ML19242B316
| ML19242B316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000510, 05000511 |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1979 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080065 | |
| Download: ML19242B316 (16) | |
Text
TERh d.
l l.o,,'l <
U,.
.J
. w..
BEFO?r '
'-~"'~
~!'~
'^ '
In the Matter of o
GULF STATES UTILITIES C0"'" V
)
.J" En-510 m
1 0:a uc ass (Blue Hills Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
NRC STAFF p52rEID FI.' D!ms rF ;~~ r GU In 'S OF Li. AND PROPOSED ORL:R U, THE FOP' 0
~._ I;ITIAL CECIS:01 1.
Preliminary S t itu : t ol 1.
The NRC Staff herebv scopts Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision submitted on June 7,1979 with the following exceptions and modifications:
1.
Paragraph 9:
Strike "and the exhibits which were received in evidence listed in Appendix A, hereto." and change to:
"and the follcwing exhibits; Applicant's Exhibit 2; Application document Applicant's Exhibit 3; Environmental Repcrt Applicant's Exhibit 4; PSAR Board's Exhibit 1: Sketch of air currents in area Staff's Exhibits 7, 7A, 7B: i'ES and Errata sheet:.
Staff's Exhibit 8: Early Site Review Staff's Exhibit 9: Supplement I to ESR 2.
Paragraph 11:
Strike the second sentence.
Replace with:
" Supplement 1 to the t'arly Site Review for the Blue Hills Site was issued in June 1977 (Staff Exhibit 9).
3.
Paragraph 35:
Change trarJcript references in thi sentence to read:
7 90808wes io.
,u, m
. "(Tr. 34-5, 75-37, 191 -196, 233-240).
4.
Paragraph 38:
Correct " calculated by by the for the Mill Creek basis.." to read:
" calculated by the Applicant for the Mill Creek basin" 5.
Paragraph 38:
Sentence no. 6:
Correct " Blue Hills siste" to read:
" Blue Hills site" 6.
f aragraph 84: Add the following sentence:
"This report and Applicant's commitments will be submitted for NRC review and approval prior to issuance of a Linited Work Authorization or Construction Permi ts. "
7.
Paragraph 91.
Delete last sentence and add:
"A potential exists for background TDS builduo above required levels during periods when the reservoir is stratified because of insufficient reservoir circulation and mixing between the hypolimnion and epilimnion.
The Applicant should analyze breaching the coffer dam no. 3 to reduce the potential.
FES 55.3.3, 55.3.4.
8.
Paragraph 103:
10$
L ( l.'
)\\
103. The Applicant's service area extends 400 miles across Louisiana and into East Texas, and is subdivided into three divisions of major power demand:
the Baton Rouge area, the Lake Charles area, and the East Texas area (ER Fig. 9.2-4).
The Applicant stated that a comoarison of the three areas showed that each area has conditions suitable for nuclear plants (ER 9.2 ~ 5.7).
The Aoolicant stated that since the Louisiana power demands are expected to be met by the River Bend Nuclear Power Station near Baton Rouge and two additional coal units near Lake Charles, it limited its site search to the East Texas-West Louisiana part of its service area because it anticioated further load demand in that area and because it felt siting a plant elsewhere to serve this area would lead to economic and reliability problems generated by longer transmission lines (ER p. R-19).
,,a Commission's procedures for early partial decisions on site suitanility issues,10 CFR Part 2, subpart F %2.600-2.606, provide that deterninations of site suitability may be issued on one or more limited issues, and to the extent that the number of issues considered is limited, additional infonnation is needed to issue a con-struction permi t.
The Applicant conducted a compre-hensive well-documentad site selection process within the East-Texas-West Louisiana part of its service area. This process considered, among other factors, site area characteristics, geology, tectonics, seismology, populaticn, power transmission, land use, water availability, transportation and air quality.
It identified the Blue Hills site (Site G) as the optimal location for a nuclear power station, with proper mitigation measures, 1
k 6
3 \\] J
_4_
among 49 sites considered in the East Texas and extreme western Louisiana area.
Review of the site selection process employed by the Applicant within this area did not reveal any sites there which are obviously superior to that selected by the Applicant (ER 59.3.4; FES 59.2.5).
The Staff reviewed the infornation orovided by the Applicant as provided in 10 CFR s2.101(a-1)(1) and the Staff personally visited the six candidate sites selected for in-deoth analysis.
(FES 99.2.5).
No major flaw was found in the site, and the site apoears a good site for a nuclear facility if appropriate mitigation action, particularly in regard to socio-economic impacts, is taken before a construction permit is issued.
Thus, we find that the site selection process for the East Texas-West Louisiana area included methods, criteria, and considerations given to alternative sites which are acceptable and in full compliance with NEPA and NRC requirements. 1/ The need for additional power in the East Texas area, which was the Applicant's principal b. sis for seeking a site in the East Texas-West Louisiana portion of its service area, was not considered in this hearing.
Early site reviews provide for the applicant to select those issues which are to be considered in the early partial decision as long as the application " describes the site selection process, specifies the extent to which that process involves the consideration of alternative sites, explains the relationship between that process and the application for early
--l/ Alternatives to the heat dissipation system selected were also considered and it was concluded that the circular rccnanical-dra:t towers were optimal.
Amenq the alternative heat dissioation systems considered by the Staff, no system is superior to the mechanical-draf t circular cooling towers selected for use by the Aoplicant.
(ER %10.l', FES %9.3.1.9).
', O b.., ri's
review of si te s: "'
- i;
- clicant's long-range plans fo -
f, 1
C':
Part ? A03.
_u, Thus, deletion af th..siv
- fit'.i
- J ir view of the uncertaintie as or'ited ;;rh i..-
- t
n',
of,o..ur t cand sithin this large serv'ce crea.
."o
,;ctual rccord has yet been developed to sub-stantiate the assertion that ru'ure io d d ru':d would jus tify the selection o f a s i te i n Ea s t Te.<a a, so t'ot * :is 'vertion remins to be determined.
Based on tne a_ criori assumaticn nat Est Texas
',,'es t Louisiana would be the area of greatest power de and, the.1:aiicant eliminated the Baton Rouge and Lake Charles regions as potential sites because of the environmental impact, system balance problems, and cost associated with transmission of power from these regions.
The Comission's decision in Public Service Comoany of New Hanoshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) CLI-77-8, 5 flRC 503, 540 (1977) stated that the Commission's duty te consider alternative sites is subject to a " rule of reason" and that several factors bear on its application:
First, alternative sites in or near load centers to be served by the facility have obvious practical advantages for the applicant and it ratepayers.
Construction at a relatively distant site may necessitate longer transmission lines with con-sequent greater expense, aesthetic affront and loss of pov r.
[ footnote or'i tted].
While the disadvantager of siting in the eastern portions of one service area may be real, it remains to be determined, af ter ierification that East Texas-West Louisiana is indeed the actual load center in the service area, whether the circumstances at that time (particularly in terms of costs, nw
[6'
environmental ic or.,
umn existing m
transmissica lires.!c ; co ep i i'
f ai "
't ates.
Thus, we need not, at this tre go : '. ;c
.:c of t.e factars considered
^
by the Applicant in rejecting d :>e
..>a...
3.
cs.
n
..e.'er,
..e paint out that the Appeal Board in Public ~
. S:
- c. : %2.1 lirosnice (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471, 7 '. C ;/7, 400-:97 (1978), emphasized the need for a factual basis in
_;tcting distant sites on the basis of system reliabili ty or economic di:._.,araag _s.
The Appeal Board reiterated the need for specific data in 30st. Edison Co. (?ilgrio Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), ALAB-479, 7 NRC 774, 779 (1977), wherein it emphasized that under NEPA a "hard look" must be taken of the facts and circumstances surrounding each consideration of alternatives.
As it stated, in discussion of alternatives--
At a minimum, it must provide a detailed, thoughtful analysis drawn from adequate data so that a reviewing body can decide on an objective basis whether the agency fairly assessed other courses of action which might realistically be substituted for the one proposed.
Thus we find that the methodology for selecting the Blue Hills site from among sites within the East Texas-West Louisiana area of Applicant's service area was reasonable and that Blue Hills is an acceptable site.
However, there remains to be established in further proceedings a showing of demand in the Easc Texas-Uest Louisiana area and confirmation that sites in oth' -
areas can be eliminated from consideration because of problems associated L '):
- i. '
I JJJ i
s with transmission of electricity over lo7cer distances and system reliability N See 10 CFR 52.603(b)(1).
9.
Paragraph 105: After " Toledo Bend Reservoir" add thc word "are" and delete the comma.
10.
Add a new paragraph 108 as follows:
When the actual design of the Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 is developed and the applicant desires to proceed with his application for Construction Permits, the aopli-cant will provide,among other items, the follcwing to the staff:
(1) Provide an evaluation, with necessary supporting infomation, of the similarities and differences between the actual station design and the station design evaluated in the Final Site Environmental Stater'ent.
This evaluation will permit a detemination that tne impact of the actual station design will not be sig-nificantly greater than or different from the impacts described in the Final Site Environmental Statement.
(2)
If the actual plant design will produce an impact or an activity not previously or adequately evaluated in the Final Site Environmental Statement, the applicant will prepare and record an environmental evaluation of the design change or new activity.
When the evaluation indicates that such design change or activity may may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not previously or adequately evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in the Final Site Environmental Statement. the acolicant shall provide a written evaluation of such design change or activity to the Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis for review.
(3) Sufficient information to permit a re-evaluation of the need-for-station and consideration of alternatives, includino al-ternative energy sources and alternate site locations based on a
-- It is noted that there are existing nuclear plant sites which were nnt considered out of the ADplicant's service area but in varyinq oroxir,ity to the East Texas-West Louisiana area where the applicant sees demand increasing.
These include the Waterford station near New Orleans, the Comanche Peck station near Fort Worth, and the projected Allens Creek and South Texas stations near Houston.
a ;; ;;
iUO specific date for cormencement of commercial operation and revised time sensitive infon7ation (e.g., load forecas ts, cos t es tima tes, etc. ).
Unless significant new information is obtained that substantially affects the conclusions reached on alternate si tes, no new evaluaticn of this subject will be required.
(4) A comprehensive evaluation of the multilevel siphon intake system (see Final Site Environmental Statenent s9.3.2) wi th fish-return facility, unless the state-of-the-art is such that it is inappropriate to review this alternative.
(5) Evaluation of the possibility of making a breach in Coffer Dam No. 3 to reduce the ootential for total dissolved solids (TDS) buildup in Toledo Bend Reservoi..
(6)
Data on the distribution and seasonal abundance of ichthyoplankton, af Jlt fish, and the Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.) in the open-water regions of luleda Bend Reservoir, and a proposed method for control of the latter.
(7) Data on the occurrence of striped bass spawning in Toledo Bend Reservoir.
(8) Quantitative data on the suspended solids, bed load sediments, and periphyton communities in Copperas, Mi tchell, and Mill creeks.
(9) A detailed erosion control plan as discussed in Final Site Environmental Statement ssa.3.2 and 5.5.1.2.
(10) A complete description of the oesticide and herbicide treatment program should the applicant decide that these chemicals are to be used for rights-of-way maintenance.
(11) A detailed description of a. i preoperational monitoring programs (those which will be implemented atter the Construction Permit is issued, but before an Operating License is granted) and the preconstruction supplemental aquatic monitoring program.
These programs should incorporate those suggestions offered by the staff in Final Site Environmental Statement 96.1.5.1.
(12)
Detailed information and appropriate maps of any signi-ficant new changas in the environmental status (e.g.
land use, habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered species) of the proposed transmission line, pipeline, and railroad access routes.
(13)
If the construction schedule described in Final Site Environmcntal Statement 54.4 that provided the basis for the staff's assessment of community impacts is not achieved, then updated infonnation should be provided on the soc,i.o-economic parameters discussed in this section.
3 p (j, s a
-9_
(14) The olan e r r : tigting adverse socio-economic effects resul ti n-rom necutiations mona the aopliunt, local officials, and ruqional clanners (Final Site Environ-r,ntal Staic.ent Sect. 4.4: 4.4.12).
(15)
Results obtained from surveys of the procosed trans-mission L,idor routes to detenine the presence of any proposed or nominated endangered soecies or existence (Final Site Environmental Statement Sect. 4.3.1.2).
(16) A forest manaaement plan for the site that includes consideration of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
(17)
Final plans for minimizina construction impacts or for avoiding the boq communities along the prooosed corridor for the railroad spur and transmission line C.
(18)
Final designs for both the temporary and permanent sewage treatment facilities (Final Site Environnental Statement Sect. 11.1.4) and revised estinates of water requirements (Final Site Environmental Statement Sect. 11.1.3).
(19)
Infomation on the specific methods to be employed to control particulate emissions from the onsite concrete batch plant.
(Final Si te Environmental Statement Sect.11.1.3).
11.
Add new paragraph 109 as follows:
"The Applicant will be required to perform the following commitments to limit adverse effects during construction:
(1) Marketable timber will be removed f rom the site, and remaining trees and brush will be cleared and either used for erosion control or burned.
All burning will be in accordance with State and Federal regula-tions. Tree stumps and other organics not burned will be buried under adjacent waste areas.
(2) Soil excavated from borrow areas that is unsuitable for fill will be deposited in designated waste areas, and some topsoil will be set aside for restoration of the borrow areas af ter construction is completed.
Tops of borrow areas will be covered with stored topsoil and then planted ui n slash and Icblolly pines.
(Final Site Environmental Statement Sect. 4.1.1.3).
'bs'
'f
~
o (3) Fordable c
naus uill have snell or gravel placed
.1 in t"9 stn a bed; other s treans will have temporary briuges er culverts inst 2 11ed during construction.
(4) The amount of spoil drif ting frco the dredging for the makeup intale and discharge structures will be limited to approximately l' of the total spoil Jug from the bottom.
Shoreline vegetation will not be disturbed except where it is necessary to gain access to the reservoi r (5) To minimize disturbance to the reservoir, excavation and construction of the makeup intake and makeup channel will be removed to a spoil area on the peninsula; material dredged for the discharge pipe will be deposited adjacent to the discharge pipe.
(6) No explosives will be used in site excavations.
(7) Temporary construction facilities will be removed when construction is completed and these areas will be paved, seeded, sodded, and/or planted according to a prescribed plan.
When no longer in use, temporary construction roads will be disked, scarified, and seeded, and the slope intersections will be rounded to minimize erosion and provide a natural appearance (side slopes in borrow and waste areas will receive similar treat-ment).
All restored areas will be graded to prevent accumulaticn of s tanding water.
(8) Permanent lawn areas will be planted as soon as feasible.
(9) A natural border along the periphery of the cleared plant site will be encouraged by allowing natural reseeding and by planting indigenous vegetation.
(10) Dust will be controlled during site preparation and construction through the use cf water trucks, sprinkler systems, and chemicals such as Soil Penetrant 400, EARTH-PAK, and CCHEREX.
(11) Erosion control will include grading, placement of slash in draws and water courses adjacent to cleared areas, and protection of slopes using peripheral interception ditches, catch basins, and drop pines equipped wi th energy di ssipators.
Additionally, slopes will be treated using chemical soil binders (e.g., Aerospray S2 Binder or Curasol AE) and then mulched and seeded.
10
(12) Du i_,,
.nt-ual toi i
l' i>
=or tr ci-
,.l.
t,: -
w.
facil; m,
i u m tr it~ent pian t, t!I m.
..'I
._ U
~1 NiiC al* E' vev i
(_ o u, a,
,,.....ma.
L.
(13) Flor d t i:i e rl '
,a ic.cilities will be c
disencr m in;a
.m c
- n estem (la) Pe trol e'. : pro r_:
s '23
.i ll be col'ccted ar.d re-noved from the :
- intor cer tcrs will be provided to reer.;
. ion nstes (e.g., oils, greases, pa in t s. c.
.;)
d;-ininize the Wp 1C t on riei,'
>.aLers.
'i (15)
'..'a s h wa te r f rca to :
.,e t '_ h ;ic.at and from concrete trucks will be cisc.wr.ac into a specially constructed di tch, where ct ont carticles ccn settle out before the water spills into a beru-enclosed waste area that serves as an evaporation-absorption field. After completion of the pcwer plant, +he earth berm will be graded to the elevation of the wa,te area.
Waste loads of concrete will be dumped at a designated waste area.
(16) Controlled spray of herbicides (e.g., Bronacil or Monuron) will be used to inhibit regrowth of vegetation on shelled mod paved areas onsite.
Application rates of herbicides and pesticides will be such that con-centrations in the stream systems will not exceec Texas Water Quality Board requirements; aquatic con-centrations will be monitored at the U.S. Geological Survey Gauging Station on Mill Creek.
Pest control, when necessary, will include localized controlled application of a short-lived malathion class of compound (nalathion, parathion, EPN) for insects and will also include poison baits (e.g., Pyralin or Fumasol) for rats and mice.
(17) Combustible construction wastes will be burned, and noncombustible wastes will be discosed of within the borrow area by landfill nethods; both operations will meet applicable State and Federal regulations.
(18) Noise-reducing apparatus for construction equipment will co'" ply wi th Federal and industrial standards.
J u,
t
. l i.) J
..<t'
, (19)
During construction, ef fluent frcm the sewage treatment plant..!ill be discharged into a leaching field to prevent as many of tne nutrients as possible from reaching the streams.
(20) Effects of siltation upon the creek systems will be minimized through extensive erosion control efforts.
(21) No historical landmarks or archaeological sites within an 8-km (5-oile) radius of the plant site will be disturbed by construction of the s tation.
Any archaeological site that is endangered by trans-mission line construction will be reexamined and tested.
(22) Where a residential or recreational area is serviced by a single road and this road is obstructed by con-struction activities, an alternate access route will be provided.
(23)
Existing roads will be used for access tc the trans-mission corridors.
(24) A forest mar agement plan that will include con-sideration
' the red-cockaded woodpecker will be suba'tted with the Construction Permit application (25) An effort will be made to minimize or avoid disturbance of bog communities within the proposed corridor for the railroad spur and transmission line C.
(26) The applicant will submit a detailed erosion control program prior to construction licensing.
This program should ensure that control actions are adjusted to meet any changes in erosion patterns and that the required water quality standards are met at all times during the construction period.
(27)
If it becomes necessary to use pesticides the Appli-cant will strictly control use of a low-persistence pes ticide (e.g., mala thion ).
Application should be made t licensad operator; appropriate State and Feder re;ulations should be followed.
(28)
If the applicant decides to use an:, 'esticides or herbicides in right-of-way maintenance prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit, a full description of the treatment program must be submitted for staff review and approval, (29) The applicant should begin early planning negotiations with local officials and regional planners to discuss methods of limi ting the adverse impacts that are likely to occur as a result of plant cons truction.
Local items for discussion could include, for _xamole, planning and nitigation funds, provisions fcc planning expertise, development of mobile home zoning ordinances, prepayrcent of taxes, and incentives for workers to commute greater distances.
In addi tion these negotia-tions should consider public use, where possible, of the open space used for this project.
The applicant shall submit a Jiccussion of his activities carried out under this item and the mitigative activities it will undertake for staff review at the time a Construction Pernit aoplication is filed.
(30)
Instead of the use of poison baits to control rats and mice, traps shculd be used to control problem rodents.
(31 ) The applicant shall n^t disturb any archaeological site or locality or any historical site without prior approval from the staff-Should any additional archaeological discoveries be made either on the plant site or within the rights-of-way, the applicant shall noti fy the staff immediately.
The four localities identified in FES Sect. 2.9.2 shall be posted and an onsite archaeologist shall be available when these sites are in danger of being disturbed unless the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that these localities do not meet the criteria in the National Register of Historic Places (Addendum 2) for inclusion in the Register.
(32) To ensure continued and adequate protection of en-dangered species during additional development phases of the proposed facility, the applicant should maintain consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(33) Outdoor burning, construction activity, and application for permits shall be accomplisted in accordance with the Texas Clean Air Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Texas Air Control Board.
(34) Cor.struction activity on the right-of-way for the pro-posed transmission line A should be carefully monitored by a biologist to ensure that areas with red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or cons ting trees a re not de s t rnye d.
Likewise, on proposed routes 3 and C, careful investi-gation should be made for nest and roost trees and areas with active red-cockaded woodpecker colony use, and these areas should be avoided.
C L
i
' 'J s 12.
Paragraph 112 C.
Replace with the following:
The Board has independently considered the final balance amonq conflictina factors contained in the record of this pecceeding, and af ter weighing the environmental, econcaic, technical and oth:r benefits against environmental and other ccsts.
and considering available alternatives in '.he East Texas-West Louisiana area, tne Board nas deter-nined that the Blue Hills site (Site G) is suitable with respect to the factors reviewed and the Partial Initial Decision should be issued subject to the conditions for the protection of the environment discussed in Para. 65, suora, set forth in paragraphs 108, 109, as well as the following:
a.
When tne actual design of Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 is developed and the applicant desires to proceed with his application for Construction Permits, the Poplicant shall provide to the st'ff the information specified in Finding 7108.
b.
The applicant shall take the ss y actions in Finding #109 to avoid unnecess 1dverse environ-mental impacts from construction activities, c.
The applicant shall establish a control program that shall include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed in Finding 4109 and shall provide for periodic manage-ment audits to determine t!
adequac ' of implementation of environmental conditions.
The applicant shall maintain suffiuient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all the environmental conditions
- herein, d.
Before engaging in additional construction activities which may result in a signi ficant adverse envi; anmer.tal irapact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated by the staff, the applicant shall provide written notification to thc Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis.
'l
. e.
If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of ir-reversi.;te damace are detected during facility con-struction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and c plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the har..-
ful effects or damage.
f.
The applicant shall monitor the total residual chlorine concentra tion in the discha rges to Toledo Bend P.aservoir and shall design his system so that the concentrations can be limited to the value established by the Environmental Protection Agency in the NPDES penait for the Blue Hills Station.
g.
The applicant shall submit a plan to the Department of the Interior acceptable to the National Park Service that describes the nethods for mitigating the envircomental impact in crossing the Big Thicket National Preserve along groposed transmission line B.
13.
Paragraphs 108-115:
Renumber as Nos. 110-117.
Respectfilly submitted, J&L
'b Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Da ted a t Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of July,1979
r.
t In tM !*;tter of Uct!
~'a:
a;-
a CULF Sll.TLS UllL.,..
(fiiue Hiils Mat
.,F.it:
1 r.r-.I---
v I hereby certify. hat copies of "::';',
1 z --,;, ;Gd 0F FACT, C01CLUSIONS
'~ r OF LN,1 AilD PROPO:, i_ T.E ? I S' T i,-,
- ... u '. ' DECISIO:.
in tne above-captioned proceed.r.g v/ -
' s, m-r n by deposit in t.he United States mail, first cl t s, or, as inu t:4ca m/ c.n a;_er:sk by Genosit in tne fluclear Regulatory Co. nission interna l r.n l system, tnis 5th day of July,1979:
i'.arshall E i l l a r, Esq., Corar.mn>
Stanley Plett"in, Esc.
Or,ain, Nli :no Tuckr Ato, tic Safety enn 1.i c a n u n ;, " aru U. S. I;uclec r % ga ;ctor / Cc"..iss i cr.
Psi:u.on t Sa. in; s "v i n'i m Washin ton, D. C.
205 %
Beau:ont, Texas 7/701 Troy C. Ce~ ce, Jr., Eso t'r Les t or i'.orrbl ; th, Jr
. a ri J,,lett;r' v,
Esc Ato:uic safcty cr.d Licen:,in" i. card U. S. Nuclear Ee : 1. tory Ec :ission
- Connor,
':.,u re f, r.
r 1:ashirc Lon, i). C.
20C55 1717 Fenr:,vl'.nia
'., sui te i U6 t h i n.J t an, P C.
.'~
Dr Linda U Li t t'e Atenic Safet/ nd Liccasina " card Dept. of Envirc.c ntal Sciences Panel +
and Encincerina U.S. :,uclear Degulatc ry Cc:.;issic :
Un i te c s i ty o f
,'c r Caruiina Chapel Hill, ::ard C;rolina 2751.'
!-lashington, D. C.
20535 Atomic SafoLj and Licensing T4 rt: 'lh i te, E s a.
Attorney Ceneral of Texas Appeal Duar.i+
U.S. N;c ie n r;gc,;,13 toc, ca : -,j ;3 ; c n Richa:d Lo..mr
, Esq.
Assis t 'nt At or:, G.:n,ra;
!3shingson, D. C.
0S55 E r.v i rm'
.nf,1 i : < Mctiun Divis ion Docketing an' Service Sectien+
P.O. i;r 12 5...
Office cf tv Secretary Aus tin, Texas 70711 U. S. Nucl c.: e "wu l a tc ry C o.i s s '. t; Uashingttn, D. C.
20M5 O
0 kdunf $ A<bh(
/
Colleen P. Uoodhead Counsel for NRC Staff pe p: 3
- 3 19 ; L.g g bbOdibL.
o n
.