ML20032E852
| ML20032E852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111230376 | |
| Download: ML20032E852 (8) | |
Text
L
'~*
=. _
- L1!20 CCTZrs?;:::I;::::
DCLKETEC.
l-11/10/01 UNITED STATES OF AIGRICA EMAR RMAN COMISSION
'81 NOV 19 P4:09 c __.BEFORE TEE ATWIC SAFETY AED LICENSIE} BOARD
_ 'I!ISNit In the MattWz%f l.
l Docket Boe. 50-M 5 APFLICATION OF MAR UTILITIES l
and, W
@['
.j N
1-OEEERATING CWPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l
OPERATIEG LICEEE FOR CG6AECHE l
b/.f 7
$Y J
PEAK STEAM EIACTRIC STATION l
{
i"-!
NOVb 01987 it wra O, CASE'S MOTION TO ALLOW 55d%n,,s.
//,
g TESTIMONY TO BE AIMI'1TED ON AFFIDAVIT ONLY p
N /u Pursuant to 10 CFR 2 730, CASE (Citizens Association for S rgy),
Intervenor herein, files this, its Motion' to ~A1 Tow Testimony to Be Admitted on Affidavit Only.
As demonstrated in the attached CASE's Answers to NRC Staff's Motion for Suma7 Disposition of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications), and as admitted by the NRC Staff in its Motion for Su==ary Disposition, the Applicants plan to recover all' costs of operation throu6h revenues derived from customers in system-wide sales of electricity and to recover decommissioning costs in the rate process. As further stated in Staff's Motion, the rates for electricity chargslbytheApplicants(otherthanTMPA)areestablishedbythePublicUtility 3
Commission (PUC)ofTexas.
(As set forth in CASE's Answer to NR(, Staff's Motion for Suman Disposition, this is in itself an oversimplification, although the PUC does have the final authority over rates on aupeal from hearings held in Section II, pages 3 through 5 Page 12, second paragraph; page 13, second paragraph; Statement of Material Facts As to Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, items 2, 5,'6, 8, and 9.
3 Page 11, third paragraph.
D D
o\\
8111230376 811118 PDR ADOCK 05000445 o
cities ret = M = original jurisdiction over electric rates. Further, as demonstrated in CASE's Answer to Staff's Motion, the interpretation of State law and PUC regulations as set forth by Applicants and Staff is inaccurate and skewed to support a favorable finding in these proceedings.4) et, despite Staff's statements, there is no indication whatsoever ti2at they made any attempt to review the records of rate hearings,' where the rates charged by the Applicants are decided and decisions regarding the money which is supposed to pay for the operation and deconsnissioning of Comanche Peak are made - despite the fact that CASE repeatedly has asserted that the testimony in sush rate hearings were the primary basis for our Contention
- 25. If this is an indication of the Staff's usual depth of inquiry into financial qualifications of Applicants, it is no wonder that the Comunission E
stated "The Commission believes that its existing financial qualifications review has done little to identify substantial health and safety concerns at nuclear power plants."
The Connaission went on to say:
"However, there are matters important to safety which may be affected by financial considerations. Consequently, the Commission requests corznent regarding the type of NRC review that would focus effectively on financial considerations that might have an adverse impset on safety."
Apparently Staff has based their assessment of Applicants' financial qualifications on the information supplied to them by the Applicants themselves; l
4 See Section III, pages 5 through 22.
5 FEDauL RmISTER, vol. 46, No.159, 8/18/81, Proposed Rule Change regarding Financial Qualifications: Domestic Licensing of Production and Ui;ilization Facilities, pa6e 41786. last paragraph of third column. *
~o w
- >. ~. +
,,----,,a
,,,-4..-m...,,,
=m.
=e
Q
obviously this information did not include testimony from the rate hearings of HP&L, TP&L or TESCO, the three primary applicants. As has been the case in other instances in these proceedings, this vitally important and pertinent information came to the Board, not from Applicants or NRC Staff, but from CASE.
Further, although CASE at this point has no idea who the witnesses will be for the Applicants regarding their financial qualifications, surely.
the sworn testimony of the Treasurers & DP&L. TP&L and TESCO should be con-sidered - if they don't know the financial condition of their companies, who does? (It should be kept in mind that the perspective of a witness from Texas Utilities Company could well be somewhat different from that of the Treasurers of the operating companies of-Texas 4Ttilities (DP&L, TP&L and TESCO), since the three operating companies are not the only companies of which Texas Utilities is the parent. It is conceivable that DP&L, TP&L
~
~
and/or TESCO could be in worse financial condition than Texas Utilities Co.
if other Texas Utilities comranies, such as Chaco or Basic Resources, were doingwellfinancially.)
CASE suamits that this information should have been brought forward by the Applicants. Although it is still possible that Applicants may submit such testimony when they file their direct testimony in these proceedings in a few days, there is no indication by the NRC Staff in its Motion for Sumary Disposition that such information has been supplied to them for review by the Applicants.
See CASE'r, Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for Sumey Disposition of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications), attached hereto, CASE Attachment E, pages 6 through 37, CASE Attachment C, CASE Attachment G, CASE Attachment D, and discussion on pages 22 thru 28. ~
CASE had planned to request the Board to subpoena witnesses in these proceedings, including the keepers of the records in rate hearings for DP&L in Dallas and for DP&L, TP&L and TESCO in PUC hearings. However, we have been unable to engage in fundraising activities because of the work load in recent veels in these proceedings and now find that wt cannot afford the costs associated uith having to subpoena witnesses.
We therefore move that the Board allow the following testimony from DPkL, TP&L and TESCO rate hearings to be admitted into the record based on the affidavits included with our Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposi-tion of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications), attached heretos The following documents are supported.by the sworn affidavit of the keeper of the records of DP&L, TP&L and TESCO rate hearings before the Public Utility Commission of Texas:
~ ~
- 1. The 6/22/79 Supplemental Essponse of Applicant (DP&L) to Requests for Information Submitted by Parties, DP&L Response to CASE First
(
Request.for Information Questi'on No. 18 (Additional Response), PUC f
Docket No. 2572 (regarding decommissioning).
(CASEAttachmentB.)
[l
- 2. The 5/80 Direct Testimony, Exhibits and Affidavit of David E. Kelch, Vice President and Treasurer of Texas Electric Service Company, i
PUC Docket No. 3250.
(CASEAttachmentC.)
[
{
- 3. The 12/8/80 Cross N m h tion Testimony.of Max H. Tanner, Jr.,
j in the DP&L Rate Hearings, PUC Docket No'. 3460, Transcript Pages t
ment F.)gh 44, 68 through 72, and 129 through 132..(CASE Attach-34 throu 1
4.
The 3/81 Direct Teatimony, Exhibits and Affidavit of Gary L. Price, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Texas Power and Light Co., in the TP&L rate hearings, Docket No. 3780 (CASEAttachmentG.)
The following documents are supported by the sworn affidavit of the keeper of the records of DP&L, in rate hearings before the City of Dallas, Texas:
5.The11/25/80 Transcript of Cross htmination Testimony of Joe D.
Karney, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Dallas Power and Light Co., fr. DP&L rate hearings before the City of Dallas, transcript paps 256, 284-290, 292-293, 306-310, 324-330 (CASEAttachment D.)
' ~
i:
The following documents are supported by the sworn affidavit of the Assistant Director of the Public Utilities. Department of the City of Dallas, Texas, as an Intervenor on behalf of the City of Dallas in hearings before the PUC in Austin, that these documents are true and correct copies of what the Dallas Publia Utilities 7
Department was given :
- 6. The 9/80 Direct Testimony of Max H. Tanner, Jr., Vice President of Dallas Power and Light Company, in DPE rate hearings, Docket 3460, pages 1, 2 and affidavit only (for the limited purpose of i
showing qualifications, and subject of testimony) and The 9/80 Direct Testimony of Joe D. Karney, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Dallas Power and Light Company, in DPE rate hearings, Docket 3460, including exhibits and affidavit.
(CASEAttachment E.)
The following docurents are supported by the sworn affidavit of the writer, as an '
.:rvenor in DPE rate hearings, that the quota-tions and informati referenced regarding the following EP E rate hearings referenced in CASE's Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for Sunnary Disposition of Contention 25 (Fihanc' n Qualifications) are true of i
her own knowledge and belief, based upon her personal recollection of said rate hearings and the documents and transcripts which she has obtained or which have been supplied to her: 1975-76 DPE Rate Hearings, before the City of Dallas; 1978 DPE Rate Hearings, Docket 1526; 1979 LPG Rate Hearings, Docket 2572; and 1980 DP&L Rate Hear
- ings, Docket 3460.8
- 7. The 11/24/80 Cross W nntion Testimony of Max H. Tanner, Jr.,
Vice-President of Dallas Power and Light Company, in DP&L Rate Hearings'(Docket 3460)(CASEAttachmentI.)
Before the City of Dallas, Transcript pages 85 through o3
- 8. The 12/9/80 Cross-Eramination Testimony.of Charles E. Olson, con-sultant for Dallas Power and Light Co. in PUC Docket No. 3460 l
DP&L rate hearings, Transcript page 307.
(CASEAttachmentJ.h l
l
- 9. The 7/10/79 Cross-emmation Testimony of Erle A. Nye, formerly Vice-President of Dallas Power and Light Company, now Executive I
Vice--President of Texas Utilities Company, in DP&L rate hearings, PUC Decket No. 2572, Transcript pages 364, 365, 377, 392, 397, 398.
(CA9E At+"hment K.)
7 Although hearings were also held in Dallas on this rate case and the same Direct Testimony was filed both in Dallas and in Austin, and the hearings were held in Dallas before the Director of the Dallas Public Utilities Department as Hearing Mner, the Assistant Director of the Public Utilities Department of Dallas felt that the PUC in Austin would more properly be called the keeper of these records. By the time CASE was made aware of this, it was too late to get a sworn affidavit from the PUC to file with this pleading.
8 CASE realizes that this is not the best possible documentation; however, in the brief time since we received Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition on 10/30/81, we came across some additional information which we felt was so pertinent it should be included although we could not get affidavits from the actual keepers of the records..
f
_w_.,_.,
-..,,..y.
e 10.The12/10/80 Cross-hination Testhny of Charles E. Olson, consultant for DP&L in DP&L rate hearings, PUC Docket No. 3460, transcript pages 270 and 271.
(CASEAttachmentL.)
- 11. Be 7/7/79 Cross-hintion Testimony of Max H. Tanner, Jr., in DP&L rate hearings, PUC Docket No. 2572, transcript pages 91 thru 93, 138 and 139.
(CASE Attachment M.)
An additional item which has bearing on these proceedings,is the 6/16/81MemorandumfromCeorgeSchrader,DallasCityManager,to the Mayor and Members of the Dallas City Council, regarding the sale of Lake Fork Reservoir by Texas Utilities to the City of Dallas. Bis is included as CASE Attachment H, pages 1 thru 3.
Although we do not have attached an affidavit, we believe this is something which should be considered in relation to this con-tention, and ask that the Board allow its inclusion also.
CASE, as a citizen organization with all volunteer participants,and without representation by legal counsel,'lias~had a difficult time in several regards in these proceedings. However, the value of active participation in the licensing process by intervenors has long been acknowledged as bei.y bene-ficial in that they have often raised important issues which would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Gulf States Utilities Co, (RiverBendStation, Units 3 and2), ALAN 183,7AEC222,227-8(1974); Consolidated Edison of New York.
I Inc..(IndianPointStation,UnitNo.2),ALAB-243,8AEC850,853(1974):
"TheRogovinReport"NUREG/CR-1250,Vol.I,ThreeMileIsland,AReportto the Comissioners and to the Public, Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Special Inquiry Group, pages 143-144.
We believe that the present instance is a good example of an intervenor raising an important issue which would otherwise have gone unnoticed. CASE believes that the financial qualifications is vital to the decision of whether or not to grant an operating license to the Applicants. The relevance of the information contained in CASE's Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for Sumav Disposition of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications) cannot be denied..
- - ~.
u
t The best evidence regarding the rate hearings would have been testimony from witnesses of the Applicants, presented in a forthright and candid manner.
The next best evidence in this regard should have come from the NRC Staff fo21owing their careful review of Applicants' true financial qualifications, including an analysis of testimony of financial witnesses in rate cases.
Instead, the burden of proof has been shifted to this interrenor.
We urge that the Board grant our motion to allow the twelve items listed herein to be admitted on the basis of the affidavits indicated.
4 Respectfully submitted, 464,v s
f(Mrs.) Juanita Ellie, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energ) 1426 S. Polk Street 75224 Dallas,) Texas (214 946-9446 (214) 941-1211, work, usually Tuesdays
(
and Fridays only I
i i
l l
E e.
O t
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
sETEE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C
In the Matter cf 1
8)
M)V 19 P4:09 APPLICATION OF TEXA3 UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR AN 1
and 50-446.ETnY 7
OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE 1
.TSERVICE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
antCH UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SEKvycr, By my signature below, I hereby certify titat true and correct. copies of EE'S MOTION TO AT.TM 'N9TTVONY TO M ADVTPITD ON AWrDAVTT ONTY:
CAdE'S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUAPOENAS: and
_ CASE'S REQUEST TO APPLICAVPS FOR ADMISSIONS hnve been sent to the names listed below this 18th dayiof lovember 1981, by First Class mail locally and by Express Mail where indicated by *.
Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. freister, Esq.
o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assis tant" Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environmental Protection Division
~
Washington, D.
C.
20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 0 ' Dr. Kenneth A. McCo11can Dean, Division of Engineering, G. Marshall Gilmore, Esq.
Architecture and Technology 1060 W. Pipeline
- Road 10F1=h = State University Hurst, Texas 76053 Stillwater, Oklahcana Th074 Dr. Richard Cole, Member' Atomic Safety and Licensing o
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.'
C.
20555 t
o Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17 th St., N. W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisaion Washington, D. C.
20036 Wa s hing ton,. 'D.
C.
20555 o Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
- Docketing and Service Sectio Office of Executive Legal Director Office of t.he Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.
C.
20555 washington, D.
C.
20555 cc: Homer Schmidt - Texas Utilities Mambf;':
w JMrs. ) Juanite Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Assrciation for Sound Energy)
Y h j O
h
.-