ML19270F286
| ML19270F286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902060120 | |
| Download: ML19270F286 (22) | |
Text
-b
~
s q
1 V
c y
y
~l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'-l Y
/
R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i'
e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'*'I~"
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS Introduction On May 15, 1978, the NRC Staff filed its "First Set of NRC Staff Interrog-atories to the County of Suffolk" (Staff Interrogatories). Although responses to this set of interrogatories were initially due to be filed on June 1,1979, several extensions of time were agreed to between the County and the Staff.
On August 23, 1978, the County filed a partial response to the Staff's interroga tories. That respons:: covered :taff Interrogatories 20, 21 and 23.
With regard to the remainder of the Staff Interrogatories, the County represented that certain efforts undertaken by its previous consultants, MHB Technical Associates, wou!d provide adequate responses.
It was mutually agreed that the Staff would await the finalization of the MHB 7902060p0'
_2 effort. On November 30, 1978, the County filed its " County of Suffolk's Particularized Contentions" 1/ (County Response).vnicn emcodied the NHS effort.
In the Staff's view, the County's two responses are of mixed adequacy.
With regard to certain Staff Interrogatories, the County nas been adequately responsive. With regard to certain other Staff interrogatories, the Staff views the County's responses as incomplete but notes that the subject matter involved will be discussed in the Staff's forthcoming Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or supplements. The County's concerns should be resolved by the SER, thus obviating continued consideration of those issues in this proceeding.
In these areas, the Staff chooses not to press for complete responses.
However, there are certain other County responses which do not provide the Staff with the information it sought and concerning which too little information is known to the Staff to judge wnether the subject matter will be treated in the SER.
In these areas, the Staff seeks a Board order directing a complete response. The Staff presents its arguments below seriatim.
_1/ While the County's filing is labeled " Particularized Contentions", it should be noted that the County made no effort to restate its contentions in more particular form. Rather, the original contention is presented, supplemented with some explanatory material. Thus while there may, in some instances, have been amplification of concerns generally identified in the original contentions, there has been no effort to recast the contentions in more specific f r-
. Discussion Staff Interrogatory 1 In this interrogatory, the Staff sought identification of the County's witnesses and the subject matter of their testimony. The County has not responded to tnis Staff interrogatory.
Presumably, the r9asons for the County's failure are connected with the County's difficulties in retaining consultants for use in hearing preparation and to serve as potential witnesses. However, in certain cases County personnel could already have been identified as witnesses. The Staff seeks a response to this interrogatory at this time. The Staff would note that, under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the infcmation requested by the interrogatory is of a continuing nature and that the County is obligated to provide a response as soon as the relevant information becomes known to it. See 10 CFR !2.740(e)(1).
Staff Interrogatory 2 In its Contention 3a, subparagraphs i and ii, the County refers to certain lists of generic items, specifically, a February 24, 1977 ACRS Report entitled, " Status of Generic Items Relating to Lightwater Reactors:
Report No. 5" (ACRS generic list)-- and the "Techr.ical Safety Activities Report" of December,1975 (TSAR). The County apparently contends that these lists contain safety items relevant to the Shoreham proceeding.
l/ This list has since been updated by Report No. 6 dated November 15, 1977.
_4 It has been the Staff's position that this contention has not been adequately particularized. The contention is in the category of admissible for discovery purposes. The material provided by the County in its Response does not change the Staff's view. There has been no development on the part of the County of the required nexus between a generic item and a specific safety problem relevant to the Shoreham facility.
It was this nexus which the Staff sought in its interrogatory.
However, the Staff does not press for more responsive answers at this time.
The Staff will address certain of the generic items referred to by the County in its SER. The items to be considered in the SER will be selected as part of the current NRC program for the resolution of generic issues. To place the generic items in context, it must be recognized that these are items which the Staff, while finding present plant designs acceptable, believes have the potential of adding to the overall safety margin of nuclear power plants, and, as such, should be considered for application to the extent reasonable and practicable as solutions are found recognizing that such solutions may or ur after completion of the plant. This is consistent with continuing Staff efforts toward reducing still further the already small risk to the public health and safety f.
- nuclear power plants.
In each instance where no immediate licensing action is taken, the decision is taken only after the Staff has made an initial assessment for individual plants and has made a determination that the safety significance of the issue does not prohibit continued operation or licensing actions while the longer-term generic review is under way.
. The current status of the NRC program for the resolution of these generic items is sumnarized in NUREG-0410 and NUREG-0471. 3/ Those documents present the NRC program for the resolution of generic issues. The generic issues have been categorized in accordance with their priority. Highest priority activities are identified as Category A activities and the program focuses attention on these activities through the development of detailed Task Action Plans. These detailed Task Action Plans are contained in NUREG-0371. S/ The issues which have been considered by the NRC program include those on the ACRS generic list, as well as those found in the TSAR referred to by the County. 5/ rhus, both categories of generic items referred to by the County in its subnaragraphs i and ii of Contention 3a have been considered in the NRC program for the resolution of generic issues. Furthermore, those items identified as having a high priority will be treated in the Shoreham SER.
In the Staff's view, the most prudent course of action in this area is to await the Staff's SER. At that point, the Cnunty's concerns should be resolved.
If the County has continuing concerns, the Staff will insist that the County particularize them or have this contention dismissed from the proceeding.
--~3/
"NRC Program for the Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants" and " Generic Task Problems Descriptions" and" Generic Task Problem Descriptions, Category B, C and D Taskr", respectively.
_4/ " Approved Task Action Plans for Category A Generic Activities".
_5/ The generic issues considered also included the 27 issues discussed in NUREG-0138 and NUREG-0153, " Staff Discussion of Fifteen Technical Issues Listed in Attachment to November 3, 1976 Memorandum from Director, NRR to NRR Staff, and " Staff Discussion of Twelve Additional Technical Issues Raised by Responses to November 3,1976 Memorandum from Director, NRR to NRR Staff", respectively.
. With regard to subparagraph iii of County Contention 3a, the situation is somewhat different.
It is the Staff position that all of the issues identified by GE in the so-called " Reed Report" were issues of which the Staff was aware at the time the Reed Report originated. To the extent these items have safety implications, they are being appropriately considered by the Staff. The Staff views the County's contention in this area as unparticularized and so legally inadmissible. The Staff will not explicitly treat the Reed Report items in its SER and so it must insist on a responsive answer from the County now. The County response provides only the historical context of the Reed Report and does not
?
provide any particularization of the County's concerns in this area, i.e.,
any nexus with the Shoreham facility. d It is clear that the County has not been responsive to the Staff interrogatory in this area. The Staff seeks a Board order directing the County to provide a complete response to this Staff interrogatory dealing with subparagraph iii.
J/ The County has yet to follow through with its discovery in this area. The County has made some efforts to press discovery.
It appears that an agreement has been reached between the General Electric Company, vendor for the Applicant, and the County, with regard to access to certain materials related to the Reed Report.
See letter of October 4,1978 to Richard C. Hand, Esq. from F. Case Whittemore. The Staff would note that an agreement relative to discovery in this area has apparently been reached in another proceeding. See the " Protective Order" dated January 5,1979 and the Black Fox proceeding, Docket Nos. STN 50-556 and 50-557.
A copy of this Order is attached to this motion.
7.
Staff.nterroaatory 3 The Staff does not consider that the County Response to this interrogatory is adequate. The County Response merely indicates that the 27 items identified in its Contention 4a correspond to the 27 technical issues identified by members of the NRC Staff in the fall of 1976. These issues were identified and resolutions presented in two documents, NUREG-0138
(.nd NUREG-01535 While the County provides some further general discussion of each of the issues raised by the contention, the Shoreham specific information sought by the Staff in its interrogatory is absent.
The County has had access to the Shoreham facility description as well as access to the NUREG documents for a considerable time. The County could have been responsive to the Staff's discovery.
The Staff, however, will not seek more responsive answers at this time.
The 27 items are among those considered by the Staff in its program for the resolution of generic issues. The Shoreham SER will discuss the generic issues of high priority and this should resolve the County's concerns. Should the County have continuing concerns, the Staff will insist that the County develop a particularized contention or have it dismissed from the proceeding.
7__/ See footnote 5, suora.
.a_
Staff Interroaatcry 4 In the Staff's view, the County has failed to mecningfully respond to this interrogatory.
In Contention Sa, the County merely identifies a number of areas related to quality assurance / quality control and alleges that the Shoreham facility is inadequate in some undefined particular.
In its interrogatory, the Staff sought specific identification of the regulatory requirement which the County claimed was not met and the reasons for tnat claim.
The County has failed to respond.
Instead, at pages 5-5 through 5-6 of the County Response, the County's discovery in this area is summarized and it is recommended that the County "should" audit QA records and that the County "should" review the NRC I&E Reports related to Shoreham.
The County's only effort at a particularized response consists of references to certain I&E Reports which allegedly document the Applicant's failure to implement appropriate measures for weld-rod control and equipment storage.-8>' What the County refers to by way of particular-ization are instances of noncompliance by the Applicant with regard to its quality assurance / quality controls programs.
Such occurrences are to be expected at construction projects of the magnitude and complexity of nuclear power plants. The effort extended on the part of
_8/ The noncompliance identified in Inspection Report 50-322/78-02, the County's Attachment A, was replied to by the Applicant on April 7, 1978 and acknowledged by the NRC on April 21, 1978. The followup inspections on this item are documented in Inspection Report 50-322/78-06, paragraph 3, sent to the Applicant on May 31, 1978 and Inspection Report 50-322/78-12, paragraph 3, sent to the Acolicant on August 30, 1978. The item has been closed. With recard to tne two noncomoliance items icentified in Inspection Report 50-322/77-23, Attachment 3 to the County's filing, these items were replied to oy the Acolicant by letter dated January 26, 1978, acknowledged by the NRC on February 6,1978. Follow up of these items are documented in Inspection Report 50-322/78-02, paragraph 3, transmitted to the Applicant on Maren 3,1978 at whicn time the items were closed.
Copies of these documents are attached to this Motion.
S I
_9 the Applicant is to keep such occurre nces to an acceptab and the NRC Inspection and Enforcement that acceptably low levels of nonconfo s a chec rming occurrences a The presence of an acceptably low nu b m er of deviations fr-procedures cannot form the basis for a li It is only wnen the number of occurre tigable issue in to evidence a breakdown of the Appli nces ris that a litigable issue can be fram d cant's pro e.
In any event, it cannot be argued that th response to Staff Interrogatory 4 e County has provit The Staff requested spec with regard to each subparagraph of Contenti simply not responded.
on 5a and the Cat County to respond.
The Staff thus seeks a Bo Staff Interrogatory 5 The Staff does not consider the Count to be adequate.
y's response to this inte While the County does supply some i to the effectiveness of the Commissi ormation p rogram, this information is not respoon's In framed by the Staff.
nsive to the particular :
to the specific language of the Cou t sought the detailed bases for n y s Contention 5b.
The Sta the County's contention.
The Ccu:
. response is general and entirely based upcn a GA0 report issued in the latter part of 1978.2-/ It is obvious that the County has not presented the necessary information to support its contention which was framed in 1976. The Staff seeks a Board Order directing an adequate response.
Staff Interroaatory 6 The Staff is satisfied with portions of the County Response to this interrogatory, specifically, 6a through 6d. However, with regard to 6e and 6f, the County has been totally unresponsive. Staff Interrogatory 6e and 6f sought information sith regard to the regulatory requirement embracing subparagraphs iii and iv of the County's Contention 5c and an explanation of the reasons for the County's claim that the Applicant has not described a program to meet the particular regulatory requirement identified.
It is clear that the County has not responded and the Staff seeks a Board Order directing a response.
Staff Interrocatory 7 In this interrogatory, the Staff sougnt identification by the County of the accident mechanisas referred to in subparagraphs i through iv of Contention 6a.
In its Response, the County does provide some information relative to the accident mechanism associated with 9/ See Reference 3, page 5-12, of the County Response.
. subparagraph ii. At pages 6-3 through 6-4, the County describes its concern with asymmetric loads on the reactor vessel by reference to NUREG-0410 and to the ACRS Fluid / Hydraulic Dynamic Effects Subcommittee meeting in San Francisco of November 30, 1977. While the County articulates its general concern, the Staff is still of the view cnat the County has not responded with particularized information relative to the Shoreham facility. However, the Staff will not press for a complete response now because this is an area which will be discussed in the Staff's SER and, should adequately resolve the County's concerns. Should the County have remaining concerns in this area, the Staff would insist on a particularized contention in this area or have the contention dismissed.
With regard to subparagraphs i, iii, and iv, the Staff does not view the County Response as adequate.
In its interrogatory, the Staff sought a reasonable description of the accident mechanisms and the bases for the County's claims that these accident mechanisms were credible or reasonably possible. The Staff further sought identification of tne systems which had been improperly designed or located and the functicns which such systems improperly performed. The County Response has not provided this infomation. For example, in subparagraph i, it is not clear to the Staff whether the County's Contention addresses pipe cracks or cracking of the reactor vessel itself. With regard to subparagraphs iii and iv, the Staff simply does not comprehend the nature of the accident T:echanisms
. postulated by the County. For example, it is not clear how gross vessel movement will result trom reactivity addition and why such a postulated scenario is reasonable.
It is also not clear how gross vessel movement and/or damage will result through sabotage or intentional misoperation and why such a scenario is reasonable. The Staff seeks a Board Order directing a complete response with regard to the portion of this interro-gatory dealing with County Contention 6a, subparagraphs i, iii and iv.
Staff Interrocatory 8 With regard to County Contention 7a, subparagraphs vi and vii, the Staff finds that the County's response to this interrogatory is satisfactory.
With regard to the remaining subparagraphs of Contention 7a, the Staff does not feel that the County has been adequately responsive. The County's response does amplify upon each of these subparagraphs but the amplifications are general. For example, the County points to no specific design features for the Shoreham facility for which the fire protection is alleged to be inadequate. The same is true of the alleged deficiency of the Shoreham facility in the area of remote shutdown capability.
However, although the responses to portions of this interrogatory are inadequate, the Staff will not press for more responsive answers at tnis time. The Staff's SER will discuss the acceptability of the Shoreham nuclear system cesign and this analysis should resolve the County's concerns.
If County concerns remain in these areas, the Staff will insist that the concerns be particularized or that the contention be dismissed.
. Staff Interrogatory 13 The Staff does not seek a supplemental response to this interrogatory.
Staff Interrocatory 14 The Staff is not satisfied with the County Response to this interrogatory.
The response consists of generalities relative to the methodology used to evaluate ECCS conformance to the Commission's regulations.
No references are made to the specific methodologies which were employed to demonstrate conformance of the Shoreham facility ECCS to the Commission's regulations.
Indeed, the County nowhere relates its response to the five specific categories in subparagraphs i through v of its Contention lla.
Although the Staf.' considers this response to be inadequate, the Staff does not press for further discovery at this time. The Staff's SER will discuss conformance of the Shoreham facility with the Commission's ECCS requirements and should be responsive to the County's concerns.
If the County then has remaining concerns, the Staff will insist that a particularized contention be presented or that the contention be dismissed.
Staff Interrogatory 15 The Staff does not consider the County Response to this interrogatory to ce adequate.
For each of the subparagraphs of Contention 12a, the County fails to identify with specificity the reasons for the alleged component failure or deficiency as requested by the Staff in its interrogatory.
. With regard to subparagraph 1, the County alleges at page 12-3 that SWR control rod life had not been adequately determined but no basis is presented for this allegation.
Further, it is claimed that baron depletion rates and the capability of control rod staialess tubes may not have been adequately determined but again no basis for these allegations is presented.
Further, assuming arcuendo that the County's allegations are true, it is not clear what safety implications these allegations may have, i.e., what particular Commission requirement relative to safety would be affected by the postulated malfunction.
With regard to subparagraph ii, the County acknowledges at page 12-3 that modifications have been performed in the area of LPRM's on some reactors. The County admits that application of these modifications to the Shoreham reactor have not been investigated by the County.
- Clearly, this is not responsive to the Staff's interrogatory.
With regard to subparagraph iii, again the County refers at pages 12-3 and 12-4 to " operating reactors of the design vintage of the Shoreham plant" in responding to Staff interrogatories seeking to identify a specific problem for Shoreham. No attempt has been made by the County to identify the safety problem specific to the Shoreham facility.
In subparagrapn iv, the County refers to problems with BWR safety relief valves in the area of reliability and functionability. Again, no Shoreham-specific identification of the problem has been attempted by the County. While the Staff does not feel that the County Response is adequate, the Staff notes that this area will be discussed in the Staff SER and should resolve the County's concerns. Thus. the Staff will not press for a more responsive answer in this area at this time. Should the SER not fully resolve the County's concerns, the Staff would insist on a particularized contention in this area or the contention should be dismissed.
With regard to subparagraph v, the County makes vague reference to a
" problem" but again presents no Shoreham-specific information.
See page 12-5.
With regard to subparagr pn vi, the same is true. The County acknowledges that newer reactor designs have proposed the use of improved isolation valves or more effective leakage control systems. See page 12-6.
The County does not identify the specific system used on the Shoreham facility or claim that the system actually proposed for the Shoreham facility is inadequate.
With regard to subparagraph vii, the County again speaks in general and vague terms. There are references to " general poor performance" of these components and the County goes on to acknowledge that "no time was available during MHB's work for the County to further particularize areas of concern at the Shoreham plant". See page 12-6.
. With regard to subparagraph viii, the County again acknowledges that "no specific particularization of equipment deficiencies have been possible due to a lack of authorization to perform discovery, etc.".
See page 12-7.
The County acknowledges in its " Summary and Conclusion" at pages 12-7 and 12-8 tnat the County has performed little specific investigation of the detailed problem areas of this contention. The information presented by the County is stale and vague. The Staff does not consider this information responsive to its interrogatories. With the exception of subparagraph iv, which the Staff feels will be adequately addressed in its SER and will be responsive to the County's concerns, the Staff seeks a Board Order directing more responsive answers.
Staff Interrocatory 16 The Staff is satisfied with the County's response relative to subparagraph i of County Contention 13a. The Staff would note that the subject of BWR pipecracking will be discussed in the Staff's SER and should resolve tne County's concerns in this area.
If the County's concerns are not resolved, the Staff would insist on a particularized contention or have it dismissed from the proceeding.
With regard to subparagraphs ii through vi, the Staff does not find the County Response to be adequate. The County Response does not discuss any of the five areas wnich are the subject of subparagraphs ii through vi.
The Staff can find no refernces to carbon content, nitrided stainless steel materiais, control rod drive collet cylinder tube material, or
. the County's concerns over the use of stainless steel materials in reactor internals and as cladding for the vessel. What the Staff sought by its interrogatory was an identification by the County of its concern in each of these areas, along with the County's reasons supporting that concern.
In addition, in its Interrogatory 16d through 16j, the Staff posed additional specific questions dealing with each of these areas. None of these questions have been answered by the County Response. Thus, the Staff seeks a Board Order directing more responsive answers to this interrogatory with regard to subparagraphs fi through vi of Contention 13a.
Staff Interrogatory 17 The Staff considers the County Response to this interrogatory to be adequate. The Staff would note that this subject will be discussed in a supplement to the Staff's SER and should resolve the County's concerns.
To the extent that the County's concerns are not resolved, the Staff will insist upon a particularized contention or have it dismissed from the proceeding.
Staff Interrogatory 18 The Staff considers the County R esponse to this interrogatory adequate insofar as it relates to the topic of SWR pipe cracking which partially is the subject of County Contention 13a. To the extent that this Contention 13c extends to experimental data relative to the remaining portions of County Contention 13a, the Staff is unclear as to what the County's concern is.
The Staff presumes that the County's further response
. to subparagraphs ii through vi will provide the County's concerns with the use of experimental data and so a further response to County Contention 13c will not be required.
Staff Interrogatory 19 The Staff does not consider the County Response to this interrogatory to be adequte. The County Response is generalized. The only specific reference to the Shoreham facility deals with the orientation of the turoine which is alledged to be contrary to the guidance provided in the Regulatory Guide 1.115. However, regulatory guides are not requirements and al ternatives may be croposed if adequately justified.
The County Response does not challenge the adequacy of the Applicant's approach. Thus, while the County Response is general, the Staff's interrogatory, particularly 19c, is highly specific and has not been responded to.
Rather than press for a complete response now, the Staff notes that tnis subject will be discussed in the SER and should resolve the County's concerns. Should the County's concerns not be resolved by the presentation in the SER, the Staff would insist on a particularized contention or have it dismissed.
Staff Interrogatory 20.
The County has responded to Interrogatory 20 in its filing of August 23, 1973. The Staff considers this response to De aceauate.
. Staff Interrogatory 21 The County responded to this interrogatory in its filing of August 23, 1978. The Staff considers this response to be adequate.
Staff Interrogatory 22 The Staff does not consider the County Response to this interrogatory to be adequate. The County Response is generalized and unspecific to Shoreham. Tne County only makes general reference to a letter to the ACRS from B. Rusche in January of 1977 and to an article in _ Science of April 28, 1978.
But in no instance does the County discuss the specific content of these documents or their relevance to the seismic design criteria for Shoreham.
Furthermore, the County incorrectly identifies as a bases for its contention, that the Shoreham seismic design is inadequata a reference to a September 1,1977 letter from K. Kneil to the Applicant concerning seismic qualification of equipment and load combinations. This review is to insure that all equipment can withstand the seismic design requirements and that loads have been properly combined and has no impact on whether the seismic requirenents have been adequately establisned. The inadequacy of the County Response in this area is acknowledged by the County on page 17-3 where it states tnat "No significant amount of investigation on seismic adequacy of the site has been performed for the County by MHB other than as seismic loading pertains to loading combination questions with other contentions."
However, the Sta#f would note that the Shoreham seismic design requirements will be discussed in the Staff's SER and should resolve the County's concerns.
, If the County has remaining concerns, the Staff would insist that the County frame a particularized contention or have it dismissed.
Staff Interrocatory 23 The County responded to this interrogatory on August 23, 1978.
The Staff did not consider that response adequate.
However, the Staff did not, and does not now, press for more responsive answers r' rom the County for, in the Staff's view, meaningful discovery in the area of plant security, as well as the formulation of legally admissible contentions is not possible absent the County's access to the Shoreham security plan. Under the Comission's regulat'ons, namely,10 CFR 52.790(d)(1), the Shoreham security plan is conficential information. Until the County demonstrates that it should gain accers to the Shoreham security plan in accordance with the procedures of the Diablo Canyon cascl0/, meaningful discovery cannot be practiced nor can adequately particularized contentions for admission into this proceeding be fomulated. The Staf" will insist that adequately particularized contentions be presented by the County in this area or that they be dismissed.
Staff Interrocatory 24 The Staff considers the County Response to this interroga.
be adequate. The Staff notes that this area will be discussed in che Staff's SER and snould resolve the County's concerns.
-10/ Facific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 ano 2), ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398 (1977).
. Conclusion The Staff considers a number of t".e County's responses to its interrogatories to be adequate.
In certain other areas, tne Staff views the County's responses as inadequate; however, as the subject matter of tne County contentions covered by these interrogatories will be treated in the Staff's forthcoming SER, the Staff does not press for more complete responses. The SER snould be responsive to the County's concerns and there should be no need to litigate these issues.
There remain, however, a category of interrogatory responses dealing with contentions wnich the Staff cannot adequately comprenend and identify as subjects to be considered in its SER.
The Staff requires responsive answers to these interrogatories. These interrogatories are Staff Interrogatories Nos.1, 2 (relative to Contention 3a, subparagraph iii),
4, 5, 6e, 6f, 7 (relative to Contention 6a, subparagraphs i, iiii, and iv),
9,14,15 (except for subparagraph iv of Contention 12a) and 16 (except for subparagraph i of Contention 13a). With regard to this latter category of interrogatories, the Staff moves that the Board direct the County of Suffolk that its responses are inadequate in the areas identified by the Staff in this motion and that further comprehensive responses -
be forthcoming as rapidly as possible.
Respectfully submitted, u-Yh.e:
) I @j' h.
-f IichardK.Hoefling
[
j Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of January,1979.