ML19332A182
| ML19332A182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1980 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8009110014 | |
| Download: ML19332A182 (3) | |
Text
1
[(pa recg k
UNITED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
/
September 9, 1980 Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-466
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Staff is in receipt of a letter dated August 22, 1980, from counsel for the Applicant in the captioned proceeding to you.
In that letter, counsel correctly points out that the Licensing Board assigned to the Allens Creek proceeding has rejected a hearing schedule proposed by the Staff which would have resulted in the comencement of the' evidentiary phase of the proceeding in late October of this year.
It is also correct that the principal reason given by the Licensing Board for its rejection of the proposed schedule was the Board members' unavailability from November of this year until mid-January,1981.
Because of this substantial period of time during which the current Licensing Board members would not be available to conduct hearings in this matter, the Applicant requests that either the Board members "be relieved of their con-flicting responsibilities or that, in all fairness, the Board be reconstituted" so that the proposed schedule can be adopted.
Without rehearsing in great detail the background of this proceeding, you are certainly aware that, in terms of the number of intervenors and issues in controversy, this is one of the most complex licensing proceedings in recent memory.
Since its reactivation by the Applicant in 1977, the proposed Allens Creek facility has been the subject of several aotices and re-notices offering the opportunity for intervention; the Appeal Loard, as you know, has had occasion to deal with various aspects of the proceeding in many opinions issued during the course of the last two years. _l]
1/ ee, c.s., ALABs 535, 539, 544, 590.
S s00921o ojq
. With specific regard to the schedule which the Staff has proposed in its July 18,1980 letter to the Licensing Board, we genuinely feel that the dates proposed for filing of testimony and commencement of the hearing were fair to both the Applicant and the Intervenors.
Without quibbling over the words used in the " Applicant's Motion to Set a Schedule for Commencing Evidentiary Hearings" attached to its August 22, 1980 letter to you, we are in general agreement with the tenor of that pleading.
It remains, however, to 6 tennine whether the public interest in general, or any party's interests in 4 trticular, would be served by granting either of the forms of relief suggeste,.:y the Applicant. The Staff is certainly in no position to comment upon the resor res available to the Licensing Board Panel. We are certain that you, as Cha:rn an of the Panel, make every effort to avoid a conflict such as has arisen here, in assigning Panel members to specific Boards. However, it appears that one or more of the present Allens Creek Licensing Board members is involved in at least two very active proceedings at the same time.
Considering the complexity of the Allens Creek proceeding, it would be desirable that these Board members be available to devote their attention to this proceeding for the next several months. Therefore, if the members of the Allens Creek Licensing Board can be relieved of their conflicting responsibilities without significantly affecting the progress of any other proceeding and the rights of parties in those proceedings, we support the Applicant's request to do so.
In any reconstitution of this Board, consideration, however, must be given to the aiaount of material which would have to be absorbed by any new Board member in order to familiarize him or herself with this proceeding and the relatively short time period in which to do so. Again, in accord with Applicant's request, we support any action that can be taken to move this proceeding along as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely, 7
htktcf Ri' chard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff cc: See Page Three n
m
cc:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Chaatum Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Jack Newman, Esq.
Carro Hinderstein Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Hon. Jerry Sliva Hon. John R. Mikeska Mr. John F. Doherty Mr. F. H. Potthoff III D. Marrack Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. McCorkle Mr. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemmer Leotis Johnston Mr. William J. Schuessler The Honorable Ron Waters Margaret Bishop J. Morgan Bishop Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Robin Griffith Elinore P. Cummings Mr. William Perrenod Carolina Conn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section i