ML19322E288
| ML19322E288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1980 |
| From: | Blume M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322E289 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003270109 | |
| Download: ML19322E288 (8) | |
Text
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANT 0RIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(SouthTexasProject, Unit
)
Nos. I and 2)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket 'os. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-445A (Comar.che Peo'. Staam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
l NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES BY HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Staff requests this Board to order, pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.740(f), supple-mental responses to Staff's discovery requests outlined below.
Though Staff is aware that the time for factual discovery ends March 14, 1980, the neces-sity for this motion arises due to Houston's failure to abide by earlier agreements with Staff counsel, and in one case by its failur~e to supplement its document production after two requests by Staff.
I.
On January 2,1980, Houston Lighting & Power Company filed its " Response To The NRC Staff's Third Set of Interrogatories ano Requests For Production of Documents." Request No. 3 asks Houston to:
Provide all documents not heretofore produced which:
. r.
7
/ t)9.
i 8003270
t,
- t (a) relate in any way to engineering or economic (including engineering economics) assessments of intrastate operation of electric utility companies in Texas, and/or to interconnected operations between interstate and (Texas) intrastate electric utility systems... This request includes, but is not limited to, stability, load flow, and loss of load probability studies analyzing the effects of interconnections between SWPP and ERCOT on ERCOT systems.
(b)
Relate to consideration of Jc'ntly owned generating or trans-mission facilities, and/or purchases, exchanges, or sales of energy or capacity which would include, as an alternative, provision of transmission services by or to HL&P., TP&L, and/or TESCO...
As the attached transcript excerpts and letters between counsel for the NRC Staff and Houston Lighting & Power indicate, Staff counsel requested of Houston counsel on February 7,1980 at the deposition of Mr. D. E. Simo'ns, documents relating to Houston's assessment of the impact *of its contemplated sale and buy-back of a generating unit being built by TU, and copies of documents listed in Appendix C to the Department of Justice's Motion to.
Compel Production of Documents, dated July 11, 1979, document numbers 207,
.208, 238, 242, and 260. As the attached transcript excerpt indicates, counsel for HL&P agreed to produce the latter documents.
Jo
Staff counsel again requested the production of such documents on Febru-ary 11 by letter, following the deposition of Mr. Simmons. Houston counsel's letter of February 19 in response indicates that he did not recall the first request regarding the sale and buy-back and thus would not produce such documents; nor was he able to respond to the second request, since the docu-ments originally withheld in January of 1979 had been misplaced.
- Instead, when asked by Staff Counsel on March 5 whether any progress had been made toward locating the " misplaced" documents, Houston counsel offered to make available for inspection a roomful of documents at Stagg Systems, Inc., in New York City in urder that Staff counsel might find the five documents.
II.
In Staff's "Init sal Interrogatories and Requests For Production of Documents Propounded To Houston Lighting & Power Company and Texas Utilities Generating Company," filed January 15, 1979, the following request was made:
8.
(a) List TU/HL&P's projected loeds, generating capacity, and installed generating reserves for the years 1979-89.
(b) Will TU/HL&P's current and planned installed reserves for the years 1979-89 satisfy TIS reliability criteria? If not, detail
~
the entities with which TV/HL&P plans to deal, and in what ways N.g., purchases of firm and economy energy) to assure the relia-bility of its system.
(c) Does TV/HL&P contend that interconnection with interstate utility entities can be of no assistance in terms of offering
greater flexibility to alleviate capacity shortages and excesses.
Explair in detail.
(d)
Provide all documents which relate to this interrogatory.
In an effort to work informally with Houston regarding request No. 8, set forth above, Staff reviewed excerpts of a Houston " Corporate Study." Staff on February 22, 1980 requested the complete study, along with any supple-ments or references thereto. Houston has made no response to this request, though counsel for Houston had agreed to provide tne complete study under a protective order, if requested.
Staff has attached a proposed protective order to facilitate Houston's production of these documents.
III. Conclusion Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(f), the Staff respectfully requests this Board to compel Houston's production of the above-requested documents. At this late date, Hous ton's failure to provide the documents listed above can only serve to impede Staff's preparatio-for the presentation of its direct case.
4 As Houston can have no objection to the production of documents it has already offered, Staff requests an expedited decisional process for the I
i I i t
resolution of this motion. Thus, Staff suggests that Houston's response be submitted no later than March 21, with a Board decision soon thereafter.
Respectfully submitted, f.A."%
Michael B. Blume
)
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of March,1980.
{
k
$6 00 h.
1 -
)[2 l
- 1 otipulato to mo which cnso you hevo?
2 uq. Cop CL A'n:
All right.
'tand me 3
your list and let's go off the record and I'll nark them.
I 4
i 1
5 (Discussion of f the record.)
I 6
i 7
Q.
4y questions were going to lead to docuacnt 8
Nunber 239 which i s December 13th, 1977, dated.
i 9
- 44. CODCLAND:
Let's see.
P l
10 MR. ALUM :
That is one of the 11 documents you checked off as being produced.
Just for 1
12 clarity sake, could I read into the records docu,ents vou 13 checked off on this list?
14 MR. COPELAND:
They are in here.
I i
15 don't see any reason to waste the tine.
15
- R.
BL'1"C:
1911, it vill be very 17 quick.
Mr. Cooeland in an off the record discussion with j
13 counsel has indicat7d that 'touston has or will produce to 19 the Department of Justice locunents listed in \\ppendix C 20 to the Department's e.otion to compel production dated 21 July 11, 1979, nunbors 207, 209, 231, 242, ?. 5 9 and that's 22 it.
I request, Greg, that the Staf f receive cocios of 23 those documents as well.
h 24 Q.
Mr. 31nnons, I'm going to hand you Appendix C l<?
25 to that notion and I'm going to ask you to l uo.; at all 1
,._AN w
n
. = = - + -
=
/V '
l I
cantoxt.
i.
2 MR. 07P"LA';D:
Yes, I agree, so l
l 3
let's go on.
I l
4 M3. BLU*E:
So, that's noot.
5 Q.
Did anyone in the !!ouston organization, "r.
s 6
Sinnens, evaluate the inpcet of a sale and buy-beck on 7
Ilouston financially?
3 A.
Of Forest Grovo?
9 Q.
Yes, sir.
l l
10 A.
Yes.
1 11 Q.
And who did that?
12 A.
Concone in our accounting department.
I 13 Q.
And do you know who the head of the accounting i
14 department is?
?
l 15 A.
Mr. H.
9.
Dean.
15 Q.
..nd do you know who reque:ted such an analysis 17 of the accounting departnent?
18 A.
No, I do not.
i 19 Q.
And how did you become aware of this analysis?
20 A.
It was explained in one of the ncetings I 21 attended.
l l
22 Q.
Do you recall whether it was the neeting with 23 Mr. Jordan?
l 24 A.
Yes, it was.
, p, 25 Q.
Was tais analysis i n w r i t i ner.'
t i(
1 A.
Tharo w s ccme written inforucticn involvcd in 2
the analysis.
l 3
Q.
Wat type of information, if you recall?
l i
4 A.
Just numbers and comments.
There was no l
5 formal report prepared, if that's your question.
I 6
Q.
Did 'tr.
Dean present this report?
7
- m. COPELAND:
lie just said there
'I was no report.
9 Q.
Did vr. Dean present the infor.*ation on the 10 financial impact on !Iouston?
11 A.
I don't recall.
I just, I don't remember that 12 nuch about who was there.
If he was there, I'm sure he 13 would have presented it.
i 14 Q.
Do you recall anyone else who was present fron 15 the accounting departnent at that neeting?
15 A.
No, I do not, i
17 MR. BLU."::: Greg, I haven't had a l
13 chance to go through your latest production, but if those 19 documents aren'.t included. I would request them at this 1
20 tine.
k 21 M3. COPSLMID:
Send v.o a Ictter.
I 22 I'm not going to take to go back and read depositions.
j 23 W1. BLUf4E:
Fine.
24 Q.
And what is your recollection of the analysis j f.
7 25 of the impact on flouston financially unich was presented fk
- f ~S th D
D J
a
.c- _
.T W E O
M ~
M 'O 9****
- - - - - _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ - - -,, - - - _, - - _ - _. - _