ML19289C880
| ML19289C880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1979 |
| From: | Ulman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C879 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901250359 | |
| Download: ML19289C880 (20) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' f trm 'h ._m u:ac 3 ' 'l12 ;g79 >94{f UNITD STATES OF ^" ERICA g g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:1!dSION \\h as e \\"'N, j<;' / BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SCARD ~, _, (. -
- J @ #atter of NRC PUBfIC DOCISIDTI ROOM HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY,)
Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL. ) 50-499 ) (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) k!RC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, IUC. On December 26, 1978, the Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. (Citizens) filed an amendment to its petition for leave to intervene. The amended petition attempts to cure certa'. deficiencies in its showing of interest noted by the parties in their response to the original petition filed by CitizensE and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in its Memorandum and Order dated October 23, 1978.The amended petition also sets forth Citizens' contentions. Below is a discussion of the interest requirements which the Staff previously argued were deficient and a discussion of certain legal principles which the Staff believes should govern consideration of. the contentions and the Staff's position on each of the contentior.. I. INTEREST A. Intervention As A Matter Of Riaht The detemination by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) of E "NRC Staff Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated September 19, 1978, and " Applicant's Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene By Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.", dated September 8,1978. veotasceq
.,J, ether the interests asserted by Citizens entitle it to status as a party is governed by judicial concepts of standing. Edlow Interna-tional Company (Agent for The Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76-6, 3 flRC 563, 570 (1976). Thus, the petitioner must show (1) " injury in fact" and (2) that the interest is " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the relevant statutes. Portland General Electric, et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976). In addition, a petition must sat forth with particularity "the interest of the peti- ~ tioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, * *
- and the specific aspect or aspects of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2). For the reasons set forth below the Staff concludes that Citizens has not satisfied these requirements in any of its filings.
The amended petition contains only broad statements of interest. It describes in general the interests of Citizens' members in "providing education and influencing policy regarding issues surrounding the use of nuclear power." This statement is not specific enough to satisfy the requi rements noted above. Certain other statements of interest can be characterized as " health" and " economic" interests. Citizens has attemp-ted to establish " health" interests by showing that the residence of certain members is within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products. The petition states that at least four members of Citizens reside within twenty-five miles of the South Texas Project (STP). It has been held that a finding of interest
_2 sy b2 based on residence,sithin tscrty ilva ilet of t:a ple^t. ^ lf u Sjates 'Jtilities Conranv (River Eend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAE-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974). However, the attached a'fidavit identified only three members who reside within twenty-five miles of STP. Also, there is only the affidavit of Coral Ryan, the signatory of the petition, attesting to such residence. The identified members provide no such af fidavi t. The other assertions based on " health" concerns are insufficient to establish requisite interest. On page one of the petition, Citizens merely states that: ~ "CCANP is concarned that its members may be subject to unnecessary risk of life to and/or property from accident or ordinary operation of. the South Texas Nuclear Project and that the danger of exposure to radiation will be greatly increased by the escape of radon gas from the reactor, leaks in the transport and/or storage of fuel and wastes, and human errors in the handling of radioactive material." "CCANP is also concerned that mistakes and delays in construction which have occurred will affect the operating safety of STNP..." This is basically a restatement of. broad assertions contained ', Citi-zens original petition. These allegations, even as expanded in the amended petition, do not present an interest which would support Inter-vention. First of all, there is no detail witn respect to the allega-tion regarding the escape of radon gas from the reactor. Secondly, with respect to transportation of fuel and wastes, the NRC Staff Response of September 19, 1978, pointed out that the Department of Transportation has primary responsibility for accidents which occur while radioactive materials are in transit. Memorandum of Understanding: Transpo rtation of Radioactive Materials, U.S. Department of Transportation - U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Section V.A., 38 Fed. Reg. 8466 (April 2, 1973). Also, this allegation is predicated on the tenuous assumption
_4-th3t radioactive fuel and wastes will te transported near the residence of the three members out of the one hundred and t.ienty Citizens members who Citizens states reside near STP and that an accident might occur in the area proximate to their places of residence. These particular allegations based on " health interests" are entirely speculative in nature and are predicated on tenuous assumptions. As such, they must be rej ected. See Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. (Nuclear Fuel Discovery and Recycling Center) LBP-77-59, 6 NRC 518, 519-20 (1977). In so far as Citizens asserted " economic" interests are concerned, the petitien states that mistakes and delays in construction of STP will increase the economic burden on its members. This same allegation was made in Citizens' original petition. As stated in the NRC Staff Res-ponse to that petition, the " economic" interest asserted by Citizens is that of a ratepayer. It is established that the interest of a ratepayer is not originally within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act and that ratepayer status will not confer star; ding as of right in NRC licensing proceedings. Portland General Electric, et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-376, 5 NRC 426, 428 (1977). Thus, if Citizens is seeking to establish the organization's standing as of right to participate in this proceeding, it must set forth with particularity the interest of its members in this proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. Viewing Citizens' assertions in theic best light, the organization appears to
.E. have a general interest in the use of naclur power and an small mt:r of -;.:.bers, 3 or 4 out of approxi.nately 120, who reside aithin the geo-graphical zone that night be affected by an accidental release of fis-sion products. With respect to the 3 or 4 members residing near STP, Citizens amended petition contains only general assertions of interest concerning " health" and " economic" interests. Another Licensing Board has held that such general assertions of interest are not sufficient to confer standing Virginia Electric and Power Company, (North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-338 SP, 50-339 SP, Licensing Board Order dated December 8, 1978. Further, Citizens' amended petition fails to state with particularity how it or its members will suffer any " injury in fact" if the South Texas facility is licensed to operate. Failure to make such a showing has been held as grounds for denial of standing. Allied General Nuclear Services et al. (Barnwell Fuel Re-ceiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 402, 422 (1976).
- Thus, Citizens has not established standing as an organization.
On the other hand, if Citizens is seeking to establish standing in a representative capacity of some of its members, it must identify speci-fically the name and address of at least on affected member who wishes to be represented by the organization and show that the member i.as authorized the organization to act on his behalf. Citizens have merely supplied the names and addresses of 3 mertars who reside within the geographical zone of interest. There is no showing that these indi-viduals desire to have Citizens represent their interest or that they
_[_ adopt and support tne contentions advanced by Ci tizens. c.f. De,troit Edison Ccmsany et al. (Enrico Fenni Ate:aic Power Plant, Unit 2) Licen-sing Board Order dated January 2,1979. Thus, Citizens has not estab-lished standing in a representative capacity. 8. Intervention As A Matter Of Discretion The amended petition attempts to cure the defects noted in the NRC Staff Response of September 19, 1978, re'ating to intervention as a matter of discretion. Citizens attempts to establish that certain of its members ~ possess expertise that will enable it to make a substantial contribution to developing a sound record. See Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977). One of the affidavits of Coral Ryan attached to the petition lists seven Citizens members and their educational' and employment background. It is not evident that these members will make a valuable contribution on sig-nificant issues appropriately addressed in the proceeding. Watts Bar, suora. First.of all, with respect to Golfrey Connally, who is stated to hava degrees in economics, it should be noted that none of the contentions set forth in the petition specifically relate to economic issues. Therefore, there is no showing that Mr. Connally can make a contribution to this proceeding. The value of participation by Philip Haves, who is listed as having expertise in solar energy, is also not evident. Solar energy could be considered an alternative to nuclear power. However, discussion of
, alta nativc: Es 7.pprcpri2tely cor:derd at tb c ce r P.::"r ~ ~it (CP) s tage.2 Also, none of Citizens' contenticns relate to consid-eration of alternatives to STP. Ci tizens ' petition has not demonstrated how Mr. Haves could be expected to make a substantial contribution to any significant issue appropriate for consideration at the operating license (OL) stage. Sydney Janak is described as having a master's degree in history. It is doubtful that such an individual would possess any expertise in nuclear power, although it is stated that he presented a paper on " Nuclear Waste." It is the Staff's opinion that there is not sufficient showing that Mr. Janak has relevant knowledge or experience which would allow him to provide a substantial contribution to examination of any issues related to radioactive waste. Also, as discussed below, it is the Staff's position that the contention in Citizens' amended petition concerning radioactive waste should not be admitted in this proceeding. ~ s Likewise, there is no evidence that Lanney A. Sinkin, who is described as the past Executive Director of the Urban Coalition of Metropolitan San Antonio, has expertise in any matters appropriate for consideration at the operating license stage. -2/ A full environmental review, including consideration of alternatives to STP, was conducted at the construction permit stage. Houston Lichtina & Power Comoany, et al. (South Texas Project Nuclear Gen-erating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-7446, 2 NRC 271, 295-296 (1975). An operating license proceeding is not a forum to relitigate issues decided at the construction pennit stage. Alabama Power Company (Josepn M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974). Consequently, in this case a discussion of alterna-tives to STP is appropriate only to the extent it differs from that presented at the construction pennit stage or is based upon informa-tion which has become available since that time. See e.o., Watts Bar, supra at 1422 n.5 (citing 10 CFR 51.42).
. "s. Op n, .i.h a da ywe m r.a rf. n g, h n : indi:a nc no :.?ert ce.. mica .ould suoport a finding that she has a substantial contr;bution to.;ake in the examination of tne issues raised by Citizens' contentions. These contentions primarily pose questions about safety-related aspects of STP construction as opposed to questions of physical well-being, which a person trained in nursing may be qualified to explore. The only con-tention related to any area in which a person with a degree in nursing may have expertise is Contention 5. However, this contention is just a broad allegation that STP will present an undue risk to the health of members in the vic'inity of the plant. As explained below, it is ques-tionable whether this contention as drafted meets the ". specificity and ~~ basis" requirements of 10 CFR s 2.714(b). Mr. Campos is described as a " student in environmental studies." There is no in'dication of the extent of his education or expertise in this fi el d. An expert in environmental studies may be capable of making a contribution to issues appropriate for consideration in a proceeding related to an application for an operating license. The only conten-tions upon which an expert in environmental studies may be able to make a substantial contribution, are Contentions 5 and 6, which relate to ~ effects of radioactive releases on the environment and waste disposal. As explained below, it is the Staff's position that Contentions 5 and 6 are not admissible in this proceeding. Further, even if these conten-tions were found admissible, the petition does not present a sufficient showing of expertise on the part of Mr. Campos, to justify discretionary intervention.
.g_ Hmt3n
- ade,.'t.D., Ph.D., is described as a practicing physician who is "a Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio" and a "research scientist with seven years of full time research experience using radionuclides (radioactive isotopes) in biological systems."
It is possible that he could make a substantial contribution to Citizens' contention that NRC's estimates of casualties from a major accident releasing radioactive material are low (Contention
- 4).
Similarly, he may have relevant knowledge or experience which would allow him to make a contribution to examination of the effects on the health of Citizens' members due to radioactive emissions in the vicinity of STP (Contention #5) and waste disposal (Contention #6). For the reasons provided in our discussion of contentions, it is the Staff's opinion that the Contentions (4, 5 and 6) which Dr. Wade may be quali-fied to address must be rejected. Accordingly, if the Staff's position with respeci; to these contentions is upheld, there will be no ba-sis to conclude that Dr. Wade can make a contribution to this proceeding. ~ ~ The crucial question, of course, is whether the Citizens' petition presents a sufficient showing of the ability of Citizens' members to provide a substantial contribution on a significant safety or envi-ronmental issue appropriate for consideration at the operating license stace. Watts Bar, suptc. rt is the opinion of the NRC Staff, as dis-cussed below, that none of the contentions set out in Citizens' amended petition cresents an issue appropriate for consideration at the oper-ating license stage. Accordingly, the Board has no basis for exercising its authority to grant intervention on a discretionary basis.
CO:;iENTIONS As a general precept, contentions cust fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice of Hearing (Notice of Hearing) in this proceeding (43 Fed. Reg. 9844)1/ and be set forth with basis and specificity per the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. See, e.g., Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley, Unit No.1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island, Units Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff'd., BPI v. Atomic Eneray Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974). In addition, the Appeal Board has twice indicated that special care should be taken at the operating license stage, when a hearing is not mandatory, to assure that an asserted contention raises an issue clearly open to adjudication. Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974) and Cincinnati Gas - ~ and Electric Company (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976). STATEMENT OF POSITION Contentions 1 and 2 In these contentions Citizens exresses a general concern that the re-quest by the applicant for an OL is premature and asserts that "the current hearing for the request abould be delayed until the construction 5/ These issues include those arising under the Atomic Energy Act (specifically, those specified in 10 CFR s 50.35 of the Commis-sion's regulations promulgated thereunder) and the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (specifically, those specified in 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations promulgated thereunder) as relevant to operating license application.
of STP is more advanced." Contention 2 asserts that the request for an OL is premature because of certain alleged mistakes in construction of STP which are enumerated in sections (a) through (g) of Contention 2. Since these contentions generally raise the same concerns, they will be treated together for purposes of NRC Staff's response. With respect to Contention 1, it should be noted that a determination on whether and when to hold a hearing on the application for an OL for STP (which was filed with NRC on August 24,1977) has not yet been made. The duration of any such hearing cannot be established at this time. In any event, an OL will not be granted unless there is a finding that construction of the facilities is "substan?.ially complete." 10 CFR 50.75(a). The Commission will consider the issuance of operating licenses upon: (1) The completion of a favorable safety evaluation on the application by the Commission's staff; (2) the completion of the environmental review required by the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51; (3) the receipt of a report on the applicants' application for facility operating licenses by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and ~ (4) a findint by the Commission that the application for the facility lictoses, as amended, complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the act), and the Commi;sion's regu-lations in 10 CFR Chapter I. Prior to issuance of any operating licenses, the Commission will inspect the facilities to determine whether they have been constructed in accor-dance with the application, as amended, and the provisions of the con-
.. struction pennits. In addition, the'licences will not be issued until the Commission has nade the findings reflecting its review of the application under the act, which will be set forth in the proposed licenses, and has concluded that the issuance of the licenses will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public., Upon issuance of the licenses, the applicants will be required to execute an indemnity agreement as required by section 170 of the act and 10 CFR Part 140 of the Commission's regulations. In general, thus, the request for an OL is not premature since the OL 4 will not be granted until the above requirements are met. Petitioner seemr to confuse " granting of an OL" with " filing an application for an OL." The initiation of a proceeding as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed is in keeping with the early notice pro-cedures of the Commission's regulations (10 CFR ?.104(c)) These contentions express a general concern with the adequacy of the quality control during the construction of STP, Units 1 and 2. The Commission's regulations, specifically Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, sets forth the requirements for gaality assurance programs for nuclear power reactors. To the extent that Contentions 1 and 2 assert that these requirements have not been catisified by the Applicant during construc-tion of the STP, Units 1 and 2, the NRC Staff believes that these con-tentions may be adr.iissible in this proceeding. However, the contentions as drafted fail to meet the " specificity and basis" requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b). Although Contention 2 contains examples of alleged mistakes in construction of STP, in order to satisfy these requirements,
.. the petitioner mJst specify the requirements of appendix ! .t have not been satisfied by the Applicant, and indicate Tor each assertion the reason petitioner believes the Applicant has not satisfied the par-ticular requirement. Contention 3 In this contentien, Petitoner asserts that its membars are in jeopardy due to possible design defects in the Westinghouse pressurized water reacto rs. Citizens initial petition also raised such concerns but did not provide any details bearing upon over-pressurization of the pressure vessel. The Commission has held that pressure-vessel matters may be considered only upon a showing of "special ci-cumstances." E.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Unit No. 2) CLI-72-29, 5 NRC 20 (1972); Consumers Power Co (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 336 (1973). Citizens relies, in its amended petition, on descrip-tions of the over-pressurization problem and indicates that there have been a number of past PWR pressure transients at other facilities. However, the Commission has held that the special circumstances must involve "a particular facility in issue" Indian Point Supra. There has been no showing of special circumstances with regard to the pressure vessels at the Scutn Texas facility and therefore, this contention must be rejected.
~ Cct.tention 4 In this contention, Citizens alleges that certain NRC estimates of casualties resulting from "a major accident releasing radioactive mater-ial" are low. In part (a) of tnis contention Citizens cites certain estimates from WASH-1400. Citizens has not demonstrated the relevance of the cited WASH-1400 estimates to consideration of the application for an OL for STP. Therefore, the Staff is of the opinion that there is no basis for this contention and that it should not be admitted. Contention 4(b) consists of a request that the applicant present "the evacuation plan for the twenty-mile radius of STNP and indicate what steps it has taken to inform the public of this plan." ..iis contention appears to imply that the Applicant is required to cresent an evacuation plan covering a twenty-mile radius to STP. In this regard, it should be noted that the Applicant, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(v), has submitted in its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) plans for coping with emergencies as required by Commission regulations. The Apnlicant has developed plans for evacuating persons within the Low Population Zone (LPZ). Absent specific reference to these plans and how such plans fail to satisfy Commission regulations establishing the required contents of such plan (see Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50), this contention must fail for lack of the requisite specificity and basis. Also, it should be ncted that under currently effective Commission regulations, an applicant need not formulate an emergency plan for areas outside the LPZ. New England Power Company,et al. (NEP Units 1 and 2) and Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-390, 5 NEC 733, 747 (1977). To the ext'nt that
.5-this :entention alls;es any deficiencies of the applicant's ener:ency planning beyond the LPZ, such contention would also have to be rejected. Even under the Commission's proposed rule for facility emergency plan-ning, 43 Fed. Reg. 37473 (August 23,1978) there would be no basis for exploring the necessity for an emergency plan beyond the LPZ absent par-ticular information why such a plan would be warranted. (Fermi 2, Supra. Order at 12) Citizens has provided no such information in their amended peti tion. Contention S Citizens asserts in this contention that STP will present an undue risk to the health of members in the STP area due to uncertainty as to the amounts and types of radioactive materials to be released into the envi-ronment. It is not correct that there is uncertainty as to the radioactive efflu-ents from STP. The Staff has provided estimates of the types and amounts of radioactive effluents which will be releaaed from STP. In par-ticular, such estimates are found in Sec. 5.4, " Radiological Impacts" (p. 5-11) of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the STP Con-struction Permit (CP). The Staff will reassess these estimates in the FES prepared in connection with the operating license for STP. With respect to emissions of radioactive materials, STP will be required to adhere to the standards in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 20. 3
.r-This cantantion assumes that tvere is a risk tc the heal;, of ^ tizens ' . umbers residing in the vicinity of STP because of an alleged lack of data relating to radioactivity released from normal operatin of STP. Since such data exists, there is ro basis for this contention. If this contention is alleging that Part 20 and Appendix I standards are inappropriate, the contention would constitute an impermissible chal-lenge to Commission regulations. Under 10 CFR 2.758, the Commission has withheld jurisdiction from Licensing Boards to entertain attacks on the validity of Commission regulations in individual licensing pro-ceedings except in "special circumstances." Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-89 (1974). Citizens has not alleged any particularized "special circumstances" that identify how these radiation protection standards would not serve the purpose for which they were adopted with respect to STP. In view of the foregoing, this contention should be rej ected.
- e. -
Contention 6 This contention asserts that STP should not be licensed until the prob-lems of final disposal of waste is resolved. A method for the storage of nuclear wastes such as spent fuel is a " generic" issue which is applicable to the nuclear industry as a whole. As a general rule, a true generic issue should not be considered in individual licensing pre-ceedings, but should be handled in a rule-making. See e.o., Duke Power Co. (William 8. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-128, 6 AEC 299, 400-401 (1973); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham' Nuclear
.,, Po..er Station), ALAB-99, 6 AEC 53, 55-55 (1973). See also, Natural Rescurces Defense Council v. NPC, 547 F.2d 633, 641 n.17 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. aranted, 97 S. Ct.1098 (1977). In Northern States Power Concany (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 at 45 (1978), it was held that neither the Staff nor the Licen-sing Board need concern itself with the matter of theultimate disposal of spent fuel in light of the Commission's implicit finding (42 Fed. Rec. 34391) that there was reasonable assurance that methods of safe pemanent disposal of high-level wastes can be available when they are needed. Based on the foregoing, this contention should be rejected. CONCLUSION For the reasorc, stated above, the Sta' urges the Board to find that Citizens has not established standing or stated oneadmissible con-tention. Accordingly, the Board should deny Citizens' request to be admitted as Intervenor in this proceeding. Respectfully submitted, y
- 6. WA a.~
Marjorie B. Ulman Counsel for NRC Stafi Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of January,1979
\\\\ Os c /' b exxm> usun 1";ITED t'T/ TES 6F <* 'ERIC.i j p y 1 2 }g 7 9 > [1'; hCCLEAR MEGUL/.'IO.hi COM'ISSION Y I ,A Q'f'"'Clff [/fsEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 'y , '.0/ sana 'r f NRC PUBhIC DOCUMENT ROOM HO a N LIGHIING AND POWER COMPANY,) Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL. ) 50-499 ) (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is herehy given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter. In accordance with 8 2.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided: Name Marjorie B. Ulman Address U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Telephone Number Area Code 301 - 492-8659 Admission Supreme Court of the State of Florida Name of Party NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ficakCu 0 Ub'd'" Marjorie B. Ulman Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of January, 1979
e UNITED STATES OF NdERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY,) Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL. ) 50-499 ) (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY DAVID MARKE"; "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED PETI-TION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY CITIZENS CONCERNFD ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC." and "NOTICI 0F APPEARANCE" for Marjorie B. Ulmati in the above-captioned proceeding have 'seen served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first clars, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of January, 1979: Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Jack R. Newman, Esq. 313 Woodhaven Road Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke* Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel D. Michael McCaughan, Member U.S. Nucle.r Regulatory Commission The Environmental Task Force Washington, D. C. 20555 KPFT Pacifica Radio Free Hoitston 3131 Timmons Ln. Apt. 254 Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq. Houston, Texas 77027 Baker and Botts One Shell Plaza atomic Safety and Licensing Board Houston, Texas 77002 Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coral Fase Ryan Washington, D.C.
20555 Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 414 Kings Court, Apt. C Panel (5)* San Antonio, Texas 78212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. David Marke 3904 Warehouse Row Suite C Austin, Texas 78704
' Docketing and Service Section (3)* Office of the Secretary U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4 g .llYciju d 9I l . 4,,g;/:/ Henry J. McGurren Ci;nsel for imC Staff e 0 ,mm* = *}}