ML19259C515
| ML19259C515 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1979 |
| From: | Buchorn P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906230096 | |
| Download: ML19259C515 (13) | |
Text
'
', , NRC PUBidC DOCUMENT ROOM /
UNI E D STATES OF AMERICA 2f j NUCEAR REGUIATORY CCMMISSION q f #
BEFORE THE ATCHIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
~7
% cp I
IN TE MATTER OF HOUSTON LIGHTING AND DOCKET NOS. STN 50-498 OL POER COMPANY, ET AL, STN 50-499 OL (SOUTH EXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2)
I CITI7RNS FOR EOUITABIE UTILITIES, INC. RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS BRIEF CN At) PEAL FRCM PREHEARING CONFERENCE 03 DER
- RULING UPON INTERVENTION FETITIONS I. CITI2 ENS FCR EQUITABE UTILITIES, INC. (CEU) HISTORY OF INVOLVEENT AND STAEMENT OF FACTS.
ON JANUARY 5,1979, CEU RECEIVED A REQUEST FRCH MEMBERS LIVING IN MATACORDA COUNTY ASKING THAT MRS. BUCHORN ATTEND TE FRE-EARING CONFERENCE SCEDUIED FOR JANUARY 11, 1979. AT THAT TIE CEU WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN APPLICATION FOR AN OIERATING LICENSE, AND DID N0r PLAN TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY.
TE REPEATED CBJECTION EUT FORTH BY TE APPLICANT WAS THAT THOSE WHO WERE ATEMFTING TO INTERVENE DID NOT LIVE IN TE " AREA 0F INTEEST". TE DECIDING FACTOR IN MRS, BUCHORN'S DECISION TO MAE A LIMITED APPEARANCE STAEMENT WAS THAT IT EECAME FRIGHTENINCLY CLEAR THAT TERE WERE VALID QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS THAT, IF IEFF UNCUED, WOULD 2283 37 7 9 0 6 23 0 D?$
1
POSE A DEFINITE HAZARD TO TE EALTH AND SAETY OF CEU MEMBERS IN TE " AREA 0F IN'IEREST" . MRS. BUCHORN'S STATEMENT WAS BASED ON THE BEIEIF THAT CEU WAS OBUGATED TO FILE A PETITION TO INTERVENE IN BEHALF OF CEU MEMBERS WHO WOULD BE DIRECTLY AFFCCIED BY TE OPERATION OF A NUCIEAR POWER PLANT THAT WAS UNSAFE.
CEU WILL STIPULATE THAT TEIR PETITION WAS FILED 6 WEEKS AFIER TE PRE-EARING CONFEENCE. HOWEVER, TERE WERE MITICATING FACTORS. N.R.C. STAFF MAIIED A PACKET IN WHICH THE COVER LETTER STATED INCLUSION OF RUIES AND REGULATIONS ( PART 2, 20, 50, 51,a leo ) PLUS A RECENT DECISION ( ERMI )
WHICH WOULD PROVIDS GUIDEUES FOR PREPAR'NG A PETITION. UNFORTUNATELY THE PACKET ARRIVED OEN, AND RETATED, WITH RULE 2 AND TE FERMI DECISION MISSING.
THE APPLICANTS VOLu:nu,rui;D TO SEND TE FINAL ENVIRONFENTAL STATEMElfr TO CEU.
TEY DID NUP. MRS. BUCHORN WAS TOLD THAT ALL DOCUME?rrS WERE OF FIIE IN TE PUBUC DOCUENT Rom IN TE MATAGORDA COUNTY COURTHOUSE. TEY WERE NOT.
MRS. BUCHORN FINALLY HAD TO FLY TO WASHINGTON, D. C. FOR RESEARCH AND FINAL PREPARATION OF TE ETITION WHICH WAS HAND DELIVERED.
CEU RECEIVED NOTICE OF APIEAL FROM TE APPLICANT ON 4-19-79, THE ASLB ORDER ON 4-24-79 AND THE APPUCANTS BRIEF ON APPEAL ARRIVED ON 4-21-79.
THEREFORE,,CEU HAS BEEN IABCRING UNDER SMEWHAT OF A TIME FRAME HANDICAP.IN PREPARING THIS RESPONSE WHICH IS SET FORTH BELOW.
II. TE BAirCE OF FACTORS RELATING 70 inrTIELY TETITIONS TO INTERVENE ON PAGE 6 0F TE APPLICANTS BRIEF ON APPEAL WE FIND THIS:
10 CFR 2.714 (a) provides that an untimely petition to intervene will "not be entertained absent a determination that it should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors ...:
(i)Goodcause,ifany,forfailuretofileontime.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the (petitioner's interest will be protected.iii) The extent to which the petition may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
.h 2
(iv) The extent to which the petitioners interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
With respect to each of the three organizations the Licensing Board found --- against the organization with respect to the first factor. However, each of the other factors was weighed in favor of the organization.
INDEED THEY DID AND RIGHTLY S0. CEU HAS ADDRESSED TESS FACTORS ON PAGES
'+, 5 AND 6 0F THEIR PETITION TO INTERVENE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH WAS SET OUT OUT ON PAGE 4 REGARDING SECTION(ii)
CEU WOULD STATE THAT THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT LIVED THROUGH A HURRICANE, NOR HAD TEIR HOMES BLOWN AWAY, TEIR VERY LIVES IN GRAVE DANGER, CANNor PCSSIBLY PROTECT TE INTEBEST OF CEU MEMBERS IN THIS PROCEEDING. CEU HAS CIEARLY ENUMERATED SEVERAL HURRICAES THAT HAVE MADE IANDFALL ON TE TEXAS GULF COAST SINCE 1960. NO LESS THAN THREE OF THESE HURRICANES VERE CLASSED AS SEVERE OR CATEGORY 5 VITH WINDSEEED GREATER THAN 155 H.P.H. CEU IS PREPARED TO PROVIDE WHAIEVER IS NECESSARY IN TE WAY OF EXPERT WITESSES AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT APPLICANTS DESIGN BASIS IS ENTIRELY INADEQUATE.
IN THIS REGARD.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a souni record.
CEU, IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH WAS STATED ON PAGES 5, 9 AND 11 IN THEIR PETITION, WOULD STA7E THAT TERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT TE RECORD IS FLAWED NOW AND ONLY BY THE PARTICIPATION OF CEU, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO CEU CONTENTION 1, CAN THAT PROBIEM BE CURED.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will b3 represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioners participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
CEU ADDRESSES (iv) ON PAGE 5 0F T EIR PETITION AND WOULD ADD THAT CEU ORIGINAIED IN TE " AREA 0F INTEREST" IN EARLY 1976
. 2283 '39 -
3
REGARDING (v)~ IT HAS BEEN STATED CIEARLY THAT THOSE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH MOST CELTAINLY COULD BROADEN THE ISSUES. HOWEVER, IT BOGGIES THE MIND TO EVEN IMAGINE HOW CEU'S PARTICIPATION MICHT DELAY TE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING AN OTERATING UCENSE OF A PLANP THAT IS VERY UTTIE MOBE THAN ONE-THIRD COMPIEED. INDEED, IN ERUSING THE CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORTS, THE CONSTRUCT-ION CMPIETION PERCENTAGES BOUND UP AND DOWN ME A VERITABIE YO-YO.
THEREFORE, CEU WOULD SUBMIT THAT TE DECISION OF THE ASLB WAS INIEED PROPER AND THAT TEY COULD HAVE REACHED NO OTER DECISION.
APPUCANT CONTINUES WITH THIS STATEMENT ON PAGE 7.
---we submit the Licensing Board's discretion has been abused because the factors enumerated in le CFR 2.714(a) were balanced wholly without consideration of the fact that what is involved here is an operating license.
THIS CONCLUSION IS CCMPLEIELY WITHOUT MERIT. THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN OPERATING UCENSE IS OF PRIME OVERRIDING IMPORTANCE. IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WOLILD ALLCW TO BE SET IN MOTION TE FISSION EHOCESS THAT RESULTS Nor ONLY IN THE PRCDUCTION OF EIECTRICITY BIFT ALSO IN AN END PRODUCT THAT WILL BE DEADLY FOR IENS, HUNDREDS AND THGJSANDS OF YEARS. 7"E HEALTH, SAFSTY AND WELLBEING OF TE CITIZENS OF MATAGCRDA AND SURROUNDING COUhTIES IS TE LAMB BEING SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF APPUCANTS EXIEDIENCY.
THE APPLICANr FURTHER QUOTES FRCM WATTS BAR,
-- there is particularly strong reason why discretionary intervention should not be allowed in the absence of some clear indication that the petitioner has a substantial contribution to make on a significant safety or environ-mental issue appropriate for consideration at the operating license stage.
HERE WE ENCOUNTER A CURIOUS PRACTICE ON THE PART OF THE APPUCANT THAT IS EXIBIIED RATHER OFTEN, THAT OP "SEIECTAVISION", THE APPLICAhT 9JIIE CONVENIENTLY DOES Nor SEE, OR REMEMBER, THE VAUD C0hTENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN 2283 340 u
STATED BY TE INTERVENORS. THOSE CONTENTIONS STRONGLY QUESTION THE SAFETY OF OPERATING THE pit.NT AND HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON TE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY OF A WIDE AREA. WITH THOSE CONS 3 UCTION DEFECTS UNCURED, THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE AN ACCIDENT THAT WOULD DESTROY BOTH TE CITIZENS AND TE ENVIRONMENT IN A LARGE AREA. IT WOULD MOST CERTAINLY BE A VIOLATION OF TE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS AREA TO ASSUME THAT ALL PROBIEMS HAVE BEEN CURED WHEN TE INTERVENORS ARE PREPARED TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
ON PAGE 8, APPLICANTS STATE:
In 1961, the Joint Consittee on Atomic Energy undertook a comprehensive re-evaluation of the AEC licensing process ---- and the committee ultimately determined that, absent bona fide intervention, no hearing should be held at the operating licenas stage
The committee's recommendation became law on August 29, 1962 (Public Law 87-615, 76 Stat.409 (1962).
IN THIS REGARD. CEU RESEECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLCVING RSMARKS MADE BY REP.
MORRIS K. UDALL :
"WE WERE JUST INCREDIBLY OPTIMISTIC IN TE 50'S AND 60'S, NUCIEAR WAS CCMING CN TE LINE TOO CEAP TO MEIER: WE WERE RUNNING CUT OF URANIUM, THE BREEDER IS CCMING ON. NOW THIS IS ALL IN DOUBT. WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT WE DO WITH THE PLANTS NOW OIERATING, WHAT WE DO WITH TE 100 ON ORDER IN VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REASSESS. I DON'T THINK TE AMERICAN PEOPIE WANT TO LIVE LIE THIS. THIS IS SCMETHING DIFFERENT.
TE AERICAN PEOPIE KNOW YOU CAN BREAK BONES THEY KNCW YOU CAN BE BURED UP IN A HOUSE FIRS. TEY KNOW THAT CERTAIN CEMICAIS AND OTER DANGERS - TE AUTOMOBIIE HAS RISXS. BUT IT IS THIS HIDDEN, DANGEROUS POWER, THIS HIDDEN DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE THAT CAN PENETRATE CONCRETE WALLS, THAT CAN MAKE YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER SIERIIE OR MAKE YOUR GRANDCHILDREN BE BORN DEFECTIVE, THE FEAR OF CANCER DOWN TE ROAD 15 OR 20 YEARS FRCM THESE EXPOSURES. THE AERICAN 2283 341 5
TEOPE AREN'T REALLY READY TO RUN THOSE KINDS OF RISKS UNESS THERE IS BROAD ASSURANCE AND A BROAD-BASED BELIEF TESE PIANTS APS SAFE, AND WE ARE Nor GOING TO HAVE EVACUATIONS: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO ACCEFr TE IDEA 100 MILUON AMERICANS HAVE TO UVE IN FEAR OF EVACUATION EVERY TUESDAY MOHNING IF SOMETHING COES WRONG IN OE OF THESE PLANTS'l "YOU KNOW, TE INDUSTRY HAS TOLD US AND TE OFFIMISTIC SCIENTISTS HAVE TOLD US WE HAD THIS DEFENSE IN DEPTH, IF TE RIMP FAIIED YOU HAD A BACK-UP SYSTEM, IF THAT BACK-UP SISTEM FAIIED YOU HAD THIS, AND IF THAT FAIIED YOU HAD FOUR FEET OF SOLID C0mintim, AND IF THAT FAIIED YOU HAD SCMETHING ELSE, AND IT WAS ALL VERY UNLIKELY, AND YOU COULD RELAX AND GO TO SEEP IN YOUR HOME A MI E AWAY FROM THIS PLANT. NOW THOSE THINGS DON'T LOOK VERY GOOD ANY MORE TE ARGUMENT THAT MULTIPLE SYSTEMS CAN'T FAIL AND HUMAN ERROR CAN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THIS. I AM NOT PREPARED, AS I SAY, TO SHUT DOWN ALL NUCIEAR TOMORROW MORNING, EVf WE QJGFr TO HAVE EARED TESE BIG TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS LIKE NUCIEAR POWER, TEY HAVE SIDE Brewsis, TEY HAVE BY-PRODUCTS, THEY HAVE DA%'ERS THAT WE NEVER FULLY APPRECIATE, AND WE CUGHT TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE AND VERY SIDW AND VERY RELUCTANT TO CHARGE MUCH FURTER INTO THE RELIANCE ON NUCIEAR POWER IN THIS CCUNTRY." (A.B.C. EWS " ISSUES AND ANSVERS", AFRIL 1,1979)
TE APPLICANT STATES ON PAGE 9 --
- in considering factor (iv) petitioners were treated by the Board as having that factor weighed in their favor solely tecause nach otranization wished to raise " contentions" er " matters" different from thTse raised y others. % phasis added)
CEU FAIIS TO SEE ANYWHSRE IN TE BOARD CRDER THAT "EACH ORGANIZATION WISED TO RAISE CONTENTIONS OR MATTERS THAT WEPS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE RAISED BY OTERS. THIS IANGUAGE REFLECTS A CURIOUS PLAY ON WORDS TV.AT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS SCMETHING ENTIPSLY DIFFEPENT FRCM THAT WHICH WAS INIENDED.
2283 .i42 6
IT WOULD SEEM TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT TO PITT FORTH CONTEhTIONS THAT WERE DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, CEU IS HESITANT TO ATTRIBU1E THIS INTERPRETATION TO APPLICANTS STATEMENT. IF TE APPLICAhT IS IMPLYING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE TE C0hTENTIONS WERE DISSIMILAR, THAT THOSE CONTENTIONS WERE NOT WEIGED INDIVIDUALLY, THEN THE APPLICANT IS AGAIN EXIBITING THAT CURIOUS "SELECTAVISION" THAT IS S0 MUCH IN EVIDENCE THROUGHOUT TE ENTIRE BRIEF. IT IS CLEAR THAT EACH CONIEhTION WAS THOROUGHLY EVALUAIED AND DEALT WITH IN THE BOARD ORDER.
TE APPLICANT GES ON TO SAY THAT The language reflects an assumption that a hearing would, in any event, be held and that the only issue to be weighed was the 9uestion of whether the petitioner's concerns would be adepuately represented in the hearing.
THIS IS A CURIOUS INTERPRETATION INUEED' NCWERE IN THE BOARD ORDER IS TERE AN ASSUMPTION, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE THAT Il{ ANY EVENT, A EARING WOULD BE ELD. AS APPLICAhT WELL KNOWS, TERE HAS TO BE EXIBITED ' STANDING' AND
' VALID CONIEhTIONS'BEFORE TE QUESTION OF A EARING EVEN ARISES.
TE APPLICAhT NEXT PRESEhTS THIS STATEMENT:
- The underlying flaw in the Board's analysis ismostillustratedinitshandlingoffactor(iii)
AND TERE FOLLOWS A DISCUSSION LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION:
Here even less of a showing of ability to make a contribution was re9uired than would pass muster in a construction permit proceeding The basis for the conclusion that CEU might
" assist in developing a sound record" is even more tenuous. In its entirety it is as follows:
Althcugh the extent to which CEU may aesist in developing a sound record (factor 3) is difficult to assess, the organization claims exmertise in certain areas. Such expertise misrht h particularly useful with regard to CEU's clain respecting hurricanes (contention 1)
(Order,p.63 emphasissupplied)
ON PAGE 52 0F THE BOARD ORDER, THE STATEMENT THAT:
2283 343
?
The general descriptions of CEU which have been provided us - serve only to place into a meaning-ful context the organization's purposes. As the Staff pointed out, " geographic proximity of a members residence to a facility is deemed enough, standing alone, to establish the interest repuire-ments of le CFR 2.714" (citing North Anna, ALAB-522, supra)."
IF STANDING OF RIGHT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED, TEN TE LIELIHOOD OF ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING A SOUND RECORD IS IRRELEVANT. GULF STA'IES UTILITIES COMPANY (RiverBendStation, Units 1and2) ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 227 Fn.ll (1974).
CEU WOULD ADD, HOWEVER, THAT ONLY BY THE PARTICIPATION OF PERSONS WHO LIVE IN TE AREA 0F INIEREST CAN THERE BE A SOUND RECORD DEVEIDPED.
THE ATIEMPT BY THE APPLICANTS TO ATTRIBifrE TO TE BOARD AN ATTITUDE THAT WAS NOT IN FACT TEE IS CONCLUDED IN THIS MANNER:
FOOTNOTE 15 - That assumption is also reflected in the way the Licensing Board considered contentions.
When it admitted certain contentions of CEU it stated that consideration at the construction stage "cannet operate to preclude relitigation of a safety)
(Order p.55 issue at the operating license stage."
- TERE IS IN THIS STATEMENT, ACAIN, THAT CURICUS "SEIECTAVISION" THAT TAKES A PHRASE Offr OF COMTEXT AND WITH DOING SO TRIES TO ASSIGN AN ATTITUDE THAT IS A FICMEFF 0F THE IMAGINATION OF TE APPLICANTS NOT TE BOARD.
Whatever the merits of that conclusion, once an operating license hearing is initiated, the fact that relitigation is the objective should bear heavily against the decision to exercise discretionary authority to initiate the hearing.
VE MUST CONFESS THAT THIS SEEMS TO PRESENT A PARADOX AhT REALLY MAES NO SENSE WHATEVER. BUT THE NEXT SENTENCE DOES.
However, the desire of the organization merely to reliti ate 5 was not considered at all in the exercise of discretion here.
THIS IS ABSOIJ1ELY TRUE' THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBIZ TO CONSIDER N0EXISTANT DESIRES TO RELITICATE ISSUES FROM AN 2283 344 8
UNCONTESTED CONSTRUCTION IERMIT PROCEEDING. NEVERTHELESS AN OBJECTION TO TE ISSUE OF REUTIGATION OF CERTAIN SAFETY ISSUES AT THE OIERATING IECENSE STAGE WOULD SEEM TO BE A STATEENT TO TE EFFECT THAT TIME HAD STOOD STILL FOR FOUR YEARS, THAT TERE HAD BEEN NO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS AND THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN ERROR. . IT DID NOT, THERE HAS BEEN AND TERE IS' ON PACE 6 TE APPUCANT STATED IN PART with respect to both ACEE and CEU the Board permitted intervention by the organization under circumstances in which there was substantial doubt as to whether it was merely the alter ego of an individual. We address these errors in detail in the third part of this brief.-
AND IN THE THIRD PART, PAGE 28, APPLICANT STATES THAT; CEU's petition was so nebulous with respect to the description of its alleged membership that it was impossible to determine the real membership of the organization.
CEU IS AT A LOSS T0' UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD HAVE EEN MORE SPECIFIC.
TE SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD (P. So, ORDER) EXIBITED IERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH WAS SET CUT WITH CIEAR PARTICUIARITT IN CEU'S IETITION.
CEU WOULD CALL ATIENTION TO THIS CURIOUS 'SEIECTAVISION' AGAIN EXIBIIED ,
BY TE APPLICANT IN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS VERY CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOED TE RESOLUTION ATTACHED TO CEU'S PETITION. IN THAT RESOLUTION THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RATIFIED MRS. BUCHORN'S STATEENT OF JANUARY 11, 1979, INSTRUCTED HER TO FIIE TE PETITION SEEKING TO INTERVEE AND At7tHORI2ED HER TO REPRESENT TE ORGANIZATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ITS MEMBERSHIP IN ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. TE RESOLUTION IS SIGNED BY TE BOARD CHAIRMAN, MR, JOHN C. HIGGINS, AND THE BOARD SECRETARY, MR RICHARD HEINS. CEU DID NOT BEUEVE THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO STATE THAT BOTH CENTiEMEN AND TEIR FAMILIES UVE IN CLOSER PROXIMITY TO THE S.T.P. THAW DOES MRS BUCHORN.
PREVIOUS RULINGS STATE THAT THERE MUST BE IDENTIFIED ONE MEMBER IN TE 2283 ;45 9
" AREA 0F INTEREST". SINCE SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS IN MATAGORDA COUhTT EXPRESSED A FEAR OF RETALIATION, CEU CHOSE TO DESIGNATE MRS. BUCHORN AS THAT MEMBER. CEU WAS MERELY COMPLYING WITH THOSE RUIES AS STATED AND MAKES NO DETERMINATION OF TE VALIDITY OF TE FEAR EXPRESSED, IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT IT IS TERE. THIS ACTION IS NOT WITH0tTI PRECFDENT IN CEU'S HISTORY. A BRIEF OVERVIEW WOULD SHOW THAT MRS. BUCHORN'NAME WAS USED IN OCTOBER, 1976, REPRESENTING PERSONS FROM TE SAN BERNARD TO THE RIO GRANDE RIVER IN CAUSE #23,999, IN DISTRICT COURT IN VICTORIA COUFrY AND CAUSE #5367 IN DISTRICT COURT IN FRIO COUNTY, THIS HAD TO DO VITH TE CELEBRATED "LOVACA" CASE AND,; TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE THE ONLY CLASS ACTION INIERVENTIONS IN GOOD STANDING AT TE PRESENT TIME. MRS. BUCHORN ALSO REPRESENITD MANY THOUSANDS OF PERSONS IN DOCKET 504 IN THE GAS UTILITIES DIVISION OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IN 1977 AND 1978 THE PARTICIPANTS IN TE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT WERE AND ARE MAJOR PARTICIPANTS IN TE "LOVACA" DOCKET 500 PROCEEDINGS.
IN ANSWER TO APPLICANTS STATEMENTS ON PAGES 28 THROUGH 31 CEU WOULD ANSWER:
CEU WAS ORGANIZED TO "MAKE ENERGY AND IITILITY MORE RESPONSIVE TO TE RIGHTS AND EEDS CF THE CITIZENS OF 'IEXAS". THIS WOULD MOST CERTAINLY ENCOMPASS THE RIGHT OF THE MEMBERS OF CEU TO BE ASSURED THAT THE OPERATION OF A POWER PLAFI WOULD NOT PRESENT AN OVERWHEIRING BUEEN CONCERNING THEIR SAFETY AND HEALTH. TE NEEDS OF THESE CITIZENS TO BE ABIE TO LIVE WITH0lTr CONSTANT FTAR WOULD CERTAINLY MAE IT NECESSARY TO RESEARCH ALL ASPFATS OF TE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF STP AND TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION TO OBTAIN THESE RIGHTS AND SERVE TE NEEDS OF CEU MEMBERS BY INTERVENING IN TE LICENSING PROCEEDURE OF S.T.P.
INDEED, CEU IS MANDATED TO FERFORM EXACTLY AS IT HAS AND WOULD BE VIOLATING ALL THAT CEU STANDS FVR IF E DID NOT DO S0 MRS. BUCHORN WOULD NOT HAVE APPEARED AT THE PREHEARING C0!GERENCE ON JANUARY ll,1979, IF A ."' EMBER FRCH MATAGORDA COUNTY HAD NOT REQUESTED THAT SHE DO S0 TE ACTIONS OF CEU ARE INSTIGATED AT 2283 46 10
TE REQUEST OF THE MEMBERS AND ALWAYS WITH TE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. CEU HAS STRIVED FOR CREDIBILITY AND COMPETENCE IN FULFILLING ALL THOSE PURPOSES ER WHICH IT WAS E RMED.
CEU MOST EARNESTLY REQUESTS THAT THE APPLICANTS APPEAL FROM PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER RULING UPON INTERVENTION PETITIONS BE IN ALL THINGS DENIED AND THE ORDER ORDER RULING UPON INTERVENTION PETITIONS BE APPROVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED h40 l Arrt1 W MRS. IECGY4BdQHORN, EXEC. DIR.
CITIZENS FOR EQUITABIE UTILITIES, INC.
ROUTE 1 BOX 432 BRAZORIA, TEXAS 77422 PHONE AC 3 964-3944 AC 12 836 4986 APRIL 30, 1979 2283 347 11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
IN THE MATTER OF ,
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND NWER l DOCKET NOS. STN 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL. STN 50-499 ( .
(SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THE FT)RECOING DOCUMENT HAVE PEEN SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING BY DEPOSIT IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL THIS THE DAY34OF
[2nr2 , 1979.
/
Hichard S. Salanan, Chairman Henry J. McGurren, Espuire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boani Hearing Attorney .
U. S. Nuclear ReEulatory Commission Office of The Executive legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Re6ulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boani Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel
- Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. 5sclear Regulatory Commission Washint' ,.- D.C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety anu Licensing Appeal U. S. Nuclear Retfulatory Commission Panel (5)*
Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charles Bechhoefer, Esp., Chainian Atomic Safety and Licensing B M Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G d Washington, D. C. 20555 Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Dr. James C. Lamb, III-Ausdn, Texas 787H 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
wenstein, Newman, Reis &
Dr. Encneth A. Luebke*
Ato e Safety and Licensing Board 10
~
onnecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 2283 148
\
si HONCRAR12 BURT O'CONNELL COITrff JUDGE, MATAGORDA COUNTY F.ATAGORDA COUNTY COURT HOUSE BAT CITY, IZXAS 77414 R. GORDON COOCH, ESQUIRE 1741 PENNSTLVANIA AVENUE, N V.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20446 MR. IANNT SINKIN CITIZENS CONCERED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER 838 E. MAGNOLIA SAN ANTONIO, EIAS 78212 MR. DAVID MARKE 3944 VAREHOUSE ROW SUITE.C AUSTIN, TEXAS 78794 AUSTIN CITIZENS FCR ECONOMICAL ENERGY MR. ROGER DUNCAN 961 VEST 24_tj STREST AUSTIN, TEIAS 787o5 ATmIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APFJLL BOARD U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION VASHINGTON, D. C. 29555 VR. CHASE R. STEPHENS DOCKETING AND SERVICE SECTION .
OFFICE OF THE SECHETART OF TE CCMMISSION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION VASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MELEERT SCHWARZ, JR. ESQ.
BAKER AND BOITS ONE SHELL PLAZA HOUSTON , IEIAS 77002 APRIL 30, 1979 M Lots / d&
ddG 2283 '49