ML19323A174
| ML19323A174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak, 05000449  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004170351 | |
| Download: ML19323A174 (5) | |
Text
-_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCETED
'C L5NRC Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman Michael ~L. Glaser, Esquire, Member 3:
ApR 111980 > Ul Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Member Officc olthe Secretsry
& Smica -
cod.23 ' ibm 44 n....L /,, ' ~
In the Matter of
)
s p,
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A (South Texas Proj ect,
)
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 EXTENDING PROCEDURAL DATES, AND DIRECTING CONSOLIDATION (April 10, 1980)
I.
On April 2, 1980, a Joint Motion for a 30-day extension of procedural dates was filed by the Staff, Central and South West Corporation (CSW), Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P), Texas Utilities Gen'erating Company (TUGCO), City of Austin, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Medina Electric Cooperative, and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of vg3
- nyn:e Texas, Inc. (Tex-La).
This motion stated that settlement negotiations were under way among certain private parties, and that a modest extension of time would further the Commission'.s policy of encourag-ing fair and reasonable compromise settlements.
A response was filed by the Department of Justice on April 4, 1980, taking no position
~
with respect to the Joint Motion for an extension of_ time.
8004170 M
! [
f i
The Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas (Brownsville) filed an opposition to the Joint Motion on April 3, 1980,
[
attaching an affidavit of Robert E. Roundtree.
Brownsville opposed j
an extension of time because it alleged that it had been excluded from the negotiations, and that the information it had indicated to it that the proposed negotiated arrangements would not solve the antitrust problems.
The Board scheduled arguments on the Joint Motion and other matters for April 11, 1980.
After the Board had rejected several i
attempts by counsel to dispose of the matter by a conference telephone
{
call, a joint motion for an expedited decision was filed on April 7, 1980.
In order to accommodate the parties, arguments on the motions t
were held in Bethesda, Maryland on April 9, 1980 and all parties and counsel were fully heard, f
I Brownsville's affidavit regarding the information it allegedly had received regarding settlement negotiations, as well as its letter requesting participation in negotiations, were received in support i
of its opposition (10 CFR 52.730(c)).
counsel for the negotiating parties were permitted to state the facts as they understood them regarding the status and effect of negotiations, but they were directed to file promptly affidavits or evidence as to facts relied upon in their joint motion.
All affidavits and other' documents received will be bound. into and become part of the transcript of hearing on the joint motion.
These additional affidavits were filed by the negotiating parties on April 10, 1980.
l e
. Upon considering the arguments of counsel and all of the circum-stances surrounding the instant proceedings, the Board concludes that a 30-day extension of time for procedural matters would be an appropriate furtherance of the Commission's policy to encourage the
" fair and reasonable settlement" of contested proceedings (10 CFR 52.759).
However, care must be exercised not to delay unduly the commencement and conclusion of an evidentiary hearing necessary to make a $105c(5) finding as to any parties or issues not resolved by settlement (42 U.S.C. 2135 (c) (5)).
Accordingly, the Board enters the following Order:
(1)
The Joint Motion for a 30-day extension of time for procedural matters is granted.
(2)
The Schedule adopted by our Order dated December 14, 1979 is amended as follows:
Filing of witness lists, concise May 14, 1980 summaries of testimony, initialed exhibits, and trial briefs by the Staff, Justice and other complain-ing parties.
Filing of witness lists, concise May 28, 1980 summaries of testimony, initialed exhibits, and trial briefs by HL&P, TUGC0 and other responding parties.
Final prehearing conference June 5, 1980 pursuant to 10 CFR 52.752.
The evidentiary hearing will not commence prior to June 16, 1980, and the exact date will be fixed by Order and Notice entered not later than June 1, 1980.
I
(3)
The parties shall file with the Board a written status report on negotiations on or before May 9,
[
1980.
II.
During a prehearing conference on March 7, 1980, the Board sua sponte raised the issue of consolidation of the South Texas and Comanche Peak antitrust review proceedings, and requested the views of counsel (Tr. 682).
The Staff filed its views on March 17, setting forth considerations which weighed against consolidation, but noting I
other and contrary factors which must also be weighed.
CSW filed a statement opposing consolidation.
HL&P elected not to submit comments on this question, but clarified the record to show that it does not intend to sponsor or rely on the Stagg Study as part of its defense (Letter to Board dated March 21, 1980).
This clarification probably helps resolve one of the negative aspects to consolidation raised by the Staff.
TUGC0 urged the full consolidation of the two proceedings for hearing.
Brownsville originally took no position on consolida-tion provided that it had broad rights of cross-examination.
Subsequently, it opposed the suggestion of CSW and the Staff that the Comanche Peak proceeding go to evidentiary hearing first, and now supports consolidation with adequate protection of rights of cross-examination.
Although neither alternative is free of procedural problems, j
the Board concludes that consolidation is more likely to conserve l
5-time and adjudicatory resources.
NRC antitrust proceedings tend to be lengthy and to involve numerous witnesses and hundreds of exhibits..
There are many common issues and parties, and consolidation would prevent holding two evidentiary hearings.
Discrete procedures can be adopted when necessary to prevent any hardship or injustice which might occasionally arise from a joinder for trial purposes.
The two proceedings will be consolidated for pretrial and evidentiary hearing purposes.
i III.
On April 4, 1980, there were filed two Consent Motions for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Motions to Compel Production of Documents.
Said motions were filed by the counsel representing Southwest Texas Electric Cooperative and Mr. Elton McGinnes, and Midwest Electric Cooperative and Mr. Parker Wetzel.
Therein, we were advised that HL&P consents to the two-week enlargement of time requested to prepare responses.
The instant motions are granted.
It is so ordered.
i FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
b
\\t-
/
b Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of April 1980.
-