ML19347B380
| ML19347B380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1980 |
| From: | Fabrikant R JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, ISSUANCES-M, NUDOCS 8010140540 | |
| Download: ML19347B380 (8) | |
Text
N h
O OC D
/sg'f
-10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-7 A
//
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 4
~~
In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY )
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF
)
50-499A SAN ANTONIO
)
CITY OF AUSTIN, et al.
)
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 Peak Steam Electric
)
pr Station, Units 1 and 2
)
Q bCT 30
. RESPONSE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION TO BROWNSVILLE'S MOTION FOR REVISION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE The Department of Justice
(" Department") hereby submits this response in opposition to the Motion for Revision of Procedural Schedule
(" Motion") filed by the Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas ("Brownsville") on Monday, October 6, 1980.
Under the procedural schedule established by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board"), Brownsville's trial brief is due on October 8, 1980. 1/
The understanding of the Department at the conclusion of the Prehearing Conference of September 15, 1980, was two-fold:
(1) the Licensing Board intended to adhere to the 1/
See Licensing Board Order of September 8, 1980.
80102.,o476fc),
b
8 3
1 present schedule set for submissi'on of trial briefs and the commencement of'the hearing in the present proceedings; 2/ and (2)
.he Licensing Board intended to issue a Prehearing Conference Order 2
following submission of comments by various parties on the proposed i
settlement license conditions for the Comanche Peak and South Texas proceedings.3/
Brownsville, however, has recently filed two pleadings which are inconsistent with the manner in which the Board apparently 3
intends the parties to proceed herein.
First, on September 25, 1980, Brownsville filed a Motion for Disapproval of the Proposed Settlement License Conditions.
It is the position of the Department that the Board invited only comments on the proposed license conditions not formal motions for disapproval, which call for responsive pleadings under the NRC Rules of Practice.
10 C.F.R. S2.730(c).
Accordingly, no response to Brownsville's motion appears to be necessary unless and until the Board directs the parties to do so in a Prehearing Conference Order.
Second, Brownsville filed the instant motion seeking an extension of the existing procedural schedule until ten (10) days after the J
Board rules on the proposed settlement and related matters.
In support of.its motion, Brownsville states that it had " anticipated 2/
Prehearing Conference transcript, at 1022-1024 (September 15,
- 1980).
l 3/
Id. at 1024. !
m'
-W 9er++
m u ps-e*y--e
'W g
e-v
-yv y
a.r y
9 ynvy.yw.r yy rym gv e9 em T =
introducing only such evidence as would appear necessary af ter the main protagonists" had presented evidence in these proceedings.
Motion at 2.
Now that the " main protagonists" have reached a settle-ment, Brownsville indicates that it may be saddled with trial I
obligations which exceed its capabilities.
Brownsville claims that an extension of time is necessary because the "present situation is confused and until clarified, it is difficult, if not impossible [for Brownsville] to know how to prepare for trial."
Motion at 5.
The Department notes that by tendering to the Board the settlement conditions, the Department has signified its belief that it is no longer necessary for the Board to conduct a plenary hearing, and that the active participation by the Department in such a hearing would not be necessary.
In such circumstances, Brownsville, as an opponent i
of the settlement conditions, may have to shoulder greater evidentiary responsibilities than it may have anticipated.4/
For this reason, j
the Department is sympathetic with Brownsville's request for additional i
l time.
Accordingly, a modest relaxation of the existing procedural 1
dates may be appropriate to accommodate Brownsville.
Nevertheless, the Department believes it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant the indeterminate extension of time requested by Brownsville since such an extension may preclude the Board from promptly considering the adequacy of the settlement conditions.
4/ As an opponent of the settlement' conditions, Brownsville will have the burden of proving that the proposed settlement conditions I
will-not adequately remedy the alleged " situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws" under Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act.
In order to discharge this burden, Brownsville would have to introduce evidence substantially similar, if not identicial, to'that which it would have to introduce in a plenary hearing in which the Department and the other principal complaining parties did not actively par ticipate.
l l
-. ~
It is in the public interest that the Licensing Board promptly consider the adequacy of the settlement conditions.
The alleged situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws which precipitated these proceedings will be cured by imposing the settlement conditions. The public interest requires that the alleged situation be reme'ied as soon as possible.
Expeditious consideration by the d
Licensing Board of the settlement conditions will be facilitated if Brownsville ir required to submit its brief at the earliest possible date.
Thus, requiring Brownsville to submit promptly a brief will cause Brownsville to accelerate its effor ts to collect such evidence as will enable Brownsville to discharge its obligations to the Board, and will expedite and facilitate the Board's consideration of the adequacy of the settlement conditions. 5/
5/
In its Motion, Brownsville asks:
"Is Justice fully committed to the settlement (including the proposed conditions)?"
Motion at 6.
In support of this rhetorical question, Brownsville states that Justice has intervened in FERC Docket No. EL 79-8 and has contended, in Brownsville's words, that "the DC interconnection is unsatisfactory and anticompetitive....
Therefore, necessarily, Justice's position is substantively contrary to an NRC finding that the conditions cure the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws...."
Id. The Department's intervention in FERC Docket No. EL 79-8 is neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the Department's support for the settlement conditions, and the Department continues to be fully committed to the settlement conditions.
The Department's intervention in FERC Docket EL 79-8 was not only contemplated by the License Conditions (see Comanche Peak Condition (2) (o), and South Texas Condition I.B.
(11), but was also known to all signatories to the settlement conditions at the time those conditions were submitted to the Board on September 15.
The Department's intervention at FERC focuses on the characteristics of the interconnection alternatives (e.g., AC or DC) between the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and the Southwest Power Pool, whereas the settlement conditions are designed to relieve the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws described in the Attorney General's Advice Letters in these proceedings.
d Accordingly, the Department opposes Brownsville's M tion insofar as Brownsville has requested an indeterminate extension of procedural
}
dates,.but does not oppose a modest extension of time to enable j
Brownsville to discharge its obligations to the Licensing Board.
l.
Respectfully submitted, I
1 4
lah Rober t Fabrikant Assistant Chief, Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice (202) 724-6653 Washington, D.C.
October 8,
1980 1
4 4
4
=. -
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING 6 POWER
)
COMPANY, et al. (South
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A Texas Project, Units 1 and
)
50-499A 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al. (Comanche
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Electric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Response of Department of Justice in Opposition to Brownsville's Motion for Revision of Procedural Schedule has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 8th day of October, 1980, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.
Marshall E. Millar, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Board Panel Thomas S. Moore, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 1150 17th Street, N.h.
Washington, D. C.
Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Commission Atomic Safety S Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Washington, D. C.
20555 Office of the Secretary of the Commission Stephen H. Lawis, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 Ann P. Hodgdon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C.
20555
i Jerome Saltzman Michael I. Miller, Esquire Chief, Antitrust and James A. Carney, Esquire Indemnity Group Sarah N. Welling, Esquire i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Isham, Lincoln 6 Beale i
Commission 4200 One First National Plaza j
Washington, D. C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. William C. Price Michael Blume, Esquire Central Power 6 Light Co.
Frederic D. Chanania, Esq.
P. O. Box 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 4
j J. K. Spruce, General Manager l
City Public Service Board Jerry L. Harris, Esquire P. O. Box 1771 City Attorney, San Antonio, Texas 78203 Richard C. Balough, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Perry G. Brittain City of Austin President P. O. Box 1088 i
Texas Utilities Generating Austin, Texas 78767 i
Company j
2001 Bryan Tower Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel and McDiarmid R. L. Hancock, Director 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
City of Austin Electric Washington, D. C.
20037 l
Utility Department P. O. Box 1088 Dan H. Davidson Austin, Texas 78767 City Manager J
City of Austin 1
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
P. O. Box 1088 Executive Vice President Austin, Texas 78767 Houston Lighting S Power Company Don R. Butler, Esquire P. O. Box 1700 1225 Southwest Tower Houston, Texas 77001 Austin, Texas 78701 Jon C. Wood, Esquire Joseph Irion Worsham, Esq.
W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
i 6 Barrett Robert A. Wooldridge 1500 Alamo National Building Worsham, Forsythe S Sampels San Antonio, Texas 78205 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 David M. Stahl, Esquire Isham, Lincoln S Beale Joseph Knotts, Esquire Suite 325 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Leonard W. Belter, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Debevoise S Liberman 1200 17th. Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 i
4 o
l Douglas F. John, Esquire Robert Lowenstein, Esquire l
McDERMOTT, WILL S EMERR J. A. Bouknight, Esquire 1850 K Street, N.W.
William J. Franklin, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20006 Lowenstein, Neuman, Reis, Axelrad S Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Morgan Hunter, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20036 McGinnis, Lochridge S Kilgore 5th Floor, Texas State Bank E. W. Barnett, Esquire Building Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
900 Congress Avenue J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78701 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esq.
Baker S Botts Jay M. Galt, Esquire 3000 One Shell Plaza Looney, Nichcis, Johnson Houston, Texas 77002 S Hayes 219 Couch Drive Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 12548 Knoland J. Plucknett Capital Station Executive Director Austin, Texas 78711 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Drive Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Watergate 600 Building Washington, D. C.
20037 John W. Davidson, Esquire Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson Donald M. Clements, Esq.
l 6 Tioilo Gulf States Utilities Company j
1100 San Antonio Savings P. O. Box 2951 Building Beaumont, Texas 77704 i
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Mr. G. Holman King W. S. Robson West Texas Utilities Co.
General Manager P. O. Box 841 South Texas Electric Abilene, Texas 79604 Cooperative, Inc.
Route 6, Building 102 W. N. Woolsey, Esquire Victoria Regional Airport Kleberg, Dyer, Redford S Weil Victoria, Texas 77901 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 i
l Robert M. Rader, Esquire Conner, Moore S Corber Robert A. O'Neil 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Miller, Balis 6 0'Neil, P.C.
Washington, D. C.
20006 776 Executive Building i
1030 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
I R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20005 John P. Mathis, Esquire Steven R. Hunsicker L(Ny) J b
Baker S Botts Wwf;d 1701 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W.
I Washingtcn, D.C. 20006 Robert Fabrikant Assistant Chief Energy Section l
Antitrust Division Department of Justice
. - ~ _