ML19225A636

NRC Opposition to NRDC Motion for Suspension of Hearing Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19225A636
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	06/15/1979
From:	Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907190723
Download: ML19225A636 (17)

Text

UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEF0PE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING i?0APD In the Matter of

)

}

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

1

,T,

q., w

)

(A.mendaent to Materials License

)

Docket No. 70-2623 SNM-1773 for Oconee Nalear Station

)

Spent Fuel Transporrotion and Storage

)

ct McGuire Nuclear Station)

)

\\f g

/l'l NUCLEAR REGULATORY STAFF RESPONSE IN h

OPPOSITION TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

'I,3 COUtCIL MOTION FOR SUSPENSI;N p

JUN 131973 3 O 0F HEARING SCHEDULE cm a ~ wu p.

77 kv./ j ;7(([p I.

N-

Background

On March 9, 1978, Duke Power Comnany applied for an amendment pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 70 te amend Materials License No. SNM-1773 to authorize Duke Power Company to transship 300 spent fuel assemblies generated by the Oconee Nuclear reactors for storage in space available in the McGuire Unit 1 spent fuel pool.1/

Duke Power Company's application for this authority indicated that the Oconee reactors would lose full core reserve (FCR)E by March, 1979 without the requested authority.

Since that '.ime, however, Duke Power Company applied for 1/ Materials License No. SNM-1773 was issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70.

It authorizes Duke Power Co. to possess new or unirradiated uranium fuel to be used in the operation of the McGuire Units I and 2 reactors.

Duke Pewer Company's application for operating licenses for McGuire, Units 1 and 2 is pending before the.tcloar Reguiatory Commission.

2/ As the Court in Minnesota v, Nuciear Reculatory Commission, F.2d

.Sl_ip Op. (D.C. Cir., May 237H9T points out, the Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032, Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island facilities maintain sufficient capacity in the pool to permit the temporary removal of ali fuel assemblies from the reactor core to f acilitate core enintenance -- i.e., a full-core reserve.

'C M

The Court stated:

"Use of this offload capacity for storage of speift I j -

fuel assemblies, while undesirable from an engineering perspective, would extend the period of available storage capacity another two or three yea rs. " Minnesota v. NRC, supra, p. 5.

Duke designed its Oconee facility to naintain an FCR for the 3 units located there.

The NRC Staff encourages the FCR design practice, as a notter of policy, although there is no safety requirement for utilities to maintain on FCR.

Staf f Motion for Sunmary

~

Disposition, pp. 32-39.

'l 9 0 419 0 ~

, and 'eceived pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 an anendment to its Cconee Operating Licenses to expand the storage capacity by reracking with stainless steel racks of the Occnee Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pool.

This action, authorized cn June 1979, will temporarily alleviate Duke's storage problem until approximately 1982.

At that time storage capacity at the two Oconee facility spent fuel pools will become full and full core reserve will again be in jeopardy.1/

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was admitted as an Intervenor as a matter of scretion pursuant to Orders of both the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

Following a Prehearing Conference on March 13, 1979, the Licensing Board admitted the fcllowing issues raised by NRDC: (1) whether the Staff has adequately met the criteria, specifically factors 1 and 2 of " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" 40 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975); (2) the significance under NEPA of the proposed transshipment and storage action; (3) alternatives to the action; (4) whether the action is ALARA, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20.l(c); (5) loss of full-core reserve (FCR) as a reasonable alternative, and (6) whether there is significant risk fron sabotage due to the proposed action.

l/

lhere are three reactors at tne Oconee site and two spent fuel pools.

.ne capacity of the spent fuel pool located at the Oconee Unit 3 reactor was expanaed in 1975.

lI.

' O r, f1

. The factual issues us admitted in this case, are limited to the proposal to ship no more than 300 spent fuel assemblies of no less than 270 days of age to the McGuire Unit 1 spent fuel pool for storage, and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that action.

The Staff's position is that t!

onvironmental impacts of the action are negligible and, therefore, insignificant.

Staff Motion for Summary Disposition of May ll,1979; Environmental Impact Appraisal (December 1979); Staff testimony filed June 4,1979.1/ NRDC, however, attempts to demonstrate by its testimony that Duke's appi1 cation is but one step in a larger plan to resolve DPC's entire spent fuel storage problem.2/

NKDC would include within the adnitted issues, consideration of broad policy issues involved in the future licensing of Duke Power Company commercial nuclear power reactors, how those reactors will operate, resolution of generic interim spent fuel storage proposals put forth in other forums, the availability of permanent waste disposal facilities, whether or not a Federal Government away-from-reactor storage facility for interim storage will be available in the future, and the analysis of Duke Power Compeny's " cascade plan" and alternatives to that plan.

Natural Resource Defense Council's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Su mary Disposition, May 21, 1979.

(See generally, Affidavit of Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D, May 25, 1979.

Natural Resources Defense Council Statement of Fact As To Which There Is No Dispute, May 21, 1979, p. 2.

1/ Testimony nf all parties was required to be filed by June 4, 1979 by the Board's Order Concernino Interrogatories, Termination of Discovery, and Schedule (April 12,1979).

referred to as the " cascade pI That plan descri' eS o

2]

f fure f cilitits at e

t reactors t(

I rated at those reacto extra fuel from ot

,cgzitzes.

!c.

't ~>

_, v

_4 The United States Ccurt of lippeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in Minnesota v. NEC (N0-78-12f;9),

F.2d on May 23, 1979.

The Court noted pencing Commission proceedings

"...in which the issues of the storage and disposal of comnercial nuclear waste are of central corcern", and remanded (without vacating or staying license amendments) to the Commission the question:

"...whether there is ree.sonable assurance that an off-site stcrage solution will be available by the expiration of the plant's operating 1icenses, and if not, whether there is reasonable assurance that the fuel can be stored safely at the sites beyond those dates."

(Slip Op. p. 14).

On June 1, 1979, NRDC, relying on the cited language and on its own attempt to broaden the issues in this proceeding to reach broader policy matters, moved this Board to suspend the current hearing schedule until the Commission generically acts on the renanded issue.

The Staff opposes NRDC's motion.

II.

Issue The issue NRDC's petition raises is whether the proposed action and scheduled hearings may proceed before a determination is made either generically by the Co:rmission or on an ad hoc basis in this case, that there is reasonable assurance that a safe offsite or onsite storcge facility will be available at the end of the operating life of the Oconee reactors for storage of the lifetime output of Oconee spent fuel,1/

1/

t.RDC's r otion necessarily assumes that the Commission has not nade such a determination and that this Board wculd be unable to make such a deternination in this proceeding if it were required to do so.

Since the Staff believes that NRDC's action rust fail even if this underlying assumption v.ere correct, the Staff has assumed for purposes of the remainder of this arqurent that such a deternination has not yet been nade.

The Staff does not intend this assumption to indicate in any way t}.at it necessarily agrees or disagrees with the substance of the assumption.

JrOj

]j

. III.

Discussion Assuming for the sake of argument only that NRDC could demonstrate that a required finding has not becn made by the NRC with respect to the reasonable assurance of safe storage of the lifetime output of spent fuel from the Oconee reactors, neither Minnesota v. NRC, supra, nor Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975) requires the Board to exercise its authority pursuant to 10 CFR 62.718 to suspend these proceedings.

A.

Minnesota v. NRC does not Require Suspension Significantly, the Court in Minnesota on remand to the Commission for further consideration of the safe storage issue did not set aside or stay the challenged license arrendments. Minneso_ta v. NRC, sup_ra, p. 3, states:

"We neither vacate nor stay the license amendments, which would effectively shut down the plants."

Since the court did not see fit to stay the proceedings in those cases before it, there seens to be no justification for staying the proceedings here.

In any event, no matter how the Commission r:ay ultimately apply the guidelines espousea in Minnesota, under the standards of Douglas Point, the Board should proceed with tha now scheduled hearings.

lt

.) l

' /

n B.

Doualas Point Criteria for %spension are not Present In Douglas Point the Appeal Board noted the Licensing Board's general authority to regulate the course of a hearing (10 CFR 52.713(d)) and found that boards are empowered to consider a particular issue or issues separately from, and prior

-E.

to, other issues relating to the ef fect of the licensing action upon the public health and safety and the environment.

To assist Boards in determining v.hether hearings should be held on specific issues prior to resolution of other matters, the Appoal Board stated that a Board should consider: (1) the degree of likeli-that any early findings on the issue (s) would retain their validity; (2) os the advantage, if any, to the public interest and to the litigants in having an early, if not necessarily conclusive, resolution of the issue (s); and (3) the extent to which the hearing of the issue (s) at an early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) were later reopened because of supervening developments, occasion prejudice to one or mcre of the litigants.

The determination is a scheduling question within the discretion of the Licensing Board, (Public service Co. af New Hampshire (Scabrook Units 1 & 2), ALAB-293, 2 NRC 660 (1975).) A principle justification for proceeding is to further legitirate interests in a prompt determination of the issues particularly v.here one result of the determination might be to find the action which is sought unacceptable.

(Houston L_ighting ( Power _Co. (Allens Creek Units 1 & 2), ALAB-301, 2 NRC 854 (1975).)

In circumstances similar to those which NRDC attempts to raise here, the Appeal Poard considered whether to stay proceedings in Barnwell because the Commission had before it a generic question in the GESMO proceeding which might ultimately prevent Barnwell from being licensed at all.

(Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671 (1975).)

The Appeal Board noted the decision in )iest ]iichigan Environnenta_1 Action __Counc_il_ v.

Atcgic Energy Comission (Docket No. G-58-73, W.D. Mich., June 19, 1974, as clairified October 3, 1974 (Unpublished).) which approved a course of act'on

-7

.)

]~

allowing a Licensing Paard to consider issues while the Connission was considering GES"O.

The Michigan Court held that it was permissible for the Licensing Coard to hear certain issues so long as GES"O was properly taken into account.

The Appeal Coard observed that the Court's opinions supported the view that there may be distinct advantages ained by hearir.g certain issues at an early date thus reaffirming and underscorino the Dougla: Point rationale.

In Barnwell, the Appeal Board, additionally, evaluated a suspension motion similar to NRDC's under the stay criteria codified in 10 CFR 62.788 of the Cormission's Rules of Practice.

Since the Appeal Coard was reviewing a decision of the Licensing Board to proceed as opposed to being the Board reviewing the question in the irst instance, it is not clear that the four criteria stated in 52.788 would f

be appropriately applied by this Board to NRDC's motion.

Under the Douglas Pc[qt criteria alone, however, NRDC's motion clearly should fail.

As applied to this case, Douglas Point criteria warrant proceeding with the issues raised by NRDC's six contentions and the factual circumstances of this case, where Duke Power Coppany_ could need the requested authority to transport and store Oconee spent fuel at McGuire as early as May,1982.

1.

Matters Determined in Present Hearings are Likely to Retain Their Validity The issues NRDC has raised and set for hearing involve the following subject matters:

] ~,

1.

Whether the Staf f has nroperly applied factors 1 and 2 of the Commis-sion's " Intent to Prepare Generic Envircnnental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Po',,er Reactor Fuel", 40 Fed. P g. 42,801, f

2.

Whether the proposed action has significant environmental impacts; whetner an envirorcental inpact statement rather than an environmental impact appraisal is required; 3.

Whether alternatives to the proposed action have been adequately considered; including the alternative of operating the Oconee reactors as last-on, rirst-off base load plants, purchasing power instemd of operating the Oconee units; expanding spent fuel pool capacity at Oconee by expanding present spent fuel pool capacity or construction of separa te spent fuel pools on site.

4.

Whether the proposed action meets Cei. mission ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable") requirements; 5.

Whether the alternative of using full core reserve has been adequately considered; 6.

Whether the action will be vulnerable to sabotage representing serious rist Examination of these contested issues in the context of the preposed action and under current circumstances demonstrates that matters determined are likely to retain their validity pending the outcorre cf a decision by the Commission on how to proceed under M_innesota. 1/

1/ 10 sore extent the continuinq validity of a decision on Contentio s 2 anc 5 will depend upon the Licensing Board's decision on outstandinq L 1,u.m for sun:ary disposition.

For the purpose of th's arqu~ent, the Staff assumes that its position on sur "ary disposition will be accepted and the NRDC position will be rejected.

s

_9_

With respect to Contention 1, if the o rd detemines under the Comnission's standards that the proposed action has independent utility (Factor 1) and does not tend to significantly foreclo e other actions of a similar type (Factor 2) the Board haa ret the Cornission's require"ents set forth in the " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental I pact Statenent on Intcrim Handling and 'torage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. " 40 Fed. Pe3 42,801 (1975).

Similarly, if the board finds that the proposed transshipment action has no independent value and vill tend to significantly forclose other similar alternatives and af ter weighing these considerations deternines that the action shculd not be authorized, this deternination too should remain valid.

An indication of the degree af continued validit', ot auch a decision is highlighted in the NRDC summary disposition mcLion where NRDC points to the concern of a Duke Power emnloyee that an adverse decision on transshipment and storage would effectively bar authorization of further transshipment applications being considered by Duke Power.1/

There is no reason why a determination that the proposed action constitutes a ma'or federal action would not remain valid (Contention 2).2/ Such a finding

_lf NRDC Su: vary bisposition Motion, p.14 Staff has issued an envirena ntal impact appraisal roted on its

~2/ The NEL finding that the proposed action wili ), ave negligible environn ental ir pacts and, therefore, is an insignificant action under NEPA stardards.

'T would require the Staff to puSlish an environmental impact statement pursuant to 10 CFR Part Sl(a).

Such a decision necessarily should be made earlier rather than later if further action is to be in accordance with NEPA's mandate to consider environmental matters at the earliest possible time.

With respect to Contention 3, although the Staff's position continues to be that alternatives to an action need not be considered when the action itself is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, we cannot see any reason why (1) a decision by the Board as to whether alternrtives need be considered and (2) a decision, if they need be, as to whether the Staff properly considered all reasonable alternatives would not remain valid.

If the decision is adverse to the Staff, the Staff must start again.

If not, the Board is in a position to authorize the requested amendment whenever all legal requirements have been complied with even if some further action is subsequently necessary as a result of future Commission action.

In any case, however, the Board's decision on the NEPA considerations will not be affected by the Minnesota _ case which involves the issue of the availability of safe storage of spent fuel from nuclear reactors beyond license expiration.

That decision will be made by the Commission under procedures it dictates whether the Staff prevails in its proof on the NEPA issues in this case or whether the NRDC does.

Resolution of whether 300, 270-day old spent fuel assenblies meets the Commissions ALARA criteria (Contention 4) appears to be a discrete issue having little to do with the ultimate decision on the issue of reasonable assurance of onsite ev

'?

,j

'7

'/

or offsite safe stcrage addressed in Minnesnta.

Similarly, a Board determination with respect to Contention 5, whether Duke Power Company will be required to use its full core reserve as an alternative to transshipment should end the matter at the time the Board issues its decision.

Such a decision on the discrete issues raised by Contentions 4 and 5, however those issues are decided, vould seemingly remain valid no n.atter how the Commis. ion fo.ows Minnesota to reach a decision on the question of pernanent safe storage of fuel from Oconee.

Finally, there appears to be no conceivable way that Contention 6 on sabotage could be materially affected regardless of the Commission's treatnent of the Minnesota mandate.

2.

Significant Advantages Accrue to the Public Interest and to the Liticants in Having an early Resolution of the Issues Since there is little chance that Board findings in the affirmative or in the negative will not be conclusive as to the issues presently in contention whether or not their resolution would permit issuance of 3 license or require additional revi.

f the Staff if the NRDC (or the other Intervenors for that matter) prevails, there arc

.gnificant advantages to the public interest and to the litigants in proceeding.

The instant application is the first contested 1I to come to hearing since the Comission transshipment and storage application issued its intent to prepare a GEIS on interim handling and storage of spent fuel pending the resolution by the Departnent of Energy of the ultimate waste disposal issue.

1/ Only one other such application has been approved by the Cn" mission, Robinson to Barnwell, but that action was uncontested following appropriate notice of opportunity to intervene.

4

~,

i Advantages, we presune, would

crue to Duke Power Company in its future planning on handling of spent fuel whether the decision is favorable or unfavorable to the proposed action.

An early decision on the issues would provide further definition of the criteria to meet for obtaining such authorization in the future.

Similarly, the Board's decision on some of the issues involved will affect future Staff review and action on such requests.

I;ot the least of the advantages of going forward, although under Conmission prededent not a major consideration, is the convenience of the parties.

This case is ready for hearing.

Essentially, nothing remains to be done.N Unlike the situat' in in I'ew England Power Company, et al.(NEP Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 290 all Staff documents have been completed.

Testimony on all issues was required to be filed on June 4, 1979. The Applicant, the Staff, and the NRDC, at least, have filed testimony in accordance with the specified schedule.

3.

Hearings on the Contes *ed Issues will not Prejudice the Litigants if Later Reopened Because of Supervening Cevelopments NRDC argues that certain supervening developments in the future weigh in favor of suspensions.

The fact that the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (GEIS) will be issued in the near future does not weigh in favor of suspending the instant proceeding (Suspension Motion, p. 5).2/

In 1975, when the Conmission issued its 1/ However, the Staff has not yet respoaded to NRDC's discovery request filed on the last day of the discovery period, flay 31, 1979.

In addition, the Staff intends to ask the Board to rule on NRDC's objections to certain questions of NRDC witnesses asked during discovery depositions.

And the tire is still running on a late summary disposition motion filed by CESG on June 5, 1979.

2/ Staff Counsel has been informed that the schedule for issuance of the GEIS is set for sometir.e in i. Just,)979.

The goal is August 15, 1979.

Y f

1. /

s s jy intent to prepare a GEIS cn spent fuel handling, it expressly authoric.ed licensing of actions to ar:eliorate possible shortages of spent fuel storage capacity.

It specifically enumerated actior, as spent fuel pool expansions and the licensing of independent spent fuel stm n; facilities that would carry utilities well beyond the time the Commission, in 1975, could have conceivably contenplated would be required to issue its final GEIS.

The Commission expressed no time limit for when the licensing of such actions would be curtailed.

Thus, there is no equitable reason for the Board to wait for issuar.cc of the fir.aI Commission GEIS which may or r?ay not be issued as scheduled.

Further, it is conceivable that the request by NRDC Counsel to the Comnission by letter of June 1,1979 (attachment to NRDC Suspension Motion of June 1,1979) could push issuance of the final GEIS to a date well beyorid August, 1979.

This is an additional reason why the Board should proceed pursuant to the interim procedures for licensing actions to ameliorate the possible shortage spent fuel storage capacity.E See 40 Fed. Reo. 42301 (1975).

In any event the 1/ The spent fuel expansion of the Oconee Unit 1 and 2 spent fuel pool by reracking authorized by the Comnission on June

, 1979 does not warrant a suspension of these proceedings as NRDC requests (See Suspension f!otion, p.

).

That action will all.viate DPC's spent fuel capacity probl.a until approxim tely May 1932.

At that time, a crises for Duke, at least, ray again occur.

lhere is no equitable, health and safety, or environrental reason to wait until the last K nute, sometime before 1932, to once again gear up the licensing r:achinery.

If the time consured in thic oceeding can be o

used as a yardstick, an application for authority '

se action to alleviate Du':.e's storage probleo at Oconee, now tempoi sily put off until approximately "ay of 1932, an anplication for some action would have to be presented in approximatelv the Fall of 1980.

Thus, there are few practical reasons for waitinq for, e ttle over a year when this case is ready for hearing.

Porticnl Coneral rlectric Cn-onv, et al. (irojan *uclear Plant), LBP-78-32, 8 NRC 413, 4L f('! D h'~c~tT'PJet'linli'GR eal Elyctric Cu pany et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), AlAB-631, lip.' 1611;~(Facch ?l, 1979).

Also, our view is that this On ed m y continue with the proceedings on the transshipment rPquest in the f ace of the parallel requr,t submitted by Duke for rerackinq the Ocone, reactors since the Cor nissinn proce%res established in 40 Fe4. Reg. 4?: 01 was silent as to ti o linits eitla3r as to the number or kind of requests that utilities could r ate to an.eliorate their spent fuel storage space problems.

3c-c,

'tJ\\

s<j NRDC request is not well taken since its request that this Coard wait until issuance of the Cor. mission's GEIS on spent fuel nandling is in direct cpposition to the policy established in 40 Fed. Reg. 42001 (and the procedures established) that interim actions proposed by utilities need not wait until completion of the GEIS.

If the effect of the final GEIS does not require additional consideration of the proposed action, the efforts and resources expanded to date in this case will not tave been wasted.

The licensing action would have already been completed freeing participants for other matters.

If more is required by the GEIS, the additional effort would only require supplementation of the exisc ig record without the need for intensive additional commitments of time and resolrces.

There will be no prejudice to litigants that we envision if this Board is required to pursue additional issues as a result of the Court's decision in Minnesota v. NRC, sup_ra, pursuant to procedures which night be established by the Commission.

That decision does not directly affect the issues in this proceeding as they are presently articulated.

Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the Commission's treatment of the Minnesota rerand will in any way materially affect the outcome of this aase.

While Intervenors may speculate that adverse results could occur if the issues presently before the Licensing Caard were litigated as forncd, it would be highly inappropriate to delay the procee' lings on the basis of such ir precise con.jecture.

• i-4Jl

)q.f There is no factual issue in this case, or at least so the Staff asserts, that involves the question of the availability in the future of either onsite or offsite safe storage and disposal for the lifetir;e spent fuel output from the Oconet n actors.

Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis for suspending this hearing when the parties are prepar'd on the is-. es that are involved Conclusion Based on a weighing and balancing of the Douglas Point criteria, the reasonable course is to proceed with the hearings as scheduled.

Accordingly, the motion to suspend these proceedings filed by NRDC should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, yQ' }

O-fy

( c - Q1 s

/ ),

,hduw;%

Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of June, 1979 4

..)

'i /[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAI: RECULATORY COP.:11SSION BEFORE THE ATO !IC SAFETY AND LICENSIN'3 BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

P'lKE POWER COMPANY

)

focket fio. 70-2623

)

(Amendment to Materials License

)

SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station

)

Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )

at ikGuire Nuclear Station)

)

CERTIFICAIL OF SERVICE I herehy certify that copies of " NUCLEAR REGULATORY STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITICN TO NATURAL RESOURCrS DEFENSE COUNCIL MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF liEARING SrHEDUL dated Juna 15, 197) in the above-captioned procetding, have been served on the following by deposit in +he United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through depzit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 15th day of June, 1978:

• Marsh 31' E. Miller, Chairnan Ms. Brenda Best Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Actico U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1740 E. Independence Blvd.

Washington, D. C.

20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Dr. Cadet fl. Hand, Jr., Director Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Bodega Marir.e Laboratory Natural Resources Defense Council Universitj of California 917 - 15th Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 247 Washington, D. C.

20555 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Shelley Blum, Esq.

• Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 418 Law Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 730 East Trade Street U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Comission Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Washington, D. C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

W. L. Porter, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberr:an Associate Ceneral Counsel 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Legal Departrent Washington, D. C.

20036 Duke Power C apany 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 l' C

.Il

• y

3 e

• Ato:aic Sa fety anC l.icensinrj Appeal Board Mr. Geo prev Owen Little U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Comis-i n P. O. Cox 2501 s

Washington, D.C.

20555 Davidson College Davidson, fl."

28036

• f '.e aic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

.S. fluclear Regulatory Con

aission Washington, D. C.

20555

• Docketing a.id Service Section U.S. iiuclear Regulatory Comaission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Jesse i.

Riley, President Carolina En /i rorcental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, fiorth Carolina 20207 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney Gencral State of South Carolina 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

/u ql..sz.A ll l A*

L

?

3.,s,~

m.

Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for f1RC Staff

"-[

' -) l

' 6.)

.