ML20041B538
| ML20041B538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202240206 | |
| Download: ML20041B538 (6) | |
Text
in r.r. u, c
'82 RB 23 A9 :39 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S
~
S T-HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 5 AI(
3 EC (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit No. 1)
S 95 kg2S/;,EO c s,,og m,,3 9gg a
,e
,1
-a APPLICANT'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED 6 th(jt4 AfI#
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicant submits herewith its reply to the In ri g \\ C7
/
venors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Environmental and Radiological Health and Safety Issues.
Applicant believes that the findings previously filed by Applicant and Staff are totally dispositive of the issues raised by the Intervenors and, therefore, the Applicant's comments will be brief.
Baker:
In his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Mr. Baker would have the Board determine that the Applicant does not have a reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to construct ACNGS.
In laying the foundation for his proposed findings, Mr. Baker identified the appropriate legal test as set forth by the Commission in Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al'.,
(Seabrook Stations Units 1 and 2), 7 NRC 1 (1978):
{}b0 s
/
I 8202240206 G20222 PDR ADOCK 05000466 O
PDR 2
"It is not enough that the applicant is a regulated public utility.
(A] ' reasonable assurance' does not mean a demonstration of near certainty that an applicant will never be pressed for funds in the course of construction.
It does mean that the applicant must have a reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circumstances."
7 NRC 1 (1978).
However, Mr. Baker's proposed findings do not refer to ang record evidence that would show that HL&P cannot meet the Seabrook test.
Mr. Baker's failure is not surprising, since both of the witnesses who presented testimony on this subject defended the Applicant's financing plan as reasonable.
Mr.
Baker's findings amount to nothing more than an argument that the prediction of future economic conditions is an imprecise science and that uncertainties as to the accuracy of such predictions will always exist.
However, the Commission in Seabrook recognized that such uncertainties do exist so Mr. Baker's proposed findings prove nothing of substance.
Conn, et al.:
Mr. Doggett's proposed findings on behalf of his clients and himself consist mostly of argument without any citation to the record to support such arguments.
Where he does cite the record it is generally in the form of an argument that the Board should be confused because the Intervenors are confused about certain statemeats in the record.
The ultimate weakness in this approach is that Mr.
Doggett had cited absolutely no evidence to support either his or hic clients' contentions. i
Doherty:
Mr. Doherty's findings also suffer from a funda-mental flaw--he was simply unable to find any evidence in the record to support his contentions.
Given this situation he resorted to the unusual tactic of adopting the Applicant's health and safety findings but then suggesting that an adverse conclusion can follow from those findings.
Mr.
Doherty never explains how one logically can accept the premises of Applicant's findings and yet reach an adverse conclusion.
As an example, in his findings on contaimment buckling (Doherty Contention 9), Mr. Doherty largely adopts Applicant's findings, also requests that the Board find that the definition of loads on the containment compensate for uncertainties in the buckling calculations (110), and yet reaches the conclusion that licensing of ACNGS should await the resolution of Task B-5.
There is no explanation as to how one can reach such a conclusion in light of the evidence that the ACNGS containment can be strengthened quite easily if the Staff's research shows that to be necessary.
[See Applicant's Findingc 591]
In apparent acceptance of the fact that he cannot prevail on any of his contentions, Mr. Doherty also resorts i
j to the approach of suggesting that the Board should require l
adoption of generic resolutions and/or submit additional information at the operating license stage.
Having failed, however, to prevail on any of his contentions, Mr. Doherty is in no position to suggest remedies where there is no demonstrable problem. l l
Applicant believes that its proposed findings, as well as the Staff's, are fully dispositive of the issues raised by Mr. Doherty in those instances where he has stayed within the bounds of the record.
Careful examination of Mr.
Doherty's findings show that he rarely stays within the bounds of the record.
His conclusions are contrary,to the facts in the record and are founded on nothing but argumenta-tion.
Marrack:
Dr. Marrack's proposed findings are nothing but unsubstantiated hyperbole and do not merit a response.
TexPirg:
Applicant has received a two page document entitled " Additional TexPirg's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
These findings do not merit comment.
Applicant has been advised through the Staff that TexPirg has filed other findings in the form of handwritten notes.
Applicant was not served with these " findings" and obviously cannot reply to them absent service.
l l
Respectfully submitted, l
[#f f9f8 OF COUNSEL:
/__
. Gr Co7 eland BAKER & BOTTS S ott ozzell 3000 One Shell Plaza 3 00 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 houston, Texas 77002 l
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS &
Jack R. Newman AXELRAD David B. Raskin 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036 i
ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
_4_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit 1)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Applicant's Reply to Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this A2/1# day of -fefuw,e,1982.
/
Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O.
Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. Leroy H. Grebe Dr.
E.
Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 l
Susan Plettnan Richard Black David Preister Staff Counsel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.
C.
20555 t
I
Bryan L.
Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 Stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro P. O. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Carro Hinderstein James M.
Scott 723 Main, Suite 500 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401
/IJt G"r Cot (eland
-