ML20012E748
| ML20012E748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Lisa Clark NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10183 LBP-89-32, LBP-89-33, LBP-90-01, LBP-90-1, OL, NUDOCS 9004060233 | |
| Download: ML20012E748 (33) | |
Text
r O,f I
p h:N.
00LKETED USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 90 APR -2 P6:08 -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6FilCE OF ?ECRf1ARY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 00CKEig}LPVICE In the Matter of Docket Nos, 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al, Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
3' NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' APPEAL OF LBP-90-1 I
Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff March 30, 1990 4
0
-s 9004060233 900330 PDR ADOCK 0500 3
l D 5'o 7
', b
?:,(
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' APPEAL OF LBP-90-1 Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff March 30, 1990 4
-+
Y'e c ;. x 1 C-TABLE OF CONTENTS I
~
.P.a21
-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................
11-INTRODUCTION.......................................................
1 i
BACKGROUND.........................................................
1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................
5 t
ARGUMENT...........................................................
5 I.
The-Licensing Board Acted Within Its Jurisdiction in Issuing LBP-90-1...........................................
5 II. The Licensing Board Correctly Decided That
-Intervenors Motion Was Untimely...............................
7 III. Applicants Are Not Estopped From. Asserting That the SPMC Relies So'lely on WLYT To Provide Public No t i fi c a ti o n..................................................
12 IV...The Licensing. Board Did Not Err By Ignoring The Law.
of The' Case in' Finding That-The SPMC Did Not Rely on The State EBS For Providing Public Notification...............
15
.V.
The Licensing Board Correctly Found Intervenors' Motion Did Not Present a Significant Safety Issue or Demonstrate That a Materially Different Result Would
~ Have Been Likely if the Proffered' Evidence Been L
Considered Initially..........................................
16 1..
VI.
The Licensing' Board Correctly Ruled That The Late Filing Criteria Weighed Against Admission of the Proffered Contention..........................................
22 CONCLUSION.........................................................
25 A'
m
. m
a f
- 11'-
- s:
-3
.m
-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i
PAGE
?
COURT CASES j
' Commonwealth ~of Massachusetts et=al. v. NRC, No. 89-1743, Order
.(unpublished);(March 7,1990)........................................6
?
- U
- ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ConsumersPowerCo.(MidlandPlant, Unitsl.and2),LBP-84-20,19NRC1285(1984).........................17 t
Kansas-Cit.y Gas'& Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320 (1978)......................................................
12 Lon Island Lighting Company (Shoreham
'ucearPowerStation, Unit 1),ALAB-911 29NRC.-247-(1989).....................................................4 LouisianaPower'&LightCo.(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit.3), CLI-86-1, 23NRC1(1986).......................................................12 Pacific Gas and Electric'Co. (Diablo k
. Canyon' Nuclear Power Plan, Units 1 and 2),
lALAB-775,-19 NRC'1361 (1985)..........................................
18 Pacific: Gas'and Electric Co. (Diablo L
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
l.
CLI-81-5,J13NRC361(1981)...........................................18,21 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island L
Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-7, 21 NRC 1104,.1106(1985).....................................................18
^
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, i'
-21(1978).............................................................17 L,
Pbblic Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook' Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-90-03, 31 NRC
.(1990)....................................................7
~
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-927, 31 NRC (1990).....................................................15
- iii:.
l1 5 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473 (1989).....................................................
23 9
_Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook. Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-90-1 L
31 NRC (1990)......................................................
passim Public Service Company of New Hampshire
.(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-33, 30 NRC (1989).....................................................
3,6.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire TSeabrookStation, Units 1and2),LBP-89-32, 30 NRC
'(1989).....................................................
2,3,6,7 Public' Service' Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-9.
29 NRC 271 (1989).....................................................
15,16 Vermont. Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Generating (Station),ALAB-136, 6'AEC.520 1973)......................................................
9,10,17
. Washington'Public Power Supply System.
_(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC. 1167 ( 19 83 ).................................................... 2 5 REGULATIONS 10 C. F. R. 5 2. 7 3 4 ( b )................................................. 12 '
10 C. F. R. Part 50, Appendi x E. I V.D.3.................................. 19 10 C. F. R. 5 2. 714 ( a ) ( 1 )............................................... 2 2 10 C. F. R. 5 2. 7 3 4..................................................... 3, 7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.764(g)..................................................
7 MISCELLANE0US Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report ( April 1988 and June 1988)..................................... 8.12,14
F a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al.
Offsite Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
1 INTRODUCTION The NRC' Staff submits this brief in opposition to Intervenors' appeal of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-90-1, 31 NRC -
(1990), by which a motion to reopen the record and admit a late filed contention concerning the Applicants' public notification system was denied.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes.that the decision of the Licensing Board should be af fi rmed.
BACKGROUND The Massachusetts Attorney General, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, t
and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("Intervenors") originally filed n motion to reopen the record and admit a late filed contention alleging inadequacies in the Applicants' public notification system on 4
6
.c
. t.
October 30, 1989. 1/
Intervenors withdrew that motion on November 8, 2/
and on the following day filed another motion under the same title virtually identical in substance. 3,/
v o
Intervenors' motions were predicated upon the decision of WCCM (AM)/WCGY (FM) ("WCGY") on October 20, 1989, to revoke its agreement to participate with New Hampshire Yankee in emergency planning and to activate the state EBS in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook.
Essentially, intervenors argued that activation of the state EBS' network servicing the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") could only occur through WCGY since it is the gateway (local primary relay /CPCS) station for the Merrimac Valley.
Motion at 15.
Absent activation of the state EBS, Intervenors argued, the Applicants would be unable to provide notification to the public in accordance with the SPMC and the applicable law and regulations. Id.,at2.
1 On November 9,1989, the same day Intervenors filed their second EBS 1
motion, the Licensing Board issued Public Service Company of New Hampshire I
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-32, 30 NRC (1989),
L authorizing the issuance of a full power license.
While: the decision 1
contained no specific reference to the EBS motion, the Board did state
.that it would issue a memorandum explaining why the pendency of several i
1/
Intervenors' Motion to Admit a late Filed Contention and Reopen the Record on the SPMC Based Upon the Withdrawal of the Massachusetts
.E.B.S.. Network and WCGY.
c L
2/
Withdrawal of Motion, November 8, 1989.
3/
Intervenors' Motion to Admit a Late Filed Contention and Reopen the Record on the SPMC Based Upon the Withdrawal of the Massachusetts
~
E.B.S. Network and WCGY, November 9,1989 ("Intervenors' Motion").
~
l l
- 3.-
J motions to submit 'new contentions did not preclude issuance of the.
operating license.
Slip op. at 569, n.
87.
In the explanatory I
l memorandum, issued on November 20. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-33, 30 NRC (1989), slip op.
4 at 34, n.20, the Board noted _ that because Intervenors' second EBS motion 1
was not received until after LBP-89-32 was issued (on November 13), it had been unaware of the motion - when rendering its decision.
Nevertheless, the Board determined that-it had jurisdiction to consider the motion since an appeal of LBP-89-32 had not been taken by the time the motion was received. M.
Regarding that motion, the Board stated:
the fact that it was submitted, withdrawn, and resubmitted, and that the matter is not yet fully briefed indicates that its potential effect of [ sic'l the outcome of the - proceeding is too speculative to have warranted deferring or recalling our decision authorizing a full power operating license.
We have nevertheless examined those papers and find-nothing sufficiently grave to justify any delay.
Id. at 40-41.
On November 22, 1989, Intervenors' filed a motion to submit an additional basis to the late filed contention alleging that broadcast coverage of WLYT was inadequate to provide notification to the public. S The Board denied Intervenors' motion to reopen the record and admit a late filed contention in LBP-90-1 on the grounds that it failed to meet-any of 'the requirements-for reopening the record set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734.
LBP-90-1 at 5-31.
In addition, the motion was denied on the basis that the five factors governing admission of late filed contentions weighed against admission of the proffered contention.
M. at 31-36.
L 4/
Intervenors' Motion To Add an Additional Basis To the Late Filed p
Attached Contention To the Motion of November 9, 1989.
l' t
L
1 I
o
- g. Regarding the reopening criteria, the Board found that the motion was untimely because Intervenors had been on notice of the fact that the SPMC relied solely on WLYT to provide public notification since 1988.
Ld.at 6-14 In the context of -that. discussion, the Board considered the motivation of the Applicants in including the letter of agreement with WCGY-into evidence out of fairness to the Intervenors.
Id. at 12-13. On the basis of' undisputed evidence on that point, the Board concluded that the agreement. had been made as part of " defense in depth" strategy by.
- which the Applicants ensured that backup mechanisms were in place to implement the SPMC, not to forestall litigation on that issue. J_d.
Next, the Board considered whether Intervenors' motions raised. a significant safety issue.
First, the Board concluded that WLYT provided adequate broadcast coverage of the EPZ, and that the ability of NHY to provide timely notification had been exercised and 1itigated..
Id,. at 16.
4 The. Board; then observed that the Applicants, like the licensee in Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power
- Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-911,29NRC'247(1989), co'uld rely on the state EBS to provide public notification even without any agreements with the participating stations.
LBP-90-l'at 19-21.
Furthermore, as in the Shoreham case, the Board found that the~ Intervenors had not raised any serious question as to whether notification by means of the state EBS would be adequate.
Id. at 19-29.
'Accordingly, the Board concluded that the revocation of the letter of agreement with WCGY did not create a significant safety issue.
Id. at 29.
On the basis of its finding that the Intervenors had failed to raise any serious question as to whether the Applicants could provide public i
notification in the event of an emergency, the Board concluded that they
v... -
! 7 i
had also fa' led: to ' demonstrate that. a different result would have been i
likely-if the' proffered evidence-had been considered initially.
Ld. at 29-30.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Intervenors have raised the following issues on appeal:
c
-1.
Whether the Licensing Board had jurisdiction to issue LBP-90-01.
2.
Whether the Licensing Board erred in finding that Intervenors' motion was late filed.
3.
- Whether the Applicants are estopped from asserting that the SPMC relies upon WCGY to provide public notification.
4.-
Whether the Licensing Board erred by ignoring the. law of the case in i
finding that the SPMC did.not rely on the state EBS for providing public 0
notification.
F-5.
Whether the Licensing Board erred in finding that Intervenors had not
(,
presented a significant safety issue or demonstrated that a materially _
l
'different result would. have been. likely if the proffered evidence had been considered initially.
[
6.
Whether the Licensing Board erred in finding that' the late filing criteria weighed against admission of the proffered contention.
ARGUMENT I.
The Licensing Board Acted Within Its Jurisdiction in Issuing LBP-90-1..
' ~ * '
In a section of their brief entitled " Preliminary Comment on Smith
-Board's Disposition of the EBS Motions", Intervenors argue that the
!b j
n: 7:
1 1
- k. gl q Licensing Board did not have jurisdiction to issue LBP-90-1. E Intervenors argue that their motion to reopen the record and admit the proffered EBS conte'ntion was denied by the Board in LBP-89-32, jurisdic-tion of which has passed to the Court of Appeals.
Consequently, they.
argue, LBP-90-1 should be stricken as an improper post facto rationaliza-tion of the prior decision.
Intervenors' conclusion is wrong because it is premised-on the erroneous assumptions that (1) jurisdiction of LBP-89-32' has passed to the Court of Appeals. - and (2) their motion was denied in LBP-89-32.
In fact, jurisdiction has not passed to the Court of
~ Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of LBP-89-32, stating:
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss be granted.
LBP-89-32, issued _ November 9,1989, is not a final order granting or denying a license, and there--
fore is not independently reviewable. See Oystershell Alliance v. NRC, 800 F.2d 1201,1206 (DZ Cir.1986).
See also Sierra Club v. NRC,- 825 F.2d 1356,1362 (9th M.- T987);
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy v.
NRC, 803 F.2d 258, 260-61 (6th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 481 U.S. 1016 (1987).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. NRC, No. 89-1743 Order (unpub-lished)(March'7,1990).
Further, the Licensing Board.did not decide the motion to reopen the record 'and admit a
contention regarding the EBS in LBP-89-32.
See Brief at 6.
- Indeed, the EBS motion was not even pending before the Licensing Board at the time LBP-89-32 was issued.
Intervenors had withdrawn their original motion and the Board had not yet received
~
their second one.
LBP-89-33 at 34, n.20.
Notwithstanding the efforts of c-i 5/
Intervenors' Brief In Support Of Their Appeal of LBP-90-1, Febru-ary 16, 1990 ("Brief") at 2-8.
~
. 4 Attorney Traficonte to communicate his intention to file another motion,
-the Board was also unaware that a second motion was being filed when
~ LBP-89-32 was issued.
I_d.
Moreover, even if Intervenors' motion had been pending the Licensing Board would have been fully justified in issuing LBP-89-32.
Addressing this very point in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-90-03, 31 NRC
, slip op, at 11-13(1990),
the Commission approved the authorization of a full power license, notwithstanding pending motions relating to emergency planning issues, provided that a finding can be made that the issue left unresolved is not significant. 5/
II. The Licensing Board Correctly Decided That Intervenors' Motion Was Untimely.
Motions to reopen - the record in NRC proceedings are governed by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.734. Subsection (a) thereof provides:
(a) A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied:
'(1) The motion must. be timely except that an exceptionally grave ' issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
(2) The. motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue.
(3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been 6/
Because the Commission addressed this question in the context of
~
ruling on motions to revoke or stay the authorization to issue an operating license, and not in the the context of the "immediate effectiveness review", it is binding.
Seabrook, slip op. at 3, cf.
10 C.F.R. $ 2.764(g).
u p
'x ->
likely had the. newly' proffered evidence been p
considered initially.
Subsection (b) of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734 provides that a motion to reopen "must be; accompanied by one or more affidavits" by competent individuals, which cite admissible factual evidence and/or the. technical basis for the motion, and address each of the criteria in subsection (a).
Addressing i
-the first element of that regulation, the Licensing Board found y
Intervenors motion untimely because:
5 Intervenors knew or should have known as early as 1988 that the Massachusetts EBS and the agreement with WCGY was 'not essential to the method of alerting the public relied upon by NHY.
LBP-90-1 at 9.
L
' Specifically, the Board found that the Applicants had made it clear through discovery conducted during 1988 that the SPMC. relied solely on WLYT' to provide initial notification and disseminate information to the public.
Ld. at 7-9.
This included supplying the Seabrook Station 1
L Public Alert and Notification System FEMA-REP-10 Design Repo'rt (April 1988 l
l
.and June 1988), identifying WLYT and WHAV as the sole stations for public-notification.
Id. at 7-8, 10. Because the agreement with WCGY was only a backup measure, the Board determined that its revocation was not material to the operation of NHY's public alerting scheme.
I_d, at 12-13.
Accordingly, the Board rejected Intervenors' claim that the timeliness of L
their motion should be measured by its proximity to the repudiation of the agreement with WCGY. Ld.at5-14.
Intervenors claim the Board erred in two respects.
First they allege
'that the Board applied the wrong test for determining whether a motion is
- ~
timely under.10 C.F.R. 5 2.734.
Brief at 9-18.
Their argument begins w
s
+ - +
j..
with the observation that the proper standard 'to apply was set forth in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Corporation. (Vermont Yankee. Nuclear D
Generating Station), ALAB-136. 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973).
Intervenors are
-correct in stating that the appropriate test was articulated by the Appeal 3
Board in that case when it stated that the question of timeliness turns'on "whether the issues sought to be presented could have been' raised at an earl'ier stage, such as prior to the close of the hearing". 6 AEC at 523.
However, Intervenors then misstate.the test to be:
w whether even if the Intervenors had known [that t
Applicants relied upon WLYT -to provide public notification],. could the. Intervenors have challenged n
the notification provisions of the SPMC because the EBS was lacking.
Brief ' at 11.
From this Intervenors argue that they could not have challenged the. provisions of the SPMC as long as a backup agreement with WCGY existed because "the EBS is the uniformly accepted means for providing-such notification".
Id. at 14.
Intervenors argue:that as long as an. agreement with WCGY existed, their contention alleging--inadequacies f
.in public notification would hav,e been defeated since utilization.of the EBS has been deemed adequate by Applicants' witness, FEMA and the Appeal Board. Brief-at 12-19.
In short, Intervenors ask that their motion be considered timely on the basis that it was filed after an event occurred which, in their opinion, made it more likely they would obtain a favorable ruling on the issue raised.
While such considerations may guide their trial tactics, they are completely irrelevant to the question of timeliness.
The
. relevant question, as set out in Vermont Yankee, is whether the issue could have been raised earlier. As the Licensing Board found, Intervenors
i.
=
were on notice in 1988 that publi; notification under the SPMC would be provided solely _ through WLYT regardless of the existence of a backup i
agreement with WCGY.
LBP-90-1 at 8.
Accordingly, the Board was correct in concluding that Intervenors could, and should, have submitted their g
contention alleging inadequacies in that scheme long ago.
Secondly Intervenors argue that the Licensing Board employed the wrong standard:in determining when they should have known that the SPMC relied-solely on WLYT to provide public notification.
Brief at 14-19.
According to the Intervenors, the Board erroneously answered that question in terms of when the Applicants decided to utilize that scheme, not when a reasonable person should have known that the SPMC relied on WLYT to.
provide notification.
Id. at 14-15.
An examination of Intervenors argument on - this point, however, reveals that it is premised upon a misreading of portions of the Board's decision which have been taken out of context.
In fact, the Licensing Board found that' Intervenors knew or should have known that the SPMC did not rely on WCGY or the Massachusetts EBS to provide public notification on the basis of documentation concerning the plan which they had been provided during 1988.
Specifically, the Board found:
The Applicants-make a strong case that WCGY's October 20 repudiation.of the letter of agreement is not relevant ' to the timeliness issue.
They argue that in the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System FEMA-REP-10 Design Report-(" REP-10 Report")
published in redacted version on April 30, 1988, 'it was made perfectly clear [to the Intervenors] that Applicants were relying on a single contract FM and AM stations for initial notification and dissemination of information.'
Moreover, the Intervenors were sent a letter enclosing the unredacted pages of the REP-10 Report in June 1988.
The Applicants argue that the
_j 1
1 letter and enclosed documentation also made clear that the -SPMC would be relying solely on station WLYT-FM and its sister station WHAV-AM for notification requirements. The Applicants also cite the deposition of Gregory Howard taken on November 16..1988.and the cross-examination of Applicants' witness Desmarais conducted by Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Jonas on May 2,1989 to evidence their claim that the Intervenors were aware of WCGY's supporting, but unessential, role in the design of NHY's notification system.
Applicants' versions of the facts surrounding notice to Intervenors, actual or_construc-tive, is well supported by the evidence cited by them.
Intervenors knew or should have known as early as 1988 that the Massachusetts EBS and the agreement with WCGY was not essential to the method of alerting the public relied upon by NHY.
LBP-90-1 at 7-9.
The Board went on to consider whether Intervenors' motion could nevertheless be considered timely on the theory that the revocation of. the letter of agreement with WCGV, which Applicants had included as a backup measure. gave rise to the the issues raised in the motion to reopen the record and admit a late filed contention.
In the words of the Board:
Resolution of this [ timeliness)-issue turns upon whether the essential elements of the broad issue could have been litigated earlier, or whether the-
+
recent events giving rise to the motions are sufficiently material in themselves to support Intervenors'- argument that the motion is. timely.
. I d_. at 10.
The Board began by noting that it was undisputed that Applicants had always viewed the agreement with WCGY as merely a backup arrangement, and went on to find that Intervenors had been on notice of Id.
The Board also examined several elements it d
that fact since 1988.
considered relevant to the significance of the the withdrawal of the backup. method of public notification and concluded that it was not sufficiently material to the broad issues raised. by Intervenors--broadcast
9'
. 4 coverage and timely notification of the public--to support their argument that the motion was timely.
Id. at 12-13.
i
- Thus, when the portions of the Board's decision which are interspersed throughout Intervenors' discussion are considered in context, it is clear that the Board did not, as Intervenors claim, stray from "the appropriate standard to apply in making such an inquiry... ie., when a reasonable man should have known that the Applicants were relying in the first instance on WLYT".
Brief at 15.
In actuality, the Board applied exactly that standard in deciding that Intervenors had been on notice of that fact since 1988.
L Further, it is noteworthy that all of Intervenors' arguments, whether or not predicated on the reasonable man theory, depend upon Intervenors'
_ ithout any W
construction of the SPMC and the 1988 FEMA Rep.10 report.
supporting affidavits as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734(b), however, Intervenors failed to make the requisite showing that they did not know that the SPMC relied solely on WLYT to provide public notification notwithstanding the words of the FEMA Rep.10 report.
Intervenors there-fore failed to bear their " heavy burden" in establishing that the motion to reopen the record was timely, and the motion was properly denied. See e.g. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI-86-1, 23 NRC 1, 5 (1986); Kansas City Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978).
l III. Applicants Are Not Estopped From Asserting That the SPMC Relies Solely on WLYT To Provide Public Notification.
Although the Licensing Board did not directly consider the issue of estoppel, it did state that:
=-
1
- c
- 13 LW]e question whether, intentionally or unwittingly, Applicants may have exceeded regulatory requirements--
' sweetened the pot' so to speak--as an inducement or strategy for the issuance of its license in this litigation.- If so, the withdrawal of WCGY, even as an unnecessary and voluntary backup to the primary public notification scheme, would be more material to the issue of timeliness... It would be a question of fairness in litigation were Applicants to take credit for the _ arrangement in seeking their license, then renounce as immaterial the dissolution of that arrangement in defending against Intervenors' motion.
LBP-90-1 at 12-13.
On the basis of the affidavit of George Gram, NHY's Executive Director of Emergency Preparedness and Community Relation, M the Board determined that the agreement with WCGY was made as part of a
" defense in depth" strategy to assure that backup measures were in place to implement the SPMC.
Id.~at 13.
As such, the Board found that the letter of agreement was entered into for " sound and laudable" reasons, not to misrepresent the nature of the public notification system in order to prevent litigation.
I_d.
at 14.
Intervenors do not dispute the findings of the Licensing Board.
Rather, they claim that Applicants should aevertheless be estopped from asserting that the 'SPMC does not rely on the Massachusetts EBS because they were lulled into inaction by interpreting the references to "EBS" in the SPMC to mean the Massachusetts EBS.
Brief at 19-25.
Thus, Inter-venors' estoppel argument fails because, as they concede, Applicants did not misrepresent the nature of the public notification scheme contemplated by the SPMC by using the term "EBS".
The Intervenors were lulled into 7/
Exhibit III to Applicants' Answer to Intervenors' Motion To Admit a
~
Late-Filed Contention and Reopen the Record Based Upon the Withdrawal of the Massachusetts E.B.S.
Network and WCGY, November 15, 1989.
s,
4 inaction, not by any misrepresentation on the part of the Applicants, but by - their. failure to adequately consider the information available to 3
them. U While the SPMC contains references to "EBS" with regard to public notification - it nowhere states that the " Massachusetts" or " state" EBS would be utilized.
To the contrary, Intervenors were provided with the FEMA-REP-10 Report in June 1988 which specifically states that the contract EBS radio station is WLYT.
Indeed, it was on the basis of that report along with other evidence that the Board specifically found that Intervenors were on notice as-early as 1988 that the SPMC relied only on WLYT to provide public notification.
LBP-90-1 at 8-9.
In reaching this conclusion the Board did not, as Intervenors claim, ignore the actual provisions of the SPMC.
Brief at 23.
In fact, the Board noted that the SPMC discusses the "EBS radio station" but not by call letters while the FEMA REP-10 Report, which refers to the contract stations by= call letters, contains no mention of WCGY.
LBP-90-1 at 10.
Thus, the Board was simply recognizing that the term "EBS" in the plan did not mean the Massachusetts state EBS, a fact which was established by unrefuted testimony of the Applicants and underpinned the Board's finding that Intervenors should have known as early as 1988 that the SPMC relied on WLYT to provide public notification.
In the absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the Applicants regarding the nature of the SPMC, Intervenors have no colorable claim to
-8/
Again, the lack of an affidavit in support of their being " lulled" into not timely filing provided still another reason why the motion could not be granted.
1 e
, 1, an - equitable ~ estoppel..
As the Board found, they were provided with information during 1988 which placed them on notice that the SPMC relied on WLYT to notify' the public.
Thus, their failure to challenge the provisions _ of the SPMC before now cannot reasonably be attributed to any action or inaction on the part of the Applicants.
. I V.. The Licensing Board Did Not Err By Ignoring The Law of The Case in
-Finding That The SPMC Did Not Rely on The State EBS For Providing Public Notification.
Intervenors also argue that the Board's finding that the SPMC relies-upon WLYT to provide public notification is contrary to the law of the case as established by the Rioch Board in Public Service Company of New Hampsiiire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-9, 29 NRC 271 (1989).
Brief at 25-28.
Their ' argument, however, is premised upon the erroneous -
. assumption that the Bloch Board found that the SPMC depends on the Massachusetts EBS to provide public notification.
In fact. that question was. never raised by any of: the parties in the proceeding before that Board, and - thus was not a question-which the Board was called upon to resolve.
This Appeal Board said as much in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-927, 31 NRC
, slip op. at 5, when it explained, "we are unpersuaded from a reading the Bloch
[h J Board's' June 1989 decision on the VANS proposal that its approval of that p-proposal hinged to any significant extent on the participation of WCGY",
finding "it is noteworthy that the principal EBS relied upon by the applicants for the Massachusetts communities does not include WCGY but,
, t:
' J 1
rather, employs two-stations (WHAV and WLYT) with which the applicants have a contractual arrangement".
The matters before the Bloch Board in LBP-89-9 concerned the operation of the Applicants' Vehicular-Alert Notification System (" VANS"),
not the EBS.
Id. at 271-72.
Indeed, the-decision ~ contains only two references to the EBS, one when the Board stated that the material facts not in dispute included the fact that "[t]he Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) radio broadcasts are relied upon to provide the notification function (i.e., providing information and instructions) to the public",
and another when it noted that "[t]he Applicants rely on the EBS radio network for providing information and instructional messages".
LBP-89-9 at 278, 286.
Neither of those references was made with regard to any discussion or finding concerning' the nature or operation of the ERS contemplated by the plan.
Moreover, the Board's statement that the SPMC relies upon the EBS is not tantamount to a finding that it relies upon the Massachusetts EBS.
As discussed above, the SPMC contemplates that
~
notification will occur through the operation of an emergency broadcast from WLYT and WHAV and Intervenors were informed of that fact years ago.
L V.
The Licensing Board Correctly Found Intervenors' Motion Did Not
[
Present a Significant Safety Issue or Demonstrate That a Materially J
Different Result Would Have Been Likely if the Proffered Evidence l
Been Considered Initially.
Intervenors also claim that the Board erred in its analysis of whether they had raised a significant safety issue or demonstrated that a materially. different result would have been likely.
Brief at 28-40.
L First, they claim that the Board applied the wrong test in determining L
whether Intervenors' motion raised a significant safety issue.
Id. at
.e s
28-32.
In the opinion of the Intervenors. their motion concerned a significant safety issue by virtue of the fact that it concerns the public notification system, regardless of the nature of the problems they
_ identified or whether they can be readily fixed.
Brief at 29.
Accord-ingly, they conclude that the Board's finding to the contrary was erroneous because it was premised upon the significance of the specific inadequacies they had alleged.
Id. at 32-37.
While there 1s no question that the public notification system is an
~
essential element of the emergency plan, it is not true that every aspect
- ofl the public notification system is safety significant.
Matters which are relevant to the public notification system or any other essential -
~ lement of the' plan but not essential' to its operation are not necessarily e
- safety sign.ificant.
To take the Intervenors example, while the existence of-handicap accessible bathrooms is relevant to an essential element of the plan--the provision of-congregate care facilities--questions concerning the adequacy of those facilities do not raise a serious safety issue.
Brief at 30.. Thus, it was entirely appropriate for the Board to examine the substance of the information submitted by the Intervenors in order to determine whether they a had raised a serious safety question.
See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-20,19 NRC l
1285, 1299,-n.15 (1984), citing, Vermont Yankee ALAB-138, supra, 6 AEC at 523-24.
Like all proponents of a motion-to reopen the record, the Intervenors-bore a ' heavy burden before the Licensing Board.
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 21 (1978). Specifically, the burden was on the Intervenors to establish that I
l
, i
._d.
the standards for reopening'were met, i.e.,-_that they had timely raised a significant safety issue which might have affected the Licensing Board's decision.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-7, 21 NRC 1104, 1106 (1985).
. In order to meet that burden it is not enough to make bare allegations or simply submit new contentions.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5,13 NRC 361, 363 (1981).
Rather, the Commission has held that:
At a minimum.
. the new material in support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) for admissible contentions.
Such supporting information must be more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence.
[and]
possess the attributes set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c) defining admissible evidence for adjudicatory proceedings.
Specifically, the new evidence supporting. the motion must be " relevant, material, and reliable."
Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI-86-1, 23 - NRC 1, 5 (1986), quoting Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plan, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1366-67, aff'f sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.1d 1287 (D.C. Dir. 1984), aff'd en bane on other grounds, 789 F.2d 26 (1985).
- Given those standards, it is clear that the-Licensing Board was correct in finding that Intervenors had failed to make the necessary showing that the revocation of the letter of agreement with WCGY presented a significant l
safety issue or would.have been likely to alter the initial decision is it had been considered initially.
Before the Licensing Board, Intervenors argued that there was no
- ~
assurance that notification could occur within the prescribed regulatory
m f,
c.;
.i
" g..
~
' period because (1) governmental activation of the EBS could be delayed by the fact that all of the. telephones at WCGY are sometimes busy and (2) it may' not be possible to activate the EBS through WROR within 15 minutes because the messages would have to be transmitted first from the NHY ORO to the state agency, and then from the state agency to WROR.
LBP-90-1 24.
Regarding the first point, the Board observed that even if a
" busy" signal at WCGY precluded activation at that station, the EBS could always be activated via WROR.
LBP-90-1.
As for the ability of the Applicants to effectuate timely notification through WROR, the Board recognized that the pertinent regulation, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E.IV.D.3, does not require that notification occur within 15 minutes after 1+
state officials are contacted.
Id. at 27.
Rather, the regulation states, in pertinent part, that:
The design objective of the prompt public notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial-notification of-the public within the. plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. The use of this notif-ication capability will range from :immediate notification of the public (within 15' minutes of the time that State and local officials are notified that a
situation' exists requiring urgent action) to the more likely events where there is substantial time available for-- the State and local governmental officials to make a judgment whether or not to activate the public notification system.
Thus, the initial notification must be completed within approximately 15 minutes-from the time that government officials decide to initiate notification.
In the context of-that regulatory requirements, the Licensing Board was correct in concluding that Intervenors had not submitted any i
information which would cast doubt on the adequacy of the State EBS to L
. m m
f perform public notification in the event of an' emergency at Seabrook.
First,'as the Board stated "[t]he SMPC, the SPMC Implementing Procedures, and NUREG-0654 all-require the NHY ORD decisionmakers to communicate with State officials prior to any decision to activate.the EBS system, and further require that the content of EBS messages be coordinated between the NHY ORO decisionmakers 'an State officials before they are broadcast over the. EBS system". El Further, the Board noted that the available regulatory guidance requires prescripted EBS messages -to be part of the I
licensee's notification scheme and rejected the notion that state officials would continue to refuse copies of the generic prescripted EBS messages because they-refused to plan for an emergency at Seabrook.
LBP-90-1 at 25, citing NUREG-0654, FEMA-Rep-1, Rev. I at 46.
i
' As the foregoing discussion illustrates, the Board's conclusion was' based on an evaluation of the Intervenors' arguments in the context of the relevant ' regulatory provisions and guides, the provision of the EBS plan, the SPMC plan 'and procedures,- and the presumption that state and local officials will exercise their best efforts to protect the public in the event of an emergency. The Board's consideration of those factors is not, as Intervenors claim, an impermissible inquiry as to whether " quick fixes" exist but a necessary component of the Board's obligation to determine whether the moving papers raise a serious safety question.
4 9/
LBP-90-1 at 24-25, citing, Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communi-ties Section '3.2, Notification and Mobilization, at 3.2-13, 3.2-16,
~
3.2-17; SPMC Implementing Procedure 2.13, Public Alert and Notification system Including EBS Activation, at IP 2.13, at 3 and 8; NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Notification Methods and Procedures, at 43, 46.
.;l
- 21.-
c.
Moreover, _ even if one were-to accept Intervenors' argument that the Board's analysis was more germane to the third criterion governing motions
.to reopen the record--whether it is likely that a materially different result would havel been likely if the newly proffered evidence had been considered intitially--the ultimate result would be -the same.
As'
. discussed below Intervenors have not advanced any reason to find that the Board's analysis of the information concerning public notification was erroneous.
Thus, whether under the second or the third criterion Intervenors motion was properly denied.
On appeal, Intervenors' claim that the Board's finding on safety significance'was-erroneous for essentially two reasons. First, they argue that even though activation of the state EBS could be made by request of the-Governor'or his representatives, such activation may be impeded by the fact that all of the telephones at WCGY are sometimes busy. This argument fails for the simple reason that the State EBS can be activated through WROR.3.0/ -As for Intervenors allegation that "there is no reason to think
. the : same phenomenon does not occasionally occur at WROR", Brief et 35 Intervenors have provided absolutely no information to support this notion. As such, their speculation about that possibility constitutes the very type of unsupported allegation which has been found insufficient to support a -motion to reopen the record.
Diablo Canyon, CLI-81-5, supra.
Intervenors also argue that the record should be reopened because there has never been an assessment of how long it would take to transmit a
'"-10/ Massachusetts Emergency Broadcast System Operational Plan, Exhibit 1 to Intervenors' Motion, at 2.
7 n sw I'
?
je.,-
l message to' WROR' once it has been approved by the Governor.
Brief at 34, 1
Clearly, this type of observation is not an adequate showing to reopen a record.- It is the responsibility of the Intervenors to submit information which establishes - that a serious safety issue exists.
Pointing out l
avenuesf or inquiry to pursue in order to find possible defects in the plan ~
j is not enough.
As the Commission has stated, an adjudicatory board's 1
consideration of a motion to reopen is based on the available infomation and does not impose any~ duty to search for evidence supporting the motion.
Waterford, 23 NRC at 6-7.
t
-VI.
The Licensing Board Correctly Ruled That The Late Filing Criteria Weighed Against Admission of the Proffered Contention.
The Licensing Board found that Intervenors' motion should be denied for the additional reason that the factors governing late filed contentions weighed against admission. Those factors are:
(1) good cause, if any, for failure'to file on time, (2) the ' availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(3) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a
-- s sound' record.
(4) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties, and (5) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1).
On appeal, the Board's determination on this issue may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. As the Appeal Board has said:
To establish that the Licensing Board transgressed that standard, the intervenors have a heavy burden on appeal.
It is insufficient for them to show merely that the. Board below might legitimately have determined that the five lateness factors weighed in favor of admitting the contention; rather, they must
'kl demonstrate thot a reasonable mind could reach no other result.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 4B2 (1989).
As discussed below, Intervenors have I
ina e no such showing.
d
[
In the Licensing Board's opinion, factor one weighed against admission of the contention because Intervenors had failed to show good cause for not filing the contention on time.
LBP-90-1 at 32.
The Board Id at i
d also found that factors three and five weighed against admission.
32-36.
Thus, while factors two and three were found to favor of admission, the Board determined that a balancing of the five factors weighed against admission.
I d,.
On appeal, Intervenors claim that the Board's analysis concerning factors one, three and five was erroneous. As for factor one. Intervenors claim that the contention was filed in a timely fashion for the same reasons that their motion to reopen was timely.
Brief at 40.
As discussed above in Section 11 however, Intervenors' timeliness arguments are unavailing, i
The Board's finding regarding factor five was premised upon a determination that the resultino delay in the proceeding and broadening of the issues weighed against admission of the contention.
LBP-90-1 at
) 34.
On appeal, Intervenors complain that the latter determination was premised' upon an expectation of an additional filing when in actuality that filing had been completed by the time the decision was issued. Brief 1
i at 40-41.
This argument, however, ignores the Board's acknowledgement of l.
L that filing when it stated that:
1 i
l m- -
--.m
---mm.m i-
I-
. l l
[D]uring the drafting of this Memorandum and Order we received the Intervenors' Basis Motion dated November 22, 1989.
That Motion seeks to litigate the issue of l
whether WLYT-FM/WHAV-AM has adequate broadcast coverage in the Massachusetts EPZ. However, the Basis Motion raises subissues which do r.ot portend simplis-tic litigation:
the breadth of WLYT's listening f
audience WLYT's participation in the EBS network, the adequacy of the Applicants' pre-emergency information, FEMA's finding of adequacy with respect to the notifi-cation system, and the ability of NHY to activate the EBS system without a letter of agreement with WCGY.
LBP-90-1 at 33, n.60.
Thus, the Board had ample reason to conclude that the potential delay that would be occasioned by litigation of the contention weighed against admission notwithstanding Intervenors' representation that the resultant discovery would be minimal and hearings brief. id at 33-34 Turning to factor three (extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record), the LicensingBoardbeganbystating,"[wlehavealreadydiscussedthefactual deficiencies in Intervenors' argument.
But for this instant purpose we e
revisit the affidavit of Robert Boulay.
The Board went on to conclude that Mr. Boulay did not reveal an expertise respecting W SPMC or the technical aspects of the broadcast system and, furthermore, did not present any facts which would be of value in assessing the adequacy of Applicants' ability to notify the public.
Ld. at 35-36.
Similarly, the Board found that the contents of the affidavit of Mr. Delsey were l
[d.at36.
d immaterial to the public alerting scheme.
In other words, the Board found that one witnesses proffered by the i
Intervenors was not qualified to testify on the SPMC or the technical aspects of the EBS and did not present any other testimony of value, while the testimony of the other witnesses proffered by the Intervenors was not
--v-
'w*-'r
i l
)
material to the issue sought to be litigated.
Clearly, this was a proper underpinning for the Board's finding that Intervenors would not make a j
valuable contribution to the record in light of the Appeal Board's statement that:
[T]here appears to us to be no reason to allow an i
inexcusably belated intervention petition to trigger a hearing unless there is cause to believe that the petitioner not only proposes to raise at least one substantial safety or environmental issue but, as well, is equipped to make a worthwhile contribution on it.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
3),
ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1181 (1983).
Intervenors' claim that the Board's conclusion as to this factor was " based upon a premature determination of the merits of the factual issues that the contention sought to present" is i
simply incorrect.
CONCLtlSION for the reasons set forth above, the NRC Staff submits that the Licensing Board's decision in LBP-90-1 should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted, 5b Lisa B. Clark Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of March, 1990 L
l l
l
@$Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g2p6:09 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD y
ornCE%Ydht$1 In the Matter of
)
noCMidte Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et M.
Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO i
INTERVENORS' APPEAL OF LBP-90-1" 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, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, as indicated by double asterisks, by express mail, this 30th day of March 1990:
IvanW. Smith, Chairman (2)*
Peter Brann, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Station 6 Washington, DC 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Richard F. Cole
- John Traficonte, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safet, and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Kenneth A. McCollom**
Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.**
Aaministrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74075 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 0330)
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.**
Ropes & Gray Harmon, Curran & Tousley One International Place 2001 S Street, NW Boston, MA 02110-2624 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 4
s
~
e.
~.
I Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
Jack Dolan Backus, Meyer & Solomon Federal Emergency Management Agency 116 Lowell Street Region I i
Manchester, NH 03106 0.W. McCormack Post Office &
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Judith H. Mirner, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel 79 State Street Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern, Esq.**
Town Office Shaines & McEachern Atlantic Avenue 25 Maplewood Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862 i
P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen George Hahn, Esq.
13-15 Newmarket Road Attorney for the Examiner Durham, NH 03824 i
Hahn & Hesson i
350 5th Ave, Suite 3700 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey New York, NY 10118 United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Washington, DC 20510 Suzanne P. Egan, Esq.
Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton
& Rotondi Richard R. Donovan 79 State Street Federal Emer0ency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.
Allen tempert Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Peter J. Matthews, Mayor 20 Franklin City Hall Exeter, NH 03833 Newburyport, MA 01950 L
William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter, NH 03833 South Hampton, NH 03827 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Town Counsel for Merrimac Gary W. Holmes Esq.
145 South Main Street Holmes & Ellis P.O. Box 38 47 Winnacunnet Road Bradford, MA 01835 Hampton, NH 03842 Barbara J. Saint Andre Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
77 Frankin Street Boston, MA 02110
y 4 Ms. Suzanne Breiseth George Iverson, Director Board of Selectmen NH Office of Emergency Management Town of Hampton Falls State House Office Park South Drinkwater Road 107 Pleasant Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert R. Pierce, Esq *-
Board Panel (1)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary (2)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Panel (6)*
Attn:
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 f) V)b b LTsa B. Clark Csw.sel for NRC Staff e
t I
i f
't.
F.
I I -
i-,
=n
,