ML20024F905
| ML20024F905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1990 |
| From: | Mcgranery J, Rossin A DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCES CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F896 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 9012270127 | |
| Download: ML20024F905 (44) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
o
, a r L ;i(*
NC BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 KN 14 P4 :03
)
3':Ci : * ? L as i:s e
In the Matter of
)
MM W 4 'iGRf u t. m. a
)
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment )
USNRC Docket No.:
To Facility Operating License and
)
50-312 (OLA)
Proposed No Significant Hazards
)
Consideration Determination and
)
Opportunity for Hearing Sacramento
)
Municipal-Utility District
)
(Defueled Operating
)
License) (55 Ted.-Reg. 41280,
)
October 10, 1990)
)
)
I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION'S COMMENT ON PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS-CONSIDERATION AND-i PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE ANL_REOUEST FOR PRIOR HEARING On October 10, 1990 the~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
("NRC") announced that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
("SMUD"),' full-power licensee'of,the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (" Rancho Seco"), had applied for a license amendment to " remove.the licensee's authority to operate the Rancho Seco facility."
$5 Fed. Reg. 41280 (1990).
The requested
- license amendment would allow SMUD to " possess, use, but not operate" the Rancho Seco' facility.-- Id.
SMUD states that granting'this: amendment " involves no significant hazards consideration."
The-NRC-staff states that it " agrees with the licensee's analysis."
The proposed amendment would delete many of the licence conditions contained-in the license and the remaining license I-conditions would be reworded to disallow-operation.
The proposed
")\\$0 9012270127 901100 PDR -ADOCK 05000312 O
~..
_.. _.....,. _ _ _.~._.. _,_ _,,,... _. _. _,. _.. _.
k
}
-2 amendment would also allow sweeping changes to the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection P'sn.
The Notice explains that "The Commission is seeking public coraents on this proposed determination" and provides that any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding a:.4 who wishes to particir to as a party in the proceed (ng must file a written petition for leave to intervene.
It also states:
"The Consission will not normally rake a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing."
RQF2ENTS ON PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DITERMINATIOS Environmental Conservation Organization ("ECO") hereby submits coraents in opposition to the proposed no significant hazards determination made in connection with the proposed
" possession-only" amendment.
The proposed no significant hazards determination is inappropriate in this case.
Issuance of the " possession-only" amendment or any portion thereof on an iraediately effective basis would violate both the coraission's own decommissioning regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
On June 17, 1988, the Coraission issued a Final Rule amending its decommissioning regulations.
Ett General Requirements for Decoraissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018 (June 27, 1988).
In the Statement of Consideration section of that rule, the Commission addresses the " Licensing scheme for decommissioning."
M. at 24024. Responding to commenters'
,w -
_s
.g-Rx queries regarding the type of license in effect during decommissioning, the Commission stated that it will follow its customary procedures, set out I
in 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC Rules of
\\
Practice, in amending Part 50 licenses to implement the decommissioning process.
accordina to the amendments (of the decommissioning regulations), the overall approach to decommissignina must now be approved shortly af ter the end of operation rather than an amended "cossession oniv" Part 50 license beino issued without clans for i
ultimate dignosition.
I Id. (emphasis added)
Thus, the Commission has interpreted its own rules to require approval of a decommissioning plan " shortly after the end of operation" and to creclude issuance of a
" possession-only" in the absence of an approved plan for the
" ultimate disposition" of the facility in question.
SKUD har. stated that it will never again operate Rancho Seco.
SHUD is legally prevented from operating the plant by the terms of a voters initiative.
However, that initiative only prevents EHUD from oparating Rancho Seco; it does not preclude the sale of the plant to another entity for operation or other arrangement under which another entity could operate Rancho Saco.
In fact, extended negotiations have been held by the SKUD Board of Directors with one prospective company for this exact purpose.
While that proposal was rejected by the SMUD Board, there is nothing that precludes the Board from soliciting such proposals again or from receiving an unsolicited proposal for its consideration.
a l The political atmosphere in Sacramento is currently characterized by disinterest in the issue of electric power for the future.
There is no spirited public debate on the potential importance of the future availability of Rancho Seco.
- However, as this document shows below, Eco contends that the underlying facts about the energy future of this region are such that Rancho Seco would be of extreme importance and value in tne years ahead.
A premature decision to issue a " possession-only" license for Rancho Seco could preclude important options with cignificant positive economic and environmental impacts.
SMUD's current efforts to decommission the plant and surrender the operating license would likely result in short-term actions which could prevent effective reversal of these actions, and preclude reasoned decisionmaking in the immediate future.
A principal NRC regulation governing reactor decommissioning is 10 C.F.R. 50.82.
Section 50.82 provides that an application "for authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to decommission the facility "munt be made within two years following permanent cessation of operations" and "(elach application for termination of license must be accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed decommissioning plan."
10 C.F.R.
i 50.82(a) (1990).
Subsection (e) of FGction 50.82 states that:
If the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the
o e common defense and security or to the health j
and safety of the public, and after notice to interested persons, the commission will approve the plan subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and issue an order authoririna the decommissionina.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.82(e) (1990) (emphasis added).
Thr.u, a decommissioning order follows, or is contempora.ieous with,
)
approval of the decommissioning plan.
As noted above, the commission he.s explained that "the overall approach to decommissioning must now be approved shortly after the end of operation rather than after an amended
' possession only' part 50 license being-issued without plans for ultimate disposition."
Section 50.82 effectuates this "overall approach."
Thus, until "olans for fthel ultimate diseosition" of the Rancho Seco facility are crocerly accroved, the issuance of n "cossession-oniv" license is cremature.
Moreover, the issuance of'a no significant hazards determination does not allow the Commisalon to ignore the dictates of its own duly established regulations.
The " ultimate dispecition" of the Rancho Seco facility has not yet been determined: and any such determination would be invalid unless made after preparation, and proper consideration,
-of a final EIS-on.the overall decommissioning proposal.
l The commission cannot legally approve any decommissioning plan until it has prepared an environmental impact statement ("EIS") evaluating the impacts of, and l.
, ~.,.
..e...
-,._.-._.,..,,....,.c
,--,.,.~,,._,,e
. alternatives to, not only the " decommissioning plan," which represents only the final steos in the ongoing decommissioning scheme, but also the overall decision whether to allow decommissioning of the plant.
In other words, an adequate EIS in this instance car.not be limited to an examination of the environmental impacts of, or alternatives to, the method chosen for dealing with residual radiation at the plant since an attempt e
to so limit the scope of the EIS would constitute illegal segmentation of the proposal to decommission Rancho Seco.
Rather, because Rancho Seco has not reached the end of its useful life or suffered an accident, an EIS must be prepared in this case which evaluates the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to the plAD to decommission Rancho Seco, and not just those of the method of finally accomplishing decommissioning.
A final determination that the proposed " possession-only" amendment poses no significant hazards, therefore, is premature.
The amendment itself cannot even be considered until
~
the ultimate disposition of the plant has been formally proposed and approved.
And the ultimate disposition of the plant cannot be approved without the preparation of an EIS evaluating the impacts of the proposed disposition and the alternatives to that disposition including operation or preservation.
I
O PETI'llON POR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REOUEST FOR PRIOR HEARING Environmental Conservation Organization
("ECO" or
" Petitioner") represents itself and some of its members who would be adversely affected by this proposed amendment and, therefore, pursuant to section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules, requests that it be granted leave to intervene as a party and that a hearing be held to consider the merits of the proposed amendment.
ECO vicws this Amendment as one part of the larger proposal to decommission Rancho Seco.
Each stop in the decommissioning proposal that moves Rancho Seco closer to a fully decommissioned state and further away from full-power operational status violates the dictates of the 1.tomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended ("AEA"), 42 U.S.C. I 2011 21 Eng. (1988), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C.
l 4331 gi ggg. (1988).
Thus, while the issues presented herein directly relate to the request for a " possession-only" amendment, they necocsarily include other unlawfully segmented actions taken and/or proposed by SMUD, and approved the NRC Staff, in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme.
ECO contends that EMUD is taking the initial steps in a course of action aimed at decommissioning the Rancho Seco facility in violation of the terms of its operating license, the Commission's regulations, the AEA, and NEPA.
l i
2.
INTEREST OF PETITIONER AND THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE i
As the NRC Staff has stated the applicable law: To W
determine whether a petitioner has sufficient interest to 2
intervene in a proceeding, the commission has held that a licensing board may apply judicial concepts of standing. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
A petitioner must show that the action sought in the proceeding will cause an injury in fact, end that the injury is within the zone of interests protected by the AEA and/or the NEPA.
Id. at 613-614; Niacara Mohawk Power Coro., 11 A1. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
LBp-83-45,'18 NRC 213, 215 (1983).
In addition, a petitioner must establish: (1) that it personally has-suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes an injury in fact; (2) that the injury can be traced to the challenged action; and (3) that the injury is i
likely to be remedied by a favorable decision granting the relief sought.
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C.-Cir. 1988); mas A1Ag Nuclear Encineerina Co., 'Inc.,
(Sheffield Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).
- 1N) establish injury in fact for standing, a petitioner-must have a "real stake," that is, a genuine or direct interest in the outcome, and the law allows standing even if that interest is thought by others not to be a substantial one.
Houston
.. _ - ~..
a s Lichtina and Pover Co., gi gl. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 447-48 (1979).
EC01# meets all of the criteria for standing in this matter.
ECO and its members are threatened with distinct i
injuries in fact as a direct consequence of the proposed amendment.
These injuries are within the zone of interests protected by both the AEA and NEPA and can be remedied by a favorable decision.
The'AEA guarantees any interested person a hearing in any reactor licensing action which may affect the health and
. safety _of the petitioner.
42 U.S.C. I 2239 (1988).
Without the o
application of full-power license conditions, Technical l
-Specifications, and NRC regulat!.ans and guidance, SMUD, and any future licensee, would be free both to allow the facility to deteriorate.and-to actively dismantle the systems which are vital tofan operating-facility.
The key point here is that Rancho Seco's l
decommissioning is nat-a foregone conclusion.
While SMUD q
currently wishes-to proceed with decommissioning of Rancho Seco, the NRC has yet to formally approve any decommissioning plan.
Approval of such a plan is a major rederal action, certainly one -
of more impact _and significance that many other actions which j
have been so categorized.
Thus, before any-such approval may; I
- issue, the NRC must complete an Environmental Impact Statement l'
-As used herein, "ECO" and " Petitioner" include its members whose personal and property interests ECO seeks to represent.
i
)
. EIS which includes consideration of the alternative of operating Rancho Seco and the alternative of "no action" (or denial of the application).
The Commission, in a Memorandum and order dated October 17, 1990, (Docket No. 50-322, CLI-9 0-08 ) in the matter of the Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, states that:
"After due consideration, we have determined that HEPA and the AEA of 1954, as amended, do not require the NRC to consider " resumed operation" as an alternative, at least under the facts of this case."
Without commenting on the Commission's decision in this memorandum, a decision which the Commission specifically indicates required "due consideration" and therefore was not reached without debate, ECO suggests that.the facts of the Rancho Seco case were indeed very different from that of Shoreham and, therefore, the reasoning in tnat matter, even if valid, cannot be applied directly to Rancho Seco.
As stated above, the itaitiative only limited SMUD's role in operating Rancho Seco, and negotiations for another entity to buy and/or. operate it could be undertaken at any time, when parties feel that the time is ripe and that the economics, the need for non-fossil fueled electric power generation, or other environmental considerations appear to point toward reconsideration of future Rancho Seco operation.
ECO contends that such conditions are likely to exist, and may well exist at the present time.
In fact, the economic analyses presented at
11 -
the time of the recent negotiations showed that with a reasonable level of perf ormance, even below the average of nuclear power plants in the United States, Rancho Seco operation would sult in lower generation costs than many of the alternatives ce cently under consideration.
In any event, the public airing of such considerations in the hearings on the required Environmental Impact Statement would provide a sound public record to support whatever decisions the NRC and other relevant federal, state and local decision-makers may make on continuing to seek and/or issue a
" possession-only" license.
In this regard, ECO urges the Commission to defer to the guidance offered by the Honorable Michael R.
Deland, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, concerning the Shoreham request for a " possession-only" license in his letter to Chairman Carr, NRC, dated October 9, 1990.
While that letter does not deal with Rancho Seco directly, ECO suggests that the guidance presented on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement in that case may apply even more forcefully in the Rancho Seca situation, and should be given deference whether or not Chairman Deland chooses to write a similar letter regarding Rancho Seco.
Because the operation of Rancho Seco is a viable alternative (the consideration of which is essential to an infermed decision), any amendment allowing for the deterioration and/or destruction of Rancho Seco before a final NRC decision on the decommissioning proposal would increase the health and safety
. _ _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _. _. _. _. ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
4 i
j l i l
risk posed by the plant should the alternative of operation ultimately be pursued.
Thus, the proposed amendment would adversely affect the radiological health and safety of several of ECO's members and their property.
Petitioner's interests, as detailed below, will be
.p
[
protected, and the requirements and purposes of the AEA met, if i
Petitioner is allowed to intervene in a prior hearing held on this matter and the remedies sought by Petitioner are granted as a result of that proceeding.
Until a properly informed decision on decommissioninct has been reached, consideration of a
" possession-only" amendment is premature and a violation of the health and safr,ty provisions of the AEA.
HEPA mandates preparation of an EIS prior to agency decisionmaking on major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the-human environment.
The EIS must consider, inter allA, the environmental impacts of, and the reasonable alternatives to,-the proposal.
Thus, NEPA ensures that. agency decisionmaking not only includes environmental consideration, but also is structured in such a way that environmental consideration is meaningful.
The granting by NRC of such a license would permit SMUD to take actions which could make it. impossible for all-practical purposes for the plant to be returned to operation as a nuclear power plant.
ECO contends that in the coming years California and its citizens (including ECO's members) will need the power that the Rancho Seco Nuclear Station can produce, its citizens
e
! )
i I
will seek sources which do not use oil or coal, and which minimize the use of valuable natural gas, the price of which may rise substantially in the coming years.
ECO is deeply concerned about the possibility that the region recently served by Rancho Seco's power will not have enough generating capacity or the capability to purchase enough energy to meet the electricity requirements of its citizens.
The environmental risks associated with electrical power shortages, in both the short and long term are potentially serious indeed, and cannot be ignored in any environmental evaluation related to 4
a major Federal action.
All California residents (including Eco's members) will be obliged to pay more for their electricity service; there will be more emissions of oxides of nitrogen where combustion turbines are operated to meet electricity demand; and they and everyone else will11ook to the future -for the possible deleterious effects of'the additional carbon dioxide and other polluting i
gases that are emitted because a nuclear power plant that was licensed and operating, capable of generating 913 megawatts of electricity, would be unavailable and that energy would have to be produced by other means.
These-realities must be faced regardless of how much SMUD is ultimately able achieve in future load reduction with its as yet-undesignated programs for demand-side management and energy conservation.
Even more significant environmental costs could be
14 forced upon the residents of SMUD, if they are obliged to forego the potential environmental advantages of the introduction of electric vehicles.
This same u'ility, which proposes to meet almost one-third of its currently projected demand in the year 2005 by demand-side management and energy conservation programs, also says: "The goal is to make Sacramento the clean air capitol of the nation by the year 2005 through widespread use of electricity as a replacement for petroleum in all forms of transportation while generating electricity with a minimum impact on air quality."
(SMUD office Memorandum, S.
David Freeman to Board of Directors, July 5, 1990)
SMUD's current projection of consumer demand growth is at the rate of 2% per year.
This puts their 2005 consumer demand figure at 2832 megawatts.
Yet SMUD (a) proposes to phase out 830 megawatts of its current purchase power contracts, and (b) posits that it will achieve 890 megawatts of " Uncommitted DSM Program Savings" and " Additional Uncommitted and New Generation Resources", in order to maintain reliabic, economical electric service to match remaining demand. (SMUD Letter to California Energy commission, Sept. 12, 1990)
Something sounds incredible here.
ECO has its doubts, and contends that the Commission itself must examine on the record just how SMUD expects to do it!
It simply makes common sense that the Commission not grant this " possession only" license to SMUD, nor permit any other actions that might jeopardize the ability to operate Rancho
J Seco in the future, until a full and open proceeding is held on the inpac.e such an action could have.
Requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement and appropriate public hearings does not preclude the possibility that a " possession only" license night in fact be granted.
And denial of SHUD's request would not give absolute assurance that Rancho Seco will return to operation.
But it is clear that if a
" possession only" license is granted, the option of future operation is probably lost.
The plant is shut down because of a political decision, and there is no way to know if or when the voters of SMUD would change their minds.
But the margin in the vote was only one percentage point.
Times change:
The voters of SMUD did not have Iraq, higher gasoline prices, or even recent findings about global warming before them when the referendum was held.
All affected persons at 1 cast deserve the opportunity to see the pertinent facts heard by an objective regulatory body in an open public proceeding.
Eco notes that despite various instances in which the commission has rejected requests to intervene in licensing proceedings, there are also examplen of the commission making its own determination that an intervention should be allowed.
In our view, it is essential that SMUD maintain all systems in full, Life functional condition pursuant to its full-power operating license, with no exceptions, until a final decision on this application is confirmed by the commission.
. - - ~
1 f
1 i-i l
There is no justification for the Applicant to ask for any l
l exceptions to the security, training and emergency preparedness l
requirements pending final Commission action.
We are concerned with reports that SKUD is not paying 1
its full share of NRC fees.. has cut its payments to its decommissioning fund.
These matters are of serious concern for 1
two reasonst i
a-I-
1)
They offer the image of a decision already
_made to grant the possession only license, making it more and more difficult for the Commission to
]
act in any other manner even if the evidence should support a contrary decision; and 4
I 2)
For a-public entity like SKUD, avoiding the payment of current expenses sends false signals to its ratepayers._ Public entities do not have to appeal to the state Public Utility Commission in
. order to change rates.
They are required by law to increase rates to cover _ increases in expenses.
As a result, SMUD ratepayers think that electricity costs are lower than they really are without Rancho Seco in operation._ In the State of California, a precedent has been set by the California Public Utility Commission ("CPUC")
requiring full decommissioning funding for Humboldt Bay over a four-year period, to place the
- i..-
4
. burden en current rate payers.
By delaying payments to the Decommissioning rund, as SMUD appears to be doing, noves this obligation in the opposite direction contrary to CPUC policy.
And it is a natter of open discussion in the press that without Rancho Seco in operation, SMUD will have a more dif ficult time financing the stream of payments which must be made to ensure that the decommissioning fund will be funded in full.
SMUD's funding plan is based on the NRC formula which allows minimum funding while the possibility exists for a significantly higher site specific cost estimate to be developed later in the operating life of the plant.
ECO views this i;ombination of factors with serious concern, because of the impact political pressures have had on
"^'
--d to funding of SMUD's perf ornance in the po' activities related to Rancho Seco.
In the past, the Commission has investigated reports of lack of financial responsibility with care to determine their substance and potential impact on the performance of licensees; the current management of SKUD cries out for such an investigation in a hearing on the record.
In addition, it is the opinion of the California Energy Commission (CEC) that, if the operating license for Rancho Seco were to be modified to a possession-only license and thus cease to be an operating license, any future proposal to return Ranch
l l
. Seco to operation would be treated by the CEC as an application for a ngy energy source.
In that case, it could fall into the CEC's planning requirements and have to begin the intire process of being evaluated for the next Electricity Repor, and then authorized by the Commission before it could be considered as a potential energy source for California.
As a "new" nuclear power plant, it vould be rejected under current California law because the CEC vill not make a finding that a demonstreted method of disposing r.f high-level nuclear waste exists.
That is, once the opera'ing license were rescinded, regardless of the environmental iFpact or need for power, this cituation could preclude another party from initiating actions to acquire anf operate Rancho Seco.
ECO contends that:
1)
Renewable energy sources are unlikely to be abic to come anywhere near to making up the capacity needs that SFUD will face, that the only remaining option of any significant amount of generating capacity will be units fueled by natural gas, and that a substantial portion may well end up being combustion turbines.
2)
The treatment of projected natural gas prices in the California Energy Commission's report is unduly optimistic, and does not take into account the potential impact of widespread growth in demand for natural gas for electricity and other uses in the next several years.
. 3)
The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station could produce nuclear electric power at competitive prices without the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and carbon to the atmosphere that would come from burning gas.
4)
Although a limited portion of the needed additional energy may be supplied by solar collectors or wind machines, the remaining alternatives to the
. electricity Rancho Seco has been licensed to generate will be found to cause negative impacts on the environment, vaste non-renewable resources, and result in significant economic and environmental penalties to the-people of California and possibly in neighboring states as well.
5)
These environmental and economic impacts will result in injury to the individual founding members of ECO who resides in the SKUD within 50 miles of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant.
Whether the California Energy Commission considers Rancho Seco in its energy planning is irrelevant to the NRC.
She NRC must make its own independent evaluation of the environmental impact and need for power issues.
Countless nuclear power plants were delayed for long periods of time while NRC prepared environmental impact statements and held hearings on precisely'these issues.
For NRC at this time to risk letting a sorely needed source of clean
._._____.m
]
i 1
20 -
i e
I energy be simply thrown away forever without thorough exploration f
of.the issues is neither in the national interest nor consistent with its obligations under the AEA and NEPA.
ECO has examined the draft Electricity Report ER 90 of the California Energy Commission.
We find that SMUD intends to replace 400 to 600 megawatts of purchased power with other 1
sources in the 1996 time frame.
We find that one-fourth of SMUD's projected energy requirements for the year 2000 are stated to be met by conservation, a source that is treated in ER 90 as en energy supply option.
j Until the alternatives to a possession-only license are identified and evaluated in a complete EIS, and considered in open licensing hearings, it would neither be pradent, nor consistent with NEPA, to allow any actions by SMUD which might compromise in any way the potential future operability of Rancho Seco as~a nuclear power plant again.
Eco has determined that its ' responsibilities demand that it seek intervention in this instance in order to protect the interests of certain of its members and their property..
ECO is a small organization whose members are concerned about the misunderstanding of scientific and technological issues
- which have permeated the debate about Rancho Seco and nuclear power, as well as the energy supply and demand in the future for the SMUD, California and the nation.
Several of its members spoke out during the debate on the Rancho Seco initiative, and found that the public's understanding of the initiative itself r
s
-w r, v, n-w,v,-o,-
m
+-,,n.-r-e.----v.r-,
,v---r--r,.m-r-m
,---,,e
--v
- w wn a m e m,-,n--
-e-~a-.--w
,:wvs-
i
- 21 was vague and often confused as to what the initiative would really mean, especially with respect to future adequacy and costs of electricity and the balancing of environmental concerns.
In pursuing these objectives, ECO is committed to offering its views, based on the knowledge and expertise of its members, to the public in the SMUD and to the NRC and to other decisionmakers.
Certain members of ECO live and/or work in Sacramento Municipal Utility District, some buy their electric power from SMUD, and some live within 50 miles of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
Therefore, the organization and its members have a special interest in the radiologically safe and environmentally benign operation of Rancho Seco to provide them with reliable electricity and to avoid the substitution of fossil fuel plants relying on imported oil and gas, which would contribute not only to acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and other effects adverse to the physical environment, but also to our national trade deficit and the endangerment of national energy security and other effects adverse to our society.
Members of ECO who have authorized the organization to represent their interests include:
Ramon L. Ashley 8756 Bluf f Lane Fair Oaks, CA 95628 David R. Crespo 2375 Little Oak Lane Rescue, CA 95670
i j
~ 22 -
i-These ECO members variously live and/or work not only l
within 50 miles of Rancho Seco but also within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone ("IPZ") and/or the ingestion pe.thway EPZ and own, lease and/or use real property within a 50 mile radius and/or the two EPZ's of Rancho Seco and have an interest in whether the proposed amendment provides reasonable assurance of their radiological health and safety, which is within the zone of interests to be protected under the AEA, and 1
whether the decision on this proposed amendment and the larger proposal of which it is a part is made in accordance with and is consistent with the goals of NEPA.
Certain ECO members depend on SKUD to meet their electric energy needs at home and at work.
Thus, ECO has a vital interest in ensuring that an adequate and reliable supply of electricity will be available to meet their needs and that such electricity provided is available at reasonable rates.
As a completed and fully licenced plant, Rancho Seco could again help
.to meet the growing electric energy needs of the sacramento Municipal Utility District.
Actions to dismantle the facility and build substitute gas burning plants would also delay any increase in the region's electric energy production capacity and i
l also generate significant expenses which will inevitably be l
passed on to Sacramento Municipal Utility District's ratepayers.
ECO also has an interest in protecting its members from the adverse health consequences of the air pollution produced by the oil or gas burning plants which would be necessary substitutes l
J 1
i !
for Rancho Seco.
ECO has examined the supply and demand projections published by SMUD for the coming 12-year period.
Aside from its authorization to represent the interests a
of its members located within fifty miles of the Rancho Seco facility, Eco has standing in this case based on its organizational-interests.
Egg Philadelchia Electric Co.,
(Limerick Generating Station,' Unites 1 and 2), LDP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1437 (1982), citino, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 511 (1975).
ECO strongly supports the use of nuclear plants to provide the safe and domestically secure electricity needed in this country.
This mission necessarily includes intervening in the present matter where the destruction of a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor is sought in order to inform decisonmakers and the public of the consumate folly of decommissioning Rancho Seco.
As set forth in competitive Enterorise Inst.. et al. v.
4 Nat'l Hich.way Traffic Safety Admin., No. 89-1278, slip op, at 27 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 19, 1990), organizational standing-is established whenever the agency's action interferes with the organization's informational-purposes to an extent that'it interferes with the organization's activities.
This is precisely the situation in the instant cases the NRC has not yet agreed to conduct a NEPA study,'which directly deprives ECO of its ability to (1) comment-directly on an environmental report prepared by SMUD and the l
Draft EIS prepared by the NRC Staff, (2) advise its members of L
the environmental risks involved with each alternative explored
- 24 by the environmental studies, and (3) report the findings and recommendations based upon the environmental evaluations to the public.
II.
PETITIONER'S INTERESTS WILL BE GREATLY ATTECTED BY THE 6KENDMENT AND THE PROCEEDING The proposed amendment violates the requirements of the AEA at the expense of the Petitioner and its members' right to reasonable assurance of radiological health and safety and circumvents their NEPA rights to timely environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal, including its reasonable alternatives.
Petitioner wishes to participate in each and every aspect of the hearing which touches and concernc these interests as well as the specific aspects identified below and in any amendment of this petition hereafter filed.
ECO, on behalf of itself and its members seeks leave to intervene and requests a hearing to determine whether the amendment should be granted, denied, deferred, or a different amendment made under the AEA.
The specific aspects of the proposed amendment as to which ECO wishes to interveri, are: (1) whether a grant of the proposed amendment requested would be arbitrary, capricious and/or an abuse of discretion pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and the commission's regulations, and subsidiary guidance thereundert (2) whether, if a decision is made to operate Rancho Seco, the proposed amendment would significantly delay and
4 i
increase the cost of returning the plant to an operational mode; 4
j (3) whether the proposed amendment would constitute an i
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the Rancho Seco a
resource; and (4) whether the amendment would allow deterioration and dismantling of the facility and thereby undermine the reasonable assurance that full power operation, should it ultimately be pursued, would or could be conducted with reasonable assurance of the public health and safety and national defense and security, particularly the reasonable assurance of the ECO's members' protection (including their real and personal property) from the radiological hazards of operating the facility.
The proposed amendment would nullify almost all of the presently applicable license conditions and Technical Specifications pertaining to operation and thereby open the cocr for further maintenance neglect and active decommissioning.
The
-NRC, however, has not yet issued a final decision on whether or not the facility should be rendered inoperative.
In these circumstances, the Commission certainly has the power and-the duty to prevent a particular licensee from taking steps.which effectively undermine the safety and feasibility of operation.
In deciding whether-or not such steps should be allowed, the NRC is obligated to consider not only the immediate health and safety implications of proposed decommissioning actions, but also future such implications, the public interest in the plant as an operational entity, the national security and
... - -. - - ~ -
. common _ defense interest in the operational plant, and finally, the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, allowing a plant to be prematurely de6ommissioned.
Until the NRC makes a final decision on the proposal to decommission Rancho Seco which includes a discussion of all of these issues and a fully articulated explanation of the reasons for the decision, an amendment deleting requirements previously found essential for safe operation are illegal.
The alternative of operation has not been foreclosed, and, therefore, amendments inconsistent with safe operation are Etr gg threats-to health and safety.
Thus, allowing the Rancho Seco operating license to be degraded at_this time unavoidably and significantly incr3ases the direct and/or indirect endangerment of the radiological health and safety and other interests of ECO's members under both the AEA and NEPA.
ECO also wishes to have full and fair NEPA consideration given the decommissioning proposal (of which the instant application is an interdapendent part), including the need for power, the cost-benefit analysis of decommissioning, and the operation and near-term operation alternatives for Rancho Seco.
Any actions in furtherance of the da facto decommissioning proposal, including this proposed amendment, prejudice consideration of such mandatory NEPA analysis by, among other things, making the alternatives further'away in time, more costly, and less_likely in fact.
L NEPA, as. implemented in regulations issued thereunder l
l
. by the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") and the NRC, mandates that no major Federal action significantly affecting the
_ quality of the human environment will be implemented without first receiving a full environmental review.
As more fully detailed below, Petitioner's interests under NEPA will be protected, and the purposes and requirements of NEPA served, to the extent that such a review ir. conducted under the NRC Rules (including a hearing) and the remedies sought by Petitioner are granted in the proceeding.
Petitioner's interests will be adversely affected should this petition or the relief sought herein be denied.
The remedies sought by Petitioner specifically include the correction of.this presumptuous " decision" that the reactor will never return to full power operation, as well as a return to the sandates of the NRC's regulations under the AEA and NEPA which require maintenance of the full power license obligations until'an informed decision is made with all appropriate environmental and economic considerations.
If a full NEPA environmental review is conducted, it may be that the factors'which first led to the construction of this reactor would l'ead'the decisionmaker to favor the continued utilization of this.recently refurbished facility and reject the
' decommissioning proposal. But the failure to properly maintain and protect the facility in accordance with the full-power operating License during this interim period could further erode the alternative of full-power operation by, among other things,
4 o-
.. increasing the costs, in time and money, of returning to full power operation.
During the interim period, before the necessary environmental evaluations are completed, the reactor must not languish in a " possession-only"' mode.
Nor should the licensee be permitted by the Commission to behave as though the reactor will never again operate.
The history of controversy concerning the level of financial commitment and support which the SMUD Board has provided for the operation of Rancho Seco does not offer a high degree of confidence that it will in fact live up to all of its obligations, particularly if vocal groups take positions 11n opposition to the expenditure of large sums of money.
At this very point in time, SMUD has informed the NRC that it intends to change its schedule for setting aside funds for decommissioning of the plant, thus avoiding immediate expenditures, and immediate increases in its rates that would be.
required.
The NRC-has not yet determined whether such deferral of1 payments-into'the Rancho-Seco decommissioning fund is or-is not acceptable under its regulations.
If financial support for L
this1 facility, which is not currently generating income for SMUD, is not fully forthcoming, significant health and safety risks, including those-subject to AEA and NEPA review, could ensue from SKUD's resulting failure to abide by the full-power requirements l
of the Operating License.
The increased risks of radiological harm to ECO's members, as discussed above, also constitute adverse
e
. environmental impacts and would also increase the risk that the choice of reasonable alternatives would be limited.
As a result, approval of the proposed amendment is barred by 10 C.F.R. 51.101 ( a ) - (199 0 ) until a record of decision is issued following completion of the required NEPA review of the decommissioning proposal. ~ Egg also, 10 C.F.R. $ 51.100(a) (1) (1990).
' Intervention and a hearing on this proposed amendment, prior to its approval, addressing the aspects identified in this Petition, is the only avenue available to Petitioner before the NRC for protecting not only its own vital interests but also those of its members as to these NRC licensing issues at this time.
The Petitioner must address each incremental, segmented step proposed by the licensee and the NRC Staff which would further advance the dg facto decommissioning by the licensee in violation of the AEA and NEPA.
The violations of the AEA, by definition, increase the risk of radiological harm'to ECO's members.
In violation of the AEA, the-NRC' Staff is presently considering issuance of an amendment which-will allow requirements previously considered essential for safe operation to be deleted without either a final and properly informed determination that the plant will never operate again or-an articulated basis. supported by substantial evidence that each particular requirement is no longer essential.
All of the deletions and changes contemplated by the amendment are premised on the facility's existing non-operating
. and defueled condition.
A non-operating condition, however, is 1
not the appropriate legal prerequisite for a " possession-only" license.
Rather, it appearn that the licensee and the Staff have an unstated determination that the plant will never operate again as their basis for this amendment.
An unstated and unapproved determination that decommissioning will proceed to completion is legally irrelevant and, therefore, cannot to serve as a foundation for the instant license amendment under the AEA.
The violations of NEPA also deny Petitioner its rights to information on, and to participate in, the formulation of an environmental review of the impact of, and alternatives to, the ongoing decommissioning of the Rancho Seco facility.
. III.
SPECITIC ASPECTS AS TO WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS TO INTERVENE A.
Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As To Which Petitioner Seeks to Intervene Under the AEA Sections One, Two, and Three of the AEA set out the Declarations, Findings and Purpose of that Act which must guide the Commission's decisions pursuant to its substantive provisions.
42 U.S.C.
2011-2013 (1988).
Section 2(e) of the Act explains that " utilization facilities are affected with the public interest." 42 U.S.C.
2012 (1988).
Petitioner submits that utilization facilities, such as Rancho Seco, are licensed to serve the public interest.
In obtaining the benefits that result from the license to operate a plant, a licensee also shoulders the burden of maintaining the plant operational for so long as the licent-e holds the license and the Nh2 determines that the public interest is cast served by an operable plant.
The decision as to whether a plant shall be rendered inoperable then is not strictly for the licensee to make. While the plant may be owned by a municipal utility district, it was constructed based on strict regulations established on behalf of the public and with the implied understanding that it would serve the public for the duration of the plant's useful life unless the proper Federal authorities determine that the plant would constitute an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Any such determination would have to be based on proper health
o
. and safety, environmental, and common defense and security factors.
Thus, the fact that SMUD may have determined that it wishes Rancho Seco to be decommissioned is not the last word on the matter.
Under NEPA, the Commission must make a proper determination of the public interest, from local, state, and national perspectives weighing the environmental, economic, and other impacts and the alternatives before any operable nuclear plant is decommissioned.
such a determination has yet to be made in thiE Case.
The particular aspects of the proposed amendment as to-which ECO wishes to intervene under the AEA is:
May the Commission issue a possession only license for a utility full power reactor licensee before submittal by'the licensee, and approval by the Commission, of the " decommissioning plan" required by 10 C.F.R. 5 50.82 (1990)?
In this respect the Petitioner notes that the statement of Consideration for the-General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (53 Fed. Reg. 24018, 24024 -(June 27, 1988)) states that:
"according to the amendments, the overall approach to decommissioning must now be approved shortly after-the end of operation, rather than an amended ' possession-only' part 50 license being issued without plans for ultimate disposition".
m
-m y
. B..
Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As to Which Petitioner Seeks To Intervene Under NEPA.
SMUD's proposed license amendment is or.e segmented part in implementation of a proposed major Federal Sction which, if approved, will significantly affect the qua'.ity of the human environment.
Because preparation of an EIS and a final decision
-is required before any part of the decommissioning proposal may be implemented, the proposed amendment is in direct violation of Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA and Petitioner's right to such NEPA review.
Therefore, it cannot be approved prior to NEPA. review of the whole decommissioning proposal.
Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA provides that, prior to
-making a decision to implement a " proposal" for a " major federal action significantly affecting the. quality of the human environment," administrative agencies shall prepare an-Environmental Impact' Statement ("EIS") which evaluates, among other= things, the' " environs intal impacts of" and the :
" alternatives to" the proposed-action.
42 U.S.C. 5 4332.(1982).
The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")
regulations, which.are " binding on all federal agencies,"-further clarify the NEPA responsibilities of federal agencies.
40 C.F.R.
$ 1500,3 (1988).
Among other things, those regulations (a) mandate application of NEPA "at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental-values,"
(b) require that actions which are " interdependent parts of.a larger action" be discussed in a single impact statement, and (c)
- 34 prohibit actions which " limit the choice of reasonable alternatives" until the NEPA process is complete.
40 C.F.R.
1501.2, 1508.25, & 1506.1. The NRC's own NEPA regulations, which closely parallel those of the CEQ, also prohibit any " decision on a proposed action" or actions, especially one tending to " limit the choice of reasonable alternatives," pending completion of the NEPA process.
10 C.F.R.
$$ 51.100 & 51.101 (1989).
While the decommissioning proposal has been advanced by SMUD, a non-federal entity, the NRC's on-going supervision of that licensee's activities and the need for NRC approval of the various aspects of the decommissioning process make what otherwise might be a private action in another industry into a
" major fcderal action."
The NRC controls whether the decommissioning proposal may proceed and, therefore, has a non-discretionary duty under NEPA to ensure that neither the Rancho Seco facility, itself, as the relevant part of the environment under the supervision of the NRC, nor the alternatives to its decommissioning, are adversely affected by premature implementation of the decommissioning proposal.
Egg 40 C.F.R. 5 1506.1(b) (1988).
(1989).
The CEQ definition of " proposal" includes the statement:
"A proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency declaration that one exists." 40 C.F.R. $ 1508.23 (1988)
(explicitly adopted by the Commission at 10 C.F.R. S 51.14(b)
(1989)).
A hard look at the reality of the present situation
. makes it abundantly clear that a decommissioning proposal exists "in fact" in this instance.
In the typical situation, when a plant is at the end of its useful life, by age or accident, there is no question whether the plant shall be operated further, and thus no decision whether to safely remove the plant from service. That occurrence is nothing more than a recognition of a fact which then initiates all licensee duties as to the " actual" decommissioning.
The Rancho Seco situation is anything but typical.
Rancho Seco was refurbished, and is far from the end of its projected useful life.
The initial step in decommissioning (safely removing the plant from service) cannot be ignored as inconsequential or unrelated to the process of decommissioning.
The proposed amendment violates Petitioner's rights under NEPA, and the NEPA regulations promulgated by the CEQ and the NRC, both (a) to have decisions on interdependent parts of a proposal for a major federal action informed by a Final EIS evaluating the proposal as a whole and also (b) to have alternatives to a proposed action preserved pending the preparation of an FEIS and the issuance of a final decision on the proposal as a whole.
The proposed amendment is another step in the decommissioning process in that issuance of a " possession only" license not only implies that SMUD and the NRC view Rancho Seco's decommissioning as inevitable, but also makes the alternative of operation further away in time since refitting and
6
. requalification;of the Rancho Seco facility could take considerable time and money.
The level of environmental scrutiny a proposed action must undergo is determined by the " significance" of the action's environmental effects.
The CEQ regulations provide guidance as to the meaning of "'significantly' as used in NEPA."
40 C.F.R.
1508.27 (1988).
Among.the factors listed by the CEQ to be considered by an agency in evaluating whether a proposed action will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment" is:
Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant-but cumulatively sianificant imoacts.
Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
Sionificance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breakina it down into small component carts.
40 C.F.R.
$ 1508.27 (b) (7) ~(1988) -(emphasis added).
An environmental assessment of this proposed amendment must, therefore, consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment and the other related actions which have or will be taken.in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme.
Furthermore, the CEQ defines " cumulative impact" as:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of'the action when added to other cast, oresent and reasonably foreseeable future actions reaardless of what acency (Federal or non-
1 Federal) or eerson undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R.
5~1508.7 (1988) (emphasis added).
Thus, the proposed amendment cannot be isolated from the continuum of "past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions" in furtherance of decommissioning.
Rather, a proper environmental
~
evaluation will necessarily consider the proposed amendment in
.the context of the decommissioning proposal which has been, and continues.to be, implemented in a segmented fashion.
Such consideration nust inevitably yield the conclusion that the
-piecemeal implementation-of the individual steps in the decommissioning process cannot continue until an EIS evaluating the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the decommissioning scheme as a whole has been prepared and a final decision on that proposal-m a'd e. _
Petitioner has_thus_shown an injury _in fact that will-result?from the proposed amendment that'is_within the zone of interests protected by NEPA-and that can be redressed by a l
K
-decision not to grant.the amendment and by granting the other l
L
' remedies sought.
The-particular aspects of the proposed amendment as to y
]
which-Petitioner wishes to intervene under NErA are, inter-alia, as follows:
L 1.
Does-a proposal to decommission the Rancho Seco l
e 38 -
Plant exist "in fact"?
2.
Would issuance of the proposed amendment or portions thereof violate the Commission's NEPA regulations, including without limitation, 10 C.F.R.
$$ 51.100 & 51.101 (1989)?
3.
Do NEPA, and the CEQ and NRC regulations promulgated thereunder, require that the licensee maintain all
. full power license conditions in full accord with readiness for operation at full power pursuant to its full-power oper, ing License, the Technical Specifications and licensee commitments thereunder, as well as the Atomic Energy Act, the regulations and other normal NRC Staff requirements of a full power licensee, until such time as full NEPA review of the decommissioning proposal is completed and published and a decision on that proposal is subsequently made?
k-__
________.m_____________
o-
.. ~
~ 39 -
IV.
REMEDIES ECO seeks the following remedies:
1.
An order directing a hearing on the issues presented by the captioned notice as detailed in this petition as it may be amended.
2.
An order permitting ECO's intervention as to the subject of the captioned notice.
3.
An order requiring the NRC Staff not to issue the proposed amendment or any part(s) thereof to allow for an independent assessment by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the issues identified herein.
4.
An order (a) finding that there exists a proposal for the decommissioning of Rancho Seco, which is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, ordering the licensee to prepare and submit an Environmental Report on the scope of that proposal (including, inter alla, the alternatives relating to full-power operation) ; and, (b) further ordering, that all Rancho Seco proceedings not related to enhancing full-power operation be held in abeyance pending the submission of that Environmental Report, the subsequent preparation and publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the NLC Staff and further proceedings culminating in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
5.
An order rcquiring the NRC Staff and the licensee to furnish the ECO's attorney with all future communications and/or I
~___._______________m___
__.m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~. - _ ~
... governmental filings originated by those parties or either of them, by telecopy, express mail, or overnight courier, which t
communications relate to Rancho Seco and/or issues affecting Rancho Seco.
6.
An order denying tne amendment sought.
7.
If the Commission decides to issue a final determination of no significant hazards cons 4deration, ECO requests the Commission to stay the effectiveness of the issuance of any and all approvals of any portions of the requested amendment for ten (10) days after publication of that final determination in the Federal Register to allow the Petitioner to seek relief pursuant to the Hobbs Act.
8.
An order directing the NRC Staff not to issue the following. amendments, exemptions and relief sought by the licensee relating to the following matters until the NRC has
~ issued a final order'in the instant matter.and review of such order under the Hobbs Act is final, a.
Proposed Amendment #182 - Long Term Defueled Technical Specifications b.
Proposed-Amendment #184
" Possession-Only License" c.
Long Term Defueled Condition Emergency Plan d.
Exemption Request From Performing an Annual Exercise of the Emergency Plan, Avtivation of Alert and Notification System and Distribution of Public Information Brochures
+[ e e ap t i e.
. Rancho Seco Physical Security Plan for the Long Term:Defueled Condition.
I f.
Exemption Request "Onsite Property Damage and Decontamination" 10 C.F.R. 50.54(a).
g.
Exemption Request - Operator-Training-Program 10 C. F. R '. 55 h.
Exemption Request - Annual Fees for Power Reactor Operating Licenses
-1 1.
Exemption Request - Requirements of 10 C.F.R.
- 50. 7 5 (e) (1) (li) i 9..
Order (s) granting such other relief deemed necessary and/or tppropriate..
I i
w I
4 9
9
.....,.... - - +. -.
CONCLUSIOE W11E F E PORrJ, for the above-stated reasons, the Petition for Leave to Intervene should be granted, a hearing should be hold, and the other remedies herein sought should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, r.
y i
/ /
October 30, 1990 J'
.b"
- d
~
A.' David Rossin President Environmental Conservation Organization q f'
?
Q J)
(
J'
//
'N 1 v m h-November 8, 1990 By:
t James P. Muuranery,pOr., Esquire D6v, Lohnes & Albertson 1255 23rd Street, N.W.
Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 857-2929 Attorney for Petitioner Environmental Conservation Organization In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 55 2.708(e) and 2.712(b), service may be made upon the above-designated Attorneys for Petitioner.
.J
<e s o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to the service requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.?l2(c)&(d)-(1989), I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Environmental' Conservation Organization's Comment on Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration and Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Prior Hearing. was served, via first-class, postage prepaid mail upon the following:
The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk The Secretary of-the Commission Office of the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch (original and two copies)
Lawrence J.
Chandler, Esq..
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (one copy)
Jan Schori, Esq.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street P.O.
Box 15870 Sacramento, CA 95813-(one copy) 1 --._
L Jamies P. McGranery,'fy.
CddInsel for Petitioner Environmental Conservation Organization
.. ti_ ; i D UMe{
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 MW 14 P4 :03
)
In the Matter of
)
grSe.
gj m,.,
)
unni @:,3 ! a g_;
consideration of Issuance of Amendment )
USNRC Docket No. : N'Mu' To Facility Operating License and
)
50-312 (OLA)
Proposed No Significant Hazards
)
Consideration Determination and
)
Opportunity for Hearing; sacramento
)
Municipal Utility District
)
Defueled Operating License)
)
(55 Fed. Reg. 41280, October 10, 1999) )
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter on behalf of the Environmental Conservation Organization and its members.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R.
E 2.713 (1989), the following infornation is provided:
Name:
James P. McGranery, Jr.
Addresss:
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson Suite 500 1255 23rd Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Telephone Number:
(202) 857-2929 Admission:
U.S. Supreme Court Name of Party:
Environmental Conservation Organization
\\]y-,
"u R
.49-James P. McGranery, T.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 8th day of October, 1990 O
)S L________________________
-