ML19291C297
| ML19291C297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-575, NUDOCS 8001230339 | |
| Download: ML19291C297 (3) | |
Text
l%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k,s.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
/
5 c iL #b ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g)(,
N O$ch i[\\8dNh*;
I Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman e
Michael C.
Farrar g
4 ^0 9 5
Thomas S. Moore
\\
$h Q
JAN 14
,i;p\\0 '
c
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A
_e t _al.
)
50-499A
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A
_e t _al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Messrs. E. W. Barnett, Houston, Texas, and J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Washington, D.
C.,
for the Houston Lighting and Power Company.
Messrs. Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., and C. Dennis Ahearn, Washington, D.
C.,
for the Texas Utilities Generating Company.
Messrs. Michael I. Miller and David M.
Stahl and Ms. Martha E.
Gibbs, Chicago, Illinois, for the Central Power and Light Company and the Central and South West Corporation, et al.
Mr. Marc R.
Poirier, Washington, D.
C.,
for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas.
Ms. Susan Braden Cyphert, Mr. Frederick H.
Parmenter, Ms. Nancy Luque and Mr.-David A.
Dopsovic, for the United States Department of Justice.
Mr. Frederic D. Chanania and Ms. Ann Hodgdon for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
8
' "337 092 %2
. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER January 14, 1980 (ALAB-575)
The Houston Lighting and Power Company (Hous ton), sup-ported by the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO), has petitioned us to undertake an interlocutory review (by way of directed certification 1/) of the Licensing Board's October 5, 1979 order in these two antitrust proceedings.
LBP-79-27, 10 NRC In that order, the Board denied motions filed by Houston and TUGCO seeking certain specified relief.
The mo-tions were founded on the theory that other parties to the proceedings, Central Power and Light Company and its privies, are precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from now relitigating issues said to have been re-solved against Central in West Texas Utilities v. Texas Electric Service Co., 470 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Tex. 1979),
appeal pending, No. 79-2677.(5th Cir.).
For the reasons stated in its opinion, the Board found neither doctrine to be applicable in the circumstances of this case.
_1/
See 10 CFR 2.718(i); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478 (1975).
1792 353
. Based upon a full consideration of the papers before us
/, we (1) grant directed certification; and (2) affirm 2
3/
summarily on the opinion below.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
MM N
C.
Je Bishop i
Secre(t(ry to the a
Appeal Board
--2/
All of the parties briefed not merely the question of whether interlocutory appellate review was warranted but, as well, the merits of the controversy.
See our unpublished orders of November 13 and December 18, 1979.
--3/
Although the Houston petition did not raise the point, the TUGCO response asserted that the Licensing Board failed to apply properly the summary disposition pro-visions in the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 2.749.
We regard that assertion as being so insub-stantial as to require no extended discussion.
It suffices to note that, the Board having decided
- and, s
as we have determined, correctly) the res judicata and collateral estoppel questions against TUGCO and Houston, there was no possible basis for awarding summary dis-position to either of those parties.
In these circum-stances, there is nothing to commend the argument that Central was required to do more than it had done to counter TUGCO's statement of assertedly undisputed facts -- which consisted of nothing more than a recita-tion of the district court findings and was accompanied by no independent support for the " facts" contained therein.
1792 354