ML19225A048
| ML19225A048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907170251 | |
| Download: ML19225A048 (6) | |
Text
!
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM June 18, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY At!D LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
i
)
7 HOUSTON LIGHTIfiG & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 :
w f<> < j -,, -
Station, Unit 1)
)
{[A
.)
$c j N
,'?. /
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
s
,. f?
]:"
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO MORE CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY F. H. POTTHOFF, III Pursuant to this Board's Order of May 21, 1979, F. H. Potthoff has submitted a pleading dated June 1,1979, in which he proffers two additional contentions which he seeks to have admitted as issues in controversy in the captioned proceeding. The Staff opposes both contentions, as discussed below.
CONTENTION V Mr. Potthoff alleges that "if the Applicant i.iitiated a program of conservation in its service area," the Allens Creek facility would not be needed.
Mr. Potthoff bases this contention on two documents published in 1976--one by the Bor.neville Power Administration and the other a study done fcr the City of Seattle, Washington.
The contention should be rejected for several reasons.
ni A
90717ag q m
v
.s&
_2_
First, since the studies cited were both published subsequent to December 9, 1975, a contention based upon them could have been raised pursuant to this Board's September 1,1978 " Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures."
Therefore, pursuant to the criterion in the Board's April 11, 1979 Order, the contention may not now be timely raised.
Secondly, Mr. Potthoff has not specified any portion of the extensive Staff analysis of conservation which he believes is in error. That analysis is included in the FES Supplement in Sections S.8.2.3, S.8.2.4, S.8.2.5 and S.8.2.6.
Further, Mr. Potthoff does not even make an attempt to provide a nexus between the studies of the Bonneville Power Administration or the City of Seattle and the pct.ential for conservation within the Applicant's service area.
In addition, he fails to provide any basis for the implication that the studies cited support his allegation that "no new generating capacity would be needed" in the Applicant's service area.
For these reasons, the Board should exclude this contention as an issue in controversy.
CJNTENTION VI Mr. Potthoff asserts that biomass production is an economically and environmentally superior alternative to Allens Creek.
However, he offers no basis whatever for his allegation of environmental superiority of biomass production over the 0
\\ '
t.
),
e
proposed facility. Of course, in the absence of a showing that an alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed action, the fact that it may be economically better is irrelevant to the Board's licensing decision.
Consumers Power Coroany (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978). The contention could, therefore, be rejec'ted on this ground alone.
Further, however, even the statistics which Mr. Potthoff has taken from the Project Indeoendence report do not aid him in establishing a litigable issue.
He does not allege that the fuels from biomass production would be available to the Applicant in sufficient quantities to provide the electrical output from Allens Creek or that such fuels and facilities to convert them to electrical energy could be available and operable in the same time frame as Allens Creek.
Although Mr. Potthoff asserts that biomass production could result in energy output of 3 X 1016 " gross BTUs per year," he offers no basis to believe that the necessary portion of this output required to substitute for Allens Creek would be available to the Applicant.
In short, there has been no basis provided for the implication that biomass conversion constitutes a viable energy option to Allens Creek.
Therefore, this contention must be rejected as extremely speculative. As the Appeal Board recently stated, in the Hope Creek proceeding:
The Supreme Court has embraced the doctrine, first enu'.ci ted in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837-33 (D.C. Cir.1972), that 3J!
L environmental impact statements need not discuss the environmental effects of alternatives which are " deemed only remote and speculative possibilities."
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978). _))
Respectfully submitted, I i ' f-f' 'l1 T' ( b_v't -
de!
/
s AC N/R-e7 Stephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff.
4 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 1979.
SPublic Service Electric and Gas Comoany, et al. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-518, 9 NRC 14, 38 (1979).
- i n-.
I-t
UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f'lilSSI0ft BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIflG BOARD
'In the Matter of' H0VST0ft LIGHTIflG & POWER COMPAtlY
)
Docket flo.
50-466 l
(Allens Creek ?!uclear Generating St:stion, Unit 1)
- )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESP 0flSE TO MORE C0flTEf1TIONS SUB-MITTED BY F. H. POTTHOFF, III" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in tne United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the fluclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 18th day of June,1979:
Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq., Chai rman
- Jack flewman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Lowenstein, Reis, Newman & Axelrad' Board Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, fl.W.
U.S. fluclear Reculatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555
...?
Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum-Asst. Attorney General for the Route 3, Box 350A State of Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 3C677 P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Mr. Gustave A.- Linenberger Austin, Texas 78711 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. John R. Mikeska R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Austin County Judge Baker & Botts P. O. Box 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, fl.W.
Bellville, Texas 77418 Washington, D. C.
20006 Atomic Safety and Licensing J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Appeal Bcard*
Baker & Botts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc:miission One Shell Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77002
~
b ') ?
i
?_'
'~ '
-. Atomic Safet, and Licensing Carro Hinderstein Board Parel
- 8739 Link Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77025 Washington, r' 20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Texas Public Interest Office of the Secretary Research Group, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Mr. John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Avenue Brenda A. McCorkle Houston, Texas 77023 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Mr. Wayne Rentfro Houston, Texas 77035 P.O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Mr. F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village Ms. Kathryn Hooker Houston, Texas 77080 1424 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane National Lawyers Guild Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston Chapter 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Mr. Jean-Claude De Bremaecker Suite 11 2128 Addison Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas 77030 Mrs. Karen L. Stade Jonathan Kamras P.O. Box 395 1901 S. Voss Rd., #7 Guy, Texas 77444 Houston, Texcs 77057 Jon D. Pittman, Sr.
2311 Bamore Rosenberg, Texas 77471
[a
.I' l_~
j p?
2 A.'t'. h / /
C~ %
-stephep M. Soninki Counsel for NRC Staff
- ~i a-U!
t.
,e e