ML19281A568

Supports Intervention Petitions of D Marke,Austin Citizens for Economical Energy & Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Because They Raise Important Contentions & Can Make Valuable Contribution.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19281A568
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/19/1979
From:	Lowerre R TEXAS, STATE OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903210307
Download: ML19281A568 (5)

Text

'

gQ'  %

S$f 5 %$N $8 w v- 4- f e

~'1

. ~~.; . \ti

.. r -

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h Cf; ,_

'"J ,," ; ,='7 ' ,,

b,\,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /? % Q3-Before the Atcmic Safety and Licensinc Board IN THE MATTER OF HOUSTCN )

LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, )

ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-498

) 50-499 (South Texas Proj ect, Units 1 & 2) )

STATE OF TEXAS FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR INTERVENOR STATUS BY DAVID MARKE, AUSTIN CITIZENS FOR ECONCMICAL ENERGY AND CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC.

On August 11, 1978, the State of Texas filed a petition for participation as an interested state in the proceedings on the South Texas Nuclear Project, Units 1 & 2. The State of Texas petitioned for participation because of its interest in protecting the health, safety, and environmental interests of the people of Texas and in assuring that the state's future needs for economical, dependable and efficient energy will be met. The NRC staff and the Applicant have both filed responses supporting participation of the State of Texas. No decision has been made on that participation. On January 5, 1979 Texas filed a response to recuest for intervenor status by several petitioners.

The State now files this amendment, in response to recuest for clarification by counsel for applicant.

~(903t(c3 %7 T

Petitioner Marke has raised serious issues such as those dealing with decommissioning cost and the over all cost-benefit analysis.

The State cf Texas is vitally concerned with, among other issues, the proper construcdon of any nuclear power plant in Texas, the cost and benefits of any nuclear power plant, and

'.he internalization and full disclosure of all cost associated with the plant. The taxpayers of the State should be assured that their tax money or other State revenues will not subsidize local power interests and that any nuclear project will be operated with the best technology and safest management practices.

Conclusion Given the serious nature of the contentions raised and the limited number of petitioners for intervenor status, the State of Texas supports participation by petitioners.

Respectfully submitted, MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.

First Assistant Attorney General TED L. HARTLEY Executive Ass 4 - at Attorney General en '

RICHARD W. LCNERRE Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12543, Capitol Staticn Austin, Texas 73711 AC 512/475-4143 OAted: February l9 , 1979 loading schedule, delays in the start up are not likely unless some serious problems are brought to light at the hearing. In that case remedial action may cause a delay but would certainly be justified.

In addition, while the State of Texas relies on the NRC staff and the Applicant to provide a thorough review of the South Texas Project, interests of individual citizens in this State and of the citizens in general can be protected best by competent and diligent representatives from the public. The State of Texas does not take the position that it provides a full or complete review of a nuclear power project for the State, but instead has relied on the citizens to protect their interest as well. In the present proceedings, petitioners are best suited to protect their interests by raising the contentions filed with the Commission.

Finally, the State of Texas is not convinced that there are no issues for which full hearing may be needed. The prehearing procedures provide the only mechanism for a determination of whether such issues have been adequately addressed by the appil-cant and reviewed by the NRC staff. Therefore, participation by the petitioners will provide a thorough review cf these issues.

For example, Citizens Ccncerned About Nuclear Power has filed detailed contentions dealing with mistakes in construction.

While there are questions of the timeliness of certain petitions and questions of the qualifications of petitioners for intervention as a matter of right, the State of Texas continues to support the position that the Board should grant intervenor status as a matter of discretion. Board actions should be guided by the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (a) and (d). The State of Texas has taken the position that a full and thorough review of a licensing application must be made.

Therefore, the State supports petition for intervenor status because the contentions raised are important, and because, at the special prehearing conference the petitioners clearly proved that they can make a valuable contribution on significant issues.

The potential contribution factor is the most significant issues for this Board to consider in exercising its discretion to admit parties. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts R. Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 N.R.C. 1418, 1977.

Sirce it appears obvious that Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Pcwer have standing, and since there are, before the Board, a number of legitimate contentions, the State believes that in order for a hearing to be denied, the Board must satisfy itself fully that there is no basis for any contention. A hearing would allow the issues to be more throughly reviewed, and, of course, a hearing would also serve a purpose by allowing a public airing of the issues. Further, under the present construction and fuel

.. .

• P'.

.. A. W:i<%Y g-

/ )49 ..

e

. - 7 7, ,

'" * ^;

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  ;

I, RICHARD W. LOWE RRE , do hereby certify that copies of $-

the foregoing State of Texas First Amended Response in Support of Request for Intervenor Status by David Marke, Austin Citizens for Economical Energy and Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, on this the /9t i day of February, 1979:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman D. Michael McCaughan, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The Environmental Task Force Panel KPFT Pacifica Radio Free U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Washington, D. C. 20555 3131 Timmons Ln. Apt. 254 Houston, Texas 77027 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.

Baker and Botts Henry J. McGurren, Esq.

One Shell Plaza Counsel for NRC Staff Houston, Texas 77002 Office of Executive Legal Director Carol Ryan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, D. C. 20555 Power 414 Kings Court, Apt. C R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.

San Antonio, Texas 78212 Baker and Botts 1703 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Mr. David Marke Washington, D. C. 20006 3904 Warehouse Row Suite C Docketing and Service Stat.i on Austin, Texas 73704 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Jack R. Newman, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

%0 RICHARD W. LCWERRE