ML20153D228
| ML20153D228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1988 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-7002 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8809020111 | |
| Download: ML20153D228 (35) | |
Text
,_ _ ___.
t
. i i
DOCKETCp um UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ALE 31 P2:45 BEFORE THE COMMISSION
,.p,..,
DCcot ry.
- m..
In the Matter o' TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-445-OL I
COMPANY,E_T,S.
50-446-OL (ComanchePeakSteamElectric Docket No.
50-445-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST l
FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE i
BY CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION j
I P
f I
Janice E. Moore l
Counsel for NRC Staff August 31, 1988 l
t t
I f
8809020111 080831
[
PDR ADOCK 0500 5
3>9 o
l i
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
In the Matter of l
o i
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos.
50-445-OL COMPANY, E &.
50-446-OL j
(ComanchePeakSteamElectric Docket No.
50-445-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2) l
'I l
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION l
i i
l i
i I
[
I Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff i
L August 31, 1988 l
L i
l i
i h
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.P,,agg TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................
11 I.
INTRODUCTION..................................................
1 BACKGR0VND....................................................
2 i
III. ARGUMENT......................................................
4 A.
Standards for Intervention...............................
4 B.
Interest and Standing....................................
6 C.
Good Cause, if any, for Failure to File on Time..................................................
3 D.
Availability of Other Means to Protect Petitioner's Interests and the Extent to Which That Interest Will be Rapresented by Existing Parties......................................
12 E.
Ability to Contribute to the Development o f a Sou nd Re co rd........................................
14 F.
Whether Petitioner's Partcipation Would Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding...............
23 t
G.
Intervention in the CPA Proceeding Should Also be Denied...........................................
25 t
IV.
CONCLUS!0N....................................................
26 l
l
\\
l
.e t
l i
2 l
I I
I f
l i
i
[
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page COURT CASES:
Easton Utilities Connission v. Atomic Energy Comiss,s t
424 F.2d 847, 552 (D.C. Cir.
1970)...............................
9 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power station, Units 1and2),CLI-86-8,23NRC241(1986).............
10, 11, 12 Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897 (1982)..................
11 Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760 (1982).....................
13 Detroit Edison Compajn (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Pl ant, Uni t 2), i.5P-78-37, 8 NRC 575 (1978)......................
6 Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station.
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977).......................
9, 10 Houston Lighting and Power Com)any (South Texas Project, j
Units I and 2), ALAU-549, 9 (RC 644 (1979).......................
6 Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387 (1983)....................
16 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, (1983)..................
5, 6 Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982)............
8, 16 NiagaraMohawkPowerCompany(NineMilePointNuclear Power Station Unit 2), LBP-83-45, 18 NRC 213, 215 (1983)........
6 Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor P1 ant Units I and 2) ALAB-761, 19 NRC 487 (1984)...............
11 South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881 (1981)............
12 Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2),
MemorandumandOrder(DismissingProceedings),
(unpublished)(July 13,1988)....................................
4
t
- 111 -
E.32 Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
MemorandumandOrder(TerminatingProceedings Subject.toCondition),(unpublished)
(July 5, 1988)...................................................
3 Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
Order (Following Conference Call), (unpublished)
(April 2, 1982)..................................................
2 L
Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
Order, (unpublished) (January 12,1982)..........................
2 Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and,
MemorandumandOrder,(unpublished)(July 44,1981)..............
?
Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2),
Order Relative to Standing of Petitioners to Intervene,(unpublished)(June 27,1979).........................
2 Washington Power Su) ply System, et al. (WPPSS Nuclear ProjectNo.3),A.A5-747,18NRC1157(1983).....................
8, 13, 15, 16, 23 REGULATIONS:
10 C.F.R. K 2.206..................................................
13, 14 t
10 C.F.R. K 2.714..................................................
2,4,8 10 C.F.R. K 2.714(a)...............................................
8, 12, 25 10 C.F.R. K 2.714(a)(1)(1-v).......................................
5 l
I 10 C.F.R. K 2.714(a)(1)(iii).......................................
19 10C.F.R.I2.714(a)(2)............................................
5
~
10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b)...............................................
5 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d)...............................................
5 l
l l
i l
iv-Page MISCELLANE0US:
"Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report, Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating Licenses, and Opportunity for Hearing," 44 Fed.
Reg. 6995 (February 5, 1979).................................
2 IE Information Notice 87-08, "Degraded Motor Leads in Limi torque DC Motor Operators," (February 4,1987)............
19 NRC Staff Inspection Report 50-445/88-24 and 50-446/88-21..........
20 NRC Staff Inspection Report 50-445/88-49 and 50-446/88 45..........
10 NRC Staff Inspection Roport 50-445/88-50 and 50-446/88-46..........
10 NRC Staff Inspection Report 50-445/88-51 and 50-446/88-47..........
10 NRC Staff Inspection Report 50-445/88-52 and 50-446/88-48..........
10, 19 Results Report, Issue Specific Action r an, VII.c, "Construction Reinspection / Documentation Review Plan, Rev. 1 (December 17,1987), Appendix 24, "Fuel Pool Liner".......
21 Results Report, Issue Specific Action Plan, VII.a.8, "Fuel Pool Liner Documentation," Rev. 1 (November 4, 1986).......
21 "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Stocm Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
NUREG-0797, Supp. No. 10 (April 1985)............................
l'l i
8 a
r v-n.-,w, s -----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos.
50-445-0L COMPANY, _ET _AL.
)
50-446-0L
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Docket No.
50-445-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION I.
INTRODUCTION On August 11, 1988, Petitioner, Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) filed a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. II "Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regula-tion"(August 11, 1988) [hereinai.er Petition]. U The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) op os.es CFUR's request on the
-1/
The Staff was not served with CRJR's filing. The Staff nas obtained a copy of the filing from the Secretary of the Commission and is responding to it as though it had been properly served upon Staff counsel.
~2/
Although the Petition is captioned with the docket numbers for both the Operating License (OL) and the Construction Permit Amendment (CPA) proceedings, the Petition makes no attempt to address the Construction Permit Amendment proceeding in any way.
It is unclear l
whether Petitioner is even aware that two separate proceedings were l
in progress with respect to Comanche Peak.
For purposes of this response, the Staff will treat the Petition as having been filed in both proceedings.
l
ground that the balancing of the factors governing late intervention set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 of the Commission's regulations weighs heavily in favor of denial of the petition. U II.
BACKGROUND The notice of hearing with respect to the issuance of the Comanche j
Peak operating license was published in 1979.
"Avail e'
Appli-cant's Environmental Report, Consideration of Issuance af Facility Operating t.icenses, and Opportunity for Hearing," 44 Fed. Rej. 6995 (February 5, 1979). The Licensing Board designated to preside over the proceeding granted the petitions for leave to intervene of Citi?. ens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), CFUR, and the Texas Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
"Order Relative to Standing of Petitioners to Intervene," (June 27,1979).
In 1981, ACORN withdrew from the proceeding.
"Memorandum and Order," (July 24, 1981);
"Order," (January 12,1982).
In 1982, CFUR also withdrew frcm the procaeding, leaving CASE as the sole intervenor.
"Order (Following Confererce Call)," (April 2, 1982). CASE has actively participated in the Operatung Lio.nse proceeding.
In 1986, CASE, alcng with Meddie Gregery, filed petitions to intervene with respect to an amendment extending the construction permit 3/
TheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard(LicensingBoard)designatedto preside over the above-captioned proceedings has dismissed both of the Comanche Peak proceedings pending before it, thus making it appropriate for the Petition to have been filed before the Commission rather than beforo the Licensing Board.
Therefore, the Staff is directing this response to the Commission.
for Comanche Peak Unit 1.
"Petition to Intervene of Citizens Association for Sound Energy," (April 7,1986); "Petition to Intervene of Meddie Gregory," ( April 7,1986). Meddie Gregory's participation ended with her death. See, "Notice of Withdrawal of Intervention," (September 14,1987).
CASE has continued its active participation in the CPA proceeding.
On July 1,1988, CASE, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV or Applicants), and the NRC Staff filed a motion to dismiss both the OL and CPA proceedings as a result of a joint stipulation agreed to by the parties.
"Joint Motion for Dismissal of Proceedings," (July 1, 1988).
See also, "Joint Stipulation," (July 1, 1988). On July 5, 1988, the Licensing Board issued an order approving the stipulation and scheduling a prehearing conference for July 13, 1988.
"Memorandum and Order (Termi-nating Proceedings Subject to Condition)," (July 5, 1988). The purpose of the prehearing conference was to facilitate the admission of certain documents into the record as required by the Joint Stipulation.
I_d. at 2.
On the morning of the prehearing conference, CFUR and the Forth Worth Chaptar of the Sierra Club, through CFUR's current counsel, filed a peti-tion for leave to intervene in bcth procccdings, and a request that the Licensing Board stay its acticns.
"Recuest to Continue Proceedings and Petitic.n to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation and the Greater Fort Worth Group of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club,"
(July 13, 1988). During CFUP's oral argument in support of its petition, the Licensing Board Chairman gave CFUR's counsel guidance concerning what the showing should be in order for the Licensing Board to consider grant-ing the petition.
"Prehearing Conference," (July 13, 1988), Tr. 25,198-208. The Board Chainnan ncted that the Petitioners must show familiarity with the corrective action programs currently being pursued at Comanche Peak and why these programs are not adequate to resolve Petitioners' issues.
I_d. at 25,202, 25,205, 25,207. The Licensing Board Chairman gave CFUR and the Sierra Club the opportunity either to attempt to make this shcwing at the prehearing conference, or to withdraw their petition without prejudice. M.at25,202,25,207. CFUR's counsel requested that the petition be withdrawn, and the Licensing Board gcanted the request without prejudice. M.at25,208. The Licensing Board Chairman clearly indicated that should CFUR with to file a petition after the dismissal of the proceeding, CFUR would do so with the Commission, and it would be for the Commission to decide whether another Licensing Board should be appointed to rule on the petition.
Id. at 25,203. At the end of the prehearing conference, the Licensing Board signed an order dismissing both the OL and CPA proceedings.
"Memorandum and Order (Dismissing Proceed-ings)," (July 13,1988).
On August 11, 1988 CFOR filed its Petition. The Sierra Club has not filed a petition.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff submits that the Petition should be denied.
III. ARGLHENT A.
Standards for Intervention.
A party seeking intervention in a Commission proceeding must satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714. Any petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity petitioner's interest in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the pro-ceeding, including the reasons the petitioner should be allowed to inter-vene, and the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
10 C.F.R. ! 2.714(a)(2). The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy these requirements. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 331 (1983). The petition must address the criteria of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(d). These criteria are:
(1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the A't to be made a party to the proceeding.
(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's prorerty, financial, or other interest in the proceedirg.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may !:e entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In addition, petitioner must set forth at least ont valid contention.
10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b). While this requirement does not have to be satisfied by the petition itself, it must be satisfied before a petition will be granted.
Since the Petition in question here is a late petition for leave to intervene, the Petitioner must satisfy the late filing requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1) in addition to showing that the organization has standing to intervene, and setting forth the aspects of the proceeding about which the crganization seeks to intervene, For the petitioner to be successful, tne factors of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) must weigh in peti-tiorer's favor. These factors are:
i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; ii) the extent to which Petitioner's interests can be repre-sented elsewhere; iii) the artent to which Petitioner's participation will contribute to the development of a sound record; iv) the extent to which Petitioner's interests are represented by those of another party; and v) whether Petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedina. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(1-v). There is a large body of Commission case law interpreting the various intervention requirements.
The precedents which apply to the circumstances presented by the Petition in question here are discussed below.
B.
Interest and Standing.
The Comission has previously held that judicial concepts of standing will be used to determine whether a petitioner has standing to intervene in Comission proceedings.
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Sorings Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 612 (1976).
Judicial concepts of standing require a showing that the action sought in the proceeding will cause injury in fact, and that injury 1s arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statutes governing the pro-
- eeding.
CLI-83-25, supra, 28 NRC at 332.
In Comission proceef'igs the injury must be arguably within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the National Environmental Po'. icy Act.
Niagara Mohawk Power Compa_ny (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2),
LBP-83-45, 18 NRC 213, 215 (1983).
For an organization to gain standing in a. proceeding the org3nization must show either that there is an injury in fact which affects the organi-zation, or there is inju.~y in fact to a member or members of the organiza-tion.
Houston Lighting and Paler Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646 (1979).
In order to establish standing through its members, an organization must provide the name and address of at least one affected member who wishes to be represented by the organiza-tion.
Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 583 (1978).
Petitioner has established its standing to intervene through its members.
Petitioner has provided the affidavits of three of its members, one of whom is an offic.ial of the organization.
See, Petition, Attachments A, B and C.
One of the members states that he and his wife live within three miles of the Comanche Peak site, grow their own food, and have farm animals which would be affected by releases of radiation from the Comanche Peak facility.
J_d., Attachment A, McCook Affidavit at 1.
The other members of the organization state that they use the area within 50 miles of the Comanche Peak site for recreational purposes.
They claim that they visit areas within close proximity to the site, such as Dinosaur Park, and Granbury, Texas.
J_d., Attacaments B and C, Resnikof Affidavit at 1; Brink Affidavit at 1.
The statements of the affiants have alleged injury in fact, and have demonstrated that the members of the organization have interests which could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, which are arguably within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Therefore, Petitioner has established the requisite standing to intervene in this proceeding, had the petition been timely.Al Petitioner has also identified an aspect of the proceeding upon which L
it wishes to intervene.
Petitior.er has proposed the adoption of Contention 5 from the previously dismissed Operating License proceeding.
Petition at 6.
Petitioner has also enumerated certain concerns about quality assurance at the Comanche Peak site. The Staff believes that the 4/
The Staff did not oppose CFUR's original standing to intervene and does not do so now.
See, "NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene by CFUR," (March 23,1979).
. h,le Petition satisfies the aspect requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
W Petitioner has met the interest and standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a), Petitioner must still show that a balancing of the 5 factors, which must be addressed in the case of late-filed petitions, weighs in favor of the granting of this Petition and must submit a valid contention.
C.
Good Cause, if any, for Failure to File on Time.
The first, and most important of the factors governing late inter-vention is the showing of good cause, if any, for Petitioner's failure to file on time.
If Petitioner fails to demonstrate good cause for the late filing, then Petitioner must make a compelling showing with respect to the remaining four factors. Washington Power Supply System, et al. (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1173 (1983); Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982). The weight of the burden with respect to the remaining factors will depend, as well, on the posture of the pro-ceeding at the time of the filing of the petition. ALAB-747, supra, at 1173. The Staff submits that where, as here, tnere would be no further proceedings without this late-filed petition, the burden should be a very neavy one if Petitioner cannot demonstrate good cause for its late filing.
Petitiorer alleges as good cause that it withdrew from the Operating License proceeding originally due to a lack of resources, and because the intervenors in the proceeding were competing for the same resources.
Petition at 9-10.
Petitioner also alleges that it has good cause for this late filing because the settlement agreement under which CASE withdrew from the proceedings just recently came to its attention.
I_d. at 7-9.
.g-Petitioner alleges that it relied on CASE to continue the proceeding. M.
Finally, Petitioner alleges that doubts as to CASE's willingness to in,plement the Joint Stipulation somehow constitute good cause for its late filing. M. These allegations are insufficient to establish good cause for Petitioner's attempt to regain admission to this proceeding some six B
years after Petitioner's withdrawal.
Petitioner is actually attempting to substitute itself for CASE.
Petitioner's proposed contention is nothing more than a reiteration of Contention 5, which CASE was pursuing in the Operating License proceeding.
Petitioner argues that all of the issues it raises in the Petition fall under Contention 5.
Petition at 5-6.
Commission precedent holds that one party may not demonstrate good cause for late filing by attempting to substitute for a party who has withdrawn from the proceeding. Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC760,795-798(1977). Tne Appeal Board in River Bend adopted the language of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in stating:
We do not find in statute or case law any ground for accepting the premise that proceedings before administrative agencies are to be constituted as endurarce contests modeled after relay races in which the baton is passed on successively from one legally exhausted contestant to a newly arriving legal stranger. M. at 797; citing, Easton Utilities Comission v. Atomic Energy Commission, 424 F.2d 847, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
That is exactly what Petitioner is attemptific to do here.
Petitioner finds that it is dissatisfied by actions taken by the sole intervenor in the proceeding and now wishes to reenter the proceeding and pick up where that intervenor has left off.
Petitioner tries to justify its actions by saying that it will take the proceeding as it finds it. This statement was not sufficient to provide the Petitioner in River Ccnd with the necessary good cause, and it should not do so here. See, ALAB-444, supra, 6 NRC at 796.
Petitioner is also similar to the petitioner in the River Bend proceeding in that it claims that it relied on CASE to pursue the pro-ceeding. See, Petition at 9.
Even assuming that it relied upon CASE to pursue this matter, Petitioner points to no infonnation on this record, however, which shows that CASE specifically undertook to act as CFUR's representative in this proceeding to represent the interests of the intervenors who withdrew from the Operating License proceeding in 1981 and 1982. Thus, as was the case in River Bend, Petitioner assumed the risk that the sole intervenor's involvement in the Operating License proceeding would not live up to Petitioner's expectations. The Appeal Board in River Bend did not find that such a situation constituted good cause for the late petition for leave to intervene. ALAB-444, supra, 6 NRC at 797. 5/ Petitioner made a deliberate choice to withdraw from this proceeding for whatever reason. As the Comission has held before, parties to NRC proceedings must live with the choices they make.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
~5/
In support of its claim that the Petitioner has good cause for late intervention, Petitioner points to some disagreement among CASE board members which Petitioner alleges casts doubt on CASE's willingness to implement the settlement agreement.
Petition ai: 8-9.
These allegations bear no relevance to a good cause showing.
In addition, they are factually incorrect.
An examination of the inspection reports issued by the Staff for the July-August inspection period demonstrates that CASE, as was set forth in the agreement, attended the exit meetings for that inspection period. See, e.g., Inspection Reports 50-445/88-49 and 50-446/88-45; 50-445/88-50 and 50-446/88-46; 50-445/88-51 and 50-446/88-47; 50-445/88-52 and 50-446/88-48.
o and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986). While Braidwood relates to the admission of a late-filed contention, the principle is the same. When parties make deliberate choices in a proceeding, they assume the risks that go along with those choices. Therefore, as stated above, when Petitioner withdrew from this proceeding, it assumed the risk that CASE would not conduct the proceeding as Petitioner would have liked.
Finally, previous Comission cases have pointed out that Intervenors may not dart in and out of proceedings on their own tenns and at their own convenience.
Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB 761, 19 NRC 487 (1984); Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897, 907 (1982). These cases also stand for the proposition that a party assumes the risk that certain of its rights may be waived upon its choice to withdraw. M. The Appeal Board specifically stated in Midland that a party may not expect to enjoy the benefits of participation in Commission proceedings without the responsibilities. ALAB-691, supra, 16 NRC at 907. That is precisely what Petitioner is attempting to do here. This proceeding has continued for six years since Petitioner originally withdrew.
There is ao indication, beyond a mere allegation, that Petitioner is familiar enough with the events which have occurred in those six years to be able to walk in and start what would be tantamount to a new proceeding with all the knowledge to effectively pursue its issues. Petitioner claims that one of its members gave engineering support to CASE.
Petition at 18.
It must be noted, however, that the person who apparently provided this support is no longer living. M.
Therefore, as will be discussed in more detail in relation to Factor 3 below, there is no indication that even if Petitioner were allowed to intervene at this extremely late date, it would have the ability to meet its responsibilities.
In sum, Petitioner has shown no reasons why this extremely late petition to intervene should be entertained. The Petitioner has given no good reasons for sitting on the sidelines for six years.
It has given no good reasons why it should be allowed to jump in and comence another proceeding at this late date. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show any good cause for late filing, and this factor should weigh heavily against the granting of the petition for leave to intervene with respect to either the Operating License or ?he Construction Permit Amendment proceedings.
D.
Availability of Other Means to Protect Petitioner's Interests and the Extent to Which That Interest Will be Represented by Existing Parties.
Factor (ii) concernt whether there is another forum for a party to have its interests represented.
Factor (iv) concerns whether there is another party to represent petitioner's interests.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a).
These factors are generally given less weight than the others. See, CLI-86-8, supra, 23 NRC at 245; citing, South Carolina Electric and Gas, Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
In light of previous precedents, the Staff believes that these two factors weigh in favor of the Petitioner. However, in the circum-stances of this case, these factors do not tip the overall balance in Petitioner's favor.
Petitioner argues there is no other means by which its interest ray be protected.
Petition at 11-12.
It claims that the right to coment on the Staff's safety evaluations does not give it the right to cross-examination.
Id. at 11. The Staff agrees.
Petitioner also claims that a 9 2.206 petition would not protect its interest, apparently because such petitions relate to enforcement and not licensing matters.
Id. at
- 12. While the Staff is aware that the Appeal Board has expressed its doubts as to whether a ! 2.206 petition is an adequate substitute for participation in an adjudicatory proceeding, OI and thus does not put forward a 9 2.206 petition as a means of satisfying this factor, Peti-tioner has expressed a misconception which the Staff must correct.
Petitioner argues that s 2.206 petitions relate solely to enforcement matters.
This is incorrect.
As the Appeal Board has pointed out, such a petition can be used to address health, safety and environmental issues.
In fact, in at least one instance an Appeal Board has referred issues raised in a late petition to Intervene to the Staff as a $ 2.206 petition.
Detroit Edison Company, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
ALAB-707,16NRC1760,1768(1982). As the Appesi Board pointed out, while this remedy did not guarantee the petitioner a hearing, it did insure that the issues would be addressed. Id.at1768. Thus, while this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner, this factor should not weigh heavily in the overall balancing of the factors.
If in fact Petitioner has issues of significance which the Commission believes should be addressed, the
-6/
See, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAE.-747,18 NRC 1167,1175-76 (1983).
issues could be referred to the Staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. U Such an action would be particularly appropriate in this case, since the l
issues raised in the Petition either have been or are already being considered by the Staff.
With. respect to the fourth factor Petitioner argues that there is no other party to represent its interest.
Petition at 19. While the Staff agrees with this statement, once again the Staff submits that this factor should not weigh heavily in balancing all the factors.
It should be noted that a number of the issues raised by Petitioner have been gleaned from inspection reports issued by the Staff.
Petition at 14-15.
Petitioner has not indicated that it has any witnesses with respect to these issues.
Therefore, it is unclear what oosition different from the Staff's position would be taken by the Petitioner were it allowed to intervene. Therefore, this factor should not weigh heavily in favor of Petitioner in the overall balancing.
E.
Ability to Contribute to the Development of a Sound Record.
The third factor set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) concerns the ability of Petitioner to contribute to the development of a sound record.
Petitioner argues that it has the ability because it has experience participating before this and other a &inistrative agencies, and it has spoken with people who have pointed Petitioner to issues to be raised.
-7/
In its argument on this factor Petitioner refers to a license j
amendment.
See, Petition at 11.
The Staff is unclear what Peti-l tioner is reTerring to. The reference leads the Staff to believe that Petitioner does not understand the posture of either the OL or CPA proceedings.
l l
15 -
Petition at 12-18.
For the reasons discussed below, this factor weighs heavily against Petitioner.
Petitioner uses its participation before this agency as a basis for saying it could contribute to the development of a sound record.
Petition at 17-18. Petitioner points out that it participated in all of the early prehearing conferences and in the first round of hearings in 1982.
I_d. at
- 17. Such allegations of previous participation are not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner can contribute to a sound record at this time. Previous cases have held that Boards will not attach weight to previous participation where the issues were not the same, and there was no indication that Petitioner had contributed to the development of a sound record in the earlier proceeding. ALAB-747, supra, 18 NRC at 1178.
Petitioner alleges it participated in conferences on Contention 5, which is the contention it now seeks to adopt from the previously dismissed proceeding. However, it does not explain exactly what type of conferences it participated in nor what its role was at these conferences as far as Contention 5 is concerned.
Petition at 17. Petitioner also citims to have made a contributton to the record with respect to batch releases of rcdiaticn and ground water.
Id. at 17-18. No details are l
provided as to what that contribution might have been. With respect to Contention 5, Petitioner did not, to the Staff's knowledge, participate in l^
the hearings on the subject of Contention 5 which took place in 1983. To the Staff's knowledge, Petitioner has not actively participated in any of the meetings or other discussions which have taken place since 1983 with R
T
__ respect to the Applicants' Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) or Correc-tive Action programs. Therefore, there is no demonstration in this petition that Petitioner would be able to contribute to the development of a sound record on either quality assurance or corrective action adequacy issues. With respect to the other issues on which Petitioner claims to have coricributed to the record, they do not appear similar' to the issues Petitioner is attempting to raise at this time.
Therefore, Petitioner's participation with respect to those issues should be given no weight in determining whether Petitioner can contribute to the development of a sound record at this time.
In determining whether a given petitioner will be able to contribute to the development of a sound record, it must be determined whether a petitioner has any special expertise on the subject it wishes to raise.
See, ALAB-704, supra, 16 NRC at 1730.
It was incumbent upon Petitioner to set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it wishes to cover, to identify its proposed witnesses and to summarize their testimony, Id.; Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387, 399-400 (1983).
Petitioner should have provided the names of the witnesses it intends to call and provided sufficient detail regarding its witness's testimony so that the Commission could reach a reasoned conclusion as to the worth of the testimony on the contention covered by that testimony. ALAB-747, supra, 18 NRC at 1181.
Petitioner has failed to meet any of these requirements.
Petitioner alleges that it is raising only one contention and that is Contention 5, which was the sole remaining contention in the OL proceeding when the
, Licensing Board dismissed that proceeding. 8/ Apparently as basis 'for this contention, Petitioner alleges that there are still QA/QC deficiencies at Comanche Peak, as shown by various NRC inspection reports.
Petition at 5-6.
Petitioner's first attempt to show that it could contribute to the development of a sound record on Contention 5 centers around a person that Petitioner calls John Doe. Mr. Doe's resume was not presented by Petitioner.
Petitioner merely alleges that this witness has experience in the nuclear industry and that he was formerly employed at the Comanche Peak site.
Petition at 13.
Petitioner gives no time frame for that employment.
Petitioner then goes on to state that John Doe has made allegations of perjury on the part of Applicants' employees, that Appli-cant has falsified some unspecified documents and engineering calcula-tions, and that tnere are "life-threatening safety flaws" at the Comanene Peak site. Id.at12. While Petitioner is very free with allegations, it provides no substantiation at all for such allegations.
Petitioner merely states it will produce some sort of affidavit in 30 to 60 days with 8/
Contention 5 states:
The applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance /
quality control provisions required by tne construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughr.ess testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC) and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 6 50.57(a) necessary for the issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.
Mr. Doe's allegations.
If Petitioner is willing to make alleg1tions at this time, it should be willing to provide the support for these allega-tions now rather than at some future date.
This Petition should be decided on the pleadings filed, and not on promises of filings to come.
The Petitioner has not provided enough of a sunnary of Mr. Doe's testimony to make any sort of conclusion, let alone a reasoned conclusion, about the worth of Mr. Doe's testimony. El Petitioner alleges that this unidentified person was to have been used as a CASE witness at the hearings which were to recommence in the Fall, apparently to testify about a previous breakdown in QA/QC, While this person may have believed this to be the case, to the Staff's knowledge no party had finalized its list of witnesses, since the issues with respect to each of the areas of the corrective action activities had not yet been specified.
In addition, none of the parties had yet made it clear what, if any, witnesses would be presented on historical QA/QC
-9/
Petitioner claims, again without any support, that Mr. Doe refused a settlement offer because he would have had to sign an agreement which would he.ve prohibited him from appearing before the Licensing Board.
Petition at 13.
Petitioner seems to believe that this unsupported statement should give this propcsed witness some credibility with the body ruling on this petition.
It should not.
It is easy for Petitioner to make such assertions without having to produce this unidentified person or any details about this alleged agreement. At the prehearing conference counsel both for CASE and the Applicants made it quite clear that none of the people involved in the settle-ment of their individual claims were precluded from bringing concerns to tne NRC.
See, Prehearing Conference, Tr. 25,257, 25,268.
Peti-tioner has not demonstrated why Mr. Doe should have been treated differently.
In addition, it would have been absurd for anyone to propose such an agreement in connectinn with the proposed settlement, since the proceedings were to be dismissed and there would be no Licensing Board hearing testimony. Petitioner's statement on this matter should be totally disregarded.
issues.
Therefore, the mere belief on the part of this person that he was to have been a witness on some issue does not in any way demonstrate that his testimony would have been used or, if used, would have had credibility before the Licensing Board. E To support its argument that Petitioner will be able to contribute to a sound record, Petitioner next alleges that it was approached by an unidentified Brown & Root employee with allega-tions of mismanagement.
Petition at 13.
Once again, no particular allegation in that area is set forth. Petitioner also does not indicate how such an allegation relates to what it says is its only contention.
Petitioner next alleges that this person indicated that Kapton insulation was used throughout the Comanche Peak plant and that it can cause fire around electrical wiring.
I_d.
Petitioner does not give any information concerning the qualification of this person to address this issue. Nor does Petitioner even indicate that this person will be a witness for Petitioner on this issue. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated the special expertise in this area to aid it in satisfying Factor (iii). b Petitioner next alleges that allegations of two whistleblowers made in 1988 have never been made public and that they must be made public for 10/ Like other statements in this retition, Petitioner's statement that
~
Mr. Doe's allegations have in some part been validated by the NRC must be disregarded.
Petitioner has not indicated which of Mr. Doe's i
purported allegations have been validated.
The Staff was not, until recently, aware of an alleger called John Doe. Since the Petition does not set forth Mr. Doe's specific allegations, this statement should not be considered in determining whether Petitioner has made the requisite showing under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1)(iii).
-11/ It should be noted that this issue is already being followed by the Staff both generically and at Comanche Peak.
See, IE Information Notice 87-08, "Degraded Motor Leads in Limitorque DC Motor Operators," (February 4,1987); Inspection Report 50-445/88-52 and 50-446/88-48 at 6 (Item 4.a).
t the community to be informed. M.at13-14. Neither the names of the whistleblowers nor the time frame of the allegations are specified nor the relevance of their concerns to the proposed contention. H. This vague statement provides no basis on which the conclusion could be drawn as to whether Petitioner could contribute to the development of a sound record.
Petitioner next focuses its attention on the issue of hydrostatic testing and claims that this testing must be redone.
Petition at 14, Petitioner claims that this issue shows a continuing lack of quality control at Comanche Peak.
Petitioner bases its statements on verbal contacts it has had with a Mr. James Sutton, a former NRC employee.
Petition at 15.
Petitioner does not indicate that Mr. Sutton will be Petitioner's witness in the event Petitioner's request to intervene is granted.
Petitioner has not set forth any testimony that Mr. Sutten proposes to give. As Petitioner notes, an allegation concerning the validity of the hydrostatic testing has been made to the NRC, Petition at 14. The Staff is in the process of addresting this allegation. See, Inspection Report 50 445/88-24 and 50-446/88-21.
Detitioner has failed to indicate why the manner in which the Staff is addressing the hydro-static testing concorns is inadequate.
Petitior.er has failed to show any special expertise in this a ea, and thus has not showr. how it will be able to contribute to the development cf a sound n.ccid on the issue of the validity of hydrostatic testing.
Petitioner also points to some unresolved items and open items in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/88-34 and 50-446/88-30 as basis for saying a pattern of QA deficiencies still exists at Comanche Peak.
Petition at 15.
E
s Petitioner has not made any attempt to show any special expertise on this issue.
It merely cites to the inspection report.
Indeed, Petitioner does not explain in what way the issues raised in this inspection recort demonstrate a pattern of QA deficiencies.
Since Petitioner has no witnesses in these areas to present, nor has it shown any other special expertise in this area, it has not shown any ability to contribute to the development of a sound record on this issue.
Finally, Petitioner alleges as an issue that information long known about the integrity of the welds in the spent fuel pool liner has not been adequately addressed. Petition at 16.
Petitioner bases this allegation apparently upon some information it received at Mme time from an uniden-tified welder and a former QA/QC inspector.
I_d.
Petitioner does not state that it intends to call these people as witnesses.
Petitioner does not summa rize what their testimony would be or tell anything about their qualifications to present such testimony.
Both the Staff and the Appli-l cants have addressed this issue.
See, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
NUREG-0797, Supp. do. 11 (May 1985); "Safety Evaluation Report Related l
to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
1 NUREG-0797, Supp. No.10 (April 1985); Results Report Issue Specific Action Plan (ISAP) VII.c "Construction Reinspection /Docunentation Review Plan," Rev. i (December 17,1987), Appendix ?4, "Fuel Pool Liner"; Results Report ISAP VII.a.8, "Fuel Pool Liner Documentation," Rev 1 (November 4, 1986).
Petitioner has not indicated in what respects the way the Appli-cants and Staff have addressed this issue is inadequate.
Petitionet also seems to raise a concern, although exactly what it is talking about is somewhat unclear, about spent fuel remaining on site for i
longer than seven years.
Petition at 17. Petitioner refers to the Brookhaven report as a basis for this concern.
Id.
To the Staff's knowl-edge, there is nothing in the license application that would restrict the time for which fuel could be stored on site to seven years. Petitioner has not indicated what in the Brookhaven report supports its assertion that storage of spent fuel for the life of the plant would result in increased accident consequences. Therefore, if Petitioner is raising this as an issue, it has failed to demonstrate any special expertise in this area which would show that it has an ability to contribute to the develep-ment of a sound record on this issue.
If Petitioner is implying that somehow Applicants will be able to store more than seven years worth of spent fuel in the spent fuel pools at Comanche Peak, there is no basis fcr this claim in the license applica-tion. Applicants have not, at this time, amended their application to allow for more fuel to be stored in the spent fuel pool. Therefore, Petitioner has no basis for such a concern, and has nct demonstrated any ability to contribute to a sound record on this issue.
In addition, Petitioner has not indicated how this issue relates to quality assurance at Comanche Pesk. Tnerefore, Petitioner has failed to denonstrate the special expertise necessary in this area to centribute to the development of a sound record on this issue.
~~
l In sum, though Petitioner has raised a number of general issues it l
would like to have aired in a new proceeding, it has not demonstrated any special expertise with respect to any of them. Therefore, this factor should weigh heavily against granting Petitioner intervenor status.
Petitioner has not provided enough detail about any proposed witness's testimony to allow the Commission to make a reasoned conclusion about the
.c
7: worth of the testimony with respect to any of the issues raised by Petitioner.
F.
Whether Petitioner's Participation llould Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding.
Petitioner contends that its participation would not broaden the issues because it is willing to take the proceeding as it finds it.
Petitioner also argues that the only delay its participation would cause would be the time necessary for it to obtain the affidavit of John Doe.
Petition at 19-20. These arguments are without merit.
As far as broadening the issues is concerned, since the Licensing Board has dismissed the proceeding, granting intervention to Petitioner would be tantamount to starting a whole new proceeding. The mere fact that there would be a new proceeding where there is now no proceeding serves to broaden the issues to be heard.
It is not clear to the Staff that Petition 1Er ir sufficiently familiar with the posture of the proceeding before its dismissal to know what is meant by taking it as it finds it.
Some of the issues Petitioner wishes to raise, such as increased snent fuel storage or the use of Kapton insulation, would result in a broadening of the issues.
It is not clear that the issues Petitioner wishes to raise would, in fact, fall within the ambit of Contention 5.
Therefore, Petitior,er's participation would cause a broadening of the issues to be heard.
As far as delay is concerned, the question to be decided is whether by filing late Petitioner has occasioned a delay in the proceeding that would not have been present had the filing been on time. ALAB-747, supra, 18 NRC at 1180.
Had Petitioner remained in this proceeding it would have, the Staff must suppose, been involved in the events which have taken place since 1982, and would have followed the development of the Applicants' CPRT and correcthe action programs. Petitioner's primary reference to the CPRT and CAP programs is to quote from a CASE newsletter issued in 1987.
See, Petition, Attachment G.
Petitioners failed to refer to the numerous meetings which have taken place since then, or to the numerous documents which have been issued since that time.
Had Petitioner been in the proceeding the whole time, it would now be ready to specify the issues under Contention 5 which relate to the Project Status Reports that have been issued, and to the recently issued supplements to the Staff Safety Evaluation Reports.
If Petitioner were granted leave to intervene at this time and is permitted to adopt Contention 5, there would be a significant delay before litigation of specific issues under Contention 5 could begin.
Therefore, the untimely filing of this Petition would indeed cause delay if the dismissed proceeding were reinstated.
In sum, had Petitioner fulfille:I its intervention responsibilities by remaining in this proceeding, it could have had a voice in whether the proceeding should have been dist.dised and what issues should be heard.
However, it chose not to do so.
To allow Pe';itioner to come in after six years and attempt to start a new proceeding once the 1.ieensing Board has dismissed the longstanding proceeding would certainly result in a broadening of the issues and e delay of the proceeding. Therefore, this factor weighs heavily against the grarting of Petitioner's request to intervene.
A balancing of the five factors weighs heavily in favor of the denial of this Petition. There is no good cause for the extremely late filing of 1
the Petition.
Petitioner has not demonstrated an ability to contribute to the development of a sound record.
Petitioner's participation would serve to broaden the issues to be heard and to delay the proceeding. The other two factors weigh in Petitioner's favor, but in the circumstances of this case should be given far less weight than the other.three.
Based on the e
above discussion, Petitioner's request for intervention and request for hearing should be denied.
G.
Intervention in the CPA Proceeding Should Also be Denied.
CFUR's Petition appears to be directed solely at the Operating License proceeding, although the caption of the case refers to both the Operating License and Construction Permit Amendment proceedings. As stated above, this is another indication that Petitioner does not understand what proceedings were being held with respect to the Comanche Peak facility.
Petitioner ha not attempted to address the five factors of 10 C.F.R.
I 2 714(a) with respect to intervention in the Construction Permit Amendment proceeding.
Therefore, the Petition is defective on its face en:! should be denied out of hand with respect to the CPA proceeding.
Even if one were to assume that Petitioner's discussion of the factors applied to both the CPA and the OL proceedings, it must be concluded that the first, third and fifth factors would weigh heavily against petitioner.
Petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate good cause for its late filing in the CPA proceeding.
Petitioner has not made any mention of the contention that would be admitted in the CPA proceeding and has failed to demonstrate any ability to contribute to a sound record
}
- concerning the construction permit extension. Though no issues have been identified, it is reasonable to assume that issues would be broadened since without intervention there would be no issues to be heard.
In addition, there would be delay, since Petitioner has failed to show any familiarity at all with the status of the CPA proceeding or even what that proceeding is all about.
Even assuming that the other two factors weigh in Petitioner's favor, they should not be given sufficient weight to tilt the overwhelming balance of the other three factors, especially since Petitioner did not even attempt to address them with respect to the CPA proceeding.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner's request for pennission I
I to intervene late in either the Comanche Peak Operating License or the Construction Permit Amendment proceeding should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, weAm nurEL Janice E. Moore Counsel for hRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 31st day of August,1988 i
s 00LMETED UWC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.gg g 3) p2:45 BEFORE THE COMMISSION
[Cb II' !
In the Matter of
)
W ".
1 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, _ET _AL.
)
50-446-0L
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Docket No. 50-445-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION" 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 througn deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 31st day of August, 1988:
Lando W Zech, Jr.*
Thomas M. Roberts
- Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington. 0.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Kenneth M. Carr*
Xenneth C. Rogers
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'J. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission W6shington, D C.
2055S Y.ashington, D.C. 20535 t
Deter B. Bloch, Eso., Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge Presider.t. CASE Atc4nic Safety and f.icensing Board 1426 South Folk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Dellas, TX 7522d Washington, DC 205T5 Susan M. Theisen, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division 1107 West Knapp P.O. Box 12548, Cap'tal Station Stillwater, OK 74075 Austin, TX 78711-1548 Elizabeth B. Johnson Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Administrative Judge Worsham, Forsythe, Samples Oak Ridge National Laboratory
& Wooldridge P.O. Box X, Building 3500 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dallas, TX 75201 l
a.
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Joseph Gallo. Esq.
Administrative Judge Hopkins & Sutter, Suite-1250 881 West Outer Drira 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Oak Ridge, TN 3 K30 Washington, DC 20036 Billie Pirner Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil GAP - Midwest Office Executive Vice President 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue - B Texas Utilities Generating Company Appleton, WI 54911-4897 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 William L. Brown, Esq.*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
611 Ryan Flaza Drive, Suite 1000 Suite 600 Arlington, TX 76011 1401 New York Avenue, Nh Washington, DC 20005 Asst. Director for inspec. Programs Comanche Peak Project Division William H. Burchette. Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mark D. Nozette, Esq.
P.O. Box 1029 "eron, Burchette, Ruckert Granbury, TX 76048
& Rothwell, Suite 700 kashington, DC 20007 Lanny Alan Sinkin Christic Institute James M. McGaughy 1324 North Capitol Street GOS Assoc. Inc.
Washington, DC 20002 1850 Parkway Pl., Suite 720 Marietta, GA 30067 Robert D. Martin
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Cocrd 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Panel (1)
Arlington, TX 76011 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1350 New York Avenue Panel (5)
Washington, DC 20005-4798 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Robert M. Fillmore Suite 100 Worsham, Forsythe, Samples 1615 L Street, N.W.
& Wooldridge Washington, DC 20036 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 I
i 1
Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Adjudicatory File
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board b
Washington, DC 20555 Panel Docket U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Richard Lee Griffin Washington, D.C.
20555 Attorney and Counselor at Law 600 North Main Fort Worth,-Texas 76106-O C_.J\\_.I C O M t)J d Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff r
I
!