ML19309C282

Submits Tx Utils Generating Co Response to ASLB 800307 Request Re Views on Consolidation of Proceedings for Hearing Purposes.Urges Complete Consolidation

ML19309C282
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/17/1980
From:	Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN
To:	Glaser M, Mark Miller, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8004080401
Download: ML19309C282 (4)

Text

r D E B EVO'IS E & LI B ER M AN 82 00 StvtNTE CNTM STREET, N. W.

WASHIN GTON, D. C. 20036 ==

..... ..p......

.o..L.. ....... '

......... ...... . ......u. ..... .......

..u..........

..u...........

..............  ;, o

..u.........- '===*',,,<;<va'**

........... .....u...... . . ,

....... u ...... . ....... m .... . r;

u. . .. . . . u . . ..m........ ,4,, . 10,n ., 7 . %

.....m. . ..... .. .. u .. . . u. .

S ,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,

....... c ...... . e of f3 c . . . . u, . .

..u.. . .

enes.,n,retaemce,y,! o,,,,C, .

g 7o=>857-9832

<b

-J C'/

March 17, 1980 Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

Room E-408 Room E-404 East / West Towers Building East / West Towers Building 4350 East / West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20014 4350 East / West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Michael L. Glaser, Esq.

Glaser, Fletcher & Johnson 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1007 Washington, D.C. 20036

.In the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al_.,

(South and 50-499A, Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-498A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)and T Docket Nos. 50-445A and 50-446A Gentlemen:

This letter is in response to the March 7, 1980 request of this Licensing Board that the parties to this proceeding provide the Board with their views on the issue of consolidating the Comanche Peak and South Texas proceedings for purposes of the hearing (Tr. at pages 682-83).

Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO"), applicant in the comanche proceeding, Peak proceeding and an intervenor in the South Texas November 16, filed 1978 a " Motion for Partial Consolidation" on requesting the consolidation of discovery and evidentiary proceedings. hearings, but not the initial decisions, in these two

("C&SW") On December 1, 1978 Central & South West Corporation filed its response to TUGCO's motion and urged full, rather than TUGCO was thenthe partialurging. consolidation of the two proceedings which Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P")

also filed its response to TUGCO's motion on December 1, 1978, 800.4080401 i i i  !

~

Marshall E. Miller, Esq.

Michael L. Glaser, Esq.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

March 17, 1980 Page Two urging that the proceedings be consolidated for discovery purposes only and that the Board defer ruling on TUGCO's motion for consolidation of the evidentiary hearings until discovery was substantially corpleted and the hearings near.

There was extensive discussion of the consolidation issue at the December 5,1978 Prehearing Conference (Tr. at pages 43-69), and the Board decided to consolidate the two cases for discovery purposes but to deny TUGCO's motion insofar as it sought any further or additional consolidation at that time. This denial was premised on the grounds of prematurity and that a much clearer view of the various aspects of consolidation would exist once discovery was completed (Tr. at pages 76-77). That decision was also part of the December 5, 1978 "Prehearing Conference Order Regarding Issues, Discovery, and Consolidation" which also stated that the motion was being denied without pre-judice to the subsequent filing of a consolidation motion by any party (order at pages 6-7).

In several subsequent scheduling orders, the Licensing Board provided that counsel for the parties to these proceed-ings should provide statements of their positions regarding consolidation for hearing at the time the trial briets were to be filed. However, at the oral hearing of March 7, 1980, the Board requested all counsel to file their stataments on consolidation by March 17, 1980. Accordingly, TUGCO now addresses consolidation and urges this Licensing Board to consolidate these two proceedings fully for hearing.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. S2.716, provide for consolidation of proceedings when good cause has been shown, when consolidation will be conducive to the proper dispatch of NRC bu- 7ess and to the ends of justice, and when the consolidated , ceedings will be conducted in accordance wf.th the other provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G.

Marshall E. Miller, Esq.

Michael L. Glaser, Esq.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

March 17, 1980 Page Three There is good cause for consolidation in that many issues are the same, _1/ many of the parties are the same, and the same Board is presiding in both proceedings. Economy in the utilization of governmental resources as well as the resources of those parties participating in both proceedings militates in favor of consolidation.

For purposes of the hearing, consolidation will be more conducive to the proper dispatch of the Commission's business with reasonable expedition than would separate sequential or concurrent proceedings. It is a virtual certainty that a consolidated proceeding can be tried in less time than two separate proceedings. It may well be that a consolidated hearing will not take substantially longer than a hearing on a single application.

If consolidated as suggested, this proceeding can and should be conducted in accordance with the other applicable provisions of Subpart G " Rules of General Applicability" of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2.

The approach we now urge is complete consolidation. The extensive congruency of parties and issues, and the evident lack of prejudice to any party not already a party to both proceedings, together with considerations of economy and efficiency call for full consolidation. To the extent there may arise completely distinct issues peculiar to one proceeding, the Board can deal with that eventuality if and when it occurs. That is, severance of particular matters for hearing could still be ordered on motion for good cause shown, in order to avoid prejudice to any party, or as the ends of justice may require. However, the Board would not be repeatedly called upon to rule that examination of a particular witness by a particular party was or was not permissable as pertinent to one or both proceedings.

1/ Indeed, the broad issues defined by the Board in its pre-hearing conference orders (South Texas - July 13, 1978 and Comanche Peak - December 5, 1978) are identical. Given the allegations of concerted action in the two proceedings, it would appear that commonality of issues will be pervasive.

J -

Marshall E. Miller, Esq.

Michael L. Glaser, Esq.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

March 17, 1980 Page Four For these reasons, TUGCO respectfully requests that this Board order consolidation of these two proceedings for hearing.

Re ectfully submitted, i

tCM -

osep B. Knotts, Jr.

\

DEB OISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for Texas Utilities Generating Company Of Counsel:

J. Irion Worsham Merlyn D. Sampels Frederick Slicker WORSHAM, FORSYTHE & SAMPELS 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: All Counsel of Record

, t