ML19256E525

Motion for Reconsideration of Aslb Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Tx Pirg 790905 Motion to Compel Further Response to Third Set of Interrogatories Directed to Applicant.Actual Need for Power Should Be Investigated

ML19256E525
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/10/1979
From:	Jeffrey Scott TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19256E526	List: ML19256E525 ML19256E529
References
NUDOCS 7911070570
Download: ML19256E525 (2)

Text

' UNITED STATM mu,a. u . MEhiI RGOM NRCorTUBLIC L%.

',. Nuclear Legulatory Con.nission @

~

^

In the matter of ) ,g #l I!OUSTO:i LIG!iTING AND POn'ER I g,- 36 4 g4 0 gy ,

(Allens Creek Unit 1) ) -

6- N (gMg esF [7)

-3

-

Il0TIO:7 FOh iWCONSIDLIA?l0N OF UDAI r OnDl'?-

"

4 M

- Ori Sept. *5,1979, TexPIRG submitted a cotion to cocpol

[$e%9' t t/

& 5 further responses by the Applicant, "re: IcxPILG's Third Set of p4  ;^s .

Interrogatories to IIIAP." .TexPL.G.is in rcccipt of the Board's C

, .,

,

Order; granting in part, and denying in part, that nation; TexPIRG;  ;

'

herein requesta that'the Board reconsider;the denial of parts of

.- . <,- ~. . .. .

-

the TexPIRG motion relating ,to the relevcacy of need for power

's

• c' s . .

inforrantion. - - - , , .j :

>

,

The lloard apparently found that TexPIRG contention 7, "* relating to conservation nlternatives, does not encoupass the issue of examining the !!!4P installed e . capacity additions, because. aller,ations rcgarding

~

capacity additions were not included as a sub-part of the v<

contention. TexPIRG respectfully disagrees.

Firstly, the sub-parts of the conservation contel. tion are provided only to catablish a bacis for the .. contention, i.e., to nect a threshold test seeking reasonable ainds to inquire further.

The sub-parts are not intended to build each and overy element of the case. (Indeed, the rules of this cc:/uicsion specifically state that the contentions do not have to provide the amount of ihformation ,

necessary.to examine the merits of specific evidence). l'

-

One of the purposes of discovery should be to find additional basis, '

if possible, for such contehtionu with later refinement of contentions through amendment if necessary.

.

,, l

_

'

e #)

'

~ .

79110705 /O

'

, , ,-

.

, , - . .

,

d b (2) -

decondly, the Doard should ensure that these proceedingc are , operating in the world of reality. The apparent implications of responses from

'

- the Applicant indicate that Table S.fs.13 and Table S.b.14 (which,. in- { , ,

turn, come f rom the Applicant Environmental Eeport) do not contain , . ,, .;

. A,

• all cf the capacity additions actually projected by the company. .','

TexPLyi, citould not be bound to the acceptance of inaccurate projechions t^ ~

, .

^

in the FES, merely because TexPIitG did not plead those figures as inaccurate.. . -

<

.

,- i s , ,

TexPIliG should have_ an opportunity to investigate fully the actual state of the !!LGP systen's need for power, in order to re-construct accurate projections, based in the present state of reality. The capa-bility of conservation to obviate the need for ACNGS is dependent upon a nuruber of factors--such as the necessary reserve margin, the accurate

'

project &on of a' . demand, and the amount of . installed capacity to meett that demand. TexPII;G feels it must base its conservation case

'

on the real state of the IILLP zystem in 1965 or 19b7, rather than u description of the systen in the IT.S which is admitted to be inaccurate to r, cme degree.

'

iM El ; L FO lie , p l .El lIS LS , C O N b ITSI', L D , TexPilsG . . . respectfully requests that the Board reconsidbr its order such that the Applicant be required torespondtointerrogahoriescuubered5and10. <

.

licspectfully submitted, Jaucs Ih Scott, Jr.

'

Counsel for TexPII;G

.

nar s

-

1 " 3 091

.

,,

u. / "

. .

',, .a