ML19296D519
| ML19296D519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D516 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003040716 | |
| Download: ML19296D519 (19) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF A?1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent
)
Fuel Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ILLIN0IS'M0 TION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING AND MOTION TO STAY I.
Introduction On February 14, 1980, the State of Illinois, an Intervenor in this pro-ceeding, filed a " Motion to Dismiss Proceeding." On February 15, 1980, Illinois filed a " Motion To Stay." These motions concern the proceeding initiated with respect to the application by the General Electric Company (hereaf ter GE) for renewal of its license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 for the Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility (hereaf ter
" Morris Operation").
In its Motion to Dismiss Proceeding, Illinois asserts that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board are with-out jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding in that there are no provisions in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6 2011 et seq. or regulations for the licensing and regulation by the NRC or any other federal agency of privately owned, commercial away from reactor 3003040
. '3 4
( AFR) storage facilities.
Illinois further asserts that absent Con-gressional authorization the NRC may not promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing and/or regulation of privately owned, commercial, AFR facilities.
Therefore, according to Illinois, the final promulgation of the NRC's proposed regulation in 10 CFR Part 72, " Storage of Spent Fuel In An Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation" cannot vest in the Commission jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding.
In its " Motion to Stay Proceeding," Illinois relies in part on the same grounds asserted in support of its Motica to Dismiss, that the NRC and Licensing Board are without jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding because of the alleged lack of authority, by statute or regu-lation, to license " privately owned, commercial away from reactor storage facilities." The additional grounds relied upon by Illinois in its Motion to Stay may be summarized as follows:
The Applicants seek to renew their license for the Morris Opera-tion prior to promulgation of NRC regulations relating to AFR's.
Therefore, the Morris operation is not in compliance with any rule or proposed rule of the NRC and must be licensed and operated in compliance with Part 72.
Prior to promulgation of Part 72, it is not possible for the Applicants and Staff to properly assess any application for opera-tion of an AFR.
If it is detennined that the Atomic Energy Act as amended authorizes the NRC to license an AFR and should the Morris Operation be licensed prior to promulgation of Part 72 in final form, it will be necessary to reconvene the Licensing Board in order to review the facility in light of the new regulations.
This would be a duplicative procedure.
Until the resolution of People of Illi.iois v. General Electric Co.
et al. No. 79C-1427 (N.D. Ill. December 18,1979) (order granting Motion to Dismiss and granting in part and denying in part, Motion for Summary Judgment), it is not possible for the Board to know with certainty who will own and/or operate the Morris facility, the uses to which the facility will be put and the amount of spent fuel to be stored at the facility.
Until the completion of the rulemaking " Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste," the Licensing Board cannot make a complete assess-ment of the " problems inherent in the instant case."
For the following reasons, the NRC Staff (Staff) opposes both motions and urges that they be denied.
II.
Background
In an August 13,1979, " Order Ruling on Petitions to Intervene," the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinaf ter "the Board") established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing in this proceeding granted the petitions for leave to intervene filed by the State of IllinoisO (hereinafter "Intervenor" or " Illinois") and four individuals. The Notice of Hearing issued by the Board on August 13, 1979, (44 Fed. Reg. 48830, August 20, 1979) provides that a special prehearing conference will be held pursuant to a notice to be published in the Federal Register at a time and place to be set by the Board in the near future. According to the Notice of Hearing, at the special prehearing conference, the Board will consider all intervention petitions and discuss specific issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing.
In an " Order Setting Prehearing Conference" dated January 17,1980, the Board, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.752, set the prehearing conference for Febru-a ry 29, 1980. According to this Notice, the place for this hearing will be set at a later date and it will be in the vicinity of Morris, Illinois. As stated by the Board, the purpose of the prehearing conference is to hear from the parties with regard to the contentions which have been filed by Intervenors and to rule upon what contentions shall be at issue in this proceeding.
Subsequently, on February 6,1980, the Board issued an " Order Setting Location of Prehearing Conference," in which it stated the time and location for the prehearing conference to be held in Morris, Illinois.
_1f The Board also granted the request of the State to participate as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 92.715(c).
III.
Discussion A.
MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING There is no merit to Illinois' assertion that the NRC is without authority, either by statute or regulation, to license and regulate an AFR.
Authority for NRC to license and regulate such a facility is found in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9 2011 g seo., sections 51., 53.,
5 7., 62., 63., 65., 81., 161.b., h. i., o., 182.a as amended, 183., as anended, 184., as amended, 186., and 187., and in the Engergy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, sections 201., as amended, and 206, 42 U.S.C.
95 5841 and 5846.
In brief, sections 51., 53., 61., 62., 63., and 81.
provide that the Commission is authorized to issue licenses to receive title to, own, acquire, receive, or possess special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material.
Not only do these sections authorize the NRC to issue such licenses, but by virtue of sections 57., 62., and 81., no person may transfer or receive in interstate commerce, transfer, acquire, own or possess, import or export, such materials except to the extent authori-zed in the Act.
Commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel stored at Morris contains special nuclear material, source material and byproduct material.
Possession of this spent nuclear fuel is licensed pursuant to the aforemen-tinned sections of the Atomic Energy Act.
Pursuant to section 161b. the Commission is authorized to:
" establish by rule, regulation or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of 2pecial nuclear material, source and byproduct material as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect the health or to minimize danger to life or property."
42 U.S.C. $2201.
In addition Sec.161 authorizes the Commission to:
h.
" consider in a single application one or more of the activities for which a license is required by this Act, combine in a single license one or more of such activities..."
1.
prescribe such regulations or orders as it may deem necessary...
(3) to govern any activity authorized pursuant to this Act, includ-ing standards and restrictions governing the design, location, and operation of facilities used in the conduct of such activities, in order to protect the health and to minimize danger to life or prope rty. "
In furtherance of the authority contained in section 161.b. and 161.h., the Connission has enacted regulations in 10 CFR Part 30, " Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," Part. 40, " Domes-tic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," and Part 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material." As previously stated, General Electric Co.
has applied for renewal, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 of its license to operate the Morris facility.
Pursuant to Sec.161.h., the Com-mission has the authority to consider in this application, the several activities for which a license is required in this case, namely the posses-sion of special nuclear material, source material and byproduct material, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.
By virtue of Se:
161.1, the Con-mission has prescribed these regulations to govern the operation of the facilities used in the conduct of these activities authorized by the Act, the possession of special nuclear material, source and byproduct material.
The GE Morris Operation is the facility used by GE to possess the commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.
It is thus evident that, contrary to the claim of Illinois, there are pro-visions in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations governing use and possession of spent nuclear fuel containing special nuclear material, source material and byproduct material.
It is irrelevant that these statutory sections and regulations do not use the term "away from reactor storage facility," as does Illinois or that the statutory authority to license and regulate possession of spent nuclear fuel is derived from more than a single statutory provision. The regulatory framework established by the Atomic Energy Act provides for the licensing of " nuclear power plants" in a chapter entitled " Atomic Energy Licenses" and uses the term " production and utilization facility."
It would be incorrect to argue that by use of this tenn rather than " nuclear power plant," there is no authority in the Act to regulate a nuclear power plant.
In effect, Illinois argues that because there is not a particular provision (as opposed to several provisions) in the Act authorizing licensing and regulation of an "Away From Reactor" spent fuel storage facility, there is no statutory authority for the NRC to license such a facility. The previous discussion of particular provisions of the Act and NRC regulations gonrning use and possession of special nuclear material, source material and byproduct material show there is no rerit to this claim.
Similarly lacking in merit is Illinois' claim that absent Congressional authorization, the NRC may not promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing and regulation of privately owned commercial AFR facilities for the storage of spent fuel.
As previously mentioned, the Atonic Energy Act authorizes the Commission to issue licenses to receive title to, own, receive or possess the source material, special nuclear material and byproduct material contained in commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.
Pursuant to this authority and that found in sec.161.b.
and i., the Commission has the authority to prescribe such regulations and orders as it deems necessary to govern any activity authorized by this act, including standards and restric-tions governing the design, location and operation of facilities used in the conduct of such activities.
In furtherance of this authority the Commission has published a proposed rule, " Storage of Spent Fuel In An Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
43 Fed. Re,q. 46309 (October 6, 1978).
These proposed regulations govern the design, location, and opera-tion of a facility used in the conduct of activities authorized pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, namely the possession of special nuclear material, source and byproduct material.
Proposed Part 72 recognizes the need for a more definitive regulatory basis for licensing of such facilities, which are 2]
For a more detailed statement of the authority of the Commission to issue proposed Part 72 see 43 Fed. Reg. 46311.
also referred to >
'Away From Reactor" (AFR) storage facilities.
43 Fed.
Reg. 46309.
It is true, as Illinois claims, that promulgation of these regulations does not " vest in the Commission jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding." Contrary to Illinois' claim, however, the Commission already possesses authority pursuant to the previously cited sections of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to license and regulate the possession of commercial reactr,r spent nuclear fuel containing special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. Authority of the Commission to conduct a hearing in the proceeding concerning the request by General Electric Co. for renewal of Materials License SNM-1265 is found in Sec. 189.
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that there is no merit to any of the bases asserted by Illinois in its " Motion to Dismiss Proceeding." Accord-ingly the Motion must be denied.
B.
MOTION TO STAY As previously stated, Illinois' Motion To Stay rests in part upon the same grounds relied upon in its Motion to Dismiss, namely, that the Commission has no authority, by statute or regulation, to license a facility such as GE Morris. To the extent that the Motion To Stay is based upon this claim, it must be denied, since the claim is without merit as set forth above.
In its Motion to Stay, Illinois also argues that the Morris operation is not in compliance with any rule or preposed rule and that prior to promulgation of Proposed Part 72, the Staff cannot properly assess the GE Morris license renewal application.
Illinois fails to recognize that there are existing regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, pursuant to which GE possesses a valid Materials License.E These regulations provide the regulatory frame-work against which the license application is evaluated.
If and when pro-posed Part 72 is promulgated in final form, the regulations and criteria therein may provide an additional regulatory framework for licensing and regulation of the GE Morris Facility. There is no merit to the argument of Illinois that until promulgation of Part 72 the Staff cannot assess the license renewal application.
Present regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 provide the basis for such an assessment.
Similarly lacking in merit is Illinois' assertion that after proulgation of Part 72 in final form, it will be necessary to reconvene the Licer. sing Board to reconsider GE's application for re..ewal, and that therefore, this proceed-ing should be stayed.
When and if proposed Part 72 is promulgated, those regulations will govern the procedures to be applied to an existing facility such as GE Morris.
It is entirely speculative to claim, al does Illinois, that the Licensing Board will have to be reconvened upon final promulgation of Part 72.
3]
Pursuant to 10 CFR 670.33(b), the Applicant has made a timely filing for renewal of its license.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 6 70.33(b), the license shall not expire until the application 'or renewal has been finally determined by the Commission.
Illinois claims that a case which it cites as People of Illinois v. U S.
Department of Energy, No. 79C-1427, prevents the Board from determining who will own or operate the Morris facility. The Staff believes that this claim, as an asserted basis for its Motion to Stay, is completely without merit.
In this case, People of Illinois v. General Electric Co., et al.,
No. 79C-1427 (N.D. Ill. December 18,1979) (order granting Motion to Dismiss and granting in part and denying in part, Motion for Summary Judgment), the court granted the Motion of the General Electric Co. to Dismis3 Counts I, III, and IVO and granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II filed on behalf of the Federal Defendants, U.S. Depart-ment of Energy and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The motion for sunnary judgment was granted with respect to that part of Count II in which Illinois alleged tnat the Department of Energy (DOE) sent the proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Act of 1979 to Congress without preparing, and submitting to Congress, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied with respect to the second part of Count II, in which Illinois alleges that DOE intends to purchase the Morris site from GE for use as an y
Tnese counts of Illinois' complaint may be summarized as follows:
In Count I, Illinois alleged that the Illinois Radioactive Waste Act, Ill. New. Stat.1977, ch.111h, para. 230.1 g seq., and contracts entered pursuant thereto, are wholly pre-empted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. % 2011 et seq. Count III of the complaint alleged that the Illinois Ta'dioactive Waste Act, and contracts entered pursuant thereto, violate various provisions of the Illinois Constitution.
In Count IV, Illinois alleged that the Illinois /GE contract is void for want of consideration.
. AFR facility or a spent unreprocessed fuel facility (" SURF"), that such purchase is a major federal action significaqtly affecting the quality of the human environment, and that DOE has not prepared an EIS on the proposed purchase. With respect to this Count, it should be noted that "the brief of the Federal Defendants in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment states that DOE does not have statutory authority to acquire the GE Morris site or any facilities for the storage of spent fuel and one of the purposes of the proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Act of 1979 is to give DOE such authority."
Contrary to Illinois' claim, the Staff does not believe that the resolution of that suit in any way affects this proceeding. The General Electric Co.
is presently the owner of the Morris Facility.
The amount of fuel stored at the facility is approximately 310 Metric Tones Uranium (MTU).
Illinois v.
General Electric Co. et al. does not concern GE's ownership of the facility or the amount of spent fuel stored at the facility.
Rather, the suit con-cerns whether DOE is required to prepare an EIS concerning any possible future acquisition by DOE of the Morris facility. Neither the present ownership of the facility nor the amount of spent fuel stored there is in dispute. Accordingly, the pendency of Illinois v. General Electric Co.,
et al. in no way affects this proceeding.
Illinois cites the pending rulemaking proceeding being conducted by NRC as further grounds for a stay of this proceeding. The purpose of this proceed-ing, " Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste," which was initiated in response to State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.1979), is:
"... solely to assess generically the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste can be safely disposed of, to determine when such disposal or off-site storage will be available, and to determine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored on-site past the expiration of existing facility licenses until off-site disposal or storage is available.
See 44 Fed. RS. 61372 at 61373, (October 25, 1979).
The Commission has stated that:
"During this proceeding the safety implications and environ-mental impacts of radioactive waste storage on-site for the duration of a license will continue to be subjects for adjudi-cation in individual facility licensing proceedings. The Commission has decided, however, that during this proceeding the issues being considered in the rulemaking should not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings. These issues are most appropriately addressed in a generic proceeding of the character here envisaged.
Furthermore, the court in the State of Min 1esota case by remanding this matter to the Com-mission but not vacating or revoking the facility licenses involved, has supported the Cornission's conclusion that licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding.
However, all licensing proceedings now underway will be sub-ject to whatever final deteminations are reached in inis proceeding.
_Id., at 61372 (emphasis added).
Illinois claims that the Licensing Board cannot detemine, until completion of this rulemaking, whether it must " consider the factor of long tem storage at Morris." However, the Commission's policy in the Notice as set forth above, is that during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding an issue concerning long term storage of radioactive waste at a facility (beyond the tem of the license) may not be considered in individual proceedings.5_/ To 5]
While it might be argued that the Commission's policy directing that long term storage not be considered in individual licensing proceedings referred only to individual licensing proceedings involving "at reactor" storage rather than those (such as GE Morris) involving away from reactor storage, there is no such limitation apparent in the Commission's policy statement.
Moreover, the principle that long tem storage, being considered in generic rulemaking, should not be considered in individual adjudicatory proceedings is as applicable in an individual licensing proceeding involvina away from reactor storage (as at GE Mcrris) as it is in a proceeding involving at reactor storage.
- the extent that Illinois' request for a stay depends upon the pendency of thisrulemaking,therequestmustbedenied.N Based on the foregoing, there is no merit to Illinois' reouest for a stay.
In addition, the request for a stay must be denied, based upon application of the factors in 10 CFR 9 2.788. These factors, originally set forth in Virainia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n. v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir.1958),
must be satisfied in order to warrant issuance of a stay of an initial decision or action of an Atomic Sais !y and Licensing Board or Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, 10 CFR @ 2.788 Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), CLI-78-3, 7 NRC 307, 308 (1978);
Public Service of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-338, 4 NRC 1013 (1976). These factors are:
(1) has the movant made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail upon the merits of its appeal; 6/
Ine Commission's policy on consideration of long term radioactive waste storage as set forth in the above Federal Reaister notice, has recently been applied consistent with the discussion above by a Licensing Board in Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1),
NRC (February 22,1980), slip. op_.,
at 2-3.
As the Licensing Board stated:
"The notice states clearly that long-term storage is to be addressed by the Commission generically, and not by Licensing Boards in individual proceedings.
Since this and all other individual proceedings now underway will be subject to the out-come of the rulemaking, the Commission will undoubtedly provide an appropriate means for addressing long-term storage further if the Commission finds, as a result of the rulemaking, that on-site storage of spent fuel will exceed the duration of operating licenses." Id, at 3.
(2) has the novant shown that, without the requested relief, it will be irreparably injured; (3) would the issuance of a stay substantially harm other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where does the public interest lie:
10 CFR Q 2.788(e).
At the outset, the Staff notes that Illinois' Motion to Stay was not timely filed.
10 CFR S 2.788(a) requires t at:
h "Within ten (10) days after service of a decision or action any party to the proceeding may file an application for a stay of the effectiveness of the decision or action..."
In its Motion for Stay, Illinois requests that "no further action should be taken in this proceeding."
Illinois also requests that the Licensing Board
" Stay the proceeding and hearing."
In the Staff's view the action tere then is the Licensing Board's Notice of Hearing issued on August 13,1979.O A timely motion for a stay of this action had to be filed within 10 days after service of this Notice.
Illinois' motion, filed on February 15,1980, is almos t five months late.
Even if it is assumed that the action is the JJ An argument could be madi that the action of the Board which Illinois seeks to stay is the Boatd's order of January 17, 1980, convening a prehearing conference.
Board's Order setting prehearing conference, supra, issued on January 17, 1980, Illinois' motion is still untimely. On this basis then, the motion mus t be denied.
If it is determined that Illinois Motion is not untimely, the motion must be denied for failure to address the factors in 10 CFR 6 2.788(e). The strength or weakness of any of these factors, detennines how strong a showing must be made on the other factors.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-338, 4 NRC 10 (1976).
A mere showing of possible grounds for appeal is not enough. Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Power Station, Units 12, and 2), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621, 634 (1977).
Most importantly, there ordinarily must be a showing of substantial irrepar-able injury to the movant absent the stay.
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-347, 6 NRC 630-632 (1977); Toledo Edison Co., supra. Although the " level or degree of possibility of success" on the merits necessary to justify a stay varies according to the tribunal's assessment of the other factors, where there is no showing of irreparable injury, the showing of likelihood of success on the merits must be overwhelming to justify a stay.
Florida Fower & Light Co.
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-404, 5 NRC 1185,1186-89 (1977); See also, Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-456, 7 NRC 63, 68 (1978). To make such a showing a movant must, of course, do more than list possible grounds for reversal. Toledo Edison Co., supra.
Illinois has not even attempted to address these factors, save for the
~
a urementioned unsupported allegations. The allegations, on which the request for relief is predicated, are very general ones.
In the Staff's view, these claims do not show that Illinois is likely to prevail on the merits.
(the first factor specified in 10 CFR 9 2.788(e).
With respect to the second factor (has the movant shown that without the requested relief, it will be irreparably injured) the Staff believes that Illinois' showing is completely deficient.
In fact Illinois does not even allege that without the stay, it will be injured at all.
Illinois merely offers unsupported arguments as to why it believes the Board should stay these proceedings.
Illinois has completely failed to carry its burden with respect to the second factor specified in 10 CFR 9 2.788(e).
The Staff believes that issuance of stay would hann the other parties in this proceeding (the third factor in 10 CFR 9 2.788(e)) and that the public interest lies in not granting the stay (the fourth factor in 10 CFR 9 2.788(e)).
This proceeding was initiated on August 13, 1979, when the Board issued its Notice of Hearing, supra.
Over six months have elapsed since that date.
The Staff believes that the other parties (including the other Intervenors) are entitled to a prehearing conference to consider contentions filed in this proceeding. To grant Illinois motion for stay and delay this pre-hearing conference would deprive the other parties of having the Board 8]
However, petitions for leave to intervene were filed well before that date on May 21, 1979 and May 23, 1979.
consider, on the basis of any written pleadings and oral argument, these contentionsU and rule upon the admissibility of contentions.
Similarly, in the Staff's view, granting the motion for stay is not in the public interest.
A hearing has been granted on the request of Illinois and four individuals with respect to GE's application to renew its license to operate the Morris facility. GE's license was due to expire on August 31, 1979. However, due to the timely filing of an application for renewal, the license is not considered to have expired until the Commission makes a final determination on the application. Until this hearing is completed, there can be no such determination. The Staff believes that the public interest lies in proceed-ing with the prehearing conference and hearing.
Illinois iias made no showing that the public interest lies elsewhere.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Staff urges that Illinois' " Motion to Dismiss Proceeding" and " Motion to Stay" be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Y W % elulcl Marjorie U. Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff 9/
In fact, Illinois has filed " Amended contentions," dated February 14, 1980, for consideration at the prehearing conference and has requested oral aqument at the prehearing conference or the right to brief argu-ments in support of these contentions.
c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility?
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S STATEMENT OF POSITION ON AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS" and "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ILLIN0IS' MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING AND MOTION TO STAY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 28th day of February, 1980:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Bridget Little Rorem Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Essex, IL 60935 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, MD 20;]6 Edward Firestone, Esq.
Legal Operation Dr. Linda W. Little General Electric Company 5000 Hermitage Drive 175 Curtner Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 Mall Code 822 San Jose, CA 95125 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 East Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State College, PA 16801 Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 188 West Randolph Street Panel (5)*
Suite 2315 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, IL 60601 Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szwaj kowski, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (5)*
Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Mayer, Brown & Platt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 South LaSalle Street Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60604 hQaL{/ut 0]WGM IN SCN N Marjodie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff
.