ML20148T098
| ML20148T098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1978 |
| From: | Jeffrey Scott HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148T099 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040301 | |
| Download: ML20148T098 (3) | |
Text
__
e I
400cGN g
/
I
/a 1
' o#g f ~,
hgV [$
- 2. -
l'J!IT1:D STATES OF A: ERICA m'
A.1
/ :
I!LCI. PAR REGill.ATORY CO?' IISSION 9
eO#
'I i
DLTOR!: ThC ATOMIC SAFLTY AMD LICF,:lSINC COARD h 1 M
/%
V?
//A 03 l
1 In the
'a t te r o f I
Dock. # 50-466 HOUSTO; I,ICMTING A;U POUER COMPA:n (Allens Creek :;uclear Cenerating 1
i Ftation) p (N i O rd f'Or2
'n:MOMNDll: IU GUPPORT OF TI:X PIRC'S l'0DIrlCATIO:: OF Till
^
1.TG;;;IS ING LD A'lD ' : ALC. 14, 1978 A:iD SEPT. 1, 1973 ORDEns RE: LI:11TATIONS 0:i CO:iTI:NTIONS t
i N
On ne tol er 30, 1978, Petitioner TexPInc filed a motion requesting that the Donrd elirinate the "new evidence" restrictions upon the adnissibility of i
contentions set forth by petitionern who were not parties to the hearings a
o f ' a rch 11, 1975.
TexPIRC is in receipt of responses by the Applicant and 1,.R.C. staff to tha t mo t ion.
TexPInc herein requests leave of the Board in the above-referenced nat ter to suhntt this neuoranda in support of its earlier i
notion.
{
In Texil"G's notion, petitioner argued that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply to the prospective petitioners in this 1
j proceeding. The Applicant and Staf f apparently agree that these doctrines are not applicable in this cace, but further assert that the Board cust rely upon a
the doctrine of laches to restrict pe ti t ioner 's con ten t ion s.*/
The Applicant and St af f's ar;urento notwithstanding, TexPIRG would argue, for the reasons outlined below, that laches in not a p pl ical,l e to this situation and, there fore, the raotion should he granted.
{/ Loth the.\\ppl.icant and Staf f allege tha t Te>.PIRC b:i n "sa t on its
~
ri;lts" in net responding to the rriginil notice.
e
?
2 5
i
- !either tim Applicant. nor !'taf f ha n shoun any int ::cus.ble de la: and 1
l prejudice. tha t vould result fro!i ra tsinp, a f ull ncope of i "ues.
U c1 e:
- 1. s j
an a f f irna t ive de f en se in whit.h the a sser tint, pa r t y no. t nin
- In enc u sa l+ 1 e 3
delay or resultin;; prejud ice.
Fed.
't. Civ.
P. 3(c) [a f f irra t iee de: ence]
% use s
i 4
v.
Pierce t.ounty, 339 E. 2J 1142 (9th Cire. 1977). Eational Arn. of trea.lcastern v.
i
_F. C. C. 354 T. ?,d 1113, 1128 (i).C. C ir e.197 6). E.c olor.y Cen t er of Loulslana v. Coleran, i
515 i'. 2d f>60, 667 (5th Circ. 1975). Czaplicki v.
c.S. !!eci,h c ilvercloud 351 U.S.
325, 333 (1936). Clausen v.
tene Grande oil Co. 27 5 F. 2d 108, 111 (3rd Cire. 1960),
1 i
"erely because TexPIRC's petition nay have nilabtly lenathened the hearing precess is not adequate to show " inexcusable Jela:, and prej ud ic e,"i/ ': ho u se v. 11erce County supra at 1147.
I Furthernore, TexPIP,G uigh t note that laches normally applies to plaintif f s j
init ia tin;; a lawsuit; an analo;;y of laches to a n i n t e r v e n,..i en terin;.; an action T
initia ted by an applicat ion is questionalle.
Lacbes can enly apply to the party i
attenpting to disturb the st atus quo.
Wal ter Bled soe & Co.
. Elihorn I.and Co.
219 F.
2d 556 (6th Cire. 1955) I'ni t ed Sta t en v, Kunche, 56 F.
nupp. ? nt (s,p, 4
1 t
j Cal. 1944).
)
TexPI';G noted in its notion of Octoler 30, 1978 that " pub]le interest f actor s" nust be considered in order to further the f u t erents of " care ful and inforrmd decision-l v a k i n ;;. " Sinilarly, courts have been reluctant t.o appl y I n che, to Jacsults 4
involvin;; environnen tal questions, j
?
4
- / TexPInG vould respec t f ully poin t out that the three-year delay by the applicant has already caused rore delay than any delay that will be caused by Pe ti t ioner ! s attempt to seek a full and conplete hearing.
l H
'MM 6a
,-wn e
m
3 m._.
As the 8th Circuit explained in "innesota Public Interest Mesearch Group v.
Butz laches while an available doctrine, is not favored in sultn involving i
environmental questions, becaune individuals other than the plaintiff ufll suffer the adverse environnental effects, and the de fendan t " vill escape com-plinnce with MEPA, a resul t not to be encoura t;ed,"
" Ping v. Untz 443 r. 2d 1314 (Oth Circ. 1974) at 1324 E,v e n in the case of a oi::-year delay involvin;; the environnen tal ef f ect s j
o f a canal, a court ha t, held the special importance of " ecology laws and declined to invoke lacLes" vhen sta tutcr y nrovis ion.s seek to preserve the environrent..
d Juws R Iver and Kanacha Canal Parks, Inc. v. "Ic ht ond 'c tro; o li tan.\\n tbor i t y, 359 r. Supp. 611 (E. I).
Va. 197 3), af f'd 431 r. 2d 1200 At 627 See al so, Ar l in c,t o n Coali t ion on Transpor tation v.
Volpo, 438 r. 2d 1323 (4 th Cire., 1972).
Applicant argnes "it is neither a legal requirenent under the Ato. ic Ener;;y Ac t or the Cornission's regula tions, nor sound administrative pract ice to p ro v id e nore than one opportunity to litigate any given ir, sue."
Yo t, a: noted above, courts have held that it h it:portant to develop a sound record in col)Pltance with environ-mental laws.
In cont-ent ing on draf t congressional Icgisla tion which would attenpt to require t he 'I. R.C.
to prev (nt intervenors f rom raisin;.; isnues if they conid have raised them earlier, !;.C.C. Connissioner Peter P. rad f ord s.t a ted, "Furthernnre, far from encoura;;ing the early resolution of issues, this provinion an draftcJ encourages their concealment, for if they escaped unnoticed at the first hea r in ;;, they cannot cone up a[;ain in the absence of significant inforration not in existence at the tire of the first hearing." Congress lanal Record, l'a y 24, 1978, 1.2817 Te::PInc submi ts, therefore, t ha t it vould Le sound adrinistratIve practice to grant the instant rotion.
Respectfully ouhnitted, Jaw a Sente, Jr.
Counsel for TexPIRC
_. _.