ML20147C696

Response to Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by W. E.Rentfro.Holds That Amended Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements of I0CFR2.7J4(b) & ASLB Order of 780814 & Should Be Denied

ML20147C696
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/29/1978
From:	Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
INTR-780929, NUDOCS 7810130091
Download: ML20147C696 (7)

Text

.- .

p CV

'b E PUBLIC DOCUMER m Y g

@( \@1  :

Qh. &/4'2c5) o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c.m

' 4,, y/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3c/

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M 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 AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY MR. WAYNE E. RENTFRO Applicant files this response to Mr. Wayne Rentfro's

" Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene", dated September 22, 1978.

Background

Mr. Wayne Rentfro (hereinafter " Petitioner") filed  ;

l a letter dated June 15, 1978 in this proceeding, seeking l l

status as a party-intervenor. The letter was devoted solely )

l to the economic impact or loss he would suffer by virtue of 1 the proposed routing of one of the ACNGS transmission lines.

The NRC Staff, in , opposing the petition, pointed out that "the proposed transmission corridor has not changed since the time of the partial initial decision of this Board and deferral +

of licensing activities." The Staff concluded that since the issue raised by Mr. Rentfro did not relate to " change [s] in the proposed plans for the Station," it did not meet the requirements of the May 31, 1978 " Notice of Intervention Procedures."

/ 3#W

N Petitioner, by amended petition dated August 28, 1978, for the first time identified his interest as arising from unspecified " physical and mental health" problems associated with'the transmission lines. More clearly, however, he specified a "(D]irect financial loss . . .

estimated at $200,000." Neither the Applicant nor the Staff responded to this amendment because of the Board's order extending the time for responses.

I.

The subject pleading of September 22, 1978 appears to be a further attempt to cure the infirmities in the two earlier documents, but it fails in the effort.

In regard to interest and standing, Petitioner mentions " grave concerns about the health hazards of living beneath high voltage transmission lines," referring to unspecified "(c]urrent hearings before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Mr. Fred Higgins. . ."

The reference is vague and no attempt is made by Petitioner to establish the relevance of the alleged Pennsylvania PUC hearings to the facts in this case. Petitioner then skips to assertions of interest arising from the tenuous assumption that noise and shocks could " spook" his horses and "possibly" cause injury to his horses and/or family members. At best, this interest is based on pure speculation, which is clearly an inappropriate basis for intervention. Petitioner also asserts general aesthetic effects. Such are the bounds of

his interest.~*/ These assertions of interest are in no way related to changes in the design of ACNGS or "new information or evidence" with the possible exception of the " current hearings" before the Pennsylvania PUC on health effects of high voltage transmission lines, which point is discussed in more detail below.

The " contentions" section of the Amended Petition shares the same noted defects as the section on standing and interest.

Contention (1) alleges, without more, that demographic changes have occurred in the vicinity of the subject transmission corridor. This is hardly a contention or a basis for a litigable issue. To the extent that petitioner really makes this " contention" as a means of shoring up his assertion regarding "new information or evidence," suffice to say that Mr. Rentfro does not purport to represent any interest other than his own. That " interest," as noted in the Applicant's pleading of September 8, 1978, is unchanged in the period since Mr. Rentfro's prior appearance in this matter in 1975.

The demographic changes asserted by Mr. Rentfro, even if true, are wholly irrelevant to his interest.

-*/ .The earlier direct reference to a $200,000 financial loss is not asserted. Purely economic losses, of course, are not within the zone of interests under NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, NRCI 76/12 610, 614 (1976).

Contention (2) suggests a re-routing of the trans-mission corridor. Again,. the ; xact issue sought to be raised is not clear, but more importantly the cuestion of alternate  !

routing t-o avoid Mr. Rentfro's property was explicitly addressed in the initial hearings in this matter. (See NRC Staff " Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Wayne Rentfro," July 14, 1978, p. 2). Even assuming that Mr.

Rentfro's unsupported conjecture as to the amount and manner of necessary re-routing is correct,-*/ the contention is not based on new information, new evidence, or changes in the plans for ACNGS.

Contention (3) refers to "Recent studies and research which tends to verify the potential health and safety hazards associated with living beneath high voltage lines." The contention is obviously " ague, a condition which petitioner has been unable to rectify since first raising the matter in his Amended Petition of August 28, 1978. It may be possible to read contention (3) together with the earlier mention of the Pennsylvania PUC hearings "in the case of Mr. Fred Higgins. . . " but, even if read together, the contention is vague; it fails completely to assert any fact which would

-*/ Mr. Rentfro recommends a southern relocation of .8 mile, or a Porthern relocation of .6 mile, each of which is obviously within the "one (1) mile radius"' population concentration'he proposes to avoid. Apparently the only '

thing which these two relocations would avoid with certainty is his property.

establish the relevance-of the Pennsylvania PUC hearings to the instant proceeding -- or that any information developed therein (even if relevant) would qualify as "new information" or "new evidence" within the meaning of the Board's Order of August 14, 1978.

i II. j The amended petition, even when read together with l I

Mr. Rentfro's prior pleadings, fails as a whole to meet the l l

requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b) and the Board's Order of l August 14, 1978. .Accordingly, it should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, I

l l

J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.

Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.

3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 l

Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Robert H. Culp, Esq. ,

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. '

Washington, D. C. 20036 l

Attorneys for Applicant l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF COUNSEL:

BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS

& AXELRAD' 1025' Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

~5-L

.- ,, .~, . . . . - - , - _ . _ . _ , - _ -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Response to Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by Mr. Wayne E. Rentfro in the abovc-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mai ,Jostage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 29 4 day of

.',11Zt/hr/A n , 1978.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Hon. J. Lee Dittert, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing County Judge, Austin Councy Board Panel P. O. Box 99 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bellville, Texas 77481 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Chase R. S tephens Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary of the Commission Commission _ Washington, D. C. 20555  ;

U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission I

Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel j:

R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Baker & Botts )

Commission l 1701-Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20555 l Washing ton , D. C. 20006 l

l 1

Steve Schinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 T. Paul Robbins c/o AFSC 600 West 28th Street, #102 Austin, Texas 78705 John F. Doherty Armadillo Coalition of Texas 4438 1/2 Leeland Houston, Texas 77023 Wayne E. Rentfro I P. O. Box 1335 l Rosenberg, Texas 77471  !

i James Scott, Jr.

8302 Albacore Houston, Texas M.

J/ Gregory yo pland Att'orney for HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY l

.. . - - - _ _ - -