ML19261C568
| ML19261C568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1979 |
| From: | Relyea S WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903230280 | |
| Download: ML19261C568 (24) | |
Text
.N '*-
~
o es c'
DU PUBLIC DUCLna E"
?
mem L'Et* 4Q 9-0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MAR 2 iS7D L ff NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C;
..,n,.-
+BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o "g**
y In the Matter of HOUSTON IdGHTING & POWER NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A COMPANY, PUBLIC SERVICE 50-499A BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO, CITY OF AUSTIN, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (South Texas Project, Unit Nes.
I cnd 2)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche PeciTStecm Electric 50-446A Station, Units I cnd 2)
ANSWER OF TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO THE NRC STAFF'S INITIAL INTERROGATORIES ANE :lEQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY AND TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY COME NOW TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY ("TU"),
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ("TUCCO"), DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
("DPL"), TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY ("TESCO"), AND TEXAS POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ("TPl."), all collectively referred to os "TU Compcnies," in compliance with Section 2.740b and 2.741 of the Rules of Prcetice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), and mcke the following answers to the NRC Staff's Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Houston Lighting & Power Company and Texas Utilities Generating Company.
Most of the interrogatories rc';est information with respect to both the fU Compcnies and Houston Lighting & Power Compcny ("HLP").
The answers filed herewith are for and on behcif of the TU Companies only. While the response to these interrogatories is not due until March 5,1979, the TU Compcnies have informally cgreed to cooperate with the NRC Staff by providing a response to some of these interrogatories ecrly. In so doing, we reserve the right to file objections and a motion for a protective order with respect to some or all the interrogatories on or before March 5,1979.
INTERROGATORY NO. l. "(c) List cil consultants cnd/or expert witnesses (in-house or otherwise) who may be used in the ccptioned NRC proceeding. (b)
Provide in cddition to names, that information specified in Instruction 8, sucrc. (c) 7903230H0
Provide a copy of any contracts, letter agreements, or other understandings between the individual or firm which relate to, in any way, % NRC proceeding.
(d) Provide all significent documents addressed to the cbow individuals which relate to possible testimony before the NRC, the SEC, the Texas PUC, or any United States District Court. (e) Provide all documents received from the cbove individuals as described in (d). (f) State the express assignments cs well as other instructions given the cbove individuals. (g) For each consultant cnd/or expert witness listed in (c), list each person or entity contacted by the consultant or expert in the course of his duties (i) for the NRC proceeding,(ii) the District Court (DcIlcs) cntitrust proceeding, and (iii) the Texas PUC proceeding. (Exclude support perronnel, clerical personnel, and attorneys of record for HL&P and/cr TU). (h)
Provide all documents which relate to this interrogatory (exclude those documents covered in (d) and (e))."
ANSWER:
1(c) and (b). Mr. E. D. Scarth, Vice President of TESCO, P. O. Box 970. Fort Worth, Texas (817/336-9411). If and when it is determined that the TU Companies will use any other experts as witnesses in the contioned proceeding, the NRC Staff will be notified, l(c) None.
l(d) and (e). Documents requested by this inquiry have been made available for inspection and copying, and all documents designated to be copied have been delivered as instructed by the NRC Staff to the Department of Justice. The documents made available for inspection and copying include (without limitation) depositions taken in and the transcripts with exhibits of the proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission ecptioned in the Matter of Central and South West Corporation, et al, No. 3-495: ("SEC Cose"), the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC") Docket 14 cnd the cppeals therefrom (" Docket 14") and the trial of West Texas Utilities Company, et ci v. Texcs Electric Service Comocny, et al, before the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallos
[iivision, CA-3-76-0633-F (" Federal Court Cose").
l(f).
Other then his assistence in connection with discovery, no specific assignments have yet been given Mr. Secrth in connection with his testimony in this proceeding. Mr. Secrth has assisted counsel and offered testimony in the Federal Court Case end in Docket 14.
l(g).
Other than certain employees of the TU Compcnies, who in this connection would be support personnel, none.
l(h). None.
INTERROGATORY NO._2. "(a) List and explain in detail all benefits, cetual or perceived, which HL&P/TU consider pertinent to, and/or relate to the decision, policy, or preference, to remain in intrcstate commerce. (b) List and explain in detail all detriments, actual or perceived, which HL&P/TU consider pertinent to, and/or relate tc c judicial or administrative order having the effect of ordering 2
W
- w-*
-m
,w-
HL&P/TU into interstate commerce. (c) '.ist cnd explain in detail cl! benefits, cetual or perceived, which HL&P/TU consider pertinent to, and/or relate to, being ordered into interstate commerce as described in (b). (d) Provide all documents directly addressing the substance of this interroegtory."
ANSWER:
2(c). The TU Companies believe that ERCOT has been and continues to be en optimum size interconnected system, lcrge enough to maximize the use of economies of scale and to utilize the most advcnced technology availcble to the industry to cchieve maximum benefits of interconnected operation, while small enough to avoid unwieldy and excessively burdensome cdministrative, operational, regulatory and related problems.
The strong communication network among ERCOT companies has produced immediate response in times of electrical emergency and encbles the systems to quick!y identify, locate cnd correct the problems which are causing the emergency condition. As a result, ERCOT has been and still is a model of efficient and relicble electric service.
2(b). The TU Compcnies believe that synchronous interstate interconnections would be costly cr.d would degrade relicbility without any corresponding benefits.
The TU Companies have evaluated synchronous interstate interconnections (see the answer to Interrogatory No. 5(c)) cnd have determined that such operation would subject the TU systems and their customers to disturbances upon remote systems, would permit other systems to utilize the facilities of the TU Companies cnd the energy produced.herefrom without commensurate compensation and would result in on unduly burdensome, unmanageable and unwieldy system for both operational and cdministrative purposes. Moreover, interstate operation would subject the TU Companies to unnecesscry and burdensome federal regulation. The TU Compcnies believe there are no benefits to operating in interstate commerce.
2(c). None.
2(d). The cnswers to Interrogatories 2(a)-(c) cbove are summarized. A more detailed response is contained in the depositions and testimony of Messrs. Austin, Hulsey, Marquardt, Ferrington and Scarth in the Federal Court Case and the testimony of Mr. Scarth in Docket 14,- together with written materials and evaluations heretofore made ovcilcble to the NRC Staff, many of which documents are contained as exhibits or designcted exhibits in the Federal Court Case.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3.
"(c) List the TU/HL&P employees cnd/or representatives who participated in the discussions leading to the formation of ERCOT. (b) Did TU/HL&P consider the possibility of a relicbility creo or council encompassing, in part or in full, a larger or smaller creo than what is now ERCOT.
Explain in detail. (c) List and explain in detail the considerations for TU/HL&P which contributed to the formation of a reliability crea - ERCOT - se; arate end cport from o larger crec. (d) List cnd ext icin the criteria cnd qualifications for becoming a member in ERCOT, (i) now, cnd (ii) at the time of its formation. (e) provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory."
ANSWER:
3(c).
T. L. Austin, Jr. (Chairman of the Board of TU); Buri B. Hulsey, Jr.
3
(President of TU); L. S. Turner, Jr. (Executive Vice President of TU); R. J. Gary (Executive Vice President cnd Genercl Manager of TUGCO); E. D. Secrth (Vice President of TESCO); L. J. Blaize (Retired, President of TUS1); John Robuck (Retired, Vice President of TP&L).
3(b). No.
3(c).
Considering the natural geogrcphical boundaries of Texas cnd the efficiency cnd relicbility of the TIS, it did not occur to any electric utility system in Texas that the efficiency cnd relicbility of TIS or the proposed ERCOT should be jeopardized by synchror.ous interconnections with the SWPP.
3(d). Qualifications for ERCOT membership cre stated in Article 11, Sections I,2 and 3 of the ERCOT Agreement which has previously been provided.
3(e). See the answer to Interrogatory l(d) cnd (e) cbove.
[NTERROGATORY NO. 4.
"(c) Explain in detail the methods of allocating voting power for both ERCOT cnd TlS, and state the percentage of votes controlled by "U/HL&P, respectively, in each of these orgcnizctions. (b) State the annual TIS and ERCOT budgets for the pcst five yects. (c) State individually TU/HL&P's annu al contributions since 1970 both in dollars and in percentage of total contributions for TIS cnd ERCOT, respectively. (d) State the annual dollar amounts budgeted by TU/HL&P since 1770 for system planning, including studies, for TlS cnd ERCOT, respectively. (e) Explain in detail the purposes cnd functions of ERCOT cnd TlS. What are their similarities? What are their differences? (f) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory."
ANSWER:
4(c).
Article VI of the ERCOT Agreement and Article 11 of the TIS Agreement, respectively, describe the method of voting.
None of the TU Companies controls the voting of the other or of cny other company.
4(b). The TIS cnd ERCOT annual budgets for 1973-1978 cre attached.
4(c). Article Vill, Section 5, describes the dues formula for ERCOT members.
The following table sets forth the expenditures by the TU Companies for joint TIS studies based upon their pro rota allocation of the cetual expenses:
Year TU Companies' Excenses Percentcqe TIS Total 1970 Not available Not cvoilcble 1971 Not availcble Not availcble 1972 Not availcble Not availcble 1973-1974
$14,696 38.3 %
1974-1975
$ 9,373 38 %
1975-1976
$ 7,520 36.2 %
1976-1977 None None 1977-1978
$17,440 35.4 %
4
4(d).
Aggregate Expenses or Budget Yecr for TU System Planning 1970
$ 783,586*
1971 798,727*
1972 896,097 1973 955,788 1974 i,I50,669 I975 1,334,372 1976 I,529,370 1977 1,441,507 1978 1,549,108 Includes estimates of $l50,000 for DPL.
4(e). The purpose of TIS is to improve service relicbility through coordination of planning cnd operation of bulk power member systems. The purpose of ERCOT is to promote relicble operation of electric systems in Texcs by providing a mecns of gathering information relating to such sys.
for reporting to NERC. See the TIS and ERCOT Agreements previously provided.
4(f). See the answer to Interrogatory 1(d) cnd (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5.
"(c) List sepcrately, the names of all entities which have requested membership in TlS and/or ERCOT since 1965 (include informal requests). (b) Give the response to each such request for membership in TIS cnd/or ERCOT. Explain in detail the bases for each such response cnd the ncme or nomes of the individual or individuals responding to such request. (See Instruction 8). (c) Provide all documents which relate to this interrogatory."
ANSWER:
5(c) cnd (b). For membership in TIS, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative
("BEPC") on behalf of Texcs Municipal Power Pool, comprised of BEPC, the Cities of Gcrland, Denton, Bryan and Greenville (cpproved); South Texas Electric Cooperative /Med'no Electric Cooperative (cpproved); Texas Municipal Power Agency, consisting of the cities of Garland, Denton, Brycn and Greenville (pending);
and the City of Brownsville (pending). For ERCOT, the TU Compcnies cre not cwore of any entity which has requested membership which has not been cpproved.
The members of ERCOT cre listed in its ennual report, copies of which have been previously mcde available for inspection and copying by the NRC Staff, and changes in membership cre reflected therein.
5(c). Certain documents attached. See the cnswer to Interrogatory l(d) cnd (e) above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6. "(a) Describe in detail all known instances since 1961 in which TU/HL&P wholesale customer (s) and/or other members of ERCOT considered interconnecting with or decling in cny way with interstate electric 5
utility compcnies.
(b) Describe in 4 TU/HL&P's response (s) to specific proposcis by its wholescle customed; r.d/or other members of ERCOT to interconnect or deal in cny way with Werstate electric utility entities. (c) Ncme those persons noving personal knowledge of cny discussions, negotiations, or studies involving the possibility of transactions between TU/HL&P wholescle customers and/or other members of ERCOT with interstate electric utility entities.
(d)
Insofer as not answered in TU/HL&P's response to Interrogatory Number 8 of the First Set of Interrogatories... from Department of Justice to HL&P/TU in this proceeding, state, describe, cnd summarize relevcnt details concerning, and list each person involved in every occasion since 1961 on which TU/HL&P has sought to influence its wholesale customer (s) or other members of ERCOT cs to the merits of intrastate-caly operation. (e) Provide all documents which relate to the cbove interrogatory."
ANSWER:
6(c) and (b). The TU Companies do not hcve sufficient knowledge of what others have considered to respond to this interrogatory as framed.
The term "decling in any way with" is so cmbiguous and vcgue os to be unintelligible, cnd any response would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible.
In 1968, the FPC encouraged HLP, TPL and GSU to test synchronous interstate operations through the GSU-HLP Huffmcn tie. The 1968 test, like the 1957 period of synchronous intarstate operations through the Huffman tie, proved tota!!y unceceptcble and was obm.doned. The joint report of the three porticipants in the study was made available to the Staff of the NRC for inspection and copying. The actions of WTU on May 4,1976, are described in detail in the depositions cnd testimony presented in the Federal Court Case, in the SEC Case and in Docket 14. On May 4,1976, after WTU's " midnight wiring," TESCO and TPL opened their interconnections with all other systems operating directly or indirectly in interstate commerce.
6(c). Throughout the yecrs the TU Companies repeatedly conducted studies and enclyses to determine if intrastate operations continue to be in the best interest of their respective customers. These studies, in particular, follow the publication of the 1964 National Power Survey,1965 Northeast Blackout, vcrious proposed relicbility bills in Congress in the mid cnd late 1960's, the Stone & Webster reports of 1966 to the TU Compcnies, the Florida Blackouts in 1969 cnd 1973, the 1972 FPC report on proposed interconnection of ERCOT with the Southwest Power Pool, and various reports cnd studies offered by CSW since 1975, the 202(d) study of the FPC promulgated in 1978, the study by the FEA regarding the possible interconnection of ERCOT with the SWPP, the NERC evoluction, and the 1977 New York Blackout. In ecch case, the TU Compcnies determined that synchronous interstate operation will degrade their system relicbility and result in substantial increcsed cost without cny commensurate benefits. The TU Compcny personnel involved most directly with these onclyses cnd reports include Messrs. Hulsey, Marqucrdt, Secrth, Roy Parks of TU, Max Tanner of DPL, John Robuck of TPL, and the engineering staffs of the respective TU Compcnies.
6(d). Until CSW's holding compcny status under the Public Utility Holding Compcny Act of 1935 was challenged, it was the common belief of cli ERCOT 6
companies, including WTU and CPL, that intrastate operation was in the interest of their respective customers. See the 1973 Holmen King memorandum which is TESCO Exhibit 296 in the Federal Court Ccse. See the opinion of Judge Porter in the Federal Court Case and the Amended Final Order in Docket 14.
The TU Companies have no interest in whether any other system operates in intrast 9 or interstate commerce, so long as that system's cctions do not deprive or cdh sely cffect the TU Companies' cbility to exercise their right of free choice with respect to the operation of their respective systems. Vcrious contreets, executed since 1961, which have been made availcble to the NRC Staff, contain provisions which require notice and permit the pcrties to terminate in the event either party decides to operate in a manner so es to subject the other party to federal regulation.
6(e). See the answer to Interrogatory l(d) and (e) above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7.
"(a) Describe in detail the content of the conversations between Messrs. C. Thrash, W. R. Brown cnd J. A. Cooch mentioned in HL&P's response No. XV in its Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrocotories, filed in Civil Action No. 3-76-0633F, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. (b) Identify the person or persons who made the final decision for TU/HL&P to disconnect from TIS on May 4,1976.
Identify the time cnd place of this decision, and list any other oersons oresent. (c)
Provide all documents which relate to the above interrogatory."
ANSWER:
7(o).
TESCO claims privilege with respect to the content of any conversations by its counsel, Mr. J. A. Gooch, with others to the extent such conversations relate to matters involving TESCO.
7(b). Mr. William G. Marquardt, President of TESCO, mcde the decision to open the interconnections of TESCO with WTU.
This decision was made at cpproximately 11:00 a.m. on May 4,1976. Mr. Scarth was present when the decision was made.
Mr. R. K. Campbell made the decision of TPL to open its interconnections with WTU, LCRA cnd HLP.
7(c). See the cnswer to interrogatory 1(d) cnd (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8.
"(c) List TU/HL&P's projected loads, generating ccpccity, cnd installea generating reserves for the years 1979-89.
(b) Will TU/HL&P's current and planned installed reserves for the years '979-1989 satisfy TIS relicbility criteria? If not, detail the entities with which TU/HL&P plans to deal, cnd in what ways (e. c., purchcses of firm cnd economy energy) to assure the reliability of its system. (c) Does TU/HL&P contend that interconnection with interstate utility entities can be of no assistance in terms of offering greater flexibility to alleviate capacity shorteges and excesses. Explain in detail. (d)
Provide all documents which relate to this interrogatory."
7
8(c). Projected Loads, Ccpacity, and Reserves:
- Capacity, Demand,
- Reserve, Year MW MW*
MW 1979 16849 11851 4998 1980 17303 12459 4844 1981 18768 13487 5281 1982 18653 14170 4483 1983 19591 14895 4696 1984 20734 15662 5072 1985 20913 16475 4438 1986 21263 17336 3927 1987 21898 18250 3648 1988 22323 19208 3115 1989 23448 20200 3248 Excluding Interruptible load of a large industrici
+
customer.
8(b). Yes.
8(c). Yes. The TU Companies do not foresee any shortages or excesses of power.
8(d). See the answer to Interrogatory l(d) and (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9. "(a) is it the policy of TlS members to normally operate their transmission interconnections unlocded? (b) If the answer to subpart (a) above is yes, then recite the terms of the agreements and any guidelines which relate to that policy, indicating the agreement, its date, and the portion (s) quoted.
(c) is there presently sufficient transmission ccpocity in TIS to allow for the economy energy exchange transactions contemplated in the study performed for HL&P by Stagg Systems, Inc.? Explain in detail. (d) Provide all documents which relate to the cbove interrogatory."
ANSWER:
9(a). No.
9(b). Not cpplicable.
9(c).
The TU Companies are without sufficient knowledge of the Stagg studies to respond.
9td). See the testimony of Messrs. Hulsey and Secrth in the Federal Court Case end Mr. Scarth in Docket 14. See also the cnswer to Interrogatory l(d) and (e) above.
8
INTERROGATORY NO.10.
"(c) Does HL&P/TU contend that ERCOT is presently on " optimal" size? (b) Does HL&P/TU contend that ERCOT will in the future be on " optimal" size? (c) If the answer to either subparts (c) or (b) cbove is "yes," then explain in detail the bcses for such contention. (d) If ERCOT is en optimal size for a system presently utilizing primarily gas-fueled generation, will the scme be true when ERCOT uses primarily non-gas generation? Explain in detail.
(e) Hos the development and movement towards increasingly greater capacities for EHV iransmission had any effect on HL&P/TU's views on interconnection with iM state electric utilities? Explain in detail. (f) Has the increasing cost of fuels and generation facilities and any effect on HL&P/TU's views on interconnection with interstate electric utilities? Explo:n in detail."
ANSWER:
10(c) and (b). Yes.
10(c). See the answers to Interrogatories 2 and 3(b) cnd (c).
10(d). Yes. The factors which determine optimal size for ERCOT cre not materially changed by the change in energy source.
10(e) and (f). The !ctest technology cnd dato, including without limitation, the increasingly greater EHV transmission capacities and changing fuel costs, have been token into account in the evoluctions referred to in cnswer to interrogatory 6(c) above.
INTERROGATORY NO. II. "(c) In what parts of its service crea is HL&P/TU experiencing the greatest load growth?
(" parts" refers to geographic locations or portions of service crecs).
(b) List any other electric utilities which have transmission or distribution planned or in place in these creas. (c) List any entities which have challenged HL&P/TU's right to serve these creas of rapid load growth."
ANSWER:
ll(c). The greatest load growth in the TU Compcnies' respective service territories has occurred in the suburbs of Dalics, suburbs of Fort Worth cnd Rou J Rock.
II(b). The TU Companies cre without sufficient knowledge of the plcns of other utilities te respond to this interrogatory as framed, except to the extent such plcns cre included in ERCOT's reports to FERC, copies of which bove been made available to the NRC Staff for inspection and copying. The crecs where electric utilities may serve end their transmission fccilities are certified by the PUC cnd cre of record. Some of these include City of Gcriand; City of Denton; Brczos Electric Power Cooperative; Texas Municipal Power Agency (picnned trcnsmission facilities); Grayson-Collin County Electric Cooperative; Denton County Electric Cooperative; Hill County Electric Cooperative; Tri-County Electric Cooperative; Formers Electric Cooperative; Knufman County Electric Cooperative; cnd Neverro County Electric Cooperative.
II(c). Tri-County Electric Cooperative; Johnson County Electric Cooperative; and City of Weatherfori.
9
INTERROGATORY NO.12. From which types of service do HL&P/TU realize the greatest rate of return? List types of service yielding greatest rate of return to smallest rate of return, including approximate numbers or percentages reflecting relative rates of return."
ANSWER:
- 12. Authorized Relative Rote of Return - TPL (PUC Docket 1517)
Service i.
Outdoor Lighting 200.0 2.
Transmission Line Service (Generci) 160.0 3.
General Service (Small) 153.9 4.
General Service (Large) 145.5 5.
Wholesale Power (Schedule WP-500) 81.1 6.
Residentici (Single Family Dwellings) 69.1 7.
Wholesale Power (REA) 55.7 8.
Municipal 48.3 Authorized Relative Rate of Return - DPL (PUC Docket 1526)
Service 1.
Industrial, Primcry 132.9 2.
General Service 112.9 3.
Residential 88.2 4.
Municipal Service 9.4 Authorized Relative Rote of Return - TESCO (PUC Docket 1903)
Service 1.
Outdoor Lighting 124.6 2.
General Service 105.8 3.
General Service (High Voltage) 104.3 4.
Residential (Standard) 99.7 5.
Residential (Total Electric) 91.5 6.
Rescle 84.6 7.
Magnesium Plant 71.9 8.
Municipal, Miscellcneous 67.2 9.
Ordinance Rates 63.0 10.
Municipal, Street Lighting 62.6 11.
Municipal, Water Pumping 62.5 12.
Farm Irrigation 57.5 10
__.~
INTERROGATORY NO.13. "(c) Does the study performed by Stagg Systems (hereinof ter referred to os the "Stagg Study") for HL&P constitute a commitment by HL&P to share its lowest cost fuels with other systems under central economy dispatch? Explain in detcil. (Houston and TU cnswer required). (b) is TU willing to engage in central economy dispatch in a menner contemplated by HL&P's "Stegg Study"? Explain in detcil. (Houston and TU onswer required). (c) is TU willing to engage in transactions with other entities which would involve sales or exchanges of its lignite-generated power?
Explain in detail.
(Houston cnd TU cnswer required)."
ANSWER:
13(c) cnd (b). The TU Companies are without sufficient knowledge to respond.
13(c. The TU Companies will study the coordination of ERCOT with anyone at any time so long as the aim of the study is directed towards determining the most efficient and reliable method of serving the Texas customers of the respective electric systene in ERCOT. The TU Companies will build joint plants and engage in other mutually beneficial coordinated activities; will not give up their owned fuel supply to accommodate other companies; will not share their facilities used to serve their customers without just compensation; cnd in no event will they shore their fccilities if to do so would result in any degradation of relicbility.
INTERROCATORY NO.14.
" List all joint generation and trcnsmission projects planned or engaged in to date between HL&P/TU ond other ERCOT members."
ANSWER:
- 14. The TU Componies are engaged jointly with other nonoffiliated entities in the construction of the Comanche Peck Steam Electric Station cnd the 345 KV transmission line from Comenche Peck to Parker.
INTERROGATORY NO.15. "(c) List those transactions since 196S in which TU/HL&P hos provided third-porty wheeling for other entities.
(b) List those occasions on which HL&P/TU has been c::ked orally or in writing, to provide third-party wheeling. (c) List and explain in detail those occasions on which HL&P/TU has orally or in writing declined or otherwise not been cble to wheel for others. (d)
Supply all documents which relate to subparts (b) cnd (c) of this interrogatory."
ANSWER:
15(c)-(c).
By en agreement (ottached) between BEPC cnd SPA, SPA will provide BEPC up to 30,000 kw of hydro power from Denison Dam during the times when power in Whitney Dam is not available in sufficient amounts to enable SPA to fulfill its contractual arrangements with BEPC. Under this crrangement, all such power from Denisin Dom is wheeled through the TP&L system to BEPC. As a consideration for this wheeling, TPL gets I kwh of energy for every 6 kwh of energy delivered to BEPC. TPL gets I kw ccpacity for each 6 kw ccpccity in excess of 11
5,000 kw provided to BEPC. The Transmission Facilities Agreement (attached) with Texas Municipal Power Agency, dated January 2,1979, provides for delivery of their generation entitlement at Comenche Peck cnd Gibbons Creek through the TU Compcnies' trcnsmission system. TPL is necotiating a similar cgreement scith BEPC. The TU Companies have not declined to provide third-party wheeling fc,r other utilities except under circumstances which could require the TU Compcnies to operate in a manner not in the best interests of their customers and/or could subject the TU Companies to FERC jurisdiction.
15(d). See the answei ~
terrogatory !(d) cnd (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO.16.
"(c) State the amounts (in MW) of instclied generation reserves required to meet HL&P/TU's planning criteric for each year from 1970-1978.
(b) State the cmounts (in MW) of cetuci instcIled generation reserves on HL&P/TU's system for ecch of the years since 1970. (c) Specify cnd explain the crrangements which were entered into to dispose of any excess. (d)
Quantify the omount of undisposed excess for each of the years since 1970."
ANSWER:
16(c) and (b).
Year Instclied Reserves (MW)
Actual Reserves (MW) 1970 1078 1127 1971 l152 1384 1972 1243 2070 1973 1301 2260 1974 1440 2405 1975 1426 3847 1976 1500 3862 1977 1579 4394 1978 1685 4700 Based on cetual load.
+
16(c). The TU Compcnies have had no excess power.
INTERROGATORY NO.17. "(c) Detail the errengements which TU/HL&P have entered into to dispose of cny excess ccpacity for ecch of the yects from 1978 until 1987. (b) Qucntify the expected amount of undisposed excess ccpccity for each of the years from 1978 until 1987."
ANSWER:
17(c). None. The TU Compcnies do not foreccst excess ccpccity.
12
17(b). None.
INTERROGATORY NO.18. " State in percentage terms for the period since 1970 the growth of HL&P/TU's: (a) loads, (b) transmission ecpacity, cnd (c) service crecs."
ANSWER:
18(a). Peck Load - 56.3%.
18(b). Transmission Ccpacity (in Miles):
345 KV - l 15.0%
138 KV - 28.7%
69 KV - (8.6%)
18(c). Service Arec: Prior to 1975, there was no territorial certification in Texas end, therefore, no basis for making a specific comparison. However, service territory of the TU Companies for all practical purposes is the scme now as then.
INTERROGATORY NO.19. " State whether, in what forms (e. c., wholesale, retail, new electrical, industrial, etc.), and to what extent TU/HL&P competes with Gulf States Utilities Company for new or existing loads or customers."
ANSWER:
- 19. The TU Companies do not compete with GSU. See Judge Porter's Opinion in the Federal Court Case.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20. "(c) Regarding the 1968 interconnection study performed by TU, Gulf States Utilities, and HL&P, list the individucis who participated, their company affiliations, titles, and responsibilities in producing this study. (b) Provide all documents which relate to the production of this study, including but not limited to draft studies, correspondence, memoranda, cnd notes relating to the purpose, scope, and results of the study."
ANSWER:
20(a). John Robuck, Assistant Chief Engineer, TPL, and his engineering staff represented TPL in this study.
20(b). See the answer to Interrogatory 1(d) cnd (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21. " Explain in detail the impcet and significence of the Docket #14 proceeding at the Texas P.U.C. on the NPC operating license antitrust proceeding."
13
PSWER:
- 21. This interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion cnd legal analysis.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22. " Provide any studies or other documents which analyze or balance the compcrative benefits and costs of installing non-gas generation, and/or converting existing gas generation to other fuels prior to the end of the useful life of present gas units."
ANSWER:
- 22. Since cpproximately 1971, the TU Companies have ceased to study or plan the instcllation of gas generation not then under construction. The TU Compcnies have studied the costs to convert generation at North Lake, De Cordova, Morgan Creek cnd Permicn Basin units from gas to western cool. There exist no studies which cnolyze, balance cnd compare the benefits and costs of the conversion of existing gas generaiton to other types of fuel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23.
"(a) Explain in detail the basis for HL&P's assertion in the Texas PUC's Docket #14 proceeding that interconnection of SWPP with ERCOT would cost Texas consumers $1 billion. (b) Provide all documents which relate to this interrogatory. (c) List the names of those HL&P or the employees, agents, or consultants who had or have personal knowledge of the data or studies underlying this cost estimate."
ANSWER:
23(c) and (b). See the testimony of Eugene D. Simmons in Docket 14 cnd the Federal Court Case.
23(c). The TU Compcnies are without sufficient knowledge to respond.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24. " Provide HL&P/TU's data provided to ERCOT for reply to FPC/FERC Docket #362 for each year since 1973."
ANSWER:
- 24. Except for the information attached hereto, all information provided by a TU Company to ERCOT for inclusion in the R-362 reports is identificble in the reports themselves, copies of which have been made availcble for inspection cnd copying by the NRC Staff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25.
"(c) HL&P:
state the current ccpital cost projections in dollcrs per kilowatt cnd the projected cnnual cash flow to meet the projected construction schedule for F.e %th Texas Project. (b) TU: provide the some information for Comenche Peck."
14
ANSWER:
25(c). Not cppliccble to the TU Compcnies.
25(b). Comanche Peck Project Estimated Project Cost $740/kw,2300 mw (as of 2-1-79)
$ (000)
Thru 1977
$46i,047 1978 317,528 IS 79 346,764 1980 299,66l 1981 185,440 1982 84,679 1983 4,881
$1,700,000 INTERROGATORY NO. 26. " State the " equivalent forced outage rates" as defined by the eel Prime Movers Committee currently used by HL&P/TU for planning purposes by estimated size of unit for: c. nuclear power plants beginning with Comanche Peck and South Texas, and continuing to futuro planned units on long-range projections. b. lignite plants. c. cool plants. d. gas plants."
ANSWER:
26(c).
II50 Mw 0.09 26(b).
750 kw 0.12 575 Mw 0.II 26(c).
750 Mw 0.12 500 Mw 0.ll 400 Mw 0.11 26(d).
775 Mw 0.06 550 Mw 0.06 400 Mw 0.04 100 Mw 0.02 INTERROGATORY NO. 27.
" Provide copies of all TU/HL&P long-range trcnsmission plans for the bulk power system with supporting technical studies, such as normal and emergency power flow studies, cnd stchility studies."
ANSWER:
- 27. See FERC Reports on Form R-362 for the trcnsmission plcns. To require the search for and reproduction of technical back-up data is unduly burdensome cnd unreasenchle.
15
INTERF7GATORY NO. 28. " Describe the method used in determining the amount of pcwer to be delivered to Southwestern Power Administratien (SPA)
" preference" customers after TU hcs received power from the Denison Ocm.
(HL&P cnswer not required)."
ANSWER:
28.
For Kilowatts, the formula is:
MD = A x GD B
with the factors defined as follows:
MD =
The Maximum Demand of the Government for any particular month (in kilowatts).
A=
The sum of the maximum 30-minute integrated demands recorded during such month at the points of delivery to customers of the Government served from the system of the Company (other than the Company), but not less than 75% of the greatest s>ch sum established during the preceding months of June, July, August, September and October.
B=
The greatest Factor A established from June through October during the 12-month period ending with such month.
CD =
15,000 kilowctts.
For Kilowatt-Hours, the formula is:
with the fcctors defined as follows:
GE=
The total number of kilowatt-hours of energy purchased by the Government from the Compcny for service to customers of the Government (other then the Company) during any particular month.
GD =
15,000 kilowatts.
TE =
The sum total number of kilowatt-hcurs of energy delivered to Tex-La during such month as metered at the points of delivery from the system of the Compcny to Tex-La.
C=
Scme as Fcetor B cbove.
16
INTERROGATORY NO. 29. "(c) How much energy (in k wh) hcs TU received in the Icst five years (on a year-by-yecr basis) from the Denison Dom hydroelectric facility? (HL&P cnswer not required). (b) How much energy (in kwh) has TU delivereri in the Icst five yecrs (on a year-by-year basis) to SPA preference customers that was based on the energy that TU has received from the Denison Dom hydroelectric facility? (HL&P cnswer not required)."
ANSWER:
29(c).
1974 - 119,143,000 1975 - 153,518,000 1976 - 40,270,000 1977 - 60,646,000 1978 - 63,83l,000 29(b).
1974 - 55,281,328 1975 - 56,261,848 1976 - 57,589,423 1977 - 59,941,874 1978 - 60,586,457 INTERROGATORY NO. 30.
" List the Texas Municipals and/or REA cooperatives that receive energy in port from TU cnd in part from en interstate electric utility that also serves the aforementioned municipalities cnd/or REA cooperatives. (HL&P answer not required)."
ANSWER:
- 30. REA cooperatives that receive energy in pcrt from a TU Compcny cnd in part from on interstate electric utility:
Lyntegar Electric Cooperative Wcod County Electric Cooperative r'ask County Electric Cooperative Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative Sam Houston Electric Cooperative Houston County Electric Cooperative Taylor County Electric Cooperative Midwest Electric Cooperative.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31.
"(a) Provide all documents concerning the purpose, benefits, detriments, feasibility, and any limitations of the 345 kv interconnections between HL&P cnd TU. (b) Provide all documents pertaining to the cost allocations, design and operating criteria, and the respective rights and responsibilities of HL&P cnd TU with respect to the picnning, construction and operation of the HL&P/TU 345 kv interconnections."
ANSWER:
31(a). The purpose is to render mutual assistence during emergencies and to 17
mcximize economy in providing the electric power requirements of ecch system.
See the cnswer to interrogatory 1(d) cnd (e) cbove.
31(b). See the cnswer to Interrogatory 1(d) cnd (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32.
"(c) Does HL&P/TU contend that it had no knowledge that CSW cnd/or its subsidicries contemplated the integration of the CSW system prior to 1974? Explain in detail. (b) Provide all documents upon which HL&P/TU bases its response."
ANSWER:
32(a).
Yes.
Prior to 1974, when the CSW holding company status was chcIlenged, every indication the TU Componies had way to the effect that WTU and CPL wcnted to maintain the intrastate character of thur systems in the historical ERCOT mode of operation. See also the answer to Interrogatory 6(d).
32(b). See the answer to Interrogatory 1(d) and (e) above. See Holmen King 1973 memorendum, TESCO Exhibit 296 in the Federal Court Case.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33.
"(c) Does HL&P/TU contend that CPL cnd WTU(s) cre generally in a better position in intrastate ERCOT than in on interstate ERCOT?
Explain in detail.
(b) Does HL&P/TU contend that there are no opportunities for bilateral exchanges and/or coordinated services between any intrastate-ERCOT entities and cny interstate entities. Explain. (c) Provide all documents upon which HL&P/TU bcses its response."
ANSWER:
33(c). Yes. CPL cnd WTU should decide for themselves how best to operate their systems just cs the TU Compcnies believe they should enjoy the right to choose how best to operate their systems. See Judge Porter's opinion in the Federal Court Case and the PUC's Amended Final Order in Docket 14. See also the depositions and testimony of Messrs. Austin, Hulsev cnd Secrth in the Federal Court Cose.
33(b). There are no mecningful, economically justifiable opportunities for bilaterci exchcnges and/or coordinated services between the TU Compcnies and interstate systems.
33(c). See the answer to Interrogatory 1(d) and (e) cbove.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34. "(c) Does HL&P/TU presently submit Forms I &
12 to the FERC? (b) Does HL&P/TU presently utilize the FERC uniform system of accounts? (c) If the answer to subsection (b) is in the negative, briefly describe the differences between present cecounting systems cnd the FERC Uniform System of Accounts."
ANSWER:
34(c) cnd (b). Yes.
18
INTERROGATORY NO. 35. " Provide all documents, reports, and studies on a company by company basis supplied to ERCOT for inclusion in the NERC " Eighth Anruci Review of Overcil Relicbility on Adeqvccy Of the North Americcn Bulk Power Systems" dated August 7,1978. Provide such dato not only for HL&P/TU, but also for any other electric system whose data HL&P/TU possess."
ANSWER:
- 35. All the data is in the ERCOT reports.
[
INTERROGATORY NO. 37.
"(c) Provide a transmission mcp of all trcnsmission lines of 110 Kv or greater that TU/HL&P has or plans to have by l985.
Include on X-Y coordinate system on the mcp suitable for identifying the location of ecch transmission line (or line segment). Provide data os follows: (b) the terminal or top point ncmes (or symbols) cnd location of each in terms of the X-y coordinates on the mcp. (c) the length of the line (or lir e segment) (d) date when first committed (e) date that the line was or will be energized (f) Kv rating (g) loodobility of the line in cmperes or MVA at 90% power factor (h) for existing lines, dates of each instance since 1965 when the line was mcnually opened or cutomatically opened because of overload cnd discussion of the reasons for the overload condition. (i) for existing lines, dates of ecch instance since 1965 when the line was menvolly opened or automatically opened for more than 60 seconds for reasons other than overload and discussion of the reasons."
ANSWER:
37(c) - (g). See mcps on Form TE-9500 and R-362 which have been previously made availcble for inspection cnd copying.
37(h)-(i). No such records are kept.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38 " Provide dates for each instance since 1965 that load has been manually or cutomatically shed by TU/HL&P, and discuss the cpproximate amount of load shed, the length of time, the method used, and the Cause."
ANSWER
- 38. There have been no instances since at least 1965 that load has been manually or automatically shed by TU.
INTERROGATORY NO. 39. " Provide dates for each instance since 1965 that TU/HL&P has had to restrict the output of any of its generators to avoid overlocding any of its trcnsmission lines or interconnections of 110 Kv or greater.
For each instance identify the transmission lines or interconnections that would have been overlocded and reasons for the prospective overload condition."
ANSWER:
39.
There have been no instances since at least 1965 that TU has hcd to restrict the output of cny of its generators to avoid overloading cny of its transmission lines or interconnections of 110 Kv or greater.
19
The answers to Interrogatories Nos. 36 cnd 40-50 will be filed on or before March 5,1979.
Respectfully submitted Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
M. D. Sampels, Esq.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
WORSHAM, FORSYTHE & SAMPELS 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dolics, Texas 75201 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nichoics S. Reynolds, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 By '-
V ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY AND TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 20
THE STATE OF TEXAS
)
COUNTY OF DALLAS
)
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for Dallas County, Texas, on this day personally appeared E.
D.
SCARTH, well known to me to be a credible person, who after being by me first duly sworn, L4 depose and say that he is ' duly authorized to respond to the NRC Staff's Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Houston Lighting & Power Company and Texas Utilities Generating Company on behalf of the TU Companies, has read the above and foregoing Answers of the TU Companies to said Interrogatories from the NEC Staff, and the same are true and correct, to the best of his knowledge and belief.
E.
D.
SCARTH SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 23rd day of February, 1979, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
/
lD M M
Notary Public', Dallas County Texas (Gwen Freeman)
My Commission Expires September 30, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER NRC Docke; Nos. 50-498A COMPANY, PUBLIC SERVICE 50-499A BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO, CITY OF AUSTIN, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
I and 2)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et cl.
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche PeciTSteam Electric 50-446A Station, Units I and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing ANSWER OF TEXAS UTILITIES Com?ANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO THE NRC STAFF'S INITIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY AND TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY has been made on the folicwing parties listed hereto this ist day of March
,1979, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq. (2 copies)
Richard S. Salzmen, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclect Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Michcel L. Glaser, Esq. (2 copies)
Jerome E. Shcrfman, Esq.
115017th Street, N. W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Weshington, D. C. 20555 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. (2 copies)
Chase R. Stephens, Secretcry (20 copies)
U. S. Nuc!ecr Regulatory Commission Docketing cnd Service Brcnch Wcshington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Jerome Scitzman Office of the Secretary of the Commission Chief, Antitrust and indemnity Group U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Wcshington, D. C. 20555
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Roff Hcrdy Board Panel Chairman and Chief Executive Officer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Central Power & Light Compcny Wcshington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
C. K. Spruce, Richard E. Powell, Esq.
General Mcnager David M. Stchl, Esq.
City Public Service Bocrd Thomas G. Ryan, Esq.
P. O. Box 1771 Isham, Lincoln & Becle San Antonio, Texas 78203 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Roy P. Lessey, Esq.
Jerry L. Harris, Esq.
Michcel Blume, Esq.
City Attorney, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard C. Bolough, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Assistent City Attorney City of Austin R. L. Hcncock, Director P. O. Box 1088 City e* Austin Electric Utility Department Austin, Texas 78767 P. O, tax 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Robert C. McDicrmid, Esq.
G. W. Oprec, Jr.
Spiegel cnd McDicrmid Executive Vice President 2600 Virginic Avenue, N. W.
Houston Lighting & Power Compcny Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Don H. Davidson Jon C. Wood, Esq.
City Manager W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
City of Austin Matthews, Nowlin, Mceforlene & Barrett P. O. Box 1088 1500 Alamo National Building Austin, Texas 78767 Scn Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Judith Harris, Esq.
Richard D. Cudahy, Esq.
Energy Section Robert H. Loeffler, Esq.
Antitrust Division Isham, Lincoln & Becie U. S. Department of Justice Suite 701,105017th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20530 Washington, D. C. 20036 Dougics F. John, Esq.
R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld John P. Mathis, Esq.
1100 Madison Office Building Baker & Botts 115515th Street, N. W.
1701 Pennsylvanic Avenue, N. W.
Wcshington, D. C. 20024 Washington, D. C. 20006 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore J. A. Bouknight, Esq.
5th Floor William Franklin, Esq.
Texas State Bank Building Lowenstein, Newmen, Reis & Axelred 900 Congress Avenue 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. 'N.
Austin, Texcs 78701 Washington, D. C. 20036 2
Jay M. Galt, Esq.
E. W. Bernett, Esq.
Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copelcnd, Esq.
Oklahoma City, Okichoma 73101 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esq.
Bcker & Botts Knolcnd J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texcs 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Linda L. Acker, Esq.
5541 East Skelly Drive Kevin B. Pratt, Esq.
Tulso, Ok!choma 74135 Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 12548 John W. Davidson, Esq.
Capitol Station Sawtelle, Gocde, Davidson & Tioilo Austin, Texas 78711 1100 Son Antonio Savings Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
Northcutt Ely W. S. Robson Watergate 600 Building General Manager Washington, D. C. 20037 South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Route 6, Building 102 Don R. Butler, Esq.
Victoria Regional Airport
!225 Southwest Tower Victoric, Texas 77901 Austin, Texas 78701 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeentn Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 3