ML20136G060
| ML20136G060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1985 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E200 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-362 NUDOCS 8506060652 | |
| Download: ML20136G060 (3) | |
Text
.___.
MAY 311985 Docket No. 50-462
~
MEMORANDUM FOR: Walter Butler, Chief Licensing Branch #2, DL FROM: Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
ENVIR0fMENTAL REVIEW 0F APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE CLINTON UNIT 2 OL APPLICATION AND THE i, WITHDRAWAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-138 In response to an oral request from Byron Siegel, Clinton LPM, the Environmental Engineering Section of EHEB conducted an environmental review of the applicant's request to cancel Clinton Unit 2. The results of this review are supplied as an attachment.
It is the staff's conclusion that there should be no detrimental 4 _ _ environmental impact from the Unit 2 excavation provided the applicant stabilizes the bem, that will be built around the excavation, with
- vegetation.
With the cancellation of Unit 2 the excavation of Unit 2 becomes a part
- of the Unit 1 site. As part of the OL for Unit 1 there will be an i Environmental Protection Plan which will state, among other things, that "If hamful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a detailed
,.. analysis of the data and.a proposed course of mitigation action."
Therefore, the cancellation of Unit 2 does not pose any 1m ediate
~
detrimental environmental impacts and the mechanisms exist for address-ing any unforeseen future detrimental impacts by way cf the Unit 2 Environmental Protection Plan.
This analysis was perfomed by G. LaRo,,he. U11ess requested othemise, this memo concludes EHEB's involvement ia the temination of this project.
j giginal signea by Rone.id ... .._ lard
. Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Dockets /GlaRoche_
cc: B. Siegel EHEB Rdg , g S. Turk RLBa11ard/ file .
RBSamworth 1 , X y.y 0FC : DE:EHEB : DE:EEEB1 : DE:E : : :
.: g g #.....:_..... _____.._____: ___... ____:...____.___.:........___
l NAME : c s: R5amworth : RLBa : : : : E/32, DATE f/) d85
_, _ _ -_.- _ __ACEIfIAl DErnDn fnDV
- f/J485 : 3 /3//85 : : : :
e
\
i Environmental Review of Applicant's l Request to Withdraw the Clinton ;
, Unit 2 OL Application and the Withdrawal ,
of Construction Permit No. CPPR-138 D. P. Hall, Vice President. Illinois Power Company (IP) notified NRC of-the cancellation of the Clinton Power Station Unit 2 on October 18, 1983.
On April 9,1985 Mr. Hall femally verified IP's prior notice of the cancellation of the Clinton Power Station Unit 2 in a letter to H. R. Denton. The April 9; 1985 letter also requested the withdrawal of the application for an operating license for Unit 2 and requested the I rescission of Coeistruction Persiit No. CPPR-138 issued for Unit 2.
.n
_ ,By eral. request from Byron Siegel, Clinton LPM, the Environmental Engineering Section (EES) of EHEB conducted a review to detemine whether any conditions for the protection of the environment are necessary. As part of our environmental review Dr. Germain LaRoche Land Use Analyst, and Mr. Byron Siegel, LPM, contacted the two NRC resident inspectors, Mr. T. P. Gwynn and Mr. P. L. Hiland, by telephone and discussed the l condition of the Clinton Unit 2 site.' As a follow-up Mr. Hiland took j' 25 photographs of the Unit 2 site and transmitted them to us along with
! an explanation of each photo and a map showing where each photo was taken.
l, It is evident from the photos that the sloped banks of Unit 2 excavation l are stabilized. Excavation for Unit 2 was completed some time ago although work on the foundation is negligible. One side of the Unit 2 excavation abuts Unit l's radwaste, control and diesel buildings.
Portions of both the north and south ends of the excavation are covered by a revetment composed of a grout intrusion blanket. The remaining portions of the north and south sides and the east side of the excava-tion are sloped and stabilized by herbaceous vegetation. At the bottom of the excavation there is a drain which empties directly into the cooling pond. The elevation of the cooling pond is 690 feet above MSL while the elevation at the bottom of the drain is 695 feet above MSL.
There is a flap gate in the drain to prevent backflow from the. cooling
e pond. There is also a gravelled access road into the excavation from the south end. The above information is provided in FSAR subsection 2.5.4.14.4.
The FSAR subsection 2.5.4.14.4 also states that the applicant has a
committed to building a three-foot high bem on the three sides of Unit 2 excavation. The Unit 1 buildings foms the fourth side. This bem is to prevent any flood waters from entering the Unit 2 excavation.
. . Tho applicant must renew its NPDES pemit before the end of the year.
At this time the applicant will include the requirements of 10 CFR 122.26
, - _for% bottom drain in the Unit 2 excavation.
i ,
Provided the applicant stabilizes the be ms with vegetation to prevent
!' soil erosion there should be no detrimental environmental impact from the Unit 2 excavation.
~
With the cancellation of Unit 2 the excavation of Unit 2 becomes part of Unit l's site. As part of the OL for Unit I there will be an
. Environmental Protection Plan which will state, among other things,
. that "If hamful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible
! damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a
- detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of mitigating action." Therefore, the cancellation of Unit 2 does not pose any ismediate detrimental environmental impacts and the mechanisms exist for addressing Any unforeseen future detrimental impacts.
l i
I
i .
June 6,1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0petISSION .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ILLINDIS POWER COMPANY, et al. Docket No. 50-462 OL l
(Clinton Power Station, Unit 2) j NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING On May 17, 1985 Applicant Illinois Power Company filed a " Motion
) to Teminate Proceeding" (" Motion"), in which it requested that the LicensingBoardenteranOrder(1)findingthatthisproceedingismoot, (2) authorizing the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,
l to rescind Construction Pemit No. CPPR-138, and (3) teminating this j~ . proceeding without prejudice (Motion, at 2). M TheNRCStaff(" Staff")
herewith submits its response to Applicant's Motion.
I DISCUSSION [
! As noted by the Applicant Unit 2 of the Clinton Power Station has been cancelled, and the Applicant has requested that its operating
! license application be withdrawn and that its co.istruction permit be
! ~t Pursuant t' 10 C.F.R.12.107, " withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a notice of hearing shall be on such tems as the See, e. q Public Service Co. of presiding (officermayprescribe." Black Fox,,LBP-83-10, Oklahoma Station, Units 17 NRC I and 410T (1983).
t wa%l ,
j Oj p-e / ss
~
~TT
^
- L
- :.LL:: ^ ^' L^:. X ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ T X : ^ ^ ^: ^^ ~ .D : X;
~
1 rescinded (see Exhibit 2 to Applicant's Motion). In light of the cancellation of Unit 2. the Staff concurs with the Applicant that this adjudicatory proceeding has been rendered moot, and we agree that the :
Applicant's Motion should be granted. On this basis. Counsel for the l Staff has previously authorized the Applicant to represent that the Staff does not object to the grant of Applicant's Motion. At the same time, the Staff wishes to place on the record of this proceeding our .
views as to certain conditions for environmental redress of the Unit 2 site, which we believe should be required by the Board as conditions j for the dismissal uf this proceeding.
As set forth in the Affidavit of Germain LaRoche, attached hereto, following the Staff's receipt in April 1985 of Applicant's request that its application be withdrawn and its construction permit rescinded, the Staff performed a review to determine whether any provisions for the protection of the environment should be required (Affidavit, at 2).
The Staff reviewed the present environmental conditions of the site.
. i as well as relevant portions of the Final Safety Analysis Report, the Environmental Report, and the draft Environmental Protection Plan for Unit I which was submitted for Staff review on May 14,1985(!d.).
The Unit 2 site lies entirely within the Unit 1 exclusion area, on property owned by the Applicants, and is not visible to persons located outside the exclusion area. The site excavation in overall dimensions. ,
is approximately 40 feet in depth 350 feet in width, and 1350 feet in length (including the elongated area at the south end of the site in which a gravelled access road, approximately 450 feet long, descends to thebottomoftheexcavation). The bottom of the excavation is approxi-
mately 900 feet in length and 280 feet in width. One side of the exca-
~
vation abuts the radwaste, control and diesel buildings for Untt 1.
Portions of the north and south sides of the excavation are covered by a revetment composed of a grout intrusion blanket. The remaining portions of the north and south sides and the east side of the excavation are sloped and are stabilized by herbaceous vegetation. A drain at the bottom of the excavation empties into the cooling pond; the elevation of the cooling pond is 690 feet above MSL, while the elevation at the bottom of the drain is 695 feet aoove MSL. There is a flap gate in
-the drein to prevent backflow into the excavation from the cooling pond (Id.,at2-3).
The Unit 1 Applicants have committed to construct a three-foot high bem on the three exposed sides of the Unit 2 excavation, in order to prevent any flood waters from entering the excavation (FSAR l 2.5.4.14.4).
The Applicants have not yet infomed the Staff whether the bem will be constructed of earth or concrete, or both. However, if the bem is to be constructed in whole or in part of earth, the Staff will require the Applicants to stabilize the berm with vegetation in order to prevent soilerosion(Id.,at3).
With the cancellation of Clinton Unit 2, the Unit 2 excavation will be considered as part of the Unit 1 site. As a condition to the licensing of Unit 1, the AppItcants are required to submit an Environ-mental Protection Plan (EPP) for review and approval by the Staffs upon approval, the EPP will be appended as Appendix B to the Unit 1 operating license. The EPP is to include a statement consistent with the.following provision contained in the draft EPP which was submitted for Staff review
. on May 14, 1985:
If harmful effects or evidence of trends towards irreversible damage to the environment are observed.
- the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problem.
(Id. , at 3-4). In addition, the EPP will provide, as does the draft EPP that before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may affect the environment, the licensee must prepare an environmental evaluation of such activity. if the activity has meas-urable environmental effects which are not confined to on-site areas
.previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction.
When the evaluation indicates that the activity involves an unreviewed environmental question, prior approval of the activity must be obtained from the Director of NRR. When such an activity involves a change in the EPP. the activity and change to the EPP may be implemented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment. The Staff considers
, that these provisions in the EPP provide an acceptable mechanism for addressing any unforeseen detrimental impacts as may occur in the future
(& at 4).
The Staff is satisfied that the Unit 2 site is presently stabilized r and does not present any significant adverse environmental impacts, and that the cancellation of Unit 2 does not pose any imediate detrimental environmental impacts. The Staff has concluded that the Applicants' comitment to construct a bers around the Unit 2 excavation provides a satisfactory means for ensuring the continued environmental acceptability of the site, provided that the berm is stabilized with vegetation. If I
l f -S-i
- necessary, to prevent soil erosion. The Staff does not perceive any i
l 1 mediate need to fill the Unit 2 excavation and is satisfied, at least i
as of now, that the ultimate disposition of the Unit 2 excavation may be deferred for future consideration. If it should later appear that j
)
! the excavation requires further redress, such action may be required by
- the Staff pursuant to the provisions contained in the Environmental
! Protection Plan for Unit 1 (Id., at 4-5).
i -
In sum, the Staff is satisfied that no significant adverse envi-ronmental impacts are likely to result in the foreseeable future from
-the cancellation of Clinton Unit 2 and no further conditions for site i redress are presently required except as described in the attached Affidavit (!d., at 5), which conditions are sumarized below. I/
i CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the attached Affidavit.
the Staff does not oppose the grant of Applicant's Motion, subject to
! the following site redress conditions:
i
! 2
~/ 29 TheStaffnotesthatonMafeIIlinoisAttorneyGeneral)filedan1935, Illinois (representedbyt the People of t
" Answer to Applicant's Motion to Terminate Proceeding", in which 4 they requested the Board to require that "a detailed environmental,
. safety and cost assessment be conducted of Applicant's proposed method for remediating the Unit 2 excavation area, before that i
method is approved" (Answer, at 2). In view of the Staff's con-
- clusions that no significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to result in the foreseeable future from the cancellation of Unit 2, and that the conditions for site redress set forth herein srovide a satisfactory means for ensuring the environmental i accepta)flity of the site, the Staff considers that the study j
requested by the People is not required at this time.
1 1
.--,-----------_.-,..-.,_.-.,-..-----,,,.-.,-,-,n,.---, _
i
- 1. The Applicant shall construct a bers around the Unit 2 excavation, in accordance with its FSAR cosmitments.
The Applicant shall stabilize the bers with vegetation if ~
necessary to prevent soil erosion.
I 2. The Unit 2 excavation will henceforth be' con-
, sidered as part of the Unit I site. The Environmental Protection Plan for Unit I shall be construed to apply to the Unit 2 excavation.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.107, the Staff reconnends that the two conditions set forth above be made conditions of the Board's Order dismissing this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
- . ?*
$!n EI Sherwin E. Turk l Deputy Assistant Chief ,
- Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of June,1985 O
e i
i
- --n , , , y-w, , . _ , . , . . - , . --.----,,.,,,.,.,,_,-,,,,,,,,,.n,-., _n.-__ - , . , _ . , , . - , _ , _ , _ _ _ . , , _
,-y.n-_n,,-.,_,,, , . , --
~ ^ ~
^ ~' ^
. - [~- . _ . . . .- : -_ . - -
1
'I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9tISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, g al. Docket No. 50-462 OL (Clinton Power Station, Unit 2)
AFFIDAVIT OF GERMAIN LAROCHE
-I, Geri6airi LaRoche, being duly sworn, do capose and state:
- 1. I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sfon as a Land Use Analyst in the Environmental Engineering Section.
. Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A statement of my professional -
qualifications is attached hereto.
. 2. On or about October 18, 1983 Applicant Illinois Power Company notified the NRC of the cancellation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 2.
. On April 9,1985 Illinois Power Company formally confirmed its prior notice of cancellation, in a letter from D. P. Hall to Harold R. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu7ation (Exhibit 2 to Appli-cant'sMotion). In its letter of April 9, 1985 Illinois Power Company sought to withdraw its application for an operating license for Unit 2, and requested that the construction permit for Unit 2 be rescinded.
r ~- -, , , . . . , - - - - . , e.----e m, . . - - - - , - = . + , - - - - - - - - ---.--.-m --- - .- -. . --- . - - - . ,-------.. -------- .. . . , - -
- 3. Following the NRC Staff's receipt of Illinois Power Company's letter of April 9,1985, the Environmental Engin(ering Section of the Environmental and Hydrologic Engineering Branch was requested to perform a review to determine whether any provisions for the protection of the environment should be required as a condition to the withdrawal of the Unit 2 operating license application and the rescission of the Unit 2 construction permit. I served as the NRC Staff's lead reviewer in this -
matter.
- 4. As part of my review, I familiarized myself with relevant
-portions of the Applicants' Environmental Report, Final Safety Analysis Report, and the draft Environmental Protection Plan for Unit I which was submitted for Staff review on May 14, 1985. In addition. I contacted the NRC resident inspectors at Clinton Unit I and discussed with then the environmental conditions of the Unit 2 site. Also, as a follow-up item, I reviewed numerous photographs of the Unit 2 site, taken at my
_ request by the NRC resident inspectors at Unit 1, along with an explana-tion of each photograph and a map showing where each photograph was taken.
- 5. The environmental conditions of the Clinton Unit 2 site may be described as follows. The Unit 2 site lies entirely within the Unit 1 1
exclusion area, on property owned by the Applicants, and is not visible to persons located outside the exCiasion area. While the Unit 2 excava-tion was completed some time ago, work on the foundation is negligible.
The sif excavation, in overall dimensions, is approximately 40 feet in depth, 350 feet in width, and 1350 feet in length (including the elon-gated area at the south end of the site in which a gravelled access road, approximately 450 feet long, descends to the bottom of the excavation).
The bottom of the excavation is approximately 900 feet in length and 280 feet in width. One side of the excavation abuts the radwaste, control and diesel buildings for Unit 1. Portions of the north and south sides of the excavation are covered by a revetment composed of a grout intrusion blanket. The remaining portions of the north and south sides and the east side of the excavation are sloped and are stabilized by herbaceous vegetation. A drain at the bottom of the excavation empties into the cooling pond; the elevation of the cooling pond is 690 feet above MSL, while the elevation at the bottom of the Jdrain is 695 feet above MSL. There is a flap gate in the drain to prevent backflow into the excavation from the cooling pond. The Appli-cants are to renew their NPDES permit for Unit 1 before the end of 1985, and at that time will include provisions relating to effluent discharges from the Unit 2 excavation bottom drain.
- 6. In FSAR section 2.5.4.14.4, the Applicants committed to con-struct a three-foot h;gh berm on the three exposed sides of the Unit 2 excavation, in order to prevent any flood waters from entering the ex-cavation; as noted abeve, Unit 1 buildings abut the excavation on '6he fourth side, and no berm is required there. The Applicants have not yet informed the Staff whether the berm will be constructed of earth or concrete, or both. However, if the berm is to be constructed in whole or in part of earth, the Staff will require the Applicants to stabilize the berm with vegetation in order to prevent soil erosion.
- 7. With the cancellation of Clinton Unit 2, the Unit 2 excavation will be considered as part of the Unit 1 site. As a condition to the
- - - - - =
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___7 _ - - - - -
l i
1 licensing of Unit 1, the Applicants are required to submit an Environ-mental Protection Plan (EPP) for review and approval by the Staff; upon approval, the EPP will be appended as Appendix B to the . Unit 1 operating license. The EPP is to include a statement consistent with the following provision contained in the draft EPP which was submitted for Staff review on May 14, 1985:
If hannful effects or evidence of trends towards irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of action to alleviate
- the problem.
~
In addition, the EPP will provide, as does the draft EPP, that before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may affect the environment, the licensee must prepare an environmental evaluation of such activity, if the activity has measurable environ-mental effects which are not confined to on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction. When the
~ evaluation indicates that the activity involves an unreviewed environ-mental question, prior approval of the activity must be obtained from the Director of NRR. When such an activity involves a change in the EPP, the activity and change to the EPP may be implemented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment. These provisions in the EPP provide an acceptable mechanism for addressing any unforeseen detrimental impacts as may occur in the future.
- 8. The Unit 2 site is presently stabilized and does not present any significant adverse environmental impacts, nor does the cancellation of Unit 2 pose any immediate detrimental environmental impacts. 'The i
l
.Z. .J__..'__~ _ _ . .
Applicants' comitment to construct a bern around the Unit 2 excavation provides a satisfactory means for ensuring the continued enviro ~nmental acceptability of the site, provided that the berm is stabilized with vegetation, if necessary, to prevent soil erosion. There does not appear to be any 1 mediate need to fill the Unit 2 excavation and, at least as of now, the ultimate disposition of the Unit 2 excavation appears to be a matter which may be deferred for future consideration. If it should
.later appear that the excavation requires further redress, such action
[ could be required pursuant to the Environmental Protection Plan for l ,
. Unit 1. In sum I and other members of the Staff are satisfied that
- no significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to result in the foreseeable future from the cancellation of Clinton Unit 2, and no further conditions for site redress are presently required except as described herein.
i -
Germain LaRoche l
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6 th day of June,1985
$A lv kWW Notary Pu)lic My comission expires: 7// /76
l . ..-. -_ ._. - . -
Dr. Germain LaRoche Professional Qualifications I am employed as Land Use Analyst in the Environmental and Hydrologic Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. In this post-tion, I am responsible for evaluating the the potential environmental impact on terrestrial ecosystems and the land use of nuclear power plants and their transmission facilities.
[ Prior o being employed by the NRC, I was director of terrestrial ecology for a private consulting fine. In this capacity, I directed baseline studies of proposed nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, and large urban and recreational developments. For ten years I taught at colleges, attaining the rank of Associate Professor of Biology. These colleges
~
, . were: Empire State College, Albany, N.Y.; State University College at New Paltz,'N.Y.; Manhattan College and Bronx Community College, Bronx, N.Y.; and Holyoke Community College, Holyoke, Mass. I have also con-ducted forest and range management research with the U.S. Forest Service.
I received the Ph.D. degree in Botany-Plant Ecology from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Mass.; an M.S. degree in the same areas, from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.; and a B.A.
degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America.
I am a member of Sigma X1, the Ecological Society of America, and the Society of American Foresters.
l_
_ _. . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ - L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et M . Docket No. 50-462 OL (ClintonPowerStation. Unit 2) ,
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
- - Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 6 2.713, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name: - Sherwin E. Turk o
Address: - Office of the Executive Legal nirector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -
Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone: -(301)492-7312 Admission: - United States Supreme Ccurt United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the District of Columbia District of Cclumbia Court of Appeals Supreme Court of New Jersey Name of Party: - NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Respectfully submitted, htJAUJIw Sherwin E. Turk (fA -
Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of June, 1985
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION -
l l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l l
4 In the Matter of ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et al. Docket No. 50-462 OL (Clinton Power Station, Unit 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" in the above,g.aptioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 6th day of June,1985.
Sheldon A. Zabel, Esq. ,
Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Charles D. Fox IV. Esq.
~
Administrative Judge Schiff, Hardin & Waite P.O. Box 127A 7200 Sears Tower
. Kennedyville Maryland 21645 233 South Wacker Drive
- Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dr. George A. Ferguson
, - Administrative Judge Philip L. Willman, Esq.
School of Engineering Assistant Attorney General Howard University Environmental Control Division
.. 2300 Sixth Street, N.W. 160 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20059 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Mr. Herbert H. Livermore i Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
! Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Clinton Nuclear Power Station 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR 3 Box 229A Washington, D.C. 20555 Clinton Illinois 61727 Ms. Jean Foy Alan Samelson, Esq.
4 Spokesperson for Intervenor Assistant Attorney General Prairie Alliance Environmental Control Division 511 W. Nevada 500 South Second Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 Springfield, IL 62706
+~-m - - - - ,, ---m,--- -,,r ,,r - - - ,. - w --
, Gary N. Wright Docketing and Service Section*
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Office of the Secretarf 1035 Outer Park Drive 5th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Springfield. Illinois 62704 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety an'd Licensing Board Panel
- Appeal Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 John W. McCaffrey Chief. Public Utilities Division Office of Illinois Attorney General 4 160 N. LaSalle Street Room 900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 h s4 b Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel .
i
\