ML20138P589
| ML20138P589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1985 |
| From: | Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, John Lamb, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-570 OL, NUDOCS 8512260181 | |
| Download: ML20138P589 (17) | |
Text
'
b576 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.
1615 L STREET. N.W.
WA5HINGTON. D.C. 2003 6. J[f 7 wituAM E. sAER. JR.
JACK R NEWMAN
- j f.-
BARBARA A DUNCOMBE DOUGLAS L SERESFORD JOMN E MOLTZINGER.JR.
MAROLO F. REIS MAURsCE AXELRAD 202-955 66OO JANETC B ECKER J. A SOURNIGHT.JR.
MERLE W. FALLON PAUL M. RECK STEVEN P. FRANTZ KATHLEEN M. SHEA U
UL3
. *j DOROTHY P. GAY GEORGE L. EDGAR BRIAN R. GISH DAVIO G. PowCLL dlLL E. GRANT DOUGLASG. GREEN AUSON LaMASTER KAROL LYN NEWMAN MOLLY N UNDEMAN y f E'[ f f I 3[ (,,'.L [
KEVIN J. UPSON f
JOHN T. STOUGM. JR.
DAVID B. RASKIN JAMES S. VASILE g { J.l q j g r {, v.
JANE L RYAN MaCMAEL A. SAUSER
,d "9 g g,.y' 8 l'
- DONALD J. SILVERMAN ALVIN M. GUTTERMAN December 20, 1985 JACOL,YN A. SIMMONS KEVIN P. GALLEN JOSE,E.STu..S TMoMAS A. SCHMuTZ MICHAEL F. HEALY ORM N LAN M
o, cou m Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-498 OL, 50-499 OL
Dear Members of the Board:
By letter of January 19, 1983, we informed the Board that the City of Austin had filed a lawsuit against Houston Lighting
& Power Company seeking reformation of the South Texas Project Participation Agreement and other relief.
On December 6, 1985, the City of Austin filed an amended Petition.
Although we continue to believe that contractual disputes among the co-owners are not relevant to the matters pending before the Board, a copy of the amended Petition is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely,
//
~
8512260181 851220 N-PDR ADOCK 05000498 G
PDR Alvin H. Gutterman Attorney for Applicants Enclosure bSQ}
7-
..e.
g MirOfPUnifIr' C NO. 343,240 0
}Q b CITY OF AUSTIN IN THE DISTRICT
- *'4#'
V.
TRAVIS
- COUNTY, TEXAS NOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY and HOUSTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
201ST JUDICIAL DI rul'PDn DIP T PLAINTIFF *S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITI' >
DEC 1 g5 k
hgw.,&, &...,U$.. o.h TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
, -.i.i
,......v COMES NOW the City of Austin, as plaintiff, complain-ing of and against Houston Lighting & Power Company, and Houston.1dustries, Inc.,
as defendants, and for causes of action would show:
1.
The City of Austin (hereinafter called " Austin") is a municipel corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas as well as its Home Rule Cnarter and is located in Travis County, Texas. Austin is owner of a sixteen
.rcent (16%) undivided interest in the South Texas Project 1"STP"), a nuclear power plant under construction in Matagorda County, Texas, consisting of two proposed 1,250-megawatt units.
Defendant Houston Lighting & Power Company (herein-after called "HL&P") is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business at 611 Walkt e Avenue, Houston, Harris County, Texas.
HL&P is the owner of a thirty and eight tenths percent (30.8%) undivi-ded interest in STP.
HL&P has done business in Travis County and has an agency or representative in Travis County.
Mr. John Newton, Director, State Relations for ML&P, resides in Travis County and offices at one of HL&P's offices in Travis County.
Mr. Newton has the power to conduct the business of HL&P in Travis County.
ML&P has previously appeared generally and answered herein and need not be served with citation.
_. ~.
~
i,
Defendant Houston Industries, Inc. (hereinafter called
" Houston Industries"), is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business at 611 Walker Avenue, Houston, Harris County, Texas.
Houston Industries has previously appeared generally and answered herein and need not be served with citation.
II.
Austin's causes of action asserted herein or a part thereof accrued or arose in Travis County. ML&P has an agency or representative in Travis County. ML&P has done business in Travis County and is doing business in Travis County.
III.
In July of 1973, HL&P entered into a written contract entitled " South Texas Project Participation Agreement" (herein-after called " Participation Agreement"), providing for design and construction of a nuclear electric generating plant, to be built in Matagorda County, Texas. A true copy of the Partici-pation Agreement is attached as Ezhibit "A"
to Austin's Second Request for Admissions to ML&P.
Defendants are here given notice to produce the original of the Participation Agreement at trial, or else secondary evidence will be offered. Austin was not a party to the original Participation Agreement. Under the original Participation Agreement, HL&P, CP&L and San Antonio owned STP in the following shares:
HLEP--40%
CP&L--30%
San Antonio--30%
IV.
On or about November 17, 1973, Austin voters approved a bond election which authorised Austin to participate in STP.
On or about November 19, 1973, the Austin City Council voted to proceed to become a participant in STP.
Both of these actions were taken in Travis County.
In December of 1973, after nego-l tiations and a meeting of the STP
- Management Comunittee" in.
nr--
Travis County, Austin and defendants executed " Amendment No.1 to Participation Agreement,* by which Austin became a party to the Participation Agreement. Austin executed said Amendment in Travis County. A true copy of said Amendment Mc. 1 is attached as Ezhibit "B"
to Austin's Second Request for Admissions to ML&P. Defendants are here;given nJtice to produce the original at the time of trial, ar,'. accondary evidence will be of fered.
In said Amendment No. 1, HL&P, CP&L and San Antonio each trans-ferred a portion of the ownership in STP to Austin, and Austin thereby became owner of an undivided sixteen percent (16%)
interest in STP.
The ownership proportions which were estab-lished by said Amendment No. I were:
HL&P--30.8%
CP&L--25.2%
San Antonio--28%
Austin--16%
These percentage interests have remained the same up to and including the present day.
V.
The Participation Agreement was further amended on or about March 1, 1975 by " South Texas Project Amendment No. 2 to Participation Agreement." A true copy of said Amendment No. 2 is attached as Exhibit "C"
to Austin's Second Request for Admissions to HL&P.
Notice is here given to defendants to produce the original at the time of trial, or secondary evidence may be offered. Acting through its proper representa-tives, Austin voted to execute, and did execute, said Amendment No. 2 in Travis County.
VI.
By the Participation Agreement, HL&P, for valuable consideration, assumed and undertook broad responsibilities to the other owners, Austin, San Antonio, and CP&L.
Under the Participation Agreement, ML&P was designated " Project Mana-ger."
The Project Manager was designated in the Participation Agreement, as amended, as, "The Participant responsible for the
_ planning, construction and operation of the various components of the South Texas Project in accordance with this Participa-tion Agreement and the Project Agreements."
(Section 4.25 of Participation Agreement, Amendment No. 2). Further, ML&P as Project Manager undertook and assumed the fundamental responsi-
.bility to the other owners to:
Provide for the engineering, design. contract preparation, purchasing, t.w.a s t ruction,
reconstruction, repair, retirement, replacement, supervision,
- training, expediting, inspection,
- testing, start-up, protection, operation, o
maintenance and accounting of, or with respect, to each component.
(Participation Ag reen.ent $10.2.4).
Thus, HL&P undertook and has the broad fundamental and fiduciary responsibility go the other owners, including Austin, to provide for planning, con-struction and operation of STP, in all respects.
VII.
HL&P
- further, under the Participation Agreement, undertook and expressly warranted that it would properly dis-charge the following responsibilities with respect to site acquisition and providing material information and competent recommendations to the other owners:
10.2.1 Provide for and obtain all studies (including environmental impact studies and preliminary safety analyses) and shall supervise the preparation and submission, and shall monitor the regulatory review of, - applications for all permits and licenses necessary for the construc-tion and operation of the South Texas Project; 10.2.2 Coordinate the acquisition of the South Texas Plant Site in accordance with the parameters set forth in Section 27.1 hereof, such acquisition to be for the initial benefit, and at the cost, of the Participants in the proportions set forth in Section 5.1; 10.2.3 Supply the Participants with copies of all studies made, license and permit applica-tions filed and licenses and permits obtained; t
e e
e 10.2.5 Promptly supply the Participants with information on major matters and significant factors which affect construction and operating schedules; -
l a _
10.2.6 Provide the Management Committee and any connaittee created by it with all necessary records and information pertaining to matters within its designated responsibilities; 10.2.7 Prepare recosamendations covering the matters which are to be reviewed and acted upon by the Management Conunittee and any comunittee created by the Management Conunittee for the pur-pose of reviewing such recommendations, includ-ing, but not limited to, insurance coverages to be obtained during the periods covered by and with respect to Preconstruction Work, Construc-tion Work and Station Work, or any phases thereof; 10.2.8 Follow the practices and procedures which have been reviewed and approved by the Management Committee or, in the absence of such approved practicas and procedures, which reflect the best judgment of the Project Manager; 10.2.9 Pending action by the Management Committee on insurance recommendations, procure insurance binders providing such coverage as the Project Manager believes necessary and upon action by the Management Committee procure and maintain in force as permanent insurance all Project Insurance determined necessary by the Managemant Committee, furnishing, or causing to be furnished, to each Participant evidence of such insurance as required by Section 20 hgroof; and 10.2.10 Keep the Participants fully and promptly advised of material changes in condi-tions or other material developments effecting the performance of its responsibilities.
HL&P had the duty, and impliedly warranted, to the other owners, including Austin, that it would discharge its duties as Project Manager for STP in a workmanlike manner and with the skill, care and attention customarily espected of a Project Manager on a project such as STP.
Further, by reason of HL&P's agreement to assume total responsibility for
- planning, construction and operation of STP on behalf of the other owners, and to act for them in all respects as Project Manager, ML&P was and is a fiduciary toward Austin and the other owners, and as such has all the duties of a fiduciary and is held to perform under the standards applicable to a fiduciary under the laws of the State of Texas.
VI!!.
In Section 21 of the Participation Agreement, entitled
" Liability of Participants to Each other*, ML&P purported to '
-.. ~..
-~
+
limit its liability to the other owners for its own tortious I
conduct, ~escept for " Willful Action" as defined in the Participation Agreement.
Austin says that NL&P bears full-responsibility in tort for its conduct as Project Manager, toward the other owners, and that the purported limitation in Section 21 is illegal, against public policy of the State of Texas, inconsistent with HL&P's duties as a fiduciary, and void and unenforceable.
Thus, NL&P is responsible for its actions in tort, as well as in contract and upon statutory causes of action, as further set out below.
4 IX.
In December of 1973, when Austin became a participant in STP, NLEP had already selected Brown & Root, Inc. as architect-engineer-constructor for STP, and Brown & Root had begun work on the project, without a written contract. In June of 1974, ML&P, as Project Manager, formalised the selection of Brown & Root by esecuting an " Engineering & Construction Contract" with Brown & Root for design and construction of STP.
Defendants are here given notice to produce an original counterpart of such contract, as well as all amendments, at the time of trial, or else secondary evidence will be offered.
During the approximately nine years that Brown & Root was on the job at STP, its performance was grossly inadeguate as set out in greater detail in a 30-page letter dated August 2, 1984 and delivered to attorneys for Brown & Root and Halliburton Corporation and in Plaintiffs' Sisth Amended Original Petition, filed in cause No. 81-H-0606-C, styled Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al vs. Brown & Root, Inc. et al, in the District Court of Natagorda County, Tesas, 130th Judicial District, on or about October 29, 1984. Said letter and said Petition were signed by all, the owners of STP, including HL&P, acting by and through its duly authorised counsel of record. A true copy of such letter and a true copy of such Petition are attached as Eshibits "D*
and "E*, respectively, to Austin's Second Request 4-
-. _. ~. _ - _.
for Admissions to ML&P.
Brown & Root remained in the position of architect-engineer-constructor at STP until September of 1981, when NL&P finally recognised and recommended to the other owners that Brown & Root should be terminated, as architect-engineer and construction manager, and did terminate Brown &
Root.
ML&P, Project Manager, is responsible for selection of an architect-engineer-constructor which was fundamentally incapable of performing adequately at STP, for failing to competently supervise, monitor and control the architect-engin-eer-constructor, and for retaining a fundamentally incapable architect-engineer-constructor for nine years after the original selection.
X.
The inadequate progress at STP, under HL&P's project, management from the inception of STP until the time Brown &
Root was fired, and the damages suf fered by Austin as a result, are illustrated by the following:
A.
Had HLEP properly selected and competently supervised, monitored and controlled an architect-engineer-constructor, STP reasonably could and should have been constructed for a cost of approximately $3.1 billion and should have achieved commercial operation in 1984 (Unit 1) and 1986 (Unit 2).
Under current estimates, however, it appears probable that the actual cost of completing STp will be at least $5.5 billion and that completion will be delayed until at least 1987 (Unit 1) and 1989 (Unit 2).
Thus, STP will require, in all probability, at least $2.5 billion more that it reasonably should have cost, and will be completed at least 3 years later than the time when it reasonably should have been completed.
B.
Had Austin been informed of NL&P's and Brown &
Root's fundamental inability to perform at STP, it would never have committed to STP in Novembet and. _. _ _.
i.
t
/
December of 1973.
If Austin in 1973 had committed to construction of a 400 megawatt fossil fueled electric generating plant, instead of comunitting to a 16%
interest in STP, the fossil plant would, in all probability, have come on line in 1978 at a capital cost of approximately $392 million (including AFUDC),
or approximately
$1.021 billion less than the currently projected capital costs of Austin's share in STP.
Additionally, because the fossil would have come on line much earlier than the currently projected
+
completion date for STP, Austin would have saved replacement power costs.
- Thus, considering both capital cost and replacement power costs, Austin has
's been damaged by committing to STP in 1973 instead of, to a fossil plant.
C.
In the spring of 1976, when the decision was made to go to the field with full construction at STP, engineering was not sufficiently advanced to support construction.
A competent project manager would have known the true status of the project and would not have let the project into the field in 1976. Had the true status of the project been made known, in all probability, Austin and San Antonio and CP&L would have cancelled STP or converted it to a non-nuclear station, and they would have made plans for obtaining needed energy from other sources.
If STP had been cancelled or converted in 1976, and Austin had pursued alternative available energy sources in the same year, those alternatives would have cost less than Austin's share in STP.
Taking into account both capital cost and replac,ement power cost, Austin would have saved monies by abandoning or converting STP in 1976 and conunitting to other energy sources with energy capa.
city equivalent to its share in STP.
.g.
r II.
Deficient performance by the Project Manager, ML&P, t
and its failure to discharge its duties, and breach of its obligations to Austin, were and are a direct, prosimate and producing cause of - Austin's damages. Such deficient perform-ance as Project Manager on the part of NL&P occurred in the following respects:
A.
Selection of Brown & Root as architect-engineer-constructor.
8.
Failure to supervise, monitor and control the architect-engineer-constructor.
C.
Rotention of Brown & Root, a fundamentally incapable architect-engineer-constructor, after the original selection.
D.
L'aNure to provide the other participants with accurate and timely information, particularly with respect to the qualifications of Brown & Root to perform as architect-engineer-constructor, and of HL&P to perform as Project Manager, and with respect to status and progress of the job at throughout the time Brown & Root was on the job.
E.
Failure to provide proper advice and recommenda-tions to the other participants.
F.
Fa!!ure to discharge its responsibilities with respect to procurement.
G.
Taking over control of the project f rom Brown &
Root in 1978 and 1979, when in f act HL&P was not any more qualified to esercise control over the project than was Brown & Root.
H.
Fa!!ure to employ competent of ficer-level persons with nue, lear esperience to manage STP.
I.
Failure to heed and act upon the advice and recommendations of consultants.
.g.
XII.
HL&P failed to develop a qualified project management staf f and f ailed to take steps to remedy deficiencies in its project managemer.t staff despite recommendations or requests from its outside consultants, among others.
Among other things, NL&P failed to develop an esperienced project manage-ment staf f or a project management staf f of adequate size for STP; HL&P utilised hiring practices which made it dif ficult, if not impossible, to hire an adequate number of project manage-ment personnel; HL&P f ailed to take steps to remedy turnover in its project management organisation; HL&P failed to develop or utilise an acceptable or effective project management methodo1-ogy; HL&P vested too much authority and decision-making respon-sibility in one person; HL&P refused request (s) or rejected recommendation (s) that that person who had been vested with too much authority and decision-making responsibility be removed f rom STP; and, HL&P f ailed to adequately and competently manage GTP because its project management decisions were actually or effectively overridden by that person and ML&P's project management personnel developed an adversarial relationship with the architect, engineer, constructor and construction manager.
XI!!.
HLLP failed to properly ascertain Brown & Root's progress on STP and/or withheld and concealed that lack of progress from Austin, among other of the STP participants.
XIV.
HL&P f a!!ad to coordinate procurement activities with engineering and construction activities.
Among other things, ML&P failed to esercise its procurement responsibility in a proper and ressenable manner; HL&P failed to integrate the procurement effort with the engineering and construction effort (s); HL&P's procurement organisation lacked esperienced personnel; HL&p overrode Brown & Root's procurement recommenda-tions; HL&P failed or otherwise refused to follow the recom. '
I 4
mendation(s) of its outside consultant (s) with respect to project management and project controls and scheduling techniques, thereby further adversely impacting procurement, engineering and construction activities at STP; and, HL&P f ailed to give adequate direction to Brown & Root as architect, engineer, constructor and construction manager.
XV.
MLEP interfered with and did not competently monitor and project manage Brown & Root's engineering work.
XVI.
HL&P did not have adequate quality assurance and quality control personnel to provide direction to the overall quality assurance and quality control program for STP; and, HL&P's quality assurance and quality control f ailures led to, among other things, a virtual shutdown of STP for periods of 1979, 1980 and 1981.
XVII.
Among other things. HL&P failed to provide Brown &
Root with site access in a timely f ashioni and, HL&P f ailed to obtain the railroad right of way in a timely fashion.
XVI!!.
HL&P failed to take effective action when it had become apparent in 1978 and 1979 that STP was esperiencing cost increases and schedule delays due to Brown & Root's f a!!ure of performance as architect-engineer-constructor and construction manager, or otherwise.
Among other things, HL&P undertook to correct these f ailures of performance by assuming most of Stown
& Root's management functions, but lacked the capability or competence to properly perform or discharge those functions.
XIX.
ML&P f ailed to provide adequate, funds to complete STP in accordance with the project schedule. Among other things, HL&P adversely restricted Brown & Root's spending in certain years because of ML&P's financaal condition.-
2 r
?
XX.
ML&P failed to carry out its responsibilities with respect to Mostinghouse's performance as NS8S vendor at STP.
Among other things, ML&P failed to ensure that Westinghouse performed its obligations.
XXI.
ML&P failed to disclose, withheld or concealed inform-ation concerning STP, project studies, and project events.
NL&P misrepresented material information to Austin, (among others) concerning among other things, Brown & Root's inability to successfully complete STPJ projected slippages in the pro-ject schedule; projected increases in STP's cost estimate; and various cost and schedule projections for STP.
XXII.
ML&P f ailed to provide for and be responsible for the design, englatering, planning and construction of STP in accordance with the Participation Agreement and failed to so provide as a competent project rnanager or fiduciary.
XXI!!.
By reason of the failures on the part of ML&P to function competently as Project Manager at STP, as described above in Paragraphs XI-XXII, there was a f ailure of considera-tion.
XXIV.
In 1972 and 1973, HL4P impliedly and espressly repre-sented to Austin that Brown & Root had the necessary quellfica-tions and capabilities to act as architect-engineer-constructor at STP and that HL&P had the necessary qualifications and capabilities to act as Project Manager at STP.
Further, ML&P withheld and concealed the true facts, that neither ML&P nor Brown & Root possessed the necessary qualifications and capa-bilities. Such representations and such concealment constitute fraud under the common law of the State of Tesas and under Tesas Bus. & Comm. Code art. 27.01.
Austin relied on the said '
implied and esprass representations to its detriment.
If it had known the true f acts, it would not have sgreed to partici-pate in STP.
XIV.
In the alternative, Austin af firmatively pleads that at the time it agreed to participate in STP in 1973, Austin and the other owners were mutually mistaken as to the material facts concerning HL&P's capabilities to perform as Project Manager and Brown & Root's capabilities to perform as archi-tect-engineer-constructor. By reason of such mutual mistake as to material f acts, the f raud of NL&P described above, and the f ailure of consideration on the part of HL&P, Austin says that it is entitled in fairness and in equity to a judgment reform-ing and/or rescinding said Amendment No. 1 to the Participation Agreement as to ML&P.
Accordingly, Austin seeks judgment of the Court transferring its 16% of STP from Austin to ML&P, returning to HL&P the portion of STP it transferred to Austin by esecution of Amendment No.
1, and returning to Austin all the monies it has esponded attributable to said 16% interest in STP.
XXVI.
Austin makes claim against HL&P under the Temas Con-sumer Protection -Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), Temas Bus. & Comm. Code $17.41 11 110, and would shows A.
HL&f breached its implied warranties under the Participation Agreement, as amended, to perform its
\\
duties as Project Manager in a workmanlike manner and with the degree of skill, care and attention custom-arily required and espected of a Project Manager on a nuclear project such as STP, ML&P actually assumed most of Brown & Root's management functions and to a large estent functioned as general contractor on the project in the 1978-79 time period and it breached its
. implied warranties in this undertaking and during this time period, as well as otherwise. '
u
.s' 3.
ML&P also breached its espress warranties tot 1)
Provide for the engineering, design, con-tract preparation, purchasing, construction, reconstruction, repair, retire.asnt, replacement, supervision,
- training, espediting, inspection, testing, start-up, protection, operation, main-tenance and accot.nting of, or with respect to, each component; 2)
Promptly supply the Participants with information on major matters and significant f actors which affect construction and operating schedules; 3)
Provide the Management Comunittee and any committee created by it with all necessary records and information pertaining to matters within its designated responsibilities; 8)
Keep the Participants fully and fromptly advised of material changes in conditions or other material developments affecting the performance of its responsibilities.
C.
ML&P gave Austin incorrect, misleading and untimely information about the status of STP in' meetings of the Management Committee, in minutes of Management Committee meetings, and otherwise, and thereby violated DTPA $17.46(b)(5) and $17.44(b)(7).
Over the life of the project, Management Committee meetings have occurred approsimetely monthly, and ML&P has sent minutes of the meetings to Austin shortly after the various meetings.
D.
HL&P's mismanagement of STp and failure to manage STP properly, including its failure to obtain and furnish material information to Austin and the other participants on a timely bar ts is an " unconscionable action or course of action" within the meaning of the DTPA.
Austin is a " consumer" with respect to STP and with respect to ML&P, since it is a municipal corporation and governmental entity which " seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services."
Further, Austin has been ~ adversely af fected by the DTPA violations described above and has been damaged thereby in an amount far in escess of the minimum jurisdic-tional limits of this Court.
Austin is therefore entitled to..
's recover three times the, amount of its actual damages attribut-able to such violations, plus court costs and attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the amount of work esponded.
XXVII.
Houston Industries
- induced, incited, abetted and participated in the preceding conduct, misconduct, acts or omissions to act of HL&P.
XXVIII.
All conditions precedent to the fillag of this suit have been performed or have occurred.
XXIX.
Because of the necessity of this suit, Austin has incurred, and will in the future incur reasonable attorney's fees, the total amount of which w!!! probably escoed $7, million, and Austin seeks recovery of its attorney's fees under the DTPA and Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. att 2226.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff, the City of Austin, prays that it recover judgment against defendants:
1.
Awarding Austin its damages, including treble damages to the estent proper under the DTPA, and including pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney's fees, aga!nst defendants, jointly and severally; or 2.
Granting Austin the equitable remedy of reforma-tion or recission with respect to Amendment No. 1 of the Participation Agreement, requiring defendant HL&P to return to Austin all thosa, monies esponded by Austin with respect to 16% of STP to the date of judgment, with interest, relieving Austin of all future obligations with respect to said 16% of STP, and providing for a concurrent transfer by Austin of 14% of STP to defendant HL&PJ and I
s... ii.......
3.
Awarding such other and further relief, general and special, legal and equitable, as the Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, CITY OF AUSTIN By Paul C. Isham City Attorney for Austin, Texas State Bar No. 10434000 304 The Brown Building 708 Colorado Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 499-2268 William W. Vernon State Bar No. 20552000 Jeff Dykes State Bar No. 06325500 Jeffrey S. Wolff State Bar No. 21865900 Fulbright & Jaworski 800 MSank Building Houston, Tesas 77002 (713) 651-5151 W. Wade Porter State Bar No. 16156700 Fulbright & Jaworski American Bank Tower, Suite 1740 221 West Sixth Street Austin, Tesas 78701 (512) 474-5201 Thomas J. Neiden Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone 1200 Campeu Square Plaza Building 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (614) 454-5583 Peter Waldmeir Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone 2500 Comerica Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 963-6420 ATTORNEYS FOR Pl.A!NTIFF l
i
-le-
{
t l
n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N Q{
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'65 DEC 23 N1 :21 In the Matter of
)
Ef
)
($04498(pquC y,,
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-499'OL'
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of the letter to Members of tr.e Atomic Safety and Licensing Board from Alvin H.
Gutterman dated December 20, 1985, with enclosure have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 20th day of December, 1985.
Charles Bechhoofer, Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing For the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P.O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C.
20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Kim Eastman, Co-ccordinator Administrative Judge Barbara A. Miller 313 Woodhaven Road Pat Coy Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Frederick J. Shon 5106 Casa Oro Administrative Judge San Antonio, TX 78233 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lanny Alan Sinkin Washington, D.C.
20555 Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Washington, D.C.
20002 Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Hay Goldstein, Esq.
Utilitics, Inc.
Gray, Allison & Becker Route 1, Box 1684 1001 Vaughn Building Brazoria, TX 77422 807 Brazos Austin, TX 78701-2553
{-;'
. OresteTRuss Pirfo, Esq.
Robert G. Perlis,-Esq.
Office'of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
}
21
/
eL f
1
..