ML18127A255
| ML18127A255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1975 |
| From: | Hodder M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18127A255 (4) | |
Text
7975 FEES AND WITNESS AND OTHER EXPENSE
~b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA~
DOCLftfO LEAR REGULATORY CONHISSI~
g 9
Y BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR JUL 8 1975 In the Natter of
) ~it~ COBRESPONDLg~
'Poctloq FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COlfPANY
)
Docket No. 50-389
~
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
- Uni't 2.)
)
NOTION FOR AWARD OFFINANCIAL ASSISTANCE I'N 'THE FORH OF A'TTORNEYS Intervenors by and through their undersigned counsel motion that they be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and witness and other expense since the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in its Partial Initial Decision (PID) dated Feb.
28, 1975 found the case presented by Interve-nors to be a meritorious one in many aspects and because the efforts contributed by the Intervenors.constituted a material contribution thereby serving a valuable public purpose to the proceeding and thereby served a valuable public purpose.
Direct Examples of the beneficial effectof intervenors case as enunciated in the PID consists of the Following:
1.
Revelations of Intervenors at Tr. 1463 et.
seq.
and elsewhere re-sulted in substantial modification of the FES for St.
Lfhcie Unit No.
2 as appears following TR 2353..
2.
The ASLB found Intervenors witness Richard W. Schmidt most qualified as an expert in demography and re'lated fields.
(a)
A licants 'Wit'ness 'Phili W. Moore:
'The Board was not as persuaded by his opinions on long range
- trends, which tended to extraplate on past experience only."
(PID p.43 Par 61)
(b) St'affs witness Dr. 'Emile 'A.B'e'rnard:
"Dr. Bernard provided. fact and opinion testimony.
The Board gave considerable weight as to the former; however, since he had little or no experienace in making regional planning studies, and was not familiar with the usual methodology used in planning and projections the Board gave less weight to his opinions on popula-tion projections."
(PID p.43, Par.
61)
That any intervenor whose interest is established in a case, and whose filing of a petition to intervene is timely, be eligible to participate as an intervenor if such petition
'on i'ts fa'ce is.
4.
That Applicants be required to list their expenditures for legal
- expense, witnesses and other expense and that in each of these cate-
- gories, intervenors be elligible for award of up to 50% of the Ap-plicants expenditures in those areas in any NRC licensing proceeding or on some other pro rata calculati'on based on expenditures of Ap-plicant and Staff.
5.
That determination of merit be'ithin the jurisdiction of the ASLB, the ALAB, the NRC and the U.S. Federal Court Struc'ture.
6.
That this rule apply to all NRC hearings including licensing, rulemaking and others.
7.
To do otherwise such as create new bureaucracy in the form of an office of Public counsel would to be to deny.the individual citizen his right to equal protection of the laws.
Also it would constitute duplication of the duties and responsibilities of the NRC Regulatory Staff who needing a system of check and balances, none the Less share the primary responsibility of safe regulation of U.S. Nuclear Technology.
Respectfully submitted, Hartin Harol Hodder Counsel for Xntervenors