ML19338F118
| ML19338F118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Spiegel G BROWNSVILLE, TX, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8010070541 | |
| Download: ML19338F118 (12) | |
Text
Q lCLU 3, G~0
\\
(
- =no
\\
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ocr MNRC
~
31,,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ff 0//jC8 d D'$
1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Stgg 8
g 5'
, c3 Houston Lighting & Power Company, et aI
)
Docket Nos.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-498A
)
50-499A
)
Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.)
Docket Nos.
I (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-445A Units 1 and 2)
)
50-446A PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TE2AS MOTION FOR REVISION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE The Public Utilities Board of Brownsville,. Texas,
("Brownsville') hereby moves the Board to revise the outstanding
/
Procedural Schedule so as to extend the time for trial briefs, etc. from October 8, 1980 until ten (10) days after the Board rules on the proposed settlement and related matters, and to extend all other matters a commensurate time, and in support thereof Prownsville avers:
'l 1.
The Procedural Schedule has been promulgated and revised from time to time on the expectation that there would be a full-blown hearing involving most, or all, of the parties hereto,
~~*/
October 8, 1980 Trial briefs, list of witnesses und exhibits, and summaries of testimony to be filed by complainant parties.
October 22, 1980 Trial briefs, lists of witnesses and exhibits, and summaries of testimony to be filed by defendant parties.
November 5, 1980 Final Prehearing Conference November 12, 1980 Commencement of Evidentiary Hearing 80100706'//
g
with evidence presented by complainant parties (including Central Power & Light Company, Department of Justice, Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and defendant parties (including Houston Lighting &
Power Company and Texas Utilities Generating Company). Brownsville (a small system deeply affected) anticipated introducing only such evidence as would appear necessary after the main protagonists' presentations I having in mind the affirmative responsibilities of the NRC Staff and Department of Justice.
2.
The situation is n.ow radically changed because of the proposed overall Settlement (including proposed license condit!cus) said to be reached among the three Applicants and three Government agency staffs.
- */
In the status reports, filed September 15, 1980, the Board is in-formed by the NRC Staff that (p. 1) :
"The Staff is pleased to report that it, and the Department of Justice, have been able to conclude a settlement with the Applicants in these proceedings, as embodied in the two sets of proposed license conditions, attached herewith."
_/
URC Si tff's Fourth Status Report on Settlement, September 14, 1980, Which are attached:
u.
Comanche Stipulation (CSW and TUGCO) September 12, 1980; Comanche Stipulation (NRC Staff, U. S. Department of Justice, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., and TUGCO) September 12, 1980; STP Stipulation (NRC Staff, U. S. Department of Justice, CSW, Houstm. Lighting and Power Co., City of Austin, Texas and City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Texas) September 12, 1980; License Conditions for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Nuclear Units Nos. 1 and 2; License Conditions for South Texas Project Units Nos. 1 and 2, September 12, 1980; Letter of September 11, 1980 to John Camaron, Esq., FERC attorney, from HLP, Texas Utilities Company ard operating companies thereof ("TU"), and CSW; " Confirmed" FERC Staff,
" Accord" NRC Staff.
However, on September 25, 1980, Brownsville served its Motion for disapproval of proposed license conditions, together with comments and procedural suggestions."
Moreover, the Texas Border Cooperatives, applicants for intervention, have stated the!T opposition to the proposed settlement criticizing the proposed conditions regarding DC interconnections, the capacity reservations in the interconnections, and the disconnection rights, although discussions with Central and South West Corporation "concerning enhanced opportunities for promulgation in generating units planned by that Company" (p. 8) are such that (by October 1,- 1980) the Cooperatives will advise the Board "of whether they desire to withdraw their petition for leave to intervene" (p. 8).
On 1
October 1, 1980 Border filed a status report stating that no accord had been reached and therefore it could not accept the DC settlement.
3.
Although Justice advised the Board that the proposed settlement license conditions would permit issuance of the operating i
licenses, the proposed conditions include a proviso:
"Nothing herein shall preclude the Department of Justice from instituting or intervening in any proceeding at FERC, including FERC Docket No. EL79-8, and from presenting such arguments and evidence that it deems appropriate".***/
_/
Motion by the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas for Disapproval of Proposed License Conditions; Comments Opposing Proposed License Conditions; and Request for Further Proceedings.
- /
September 24, 1980:
Comments of the Texas Border Cooperatives on Proposed Settlements.
- / Comanche condition (2) (c) ; STP condition (I.B.
(11)..
Pursuant thereto, Justice has petitioned to intervene in the related proceeding at FERC; -
and states therein (p. 3):
"The construction of the two direct current 3
asynchronous electrical interconnections between ERCOT and SWPP, as advocated by CP&L, PSO, SWEPCO, and WTU in their Amendment Application of June 27, 1980, instead of the construction of alternating current synchronous interconnections between ERCOT utilities and SWPP utilities, as advocated in the CP&L Application of February 9, 1979, could have effects on utilities both in ERCOT and SWPP and throughout the southwestern United States that would be anticompetitive, inconsistent with the public interest and contrary to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA").
4.
At FERC, Commen6 on the proposed settlement have been postponed because of the failure of the CSW companies to file an amended Offer of Settlement as contemplated by the r :hedule set by the Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
One party, Northeast Electric Cooperative, Inc., has commented in opposition to the
- j proposed DC interconnection because (p. 3) :
"There is no showing by CSW.
that the proposed DC interconnections are more or less beneficial than the AC interconnections originally proposed."
and further that:
l it is incumbent on CSW and this Commission to ensure that the proposed interconnections are indeed based upon sound engineering and economic principles."
- /
Re Central Power & Light Co., et al, FERC Docket No. EL79-8
_**/
Petition of the United States Department of Justice for Leave to Intervene, dated September 17, 1980 (signed by six Justice attorneys).
Northeast concludes:
. it is the recommendation of NTEC that the Joint Study Committee evaluations regarding the relative costs and benefits to the DC and AC interconnections as proposed be completed prior to approving the Offer of Settlement."
The other FERC parties, including Brownsville, are withholding Comments until the Amended offer of Settlement has been filed.
5.
The Settlement Agreement between CSW, HLP and TUGS of June 9, 1980 provides in effect (para. 4-7) that CSW's cessation of NRC litigation is interdependent upon a satisfactory FERC order within one year (i.e., by June 8, 1981) and entry of a final and unappealable SEC order (no deadline specified and therefore it could be many years off).
Moreover, during the interim period of the FERC proceeding CSW may terminate the Settle-ment Agreement at stated intervals of 60, 120 and 180 days from Agreement date.
Admittedly, there is some lack of clarity in these provisions, which is further compounded by its finale:
. and this Agreement shall terminate whenever CSW, TUGS and HLP agree that it has 3
become apparent that either condition A, B or C will not be satisfied."
(Para. 7).
6.
The situation is confused and until clarified it is difficult if not impossible to know how to prepare for trial.
(a)
Are the three companies fully and finally committed to a settlement (including the proposed NRC license conditions), or can CPL still terminate the 3-party settlement j
agreement on December 8, 1980 (180 days after the June 9, 1980 i
l contract date) or en June 18, 1981 (if FERC,has not granted the PURPA applict. tion, or has denied it, or at any other time if SEC determines that the DC interconnection will not meet the integration standards of the Public Utility H'olding Company Act)?
(b)
Is Justice fully committed to the settlement (inc.uding the proposed conditons) ?-
Justice is contending (properly so) in FERC Docket No. EL 79-8, that the DC inter-connection is unsatisfactory and anticompetitive, but that is also a concurrent issue in the NRC proceeding.
Therefore, l
necessarily, Justice's position is substantively contrary to an 1
NRC finding that the conditions cure the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws; while, on the contrary, if the Applicants
~
are proposing an anticompetitive interconnection, how can NRC make i
the contrary finding?
Perhaps the Board needs to withhold some or all actions until the DC v. A.C matter is resolved at FERC.
(c)
Are HLP and TU fully committed, or can they withdraw from the settlement (including the proposed license conditions) if FERC orders an AC rather than DC connection?
(d)
Is the Board going to rule on Brownsville's Motion of September 25th to reject, on legal grounds, the Settlement (including proposed conditions)?
If so, the parties would need to know prior to filing their trial briefs since the hearing would be vastly different in one case as compared to another.,
(e)
Aside from (d) above, is the Board going to review the settlement (including proposed conditions) and indicate whether it can approve them without a hearing under this case's posture, and, if not, does it desire a hearing in which proponents will put on evidence to support the settlement, and opponents will oppose?
Will the Boatl, after review of the proposed Settlement, fashion some oi.ar form of hearing as may be most useful in resolving the case.
(f)
Is there to be a bifurcated hearing:
- first, as to whether the proposed settlement can stand, and, if the Board decides it cannot, then, second, a full-blown hearing on the merits.
7.
In view of the foregoing, it appears necessary that a pre-hearing conference be held to consider these matters, that
)
the parties be given opportunity to file such pleadings as they 4
)
deem appropriate (including answers to Brownsville's Motion of l
l September 25, 1980), and that the hearing schedule be deferred until these matters are cleared.
While this may involve a short deler, it will over-all shorten he time for completing this proceeding.
Obviously, great progress nas been made towared case resolution by the proposed settlement (since the hearing schedule was first established) and this justifies the extension of the hearing schedule so as to clarify the form and nature of the future proceedings.
8.
It is important also to consider the matter of pre-hearing and hearing costs which could be onerous and crushing on a single small system like Brownsville.
We obviously must find a way to minimize these costs or otherwise be deprived of an opportunity to be heard b'y the sheer size of the price tag.
We believe it one of the purposes of the administrative agency, to make it economically feasible for a small system's rights to be protected without all the tremendous expense that has now become characteristic of the federal district courts.
Accordingly, we urge the Board to cooperate, in this case by clarifying the status of the proceeding, so that Brownsville can be heard on an economic basis.
WHEREFORE, Brownaville moves (i) to have the date for trial briefs and related matters postponed until 10 days after the Board rules on the proposed Settlement and related matters l
l and to extend all other scheduled matters a commensurate time; (ii) to have the Board call a conference of the parties; and (iii) for such other relief as the Board may deem appropriate.
Res ctfully s
- itted, George S leg Attorney for the Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville, Texas October 3, 1980 Law Offices:
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Suite 312 Washington, D. C.
20037 (202) 333-4500
-8_
l
W UNITED STATES OF JMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,.
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A et al.
)
and 50-499A
)
(South Texas Project, Un it Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docke t Nos. 50-445A e t al.
)
and 50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Un it No s. 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS MOTION FOR REVISION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE to be served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage paid, this 3rd day of October, 1980.
Marshall E.
Miller, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Michael L.
Glaser, Esquire Joseph Rutberg, Esquire 1150 17th Street, N. W.
Antitrust Counsel l
Washing ton,
D.
C.
20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Fredric D.
Chanania, Esq.
Michael B.
Blume, Esq.
R.
Gordon Gooch, Esquire Ann Hodgdon, Esq.
John P.
Mathis, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baker & Botts Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20555 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
W.
Washing ton,
D.
C.
20006 l
. Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.
A.
Bouknight, Jr.,
Esquire Washington, D.
C.
20555 William J.
Franklin, Ftquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis,
Chase R.
Stephens, Chief Axelrad & Toll Docketing & Service Section 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
Of fice of the Secretary Washing ton,
D.
C.
20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Frederick H.
Ritts, Esquire Law Offices of Northcutt Ely David M.
Stahl, Esquire Watergate 600 Building Sarah F.
Holzsweig, Esquire Washing ton,
D.
C.
20037 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Wheatley & Wolleson Suite 325 1112 Watergate Office Building Washing ton,
D.C.
20036 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washing ton,
D.
C.
20037 Robert Fabrikant, Esquire Antitrust Division William Sayles, Chairman and Department of Justice Chief Executive Officer P.
O. Box 14141 Central Power & Light Company Washing ton,
D.C.
20444 P.
O.
Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esquire G.
K.
Spruce, General Manager Debevoise & Liberman City Public Service Board 1200 17th Street, N. W.
P.
O.
Box 1771 Washington, D.
C.
20036 San Antonio, Texas 78201 Douglas F.
John, Esquire Jon C.
Wood, Esquire McDermott, Will & Emery W.
Roger Wilson, Esquire 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Suite 1201
& Barrett Washing ton,
D.C.
20036 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Robert O'Neil, Esquire Miller, Balis & O'Neil Perry G.
Brittain, President 776 Executive Building Texas Utilities Generating Co.
1.'30 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
2001 Bryan Tower Washing ton,
D.C.
20005 Dallas, Texas 75201 Ms. Evelyn H. Smith J.
Irion Worsham, Esquire Route 6, Box 298 Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esquire Gaffney, South Carolina 29340 Spencer C.
Relyea, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Dick T.
Brown, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tbwer 800 Milam Building Suite 2500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201
. R.
L.
Hancock, Director G.
W.
Oprea, Jr.
City of Austin Electric Utility Executive Vice President Departmen t Houston Lighting & Power Co.
P.
O.
Box 1088 P.
O.
Box 1700 Austin. Texas 78767 Houston, Texas 77001 Jerri L.
Harris, Esquire W.
S.
Robson, General Mann.ger Richard C.
Balough, Esquire South Texas Electric Coor.. Inc.
Cit Austin P.
O.
Box 151 2
P.
O.
Box 1088 Nursery, Texas 77976 Austin, Texas 78767 Do n H. Davidson Michael I. Miller, Esquire City Manager Isham, Lincoln & Beale City of Austin One First National Plaza P.
C.
'ox 1088 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Austin. Texas 78767 i
Donald Clements, Esquire Don R.
Butler, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Co.
Sneerd, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman P.
O.
Box 2951
& Perry Beaumont, Texas 77074 P. Q. Box 1409 Aus tin, Texas 78767 Knoland J.
Plucknett Executive Director Morgan Hunter, E. quire Committee on Power for the McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Southwest, Inc.
900 Congress Avenue 5541 Skelly Drive Au:3 tin, Texas 78701 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Kevin B.
Pratt, Esquire Jay M.
Galt, Esquire Linda Aaker, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes P-O.
Box 12548 219 Couch Drive C. spital Station Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Austin, Texas 73767 Robert E.
Cohn, Esq.
E. W.
Barnett, Esquire Richard J.
Le idl, Esq.
Charles G.
Thrash, Jr.,
Esquire Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook J.
Gregory Copeland, Esquire
& Knapp Theodore F.
Weiss, Jr.,
Esquire 1747 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Baker & Botts 9th Floor 3000 One Shell Plaza Washing ton,
D.C.
20006 Houston, Texas 77002 Paul W.
Eaton, Jr.,
Esq.
Leland F.
Lea therman, Esq.
Hinkle, Cox, Ea ton, Coffield McMath, Leatherman and Woods, P.Ac and Hensley 711 West Third Street P.
O. Box 10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 4
1
. Somervell County Public Library P.
O.
Box 417 Glen Rose, Texas 76403 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Coop.
P.
O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 James E. Monahan Executive Vice President and General Manager Brazos Electric Power Coop., Inc.
P.
O.
Box 6296 Waco, Texas 76706 Robert M.
Rader, Esquire Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washing ton,
D.
C.
20006 W.
N. Woolsey, Esquire Dyer and Redford 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 Mr. G. Holman King West Texas Utilities Co.
P.
O.
Box 841 Abilene, Texas 79604 l
Maurice 'V.
Brooks, Esq.
Brooks, Gordon, Long & Shahan P.
O.
Box 118 Abilene, Texas 79604 George Spiegey l
Attorney for the Public Utilities i
Board of the City of Brownsville, I Texas October 3, 1980