ML20003B077
| ML20003B077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1981 |
| From: | Newman J, Rankin D BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102100328 | |
| Download: ML20003B077 (9) | |
Text
.
February 5, 1981
[.,0y Il k
'3,
,[,
js
/l
}
l '-,:,.
/2
,,i
'y..
F;.,
l C u,,[
'
- i3df g C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i4 N
's i
~,
.i,
@,[pua,, /./
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
[
cw a.,
u? ',
,B
_ RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO gg,. f{i sC f
'*GED7
~
~
In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit 1)
- S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO JOHN F.
DOHERTY' CONTENTION 55 I.
INTRODUCTION On January 26, 1981, Mr. Doherty filed a fifth new environmental contention relating to the Staff's alternate site analysis in the draft of Supplement No. 2 to the Final Environmental Statement (hereinafter " Draft Supplement").
Again, Mr. Doherty has failed to address the requirements of 10 CFR S2.714.
As Applicant stated in response to Mr. Doherty's
- /
January 15 motion,-
the simple existence of the Draft Supple-ment does not exempt Mr. Doherty from the necessity to address the requirements of Section 2.714.
Further, a balancing of the factors set forth in Section 2.714 weighs against the admission of new alternative site contentions at this late date in the proceeding.
Applicant believes that each of the arguments in l
- /
See, " Applicant's Response to John F. Doherty Conten-tions 51, 52, 53 and 54," dated January 26, 1981.
$Y###
a1021003 #
g
its prior response which are not addressed to specific allega-tions in Contentions 51-54, are applicable here and those argu-ments are incorporated in this response.
In addition, Applicant provides the following discussion of Contention 55.
II.
TIMELINESS Good Cause Mr. Doherty implicitly-*/ relies on the issuance of the Draft Supplement to justify admission of a late-filed contention.
Such reliance is unfounded.
If Mr. Doherty truly had an inde-pendent basis for alleging that the JE-3 site is superior to Allens Creek that basis should have been discernable long before now.
Indeed, Mr. Doherty has never explained why he could not have placed in issue the superiority of this site when he initially intervened in this proceeding.
Mr. Doherty also cannot claim that he was unaware until publication of the Draft Supplement that the JE-3 site-was a potential alternative site.
On February 1, 1979, the i
- /
Again, as stated above, Mr. Doherty never address 2s the factors set forth in 10 CFR $2.714.
--**/
Certainly Mr. Doherty cannot claim that the Draft Supple-ment revealed facts, heretofore undisclosed, which demonstrate the obvious superiority of the alternative sites discussed in the Draft Supplement..The over-whelming conclusion by the Staff is that none of the alternative sites'are obviously superior. 1 i
Staff issued a notice advising Mr. Doherty and others that the LE-3, JE-3 and MI-3 sites were being evaluated by the NRC Staff.-*/
Those sites were listed in a study done for Applicant by tne Tera Corporation in 1975 and this document was made available in the public document room in Sealy in early 1979.
This document was also produced in response to a discovery request by inter-venors shortly thereafter.--**/
Availability of Other Means to Protect Interests In A.rplicant's view this factor weighs very heavily against admission.
The JE-3 site is already *he subject of an alternative sites contention in this proceeding.
It is discussed in detail in the testimony of Applicant's witness Schoenberger and the coastal sites study attached to that testimony.
It is also within the scope of the Staff's testi-many on this contention, which testimony relies on the informa-
-tion presented in the Draft Supplement.
Mr. Doherty has not provided any reasons why his concerns cannot be fully considered during cross-examination of witnesses who have already addressed this very issue; nor has he suggested that he will present a competent expert witness to testify on this subject.
-*/
Memorandum from R. W. Froelich to voss A. Moore dated February 1, 1979;
Subject:
Staff visit to Alternative Sites-Allens Creek (Memorandum includes statement that public hearings on this and other alternative sites would.
be held on February 8, 1979.
A copy was served on all parties.)
-**/
Applicant's Response-to Hinderstein's First Set of_Interroga-tories (April'2, 1979). [
Subpart (a) of Doherty Contention 55, for example, challenges the Staff's method of calculating land preempted by new transmission lines.
Applicant cannot perceive what possible additional testimony would be presented on this issue that would supplement any information obtained by cross-examining Applicant
- /
and Staff witnesses on the coastal sites contention.-
Subpart (c) of the new contention merely alleges that the Draft Supplement mentioned less endangered or threatened animal and plant species than does the FSFES issued in 1977 and in Applicant's coastal site study.
Any possible inconsistency can easily be addressed during upcoming cross-examination.
Mr.
Doherty provides no indication that he has affirmative evidence to overturn the Staff's conclusion, based on a large number of other factors, that impacts.on terrestrial habitat at the JE-3 site may be significant.
Subparts (d) and (e), while unclearly written, appear to contend that the JE-3 site should be considered using mechanical draft cooling tcwers.
The simple answer to this is that Appli-cant's witness Schoenberger did just that, and Mr. Doherty will have ample opportunity to explore that witnest.' conclusions on cross-examination.
-*/
1er. Doherty does not even address the significant environ-mental impacts. associated with placing transmission line corridors through a number of " proposed and existing natural areas" (Draft Supp., p. 2-38) which forms the basis for the Staff's cc.*1usion on this matter. -
Subparts (f) and (h) amount to nothing more than Mr. Doherty's opinion that the Staff has not documented enough evidence to justify its conclusion.
Again, the basis for the Staff's conclusions can, and should, be pursued on cross-examination.
Mr. Doherty does not allege, nor even infer, that he has any evidence of his own to counter the Staff's conclusion.
Assistance in Developing a Sound Record Despite having the largest number of contentions admitted into this proceeding, most of which are highly technical in nature, Mr. Doherty has yet to identify any expert witnesses who will support his positions on these many issues.
Moreov' r, e
he has not indicated that he has any witnesses to supplement the record on this issue, and thus no grounds exist _for concluding that admission of a new' contention will assist in developing a sound record.
Typical of'Mr. Doherty's contention, subpart (g) represents the opinion of a lay person regarding the manner in which Houston Lighting & Power Company ought to manage the flow of electricity through its transmission system.
Mr. Doherty knows absolutely nothing about this technical' question nor does he appear to understand any of the-ramifications of his far-fetched suggestion.
Means Whereby Intervenors' Interest may be Protected by Other Parties Since Mr. Doherty, as well as the other intervenc'9 in this case, will have ample opportunity to pursue the concerns addressed in Mr. Doherty's contention on cross-examination, this factor cannot be weighed in Mr. Doherty's favor.
Delay Mr. Doherty's latest pleadings serve to underscore this intervenor's tactical approach to this proceeding.
It is i
clear that Mr. Doherty's decision to forward his concerns in the form of late-filed contentions does not reflect a desire to ensure that the record in this proceeding is fully developed; this could have been acomplished via cross-examination or by submitting comments on the Draft Supplement.
If Mr. Doherty can add contentions by simply alleging that there are, in every document filed by the Staff throughout this proceeding, new contentions which must be clarified in discovery and then ad-dressed at further hearings, this Board's attempt to move this proceeding forward in an orderly manner will truly be under-mined.
Accordingly, and in light of the fact that this pro-ceeding is long past the intervention stage, the delay factor should be weighed significantly against admission of this con-tention.
See, Detroit Edison Company (Greenwood. Energy Center),
ALAB-476, 7 NRC 759, 762 (1978). l
III.
ADEQUACY OF THE CONTENTION Mr. Doherty's contention simply does not set forth any solid grounds for concluding that the LE-3 site is "obvi-ously superior" to Allens Creek.
This contention amounts to little more than disagreement with the methods by which certain of the site comparison factors were calculated by the Staff, an approach which is foreclosed by the Commission's Seabrook deci-sion wherein the "obviously superior" test was established.
This standard is intended to help assure that a proposed site will not be rejected unless another site with significantly less environmental costs is identified.
Mr. Doherty.has provided no basis, nor even speculation, as to why the JE-3 site qualifies under this standard.
IV.
CONCLUSION-For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests the Board to reject Doherty Contention 55.
Respectfully submitted, NY 1%
OF COUNSEL:
J.
Gregory Copeland C.
Thomas Biddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS Darrell Hancock 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas'77002 Houston,LTexas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, Jack R. Newman REIS & AXELRAD Robert H..Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
David B.
Raskin Washington, D. C.
20036 1025 Connecticut Ave.,' N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIG3 TING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 5
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit 1)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Appli-cant's Response to John F.
Doherty Contention 55 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 5th day of February, 1981.
Sheldon J. Wolfe. Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety a d Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear degulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 washington, D. C. 20555 Hon.-Leroy H. Grebe Dr. E.
Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watk;asville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.
C.- 20555 Washington, D.
C. 20555 Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-of the Commission Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 washington, D. C. 20555 Susan Plettman-Richard Black David Preister Staff Counsel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C.'20555 4
b _m _._... ___
Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 Stephen A. Doggett Wayne E.
Rentfro P. O. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty WilliaEt Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Carro Hindersteir James M. Scott 609 Fannin, Suite 521 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77012 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 bbf Ar7/
.r A J.
Greg y
opcip5d
.\\
.. __