ML19289F233
| ML19289F233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906040454 | |
| Download: ML19289F233 (2) | |
Text
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMEST ROOM g,,
- N UNITED STATES OF Ab' ERICA L7 NgcyB7 NUCLEAR REGUIAIORY COMISSION 3,Q pS j
3 cp,-j@,,
g g
,.o 6
In the Matter of
)
D S
)
ff*.
HOUSION LIGHTING & POWER COMPAW, ET AL.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A (South Texas Project,
)
50-499A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. )
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-446A Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER REGARDING BROWNSVILLE'S FDIION 'IO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUEENTS (April 23,1979)
On March 2, 1979, the South Texas Electric Cooperative and the Medina Cooperative (STEC/FEC) responded to interrogatories served by the Public Utilities Board of the City of Bromsville, Texas (Brownsville) on January 31, 1979.
Following extensions of time, Brownsville filed a motion to compel further production of documents on April 5, 1979.
STEC/MEC filed an opposition to such motion on April 13, 1979.
The documents whose production is disputed essentially involve files of STEC/FEC relating to its contract (August 9,1977) with the Bureau of Reclration for the purchase of hydroelectric power to be generated at Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam en the Rio Grande River.
Central Power and Light Company (CPL) is the only utility with transmission facilities in the vicinity of either dam, and on August 17, 1978, STEC/MEC entered into a transmission agree.ent with CPL for the delivery of this energy at mutually agreed points of.nterecnnection.
2236 044 7906040YS'[
There is no adequate showing by Brownsville that these files and doctrents are within the broad subject-matter relevancy of any issues in this proceeding which would justify their discovery. Neither is there a showing that the infonnation sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (10 CFR S2.740(b)(1)).
There appears to be an on-going dispute between Brownsville and STEC/
FEC over contract rights to this hydroelectric power, under a contract originally entered into with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, whose functions have now been transferred to the DepartInent of Energy. This dispute has no causal connection with any issue in this proceeding.
STEC/
FEC represents that they have produced for inspection and copying by Brownsville of all of their files relating to the negotiation with CPL of their Transmission Agreanent, their Interconnection Agrestent, and their general integration with CPL (Opposition By STECAEC to Brownsville's Motion to Compel, p. 4).
This production of documents and files appears to cover the relevant facts related to CPL, anc the controversy over hydroelectric power fran the em dams is beside the point here. Accordirs,1y, Brownsville's motion to canpel fuller responses as to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6(a)-(d), and 9(a) and (b) is denied.
It is so ordered.
FOR THE Al m IC SAFETY AND LICE:ISING EOARD l,
,/
.:'. /
i Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland tyi323rd'. day,ofApril1979.