ML19276E544

Opposition by Public Utils Board of Brownsville,Tx,To Joint Mqs Filed on 790216.Argues That Requested Info Is Relevant to Decision ASLB Must Make.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19276E544
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/23/1979
From:	Poirier M SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903140625
Download: ML19276E544 (10)

Text

'

NRC PUllLlC DOCUMENT ROOM ,

m# N:=rfg q.

~-i a

a , 4 's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fik [;c ([% .I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q 1 s r l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA'Dj 4 e/

%q.[.y[j 7

\s

?B ncm

<s$

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ) Docket Nos. 50-498A THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ) and 50-499A CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )

(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )

1 and 2) )

MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.730, the Publig Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville"), a party in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby files its Motion in Opposition to Joint Motion to Quash Supboenas filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission") on February 16, 1979.

Central Power and Light Company ("CP&L"), one of the holders of the construction permit for the South Texas Units No. 1 and No. 2, requested the Commission to issue two sets of subpoenas, for production of documents and for deposition, on five companies not parties to this proceeding: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (" Air Products"), E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. ("DuPont"), Monsanto Company ("Monsanto"),

PPG Industries, Inc. (" PPG"), and Union Carbide Corporation

(" Union Carbide"), herein jointly called " Industries". The Commission issued the subpoenas on January 31, 1979, and they 79031.O @ f

were served on or about February 8, 1979 1/. The Industries filed a Joint Motion to Quash Subpoenas on February 16, 1979.

Brownsville's interest in the Commission's rulings on this motion to quash is multiple. As a party, Brownsville is entitled to be present and to ask questions at any deposition noticed by any other party; and to inspect all documents pro-duced in response to the discovery request of any other party. The narrow dispute before the Commission is between CP&L and the Industries, so that Brownsville would not be bound by a Commission decision on the propriety of these par-ticular subpoenas. Nevertheless, Brownsville submitted to 1/ The schedule of documents that defined the scope of both sets of subpoenas is defined by the following schedule:

1. All documents which relate to the testimony given by [the Industries] before the Public Utility Commission of Texas in Docket No. 1776 (Generic Rate Hearings).

2. All documents which show, describe or relate to the consideration accorded electric utility rates, costs, reliabili.y of service or availability of service in plant or facilities siting or locational decisions of [tle Industries].

3. All documents w'.ich show, describe or relate to any comparisons, coatrasts or studies the objective of which, in whole or in part, was to assess or eva-luate different electric utility companies in terms of rates, costs, reliability of service or availa-bilty of service.

4. All documents which show, describe or relate to attempts on the part of any electric utility operating, in whole or in part, in Texas to provide electric service to prospective or current plants or facilities of [the Industries].

the Commission on February 22, 1979, an application for two subpoenas to third parties, including a subpoena for deposi-tion of Robert L. Wright of Union Carbide for the same time and place as the subpoena for deposition served on Mr. Wright by CP&L. Furthermore, in challenging the subpoenas, the Industries erroneously misstate the scope of this antitrust hearing.

Brownsville asserts that the subpoenas issued by CP&L are proper. They are relevant, under the standard set forth in Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

ALAB-118 (1973), 6 AEC 263, since they are "possibly relevant to the issues which have been raised by the parties. . .

Specifically, all of the questions relate to competition bet-ween electric utilities for service to industries that may choose to locate new facilities or expand existing facilities in Texas. This information meets a threshold of relevance for discovery purposes, since the Industries admit that they have a number of plants in Texas. Joint Motion at 4. Since these <bcisions, and the related comparisons of advantages of service by different electric companies may involve electric service in different regions, the re is no way to eliminate in advance comparison related to service in other parts of the country.

_4 _

Industries erroneously seek to establish that the sub-poenas are too broad because the scope of this antitrust proceeding is limited to the product of "significant change" under S105(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act. Joint Motion at 5-6.

The effect of "significant changes" in the activity of an applicant, however, can only be evaluated in context of the overall situation. As the Department of Justice pointed out in its antitrust review letter relating to this pro-ceeding, "[c] hanged circumstances necessarily imply that, where a provision may be seen to have had a neutral impact in one set of circumstances, a change in those circumstances later on may reveal the anti-competitive nature of the same provision" Letter from John H. Shenefield (Justice) to Howard K. Shapar (Commission), February 2, 1978, at 12. Indeed, the statutory language of Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act requires an examination of the pre-existing situation.

Kansas Gas & Electric Company, (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 568-569 (1975); see, Florida Power & Light Company, (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2),

NRC Docke t No. 50-389A, Memorandum and Order on Discovery, pp. 2-11 (February 9, 1979) (referring to establish a general cutof f date for discovery, on the basis of when activities Thus, i

..n the context of the under the license occurred).

activities of utilities located in Texas in 1976, and of the impact of changing fuel supplies on utilities, evidence of events that occurred years prior to the 1976 cut-of f date proposed by Industries is relevant to the determination this Board must make.

Brownsville takes no position on other issues raised by the Industries such as the burdensome nature of the requests and the proper allocation of costs. It appears to Brownsville that questions of privilege and confidentiality are best resolved on an individual basis; CP&L's ability to obtain information should not be altogether vitiated by a ruling by the Board on the basis of the general information now before it.

CotJCLUSION For the above reasons, Brownsville respectfully requests that the Industrics' Joint Motion to Quash Subpoenas be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

- CLV. L%W Marc Poirier Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas Law Offices Of:

Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 333-4500

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

)

Houston Lighting & Power Company ) Docket Nos. 50-498A The City of San Antonio ) and 50-499A The City of Austin )

Central Power & Light Company )

(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )

1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS in the above captioned proceeding to be served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, pos tage prepaid , or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 23d day of February, 1979.

• Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Joseph J. Saunders, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Chief, Public Counsel &

Panel Legislative Section Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C. 20044

• Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire Panel Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert H. Loe f fler , Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 701 Michael L. Glaser, Esquire 1050 17th Street, r1. W.

1150 17th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 John D. Wh i tle r , Esquire

• Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Ronald Clark, Esquire Antitrust' Counsel Department of Justice Counsel for URC Staff P. O. Box 14141 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20044 Washington, D. C. 20555 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Chase R. Stephens, Chief Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Debevoise & Liberman Office of the Secretary 1200 17th Street, N. W.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555

2-Douglas F. John, Esquire Joseph I. Worsham, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire 1100 Madison Office Building Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 1155 15th Street, N. W. 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Washington, D. C. 20024 Dallas, Texas 75201 R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire John P. Mathis, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels baker & Botts 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Dallas, Texas 75201 Washington, D. C. 20006 R. L. Hancock, Director Robert Lowenstein, Esquire City of Austin Electric J. A. Bouknig h t , Jr., Esquire Utility Department Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & P. O. Box 1088 Axelrad Austin, Texas 78767 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Jerry L. Harris, Esquire City Attorney William J. Franklin, Esquire City of Austin Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & P. O. Box 1088 Axelrad Austin, Texas 78767 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Richard C. Balough, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire City of Austin Law Offices of Northcutt Ely P. O. Box 1088 Watergate 600 Building Austin, Texas 78767 Washington, D. C. 20037 Dan H. Davidson Wheatley & Wolleson City Manager 1112 Watergate Office Building City of Austin 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W. P. O. Box 1088 Washington, D. C. 20037 Austin, Texas 78767 Roff Hardy, Chairman and Chief Don R. Butler, Esquire Executive Officer Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman Central Power & Light Company & Perry P. O. Box 2121 P. O. Box 1409 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Austin, Texas 78767 G. K. Spruce, General Manger Morgan Hunt ' squire City Public Service Board McGinnis, Los 'g e & Kilgore P. O. Box 1771 900 Congress ,.,enue San Antonio, Texas 78203 Austin, Texas 78701

Jon C. Wood, Esquire Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane P. O. Box 12548

& Barrett Capital Station 1500 Alamo National Building Austin, Texas 78711 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Linda L. Aaker, Esquire Perry G. Brittain, President Assistant Attorney General Texas Utilities Generating P. O. Box 12548 Company Capital Station 2001 Bryan Tower Austin, Texas 78711 Dallas, Texas 75201 E. W. Barnett, Esquire John E. Mathews, Jr., Esquire Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, Baker & Botts McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb 3000 One Shell Plaza 1500 American Heritage Life Bldg.

Houston, Texas 77002 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Robert E. Bathen Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire R. W. Beck & Associates Baker & Botts P. O. Box 6817 3000 One Shell Plaza Orlando, Florida 82803 Houston, Texas 77002 Somervell County Public Library G. W. Oprea, Jr. P. O. Box 417 Executive Vice President Glen Rose, Texas 76403 Houston Lighting & Power Company P. O. Box 1700 Maynard Human, General Manager Houston, Texas 77001 Western Farmers Electric Coop.

P. O. Box 429 W. S. Robson, General Manager Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. James E. Monahan Route 6, Building 102 Executive Vice President and Victoria Regional Airport General manager Victoria, Texas 77901 Brazos Electric Power Coop. , Inc.

P. O. Box 6296 Michael I. Miller, Esquire Waco, Texas 76706 Richard E. Powell, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Judith Harris, Esquire One First National Plaza Department of Justice Chicago, Illinois 60603 P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C. 20044

~

David M. Stahl, Esquire Thomas G. Ryan, Esquire

• Jerome Saltzman, Chief Isham, Lincoln & Beale Antitrust & Indemnity Group One First National Plaza Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. 20555 Knoland J. Plucknett Jay M. Galt, Esquire Executive Director Looney, Nichols, Johnson &

Committee on Power for the Hayes Southwest, Inc. 219 Couch Drive 5541 Skelly Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Robert E. Cohn, Esq.

R. Bruce Whitney, Esq. Richard J. Leidl, Esq.

Air Products and Chemicals, Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook, Inc. & Knapp P.O. Box 538 818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Allentown, PA 18105 Washington, D.C. 20006 Stanley Baumblatt, Esq. Paul M. King, Esq.

Union Carbide Corporation PPG Industries, Inc.

270 Park Avenue One Gateway Center New York, New York 10017 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 John Stapleton, Esq. Jonathan Day, Esq.

Monsanto Company Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook 800 North Lindbergh & Knapp St. Louis, Missouri 63166 1100 Esperson Building Houston, Texas 77002 Ross Austin, Esq.

E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Wilmington, Delaware 19898 kl k'b Mar 6 R. Poirier Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas February 23, 1979 Law Offices of:

Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 202-333-4500