22, i

17 1983), remand, F.2d (D.C. Cir. April 4, 1983).

18 In Sholly, the Commission argued that section 189(a) did not 19 require a hearing on its order authorizing Metropolitan 20 Edison to vent the atmosphere of the TMI-2 reactor 21 containment building because the venting order "merely 22 lifted a prior suspension of the licensee's authority to 23 vent," and therefore it was not a license amendment which 24 would require a hearing. I_dd . at 790. After a detailed 25 factual review of the venting order, the prior order 26 prohibiting venting and pertinent provisions of the

+

. . v q s ,

1 operating license, the court of appeals' foiShd that "[t]here 2 is no indication that this order [the initial order 3 prohibiting venting] was intended or per.ceived as a mere 4 suspension of the licensee's existing authority to vent."

5 Id. (emphasis added). The court'then found that the venting

~

6 order was in fact an amendment to the TMI-2 license and that 7 the NRC erred in refusing tolhold a prior hearing. Id. at 8 791. Had the court found, as this Commission urged, that 9 the initial ~ order prohibiting venting 'was a " mere 10 suspension," presumably it would,.have sustained ' the t s 11 Commission's refusal to hold a hearing on the lifting of the 12 suspension (the venting order).

13 The TMI-1 restart proceeding lends no support to 14 Joint Intervenors. Nothing in the 'IMI-1 restart order

. s .

i 15 suggests that the notice of hearing -in that case was

'9 i M* . .

16 required as a matter of law. Rather, as discussed above,

, -s j 17 the Commission focused on the particular facts of' TMI, 18 noting that "the unique circumstances at TMI require that 19 additional safety concerns identified by the NRC stafh be 20 resolved prior to restart." 10 NRC at 143. Ample authority 21 exists in the Commission's regulations to order a formal 22 hearing when the Commission finds on a case-by-case basis 23 that the public interest so requires (10 C.F.R. 5 2.104(a))

24 or is otherwise appropriate (10 C.F.R. 5 2.105(a)(6)). The l 25 TMI-1 restart order in no way represents a generic ' legal i

26 conclusion that a formal hearing must be held prior to

. . j i 1 resumption of operating authority'which the Commission has 4 2 previously suspended. The contrary is clearly indicated in 3 3 the memorandum from the Executive Legal Director in the 4 TMI-1 restart proceeding cited by Joint Intervenors. See 5 supra pp. 5-6. There is no comparable reason for requiring 6 a formal hearing prior to restoration of Diablo Canyon's low 7 power test license.

8 Most importantly, though ignored by Joint 9 Intervenors, the procedural posture of the Diablo Canyon x

10 case is not similar in any significant way to the TMI-1

- 11 restart proceedings. TMI-1 had already received a full 12 power operating license and all licensing proceedings had 13 long been ended when the TMI-2 accident occurred. In short, i 14 there was no pending hearing in TMI-1. Thus, this 15 Commission may have concluded that a hearing was in the

/

16 public interest to provide meaningful opportunity for public 17 participation in the - resolution of the safety concerns 18 raised by the NRC staff resoluti n of some of which the 7

Commission deemed necessary prior to resumption of operation 19 20 of TMI-1.

l l 21 Unlike the TMI-l restart situation, the Commission 22 need not ' order a hearing in Diablo Canyon's case to provide 23 the opportunity for public participation. The Diablo Canyon 24 licensing proceedings have not terminated; they are on-going 25 and Joint Intervenors have been participating in them for 26 years. In fact, the adjudicatory record has been reopened t

N g ryva ,--- -e y- . . , , , - m--,+ -

1 1 at Joint Intervenors' request and the reopened hearings will 2 commence in late October on any genuine issues of material 3 fact which may inhere in their comments to the Commission 4 regarding the DVP which the Joint Intervenors would make the 5 subject of the additional hearings they now ask this 6 Commission to hold.

7 It is abundantly clear from a review of their 8 September 1, 1983 comments that the substance of what Joint 9 Intervenors want to litigate in the additional hearings they 10 have requested is the adequacy and scope of the Diablo 11 Canyon design verification program. This they will be able 12 to do in the reopened design quality assurance hearing which 13 will be held before the e ppeal Board. It would serve no 14 useful purpose for this Commission to direct thct separate 15 hearings be held. Joint Intervenors wholly fail to relate 16 any contentions regarding the DVP to low power testing, much 17 less to fuel loading and pre-criticality tests, which would 18 entitle them to a reopening and a stay of the lifting of the 19 license suspension pending adjudication of any contentions 20 arguabl' pertinent to those activities. Neither the AEA, 21 the Commission's regulations, nor common sense require such 22 pointless and duplicative hearings.

l l

23 It bears emphasizing that what the Commission l

?24 suspended in November 1981 was PGandE's authority to conduct 25 fuel loading and low power testing, not substantial 26 operating authority. As this Commission stated earlier in i

4 1 properly denying Joint Intervenors' request for a separate 2 hearing on PGandE's request to extend the term of the low 3 power license, 4 a request for a low-power license does not give rise to a proceeding separate 5 and apart from a pending full-power operating license proceeding. It fol-6 lows that this hearing request is sub-sumed within the scope of the continuing 7 full-power proceeding, as was the re- .

quest for a low-power license. . . .

8 This request for a hearing would ordinarily be treated as a motion to

. 9 reopen the low power record. In this instance, Joint Intervenors have already

, 10 filed a motion to reopen the low-power record with the Appeal Board. Accord-11 ingly, the request for a hearing on the extension of the low-power license is 12 duplicative and is hereby denied.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo 13 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), 16 NRC 1712, 1715-16 (1982). See 14 also id_., 13 NRC 361, 362 (1981).

I j 15 Since the low power license is subsumed within the continu-

\

16 ing full power proceedings, and the substance of what they 17 wish to litigate in the requested hearing will be the 18 subject of the reopened hearings before the Appeal Board, 19 Joint Intervenors' request as a practical matter has been 20 granted, and as a procedural matter is moot. Joint Inter-21 venors will have their hearing on the Diablo Canyon DVP 22 prior to a decision on operation of Diablo Canyon at 23 substantial power levels, which is parallel to what the 24 Conmission ordered in the TMI-1 restart proceedings.

25 Additionally, Joint Intervenors have been provided j 26 the opportunity during the on joing design verification

1 program regularly to comment on the progress of the DVP 2 effort and whether it was meeting the Commission's and 3 staff's objectives. They have attended numerous meetings 4 and presented their views to NRC staff. Joint Intervenors 5 he.ve also submitted lengthy comments to the Commission 6 concerning reinstatement of the low power test license and 7 will have the opportunity to orally present their views at a 8 public Commission meeting.

9 Not only will Joint Intervenors have their formal 10 adjudicatory hearing prior to the granting of any operating 11 authority above five percent power, they are also being 12 provided an informal hearing prior to commission action to 13 reinstate the low power license. Cf. Kerr-McGee Corporation 14 (West Chicago Rare Earth Facility), 15 NRC 232, 247-56 15 (1982), aff'd, West Chicago, Ill v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 16 Com'n, 701 F.2d 632, 641-45 (7th Cir. 1983). The Atomic 17 Energy Act requires no more.

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21 22 23 24 25 26

r 1 III 2 CONCLUSION 3 The Joint Intervenors have set forth no legal or 4 factual basis requiring this Commission to order a formal S adjudicatory hearing prior to Commission action to reinstate 6 the Diablo Canyon fuel loading and low power test license.

7 Therefore, their request should be denied.

8 Respectfully submitted, 9 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.

10 RICHARD F. LOCKE DOUGLAS A. OGLESBY 11 Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 12 San Francisco, CA 94120 (415) 781-4211 13 ARTHUR C. GEHR 14 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center 15 Phoenix, AZ 85073 (602) 257-7288 16 BRUCE NORTON 17 Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

P.O. Box 10569 18 Phoenix, AZ 85064 (602) 955-2446 19 Attorneys for 20 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i

21 By e (I H 23 DOUGLAS A. OGLESBY p/

24 Dated: September 21, 1983 25 26

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275

) Docket No. 50-323 -

Dicblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) -

Unito 1 and 2 - )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has (hove) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:

Judge John F. Wolf '

Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• John Phillips, Esq.

W3chington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R. Kline 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

WOchington DC 20555 P. O. Box 1178 Mro. Elizabeth Apfelberg Oklahoma City OK 73101 c/o Betsy Umhoffer Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

1493 Southwood SCn Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Jcnice E. Kerr, Esq. Phoenix AZ 85073 Public Utilities Commission Bruce Norton, Esq.

State of California Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street P. O. Box 10569 S;n Francisco CA 94102 Phoenix AZ 85064 f

l Mrc. Raye Fleming Chairman i

Atomic Safety and Licensing 1920 Mattie Road Board Panel Shall Beach CA 93449 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 l Mr. Frederick Eissler Sc:nic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

! 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara CA 93105

• Sont by Courier service

Chairman

• Judge Thomas S. Moore Atemic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board ,

W3chington DC- 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington DC 20555 -

S0eretary ..

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Judge W. Reed Johnson Wachington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Section Washington DC 20555

• L;wrence J. Chandler, Esq.

• Judge John H. Buck H3nry J. McGurren Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Office of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission W3chington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard

• Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino MHB Technical Associates Chairman 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stn Jose CA 95125 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger Talogram Tribune

• Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal P. O. Box 112 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Srn Luis Obispo CA 93402 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555

• Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.

Susan L. Durbin, Esq.

• Commissioner Victor Gilinsky P0ter H. Kaufman, Esq. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 1717 H Street NW Los Angeles CA 90010 Washington DC 20555 l Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

• Commissioner James K. Asselstine l

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Axelrad, P.C. 1717 H Street NW 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington DC 20555 W20hington DC 20036 l

• Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts i US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555

/

Date: September 21, 1983 ' 2- i Eb N 'I 1

/ L)

• Sent by Courier service

, - . . - _ _ - _ . __ - . _ _ .