ML19337A476

Responsive Brief in Opposition to D Springer 800902 Notice of Appeal from ASLB 800814 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Urges Affirmation of Order Due to Unjustifiable Late Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19337A476
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	09/24/1980
From:	Mcgarry J, Porter W DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8009290028
Download: ML19337A476 (18)

Text

a

, . 0 4

9

--iso g ,

l f ,

4 r,E P 2 51980 > q gince of theSWf14

[{5

\-

Ddd';& Serdce Era %h @

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \ c, U*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) 50-489 (Ferkins Nuclear Station, ) 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

APPLICANT'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 FILED BY DAVID SPRINGER I

September 24, 1980

- 09290 ogg

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Cases, Statutes, Regulations and Other Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii APPLICANT'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 FILED BY DAVID SPRINGER. . . 1 BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Petitioner's Appeal Is, In Effect, Exceptions To The Partial Initial Decision, And Therefore, Must Be Denied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Petitioner Has Failed To Meet The Criteria For Intervention Set Forth In 10 CFR S2.714 (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. The Substance Of The Instant Petition Does Not Warrant Affirmative Relief. . . . . . . 10 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 i

TABLE OF CASES, STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES Cases Boston Edison Company (Pilgraim Nuclear Station),

ALAB-74, 5 AEC 308 (1972) 3 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-369, 5 NRC 129 (1977) 4, 9 Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center Units 2 and 3), ALAB-467, 7 NRC 759 (1978) 6 Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-80-9, 11 NRC 310 (1980) 1, 2, 3, 4 Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470 (1978) 1 Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87 (1978) 1 Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-433, 6 NRC 469 (1977) 4, 12 l

Duke Pc wer Company (Perkins Nuclear Stations, Units l 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460 (1977) 5, 7, 8, 9 l Easton Utilities Commission v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1970) 8 Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) , ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122 (1977) 3 Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1) , ALAB-311, 3 NRC 85 (1976) 4 Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric l Station, Unit 3), ALAB-ll7, 6 AEC 261 (1973) 3 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three-Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9 (1978) 12 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three-Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612 (1977) 6 Nader v. NRC, 513 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1975) 8 ii

New England Power & Light Co. (NEP, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-18, 7 NRC 932 (1978) 7 Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant) , CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975) 6 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear

, Power Plant', Units 1 and 2), ALAB-583, 11 NRC 447 (1980) 8, 12 Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project), ALAB-345, 4 NRC 383 (1976) 9 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-339, 4 NRC 20 (1976) 6 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731 (1980) 2 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383 (1978) 2 Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-341, 4 NRC 95 (1976) 7 Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stations, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98 (1976) 6g 7 Regulations 10 CFR S2. 714 (a) 4, 6 10 CFR S2.762 1, 4 Other Authorities 39 Fed. Reg. 26470 (July 19, 1974) 5 iii

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) STN 30-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station ) STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

APPLICANT'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 FILED BY DAVID SPRINGER BACKGROUND On February 22, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") iss"r.d a Partial Initial Decision

("PID") in this construction permit proceeding addressing specifically the issue of alternative sites. LBP-80-9,  !

l 11 NRC 310 (1980). 1/ Therein, the Licensing Board deter-  ;

1 mined "that there is no site obviously superior to the one proposed for Perkins on the Yadkin River." Id. at 336.

By Order of March 4, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing ]

l Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") tolled the running of  !

l the period prescribed by 10 CFR $2.762(a) for the j i

l l

1/ The application to construct the Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 ("Perkins") was filed on March 29, 1974. Two previous Partial Initial Decisions have been rendered. The first pertained to Radon-222 (LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87 (July 14, 1978)), and the second pertained to all other issues except alternative sites and generic safety issues (LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470 (October 27, 1978)).

filing of exceptions to the PID pending Commission action on a petition for review of Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

(Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383 (1978) in which the interpretation of the "obviously superior" standard for alternative site review was questioned. 2/

l On April 15, 1980, approximately two months after i issuance of the PID, David Springer (" Petitioner") filed a petition seeking leave to intervene in this proceeding. 3/

Mr. Springer's petition was supported by an affidavit filed on May 21, 1980. On May 9 and June 9, 1980, Applicant filed responses in opposition to the petition and affidavit; on May 5 and July 8, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC" or " Commission") Staff similarly opposed Mr. Springer's filings. With leave of the Licensing Board, on August 6, 1980, Mr. Springer filed a Brief in support of his petition.

By Order of August 14, 1980, the Licensing Board denied Mr. Springer's petition "as out of time without justifi- l cation, requesting relief not available to a non-party and i

l

~2/ On May 29, 1980, the Commission in Rochester Gas &

Electric Corporation upheld the prior interpretation of I the "obviously superior standard for alternative site review". CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731. ,

l 3/ In addition to petitioning for leave to intervene, Mr. Springer sought (1) leave to file documents in i support of allegations regarding Staff misrepresentation of a factual issue, (2) an evidentiary hearing regarding these allegations, and (3) appointment of an independent special staff to represent the public interest.

/

[containing] inadequate support for allegations of mis-conduct." By Order of August 14, 1980, the Appeal Board, noting the Licensing Board's action, directed that I exceptions to the PID were to be filed on or before August ,

29, 1980. On September 2, 1980, Petitioner filed with the Appeal Board a " Notice of Appeal" and a "Brief of David )

1 Springer In Support Of His Petition Of April 15, 1980." 4/

l Therein, Mr. Springer incorporates by reference his l

August 6, 1980 Brief before the Licensing Board in support of his April 15, 1980 petition. (" Petitioner's Brief Before j The Licensing Board"). 5/ As set forth below, Applicant submits that the papers filed in support of Mr. Springer's l l

appeal are both procedurally and substantively defective, l l

I and thus, his appeal must be denied. 6/

l 4/ Applicant notes that pursuant to 10 CFR $2.714(a), i Mr. Springer's appeal should have been filed on or before August 29, 1980. Thus, Mr. Springer's appeal is untimely without explanation. See Louisiana Power &

Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-117, 6 AEC 261 (1973); Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Station), ALAB-74, 5 AEC 308 (1972).

See also Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122, 125 (1977).

5/ Applicant notes that incorporation by reference is not condoned in Briefs to the Appeal Board. Kansas Gas

& Electric Co., supra, 6 NRC at 127.

6/ By Order of September 15, 1980, the Appeal Board extended until September 24, 1980 the deadline for filing responsive briefs to Mr. Springer's appeal, i

I 1

ARGUMENT l A. Petitioner's Appeal Is, In Effect, Exceptions To The  ;

Partial Initial Decision, And Therefore, Must Be Denied. l I

The Appeal Board in its Order of September 15, 1980, set forth the scope of the issue presented by Mr. Springer's appeal as follows:

"Whether the Licensing Board erred in conclud-ing that Mr. Springer's intervention petition should be denied by reason of its extreme i tardiness.

1 Mr. Springer's brief does not address the issue framed by the Appeal Board; rather it attacks the findings set forth ,

I in the PID. Thus, Applicant submits that Mr. Springer's  ;

(

filing is, in effect, exceptions to the PID. Exceptions to an initial decision can only be filed by a party to the proceeding. 10 CFR $2.762. See also, Duke Power Company l (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-433, 6 NRC ,

1 469, 470 (1977); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-369, 5 NRC 129 (1977); Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear  !

Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-311, 3 NRC 85, 88 (1976). In that Mr. Springer is not party to this pro-ceeding, Applicant submits that Petitioner's appeal must be denied. j B. Petitioner Has Failed To Meet The Criteria For Intervention Set Forth In 10 CFR 92.714(a) l This is not the first time Mr. Springer has sought to intervene in this proceeding. On July 26, 1976 and April 22,

l l

l l

l 1977, well after the deadline for such filings had expired, 7/

Mr. Springer filed petitions to intervene. The Licensing Board's denial of Mr. Springer's earlier petitions (Order of July 15, 1977) was affirmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, (1977). The Appeal Board in reaching its decision stated that:

[Even if Mr. Springer's interest could not be adequately protected by others in this pro-ceeding] . . . [as] a matter of virtual certainty a grant of this petition at this juncture would not merely broaden the issues but, as well, bring about significant delay in the completion of this proceeding. Given the want of any justification for petitioner's 4 extreme tardiness, the Licensing Board was quite right in declining to countenance such a result. [6 NRC at 4643 Now, over five and one-half years late, Mr. Springer ,

again seeks to intervene in this proceeding. Significantly, as the basis for his specific interest, Mr. Springer incor-porates the grounds advanced in his previously rejected petitions. 8/

Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, an untimely intervention petition may not be entertained in the absence of a determination by the Licensing Board "that the peti-2/ By notice of July 19, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 26470) the deadline for filing petitions for leave to intervene in this proceeding was August 19, 1974.

8/ 'The April 15, 1980 petition incorporated by reference Mr. Springer's earlier petition to intervene filed on April 22, 1977.

tioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for failure to file on time." 10 CFR $2.714(a). It is settled that the " good cause" determination is to be made on the basis of a consideration of both (1) the substantiality of the justification offered for the filing and (2) the four factors specifically enumerated in Section 2.714(a). 9/ See

~

e.g., Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant, CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273 (1975); Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612, 615 (1977). Further, in circumstances where no good excuse is tendered for the tardiness, the petitioner's demonstration on the other factors must be particularly strong. Id.

In reviewing the Licensing Board's action in question it is to be noted that 10 CFR 2.714(a) confers " broad discretion" upon licensing boards with respect to deter-minations on the four factors to late intervention peti-tions. Consequently, appellate review is property directed to determining whether there has been an abuse of that dis-cretion. Detroit Edison Co., (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3) ALAB-467, 7 NRC 759, 761 n. 3 (1978);

Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear

-9/ Those factors are (1) the availibility of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; l (2) the extent to which the petitioner's participation >

may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (3) the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; (4) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.  ;

1 l

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-339, 4 NRC 20, 24 (1976); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98, 107 (1976). As set forth below, Applicant submits that the Licensing Board properly exercised its discretion.

Petitioner advances three reasons as justification for his late filing. First, Petitioner states that his pre-viously rejected petitions to intervene filed on July 26 and April 22, 1976 were filed "very shortly after Appalachian v. Train was mandated, i.e., became final, and immediately after enumeration of the National Energy Policy" and, thus, any " prior filing would have been premature." " Petitioner's Brief Before the Licensing Board" at p. 8. This position was expressly rejected by the Appeal Board in ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460 (1977). Next, Petitioner states that it is patently unf;tir and unreasonable to expect him or any other person to read the Federal Register for notices regarding possible intervention. " Petitioner's Brief Before The Licensing Board" at p. 8. This explana-tion is equally unpursuasive. New England Power and Light Co. (NEP, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-18, 7 NRC 932, 933-34 (1978). See also, Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-341, 4 NRC 95, 96 (1976). Finally, with regard to the alleged issue of Staff misrepresentation of the State of North Carolina's position regarding once-through cooling, Petitioner alleges that it would have been premature to act until receipt of a November 28, 1979 letter

to the Staff regarding this issue. 10/ Applicant notes however, that Petitioner was well aware of this issue in January 1979 when, during the hearing regarding alternative sites, Mr. Springer and Mr. Raney, a representative from the State of North Carolina's Attorney General's Office, discussed the issue. (Tr. 2939-2942, 2956-2957).11/ In short, it is apparently Mr. Springer's position that after he was aware of the issue he had no duty to act in a timely manner. This position is contrary to the Appeal Board's decision in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-583, 11 NRC 447, 448 (1980) wherein the Board stated "an administrative hearing would be a meaningless charade if those with ample oppor-tunity to participate were allowed to stand idly by and then, nevertheless, demand a replay when they do not like the result." 12/

~~10/ Letter of November 2'3, 1979, from the Director of the Division of Environmental Management, State of North Carolina to Mr. Charles A. Barth, NRC. The letter was forwarded to all parties and Mr. Springer immediately upon receipt by the NRC. Thus, Mr. Springer had this letter at least four months before filing the instant petition to intervene. At this stage of the proceed-ing, it is clear that four months is excessive. See Duke Power Company, supra, ALAB-431, 6 NRC at 463, note 3.

--11/ The record reflects that Mr. Springer regularly attended the hearings and participated for the intervenors as a witness on water use. Indeed, Mr. Springer, a lawyer, was representing intervenors, at the hearings when this matter arose. See Tr. 2823.

12/ See also Nader v NRC, 513 F.2d 1045, 1054-44 (D.C.

Cir. 1975) (citations omitted) which states: "We have long adhered to the view that it is incumbent 'upon an interested person to act affirmatively to protect himself' in administrative procc,eedings, and that

In sum, it is clear that Mr. Springer has not shown good cause for his untimely filing. Further, Mr. Springer has made no attempt to address the four factors set forth in 10 CFR $2.714(a). Thus, Applicant submits that Mr. Springer's petition is so defective as to warrant its summary denial.

10 CFR $2.714(a). See Perkins, supra, 6 NRC at 464; Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project),

ALAB-345, 4 NRC 383, 394-5 (1976). An examination of these factors bears out the propriety of dismissing the instant l appeal. Mr. Springer's concern is with an NRC interpretation of l l

a State position. The State is a party to this proceeding; I 1

I it is served with all pleadings. If the State is concerned

\

with the Staff's representation of its position, it can take )

erpropriate action. Accordingly, any concern Mr. Springer has in this regard, can be pursued with the appropriate State agencies. Thus other means exist whereby Mr. Springer's inter'est will be protected. Further, Mr. Springer has not j l

shown that approval of his petition will assist in develop-ing a sound record; indeed Mr. Springer has failed to 1

1 (Footnote continued from previous page) l I

'[s]uch a person should not be entitled to sit back and wait until all interested persons who do so act have been heard, and then complain that he has not been properly treated.' As we have admonished, '[t]o permit such a person to stand aside and speculate on the outcome; if adversely affected, come into this court for relief; and then permit the whole matter to be reopened in his behalf, would create an impossible situation." . Accord, Easton Utilities Commmission

v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847, 851-52 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (in banc) and cases there cited; Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-369, 5 NRC 129 (1977).

raise'significant issues that were not previously addressed on the record by parties to this proceeding. 13/ Finally, it is clear that if Mr. Springer's petition was approved, this proceeding would be delayed yet another time. 14/

On the basis of the above, Applicant submits that the Licensing Board's denial of intervention status to Mr.

Springer should be affirmed.

C. The Substance Of The Instant Petition Does Not Warrant Affirmative Relief.

In the event the Appeal Board reaches the substances of Mr. Springer's Petition, Applicant provides the following argument. 15/

Mr. Springer alleges that the Staff misled this Board with respect to the State of North Carolina's position on use of once-through cooling at the Lake Norman site. Not i

only is this allegation totally unsupported, but documents l

' \

circulated to ail partles clearly establish the actual l e

13/ It is to be noted that Mr. Springer's water-related con-cerns are embraced within the 102 exceptions filed by the intervenors. See " Notice of Appeal and Filing of Exceptions to Partial Initial Decision of February 22, 1980" (August 29,'1980) (e.g., Exceptions 2, 18 and 20).

14/ This proceeding has twice been reopened for consideration of radon and alternate sites.

15,/ Applicant is cognizant that if this Board reaches the substance of the appeal, the matter is arguably one requiring resolution in the first instance by the l Licensing Board. However, in the circumstances of this l case, we would request that the Appeal Board retain jurisdiction over the matter and, based on the merits of Mr. Springer's position as addressed herein, dismiss the issue raised by Mr. Springer. l l

' position of the State of North Carolina. 16/ An examination of the record reflects that the NRC Staff did not misrepre-sent the State's position (e.g., Tr. 3091, 3107, and 3112),

Indeed, the Assistant Attorney General of the State of North Carolina was present at the time of the Staff testimony; rather than opposing such testimony, he presented testimony which supported that of the Staff. (Tr. 2956-2957).

As the Licensing Board stated:

. . . [t]he specific issue of the availibility of Lake Norman with once-through cooling was addressed by all parties in the evidentiary hearing and fully considered by the Board in the Partial Initial Decision of February 22, 1980.

7/ [ Licensing Board's August 14, 1980 " Order Relative To The Petitions of David Springer and Intervenor's Motion of June 6, 1980" at

p.10-113 7/ Applicant-Dail Testimony, Tr. 3744, 45; State of North Carolina-Raney Statement, Tr. 2955, 57; Intervenors-Pfefferkorn Statement, Tr. 3018, Medina Testimony, p. 6 following Tr. 3436, Lipkin Testimony, pp. 6 and 7 following Tr. 3436; and the Staff Panel Testimony p. 8 following Tr. 3049.

In sum, Mr. Springer's allegation, upon which is based the requested relief, is unsupported by the facts. 17/

16/ E.g., letter of November 28, 1979, from the Director of the Division of Environmental Manugement, State of North Carolina to Mr. Charles A. Barth, NRC; and letter of October 19, 1978 from L.P. Benton, Chief Environmental Operations Section, Division of Environmental Management, l State of North Carolina to Mr. Charles A. Barth, NRC.

17/ If Mr. Springer's petition is viewed as a petition to reopen the record and reconsider the evidence, Applicant maintains that his petition falls short of the stringent standards established regarding such motions. See Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear (footnote continued on following page)

! CONCLUSION From the foregoing, Applicant submits that Mr. Springer's petition is both procedurally and substantively defective and the Licensing Board's denial of the petition was not an l abuse of its discretion. Thus, we submit that the Licensing Board decision should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted, d

h&h J.. Michael McGarry, IIIy DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Attorney for Duke Power Company Of Counsel:

William L. Porter, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company -

September 24, 1980 (footnote continued from previous page)

Station, Unit 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 21-22 (1978). In any event, it is clear that such action is only open to parties to the proceeding. 10 CFR I2.771; see Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-583, 11 NRC 447 (980); Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),

ALAB-433, 6 NRC 469 (1977). In that party status is a prerequisite to consideration of motions to reopen or reconsider, Mr. Springer must first establish his entitlement to such status before the issue of reopening or reconsideration can be entertained. As noted above, Applicant maintains that Mr. Springer has failed to make such a showing.

c . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station ) STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC?.

I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Brief in Response to Notice of Appeal Dated September 2, 1980 Filed by David-Springer",

dated September 24, 1979 in the above captioned matter have been service upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 24th day of September.

Elizabeth S. Bowers Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Counsel for NRC Regulatory and Licensing Board Staff U.S. Naclear nagulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20055 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Donald P. deSylva Washington, D.C. 20555 Associate Professor of Marine Science William 4. Raney, Jr., Esq. '

Rosenstiel School of Marine Special Deputy Attorney and Atmospheric Science General University of Miami State of North Carolina Miami, Florida 33149 Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 881 West Guter Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq.

2124 Wachovia Building William L. Porter, Esq. Winston-Salem, North Carolina Associate General Counsel 27101 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

Mary Apperson Davis Mr. Chase R. Stephens Route 4 Docketing and Service Section Box 261 office of the Secretary Mockeville, North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 27028 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'd Panel Quentin Lawson, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 8611 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Washington, D.C. 20426 Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

. Michael Mc, ry, I l

l u

l

__