ML19347B373
| ML19347B373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1980 |
| From: | Chanania F NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8010140525 | |
| Download: ML19347B373 (8) | |
Text
- _ _ _
- s i
UNITED STATES OF At1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AtlD LICEllSIf1G BOARD In the !!atter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
HRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAtt ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN, et al.
)
CENTRAL POWER AtiD LIGHT C0t1 patly
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ~NERATING NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPAtlY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
7/ OCC D RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO BROWNSVILLE'S MOTION FOR REVISION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE The ilRC Staff hereby submits this response in opposition to the Motion of Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas for Revision of Procedural Schedule (" Motion") filed on Monday, October 6,1980.
Under the procedural schedule established by the Licensing Board, Brownsville's trial brief is due on October 8,1980.1/ In light of the timing of Brownsville's Motion, which seeks-to change the procedures for a hearing as well as the time for filing briefs, the NRC Staff is able to file only this expedited and brief response in opposition to that Motion.
The understanding of the 'flRC Staff, at the conclusion of the Prehearing
-Conference of September 15, 1980, was two-fold:
(1) the Licensing Board if See Licensing Board Order of September 8,1980, in the above-captioned proceedings.
8 01014 0 Q(
J !
intended to adhere to the present schedule set for submission of trial briefs and the commencement of the hearing in the present proceedings.E and i.
(2) the Licensing Board intended to issue a Prehearing Conference Order following submission of comments by various parties on the proposed settle-1 l
ment license conditions for the Comanche Peak and South Texas proceedings.E Brownsville, however, has recently filed two pleadings which are inconsistent i
)
with the manner in which the Board apparently intends the parties to proceed 4
herein.
i i
j First, on September 25, 1980, Brownsville filed a Motion for Disapproval of i
f the Proposed Settlement License Conditions, in conjunction with its comments on those settlement conditions.
It is the position of the flRC Staff that the Board invited only comments on the proposed license conditions, not i
formal motions for disapproval which pennit responsive pleadings under the i
fiRC Rules of Practice.10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c).
Since Brownsville's trial l
brief is due on October 8th, no response from the Staff to Brownsville's motion appeared to be necessary since its response date to that motion would be October 15th. Unless and until the Board directs the parties to respond t
to Brownsville's tiotion for Disapproval, the Staff believes its obligation i
to file a responsive trial brief on October 22, 1980, would be the most appropriate means by which to meet Brownsville's objections to the settle-ment conditions.
l y
Prehearing Conference transcript, at 1022-1024 (September 15, 1980).
Jc. at 1024.
See also, flRC Staff's Fourth Status Report on Settlement, i
d
-y filed September 15, 1980.
i l
Second, Brownsville filed the instant Motion seeking a revision and extension of the existing procedural schedule to delay the submission of its trial brief until ten (10) days af ter the Board rules on the proposed settlement and "related matters."
In support of its Motion, Brownsville states that it had " anticipated introducing only such evidence as would appear necessary after the main protagonists" had presented evidence in these proceedings.
l Motion, at 2.
Now that the " main protagonists" (as characterized by Browns-ville) have reached a settlement, Brownsville indicates that it may be saddled with trial obligations which exceed its capabilities.
Brownsville
[
claims that an extension of time is necessary because the "present situation is confused and until clarified it is difficult if not impossible [for Brownsville] to know how to prepare for trial." Motion, at 5.
i j
The Staff is sympathetic with Brownsville's request for additional time insofar as the proposed settlement may cause Brownsville to shoulder greater evidentiary responsibilities than it may have anticipated. While a modest relaxation of the existing procedural dates may be appropriate to accommodate Brownsville, the Staff believes it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant the indeterminate extension of time requested by Brownsville.
- First, it is in the public interest that the Licensing Board proaptly consider the adequacy of the proposed settlement conditions. The alleged situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws which precipitated these proceedings will be cured by imposing the settlement conditions. The public interest requires that this alleged situation be remedied as soon as possible.
If the Board, prior to approval of the settlement conditions, deems it necessary j
i
t i,',.
1 f
to hear evidence from Brownsville pertaining to its objection's to the settle-ment conditions, the most expeditious consideration will occur only if i
Brownsville is required to submit its trial brief at the earliest possible date.
i One primary reason is that Brownsville, as an opponent of the settlement l
conditions, will have the burden of proving that the settlement conditions will not adequately renedy a " situation inconsistent" with the antitrust laws under section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In l
order to discharge this obligation, Brownsville would have to introduce evidence substantially similar, if not identical, to that which it would 4
i have to introduce in a plenary hearing to establish liability in which the 4
governmental parties did not actively participate. Thus, requiring Browns-ville to submit promptly a trial brief will cause acceleration of Brownsville's efforts to collect such evidence as will enable it to discharge its obligations to the Board, thereby expediting and facilitating the Board's consideration of the adequacy of the settlement conditions.
In this context, the Staff notes that in tendering the settlement conditions to the Board, the govern-mental parties have signified their belief that the settlement conditions eliminate the need for a plenary liability hearing, and that the active participation by the governmental parties in such a hearing would not be necessary.O 4
]
t.
4]
See NRC's Fourth Status Report on Settlement, at 2-3, and Stipulations attached thereto.
i 5-i A second reason for not granting Brownsville's request for revision of the
(
i procedural schedules and an indeteminate extension of time is that its request was made to the Board long af ter the settlement discussions were known to be progressing favorably towards a final settlenent, and also well I
af ter the principal complaining parties to these proceedings actually sub-i mitted the settlement conditions to the Licensing Board. The settlement conditions were tendered to the Board on September 15, 1980; ten days later, on September 25th, Brownsville submitted its comments on and motion for disapproval of the settlement conditions. At that time, Brownsville knew that it was obligated under a Licensing Board Order to file a trial brief by 4
i October 8,1980.
Notwithstanding the Board's confimation of all parties' obligation to adhere to the existing procedural datee at the September 15th i
i Prehearing Conference, Brownsville waited until two days before the date for i
filing trial briefs to request a full-scale revision of the procedural calendar. The Staff believes it is appropriate for the Board to consider i
j Brownsville's tardiness in ruling upon this Motion.
Accordingly, the Staff opposes Brownsville's Motion insofar as Brownsville I
j has requested revision of the procedural schedule and an indeteminate exten-sion of procedural dates, but does not oppose a modest extension of time to enable Brownsville to discharge its obligations to the Licensing Board.
l kespectfully submitted, M
v fredric D. Chanania Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of October,1980.
i W
-m w
-- m
--w-,1
---1,-<--n~~--
-4
=
-m
UNfTED STATES OF AMERfCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
) NPC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
) NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO BROWN 3-4 VILLE'S MOTION FOR REVISION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 7th day of October, 1980.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Robert Fabrikant; Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Donald A. Kaplan, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nancy A. Luque, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick H. Parmenter, Esq.
David A. Dopsovic, Esq.
Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
Rangeley Wallace, Esq.
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Mildred L. Calhoun, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Nancy H. McMillen, Esq.
P.O. Box 14141 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20044 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. William C. Price Washington, D.C.
20555 Central Power & Light Co.
P.O. Box 2121 Docketing and Service Section Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Office o' one Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G.W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President Washington, D.C.
20555
- Houston Lighting & Power Company R.L. Hancock, Director P.O. Box 1700 City of Austin Electric Utility Houston, Texas 77001 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Robert E. Bathen R.W. Beck & Associates Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 6817 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Orlando, Florida 32803 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Somervell County Public Library P.O. Box 417 i
Glen Rose, Texas 76043 g.
R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
John P. Mathis, Esq.
J.A. Bouknight, Esq.
Steven R. Hunsicker, Esq.
William J. Franklin, Esq.
Baker & Botts Peter G. Flynn, Esq.
Suite 300 Douglas G. Green, Esq.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Washington, D.C.
20006
& Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
J.K. Spruce, General Manager Washington, D.C.
20036 City Public Service Board P.O. Box 1771 Jerry L. Harris San Antonio, Texas 78296 Richard C. Balough Dan H. Davidson, City Manager Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
City of Austin Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
P.O. Box 1088 George Spiegel, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 David A. Giacalone, Esq.
Marc R. Poirier, Esq.
Jay Galt, Esq.
Alan J. Roth, Esq.
Jack P. Fite, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
219 Couch Drive Washington, D.C.
20037 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
~
Jon C. Wood, Esq.
Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
& Barrett Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
1500 Alamo National Building 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 4
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201 1
Mr. W.N. Woolsey Morgan Hunter, Esq.
Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore 1030 Petroleum Tower Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Building Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Dick Terrell Brown, Esq.
800 Milam Building Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
I C. Dennis Ahearn, Esq.
I E. William Barnett, Esq.
Leonard W. Belter, Esq.
I Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Melbert D. Schwarz, Esq.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Baker & Botts Douglas F. John, Esq.
3000 One Shell Plaza McDermott, Will ar.d Emery Houston, Texas 77002 1850 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1201 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Washington, D.C.
20006 Utility Finance Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Don R. Butler, Esq.
1225 South West Towers Washington, D.C.
-3 i
John W. Davidson, Esq.
Mr. G. Holman King i
Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Troilo West Texas Utilities Co.
1100 San Antonio Savings Building P.O. Box 841 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Abilene, Texas 79604 Linda Aaker Robert A. O'Neil, Esq.
Attorney General's Office Miller, Balis & 0'Neil, P.C.
State of Texas 776 Executive Building P.O. Box 12548 1030 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
l Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20005 l
James E. Mor.anan Leon J. Barish Executive Vice President and Assistant Attorney General General Manager P.O. Box 12548 Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Austin, Texas 78711 Inc.
P.O. Box 6296 Waco, Texas 76706 Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
William H. Burchette, Esq.
Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C.
20037 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
James A. Carney, Esq.
Sarah N. Welling, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 David M. Stahl, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue,.N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P.O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 1
Donald M. Clements, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Company P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Robert M. Rader, Esq.
's./ 4 O
Conner, Moore & Corber Fredric 0. Chanania 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C.
20006