|
---|
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
{{#Wiki_filter:-
..-x... .s .v... ,.p.cw. .
. . . . . .. .
. .g .1,p.,.mmp; .p, .
.
;O . . - - -
i #
, s r I r ec
- p, -
/q
, ,,
,$
,
'
.:
^
11/20/80.- S'OP a
, C?.. ISQ ,, 5
,
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' ) kl[['f$ 'g' " /-3
; NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION q E .'.,, C;;,-
In the Matter of l
. l .
APPLIO.*TIcN OF TEXAS UTILI"'IES l n GENERATING CCMPANY, EI' AL. FCR AN l DocketNcs.50kh$
OPERATING LICEISE FCR CCMANCHE l and 50 hh63 PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l , ; _,
-
UNITS #1 AND E2 (CPSES) } .-
'
. [ .
*
- . .:,
==
MCTION TO GRANT CASE ,, ,, j SEPARATE INTERVENOR STA"'US "
,
CCMES NOW CASE (Citi:. ens Association for Scund Energy), Intervenor herein, and moves this Board to grant CASE separate Intervener status rather than cctn-bining CASE vith other Interveccrs in any or all of the contentions raised in
.
.
' ~
these hearings.
Cn Nove=ber 7, 1980, CASE received the Board's October 31, 1980 Announce-sent of Plans for Consolidation of Parties, wherein the Scard advised of its plans to consolidsf.e the intervening parties (ACORN, CASE and CRUR), */arsuant to 10 CFR 2 715a so that for each accepted contention, 'one intervenor vill
'
represent 'itself and the other two intervencre throughcut the proceedin6
- CASE'most strenuously objects to such consolidation. '10 CFR 2 715a states:
" . . .the- presiding officer may order any parties. . .in a pr eeding , i for the issuance of. . .an operating license . . .who have substantially l the sa.m interest that may be affected by the proceeding and who '
raise substantially the same questions, to censolidata their pre-sentation of evidence, cross-exacination, briefa, proposed findings j of fact, s,nd conclusions of law and argument. However, it may not order any consolidation that vculd prejudice the rights' of any 3rty."
(E=phasis added.)
~
,
. 95*O
, 8011280
, ..
og G . .. S # {
.
- ,
__ - _ _
3 Mq-
q@5(%@[h(k . . g %.,
. -
, :dt y@J'" M :kiLWiMTTi
-
'
.
' -
McLf;;h.;*W '
u?- -.,1
.
*
..ga
,
i?
a CASE vould show that the proposed consolidation of CASE with either or both of the other'two Intervenors in these proceedicgs would violate the pro-visions of 10 CFR 2 715a in that such conselidation would prejudice the righte
,
of Intervenor.
a CASE. Such consclidation would place an unfair, unvarn n.ed, and unnecessary burden-oncIntervenor CASE for the follcuing reasons: '
L Such consolidation vould fore, CASE unwillingly and unnecessarily to be represented by an individual who is not and cannot,be thoroughly familiar
.
with CA5E's concerns, e: phases, and apprcaches to issues. Such an individual vould therefere necessarily be unable to adequately follev through in cross-examination of Applicant's vitnesses er the vitnesses of the other Intervenor (if CASE vere joined with cnly one of the e%her Inte-venors) as well as could CASE's own representative. Since cross-exanicatica questions can raise 'other
.
questions which need to be explored and pursued, there is no way the designated representative of the ce=bined Intervenors could be adequately briefed and pre-pared in advance to assure that suen representative could fully explore and
.
pursue questions which CASE's evn representative vculd.
Further, in order for the designated spokesperson of the consolidated parties to be made fully aware of CASE's concerns, e= phases, and approaches to issues, CASE vould have to spend an inordinate a=ount of time and effort.
This extra expenditure of ti=e and effort is totally unnecessary, since the CASE representative is already thoroughly fa=iliar with such CASE concerns, e= phases, and approaches to issues; therefore, no, a= cunt of time and effort
_
2-
_
- ----- _- ; :m .
y a e C-1a* sis.d. t>}
., .c.ryite w+ W jj n
.i.40 %
CEMC '
e- be -a .- s- -W" ~
'
- a. ~
. 4r -
y would be required in this regard if the CASE representative is not forced to con-solidate with other Intervencrr,.
CASE sub.dts that such consolidatica, for the reasons above, would be con-
.
trary to.10 CFR 2 7L3, which states:
Every party to a proceeding shall have the right to. . . conduct'such cross-examination' as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts."
2_., Such consolidation would necessitate long-distance telup'cne a calls to other Intervenorsj with resultic6 extra cost to Intervenor CASE, thus placing an unanticipated additienal financial burden on CASE.
L Cach consolidatien would require trips of 3C miles (CASE /CFUR) er 60 miles (CASE / ACORN) roundtrip for each meeting of the censolidated parties. Sis in turn vould require unnecessary driving time . unproductive to preparation of Intervenor's case; it should be e=phasi:ed that this vculd not just add extra time to CASE's requirements for participating in these proceedings, but that it would actually be deducted from the already li=1ted time ve have available.
Such trips vould also
- urn extra ameunts of gasoline vnich would add extra cost, be contrary to the country's c:a1 for energy conservation, an.1 force CLSE un-villingly and unnecessarily to violate its avoved cc:=itment to energy conserva-tien, in addition to placind another unanticipated financial burden on CASE's limited rescurces.
l h_, ., Such consolidation veuld place an unfair additional burden on the party '
selected to represent the two er three combined Intervenors. It vculd require extra time and effort en the pcrt of the designated representative to familiari:,e l
-
3-
. . . _ . .
~ .
,
i r
^ 2- $$ W
?
..
f r
>
,
l ninself (or herself) with the concerns, perspectives and priorities of the other Intervenors he or she vould be representing. Since each of the three citizen Intervenor groups already have heavy burdens as Intervenors in regard to their own contentions, it vould be unfair to tne designated representative (whoever that representative mi.ght be) to impose ay additional burden upon him or her without there clearly being outweighir.g clear-cut benefits and reasons for .
doing so. CASE =aintains that such benefits and reasons do not exist.
L CASE has taken certain positions and certain approaches which the other No other Intervenor or its representative could Intervenors have not taken.
better artictilate and define such positions and approaches than CASE's own representative. There is no guarantee that another party's representative
.
vould adequately represent CASE's interests in these.proceedin$s.
_t5 . Since CASE is the only party not represented by counsel, the forced consolidation with other Intervenors vould be discriminatory and prejudicial, in effect if not in intent. It is unrealistic to assu=e that there is even the remote possibility that the attorneys for CTm and ACCRN vould consider
.
havind CASE's representative act ns the desige.ated spokesperson for the two or three Intervenors. Indeed, there is a question in CASE's mind whether or not it is even fair to ask them to do so. Conversely, we do not believe it is fair to ask CASE to relinquish any portion of its rights as an Intervenor because the CASE representative is not an attorney; to do so would be discriminatory I
l and prejudicial and contrary to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.715a. 1
\
j L Such consolidation produces no recognizable benefits and any such 4-
- _
_ _ - - 'i
TsNS,QNg @ f'
.:rr59.h . frXis
^
!bWW
*-e.ivas .ce' :
- '
~ .n-d!!'4A' '
Igr $
T' alleged benefits are far. outweighed by the ecsta discussed herein. CASE sees no benefits of such consolidation of Intervencrs. Should t:e Board be concerned that allowing CASE to be a separate and independent Intervance in these proceed-ings (rather than being censolidated with other Intervencrs) would result in
.
unnecessary delays or an unnecessarily large record, there are already rules in place vhieb would take care of suchcproblems. Thus, CASE's bein6 alleved to operate as a separate Intervenor would not prolong er delay the proceedin6s in any way.
- 8. CASE's being alleved to operate as a separate Intervencr will work to achieve a better record in these proceedings. If we are fcreed to censolidate with other Intervenors, we are convinced that the additional burdens of such censolidatica as cutlined in this pleading vill necessarily lessen the parti-1 I
cipation of this Intervenor, that a few questions nay ge unashed and answered en cross-exacinaticq, that sace facets of sc=e issues will not be raised, that l
Applicants will be relieved cf some of their rightfal burden in these proceedings.
l Conversely, CASE's being a separate Intervenor will help guarantee that such
.
questicas are a shed and answered, that such issues are raised, and that there-fore a better record will be achieved in these hearings.
2 Such consolidation vould force CASE unwillingly and unnecessarily into a position of having to coordinate closely with other individuals, thereby add-ing to the already heavy burdens of limitation of funds, personnel, and deadlines the additional burden of having to interface with other Intervenors with different perspectives, concerns and pricrities frca CASE. Also, it always takes longer for decisiens to be =ade by a group of people than by a single individual.
% - .m ,
.'r v ;~ ygi:.3 y p._, .
*p .NtA y; .rem.?.- . A . y ' y-t, .ws,.
.
' '-
'pr 4 ;=.;&
*:t'. . h.,:g;;
r .
. ?
.
Such consolidation vould place an unnecessary and inequitable burden en CASE because it veuld force us to work within time frs=es not of our choosing, which vill burden us further. The CASE = embers who are vorking en the intervention all work part-time or full-ti=e and =ust work on these proceedings primily at cdd hours, at night, or on week-ends. Consolidation would impose an additional burcen because it would necessitate trying to find a time when the t vo or three consolidated Intervenors can =eet; this in turn vill i= pose a heavy peraccal burde= On such CASE =e=bers because it vill at ti=es interfere with times set aside fer norcal family life. In =any instances, while a CASE = ember =ay be able to vork at hc=e en the intervention, it vill be difficult if not ir:possible to extend such verk to outside meetings, which will in turn place an even heavier burden on these CASE me=bers who are left to carry the lead, and especially on CASE's primary representative.
'a'hile we realize that CASE and its =e=bers =ust expect sc=e sacrifices and burdens in participatind in these proceedings, the censolidation with other In-tervenors places a ec=pletely untecessary additional burden, with no recognizable benefits, on this citicen Intervenor group.
- 10. CASE does not wish to get into personalities in these proceedings, but the fact is that with a public interest, totally volunteer, non-profit group such as CASE, people are the backbcne of our crganir,ation. "'he consolidation of CASE vith other Intervencrs vculd place e heavy and inequitable burden on i l
,
the vriter, as CASE's primar/ representative, not ec==cn to other Intervencrs.
1 1
l 1
l
,
y,,.=. .
*
.
/
The writer does not expect or ask for preferential treatment because of her sex.
However, the fact remains that I p, a vccan, and as such, I consider the trips alone at night 30 or 60 miles round-trip to each meeting with other Intervenors '
"
which would be necessitated by consolidation to be ill advised and perhaps dangerous.
To force CASI's primary representative to make such trips vould unnecessarily and prejudicially subject tne writer to possible bodily harn and mental anguish, in a manner not : =.cn te other Intervenors.
- 11. Not only is there to guarantee that another party's representative would adequately r?present CASE's interests in those proceedings, as pointed out in item 5 preceding, but there is the additional possibility and protability that the designated spokesperson vill, given hu=an nature, favor the views, perspectives, concerns and priorities of his partic :lar organir.ation to the detriment of this Intervenor.
- 12. Such consolidation vould increase the a=ount of time required for the preparation of this Intervenor's case, since the li=ited amount of time avail-able to CASE is already being used to the fullest possible extent. The extra
#
unnecessary burdens of expense, time, and travel necessitated by consolidation would necessarily take away from the time we have available for preparation of our case.
& Such consolidation would impose a restriction of supplying only one copy of pleadings, response to interrogatories, copies of documents supplied in response to interrogatories, etc., which would impose an additional unnecessary burden because of extra time and costs involved for copying, = ailing, and/or driving inordertoprovidecopiestoeachoftheconsolidatedpartiesshouldthisbe
.l e% . . _ _ 11
.-
nocesseg for each party 1to be able to actively and fully participate in these proceedings.
ik.
Such consolidation vculd preclude Intervencr CASE frce cross-examining other consolidated parties' witnesses, even though there were good and valid reasons for such cross-examination. This sight preclude CASE from h'aving all its concerns addressed. Conso]idatica.cculd preclude CASE frc= being able to speak en its evn behalf should the designated spokesperson for the consolidated intervenors be unavailable for reascns which were no fault of CASE's.
- 15. Such ecasolidation could nake the job of this Intervenor =cre difficult because of the quality of empies of dccuments, if the designated spokesperson has possescicn of the copies supplied by Applicants in response to interrogatories and requests for docu=ents, since CASE vetid then have to =ake copies of copies with attendant pocrer copy quality.
lo.
Such censolidation veuld unnecessarily increase the already heavy financial burden of interventica ia these proceedings. The costs of the items previcusly listed nay seem relatively r.L11 to the reader, but to an Intervenor
.
group such as CASE, with already li.mited funds, tney add up to an-extra burden which we believe is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. As you are vell aware, the Nuclear Regulatory Cer=ission has no funding fer Intervencrs, although l such "unding is ccr onplace in other gcvernment agencies. It is unfair for this 3 card to place any unnecessary additional financial burden 0: this Intervenor in these proceedings, including ecn;clidation vit: Other Interveners. To the
(
!
contrary, we urge that this 30ard use this oppertunity to assist CASE in -Ak'ng an effective contribution to creating a better record in tnese proceed.ings.
-
1 e
..
y . ~1I
_ _ . _ .
I
1 m>.wl:re 1 lKHs#Ki(
h;-W ~
.% nw - l
. .y
'
7:
t-As peinted cut in the Regovin Report:
" . . .intervenors have made an important
--semeti=es as a catalyst impact on safety in sc=e instances in the prehearing stage of proceedings, setetimes by a on forcing more thorougn review of an issue or ic. proved review procedures reluctant agency.
- v. ore impor* ant, tne prc=ction of effective citizen participation demanded is apublic."
by the necessary goal of the regulatory system, appropriately
"
(2:phasis in tre original.)
-- Three Mile Island -- A Report to the ~
Commissicners and to the Public," Mitchell Regovin, Directcr, Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission Special Inquiry Orcup
(:."JREG/CR-125C, Vci.1, page 139) 17.
The reasons against consclidatica as set forth in the preceding items are not mere speculation of what can happen; to the centrary, they are based in =any instances on v'aat i.as happened to CA3E in the past as an Intervencr in Dallas Pcver 3e Light rate hearings. CASE kncvs very well the myriad of problems which can acec=pany forced consolidatica cf Intervencrs, Lased en past exp_-ience.
We vculd advise the Scard that ACORN, CFUR and CASE have been in cr.stence within 30 =11es c',' each otner and in the same city (in the instance of CASE and ACCRN) for several yeara; CASE also has nicsbers in Fort Worth and the Dallas /
Fort Worth =etroplex area. iful our inte ests, perspectives, riorities and goals been the same, we vculd haw already teen ecusollcat".d in',c cne group. We are not.
CASE sub=1ts that to fcree as to assume auch censolidated status in these hearings is unnecessary, unfair, and extremely burdenseme.
Further, we veuld advise the Beard tnat CASE has sought and received separate intervencr status in all Dallas Power & Light rate hearings since 197o, that the attorney for DPLL (which is one of the Applicants in tnis preceeding) has not objected to such separate Interver.or status for CA5E even tecugh ACCRN has been an Intervenor in such preceedings and even thcugn OPi'. has atta=pted to have :
. _ _ __ ..
551. f; x.*..,.- ~~-- , . ?,4 %
' i
*W N E W
. , :-,
..
.
.
ACCR'i joined with other.inte; .aers, and that DPLL has acknow caged that CASE does indeed have different perspectives, approaches and constituents frco ACCRN.
(Since CASE and CFUR az. In different cities, there has never been an occasion 1
when we have been involved in tne same rate case.) l CASE has outlined numerous specific reascas for our not being consolidated
~
'
with other Intervenors in these proceedings, ve have steted specific reasona vny our not being consolidated would be beneficial, and we perceive no real benefits of such consolidation with its attenJant unnecessary burdens for this Intervencr. l WHEREFCRE, FREMISES CCNSIDidED, CASE =cves that this Board grant cur Motion '
that CASE not be consolidated with cther Intervencr(s) in these proceedings and that CASE be acecrded separate Intervencr status in all aspects of these prceeedirgs.
Respectfully submitted, a x_ % f5J (6 d.) Juarita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Pelk Dallas, Texas 75224 21h/9k6-9hh6 f
ll/2C/80 .
l
- 1C -
_-
--_
Tj95Wppjg,i Ag -"
.s Q.'36 sten keW g
.
.
M 01Q: -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o4',
y , _ . .
5
'
~%
,
(L BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I.ICENSING BOARD j;q ,
.' C .7 -
y ,,, I 2 4 tr:;.t
-
In the Matter of I --
-
e...,,,
I t 's ".
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445'- /
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL FOR AN I and 50-446 . '-J/. /,M OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 <&
I UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) I
'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Sy :ty signature below, I certify that ecpies of " CASE's Motion to krant CASE Separate Intervenor Status" and "0catingent Motion to Appoint CASE as Lead Party for Consolidated Contenticas" has been sent this 20th day of November, 1980, to all parties on the service list belev by deposit in the U. S. Mail,' '
First Class Mail:
Valentine 3. Deale, Esq. , Chairman David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . Assis tant Attorney General 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washing ton,. D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Familton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive ;
State Co'.lege, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman App eal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Fuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Wa shing ton , D. C. 20555 Marj orie Rothschild Docketing an'd Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch C. McColl, III, Esq.
West Texas Legal Services 701 ccanerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallae. TX 75202 Fort'. Worth,
'.
Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue
-
A /2,./s Dallas,~R 1Mrs.) Juan:Lca Ettis, Presicent 75219 CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR -
SOUND ENERGY)}}