ML19331D201

Informs That on 800813 Chair Denied Applicant Motion to Establish Schedule for Commencement of Evidentiary Hearings. Applicant Urges That Members of ASLB Assigned for Proceeding Be Relieved of Conflicting Responsibilities

ML19331D201
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/22/1980
From:	Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331D202	List: ML19331D201 ML19331D204
References
NUDOCS 8008270474
Download: ML19331D201 (3)

Text

__ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _____

L.w oFFtc.S LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIs, AXELRAD & TOLL -

~.

. . . S c. . .. . ev. c u, . u . . .

-- s.j': '

. .,so........ wAs m.< oves. o. c. a oos.

. g non... ...oo -

't 1

~ ~'* .

'.*. '. ~!3. . ' "1 I omwoo .o66 -1 '

I sa,.6. . ...... 'q F-

........s..

s. a. eoo...o..

c; c.

....o.. .... ~

.. . .or,,o... " ' ' -

EA,se

e. t ,. es.

.e ..Cot 3m >

n'

"

:~::;;'

'"' o.

• ',*'* August 22, 1980

. .. .l f.".*;,

The Honorable Robert Lazo Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Muclear Generating Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-466 l

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At a prehearing conference in the subject docket held pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752 on August 13, 1980, the chair denied a motion submitted by the Applicant to establish a schedule for the commencement of evidentiary hearings.

Applicant immediately requested reconsideration of the ruling since it had the effect of deferring the start of hearings in this matter until, at the earliest, sometime in mid-January, 1981.*/ In denying the motion for reconsider-ation, the chair liidicated that the central reason for the extended delay was the unavailability of the Board between November 1, 1980, and mid-January, 1981._**/ The Board explained that even if Applicant and StaH were to withdraw pending motions for summary disposition, the Board's decision to delay the commencement of evidentiary hearings would not be affected because the Board's calendar did not permit it to hold hearings during the latter part of 1980.

• / Tr. 1748

• • / Tr. 1790-92 [hd'3 1 '/

80082ro'f M Q

, LowzMOTarx, Nzwx AN, Rzis. Axzz. CAD & Tct.z.

The Honorable Robert Lazo August 22, 1980 Page Two With minor exceptions, all discovery in this proceeding was closed on July 9, 1980. (Discovery on some contentions has been permitted for over a year.) The NRC Staff, after meeting with the Applicant and then with several of the intervening parties, submitted to the ASLB on July 18, 1980, a proposed schedule under which hearings relating to site suitability and environmental matters would have commenced on October 21, 1980, more than three months after the close of discovery. Under this proposed schedule, contentions and Board questions relating to health and safety matters would not have been heard until early 1981. Applicant's motion (copy attached) set forth in some detail the reasons why the proposed schedule did not ' impose an unfair burden on any party and requested the ASLB to adopt the Staff's proposal.

It is clear that the delay resulting from the Board's ruling at the recent prehearing conference has not beenThe imposed in order to avoid unduly burdening any party.

principal, if not the sole, reason Applicant is the conflicting respon-is in no position sibilities of the Board members.

to assess priorities among the resources available to the Atomic Safet y and Licensing Board Panel and, in any event, would not presume to do so. It is a plain fact, however, that the public interest in the timely We conduct of this do not suggest that proceeding has not been well served.

past delay in this proceeding is attributable substantially to problems in the Board's availability; however, the Allens Creek proceeding has been awaiting trial for three years l

since the Board was informed of its reactivation in 1977.

(

At some point a balance must be struck in establishing

' priorities which gives fair weight to the interests of the applicant utility, its ratepayers and shareholders and, of course, national energy policy.

l For these reasons, Houston Lighting & Power Company l

urges that the members of the Board appointed for this proceeding be relieved of their conflicting responsibilities or that, in all fairness, the Board be reconstituted so that i

f

LOWzNCTztw NewwAN, Rzzs. AxztaAn & TOLL The Honorable Robert Lazo August 22, 1980 Page Three hearings may begin and be conducted through this fall.

Respectfully submitted,

- hW an

/ Jack R. Ne Attorney for Applicant Houston Lighting & Power Company Attacl"nent cc (w/ attachment):

<The Honorable John Ahearne l

Howard Shapar, Esquire Service List i

4

- - - - . , - - - , , - , - - , - - . - - - - - , , ,7 - ---,,,,,,,,----------c--

- - - , ,,