ML20199D034
| ML20199D034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1997 |
| From: | Kennedy J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Nelson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-194 NUDOCS 9711200228 | |
| Download: ML20199D034 (18) | |
Text
.-
I
)
November 14,1997 3
MEMORANDUM TO:
Rot >ert A. Nelson, Chief a
Low Level Waste and Regulatory I
Issues Section Low Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
James E. Kennedy, Senior Project Manager [0riginai signed by)
Low-Level Waste and tiegulatory-1stues Sect'on Low Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects B'anen Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF MEETING WITH WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC On October 6,1997 U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff met with representatives of Waste Control Specialists, LL C (WCS), to discuss NRC's branch technical position on disposal of cesium contaminated baghouso dust. A report of this meeting is attached.
8
Attachment:
As stated f
jq g
CONTACT:
James E. Kennedy (301)-415 6668
- /* } 2
(
i TICKET NO.: NONE DISTRIBUTION:
teameNe LLDP r/f JGreeves MFederline 3
KStablein JHolonich NMSS r/f DWM-t/f*'
MBeil
$NReamer PLohaus SSalomon LBell THarris TC.lohnson JHickey PUBLIC DOrlando Nota A draft of this report was given to Egan and Assodates for revww. They had no comments.
DOC UM E NTsN A M E:s:\\dwm\\lidp\\jek/wes2.wpd
\\ Lk LLDhfk OFC
<ennh RNel n NAME J
'YY f hAYlf I I II DATE OFflCIAL RECORD COPY IG : YES _. NO ')(
Delete file after distribution: Yes _ N$(
'LSS : YES _ NO %
lll l lll Il.l:1.I!.Il.l
~:..
nm n.
- p' " %,
g*
. UNITED STATES s
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1f WASHINGTON, D.C. M4241001 k.....*/
t November 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Robert A. Nelson, Chief Low-LevelWaste and Reg latory
/
lasues Section
/
j Low Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management l
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Sefenuards
/
g t
FROM:
James E. Kennedy, Senior Projectkp Low LevelWaste and Regulatory lasues Section Low Level Waste and Decommissiogng Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF MEETING WITH WASTE CONTROL SPECIAllSTS, LLC On October 6,1997 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff met with f
representatives of Waste Control Specialists, LLC, (WCS), to discuss NRC's branch technical
(
position on disposal of cesium contaminated baghouse dust. A report of this meeting is attached.
t
Attachment:
As stated CONTACT:
James E, Kennedy (301) 415 6668 4
l
~
___,m..
.~.._-
1 November 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Robert A. Nelson, Chief Low LevelWaste and Regulatory issues Section Low Le'.el Waste and Decommissioning Pro]Octs Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety
. and Safeguards I
FROM:
James E Kennedy; Senior Project Manager [ Original signe(I by)
Low Level Waste and Regulatory i'
Issues Section Low Level Waste and Decommissioning l
Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF MEETING WITH WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC On October 6,1997, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff met with i
?
representatives of Waste Control Specialists, LLC, (WCS), tp discuss NRC's branch technical
- position on disposal of cesium contaminated baghouse dust. A report of this meeting is attached.
Attachment; As stated CONTACT:
James E. Kennedy (301)415-6668 TICKET NO.: NONE DISTRIBUTION:
Central File LLDP r/f JGreeves MFederline KStablein JHolonich NMSS r/f DWMilf" MBell WReamer PLohaus SSalomon LBell THarris TCJohnson-JHickey -
PUBLIC DOrlando Note A draft of this report was given to Egan and Associates for revew. They had no comments.
~
DOC UM E SN A ME:s:\\dwm\\lldpNek/wes2.wpd
\\k LLDh/
OFC L
NAME-J Qn RNe on DATE-f f
f/ f/N t
//
//
OFFICIAL RECOPO COPY
- lG :YES _ NO X Delete file after distribution: Yes _ Nd)(,.
LSS:YES _ NO %
T n
,4
.. ~, -
s
,.-v
,.wy,
,--,-----,e
,-w--
r-,-,--
MEETING REPORT Date:
October 6,1997 Time:
2:30 PM Place.
U.S. NRC Two White Flint North, Rockville, MD, Room T-8 C 1
Purpose:
To discuss NRC's Branch Technical Position on Baghouse Dust Contaminated with Cs"'.
Attendees:
See Attachment 1 Backaround:
Representatives of WCS requested a meeting with the NRC staff to discuss the staffs Branch Technical Position on Cesium Contaminated Baghouse Dust. This Technical Position permits, under certain conditions, disposal of such dust in RCRA permitted disposal facilities. WCS currently has a RCRA permit for disposal of hazardous wastes.
DIEcuti!QD:
1.
A WCS representative reviewed the company's progress in obtaining regulatory approvals for hazardous and radioactive waste treatment, storage, and disposal. WCS currently has a permit for disposal of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Toxic Substances Control Act waste, issued by the Texas Department of Health; a permit for the disposal of certain concentrationsof naturally occurring radioactivewaste, issued by the Texas Natural Resources ConservationCommission. and a permit pending for the treatment, processing, and storage of low level radioactive and mixed waste.
2.
Mr. Egan, representingWCS, reviewed the reconi decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texac to issue a preliminary injunction th?t orders the Department of Energy to not deny any WCS bid or contract for DOE low-level or mixed radioactive wastes on certain grounds specified in the injunction. Mr. Egan provided a copy of the Court's Preliminary injunction to the staff (See Attachment 2).
3.
WCS is exploring disposal of cesium contaminated baghouse dust at its facility, in accordance with the provisions in the staff branch technical position. One of the issues concerns the State of Texas law that requires that all LLW be disposed of in the disposal facility being developed by the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
Mr. Egan noted that the Authority has stated that it does not plan to dispose of mixed waste at its facility, so WCS interest in this material doos not intrude into Texas plans under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. Two approaches for addressing this issue with the Texas law are possible--the first is for the Texas Department of Health to exempt this material from the Texas requirement that it be disposed of in the Authority facility. The second is that Texas promulgate a rule that such material need not be disposed of in the Authority disposalfacihty. WCS noted that one considerationin the first approach is NRC's views on whether such material (called " incident related material"in the Attachment
_____._.~.___,.____7-__
i 9
l 2
i i
BTP) can be exempted from the definition of LLW. As noted below, WCS will consider sending a lettor to NRC asking for NRC's views on whether Texas can exempt these materials from the definition of LLW.
l 4.
Nick Orlando of NRC staff reviewed some of the key provisions of the BTP on bcghouse l
dust.
5.
WCS also discussed ita consideration of disposal of PCB contaminated paint from nuclear power plants that are undergoing decommissioning. This paint is considered to be a mixed
' waste WCS believes that such waste may be analogous to baghouse dust in that it may be suitable for disposalin a RCRA permitted facility, and asked NRC staff if a staff position on such disposal could be developed. NRC staff indicated that a formal request would ha',e.
l to be submitted and NRC would consider such a request based on the merits.
j AGlions' As noted in item 3, WCS will consider sending a letter to NRC asking for NRC v!ews on whether the State of Texas can exempt " incident related material" covered by the Baghouse Dust Branch Technical Position from its definition of low level radioactive waste. " Incident related material" is defined in the BTP.
1 Attachments:
1 Meeting Atte(dees
- 2. Preliminary injunction dated October 3,1997, issued by the U.S. District Court, Northern Distr!ct
{
i of Texas (provided by Waste Centrol Specialists)
+
~.
. - ~.
_. ~...
l HEETING ATTENDEES
()Ck 6, ' 7 7 Date:
Topic:
'))C 3,
L '
>A C NAME AFFILIATION-PHONE NUMBER
<>Ct hlo L'r < < Mar ClJ(L Cs f7)U)fA EGl'WDSOf Y o
6 e s t, PEtt a Ot3 t t.t
't U - 9 ro q u +
h6 Fermo no t Am. ?.c.
C M us-mr4
'3esrM
- s u,
ilut ) hveam Ae.
G< o gn-suo 5 vd< D S I_1).2 C. ll r-C_L D 9 W [ 9 # c__
t
% snryrrea u,v.t Wa,N_ ! t o;6
'<., i.- yr
(, 7 0 7 i
bsll S E6fn W V3h)0l -
.3T)\\ #ki T-l),46 1.muk
/Orl;mo-(tsidic t 3ef.wcvyy4 3cA NeAww
\\L.5 0%2t _
30 t y/r7)Y6 A cC 3 0 '. V/ <. )) 3./
t /0 li' bbt Oj p(
/
/
i 1
.N.
6.6 Attachment dET.
4
MMud A.
l*3-3'21.
?: M f.!I. 2 i :ll'. '}
i :.
.T.
- , C ';ij e,
ma ty:
wot,,,oE,,< DOM ; 10 397 4:56PWI 2147370346 **
8173227463; e
a IN THE UNITED STATES Di$TRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 0151Mlu t OF TEXA5 WlCHITA PALLS DIVISION WASTE CONTROL SPECIAL.lSTS. tI C
)
)
Plaint.ff.
)
)
I i
v.
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
)
0F ENERGY. ALVIN L ALM.
)
Civil Action No. 7 97CV 202 X Assistart Secretary for Environmertal
)
Management and MARY ANNE
)
SULLIVAN. Deputy General Counsel
)
for Environmerit urid Civilian
)
Nuclear Dofense Proprems.
)
i
)
Defendants.
)
1 EftELIMIN ARY INJUNCTION Tru reuse came before the Court on Plaintffs application for a preliminary qunction in.ts F,rst Amendec Comp'eint, filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Hu es of Civil Prc:ecure un Augunt 29 1997. The Court has considered such Amended Complaint, the Afficiav.t of Kenneth N Bigham acd VeWication of First Amenced ComplauTt. lne Affidavit of Eloyne Coppage, the Brief in Support of Plaintiffs " *st Amenced Comp'alnt. De.endants' Respona ici opposilico to Plaintiffs Application for Prollminary Irjunction arv1 Brief in Support thareof Pleintdf s Opposition to Defendants' Motio.1 to Dismiss and Response in Oppcsition to Plaintiffs Application for Preliminary in, unction, and the evidence, testimony and arguments of counsel offered at the heafirig on Geotomoer 'LO.1997. Having done so, the Court enters the OndinOs and nrdar sat innh cassa.e i
4.' E!' I d i O h.
5~}.
- .. y.
OfI.".
SINT eV; a*)x,0C,<!'.cA.L
- 10 397 1
- $tPW; 2147678346 o 6'73227463; 82 E
bebe Although the Court's findrigs ars characterized for conven,ence as findings of fact ar.d conclusons of law, ine essential requisites for the issuance of a preilminary injunction are mnad rluestinns of law and fact 84se McIlM6%wfralv (%n mad. /nn. 884 F 7d 1253 1256 (5th Cir.1989). Accord'ngly, many of the findings and conclusions might be categorized under altner neading.
Additional reasont for the Court's findirge and canelations wara stAinti on the record at the evidertiary nearing. The plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses whom the Court found to oe highly c'edIDle. Toge'her they have seventy plus years of experlerice in this field The magnty of this experienca is nuclaas aaancy reoulAtory avparlance They were subjected to cross examination. In contrast, the defendant produced ng witnesses and introduced enly one exhib.t on a tangential point. In aboil, tiiw Plainbffs P
evidence was uncontroverted.
1 Findings Of Fact 1.
PlaintW Waste Control SpecJalists LLC ("WC6") is ocoking to compoto for
- ontracts with Defendant Department of Energy (" DOE") for disposal of DOE radioactive wastes andor mixed tow-level radioactive Wastes generated as a result of UOti's efforts to clean up sites used for nellonel defense programs. To tNs end, WCS has spent millions of dot.ars to develop a disposal site in Andrews County, Texas 2.
DOE has issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") covering certain raci0 active waste disposal services in association with its cleanup of DOE's Fernald nuclear site in ONo (the "Femeld RFP"). and WCS submitted a bid in response to this um.s.* e W M " Fl' 5 C FM
- t'i?3315
....y
- q.;.
s.-...
$ENT Sv. G i,.oi,< N M i
'D. 3 07 Ai$6FW; 214707D46 o 0173221463; s3 t
RFP. The RFP required that a succesaful bidder shall have "a1 necessary licenses or permits" within twenty seven (27) months of the dwtw of contract award, anu that the successful bidder shall take title in 00F wastes received for disposet.
3 WCS has submitted a proposal dated December 20,1996, to DOE whereby DOC itself, or some qual:fiwd entity actitig on DOC's behalf, would at pr> cost to UUE review the suitability of WCS' Andrews County site lf thn nita is fnune safe and -
environmentally sound, WCS would then be able to compete effectively for DOF radioactiva and siiiavd sadiowctivv weste disposal contracts.
DDE fejected WG'S proposal and subeas:r,t variahnns on it, by letters dated May 5,1997, and September 17,1997. The rejecton was premised on the DOE contention that WCS must, w has not and cannot, obtain a state or Nuclw Regulatoiy Corvnission ("NRC") license for l')w level radioactive waste dispnsal 4.
The Court finds, and Defendants do not dispute, that WCS' December 20, 199G, proposal can be lawfully impfen ented However. the Defendants counse< srgued.
w thout any evidence, in vA0in abstract and evasive language, that the adoption of such proposal presented ' complex
- po! icy issues that have not yet been resolved by the DOE even though the proposwl was made in wommber,1990. The Vetendants contend, dpparent'y, that until such " policy luties" are resolved WCS is not a que'iftee bidder for DOE low level and mixed radioactive wastes. No assurance is made as to how or when such insi es will tw s esolved The Court was unable. In questioning counsel, to determine even tha natum ni th9 issues presented The Defendants did not oppoor at the hoanng per1onally and no evidence was offered bearing upon such issues.
twss * :
Q.T !! L.') TW
'?.47P!146
?. i
' ' ' ii~*!.
! ;j !V.
f.f*'l'IiIII.I'T f6 E S '3 2 3 sty evr h oct oC.<E C 4 L ; 10 3.I,7 4:56Pv; 2147474340 **
8172227483; sel'2 f
5 An award of a DOE contract for disposal of radioactive wastes from the DOE Fernata facility is imminent. and withoot the injunction herein granted WCS will likely be disquallfled from the biddir.g process on the basif, that it lacks a low-level radioactive waste d1posallicense from the State of Texes. that it lacks an NRC license, or that its bid seeks to effer the provisions of the f*ernald RFP relative to litiv. In fact, a reasonable deduction froTi the evidence and from the defend 6nts' brief is that the ' fin is in' and that the FMnala s to is a *dore deel' 4sent this iryunction compelling fair consideration and compet. tion. Other DOE rsdmoctivo waste disposal contracts may be awarded or RFPs issued during the per.dency of this adlon and without the prallmincy injunction herein granted, WCS wll be Lnable to compete effedively for them. Once they are gone they are gone. The Court finde that Pleintiff will suMer irreparable 1)juey unless the preliminary i
inn 7ction here,n ordered is issued.
- I ll.
Concluelona of Law 6
The Court has jurisddion over the sub,act rnatter of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 The Stalw of Tvxas, wheft the disposal fadlity of WOS is located, will not r
issue a license to a private company for the dispo.tal of low lovol or mixed radioact ve wastes. Texas Health and Safety Code, $ 401.203, but reccgnizes that no license is required to dispose of DOE low iwvel w aver mtxed racloactive waste. Plaintiff s Exhioit 34 (a letter dated December 13. 1956, from the Texas NWural Resource Consorvolion Commission to WCS).
suse.%.
O 9 0
.:9 j i' II' I ji j'(.f.fi':T1.II.!:I fii E
!.'!Oi.
stNt sf Jcot..o(jftDAL, i 10 3.s? e:5DPZ; it ert7:34s **
s173227403i
- IM 3 l
j l
8
- The exist 6nce of a stole or NHU llc 40se is neither a nDceStary prereQuilte i
i nnt a suffielent basis for the receipt by e DDE controctor of DOE low level or mixed i
racioactive westes for disposal at a private site. Atom >c Fr way Act of 1954, as amended
("AEA"), $511s,110a(2) and 161b,42 U S.C $3 2014s,2140s, and 2201b. Federal!aw 1
has preampled this sWect matter of radiological heaKh and safety, Pac!fic nam i Electric Co v. state Enatow Ramscan Conserv. and Devolm Comm'n. 461 U.S 190.103 S.Ct 1713 (1963), sukwood YJWtrLMWee Corp,464 U.S. 238,104 S.Ct. 615 (1983). Section 274 of the AEA. (42 l1 S C $ 9071), does not relinquish to e stato any federcl AFA power
.o Icen6e DOE low-level radit, active waste d.sposal contractors. Thus, neither the arant not the refusal of a state low-level racx>ective waste disposal I;mnse can constitute the hanie, for the qualification er the disqualification of a DOE oontreeter to dispc7e of DOC low level or mixed radioactive wastes at a private site Aithough the AEA reovifes 3
"s.w nons" to obtain a license from NRC (or trom a state it sucn authority has been formally dele 0ated by the NRC in tha state) as a precondition to the disposal of low lovoi radioactive wastes, Sedions 110a(2) and iis of the AEA (42 U.S.C. $$ 2140a(2) and 2014s) exempt. so as not to impede the governments own actions, the activities of DOE and its c:nritadtvi frorn this reauirement. The contractor exemption in Scotton 11%(2)is statutorly granted to contradors operating "under contract with and for the scoount of the Commisston.* The exemption in Section 11s is Statutorily granted to the " Commission' et self. A privek contractor of the Commission performing DOC 'ow level or mixed redoactive weste disposal furcions at a private site on DOE's behad would be acting "with and for the account of tn6 commission /' ine term " Commission" as used in tnese i
' $* !"3' rE iM IV
[ F M 3(6 b
- M !X C i f.. '.I s.lE. ! '.'
IN E 5 '.
st e BY:.l4*ij0t.<! CAL.
- 90 397 5
- 00PWi 2147078340 o 817322r4631 ro2 cfovisions is def ned in the AEA to be the ' Atomic Energy Comm;ss on." 42 U.S.C 9 2014(r). The Atcmic Energy Commissior was abokshed in 1974 and its functions were transferred to the NRC and the Energy Research and Develnement Acministration. Egg Pub. t.. No 93438, Socs 104 and 201,88 Stat.1233. In 1977. Congress (Srminated the Energy Research and Dove'opment Administration and transferred its functions to the newly created DOE S.te Pub. L No. 95 91. Gees 301(a) e.nd 703,91 Stat. 565 As a result, the reference to"CoTvnission"in Section tiDa(2) of the AEA must be read to refer to the DOE Aeoordingly, DOE's apparent disova'ificatioei of WCS' Pernald blo, and its rejedion of the WCS' December 20 pfoposal, on the ground that WCR rinas not posseis for cannoi legally obtain) a Texas or NRC license, is art >itrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion. and unlawful. The Court is compelled to agree with Plaint:ffs expens that DOE's stated reasons for disqual<fcation are indeed ' bogus '
9.
The court fudher finds that WCS is, and at all times has been willing and able to take title upon recolpi vf DOE westes, pursuant to!bw tunns of the Fernato RFP, ano WCS' Fernald bid did not seei< or purport to aber or very the tenns relative to title of the HFP Accordingir, DOE's apparent contemplated denial of Pisintiff a Fernald bid, or the grcund that WCS will not take title tu thw wntes coverM oy tne DOE's RFP, is arn,trary. capncious, an abuse of discretion and unlawful.
10.
To obia n a preliminary injunction, a party must show (A) a substantial likelinood of cuccoes en the merits; (D) a substantial thivat of irreparable injury if ths inunction is not granted; (C) that the threatened injury to the movant out wetoh* th*
threatened injury to the nonmovent, and (D) that the granting of a preliminary injunction i
nas., %. e
(
'P.D 3 U i!! !M fM 2'f6346
?.I
1
.' 'T.. *. *.$
- :,; '[.
P. *.*.*.*
- S..:
I
~
- :: ; 't.
(. ;. ;... '.t J
i S0
's JJ ZE,.0E,<ikcA.6
- 10 397 5
- 00PL4; 2147678346 o 6173227483; er!'2 wstl rot disserve the puohc snterest. Cherokee Pump & Equip. Inc. v. Aurora Pumo, 38 F 3d 246 744 (Stn Clf,1994), Canal Authonty of Florida v. Cc//away. 489 r/2d 507,572 (5th Cir.1974) it The first factor, a showing of a substart.al likelihood of success on the ments. does not require that the enovant prove h's use. Lakodreorns v. Taylor,932 F.2d 1103,1009.t 11 (5th Cir.1991). It is enough that the movant has raised questions gorno tu tiio merits so suestantial as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more del.berMe mestgatfort Cho v. /tco, tre., 782 F.Supp.1183,1103 (E.D. Tex 1991). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the reculbita showing of aubstantiallikelihood of success or the merits 12.
h wano factor is a scbstantial threat of!rreparsble injury if the injunction is not granted An injury is irreparable if it cannot be undone through monetary remed es Spievel v, C4y o/Hourfon. 636 F.2d 997,1001 (5th Cir.1981) To show irreparable injury if the intaverwt aren is not ergdned, a party must shcw a sign.fecont threat of injury from the impend:ng achon, that the 'njury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm. Humains, tre v. Avram A. Jacobso<t, M.0, P. A.,604 F 2d 1393,1394 (5th Cir 1986) h Cotrt concludes that PlaintWs have demonstritod a substantial threat of irreparable injury it a preliminary injunction is not granted. Again, once these and future ccntracts ave gone, they are gone.
13 The third fador reqsires a balancing of interoots. The Defendants have not shown by any corwincing evidence that any significant harm or injury will be borne by the Urnted States or by the Dwfwinkits as a result of the issuance of tne preliminary injunction usu..'
'v
- [ f I.. k'(h b h
N
3~I'
! ji 3 f.'..i.IE3.I'I
.I d IC j'j"!ij
$1NT 4':. 3GC 0E,,,cetAd ; 10 397 $ Qt'WI 2:470r:345 e 6173227463; 46;*2 here n granted Tne Court Tods that the Defendants will suner no harm from the issuance of the prelimincry iryunction here n ordered oa, alternatively, city miniinal butm. The effect of the stijunction will allow lawfVi competition where a monopoly or virtual monopoly now P
exists The C0Jrt fods that trNury to the Plaintiff, described above, in the ovat injunctive relief is not granted clearly outweighs any demoge to Defendents from the ir(unctive twisef herein granted.
14.
t he fourth fa:: tor regu res that tre public interest bs considered. The Cr art f.nds that the pubbe interest supporto the issuance of the pret;minary irNunction here n ordered OOE has not demonstrated that any procurements will be stopped, estupted, or otnermse handered, that any pending RFPs wil have to be altered or reissued, or that any site cleanupe will be harted o delayod Indeed, DOE presented no evidence wiiatsoevwr on these suuss, and the Court condudes this is because they cannot The "all necessary permits or <lconses" and ' title' provisions of the Fernald RFP do noi require or justify the distlualification d WCS as a bidder, and do not need to be changed by DOC to proceed with the procurem nt. The public nterest in avoiding excessive costs usually associated
- with a monopoly and in insuring that its public oMic als act in accordance with law will be
- 1vanced by the issuance of such prelim' nary injunction. See No66y Lobby, Inc v. Csfy of Dallas, 767 F.Supp. 801 (N.D, Tex.1991, affd 970 F.2d (5th Cir 1992.
15.
Accorongry, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has c'early carned the burden ni persuation relative to all four of the following factora, to wit: (A) there is a substantial likelihood of succes2 on the merits of it$ Clairn, (B) irreparable iniury Will be suffered by the Pleintiff unless tr'e tryuncion is issued, (C) the threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs any outs ew.s E-H' FC iC5 iM M051Bh6 i 5
. i' II.
!};,fM C f f..' 2 '. S ' 2 E 3 ' l ')
II.I 2 5'~..bi!
s S!h* BY:.,v00E,,.C.E JE NcA.L ; 9 0 3 f,7 5 0tPW; 214FB7dM 6 o 497J227483;
- 9/92 domW)e which the injunction may ;awse the Defe idents, and (D) the injunction will not be adve'se to the put+o interett Nbed Mktg. Omup. Inc. v. COL Mbty., Inc.,676 F.2d 606.
809 (5',h Cr.1989). Considering on batence, each of these factors, they ecllectivaly favnr gran'ing the injunctive retief herein ordered. Picker Internateonal, Inc. v. Blanton, 756 FSupp. 971 (N.D Tcx.1000).
16 The decision to grant or deriy a prellm'giary inganction fios within the sound otscretton of the dnstnct court. OSC Communications Corporaton v. DGI Technolmes, me. 01 F 3d 697 (Sin Cir.1006). Cuch a grant is the exception rather than the suiw Mss.ssonot Power & Light Co. v. UrHed Gas P.oe Lire Co.,760 F.2d 618 (5tn Ctr.1965).
lit.
Injunctive Rollef The Cour1 believes it is the litgants' right to know the Court's ramsonit for achnn it takes Without trdend ng to be harsh or vitriolic, the couri infrequently feels corrpelled to f.
enske observetions regard.cg the tects t>efore it. See, e g, OSC Communiceduns Corp v OGl Tect.) ologies. Ine:. 898 F.Swo.1163,1103 (N.D Tex.1995). This is st r'h a r.ata because the evidence presented at hearing so clearly shows that something is amiss Lt the Department of Energy. The DOE's reasons given in argument for iti punition it erWy do not pass the 'straioht face' test (can this argument be made with a straight face?) It is no wondet that the term *mderstatement' was used when Counsel for DOE was asked if they wero *under o ist of heat on this
- Defense counsel candidly used that term to describe the situaticn. As of r.ow. there is a virtual monopoly in biddin0 or tha off. site f
disposal et UUh fr>w fevel and mixed radioactive waste yet there is at best an app'arent l
j susi...
l kN h! hbhkh
.)
+
- i' fI. ! j{ l C I.' :I s l E 5..'..S Ib $
!!'}$$li}
1EW P:.NDoE.,.oEfiNOALL j 10 3 97 5:32PWI 214767s346 o 8'73227463; s'C/'t 4
lack of interest at DOE.n allomng other irterested parties to compete for the award of such contracts. WCS chart.cterizes the cvntiucts in 4ed and to be issued as Doing one of the argest nondefense ta@ayer evoenditures in il S hintnry, exceeding for exarnple, the cost of the fe6eral savings and !oan ballout?
Se6 Plaint;fra Brief in Support of r'ta rurs f.ppilt ativo For Preliminary injunction, p.2. rn's evaluation may of may not be accurate. The expert indicated that 'we are ta' king Bill Gates type monay
- From the recera 4 is unclear if the Court is dealng with a sin of the heno or a sin of the heart. It rnay be a cabe of geva incunipeterce, or it may be something far Worst.
In any event, it is clear that for some unknown raannn the Defendants have httle interest in allowing WCS Io compete in the current bidding process in acccedence with the foregoing thfign of fed amid ounclusions of law, the court f
firds that the Plaintiff is entitled, until further order of the Court and pendin0 urthar haaring of this cause, to a preliminary injunction against the Defendants as set forth below.
Aeoordingly, it is OrIDErtED, ADJUDOCD and DCCREED that during the peinjelmy of these proceedings the Defendants. the r respective agents, amployees, and attorneys.
as well at all persons in active concert or participaten with the Defendants who receive octual notice of this Order and its contents by personal myiew ut ollwrwiw, be, and they are hereby, ENJOINED from conving any WCS t>d or contrar t for DOE low level or mixed radioactive weste disposal services on the ground (s) thet: (l) WCS is not or cannot be licencod by Tease foi the disposal of Movel radiodictiv6 un sotawd wanttis, (ii) WCS is not licensed by the NRC for the disposal of law.lewl radroactive or mhrad wastes; or (iii) WCS taasa.em 'e
- '.!- H ' Fi: L:7N
- PmH6
r l.....,.::.... s.u..
??> a.
...4 J,
- - t '.. :
'St9? sv:.L30t c4 at90Au ;
'0 3.s7 $:33PW; 214 M 1134s o.
si?32274631 so nt g
s has imposed or sought to alter the provisioes of the Fernald RFP relattve to tit's to the welva sub)rvt tlwittu lt is further ORDERED. ADJUDGED and DECREFD that the forsonino provisions of this injuncton shall not cause orpstify the reissuanc4 of any currently outstanding RFP and the Deferdants, their respective agents, employees, and attorneys, as well as all persons in nefive rnnrert or participation with she Defendants who receive actuel notice of this order and its contents by personal seNice or otherwise be, and they are hereby, ENJ0lNED ficm any suchIwissuanw.
It is further ORDERED that Pieritiff shell pot,t an in; unction bond in cash or by a corporate surely qualrfying under the l.ocal Rules of the court, in the sum of $10,000 00.
rur puyment of such costs and damages as may be incuriec Oy the Defendanta in the event that the Dnferrients hAva been wrnngfutty egoinot Such bond shall be filed with the a
Clerk of the Court, it is furtner ORDERCD, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a copy ofinis onJer 61wil be served soon the Defendards by servra tipon da attorneys in this proceeding, or any of t
nem by any person. ov6r the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action, actity urMor the supervisen of PlaleMs oi wicyv Such se<vice is hereby deemed to be good and wfficient nervice The Defendants and their counsel are ORDERED to make all parties who could be effected by this Order swers of its existence and its contents, matt 'en l
- - H ' ??: MB ill
',rs?S345
?I
- : ij..
- v.. : :..
- 4 c
s
.i a.
4 j
zee ey; sdos.ot.,st90Au.
- 10 3 97 5 op e; ass 7e7es4e =>
01732274$3; strita The pret;minary ing% ton berein ordered shall not become efioctive until the bond hereti above f equired has t>een ti ed and approved by the Court Plaintiff ma/ post a cash t
deposit in lieu of a cond and later move to replace suem cash depostt mth a bond.
J signoo this _L osy of octooer,1997.
4kJd.f JOE KENDALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE osas.....
l T.I-i f fli 5^.$IM
'. '. '.'3 7 i h 6 3. '. '
........