ML20003D269

Exceptions to ASLB 810227 Decision & Order.Applicant Objects to Portion of Decision Dismissing Proceeding W/Prejudice. ASLB Incorrectly & Inconsistently Required Std of Intent W/Respect to Use of Site.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20003D269
Person / Time
Site:	05000463, 05000464
Issue date:	03/17/1981
From:	Bradley E, Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8103260136
Download: ML20003D269 (19)

Text

- _

, gf[' jl @ '7 Of

/t _..  %

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( Office cf the Secretary

\c "htini & Service g G f Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ap I *

t %Ni]

h L

251 ggI= ,

3 In the Matter of ) \c>  % f PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Dog (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ) 50'- tNos.fh. (

EXCEPTIONS OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY TO ASLB DECISION AND ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1981 Philadelphia Electric Company (PE), the applicant in the above-captioned construction permit proceeding, hereby notes its exceptions, pursuant to S 2.762(a) of the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR S 2.762(a), to that portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel's Decision and Order, dated February 27, 1981 and served March 2, 1981, which dismisses the proceeding with prejudice. PE itself had re-quested withdrawal of its construction permit application, which included a request for an adjudicatory Early Site Review of the Fulton site, by letter dated December 5, 1980 to the Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion. In an accompanying motion to the ASLB, PE requested ter-mination of the pending construction permit proceedings, with-out prejudice, as moot. The Regulatory Staff concurred in PE's motion, and noted the absence of any need for conditions of 8103260 %

G - .. . . _.

dismissal because no construction activities had been conducted on the site. A coalition of intervenor groups also responded, supporting termination of the proceedings but requesting that termination be with prejudice, based on alleged hardships to them associated with the pendency of these dockets. Over PE's reply in objection to the intervenors' pleading, and without notice or opportunity for hearing, the ASLB dismissed the ap-plication with prejudice on a basis involving the nature and degree of PE's intent to use the Fulton site -- an argument not advanced by any of the parties before it.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision, which could impair PE's ability to utilize the Fulton site in the future for a nuclear plant, was incorrect in several important respects. First, the ASLB incorrectly and inconsistently ad-vanced a standard of intent with respect to use of a site, which it incorrectly found an applicant must meet in order to make use of the Commission's Early Site Review regulations, 10 CFR SS 2.600, et seg. Second, the ASLB incorrectly found that PE did not meet the standard of intent necessary to utilize the process established by the Early Site Review regulations.

Third, even if the ASLB had been correct in its conclusions on the two preceding questions, dismissal with prejudice was neither required of it (as it held) nor within the appropriate ambit of its discretion. Fourth, the ASLB's dismissal of the

application with prejudice, on grounds which had not been advanced by any party, and without nctice or opportunity for hearing in a matter involving material issues of disputed fact as well as questions of law, denied PE due process of law.

These arguments will be stated more fully in PE's brief.

Philadelphia Electric Company hereby lists its excep-tions to the ASLB Decision and Order (hereinafter, ASLB Decision):

A. General Exceptions

1. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in its conclu-sions (ASLB Decision at 3, 4, 5, 6) as to the intent with respect to use of a site which an applicant must demonstrate in order to make use of the Commission's Early Site Review Regulations, 10 CFR SS 2,600, et sgg.

2. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in finding (ASLB Decision at 8) that PE had not met whatever dem-onstration of intent with respect to use of a site is required under the Commission's Early Site Review regu-lations, 10 CFR SS 2.600, et seg.

3. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in finding (ASBL Decision at 8, penultimate paragraph) that "there has been a period of suspension and uncertainty since 1975" in this proceeding.

4. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in finding (ASLB Decision at 8) that a period of " suspension and uncer-tainty since 1975" in this proceeding, if one occurred, required it to dismiss the proceeding with prejudice (ASLB Decision at 8, last sentence).

5. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8, last paragraph) that the period of suspension found by it in this proceeding "is too long to justify a dismissal without prejudice" and required it to dismiss the proceeding with prejudice.

6. The ASLB abused its discretion in concluding that the " period of suspension and uncertainty" found by it (ASLB Decision at 8) justified it in dismissing the proceeding with prejudice.

7. The ASBL denied PE due process of law by dismiss-ing this proceeding with prejudice, on grounds which go not to the contents of the application but to PE's

" intent" and " motives".

8. The ASBL denied PE due process of law by dismiss-ing its application with prejudice, without an opportu-nity for hearing, on grounds which go not to the con-tents of the application but to PE's " intent" and

" motives", where there was no notice of the ASLB's intent to rest its decision on these grounds and where, as to these matters, there are disputed issues of material fact and important questions of law.

B. Specific Exceptions

9. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in finding, ap-parently, that an applicant must have irrevocable " firm plans" for "early use" of a potential site, or any other specific measure of intent with respect to a site, in order to utilize the procedures established by the Commission's Early Site Review regulations, 10 CFR SS 2.600, et seg. (ASLB Decision at 3, 4, 6, 7).

10. The ASLB rendered meaningful review impossible, and thus erred as a matter of law, in failing to char-acterize clearly and consistently its view of the de-gree of intent with respect to future site use neces-sary to entitle an applicant to make use of the Early Site Review Regulations, 10 CFR SS 2.600, eti seg. The ASLB variously characterized its standard of intent as follows: (1) " firm plans for early use" of a site; l

(ASLB Decision at 3); (2) " firm plan to construct l

i nuclear facilities on the site" (ASLB Decision at 4, 7); (3) something other than "no present intention to i

construct a nuclear facility" (ASLB Decision at 5);

f i

(4) something other than " mere desire for an Early Site Review in anticipation that a decision to use the site may be made at some future time" (ASLB Decision at 5);

(5) " full intention of building a nuclear facility on the site" (ASLB Decision at 6).

- - -s- -- y- es -- 7 mgy- g --

11. The ASLB's required standard of intent to use a specific site for a nuclear power plant would require of an applicant a singlemindedness which is inconsist-  !

ent with the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act, S 102(2)(c) and the Commission's implement-ing regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, for evaluation of al-ternative sites and energy sources.

12. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in looking only to explicit verbal " statements" by the Applicant for indications its intent to utilize the Fulton site (ASLB Decision at 7).

13. The ASLB, in finding no evidence since 1975 of required intent to construct nuclear facilities on the Fulton site (ASLB Decision at 6-7), erred as a matter of fact in ignoring, inter alia, the following indicia of intent already in the record:

l (a) PE's initial filing of an application for construction permits for two HTGRs in 1973 and subsequent prehearing review, much of it site-oriented, including answering questions in connec-tion with the Staff's preparation of a SER and preliminary and final EIS and an ACRS letter (all t

of these documents favorable to the site), and providing answers to extensive discovery by I

~ '

_7_

intervenors (some 900 interrogatories answered),

prior to its reactor supplier's unilateral ces-sation of work on the project in September 1975.

(b) PE's filing monthly and other special report letters with the ASLB from September 17, 1975 though January 16, 1978 concerning the status of the application following its reactor supplier's unilateral cessation of work on the project in September 1975.

(c) PE's notification to the NRC (letter, Edward G. Bauer, Jr., to Roger S. Boyd, February 10, 1978), with notification to the ASLB (via covering letter, Donald P. Irwin to Samuel J.

Chilk, February 28, 1980), that:

Dear Mr. Boyd:

Your December 19, 1977, letter requested that we identify all applications and re-quests for review which we plan to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission between now and December 31, 1980....

The Company is presently evaluating options for providing additional base load generating capacity for service in the late 1980's and early 1990's. In this regard we are presently planning to file, within the period in question, an amendment to our Fulton construction permit application for early site review of the Fulton site.

(d) PE's notification to the NRC, by letter from its President, J. L. Everett to Richard P. Denise,

dated March 8, 1978 (copy attached hereto as Exhibit 1), reconfirming to the Commission its intent to use the Fulton site for its next base-loaded generation and to amend the pending Fulton construction permit application to include a re-quest for an Early Site Review, which includes the following passage:

When we originally applied to construct two units on the Fulton site in 1973, we anticipated that they would consist of twin 1100-MWe HTGR's manufactured by the General Atomic Company (GAC). When it became clear, following the announcement by GAC in September, 1975 that it was suspending work on the project, that the Fulton site could not be utilized exactly as originally plan-ned, we promptly requested the Licensing Board to be permitted to evaluate various available options for the site, including but not limited to the construction of replace-ment power reactors. At the Board's instruc-tion, we have filed regular monthly status reports on the matter ever since. Until last month these letters reflected the fact that no concrete decisions about our future plans for the Fulton site had been made.

Philadelphia Electric Company's current system peak demand projections indicate that the first need for additional generation after Limerick Units 1 and 2 will occur in the early 1990's. Peak demands for the post-Limerick period could be substantially higher than are currently forecast because of changes in the regional economy, demography, and a desire to switch to electricity from alternate forms of energy. Should the high estimate peak loads occur, additional genera-tion would be needed as early as 1987. The additional generation after Limerick would be base load generation, using either coal or

-9 uranium as fuel. The economic choice is a uranium fueled plant and the prime candidate site for such nuclear generation on the Philadelphia Electric Company system is the Fulton site. [ Emphasis supplied.]

(e) PE's preparation and submittal to the Commission on December 28, 1978 of a two-volume Early Site Review Report for review by the Staff, and subsequent technical contacts between PE and Regulatory Staff members.

14. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding (ASLB Decision at 6) that PE had reached no decision as to whether or not to use the Fulton site for a nuclear facility.

15. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8) that PE had reached no decision as to the type of facility it would construct, if it de-cided to use the Fulton site.

16. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in considering (ASLB Decision at 8) " site banking", a matter of Pennsylvania state law and irrelevant to this case, in connection with the question of whether to dismiss with prejudice.

17. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding, as it apparently did (ASLB Decision at 8), that PE's application for an Early Site Review amounted to " site banking".

_lo_

18. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8) that PE's " motive" in seeking an Early Site Review was merely "to maintain the uncer-tainties as to the possible use of the site until a decision should be rendered at some future time, possi-bly in 1983."

19. Assuming, hypothetically, that PE did not intend to reach a final decision to use the Fulton site for a similar power plant until approximately 1983, the ASLB erred as a matter of law in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8) that such decisional flexibility is so inconsist-ent with the Early Site Review regulations as to re-quire that any dismissal of an application be with prejudice.

20. The ASLB erred as a matter of law (ASLB decision at 8) in (a) inferring a " motive" for PE's ESR applica-tion, and (b) relying on PE's inferred motive, without notice, as a basis for its decision, and in not afford-ing PE an op;,ortunity for a hearing prior to rendering a decision adverse to PE based on this point, as to l

l which there are plainly disputed issues of material i fact.

21. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding (ASLB Decision at S) that PE's request for an ESR L

" ~

evaluation was solely "for the purpose of preventing termination of this proceeding", and not for that of obtaining an Early Site Review under the ESR regula-tions.

22. The ASLB erred as a matter of law (ASLB Decision at 8) in relying on the inferred purpose of an applica-tion, and in totally ignoring its contents, to decide whether to dismiss an application with prejudice.

23. To the extent that an assessment of PE's purposes is relevent in a determination whether to discuss with prejudice, and to the extent that PE's purposes may have included avoidance of termination of these dockets, the ASLB erred by ignoring, among others, the following factors in the record before it or easily noticeable by it:

(a) the length of time necessary to arrange with a reactor manufacturer to design and manufacture a commercial reactor and to embody those arrange-ments in an application to the Commission, with accompanying Environmental Report; (b) The unavailability of the Early Site Review option under the Commission's regulations between the termination of the HTGR arrangements in late 1975 and the ESR regulations' promulgation in June 1977;

(c) The great amount of material of continuing valid'ity with respect to the Fulton site, already assembled and evaluated by the Regulatory Staff and other parties, which would have to be totally reassembled and re-evaluated if an entirely new docket were required.

24. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8), without any reference to or evi-dence of examination of the content of PE's ESR appli-cation, that "it does not conform to the substance of the pertinent (ESR] regulations."

25. The ASLB erred as a matter of law in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8) that PE's request for an Early Site Review "is outside the purpose and intent of the pertinent regulations."

26. The ASLB erred as a matter of fact in concluding (ASLB Decision at 8) that the Fulton licensing proceed-ing has been in a state of " suspension and uncertainty l

i since 1975."

27. If the ASLB relied solely on the length of the period of " suspension" found by it to sustain its con-clusion (ASLB Decision at 8, last paragraph) that the proceeding "must be dismissed with prejudice" (emphasis supplied), it erred as a matter of law. There is no

1 i

requirement in the Atomic Energy Act or its implementing regulations, nor in any other authority examined, that a suspension of any given length in a proceeding requires dismissal with prejudice.

28. If the ASLB intended to rely on the " uncertainty" found by it (ASLB Decision at 8 penultimate paragraph) to sustain its decision that the proceeding "must be dismissed with prejudice" (emphasis supplied), it erred as a matter of law by (1) failing so to state (page 8, last paragraph) and (2) finding that prejudicial dis-missal is required as a matter of law. There is no requirement in the Atomic Energy Act or its implement-ing regulations, nor in any other authority examined, that " uncertainty" of any given kind or duration re-quires dismissal i ti prejudice.

29. If the ASLB intended to dismiss the application as a matter within its discretion and not as a matter of legal obligation (though it held itself required to dismiss with prejudice, ASLB Decision at 8 last para-graph), it erred as a matter of law in failing to state so.

30. If the ASLB intended to dismiss the application as a matter within its discretion, it abused that discre-tion in that:

(a) Its finding that the licensing proceeding has been in suspension since 1975 ignores PE's subse-quent submissions to the record, including but not limited to the two-volume ESR application in December 1978 and subsequent technical review; (b) Its finding (ASLB Decision at 8) that PE's purposes in filing its ESR request were outside the purposes of the ESR regulations (necessary to enable it to ignore the significance of that fil-ing) is erroneous as a matter of fact and law; (c) Its reliance on " uncertainty" (ASLB Decision at 8) as a justification for dismissal with preju-dice refers to no legally cognizable wrong. It must refer back to intervenors' undocumented as-sertions of mental anguish and inability to uti-lize or dispose of property occasioned by the application's pendency (ASLB Decision at 3) -- a possible aspect of any licensing application, regardless of whether or not the applicant happens to own all of the proposed site. Further, the l

only harm to intervenors which could be avoided by dismissal eith prejudice (rather than dismissal without prejudice) is foreclosure of the possibi-lity that a later licensing application might be

filed for the same site. The possibility of such 4 I sabsequent litigation is not among the types of

!? gally cognizable harm to parties (intervenors or, by analogy, defendants in civil suits) sought to be guarded against by dismissal with prejudice.

For a recent decision embodying this principle,  !

see Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1) (Docket No. 50-376)

(Memorandum and Order, February 18, 1981).

31. If an applicant's intent to utilize a site is a relevent consideration in determining to conduct an Early Site Review, dismissal of an application with prejudice is not the appropriate remedy. The appro-priate remedy, pursuant to S 2.605 of the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR S 2.605, is for the Commission, on its own motion or that of any party, to decline to pro-ceed with'an Early Site Review.

l_ 32. The ASLB abused its discretion in summarily dis-missing the Fulton application with prejudice, and thus potentially rendering the Fulton site useless to PE for a nuclear power plant, in that it neglected the follow-ing facts, among others:

(a) The favorable findings of the Regulatory

[..

l Staff as to the site's suitability for nuclear l

l t

I L.

~4.., _ - - . . _ , . . . - . - ~ . - _ _ . . - . - - , . . , . _ , , . _ _

reactors contained in the Staff's SER and FES published in connection with the initial HTGR-oriented configuration of the Fulton application; (b) The shortage of viable nuclear power plant sites within reach of PE's service territory.

(c) The substantial change in the Commission's regulations and regulatory guidance within the past few years relating to, inter alia, site se-lection and alternative site evaluation methodolo-gies and information requirements, all of which significantly complicate and lengthen any process of submission and evaluation of application docu-ments.

33. In dismissing the application with prejudice on an unarticulated and unclear standard not based on the contents of PE's application, and as to which there are disputed issues of material fact as well as questions of law, without an opportunity for hearing, the ASLB denied PE its right to a hearing under S 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a).

34. In dismissing the application with prejudice on an unarticulated and unclear standard not based on the contents of PE's application as to which there are dis-l puted issues of material fact as well as questions of l

11

i l

. _17-law, without an opportunity for hearing, the ASLB abused its discretion and denied PE due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Respectfully submitted, DONALD P. IRWIN Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 804/788-8357 Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company Of Counsel:

Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.

Asscciate General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 DATED: March 17, 1981

Attachment:

Letter, J. L. Everett to Richard P. Denise, March 8, 1978 l

l t

1 l

l l

t

EXHIBIT 1~

. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET ,

PHILADEL. PHI A PA.19101 1215 e414221 J. L EVERETT aar sesto r March 8, 1978 Mr. Richard P. Denise Assistant Director for Special Projects Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Fulton Generating Station ~

NRC Docket Nos. 50-463 and 50-464

Dear Mr. Denise:

This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1978, in which you request information on our plans for the Fulton site. In addition, you indicate that, on the basis of certain stated facts and judgments, the Staff proposes to file soon a motion to terminate Philadelphia Electric Company's present construction permit application for the Fulton Generating Station,ff and you have asked for our views on this proposal.

When we originally applied to construct two units on the Fulton site in 1973, we anticipated that they would consist of twin 1100-MWe llTGR's manufactured by the General Atomic -

Company (GAC). When it became clear, following the announcement by GAC in September, 1975, that it was suspending work on the project, that the Fulton site could not be utilized exactly as originally planned, we promptly requested the Licensing Board to be permitted to evaluate various available options for the ff (This response is being submitted by March 8 rather than February 17, pursuant to your agreement.)

I)C4 P E O F

• l 9 c 1 \ % O o '7 7 (Hg)

\

Mr. Richard P. Denise Page 2 ,

March 8, 1978 site, including but not limited to the construction of replacement power reactors. At the Board's instruction, we have filed regular monthly status reports on the matter ever since. Until last month these letters reflected the fact that no concrete decisions about our future plans for the Fulton site had been made.

Philadelphia Electric Company's current system peak demand projections indicate that the first need for additional genera-tion after Limerick Units 1 and 2 will occur in the early 1990's. Peak demands for the post-Limerick period could be substantially higher than are currently forecast because of changes in the regional economy, demography, and a desire to switch to electricity from alternate forms of energy. Should the high estimate peak loads occur, additional generation would be needed as early as 1987. The additional generation after Limerick would be base load generation, using either co'al or uranium as fuel. The economic choice is a uranium fueled plant and the prime candidate site for such nuclear generation on the Philadelphia Electric Company system is the Fulton site.

In February, 1978, we notified the Commission, and the Hearing Board and parties to the Fulton proceeding, by letter (copies attached) that we had determined to amend the Fulton l, application so as to obtain an early site review. I had already intimated our interest in this option in my telephone conversatien with you in December,1977. Early site review, as you know, was not. a course which had been available to us when the original H7GR arrangements were concluded in the l

winter of 1975-76; indeed, the Commission's regulations. making early site reviews available (42 Fed. Reg. 22882 (1977) ) did not become effective until June, 1977.

l l Of the two types of early site review available under the

! Commission's regulations, it is our view that the adjudicatory l Early Site Review procedure, as contrasted with a Staff site l

review under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Q, is clearly the appro-priate course of action in this case in view of the status of the record in the Fulton proceeding and our plans for the utilization of the Fulton site.

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

Mr. Richard P. Denise Page 3 March 8, 1978 The existing Fulton constructior permit application, including its site suitability elements, has been reviewed from both safety and environmental standpoints and has received the approval of both the Staff and the ACRS in the form of a final EIS, a SER and_an ACRS letter. In this context it is appropriate to take the next step toward a construction permit which ig provided by an adjudicatory Early Site Review conducted within the framework of a con-struction permit docket and results in an adjudicatory decision resolving site suitability issues.

Accordingly, it is our intention to file with the Commission by the'end of this year an amendment to the construction permit application for an adjudicatory Early Site Review for the Fulton site. .

Major portions of an adjudicatory Early Site Review submission for Fulton -- those relating to the physical characteristics of the site and its environs -- remain as ,

valid as when they were initially eubmitted by us and reviewed by the Staff in connection with the Fulton construction permit application. Certain other portions of the submission will need to be updated and basic plant parameters provided, and we would hope to meet with the. Staff in the near future to discuss concretely any necessary revisions to the substance or for=at of information already in the record.

The adjudicatory Early Site Review procedure permits efficient use of the vast amount of still valid information already submitted to the Commission, and of the intense review already given it by the Staff and provides for a degree of certainty not otherwise available for planning nuclear capacity.

Such certainty is a fundamental goal of the Early Site Review regulations and the present status of the record in the Fulton proceeding is ideally suited to the adjudicatory Early Site Review procedure as the next logical step in the licensing process. Thus, the public policy goals of not only the Commission but of the Administration as well -- restoring confidence in and efficacy to the licensing process -- would be served.

(' . .

Mr. Richard P. Denise Page 4 -

March 8, 1978 We firmly believe that orderly, efficient amendment of the present Fulton application to obtain an adjudicatory Early Site Review is a course which is fully consistent with the Commission's new Early Site Review regulations and will resolve the concern expressed in your letter that a decision be made as to the utilization of the Fu1. ton site. To simply terminate the Fulton proceedings as suggested in your letter would waste applicable work already done, unnecessarily burden future efforts, and would constitute a lost opportunity to make use of a potentially valuable means of helping to stabilize the licensing process.

I trust that.this letter has been fully responsive to your January 30 request. If you have any questions about it, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely, -

O e

6 e

[ e .

r .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l

In the Matter of )

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos.

(Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-463, 50-464 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of the Exceptions of Philadelphia Electric Company to ASLB Decision and Order Dated February 27, 1981 on the following persons by hand or by U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, this date:

Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.

P.O. Box 127A Philadelphia Electric Company Kennedyville, MD 21645 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Donald P. deSylva Associate Professor of Marine Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Science Union Carbide Corporation Rosentiel School of Marine and P.O. Box Y Atmospheric Science Oak Ridge, TN 37830 University of Miami Miami, FL 33149 Paul K. Allison, Esq.

Allison & Pyfer Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger 128 N. Lime Street, Box 1588

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lancaster, PA 17604

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gilbert G. Malone, Esq.

Ports, Beers, Feldmann & Malone Lawrence Sager, Esq. 145 East Market Street Sager.E' Sager Associates York, PA 17401 45 High Street Pottstown, PA 19464

r a .

f V

York Committee for a Safe Mr. Walden S. Randall Environment Riverhill Farm Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford R.D. 92 433 Orlando Avenue Holtwood, PA 17532 State College, PA 16801 Jean Royer Kohr, Esq.

Theodore A. Adler, Esq. Minney, Mecum & Kohr Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz 150 E. Chestnut Street

& Adler Lancaster, PA 17602 P.O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael J. Scibinico, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Special Assistant Attorney Commission General Washington, DC 20555 Department of Natural Tawes State Office Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Annapolis, MD 21401 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Executive Director Commission Susquehanna River Basin Washington, DC 20555 Commission 1721 N. Front Street Docketing and Service Section (7)

Harrisburg, PA 17102 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George L. Boomsma Washington, DC 20555 Save Solanco Environment Conservation Fund James A. Humphreys, III P.O. Box 64 Barley, Snyder, Cooper &

Quarryville, PA 17566 Barber 115 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Donald P. Irwin Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company DATED: March 17, 1981

,