ML20056C268

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Litigation Rept - 1993-04
ML20056C268
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/13/1993
From: Cordes J
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
References
SECY-93-096, SECY-93-96, NUDOCS 9305120328
Download: ML20056C268 (41)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:oeooeoeoeooaoo0000e40000 c -- RELEASED TO THE PDR /*pBREG(a %, 'date' inos.. e l

\\ 5.g g

I .g Q;.~.... f s ADJUDICATORY ISSUE SECY-93-096 April 13, 1993 FOR: The Commission FROM: John F. Cordes, Jr. Solicitor

SUBJECT:

LITIGATION REPORT - 1993 - 04 Orr v. NRC, No. 93-1263 (D.C. Cir., filed April 7, 1993) This lawsuit seeks to reinstate petitioners' adjudicatory challenge to the extension of Texas Utilities Electric Company's construction permit for Comanche Peak, Unit 2. On March 30 the Commission dismissed petitioners' claims on mootness grounds. On April 6 the Commission declined to stay or reconsider its decision. On the same day the Commission also granted TUEC a full power operating license for Comanche Peak, Unit 2. Petitioners have filed motions seeking summary reversal of the Commission's adjudicatory decisions and seeking a stay of the operating license. We are preparing a response.

Attachment:

Petition for Review

Contact:

i Charles E. Mullins 504-1638 Critical Mass Enerciv Proiect v. NRC, No. 92-1043-(S. Ct., certiorari denied on March 22, 1993) After some nine years of litigation this Freedom of Information Act case is finally over. The Supreme Court, without dissent, -has declined to review the en banc D.C. Circuit decision holding h6930413 NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 930 IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE PDR DATE OF THIS PAPER 93-096 PDR 1 ib .I

2 that FOIA's exemption 4 covers INPO incident reports shared with the NRC under a confidentiality agreement. See Litigation Report i 1992-16, SECY-92-295.

Attachment:

61 LW 3650

Contact:

4' John F. Cordes 504-1600 Dow v. NRC, No. 93-4267 (5th Cir., filed on March 16, 1993; dismissed on March 16, 1993) This was another lawsuit filed by R. Micky Dow to derail nuclear power operations at Comanche Peak. The suit principally I complained of allegedly unfair proceedings leading up'to Comanche Peak's licensing. Like Mr. Dow's several previous suits raising essentially the same point, this suit proved unsuccessful.. The court of appeals dismissed it upon filing, without even j requesting a response by the government. We received notice of the court action by telephone, and have not yet received a court + order.

Attachment:

Petition and En Banc Consideration

Contact:

Charles E. Mullins 't 504-1606 fq I l n. n [. Cordes,1Jr. licitor DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ASLBP SECY i i I i

~ -.... -, t i i g . i - f i 1 -'t t a t t I 1 t - 1 3 + f ATTACHMENT - . 5 . I Orr v. NRC, No. 93-1263 (D.C. Cir., filed April 7, 1993) ( h . i ? ? I + 5 5 ? '? I 1 t s I hr 5 ii l s P J q t i l i ' I .'i I h . t - k

i t UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT t ) B. IRENE ORR and ) D.I. ORR, ) ) Petitioners, ) gt o, 9,3 - N 4.,>, y v. ) ) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) REGULATORY COMMISSION and ) the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) I ) Respondents. ) ) PETITION FOR REVIEW B. I. Orr and D.I. Orr hereby petition the court for review-i of the Mer.orandu: and Order of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission (CLI-93-10) entered on March 30, 1993 and-the Mcnorandus and Order of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrission (CLI-93-11) which was entered on April 7,.1993. .r Respectfully submitted, ) Stephen M. Kohn, 9411513 Michael D.'Kohn,. 4425617 Kohn, Kohn, & Colapinto, P.C. 517 Florida Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-1850~ .l (202) 234-4663. Attorneys'for Petitioners April 7, 1993 ) .l 1. ) _h .=_:

  • ?

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) B. IRENE ORR and ) D.I. ORR, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES NCCLEAR ) REGULATORY COMMISSION and ) the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondents. ) ) MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

REVERSAL Pursuant to the General Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 7(h) (3) and 7 (i), Petitioners B. Irene Orr and D.I. Orr hereby move this Court to sunnarily reverse the orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) entitled CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11-and renand this case back to the NRC for further proceedings. The grounds supporting this Motion are fully set forth in the accompanying Menorandum and Points of Authorities in support of a Stay and Sunnary Reversal of NRC Orders CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11. Copies of CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11 are attached to the acconpanying Menorandum. 4 .__,. A

Respectfully

ubmitted,

.-_ l1't ,.y Stephen H. Kohn, f411513 Michael D. Kohn, (425617 Kohn, Kohn, 5 Colapinto, P.C. 517 Florida Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-1850 (202) 234-4663 Attorneys for Petitioners April 7, 1993 2 w

y-w -m + I,; -l q t UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 5 ) l B. IRINE ORR and ) l D.I. ORR, ) ) 1 Petitioners,. ) .l ) i v. ) ] ) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) REGULATORY COMMISSION and ) the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) !l ) Respondents. ) ) q l i MOTION _TO. STAY Pursuant to Federal Rule' of Appellate Procedure 18 and General Rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals'for the District of j Columbia Circuit 7(h), Petitioners B.-I. Orr and D.I. Orr hereby= .j nove this Court to stay the' orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Cor.nission (NRC) entitled CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11 and. to stay - the NRC's grant of an operating license to.the. Texas Utilities Electric Company for the operation of'the Comanche PsakiSteam~ j Electric Station, Unit'2 nuclear power plant. The NRC has previously denied Petitioners' requestifor a stay in these j .i n.atte rs. j The grounds supporting this Motion -are fully: set forth in; -i 'the accompanying Memorandum and Foints of~ Authorities in Support of a Stay and Sumr.ary Reversal of NRC Orders CLI-93-10 land-CLI-y i 93-11., Copies of CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11 are attached to-the j accompanying'Memorandur... j j Q

-APR-7-93 WED 12*35 P.05 ~ Counsel for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Texas Utilities Electric Company were telephonically informed of Petitioners intent to file this Motion (and to file a Motion for surrary Reversal), Additionally, this Motion and its supporting papers were transmitted to these parties by facsimile Respectfully su W.itted, i (I Stephen M. Kohn, 9411513 Michael D. Kohn, #425617 Kohn, Fohn, & Colapinto, P.C. 517 Florida Ave, fi.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-1650 (202) 234-4663-Attorneys for Petitioners April 7, 1993 053\\ stay i 2

f UNIIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT l ) 1 B. 1RENE ORR and ) { D.I. ORR, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) l ) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) REGULATORY COMMISSION and ) f the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) t ) i Respondents. ) ) c MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES IN l SUPPORT OT A BTAY AND

SUMMARY

REVERSAL OF NRC _ ORDERS - CLIr9_3:10_AND CLI-9 3-11 i Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.18 and j General Rules of the U.S.-Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 7 (h) and 7 (i), = Petitioners B. Irene Orr. and D.I. 3 Orr file this Memorandum and Points'of' Authority in support ofi their notion to cummarily reverse two. orders-issued by the U.S. j Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC), andLin support of their. motion to stay the applicability of these orders and the NRC's. issuance of the operating license.for the Comanche Peak Steam f Electric Station, Unit 2.(hereinafter CPSES Unit 2) nuclear power-j i plant. i 'The two orders of the NRC, CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11,.are j attached to this Memorandum as exhibits 1 and 2 respectfully. I i 't i .i j

~ 'f APR- '7-93 WED 12 37 P.OS 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case concerns the licensing of the CPSES Unit 2 nuclear power plant, owned by the Texas Utilities Electric company l (TUEC), which is located in the vicinity of Fort Worth, Texas. The petitioners are two citizen intervenors who reside in the l i Fort Worth area and who have safety related concerns with CPSEs l Unit 2. One of the intervenors is a former "whistleblower" at-f the Comanche Peak construction site.' The grava=en of this petition concerns whether the NRC can [ dismiss as moot of Petitioners' request for a hearing regarding f the extension of TUEC's construction perr.it for CPSES Unit 2 and convert the construction permit into an operating permit. CLI l 10, pp. 10-21. j Under NRC regulations, a utility must obtain a construction permit to build a nuclear power plant. 10 C.F.R. E 50.32. To obtain an operating license for a nuclear power plant, the applicant must convert their construction permit into an operating license. Id. This conversion can occur only after the NRC determines that the plant was constructed in " compliance with-the terms and conditions of the construction permit." 10 C.F.R. E q 50.56. -In this case, the NRC's rulings nust be summarily reversed because they failed to adjudicate petitioners' contention as to i whether TUEC in fact complied with the " terms and conditions" of r i The NRC does not contest the standing of petitioners. NRC Memorandum and Order CLI-93-10, p. 5 (March 30, 1993). 2 r i v _A

x (4PR-T-93 bJ E D. 1 2.3 3 7 P.. EB 9 t i ^ their construction permit thereby allowing the NRC to convert the construction permit into an operating license. ~ i On December 19, 1974 TUEC obtained a construction permit for. j CPSES Unit 2. This construction permit expired on August 1, 1983. On November 18, 1988 the NRC granted TUEC a construction permit extension for CPSES Unit 2. This extension expired on July 31, 1992. TUEC sought a third extension of their construction permit on February 3, 1992. Petitioners' filed a i timely petition to intervene and request for a hearing in the l construction permit extension proceedings on July 27, 1992. In i r their intervention pleadings, Petitioners alleged that "the delay i of construction of Unit 2 was caused by Applicant's [i.e. TUEC's) f intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the l i result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or i repudiated by the Applicant." Despite the fact that TUEC's construction permit had f expired, NRC regulations permitted TUEC to continue constructing the plant until the Commission had an opportunity to " fully i determine" the merits of the construction permit application. issues. 10 C.F.R. E 2.109. On January 30, 1993 TUEC informed the NRC staff that they l D had "substantially completed" the construction of CPSES Unit 2. f CLI-93-10, p.17. Thereafter the NRC converted the construction permit into an operating license. Petitioners objected to this-conversion on the grounds that the NRC had not rendered a final determination on the merits of their request for a hearing on the-4 l 3 e h

I construction permit contention. On March 30, 1993 the NRC ruled that Petitioners' construction perrit contention becane moot once TUEC had " completed construction under the permit." CLI-93-10, p. 19. Specifically, the NRC held that: "[TJhe proceeding has become moot because a suncrvenina event -- the licensee's substantial completion of Unit 2's construction -- has obviated the need for a further extension of the completion date under the construction permit." CLI-93-10, p. 19. Consequently, the NRC dismissed Petitioners' request for a hearing on the construction permit issue. In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 18, on April 1, 1993 Fetitioners requested the NRC to stay of CLI 10. This request was denied on April 6, 1993. CLI-93-11. T On April 6, 1993 the DRC granted TUEC a full power license to operate CPSES Unit 2. On April 7, 1993 Petitioners' filed a petition for review of i these NRC rulings and noved this Court to summarily reverse NRC orders CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11. Petitioners also moved this Court to stay the issuance of an operating license for CPSES Unit 2 and ctay the operation of CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11. i I 4 1

h 4 ARGUMENT I. The Memorandum and order of the NRC Dismissing r Petitioners' Request for a Hearing on TUEC's Request for and Extension of their Construction Permit Must be summarily Reversed The NRC committed reversible error by dismissing Petitioners request for a hearing on TUEC's application to extend their ? construction permit on the ground of mootness. j Under NRC regulations, the NRC must grant an applicant for a j Commission license, such as TUEC, a construction permit " prior to the issuance of a license" to operate a nuclear power plant. 10 l C.F.R. 5 50.32. After the " completion" of the construction of a l plant, the NRC nay " convert" the construction permit into an l operating license in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.56. Eeg 10 C.F.R. 5 50.32. NRC regulation 10 C.F.R. 5 50.56 requires that, prior to the f l conversion of a construction permit into an operating license, the NRC nust determine whether a utility in fact constructed the plant in " compliance with the terms and conditions of the construction pernit." In this case the NRC erred by-finding'the completion of i construction synonymous with finding that TUEC complied with the terns and conditions of its construction permit. CLI-93-10. As a natter of law, the mere fact that TUEC completed construction of f CPSES Unit 2 does not equate to a finding that the construction was appropriate and that it was completed in " compliance with the terms and conditions of the construction permit." 10 C.F.R. I j i 5 s e e = e

50.56. Under Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 f U.S.C. 5 2239(a)(1) and the NRC's own regulations, the construction permit amendment proceedings were not moot until Petitioners exhausted their due process rights to adjudicate their contention. Petitioners had sought a hearing on the issue of whether TUEC had complied with the terms of its construction permit and h whether TUIC had "ferfeited all rights" under the perr.it due to their failure to establish " good cause" for the delay in construction. 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b). The fact that TUEC "substantially co:pleted" construction on January 30, 1993 did not render an adjudication of this issue moot. Petitioners were still entitled to adjudicate whether TUEC could establish " good cause" for the delay in construction and whether TUEC had " forfeited all rights" under its construction permit. In such a circumstance the NRC could not convert the construction permit into an operating license. 10 C.F.R. S 50.56. It was reversible error for the NRC to dismiss the construction permit amendment proceedings as noot and convert TUEC's construction permit into an operating license. This action violated Petitioners' right to a hearing on a vital safety related issue for which the U.S. Congress had guaranteed persons with standing (such as Petitioners) a right to properly adjudicate. See, e.g. Brooks v. Atomic Enerav Commission, 476 F.2d 924, 926 (D.C. Cir.1973) ("The language of (the' Atomic Energy Act) clearly seems to require that the Comnission grant a 6 l . x

APR-7-93 64 E D 12: 40 P. 13 hearing upon the request of any interested person in a proceeding amending a construction permit."). The NRC decisions on this issue (CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-ll) should be summarily reversed as the NRC improperly converted the construction permit for CPSES Unit 2 into an operating license without first giving Fetitioners an opportunity to adjudicate their construction perr.it contention. Contrary to the holding of the NRC, this contention was not noot. II. This Court should Stay NRC Orders CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11 and stay the Issuance of the full power license for CPSES Unit 2 In light of Fetitioners' notion for summary reversal, thic Court chould stay NRC Orders CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11 and stay the issuance of the operating license for CPSES Unit 2. In considering a motion for a stay of an administrative-order this Court requires the parties to address four factors: a) the likelihood that the noving party will prevail on the nerits; b) the prospect of irreparable injury to the noving party if relief is withheld; c) the possibility of harm to other parties if the relief is granted; and, d) the public interest. General Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Rule 7 (h) (1) (A). For reasons cet forth below, Petitioners neet this criteria. 7

nen-T-9s wcn 22: 4 2 P. 24 ~ A. The Petitioners will_ Prevail on_the Merits i In this case the Petitioners will prevail on the merits. As discussed in Part I above, this case should be summarily reversed due to the NRC's error in holding that Petitioners' request for a hearing on the construction permit was moot. This factor weighs heavily in support of petitioners' stay motion. B. Petitioners will Suf fer Irrepar_ab1_e __ Harm i f a Stav_is not Granted The Commission's conversion of the construction permit into a full operating license will (1) irreparably harn Petitioners' dua process right to a hearing, and (2) unreasonably threaten Petitioners' health and cafety. The public health and safety may be irreparably harned where the NRC grants an operating licensing without first rendering a determination on the underlying challenge to the construction permit. In this respect the Petitioners' construction permit challenge relates directly to the safe operation of CPSES Unit 2. C. No Party will Suffer Irreparable Harm if the stay is Granted No party will suffer a legally cognizable harm due to the issuance of the stay. It is well established that financial injury alone does not constitute irreparable injury. _Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974). D. T_he_Tssuance of the Stay will furthtI the Public Interest The public interest in this case is two fold. First, it is in the public interest to require that the due process rights established by the U.S. Congress for insuring that a nuclear B

i i power. plant is safely constructed are scrupulously naintained. ]- i Second, it is in the public' interest to require,the NRC to j properly adjudicate the issue as to whether TUEC did in fact j construct CPSES Unit 2 in conformity with the requirements of j their construction permit. OONCLUSION For reasons stated herein this Court should stay the NRC's i grant of an operating license for CPSES Unit 2 andg maarily. reverse NRC Orders CLI-93-10 and CLI-93-11. l i Respe tfully submitted, l \\ l Stephen M. Kohn, (411513 i Michael D. Kohn, $425617 Kohn, Kohn, & Colapinto, P.C. 1 517 Florida Ave,~N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-1850 (202) 234-4663 i i Attorneys for Petitioners j April 7, 1993 1 053\\ren I i y i i 9 3 I / h

e.4 t-

e -- te. eu 9 CEPTJIJCATE_OT SEPVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the attached document was served upon the folicwing persons, via facsimile and First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, on this 7th day of April, 1993: George Edgar, Esq. Newran & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles Mullens, Esq. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555

  • Attorney General United States of Ancrica U.S.

Departnent of Justice loth and constitution Avenuos, N.W. Washington, D.C.

    • R. Micky Dow 506 Mountainview Estates Grandberry, Tx 76048 Dated:

March 15, 1993 l- \\..- Stephen M. Echn

  • Only be hand delivery on April 7, 1993
    • 0nly by deposit in the United States nail on April 7, 1993 053\\ cert. app

A h t i f i ~ s t I i ATTACHMENT - Critical Mass Enerav Proiect v. NRC, No. 92-1043.(S. Ct., certiorari. denied on March 22, 1993) 1 r l 1 ? I

61 LW 3650 The United Stafes LAW WEEK 3-23-93 91-1721 Northeastern l'Inda Char cr of the Mareb 2,1993 March 18,1993 Quoated General C.mtr,ctors of Arnenca v. C ") of Jacksonde, fhrida Argued 5 Ms borah A. Austen for pentioner and Mr Order la Pending Case cenard S Magid for rnpendento Oral Arguments 91-1671 Mertens v. Hemot Asmates Arped 92 7944 1 A4981 Po3ner v. Murra3 Dir.. VA bs Mr. Alfred H S:gman for gaueners. by Mr. 92-344 Sale v. Hanian Centers Council. Inc. DOC. The apphcanon for stay of execution of Ronald J. Mann for the Lmted States as sm:cus Argued by Ms Maureen E. Mahoney for the sentence of death presented to the Chief Jusace curiar h special les c of the Court and by Mr. permeners and by Mr. Harold Hongju Koh for and by him referred to the Court is demed Stesen H. Irankel for respondent the reemdents Justice Blackmun and Jusuce Stesens would Februars 23.1,93 91-2051 South Dakota v. Bourland. Argued by grant the appbcation for sta) of execuuon. Mr Mark Barneu for the petitioner. by Mr. March 19, M93 i Bnan 5 Koaoutchos for the respondents and by Mr James A feldman for the Unned States, as amyw runar by specialleave of the Court. Certiorari Denied 91 1738 Gamore v, Taylor. Argued by Mr. 91-20 % Gramte State Insurance Compans s. Lawnnce Clilson for the penuoner and by Mr. Mark E. w 92-1480 4 -691) Santanc v Colbns. Dir.. Texas Tandy Corporatwn Argued by Ms Ann' E Marshall app mted by this Court, DCJ & @m b sw d mm M fa me respundera % ebb for peutener and by Ms Lynne A Liber-sentence of death presented to Justice Scaha and ato for fc>pondent March 3,1993 by him referred to the Court is demed. The 91 2003 LS s C ahf ornia Argued tw Mr peun n am cenwan a demed Kern L Jac, far petmoner and by Mr Robert Manh 22.1993 D. Maman for repndents Oral Arguinnts 91 Ill! HetGrd F er Insurance Cornpar) v Cahfornia and Appenh-bummary Disposition 91-1123 Merttu L nderarmrg Agenes and 91 2019 Mmnescia v Dickerson Argued by Management Limited i Cahfornra Mr. Mahael O I reeman for the petitioner, Mr. 92-362 Hapanic Chamber of Commerce t Ari-Argued by Mr $terten M $hapiro for pen _ Richard H Seamen for the Lmied States. as ic,nans Ior f air Rep Tbe judgment n athrmed. tieners m 91 1111. M W Mah 5 Bust for N CN D spec 211 cave of Court, and b) Jusuce O'Connor tu na part n th: consder-prunener, m vis112K h Mr Lamrence G Waj. Mr. Peter W Gorman for the respondent, ation or deciswn of tha case. lace fvr the t need States as sm cus cunar b) 91 1633 br' win t \\ igd. Argued by Mr. Edwin 92-1257 % atkins v. Fordce. Gov. of MS, and special. leve of tre t vort and by Mr Laurel A. 5 Kneed;er for the pennorers and by Mr. Joel R. 92 1295 Fordice. Gos. of MS v. Watkms Price for respondem Jnperse far the respondents. The appeals are damissed for w ant of Februar? 24.1993 92 114 Cardina: Chemical Company t Morton juradiction. Imerr.auonal Inc. Argued by Mr. Charles f. Schd fa tre peutiorers and by Mr. Gordon R-Certiorari-Summary Dhposition Coons for the respondent. 92-933 Lopes v. City for a writ of cernoran aof Peabody. The pention Oral Arguments granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court 91-2024 Lambi Chapel *. Center Monches Lmon Iree School Distnct. Argued by Mr. Ja7 of Appeah of Massachusetts for funher consider-Alan Sekulom for pennoners and b Mr. Jonn w. The Supreme Court's journal of ation in hght of Lucas v. South Carohna Coastal 3 Councd,505 U.S 60 LW 4842 (1992h Hoceang for respondents. proceedirgs which contains the ofh-92-94 Zabreu 6 Catahna f oothdls School Da-cial mmutes of the court, is repro. Orders in Pending Cases inct. Argued bs Mr. % dham B Ball for petinon, duced virtually serbatim in U.S. Law era. by Mr % Ubam C. Bryson. Actir g Sohcnor % cei The principal omissions from No. __ Hopkms. Warden v. Rust. The mo-General for the t mied States as amicus cunoc Law Week's reproduction of the jour-tion of petitioner to dapense with pnnting por-by specia11 ease of the Court and by Mr. John C. nal are the admissions to, and suspen. tions of th,e appenda to the petiuon for a unt of Richardson for respondent' sions and disbarments from, the Su-

    • " " *" " d'*'d 91 2054 L5 Depanment of Jusuee v. Lan-preme Court Bar, A 598 Wemer v. National City. The application dano Argued b Mr. John F Dal) for peutioners The bulk of the iournal consists of for a stay pendir:p niing and daposition of a and b) Mr. Neil Marc Mulhn for respondent-cert:6ed orders lists, containing the

[enn n f r unt d cenman addressed to Justice tevens and referred to the Court is demed. %Ian6 I* 1993 court's action on petitions for certio-rari, appeals, and J wide variety of 92-1274 Anago incorporated v. Tecnol Med. Prod., Inc. The Sohcitor General is invned to fde other matters. Ge4uently, the court.'s a brief n this case expressing the views of the disposition of one of these s.tems is United States. Oral Arguments accomplished by a short opinion, which is generally per curiam. These certiorari Granted 51-1723 U.S v. Tetas Argued by Mr. Thorr.as opinions, as well as any concurrences G. Hurigar for the peutioners and by Mr. James and dissents, are printed in full by 92-74I TDIC v. Meyer C. Tcdd for the respondents. Law Week as part of the journal of 92-1074 John Hancock Mutual Life v. Harris $1-8199 Deal t U.S. Argued b) Ms Dola Jean proceedmgs. In addition the journal Trust & Savings Bank Young for the petinoner and by Mr. Miguel A. contains any other action taken by 92-1180 U.S. v. James Daniel Good Property Estrada for the respndent. the full court as a body, and these The pentions for writs of cenaari are 92 3 Moreau t Klesenhagen. Argued by Mr. items also generally appear in Law granted. t Michtel T. Leibig for the pentioners and by Mr. We-k. Haro:d w Streicher for the respondents. Citation to Supreme Court action Ceniorari Denied c2-34 Musick, Peeter and Garrett v. Employers fePorted in the journal should be to insurance of % ausau Argued t9 Mr. Charles A. the Law Week page at which the 91-1984 SC Prop. & Casualty Ins. v. Olivier B:rd for the peutwners. ty Mr. Theodore B. journalitern appears, and not to Law 91-8736 Sneed v. Ohio olwn for the respondents and by Mr. Robert A. Week's summary of orders. 92-444 Fato v. U.S. Long. Jr. for the L mied States as omscus ci,noe b speciallene of the Court.. 92-709 Assoctd Budders v Semard 3 Olab-BI39/93/$0+51.00

3-23-93 The United States LAW WEEK 61 LW 3651 92 724 Phaenis Engmeermg s. M K-fcrFuson 92-D00 kendall t Visaba. California 92 4245 Cardounel n US. c4 Oak R 4 e A 02 1302 Ital Ram Materials. Ltd. t Staufer 92-7269 Vdlanuesa v. Ilhnan 92763 LesmFion.f ayette t Hutchmson ( ben.a.1 92 7270 Brantie> v. Coihns. D,r., TX DCJ \\/ 92-859 Stemmets s LS 92 1383 Sacramento Cty. Bd Supervs v. Sac-9pg g, p 3 92 928 Meyer t Pattuh,o - Luc ramerm Ctg 92 7274 Ables v. OUahoma 92-1324 Demshian t Dervishian 92 967 Bdlotu s Legursky, %.arden 92 7277 Slabochos a v. Shalala. Sec, H& HS 92-1330 Morris t U.S 92-1015 Sanson i General Motors Cerpeuticr. 92-7278 Youmans v. CouIhim. Commt., NY 92 lMI Carter v U.S 92-1021 Dar Baard. Sur C of PA v. Bam m DOC 92-1043 Cr* cal Mass E nerp Project t NRC 92-7279 Norrn v. Dmes. w arden 92 1061 Chronale Pubbshirg 55E%arde" 92-7280 Mohiuddm s. USBL Co 92-1962 1 T O CorNraten v. Seliman 92-72R3 Bates v i lorida 92 10e,9 ICess CIR 9 M 2k4 Carnier t Lewn. Dir., Araona DOC 92-1380 Wolak t U.S. 92-10kl Lspmosa v US 92-72kb Martmer v. Antona 92-5112 Packer t U S' 9210k$ MD & YA Mdk Producers t US 92-7287 Abner v Escambia County School 42 6630 Chahns t U S. D a" 92-1090 ( oopc r s. L S

  1. } ' 0' ""

92 1106 i r ku Corp s US 92 e+63 Smith t Landan 92 7292 Tyner r Thomas, % arden 92 1130 Jer:kms t L S 424eA* Henry s US 9 M 295 Tharpson v Rde) 92-1131 H ob.is s L.S t 92-6733 Simmons t U S 9M296 Shepard t %'ashirgton. % arden 92-1176 isgre s LS '#f#""" 92-11k8 Strasa s $traw 92-6 3 1 Cooper v Puriett. Supt 9 p 3n; Malone t U s 92 120, Mardand s G und e..and 9M406 Grandmen s Marp r d 92-W 6 Cadas s Maynard 92 7310 Meador t Bunnell. Warden 92-1221 Het i Stror pCit. Ohm 42-6k6k Perci 5 StM L 9 M 311 Bowe t Northwest Airlmes. Inc 92-1224 %ntenoa of Amenca. Inc. t Icos 92-6904 Holman t Aspm. Sec. of Defense 92-7317 Ho o Martm Manetta Aerospace Gabb Top IN 9;_cypo w ne, (.5 92-7319 Gutectrei-Diar t L S 92 1225 Rand:er an s Arkansas 92-9 62 Rehey t 0% 9m9 % n g wg

  1. 2122M Rerubhc Natsnal Bar k t Amw est 9;_p;- Martm s US 920 333 HCI7Cf
  • EC4" Surety Insur nce Co 9M3M ll0)d s. Gra>wn. Warden O

92-1230 Trmsey i Haecitme 9 M 336 Mepa L Mycts. M arden 92-1231 Ven t South Central Bed 4 -6 Seamuwo v Pen Judgt USDC 9 M 337 Ray n Coule). Warden 92-1238 New Meuco o Navajo Nation 92-69Kh Darbs t U S.. 92 7338 Sangsier v. U.S. 92-1243 Beneck e t f~urt Lee. New Jerses

92. 0 0 geden v t,Sa 9 M il7 Robmen t US.;

92-7334 Spates t U.S 92-1244 I me v Peny 92 7118 McCiam v US ; 92 7342 ).ourg t LES. 92-1246 Johnston-Taylor t Gannon 92-7139 McClain v. U Sa 92 *150 Baggss. U 5; 924 344 Clark t Cahfornia 42-1247 % cpel v L!bs Bnd es

  • C S ;

92 *l64 f 92-7345 Suarer t KS Dept. of Soc. Rehab. 92 1252 Crane t Penr6)isania 92 7166 Dukes t U S; 9241M 5m th v. US; 924 347 Vahedi v. Bur!c) 92-1253 Torres s New York 92-7203 Stanford t U.S; and 9 M 348 Adams t Los Angeles Supenor Court 92 1254 Reed t Phda, Bethlehem RR 92 4 237 I arquharson v. US 92 4 349 Byrd t Beard 92-1255 Atkin v. Gaithersburg Pub. 92 7019 Strachan t U.S. 92 7350 Bauge t INS 92 1256 Clark t Clark 92 4 020 Sdterman t US.; and 924041 Caton v. US 92 *361 Muro.Juarer v US. 92-1259 Harns Trust & Sa6ings Bar;k v John 11anu.A Mutual Life 9M043 Butler t US. 924 368 Cooper t 1 ombardi Sphere 924049 Barron v. US. 92-7373 Ziebarth t iederal Land Bank 92-1260 H> bud Equipment Corp v-DGk' 3"' C* 92 4064 Dewey v. US-9 M 376 Williams v. US 92-1263 Chabert t So Pacific Trans. C 92-7066 Goodman v. US 92-7381 Alai v. Ward 92-1267 Madison s Magna Machme C 92-7081 Cobb 6. US 92-7385 Hargrove v. Morm. Warden 92 1268 Ochs

  • Easter 924 129 Tracy v. US-9M392 Syltestre v. US 92-1269 %Ucr v. Pension Plan 92-7155 Toure t US.

9 M 393 Cover v. Hawley. Warden 92-1270 Zarsky t Texas 924161 Mayer t US 92-7396 Harsey v. US. 92 1272 Lim v Central DuPare Hosp 9M181 Davenport v. US. 924400 Clarke v. US. 92-1273 Southne

  • Assr v

indsvidual 92 4 382 Claffett t US-92 4 401 Esnault v. Colorado Members 924185 Smter r Ma. Sec d HM 924 405 Foster t %uoun 92 1275 Deutesh v. Olademde 92-1280 Laus v. White 92M Hakan s. US 92 4 202 Womijnak v. US. 924 414 Russell v. Puckett, Dir. MS DOC C 92-1281 Ramircr-Lutan v U S / 92-7225 McNeill v. Bentsen, Sec. of Treasury. 924 416 Porter v. Indiana ( 92-1282 Luster v. Cushman and 92-128J Lahas v Armontrout. Asst. Dir. 92-7226 McNedi v. Bentsen. Sec. of 1 reasury 924417 Lanier v. Haynes 92 1290 Reshard t Comm on Admissions 924233 Harvey v. Ortiz. Warden 92-7419 Turner n Marks. Atty. Gen.of Hawaii 01484139/93/50+51.00 i t

The United Sfores LAW WEEK 61 LW 3647 3-23-93 codennan hearmg to determine whether some is plain that they focused jurfs attention on enforce separation agreement that amarded her cor; duct of petitioner and that prosecutor's state-50 percera of all past and futt,re payments into 4 jurors denberated at times ir. Spanist ments reFardmg accomphcc were only to summa-ex-husbandi keogh plan, because f unds at usue, g2333] C ARTER = U.S nie evidence presented and did not violate In-havmg been received m iump sum by ca-husband. mund 5. florida; evidence of titioner's violent do not constitute benefits under protection of R uhrg belou (C A 2. 9.,s, 92. ur; published t c was so overmhelmmF that claim his tnal ERIS A plan; louer court properly apphed local Peutoner's claim. raised m menon under 2b attorne) rendered constitutionally ineffective as contract law to award ex-wife one-half of funds CSC 2255 for habeas rehef from federal conup sistance of counsel for not calhng certam mitiga-received by ex husband upon such lump sum tons for narcotics of'eraes. that Fosernment s ton uitnesses, mcludmg petitioner's wife, mas nu datribution actions e aflord:ng him opportumt3 to commit entitled to evidentiary hearing; panel of this court crime const:tuted outrageous conduct m no!auon does not hase authont) to overrule Hilliams v. FREEDOM OF INFORM ATION of Fifth Amendment s Due Process Clause 'S Lpuugh, ble F2d 205 (CA 51987). which per-barred bs fadure to show cause for not ransmE mits mtroduction of evidence of unadjudicated 92-1043 CRITICAL M AS5 ENERGY PROJECT c.asm on' direct reuca of his conviciens crimes in punishment phase without instruction

  • . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

that jury must first fmd beyond reasonable doubt 92-1359 AODN AS i VIRGtNI A that defendant committed extraneous crimes. Ruhng belom (CA DC (en banc) 975 F2d 871, Ruhrg below (Va Ct App. 6/2/92. urpub. and esen if panel did have such authority, that 61 LW 2122); holdmf would amount to announcement of ne* Commercial or fmancial information that is ' gg c nstitutional rule that could not be retroactively voluntarily provided to posernment, as opposed to f act that numerous items to which informer's apphed on federal hakas reWem of state connc-provided under compulsion, need only be of kind tip referred were found danny consent search of ti n under Tearuc t imie. 489 U.S 288. 309,57 that provider mould not customaril> release to. defencant's home m places mformer said thes L 4233 (1969); petitioncr dad not offer mitiga-pubbe in order to be exempt from dnclosure l wedd be estabhshed mformer's rehabdQ ar.3 d m cc creihhty for purposes of epproucF search war. [ ',fgC evade at un not A# f 0

ati rant fy f*tiader a!so seized durmF consert ecnered Texas special issue questions. petitioner surch ard allered b3 informer to contam item failed to demonstrate that inues he presents are from recent burglaries. notwithuandmg absence debatable amonF Junsts of reason, and, therefore. HEALTil CARE of mformation m marrant afhdant as to h
  • under test estabbshed in Ba c/ver v Enche,463 LES. 6t'O, 693 (19b3L distnct court properly 91-1272 LIM v CENTRAL Di. PACE HOSPITAL er t be e h a a t cemed certificate of probable cause and motion Ruhng below (CA 7. 972 F2d 758r idernhed "VCRs. Rada Sterees and other tc, pr ceed m forma paupens e ectrow equ:pmert" as items to be setred de-p scnbed nem with suber:t parncu!arity to set
  • against Illmois hospital when Seventh Circuit f3 f ount Amendmenn preh&na of gerere ELECTIONS marned in another case that future antitrust chel-scuches lenges to staff privileges decisions under Indiana 92-1230 TRINSEY v. H AZELTINL peer rence proccu "may be deemed frivolous 92-1360 DILLON i T E %L55Il' Ruhng belou (CA 8,9/2/92, unpubhshedy because of the clear bar of the state action doc-trme," w hich decision was ef'ective!3 overruled Ruhrg belou (Tenn SupCt. W 5% 2d 13h Court affirms, without comment, dismissal of by Farruk s. Burrer. 486 U.S. 94,56 L% 4430 T ac needed 13 resch e defendan suppressior complamt for temporarv restrainmg order, pre, WK We Mctan 6 61 apeal was pen &

hmman in> unction. ma'ndamus, and emettenes 4 motwn. mdudir.F time for statei appcA from rubrg gramag that motum. fab uithm tolhng stay filed b) citaren who sought to be hsted s's ing. was nevertheless barred b) doctrme of res ~ J'd'eata from brmgirg new antitrust suit agamst prouser, of Interstate Agreemert on Detainen candidate for president on South Dakota's Re-same defendants arismF from same operatge criad for brmgirg de!cnd. pubhcan presidential primar) ballot. racis >> r>rsi s ii. beca=>< he had oPPori==>ir = wtierebs 120-das time feneeni,s obtamee from ant to ' trial after de ior anpeal to request remand in light of Burgrr anothe' jurisd ctier' punuant to statei recuest EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION Eut failed to do so in oral argument teven thouFh for temporary custody. is tohed for time m whah he had filed e-arfument motion to that effect), def enda nt is unable to stand trial as determmed 92 1231 ALLEN v SOL'TH CENTRAL BELL and he had rther opportunity to argue special by the court haung jurisdiction of the rnetter. HLEPHONE CO-circumstance created by Burger in appeal of dis-trict courti subsequent denial of his f ed R.Civ.P. 92-1380 u OL A A s U ~c. Ruimg below (CA 5,9/21/92. unpubbshed). 60tb) motion requestinF rehef on that ground. MaF strate did not clearly err in fmdir>g that but instead he abandoned that appeal and fded i Ruhrg below (C A 6.11/1U92, unpt.bbshed t p yer m uld have,' fired employee for misa? e new suit. L r,cer ru!c of ES t bmcoh 970 f 2d 14P^ N"W # "I 4 Crt 14M- (C A 6 lo921 that felon has nat had proprietarv information contamed therem against ha cisil ri hts restored if he does not have right employer s interest even if he had not been in-INSURANCE F te set on jury under Mich: Fan la* habeas pet'- vohed in htigation against employer for racial tiener s prenous connctions quahfy him for treat-discrimmation in employment. 91-1984 SOUTH C AROLIN A PROPERTY AND ment under Armed Larect Crimma Act. Ib CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSO-LSC 924iegl), reFardless of merits of his other C ATIoN t otyygtR ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION arruments Ruhng belom (Ohner y Merrns Dredgmg Co., 92-14hD 5 ANT AN A = COL t Iss 92-1260 HYBUD EQUIPMENT CORP v. CA 11,954 F2d 15S3,60 LW 2568): Out+f state insurance Fuaranty associations Ruhng below (C A 5.11/23/ 2.unpubhshedh 9 Rulms below (OhioSu -

t. 64 OhioSt3d 657*

that serve as guarantors of msolvent msurer s P $97 NE2d 1096,61 LW B): obhFations in forum state have estabhshed suth ita nurd and s c pc nt to b i g range for tarrei practice shoruy before robber 3 Provision of insurance pohc), that exclusion

  • yent mimm ib bue b s

s* ,, g e L that petitioner and accomplKe at rcbbery imme. from caerage resultmg from release or escape of Clause, personal jurisdiction over them in action diately fired two shots that Adled security guard. pollutants into or upon land, sir, or water does seekmg coverage; acts of guaranteeing insurance accidental.,sf release of escape is " sudden and obhgations withm state and of assummg not apply and then bred at least 20 more rounds mio means happemng that is not only insurer are of such nature that they justify legal armored car where other guard was seated dem. onstrate that there w as no possibiht) that pet,. unexpected but also occurs quicUy or abruptly} fiction that uaranty associations have consented tiener miended to rob but not kill and. hence. accordmgly. claim that insureds had either dis to service o process and suit in forum state in - there mas no requirement that state tnal court posed of or accepted variet) of mastes for depout which injured seaman sought to sausfy wnts of ahn voe due on lesser mcludep offenses or give m landfdl over extended penod of time does not garmhment against them after both his employ-mstruction to that effect. 6rst special issue ques. fall within exception to exclusion from coversge. cr, against which he had obtained judgment, and t on gnen at punishment phase adequately fo-its insurer became insolvent. even though Fuaran-cused jury 6 attention on conduct of petitioner-FAMILY LAW ty associations have no other presence in forum t as scouvred by inmund s Florida. 4% U.S. 282 ,1,,e ' !19B2Hso that no muruction was necessary to 92 1256 CLARKv.CLARA 92-1263 CHABERT v SOL'THERN PACIFIC Ruhr.g belem (DC CtApp,5/6/92): TRANSPORT ATION CO it I a e d i src d dap abi t I h aptny at pumstment phase. readirg prosecutor's Employee Retirement income Security Act is comments durms pumshment phase as whole, it inapphcable to case in w hich ca-wife is scelmg to Ruhng below (CA 5,973 F2d 441): 0146-6139/93/50+ 31.00 7 ""'"L' N "

t ? I.' F i 1 i -i -j E t ATTACHMENT - ,j e Dow v. NRC, No. 93-4267_ (5th Cir., filed on March 16, 1993; 4 dismissed on March 16, 1993) f C 'i 3 4 ~ I l 1 l l'. '. '.... l . i ' ^

1 R 15, ' 93 06: DER 1 SEbT BY tEWMA*4 i. HOLTZIfGER * * .P.3/20 ~ -i ~ q l 4 1 i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .] FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT I ) } R. MICKY DOW. Petitioner, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. l 93-9267 ) vs. l } l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY EMERGENCY CONSIDERATION COMMISSION. and TEXA5 UTILITIES l } ELECTRIC COMPANY, l Respondents. ) l PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR EN BANC CONSIDERATION TO THE HONORAELE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT: Micky Dow, hereintfter petitioner, and files' Comes now. R. f order, requesting Temocrary Restraining this. hic Petition For for cause' would - show' en banc,-and emersency consideration, and .l the court that: t I. JL]RISDICTION [ ii i Jurisdiction is proper, herein, in that' this pet t on s l brought pursuant Rule 65(bX1) of the Federal Rulec of Civil as will citarly be shown by this verified complaint.. procedure, t wherein petitioner will show that immediate, irreparabis injuTy, I loss and damages will result to petitioner before the adverse ~ heard in opposition, and, as partys', or their attorneys' can be } d tion the Certificate of conferenos, attached hereto, ma e e ppr all efforts to sive notice, and tof of this petition. will attest; present reasons supporting this claim, to the adverse partias,- have f ailed, and. therefore, notice. hereof, should not be required. i ~ ' I. RESTRAINTNG ORDER ! PETITION FOR TEMDORARY 4 -t 1 l s yoal 1Ed AC &f McCE:t'a E661-ST-hS4

l

~ - - - + - - - m f

1 31. PARTIES petitioner is R. Micky Dow, an individual, who is domiciled in the State of Texas, and resides at 506 Mountain View Estates, in the City of Granbury, Hood County, Texas, which is in the Northern District of Texas, in the Fifth Circuit. Respondent 1 is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an administrative agency of the United States, with its office of . '.t primary Jurisdiction located at Region IV, 61; Ryan Plaza Drive, in ~ the City of Arlinsten, Tarrant County. Texas, which is in the 4 Ncrthern Dictrict of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit. Respondent 2 is Texas Utilities Electric Company, a corporation, 1 incorporated under the laws of the state of Texas, whose resistered office, resistered agent, and principal place of businese, are all located at 2001 Bryan Tower, in the City of i Dallcs, Dallas County, Texas, which is in the Northern District i of Texas, and in the Fifth Circuit. l Jurisdiction is proper in that the matters which petitioner l seekc to have rectreined will occur, or have direct app 11 cation to matters in the Northern District of Texas. which is in the Fifth Circuit. III. BACKROUND Respondent 2, hereinafter TUEC, is the owner and operator of a nuclear powered electric generation station, known as ithe l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, et Glen Rose, Texas, which le in the Northern District of Texas, and in the Fifth PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATNING ORDERCircuit g a you ase wmu E E'ra E661-S N 1

regulated by Respondert 1. hereinafter NRC.through, and'under l [ the immediate control of its Region IV office. j IV. UNIT I SETTLEMENT A2REEMENT -{ i By virtue of a " Secret Settlement Agreement", in July, 19ss. the primary citizen group intervenors (Citizens' Association for j t C.A.S.E.), were the holders of positive evidence Sound Enersy, and testimony from a group of "Whisiteblowers*, withdrew'their-contentions, only hours before the aforesaid whistlebko.wors'were j i schedulad to testify before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, i wherein that testimony (consisting of thousands of construction safety violations at CPSES. including the destruction of design i plans, anc alterations of existins plans) would have been the causation for denial of the operating license fcr the Unit 1 direct 1 reactor at CPSES. As a direct and proximate result of tne withdrawl$of those i Full-contentions, the AsLB was dissolved, and the license for j; Power operation of the Unit i reactor cranted, without that testimony, the evidence,'or the contentions, ever beinglplaced on 1 to the the record of the matter, or being addressed by the NRC; best of this petitioner's. knowledge and belief, none of-those .1 errors has ever been corrected, and this petitioner can -introduce j documentatico and live testimony to corroborate these statements. v. \\. l ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONER AND I DISDO$AELE WORKERS OF'CPSEE-1991, after comino into possession'of-reels. since January. I of audio tape recordings, which clearly indicate duplicity byl i r PETITION FOR TEMoDRARY RESTRAINING CRDER I on % citoca7m7r47I Of Heaf igd if3&i udiE:>3 Ef41-ST-hfur ! 3 i I.-

rm 15 '93 06:09R15 Erit BY fCf14(4 L HOLTZIfGER P.640 the respondents, herein, and after affecting a dialogue with most j of the aforescid Whistleblowers, petitioner became convinced, af ter reviewing the evidence and testimony which was precluded from the record, that both respondents were, in all probability, ~ eqasi participants in the construction and operation of this facility in violation of foderal law, and the same constituted a t danger to the immediate residents of the area, and the public in generc!. As a direct and proximate result in these discoveries, this petitioner, others, including the original whistleblowers, and at leest two other citizen watchdog groups, began a steady and t concerted effort, in various courts, both state and federal, to step tnis f acility fr om further, illesal, construction, and a reopening of the record, to no avail, as every effort was, ano still is, beins made to deny the parties a forum whereby they can fully and adequately place their contentions, and. receive ecultible adjudication upon the merits. v!. " UNUSUAL ARRFSTS" 0F PETITTONFR. AND CROOF 07 CONSPIRACY i Af ter being chased acrose the continental United Sta'tes, by both respondents, after having four ettempts, made on ths. life of both petitioner, and his spouse, and after seeking asylumn in Canada, as a refusee, in order to escape: petitioner besar. making headway with the lititatien, successfully gained the attention of the District of Colun bia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, i. Your petitioner returned to the United States, just before i the construction permit for the Unit 2 reactor at CPSEs expired, ( PETITTON FOR TEMo0RARY RESTRAININ3 ORDER i 4:)*1 m M k%:PO E661-91-2f;f,> ...--==.-->cn.

e. '

4 and began an intervention into the extension process. pursuant i the rules. less than 72 hours before petitioner's On September 3,

1992, spouse received a scheduling order for presenting of cont'entions the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, which would have resulted by in a hearinse process beins opened, petitioner, while on an to Colorado, was arrested in highly su'spiccus invectisative trip circumstances, and
jailed, precluding him from receivins, or The public record of the matter will responding to that creer.

net only did members of the Federal Bureau of snc

that, bave Investisation make material f alse statements in order to durins his confinement, but petitioner segregated in isolation telephones, where he was jailed, were
altered, in order to preclude his, only, communication with his spouse.

was able to secure his Petitioner, through nis own efforts, 1992, and upon release from confinement,-on or about October 4, learned of the ASLB order. He immed*ately telephonins his spouse, dictated a recuest for extension of time, and the same was telefaxed to the ASLE before the deadline expired. and petitioner, The ASLE, however, denied his request, to the Secretary for immediately appealed that decision directly the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C., unanswered, and the construction permit extension wherein it lay, was granted, 1993, again under highly suspect on or aoout January 14, h circumstances, petitioner was again arrested, this time they w o no uniform, nor showed any. identification, Petitioner was EE_TITTON f0R TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER uore ~. yeal lee was ustste res:-sT-dr$a ni t-

- +.. ~ . =. ~ 1%D ' 2 5 '9? 06:20011 SDR Br IEgMN & HDLTZINGEL.-- P.8/Eu 9 l .~ a moved from Jail to jail, transported by car, from Austin.. Texas, i to Victoria, Texas ( near Corpus Christi), to Houston, Texas, to next 72 hours,where he was finaliy kept Fort Worth, Texas over the confined for a period of three weeks. Less than two hcurs after

I the arrest of petitioner, in Austin, Texas, petitioner's spouse i

f ~ received a telepnone call from Docketing Section of the NRC to i his appeal had been granted and he had 24 1

(

notify petitioner that I the ASLB or face xdidmissal hours to telefax his contentions to ,m for failure to prosecute. Petitioner never got that message. to obtain This timo, however. petitioner was fortunate i the servicec of a asalified court appointed attorney. When this t was able to review the purported criminal file on - t 1 attorney caterial which related directly to the l petitioner, rather than f cffenso of which he was purportedly charged, she found. Instead, news clippings, and other material with. regard to petitioner 's activities involving CPSEs. In addition she:found an undated,_ ]; handwritten note which read "This defendant'in Canada, sometimes' Man from TU wanted to know if we-Visits his mother in Wisconsin. t would extradite if they notify us of his whereabouts.- It was-f il this. j only a /few days af ter the discovery of that note unt ~ petitioner was released from custody. t VII. ATTEMPTS TO USE ADMINISTRATIVE PROgESS TGNORED { t Although the Low-Power license, for loading of fuel and I systems testing was issued during petitioner's period of l confinement, there still exists a proceeding, regarding the l construction permit extension, which the NRC is presently;trying 1 t PETITION FOR-TEMDORARY RESTRAINING ORDER i g ' G *.J CTTDOQ7sCPMPT n] ggy g y

1 t%R 15 '93 DD 10M ED4T EY TER14'4 L HO_TZITER ,9fgg g to moot, by ucurping the appellate process, and ignerino existing apesal's which have been granted, yet denying the appellants the oppcrtunity to file their briefs. Anc, immediately after his release, petitioner learned that the window opportunity hadn't closed for intervention into the licensing (for Full-power operation) proceedings had not, closed, and he contacted Region IV to ascertain the most expeditious proccce for being recognized in tnat proceedins. The petitioner wac told by Russ Wiss, the Allegations Coordinator 'for Region IV ersa, that he needed to do so by direct letter to the sacrotcry of the NP,0. Petitioner also 16arned that the scheduled meetins for discussion, and granting, of that license was cet for the tentative date of March 15, 1993. in Washington D.C. wherein tha interested public would be precluded from those proceedinss. petitioner immediately wrote to the Secretary of the NRC requesting immediate status as participating intervenor in those licensing proceedinss, and, also, to request that any and all hearings, meetings, or other setherings, regardins the process be transferred to the immediate locale of CPSES in order to sive the interested public en equitible opportunity to attend, as well as be able to raise objection, or other manner of input. As of the date of thic petition, the NRO, or any authorized representative has completely failed to answer that letter, a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference the same as if fully copied and set forth at lansth. By date of this petition, it is obvicus that the petitioner has waited until the last possible I co.ent for receiving a response, before filing this petition. PETITION FOR TEMDDRARY pESTRAINING ORDER 1 Y h S O x

4 VIII. REspoy2ENTS trF0 AcouT LACK OF SECURITY AT CDSES Besides the obvious lack of character and capability, which is the foundational prerequisite for licensing, both respondents, although knowing, and it reported to them, by this petitioner., the exact nature of a total breach of security, in a controlled-access arse, which resulted in the rape, brutal assault, and tnreats by TEUC to prevent the filing of criminal charges, both respendents have, not only covered up the incident, but issued a public report that they know to contain material false statements cf the location and nature of the attack upon a female security suard, which resulted from the clandestine penetration of the facility, Icss of a firearm for a significant period of time, and I cther violations of Section 211 of the Atomic Energy Act, all in direct violation of federal cnd state lax. IX. NO OTHER REMEDY AT LAW ~ once the Full-Cower license for operation is issued to the applicant, the only remedy available for revocation, suspension, er alteration thereof is contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206, whereby a party may petition, directly to the Secretary for the same Subsecticn (c)(2).. thereof, states "No petition or other request for commission review . will be entertained.*, thus precluding any manner of attack upon the license, anywhere. To date, there have been 96 such petitions filed, 5 with regard to this facility, alone, and none have beer, granted, or even considered, meaning, in short, that the commission retains the PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER t i gg MI] lb @ N

ts 1r '53 05:i1m SRrYritarWrrwxtratGut y1 w ee l a r bi tr ar y richt, sucelute power, to crant operational licenses without fear of contest, and whether or not evidence exists, or a scod faitn argument is available to the contrary. If this court doer not restrain the respondents granting i and/or operating CPSES at full-power,from usurping or moot' ins a process at law which will open hearings whereby evidence can i and will be introduced which will have the ef fect of denying the cperatins licence to TEUC,~this petitioner will have no adequate remedy at low. Petitioner wou'd. again, aver to the court, that he, and others are in possessior, of clear evidence, and corroborat'ive testimony, a sample of which is attached hereto, and incorporated by reference the same as if fully copied and set forth at length, which will. if allcwed to be presentec. deny the Grsr.tino of a Full-power licence for the facility known as CPSES, andte. fall to Testrain the granting thereof, or the further operation of;this facility, until hearinse can be had on these issues, is t'o force this petitioner, and those citizens who live withing a 50 mile radius of CPSE5 to unwarranted, irreparable injury and damcoes, without an acaequate remedy at law, and, in the interest of L justico, muct do so without further delay. 1 WHEREFORE. PREMISES CONSIDERED. Petitioner prays this court, i en banc, stant temporary restrainino ordar, exparte, restrainins respondent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from granting unto I respondent. Texas Utilities Electric Company a license for Full-Power operation of the Unit 2 reactor at Comanche pask Steam Cloctric Station, located at Glen Rose, Texas. EEIITION CCD TEMPORADY DESTRAINING ORDFR. W rav

  • a o v v o erzya m n T ne usal I AH Uwg Wer g ppi pff}_qpg r

me: 15 '93 D6:32PM ED4T EY ICr#41 MOLT ITER F.12/20 s FURTHER. petitionct prays that the court, en bane, grant a restraining order, restraining Texas Utilities temporary Electric company from any further operation of cpsEs, until there has been full adjacication on all matters pending resarding the operation and licencins of that facility, or until further order of this court. petitioner prays for recovery of the costs of bringing this action. Petitioner prays for cuch other and further relief, at law, or in equity, to which he may show himself to be Justly entitled. Respectfully submitted. St 4, R. Micky Dow, pao is 506 Mountain view Estates Granbury. Texas 76048 (817) 573-0923 Petitioner VERIFICATION EEFCRE ME, the undereisned authority, on this day personally appeared R. Micky Dew, and, after being fully sworn, on'

oath, declared to me that. "My name ic R. Micky Dow, and I am the petitioner in the above-styled and numbered case.

I have read tna above and forescins and the facts and allegations contained therein are trus anc correct to the best of my knowledge and bolisf, anc : do hereby set my hand and seal in witness thereof." R. Micky Dow, Affiant DATED AND SIGNED before me on this the th day of' March, 1993, to witness which my hand and seal of office. Notary Public, Hood County, Texas PETITION FOR TEMPCRARY RESToaTNTNQ ORDER < e T T *.J O T T DOfh7/DDL77 nl QOOj lb 7M WM;$'@ {'$$$=$1.*fS'

w-r CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE .This is to certify that the petitioner has made repeated attempts to contact by' letter, and by telephone, both respondents in' order.to give them toi,1cc of this petition, and to advise them of the reasons supporting this petition, without success. k Affiant (" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the l foregoins Petition For Temporary Restraining order was sent, by j i regalar U.S. Mail to the parties listed below, en this the 15th -[ l day of > Maren, 1992. r r N (E m ('- ~ -j Affiant 't. Charles Mullins, Esquire Robert A. Woolridge, Attorney officeLof the General Counsel

Worsham, Forsythe, sampels U.S. Nuclear Regalatory Comm.

L!oolridge 11555 Rock Pike 2001 Eryan. Tower Rockville, Maryland 20552 Dallas,. Texas'75201_ [ i ? 9 i- [ ? (. ? -j s I j { t 4 + t i It { PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING' ORDER 'Y r t j; '.3 i .g ev,o-m e=, ni um m m. u r:r it>m. rv,T-ct-wm t i l

11;R 15 'os 05:13PM SEriT GY fGM & HDLTZItGER - c.1.U2O T g D 4 t h February E' M3 6 t F 1 Office.of the Secretary i U.S. Nacles: Ecgalatory Ce==issien 11555 Rock Pike e Rockville, Maryland 2f452 ? t Re: Docket Nos. 445-OL,' 445<PA, 446-CPA and 446-OL t Canand.c Peak Steam Dectric Statien i 1 Decr Mr. Secretary: ) kith regard to the hereinabwe-listed docket mrhers. I a a not;iat all 3 sure that they reficet the actual matters, as eet out therein; as Iram, at present, separated free ray case materials. I am sure, however, that;I have identified them, with sufficient clarity, that you will know whet /shich I an writing about. In additica, the, energency of the situation, requires that I get this caterial in writir.g. regardless of the propriety 'of the for=, and get the ::cterini to you, and the Ceccission, without cry delay. The first matter, which I wish to address, is the meeting /sffair, scheduled for March 15, 1993, in Washington, D.C., dich vill be open to the public, and concerns the Full-power operating license fer the Unit 2 portion -of Ce.che Peak. I do, hereby, cake my fortal request / application te be a p-rticipating party to these proceedings; and, moreover, I further request the opportunity to mke a statenent/ offer testimony; and to make direct'and cross exanination. I have discussed this proposal with Glegion IV, in Arlir.gten; they, in turn, advised me that the request had to be made i directly to your office.Tae second natter, by far the most important, concerns actiond take against myself, by the license-holder, and their corduct regarding those actions. t With respect to my arrest, in Austin, Travis County, Texas, in Janusz/,1993, on a ste.te felony charge of Theft by Check over $750, and the circur. stances surrouWng that arrest, with the unusual manner.of transport from Austin, Texas, to Fort Worth. Texas, by way of victoria (rear Corpus Christi), Texas; I would submit the - following for your consideration: a) less than 2 hours after that " arrest", my spouse, received c. teleph6ne call fron the backeting Section of the MtC, which was intended to notify ne that my appeal of a ruling dismissing tay petition to intervene in the construction permit m nht matters, for Unit 2 at CPSES had been granted; and the order of dis:nissal had been reversed. She was informed. in that telephone call, that cy picading nest be faxed, to the Cormnission, by 4:30 p.m. the next afternoon. r It is, indeed, strange, that when officers representing Tarrant County'J (Fort Worth), Texas, arrived and took possession of me and my i property. IN AUSTIN, that I was than taken, by autmobile, TO VICIORIA. TEXAS,, which is a suburb of the Corpus Christi area to merely sleep:en the floor of a hold-over" cell for the night, and then continue on.to the Ikrastaa area, in a random " prisoner round-up* sort of venture; but one that certainly denied ny ability to cetr2micate, and/or learn of the appellate i DOW LEIIER TO THE nrwrgy -1, c .1 A ( ^h 4 rt a niinemumi of yni lee tae t.wst w2 Esst-s1-m .J

H;# 15 s 01:11A, w n M w a w m e F.'f572D 0 Cy ? .i ruimh, and instructicns frcra tM Docketing Section. I have included, for your information, a ststemnt dich I prepered at the request of the Region IV office of the 1E, which details that situation, and cy cocplaint, in greater detail. I do not feel, in this instance, that this situation falle within ! the meaning of the Icaguage of 10 C.F.R. f2.206; particularly because there he.s never been a recorded instance dere any party has prevai'.ed, or even gotten a timely response to.such a petition. There are in oth:r descriptive terms to use, for this conduct, other than cr%al conspiracy, designed to prevent ey further challe:ve of the licc. sing for the U:dt 2 portion of the Ccranthe Peak Steam Electric Station; erd, that the see was propounded by the current license holder. Texas Utilities Electric Cccpany, and that this brings sece seriatu doubts, and questions, as to the character and cocpetence to hold such a license, and/or operate such a' facility. J b) it is interesting, also, that my anncunced trip, for the purpose of "goin;; public" with the factual details of the incident involving ene Tracy Wheeler, et CPSES, was also scheduled for the day af ter my " arrest" in Austin. This incident is one in which both the license holder, and Region IV, have authored public statements, and issued reperts, reDecting that the incident had not, in reality, occurred; and that they could not find any evide.cc to support Ms. Vneeler's allegations. These statenents, and reports, are a total fraud, and. on the part of the utility, a malicious lic. I am the. party who sought and obtained legal counsel for this vccen, r_fter taping an interviev in which che told the factual account to me, indicating the pressure and threats the utility hcd rode to her in an attept to coerce her to withdrav her complaint. She was scheduled to give two exclusive intervieve to both the DcIlas Morning Neve, and the Houston Chro ticle; and, een her attorney feels she is up to the motional stress crested by both the incident itself, and the retaliation taken against te for arranging the intervices, she vill be giving. those cratements, anywcy. c) Third, is the fact, now, not quite so striange, that, 'during that came veck, scn I was arrested, I was scheduled to re.ke an appe.srance, for tha. purpose of intervention in the lov-power licensing for Unit 2; and to annoe.cc cur interventien in the rate-increase application made by the license holder with the Texas Public Utilities Cotnisaion. Both the license holdsr, and Region IV, was well aware of this. In view of the above and foregoing, I vaald r.ake formal request of the Office of the Secretary, for a full and complete investigation; and, that said investigation be conducted by your office, in Washington, D.C., and not delegated to a local agency dereby the license holder can exert ? their influence, and reduce the intensity or cec:pleteness thereof. Further, I c.ake fon:cl request, and insist, that operations, including further construttion and license considerations, be stayed, pending the coqpletion of that investigatico; as, in all probability, that ~ investigatian vill Icad to grand jury prcceeMm and criminal indictment. Also, in view of recent occurances, particularly in regard to attmpts to seriously limit my ability to appear as an intervenor in the Unit 2 r.atter, I would ask that the Secretary officially recognize myself, and the organization Disposable Workers of I'rewnche Peak Steam Electric Sta tion, as participating interveners in all matters regarding Texas Utilitics Electric Ceepany, and the Ccnanche Peak Steam Electric Station IXM LETD2 TO 7EE mN. 6 m m=mm ni von m msa usrma tsu-n-m l

w: :s '=3 cs:uPn eda I, tcam E. s:tTzItER F.16<20

. s. now, or in the future; with particular inclusion of the full power license epplication for the thit 2 reactor at CPSES. In conclusion, as; I uMerstand the schedule, now, tha proceedings for issuance of a full-power license, are scheduled for Washingten.. D.C., for i Erch 15, 1993; and, I vould, therefor, make formi request that the location for these public hearings be changed to either the Glen Rose, Texas area, or, in the alternative, the Arlington, Texas area. To hold the hnrings, which are open to the interested public, several thousand miles d fran chere that interested public resides, is not to give a.equato, or l equitabac access to tMt interested public to attend In my case, alone, it serves to preclude such attmdece, as I an indigent, and eurvive on Social Security disability paynents for my day to day living. I canot afford, in either time, or coney, to reke such a trip. The vast portion of any other citizenry from the area of greatest interest. i.e. Glen Rose, Texas, cannot either, for the srue reasons. The present arrangements not only give rise to sace serious due process questions, but also establish an netionable base for enjoining them through federsi court. I am certain ~ that this is not the intent, nor the desire of the Com.ission, and that, tw t. hat notice e.J request has issued, a change vill be affected. Tne*< you for you-consideration, and I hope to hear frera you soon. Respectfully s'2nitted, l t 56MmtainViewEs e Granbury, Texas 76CAS and, On Behalf Of: 1 Disposable Verkers of Comanche Peck i Steam Elcetric Station cc: Randy Loftis The Dallas Narning News 508 Young Street Dallas, Texas Jim Morris The B:raston Chronicle 601 Tex.as Street Houston, Texas j i 3 Dor,I IITII2 TO IIE SECPITAW, e,. _, - t = m mm ni wa2 2;:s uma udtr:ra DES;-ST-W.J j u

t 1 A t%: 15 '58 D6: 139,cD L Fj,' Of"m y H1IZIIGER-P.17 EC 4 AIFIDAVIT OF RON JONEB Under the pains and penalties of perjury, I Ron Jones hereby affirr. that the fc11cvi.ng is truo and corrects 1) Billie P. Gerde was y 7.ain attorney in nY law cult against Texas Utilities Ilectric Co. and other corporations involved in constructicn of the. Comanche Peak nuclear power plant, captioned Atchfsen, et _ al.

v. _ Brown 3 Root &e t. el., C.A. No. H-88-1409.

2) Eillie P. Gards provided me with a settlement agreement i anc reco = ended that I sign the agreement. At no tire did' Garde (or any ether attorney) suggest that I seek additional legal advice cencerning the exccution of the agraar.ent. Instead, I felt.under pressure from acrde to exscute the agreement. Acting on Garde's advise and pressurc : cigned a document entitled MUTUAL nrLIAer.a en er about July 13, 1955.

3) ' I unders.teci the agreement not caly te foreclosa my right i

to ever sue Texas Utilities, Brown & Root and the other persons against whom I had flied suit, but also to ect as a vaiver'of my right te sua CASE and cAsr's attorney Billie P. Garda. 4) But for the cxicts.nca of thic signed release I would have filed a ralpractice suit against Garde. 5). I b'elieve the't71T11a Gardo-tid not properly represent ny -~ interests in the lav suit identified above, that carda placed the interests of her client CASE above my interests and that Gards'- . ], engaged in unethical conduct in the course of her representation of ty interests. 9w 3-/f -/993 ^ - RonJonep Dated ^ 035/ja .:2. 4 91 a enesmasrat c1 wi. Lee m urt:t a tsst-si-m . -x

u 1s m ce:1se:4 s041 sv rew a 4 a sx.1-1nsta g.1s,te 9 9 e 4 a 8 y a Mb. ~ -Gl*-f.f-f41./ ** _WeWh _ k %_ A* T/ w.k (fL M cdh a ws,w W >4 s L A r& &, w w m +.__ j --;zanc24z%7 Ash mmX:;;. '.,;"was _.s k f n A / A N_ m n - LM/ 1 __6-n O u z-A?- 4 ~ & 4 Ay_SW 6?~n;rA ,6~ ,fd f-4%w>- M d6 m. Q + enxs mapqx & ~ M:u l m >u x w waz&_Sms.uc m'. ~ n y. / ~~ rw $t,d$ k->-l' 2 (/ ./ t&&w%dvs_/w&W.-ms A?_ N~ w & -d A _n A ? Q') 'f wMw d_ - w n n f V ' 1L.cY 5 /I-* W~ #2<f. K Ad_~ m /< w./A d J3end

    • i s'n NWN

? wJ7:-c - s'< MYs ->>,nL 2' i __,G> w< A.-x n is. 6. 2 d w / _/? M' /WAp fn _2_._ /ds.n ->d /' */m_/) t dd6aml,, nzk W#M!Me wa A AW /N A ~bh _ _ _ _ W -2f 6-rgas ML 6 6 Q < w a -_ed 4 E e + m ' w -c. - - & m m a,z - a ce-C #AC i_2A U.Ahi>' n ,-, O s . hxF*4 _/f%sh<A TrY. _ - 2d a A;S'k W S-md-M,% & ~A.~n u. KL ~ - - \\ && k /- s ->-% W ' bS /Am. 'k(s-a - /H s,//a d E.> w puM L n_ . ~, n bl.eJL W -4>5W.u.sG A A. M ))-.1 ? er g / AnD % A & _/ w _ Das. h-n n u L a 1,sa.z d m _ k, -- % - ~, l p _ $4J-f/n A/&aJ A-- A&nAd* Wu fMm~;;fl s ?ll & m f j & M M /? L G E P p,_, ^ pe ne w.

e. r si n. w se., Qu on1 me uma r.sst-st-w

4 O $/ h -- '_ $ W M 4 b N W Y W N A4 d'u, d&/a' n ca. NL <-mzw -~,a a 7A 2. a c. Ar~'dhe>-s<~ A sf X m~,- 5 (2' jaw.va.) mi,~-r sa.J < A r-.<- &Y-/4< & ~ Y J w A.-z, <n" w M a h, % z. w s L - A x a d -f'/* u br-,.s fisEEz.d4:4s-#!)22sWs ga-; ~ _A2 _ 7 f~.s /xw-A%4b ism-u A*-6b_ &$sb5N. d.. ~- A.....::.-... +~g, 4 --r> W M < J~,J h J h x S -e-* M/" a,f &. .A. W<m.A4 s27syfe/Ac-. ind:se- /<24 Y f wa.p% ara _va- :ny p-Apm 9.arx a & As 9 <sw w-,- na. sd m M+~WW Y ~5 a w m L - n..%H h wh s- %." nG w u n+ ra, u zmp/~.-' 4;/ n,-lra Ac. - d -x d ,V /2g2rs oA. % du-ad!l

  • 4 WWM lb-x 2d" f4e h-l W n_s-=6 A' zW.4.,,> / s-1= amC-wA /?s u d<s x < A.

ds __N??;&. / n d d & A w i ; ' A E M,7 7 -.- W u 4,-,.;c 5 %.E-m. n. an"Z Ada 6'd%seK/ 62 a -s!-z.di6-a in i /i26 ~ L n % %~ x A K;;UM -4. AL-a% Qu~e.&.A-% u -As ' s/m,6-+ ~ 6 %pw SnA-2-1 c& Se-aL J-ram.6A 74 -,~.> dmd !&+ fdu_ W he.-a c'_ % ,A-- ., 2.- -- 'zni; 4 4xa w,22:6 n-man - ,7'~ /J2Z.f ,am4 /}_* antY -f lM h sJ ffM.*' --8<exa< E<a-22 n-2 z-N.? !x.v% 4:.Wzs&-w aj N!sn A'M,_ v '= s A ., &s6 du > dw,<2. A 4__- ,A, _Aw j_ . s/ i m a W ,s>n.<-f,2/ d', / m~ -- ,g m )? J.o_sa - " $$As Y $W, -*' SYAWWW s/ &. Lc;.tw l>-xl/AA/~ - r' ,d~4 khs % ?~ 4 4 - a -t - s / a-< - m2+s s_46%ml d:.> Oa-1MXA. p 6%e - && S& J w _..a.,. ~ ma, - ww - rsa-n-- f\\.-

Gi'c 6 e y b AM ~ L zw& w-a ~wnG A omaA-nue_sa k as m m m'n V b w / % u 4 & 4 c.4ced ~~ exfAa-s Le~ An muss m z& & & ./w..x.o-9 r............: -.. -p - .s. 4.. G& *zak &: J sa b.4~nd FA d ...l -. -..,. du... _waa 4 f s< N _. Y Y b2'2'.49 b A d / M A d J 8 &$6* W &NYh dis _ss. hud's kherD0,$,(!Y,, " y^ A ,pxs S m eeg_____._ OM-e a _____ -g e. amen.

  • = =

ee. a.m b .ammmene ~- 9 - e om.. 4 9 .D-988p om me a an. .ssamm, emede + er a ,+ e De a p3 M Y 6 N Om mo G j, - _ b eM 9* ad'e-e M O$ p.e A se 4 4 .a. e-*. e oe v ea9 s ee*p7 7 Mi 4231 1Et:1 Zbd WOP :t'3 E66T-ST-W,3 u}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20056C268&oldid=4483795"