|
---|
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
. _. __ ___
- Novemb r 20, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 (Ce.nanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' COMMENTS ON CONSOLIDATION OF INTERVENORS Pursuant to the invitation by the Atomic Safety and -
Licensing Board (" Board") for comments regarding the Board's plans for consolidation of the parties, as set forth in the Board's October 31, 1980, " Announcement of Plans for Consolida-tion of Parties", Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(" Applicants") hereby submit their comments on consolidation.
In sum, Applicants support consolidation of the Intervenors on certain contentions and suggest, in the absence of agreement among Intervenors, that the Board designate the Intervenor to be the lead party on those contentions.
I . APPLICANTS' COMMENTS ON CONSOLIDATION A. Consolidation of Intervenors Is Within the Board's Authority.
Section 2.715a of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 provides that the presiding officer may order any parties "who have substantially the same interest . . . and who raise substantially the same ouestions" to consolidate their participation in the proceeding D SDS 8011280 M5 5#'
6
"for all purposes', so long as consolidation would not prejudice t the rights of any party.1! Further, 10 C.F.R. $2.718 authorizes the presiding officer to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants, and 10. C.F.R. ((2.714(e) and (f) authorize the presiding officer, inter alia, to require i representation of common interests by a common spokesman. See i
also 10 C.F.R. {2.757.
B. The Parties Have Substantially the Same Interests Intervenors Cf.tizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR"),
Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE"), and Texas Asscciation of Community Organizations for Reform Now (" ACORN")
were granted party-intervenor status on the basis of the same interests, viz, proximity of the residence of a member to the Comanche Peak facility.2/ Where intervenors' interests are based on proximity to the plant, the "substantially the same
$2.715a is satisfied.
interest" requirement of 10 C.F.R.
See Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB-496, 8 NRC 308 (1978); and ASLB Unpublished Decision, " Order Concerning Requests for Hearing and Intervention Petitions" (July 27, 1978), at p. 7. On the basis of the record before 1
~
1/ The Board may exercise the powers of the presiding officer I granted by 10 C.F.R. Part 2. 10 C.F.R. $2.721(d).
2/
~
See this Board's " Order Relative to Standing to Intervene" 4
(June 27, 1979), at pp. 7, 8 and 10.
, . , y -, y _ - - - - - - . + - . . , , . -, - - , - -
this Board, it should conclude that the interests of the Inter-venors are "substantially the same" for purposes of consoli-dation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715a.
C. Consolidation Would Not Prejudice the Rights of Any Party.
The rights of the Intervenors would not be prejudiced by consolidating certain aspects of their participation in this proceeding. As evidenced at the prehearing conferences, all Intervenors are represented by capable spokesmen in this proceed-ing. In addition, these Intervenors know each other and are all located within reasonable proximity of each other. Thus, coordination of efforts with regard to the conduct of the pro-cteding will not impose undue burdens on them. Also, effective pa rticipation in the resolution of the contentions discussed in Part I.D., , infra, does not depend upon or require the full and direct participation of every party which raised the contentions.
Conversely, the efficient. administration of this proceeding will be enhanced by requiring that contentions common to two or more Intervenors be presented by a single spokesman.
There is no basis for concluding that Intervenors' interests would be prejudiced by consolidation, or that the Intervenors would be able to contribute more fully or efficiently to the resolution of issues individually rather than through consolida-tion. See Trojan, ASLB decision, supra, at 7-8. Clearly, there is no indication that consolidation would " turn out in
J i
t pratice to be necSssarily and significantly prejudicial to the protection of their interests." Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-496, 8 NRC 308, 311 (1978).
Accordingly, the board should find that consolidation of the Interveuo rs ' participation on the specified contentions would not prejudice their . rights in this proceeding.
D. Certain Contentions of the Parties Raise Substantially the Same Issues.
1
- 1. Contention 4 i
In Contention 4, both ACORN and CFUR raise substanti-ally the same issue of consideration of hypothetical accident sequences at Comanche Peak. ACORN and CFUR both contend that accident sequences such as occured at TMI-2 should be consid-ered " credible" or " probable" and thus evaluated in the Comanche Peak operating license proceeding. The concerns expressed in CFUR proposed contentions 3A, 3B and ACORN proposed contention 11 (which contentions were combined into Contention 4) clearly raise substantially the same issue. This substantial similarity of issue, coupled with the commonality of Intervenors' interests and the absence of prejudice to their rights, as discussed above, demonstrates that Contention 4 is appropriate for con-solidation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.715a.
Applicants submit that in the event the Intervenors do not agree among themselves upon a lead party for Contention 4, the r
i Board should ' designate CFUR as lead party on Contention 4. CFUR i
\
l has included among its concerns regarding consideration of accident sequences at Comanche peak a specific question which the Board included in Contention 4 with respect to a hydrogen explosion accident. ACORN has not raised this particular issue.
Accordingly, as the party which has raised all specific issues in Contention 4, CFUR would be the logical choice as the lead party on that Content lon.
- 2. Contention 5 All Intervenors raise substantially the same issue with regard to Applicants' quality assurance / quality control program. The Board has designated language for this contention which reflects the Intervenors' substantially similar allega-tions concerning compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
Each Intervenor alleges that construction practicus at Comanche Peak were inadequate and thus the Board cannot make the findings of 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license. In fact, each of the specific items raised in Conten-tion 5 are merely part of the same broader issue (viz., con-struction practices) which each Intervenor raised and which was reflected in Contention 5. Accordingly, this substantial similarity of issues, the absence of prejudice to Intervenors' rights and the commonality of their interests, as discussed above, demonstrates that Contention 5 is appropriate for con-solidation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.715a.
i Applicants submit that in the event the Intervenors do not agree among themselves upon a lead party for Contention 5, the Board should designate ACORN as lead party with respect to Con-tention 5. While all Intervenors have raised substantially the same questionc. cnc Board has decided uo construe Contention 5 to include issues raised by the NRC Inspection and Enforcement Reports submitted by ACORN in its August 29, 1980 offer of Proof. ! Accordingly, ACORN will be best suited to litigate the issues previously specifically included in Contention 5 as well as whatever issues it deems to be raised in its offer of proof, and would appear to be the logical choice for lead party with regard to contention 5.
i
- 3. Contention 9 and Contention 23 Both Contention 9, raised by CFUR, and Contention 23, raised by CASE and ACORN, involve the issue of health effects of-low-level (i.e. routine) radioTctive releases. As articulated by the Intervenors, the issue in both Contentions 9 and 23 is Applicants' compliance with the as low as is reasonably achieve-able ("ALARA") standard. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing rationale, these contentions are appropriate for consolidation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.715a.
-3/ See this Board's " Rulings on Objections to Board's Order of June 16, 1980 and on Miscellaneous Motions" (October 31, 1980), at p. 5.
l~
I
4 Applicants submit that in the event the Intervenors do a
not agree to consolidate their participation with respect to Contentions 9 and 23, and to designate a lead party for those combined contentions, the Board should consolidate the conten-tions and designate CFUR as lead party for Contentions 9 and 23.
CFUR has articulated particular questions with respect to the issue of compliance with the ALARA standard (viz., whether proper consideration has been given to the ef fect of certain meteorological data on planning routine releases), while ACORN and CASE have not particularized their concerns to the extent of CFUR. Accordingly, CFUR appears to be better prepared to act as lead party for Contentions 9 and 23.
- 4. Contention 22(f)
Contention 22(f) raises the issue of emergency plan-ning in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area. Both CASE and ACORN raise precisely the same issue (viz., that there is no provision for emergency planning in the Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex). Clearly, the identity of the issue satis fies the test for consolidation under 10 C.F.R. $2.715a of "substantially tht; same question." Accordingly, and based upon the foregoing ra tio nale , Applicants submit that consolidation of CASE and ACORN's participation in this proceeding with respect to Conten-tion 22(f) would be appropriate pursuant to 10.CFR 2.715a.
a w q - ,
- n. m. - , ~ v
Applicants' submit that in the event Intervenors do not agree upon a lead party for Contention 22( f), the Board should designate CASE as lead party on Contention 22(f). CASE will be litigating Contentions 22(a) through (e), which also deal with emergency planning, and thus would be the logical choice as lead party with respect to all issues involving emergency planning.
- 5. Contention 24(a)
Contention 24(a) raises the issue of the adequacy of Applicants' consideration in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak of the costs of decommissioning the facility after its useful life. ACORN and CASE both seek resolution of the same issue regarding decommissioning, and thus Contention 24(a) meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $2.715a regarding similarity of issues. Accordingly, and based upon the foregoing rationale, Applicants submit that consolidation of CASE and ACORN's parti-cipation with regard to Contention 24(a) in this proceeding would be appropriate under 10 C.F.R. 2.715a.
Applicants submit that in the event Intervenors do not agree among themselves upon a lead party for Contention 24(a), the Board should designate CASE as lead party on Conten-tion 24(a). As with respect to Contention 22, efficient conduct of this proceeding would best be achieved if one Intervenor acted .as lead party on contentions which involve the same top ic.
l l
In this instance, CASE has also raised Contentions 24(b) through (d), dealing with the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak.
Thus, CASE would be the appropriate Intervenor to act as lead party with respect to the decommissioning contention.
- 6. Remaining Contentions The Board's October 31 Order invited the Intervenors.
to designate a lead party for "each accepted contention."
. Applicants assume with respect to each contention raised by a single Intervenor (except Contention 9 dealt with in Part I. D. 3, supra), that the Intervenor raising the contention should conduct the aspect of the proceeding dealing with that contention.
Accordingly, the Board should designate the single Intervenor which raised each remaining contention as lead party" on that contention.
E. Consolidation Should be For All Purposes Section 2.715a of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 provides that consolida-tion "may be for all purposes of the proceeding." Applicants submit that to promote the efficient conduct of this proceeding, consolidation of Intervenors' participation should indeed be for "all purposes." Thus, the Intervenor designated as lead party for each contention should handle that contention through all I facets of the proceeding, including the conduct of discovery (both for submission of discovery requests and for responding to 1
Applicants' or Staff's discovery requests), presentation of I
+ --%.- -e -9 ., y y* vv c s 7 -+ y - 7.-,-..gm-9r---+f 7
1 evidence, cross-examination,d! presentation of argument, and submission of briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclu-sions of law. Consolidation of Intervenors' participation with respect to each contention for all aspects of this proceeding is within the Board's discretion. See 10 C.F.R. {2.715a and
) discussion supra at Section I. A.; see also Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
. Docket No. 50-446, ASLB Unpublished " Order" (March 10, 1980) at
- p. 110; Trojan, ASLB Unpublished Order, supra, at p. 8.
i a
1 i-i
- 4/ Cross-examination by an Intervenor on contentions raised by other Intervenors may be conducted only upon a clear demonstration by that particular Intervenor that such cross-examination will be confined to the scope of the 4
direct examination and will not be irrelevant, repititious, l cumulative or otherwise of no value to the ventilation of issues in the proceeding. Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857, 868-69 (1974), aff'd, CLI-75-1, 1 NRC 1 (1975).
1
, y.----rr---- ~ s~ w -% ev., , -w- - , y p-- -e
P II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reesons, Applicants uupport consolidation of Intervenors' participation with respect to all contentions and for all facets of this proceeding.
Respectfu y submitted, f
4 Nichol S. Reynolds
\
William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 f
Counsel for Applicants l
l l
November 20, 1980 l
l
^
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, -et al. ) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Comments on Consolidation of Intervenors", in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 20th day of November, 1980:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.
Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin, Texas 78711 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010
Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services
- Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Dallas, Texas Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens-4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 William A. Horin cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
I l
, -ew - . . - - . 7,_. , y .-,-..-