ML20133H150
| ML20133H150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-776 OLA, NUDOCS 8510160287 | |
| Download: ML20133H150 (18) | |
Text
_
D 0
- October 11, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C-.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q[
1 PEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~65 CCT 15 A10:33 In the Matter of ) '[fc'ygGpsIkv#ib
) BRANCH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-133OL(A
)
(Humbcidt Bay Power Plant )
Unit No. 3) )
NRC STAFF MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING T
I. INTROSUCTION The NPC Staff hereby moves the Licensing Board to enter an order dismissing the captioned proceeding. In support of the motion, the Staff ,
asserts that:
- 1. The subject matter of the proceeding is moot because the Licensee has sought to withdraw its application for the license amendment which is the subject of the proceeding and has submitted an application for decomissioning; and the Staff recently has amended the operating license such that it authorizes " possession only" of the facility.
- 2. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the
[
decomissioning application, but a separate proceeding and opportunity <
l for hearing on the decomissioning will be available when the Staff notices consideration of the decomissioning application.
For the reasons discussed in greater detail below, termination of ,
\ l this proceeding is warranted.
[
h G
DOC i
DSo7:
. l II. DISCUSSION A. Background and Genesis of This Proceeding On May 21, 1976, the NRC issued an " Order for Modification of License" which required a controlled shutdown of the Humboldt Bay facility to comence by July 2,1976 (the beginning of the scheduled 1976 refueling outage) and the satisfactory completion of a specified seismic upgrading program and resolution of certain seismic and geolo-gic concerns (license condition paragraph E imposed by the Order for Podification of License is attached). The order was the culmination of a series of analyses of the geology and seismology of the site which were completed after the plant was licensed.
Briefly, the initial seismic and geologic studies regarding the site led the AEC (the NRC's predecessor) to conclude that an update of the seismic design analysis of safety related structures, systems and compo-nents for the facility was required. M The Licensee provided additional data for geological and seismological determinations of the magnitude and location for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and data for determining the geological significance of two nearby faults. The NRC staff concluded from the reports that seismic cualification to the 0.25g OBE i of the safety related equipment addressed in the PG8E seismic design upgrading program should be completed in a timely manner and that, in the absence of seismic qualification of the equipment to the 0.25g OBE, plant
-1/ Specifically, it was determined that while an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) of 0.25g was appropriate, the dynamic response of the facility as a result of a 0.25g event could result in actual
. loads greater than those calculated for design purposes using a l 0.259 static load factor. Order for Modification of License, May 21, 1976, at 2.
i
operation would not be permitted. Furthermore, since there were indica-tions that the geological character of the Humboldt area might be sub .
stantially different than that supposed at the time of license issuance, additional and timely investigations were needed to resolve four concerns:
- 1. [A d]etermination of the location and the capability of the Bay Entrance and Little Salmon faults according to Section IIIg. of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100;
- 2. The tectonic significance of the offsets in the ravine at Humboldt Hill and the quarry at Fields Landing;
- 3. The tectonic significance of the Freshwater and Table Bluff fault [s]; and
- 4. The distribution of earthquakes in the region and their relationship to faulting.
Order for Modification of License, May 21, 1976, at 3-4. After the Staff notified Licensee that resolution of these four issues and completion of the seismic design upgrade to 0.25g was necessary for the return to operation after the 1976 refueling outage, the Licensee committed in May 1976 to undertake studies to address the Staff's geologic and seismic concerns, to seismically qualify the plant's safety related equipment and to obtain Staff approval with respect to the satisfactory resolution of items prior to power operation. The Staff confirmed the commitments by issuing the May 21, 1976 order and amended the Humboldt license by inserting a new provision designated paragraph E.
The instant proceeding arose as a result of the Licensee's May 20, 1977 application for license amendment to delete paragraph E so as to permit the facility to resume power operation. Petitions for leave to intervene were filed in response to a notice of opportunity for hearing published in connection with the application on June 23, 1977 (42 Fed.
Reg. 31847).
By Order dated May 16, 1978, the Board found at least one contention met pleading requirements, granted the petitions for leave to intervene and consolidated the intervenors. Order at 6. Thereafter, the proceed-ing essentially was held in abeyance as a result of various Licensee motions requesting deferral of action on its application until certain
$ additional seismic and geologic studies were completed. On December 31, 1980, the License 7 filed a motion to withdraw its application for an amendment to permit resumption of power operation and to terminate "with-out prejudice further action on the application." Motion at 3. Inter-venors opposed the termination of action on the application "without
- prejudice" and requested that the Board terminate action on the applica-tion "with prejudice" by issuing an order denying the application and ordering that the plant be permanently shut down and decommissioned.
Intervenors' Answer, dated January 15, 1981, at 1-2. By letter dated July 7,1983, the Licensee notified the Board and parties of its inten-tion to decommission the facility and, on July 30, 1984, the Licensee submitted a request for an amendment to its operating license to modify its license and technical specifications to reflect a possess-but-not-i operate status, to delete license conditions related to seismic modifi-cations, investigations and analyses required for NRC authorization of a return to power operations U and to decommission the facility in accordance l
1 i
2/ In preparation for SAFSTOR decommissioning, all fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor and the reactor coolant system has been drained. The spent fuel pool currently contains 390 fuel assemblies. The spent fuel has decayed sufficiently since the July 1976 shutdown such that forced cooling of the spent fuel pool is not required. Letter from J. Shiffer, PGE, to D. Eisenhut, NRC, dated October 1, 1984.
l
with a SAFSTOR (protective storage) Decommissioning Plan submitted with the application. 3_/
Mindful of indications from the Board as to what it perceived as the broad extent of its jurisdiction, the Staff has taken action on only part of the Licensee's July 30, 1984 amendment application. On November 1,1984, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement related to the decommissioning of the facility was published (49 Fed. Reg. 44039), which indicated that the Licensee's environmental report was available for public inspection at the local public document rocm. E A public meeting was held in Eureka, California on December 4, 3/
The deletion of the seismic conditions became the subject of one of two " pleadings" filed by Joint Intervenors on January 26, 1984. See Opposition of Intervenors to PGAE's Request for Deletion of Item E(2)(e) of Their Operating License; Statement of Intervenors With Respect to Public Involvement in Decommissioning Plan. In one document, Intervenors stated their opposition to the deletion of the license requirement for seismic monitoring. The second document discussed the need process through hearings,for publicinterparticipation alia. in the decommissioning Although the two " pleadings" were not styled as motions or fonnal requests for relief from the Board, the Board requested that Licensee and Staff submit conrnents regarding the documents in order to assist the Board's eventual disposition 1984. of the pleadings / Memorandum and Order, February 2, The Board has not taken any action on the two documents to date nor has the Board ruled on the Licensee's December 31, 1980 motion to withdraw its license amendment application.
4/
~
For example, noting its discomfort with the prospect of leaving the plant in "an ambivalent status" if the license amendment withdrawal motion were granted, the Board contemplated issuing an order requir-ing Licensee to show cause why the operating authority for Humboldt '
should not be permanently revoked and why Licensee should not submit a plan to decommission the plant. Order, July 14,1981, a t 7-8.
5/
~
Copies of the Notice were transmitted to the parties to this November 16, for proceeding 1984. their information by letter of Staff counsel dated
1984, to discuss the scope of the environmental review of decommissioning and members of the public had the opportunity to coment on environmental matters. 0/_ -
In addition, on March 27,1985(49 Fed. Reg. 12132,12152), the NRC published a notice of consideration of issuance of an amendment changing the operating license to reflect a possess-but-not-operate status and offering an opportunity for hearing. E On July 16, 1985 the possession enlyamendmentwasissued.E A notice of opportunity for hearing concern-ing other licensing actions which are consistent with the decommissioning 4 plan (i.e., revision of the Technical Specifications, and approval of the
! SAFSTOR plan) will be published in the near future. 9/ -
l
-6/ A transcript of the meeting is available at both the pDR in k'ashington and the local pDR. A draft EIS on decomissioning will j be published for coment later this year.
-7/ Copies of the notice were transmitted to the Board and parties to this proceeding for their information by letter of Staff counsel dated April 2,1985.
1 p/ The " possession only" amendment generally revised the license to delete words and paragraphs pertaining to operation of the facility.
Copies of the amendment were sent to the Board and parties to this proceeding by letter of Staff counsel dated August 16, 1985.
! -9/ The Licensee's July 30, 1984 application also seeks deletion of 1 license condition E - seismic /seologic related requirements--in its entirety as a license revision consistent with decomissioning.
The purported satisfactory completion of the actions required by that license condition was the basis for Licensee's original amend-i ment application to allow restart. In order to avoid creating a
. potentially duplicative proceeding concerning paragraph E, the sub-i ject of Licensee's May 20, 1977 license amendment application which l initiated the instant proceeding, the Staff has postponed noticing j this aspect of the Licensee's July 30, 1984 amendment request.
I
B. Mootness In light of the events subsequent to the filing of the original amendment application seeking a resumption of power operation, the subject matter of this proceeding is now moot. As noted above, the i^
Licensee has determined not to attempt to operate the facility, has sought to withdraw its application for license amendment which would have permitted operation, and has decided to decommission the plant using the SAFSTOR method. If the proposed decommissioning plan were approved, the plant would be placed in protective storage and, at the end of a 30 year l
l period enabling further radioactive decay, the plant would be dismantled.
i Also, consistent with the Licensee's planned method of decommissioning, an additional restriction has been placed on the license through the recent amendment which now permits " possession-only" of the reactor.
Thus, Licensee has clearly abandoned past intentions of restarting the plant and has abandoned the application for license amendment which would have permitted operation. That license amendment application and the issue of a resumption of power operation are moot.
The Board should also terminate this proceeding because any i
contentions or contested issues concerning the withdrawn application to resume operation have become moot. Joint Intervenors' request for hearing and intervention challenging restart was granted because the Board, which initially ruled only on the adequacy of the pending peti-tions, was satisfied that at least one contention (paragraph G(7)) met the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714. Order, May 16, 1978, at 2, 6-7. That contention challenged the adequacy of the
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) for the plant. El See 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A. Later, the Board directed Joint Intervenors to file amended contentions following completion of Licensee's seismic report.
Order Following Prehearing Conference, June 17, 1980, at 3-4. Due to a subsequent Licensee motion to hold the proceeding in abeyance, the Board withdrew its order directing the filing of amended contentions and stated that reimposition of the obligation to amend contentions would depend on the Licensee's intentions regarding plant operation. Memorandum and Order, November 18, 1980 at 2-3.
Because Licensee no longer intends to operate the plant and has submitted a decommissioning plan for NRC approval, there is no need to consider amended contentions concerning the application to resume operation. Similarly, since the decommissioning plan has been submitted, the adecuacy of the SSE for the operation of the plant (contention G(7))
is no longer relevant nor in dispute.
p/ Paragraph G(7) of July 20, 1977 ioint intervention petition filed by Thomas K. Collins, et al., states:
l Petitioners are further informed and believe and thereon allege, based upon the investigations of intervenor Honea and infonnal consultation with other specialists in the fields of geology and seismology, that a larger Safe Shutdown Earthquake than presently required under the existing license is warranted for the reasons that (a) seismicity in the innediate site vicinity is significantly higher than that generally existing in the tectonic province as a whole and (b) there exists in proximity to the site tectonic structures demonstrably like those found where larger earthquakes in the tectonic province have occurred historically. (Citationsomitted).
-11/ Moreover, whether Licensee has satisfied the requirements of Para-graph E of its license (seimic modification, investigations and i
analyses), which were necessary for operation, is no longer of any consequence since Licensee clearly does not intend to operate the facility.
The mootness of any issues concerning the operation of Humboldt, the subject of this amendment proceeding, provides a further basis to dismiss this proceeding. As the Appeal Board observed in Portland General j Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-796, 21 NRC 4, 5 (1985):
In an amendment proceeding where the Board has raised no significant safety or environmental issues on its own motion, as in an operating licens'e proceeding, the only issues to be decided by a licensing board are those contested by the parties.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.760a. Once those issues are no longer in cispute, whether before or after the hearing, the proceeding should be dismissed. See 10 C.F.R. 2.761.
While the Appeal Board likened the situation in Trojan (i.e., where findings of fact and conclusions of law are agreed upon and adopted by all parties) to that of a stipulated resolution or settlement of centested issues, the Board's reasoning is equally apposite to the instant proceeding. Therefore, the Board should grant the long-pending Licensee motion to withdraw its amendment application and dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that Licensee's abandoned intention to operate the facility renders the license amendment application and any contention or contested issue concerning operation moot. E C. Lack of Jurisdiction to Consider Decommissioning and Availability of Another Proceeding Given that the instant amendment application and any contention or issue related to operation have become moot, the only issue which
-12/ In Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
ALAB-745, 18 NRC 746 (1983), the Appeal Board granted a utility motion to terminate the Board's jurisdiction over the single surviving issue left in the construction permit proceeding upon being infonned that the utility had cancelled the units and surrendered the permits to the NRC. There the Board stated, "[ft) serve [s] no ones interest to have our docket unnecessarily encumbered with a proceeding involving a conclusively abandoned facili ty. " J_d.at747.
arguably remains in the instant proceeding is deconunissioning. As explained below, decommissioning is not an issue which the Board is empowered to consider here because it is outside the scope of the instant proceeding. Thus the absence of any contested issue over which the Board has jurisdiction is a further basis to terminate the proceeding.
The subject of decommissi~ o ning the plant arose in the instant proceeding when Joint Intervenors asked that the Board terminate action on the amendment application "with prejudice" by, in part, ordering that the plant be permanently shut down and decommissioned. See Answer in Response to Motion to Withdraw Application for License Amendment, January 22,1981, at 1-2. Since the Board derives its jurisdiction from the notice of opportunity for hearing, however, its power to entertain this or any issue "must respect the terms of the notice of hearing published by the Commission . . . ." Comonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 NRC 18, 24 (1980). Thus an issue which has no discernible relationship to a pending proceeding may not be entertained.
i Northern Indiana Public Service Co., (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-619, 12 NRC 558, 570 (1980) (2.206 remedy is exclusive where no other pending proceeding exists).
The Staff has maintained its opposition to the Intervenors' request throughout this proceeding because the notice of opportunity for hearing i (42 Fed. Reg. 31847, June 23, 1977) only encompasses Licensee's applica-tion for a license amendment to delete paragraph E (certain seismic /
I l geologic requirements) of the license to allow restart. Specifically, the notice briefly stated that "the amendment would delete requirements relating to seismic upgrading of safety related equipment and resolution
- - _ _ _ . ~ _ - _ .- . _ - - _ _ - - - . - _ _ _ _ _ _
of geologic / seismic concerns, based on satisfactory completion of these requirements, and allow for restart of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3." 42 Fed. Reg. 31847.
The Board is only empowered to grant or deny, in whole or in part, the requested amendment. E ! If the amendment were granted, the prohibition on operation would be removed and the plant permitted to restart. On the other hand, the denial or withdrawal of the amendment request results only in the maintenance of the status quo ante -- a plant in controlled shut down -- and neither terminates the license nor accelerates license expiration. This is clearly the case because the Board's jurisdiction is limited to the license amendment in question and the Board has no power to explore matters beyond those embraced by the notice of hearing. Portland General Electric Co., ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979), citing, Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170-71 (1976). An amendment application filed for the purpose of resuming power operation in r.o way encompasses the issue of decommissioning. Nor has the Board been able to raise sua sponte in the context of this license amendment proceeding any safety reason for requiring that the facility be decommissioned. EI Accordingly, the Board lacks the authority to consider l
l -13/ It is indisputable that had the Licensee never applied for this license amendment, this Licensing Board for this proceeding would not exist.
14/ In addition, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied a i 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 petition requesting that the plant be decommis-
- stoned and concluded that the plant does not adversely affect the public health and safety. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Humboldt Bay
! PowerPlant, Unit 3), Director'sDecision(DD-82-7),16NRC387(1982).
l l
the decomissioning plan because it is an action beyond the scope of the contested amendment application.
Since decomissioning is not an issue in this proceeding because this Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction over decomissioning, no issue remains to be decided in the instant proceeding. The absence of a contested issue as to which the Board may appropriately exercise its jurisdiction, therefore, is a further basis to terminate this proceeding. Similarly, the current pendency of Licensee's separate application to decomission provides no basis for the Licensing Board to continue the instant proceeding. Intervenors, as well as other interested members of the i public, may participate through hearings in the NRC's consideration of actions related to decomissioning before a board specifically constituted for that purpose under the upcoming Federal Register notice. E
~
15/ Issues related to decomissioning must be pursued in a separate application and separate forum. See le. ., 10 C.F.R. 6 2.202 (order to show cause); 10 C.F.R. 6 50.82 (application for termination of license); 10 C.F.R. 6 50.90 (license amendment). The Licensee was correct to submit its July 30, 1984 application for a " possession" only license and to decommission the facility separate from the instant application to resume operation of the facility. As noted earlier, a notice of opportunity for hearing concerning Licensee's July 30, 1984 application concerning decomissioning will be pub-lished in the near future. It is entirely proper that actions per-taining to the decomissioning plan be considered in another pro-ceeding. Because decomissioning was outside the scope of the Federal Register notice for the instant amendment and not even contemplated at the time of issuance, interested members of the public have not yet been given notice and the opportunity to parti-cipate as a party to a proceeding in the NRC's consideration of decomissioning. Consequently, the lack of notice regarding the consideration of decommissioning in the instant proceeding and the availability of another proceeding where members of the public and Joint Intervenors may play a role in the consideration of the decommissioning plan provides a further basis for the Board to terminate this proceedino without regard to the separate decomis-sioning application.
- . - . _ = - - - - - - _ _ _ _ -
j , :
D. Summary
, In short, events have overtaken the contested application to restart
- the plant. The submission of the decommissioning plan renders the amend-ment application and any issue pertaining to the contested application
- moot. In addition, since there are no issues in dispute which are within the Board's jurisdiction to decide and there will be opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing on the decommissioning, there is '
no reason to hold a hearing in this proceeding or for the Board to retain jurisdiction. Thus, the Licensee's request to withdraw its amendment application which is the subject of this proceeding should, in effect, be
. granted and this proceeding terminated.
1 III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Because the contested license amendment application has become moot and there are no issues in dispute which are properly before the Board or within the Board's jurisdiction to decide, the NRC Staff respectfully
- requests that the Licensing Board terminate this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, i .
! Mit A. Young l Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of October, 1985 i
l l
I
Humboldt Bay License Condition E Paragraph E of the license as-set forth in the Order (at 5-8) states:
E. By reason of the circumstances outlined in the Order for Fodification of License, dated May 21, 1976, the licensee shall:
- 1. using currently applicable mithods, qualify by analysis and/or testing and modify or re' place as necessary the safety related structures, systems and components of the facility to meet current regulatory requirements with respect to withstanding the effects of the Operating Basts Earthquake of 0/25g.
Structures, systems and components, subject to this requirement are-
- a. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary ,
- b. Reactor Core and Vessel Internals ,
- c. Low Pressure Core Spray System *
. d. Emergency Condenser System '
- e. Reactor Vent Valve System
- f. Reactor Scram System -
- g. Liquid Poison System - -
- h. Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System ,
- i. Portions of Steam Sys'tems from the Outermost Containment Isolation Valves up to or including the First Valve . ,
- J. Emergency A-C Engine Generator Propane Tank and Fuel ,
Systems
- k. Electrical ar.d Mechancial Devices and Circuitry involved '
in Generating Signals that Initiate Protective Action '
- l. Systems requirea for Monitoring and/or Actuation of Systems Important to Safety
~
- m. Spent Fuel Storage ,
- n. Two Portable Gasoline Engine Driven Pumps
- o. Control Room
- p. Primary and Secondary Reactor Containment
- q. Radioactive Waste Systems
- r. Electrical Systems that Provide the Emergency Electric .
Power needed for Functioning of Plant Features Included'in Items a though q Above
- s. Ventilation Stack
- t. Station Building
- u. Turbine Pedestal
- v. Structures or Components Whose Continued Function is not Required by Whose Failure Could Reduce the Function of above Items
- 2. conduct a geologic and seismic investigation program for which satisfactory completion will provide the following:
- a. The Bay Entrance fault must be accurately located at its closest approach to the plant site. The attitude, extent, amount of displacement, and age of most recent movement.on this fault must be determined. If this fault cannot be shown to be noncapable within the meaning of Appendix A, Section IIIg(1) it must be demonstrated that movement on it cannot be expected to cause surface displacement within the plant area.
- b. The location and age of the Little Salmon fault must be clearly defined. In order to show the attitude of the fault plane it must be observed at a sufficient number of points to accurately determine its geometry. Its location with respect to the plant site must be determined and assurance that it is capped by a datable stratigraphic unit must be provided. The existence and configuration of the erosion surface at the base of the upper Carlotta formation, which is interpreted to truncate the fault, must be thoroughly demonstrated. An upper limit for the age of last movement on the fault must be established by reliable dating techniques sufficient to demonstrate that the fault is noncapable,
- c. Definitive evidence must be provided to show that the displacements in the ravine at Humboldt Hill and the quarry at Fields Landing are not of tectonic origin.
- d. The Freshwater and Table Bluff faults must be investigated in sufficient detail to determine their seismic potential and relationship to the regional tectonic framework. If these faults cannot be shown to be noncapable within the meaning of Appendix A. Section IIIg, their structural relationship to the Little Salmon-Yager fault must be determined suf ficient to demonstrate that movemeat on the Freshwater or Table Bluff faults could not be reasonably expected to be accompanied by movement on the Little Salmon-Yager fault (Appendix A, Section IIIg (3)).
- e. The seismic monitoring network must be reinstated. One station of the reinstated seismic network must be located as close as possible to the Humboldt Plant and still maintain a background noise level similar to that of other stations in the network. The preferred location would be within 2 miles of the plant; e.g. a site between the plant and Buhne point. Deeper than nonnal burial should be considered as a possible means of reducing background noise. The purpose of this instrument is to resolve whether poorly recorded events are occurring close to the plant.
- f. All earthquakes from past and future raonitoring, must be listed, regardless of size, whose P-S intervals indicate possible location on the Bay entrance or other faults in the vicinity of the plant. If an event can be shown not to have occurred in the vicinity of the plant site (e.g.
intersections of three P-S circles are distant from the
! site) so indicate and provide the alternative epicenters including an error estimate.
I
)
l J
l
- 3. commence a controlled shutdown of the facility by July 2,1976, to begin the 1976 refueling outage. Commission approval by amendment to the license, with respect to the satisfactory completion of the requirements listed in items 1 and 2 a, b, c, e, and f above, is required prior to power operation following the 1976 refueling outage. The results of the licensee's investigations for item 2d above will be submitted by the end of 1976 but need not necessarily be completed or found acceptable prior to return to power operation.
I i
I i
k
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CL -jU BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 65 001iS N04 In the Matter of ) u rice F SiULW DOCKET a i. SERVlu PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY l Docket No. 50-133 BRMM
)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant )
Unit No. 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this lith day of October,1985:
- Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Administrative Judge Linda J. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Donohoe, Jones, Brown & Clifford U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission 100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor 4
Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94102
- Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Michael R. Sherwood, Esq.
Administrative Judge Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2044 Fillmore Street Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94115
' Dr. David R. Schink Gretchen Dumas, Esq.
Administrative Judge Public Utilities Commission of Department of Oceanography the State of California j Texas A & M University 5066 State Building College Station, Texas 77840 San Francisco, CA 94102 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Philip A. Crane, Jr. , Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Norton, Burke, Berry, and French, P.C.
Law Department 2002 East Osborn P. O. Box 7442 P. O. Box 10569 San Francisco, CA 94120 Phoenix, AZ 85064 Friends of the Earth
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ATTN: Andrew Baldwin U.S. Nu lear Regulatory Comission i 124 Spear Street a ng n. 20555 San Francisco, CA 94105 i
l l
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC_ 20555
- 00cketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
~
Mitzi(A. Young ~ / /
Counsel for NRC Staff