|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20127L9321993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Re Architzel Re Thermo-Lag Installation at Testing for Unit 2.* Statement of Prof Qualifications Encl ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric ML20127L9181993-01-26026 January 1993 NRC Staff Reply to Cfur Request for Publication of Proposed Action Re Licensing of Unit 2.* Cfur Request That Notice Re Licensing of Unit 2 Be Published Permitting Parties to Request Hearings Should Be Denied ML20127L9661993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Rl Pettis Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Statement of Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L8891993-01-21021 January 1993 Order.* License Should File Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Ltr Requesting That Commission Issue Fr Notice Providing for Opportunity for Hearing Re Issuance of OL by 930125.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930122 ML20127G9191993-01-19019 January 1993 Order.* Grants Petitioners Extension of Time Until 930122 to File Brief.Replies to Petitioners Brief Shall Be Filed on or Before 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930119 ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G8041993-01-15015 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Appeal of Licensing Board Decision Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Filed by Bi & Di Orr.* Board 921215 Decision Should Be Upheld.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A5931993-01-0808 January 1993 Brief in Support of Petitioner Notice of Appeal.Aslb Erred by Not Admitting Petitioner Contention & Action Should Be Reversed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6371993-01-0707 January 1993 Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Submitted Due to 921215 Memo Denying Petitioner Motion for Rehearing & Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings.Proceedings Were Terminated by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6131993-01-0707 January 1993 Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* Petitioners Did Not Receive Order in Time to Appeal & Requests 15 Day Extension from Motion Filing Date to Respond.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7911992-12-31031 December 1992 Petitioner Amended Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Petitioners Requests Until C.O.B. on 930108 to File Appeal Brief.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7641992-12-30030 December 1992 Petitioner Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Counsel Requests That Petitioners Be Granted Until 930109 to File Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128C9751992-12-0303 December 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements & Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene by B Orr,D Orr, J Macktal & Hasan.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20128B8721992-11-27027 November 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow, Petitioner.* Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Explained in Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128A0271992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Util Requests That Petitioners 921118 Motion to Compel Be Denied in Entirety.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127P8181992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene.* Petitioners Notification Procedurally Improper & Substantively Improper & Should Be Rejected by Board.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4591992-11-19019 November 1992 TU Electric Opposition to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow.* RM Dow 921110 Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20127M4271992-11-15015 November 1992 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Petitioners Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan Requests That Board Declare Null & Void Any & All Provisions in Settlement Agreements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M3181992-11-10010 November 1992 Motion for Prehearing by RM Dow,Petitioner.* Requests Period of Ten Days to File Supplemental Pleading to Original Petition.Certificate of Svc & Statement Encl ML20106D8881992-10-0808 October 1992 Opposition of Util to Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposbale Workers of Plant & RM Dow.* Request for Extension of Time & to Become Party to Proceeding Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20106D2821992-10-0505 October 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* Petitioner Requests 30-day Extension.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101P5891992-06-30030 June 1992 Response of Texas Utils Electric to Comments of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc. Dispute Strictly Contractual Issue Involving Cap Rock Efforts to Annul Reasonable Notice Provisions of 1990 Power Supply Agreement ML20127K8141992-05-19019 May 1992 Request to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke License Held by Util for Unit 1 & for Cause Would Show Commission That Primary Place of Registration for Organization Is Fort Worth,Tarrant County,Tx ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095C4691992-04-17017 April 1992 TU Electric Answer to Application for Hearings & Oral Argument by M Dow & SL Dow.* Concludes That NRC Should Deny Application for Oral Argument & Hearings on Petition to Intervene & Motion to Reopen.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2561992-04-0606 April 1992 Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* ML20094K4161992-03-16016 March 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Motion & Supplemental Motion to Reopen by M Dow & SL Dow & TU Electric Request for Admonition of Dows.* Concludes That Motion Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091A0461992-03-13013 March 1992 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend License Pending New Hearings on Issue. W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4241992-02-24024 February 1992 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend OL for Unit 1 & CP for Unit 2,pending Reopening & Final Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4431992-02-21021 February 1992 Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* Requests That Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time Be Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3811991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Submits Responses to Motions to Reopen Record ML20086Q3121991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Motion for Leave to File Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Recognize J Ellis as Case Representative for Filing & Pleading Purposes.W/Limited Notice of Appearance ML20091G2511991-12-0202 December 1991 Licensee Answer to Motion to Reopen Record by M Dow & SL Dow.* Requests That Petitioners Motion Be Denied for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance ML20086G7381991-11-22022 November 1991 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That Licensing Board Reopen Record & Grant Leave to File Motion to Intervene. W/Certificate of Svc ML20006C4811990-02-0101 February 1990 Applicant Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur).* Cfur Failed to Satisfy Burden to Demonstrate Necessity for Stay & Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20006B1691990-01-27027 January 1990 Second Request for Stay Citizens for Fail Util Regulation.* Requests That NRC Stay Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation of Unit 1 Until 900209.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3601989-10-15015 October 1989 Request for Stay Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Requests That Commission Retain Authority to Order That Fuel Loading & Low Power License Not Be Immediately Effective,Per Util Intent to Request License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246B8671989-08-17017 August 1989 Motion for Reconsideration of NRC Memorandum & Order CLI-89-14.* NRC Should Excuse Itself from Consideration on Matters Re Jj Macktal & Should Refer All Issues on NRC Requested Subpoena to Independent Adjudicatory Body ML20248D6291989-08-0202 August 1989 Jj Macktal Statement Re Motion for Recusation.* Macktal Motion Considered Moot Due to Commission No Longer Having Jurisdiction to Consider Motion Since Macktal Not Party to Proceeding Before Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q3851989-07-26026 July 1989 Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record.* Withdraws 890714 Motion to Reopen Record.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J7331989-07-26026 July 1989 Request of Cap Rock for Reevaluation of Director'S Determination That No Significant Changes in Licensee Activity Warrant Antitrust Review at OL Stage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247B5901989-07-19019 July 1989 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests Board to Reopen Record & Grant Leave to Renew Earlier Motion for Intervention Status. W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc ML20248D5731989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor ML20248D5541989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Recusation.* Requests That NRC Recuse from Deciding on Macktal Cases on Basis That NRC Will Not Be Fair & Impartial Tribunal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J9411989-06-30030 June 1989 Response of Texas Utils Electric Co to Request of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc,For Order Enforcing & Modifying Antitrust License Conditions ML20248D4891989-06-13013 June 1989 Motion for Protective Order.* Requests That Jj Macktal Deposition Be Taken at Stated Address in Washington,Dc & That Testimony Remain Confidential.W/Certificate of Svc ML20011E8571989-02-10010 February 1989 Reply of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc to Comments of Texas Utils Electric Co.* Texas Utils Response Considered Irrelevant,Mainly Incorrect or Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155A8251988-10-0303 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation First Suppl to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Petition & Requests for Hearings Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154Q2021988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Reply to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6181988-07-12012 July 1988 Motion for Petitioners to Appear Pro Se.* Petitioners Request to Appear Before Board at 880713 Hearing in Order to Present Arguments in Support of Petitioners Motions & for Stay of Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E1831988-07-12012 July 1988 Response of Applicant to Motions to Stay,To Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief Filed by Various Petitioners.* Papers Filed by Petitioners Should Be Rejected & Denied & Dismissal of Proceedings Be Completed.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-03-19
[Table view] |
Text
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
Mtt AMO QRflMNhu,g g BEFORE THE UNITED STATES #
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt 6; J(Jp; g 3 .
BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingAhheabNrdh ry w,
'k
\
In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA E n n- )
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 1) )
l OPPOSITION OF CONSOLLDATED INTERVENORS TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL A. Applicants' Motion Should Be Denied Because It Violates NRC Procedures.
1.
Applicants' Motion Is An Impermissible Request To Stay the Effecti'/eness of the May 2 Order.
On May 2, 1986, following a prehearing conference as reqaired by 10 CFR 32.751a, the Licensing Board (the Board) issued a Special Prehearing Conference Order admitting Petitioners Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and Meddie Gregory as intervenors (Consolidated Intervenors), granted a nearing on a part of their contentions, and directed them to file a discovery plan, to which other parties were permitted to respond as if it were a motion. At this point, any party could open discovery, since the requirements of y2.740 had been met.
Applicants argue that the call for a discovery plan in the May 2 Order infers that Intervenors were deprived of the rights conferred by 52.740. This argument cannot be accepted. Surely an unstated inference cannot deprive a party of a right conferred by a regulation. The purpose of the schedule was to set an 8606270171 860619 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR
$db .
1 1
1 I ending date for discovery.
On May 12, 1986, the Applicants appealed the May 2 order.
If they wanted to request a stay of discovery or any other aspect of the implementation of the May 2 order, 92.788 gave them the option of doing so at that point, but set a time limit of ten days after service of the May 2 order. The Applicants did not request a stay within the required time.
- 2. Applicants Failed to Pursue Available Alternative Procedures to Postpone Discovery.
On May 15, 1986, the Intervenors filed a Proposed Discovery Plan to which they attached a set of Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. At this point, the Applicants had another chance to obtain relief under the rules.
Under 10 CFR 92.740(c), they could have moved for a protective order if they felt that the Intervenors' requests for discovery, or the deadline of 30 days were unduly burdensome or oppressive.
Again the Applicants failed to use the procedure available to them.
Instead, on May 27, 1986, they included in their Response
+o Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan a statement that they did not intend to respond to the Intervenors' discovery requests .
< until the Board established a specific timetable requiring them to do so. Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan at 4, fn 4. As their justification for refusing to respond, they said that discovery should not begin until their 1
Although the schedule adopted,by the Licensing Board in its June 6 Order indicates that discovery commences on June 6 (language suggested by the Staff), it clearly accepted the ,
l premise that the right to start discovery had begun with the May 2 order, since it enforced the deadline for responding to the May 1S discovery.
1 i
i appeal of May 12 had "run its course." They suggested that 4
discovery before this point would be " unduly burdensome and 4
potentially wasteful." Id. at 5. While the Applicants had every right to request a protective order to relieve them of unduly burdensome discovery, they did not have a right to make a unilateral decision not to respond.
In response to Applicants' statement that they did not intend to comply with the discovery requests, the Intervenors filed a Motion to Compel on June 2, 1986. On June 6, 1986, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order adopting a modified version of Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan and including a schedule j
requiring the Applicants to answer the Intervenors' previously 4
filed discovery by June 16. The Board noted that Applicants had not filed a stay request and rejected Applicants' unilateral decision to halt discovery.
1 To the extent Applicants' stay request is focussed on the May 15 discovery and their view that they only had 10 days to 4
respond, it is now moot since they did respond (albeit inadequately) to the discovery request on the date due. Response of TUEC, et al., to Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Filed by Meddie Gregory Under Date of May 15, 1986, and Motion
! for Protective Order.
3.
Alternatively, Applicants' Motion Is Procedurally Flawed If It Is a Request to Stry the June 6 Order.
If Applicants' motion is not viewed as an inappropriate
- attempt to stay the May 2 Order, then it is an impermissible motion'for a stay of the Board's order of June 6. The Appeal l
i 1
_ _ _ . _ . . __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . . _ . _ , . . _ . __ _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ - _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - .~.- _ _ . . . . _ _ , ,
Board has stated that "Laas we read the applicaole Rule of Practice (10 CFR 2.788), the right to seek stay relief is conferred only upon those who have filed (or intend to file) a timely appeal from the decision ot; order sought to be stayed."
Portland General Electric Co. et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-524, 9 NRC 65, 68 (1979) (emphasis added). Applicants have not filed an appeal of the June 6 Order. In fact, the June 6 order cannot be appealed, because it is not a final order. 10 CFR 92.730(f) states that no interlocutory appeal may be taken from a ruling of the presiding officer unless the presiding officer decides to refer it, which the Board in this case did not 2
do and was not asked to do.
It.is well established that, except under unusual circumstances, none of which are present here, discovery orders are interlocutory and will not be reviewed before the end of a case. Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-634, 13 NRC 96, 98 (1981); houston Lighting and Power Co. eti al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-639, 13 NRC 469, 472 (1981).
Thus the pending motion cannot be a legally permissible motion to stay the effectiveness of the June 6 order since Applicants neither filed nor could have filed an appeal from that 2
In his order of June 6, Judge Bloch stated that only a stay granted by the Appeal Board would attenuate the Applicants' obligation to respond to discovery by June 16. This statement cannot be taken as a referral of the order to the Appeal Board for review. But even when licensing coards have made such referrals, the Appeal Board has generally refused to review discovery orders such as this one. See, e.g., Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-634, 13 NRC 96, 98 i
(1981).
~4-
3 order, and thus they cannot seek a stay of that order.
B. The Applicants' Request Does Not Meet the Requirements for a Stay.
Section 2.788(f) lists the four factors the Board should consider in determining whether to grant or deny an application for a stay pending appeal. As the Applicants point out, a most significant factor is the presence or absence of irreparable injury to the party requesting a stay. Applicants' Motion for Stay of Discovery at 5. A stay will very seldom be granted unless irreparable injury can be shown, and the burden of demonstrating irreparable injury rests with the moving party.
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 797 (1981). The Applicants also concede that " mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of the I
stay, are not enough" to show irreparable injury. Applicants' Motion at 5, citing Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621, 628 (1977). The Applicants admit in addition that they will not suffer any type 3
This does not mean that discovery may never be stayed. Had j
Applicants filed a valid request for a protective order, then,
' following the denial of that request, they could have sought a stay of the effectiveness of the denial from the licensing board, sought to have the issue referred , and if necessary sought directed certification. If the stay were denied, they could seek a stay from this Board pending resolution of the directed certification question. These are not mere procedural niceties.
If followed, they would have assured a full airing of the issues and an opinion on them by the licensing board before the issue reached this Board. This is an Appeal Board. Applicants are treating it as though it were established to hear issues in the first instance. That is a serious perversion of the regulations.
_3_
_ _ _. _ . _ . . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ ._
of injuries other than the expenditure of money, time, and energy. Applicants Motion at 5. In other words, they concede that they have not suffered irreparable injury. Moreover, one aspect of the injury they claim, namely the need to answer interrogatories within ten days, was caused by their own refusal l
to comply with the discovery request when it was made, at which 4
time they had 30 days to respond.
Applicants argue that the " rigors of continuing with litigation" are the only injuries that could result from refusing to stay a decision pending a 92.714a appeal, and thus, unless there are adequate irreparable injuries, no stay of discovery can l
ever be obtained when a 92.714a appeal is filed. Applicants' Motion at 5-6. This is true of all efforts to appeal or stay '
discovery, which is why this Board has been particularly reluctant to even review, much less stay, discovery orders. See
- p. 4, supra.
Moreover, if this argument has any validity, it can only be in circumstances where the burden of continuing litigation is truly extraordina r. Such is not the case here, and Applicants do not allege t the contrary.
When irreparable injury is lacking, "the movant must make an 1
' overwhelming' showing that he will succeed on the meritu of the i
appeal." Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear i
Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), LBP-81-30, 14 NRC 357 (1981).
i j 4 Applicants emphasize the burdensome nature of this deadline as an additional reason for granting relief. As discussed above, the appropriate response on their part would have been to file for a protective order, not a 52.788 stay, or seek an extension of time to respond.
l l _ _ . . - -- - -
The Appeal Board now has the briefs and oral arguments of the porties, which constitute the best evidence that the Licensing Board was correct in its decision to admit the Intervenors.
Tne remaining factors specified in 92.788(e) will not determine a case such as this one, where irreparable injury is lacking, but they should also be considered. The third factor is
, whether granting the stay will harm other parties. The App,licants argue that " mere deferment of discovery" will not harm the Intervenors, unless they are forced to proceed to litigation without discovery. Applicants' Motion at 6. But as the Licensing Board pointed out in its Memorandum of June 6,
"[u]nless expedition occurs in this case, the case may become moot." Thus, if the Applicants can delay long enough, the Intervenors will never get their chance to be heard.
Another kind of harm to the Intervenors is also possible.
The longer the Applicants continue construction in an illegal and unsafe manner, the more deficiencies in construction are likely to result and to be covered up. Therefore, it is important that the case be heard as soon as possible. An operating license proceeding is not a substitute for a plant being properly built in the first instance. See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Zimmer),
CL1-82-33, 16 NRC 1489, 1496 (1982).
Because delay will result in continued unsafe construction, the public interest (the fourth factor to be considered) requires that the stay be denied. The public interest would also be jeopardized by setting a precedent allowing parties to delay discovery (either taking it or answering it) whenever an appeal is pending. In such cases, the parties appealing can always
argue that discovery is unnecessary and burdensome, as Applicants have done here. Indeed, Applicants advance the theory that discovery should, in fact, be delayed whenever a 52.714a appeal is pending. Applicants' Motion at 8.
It is worth pointing out that, if licensing proceedings were delayed whenever either side took a }2.714a appeal, they would l come to a halt whenever intervenors appealed the denial of their contentions. It seems unlikely that Applicants or the Board would want to encourage such a policy. While it would operate to the advantage of a party who stood to gain by delay, it would' j
i clearly be contrary to the public interest in quick and efficient j resolution of disputes. .
The Commission has stated that "there is a substantial i public interest in efficient and expeditious administrative proceedings." Duke Power Co. et al. (Catawba Nuclear Statin, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1048 (1983).
The Commission emphasized this interest in its Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-31-8, 13 NRC 452, 4S3 (1981).
4 Delay would be particularly unjust in any case where, as here, there was a danger that the case might become moot if delayed long enough.
In Consumers Power Co., supra, the Board considered whether to grant an emergency stay of a proceeding challenging the reauthorization of a construction permit pending appeal of the decision that had initiated the proceeding. Tne Board noted that the main iscue before it was whether the project could survive a i
i proper NEPA cost-benefit analysis, and that delay would result in the applicants committing more resources to the project, thus tilting the balance in their favor. The Board held that this would not only harm the interests of the intervenors, it would also go against the public interest because "there is a public -
as well as a private - interest in the fairness of the decision making process." Id. at 779-780. Here continued use of the unjustifiable construction permit extension is the direct result of staying discovery pending appeal and thus postponing resolution of this proceeding.
Thus, consideration of the public interest, as well as all the other factors listed in 32.788(e), shows that the stay should not be granted.
CONCLUSION For all the reasons discussed above, the Applicants' Motion for stay of Discovery should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, l
ANTHONY Z.(y p k 8f
/
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, #611
- Wa;'ington, D.C. 20036 l (20; 463-8600 i
Counsel for Meddie Gregory
_3_
~
bl gLNITA ELLIS /
1426 S. Polk 4
Dallas, TX 75224 (214) 946-9446 Representative for CASE l Law Student:
Ann Ifunter
- Antioch School of Law 4
d I
I I
1
9 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing h
tal Board
.- N s.'
7 SS~~~y }v In the Matter of ) 6' ;Qfygg ,
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dita Nos .'7 50-345-CPA' et al. ) 9 jMe? : 5' C
) ', .
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) 't /
Station, Unit 1 ) l3'T'I >
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Opposition of Consolidated Intervenors to Applicants' Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Appeal were served today, June 19, 1986, by first class mail, or by hand where indicated by an asterisk, upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.*
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing & Service Section l
Office of the' Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l
l l
Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.*
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2U555
~
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.*
c/o Ropes & Gray 1001 22nd St., NW, #700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 4
. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Lammission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas S. Moore, Esq.*
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ANTHONY G @ SMAN /
._ . -. . . . . _ ._. .