ML19340D892

Response to NRC 801209 Response to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Motions for Separate Intervenor Status & Appointment as Lead Party for Consolidated Contentions. Clarifies Previous Pleadings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19340D892
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/23/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8101050523
Download: ML19340D892 (9)

Text

- - - -

..,s F if

[b C h~'

JD00 f fl 12/23/80 ~

^ '0 Dl! f n -E

$ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ec&

fe fg c,}e c!?g& -

NUCI.IAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION y 9 J BEFORE THE ATCMIC BAFETY AMD IICENSIN3 BOARD B I u, In the Matter of l l Docket Nos. 50-M5 APFLICATION OF TEXAS (frILITIES I GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN and 50-46 ,,

l --

OPERATING I.ICIESE FOR C(MANCHE [ -

PEAK STEAM ELEC'IRIC STATION l UNITS #1 AND f2 (CPSES) [,

CASE'S ANS*a?.R TO NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO 7 "MCf? ION TO GRANT CASE SEPARATE IhutVENOR STATUS" , ,

AND "ROTION TO APPOINT CASE AS LEAD PARTY FOR "

CONSCLIDATED CONTENTIONS" AND CLARIFYING STATEMENTS .

On 12/9/80, NRC Staff filed subject response, which CASE. received on M

heember 16, 1980. CASE feels compelled to answer that response and to set forth clarifying statements regarding certain portions of CASE's previous l pleadings . ~

l CASE strongly objects to the su==arized version of its seventeen (17) . j o

! separate points regarding the burdens which would be placed upon this Intervenor .

l' t

into the five (5) set forth by the Staff on page 3 of its filing, and we urge  ;

i l that the 3 card review and analyze each of CASE's separate points. Further,.

the Staff has =isconstrued er misinterpreted scue of CASE's specific points, sad we vill atte=pt to clarify the=.

Staff states that " CASE has failed to de=onstrate that the planned consolida-tion of intervenors will result in any significant prejudice to its interests,"

t (E=phasis added.) Staff further states "There is no reason to believe that with i f, prover treraratien, one intervenor alone should not be able to represent the ~

interests of the other intervenors as to each of the consolidated contentions, s1o 2 u e

- + SK  :

~

D *

• lD *D 3'lh

.m M o lh and to render fully effective participation in this proceeding. While this may recuire coordination amen the intervenors in advance of the hearing, the time and effort expended in such coordination vin clearly result in a more orderly and expeditious proceeding, to the benefit of all the parties. Also, whatever additional financial burden such ecordination vin entail is likely to be insig-nificant, and in any event vould certa' inly be outweighed by the likely reduction in hearing days and the costs associated with such savings in time, e.g., work-time lost, driving and meal expenses, preparation of testimony, and other litigation-ralated costs." (Esphases added.) Staff's statements that no significant prejudice v1.n result and that the, additional financial burden is likely to be insignificant i ~, -

is purely speculative on "the part of Staff and .is wheny unsupported by any facts

~

set forth by Staff. CASE submits that CASE is in a better situation to assess vbat is significant- to us insofar as our time, concerns, and financial burdens sre concerned, and as we have previously stated, ve believe that the impact of consolidation vin be g significant and that our rights vill be severely I prejudiced by such consolidation.

Further, a reading of the wording of 10 CFR 2 715a demonstrates no anovance for whether or not the i= pact of consolidation is- significant; to the contrary, it clearly states ". . .it may not order any consolidation that would prejudice the rights of any party." It does not say "that vould prejudice the rights-of any party a little bit" or "that vould prejudice the rights of any party significantly." It makes no such distinction.

. _ _ . _ . . . ~ . _ -. ._ _ _ . __

- The Staff's cvn wording indicates a recognitica and acceptance of the "fact that the rights of this Intervencr vill be prejudiced by such consolidation:

the wording "with preper preparation," " require coordinatica among the intervenors,"

" time and effort expended in such coordinatica," " additional financial burden l

such coordination vill entail," all clearly de=onstrate that there vill indeed l

be additional effort, time, and expense incurred by such forced censolidation.

On page 2 of Staff's Response, the state =ent is made, "In our view, such consolidation vill serve the interests of all the parties in that it vill. result in a scre orderly and expeditious proceeding." Staff has failed to demonstrate how the " interests of all ;arties" vill be served by such consolidation. The Board has before it state =ents by three Intervencra which state exactly the opposite.

Further, Staff's state =ent that "whatever additional financial burden such I

coordination vill entail is likely to be insignificant, and'in any event would f

certainly be outveighed by the likely reduction in hearing days and the costs 1

nasociated with such savings. . ." is ccepletely without any proof or basis which has been presented by Staff; it is totally speculative. Also, it completely ignores the point made by CASE ia its Motien on page. 5, beginning with line 2:

l "Should the Scud be concerned that allowing CASE to be a separate and independent Intervencr in these proceedings (rather than being consolidated with other '

i Intervenors) would result in unnecessary delays or an unnecessarily large .

f i

t 1

record,'there are already rules ~in place which would take care of such' problems.

~

Thus, CASE's being allowed to operate as a separate Intervenor vculd not . prolong or delay the proceedings in any way."

Staff has erroneously seized upon the statement of CASE (taken out of context) that ACORN, CFUR and CASE have been in existence within 30 miles of each other and in the same city (in the instance of CASE and ACORN) for several years as being an indication that no great inconvenience or prejudice vill result from the intervenors beiC6 required to coordinate their efforts on the consolidated conten-tions . (Staff Response, page 4.) This erroneous assu=ption is apparently made, in part, because CASE and ACORN exist in the same city; however, it ignores the fact that West Texas Legal Services, which is acting on behalf of ACORN in Dallas and Fort Worth, has its offices in Fort Worth, not Dallas, and CASE vould be forced to verk with the attorney representing ACORN, not local ACCRN representatives.

A reading of CASE's item 17, page 9, of our Motion, when taken in its entirety, clearly indicates that the complete opposite of Staff's assumption is the actual came, auc that the diversity of our interests, perspectives, priorities and goals vould make it more difficult rather than less difficult for us to coordinate our efforts.

Staff's item (5) on par,e 3 of its pleading mentions only " Anxiety and risk l

of accident resulting from possible night-time driving to meetings with other  ;

intervenors (id. , p. 7, para.10) ." Apparently my =eaning was not clear when i

I stated "...the fact remains that I as a woman, and as such, I consider the trips h

-4 i

alone at night 30 or 60 miles round-trip to each meeting with other Intervenors which would be necessitated by consolidation to te ill advised and perhaps dangerous.

To force CASE's primary representative to make such trips vould unnecessarily and prejudicially subject the writer to possible bodily harm and mental anguish,13 a =anner not ec= mon to other Intervenors." (Emphasis added.) Perhaps the possi-i bility of a woman driving alone at night being raped is not a problem in 'dashington, i

D.C., but in our area it is a very real possibility and problem and one which I ilo not usually subject myself to. It is this possibility to which I referred, apparently too subtly. This vould clearly force this writer into a position l

involving a danger not shared by the other two Intervenors' representatives (ve don't hear much about men being raped in Texas). -

Staff's statement that "...we believe that CASE's concern over night-time driving ignores other possibilities, such as meeting on weekends or arranging i

l tc have the other intervenors drive to a location convenient to CASE in the event .

l of any night-time meetings" is astounding to CASE. In the first instance, it

[

t co=pletely ignores the very points =ade in CASE's Motion on pages 5 and 6, item '

9; we hope the Board vill read that ite=, Further, and even = ore surprisingly to CASE, is the fact that Staff's method of dealing with possible prejudice to

-Ms Intervenor is to further prejudice the rights o# the other Intervenors by fercing them to =eet at a ti=e and place designated for CASE's convenience.

The footnote at the bottcx:: of page k of Staff's response states that "...

CASE's concerns over working with attorneys, receiving poor quality copies, and risk-ing autc=obile accidents...is wholly speculative and fails to deconstrate any 1

l

substantial risk of prejudice to CASE's interests." (Emphasisadded.) This.

state =ent again implicitly recognizes an element of risk of prejudice to CASE's interests. Further, the statement that this is wholly speculative is completely unsupported by facts and totally ignores item 17, page 9, of CASE's Motion. As l

stated there, we have worked under consolidated conditions in the past and vet know, first-hand, of the problems associated vita such consolidation. Further, as stated on page 8, item k, of Supple =ent to CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, filed 12/1/60, "We have been in contact with the other Intervenors from time to time regarding some aspects of our cententions, primarily to see if there was the possibility and/or desire of working together on them. Ecvever, it was decided that this was neither feasible nor desirable, and we are not working on any of our contentions in a coordinated fashion." Had it been desirable or possible for CASE and the other Intervenors to work together in these proceedings, ve vould have been happy to

-do so and would not have opposed consolidation. However, wh have explored this possibility, prior to the Board's indication that they =ight consolidate us, l

and are convinced that such consolidation vould only serve to prejudice the rights of CASE and the other Intervenors as well.

'With regard to Staff's ccm= eats on page 5 of it,s response regarding the Trojan case, we were aware of that case when ve filed our Motion. Ecvever, we did not and do not believe it is really applicable to these proceedinEs. Although the Staff may have access to information to which CASE is not privy (as has occurred in the past in these proceedings), the specific reference was made to AIAB k96,

. ..;o

~

8 NRC 308 (1978). This appeal board decision indicates that the objection of --

the party in that proceeding centered "upon the fact that he lives at a distance of 200 miles from the Trojan facility, whereas (other parties) both reside within approxi=ately hO miles of it" and "(he) points to his participation in other pro-ceedings involving this facility and opines that his interests vould not 'be well represented by the other two parties who are inexperienced in the maze of Commission rules and regulations.'" Obviously, the second point made by the Intervenor in that proceeding does not apply in the present instance, since CASE and the other two Intervenors are all inexperienced in the maze of Cc= mission rules and regulaticas.

Further, and more importantly, these are the only two concerns indicated in ALABd96, whereas CASE has set forth seventeen (17) specific and separate points in our Motion.

To use the Trojan order as the basis for denying CASE's Motion vould be to totally ignore the many other points raised by CASE, as the Staff apparently has done.

Further, although CASE is not represented by an attorney, it is our understanding that these AIAB decisions, while they are at times cited as' precedents (as Staff and Applicant often do), do not have the authority of law and that the Board has the authority (and we believe, the obligation) to be guided primarily by 10 CFR 2 715a and this Board's interpretation of it. CASE urges that the Board recognize that there are other considerations concernin6 consolidation other than for the convenience of the Staff and the Applicant and that the rights of CASE and other Intervenors should not be prejudiced on that account.

7

. . . . . , . , - , , . - . . , , . - . - - - , - - . . .- y , , . ---.- ,_ , . , . .-,m - - - , .-

CA'SE cannot e=phasize too strongly our deep concern regarding this :nadter, our firm opposition to such consolidaticn; and our belief that such forced consolidation vill severely, perhaps irreparably, prejudice the rights of this Intervenor.

We urge that the Board thoroughly analyze this pleading and our previous pleadings regarding consolidation, and.that for the reasons set forth in those docu:nents, the Board grant CASE's Motion for Separate Intervenor Status.

Respectfully sub=itted, Jan $& h/2

.s'.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Folk Dallas, Texas 75224 alk/946-94k6 (21k/9h1-1211, work,part-time,usually Tuesdays and Fridays) 12/23/80 e

r 6

--, -- , - - , - , - w - . - ,., , -

w. r .- +w

q, k

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - 6 ' DOKrre

_BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR E C S* 9 Cn ce ISS In the Meteer of 1 'cc;uj[,{,]es,O ,_ ,

APPLICATIONOFTEXASbTILITIES I DocketNos.50I h GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN J OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I and 50-4'46~

I'R PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 -

UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct ccpiels of CASE'S ANSWER TO NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO " MOTION TO GRANT CASE SEPARATE INTERVENOR STATUS" and " MOTION TO APPOINT CASE AS LEAD PARTY FOR CONSOLIDATED CONTENTIONS" AND CIARIFYING STATEMENTS'have been sent this. day, December 23,198o, to the belev-listed individuals ty First Class Mail: -

Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney, General 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washing ton, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

. Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forres t J. Remick, Member .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomi~c Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal' Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi.ssion

! Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Marj orie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch A. McCell, III, Esq.

I Wes t Texas Legal Services 701 Commerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. p h021 Pres:.ctt Avenue a M + M- / A I>

D= m =8 TX 75219 ps . ) Juanita m , nes uent ,

ASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)

D*

ojD'3~M

]D &

o o jb _2_ h. ...

1

-n .

- -