ML20154M524

Partially Withheld SECY-85-018 Discussing Encl Motion for Stay of Low Power Authorization & Suspension of Low Power License

ML20154M524
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick, 05000000
Issue date:	01/22/1985
From:	Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ORGANIZATION CHARTS--NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20151K691	List: IA-85-400, Partially Withheld SECY-85-033 Informing Commission of Us Court of Appeals Decision Involving Dept of Labor Affecting Commission QA Activities.Requests Commission Initiate Discussion W/Dept of Labor & DOJ ML20151K688 ML20151K771 ML20151K795 ML20151K859 ML20151K868 ML20154M416 ML20154M439 ML20154M447 ML20154M453 ML20154M457 ML20154M466 ML20154M473 ML20154M486 ML20154M490 ML20154M493 ML20154M502 ML20154M513 ML20154M524 ML20154M530 ML20154M537 ML20154M542 ML20154M559 ML20154M565
References
FOIA-85-409, TASK-AIA, TASK-SE SECY-85-018, SECY-85-18, NUDOCS 8603140314
Download: ML20154M524 (41)

Text

e .o i vl ,

\

.p. .. 9 s

A 5 I . '.

N ,/

A%g (Affirmation)

For:

From:

The Commissione rs

Subject:

James A. Fitzge rald.

Assistant General Counsel MOTION FOR STAY OF Facility: '

LOH-POWERAUTHORIZATION LOW-POWER AND ,

LICENSE SUSPENSION OF  :

Limerick Purposes UNITS 1 Generating AND 2 Station, f f

Discussion:

On December 10 .

Lic Commission for,a 1984, LEA lowensing pow Board's stay of e themov d fac authorization forLDP-84-31, the lowility, pow and aer s license for the Li a the App er license.uspension merick Analysis: Company,lidan t, of the f opposePhiladelphia thin ElectThe NRC staff a motion. ric h n

Contact Lorry Ra1 x43224 Ph, occ -- '

t 0603140314 060115

[dNG - 09 M

._ E w

l 2

.( .

J Recommendation: f '

f 5 Fy-ld-T James A. Fitzhera s /hssistant General Counsel Attachments:

1. Draf t Order

2. Motion for Stay

3. Appeal Board Decision

4. Staff Response

5. Applicant's Opposition Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, February 6, 1985.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, January 30, 1985, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of February 11, 1985. Please refer to. g the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OPE SECY a

U

" C et e s e ,

i e

/

?

h ATTACK!1ENT 1 i

0

\

l f

e e

e O

I L ~ ~ - - - - - ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O O ,I 6 e t 6

i G .

f 9

0 4

L e O

}

ATTACHMENT 2 l i

\

r 1

1 e

D I

0

't

[

D

• I i

. - - ~ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -

"ds),S['

14 00313 40:30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIOh]Fflg! .a -

ERANCH BEFORE 'I;!E COMMISSION In the Matter of: )

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353

)

(Limerick Gent _ sting Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

MOTION FOR STAY OF LBP-84-31, SUSPENSION OF LOW-POWER FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-27,

.\ND/OR PROHIBITION OF LOW-POWER TESTING Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (LEA), intervenor in the above captioned licensing proceeding, moves the Commission for an Order staying LBP-84-31,, suspending the low-power operating license NPF-27 for the above facility, or otherwise prohibiting low-power testing, and sets forth the following in support thereof: ,

On or about September 3, 1984, LEA filed a timely appeal to the ASLAB Board from the Partial Initial Decision (PID), of the Atomic Safoty and Licensing Board (ASLB), which, intor alia, authorized the Director of the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor T,6gulation to issue the operating license.

On or about October 3, 1984 LEA filed a brief in support of its appeak setting forth in detail various errors in law, and -

1. violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Admini-i strativo Procedure Act and Commission regulations by the ASLD.

LEA's arguments therein are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference thereto.

Based upon the arguments set forth in its Biief, LEA believes that it has made a " strong showing" that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its position.

On or about November 15, 1984, in connection with its Appeal, LEA filed a Motion For Suspension of Low-Power Facility Operating License NPF-27 with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB).

In a Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 1984, the ASLAB dismissed LEA's Motion as an untimely " stay" request and stated inter alias -

...our power to treat a post-license-is suance stay request as a motion to suspend, or to entertain a motion for license suspension, extends only to limited circumstances -- for example, where the license has already been issued but a - '

party nevertheless has a colorable right to such a stay within the time limit of 10 C.F.R. I 2.788 (a). Otherwise, requests for license suspension are more properly addressed to the Director of NRR via a petition under 10 C.F.R.

g 2.206 or to the Commission itself.

(Memorandum and Order, slip. co., p. 3).

LEA therefore requests the Commission, for the reasons set forth in its Brief on appeal and those set forth below, to either stay the authorization for the license granted by LDP-84-31, to suspend

~

the license, or otherwise to prohibit low-power testing of the ~

facility. The Commission's failure to take auch action will pre-

~

judice LEA's interests pending appellate review, and will irretriev-ably commit resources in the face of violations of the National Environmental Policy Act.

e Irreparable Injury to LEA LEA will be irreparably injured unless the suspe sion or pro-hibition is granted. Among the bases which LEA set forth for reversal of the ASLB partial initial decision below is the failure of the environmental review for Limerick to consider design alternatives tomithatet risk of severe accidents.

LEA's membership is among the population exposed to this risk, and would be among the beneficiaries of a reduction of this risk.

Hidden from NEPA review and excluded from licensing consider-ation are Staf f--contractor analyses of a range of potential risk reduction measures which may be available for implementation at ,

Limerick. 1/ However, the cost-ef fectiveness of such measures, the practicability of backfitting such measures into the Limerick design and the radiation exposure of workers involved in the implementation'of such measures will all be adversely affected s

by low-power operation of the facility which will contaminate plant systems.

Thus, low-power operation may forever make unavailable design alternstives which could substantially reduce the public risk to LEA's membership. As the ASLB stated below:

It is commonly recognized that as construction continues, the costly corrective action to minimize environmental harm may increase, even to the point where such action is not reasonably possible. .

1/ See, e.g. the material no'ted in LEA's ploadings and brief below.

3_

f c. .' .

L , ,

. \' * ,

I.(

( ' i-

.g.

L .

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station) LBP- '82-92A,.16 NRC 1387 - (1982) . Plant operation may well cause an irretrievable and irreversible committment" to a particular, ,

and needlessly risky, plant design.

j The public accident risk from operation of Limerick exceeds that of any facility in the United States with the sole exception l of Indian Point in New York. See NUREG-0974, Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Limerick Generating '

station, pp. 5-116 124. Remedial risk reduction measures unavailable at Indian Point due to its history of plant operation

! may still be available for Limerick. -

l In addition, the NEPA, APA, and regulatory violations set forth in LEA's'Brief, unless corrected prior to plant operation, l \

! will irreparably harm LEA's interest in lawful decision-making for the Limerick facility. '.

Harm to Other Parties . .

The granting of suspension will not harm the cognizable j interests of other parties. The only party whose interests may reasonably'be said to be adversely affected by such a suspension O -

~

1

• 4 l

L

.. t

~

L e would be the Applicant. Yet the only such interests so affected ,

are solely economic in nature - concerns which,'as this Appeal Board has expressly noted, are "not within the proper scope of issues litigated in NRC proceedings". I Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station) ASLB-789, NRC (November 5, 1984), slip. og. p. 5 (rejecting such concerns.in the context of a stay of a license).

To the extent that such solely economic interests are deemed cognizable, LEA submits that't'he interest in the health and safety of the public must necessarily outweigh'the monetary and private i.nterests of the utility. Further, suc economic impacts to the utility are speculative at best, because'the s ultimate full-power and commerical operation of Limerick cannot i

now be presumed, in the face of extan't challenges to the adequacy j of off-site emergency planning which remain to be litigated as l \

1/ Indee'd, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the Commission j to considor- claims of economic harm to the utility caused by a l licensing delay, yet exclude claims of economic harm to the rate-payers and the public occasioned by the licensing of a nuclear

! facility, which like Limerick, the need for which is dubious at l best. If the Appeal Board intends to consider such claims of economic harm to the utility, LEA respectfully requests an oppor-tunity to set forth the economic harm to its membership and the L public resulting from facility' licensing and operation.

1 l

l s,

5 L

• a condition to full-power operation and whose outcome cannot parmissibly be prejudged. Indeed, the Appeal Board has precisely 1

rejected a claim that even the grant of a low-power license begins the " inexorable" process to full-power licensure. Philadelphia l 1

Electric Co., supra, slip. og., p. 5.

The Public Interest The requested suspension would serve the public interest, because it (1) protects the public interest in avoiding undue risk

-in nuclear. power plant operation; (2) permits time to fairly and comprchensively consider risk mitigation alternativos (3) avoids an " irreversible and irretrievable ebmmitment" to resources in the face of violations of National Environmental Policy Act safe-guards; (4) protects the public interest in principled and lawful

• decision making. -

We anticipate the Appli' cant's arguments that the public interest would be disserved by any asserted increased costs due to delay in testing and commerical operation. Therefore, we. i reiterate the Appeal Board's rejection of the cognizability of ,

'"a nuclear plant's possible effect on rates." Id., slip. og. p. 5.

And, in an,y event, whether the Commission will authorize full power operation by such time so as to make the suspension LEA '

requests a material factor in any delay of commerical operation impacting rates is utterly speculative; even more speculative is

~

what actual significant impact, if any, such a delay m ght cetually have upon rates.

What is not speculative is the fact that contamination of plant systems by low-power testing will make design change backfitting more dangerous, more difficult, and more expensive, and may thus irrevocably shift a close cost-benefit ratio against risk reduction.

For all these reasons, Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. respect-fully requests the Commission to either stay LBP-84-31, suspend the low-power license granted to the Applicant, or otherwise prohi-bit. low-power testing of the facility,pending adjudication of LEA's cppeal on the merits. .

s Charles W. Elliott, Esquiza 325 North 10th Street Easton, PA 18042 (215) 258-2374 Dated: December 10, 1984 ,

m O

- ., ,- - A s J -~ ~n + - - -

% 4 f

J O

& =

?

ATTACHMENT 3 m.

k f

I i

f I

l I

P f

l 6

I I

L

y. . : m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

LTs4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL bA%F 23 P3:29 Administrative Judges: ..

- .!n ,L Christine N. Kohl, Chairman November 2'fi"1984 Gary J. Edles Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy .

.S E. ; E ! ' i .i .l ' d M4

)

In the Matter of )

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a motion served November 16, 1984, intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (LEA), seeks a suspension of the low-power license recently issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the motion. ,

1 Although the pleading is styled a motion for suspension of the low-power license, it is, in fact, a motion for stay of the Licensing Board's August 23, 1984, partial initial decision, authorizing the issuance of the l'icense. See LBP-84-31, 20 NRC __,. Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. S 2.788 (a) , LEA should have filed its stay motion within 10 days of service of LBP-84-31. See ALAB-789, 20 NRC __,, __

(Nov. 5, 1984) (slip opinion at 6).

LEA's stay request is thus more than two months late.

Further, LEA fails to acknowledge the delay and makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the reason for it.

~,,c-e._ , . , - . . , , , . .. , _ . - -.# .~ , - - _ , , , , - _ ~ , - , _ , , . . , . . , . _ , , , , - _ , , _ _ . . . . , _ _ , _ _ _ -

.l e e l

• i 2' ' l l

In an apparent attempt to circumvent the'us'ual time limit for stay motions, LEA has seized upon our treatment of

' two earlier stay motions as requests for suspension of the

. low-power license. This strategy, however, must fail. Last month, tan) other intervenors, Friends of the Earth (FOE) and

. Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc., filed motions that sought, in effect, a stay of the issuance of the low-power license.

Unbeknown to us and before we had received either stay request, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) issued the license. In this circumstance, we treated each stay request as a motion for suspension of the license, applied-the stay criteria of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788 (e) , and ultimately denied both motions. ALAB-789, supra, 20 NRC __.

-We did not suggest that it would be proper for a party to allow the time for seeking a stay to lapse, to wait for the  %

license to be issued, and then to seek suspension rather than a stay of the license. Our treatment of the two earlier stay requests as motions to suspend arose solely from the peculiar procedural circumstances applicable to FOE 1

Indeed, in ALAB-789, we found FOE's request to be' untimely under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788 (a) . 20 NRC at ~~

(slip opinion at 6).

~

3 and Del-Aware.2 Those circumstances do not ekish as to LEA,

'which timely filed a straightforward' appeal of LBP-84-31.

Simply stated, our power to treat a post-license-issuance stay request as a motion to suspend, or to entertain a motion for license suspension, extends only to limited circumstances -- for example, where the license has already been issued but a party nevertheless has a colorable right to seek a stay within the time limit of 10 C.F.R. 4 5 2.780 (a) . Otherwise, requests for license suspension are more properly addressed to the Director of NRR via a petition under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206, or to the Commission

itself.

Finally, we gave full consideration in ALAB-789 to the merits of the two earlier stay requests. Even if LEA's motion were timely, it raises nothing that would warrant a 3 change in our previous decision denying FOE's and Del-Aware's stay motions.

LEA's motion to suspend PECo's low-power license is dismissed.  !

i 2

FOE apparently and mistakenly believed that it need not have sought a stay until the Licensing Board resolved'*a pending FOE motion to reopen. Del-Aware actually Laught a stay of an October 15, 1984, order of the Licensing Board, and thus its stay motion was timely under the rules. Id. at

_ , _ (slip opinion at 6, 2).

> ~

4 .

It is so ORDERED. ' '

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD v

O_ & - s1EL -  %\

C. % n Shoemak'er

• Secrdtary to the Appeal Board 4

i e

6, 4

e g 9

h g 4 O

ATTACHME!IT 4 e

\

t l

l I

{

i

• I l

UN!TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION .,.

In the Matter of FHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMFANY ) Docket Nos. 50-35?.

) 50-353 (Limerick Cenerating Station, Units 1 and 2)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LEA MOTION FOR STAY OF LRP-84-31 AND OTHER RELIEF

\

Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NPC Staff .

Benjamin H. Vogler Counsel for NPC Staff

. December 26, 1984 e

UNITED STATES OF APERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TPE COPJ4fSS10N , ,

In the Matter of )

PP.ILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Hos. 50-352 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)  !

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LEA VOTION FORSTAYOFLDP-84,-f1ANDOTHERRELIEF I. INTRODUCTION Cr. December 10, 1984, Limerick Ecolcgy Action (LEA), an Intervenor in this prcceeding, filed a " Motion for Stay of LBP-84-31, Suspension of Lcw-Power Facility Operating License NPF-27, and/or Prohibition of Low-Power Testing." LEP-84-31, which was issued on August 29, 1984, constituted the Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard's Second Partial Ini-tial Decision in this proceeding and authorized the issuance of low power s (up to five percent of rated power) licenses for the Limerick units. On , ,

October 26, 1984, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a facility operating license (NPF-27) for Unit I which permitted operation limited to five percent of rated power, ,

O S

O 9 b a

f

By motion filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on November 16, 1984, LEAsoughtasuspensionofthelicenseforUnit1.II The motion was dismissed by the Appeal Foard on the basis tha't:

(1) it was filed more than two months late, with no explanation for the delay; and (2) to the extent it requested suspension of License Mo. NPF-27, it was improperly before the Appeal Board, since

" requests for license suspension are more property addressed to the Director of NPR via a petition under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, or to the Commission itself."

Memorandum and Crder, dated November 23, 1984 at 1, 2.

The Appeal Board noted that even if the motion were timely, it did not raise any matters warranting a stay of LPP-84-31. Memorandum and Order at 3.

II. AP.GUMENT A. Timeliness Under 10 C.F.R. ! 2.788, a motion for a stay of LBP-84-31 should have been filed by September 13, 1984 The initial motion for a stay was not, however, filed until fovember 16, 1984 (with the Appeal Board). LEA did not-provide to the Appeal Board, and does not now provide in its present motion to the Commission, an explanation of its delay of over two months in seeking a stay of LBP-84-31. The Appeal Board considered ths 1/ The Appeal Board treated LEA's pleading as a motion for a stay of LBP-84-31, although it was styled a motion for suspension of the .

license. -

motion deniable on this ground alone and there is no basis for the Commissiontoholdotherwise.S/

B. Request for f *:ay of LBP-84-31 The four factors to be considered in determining whether to grant an application for a stay are:

1. Whether the movant has made a strong showing that it is likely te prevail on the merits;

2. Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted;

?. Whether the granting of a stay will harm the other par-ties; and 4 Where the public interest lies.

10 C.F.R. 9 2.788(e).

LEA has addressed these factors, but has failed to carry its burden of persuasion as a movant for a stay. / Alabam,a Power Co. (Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 797 (1981);

Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Pill Nuclear Generating Station, t Units 1 and 2), ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 270 (1978).

r i ..

I 2/ LEA does not specifically invoke 10 C.F.R. I 2.788, but its motion is in the nature of an application for a stay of the LBF-84-31 See Motion at 7:

" Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. respectfully requests the Commission to either stay LBP-84-31, suspend the low-power license granted to the Applicant, or otherwise prohibit low-power testing of the facility pending ddjudication of LEA's appeal on the merits."

3/ LEA's motion also recuests suspension of License No. NPF-27; however, for the reascns set forth in response to the present stay request, this suspension request is also fatally flawed and ,

l likewise must be denied. .

1

7-

1. QkelihoodofPrevailingOntheMerits.

In seeking to satisfy this criterion, LEA provides octhing

. core than its assertion that Eased upon the arguments set forth in its Brief [on

- appeal], LEA believes that it has made a " strong showing" that it is likely to prevail on the merits of '

its position.

Motion at 2.

This ipse dixit ststement is not entitled to any weight since it does not satisfy the burden required by this criterion in that LEA must show more than a possibility of legal error by the Licensing Board.

Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-385, 5 KRC.621 (1977); Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-158, 8 AEC 95 (1974). LEA's appeal is pending before the Appc-1 Board, with the responses of the Applicant and the Staff still to be filed. O LEA's bare reference to its appeal brief does not satisfy its burden of persuasion on this criterion.

2. Irre' parable Injury

- s In its effort to demonstrate the irreparable injury which it will incur if a stay is not granted, LEA asserts that "the environrental review for Limerick [ failed] to consider design alterantives to n.itigate the risk of severe accidents." Motion at 3. In addition, LEA argues that:

the cost-effectiveness of such measures, the practicability of backfitting such measures into the Limerick design and the radiation exposure of workers involved in the implementation of such measures will all be adversely affected by low power .'

operation of the facTTity which will contaminate plant systems.

Id. .

4/ Staff's brief in response is to be filed by January 7,1985.

8 t

- 5-Finally, LEA states that " low-power operation may forever make unavail-dblo design alternatives Which could substantially reduce the"public risk to LE/.'s membership." Id. We cannot agree.

In the present motion, LEA has provided no specific basis for this assertion of insufficieny nor has it demonstrated the validity of

-its argument for specific mitigation measures. Although LEA repeats the assertion from its appeal brief that the Staff's environmental review for Limerick failed to consider design alternatives to mitigate the risk of severe accidents (Motion at 3), LEA has not shown in its present motion that it is likely to prevai' on its position that these design alternatives had to be considered in the Limerick review.

LEA also asserts that its interest in " lawful decision-making

• for the Limerick facility" will be irreparably injured if a stay of LP.P-P.a-31 is not granted. This generalized interest would be insuffi-cient to establish standing in this proceeding (Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-07, 4 NRC 610 , ,

(1976)) and a fortiori does not provide a basis for the requested stay.

Furthermore, even if the interest were cognizable by the NRC, the Staff fails to see how this interest asserted by LEA requires the issuance of a stay; i.e., it would appear that LEA's appeal provides the means by which this interest can be protected.

e

Accordingly, LEA'has not demonstrated that its members will suffi.:r any irreparable injury from continued operation of Lime, rick, Unit I under NPF-27. El

3. Harm to_0ther Parties.

LEA's argument concerning the harm to other parties is premised on its position that the Applicant has no interest cognizable by the NRC '

that would be harmed by license suspension. However, this argument ignores the fact that the Applicant is now the holder of a Comm,ission license, and as such is entitled to undertake the activities authorized by the License unless the public health, interest or safety requires that these activities be suspended. Consumers rower Company (Midland Plant, I and 2), CLI-73-38, 6 AEC 1082, 1083 (1973). These rights and privileges cannot be dit, missed merely by characterizing the Applicant's interest in the preservation of its license as " economic" in nature.

Motion at 5. Thus, LFA has failed to demonstrate that other parties to this proceeding (specifically, the Applicant) will not be harmed by the

~

grant of a stay. '

LEA also argues that any harm to the Applicant is speculative because it cannot be presumed that a license authorizing full power oper-ation Will ever be issued. Motion at 5-6. LEA bases this argument on, the pendency of hearings as to the adequacy of offsite emergency plan-

-5/ While a determination on whether to grant a stay turns on a balanc-ing of the four factors, the " irreparable injury" factor is the .,

weightiest of the factors under 5 2.788(e). Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Exports to the Phillipines), CLI-80-14, 11 NRC 631, 662 (1980). .

ning. While it is true that the outcome of future proceedings are not and cannot be presumed LEA's argument nonetheless fails to recognize the existence of the Commission's regulations which expressly penn'it authorization of low-power operaticn without i:PC or Federal Emergency Panagei.ent Agenc." (FEVA) findings as to the state of offsite emergency preparedness or the adequacy and capability to implement State and local emergency plans. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(d). $/ The fact that issuance of a full power license cannot be presuined from issuance of a low power licena does not der.>onstrate that the Applicant would not be harmed by a stay of LBP-84-31.

4. h

_T_he Public Interest With respect to this criterion, LEA basically suna.arizes its argument on the other criteria. The Staff relies on its esponses with respect to those criteria, with the following additional connents. LEA characterizes the risks of operation of Limerick as " undue", but, as noted above, has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from Limerick's =

operation under NPF-27. LEA asserts that a stay would avoid "'irrever- .. ,

sible and irretrievable' conrnitment to resources in the face of viola-tions of National Environrental Policy Act safeguards," (Motion at 6),

but, as noted above, has failed to den.onstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing or appeal on the merits of its f epa arguments regarding

{/ 10 C.F.R'. ! 50.47(d) provides that a license authorizing operation up to five percent of rated power may be issued after a finding by the NRC that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides -

reasonable assurance that adequate protective reasures can ar.d will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. ,

g

.. .?-

.e.

consideration of severe actidents'. In sum, LEA has failed to demonstrate that the public intcrest warrants a stay of LBP-84-31.

L

• III. CONCLUSION For the reascns set forth in the brief, LEA's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, DzJ.* 5..E.

/ L-

)$.\ \ O }

S,[e n H. Lewis

, Counsel for NRC Staff ,

f -

%4 enjamin e.w.L Y.*lb'jc.-

P. Vogler "  %

Counsel for ?!RC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of December, 1984 8

e 9

m 4

Ut!:TED STATES OF AliERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COPFISSION t ,.

In the Matter of )

PHILADELPHIA FLECTRIC COMPANY f Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF PESPONSE TC LEA MOTION FOR STAY OF LBP-E4-31 AND CTHER RELIEF" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the fcllowing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 26th day of Decerrber,1984:

Samuel J. Chilk Herzel H. E. Plaine, Esq.

Office of the Secretary General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555*

Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Dr. Jerry Harbour Aten.ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Puard Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissicn Board Panel Washington, C.C. 20555* ti.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Counission g Washington, D.C. 20'055*

Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Richard F. Cole Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. E0555* Board Panel U.S. Nuclea'r Pegulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555*

Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ms. Maureen Mulligan Board Panel. Limerick Ecology Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 762 Queen Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Puttstown, PA 19464 Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Eauer, Jr.

Administrative Judge Vice President & General Codnsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 220I Parket Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 l

~

Mr. Frank R. Ron.ano .

Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.

Air and Water Pollution Patrol Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

61 Forest Avenue Conner and Wetterhahn Ambler, PA 19002 1747 Pennsylvania. Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.' 20006 Joseph H. White, III James Wiggins 15 Ardu. ore Avenue Senior Resident Inspector Ar6nore, PA 19003 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission P.O. Box 47 Thomas Gerusky, Director Sanatoga, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Dept. of Enviromnental Resources Zori G. Ferkin 5th Floor Fulton Bank Building Governor's Energy Council Third and Locust Streets P.O. Box 8010 Harrisburg, PA 17120 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 Director Pennsylvania Emergency Management Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Agency Kathryn Lewis, Esq.

Easement, Transportation 8 Safety 1500 Municipal Services Bldg.

Building

~

15th and JFK Elvd.

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Robert L. Anthony Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Friends of the Earth of the Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers Delaware Valley 16th Floor Center Plata 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 101 North Broad Street Foylan, PA 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Pr. Marvin I. Lewis Angus R. Love, Esq.

'6504 Eradford Terrace Montgomery County Legal Aid Philadelphia, PA 19149 107 East Main Street .  ;

Norristown, PA 19401 Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Brose f. Poswistilo Ecard Panel 325 N. 10th Street U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Cormission Easton, PA 18042 Washington, D.C. 20555*

David Wersan Atomic Safety and Licensing Consuner Advocate Appeal Board Panel Office of Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1425 Strawberry Sqare Washington, D.C. 20555*

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Spence W. Perry, Esq. Office of the Secretary Associate General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20555*

Rocm 840 500 C Street, S.V.

Timothy R. S. Campbell, Dir'ector Washingtcn, D.C. 20472 Cepartment of Emeroency Services la East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19280

- 3-Gregory Minor -

Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

1'HB Technical Associates Comunity Legal Services. Inc.

1721 H6 milton Aver.ue 5219 Chestnut Street San Jose, CA 95125 Philadelphia, PA. 19139 Jay Gutierrez Regional Counsel

- USNPC, Region I 631 Park /, venue King of Prussia, PA 19406 f fyw f yew ~a2.

Eenjamin H. Vogler Counsel for NRC Staff

• \

O e

4 9

e e ,

4 e

O L s ATTACHMENT 5 e

O

"'.'.7,C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .- -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' .*

• M Before the Commission :f;,:

In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION'S NOTION FOR STAY OF LBP-84-31 SUSPENSION OF LOW POWER FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-27 AND/OR PROHIBITION OF LOW-POWER TESTING Preliminary Statement On December 10, 1984, Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA") moved the Commission for an order " staying LBP-84-31, suspending the low-power operating license ... (for Limerick Generating Station. Unit 1

(" Limerick")], or otherwise prohibiting low-power testing."O The sole ground for.the relief sought is alleged error by the Atomic Safety and 4

Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") in rejecting a contention related to i

the Commission's obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act

(

of 1969 ("NEPA") to require the installation of safety systems not i otherwise required by its safety regulations.

i 1/ Motion for Stay of LBP-84-31, Suspension of Low-Power Facility i Operating License NPF-27, and/or Prohibition of Low-Power Testing.

In Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), " Order," slip op. at 2 n.1 (October 29, 1984) l (unpublished), the Appeal Board held that the criteria for a stay l

contained in 10 C.F.R. $2.788(e) apply to a motion to suspend an operating license.

• 1o i

t 1

In a action which was served on November 16, 1984 LEA sought

• essentially the identiedi relief before the Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board. (" Appeal Board"). On November 23, 1984, t , Appeal Board dismissed the action stating that LEA's stay request was more than two months late and even if the motion were timely "it raises nothing that would warrant a change in our previous decision denying (other parties']

stay actions."I! The instant request to the Commission was filed some 17 days after the date of the Appeal Board's denial of LEA's action for

a stay. l 1

i Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, opposes the relief sought i

as untimely and without merit.  !

l Araumont I '

i I. LEA's' Motion For Suspension of the Operatina License is Late-Filed. l

[

The Licensing Board's Second Partial Initial Decision dated August  !

2  !

! 29, 1984 authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue *

[ a license permitting fuel load and low-power testing up to 5% of rated I

l power for the Limerick Generating Station.3/ LEA recognized that this g l

, decision by the Licensing Board triggered its right to appeal the denial t

! of the subject contention by filing a Notice of Appeal and subsequent brief. As recognized by the Appeal Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

l 1 2/

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1  !

and 2), Memorandum and order (November 23, 1984) (unpublished)  !

(slip op. at 1, 3). t t

3/

~

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station Units'1

• l and 2), LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446, 599 (1984). ,

~

4/ See for example, LEA " Notice,of Appeal" (Septenber 3, 1984). I 1

i l

-. - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - . - - - , - -.--...---.- J

2-e 52.788(a), a request _ for a stay must be filed within 10 days after service of a decision or action.b ' The Appeal Board found that the motion for suspension of low-porer license was more than two months late. It further noted that LEA failed to acknowledge the delay, and it made "no attempt whatsoever to explain the reason for it."W In the instant action, even after being admonished by the Appeal Board for its extreme lateness, as compounded by the additional 17-day delay in seeking a stay before the Commission on essentially the same grounds, LEA does not even attempt to address the reasons for its lateness let alone show good'cause. LEA's motion should be denied as late.

II. LEA Fails to Meet its Burden of Persuasion for a Stay Fursuant to the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.788.

Aside from being Inte-filed, LEA's motion fails to meet the Coa-mission's criteria necessary to support the issuance of a stay. In determining whether to grant or deny an application for a stay, the Commission .is required, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.788(e), to considers (1) Whether the moving party has made a strong \

showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) whether the party will be irreparably ,

injured unless a stay is granted; (3) whether the granting of a stay would hara other parties, and 5/ Limerick, supra, Memorandum and Order, slip op. at 1(November 25, 1984).

6/ Id.

(4) where the public interest lies.7/

As the moving party, LEA bears the burden of persuading the Coaunission j that it is entitled to the relief which it seeks.- This' burden is even greater where the Appeal Board summarily denied the motion on essential-ly the same grounds advanced before the Commission. As discussed below, it has failed to demonstrate it is entitled to the relief it seeks.

The first criterion regarding grant of a stay is whether the moving 1

party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the serits. Where, as here, there is no showing of irreparable injury absent a stay and the other criteria do not support its issuance, an overwhelming showing of likelihood of success on the merits is required.E LEA has failed to meet its burden. In an attempt to satisfy this requirement, LEA strely incorporates its appellate brief and in conclusory manner states it has "made a ' strong showing' that it is i likely to prevail on the serits of its position." LEA fails to even 0

7/ See senerally Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 796-97 (1981);

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, CLI-81-4, '13 NRC 298, 301 (1981); United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),

ALAB-721, 17 NRC 539, 543 (1982). ,

8,/ Farley, supra, CLI-81-27, 14 NRC at 797; Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 270 (1978).

9/ Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Unit No. 2), ALAB-404, 5 NRC 1185, 1189 (1977). .

This broad brush approach has been held to .be 100 / LEA Brief at 2.

unfair to a party attempting to respond to a stay request. Public Service Company of New. Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-356, 4 NRC 525, 540-41 (1976).

. -5 note that its appeal relates to the alleged i:nproper exclusion of a I

contention.. Therefore, even if the contention were to be ultimately -

admitted, LEA has f ailed to make any showing whatsoever.that it would prevail on the merits of the contention if litigated.11/ The mere establishment of possible grounds for appeal is not in and of itself 12 /

sufficient to justify a stay.

The second factor regarding the grant or denial of a stay is t

whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted.

The irreparable injury asserted is indeed an unusual one. LEA asserts that the failure of the environmental review for Limerick to consider

. ' design alternatives to mitigate the risk of severe accidents would result in some hypothetical increase in risk to LEA's membership. The alleged irreparable injury is clearly remote and speculative. The JJ/ To ' the contrary, the Connaission rejected a similar contention in -

the Hope Creek proceeding, where the intervenors claimed that NEPA required the Staff to amend the FES to discuss alternative methods of protecting the facility from liquified natural gas accidents that might occur near the site. Finding that the probability that such an accident could affect the plant was highly remote, the Appeal Board dismissed the argument as unfounded stating:

The Supre.no Court has embraced the doctrine, first enunciated in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837-38 (D.C.

Cir. 1972), that environmental impact statements need not discuss the environmental effects of alternatives which are " deemed only remote and speculative possibilities." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978).  :

Public Service Electric and Gas Company _ (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-518, 9 NRC 14, 38 (1979).

M/ Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unitis 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 6'21, 634 (1977).

- _ _ . . . -_- -.- .. -. . . .- - . _ - ~ .

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has found the risk of environmental, including health, effects resulting.from low probability,

~ high consequence accidents to be " clearly small" compared. to the risks  ;

to which the environment and the population are otherwise exposed.E ,

LEA has not challenged this finding by the Board on appeal. LEA does not allege noncompliance with any of the Commission's safety regulations which the Commission has found to be adequate to protect the health and safety of the public.14/

LEA alleges that "the practicability of backfitting such measures  !

j into the Limerick design and the radiation exposure of workers involved

, in the implementation of such measures will all be adversely affected by low-power operation of the facility which will contaminate plant sys-l tems."E However, LEA does not define what backfitting sessures it is I

contemplating nor provide any basis for its assertion that low power it operation of the type permitted by the present 5% license "will contani-nate plant systems"E necessary to install the undefined additional systems. LEA had the opportunity to submit affidavits in support of it,s motion, as permitted by 10 C.F.R. 52.788(b)(4), but did not do so.

1 i LEA argues that low power ooeration may forever make unavailable I<* .

[ design alternatives which could substantially reduce the public risk.

4 M / Limerick, supra, LBP-84-31, 20 NRC at 573.

14/ See, for example, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont -

Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-194, 7 AEC 431, 443-44 (1974).. ,

l M / LEA Brief at 3 (emphasis in original). ,

16/ Id. -

l I

)

o t-Inasmuch as the Licensing Board has found such risk to be already small, LEA has failed to show a basis for the assertion.17/ LEA has failed to show how the grant of a low-power license will cause eve'n' the potential for a severe accident. Thus, an essential element in a requirement for a stay is missing.18/ LEA has failed to show that it will be irreparably injured.19/ <

As to the third factor, whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties, LEA alleges that the harm to the Philadelphia Electric Company would be economic and thus should be excluded from consid-eration. The cited case, Limerick, supra, ALAB-789, 20 NRC , (slip op. at 5) (November 5, 1984), does not support this proposition. There,'

the Appeal Board was discussing the fact that economic concerns regard-ing rates are not within the proper scope of issues to be litigated in NRC proceedings. It does not follow that under the Commission's stay criteria such matters are not properly included in the considerations ll/ It is important to note that LEA's other appealed matters relate to the manner of disclosure of environmental impacts, rather than to an assertion that the risk of plant operation was incorrectly stated. ,

~

18/. Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station.

Units 1 and 2), ALAB-481, 7 NN '107, 808 (1978). i

-19/ LEA's argument that th w sh f operation from Limerick exceeds s that of any facility C c. .i y ale exception of Indian Point does not support its request. Init. ally, Limerick meets all Commission safety requirements regarding operation. The Board has found the risk to be " clearly small." Limerick, supra, LBP-84-31, 20 NRC at i,'

513. In addition, as may be seen by examination of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the comparison of PRA results from Limerick with those of other plants is not supportive of LEA's motion because the scope, methodology and assumptions of each PRA are so different and because the resulting associated uncertainties are so high.

(

i

i '

J .

Y-when such extraordinary relief is sought'by a party. While LEA claims it would be arbitrary 'and capricious for the Commission to consider.

claims of economic harm to the utility caused by a lice,nsing delay, it fails to ' provide any legal citation for 'this proposition.20/ To the contrary, this is a relevant factor. inasmuch *as the Applicant has shown itself entitled to the license which it now possesses. In other

,e Commission proceedings this economic impact to a utility has been recognized as a factor in deciding whether a stay should be issued.UI

+-

The actual' economic harm which would result if the license were suspended, which is not denied by LEA to be real, must be compared to some speculative reduced outcome of some already low probability acci-

dent whose risk has been judged to be clearly small, which may occur in the - future. In fact. LEA admits that the issuance of an ultimate i full-power and commercial license cannot be presumed.22/ This

substantially weakens LEA's already weak argument for the requested relief.

With regard to the fourth factor, whether the requested stay would

. g serve the public interest, LEA argues that the public interest is in avoiding undue risk and in permitting time to comprehensively consider risk mitigation alternatives.E Applicant submits that the public g/ LEA Motion, n.1 at 5.

21/ St. Lucie, supra, ALAB-404, 5 nc at 1188; see also Consumers Power

. Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 170-71 (1978).

i 22/ LEA Brief at 5-6.

23/ Id. at 61 ,

D interest is in allowing, continuation of the operating license which was granted after a finding of compliance with all NRC regulaticns because of the adverse economic consequences should the license' be stayed or suspended. As with the third factor, LEA fails to show that effects on costs are not properly cognizable under this factor. Again, LEA asserts as not speculative that " contamination of plant systems by low power testing will make design change backfitting more dangerous, more diffi-cult, and more expensive, and may thus irrevocably shift a close cost / benefit ratio against risk reduction."b This ' assertion is without foundation in the record. LEA has failed to make a showing under the fourth factor that the public interest lies in the grant of the requested relief.

III. LEA Has Failed to Show That a License Suspension is Warranted.

If considered as a request for a license suspension or suspension of low-power testing, LEA's request lacks merit. Initially, LEA does not allege that there are any activities which are being improperly conducted under the license nor does it allege changed circumstances since its issuance which warrant any review of the license. To permit LEA to have this matter considered as a request for a license suspension would be contrary to the Commission policy of not us.ing such procedures l

i as a vehicle for reconsideration of issues previously decided, or for avoiding an existing forum in which they more logically should be i-24/ Id. at 7.

l

10 - '

presented.E! For these reasons, LEA's request for license suspension should be rejected.

Conclusion s,-

For the foregoing reasons, LEA's request for a stay and suspension of low-power license and prohibition of low power testing should be '

denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERP/dlN, P.C.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant December 24, 1984

.- g

~

25/ Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point. Units 1, '2 and 3), CLI-10-8, 2 NRC 173, 177 (1975); Pacific Cas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-81-6, 13 NRC 443, 446 (1981).

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICN N UU NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' '

~

~

~.-l* ..:..;h In the Matter of ) p j /v!O'

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Opposition to Limerick Ecology Action's Motion for Stay of LBP-84-31 Suspension of Low Power Facility Operating License NPF-27, and/or Prohibition of Low-Power Testing" dated December 24, 1984 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 24th day of December, 1984:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Lando W. Zech, Jr.,

Office of the Secretary Commissioner

, ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nunzio J. Palladino, Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Appeal Board . ,

Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board '

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James K. Asselstine, Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gary J. Edles commission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -

Frederick M. Bernthal, Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555 _

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing B,oard U.S. Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. a2,0555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section officelof the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission i Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

l Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive '

Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Licensing Board Commission Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Angus Love, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 107 East Main Street Board Panel Norristown, PA 19401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Sugarman, Denworth &

Hellegers Philadelphia Electric Company 16th Floor, Center Plaza ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. 101 North Broad Street Vice President & Philadelphia, PA 19107 General Counsel 2301 Marke't Street Director, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19101 Emergency Management Agency "

Basement, Transportation Mr. Frank R. Romano and Safety Building l 61 Forest Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120 19002 Ambler, Pennsylvania -

Martha W. Bush, Esq.

} Mr. Robert L. Anthony Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. ,

l Friends of.the Earth of City of Philadelphia the Delaware Valley Municipal Services Bldg.

106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 15th and JFK Blvd.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 l l

t I

l

.' ~. ..'- -

3-J' .

Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Spence W. Perry, Esq.

325 N. 10th Street

• Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency Phyllis Zitzer, Esq. 5 0 0 C S tree t , S .W.',. Rm . 8 4 0

. Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 r P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown', PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. Department of Environmental Assistant Counsel Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Governor's Energy Council Third and Locust Streets 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17102 James Wiggins Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. U.S. Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 631 Park Avenue P. O. Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Mr. Ralph Hippert Director Pennsylvania Emergency Department of Emergency Management Agency Services B151 - Transportation 14 East Biddle Street Safety Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mkrk J. Wetterhahn e