ML19262C334
| ML19262C334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002110277 | |
| Download: ML19262C334 (23) | |
Text
.W s
RELtTED CORRT.i?C4 DE!K:3 D,\\
d
/\\
g oCk'p'e,.3 t
$ [o\\eg3 7.p
- p J
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
- 5.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,,3 BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
f,
- i c, \\g, 4
j ca,
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON
)
Docket No. 50-289 COMPANY, et al.,
)
(Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island
)
Nuclear Station, Unit
)
No. 1)
)
)
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL THE NRC STAFF TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES Introduction and General Argument The Union of Concerned Scientists is in receipt of a document entitled "NRC Staff Preliminary Response to UCS Interrogatories," dated January 10, 1980.
The document patently fails to approach a good faith attempt at answering UCS's questions.
Its thoroughgoing disregard of established principles of discovery, with which the Staff is fully familiar, represents an insult to UCS.
UCS is well aware that its interrogatories reflect the complexity of the issues presented by this case.
For that reason, we agreed to the Applicant's request for an exten-sion of time to prepare responses.
However, the Staff has never asked for an extension. Despite this, UCS contacted the Staff on its own initiative after receiving this " pre-liminary response" to explore the possibility of resolving 1946 003 geomo 271
t issue informally without the necessity of applying to the Board. Our efforts were unavailing.
The NRC's discovery rules closely parallel those of the federal courts in civil actions.
" Parties may obtain dis-covery regarding any matter, not privileged which is rele-vant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding." 10 CFR S2. 740 (b) (1).
It is established that, consistent with federal practice, the discovery rules are to be " accorded a broad and liberal treatment so thac parties may obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial, and that the inquiries are limited only by the require-ment that they be reasonably relevant to a sensible investi-gation."
Boston Edison Co.,
et al (Pilgrim Nuclear Generat-ing Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 (1975).
Licensing boards have not hesitated to apply these standards to intervenors, as they should have.
It has been held that compliance with discovery requests is required be-cause to obligate licensees to meet "any conceivable thrust at hearing would be patently unfair, and inconsistent with a sound record."
Northern States Power Co. et. al. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP-77-37, 5 NRC 1298, 1300-1301 (1977).
Precisely the same reasoning should apply here.
UCS has set forth its position on its contentions in reason-able detail on at least three separate occasions:
(1) in its petition and supplemental petition to intervene (and conferences with the Staff), (2) in the Prehearing Con-ference, and (3) in its answers to Staff interrogatories.
1946 004 It is past time for the Staff to provide its position on these issues.
The Staff attempts on page one of its document to justify its failure to respond on two general grounds.
First, it claims lack of sufficient resources to accomplish the task. While we find it somewhat difficult to credit that an organization the size of the Ni~ vannot muster the re-sources necessary to answer UCS's questions, this resource difficulty would, at the most, justify a request for an extension of time.
It cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the obligations of discovery.
Second, the Staff claims that it "does not yet have a position developed on many of the issues raised by the ques-1 tions...." /
In these casec, which apparently cover the vast majority of the issues, the Staff has simply stated that it will cover the issue in its testimony at the hearing or in the SER.
We can imagine the response if intervenors attempted to avoid discovery by claiming they would cover the issue in their testimony.
The purpose of discovery is to provide the parties with an understanding of the adver-sary's position and the bases therefore prior to the trial, reducing the possibility of suprise and enabling parties to focus their testimony so as to meet the other's arguments Hickman v. Taylor, 529 US 495, 507-509 (1947).
A general
/ NRC Staff Preliminary Response to UCS Interrogatories." p.l.
i946 005
response of lack of knC tudge does not excuse a failure to answer.
The party
"...must answer to the best of his ability and if he claims lack of information sufficient to answer an interrogatory, his answer thereto should be to that effect.
If he claims to have less than full in-formation at the time his answers are due, he should answer by giving the available information and by stating that the answer reflects the limited information that he then has."
Bar Harbor Theater Corp. v. Paramount Film Distribu-tion Corp.
Cited in Boston Edison Co. et al (Pilgrim Nuclear Genera-ing--Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, n.
10 at 583 (1975),
(emphasis added).
1946 006 t
Directions and General Questions The Staff has refused to comply with certain UCS directions concerning the contents of the Staff's responses to UCS interrogatories.
Nor will the Staff reply to five general questions on the staff's position with respect to each UCS contention. The Board should compel the Staff to provide " complete, explicit and responsive" answers to each interrogatory or provide a full explanation of why the spe-cific iaformation sought should not be made available.
Boston Edison Co., et al, supra, at 583.
UCS has requested that the Staff include in its answer to each interrogatory all documents and studies, and the parti-cular parts thereof, examined but not relied upon by the Staff, which pertain to the subject matter questioned.
In lieu thereof, at the Staff's option; a copy of each such document and study may be attached to the answer.
Part "C" for each interrogatory (emphasis supplied)
The Staff has refused to comply with this request on the ground that "such material is not necessary to a proper de-cision in the proceeding within the meaning of 10 CFR S2.720 (h) (2) (ii). "
The Staff also feels such requests are " unduly burdensome."
First, the Staf f has misapplied S2. 720 (h) (2) (ii).
This section provides that a party may request the presiding officer to determine whether answers to certain interrogatories "are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding..."
Upon so finding, "the presiding officer may require that the Staff answer the interrogatories."
Id.
However, 10 CFR 1946 007
52.744(b) specifically applies to Staff objections to the production of documents.
Section 2.744(b) provices two grounds for the Staff's refusal to release a requested document or record.
The first ground is relevancy. 52.744 (b) (1).
UCS has explicitly requested documents "which pertain to the subject matter questioned," and the Staff has made no cbjection concerning relevancy.
Otherwise, the document must be " exempted from disclosure under S2.790 and the disclosure (must) not (be) necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding..."
Alter-natively, if the document "is reasonably obtainable from another source, (the Staff) shall so advise the requesting party."
S2. 744 (b) (2).
With respect to the last clause, the Staff has provided no advice to UCS on the whereabouts of any of the requested documents.
The " documents and studies" UCS has requested should be interpreted by the Staf f as within the 'aeaning of
" final NRC records and documents" as set forth in S2.790(a).
We have not requested " handwritten notes and drafts" er other materials " exempted from disclosure under S2.790."
The failure of the objection to meet the first part of the two-part requirement of S2.744 (b) (2) automatically invali-dates tbc objection.
UCS further maintains that the blanket assertion that requested documents regarding each interrogatory are "not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding" is a 1946 008
totally inadequate response as well as the wrong ultimate conclusion.
The Staff is required so provide answers to interrogatories "which are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding... (which) are not reasonably obtainable from some other source. " S2. 720 (h) (2) (ii).
In the preparation of answers to interrogatories, the Staff normally relies on various documents which provide the basis for such answers.
The Staff does not dispute their responsibility to "make available for inspection and copying" such relevant documents.
UCS has requested those specific documents for each Staff answer.
(Part B for each interrogatory). But the Staff does not always rely on every document relevant to a specific interrogatory when developing its answer to that question.
Certain documents, particularly those which do not support the current Staff position, may not be relied upon by the Staff.
UCS maintains that it is the duty of the Staff to provide all documents relevant to legitimate interrogatories in order that UCS may review and analyze whatever relevant contrary positions may be reasonably developed on that issue.
In order for the Board to reach a " proper decision in the proceeding" concerning a particular issue, it is crucial that the record reflect a consideration of all relevant data and documents.
To the extent that the Staff determines not to rely on any relevant documents, not otherwise exempted from disclosure, it is the duty of the Board to order the 1946 009 production of such documents to requesting parties.
The Staff cannot insulate this information from disclosure simply by disclaiming reliance on it.
SS2. 720 (h) (2) (ii),
- 2. 740 (b) (i),
2.744(b) and ?,790.
The Staff also states that such a request is " unduly burdensome."
The NRC maintains a full staff in its Office of Adminictration which efficiently responds, within ten days, to Freedom of Information Act requests no less broad than this interrogatory.
Therefore we find the assertion of undue burden unpersuasive. UCS is requesting a reasonable effort by the Staff, during the review of relevant documents, to identify those relevant documents or sections thereof wti.ch the Staff examined but did not use in developing the Staff response.
The notation of such documents can hardly be considered " unduly burdensome."
The Licensing Board in Boston Edison Co., et al, supra, stated that "the fact that to answer interrogatories might be burdensome or expensive is not a valid objection if the information is relevant and material; however, the court has authority to make orders to prevent oppression and to avoid undue expense...
In general it seems to be the weight of the holdings that in the sound discre-tion of the Court, a party may be pro-tected against interrogatories where the answers would require an excessive or oppresive amount of research or compila-tion of data and at a great expense, al-though mere general objections that the interrogatories are numerous and burden-some are not sufficient.
Id. at 584.
The simple assertion that UCS's request is unduly burden-some constitutes precisely such a " general objection" and is 1946 010 wholly inadequate.
"The courts have held that general objectioas are insufficient, and that the burden of persua-sion is on the objecting party to show that the interroga-tory should not be answered..."
Boston Edison Co., et al, supra at 583 (citing 4 Moore, Federal Practice, Section 33.27, at pp 33-151 to 33-153).
In order to enable the Luard to altimately reach a proper decision based upon all relevant information on each contention, the Board should order the Staff,during its preparation of answers,to p ovide the titles or copies of "all documents and studies, and the parts thereof, examined but not relied upon by the Staff, which pertain to the subject matter questioned."
With respect to portions "D" and "E" of the requested responses to each interrogatory, the Staff stated it had not "had the opportunity to determine whether independent con-tractors (were) engaged in research bearing on issues covered in each intecrogatory" and had "not determined who its witnesses (would) be on the various subject matters in this proceeding." As discussed above, the excuse that the Staff is still reviewing the subject matter and will respond "in the SE, its supplement, or supplemental testimony" is inadequate, because it denies UCS's rights to discovery of relevant subject matter.
The Staff must present its answers to interrogatories a sufficient amount of time prior to the hearing to enable UCS to adequately prepare its position.
The Staff also has the responsibility to answer these interrogatories to the best of its present ability 1946 01i acknowledging that the responses are based on incomplete information at this time.
The Staff likewise has a duty to provide UCS with the names of Staff witnesses and a summary of cheir testimony a reasonable period of time prior to the hearings.
UCS has presented four interrogatories concerning the Staff's position on each UCS contention:
1-4, 14-17, 26-29, 33-36, 40-43, 50-53, 61-64, 75-78, 83-86, 92-95, 101-104, 108-111, 128-131, 150-153 and 163-166.
The Staff has replied it "has not developed a position yet regarding the UCS contentions.
These questions will qe responded to in supplemental testimony."
For the reason discussed above, the Board should compel the Staff to provide full responses to these questions to UCS a reasonable period of time prior to the filing of testimony.
UCS also has asked that the Staff "[ildentify all sections and page numbers of the SER and/or FSAR which contain subject matter pertaining to (each) UCS contention."
UCS Interroga-tories 5, 18, 30, 37, 44, 54, 65, 79, 87, 96, 105, 112, 132, 154 and 167.(emphasis supplied).
The Staff has refused to answer this question with respect to every UCS contention.
The Staff asserts that such information is "not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding" and is " unduly burdensome."
Sections of the FSAR and SER which contain subject matter pertaining to the issues to be resolved are clearly relevant to the proper disposition of the subject matter in the proceeding.
(See discussion above of the production of 1946 012 documents, examined but not relied upon by the Staff, which pertain to the subject matter questioned.)
The Staff's mere general objection:
that such a request is " unduly burden-some" is likewise legally deficient.
Boston Edison Co.,
e:
al, supra.
The Board should compel an individual response for each contention and require the Staff to fully explain the reasons why any such interrogatory would be unduly burdensome to answer.
(Id.)
1946 013 Specific Interrogatories The Staff responded to ne following UCS interroga-tories by simply stating that the response will appear in testimony or in the SER:
1-4, 6-13, 14-17, 19-21, 25-29, 31-36, 38-43, 45-49, 55-50, 61-64, 68-78,'/ 80-86, 92-95, 97-98, 100-104, 108-111, 113-121, 124-131, 133-136, 150-153, 155-162.
For the reasons stated above, these answers are clearly inadequate and the Board should issue an order compelling the Staff to respond.
In any case where the Staff claims to lack information, it should be required,to explain what it presently has, what it lacks, how it intends to obtain the information lacking and in what manner the answer to the interrogatory depends on the missing information.
The following interrogatories were responded to in a partial and pro forma manner, with the promise that "a more complete answer" would appear in supplemental testimony:
90, 91, 106, 107.
The Board should compel full responses to these questions before the filing of testimony, including an explanation of what information it has, what it lacks, how it intends to obtain the information lacking and theay in which the answer to the interrogatory depends on the missing information.
Certain interrogatories were objected to on specific grounds.
These will ue parately treated.
2/The response to interrogatory #69 also contains a nonre-sponsive first sentence which adds essentially nothing.
1946 014 Interrogatories 88 and 89 The text of these interrogatories is ar follows:
88.
When did the Staff make the formal decision against "backfitting" of Regulatory Guide 1.47?
89.
Provide all contemporaneous documentation supporting the Staff's decision not to backfit Regulatory Guide 1.47.
The Staff's objection-The NRC Staff objects to these interro-gatories as being unrelated to this pro-ceeding.
The relationship between 1.47 and TMI-l which is relevant, is asked for in the next interrogatory.
The contention to which this interrogatory is relevant is UCS Contention No.
9, claiming that the accident was sub-stantially aggravated because of the Staff's failure to apply the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.47 which require an adequate system to inform the operator when a safety system has been deliberately disabled.
The Staff's original reasons for failing to backfit the Regulatory Guide in question at the time of its promulgation are clearly rele-vant to the subject matter of the contention.
We are an-titled to know whether the Staff's present reasons for failing to require TMI-l to fully conform with the Reg.
Guide differ in any material way from its generic contem-poraneous reasons, if any in fact existed, and whether the differences fully reflect the lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident.
This information is necessary both to prepare 1946 015
3 cross-examination of the Staff's current positions / and to prepare our own analysis of the function and importance of the regulatory requirement for UCS's direct testimony on the subject.
Moreover, the question is a simple one and should require only a minimal investigation of NRC documents. We cannot ".nderstand why the Staff should wish to keep this secret.
The standards for relevance at the discovery stage are quite broad.
The information sought must relate only to "the subject matter involved in the proceeding." 10 CFR S2. 740 (b) (1).
The rules also provide that "it is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
10 CFR S2. 74 0 (b) (1).
Judged by these standards, the inter-
'ogatory is clearly permissible and the Board should compel the Staff to respond.
Interrogatories 122 and 123 The text of the questions is as follows:
122.
When was the decision made not to "backfit" Regulatory Guide 1.89, incorporating IEFE-323-1974?
123.
Provide all contemporaneous documentation supporting the deci-
/ n a similar rationale, information about prior convic-O tions is discoverable since it could lead to facts which might be used in cross-examination to affect credibility.
Meadows v.
Palmer, 33 FRD 136 (D.C. Md. 1963).
1946 016 sion against backfitting Regulatory Guide 1.89, incorporating IEEE-323-1974.
The Staff's Response is:
The Staff objects to these interro-gatories as being unrelated to this proceeding.
The relationship be-tween TMI-l and IEEE-323-1974, which is relevant, is apparently not being asked for in these ques-tions.
(See No. 124)
The contention in question is UCS Contention No. 12, which describes the "ailure during the TMI-2 accident of equipment previously deemed to be qualified to survive the most severe expected accident conditions and alleges that the requirements of GDC 4 with respect to environmental qualification of equipment important to safety can only be met by requiring conformance to the detailed provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.89 or equivalent.
In connection with this contention, UCS seeks and is entitled to know, the basis for the Staff's original deci-sion not to backfit the Regulatory Guide.
As with the previous contention it is our belief that at the time the Regulatory Guide was promulgated, a generic decision was made not to apply it to plants already constructed or for which construction permit applications had already been received, and that TMI-l fell into this group.
On the same grounds as given above with respect to the previous contention, the Staff's reasons, at the time, for this decision not to apply the Regulatory Guide are clearly discoverable.
1946 017 t
Interrogatories 140-142 The text of the questions is as follows:
140.
Identify the members of the Staff who have been assigned or will be assigned to work on the proposed rulemaking relating to the considera-tion of design features to mitigate accidents that would result in core melt and severe core damage.
(See NUREG-0585, TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report p. A A-15.)
141.
Provide all draft and final analyses, memoranda, reports, recommen-dations or other c uments produced by, relied upon,or c.sulted by the Staff relating to the probability or conse-quences of accidents beyond the current design basis and/or to measures designed to mitigate the consequences of-such accidents.
142.
Will the Staff take the position in the proposed rulemaking described in question #140 above that accidents be-yond the present design basis should be considered in the safety review for nu-clear power plants?
Explain the Staff's position fully.
The Staff's response is:
Proposed rulemaking of generic subjects is unrelated to this proceeding.
Ac-cordingly, the Staff objects to these interrogatories.
UCS Contention No. 13, to which the information sought is directed, challenges the Staff's failure to analyze and provide protection against accidents beyond the current design basis: so called " Class 9" accidents.
It calls into question the Staf f's method of classifying certain possible accidents as incredible and, upon this basis, excluding them from further consideration in the regulatory process.
1946 018 The Staff's broad relevance objection is transparently specious.
Its position in generic proceedings which bear directly on the issues in this case is clearly relevant.
Indeed, the proposal for the generic proceeding to determine how to consider Class 9 accidents comes directly from NUREG-0585, the TMI Final Lessons Learned Report.
Thus, its relevance to the subject matter of this proceeding can hardly be debated.
UCS is entitled to know whether the Staff's position in the generic proceeding is any different from its position in this individual case and, if so, why the generic position will not be applied here.
The answers will be used to pre-pare cross-examination by pursuing any technical or policy inconsistencies, as well as in the preparation of UCS direct testimony.
Interrogatories 145-147 The Interrogatories are as follows:
145.
Given that TMI-2 has been identified by the Staff as a Class 9 accident and Class 9 accidents pose the gravest threat to the public safety of all possible nuclear reactor accidents, explain how the Staff can adequately protect the public v'.thout consideration of Class 9 accidents and consequences.
146.
Is it the position of the Staff that their present method of reviewing the safety of nuclear power plants which excludes con-sideration of accidents beyond the design-basis, is sufficient to ade-1946 019 quately protect the public health and safety?
147.
In Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants) CLI-79 (Sept. 1979), the Commission asked the Staff, pending generic rulemaking on the consideration of Class 9 accidents at land based re-actors, to bring to the attention of the Commission "any individual cases in which (the Staff) believes the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents should be consi-dered."
Sl.op. at 9-10.
Explain why the Staff does not believe the consequences or likelihood of another Class 9 accident should be considered during the present review of TMI-1.
The Staff's response is:
The Staff objects to these interro-gatories, all of which question the Commission's rationale for not permit-ting the general consideration of Class 9 accidente at land-based plants.
UCS may not properly probe into the basis for the proposed Annex to 10 CFR Part 50, App.
D, which provides the standard for not considering Class 9 accidents, and which was left intact by the latest Commission pronouncement on the subject in the Offshore Power Systems case.
(referenced in interrogatory Nos. 147-149).
The UCS contention in question, No. 13, is described above in connection with the objection immediately preceding this one.
We confess some confusion concerning the basis for this objection.
The Board has admitted this contention at least for purposes of discovery.
These questions are clearly relevant to the contention; they generally seek the policy and technical bases for the Staff's exclusion of certain accidents from the safety review.
If UCS will be 1946 020 called upon at a later date to give further specification for its contention, the least the Staff should be required to do is provide the basis for its position.
It should not certainly be allowed to frustrate the purpose of admitting the contention by resisting discovery on the subject.
Interrogatories 148 and 149 The text of the interrogatories is as follows:
148.
Provide the criteria used by the Staff pursuant to the Commission's di-rectivo in the Offshore Power System case, supra, to determine which indi-vidual cases should include a consid-eration of the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents.
149.
In its Memorandum and Order on the Offshore Power Systems case, supra, the Commission directed the Staff to
[p] rovide us with recommendations on how the interim guidance of the Annex might be modified, on an interim basis...
to reflect developments since 1971 and to accord more fully with current Staff policy in this area..."
(Sl. op. at 9).
a.
Have any such recommendations been provided to the Commis-sion?
If so, supply them.
b.
If no such recommendations have yet been provided to the Commission, why not?
When will they be provided?
c.
Provide any draft memoranda or recommendations which have been prepared in response to the commission's directive.
d.
Identify the Staff members 1ofg ngj who have been assigned to i/7U ULi work on a response to the Commission's directive.
e.
What are the " developments since 1971?"
f.
What is " current Staff policy in this area?"
The Staff's response is:
The Staff objects to these interro-gatories on the ground that they probe into generic matters not specifically related to this proceeding.
To the extent that UCS is inquiring into whether the Staff will recommend that any environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents be considered in this proceeding, that answer will be provided in response to the Board's "Frist (sic) Special Prehearing Conference Order" dated 12/18/79.
Once again, the interrogatories relate to UCS Contention No. 13.
For all of t e reasons discussed in detail previously, the objections are wit.out foundation.
The interrogatories seek unprivileged information clearly relevant to a conten-tion admitted for discovery.
They go beyond the question di-rected by the Board to the Staff and are not subsumed by it.
UCS is entitled to have the answers to these questions.
Conclusion All of the parties to this proceeding are operating under strict time constraints.
UCS deliberately prepared its inter-rogatories to the Staff early in order to allow time within the established schedule to send a second set based upon the Staff's responses to the first, if necessary.
Rather than responses, we received generally uninformative evasions.
This has required us to waste substantial additional time preparing the instant motion.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.
Unless 1946 022 we receive answers very soon, UCS will suffer severe prejudice.
Therefore, we move the Board to issue an order compelling responses to the UCS inquiries on an expedited basis--we would suggest a week--and providing UCS an opportunity to pose additional interrogatories after receiving the Staff's answer s, without respect to whether the discovery period would otherwise be terminated.
Respectfully submitted, Ellyn R.
Weiss SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS 1725 "I"
- Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Counsel for the Union of Concerned Scientists Dated:
January 25, 1980 1946 023
DD CORRESPONDr a '
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON
)
Docket No. 50-289 COMPANY, et al.,
)
(Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island
)
Nuclear Station, Unit
)
No. 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the attached " Union of Concerned Scientists Motion for an Order to Compel the NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories," was mailed postage prepaid this 25th day of January to the following:
- Secretary of the Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y,
Washington, D.C.
20555 u.4,.
- Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire
,I J
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel's 9t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g:,
g $[h 9,{
g, g 'l .g#
l Washington, D.C.
20555 1-
?^:s;;
c' yliM<,:flg
/
Dr. Walter H.
Jordan T
5* h
'/)( 9"77,,f4 881 W.
Outer Driva Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Linda W.
Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 George F.
Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 "M" Street, N.W.
1946 024 Washington, D.C.
20006
- James Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss
- hand-delivered