ML20238E642
| ML20238E642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1987 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4328 ALAB-869, OLA, NUDOCS 8709150117 | |
| Download: ML20238E642 (17) | |
Text
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ 't ' f.52 V
. ;r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 SEP -9 P 2 :47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD !
bau ,
In the Matter of )
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )
Station) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION '
AND THE MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Septembcr 1,1987 ,
I l
i eggnggg(( g?89g!p 0 9
G 1
Y \
-j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFET AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l
In the Matter of ) '
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAP ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
) '
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power ) !
I Station) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND THE MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION On August 10, 1987, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1
(NECNP) filed a " Petition for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify a Question to the Commission." In its petition, NECNP requests the Appeal Board to reconsider its decision issued in this docket on July 21, 1987, ALAB-869, U insofar as it rejected two of NECNP's contentions that were admitted by the Licensing Doard. In the event that the Appeal Board should decline reconsideration of its July 21,1987 deci-sion , NECNP requests the Appeal Board to certify the question of the admissibility of NECNP and Massachusetts Contention 2 to the Commission.
On August 10, 1987, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also filed a
" Motion ... to Reconsider the Decision of this Board dated July 21,
~1/
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, NRC (July 21, 1987).
o.,
- 2.- l C..
1987," together. with a " Memorandum of Law of the Commonwealth of Mas-sachusetts in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of ALAB-869."
For the reasons discussed below, the NRC staff urges the Appeal Board to deny the relief sought by NECNP and the Commonwealth. 2_/
- 11. BACKCROUND in response to a Licensing Board order of February 27, 1987, NECNP submitted a severe accident contention that the Licensing Board found to be precluded frcm admicslon as a safety contention because of the Commission's Severe Accident Policy. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Policy Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) , LB P-87-17, NRC , Slip op. at 11 (May 26,1987). The Commonwealth and the State of Vermont submitted similar contentions. Both NECNP and the Common-wealth also submitted contentions alleging generally that the Staff had not yet met its obligations under NEPA.
In rejecting the severe accident contentions as proposed, 3_/ the Licensing Doard stated, "The accident scenario which is sought to be considered is clearly - a 'beyond design basis accident.' . . . The Commis-sion's Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents ...
explicitly removes plant-specific reviews of control or mitiga-tion of severe accidents from the review of operating IIcense applications. . . . Litigation of NECNP Contention 1 as a safety-based contention seeking denial of the proposed amend-2/
On August 21, 1987, the State of Vermont filed an answer in support of NECNP and the Commonwealth. Since Vermont raises no new ar-guments, the Staff has limited its response to the principal motions.
~
3/ The Commonwealth's Contention I, a severe accident safety conten-tion and part of NECNP's Contention 5, an environmental contention, were redrafted by the Licensing Board and admitted as an environ-mental contention, Contention 2.
-3.-
ment as' a means of controlling or mitigating the alleged en -
hanced . consequences of a beyond-design-basis accident clearly is proscribed by the Policy Statement." - LB P-87-17,
- S!!p 'op. at 10-11.
However, in considering. NECNP!s and- the . Commonwealth's proposed environmental contentions, the Licensing Board discussed and rejected the -
- Staff's' position that the Severe Accident Policy also barred the examination of severe' accidents under NEPA. 'LB P-87-17, slip - op, at 27.-
Having concluded that 'the Severe Accident Policy did not preclude admission of a severe accident contention as an environmental contention, the . Licensing ' Board went on' to conclude that NEPA mandated the consid-eration of the risks of such accidents and that the discussion of such' risks would be undertaken as provided by the Commission's interim Policy
. Statement on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations' Under the National. Environmental Policy Act of 1969," 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (June 13, 1980). LBP-87-17, Silp op. at 28-29.
The Applicant, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, appealed the Licensing Board's. prehearing conference order, LBP-87-17, pursuant .
to .10 C . F . R . 5 2.714a(c), arguing that the Licensing Board erred in
- granting NECN P's and the Commonwealth's petitions for intervention.
On July 21, 1987, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-869, in which it decided . the Applicant's appeal, in ALAB-869, the Appeal Board affirmed the~ Licensing Board's decision with respect to most of a safety contention concerning spent fuel pool cooling derived from a contention proposed by NECNP, but reversed its admission of two environmental contentions de-rived from contentions proposed by NECNP and the Commonwealth. The environmental contention at issue here concerned the need for the Staff to
4 i
(
l l
prepare an environmental impact statement to discuss the increased risks 1
associated with an hypothesized beyond design basis accident. l I
The basis for the Appeal Board's rejection of Contention 2 was that l I
the Licensing Board was in error in believing that NEPA mandates consid-eration of the risks of severe, i.e. beyond design-basis and unlikely ac-cidents. The Appeal Board cited San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.
NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 at 1301 (D.C. Cir.1984) aff'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (1986), cert. denied U.S. ,107 S.Ct. 330 (1986), for the proposi-tion that to the extent the Commission considers the environmental impact l and risks of beyond design-basis accidents, it does so as an exercise of {
discretion under its 1980 NEPA Policy Statement. ALAB-869, Slip op.
at 28. However, the Appeal Board found nothing in the Policy Statement to indicate that it is applicable to license amendment proceedings. Fur- l ther, the Appeal Board noted that the policy is app!! cable only where there has already been a determination that a major federal action is in-volved and that an EIS is, therefore, required. A LA B-869, Slip op.
at 28. The Appeal Doerd concluded that Contention 2 was a bootstrapping effort without a legally cognizable basis in either NEPA or the Commission's NEPA Policy Statement. ALAB-869, S!!p op. at 29.
Having struck the environmental contentions, which encompassed the only contentions that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had proposed, the . Appeal Board dismissed the Commonwealth as an intervenor pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. The Appeal Board noted that the Commonwealth is authorized to participate as an interested State pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.715.
4' lli. DISCUSSION in its petition, NECNP relles on three principal arguments: (1) that the ' Appeal Board exceeded ' its authority under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a;
- (2) that. the risks associated with a radioactive release from .the spent fuel peo! at Vermont Yankee are not excluded from the requirements of NEPA as a matter of law; and (3) that the issues raised by NECNP are novel questions of policy that the Appeal Board should, as an alternative to reconsideration, certify to the Commission. The Commonwealth's motion is related to NECNP's second- argument: the Commonwealth argues , that
- the Appeal, Board's disposition of Contention 2 is without support in logic orlaW. <
The arguments for reconsideration are addressed in the order pre-sented by NECNP.
A. The Appeai Board acted wIthin the autbority accorded it by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a in reversing the Licensing Board's adnission of Contentions 2 and 3.
NECNP- argues that agency precedent restricts the Appeal Board in appeals under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a to a determination of whether one ad-missible contention has been filed, citing Mississippi Power and Light Co._
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), A LA B-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973), . and _ Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, tinit 1), ALAB-868, 25 NRC , June 30,1987, slip op. at 2-3, as authority for this proposition. NECNP petition at 3-4. NECNP notes ;
that in none of the cases cited by the Appeal Board in ALAB-869 in sup-port of its determination to review the environmental contentions after finding- an admissible safety contention did an appeal board deciding an l
- 1 l appeal pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a admit some contentions and reject l
l l
Others. NECNP petition at 4. NECNP's conclusion is that ALAB-869 con-stltutes an abrupt departure from a long line of precedent and that it is, therefore, incorrect. Id.
The Appeal Board in deciding ALAB-869 acted within the broad au-thority given to appeal boards in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a. See, discussion in ALAB-869, slip op. at 16-20. Part of the basis for the Appeal Board's determination to consider Contentions 2 and 3 once it had sustained the Licensing Board's admission of Contention 1 was the Appeal Board's belief that the Applicant was entitled to the Board's further consideration of its claim that the Commonwealth's petition should have been wholly denied.
ALAB-869, Silp op. at 17. As the Commonwealth was a co-sponsor with NECNP of Contentions 2 and 3 but was not a proponent of Contention 1, dismissal of Contentions 2 and 3 would result in dismissal of the Common-wealth as an Intervenor pursuant to 6 2.714. NECNP does not attack this basis for the Appeal Board's determination to consider and ultimately to reject Contentions 2 and 3. Nothing in the cases cited by NECNP binds this Appeal Board to the outcome NECNP urges; rather, this Appeal Board correctly notes the flexibility of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a in allowing appeal boards discretion in this regard. ALAB-869, Slip op. at 16-20.
NECNP is also mistaken in its reliance on the argument that the Ap-peal Board should not have dismissed Contentions 2 and 3 because this is the first proceeding under the new " hybrid" hearing rules set out in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K, by which admission of contentions does not necessarliy trigger a hearing but merely entitles interveners to make written submissions followed by oral argument. See, NECNP petition at 5-6. The Commission addressed this point in its Statement of
Consideration on the promulgation of Subpart K. In response to com- .
l ments on whether to raise or lower the threshold for admission of issues or contentions, the Commission stated that interveners in Subpart K pro-ceedings "will be held to existing requirements regarding petitions to in-tervene and the filing of contentions." 50 Fed. Reg. 41,662 (October 15, 1985). Further, 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1117, the regulation in Subpart K gov-erning the af placability of other sections, states that in proceedings sub-ject to the Subpart, the provisions of Subpart A and G of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 are applicable, except where inconsistent with the provisionr of the Subpart. Thus, there is no basis for NECNP's argument that the Appeal Board should have treated a Subpart K appeal pursuant to 9 2.714a differently from any other appeal under 6 2.714a.
NECNP's argument that the Appeal Board's rejection of Contention 2 depended on that Board's impermissible finding of a fact (NECNP's peti-tion at 6) is addressed below.
B. The Appeal Board correctly holds that NEPA, the Conmission's regulations under NEPA and the Ccmnission's interim Policy do not require the adnission of Contention 2.
- 1. NECNP's Petition 1
NECNP's primary argument in its effort to persuade the Appeal J Board that it erred in reversing the Licensing Board in its admission of Contention 2 is that the Appeal Board impermissible made a finding of fact , namely that the hypothesized accident was remote and speculative.
Contrary ;o what NECNP states, the Appeal Board did not make an inde-pendent finding of fact but rather relied on a holding in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 751 F.2d at 1301, for the proposition that se-i vere beyond design-basis accidents are by definition remote and I
i i
speculative. : ALAB-869, ~ Slip op. at 27. NECNP represents that it was 1
the Appeal Board which characterized the accident in question as beyond ;
design basis. . Again, NECNP is simply mistaken. It was the Licensing -
Board which characterized the accident as " severe," and "beyond design- 1 I
basis." LB P-87-17 at 10-11. i
'I NECNP's~ argument attacking the Appeal Board's reliance on San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace is based on a different holding than the holding 'on which the Appeal Board relles. The discussion in San Luis Obispo Mothers for- Peace on which the Appeal Board relies concerns the
- duty to supplement an EIS. The court concluded that there was no' duty
.under NEPA to supplement the Diablo Canyon EIS to include a considera- ,
tion of the environmental effects of severe accidents because the Commis- ;
sion's policy requiring such a discussion prospectively .was discretionary, was not mandated by NEPA, and was not, therefore, applicable to EISs such as the one for Diablo Canyon that were prepared prior to the time ,
the policy was adopted. NECNP's argument concerning the court's dis-cussion of " worst-case" analysis is simply not raised by the Appeal ]
Board's decision in ALAB-869. NECNP states that no EIS has been done assessing the risk of storing 2870 spent fuel assemblies at Vermont 1 Yankee and that, therefore, the " worst case" holding of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace is not applicable. NECNP petition at 9. NECNP's ar-gument is off the mark. Further, NECNP now raises for the first time the argument that the " action at hand . . . authorizes an entirely new l
action which poses different risks which have never been evaluated."
NECNP's . petition at 9-10. If NECNP's position were to prevail, every routine reracking application would require an EIS, contrary to the
l
_9_
Commission's regulations, which require only an Environmental Assessment for such actions. See,10 C.F.R. 99 51.20, 51.21.
j
- 2. The Commonwealth's Motion I
The Commonwealth argues that the Appeal Board's disposition of I Contention 2. is without support in logic or law. Commonwealth's Motion .,
i Contrary to the Commonwealth's representation, ALAB-869 is ade- j at 2.
quately supported and there is nothing in the Commonwealth's motion that should cause the Appeal Board to reconsider its decision with respect to Contention 2.
I The Commonwealth's first argument is that the Appeal Board's i decision is narrowly based. However, the Commonwealth never states what it believes that narrow basis to be. Rather, it sets forth its under-standing of those Licensing Board determinations that the Appeal Board did not explicitly find to be in error. The Commonwealth states that it is significant that the Appeal Board did not overturn the Licensing Board's rejection of the Staff's argument that Contention 2 is barred by the NRC's " Policy Statement on Severe Accidents. . . ." The Staff never had an opportunity to argue to the Licensing Board that Contention 2 is barred by the Severe Accident Policy, as Contention 2 is a redrafted con-tention that, to the Staff's knowledge, came into being on May 26, 1987, when the Licensing Board issued LBP-87-17. The Staff argued that Ver-mont's Contention V, a safety contention, was precluded by the Severe Accident Policy Statement. See, the Staff's Response of April 13, 1987 at 12-13, n.12, where the Staff argued that consideration of severe acci-l dents need not be undertaken under NEPA as NEPA could not logically require more than the safety provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.
4 The- Commonwealth characterizes the Appeal Board's decision as having determined as a matter of law that Contention 2 is barred because it does not present an issue that can be adjudicated in an individual pro-ceeding. Commonwealth's Motion at 3. The Staff is unable to find any language in the pages' cited, 24-29, that points to the reason cited by the !
Commonwealth as dictating the preclusion of Contention 2. Rather, the Appeal Board stated that the Licensing Board erred in holding that NEPA requires consideration of severe accident risks, because San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, supra, had unequivocally stated that it doesn't. Fur-thermore, the Limerick, b decision cited by the Commonwealth (Motion at 3, n.4) does not support the position for which it is offered. Limerick concerned an operating license (OL); the Commission's regulations at that time required that an EIS be prepared in connection with an OL applica-tion, and the interim Policy required that the impact of severe accidents be discussed in that EIS. b Thus, the fact that the Limerick EIS 4/
~
Philadelphia Electric Comaany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681 (1985).
5/ Subsequent to the issuance of the interim Policy and the Limerick FES, the Commission rewrote its environmental regulations in Part 51
~
such that only the construction permit requires the preparation of an EIS. Subsequent ilcensing actions for the same facility require a supplement or an environmental assessment in which changes are evaluated. If any change is revealed to have environmental signifi-cance, an environmental impact statement is prepared. See, State-ment of Consideration on the promulgation of new Part 51, 49 Fed.
Reg. 9352 (March 12,1984).
The Staff believes that the parties and the Boards are in agreement regarding the broad requirements of NEPA. The disagreement arises in the Commission's implementation of NEPA. The Commonwealth I states its belief that at the contention - admission stage, an interve-(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
c.
r,^
]
- l evaluated . severe accidents is not surprising; the Commission's interim Policy required the evaluation. ' However, the contention whose rejection
[
was sustained in ALAB-819 concerned alternatives to. mitigate severe acci- 1
. dents, such as filtered vented containment. The Appeal Board did not l i hold that such a discussion was precluded in the EIS but that a conten-
[ tion ' alleging that such a discussion was required by NEPA -was
- . l inadmissible.
L
~ In a discussion entitled " Staff Conflated Risks and Probabill-ties," the. Commonwealth takes the Staff to task for a discussion in its brief on appeal, which the Commonwealth describes as seriously flawed.
Commonwealth Motion at 4-5. The discussion is a direct quotation froni San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, as the Staff's brief makes clear.
In a section entitled " Staff Misread Commission Policy and Case Law," . the Commonwealth' argues that San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
! makes clear that routine : rerackings could provide the - "special circum-stances" that would require ~ a retroactive supplementation of a pre-1980
'EIS. Commonwealth Motion at 5. However, there is nothing in the pas-sage from San Luis' Obispo Mothers for Peace ' offered by the Common-(FOOTNOTE. CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) nor need only show that a reracking may require an EIS because of its significant -Impact on the environment. Motion at 6, n.7. The' Staff regards such an silegation to be a mere prediction of the out-come of the Staff's review where as here that review has not yet _
taken place. As regards Contention 2, what ALAB-869 stands for is L
that' where - the Staff's environmental assessment has not yet been Issued, admission' of a contention alleging that an EIS must be issued.
}. because severe accident risks are significant is contrary to NEPA
(.
l and the Commission's regulations.
i_ z_ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _
j
I J
l l
i wealth to suggest any nexus between the "special circumstances" i d
addressed -in ' that case and routine rerackings. The circumstances rou- i j
tinely involved in reracking are that more fuel is stored, thereby giving j i
rise to the argument that the consequences of any accident involving the i spent fuel pool arc Increased. The Commission's decision not to require an EIS because of this increase indicates that the Commission did not re-gard the increase to be significant. The Commonwealth has not provided any basis for its opinion that the proposed Vermont Yankee reracking raises any "special circumstances." If the Commonwealth believes that the probability of an accident involving the spent fuel pool is increased,11 1
has' failed to articulate this belief or to provide a basis for it, in any event, the Licensing Board's redrafting of the contention, although it mentions " increased risks," centers on increased consequences.
In a section entitled " Board Takes Staff Position One Step Far-ther But Two Steps Back," the Commonwealth characterizes the contention at issue as asserting that an EIS is necessary because reracking will in-crease the consequences and therefore the risks of a severe accident.
Commonwealth Motion at 7. If this were so, an EIS would be required on ;
every reracking amendment request. Nevertheless, the Commission's reg-ulations require merely an Environmental Assessment. See, 10 C.F.R. !
I
$6 51.20, 51.21. Again, the Commonwealth alleges that "special circum- q stances" are involved here, but provides no clue as to what thote special circumstances might be. The Commonwealth apparently believes that 870 additional fuel assemblies constitute "special circumstances" but does not provide a basis for this belief.
l i
. Nothing presented in the Commonwealth's analysis provides-any basis . for the Appeal Board to reconsider its disposition of Contention
- 2. 6_/
C. There is no need for the Appeal Board to certify the question to -the Conmission.
NECNP regards the . question of. the admissibility of Contention 2 as a novel issue, suitable for certification to ' the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. (; 2.785(d), which provides for . discretionary Appeal Board certification 'of major or novel questions of policy, law or . procedure.
4 NECNP petition at-13. Contrary to NECNP's characterization, the ques- .
'l
. tion 'It raises does not. warrant certification. In the first place, the dect-sion reached by the Appcal Board, as indicated above, is consistent with Commission regulations and precedent. There is nothing that is present-ed that is novel, compelling Commission review. Furthermore, the Com-monwealth and NECNP have already filed a petition for Commission review of ALAB-869. - in the petition, the Commonwealth and NECNP have.
Indicated that they might want to supplement their petition in the event the Appeal Board's opinion on the pending motions for reconsideration clarifles the legal issues or raises new legal issues. Joint Petition of August 11, 1987 at 1, n.1. As NECNP and the Commonwealth have al-
""6/.
The Commonwealth states that the Appeal Board had concluded that NEPA prohibits an EIS concerning the environmental effects. of se-vere accidents. Commonwealth Motion at 12-13. Needless to say, the footnote on which the Commonwealth relles for this proposition concerns contentions, not EISs. The Appeal Board stated that NEPA precludes such contentions, not such EISs. A LA B-869, Slip op.
at .29, n.28.
7/ Joint Petition for Review of the July 21, 1987 Decision of the Atomic !
Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, August 11, 1987. l l
l I
ready sought to raise the question before the Commission and have Indi-l cated ,their intention to supplement their petition of August 11, 1987, there ls no reason. for the Appeal Board to certify the' identical question.
IV. CONCLUSION, For the reasons discussed, the Appeal Board should deny NECNP's i
petition and the Commonwealth's motion, Ro.spectfully sutmltted, 1\ w w . yim Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for tfC Staff I Dated at Bethesda, Veryland this 1st day of Septerber,1987
I c; ,
g,
~
N> EiEO 5 yx t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICd NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION '87 SEP -9 P2 :47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD . g DOCO}Q4
- I in the Matter of . )'
)
VERMONT YANKEE ' NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA .
POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment) ,.
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )
Station)'- ')
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
- TO: THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NEW ENGLAND.
COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND THE MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH. OF MASSACHUSETTS" In the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the. United States mall, first class, or as? Indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's. Internal mail system, this 1st day of September, 1987:
Charles Dechhoefer, Esq.
Mr. Glenn O. Bright
- Administrative. Judge. Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic' Safety and . Licensing Board' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*
Dr. James H. Carpenter George Dana Bisbee
. Administrative Judge .
Senior Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Concord, NH 03301-6397 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon 6. Weiss Washington,- D.C. 20555* 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 David J. Mullett, Esq. Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Vermont Depart. of Public Service Office of the Attorney General 120 State Street One Ashburton Place,19th Floor
- Montpelier, VT 05602 Boston, MA 02108
- c.
L
[ ,s t Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq. Jay Gutierrez Ropes and Gray . Regional Counsel 1 225 Franklin Street USNRC, Region I
- Boston, MA 02110 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section Board. Panel (8) Office of the' Secretary U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*~
C h .
Ahn P. Hodgdon U Counsel for NRC Staff i
I
___.--_--.__-_--.___-._-__-___.._.__--____-________U