ML20128D465
| ML20128D465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1993 |
| From: | Edgar G NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13596 OL, NUDOCS 9302100156 | |
| Download: ML20128D465 (5) | |
Text
r 3
.tbT
[35%
February 2, 1993 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOutrITED e
FEg. 2 G33 1
-g at g
)
In the Matter of
)
)
/
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO.
- )
Docket No. 50-446-h 2/
g l
16.Ah,
)
('onstruction Permit Amendstent").
i
)
(Comanche Peak Stean Electric
)
Docket No. 50-446-OL Station, Unit 2)
)
(Issuance of' Lower Power License) t
)
i TU ELECTRIC'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY. ISSUANCE o
OF - LOW-POWER OPERA 7J)TG LICENSE On February 2, 1993, an Emergency Motion for a Stay was filed by the " Petitioners", presumably Irene Orr and D.I.
Orr, 1/ requesting that the Commission,-among other things, i
issue an order staying the issuance to:TU Electric of a low power license.
For the reasons which follow, the' motion should be denied.
1.
In order to obtain the extraordinary relief of a i
i.
stay, Petitioners were required to meet the strict requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.788.
Specifically, those regulations require a i
i-party seeking _a stay'to. demonstrate (1) - a ~ strong showing. that it is - likely ' to prevail on the' merits;- (2) irreparable injury that.
l they will suffer if a stay is not, granted; (3) that no'other parties will be harmed if a stay is granted; and (4) that the
~
1/-
The. identity of the Petitioners is not disclosed-in the emergency motion.
9302100156-930202 b
PDR ADOCK 05000446' h.p p
w, 8
--w.,,,,a
--.m-e
.e
-,. - -.. ~
,~.n e
..-e,.x
.y,w e-=.
(
4 g
-2 public interest will be served by the grant of a stay.
See also y_irginia Petroleum JobbfIs_liss'n v.
F.P.C., 259 F.2d 921 (D.C.
Cir. 1958).
2.
Petitioners' Motion fails to make any such showing.
Indeed, Petitioners' Motion fails even to allege that they meet any c2 the requirements demanded by the Commission's regulations and accordingly, their Motion should be rejected on that ground alone.
3.
Petitioners failure to address the standards for the grant of a stay is readily understandable.
Petitioners cannot fulfill any of the four requirements set forth in the Commission's regulations.
First Petitioners showing on the merits consists merely of a bare allegation that TU Electric "has established a pattern and practice of secreting safety information from the Commission" which "potentially poses a threat to the health and safety of the public." (Motion at 2, footnote omitted). 2/
Petitioners 2/
Petitioners are not entitled to request a stay of issuance of the low power operating license for CPSES Unit 2.
In particular, 10 C.F.R.
S 2.788(a) states in part:
Within ten (10) days after service of a decision or action of a presiding officer any party to the nroceeding may file an application for a stay of the decision or action pending filing of and a decision on a petition for review.
(Emphasis added).
The Petitioners were not a party to the CPSES operating license proceeding. Therefore, under Section 2.788(a), they (continued...)
4 a
3 provide absolutely no evidence to support this outrageous claim, other than vague references to "the record Petitioners' have created." (Motion at 2,
- n. 1). As the NRC Staff has stated:
Petitioners fail to demonstrate that TU had, in I
fact, a corporate policy to either hide information from the NRC,-that TU did hide information from the ASLB in the CPA-1 proceeding, or that TU entered into the settlement agreements for that explicit purpose.
"NRC Staff Response.to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Information 1
Secreted by Restrictive Agreements and Notification of Additional' Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene Filed by Irene Orr, D.I. Orr, J. Macktal, and S. Hasan. (December 3, 1992) at 15-16.
Petitioners similarly cannot demonstrate irreparable I
injury.
The only action being taken is the issuance of a low power license.
No irreparable injury can possibly result from that action.
The risks associated with full load and-low-power I
testing are too remote to constitute irreparable harm.
Ege.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-8, 29 NRC 399, 409-411 (1989);
Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
In contrast, the issuance of a stay would unquestionably harm-TU electric'and its customers.-
Each day of delay in the issuance of a low-power operating license will' result in an additional day's delay in both the commercial and full power operation of CPSES Unit 2.
The; costs 2/ (... continued) have no right to. request a stay of.the decision to issuance the operating license.
d 4
of that delay would be staggering amounting to tens of millions of dollars of monthly carrying costs.
The hardship to TU Electric and its customers overwhelms any possible hypothetical and unproven harm to Petitioners.
Finally, the public interest is not served and indeed would be adversely affected by the issuance a stay.
The public has a compelling interest in early low-power testing and prompt generation of power by CPSES.
It would turn the public interest l
on its head to postpone the availability of a vital power-resource like CPSES, when Petitioners have made no showing under any of the factors required for a stay.
In summary, Petitioners have utterly failed to meet the heavy burden imposed on a party requesting a stay.
Their request must, therefore, be denied.
t Respectfully submitted, A/
r
/
Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Geor
'.gr Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &
T s W. Schmutz Wooldridge Steven P.
Frantz 2001 Bryan Tower Paul J.
Zaffuts Suite 3200-Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Dallas, TX 75201 1615 L. St, N.W.
(214) 979-3000 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 955-6600 Attorneys for TU Electric February 2, 1993
[o.-
6.-
i 1
RERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1-!'
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a-copy of:
PETITIONERS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO HALT ISSUANCE OF LOW-POWER OPERATING LICENSE t
4
- was served-via FACSIMILE-on February 2, 1993 at-or about 4:30 t
the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid this day,- on p.m.,
and placed it.
the following:
l k
?
M
=
y Hon.~Ivan Selin, Chairman A $@.
Hon. Kenneth C. Rogers
- a i
Hon. James R. Curtiss m
8 5
Hon. Forrest J. Remick Th
^
Hon. E. Gail De Planque U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d
Washington, D.C.
20555 g
' \\j Zl i
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulation commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (Original and two copies) 4 5
Michael Kohn, Esq.
Kohn',-Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
-517' Florida-Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20001 Marian L. Zobler, Esq.
tf Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Office of the'.-General Counsel.
i.
. Washington, D;C..
20555 l
l Janice Moore,:Esq...
j l'
Nuclear-' Regulatory. Commission Office ~of the General' Counsel i
Washington,.D.C.. 20555
/
./Zgfuts-
' Paul-1 k
-,.s
>,. ~
.,-a m
,,e.
c
,.e.
.,,,.,,v 1,
w r, u
,-.,,