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 Occket:re 50-h00/L03 tb 9
'\M @ *esconse of Kudzu Alliance and 3 ells Eddlenan to Annlicant's 9 February nnswer t D*" * '
3'
- f. g*v'[
3 N '
their Aeneal Brief and Notice c D
JB S h
\ frd :s cc . .. .
G Tli ATO: CC SA7E""? AND LICFMTUC A 3%L FA"O:
i 1. With resnect to our notition <r r,eneral 'nterventien, we 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 nower plant license. Dennis Mye"s of the NO Attorney General's office 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$ng as dt comas along.
"'hus , while we don't know enough about.'IDC nrecedents to sav whethat an order naking us a carty to all hearings on the ha"ris case i s allowed, we see other osrties accarently continuin6 thair rartic!natten withcut s .
continual filing of netitions to interbene. This n"actice seens sensible as it avoids wasting the intervenors ,I ASL3 's , and aonlicant's atto*neys' time re-arguing the same questions over and over. (That lat*:er si tuation, Aenlicant 's lawyers orofess to abhor. )
Briefly, given the extensive interests of Kudzu All'ance me .be"s (lives, health, pronerty, businesses near the plant; ownin$ 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 nayd ng for waste disresal 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 case that our nartic'.nnt*en now on the ' sane bes's as the CC"C and the NC Attorney General's office is justified. We note again that the fr T.3 did not consider our interests, as recuired by section 2.71h (d) with 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
2 esnonse to annlicant's answer to Kudzu Alliance / Eddlenan a-ceal the petit' oners ' interests. Since Trowbridde didn't objact to cur extensive assertion on cages h and 5 of our anneal briaf that the ACL3 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 weiEh in cur favor, ua 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 sho' tid be considered cart of this vesnoqse for ournose of givinr the 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 In fact, we hnve onssessed of an interest in each and all of them.
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=
c." tha weighing the 2.71h (d ) factors nn ad abovn , and becauce seve-s1 othe- factn*s were erroneously ruled against ca anong the 5 ' n ?.71L (a } (1).
c . . ;, . . ,
ar'" . .
3 -esnonse to anolicant 's answer to Kudzu Alliance /Eddleman acpe
- 2. lith reference to the cetitions to intervene in the unccming hear'ngs on safe Management capability: .
First, Trowbridge 's argument that the original ?PC rer.and order 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, should be -ejected. The VRC staff has renentedly taken the nosit'on ix
. that the subject of tne nearing is CP as L's financial and management .
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 -
reason wh: Ne desire to en-ticinate in those hearings, und w hava m'nad these cuest'ons before on 7 and 29 November snd elsewbre.
Trowbridge gives no eason why liciting 'the hearings ' subject 13nrth to 7ddienan 6 Yovenber 78 "tle4 ennect te hold haarings in 9alaigh befo~e the endand of the year (1C7 naaaste the )Harr'son CP#ac'l'S L's ty."
management
- n "c-th 's canability to const-uct Ch !.'ovembe- 78 *es-onse to netition to intervene, nege 2, "3y a n o-de==
tv's L' cens' ng Sea-d dated S '.ambe .4,1978, the Commission -emanded to consbi1* t' as of C? & L fo~ a .'urther hearin- on the issue of the manage -ant to ecnstruct and onerate tue nrenosed She senn lia--i's f ac '1". t* w' t:.c ut ne.o-andun undue n'sk to the health and safety of the nublic." :PC Sta##
on legni issues for t!.is heaxaing asserts on :ne the same nr always. =c the Anrlicant, is:ues and stat burden o' nanof of these issues '.s 7?W W D L,Vs M4*Ne $ 4 F:'I ,
~'l
.M I-i$Lj}i3 CVddV N 2. ,,
M ,;,riL:MA
^
v.F C l' d M h'.%
3 -M Q* 'A (S$ A C -
5 fa *~2 - -
/ ,,
w>, , ,Q e* = .am, guaet *
- po .9
h'resnonsa to'annlicant's answer to kudsu alliance /eddlee.an anneal 15 Feb 79
-3 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 ment carability. Thus their exclusion r.ay make the reccri unsnund, and
.' n money invested in the f necessitate still nore hearings later, when mea '
harris riant construction will make a decision g- based on the facts that .
inventner' much more difficult to render g! van the weiE ht of CP & L's
- 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 every issue we raise is relevant ' n sone way (of ten d'.rectly) to safe Howeve", if management und or scund financial ca: ability cf C? & L.
even sor.e of the issues are relevant, that is a further a. gunent *n f avor of adr.itting us , in the int erest of develoainc a sound raccad and nrotecting netitoners' i nterests as well as Aanlicant 's right te nromn:
resciution of issues (which annlicant's attorneys, by their delayir.5 d v'th tactics, may jeons-dize; but atit'anens a~e not new cerca*ne legal tact".cs of the nnalicant be'ng tha best for the!- i nte ests ) .
Trowh*1d 6 e's argur.ent is narticularly wesk when ha esseats that the fitness of the Analicant's contrsetor: 's not a crever -n-t of these haarin e s. 'fe are now hearing of base-mat nrtelems at in twn e t.M a a :nniel nuclear nlants (one, Callaway, M0; arother at Wafi dolf Creek, Kar sas 5 Tf Ifx1kis How can it be safe manaFenent to s.fre an unsafe bu'1dar*
w this is ot mismanagement it is certainly fu-thea su-caec e' en of " ale vant 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
=eason more and more necole are ecming to d*? trust the acvar co~ranx'es 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 dangerous construction errors, or to stick l3 .: L and ' ts :na-aholdeas I
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 ofnly it esult qualifications of contractors cut of the current hearings can SC o 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 subjectbeofhen-d, the haaring issues raised by netit'oners nay not that the new or different 3)
(' Answer" nages 5 and 6) and tnen argue later (" Answer" d record of 73Ee 7 an 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!
the "..;L3's failura to consider tne issues of 2.71h (d) w.
- ci. vaigh ' n cur 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
'a balancf nc of the following factors in all of the others. Rather, 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$g3xbu This may well be an e=ror.
to the." good cause factor than any other.
facto-s 'nynived that However, 't is the cem,lete balance of all eight the questf on of our a dmiss'en nLtit' oners bel' ave should nwoneriy decide
e -
6 resnonse to ano1? csnt's answer to kudzu alliance /eddleman a-neal 2.19.70 s
h as intervenors, with respect to all four cet tions cited .in our anneal brief. (17 Jan 79) for nontimely filing te believe that "geod cause' should not be given more weight than the odaar factors involved, narticularlf if it is to be narrowly intevereted as the ASL3 seems inzhtnad to hcVe taken 'it.
e have explicitly addressed the quest'on of other roomie m.cving C- into the nower clant area and odaer organizations forr.inE. *Cth reseect .
"to us , their was certainly no
- ntent to circumvent N9C *egulations in the formation af Kudzu Alliance or Eddlenan's noving to tLin area naar the Harris nuclear site. No one has argued that the*e was nny intent to ci rcunvent the rules and regulations of the NSC.
Annlicant naintains that a ruling in our favor on this noint wculd subject CD & L to cont'nual 1* tigation on the clant. If annlicant's attorneys will note scme facts, nuclear nower plants art subject to continual litigation in nany cases: consider e.g. Tro jan, nuncoldt say ,
North Anna (reactors similar to Harris's accordinE to CD l L's PSA"),
Indian Point etc. Thus a ruling against us on this point w'11 net re11*ve CP & L of continuing litigation unless they can subvert the Conservat ion Council of YC as they evidenti did Vike invironnent (as we have mentioned earlier) and norsuade the NC Attorrey Gene *al to withdenw from the case. In that SR$kkakt event, no one wccid be -enresent*ng citizens' richts in the case, and doubtless othen individuals srd c-cu r would tev to gain ef titen renresentation, shr aanolde" -enresenta t
- on 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.
. Wnst denyin6 cur unrtic'nntion does assure is tnct we nwa denied In the ~!.chts of citizens to etrticinate in decisions affecting us.
a society as nobile as America today, where orgar! -at'ons are frea to forn
- . , = - .
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
- .n nuclear and grouns will be denied the right o" ability to narticipate decisions +Jaat do affect many of their vital interests. Tnis is 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
- , litigat'on; but it will deny our rights. Further, since only a balancing it is
,' of the eight 2.71h factors is required to s admit an intervenor, nerfectly nossible that all 4 natitions to intervenes could be a-nroved without asserting any general right 6f new residents and new grounc to 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 Ehts of hundreds of norsons exnlicitly and millions innlicitly.
We have also argued that tLe lackrof information, and the nis-infornation circulated about intervention, contributes to our filing only
. .,- when we did. " ells Eddleman decided to test the assert'en that we could
-. not intervene. Kudsu Alliance concurred 'n this test and here we are.
The axoeriment is not over yet.
We must noint out that mnny ind# v' iuals
't does, and grouns st.'11 don't know the nlant is be'ng Su'.lt, what
~
how much radioac*.ive materi.a t it w'11 contain, the hazaads of nuclear exnerts with
- waste, etc. It is abaurd to argue that c'.tizens must be 5
unique infc-natinn (this seems tne intent of Trowbridge 's argunents nages 4
7 and 3) in ceder to na-ticinate in the hearings. Trowb-idge himself, if ne will excuse such an examnie, has not to our knowledge shown any snecial exnertise in nuclear nower nlants on evaluat'nn of their hace-ds, in this nor to our knnwledge is any such exnertise -equi 9d of attorneys or any-other nuclear case. To ask that we nees recuirements arnlicant's
.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 skilleu lly attemnted 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 a
the uncoming hearings, wLich to my Enowledged 2ddlemar alone af s intervenors and petitioners has yot =ead).
- -~ 3-10 ,resnonse to answer by ano11 cant to kudzu alliance /eddlenan a-neal
on .
NC"" 2 continued: We have stated that we can serve as a condud.t -
such information (the N9C that auows for confidential informants on nuclear ;
.f croblens) while assuring the persons who give the information will be orotected. The NPC evidently is not doing well at creviding '
Snart case again- '.nvolved Oaniel, CP t. L's constructor)] n such nrotectic.n (Wm.While we would houe we were nast the time in this country whend i sor.e sorry cornoration (or the US government) would fire soneone for
.I telling the truth, we know blowers fron the congressional Thus peonle with information rightly fear renort on whistle
'E cases, that this is not so.Indded, we 've heard Kudzu nenbers say that thev d, .i' fo" their job secur.* ty.
could lose their non-nuclean *,nbs *f they were to voca uy anti-nuclea..
g'C
'Ph ?. t
- s the sor"y situation in this case.
[
For examnle, CP & L might find some non-nuclear deficiencies in E the oe-Pormance of our informants who say the true cost of the Hawr4sThe ennleyees .s ' w ni r. r.t is now fiFuwed from 56 fr -to 38 billion.The facts, however, can be revealed.
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 .
the cost "EY In te be.laaked information is vital to many investigations, and sun, g9 such information rightly fear for their job security .Mt if they were revealed as informatir:n sources. This is the reasen mun~ who ha ir- '
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. + .
' nte" view with OIA indicates that that may well 22.g record of the ASL3's i To bm borrow Trowbridge's language, the we the case (October 1978). .g ASLB does not indicate how it will pursue the case on what expertise
(
A
?
w'll be brought to bear on it. Only one boa =d member states ex,l'ef tly
.-a immediatelv t%
that he wculd have nursued the issue'.furtherton. /1 hea3 ing Cantrell's concerns % g e lA had they not been suspressed, thou6 h t'he full ASLB says it new will e.g investigate. W submit that in no way does the ASLB's intention to g q
carticinate now guarantee a sound record to the extent th.t we wnuld %.f
- [."
not be able to orovide further assistance. in develocing the record. ' .
- h. :..u qp that the- ASLB deserves special deference It is absurd to clai7 .
- :- 3.&
to its ornmises to investi6 ate, such that our own willingness to investigate i3Y9 Beware an investigation that will not allow b l may not even Ao allowed.
)Ag' J- s. . w niW L a : ~1;. '- .
. .jf
, : 4.s .
- ~ J-
- ' ,' - y& J .m .. .:.... .
es,onse to a,nliesnt 's answe- tn kud:u all'.ance/eddle-an a-neat ?.15 79
' Y.
L Y ec v !u rd ananha Trow r.dge tnat on .-
' assistance 'n develoning
?
4 4e# 4.u, . re[in 8 cund record" is required of us. .ve do not have to be ex-eats e-
- 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 .'
i i c' & L): we have ernia'ned how we can assist d record; why else would n'r.h ce*%':.ly assists in develoning a corn inte* 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
d a ve lo a '.m a mund -ecnnd, as there w'11 be -one tine for 9tudy -
concentrate on narticular tenics and te
& n-e neonle availabla to r in testimony that othews may miss.
itch e"ros or cuastiona are *he y'.nally, as nentioned 14 January, Kudsu Alliance membe"s al?' enes (based on discuss.* on with Test E*w'.n o- CC70 and Dernis %-s ,
C Atty. Gen.'s offico) to have read over the orefiled Nuc testiaony .
c- tnis case.
Eddleman in carticular nas read ev.srythinc in :nis filing LE" xceot fe" eve y LES on 3runswick 2 (yet) tho he han "eviewed eve--
This may not be enecial
'sted for *cb*nson 2 und Seunswick 1 "eactors.
trertise, but it is necessnry creca-stion to effective 1~ narticirate
.fe have done it (othe* Kudzu .
n s case (no offense tn yars or Erw* n) .
end ,a-ta of the testimony also: we are not in nnssession tembers have 't if 'ndeed
>* a enny of CD & L's resnonse, but will get one and go over 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 4e-: n'tt of '_t at this noint.
be brought te bear on this 9Lc" h' , how our knowledge and 'nfo~mation may '
2 case. .
3 will not give theib 2 Trowbridga nontions that many of our informant d He 'cha-scterises theet as unwilling to come fo" he ignores our statement ward and thatbe confronte they names. case, s, in the accuracy of their statements.if the r do so, see e.g. Callaway MO inn Smart 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, checking on the investigator. At best tnis is a very weak a gument, "
- is.
g.
because our assistance is considered null in order for it to nrevail.
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;
'- - w;
. done more work on it than odaer intervenors have. Fi carticinati.on while allow'ng others who 've done less on this matter lW {-iy[ to ca-ticipate is absurd. , r..y This brings us to the issue of reeresentation of our interests 4:1S[h.
.m .
l As we nave argued (29 November, ik nage 6) g by exist'.ng unrties. the exd st* ng na-ties can take no mo*e interest in us (at bestl than " .]3 s'-
'n one Ori a court-an,ointed, overbu=dened nublic defender could take ti:
4.78 of many coor clients. The question is "the Extent to which the v4 , notitioner's interest will be arepresented by existinE carties." (2.714
,((i v5 =
the same
$jd (a) (1) (iii)). Even if the other carties did recresent interests, all of daem, that we dos the extent of that representation We have argued in detail '_n cur retition $
is not addressed by Trowbridge. 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, . None of~these facts have been challenged. Thus we say that the etc. 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 e.g. Eddleman and other Kudzu members are CD &L 'nterest. They do not; No one has shown another narty renresenting this sha eholde"s. enen*edly. da have no' nted out financial risks to shareholders in this case - #.
< 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. , 9a cruli hrive had nearly k months to deal with sll tLe ateit'uns follow'ng h w, hav*ng ou- .dmissicn ss ' nterverors had they net oncoced us, a-olicunt dalsy-sd us se lo ng , tJr.z;r en' .nla' re that to ad-it us now wo"1d delay -atters still -n=e (wrJ1e they exe-cise other right s, witi. wi:ich ther m:7 delay us furtaaN
-- b 2r we nave ec objection to thein eyeretsing thei- 'shts .
fullv). Fortunstely, retitioners nave not been idle, r.nd have done -uch of the crepur tion we
- nt etided anyway ,
nousn w' t:. le s s ene g:- e rnat s , fue :2 the 11Triculty of gett' ng ner e -en"le to m rk on so-ati.'rg c.e submit
'cr w' nc thut it may not bo listened te at all when ft counts.
that nu- act*ons have not delayed tt.is case, we stated ecrty en that tre anted the i.aar'ngs sneaded uo, not s owe l d dcun, and thct .ny delay
'n tha ecse be --ooerly ase-ibed to Arplicant and the VDC ataff whc have caused tne delar, and not to us , who have done nothing tep. cause it, .
nn- h,s anvene eve- said we have delayed tnis case in any way. In sum: If ever an 'ntervenor was cualifie d te nartic'-c te in
*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..
fie ASL3 e-- ed in omitting 3 mandated 2.71h d factors fr-m i'.s 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 a ue ara not certa'n uhether T-owbr' ige's page 1 etatement decis 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 and dete=mi e 'f ?-cwbridge's -esp nse is late w'.tnout .:cdecd, enuse '-em As T-owa-idge eculd have we asked ti.e d.te cu a--eal got tn him.
%.2 x:: unst .s3La to forward conies of our filings to othe- -e - ies because we inck ne t i~.e And money te -ake ned -tail such cc-ies in such numbe-s .
?!c one aus -uled against the ASL3's evident granting of that -acuest, nni to do en would 1-nose financial recuirenerts for ine.e-ven*'o- ur-aasenably 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 T rules s q 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,- >
taken if we reject his arguments with some force. .-
-h
.gv
' .On. behalf of myself and the Kudzu A111ance'.dM
. .7 / f um,
'/ . $ct
/ .
- 4'4?
' YdSd
. ~ a ,. Wells. Eddleman '
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 Covrection to Trowbrid6 s I s note #1, o.2 of answer: di 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 en iscues of ' moortance. "IbsIj Lt
.th.
s 5%
, .1
-t.
I
. w,. s
--9
.h V
-m L. d. ckfJL.
,ut,4 W% . *<-
-_m y J'
.}}