|
---|
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:- _ - _ _ - _ _ - . - _ . _ _ . ___. _ _.
$b ] '
y i 2 v
% 3 . i 4 ,
5 POCKETED G. ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ;
NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSIO5F FF R - t 1990 2 arrane enre comanssion 1 DOCVETING & )*
l M towiCE BRANCH oy 6.9 SNM NHo In t'ne Matter of ) Docket Nos. 0-4
) - L ;
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )
L (Application for an COMPANY, et al. )
?
) Operating License)
;
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) and Station, Units 1 and 2) )
). Docket No. 50-445 CPA #
i -)
, ) (Construction Permit
- ) Amendment)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO REQUEST POR STAY BY CITIZEMS FOR FAIR {ITILITY REGULATION Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR") has, for the 1 second time in recent months, requested that the-Nuclear
- Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") stay the issuance
) of a low-power operating license ("OL") for the Comanche Peak l
l Steam Electric Station ("CPSES"), Unit 1. The Commission's prior decision denying CFUR's first stay request found that such relief I would be found, if at all, before the United States Court of i Appeals. CFUR has made no attempt to show why the Commission Furthermore, should not adhere to this well-reasoned decision.
even if CFUR's request for a stay was properly before the.
Commission, it should be denied. CFUR's request is patently deficient, since it does not even attempt to satisfy the
Commission's long-standing regulations governing the issuance of a stay (aan 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e) (1989)) and as CFUR was not a party before the Commission, it has no standing to seek such a 1
9002080096 900201 nA PDR G
ADOCK 0500044S PDR
}[] ;
d l, >
N y
.!a b
# -2'- 1 l stay. The stated basis for CFUR's request is that CFUR would like to have time to review a Staff report on CFUR's concerns and to incorporate the results of that review in a stay request to .]
the Court of Appeals. CFUR's request thus relies-upon the hope I l
! that the Staff review of CPUR's concerns will somehow create i justification for a stay. However, CFUR has an affirmative burden to justify a stay and CFUR's hopes and conjecture about what the Staff's analyses may produce fall far short of that burden. Consequently, Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric" or " Applicants") respectfully requests that the ,
Commission deny CFUR's request for a stay.
Background
CFUR's extremely late-filed (nineLyears out-of-time,-six years after CFUR voluntarily withdrew from.the CPSES OL ,
proceedings, and one month after the Atomic Safety and' Licensing l Board ("ASLB") dismissed those proceedings) petition to intervene and request for a hearing was denied by the Commission in a.
December 21, 1988 Memorandum and Order. CLI-88-12,.28 NRC 605 (1988), modified, CLI-89-06, 29 NRC 348 (1989).
The Commission rejected CFUR's claim that. reliance on the sole intervenor in the proceedings - Citizens Association for Sound Energy-(" CASE") - to continue litigating and CASE's agreement with TU. Electric to settle those proceedings constituted " good cause" for CFUR's untimely filing. CLI-88-12, 28 NRC at 609-10. The Commission concluded that CFUR failed to make a compelling showing on the remaining factors in the
b;;. &
i (S .
f/ j ;
p q
r Commission's regulations governing late-filed petitions (10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) (1989)) because: (1) CFUR did not demonstrate that it could contribute to the development of a- ,
sound record and (2) CFUR's-intervention after a six year absence ;
from the proceedings would cause inevitable delay while CFUR 5
reacquaints itself with the proceedings and would broaden-thel issues as CFUR was attempting to interject issues which were-beyond the scope of the dismissed-proceedings. Id. at 611-612.
The Commission denied a subsequent motion for limited.
intervention and. reconsideration of CLI-88-12 by a former CPSES ,
worker. CLI-89-06, 29 NRC 348. CFUR sought review of both I
Commission decisions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth circuit. San Petition for Review, CFUR v. NRC (Docket No. 89-4124) (Feb. 16, 1989); Petition for Review, CFUR v. NRC (Docket I
No. 89-4310) (May 1, 1989).
On October 16, 1989, CFUR requested that the Commission stay the issuance of a low-power OL for CPSES-Unit:1 pending the resolution of its petition for review in the Fifth Circuit.
Request For Stay, Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (Oct. 16, 1989) ("First Request"). On October 19, 1989,- the Commission i
summarily. denied CFUR's First-Request for a stay. Order, slip op. (Oct. 19, 1989). In addition, the Commission instructed the >
NRC Staff to " address CFUR's safety concerns prior to issuing the low-power license." Id. at 3. On December 7,.1989, the NRC Staff held a public meeting with CFUR in order to determine the scope of CFUR's concerns and indicated that it would provide a l
l
, -- . . . - _ , . . i. _ , _ . _ ..m.--.
n if !
I report on those issues before it issued a low-power OL for CPSES Unit 1.
On January 27, 1990, CFUR renewed its request before the Commission for a stay. Second Request For. Stay, Citizens For ,
Fair Utility Regulation-(Jan. 27, 1990) ("Second Request"). CFUR implores "the Commission to stay fuel loadingEand low-power l
operation of Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, ... so that CFUR may use the staff report in preparing its request for a stay from the court of appeals, and so the court may benefit from the staff report in deciding on the l request." Id. at 3.
t l
argument I. CFUR Has Made No Attempt To Show.Why The Commission l Should Depart From Its Well Reasoned Prior Decision Denying CFUR's Request-For A Stay And Directing CFUR To The Court Of Appeals In the Commission's October 16, 1989 order, it held that the Commission was not the " appropriate body" to rule on a request for a stay of the effect of its own orders. It stated that:
(t]he Commission's stay procedures are primarily intended for use in staying the effectiveness of orders of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, or.the-Staff pending
- further internal review within the Commission. Here, the Commission itself has issued a final order denying CFUR's petition for late intervention. Thus, the Court of Appeals is.the appropriate. body to determine whether preliminary relief should be granted in a judicial-proceeding to review a Commission order. Therefore, we deny the requested stay pending judicial review of the Commission's order.
Order, slip op., at 2 (Oct. 19, 1989).
M g
jit Y~ !
- .. -s-
'l CFUR has made no attempt to show any reason why the-Commission should depart from this well-reasoned decision. In j the absence of-any such showing CFUR's Second Request must be l t
summarily denied. 'Any relief to which CFUR may be entitled, if at all, must be found before the Court of Appeals.
II. CFUR's Petition Is Patently Deficient And Fails To ;
l Meet-the Long-standing Regulations Governing the.
l Grant Of A Stav ,
The Commission retains an inherent'" discretionary (and) supervisory authority.to stay (the NRC) Staff's actions."
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo' Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
( Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-12, 24 NRC 1, 5'(1986), rev'd'in part on l other grounds, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799.F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986). In staying the actions of the NRC Staff, the Commission has followed the traditional requirements for gebnt of preliminary injunction enumerated in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958), which i
are codified in 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e)-(1989). San Texas utilities .
Electric Co. et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-4, 23 NRC.113, 121-22 (1986),.aff'd, citizens Ass'n for Sound Energv v. NRC, 821 F.2d 725 (D.C..Cir. 1987); 7 Diablo Canyon, CLI-86-12, 24 NRC at 5.
In order to obtain a stay of the NRC Staff's decision to issue an operating license, CFUR has the burden to demonstrates (1) Whether the moving party has made a strong showing l that it is likely to prevail on the merits; l !
)
(2) Whether the party:will be irreparably injured' unless a stay is granted;.
l l'
(3) Whether the grant of the stays would harm other l parties; and (4) Where the public interest lies.
-10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e) (1989). CFUR's request for a stay is patently defective since it fails to! address any;one, much less all, of the standards CFUR.must satisfy to obtain.the extraordinary remedy of a stay, u Consequently, CFUR's request for a stay must be denied.
CFUR's reluctance to address the factors governing a stay would appear to follow from the fundamental weakness of CFUR's case. While none of the four factors that contribute to the-Commission's decision on CFUR's grant of a stay is' determinative,-
two factors have particular importance heres. -(l) whether~the movant will suffer irreparable injury 11n the. absence of the stay; 1/ Moreover, CFUR's request for a stay of the NRC: Staff.
decision to issue a low-power OL is fundamentally flawed.
in another respect. CFUR withdrew from the OL' proceeding.
and its petition to intervene and request a. hearing on the
~
OL for CPSES was denied. CFUR is not-a " party" to the OL proceeding and will not be a " party"'when the NRC Staff decides to issue the operating license. The Commission's rules contemplate that only a party to a proceeding may seek a stay of the Commission's decision and CFUR-lacks standing to seek a stay. 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e) (1989); san-also CLI-89-6, 29 NRC at 354. Thus, CFUR voluntarily relinquished any standing to seek a stay of the NRC Staff's decision to issue an OL when it withdrew from the proceedings. CFUR has no right to seek a stay of the Commission's orders in the OL proceedings, or any NRC
! Staff decision related to that proceeding.
{{,n I
I.
1 j and-(2).whether grant of the stay will result in harm to other parties.
As for the first point, it is well' settled that issuance )
of a license authorizing fuel load and low-power testing would not result in legally cognizable irreparable injury'to CFUR. The risks associated with fuel load and low-power testing are too l
remote to constitute irreparable injury. -
Public Service Comnany of N.H.. et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-8, i i
29 NRC 399, 409-411 (1989); Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C..
l Cir. 1985). As for harm to third parties, it is obvious that a delay in low-power operation will result'in a one-for-one delay-in commercial operation for CPSES. The inevitable result is enormous economic cost to TU Electric and its customers'. -
CFUR's Second Request is patently deficient since it fails to address the Commission's long-standing-standards for a stay.
Furthermore, these came standards would compel the denial of CFUR's request for a stay. Consequently,.the Commission's should summarily deny CFUR's Second Request.
L --
III. CFUR's Concerns Provide No Basis For A Stay Incredibly, CFUR is attempting to bootstrap its concerns e into an argument to support a stay. .This attempt is all the more startling when it is recognized that CFUR has essentially no new 4
e c
d w, , -_ , , - - , . , , . .,, --,wy~. . ~-,,- , . , , - , , g..,e,-- y p r
)
i p
';
.s I
concerns '.:r information beyond that already available to and j under review by the NRC Staff. 2/ ;
Simply stated, CFUR has provided the Staff with information the Staff already has, and then hopes that the I staff's ongoing review of the information will somehow transform i
i 2/ CFUR's concerns were raised in its October 15, 1989 request for a stay from the Commission and discussed with l the NRC Staff in written correspondence and during the December 7, 1989 public meeting. These concerns are not
substantial new safety or environmental issues. They i largely mirror the findings of prior NRC inspection '
- reports at CPSES. A review of the transcript of the December 7, 1989 meeting indicates that CFUR had no ,
additional information or issues from those already under review by the NRC Staff.
In discussing the check valve failures and TU Electric's response to the problem, Ms. Brink of CFUR stated, "We have no additional information. The only thing that we are asking is that you look at the historical record in determining what has gone wrong with the check valve ;
failures." Tr. 70. CFUR's concerns about a former resident inspector's memorandum were already under !
investigation by the NRC before CFUR raised them and Ms.
Brink admitted "We don't have additional information that ;
you don't already have. We have what you have." Tr. 88.
, In response to NRC Staff questions about any additional i information that CFUR might have about the group of NRC Staff inspectors who informed the Commission of their ,
concerns about the pending SALP report, Ms. Brink again ;
stated, "No, we don't have any additional information to give you on this." Tr. 102.
Those few issues which the NRC Staff had not already ,
l considered for CPSES were either not safety-related l l issues, so vague as to defy definition, or generic issues that are not suitable for litigation in an individual licensing docket. San Consideration'of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, 54 Fed. Reg. 39,765 (Sept. 28, 1989); Waste Confidence Decision Review, 54 Fed. Reg.
39,767 (Sept. 28, 1989); Potnmac Electtje Power Co. <
(Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79,.85 (1974).
Y i l
J .,. ;
I CFUR's previously evaluated concerns into new matters that would f l either support CFUR's unsuccessful petitions to reinitiate the CPSES OL hearings, or provide a basis for CFUR's stay request.
This turns CFUR's burdens upside down. CFUR was and is required !
to affirmatively show that its request for a stay satisfied the ;
10 C.F.R. $ 2.788(e) factors (1232, the standards in v3rginia j Patrolana Jnhhara). CFUR has made no attempt to meet this burden :
;
and is simply hoping that the NRC Staff will somehow supply that basis. Mere hope cannot justify the extraordinary remedy of a stay.
?
IV. The Schedule For Issuance Of The NRC Staff's l I Renort Provides No Ramin For A Etav i Finally, as is evident from page 3 of its filing,-CFUR's l
request for a stay is based upon an entirely mistaken premise, i.e., that CFUR is entitled to receive the NRC Staff's report on ,
c i
its alleged safety concerns on a schedule which would permit it to use such report in preparing a request for a stay from the Court of Appeals. Nothing in the Commission's previous action >
nor in any law or regulation would give rise to such entitisment.
The Commission instructed the NRC Staff to address CFUR's alleged safety concerns prior to issuing the low-power license.
Order, slip op, at 3 (Oct. 19, 1989). Presumably the NRC Staff will comply with the Commission's instruction or any modification thereof. But, the instruction does not require the NRC Staff to e
complete its review on any specific schedule other than prior to t
i
'l 1
9 !
l ,
x l
1
- h. issuance of the low-power license. # Moreover, the instruction did not create within CFUR any right to enforce compliance with ,
the directive, let alone to require action by the NRC Staff any J earlier than immediately prior to issuance of the low-power i
, license. j i If CFUR had decided to defer filing its requeet for a stay i until after it receives the NRC Staff's report, that was its own f choice. A litigant requesting the extreme remedy of a stay should have available within its own resources ths information I
that justifies such request without awaiting the results of 4
j information being developed by others, in the forlorn hope that l
such additional information will provide the support that the l requester othwrvise lacks. l To the extent that CFUR argues that "[t)he report will be .
relied upon by the Commission attorney in responding to CFUR's request for a stay in the court of appeals" and that "the court ;
may benefit from the staff report in deciding on the request,"
these statements are pure conjecture by CFUR. Second Request at 3. In light of the substantive issues before the Court of l
Appeals (which deal with the merits of the Commission's December i
1988 denial of CFUR's petition to intervene) and in TU Electric's 3/ At the public meeting on December 7, 1989, the NRC Staff indicated it would not provide its report to CFUR the day before it issued a license. Tr. 191. TU Electric.is not aware of any other commitment by the NRC Staff, particularly as to any commitment that its report'would be !
provided to CFUR on a schedule that would permit its use by CFUR in filing a request for a stay before the Court of Appeals.
;
;
__ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . ~__ __ __ _ _ _ _ . _ __. ._ _ _
.;
.i
i i
view, the concerns which the Commission instructed the NRC Staff :
to review in its order of October 19, 1989, bear little relevance to the showing that CFUR would have to make to warrant the j issusnee of a stay by the Court of Appeals. In any event, j whether such concerns would properly be raised before the Court i i
of Appeals and whether the timing of the issuance of the NRC :
1 Staff report thereon would be a matter properly raised before the ;
;
Ccurt of Appeals, are questions that the Court of Appeals would have to determine based upon the overall contents of CFUR's -
t request. There is no legal basis for the grant of a stay by the l Commission on the speculation that the NRC Staff's report might :
be used in a pleading or might be of any use to the Court of ;
Appeals. l l conclusion CFUR has failed to satisfy its burden to' demonstrate-the necessity for a stay or that its request otherwise satisfies the standards in the Commission's regulations. Consequently, TU Electric requests that CPUR's request for a stay be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Texas Utilities Electric Company !
for the Owners of t e CPSES l
. /Ad/
J g R.feVban" I George L. Edga >
Newman & Holtz nger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6600 i Attorneys for Texas Utilities Electric Company k
_ _ _~ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _
f i
COLhl1LD
!. ; USNRC 110 RB -1 P2 :31 l
- UNITso STATS 3 or AnsarCA ,
NUCLaan a u..=e +wsamouzaToar v -- raaInst ConurSSzoM[0 C,f BRANCH j In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445 OL j
) 50-446 OL. i Ts1AS UTILITIs3 sLsCTRIC ) [
COMPANY, et al. ) (Application for an ;
) Operating License) {
)
l (Comanche Peak Steam slectric ) and i Station, Units 1 and 2) )
) Docket No. 50-445 CPA 1
) ;
) (Construction Permit j
) Amendment) >
I cERTIFIc1TE OF REEVICE ,
L I, David W. Jenkins, hereby certify that the foregoing -
Applicants' Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Utilities Regulation was served this let day of February, 1990, by mailing copies thereof (unless otherwise indicated),
first class mail, postage prepaid to:
*Kenneth M. Carr *Forrest J. Remick .
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.-20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Thomas M. Roberts j
- James R. Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ';
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 205555
*Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ;
Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
I
- Indicates delivery by hand or overnight courier.
1
I l Assistant Director for
- Richard L. Griffin, Esq. !
Inspection Program 600 North Main Comanche Peak Project Fort Worth, Texas 76106 Division :
i .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory *Janice E. Moore !
Commission Office of the General !
P.O. Box 1029 Counsel' Granbury, Texas 76048 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ;
Commission i Susan M. Theisen, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 l Assistant Attorney General :
Attorney General of Texas Environmental Protection ;
;
Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-1548 Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator, Region IV ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 ;
*0ffice of the Secretary ,
Docketing & Service Branch '
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 j David W. JenR4ng Dated: February 1, 1990 ll e
r r
9
- . _ , , , - - - - , n g ~- ,, e -, _w v -, , , -v.,}}