ML23222A285

CPS Energy and Austin Motion to Reply to Nrg Answer

ML23222A285
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, 07201041
Issue date:	08/10/2023
From:	Blanton M, Lovett A Balch & Bingham, LLP, City of San Antonio, TX
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56746, 72-1041-LT, 50-498-LT, 50-499-LT
Download: ML23222A285 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

)

In the matter of: ) Docket Nos. STN 50-498-LT

) STN-50-499-LT South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 ) 72-1041-LT

)

)

)

)

MOTION TO REPLY AND REPLY TO NRCS ANSWER OPPOSING MOTION OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO AND CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.323(c), the City of San Antonio, Texas acting by and through the

City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS Energy) and the City of Austin, Texas, d/b/a

Austin Energy (Austin) move to reply to Section V of NRCs Answer Opposing the Motion by

the City of San Antonio and the City of Austin to Dismiss or Suspend License Transfer Proceeding (NRG Answer), which Constellation joined in its separate Answer.1 CPS Energy and Austin

wish to address NRCs assertion that they failed to make a certification under 10 CFR 2.323(b).

CPS Energy and Austin have consulted with counsel for Applicants on this motion to reply.

Counsel for NRG has indicated that NRG does not oppose CPS Energys and Austins request to

file a limited reply to address the consultation issue, but reserves the right to reply to the substance

of this filing. Counsel for Constellation advised that Constellation agrees as to CPS Energy and

Austin filing the reply. Counsel for STPNOC has indicated that STPNOC does not intend to take

a position on this motion.

1 NRCs Answer Opposing the Motion by the City of San Antonia and the City of Austin to Dismiss or Suspend License Transfer Proceeding, 14-15 (Aug. 4, 2023) (ML23216A182); Constellations Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss License Transfer Application and Motion to Stay, 13 (Aug. 4, 2023) (ML23216A142).

1 10 CFR 2.323(b) provides in relevant part that [a] motion must be rejected if it does not

include a certification by the attorney or representative of the moving party that the movant has

made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion, and that the movants efforts to resolve the issue(s) have been unsuccessful.2 NRCs

Answer states that [t]he Cities Motion contains no such certification.3 CPS Energys and

Austins motion includes the following certification on page 3:

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), movants certify that they have made a sincere effort to confer with the Applicants regarding withdrawal of the Application or suspension of these proceeding pending CPS Energys and Austins ROFR determination, as requested in this motion. The parties have been unable to reach agreement; thus, Austins and CPS Energys motion is ripe for the Commissions determination.4

Upon consultation with NRG counsel, CPS Energy and Austin understand that NRCs intended

point was that this certification did not satisfy the requirements of 2.323(b) for the reasons stated

in Section V of NRCs Answer.

As NRCs Answer states, during discussions that took place prior to filing, NRG and Constellation would not agree to voluntarily withdraw the Application or suspend staffs review.5

NRG and Constellation understood that CPS Energy and Austin intended to file a motion to that

effect, and the issues raised by Austin and CPS Energy in that motion are identical. CPS Energy

and Austin requested a meeting with STPNOC, asked STPNOC to withdraw the Application

because they did not have authority to file it absent Owners Committee approval, and informed

STPNOC of their intention to file a motion to dismiss the Application if STPNOC would not

2 10 CFR 2.323(b).

3 NRG Answer, at 14.

4 Motion to Dismiss License Transfer Application, Immediately Stay NRC Proceedings, and Petition to Intervene City of San Antonio, Texas Acting By and Through The City Public Service Board of San Antonio and the City of Austin, Texas, 3 (July 31, 2023) (ML23212B248).

5 NRG Answer, at 10, 15.

2 voluntarily withdraw the Applicationwhich STPNOC did not agree to do.6 CPS Energys and

Austins certification is accurate and meets the requirements of 2.323(b).

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed electronically by Alan D. Lovett/

M. Stanford Blanton Alan D. Lovett BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015 (205) 226-3417 Counsel for City of San Antonio, Texas (205) 226-8769 acting by and through the City Public sblanton@balch.com Service Board of San Antonio alovett@balch.com

/Executed in Accord with 10 CFR § 2.304(d)/

Anne L. Morgan, City Attorney Andrew J. Perny, Chief, Utilities and Regulatory Division Ariane Arth, Assistant City Attorney City of Austin - Law Department P.O. Box 1546 Austin, Texas 78767-1546 Telephone: (512) 974-3454 Facsimile: (512) 974-1311 Counsel for City of Austin, Texas Andy.Perny@austintexas.gov d/b/a Austin Energy Ariane.Arth@austintexas.gov

August 10, 2023

6 Ex. O to CPS Energys and Austins Motion and Petition.

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

)

)

)

)

South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 ) Docket Nos. STN 50-498-LT

) STN-50-499-LT

) 72-1041-LT

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Reply has been served through the E-Filing system on the participants in the above-captioned proceeding this 10th day of August 2023.

/signed electronically by Alan D. Lovett/

Alan D. Lovett BALCH &BINGHAM LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015 (205) 226-8769 alovett@balch.com

Counsel for CPS Energy

[certificate of service]