ML19347A700
| ML19347A700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Oneil R MILLER, BALIS & O'NEIL, SOUTHWEST TEXAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8009300035 | |
| Download: ML19347A700 (12) | |
Text
,
b}f? 20, Y? Y b v
r-9
&]CKhrrr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2'
iv q
9 GSO>Ei NUCLEAR REGUALTORY COMMISSION SEP BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 1 C Office of the Secretan ]I Dcdtting & Stree w
. Branch q
In the Matter Of:
y HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY (South. Texas Project, Docket Nos.
Units 1 and 2) 50-498A, 50-499A TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Docket Nos.
et al. (Comanche Peak Steam 50-445A, 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
COMMENTS OF THE TEXAS BORDER COOPERATIVES ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS Pursuant to the September 15, 1980 directive of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the Texas Border Cooperatives respond to the settlement agreements reached by all parties to the Comanche Peak proceeding, and by all but a limited number of parties to the South Texas Project pro-coeding, 1/
the Texas Border Cooperatives submit these com-ments.
The comments address the following issues raised by the Board:-
1/
The parties not in agreement at the time of the September 15, 1980 status conference were the City.of Brownsville, Texas; the South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; and Medina Electri*c Cooperative, Inc.
4 e
800e300 03 5
I 1.
What impact does the concurrence of the NRC Staff and the Department of Justice with the proposed settlement have on the Texas Border Cooperatives' Petition for Leave to Intervene (T.1005-1007) ?
2.
In'what way are the license conditions proposed by the settlement anticompetitive, or tend.to create or main-tain an anticompetitive situation (T.1024)?
I.
THE TEXAS BORDER COOPERATIVES REMAIN ENTITLED TO STATUS AS INTERVENORS IN THESE PROCELDINGS NOTWITHSTANDING THE SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE NRC STAFF AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Initially, the Texas Border Cooperatives would like to note that the pleadings filed with regard to their Petition for Leave to Intervene, including the responses of the Department of Justice and the NRC Staff, apparently remain unaffected by the settlement proposal.
Those parties opposing the Texas Border Cooperatives' intervention con-tinue to oppose it, and neither the NRC Staff nor the Department of Justice has expressed opposition to the granting of intervenor status to the Texas Border Cooperatives.
Rather, it is the Board itself that is questioning the continued validity of the Border Cooperatives' intervention request in light of the adoption e
4
f 9
by the NRC Staff and the Department of Justice of a settle-ment.
Chairman Miller has noted that the proposed settle-ment is represented by these government parties as
" adequately [ protecting] the public interest, [ removing] all' anticompetitive consequences,.and the like." (T.1005)
Consequently, he has charged the Border Cooperatives with telling the Board "in what respect the NRC Staff and the Department of Justice have been derelict in their respon-sibilities insofar as the antitrust laws or anticom-petitiveness of the proposed licensing conditions are concerned...
(T.1007)
The Texas Border Cooperatives do not contend that either the N'RC Staff or the Department of Justice have been dere-lict in their responsibilities insofar as the antitrust laws or anticompetitiveness of the proposed licensing conditions are concerned.
However, it is respectfully submitted that
" dereliction of responsibility" is an inappropriate stan-dard.
Neither the NRC Staff nor the Department of Justice
~
are vested with omniscience and infalibility.
Their appro-val of a tentative settlement is'not per se dispositive of the antitrust issues involved.
e S
l t
6 For example, the Department of Justice has sought in the license conditions to preserve its right to intevene in any interconnection proceedings at the FERC, including FERC Docket No. EL79-8, and to present such arguments and evi-dence as it deems appropriate. 1/
On September 17, 1980 the Department of Justice did, in fact, file for leave to inter-vene in FERC Docket No.' EL79-8, and argued to the FERC that:
The construction of the two direct current 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" ). " 2/
[ emphasis added.]
The Texas Border Cooperatives are concerned that approval by the NRC of license conditions which contain extensive references to direct current interconnections, will serve to preclude or limit consideration of the competitive implica-tions of the d.c. ties by the FERC.
1/
Comanche Peak Proposed License Condition D(2) (o)~; South Texas Project License Condition I.B. (10).
2/
" Petition of the United States Department of Justice for Leave'to Intervene," filed September 17, 1980 in Central Power & Light Company, et al., FERC Docket No. EL79-8.
A copy is. attached at Appendix A.
4
l I
l -
The point to be made is that the Texas Border Cooperatives are not alone in their concern over the impli-cations of the d.c. tie.
The Justige Department believes that these concerns can be adequately addressed before the FERC, while the Texas Border, Cooperatives retain reser-vations over the precedential implications of licensing con-ditions which embody the concept of d.c.
interconnections, and are accepted in settlement of an antitrust review.
The Texas Border Cooperatives' disagreement with the Department of Justice on this issue is not premised upon the belief that they are " derelict" in their responsibilities, but merely that we disagree as to the implications of the pro-pose'd settlement.
Accordingly, the Texas Border Cooperatives believe that the validity of their intervention remains unaffected by the agreement to a settlement by either the NRC Staff or the Department cf Justice, and urge that the Board grant the petition for leave to intervene.
II.
tim PnGF05Eu LICENSE CONDITIONS COULD MAINTAIN OR CREATE CONDITIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ANTITRUST LAWS.
Both the proposed South Texas Project License Conditions and the Comanche Peak License Conditions embody the concept of interconnecting the Southwest Power Pool with the Energy e
p
f Reliability Council of Texas through the construction of direct current asynchronous interti.es. 1/
The competitive implications of such a mode of interconnection were addressed in the Texas Border Cooperatives' petition for leave to intervene in these proceedings, the replies filed by the Department of Justice and the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Texas Border Cooperatives' response to the replies filed by the parties.
Essentially, the Texas Border Cooperatives view the establishment of d.c.
ties as creating a condition which would maintain the transmission dominance of the large utilities in Texas, to the detriment of the Texas Border Cooperatives, including for example the maintenance of continued asynchronous opera-tion of ERCOT thus precluding the construction of a.c.
interconnections by small systems.
For small systems, it is the opinion of the Texas Border Cooperatives' consultant that d.c.
interconnections are economically prohibitive.
The capacity reservation provisions of the settlement with regard to the d.c. tie are limited both in terms of the amount of capacity reserved, and the length of time for which it will be reserved (15% of the capacity of the lines for 5 years).
The Tex,as B' order Cooperatives do not view 1/
Comanche ' Peak License Conditions D(2) (e), (1), and (o);
South Texas Project License Conditions IB(3), (9), and (10).
g 4
/
these provisions as adequately off-setting the detrimental aspects of d.c. as opposed to a.c.
interconnections.
Additionally, the proposed license conditions would sanction the disconnection of service td entities seeking to effect an interstate interconnection which might affect the '
jurisdictional status of other utilities located in Texas, unless the entities desiring to interconnect in interstate commerce first sought to obtain an order from the FERC requiring such an interconnection.
Basically, the license conditions perpetuate a situation in which the right of an entity to engage in interstate transactions is restricted:
if it does not first obtain an FERC order under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, it runs the risk of suffering disconnection from existing power suppliers. 1/
The Texas Border Cooperatives recognize that the pro-posed settlement represents a compromise by a number of the parties to these proceedings.
The concern that they have expressed about the d.c.
interties stems from the fact that they believe they will constitute barriers that will impair their ability to develop as generating utilities, that such a result is inconsistent with the antitrust laws, and no record has been established in these proceedings that would serve to alleviate these concerns.
1/
Comanche Peak License Conditions D92) (1)9a), (1) (b), and j
(1) (c).
South Texas Project License Conditions.
(I.B. (6) (a),d (6) (b), and ' (6) (c).
?
Subsequent to the filing of their petition for leave to intervene in these consolidated proceedings, the Texas Border Cooperatives engaged in discussions with Central and Scuthwest Corporation concerning enhanced opportunities for participa' tion in generating units planned by that company.
These dicussions have been fruitful and there exists the possibility that the Texas Dorder Cooperatives' concerns over the implications of the d.c.
interconnection would be sufficiently alleviated that their existing opposition to the use of d.c.
ties would be withdrawn.
The Texas Border Cooperatives expect to finalize their tentative understandings with C&SW prior to Wednesday, October 1, 1980 and will advise the Board in writing on that date of whether they desire to withdraw their petition for leave to intervene.
Respectfully submitted, Robert A. O'Neil Attorney for the Texas Border Cooperatives Miller, Balis & O'Neil,.P.C.
776 Executive Building 1030 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 333-4500 September 24, 1980 l
l
v U
y 6
UNITED STATES OF A4 ERICA IREFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANN, Docket Nos. 50-498A e t al.
)'
and 50-4 99A
)
(South Texas Project, Dr.i t No s.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
^
)
).
In the Matter of
)
)
. TEXAS UPILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docke t Nos. 50-4 4 5A et' al.
)
and 50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit Nos. 1 a nd 2 )
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing COMMENTS OF THE TEXAS BORDER COOPERATIVES ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS to be served onthe following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage paid, this 24th day of September, 1980.
Marshall E.
Miller, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Atomic Safe ty & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Panel Nuclear Regul,atory Commission Nuclear Regulato,ry Commission Wa shing ton,
D.
C. 20555 Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Michael L. Glaser, ' Esquire Joseph Rutberg, Esquire 1150 17th Street, N. W.
Antitrust Counsel Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20036 Nuclear Reg ulatory'.Commissfon Fredric D.
Chanania, Esq.
Michael B.
Blume, Es q.
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.
Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20006
--,-Q,,.
.o
I Jerome Saltzman, ' Chief Antitrust & Ind'emnity Group Robe rt Lowe ns tein, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.
A.
Bouknig ht, Jr., Esquire Washing ton,
D. C. 20555 William J.
Franklin, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Re is,
Chase R.
Stephens, Chief 1
Axelrad & Toll Docke ting & Service Section
' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
Office of the Secretary Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20036 j
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shing ton,
D.
C.
20555 Frederick H.
Ritts, Esquire Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Dav id M.
Stahl, Esquire Watergate 600 Building Sarah F.
Holzsweig, Esquire Washing ton,
D.
C.
20037 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue '
N.W.
heatley & Wolleson Suite 325 1112 Watergate Office Building Wa shing ton,
D. C.
20036 2600 Virg inia Avenue, N.
W.
Wa s hing ton,
D.
C.
20037 Robert Fab rikan t, 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 2121i Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Joseph Knotts, Esquire Nicholas S.
Reynold s, Esquire G.
K.
Spruce, General Manager Debevoise & Liberman City Public Service Board 1200 17th Street, N.
W.
P.
O.
Box 1771 Washing ton, D.
C.
20036 San Antonio, Texas 78201 Douglas F.
John, Esquire Jon C. Wood, Esquire Mc De rmo t t, Will & Emery W.
Roger Wilson, Esquire 1101 Connecticut psenue, N.W.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macf arlane Suite 1201
& Barrett Washing ton,
D. C.
20036 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Marc Poirier, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Perry G.
Brittain, Presid ent Suite 312 Texas Utilities Gener,ating Co.
2600 Virginia Avenue,,N.W. f.
2001 Bryan Tower Washington, D.
C.
20037 Dallas, Texas 75201 Ms. Evelyn H.
Smith J.
Irion Worsham, Esquire Route 6, Box 2 98 J
Merlyn D.
Sampe ls, Esquire Gaffney, South Carolina 29340 Spencer C.
Relye a, Esquite Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Dick T.
Brown,.; Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower 800 Milam Building Suite 2500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201 9
4 e
O R.
L.
Hancock, Director G.
W.
Oprea, Jr.
City of Austin Electric Utility Executive Vice President Depar tment Houston Lighting &. Power Co.
P.
O.
Box 1088 P.
O.
Box 1700 Austin, Texas 78767 Houston, Texas 77001 Jerry L.
Harris, Esquire W.
S.
Robson, General Manager Richard C.
Balough, Esquire South Texas Electric Coop., Inc.
City of Austin P.
O.
Box 151 P.
O.
Box 1088
. Nursery, Texas 77976 Austin, Texas 78767 Don H.
Dav idson Michael I.
- Miller, squire City Manager Isham. Lincoln & Beale City of Austin One First National Plaza P.
O.
Box 1088 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Austin, Texas 78767 Do'nald Clements, Esquire Don R.
Bu tl e r, Es q.
Gulf States Utilities Co.
Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman P.
O.
Box 2 951
& Perry Beaumont, Texas 77074 P.
O.
Box 1409 Austin, Texas 78767 Knoland J.
Pluckne tt Executive Director Morgan Hun ter, Esquire Committee on Power for the McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Southwest, Inc.
900 Congress Avenue 5541 Skelly Drive Austin, Te xas 78701 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Kevin'B. Pr a tt, P; quire Jay M.
Gal t, Esquire Linda Aaker, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes P.
O.
Box 1254 8 219 Couch Drive Capital Station Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Austin, Texas 78767 Robert E.
Cohn, Esq.
E.
W.
Barnett, Esquire Richard J.
Le idl, Esq.
Charles G.
Thrash, Jr.,
Esquire Butler, Binion, Ric e, Cook J.
Gregory Copeland, Esquire
& Knapp Theodore F.
Weiss, Jr.,
Esquire 174 7 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Baker & Botts 9th Floor 3000 One Shell Plaza Wa shing ton,
D.C.
20006 Houston, 1Txas 77002
^
Paul W.
Ea to n, Jr., Esq.
Leland F.
Leatherman, Esq.
Hinkle, Cox, Ea to n, Coffield McMath, 'Leatherman and Woods, Fq and Hensley 711 West Third Street P.
O.
Box 10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 s*
l i >
-4 l
1 l
Somervell County.Public Library P.
O.
Box 417 Glen Rose, Texas 76403 i
Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Coop.
l P.
O.
Box 4 29 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 l
James E.
Monahan l
Executive Vice President l
and General Manager l
Brazos Electric Power Coop., In c.
P.
O.
Box 6 296 Waco, Texas 76706 Robert M.
Rad er, Esquire Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
W.
Wa shing 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 8 41 Abilene, Texas 79604 Maurice V.
Brooks, Esq.
Brooks, Gordon, Long & Shahan P.
O.
Box 118 Abilene, Tex as 79604 n
s f
f,t./
Robert K. O'Neil 1
September 24, 19,80 1
l 1
w
.