ML20212M756
| ML20212M756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1986 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-480 OLA, NUDOCS 8608270126 | |
| Download: ML20212M756 (18) | |
Text
.
August 22, 1986 00CHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AIE 26 P3 :47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDFiCE 0 SEU r TAP f ouCKEilNG A 5! e dCf.
!!HAliCo In the Matter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-133 OLA COMPANY )
) (Decommissioning)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant )
Unit No. 3) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE REGARDING AMENDMENT TO DECOMMISSION FACILITY I. INTRODUCTION Pacific Gas and Electric Company is licensed to possess but not op-i erate Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, a 65-MWe boiling water re-i actor located in the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California.1_/ On July 3, 1986, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.104, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of an amendment to the facility license and offered the opportunity for hearing on the amendment. 51 Fed. Reg. 24458. The amendment is related to decommis-
-1/ The Humboldt Bay plant operated from August 1963 until July 1976 when the plant remained in cold shutdown as a result of a May 21, 1976 " Order for Modification of License." That order added a provi-sion to the license which required the satisfactory completion of a seismic design upgrading program and resolution of certain seismic and geologic concerns prior to power operation following the 1976 refueling outage. Fuel was removed from the reactor during January and February 1984 and an amendment was issued on July 16, 1985 which modified the Humboldt Bay operating license to a " possession only" license to reflect the plant's " possess-but-not-operate" status.
8608270126 860822 PDR ADOCK 05000133 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL G P '~sR Certified By M d -
- -_. . _ _ = _ . .. . _ -. . __ _ _ - . - _- _ __.
b l
i sioning the facility and specifically would: 1) delete license conditions related to seismic investigation, analysis and modification; 2) approve the licensee's decommissioning plan for 30 years of onsite storage of' residual radioactivity (SAFSTOR); 3) revise the technical specifications to reflect the permanent shutdown and " possess-but-not-operate" status of the facil-ity and to reflect the SAFSTOR status; and 4) extend License No. DPR-7
! for an additional 15 years from November 9, 2000 to November 9, 2015 to be consistent with the 30 years safe storage plan. The notice established August 4,1986 as the deadline for filing a request for hearing and peti-tion for leave to intervene.
Pursuant to that notice, the Redwood Alliance, an unincorporated organization, Wesley Chesbro, an elected member of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Douglas H. Bosco, a United States Congressman representing California's First Congressional District, Barry Keene , a member of the California Legislature representing California's Second Sen-ate District, and Daniel E. Hauser, a California State Assemblyman repre-senting the Second Assembly District (Petitioners), filed a joint request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene on August 2, 1986 (Petition). 2_/
2/
~
Petitioners' request for leave to intervene and for a hearing is made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il 2.714 and 2.206(a). Petitioners' reference to section 2.206, which pertains to requests to the Director of Nu-clear Reactor Regulation to institute a section 2.202 show-cause pro-ceeding, is perhaps mistaken. In any event, it is unnecesary to forward the petition to the Director to institute a show-cause pro-ceeding while participation in this amendment proceeding is available.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) i i
, For the reasons set forth below, the Staff is of the view that at least one Petitioner, and possibly more provided the Petition is properly amended, has established his standing and the Petition sufficient $y identi-fles at least one aspect of the proceeding as to which intervention would be proper.
II. DISCUSSION A. Interest and Standing Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. I 2239(a), provides, in pertinent part:
In any proceeding under [the] Act, for the granting, suspend-ing, revoking, or amending of any license or construction per-mit ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceed-ing, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
Section 2.714(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice also provides that l
"[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
The Staff also notes that it has received several requests for a
" hearing" on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) published on the licensee's decommissioning plan for Humboldt Bay as part of the I
written comments on the draft statement in response to notices pub-
! lished on April 28, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg.15853) and June 12, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 21427). Under those notices, the DES comment period expires August 15, 1986. Since early inquiries have disclosed that the commentors are not urging that the NRC hold a formal adjudica-tory hearing, but rather a public meeting to provide the public an opportunity to comment further before the draft statement is final-ized, the Staff has continued to construe these various " hearing" requests as comments and not as requests for intervention in re-sponse to the notice of opportunity for hearing. See, e g , the letter from Nancy Heifiker to H. Berkow, NRC, dated August 8, 1986.
i
e desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." Thus the pcrtinent inquiry under Section 189a of the Act and 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a) of the regulations is whether Petition'ers have alleged an interest which may be affected by the operating license amend-ment proceeding. The Commission has held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling in the determination of whether the requisite interest required by both Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and section 2.714 of the NRC's Rules of Practice is present.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976). There must be a showing that (1) the action being challenged could cause " injury-in-fact" to the person i seeking to interve te 3_/ and that (2) such injury is arguably within the
" zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. $I Id. See Werth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 j (1975); Sierra Club v. Marton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). Thus a petitioner
! must " set forth with particularity" its interest in the proceeding and how l
i that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2).
-3/ " Abstract concerns" or " mere academic interest" in the matter which are not accompanied by some real impact on a petitioner will not con-fer standing. In re Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Ex-ports to EURATOM Member Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977); Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, su pra, at 613. Rather, the asserted harm must have some particular effect on a petitioner, Ten Applications, CLI-77-24, su ra, and a petitioner must have some direct stake in the outcome o e proceeding. See Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and ~5 Forage Station) ,
ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).
4/ 42 U.S.C. I 4321 et sg.
)
l
- 1. Rules of General Applicability to Organizations and Individuals An organization may establish standing based upon an injury to itself or through members of the organization who have interests whicit may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Edlow International Co. ,
4 CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 572-74 (1976); Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976). 5,/ When an organization clairis standing based on the interests of its members , at least one of its members must have standing in his or her own right, the organization must identify (by name and address) specific individual members whose interests may be affected, and the organization must demonstrate that such members have authorized the organization to represent their interest in the proceeding. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393-97 (1979); Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-136, 6 AEC
, 487, 488-89 (1973). Absent express authorization, groups may not repre-sent other than their own members, and individuals may not assert the interest of other persons. See Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473, 474-75 n.1 (1978);
i Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977).
f 5/ A petitioner must particularize a specific injury that it or its mem-bers would or might sustain should it be denied relief. The test is whether a " cognizable interest of the petitioner might be adversely affected if the proceeding has one outcome or another." Marble Hill, CLI-80-10,11 NRC 436, 439 (1980).
1 Generally, the close proximity of a petitioner's residence is presumed sufficient to satisfy the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714.
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storag'e Facili-ty), ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150, 153 (1982) (hercafter "AFRRI"); Allens Creck, supra, 9 NRC at 393, ch, Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). 6_/ Nevertheless, since there is no presumption that every individual who lives near the plant will consider himself potentially harmed by the outcome of a proceeding, it is important that the nature of the invasion of an individual's personal interest be identified. Allens Creek, supra, .9 NRC at 383. Accordingly, it has been found that persons who live near the site have standing to intervene if they allege a potential for injury from operation of the facility. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1) , LBP-80-22, 12 NRC 191, 195-96 (1980), affirmed, ALAB-619,12 NRC 558, 564-65 (1980).
i f,/ In the past, residential distances of up to 50 miles have been found to be not so great as to necessarily preclude a finding of standing in licensing proceedings. See, eg. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, ITnIfs 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 at n.4 (1977); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB-496, 8 NRC 308 (1978) (40 miles); North Anna, ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973) (residency within 30-40 miles sufficient to show interest in raising safety questions). However, in recent years, boards have considered the nature of the proceeding and applied a geographic proximity test to petitioners in license amendment proceedings which is stricter than that applied in con-E struction Edison Co. permit or operating (Pilgrim licenseStation, Nuclear Power proceedings.LBP-85-24,g.
22 NRC. ,97, Boston 98-99, aff'd on other grounds, ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985) (peti-tioner residing 43 miles from the facility denied intervention because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the risk of storage with the revised K-effective for the spent fuel pool extended that distance).
. 2. Interest and Standing of Petitioners in This Proceeding The Humboldt Bay Power Plant is located 4 miles southwest of the
! city of Eurska, Humboldt County, California. NUREG-1166, Draft Envi-ronmental Statement for decommissioning Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, dated April 1986, at 2-1. Thus, those petitioners who reside near the facility and allege potential injury from the proposed amendment can establish standing to intervene.
(a) Redwood Alliance In the Petition, it is alleged that the Redwood Alliance has its prin-cipal place of business in Arcata, California, and has "a membership of 1,500 persons, who are residents of the Eureka-Arcata area of Humboldt County and live within close proximity to the... facility." Petition at 3.
It is stated that the Redwood Alliance has been concerned about the facil-ity since the 1970's, has participated in a prior proceeding concerning the operation of Humboldt, and is concerned about the possible health and environmental impacts the proposal to authorize 30 years safe storage will have on its members. _Id,. at 3-4. While proximity to a large source of radiation can establish a petitioner's interest, AFRRI, supra at 153, the Redwood Alliance must sufficiently identify (by name and address) at least one member who resides near the plant, has standing, and has au-i thorized the Redwood Alliance to represent his or her interest. General assertions that a petitioner's members live near a facility are not suffi-ciently particularized to support a finding of standing. See Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143,1150 (1977); Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nucle-ar Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 425 (1973).
E Presumably, the Redwood Alliance could identify at least one member by name and address who resides within the geographical proximity of the plant and has authorized the filing of the petition. Thus th Petition should be amended to provide this information U so its claim of derivative standing through the interest of at least one member may be established. 8_/
(b) Supervisor Wesley Chesbro Wesley Chesbro allegedly resides in Arcata, California, which is less than 15 miles from the plant, has served on the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors since January 1981, served on the Arcata City Council from 1974 to 1980, has been concerned about the seismic capability of the
-7/ The Redwood Alliance's failure to adequately demonstrate that at least one member who lives near the plant authorized the filing of the Petition does not defeat the grant of the intervenor status to this organization. Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(3), a petition for leave to intervene may be amended, without prior approval of the presiding officer, at any time up to fifteen days prior to a special prehearing conference held pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.751a or, if no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen days before the first prehearing conference. The Appeal Board has stated that petitions that suffer from inarticulate draftsmanship or procedural or pleading defects may be amended if they contain curable defects.
North Anna, AL AB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973). See Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (Kewaunee Nuclear Plant), LBP-7T 24, 8 NRC 78, 82 (1978). Since section 2.714(a)(3) does not limit the reasons for amendment, and assuming the defMt s curable, the Petition pre-sumably could be amended to l'rh de . member's affidavit which would satisfy the standing reqsir AW See, eg, Enrico Fermi, LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73, 77 (1979).
8/ While the Redwood Alliance may establish a claim of derivative stand-ing through proper amendment of the Petition, it has not sufficiently demonstrated that it has standing to intervene as an organization based on an injury to the organization itself. The Redwood Alliance only states that it is an unincorporated organization with its princi-pal place of business in Arcata, California, and does not describe how the organization itself would be injured by the proposed license amendment.
area surrounding the plant, and, in 1976, was among the petitioners who ;
l successfully intervened in an NRC proceeding concerning proposed opera- )
tion of the -facility.
Mr. Chesbro assertedly appears in his capacity as
, "an individual elected official, representing Humboldt County's Third l Supervisorial District including the city of Arcata, and not as a designat-ed representative of the City Council or the Board of Supervisors." It is stated that he has a long record of concern for public health and safety and possesses " unique experience with and knowledge of the facility."
Petition at 4-6. While the petition alleges that Supervisor Chesbro lives i
- within 15 miles of the plant and thus satisfies geographical proximity test for standing, it does not allege he will be impacted by the 30 years stor-age as is alleged with respect to the Redwood Alliance members. See Petition at 4. This could be inferred from Supervisor Chesbro's long held concerns about the seismic activity surrounding the site, but the Petition should be amended to allege potential injury to Supervisor Chesbro from the long term storage so his claim of standing and interest can be perfected. U 9/ The statement that Supervisor Chesbro appears "in his capacity as an individual elected official, representing Humboldt county's Third Supervisorial District" could be construed as an assertion that he does not appear solely on his own behalf, but also that he repre-sents the interests of his constituents in the Third Supervisorial District. See Petition at 6. In NRC proceedings, however, elected officials have not been successful in basing their intervention upon their claimed representation of the interests of their constituents who reside near a facility. E. . Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Uni o.2), LBP-82-25, 15 NRC 715, 725-26 (1982). See General Electric Co. (GE Test Reactor, Vallecitos Nu-clear Center), LBP-79-28, 10 NRC 578 (1979) (United States Con-gressman had right to intervene as legislator only when it appears (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
l (c) Congressman Douglas H. Bosco The Petition states that Douglas H. Bosco, a United States Con-gressman,'hss been active in state and federal utility issues, has' been an intervenor in utility rate cases before the California Public Utilities Com-mission, is well acquainted with the specific history of the facility, and "is uniquely qualified to participate as an intervenor" in the proceeding.
Id. at 7. However, the Petition as presently drafted fails to set forth sufficient information to support the intervention of Congressman Bosco in this proceeding at this time. Specifically, the Petition does not set forth the legal requirement for standing that the Congressman "will be or might be injured in fact by one or more of the possible outcomes of the pro-ceeding." Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield, Illinois, Inw-Level (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) he may be injured in fact as a legislator). In Indian Point, supra, a member of a county legislature sought to intervene under section 2.714 on his own behalf, claimed authorization to represent the in-terests of individuals from his legislative district, and sought admis-l sion as an interested State under 10 C.F.R. 52.715 on behalf of his l district. The Licensing Board noted that the petitioner could not be admitted under section 2.715(c) because while he may represent his constituents in the county legislature, "he was elected by them sole-ly to represent them in that body" and could not by virture of his election, claim to be "their representative in any administrative pro-ceeding he sees fit to enter." Indian Point, LBP-82-25,15 NRC at 726. In addition, the Board observed that his claim to represent named individuals under section 2.714 was nut allowed by 10 C.F.R.
I 2.713(b) because that section permits representation of individuals by a person who is not an attorney, only "to the extent that such person is a representative of a partnership, corporation, or unincor-porated association." Id. , citin Fermi, LBP-78-11, 7 NRC 381, 387, aff'd, ALAB-470, 7 NITC 47 78).
In short , although it appears that Supervisor Chesbro may have standing to intervene on his own behalf, he should not be permitted to intervene under section 2.714 on behalf of third parties who are his constituents.
--w .< . - - - - - .m... ----r,., -,--- - ,.-- ,,_, . _.._,n - - . - - - ~ - - - vn. - - - - - - _ _ _ _ . - _ -
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 740 (1978). If the Petition is amended to cure this deficiency, then Congressman Bosco could be granted intervention in this proceeding. b The Board should allow Congressman Bosco the opportunity to amend the Petition.
(d) State Senator Barry Keene l
Barry Keene, a representative for California's Second State Senate District, serves the residents of five counties, including Humboldt Coun-ty, has authored legislation concerning the siting of nuclear material and power plants in California, participated in the scoping rreeting held on the Draft Environmental Statement, has a long standing concern for the health and safety of the local community, and is " uniquely qualified to participate as an intervenor." Id. at 7-9. State Senator Keene's active involvement in siting issues and concern for the health and, safety of the local community, however, is not sufficient to establish his legally cognizable interest in this proceeding. As was the case with Congress-man Bosco, he cannot be granted permission to intervene in this proceed-ing unless he can allege some personal stake in the outcome of the proceeding and resides or maintains a place of business in the geographic proximity of the facility. Thus, if the Petition is amended to cure these deficiencies, State Senator Keene could satisfy the interest and standing requirement for intervention under section 2.714, and his request to in-
-10/ The Petition also does not set forth the Congressman's personal or business address in order that the geographical proximity test may be applied; however, we believe that the Board can properly take notice of the fact that Congressman Bosco represents the First Con-gressional District of California and maintains a District office in the town of Eureka. U.S. Government Printing Office, Congressional Directory, 99th Congress (1985).
l
. i tervene could be granted. State Senator Keene also should b( permitted to amend the Petition.
l (e) Assemblyman Daniel E. Hauser -
Daniel E. Hauser states that he resides in Arcata, California, less than 15 miles from the facility. He has been an elected member of the California State Assembly since 1982, served on the Arcata City Council from 1974 to 1982, and was Mayor of Arcata from 1978 to 1982. Assem-blyman Hauser has authored a resolution regarding the spent fuel and other nuclear waste currently stored at the Humboldt site, and has voiced concerns to the NRC on numerous occasions regarding the decommission-ing plans for Humboldt Bay with respect to the " safety of storing spent fuel rods on seismically active ground" and the security of onsite storage for 30 years. Mr. Hauser assertedly has " unique experience with and knowledge of the facility," he "is uniquely qualified to participate as an intervenor" and " appears both in his individual capacity and as the rep-resentative for the people of the Second Assembly District in the State l
Assembly." Id. at 9-10. Since the Petition alleges that Assemblyman Hauser lives within the geographical proximity of the plant and is con-cerned about the safety of long-term storage of spent fuel at the site due to the seismic activity in the area, the Petition establishes his personal standing and interest to intervene in this proceeding.
As was indicated with respect to Supervisor Chesbro (see note 9, supra), Assemblyman Hauser's claim of intervention based on the repre-sentation of his constituents must be rejected because individuals may not be permitted to assert the rights of third persons without their express authorization. See, Fermi, ALAB-470, 7 NRC at 474-75 n.1 (1978);
1
. I Watts Bar, ALAB-413, 5 NRC at 1421 (1977). In similar circumstances, the attempt of an elected official to intervene on behalf of his constituents has previously been rejected by a Licensing Board. Indian Poinf, supra, note 9,15 NRC at 725-26. Thus, although Assemblyman Hauser's petition to intervene on his own behalf satisfies the standing requirements, his request to intervene on behalf of his constituents should be rejected.
B. Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter of This Proceeding In addition to satisfying the standing and interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714, a petitioner must also " set forth with particularity ...
the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2). EI Although Petitioners are not required to submit contentions until they supplement their petition pursuant to section 2.714(b), Petitioners list ten " concerns" ((c)1 through (c)10) "regarding the adequacy of the DES and the proposal to SAFSTOR the facility" which they would seek to litigate, but assert they would not be limited to these concerns. Petition at 11-15. E While the concerns focus primarily on the DES, the issues
-11/ An " aspect" is generally considered to be broader than a "conten-tion," but narrower than a general reference to the NRC's operating statutes. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
12/ The " concerns" listed by Petitioners are (Petition at 11-13):
(c)1. There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the local environmental and biota of the proposed activities; (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
generally relate to the Staff's environmental and safety review of the SAFSTOR plan. Thus, the " concerns" sufficiently identify aspects which are within the scope of the amendment proceeding and are sufficient to (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
(c)2. There is inadequate discussion and analysis of the storage of spent fuel rods in a spent fuel pool which is already plagued by leakage; I
l (c)3. There is inadequate treatment of the seismic hazards to the site; (c)4. There is no discussion of evacuation plans to be im-plemented in the event of a worst case type of accident; (c)S. Viable alternatives such as shipping spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon were not discussed; (c)6. The DES fails to address at all the option of SAFSTOR of the fuel only until such time as a federal repository is open with immediate dismantlement fol-lowing thereafter. Under this scenario, SAFSTOR would only continue until a repository was available presumably in the year 1998; (c)7. The DES fails to address the maximum credible flood at the site and its impact on the local environment and biota. Instead, the DES only appears to address itself to the average yearly rainfall and average water levels at the plant; (c)8. The DES fails to address at all the impact of a worst case tsunami on the facility along or in conjunction with an earthquake that itself may have generated the tsunami. This is troubling in light of the fact that the town of Crescent City, which is located approxi-
- mately 80 miles north of the facility, was partially i destroyed in 1964 by a tsunami; (c)9. The DES fails to address the impact of a serious fire at the plant alone, or in conjunction with a major earthquake. This is disturbing in view of the fact (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1
- - - - - - - - _ - . ,-- -.-.--.n. - . _ , . , _ . , - , . _ , . _ . , , . , _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
put the parties on notice as to the subject matter of actual contentions. b III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Assemblyman Hauser has satisfied the standing and interest requirements as an individual. Petitioners Redwood Alliance, Congressman Bosco, State Senator Keene, and Supervisor i
l Chesbro should be allowed to amend the Petition to provide additional information on their asserted standing and interest. Because the Petition identifies at least one aspect properly within the scope of the proceeding, Assemblyman Hauser should be admitted to the proceeding if he can proffer at least one admissible contention in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714(b). Petitioners Redwood Alliance, Congressman Bosco and State (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) that at least two large storage tanks filled with fuel exist at the facility to store fuel for the fossil fueled Units 1 and 2; (c)10. The DES fails to address the impact on the stored
, fuel rods in the spent fuel pool if the pool was emp-tied of water by a major earthquake while at the same time the fuel was damaged by falling debris.
-13/ Petitioners also request (Petition at 14) that the Commission award attorney's fees and expenses to Petitioners. The Commission has ruled that, in light of a provision in the NRC's Appropriations Act, the NRC lacks a source of funds for payments of awards for attor-ney fees and costs to intervenors in NRC proceedings. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) (August 4, -
1986) (unpublished), citin Business and Professional People for the Public Interest v. Nuc ear egulatory Commission, No. 85-1441 (D.C.
! Cir. June 27, 1986). In addition, Petitioners' request for such an award is premature at this time. For these reasons, their request for fees and expenses should be denied.
p-- . ,
Senator Keene should be granted intervention if they can amend the Peti-tion to cure the identified deficiencies as to standing.
Respectfully submitted, -
W.
Mi . Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of August,1986 l
l l
l l
l
T O
DOLMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 AIE 26 P3:47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOABDidE OF E6r.iAia uutXETING A $E4VICf.
BRANCH In the Matter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-133 OLA COMPANY )
) (Decommissioning)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant )
Unit No. 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE I'.EGARDING AMENDMENT TO DECOMMISSION FACILITY" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" 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 Commission's internal mail system, this 22nd day of August,1986:
- Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman *Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i *Dr. James H. Carpenter Scott L. Fielder, Esq.
l Administrative Judge 517 Third Street, Suite 14 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Eureka, CA 95501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Law Department l Appeal Board P.O. Box 7442 I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94120 Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mitzil A. Young 7 Counbekfor NRC Staff
s l
- 00LKETED UiNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 NE 26 P3 '47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAWBIC'E OF Shnt iAn f 666KETir G & 3E?vlCf.
BRANCH In the Matter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-133 OLA COMPANY )
) (Decommissioning)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant )
Unit No. 3) )
l NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name -
hHtzi A. Young Address -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Ofnce of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555
- Telephone Number -
(301) 492-7837 Admission -
U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit U.S District Court, District of Columbia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Name of Party -
NRC Staff Respectfully submitted, Mitz . Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of August,1986
- - . - _ ,_ - . _ _ . . _ _ _