ML17272A223

Applicant'S Answer in Opposition to Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Submitted by SM Garrett,H Vozenilek & Hanford Conversion Project.Asserts That Latter Has No Legal Interest in Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17272A223
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/15/1978
From:	Knotts J, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN
To:
References
NUDOCS 7901040003
Download: ML17272A223 (20)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE'TOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1&$8 In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-397-OL SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) )

APPLICANTsS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDED 'PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE I. BACKGROUND On July 26, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in the captioned matter., 43 Fed. Reg. 32338 (1978). In response thereto, a petition for leave to intervene dated August 28, 1978, was filed by two individual petitioners, Susan M. Garrett and Helen Vozenilek, on their own behalf and on behalf of a group calling itself the "Hanford Conversion Project" ("HCP"). The petition was opposed by the NRC Staff, the Washington Public Power Supply System ("Applicant" ), and the State of Washington.

By Order dated October 11, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board" ) indicated that a prehearing confer-ence would be held on November'5, 1978. The Board also noted that the Applicant and NRC Staff had correctly identified certain defic'iencies in the petition for leave to intervene, p qg/g Qooo3 0

and advised that any amended petition to correct these deficiencies was required to be filed by November 1, 1978.

Thereafter, by Order dated October 30, 1978, the Board confirmed that petitioners had been granted until November 10, 1978 to amend their petition, and that a prehearing conference had been scheduled for November 21, 1978.

On Novembei 10, 1978; an undated amended petition for leave to intervene was filed by Susan M. Garrett and a new petitioner, Creg Darby, on their behalf and on behalf of HCP. Attached to the amended petition were several "form-letter" affidavits submitted by alleged members of HCP, including an. affidavit and letter submitted by A. C. Roll, an affidavit, submitted by the Chairperson of HCP authorizing Creg Darby to replace Helen Vozenilek as its authorized representative, and an undated "Memo In Support Of Amended Petition To Intervene."

Thereafter, petitioners Garrett and Darby advised on a con-ference call with the Board and the parties that petitioner Vozenilek had withdrawn as a petitioner or representative of HCP in this proceeding and that an appropriate notice of with-drawal would be filed shortly. To date we have not received petitioner Vozenilek's notice of withdrawal.

II. ARGUMENT We submit that this proceeding and the issues before this Board are governed by the Appeal Board's admonition in 1/ We request that the Licensing Board direct that petitioners hereafter date any pleading which they file in this proceeding.

'/

Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976), viz.,that the question of potential intervention at the operating licensing stage is a significant one which must, be answered

. with. the "utmost care". 'Applicant maintains that the amended petition fails to correct the deficiencies which the Board agreed were characteristic of the original petition. What-ever might be the case if this petition were viewed against standards for intervention enunciated in construction permit proceedings, the petition -(as amended) is legally insufficient in this operating license proceeding in that. neither the individual petitioners nor HCP has demonstrated sufficient interest (i.e., "a real stake in the pr'cceeding" Simmer, ~su ra, 3 NRC at 12) to support intervention as of right. Further, Applicant maintains that. the petition, as amended, also fails to establish any basis for a grant of discretionary inter-vention. Applicant, therefore, opposes the amended petition r,w for leave to intervene.

A. Petitioners Are Not Entitled To Intervene

-As A Matter Of Ri ht

1. Petitioners Have No Legal Interest In The Proceedin As we discussed in "Applicant's Answer In Opposition To Petition For Leave To Intervene," dated September 22, 1978, 2/ Accord, Gulf-States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226, n. 1'0'(1974) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),

LBP- 78-37, 8 NRC (Slip Opinion, at 10) (November 13, 1978); Tennessee Valle Authorit (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-36, 5 NRC 1292, 1297 (1977).

the Commission's decision in Portland General Electric Co.

(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976), and subsequent 3/

Appeal Board decisions, clearly establish that a petitioner for intervention of right must assert an "interest which may be affected" by the proceeding. Applying contemporaneous judicial concepts 4/

of standing, the Commission in Pebble S rin s interpreted this "interest" requirement as mandating the allegation of facts which support findings of both (1) some injury in fact.

which has occurred or will probably result from the action involved, and (2) an interest "arguably within the zone of interests" to be. protected or regulated by the statute sought 4

to be invoked.

Since petitioner Vozenilek apparently has withdrawn her petition to intervene, the remaining petitioners are Susan M. Garrett, Creg Darby, and HCP. We address these petitioners seriatim below. In the event that petitioner Vozenilek has not withdrawn, we stand on our response to the-original petition as to her interest, since as to her that, pleading has not been amended.

3/ ~E. , Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unz.t No. 2 , ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473 (1978); Tennessee Valle z

413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143 (1977).

4/ See Warth v. Seldln, 422 U.S. 490 (1975); Sierra Club

v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972); Ksepclati'On 'of Data

'rocessin'ervice'rgan'iz'a'tion's, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S.

150 (1970).

a. Petitioner Susan M. 'Garr'ett Petitioner Garrett asserts that her interest in this proceeding is based upon her place of residence, Portland, Oregon, as well as her alleged use of the Columbia River for recreational purposes and consumption of food grown within 50 miles of the plant site. However, Portland is approxi-mately 180 air miles and 220 Columbia River miles from WNP-2, and is neither within the geographical zone which might be affected by routine or accidental releases of fission 5/

products from WNP-.4, nor within a distance 'generally recog-nized by the NRC in the past to be sufficiently close to jive 6/

rise to an interest in the proceeding.

"

Petitioner Garrett's vague assertions that she "uses the Columbia River for recreational purposes, including swimming, fishing and boating" are too remote and lacking in specificity to provide the legal interest necessary to support intervention.

5/ Louisiana Power and Li ht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric-Station, Unit 3)', ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372, n. 6 (1973).

6/ E.cC., Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-496, 8 NRC , simp op. (September 12, 1978) (40 miles); River Bend, supra, 7 AEC 222 (1974)

(25 miles); Vir inia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631 (1973) (16 miles); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant,, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188 (1973) (40 miles); Waterford, ~su ra, 6 AEC 371 (1973) (20 miles); Pacific Ga's 'a'nd'lectric Co. (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unzt No. 3), ASLB Order (May 15, 1978) (20 miles).

It is clear that recreational activities in an area may provide the requisite interest only if the area is in close proximity to a plant site and the recreational activities l.

nature. The Appeal Board" has provided guidance as to what in its view the petition must contain to comply with these specificity and substantiality tests. As to specificity, the Appeal Board in Mississi i Power and.Li ht Co. (Grand Gulf nuclear Station, Units l. and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 425 (1973), stated that while the issue of recreational use

."should have been advanced in greater particularity," in the absence of opposition from other parties, an allegation of boating "on the Mississippi River right by the site

'every several months'" was sufficiently specific to support intervention. As to substantiality, the Appeal Board in Public Service Com an of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1150 (1977) stated that "there is no conceivable justification for allowing her to participate .: . . [her] interest is remote, resting entirely on her occasional trips from her residence in Oklahoma City

[125 miles from the site] to Tulsa [23 miles from the site)

(emphasis supplied).

Evaluating the instant petition, as amended, against this guidance, it is clear that petitioner Garrett has failed to establish the requisite interest to support her intervention request. Petitioner Garrett totally fails to allege specific

facts which demonstrate substantial recreational use of the area around the site. Her vague and general assertions relat-ing to recreational use of the Columbia River (presumably in the Portland area) are precisely the types of claims which both the Appeal Board and the Commission have recognized are insufficient to establish standing.

Petitioner Garrett's final assertion that she consumes food grown or produced within 50 miles of the plant is too generalized and lacking in specificity to establish a legal interest in the proceeding. To confer standing on a petitioner residing hundreds of miles from a site based on an assertion V

that some food consumed by the petitioner may have been grown near the site would emasculate judicial concepts of standing as well as the interest requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice. The logical extension of such a proposition would be that an individual living in Washington, D.C. who,consumed California oranges could be awarded standing in a proceeding relating to a nuclear facility in California. Congress did not intend and has not sanctioned such an interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission and the courts certainly have not judicially con-strued the Act in such a manner.

Clearly, so generalized an interest raised by a petitioner residing hundreds of miles from a site cannot fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. In every case in

which food chain and water supply has been addressed speci-to the proposed site.

'/

fically, the'etitioner in auestion.resided in close proximity Thus, Applicant submits that Petitioner Garrett has added nothing in the amended petition to correct the deficiencies in her efforts to intervene here.'er asserted interests are so remote, generalized and lacking in specificity that h I. ~ h of [her] being at all adversely affected by either normal operations or a credible accident." River Bend, ~su ra

/

7 AEC at 226. An award 'of standing to Petitioner Garrett based on the remote nature of her asserted interests would be contrary to the teachings of the Supreme- Court in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740 (1972), where. it warned against opening "review at the behest of organizations or individuals who seek to do no more than vindicate their own ia value preferences through the judicial process."

Based upon the foregoing, and upon the argument set forth in Applicant's answer to the original petition, we submit that Petitioner Garrett's petition for leave to intervene should be denied. In addition, we submit that for the same reasons, HCP cannot derive representational standing through this petitioner.

7/ , Du uesne L'i ht Com an (Beaver Valley Power Station, 243, 244 (1973) Pra'irie

~E Unit No. 1) ALAB-109, 6 AEC island, ~su ra, 6 ABC at 193.

b. Petit'io'n'e'r 'Cre'arb Petitioner Darby's asserted interests in this proceeding as a resident of Portland are the same as those of petitioner Garrett discussed on pages 5-8, supra, with the exception that he does not allege recreational use of the Columbia River.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed heretofore, petitioner Darby has no legal interests in this proceeding, and his petition for leave to intervene should be denied. Further, HCP cannot. derive representational standing through Mr.,Darby.

In addition, the amended petition is, as to Mr. Darby, a non-timely filing which wholly fails to comply with the require-ments in 10 CFR g2.714 for late petitions. These requirements include, inter alia, a "substantial showing of good cause" for the non-timely filing, and a discussion of availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected and the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. In these circumstanc'es, petitioner Darby's late request to intervene should be denied on two grounds, viz., lack of interest in the proceeding, and, in any event, failure to comply with the Rules of Practice as to his late petition.

c. Petitioner HCP It is well established that for an organization to intervene as the representative of its members, the organization

10 '-

must establish that at least one of its members has standing on his own right. 'i'mon v.'a'st'e'r'n: Kentuck Welfare 'Rights 490 (1975). Following this mandate, the cases are clear that

'he individual member from whom organizational standing.

is derived must, in some manner (~e, affidavit), state his concerns and interest in detail sufficient to establish indi-8/

vidual standing. Thus the question of HCP's standing must be 9/

resolved on the demonstration of interest by five of its members.

Xn an attempt to establish representational standing, HCP asserts that its members'nterests are based upon (1) recreational u'se of the Columbia River, (2) consumption of food produced within 50 miles of TNP-2, and (3) general state-

$

ments of interest. The generalized assertions of recreational use of the Columbia River (with no details as to location and frequency) and consumption of food produced within 50 miles of the Hanford Reservation are too vague and unspecific to provide the requisite interest.

8/ Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station) LBP-76-12, 3 NRC 277, 286 (1976),

aff'd, ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 423 (1976);. Duke Power Com an (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-73-28, 6 AEC 666, 680 (1973), aff'd, ALAB-150, 6 AEC 811, (1973); L~on Xsland Li htin Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit

1) LBP 77 ll P 5 NRC 481 6 482 483 (1977) 9/ The five members are A. C. Roll, Albert Snow, Deborah D.

Beadle, Nancy Faller, and Ruth C. Long. The remaining named members are either organizations listed. on page 3 of the amended petition or individuals listed in the original and amended petitions who reside from 80 to 150 miles from the plant. As to the latter, they lack interest in their individual capacities in view of their remoteness from the site and their unacceptably vague and general assertions. See the discussion relating to Petitioners Garrett and Darby, ~su ra.

11 For example, nothing in the amended petition describes which of these five members of HCP, if any, make substantial use of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-2. Further, the assertions that HCP members consume food grown or produced within 50 miles of the Hanford Reservation is equally lacking in the requisite specificity to provide interest. Such generalized assertions fail to satisfy the Pebble S rin s mandate of a showing of specific "interest. which may be affected" by the proceeding and fail to provide an adequate basis for demonstrating "a distinct and palpable harm."

Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977). Indeed, it is precisely such assertions which are proscribed by the rationale in Narth v. Seldin, ~au ra, 422 U.S. at 499, that a claim of interest will not normally be entertained if the "asserted harm is a 'generalized grievance'hared in sub-stantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens . . . ." It is precisely such a "generalized grievance" which these members of HCP have alleged.

The affidavits of four of the five HCP members in question (excluding affiant Roll). are "form-letter" type affidavits containing four blanks to be filled in by the affiants (i.e.,

the affiant's name, address, number of miles residing from WNP-2, and "interests in this. proceeding"). The affidavits include a "boilerplate" incorporation by reference of the

12 amended petition (my interests... are as discussed in 10/

the . . . Amended Petition to Intervene" ).

The "form-type" affidavits of Nancy Faller, Albert Snow, and Deborah Beadle allege that each resides between 55 and 60 miles from WNP-2. These distances are neither within the geographical zone which might be affected by routine or acci-dental releases of fission products from WNP-2, nor within a distance recognized by the NRC in several cases to be suf-ficiently close to vest, an interest in'the proceeding. Indeed, the Licensing Board in Houston Li htin and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Memorandum and Order (October 23, 1978), concluded recently that "insofar as we can ascertain, the longest distance heretofor determined to be within the zone which might be affected by a reactor incident is approxi-mately 50 miles." Further, the expression of other "interest" by these three individuals lacks the requisite specificity to confer individual or representational standing. In any event, neither the affidavits nor the amended petition speci-fically address how each affiant's interest will be affected by plant operation. Accordingly, HCP cannot establish standing based on the asserted "interest" in this proceeding of these three individuals.

10/ In view of the "boilerplate" nature of these affidavits, arid the closeness of the dates of the affidavits and date on which the amended petition was filed, it clear that any of the affiants even read the amended all is not at petition before signing the affidavit.

13 The fourth "form-type" affidavit, submitted by Ruth C.

Long, is legally deficient in that the assertion of interest--

"home, garden, children, husband,"--certainly lacks the requi-site specificity to confer standing. In addition, since this individual apparently joined HCP after the original petition was filed, this aspect of the amended petition 'fails to, comply with the provisions of 10 CFR 52.714 in that no justification for non-timely filing is made. Accordingly, HCP should not be permitted to gain standing "on the bases of Mrs. Long's affidavit.

The final member of HCP upon whose interest HCP would have this Board rely to support the representational standing of HCP is A. C. Roll. Mr. Roll's letter application for membership in HCP, dated November 7, 1978, and'is affidavit

=

dated November 8, 1978, asserting interest in this proceeding are attached to the amended petition. Again, to the extent that the amended petition relies'pon the purported membership of this individual to support the amended petition to intervene, it should be treated as a non-timely filing requiring compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 52.714.

In his affidavit, Mr. Roll 'asserts as his interest in this proceeding a concern about the affect of plant operations on'he "health and safety and the condition of the environment,"

the value of property he owns (located approximately 15 miles from WNP-2), and the health and economic well-being of those L1/

who rent. his property. It is clear that such generalized ll/ Mr. Roll's affidavit does not include the incorporation by reference of the amended "boilerplate" petition as did the other four.

O. ~

concerns about the environment are insufficient to confer standing. He has not alleged injury "that has occurred or will probably result from the action involved," and has thus failed to pass the test for standing set forth by the Commission.

Pebble S rin s, ~su ra, 4 NRC at 613. Further, Mr. Roll cannot. assert the rights or interests of those who rent his property. The interests of those living on and deiiving economic benefit from use of this land are personal interests, and, as such, cannot be asserted by Mr. Roll here.

Thus, these two allegations are insufficient to vest in Mr. Roll the type of interest necessary to support representa-tional standing of HCP. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 499; 4

Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Unit No. 2),

ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473 (1978).

Finally, Mr. Roll's vague assertions relating to rental value of his property also are an insufficient basis to estab-lish representational standing of HCP. He has not alleged an injury "that has or will probably occur," and thus has not demonstrated standing. In sum, as a resident of an area hundreds of miles from the plant site, Mr. Roll simply does not. pass the "injury in fact" test upon which standing in this proceeding can be based. Mindful of the Appeal Board's admonition in Simmer, ~su ra3NR,C at 12, requiring a strong finding "that potential intervenors do have a real stake in the proceeding,"

this Board should conclude that the generalized assertions of interest by members of HCP are inadequate to support inter-vention.. 4 In view of the foregoing, HCP has not established the requisite interest of at least one member upon which

representational standing can be based. Accordingly, the amended petition as it applies to HCP should be denied.

2. Petitioners Fail To Set Forth A Valid Contention Applicant demonstrated in its answer to the original petition that petitioners had failed to set. forth one valid contention as required by 10 CFR $ 2.714. In response thereto, petitioners in the amended petition apparently abandoned several proposed contentions, and attempted to supplement others. They also added several new proposed contentions.

In view of the fact that the Rules of Practice do not bind petitioners at this time to the purported bases for the proposed contentions, we see no purpose in providing another point-by-point response to each contention. In any event, since petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite interest to intervene, we believe that this Board need not reach the question of contentions.

Suffice it to say that we continue to believe that the peti'tioners fail to state one valid contention with supporting basis and'the required degree of specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714. Of course, we reserve the right to address all proposed contentions in detail at the appropriate time, as is contemplated by the new Rules of Practice. 'See Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ASLB Memorandum (December 4, 1978).

B.

0 Petitioners Should Not Be Granted Discretionar Intervention The amended petition for leave to intervene contains little which warrants adding to Applicant's discussion of discretionary intervention as set forth in our answer to the original petition. With the following additional comments, Applicant s position in this regard is as stated in that answer, at pages 18-21.

. Fundamental concepts of equity compel that discretionary intervention at the operating license stage "should not be allowed in the absence of some clear indication that the petitioner has a substantial contribution to make on a ~si Y

consideration at the operating license stage". Watts Bar,

~su ra, 5 NRC at 1422 (emphasis added) . For example, the only environmental issues which might be appropriate for consideration at the operating license stage are issues which have materially changed from those reviewed at the construction permit stage, or which were not reviewed at that stage. The WNP-2 facility was the subject of a full NEPA review and administrative decision at the construction permit stage. 6 AEC 197 (1973),

aff 'd, BLAB-113, 6 ABC 251 (1973) . Further, as the Apoeal Board stated in Watts Bar, "before a hearing is triggered at the insistance of one who has not alleged any cognizable personal interest. in the operation of the facility, there should be cause to believe that some discernible public interest will be served by the hearing." Id.

Neither the individual petitioners nor HCP have provided a "clear indication" that they could make a significant contri-bution. Petitioners Darby and Vozenilek both fail to allege

facts to demonstrate qualifications of either specialized education or pertinent experience. Petitioner Garrett's stated qualifications are hardly specialized or extensive enough to provide a "clear indication" that she has a sub-stantial contribution to make. Further, in light of the fact that she flatly has no personal interest in this proceeding, an award to her of discretionary'ntervention would fly in the face of the Supreme Court warning in Sierra Club, ~eu ra, 405 U.S. at 740, against individuals "seeking to do no more than vindicate their own value preferences . . . ." Thus, petitioners have totally failed to'demonstrate that they have a significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which would not otherwise be properly raised or presented . . . ." Pebble S rin s, supra, 4 NRC at 6l7.

Xndeed, petitioners have not even raised any substantial issues. Their proposed contentions, based on unsubstantiated rumors.and unfounded .and gener'al allegations, should'not be the sub'ject of a hearing at this stage, particularly since the concerns raised will be evaluated by the .NRC Staff in the normal course of its review of the tAP-2 application..'inally, the granting of a hearing on these issues would obviously broaden and delay the licensing process without serving any discernible public interest, arid the time which would be required to explore them is certainly not justified or justifiable. Zn fact, the true public interest in this pro-ceeding lies in the prompt licensing of NNP-2 for operation

18 at the appropriate'ime (i.e., upon completion of the Staff'a comprehensive review of th application), and not in granting a hearing which may result in significant cost and schedule penalties to the Applicant and ultimately to the retail purchasers of electric energy in the Northwest.

In conclusion, this OL proceeding is to date uncontested, and, as such, would not involve a hearing if petitioners are denied intervention. Mindful of the teachings in Z'immer, this Licensing Board should not. grant this petition to intervene.

Strict application of 10 CPR Section 2.714 and pertinent jud-icial precedent, as is mandated by Zimmer for OL cases, com-pels the conclusion that discretionary intervention not be granted.

III. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Licensing Board should deny the amended petition to intervene as a matter or right, and also should refuse to grant permissive intervention.

Respectfully submitted, DEBEVO & LIBERMAN C

Nicho . Reynolds Joseph . otts, Jr.

Counsel r the Applicant December 15, 1978

UNXTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSXON In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-397-OL SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that'opies of "Applicants Answer In Opposition To Amended Petition For Leave To Intervene,"

dated December 15, 1978, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 15th day of December, 1978:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Richard F. Cole Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commis sion Washington, D.C. 20555 William D. Paton, Esq.

Office of the Executive Mr. Ernest.E. Hill Legal Director Lawrence Livermore Laboratory U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory University of California Commission P.O. Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C. 20555 Livermore, California 94550

tIr. Nicholas D. Lewis Ms. Susan M. Garrett Chairman 632 S. E. 18th Street Energy Facility Site Portland, Oregon 97214 Evaluation Counc'1 820 East Fifth Street Doreen L. Nepom, Esq.

Olympia, Washington 98501 Nepom 6 Rose Suite 101 Kellogg Building Thomas F Carr, Esq. 1935 S. E. Washington Assistant Attorney General Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Temple of Justice 'I Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing & Service Section

. Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington Public Power Comnission Supply System Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Creg Darby 2425 S. E. 24th Street Portland, Oregon 97214 Nichola S. 'ynolds cc: Gerald C. Sorensen O. Keener Earle