ML20215D693
| ML20215D693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1986 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1053 OLA, NUDOCS 8610140248 | |
| Download: ML20215D693 (14) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._____-_____ - ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
/of3 DOCHETED
~
USNRC October 9,1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '85 GCI 10 P2 59 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO'ARD 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 THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LATE-FILED 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-erate Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, a 65-MWe boiling water re-actor located in the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California.1 On l 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
~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.
8610140248 861009 /DESIGNATEDORIGIMGj; lDR ADOCK 05000333 _
PDR Certified By O h 7 0
amendment. 51 Fed. Reg. 24458. The amendment is related to decommis-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 fa-cility and to reflect the SAFSTOR status; and 4) extend the term of 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.
On . September 19, 1986, more than six weeks after the filing dead-line, the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County (League) and Gaye I
M. Barr (Petitioners), a board member of the League and allegedly the I
person expressly authorized to represent the League in this license pro-ceeding, filed a late request for hearing and petition for leave to inter-vene (Petition).
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff is of the view that while j Petitioners may have standing to intervene and have sufficiently identified at least one aspect of the proceeding as to which intervention would be proper, they do not prevail on the five-factor test for late intervention set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1).
f i
f
II. DISCUSSION A. Standards for Late Intervention A late intervention petitioner must address the five factors specified
, in 10 C.F.R. I 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:
(i) 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, u (v) The extent to wirich the petitioner's participation will
- broaden the issuen er delay the proceeding.
The Commission has emphasized that licensing boards are expected to demand compliance with the lateness requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 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.
- The first factor in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) is whether there is good cause for the filing delay. Where no good excuse is tendered for the lateness of a petition, a petitioner's demonstration on the other factors must be particularly strong. Perkins, ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
Petitioners assert that their delay in filing the instant petition was be-cause Petitioner Gaye M. Barr, a League board member, "had not yet
received authorization from the League" to file. Petition at 7. This colorable claim of good cause is not persuasive. For example, Ms. Barr could have filed a timely intervention without the Leag te and sought permission from the Board to annex the League to her pe;ition when she .
received authorization to file on the League's behalf.
In any event, the Petition does not provide any justification for the League's delay in reaching their decision to pursue litigation. The League should have been well aware of the amendment application as early as December 4,1984, the date the environmental scoping meeting was held by the NRC Staff. The League was certainly aware of the pending application when, in a letter dated June 12, 1986 and signed by Ms.
Barr, it requested that "a public comment hearing" be held on the Staff's Draft Environmental Statement for Decommissioning Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, NUR EG-1166, dated April 1986 (DES). Finally, the League received direct notice from the NRC Staff that tha League could petition for leave to intervene in a formal ' adjudicatory hearing. Letter from H. Berkow, NRC, to G. Barr, League of Women Voters of Humboldt County, dated July 1, 1986 (attached). Among the enclosures was the notice of opportunity for hearing to be published in the Federal Register.
Petitioners have not shown why, having received a copy of the Federal Register notice well before the August 4, 1984 filing deadline, they were unable to file on time. Since Petitioners have not demonstrated good cause for their filing delay, this factor weighs against Petitioners.
The second factor to be considered under 5 2.714(a) is whether oth-er means are available to protect a petitioner's interest. Although Peti-tioners make no showing on this point, this factor weighs in favor of the
granting of the Petition because there may be no means other than partic-ipating in the NRC license amendment proceeding for the Humboldt Bay plant which would enable Petitioners to pursue their challenges to the adequacy of the DES and SAFSTOR proposal. As to the fourth factor (the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties), there is no other party currently admitted to the proceeding which could adequately represent their interests. However, Redwood Alliance , et al., which filed a timely petition to intervene and whose intervention the Staff does not oppose, could directly represent the inter-est of the instant Petitioners if their petition is granted since the instant Petitioners have identified aspects which are almost identical to those raised by the Redwood Alliance, et al. , in their pendir.g intervention petition . In the absence of any showing on the fourth factor, and the possible confluence of interest of the Petitioners and the Redwood 1
Alliance, et al., the fourth factor, at best, weighs only weakly in Petitioners' favor. Thus, the second factor and, to a lesser extent, the fourth factor, weigh in Petitioners' favor. 2_/
The third factor (which Petitioners also do not address), the extent to which a petitioner can assist in developing a sound record, also weighs against permitting late intervention. A petitioner must affirmatively I
2_/ However, the Appeal Board has observed that the availability of oth-er means whereby a petitioner can protect its interest and the extent to which other parties will represent that interest are properly ac-corded relatively less weight than the other three factors in Section 2.714(a). South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nu-clear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881, 895 (1981). In fact, 1 it is "most difficult to envisage a situation in which [these two fac-
- tors] might serve to justify granting intervention" to one who fails to make an affirmative showing on the other three factors. _Id .
demonstrate that it has special expertise which would aid in the develop-ment of a sound record to prevail on this factor. See Summer,13 NRC at 892-93; Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station),
LBP-80-14, 11 NRC 570, 576 (1980). When a petitioner addresses this factor "it should set out with as much particularity as possible the pre-cisc issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses , and summarize their proposed testimony. Vague assertions regarding petitioner's ability . . . are insufficient." Mississippi Power a Light Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982). Since Petitioners have made no showing in this regard, this factor weighs against them.
Finally, the fifth factor, the extent to which a petitioner's partici-pation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, also weighs against the Petitioners. The delay which can be attributed directly to the tardiness of the petition is to be taken into account in applying this factor. West Valley, CLI-75-4, 1 NRC at 276; Long Islahd Lighting Co.
(Jamesport, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 650 & n.25 (1975).
Petitioners assert that their admission would not be prejudicial because they only seek "to join the proceedings that are presently under way."
Petition at 7. At present , however, there is no guarantee that this proceeding will continue since, to date, no petitioners have been admitted as parties to the proceeding. Thus, on the one hand, it is clear that participation by Petitioners could both broaden the issues and delay the proceeding because, in an operating license amendment proceeding where a hearing is not mandatory and a hearing would not otherwise be held l
l without Petitioners' intervention, there would be no issues for the l
l r
L
Licensing Board to decide. On the other hand , if the intervention petition filed by Redwood Alliance, et al. , is granted at some future time, the delay attributable to Petitioners' late intervention will not be lengthy and the issues they raise may not be much broader than those contentions proffered by the Redwood Alliance, et al. , since they have identified aspects almost identical to those stated earlier by the other petitioners.
Therefore, the Staff believes that while this factor presently weighs against Petitioners, it should not be accorded much weight since the proceeding is in its early stages.
In sum, the first, third and, to a lesser extent, the fifth factors weigh against Petitioners. While there may not be any other forum (second factor) or party (fourth factor) which might afford protection to Petitioners' interest, these factors are accorded relatively less weight than the others. On balance , the factors to be considered under 10 C.F.R I 2.714 weigh against granting late intervention.
If the Board finds Petitioners satisfy the test for late intervention, the Staff provides in the following sections its views on whether the Petitioners have standing and have identified aspects within the scope of the proceeding.
B. Interest and Standing
. 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 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
-,____._-_,,.._,~-,,-,-_--,m,__ . . - _ _ _ .
O 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
"[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." b Thus the pertinent inquiry under Section 189a of the Act and 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a) of the regulations is whether Petitioners 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 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 seeking to intervene b and that (2) such injury is arguably within the
" zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National
-3/ A petitioner's showing of interest should address the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(d).
-4/ " 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 EURITOT1 Member Nations, CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531
- (1977); Pebble SprinlTs, CLI-76-27, supra, at 613. Rather, the as-serted harm must .1 ave 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 t e proceeding. See Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and ~$torage Station),
ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).
Environmental Policy Act. 5,/ 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. I 2.714(a)(2).
- 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 which may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Edlow International Co. ,
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). 6_/ When an organization claims 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 5/ 42 U.S.C. I 4321 et seq.
-6/ 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).
represent 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); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977).
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 Storage Facili-ty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150,153 (1982); Allens Creek, supra, 9 NRC at 393, citing, Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station , Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). U Never-theless 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 e at 383. Accordingly, it has been found that persons who live near the i ,
7/ 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 reactor licensing proceedings. See, eg. ., Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 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 construction permit or operating license proceedings. Eg. . , Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-85-24, 22 NRC 97, 98-99, aff'd on other grounds ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985) (peti-l tioner failed to demonstrate that the risk of storage with the revised K-effective for the spent fuel pool extended that distance).
l
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) , LB P-80-22, 12 NRC 191, 195-96 (1980),
affirmed, ALAB-619,12 NRC 558, 564-65 (1980).
- 2. Interest and Standing of Petitioners in This Proceeding The Humboldt Bay Power Plant is located 4 miles southwest of the city of Eureka, Humboldt County, California. DES at 2-1. Thus, those petitioners who reside near the facility and allege potential injury from the proposed amendment can establish standing to intervene.
In the 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 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.
The Petition sufficiently demonstrates that Ms. Barr has standing in her own right since she resides in close proximity to the plant and alleg-es potential injury from the proposed amendment. The Staff is of the view that the League also has established derivative standing through the
, interest of its member, Ms. Barr. Therefore the Staff does not oppose the Petitioners' intervention based on their standing.
t C. ' Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter of This Proceeding In addition to satisfying the standing and interest requirements of 4
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.
I2.714(a)(2).SI Petitioners are not required to submit contentions until they supple-i ment their petition pursuant to section 2.714(b). In Section III of the Petition , Petitioners list nine " contentions" which set forth their
" concerns about the adequacy of the DEIS and the proposal to SAFSTOR j the facility." Petition at 5-6. EI These concerns set forth issues which 8/ 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 Plantsi Units 1 and 2),
I 9/ The " concerns" listed by Petitioners are (Petition at 11-13):
- 1. There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the local environment and biota of the proposed activities; i
- 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;
- 3. There is inadequate treatment of the seismic hazards to the site;
, 4. There is no discussion of evacuation plans to be imple-mented in the event of a worst case type of accident; l
- 5. Viable alternatives such as shipping spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon were not discussed; i
- (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l 1
1
- . . - - . - , . , , > . _ , _ - . . . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ , . . . - ~ . - , . . _ . - . . . _ . . . _ - . . , . - - . . _ _ . . _ - . - . . . . _ _ . _ . , . _ . _ . . _ . _. ._
generally relate to the Staff's environmental and safety review of the !
SAFSTOR plan. Thus, the " contentions" sufficiently identify aspects which are within the scope of the amendment proceeding and are sufficient to put the parties on notice as to the subject matter of actual contentions, b III. CONCLUSION While Petitioners have satisfied the standing and interest requirements for intervention and have identified specific aspects within (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
- 6. The DES fails to address at all the option of SAFSTOR of j the fuel only until such time as a federal repository is open with immediate dismantlement following thereafter;
- 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;
- 8. The DES fails to address at all the impact of a tsunami and since Eureka had a tsunami alert less than two months i ago, it seems that it is something that should be addressed in the DEIS;
- 9. The DEIS fails to address the impact on the stored fuel rods in the spent fuel pool if the pool was emptied of wa-ter by a major earthquake while at the same time the fuel was damaged by falling debris.
--10/ Petitioners also request (Petition at 8) that the Commission award
" participation fees, costs and expenses" to Petitioners. The Commis-sion has ruled that, in light of a provision in the NRC's Appropria-tions Act, the NRC lacks a source of funds for payments of awards for attorney fees . and costs to intervenors in NRC proceedings.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
(August 4, 1986) (unpublished), citing Business and Professional (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
- 14 _
the scope of the proceeding, Petitioners have not shown that a balancing of five-factor test for late intervention warrants the granting of its Peti-tion. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
Respectfully sutrnitted, Mitz . Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of October,1986 (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
People for the Public Interest v. Nuclear Regulatory 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 rea-sons, their request for fees and expenses should be denied.
1
- - - - . - . . - , ~ . - - , . _ . - , - - - ..-. , , . - - - . _ _ . - - . - _ - - . - . , , - . , - , . ~ . . , - , _ - - - , .
~
[
Ag UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
- l 7e *j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 C
- July 1, 1986
"% , , , , , #,a '
- ~~-
Docket No. 50-133 '
Ms. Gaye M. Barr, Natural Resources League of Women Voters
- of Humboldt County i 1217 Searles St.
l Eureka, California 95501 i
i
Dear Ms. Barr:
By letter dated June 12, 1986, to Mr. Erickson of my staff, you requested a public coment hearing in Eureka, California on the Decomissioning of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant Unit No. 3.
l As you may know, the NRC recently published,the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) on the proposed decomissioning of the Humboldt Bay Plant (Enclosure 1).
The comment period on the DES has been extended for 60 additional days as stated in our notice in the Federal Register (Enclosure 2).
With respect to your request for a coment hearing, however, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission will not be scheduling a hearing (i.e., public meeting) for the public to comment on the DES on the Humboldt Bay Plant decommissioning.
As you may know, however, we did have a public scoping meeting in Eureka, ,
i California, on December 4, 1984 to help establish the scope of the DES. We considered coments given by the public at the meeting in our preparation of :
the DES.
Under 10 CFR Sections 51.73 and 51.74 of the Commission's regulations, DESs are distributed to various Federal, state and local agencies and other interested organizations and individuals and a minimum public coment period of 45 days is provided. Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.91, the Final Environmental Statement on the the Humboldt Bay Plant decommissioning will include the comments on the DES and responses to the coments.
The public may also participate in the Comission's consideration of the aroposed Decomissioning Plan by filing a petition for leave to intervene afore a panel of three administrative law judges. We have now published a notice in the Federal Register (Enclosure 3) that describes how interested persons may gain admission as parties to any adjudicatory proceeding that may be' held on the proposed plan in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.714 of the Comission's Rules of Practice. Parties to the proceeding may litigate specific concerns or " contentions" that meet certain basis and specificity requirements.
) Y ff A e
i
/
/ Ms. Gaye M. Barr In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715, the presiding officer of the proceeding traditionally permits persons who are not parties to the proceeding to make limited appearances and to provide oral or written statements on the officer.at Please issues the hearing within the limitations as may be fixed by the presiding refer to the enclosed copy of 10 CFR Sections 2.714 and 2.715 for further details on party and nonparty participation (Enclosure 4).
Sincerely, erbert N. Berkow, Director Standardization and Special Projects Directorate ,
Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosures:
As stated
1 lie Omett Nferf 0 NWnh0bt bm1 June 12,1986 Peter Erikson Project Manager Standardization and Special Project Director US Nuclear Regulctory Cormission Washington, DC 20555 RE: Decommissioning Hu::tboldt Bay Nuclear Plant
Dear Mr Erikson:
The League of Women Voters of Humboldt County request that a public comment hearing be held in Eureka regarding the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant.
Since there is a lot of interest, locally, in the process of decommissioning the nuclear plant, we feel that a public comment hearing would be the only fair thing to do for the people of Hurboldt County.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours, Carol Masterson President, LWVHC Gaye M. Barr, Natural Resources
(~. O,4 i J CLv v
)
1217 Searles St.
Eureka, Ca 95501 i
--860620001S. 860612 PDR ADOCF 0S000133 H pcp l
o 00LKEIE!'
USWC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 0CT 10 P2 59
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOASD g- ,y 00CKElih6 & SE ?EF-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
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TIIE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LATE-FILED REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETI-TION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE REGARDING AMENDMENT TO DECOM-MISSION FACILITY" 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 9th day of October,1986:
i
- 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
- Dr. James H. Carpenter Scott L. Fielder, Esq.
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 I
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Law Department Appeal Board P.O. Box 7442
- 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 j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Mit(A. Touhg~ f Counsel for NRC Staff i
_ . . _ _ - _ . , . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _