ML20083G624
| ML20083G624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1983 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083G632 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401040295 | |
| Download: ML20083G624 (17) | |
Text
LAW OFFICES GONNER & WETTERHAHN. P.G.
1747 PEN NSYLVANI A AVENUE. N. W.
. x [. W E T WAS!!INGTON, D. C. 2O000 E H A IN o2Eur M.HADER n on:D M. Oi. SON AXCH A. M OO H E. J H.
(g02) 833-3S00
+1*!'o,"JO.o n.
December 29, 1983 C ADLE ADDHESN: ATOM LAW Harold R. Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353
Dear Mr. Denton:
In response to the " Application of Del-Aware Unlimited et al under Section 2.206," submitted to you by Mr. Sugarman on behalf of Del-Aware Unlimited, I am hereby submitting
" Comments of Philadelphia Electric Company on Del-Aware's Request Under 10 C.F.R.
S2.206."
For the reasons stated more fully therein, no relief requested by Del-Aware with respect to the construction permits for the Limerick Gen-erating Station, Units 1 and 2, is warranted.
As indicated in the text of our submitted corments, we are also providing you with a copy of the Company's Answer to Del-Aware's request for admission of new, late con-tentions in the ongoing operating license proceeding.
Sincerely,
[
b Troy
. Conner, Jr.
Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company Enclosures D3 cc:
Vincent S. Boyer
[ t Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
Robert J.
Sugarman, Esq.
8401040295 031229 PDR ADDCK 05000352 0
.)
~
COMMENTS OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ON DEL-AWARE'S REQUEST UNDER 10 C.F.R. S2.206 Preliminary Statement By letter dated December 16, 1983, Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.
(" Del-Aware")
filed a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.206 with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion
("NRC" or " Commission") and the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with reference to the con-struction permits issued in Docket Nos.
50-352 CP and 50-353 CP for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
(" Limerick").
In this request, petitioner states that it renews its request that the NRC Staff " reopen the con-struction permit heretofore granted, as well as the interim decision of the Licensing Board dated March 8, 1983, regard-
.U ing supplemental cooling water.
The petition is deficient on its face.
First, it does not seek any particular relief with respect to the l_/
The petition states that "[p]etitioners hereby renew their request" under 10 C.F.R. S2.206.
See Application of Del-Aware Unlimited et al under Section 2.206 at 1 (December 16, 1983)
(" petition").
The petition does not, however, identify any other petitioner.
The only other prior petition under Section 2.206 was also filed by Del-Aware alone.
See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-82-13,
?6 NRC 2115 (1982).
Accordingly, we shall refer to 1;al-Aware as the " petitioner."
2_/
Petition at 1.
a o
. construction permits for Limerick.
The NRC Staff lacks authority to " reopen" either the construction permit pro-ceeding or the Partial Initial Decision ("PID") rendered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") on
. March 8, 1983.3_/
- Second, the. petition fails to state any basis for relief.
Essentially, it pursues the same allegations regarding the relationship between the Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO") and the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority
("NWRA") in the Point Pleasant diversion project which the Director rejected in his decision denying Del-Aware's initial request under Section 2.206.
That decision, which the Commission declined to review,A!
is now res judicata as to Del-Aware's legal theory.
Third, none of the allegations raised in the instant petition identifies "a
major change in facts material to resolution of major environmental is sues. " -
In essence, petitions are seeking to challenge collaterally legal rulings by the Licensing Board as to the evaluation of the 3/
Limerick, supra, LBP-83-ll, 17 NRC 413 (1983).
4/
By letter dated March 1, 1983, petitioner's counsel was informed by the Secretary of the ' Commission that the Commission had declined to review the Director's Decision Under 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
5/
- Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC at
- 2127, citing Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-79-10, 10 NRC 129, 130-31 (1979).
1
,,-.--,n-
. Point. Pleasant diversion's operational impacts.
Those decisions are irrelevant to the Limerick construction permits and - are obviously not reviewable by the Director.
. Del-Aware must pursue such matters before'the Commission's adjudicatory l boards.6/
Accordingly, the petition should be denied.
Discussion I.
The Petition Does not Seek any Relief Which the Director is Authorized to Grant.
The petition filed by Del-Aware purports to be a
request under 10 C.F.R.
S2.206, which states in relevant part:
(a) Any person may file a request for
+
the Director to ' institute a
proceeding. pursuant to S2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke a license, or for such other action as _ may be proper.
The requests shall specify the action requested and set for the facts that constitute the basis for the request.
The instant petition fails to request any relief in particu-3 lar and certainly does not request any relief within the authority of the Director to grant.
As noted, the petition 2
t
-6/
On December 16, 1983, Del-Aware filed its " Request for Late Filed Contentions" and " Application to Submit Late Filed Contentions" with the presiding Licensing Board.
Except for the allegations in 19, the four late contentions proposed by Del-Aware encompass the matters contained in the instant petition.
For convenience, PECO includes a copy of its Answer to Del-Aware's propcsed contentions, filed December 30, 1983, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
__,,, _ _ _ _ _. -. _,, _ _ _ _.. -. _ ~. __ _ _ _. - _ _ _. _ _, _ _,
. merely asks "that the staff reopen the construction permits heretofore granted, as well as the interim initial decision of the Licensing Board dated March 8,
- 1983, regarding 1
Similarly, the supplemental cooling water petition states in its conclusion that the Staff should
" reopen the Limerick construction permit proceedings."8_/
It is beyond question that the NRC Staff lacks authori-ty to reopen either the construction permit proceedings for Limerick or the Licensing Board's PID, issued March 8, 1983.
It is fundamental. that the responsibilities of the Com-mission's boards are independent of those of its regulatory Staff. !
Accordingly, the Staff lacks authority to reopen 7/
Petition at 1.
8/
Id. at 5.
-9/
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 202 (1978).
See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-298, 2 NRC 730, 737 (1975);
New England Power Company (NEP, Units 1
and 2),
LEP-78-), 7 NRC 271, 279-80 (1978).
As such, the Staff is obliged not to interfere with a licensing board's authority and responsibilities.
As the Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") stated in San'Onofre, "the positions which [the Staff] may take are in no way binding upon us.
The boards have independent responsibilities to and fulfill the actions of the staff cannot compel a
board to adopt a
particular position."
Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-268, 1 NRC 383, 399 (1975), cited _i_n Texas n
Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-87, 16 NRC 1195, 1199-1200 (1982).
In the WPPSS proceeding, the Appeal Board reiterated the distinction between relief j
(Footnote Continued) 1
. either the construction permit proceeding or the Licensing Board's PID, issued March 8, 1983.
Moreover, even assuming that Del-Aware had addressed the appropriate criteria for reopening to the appropriate tribunal,10/
none of the Commission's adjudicatory boards has jurisdiction to reopen the Limerick construction permit proceeding.11/
Even the Commission itself lacks such authority since the time for judicial review has long since expired.N (Footnote Continued) which is available under Section 2.206 and that which may be obtained in an adjudicatory proceeding.
See Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
3),
ALAB-747, 18 NRC (November 15, 1983) (slip op, at 14-16).
10/
- See, e.g.,
Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 NRC (December 9,
1983)
(slip op.
at 2): Kansac Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.
- 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978).
In Pacific Gas and Electric (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 363 (1981), the Commission approved the Wolf Creek standard which the Appeal Board likewise followed in Waterford, supra.
M/
See generally Florida Power and Light Company (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-579, 11 NRC 223, 225-26 (1980); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-551, 9 NRC 704, 708-09 (1979); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513, 8 NRC 694, 695 (1978).
1_2 /
Florida Power and Light Company (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2),
CLI-80-41, 32 NRC
- 650, 652 (1980).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the issuance of the construction permits for Limerick in Environmental Coalition of Nuclear
- Power, et al.
v.
United States Nuclear (Footnote Continued)
. As regards the Partial Initial Decision rendered by-the Licensing Board.on March 8, 1983, the Staff likewise lacks authority to ' determine whether ' the standards for reopening have been met.
As noted, Del-Aware has sought admission of four' late contentions in the ongoing operating license proceeding which relate to the subject matter of its Section 2.206 petition.'13/
Accordingly, the Director should deny the petition -in its - entirety on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to reopen the construction permit proceeding or
~the March 8,,1983-PID.
II.
The Petition is Deficient as a Matter of Law.
Much of the petition simply repeats arguments raised and rejected in Del-Aware's previous request under Section 2.206 or seeks to raise collaterally issues decided against Del-Aware in the licensing proceeding.
Each lacks any legal
. merit.
For example, Del-Aware renews its argument that a
. letter dated' January 5,
1981 from Mr. Tedesco of the NRC Staff to PECo committed the NRC to develop information
.regarding the adequacy of water supplies in the Delaware River, notwithstanding the thorough analysis by the Delaware River Basin Commission
("DRBC")
in approving the Point (Footnote Continued)
Regulatory Commission, et al.,
No.
75-1421 (3d Cir.
November 12, 1975) (unpublished opinion).
No review in the Supreme Court was sought.
,1_3/
See note 6, supra.
3
Pleasant project.
The presiding Licensing Board rejected this contention as simply " unsupported by the language of the letter."E!
The Director has previously held that Del-Aware may not use Section 2.206 procedures as a vehicle for seeking reconsideraticn of issues previously decided by the Licensing Board.E!
For the same reason, there is no merit to Del-Aware's assertion that " changed circumstances regarding the likelihood of completion of the water diversion project 14,/
The background regarding DRBC's approval of the project is set out in the Director's Decision in Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC 2121-24.
The Director noted that this approval was reviewed and sustained by the federal' courts in Delaware Water Emergency Group v.
Hansler, 536 F.
Supp. 26 (E.D.
Pa. 1981), aff'd mem.,
681 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1982).
DRBC's actions were again approved in a challenge to the issuance of a " dredge and fill" permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Del-Aware's claims in Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. et al.
v.
Roger M.
- Baldwin, et al., No. 82-5115 (E.D. Pa. December 15, 1982), aff'd mem., No. 83-1010 (3d Cir. July 5, 1983).
A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by Del-Aware on f
October 31, 1983.
The time for filing responses has not yet expired,
- however, we are advised that all respondents, including the Solicitor General, will or have opposed the petition.
M/
Limerick, supra, LDP-82-72, 16 NRC at 972.
-16/
Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC at 2119 n.6.
See also Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1),
CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 433-34 (1978)
(petitioner may not challenge Licensing Board decision indirectly by asserting error in the Final Environmental Statement by way of a Section 2.206 petition).
7
r
. require that an alternative source of supplemental cooling water be obtained immediately."E Essentially, Del-Aware believes that Applicant should consider Blue Marsh Reservoir as an alternative source of water because actions by the Bucks County Commissioners may " prejudice the availability of adequate supplemental cooling water" for Limerick.EI Del-Aware fails to note, however, that the Licensing Board contention.19/
Just as now, previously rejected such a Del-Aware stated that, based upon a May 17, 1983 voter referendum, the majority of the Bucks County Commissioners
" informed PECo of their withdrawal from the project."El According to Del-Aware, this development meant that "the entire environmental impact of the Point Pleasant diversion E/
Petition at 2.
18/
Id. at 3.
M/ - On May 25, 1983, Del-Aware filed its " Supplementary Motion to Reopen and/or to Admit New Contention V-27 and V-28."
As proffered, Contention V-28 stated:
In passing upon the operating license, the Commission must consider the feasibility of providing water to Limerick in time for its projected start-up
- date, and in view of the complications,
- disarray, and apparent legal obstacles to PECo's utilization of Point
- Pleasant, PECo must pursue alternative water sources in order for the NRC to continue processing its application, or to grant approval.
I_d. at 5.
20/
Id. at 3.
. construction must now be attributable to Philadelphia Electric."21/
Nonetheless, the Licensing Board summarily rejected the proposed contention, holding:
With respect to Proposed Contention V-28, if and when PECo were to material-ly change its proposal to obtain supple-mentary cooling water in the event the Point Pleasant diversion would not be allowed to operate due to " legal obsta-cles" involving other permitting author-ities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at such time would have to reconsider its previous assessment of environmental impacts in light of changes proposed by PECo.22/
Accordingly, the Licensing Board has already found Del-Aware's contention to be without legal merit.23/
There
-is no basis for the Director to reach a different result.
21/
Id.
-22/
- Limerick, supra,
" Memorandum and Order Denying Del-Aware's Motion to Reopen the Record" (June 1, 1983)
(slip op. at 9, n.3).
23/
It is noted that Del-Aware did not pursue the denial of this contention on appeal.
Del-Aware had requested a reopening of the record to consider proposed Contention V-25 on the same day the PID was issued.
The Licensing Board subsequently issued an order on June 1,
1983 denying several late contentions, including Contention V-28, and the request to reopen.
See note 22, supra.
Pursuant to an order of the Appeal Board deferring the briefing of Del-Aware's exceptions to the PID until the Licensing Board's ruling upon the motion to reopen, Del-Aware was given to July 18, 1983 to file a brief in support of all of its exception =,
including those pertaining to the denial of its mr
.on to reopen.
See Limerick, supra, " Order" (June 2, 383).
Nonetheless, Del-Aware did not pursue Contention V-28.
Other (Footnote Continued)
1 t
~
Del-Aware acknowledges-that its petition is,'in effect,
_a renewal of.its previous Section 2.206 petition, which the:
Director previousl'y; : described as._ largely ~ " devoted to an exposition - of supposed changed circumstances in ' the rela-tionship between the.NWRA-and PECO."E!
Based in:part upon rulings by; the Licensing - Board in the ongoing operating
. license proceeding regarding Point Pleasant diversion impacts, the Director-held that Del-Aware's allegation that the project could not be constructed "but for" Limerick was legally irrelevant.
-The' Director also decided-that environ-mental impacts created by operation of components utilized solely by NWRA of the project _should'be_not attributable.to Limerick:
The test for determining the scope of the NRC 's. environmental review for a particular project is not whether one segment of the project would not be built but for the other segment.
The scope of environmental review may be limited to one segment of a project so long as (1) that-portion has independent utility; and (2) the approval of that segment does not foreclose alternatives to the part of the project not being considered.25/
l'
-(Footnote Continued) aspects of the Licensing Board's March 8, 1983 PID have
'been briefed and-argued before the Appeal Board.
A decision is pending.
24/
Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC at 2128.
25/
Id. at 2119.
s-r,
. Likewise, the Licensing Board rejected the same argument by Del-Aware, holding:
In the absence of a methodology permitting separation (of the impacts attributable to the separate NWRA and PECO uses of the Point Pleasant Diver-sion],
we will consider the total environmental impacts of the Point Pleasant intake and pumping statien, the transmission main to the Bradshaw Reservoir, and the Bradshaw R_eservoir itself.
The parts of the water supply system which will be used only by the NWRA (i.e.,
the transmission main from the Bradshaw Reservoir to the North Branch of the Neshaminy Creek, the North Branch Water Treatment Plant and the trans-mission mains from the treatment planc) are a different matter.
Their consid-eration by the NRC is not required.
Del-Aware argues that this part of the system would not be built by the NWRA or would be vastly reduced in size if it were not for the need to build the Point Pleasant intake and Bradshaw Reservoir for use by Limerick.
(Tr.
448).
- However, the test for determining whether a project has been illegally segmented for NEPA purposes is not whether one segment would [not be built]
but for the other.2_6/
Accordingly, it is irrelevant whether NWRA would complete its portion of the project "but for" Limerick.
The Licens-ing Board has already considered "the total environmental
-26/
- Limerick, supra, LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC
- 1423, 1472-73 (1982)
(en.phasis added).
See generally Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.
for Admission of New, Late Filed Contentions V-30, V-31, V-32, and V-33 at 5-11 (December 30, 1983).
rm
. impacts" of the jointly used portions of the project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
S4321 et seg. ("NEPA").
Whether the project is completed with the support of the Bucks County Commis-sioners is wholly immaterial.
Finally, Del-Aware repeats its argument that the Point Pleasant diversion project should be considered a "uti-lization facility" under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S21's3, so as to require a construction permit from the NRC.
This novel theory was similarly rejected by the Director in his earlier decision, which found that the supplemental cooling water for Limerick
" clearly does not come within the ambit of ' equipment or device [s] capable of production of special nuclear materi-al.'"27/
The NRC has never regarded even those components to be used solely by PECO aa part of the " utilization facility" licensed under the Limerick construction permits, and there is obviously nothing in the nature of the proj-ect's conponents which would bring them within the ambit of Section 103.
III.
Del-Aware is Barred by Collateral Estoppel From Raising These Matters Anew.
As discussed
- above, Del-Aware's petition alleges basically the same " changed circumstances" addressed in the 27/
Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC at 2128 n.27.
. Director's prior decision, denying Del-Aware's first peti-tion requesting suspension or revocation of the Limerick construction permits.
The Director previously determined that changes in the relationship between NWRA and PECO do not require further environmental review by the NRC Staff or provide a basis for modifying the Limerick construction permits.
Thus, the Director's dispositive consideration of the controlling legal issues in his earlier decision pre-cludes Del-Aware from raising them again under t..e auspices of "new developments."
It has long been recognized by the Commission that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to its proceedings.
See Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2),
Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
- Station, Units 2
and 3),
ALAB-673, 15 NRC
- 688, 695 (1982).28/
The principle of collateral estoppel has been proceedings.29/
Collateral discussed in a number of NRC
,2_8_/
As noted by the Appeal Board in San Onofre, supra, the 8
Supreme Court has defined collateral estoppel as follows:
"Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel the second action is upon a different cause of action and the judgment in the prior suit precludes litigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action."
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S.
322, 326 n.5 (1979).
29/
E.g.,
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 50 n.2 (1978)
(concurring opinion of Mr.
Sharfman);
Toledo (Footnote Continued)
14 _
m estoppel most aptly applies when environmental issues are subsequently raised anew.30/
The same principle is equally applicable to decisions by the Director under 10 C.F.R.
S2.206.
No party is enti-tied to seek essentially the same relief in successive petitions where the Director has denied the initial petition on the grounds of its legal insufficiency.
If Del-Aware were dissatisfied with the Director's earlier ruling that potential changes in the relationship between PECO and NWRA do not require further Staff environmental
- review, the remedy was to seek judicial review in an appropriate federal court.N!
Further, Del-Aware had an opportunity to raise the same issue on appeal from the Licensing Board's denial of its proposed contentions asserting the same matters.
Accordingly, Del-Aware is now collaterally estopped from pursuing these same issues in a second petition.
(Footnote Continued)
Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
- Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-378, 5 NRC 557 (1977); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1
and 2),
aff'd, ALAB-575, 11 NRC 14 (1980).
3_0/
San Onofre, supra, ALAB-673, 15 NRC at 696; Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 197-201 (1981); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 464 (1979).
-31/
- See, e.g.,
Lorion v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 712 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
k ve.
' IV.
The Remaining Allegations Regarding a Rockslide and Potential Erosion in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek do not Warrant Relief.
Two remaining items are raised by Del-Aware in its petitic n.
The first is a mudslide which occurred at the Point Pleasant construction site on May 21, 1983.
While it has greatly exaggerated the significance of this isolated incident, Del-Aware has failed to explain how it relates to the Limerick construction permits or what relief it seeks in this regard.3_2,/
As noted, the Point Pleasant project is not part of the Limerick facility whose construction was au-thorized by the construction permits.
In any
- event, Del-Aware has failed to state any facts which would provide the basis for relief even if the construction at Point Pleasant were encompassed by the construction permits for Limerick.E
- Finally, Del-Aware's allegation that erosion and destruction of stream habitat will occur in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek "as a result of the construction of the project"EI is clearly specious.
As discussed in the 32/
See Petition at 4.
-33/
As the Director previously held,
"{albsent such a
- showing, the Director need take no action on the Petition."
Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC at 2121.
M/
See Petition at 5.
- Limerick DES S5.3.3.3, construction along the East Branch Perkiomen will involve only riprapping for about 100 feet upstream : and. 60 feet downstream of its confluence with the channel from the pipeline from the Bradshaw Reservoir.
If
~
Del-Aware is actually concerned with operational impacts, its allegations may not be pursued before the Director under Section 2.206 before the Director with regard to the Limerick construction permits.
To the extent it could have satisfied other legal requirements for submission of a-valid contention, Del-Aware should have pursued this as a. con-tention before the Licensing Board in the operating license proceeding.EI 3_5_/
In fact, Del-Aware recently proposed a new Contention V-31 on East Branch impacts.
See note 6,
supra.
Additionally, Del-Aware could have brought such matters to the attention of the Staff by way of its comments on the Draft Environmental Statement for
- Limerick, NUREG-0974 (June 1983).