|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
hk j
- n. .
May 24, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 00CKETED USNRC in the Matter of )
)
METFOPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )
15 SP Docket No. 50-289 MY 24 P4:54
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) CFflCE OF SECRt'IAFa Station, Unit. No. 1) ) 00CHEiy ERVICf.
LICENSEE'S OPPOSITION TO TMIA STAY REQUEST On May 17, 1985, intervenor Three Mile Island Alert ("TMIA")
filed with the Commission a request to stay an anticipated oi-der authorizing restart of Three Mile Island, Unit No. 1 ("TMI-1").1/
TMIA seeks a stay pending full resolution of all court of appeals reviews, or, in the alternative, for two weeks to seek an emergency stay from the reviewing court (TMIA Request at 2). For the reasons described below, and in the attached affidavits of Henry D.
Hukill, Jr. and John G. Graham, Licensee opposes the TMIA request as unnecessary and without adequate support in law or fact.2/
1/ The TMIA stay request is anticipatory, since the Commission has not yet issued any order authorizing restart of TMI-1.
Nonetheless, Licensee does not oppose the request as prema- -
ture. Licensee urges the Commission to resolve the stay issue as part of its decision on restart authorization. This will permit an orderly appeal process and will provide the re-viewing court.with the Commission's considered opinion on the merits of any stay request that may later be presented to the court.
2/ TMIA cites the stay granted by the Commission to the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace in the Diablo Canyon proceeding as (Continued next Page) 8505300492 850524 PDR C ADOCK 05000289 PDR
,n y-TMIA Has Failed To Make The Necessary Strong Showing That It Is Likely To Prevail On The Merits TMIA puts forth four reasons why it is.likely to succeed on the merits of an appeal: (1) that the hearing on management issues is not complete; (2)~that full Section 189(a) hearings must be held on all. issues since the restart order necessarily involves the is-suance of license amendments; (3) that Chairman Ivan Smith's al- l leged bias invalidates the six years of adjudicatory hearings held in this case; and (4) that in various unspecified ways, TMIA's hearing rights under the Atomic Energy Act, Administrative Proce-dure Act and Constitution have been violated (TMIA Request at 2-6).
This laundry list of procedural. complaints, none of which is fully specified or explained, raises issues with which the Commission has previously dealt'on numerous occasions. Such complaints fall far short of the required strong showing necessary to justify issuance of a stay.
- 1. TMIA's claim that the management hearings are incomplete (TMIA Request at 2-4) is based on a substantial distortion of three (Continued) next Page) precedent for the requested stay (TMIA Request at 1-2, n.1).
However, in Diablo Canyon the utility applicant did not oppose the intervenor's stay application. Here, by contrast, Licens-ee believes that neither the equities of this case nor the procedural posture of the proceeding necessitates issuing a stay. More relevant to the present stay request, and provid-
'ing more appropriate precedent, are the Commission decisions in both the Waterford and Catawba proceedings to deny interve-nor requests for stays pending judicial review.
O key points. First, TMIA ignores the extensive adjudic~atory record compiled, including lengthy decisions by the Licensing and Appeal Boards, which deal exclusively with management issues. Second, TMIA simply misreads the Licensing Board's May 3, 1985 decision on licensed operator training (TMIA Request at 3, n.2). The Licensing Board held that, for Licensee to demonstrate " reasonable progress" in this area, Licensee needed to begin immediately to develop a plan for on-the-job evaluations. This ruling is consistent with the Commission's original delegation to the Licensing Board to es-tablish the standards for measuring " reasonable progress," while leaving to the Staff the responsibility to determine whether the standards have been satisfied. Licensee has begun the work to develop the required plan (see Public Hearing Tr. at 109 (May 22, 1985)), and expects a favorable NRC Staff certification. Third, TMIA's claim that a favorable finding must be made on the "Dieckamp Mailgram"-issue prior to restart ignores the Commission's earlier ruling that the hearing on this issue was held merely as a matter of discretion, based primarily on public policy considerations.
See CLI-85-2, at pp. 8-9 (February 25, 1985). Thus, there is no requirement that a decision on the mailgram be issued prior to restart.
- 2. TMIA's argument that, since license amendments will be part of the restart decision, hearings on those amendments must first be held (TMIA Request at 4-5), also is premised on misconcep-tions about the restart hearing process. The license amendments imposed on Licensee resulted from the hearing process. Apparently, d
. r TMIA's argument'is that, notwithstanding the past six~ years of pro- !
l caedings,-which form the basis for the license amendments, TMIA is l
entitled now to still further hearings on the license amendments t
which have:resulted to date. This envisions a continuum of'infi-nite proceedings. We know of no judicial support for this novel theory,;and certainly the cases cited by TMIA do not support such a
" Catch-22" approach to the Commission's hearing obligations.
The. court of appeals in Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380, 1383 (D.C. Cir. 1983), held that where the Commission imposes additional license conditions to make a plant's operation safer, as is clearly the case here, there is no automatic right to participate or demand hearings under Section 189(a). Rather, only if the Commission pro-poses to amend a license to remove a restriction upon the licensee does Section 189(a) require public participation. Id. Cf. 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.90 .92 (1985) (Sholly Amendment regulations applicable
, only when a licensee applies for a license amendment).
- 3. TMIA's argument regarding the bias of Chairman Smith (TMIA Request at 5) merits little comment. Suffice it to say that, in carefully reasoned opinions issued by Chairman Smith (see Memo-randum'and Order Denying Motions to Disqualify (February 20, 1985))
and the Commission (see Memorandum and Order, CLI-85-05 (April 5, 1985)), the matter was fully considered and no basis for bias or-disqualification was found. TMIA in its stay request adds nothing
. to the issue, merely referring the Commission to its earlier fil-ings. In such circumstances there is little likelihood that TMIA l
will prevail in the courts on this issue.
l
- 4. TMIA's last claim, consisting of a single sentence alleg-ing unidentified and unspecified procedural violations (TMIA Re-quest at 5-6), is similarly unconvincing. The claim assumes, with-out further analyais, that TMIA is entitled to an on-the-record adjudication before the Commission lifts its immediately effective shutdown order. This is untrue. In San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the court held:
Because none of the actions specified in section 189(a) may be said to include the lifting of a license suspension, we conclude that such action does not give rise to the right to a hearing.
See also Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. NRC, 727 F.2d 1195, 1197-99 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (lifting of immediate effective shutdown order is " informal" agency action).
In short, it is highly unlikely that TMIA will prevail in court on any of its procedural claims, and certainly no strong showing of success meriting a stay pending appeal has been demon-strated.
TMIA Has Made No Showing of Injury, Let Alone Irreparable Injury TMIA's claim of irreparable injury includes no allegation of unsafe equipment or design, no allegation of inadequate operational procedures or practices, and no allegation of untrained operators.
Instead, TMIA strings together a list of allegations which, in its view, establish a " shocking history" of character failings (TMIA Request at 6-7), and, on the basis of this list, speculates that the Commission's failure to order full-scale adjudicatory hearings 9
on these issues provides "no assurance that GPUN can be entrusted
. with [TMI-1] operation" (id. at 7).3/
This claim ignores the careful consideration that the Commis-
-sion already has given to the specific issues raised by TMIA.4/
In the face of this extensive review, the claim that irreparable injury results from the failure to grant a full adjudicatory hear-ing on such allegations is mere speculation. There is no basis to assume that a hearing on these matters would disclose significant factual material contradicting both the Staff's and Commission's 3/ Almost as an afterthought, TMIA claims that the Commission's violation of-important, but totally unidentified, procedural and constitutional rights constitute irreparable injury per se (TMIA Request at 7 & n.8). None of the cited cases involves claims that the mere denial of hearings on certain particular
~ issues.by a lawfully constituted administrative agency war- .
rants the issuance of a stay order. If that were the rule, then all Commission action might be stayed in the face of an intervenor's claim that it had been denied a Section 189(a) hearing. The cases cited by TMIA involve district court reso-lution of civil rights claims, allegations of unconstitutional statutes, and the like. Certainly, TMIA's unstated "impor-tant"Eprocedural and constitutional rights do not rise to a similar level of significance.
4/ In each case the NRC Staff carefully investigated the identi-fied allegations, either confirmed or refuted the claim, and evaluated the impact of the claim _on GPUN's ability to safely and reliably operate TMI-1. See, e.g., NUREG-0680, Supplement No. 5, "An Evaluation of the Licensee's Management Integrity as it Affects Restart of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, Docket 50-289" (July 1984). In no case did the NRC Staff find any basis for concluding that the allegation did, in fact, impair GPUN's ability to operate TMI-1. In its Pebruary 25, 1985 Memorandum and Order, the Commission exhaus-tively reviewed the NRC Staff investigations and analysis, considered the positions of the parties on the issues (includ-ing TMIA), and determined for itself that none of the identi-fied issues raised concerns about GPUN's ability to operate TMI-l which required an adjudicatory hearing prior to restart.
See CLI-85-2.
.~
conclusiunt. In/such circumstances, no showing of irreparable in-jury is made'and a stay should not issue.5/
Equally significant, TMIA overstates the immediate impacts from la Commission order authorizing restart. As the attached Hukill Affidav'it makes clear, it will be a minimum of 99 days after the Commission order before TMI-1 will begin sustained full power operation (Hukill Aff. at 11 6-7). Indeed, not until the sixth day
~after a Commission restart order does Licensee intend to take TMI-1 critical'(id. at 1 7(a)). A full 10 days will elapse before the plant even reaches and passes through the 5% power level (id. at l 1 7(a)-(c)). If TMIA is concerned about having sufficient time to petition and persuade an appellate court that a stay is warranted, Licensee's carefully controlled and deliberate startup program pro-i vides an adequate opportunity -- either during the five-day final non-nuclear heatup and surveillance testing-period or the ten days before ascension above 3% power.
Furthermore, the extended period of TMI-1 shutdown, and the gradual escalation to full power operation, ensure that the fission 5/- See, e.g., Massachusetts Coalition of Citizens v. Civil Defense Agency, 649 F.2d 71, 75 (1st Cir. 1981) ("merely rais--
ing the specter of a nuclear accident" is inadequate to demon-strate "immediate irreparable injury"); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.
1980) ("more than.the risk of irreparable harm must be demon-strated. The requisite for injunctive relief has been charac-terized as a ' clear showing of immediate irreparable injury',
or a ' presently existing actual. threat'" (citations omitted));
Standard' Brands, Inc. v. Zumpe, 264 F. Supp. 254, 267-68 (E.D.
La. 1967) 1" injunctions will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the par-ties").
f*
product inventory of the plant and the decay heat to be removed in
~
the event.of an accident are small fractions of the levels associ-ated with long-term, full-power operation (Hukill Aff. at 1 10).
- - Thus, in the unlikely event of an accident, potential radioactive releases from TMI-1 will be substantially less than for plants operating at full power (id.). Similarly, unanticipated events
.will place less stress on emergency equipment, provide plant opera-tors with a longer period of time to respond, and generally be sub-
. ject to greater safety margins than is the case for plants operat-ing at full power (id.). All of this means that the risk to the i
public health and safety during the TMI-1 restart test program is i
.substantially less than the-Commission accepts when it authorizes full. power operation of other nuclear power plants.s/
By every measure, the TMIA stay request fails to demonstrate irreparable injury.
Granting A Stay Will ' Injure And Harm Licensee TMIA's views on~the harm to Licensee from a stay are somewhat i
- difficult to comprehend (TMIA Request ct 8). Apparently, TMIA ar-gues that Licensee would not be harmed by a stay because "TMI-l's fpower ascension will be very gradual" (id.). If TMIA means what it I
says, it is not seeking a stay which will preclude Licensee from f/ We also would observe that in this case there can be no claim '
that restart authorization will irreparably contaminate an otherwise clean plant. Thus, from a judicial perspective, an c incorrect decision authorizing restart is more easily revers-ible and reparable than in a case where the Commission issues a new license.
'k initiating and completing its restart test and power ascension pro-gram. Accordingly, there is no need for a Commission stay at this
-time; it is possible under expedited procedures to have briefed and argued the merits of any TMIA appeal to the court within 99 days.
If no decision had yet issued, TMIA could at that time petition the court for a stay.
However, if TMIA seeks to enjoin the start of Licensee's restart test program, then there assuredly will be significant harm
-to Licensee. The Hukill Affidavit demonstrates that Licensee is ready to begin its restart test program now (Hukill Aff, at 1 5),
that the program consists of a controlled and detailed set of se-quential steps which must be performed in order (id. .at 11.6-7),
and that any delay in beginning the program will result in a day-for-day delay in completing the program and starting sustained full-power operation (id. at 11 8-9).
The Graham Affidavit demonstrates that, for each month's delay in returning TMI-1 to operation, Licensee's ratepayers will incur-increased costs of about $6.7 million (Graham Aff. at 1 6), that Licensee's nonresidential customers will continue to suffer under
, competitive disadvantages in both national and international mar-kets (id. at 1 7), and that GPU common stockholders will be injured due to an approximately $5 million reduction in earnings (id. at 1 8). In addition, the TMI-1 owners' ability to fund additional, excess advances to TMI-2 cleanup activities will be impaired (id.
at 1 9). By any measure these are direct and substantial injuries that would result from issuance of a stay.
i' The Public Interest Lies In An End To Administrative Proceedings That Are Complete r.
The TMI-1 restart _ proceeding has dragged on beyond the expec-tations of'everyone, and certainly beyond the Commission's expecta-tions in 1979. The record is voluminous; the written opinions and orders are lengthy; the issues have been analyzed in painstaking detail. Once.the Commission has assured itself that the public health and safety will'be protected, there is a substantial public
-interest in concluding the proceeding and allowing operation of TMI-1. Granting a stay at this point would only further protract the proceedings with no public benefit. This is especially true here since Licensee's gradual power ascension program provides TMIA with adequate time to seek a stay from the reviewing court. In
.short, there is no need for the Commission to stay its own order lifting the immediately~ effective shutdown order.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE-2;.4 f. w4 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Robert E. Zahler
- 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for Licensee 4
Dated: May 24, 1985