ML20049H888

Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20049H888
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/01/1982
From:	Newman J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8203040417
Download: ML20049H888 (6)

Text

___ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

t .-

- , ,a - m March 1, 1982nh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n ER -2 Al F4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

In the Matter of ) g

)

HOUSTON LIGHITNG & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466 '

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ) d[ M;,_ q.

Station, Unit 1) ) // 4, i

Applicant's Response to Marrack's 3

' ' " '. a D 6[1' Motion for Review of Dates for i Uf,9 i Reopening Hearings and Continuance c[a 8 ^h' i

V ' ent

][ 4 :.:a:

32 I. 'A g#

/ / qTm On February 13, 1981, intervenor Marrack filed a lio'tich requesting the Licensing Board to postpone any further action on Houston Lighting & Power Company's construction permit appli-cation until such time as the Applicant states that it is

" irrevocably committed to build the ACNGS." His motion is apparently based upon the Applicant's recent announcement that it is re-evaluating the Allens Creek project. The Applicant strenuously opposes Dr. Marrack's request and urges the Board to reject it as wholly inconsistent with Commission practice.

II.

HL&P's application remains pending before this Commission, and the Applicant is relying upon an expeditious decision from this Board as an important factor in its on-going planning and evaluation process. The Applicant is q)3c$

unaware of any provisions in the Atomic Energy Act or the

//

Commission's regulations .tich require it to irrevocably commit to build a facility in order for its application 8203040417 82030 PDR ADOCK 05000466 0 PDR

i .

y to be processed by the Commission. The experience of the utility industry in the periods both before and since the TMI accident demonstrates that few applications for construction permits before the Commission can reasonably be said to reflect such an irrevocable commitment. In fact, the Applicant's testimony in this proceeding filed over a year ago states that the Applicant, like other responsi-ble utilities, must re-evaluate its load and capacity fore-casts on a continuing basis in light of rapidly changing economic and other conditions (J.D. Guy, ff. Tr. 5148 at 3-4).~*/

It would therefore be inappropriate and unreasonable for the Board to base a decision to proceed solely on whether the Applicant is " irrevocably committed" to this project.

III.

The Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations do not establish any rigid scheduling criteria to be applied by the Board in deciding whether to continue processing this application. However, the public interest favors expeditious consideration of matters pending before adminis-trative agencies, and the law requires agencies to render decisions in a timely fashion. (5 U.S.C. S S 555 (b) , 706(i);

Nader v. FCC, 520 F.2d 182, 206 (D . C . Cir . 1975); FTC v.

• / Updated testimony filed in July, 1981, shows that revi-sions in these forecasts have indeed occurred during the course of these hearings. (J . D . Guy and John M.

Edwards, ff. Tr. 16,903).

i .

)

. I J. Weingarten, Inc., 336 F.2d 687, 691-92 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 85 S.Ct 890 (1964).

The lengthy proceedings required in this Docket are now almost at an end, and it appe'ars that a decision from the Board can be expected in the near future. The overriding consideration here is whether the public interest favors the Board's completing its consideration of this application ,

which HL&P has vigorously pursued at great expense for almost 5 years. In Applicant's view, it clearly does.

The Applicant's recent press release and letter to the Board describing the current status of this CP application state that HL&P is considering several options in addition to constructing a nuclear facility at Allens Creek in order to meet its projected load requirements during the 1990's and beyond. If the Board indefinitely postpones its review of the ACNGS application, HL&P will be unable to rely upon a reasonably certain licensing date in making rational planning decisions affecting th.s project. The Applicant cannot overemphasize the importal.ce of this reasonably firm date in assessing the merits of this project vis-a-vis the alternatives now under consideration.

As the press release indicates, moreover, the compara-tive economic viability of the nuclear option decreases as the time to license this facility becomes more attenuated, 1

l since regulatory delay is a major factor in increasing its l

! cost. In light of the fact that the Applicant must weigh

! l l

l

- ,-,-s - r-

l .

.w its options under the current estimated schedule for completion of this proceeding, a substantial delay in this schedule could render the nuclear option substantially less attractive.

Finally, Dr. Marrack argues the cause of reducing expendi-tures of "public monies." Applicant believes that the commit-ment of public resources necessary to complete this proceeding is not unreasonably large, especially when viewed in light of the massive expenditures of time and money already incurred by the Commission, the Applicant and the parties to process this application - including the lengthy hearings held largely at the behest of the intervening parties. Although the Board must now digest the lengthy evidentiary record and render a decision, this task does not, in Applicant's view, justify denial of a decision on this 5-year old application when the public interest favors such a decision.

Dr. Marrack's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: -

ack R. Newmhn LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS David B. Raskin AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

1025 Connecticut Ave., P.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 l Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

J. Gregory Copeland '

BAKER & BOTTS Scott Rozzell 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 1 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY 1

l

s .

g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466,

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to Marrack's Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings and Continuance, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, or by hand delivery */ this 1st day of March, 1982:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Susan Plettman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.

Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, DC 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Honorable Frank Petter Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, DC 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of Board Panel the Commission , ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

i e

James M. Scott, Jr.

Richard Black, Esq. 13935 Ivy Mount U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Commission Washington, DC 20555 William Schuessler 5010 Darnell John F. Doherty Houston, Texas 77074 4327 Alconbury Street Houston, Texas 77021 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.

f P. O. Box 592 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 TexPirg Att: Clarence Johnson Bryan L. Baker Executive Director 1923 Hawthorne Houston, Texas 77098 Box 237 U.S.

University of Houston Houston, Texas 7704 J. Morgan Bishop Margaret Bishop 11418 Oak Spring Carro Hinderstein Houston, Texas 77043

609 Fannin Street Suite 521 Houston, Texas 77002 W. Matthew Perrenod 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77024 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Wayne Rentfro P.O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Brenda McCorkie 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 V. O. " Butch" Carden, Jr.

City Attorney City of Wallis P. O. Box A East Bernard, Texas 77435 t

ack P.. Newman