ML20079F585
| ML20079F585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1982 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F587 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206080098 | |
| Download: ML20079F585 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
6/3/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
-5 UM In the Matter of
)
L.gg
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
)
50-446
.J
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY'S MOTION TO STAY LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER SCHEDULING HEARINGS ON CONTENTION 5 FOR JUNE 7 On 5/25/82, the Licensing Board in this pmceeding denied " CASE'S Motion for Rescheduling Hearing On Contention 5." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.788(f),
CASE hereby filed this, its motion for a stay.
The ruling of the Licensing Board on 5/25/82 was extremely prejudicial to I
C!.SE's ability to effectively participate in the hearing on Contention 5 now i
scheduled for June 7,1982. To protect its rights and assure a full and fair hearing, CASE is compelled to appeal the Licensing Board's mfusal to reschedule the June 7th hearing. See " Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) Appeal from Licensing Board Scheduling Decision" (June 3,1982) accompanying this motion for a stay.
In denying CASE's motion for rescheduling, Chairman Miller of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board referred to CASE's motion as "repttitious" and " dilatory."
See Telegram, 5/25/82. CASE, therefore, has not filed a motion for reconsideration but, instead, has turned to the Appeal Board for relief.
This motion for a stay is filed as quickly as physically possible. by CASE. Under the Licensing Board schedule, Applicants were given until May 10, 1982 to file a motion -
for sunmary disposition of Contention 5. On May 11, CASE received such a motion accompanied by affidavits. The entire Applicant document ran to 300 pages.
CASE had until June 2 to prepare and mail a response to the summary disposition
%.a motion or risk losing its right to litigate this contention. On Move 2 CASE filed 8206080098 820603 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
pyg
its response which, including exhibits, ran to approximately 800 pages. The analysis, organization, drafting, and production time required for this motion left no time to file this motion for a stay or the appeal motion accompanying this motion any sooner.
Rather than burden the Appeal Board with copies of the surmary disposition motion
'and response, CASE merely notes that these documents were served on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel. Even a cursory review would clearly demonstrate the tremendous burden placed on CASE by the Board's scheduling and the exorbitant effo[ts required by CASE to protect its right to litigate.
Har',ng completed its response to the summary disposition motion, CASE now has four days to prepare for hearing on the most significant and substantial contention in this proceeding.
To prevail in its motion for a stay, CASE must provide substance to the con-siderations set forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.788(e).
- 1. A strong showing of a likelihood CASE will succeed on the merits is most clearly found in the appeal accompanying this motion for a stay. To sumnarize the arguments of the appeal:
- a. Contention 5 is a comprehensive and far reaching contention.
- b. CASE has continually been ddnied adequate discovery on Contention 5 until too late in the proceeding to adequately incorporate the results of discovery into its hearing presentation.
- c. The other intervernors and their contentions have been lost to this proceeding, in part resulting from obstruction of discovery. See Affidavit of J. Marshall Gilmore attached as Exhibit 1 to the appeal accompanying this motion.
- d. The Licensing Board's scheduling of discovery, motions for summary disposition, and hearings places CASE in a position where it cannot possible be prepared for hearings on Contention 5 to begin June 7,1982.
Based on these arguments, CASE contends its motion presents the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board with a clear case of abuse of discretion by the Atanic.
Safety and Licensing Board.
- 2. The irreparable injury to CASE if this appeal is not granted is nothing less
?
than the destruction of the rights granted CASE as an intervenor. CASE cannot possibly be prepared to respond to Applicants' case and put on a case of its own on Contention 5 if the hearing is held June 7. CASE does not even have the time to make sufficient copies for introduction into evidence of the document which clearly belong in the record as relevant and material to Contention 5. Forcing CASE into hearings without adequate time to prepare would produce a practically oro forma proceeding on an extremely important part of CASE's entire case and a contention of great importance generally as the contention goes to the heart of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at the Comanche Peak Nuclear plant.
- 3. There would be no harm to other parties by granting a stay. The plant is not due for fuel loading for at least one year, so a stay in the hearing for a short period of time while this appeal is considered would not delay operation.
There still remains a contention on emergency planning for which no schedule has been set. Given the last minute developments in discovery and the short schedule for preparing for hearing, both other active parties -- the Applicants and the NRC Staff -- might well benefit from a stay.
- 4. The public interest clearly lies in a stay. CASE is the only intervenor left in this proceeding. Contention 5 is the major contention left in this proceeding.
16 CASE is not prepared to litigate this contention, there will essentially by no adversary proceeding on this crucial issue. Public confidence and plant reliability will be better served if CASE has the time to truly give substance to Contention 5.
The Applicant and the NRC will be better served if the: plant license application has met a substantial challenge rather than a hollav exercise.
The four considerations of 10 C.F.R. 2.788(e) clearly favor granting CASE a stay in the hearing date of June 7,1982 as set by the Licensing Board for Contention
- 5. Tae stay should be in effect until the merits of the appeal filed herewith by CASE can be determined.. )
~
0 If this stay is not granted until Monday, Jh 2,1982, the notification to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the parties can be made by calling (817) 335-7000, the Hilton Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas where the prehearing conference will convene at 9:00 a.m. followed by the hearing.
CASE realizes this request is extraordinary and pleads extraordinary circumstances as justifying the Appeal Board in granting the requested stay.
Respectfully submitted, ukW
.. Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 9
e 9
4-
, s.M$.M'4
.. ?:W ~
- 9. m. >
-M;... S
^M......
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. ~.
S $.
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
'O7 r
. r.
YS BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
?.4. J GW)f., f!;:.
.1;,... 'In the Matter of I
i
, m..y.p; y
it....v..
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 JJ ' '
GENERATING COMPANf, ET AL. FOR,AN I
and 50-446 f $ 57,r, OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I
, (';{@ :
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
8 7;.l UNITS #1 AND N2 (CPSES)
I
\\![W,.
1
- 5. $ $
u.@..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- UN By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of Intervenor' Citizens
., Association for Sound Energy's Motion to Stay Licensing Board's Order Scheduling Hearings on
'. Contention 5 for June 7 and Appeal from Licensing Board Scheduling Decision
-have been sent to the names listed below this tra day of
- Jun,
, 1982, by:
Sky.Crurier
.' where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
, Mtvork -
, c..
'?
.' U. S. Nt: clear Regulatory Commission Asnistant Attorney Gehferal fg~.:,,k.,
- Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. Preister, Esq.
W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environmental Protection Division
.,/'
r.-
Wcshington, D. C.
20555 P. O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station
'.4X.
Austin, TX 78711 W.. ', -
.n.5 g r
' Dr. Kenneth A.'McCollom, Dean
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bom.'d
$N*
Division of Engineering, Architecture, 8-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
."AF.
and Technology
- Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555
< w.
.vJ.
J.Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
^
~ u n'.,c:. i
- 'Dr. Richard Cole, Member
- Atomic Safety and Licensing 7'X O Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'rd Board Panel M[..*f U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2shington,.D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
' @f.' '
hNicholasS. Reynolds, E.sq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing
'.Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel
.,1200 - 17th St.,
N.
W.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
."W:shington, D. C.
20036 washington, D.
C.
20555 Ql*
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
- Docketing and Service Section
. Office of Executive legal Director Office of the Secretary
- 1*
-2 Nucl' ar Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S.
e s.g,
.;W shington, D. C.
20555 washington, D. C.
20555
.,t
. i...
1 a, '.;f r;
[h
- 9. '.
j/
Jff' li.) Juanita Ellis, President
< f; -.
'W (fASF (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) i
~
j.,
_