ML20148T098

Memo in Support of 781030 Tex Pirg'S Motion for Mod of Lic Bd'S 780814 & 780901 Orders Re Limitations on Contentions. Urges That the Motion Be Granted

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: ML20148T098 ML20148T101
References
NUDOCS 7812040301
Download: ML20148T098 (3)

Text

__ ____

e .. ,

I/

I 400cGN g*

' /a 1

o#g l'J!IT1:D STATES OF A: ERICA

2. -

f ~, hgV [$ - '

m' A.1 / :

eO# 'I I!LCI. PAR REGill.ATORY CO?' IISSION 9 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 ,

1 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 l

3 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 '

s delay or resultin;; prejud ice. Fed . 't . Civ. P. 3(c) [a f f irra t iee de: ence]  % use I 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.

1 325, 333 (1936). Clausen v. tene Grande oil Co. 27 5 F. 2d 108, 111 (3rd Cire. 1960), l 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.

• l 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 l

T l

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.

4 219 F. 2d 556 (6th Cire. 1955) I'ni t ed Sta t en v, Kunche, 56 F. nupp. ? nt (s,p, 1

t j Cal. 1944).  ;

) l 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 l v a k i n ;; . " Sinilarly, courts have been reluctant t.o appl y I n che , to Jacsults 4 l 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.

i l

H

'MM 6a ,-wn m e

m._. ,

3 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

_ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ .