ML20150D147

Applicant'S Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene by the Houston Gulf Coast Bldg & Constr Trade Council.Urges Bd to Admit Petitioners Into Proc as Pub Interest Groups.W/Encl Cert of Svc

ML20150D147
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/22/1978
From:	Copeland J, Culp R, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812050046
Download: ML20150D147 (11)

Text

-

NRC PUDLlC DOCUE # ' '

qg$$ 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 67gy$k

$0q7 2 .- Q BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR oggf{(("'

N 6

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466 i

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY THE HOUSTON GULF COAST BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADE COUNCIL (HGCBTC)

I. Introduction On November 10, 1978, a petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding was filed by the Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trade Council (HGCBTC or petitioner) supporting the construction and operation of ACNGS. The petition was filed approximately one month after the expiration of the intervention period set forth in the Board's Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures (43 F.R. 40328). However,  !

the petition was filed only eight days after the November 2, 1978, deadline set forth in the Board's 0ctober 24, 1978, Order for the filing of contentions.

Petitioner's members consist of 37 individual unions representing approximately 30,000 members who reside and/or work in the Applicant's service area.. Petitioner shows that its members' health and safety and the quality of l

,781205LO0t{Cg

i l

their environment is dependent upon the power to be produced from'the proposed ACNGS. Petitioner further asserts that the reduction in the number of units at the ACNGS has heightened the interest of its members in assuring the timely availability of energy from ACNGS.

For the reasons discussed below, Applicant supports the petition and urges the Board to admit HGCBTC as a party to this proceeding.

II. Petitioner's Interest Applicant believes that Petitioner has demonstrated interest (standing) and has shown how that interest may be affected by this proceeding in accordance with 10 CFR 2.714.

Petitioner's members work and/or reside in Applicent's service area and, obviously, have a significant 'nterest in .

assuring an adequate electric supply, which _acerest will clearly be adversely affected if ACNGS's construction permit is dealed. Moreover, the sheer number of individuals who are represented by petitioner (approximately 30,000) indicates  :

that the injury in fact sustained in such circumstances will be of enormous magnitude.

III. Timeliness The petition is, obviously, untimely, out the nature of the petitioner, the petition and the circumstances of its filing, together provide compelling good cause.

W It is the nature of a petition in support of an application, that the requirement and necessity for its filing may not be understood until the affected petitioner is given notice of the issues being raised by others in opposition to the application. Those issues were identified only preliminar11y by the filings of October 11, and not with finality until the November 2 filings by opponents of the plant, pursuant to the Board's Order of October 24, 1978.

Upon the filing of the petitions on October 11 and the contentions on November 2, it was clear that (1) issues of great importance to the petitioner (the efficacy of conservation as an alternative to new generating capacity; the substitution of cooling towers for the cooling lake) would likely be matters in controversy; (2) a large number of petitioners purporting to represent the "public interest" might be admitted as parties and; (3) at least one petitioner (National Lawyers Guild) purported to represent certain HGCBTC members.~*/

Thus, relatively late developments compelled the filing by HGCBTC. As noted by petitioner, HGCBTC is a very large

• / Although'the National Lawyers Guild indicated at the special prehearing conference (Tr. 620, 632) that it was not now claiming to represent any other person or individuals other than the Guild itself, nevertheless, petitioner no doubt continues to believe thav its members' interests should be recognized and protected in this proceeding.

m - - w

-- l l

organization and actions in its name require the approval of its 37 member unions, an apparently formidable task.

Considered against this background, the fact that there is good cause for the untimely filing seems self-evident.

Guidance by the Appeal Board on the treatment of petitions similarly situated suggests that some allowance must be made for an untimely filing in these circumstances. See In the Matter of Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield Waste Disposal Site).ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 fn. 5 In addition to a demonstration of " good.cause" by petitioner for. failure to file on time, the Applicant is of the view that on a balancing of the factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a) the petition should be granted.

A. Availability of other means whereby petitioner's interect will be protected. It would appear that in view of petitioner's " unique" perspective, there are no other means available to protect its interests. Petitioner could provide, from the perspective of the average working person, evidence as to the need.for the power from ACNGS as it relates to jobs, the economic well being of the community, and environmental amenities. As to the latter, none of the other petitioning parties purport to represent the interests of the community in having the recreational facility afforded by the cooling lake. The Applicant may attest to its value, but the need for the lake can be most dramatically presented from the standpoint of perhaps one of the largest identifiable public interest groups in Applicant's service area, HGCBTC.

_ _ _ - . ~ , .- , _ , -. . _ _ - . .

- s.

)

B. The extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. Applicant believes that petitioner can make a valuable contribution to this proceeding in at least the j following ways: (1) petitioner can provide a special insight into the need for power from the standpoint of job opportunities l

in the area to be served by the plant; (2) petitioner can l contribute to a subject which may be among the most important to be dealt with in this proceeding; 1.e. the need for the recreational lake associated with ACNGS; and (3) petitioner is in a unique position to provide information on the socio-economic effects of ACNGS construction and operation.

Accordingly, petitioner's participation on these subjects should reasonably be expected to assist the Board in developing a sound record.

C. The extent to rhich petitioner's interest.will be represented by existing parties.. Petitioner possesses a ,

special perspective on the issues in this proceeding.

Although Applicant shares petitioner's interest in the timely construction and operation of ACNGS, only the petitioner can present evidence from the standpoint of the average working person and to conduct the cross-examination to defend that interest. This is'particularly essential here l because of the number of organizations.who have filed petitions to intervene purporting to represent the "public interest."

Failure to admit petitioner would possibly jeopardize the l

objectivity of the Board's record, particularly on key environmental issues (e.g., need for power; recreational lake;'socio-economic effects of construction and operation of ACNGS.).

D. The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the irsues or delay the proceeding. Petitioner has expressly disclaimed any intent to broaden the issues or to delay the proceeding. The' issues which-have been raised by petitioner--need for power, value of the recreational ,

lake and related socio-economic considerations--are all ,

within the scope of this proceeding and most are raised in petitions which have been filed by others. Moreover, petitioner has already stated that it will not present evidence which is cumulative or repetitious and has indicated that it is fully prepared to comply with such schedules as have been, or will be, established by'the Board. Petition, pp. 4, 5 Petitioner's Contentions l

The Appeal Board has stated that a petitioner who files a petition for leave to intervene in support of the proposed plant need not file contentions until it is clear what the issues in the proceeding will be. Nuclear Engineering Co.,

supra, 7 NRC 737, 743, fn.5 Nevertheless, petitioner L HGCBTC has raised issues in its petition which it seeks to l

l 7

l

W have placed in issue in this proceeding. It would appear that all four issues are related to changes in the design of the ACNGS as required by the Board's Corrected Notice.

Contentions 1 and 4 relate to the need for power to be produced from the proposed facility and the effect on petitioner if that need is not met. While not specifically stated in the petition, the reduction from two to one unit at ACNGS obviously heightens concern as to the need for the facility.

Contention 2 is addressed to the issue of whether there is any environmentally preferable alternative to ACNGS and Contention 3 relates to the issue of the cooling lake as a valuable recreational facility. Both contentions 2 and 3 are related to reduction in the number of units at ACNGS and to the reduction in the sise of the cooling lake and accordingly, should be admitted.

IV. Conclusion Since petitioner represents probably the largest identifiable "public interest" group among all the groups ,

and individuals who have filed petitions for leave to intervene, Applicant urges the Board, for the reasons discussed above, to admit petitioner as a party to this proceeding. Furthermore, if the Board should decide not to admit petitioner as a 1 matter of right, Applicant supports the petitioner's request l

l

~

I that it be allowed to intervene as a matter of the Board'm discretion. Applicant believes that petitioner will make a l

truly valuable contribution to the record of this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, I  ?

November 22, 1978 u L. m

. ia'c k R . hewmain sobert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 J. Gregory Copeland Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Applicant  !

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF COUNSEL:

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )

~) Docket No. 50-466 i-(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene by the Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trade Council (HGCBTC) were served on the following by.

deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, or by hand delivery this 22nd day of November, 1978:

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, DC 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350-A Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Mr. Glenn O. . Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregory J. Kainer Board Panel 11118 Wickwood U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024 Washington, DC 20555 Chase R. Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker and Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

-Washington, DC 20006 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Steve Schinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel T. Paul Robbins U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C/O AFSC Commission 600 West 28th Street, #102 Washington, DC 20555 ~ Austin, Texas 78705 John F. Doherty Wayne E. Rentfro Armadillo Coalition of Texas P. O. Box 1335 4438 1/2 Leeland Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77023 Brenda A. McCorkle James Scott, Jr., Esq. 6140 Darnell 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas. 77074 Houston, Texas 77074 Emanuel Baskir Carro Hinderstein 5711 Warm Springs Road 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77035 Houston, Texas 77025 Steven Gilbert, Esq.

Jean-Claude De Bremaecker 122 Bluebonnet 2128 Addison Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Houston, Texas 77030 Brent Miller Edgar Crane 4811 Tamarisk Lane 13507 Kingsride Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston, Texas 77079 John V. Anderson Patricia L. Day 3626 Broadmead 2432 Nottingham Houston, Texas 77025 Houston, Texas 77005 L

John R. Shreffler Lois H. Anderson 5014 Braeburn 3626 Broadmead Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston, Texas 77025 Robert S. Framson David Marke 4822 Waynesboro Drive

' Solar Dynamics, Ltd. Houston, Texas 77035 3904 Warehouse Row Suite C Madeline Bass Framson Austin, Texas 78704 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas _77035 t

Shirley Caldwell Mrs. R. M. Bevis 14051 Lillja 7706 Brykerwoods Houston, Texas 77060 Houston, Texas 770055 Ann Wharton Kathryn Hooker 1424 Kipling 1424 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas 77006 Joe Yelderman, MD John Renauld, Jr.

Box 303 4110 Yoakum Street Needville, Texas 77461 Apartment 15 '

Houston, Texas 77006 D. Michael McCaughan 3131 Timmons Lane Allen D. Clark Apartment 254 5602 Rutherglenn Houston, Texas 77027 Houston, Texas 77096 Lee Loe D. Marrack 1844 Kipling 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77098 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Alan Vomacka, Esq. George Broze Houston Chapter, National 1823-A Marshall Street Lawyers Guild Houston, Texas 77098 4803 Montrose Blvd.

Suite 11 Charles Michulka, Esq.

Houston, Texas 77006 P. O. Box 882 Stafford, Texas 77477 Hon. John R. Mikeska Austin County Judge P. O. Box 310 Bellville, Texas 77418 Joe Archer, Esq.

Combs, Archer & Peterson 1220 Americana Building 811 Dallas Street Houston, Texas 77002 g L- K . ,

W i

- - . . , . .