ML20236E697
| ML20236E697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1987 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4131 OL, NUDOCS 8708030053 | |
| Download: ML20236E697 (19) | |
Text
. _ _ _
4'/3/
w rE G ti q.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JJL 28 A;0 :58 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD c ut in the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
l Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
i NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR DIRECTED CER.TIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF MARCH 12, 1987 l
l Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff July 27,1987 l
80300D3 9797pg
=
0 ADOCK 05000445 h Ss 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL
)
50-446-OL
)
l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
l l
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF MARCH 12, 1987 i
l Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff July 27,1987 1
.L
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
Page TA B LE O F AU T H O R I T I ES............................................
li
- 1. '
INTRODUCTION................................................
1 11.
BACKGROUND..................................................
3 1 1 1. D I S C U S S I O N...................................................
7 j
i The Staff's independent Licensing and Regulatory l
Authority are Not immediately impaired by the Licensing Board's O rde r.............................
7 l
IV.
CONCLUSION..................................................
13 l
l l
l l
l l
1 I
I e
I t
i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS Commission Virginia Electric and Pc.wer Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 27,~ CLI-76-22, 4 NRC 480 (1976).........
8,10 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
A LA B-6 91, 16 N P.C 8 97, 910-915 (1982 )........................
8 Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)~ ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623. (1973)..................
8,10 L
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Plant, Units 2 and 3 ), A LAB-677, 15 N RC 13 87 (1982 )........................ 8 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, UnTts 1 and 2),' ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179, 198-201 (1978)........................................
10 i
South Carolina Eiectric znd Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-663,14 NRC 1140,1156, n.31 (1981)...................................................
11 Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680,16 NRC 127, 143 (1982)...............................................
11 A omic Safety and Licensin1 oard B
4 New England Power Co. (NEP, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-9, 7 N R C 2 71 ( 19 7 8 ).............................................
9 Director's Decision Cleveland Electric liluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), DD-83-17,18 NRC 1289 (1983).........
10 REGULATIONS 1 0 C. F. R. 9. 2. 71 8............................................
9 10 C. F. R. L 2. 74 4 ( c ).........................................
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-O L
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and '!)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TEXAS-UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF MARCH 12, 1987 1.
INTRODUCTION On June 19, 1987, Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric"),
the leat Applicant O for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
(" C PSES"), filed a " Petition for Directed Certification of the Licensing Board Order of March 12, 1987"
(" Petition").
The Petition asks the Atomic Safety and Licensing - Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") to vacate the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (" Licensing Board") March 12, 1987
-1/
Four utilities jointly own CPSES:
TU Electric, who owns the majori-ty interest in the project, Tex-La Electric Cooperative (" Tex-La"),
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative ("Brazos"), and Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA).
A formal ownership agreement among the four utilities (the " Joint Ownership Agreemeni") provides that TU Electric has sole responsibility for designing, constructing, operating and obtaining the necessary NRC licenses for CPSES.
TU Electric has held itself out to the Licensing and Appeal Boards in the hear-ings, as well as to the NRC staff in the licens;ng process, as the lead applicant who is responsible for coordinating the actions of all co-applicants with regards to the CPSES construction permit and the operating license application.
i Protective Order 2_/
and direct the Licensing Board to " reexamine the question of work-product protection for the Tex-La documents [ sought to be discovered by CASE]", and if the Licensing Board should find that the documents are protected, whether the documents should nonetheless 3_/
- Petition, p.
18.
TU Electric also requests that the be, disclosed Licensing Board be instructe.d to make the documents " equally available to other interested parties" if it should find that the documents are discov-erable.
Id.
Appeal Board action is necessary, in TU Electric's view, in order to avoid violation of TU Electric's Fifth Amendment rights (Petition, pp. 5-8), as well as to assure an " expeditious and orderly" hearing pro-cess (Petition, pp.14-17).
The NRC Staff (" Staff") does not agree with TU Electric that, to the extent its Petition is predicated on an effect on the Staff's responsibill-ties, the standards for directed certification of the Licensing Board's March 12,1987 Protective Order have been met.
Accordingly, the Staff urges that the Petition be denied.
-2/
This Protective Order permitted Tex-La to disclose certain documents sought by intervenor CASE to CASE, the NRC staff, and certain of the attorneys for TU-Electric, but prohibited disclosure directly to TU Electric. See Protective Order at 2-4.
1
-3/
The import of this particular prayer for relief on p.18 of its Peti-tion is unclear, in light of TU Electric's representations in notes 2 and 17 of the Petition that the question of whether the Tex-La docu-ments should be found to be ultimately protected by the work-product privilege is not presented by the Petition, l
4
)
-J-II.
BACKGROUND On June 27, 1986, CASE filed a request for production of "all docu-ments in the possession of any of the owners of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station that were generated in the course of the ' monitoring prog ram....underta ken by Tex-La in connection with Comanche Peak.'" E.
A response on behalf of all joint owners of CPSES was filed EI TU Electric's response stated that by TU Electric on August 1,1986 it had been advised by Tex-La that all non-privileged documents respon-sive to this request would be produced.
Apparently unsatisfied with 6
Tex-La's response, CASE filed a Motion to Compel,/.
A response to this mo+ ion was filed by TU Electric, which attached separate responses by each of the minority owners, including Tex-La U.
Tex-La's separate response identified four documents which it declined to provide, based upon the attorney-client or work-product privileges On October 2, by Tex-La EI 1985, TU Electric transmitted a supplemental response 3/
CASE Request for Production of Documents (June 27,1986).
~
Applicants' Response to CASE Request for Production of Documents (June 27,1986) and Motion for Protective Order.
-6/
C AS E's Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel (August 15,1986).
-7/
Applicants' Response to " CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel" (September 2,1986).
Tex-La's separate response is attached to the September 2,1986 filing as Attachment B.
8/
Id., Appendix B, paragraph (b).
-9/
Applicants' Further Supplemental Response to " CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel".
Tex-La's supplemental response is attached to that filing as Appendix A.
_4-which identified 22 additional documents b for which Tex-La was asserting a work-product privilege.
CASE then filed a second Motion to Compel llI.
Tex-La, through its own attorneys, filed a pleading opposing disclosure of the requested documents on the basis that they constituted attorney work-product pre-pared for the purpose of Tex-La's litigation against TU Electric in Texas 12,/, and CASE had not shown that it had substantial need for State court the documents. Response of Applicant Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Tex-as, Inc. to " Supplemental CASE Response to Appplicants' Motion for Pro-tective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel" (November 4, 1986), pp. 3-11.
Tex-La also argued that, should disclosure be ordered by the Licensing Board, that disclosure be limited only to CASE and at-torneys representing Applicants other than those of the Worsham, 10/ The Staff notes that although 23 documents are listed in Tex-La's
~~
supplementary response, document no. 23 appears to have been pre-vlously identified in Tex-La's September 2,1986 response.
~~~11/Supplemental CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order RE 6/27/86 / discovery and Motion to Compel (October 20, 1986).
--12/ On May 29, 1986, TU Electric, through its counsel, the firm of Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels and Wooldridge ("Worshem, Forsythe"),
filed suit in Texas District Court against the three minority owners of CPSES, viz., Tex-La, Brazos, and TMPA, claiming breach of the Joint Ownership Agreement.
See Form 8-K, Current Report, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, attached to June 9, 1986 letter from Robert Wooldridge to the Licensing Board.
On June 18, 1986, Tex-La and TMPA filed a countersuit against TU Electric in Texas District Court, alleging breach of the Joint Owner-ship agreement and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
See Form 8-K, attached to July 8, 1986 letter from Robert Wooldridge to the Licensing Board.
On June 19, BEPC also filed suit against TU Electric, alleging breach of contract, and violation of Texas and Federal securities laws. M.
-S-Forsythe firm - the firm representing TU Electric in its state court litiga-tion with Tex-La. M., pp. 15-18.
TU Electric also filed a response on behalf of all Applicants (except Tex-La) to CASE's second motion to compel EI.
Its response stated that Applicants were:
neutral on the question of whether the documents sought of Tex-La by CASE should be produced in the course of this OL proceeding.
The arguments against such discovery are based upon asserted rights peculiar and personal to Tex-La, and it -
is appropriate that their advocacy devolves upon Tex-La's special counsel.
However, Applicants argued that if disclosure were ordered by the Li-censing Board, that the Tex-La documents would have to be made avall-able to all of the Applicants, including TU Electric.
.id at 2-3.
In Applicants' view, restricting disclosure of the Tex-La documents only to those Applicants' attorneys who were not involved in the state court litigation would not ameliorate what they termed "the essential premises of a system of representational advocacy...."
Id. at 2-3.
One of those essential premises, they apparently assert, is the proposition that an agent / representative owes the principal a " duty of full disclosure."
g.
at 3-4.
]
Following the filing of the Applicants' responsive brief EI the Licensing Board issued its November 28, 1986 Memorandum and Order
-13/ " Response to CASE (10/20/86) Motion to Compel (Tex-La documents)"
(November 4,1986).
14/ The Staff did not file responsive b-lefs to either of CASE's motions to compel, or to Applicants' motion for protective order, since these motions concerned discovery disputes between the Intervenor CASE and Applicants, without implicating any concern with regard to the Staff's authority or responsibilities.
- _- - _ _ _ _ (Discovery of Tex-La Documents) (" November 28, 1986 Order")., in that Order the Licensing Board concluded that the Tex-La documents were protected by the work-product privilege, but that they should nonethe-less be made available to CASE.
November 28, 1986 Order, slip op. at 3.
However, the Licensing Board held that the documents should not be dis-closed to TU Electric or its then-lead counsel E, the firm of Worsham, Forsythe.
Id. at 4.
In the Licenshg Board's view, the question of dis-closure to TU Electric of the Tex-La documents was "a private squabble related to contractual rights and claims;" therefore, TU Electric should seek the documents by " agreement with Tex-La or by compulsion in the state proceeding."
Id. at 3-4.
Accordingly, the Licensing Board or-dered that CASE prepare a protective order, which would become effec-tive if executed by both CASE and Tex-La.
Id. at 4-5.
Tex-La, CASE and the Staff had informal discussions regarding the language of a proposed protective order.
A protective order affording CASE, as well as the Staff, access to these documents was executed by CASE and Tex-La and transmitted to the Licensing Board on March 9, 1987 E.
On March 12, 1987, the Licensing Board adopted the Protective Order by issuing !t.
f
-15/ Subsequent to the November 28, 1986 Order, Applicants designated
)
the firm of Ropes and Gray as lead counsel in the adjudicatory pro-ccedings for CPSES.
See February 19, 1987 letter from Robert Wooldridge, Worsham, Forsythe, to the Licensing Board; April 17, 1987 letter from William S. Eggeling, Ropes and Gray, to the Office of the Secretary, NRC.
~~~16/See March 9,1987 Letter from Anthony Roisman, counsel for CASE, to the Licensing Board.
Copies of this letter and the attached pro-posed protective order were also transmitted to counsel for the Staff and TU Electric, i
)
J
1 1 lil.
DISCUSSION Consistent with its practice in this proceeding regarding discovery disputes between other parties which do not affect the Staff's participa-tion or otherwise bear on significant issues involving the Commission's regulations or policy, the Staff will not inject itseli in this matter except to the extent of addressing TU Electric's arguments regarding the possible infringement of the Board's Order on the Staff's obligations.
Thus, the Staff takes no position as to the timeliness of the Petition or whether, in other respects, it satisfies the well-estab!!shed criteria for directed certification of such matters as are in dispute.
The Staff's Independent Licensing and Regulatory Authority are Not immediately impaired by the Licensing Board's Order TU Electric contends that because the Protective Order " purports to prohibit the NRC Staff from disclosing the contents of the Tex-La docu-ments to TU Electric or anyone else," it " interdicts" the responsibliity and authority of the Staff.
Petition at 12-13.
TU Electric's analysis is flawed.
Neither the Staff's responsibliity to the Licensing Board to inform it of new and significant information, nor the Staff's independent responsibility in the licensing and regulatory process is necessarliy Jeopardized by the Licensing Board's Protective Order E.
-17/ TU Electric has no standing to raise concerns about a possible trun-cation of the Staff's authority in its Petition for directed certifica-tion.
TU Electric has no direct interest in the matter, and it is the Staff who is best able to determine what, if any, impact there may be on the Staff's activities.
Nor has TU Electric identified any di-rect or indirect harm accruing to it as a result of the asserted trun-cation of the Staff's authority.
Accordingly, the Appeal Board should not consider TU Electric's arguments on this subject.
i Each party to a licensing proceeding has the independent responsi-bliity to inform the Licensing Board of new and significant information I
that may affect the adjudication of the matters in controversy.
1
)
Virginia Electric and Power Co.
(North Anna Power Station,
Units 1 l
j anci 2), C LI-76-22, 4 NRC 480 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Virginia ; Electric j
J Power Co. v. NRC, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir. 1978); Duke Power Co.
I (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623 (1973); Georgia Power Co. ( Alvin W. Vogtle Plant, Units 2 and 3),
A LA B-677, 15 NRC 1387 (1982); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897, 910-15 (1982). This duty exists i
to assure the integrity and correctness of the Licensing Board's decisionmaking.
See McGuire, 6 AEC at 625-26.
Accordingly, as a co-applicant, Tex-La, and for that matter any of the other co-appilcants, an is, in the first instance, obilgated to discharge this duty, irrespective of whether the Staff, upon its receipt and review of information supplied to it, would otherwise have to inform a board b.
Contrary to TU Electric's assertions, nothing in the March 12, 1987 Protective Order can be reasonably read as for all times foreclosing dis-closure of appropriate information by the Staff to the Licensing Board.
While admittedly the Protective Order initially places contraints on disclo-I sure, it expressly permits parties to seek modification of the Protective l
l Order to permit further disclosure:
l
-18/
It is uncontested that the Staff has an obligation to independently determine whether information provided to it or otherwise coming into its possession, for example from a review, in this instance, of Tex-La documents, is material and relevant and therefore should be provided to the Licensing Board.
i
-_ Any person to whom Protected Jocuments of their contents are disclosed shall not disclose the same to any other person except as expressly permitted by this Order or as may other-wise be ordered by the Board upon motion filed with the Board.
Protective Order, Paragraph (3) (cmphasis added). Thus, the Staff may, if warranted by the nature of the information, notify the Licensing Board that the Tex-La documents contain significant new information; the Ll-b o decide whether the censing Board would then have the opportunity t
Protective Order should be lifted or modified _0/
In sum, the Protective 2
Order simply does not pose an insuperable barrier to the Staff (or any other party) from bringing new and potentially significant information to the Licensing Board's atter, tion b.
In any event, it is entirely speculative whether the Tex-La documents contain information that must be disclosed to TU Electric.
For one thing, as discussed above, Tex-La should have already considered 19/ Presumably the Licensing Board would afford the parties an opportu-nity to address the disclosure issue (either in written form or in oral argument), prior to deciding the issue.
W To the extent necessary, a procedure akin to that provided by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.744(c) could be used to preserve the integrity of the documents.
~~
TU Electric's reliance on New England Power Co. (NEP, Units 1 and 21/
2), LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271 (1978) for the proposition that the Protec-tive Order improperly interferes with the Staff's discharge of its obligations, is misplaced.
As noted in " Response of Applicant Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. To ' Applicant Texas Util-itles Electric Company's Petition for Directed Certification of Licens-ing Board Order of March 12, 1987'"
(July 22, 1987)
(" Tex-La Response"), the reach of the Protective Order is in no way akin to the matters involved in NEP.
The Protective Order here in dispute bears solely on the Staff's participation in the proceeding, which, as any other party's, is subject to Board oversight, see, 10 C.F.R. 6 2.718, and not on the discharge of matters within the Staff's inde-pendent administrative discretion, as was the case in NEP.
I i
w_______
_ _________ ______________ _ __ _ __ _ __________ the question, whether it had to disclose the documents to the Licensing Board (and the Staff), pursuant to its obligations as a co-applicant under McGuire and North Anna 2/
That Tex-La has not notilled the Licensing 2
Board (or the Staff) that the documents sought to be withheld from TU Elqctric contain new and significant information suggests that, at least in Tex-La's opinion, the documents do not contain such information.
Fur-j thermore, Tex-La has explicitly represented that the Tex-La documents were based primarily on materials generated and provided by TUCCO, and that all irregularities in construction or operations identified by its con-sultant CDS Associates during site visits were already brought to the attention of TUGCO _3/
It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how the 2
Tex-La documents would contain either new information regarding known deficiencies, or information on previously-unknown deficiencies that must now be disclosed to the Licensing Board.
While it is unlikely that the Staff will actually be faced with the need to address the limits of the Pro-
~~22/ The obilgation of Tex-La (as well as the other minority applicants) to provide accurate, relevant and complete information to the Licens-ing Board and the Staff exists irrespective and independent of any private contractual agreements among the co-applicants for the CPSES Construction permit and operating license regarding the re-sponsibilities for design, construction, operation and financing of the CPSES facility, and for the prosecution of licensing before the NRC,
{
See Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), DD-83-17,18 NRC 1289 (1983); cf. Public Service Co. of indiana (Marble 111ll Nuclear Generating Stalon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179,198-201 (1978).
j 1
-23/ See Tex-La Response at 14-15; Affidavit of David C. Carlington,
)
UD5 Associates, Paragraph 5 (October 28, 1986) (attached to Re-j sponse of Applicant Tex-La Electric Cooperative to " Supplemental CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order RE 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel (November 4,1986)).
l
_-A
_ _ _ - tective Order, the Protective Order does not prohibit it from fulfilling its duties to the Licensing Board.
Similarly, the March 12, 1987 Protective Order does not impinge upon the Sta ff's independent licensing and regulatory authority E.
TU Electric argues that this authority requires the Staff to disclose to TU f
Electric any information concerning the " adequacy of CPSES' adherence to its commitments and to commission regulations."
Petition at 13.
- But, based on Tex-La's representations, the Tex-La documents do not contain any new information on previously-unidentified deficiencies requiring dis-closure to TU Electric, since it appears that the information underlying the Tex-La documents was generated by, and obtained from TU Electric, or was in the public domain (and therefore known to TU Electric) 2_5/,
Since the underlying inforrr.ation is in TU Electric's possession and con-trol, there is no reason why TU Electric needs to have the Tex-La docu-ments, at least for the cialmed purpose of assuring that there are no unidentified deficiencies at CPSES _6/
See Petition at 10,13.
j 2
~~~24/The Staff is responsible for all safety and environmental matters not placed into controversy by the parties.
Southern California Edison Co.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),
A LA B-680, 16 NRC 127, 143 (1982), citing South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgli C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-663, 14 NRC 1140,1156, n.31 (1981).
---25/ See Affidavit of David C. Carlington, Paragraph 3, stating that the documents sought by CASE were based by GDS " entirely on informa-tion provided by TUGCO or independent contractors associated with the project or information publicly available through the NRC licens-ing proceeding, news media, etc."
--26/
Even if the documents did contain some significant new information, the Staff has some discretion in determining the nature and timing of i
(FOOTNOTE C0HTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
L_ _ ____________________
_. Assuming that the Staff determined it should disclose to TVsElectric information derived from the Tex-La documents, the Protective Order does not prevent the Staff from making such disclosure to TU Electric.
TU Electric can be notified of a deficiency (eg, a bad pipe weld, or con-cerns with a testing procedure) without disclosing how deficiency was i
discovered, i.e., from a Staff review of the Tex-La documents.
Such procedure is often used, when, for example, the Staff obtains information of potential deficiencies in a facility from a confidential source.
Of course, as previously noted, accordance with Paragraph (3) of the Pro-tective Order, a Licensing Board ruling permitting the Staff to disclose the underlying information to TU Electric, under provisions that would minimize any Tex-La concern over disclosure of the opinions or evalua-tions of its experts could be sought.
In summary, the Protective Order does not pose any immediate and substantial threat to the Staff's ability to conduct its regulatory and 11-censing activities.
Should a situation materialize which threatens to ad-versely affect the Staff's ability to effectively carry out its functions, the Licensing Board can be asked to modify the Protective Order in an appro-priate fashion.
Such Licensing Board action would eliminate TU Electric's
" concern" about infringement of the Staff's regulatory authority without (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) any necessary disclosure to TU Electric.
For example, information about deficient construction need not be disclosed to an applicant, if it would jeopardize the Staff's investigation of the matter, at least until the Staff's inquiry is completed.
Similarly, matter; involving criminal wrongdoing may be referred to the U.S. Department of Jus-tice; no notice need be given to Applicants of such referral or the information underlying such Staff action.
i l
, any need for Appeal Board intervention.
In short, to the extent that TU Electric rests its Petition on the possibility of an infringement on the Staff's obilgations, TU Electric presents no controversy which is " ripe" for Appeal Board consideration.
Under these circumstances, directed certification of the Licensing Board's Protective Order is unwarranted.
IV.
CONCLUSION The Appeal Board should deny TU Electric's Petition for directed certification.
Respectfully submitted, Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of July,1987 4
=
ntnTG UW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JUL 28 A10 38 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD.
h0ci In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-O L
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FO R DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF MARCH 12,1987" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, this 27th day of July,1987:
ao Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division 1107 West Knapp P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Stillwater, OK 74075 Austin, TX 78711 Elizabeth B. Johnson Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
i Administrative Judge Worsham, Forsythe, Sample.s Oak Ridge National Laboratory
& Wooldridge P.O. Box X, Building 3500 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dallas, TX 75201 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale 881 W. Outer Drive Suite 1100 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Billie Pirner Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil GAP - Midwest Office Executive Vice President 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue - D Texas Utilities Generating Company App leton, WI 54911-4897 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 1
William L. Brown, Esq.*
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 600 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 1401 New York Avenue, NW Arlington, TX 76011 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Harry Phillips William H. Burchette, Esq.
Resident inspector / Comanche Peak Mark D..Nozette, Esq.
Steam Electric Station Heron, Burchette, Ruckert c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
& Rothwell, Suite 700 P.O. Box 38 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Glen Rose, TX 76043 Washington, DC 20007 Lanny Alan Sinkin James M. McCaughy Christic Institute GDS Assoc. inc.
j 1324 North Capitol Street 1850 Parkway Pl., Suite 720 Washington, DC 20002 Marietta, GA 30067 1
Robert D. Martin
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel
- i 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, TX 76011 Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal i
Spiegel & McDiarmid Board Panel (8)*
l 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20005-4798 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section*
",w
& Gray Office of the Secretary 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 i
Ge#ry F. /Alzuno
~
Counsef4or NRC Staff i
I
_