ML19261C110
| ML19261C110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1979 |
| From: | Eddleman W KUDZU ALLIANCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903140648 | |
| Download: ML19261C110 (13) | |
Text
15 February 1979 I'
(
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 9
Occket:re 50-h00/L03 tb
'\\M
- esconse of Kudzu Alliance and 3 ells Eddlenan 3'
h to Annlicant's 9 February nnswer t D*"
D S \\ frd :s
- f. g*v'[
N 3
their Aeneal Brief and Notice c
JB CC SA7E""? AND LICFMTUC A 3%L FA"O:
cc G Tli ATO:
to our notition <r r,eneral 'nterventien, we i
1.
With resnect that find the-e are facts contradicting George F. Trowbridge's argument no one can be nade a carty to all hearinis associated with a nuclear Dennis Mye"s of the NO Attorney General's office nower plant license.
toli ne he believed that office was a party to the unconing safe management esnab'15 ty hearings oecause we were a narty in the original case."
had I'o our knowledge, the Conservation Council of North Carolina has not to file senarately to inte"vena 'n each haar$ng as dt comas along.
"'hus, while we don't know enough about.'IDC nrecedents to sav whethat an order naking us a carty to all hearings on the ha"ris case i s allowed, we see other osrties accarently continuin6 thair rartic!natten withcut s
continual filing of netitions to interbene.
This n"actice seens sensible I
as it avoids wasting the intervenors, ASL3 's, and aonlicant's atto*neys' time re-arguing the same questions over and over.
(That lat*:er si tuation, Aenlicant 's lawyers orofess to abhor. )
Briefly, given the extensive interests of Kudzu All'ance me.be"s (lives, health, pronerty, businesses near the plant; ownin$ shawes of CP _ L stock: paying the costs of the olant th-ough electric bills : na-ring the costs of nuclear research through taxes; noss,1bly nay ng for waste disresal d
through taxes, etc etc as cited.7 and 24 ilovember 1973, h Janua"y 74),
we think that we are xxxxxii so deeoly and axtensively inteverted 'n the our nartic'.nnt*en now on the ' sane bes's as the CC"C and the case that NC Attorney General's office is justified.
We note again that the fr T.3 with did not consider our interests, as recuired by section 2.71h (d) the.ccm.and "shall, in ruling on a petition fn* leave to intervene, consider the follow' ng factors, anong other tn'ngs" li st! nr "ight
/
to be made a carty under the ( Ato-i c Fnergy' act, financial, oroce-ty or other inte-est, and the nossible effect of any order in the case en
, b -.-
7903140W8
~
to annlicant's answer to Kudzu Alliance / Eddlenan a-ceal 2 esnonse the petit' oners ' interests.
Since Trowbridde didn't objact to cur the ACL3 extensive assertion on cages h and 5 of our anneal briaf that erred in not weighing these facto.-s to6 ether with those of sect *.on 2.71h feel (t) (1), and that all three of these facto *s wei h in cur favor, ua E
that an o-der admitting Kudzu Alliance und S' ells fddlaman as carties would have been very much in order.
Further, particinat'nn nn the same basis as the CCNC and the NC Attcrney General's office (i.e. not hcVing to re-file cetitions to intervene in every hearing) would save t'.me and affort in the hearing crocess, which saving Aeolicant scyr
't des *res.
As noted in the k Jan 79 amendment to nu* netition to 'nte*vene (which considered cart of this vesnoqse for ournose of givinr the sho' tid be ASL/.3 the information it contai na ), " ells Eddioman has all the interests listed in naragra,h 3 of onge 1 of this esecn,se, and indeed as an eneagy conservation & nana6ement consultant is a direct cenoetit6c with the nronosed harris facility.
Thus he is entitled to the same status as is ti.e Kudzu Alliance.
None of the types of hearin6s and croceedings listed by Troub*1dge on onge 3 of his " Answer" are such that Kuitu Alliance and "fa1.ls rddleman de not have an interest in them; nor does he a*gue that we are not onssessed of an interest in each and all of them.
In fact, we hnve si.own ' n our cetition, its amendments and our aaneal brief that we nave inte-ests in avery aspect of the clant frem antitrust to coology,1.a.
extremely inclusive '.nterests of both net *.tioners.
Therefore we urge at Min 19un that the ASLB be directed to "aconsider in not the tun cetitions for general inte"vention, because of its errc=
weighing the 2.71h (d ) factors nn ad abovn, and becauce seve-s1 c." tha othe-factn*s were erroneously ruled against ca anong the 5 ' n ?.71L (a } (1).
c.. ;,..,
3 -esnonse to anolicant 's answer to Kudzu Alliance /Eddleman acpe ar'".
- 2. lith reference to the cetitions to intervene in the unccming hear'ngs on safe Management capability:
that the original ?PC rer.and order First, Trowbridge 's argument includes only the narrow tonic of the CIA (cffice of Insnector and Auditor?)
internal N"C investi6ation of mislead *ng testimony in the originni hearing, The VRC staff has renentedly taken the nosit'on ix should be -ejected.
the subject of tne nearing is CP as L's financial and management that undee canab'lity to construct and onerate the hnaris fac'lity w* tt.aut 1
3:e Staff has taken this nos' t'.en risk to nublic health and safety.
of ten and recentedly (see footnote 1 below) d.n this netit'on, as well as the hearing case.
Ann 11 cant and its attorneys hnve had amnle onno-tunity to disnute these asse-tions ' n -es"onse to the NDC Sta"*
filings.
To our information, they hava never done so until now.
Petiti oners bal' eve the issue is twofold: sa.*e financini-ccrst-uction and management canability AND the auestion of how
- nfo -ntion was withheld from the iSLS.
Unless we can be sure that tl:e ASL3 is Sett'ng full factus1 information, we can lutve no real faith in its dee'sions en P.anagement canab'.lity or any other question.
A hearing ecord in which both 'ssues (accurucy of information in the hearing and safe management / financial canab4.1'. ty) are not resolved is by definition unscund.
"'h i s ! s a n o t!.e -
m'nad reason wh: Ne desire to en-ticinate in those hearings, und w hava these cuest'ons before on 7 and 29 November snd elsewbre.
Trowbridge gives no eason why liciting 'the hearings ' subject 1 nrth to 7ddienan 6 Yovenber 78 "tle ennect te hold haarings 3
4 in 9alaigh befo~e the end of the year (1C7 ) on CP S L's management and naaaste the Harr's #ac'l' ty." *n "c-th 's canability to const-uct nege 2, "3y a n o-de==
Ch !.'ovembe-78 *es-onse to netition to intervene, tv's L' cens' ng Sea-d dated S
'.ambe
.4,1978, the Commission -emanded to consbi1* t' as of C? & L
.'urther hearin-on the issue of the manage -ant and onerate tue nrenosed She senn lia--i's f ac '1". t* w' t:.c ut fo~ a ne.o-andun to ecnstruct undue n'sk to the health and safety of the nublic." :PC Sta##
is:ues and stat =c the issues for t!.is heaxaing asserts the same on legni nanof of these issues '.s on :ne Anrlicant, nr always.
~'l I-i$Lj}i3 CVddV N 2.
7?W W D L,Vs M4*Ne $ 4 F:'I burden o'
5 fa *~2 M,;,riL:MA v.F C l' d M h'.%
^
.M 3 -M Q*
'A (S$ A C
/
w>,
,,Q guaet *
- po.9 e*
=.am,
to'annlicant's answer to kudsu alliance /eddlee.an anneal 15 Feb 79
-3 h'resnonsa the narrow c.uestions he describes (CIA audit only, tasically) will to
'de not e c bc.ve tr a t
-esult *.n a sound record o" a conolete hearin6 "o-eove", "rowb-idge such ilnitations will faustente thase objectives.
te safe manage-makes no showing that the issues we raise are 'rrelavant Thus their exclusion r.ay make the reccri unsnund, and ment carability.
n money invested in the f
necessitate still nore hearings later, when mea harris riant construction will make a decision based on the facts that g-inventner' much more difficult to render g! van the wei ht of CP & L's E
- ctfor naaticularly if such decisien were to require majo" chaC6es !n ennst er its susnension.
"e nave argued 20 W vember 78 nnd elsewhe"e that
' n sone way (of ten d'.rectly) to safe every issue we raise is relevant Howeve", if und or scund financial ca: ability cf C? & L.
management is a further a. gunent *n even sor.e of the issues are relevant, that of develoainc a sound raccad and f avor of adr.itting us, in the int erest nrotecting netitoners' i nterests as well as Aanlicant 's right te nromn:
(which annlicant's attorneys, by their delayir.5 resciution of issues d v'th tactics, may jeons-dize; but atit'anens a~e not new cerca*ne best for the!- i nte ests ).
legal tact".cs of the nnalicant be'ng tha Trowh*1d e's argur.ent is narticularly wesk when ha esseats that 6
's not a crever -n-t of these the fitness of the Analicant's contrsetor:
in twn e t.M a a :nniel
'fe are now hearing of base-mat nrtelems at haarin s.
e nuclear nlants (one, Callaway, M0; arother at Wafi dolf Creek, Kar sas 5 Ifx1kis How can it be safe manaFenent to s.fre an unsafe bu'1dar*
Tf this is ot mismanagement it is certainly fu-thea su-caec e' en of " ale vant w
infarr.atten to try to keen the issue out of thes e heu ' ngs.
This sort of unwillingness to f ace the eroblens widi nuclear cower is ' rec.'.aely tLe d*? trust the acvar co~ranx'es
=eason more and more necole are ecming to t
a nd t:.e
70.
I urEe that these issues ha ecnsidered befo e it's toc iste, that ".a built w'th i
and the i sue becenes whether to license a niant I
dangerous construction errors, or to stick l3.: L and ' ts :na-aholdeas
k 5 resoonse 'to annlicant's answer to kud u alliance /eddlecan anpe W ah That would be the height witn a billion-dollar (or nuen more)' loss.
of regulatory irresconsibility.
canability the issue is safe management In sum, Trowbridge is wrong:
d on of informatinn.
and f'.~ancici resconsibility, as well as surnaes.
such ss the Keaning the safe management issue and nelevnnt asnects of it nly esult qualifications of contractors cut of the current hearings can o SC tnen tries in an unsound reco"d and further hearin6s and delays as the N then make.
to correct the errors Amplicant's attorneys would have F* nally, it is absurd to argue bene (re the subject of the haaring be hen-d, issues raised by netit'oners nay not the new or different 3) that
(' Answer" nages 5 and 6) and tnen argue later (" Answer" 73Ee 7 an d record of that netitioners havo nothing new to contribute to the soun Indeed, in footnote h nn rage 7, Trowbridge centradicts any hear'ngs.
saying "Since under the his earlier argument on the hearing issue, includes Arplican'ts management L'omaission's order tne remanced issue de canability to operate as well as construct the !!arris units but in no will leave Trowbridge to resolve this argument with himself, d ideas case should the Anpeal Board take seriously his self-contradicte about itmiting the scoce of the hearinUs.
Concerning the 5 issues of 2.71h (a) (1), wa hava al~eady nete!
to consider tne issues of 2.71h (d) w.
- ci. vaigh ' n cur the "..;L3's failura is no lan6uage in section 2.71h c: sting tnat F.ny favor strongly; the*e be sfven greater weight than sny or of the five factors listed shod d Rather, 'a balancf nc of the following factors in all of the others.
in naragraeh (d) of this section" is reocired.
additinn to those set out M W$Ma@@$t$hdhr$24296k4 httzrytrjhp3rdtgh-J hdh dh3hghdhd The Soard annea"s to have given grante~ weight w$t$m$20x$m$t$agi$g3xbu This may well be an e=ror.
to the." good cause factor than any other.
facto-s 'nynived that the cem,lete balance of all eight
- However,
't is the questf on of our a dmiss'en nLtit' oners bel' ave should nwoneriy decide
e 6 resnonse to ano1? csnt's answer to kudzu alliance /eddleman a-neal 2.19.70 s
h as intervenors, with respect to all four cet tions cited.in our anneal brief. (17 Jan 79) for nontimely filing te believe that "geod cause' should not be given more weight than the odaar factors involved, narticularlf if it is to be narrowly intevereted as the ASL3 seems inzhtnad to hcVe taken 'it.
e have explicitly addressed the quest'on of other roomie m.cving C-into the nower clant area and odaer organizations forr.inE.
- Cth reseect "to us, their was certainly no
- ntent to circumvent N9C *egulations in tLin area naar the formation af Kudzu Alliance or Eddlenan's noving to the Harris nuclear site.
No one has argued that the*e was nny intent to ci rcunvent the rules and regulations of the NSC.
Annlicant naintains that a ruling in our favor on this noint wculd subject CD & L to cont'nual 1* tigation on the clant.
If annlicant's attorneys will note scme facts, nuclear nower plants art subject to continual litigation in nany cases: consider e.g. Tro jan, nuncoldt say,
North Anna (reactors similar to Harris's accordinE to CD l L's PSA"),
Thus a ruling against us on this point w'11 net re11*ve Indian Point etc.
ion CP & L of continuing litigation unless they can subvert the Conservat Council of YC as they evidenti did Vike invironnent (as we have mentioned earlier) and norsuade the NC Attorrey Gene *al to withdenw In that SR$kkakt event, no one wccid be -enresent*ng from the case.
citizens' richts in the case, and doubtless othen individuals srd c-cu r tev to gain ef titen renresentation, shr aanolde" -enresenta t
- on would etc, lead *ng to st*11 more litigation.
Thus, in no way doas danyin6 our notitt en to ' ntervene (any of the h) nel* eve CP & L cf further li*igation en the issues.
Nuclear oower's n*oblene, not intervenors, assure furtner litigation.
denied denyin6 cur unrtic'nntion does assure is tnct we nwa Wnst the ~!.chts of citizens to etrticinate in decisions affecting us.
In society as nobile as America today, where orgar! -at'ons are frea to forn a
-., = -
7 resnonse to annlicant's answer to kudsu alliance /eddleman anneal 2.
A without government annroval (or CF & L's), ever-larger numbers of necole
~
and grouns will be denied the right o" ability to narticipate
- .n nuclear Tnis is decisions +Jaat do affect many of their vital interests.
undemocrat'.c and contrary to the Constitut'on's general welfare clause, the nrchibition against taking " life libe*ty or nronerty without due nrocess of 1Aw", and other noints of the Constitution and federal law.
In sum, denying our intervention will not relieve CP & L of further Further, since only a balancing litigat'on; but it will deny our rights.
it is of the eight 2.71h factors is required to s admit an intervenor, could be a-nroved nerfectly nossible that all 4 natitions to intervenes asserting any general right 6f new residents and new grounc to without narticinate 4.n licensing of nearby nuclear nlants that nf f ect then (nuch as we endorse that right).
Thus CP & L's argument at best adks for relief from lit
- gstion which the NDC is newerless to grant and which exne*ience shows w'11 likely not be forthcoming in any case, at the nwice of denying the ri hts of hundreds of norsons exnlicitly and millions innlicitly.
E We have also argued that tLe lackrof information, and the nis-intervention, contributes to our filing only infornation circulated about
" ells Eddleman decided to test the assert'en that we could when we did.
Kudsu Alliance concurred 'n this test and here we are.
not intervene.
The axoeriment is not over yet.
We must noint out that mnny ind# v' iuals and grouns st.'11 don't know the nlant is be'ng Su'.lt, what
't does,
~
how much radioac*.ive materi.a t it w'11 contain, the hazaads of nuclear exnerts with It is abaurd to argue that c'.tizens must be waste, etc.
unique infc-natinn (this seems tne intent of Trowbridge 's argunents nages 5
Trowb-idge himself, 7 and 3) in ceder to na-ticinate in the hearings.
4 such an examnie, has not to our knowledge shown any if ne will excuse snecial exnertise in nuclear nower nlants on evaluat'nn of their hace-ds, in this our knnwledge is any such exnertise -equi 9d of attorneys nor to To ask that we nees recuirements arnlicant's or any-other nuclear case.
.W4t'e* 4 ee.
resnonse to ahnlicant 's answer to kudzu alliance /eddleman anpeal 2.15.79 e
s reorneys have given us no indication that they meet, is unfair and absord.
1plicant bears the ourden of proof, 4Lich may well be onerous.
If tney
> not need succial qualifications to bear that bu-den, it la strange tey should ask use to be general excerts with all oessible intornation 1 order to bear the smaller bunden of assisting in develocing a sound scord.
Indded, the voluminous informati.on on nuclear hazards available ikes ouw task much easier than theirs, since they must orove thein case.
- we int-oduce reasonable doubts, we can nrevai.1.
Yet, what erne-tise i required to do that?
Surely no more than we have already shown we
.ve.$MMYHN On one exmlicit noint (footnote 6, p.8)
Trowbridge a-nears ouestion the value of investigative ex9erience.
Wells Eddleman ates that while he may not be the best investigator known, he has dealt the investigations listed wi th many necule who skille lly attemnted u
ccnceal relevant information, and often revealed the 'nformation, at is the coint of these-hearings, as Trowbridge would have it (we ink the "oint is brodder, see above): Concealed information.
One does not have to have managed a nuclear nower niant to raise od cuestions about management (Trowbridge omits to mention the menFgers ong Kudeu members, o-Eddleman's graduate -managenent courses). (n.8)
Trowbridge really aequires er,11 cit exnlanation, systens enginae-ing exactly the branch of engineering apnroeviate to !ndeaendent evaluat'on nuclear nowen nlants (connlex systems, we're sure he 'll cgree) and x their management in a safe manner (also a comolex task).
'de ex-lie!tly ate that our knowled6e will be useful in matching technical errors test' mony, in underatanding what can and cannot =easonably be ernected neonle working in a clant in terms of accuracy, tiredness, er-ors, erwork etc. (all these issues are raised e.g. in Floyd Cantrell's est'=eni the uncoming hearings, wLich to my Enowledged 2ddlemar alone af a
s intervenors and petitioners has yot =ead).
- -~ 3-to answer by ano11 cant to kudzu alliance /eddlenan a-neal 10,resnonse We have stated that we can serve as a condud.t on NC"" 2 continued:
such information (the N9C auows for confidential informants on nuclear croblens) while assuring that the persons who give the information
.f The NPC evidently is not doing well at creviding Snart case again- '.nvolved Oaniel, CP t. L's constructor)]
will be orotected.
such nrotectic.n (Wm.While we would houe we were nast the time in this country whennd i cornoration (or the US government) would fire soneone for
.I telling the truth, we know fron the congressional renort on whistle
'E sor.e sorry Thus peonle with information rightly fear blowers that this is not so.Indded, we 've heard Kudzu nenbers say that thev d
- cases, could lose their non-nuclean,nbs *f they were to voca uy anti-nuclea..
,.i' fo" their job secur.* ty.
g'C
- s the sor"y situation in this case.
[
For examnle, CP & L might find some non-nuclear deficiencies in
'Ph ?. t E
the oe-Pormance of our informants who say the true cost of the Hawr4sThe ennleyees ' w
.s is now fiFuwed from 56 fr -to 38 billion.The facts, however, can be revealed.
[
ni r. r.t thei-jobs and have no recourse.
. i Lat CP & L come forward with tneir current cost accounting, quickly
-l l les t they nrenare a faked statement, and show what they now estimate "EY In sun, laaked information is vital to many investigations, and the cost te be.
g9 such information rightly fear for their job security
.Mt mun~ who ha ir-This is the reasen if they were revealed as informatir:n sources.
Kudzu alliance has undertaken to urotect the names of its sources.
The infor.ation will speak for itself.
o o f his " answer",
J Centrary to Trowbridge's argument on cage the ASL3's intention to oursue the further develorment of the record
).~
is only cart of the ASL3's duty, and to admit us as intervenors might The
$l be to admit that the AST.S could sta nd some help in that task.
+
22.g
' nte" view with OIA indicates that that may well record of the ASL3's i
we the case (October 1978).
To bm borrow Trowbridge's language, the
.g what expertise
(
indicate how it will pursue the case on A
ASLB does not
?
w'll be brought to bear on it.
Only one boa =d member states ex,l'ef tly t%
.-a immediatelv that he wculd have nursued the issue'.furtherton. hea3 ing Cantrell's concerns %
/1 g
e lA h t'he full ASLB says it new will e.g had they not been suspressed, thou6 W submit that in no way does the ASLB's intention to g
investigate.
carticinate now guarantee a sound record to the extent th.t we wnuld q
%.f
- [."
not be able to orovide further assistance. in develocing the record.
- h. :..u qp that the-ASLB deserves special deference 3.&
It is absurd to clai7 investi6 ate, such that our own willingness to investigate i3Y9 to its ornmises to b l Beware an investigation that will not allow niW L
may not even Ao allowed.
- ~1;. '-
)Ag' s.
. w J-
.jf a
- ~ J-
- ',' -
y& J.m...:..
, : 4.s
to a,nliesnt 's answe-tn kud:u all'.ance/eddle-an a-neat ?.15 79 es,onse Y.
Y
!u rd
' assistance 'n develoning 4e# 4.u,. re[in ananha Trow r.dge tnat on.-
L v
ec 4
?
8
.ve do not have to be ex-eats e-cund record" is required of us.
- lear managers; we can call t'.em as witnesses or versudde the doard call then (e.g. some of the managers erntrell nent'ons as res? cning in c-orr-exsrinution we have ernia'ned how we can assist i
i c' & L):
d record; why else would n'r.h ce*%':.ly assists in develoning a corninte* veno-s, 'f not so the 2
- ng n st'11 he wecuired when thewe s~s nn
'le have also showr, uncortra-
-1*can'ts asaertions can be examined?).
sistance than -ne 2:ed, tr.at several intervenors can be of more as C
a mund -ecnnd, as there w'11 be -one tine for 9tudy d a ve lo a '.m concentrate on narticular tenics and te to
& n-e neonle availabla in testimony that othews may miss.
r itch e"ros or cuastiona are *he y'.nally, as nentioned 14 January, Kudsu Alliance membe"s (based on discuss.* on with Test E*w'.n o-CC70 and Dernis %-s,
al?' enes C Atty. Gen.'s offico) to have read over the orefiled Nuc testiaony Eddleman in carticular nas read ev.srythinc in :nis filing c-tnis case.
on 3runswick 2 (yet) tho he han "eviewed eve--
LE" xceot fe" eve y LES This may not be enecial
'sted for *cb*nson 2 und Seunswick 1 "eactors.
it is necessnry creca-stion to effective 1~ narticirate trertise, but n s case (no offense tn yars or Erw* n).
.fe have done it (othe* Kudzu we are not in nnssession testimony also:
tembers have end,a-ta of the if 'ndeed
& L's resnonse, but will get one and go over
't
>* a enny of CD sc9e Kudzu me$tbo-s haven't already done so).
absurd that we who a-e wonking nost on a case --ay be "le find
'.t If Trowbridge will cernit, we w'11 gladly n'tt of '_t at this noint.
4e-:
be brought te bear on this 9Lc" h', how our knowledge and 'nfo~mation may 2
case.
3 will not give theib nontions that many of our informant d
2 He 'cha-scterises theet as unwilling to come fo" ward and be confronte Trowbridga that they he ignores our statement names.
in the accuracy of their statements.if the r do so, see e.g. Callaway MO inn Smart
- case, s,
f a tr foa tue!r.'cos
'~
-.p
- >,2 -
11 rasnonse to answer by arolicant to kudzu alliance /eddleman anneal 2.15 79.
. - G b, At best tnis is a very weak a gument, checking on the investigator.
"
- is.
because our assistance is considered null in order for it to nrevail.
g.
rah As we have pointed out, Eudzu may well be better qualified than any existing intervenor to assist 'n developing this record.
We've certainly To disallow our
- m. y;
~ done more work on it than odaer intervenors have. - w; Fi carticinati.on while allow'ng others who 've done less on this matter lW {-iy[ to ca-ticipate is absurd. , r..y 4:1S[h. This brings us to the issue of reeresentation of our interests .m.l As we nave argued (29 November, ik nage 6) g by exist'.ng unrties. " ]3 the ex st* ng na-ties can take no mo*e interest in us (at bestl than d . s'- 'n one Ori a court-an,ointed, overbu=dened nublic defender could take ti: 4.78 The question is "the Extent to which the v4, of many coor clients. (2.714 ,((i notitioner's interest will be arepresented by existinE carties." v5 = $jd the same (a) (1) (iii)). Even if the other carties did recresent interests, all of daem, that we dos the extent of that representation is not addressed by Trowbridge. We have argued in detail '_n cur retition and anceal brief that the extent of representation afforded us by intervenors CCNC and NC Attorney General's office is inadequate, tnough ,j we endorse tneir efforts. The inadequacy of such representation i s shown by exis ting intervenors not reading the material for these heari.nEs (certainly not in the detail we have), not ulanning to call witnesses, etc. None of~these facts have been challenged. Thus we say that the extent of renresentation afforded our interests by other " art".es Our othcr is inadeounce even on the interests we have in common. interests (e.g. as snarenolders, as energy competitors of C? & L's) we have only ou"selves to give any reoresentation. Thus the extent to waicn our.nterests are now reoresented is quite inadequate. 3 &L e.g. Eddleman and other Kudzu members are CD They do not; 'nterest. No one has shown another narty renresenting this sha eholde"s. da have no' nted out financial risks to shareholders in this case enen*edly.
i 12 The simnle remady is to ad tit us as intervenors !n the basis of the 4 shown s1-eady tots 1 balance of all the etcht factcre, wh".ch we have te s t-angl-+ " - our f a vor. Trowbridge's f'nal a gunent, about dalay, -em'nds me of Quintus = F. Cunctato, "the delaye=", who wo"1d neve eet :iar.'.bal ir o-en battle. A-nlicant and the '!*C staff are the source of delay 'n these bea ' ngs. had nearly k months to deal with sll tLe ateit'uns follow'ng 9a cruli hrive ' nterverors had they net oncoced us, h w, hav*ng ou- .dmissicn ss a-olicunt dalsy-sd us se lo ng, tJr.z;r en'.nla' re that to ad-it us now wo"1d delay -atters (wrJ1e they exe-cise other right s, witi. wi:ich ther m:7 delay still -n=e -- b 2r we nave ec objection to thein eyeretsing thei- 'shts us furtaaN fullv). been idle, r.nd have done -uch Fortunstely, retitioners nave not of the crepur tion we
- nt etided anyway,
nousn w' t:. le s s ene g:- e rnat s 11Triculty of gett' ng ner e -en"le to m rk on so-ati.'rg fue :2 the 'cr w' nc thut it may not bo listened te at all when ft counts. c.e submit that nu-act*ons have not delayed tt.is case, we stated ecrty en that l d dcun, and thct.ny delay tre anted the i.aar'ngs sneaded uo, not s owe ecse be --ooerly ase-ibed to Arplicant and the VDC ataff whc 'n tha have caused tne delar, and not to us, who have done nothing te cause it, p. h,s anvene eve-said we have delayed tnis case in any way. nn-If ever an 'ntervenor was cualifie d te nartic'-c te in In sum:
- I'.1 <c,ec's of a nucleu-case br virtue cf extens*ve inte"esta ate, we s no 14 c u. 2. ' f 7 and tno s e re t i t ' e ns fo? Eeneral '.t eavent'en s: culd have b > an grssted..
in omitting 3 mandated 2.71h d factors fr-m i'.s fie ASL3 e-- ed decisiens wholly cn all excent balucci nF nf factors, t.ni ' t e-red 'n its (i) la'a f' ling where it -o-tin 11 r erred and (ii) 'he ce~ect -uling that decis certa'n uhether T-owbr' ige's page 1 etatement a ue ara not witr. :.iis cucat'.on becaune he does not say when he rece'-red cu- '--eal. date tbe a meal .* sent le wotli like the a ceal bos-d tc -eview the . cd enuse '-em and dete=mi e 'f ?-cwbridge's -esp nse is late w'.tnout d.te cu a--eal got tn him. As T-owa-idge eculd have ecd, we asked ti.e x:: unst.s3La to forward conies of our filings to othe- -e - ies because t i~.e And money te -ake ned -tail such cc-ies in such numbe-s. %.2 we inck ne ?!c one aus -uled against the ASL3's evident granting of that -acuest, financial recuirenerts for ine.e-ven*'o-ur-aasenably nni to do en would 1-nose O.
I tliere are no other means whereby our interest may be represented, . 'sl which factor should have been given greater weight, and that therefore
- 't
.l 1 tne A37.3 decision denying intervention in the upcom'ng hearings ought ' ;u,t f.! to be reversed, or at least renanded for further considenttion.and 1 'W accurate weighing o'f the evidence on all eight factors the. RC rules T q s' din require to be considered. ,Ni h,R Je wish finally to note that we esteem George P. Trowbr'dge as - ci,e M a person and in his riphts as a citizen etc, and wish no offense to be _~M %"q=tj t,- -h taken if we reject his arguments with some force. .gv '.On. behalf of myself and the Kudzu A111ance'.dM .7 / f '/ um, . $ct / - 4'4? a,. Wells. Eddleman ' ' YdSd ~ g y~35 February 1979 mailed same date. ~ g( ! Tote : conies of this are clearer.~chan the orig 5.'nal so I have sent a signed copy to the ASLAB. ~
- . 4 Q
v I di Covrection to Trowbrid s s note #1, o.2 of answer: 6 qp Only Wells Iddleman has requested the NoC to reonen the Harris hearings. .j-;j 3e suggestion the ASLB nade was too good fot* ne to. pass un. Kudzu g-; -. Alliance may join irr this reauest,. or make -its own requests to the DN["g Y NFC at anv future time. I look forward to the NRC's deter 9ination ,. pt of how to treat this-petit!.cn, but it is in no way eart of this a9neal, i.'m on relevant to,it. As we have stated, we want intervention. Then . big .g we can dectie whether as in*.ervenors we snould ask for co-e hearing's -y "IbsI
- ' j en iscues of ' moortance.
Lt h .t. s 5% .1 -t. I . w,. s --9 V L. d. ckfJL. W% .h -m ,ut,4 -_m y J'}}