ML19331B264
| ML19331B264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1973 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331B265 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007280859 | |
| Download: ML19331B264 (21) | |
Text
-
1-22-73 n
THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES U !ITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC EllERGY CO*:MISSIO:!
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AilD LICEi!SI!!G APPEAL B05.RD In the l'atter of
)
)
.~
C0:!SUMERS PO'.ER COMPA:1Y
)
DOCKET !!0Sq50-329
~
)
5M30 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AEC REGULATOR 7 STAFF'S BRIEF Irl OPPOSITIO:1 TO EXCEPTIO:lS 0F fRPLETC:! It!TERVEf 0RS On January 3,1973, the Maoleten Intervenors1/ filed twebe exceptions to the Initial' Decision issued on Dececher 14, 1972 by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
In this brief, filed pursuant to 10 CFR 12.762(c), we deal with these exceptions seriatim and state the reasons why we believe each of them should be denied.
1.
Stu dard Features of Plant In paragraph 11 of its Initial Decision the ASLB set forth its con-clusions with respect to a number of safety-related aspects of the proposed facilities which were not in controversy in this proceeding and which were substantially identical to corresponding aspects of previously licensed power reactors. With respect to uncontested issues such as these, the Commission's Rules of Practice applicable 1/ A desicnation adooted by the folicwing joint intervenors:
!!elson Aeschliman.
John L. Wentworth, Hilda M. Wentworth,
John Liddell, Loretta Liddell, and Wendell H. ?!arshall.
8007280h47
/
A 4
~ to this proceeding provided that ASLB's
...are neither required nor expected to duplicate the review already performed by the regulatory staff and the ACRS and they are authorized to rely upon the testimony of the regulatory stay and the applicant, and the conclusions of the ACRS
, which are not controverted by any party.
Thus, the [ASLB] need not evaluate those matters already evaluated by the staff which are not in controversy.
(10 CFR Part 2, App. A, HVI(d); 33 F.R. 8587)
In accordance with these provisions, the ASLB reported in paragraph 11 that it had " reviewed the various aspects of the proposal
[ examples omitted] and [found] that Applicant has submitted sufficient information and the Staff has conducted an adequate -
review of those aspects of the plant." The ASLB then added:
We do not believe it would be helpful, nor is it required that we do so, to comment in any detail on the standard features of the plant (except where an issue is contested).
Instead we will devote our attention to those aspects of the proposal which are new or unusual, to contested issues, and to specific matters as to which we are required to make findings.
The Mapleton Intervenors assert, in the face of this discussion in paragraph 11, that the ASLB failed to consider the " standard features of the plant."
Evidently, they have simply misread paragraph 11. We submit that under any fair and reasonable 2/ As the ASLB stated in footnote 2 of its Initial Decision, in this proceeding the pertinent reports of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards were admitted into evidence. for the sole purpose of showing compliance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,.and not as evidence of the truth of any statement therein.
i I
- interpretation of this paragraph it is apparent that the ASLB employed interchangeably the phrases "various aspects.of the proposal" and " standard features.of the plant." Thus, paragraph 11 itself states the consideration given to "standaro features".
The ASLB reviewed those features (aspects) and found with respect to them that the applicant had submitted sufficient information, and that the staff review had been adequate.
What the ASLB did not do was to set forth detailed findings on these uncontested matters involving plant features of no particular novel ty.
Essentially, the ASLB chose, not inappropriately in the circumstances, to focus its Initial Decision primarily on the contested and novel aspects of the Midland Plant.
The ASLB's decision in this regard was reasonable and should be affirmed.
In any case, the Mapleton Intervenors' exception should fail for the additional reason that it deals with matters previously un-controverted.
Aside from the emergency core cooling system, which the ASLB discussed separately and not as one of the ' standard features" covered by paragraph 11, the Mapleton Intervenors have not previously challenged any specific safety-related feature of plant, standard or othenvise.3/ Accordingly, this first exception 3_/ The Mapleton Intervenors' contentions on radiological health and safety matters are set forth in their " Offer of Proof of More Specific Contentions, etc.", dated
- July 8,1971.
_4 deals with matters the 11apleton Intervenors never raised before
,the ASLB and are therefore barred from pursuing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board).
2.
Residential Pooulation Within Low Pooulation Zone In paragraph 16 of its Initial Decision the ASLB deals with the small residential population (38) and the much larger transient,
(2145) within the " low ~ population zone" (LPZ) proposed for the Midland Plant.
The size of the residential population within the LPZ has never b,een an issue in this proceeding. The transient population (employees of Dow and Dow-Corning) was, on the other '
hand, given extensive consideration in the public hearing, as reflected in paragraph 33 of the Initial-Decision.
In their exception flo. 2, the Maplet]n Intervenors challenge the ASLB's conclusion that "[t]he residential population within the
[LPZ] is.well within acceptable limits." '(Initial Decision, para.16, emphasis added)
At the' outset we would emphasize that the Mapleton Intervenors here again attempt to raise an issue not litigated-before the ASLB.
Although we deal herein with the merits of the issue, we submit that the Mapleton Intervenor's failure even to apprise the ASLB of their apparent concern in regard to the residential population of the LPZ is itself fatal to exception ?!o'. 2.
. The Mapleton Intervenor's soecific complaint is that the Initial
' Decision does not set forth or attempt to justify the criteria used by the ASLB to determine the. acceptability of the residential population of the LPZ.
In context, however, it is clear that the ASLB evaluated the LPZ in light of the criteria prescribed by the Ccmmission and set forth in 10 CFR 5100.3(b).3_/ The ASLB's treatment of the LPZ population issue in paragraph 16 of the Initial Decision is only a part of an overall disgussion of plant siting and compliance with 10 CFR Part 100 contained in paragraph 12 through 17.
In paragraph 15, for example, the ASLB evaluated the proposed 'bxclusion area" in light of the relevant criteria in 10 CFR 1100.3(a); and in paragraph 17 the ASLB considered the "popula-tion center distance" in light of 10 CFR 5100.11(a)(3).
Further-more, LPZ is a term of art which has no meaning other than that given, together with acceptance criteria, in 10 CFR 9100.3(b).
Thus, the " acceptable limits" mentioned in paragraph 16 of the Initial Decision can only be taken as a reference to 10 CFR 6100.3(b).
3/ Section 100.3(b) provides as follows:
" Low population zone" means the area immediately surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the total number and density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a serious-accident.
These guides do not specify a permissible population density or total population within this zone because the situation may vary from case to case.
'elhether a specific number of people can, for example, be evacuated from a specific area, or instructed to take shelter, on a timely basis will depend on many factors such as location, number and size of. highways, scope and
. extent of advance planning, and actual distribution of residents within the area.
. Considering that the residential population of the LPZ has been established in the record as comprising only 38 individuals (e.g.,
applicant's Exhibit 1-A, 52.2.4), it is difficult to understand the concern reflected by exception l'o. 2.
Since, as noted above, the size of the residential population of the LPZ has never been questioned, there is no detailed discussion of this issue in the record.
I!evertheless, staff testimony and the record adequately supports' the acceptability of the LPZ.
For example, the staff Safety Evaluation (Tr.1674) predicates the accep'tability of the LPZ in part on the fact that the residential population is "very small" (p. 8).
A staff witness characterized the LPZ population as "relatively low," taking into account.both the residential and transient components of that population (Tr. 3295).
The same witness further testified that the LPZ might even be acceptable if the population therein were entirciy residential and amounted to as many as 1500 individuals!
(Tr~. 3371-72).
In general, evidence adduced at the hearing reflects consideration by the staff of the 38 LPZ residents in reaching its overall conclusions that appropriate protective reasures could be taken in the behalf of the LPZ population in the event of a serious accident (Tr. 3339-40, 3398-3400). Accordingly, the record supports the ASLB's conclusion as to the acceotability of the LPZ.
7 3.
Site Meteorology For their third exception, the Mapleton Intervenors challenge the ASLB's conclusion that construction permits may issue in the absence of _ definitive on-site meteorological data.
This exception is premised.on a fundamental misunderstanding of the licensing standards that apply at the construction permit stage..
The ASLB clearly was not required to find that the final resolution of every safety question was in hand in order to authorize the issuance of construction permits.S/ On the contrary,.the Commission's -
regulations specifically provide for the issuance of a construct ~ ion
~
permit.where the applicant "has not supplied initially all of the technical information required to complete the application and support the issuance of a construction permit which approves all proposed design features", but where there is nevertheless " reasonable assurance that... the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
(10 CFR g50.35(a))
Thus, the absence of definitive information on a safety question is not necessarily a bar to the issuance of a construction permit.
In particular, a construction permit may issue in the absence of definitive on-site meteorological data.
This is not a case of 4/ See, e.q., Decision of the Commission dated May 6,1965 in
' Matter of Jersey Central Paaer and Licht Cc., Docket No.
50-219 (3 AEC 28, 29).
. first impression. Over the years, construction permits have been aui.horized by other ASLB's in similar circumstances.E/
The Commission acknowledged and gave at least implicit approval to this approach in the Turkey Point case where it adopted the ASLB's statement that the " precedent *** for reactor cases has been to defer many of the meteorological and site criteria determinations to developments that occur during the construction stage." 5 Due to the unavailability of adequate on-site meteorological data, the staff evaluated the Midland site using the moteorological assuuptions set forth in staff Safety Guide No. 4.7l The ASLB
~
found, in paragraph 22 of its Initial Decision, that these assumptions "are sufficiently conservative to justify a reasonable expectation that the site is satisfactory." This finding is supported in the record by the testimony of the staff's meteoro-logist ( whose special expertise in the field of air transport E
and diffusion is well documentedU and in fact conceded by the 5/ See, e.o., Initial Decision dated March 23, 1971, in Matter of the foTedo Edison Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Company, Docket No. 50-346), para.13; Initial Decision dated June 22,1970 in Matter of Duouesne Licht Comoany, Pennsylvania Power Ccmoany, and Ohio Edison Company, Docket i;o. 50-344.
6/ Memorandum and Order dated August 4,1967 in Matter of Florida Power & Licht Co., Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251.
7] Safety Evaluation, Tr.1674, at p.10, staff exhibit 3.
8] Tr. 3698-3700, 3703-04.
9] Tr. 3688-92.
. intervenors' principal meteorologist.E As the ASLB noted in paragraph 22 of the Initial Decision, even the testimony of the.
intervencrs' witnesses tends to corroborate the staff's conservatism.
Accordingly, exception flo. 3 is not well taken and should be denied.
4.
Emergency Core Cooling System Exception tio. 4 relates to the ASLB's refusal to entertain a challenge to the validity to the Commission's Interim Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Power Reactors.E As noted in paragraphs 39 and 41 of the Initial Decision, the sub-stance of the Interim Criteria is the subject of a contested rule-making proceeding, Docket tio. RM-50-1, in which the Mapleton Intervenors are participating.
In the circumstances the ASLB con-cluded (Initial Decision, cara. 41), that "nothing but confusion would be added" by concurrent consideration of the Interim Criteria in this proceeding.
The ASLB's conclusion-in this regard was sound and consistent 10] Tr. 3662 B Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Power Reactors - Interim Policy Statement, 40 F.K.
1244/,
June 29, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 24062, December 18, 1971.
with available Commission guidance and previous decisions of the Appeal Board.
In its Supplementary Notice of Hearing in Docket No. RM-50-1, the Commission specifically stated that "the conduct of a rule making hearing on the subject matter of this notice will not affect the orderly res6ution, under the Commission's existing regulations, of the natter of emergency core cooling, in hearings on applications for light water-cooled power reactors pending before atomic safety and licensing boards.E/
In its Pilgrim decisbn the Appeal Board rejected an exception to the effect that " parties in adjudicatory licensing proceedings have a right which cannot be qualified to challenge the validity of Commission regulations and to obtain a Comission determination of the validity of the challenged regulation prior to the rendering of the initial decision by a licensing board.El The Appeal Board went on to affim the licensing board's ruling that the inter-venors' challenge to the Interim Criteria in that case could be heard only in Docket No. RM-50-1, in which those intervenors were alsoparticipating.E/ See also Vemont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, ALAB-57 (June 20, 1972); Wisconsin Electric Pcwer Company, et al., (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-78 (November 10,1972).
E/ 37 F.R. 288, January 8, 1972.
13/ Boston Edison Comoany, (Pilgrim Nuclear Pcwer Station),
ALAB-83 at 18-19 (December 4,1972).
14/ Id. at 20.
- 5. ASLB's-Interoretation of the Atonic Eneray Act of 1954, As Amended For their fifth exception, the Mapleton Intervonors take issue with the ASLB's statement in paragraph 73 of its Initial Decision that
"[t]he judgment has been made [in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act)] that atomic energy must be used for production of electricity and there is nothing in the National Environmental Policy Act which overrides that judgment."
In our view, the ASLB in the context that the statement was made has correctly stated the law.
Clearly, a principal purpose of the Act was to encourage peaceful uses of atomic energy such as its applica-tion to the generation of electrical power or process steam.E NEPA does not flatly repeal the Act, nor does it mandate the same result by requiring ccmplete and definitive knowledge of the effects of low-level radiation as a condition for the licensing of a power reactor.
Nothing more than this narrow point was intended by the statement challenged in exception No. 5.
Manifestly, the ASLB understcod that NEPA and the Commission's regulations pursuant thereto do require consideration of the potential environmental costs of low-level radiation and a determinution as to whether such costs are offset by ' sufficient benefits.
Indeed, the ASLB specifically found that "[w]eighed by a reasonable scale, these potential costs [i.e., those associated with low-level 15] See, e.g., section 3.d. of the Act.
radiation] cannot tip the balance against nuclear power here."15/
Exception No. 5 is without merit and should be denied.
- 6. -Miscellaneous Environ. mental Exceotions Exception No. 6 is nothing more than a lengthy dissertation on the broad, general requirements of NEpA, coupled with blanket exceptions to the ASLS's environmental findings of fact and conclusions of.
law.
Neither the Appeal Board nor any party can ~ meaningfully address this " exception."
It should be denied summarily for
~
flagrant noncompliance with the Commission's requirements regarding the form and content of exceptions.12/
7.
Cost-Benefi t Exception No. 7, as we understand it, amounts to a charge that the ASLB failed to take into account the -costs of the proposed facilities, particularly those associated with lo.1-level radiation, and balance those costs against the benefits that would result from operation of the facilities.
~In the course of the hearing extensive evidence was adduced with respect to both the costs and the benefits of the applicant's proposal.
The environmental hearing was in session for a total 16/ Initial Decision, para. 73.
17/.10 CFR 12. 762(a).
7
. of 13 days and resulted in the addition of some 3600 pages to the hearing transcript.
Numerous exhibits were received in-evidence, including staff Exhibit 6, the Final Environmental Statement', which. contains a detailed discussion of reles ant costs and benefits.
In addition, the ASLB heard testimony from a number of witnesses sponsored by the applicant, the staff, the Mapleton Intervenors and the Dow Chemical Company..The subjects on which oral testimony was heard include need for power, decommissioning, fogging, loss of terrestrial wildlife, " synergism", and several others.
~
The Initial Decision deals with these matters and concludes, in paragraph 70, that " benefits outweigh costs."
Anong the costs taken into acccent by the ASLB were the envircn-rental effects of icw-level rac'iation to be released during normal operation of the facilities.
These effects were characterized by the ASLB as " minimal" (para. 61).
Referring to both normal and 1
possible accidental relcases, the ASLB found that "[w]eighed by a reasonable scale, these potential costs cannot tip the balance against nuclear power here" (para.73).
The Mapleton Intervenors focus on,the term " reasonable scale," which the ASLB did not explicitly define.
However, ir. the total centext of the Initial Decision, taking into account, inter alia, the ASLB's conclusions
.14 -
in regard to the question of " synergism" (para. 66), it is clear that the ASLB simply found no meaningful cost associated with the
. anticipated low-level releases from the proposed facilities.
This
' conclusion is well supported in the record.18/
Exception No. 7 should be denied.
8.
End Uses of Electricity.
Exception No. 8 relates' principally to the ASLB's conclusion, in paragraph 48 of the Initial Jecision, that it was "beyond [the ASLB's]
province to inquire into whether the customary uses being made of electricity in our society are ' proper' or ' improper'."
In this respect, the ASLB defined the scope of its environmental review as -the staff defined its review in the Final Environmental Statement, staff exhibit No. 6.
In section XII.L. of the Final Environmental Statement, pp. XII-11, -12, the staff stated:
Recognizing the virtually boundless range of considera-tions which might be argued to be relevant to an environmental review of a nuclear paler reactor, the AEC regulatory staff has endeavored to apply a " rule of. reason" in determining the scope of this statement.
As one illustration of the application of this principle, the state-ment goes on to note:
18,/ See, e.g., staff exhibit No. 6, at V-30; Tr. 7554-66.
, [T]his statement discusses the subject of demand.for energy from the standpoint of actual anticipated demand, and not from the stencroint of what the relevant derand should or should not be uten consideration of the desirability or utility of the-uses cf the energy produced by the plant.
'The reasonableness of this approach is evident fror,an examination.
^
of material docketec in this proceeding.. As the ASLD itself.noted, in paragraph 48 of the Initial Decisien, "[i]ntervenors 'have
~~
suggested at various times that the Board must ao behind the
~
characterization of. ' demand' made by the Applicant to determine whether an approoriate alternative to satisfying the demand would be to set limits on particular uses of-electricity." One such suggested area of inquiry wasthe possibility _of changing the present social stimuli whic:1 could result in decreased demand for electricity."El Other, similarly unreasnnable, suagestions were made for inquiry into the value of The Dow Chemical Company to Midland and the value of its products to society in general.2_0/
For example, at one point in the proceeding an intervenor proposed consideration of "the possible development of a tourist and recrea--
tion industry to replace Cow."UI R/ Saainaw Valley _e_t al. Intervenors ' Statement _ of Environmental Contentions, dated February 6,1972, para. 32.
20/
Id., para. 34.
21/ Environmental Dafense Friend's Statement of Sub.iccts Which
.f'ust be Thorouchiv Exciored as Part of End included in the
' Applicant and Staff Environmental TrHv~ sis, dated September 30, T971, para. 65.
. In our view, the ASLB correctly rejected the approach reflected in these suggestions.
NEPA does not require wide-ranging and
. interminable inquiry without regard to such factors as relevancy, proximateness and potential fruitfulness. Here, as elsewhere, in the law, the application of a rule of reason is both indicated and permissible.
See National Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F. 2d 980 (D.C.Cir.1972)
In the final sentence of exception No. 8 the inteivenors raise a
~
number of discrete issues in addition to 'that discussed above.
Iten considered as separate exceptions they are objectionable for failure to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 12.752(a).
Accordingly, we merely note that all these issues are dealt with explicitly or implicitly in the Initial Decision and the Final Environmental Statement.
9.
Syneraism Exception No. 9 raises two issues.
First, the Mapleton Intervenors take exception to the ASLB's finding in regard to " synergism."
Second, they challenge alleged ASLB rulings excluding additional
. evidence on synergism.
The ASLB's conclusion discounting the potential for synergism is supported, as the ASLB itself noted in paragraph 66 of the Initial Decision, by " overwhelming" evidence and should therefore be
affirmed.
See, e.g., Tr. 7554-71, 8873-8900.
Of the alleged exclusionary rulings referred to in this exception, only one, that relating to Dr. Huver's evidence, is sufficiently identified to permit comment.
Prior to the environmental hearings the flapleton Intervenors submitted an affidavit by Dr. Huver which the ASLB interpreted as a challenge-to 10 CFR Part 20. After con-sidering this and other affidavits submitted by the intervenors, the ASLB ruled that the intervenors had not raise ~(a substantial question as to the validity of Part 20.22/ Although certain of
~
these affiants sere later called to the stand by the Mapleton Intervenors to testify on synergism, Dr. Huver was not. He was never available for cross-examination.
In the circumstances Dr. Huver's affidavit was not entitled to any evidentiary weight.
If the ASLB indeed excluded his affidavit from consideration, no j
error was committed in that regard.
10.
Fogging and Icing l
Exception flo.10 asserts, without supporting citations to the record, l'
l that construction permits may not issue prior to'the completion of additional studies of fogging and icing.
The ASLB concluded that such additional studies should be conducted 22,/ Order dated March 10, 1972.
(Initial Decision, para. 69).
However, the ASLB also found that even in the area close to the cooling pond, the effects of fogging-and icing are likely to be " insubstantial and the environmental
~
costs minimal" (Id.). Extensive evidence supporting the latter conclusion was adduced at the hearing.23/ This evidence, as the ASLB indicates in paragraph 69 of the Initial Decision, was never seriously challenged by the Mapleton Intervenors.
Thus, as regards fogging and icing, the record fully supports the issuance of construction permits at this time.
11.
" Electro-Maonetic Pulse"
~
Exception No.11 challenges the ASLB's alleged " refusal to consider any evidence offered by Mapleton Intervenors on the hazards of Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP)."
In the absence of particulars sufficient to identify positively either an offer by the Mapleton Intervenors or a refusal of an offer by the ASLB, we assume that this exception relates to an affidavit of Carlos E. Vogel which was served on the ASLB and the parties by letter dated December 22, 1971.
To the best of our recollection, the Vogel affidavit is the only submission the Mapleton Intervenors ever made or sought to make on the subject of " Electro-Magnetic Pulse." This affidavit, to the best of our recollection, was never offered into evidence.
Mr. Vogel was never available for cross-examination.
23/See,e.g.,Tr. 7441-63
. Exception flo. ll appears not to be well taken and should in any event be denied for lack of the specificity required by 10 CFR 52.762(a).
- 12. Mapleton Conclusions of Law 1-8 Exception flo.12 represents an extreme case of noncompliance with 10 CFR 52.762(a).
It comprises several separate " exceptions" incorporated by reference to the "Mapleton Intervenors' Proposed Findings -of Fact and Conclusion of Law", dated September 14, 1972.
The incorporated " exceptions" lack specificity and include no
~
~
citations to the portions of the record relied upen.
In part they duplicate material set forth in exceptions Nos. 6 and 9 and are subject 'to the ' objections we have noted with. respect to.those exceptions.
Exception No.12 should be summarily denied.
C0!!CLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Mapleton Intervenors' exceptions to f
the Initial Decision in this proceeding should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, t
l hh d 66 David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of January,1973 l
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSI0fl In the. Matter of C0flSUMERS PONER COMPANY
)
DOCKET T10S. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "AEC Regulatory Staff's Brief in Opposition to Exceptions of Mapleton Intervenors" in the captioned matter have been served on the folicwing by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 22nd day of January,1973:
Harold P. Graves, Esq.,
2 Arthur W.11urphy, Esq., Chairman Vice President and General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Consumers Power Ccmoany Columbia University School of Law 212 West Michigan Avenue Box 38 Jackson, Michigan 49201 435 West ll6th Street tiew York, New York 10027 William J. Ginster, Esq.,
Suite 4 Dr. David B. :;all Merrill Building Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Saginaw, Michigan 48602 P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, flew Mexico 87544 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.,
Genners and Block Dr. Clark Goodman 1 IBM Plaza Professor of Physics Chicago, Illinois 60603 University of Houston 3801 Cullen Boulevard Milton R. Wessel, Esq.,
Houston, Texas 77004 Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler Robert Lowenstein, Esq.,
425 Park Avenue Lowenstein and flewman New York, flew York 10022 1100 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C. '20036 James A. Kendall, Esq.,
135 N. Saginaw Road Irving Like, Esq.,
Midland, Michigan 48640 Reilly, Like and Schneider 200 West Main Street James N. O' Conner Babylon, New York'11702 The Dow Chemical Company 2030=Dow Center Richard G. Smith, Esq.,
Midland, Michigan 48640 Smith and Brooker, P.C.
703 Washington Avenue Bay City, ftichigan 48706
~ John K. Restrick, Esq.,
Dr. John H. Buck 212. West Michigan Avenue Atomic Safety and l Licensing Jackson, Michigan 49201 Appeal Board U. S. Atomic Energy Comission David Comey, Esq.,
Washington, D.C. -20545 109 ll orth Dearborn Street Sui te '1001 Dr. Lawrence R. Guarles Chicago, Illinois 60602 Dean, School of Engineering and Applied Science-Mrs. Mary Sinclair University of Virginia 5711 Summerset Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Midland, Michigan 48640 Honorable Vern Miller Attorney General Topeka, Kansas 66601 Honorable William H. Ward Assistant Attorney General Topeka, Kansas 66601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Office of the Secretary of the Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman U.S. Atomic Safety.and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 l,
~ l(V4-l\\ LTiffy( (
, YV 9f David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
_