ML20080G824

Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,Inc Answer in Opposition to NRC Staff Response in Support of Gsu Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Aslp Find Staff Response Inadequate.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20080G824
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	02/06/1995
From:	Pembroke J CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER & PEMBROKE, P.C. (FORMERLY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080G819	List: ML20080G818 ML20080G824
References
93-680, OLA, NUDOCS 9502090112
Download: ML20080G824 (19)

Text

'.

fw '

COff[ifD

, USMC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 15 FEB -6 P2 29 BEFORE THE ATOMIC EaFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-E $ 0LA' '

• i;,I, Culf States Utilities Co., et al. ) ASLBP No. 93-E; O'7* D (River Bend, Unit 1) )

CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COCPERATIVE, INC.'S,

, AWSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF GSU'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (" Cajun"), in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a) (1994), of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") regulations, respectfully files this Answer in Opposition to "NRC Staff's Response in Support of GSU's Motion for Summary Disposition" (" Staff's Response").  !

Staff's Response fails to provide a basis for granting Gulf (

States Utilities Company's ("GSU") Motion for Summary Disposition

("GSU Motion").

I. BACKGROUND AND BUMMARY GSU filed .ts Motion on January 9, 1995. On January 23, 1995, Cajun filed an Answer in Opposition to Gulf States Utilities Company's Motion for Summary Disposition, a Concise Statement of Material Facts to Which a Genuine Issue Exists, and the supporting Affidavits of John M. Griffin and Werner T.

Ullrich (" Cajun's Response"). Cajun's Response demonstrates the reasons and facts that compel denial of GSU's Motion.

On January 23, 1995, Staff also submitted a response to GSU's Motion. While Staff did not file its own motion for summary disposition, it chose instead to use its response as the 9502090112 950206 PDR ADOCK 05000458 C PM

- ~ -. . _ - - -

procedural vehicle to suppert GSU's Motion and advance Staff's own reasons for summary disposition in GSU's favor.I' In Staff's Response, Staff recognizes that GSU has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Staff Response at 3. Nonetheless, Staff argues that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that GSU is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 1, 4. In i

Staff's view, the obligation of a licensee to cease operations, alone, is a sufficient safeguard against threats to safe operations due to the unavailability of necessary funds. But  ;

this means that the financial qualifications of a non-electric utility applicant for an operating license can never be an issue. l Moreover, Staff turns the obligation to cease operations into an .

alleged fact that EOI will have the ability to shutdown the facility safely, a fact ptt at issue in Cajun's Response.

Staff's argument makes at least two assumptions which involve naterial facts at issue. First, it assumes that NRC j inspection and enforcement processes will ensure safe operations regardless of the level of funding. See id. at 5. Second, Staff assumes that a bankruptcy court would provide the necessary funding to ensure safe operations or a safe shutdown, monitoring l

1/ Appended to Staff's Answer was (i) the affidavit of David L. i Wigginton; (ii) a motion filed by the Department of Justice '

before the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana; (iii) a copy of the " River Bend Station '

Operational Safety Team Inspection NRC Inspection Report 50- l 458/93-25"; (iv) a copy of the "NRC Inspection Report 50-  !

458/94-17 With Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation";

and (v) the "NRC Inspection Manual, Inspection Procedure 93802."

i

~

and decommissioning. Egg id. at 6-7. Staff's arguments must be t

rejected for the reasons stated herein.

Staff also offers the affidavit of David L. Wigginton, Senior Licensing Project Manager, Office of Nuclenr Reactor Regulation, for the proposition that " River Bend operational P

safety has improved under [Entergy Operations, Inc. ("EOI")]

operation notwithstanding Cajun's failure to pay its share of  ;

River Bend Costs." id, at 7-8. The facts do not support this misleading proposition, as demonstrated herein. Cajun funded ,

i River Bend during virtually the entire period covered by the  !

report and reduced it funding only at the very end of the period of the review. -

The Inspection Report attached to Staff's Response i

supports and does not refute the conclusions of Cajun's affiants i i

that if EOI's operation of the facility is unsuccessful or [

ineffective even in a few areas, funding will continue at l relatively high levels and River Bend's marginal safety l

performance will not improve. The fact that EOI had some initial j i

success in operating River Bend, as compared to GSU's operation,  ;

is not dispositive of the issue and certainly does not support a j g

motion for summary disposition. l The issue is by what mechanism, if any, can the Board

' be reasonably assured that a thinly-capitalized EOI can obtain i

I the funds necessary to assure safe operation, shutdown and decommissioning of River Bend in light of GSU's financial situation. The remedy is to have Entergy Corporation guarantee GSU's obligations. These' issues need to fully aired at a hearing.

e II. ARGUMENT A. Staff Erroneously Argues That Financial Difficulties Cannot Affect The safe operation Of A Facility Staff makes three arguments respecting the issue of the financial qualification of a non-electric utility' l licensee to operate a nuclear power plant safely and in accordance with the terms of its license. First, Staff argues that financial qualifications of a licensee cannot be an issue for an operating license since a licensee "would be obligated to simply cease operations if necessary funds to operate safely were not 4

available." See Staff Response at 5 (citations omitted).

Second, Staff argues that Staff oversight and the " Commission's inspection and oversight process" are sufficient to ensure that funding does not affect safe operations. Id. at 5 (citations omitted). Third, Staff asserts that the bankruptcy process will ensure the availability of sufficient funds for safe operations.

See id. at 5-7. Staff's position is contrary to Commission policy, evinces a totally inadequate investigation of the facts surrounding this case, fails to support a motion for summary disposition and should be rejected by the Board.

1. The Oblication to Cease Operations does Not Eliminate the Need for an Applicant to Demonstrate Financial Qualifications to be Granted an Operatina License Staff's first argument makes financial qualifications irrelevant to any operating license. In Staff's view, the 4

2/ The term " electric utility" as used in this Answer is intended to have the same meaning as provided by the Commission in section 50.2 of its regulations. 10 C.F.R.

S 50.2 (1994).  ;

j i

~

obligation of a licensee to cease operations, alone, is a l 1

1 sufficient safeguard against threats to safe operations due to the unavailability of necessary funds. But this means that the I

financial qualifications of a non-electric utility applicant for an operating license can never be an issue. Moreover, Staff turns the oblication to cease operations into an alleged fact that EOI will have the ability to shutdown the facility safely, a fact put at issue in Cajun's Response. Staff errs in effectively concluding that the financial qualifications of a proposed licensee are not a proper matter of inquiry for the Commission or the Board.

The relevant statutory and regulatory authority demonstrate that staff's position is without merit. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. S 2232(a), provides the authority for the Commission to require GSU and EOI to furnish sufficient information to establish the financial qualifications of EOI to hold the license. Section 182 of the Act specifically provides for the Commission to obtain evidence of the " financial qualifications of the applicant" for a license as the Commission may deem necessary. See 42 U.S.C. S 2332(a). The commission has adopted appropriate regulations to implement this section of the Act.

The Commission's regulations specifically provide for the consideration of the financial qualifications of a non-electric utility for an operating license. The Commission requires an application for an operating license to include, as follows:

e'

~

(f) Except for an electric utility

. applicant [l') for a license to operate a utilization facility of the type described in S 50.21(b) or S 50.22,.information sufficient to demonstrate to the Commission the financial qualifications of the applicant to carry out, in accordance with regulations in ,

this chapter, the activities for which the permit or license is sought. j S 50.33(f) (1994).

10 C.F.R. The Commission requires the i

submission of information "that demonstrates the applicant  ;

possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining funds  ;

necessary to cover estimated operation costs for the period of the license." 10 C.F.R. S 50.33(f)(2) (1994). In addition, the ]

l

, Commission may require an applicant to provide "[a]ny other l

! i information considered necessary by the Commission to enable it to determine the applicant's financial qualification." 10 C.F.R.

S 50.33 (f) (3) (iii) (1994). At issue here is whether or not GSU and EOI have provided the " reasonable assurance" of obtaining i funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs for the period of the license.i' Staff's position -- that the obligation to cease operations assures that EOI has the ability to operate safely the facility, regardless of the level of funding -- would render much of Section 50.33 of the Commission's Regulations a nullity and cannot be sustained. The obligation of EOI to cease operations at River Bend cannot be " reasonable assurance" of the safe 2/ It is undisputed that EOI is not an electric utility.

4/ The affidavits of John M. Griffin and Werner T. Ullrich, attached to Cajun's Response, demonstrate that there are material facts at issue related to whether GSU and EOI have provided " reasonable assurance" of obtaining the necessary funds for safe operation, shutdown and decommissioning of the River Bend facility.

v-. y- i t, 7 me -, - . - - -y , , , , _ .

operation of River Bend, absent a demonstration that the necessary funding is available. The Commission's Regulations i specifically contemplate that a non-electric utility licensee i

will demonstrate its financial qualifications to meet its license [

obligations. See 10 C.F.R. S 50.33(f). Staff is plainly mistaken if it interprets the Commission's Regulations to assume the financial qualifications of a bankrupt electric utility licensee. The Commission has made no such finding.

Furthermore, Staff's cessation-of-operations argument raises two additional issues of material fact that Staff has e ignored.

First, Staff has not analyzed the cost of ceasing  ;

operations and the cost of maintaining River Bend in a safe l r

condition during shutdown or the ability of GSU and EOI to fund such operations, absent a guarantee from Entergy Corporation.

Since the very premise of cessation of operations is the insufficiency of funds, Staff has omitted a material fact when it failed to establish the ability of GSU and EOI, given an admitted lack of funds for operation, to fund and effect a safe shutdown.  !

Second, Staff has failed to address the funding for {

decommissioning of River Bend, which must be addressed in any  !

shutdown situation. This, of course, necessitates an independent -

l finding of financial assurance for decommissioning. The two affidavits produced by Cajun demonstrate that there are material ,

issues of fact related to the funding for decommissioning at ,

River Bend. Staff has offered no evidence, and there is none in ,

I I

this proceeding, that would establish EOI's ability to fund i

i decommissioning.

i i

e r-~ y , _ -

O 8-

2. Staff Oversicht and Commission Inspection and

. Oversicht Processes do not Eliminate the Need for Financial Oualifications to be Granted a License ,

Staff's second argument, that Staff oversight and the

" Commission's inspection and oversight process" are sufficient to ensure that inadequate funding does not affect safe operations, is defective for the same reasons discussed immediately above respecting the cessation of operation as an assurance of safe operations. Egg Staff Response at 5. Without diminishing the importance of the Commission's inspectien and oversight process, the Commission recognizes that it is only one of the important safeguards of plant safety. Staff ignores the important first line of safety protection incorporated in the Act and the Commission's Regulations by arguing that any analysis of i

financial qualifications before a license is granted is unnecessary, due to Staff oversight and the " Commission's inspection and oversight process."

Congress and the Commission have chosen to incorporate the financial qualifications of licensees in the laws and regulations governing nuclear power facilities. These provisions provide a baseline for ensuring the financial capability of a l 1

licensee to implement an NRC order or requirement. Staff ignores l J

the issue of how a licensee which has limited funds for operation l could comply with Staff or Commission orders that require the 1 expenditure of funds in excess of those available to the i licensee. Yet, that is precisely the situation that the Board has before it.

Staff concedes, as it must for purposes of GSU's Motion, that GSU faces severe financial exposure or bankruptcy.

See Staff Response at 7. EOI will'only have access to those funds provided by.GSU, and Entergy Corporation has stated it will not guarantee GSU's obligations (see GSU Motion at 2). These circumstances certainly are consistent with a limitation on the ability of GSU to support River Bend funding requirements.

I Staff's position that its oversight and the Commission's inspection and oversight will ensure safe operations fails to address the ability of GSU to provide sufficient funding for the very requirements imposed by Staff or the Commission as a result t

of the oversight and inspection activities.

Staff has offered no evidence to demonstrate GSU's i

ability to fund a shutdown or decommissioning in the event of the I

reali7ation of the financial exposure that Staff's Response concedes. Staff has failed to establish the factual predicate l

necessary for it to' prevail in arguing in support of GSU's Motion l for summary disposition. I

3. Staff Fails to Establish that no Genuine Issue  :

Exists with Respect to the Fundina of River Bend Operations in the Event of a GSU Bankruptcy l Staff's third argument is that the bankruptcy process will ensure the availability of sufficient funds for safe operations. See Staff Response at 5-7. Staff asserts that the ,

summary disposition should be granted even if GSU declares bankruptcy. To prevail, Staff must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact related to reasonable assurances l of funding even if GSU is bankrupt. 3 Staff relies on the Commission's rulemaking respecting l the financial qualifications for an operating license, which  :

created an exception for electric utility applicants, which i

r exception is not available to EOI. Sag Elimination of Review of Financial Qualifications of Electric Utilities in Operating License Review and Hearings for Nuclear Power Plants, Final Rule, 49 Fed. Rec. 35747 (September 12, 1984) (" Final Bulg") . The exception is based on the regulatory processes of the state public service commissions. However, as noted, the exception is not available to EOI, and, with regard to GSU, the state commissions have disallowed from rate base a massive portion

($1.4 billion) of GSU's invertment in River Bend.F I

The Staff would have the Board infer from the Commission's Final Rule that the Commission has found that financial qualifications are not relevant to the issue of the safe operation of a nuclear power facility. See Staff Response at 4-5. However, in discussing the Final Rule, the Chairman of ,

the Commission stated that, although the Commission proposed the revision to its financial requirements for operating licenses on the ground that no link has been shown l between financial qualification reviews and assurance of safety, it did not base its proposed rule on that ground. The final rule's accompanying statement notes support for, but it does not seek to justify the final rule on, that ground.

1 49 Fed. Rec. at 35735. Therefore, the Final Rule does not l provide conclusive support for the argument that financial l qualifications are not an issue in assuring safety. The 1/ Egg, _e . a . , Coalition of Cities for Affordable Utility Rates

v. PublJc Utility Commission of Tegas, 798 S.W. 2d 560 (Texas 1990) (disallowing from rate base $1.4 billion of GSU's investment because it was not proven prudently and reasonably incurred).

l Commission did not consider the reasonableness of its rule in the context of bankrupt electric utilities.

In fact, the Commission's regulations and policies do exhibit a recognition of, and concern about, the situation of .

I licensees in bankruptcy. For example, the Commission requires licensees to notify the Regional Administrator following a j voluntary or involuntary petition for bankruptcy. See 10 C.F.R.

S 50.54(cc) (1994). In proposing this requirement, the Commission stated that a " licensee who is experiencing severe  ;

economic hardship may not be capable of carrying out licensed activities in a manner which protects public health and safety."

10 C.F.R. Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, and 72 Bankruptcy Filing; Notification Requirements, Proposed Rule, 51 Fed. Rec. 22531  !

(1986). The Commission further stated that "[f]inancial difficulties also can result in problems affecting the licensee's waste disposal activities." Id. The Commission has recognized ,

this uncertainty in other rulemaking proceedings.

In adopting its final rule on property insurance requirements for licensed power plants, the Commission recognized that its "own experience confirms, the NRC's ability under the i

Bankruptcy Code to get priority for expenditures of funds for i

~

safety is very uncertain." Changes in Property Insurance i

Requirements for NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants, Final Rule, '

52 Fed. Reg. 28963 (August 5, 1987). It was this uncertainty j which led the NRC to intervene in the bankruptcy filing of El  ;

Paso Electric Company.

i Staff cites to the Commission's participation in the El l Paso bankruptcy as evidence of the fact that bankruptcy filings i

t i

I i

- la -

do not pose a threat to safe operations. See Staff Response at

5. Contrary to the inference that Staff would have the Board draw from its citation to the El Paso bankruptcy proceeding, the NRC intervened in the El Paso case because "it is not clear how the Bankruptcy Court will treat the [El Paso's] operational and decommissioning obligations vis-a-vis obligations to other j c

I creditors." See " Issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Potential Impact on Safety of Power Reactor Licensee Ownership Arrangements," at page 3, SECY-93-075 (March 24, 1993). The Commission's concern with the sufficiency of funds for safe operations in the El Paso bankruptcy is consistent with the concerns the Commission expressed in the Property Insurance rulemaking, namely, that the Commission's authority and obligations in relation to the Bankruptcy Code are " uncertain."

GSU/EOI cannot not have met the burden of proving no material facts at issue where there is such uncertainty.Q' i

i 6/ Staff's citation to Midland National Bank v. New Jersev ,

Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494 (1986)

(" Midland"), is similarly misplaced. As the portion quoted by Staff clearly demonstrates, Midland involved the application of bankruptcy laws to state regulations affecting health and safety. See Staff Response at 6. The safe operation of River Bend involves the application of federal laws and federal license conditions, as Staff admits. The Supreme Court's decision in Midland does not reach the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code to federal health and safety laws.

To the extent that Staff sought to make the point that a bankruptcy court would recognize the need to meet federal ,

plant safety requirements, its argument is insufficient to prevail on summary disposition. Staff has not established l that, as a matter of law, there are reasonable assurances that GSU and EOI would have the necessary funds under the Bankruptcy Code to permit safe operation, shutdown and decommissioning at River Bend.

A non-electric utility applicant (EOI) that relies solely on the payments of a potentially financially distressed or bankrupt electric utility for funding (GSU),.which has a corporate parent which refuses to guarantee its obligations (Entergy), raises material issues of fact respecting the ability of the applicant to obtain funding to safely operate the facility. Staff ignores or erroneously discounts these factors and fails to scrutinize the unique circumstances of River Bend.

At a minimum, the analysis of a motion for summary judgment, which necessitates the assumption of bankruptcy, compels the finding that no presumption as to the financial qualifications of the applicant or its sole source of funding is.

appropriate. Cajun's Response alleges facts which raise genuine issues of material fact concerning the ability of EOI and GSU to obtain the funds necessary for the safe operation, shutdown and decommissioning of River Bend. GSU cannot be found to have established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I B. Mr. Wigginton's Affidavit Fails To Establish That There Is No Genuine Issue On EOI's Ability To Obtain Funding To Satisfy The River Band License Conditions And To Operate The Plant Safely The Staff presents the affidavit of Mr. Wigginton in an attempt to lay the foundation for a finding respecting EOI/GSU's

financial ability to meet the license and safety obligations.I' Mr. Wigginton states, as follows:

The overall conclusion from the OSTI and OSTI follow-up is that the River Bend Station operational safety has improved and in some areas significantly since [EOI] has taken i over the operations responsibility. This improvement took place during a time when GSU 6 was forced to pay Cajun's share of operating  !

costs.

Affidavit of David L. Wigginton, at 5. This proposition is j misleading, as described below. In any event, the affidavits of John M. Griffin and Werner T. Ullrich supplied by Cajun demonstrate that there are material issues of fact related to ,

i GSU/EOI's ability to obtain the funds necessary for safe operation, shutdown and decommissioning, even granted that EOI had some initial success in improving performance at River Bend r

in the early part of 1994.

The report that Mr. Wigginton based his testimony on was the result of inspections conducted from October 31, 1994  ;

through November 10, 1994. See NRC Inspection Report 50-458/94-17, transmittal letter, Thomas P. Gwynn to John R. McGaha, page  :

1. The inspectors based their report on activities that  !

occurred, in many instances, prior to the site visit of the NRC team. For example, the NRC team reviewed ten condition report and the results of an August, 1994 training course. See NRC Inspection Report 50-458/94-17, section 2.2.1, pages 4-5. As 1/ Mr. Wigginton did not participate in the inspection of River '

Bend, and, as such, cannot testify from first-hand knowledge as to the findings of the NRC's inspection team. He '

provided no evidence that would allow the Board to find that Mr. Wigginton had any input into the inspection report or that he spoke with the members of the inspection team relative to the report.

h

+  !

l part of its review of the River Bend procedure upgrade program, .

. i the NRC team reviewed quality assurance audits performed from ,

February 28, 1994 through March 18, 1994.

However, Mr. Wigginton's testimony that River Bend I operational safety improvements occurred "during a time when GSU i I

was forced to pay Cajun's share of operating costs []" is simply wrong. The improvements that the NRC Team documented occurred i

during the period since the issuance of NRC Inspection Report 50- l 458/93-25. The NRC reviewed documents from most of 1994 as part of its review. In fact, the on-site inspection occurred from  ;

October 31, 1994 through November 10, 1994. ,

During virtually the entire period prior to  !

commencement of NRC's site inspection, on October 31, 1994, Cajun a

paid, in full, its obligation for the River Bend Station. Cajun did not reduce its River Bend funding until October 25, 1995. At that time, GSU reported that Cajun committed to continue [

providing its share of the nuclear decommissioning trust payments as well as insurance and safety-related expenses. See GSU Form 8-K, October 28, 1994, attached to a letter from Entergy counsel to the Board dated November 1, 1994. The inference that must be  :

drawn from Mr. Wigginton's testimony, for it to be correct, is that the cited improvements began during the last week in October ,

i 1994. The report of the NRC team that actually conducted the i review does not bear out this inference.

i Mr. Wigginton's testimony that the safety improvements I occurred during the period of reduced funding is in error. Cajun funded River Bend during virtually the entire period covered by j i

the report and reduced it funding only at the very end of the l l

i 1

period of the review. Mr. Wigginton's testimony respecting GSU's ,

ability to fund River Bend operations is contrary to the record, is not supported by record evidence and is without probative value.

Similarly, Staff's Response is defective to the extent it relies upon the affidavit of Mr. Wigginton. Staff relies solely on the testimony of Mr. Wigginton for the proposition toat GSU will be able to fund River Bend operations even under the circumstance of Cajun not paying in full the bills tendered by GSU. See Staff Response at 7. i Moreover, Staff has made no showing of the relevance of GSU's ability to fund River Bend if Cajun does not pay the full bill rendered by GSU. Staff has not attempted to show the amount of River Bend costs that GSU is funding in the absence of payments by Cajun. Staff has not attempted to show how the amount of the Cajun's River Bend funding that is not provided affects GSU in either the short- or long-term. In addition, Staff has not attempted to relate the amount of financial exposure GSU faces in the Cajun litigation related to River Bend or the Texas regulatory proceedings to the amount of payments associated with Cajun's interest in River Bend that were not met.

Staff's reliance on Mr. Wigginton's affidavit and the conclusions that it draws from that testimony is erroneous and should be disregarded. In any event, the NRC Inspection Report 50-45B/94-17, supports Cajun's position in significant measure.

As the Report states:

The licensee has made very good progress in completing the long-term performance improvement plan. The team noted that the

licensee was ahead of schedule in completing

- the plan, but that some of the more difficult oroblems remained to be resolved.

• *+

This progress has occurred due to exceptional licensee staff effort to support management goals and implement higher standards. While the team considered the goals and standards to be appropriate, it acoeared that this i level of staff effort must be sustained to assure that existing problems are properly resolved.

Executive Summary, pages vii, v (emphasis supplied). The long-term performance improvement plan ("LTPIP") and its effect on ,

i funding levels was discussed in Cajun's Response, and in the Affidavits of Messrs. Griffin and Ullrich. Their conclusion is that if the LTPIP is unsuccessful or ineffective even in a few i areas, O&M funding will continue at relatively high levels and River Bend's marginal safety performance will not improve. See Cajun's Response at 26; Attachment A, 1 23; Attachment B, 1 28.

The fact that EOI had some initial success in operating River Bend, as compared to GSU's operation, is not dispositive of the issue. The issue is by what mechanism, if any, can the Board be reasonably assured that a thinly-capitalized EOI can obtain the funds necessary to assure safe operation, shutdown and i

decommissioning of River Bend, in light of GSU's financial )

J situation. The remedy, of course, is to have Entergy Corporation guarantee GSU's obligations. Id. at 32.

When contrasted with Cajun's Response and two affidavits, Staff's position, even if accepted, does nothing more l

}

than demonstrate that there are genuine issues of material fact ,

which must be examined at a hearing.

i 1

l

l I

• III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Cajun Electric Power ,

Cooperative, Inc., respectfully requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board find that Staff's Response is inadequate to support GSU's Motion and that the Board should deny GSU's Motion for Summary Disposition.

Dated: February 6, 1995 Respectfully submitted,

%L -4 l &

u James D. Pembroke Thomas L. Rudebusch Michael R. Postar DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER &

PEMBROKE, P.C.

1615 M Street, N.W.

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 467-6370 Attorneys for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

i I

l l

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE DOCKElc0 gg g p~r ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) 95 FEB -6 P 3 :29 GULF STATES UTILITIES ) Docket No. 50-458-OLA COMPANY, e_1 & ) OfTlh  ; . MRY

) DOCKLI C WU (River Bend Station, Unit 1) )  !:n s n D H CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas L.

Rudebusch, hereby certify that of February, 1995, I served on this 6th day on the following by hand or first class mail, postage pre-paid, copies of the CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.'S, ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF GSU'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Administrative Judge '

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter S. Lam One White Flint North Atomic Safety & Licensing 11555 Rockville Pike, Rm. 16 H1 Board Rockville, MD 20852 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Marian L. Zobler, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Office of the General Counsel Administrative Judge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Administrative Judge Washington, DC 20005 B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Robert B. McGehee, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wise Carter Chile & Caraway Washington, DC 20555 6000 Heritage Building P.O. Box 651 Docketing & Services Branch Jackson, MS 39205 Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 k[ v Thomas L. Rudebusch l