ML20214Q492
| ML20214Q492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1986 |
| From: | Carpenter J, Lazo R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1754 86-536-07-LA, 86-536-7-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8612050174 | |
| Download: ML20214Q492 (22) | |
Text
P
' [78f SERVED DEC -41986 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h-N ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '86 DEC -4 P3 :35 Before Administrative Judges: gpg ,
G0cnt nr i . , J*
Robert M. Lazo, Chairman ad i'c-James H. Carpenter Peter A. Morris
)
In the Matter of ) Docket No 50-133-OLA (Decomissioning)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY l
) ASLBP No. 86-536-07 LA (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, )
Unit No. 3) ) December 3, 1986
)
PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Order issued August 26, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 31384 - September 3, 1986), a prehearing conference in the above-identified proceeding was held in Eureka, California on October 21, 1986. The parties, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) and the staff of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC Staff) and the Joint Petitioners were each represented by counsel and participated in the conference.
I. Background The Licensee is licensed to possess but not operate Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, a 65-MWe boiling water reactor located four miles southwest of the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California. On i BBA23ggggggggga DSo 7_
k.
m, L
u
. c.
2 July 3, 1986, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 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 deconnissioning 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 shutAown and
" possess-but-not-operate" status of the facility 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 year safe storage plan. The notice established August 4, 1986 as the deadline for filing a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
Pursuant to that notice, the Redwood Alliance, an unincorporated organization; Wesley Chesbro, an elected member of the Humbold,t 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 ]
Senate District; and Daniel E. Hauser, a California State Assemblyman representing- the Second Assembly District (Petitioners), filed a joint
- request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene ~on August 2, 1986(Petition).
1 m-- +r- ew-e-e-,--m-c ,-rw- - , + , v-5+ - , --ee -
y-, e - r-~rw y r-[ , -- + b - r - -
s.
3 In response to the Board's Order of August 26, 1986, Petitioners on September 17, 1986 filed a Supplement to their petition for leave to intervene which included a list of eight contentions which Petitioners seek to have litigated in this proceeding (Supplemental Petition). In addition, on September 26, 1986, Petitioners filed their " Amended Petition to Intervene in License Amendment Proceeding, Request for Hearing and Request for Further Relief" (Amended Petition). The Amended Petition is a revised version of the original petition. The Amended Petition contains additional information on the standing and interest of some of the petitioners and includes a list of contentions identical to that contained in the Supplemental Petition filed September 17, 1986.
On September 19, 1986, more than six weeks after the filing deadline, the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County (League) and Gaye M. Barr (League Petitioners), a board member of the League and allegedly the person expressly authorized to represent the League in this license proceeding, filed a late request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (League Petition).
In the League Petition, it is alleged that the League is a nonpartisan political organization and non-profit corporation which has "a membership of 140 persons who reside in the Eureka-Arcata area within close proximity to the Humboldt Bay Power Plant...." Petition at 3-4.
The Petition does not state where the League's office is located, but does state that Gaye Barr, a board member of the League, resides within
4 five miles of the facility. Petition at 4. The Petition further states that Ms. Barr and other League members are concerned about the possible health and environmental impacts the SAFSTOR plan will have on League members. Petition at 4-5.
s II. Petitions For Leave To Intervene A. The Redwood Alliance, et al. , Petitions.
As noted hereinabove, Petitioners, The Redwood Alliance, g al.,
filed three separate request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene pleadings. During the prehearing conferen::e counsel for the Petitioners stipulated that we should consider the Amended Petition dated September 26, 1986 to be the petition that is before the Licensing Board, and that the. original Petition dated August 2,1986 and the Supplemental Petition dated September 17, 1986_have been superseded by.
the Amended Petition. Fielder, Tr. 36.
B. The League Petition.
In responses to the League Petition by the Licensee on October 6, 1986 and by the NRC Staff on October 9,1986, both urged that the League Petition should be denied'as untimely.
\
5 Standards for Late Intervention.
A late intervention petitioner must address the five factors specified in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a) and " affirmatively demonstrate that on balance, they favor his tardy admission into the proceeding." Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980); see Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975). These factors are:
(1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participat;on will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
The Commission has emphasized that licensing boards are expected to demand compliance with the lateness requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714.
See Pacific Gas Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981). The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that a balancing of these five factors is in its favor.
6 In their written responses to the League Petition, Licensee and NRC Staff each argued that the League Petitioners cannot prevail on the five-factor test for late intervention set forth in 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a)(1). However, at the prehearing conference during a discussion of their status in this proceeding, the League Petitioners withdrew their contentions, adopted the contentions already filed by The Redwood Alliance, el al., Petitioners, and agreed to be consolidated as joint petitioners with The Redwood Alliance, e,t_ al., Petitioners.
Counsel for the latter group of petitioners agreed to represent his clients as well as the League and Gaye M. Barr as consolidated Joint Intervenors. Fielder, Tr. 36-38. Counsel for Licensee thereupon withdrew his objection to the late filing of the League Petition (Norton, Tr. 39), and NRC Staff counsel stated that the NRC Staff does not oppose the League's participation under the terms set forth by counsel for the Joint Petitioners. Wagner, Tr. 41.
The Licensing Board has balanced the five factors and in the totality of the circumstances finds that on balance, the factors to be considered under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 weigh in favor of granting late intervention of the League as a consolidateo intervenor.
7 C. Interest and Standing.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.
Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42
' U.S.C. 5 2239(a), provides, in pertinent part:
1 In any proceeding under [the] Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
Section 2.714(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice provides that 4
"[a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene."1 Thus the pertinent inquiry under Section 189a of the Act and 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a) of the regulations is whether Petitioners have alleged an interest which may be affected by the operating license amendment proceeding. The Commission has held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are controlling in the determination of whether the interest required by both Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and section 2.714-of the NRC's Rules of Practice
. IA petitioner's showin of interest should address the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(g). d 4
O ,
I 8
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 2
" injury-in-fact" to the person seeking to intervene and that (2) such injury is arguably within the " zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.3 Id. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S.
727 (1972). Thus a petitioner must " set forth with particularity" its interest in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(2).
In their responses to the petitions for leave to intervene the Licensee and NRC Staff have each asserted that the Joint Petitioners have satisfied the standing and interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and should be admitted as parties to the proceeding provided 2" Abstract concerns" or " mere academic interest" in the matter which are not accompanied by some real impact on a petitioner will not confer standing. --In re Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURATOM MemTer Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977);
Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, Asu ra, at 613. Rather, the asserted harm must have some particular effect on a petitioner, Ten Applications, CLI-77-24, supra, and a petitioner must have some Tirect stake in the outcome of the proceeding. See Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).
3 42 U.S.C. 5 4321 et seq.
9
/,
9 that one or more of their proposed contentions is admitted for-litigation. We agree.
D.. Joint Petitioners' Proposed Contentions.
- 1. Legal Standards Governing Admissibility of Contentions.
Only those contentions which fall within the scope of the proposed action set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and j applicable Commission case law may be admitted for litigation in NRC licensing proceedings. See, e.g. , Conmonwealth Edison Co. -(Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974);
Comonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Station,- Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30 -12 NRC683,689(1980). See also Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 n.6 (1979).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b), a petitioner is required to file -
"a list of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter,: and the bases' for each contention set forth with reasonable'-
specificity." A petitioner who fails to file at least one contention 4
. j
l l
10 which satisfies the requirements of 9 2.714(b) will not be permitted to participate as a party. A proffered contention must be rejected where:
/
(1) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (2) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (3) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the petitioner's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (4) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or i
(5) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21. The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) is: (a) to assure that the matter sought to be put into question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above; (b) to establish sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter; and (c) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Id. at 20.
At the early stages of a proceeding, petitioners need to identify only the reasons (i.e., the basis) for each contention. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980). The basis stated for each
O= l 11 l
contention need not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gelf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
Accordingly, in examining contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board may not reach the merits of contentions. Id., Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20. Nevertheless, the basis for contentions must be sufficiently detailed and specific to allow the determinations required by Peach Bottom to be made and thus assure that an asserted contention raises an issue which clearly is open to adjudication.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimer Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
In addition, a board is not authorized "to admit conditionally for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the specificity requirements." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-687,16NRC460,466(1982), modified on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983). The NRC's Rules of Practice do not permit "the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or staff." Id.
at 468.
Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast contentions offered by a petitioner to remedy the infirmities of the type described in Peach Bottom, supra, in order to make inadmissible contentions meet
o.
12 the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. Coninonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974). Should a board nevertheless elect to rewrite a petitioner's inadmissible contentions so as to eliminate the infirmities which render the contentions inadmissible, the scope of the reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases that were previously provided by the petitioner for the inadmissible contentions. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105, 1114-16 (1982).
- 2. Licensee and NRC Staff Objections to Certain Contentions.
In the Amended Petition, Joint Petitioners state that they "have numerous concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) relative to the deconsnissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, and the proposal to place the facility into SAFSTOR for an extended period." Petition at 15. A list of eight concerns and contentions follows.
In their responses to the Amended Petition, Licensee and NRC Staff that found some of Joint Petitioner's proposed contentions should be admitted for litigation. They objected to others as inadmissible and urged their rejection. Accordingly, the Licensing Board provided ,
counsel for Joint Petitioners the opportunity to address all objections l l
l l
i
13 to his clients' contentions during oral argument during the prehearing conference. Lazo, Tr. 41-42.
III. Rulings on Proposed Contentions
- 1. .There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the local environment and biota of the proposed activities. Humboldt Bay is the largest wetland and estuarine habitat in the California coastal zone, containing approximately 23 percent of the coastal wetlands in California. The DES does not document the potential significant environmental impacts on these coastal wetlands of long-term storage of nuclear materials as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the California Coastal Act.
The Licensee finds this contention to be overly broad and general and fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714, in that the " potential significant environmental impacts" are not specifically identified. Consequently, Licensee believes the contention as proposed could open the door to any number of issues which petitioners might raise at hearing and give rise to the possibility of hearing by surprise. Response of Pacific Gas and Elettric Company to Petitioners Supplement to the Petition to Intervene in License Amendment Proceedings, Request for Hearing, and Request for Further Relief (October 3,1986),(LicenseeResponse),at7-8. ,
1 The Staff assumes that the contention, although not so worded, alleges that the discussion and analysis in the DES of environmental-impacts is "not adequate," and therefore is adequately specific and
14 contains within it a minimally sufficient basis. NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene (October 10, 1986) (Staff Response), at 8-9. Intervenors' counsel clarified, at the prehearing conference, that the Intervenors felt that the DES discussion failed entirely to address any biota. Fielder, Tr. 47.
The Board agrees with the Staff that the contention is adequately specific as it relates to the adequacy of the DES discussion and analysis. While the basis for the contention is not separately discussed, as is frequently done in NRC proceedings, we take the statement within the contention that "Humboldt Bay is the largest wetland and estuarine habitat in the California coastal zone, containing approximately 23 percent of the coastal wetlands in California" as being a basis statement and not a part of the litigable contention itself. As such, the contention is admitted.
- 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.
The leakage of the pool has persisted since 1966 and continues to this day. The DES states that, " Pumps keep water level in the liner gap lower than the water level in the pool and ground water level ... the water from the liner gap is pumped to the radwaste system." However, such mechanical means of controlling the leak are subject to malfunction and potential impacts of increased contamination have not been discussed. In addition, there is some information in the ER to indicate that there are elevated and trace levels of certain radionuclides in surface soils at the plant site.
1 15 Licensee does not oppose the admission of this contention.
Licensee Response, at 8. The Staff finds it adequately specific and that it contains within it a minimally sufficient basis. Staff Response, at 9.
As it relates to the adequacy of the DES, we agree with the Staff; the contention is admitted.
- 3. There is inadequate treatment of the seismic hazards to the site.
The DES contains virtually no analysis of relevant seismic factors and only cursory consideration of those hazards' interactions with hazardous materials stored on site. This is unacceptable given the fact that: a) the Little Salmon Fault, Bay Entrance Fault, and Buhne Point Fault are located within 21/2 miles of the facility (the subsurface trace of the Buhne Fault comes within 600 feet of the plant foundation); b) these faults are capable of generating major earthquakes (with magnitudes up to 7.5) that possibly could destroy the Humboldt facility; and c) the close proximity of the plant to the city of Eureka could contribute to the severity of any emergency in the event of a large earthquake.
Licensee would reject this contention as unfocused, because hazardous materials were not identified. Therefore, it fails to meet the requirements for specificity and basis. Licensee Response, at 9.
The Staff agrees and also believes the contention does not raise an issue within the scope-of the proceeding. Staff Response, at 11-12.
Intervenors clarified at the prehearing conference that the hazardous materials they had in mind were (1) the spent fuel, (2) the
. l
.. i 16 fossil fuel stored onsite, and (3) unknown materials that might be identified through discovery.
With respect to the identification of unknown materials through discovery, the Board observed that discovery is not a way to find contentions. Lazo, Tr. 62. With respect to the fossil fuels, the Board agrees with the Staff, that those materials are not within the jurisdiction of the NRC to regulate and outside the scope of th'is proceeding. Young, Tr. 62-63. To the extent that interaction of seismic factors with the spent fuel has been inadequately discussed in the DES, the Board finds that this subject is contained within the scope of Contention 7. Contention 3 is rejected.
- 4. There is no discussion of evacuation plans to be implemented in the event of a worst case type of accident. For instance, a 1980 earthquake toppled a freeway overpass less than two miles from the plant, despite the epicenter's location being nearly 40 miles away.
If a similar earthquake occurred on the adjacent faults, Highway 101 would probably be closed which would hamper emergency support activities and evacuation plans.
Licensee finds that this contention fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 because it fails to specify the worst case type of accident and fails to relate it to a demonstrated need for emergency response capabilities. Licensee Response at 9.
I The Staff points out that Intervenors have raised the issue of whether adequate emergency response [to an accidental radiological
a.
17 release] can be'taken in the event of a [ simultaneous] severe earthquake. Staff Response, at 11. The Commission has specifically considered this issue and has ruled that consideration of it in individual licensing proceedings is not warranted. Southern California Edison Co., et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),'CLI-81-33,14NRC1091,1092(1981)'. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249, 251-52, 254 (1984), aff'd, Sa,n Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.
NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1305-09 (D.C. Cir. 1984), vacated in nonpertinent part and rehearing granted, 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir.1985) aff'd, 789 F.2d26(D.C.Cir.1986)enbanc). Staff also finds the contention vague, since it does not identify the " worst case type accident." Staff Response, at 11-12.
i j Both Licensee and the NRC Staff would reject this contention; it is rejected for the reasons put forward.
- 5. Viable alternatives such as shipping spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon were not discussed. It is possible to build an interim facility in a safer and more appropriate place until a permanent repository is constructed. Spent fuel could also be l'
shipped to Hanford, Washington'or Idaho Falls, Idaho, as was the case with the Three Mile Island plant. In addition, the petitioners contend that the proposal that SAFSTOR continue for thirty years is inappropriate in view of the real possibility that
. a permanent repository will be in place by the year 1998.
Petitioners submit that the license 'should be continued only until such time as the federal high level waste repository is available.
Under the petitioners' alternate proposal, dismantlement would take place as soon as a high. level waste repository is available. The I
! immediate dismantlement proposal is consistent with PGandE's
, present proposal for decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon facility.
4 i
~
4
1 4 .' ..
18 Licensee does not oppose the admission of this contention.
Licensee Ret inse-at 9-10. The Staff takes the view that this contention is adequately specific and contains a minimally sufficient basis. Staff Response at 12-13.
The Board admitted this contention on the record at the October 21, 1986 hearing. Tr. 123.
~
- 6. The DES fails to address the impact of a major flood, tsunami. or.-
fire at the plant alone, or in conjunction with a major earthquake.
As was mentioned in the petition to intervene, the DES failed to discuss the possible impacts of any of these phenomena on-the people of Humboldt County or the surrounding environment. This
. oversight is significant given the-fact that a tsunami previously ,
destroyed a portion of Crescent City in 1964.- Crescent City is 80 miles north of the facility. A 50 or 100 year flood coupled with high tides could possibly inundate the Humboldt-plant, destroy fuel storage tanks, and cause unknown damage to the containment struc-tures, and associated buildings and equipment. A serious fire could cause similar damage, particularly if caused by an earthquake.
Licensee does not oppose this contention. Licensee Response at 10-11. As noted by Staff, the issue raised is that the Staff has not analyzed the environment impact on the plant and surrounding environment that might result from a major flood, tsunami, or fire at the plant either alone or in conjunction with a major earthquake. Staff does not oppose admission of this contention to the extent that it challenges the adequacy of the Staff's analysis of the environmental, but not safety, impacts resulting from the cited phenomena. Staff Response at 13-14.
-r , ~ , ,-w a ,,vn v ,v - - - w , ww--,.,r - r-.--a~ . - ---- ,-------.m -e -,--m., n+ , - - , v+.-,--, - - ,-, -
.. j t.
19 Contention 6 is admitted to the extent it challenges the adequacy of analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from the cited phenomena during the SAFT0R period, in conjunction with the licensed facility and activities.
- 7. The DES fails to address the impact on the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel pond, if the storage pool were to be emptied of water by-a major earthquake and/or damaged by falling debris. During an
- earthquake, groundwater levels around the plant could fluctuate wildly and thereby allow the leakage from the fuel pond to be transported out into the bay by fluctuations in the water table.
In addition, the DES fails to address the possible environmental impacts which could occur if one or both of the natural gas fired units were damaged by an earthquake.
Licensee does not oppose this contention with the exception of noting that the last sentence concerning possible earthquake danage to the two fossil-fueled units seeks to raise an issue outside the scope of this proceeding. Licensee Response at 11. The Staff takes a similar position and notes that the two fossil-fueled units are not within the scope of the notice of hearing published on this. amendment application.
Staff Response at 14-15.
The Board agrees with Licensee and Staff with regard to the last sentence of proposed c(ntention 7. The contention is admitted with the last sentence deleted.
- 8. Irrespective of whether the license is modified to allow for decommissioning under PGandE's'30 year plan, or is modified to only extend until the federal high level waste repository becomes avail-able, petitioners contend that the license conditions requiring
- . j i.
20 seismic investigation and analysis should not be deleted. The Humboldt facility is sited in an area of great and ever-changing seismic activity. Petitioners contend that the discontinuances of the utilities seismic investigation and analysis program would have a detrimental impact on the health and safety of themselves and residents of Humboldt County.
Licensee opposes this contention on the grounds that the petitioners have not stated any basis for the contention. Licensee Response at 12.
The Board notes that the petitioners' concerns are focused on the adequacy of the DES and the Board takes the thrust of the contention to be that the Staff has not assessed the need for continuation of the seismic investigation and analysis program or presented a rationale for discontinuance.
The Staff does not oppose this contention, but points out that seismic monitoring is not appropriately a part of this issue, since this requirement for monitoring under License Condition E.2.e has been deleted by an amendment issued on June 20, 1986. Staff Response at 17.
Discussion at the prehearing conference shows that the intervenor's attorney, Mr. Fielder, understands clearly the seismic monitoring system is not part of this issue. Tr. 81-82.
The Board admits Contention 8, with the provision that seismic monitoring is not part of this contention.
21 i
IV. ORDER For all-the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 3rd day of December, 1986 ORDERED
- 1. Petitioners, the Redwood Alliance, Wesley Chesbro, Douglas H.
Bosco, Barry Keene, Daniel E. Hauser, the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County and Gaye M. Barr are admitted as consolidated Joint Intervenors in this proceeding.
- 2. Joint Intervenors' contentions No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are admitted for adjudication. Contentions No. 3 and 4 are rejected.
- 3. The period for discovery will commence on December 15, 1986, and close thirty days after issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Statement.
f i
i
Ler 40 22
- 4. The date and location for the comencement of the evidentiary hearing will be scheduled at a later date by separate Board order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
Y Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chaiden ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE il&-
Dr// James H. Carpenter ASHINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. Peter A. Morris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of December 1986.
l l