ML20128C975
| ML20128C975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1992 |
| From: | Marian Zobler NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#492-13440 CPA, NUDOCS 9212070089 | |
| Download: ML20128C975 (25) | |
Text
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
gt 0 ,
. Icut!tt uwist UNITED STATES OF Ah! ERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION 92 DEC -4 M2:13 HEFORE Tile ATOhilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD , ., . ,
In the hiatter of ) Docket No. 50-446-CPA
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Construction Permit Amendment COh!PANY )
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO h!OTION TO COh!PEL DISCLOSURE OF INFORh!ATION SECRETED BY RESTRICTIVE AGREEhiENTS AND NOTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SIJPPORTING PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY B. ORR. D. ORR. J. h!ACKTAL. AND S. HASAN INTRODUCTION On November 19,1992, Petitioners B. Orr, D. Orr, J, hiacktal, and S. Hasan filed two documents with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) designate.d to presM-in the above captioned proceeding. These documents were entitled " Notification of Additional Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene Filed by B. Orr, D. Orr, J. hiacktal, and S. Hasan" (Notification) and "hfotion to Compel Disclosure of Information Secreted by Restrictive Agreements" (hfotion). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioners' hiotion, including their request that the Board declare null and void any and all provisions in the settlement agreements entered into between Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU or Licensee) and former minority owners of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), should be denied. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, the new information submitted by Petitioners in their Notification is untimely and 9212070009 921203 h DR ADOCK 0500 6- .
l 2
4 does not support the admissibility of their proposed coritention, filed on October 5,1992.
Accordingly, their contention should not be admitted.
1]ACKGROUND ;
On July 27,1992, the Petitioners filed " Petition to Intervene and Request for llearing of 11. Irene Orr, D.I. Orr, Joseph J. hiacktal, Jr., and S.M. A. Hatan" (Petition).
On September 11,1992, the lloard issued a " Memorandum and Order (Setting Pleading Schedule)" (Order). In the Oraer, the lloard ruled that each Petitioner must file, no later than October 5,1992, an amended petition and supplement to his or her petition containing contentions which the Petitioner seeks to have litigated in a hearing.
Order at 7. The lloard deferred ruling on the Petitions until the final rou" of pleadings had been filed. Id. at 4. Petitioners filed their " Supplement to Petition to Intervene and Request for licaring of 11. Irene Orr, D.I. Orr, Joseph J. Macktal, Jr., and S.M. A.
11asan," (Supplement) on October 5,1992, in the Supplement, Petitioners proposed one contention to be litigated in this proceeding.
On November 19, 1992, Petitioners filed the instant Motion and Notincation in their Motion, Petitioners request ttiat the lloard permit Petitioners to conduct discovery against TU and the former minority owners of CPSES. Petitioners also request that the Board declare null and void cenain provisions of three settlement agreements entered into by TU and the former minority owners of CPSES. In their Notification, Petitioners l_ submit allegedly newly obtained information, as well as new legal arguments relating to this information, in support of their contention. The Staff assumes that Petitioners
L
3-Notification is intended to be a supplement to the Supplement Gled on October 5,1992 and, accordingly, the Staffis responding both to Petitioners' Motion and Notification.'
DISCUSSION A. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in This Proceeding Has No Jurisdiction To Consider the Settlement Agreements Between TU and the EctmsLMinority Owners of CPSES Petitioners request that this Board declare null and void any and all provisions of the settlement agreements between TU and the former minority owners of CPSES, Diazos Electric Power Corporation (Brazos), Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA), and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas (Tex La). Motion at 1. Petitioners' request is beyond the scope of this construction permit (CP) extension proceeding and, accordingly, is -
beyond the Board's jurisdiction to consider.
The Commission has the authority to define the scope of a proceeding. Bellotti v.
NRC, 725 F.2d 1380,1381 (D.C. Cir.1983). As a delegate of the Commission's authority, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (ASLB) authority is limited by the scope of the proceeding for which it has been designated. Northern Indiana Public Scrvice Co., (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB 249,8 AEC 980,987 (1974).
An ASLB may not either enlarge or narrow the scope ofits authority. Consmners Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-235,8 AEC 645,647 (1974). The scope of a proceeding relating to the extension of a construction permit has been narrowly defined 8
Furthermore, Petitioners claim that the grounds supporting their Motion are contained in their Notification, Sce, Motion at 3.
l 4 ?
4 i
by the Commission. See, Washington Public Pourr Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear i Projects Nos. I and 2), CL182 29,16 NRC 1221,1229 (1982). Any issue addressed by a CP extension proceeding must be related to whether the applicant has shown ' good i
cause" for the delay in completion of the facility. Tc.tas Utilitics Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CL186-4,23 NRC 113,121 (1986). Accordingly, an ASLB designated in a CP extension proceeding only has the authority to consider petitions which seek to challenge the reasons for the delay or to show that other reasons, not constituting good cause, are the principal bases for the delay. Sec, WPPSS, CL1-82 29,16 NRC at 12291230. The only issue in this proceeding is whether TU's delay of signincant construction activities at Unit 2 from November !!.1988 (the date of the last CP utension for Unit 2) until 1991 constitutes good cause so as to warrant the CP extension requested. See, "NRC Staff Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene and Request for 11 earing of D. Irene Orr, D.I. Orr, Joseph J. hiacktal, Jr., And S.ht. A. liaam" (Staff Response) at 6-7 IIere, Petitioners have moved the Board to declare as null and void any or all I
provisions of the settlement agreements as violating public policy, section 210 (Jc) of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), as amended),42 U.S.C. 6 $8015891, and section ,
50.7 of the Commission's regulations. hiotion at 1; Notincation at 14. The only issue ,
in this proceeding is whether TU asserted good cause for the delay in the construction
- The Energy Rwrganization Act was amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Pub. L.
No. 486,106 Stat. 2776, { 2902. The Energy Policy Act, inter alla, renumbered section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act to section 211.
1 l
1
$. I i
of CPSES, Unit 2. Whether or not these settlement agreements, which were executed in a Texas state coert proceeding and not as a result of any proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are a violation of either the ERA, the Commission's regulations, or public policy is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board does not ,
have the authority to grant Petitioners' hiotion. ;
i B. Mttits of Petitioners' hintlDD In their hiotion, Petitioners request that this Board declare null and void any and all provisions in the settlement agreements between the former minority owners of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) which prohibit those minority owners, and their
. . . employees, officers, directors. . . from disclosing any potential safety a
related information. . . to Petitioners, the NRC and/or the general public, Petitioners likewise n.ove that this Board also nullify those parts of the settlement agreements which prevent persons from filing safety related charges with the NRC.
hiotion at 1. Petitioners fail to state with any specificity in their blotion which provisions of these settlement agreements they claim the Board should nullify. Petitioners do reference, in their Notincation, certain provisions of the agreements, specifically section 9.2 of both the agreement between TU and Th!PA (ThiPA Agreement) and the agreement between TU and Brazos (Brazos Agreement). that they claim violate section 211 of the ERA, section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations, and public policy.
Notification at 9,1419. See also, Notification at 7, 8, 10, 12.' Assuming the Board designated in this proceeding determines that it has thejurisdiction to consider the validity of these settlement agreements, none of the provisions of these agreements violate the ERA or the Commission's regulations. Certain provisions of these agreements, however, y-w'.,
e+-
- av v .-m.-r.---,. - - - .m-- - - ,- . . . ,w v-- - - -
,- - .%m.,w- ,4- .--e,- e - . . .~ew .---,-r-,,r.--r. ..wy.,, ,
- 6-are inconsistent with the Commission's policy regarding the free now of information to the agency. t These settlement agreements are not within the scope of either section 211 of the ERA or section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations. Section 211 of the ERA provide:
protection for employees who bring information of regulatory concern to the NRC.'
Section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations also protects employees from discrimination as a result of bringing safety concerns to the Agency. See,47 Fed. Reg. 30452 (July 14, 5
Section 211(a) of the ERA specifically provides:
(1) No employer may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to his compensation, terms conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee) ~
(A) notified his employer of an alleged violation of this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);
(B) refused to eng:.ge in any practice made unlawful by this Act of the _
Atomic Energy Act of 1954,if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer; (C) testified before Congress or any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of this Act or.the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; (D) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of.1954, as amended; (E) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or; (F) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate.in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Pub, L. No. 486,106 Stat. 2776, i 2902.
,ev~. -
-w-+ r, ,+e- , e.-' e t- ,--+ - -- m--,ey----
f 1982); 55 Fed. Reg.10397 (htarch 21,1990). Section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations specifically provides that:
No agreement affecting the competuation, tenns, conditions andprivileges of employment. . . may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage, an employee from participating in protected activity. . . including, but not limited to, providing information to the NRC on potential violations or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.7(f)(emphasis added). The settlement agreements which Petitioners '
challenge are not agreements "affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment." They are, in essence, agreements between corporate entities to buy and sell shares of CPSES. These agreements, therefore, do not come within the scope of section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations.
Furthermore, the settlement agreements do not come within the scope of either section 211 of the ERA or section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations because these agreements do not preclude employees, acting on their own behalf, from bringing safety 1
concerns to the NRC. Section 9.2, " Covenant Not to Sue," of the agreement between TU and TMPA specifically states that "TMPA, for itself and on behalf of any person or entity, private or governmental, claiming by, through or under TMPA" will never sue or look for satisfaction to TU in any matter relating to, inter alia, CPSES. Agreement Between Texas Municipal Power Agency, TMPA and Texas Utilities Electric Company, !
TU Electric, dated February 14,1988 at 37 (emphasis added), Petitioners' Enclosure 4.
i The agreements between TU and Brazos and beiween TU and Tex La contain similar language, Sec, Agreement Between Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Brazos, and Texas Utilities Electric Company, TU Electric, dated as of July 5,1988 at 36-37,
h Petitioners' Em;losure 5 and Agreement Between Tex La Cooperative of Texas, Inc.,
Tex La and Texas Utilities Electric Company, TU, dated as of March 23,1989 at 46, !
attached to Petitioners' Supplement, Exhibit 4. These agreements only apply to the corporate entities and not individual employees acting on their own behalf Because these agreements are not within the scope of either section 211 of the ERA or section 50.7 of :
the Commission's regulations, as a matter of law, they do not violate either the statute or the regulation.' Accordingly, Petitioners' claims regarding the violation of federal :
statute or Commission regulations are without merit.
Nonetheless, the Commission has expressed a policy which looks unfavorably upon any restrictions on the free flow of information to the ( ommission. Sec. Preserving the Free Flow of injbrmation to the Commission, 55 Fed. Reg.10397. Although these agreements do not fall within the scope of either section 211 of the ERA or section 50.7 of the Commission's regulations, the Commission has explicitly stated that, in regards to settlement agreements, no restrictions on bringing information to the Commission should be allowed." Id. at 10402. Furthermore, this view was expressed by Chairman 1
- Apparently Licensee also recognizes the right of employees of TMPA, Brazos, and Tex-La acting as individuals to come to the NRC with safety concerns, in response to a petition fileil pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 of the Commission's regulations by some of the same Petitioners here in which the same concerns were raised regarding the Tex La agreement (sec,57 Fe4 Reg. 40731 (September 2,1992)), Licensee stated that the agreement between itself and Tex la i
does not apply to employees of Tex La acting on their own behalf. Letter to Dr. Thomas E.
- Murley from William J. Cahill, Jr., dated August 6,1992 at 3 n.2. Furthermore, the Staff, in response to that petition, is in the process of p:eparing letters to TU, Brazos, TMPA, and Tex-La requesting that they inform the NRC of what actions they have taken or are taking in order to ensure that individual employees, because of the terms of the agreements, do not believe that they are precluded from coming to the NRC with safety concerns.
.- - _ - . - - -- - -.~. - - _- - .- - .- - - - - - - - .
9-Zech before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on Environment and i
Public Works, United States Senate on May 4,1989. Chairman Zech, in his submitted statement, while acknowledging that the Commission favors settlement of disputes, stated that "an agreement whereby any person- not just an employee or former employee with pending claims under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, but any person-- :
contracts to withhold safety significant information from the Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission is not acceptable
- 1he Secret Settlement Agreements Restricting Testimony at Comanche Peak Nuclear Powerplant and Economic Incentives Afecting the Operation of Rancho Seco Nuclear Powerplant: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, 101st Cong.,1st Sess. 109 108; 112 (1989).
The Commission also recognized the need to ensure the free flow of information to it when it issued a policy statement regarding the confidentiality of informants. In Statement of Policy On Cor[/idential/ty, (50 Fed. <eg. 48506 (November 25,1985)), the Commission stated that:
The Commission's inspection and investigatory programs rely in part on individuals voluntarily coming forward with information. Some individuals will come forward only if they believe their identities will be protected from public disclosure, l.c., only if they are given conndentiality. Safeguarding the identities of conGdential sources is therefore a signiScant factor in ensuring the future voluntary Dow of such information.
Id. See also, Statement of Policy: Har.dling of Late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. I1030 (March 19,1985)("[A]ny person is free to bring (safety) concerns directly to the NRC, . . . Those submitting allegations in good faith should be aware that appropriate
. _ _ . . - _ . ~ . _ _ . . _ __ _._-._._ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
l l
l protection against retaliatory action by an applicant or licensee is afforded by Section 210 l
1 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. $851.*).
To the extent that any of the provisions cited by Petitioners precludes the affected l corporate entity from bringing information of regulatory concern to the NRC, those ,
provisions are inconsistent with the above stated policy. Of the provisions discussed by Petitioners in their Notincation, the only provisions which appear to contain language ;
inconsistent with this policy are sections 9.2 and 9.6 and the referenced exhibits of the TMPA Agreement, and sections 9.2 and 9.7 and the referenced exhibits of the Brazos Agreement. Petitioners do not discuss any specine provisions of the Tex La Agreement, although the agreement contains similar provisions. Sec, sections 9.2 and 9.7 at 44,59.-
The Staff believes that the portions of these provisions which preclude the affected -
corporate entities from bringing information to the NRC are, accordingly, without force and ef fect, at least insofar as they relate to communications with the NRC. If the Board determines that these agreements are within the scope of this proceeding and that these agreements contain provisions which are inconsistent with the above policy, the Board-may take any action it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure the free Dow of information to the NRC. -
C. Discovery is Not Available to Petitioners Who Have Not Been Admitted As A_hrty to A Progreding Petitioners, in their Motion, also request that the Board permit extensive discovery.
Specifically, Peutioners request that the Board require TU and the former minority owners of CPSIIS to meet with Petitioners, disclose any safety related information they 1
i
, , _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ . _ ~ . . . __ _ _ . _ __ _ __ . _ ___ _ _._
I1 .
may have, and to provide Petitioners whh any documentation relating to that information.
Motion at 2. Petitioners further request to be allowed to depose any witnesses who have )
knowledge of any safety significant information and then to be given thirty days in which to file additional contentions. Id. Since Petitioners have not been admitted as parties in this proceeding, Petitioners' Motion should be denied.
Section 2.740 of the Commission's regulations provides for discovery in Commission proceedings. Only parties to a proceeding are entitled to discovery. Section i
2.740 specifically states that "/plarties may obtain discovery." ,
10 C.F.R. f 2.740(a)(emphasis added). Furthermore, peth anets are specifically precluded from conducting discovery in order to flesh out a " vague, unparticularized contention." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 687, 16 NRC 460,468 (1982) vacated in part on other grounds, CL183-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983). See also. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Wisconsin Power and Light Co.,
Wiscoruin Public Service Corp. and Madison Gas and Elet. Co. (Noshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-45,8 AEC 928,929 (1974). The Commission specifically adopted this view when it recently revised its rules nf practice for licensing proceedings.
See " Rules of Practicefor Domestic Licensing Proceedings -- Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process" 54 Fed. Reg. 33168,33170 (August 11, 1989). Because Petitioners are not parties to this proceeding and because it is not permissible for Petitioners to use discovery to flesh out either their proposed contention or to formulate new ones, Petitioners' discovery request should be denied.
y uy..y.- ..m-4, a.--w_--r._,..-_.v,,.. ,v-- , --, .-,,y---._ ,c- ...mrw,--#-,,m,. -m c.,w,~. ,m %.r, ,a -,.f . _. . , ~r- -. ..
D. Petitioners' Notification Submitting New Information is Untimely and Has No :
Discernable Relationship to this Proceeding In the Notification, Petitioners seek to submit additionalinformation,44 days after the time set by the Board for supplementing their Petition. Since this submission is untimely, Petit!oners must establish good cause for filing their Notification late. See 10 C.F.R 6 2.714(a)(1) and (2)(111).5 As will be demonstrated below, Petitioners fall to establish good cause for their late filing. Accordingly, the information, as well as the legal arguments associated with it, should not be considered by the Board in determining whether Petitioners should be granted party status in this proceeding.
Petitioners claim that they have good cause for their untimely Sling because the information they are seeking to submit was not available to them by the deadline for filing supplemental pleadings set by the Board. Notification at 12. The information Petitioners seek to have considered by the Board consists of two settlement agreements, the Brazos Agreement and the TMPA Agreement. These settlement agreements, however, were available to Petitioners before the October 5,1992 deadline set by the Board. These an'reements were submitted to the'NRC in support of two separate applications to amend the construction permits for CPSES submitted by TU The Brazos 8
Section 2.714(a) of the Commission's regulations provides that untimely filings will not be considered unless the balancing of the five enumerated factors supports their consideration.
The first, and ..et important factor, is the establishment of good cause for the late filing. See, 7hc Detrolf Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760, 1765 (1982). As discussed above, Petitioners have failed to establish good cause and further, they fail to even address the other four factors.
_ _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _u_ _
13 -
agreement was subraitted on July 22,1988, and the TMPA agreement wa: submitted on March 4,1988. Sec, Letters from William G. Counsil Executive Vice President, TU .
Electric to NRC, dated March 4,1988 and July 22,1988, copies attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In accordance with NRC pracace, the issuance of these amendments based on the applications was noticed in the Federal Register and the applications, along with the agrements were placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sec 53 Fed. -
Reg. 31778 (August 19, 1988); 53 Fed. Reg. 50608 (December 16, 1988).
Petitioners have a duty to examine the publicly available documentary material in order to uncover any information that could serve as a foundation for a contention. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983). Failure to uncover information in time to allow the timely filing of a contention does not establish good cause for the filing of the contention late, if the information was available ca.rly enough to allow timely filing, Id. Because the information Petitioners are seeking to submit was available early enough to allow them to submit the information _
in a timely fashion, they have failed to establish good cause for their untimely filing.
Accordingly, these settlement agreements, together with the legal arguments regarding these settlement agreements, should not be considered by the Board in determining whether Petitioners have proposed a contention which is appropriate for litigation in this proceeding.
Even if their submission were timely, the Petitioners' information does not demonstrate that Petitioners' contention has any discernable relationship to this proceeding. As previously discussed in the Staff Response, the scope of a CP extension
t e
14 -
proceeding is limited to challenges to TV's asserted good cause for the delay in the construction of CPSES Unit 2. See, Staff Response at 4 5. The only issue in this proceeding is whether it was appropriate for TU to have delayed significant construction activities at Unit 2 from November 18,1988 (the date of the last CP extension for Unit 2) until 1991. See, Id. at 6 7. The Staff argued that Petitioners' contention has no ,
discernable relationship to the issue in this proceeding, and thus, it should not be admitted. Scc, id. In the instant Notincation, the information which Petitioners seek to F
have considered by the Board does not relate to the relevant time period for this CP extension proceeding and, therefore, Petitioners' information does not support the admission of Petitioners' submitted contention.
Petitioners claim, in their Notification, that the two settlement agreements demonstrate that TU had a past corporate policy, whie nas not been repudiated, which caused the delay in the construction of CPSES Unit 2. Notincation at 12. Petitioners allege that TU, through the execution of these two settlement agreements, concealed important information from the ASLB in the CPA 1 proceeding. Id. at 13. Petitioners assert that these agreements were executed in direct violation of its obligation to notify.
the ASLB of all relevant information "while the CPA-1 proceedings were ongoing." Id. i at 1213. According to Petitioners, TU's execution of these settlement agreements demonstrates a comorate policy to secrete information from the NRC and that TU has not repudiated these corporate policies. Id. at 1314 Petitioners assert that this information further supports the admission of their contention. Id at 15,24.
l-i
. . - . . . - - , , - , ,-. . - - - . - .--,-_.,~.._.n,, ,_---._.-._--_,.._.,...._.x,_,;_..,..____,,.,n,._ ,__;,___,___,
Petitioners' information has no relevance to this proceeding and, therefore, cannot support the admission of their contention. TU's conduct during the course of ^ , CPA-1 proceeding, which was concluded in July of 1988, has no relevance to the issue in this CP extension proceeding, i.e. whether it was appropriate for TU to have delayed construction on Unit 2. hforeover, the settlement agreements upon which Petitioners rely date from hf arch and July 1988. Since the relevant time period to this proceeding dates from November 18, 1988, approximately four months after the most recent of the referenced settlement agreements was signed, these agreements do not support Petitioners' contention.
Petitioners also make several new arguments to further support their contention and attempt to link the bsue of the Brazos and ThfPA agreements to the issue in this proceeding Petitioners claim that these settlement agreements prevent the full disclosure of information of relevance to this proceeding. Id. at 2. However, since both Brazos and ThiPA ceased to be involved with CPSES as a result of these agreements, executed in h! arch and July of 1988, there is no reason to b:lieve that any information they may have had or still possess would have any relevance to '.his proceeding.
Petitioners further argue that "TUEC's continued defense ofits secreting information from the NRC demonstrates tnat TUEC has not repudiated the corporate policy _
responsible for the delays in construction (e.g., the policy of secreting information from the NRC)." Id. at 14; see also,-id, at 24. Petitioners fail _to demonstrate that TU had, in fact, a corporate policy to either hide information from the NRC, that TU did hide information from the ASLB in the CPA 1 proceeding, or that TU entered into the 4
I
.n,----,_,-sa- .-.,-_+-,-,_..,,,,,,,,-.n.,
settlement agreements for that explicit purpose. Accordingly, TU's defense of these agreements in no way demonstrates that TU had a corporate policy, repudiated or not, that was responsible for the delay in the construction of CPSES, Unit 2. Finally, ,
Petitioners assert that TU's conduct during the CPA 1 proceeding is ' prima facle" evidence that it does not have the requisite character, competence or integrity to continue constructing CPSES, Unit 2. Id. at 12,20. Petitioners, as noted above, have not drawn ,
any discernable relationship between TU's conduct during the CPA 1 proceeding and the scope of this proceeding. Petitioners' new assertions have no relevance to this proceeding and do not support their contention.
CONCI.USION For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners' hiotion should be denied. Additionally, nothing in Petitioners' Notincation demonstrates that Petitioners' contention has any discernable relationship to the issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, their contention, Oled on October 5,1992, should not be admitted in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, f/
b *1 hiarian L, Zobler Counsel for NRC taff Dated at Rockville, biaryland this 3rd day of December,1992
EXH8111T 1 E tog a 1xx.88285 File e ?31, 234 843, 10047 '
10101 10107 7t/ftfCTRPJ net e 10cin50.30 10CfR50.90 U,',"'*,'", '.' '. 7.".$ . Harrh 4,
, 1488 U. 5. fluclear llegulator) Comission Attto: Dotument Control Dest Washington, 0.1 70ri %
SUUJlll: (ofiAtlLill PL At blLAf4 LLLCllitt SI Allutt tri",LS) 000.ti tiOS. 50 415 AND 50 446 kI() tit 51 I04 Alif HDttf N1 to ( Ofi's1RI)f1lOtt PI RI411 NO\. (PPR l?6 AND CPPP.l?? AND APPIIfAll0N IUP UPIRA11His tl(tH$tS IOR (P$l$ UNil$ I Afl0 ?
Gantlemen:
Poisuent in lot F P'su.30 and 50 u0, f ue as ut t Ii t i*', I l*t t rit Company (10 Ilettiic), lirensee undes the referented Hit ( ton *,truction Peruits for thn Lomanthe real Steam [letteit Station (Cr5L5), attiniu fue itsell and the otht.:
1 o ans*es named in i ef eienr ed (nnst rur t inn Permit s, hes ehy rerpiest s amendment nl Iha u of P*i mi t s and bei phy amaneti it s Applis at inn fon Opet aling i is enses to , o f l e, t se,ised o nership intei*sts as dou echoil bolr>n. In suppen 1 hoient ,
the tallenisiu litt0 watton 1L *,utimitted.
A. Pi oposo.1 Anmoilment nf f onst e in I lon Poe mil Applicant'. propose t he amendmant s to ret lert a s callocat inn ni ownership intciesti in (Pil$ a, f ollows:
Ihe tiansfei hv ihe lesas Munis(pal Pone Agoni g (114PAJ of it s
- f. , / - noneri. hip intprest in iPsl\ t o IV i leri rit wh is. n A li antly holtti.
n 87 5/h- intere*,t thetein, theretw be inuino the agurcuate intoie*,1 of 10 llectiit t o Yi-l/JU' ,'
th t i nslui i s en-nu n i a l i z ed in t he Asp **mant between IMPA anel Ill l'let t e li
<lat eil l uto uai v 1/, 198H, whii h i$. eliu u wed belon. Ilnder t he t eiins of tho Agreement , the fin agoing transf er is ,ubier t to certain condit ions precedent and i t?quiat eo s apto o ali includino the f.ormntiiivn's approval. App l i t.' an t i i r.peu s t that t h%~ anwnelment s le* appro,*il at thii, lima anil be maele *( f ee t i v*
as of I he da t e o f a omp l*t ioti of Ihe tian'.le s of Ihe onne
- hip intesest as sel
? o ih in iho Aijinomon .
Ih eosp..:i<n infni ,is ut th.. ntkne own..., Hiains Ilo,tio
. po... ,
i 9"porats.e, len . (1 1/8i ) an.1 les.la fler.tio loopeiati.e of l e, a ,,
ine,1,'.1/h I semain un< hanged. '
ffO$n'r1 A
h ' f *,Y' +**\ "*.*"n. \". I n '. I' .w != ' - ';'
in.P,8285 ltcrch G. 1988 Yb,qe 2 of G-ll . Supporting Moteiial in t.uppoit of this sequest, theep is submitted for the Commission's '
convenience a copy of the Agreement.
III f lei t i it hns t he f inant ial qualifli at lun and ability in complete i nnstius t ion of the addit fondl 6.7 shdie of CPil$ i which it peupuses to pot e h. vie undes the Agreement, lo that end, we turntsh 10 [lectric's most recent 5tt. f orm 104. dated December 31. 1986 and.lu ticctric's form 8 t dated rio.emhoe in , 19M . the f orm )0.t f oi 198i should be available later this ,
nion t h onil n i l l he f ue nia. heel at t hat time.
In additton, the most recent Annual Report of lexas litilittes Company (*, also entlosed. '
(. rptive a 1 e
lhes sequest ts being submitted, puisuant to 10(IR$0.JO and 50.90. lhe r,m,,ndments herein requested are administiative in natute and involve onig the tiansfee of an u,neeship inteiest fium one ent it y to anothet eutity whleh is
.i l i . ,.. t g an nones anel lii e itse . this Ivansten will in on may all* I tha provisinn' ni the Jnint Ownership Aureoment with respect to responsibility for ;
the oparat son wi < ont rol of (p$l', not in ang aag atlect the design or eon'.1enifirin of 't ho Iati1 tg. Ai e in d ivull, , t he pe opo .ed t i atu,Ico does nnt :
in.nl." ans i n. i o,i % e in Iha ei ohah 61 il e ni e ons".psene es of ni e ident s neo. ion.I. . on , oloi eet , sino , "os e i w.it c : hu pee.s thi I i s y nt an .u r t elont of a tspe different tenm any evaluated previously, does not involve any decrease in '
a *,ateti marain, and therefore doca, not invol.c a sionifirant hatards e oin iih e ,it ion. I ina ll, . I he pr opowd Ii . ins f eo nill not h,ive'a ,iunl!h dnl nup,o I on ihe en.iionm o .
Un e '.u an t to 11H.19110.1.m ), t his applic at ion f or amandmant s to t he retet enr oel permt t ', and 1it en ,e i'. accompanied h, a rhec6 f ni $150 to cover the appli.atinn ("". I us I hoe in ei e on lain e niIh 10f f Pru,10, i one ( 1 ) +,iipied ne igtival , uni l'iitty ,*.au ( U ) 4 op i e.. of t his s eipios t ,u n
- 9 losed,
+
in vie n nt the 1att that the tran*.ine propn,ed by 1hi', Amendment dnes nnt rai.n an, romplo i' ',ue , and t ha t t he pi npo' ed 1 : ati',les is alin subiert in_the on i.itn eion of ofhui i eini l,it in , .ci-ne i.", abuse appiov.il_ is 5 e ointi t ion i
wn m- .nn--eme,-v-w-- e --m- ,m-em,e,-----,,enmm- e ~w-.e- u~ n e- r ,,,y ,s- o:no-v~.e ,---e-e-e*w,.--g---*y.v~s- -e. --c =.w1 e -v.--w--n-. 4 -r- - nw - -
1xx 88785 .
~ March 4, 1988 Pap,3 of 4
.i i.
precedent to the tran>fer, 10 Clectric respectfully requests an espedited :
prutensing of tiils Ainentiment 50 tliat (lie transfer can be consuneuated at (lie i earliest possilite slate.
Very truly yours, W. G. Counsil f y s TKie vice President, 11uclear Lngineering -,
R\ll/t 11 inclosures -i
- t. lh. llelinda llallow. OSP flRC ltr. H. II. flarl(n, Herjinn IV P% i eltitti luspet, tors, (P$t h (3) l 2
I 5
e
.1 h
, .--,.EN' -.n,,n , ,, -
- - - - , ,.p. ,,,_ -, ..n. , , _ , , , , . , , , - - . , ,
I IXXo86285 Hart:h 4,1988 . 1 Page,4 of 4 ,
titillin $1 Airs or AM[RICA i liUCLE AR RLGUL A10RY. C0tt415510fl j In the Hat ter nf ) :
) i 1[AAS Vllllll[5 [LEC1RIC C0firAtlY Docket Hos. 50 445 50 44f .
(Caimanrhe Peak $ team [lectric st at inn, tinit s 1 1. ?) }
i ArrlDAVl1
.inhn 61. Rect , being duly sworn, barehy sleposes, anet uyt, that he is vice Presielent, Nuclear Engineering of the Generating Ulvision of lesas #
littlities llectric Company, the Applicant herein; that-he is duly authorized to sian onni file with the fluclear Re gulatory Connission (1115 vertuest to amend :
s ho runt,i nn iinn permit s (CPPP-l?f.' an't CPPR l?;) (nr t he capt ioneri f ac ilit ies; that ho i t. familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth .
therein are true and correct to the best of his 6nowledge, inf ormation, and belict.
d.sa FL
.u,hn v. nea V it t' Pits itlent , ,
flutlear Lnginnering ,
NIAll Of IlsA$ '
)
)
00!!!V Of DALLA 5 )
% hse riheael anil swni n t o liof en u me. , a lintary Publii in ant! for 11411as. County on t h i *, '/8 riay nf March, 1988.
/
ri j ry rwhc/Y(v s.na?)..L i n . nani v, ion n.pi re ,: t ;' !J 1 f
. /
-- Log i TXX-88578
-- 4 file i 231, 234 E E 843,10047 10101 10102 7tELECTRIC Ref i 10CrR50.30 10CrR50.90 Wimsm C. covan!!
r- .i.yn"**
July 22, 1988 V. 5. fluclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 500 JECT: COMAfiCHEPEAKSTEAMELECTRICSTATION(CPSES)
DOCKET 1105. 50-445 AND 50-446 REQUEST TOR AMENDMEHi 10 CON 51RUCil0N PER!1li fiOS. CPPR-126 AND CPPR-127 AND APPLICATION FOR OPERAi!NG LICENSES FOR CPSES UN!)5 1 AND 2 Gentlemen:
Pnrsuant to 10CrR50.30 and 50.90, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric), licensee under the referenced NRC Construction Pemits for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), acting for itself and the other licensees named in the referenced Construction Permits, hereby requests amendment of the said Pemits and hereby amends its Application for Operating Licenses to reflect revised ownership interests as described below. In support thereof, the following infonnation is submitted.
A. Proposed Amendments of Construction Permits Applicants propose the amendments to reflect a re-allocation of ownership interests in CPSES as follows:
The transfer by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos) of its 3.8% ownership interest in CPSES to TV Electric, which presently holds an 87-5/6% interest therein. ByletterdatedMarch4.1988(TXX-80285),
111 Electric, acting for itself and the other licensees named in the referenced Construction Permits, requested amendment of the said Permits to reflect a re-allocation of unership interests in CPSES occasioned by an Agreement between TV Electsit and Texas Municipal Power Agency (IMPA) k o A a North ohn surm LB ll EMHu, low HM
' July 22, 1988 Page 2 of 3 dated February 12, 1988. That letter requested amendments to reflect the transfer of IMPA's 6.2% ownership interest in CPSES to TV Electric, thereby bringing the aggregate interest of TV Electric to 94-1/3M.
Approval of the amendments requested on March 4, 1988, together with the amendments requested in the instant letter will bring TV Electric's aggregate interest in CPSES to 97-5/6%. *. / :
The transfer of the Brazos interest is memoriall7ed in the Agreement between Brazos and TV Electric dated as of July 5,1988 (the Agreement), which is discussed below. Under the terms of the Agreement, the foregoing transfer is subject to certain conditions precedent and regult. tory approvals including the Conrnission's approval. Applitants request that the amendments involving the Braios onnership interest be approved at this time and be made effective as of the date of conipletion of the transfer of the Brazos ownership interest as set forth in the Agreement.
B. Supporting Material in support of this request, there is submitted for the Commission's convenience a copy of the Agreement.
10 Electric has the financial qualification and ability to complete construction of the 3.8% share of CPSES which it proposes to purchase under the Agreement. lo support that conclusion. we furnish TV Electric's most retent SEC form 10 K dated December 31, 1987, TV Electric's form 8-K dated July 5, 1988, and the 1987 Annual Report of Texas Utilities Company.
C. Generai This reque,t is being submitted pursuant to 10CFR 50.30 and 50.90. The amendments herein requested are administrative in nature and involve only the transferan already ofowner an ownership and licensee. interest from one entity to another entity which is This transfer will in no way affect the provisions of the Joint Ownership Agreement with respect to responsibility for the operation and control of CP5ES nor in any way affect the design or construction of the facility. Accordingly, the proposed transfer does not involve any incree;e in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, does not involve any decrease in a safety margin, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Finally, the proposed transfer will not have a significant impact on the environment.
- / T' e interest of the remaining other owner, les la Elect ric Cooperative of
~
icxas, Inc.. (21/6i) remains unchanged.
I e >y. . . ,. v . My. . .. v- o . - - '
,. - . , . - - . . - . . . - - , . , . , , , _ . - - -,----.,n.-,., -
. , TXX BBS78 July 22, 1988 Page 3 of 3 In view of the fact that the transfer proposed by these amendments does not raise any complex issue, and that the proposed transfer is also subject to the jurisdiction of other regulatory agencies whose approval is a condition precedent to the transfer, TV Electric respectfully requests an expedited processing of these amendments so that the transfer can be consumated at the earliest possible date.
Pursuant to 10CFR170.12(c), this application for amendments to the referenced permits is accompanied by a check for $150 to cover the application fee.
Farther, in accordance with 10CrR50.4(b)(2)(li), one (1) signed original and thirty seven (37) copies of this request are enclosed.
Very truly yours, t?ML W. G. Counsil RSD:tgn Cnclosures cc: .1. H. Wilson, OSP.NRC Hr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Re*,ident inspectors, CPSES (3)
%iAff 0F TfxA$ '
COUN1Y Of DALLA 5 :
j There personally appeared before me W. G. Counsil, who being duly sworn did state of that he is Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, 10 Electric; that he is duly au'Morized to sign and file with the Nuclear
{ Regulatory Comission this amendment request for amenos..ent of Construction F,
a Permit lios. CPPR 126 and CPPR-127, this amendment to the Application for Operating Licenses for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, amt the supplemental information regarding the foregoing; that he is f amiliar
- with the content thereof; and that the matters of fact set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, inforrnation, and belief.
l t t W NotajfTuTIic ff%w -
My commission expires: ,, / '2j ,,
E
/
7 h(b #
N bb
4
. .vi it i-
. UNITED STATES OF AhiERICA uwc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION 92 IC -4 P12:13 DEEORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICFESING BOAREi mu. w o.;
i .j(.h t f I! i's .' ' ! -: \ d '
- aw<
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-446-CPA
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Construction Permit Amendment COMPANY )
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SECRETED BY RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS AND NOTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY B. ORR, D. ORR, J. MA' ITAL, AND S. HASAN" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the fellowing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 3rd day of December 1992:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman
- Peter S. Lam
- Administrative Law Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 James H. Carpenter
- George L. Edgar Administrative Judge Steven P. Frantz Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nancy L. Ranek U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Washington, D.C. 20S$5 Suite 1000 1615 L Street, N.W.
R. Micky Dow Washington, D.C. 20036 Sandra Long Dow dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam E;ectric Station 322 Mall Blvd. #147 Monroeville, PA 15146
. Michael D. Kohn Adjudicatory File (2)*
Stephen M. Kohn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C. CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555 517 Florida Ave., N.W. Attn: Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C. 20001 Office of the Secretary (2)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel (1)* Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atta: Docketing and Service Section
% :thington, D.C. 20555 Oi ce of Commission Appellate A,1judication (1)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 k A ./
Marian L. Zobler Counsel for NRC taff
-