ML20155F479
| ML20155F479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1998 |
| From: | Clay W, Lesan W, Williams N AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F482 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#498-19688 98-749-01-LR, 98-749-1-LR, LR, NUDOCS 9811060042 | |
| Download: ML20155F479 (9) | |
Text
__......
g...
4',
[
[d m
t DOCKETED f
USNRC c
'd.a c *
% NOV -4 P 1 :59 Chauooga River Watershed Coalitiog
-~
P. O. Box 2006 o Clayton, GA 30525 g"f (706) 782.6097 o Fan (706) 782-6098 crwc@ acme brain.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-269-LR Oconee Nuclear 5: vion,
)
50-270-LR Unit Nos.1,2, ana 3
)
50-287-LR
)
ASLBP No. 98-749-01-LR
)
October 30,1998 r
PETITIONER'S FIRST SUPPI.EMENTAl. FILING E
INTRODUCTION The Petitioners, Chaitooga River Watershed Coalition, Messrs. Nornian "Buu." Williams, William " Butch" Clay and William Steven "W. S." Lesan (collectively referred to as "Petitionus") hereby subinit their RESPONSE TO Tile " NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFPS ANSWER TO Tile PETITION FOR LEAVE TO lbfrERVENE"(dated Oct. 9,1998), and their FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding, and their CONCLUSION.
PETillONER'S RESPONSE TO Tile " NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION STAFPS ANSWER TO i
IllE PETITION FOR I. EAVE TO INTERVENE" The Petitioners respectfully direct the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC) stalT to the attached DLCIARAlk)Ns of William (" Butch") Clay, William Steven ("W. S ")
Lesan and Norman (" Bun") Williams (Attaciunents 1,2 and 3, respectively) The statements in these Declarations address the issues raised by the NRC staficoncerning standing, with particular reference to the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714. The Petitioners believe that their Declarations are consistent with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714, and therefore meet the tcquirements for standing in these proceedings.
in addition to the contents of their Declarations, the Petitioners hereby submit the following infonnation:
r 9811060042 981030 PDR ADOCK 05000269 p$o3 enn
l The Chattooga River Watershed Coalition's office is located at 49 East Savannah Street in the tow n of
\\
Clay ton, Georgia. Clayton is located in Rabun County, w hich lies in the far northeast corner of Georgia, and is with:m 30 miles of the Oconee Nuclear Station. Clay ton is centrally located in the 180,(KK) acre Cluttooga River watershed, and is 8 miles from the South Carolina state line, w hich is delineated by the National Wild and Scenic Cluttooga River. The entire 180,(x)0 acre Cinttooga River waterstnl lies within 40 miles of the Oconee Nuclear Station. Approximately 90% of the Chattooga River watershed lies within 30 miles of the nuclear facility, with the closest point in the watershed located at 15 miles from the Oconee Nuclear Station.
The Petitioners derived these mileage figures from the " bulls-eye" map included in Volume 2 of the Oconce Nuclear Staticu's Final Safety Analysis Report (which depicts the nuclear station in the center of concentric circles at 10,20,30,40 and 50 mile radiuses from the facility).
The CRWC's Bylaws, at Article II, describe the organization as a membership organi/ation; that is, one composed of members, both individuals and groups. The CRWC has hundreds of members u ho reside, recreate, woik, breathe the air, drink water and eat food produced within 50 miles of Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. The CRWC membership also includes some individuals who have been or are currently employed at the Oconee Nuclear Station site. The CRWC's members' food sources, air, water, personal safety, property rights and personal finances would be adversely affected by the NRC granting Duke Power's application for license renewal of Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3 for an additional 20 years, if the plant camnot be safely operated for the full 20 year term of the renewal, and/or in the event of normal and accidental releases of radioactive materials from the nuclear facility during this time period.
It is central to the Petitioncr's meaningful participation in these proceedings that their standing be recognized by the ASLit With standing, the Petitioner's interests could be redressed through an adjudicatory process. This adjudicatory process is not available through the ongoing parallel process of public scoping for preparation of a site-specific Environmental Impact Statement, and Duke Power Company's application to renew their operating license for the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. As c!carly stated in previous correspondence, the Petitioner's believe that the aforementioned parallel proceedings do not serve the intent of the National Enviromnental Policy Act (NEPA) as expressed at 40 C.F.R.1500. l(b) and 1502.2(g).,Thus, the Petitioner's interests umy be redressed through obtaining standing, w hich would assure the Petitioners could access and exhaust all administrative remedies in the course of these proceedmgs.
The Petitioners would like to respond to the NRC statTs evaluation of our complaint regarding
" adequate notice." While the NRC staff maintains that we have had " ample" notice, we cannot concur with this opinion. In reality, the yolume of material associated with these proceedings is quite htrge, and deserves j
adequate review. For example, we consider the basic documents associated with these proceedings to consist of; the Final Safety Analysis Report--8 volumes; Duke Power's Application for Renewed Operating Licenses for the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3-4 volumes; Crisis Management Implementation Procedures--2 volumes; Generic Emironmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Phmts--2 volumes; Oconee Nuclear Station Emergency Plan-1 volume; and 10 C.F. R --2 volumes (see Attaciunent 4 for a visual representation of these documents). In addition, the Public Document Room (PDR)in the Oconce County Library (at Walhalla, SC) contains 38 file cabinet drawers chock full of relevant materials: 8 file cabinet drawers full of paper documents, and 30 file cabinet drawers full of documents on micro fiche. Concerning just the micro fiches, our conservative cale.dation of the volume of material here places the number of pages in the millions (see Attachment 5, a & b). This material deserves adequate review in light of these proceedings.
Our cursory survey ofjust the micro fiche dccuments revealed some intriguing topics, for example:
" Radioactive efiluents released from facilities during 1976," and " Raw water supply grab samples collected in mid-January, February and March,1977, revealed levels of radioactivity exceeding control level by greater than 4 times." While we heartily endorse the pmetice of establishing reasonable timelines for the discourse of public comment, agency response and dispute resolution, it is ludicrous to expect adequale review of this volume of material injust a few weeks. Therefore, the Petitioners believe that under the current expedited timelines, meaningful public review is severely compromised, and in some cases may be impossible.
Indeed, Duke Power's application to renew the operating license for the Oconee Nuclear Station is the product of years of work, and "reficcis the resuhs of a considerable investment of time on behalf of Duke, the NRC and the industry," as stated on page 7 of M. S. Tuckman's cover letter in Duke's Application (vol.1).
Further, Tuckman clearly states (same page) that "our goal is to facilitate a thorough, >ct efficient res iew of C
/
i 8gg(9 Z
j
i this Application so as to avoid mmecessary delay in the issuance of the requested rencued ope and proposes " periodic meetings between its management and the NRC's License Renewal Projec to achieve this goal--as quickly as possible. While we understand that a close " working relationsh evolved between the NRC and industry, which is a function of the NRC's oversight of the nucl Petitioners submit that the intent of NEPA at 40 C.F. R.1502.2(g)is being circumvented in th PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS Contention #1:
As a matter oflaw and fact, Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as " Application") is incomplete, a be withdrawn and/or sununarily dismissed.
Basis:
Duke's Application states "The evahiation of stmctures and components as required by 10 C.F.R. 54.21 has been completed" (Applicant's Envirmunental Report, volume 4, Exhibit D, p.3-2). Ilowever contrary to this statement, page 3 of M. S. Tuckman's submittal letter for the Application states, "In m requisite demonstration for Reactor Coolant System components, Duke has incorporated by reference se Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group (B&WOG) topical reports applicable to the Oconce Reactor Coolant System. Submitted to the NRC in 1996 and 1997, several of these B&WOG topical reports remain und review. Similarly, in 1996, Duke submitted a report to the NRC on the Reactor Building (Containment) sections of u hich are under active review by the statT. This report also is incorporated by reference into Application. Therefore, final disposition of the B&WOG and Duke reports is of paramount importance technical analysis and conclusions set forth in Exhibit A"(Application vol. I, submittal letter). Thus the l
Petitioners submit that the incomplete status of the timd disposition of the B&WOG reports renders the Application incomplete, and inadequate for meaningful public and technical expert review. It follows that absence of such critical information limits the resources available to the Petitioners, and significantly in the ability ofintervenors in this proceeding to gather complete information in preparation for the NRC's projected schedule of hearings and other adjudicatory proceedings. The absence of such critical information a this time is also a solid impediment to the public's right to know.
In addition, the Application states, " Additional descriptions of the Oconce Reactor Vessels aic contained in the Oconce UFSAR, section 5.3 and B AW-2251 [ Demonstration ofthe Management ofAgin lyfectsfor the Reactor l'essell..
As noted presiously...one of the B&WOG topical reports that is currently under review is BAW-2251" (Applicahon vol.1, at 2.4-7) Furthermore, the Application states," Descriptions of Reactor Vessel Internals of Oconee are contained in B AW-2248 [ Demonstration ofthe Management of s1gmg lyfectsfor the Reactor l'enelInternah l.
As noted previously...one of the B&WOG topical reports that is currently under NRC review is BAW-2248~ "(Application vol I, at 2.4-8) Again, the Petitioners submit that the incomplete status of the final disposition of the B&WOG reports renders the Apphcation incomplete, as w ell as inadequate for public and tecimical expert review, and hearings and other adjudic proceedings.
The Basis for Contention #1 is also set forth in each of the Requests for Additional Infonnation (RAl) filed or forthcoming by NRC staff to Duke Energy Corporation. According an NRC letter, the final RAl's (technical) must be filed on or before December 4,1998, and the final RAl's (environmental) on or before January 3,1999 (letter from Grimes to McCollum, dated July 31,1998, addressing a proposed NRC review schedule for Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3). Although the RAl's have not been fully docketed or filed, the Petitioners hereby include as an additional basis for Contention #1 all ofIhe unresolved safety-related matters identified in the attached list of documents ( Attachment 6)
Contention #2:
As a matter oflaw and fact, Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License
^
/
for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3 does not meet the aging management and other safety-related t
s, a c.-
3
l l
l requirements mandated by law and NRC regulations, and therefore should be nithdnm n and/or sununarily dismissed.
i Basis:
Please see Contention #1 Basis discussion In addition, the Petitioners set forth in the Basis for Contention #2 the B&WOG topical repon 13AW-2243 A (7he Demonstration ofthe Ahmagement ofsiging Effectsfor the Reactor Coolant & stem hping). The Application is incomplete in describing the status of 13AW-2243A: (quoting the NRC) "The fl&WOG defers the development of details of...(2) the sample inspection of small bore Reactor Coolant System piping, to the renewal applic:mt referencing this topical repon. The renewal applicant will have to provide details of these... inspection programs in its renewal i
application for stalT review and approval" (Application, vol.3,4.3-30). The Petitioners also set forth in the l
Basis for Contention #1 BAW-2244 A (Demonstration ofthe Ahmagement ofilging Effectsfor the Pressurizer). Indeed, the Application notes, "Without such additional aging management prognun activities, the statT cannot conclude that all aging effects applicable to the pressmizer vessel cladding have been adequately addressed by the aging management programs delincated in BAW-2244" (Application, vol. I,2.4 28). The Petitioners submit that the current, nebulous status of BAW-2251, BAW-2248, BAW-2243A and BAW-2244 A cannot support a determination on the safety or the validity of Duke Energy Corporation's agm management programs for Oconee Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3.
In addition, the Petitioners question the tuning, and ;nerefore validity, of specific aging m:magement program activities that are apparently undeveloped and vaguely referenced in the Application. For example,
" A program to provide a reasonable demonstration of the integrity of the pressurizer cladding could be a one-time inspection for license renewal" (Application vol. I, p. 2.4-28). In order to be used for license renewal, the language here indicates that this "one-time inspection" would be well in advance of the expiration date for the Oconee Nuclear Station's current operating license. As such, if this "one-time inspection" was used as a baseline component in approving the facility's license senewal, then at the beginning of the nuclear station's extended tenn there could be ten years of"wcar and lear" on the pressurizer cladding that would be miaccounted for. If the Petitioners are correct in their interpretation of the sequence of "one-time inspection" events, this scenario would be unacceptable in addressing puNic health and safety-related issues.
Additional Basis for this Contention shall also be set forth in each of the RAl's that will be filed by the NRC stalT.
Contention #3; As a matter oflaw and fact, Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License for Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 fails to meet mandated law under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and therefore should be withdraw n and/or summarily dismissed Basis:
NEPA at 1500. ltb) states "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." Throughout Duke Energy Corporation's Application, Duke defers the development of specific c,afety and aging management programs until after the time that the NRC would issue an operating license renewal, and/or until shonly before tbc current operating license expires (see also Contentions #1 & #2). The Petitioners submit that this methodology is a violation of the purpose and procedures of NEPA 1500.l(b). In addition, the Petuioners believe that to permit the licensee to address specific safety and aging management programs in dispersed increments over many 3 cars would impair the NRC's ability (and responsibility) to provide the necessary safety analyses, as a prerequisite to deciding whether or not to approve Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License for Oconec Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. In addition, this type of
" segmentation" oflicensing actions contradicts a serics of NEPA cases affirming that a federal agency may not avoid an overall review of a pmject by dealing with the project in " segments " (See Memorandum ofI an submitted by SAPL and NECNP in support of Jointly Filed Contentions 2 through 4, July 9.1998, and SAP 11NAESCO Response to Proposed Contentions, August 19,1998) 4.JC' i
F 1
NEPA at 1502.2(g) states " Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assess i
I enviromnental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made." The Petitioners submit that the intent of NEPA at 40 C.F. R.1502.2(g)is being circumvented in these proc Please see above discussion of M. S. Tuckman's Application submittalletter.
NEPA at 1502.2 I states " Agencies shall incorporate material into an enviromnental impact statement by reference w hen the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described. No materia may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for conunent. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and cosmnent shall not be incorporated by reference." Please see above discussion in Contentions
- 1 and #2.
Additional Basis for this Contention shall also be set forth in each of the RAl's that will be filed by t NRC stalT.
Contention #4 The Petitioners submit that the specific issue of the storage of spent fuel and other radioactive substance < on ti:e site of the Oconce Nuclear Station must be addressed in these proceedings. In add status asd capacity of the current spent fuel storage fiicility must be disclosed and addressed. The transpo radioactive materials to other locations, if and when storage capacity is exceeded, must be disclosed and addressed. The real and potential availability and viability of other High Level Waste storage sites must be disclosed and addressed.
Basis:
The Petitioners can find no record of a discussion of the storage of spent fuel and other radioactise substances on the site of the Oconce Nuclear Station in the Applicant's Environmental Report. The Petitione can find no record of a discussion of the status and capacity of the current spent fuel storage facility in the Applicant's Environmental Repo'rt.
The transport of radioactive materials to other locations, if and w hen storage capacity is exceeded, must be disclosed and addressed. The applicant admits " Duke has not addressed the existing requirements of Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) in this Environmental Report ( Application, vol. 4, p 4-55).
The real and potential availability and viability of other Iligh Level Waste (llLW) storage sites must be disclosed and addressed. It is common knanledge that the llLW repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, may not be a viable repository. Within the scope of these proceedings, it would be irresponsible to disregard or circumvent one of the most pressing issues facing the nuclear poner industry.
CONCLUSION The Petitioners raluest that the Chauooga River Watershed Coalition be adnutted as a party to these proceedings, and that the CRWC's contentions be admitted fer adjudication. In addition, the Petitioners request that these proceedings be sta)cd, as the Petitioners must review the Requests for Additional Information that will be filed by the NRC staff, and the Applica d's responses to said Requests for Additional Information. The Petitioners ralnest that the CRWC be given at least 90 days after the Applicant has filed us responses to the Requests for Additional Information to file a Supplemental List of Contentiods.
Respectfully sub nitt d, J%
~
Norn6(" Bun" Williams '
190 biountain Cove Road Mountain Rest, SC 29664
'~
o
'.ac'
~,.
.-... ~.....
ut Honni Bun" Williams '
Exec ive Director, Cliattooga River Walershed Coalition 49 East Savannah Street Clayton, Georgia 30525
]
, William "Bul6VClay j
Red Mountain Road Mountain Rest, SC 2X>64 Ajb'
'iliain Steven ("W. Sffesan i
I 190 DalTodilliill Mountain Rest, SC 29664 i
i I
l t
t
i i
jyr LISTOF ATTACilMENTS I
i I
-,I. - Declaration of William " Butch" Clay.
?
1 2.
Declaration of William Steven "W. S.",Lesan 3.
Declamtion of Norma "Buz2" Williams i
4 Basic documents in Oconee proceedings
- 5. ' A & B Micro fiche documents l.
6.'
Requests for AdditionalInfonnation 1
I l
I i
i i
este e
0 a
i
. a c ',
e
hM s % w$w Wgan$w nAQ
$v c
p/$ Wh g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCl. EAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND Ll CENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-269-LR Oconce Nucicar Station,
)
50-270-LR Unit Nos.1,2, and 3)
)
50-287-LR DECLARATION of WILLI AM (" BUTCH") CLAY I declare under the pains and penalty of perjury, and hereby affirm that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the following is true and correct:
1.
My name is William (" Butch") Clay.
2.
I own property and reside at an unnumbered residence on Red Mountain Road, Mountain Rest South Carolina 29664. Said property is within 20 miles of Oconce Nucicar Station Units 1,2 and 3.
3.
I am a member in good standing of the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, Inc. (CRWC), and I volunteer my senices to contribute the CRWC's mission "To protect, promote and restore the natural ecological integrity of the Chattooga River watershed ecosystem; to ensure the viatJ1ity of natise species in hannony with the need for a healthy hunun emironment; and, to educate and empower communitics to practice good stewardship on public and private lands." In addition, I also volunteer my sen ices to contribute to the CRWC's stated goals.
two of which are dtrcctly applicable to these proceedings and are: " Educate the public." and " Promote public choice based on credible scientific infonnation." I frequently visit the Chattoog River Watershed Coalition oflice, w hich is located in Clayton, Georgia, and is within 30 miles of the Oconee Nuclear Station.
4.
I lise, work, recreate and travel to areas within 20 miles of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. I also breathe the air, drink water and cat food produced within 20 miles of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3.
My food sources. air and water uould be adversely affected by normal and accidental releases of radioactive nutcrials during the proposed extended operation of the Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3.
5.
I believe that significant issues renuin miresoh ed to the public, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
and Duke Powcr Compmy, in Duke's application to renew the operating license for Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. Thus, the application is inadequate to protect me from the unacceptable risk of a radiological accident at the facility during the proposed renewal tenu. My concern is based on my knowledge that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has responded to Duke Power's application by requesting additional information concermng the stmetural integrity of the reactor vessel and contaimnent buildings. and other critical components of the facility which are pivotal in determining uhether the facility can be safely operated now, and through the extended renewal tenn for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. In addition, to my knowledge there are other significant issues that are unresolved in Duke Power Company's application to renew the operating license for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3. specifically: the effects of aging and embrittlement of the Oconce Nuclear Station's reactor vessels and containment vessels; the status and captcity of the current storage facility for spent fuct and other mdioactive substances on the site of the Oconce Nuclear Station, the potential need to design and expand aforementioned storage facilitics to accommodate extended operation of Units I,2 and 3 of the Oconce Nuclear Station; tmnsport of radioactive materials to other locations if and when storage capacity is exceeded. the real and potential availability and viability of other storage sites.
specific safeguards to detcet terrorist actions, and plans and measures to defend against terrorist attacks; and, the simetural integrity of Units 1,2 and 3 of the Oconce Nuclear Station to withstand tonudoes, and carthquakes of the nognitude possible due to the nuclear station's prmimity to ti.e Brevard Fault. In addition, I believe llut the
1 niablished timeline of these proceedings presents a totally inadequate window of opportunity for members of the CRWC and the public at large to gain an adequate understanding of, expertisc on. and legal standing for the particular issues named above. Thus, I am concerned tlut me mingful public panicipation is not possible in the ongoing hcense renewal proceedings, because the public scoping meeting for the renewal application was hcid well afler the deadlines for obtaining legal standing in the proceedings 6.
I beliese that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, I could suffer severe illacss and/or dic, and my safety, property rights and persoral finances could be adversely affected by the NRC granting Duke Power's application for license renewal of Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 for an additional 20 3 cars, if the plant cannot be safely operated for the full 20 year term of the renewal. Based on my knowledge of the aforementioned re-licensing proceedings, I have a reasonable fear that the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1. 2 and 3 may not be safely operated for the full 20 car term of the rencual.
S 7.
I believe that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, the staff members working for the CRWC may suffer severe illness and/or dic, and i
the abihty of the CRWC to function would be destroyed, thus preventing the CRWC pursuing the organization's mission and from advocating my interests in a cleaner and healthier environment. In addition, if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3 los a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation, the flora, fauna, air, and aquatic resources of the Chattooga River ecosystem would be irretrievably damaged and/or destroyed. The entire 180,000 acre Cluttooga River watershed lies witlun 40 miles of the Oconce Nuclear Station; approximately 90% of the Chattooga River watershed lies within 30 miles of the nuclear facility, with j
the closest point in the watershed located at 15 miles from the Oconce Nuclear Station. (These mileage figures j
are derived from the map included in Volume 2 of the Oconce Nuclear Station's Final Safety Analysis Report.)
8.
I believe that if the Oconce Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 has a major radiological accident during current and/or extended operation. the llora, fauna. air, and aquatic resources of the Chattooga River ecosystem n ould be irretrievably damaged and/or destroyed. Tims. an accident would adversely affect the quality of my environment and my enjoyment of my natural surroundmgs.
9.
I hereby authorize the CRWC to represent all of my interests pertaining to the Oconce Nuclear Station re-licensing matter. Should the CRWC not be granted standing to represent my interests. I hereby request permission to represent my own interests before the NRC, and participate in this proceeding in my individual capacity.
William (" Butch") Clay Dated l
l 4
4 7