ML19320B895
| ML19320B895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000484 |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1980 |
| From: | Francis F NORTH DAKOTA, STATE OF, SOUTH DAKOTA, STATE OF, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150458 | |
| Download: ML19320B895 (9) | |
Text
- ~ ~
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
BEFORE THE . L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J <gg u.
Nce7en ,
im Northern States Power Co., et al. ) Docket No. ll ,jlp' I,'
D y (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) ) r ? fogg b __
STN-50-484[s(O'IUctn]k'h ; ; sy '1:
- I '
MOTION TO DEFER COMMISSION ACTION, PETITION TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME, AND b
I ))b,7,fN e
[
i REGUEST FOR HEARING Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and .
Procedure and'the Commission's Notice dated June 16, 1980 in the above-captioned docket, the North Dakota Public Service Commission and the South Dakcta Public Utilities Commission
(" Dakota Commissions"), through their attorneys, hereby peti-tion for leave to intervene out of time, file comments and request a hearing, as set forth herein, and move that the Commission defer its proposed action to revoke the Construction Permit issued to the Northern States Power Companies ("NSP") for Unit 1 of the Tyrone Energy Park Project.
I.
The names and addresses of the individuals to whom all correspondence should be addressed and communications should be made are:
Ray H. Walton, Esq. Frances E. Francis, Esq.
Commerce Counsel John Michael Adragna, Esq.
North Dakota Public Spiegel & McDiarmid Service Commission 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20037 Bismarck,' North Dakota 58505 Walter Washington, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Capitol Building Pierre, South Dakota 57501
- 0 715 0 9'fB G- _
Each of the Dakota Commissions seeks permission to intervene separately as each Commission is responsible for jurisdiction that does not overlap with any other party and has interests that can only be represented by its own
. participation..
II.
The proposed action to revoke NSP's Construction Permit arises from NSP's decision to cancel the Tyrone Project, as stated in a letter to the NRC dated July 26, 1979. Subsequent to that time , the Dakota Commissions have participated in proceedings in Wisconsin and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") related to the costs of the Tyrone cancellation. Although the Tyrone Plant is wholly owned by NSP and located within Wisconsin, NSP pro-poses to collect the bulk of the costs of cancellation (i.e.,
87% of an open-ended $57 million loss) from NSP-Minnesota's customers located in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota through the rates charged to these customers by NSP's parent company, NSP-Minnesota.
The Dakota Commissions regulate electric rates at retail to NSP-Minnesota's customers within their respective jurisdictions. NSP-Minnesota has recently filed retail rate increases in each of the States of North Dakota and South Dakota, and all these rate increases reflect costs attribu-table to the Tyrone cancellation. Consequently, each of the Dakota Commissions is directly and substantially affected by
l the Commission's action in this proceeding. Moreover, Dakota Commissions have participated as parties in an NSP-Wisconsin I
and NSP-Minnesota FERC proceeding in which the two related Companies seek accounting authoriz'ation to reflect the bulk of the cancellation costs as, costs to the NSP-Minnesota customers that can be flowed through the wholesale rates and ultimately, according to NSP, through the retail rates to a
NSP-Minnesota's customers. (FERC Docket No. ER79-616)
Hearings have been completed and briefs to the Administrative Law Judge are to be tiled shortly in the FERC proceeding.
Although the position of the Dakota Commissions has not yet been fully expressed, it is generally the position of the Dakota Commissions that customers of NSP-Minnesota should not be required to bear any of the costs associated with the Tyrone cancellation loss.
During the course of the FERC proceeding, both NSP and counsel for the PSC of the State of Wisconsin, which denied a certificate of public convenience and need to NSP for the Tyrone Unit, stated that regulatory circumstances had changed in Wisconsin since the Wisconsin Commission's rejec- !
l tion of the Tyrone Unit in early 1979. Dakota Commissions l are uncertain as to the impact of the changed regulatory com- ,
1 mission but do not believe it to be in the public interest to bar the possible option raised during the FERC proceeding, l namely, the refiling by NSP of its application for a I
w F "?-
certificate of need before the Wisconsin Commission.1/ It is the understanding of the Dakota Commissions that the Wisconsin PSC approval was the only major regulatory approval needed prior to construction of the Tyrone Unit.
In light of the very substantial costs incurred by the cancellation of the Tyrone Unit 2/ and NSP's attempts to recover these costs from its ratepayers who will receive no benefit whatsoever for these costs, the Dakota Commissions are seeking to keep open the array of potential resolutions to a most unfortunate situation. One such resolution may well be, as noted above, the refiling with the Wisconsin Commission of NSP's Application, especially in light of even l 4 i the 1979 Wisconsin Commission's determination that some base load capacit-1 is needed in Wisconsin.
III.
The various proceedings should be completed or well enough along within the next 12 months to permit all the interested parties and fora to advise the Commission whether the nature of the Tyrone Unit cancellation is necessarily 1/ The Company indicated it had not considered such a refiling but Dakota Commissions are not yet persuaded that such a course of action is either uneconomic or impractical.
2/ These costs were estimated at approximately $120 million Tor the entire Unit. NSP's portion is approximately 67% of the total estimate, but the exact amount that the Company J will ultimately charge their customers is uncertain.
irrevocable. In short, nothing is really gained by the can-cellation at this time of the Construction Permit but much could be lost if it were determined subsequently that the most economic and beneficial course of action for the rate-payers of the NSP Companies would have been for NSP to refile its Tyrone certificate application before the Wisconsin -
Commission.
IV.
Dakota Commissions have not been participants in this Commission's proceedings inasmuch as the purported licensee has been NSP-Wisconsin, which is regulated by the Wisconsin Commission and the FERC. Moreover, South Dakota did not commence regulation of retail electric rates until mid-1975, by which time the NRC licensing proceedings had long since commenced. It was not until Dakota Commissions were made aware of NSP's cancellation of the Tyrone Unit and its proposed. pass-through of the cancellation costs to NSP-Minnesota's ratepayers, both wholesale and retail located in the Dakotas, that these matters became of concern to the Dakota Commissions.
In light of the limited relief sought by the Dakota Commissions, there would appear to be no need to require a hearing or other formal proceeding at this time. However, if the Commission' determines that a hearing is required to act on the Motion set forth herein, Dakota Commissions request such hearing.
V.
Dakota Commissions note that S186 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 32236) provides for revocation of licenses by the Commission upon any finding of misrepresentation, misconduct, or noncompliance with license specifications, by the licensees. This section does not pro-vide procedures for revocation of the license upon request of the licensee. As NSP, not the Commission, has requested revocation of its construction permit, Dakota Commissions raise the question of the proper scope of inquiry by the Commission in revocation proceedings of this sort. In light of the Commission's exclusive authority over construction operation and licensing of nuclear plants, and in light of the Commission's interest in promotion and development of atomic energy nationwide, it would seem that NSP's request j for permit revocation merits close scrutiny by the Commission.
The Tyrone Unit is part of an interstate plan for the development and sale of electric energy. Its can-cellation by the Wisconsin PSC and the resulting request for permit revocation by NSP, will have a substantial and nega-tive impact on the interstate market for electric power and on future integration and multi-state power planning to l
achieve an economic and reliable power supply for the region.
Because of their interest in interstate energy development, I
an,d the potentially detrimental ef fect of the Tyrone Unit cancellation on such development, the Dakota Commissions ask the NRC to consider the impact upon the concerns raised I
herein in determining whether the Comeission should act now to revoke the Tyrone license. ,
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for all the reasons set forth herein State Commissions respectfully request (i) that their Petition to Intervene Out of Time be granted; (ii) the Commission defer issuance of its proposed Order to revoke for 12 months; and (iii) if the Commission determines it necessary, a hearing be held to determine why the Order should not be issued at this time and such other mattens it believes appropriate for Commission determination.
Respectfully submitted, A c<,4 .
Y I
Frances E. Francis Attorney for the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission and the North l Dakota Public Service i Commission 1 July 11, 1980 Law Offices.of: '
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 202-333-4500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Northern States Power Co., et al. ) Docket No.
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) ) STN-50-484 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing MOTION TO DEFER COMMISSION ACTION, PETITION TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING to be served on the following parties by deposit in the United States j mail, first class, postage paid, this lith day of July, 1980.
Director Executive Legal Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regulation U.S. Nucleat Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Mr. Peter Peshcek Chairman-Atomic Safety and Public Intervenor Licensing Board Department oc Jastice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 123 West Washington Avenue Commission Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Washington, D.C. 20555 Honorable Sandra S. Gardebring Atomic Safety and Licensing Special Assistant Attorney Board General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1935 West County Road B2 Commission Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mrs. Harold C. Bauer Dr. George C. Anderson Citizens for Tomorrow, Inc.
Department of Oceanography _ Route 1, Box 191 University of Washington Rock Falls, Wisconsin 54764 Seattle, Washington 98195 Michael J. Cain, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Bureau of Legel Services Of fice of the Executive Department of Natural Resources Legal Director Box 7921 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Madison, Wisconsin 53707 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Helen M. Kees Route 3 Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Durand, Wisconsin 54736 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & CAUSE Trowbridge c/o Mr. Tbm Richards 1800 M Street, N.W. Route 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 Boyceville, Wisconsin 54725
Steven M. Schur, Esq. Mr. Edward Gold Wisconsin Public Service 814 Fourth Street Comm'2sion Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751 Hill Fscms State _ Office Bldg.
4802 Sheboygan Avenue Mr. Tom Galazen Madison, Wisconsin 53702 R.R. #2, Box 64 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 54889 Richard Ihrig, Esq. Ray H. Walton, Esq.
874 Summit Avenue Commerce Counsel St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 North Dakota Public Service Commission Mr. Stanley Cider Capitol Building c/o Durand Postmaster Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 Tyrone, Wisconsin 54736 Walter Washington, Esq.
Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Chairman-Atomic Safety and South Dakota Public Utilities Licensing Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Capitol Building Commission Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Washington, D.C. 20555 Rodney Wilson, Esq.
Michcel C. Farrar, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Minnesota Public Service Commission Appeal Board 790 American Center Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 150 East Kellogg Boulevard Commission St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Washington, D.C. 20555 George Bruder, Esq.
Dr. W. Reed Johnson Bruder & Gentile Atomic Safety and Licensing 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20036 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Alan Wolf, Esq.
Federal Energy Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Northern States Power Company Washington, D.C. 20426 Attn: Mr. Arthur Dienhart V. Pres. - Engineering Kenneth F. Plumb 414 Nicollet Mall Secretary Minneapolis, MN 55401 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426 Amek h. A Frances E. Francis July 11, 1980
.