ML19344A762

Response in Opposition to NRC Reply to Nd & SD Commissions' 800711 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Ascertains Interests & Standing as Matter of Right.Enormous Costs May Be Avoided If Action Delayed.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19344A762
Person / Time
Site:	05000484
Issue date:	08/18/1980
From:	Adragna J, Frances F NORTH DAKOTA, STATE OF, SOUTH DAKOTA, STATE OF
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8008220167
Download: ML19344A762 (19)

Text

.

>~

, WC%)7 ecy i

//

CCCKE C)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $

BEFORE THE USMF0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION II 5 AUG 101980>

-4

!- CP:3 0f!S !ctreh7 Northern States ' Power Co. , et al. ) Docket No. \% '- ' ??. hake (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit T)-

) STN-50-484 .

C M: g {;,

PETITIONER' S REPLY TO NRC STAFF' S ANSWER TO MOTION TO DEFER COMMISSION ACTION, PETITION TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING On June 16, 1980 the Director of the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued an Order to Show Cause why Construction Permit No. CPPR-157 should not be revoked. 45 Fed. Reg. 42093 (June 23, 1980). The Order was issued upon application of Richard Ihrig for the Badger Safe Energy Alliance, citing the manifest intention of Northern States Power Company ("NSP"), the permittee , to abandon the project.

The Order provided that any interested party could, within 25 days, request a hearing on the proposed Commission action. On July 11, 1980, the North Dakota Public Service Commission and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

(" Dakota Commissions") petitioned to intervene, moved the deferral of the proposed revocation, and requested a hearing, if such was necessary, to the grant of petitioners' motion.

The Commission's Staff subsequently filed an An, to the petition. The Answer maintained that the Dakota Commissions had no standing to petition the Commission for the relief which it sought, and further argued that such relief was inappropriate for a variety of reasons. Pursuant to Section 2.730(c) of the Commission's regulations, the

$509 800832Nh g ,

~

petitioner hereby seeks authorization to file this further

! response to the Commission Staff's contentions.

For the reasons set out below, the Dakota Commissions have requisite standing to request a deferral and/or a hearing, and the deferral is warranted under the circumstances, and in the public interest.

I. THE DAKOTA COMMISSIONS HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT THE INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS J

The NRC Staf f challenges petitioner's standing to oppose the revocation of the construction permit issued to d'

! NSP. Their reasoning is clearly misguided.

Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.

2239(a), authorized a hearing upon the request of anyone "whose interest may be af fected" by a proceeding. In deter-i mining whether a petitioner has standing, the Commission and

the Appeals Board have applied the test which is used in Federal courts, i.e., whether "the outcome of the proceeding threatens one (or more) of [ petitioner's] interests arguably protected by the statute being administered." Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Unit 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646 (May 18, 1979); Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976). To establish such interest, petitioner must show (1) injury in fact, and (2) that the injury is arguably within the zone of interest pro-tected by the . relevant statute. Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 613.

ll '

The Dakota Commissions are public authorities charged with the regulation of utilities serving consumers within their respective jurisdictions, and NSP-M is such a utility.

The revocation of the NSP construction permit may cause considerable hardship to the interest of North Dakota and South Dakota customers of NSP. Specifically, that interest is the adequate supply of power at a reasonable cost. The Dakota Commissions have a right and a respon-sibility to protect that interest.

At present NSP seeks to pass through the costs of cancelling the Tyrone Unit to its customers in petitioners' respective jurisdictions. Such costs, if passed through, would be borne by those customers without any attendant bene-fit in the form of additional plant in service or more reliable power supplies. Among the options that might result in the lowest alternative power supply is the refiling of NSP's application for a certificate of need for a nuclear unit with the Wisconsin Commission. The foreclosure of that option thus threatens petitioners' interest in insuring that the citizens of North Dakota and South Dakota have an ade-quate supply of power at a reasonable cost.

Secondly, the interest articulated above is within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. In the Commission's regulations governing the standards for licenses and construction permits, Section 50.43(a) requires the t

i s

Commission, in a proceeding affecting Section 103 licenses, to "give notice in writing ot each application to such regu-latory agency as may have jurisdiction over the rates and services incident to.the proposed activity." Petitioners contend that the requirement of notice assumes a sufficient interest to confer standing. Moreover, the regulation establishes unequivocally that the interests represented by such regulatory agencies are within the purview of the Act.

The NRC Staff's response argues that the economic interests advanced by the Dakota Commissions are outside the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act. (pp.4-7)

The cases cited by the Staff will not support its proposition that a regulatory agency's assertion of the economic interests that it is charged with representing are outside __

the zone of interests of the Atomic Energy Act. '

In the Allens Creek decision cited, the would-be intervenor claimed standing, contending that his " main interest in these proceedings is manifested by his plans for future investment of nearly S120,000 in Houston real estate by 1983." The Appeal Board af firmed the denial of the peti-tion to intervene, holding that "it is now settled that an interest which is purely economic in character does not confer standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act."

Hcuston Lighting and Power Comeany (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, 11 NRC 239, 242 (1980); citing Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1420-21 (1977).

Reference to Tennessee Valley Authority, supra, uncovers a much more limited doctrine than the language of Houston Lighting and Power would suggest. There the petitioner, appearing pro se, asserted an interest in the proceeding by virt'te of her status as a customer of an.

electric utility which purchased power from TVA. The Appeals Board affirmed the denial of the petition to intervene, holding that " status as a ratepayer of an applicant for a nuclear license does not bring one within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act." Id. at 1420, citing Portland General Electric Company. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, NRC I-71/12, 610, 4

614 (1976).

In Portland General Electric Company, supra, the Appeals Board also denied intervention to an association basing standing on-the status of its members as ratepayers of the license applicant. In a footnote the Commission noted that its finding was prompted "particularly in light of the preservation of rate-making jurisdiction ot other Federal, State and local agencies pursuant to Section 271 of the Act."

Id. at 614, n. 5.

The clear implication here is that individual rate-payers have not been found to have suf ficient interest in the proceedings because that interest has been entrusted by law to the relevant ratemaking agency. Perforce, the relevant agency must have standing to represent that interest.

m - - -

ve-~ ,e- - .- e w -wew~ n s,- + - , - y

A distinction must be drawn between the economic interest of an individual ratepayer, whose participation may be cantrary to the interests of the larger community, and the duly constituted regulatory authority charged with assuring the entire community within its jurisdiction an adequate supply of power at a reasonable cost. That the Commission has made this distinction seems apparent from the requirement of notice to the ratemaking authority-referred to above.

The NRC Staff also charges that the Dakota Commissions' interest in protecting the interstate market for electric power and in assuring an economic and reliable power supply is a " general'ized interest. . . insufficient to confer standing," NRC Staff's Answer, at p. 6, citing Nuclear Engineering Co., (Sheffield Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).

In Nuclear Engineering Company, supra, the Appeals Board barred intervention by the Mid-America Legal Foundation

("Mid-America") and the Chicago Section, American Nuclear Sociecy (" Chicago Section"), in a proceeding to consider an application by the Nuclear Engineering Co. for renewal and amendment of its license to operate a radioactive waste burial site. Petitioner, Mid-America, had alleged its

" interest in the benefits to the general public utilizing goods and services provided by users of the [ waste]

facility." The Chicago Section alleged merely that it was an

organization of " professionals interested in the optimum development of nuclear science and technology for the benefit of mankind." Id. at 740-41. The Appeals Board denied inter-vention, citing the Supreme Court's holding that "a mere

' interest in a problem,' no matter how long-standing the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not suf ficient by itself to render the organization ' adversely affected' or ' aggrieved' within the meaning of the APA." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S.C.

727, 739-40 (1972).

The North Dakota Public Service Commission and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission are a far cry from the two self-proclaimed public interest groups discussed above. The comparison by Staff suggests unbounded audacity.

The Dakota Commissions do not merely purport to represent the public interest. They represent that interest by law and in fact. Of course, they represent a " generalized interest" --

that is their charge. The harm sought to be avoided in Sierra Club was found to be not the proper concern for the public interest, but rather the assumption of the mantle of public representation by unauthorized individuals and organizations, who in fact represent their own special interests, and who cannot demonstrate that those interests are in fact threatened. In contrast, the The Dakota Commissions are the lawful representatives of the citizens of their respective jurisdictions.

The interests they seek to protest are concrete and specific to those jurisdictions.

l

i Finally, participation by the Dakota Commissions is specifically authorized by the Commissions' Rules of Practice. Section 2.715(c) requires, in all adjudications ihitiated by an order to show cause, that "[t]he presiding officer-will afford representatives of an interested State, county, municipality, and/or agencies thereof, a reasonable opportunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission without - - - - - -

requiring the representative to take a position with respect to the issue. " 10 CFR 2.715(c).

The term " interested state" as it is used in that rule has been broadly interpreted. The California Energy Commission was oermitted to participate in a proceeding on an application by Exxon Nuclear Co. for a permit to cohstruct a facility for the storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear

fuel. The only interest alleged was based on a California statute prohibiting the licensing of nuclear power plants in that state until such facility was available within the United States. Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. (Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center), ALAB-447, 6 NRC 873 (1977);

see, also, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-74-32, 8 AEC 217, 217-18 (1974) (participation of Maryland; reactors in Pennsylvania);

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear I) ALAB-241, 8 12C 841, 843 (1974)

(participation of Illinois; reactor in Indiana); Public b

Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-25, 6 NRC 535 (1977) (participation ot Massachusetts; reactor in New Hampshire).

The Dakota Commissions certainly qualify for inter-vention as of right under the provision of 52.715(c), of this C$mmission's regulations. Furthermore, the provision of the section, permitting participation without taking a stand on the issue, together with the absolute right conferred, would appear to obviate the requirement that an interested state establish the traditional indices of standing.

II. THE COMMISSION CAN AND SHOULD DEFER REVOCATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT The NRC Staf f 's conclusion that the Commission should not defer revocation of the NSP construction permit seems to be founded on three distinct premises: (1) that the revocation is a fait accomplis, no longer sub]ect to challenge; (2) that the Dakota Commissions' representation of the possibility that NSP may refile its application with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission is without " factual basis"; and (3) that consideration of the economic impact and effect on power supply, attendant upon revocation, is beyond the authority of the NRC. Thsse premises must be charac-terized as ranging from absurd to ill-considered.

The NRC Staff's Response states tnat "[a] n order issued with the licensee's consent has the same force and effect as an order issued after a hearing by the presiding

, 1

g_

~

officer or the Commission." Response at p. 3, n. 3. Tne Response further notes that "Mr. Ihrig was informed . . .

that the Alliance petition to revoke the construction permit had been granted by virtue of the Director's issuance of the Order to Show Cause." Response, p. 3, n. 4.

This position evinces incredible unfamiliarity with the Commission's Regulations and a profound disregard for Due Process. The-Commission's Rules of General Applicability provide that, "in all adjudications initiated by an order to show cause, any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." 10 CFR 2.700, 2.714(a)(1).

~~

The Order to Show Cause issued by the Director of the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation specifically provi-des that "[t]he Licensee or any person whose interest may be af fected by this Order may request a hearing within twenty-five (25) days of the date of the Order." 45 Fed. Reg. 42093 (June 23, 1980).

While section 2.202 does not, in terms, authorize the Director to af ford interested parties an opportunity to l

request a hearing, it also does not, in terms, authorize the

! issuance of an Order to Show Cause at the behest of the l licensee. 10 CFR S2.202. The revocation procedure set out in 52.202 is clearly premised on a violation by the licensee l

l I

l

of the terms and conditions of his license or other Commission regulation. The section requires that the Order

"[alllege the violations with which the licensee is charged."

In this case, NSP is charged with no violation. The Director's decision to afford interested parties the oppor-tunity to request a hearing appropriately recognizes com-peting interests which are not adequately represented by NSP or the Commission.

The NRC Staf f response cites 52.202(e), which provides that the licensees consent to the entry of an order constitutes a waiver of the licensee's rights to a hearing.

10 CFR 2.202(e). This is true. It is also irrelevant.

While the licensee may certainly waive its own rights, it should go without saying that NSP's consent cannot consti-tute a waiver by an adversely interested party.

The Commission Staff also cites the decision in l Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 441 (1980), in support of its contention that the order issued with the licensee's consent cannot be challenged.

The case simply does not stand for the proposition for which it is cited. In Marble Hill, the Div:ector of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an " Order Confirming the Suspension of Construction" to the Public Service Co. of Indiana (PSI), and further provided, as in this case, that anyone af fected could request a hearing. PSI i

I

' 1

. consented to the terms of the Order, as did the state of

! Kentucky, participating pursuant to 52.715(c).

Petitioners, two local chapters of the Audubon Society, requested a hearing, alleging an interest adversely af fected in the implicit possibility that construction might later resume. The petition was denied on two grounds: (1) that the " petitioners [had) f ailed to show how their I interests [would] be adversely affected by the Director's Order" to halt construction; and (2) that the scope of any hearing on the Order must in any event be limited to the appropriateness of the suspension (the issue framed by the Order), and would not comprehend the availability of the further remedy of revocation.

The case is unapplicable to the Dakota Commissionn' petition. The Dakota Commissions have standing, either as intervenors or pursuant to 52.715(c). Unlike the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Marble Hill, they do not acquiesce in the terms of the Order. Additionally, peti-tioners contest the revocation of the construction permit, precisely the issue framed in the Order to Show Cause. They do not, unlike the would-be intervenors in Marble Hill, seek l to expand the scope of .the issues framed in the Order.

i .ie Commission Staff misstates the facts in its assertion that the Alliance was informed that its petition "had been granted." Response , p. 3, n. 4. The June 16, 1980

! letter which is referred to clearly apprises Mr. Ihrig only l

i I

i

. , , - .m.,._m . . . . . . -

- , . - . - , . _ _ - , , , ._...,m.-

that his petition has been noticed in the Federal Register.

It also reiterates that "[t]he licensee or any person who has an interest affected by the Order may request a hearing . . . .

The letter is signed by Harold R. Den ton , Director, Otfice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The Commission Staff's view that the Notice in the Federal Register is a futile exercise is simply outrageous.

In Staff's view, it seems that a third party can, by merely filing a request, cause the automatic revocation of a construction permit. Requests- for hearings are of no avail because, according to the Staff, revocation has been granted.

Petitioners find no support in the Commission's regulations for such a conclusion. Moreover, it is so contrary to the notice requirements of the APA and fair play that it must be rejected.

The Commission Staff's second contention is that the Dakota Commissions' expressed desire to retain the option of re-filing the application for a certificate of need is without factual basis. The Commission Staff bases this con-tention on its own tenuous conclusion that "it seems unlikely that the Tyrone Project will ever be built." Response at p.

8.

In issuing the construction permit, the Licensing Board presumably determined that there was a need for power; that balanced against environmental concerns the demonstrated need was appropriately met by construction of the facility in

-~

queation; and that relevant safety issues .had been adequately addressed. There has been no showing of any facts which would tend to unsettle the Commission's conclusion in this regard. Nor has there.been demonstrated any potential for harm or prejudice to the Licensee resulting from the requested deferral of this revocation. On the other hand, the refiling of a new application would entail enormous amounts of money and time.1/ In other words, there is simply no good reason not to defer this revocation.

Finally, the Commission Staff argues that the con-siderations of power supply and cost are beyond the purview of the Commission, and that it is limited in its role to the

" protection of public health and safety, of the common defense and security, and of the environment." Response at

p. 9. Petitioners suggest that this is an unduly cir-cumscribed characterization of the Commission's function.

1/ In this regard, the Staf f 's suggestion, at p. 11 of its Response, that the Company could reapply in the future is well nigh incredible. To require NSP to initiate a brand new filing with its multiple approval processes would essentially doom any hope of reviving the Project 30 that the customers might gain some measure of benefits from the expenditures already made. The repititions and costly refiling expen-ditures would simply raise further the costs of potential nuclear power with no benefit to the customers.

i r

In passing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Congress enacted "a regulatory scheme which is virtually unique in the degree to which " broad responsibility is reposed in the admi-nistering agency, free of close prescription in its character as to how it shall proceed in achieving the statutory objectives." Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d 759, 771 (3rd Cir. 1979); Siegel v. AEC, 400 F.2d 778, 783 (1968). This legislation declares it to be the policy of the United States that "the development, use and control of ato-mic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare . . . ." 42 U.S.C.

52011. The Atomic Energy Act further declares that its policy is to be ef fectuated by a range of programs, including 4

"a progran to encourage widespread participation in the deve-lopment ard utilization of atomic energy for peaceful pur-poses to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public." 42 U.S.C. 52013(d). The Commission is also authorized to issue commercial licenses, such as that granted NSP, " subject to such conditions as the Commission may by rule or regulation establish to ef fectuate the purposes and provisions of this chapter." 42 U.S.C. 52133. See also

Westinghotse Electric Corp. v. NRC, supra, at 771.

The Commission's role is clearly broader than that which the Staf f response would suggest. It does not even 1

1 1

I

__.m.

mention, in its catalogue of concerns, the central criterion of "need for power." "A nuclear plant's principal benefit is

, of course the power it generates. Hence, absent some 'need l for power,' justification for building a facility is problematical." Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90

-(1977), citing Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 405 (1976). Indeed, the "need for power" is the " benefit" side of the cost-benefit analysis in which the NRC is required to engage when it licenses a facility. Seabrook, supra. Without consideration thereof, no nuclear plant would be licensed. The Commission clearly has a responsibility to consider the ef fect of its decisions upon regional energy planning.

The Commission also has properly considered the economic consequences of its decisions as part of its general regard for the public interest. The Commission has, for example, given weight to the economic consequences to con-sumers of a delay associated with the transfer of a project to a proposed alternate cite. Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1) ,

LBP-74-19, 7 AEC 557, 624 (1974). This solicitude was expressly approved by the Seventh Circuit in Porter County Chapter of Izaack Walton League v. AEC, 533 F.2d 1011, 1017 (7th Cir., 1976).

III. THE DAKOTA COMMISSIONS' REQUEST IS CLARIFIED TO REQUEST A HEARING IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION AS TO THE MERITS OF THE REQUESTED DEFERRAL The request made by Dakota Commissions is modest, that is, a deferral for 12 months of the revocation of the construction permit. No party -- except possibly the con-sumers of NSP-M and NSP-W -- is adversely af fected by the deferral. However, requiring the Company to reapply could well cause unnecessary delay and enormous costs that could be avoided simply by deferring action that need not be made.

The Commission's Regulations permit a Response by Petitioners when permitted, S2.730(c). Pursuant to that

! regulation and in light of the purported " ambiguity" raised by Staf f's Response as to the Dakota Commissions' request, Dakota Commissions respectfully request that they be per-mitced to lodge this Answer with the Commission and with the Director of NRR.

Respectfully submitted,

__ . - (. --. './lfbVf" 4' Frances E. Francis '

h John Kichael Adragna sV l

Attorneys for the South Dakota I

Public Utilities Commission and the North Dakota Public Service Commission August 18, 1980 Law Offices of:

Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue , N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 202-333-4500

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Northern States Power Co., et al. ) Docke t No .

(Tyrone Energ*( Pa rk , Un i t7 )-~ ) STN-50-484 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing MOTION TO DEFER COMMISSION ACTIOG, PETITION TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME, AND REQUEST FOR EEARING to be served on the following parties by deposit in' the United States mail, first class, postage paid, this 18th day of August, 1980.

Harold R. Denton, Director Executive Legal Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Reg ula tion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Commission Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Mr. Pe ter Peshcek Chairman-Atomic Safety and Public Intervenor -

Licensing Board Department of Justice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' 123 West Washing ton Avenue Commission Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Washington, D.C. 20555 Honorable Sandra S. Gardebring Atomic Safety and Licensing Special Assistant Attorney Board General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1935 West County Road B2 Commission Roseville , Minnesota 55113 Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Mrs. Harold C. Bauer Dr. George C. Anderson Citizens for Tomorrow, Inc.

Department of Oceanography Route 1, Box 191  ;

University of Washington Rock Falls, Wisconsin 54764 Seattle, Washington 98195 '

Michael J. Cain, Esq.

Karen D. Cyr, Esq. Bureau of Legel Services Stephen G. Burns, Esq. Department of Natural Resources Counsel for NRC Staff Box 7921 Office of the Executive Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms . Helen M. Kees Commission Route 3 Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Durand, Wisconsin 54736 l

l Gerald Charnoff, Esq. CAUSE l Jay E. Silberg, Esq. c/o Mr. Tem Richards i l Thomas A. Bax ter , Esq. Route 1 l l Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Boyceville , Wisconsin 54725 l l Trowbridge I 1800 M Street, N.W. l l

Washing ton , D.C. 20036 1

l I

Steven M. Schur, Esq. Mr. Edward Gold Wisconsin Public Service 814 Fourth Street Commission Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751 Hill Farms Stats Office Bldg.

4802 Sheboygan Avenue Mr. Tom Galazen Madison, Wisconsin 53702 R. R. #2, Box 64 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 54889 Richard Ihrig, Esq.

874 Summit Avenue Ray H. Walton, Esq.

St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 Commerce Counsel North Dakota Public Service Mr. Stanley Cider Commission c/o Durand Postmaster Capitol Building

Tyrone, Wisconsin 54736 Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Walter Washington, Esq.

Chairman-Atomic Safety and Assistant Attorney General Licensing Appeal Beard South Dakota Public Utilities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Michael C. Farrar, Esq. Rodney Wilson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Special Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Minnesota Public Service Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 790 American Center Building Commission 150 East Kellogg Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20555 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dr. W. Reed Johnson George Bruder, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Bruder & Gentile Appeal Board 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan Wolf, Esq.

Federal Energy Regulatory Northern States Power Company Commission Attn: Mr. Arthur Dienhart 825 North Capitol Street, N.E.

V. Pres. - Engineering Washington, D.C. 20426 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Kenneth F. Plumb Secretary Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20426

~A '

August 18, 1980 Gohn #fichael Adtigna 4' l 1

1 i

I

,,