ML19254E736
| ML19254E736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911020270 | |
| Download: ML19254E736 (4) | |
Text
GC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
7 $N O
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD QYE*
//
Q In the Matter of
)
/t,
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
ORDER (September 26,1979)
On September 5,1979, Texas Public Interest Research Group, an intervening party, filed a Motion To Compel Responses By The Applicant.
Therein, P1xG requested that the Board compel the Applicant to respond to certain interrogatories set forth in its Third Set of Interrogatories.
Applicant filed a Response to the instant Motion on September 19, 1979.
We grant in part and deny in part PIRG's Motion To Compel. Withi n fourteen days after the service of this Order, Applicant shall file com-plete and responsive answers to certain of the interrogatories as indi-cated, infra.
--Interrocatory No. 5.
The Motion is denied.
Contrary to PIRG's argument, its Contention 7, relating to energy conservation, does not in-clude the whole issue of need for power by Applicant's system. Conten-tion 7 is limited to merely asserting that the'need for ACNGS, Unit 1, can be obviated if conservation is effected by retrofitting, by major in-
.dustrial users producing their own energy, by alteration of the rate structure, and by increased use of " passive solar" techniques.
- Thus, the interrogatory is not relevant to PIRG Contention 7.
1249 054 7 9110 2 0 Z. 70 @
( --Interrogatory No. 6.
The Motion is granted. Applicant shall fully ar.d responsively answer the question posed inclusive of the expiana-tion requested in the parer. thesis.
--Interrogatory No. 7.
The Motion is denied. The interrogatory questions the position of Applicant's lobbyists (and their identity) be-fore the Texas Legislature regarding solar energy and solid waste energy bills. The interrogatory is neither relevant to PIRG's Contention 5, which merely contends that Applicant and Staff have not given adequate consideration to the combustien of solid waste as an alternative energy source, nor relevant to Contention 7, which, inter alia, merely contends that Applicant and Staff have not considered the increased use of " pas-sive solar" techniques.
Further, the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Applicant's good faith and objectivity nave not been placed into controversy.
--Interrogatory No. 8.
The Motion has been mcoted.
In its response, Applicant advises that it will make available certain correspondence since PIRG has narrowed its regrest to that correspondence with CAM re.lating to co-generation or self-generation.
-"In terrogatory No. 9.
The Motion is denied to the extent that PIRG seeks the reasons for and correspondence relating to Applicant's
.tumination of a proposed joint electrical generation venture with Dcw Chemical Company.
For the reason discussed above with regard to Inter-rogatory No. 5, this interrogatory is not relevant to PIRG Contention 7.
1249 055
3-The balance of the Motion has been mooted in that, in its Response, Applicant advises that it will supply any infomation it has which might bear on Dow's future plans for conservation or salf-generation.
--Interrocatory No.10. The Motion is denied. The cerrogatory questions the projacted impact of the proposed joint venture with Dow upon HL&P's total demand, installed capacity, and reserve margin.
For the reason discussed above with regard to Interrogatory No. 5, tnc inter-rogatory is not relevant to PIRG Contention 7.
--Interroaatory No.11. The Motion has been mooted by Applicant's furnishing of the information in its Response of.aptember 19, 1979.
--Interroaatory No.12. The Motion has been r. coted by Applicant's furnishing of additional information in its Response o' September 19, 1979.
--Interrocatory No.13. Tha Motion is denied. The interrogatory questions whether Applicant has received any communication from Staff in-dicating that Apolicant shculd obtain a certification of necessity and convenience from the P'JC prior to proceeding with the construction per-mit processes. For some reason, Applicant did not answer in its Response of September 19, 1979. However, we have reviewed Applicant's Response to TexPirg's Third Set of Interrogatories dated August 27, 1979, wherein Applicant objected because said certification is not an issue relevant to any admitted contention. Applicant is correct, and specifically, for the reason discussed above with regard to Interrogatory No. 5, the inter-rogatory is not relevant to PIRG Contention 7.
1249 056
. --Interrocatory No.15. The Motion is granted. Applicant shall fully and responsively answer the question. Applicant's answer to Inter-rogatory 16 is not responsive to the instant interrogatory.
--Interrogatory No. 21.
The Motion has been mooted. Apparently, as Applicant points out in its Response of September 19, 1979, PIRG's interrogatory was based upon an earlier edition of Section 9.2.1.3.4 of Applicant's Environmental Report. Applicant has furnished PIRG with the amended pages.
--Interrogatory No. 25. The Motion is granted.
PIRG has not fonnally withdrawn the underground siting portion of Contention 6.
Accordingly, Applicant shall respond to this interrogatory.
It is so CRDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J.
dolfe, Chairman C
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 26th day of September,1979.
1249 057
_