|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20106D3131992-10-0505 October 1992 Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SM Hasan.* Board Should Admit Petitioner Contention 1 for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20099J8751992-08-14014 August 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings by Dows.* Petition to Intervene Should Not Be Accepted for Filing Because Petition Contains Untrue & Scandalous Allegations.Certificate of Svc & Other Info Encl ML20099H1071992-08-0606 August 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan.* Petition Should Be Denied Re Macktal & Hasan Since Neither Showed Standing to Intervene.W/Notices & Certificate of Svc ML20114A9331992-07-28028 July 1992 Petition of SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Ses & RM Dow for Intervention & Request for Hearings.* Licensee Seeks to Extend Expiration Date of CP for Period of Addl 3 Yrs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20099H0921992-07-27027 July 1992 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr, Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan.* Requests That Hearing Be Convened to Determine Whether Good Cause Exists for Extension of CP Completion Date.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19325D6381989-10-20020 October 1989 Request to Continue Proceedings & Petition to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation & Greater Fort Worth Group of Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club.* Petitioners Have Requisite Interest to Establish Standing ML20154G7591988-09-12012 September 1988 Citizen for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20153D1361988-08-26026 August 1988 Applicant Answer to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Request Should Be Denied Based on Inability to Develop Allegations. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E5261988-08-11011 August 1988 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E2071988-07-11011 July 1988 Second Group of Individual Residents Motion for Leave to Intervene & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Ordered Publicly Released.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E3301988-07-11011 July 1988 Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club Motion for Leave to Intervene & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests That Relief for Listed Items Be Granted Sua Sponte to Address Complex safety-related Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150D5141988-07-0808 July 1988 Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Motion to Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief.* Petitioner Requests That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Ordered Publicly Released & That 880713 Hearing Be Continued for 60 Days ML20150D5371988-07-0808 July 1988 Individual Residents Motion to Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief.* Listed Petitioners Request Relief That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Publicly Released & 880713 Hearing Be Extended.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211H3921986-10-31031 October 1986 Consolidated Intervenors Motion to Dismiss Pending Appeal as Moot &/Or for Lack of Jurisdiction & to Immediately Dissolve Order Staying Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210N2811986-09-30030 September 1986 Consolidated Intervenors Amended Contentions 1 & 2 Re Reinsp Efforts & Const Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203G4731986-04-18018 April 1986 Answer Opposing M Gregory & Case 860407 Petition for Leave to Intervene Re NRC 860210 Order Extending Completion Date for CPPR-126 to 880801.Contentions Fail to Satisfy 10CFR2.714(b) Criteria.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203D5681986-04-17017 April 1986 Permittees Answer to Petitions to Intervene of Case & M Gregory.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G4751986-04-0707 April 1986 Petition of Case for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc & Jl Howard Affidavit Encl ML20199K7401986-04-0707 April 1986 Petition of M Gregory for Leave to Intervene Re Improper Const & Invalid Util Justification for Delay.Affidavit of M Gregory & Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 860409 ML20151U6791986-02-0505 February 1986 Response to Ha Stiner Request to Intervene late.Late-filed Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137Q0151985-12-0202 December 1985 Answer Supporting Applicant 851105 Petition for Directed Certification of ASLB 851031 Order for Review.Order Adversely Affects Basic Structure of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081G7771983-11-0303 November 1983 Answer Opposing Citizens Assoc for Sound Energy (Case) 831024 Motions to Add New Contention & for Discovery Re Hot Functional Test Results.Case Should Have Begun to Pursue Subj Matter by 830513 ML20080S3261983-10-13013 October 1983 Motion to Add Proposed Contention 26 Re Hot Functional Test, Motion for Discovery & Offer of Proof.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A5251983-06-12012 June 1983 Answer Opposing State of Tx 830609 Motion for Admission of New Contention Re Adequacy of Emergency Planning.Proposed Contention Lacks Requisite Specificity & Bases for late-filed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A0311983-06-0909 June 1983 Motion for Admission of New Contention Re Adequacy of Emergency Planning.Somervell County & Hood County Commitment,Expertise & Resources Inadequate to Adopt & Implement Emergency Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063H0351982-08-26026 August 1982 Motion to Add New Contention 26 Re Apparent Applicant Violation of 10CFR50,App A,Criterion 1,requiring Possession of Design Criteria for Pipe Support Sys & Components at Site.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D3001980-11-25025 November 1980 Supplemental Response,Submitted to Ferc,On DOJ 800917 Petition to Intervene.Doj Position Is Irrelevant to Approval of Supplemental Offer of Settlement & Should Be Denied W/O Prejudice.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19338E9471980-09-17017 September 1980 Petition for Leave to Intervene ML19338C4101980-08-13013 August 1980 Response in Support of Tx Border Cooperatives Petition to Intervene.Nexus Requirement for Util Operations Affected by Dc Interconnection Satisfied.Untimeliness Is Measured by Necessity to Preserve Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331C5331980-08-13013 August 1980 Answer in Support of Tx Border Cooperatives 800731 Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Shown for Late Filing.No Other Means Exist to Protect Interests.Intervention Would Assist in Development of Sound Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19330C5831980-08-0707 August 1980 Response in Opposition to Tx Border Cooperative Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Not Shown.Cooperative Interests Can Be Protected in Pending FERC Hearing.Petitioners Failed to Show Participation Would Assist in Development of Record ML19330B5911980-07-31031 July 1980 Petition for Untimely Intervention.Petitioners Had Reason to Believe That Interests Would Be Adequately Protected by Other Utils,But Significant Developments Created Concerns Re Dc Interconnections.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331D9051980-07-31031 July 1980 Response to Applicants,Central & South West Corp & City of Austin,Tx Objections to Tx Border Cooperative Petition to Intervene.Asserts Interests Under LBP-74-13.Urges Full Party Participation.W/Certificate of Svc ML19323B5551980-04-10010 April 1980 Statement of Position in Opposition to Tx Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now Proposed Contentions. Intervenor Failed to Submit Allegations Warranting Admission in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19309H6591980-04-10010 April 1980 Statement of Position in Opposition to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Proposed Contentions.Intervenor Failed to Submit Allegations Warranting Admission in Proceeding. Proposed Contentions & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19344D5751980-03-25025 March 1980 Response in Opposition to Public Utils Board of City of Brownsville,Tx 800317 Comments Requesting Admittance as Party in Consolidated Proceeding.Statement of Interest Untimely & Vague.Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-08-06
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20106D3131992-10-0505 October 1992 Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SM Hasan.* Board Should Admit Petitioner Contention 1 for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20099J8751992-08-14014 August 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings by Dows.* Petition to Intervene Should Not Be Accepted for Filing Because Petition Contains Untrue & Scandalous Allegations.Certificate of Svc & Other Info Encl ML20099H1071992-08-0606 August 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan.* Petition Should Be Denied Re Macktal & Hasan Since Neither Showed Standing to Intervene.W/Notices & Certificate of Svc ML20114A9331992-07-28028 July 1992 Petition of SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Ses & RM Dow for Intervention & Request for Hearings.* Licensee Seeks to Extend Expiration Date of CP for Period of Addl 3 Yrs.W/Certificate of Svc ML20099H0921992-07-27027 July 1992 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing of Bi Orr, Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan.* Requests That Hearing Be Convened to Determine Whether Good Cause Exists for Extension of CP Completion Date.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19325D6381989-10-20020 October 1989 Request to Continue Proceedings & Petition to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation & Greater Fort Worth Group of Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club.* Petitioners Have Requisite Interest to Establish Standing ML20154G7591988-09-12012 September 1988 Citizen for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20153D1361988-08-26026 August 1988 Applicant Answer to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Request Should Be Denied Based on Inability to Develop Allegations. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E5261988-08-11011 August 1988 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E2071988-07-11011 July 1988 Second Group of Individual Residents Motion for Leave to Intervene & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Ordered Publicly Released.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E3301988-07-11011 July 1988 Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club Motion for Leave to Intervene & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests That Relief for Listed Items Be Granted Sua Sponte to Address Complex safety-related Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150D5141988-07-0808 July 1988 Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Motion to Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief.* Petitioner Requests That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Ordered Publicly Released & That 880713 Hearing Be Continued for 60 Days ML20150D5371988-07-0808 July 1988 Individual Residents Motion to Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief.* Listed Petitioners Request Relief That All Settlement Agreements Re Joint Stipulation Be Publicly Released & 880713 Hearing Be Extended.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211H3921986-10-31031 October 1986 Consolidated Intervenors Motion to Dismiss Pending Appeal as Moot &/Or for Lack of Jurisdiction & to Immediately Dissolve Order Staying Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210N2811986-09-30030 September 1986 Consolidated Intervenors Amended Contentions 1 & 2 Re Reinsp Efforts & Const Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203G4731986-04-18018 April 1986 Answer Opposing M Gregory & Case 860407 Petition for Leave to Intervene Re NRC 860210 Order Extending Completion Date for CPPR-126 to 880801.Contentions Fail to Satisfy 10CFR2.714(b) Criteria.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203D5681986-04-17017 April 1986 Permittees Answer to Petitions to Intervene of Case & M Gregory.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G4751986-04-0707 April 1986 Petition of Case for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc & Jl Howard Affidavit Encl ML20199K7401986-04-0707 April 1986 Petition of M Gregory for Leave to Intervene Re Improper Const & Invalid Util Justification for Delay.Affidavit of M Gregory & Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 860409 ML20151U6791986-02-0505 February 1986 Response to Ha Stiner Request to Intervene late.Late-filed Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20137Q0151985-12-0202 December 1985 Answer Supporting Applicant 851105 Petition for Directed Certification of ASLB 851031 Order for Review.Order Adversely Affects Basic Structure of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081G7771983-11-0303 November 1983 Answer Opposing Citizens Assoc for Sound Energy (Case) 831024 Motions to Add New Contention & for Discovery Re Hot Functional Test Results.Case Should Have Begun to Pursue Subj Matter by 830513 ML20080S3261983-10-13013 October 1983 Motion to Add Proposed Contention 26 Re Hot Functional Test, Motion for Discovery & Offer of Proof.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A5251983-06-12012 June 1983 Answer Opposing State of Tx 830609 Motion for Admission of New Contention Re Adequacy of Emergency Planning.Proposed Contention Lacks Requisite Specificity & Bases for late-filed Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A0311983-06-0909 June 1983 Motion for Admission of New Contention Re Adequacy of Emergency Planning.Somervell County & Hood County Commitment,Expertise & Resources Inadequate to Adopt & Implement Emergency Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063H0351982-08-26026 August 1982 Motion to Add New Contention 26 Re Apparent Applicant Violation of 10CFR50,App A,Criterion 1,requiring Possession of Design Criteria for Pipe Support Sys & Components at Site.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D3001980-11-25025 November 1980 Supplemental Response,Submitted to Ferc,On DOJ 800917 Petition to Intervene.Doj Position Is Irrelevant to Approval of Supplemental Offer of Settlement & Should Be Denied W/O Prejudice.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19338E9471980-09-17017 September 1980 Petition for Leave to Intervene ML19338C4101980-08-13013 August 1980 Response in Support of Tx Border Cooperatives Petition to Intervene.Nexus Requirement for Util Operations Affected by Dc Interconnection Satisfied.Untimeliness Is Measured by Necessity to Preserve Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331C5331980-08-13013 August 1980 Answer in Support of Tx Border Cooperatives 800731 Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Shown for Late Filing.No Other Means Exist to Protect Interests.Intervention Would Assist in Development of Sound Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19330C5831980-08-0707 August 1980 Response in Opposition to Tx Border Cooperative Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Not Shown.Cooperative Interests Can Be Protected in Pending FERC Hearing.Petitioners Failed to Show Participation Would Assist in Development of Record ML19330B5911980-07-31031 July 1980 Petition for Untimely Intervention.Petitioners Had Reason to Believe That Interests Would Be Adequately Protected by Other Utils,But Significant Developments Created Concerns Re Dc Interconnections.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331D9051980-07-31031 July 1980 Response to Applicants,Central & South West Corp & City of Austin,Tx Objections to Tx Border Cooperative Petition to Intervene.Asserts Interests Under LBP-74-13.Urges Full Party Participation.W/Certificate of Svc ML19323B5551980-04-10010 April 1980 Statement of Position in Opposition to Tx Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now Proposed Contentions. Intervenor Failed to Submit Allegations Warranting Admission in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19309H6591980-04-10010 April 1980 Statement of Position in Opposition to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Proposed Contentions.Intervenor Failed to Submit Allegations Warranting Admission in Proceeding. Proposed Contentions & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19344D5751980-03-25025 March 1980 Response in Opposition to Public Utils Board of City of Brownsville,Tx 800317 Comments Requesting Admittance as Party in Consolidated Proceeding.Statement of Interest Untimely & Vague.Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-08-06
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20127L9321993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Re Architzel Re Thermo-Lag Installation at Testing for Unit 2.* Statement of Prof Qualifications Encl ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric ML20127L9181993-01-26026 January 1993 NRC Staff Reply to Cfur Request for Publication of Proposed Action Re Licensing of Unit 2.* Cfur Request That Notice Re Licensing of Unit 2 Be Published Permitting Parties to Request Hearings Should Be Denied ML20127L9661993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Rl Pettis Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Statement of Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L8891993-01-21021 January 1993 Order.* License Should File Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Ltr Requesting That Commission Issue Fr Notice Providing for Opportunity for Hearing Re Issuance of OL by 930125.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930122 ML20127G9191993-01-19019 January 1993 Order.* Grants Petitioners Extension of Time Until 930122 to File Brief.Replies to Petitioners Brief Shall Be Filed on or Before 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930119 ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G8041993-01-15015 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Appeal of Licensing Board Decision Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Filed by Bi & Di Orr.* Board 921215 Decision Should Be Upheld.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A5931993-01-0808 January 1993 Brief in Support of Petitioner Notice of Appeal.Aslb Erred by Not Admitting Petitioner Contention & Action Should Be Reversed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6371993-01-0707 January 1993 Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Submitted Due to 921215 Memo Denying Petitioner Motion for Rehearing & Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings.Proceedings Were Terminated by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-06-18
[Table view] |
Text
. _ _ . . - - -
.3 5; . . . ,
j? ,17's3 DL
.s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hk
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD !'
19 OCT 20 P3 :49 S
In.the Matter of 5 Docket Nos. 50-445-OL 1 S 54x446-OL l TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC $ (Application for an i COMPANY, et. al. 5 Operating License) )
I
' (Comanche Peak Steam Electric $ Docket No. 50-445-CPA .;
Station, Units 1 and 2) $ (Construction Permit I
$ Amendment) I
)
REQUEST TO CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS AND l PETITION TO INTERVENE BY CITIZENS FOR FAIR j UTILITT REGULATION AND THE GREATER FORT WORTH '
GROUP OF THE LONE STAR CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB Introduction Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) was granted intervenor status in the operating license proceedings for the g . Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station on June 27, 1979, along with Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and ACORN . CFUR-participated individually and separately from the other I
intervenors. Following preliminary proceedings and initial l
E hearings on substantive issues, CFUR and ACORN withdrew from the proceedings. The three parties agreed at the time of the CFUR and ACORN withdrawal that the resources of each group were being seriously taxed by the proceedings,'and that the groups .
were competing for the same resources. It was agreed that CASE would remain in the proceedings as the sole intervenor. CFUR and its me'mbers remained involked in the OL proceedings as discussed below.
l' 1
8910250191 891020 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0 PDR
} S 0.3 l
pic v- ,- ,
Description of the Petitioners l-CFUR is a citizens' organization founded in 1976- for the purpose of challenging electric utility rate hikes. On several occasions CFUR intervened before the Texas Utility Commission to protect ratepayers. Intervention before PUC was and remains today a common approach taken by anti-nuclear organizations.
CFUR's work also includes educatien, research, advocacy, and providing assistance to public officials on energy issues.
The Sierra Club is a membership organization founded in 1892 and has almost half a million members. The Greater Fort Worth l Group of The Lone Star Chapter of,the Sierra Club was organized in.the early 1970s. The Group includes over 1,200 members in the greater Tarrant County area. The Club has consistently raised concerns about the safety of the plant.
Interest'and Standing of the Petitioners E
The interests of CFUR are predicated in large part on the l interests of its members. Two of CFUR's members have authorized the filing of this petition to intervene- on their behalf.
Priscilla Reznikof f, who resides at 6001 Forest Hill Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76119 (approximately forty-five miles from the plant) authorized the original CFOR petition to intervene in 1979. Betty Brink, who resides at 7600 Anglin Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76119 (approximately forty-five miles from the plant) is a spokesperson for CPUR and has authorized this p0tition on behalf of the organization. Mrs. Reznikoff and Mrs. Brink live, 2
EP[5 w.,
g ,
y . .
I l
~
i work, recreate, and. travel in the environs of Comancho Peak ~ and I 1
eat food produced in an area that would be adversely affected by normal and accidental releases of radioactive materials from the j
1 plant. Their affidavits demonstrate interests in the proceeding 4
and its outcome and how those interests may be affected. I 1
(Affidavits are attachments A and B.) l
-l Mrs. Reznikoff and her husband and children use the area within fifty miles of the plant for outdoor activitie's including canoeing, camping, and hiking. They visit the recreational areas
- in Dinosaur Park and a nearby wildlife park. The Reznikoffs are l concerned for their health and safety and that of their children posed by the normal operations of Comanche Peak and possible accidents there.
Mrs. Brink uses the area within fifty miles of the plant for
(
many recreational activities including canoeing in the Brazos
, River. The area within five miles of the plant is a favorite 1
camping site and is used for summertime hiking and fishing by the L Brink family. Mrs. Brink also frequents the restored town of 1
Granbury, a local tourist attraction, that is within twelve miles
.of the plant. Mrs. Brink lives on and owns property that has j been in the family for fifty-seven years. Mrs. Brink is ,
i I
concerned that operation of the plant will cause loss of health to herself and her family and that safety problems at the plant !
will jeopardize her life hnd her property.
( 3 L 4 L
p.' . .. -, -
Y JP . .
1.': .-
y L it
. Mr. Burnam resides within fifty miles of the plant'in the southwest quadrant of Tarrant County, where his family has lived and owned their home for almost thirty-five years. The Burnams >
eat vegetables they grow on their land. As members of the Sierra Club, they organize and participate in many recreational activities within close proximity to the plant. Mr. Burnam is concerned that operation of the plant will cause loss of health ,
to his family and that safety problems at the plant will ;
jeopardize his life and his property. (Affidavit is attachment t C.)
How Petitioners' Interests May Be Affected The operation o:f the Comanche Peak plant will endanger the health and safety of the petitioners' members due to routine -
and f
. accidental releases of ionizing radiation which will contaminate
.the air, food, and water upon which members rely. The OL
! proceeding is the petitioners' only avenue to improve the safety of the plant; the outcome of the proceeding will have a direct impact on the safety of the petitioners' members and their property. Recreation may be jeopardized by the project's impact l
l on the local river, recreation, and camping sites. A nuclear accident at the project will affect th'e lives and property of the L
petitioners' members. As the affidavits show, the affiants believe that their individual health and safety are at risk by operation of Comanche Peak.
i.
C 4 l
._s , , . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ - - . - - - . - _ . .
!II' 4
g Specific Aspects of the subject Matter i
Petitioners adopt the existing contentions, Contention No. 2 1
- and Contention No. 5. 1 Factors Governing Late-Filed Petitions Section 2.714(a) (1) of the regulations provides that ,
nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the licensing board that the petition sh,ould be granted ,
based upon a balancing of the following five f actors: -
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; i l
(ii) The availability of other means whereby 'the petitioners' interest will be protected; e (iii)- The extent to which the petitioners' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound records (iv) The extent to which the petitioners' interest will '
be represented by existing parties; and ,
(v) The extent to which the petitioners' participation ,
will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
- 1. Good Cause
. CFUR has good cause for filing this petition late. CASE has L entered into a remarkable and unprecedented secret agreement that
( is connected with its agreed stipulation with the applicant.
That stipulation would result in the withdrawal of the remaining .
contentions and dismissal of the adjudicatory proceedings. This agreement has only recently been announced and brought to the attention of petitioners and the secret nature of portions of the i
agreement have only become known to petitioners within the last few days. The terms of the agreement that have not been released C 5
,,,,--........,--.,,.--..,,.~-~.m..
iT, .
4 are of course unavailable to petitioners to present to the board. However, it is clear that the settlement involves an exchange of money from the applicant to CASE and also involves s
' the settlement of the claims of many whistleblower witnesses who have filed actions or complaints against the applicant. The i complete terms of the settlement underlying the joint j stipulations between CASE and the applicant will not be released until the board has dismissed the adjudicory proceediags. The
,, board should note that Billie Garde, counsel for CASE, also 1 j
represents some whistleblower witnesses. Marshall Gilmore, a member of the board of directors of CASE, represents Charles Atchison, a whistleblower witness for CASE whose action against the applicant is now pending in the United States Court of ,
Appeals. Petitioners believe that Anthony Roisman, who has also represented CASE, represents a whistleblower witness in his l action against the applicant. It appears that counsel for CASE and a board member of CASE, have attorney-client relationships '
L with individuals who stand to gain if their cases are favorably ,
l- !
settled with the applicant. The secrecy surrounding the exact nature and extant of the full agreement, when coupled with the possible conflict of interests between'the public represented by CASE and the individuals who are pursuing claims against the
. applicant, clearly raises a serious question as to whether the action by CASE was consiktant with its role as intervenor, or whether that role has been compromised in favor of individuals l
b l
l l.
p l
l t
M -
l j
- VL- . . .
who have meritorious claims against the applicant.
At the time CFUR withdrew from the proceedings, the intervenors had discussed the need to consolidate resources and to have a lead intervenor. As stated earlier, resources were )
i 3-hard to come by and competition between the intervenors was )
detracting from their collective ability to participate in the !
1 proceedings. Based on discussions with CASE, CFUR and ACORN j
'l withdrew. Subs eque nt events continued to indicate that CFUR's j reliance on CASE was properly placed. CFUR perceived that CASE l was dedicated to the intervention and was doing an excellent job.
Approximately forty-five days ago, at the time CASE withdrew its i opposition to the new pipe support design, CFUR representatives asked CASE if it intended to continue the intervention. CASE j replied that it was not intending to withdraw from the !
\
proceedings and moreover that it saw the pipe support design issue as only a partial agreement (because it did,not include the installation of the pipe supports), and that it was CASE's view that there were plenty of other issues under Contention No. 5.
The settlement among CASE, its whistleblower witnesses, and the applicant is unprecedented. Neither CFUR nor any other concerned organization or ndividual could have foreseen such a turn in the proceedings. The inability to predict this extreme change in the plans of the sole intervenor should not be charged as delay against the petitioners. The NRC would hardly want to encourage every concerned citizen to intervene in proceedings on
( 7
Y?? , !
. i l
4 ,
'l ' . I the of fchance that the lead in,te,rve,nor wo,ul,d , completely withdraw j i
from the proceedings. l l
- 2. Other Means to Protect' Interests i
r .. .
There are no other means for the petitioners to protect j i
their interests or th'e interests of their members. Adjudication !
l of the operating-license amendment is the last available NRC forum prior to plant operation. Other methods of,giving input into the~ licensing process might include commenting on the SER )
and DEIS, making a limited appearance statement or filing a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The ability to comment on the SER and DEIS would not petmit the petitioners to develop fully l
before the NRC the areas in which they have an interest. The j l
Ji- right to participate, including tne right to present evidence and i 1
l L cross-examine witnesses, is not available as part of the R
(
opportunity to comment. A limited appearance statement, which is not evidence, is also no substitute.
The opportunity to file a 2.206 petition does not represent a means whereby the petitioners can protect their interests l
l because these petitions relate to enforcement matters, not the
, significant interests of the petitioners who are concerned with the licensing for operation of the plant. ,
- 3. Contribution to the Record j Petitioners have important contributions to make to the l record. There are two witnesses who have significant l
C 8 t
,- o - , w --w, ,,,e,,--,-an e, ,~w,,,,,e.-e-e-e-aor_,,~- e ,-ow,,eev-,am me ,w,: am , , ~ , . -,ww---vw,--., ----w.~e-,ve,w, .,,w e ,,,.e,we -,
y.
A i
contributions to the record and who can be produced by c pe titione r s .
James Sutton, of Sun Lake, Arizona, retired from the NRC in
- July 1987, after a career as construction inspector for the AEC i'
and NRC, He has served on the national' board of the American g Society of Mehchanical Engineers. He performed the, duties of an inspector at the Comanche Peak plant for one and one-half years in 1985 and 1986, inspecting quality control. Mr...Sutton has [
file 3 allegations with Chairman Veck that hydro testing at Conanche Peak has not been done properly. It is Mr. Sutton's allegation that the plant is unsafe. He will testify that there are still remaining problems with electrical equipment and that C
the inspection and testing of piping has not been dor.e properly.
lie believes that there are numerous outstanding items from J k earlier inspections that have not been resolved. Mr. Sutton has I
extensive experience in the starting up proceas of five nuclear plants, and it is his opinion that the' plant at Comanche Peak is 1
not safe to operate. Petitioners have only learned of Mr.
Sutton's testimony on July 12, 1988. Petitioners can present him l as a witness if petitioners are allowed to intervene.
l There is a second witness, known to petitioners only as John Doe at this time, whom petitioners can produce as a witness and whose testimony will make significant contributions to the record. John Doe has made allegations that the applicant knows of perjury that has been committed by the applicant's employees
( 9
-l I
j or agents, that the applicant knows that there are perjured ;
1 statements in the existing record before the board, and the ;
applicant has taken no steps to correct the record. This is a l
remarkable statment and Mrn Doe should be presented to the board ;
as a witness to substantiate his claim and his further !
allegations that the applicant has falsified documents, falsified engineering calculations, and knowingly failed to perform 1 necessary engineering calculations, and that there are now i existing life-threatening safety flaws at the Comanche Peak site.
Petitioners can produce Mr. Doe as a witness if they are allowed
,to intervene. 1 L. In addition to these two important witnesses, CFUR and the i
Sierra Club both have experience in participating before administrative agencies and in other legal forum on matters l l relating to the issues before the board. After CFUR withdrew as -
1 an intervenor, it con'tinued to remain involved in the proceedings l by working with CASE and by providing supporting education and poli tical work. For example, Dick Fouke, now deceased, an l'
l' original member of CFUR and a founding member of CASE, worked as a consultant to CASE on engineering issues. Mrs. Brink and other i
CFUR members gave financial, research, and public relations support to CASE, in addition to providing transportation, food, and lodging for witnesses and lawyers involved 'in the proceeding s . CASE providhd documents to CFUR for examination and analysis. CFUR has a long standing interest in the case and is
(. 10 a - . --- - . - . .-.. _- - .
'I
[F' 4
quite familiar with the voluminous record, and is thus in a good
- q. position to make contributions to the record if allowed to intervene.
- 4. Representation by Other Parties f This factor must be decided in petitioners' favor. The only !
intervenor is attempting to dismiss the proceedings and withdraw from the case. In the last several days Mrs. Brink has conferred with Juanita Ellis, Billie G0rde, Marshall Gilmore, .and Charles Atchison, all of whom are involved in CASE and all of whom E support the joint stipulation-entered into by CASE, and each of l
- them, though supporting the settlem.ent, has advised Mrs. Brink i
that the plant at Comanche Peak is not safe. Furthermore, Mrs.
- Ellis remarked that the plant could never be made safe. CASE l . cannot at this point represent petitioners' interests. s
(
i Although the staff might represent the petitioners insofar as they are members of the general public which the staff is -
charged to represent, there is no indication of compatibility on the issues. The burden is on the staff to show that its position is that of the petitioners on the issues. The staff's duty to represent the public interest in the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act does not mean that its view'will be identical with all ,
individiuals or groups. In this case, the petitioners do not believe that the staff's position on issues, its technical qualifications, or its tpresumably ubnbiased perspective will represent their positions fairly.
1
( 11 l
l
- , . . _ - , . . _ . , - , _ , ~ , . _ . .
Lealay of Proceedings The petitioners are fully prepared to take the proceedings I as they currently exist. Thus, no delay in the proceedings can 4
be attributed to them save the approximately sixty days which petitioners are requesting to prepare their case. Prior to the withdrawal of CASE, the remaining issues in the case- were !
considered to have substantial merit. If these issues do not have merit or can be resolved without a hearing the applicant or-the staff can and will use summary judgment to dispose of them.
Otherwise, 1 the outstanding issues, deemed as they have been to l J
. involve matters of public health and safety relating to ~ the l
operation of the plant, should be resolved. The applicant has been on notice for many years that these issues would be the -
subject of these proceedings and the staff likewise has been
(
prepared to apply its resources to their resolution in this proceeding.
Conclusion The petitioners, having shown herein that they have the ,
requisite interest to establish standing and having shown that
- balancing of the factors required by 10 CFR 2.714 for late-filing weigh in favor of granting this petition for leave to 'otervene,
(; 12
+;
-~ '
py . ,~ ..
e- '
3
. l
- if. .
's.
- i. '. pray for- an order- granting- this request to continue the f-proceedings. and .to make the petitioners parties. )
1 l
Respectfully submitted,
\, .
y
.> Richard Lee Griffin ('
600 North Main Street. !
Fort Worth, Texas 76106 (817) 870-1401 ATTORNEY FOR PETIT. TONERS l.
l.
. g s
b (1-13
- . _ . - . . . . - - . . . . . . - . . - .