ML19338C414
| ML19338C414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1980 |
| From: | Stahl D CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST CORP., CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST SERVICES, INC., CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, WEST TEXAS UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008150377 | |
| Download: ML19338C414 (13) | |
Text
.
N p
y DOCKETgg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lisNac Il-Ayg h effjc,o Nb I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
otYS$ff 8%ch e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
gg In the Matter of:
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-498A COMPANY, THE CITY OF SAN
)
50-499A ANTONIO, THE CITY OF AUSTIN,
)
and 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 PeaE Steam Electric )
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORATION, CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST SERVICES, INC.,
CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, SOUIHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY AND
'PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA TO PETITION OF THE TEXAS BORDER COOPERATIVES FOR LEAVT, TO INTERVENE OUT OF TI!!E The Central and South West Corporation, Central l
and South West Services, Inc., Central Power & Light Com-pany, West Texas Utilities Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company and Public Service Company of Oklahoma (col-lectively, "CSW") hereby respond to the Petition of the Texas Border Cooperatives for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.
CSW oppose the petition to intervene and urge the Board to deny the petition because both the reasons given 8008150 377 M
. by the Border Cooperatives as to why nontimely intervention is warranted are invalid.
The Eorder Cocperatives assert two justifications for their petition being out of time.
First, the cooperatives I
explain that at the time the notices of these proceedings were published in 1978, all the cooperatives were purchasing some or all of their bulk power requirements from West Texas Utilities ("WTU") under contracts with relatively favorable terms, but that these contracts were terminated on January 1, 3
1980 and subsequent negotiations with WTU have led the l
cooperatives to an " increased awareness" of the impact of the cost of bulk pcwer supply.
This change in teres fails i
as a justification for nontimely intervention because the Border Cooperatives surely knew in 1978 when notices of the.se proceedings were published that their contracts with WTU were subject to termination and that the ter=s of their bulk power arrangement could then be changed.
- Moreover, the petition contains the misleading inplication that negotiations with WTU which had led to the supposed " increased awareness of the tre=endous impact the cost of bulk pcwer i
supply will have on [the Border Cooperatives'] future operat.ons" only began subsequent to the expiration of the contracts on January 1, 1980.
In fact, however, negotiations between WTU and the Border Cooperatives concerning a new power supply agreetent commenced in June 1979.
Finally, on i
March 30, 1979, the Border Cooperatives filed a Petition for
. Leave to Intervene in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sica proceedings in Docket No. EL79-8.
In that petition, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Border Cooperatives alleged that "[t]he magnitude of their power supply responsibilities makes the future price and continued availability of electric power and energy of vital interest to (them). "
(Exhibit A, p.
2)
The Border Cooperatives current assertion that it was only negotiations which com-I menced af ter January 1, 1980 which led to their awareness of I
the impact of the cost of bulk power supply on their system is explicitly contradicted by their Petition to Intervene in the FERC proceeding.
As a second excuse for their nontimely petition to i
intervene, the Border Cooperatives state that they had no compelling reason to seek intervenor status earlier because it " appeared" their interests could be adequately protected by other parties, specifically CSW.
(Petition, pp. 2-3)
This purported justification is also directly controverted by their Petition to Intervene in the FERC proceeding attached hereto as Exhibit A.
In that proceeding, which CSW commenced in February, 1979 by filing an application requesting the construction of synchronous interconnections between ERCOT The Border Cooperatives understandably make no attempt to explain the obvious contradiction of an " appearance" that CSW would represent their interests at the same time that WTU was engaged in negotiations for a new contract with the Border Cooperatives.
i
_4_
and the Southwest Power Pool, the Border Cooperatives alleged in their Pet!. tion for Leave to Intervene that, "[a]dditionally, the (Border Cooperatives] af firmatively represent that no other party can adequately protect their interests in this proceeding."
(Exhibit A,
- p. 3)
For the Border Cooperatives now to represent to this Licensing Board that they did not t
earlier seek to intervene in the instant proceeding because of an " appearance" that CSW or others would be protecting the interests of the Border Cooperatives insofar as the interconnection question is concerned does not square with the unambiguous statement in the Petition to Intervene in the FERC proceeding that as of March 30, 1979, no other party could adequately protect the interests of the Border Cooperatives with respect to the interconnection question.
Consequently, it is certainly clear that as of March 30, 1979, the Border Cooperatives recognized the obligation and necessity to protect their own interests.
Their failure to i
intervene in these proceedings in order to protect those interests between March 30, 1979 and August 1, 1980 is simply inexcusable.
CONCLUSION Because the Texas Border Cooperatives have stated no valid justification for nontimely intervention, CSW respectfully request that the Petition of the Texas Border Cooperatives for Leave to Intervene Out of Time be denied.
. Respectfullysubmittep,
$ N ilf a h.4^
David 41. Stahl Attorney for Central and South West Corporation, Central and South West Services, Inc.,
Central Power and Light Company, West Texas Utilities Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company and Public Service Company of Oklahoma Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 325 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated:
August 13, 1980 i
f 1
v e
-c
-e
-c-
-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POhER S
NRC DCCKET NOS. 50-498A COMPANY, THE CITY OF SAN S
50-499A ANTONIO, THE CITY OF AUSTIN,5 and CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT S COMPANY S
(South Texas Project, S
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
S S
t TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
S 50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam S
Electric Station, S
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
David M. Stahl, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Response of Central and South West Corporation, Central and South West Services, Inc., Central Power and Light Company, West Texas Utilities Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company and Public Service Company of Oklahoma to Petition of the Texas Border Cooperatives for Leave to Intervene Out of Time were served upon the following listed persons either by hand delivery or by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid on this 13th day of August, 1980.
/'T 9
/,'
M/
~
David M.
Stahl
MAILING LIST Marshall E. Miller, Ecq.
Roy P.
Lessy, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael B.
Blume, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
1150 17th Street, N.
W.
William C.
Price Washington, D. C.
20036 eaairman and Chief Executive Officer Shesdon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Central Power & Light Co.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
O. Box 2121 Washington, D.C.
20555 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 i
Atomic Safety and Licensing G.
K.
Spruce, Gen. Manager Appeal Board Panel City Public Service Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
O. Box 1771 Washington, D.
C.
20555 San Antonio, Texas 78203 Chase R.
Stephens (20)
Mr. Perry G.
Brittain Docketing and Service Section President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Texas Utilities Generating Co.
Washington, D.
C.
20535 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 3
Jerome D.
Saltzman Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Group R.
L. Hancock, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Austin Electric Utility Washington, D.C.
20555 P.
O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J.
Irion Worsham, Esq.
Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esq.
G. W.
Oprea, Jr.
Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
Executive Vice President Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Houston Lighting & Power Co.
2001 Bryan Tower, suite 2500 P.
O. Box 1700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Houston, Texas 77001 Jon C. Wood, Esq.
Michael I.
Miller, Esq.
W.
Roger Wilson, Esq.
Jame!; A.
Carney, Esq.
+
f Matthews;.Nowlin, Macfarlane & Barrett Ishan, Lincoln & Beale 1500 Alamo National Building One First National Plaza San Antonio, Texas 78205 Chicago, Illinois 60603 i
Morgan Hunter, Esq.
J.
A. Bouknight, Esq.
Bill D.
St. Clair, Esq.
Bill Franklin, Esq.
McGinnin, Lockridge & Kilgore Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Fifth Floor, Texas State
& Toll Bank Building 102S Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
900 Congress Avenue j
Washington,.D.
C.
Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Don R.
Butler, Esq.
Baker & Botts 1225 Southwest Tower 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
W.
Austin, Texas 78701 Washington, D.
C.
20006
Jerry L.
Harris, Esq.
Richard C.
Salough, Esc.
W.S.
Rebson City of Austin South Texas Electric
~
P. O. Box 1088 Cooperative, Inc.
Austin, Texas 73767 Sam Rayburn ?cwer Plant Ccmplex i
Post Office 151
,79/o Joseph 3.
Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nursery, Texas Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
1 1200 17th Street, N. W.
Robert A.
lablon, Esq.
Washi: ; ton, D. C.
20036 Marc R.
Poirier Speigel & McDiarmid Don H. Davidson 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City Manager Washington, D.
C.
20036 I
City of Austin P.
O. Box 1088 Kevin 3.
Pratt Austin, Texas 78767 Texas Attorney General's Office P.
O. Box 12548 Jay Galt, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78711 Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hays 219 Couch Drice William H. Surchette, Esq.
Oklahoma City, Oklahcma 73102 Frederic H.
Ritts, Esq.
Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Knoland J. Plucknett Watergate Building Executive Director Washington, D.
C.
20037 Ccmmittee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Wheatley & Wolleson 5541 East Skelly Drive 1112 Watergate Office Eldg.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037 John W.
Davidson, Esq.
Sawtelle, Goods, Davidson & Tiolo Joseph Rutherg, Esq.
1100 San Antonio Savings Building Antitrust Counsel San Antonio, Texas 73205 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
NRC Washington, D.
C.
20555 r
4 Douglas F.
John, Esq.
Linda L.
Aaker, Esq.
2 Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Asst. Attorney General 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
P. O. Box 12548 Suite 400 Capitol Station Washington, D. C.
W.
N. Woolsey, Esq.
Robert M.
Rader Dyer and Redford Conner, Moore & Corber 1030 Petroleum Tower 1747 Pennsvivania Ave.,
N.W.
Corpus Christi,. Texas 73474 Washington, D.C.
20006 I
Donald Clements Melvin G.
3erger, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Ccmpany Ronald Clark, Esq.
P.
O.
Box 2951 Antitrust Division, Energy Beaumont, Texas 77704 Section Rec = 8 3 0 8 414 lith Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 __ _ _., _, _
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Joseph J.
Saunders Esq.
E.
W.
Barnett, Esq.
Chief, Public Counsel &
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Legislative Section J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Antitrust Section Baker & Botts U.S. Department of Justice 3000 One Shell Plaza P.O. Box 14141 Houston, TX 77002 Washington, D.C.
20044 Donald A. Kaplan, Chief Robert E.
3athen Robert Fabrikant, Asst. Chief R.
W.
Beck 0 Associates Energy Section P.O. Box 6817 Antitrust Division Orlando, Florida 82853 U.
S. Department of Justice Wtshington, D.C.
20530 Mr. G. Holman King West Texas Utilities Company N'ncy Luque P.O.
Box 41 S. san 3. Cyphert Abilene, TX 79604 Ronald H. Clark Frederick H.
Parmenter Jonathan Feld, Esq.
Antitrust Division Weil, Gotshal & Manges Energy Section 767 Fifth Avenue U.S. Department of Justice New York, NY 10022 Room 8413 414 lith Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 0
nrm TJ 69M9 o
Exhibit A
'I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COM'4ISSION In the Matter of:
Central Power and Light Company Docket No. EL79-8 Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company, and West Texas Utilities Company PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF
/COLEMAN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOP 5RATIVE, vCONCilO VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
/DICRENS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, V9 ATE CITY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
" GREENBELT ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,_
HALL COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
/McCULLOCH ELECTRIC _ COOPERATIVE, VMIDNEST ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, IO GRANDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, SOUTilWUSY TEXAS ELECTRIC COOPERICIVE,
'STAMFORD ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, v'5ID 'FAYLOR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Pursuant to Section 1.8 of the Rules and Regulations of the Fe'deral Energy Regulatory Corntission ("FERC" or " Commission"),
Coleman County' Electric Cooperative,'Concho Valley Electric Coopera-tive, Dickens Electric Cooperative, Gate City Electric Cooperative, Greenbelt Electric Cooperative, Hall County Electric Cooperative, McCulloch Electric Cooperativo, Midwest Electric Cooperative, Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Southwest Texas Electric Ccoperative, Stamford Electric Cooperative, and Taylor Electric Cooperative
(" Texas Cooperatives") respectfully petition for leave to intervene in the above-designared proceeding.
In. support of their petiti on for leave to intervene, the Texan Cooperatives state as follows:
All correspondence and no,tices relating to this pleading
V 2
g should.be forwarded to:
Charles F. Wheatley, Jr.
Robert A.
O'Neil WHEATLEY &'WOLLESEN 1112 Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. Don Hart Manager Taylor Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P.O. Box 250 Merkel, Texas-79536 Mr. Carl N.
Stover C. H.
Guernsey & Company National Foundation West Building Northwest 58th and Portland Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 According~to the " notice of application" issued by.the Commission on February.22, 1979, in the above-designated proceeding, Central Power and Light Company, Public Service Ccmpany of Oklah~ma, o
~' Southwestern Electric Power Company, and West Texas Utilities Company, all, subsidiaries of the Central and Southwest Corporation (C&SW), seek exemption from three orders of the Public Utility Commission of Texas which prohibit Central Power and Light- (CP&L) and West Texas Utilities Company (NTU) from voluntarily establishing or maintaining an electrical interconnection with any utility other than those comprising the Electric Reliability Council of' Texas (ERCOT).
The applicants.also seek pervasive relief in the form of required interconnections, wheeling and other related relief under^ Sections 202(b), 210, 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act, as amended.
Each member cooperative of the Texas Cooperative group, purchases all of a significant portion of its electric power and energy requiremen ts from West Texas Utilities Company, one of the CESU Company applicants.
During 1977, the Texas Cooperatives experienced an annual peak demand of 111,930 KW, and purchased 581,629,000 KWH.
The magnitude of their power supply responsibilities makes the future price a.nd continued availability of electric power and energy of vital interest to the Texas Cooperatives.
The proposed subject mat-ter of this proceeding unquestionably will impact on those f actors.
The significant and far-reaching relief sought by the C&SW e
~
3 Companies in their application are such that it is impossible at this time for the Texas Cooperatives to definitively state their position on the merits.
Their overall interest is in securing abundant and reliable supplies of electric power and energy at the lowest possible cost to their consumers.
Consequently, they submit that their interests are consonant with^the public interest and their intervention is appropriate in this proceeding.
Additionally, the Texas Cooperatives affirmatively represent that no other party can adequately protect their interests in this proceeding.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons Coleman County Electric Coope rative, Concho Valley Electric Cooperative, Dickens Electric Co-operative, Gate City Electric Cooperative, Greenbelt Electric Cooper-ative, Hall County Electric Cooperative, McCulloch Electric Cooper-ative, Midwest Electric Cooperative, Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Southwest Texas Electric Cooperative, Stamford Electric Cooperative, and Taylor Electric Cooperative respectfully request that their petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding be granted..
Resnectfull g & y supmEt c[ usu&6
/-
V
-t###J/
Charl m F.
Wheatley, Jr.
Robert A. O'Neil WHEATLEY & WOLLESEN 1112 Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washingten, D.C.
20037 March 30, 1979 F4
-w
---wv y
er y
---,-,+m
.--,,,--y---,m-
r I
L i
V:". 2. 2": 2' C,'.~. ~ '..'
2 DISTPlCT OF COLUM3IA/SS.
Robert A. O'Neil, being.first duly sworn on cath deposes and says that he has read the foregoing Petiticn For Eeave To Intervene and knows the contents thereof, that he has been authoriced to present the same en behalf of the Coleman County Electric Cooperative, Concho Valley Electric Cooperative, Dickens Electric Cooperative, Gate City Electric Cooperative, Greenbelt Electric Ccoperative, Hall County Electric Cocperative, McCulloch Electric Cooperative, Midwest Electric Cooperative, Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Southwest Texas Electric Ccoperative, Stamford Electric Ccoperative, and Taylor Electric Cocperative and that the facts therein stated are true and correct as he verily believes.
j, Robert A.
O'Neil Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of March, 1979.
i
/
].
i f a- /
i e..o +~ _.. p_aA _,,..
2 t
My Connicsion E::pires:
)
/$ fi$ 3 V
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that the foregoing document has been served larch 30, 1979, on all parties of record pursuant to Section 1.17 of the Ce> nission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.-
/
/
4
~d4 rw, &
-Robert A.
O'Neil
. -. -. -