ML19343A297
| ML19343A297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1980 |
| From: | Stahl D CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST CORP., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8009170177 | |
| Download: ML19343A297 (12) | |
Text
.
g*Of/{ &
e e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7
DCC.TED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
-s USNR0 f SW15 g, hhg
/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-ranett In the Matter of:
S D
\\
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
NRC COCKET NCS. 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, Unit S
Nos. 1 and 2)
S S
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S
NRC CCCKET NOS. 50-445A COMPANY, ET AL.
S 50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam 5
Electric Station, S
Unit Nos. I and 2)
S STATUS REPORT OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORATION, ET AL.
ON STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS As previously reported to this Board, on June 9, 1980, Central and South West Corporation ("CSW") entered into j.
a Settlement Agreement with Houston Lighting & Power Co.
("HLP") and the three operating electric utility subsidiaries I
of the Texas Utilities Company:
Dallas Pcwer & Light Co.,
Texas Electric Service Co.,
and Texas Power & Light Co.
)
(collectively "TUCS").
That Agreement provides generally for the construction and operation of direct current (de) asynchronous interconnections between the Electric Reli-l I
ability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") and'the Southwest Power i
Pool (#SWPP").
The two de interconnections would be con-T) Sol structed and operated only pursuant to an Order from the g
- fo Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") under the s.
8009170 l 77 K
. provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C.
$59241, 824j and 824k, and pursuant to a determination by the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") that the de interconnections would permit the electric utility subsidiaries of CSW to be economically operated as a single integrated and coordinated holding company system under the provisions of the Public Utility Holding Ccepany Act of 1935.
(Proceedings under each of these statutes are currently in process before the FERC and the SEC.)
Other necessary regulatory and judicial approval for the de inter-connections would have to be obtained as well.
Af ter execution of the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Paragraph 4 thereof, CSW advised the Licensing Board that the entry of the aforementioned orders would
" remove any concerns of CSW that the conduct of HLP or TUCS is or will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."
CSW further agreed to conduct no further litigation against HLP and TUCS in these proceedings, but retained the right to participate in these proceec'.ngs if the contingencies relating to entry of the foregoing orders are not satisfied, as well as to rejoin these pro-ceedings under certain other circumstances (as explained below).
Although neither FERC nor SEC has yet entered an order as described in the Settlement Agreement, CSW remains committed to the Settlement Agreement and the belief that
. the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, and is optimistic that those crders will be entered in the near future.
Significant in this regard is the fact that CSW, HLP and TUCS, who jointly filed an Offer of Settlement in the FERC proceeding under PURPA, have now entered into a letter agreement, dated September 11, 1980, with the FERC Staff Counsel which contains commitments by CSW, ELP and TUCS to amend the Offer of Settlement as to such matters as access by third parties to the de lines and wheeling rate methodology.
This letter agreement provides that those cccmitments will permit the FERC Staff to support the Of fer of Settlement and the entry of an Order requiring the con-struction and operation of the dc interconnections.
CSW and its subsidiary Central Power and Light Company (" CPL"), an Applicant in the South Texas Project
( STP") proceeding, also report that they have reached agreement witn the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") on appropriate license conditiens for STP Units 1 and 2, within the context of the overall settlement providing for the construction of de interconnections.
At present, no overall settlement has been con-cluded her een CSW and the Public Utilities Board of the City of Erewnsville, Texas ("Brownsville") en issues which separate them.
CSW believes, however, that the principal issues between 3rewnsville and CSW relate to the terms and
~4-conditions for wheeling to, from and over the de intercon-nections, wheeling by CPL for Brcwnsville wholly within ERCOT and access by Brownsville to an ownership interest in STP.
This last matter is specifically addressed by the license conditions for STP (Paragraph IB(1)).
The issues relating to wheeling are specifically addressed in the letter agreement amending the Offer of Settlement between CSW, ELP, TUCS and the FERC Staff referred to previously.
Both the NRC Staff and the DOJ were involved in negotiations over the wheeling issues, and the license conditions for both STP and Comanche Peak require CSW, HLP and TUCS to use their best efforts to ensure that an ' Order will be entered by the FERC approving the Of fer of Se~tlement as amended by the letter agreement containing the wheeling provisions.
In short, those issues which separate CSW and Brownsville j
have all been specifically addressed in broader negotiations involving interested governmental agencies, and have been resolved by the license conditions which have been agreed upon.
Two further matters bearing on settlement need to be brought to the Licensing Board's attenticn.
The Settle-ment Agreement provides that (1) CSW may elect to terminate the Settlement Agreement on October 9 or December 9,
- 1980, and resume its participation, to the extent it considers necessary, in this NRC proceeding; and (2) if FERC rejects' the Offer of Settlement providing for the construction of
. dc interconnections under PURPA, or f ails to act en the Offer of Settlement by June 9, 1981, CSW has the right to have the NRC determine whether any subsequent refusal by HLP or TUCS to establish or maintain an interconnection with any CSW Company would create er maintain a situation incon-sistent with the antitrust laws or policies thereunder in accordance with Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
With regard to the first point, CSW assures the Board that it has no present intention of terminating the Settlement Agreement on either October 9 or December 9.
However, it is possible (although not probable) that the situation in the FERC proceeding may change due to the arising of substantial opposition to the Offer of Settle-ment, as amended by the letter agreement.
To date, there has been no indication of such opposition.
In the unlikely event that it would appear that the FERC will not approve the Of fer of Settlement, however, CSW could avail itself of its right under the Settlement Agreement to withdraw from the settlement.
Should CSW decide to withdraw from the se ttle me nt, it would plan to file a motion with this Board to reopen these proceedings.
With regard to the second point (CSW's right, in the event the amended Offer cf Settlement is not approved by the FERC by June 9, 1981, to return to the NRC for a deter-mination of whether any subsequent refusal by HLP or TUCS to
. establish or maintain an interconnection with any CSW company would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or policies thereunder), CSW interprets this part of the Settlement Agreement as giving it the right, in such a subsequent NRC proceeding, to request the evaluation, under Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act, of intercon-nections, both alternating current (ac) and dc. This was CSW's intent and understanding in entering into the Settle-ment Agreement.
TUCS, however, has taken the position that in any NRC proceeding following FERC rejection of the Of fer of Settlement er failure of FERC to act on that Offer by June 9, 1981, CSW would be entitled to request the evalua-tion by the NRC of dc interconnections cnly.
The implications of this dispute between CSW and TUCS are obvicus.
If FERC does not order the de intercon-nections, the underlying premise of the settlement -- and the license conditions which have been agreed upon -- will no longer exist.
The Settlen.ent Agreement attempted to address this situation by permitting CSW to return to the NRC.
Although CSW is well aware that no private agreement can bind the Licensing Board with regard to either point (1) or (2) discussed above, CSW suggests that the Board should approve the license conditions with the full understanding that if the basic premise of the settlement -- FERC and SEC approval of the de interconnections -- is not realiz ed, the parties should be permitted to return to the NRC for further
. proceedings on whether interconnections should be ordered, regardless of whether such interconnections are ac or dc.
In any event, CSW believes it is obligated to advise the Board it is reserving what it believes to be its rights under the Settlement Agreement (as outlined in points (1) and (2) above) in the event the settlement is not consummated.
CSW believes that, in the context of ti.c overall settlement and the foregoing discussion with regard to the necessity to cbtain other regulatory approvals, the licen-sing of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, and of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, under the proposed license conditions will net create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws or the policies thereunder in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Realizing that so complex a litigation requires the concurrence and approval of several regulatory agencies, CSW believes that entry of an Order by this Board approving the prcposed license conditions is a meaningful and essential step in arriving at the overall settlement, provided that this Scard recognizes that this matter may have to be reopened should the other subsequent essential steps fail of realization.
Respectfully submitted, ISHAM, LINCOLN & SEALE
)Y)d/tb /
/
Attorneys for THE CENTRAL AND SCUTH WEST COMPANIES
. Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 202/933-9730 One First National Pla::a Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 Dated: September 15, 1980
~,,m,
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-458A COMPANY, THE CITY OF SAN S
50-499A ANTONIO, THE CITY CF AUSTIN,5 and CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT 5 COMPANY S
(South Te::as Project, 5
i Unit Nos. I and 2)
S i
S TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING S
.NRC DOCKET NCS. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
S 50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam S
Electric Station, S
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
S 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David M.
Stahl, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Status Report of Central and South West Corporation, et al. on Status of Settlement Negotiations 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 15th day of September, 1980.
1 t/c Dav14/M. Stahl 9
7 y-y
,y,e
---...-.,-e--
,-7c-
MAILING LIST Marshall E.
Miller, Esc..
Rov. ?.
L e s s v.,
Jr., Esc..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ccamiss a-Michael 3.
31 cme, Esq.
i 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 eMairman and Chief Executive C a_ _: < n e _-
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Central ?cwer & Light Co.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
O.
Box 2121 Washington, D.C.
20555 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Atomic Safety and Licensinv G.
K.
Spruce, Gen. Manac.er Appeal Scard Panel Cit"i Public Service Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemmission P.
O.
Box 1771 Washington, D.
C.
20555 San An:cnic, Texas 73203 Chase R.
Stephens (20)
Mr. ?erry G. Brittain Decketing and Service Section Pres ^. dent U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cetmission Texas Utilities Generating Co.
Washing cn, D. C.
20535 2001 3ryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Jerome D.
Saltzman Chief,.;ntitrust and Indemnity Group R.
L.
Hancock, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Aus-'- 7'ectric Utility Washington, D.C.
20555 P.
O.
Box 1088 Austin, Texas 73767 J.
Irien Worsham, E s c..
Merlyn D.
Sampels, Esq.
G. W.
Oprea, Jr.
Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
Executive Vice ?residen:
Wcrsham, Forsythe & Sampels Ecuston Lighting & Pcwer Co.
2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 P.
O.
Box 1700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Houston, Texas 77001 Jon C. Wecd, Esq.
Michael :. Miller, Esq.
W.
Roger Wilson, Esq.
James A.
Carney, Esc..
Manchews; Nowlin, Macfarlane & Barrent Isham, Linccin & 3eale 1500 Alamo National 3uilding One First National Plaza San Antonio, Texas 78205 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
J. A.
3ouknight, Esq.
Bill D.
St. Clair, Esq.
Bill Franklin, Esq.
McGinnin, Lockridge & Kilgore Lcwenstein, Newman, Reis, Axeirad Fifth Floor, Texas State
& T011 3ank Building 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
900 Congress Avenue Washington,.D. C.
20036 Austin, Texas 79701 R. Gordon Gcoch, Esc..
Den R.
Butler, Esc..
Baker & Sc ts 1225 Scuchwest Tower 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
W.
Austin, Texas 73701 Washington, D. C.
20006
Jerry L.
Harris, Esq.
Richard C.
Salcugh, Esc.
W.S.
Robson South Texas Electric City of Austin
?.
O. Box 1088 Cocperative, Inc.
Aust n, Texas 73767 Sam Rayburn Power Plant Cceplex Post Office 151
- 9eo-Joseph 3, Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nursery, Texas e<
Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esc..
Debevoise & Liberman Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
1200 17th Street, N. W.
Robert A.
Jablon, Esq.
Washingten, D. C.
20036 Marc R.
Poirier Speigel & McDiarmid Den H. Davidsen 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City Manager Washington, D. C.
20036 City of Austin
?.
O. Box 1088 Kevin 3.
Pratt Austin, Texas 78767 Texas Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 12548 Jay Galt, Esq.
Austin, Texas 73711 Lceney, Nichols, Johnson & Hays 213 Ccuch Drive William H.
Burchette, Esq.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Frederic H.
Rites, Esc..
Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Knoland J.
Plucknett Watergate Building Executive Director Washington, D.
C.
20037 Ccemittee on ?cwer for the Southwest, Inc.
Wheatley & Wolleson 5541 East Skelly Drive 1112 Watergate office 31dg.
Tulsa, Cklahoma 74135 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037 John W.
Davidson, Esq.
Sawtelle, Gecds, Davidson & Tiolo Jcseph Rutherg, Esq.
1100 San Antcnic Savings Building Antitrust Counsel San An cnic, Texas 73205 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. NRC Washington, D. C.
20555 Douglas F.
John, Esq.
Linda L.
Aaker, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Asst. Attorney General 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.
W.
P.
O.
Box 12543 Suite 400 Capitol Station Washing: cts, D. C.
N. Woolsey, E st;.
Robert M.
Rader Dyer and Redford Ccaner, Moore & Co rb.o r 1030 Petroleum Tcwer 1747 Pennsylvania Are., N.W.
Ccrpus Christi, Texas 73474 Washing:cn, D.C.
20000 Dcnald Clements Melvin G.
Serger, Esq.
Gulf States Utilities Company Ronald Clark, Esq.
P. O.
3cx 2951 Antitrus: Division, Ener7y Seaumont, Texas 77704 Section Rocm S30S 414 lith Street, N.W.
Washingten, D.C.
20530 1
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esc.
.Josech'J. Saunders Esq.
E.
W.
Barnett, Esq..
Chief, Public Counsel &
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Legislativo.Section J.
Gregory _Copeland, Esq.
Antitrust Section Baker & Sotts U.~S.
Department of' Justice 3000 One Shell Plaza P.O. Box 14141 l
Houston,'It 77002 Washington,LD.C.
20044 Donald A.~Kaplan,. Chief Robert E.
3athen Robert Fabrikant, Asst._ Chief R.
W.
Beck & Associates Energy Section P.O. Box 6817 Antitrust Division Criando, Florida 32953 U.
S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20530 Mr. G. Holman King l
West Texas Utilities Company Nancy Luque P.O.
Box 41 Susan'3. Cyphert Abilene, TX 79604 i
Ronald H. Clark Frederick H.
Parmenter Jonathan Feld, Esq.
Antitrust Division Weil, Gotshal & Manges Energy Section 767 Fifth Avenue f
U.S. Department of Justice New York, NY 10022 Room 3413 414 lith Street, N.W.
j Washington, D.C.
20530 1
d r-i
-e c
l