ML20203L232
| ML20203L232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | REDWOOD ALLIANCE |
| References | |
| CON-#386-417 OLA, NUDOCS 8608250274 | |
| Download: ML20203L232 (10) | |
Text
( l i
- 1 DOCKETED I USNRC 1
UNITED STATES OF AM C 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO S h 'E 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND QTCENSING- BOARD 00Cntiiru a u.!>tEf.
BRAIC!
4 In the Matter of )
~
5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
) Docket No. 50-133 U rTb 6 ) License No. DPR-7 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3) )
7 )
8 ANSWER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 9 TO PETITION TO INTERVENE IN LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE REDWOOD ALLIANCE AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS 10 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 On July 5, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 published in the Federal Register (51 Fed. Reg. 24458) a 14 " Notice of Opportunity for Prior Hearing: Decommissioning of 15 Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3" concerning the request by 16 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (" Licensee") for amendments to 17 Facility Operating License No. DPR-7 which would: (1) delete 18 certain license conditions required by the " Order for Modifica-19 tion of License" issued on May 21, 1976; (2) approve the 20 Humboldt Decommissioning Plan; (3) revise the technical speci-21 fications to reflect the permanent shutdown and possess-but-22 not-operate status of the facility; and (4) extend License 23 DPR-7 for 15 additional years from November 9, 2000 to 24 November 9, 2015, to be consistent with the Decommissioning i
25 Plan. In response to this notice, the Redwood Alliance, 26 Douglas H. Bosco, Wesley Chesbro, Daniel E. Hauser, and 0608250274 e60818 ADOCK 05000133 o PDR G
PDR I)56
s b
1 Barry Keene filed a timely petition for leave to intervene.
2 PGandE's response to this petition is set forth below.
3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. The Standards for Intervention 5 1. Petitioners Must Meet the " Interest" Require-ments of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 6
Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 7
amended, 42 U.S.C. S 2239 (a) , provides that:
8 In any proceeding under [the] Act, for the 9 granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license . . . the Commission shall 10 grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by 11 the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
12 Section 2.714 (a) (2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 13 C.F.R. S 2.714 (a) (2) , requires that a petition to intervene in 14 a Commission proceeding set forth with partscularity:
15 e the interest of the petitioner in the 16 proceeding; 17 e how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding; and 18 e the specific aspect or aspects of the 19 subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
20 In order for intervention to be granted, the Atomic Safety and 21 Licensing Board designated to rule on petitions to intervene 22 and/or requests for hearing must find that the petition sat-23 isfies these standards.
24 25 26
s s
1 In determining whether the requisite interest pre-2 scribed by both Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and 3
Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice is shown 4
contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling.
5 Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, 6
Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976). Thus, 7
there must be a showing (1) that the action being challenged l
could cause " injury-in-fact" to the person seeking to intervene 9 '
and (2) that such injury is arguably within the " zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Id. See also Warth v. Seldin, 422 12 U.S. 490 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972);
13 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v.
14 Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970). Close proximity of a petition-15 er's residence, standing alone, is sufficient to satisfy the 16 interest requirements. Virginia Electric and Pcwer Company 17 10 1%
! 20 " Abstract concerns" or a " mere academic interest" in the l matter which are not' accompanied by some real impact on a 21 Petitioner will not confer standing. Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, supra, 4 NRC at 613. Rather the asserted harm must 22 have some particular effect on a petitioner, and a petitioner must have some direct stake in the outcome of the proceeding.
23 See Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 24 (1976).
25 42 U.S.C. 5 2011 et seq.
26 42 U.S.C. S 4321 et seg.
l l e l l
l l
1 I
t~
D.
1 .
(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 l 2 FhC 54, 56 (1979).
3 While an organization may gain standing to intervene
, 4 based on injury to itself, Edlow International Company, 5 CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 572-74 (1976), it must establish that it 6 will be injured and that the-injury is not a generalized 7 grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a 8 large class of citizens. Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 9 525, 531 (1977). On the other hand, an organization may 10 establish standing through members of the organization who have 11 an interest which may be affected by the outcome of the pro-12 ceeding. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill 13 Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 14 328, 330 (1976). When an organization claims that its standing 15 is based on the interests of its members, the organization must 16 identify one or more individual members (by name and address) 17 whose interests may be affected and give some concrete indic-l 18 ation that such members have authorized the organization to 19 represent their interests in the proceeding. Houston Lighting 20 and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 21 Unit 1) , ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393-97 (1979); Virginia Electric 22 and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 23 and 2), ALAB 536, 9 NRC 402, 404 (1979); Duquesne Light Company, 24 et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1) , ALAB-109, 6 25 AEC 243, 244 at n.2 (1973). Specific representational author-26 ization of a member with personal standing is not required
2 1
where the sole or primary purpose of the petitioning orga-2 l t
nization is to oppose nuclear power in general or the i 3 '
particular facility at bar. Allens Creek, ALAB-535, supra, at
'96.4 5
- 2. Petitioners Must Meet the " Aspect" Requirements of
+
6 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 7 In Addition to demonstrating " interest," a petitioner 8 must set forth "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject
. 9 matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes-to i
10 intervene." 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (a) (2) . Under the provisions of 11 Section 2.714 (a) (2) , petitioner may satisfy this requirement by
! 12 identifying general potential effects of the licensing action 13 or areas of concern which are within the scope of matters that 14 may be considered in the proceeding. See Virginia Electric and
- 15 Power Company
, (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
16 ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-634 (1973).
17 18 19 4
Further, under Section 2.713 of the Commission's Rules of 20 Practice, a " partnership, corporation or unincorporated association may be represented by a duly authorized member or 21 officer, or by an attorney-at-law." 10 C.F.R. S 2.713 (b)
(emphasis added) . Thus, where an organization is represented 22 by one of its members, the member must demonstrate j
authorization by that organization to represent it. It is 23 clear that groups may not represent persons other than their
- own members, and individuals may not assert the interest of 24 other persons. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC 481, 483 (1977).
25
- 26
- i I
l i
__...._m,.,, ,
-b 1
B.l. Petition of the Redwood Alliance 2
The Redwood Alliance, an unincorporated organization 3
with its principal office in Arcata, California, has petitioned 4
for leave to intervene on its own behalf alleging that it 5 "
. . . has been concerned about the Humboldt facility since the 6
1970s . . . " and continues to be concerned about the DES [ Draft 7
Environmental Statement] proposal that would authorize the 8
SAFSTOR of the nuclear portion of the plant for 30 years, and 9
the possible health and environmental impacts of this action on 10 Alliance members." Petition at 3-4. These generalized asser-11 tions of injury are insufficient to satisfy the criteria 12 mentioned above for establishing the interest and standing of 13 organizations. Transnuclear, Inc., supra, at 531. Further, 14 the petition does not demonstrate standing through its members 15 since it does not identify at least one member who resides 16 within close proximity to the Humboldt facility and who has 17 authorized the Alliance to represent his or her interest in the 18 proceeding North Anna, ALAB-522 supra, at 56; Allens Creek, 19 ALAB-535, supra, at 393-397. Moreover, there is no verifica-20 tion of the authority of the said Jim Adams to act on behalf of 21 the organization.
22 B.2. Petition of Douglas H. Bosco and Barry Keene 23 Douglas H. Bosco, a member of Congress (First 24 25 26 1
6 1
California District) and Barry Keene, a member of the 2
California Legislature (Second Senate District) also petition to intervene as private individuals in this proceeding. Bosco 4
alleges a general knowledge and interest in the Humboldt 5
facility in general and decommissioning in particular. Peti-6 tion at 7. Keene also alleges a general interest in nuclear 7
matters and the Humboldt decommissioning in particular.
8 Petition at 7-9. However, in both instances, these generalized 9
assertions of interest are insufficient for establishing the 10 necessary interest and standing, i.e., living in close 11 proximity to the facility, to participate as an intervenor.
12 They specify no specific injury that they would suffer from the 13 amendments, if granted. Thus, they are not " arguably within 14 the zone of interest" sought to be protected. Public Service 15 Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 16
- 2) , CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 439 (1980). The mere fact that both 17 hold political office does not alter this conclusion. Cf.
18 General Electric Co. (GE Test Reactor, Vallecitos Nuclear 19 Center), LBP-79-28, 10 NRC 578, 582 (1979); Consolidated Edison 20 Company of New York (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-25, 21 15 NRC 715.726 (1982).
22 B.3. Petition of Wesley Chesbro and Daniel E. Hauser 23 Petitioner Wesley Chesbro, a member of the Humboldt 24 County Board of Supervisors appearing as an individual elected 25 26 i
7-v t- -- - _ - , . . -
--+--->-m-,97,,m. . -,-4 g- q T- T*--w -7
i t
1 official and not as a designated representative of the Arcata 2 City Council or the Board of Supervisors, alleges that he
! 3 resides in Arcata, California less than 15 miles from the 4
4 Humboldt facility. Petition at 4-6. Petitioner Daniel E.
5 Hauser, a member of the California Assembly, appearing in both 6 an individual capacity and as a " representative for the people 7 of the Second Assembly District," alleges that he also resides 8 in Arcata, California less than 15 miles from the Humboldt s
9 facility. Under these facts, both petitioners would appear to i 10 have sufficient standing as individuals living "in close 11 proximity" to the facility to intervene in the proceeding.
12 Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Elec-13 tric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728, 730 (1979).
14 C. Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter of the Pro-ceeding a
15 The Petition sets forth several alleged inadequacies 16 regarding the proposed amendments as to which petitioners have 17 concerns. Petition 11-13. Specifically, Petitioners state-18 that they are concerned with the adequacy of the DES and the 19 proposal to SAFSTOR the facility and list some 10 alleged 20 inadequacies or omissions. One or more of these concerns 21 22 23 Hauser, as a member of the California Assembly, stands in no better position than petitioner Keene to appear as a 24 representative of his Assembly district. Indian Point LBP-82-25, supra at 726, 25 ,
j 26
i i
i 1
arguably fall within the scope of these proceedings and, thus, 2 articulate a specific aspect cf the proposed amendments on 3 which they wish to intervene.
4 III. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, PGandE believes that 6 the Petition, at least as to petitioners Daniel E. Hauser and 7 Wesley Chesbro, satisfies the aspect and standing requirements 8 of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714. However, PGandE believes that the 9 Redwood Alliance, Douglas H. Bosco, and Barry Keene have failed 10 to satisfy the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and 11 that their petition to intervene should be denied.
12 Respectfully submitted, 13 Robert Ohlbach Philip A. Crane, Jr.
14 Richard F. Locke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 15 P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 16 (415) 781-4211 17 Bruce Norton NORTON & WEST 18 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix, AZ 85064 19 (602) 955-2446 20 21 By / -
22 Richard F. Locke Attorneys for 23 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 24 Dated: August 18, 1986 25 26 s
i 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 In the Matter of )
)
4 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-133
) License No. DPR-7 5 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3) )
)
6 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8
The foregoing document of Pacific Gas and Electric 9 Company has been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
10 11 Mitzi Young, Esq. Robert M. Lazo, Esq.,
Office of the Executive Chairman 12 Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel 13 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission 14 Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. James H. Carpenter, Commission Member 16 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn.: Docketing and Board Panel 17 Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission la Scott L. Fielder, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 517 Third Street, Suite 14 19 Eureka, CA 95501 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing 20 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
, 21 Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Dated:
/ [f u- j 24 , ,
i Richard F. Locke 25 Attorney for 26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company