ML19290B818
| ML19290B818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1979 |
| From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290B819 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912140168 | |
| Download: ML19290B818 (19) | |
Text
, .
D4 g
,,..
'
W S ,
,j' \\
[, November 9, 1979
j! %
- . 1 :n
.;
'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'./
<;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
'
% i 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 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF TEX PIRG
. I. INTRODUCTION Houston Lighting & Power Company (" Applicant")
hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue an order, pursuant to 10 CFR S2.707, dismissing the Texas Public Interest Research Group ("TexPirg") as a party to
'
this proceeding for failure to comply with discovery orders.
In support of this motion Applicant will show that TexPirg has, over a period of several months, engaged in a persistent course of conduct in violation of express orders of the Licensing Board and has thwarted any meaningful discovery of its case.
II. BACKGROUND In two Orders issued by this Board on July 12, 1979, TexPirg was directed: (1) to resubmit its answers to Applicant's First and Second Set of Interrogatories, to
\514 \57
.
I
. .
- .
be signed under oath or affirmation by the person who had both knowledge of the information contained in the answers and the authority to answer for TexPirg; (2) to " file more complete and/or responsive answers" to certain of the interrogatories contained in Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories as prescribed by the Board;~1/ and (3) to file a designation naming persons who were authorized to speak for TexPirg in a representative capacity.-2/
The Board issued the two July 12 Orders in response to a motion to compel filed by the Applicant on June 21, 1979. Applicant's problem arose out of the role which John Doherty, another party in this case, had played in representing TexPirg in discovery matters and TexPirg's subsequent repudiation of that role. As set forth in that motion, Applicant had reached a point in June where it was unable to proceed with discovery against TexPirg.
A. Events Leading up to Applicant's June 21 Motion to Compel.
Briefly by way of background, on March 13, 1979, Applicant served a notice of deposition on John F. Doherty requesting him to appear on March 26, 1979 for the "taking of a
. - - _ .
1/ These directions were contained in the order referred to
'
Eerein as the " July 12 Memorandum and Order."
2/ This direction was contained in the order referred to herein as the " July 12 Order."
_2_
1574 158
. .
$
.
deposition concerning TexPirg's admitted contentions." At the deposition, Mr. Doherty stated under oath that he had been a member of TexPirg since the end of 1977 and explained that he was then Acting Research Director of that organization.
Mr. Doherty also represented that he was acting as spokesman for TexPirg in responding to the questions asked in the deposition. On the next day, March 27, 1979, TexPirg served its answers to Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg, wherein TexPirg was asked to provide the names and addresses of all of its officers and directors. The interrogatory answers stated that Mr. Doherty was the Acting Research Director of TexPirg. Moreover, the interrogatories were signed by Mr. Doherty as the " Executive Director" of TexPirg.
In short, Mr. Doherty repeatedly held himself out as the spokesman for TexPirg and also represented that he had the status of a corporate officer.
While Mr. Doherty's deposition and his answers to Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg clearly indi-cated that Mr. Doherty was authorized to speak for the organization, TexPirg served answers to Applicant's Second Interrogatories on June 8, 1979, wherein TexPirg's attorney, James Scott (who signed the interrogatories on behalf of TexPirg), stated that Mr. Doherty no longer worked for
.
1574 159
. .
.
TexPirg and was not authorized by TexPirg to make certain statements in his deposition.
Thus, as of June, 1979, Applicant was faced with an impossible situation -- for several months Applicant's discovery directed at TexPirg had been responded to by Mr.
Doherty. While Mr. Doherty had sworn under oath that he spoke for the organization,-3/ counsel for TexPirg subse-quently disclaimed Mr. Doherty's representations of such authority. The Applicant filed its motion of June 21 seek-ing a way out of this morass. The Board's Orders of July 12 confirmed that the Applicant's discovery efforts were not oppressive-4/ and tha' it was entitled to the relief re-quested. As described below, TexPirg's subsequent course of conduct has further obstructed Applicant's discovery efforts in a manner which simply flaunts the substance of the Board's July 12 Orders.
On July 23 and 25, 1979, TexPirg filed a group of documents in response to the Board's orders. A copy of those documents is attached to this motion in exactly the
_
3/ The representations by Mr. Scott as to Mr. Doherty's lack of authority to speak for TexPirg did, of course, raise serious questions as to the truthfulness of Mr. Doherty's sworn testimony. Obviously, there is no way for both of them to be correct.
4/ July 12 Memorandum and Order, p. 3.
1574 160
. .
'
.
form they were received from TexPirg (Exhibit A hereto).-5/
Page 2 of Exhibit A states that Mr. Scott and Mr. Johnson are the designated representatives of TexPirg. This repre-sentation was filed in response to the Applicant's motion seeking designation of agents by TexPirg for purposes of discovery and the Board's July 12 Order granting that motion.
Page 23 of Exhibit A is an affidavit filed by Mescrs. Scott and Skie in which Mr. Scott swears, inter alia, "that he answered" the Applicant's First and Second Interrogatories except for the one interrogatory answered by Mr. Skie. The affidavit also recites that each (Mr. Scott and Mr. Skie)
"has stated responses contained therein as true and correct to the best of each's knowledge."
It should be noted that Mr. Doherty executed TexPirg's responses to Applicant's First Set of Interroga-tories and that Mr. Scott executed the responses to the second. The July 12 Memorandum and Order expressly required TexPirg to " resubmit" its answers to each set and that the resubmission be signed by a person "with knowledge of the information contained in each of said answers and who has been authorized by TexPirg to submit such answers." TexPirg's
.-
5/ Applicant has taken the liberty to paginate this document In the upper right-hand corner for ease of reference in this motion.
1574 161
. ,
,
.
July 25 submission stated that Messrs. Scott and Skie possessed the requisite authority. However, it failed to state that either individual "had knowledge of the information contained in" the answers. Nor did the affidavi', state that Mr. Scott was adopting Mr. Doherty's answers to the First Set of Interrogatories. Rather it unequivocally stated that Mr. Scott "has answered" those interrogatories and that the responses were true and correct "to the best of [his] knowl-edge." Accordingly, Applicant issued a notice for Mr.
Scott's deposition since he appeared to be the individual from whom clarification and further information relating to "his" answers to the first and second set of interrogatories could now be obtained.
B. Mr. Scott's Deposition.
On September 12, 1979, Mr. Scott appeared for his deposition in the offices of counsel for Applicant.~6/ After asking a number of questions about Mr. Scott's background (Dep., pp. 6-26), counsel for Applicant questioned Mr.
Scott about certain answers contained in TexPirg's Answer to Applicant's First Interrogatories. Mr. Scott, indicated,
..-. . -
6/ A copy of Mr. Scott's deposition is being provided to the members of the Board because of the numerous references to the deposition in this motion.
1574 162
. .
'
.
,
in effect, that he could not answer counsel's question because the answers to the First Interrogatories were "TexPirg's", not his. (Dep., pp. 28-29). Counsel for Applicant then confronted Mr. Scott with the affidavit that he had signed in which he swore that he had answered Applicant's First and Second Interrogatories. (Dep., pp.
30-38). In response Mr. Scott explained that the affidavit was signed with the intent that ". . . if I as an attorney had not done the research and written the literal words in a question, that was meant that this is a TexPIRG answer."~7/
(Dep. , p. 36). Mr. Scott then stated with respect to the First Interrogatories that "it wasn't my answer. If you notice, that was signed by John Doherty." When asked why he had signed an affidavit attesting that "he had answered" those interrogatories, Mr. Scott first said "I don't know
_
7/ Mr. Scott first explained that the affidavit was a
- mistake". (Dep., p. 40). Then Mr. Scott accused counsel for Applicant of trying to " trap him" by showing him docu-ments with different dates, i.e., the answers signed by Doherty on March 27 and the affidavit signed by Scott on July 23. (Dep., pp. 41-45). Incredibly, Mr. Scott then stated that the affidavit had "nothing to do with the March submittal." (Dep., p. 45). However, there has never been any other answers to Applicant's First Interrogatories other than the ones signed by Doherty in March. Mr. Scott testified he knew of no other documents. (Dep., p. 82).
1574 163
. .
'
.
that I did." And even when confronted with his affidavit of July 23, 1979, he admitted: "Well, I obviously didn't answer those questions. John Doherty answered them."
(Dep., pp. 38-39).
III. TEX PIRG IS IN CONTEMPT OF JULY 12 ORDER A. Non-compliance with July 12 Memorandum and Order.
The foregoing clearly establishes that TexPirg never complied with the July 12 Memorandum and Order. That order specifically directed TexPirg to resubmit its answers under oath by the person with knowledge of the information contained in each of the answers. The only purported response to that order is the attached Exhibit A. TexPirg did not resubmit answers to the First Interrogatories. All that was submitted was an affidavit stating that Mr. Scott had answered them, and that statement has now been repudiated.
It is quite clear from examination of Exhibit A that Mr.
Scott simply duplicated Mr. Doherty's answers and then attached an affidavit saying he, Mr. Scott, had answered them. The deposition testimony confirms this.
Nor have responses to the First and Second Set of Interrogatories been resubmitted by individuals with "knowl-edge of the information" contained in the answers as re ,
quired by the July 12 Memorandum and Order. By his own 1574 164
. .
-
,
admission, Mr. Scott did not have any personal knowledge of the answers. To the contrary, Mr. Scott flatly admitted that he was not submitting the answers in the " expert wit-ness sense" but "as attorney I was submitting them as TexPirg's responses." (Dep., p. 59). In the same vein, Mr. Scott also admitted that he could only answer interrogatories as "true and correct" as to issues on which he intends to testify as an expert. All other answers were signed simply as TexPirg's attorney. (Dep., p. 79).
B. Improper Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege.
As can be seen from reviewing the deposition, Mr.
Scott repeatedly fended off questions about the interrogatories by assertions of attorney-client privilege. Mr. Scott stated that he would answer questions as to TexPirg Additional Contention 6, relating to over-pressurization of the containment, because he was going to be the " expert" witness on this contention for TexPirg.~8/ Hcwever, Mr. Scott 8/ If TexPirg is permitted to remain a party in this case It is clear that Mr. Scott will be disqualified to represent TexPirg. An attorney cannot serve in the dual role of attorney and expert witness, with a possible narrow excep-tion which does not apply here. See, J. P. Foley & Co.
Inc. v. Vanderbilt, 523 F.2d 1357 (2nd Cir. 1975); Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. American Consumers Industries, Inc., 441 F.Supp. 1064 (N . D . Tex. 1977).
. ..
-
.
reiterated repeatedly that he would not answer questions on any of TexPirg's other contentions -- again asserting the attorney-client privilege even though he had been designated as one of two people to represent TexPirg for discovery purposes and even though he filed an affidavit in which he swore that he had answered the First and Second Interrogatories. (Dep., pp. 40, 45, 47, 80).
Mr. Scott's assertion of attorney-client privilege is entirely without merit. When an attorney is deposed by an opposing party, that attorney's obligation to answer questions at the deposition is subject to the right to claim the privilege only "regarding matters as to which the attorney-client privilege may be invoked." In Re Penn Central Commercial Paper Litigation, 61 FRD 453 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). "The mere fact that a person is an attorney does not render as privileged everything he does for and with a client." United States v. Bartone, 400 F.2d 459, 461 (6th Cir. 196J), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1027. Most importantly, a party cannot make his attorney the repository of information relevant to a particular proceeding and thereby shield that information from discovery by asserting the attorney-client privilege. Balistrieri v. O'Farrell, 57 FRD 567, 569 (E . D . Wis. 1972); see also, Merrin Jewelry Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 49 FRD 54, 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
i574 166
. .
.
.
TexPirg designated Mr. Scott as an agent against whom discovery may be directed for all purposes. The designation (Exhibit A, p. 2), contains no limits on Mr.
Scott and, indeed, he signed answers as to interrogatories directed to each and every TexPirg contention. Thus, TexPirg obviously regards Mr. Scott as a repository of information relevant to this proceeding. Given these facts, it is difficult to imagine how any factual information related to TexPirg's contentions could be construed as a " confidence" imparted to Mr. Scott by his client. The simple fact is that if there ever was any privilege to assert TexPirg waived it by designating Mr. Scott as an agent to answer discovery requests. As an attorney, Mr. Scott was charged with knowledge of such waiver and clearly had no basis for the tactic that he followed in his deposition.
C. Mr. Scott's Deposition Indicated Further Non-compliance with S2.740b.
On September 7, 1979, TexPirg served its answers to Applicant's Third Interrogatories. As noted in an order issued by the Board on August 27, 1979, TexPirg excused its failure to comply with the deadline for answering the interrogatories because its expert, Mr. Sansom, had not 1574 167
. .
'
.
been able to work on them due to flooding of his home. When the answers were finally delivered, however, the affidavit attached to the answers was signed by Mr. Clarence Johnson.
(Exhibit B hereto).
Counsel for Applicant immediately queried Mr.
Scott as to the incongruity between TexPirg's representation that Mr. Sansom had been unable to work on the interroga-tories and the fact that they were signed by Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Scott responded that Mr. Sansom had in fact answered the interrogatories. Counsel for Applicant thereupon advised Mr. Scott that he should bring the proper affidavit from Mr.
Sansom to Mr. Scott's deposition on the following Wednesday; however, Mr. Scott appeared at his deposition without the affidavit. At that time, he explained that he had sent the interrogatories to Mr. Sansom to answer, that Mr. Sansom had done most of the work on the answers and that he had even attempted to get an affidavit from Mr. Sansom. (Dep.,
pp. 85-88). Given these admissions, it is clear that Mr.
Johnson's affidavit (like Mr. Scott's July affidavit) was filed as nothing more than an expedient in order to give the appearance of compliance with 10 CFR S2.740b(b) .
1574 168
. .
-
.
TexPirg has again failed to provide proper answers to interrogatories. As explained below, Applicanc believes dismissal is the only proper remedy for such continued non-compliance with the rules of discovery.
IV. DISMISSAL IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY Applicant believes the Board should dismiss TexPirg as a party for its repeated and deliberate refusal to comply with Applicant's discovery requests and for flagrant disre-gard of this Board's discovery orders. The Board is empowered to exercise the dismissal sanction under 10 CFR S2.707, and other Boards have done so where intervenors refused to comply with discovery requests and orders. See, Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating
_
Nuclear Power Plants), 2 NRC 813 (1975); Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Atlantic Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), 2 NRC 702 (1975); Northern States Power Company, et al. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), 5 NRC 1298 (1977). Under the Commission's rules of practice, the Applicant has the burden of proof of an intervenor's admitted contentions. 10 CFR S2.732; Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ; ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976).
"Unless it can effectively ingqire into the positions of the -
intervenors, discharging ', hat bulden may be impossible."
Northern States Powerl'h , .JlRC at 1300.
1574 169
. .
>
.
What TexPirg has done is far worse than a simple refusal to answer discovery requests. TexPirg has utilized a series of evasive tactics which have had the effect of precluding meaningful discovery while giving the appearance of attempting to comply with the regulations and this Board's Orders.
Under the analogous Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,~9/ the Federal Courts have on numerous occasions dismissed parties for failure to comply with the Courts' discovery orders. E.g., Emerick v. Fenick Industries, 539 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1976); Mangano v. American Radiator
& Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (3rd Cir. 1971);
Diaz v. Southern Drilling Company, 427 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir.
1970), cert. den. icd sub nom. Trefina v. United States, 400 U.S. 878. In Diaz, the Court dismissed a party who had forwarded a litany of excuses, including assertions by a deposed corporate agent that he did not have authority to make representations on behalf of a corporate party, which served to delay and avoid the progression of meaningful discovery. The Court there noted that:
__
9/ When the Commission revised its rules of pract.Lae in 1972, it specified that the new section on discovery, 10 CFR S2.740 " adopts rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 37 Fed. Reg. 15127 (July 28, 1972).
1574 170
. .
-
.
"Without adequate sanctions the procedure for discovery would be ineffectual...a party who seeks to evade or thwart a full and candid discovery incurs the risk of serious consequences. Wright, Federal Courts, S90 (19 6 3) . " Id., 427 F.2d at 1126.
The Supreme Court recently affirmed that dismissal must be available as a penalty against those whose conduct warrants such a sanction and as a deterrent to parties who might be tempted to flout discovery orders of other courts in the future. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct. 2778, rehearing
_
denied, 429 U.S. 874, 97 S.Ct. 197 (1976). Where a party's refusal to respond to discovery requests and court orders constitutes " flagrant bad faith" and a " callous disregard" of responsibilities that counsel owes to the Court and opposing parties, the dismissal sanction is appropriate. 96 S.Ct. at 2781.
TexPirg has never, over a period of seven months, complied in any meaningful way with reasonable discovery requests and Applicant has therefore been utterly unable to advance the preparation of its case. In addition, TexPirg has acted in contempt of the Board's July 12 Orders at-tempting to structure meaningful discovery. Given TexPirg's past and continuing conduct, the Board cannot fashion any appropriate remedy short of dismissal.
1574 171
. .
'
.
Respectfully submitted,
_
. I1AV OF COUNSEL: J. regorgCypeladd C. homas Bhtldle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS C rles G. Thrash, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY 1574 172
. .
-
.
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 Motion for Dismissal of TexPirg in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, estag prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 9fM- day of , 1979.
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. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1574 173
. .
.
Steve Sohinki, Esq. Carolina Conn Staff Counsel 1414 Scenic Ridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77043 Washington, D. C. 20555 Elinore P. Cumings John F. Doherty Route 1, Box 138V 4327 Alconbury Street Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77021 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Robert S. Framson P. O. Box 592 Madeline Bass Framson Rosenberg, Texas 77471 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann Carro Hinderstein Rosenberg, Texas 77471 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 Leotis Johnston 1407 Scenic Ridge D. Marrack Houston, Texas 77043 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Rosemary N. Lemmer 11423 Oak Spring Brenda McCorkle Houston, Texas 77043 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Kathryn Otto Route 2, Box 62L F. H. Potthoff, III Richmond, Texas 77469 7200 Shady Villa, #110 Houston, Texas 77055 Frances Pavlovic 111 Datonia Wayne E. Rentfro B e,l l a i r e , Texas 77401 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Charles Perez 1014 Montrose James M. Scott, Jr. Houston, Texas 77019 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell Bryan L. Baker Houston, Texas 77074 1118 Montrose Houston, Texas 77019 Patricia L. Strelein Route 2, Box 395C Dorothy F. Carrick Richmond, Texas Box 409, Wagon Rd. Rfd. #1 Wallis, Texas 77485 1574 174
. .
-
.
Glen Van Slyke 1739 Marshall Houston, Texas 77098 Donald D. Weaver P.O. Drawer V Simonton, Texas 77476 Connie Wilson 11427 Oak Spring Houston, Texas 77043 Q Evauseland J4 Grego C '
.
1574 175
O O 6
EXHIBIT A 1574 176
-
. .
-
.
(713) 749 3130
- Texas Public interest Research Group Box 237 U.C. -
University of Houston H ouston. Tx. 77004
';~ . 7-25-79 -
.
.
To': Docketing and Service .
. .
. Attached find one original and 20 copies of TexPIRG's filing s
in Docket #50-466.
---Clarence Johnson
.
I-Doc 50-466 .
- .
.
I, Clarence Johnson, herein _ certify that the attached filing pursuant to -
'
the Board's Order of July 12, 1979 was served by mail on this the 25th day of July, 1979 upon the following:
J. Gregory Copeland Sheldon Wolfe Dr. E.' Leonard Cheatum Gustave Linenberger Richard Lowerre R. Gordon Gooch Stephen Sohinki '
John Doherty Carro Hinderstein ~
Brenda McCorkle _
- Wayne Rentfro F . fl . Potthoff III Kathryn Hooker Madeline Framson
-'-David-Marrack DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 4 77 Entire document previously entered into system under:
09Afo @ A
.
ANO No. of pages: [h
.
.
-
-
.
Q" a U n
.
Reported Reported Capital Costs
'
scation Key Particioants Process Outout Capacity (millions of S) Status City of Tacoma (owner / Shredding; air dassifica. ROF; magnetic metals: 500 TP0 2.Si In shakadown; full opere-ma.
tan. operator); Boeing Engi. tion: magnetic saparation steam tion by late Fail 1978 neering (designer)
Shredding; air dassifica. Ferrous metals; non. 1000 TP0 Stk Contract signed August 10 (mington, Delaware Solid Waste
- Authority: EPA: tion: magnetic and other ferrous metals; glass: RO F: municipal 9 from EPA, 1978 with Raytheon Serv.
Raytheon Service Co. mechanical separation; humus solid waste OSW: ics Co.: grounobreaking froth flotation; aerobic coprocessed 16 from EPA, expected by Sept. 1979 digestion with 350 Water Prog.:
TPD of 6 from Stata 20% solids di- matching gested sewage grants; sludge remainder from the Authority througn sale of revenue bonds e following localities are either operating or constructing small modular com , Operating: In shakedown:
bn unitsto produce steam from mass combustion of municipal solid wasta: /Blytheville, Ark. (50 TPO) Crossville Tenn.(60 TPD)
Groveton, N.H. (30 TPO) Salem, Va. (100 TPD) r Siloam Springs, Ark. (19 TPO)
VNorth Little iock, r Ark.(100 TPD) Under construction:
Lewisourg, Tenn. (50 TPD) addition to the systems listed above, projects are underway to recover methane- Azusa, Calif. - Azusa Land Redamation Co., a wholly-iwned subsidiary of the ntaining gas mixtures from sanitary landfills which can be punfied to pipe line Southwestern Portland Cament Co.- Began operations in April 1978 uality.They are:
Mountain View, Calif.* - City of Mountain View EPA: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.- in shakedown Palos Verdes, Calif. - Los Angeies County Sarutation District: Reserve Fusts.
. loc.(joint venture of Rasarve Oil & Gas Co. and NRG,Inc.) - Operational Staten Island, N.Y. - (Fresh Kills Landfill) - New York City Resourcs Recovery Task Force; Brooklyn Union Gas Co., Inc.; Leonard S. Wegman, Inc.; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority - Plan to enter demonstration phase of project; preliminary tasting of gas has been completed e fo!!owing state and local governments are in the " Request for Proposal" Auburn. Maine Montgomery County, Ohio FP) stage,i.e., RFP's have been issued - or are reportedly imminent - but Central South Central Conn. St. Paul, Minn.
msntrac:s have not been signed: Jefferson County, Ky. Seattle, Wasa.
Knoxville, Tenn. Tulsa, Okla.
__.
Cassistormation as reported: fCost of Phase 11 of the protect including construction of the resource re-covery facility alone and in. plant equipment. Built in conjunction with Phass I aconstruction (including SS million for extensions to existing steam distribu. which includes central receiving, transfer station and transfer equipment which ors system) 131 million engineennq end construction supervision $1.5 million: cost approximately $2.2 million.
terust during construction $5.5 million: contingency, start up and land costs IFor the processing plant
~
1.5 mittion
fees, underwriting and issuance costs $2.0 million: debt service h Total funding autnerized by county legislature: 550.4 million, including an reserve fund rtquirement $4.5 rnai.on.
$18.5 million grant-in. aid from New York State. 0.E.C. funding under the Envi-bConstruction and engineering $5.6 million: tand $38,000: miscellaneous ronmental Quality Bond Act. Includes $28.4 million for construction of the uipment $165,000; plant start.uo in Fall 1975 1322,000. resource recovery facility. Construction of Russell Station ROF Pandling facility is estimated at $8 million. Balance of funds will be spent for engineering, startup, CTotal rtvenues (including bond. proceeds and investment income) 4,386,040. Total expenditures: $53,386,040, consisting of the following: '"
- f ' '" "I 8 * *" '* **
reject development $3.026,458; band issue expenses $1,391,413: construction ' Includes Reduction Module (including landfill) S4,908,000 and Recovery 539,549,771: special capital reserve $5.022,588: debt service $5,395.810 (indud. Module $2.848,300.
g main facility and six transf er stations). lNot including shredder which was already on site.
k Total project costs - $51 million,induding S20 million for sludge module.
dincludes design and construction. Funding through G.O. bonds.
stactuding incineration.
- Partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
.
. IB.
.
.
UUITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIIISSICII BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY fiD LICI':i3ING ECARD In the Matter of X X
HOUSTON LIGHTING AHD POUER CO. X Docket Ho. 50-466 X
( Allend Creek, Unit 1) X TEX PIRG'S RESPONSE TO H L&P'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Tex PIRG submits the following answers to the questions.
1 Building Allens Creek at the S. Texas construction site prevents environmental damages to the farm land, fresh water, wildlife, and nearby people and only 1/5th as many people would be exposed to the safety dangers from the plant vrithin the 50 mile radius. The NRC staff says that 17,700 acre-f t per year would be saved.
-
- 2. . Page 10.7 of S. Texas ES. Also Houston L&P would not be so dumb as to build a lake that was planned for 4 units if it did not know that it had enough water for four (not just 3) units.
- 3. Applicant owns 11,152 acres at Allens Creek site of which the bottomland portion (about 9,000 acres) is Prime-1 farmland and the upland portion (about 2,000 acres) is prime-2 farmland. (b) I din' t. knorr.
- 4. Page S.9-11 of Allens Creek final Supplement.
- 5. The Harris-Galveston County Subsidence District requires present users of ground water to convert to surface water. A large amoun of Brazos River is already being diverted for use in the Houston area by the Brazos River Authority, i.e. Oyster Creek Canal system.
- 6. Rice, sorghum, corn, cotton, hay, and other crops that co uld be grown on the Allens Creek land would have to be transport-ed longer distances (at high freight rates that will increase as energy increases in cost) (b) I don't know and it is not important to the local people. In sone other state the local utality is telling them that the lake flooding their land is an-insignificant part of the nationaa total because the Allens Creek site vtill grow
-
their crops. (c) I don' t know, that is grotin at the Allens Cree
- 7. I read that large operat DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 1574 179 radioactivity than 1,000 atomic .
Entire document previously on Japan. entered into system under:
s ANO
. . O.
No. of pages:
. ON. 6
.
- - 2.4-i
-
.
U. S. i!UCLt:in REGt LAICRY COMMI3SIGli ATvh10 dnsETY diu uICE.E.G A!.RD Inthe Matter of: ) d r gf
)
Houston Lighting & Power Co. s - . ) Docket "150-466 (Allens Creek riuclear Gen. Station
._____._.._ Unit 1) _ _
UUTJRUGATORI&
. . . _ _ .._ _fexiIRG'S RE LY TO THE HRC'S FIRST GZT OJ.
__._. _ . .. _ . . - _ -
- 1. dr. Greg Skie, who is handling much of this contention for us states that " household waste", " commercial waste",
Municipal or " residential waste" defines solid weste. ,,
solid waste is reckoned to produce aporoniaately 7,000 BTU per pound of waste. iccording to a study by Srowning &
Ferris, a large refuse gatherer, 6,000 tons equals two landfills..For une canagories of items, he su:7.:csts use of Handbook of Solid Waste Disuosal from the Van Nostrand Engineering ceries.
2.\ The precise area would be slightly larger than the city of douston, and would include separate but onculfed communties as West University, Bellaire, South nouston,
'
and Galena Park. I am not certain if it would include-Lasadena. The averace waste produced per person is 4 paunds per day. The data on area would remain the same until 1985 At the moment we have no basis to consider if .
the per person weight of waste will increase or decrease in the next six years, nor any studies to that ef'ect.
~
As Mr. Skie will be away for a month, we merely took these down very quickly on his last visit before he left. deahen he returns, he might be able to give more details. re-gret the delay in this answer.
_
James M. Scott Terpirs Attorney.
Sent to the following this 14th day of May, 1979,:
Brenda McCorkle, Esq. Richard A. Lowerre, Esc John F. Doherty
, .
Steve Schinki' Esq.
Carro ninderstein, Esq.
Wayne nentfro n. B. A.
Sheldon a. wolfe, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum
'- Gustave A. Linenberger R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. 1574 180 J. Grecory Co? eland, Esq.
' "'
D #D
-
o s _2 J
.
'
2.$ .
STATE OF TEXAS X X
COUNTI 0F RAPPIS X BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY appeared JAMES, MORGAN SCOTT, JR., who his upon, on stated oath this daythat personally he has answered the foregoing Tex PIRG's Response to NRC Staff's Interrogatories to Tex PIRG dated April 2,1979 in his capacity as Attorney'for Tex PIRG in this Construction Permit proceeding, and that a11 statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
0n>v> Wyo, d&1, b .
(games Morgan' Scott,Jr.
SUBSCRIBED AND S?l0$I $0 BEFORE ME by the said James Morgan Scott, Jr., on this #d/O day of July,1979.
()%?$' k)'I'b n W%
Notary Public in and for /
,
Harris County, Texas
-
Commission expires '/k.[
, .
.
%
1574 181
>
..
4*g e
.
O
- $
EXHIBIT B 1574 182
..