ML19331C665
| ML19331C665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008190309 | |
| Download: ML19331C665 (3) | |
Text
.
O)
S N
DCC1GT2D d
USNRC 9
AUG 141980 > b OW M OI AMO Cf&e of the Sccntarf
]
NUCEAR REGL'LGEY CCttESSION 5
mes.g a myica
/
Emch
&l e.ru.e. THE ATCBEC SAFEI"i AND LICENSING BOARD
/'cv ru In the Matter of
)
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A HOUS' ION LIGEI'U & POWE CWPANY
)
50 l99A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANIONIO
)
)
CDTRAL PCMER AND LIGE CWPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A (South Texas Project, thit Nos.
)
50-446A 1 and 2)
)
TEXAS LTILITIES GENERATING
)
WMPANY, et al.
)
(Comanche Peak Stem:n Electric
)
Station, Lhits 1 and 2)
)
ORDER FOLIBENG RECONSIDrRATION OF FARW 7,1980 ORDER KFR PRODCCIION OF DOCWE!ES (August 13, 1980)
I On March 7,1980, the Licensing Board by an oral discovery ruling granted the joint notion of the Staff and the Depcet of Justice to ccupel the production of and deposition testineny abcut certain docu ents in the possessice of Texas Utilities Generating Coccany (TUGCO) and Houston Lighting and Power Cocpany (HL & P).1 Tnese doc: rents consisted of studies (largely cc=puter printouts) stich assessed the feasibility and cost of interconnecticns between the Texas Interecnnected Systems (TIS) and the Sou:9mst Power Pool (SWP). 2 Petitions seeking directed cer d ication and review see filed with the A: peal Board by Ce-tral & South West Corporation (CSW), EL & P and TEX:0.
Wnile the ratter ws pending before the Arpeal Ecard' following oral arguments by counsel, the Licensing 3 card en July 16, 1980, indicated by a Me::rranden to the Appeal Board that it wished to reccasider its March 7 discovery crder. Such caportunity fc-recensideratica was desired in the light of extensive settle:ent hN!
- 1. Tr. 6C4
- 2. 1 103-A
.800819u 309 I# /
_2_
negotiations ccaducted by the parties since April 2.
By an Order dated July 18, 1950, the Aopeal Eccrd indicated that it saw no good reascn why de licensing Board should be precluded from reconsidering its prior order. Accordingly, the petiticns for directed certificarica wre denied without crejudice to their resexsission following issuance of cur detedation en reconsideration.
Pursuant to notice, a prehearing conference was held on August 8,1980, at Bethesda, Maryland to hear frcm counsel en the reconsideration ratter. A joint
- 2 icn was filed by the Srn4 and Depart ent of Justice en July 25, seeMng
~
cladfica ica of the Board's Decisica to reconsider its prior ruling and the establishaen: of a schedule for production of the settlenent documents. Replies to this ration were filed by h7 & P cn August 1 and by TECO cn August 4.
The Board desired to recensider its March 7 discovery ruling because of the possibility that the on-going extensive settleaent negotiations bad covered the questicas of technical and econocic feasibility of intercomections sufficiently to obviate the necessity of such discovery. Certain agreements Fave been executed ecve-ing interecnnecticas by scoe of de parties, sich are the subject of proceedings before EC. The ibpc ment of Justice has also indicated to this Ecard en ::o recent occasions that it is ready for ~ial ir. dis proceeding, @ich right indicate that discovery of the Docume.ts in cuestion is not necessary for its trial precaratien. Ecaver, after hearing frce counsel the Eca-d concludes da there have been no sucerve.ing develoc:ents sufficient to alter the basis of its p-ic-discovery ruling.
It arcears that the Decc ent of Justice centends dat the doc :nents in cuestien bear unen :Se sisni#icance of the DC interec=ecticn proposal new pending before ERC, and de possible desir abili-y of an AC interec=ecticn instead (Tr. 977).
The subsecuen se--lee.: negotiatiens have apparently nc: incluced the da:A anc,.n c=n:1cn cu.cn :.u.e,separt:aen:.ce.,leves can cnly ceae tren de requested
. st.xiies Cr. 985, 990-91). The Staff takes a similar positica on these matters Cr. 996-1005,1010-11). There is no cententica by any of the utilities involved that such data.has otherwise been f :rnished or cade available in the course of the present settlement negotiations among the parties (Tr.1013-17,1031-36). These studies are the caly ones made by any party, and the cost of duplicating the wrk muld be in the order of several hundred thousand dollars (Tr. 1043-45).
For the reasons stated above, the Board adheres to its discovery ruling of Farch 7,1980 (Tr. 604). Tne Documents in question may be the subject of a protective order toen an a:propriate showing of a need for confidentiality, including
- .n en w a inspecti.i if requested (Tr.1021).
II Tne follodng revised schedule shall govern the further course of these proceedings:
- 1. Sentecber 12, 1980 -- Status reocres on settlement shall be subc:itted to the Scard by 12:30 p. c. ; including prooosed settlements on license ccaditicas, unresolved issues, and suggestions for hearing procedures.
- 2. Seo W v.: 15, 1980 -- Prehearing Conference, to settle reraining issues.
l
- 3. October 15, 1980 -- Trial briefs, lists of witnesses and exhibits, and s
Mes of tes-M to be filed.
l
- 4. Ocrober 22, 1980 -- Final Prehearing Conference.
- 5. Yoveder 5,1980 -- Ccrmeement of Evidentiarv Heari.g.
l
?
^
a..
L I/
l
& > i. ' -
V :rs.~ n%; >.l.. -) d.. t f u ~.. i -
~
- 7 go Marshall E. Miller, Chairran Atr.ic Safety & Licensing 3 card Dated at 3ethesda, Yary's.d l
this 13th day of Aug. 1980.
,