ML20049J236
| ML20049J236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | MARRACK, D. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8203120291 | |
| Download: ML20049J236 (3) | |
Text
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C044ISSION
- a. :in ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEHSING BOARD' i
Before Administrative ),qgeg R 10 P1 :48 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chai an Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
P.
21:a m..
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket tio. 50-466-CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
March 9, 1982 Station, Unit 1)
)
g
)
4
//
REC 5ygg }
NAR j 1982r ;C MEMORANDUM AND ORDER k J
4 e
6 MEMORANDUM g
e On February 15, 1982, Intervenor David Marrack filed a Motion For Review of Dates For Reopening Hearing and Continucoce.
Citing an article in an Austin, Texas newspaper of February 5th,1/ wherein allegedly a spokesman for Applicant expressed doubts about constructing the Allens Creek facility, Dr. Marrack requests that further action and further hearings be postponed until such time as Applicant in writing states that it is irrevocably committed to build ACNGS sh'ould it l
1] The Intervenor did not attach a copy of the newspaper article to his Motion.
However, previously Applicant's counsel had enclosed in a letter of February 12, 1982, a press release of that date which reflected HL&P's announceraent that it was reevaluating plans for ACl4GS because of uncertainties in maintaining construction schedules and cost estimates (copies to all parties).
- Further, Applicant's counsel advised that by March 15th, Applicant would report to the Board on the status of this review.
O O
O 6
0 PDR
, o receive a construction permit.
The Intervenor asserts that the Motion is made in the interest of reducing expenditures of additional public moni es.
Applicant and the Staff opposed the instant Motion in responses respectively filed on March 1 and March 8, 1982.
In the first place, we are unaware of, and Dr. Marrack does
=-
not cite, any provisions in the Atomic Energy Act or in the Coamis-sion's regulations which require an applicant to irrevocably commit to the building of a nuclear plant before further action may be take'n and further hearings may be held.
Dr. Marrack does not allege that Applicant has abandoned its intention to construct the facility and we see nothing inappropriate or unreasonable for any applicant, from time to time, to reevaluate its plans and consider various options.
- Second, to date there have been eighty-seven (87) days of hearing; Applicant, Staff and certain Intervenors have filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 2/; and five days ( April 12 - April 16) have been schedu'ed for the taking of additional evidence upon the issue of Applicant's technical qualifications.
Since only a few more days of hearing will be necessary, and since any proposed factual findings will address only that one issue, additional expenditures of public
~~2/ TexPirg has been granted a thirty day extension of time within which to file proposed findings.
e
resources will be minimal.
Thus, we see no adverse impact upon the public interest in our refusing to postpone further action and further hearings.$I Indeed, in light of the large amounts of time and money expended to date, we conclude that it would _be contrary to the public interest for the Board not to proceed in a timely manner to arrive at a decision.
ORDER For the reasons discussed above, it is this 9th day of March 1982 ORDERED That Intervenor Marrack's Motion For Review Of Dates For Reopening Hearing And Continuance is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
Sheldon J. Wol"e
-E ADMINISTRAT#fJUDGE 3/ Dr. Marrack does not contend either that he or the other
~
Intervenors would be prejudiced if we were to deny the instant Motion.
.