ML20236B506
Text
q l
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Dockets 50-275-OL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) 50-323-OL COMPANY ) )
)
Units 1 and 2 )
) l Diablo Canyon Site ) i
) I i
MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES MOTION ,
1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated in the I TO:
above matter.
Interveners SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, l SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, SANDRA SILVER, GORDAN SILVER, ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB and JOHN J. FORSTER respectfully move, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.730, that the Board postpone the environmental hearings in the above-captioned matter until' seismic risks relevant to environmental impacts which must be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 have been fully explored and developed in 8707290132 870721 ,
j' .
1 . .
- the safety hearings in the above-captioned matter. .
Dated: August 4, 1976 R' respectfully submitted, BRENT N. RUSHFORTH.
JAMES GEOCARIS Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 l Attorneys for Interveners Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace Sandra Silver Gordan Silver Ecology Action Club John J. Forster By: AfdL.-~
James-Geocaris'
~
enter for Law in the Public. Interest i 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard l
Los Angeles, California 90067 .
I \
d l
i i
e S
j
I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ,
INTRODUCTION The National Environmental Policy Act requires' that agencies of the federal government fully assess all unavoid-able adverse environmental effects of any proposed agency action. (42 U.S.C. 54332). Beyond doubt the most fearsome environmental impacts which operation of the nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon could produce would result from major reactor accidents. The primary potential site-related cause for such reactor. accidents is the high seismicity of the Diablo Canyon area, specifically the major Hosgri-San Simeon fault which lies only two miles from the Diablo Canyon reactor site. Plainly, any Nuclear Regulatory Commission review of the environmental-impact of the operation of the Diablo Nuclear plant which does not take into account the environmental risks of earthquake-caused reactor accidents will not' meet the stricutres of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Before the issue of earthquake-induced accidents and their environmental effects can be considered ripe, the applicant must complete its evaluation of seismic risks and I
document that evaluation for comment by the Commission staff and interveners. .That documentation will be available some time between November, 1976 and January, 1977. (Prehearing Conference July 13, 1976, p. 1264). When applicant's seismic !
risk documents are complete, the Licensing Board will consider the issue of seismic risks in a comprehensive and orderly ,
l fashion at full operation license safety hearings.- Only after l
]
O this seismic risk issue has been aired fully can the Licensing Board return to the interdisciplinary review of all adverse environmental impacts, necessarily including those related l
l to seismicity, that is needed to strike the cost-benefit balance required by NEPA. Therefore, we respectfully submit that this Board should postpone the environmental hearings until the seismic risk issue has been fully considered at the safety hearings.
I THE RISKS AND IMPACT OF ALL CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED ACCIDENTS MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE NEPA COST-BENEFIT BALANCE.
No one will dispute the environmental devastation ;
l a major reactor accident at Diablo Canyon would cause. The I i l
interveners have raised the issue of environmental effects of earthquake-induced accidents in several recent answers to l l
staff and applicant interrogatories. Environmental effects 4
noted by interveners include human health effects, con-i tamination of the terrestrial and marine environment, and the accumulation of radionuclides in the food chain that would result if an earthquake producing a ground acceleration of at least .759 struck the Diablo Canyon plant, a plant designed to withstand an expected ground acceleration of only
.29, causing a reactor accident.~1/
1/ See Response of San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace to Interrogatories Propounded by NRC Staff Dated June 21, 1976, lA., 1D, 1G., 21A., 3A; Responses of John J. Forster ;
[ cont'd on next pagel
A. Class 9 Accidents ,
While the horrible environmental effects of a major reactor accident are undisputed, substantial controversy exists regarding the likelihood of the more serious reactor accidents known as Class 9 accidents. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission views Class 9 accidents as insufficiently credible to consider at licensing hearings for the typical reactor site.
However, Diablo Canyon is not a typical reactor site.
Instead, the Diablo reactors, designed for a .2g ground acceleration, have been placed on a site where a ground accel-eration of at least .75g can occur. This blatant discrepancy between the ground acceleration for which the plant was de-signed and the ground acceleration that could occur at the site due to the nearby Hosgri-San Simeon fault clearly constitutes
- 1 l
i compelling reason to believe a Class 9' accident at these reactors is credible.
Both the NEPA mandate and ASLB procedures require consideration of Class 9 accidents and their environmental effects if there is reason to believe that, as to the reactors in question, the occurrence of Class 9 accidents is credible.
Class 9 accidents due to abnormal site characteristics can be ruled out only after full evaluation of the site and reactors at issue by the staff and the Licensing Board. As the Atomic
[ cont'd from p. 4] to Interrogatories Propounded by NRC Staff Dated June 21, 1976, 12A., 12D., 13B., 14A., 14D., 15A.,
16A.; Responses of John J. Forster to Interrogatories Propounded by PG&E Dated June 16, 1976, lA., 4; Response of San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace to Interrogatories Propounded by NRC Staff Dated June 21, 1976, 1.
' 9 Safety and Licensing Board explained in Gulf States Utilities l Campany (River Bend Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, RAI-74-3 222, 225 (March 12, 1974):
" ...Shoreham [Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) ALAB 156, RAIB-10 831 (October 26, 1973)] makes clear that no type of
_ accident is automatically beyond the pale of con-sideration in an individual licensing proceeding simply because it may generically be regarded as being in Class 9. To the contrary, the conse-quences of any accident--irrespective of how it may be generically treated--must be considered by the licensing board (as a part of its independent NEPA analysis in a mandatory construction permit pro-ceeding) if there is reason to believe that, as to the reactors in question, its occurrence is
^
credible. See also, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i Station), ALAB-179, RAI-74-2 159, 162-163 (Feb-ruary 28, 1974); Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) , ALAB-7 3-7 491, 502 (July 17, 1973); Consumers Power Co.
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, RAI-73-5 331, 346-47 (May 18, 1973). i "At the present juncture, there is absolutely ,
no way of estimating the likelihood of occurrence, f l
in the operation of the reactors at bar, of any particular accident--let alone that which was
described by petitioners in-their statement of interest. Indeed, there is not yet available either the Final Environmental Statement or the Safety <
Evaluation Report and, thus, neither we nor the petitioners have the benefit even of the staff's own t
ultimate appraisal respecting accident probabilities.
"In short, for all the petitioners or anyone else l
- 1. knows or can ascertain, this licensing proceeding l-mar entail examination of the consequences of an accident akin to the one respecting which they have manifested concern."
Similarly, at Diablo Canyon, no one can estimate the likelihood of the occurrence of a Class 9. accident pro-duced by an earthquake until the Safety. Evaluation Report and safety hearings on seismic risk are complete. Until such probability estimates are made, we cannot know, for the pur-poses of the environmental hearings and NEPA risk-benefit review, whether Class 9 accidents and their devastating environ-mental impacts are either credible or incredible.
- l B. Accidents Below Class 9 And The Residual ;
1 Risk Rule ,
The risk of seismically produced' Class 9 accidents is not the only seismic risk relevant to the NEPA balance.
If the Hosgri-San Simeon fault increases the likelihood of i lower classes of reactor accidents, the Board must also weigh ]
these added risks into the NEPA cost-benefit balance.
e
~7-L______---_---______-
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission doctrine on residual
.. risks supports this point regarding sub-class 9 accidents.
If the Licensing Board in evaluating safety issues finds that a reactor and its site satisfies all the Commission's safety regulations, but that some residual risks to health, safety, and the environment remain, the Board must consider these residual risks in the NEPA cost-benefit balance. The use of this rule in evaluating the residual risks of radionuclides release during normal operations and accidents has been approved by both the Commission, in Main Yankee Atomic Power Company (Main Yankee Atomic Power Station) CLI-74-2, RAI-74-1 2, 3-4 (January 17, 1974), and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Citizens for Safe Power v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
Under the residual risks rule, the Safety Evalua-tion Report and the safety hearings may reveal additional seismic risks of sub-class 9 accidents relevant to the NEPA balance, whether or not they reveal that a Class 9 accident itself is sufficiently credible to be considered in the Board's NEPA review. Thus, the Board should proceed with the 1
safety hearings before the environmental hearings, not only I to determine the proper weight of Class 9 accidents in the NEPA cost-benefit balance, but also because it must assign ;
l the proper weight to sub-class 9 reactor accidents.
l I
I ;
- 1 II l
\
NEPA MANDATES CONSIDERATION OF ALL RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OPINION REGARDING THE I LIKELIHOOD OF ACCIDENTS AND THE ADVERSITY OF THEIR j ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC OPINION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SEISMIC RISKS CANNOT BE FORMED UNTIL EVALUATION OF SEISMIC -
RISKS AT THE SAFETY HEARING IS COMPLETE.
From the first days of the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal courts have employed a few key I measures to assess the sufficiency of agency environmental impact statements made pursuant to the Act. The inclusion of all responsible scientific opinion regarding all environ-mental impacts of the contemplated agency action has been one of the most important sufficiency standards. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in a case involving a nuclear test proposed by the then 1. comic Energy Commission, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc.
- v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 703, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1971):
"When, as here, the issue of procedure relates to the sufficiency of the presentation in the state-ment, the court is not to rule on the relative merits of competing scientific opinion.
Its function I
I is only to assure that the statement sets forth the opposing scientific views, and does not take the arbitrary and impermissible approach of completely I omitting from the statement, and hence from the focus that the statement was intended to provide for the deciding officials, any reference whatever to the ]
1 1
existence of responsible scientific opinions concern-ing possible adverse environmental effects."
The same Appeals Court restated this sufficiency standard only two weeks ago in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. United Stater Regulatory Commission, slip opinion, p.
21 (D.C. Cir., July 21, 1976).
Responsible scientific opinion on seismic risks and related environmental impacts cannot form until the ;
applicant presents all documentation and information on ,
l seismic risk to the Board and responsible experts of both the Commission staff and the interveners have an opportunity to review and comment upon that information during the safety hearings. Clearly, then, under the' responsible scientific opinion standard for sufficiency of environmental impact statements, the many environmental issues related to seismic risk will not be ripe for consideration in environmental hearings by the Licensing Board until responsible scientific experts can review and comment upon seismic risk data at the !
safety hearings. Therefore, the environmental hearings should be postponed until after the safety hearings which will raise and consider all the issues regarding seismic risk at Diablo Canyon.
u-__----------.--_---------------
III .
THE COMMISSION STAFF MUST INVESTIGATE ALL POSSIBLE CAUSES OF ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION. THE COMMISSION STAFF.HAS NOT YET i
COMPLETED ITS INVESTIGATION OF SEISMIC RISKS AT i
DIABLO CANYON.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District .
1 of Columbia ruled two weeks ago that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must take the initiative to investigate any issue relevant to the NEPA cost-benefit balance. NRDC v. NRC, supra, and Aeschilman, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, slip opinion, (D.C. Cir., July 21, 1976). In both decisions, the court based its ruling on the commands o'f Calvert Cliffs' Co-ordinating Comm., Inc. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) that federal agencies have primary responsibility for fulfilling NEPA requirements and therefore must take the initiative in investigating adverse environmental impacts.
Furthermore, the Aeschilman decision overruled a Commis-sion refusal to take the investigatory initiative which had been based on the rule of reason enunciated in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1972) , which enables federal agencies to ignore remote possibilities in their NEPA con siderations. In overruling the Commission action, the Court of 1 Appeals invalidated a stringent threshold test which required interveners to investigate and prove the existence of energy conservation problems satisfying the rule of reason before the board would consider those energy conservation issues. Instead, the court directed the Commission to take the investigatory initiative on energy conservation matters whenever facts came to its attention
)
' 'l
-ll-1__
raising reasonable q stions as to whether impo; int gnergy conservation issues might exist. The court's opinion merits quotation at length because of its relt ance to intervenor threshold showings and the Commission's duty to investigate regarding the seismic risk issues in this case:
"Saginaw contends that the ' threshold test' applied in this case is inconsistent with NEPA's
' basic mandate' to the Commission to 'take the initiative' in considering environmental issues.
Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 11^9, 1118-1119 (D.C. Cir. 1971). We agree.
"In Calvert Cliffs the Commission proposed to limit consideration of environmental issues under NEPA to those 'which parties affirmatively raise.'
Id., 1118. This court reversed, pointing out 'it is unrealistic to assume that there will always be an intervenor with the information, energy, and money required' to investigate environmental issues. Id. The court held that the ' primary re- i sponsibility' for fulfilling NEPA must lie with the Commission, which may not merely ' sit back, like an '
umpire, and resolve adversary contentions at the hearing stage.' Id. See also Greene County Planning Board v. FPC, 455 F.2d 412, 420 (2d Cir.), cert.
I denied, 409 U.S. 849 (1972). The same considera- I tions persuade us that the Commission may not refuse to consider energy conservation alternatives unless an intervenor first brings forward information I satisfying the strictures of its ' threshold test.'
i 1
l
"The Commission derived the ' threshold test' from the ' rule of reason' courts use in reviewing the sufficiency of the alternatives considered in an EIS. NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C. Cir.
1972). See also Carolina Environmental Study Group
- v. U.S., 510 F.2d 796, 800-801 (D.C. Cir. 1975);
NRDC v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 92 (2d Cir. 1975).
Thus, for example, agencies are not required to consider alternatives which are ' remote and specu-lative,' Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974), but may deal with circumstances 'as they exist and are likely to exist.' Carolina Environ-mental Study Group v. U.S., supra,, 510 F.2d at 810.
"The Commission properly recognized that such judgments present mixed questions of law and fact which can only be intelligently resolved based on a factual record. But the need to assemble data 4
bearing on whether alternatives are promising enough to merit detailed consideration in the EIS does not q mean the entire burden of compiling such information t
can be placed on the interveners. In light of the l allocation of responsibility established by Calvert Cliffs, we believe the Commission erred in promulgating a ' threshold test' which essentially requires inter-ven. ors to $9ove an alternative satisfies the ' rule of reason'-before the Commission will investigate it.
i i
I l
"In our view, an interv'nor's comments on a draft EIS raising a colorable alternative not presently con-sidered therein must only bring ' sufficient attention l to the issue to stimulate the Commission's considera- ;
13/ l tion of it.'-~ Thereafter, it is incumbent on the l l
Commission to undertake its own preliminary investiga-tion of the proffered alternative sufficient to reach I a rational judgment whether it is worthy of detailed i consideration in the EIS. Moreover, the Commission
! must explain the basis for each conclusion that further l
l consideration of a suggested alternative is unwarranted.
An-explicit statement is essential to enable the I
parties to challenge the agency's action through
{
i motions for reconsideration, and to facilitate judicial review.
In footnote 13 to their decision, the Court of Appeals further explained the " sufficient attention" standard which requires Commission investigation of an issue raised by interveners:
"13/ The phrase is drawn from our recent decision in Indiana & Michigan Elect. Co. v. FPC, 502 P.2d 336, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 (1975),
l a case concerned with the requirements of S313 (b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. S 82 5L (b) (1970) , that objections be presented in an application for rehear-l l ing. The form of words used is not all important.
l
, The Commission's opinion in this case suggested a
. + >
o _ .S.K' .
bytandard which would probably suffice as well: a
' showing... sufficient to require reasonable minds to
- v.
l
1 i
O l
inquire further.' RAI-74-1-19 at 32 n.27, I J.A. 71. j This does not, however, support the imposition of the l
burden of an affirmative evidentiary showing."
In this action a showing on the seismic and related environmental risks sufficient to require reasonable minds to l
inquire further most certainly has occurred. The Hosgri-San Simeon fault has been defined clearly by an eminent geologist, Dr. Clarence Hall of the University of California at Los Angeles, as capable of producing an earthquake with at least a .75g ground i acceleration. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant was designed before discovery of the fault when a ground acceleration of only
.2g was expected from what previously was thought to be the l l
nearest fault. This blatant discrepancy has prompted the ]
reasonable minds of the Commission staff to investigate the magnitude of the seismic risks posed by the recently defined fault, including, we presume, the credibility of Class 9 acci-1 dents. I But this Commission investigation is not yet complete.
Until it is complete, and has been fully considered in the safety hearings, the numerous issues related to seismic risks that must be weighed in the NEPA cost-benefit balance will not be ripe for consideration by the board in the required interdisciplinary NEPA review. Therefore, the Board should postpone the environmental i hearings until seismic risks are systematically and thoroughly examined in the safety hearings.
9
IV THE PRACTICAL STANDARDS FOR TIMING OF HEARINGS, l RETENTION OF VALIDITY OF EARLY FINDINGS AND AD-VANTAGES OR PREJUDICE TO LITIGANTS, SUPPORT POST-PONING THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS UNTIL AFTER THE SAFETY HEARINGS.
Several practical considerations support interveners' ;
I motion to delay the environmental hearings until after the safety
~
l hearings. These considerations are the relative shortness of the delay interveners propose, the possibility that the safety hearings will raise issues that will require a subsequent NEPA !
l hearing even if a first set of environmental hearings are held-prior to the safety hearings, the problem of stale findings from
)'
early environmental hearings that will arise if the safety hearings reveal a need for plant retrofitting, and prejudice and burden to all parties from the double environmental hearings that may occur.
First, we remind the Board that interveners ask for no extensive delay in these operation license proceedings. If the ;
Board delays the environmental hearings, those proceedings can i
follow the safety hearings, which now seem likely to take place in January or February, within two months. Thus, the Board can i
. complete all proceedings by March or, at the latest, early April.
By holding the environmental hearings first, the Board apparently could conclude proceedings when the safety hearings ended in mid-winter, gaining a month or two over the early spring completion time if the environmental hearings are held second.
But this time saving will prove illusory if safety hearings
e e
held after the environmental hearings raise and/or develop I
several environmental issues that would require a fuller airing in a second set of environmental hearings in order to fulfill NEPA requirements. Obviously, the NEPA issues most likely to arise at l the Diablo Canyon safety hearing are seismically related, such as the environmental impacts of earthquake-induced accidents. Such a second set of hearings would cause the same delay in completing operation license proceedings for Diablo Canyon as would an initial postponement of environmental hearings.-
In addition, the safety' hearings may reveal the need to retrofit the Diablo Canyon plant extensively in order to insure its safety against the possibility of at least a .75g ground acceleration. If such retrofitting required several months o'r years, many of the environmental findings, including those not related to seismicity, may become outdated. Therefore, such a delay for plant retrofitting could require a rehearing of all environmental issues in light of new evidence that emerged.during the retrofitting period, including issues unrelated to seismicity that had bec ca sta3r during that time.
Double environmental hearings as a result of either NEPA issues emerging at the safety hearings or delay caused by retrofitting would burden and be prejudicial to all parties. The parties would have to call their environmental witnesses twice and the Board would .have to hear them twice in order to fully consider all adverse environmental impacts required in the interdisciplinary NEPA review. These double hearings would be especially burdensome and even prejudicial to interveners because they have fewer resources to conduct discovery, pay witnesses
o l
and in other ways present their case than do applicant and
}
Commission staff.
The aforementioned considerations demonstrate that the three practical criteria for the timing of hearings set forth by >
the Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Appeals Board in Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-277, RAI 75-6 (June 18, 1975) support this motion to delay the environmental hearings. As the Appeals Board formu-lated them, these three criteria are:
l
" (1) the degree of likelihood that any early findings I
on the issue (s) would retain their validity; (2) the advantage, if any, to the public interest and to the litigants in having an early, if not necessarily con-clusive, resolution of the issue (s); and (3) the extent to which the hearing of the issuels) at an early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) were later !
reopened because of supervening developments, !
t occasion prejudice to one or more of the litigants."
Applying the criteria to this case, we find first that early environmental findings may not retain their validity if the Board in subsequent safety hearings finds extenstive retrofitting to meet seismic hazards necessary. Second, there may be no early resolution of environmental issues if the safety hearings develop new seismically related NEPA issues requiring a second set of environmental issues. Even with no second set of environmental hearings, the Board would gain only two months by holding en- ;
i vironmental hearings first. Finally, the double environmental l l
I
, hearings that might occur because of developments at the safety l l
l j
l j
- ~ ..
O hearings would prejudice all parties, especially interveners.
These three pre.ctical criteria for the timing of licensing hearings led the Appeals Board in Potomac Electric Power Company, supra, to conclude that immutable site related' characteristics such as geology and seismicity should be con-sidered first. We share the Appeals Board's view and urge in this proceeding that the safety /scismicity issues be fully considered before the environmental issues.
CONCLUSION In the normal case, it may be proper for the environ-mental hearings to take place before the safety hearings. But Diablo Canyon is not the normal case. The Diablo Canyon nuclear-plant, designed for ground acceleration of .2g, is located 2 miles from a major earthquake fault that can produce at least a
.75g ground acceleration. The seismic risks of.this unfortunate siting raise numerous issues relevant to the NEPA cost-benefit analysis. These issues center on radionuclides contamination of land, sea and air from an earthquake induced accident,.but also include related issues such as plant reliability.
Several rules of this Commission and the courts require a thorough and comprehensive examination of seismic risk .at the
. safety hearings before seismic risk-related NEPA issues can be considered at environmental hearings. Neither the credibility of i
a Class 9 accident nor residual risksaaf accidents can be assessed until the full safety hearings have been held.. Nor can responsible scientific opinion regarding seismic risk and related environmental matters form before the safety hearings. Nor will L
l
O the staff fulfill its duty to inquire into seismic risks before the safety hearings.
Because these four rules regarding NEPA assessments can be met only after the safety hearings, the numerous earthquake-related NEPA issues are not ripe for the required interdisci-plinary review and cost-benefit analysis. Because the issues are not ripe, and because several practical considerations also favor postponement, we respectfully ask the Board to postpone the environmental hearings until the safety hearings have been l completed.
Dated: August 4, 1976 Respectfully submitted, BRENT M. RUSHFORTH JAMES GEOCARIS Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard l Los Angeles, California 90067 !
Attorneys for Interveners I Scenic Shoreline Preservation' Conference San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace.
Sandra Silver Gordan Silver Ecology Action Clut i John J. Forster '
j .
l l
By: _ jf/fM ,ff/Ml James Geo Mris Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 l
I
l l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIMG BOARD In the Matter of )
) Dockets 50-275-OL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) 50-323-OL COMPANY )
) ,
Units 1 and 2 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
Diablo Canyon Site )
)
The MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES '
and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (Brent N. Rushforth and James A. .
Geocaris) of Interveners have been ser,ved today on the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail,. properly stamped and i
addressed:
Mrs. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Mr. John J. Forster 1415 Cazadero c/o Mr. Gordan Silver San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5055 Radford Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91607 4 James R. Tourtellotte, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director Director Division of-Reactor Licensing BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Nathaniel H. Goodrich, Esq. )
Chairman Chairman l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board j
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. Panel Landow Building - Room 1209 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. j Washington, DC 20555 Landow Building - Room 1209 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. William E. Martin Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. Senior Ecologist Landow Building - Room 1209 Battelle Memorial Institute.
Washington, DC 20555 Columbus, OH 43201
.m ____.___.m. ______
r -1 l
O Mr. William P. Cornwell Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
P.O. Box'453 Chairman Morro Bay, CA 93442 Atomic Safety & Licensing'.
Appeal Panel Mr. Frederick Eissler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n.
Scenic Shoreline Preservation Landow Building - Room 1209 Conference, Inc. Washington, DC 20555
' 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, CA 92110 Secretary
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n.
Ms. Raye Fleming Washington, DC 20555 1' 1746 Chorro Street Attn: . Docketing and Service Section San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Andrew Skaff, Esq., 5055 Radford Avenue Counsel, Public Utilities North Hollywood, CA 91607 Commission of the State of Yale I. Jones, Esq.
California 5066 State Building 100 Van Ness Ave..ue - 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA'94102 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
400 Channing Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94302
/dA
"ames J
J A. Geocaris i
Attorney Center for Law in the Public Interest 1
Dated: August 4, 1976 c