ML19289C857

Statement by Petitioner to Intervene K Hooker in Support of Tx Public Interest Research Group 781222 Motion to Certify Several Questions to Aslab.Questions Concern ASLB 780911 Notice Re Intervention Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19289C857
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/05/1979
From:	Hooker K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 7901250316
Download: ML19289C857 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. t= ROOM #- 3 UNITED NucLua ascuaroar comussIon 2 JAN c 1973 > _ Berots the Atmic Safety and Licensing Board Y8-{D

                                                                    \o>          d 7
                                                    )     DocketNo.5'04$62..

In the Matter or HOUSTON LIGITING & POWER CCHPANY ) THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station f POOR QUAUTY PAGES a STATEMENT IN SUPPORf 0F TEI PIRO'S MOTION TO CDtTIFT QUESTIONS TO THE APPEAL BOARD by Kathryn Booker In its statement dated Dece:aber 22, 1978, TexPIRO saked the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to certify several questions to the Appeal Board for its ruling. The questions challenged the Board's requirweent that contentions subud.tted under the Board's Corrected Notics of Inter. vention Procedures (published Sept. 11,1978) be basmi on evidence unavailable befors Decoder 1975. I join TasPIRG in urging immediate certification of these questions to the Appeal Board, for the following reasons: 1 TexPIRO's questions raise the crucial issue of

• ether this narroQ eltcumscribed proceeding will meet the demands of 10 C.F.R. for a apublic hearing
• on the granting of construction licenses for commercial nuclear power plants. The issue arises because the Licensing Board placed stringent limits on evidence on tbs basis of an incomplate hearing held several years ago, in which no issues of health or safety were considered, other ths2. those pertaining to site selection. This incomplete initial hearing e

had only one intervenor-- the Texas Attorney Osnersl- and even he withdrew The initial hearing was never concluded because Houston Lighting & Pot er then withdrew, and proceedings were suspended. The Licensing Board would L ~a

         .;,i .; -:

_ v. '- .

te now credit that incoglete and inadequate proceeding with the scope and authority that would justify covere re,strictions on evidence. An Appeal Board ruling now on TexPIRO's questions would benefit all parties; should the ruling be delayed, and should the Appeal Board ultimately rule in %IPIBO's favor, new hearings might be required.

2. TexPIRO's questions raise the issue of 4 ether these narrowly circure-scribed proceedings will provide an adeq2 ate public record, particularly on nealta and safety issues, as requirai by 10 C.F.R. This issue is also crucial because the partial initial decision, issued following the inocee=

plate hearings which were suspended, did not deal with heale ani safety issues other than those related to site selection; yet on the basis of th?t partial decision, the Licensing Board would daarply limit the range of permitted evidence. A delayed Appeal Board ruling on the adequacy of the public record might require new hearings.

3. Without thorougli consideration of the full range of health and safety issues, unhagered by severe restrictions on evidence, gravo errors may occur. , . t Odc Respectfully Submitted,

[Y Kathryn Hooker January 5, 1979 . GERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of this eStatement in Support of TexPIna's Motion to Certify Questions to the Appeal Boarde vers served on the fel16ving by deposit in the U.S. unil, first class, this 5th day of January, 1979: Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Richard Iowerre, Esq. ASLAB Dr. E. Isonard Cheatum Stephen Sohinki, Esq. Mr. Glenn Bright Docketing & Services Section J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. James Scott, Esq. Jack Newman, Esq. Park W11te, Dq.

                                                          %}}