ML19225A046
| ML19225A046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1979 |
| From: | Garrett W, Gay G WEST TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907170248 | |
| Download: ML19225A046 (6) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPS NRC PUBLIC DOCIDENT ROOM IN THE MATTER OF S
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, g
ET AL DCCKET NOS. 50-445 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 50-446 Station, Units 1 and 2)
S BRIEF OF INTERVENORS,
ACORN, MARY AND CLYDE BISHOP, AND ODA AND WILLIAM WOOD N
9 D
e JUN 6193sy a
%gW Il 9,
era-l.*
m
- )!
DATED:
MAY 30, 1979 "d S 0 7 1 7 a 2 N h
N ce
.O c, \\
ccem
'> s e.. e 2
JUN 51973 p.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION om= w e. s-.,
77 s.rew C
6le p
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s IU IN THE MATTER OF S
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL S
DOCKET NOS. 50-445 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 50-446 Station, Units 1 and 2)
S BRIEF OF INTERVENORS,
ACORN, MARY AND CLYDE BISHOP, AND ODA AND WILLIAM WOOD Intervenors, ACORN, MARY and CLYDE BISHOP, and ODA and WILLIAM WOOD, by and through their attorneys of WEST TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES, respectfully submit these comments as a brief on the applicability of Houston Lighting and Power Company. et al_ (South Texas Projects,
_ts 1 and 2 ), ALAB-5 4 9, (May 18, 19 79 ), to the standing of Intervenors in this proceeding.
The May 18, 1979, Opinion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Houston Lichtinc and Power Comnanv. et al addresses timely filings with regard to the right to participate in a given case.
The Appeal Board indicates throughout it's Opinion that the standing of late Intervenors should be judged by considerations of fairness and not legal technicr-is and the niceties of pleadings.
(Page 9, Lines 4 throt
.0, and Page ll, Lines 4 through 8).
Fairness dictates involving parties with interests where that involvement does not delay or otherwise adversely e
(
)t
s.
affect the timely and orderly conduct of proceedings.
(Page 9, wherein the Appeal Board quotes from the West Valley opinion).
The HL&P Opinion gave consideration to the fact that the facility t:as not on the verge of completion.
The Board noted, "No suggestion is put forward that the conduct of a public hearing would delay licensing the plant for operation (assuming this is found to be warranted)".
(Page 10, Lines 1 through 5).
Those comments have greater applicability to the Comanche Peak situation than the South Texas situation.
Unit 1 of the South Texas facility is scheduled for completion in May, 1980.
TUGCO representatives at the first prehearing conference asserted that Comanche Peak Unit 1 should be. ready for loading of fuel in March,19 81.
As in the HL&P situation, Applicants herein are in no position to complain that they were surprised by the appearance of any Intervenor, or taat the commencement of proceedings would be unreasonably de.'.ayed by permitting intervention.
(Page 9, Lines 15 through 18).
Acceptance of Applicants technical arguments would deprive parties of their stc.tutory right to amend their pleadings prior to the first prelearing conference.
But in '. tght of the HL&P Opinion, the lie ansing Board should not have to give consideration to Applicants.echnical arguments that affidavits supplied after the initial motion for leave to intervene make it possible to characterize Intervenors as " late", because fairness requires
,3 e-
,7) r *
.)J/
< 1.,
acceptance of Intervenors.
Neither the Applicant nor the staff should be permitted to complain of the " lateness" of Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, or ACORN.
Correspondence from Harold Denton to the Commissioners on the day following the HL&P Opinion indicates that it is advisable for the staff to suspend review of the Comanche Peak operating license until January, 1980.
(" Interim NR1' Organization to deal with impact of TMI-2 and other NRR priority task", SECY-79-344).
Both the Applicant and the staff realize that the possible operation of Comanche Peak is several years in the future.
Acceptance of ACORN, Mary and Clyde Bishop, and Oda and William Wood as Intervenors would not delay an early consideration of TUGCO's early application for an operating license, and intervention certainly would pose no delay if the Commissioner's accept Harold Denton's suggestions for reorganizing the NRC staff to deal wf th the Three Mile Island incident.
The impact of the Appeal Board decision in HL&P suggests the tremendous importance of public participation in the NRC process.
Even when Applicant 's view of the law is accepted arguendo (as the Appeal Board did on Page 8 of the HL&P Opinion) a balance must be struck in favor of the admission of Intervenors.
The concept of fairness overrides legalistic and t echnical arguments,
and even if one assumes the " lateness" of Intervenors petitions there is no requirement for an overwhelming showing on the four factors governing late interventions as set forth in 10 C.
F.
R.
Sec. 2.714(a).
(Page 10, Linos 6 through 13).
The Appeal Board
^
l
in HL&P agreed that CEU's intervention was appropriate even though the " petition was five months late without good cause" (Page 13, Lines 4 and 5), because ano!-her party had been allowed to intervene and there would be no prejudice to the Applicant.
The party upon whom CEU's petition was contingent did not submit an affidavit demonstrating interest of at least one member until after the first prehearing conference.
The rationale, logic, and principles of fairness underlying the HL&P Opinion require acceptance of both ACORN and the parties na..ed in substitution of West Texas Legal Services, Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda nd William Wood.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM L. GARRETT GEOFFREY M. GAY West Texas Legal Services 406 W.
T. Waggoner Building 810 Houston Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 336-3943 ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS 2
ByC GAY Q
GEOFFREY M.
l
'?
7
.) l) /*.
,i
(, a
o I co
.D 06 W
\\,
e JUN. E7s y ;
I Y" ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ci~.'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^M*
h b
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD \\%
m W
IN TIIE MA' ITER OF S
TEXAS' UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL S
DOCKET NOS. 50-445 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 50-446 Station, Units 1 and 2)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cen-ify that copies of the "Brief of Intervenors, ACDFN, M1ry and Clyde Bishop, and Oda and Willia:n tbcd" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the follcwing by deposit in theyted States Mail, Certified, Pctura Peceipt Pequested, this /g[dayof
.J m, 1979.
Iawrence J. Chandler Atcmic S1fety and tironsing Board (bunsel for NEC Staff Panel U.S. Nuclear Ebgulatory Cbmnission U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory ch,,insion Washington, D. C. 20555 Washingtcn, D. C.
20555 "1 i-h*dt S. Bcwers, Esq., 01auran Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atcmic Safety and Li nsing Board Pa;.el (5)
U.S. Nuclear Ibgulatory Ccxmnssicn U.S. Nuclear Beg. rh,micsicn Washingtcn, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Iester Fcrnblith, Esq., Me: er Docketing and Service Section (4)
Atcnic Safety and Limnsing Board Office of the Secreta.nf
~ U.S. Nuclear Begulatory O_maissicn U.S. Nuclear Reg. Ca:mtission Washingtcn, D. C.
20555 Wash q.cn, D. C.
20555 Richard Cole, Esq., Member (Mrs.) Juanita El1in, President Atcric Safety and Licensing Board CASE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ormission 1426 S. Polk Washingtcn, C. C. 20555 n,11 as, Texas 75224 Nicholas S. Pcynolds Mr. Richard Fouke Debevois & Lite an 1668-B Carter Driwa 1200 17th St., N.W.
Arlingten, Texas 'I6010 Wasningen, D. C.
20036 Spencer C. Pelyea Richard W. Itserre, Esq.
Vbrsham, Fo@ie & Sampels Assistant Attorney General 2001 Bryan Tcw.r Environmntal Protecticn Division tallas, Texas 75201 P.O. Box 12548, Ca itol Station Austic Texas 78711 I
kO'Q a
1400 He:rhi? Street 3 )[_. _
J" GDDFFEE? M. GAY d
Fort Ecrth. Texas 76104 Attorney fc/ Intervencrs