ML20205A521

Response to Case 860630 Proposed Schedule for Hearings,Per ASLB 860612 Memorandum & Order.Aslb Should Convene Prehearing Conference of Parties to Discuss Scheduling. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205A521
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/04/1986
From:	Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#386-243 OL, NUDOCS 8608110388
Download: ML20205A521 (17)

Text

9

. 0{'

, [ !fs@D 8/4/86 UNITED STATES OF AM I f ~7 P2:16 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY ANIk $14IdO

~ ,, a N ARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAE UTILITIES ELECTRIC ~)* - Docket Nos. 50-445 n' /

COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 UL

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unito 1 and 2) )

MRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR IIFARIMGS I. INTRODUCTION On June 30, 1986, Intervenor CASE filed " CASE's Proposed Schedule for IIcarings" (" CASE's Brief), in response to the Board's Memorandum and Order (Scheduling of .H, earings) of June 12, 1986, (" Schedule Order"). The Staff and Appfic'snts were directed to treat ' CASE's proposed schedule as a motion , and .that any responses should be

~

delivered within 15 days. Id. In accordance with the Board's direction, the Staff files this response to CASE's Brief.

II. BACKGROUND On March 21, 1986, Applicants filed a " Motion for Establishment of Schedule" in this proceeding, together with a "self-executing" schedule for litigating the CPRT Results Reports. The Staff supported the adop-tion of Applicants' schedule with a number of changes. "NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Establishment of Schedule" (April 10, 8608110388 860804 /

PDR ADOCK 05000445 .

1 G PDR 3

1986). CASE opposed adoption of Applicants' schedule. " CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Establishment of Schedule" (April 7, 1986).

The Board declined to adopt the Applicants' schedule. Schedule Order, p. 2. In its discussion of why it decided not to adopt Applicants' schedule, the Board inc'icated that " Fairness . . . dictates that CASE not be deprived of the right to control the presentation of its own case in its own way." The Board went on to state that fairness lies on CASE's side because it has twice prevailed in this proceeding, once in December 1983 when the Board issued its Mer orandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)," LEP-83-81,18 NRC 1410 (1983), and again' when the Applicants decided to withdraw their filings by which they were attempting to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the Board's December 1983 findings on design and design OA for pipe supports. Schedule Order, p. 2.

The Board then directed CASE to file its own proposal for completing the litigation in this proceeding,[and get forth some guidelines to CASE for the schedule. The Board ' stated that the schedule should be developed so as to conclude hearings by the end of July 1987, that written filings should be, received in evidence and substituted for eye-witness or e:< pert testimony whenever feasible, and that depositions may be taken with advance agreement that all or portions thereof be stipulated into evidence. Id. The Board suggested that the hearings could begin in August 1986. Finally, the Board directed CASE to be " specific about what issues . . . will be tried, when the record on specific items will be closed, and at what times it would be appropriate for the Board to decide each portions of the case." Id., p. 3.

. III. DISCUSSION A. General Scheduling Considerations CASE essentially proposes that the remaining litigation in this proceeding be divided into four sequential phases. First, all design-related issues II would be litigated. CASES' Brief, pp. 2, 3-13; Proposed Schedule, Step 1 through 13. Second, the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan process is to be litigated. CASE's Brief, pp. 2, 14-17; Proposed Schedule, Steps 14 through 19. Third, CASE suggests that the individual Results Penorts for the ISAPs and DSAPs be litigated.

CASE's Brief, pp. 2,17-18; Proposed Schedule, Steps 18-26. 2/ Finally, litigation would focus on the question, whether there has been "a sufficiently broad failure of design, construction, and/or OA/OC that, obsent a broader reinspection effort , the plant was not licensable."

CASE's Brief, pp. 2-3, 18-19;, Proposed Schedule, Steps 28-30. CASE asserts that intimidation would b litigated in this final phase, as would P

the " potential ripple effect of a..deffpiency." CASE's Brief, p.19. CASE ergues that each phase should be cor5pleted before proceeding to the next, although CASE apparently accepts some overlap between litigation of design issues and litigation of CPRT Program Plan adequacy. See CASE's Brief, pp.14-15.

l

1/ A listing of design issues which CASE contends need to be resolved is set forth at p.13 of CASE's Brief. However, CASE indicates that the list is not complete. Id.

-2/

The Staff notes that CASE now appears to embrace the two-phase concept for litigating the CPRT which was originally proposed by Applicants in their June 28, 1985 Proposed Management Plan, but opposed by CASE.

l

. Applicants, in their response to CASE's Brief, continue to argue thct the proceeding be structured so as to litigate seriatim the Results Reports for ISAPs and DSAPs as they are issued by the CPRT, as they first propounded in their March 21, 1986 Motion for Establishment of Schcdule. Applicants' Response to CASE's Proposed Schedule for Hearings (July 30, 1966) (" Applicants' Response"); see also Applicants' First Progress Report (July 30, 1986), pp . 10-11. It appears from Applicants' First Progress Report , that the ISAP and DSAP Results Rcports are not being iss,ued in any particular order or in organized groups; rather they are being issued as they are completed. Although Applicants Proposed Case ?Janagement Plan (June 28, 1985) had proposed to litigate the CPRT Program Plan separately from its implementation, Applicents now argue that that course of action, which is now embraced by CASE, is inappropriate.'- ..,

The Staff's view is that any lidgaNon schedule adopted by the Board should be structured so that ..the Board and parties may address the issues on a meaningful basis, and in"a manner which is expeditious and conserving of the resources of all participants. CASE's proposal for a phased litigation schedule does represent a possible alternative for structuring the litigation of this proceeding. By no means, though, does l CASE's proposal represent the only , or necessarily the best way to 3,/ With regard to Applicants' alternative, as indicated in the proceed.

-3/ CASE's acceptance of Applicants' plan to litigate the adequacy of the CPRT process separately from the adequacy of program implemen-tation , as originally proposed by Applicants I,lanagement Plan (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

. Staff's June 24, 1986 " Comments on CASE's Response To Board Questions", experience with the initial Results Reports draws into question the continuing vitality of the Applicants' proposal for seriati.n litigation of Results Reports. In particular, during the Staff's review of the Results Reports submitted by the Applicants on April 4, 1986, it became apparent that the Results Reports required additional information and clarification in order to permit a full evaluation. The Staff learned that in implementing one ISAP, Applicants had identified "out-of-scope" findings that bore on a previously submitted Results Report. Tbc Staff has not been informed by the Applicants of what effect these supplemental efforis may have on the earlier Results Reports , that is, whether Applicants view these efforts as requiring modification or, perhaps, even withdrawal of the previously submitted Results Report. See, for example, Applicants' " Answers to - Board's 14 - Questions. . .", June 5, 1986, Response to Question 11 at 12 ,- Response to Question 14 at 16, 17, suggesting that a revised Results Rgport is being prepared.

It is not now possible to ascertain the extent to which "out-of-scope" findings may arise in the course of implementing those ISAPs which are currently underway. In view of the fact that other ISAPs are at this time being implemented addressing other aspects of the same disciplines covered by these Results Reports, the potential exists for subsequently

~

discovered "out-of-scope" findings to necessitate additional efforts on tne (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) in June 1985, comes too late, since the prime reason for such a process was to expedite litigation by addressing the CPRT Program Plan during the time period prior to implementation and completion.

completed Reports. Because Applicants' implementation of the ISAPs and DSAPs does not require completion of all ISAPs or DSAPs covering a particular discipline or subject aren before submittal of individual Results Reports , it is possible that additional "out-of-scope" findings will be identified and that time will be required by the Applicants to reexamine completed Results Reports to answer Staff questions. Such uncertainty renders speculative the ability of the other parties to adequately prepare for and participate in a hearing on any given Results Report without the need to revisit the issue as later ISAPs or DSAPs are implemented and completed, upon learning ~ that additional work , r$ot reflected in the Results Report was performed to fully complete implementation of an ISAP or DSAP. Accordingly, although the Staff had previously supported Applicants' earlier proposal to litigate ISAP and DSAP Results Reports seriatim as they are issued, .t!)e Staff now believes that litigation on a Results Report by Results Report b' asis would not be an effective way to proceed. Rather , the Staff . now suggests that the proceeding be structured to proceed on the bgsis of functional groupings and iisciplines." The Staff also proposes that a prehearing conference be held to discuss scheduling concerns.

To illustrate Staff's proposal, the Staff has organized all ISAPs and DSAPs into proposed functional groupings and disciplines. See Attach-ment 1. Two functional groupings are established: Design, and Construction and Implementation. Each column in Attachment I consists of a functional grouping, and generally corresponds to the phased schedule proposed by CASP. For example, all ISAPs and DSAPs for design issues are listed under the Design column. By contrast, each row

heading is a " discipline;" that is, a grouping of ISAPs and DSAPs which  !

are related by subject. Rows are established for the " disciplines" of, g,

e Civil /Structual, Mechanical, and Electrical / Instrumentation and Control. Thus, all ISAPs and DSAPs for any given discipline would be included in the row for that discipline. Other groupings may be appropriate. Al In essence, CASE suggests that litigation proceed vertically on all design issues on Attachment 1. The Staff submits that it is just as meaningful to proceed horizontally, litigating each " discipline" separately.

It is also reasonable to structure the proceeding tb permit litigation of each functional grouping separately. Thus, all Construction /Imple-mentation issues for a particular discipline could be considered separately from the Design issues for that discipline. Contrary to CASE's assertion, there is no reason why .all. c'esign issues, regardless of discipline, should be litigated first, or why design [issueg within a given discipline must be resolved prior to the resolution, of construction / implementation issues for that discipline. E The potential impact of out-of-scope findings is minimized by the Staff's_ proposal that litigation commence only after all 1/ The other parties should be given the opportunity to comment on the appropriate groupings of the various ISAP.a and DSAPs. The Staff intends to continue discussions with the other parties and will consider their comments on the Staff's proposal, including appro-priate groupings of ISAPs and DSAPs.

5/ Of course, if the Design portion of a discipline, such as piping and pipe supports , is in fact completed prior to the Construction and Implementation portion, the Staff would be in favor of going forward on the Design aspect of that discipline.

relevant information is issued in the functional grouping of a j discipline. b In view of Applicants' schedule for completion of CPRT actions ,

wherein many of the Construction / Implementation ISAPs are anticipated to be completed by October 31, 1986, whereas DSAPs and ISAPs relevant to Design are not expected to be completed until some time in 1987, U it appears that neither CASE's nor Applicants' schedule will result in a reasonable litigation schedule.

In st ury, the Staff urges that the proceeding be structured such n

that litigation commence only after all relevant reports for either a functional group, or a discipline (as the terms are defined in Attach-ment 1) hre issued to the Board and parties.

-6/ Applicants have indicated thatI alk out-of-scope observations will be evaluated in the collective - cvaluation phase of the CPRT, even though this could impact an al, ready. completed results report. See July 23, 1986 letter from- Willidm G. Counsil to Vincent S. Noonan.

This would mean that litigation" on any given functional grouping within a discipline would need to await the completion of the relevant Collective Evaluation-Report.

-7/ Although the schedule presented in the Applicants' First Progress Report is helpful, there are some ambiguities with respect to the schedule for completion of various CPRT and Project work activities.

For example , on p. 4 of their First Progress Report , Applicants indicate that DSAP IX, Piping & Pipe Supports, is to be completed by October 31, 1986. Yet on p. 6, the Progress Report indicates that DSAPs are to be completed in early to mid 1987. Ilowever, on

p. 8, the Progress Report indicates that the Stone & Webster effort to correct Special Technical Issues is to be completed at the end of 1987. The relationship of these three dates to the parties' ability to litigate the pipe support issues is unclear.

It is also Staff's understanding that the Applicants intend to issue individual reports for each population to be sampled in ISAP VII.c.

The effect of these reports on completion of VII.c. is also not clear.

B. Specific Comments on Litigation of Design hiatters The Staff disagrees with CASE's proposal that the Staff and Appli-cants should, before all else, respond to CASE's three outstanding motions for summary disposition on pipe support and design QA 8,/ CASE's Proposed Schedule, p . 5. Responses to these matters.

motions at this time are either inappropriate or unnecessary. CASE's "First ?Iotion for Summary Disposition Regarding Certain Aspects of the Implementation of Applicants' Design and QA/OC for Design" ("First Summary Disposition f.fotion") (October 6, 1984) essentially asserts that the Applicants' original OA program for piping and' pipe support design had not functioned properly (and still was not functioning at the time of the October 6, 1984 filing) in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. Granting, for sake of argument, that CASE's contention in.. this - surnmary disposition motion is true , it is irrelevant in light of the piping arid pipe support design requalification effort being conducted by Stone a d Webster, together with the CPRT third-party overview of the requalification effort. E See CPRT Program Plan, Revision 2 (June 28, 1986), DSAP IX. As indicated in DSAP IX, Section 2.0, " Scope, the requalification will involve 100 percent of large bore Class 2 and 3 piping, and 100 percent of large bore Class 1, 2 8/ CASE also submitted a fourth summary disposition motion, " CASE's Third hiotion for Summary Disposition, Regarding Lack of Independ-ence and/or Credibility of Cygna" (November 2,1984), to which the Staff has responded. "NRC Staff Response to CASE's Third Pfotion for Summary Disposition, Regarding Lack of Independence and/or Credibility of Cygna" (November 20, 1984).

9/ This third-party overview is being conducted by TERA Corporation.

___ -__ _ _ ~ - , - - __ _

and 3 pipe supports (excluding Westinghouse supports). In addition, small bore piping and pipe supports will be reanalyzed on a sampling basis. -

I0/ In light of this requalification effort by Stone and Webster, who was not previously responsible for CPSES piping and pipe support design end whose efforts will establish the designs of record for piping, there is no need to determine whether or not the Applicants' prior design process was working for the sole purpose of determining if those piping and pipe support designs should be reanalyzed. Since such reanalyses are being accomplished , there is no need to waste litigation time on whether the predicate for action already being undertaken exists.

Similarly, the Staff submits that it would not be useful for the parties to now address CASE's " Fourth Motion for Summary Disposition:

To Disqualify the Use of SA307 and SA36 Threaded Parts" (" Fourth Summrry Disposition Motion"'I (January 14, 1985). The CPRT is currently undertaking actions regarding ". teriaal source issues", which should assitre that the technical concerns rpsed.,by CASE in the Fourth Summary Disposition Motion or addressed. Se'e 'CPRT Program Plan, Revision 2 Appendix A, Section II.1; DSAP IX, Revision 0, Section 4.2, 4.2.1.1.

The Board earlier agreed with Staff and Applicants that because of the pendency of substantial CPRT action on, inter alia, design issues, "it would not be proper to require Applicants to respond to Intervenors' pending summary disposition motions before they can complete work on their plant." Memorandum and Order (Proposal for Governance of this 10/ It is the Staff's understanding that the scope of this effort may be expanded to include 100 percent reanalysis in certain areas.

i l

Case)", LBP-85-32, 22 NRC 434, 436 (1985). Nothing has occurred since that time to alter the logical underpinning of the Board's conclusion.

Accordingly, until DSAP IX has been completely implemented, it would be premature for the Applicants and Staff to respond to the Fourth Summary Disposition Motion.

Finally, the Staff asserts that CASE's "Second Motion for Summary Disposition, Regarding Applicants' Plan and Supplement to Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memora"dum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)" '"Second Summary Disposition Motion") (October 22, 1984) is moot and no response is necessary. The Second Summary Disposition Motion in essence contends that Applicants have failed to fulfill that part of their February 3,1984 Plan which committed to retain an expert from the academic community to, inter alia , review the basic engineering principles being addressed-:by.. Applicants as part of the Plan. The Staff submits that Applicants' Plan has',' 1% effect, been superseded by the CPRT Progran Plan. In any. ev'ent , .the Second Summary Disposition Motion would have to be denied if the Board now considers it, since the Applicants had retained Dr. Arthur P. Boresi, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Wyoming, to review the Applicants' summary disposition motions. See Applicants' Report Regarding Academic Expert (November 9, 1984). For these reasons, it is the Staff's view that CASE's Second Summary Disposition Motion is moot and that no further response from the Staff or Applicants is necessary.

The Staff takes issue with CASE's entirely unfounded assertion that the Staff has misused and abused the summary disposition " written filings" process, and opposes CASE's proposal that the Staff be denied l

4

-- ,. - ----,...,---,.,e_- - - ,..m e -,,,--g- , - . . , - - - - - . - . - , - --

the option of using summary disposition motions on design matters.

CASE's Brief, p. 20. CASE presenta no articulation of its claim that the Staff misused and abused summary disposition. The Staff points out that it was Applicants, not Staff, who filed sumrary disposition motions on the design matters. It was the Staff who initially pointed out at the time the first motions were filed , that Applicants' Plan to respond to the December 28, 1983 Board Order did not refer to such filings. The Staff did respond to two of Applicants' summary disposition motions and to one of CASE's. The Staff repeatedly stated that it could not respond to the remaining motions filed by Applicants and CASE because it continued to have questions regarding them, as well as the need to analyze and audit the underlying work of the Applicants (which was not appended to the motions) . CASE was always kept up to date regarding the Staff's review of the Applicants' motions." Tr6nscripts of all technical meetings between Staff and Applicants, as well es 511 ' correspondence on design riatters were made available or sent .directly . to CASE.

Indeed , a special S

telephonc call was held among the Sthff', Applicants and CASE, in order for CASE witnesses Messrs. Walsh and Doyle to raise their concerns about several of Applicants' motions. The Staff's work continued up to early 1985, when the Applicants requested a halt to the hearing process.

Under these circumstances, it is disingenuous for CASE to claim that the Staff " abused" the process. The Staff respectfully asks the Board to strike these references from the record.

IV. CONCLUSION After considering the filings of the other parties along with the Staff's own needs to assure an efficient hearing schedule, both from the standpoint of time as well as resources, the Staff requests that future hearing sessions be based on completed disciplines or completion of all work in a major area (functional grouping), rather than on a piecemeal, Results Report by Results Report basis. However, in view of the schedule indicated in Applicants' First Progress Report , it is neither desirable nor efficient to mandate that completion of all Design issues be designated as a first subject for litigation at the res'umption of hearings.

There still remains sufficient areas of uncertainty with respect to matters important to scheduling, that the Staff requests the Board to convene a prehearing conference of the parties to discuss scheduling. E Respectfully submitted,

.M'

/

eary.S. 112uno Con for NnC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day cf August, .1986 l

-11/ The Staff has contacted the other parties during the course of l developing its comments on scheduling. Although no consensus was l achieved as a result of those contacts, the Staff will continue efforts to reach accommodation with the other parties. Nonetheless, to forestall indefinite postponement of scheduling matters , the Staff l recommends that the Board schedule a prehearing conference to discuss scheduling.

O ATTACHMENT 1 CPRT ISAPS/DSAPS FUNCTIONAL GROUPINGS DESIGN CONSTRUCTION / IMPLEMENTATION Discipline: CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DSAP VIII ISAP I.c. ISAP II.a.

II.d. II.b.

II.c.

II.e.

VII.a.8.

VII.b.4.

Discipline: ELECTU.TCAL/I& C DSAP XI ISAP I,b.1. ISAP I.a.1.

I.b.2. I.a.2.

I.b.3. I.a.3.

I.a.4.

I.n.5.

I b.4.

Discipline: .MEGIIAUICAL -

DSAP ISAP k ." . 1 V.b

~

ISAP V.a

.VI.a. V.d VI.b. '

V.e VII .b . 2.

Discipline: PIPING / PIPE SUPPORTS DSAP IX. (includes Stone ISAP VII.b.3.

l

& Webster resolution of Special Technical Concerns)

ISAP V.c.

Discipline: TESTING i

N/A ISAP III . a .1.

l III . a . 2 .

III.a.3.

III . a . 4 .

III.a.5 III .b .

III.c.

III.d.

l I

___j A A__. -- -

O l

Discipline: OA/QC (PROGRAPIMATIC)

N/A IS AP I .d .1.

I.d.2.

I.d.3.

VII . a .1.

VII . a . 2.

VII . a . 3.

1m . a . 4.

VII . a. 5 .

VII.a.6.

VII.a.7.

VII . a . 8.

VII . a . 9.

VII ,b .1.

VII.c.

I Discipline: CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Special Prcgram .

Discipline: COND01T SUPPORTS Special Program 111scipline: 'llVdd SUPPORTS' Special Program O

4

, ,.----...y-,,---,----,,--- - -..---,,, ,,- -- w nw, n., -,. , . - - , - ,..n-,--,n,a - e - , - , - . - - . - . - -

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COL 1PANY, et _al. ) 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE D

I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HEARINGS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*), or by express mail or overnight delivery (**), or by hand delivery (***), this 4th day of August,1986:

Peter D. Bloch , Esq. , Chairman *** Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE Administrative Judge ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' , , 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,e Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555

.. Renea Hicks, Esq.

Dr. Fenneth A. McCollom**

. Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge ,' Environmental Protection Division 1107 West Knapp P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Stillwater, OK 74075 . - Austin, TX 78711 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.***

William A. Horin, Esq.

Elizabeth B. Johnson Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Administrative Judge Purcell & Reynolds Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1200 17th Street, N.W.

P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Washington, DC 20036 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Dr. Walter II. Jordan ** Isham, Lincoln & Beale Administrative Judge Suite 840 881 W. Outer Drivo 1120 Connecticut Avenue Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20036

. _g_

Dillie Pirner Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil Citizens Clinic Director Executive Vice President Government Accountability Project Texas Utilities Generating Company 1901 Que Street, N.W. 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Uashington, DC 20009 Dallas, TX 75201 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.* William L. Brown, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Lanny Alan Sinkin Worsham, Forsythe, Samples Christic Institute a Wooldridge 1324 North Capitol Street 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Washington, DC 20002 Dallas, TX 75201 James T. McGaughy GDS Assog. Inc.

Mr. James E. Cummins 2525 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 450 Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Atlanta, GA 30330 Steam Electric Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 38 Panel

• l Glen Rose, TX 76043 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l Uilliam II. Burchette, Esq.

Mark D. Nozette, Esq.-

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

!!eron, Burchette, Ruchert Board Panel *

r. Bothwell .

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N,W. ,

l Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear P.egulatory Commission

Robert D. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gil Ryan Plaza Drive' Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Roy P. Lessy, Jr. , Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Robert A. Jablon, Esq. 1800 M Street, N.W.

Spiegel t. McDiarmid Suite 700, North Tower 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20005-4708 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq **

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*** Ropes & Gray Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 225 Franklin Street 2000 P Street, N.W. , Suite 611 Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 2003G

) -

nse P Staff '

-