ML20127B424
| ML20127B424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1985 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-540 ALAB-809, OL, NUDOCS 8506210465 | |
| Download: ML20127B424 (15) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___-_ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . ____ __ _
4 6
UNITED STATES OF INERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMISSION Before the Co mission In the Matter of )
Philadelphia Electric CaTpany )
) DocketNos.50-352/c>pb 50-5$3j (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED REVIEN OF ALAB-809 AND OIEER D4ERCENCY RELIEF LFFik U ettu.au Introduction DOCKETt(GEM Applicant Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany (" Applicant") petitions the Catuission to exercise its authority under 10 C.F.R. b2.786 to review irportant issues of law and Canission policy arising fran AIAB-809,O where the Appeal Board has created the unprecedented requir ment that,'to obtain a tmporary exatption fran omrgency planning requirments under 10 C.F.R.
S50.47, an applicant aust not only meet th9 specific provisions for mergen-cy planning exmptions under Section 50.47(c) (1), but nust pg meet the separate criteria under Section 50.12(a), which applies to Part 50 ex-mptions in gereral.
1/ ALAB-809 results frce the Ccmnission's order directing the Appeal Doard to consider expedit susly an appeal by the Graterford Prisoners
("intervenor") of the Licensing Board's grant of an exatption to Appli-cant regarding contentions on amrgency planning and preparedness at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford ("Graterford") during the pendency of the litigation. Philadelphia Electric Carpany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), "Matorandum and order,"
CLI-85-11, 21 NRC (June 11, 1985). The Licensing Board tentatively granted the exemption in an order dated May 9,1985 and, following an opportunity for catment by interested parties, inplemented its grant of the exmption in an order dated May 24, 1985, which authorized the Director of Nucicar Reactor Pegulation to issue a full-power license. AIAB-809 reversed those decisions.
8506210465 050620 PDR ADOCK 05000352
. 7)So]
o Despite its best efforts to obtain the necessary exmption by initially filing its request on February 7,1985, numerous procedural delays in the case have brought the matter to its present posture. Given the further proceedings and findingr req.11 red by ALAB-809, and any further disposition by the Camission or Appeal Boani, it is now very doubtful that the Applicant can obtain a full-power operating license prior to July 25, 1985.
Inamuch as Cmmission regulations require that a full-scale exercise be conducted within one year of the issuance of a full-power license,2/ the practical inpact of AIAB-809 will be to require the empletion of another full-scale exercise at Limerick prior to license issuance.
Accordingly, Applicant seeks the following alternative relief from the Ca mission: .
(1) Reverse AIAB-809, reinstate the Licensing Board's grant of the exmption and authorization for issuance of a full-power operating license, and approve the imediato effectiveness thereof; (2) Utilize its authority under 10 C.F.R. 550.12(a) to "upon its own initiative grant" the exmption requestion by Applicant, given the fact that all aspects discussed by the Appeal Board in AIAB-809 already exist in the records (3) In the event that procedural considerations prevent the Cmmis-sioners frce granting either (1) or (2) above, such that the operating license cannot be issued on or before July 25, 1985 permitting full-power operations, grant the application that
- Applicant will prmptly file pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS50.12(a)
, ,2/ See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1. The full-scale
! exercise for Limerick occurred on July 25, 1984.
l
l
- t i*
and/or 50.47(c) (1) for an exeption frcin the ore-year exercise requirement.
I Sa mary of the Decision Below i
- In AIAB-809, the Appeal Board, as noted, held that both sets of ex-l emption requirements under 10 C.F.R. SS50.12(a) and 50.47(c) (1) must be met in granting the exemption requested by Applicant. Nonetheless, the Appeal r
, Board found no substantive error in the Licensing Board's analysis of the grant of the exmption under Section 50.47(c) (1), i.e., no significant deficiency in the Graterford plan. It simply held that tim Board should ;
4 i
l havu also considered the separate exeption criteria under Section 50.12(a) . t l It further held that the Licensing Board erred in granting the exeption prior to acknitting intervenor's two contentions,U even though the Licens ,
l ing Board had before it all' proposed contentions prior to granting the I 1 g
- exenption. 'Ihese legal holdings constitute fundamental error contrary to l
\
- the Ca mission's rules and policies.
Even asstaning, arguendo, the correctness of its decision that both sets f of criteria nust be met, the Appeal Board should have simply decided itself, ;
1 as it has in the past on other issues, the remaining issue as to empliance ,
with Section 50.12(a) .E Instead, the Appeal Board created serious and l
1 3_/ Applicant will also seek expeditious action on this alternative request !
! for relief, including a shortening of the time for any responses !
l permitted. Because Applicant has incorporated its request for other l l relief within its request for review of AIAB-809, this petition is l l slightly longer than the ten pages permitted for review requests alone '
under 10 C.F.R. $2.786(b) (2) .
1
~
4/ See Limerick, supra, " Order Admitting Certain Pevised Contentions of l W Graterford Irmates and Denying Others" (June 12, 1985).
5_/ Pacific Gas and Electric Ccmpany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, l
, Units 1 and 2) , AIAB-580, 11 NRC 227, 231 (1980) (acting "in the I
! (Footnote Continued) !
i !
t l.
unnecessary delay by remanding the matter to the Licensing Board. As a practical matter, the positions of the parties regarding Applicant's satis-faction of the standards under Section 50.12(a), as well as Section 50.47(c) (1), had already been extensively briefed, with supporting affida-vits, and therefore fully developed on the record.
'Ihe Ccanission's review of this matter and an inmediate redress of the error by the Appeal Board is necessary to avoid further delay in the licens-ing of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. Iong ago, the Conmission pledged that it "will seek to avoid or reduce (costly) delays" by acting "to expedite the hearing process" consistent with a fair and thorough hearing process.O 'Ihe instant appeal provides the Cmmission with a direct oppor-tunity to meet that camitment.
- For reasons absolutely and totally beyond its control ahd through no ,
fault of its own, Applicant has been unable to obtain final Nhc approval of energency planning for the Graterford facility.E As stated in the (Footnote Continued) interests of reasonable expedition"); Tennessee valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units IA, 2A, 1B and 28), AIAB-467, 7 NRC 459, 461 (1978) (avoiding " expense and delay of a remand for such a limited matter") .
~
6/ Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 453 (1981) .
7/
~
Seventeen Graterford inmates filed affidavits in 1901 attesting to their interest in the proceeding and were admitted as a consolidated party collectively as the Graterford Prisoners. Philadelphia Electric Capany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), IAP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1447 (1982). The Conmonwealth's Graterford plan was completed at the end of 1984. An expurgated version of the Graterford .
emergency plan, sanitized for security reasons, was initially made available to intervenor's counsel on December 13, 1984. After three months, the Commonwealth's concerns were resolved and a virtually unsanitized version of the plan was released to the intervenor's representatives under a protective order on March 18, 1985. See Limerick, supra, AIAB-806, 21 NRC (May 1, 1985) (sTTp (Pootnote Continued)
o
, affidavit of V.S. Doyer, Applicant's Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power (March 14,1985), further delay at this point results in an enonnous finan-cial burden of approxistely $1.5 million per day to be borne by Applicant and its custmers.
Given the tim required for further hearings or, alternatively, for the Licensing Board to decide and the Cmmission (and presumably the Appeal Daard) to approve the exmption grant, even assuming favorable results, innodiate Camission action is necessary to prevent the loss of several weeks and perhaps months in licensing and resultant financial losses in the millions of dollars due to a delay in cmnercial operations.M Iegal Error Assigned The Appeal Board cmmitted fundamental . legal error which necessitates innediate review and correction by the Camission:
(1) The Appeal Board ruled that Applicant must satisfy the nore broadly applicable exmption requirments under 10 C.F.R. 550.12(a) n
_i_n addition to the specific requirmercs for exmptions frca mergency planning requirments under 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (c) (1) . h Appeal Doard's ruling violates Section 50.47(c)(1) by imposing additional requirments and is (Pootnote Continued) op, at 2-6) . This resulted in a delay in determining the admitted contentions because the intervenor took the position, which the Appeal Board accepted in AIAD-806, that it was entitled to refile its contentions based upon the unsanitized version of the Gratorford plan.
Icl.at18.
~
8/ In this connection, it is noted that the Applicant has received tmparary relief frm the Delaware River Basin Cmmission frca the 59'F taperature limitation on water withdrawals frca the Schuylkill River (cubstituting requirements on dissolved oxygen concentrations), which providen additional water for operation. DRDC has also scheduled a Icgislative hearing for July 3, 1985 on the application to allow Linerick to use, during 1985, the consunptive use water allocations of the Crmby and Titus electric generating stations.
I s
j i
- i i
directly contrary to cannission policy and precedent in affording tmporary
- relief fran emergency planning requiranents under that specific provision. l l (2) The Appeal Board erroneously held that the exemption grant was i l !
j premature because the Licensing Board had not yet determined whether the !
intervenor had proffered an admissible contention.1/ Contrary to its past f practice, the Appeal Board's ruling truly " exalt [s] form over substance."N i
i l The Licensing Board had the proposed contentions before it, which were ,
i f basically the same contentions previously proposed by intervenor in writing
(
{ and at a prehearing conference on March 22, 1985. In granting the ex- !
1 i i emption, the Licensing Board was therefore fully cognizant of the scope and substance of the alleged deficiencies in planning for Gratarford and proper- ;
i ly found them to be insignificant.
4 l
Even assuning that both sets of criteria are applicable, the (3) l Appeal Board erred in not deciding ccepliance with section 50.12 (a) . l 1
Notwithstanding its disclaimer, it was in at least as good a position as the ,
l Licensing Board to decide this legal issue because there was no hearing '
) record to review and the matter had been fully briefed. Notably, the Appeal i
j Board found no deficiency in planning raised by either adinitted contention [
relating to Graterford. Since the Appeal Board failed to do so, the Cemnis-t
- sion should now take up and expeditiously decide the issue itself rather t than await the conclusion of firdings and appeals below.
f
- (4) In ruling that both sets of exemption criteria must be satisfied, '
I l the Appeal Board raised and decided an argunent never raised by any party l I
r 1
9/ AIAB-809 at 13. !
l 10/ Washington Public Power Surely System (WPPS8 Nuclear Project No. 2), I i
MAB-571,10 NIC 657, 692 (1979) .
t !
i,
e nor raised by the Ccmnission in directing the Appeal Board to review the grant of the exemption.)1/ The Appeal Board's sua sponte action, giving the Applicant no notice whatsoever of the issue it deemed dispositivo, denied it due process of law. 'Ihis appeal constitutes Applicant's first opportunity to address the question raised by the Appeal Board sua sponto.
- 1. The Appeal Board plainly erred in construing the plain language of 10 C.F.R. 550.12(a) . That provision does not, as the Appeal Board stated, ,
specify that its provisions "nust be addressed before any exmption frtm Part 50 rev._ .ments can be authorized."EI Dather, Section 50.12(a) sinply states that the ccmnission "may . . . grant such exmptions frcm the re-quirements of the regulations in this part as it determines . . . ." The regulation does not state, conversely, that any exmptien under, Part 50 nust meet Section 50.12(a) critoria, notwithstanding the existence of a separato and distinct authorization for the exmption.EI 11/ Specifically, the Ccamtission directed the Appeal Board "to consider expeditiously the issue of the propriety of granting an exmption during the pendency of contentions filed by the Graterford inmates,"
particularly with regard to "inportant questions regarding the hearing rights of the inmates." Linerick, supra, "M, morandtn and order,"
CLI-85-11, 21 NPC (Juno 11,1985) (slip op. at 2). With regard to hearing rights, the Appeal Board agreel with Applicant that "a grant of an exmption does not deprive the irrntes of their right to be heard (at a formal hearing, if necessary, or through written filings) on their adntissible contentions." AIAD-809 at 13 n.12.
J_2/ AIAD-809 at 7. The Cmmission discussal neither mergency planning requirenents nor Section 50.47 (c) (1) in Missinsippi Power t. Light Crepany (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-19, 20 N1C 1055, 1059 n.7 (1984), cited i_nn AIAD-809 at 7.
13/ The Aireal Board secent to find estorfol in Arplicant's initial request for the exmption under Section 50.12(a) . C#o AIAD-809 at 7. Pather, Applicant initially applied under Section T5~12(a) because it vieux!
both approachos under Section 50.12(a) and Section 50.47(c)(1) as n[ually valid. Applicant lator aroued that its exmption could be grantal, altornatively, under Section 50.47(c) (1) . ree Applicant's Peply in Support of Its Pequest for Pmption (April 1,7%5) .
e ;
^
l The Appeal Board turns this issue on its head in stating that "if the Cmmission intended sectien 50.47(c) (1) to provide the sole stardard by ,e which to consider exsuptions in the emergency planning area, it would have said so .. ..-
"14/ Just the opposite is true. The Cmmission clearly stated in Section '50.47(c) (1), %hich governs only emergency planning, that an applicant "will have an' opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Ccanission" that an exeuption should be granted for any of the three reasons stated 'in that provision. Had the Cmmission intended that such 1" demonstration" requires satisfaction of the additional requirements of Section 50.12(a), it would have said so explicitly.15/
By engrafting more broadly applicable standards onto the specific standards for the grant of an exeuption frcm emergency planning require-I ments, the Appeal Board has e'ffectively rewritten the rule and usurped the Cmmission's rulemaking function.16/ As the Appeal Board acknowledged, the Cm mission's nest recent discussion of energency planning requirenents refers solely to the standards under Section 50.47(c) (1) .17/ Further, the M / AIAB-809 at 9 n.7.
15,/ For example, Section 50.60 (b) expressly incorporates Section 50.12 criteria, whereas Section 50.55a (a) (3) does not. The Appeal Board should accept that the Cmmission understands the difference between l general and specific authorizations for exenptions. Coupare, e.g., 10 l C.F.R. S73.5 with S73.6. See also 10 C.F.R. S30.11(a) , (c) and (d) .
1 16/ Nothing in the Ccmnission's statements of consideration in adopting I
/ Section 50.47(c) (1) even vaguely suggests that adjudicatory boards and the NHC Staff nust consider the broader standards under Section 50.12(a) in addition to the specific criteria for an exemption frmt emergency planning requirements. See 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 (July 13, 1982); 46 Fed. Reg. 61132 (Deceuber 15, 1981).
i l 17/ In that instance, the Cm mission stated that its regulations l "specifically contenplated certain equitable exceptions, of a limited duration, frmt the requirements of 50.47(b)" and that "the Cmmission
! (Footnote Continued) l -
t t . .
'Ks t
? t
..s
b O
Appeal Board states no logical reason why its approval of the use of Section 50.47 (c) (1) in other cases has never required the application of Section 50.12(a) standards as well.EI In both San Onofre and Shoreham, the Cmmis-sion has at least implicitly stated that Section 50.47 (c) (1) alone is adequate.E
- 2. The Appeal Board further erred in ruling that the exenption grant was premature. It stated that until contentions have been admitted, "the specific, potential energency plan deficiencies that warrant further adju-dication are not known." E Elevating form over substance, the Appeal Board simply ignored the facts. 'Ihe Licensing Board had considered any possible deficiencies in admissible contentions because the intervenor had filed its cpntentions on May 13, 1985, well before the final grant of the exenption ong (Footnote Continued) believes that Licensing Boards . . . may find that applicants ...
meet the requirements of section 50.47 (c) (1) " and are therefore entitled to a full-power operating license. Statement of Policy on Dnergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b) (12), 50 Fed. Reg. 20892, 20893 (May 21, 1985). See also Union of Concerned Scientists, DPRM-83-1,17 NBC 719, 726 (1983) .
M/ E.g. Southern California Edison Canpany (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680, 16 NPC 127, 131, 142 (1982); San Onofre, supra, ALAB-717, 17 NBC 346, 369 (1983). See also Detroit Edison Caupany (Enrico Fermi Atanic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730,17 NPC 1057, 1066 (1983). The Appeal Board's statement that Section 50.12(a) did not arise in San Onofre because the applicant did not seek relief under that section (ALAB-809 at 11 n.9) is a non sequitur.
Either the requirement applies or it does not, regardless of the applicant's belief. Moreover, whether or not outstanding contentions remain to be considered (id.) is equally irrelevant. Section 50.47(c) (1) makes no such distinction and in Fermi, supra, the emergency plan in question had not even been canpleted, in contrast to the Graterford plan which was fully available for review.
M/ San Onofre, supra, CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 531 (1983); Iong Island Lighting Canpany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , CLI-83-13, 17 NFC 741, 743 (1983) .
M/ ALAB-809 at 14.
6 1
_May 24, 1985._21/ The Appeal Board should not have presumed that the Licens-ing Board failed to analyze the pwrmi:xi contentions.22/
- 3. Even if the Cmmission should agree with the Appeal Board that both 1
sets of criteria under Sections 50.12(a) and 50.47(c) (1) apply, the Appeal j Board should have avoided altogether unnecessary delay in its remand to the Licensing Board by reviewing the briefs of the parties as to the satisfac-l tion of Section 50.12(a) standards in the context of the two admitted con-t tentions.23/ It should have followed its own exanple in AIAB-806, where it reversed a dismissal of intervenor's proposed contentions and determined on 4
i i
l
-21/ The contentions refiled by,intervenor on,May 13, 1985 were no more than
- the contentions .previously filed in writing - (minus contentions voluntarily withdrawn) and contentions orally pleMM at the prehearing conference on March 22, 1985. Accordingly, in granting the exenption, the- Licensing Board had a sound understanding of the scope and
- j substance of the deficiencies in planning alleged by intervenor. It did not have to formally admit a contention in order to uwwliend the
- planning deficiencies asserted by intervenor.
In ' sharp contrast to its criticism of the Licensing Board for not waiting until contentions had been admitted, the Appeal Board in ALAB-806 reversed the dismissal of intervenor's contentions and found,
! on its own initiative, that intervenor had satisfied the requirements
- for late-filed contentions even before the revised, late-filed
- contentions had been resubmitted.
22/ The Appeal Board's holding that the exemption could not be determined i
without examination of specific deficiencies, i.e., admitted l contentions, is a self-defeating proposition. Deficiencies as such cannot be "specifically" determined without litigation. Yet, the Appeal Board explicitly rejected intervenor's argtunent that an exenption cannot be granted before litigation of the contentions is emplete. AIAB-809 at 13 n.12. Moreover, admitted contentions are frequently revised throughout the hearing process. Formal admissicn of the contentions was therefore neither a legal nor practical consideration.
I t p/ Notably, the Appeal Board lauded the Licensing Board's " desire to ,
handle this matter - arising so late in the proceeding -- as efficiently and expeditiously as possible," further stating that
" procedural shortcuts and innovations can serve a useful purpose without working a hardship on any party." AIAB-809 at 15.
s the record before it, presumably to save time, the legal issue of whether intervenor had satisfied the Ccnmission's requirements for late-filed con-tentions.b!
- 4. Finally, the Appeal Board erred in raising sua sponte and deciding, without giving Applicant and other parties fair notice, the issue it actual-ly considered dispositive, i.e., whether both sets of exeuption criteria must be satisfied.EI This violated Applicant's hearing rights under Section 189 of the AtcInic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and its due process rights under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was not afforded notice of the basis for adverse agency action.EI Thus, this appeal constitutes Applicant's first opportunity to address the issue raised sua sponte and decided by the Appeal Board.
Conclusion As discussed above, the Ccmnission should act imnediately to review and reverse AIAB-809, to reinstate authorization for issuance of a full-power 24/ AIAB-806 at 11-17.
2_5/
5 In ALAB-809 at 8, the Appeal Board observes that its Order of May 21, 1985, dismissing intervenor's interlocutory appeal, referred to this issue. Applicant disagrees. The Appeal Board merely stated:
"Moreover, we do not understand how the Board could properly weigh the exsuption criteria of both 10 C.F.R. SS50.12(a) and 50.47(c) (1) (as well as pertinent case law) before it has determined whether any exatption will even be necessary. . . ." Limerick, supra, ALAB
" Memorandum and Order" at 2 (May 21, 1985). Because App:.icant had sought the exerption alternatively under both provisions, there was no discernable import to this statement. It did not, therefore, alert Applicant to the Appeal Board's apparent conclusion at that point that both sets of criteria nust be met. It certainly did not forewarn Applicant that an appellate issue had been raised sua sponte. Nor did the Ccmnission raise the issue in its Memorandum and Order of June 11, 1985 (CLI-85-11) .
26/ See 5 U.S.C. S554 (b) (3) ; e.g., Rodale Press, Inc. v. PIC, 407 F.2d 1252,1256 (D.C. Cir.1968) .
)
operating license and to make any findings necessary for the grant of an exenption and such authorization.
Respectfully subnitted, CONNER & WHITERHMIN, P.C.
. 7 g
Troy B. r, Jr.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Rcbert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant June 20, 1985 9
4 t
5
- - - , . - . , - , , ,,, ,- , , , - , , - - - - - - ~ , , , - - - - - - - - - . - . ,e , - - - - - . , - - ,
.)
=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 00LKETED
) 50-353 USNRC (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
85 WN 20 P4:36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE GFFICt 0F SEcst fan 00CXETmG & SERVIC; I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's RequjjgNCH for Expedited Review of ALAB-809 and Other Emergency Relief" dated June 20, 1985 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 20th day of June, 1985:
- 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 Atomic 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
- Hand Delivery i
)
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S. Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 = Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *
- Ann P . Hodgdon, Esq.
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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 *
- Angus Love, Esq. 107 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel . Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sugarman, Denworth &
Commission Hellegers
. Washington, D.C. 20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 '
ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President & Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Mr. Frank R. Romano 61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK
- Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 I
i
- Hand Delivery
- Federal Express i
I l 1 1 3-o Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Spence W. Perry, Esq.
325 N. 10th Street Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency I
Management Agency Phyllis Zitzer, Esq. 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 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 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. U.S. Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission Commission
! 631 Park Avenue P. O. Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464 i 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
- Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598
- Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 i
A '
s Robert M. Rader 's r
- Federal Express
- ~ - - - -
e----r-----,--,-,.--s-- - - -- -.-,,-c. n ne. - - - - - - , - - , , , - . - - . - - , - - , , - - - - - - - - -