ML20197D509
| ML20197D509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1997 |
| From: | Silberg J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18665 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9712290076 | |
| Download: ML20197D509 (27) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i E
DOCKETED USHRC
\\ hU,
$ 17 p + *t
'97 DEC)'I All:39 December 12,1997 OFHCF OF SFD':%
RULEMNW M i+1D ADJUD!CAiK 's bTAFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ikfore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02 ISFSI APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO THE CONFEDERATED TRIHES AND DAVID PETE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO INTERVENE AND FOR A IIEARING 1.
INTRODUCTION Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. ("PFS" or " Applicant") submits this answer to the
" Supplemental Memorandum in Support Of The Petition Of The Confederated Tribes Of The Go hute Reservation And David Pete To Intervene And For A Hearing"
(" Supplemental Memorandum"), dated October 15,1997, in conjunetion with the Supplemental Memorandum, the Coafederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation
(" Confederated Tribes") also filed two declarations in support ofits Petition To Intervene in an attempt to establish representational standing on behalf ofits members in order to intervene in this proceeding for the licensing of the Private Fuel Storage Facility (the
" Facility").
ll lI,kk )! ; i, S
b 9712R?OO76 971212 PDR ADOCK 07200022
]
C PDR U
I l
Despite the aoditional argument and information presented in the Supplementa' Memorandum and the two declarations, the Confederated Tribes has still failed to demonstrate actual or imminent concrete, particularized injmy in fact necessary for it to establish standing to intervene in this proceeding. The two declarations purport to show with " particularity" the nature and frequency of the contacts that the members of the Confederated Trilm have on or near the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (the " Skull Valley Band") and the supposed harm that would result to them if the Facility were to proceed, liowever, the declarations for the most part are generalized assertions by the declarants of purported centacts by othc1 members of the Confederated Tribes on or near the Skull Valley reservation which, as a matter oflaw, are insufficient to establish representationel standing. Tiie spccific contacts of the two declarants are either non-existent or unspecified occasional contacts insufFcient to establish standing under NRC precedent.'
The Confederated Tribes also reargues standing based on its claimed interest in the aboriginal lands -- in which it has no legally protectable interest -- and its supposed close continuing ties with the Skull Valley Band, which it expressly acknowledges is a separate and distinct legal entity. Neither argument supports standing here. Finally, the 3 The Applicant is filing in conjunction with this Answer a Declaration of Arlene Wash, a member of the Skull Valley Band, which confirms the lack of any significant contact of one of the Confederated Tribes' declarants. See Exhibit 1. The other Confederated Tribes' declarant has asserted no personal contact on or near -
Skull Valley reservation.
2
e Confederated Tribes claims to be a " municipality," which cleaily it is not, in an attempt to come in under 10 C.F.R. Q 2.715(c).
In short, neither the Confederated Tribes nor David Pete has demonstrated the necessary standing in order to be allowed to intervene in this licensing proceeding.
11.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND in response to the July 31,1997 notice in the Federal Register that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") was considering the PFS license application and that interested persons could F.le a written request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene, on August 29,1997, the Confederated Tribes and David Pete filed a Request for llearing and Petition to Intenene. On September 15,1997, the Applicant filed an Answer opposing the Request for hearing and Petition to Intervene because neither the Confederated Tribes nor David Pete had established the prerequisite standing to intervene in this licensing proceeding.' As set forth in Applicant's Answer, the Confederated Tribes' reservation straddles the Nevaca Utah border, three mountain rangen and some 70 miles from the separate and distinct reservation of the Skull Valley Band and the proposed Facility. Therefore, the claims of alleged injury by the Confederated Tribcs and David Pete on the Confederated Tribes' resenation are too distant and remote from the Facility to establish standing under NRC precedent. Further, the only claims ofinjury
' Sec " Applicant's Answer to Request for llearing and Petition to intervene of the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation and David Pete," dated September 15,1997.
3
h outside the Confederated Tribes' reservation pertaining to the aboriginal area -. an area encompassing millions of acres in which the Confederated Tribes no longer has any legal interest consisted of vague, conjectural, generalized assertions insufficient to show real risk or injury. Thus, neither the Coiifederated Tribes nor Mr. Pete had demonstrated actual or imminent concrete, particularized injury.in. fact required to establish standing.
On September 18,1997, the NRC Staff filed a response to the Confederated Tribes and David Pete's Request for 11 earing and Petition to Intervene also concluding for largely the same reasons that neither the Confederated Tribes nor David Pete had demonstrated standing, anl that, absent any further information, their petitlan for leave to l
intervene should be denied. On Octobe 15,1997, the Confederated Tribes and David Pete filed their Supplemental Memorandum and the two declarations purporting to provide such additional information. By Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 1997, the Board extended the time for filing responses to the Supplemental Memorandum to December 22,1997, 111.
ARGUMENT A.
The Two Supplemental Declaradons Fall To Establish Representational Standing Of The Confederated Tribes The Confederated Tribes has filed a Supplemental Declaration of Chrissandra M.
Reed (" Reed Declaration") and a Supplemental Declaration of Genevieve P. Fields
(" Fields Declaration")in support ofits petition to intervene. The Reed and Fields 4
declarations, however, are insumcient to establish representational standing of the Confederated Tribes on behalf ofits members.
Where an organization seeks to derive standing based on the interests ofits members, the organization must come forward with at least one member who (1) possesses individual standing to participate in the proceeding and (2) has authorized the organization to represent his or her interests. Georgia Institute of Technology (Gee gia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI 9512,42 N.R.C. Ii1,115 (1995);
llouston Lighting and Power Comoany,(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB 535,9 N.R.C. 377,396 97 (1979). These two criteria apply equally to Indian tribes as well as to other organizations. As stated by the licensing board in Seouoyah Encis_Corocration (Gore, Oklahoma Site),40 N.R.C. 9,15 n. 25 (1994), "to represent the interests of its members, [a] tribe must identify at least one member who will be injured and obtain authorization to represent that individual."
The Reed and Fields Declarations satisfy neither of these two criteria. For the most part, the declarations are assertions by the declarants of purported contacts on or near the Skull Valley reservation by nihn members of the Confederated Tribes, and not of the two declarants themselves. Such assertions are insumcient to establish representational standing of the Confederated Tribes because, even assuming injury in fact to these other members, the declarations do not provide the necessary authorization of these other tribe members for the Confederated Tribes to represent their interests in this proceeding.
5
With respect to the assertion of con' acts by the two declarants themselves, it is either non<xistent (as with the Fields Declaration) or consists of vague, unspecified occasional contacts (as with the Reed Declaration) insufficient to establish standing under NRC precede t. Thus, although the two declarants authorize the Confederated Tribes to represent their individual interests in this proceeding, they lack individual standing and therefore cannot confer representationa standing on the Confederated Tribes, 1,
'Lhe Fields Declaration The Fields Declaration describes visits made by various members of the Confederated Tnbes tc, the Skull Valley reservation, including declarant's older sister, but 1
the declarant asserts no particularized present-day contacts that she has near or on the Skull Valley reservation. Sec Fields Declaration,$14 9.
Eirst, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the declarant asserts that her oldest sister, a member of the Confederated Tribes, currently lives only a few miles from the Skull Valley reservation and regularly visits the grave of her husband on the Skull Valley reservati a.
It is well established under NRC precedent, however, that a petitioner cannot establish standing on the basis of a third party, even where the third party is a close relative, such as a son or daughter. Sec. c.g., Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-413,5 N.R.C.1418,1421 (1977)(mother did not have standing based upon son who was attending a n:arby university); assard Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fenni Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP 7811,7 N.R.C. 381,387, afYirmed, 6
(
)
ALAB-470,7 N.R.C. 473,474 75, n.1 (1978). Thus, even assuming the asserted facts are sufficient to show standing of the sister, the do not give the declarant, and hence the j
t
- Confederated Tribes, standing here.
i Second, in paragraphs 4,6,8, and 9, the declarant asserts that many members of the Confederated Tribes visit friends and relatives and acend religious and other events at the Skull Valley reservation. Ilowever, these assertions of wntact by other individuals near or on the Skull Valley reservation do not give declarant ste:. ding and, as discussed above, declarant's declaration does not provide the necessary authorization of these other tribe members for the Confederated Tribes to represent their interests in this proceeding, 1
even assuming injury in fact of the other members. Thus, these assertions provide no basis for the Confederated Tribes to intervene in this proceeding.
Ibird, the only specific contact asserted by the declarant with the Skull Valley mservation is that "Iw] hen Declarant was ynunger, she attended religious ceremonies on the Skull Valley Reservation," Fields Declaration 18 (empliasis added). Ilowever, contact that declarant may have had with the Skull Valley reservation when she was young is irrelevant for purposes of showing :tanding today. Lujan v. Defenders of
. Wildlife,504 U.S. 555,564 (1992). In Luian, the petitioners asserted standing, in part, on the fact that in the past they had visited locations where the Department ofIntenor's regulations (which they.were challenging) would have future efTect. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this as a basis for standing, stating "[t] hat the women 'had visited' the areas of the projects before the projects commenced prorcs nothina." ist at 564 7
p-'
4
+w y
+-
rr%
-,dre-'wP e-+3+-
=we--w"u w'-
1er-'
f
- = <Ww'e' 5+r
--e a>~W-F m-
- Jewee v
-t w tv -w we tvw et w+-
p-wv v
~e--r r gwv - vs-et w--
V
>1
r I
(emphasis added). As in Luian, the fact that the declarant had visited the area of the proposed Facility behre the Facility comraences proves nothing.
Thus, the Fields Declaration sets forth no assertions of actual or imminent con: rete and particularized injury that the declarant would suffer by the licensing, construction and operation of the Facility.) Accordingly, the Fields declaration does not establish her standing to intervene in this proceeding, nor therefore can it confer standing on the Confederated Tribes.
2.
The Rei d Declaration The Reed Dr.claration m:kes virtually the same assertions found in the Fields Declaration concerning contact with the Skull Valley reservation by memb~s of the Confederated Tribes other than herself. Scs, c&, Reed Declaration, $16-7,9-10. These assertions are insufficient to establish representational standing on behalf of the Confederated Tribes for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the Fields declaration, llowever, unlike the Fields Declaration, the Reed Declaration does assert 3The only paragraphs that even suggest present day contact by the declarant with the Skull Valley reservation are two of the generalized paragraphs at the end of the declaration alleging harm to herself, her relatives and other members of the Confederated Tribes. Ste, Fields Declaration, $111 12. These are, however, concluding paragraphs that summarize the t isimed haim arising from the asserted contacts with the Skull Valley reservation described in the previous paragraphs of the declaration. This is apparent from (i) ti:e structure of the declaration, (ii) the language of the paragraphs 11 12, as well as by (iii) the fact that the language in paragraphs is virtually identical to the language in the analogous concluding paragraphs of the Reed affidavit. Sec Reed Deelaration, $1 1243, in any event, the generalized, unspecified contact of declarant asserted in paragrapns 11 and 12 of the Fields declaration is insufficient to establish standing. Srs legal discussion with respect to Reed declaration infra.
8
some present day contact by the declarant (and her granddaughter) with the Skull Valley Reservation. These a.uerted contacts do not, however, establish standing.
first, the declarant relates how her granddaughter, hiichaela, visits and stays at the Skull Valley reservation. Reed Declaration, T 4. Ilowever, nowhere does she identify herself as the legal custodian for her granddaughter such that she could authorire the Confederated Tribes to represent the interests of her granddaughter. It is well established that the paren:s of a Indian minor are the presumed legal custodian and the declarant has presented no evidence that she has been granted legal custody of hiichaela. See, es, Ecopleja. Interest of J.J.,454 N.W. 2d 317,327 (S.D.1990). Absent such a showing, it must be presumed that declarant is not the legal custodian of hiichaela. Id. Accordingly, she cannot derive standing for herself nor confer standing on the Confederated Tribes based on the alleged harm to her granddaughter.
Second, the declaration is unclear exactly how Chrissandra Reed drops off and picks up hiichaela at the Skull Valley reservation. Ses Reed Declaration, T 4. According to the attached Declaration of Ailene Wash, who is the cousin of Chrissandra Reed with whom hiichaela stays while visiting the Skull Valley reservation, Chrissandra does not come onto to the reservation when dropping off hiichaela. Exhibit 1, Wash Declaration, M 2 3. Rather, Arlene Wash or her dauginer meet Chrissandra Reed and hiichaela at Exit 77 on Interstate 80 and escort hiichaela from there to the Skull Valley reservation.
Id. at j 3. Exit 77 on Interstate 80 is 25 miles from the Skull Valley reservation. Id.
Similarly, Chrissandra does not come onto the Skull Valley reservation when picking up 9
r 1
i
Michaela but meets Michaela, er.corted by Arlent Wash or her daughter, at the same exit on Interstate 80 or at West Valley, Utah. Id. West Valley is a city located adjacent to Salt Lake City, two valleys and mountain ranges and over S. air miles east of the Skull Valley ReservaCon. Sec figure 1 1 ("PFSF Location")in the License Application.
The declarant, Chrissandra Reed, does not specifically allege any harm arising from mee'ing her cousin at Exit 77 on Interstate 80 to drop off and pick up Michaela. Srs Reed Declaration, M 4,11 14. The remoteness of this location from the Skull Valley reservation, and her infrequent, limited presence there in dropping off and picking up d
Michaela would require her to show with particularity how her short presence there would give rise to actual or imminent concrete, particularized harm, which she has not done. Scs, c.g., Sequoyah Fuels Ccm (Gore, Oklahoma Site), LBP-9419,40 N.R.C. 9, I l 12 (1994); Sanamento_himtisipal Utility DiMrict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LDP 92 23,36 N.R.C.120,130 (1992); Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LDP 85 24,22 N.R.C. 97 (1985). Further, even assuming sumcient pmximity to the proposed facility, such intennittent, limited visits are not sufficient, as discussed below, ta estabihh standing.
Ihird, the Reed declaration also asserts that the declarant " visits with cousins at the Skull Valley Reservation on a regular basis" and that she " regularly visits" the
' in her declaration, Chrissandra Reed asserts that she takes her granddaughter "approxhnately every other week" to the Skull Valley reservation. Reed Declaration,14. Ilowever, according to the declaration of Arlene Wash, Michaela visits the Skull Valley reservation only "rbout 3 or 4 times a year.' Wash Declaration,13.
10 l
I T
cemetery on the Skull Valley Reservation where her aunt is buried. Reed Declaration. it 5,8. The declaration, however, does not define regularly. We do not know from her declaration therefore whether her visits are on a regular basis once a month, once a year or once every ten years. The declaration of Arlene Wash provides more information, stating that Chrissandra's visits to the Skull Valley reservation are " random and usually no more than once a year." Wash Declaration,i 4.
As such, Chrissandra Reed's visits to the Skull Valley reservation are analogous to the " unspecified," " occasional trip" made by the petitioner to his farm in the vicinity of a nuclear plant which the licensing board in Washincton Public Power Sunolv Systems (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), LBP-79 7,9 N.R.C. 330,338 (1979) found insufficient to establish standing. Similarly, in Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP.82 43A 15 N.R.C.1423,1448 (1982), the licensing board found such " occasional visits" to be insuflicient to establish standing. As stated by the licensing board in that case:
Dr. Lochstet's residence 120 miles from the plant is not suflicient to provide standing.
Nor do Dr. Lochstet's visits to the vicinity of the site suffice to bring this interest to the level necessary for intervention. Ilis petition, as amended, shows only occasional visits close to the site. At best, six occasions are mentioned specifically when he has been within 50 miles of the site, ud i;9 time frame for these visits is provided.
11 i
m
inteimittent ynits 10 thg arca do not show AD interest sufHclent to requits granting inten enor status.
11 at 1447-48 (emphasis added)(citations omitted). Similarly here, the intermittent visits by the declarant, Chrissandra Reed, to the vicinity of the proposed site do not suffice to give her, or therefore the Confederated Tribes, standing to intervene in this proceeding.8 11.
The Confederated Tribes lias Not Established Organizational Standing The Supplemental Memorandum re argues generalized claims of the Confederated Tribes in the Goshute aboriginal lands and the close ties ofits members to the Skull Valley lland. Neither, however, is sufficient to establish standing for the reasons set forth in Applicant's Answer to the Petition for Leave to Intervene. The specific points raised in the Supplemental Memorandum do not overcome the deficiencies cited in App'icant's Answer.
Eltst, the Confederated Tribes asks the lloard to take into account the fact that the
" population of Skull Valley lland members who actually reside on the Skull Valley Reservation is only about 30 people." Supplemental Memorandum at 2. liowever, the Confederated Tribes does not explain the legal significar,ce of this fact, cad there is none.
As Confederated Tribes expressly acknowledges later, the Skull Valley lland is a separate 8 Paragraph 10 of the Reed Declaration makes an assertion similar to that in the Fields Declaration, "[w] hen DcClat&D1 Wat younget, she attended religious ceremonies on the Skull Valley Reservation on a regular basis, approximately monthly." Reed Declaration,110 (emphasis added). This assertion is insufficient to establish standing for the identical reasons l
set forth above with respect to the Fields declaration.
l 12
and distinct legal entity from the Confederated Tribes. Id. at 5. As a separate and distinct legal entity, the Skull Valley Band is resoonsible for ensuring the safety ofits members --
and their visitors - on the Skull Valley Reservation. The Confederr.ted Tribes has no
. jurisdiction or responsibility in this respect, regardless of the size of the Skull Valley Band or the ties between members of the Confederated Tribes and the Skull Valley Band, in this regard, the Skull Valley Band ha ' extensively studied the location of a fuel storage 1acility on its reservation over a period of several years and responsibly believes that there will be no adverse health and safety consequences for its members and their visitors.
Second, the Confederated Tribes makes additional claims regarding the aboriginal lands, which are confusing, incorrect and irrelevant. The Confederated Tribes refers to an 1863 ticaty between the United States and the Shoshoni Goship bands, which it asserts treated all Goshutes as one group and recognized the aboriginal lands as belonging to all Goshutes. Supplemental Memorandum at 3. liowever, this treaty is not an acknowledgment or recognition of Goshute ownership and title to the lands described in the treaty, but a treaty of" peace and friendship" which recognized that the Goshutes claimed ownership and title to certain lands. Sec Exhibit 1. " Treaty With the Shoshoni-Goship,1863," Articles 5 and 8.' Moreover, as set forth in Applicant's Answer to the
- Further, the treaty is with various bands of Indians reflecting that even at that time the Goshutes were not one monolithic organization of Indians as the Confederated Tribes would now have the Board believe. Sec Exhibit 2, introductory phrase to the Treaty which describes the Treaty as one between the United States and the "Shoshonce Goship bands of Indians, 13
Petition for Leave to intervene at 6 7, the Indian Claims Commission concluded that Goshete title in the aboriginal lands had " extinguished" by January 1,1875 except for the two small areas which correlate to the current Confederated Tribes and the Skull Valley reservations. Thus, as discussed mu r completely in Applicant's Answer, the Confederated Trioes has no legally cognizable rights or claims in the aboriginal lands outside the boundaries ofits reserve
- ton.'
Ibird, the Confederated Tribes cites its 1940 Constitution as illustrative ofits
" continuing close ties" with the Skuli Valley Band. Supplemental Memorandum at 4.
Ilowever, the provisions cited merely reflect how membership could be obtained in the Confederated Tribes up until 1988, a nd doer not establish any legal responsibility or jurisdiction of the Confederated Tribes for the Skull Valley Band. Indeed, a-the Confederated Tribes recognizes at page 5 ofits Supplemental Memorandum, the Skull represented by their chiefs, principal men, and warriors," and Arti& 5 which refers to the
" boundaries of the country claimed and occupied by the Goship (noe, as defined and described by.Adbands.."
' Page 4 of the Supplemenal Me*,iorandum quotes from a 1973 decision of the Indian Claims Commission which describes Goshutes roaming "the entire Goshute tract in search of game and pine nuts for food." This is, however, the same decision which concluded that the Goshute title in the aboriginallands had extinguished by 1875, except for the two small areas which correlate to the current Confederated Tribes and the Skull Valley reservations. The passage of the decision quoted in the Supplemental Memorandum is describing conditions that existed at a point in time prior to 1875. Sec Goshute Tribe or identifiable Group, represented by the Confederated Bands oLthe Goshute.Ecicnation v. United States, Dkt. No. 326-J, 31 Ind. Cl.
Comm. 225,261. ("In 1875 John W. Powell reported that the Goshute did not occupy and use (neir ancestral lands. They were concentrated at Deep Creek and Skull Vallcy.") Thus, this reference, like the reference to the 1863 Treaty, does not support the Confederated Tribes claimed current interest in the aboriginal lands.
14
f I
Valley Band is a separate governmental entity and, therefcTe, as set forth above, it is the
- Band, and not the Confederated Tribes, which is fully responsible for ensuring the safety of its members and their guests on the Skull Valley reservation.
F C.
The Confederated Tribes Has Not Established Any Right To Partleipate Under 10 C.F.R. I 2,715(e)
The Confederated Tribes argues in its Supplemental Memorandum that it is a municipality and therefore entitled to participate under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.715(c).
Supplemental Memorandum at 6. Although the Confederated Tribes is clearly a separate legal entity, it is not a municipality. The Tribes' claim -- based solely on a partial definition of" municipality" from Black's Law Dictionarv - is undermined by the full definition of " municipality" set fonh there.
The Confederated Tribes states that " Black's Law Dictionary defines
' municipality' as 'a legally incorporated or duly authorized association ofinhabitants of limited area for local government or other public purposes,'" and asserts, based on this broad brush statement, that "[c]learly, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe meets that definition...." Supplemental Memorandum at 6. The definition of" municipality" cited by the Confederated Tribes continues in relevant pan, however, as follows:
A body politic created by the incorporation of the people of a prescribed locality invested nith subordinate pagts of legiclation in assist in the ciril sovernment of the state and to regulate and administer local and intemal affairs of the community. A city, borough, town. townshin DI village.
15 t
w
,-ww-im-w-
, *-- - i-
+
Black's Law Dictionary 1018 (6th ed.1991)(emphasis added, citation omitted). Surely, the Confederated Tribes is not asserting that sovereign Indian tribes are " subordinate powers... to assist... the state." As a federally recognized sovereign entity, the Confederated Tribes also is not a " city, borough, town, township or village" within the ordinary use of those tenns.
Moreover, even assuming that the Confederated Tribes was a municipality, it would not be entitled to participate under 10 C.F.R. f 2.715(c) in this licensing proceeding. As set forth in Applicant's Answer to the Petition for Leave to intervene at 13 14, a govermnental entity must have some legitimate interest akin to standing -- some real stake in the proceeding -- in o. der to participate under 10 C.F.R. Q 2.715(c), which the Confederated Tribes has not established here (id. at 20-21). The Confederated Tribes quotes broad language from Judge Salanan's opinion in Enon NucleatcompanyJnt.
(Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center), ALAB-447,6 N.R.C. 873 (1977) to support its participation as an interested governmental entity here. Supplemental Memorandum at 6. Ilowever, its reliance on Exxon Nuclear is misplaced. As Mr.
Salnnan observed in his opinion, the Energy Commission of the State of Califomia had "far more than" a general interest in the proceeding (for the constmetion of a facility to store sad reprocess spent nuclear fuel) because under California law the Energy Commission was required to determine the " adequacy of facilities for reprocessing or storing used nuclear fuel rods" before new auclear plants could be built and licensed in 16 i
l
e Califomia. 6 N.R.C. at 879/ Similarly, Mr. Sharfman (who together with Mr. Salzman constituted the majority) found that the Califomia Energy Commission had a "significant interes11a the decision ae to whether the construction of a facility [for the storage and reprocessing of spent fuel] should be authorized" because new nisclear plants could not be built within the State unless the Commission found that such facilities were available. 6 N.R.C. at 877 {cmphasis added).
The State of Califomla's well defined interest in Exxon Nuclear in the implementation ofits State laws is significantly different from the generalized statements ofinterest provided by the Confederated Tribes. The Confederated Tribes here hra cited no implementation oflaw issue that depends on this proceeding and provides only generalized assertions of hann to a reservation separated from t" Applicant's proposed facility by almost 70 miles, several federal military installations, and three intervening mountain ranges. These generalized claims ofinterest are insufficient for the Confederated Tribes to participate under 10 C.F.R. { 2.715(c). Sec Applicant's Answer to Petition for Leave to intervene at 13 14 and 20-21.
In short, the Confederated Tribes request to participate in this licensing proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.715(c) should be denied.
' Further, Mr. Salzman specifically noted that the decision in Erron Nuclear "does not compel us... to allow every state to participate in every proceeding" to license a nuclear a nuclear facility. Id.
17 m
CONCLUSION For the foregeing reasons and those set forth in Applicant's Answer to the Petition for Leuve to Intervene, neither the Confederated Tribes nor David Pete have established -
star. ding to allow their intervention in this licensing proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
{.t w
sc JW E.lSilberg j
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Paul A.Gaukler SIIAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2.100 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663 8000 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
Dated: December 12.1997 18
---..-m-www,,msmom aae n s-
"'w M m m m m--
--w p
i l
t
\\
e l
J J
6 I
j f
i 1
1 l
4 a
i
\\
1 I
j l
i l
a I
i j -
d i
i I
J i
'l d
i 4
I a
1 e
l l
i EXHIBIT 1 I
l i
?
S l
4 I
i l
1 I
i
)
--.mm._,-~~~--,......-....-...-.-...-.-,--......-.,.m...x-........v.-,.-,-.-
..,--.4.~----..ee.-...s.,,--,-w,-..
November 10,1997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Bef ore 3heAtomicEelety..ardLicensing. Board in the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72 22
)
. (Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No.97-732 02-ISFSI DECLARATION OF ARLENE WASH Arlene Wash states as follows under penalties of perjury:
1.
I am a member of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and reside on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians.
I am a cousin of Chrissandra M. Reed of the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, 2.
I have reviewed the Supplement Declaration of Chrit, sandra M. Reed dated October 15,1997 filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Private Fuel Storage Facility. I am the cousin referred to in paragraph four of the Declaration with whom Michaela, the granddaughter of Chrissandra M. Reed stays while on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation.
. 3.
Michaela comes to stay with us at the Skull Valley Reservation about 3 or 4 times a year or more whenever Chrissandra needs a place for Michaela to stay. When Michaela comes to stay with us, Chrissandra does not come onto the.
reservation to drop off or pick up Michaela. Most the time, I and my daughter Miranda meet Chrissandra at Teddy Bears, (Exit 77 on I-80) 25 miles north of the
Skull Valley Indian Reservation Similarly, when Chrissandra picks up Michaela, I or my daughter Miranda takes Michaela to Teddy Bear's or Thelma Moon's home in West Valley, Utah to meet her.
4.
On occasion Chrissandra does visit with me and other people on the reservation. These visits are random and usually are no more then once a year.
I declere under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 10.1997 4
M v
TrTen's Was i' s
6
w -aman, 4
pa4,Jeami..I44o,w m.4A_.h..AA.,., _.a rA.-w-g-e,a_A es',-,a ea_.
re.w
..4e 6-'M----a,aAmr.
- -.wav
.ar m asn.a.*(a eaahM.--
a,Jm.-=-. - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
d a
l l
i l
l' i.
I E
l d
E I
J l
l v
l I,
L t
i EXHIBIT 2 0
5 4
7
?
t a
4 i
e i
i f
f 4
r--
-. =
INDIAN AFFAIRS.
R R
I
~
- 1AWS AND T3:IAC:::IS.
3 E
1
[jj (TREATIES.)
" " " l,2 03.2" 2 ""
os luotas Arrums.
9 OOYER$MEh* PRI IN OFFICE.
19 "= *.
~ ~ ~
~ ~ - - ~ -
T
,e 4
4 TREATY WITH THE SH0$HO.N! GOSHIP, IML s$9 w,the Witneues to the treatv:
ne rati.
Jno. O. Nicolar. Secretart to the Comminion.
Cba.. E. Phiili'p3, A..htant Secretart to Corumi<sion.
nee to J. W. Chroughton, Colonel Fir <t Ca'valry of Coiorado, Com.
,n the mandin 41 par-Samuel F.g Dutrict.
Tappan. Lieutenant. colonel Fir <t Cavalry of Colo.
a lands rado.
sing to Charles Kerber, Captain, First Cavalry of Colorado.
, they J. P. llenesteel. Captain, First Cavalry of Colorado.
4 their Interpreters:
Juan V. Valdes.
- daring flernardo 8anchez, bis x mark.
Amador Sanebez, his x '".rk.
' i bend are of TRIATY WITH.EE SHOSHONI.006 HIP,1863.
iauch ble he Treaty qf e ve am 'siendship modo at Tuilla Vallq,in the Territory
- w. w tee the of Ctah this tre th d of October, A. D. one thon:aand eight hvn.
dred and oi.rty-t ree, bEa u nan,. san.
ceen the G.ited Stata America, rfpr. M*fuy;,'y
- mt the
- , anna eented by Ihe undersigned commissioner, and th Shmhonee. Gash > w bando, of Indiana, represented by their ch;rfs, principal men, an ita the rearrwrn, aofolloorn:
ceable Aartera 1. Peace and frietdship is berebv established and shall be rme aan runa
- d th.
hereafter maintained between the Sho.honee.Gosbip bands of Indians '"*
. epair.
and the citizens and Government of the United States; and the said av seid bands stipulate and agree that hostilities and all depredations upon the emigrant trains, the mail and telegraph lines, and u of the United States, within their country, sball cease,pon the citizens
- nd the
~
AnTret.r. 2. It is further st!oulated by.ald bands that the.everal R id;ans, routes of travel through their country now or hereafter used by white,p.guggn,tg mnu.
- ene,v,
>er,tu men sball be forever free and unobstructed by them, for the use of tbe Government of the United States,and of all' emigrants and ttstel.
. ee.g,)
lers within it under its authority and p otection, without molestation or in ry from them. And if de redations are at any time committed sumnaend anee+
by b men of their own or ot er tribes within dieir country, the **
offenders shall be immediately taken and delivered up to the proper a,)
~
otlicers of the United States, to be punished as their ottences tnav of faid routes is hereby guaranteed bs said bag peaceably over eithe~r deserve: and the safety of all tra,ellers pass u ids.
u, j Military posts may be established'by the President of the United,3tgy a Gtates along said routes, or eisewhere,n their country; ba necessary i
and station.
3e,.,
^
houses may be erected und occupied at such points as may
\\t]
for the comfort and convenience of travellers or for the use of the a.
3 mall or tele companies, Atcrtetx. be telegrapb and overland stage lines having been estab.
T.L*r =>h and over-
' a, lished and operated.by companies under the author:.y of the United '*"""'""""
n, States thro b the country occupied by said bands, it is expressly
, a, agreed that e same may be continued without bindrance,utolestation 4
or injury from the people of said bands, and that their property, and
. n, the It es and property of passengers in the stages, and of the employees
. a,
- u.
of the respective compames, eball be protected by them.
And further,it being understood that provision has been made by a.u..r aderanch-a.
the Government of ibe United States for the construction of a railw
^
. a' a, '
from the pLins west to the Pacific Ocean,it is stipelated by said ban that the said railway or its brant bes may be loated, constructed, and operated, and without molestatim. from them, through any portion of the country claimed or occupied by them.
/
4 f
5dO TRE ATY WITH THE 'HosHONI GosHIP, t e:1,
{,
ARTICt.E 4. Itis further agreed by the parties hereto that the evun.
a
,,N nau. en.1 try of the Go*bip tribe may he explored and prv pected for gold and silver, or other mineral, and metal : and when mines are discorered c
ther may be worked and mining and agricultural settlements formed be required. 3 fills mar
'.i and ranebo, establiebed wherever ther may bn erected and timber taken for their u'e, as'aloo for building ac d otbe'r
)
s N*
purposes, in anv 1,rart of said country.
W AnTlet.E 5. It is understood that the houndaries of the countre claimed and occupkd by the Go. hip tribe, as detined and de. scribed b'y3l
-na.n..
said bands, are as follows: On tha north hv the middle of the Great
~
Descrt; on the west by Steptoe Vallev: on' the south by Tooedoe or Green S!c.untains; and on the ea,t by Great Salt Lake, Tuilla, and
[
f Ru,b Vallers.
Antics.ci. The said bands agree that whenever the President of the I
- a*"*
(
United States shall deem it expedient for them to abandon the roam.
t ing life which they now lead, and become ettled as herdsmen or agri.
i i
culturlets, be is bereby authorized to make such re-ervations for their use as he may deem necessary; and ther do al o agree to remove their camps to sucfi reservations as he may indicate, and to reside and remain g
nea.ua mm n.
- theieon,
(
Aaract.s 7. The United States being aware of the inconvenience
^ * " ' "
J resultlug to trie Indians, in consequence of the driving away and de.truction of game along the routes travelled by white men, and by the formation of agricultural and minintt t,ettiements, are willing to
%r fairly compensate them for the same. Therefore, and in considem.
fel tion of the preceding stipulation., and of their faithful oh.ervance bv x
C Goship tribe, or to the said bands, parties hereto, at the option of the
-i.-
President vf the United States, annually, for the term of twenty vears.
the -"m of one thousand dollars, in su'ch trticles, including cattle for lC c m..
hers or other purposes, as the President sball deem.uitable for 4
their uats and condition either as hunters or herdsmen. And the said bandy for themselves and for their tribe,i.erebv acknowledge the.j reception of the said stipulated annuities as a full' compensation and k""-
equivalent for the loss of game and the rights and privileges hereby gy concededt and also one taousand dollars in provisions and goods at
- i Antiet.n 8..Nothing herein conta'ined shall be construed or taken to Y.
and before the signing of this treaty.
g admit any other or greater title or interest in the lands embrnced within th'e territories described in said treatv in said tribes or bandsof Indians than existed in them upon the acq6isition of said territorie, e,
from 3!exico by the laws thereof.
James Duane Dotv, commissioner.
N' P. Edw. Connor, Brigadier-General C. 6. Volunteers,
.$'4 Commanding District of Utah.
?
Tabbv.
his x merk.
- Adascim, his x mark.
T' Tintsa pa. gin, his x mark.
~
J Harrav.nup, his x mark.
~
f'. -
Witnesses:-
ih,.
Amos Reed.
i i.
Chas. H. Hempstead,
? s$'
b captain and chief commismry district of Utah.
d William Lee, interr reter.
q' Joa A. Gebon, interpreter, k
3 d.
w I
s I
4.
. f 7
-/
~ ~ ~ -'
000KETED USNRC A 6 19 P Y:01 W OEC P.f All '40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICF OF SECK1ARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULO.Wecs jeg ADJUDICAllONS STAFF flgfore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLPP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "Suppicental Memorandum in Support Of The Petition Of The Confederated Tribes Of The Goshute Reservation And David Pete To Intervene And For a Hearing" dated December 12,1997 were served on the persons listed below (unless otherwise noted) by facsimile with conforming copies by US mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12* day of December 1997.
G. Paul Bollwerk III, Esq., Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C, 20555-0001 Dr. Peter S. Lam
- Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission r
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
j c..o V
i; Catherine L. Marco, Esq.
- Charles J. Haughney Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Omce Omcc of the General Counsel Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Mail Stop O-15 B18 Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Denise Chancellor, Esq.
Jean Belille, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Utah Attorney General's Omce Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 160 East 300 South,5* Floor 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 P.O. Box 140873 Bould-r, Colorado 80302 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 0873 John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.
Danny Quintana, Esq.
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians Reservation and David Pete Danny Quintana & Associates. P.C.
1385 Yale Avenue 50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Clayton J. Parr, Esq.
Omce of the Secretary Castle Rock, et al.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pan, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 185 S. State Street, Suite 1300 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications P.O. Box 11019 Staff Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-0019 (onginal and two copies)
Diane Curran, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 d
- By U.S. mail only p
I k
Patil A.Gauk!er i
l I
- _- - _ - __- _ ___-_