ML19224D600
| ML19224D600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130098 | |
| Download: ML19224D600 (37) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POFER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM FOR SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITI3N RESPECTING INTERVENOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL I.
BACKGROUND On March 9, 1978, Duke Power Company (Applicant) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Com-mission) for an amendment to its Materials License No.
This application requested authority to receive and store spent nuclear fuel from the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) at the McGuire Nuclear Station, (McGuire). In response to the July 28, 1978, Commission notice regarding the subject application (43 Fed. Reg. 32905), NRDC filed its petition for leave to intervene.
Subsequently, by Order dated February 13, 1979 the Licensing Foard granted NRDC discretionary intervention limited by restrictions contained in a stipulation appended to the Order. 1/
By Order dated March 16, 1979, this Licensing Board ruled that six (6) contentions raised by NRDC would be admitted.
1/ This stipulation, inter alia, restricts NRDC's partici-pation to only those contentions it advances which are admitted by the Licensing Board.
4 4 "A i}
O C
,3 h
7907130
. Applicant submits that NPDC's six contentions fail to present genuine issues as to anc material fact subject to resolution in this proceeding.
Therefore, purcuant to 10 CFR S2'.749, Applicant moves that these conter:tions be dismissed. 2/
II.
ARGUMENT A.
General Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749(d), upon an appropriate motion for summary disposition, "the presiding officer shall render the decision sought" where it is shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law".
To provide more definitive guidance in rendering such judgments, the Commission stated that Section 2.749 "has been revised to track more closely the Federal Rulet of Civil Procedure".
See 37 Fed. Reg. 15135 (1972). 3/
The basis of this section is Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Model Summary Disposition Rule draf ted by the Administrative Conference of the United States for use by administrative agencies.
See Gellhorn &
2/
By Order dcted April 12, 1979, the Licensing Board established May 4, 1979 as the date motions for summary disposition are due.
Subsequently, by Order dated May 4,
1979 with respect to Applicant, the Licensing Board extended the time for such submittals to May 21, 1979.
3/
See also, Alabama Power Comoany (Joseph M. Farley Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974); Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877, 878 (1974); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend S tation, Units 1 and 2) LBP-75-10, 1 NRC I 246, 247 (1975).
h ?L 5 st/Sgf
. Robinson, Summary Judcment in Administrative Adjudication, 84 Harv.
L.
Rev. 612, 628 (1971).
Under the Federal Rules a motion for summary judgment is designed to pierce general allegations, separating the substantial from the insubstantial.
To defeat summary disposition an opposing party must present f acts in the prope; form; conclusions of law will not suffice.
Pittsburch Hotel's Association, Inc. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburch, 202 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Pa. 1962), aff'd. 309 F.2d 186 (3rd Cir., 1962), cert.
denied, 376 U.S. 916 (1963).
The opposing party's facts must be material 4/ and of a substantial nature, 5/ not fanciful, or merely suspicious. 6/
One cannot avoid summary disposition on the mere hope that at trial he will be able to discredit movant's evidence; he must, at the nearing, De able to pol - out to the court something indicating the s <istence of a triable issue of material fact.
6 Moore's Federal Practice 56.15(4).
[Empnasis added. ]
One cannot "go to trial on the vague supposition that something may turn up".
6 Moore's Federal Practice 56.15(3). See Radio City Music Hall v.
U.S.,
135 F.2d 715 (2nd Cir., 1943).
See also Orvis v.
Brickman, 95 F. Supp. 605 (D.D.C. 1951),
wherein the Court in granting the defendant's motion for 4/ Ecyes v.
Macyar Nem:eti Bank, 165 F.2d 539 (2nd Cir., 1948).
5/ Beidler and Bookmeyer v. Universal Ins.
Co..
134 F.2d.
838, 831 (2nd Cir., 1943).
-6/ Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S.
220, 236 (1946). Banco de Expana v.
Federal Reser"e Bank, 28 F. Supp. 958, 973 (S.D.N.Y.
1939) aff'd, 144 F.
2d 433 (2nd Cir., 1940).
kk 2}b
4-summary judgment under the Federal rules said:
All the plaintiff has in this case is the hope that on cross-examination.
the defendants will contradict their respective af fidavits.
This is purely speculative, and to permit trial on such basis would nullify the purpose of Rule 56, which provides summary judgment as a means of putting an end to useless and expensive litigation and permitti".g expeditious dis-posal of cases in whien there is no genuine issue as to any material facts."
It is imperative to the orderly administrative process that supporting evidence be presented at this stage of litigation or that the Licensing Board rule favorably on such motions.
To permit otherwise would be to countenance unwarranted delay and fishing expedition tactics.
As the Licensing Board said in its " Initial DecisAon" in Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin-Michican Power Comoany (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-301, December 18, 1972), a public hearing is not an opportunity for the commencement of a de novo review of an application for a license wnicn would permit the intervenors to ultimately determine wnetner or not, in fact, these are mctters they wisn to controvert and wnicn would automatically delay tne proceed 1ncs for a considerable lenctn of time."
(Empnasis added.)
B.
There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Beard Regarding Deferral Of Consideration Of The Proposed Action Pending Issuance Of Generic Impact Statements (Contention 1)
The essence cf Contention 1 is that the proposed action is inconsistant with two o_ the five specific factors that the Commission directed should be considered in determining whether such actions should be approved on a case-by-case basis P03g dhhu,ina a
4F 216
. or deferred until issuance of generic impact statements. 7/
(40 c'ed. Reg. 42801, 42802, September 16, 1975).
Specifically, NRDC contends that the proposed action should be deferred because it is not likely to have a " utility" independent of other similar actions (Factor 1), and will constitute a commitment of resources such that it will tend to "significantly" foreclose other alternatives (Factor 2).
Further, NRDC contends that the proposed action must be deferred because it will " bias" a final decision by DOE 8/ regarding con-struction of away from reactor (AFR) spent fuel storage facilities by " foreclosing at-reactor options at both Oconee and McGuire."
Applicant submits that the essense of this contention has been addressed and rejected by the Commission itself.
Further, Applicant contends that as a matter of law the proposed action does have a utility independent of other similar actions and will not significantly foreclose other alternatives, and should therefore not be deferred pending issuance of generic impact statements.
Finally, Applicant maintains that NRDC's agrument that the proposed action should be deferred because it will " bias" a final decision is immaterial to the instant proceeding.
Each of these matters will be discussed below.
In a May 20, 1975 letter to the Commission, 7/
See 40 Fec. Rec. 42802 wherein the five factors are enumerated.
-8/
" Natural Resources Defense Council Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories", Intel;ogatory 12, April 16, 1979. [ Hereinafter, NRDC's Resconse to Acolicant's Interroaatory 12].
Applicant notes tnat it is well
(#cotnote cont'd.)
AA4 217 NRDC requested a generic deferral of all actions involving
" handling spent fuel in a manner other than as permitted by the original license until the generic reviews have been completed...."
In response thereto, the Commission stated:
The Commission has also given careful consi-deration to the question whether licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity, including such actions as the issuance of operating license amendments to permit in-creases in the storage capacity of reactor spent fuel pools or reprocessing plant spent fuel storage pools, or the licensing of independent spent fuel storage facilities, should be deferred pending completion of the generic environmental impact statement.
Such a deferral was. requested in the letter on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Businessmen for the Public Interest noted above.
The Commissicn has concluded that there should be no such general deferral, and that these related licensing actions may continue during the period re-quired for preparation of the generic state-ment subject to certain ccaditions."
In rejecting NRDC's request for a generic deferral of licensing actions such as proposed by Applicant, the Commis-sion directed that five specific factors it considered in making its determination be applied, weighed and balanced with respect to each individual licensing action designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity. NRDC's contention 1 takes is.:ue with the first two of these five factors.
(footnote co t'd.)
recognized that answers to interrogatories can be relied upon in support of motions for summary dis-position.
10 CFR S2.749(b); Fed. Rgc. Civ.
P.
Rule 56(d); 4A J. Moore, Federal Practice paragraph 33.29 at 33-158 and 33-163 (2d ed. 1978).
444 218
. The first factor provides that:
"(1) It is likely that each individual licensing action of this type would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions of this type."
NRDC contends that the proposed action does not have a
" utility" independent from other licensing actions of this type. In response to interrogatories NRDC explains that:
"To have independent value, [the proposed]
transshipment would have to be capable of solving the spent fuel storage problem without depending upon use of another interim measure.
Solving the spent fuel storage problem means having storage space sufficient to receive all spent fuel to be generated by the reactor (in this case Oconee) between now and when the spent fuel can be disposed of in a permanent repository."
NRDC's Answer to Acolicant's Interrocatories #12-15. 9/
In sum, NRDC poses a situation that would in essence constitute a generic deferral of all interim actions designed to " ameliorate" the spent fuel storage problem.10/
This proposition is in direct conflict with the above referenced Commission mandate which specifically recognizes short-term ameliorating efforts and holds that there should be no such generic deferral. 11/
It is also in direct 9/
See also Interrcoatory 474 ("[We] only propose that the Oconee fuel oe stored at the reactor site until an acceptable system of radioactive waste disposal is demonstrated."); Interrocatory #119 ("[T]he alternative we are suggesting requires the storage of spent fuel on site until an acceptable means of radioactive waste disposal has been developed."
10/
NRDC States that no " proposed alternatives, or any other alternatives", have any " independent value" in solving the spent fuel storage problem.
Id, #29.
11/
444 219
_, conflict with with the numerous decisions that have granted licensing amendments, such as requested here, designed to provide specific "short-term" solutions to spent fuel storage problems. 12/
In contradiction to the above, NRDC asserts the acceptability of those alternatives which will provide for total spe.it fuel storage until issuance of generic impact statements._
13/ NRDC apparently contends that due to the uncertainty of this time frame, only actual expansion of on-site storage capcbil-ities at Oconee will satisfy the above requirement.
Therefore, NRDC reasons that all transportation related alternatives have no " independent utility" and must be deferred pending issuance of generic impact statements. 14/
Applicant submits that NRDC's interpretation of the " independent utility" factor is legally deficient, and, in any event, pursuant to the above stated NRDC generated requirement, the proposed action does have independent utility.
The generic impact statement that must be focused upon is the NRC generic tatement referenced in the Commission directive on " Spent Fuel Storage." (40 Fed. Rec.
42801).
The NRC generic impact statement on spent fuel storage was issued in draft form on March 1978.
A final statement is 12/
E.c.,
Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 ano 2), LBP-77-51, 5 NRC 265 (1977), aff'd., ALAS-455, 7 NRC 41 (1978); Portland General Electric Co.,
(Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-37, d NRC 413 (197a),
aft'd., ALA3-531, __ NRC ___ (March 21, 1979).
13/
NRDC's Resconse to Applicant's Interrocatory #34.
14/
Id.,
- 34 and 42-43.
444 223
. is expected in the immediate near term.
In that the proposed alternative alone will provide sufficient storage space for Oconee fuel until 1985,,15/ it is clearly reasonable to assume that the final NRC statement on spent fuel storage will be issued well before this time.
Thus, there is no reasonable basis for NRDC to state that the proposed action has no " independent utility" and must be deferred pending issuance of a general impact statement.
Applicant submits that the proper definition of an action with " independent utility" is one which has value apart from providing the final solution to the spent fuel storage problem.
In other words, such an action should not provide a final solu-tion thus significantly foreclosing all other options.
- Rather, the action should provide an interim solution to a specific and immediate problem regarding spent _uel rage capacity.
This definition is consistent with past licensing actions 16/ and with the Commission's guidance that " licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity" should not be deferred. 17/
Further, it is consistent with the Commission's concern that such actions not solve the spent fuel storage problem thus making the final generic impact statement merely a " justification for a fait accompli..." 18/
[5/
Applicant's Response to NRDC's Interrocatory #15, Maren 27, 1979.
16/
Trojan Nuclear Plant, supra, 8 NRC at 447.
11/
18/
Id.
444 221
10 -
Under the above definition, or any reasoned definition, the proposed action is "likely" tc have an independent utility (i.e.,
assisting in solving the immediate problem of a shortage of spent fuel storage capacity at Oconee).
Turning now to the second challenged factor (i.e.,
that the proposed action would constitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose alternatives),
NRDC asserts that the proposed action "will tend to fore-close... [the alternatives of]... maximum compaction and re-racking at both Oconee and McGuire and construction of new spent fuel storage capability at Oconee." 19/
NRDC explains that the expenditure of funds necessary to trans-ship Oconee spent fuel to McGuire tends to foreclose the option of storing Oconee spent fuel on-site. 20/
- Further, NRDC states that storing Oconee spent fuel at McGuire will make McGuire spent fuel pool modifications more difficult and " inhibit the maximum utilization of at-reactor storage for McGuire spent fuel at McGuire." 21/
Applicant submits that every action taken to " ameliorate" the spent fuel storage problem would require an expenditure of resources and/or impact on other alternatives.
Applying NRDC's rationale, every action would, thus, "significantly foreclose" other alternatives.
This would in essence require a generic deferral of all actions pending issuance of generic 19/
NRDC's Response to Apolicant's Interrocatory s12-15.
20/
NRDC's Response to Aeplicant's Interrocatory #12 - 15, 21/
Id.
444 222 impact statements, The Commission has expressly rejected this result (40 Fed. Reg. 42801) and has specifically condoned interim spent fuel storage measures.
Trojan Nuclear Plant, supra; Prairie Island, suora; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Nuclear Power Station), LBP 54, 6 NRC 436, aff'd, ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 (1978).
Applicant has repeatedly asserted that it seeks not to foreclose any alternatives, but to keep all options open. 22/
Indeed, with the current state of administrative and regu-latory policy, it is in Applicant's best interest to avoid foreclosing options.
Since the filing of the subject ap-lication, Applicant has and will continue to pursue other alternatives, for example, reracking of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool.
Such a course of action clearly indicates the flexibility Applicant maintains with regard to spent fuel storage and "nocifically demonstrates that the subject transportation alo:rnative has not foreclosed the alternative of re-racking.
NRDC also asserts that the proposed action will " fore-close at-reactor options at both Oconee and McGuire" thus biasing the final decision regarding the generic solution at
.he industry's spent fuel storage problem.
Therefore, NRDC reasons, the proposed action should be deferred pending issuance of a generic impact statement.
NRDC states, however, that with the exception of termination of plant operations, all actions related to spent fuel storage "would probably 22/ "Prehearing Conference", March 13, 1979 (Tr. 19, 24, and 36 - 37.
444 2~?3 m' -
e-ut, (A - -
bias the final decision." 23, Thus, b RDC again advocates a positi.n which is inconsistent with the Commission's directive tnat there should be no generic deferral of such actions.
Applicant submits that the Commission recognized the possibility of interim actions, such as proposed here, biasing the final decision regarding resolution of the spent fuel storage problem.
Applicant contends that to mitigate such effects, the Comission directed consideration of condition 2 for all such actions, vis, such actions should not significantly foreclose alternatives.
As discussed above, the proposed action does not significantly foreclose alternatives.
In any event, an examination of the Commission's directive regarding approval of interim measures to ameliorate the spent fuel storage problem (40 Fed. Reg. 42801) reveals that no criteria such as that raised b-1RDC concerning
" biasing a final decision" is stated.
1.
,a as only matters pertaininc to the criteria specified by the Commission may be discussed in an individual licensing proceeding, Appli-cant submits that the instant " bias" aspect of Contention 1 is not an issue that should be addressed in this proceeding.
From the forecoing, Applicant submits that NRDC is attempting to case law what it could not do by peti-tion to the Commission, vis, establish a precedent which would effectively result in the deferral of all actions designed to ameliorate the spent fuel storage problem until issuance of a generic impact statement.
This result was expressly 23/
NRDC's Response to Acclicant's Interrocatori d46. f f ff
. rejected by the Commission (40 Fed. Reg. 42802). Applicant contends that reasonable interpretation of Factors 1 and .f the Commission directive (40 Fed. Reg. 42802) will 4 result in a finding that the proposed actica can proceed without issuance of fine.1 generic impact statements. This position is expressly supported by the NRC staff 24/ and is consistant with similar Licensing Board decisions. 25/ C. There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard Regarding Preparation of a Final Environmental Impact State-ment Prior to Acting on the Amendment Request (Contention 2) .NRDC's Centention 2 asserts that the proposed action is one significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, it cannot proceed without preparation of a final environmental impact statement. NRDC bases its assertion on the quantity of spent fuel to be moved, the number of casks, trucks and shipments re-quired, the number of members of the public and workers which will be and could be exposed to radiation due to routine, acci-dental or intentional releases from handling and shipping spent fuel, the alleged dollar and environmental benefits of the proposed action over allowing the Oconee reactor to be shut down, the increased risks to the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the McGuire facility without any comparable increase in benefits to that public, the foreclosing of the environmen-tally preferable option of expanded storage of spent fuel at Oconee, and the long-term 24/ " Environmental Impact Appraisal Related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool", December 1978, (hereinafter EIA) at 61 - 63. 25/ Trojan Nuclear Plant, supra; Prairie Island, supra; Vermont Yankee, supra.
- d. ( L5 99 t
ccJ
. implications of another spent fuel storage half-measure which allows increasing nuclear wastes without a solution and without prog-ress toward a solution for the permanent and safe storage of such waste.. 26/ on the quality of the human environment are either unrelated to the requested amenda,ent or are not supported by the facts. As sach, Applicant submits that :nere is no genuine issue of material fact suitab' rcr ;asolution in this.orum and NRDC's contention shotid be dis issed. Thc3e issues are discussed in seriatim, below. NRDC firs' cc = c s tnat "the quantity of spent fuel to be moved, the number of tasks, trucks and shipments required,..." constitute a major federal action significantly effecting the quality of the human environment. Applicant submits that this and all other issues involving transportation of spent fuel from Oconee have been previously resolved in proceedings involving the Oconee License, 26a/ as well as the Table S-4 generic proceeding, and are therefore not subject to question in the instant pro-ceedings. Pursuant to the Oconee license and Commission regu-lations, Oconee spent fuel may be shippei at any time and in any quantity to a licensee who is authorized to receive such spent fuel. 27/ This can be accomplished without additional formal NRC approval. Indeed, numerous shipments of spent fuel have already been made. 28/ Accordingly, the sole question to be resolved in 26,/ NRDC Answer to Staff Interrocatory #2A&B, April 11, 1979. 26a/ See Oconee FES, March 1972, III(E), VI(B). 27/ See 10 CFR Part 71. 28/ See Acclicant's Resconse to CESG's Interrocatory #44, December 8, 1978. 4 4 /!. c'94
. the instant proceeding is whether McGuire should be author-ized to receive and store Oconee fuel, not the authorization or manner of such shipments. TPis situation is analogous to that faced by the Licensing Board in Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station) LBP-76-24, 3 NRC 725 (1976). In rejecting an intervenor contention concerning transportation the Board there stated The matters asserted in this conten-tion are outside the scope of the present proceeding which concerns only a separately operable fuel storage facility. This con-tention presents an issue already included in a generic environmental statement (WASH-1238) and codified in the regulations under Table S-4 to 10 CFR Part 51. 3 NRC at 735. Using similar rationale, the Board in Barnwell also rejected contentions dealing with transportation accidents (3 NRC 734); exposure to the public from normal transportation, delays along the transportation route and transportetion accidents (3 NRC 735, 737); and possible acts of sabotage during transpcrtation (3 NRC 733, 737). 29/ In sum Barnwell teaches that issues related to transpor-tation wnich have already been resolved are not subject to re-litigation in such proceedings. As a practical. matter, to hold otherwise would require a licensee currently author-ized to transport spent fuel to justify its original license 29/ It should be noted that there are cases in which ~~ transportation related issues were raised and litigated. However, these cases are all related to the initial issuance of a license to possess, use and transport special nuclear material, as in the initial Oconee construction permit / operating license proceeding. This is simply not the iss2e or the circumstances of tne instant amendment request. 4gg 797 = mu
. and the Commission's regulations regarding transportation each time spent fuel is transshipped. NRDC next contends that ...the number of members of the public and workers which will be and could be exposed to radiation due to routine, accidental or intentional releases from handling and shipping spent fuel, .. the increased risks to the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the McGuire facility without any comparable increase in benefits to that public constitute a major federal action sig-nificantly effecting the quality of the human environment. As previously discussed, to the extent that NRDC's assertion relates to transportation or fuel handling activities at Oconee, such issues have been previously litigated and resolved and are therefore outside the scope of this proceeding. To the extent that such assertion relates to the actual receipt and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire, these actions were the subject of review and resolution in past McGuire proceedings. 30/ NRDC also asserts that the alleged dollar and environmental benefits of the proposed action over allowing the Oconee reactor to be shut down, the foreclosing of the environmentally preferable option of expanded storage of spen' fuel at Oconee, and the long term implications of 30/ See McGuire Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement 2 ~~ (March 1979) pages 9-1, 9-2. 444 228
. another spent fuel storage half-measure which allows in-creasing nuclear wastes without a solution and without progress toward a solutions for the permanent and safe storage o'f such wastes constitute a major federal action significantly effecting the quality of the human environment. Such assertions are discussions of alterna-tives and as such are immaterial to a determination of whether the proposed action itself has a significant effect on the environment. The Appeal Board in Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, ALAB-531, NRC (March 21, 1979), when faced with a similar situation in an amendment request for expansion of spent fuel pool capacity, affirmed a lower Board's decision that alternatives to a proposed action need not be considered unless the proposed action itself would result in a significant (non-insignificant) impact on the quality of the human environment. (Slip opinion at 1 - 3). 31/ Further, the Board rejected an intervenor's contention that "such action should be " tie [d] to the absence of an acceptable, generic long term solution or the waste man-agement question." (Slip opinion at 4). In sum, NRDC's assertions in support of their contention that the proposed action constitutes a major action signifi-cantly effecting the quality cf the human environment --31/ See also Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d. 813, 825 (5th Cir. 1975); First National Bank v. Richardson, 5 ERC 1830 (7th Cir. 1975); Ducuesne Licht Co., (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-78-16, 7 NRC 811, 815-817 (1978). 444 229
. present no genuine issues as to a material fact suitable for resolution in this proceeding. 32/ The NRC staf f, however, has carefully evaluated the proposed action and has con-cluded that "the proposed licensing amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment... [and] that an environmental impact stctement need not be " 33/ Indeed, it is difficult to perceive prepared. how a contrary determination could be made. Unlike other licensing actions, every facet of the proposed action has been thoroughly evaluated in prior Oconee and McGuire licensing or Commission rulemaking proceedings. In all cases a determination was made that such action would not have a significant impact upen the environment. Applicant submits therefore that a final environmental impact state-ment is unnecessary in this case and that NRDC's Contention 2 should be dismissed. D. There is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Regarding The Alternatives Listed in Contention 3 NRDC's Contention 3 asserts that various alternatives to the proposed action have not been adequately considered. At the outset, Applicant maintains that the environmental effects of the proposed action have been thoroughly analyzed by the NRC Staf f in its EIA of December 1978. Therein the Staff concluded that "the environmental impacts associated 32/ During tne Prenearing Conference of March 13, 1979, the Board specifically directed NRDC to, during the course of discovery, provide Applicant and Staff with the specific basis for this Contention. Applicant submits therefore that NRDC should be bound solely by the substance of those responses. 33/ EIA at 65. /44 2 ?> 0
. with the proposed action would constitute a negligible impact to the public." 34/ Applicant maintains that unless NRDC can provide specific informatian refuting the Staf f's conclusion, NRDC is precluded from asserting that alterna-tives to the proposed action are inadequately evaluated. 35/ As the Appeal Board in Trojan Nuclear Plant, supra, stated, "there is no obligation to search out possible alternatives to a course which itself will not either harm the environment or bring into serious question the manner in which this country's resources are being expended". (Slip op. at 3). See also, Sierra Club v. Morton, supra, at 825. NRDC's contentions 3(a) and 3(b) question the adequacy of consideration of alternatives involving the reduction or termination of Oconee operations to reduce the amount of spent fuel generated. Applicant.nubmits that these conten-tions raise matters that are beyond the scope of this proceeding and which have previously been~ resolved by the Commission. Specificially, the Commission found that in the Oconee Final Environmental Statement (March, 1972) at p. 169, that: "The choice of nuclear fuel in preference to fossil fuel appears to be justified. The pro-jection of the applicant's power requirements is based on the record of the past decade; the timing of the construction of the Keowee-Toxaway Project and the Oconee Nuclear Power Station is reasonable." --34/ EIA at 57. See also EIA at 59 wherein the Staf f states that " transshipment will result in negligible environ-ment. impacts". ,444 231 --35/ As previously stated, Applicant till maintains that consideration of contentions' relating o transportation are beyond the scope of the proceeding. Barnwell, suora.
. NRDC should not be permitted to use this proceeding as a means for attacking those matters previously resolved. In this regard, see Prairie Island, ALAB-455, suora, n. 4 at 46-47 wherein the Appeal Boaid stated: Therefore, according to MPCA, the license amend-ment could not issue without a prior exploration of the environmental impact of continued operation and the consideration of the alternatives to that operation (e.c., energy conservation). We do not agree. The issuance of operating licenses for the two Prairie Island units was preceded by a full environmental review, including the consideration of alternatives. See LBP-74-17, 7 AEC 487 (1974), affirmed on all environmental cuestions, (ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857 (1974). Notning in NEPA or in those judicial decisions to which our attention has been directed dictates that the same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a pro:'osed amendment to those 4L-year operating licensta. Rather, it seems manifest to us that all that need be under-taken is a consideration of whether the amendment itself would bring about significant environmental consequences beyond those previously assessed and, if so, whether those consequences (to the extent unavoidable) would be sufficient on balance to require a denial of the amendment application. This is true irrespective of whether, by happen-stance, the particular amendment is necessary in order to enable continued reactor operation (although such a factor might be considered in balancing the environmental impact flowing from the amendment against the benefits to be derived from it). In this connection, it should be noted that the Prairie Island Units were licensed for operation an the basis that they would generate radioactive wastes in a certain amount over the full term of their licenses. The amendment in question does not alter the situation; i.e., the proposed increase in the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool would not occasion the generation of more wastes than had been previously projected. ~ Northern States Power Comcany (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), Vermont Yankee Nucear Corcoration (Vermont Yanee Nuclear Station), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46-47, f.n. 4 (1978). ppb Uvb%Q 444 232
. See, also, Pa:ific Gas & Electric Comcany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 ), ALAB-254, 3 AEC 1184, 1192 (1975), wherein the Appeal Board stated that NEPA "should not be employed as a crutch for chronic faultfinding." NRDC's Contentions 3(c) and 3(d) assert that inadequate consideration has been given to alternates of on-site storage of Oconee spent fuel. The underlying purpose of the proposed action is to provide an interim solution to an immediate problem, vis, the possible loss of a full core reserve capability in 1979 and termination of operations of Oconee in early 1981 due to insuffi-cient spent fuel storage space. The only other viable option that provides a solution to this problem is reracking of Oconee 1 and 2 spent fuel pool with "non-poison" racks-It is unlik< sly that all other storage options could be implemented until E.fter termination of operations. 36/ Applicant therefore'has filed appropriate applications for both alternatives to assure that sufficient storage space would be available for continued opera-tion of Oconee. While Applicant will continue to plan for other options for the future, Applicant maintains that a NEPA evalua-tion of these options is not at present warranted pursuant to the Rule of Reason as articulated in NRDC v. Morton 37/ wherein it is stated that: ...NEPA was not meant to require detailed 36/ Acclicant's Resconse to NRDC's I'terrocatory a10 and 13, Maren 27, 1979; NRC's Rc conse to NRDC's Recuest for Admissions #5, April 5, 1979; Aco11 cant's Response to NRDC Interrocatory 424, 26(II), May 7, 1979; and EIA pp. 49-56. 37/ 458 F.2d 827, 837-38 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
. discussion of the environmental ef fects of ' alternatives' put forward in comments when these effects cannot be readily ascertained and the alternatives are deemed only remote and speculative possibilities, in view of basic changes required in statutes and policies of other agencies--making them available, if at all, only after protracted debate and litiga-tion not meaningfully compatible with the time-frame of the needs to which the underlying proposal is addressed." 38/ Applicant therefore contends that its application for reracking of Oconee Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool, the only other viable option, moots the need to consider NRDC's Contentions 3(c) and 3(d). Applicant notes that, regardless of the action. :aken wito respect to its application for reracking of the Oconee Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool, transshipment of spent fuel would be require ~. for that and all other foreseeable options to the spent fuel storage problem. These options are: (1) use of " poison" racks (installation requires transshipment); (2) expansion of spent fuel pools (not viable due to physical structures around existing pools which would preclude or severely limit size, thus requiring adoption of another option involving transshipment); and )3) construction of an independent storale installation at Oconee (not economically viable without storage of other reactors' spent fuel at the 38/ See also Northern States Power Comcany (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) ATAS-455, 7 NRC 41, 48-49 (1978). 44 234
23 - installation, thus requiring transshipment). 39/ In short, transshipment of spent fuel is the cornerstone of all viable on-site storage options. In any event, Applicant submits that NRDC's responses to Applicant's interrogatories clearly show that NRDC 's conten-tion 3 lacks the requisite specificity required by Commission regulations. The requirement for NRDC to provide contentions with specificity is clearly established in Vermont Yarfee, Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC 435 U.S. 519 (1977). Therein the Supreme Court stated, "it is still incumbent upon intervenors who wisn to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenor's position and con-tentions." 435 U.S. at 553. Continuing the Court stated, "Indeed, admiriistrative proceedings should not be a game or a forum to engage in unjustified obs-tructionism by making cryptic and obscure refer-ence to matters that "ougnt to be considered and then, after failing to do more to bring the matter to the agency's attention, seeking to have that agency determination vacated on the ground that the agency f ailed to consider matters ' forcefully presented'." 435 U.S. at 554. Applying the Court's teachings here, Applicant contends that NRDC, in asserting that various alternatives to the proposed action are not adequately considered, is required to alert the Staf f and Applicant to the specific inadequacies which give rise to the contention. Applicant maintains that the Staff and 39/ See Acplicant's Response to NRDC's Interrocatory a10 and 13, Maren 27, 1979; NRC's Response to NRDC's Recuest for Admissions #5, April 17, 1979; Applicant's Response to NRDC's Interrocatories #24 and 26 (II), May 7, 1979. 444 235
. Applicant have met their burden of providing detailed information with respect to all consideration of alternatives. However, NRDC in responding tc interrogatories has failed to specify, or indeed, suggest, what aspects of the various alternatives it believes were inadequately considered. With respect to Contention 3(a), indicating that the alternatives of restriction in Oconee operations was not cde-quately considered, NRDC states that it is not attempting to re-litigate the " nuclear versus fossil cost issue." 40/ Further, NRDC has not considered in detail the environmental impacts associated with fossil generation as opposed to nuclear generation. 41/ Moreover, NRDC does not contend that this alternative is superior to the proposed action. 42/ In sum, NRDC has f ailed to present matter which demonstrates the reason-ableness of this alternative. Applicant maintains, therefore, that i?RDC's Contention 3(a) has failed to meet the requisite standard for specificity as stated in Vermont Yankee, suora, and therefore should be dismissed. With respect to Contention 3(b), indicating that the alleged cost of increased purchases of power resulting from termination of Oconee operations is speculative, NRDC in response to Applicant's interrogatory asking the basis of this contention states: "No. We consider it speculation until the party with the burden of proof demonstrates 40/ NRDC's Response to A plicant's Interrocatory 467, April 16, 1979. 41/ Id.,
- 64.
444 236 42/ Id., #68-69.
. how the figures were derived, what criteria were used for select ng tha prospective sup-plier, including lead time allowed for arrange-ments, the availability of non-conventional energy supply options, such as a more vigorous implementation of available energy conservation and ' solar energy including utility financing of these options, the extent to which purchase power costs are dictated by voluntary arrage-ments between utilities, arrangements subject to regulation and thus to regulatory change, arrangements subject to legislation and thus to legislative change." 43,/ However, Applicant submits that detailed information with regard to the various concerns expressed by NRDC have been provided. 44/ Thus, Applicant maintains that pur-suant to Vermont Yankee, supra, it is NRDC's responsibility to provide a factual basis for its contention. This NRDC has failed to do. 45/ Accordingly, this contention must fail. With respect to Contention 3(c) and 3(d), indicating that various on-site storage options have not been adequately considered, NRDC states that it has not analyzed the proposed alternatives with respect to the relevant criteria. 46/ In addition, NRDC has not analyzed the does impacts, 47/ the costs, 48/ the time for construction or the number of species that can 43/ Id. #68-69. 44/ Staff EIA; Duke Power Company, "McGuire Nuclear -~ Station Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire," March 9, 1978; Applicant's Response to NRDC Interrogaty #11, March 27, 1979. 45/ Id. #68-69. 46/ NRDC Resconse to Acclicant's Interrocatory #92. 47/ Id. #113. 48/ Id. #111. 444 2;7 be achieved by the various alternatives. 49/ Further, NRDC has failed to specify which aspects of the proposed alternatives were not adequately considered. In short, with respect to contentions 3(c) and -(d ), NRDC has failed to provide a supporting bases and the requisite degree of specificity required by Vermont Yankee, supra. From the foregoing, Applicant submits that as a matter of law, NRDC's Contention 3 raises no issues of material fact suitable for resolution in this proceeding and, pursuant to S2.749, should be dismissed. E. There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard Regarding ALARA Associated With The Proposed Action (Contention 4) NRDC's Contention 4 asserts that the proposed action increases the exposure to workers and the public beyond that which is ALARA. Further, NRDC asserts that ALARA can be achieved by expansion of on-site storage capabilities [ Contention 4(a)] and, the residual risks associated with the proposed action militate against its acceptance [Conten-tion 4(b)]. NRDC does not maintain that present regulations are inadequate. 50/ NRDC makes these assertions despite the fact that it has not made an analysis of, inter alia, the radiation exposure to workers of any of the alternati es to the proposed action, the specific steps in the proposed 49/ Id. #111. 50/ NRDC's Response to Applicant's Interrocatorv 2134, April 16, 1979, Prehearinc Conrerence, supra, at 78. 444 238
. action or in any of the alternatives which result in the ALARA criteria being exceeded, which alternatives would not exceed the ALARA concept, or the residual risks associated with any of the alternatives. 51/ At the outset Applicant submits that the environmental effects of the proposed action have been thoroughly analyzed by the NRC Staff in its EIA of December 1978. Therein :n e staff concluded that "the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would constitute a negligible impact to the public." 52/ Applicant maintains that unless NRDC can provide specific re.ference to how the proposed action will result in a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment it is precluded from asserting that alternat:ves thereto are superior. As stated previously, the Appeal Board in Trojan Nuclear Plant, supra, ruled that "there is no obligation to search out possible alternatives to a course which itself will not either harm the environ-ment or bring into serious question the manner in which this country's resources are being expended." (slip opinion 51/ See NRLC's Response to Apolicant's Interrocatoties 120 - 150, April 16, 1979. NRDC nas responded to 17 of tne 31 interrogatoreis relating to the contention with statements such as "(w]e have made no such analysis". ~~52/ EIA at 57. See also EIA at 59 wherein the steff stated that " transshipment will result in negl gible environmental impacts." 444 239
. at 3). 53/. Applicant submits that the ALARA criteria applies only to radiation workers and thus Contention 4 must be so limited. 54/ NRDC response to Applicant's Interrogatory 138, April 16, 1979, supports this proposition. With respect to NaDC's Contention 4(a) (i.e., ALARA can be achieved by on-site expansion of spent fuel storage capabilities), Applicant submits that there is no signifi-cant difference between the radiation exposure to workers resulting from tae proposed alternative or any viable on-site spent fuel pool expansitn alternative. Applicant's Response to NRDC Interrogatory #21, May 7, 1979. See also EIA at 21 - 32. NRDC in its respsuses to discovery requests provides nothing that refutes this proposition. Indeed, NRDC states that it has made no analysis as to which on-site storage options are ALARA. 55/ Applicant submits therefore that NPDC's Contention 4(a) is a bald assertion unsupported, and indeed unsupport-able, by the facts and as such should be dismissed pursuant to S2.749. 33/ As previously stated, Applican. still maintains that consideration of contentions relating to transpor-tation are beyond the scope of the proceeding.
- Barnwell, supra.
54/ See 10 CFR 571. 55/ NRDC's Responses to Acplicant's Interrnontory #139, April 16, 1979. 444 240
. With respect to NRDC's Contention 4 (o) ( i,. e., the residual risks to workers of the proposed action militates against its acceptance), Applicant submits, as stated above, that the radiation exposure to workers and, therefore, the resulting residual risks from the various alternatives are not significantly different. NRDC in its responses to discovery request does not refute t'ais position. Indeed NRDC has not even analyzed the rec!. dual risks associated with the proposed action or any alternative th e re to. 56/ Appli-cant contends therefore that NRDC's Contention 4(b) is a bald assertion unsupported, and likewise unsupportable, by the facts and as such should be dismissed pursuant to S2.749. F. There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Regarding The Maintenance Of A Full Core Discharge Reserve Capability (Contention 5) NRDC's Contention 5 questions Applicant's maintenance of a full core discharge reserve (FCR) capability. NRDC maintains that Applicant is using loss of a FCR capability as justification for irammediate action (Contention 5), and that in the absence of an NRC requirement to maintain such capability, Applicant should "have to demonstrate that holding the capability is more valuable than tne costs of 56/ NRDC's Resconses to Acolicant's Interrocatories 143, 144, 147, and 150, 'pr.1 16, 1979. 444 24I
. shipment off-site of one core of spent fuel." (Contention 5(a)]. NRDC does not object to the existence of such capa-bility. 5]/ Rather, NRDC's concern expressed by Contention 5 is that' Applicant is using the need for a FCR capability to justify rejection of on-site storage options for Oconee fuel. 58/ With respect to Contention 5, NRDC's assertion that applicant is overstating the need for action by implying that a FCR capability is a requirement, presents no issues of material f act or law suitable for resolution in this pro-ceeding. It is not questioned that NRC has no requirement with recpect to a FCR capability. The maintenance of a FCR capability is a prudent management objective designed to mitigate the adverse effects of a plant shutdown where unloading of the core is required. Without such FCR capa-bility the consequences of such a shutdown could be severe.59/ Indeed the Commission Statement regarding its decision not to defer individual licensing actions designed to ameliorate the shortfall of spent fuel storage space was based, 'n part, on its acknowledgement ar.d consideration of the flexibility that FCR capability gives to utility management. (40 Fed. Reg. 42801) 57/ "Prehearing Conference" March 13, 1979 (Tr. 91) 58/ Id. 59/ See Acclicant's Resconse to NRDC Interrocatorv #11, Maren 27, 1979 and #25, May 7, 1979. kk
. Applicant contends that the need for the proposed action is not based on the existance of a FCR capabiltiy. Whether the need arises in 1979 in order to preserve a FCR capability or in early 1981 to avoid termination of operations is immaterial. Applicant is not required to wait until termination of operations is imminent due to shortage of spent fuel storage space before taking actions to ameliorate such a shortage. Troian Nuclear Plant, supra, ALAB-531 (Slip opinion at 6). See also 40 Fed. Reg. 42801, 42802. Lastly, Applicant maintains that NRDC's discovery response clearly demonstrates that this contention fails to raise a material issue of fact and fails to provide the necessary factual basis. See NRDC's Response to Applicant's Interrogatories 152-167 wherein it states: "NRDC does not contend that the 1-core discharge capacity standard is a necessary standard for either environmental or health and safety reasons. NRDC has done no analysis in this respect." In sum, Applicant submits that there is no basis to NRDC's Contention 5 and further it presents no issue of material fact subject to resolution in this proceeding. F. There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard Regarding Sabotace of Spent Fuel Shioments (Contention 6) NRDC 's tuntention 6 asserts that shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire will be " vulnerable to sabotage or other malevolent acts 60/ and this represents a serious risk." NRDC argues that the "NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act" require that a proposed action not be permitted 60/ NRDC defines other malevelant acts as " hijacking and blackmail threats." NRDC',s Response to NRC's Interrocatory #6C, April ll, 1979. 444 243
.. unless there is adequate protection for the public health and safety, and the record does not show that such protection exists with respect to possible acts of sabotage. 61/ NRDC states that all shipments of spent fuel that comply with NRC regulations present a serious risk to the public.62,/ However, NRDC has made no analysis of what acts of sabotage may present a serious risk, the consequences of such acts or how such acts could be carried out. 63/ Further, NRDC is not familiar with the ratictale underlying the Commissien's specific exemption of spent fuel f rom the security requirements of 10 CFR 573.6, f4/ and indeed is only "a little" familiar with 10 CFR Part 73 itself. 65/ Applicant submits that the issue raised by this Contention is not suitable for resolution in this procee-ding. Further, NRDC's Contention is, in essence, an impermissible attack on current NRC regulations dealing with transportation of spent fuel and is contrary to Commission policy. In any event, Applicant maintains that the risk, if any, presented by such shipments is negligible. 66/ As previously stated, the issues involving transshipment of Oconee spent fuel have been addressed and resolved in previous proceedings and are therefore not subject to resolution here. As the Licensing Board in rejecting all transportation related 61/ NRDC's Response to Apolicant's Interrocatorv #169, April 16, 1979. 62/ Id., 9175. 63/ Id.,
- 174.
64/ Id.,
- 172.
44 e' ?ad j5/ Id., 171. 66/ See EIA at 17 - 19.
.. related contentions, including sabotage, stated in a similar case "[T]hese contentions are outside the scope of the present proceeding. Barnwell, supra, 3 NRC 737. Indeed, to hold otherwise would require a licensee currently authorized to ship spent fuel, to relitigate all aspects of such shipments each time a shipment was necassary. This would render all prior licensing actions regarding transshipment meaningless. Further, Applicant submits that NRDC's assertion that transshipment of spent fuel constitutes a significant risk with respect to sabotage is, in essense, an impermissible attack on 10 CFR 573.6 which specifically exempts such shipments from the security requirements contained therein. In 10 CFR S73.6 the Commission has addressed the issue of security requirements for spent fuel shipments.
- NRDC, however, asserts that the Commission's regulation is inade-quate and all shipments of spent fuel present a serious risk.
If NRDC 's assertion was valid, the Commission would have halted all shipments of spent fuel. Indeed, the Commission itself has generically evaluted such shipments, and in NUREG 0170 67/ concluded that the risks associated with sabota'je and the consequences thereof were sufficiently small as to constitute no r..ajor adverse impact upon the e r.v iro nme nt. Since publication of that document, numerous 67/ NRC, Final Environmeital Statement on the Transpor-tation of Radioactive Material cv Air and Otner Modes. NUREG-0170 (December 1977) 444 245
34 - spent fuel shipments have occurred; several by Applicant itself. In short, pursuant to Commission regulations and Commission polic';, spent fuel shipments such as proposed bv Applicant are currently being made. For NRDC to assert that these shipments constitute a serious risk is in effect a direct and impermissible attack on those regulations and policies which authorize such shipments. Finally, Applicant submits that NRDC's bald assertion that spent fuel shipments constitute a serious risk is unsupported by the f acts. The Staf f states that spent fuel in transit is "neither an attractive nor a practical target for sabotage". EIA at 17. Further, it is " essentially impossible" to rupture a cask on a large scale. EIA at 18. In any event, the consequences of a breach of the cask when coupled with the very low prnbab'ility of occurrence consti-tutes a risk that is "suf f:..iently small as to constitute no major adverse impact on the environment." EIA at 19. See also Applicant's FES. NRDC has failed to provide any information which would counter these statements. In sum, Applicant submits that NRDC's Contention 6 presents no issue of material fact suitable for resolution in this proceeding and should therefore be dismissed. 444 246
35 - IV. CONCLUSIONS From the foragoing, Applicant submits that NRDC's Contentions present no issue of law or material fact suit-able for resolution in this proceeding, and, therefore requests that the Board grant Applicant's motion for summary disposition. Respectfully submitted, !J 'Y - Vt.15 t/ J. Michael McGarry, III Of counsel: William L. Porter, Esq. Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company May 21, 1979 444 247
e.. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) DUKE POWER COMPANY ) ) Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials ) License SNM-1773 for Oconee ) Nuclear Station Spent Fuel ) Transportation and Storage ) At McGuire Nuclear Station) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Intervenor, Natural Resources Defense Council", " Applicant's Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard Respecting Intervenor, Natural Resources Defense Council", and " Applicant's Memorandum In Support of Its Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Intervenor, Natural Resources Defense Council", dated May 21, 1979 in the above captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 21st day of May, 1979. Marshall I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Jesse L. Rilcy Chairman, Atomic Safety and President Licensing Board Carolina Environmental Study U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission 0 54 Henley Place Washington, D. C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Emme th A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward G. Ketchen, Esq. Board Counsel for NRC Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Staff Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D. C. 20555 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Commission Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Bodega Marine Laboratory of California William L. Porter, Esq. Pcst Of fice Box 24 7 Associate General Counsel 3cdega Bay, California 44923 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 kk4 74Q Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
-..., Shelley Blum, Esq. Richard P. Wilson 418 Law Building Assistant Attorney General 730 East Trade Street State of South Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina 2600 Bull Street 28202 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Natural Resources DeLense Chairman, Atomic Safety and Council Licensing. Board Panel 917 15th Street, N.W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20005 Commission Washing ton, D. C. 20555 Brenda "est Carolina Action Chairman, Atomic Safety and 174 0 E. Independence Blvd. Licensing Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28205 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey Owen Little Davidson PIRG Mr. Chase R. Stephens P. O. Box 2501 Docketing cm.d Service Section Davidson College Office of the Secretary Davidson, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28036 Commission Washington, D. C. 20535 iy hw /J. Michael McGay y, IIF " 444 249 _-}}