ML20027A276

Forwards Staff Comments on Generic Matter of Cross- Examination of ACRS Consultants in NRC Licensing Proceedings.W/Encl Cert of Svc

ML20027A276
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, Skagit
Issue date:	10/30/1978
From:	Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7811080029
Download: ML20027A276 (18)

Text

-.

w,..

o 3

^g.

4 utarco sTAvts D#

s

/ G Cic ut,,*

4 w

(

NUCt. EAR REGULATORY CCMMis::IgN

,y gIk/MN_

S 4

WASWNGTON. D. C. 20ST

'4 s :,,,7 -rg.'*

Y k,

October 30, 1078

/

s e

(a. N-4%2 2' h

s.

4

\\

g & 'g\\Stq 7g

~

s, i

kr W,

A

'\\

u Samuel J. Chilk

. gpp

+9 v

Secretary of the Commission

~

^

Dear Mr. Chilk:

4

~

b 3

As requested in your letters d1[0ctober 20, 1978, the staff's n

W q.,

comments on the generic questiors of cross-examination of ACRS s

c'onsultants in NRC li(ins,Tng pry.eedings are enclosed.

1 i

x Sincerely.

3; s

[/. - 4 g/

N.

\\

7ab'l /7,. N.!

s N

's Stuart A. Treby Assistant Chief Hearin'g Counsel i

for NC StaffC'

Enclosure:

As' stated O

'\\~

i l

t g

.e'

.sty u

i

)'

s1 3

t s

~l

\\

_1

\\p t

s i

E,N w,

% h:

y

\\

N),

-s A

• l( -

-f, '

,k r

N 3

xx u; g gag 3 ofy3~L 'J'*

I h\\ C

(

s 5 \\

s

-....-4-..,_.

st

J

/

c '.

,o w.

t',

..?

, i *t.

a

, -;y V

L f

i, -

W f.

f q" /'

,e

,/

-s s

s 5,,

r 6

I E-

.r<.

3

1. G

.y i

-=

r.

I I;

.g

., i

/

/

STAFF COMIE11TS ON THE GENERIC MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMItlATION 0F ACRS CONSULTANTS IN NRC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS i

F f

• g P

e

-w y-

~ sk t r

J r

5 f

Y jI~

s t',,

f

...e

/

a s,qi

/

Wr g

y A'

r 4

.h

, 'h

,1 s

.s d

',9 a

'%Y 9

+

y

.y.-

t-

+*

u N

/

/

9

,4 gy J,

k

,\\

t - ~ ~ - ~ _..,

e e* - e T

rl v

1 As requested in the Secretary to the Commission's letter of October 20, 1978, the staff submits the following comments on the generic matter of the cross-examination of ACRS consultants in NRC licensing proceedings.*_/

I.

Background

At the outset we wish to make clear that the generic question posed raises implicitly a much broader generic question: whether the Commission should continue to generally preclude NRC employees, consultants to the Commission, employees of consultants to the

. Commission and members of advisory boards from being compelled by subpoena to testify in NRC licensing hearings.

While we are not aware of any significant impetus (from any direction) for modifica-tion of that policy, we note that the status quo here should not be allowed to be necessarily dispositive of the specific question as to ACRS consul tants.

1.

As to the details of current policy, the Commission has long taken the position in its regulations and in its adjudicatory decisions that the ACRS is a collegial body whose individual members cannot

_/ As directed in the Secretary's letters, the staff's comments are in terms of policy issues related to the generic matter and do not involve or discuss the specifics of any on-going licensing proceeding.

In addition, the generic matter is only concerned with whether or not ACRS consultants should be protected from being compelled by subpoena from testifying in a NRC licensing proceeding. Nothing now precludes the voluntary appearance by an individual as a potential witness in such a proceeding.

b

-e.

s

,n--

+

n, y

~

be compelled to testify except under exceptional circumstances.

-This position has been upheld judicially. Briefly, the court held that the ACRS's unique role as an independent part of the administrative process is "sufficiently analogous to that of an administrative decision maker to bring into play the rule that the ' mental processes' of such a ' collaborative instrumentalit/~y-f of justice' are not ordinarily subject to probing".. This rule, the court said, is "particularly apropos in light of ACRS's collegial-composition such that no individual may speak for the group as a whole." Aeschliman v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 547 F.2d 622, 631-632 (0,C, Cir. ) (1976).

(See - Attachment."A" for additional background.)

2.

Beyond this, NRC employees, consultants to the Commission, and employees of consultants to the Co'nnission, as well as members of advisory boards, cannot be compelled by other parties to testify in an NRC hearing under the provisions of the Commission's regulations (1.0 CFR 552.4(p) and 2.720). A pre-siding board, however, may, upon a showing of exceptional. circumstances require the testimony of these persons. The reason for the pro-tection of NRC employees and NRC consultants is essentiall to avoid undue interruption of staff work by allowing a party to select staff witnesses and place demands on the time of senior staff officials who may be compelled to appear and testify.

3.

Exceptional circumstances would probably be found to exist if it could be shown that an individual had direct personal knowledge 4

-..w.

s

~~ m y

- -, =

y,

w

3-of a material fact not known to the NRC witnesses, selected by the staff to participate in the hearing. To date, however, there has been no occasion to invoke the " exceptional circumstances" provision.

In this regard, it should be noted that the NRC staff does participate as a party in NRC hearings and present testimony through one or more witnesses. The staff has an obligation, with-out being compelled, to produce witnesses (over whom they exercise control and can produce) shown to have direct personal knowledge of a material fact in the hearing. The ACRS, on the other hand, does not participate as a party in NRC hearings and pre::ent testimony.

Its letter report to the Commission is only admitted as part of the record for the limited purpose of showing compliance with statutory requirements.

(Section 182 b. of the Atomic Energy Act directs the ACRS to review certain applications and to sub-mit a report thereon.) Although the ACRS's position as reflected in its report-is significant in the licensing process, the report itself is not considered as having been admitted into evidence for the truth of any of the statements 1!herein.

4. It is important to note that it is not clear that the regulations as written (10 CFR 562.4(p) and 2.720) also appry to consultants to the ACRS. This precise question has never been dealt with explicitly by the Commission.

II.

Discussion 1.

The staff believes that several courses of action are unrealistic and can be readily dismissed.

These include either extending

~

w

~

sm----w~<n

--q, y~-

,w w

--r n

K absolute protection to-consultants to the ACRS or extending no protection at all. Extending absolute protection to them would -

give them greater protection than is now extended to individual ACRS members or to NRC personnel. On the other hand, a policy J

which goes to the other extreme and gives.them no protection would be difficult to square with legitimate policy considerations under-lying the protection which the regulations now extend to NRC personnel (which, as state', is -defined to include NRC consultants l

d l

and their employees, as well as NRC employees). In other words, l

l_

there is no apparent reason why reasonable alternatives should include giving consultants to the ACRS any more favored treatment than is now extended to the ACRS members themselves or any less l

l favored treatment than the regulations now provide to NRC employees and NRC consultants and their employees (unless, of course, the Commission wishes to reexamine and modify that general approach),

In addition, no alternative should provide for compelling the testimony of an ACRS consultant for the purpose of probing the ACRS's collegial deliberative process.

2.

Consistent with the foregoing, the narrow generic question which emerges is whether the established policy for the protection of ACRS members themselves should also apply to consultants to the ACRS.

3.

The ACRS itself would answer this question in the affirmative.

See letter, dated December 12, 1977, frcn M. Bender to Bowird K.

-_____.__a

_m____

T' 5-Shapar attached to the Secretary to the Commission's letter of October 20, 1978 asking for our comments on the generic question.

Several grounds are advanced by the ACRS in support of its position. According to the ACRS, the comments and recommendations of ACRS consultants are an integral part of the ACRS decision-making process. Even if a presiding board only intended to ques-tion an ACRS consultant in the individual's area of expertise, accord-ing to the ACRS, it would, in all probability, involve a discussion of factors. which are a part of the ACRS's decisionmaking process.

In this regard, the ACRS also asserts that their consultants render advice based on facts and information which are already in the record of the licensing proceeding; and that they do not have direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known to other witnesses made available by the staff.

The ACRS also states that compelling ACRS consultants to testify in NRC hearings would further limit the amount of time and

, effort they could devote to ACRS activities. Consultants, as well as members of the ACRS, we are told have only a limited amount of time to devote to Committee business.

4.

The grounds advanced by the ACRS for the protection of its members are essentially the same as those which have been advanced for the protection of the members themselves. ACRS consul tants, however, are individual experts and are not, as are the members, a collegial body.

Nevertheless, as the staff understands the r *

a.. -.

w

-ey

ACRS's position, the consultants are so involved with-the mem-bers' collegial decisionmaking process that it would be difficult to focus only on any individual consultant's role as an expert with-out getting involved in the Committee's collegial process. Although the ACRS's position-regarding the collegial role of its consultants may be correct in terms of the practical operation of the Committee and its Subcommittees - and we have no information to the con-trary - the reasons supporting that general proposition, at least, are.not sel f-evident.

It is not completely clear from the ACRS position why all ACRS consultants should be deemed to be 'an integral part of the ACRS decisionmaking process."

The ACRS position does not explain how the ACRS would generally handle a situation in which one of its consultants has an expert opinion contrary to a conclusion expressed by the Committee in its letter report to the Commission.

Such a situation would not nec-essarily be known unless disclosed by the consultant or by the ACRS report. The mere fact that, as stated in the ACRS position, the consultants do not have " direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known to other witnesses made available by the Commission Staff," should not necessarily be a controlling factor. Of possibly greater significance, in our view, depending on the circumstances, is the opinion of the expert consultant, particularly where that opinion may be in an area where the necessary expertise is limited, or where there are substantial differences in the expert opinions which are otherwise avail-a bl e.

The ACRS's position does not address these matters.

NMe m wwe ene.

y p.

y

,- ~ -.. -,.

i:

t 4 5.

The staff understands that the Commission intends to meet with the ACRS on this generic question. Subject to any impression which the Commission may-derive from this meeting which differs-from our understanding (set forth in the preceding paragraph) of ACRS's position, the staff believes that some reasonabl, but not absolute, protection should be provided to ACRS consultants.

The main advantages of this' course of action are: (1) the integrity of-the ACRS's deliberative process would be main' tained; and (2) the time consultants have to devote to ACRS

+

work would not be diminished. A disadvantage is that such protection could be perceived as making the regulatory process e

a less open one.

6.

A balance has to be struck between protecting the integrity of the ACRS's deliberative process on the one hand, and, on the other, not establishing a barrier for access to witnesses which might be necessary to the presentation of a party's case.

The staff believes that such a balance is now more or less reasonably struck in the Commission's regulations which protect ACRS members, NRC employees, consultants to the NRC and their employees from being compelled to testify except upon a show-ing of exceptional circumstances. A reasonable application the exceptional circumstances provision should provide a safety valve so that anyone generally protected under 1

the regulations could be compelled by a presiding board to -

y-e.

v-e y-y-

,pp-g wy

[

l:

r 8-T testify upon a showing, for example, that an individual has direct personal knowledge of a material-fact that'is not known to -the witnesses made available to testify in the proceeding.

7.

If the Commission finds the provisions in these regulations to be generally acceptable, they should be clarified to extend the same protection to ACRS consultants. If, on the other hand, the Commission does not agree with the protection which the present regulations provide for ACRS members, NRC employee's, consultants to the NRC and their employees, then the. broader generic question should be reconsidered and any new approach applied to the matter of ACRS consultants.

In short, we do not discern a convincing rationale for a disparity in treatment between ACRS consultants on the one-hand and, on 'the other hand, NRC employees, consultants-to the Cominission, employees of consultants to the Commission and members of advisory boards.

e a

9-*% N a

w, g

I -

ATTACliMElli "A" BACKGROUtlD IrlF0PRATI0ft I.

The ACRS Under section 29 of the Atomic Energh Act of 1954, as amended, there is established an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safegilards '

to review safety studies and facility license applications referred to it by the Commission, and to advise the Comission with regard to the hazards of proposed or. existing reactor facilities, and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards.

Section 182 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides that t'he ACRS shall review each application for a construction permit or an operating license for a power or test reactor or other facility for which a hearing is mandatory under section 189 a. of the Act, and may review applications for construction permits or operating licenses for other facilities or for amendmentis to construction permits or licenses. The sectiori further provides that the ACRS shall submit a report on each application it reviews, which shall be made a part of the " record of the application" and available' to the public except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure. The Act does not explicitly provide that the ACRS report shall be made part of the " record for decision" as that term is used -

in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The ACRS report is, in essence, a public statement from,a group of experts - outside the hearing process - that a proposed reactor can or cannot be constructed with reasonable assurance of safety.

Evidentiary weight is not given to an ACRS report in a contested licensing proceeding and the agency's final decision in such a

_y

t 2-proceeding in no way rests on that report. The report fs only admitted into evidence to show compliance with 3ection 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act.

(

~

G e

O e

O t

e 4

emD-e e.

49 9

3-II. Judicial Decisions 1.

Excerpt from Aesc51iman v. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, 547 F.2d. 622, 630-632 (C.A.D.C. 1976):

., previous ACRS reports. The Committee believes that resolution of these items II should apply equally to the Midland Plant m

I Units 1 & 2.

~

A.

The Committee believes that the above

. Saginaw also contends that the Commis, items can be resolved during construction

~

sion erred by refusing to permit inquiry and that, if due consideration is given to into the safety conclusions of the Advisory these items, the nuclear units proposed Committee on Reactor Safeguards [ACRS].

for the Midland Plant can be gonstructed ACRS is a group of outside experts charged with reasonabic assurance that they can by statute to "make reports with be operated without undue' risk to the

-regard to the hazards of proposed or exist-health and safety of the public.

ing reactor facilities and the adequacy of IV J.A. 97-98 [cmphasis added].

's

~

'I proposed reactor safety standards." 42 U.S.C. 5 2039 (1970). See Siegel v. AEC Pointm.g out that it could not determine-130 U.S. App.D.C. 307, 400 P.2d 773, 75d what "[o]ther prob! cms" the ACRS had in

- (19CS). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 2232(b), mmd, or what " resolution" of them it had each application for a construction permit suggcsted, Saginaw requested the Licensing

>

• or operating license for a commercial nucle-Board to permit discovery into these mat-ar power generating facility must be re-ters. Saginaw s discovery requests took the viewed by ACRS and a report "made f rm of 337 interrogatories, various docu-

~

availab!c to the public except to the extent ment demands, subpoenas, and requests for

, that, security classification prevents disclo-depositions directed to ACRS members.

- sure." Id.

These requests were all denied, for essen-

.'the ACRS letter is only admitted as p

' The ACRS report in this case was a 5 page, singic.spaccd typewritten !ctter. In language accessible to the determined lay-f the record to show comphance with the man, the ACRS report discusses roughly setory mquirements.

,. " RAb half a dozen design problems raised by the 74-5-331 at 340. Second, the Commission Midland reactors, and recommends modifi-had indicated in another case that it would cations to alleviate them.87 Following dis-be inappropriate to probe the reasoning of cus8cn of these specific problems, the individual ACES members.

Id., 340 & n'.

ACRS report concludes:

62.

Oti;er proMems related to large water We agree with Saginaw that further ex-reactors have been identified by the Reg-plication of the ACRS report was necessary, ulatory Staff and the ACRS and cited in but agree with the Commission that dis-

17. IVJ.A. 90-03. Changes suagested by ACRs are almost always voluntarily adc;*ted by the

'. subsequent to the accideat. Hawever, the

. applicant. Wh.!e ACRS approrat (as opposed Committee recornmends that the primary to scrutiny) is not required by hw before a protection in this regard should utifize a ns.

,'icense issues. "in practice it is very un! kely drogen control method which keeps the h'.

y that an applicant would perust in going befr.,re drogen concentration withm safe firmts by

[the Iicensing-Do.irdi over their objection."

means other than purging. The capabahty j Union;of CortecrnedScrer:tists v. ACC.103 U.S.

for purging should also be provided. The App.D.C. G4. 499 F.2d 10G9.1073 n. 5 (1974).

hydrogen control system and proviunns for An example of the nature of the ACRS repcrt g

g Is the following:

.pling should have redundancy and mstru.,

The Cornm.ttee has commented in presions mentation suitable far an engineered s.a'cty reports on the desetopment cf sy stems to g

g control the buill:p of hydrogen in the con.

g tainment wtach mdt f(.!!w m tN bnhkrty W J ^ N' cient of a m yor accident. The apt.hcant

^ 5"pplemental ACRS. report was also pre.

proposes to ruske use of a technique of purg, pared several months later addressmg sestral ing through Idters after a sintab!c time delay add.tional problems. 1,V J.A. 93 100.

k

w 4

.AESCHLIMANv.UNITEDSTATESNUCLEAR~ REG.CGil'N Cite as 547 F.2d 622 (1976) covery from initivWal ACP.S members was 1825. "As part of".ita mandate, ACRS also

~

~

not the, proper way to obtain it, was to " advise the Commission with respect to the hazards involved at any facility".and B,

to " insure that any features of new reactors The role Congress intenited for ACRS would be as safe as possible."- (d.

clearly emerges from its legi>lative history.

[g]. The ACitS report in this case must In 1957, ACits was added to the Atomic bc evaluated in light of the congressional' Energy Act of 1954 by Pub.L.85-256, 71 purlioses. While the reference to "other Stat. 570. Prior to that time, the Commis-probicms" identified in previous ACRS re-sion had established its own " Committee on ports mgy have been adcquate to give the Reactor Safeguards." See S. Rep. No. 290- Commission the benefit of ACRS members'

~

85th Cong.,1st ass.,1957 U.S. Code Cong. technical expertise, it fe!I short of brform-

~

& Admin. News, pp. ILO3,1813 [hereafter ing the other equally important task phich USCCAN]. However,in 1950, the Commis" Congress gave ACRS: informing the public sion issued the construction permit litigated of the hazards. At a minimum, the ACRS in Power Reactor Derclopment Co. v. Int'l report should have provided a short expla-Union of Elect. Workers, 067 U.S. 396, Si nation, understandab!c to a layman, of the S.Ct.1529,6 L.Ed.2d 921 (19G1), despite an additional matters of concern to the com-adverse committec report which had not mittee, and a cross-reference to the previ-been made public. See Union of Concerned ous reports in which those problems, and Scientists v. AEC,163 U.S. App.D.C. 64,499 the measures proposed to solve them, were F.2d 1069,1073 n. 5,1075 n.13 (1974).

developed in more detail. Otherwise, a con-Aroused by this incident, Congress gave cerned citizen would be unable to deter-ACRS an independent statutory existence mine, as Congress intended, what other dit.

and required that its reports be made pub-ficultics might be lurking in the proposed he. Id.

reactor design. Since the ACRS report on The Commission opposed making a public its face did not comply with the require-ACRS report a " formal statutory require-ments of the statute, we believe the Licens.

men t."

USCCAN at 1816. However, not-ing Board should have returned it sua ing the " great prestige" and credibility 3po'nte to ACRS for further elaboration of which the Reactor Safeguards Committee the cryptic reference to "other prob! cms."is enjoyed in the cycs of the public, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy stated:

[7] Turning to the propriety of dis.

The report of the [ACRS] committee is to covery directcd to individual ACRS mem.

be made public so that all concerned may bcrs and ACRS documents, we conclu'de it be apprised of the safety cr possible hat-was not error to deny these requests.

ards of the facility. It is the belief of the ACRS' unique rcle as an independent "part Joint Committee that whcn the public is of the adminiatrative procedures in chapter adequately and accurately informed that 16 of the act,"' supra, is sufficiently analo -

it will be in a better position to accept the gous to that of an admirdstrative decision-construction of any reactors.

maker to bring into play the rule that the USCCAN 1825,1826[cm;3hasis added). The. " mental processes" of such a " colla!nrative statute established ACRS "as part of the instrumentalit[y] of justice" are not ordi-administrative procedures in chapter 16 of narily subject to probing. Ur:ited States v.

the act" to provide the "same type of scruti-Jiorgan, 313 U.S. 499, 422, G1 S.Ct. 999, 55 py and prestige" as the !!caetor Safeguards led.1429 (1911). This rule is particularly Committee had in the i et.

I'SCCAN at aprepos in light of ACRS'g eu!!cgial cwpo-I

18. This is ne,t to say that m MRS rymt out trascried a f u:tual reco:d is enmpi.st anm cont.dn detaded factual f.ndmi;s of the kind before th t.icensmi,: tWrd. See 10 Cf.R., pt.

necessary to aid juihdit review. t!raler Cnm-

2. App. A. V(0(l) (19%).

mission rules, w hen ACitS conchasmns ase crin-i t-

l'

~

i

'-S-AESCl!LIMAN:v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REG. COM'N Cite as 547 F.2d 622 (1976) i 1

sition such that no individual may speak for the group as a whole. Where an ACRS

' report on its face omits material informa-tion, the appropriate course is not discovery -

but to return it for supplementation. Cf.

Dunlop v. Bachowski,421 U.S. 500,574-75

& n.11,95 S.Ct.1851,44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975).

(

We meccly. hold. here that neither the

]

. Atomic Energy Act nor general principles of administrative law required the Com-4 mission to grant Saginaw's discovery requests.8'

. On remand, the ACRS report should be i

returned to the ACRS for clarification of

~

the ambiguities noted above.

e 4

e i

e i

h f

+

4 i

I 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERI'CA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of a letter dated October 30, 1978 from Mr. Stuart Treby, Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel for the NRC Staff, to Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary of the Comission, transmitting " Staff Comments on the Generic Matters of Cross-Examination of ACRS Consul-tants in NRC Licensing Proceedings" and the enclosure 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 30th day of October,1978.. The

.following persons comprise the standard service list in the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. and 50-323 0.L. and Puget hound Power and Light Co., et al. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN SIf~522' and STN 50-523.

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman

• Mrs. Raye Fleming Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1920 Mattie Road, Panel Shell Beach, Califor(ia 93449 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Frederick Eissler i

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Mr. Glenn 0. Bright

• Conference, Inc.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4623 More Mesa Drive Panel Santa Barbara, California 93105 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver 1792 Conejo Avenue L

Dr. William E. Martin

' San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Senior Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute Mr. Gordon Silver Columbus, Ohio 43201 1792 Conejo Avenue San Luis Obispo, Calif.ornia 93401 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Richard B. Hubbard 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 MHB Technical Associates San Francisco, California 94106 366 California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Hrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis 00ispo, California 93401

?-

Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

Bruce Norton, E q.

321 Lytton Avenue' 3216 North 3rd fireet Palo Alto, California 94302-Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Yale I. Jones, Esq.

100 Van Ness Avenue Samuel W. Jensch, Esq., Chairman

• 19th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco, California 94102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 John R. Phillips, Esq.

Simon Klevansky, Esq.

Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Margaret Blodgett, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Center for Law in the School of Natural Resources Public Interest University of flichigan 10203 Santa Monica Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Los Angeles, California 90067 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member

• David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1025 15th Street, N. W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5th Floor Washington, D. C.

20555 Washington, D. C.

20005 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Snell & Wilmer

& Axelrad 3100 Valley Center Suite 1214 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.

Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet 350 McAllister Street c/o Forelaws on Board San Francisco, California 94102 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 Mr. James 0. Schuyler Nuclear Projects Engineer Robert C. Schofield, Director Pacific Gas & Electric Company Skagit County Planning Department 77 Beale Street 120 W. Kincaid Street San Francisco, California 94106 Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 John Marrs Roger M. Leed, Esq.

l Managing Editor 1411 Fourth' Avenue l

San Luis Obispo County Seattle, Washington 98101 Telegram-Tribune 1321 Jchnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 i

i s. e=

o

~..

h ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board fir. Nicholas D. Lewis Panel

• Chairman U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comnission Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Washington, D.C.

2055b 820 East Fifth Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Olympia, Washington 98504 Panel

• U.S. riuclear Regulatory Commission F. Theodore Thomsen, Esq.

Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen Washington, D.C.

20555

.& Williams Docketing and Service Section 1900 Washington Buildin'g Office of the Secretary Seattle, Washington 98101 U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commissien Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Rives, Bonyhadi & Drummond 1400 Public Service Building 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Richard 14. Sandvik, Esq.

PMY a-State of Oregon Stuart A. Treby

/

Department of Justice Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel 500 Pacific Building forrthe NRC Staff 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Canadian Consulate General Robert Graham Vice-Consul 412 Plaza 600 6th & Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Department of Energy Room 111, Labor and Industries Building Salem, Oregon 97310 Russell W. Busch, Esq.

Attorney for Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Evergreen Legal Services S308 Ballard Avenue, fl.W.

Seattle, Washington 98107 1

i

- e

._. - w,

n w.