ML19261D385
| ML19261D385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1979 |
| From: | Knotts J, Sampels M, Worsham I DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261D378 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906190043 | |
| Download: ML19261D385 (24) | |
Text
'
- s ciy\'
$v:.
. v /
jgf Y,o h
, J'% d
% $ & si UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q.,
3I R
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD , y - ~, ,
in the Matter of :
HOUSTON LIGHTING & 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 Nos. :
I and 2) :
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING :
COMPANY, et al. : NRC Docket Nos. 50-44SA (Comanche Peck Steam Electric : 50-446A Station, Units ! and 2) :
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWEP " TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY AND ITS SLOlOIARIES TO THE FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COME NOW TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY ("TU"), TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAN'( ("TUGCOd), DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
("DPL"), TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY ("TESCO"), AND TEXAS POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY ("TPL"), all collectively referred to os "TU Companies," in compliance with Sections 2.740b end 2.741 of the Rules of Prcctice of the Nuclear Regulatory Cemmission ("NRC") cnd in accordance with the order of the Board, dated March 9,1979, cnd on ogreement cmong counsel for the Depcrtment and the TU Companies, cnd make the following supplemental answers to the Department of Justice's First Set of Interrogatories numberec I, 2(c), 2(b),3(c),4,7,9,12(c),12(b),
12(c),14,20,21,23 and 25. These cnswers supplement cnd are not in lieu of answers previcusly filed in respcnse to the Department's interrogatories, and TUGCO reserves the right to further supplement the cnswers cs the need therefor crises.
Attached hereto is a list of documents, identified by Interrogatory number.
To the extent additional responsive dccuments cre discovered, such documents will be produced cnd similarly identified.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
- 1. Prior to 1935, the TU Companies onerated indirectly in interstate commerce through interconnections with WTU which maintained limited connections with Public Service Company of Okichoma's predecessor. On or cbout 2307 519 7906100073l
August 26, 1935, shortly before the effective date of the Federal Power Act, WTU at the urging of its sister company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, determined that operation solely in Texas was in the best interests of WTU cnd severed its ties with PSO. Additionally, TESCO believed that operation in interstate commerce in a manner which would subject TESCO's customers to the consequences of FPC jurisdiction was not in its best interests. Consequently, WTU and TESCO opened their interconnections. The interconnections were reestablished pursuant to written interconnecticn cgreements, beginning October 9,1935, which, as amended from time to time, continued in effect until brecched by WTU on May 4,1976, cnd concelled by TESCO on May 11, 1976.
The WTU-TESCO interconnectio,1 agreements did not require either party to continue to operate solely in Texas or to maintain interconnections with each other or with any TIS or ER COT member, were cancellable at any time by either party for any recson with notice and without penalty cnd did not restrict either WTU or TESCO from providing electric service to cnyone anywhere. The interconnection agreements merely preserved the right of WTU and TESCO independently to decide for itself whether to operate in interstate commerce subject to federal jurisdiction or to operate solely in intrastate commerce subject only to local and state regulatory authority.
The legal requirements to preserve en intrcstate, nonjurisdictional system have changed over the years and the operation of the northern and southern portions of WTU's system has been changed accordingly.
Since the adoption of the Federal Power Act, WTU has historically operated its system in two divisions, the Northern Division being interconnected with PSO operating in interstate commerce and the Southern Division interconnected with TESCO and other members of TIS cnd ERCOT operating solely in Texas, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Holding Company Act of 1935, the two divisions were designed to permit occasional interchange of power and were also designed to prevent operation in a way so os to subject the southern pcrt of WTU and any systems to which that portion of its system was interconnected to FPC (FERC) jurisdiction by reason of the way the northern portion of WTU was operated.
Each of the TU Companies has avoided interstate etmmerce since the cdoption of the Federal Power Act, except during times of electrical emergency when they were exempt from the jurisdictional consequences of the Federal Power Act. For example, during the period from 1942 through 1945, cs a result of the emergencies created by World War 11, the TU Compcnies operated in electrical synchronism in interstate commerce. However, during that period numerous system outages occurred both in Texas and in other states, some of which resulted from disturbances as far away as Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi. Synchronous interstate operation during the war years was unsatisfactory and was tolerated solely because of the emergencies created by World War 11. The unsatisfactory operating conditions crected during this period are documented in numerous system outcge reports.
The only mecns to insure freedom from federal regulation cnd the 2307 520 2
resultant adverse electrical, economic, operational and administrative consequences flowing therefrom is not to operate interconnected 'with cny facilities used for the transmission or sale of electricity in interstate commerce.
ConsequerJ!y, there were installed over the years at strategic locations between the Northern and Southern Divisions of WTU and at the Denison Dom various devices to prevent interstate flows of electricity under circumstances which would render the TU Compcnies jurisdictional and to protect against inadvertent synchronous operation of the TU Companies with WTU's Northern Division, PSO and other members of SWPP.
Prior to March 1974, when certain Okichomo municipalities challenged CSW's continued exempt status under the Holding Compcny Act of 1935, there was never any dispute between WTU cnd TESCO cs to the object of avoiding synchronous operation. Some disputes did develop with respect to the use of interlocks as opposed to power flow relcys in order to make certain that the FPC could not order synchronous interconnections of the TU Compcnies with SWPP, but these differences were always resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the porties.
In order to insure the validity of securities and to otherwise insure compliance with applicable federal cnd state w, these interlock devices were inspected and tested periodically through the y .u. These inspections and tests did not interfere with the operation of WTU.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER:
2(c). The WTU-TESCO interconnection agreement dated Februcry I6,1938, os amended, requires the installation of protective devices to prevent the flow of interstate power through the systems while interconnected. The TPL-SPA contract, o copy of which was provided in response to NRC Interrogatory No.15(c)-
(c), provided for the installation of protective devices in the form of breakers with a common bus to prevent the flow of power in interstate commerce to or from the Texas intrastate system at the Denison Dam. There are no other agreements or understandings regarding the installation of protective devices.
2(b). An intrastate provision is included in the agreements which are contained cnd identified in response to question 14 in the Construction Permit Antitrust Review. Whether or not these contracts by their terms specifically require prior notice of an intention to engage in interstate electric service, each TU Company has individually understood that if anv electric utility with which it is interconnected, directly or indirectly, desires to engage in interstate operation, that utility would give the TU Company prior notice. Moreover, it has been the common understanding cmong all members of the Texas Interconnected Systems
(" TIS") that should any individual member of tis desire to engcge in interstate operation it would provide notice to all the other members of TIS in order that each individual member of TIS could mcke a decision as to whether it would choose to remain in intrcstate operation or engage in interstate operation.
2307 321 3
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 3(a) In cddition to CSW's threats, throughout the years the TU Companies have conducted studies and analyses to determine if intrastate operations continue to be in the best interest of their respective customers. Some of these studies, in porticular, followed the publication of the 1964 National Power Survey,1965 Northeast Bicekout, various proposed relicbility bilis in Congress in the mid and late 1960's, the Stone & Webster reports of 1966 to the TU Compcnies, the GSU-HLP-TPL 1968 study of interconnection at the Huffman tie; the Florico Blackouts in 1969 and 1973, the 1972 FPC report on proposed interconnection of ERCOT with the Southwest Power Pool; various reports and studies offered by CSW since 1975, the 1977 New York Blackout, the 202(d) study of the FPC promulgated in 1978, the study by the FEA regarding the possible interconnection of ERCOT with the SWPP, dated March 1978, cnd the NERC evoluction in 1978-79. In each ccse, the TU Companies determined that synchronous interstate operation would degrade their system relicbility and result in substantial increased cost without any commensurate benefits. Moreover, without disconnection on May 4,1976, the TU Companies could have been subject to regulation under the Federal Power Act. See Supplemental Answer to Interrogatory 4 below as to the effects of such jurisdiction.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 4. The TU Companies have avoided engaging in interstate trcnsmission of electric energy, except in times of emergency under FPC jurisdictional exemptions, to avoid becoming subject to the consequences of federal regulation under the Federal Power Act. Some of the legcl consequences of such jurisdiction are that the FPC (now FERC) would have possessed power to:
(a) order permanent interconnections among "public utilities" whether or not such interconnections cre in the interest of the TU Companies or their customers, and to determine the terms, conditions, cmounts cnd method of compensation, whether or not adequately compensatory, and other matters relating to such interconnections; (b) cpprove or discpprove the sole, lecse, disposition, merger or consolidation of facilities cnd the ccquisition of securities of other "public utilities" cs defined by the Act; (c) cpprove the issucnce of equity and debt securities by "public utilities" before such securities cre permitted to be offered or issued; (d) regulate the rate chcrged for the sale at wholescle of electric energy in interstate commerce; (e) determine whether the interstate electric service by a "public utility" is proper, odequate end sufficient.
The TU Compcnies believe that the electrical consequences under the Federal Power Act would result in a deterioration of electric relicbility to their customers 2307 322 4
and significcntly increcse their costs.
The scope of federal jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act has evolved over the yecrs, cnd consequently the legal requirements to preserve en intrcstate, nonjurisdictional electric utility system have changed with that evolution. Many events during the 1960's highlight this jurisdictional evolution.
In July 1961, the FPC in the matter of the City of Colton, California (26 F.P.C. 223), for the first time asserted jurisdiction over a company whose facilities were located solely within a single state but which purchased electric power for resale through direct interconnections with a jurisdictional utility.
In the spring of 1962 cn cmendment to the Federal Power Act (Senate Bill 2662) wcs proposed which would have included in the definition of "public utility" c utility which was interconnected with another utility operating in a foreign country. Both WTU and CPL were interconnected with a utility operating in Mexico.
On July 1,1963, the FPC published a report which listed 189 utilities which the FPC deemed to be jurisdictional beccuse of their size or because it was alleged that such utilities had either direct or indirect electrical connections with jurisdictional companies. Included in this list wue the TU Companies, HLP, CPL cnd WTU.
In December 1963 cnd January 1964, the FPC advised DPL, TPL and TESCO by lettw that they were jurisdictional and requested that the TU Companies file their wholesale rates for cpproval by the FPC. The TU Companies denied they were jurisdictional.
In March 1964, the Supreme Court offirmed the FPC's determination in the Colton case in a ccse styled FPC v. Southern California Edison Compcny,376 U.S.
205.
In November 1964, the National Power Survey was published, projecting a fully coordinated notional power grid, including the TIS compcnies, in April ;965, engineers from the Federal Power Commission ecme to Texas to inspect 'NTU's northern system. Subsequently the FPC questioned why WTU had not previously filed wholesale rates with the Federal Power Commission. In 1966 WTU begcn mcking such reports and seeking cpproval for wholescle rates on its northern system.
In October 1965, the FPC decided a case involving Arkcnsas Power & Light which cost into doubt whether power flow relays were sufficient to insure nonjurisdictional status.
On November 9 and 10,1965, New York and much of New Engicnd went in the dark. The Northeast Blackout resulted in numerous studies and cnolyses by various groups excmining the causes and studying the menner in which similar blackouts could be prevented. in addition, numerous so-called relicbility bills cnd other 2307 323 5
amendments to the Federal Power Act were proposed in Congress during the 1960's to ihet end. The TU Compcnies commissioned Stone & Webster Engineers to study interstate connections, cnd that firm concluded in Februcry 1966 that no electrical or economic advantcges for the TU Companies could be achieved through interstate interconnections.
On March 20, 1967, the FPC publised its decision in the Florida Power &
Light Compcny case (37 F.P.C. 544) which held for the first time that an electric utility whose fccilities were all located within a single state end which had no direct interconnections with any interstate electric utility was nevertheless jurisdictional because of its indirect interconnections. This decision was subsequently offirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in FPC v. Florida Power & Light Company,404 U.S. 453 (1972).
The above summary highlights some of the important events which occurred in the 1960's which made the TU Companies analyze and study the method of operation for the TU Companies which was the most reliable end economic for their customers and forced the TU Companies to become increasingly more aware of the requirements necessary to insure their intrastate, nonjurisdictional status.
As a result thereof, the TU Companies substituted mechanical automatic interlock devices for power flow relays previously relied upon in part to insure electrical separation fiom interstate flows of electricity. Moreover, beginning in 1965 counsel to underwriters for public fincncings begcn to require certificates from the engineers of each TU Company to cssure them that prior FPC cpproval was not required.
The inevitable effect of FERC jurisdiction is on attempt by FERC to order interconnections by the TU Companies with members of the Southwest Power Pool.
The result of such interconnections would be synchronous operation of the ERCOT systems with the Eastern Power Grid which would have adverse electrical, economic, operational cnd administrative effects upon the TU Compcnies cnd the other members of ERCOT.
The extent and degree of system disturbcnces which most probcbly would result in the event of such interconnections are demonstrated by the numerous system outages which occurred when TESCO was synchronously interconnected to systems in Okichoma, Arkansas and Louisiono cs a result of the wartime emergencies during the period from 1942 through 1945; cnd the various attempts by HLP and GSU to establish stcble interstate synchronous interconnections, all of which resulted in serious system operating conditions. An analysis and excmination of the causes for the 1965 Northeast Blackout, the various electricci bicckouts experienced in Florida, particularly in 1968 cnd 1973, and the 1977 New York Blackout also support the TU Companies' belief that synchronous interconnection in interstate commerce is unwise. The experience of WTU cnd CPL during the period from August 28, 1976, until November 11, 1976, when nine system sepcrations resulted from an attempt by WTU and CPL to operate in synchronism with the SWPP, provides support for the TU Companies' conclusions cbout interstate synchronous operation. Moreover, CSW bcs recognized publicly that interconnection on a synchronous basis of ERCOT with SWPP ccnnot be accomplished at the present time without serious operating problems.
2307 324 6
The operation of ERCOT electrically separate from the Eastern Grid cnd from WSCC has resulted in a more relicble system of electric service then in any interconnected mode. This is so because of the following reasons:
(c) Texas is located on the periphery of both the Eastern Grid and WSCC. Because of ERCOT's geogrcphical location, ERCOT is ccpcble of physical interconnection with the Eastern Grid with only one reliability council (SWPP). The Gulf of Mexico and Mexico cre to the south of ERCOT, cnd the sparsely populated crecs to the west of ERCOT offord no meaningful electricci interconnection opportunities into WSCC. The result is that ERCOT forms on electric peninsula which, by reason of its geogrcphy, prevents sufficiently strong multiple interconnections.
(b) ERCOT could not obtain any net benefits of interconnections in times of emergency within ERCOT unless the interconnections are strong enough to withstand the power surges caused by automatic generator response and dispersed cround the perimeter of ERCOT. Because of the location of ERCOT, interconnections of such strength would not be cost efficient.
(c) Synckonous interstate in erconnections would expose ERCOT to electric disturbar.ces on systems for away from Texas, creating a greater possibility that ERCOT would become on " island" in the event of emergency.
ERCOT systems would plcn not to rely upon the interconnection for support in times of emergency.
(d) ERCOT has been big enough to achieve the benefits of interconnected operation for electricity solely in Texas, but it has not grown so large os to become unwieldy or unmonagecble. Demand for electricity in ERCOT has been large enough to permit the installation of the lcrgest commercially proven generating units in the Texas system, permitting substantial economies of scale. Since there is no meaningful load diversity between ERCOT cnd SWPP, generation reserves cannot be effectively shared.
(e) The limited number of systems within ERCOT hcs permitted en excellent communications network to develop which encbles ecsy, cuick and efficient notice of system disturbances cnd immediate resolution thereof.
The limited number of systems within ERCOT has reduced the exceedingly unwieldy administrative and operational problems, both technical cnd practid, which necessarily accompany Icrger interconnected systems.
(f) The philosophy of operation with self-sufficient generating capacity to maintain the integrity of major load centers during normal conditions insures that interconnecting transmission lines cre availcble for use in times of emergency loss of generation. These transmission lines were designed for ERCOT :ntrastate operations in emergency situations, not continuous and routine movement of bulk power between systems and not interstate synchronous operations under an interconnected Mode 4 cs proposed by CSW with three weck interconnections. The interconnected systems in ERCOT under such an interconnected mode would have to substcnticily increase the ccpocity of their existing internal transmission 2307 325
system and/or make expensive modifications to achieve a reliability comparable to that which is currently available with the underfrequency relays and the response of governors on only interconnected generators during emergencies.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 7. In 1964, WTU's Lcke Pauline generation Unit No. I cracked a shaft, which resulted in the installation of numerous electrical interlocks which provided mechanical protection against interstate electrical flows in lieu of power flow relay protective devices. PSO served the Lake Pauline-Quanah-Vemon crecs until the cracked shaft was repaired. At about the same time, the FPC jurisdictional criteria was evolving which called into question the degree of protection cgainst interstate power flows provided by power flow relays. During this period there was some disagreement between TESCO and WTU as to the type of protective device neceescry to prevent becoming jurisdictional, but there was no disagreement between WTU and TESCO as to each system's objective f remaining non-jurisdictional.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 9. Prior to and immediately after the adoption of the Federal Power Act, representatives of WTU and TESCO met to re-establish intrastate interconnections.
In addition, from time to time, pursucnt to exemptions from FPC jurisdiction, the TU Companies have operated, directly or indirectly, interconnected in interstate commerce for short periods during electrical emergencies.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 12(a). TU believes the report is incorrect.
12(b). TU believes the report is incorrect. (The quote in the Interrogatory should read "' Inertial' load flows- " instead of " ' Internal' load flows- ".)
12(c). The TU Companies have not made a detailed cnolysis of the FERC's 202(a) study published in March 1978. However, the TU Companies have looked preliminarily at the report and concluded that it supports, not refutes, the TU Compcnies' position that operation in interstate commerce until the 1990's is not in the best interest of their customers. Generally, the report did not address the crucial question of economics cnd confined its consideration of reliability to LOLP and load flow studies which examined only single contingency outages, even though TIS planning criteria require planning for double contingency outages.
TU believes the statement in (b) is incorrect. The statement implies that if single contingency cases are staisfactory, then the transmission design is satisfactory. This violates TIS planning criteria and common sense. The history of blackouts is a history of multiple contingencies occurring at or near the same time.
Prudent planning recognizes the possibility of multiple contingencies and assures a system design which would function satisfactorily with reasonable, even improbable, multiple contingencies.
2307 326 8
The TU Compcnies also believe that the cost of 345 KV line for interconnections would be greater then $125,000 per mile at 1977 costs.
The report is incorrect in concluding that there are no other costs cssociated with interconnection. Some of the additional costs include, without limitation, the costs of (1) estcblishing cnd operating the new dispatch control functions in the interconnected mode; (2) studying, re-evolucting, readjusting ond/or replacing the underfrequency relays and supplementing or substituting such relays with a different system in order to achieve o comparcble and acceptcble way cutomatically to restore a balance between load and generation during generation-deficient emergencies; (3) setting up cnd assuring the operational statur of an organization to coordinate the sharing of information between systems cnd reviewing and adjusting cs necessary the operating guides of the two systems; (4) examining the internal transmission systems in SWPP, the ties of the SWPP to other regions, and perhaps internal transmission systems within those regions to determine their adequacy to function satisfactorily in the event of an ERCOT-SWPP interconnection; cnd (5) overcoming the inability of reliability studies to simulate all the circumstances which occur in rect system operation which is the ultimate test of how reliable the electric service which customers will receive is.
See also replies to Interrogatories 3,4,6 and 14.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 14. While the decision of TESCO cnd TPL to disconnect was made within a short period of time af ter they learned of the " midnight wiring," the decision represented the culmination of years of analysis, examination cnd reflection as to what mode of operation was best for their customers. The decision to disconnect was made in the context of the multiple threats by CSW to force a synchronous interstate interconnection for private not public motives, the conclusion of numerous analyses over the years that interstate operation is not cs relicble cnd is more costly than en intrastate mode of operation, cnd the historical operating experience of the TU Companies contrcsted with the experience of the componies in New York and Florida which are inadequately interconnected with neigitoring systems and thus form cn electrical peninsulo similar to ERCOT. To do nothing was to risk the consequences of federal regulation cnd the concomitant adverse electricci, economic, operational and administrative consequences which necessarily flow therefrom.
See answers and supplementary cnswers to Interrogatories 3 cnd 4.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 20(c).The membership criteric for ERCOT grew out of discussions cnd meetings cmong TIS members and others. The langucge adopted was proposed by HLP. The dates of the meetings are unknown except to the extent minutes of such meetings were kept. The persons having principal responsibility within the TU Compcnies were Messrs. T. L. Austin, Jr. (then President of TPL), Perry G. Brittain (then Vice President of OPL), John Robuck (then chief engineer of TPL), E. D.
Scarth (Vice President of TESCO) and L. J. Bicize (then President of TUSI).
2307 327 9
20(b).The matters inquired into in this interrogatory call for information cnd documents which are squarely within the ottorney-client privilege cnd cs such cre not discovercble by interrogatory or otherwise. The documents numbered 09268-09269, 09271-09276, and 09728-09729 are privileged. These documents were incdvertently produced to the Department under circumstances which did not waive any privilege, cnd a request that these documents cnd all copies be returned to counsel for the TU Companies is hereby made.
20(c).None.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 21. On May 7,19M, the PUC convened cn evidentiary hearing in its Docket 14 to examine whether in??rconnections cmong certain electric utility compcnies within the State of Texas were adequate to meet the public interest following the events of May 4,1976. The 3UC found that there was no immediate danger to the public as a result of the discennection which occurred on May 4,1976, but that the public interest required the immediate reestablishment of the intrastate interconnected system among me companies which wished to continue to operate in intrcstate commerce. The PUt ordered all parties immediately to negotiate for the estcblishment of cn emerghcy interconnection which would not subject cny utility to the jurisdiction of the FPC. Pursucnt thereto, on Mcy 7,1976, Mr.
Simmons of HLP cpproached Mr. Austin of TU cbout the possibility of discussing the conditions for reestcbiishing the ir systems' 34S KV interconnection. On May 10, 1976, Mr. Austin called Mr. Jordon 2nd agreed that the TU Compcnies would give HLP prior notice before voluntarily commencing operations in interstate commerce. The interconneciton was reestcblished between TPL cnd HLP without any other understanding or agreement.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER
- 23. From 1965 through April 1976, TESCO made monthly inspections of the electrical interlocks and power flow relays installed on WTU's system. These protective devices were tested at least annucity. The transmission fccilities of WTU and others near the Oklahoma border cnd in for west Texas were inspected periodically to insure the integrity of TESCO's intrastate exemption from federal regulations. Additional inspections were mcde of such protective devices cnd of the protective devices at the Denison Octn ecch time one of the TU Compcnies was publicly in registration on a securities off4 ring to cssure the underwriters cnd their counsel that no prior FPC cpproval was re4uired.
23(c). Reports of inspections were provided to other TU Compcnies, usually by the chief engineers, but also on occcsion to representatives of HLP for its information. The principal persons involved in the prepcration of these reports were Messrs. E. D. Sccrth (TESCO), L. F. Fikar (TU), John Hume (TU), John Robuck (TPL) and John Gcrretson (TU).
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 25(c) and (b). The design of a bulk power transmission grid is a continuing 2307 328 10
process. Ecch decision to add transmission facilities depends upon a number of very complex factors, including without limitation, projections of future load growth, location of existing cnd proposed generation fccilities cnd the number, size, location, ccpocity, cnd configuration of the trcnsmission facilities then in picce. Ecch new decision builds upon decisions made in the past. The decisions to continue to operate in cn intrastate mode have certainly affected the development of the TU Companies' bulk power trcnsmission system. However, it is impossible to compare costs between the present intrastate trcnsmission grid and some hypothetical interconnected system since the number, size, location, ccpacity cn/
configuration of such hypothetical interconnections dremotically impacts how the transmission grid would have been constructed. The TU Compcnies believe they have incurred substantially less bulk power transmission costs by operating in on intrastate mode of operations than had they developed cn interstate mode of operations. The costs incurred for maintenance of an intrastate system, including the installation of protective devices and the mcking of inspections used to insure the integrity of the TU Companies' intrcstate operations, cannot be reasonably estimated because no studies and no documents exist which segregate such costs, but suen costs are believed to be miniscule (not exceeding $40,000 in the aggregate since 1965). An indication that intr' 2 tate operation has been good for the customers of the TU Companies is that they hcVe enjoyed electric reliability which is among the best anywhere at costs which Fove been consistently among the lowest availcble under comparable conditions.
See also answers and supplemental cnswers to Interrogatories Nos. 3,4 and 23.
Respectfully submitted, Jos. Irion Worsham, Esc.
M. D. Sampels, Esq.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
WORSHAM, FORSYTHE & SAMPELS 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dalles, Texas 75201 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
,' P By L L T k' A
( J ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY AND TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 2307 329 11
THE STATE OF TEXAS (
(
COUNTY OF DALLA 3 (
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for Dallas County, Texas, on this day pers cally appeared E. D. SCARTH, well known to me to be a credible person, who after being by me first duly sworn, did depose and say that he is duly authorized to respond to the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Porduction of Documents from the Department of Justice on behalf of the TU Companies, has read the above and foregoing Second Supplemental Answer of Texas Utilities Company and its subsidiaries to said Interrogatories from the Department of Justice, and the same are true and correct, to the best of his knowledge and belief.
E. D. SCARTH h
SUBSCRIBED AND S'40RN TO before me this 2 7 day of April 1979, to certify which witness by hand and seal of office.
/
Notary Public in d(d for Dallas County, Texas 2307 ;30 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of :
HOUSTON LIGHTING & 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 Nos. :
I cnd 2) :
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING :
COMPANY, et al. : NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche Peck Stecm Electric : 50-446A Station, Units I and 2) :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that service of the foregoing SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER OF TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO THE FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 27th dcy of April,1979, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid:
MarshcIl E. Miller, Esq. (2 copies) Richard S. Salzmen, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael L. Glaser, Esq. (2 copies) Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.
115017th Street, N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Wcshington, D. C. 20555 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. (2 copies) Chcse R. Stephens, Secretary (20 copies)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing cnd Service Branch 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 cnd indemnity Group U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Roff Hcrdy Board Panel Chairmcn cnd Chief Executive Officer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Central Power & Light Company Wcshington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 2307 331
Michael 1. Miller, Esq. G. K. Spruce, Richard E. Powell, Esq. General Mcnager David M. Stahl, Esq. City Public Service Board Thomas G. Ryan, Esq. P. O. Box 1771 Isham, Lincoln & Beale San Antonio, Texas 78203 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Roy P. Lessey, Esq. Jerry L. Hcrris, Esq.
Michael Blume, Esq. City Attorney, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard C. Balough, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Assistant City Attorney City of Austin R. L. Hcncock, Director P. O. Box 1088 City of Austin Electric Utility Department Austin, Texcs 78767 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texcs 78767 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq. G. W. Oprec, Jr.
Spiegel and McDicrmid Executive Vice President 2600 Virginic Avenue, N. W. Houston Lighting & Power Company Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Dan H. Davidson Jon C. Wood, Esq.
City Mcnager W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
City of Austin Matthws, Nowlin, Macforlene & Bcrrett P. O. Box 1088 1500 Alamo National Building Austin, Texas 78767 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Gallo, Esq. Judith Hctris, Esq.
Richard D. Cudahy, Esq. Energy Section Robert H. Loeffler, Esq. Antitrust Division Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Department of Justice Suite 701,105017th Street, N. W. Wcshington, D. C. 20530 Washington, D. C. 20036 Douglas F. John, Esq. R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld John P. Mathis, Esq.
1100 Mcdison Office Building Bcker & Botts 115515th Street, N. W. 1701 Pennsylvcnic Avenue, N. W.
Washington, 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 Bcnk Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelred 900 Congress Avenue 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Austin, Texas 78701 Washington, D. C. 20036 2307 :32
Joy M. Galt, Esq. E. W. Barnett, Esq.
Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hcyes Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copelcnd, Esq.
Oklahoma City, Okichoma 73101 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esq.
Baker & Botts Knoland J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc. Linda L. Acker, Esq.
SS41 East Skelly Drive Kevin B. Pratt, Esq.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 12S48 John W. Davidson, Esq. Ccpitol Station Sawtelle, Goode, Dcvidson & Tioilo Austin, Texas 78711 1100 Son Antonio Savings Building Son Antonio, Texas 7820S 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.
Victoric Regional Airport 1225 Southwest Tower Victoric, Texcs 77901 Austin, Texas 78701 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman -
1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washin fan, D. C. 20036
~
/t '
,/
Aucl- S ,f) kk&~
2307 333
APPENDIX A INTERROGATORY 2 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
2-7; 9-10; 12-14; 17-18; 21; 26-27; 38-40; 43-44; 47; 49-55; 58-60; 62-63; 66-73; 75; 77-82; 84-85; 92-97; 100; 102-105; 108; 124-125; 134; 139-140; 144; 155; 157-159; 161-166; 671; 673; 696; 719 TESCO Exhibits:
2; 4A-L; 5; 95; 131; 135-135; 191-194; 229; 237; 241; 246; 253-254; 260; 272-275; 278; 280; 285; 304; 331 Document Production Nos.:
00191; 00369-00375; 00378; 00439; 00554-00570; 01278; 01304; 01350-01356; 01358-01375; 01507-01511; 04356-04357; 04372-04378; 04411; 04440; 04455-04457; 04459-04461; 04595; 04597-04598; 04644; 04647-04649; 04652-04676; 04693-04725; 04811-04824; 04828; 04840-04842; 04867-04870; 04899; 04921; 05079-05110; 06252-06258; 06293-06301; 06307-06318;06320-06327; 08739-08741; 08787-08795; 09918-09923; 09928-09931; 11225-11227; 11278; 11281-11290; 11356-11358; 11455-11457; 11462-11465; 11487-11520; 11582-11586; 11588; 11631-11642; 11659-11661; 11668-11669; 11695-11707; 11808-11372; 11873-11889; 12041-12043; 12050-12056; 12354-12355; 12392-12426; 12434-12444; 12447-12477; 12483-12490 INTERROGATORY 3 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
120 TESCO Exbibits:
6; 9; 69; 89-90; 297; 298; 325
Document Production Nos.:
05878-05880; 07217-07219; 08806-08833; 08752-08754 INTERROGATORY 4 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
760-761; 763; 765; 776; 782-786 TESCO Exhibits:
6-7; 9; 17; 23; 28; 31; 59; 60; 60A; 62-70; 73-77; 79-83; 85; 88-91; 97; 101-102; 126; 138; 153-154; 156; 158-159; 165-166; 171; 225; 239; 261; 295-299; 305; 307-311; 313; 320; 330 HLP Exhibits:
88-89; 166; 212 Document Production Nos.:
00036-00039; 00103-00109; 00113-00132: 00193-00195; 01771-01798; 01800-01808; 01847-01886; 01995-01996; 02426; 02438-02450; 02570-02591; 02850-02898; 02949-02972; 03047-03063; 03066-03111; 04030-04084; 04110-04259; 04385-04387; 04467-04493; 04506-C4554; 04558-04560; 04578-04579; 04582-04593; 04632; 04640; 04642-04643; 04645; 04726-04727; 04732-04747; 04765-04763; 05111-05282; 05284-05390; 05533-05540; 05605-05606; 05616; 06078-06086; 06195-06224; 06232-06234; 06340-06565; 06573-06606; 06617-06644; 06726-07035; 07036-07041; 07060-07064; 07163-07239; 07240-07377; 08285-08296; 08749-08751; 08052-08968; 08971-08972; 09581-09583; 09602-09611; 09614-09676; 09682-09719; 09756-09780; 09806-09816; 09844-09849; 09858-09893; 10066-10095; 10200-10238; 10337-10340; 10377-10481; 10463-10558; 10757-10875; 11159-11192; 11291-11317; 11537-11566; 11570-11575; 11580-11581; 11719-11731; 11932-12027; 12220-12233; 12311-12317; 12478-12482; 13088-13229; 13297-13414 INTERROGATORY 6 2307 335 Federal Court Case HLP Exhibits:
204 (ii)
INTERROGATORY 7 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
2 -15; 22; 56; 59; 74; 115-116; 133-134; 673; 304 Document Production Nos.:
02457; 02496; 04459-04461; 05868; 05873-05875; 05920; 05995-05997; 06012-06014; 09447; 11214-11217; 11264-11265; 11631-11640; 11643-11658; 11662-11667; 11689-11694; 12263-12264 INTERROGATORIES 8 and 9 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
773-776 TESCO Exhibits:
5; 45; 47; 56; 178; 180; 182-185; 206; 230; 247; 295-296 HLP Exhibits:
68; 156 Document Production Nos.:
02424; 02497; 06235; 09097-09099; 09781-09782; 12234-12239 INTERROGATORY 10 Federal Court Case TESCO Exhibits:
2307 336 289 Document Production Nos.:
02848; 04388-04389; 04392; 04397-04399; 04401-04403; 04405; 04412-14417; 04424-04425; (iii)
04428-04435; 04443; 04445-04447; 04449; 04452; 04454-04455; 04457; 04494; 04496-04498; 04500-04502; 04561-04570; 04573-04575; 04623-04631; 05876-05877; 10876-10883; 10885-10887; 10898-10899; 10908-10910; 10921-10924; 11521-11524; 12265-12266 INTERROGATORY 12 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
126 INTERROGATORY 16 Document Production Nos.:
540-551; 571-1127; 1382-1390; 1410-1698; 2061-2420; 5450-5459; 8097-8284; 8301-8375; 8914-9051; 11024-11157 INTERROGATORIES 17 and 20 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
137-138; 169; 742 TESCO Exhibits:
239 Dccument Production Nos.:
5063-5078; 9531-9540; 10637-10640; 10656-10658; 10662; 10668-10747 INTERROGATORY 18 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
2307 ~337 69; 127; 136; 168; 182; 187; 742 (iv)
TESCO Exhibits:
58; 148; 155; 205; 216; 251; 262 Document Production Nos.:
01229-01237; 04992-04999; 05052-05062; 05402-05411; 06095-06107; 06147-06157; 06236-06244; 07045-07049; 07096-07117; 09384-09393; 09395; 09397-09401; 09403-09407; 09419-09433; 09435-09441; 09456; 09472; 09517; 09531-09540; 10272 10277; 10663-10664; 10749-10756; 11732; 11797-11807; 12080-12095; 12097-12107; 12162-12163; 12168-12170 INTERROGATORY 21 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
154 TESCO Exhibits:
152 Document Productiot Nos.:
05888-05889; 11595; 11676; 11687-11688 INTERROGATORY 22 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
118; 125 TESCO Exhibits:
45-46; 296 HLP Exhibits:
68; 156 Document Production Nos.:
05391-05393; 05395; 05399; 05490; 05939-05940; 05948-05949; 05963; 11525-11532 2307 338 (v)
INTERROGATORY 23 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
1; 11; 20; 23; 37; 48; 54; 64-65; 82-83; 86; 88-91; 96; 99; 101; 103-107; 110-114; 117; 132-133; 135; 141-143; 145-149; 151; 153; 156; 188; 601-602; 670; 684; 686; 689; 691-692; 694-695 TESCO Exhibits:
71; 286-292; 303-304; 324 Document Production Nos.:
00001-00033; 00040; 00049-06054; 00056-00069; 00172-00185; 00188; 00196-00354; 00360-00368; 00376-00377; 00380-00408; 00410-00438; 00440-00451; 01267-01268; 01285-01288; 01297; 01299-01303; 01305-01307; 01309-01331; 01344-01346; 01357; 01362; 01376-01381; 01699-01701; 02239; 02748-02762; 02765-02816; 04317-04323; 04390; 04393-04396; 04404; 04407; 04436; 04441; 04451; 04453; 04495; 04571; 04622; 04682-04692; 04786-04788; 04795-04796; 04802-04810; 04871-48888; 04890-04898; 04900-04916; 04918-04920; 04922-04952; 05000-05051; 06280; 06290-06291; 08796; 08927-08948; 08955-08960; 09924-09927; 09932-09958; 10926-10930; 10936-10937; 10946-10955; 10959; 10966-11023; 11158; 11201; 11208-11213; 11219-11224; 11228-11238; 11248-11249; 11252-11277; 11279-11280; 11318-11319; 11343-11355; 11372-11454; 11459-11460; 11533-11536; 11587; 11592-11594; 11596-11607; 11610-11630; 11643-11650; 11670-11672; 11675; 11677-11686; 11708-11714; 11716; 12267-12268; 12270-12310; 12318-12350; 12356-12391 INTERROGATORY 24 Federal Court Case Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
19; 24-25; 31-33; 35-36; 4.1.- 4 2 ; 45-46; 48; 57; 63-62; 76; 129; 170-171; 174; 176; 178-183; 186-169; 759 2307 539
/
(vi)
TESC) Exhibits:
60-61; 60A; 78; 94; 304 Document Production Nos.:
00034-00035; 00044-00048; 00070-00079; 00086-00095; 01262; 01269-01284; 01358-01375; 04789-04793; 04797-04801; 08723-08738; 08742-08748; 08759-08786; 08797-08799; 08801-08802; 08806; 10884; 10931-10932; 11202-11207; 11240-11247; 11250-11251; 11320-11323; 11341-11342; 12030-12040 2307 340 (vii)
APPENDIX B Citations to Transcript in Federal Court Case INTERROGATORY 2 pp. 1141; 1145; 1152-1156; 1189; 1206-1231; 1267-1272; 1307-1309; 1328-1338; 1349-1350; 1405-1407; 1442; 2754-2755; 3279-3280 INTERROGATORY 3 pp. 1124-1125; 1176; 1192-1195; 1206-1209; 1277-1280; 1286-1287; 1296; 1339-1442; 1355-1363; 1375-1376; 1410 -1420; 1424-1425; 1427-1429; 3337-3338; 3458 INTERROGATORY 4 pp. 1171-1174; 1183; 1206-1209; 1244-1249; 1252; 1274; 1397-1398; 3260-3262; 3299-3334; 3324-3337; 3517-3524 INTERROGATORY 6 pp. 3009-3038; 3477-3479 INTERROGATORY 7 pp. 1266; 1433-1435 INTERROGATORIES 8 and 9 pp. 1223; 1368-1371; 3262-3278 INTERROGATORY 10 pp. 1263-1272; 1393-1403; 1457-1464; 3447-3452 INTERROGATORY 12 2307 341 pp. 3491-3494
INTERROGATORY 14 pp. 1228-1229; 1244-1249 INTERROGATORIES 17 and 20 pp. 1150; 1160; 3456-3457 INTERROGATORY 18 pp. 1150; 1317-1321; 2771 INTERROGATORY 21 pp. 1343-1345; 2755-2756; 2954-2956 INTERROGATORY 22 pp. 1120-1125; 1139-1142; 1336-1338; 1468-1470; 3454-3457 INTERROGATORY 23 pp. 1097; 1226; 1291-1293; 1296; 1299-1300; 1324-1327; 1363-1367; 3281-3292 INTERROGATORY 24 1275; 1315-1316; 3251-3259; 3420-3437 2307 342 I
(ii)