|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063N7471982-10-0606 October 1982 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Util Decided to Cancel Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063N7591982-10-0606 October 1982 Withdrawal of Application for CP ML20055A7221982-07-15015 July 1982 Memorandum & Order Denying Jf Doherty 820615 Submittals, Treated as Motion to Reconsider ASLB 820602 Order.Motion Untimely Filed & Failed to Show Significance or Gravity of Issues ML20055A3551982-07-12012 July 1982 Amended Contention 59.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L4521982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Fails to Establish Timeliness &/Or Significance of Issues Sought to Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5531982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Should Be Considered Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820602 Order.Timeliness & Significance of Issues Not Established.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054J9371982-06-28028 June 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F9861982-06-15015 June 1982 Motion to Reopen Record to Take Evidence on Contention 59. Gravity of Issues Warrants Reopening ML20054G0171982-06-15015 June 1982 Contention 50 Re Brown & Root Deficiencies in Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20053D0861982-05-24024 May 1982 Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20052H8621982-05-19019 May 1982 Motion to Strike J Doherty Reply to Applicant 820507 Response to Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58. Commission Rules Do Not Allow Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052H4441982-05-14014 May 1982 Reply Opposing Applicant 820507 Response to J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58.Contention Should Be Admitted W/Amends.Aslb Should Judge Conduct of Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052F3121982-05-0707 May 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention Re Alleged Failure to Rept Design Defects.Substantively, Motion Is Motion to Reopen Record & Stds Have Not Been Met. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D1221982-04-29029 April 1982 Findings of Fact on Supplemental Issues to Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052A4541982-04-22022 April 1982 Submittal of Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations at Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054E0561982-04-21021 April 1982 Supplemental Findings of Fact on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050J1111982-04-0606 April 1982 Answers to Second & Third Sets of Interrogatories,Questions 29 & 8 Respectively,Re Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20050E2961982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Seventh Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050E2891982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Doherty Sixth Set of Interrogatories.Related Correspondence ML20050C4211982-04-0202 April 1982 Objections to Request for Admissions.Requests Untimely, Irrelevant to Issues Before ASLB & Extremely & Unduly Burdensome.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4081982-03-31031 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4791982-03-29029 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Jf Doherty Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20042C6431982-03-29029 March 1982 Motion for ASLB to Call DE Sells as Witness for Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Testimony Needed to Explain Why NRC Did Not Immediately Obtain Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6181982-03-29029 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820315 Motion for ASLB to Subpoena Quadrex Corp Employee Witnesses as ASLB Witnesses. Request Is Based on Misperception of Scope of Reopened Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5091982-03-26026 March 1982 Response to Jf Doherty 20th & 21st Requests for Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20049K0801982-03-25025 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0671982-03-25025 March 1982 Reply to Tx Pirg 820315 Addl Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5201982-03-25025 March 1982 Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant & to Postpone Evidentiary Presentations at 820412 Hearings.Applicant Objections to Interrogatories Unsupported & Necessitate Hearings Be Delayed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0941982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0841982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Third Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5481982-03-23023 March 1982 Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions Re Quadrex Rept & Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2351982-03-17017 March 1982 Seventh Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042A4791982-03-17017 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820310 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearings.Sufficient Grounds Not Provided to Justify Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2451982-03-15015 March 1982 Motion for Subpoena of Quadrex Corp Employees.Testimony Necessary for Clear Understanding of Brown & Root Deficiencies Despite Util Supervision & Specific Steps Needed to Correct & Prevent Problems.W/Certificate of Svc ML20042B2381982-03-15015 March 1982 Sixth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041F0761982-03-10010 March 1982 Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041F0871982-03-10010 March 1982 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearing on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Addl Time Needed to Complete Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049J6571982-03-0808 March 1982 Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1741982-03-0505 March 1982 Brief Opposing R Alexander Appeal from ASLB 820112 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Aslb Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1201982-03-0505 March 1982 Motion for Order Directing Applicant to Provide Forthcoming Bechtel Quadrex Rept Review.Rept Pertinent to Remaining Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041E1181982-03-0505 March 1982 Third Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Related Correspondence ML20041E1071982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents Re Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1001982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E0711982-03-0404 March 1982 Second Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 21 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20049H8881982-03-0101 March 1982 Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5381982-02-22022 February 1982 Reply to Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041C0671982-02-22022 February 1982 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 820209 Motion for Addl Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Motion Mooted by Tx Pirg Filing Proposed Findings on 820212. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5421982-02-17017 February 1982 First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence 1982-07-02
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063N7471982-10-0606 October 1982 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Util Decided to Cancel Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L4521982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Fails to Establish Timeliness &/Or Significance of Issues Sought to Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5531982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Should Be Considered Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820602 Order.Timeliness & Significance of Issues Not Established.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054J9371982-06-28028 June 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F9861982-06-15015 June 1982 Motion to Reopen Record to Take Evidence on Contention 59. Gravity of Issues Warrants Reopening ML20053D0861982-05-24024 May 1982 Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20052H8621982-05-19019 May 1982 Motion to Strike J Doherty Reply to Applicant 820507 Response to Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58. Commission Rules Do Not Allow Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052H4441982-05-14014 May 1982 Reply Opposing Applicant 820507 Response to J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58.Contention Should Be Admitted W/Amends.Aslb Should Judge Conduct of Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052F3121982-05-0707 May 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention Re Alleged Failure to Rept Design Defects.Substantively, Motion Is Motion to Reopen Record & Stds Have Not Been Met. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6181982-03-29029 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820315 Motion for ASLB to Subpoena Quadrex Corp Employee Witnesses as ASLB Witnesses. Request Is Based on Misperception of Scope of Reopened Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6431982-03-29029 March 1982 Motion for ASLB to Call DE Sells as Witness for Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Testimony Needed to Explain Why NRC Did Not Immediately Obtain Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5201982-03-25025 March 1982 Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant & to Postpone Evidentiary Presentations at 820412 Hearings.Applicant Objections to Interrogatories Unsupported & Necessitate Hearings Be Delayed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042A4791982-03-17017 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820310 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearings.Sufficient Grounds Not Provided to Justify Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041F0871982-03-10010 March 1982 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearing on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Addl Time Needed to Complete Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1201982-03-0505 March 1982 Motion for Order Directing Applicant to Provide Forthcoming Bechtel Quadrex Rept Review.Rept Pertinent to Remaining Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041E1741982-03-0505 March 1982 Brief Opposing R Alexander Appeal from ASLB 820112 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Aslb Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049H8881982-03-0101 March 1982 Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041C0671982-02-22022 February 1982 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 820209 Motion for Addl Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Motion Mooted by Tx Pirg Filing Proposed Findings on 820212. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5901982-02-13013 February 1982 Motion for Postponement of All Action on CP Application Until Applicant States That Util Irrevocably Committed to Building Plant If CP Received.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20040H0761982-02-0909 February 1982 Motion for 30 Addl Days to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Length of Record Necessitates Extension. Decision Would Not Be Delayed Since Addl Hearings to Be Held in Apr 1982 ML20040E2781982-01-29029 January 1982 Requests for Clarification Re R Alexander 811130 Petition to Intervene.J Silberg 820122 Ltr Indicates That Order Denying Petition Issued,But No Order Has Been Served.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039B7481981-12-17017 December 1981 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 811207 Motions for Addl Testimony, Further Development of Record & Admission of New Contention. Motion Superficial Attempt to Delay Proceeding & Totally Devoid of Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M6441981-12-14014 December 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 811015 Renewed Motion for Addl Evidence on Tx Pirg Contention 31.Doherty Failed to Comply W/Aslb 811110 Order.Motion Is W/O Merit & Would Cause Unnecessary Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M6241981-12-0707 December 1981 Motion for Tx Pirg to Present Addl Evidence,To Order Applicant to Serve Tx Pirg W/Quadrex Rept & to Rule That Need for Power Is Tx Pirg Contention.Alternatively,Requests Admittance as Tx Pirg Contention.W/Certificate of Svc ML20039B0771981-12-0707 December 1981 Renewed Motion for Addl Evidence on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Applicant Technical Qualifications.Specifies Portions of Quadrex Rept,Indicating Organizational Changes That Should Be Made.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20038A8841981-11-20020 November 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 811106 Motion for Addl Testimony on Need for Power.Pleading Construed as Motion to Reopen Record.Burden of Explaining Why ASLB Would Reach Different Result Not Met.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20010F4791981-09-0303 September 1981 Response Opposing Further Consideration of Radon Releases. NRC Analysis of Radon Releases in Final Suppl to Fes Satisfies NEPA Requirements,Complies W/Commission 780414 Order & Supplies Sufficient Info.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010G1101981-09-0303 September 1981 Response to ASLB Request Re Positions on ALAB-640.Radon Emissions Determined by ALAB-640 Constitute Significant Addl Environ Impact.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010A1171981-08-0505 August 1981 Motion to Strike Marrack Prefiled Testimony.Testimony Is Not Specifically Responsive to F Sanders 810205-06 Testimony. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20009B2031981-07-0707 July 1981 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Doherty 810622 Request for Leave to File Contention 57.No Good Cause Shown for Late Filing & No Specificity Provided.W/Science News Article & Certificate of Svc ML20005B3801981-06-22022 June 1981 Request for Leave to File & Submission of Contention 57 Re Vulnerability of Control Sys to Electromagnetic Pulses. Issue Has Not Been Made Public Until Recently.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347F4941981-05-0808 May 1981 Reply Opposing Doherty 810423 Filing Re Contention 56, If Filing Is Motion to Add Late Filed Contention. Contention Refs Alleged Problem at Browns Ferry Which Is Not Applicable to Mark III Containments.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347F4661981-05-0808 May 1981 Response Opposing Doherty 810423 Motion to Reopen Record on Need for Power Contention.Aslb Should Issue Order That Motion Is Moot & Direct Applicant to Update Testimony on Need for Power Testimony Later.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003H9551981-04-29029 April 1981 Motion for Order Adopting Specific Procedures to Govern Conduct of cross-examination During Health & Safety Phase of Proceeding.Procedures Will Ensure cross-examination Not Cumulative.W/Proposed Order & Certificate of Svc ML19343D3891981-04-27027 April 1981 Motion to Strike I Bross 810331 Affidavit.Affidavit Does Not Respond to Ld Hamilton Supplemental Affidavits But Constitutes Personal Attack of Affiant.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20126J9451981-04-24024 April 1981 Motion Opposing Applicant 810422 Motion to Preclude Jm Scott Testimony.Tx Pirg & Intervenor Doherty Are Separate Parties ML20003H7981981-04-22022 April 1981 Motion for Addl Testimony & cross-examination on Conservation Techniques,Interconnection & Effects of Const Delay.Proceedings Have Not Addressed These Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003H7471981-04-22022 April 1981 Motion to Preclude Jm Scott Testimony.Intent of ASLB 810407 Order Was to Preclude Scott from Having Dual Role of Atty & Witness for Any Other Party.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20126H9601981-04-0707 April 1981 Request for Order Directing Util to Reissue 810331 Pleading W/Correct Title.Defective Title Did Not Put All Parties on Notice ML20126H9641981-04-0707 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Util & NRC 810330 Motions to Disqualify Tx Pirg Counsel,Jm Scott.Counsel Will Appear as Expert Witness.Public Interest Requires Counsel Presence. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9721981-03-31031 March 1981 Response to NRC & Applicant Responses to J Doherty 810222 Motion for Reconsideration of Admission of Contention 21. Filing of Motion Was Timely Under Circumstances. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G4941981-03-30030 March 1981 Brief,In Form of Pleading,Addressing Need to Disqualify Tx Pirg Counsel Per Disciplinary Rules 5-101 & 5-102.Having Chosen to Appear as Witness,Scott Should Be Barred from Participation as Atty.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G5831981-03-24024 March 1981 Response for Order Allowing Intervenors to File Id Bross Supplemental Affidavit to Respond to Ld Hamilton Affidavit on Behalf of Util.One Day Delay Should Be Excused Due to Intervenor Attempt to Comply W/Rules.W/Certificate of Svc ML20003D2161981-03-0404 March 1981 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 810217 Motions on Procedural Matters,Referral of Interlocutory Appeal,Certification of Various Issues & Removal of Aslb.Motion Contains Misrepresentations of Alab Rulings.W/Certificate of Svc ML19341D4801981-02-25025 February 1981 Response to Intervenor Doherty Third Supplemental Response to Motion for Summary Disposition.Intervenor Has No Right to File Late Responses,Shows No Good Cause & Info Has No Relationship to Affected Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20003C3161981-02-17017 February 1981 Requests to ASLB for Interlocutory Appeal & Certification of Questions & to ASLAP for Direct Certification of Question Re Ability of Intervenors to cross-examine Witnesses. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003B0771981-02-0505 February 1981 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Jf Doherty Contention 55.Contention Does Not Address 10CFR2.714 Requirements & No Good Cause Established for Late Filing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345E8521981-01-30030 January 1981 Suppl to 810129 Motion Requesting Reversal of 810123 Ruling Denying Intervenor Rentfro cross-examination Opportunity.Evidence Supporting Intervenor Discernible Interest in Issues Outlined.W/Certificate of Svc ML19345E5721981-01-29029 January 1981 Requests ASLB Reconsider Ruling Restricting cross-examination,for Interlocutory Appeal & Certification of Questions.Also Moves Aslab for Directed Certification of Questions & Appointment of New Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc ML19341B6021981-01-29029 January 1981 Response Opposing Intervenor Doherty 810123 Motion to Change Cross Examination Procedures.Repetitious cross- Examination Would Be Avoided If All Intervenors Attended All Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl 1982-07-02
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of 5 5
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER 5 Docket No. 50-466 COMPANY 5 5
(Allens Creek Nuclear 5 Generating Station, 5 Unit 1) 5 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MARRACK'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 2(C)
By motion dated September 11, 1980, Dr. David Marrack
("Intervenor") asks this Board to grant sumnary disposition in his favor on his contention 2(c) (which he' cites as Contention 76). That contention alleges lack of proper environmental consideration of the impact of transmission ,
6 lines on migratory waterfowl and proposes an alternative f route from Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station ("ACNGS")
to O'Brien substation.
Houston _ Lighting & Power Company (" Applicant") responds and urges that Intervenor's motion be denied and that the contention proceed to a hearing on the merits.
ARGUMENT In support of this response, Applicant will show that Intervenor's motion should be denied because: (1) it lacks
- , ,c.-,-
any statement of material facts as to which movant contends there are no genuine issues to be heard; (2) it lacks any affidavit or new admissible-evidence; (3) it exceeds the scope of the contention; r.nd (4) it fails to carry Intervenor's burden of showing beyond dispute that the transmission lines will significantly affect migratory waterfowl.
A. Lack of Required Statement.
A summary disposition motion to this Board must have
" annexed to the motion a separate, short and concise statement of the matarial facts as to which the moving party contents that there is no genuine issue to be heard." - 10 CFR 52.749(a)
(1980). Intervenor provided no such statement with his motion. Hence, that motion fails to comply with the rules, Pacific Gas & Electric Ccmpany (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-77-48, 6 NRC 159, 163 (1977), and should be dismissed. "Such a requirement is not merely a procedural technicality,.but is of substantive: significance." Id. t Intervenor's failure to file this required statement of material facts is not harmless to applicant or to this
- Board, in view of the confusing state of the motion, itself. :
Lacking the required statement, Applicant and this Board are ;
. l forced to guess what facts Intervenor regards as material !
and beyond dispute. The motion offers no particular guidance, as it meanders from arg.. mentation to exhibit to legal proposition
. - - . _ _ _~
c .
1 to inadmissible " evidence." Intervenor properly bears the burden of making sense out' of his motion; Applicant is not required to_-guess at his_ meanings in order to respond.
B. Lack of Evidence.
Intervenor's motion lacks admissible supporting evidence, aside from his citations to the Final Environmental Statement.
Intervenor's citations and quotations from " learned treatises" are hearsay and must be disregarded. Applicant's Memorandum of Law. in Support of Responses to Intervenor's Motion for Summary Disposition 4-6 (October 2, 1980). Likewise, the maps, correspondence, and similar profferings are hearsay.
Furthermore, much.of.Intervenor's. proffered " evidence"
! is also irrelevant to ACNGS, to the disputed route of_the transmission line, to transmission lines in general, and to 1
waterfowl. For example, the purported letter to Mr. Webb I
1 discusses a transmission line el'aewhere, not the one in l question.1/ In addition, many of Intervenor's evidentiary offerings are inadmissible unsworn testimony. For example, he may not, by reciting his version of what transpired 1
1/ This letter also contains hearsay, and the hearsay is irrelevant.- The author of the letter, whose expert credentials are.nowhere established, relies upon a study from a " learned treatise" about bird deaths at television towers in Florida, not waterfowl deaths along transmission lines in Texas.
_ _ _ J. . __. ,. _.
there, place into evidence the record of proceedings before the Texas Public Utility Commission.2_/ (Intervenor's Motion at 4). Nor may he draw lines upon maps and declare that they represent waterfowl flightpaths. Nor may he sprinkle aJsertions of purported fact into the text of his motion and have them accepted as evidence, as when he declares that thousands of ducks winter in certain areas and behave in certain ways. (Intervenor's-Motion at 2).
Intervenor's motion simply cannot bear a close examination l l
for admissible evidence. In particular, the following should be stricken: (1) The reference on page 2 to population studies from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, (2) the l reference on page 3 to a special report by the._same department, (3) the reference on page 3 to maps (figures I and II) taken l from another report by the same agency (and the attached copies of these maps), (4) the reference on page 3 to maps in an article by Ed D. Bystak of the National Audubon Society, (5) the reference on page 3 to the Department of Interior's "Crice.-ia for Transmission Lines ," (6) references on page 4 l l
to proceedings before the Texas Public Utility Commission,
. j2 s/ This " evidence" is also hearsay. Intervenor nowhere shows that he was a party to this proceeding nor that he has any personal knowledge of what occurred there.
'(7) the reference.on page 4 to the report of the three-day workshop by the Fish & Wildlife. Service, United States Department of the _ Interior, (8) the reference'on page 4 to a 1978 letter to Mr. Robert Webb of Baker & Botts (and the attached copy of the letter, itself), (9) the reference on page 4 to a letter from Dr. R. E. Scott (and the attached copy of the letter, itself), (10) the list of scholarly references attached as an unnumbered page, (11) the captions to Figures I and II, attached as an unnumbered page, and (12) the page headed " Table 5," attached as an unnumbered page, and (13) each assertion of fact made in the motion without even the appearance of support.
These items are all inadmissible. Stripped of them, the motion is reduced to mere argumentation.
C. i* cope of Motion.
The scope of Intervenor's motion exceeds the scope of the contention. Intervenor' refers indiscriminate 1y to two separate power transmission lines running from the plant to different substations--the O'Brien station and the Parish station. The contention, while it does speak generally of
" transmission routes" beyond the plant site, clearly delimits its scope in the next clause to the O'Brien substation. All references to the Parish line should be stricken from the motion and be disregarded.
i
Intervenor protests that the O'Brien reference was
- " grafted" onto the contention and the " heart" of the contention is something else than what it plainly says. (Intervenor's Motion at 5). This protest-should be disregarded and stricken.
The Board. adopted this wording of this contention. Intervenor has already tried, belatedly, to to change the wording, and the Board has rejected his motion. (' Order, August 21, 1980, 4
at 3).
D. Intervenor's Burden Under NEPA.
Environmental impact statements are required under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") only for projects "significantly affecting" the environment. 42 U.S.C.A. S 4332(c) 1 (1977). Rcmote and speculative consequences need not be .j discussed. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hoffman, 566 F.2d 1060 (8th Cir.,,1977).
l By filing this motion for summary dispodition, Intervenor ;
undertakes to prove that an environmental statement should i
have been made under the standards above. He must show that I the disputed transmission lines will significantly affect migratory waterfowl and that such an impact is not remote or spbculative. The showing must be conclusive, beyond dispute.
Intervenor has not made such a showing and he cannot.
His proffered " evidence" is, as discussed above, largely hearsay and inadmissible. Furthermore, this " evidence" is
contravened by the attached Affidavit of Dr. Schlicht (" Affidavit")
and by the record.
The difference between a possibly "significant" environmental impact and an insignificant one is well illustrated by the different treatment accorded the lake and waterfowl feeding areas in the Final Environmental Statement.
The Staff urged that the proposed transmission line across the lake be resited away from the lake to avoid, among other things, potential risk to waterfowl. (FES 5.5.1). 1 This recommendation necessarily implies a judgment that such I a line might "significantly affect" the environment. Appli cant disagreed that the effect would be significant (Affidavit at i l
12), but nevertheless voluntarily agreed to resite the line. )
i l
, In like manner, Staff noted--it did not ignore--the presence of waterfowl feeding areas along portions of the ,
1 transmission line outside the plant. (FES 2.7.1). Here, however, the Staff did not urge remedial action. This action necessarily implies a conclusion that this part of the line will not "signif4rantly affect" the environment.
Applicant endorses this view, and the Affidavit supports it.
Intervenor's motion, then, reduces to nothing more than a quarrel with ths professional judgment of the Staff and the Applicant, based on the facts of the matter, that the transmission line will cause no significant injury to the l
l l
l 1
-. .- . .- \
\
l I
l l
waterfowl population He offers nothing to rebut this l conclusion except argumentation, curious interpretations of
'pplicaac's past actions, and inadmissible evidence. The l motion fails even to state clearly, must less prove, what l
actual envircnmental effects of the disputed transmission i 1
line are alleged to be "significant." The motion speaks ;
i vaguely of " hazards," '" adverse impacts," and the like. j i
Applicant can only assume that these generalities refer to '
waterfowl deaths resulting from line strikes by waterfowl in I flight. l T' # s phenomenon is not environmentally significant and
therefore deserves no further consideration under NEPA. The Affidavit of Dr. Schlicht establishes that there have not been any significant waterfowl deaths alon4 any of Applicant's l many miles of transmission lines across the coastal plains of Southeast Texas. He also reviews the scientific literature and finds no reports of significant waterfowl kills anywhere else. Nevertheless, he points out, Applicant is sensitive to the matter and, where unusual circumstances have suggested the possibility of added risks, Applicant has voluntarily resited proposed lines. The present line poser no such risks, however.
Dr. Schlicht's account of Applicant's actual experience speaks for itself and needs no further comment here. As for
his review of the literature, however, this point deserves emphasis: Nowhere did he find an actual report of significant waterfowl kills, as opposed to kills of other species, along transmission lines, as opposed to television towers and other structures.
P~ ,oably the most striking study is the Lake Sanchris-Kincaid Power Plant report (Affidavit at 6). There, the risk factors were presumably high because the waterfowl flocked together in great numbers, at times more than 100,000, on a small lake, while only a short distance away, just i
beyond two transmission lines, lay an enticing slag heap, offering grit and food. Flights there were frequent and at low altitudes. The result: only 343 collisions in three years, barely more than 100 per year out of tens of thousands of birds present.
Other literature is entirely consistent throughout:
eleven years of counting dead birds at two lighted Florida television tcwers found only 75 waterfowl casualties (Affidavit at 4); six years of counts along a transmission line through a British bird reserve found only 15 total waterfowl deaths.
(Affidavit at 10). Other authorities go even further, defining and applying a test of " biological significance."
That waterfow1/ transmission line deaths are biologically ~
significant is " highly doubtful," declares one author.
_9_
l
I l
l l
l l
(Affidavit at 8.) Another says biological significance is "not likely to be demonstrable in relation to a single powerline, except in rare cases." (Id.)
In sum, Intervenor has not shown, either generally or specifically in relation to ACNGS, that a significant problem exists. Applicant has demonstrated just the opposite.
Furthermore, Applicant has demonstrated that where particular problems arise with the citing of a line, it is willing to consider relocation of the line. The line in question poses no particular problem, however, and there is no preferable alternative. route.
~
- (Affidavit at 14-15). 4 E. Conclusion. I For these reasons above, Applicant urges this Board to dismiss Intervenor's instant motion.
Finally, Applicant is' uncertain how to offer a statement of material facts.as to which Applicant contends genuine issues exist when Intervenor has ignored his preceding obligation to provide the required statement on behtif of his motion. 10 CFR 52.749(a). Assuming that Intervenor means to say, although he never says so plainly, that waterfowl deatns along ACNGS are biologically significant, Applicant clearly and thoroughly contravenes the point, showing that the case deserves, not only a hearing, but, ultimately, a decision in Applicant's favor. Applicant's response clearly
- ,e e--,. , . . - - -
establishes the facts set forth in Attachment A. Intervenor, having failed here, must now disprove them at trial.
- Respectfully submitted, b
OF COUNSEL: J/. Gre%o ' 'peldnd
- d. Thoma 'ddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS 6 rrell Ha cock 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert E. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. David Raskin Washington, D. C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT "A" APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN GENUINE ISSUE
- 1. Applicant's years of experience show that few, in any, waterfowl die by striking Applicant's many miles of transmission lines, and no evidence suggests such a problem will occur along the transmission line from ACNGS.
- 2. Legitimate studies on the subject demonstrate that waterfowl / transmission line deaths are biologically insignificant, even where the risks are far greater than can be anticipated along the ACNGS transmission line.
- 3. Even if the waterfowl deaths along the ACNGS transmission line are deemed environmentally significant, no better alternative site is'available.
1 I
l i
l 1
9 4
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 Applicant's Response to Marra,ck's Motion for Summary Dispoc'. tion of Contention 2 (C) in the above-captioned pro-ceedi.y were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 2nd day of October, 1980. _
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 Watkinsville, 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
,v--- -
Bryan L. Baker. Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston,-Texas-77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenad 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick
~ Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 Stephen A. Doggett F. H. Potthoff P. O. Box 592 7200 Shady Villa, No. 110 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas-77055 John F. Doherty- Wayne E. Rentfro 4327 Alconbury P. O. Box 1335 Houston, Texas 77021 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Carro Hinderstein William Schuessler 609 Fannin, Suite 521 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77074 l
D. Marrack James M. Scott 420 Mulberry Lane 13935 Ivy Mount Bellaire,-Texas 77401 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 M VJ J[ Grego y fps 1qind 1
i
.. . . .