ML20027A330

Petition W/Respect to Short Pilings Proposalpetitioners Petition NRC to Grant Specified Relief Incl Full Pub Hearing & W/Hold Permission from NIPSCO to Install Pile Foundation & Seeks to Reopen Admin Proc.Cert of Svc

ML20027A330
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	11/01/1978
From:	Graham R, Osann E, Vollen R GRAHAM, R. L., OSANN, E. W., VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7811160050
Download: ML20027A330 (13)

Text

_

p\@

. ,1 i

i{q4  %

u # -,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *b" b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  : S)

U "' i n' '

0 g \ai D k%

A

• W , t.; 6 's e (*

u c.q.p* ye IN THE MATTER OF N /g~ d. '

) DOCKET .

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) 50-367 (Bailly Generating Station; Nuclear-1 )

)

PETITION WITH RESPECT TO SHORT PILINGS PROPOSAL Petitioners

• hereby petition the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (the " Commission")** to grant the following relief:

1 I. Inscitute a proceeding before an unbiased decision-maker, including holding hearings and af fording full and fair adminis trative procedures to petitioners and to all other in-teres ted persons , pursuant to the notice and hearing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 52229, and the Administra-tive Procedure Act, 5 C.S.C. 5S554-558, 701-706, on the subject of a proposal by Northern Indiana Public Service Company

("NIPSCO"), holder of Construction Permit No. CPPR-104 (the " con-struction permit") for the Sailly Generating Station Nuclear-1 I "

The Petitioners are the People of the State of Illinois; Porter County Chapter of the Itaak Walton League of Areri-ca, Inc. ; Concerned Citizens Against Bailly Nuclear Site; Business and Professional People for the Public Interes t; James E. Ne .iman ; Mildred Warner, and George Hanks; 7ne Citi of Gary, Indiana; and the Lake 'lichigan Federatien, each of whom appears by their respective belcw signed attorneys .

This Petition shculd be fecided by the Commission itself, or by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated fcr that purpose. The Cornission's Staff which has served in conflicting and partisan roles in connection with 3 ail-ly and on the subject matter of this Petition shculd nct participate in any way as a decision-maker. ,_

(s.

("Bailly"), to ins tall the pile foundation for Class I-Safety Structures in accordance with the design proposed and described in a document submitted by NIPSCO to the Com-mission's Regulatory Staff (" Staff") entitled " Design Analysis and Ins tallation of Driven H-Pile Foundations Bail-ly Generating Station-Nuclear 1, Report SL-3629", dated March 8, 1973, and various other communications and informa-tion related thereto also submitted to the Staf f by NIPSCO (hereinaf ter jointly referred to as the "short pilings pro-posal");

II. Wi thhold or s tay permission f rom NIPSCO to ins tall the pile foundation, or any part thereof, in accordance with the short pilings proposal until the completion of full and fair administrative proceedings, and judicial review there-of, in connectin with the short pilings proposal; and, III. Seek the permission of United States Court of Ap-peals for the District of Columbia Circuit fe; leave to re-open administrative proceedings prior to the en=cencement of administrative proceedings concerning the short pilings pro-posal and prior to permission to install the short piles foundation.

In support of this Petition, Petit;cners state as fcl-lows:

1. As shewn by documents in the Commission's docket in :his matter, each of the Petitioners previcusly has parti-i 1

cipated in proceedings concerning Sailly and the construd.icn oermit, in which the interest of each Petitioner has been shown and established. The interests of each Petitioner are be affected by ::IPSCO's short pilinc.s o rc.c o s a l . . .

2. The Atomic Energy Act specifies that the Commission must orovide interested citizens an occ.crtunit"1 for a hearing on all construction permit amendments, except those involving no significant hazards consideration. 42 U.S.C. 52239. Se-cause the lecislative history of the Act makes clear that .oub- .

lic hearings are strongly favorea,, anc t.nus tne tedera., courts .

have ruled that the sinc;le exception should be a.c.clied scarinc.- .

iv. . Brooks v. AEC, 476 F.2d 924, 927, citing L'. S . Code and Adminis t rative :s'ews , 1962 at pp. 2207-S (D.C. Cir. 1973). Com-mission Boards also have reccgnized that the Act and its his-tory favor limiting application of the ao significant .anards con-sideration exception. E.g., Consumers Pcwer Companf (Big Rock

';uclear Plant), 7 AEC 29~, L3 ?- 7 4- 15, : arch 29, 1974.

3. The short pilincs crocosal reques ts , in fact and in . .

law, an amendment to the construction permit which involves sig-nificant hazards consideration. The construction permit author-ines iIPSCO :: construct Bailly as " described in the application

-, n; u .u. c .4 e , .. 4 . . y-. .enCna."

- .m

~,,

. . . . c .= . u..-a _= c -a g ov .f .n.3n a n4-n - ...p..

a- ~u .; v .* ,

M. .L1 Lan. . u- .4 L, = Lv,- L,e . wa Ca nw .u. L, w-n v . . --

s . .- . av

. , ~. 4 , .e. y-a . .~. . 4 u

6 y--nne L v . a-u..-; n. ;n , ,,

.m...-.

o "u .". o. " d-v^ C ' ' .". ~o .". a -" .4

- - ' .". .# n

• h. .. -o C c^ .~.~. .' a~ s~ .4v.^ ", ' d' ~

4 *v C .. e *u , .'.^ .'^ '.

u'4 .' .~. c, '^'.' F.

~

m 1 4 m..*4 3A

n. v *w

. . www .n, s . u. a. .D .. 2 1 4. m.. 4 ,..g...;

. . wO - m .Ja,,,..; 3 . us .*.; 3 .4 g Qa-+-=,

.-yw.

m w .'a.g C=,

v .J4 -qm u .Ja_ uy.. "m..- n - ' .34 nn v.,

a .. c, . u.

.. 3 .pe_.4 m .- .,-.,

. ~ .

cJ . ***00*]

...-L

.4 4....ggen-s

. ...%. g ..44~~.n '.n. a -.

g

.,.- a -

4 . . = .- ..J--a -.f;.. -4

.4 a .- .. -o e.,. *n..4

- I3..-; 3. .4 - - p. . . ~- .4. . . g

-]-

Board, makes it clear beyond doubt that the design proposed by MIPSCO, approved by the Commission, and authorized by the construction permit is for construction of a plant to be built on a foundation of piles driven to bedrock, or to the layer of glacial till immediately above bedrock ("long piles"). For example, the description of the pile design to bedrock appears in the text of the PSAR and in a graphic figure which unmistak-ably shows the piles driven close to bedrock (PSAR at pp. 2.5-49, 2.5-51 and Figure 2.5-30). Furthermore, the Commission's Regu-latory Staff in its Safety Evaluation Report incorporated the report of the U.S. Geological Survey which noted that because a shallow mat foundation would be subject to unacceptable se ttle-ment, "... Class I structures and some other units will be sup-ported by piles drivan into the compact glacial till encountered at about 160 to 175 feet below plant grade [just above bedrock],

or driven to the bedrock surface." (SCR, Anp.F). At the con-s truction permit hearing be fore the Licensing Eoard, MIPSCO's wit-ness Glenn Chauvin, a foundation engineer with MIPSCO's architecr-engineer, Sargent & Lundy, testified that the foundation would consist of piles driven to or immediately above bedrock (Tr.

at 2141).

Morcover, documentation submitted by MIPSCO to the Ccamis-sion subsequent to the issuance of the constructica permit con-f i r:'u that Baill. was authortued to be built only on long piles.

Fcr example, by letter dated December 27, 1976, NIPSCO advised the Commission that " the piles under Class I structures will be

i driven into the glacial till or underlying bedrock surface."

That letter, and all o f the above-re ferred to documentation, is part of the Commission docket in this proceeding.

4. In March, 1978, almost four years af ter the con-struction permit was issued and at a time when, according to Commission documents, construction of Bailly was only about 1% completed, NIPSCO proposed a significant change in this major safety feature of the Bailly plant, the fcundation de-sign of all Class I structures. Under NIPSCO's short pilings proposal, the short piles foundation would only go to a depth of about 100 feet above bedrock in the middle of one of several glacial sand / clay layers underlying the site. In contrast the long foundation piles would rest on or close to bedrock.

5. The design of the foundation and the length of the foundation piles for Class I structures are major safety fea-tures of Bailly, which directly affect the public ..ealth and safety. 'The change proposed by NIPSCO frca the long oiles decision, upon which the construction permit was issued, to the short pilings proposal is significant, involves unresolved safety questions and significant hazards consideration, and af-fects the public health and safety. Therefore, it must be con-sidered at public hearings before the Cctmission can allow its i'

implementation. The short pilings proposal has not been con-t sifered in public hearings, nor cculd it have been because it I

was not proposed by NIPSCO until after public heartngs were con-claded.

M -

6. The short pilings proposal clearly involves sig-nificant hazards considerations because it seeks tc change the very foundation of the crucial Class I structures. The adequacy of the foundation design affects the amcunt of set-tlement of and the dif ferential settlement among Class I structures, which could endanger the safe operation of the plant, and could result in unacceptable reductions in the important seismic safety margins. The important hazards con-siderations involved in foundation design are recognized in the Bailly PSAR (e.g., 2. 5-51) .

7. The lengthy consideration of the safety problers of the short pilings proposal in which the Staf f is and has been engaged also demonstrates that significant hazards con-side rations are involved. The volume of the documentation submitted by NIPSCO in support of its short pilings proposal, all of which is part of the Commission's docket, and the length of time of the review of that documentation, the num-erous staff me.tbers and outside consultants to the Cctmission involved in the review and the requests for further information -

by the Staff, indicate the significance of the proposed change in the foundation design. As the Scard in Consumers Power, supra, recognized, such a situation "... calls forth in the pru-dent man a desire for a multilateral opinica and hence for a no tice inviting participation by persons of contrasting view-point." (7 AEC at 238). C{. EDF v. Ruchelshaus, 439 F.2d 594, 594-95 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

8. As of the date o f this Petiticn, neither NIPSCO nor the Staff aave described the short pilings propcsal as e

- .-o ,gu n .o . .c v .- ,

-,t 3 r. .o- .n. u. .. a. . ., v -v n

-w e vv.s-.u -- -

t4^7-. r e .. . u .4 - . ."6 C An . -

theless, if NIPSCO is permitted tc install the cile founda- .

t .i o.n 4n <'. c ^ vo d a n v~ e- u .4 --* " 'mk. -a o -k .. o .- *- ^r.. ' ' l .a. 3-co --r v.ve coa.1, .i *.

• cL.14 -

constitute in fact and in law ar amendment to the construc-tion permit.

9. Commission regulations require that the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report include descriptions of major struc-tures relating tc scismic safetv, unusual or no'rel design ,

features, the general arr7ngement and approximate dimensions or tn.e rac1.,ity, anc ty..e major engineering and aren..i te c t ua.,

features designed to protect public safety. 10 CFR S $ 50. 34 (a)

(1), (a) (2) , and (a) (3) (iii) and 50.35(a). The pile founda-tion is a .urinci. cal architectual and enoineerinc. v feature of the 3

., i a t,. .- ,

. e .42 - .; . . 3- - o =ei sm .ic do' .' e - ".

m' .n -

d m, S "- ... e.r o"bli v a^a.#e y" r- --o"v-lems such as settlement of the plant. The foundation also is a.. 4...e,L,.- m , .- ,- u a .4 .,. ..o . .4 on o s -; i . . ^ e .~~ 3 ~. r. " v~ .'e'-

1. a c .4 7. 4 -"

. ". L' m; . .

,, l .'. .n ~v s' k. . a ". t, .'. .%vL".'. ; a 4 .~. .v- v^ ". %i '." . L v .i. ,' - y .i.'.~-

. "c

-v ..L"... .i . .. .=

s} .q Q .. .f.

-. ?

EAq

--- k q ^

m.m.

.; .Sz -u ? k. e s .3t . . . _ .A. Q * *. e .5 .? 3 - .SQ Q.n. - A } &.~ A r .*. --k: O t.* p n. -^-O.

.. av .

, r. v9. Ls .1 7

.m. s.---,

d aar. *.v m

• .. h. a h va. s.- .* ^# .C...s.*-

.3

• 4

• 4 ^ ^ p = ' . *...-

• '$i'3 .- 4 g~n ^-.m.;.I

• mv. a. S o '. ". L' .- .. L' v~ ' ^ a .- "yr '. .' L' - 'y.'."'.*.*

. . . '. s' J~"*-'"^'*''i

.- .- -.*-4 a ' v'".-C~..'.'~~^.*' y"+"-

..3

- - r o .sL 3 , , , . . ' . ,

L .4.A - v .

3

- ,.4 .' . . .* 3. ,. . w.;..4..v,*,

.n.,.%.,

..m-_ . . . . .. . . . v v.

F-..4 .O*s  ;-.r e - ~.. . 4

-- .. p

.s - =. .b. 3 =-

• b. . ,a . y34 1 ,3s- y 2_ 4. . . i.. . .. .s

. . n. =. g qgu I u4 b~g--...'f.

Ae,,

. -Cna { . . g h. ;

',9. . .. e. .i.m 4 3 .7 O C .' La .w. fg ** 3 e.w.- 3. . +3  ?* . v.-. =

• a .3 .- .O.6.,...4 v..j -m} Na w v v ',.wa.

v-y . v n.

. U. v . .ZV^ .

';I,

• O^ l?

• A} i 1

.QyQj. -~'.s.,, *a 8 *..m Q 4

• O. a e.e .4a..

4 s -1 .v s s. . .. L-...,;Oi ..L.. A.. .. Sn--)  %. ~

--. .,J 44

..-.....,3.J O .. , .. e h.. ",3 m. q , . ,3 .' ...;

, , . - v. S

y. . . . . - s...

..s4 3. . .4 m,

.s. .; ,_3.,...4 .-

./ .ie

that any plant sought to be built on such a foundation be reviewed on a case by case basis. NRC Regulatory Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.5 (I.l.).

Neither the construction permit, nor the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decisien which authorized it, allow the length of the foundation piles to be determined by NIPSCO and the Staf f at a later date. For example, the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board specifies certain "cechnical or design information" ..."which can be left for such later consideration." (LBP-74-19, RAI-74-4, p.557 at p.566). The design of the pile foundation or the length of ,

the piles is not included among that information specified. -

10. Even assuming, arguendo, that the short pilings pro-

\.

posal is not deemed to be a request for an amendment to the b construction permit, nonethelesr an administrative proceeding and public hearings concerning it must be held before NIPSCO is pe rmitted to implement it. The short pilings proi.csal in-y volves significant hazards consideration, is a matter of great' ,s concern to the public health and safety, and has never been the s ub;e c t of a public hearing, nor could it have been since it

\

.vas never proposed by MIPSCO until long af ter the public hear-ings were concluded. Under all the circumstances, elemental fairness, the Atomic Energy Act, the Adminis tra tive Procedure Act, due process of law and the public interest require that public hearings be held to determine whether MIPSCO should be given permission to instal' a pile fcundation in accordance

~

with its short pilings pr:posal.

• l

_s_

11. As of the date of this Petition, Petitioners have not been informed that the Staff has formally approved the short pilings proposal. The mcst recent written communic.-

tion frcm the Staf f which Petitioners are aware of on the sub-ject is a letter dated August 4, 1978, from Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, tp NIPSCO. In a letter dated September 26, 1973, NIPSCO represented to the Staf f that it had complied with the requirem.ents o f the S taf f 's Augus t 4 letter and urge 4 the Staff's early concurrence in NIPSCO's c.receedin-v with the installation of production piles. Petitioners are aware that should the NRC Regulatory Staff not approve the short pil-i ,

,ings proposal and should NIPSCO not- ce rsis t in its efforts to

, implament i t, the, relief reques te _ni s Petition will be un-s s N'

.r m,e s s a rv. . .

S

,i s 1

Nonetheless, Fe titione rs believe it acc. .. roc. riate that this

.w. 1 w .im..

,, , be s s...,.1 -.

u.3..w .h _i 3- . . .4 ...u3 -

.o _.,2st.

_ .. e .n.g .:,e

.w _1 4 e .:

is sought in a timely -anner and tc reduce th e li..elihood of

( ,

the r.eed for sceking emergency relief. The St 2.f f has no t re-e s

v:. yn a.vi.., A 3A c . =.o o a- n ,u, .m.~;, e .v. - ,: .-..3..-e.s e uv .- f ,. r .... 3. 2. . ;A .. 4 % v.* e .w.c s wn 3. . 6..h.e a" wa..4 4 1  %

udg t- 2 ,* .= .. . . . .rm. L3 *.

w.%g. n& n es ,S, ge g.n. 4 g. -Em a.g . g g .s*.., e.g .w e j., , 4. ., . g 4

.w.h. 3 +w= 3 ,3

. v y ,3 u . w ,

v .v. , .a 3 On th3 si'ect J Cf the 7hort OilinC.s OrOCCsal. g . . .

It is C. Cs s ib le

.n. a, w. c

- r. y .:. a y"'y'rvV T'.

. ~

w.'- '..~..~y'.'e'".."*'. 'w."..). .:..1.'~-. p.... '"''y'.' ^y.~ ,~yw ^ a' J' .'

s i

..i 1..> 'g a- y .i y e n.

e

. ,.. .n. -1u

• l.vJ O y/

..,17

.s... e .:, , Q.

n

. s ws q * . ... _

. ... w .2w .-..ry ..r. 4... . _ , , -. 4 um. .e.

.. w

.- . b.. .4 m. u3 .,U3 ., g .

.3 .L6 .w L w .- . .; ...w e s y l,.,

,~ C v 4 4 3. ;. . ?.,p

. .m V 2. s.3.. . . , r a . L. 3

. . . . . w.p_

e. 2

. wa n e ,= a 3 .** ,3

.a . ; a g { ,;. .i n .

. . . . . .b. a v.

. wac% . 9, 3 g .-.

o . .J ^ w. h.33.w_. ,-o,

• g 4 .- a

3. w .v w

o.

e . w.

w 3. g 1 ., 6..s% a ?. *. .m. g _ 3 s .#,, ,. y

.. .1,. ,

.*'s.,.3< 4

. .e. s,. *)

ma

e. -..~h..

.) v . .;

v. .g .e. p ,. p. .,-

s a.

. ; b .r .b ; ,,

pg-

...m.

].3, ** U9 .. .g g. 9 $ g

]w.e g > q g 9 gg g h.- g im =

.....f,e. yg e,m, A y , , ,,,,.g A

.h. w'"l . w . v 3. t'J .9,. .,a ,, .w. . a , ,,,. % g* . P .g pq M...yC v .e

. .og jL w . .e

'.9 <T e i.  %" b 8

1 g gg y eg M'* . . . .m b". ...%p $.= S. b b . m .%g Shg g..'d. .a.*.e. D. ,b, .g.md go %- J %. ..

's g $

_g_

12. Permission to ;iIPSCO to install the pile founda-tion, or any part thercof, in accordance with the short pilings proposal, should be withheld or stayed until comple-tion cf all proceedings sought by this petition. The instal-lation or commencement of installation of the pile founda-tion in accordance with the short pilings proposal, prior to the completion of full and f air adminis trative proceedings hearings to consider that proposal, would deprive the hear-ings of meaning and thus would violate t.5e mandatory aquire-monts of 42 U.S.C. S2239. Thus the required hearings mus t be

f. eld before the short pilings proposal is implemented, not dur-ing or after its implementation. Ptblic Service Conpany of New Hampshi re (Seabrook Station) , NRC I, June 30, 1978, CCH Nucl.

Reg. Rptr. par. 30, 310.05. See also Portland General Electric Comoany, (Trojan Nuclear Plant), NEC I, July 7, 1978, CCH Nucl.

Reg. Rptr. par. 30, 311.01. Decision makers would be unable to ignore the grcwing presence of advancing constructicn activities, and increased expenditures by NIPSCO, and thus the decision would be affected by improper factors. >

Since September, 1977 installation of piles anc thus cen-struction of Sailly has been halted, by action of and at the direction of the Commission. Permission to SIPSCO to install the pile foundation prior tc the cor.pletion of the required proceed-in:Js weald cause irreparable injury to petitionars and to the public interest. Thera is a great likelinced that pe ti tioners

.cIl prevail on the merits o f their arguments concerning the re-

quired proceduras and proceedings. The withholding or stay of permission to implement the short pilings proposal re-quested here is required by the public interest and if grant-ed will cause little, if any, harm to MIPSCO, in view of the facts that only the status quo is sought to be maintained and tnat it would avoid the possibility of NIPSCO having to undo any installatien that is done.

13. In view of the pendency of Porter County Chapter of the Itaak Walton Leacue of America, Inc. et al., v. The Nuclear P,egulatory Commission, et al., No. 73-1556, and conso-lidated cases Nos. 78-1559, 78-1560 and 7S-1561, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission must seek leave of the Court of Appeals to re-open the administrative proceedings for further hearings. 28 U.S.C. 52347(c); Northeast Airlines v. CAB, 345 F.2d 438 (D.C.

Cir. 1965); Commission Memorandum and Order, dated October 3, 1974, in Bailly, Docket No. 50-36 7 CCNCLUSION NIPSCO has proposed a subs tantial design change frca the foundatien explicitly applied for and approved in the con-struction permit proceedings which involves significant hazards considerations. Therefore, the Commission is bound by law to afford an opcortunity for public hearings en the design change before it can approve and allow to become effective a construction permit amendment embodying that change.

• ~

The relief requested in this Petition should be granted.

DATED: November 1, 1978 Respectf ully 7ubmitted,

/[ # ,

RollERT J. VO LEN Q [ll 109 North D arborn Street MV WILLIAM J. SCOTT Attorney General State of Illinois Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60 602 (312) 641-5570 O A naull K . [4 %' '

RUSSELL R. EGGERT 4I g g / g- Chief, Northern Region Environmental Control Division C'

EDWARD W. OSASN, JR.

One IBM Plaza DEAN HANSELL Suite 4600 SUSAN N. SEKULER Chicago, Illinois 60611 Assistant Attorneys General (312) 822-9666 188 '!as t Randolph S treet Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601

.# (312) 793-2491

[4/

V s. kg

' ~

ROBCRT L. GRAHAM Attorneys for Petitioners One IBM Pla::a the Pecple of the State of 44th Floor Illinois Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 222-9350 Attorneys for Petitioners '!,/ [ b cu Porte r County Chapter o f the MICHAEL 1. SWYGERT /

I;:aak Walton League of 25 East Jackson Boulevard America, Inc.; Concerned Chicago, Illinois 60604 Citizens Against Bailly (312) 321-7722 Nuclear Site, Inc., Business- )

men for the Public Interes t, Attorney for Petitioner Inc.; James E. Newman, Mildred City of Gary, Indiana Warner and George Hanks

~/h L /A.ft %M i' ICl! ARD L. ROBoINS Lake Michigan Federation 53 Nest Jackson Blvd.

Chicaco, Illinois 60604 (312) 427-5121 Attorney for Petitioner Lake Michigan Federation C_eR A r .eIc. . . r- Ce. d _ .m. ,I cm_e

. i I hereby certify that I have served copies of the fore-going Petition with respect to Short Pi2ings Proposal upon each of the follcwing persons by depcsit in the United States A

mail, fi rs t class postage prepaid, this 1st day of November, 1s79:

Joseph Hendrie Richard Kennedy Chairman Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ccmmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter 3radford Victor Gilinskf Commissicner Cc mmis s ione r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission Ccmmissicn Washington, D.C. 20355 Washington, D.C. 20355 John Ahearne Director of Nuclear Reactor Ccmmissioner Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 L'a s hin g t on , D.C. 20555 Samuel J. Chilk Chief, Public Proceedings Secretary of the Commissicn Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of Secretary of the Commission Ccemission Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William H. Eichhorn, Esq.

Senrcer, Eichhorn and Morrcw Cack R. Newman, Esq.

5243 Hohman Avenue Newman, Reis & Axelrad Hammond, Indiana 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Marsha "ulkey Ccunsel for tne NRC Regulatory Cacas L. Kelley Staff Acting General Counsel

.. g. y , . c. 3--.

. .s , - q.,-...,,,-, u--. -; e 0 . .. .

.:. . . . , e .v

.. w.

... e, m, '.a . .' . ,/ uT.. . . . . .i .= s. ' ^ *.

.!aan ncton, D.C. 20553 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ste*/en C. Goldber e Co uns e ' f o r '-he Nic aqu atc r,

.a t a :,.

[f[r "i e/,,# f f,j'

,, ,s , o : ,. / /

o s' b <,f J.S. Nuclear 7et:12, :nc r1 C .r . 4 *,' r' L/ 5 f . ,h

.*.; 3 7 .w. a;.,v..,

,,s < . c. ., - . . , . . a. , . s ,- , ' e / 4 ', e/r .

' ' /.*.-*,

wa Q- *5h .e

+4 $ # h

,m-. ,-m m , - -- --; - - . - - -