ML20138H280
| ML20138H280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#485-940 OL, NUDOCS 8510290001 | |
| Download: ML20138H280 (15) | |
Text
P k \
- c. r O
$ b' 9 bocr no g T25jgggh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E #E8WCe am#G8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "W*a[W '
f l g i G BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-352 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C'OMPANY
) 50-353 d.b (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units'1 and 2) -)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL'S MOTION TO RE0 PEN THE RECORD Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff October 22, 1985 i
/ I)ESIC'!1TED ORIGINADj
{'d*195AI51022" eE z,mn,,3,mf ,f&
UNITED STATES -OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )-
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL'S MOTION TO RE0 PEN THE RECORD I. INTRODUCTION On August 16, 1985, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER) Bureau of Comunity Environmental Control wrote a letter to Community Water Suppliers, notifying them of a change in monitoring requirements for radiological contaminants. Specifically, the PaDER notice provided that "the Department is exercising its option under 40 C.F.R.
Part 141 . . . to require that whenever gross alpha particle activity exceeds 2 pCi/1, the same or an equivalent sample must be analyzed for both radium-226 and radium-228." M.at1. Thereafter, on October 2, 1985,1/ Air and Water Pollution Patrol (AWPP) filed a motion before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) requesting the Board to reopen the record in the Limerick proceeding to consider the Pa0ER's notification 1/ Although the motion bears a date of September 27, 1985, the envelope is postmarked October 2, 1985.
letter.2(OnOctober4,1985,theLicensingBoardissueda" Notice,"in which it stated that it had issued its Fourth Partial Initial Decision settling all issues before the Board on July 22, 1985, and that, accord-ingly, it had forwarded AWPP's motion to the Appeal Board.
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC staff opposes AWPP's motion.
II. BACKGROUND On August 29, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Second' Partial Initial Decision, disposing of all issues raised in this proceeding except contentions concerning emergency planning. The Second-Partial Initial Decision included a consideration of two issues raised by AWPP, one concerning quality assurance related to welding and the other concerning the effect of cooling tower emissions on aircraft operation.
In addition to the two contentions proposed by AWPP that were actually litigated, a number of other contentions, both timely filed and late-filed proposed by AWPP, were denied by the Licensing Board for failure to meet the standards set out in the Conunission's regulations for admitting pro-posed contentions. Among the late-filed contentions proposed by AWPP was t
one alleging that neither the Applicant nor the Staff had adequately studied whether or not routine turbine stack or other releases of radio-active nuclides would result in exceeding the EPA's maximum contaminant l levels (MCL) for gross alpha, radium-226 and radium-228. AWPP submitted 2/ Although AWPP did not provide the parties with a copy of PaDER's letter, the Staff has obtained a copy from counsel for the Common-wealth. It is attached.
l-
I the contention on June 26, 1984. Both the Applicant and the NRC staff opposed its admission. 3,/
On August 24, 1984, the Licensing Board denied the contention in a
'" Memorandum and Order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions from F0E and AWPP, Denying AWPP's Second Request for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contention, Denying AWPP's Motion to Add a PVC Contention and Commenting on an Invalid Inference in Del-Aware's May 17, 1984 Filing." Slip op. at 14-19.
On August 29, 1984, the Licensing Board issued its Second Partial Initial Decision, deciding, among other things, the issues raised by AWPP concerning welding QA and cooling tower emissions. AWPP appealed the Second Partial Initial Decision. However, AWPP did not appeal the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of August 24, 1984 disposing of AWPP's con-tention concerning gross alpha.
III. DlFCUSSION A. AWPP has failed to satisfy the Commission's standards for reopening a closed record.
Because the record in this proceeding is closed, AWPP must meet the
- test for reopening. This test requires that (1) the motion to reopen be ,
l timely, (2) that the new evidence sought to be introduced be of safety or environmental significance and (3) that the new evidence be likely to affect the outcome. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 l and 2), ALAB-728, 17 NRC 777 at 800 fn 66.
l 3/ Applicant's Answer To New Proposed Contention By AWPP Relating To
" Gross Alpha", July 10, 1984; NRC Staff Response To New AWPP Conten-tion Regarding Gross Alpha, July 16, 1984.
I i
- 1. Timeliness AWPP's representative, Mr. Romano, states that he was hospital-ized at the time the PaDER sent its notification letter on August 16, 1985.
Therefore, he states, he was not aware of the letter until the last week in September, at which time he filed his motion. Although a six-week de-lay in filing would not normally demonstrate the timeliness necessary for movants seeking reopening to prevail on this standard, the Staff's view is that under the circumstances the motion should be considered timely to the extent the information (not merely the document) on which reopening is sought is-new. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 141, on which the Pa0ER's August 16 letter is based,arenotnew.SI Section 141.26, regarding monitoring frequency for radioactivity in community water systems, states in relevant part:
In localities where radium-228 may be present in drink-ing water, it is recommended that the State require radium-226 and/or radium-228 analysis when the gross alpha particle activity exceeds 2 pCi/1. 40 C.F.R.
6 141.26(a)(1)(i). Monitoring for compliance with 5 141.15 after the initial period need not include radium-228 except when required by the State, Provided, That the average annual concentration of radium-228 has been assayed procedure at least required once using(the by paragraph a)(1) ofquarterly sampling this section.
40 C.F.R. 9 141.26(a)(3)(iv). (Emphasis in original).
Thus, even though PaDER has recently implemented a recommendation set forth in 40 C.F.R. 141.26(a)(1)(i), the EPA's regulation is not new and AWPP's motion is not, therefore, timely.
l 4/
~
The sections of 40 C.F.R. Part 141 that are of interest here, i
$ 141.15, establishing MCLs for radium-226, radium-228 and gross alpha particle radioactivity in community water systems, and i 141.26, relating to monitoring frequency for radioactivity in community water systems, were published at 41 Fed. Reg. 28404, July 9, 1976.
l l
- 2. Safety or environmental significance.
The PaDER notification letter on which AWPP seeks reopening concerns a change in monitoring requirements; both the procedure and the reason for the change are spelled out in the letter. AWPP states that the change was necessitated because levels of radium-226 and radium-228 in. Pennsylvania water supplies were higher- than previously thought. Motion at 1. However . the PaDER letter makes no such statement regarding the reason for the change but states that the purpose is to assure that the consumer is not receiving drinking water with unsafe levels of naturally occurring radionuclides. The specific reason given for the change in monitoring requirements is stated as follows:
Under the present monitoring procedures, analysis for-Radium-22811s conducted when the gross alpha exceeds 5 pCi/1 and the Radium-226 level exceeds 3 pCi/1. This sampling procedure was based on the assumption that Radium-228 levels are less than Radium-226 levels.-
However, analysis of some water supplies in Pennsylvania indicated that levels of Radium-228 can greatly exceed the level of Radium-226. Therefore, violations of the combined Radium MCL of 5 pCi/1 may be missed when the Radium-228 goes unanalyzed.
AWPP seeks to relate its instant motio'n -to the previous motion which it filed in this proceeding on June, 1984, and which was denied by the Licensing Board on August 24, 1984. Neither in its previous motion nor in the present motion has AWPP specified in what way the informa- ,
tion on which it seeks reopening relates to the responsibilities of the licensee, Philadelphia Electric L;npany, or the Nuclear Regulatory Com- l mission. The regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 141 are specifically applicable to public water systems. 40 C.F.R. 6 141.1, 141.3. The regulations in
40 C.F.R. Part 141 are not applicable .to the licensee's Limerick facility and have no bearing on this proceeding.
Thus, AWPP has not shown that the information on which it seeks reopening is of safety or environmental significance within the responsi-bility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 3. Likelihood of a different result.
AWPP indicates that it feels that the " higher than expected natural radioactivity in areas surrounding Limerick, coupled with releas-es from Limerick under full power operation, or accident, could result in closing many wells and water sources." Motion at 3. AWPP offers no basis for its belief that natural radioactivity in areas surrounding Limerick is " higher than expected" or that releases from Limerick would contain radium-226 and radium-228. Moreover, the Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) (NUREG-0974), April 1984, does not show any of the radio-nuclides of concern to AWPP as being present in the reactor core. See, Table 5.11a at 5-64. Releases under normal operation are discussed in the FES at 5 5-51, and in Appendix D. In neither of those places In addition, the are the radionuclides of concern to AWPP mentioned.
Licensing Board found, in rejecting AWPP's previous contention of June 1984, i
that AWPP had not offered a basis for thinking that the radionuclidcs of concern could reasonably be expected to be released from any point in the Limerick plant. Memorandum and Order of August 24, 1984, Slip op. at 15.
Since AWPP has shown no basis for believing that the operation of the Limerick facility would make any contribution to radium-226, radium-228 or gross alpha activity in drinking water supplies and the Staff has not been able to identify a basis for such a belief, AWPP has not succeeded in demonstrating that-reopening the record in order to hear evidence on l
l
the PaDER's changed monitoring requirements for naturally occurring radio-nuclides could have any effect on the outcome of the proceeding.
Thus, AWPP has failed to satisfy any of the standards for re-opening a closed record and its motion should not be granted.
B. AWPP has failed to satisfy the Comission's regulations for admitting a late-filed contention.
To the extent that AWPP's instant motion to reopen is related to its previous motion of June 1984, any appeal from the Licensing Board's denial of that contention should have been pursued by AWPP at the time it appealed the Second Partial Initial Decision. Having failed to preserve its appeal, AWPP may not now resuscitate a contention it has long since abandoned by attempting to-tie it to a recent document, namely the PaDER's August 16th letter. AWPP's instant motion should, therefore, be regarded as a non-timely request to raise a new contention. As such AWPP must satisfy the five factors of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1). El The Staff will address these factors below.
}/ Section 2.714(a)(1) provides that nontimely petitions to intervene or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determina-tion by the Licensing Board that the petition or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors:
(i) good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means to protect peti-tioner's interest; (iii) the extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; l
(iv) the extent to which existing parties will represent the petitioner's interest; and (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l
1
~
- 1. Good Cause. .
AWPP explains its failure to file when the document on which it relies became available, i.e., on August 16, 1985, by stating that its representative, Mr. Romano, was hospitalized and subsequently convalescent until the last week of September. As discussed above in relation to the timeliness standard for motions to reopen, AWPP's explanation would con-stitute good cause if the information in the August 16, 1985 letter were in fact new. However, as explained above, the infomation is not new and ,
AWPP's explanation for the delay does not constitute good cause. AWPP has not, therefore, satisfied the good cause factor.
- 2. Availability of other means.
On availability of other means to protect its interest, AWPP states that no other means exists to protect its interest in the effect of routinely released radioactive nuclides as well as releases in unusual events at Limerick. Motion at 3. AWPP has offered nothing in support of this bare assertion. Moreover, any concern that AWPP might have regarding the monitoring of radium-226 and radium-228 should be directed to the PaDER, (F0OTNOTECONTINUEDfROMPREVIOUSPAGE)
(v) the extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
The Appeal Board in Catawba established a three part test for good cause: alate-filedcontentionlacksgoodcauseunlessit"(1)is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (2) could not therefore be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and (3) is tendered with the requisite degree of promptness once the document comes into existence and is accessible for public examina-tion." Duke Power Company, (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 469 (1982); affirmed in relevant part, 17NRC1041at1047(1983).
i l
L
not to the.NRC. As discussed previously, the Licensing Board has concluded in this proceeding that AWPP has not offered "a basis for thinking that these elements [ radium-226 and radium-228] could reasonably be expected to be released from any point in the [ Limerick] plant." Memorandum and Order of August 24, 1984 at 15. Therefore, AWPP has not made a proper showing on this factor and it weighs against admission of the contention.
- 3. Development of a sound record.
With regard to development of a sound record, AWPP states that its experience and information on borderline gross alpha in wells in Montgomery County enable it "to witness that the new regulation can place many wells beyond the maximum contaminant levels for gross alpha, radium-226 and ra-dium-228." AWPP further states ti.at it "can with witnesses or even sub-poenaed EPA and DER personnel familiar with the results of radiological tests on well water (and possible radon effect) in Montgomery County, assist in factual evidence to this contention." Motion at 3. Even though AWPP has attempted to address the Grand Gulf standard regarding the
" development of a sound record," 0/ in that it has identified its prospec-tive witnesses and summarized their proposed testimony, it has failed to indicate why it believes this matter should be an issue before the NRC with regard to the licensing of the operation of the Limerick facility.
Although arguably AWPP's participation might assist in the development of a sound record on borderline gross alpha in wells in Montgomery County, i
l 6/ "When a petitioner addresses [the development of a sound eacord]
criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses and summarize their proposed testimony." Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-704,16NRC1725,1730(1982).
F be:ause that record would be unrelated to any issue regarding the operation of the Limerick-facility, it would be a record that would not support any finding that the NRC needs to make in authorizing plant operation. If implementation of the PaDER's changed monitoring requirement results in closing of wells, as AWPP predicts, then the ends of the Safe Drinking Water Act will have been realized: the public drinking water will have been protected. There is nothing that Philadelphia Electric or the NRC can or need do about this matter. Therefore, AWPP should not be found to have prevailed on this factor.
- 4. The extent to which other parties will represent the petitioner's interest.
AWPP states that no other party will represent its interest "with no similar group contesting the effect of routinely released radio-active nuclides, as well as releascs in unusual events at Limerick."
Motion at 3. Contrary to AWPP's statement, both Limerick Ecology Action and the City of Philadelphia contested the effect of releases in unusual events at Limerick. Contentions raising these issues were litigatso and decided in favor of Philadelphia Electric Company in the Second Partial Initial Decision. In addition, Friends of the Earth / Anthony (F0E) filed a late contention concerning routine releases, which was denied by the Licen-sing Board on June 4, 1985 and which is pending before the Appeal Board.
Thus, AWPP is simply mistaken in stating that no other party would protect any legitimate interest it might have regarding radioactive releases. As regards the allegation that "the new radiological safety and environmental regulation has to do with my field of work," the information on which AWPP l
urges reopening it not a new regulation; indeed, it is not a regulation at all. Therefore, AWPP has failed to show that its interests to the
extent they'are cognizable in this proceeding have not been protected by the parties pursuing similar interests.
- 5. The extent to which the petiticner's participation will broaden ,
the issues or delay the proceeding.
On this factor, AWPP states merely that "AWPP/ Romano' seeks expe-- r ditious reopening of the record on this contention, irrespective of broad-ening or. delay." It is obvious that, with the record before the Licensing
-Board having been closed.since July and with appeals from three of four
. partial initial decisions issued by that Board pending before the Appeal Board, any reopening of the record would result in delay of the completion of this proceeding. ,
The Licensing Board concluded its consideration of AWPP's pro-
. posed " gross alpha" contention as follows: ;
On balance, the Intervenors have no one else, and no i place else, to plead their cases, but they also have almost no cases to plead. Given this balance, it is reasonable to expect that admission would only generate useless delay. 7pf these contentions i The Staff submits that the issue AWPP seeks to raise need not be addressed ,
t in this proceeding because it is simply not cognizable before the NRC. In sum, balancing of the five factors weighs against a determination that AWPP's motion to admit its late-filed contention should be granted.
C. AWPP's proposed contention lacks basis and specificity. ,
The Comission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) provide that the
{ ' contentions a petitioner seeks to have litigated must ba set forth with 7] "Memora.idum and Order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions from F0E and
. AWPF . . ." (Unpublished) August 24, 1984, Slip op at 19.
I <
l t
! i
r m
reasonable, specificity. Despite this requirement, AWPP has not made any attempt to relate the document on which it seeks to reopen the record and on which it bases its proposed contention to any rule or regulation of the NRC or to any issue arising under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It is not clear how AWPP envisions the NRC as having the jurisdiction to consider this matter or even what AWPP considers the problem to be. Whatever may be the significance of the PaDER's change in monitoring requirements for naturally occurring radionuclides, its nexus with any matter for which the NRC has regulatory responsibility is not apparent. Therefore, AWPP has failed to state a contention with basis and specificity.
IV. CONCLUSION As discussed above, AWPP has failed to satisfy the standards for re-opening a record, the criteria for admitting a late-filed contention and the basis and specificity requirements for admitting contentions. There-fore, the Appeal Board should deny AWPP's motion.
Respectfully submitted, i uu-t 1 .- M A Aa w_
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of October, 1985 l
i
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PE N N 5YLVA NI A Post Office Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 August 16, 1985 j l
Bureau of Community Environmental Control 717-783-3795 I
D:ar Community Water Supplier:
This is to notify you of a change in the monitoring requirements for radiological costaminants. The primary purpose of this change is to assure the consumer is not receiving drinking water with unsafe levels of naturally occurring radionuelides. The !kiaximum Centaminant Levels (MCLs) for naturally occurring radionuclides are 15 pico Curies per i liter (pCi/1) for gross alpha particle activity and 5 pCi/Lfor combined Radium (Radiu n-226 and Redium-228).
Under the present monitoring procedures, analysis for Radium-228 is conducted when th9 gross alpha exceeds 5 pCI/l and the Radium-226 level exceeds 3 pCi/1. This sampling l precedure was based on the assumption that Radium-228 levels are less than Radium-226 levels.
However, analysis of some water supplies in Pennsylvania indicated that levels of Radium 228 can greatly exceed the level of Radium-226. Therefore, violations of the combined Radium MCL of 5 pCi/l may be missed when the Radium-228 goes unanalyzed.
Since the occurrence of Radium-228 is not well known or documented, and Redium-228 is reportedly twiceits radiotoxic as Radium-226, the public health is not adequate /y protected under the current monitoring procedures.
Therefore, the Department is exercising its option under Federal Regulations
, 40 CFR Part 141 and its authority under Section 109.302 of the Department's Regulations (25 Pa. Code 5 109.302) to require that whenever the gross alpha particle activity exceeds 2 pCi/1, tha same or an equivalent sample must be analyzed for both Radium-226 and Radium-228.
If you have not yet conducted your radionuclide monitoring for the current monitoring p2riod (which began en June 24, 1984), when you collect a sample for laboratory analysis, you r should inform your laboratory that the sample must analyzed for both Radium-226 and
! R2dium-228 if the gross alpha exceeds 2 pCi/1.
If you have already conducted the groes alpha monitoring for the current monitoring period, please review the results received from your laboratory. If the gross alpha result exceeded 2 pCl/l and the Radium-228 was not analyzed, you are advised to collect a sample and h;vo it analyzed for Radium-228 (and, if applicable, for Radium-226) by March 31,1986.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with the person on the enclosed contact list in your county for assistance.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter, as well as in supplying safe drinking water.
i Sincerely, I
N LO. au Frederick A. Marrocco, Chief Division of Water Supplies l Bureau of Community Environmental Control
lp
~ co 2 unsw hy =v l' UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hN$tr !U BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B0 In the Matter of )
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I.hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD" 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 through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 22nd day of October, 1985:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licer- Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.
Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Administrative Judge 6504 Bradford Terrace Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19149 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano Ardmore, PA 19003 Air and Water Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
1500 Municipal Services Bldg.
Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President 15th and JFK Blvd.
Ms. Maureen Mulligan Philadelphia, PA 19107 Limerick Ecology Action 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA 19464 L.._____
Tr. mas Gerusky, Director Zori G. Ferkin BurenJ of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of_ Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 1625 N. Front Street Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Director A :-iate reneral Counsel Pennsylvania Emergency Management !aderal D'.rgency Management Agency Agency Aoom 840 Basement, Transportation & Safety 500 C Street, S.W.
Building Washington, D.C. 20472 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Sugannan, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers Friends of the Earth of the 16th Floor Center Plaza Delaware Valley 101 North Broad Street 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Moylan, PA 19065 James Wiggins Angus R. Love,'Esq. Senior Resident Inspector Montgomery County Legal Aid U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 107 East Main Street P.O. Box 47 Norristown, PA 19401 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Brose & Poswistilo Board Panel 325 N. 10 Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Easton, PA 18042 Washington, D.C. 20555*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal David Wersan Board Panel (8)
Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555*
1425 Strawberry Square Docketing and Service Section Harrisburg, PA 17120 Office of the Secretary Jay Gutierre: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555*
USNRC, Region I 631. Park Avenue Gregory Minor King of Prussia, PA 19406 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue l Steven P. Hershey, Esq. San Jose, CA 95125
! Coninunity Legal Services, Inc.
5219 Chestnut Street Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Philadelphia, PA 19139 Department of Emergency Services
. 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 i
O )
m . ~7 0M i
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff
(
l I
_.