ML19340C177
| ML19340C177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1980 |
| From: | Biddle C, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011140093 | |
| Download: ML19340C177 (13) | |
Text
__
- .G3
_,.. m - r -.;6 A
~~
- 3 November 6, 1 g
DOCKETED
.4 30, y
- g
..,.~.
...a.~-
9 NOV 10198)> -9 Offles of theSurster
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
Gesteting & 24pite NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Oranch s
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD iG In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear S
Generating Station, Unit S
No. 1)
S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM TEXPIRG'S EXPERT WITNESSES In the course of discovery in this proceeding, TexPirg has identified to Applicant two of its expcrt witnesses.
TexPirg represents that Mr. Andrew Sansom will testify concerning TexPirg Contention No. 7a-c on energy conservation.
TexPirg also represents that Mr. Gregory Skie will testify concerning TexPirg Contention No. 5 on solid waste combustion.
Applicant deposed Mr. Sansom on April 16, 1979, and Mr. Skie on recember 20, 1979.
During the course of these depositions, TexPirg's expert witnesses represented that certain information and documents used in the preparation of their testimony would be available before trial in this proceeding.
As noted, these representations were made eighteen (18) months and ten (10) months ago.
Applicant also requested information concerning the qualifications and opinions of these experts through h
p%,
t 8011140 093 6
i interrogatories served before the taking of depositions.
Despite formal prompting by Applicant's counsel (see two attached letters) and several informal telephone consultations, TexPirg has still not yet produced the information requested in these interrogatories and depositions.
TexPirg has not shown any good cause for failure to produce the information critical to their expert witnesses' testimony.
This information, which Applicant has long sought from TexPirg, is important to Applicant's preparation of its affirmative case as well as cross-examination of TexPirg's witnesses.
Therefore, Applicant requests the Board to issue an order in the form attached hereto to require TexPirg to immediately respond to the long-outstanding discovery requests.
Respectfully submitted, 7J e
OF COUNS5L:
J.
Gregori Copeland y/
C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS Darrell Hancock 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Housten, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
David B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Member Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr., Member In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 CP 5
(Allens Creek Nuclear S
Generating Station, Unit 11 S
ORDER (November 1980)
On November 6, 1980, the Applicant filed a Motion 1
to Compel Responses and Documents From TexPirg's Expert l
Witnesses.
In this Motion, Applicant requests that TexPirg
)
be compelled to respond to certain discovery requeats con-cerning the testimony of two expert witnesses which have been outstanding for over ten months.
Applicant asserts that TexPirg has not objected to these requests but also has shown no inclination to properly respond.
Finally, Applicant main-tains that these responses from TexPirg are necessary for the preparation of Applicant's cross-examination of the witnesses and its own prepared testimony.
Applicant's Motion is granted.
Within ten (10) days of the Order TexPirg shall serve proper responses to the following discovery requests:
~
1.
Identify each commercial concern and residential client Andrew Sansom has provided with energy conservation consultation in the last eighteen months and briefly summarize the engineering and management techniques prescribed for each.
2.
Produce all studies and documents Andrew Sansem will rely on in forecasting electricity demand elasticities and the correlation between rates and installation of conservation retrofits.
3.
Identify the electric generation facility in St.
Louis which Andrew Sansom asserts uses methane from waste.
Specifically indicate (al the amount of waste converted per day (ton / day) ; (bl the amount of methane produced in conversion (Mcf/ day) ; (c) the facility's total steam yield; (d) the facility's total thermal efficiency (waste Btu input vs. steam Btu output) ; (e) the facility's capacity factor; and (f) the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
4.
Produce the studies. relied upon by Andrew Sansom that show the average number of days during the year in Houston with substantial cloud cover.
5.
The substance of the facts and opinions and a summary of the grounds for such opinions on all matters about i
which Mr. San 3cm is to testify for TexPirg.
6.
An exact and complete list of each person TexPirg intends to call as a witness at the hearing to testify relating to Contention No. 5 (solid waste combustion) or any part of this contention and as to each witness to be offered as an expert:
(i) the person's qualifications as an expert; (ii) the substance of the facts and opinions to which such person is expected to testify; and (iii) a summary of the grounds for such peruon's opinions.
7.
All documents used or relied upon by Gregory Skie in calculating that the solid waste of Houston can be used to generate 469 Mw(el.
8.
The cost of electricity (peak Kwh) calculated by Gregory Skie to be generated by a solid waste fac.lity which i
would be located in the Houston area and a description of all assumptions and data used in calculating such cost.
9.
Gregory Skie's best figure for the raaximum Mw(e) output of the Dade County plant.
10.
An exact citation for Gregory Skie's assertion that 80 percent of the municipal refuse is combustible.
11.
A specific source for Gregory Skie's assertion that the conversion of municipal waste into electricity can be 40 percent efficient.
12.
Gregory Skie's documentation on the operating experience of nuclear power plants and solid waste plants.
13.
All sources used by Gregory Skie for comparison of air pollution from solid waste combustion plants and other plants..-
l 14.
Definitive description of what area Gregory Skie asserts could be serviced by a transportation system or arrange-ment which is presently available to collect municipal waste for combustion at an electric generation plant.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 7
this day of November, 1980.
_4
~
)
December 12, 1979 l
l i
Mr. James Scott 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074
Dear Mr. Scott:
This is to confirm that Clarence Johnson will appear by agreement for the taking of his deposition on December 18, 1979.
The deposition will take place in my office on the 29th floor of One Shell Plaza.
For Mr. Johnson's convenience we will begin at 10:00 A.M. and for your convenience we will terminate the deposition at 5:00 P.M.
If we have not completed the deposition by 5:00 P.M. on the 18th, we will continua it on DecerJoer 19.
It is my understanding from discussions with you that there is some doubt as to whether Mr. Sansom and Mr.
Skie are going to be called by TexPirg as expert witnesses.
This is to confirm that I would like to take the depositions of Mr. Sansom and Mr. Skie before January 4, 1980 if they are st2.ll going to be called as expert witnesses by Te:Pirg.
In addition, you have advised that you are planning to retain other expert witnesses besides Mr. Sansom and Mr.
Skie, but have not done so to date.
As I advised you during our phone cor., ersation, we would expect that when you do retain these additir'al expert witnesses that you would supplement your interrogatory answers calling for designation of expert witnesses and we would then take their depositions.
If you do plan to call Mr. Skie and Mr. Sansom as witnesses, we need to receive certain documents from you l
prior to their deposition.
In L uston Lighting & Power j
Company's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Documents we requested the following items:
l l
n
^
\\
l l
Mr. James Scott Page 2 "3.
Identify each commercial concern and residential client Andrew Sansom has provided with energy conservation consultation in the last eighteen months and briefly summarize the engineering and management techniques prescribed for each; 8.
Explain how the ' expenditure of funds in the range of.50 percent that proposed for ACNGS would mean that the remaining demand for electrical power could be met with solid waste combuscion...'
Describe particularly how you arrived at the conclusion that this amount of investment will reduce projected power demand to an amount equal to a solid waste generation plant by 1987; 17.
Referring to pages 39 and 41 of Sanson's decosition, produce all studies and documents TexPirg a2d/or
'ts expert witness will rely on in forecasting electricity demand elasticities and the correlation between rates and installation of conservation retrofits; 20.
Referring to page 93 of Sansom's deposition, identify the electric generation facility in St. Louis which uses methane from waste.
Specifically indicate (a) the amount of waste converted per day (ton / day);
(b) the amount of methane produced in conversion (Mcf/ day); (c) the facility's total steam yield; (d) the facility's total thermal efficiency (waste Stu input vs. steam Stu output) ; (e) the facility's capacity factor; and (f) the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity generated; and 23.
Referring to page 101 of Sansom's deposition, produce the studies that show the average number of days during the year in Eouston with substantial cloud cover."
l 1
i
i l
)
i I
J l
Mr. James Scott Page 3 TexPirg answered that these documents were available for inspection and copying at the Energy Extension Service office at the University of Houston.
We havt contacted Mr. Barry Worthington and Ms. Barby Barb ara at tnat office and they have advised us that they could not identify the foregoing documents.
Accordingly, we request that you provido us with copies of the documents before the depositions of Mr. Skie and Mr., Sansom.
Additionally, in Interrogatory No. 15, we requested that yoa provide the substance of the facts and opinions and a sumanary of the grounds for such opinions on all matters about which Mr. Sansom is expected to testify for TexPirg.
TexPirg responded that the testimony was in preparation.
We now request that you provide us with either a draft of that testimony, and if it does not exist I request that you now provide a response to the interrogatory.
Finally, in response to Interrogatory Nos. 7e, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22d and 22e, TexPirg responded that work was in progress on these matters.
Accordingly, we expect to receive copies of any work product related to these interrogatories prior to the depositions of Mr. Skie and
~
Mr. Sansom.
I also request that you produce in advance any and all workpapers prepared by Mr. Skie and Mr. Sansom.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours, J. Gregory Ccpeland Attorney for Houston Lighting & Power Cor:pany JGC/66 bc:
Mr. Newman Mr. Biddle Mr. Betterton Mr. McGuire Mr. White a
BAKER & BOTTS oN E SM ELL 8642A HOUSTON. TEXAS 77oo2 WASHINo?ON OFFICE TELEX 76*7779 Pol PENNSYLVANIA AVE M. W.
TELECO M MU NICATIO N WASMfNGTON O C 2000e (713 229.lS23 HOUSTON TELEPHONE 1202'457-5500 (202)457-5538 WASHINGTOPl. EL C.
H-2412-701C HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
October 15, 1980 Mr. James M.
Scott 13935 Ivy Mount Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Dear Mr. Scott:
In the past, TexPirg has provided several indefinite answers to discovery requests by Applicant concerning TexPirg Contention No. 5 on solid waste combustion as an alternative energy source.
Listed on the attached sheet are those pieces of information which TexPirg represented would be available before trial in this proceeding.
Indicated in parentheses are references to the original interrogatory or deposition transcript page where these declarations by TexPirg may be found.
I have attached copies of the deposition pages for your convenience.
As you are aware, testimony on this issue must be filed by December 18, 1980.
Therefore, we must have from TexPirg the promised responses or a direct statement that TexPirg does not have and will not produce the information cited.
If we-do not receive such negative declarations or the requested information in its entirety within the next ten (10) days, we will be forced to immediately take the matter before the Board.
I would be glad to discuss by telephone any problems TexPirg has in producing the information has promised.
Very truly yours, j
M C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
CTB:90 Attorney for Houston Lighitng att.
and Power Company o
1.
An exact and complete list of each person TexPirg intends to call as a witness at the hearing to l
testify relating to this Contention or any part of this Contention and as to each witness to be offered as an expert:
(i) the person's qualifications as an expert; (ii) is expected to testify; and (iii) a summary of the grounds for such person's opinions.
(First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents from Houston Lighting
& Power Company, Interrogory No. 3 and TexPirg's response) 2.
All documents used or relied upon in calculating that the solid waste of Houston can be used to generate 469 Mw(e)..
CDeposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 32) 3.
The cost of electricty (peak Kwh) generated by-a solid waste facility which would be located in the Houston area and a description of all assumptions and data used in calculating such cost.
(First set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents from Houston Lighting &
Power Company, Interrogatory No. 6 and TexPirg's response; Deposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 96; Deposition of Andrew Sampson, Tr. 93-94) 4.
TexPirg's best figure for the maximum Mw(e) output of the Dade County plant.
Skie, Tr. 27).
(Deposition of Gregory 5.
An exact citation for the assertion that 80 percent of the municipal refuse is ecmbustible.
(Deposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 401 6.
A specific source for TexPirg's assertion that the conversion of municipal waste into electricity can be 40 4
percent efficient.
(Deposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 56) 7.
TexPirg's documentation on the operating experience of nuclear power plants and solid waste plants.
(. Deposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 78) 8.
All sources for comparison of air pollution from solid waste combustion plants and other plants.
(Deposition of Gregory Skie, Tr. 86) 9.
Definitive description of what area could be serviced.by a transportation system or arrangement which is presently available to collect municipal waste for combustion at an electric generation plant.
Skie, Tr. 92)
(Deposition of Gregory i
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER 5
COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear S
Generating Station, Unit S
No. 1)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Motion to Ccmpel Responses and Documents fron TexPirg's Expert Witnesses in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 6th day of November, 1980.
Mr. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Ms. fasan Plettman Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. David Preister Board Panel Texas Attorney General's U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Office Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr.
E.
Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A
' Honorable Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Honorable Leroy H. Grebe U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 i
Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory l
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 l
l Mr. Bryan L. Baker Mr. D. Marrack 1118 Montrose 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77019 Bellaire. Texas 77401 Mr. Stephen A.
Doggett Mr. J. Morgan Bishop P. O. Box 592 11418 Oak Spring Rosenbe~rg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77043 Mr. W. Matthew Perrenod Mr. John F. Doherty 4070 Merrick 4327 Alconbury Houston, Texas 77025 Houston, Texas 77021 Mr. James M.
Scott Ms. Brenda McCorkle 13935 Ivy Mount 6140 Darnell Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Houston, Texas 77074 Mr. Richard Black Mr. Wayne E.
Rentfro Staff Counsel P.
O. Box 1335 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Carro Hinderstein 609 Fannin, Suite 521 Mr. William-Schuessler Houston, Texas 77002 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Mr.
F.
H.
Potthoff 7200 Shadyvilla, No. 110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Houston, Texas 77055 Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 C.
Thomas Biddle, Jr.
V