ML19290B959
| ML19290B959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1978 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AUSTIN, TX, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., SAN ANTONIO, TX |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290B958 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912260088 | |
| Download: ML19290B959 (11) | |
Text
.
EXHIBIT 1 (b)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATOR,Y.j_Cp0!ISSION In the Matter of g.,q,,, g )..
k 57
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
PUBLIC SERVICE 30ARD OF SAN ANTONI,0.),.tpocket Nos. 50-498A CITY OF A"STIN
)
50-499A CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(South Texas Proj ect,
)
Units 1 and 2)
),
SPECIAL PREHEARING COWERENCE ORDER (July 13,1978)
A special prehearing conference was held in this proceed-ing on June 21, 1978 for the purpose of considering interven-tion petitions, identifying key issues and contentions and establishing discovery procedures and schedules.
Petitions for leave to intervene and for an antitrust hearing were filed by four petitioners pursuant to a notice of hearing published in 43 Federal Recister 15811 on April 14, 1978.
Upon consideration of the respective petitions and responses filed by the parties and the arguments of counsel, the Board granted the intervention petition filed by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO), and Dallas Power and Light Company, Texas Electric Service Company, and Texas Power and Light Company (TU Operating Companies).bl 1/ r. 30.
T 1731 268 7912260 g
The intervention petition of South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. was also granted, as both petitions fulfilled the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 by setting forth with particularity the ' facts showing a cognizable interest and the basis for contentions regarding each aspect of the requested intervention.
(Tr. 3 2)
The petition of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas was denied for failing to plead with requisite particularity its interest in this proceeding, the existence of a situation inconsistent with specified antitrust laws, and a nexus between such an alleged situation and the licensed activities.
(Tr. 20-27)
However, leave was granted to file an amended petition and a supplemental petition for leave to intervene was duly filed on June 28, 1978.
The petition of the Committe.e on Power for the Southwest, Inc. was denied for its failure to plead adequately interest or standing by its members, or nexus.
Leave was granted to file an amended petition, but on June 26, 1978 this Petitioner filed a request to make a limited appearance in lieu of its prior request for leave to intervene as a matter of right.
As requested, its intervention petition filed May 17, 1978 is withdrawn, and its petition for permission to make a limited appearance by way of oral or written statements is granted.
1731 269
~
Following discussion with counsel, the Board adopted the following issues, with the understanding that they are neces-sarily general at this stage and that subissues will be developed and amendments may be made as discovery proceeds and is completed:
Ultimate Issue I - Whether the Applicants' activities (jointly, severally, or with others) under the licenses sought will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws (Sherman Act, 51 or 2; clayton Act; Federal Trade Co==ission Act, 55), or their clearly underlying policies.
Ultimate Issue II - What relief is appropriate to remedy a situation if found to be inconsistent with the antitrust laws or their clearly underlying policies.
Issue 1 - What is the structure of the electric utili'ty industry in and reasonably adjacent to the state of Texas, and to what extent if any do the Applicants have either dominance or monopoly power in any relevant market or submarket.
Issue 2 - What is the nature and extent of competition or potential competition between or among electric utilities in and adjacent to the state of Texas.
1731 270
Issue 3 - Whether and to what extent actual or potential competition or competitive opportunities are foreclosed or adversely affected by " intrastate only" operation.
Issue 4 - What are Applicants' policies, purposes or practices with respect to " intrastate only" operation, and what conduct or activities have Applicants engaged in to enforce " intrastate only" operation or to maintain that status.
Issue 5 - Have Applicants, alone or in combination with others, foreclosed or hindered competition in the buying, selling, or exchanging of electric power or related services in any relevant market or submarket.
Issue 6 - Whether and to wh:t extent a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, if found, would be intertwined with or exacerbated by (nexus) activities under the license to operate the South Texas Proj ect.
The scope of these issues must be viewed in the context of the Commission's Memorandum and Order of June 15, 1977.2/
The Commission there stated:
2/
-- Houston Lighting and Power Co=pany, et al. (South Texas Proj ect, Unit Nes. 1 and 2), CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 1303 (1977).
i' 1731 271
b.
~
"Our determination of changed circumstances foreshadows a series of subsidiary questions which need not be addressed comprehensively at this juncture, but concerning which some Commission guidance is appropriate.
The only stated consecuence of a Com=ission determina-tion that 'significant changes' have occurred e
is that paragraph (1) of subsection 105(c) --
the paragraph providing for Attorney General review and advice -- applies.
Paragraph (c)
(2) does not explicitly state whether his consideration or any subsequent hearing is to be limited to the subsequently developed circumstances underlying the Co: mission determination and reference to the Attorney General.
While some of the earties before Justicel.5_/
y Central and th'e Department us -- notabl of argue against any such limita-tion, we have concluded that this second look at the operating license stage is to be a restricted one, focusing on the changed circumstances."3_/
[ Footnote omitted}
The Co= mission further said:
"This is not to say that 'significant changes' in a licensee's proposal can or should neces-sarily be viewed in isols. tion from unchanged features of the propost.l.
The antitrust implications of a 'significant change' may indeed arise from its relationship to unchanged features of the proposal.
Obviously, some account will have to be taken of the proposal as a whole, but as the proposal or its impacts have been altered by changed circumstances."6/
In view of the fact that substantial discovery has already been provided in other proceedings and litigation which may Ug., at 1320-21.
NM., at 1321.
/
1731 272
involve at least some of the issues in the instant proceeding, such other discovery may be utilized as follows:
1.
Discovery material, (including corresponding discovery requests) including but not limited to depositions upon oral examination, depositions t
upon written questions, interrogatories to parties and answers thereto, documents and things produced, requests for ad=ission and responses thereto, pleadings, motions, affidavits, and substantially equivalent material howsoever identified, from proceedings listed in Paragraph 2, post, shall be considered as material discovered in this proceed-ing pursuant to 10 CFR 552.740-2.742.
2.
This discovery caterial order applies to the follow-ing other proceedings:
(a)
In the Matter of Central and South West Corporation, et al., SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, l
(b)
West Texas Utilities Cocoanv, et al.
v.
Texas Electric Service Comoanv, et_al.,
No. CA3-76-0633F, United States District Court (N.D. Texas, Dallas Division),
(c)
In the Matter of the Emereency Hearine on Intrastate and Interstate Service of Texas s
1731 273
Interconnected System, Docket No. 14, Public Utilities Commission of Texas.
3.
This order will not prevent any party in this pro-ceeding from obtaining further discovery pursuant to 10 CFR 552.740-2.742, 2.744.
4.
This order shall not be cons' trued to waive the right of any party in this proceeding to raise any objec-tion as to the admissibility into evidence of any material subject to this provision.
5.
Parties to the proceedings listed in Paragraph 2 who are also parties to this proceeding shall cooperate to provide the other parties to this proceeding mutually convenient access to the materials covered by this order and the opportunity to obtain copies of sach materials.
The parties are directed to co=mence discovery and trial preparation immediately, and to complete all discovery by January 8, 1979.
Witness lists, brief su=maries of proposed testimony by each witness, and all proposed exhibits, studies and supporting documents shall be exchanged and initialed by counsel promptly as discovery and trial preparation progresses.
A prehearing conference to consider and review such progress will be held on November 16, 1978.
It is anticipated that I
1731 274 '
e
= =
g g
e
,. the evidentiary hearing will co=nence within 30-60 days fol-lowing the temination of discovery en January 8,1979.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING BOARD 22
?// [/
d Marshall E. Miller, Chai=an Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of July 1978.
t 1731.275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NPC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW 0F LICENSING BOARD'S CRDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DECISION in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of December, 1979.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Donald A. _Kaplan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Susan B. Cyphert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nancy A. Luque Washington, D.C.
20555
- Frederick H. Parmenter, Esq.
David A. Dopsovic, Esq.
Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
P.O. Box 14141 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20044 Washington, D.C.
20036 fir. William C. Price Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Central Power & Licht Co.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P.O. Box 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D.C.
20555
- G.W. Oprea, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Company Washington, D.C.
20555
- P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Robert E. Bathen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R.W. Beck & Associates Washington, D.C.
20555
- P.O. Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803 R.L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Somervell County Public Library P.O. Box 1088 P.O. Box 417 Austin, Texas 78767 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 1731 276 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Jerry L. Harris John P. Mathis, Esq.
Richard C. Balough Baker & Botts Dan H. Davidson, City Manager 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
City of Austin Washington, D.C.
20006 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J.K. Spruce, General Manager City Public Service Board Jerome Saltzman, Chief P.O. Box 1771 Antitrust & Indemnity Group San Antonio, Texas 78203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Jay Galt, Esq.
David A. Giacalone, Esq.
Jack P. Fite, Esq.
Marc R. Poirier, Esq.
Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes Spiegel & McDiarmid 219 Couch Drive 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Washington, D.C.
20037 Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
Roge lson Esq.
hP" rs m,
o he & a$pels Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 DaHas, Texas 75201 1500 1 mo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Building W.N. Woolsey, Esq.
900 Congress Avenue Dyer and Redford Austin, Texas 78701 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Dick Terrell B own, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 800 Milam Building 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
San. Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C.
20036 E. William Barnett, Esq.
Douglas F. John, Esq.
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Melbert D. Schwarz, Esq.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Suite 400 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Don R. Butler, Esq.
Houston, Texas 77002 Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman & Perry P.O. Box 1409 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 J.A. Bouknight, Esq.
William J. Franklin, Esq.
John W. Davidson, Esq.
Peter G. Flynn, Esq.
Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Troilo Douglas G. Green, Esq.
1100 San Antonio Savings Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axel rad San Antonio, Texas.78205
& Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 17M 277
' Kevin B. Pratt Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Attorney General's Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal State of Texas Board P.O. Box 12548 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555
- James E. Monahan Michael C. Farrar Esq.
Executive Vice President and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal General Manager B ard Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 6296 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Waco, Texas 76706 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U
u ear f ices fI rt cut Ely Watergate 600 Building D
20 55 Washington, D. C.
20037 C. Dennis Ahearn, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
nahavnica A Liharr'ar James A. Carney, Esq.
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Sarah N. Welling, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 David M. Stahl, Esq.
b Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 701 105017th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. G. Holman King West Texas Utilities Co.
P. O. Box 841 Abilene, Texas 79604 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Donald M. Clements, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Company P.O. Box 2951
, h o 4,,,' f Beaumont, Texas 77704 7
Robert M. Rader, Esq.
redric D. Chanania Conner, Moore & Corber Counsel for NRC Staff 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 1731 278
.