ML19345B282

Request for Separate Intervenor Status.Citizens Association for Sound Energy Should Not Be Consolidated W/Other Parties. Costs & Burdens Incurred by Consolidation Far Outweigh Benefits.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19345B282
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/20/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8011280019
Download: ML19345B282 (11)

Text

-

..-x... .s .v... ,.p.cw. .

. .g .1,p.,.mmp; .p, .

O . . - - -

i #

, s r I r ec

p, -

f~ * . ,

/q

^

11/20/80.- S'OP a

, C?.. ISQ ,, 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' ) kl(('f$ 'g' " /-3

NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION q E .'.,, C;;,-

In the Matter of l

. l .

APPLIO.*TIcN OF TEXAS UTILI"'IES l n GENERATING CCMPANY, EI' AL. FCR AN l DocketNcs.50kh$

OPERATING LICEISE FCR CCMANCHE l and 50 hh63 PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l ,  ; _,

UNITS #1 AND E2 (CPSES) } .-

. [ .

==

MCTION TO GRANT CASE ,, ,, j SEPARATE INTERVENOR STA"'US "

CCMES NOW CASE (Citi:. ens Association for Scund Energy), Intervenor herein, and moves this Board to grant CASE separate Intervener status rather than cctn-bining CASE vith other Interveccrs in any or all of the contentions raised in

' ~

these hearings.

Cn Nove=ber 7, 1980, CASE received the Board's October 31, 1980 Announce-sent of Plans for Consolidation of Parties, wherein the Scard advised of its plans to consolidsf.e the intervening parties (ACORN, CASE and CRUR), */arsuant to 10 CFR 2 715a so that for each accepted contention, 'one intervenor vill represent 'itself and the other two intervencre throughcut the proceedin6 CASE'most strenuously objects to such consolidation. '10 CFR 2 715a states:

" . . .the- presiding officer may order any parties. . .in a pr eeding , i for the issuance of. . .an operating license . . .who have substantially l the sa.m interest that may be affected by the proceeding and who '

raise substantially the same questions, to censolidata their pre-sentation of evidence, cross-exacination, briefa, proposed findings j of fact, s,nd conclusions of law and argument. However, it may not order any consolidation that vculd prejudice the rights' of any 3rty."

(E=phasis added.)

~

. 95*O

, 8011280 og G . .. S # {

3 Mq-

q@5(%@[h(k . . g %.,

, :dt y@J'" M :kiLWiMTTi McLf;;h.;*W '

u?- -.,1

..ga i?

a CASE vould show that the proposed consolidation of CASE with either or both of the other'two Intervenors in these proceedicgs would violate the pro-visions of 10 CFR 2 715a in that such conselidation would prejudice the righte of Intervenor.

a CASE. Such consclidation would place an unfair, unvarn n.ed, and unnecessary burden-oncIntervenor CASE for the follcuing reasons: '

L Such consolidation vould fore, CASE unwillingly and unnecessarily to be represented by an individual who is not and cannot,be thoroughly familiar with CA5E's concerns, e: phases, and apprcaches to issues. Such an individual vould therefere necessarily be unable to adequately follev through in cross-examination of Applicant's vitnesses er the vitnesses of the other Intervenor (if CASE vere joined with cnly one of the e%her Inte-venors) as well as could CASE's own representative. Since cross-exanicatica questions can raise 'other questions which need to be explored and pursued, there is no way the designated representative of the ce=bined Intervenors could be adequately briefed and pre-pared in advance to assure that suen representative could fully explore and pursue questions which CASE's evn representative vculd.

Further, in order for the designated spokesperson of the consolidated parties to be made fully aware of CASE's concerns, e= phases, and approaches to issues, CASE vould have to spend an inordinate a=ount of time and effort.

This extra expenditure of ti=e and effort is totally unnecessary, since the CASE representative is already thoroughly fa=iliar with such CASE concerns, e= phases, and approaches to issues; therefore, no, a= cunt of time and effort 2-

- ----- _- ; :m .

y a e C-1a* sis.d. t>}

., .c.ryite w+ W jj n

.i.40  %

CEMC '

e- be -a .- s- -W" ~

a. ~

. 4r -

y would be required in this regard if the CASE representative is not forced to con-solidate with other Intervencrr,.

CASE sub.dts that such consolidatica, for the reasons above, would be con-trary to.10 CFR 2 7L3, which states:

Every party to a proceeding shall have the right to. . . conduct'such cross-examination' as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts."

2_., Such consolidation would necessitate long-distance telup'cne a calls to other Intervenorsj with resultic6 extra cost to Intervenor CASE, thus placing an unanticipated additienal financial burden on CASE.

L Cach consolidatien would require trips of 3C miles (CASE /CFUR) er 60 miles (CASE / ACORN) roundtrip for each meeting of the censolidated parties. Sis in turn vould require unnecessary driving time . unproductive to preparation of Intervenor's case; it should be e=phasi:ed that this vculd not just add extra time to CASE's requirements for participating in these proceedings, but that it would actually be deducted from the already li=1ted time ve have available.

Such trips vould also

• urn extra ameunts of gasoline vnich would add extra cost, be contrary to the country's c:a1 for energy conservation, an.1 force CLSE un-villingly and unnecessarily to violate its avoved cc:=itment to energy conserva-tien, in addition to placind another unanticipated financial burden on CASE's limited rescurces.

l h_, ., Such consolidation veuld place an unfair additional burden on the party '

selected to represent the two er three combined Intervenors. It vculd require extra time and effort en the pcrt of the designated representative to familiari:,e l 3-

~ .

i r

^ 2- $$ W

?

f r l

ninself (or herself) with the concerns, perspectives and priorities of the other Intervenors he or she vould be representing. Since each of the three citizen Intervenor groups already have heavy burdens as Intervenors in regard to their own contentions, it vould be unfair to tne designated representative (whoever that representative mi.ght be) to impose ay additional burden upon him or her without there clearly being outweighir.g clear-cut benefits and reasons for .

doing so. CASE =aintains that such benefits and reasons do not exist.

L CASE has taken certain positions and certain approaches which the other No other Intervenor or its representative could Intervenors have not taken.

better artictilate and define such positions and approaches than CASE's own representative. There is no guarantee that another party's representative vould adequately represent CASE's interests in these.proceedin$s.

_t5 . Since CASE is the only party not represented by counsel, the forced consolidation with other Intervenors vould be discriminatory and prejudicial, in effect if not in intent. It is unrealistic to assu=e that there is even the remote possibility that the attorneys for CTm and ACCRN vould consider havind CASE's representative act ns the desige.ated spokesperson for the two or three Intervenors. Indeed, there is a question in CASE's mind whether or not it is even fair to ask them to do so. Conversely, we do not believe it is fair to ask CASE to relinquish any portion of its rights as an Intervenor because the CASE representative is not an attorney; to do so would be discriminatory I

l and prejudicial and contrary to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.715a. 1

\

j L Such consolidation produces no recognizable benefits and any such 4-

_ _ - - 'i

TsNS,QNg @ f'

.:rr59.h . frXis

^

!bWW

• -e.ivas .ce'  :

~ .n-d!!'4A' '

Igr $

T' alleged benefits are far. outweighed by the ecsta discussed herein. CASE sees no benefits of such consolidation of Intervencrs. Should t:e Board be concerned that allowing CASE to be a separate and independent Intervance in these proceed-ings (rather than being censolidated with other Intervencrs) would result in unnecessary delays or an unnecessarily large record, there are already rules in place vhieb would take care of suchcproblems. Thus, CASE's bein6 alleved to operate as a separate Intervenor would not prolong er delay the proceedin6s in any way.

8. CASE's being alleved to operate as a separate Intervencr will work to achieve a better record in these proceedings. If we are fcreed to censolidate with other Intervenors, we are convinced that the additional burdens of such censolidatica as cutlined in this pleading vill necessarily lessen the parti-1 I

cipation of this Intervenor, that a few questions nay ge unashed and answered en cross-exacinaticq, that sace facets of sc=e issues will not be raised, that l

Applicants will be relieved cf some of their rightfal burden in these proceedings.

l Conversely, CASE's being a separate Intervenor will help guarantee that such questicas are a shed and answered, that such issues are raised, and that there-fore a better record will be achieved in these hearings.

2 Such consolidation vould force CASE unwillingly and unnecessarily into a position of having to coordinate closely with other individuals, thereby add-ing to the already heavy burdens of limitation of funds, personnel, and deadlines the additional burden of having to interface with other Intervenors with different perspectives, concerns and pricrities frca CASE. Also, it always takes longer for decisiens to be =ade by a group of people than by a single individual.

% - .m ,

.'r v ;~ ygi:.3 y p._, .

• p .NtA y; .rem.?.- . A . y ' y-t, .ws,.

'pr 4 ;=.;&

• t'. . h.,:g;;

r .

. ?

Such consolidation vould place an unnecessary and inequitable burden en CASE because it veuld force us to work within time frs=es not of our choosing, which vill burden us further. The CASE = embers who are vorking en the intervention all work part-time or full-ti=e and =ust work on these proceedings primily at cdd hours, at night, or on week-ends. Consolidation would impose an additional burcen because it would necessitate trying to find a time when the t vo or three consolidated Intervenors can =eet; this in turn vill i= pose a heavy peraccal burde= On such CASE =e=bers because it vill at ti=es interfere with times set aside fer norcal family life. In =any instances, while a CASE = ember =ay be able to vork at hc=e en the intervention, it vill be difficult if not ir:possible to extend such verk to outside meetings, which will in turn place an even heavier burden on these CASE me=bers who are left to carry the lead, and especially on CASE's primary representative.

'a'hile we realize that CASE and its =e=bers =ust expect sc=e sacrifices and burdens in participatind in these proceedings, the censolidation with other In-tervenors places a ec=pletely untecessary additional burden, with no recognizable benefits, on this citicen Intervenor group.

10. CASE does not wish to get into personalities in these proceedings, but the fact is that with a public interest, totally volunteer, non-profit group such as CASE, people are the backbcne of our crganir,ation. "'he consolidation of CASE vith other Intervencrs vculd place e heavy and inequitable burden on i l

the vriter, as CASE's primar/ representative, not ec==cn to other Intervencrs.

1 1

l 1

l

y,,.=. .

/

The writer does not expect or ask for preferential treatment because of her sex.

However, the fact remains that I p, a vccan, and as such, I consider the trips alone at night 30 or 60 miles round-trip to each meeting with other Intervenors '

which would be necessitated by consolidation to be ill advised and perhaps dangerous.

To force CASI's primary representative to make such trips vould unnecessarily and prejudicially subject tne writer to possible bodily harn and mental anguish, in a manner not : =.cn te other Intervenors.

11. Not only is there to guarantee that another party's representative would adequately r?present CASE's interests in those proceedings, as pointed out in item 5 preceding, but there is the additional possibility and protability that the designated spokesperson vill, given hu=an nature, favor the views, perspectives, concerns and priorities of his partic :lar organir.ation to the detriment of this Intervenor.

12. Such consolidation vould increase the a=ount of time required for the preparation of this Intervenor's case, since the li=ited amount of time avail-able to CASE is already being used to the fullest possible extent. The extra unnecessary burdens of expense, time, and travel necessitated by consolidation would necessarily take away from the time we have available for preparation of our case.

& Such consolidation would impose a restriction of supplying only one copy of pleadings, response to interrogatories, copies of documents supplied in response to interrogatories, etc., which would impose an additional unnecessary burden because of extra time and costs involved for copying, = ailing, and/or driving inordertoprovidecopiestoeachoftheconsolidatedpartiesshouldthisbe

.l e% . . _ _ 11

nocesseg for each party 1to be able to actively and fully participate in these proceedings.

ik.

Such consolidation vculd preclude Intervencr CASE frce cross-examining other consolidated parties' witnesses, even though there were good and valid reasons for such cross-examination. This sight preclude CASE from h'aving all its concerns addressed. Conso]idatica.cculd preclude CASE frc= being able to speak en its evn behalf should the designated spokesperson for the consolidated intervenors be unavailable for reascns which were no fault of CASE's.

15. Such ecasolidation could nake the job of this Intervenor =cre difficult because of the quality of empies of dccuments, if the designated spokesperson has possescicn of the copies supplied by Applicants in response to interrogatories and requests for docu=ents, since CASE vetid then have to =ake copies of copies with attendant pocrer copy quality.

lo.

Such censolidation veuld unnecessarily increase the already heavy financial burden of interventica ia these proceedings. The costs of the items previcusly listed nay seem relatively r.L11 to the reader, but to an Intervenor group such as CASE, with already li.mited funds, tney add up to an-extra burden which we believe is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. As you are vell aware, the Nuclear Regulatory Cer=ission has no funding fer Intervencrs, although l such "unding is ccr onplace in other gcvernment agencies. It is unfair for this 3 card to place any unnecessary additional financial burden 0: this Intervenor in these proceedings, including ecn;clidation vit: Other Interveners. To the

(

contrary, we urge that this 30ard use this oppertunity to assist CASE in -Ak'ng an effective contribution to creating a better record in tnese proceed.ings.

1 e

y . ~1I I

1 m>.wl:re 1 lKHs#Ki(

h;-W ~

.% nw - l

. .y 7:

t-As peinted cut in the Regovin Report:

" . . .intervenors have made an important

--semeti=es as a catalyst impact on safety in sc=e instances in the prehearing stage of proceedings, setetimes by a on forcing more thorougn review of an issue or ic. proved review procedures reluctant agency.

v. ore impor* ant, tne prc=ction of effective citizen participation demanded is apublic."

by the necessary goal of the regulatory system, appropriately (2:phasis in tre original.)

-- Three Mile Island -- A Report to the ~

Commissicners and to the Public," Mitchell Regovin, Directcr, Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission Special Inquiry Orcup

(:."JREG/CR-125C, Vci.1, page 139) 17.

The reasons against consclidatica as set forth in the preceding items are not mere speculation of what can happen; to the centrary, they are based in =any instances on v'aat i.as happened to CA3E in the past as an Intervencr in Dallas Pcver 3e Light rate hearings. CASE kncvs very well the myriad of problems which can acec=pany forced consolidatica cf Intervencrs, Lased en past exp_-ience.

We vculd advise the Scard that ACORN, CFUR and CASE have been in cr.stence within 30 =11es c',' each otner and in the same city (in the instance of CASE and ACCRN) for several yeara; CASE also has nicsbers in Fort Worth and the Dallas /

Fort Worth =etroplex area. iful our inte ests, perspectives, riorities and goals been the same, we vculd haw already teen ecusollcat".d in',c cne group. We are not.

CASE sub=1ts that to fcree as to assume auch censolidated status in these hearings is unnecessary, unfair, and extremely burdenseme.

Further, we veuld advise the Beard tnat CASE has sought and received separate intervencr status in all Dallas Power & Light rate hearings since 197o, that the attorney for DPLL (which is one of the Applicants in tnis preceeding) has not objected to such separate Interver.or status for CA5E even tecugh ACCRN has been an Intervenor in such preceedings and even thcugn OPi'. has atta=pted to have  :

551. f; x.*..,.- ~~-- , . ?,4 %

' i b;.?,&g

• W N E W ACCR'i joined with other.inte; .aers, and that DPLL has acknow caged that CASE does indeed have different perspectives, approaches and constituents frco ACCRN.

(Since CASE and CFUR az. In different cities, there has never been an occasion 1

when we have been involved in tne same rate case.) l CASE has outlined numerous specific reascas for our not being consolidated

~

with other Intervenors in these proceedings, ve have steted specific reasona vny our not being consolidated would be beneficial, and we perceive no real benefits of such consolidation with its attenJant unnecessary burdens for this Intervencr. l WHEREFCRE, FREMISES CCNSIDidED, CASE =cves that this Board grant cur Motion '

that CASE not be consolidated with cther Intervencr(s) in these proceedings and that CASE be acecrded separate Intervencr status in all aspects of these prceeedirgs.

Respectfully submitted, a x_  % f5J (6 d.) Juarita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Pelk Dallas, Texas 75224 21h/9k6-9hh6 f

ll/2C/80 .

l

- 1C -

Tj95Wppjg,i Ag -"

.s Q.'36 sten keW g M

01Q: -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o4',

y , _ . .

5

~%

(L BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I.ICENSING BOARD j;q ,

.' C .7 -

y ,,, I 2 4 tr:;.t In the Matter of I --

e...,,,

I t 's ".

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445'- /

GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL FOR AN I and 50-446 . '-J/. /,M OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 <&

I UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Sy :ty signature below, I certify that ecpies of " CASE's Motion to krant CASE Separate Intervenor Status" and "0catingent Motion to Appoint CASE as Lead Party for Consolidated Contenticas" has been sent this 20th day of November, 1980, to all parties on the service list belev by deposit in the U. S. Mail,' '

First Class Mail:

Valentine 3. Deale, Esq. , Chairman David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . Assis tant 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. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Familton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive  ;

State Co'.lege, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic 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 App eal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Fuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Wa shing ton , D. C. 20555 Marj orie Rothschild Docketing an'd 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 C. McColl, III, Esq.

West Texas Legal Services 701 ccanerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallae. TX 75202 Fort'. Worth, TX 76102 -

Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.

4021 Prescott Avenue

A /2,./s Dallas,~R 1Mrs.) Juan:Lca Ettis, Presicent 75219 CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR -

SOUND ENERGY)