ML19296D512
| ML19296D512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1980 |
| From: | Gay G ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM, WEST TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D505 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003040705 | |
| Download: ML19296D512 (5) | |
Text
.
I,'
2/11/80
' : -7,.,
s'r N.
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,, /
,. alG,,
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,,j c; _.
-s-,(
- y 4
s@'0.s r
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3?I','E
~
/
N[
IN THE MATTER OF S
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
--ET AL.
5 Docket Nos.
50-445 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
S ACORN'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPULATIONS AND ACORN'S REQUEST THAT THE NRC STAFF BE ORDERED TO FURTHER NEGOTIATION ADMISSIBILITY OF PROPOSED CONTENTIONS In a pleading dated January 25, 1980, the NRC Staff f
informed the Licensing Board of stipulations regarding the proposed contentions of Intervenors which had been executed by the Staff and Applicant and forwarded to Intervenors on that same day.
A copy of the stipulations referred to by the NRC Staff which relatesto contentions proposed by, ACORN is attached to this pleading.
ACORN has refused to sign said stipulations because there has been no meaningful discussion of the admissibility of ACORN's proposed contentions.
ACORN hereby requests that the NRC Staff be ordered to discuss and negotiate the admissibility of ACORN's proposed contentions and/or reveal to Intervenors specific reasons for refusing to agree to admissibility and would respectfully show unto the Board the follcwing:
8003040 /b
1.
The attached stipulations relative to ACORN's proposed contentions were based on a one-day meeting in July, 1979, and a conference call between the Staff, Applicant and ACORN on August 31, 1979, The emphasis of said meeting was to work out some common understanding and agreement on the wording of contentions.
ACORN did not know the Staff's views regarding admissibility of contentions until the final minutes of that meeting when the Staff devised a " voting process" whereby each party would " vote" and for the first time reveal their acceptance or rejection of substance and wording.
2.
The only contentions proposed by ACORN which have received any discussion of admissibility from the Staff are those whic!
refer to Quality Assurance-Quality Control (QA-QC).
It has been I
ACORN's position that the Licensing Board has already resolved the admissibility of a QA-QC contention in the Board's Order Relative To The Standing Of Petitioner's To Intervene, dated June 27, 1979.
The Board's wording incorporates five of ACORN's
}
proposed contentions, and ACORN believes that it has a right to rely on the admissibility of the contention suggested by the Board.
ACORN does not believe that the Staff's sole focus of admissibility discussion on QA-QC to have been meaningful or in good faith.
3.
It is Intervenors understanding that the negotiation perauf is supposed to deal with admissibility, not just with language.
That has not occurred to date.
It would be contrary
n F
to fundamental fairness for the NRC Staff status report to give the impression that parties have corresponded and carried on discussions since May,1979, with focus on admissibility.
4.
ACORN has no expectation of Applicant agreeing to the admissibility of any ACORN contention, however, there is an expectation that the Staff fully and honestly discuss the admissibility of each of Intervenor's proposed cententions.
Said discussion and negotiation is in the interest of justice and expeditious handling of proceedings before the Licensing Board.
5.
A number of contentions proposed by ACORN relate CPSES to events which occurred at Three Mile Island in March, 1979.
Since the last meeting of the NRC Staff, Applicant and ACORN in July, 1979, there have been a number of documents (from the NRC, the President's Comnission, and even a Texas Utilities Design Review Team) which provide direct support as well as overall credibility to ACORN's proposed contentions.
ACORN has received no indication that the NRC Staff has given any consideration to ACORN's proposed contentions in light of the great volume of literature which has been produced in the last several months as an analysis or critique of the accident and response at TMI-2.
6.
The NRC presently projects that CPSES cannot come on line before November, 1981, and there is no reason to rush to a hearing in this matter until the NRC Staf f has met with Intervenor and
- k and fullydisassal the admissibility of each contention proposed by ACORN.
7.
In light of the foregoing, ACORN requests that the Licensing Board o-der the NRC Staff to thoroughly discuss the admissibility of each of ACORN's proposed contentions, and to further order the NRC Staf f to cease in its efforts to deny the admissibility of the QA-QC contention which appears in the Board's Order Relative To The Standing Of Petitioners To Intervene, and to postpone any hearing in this matter until the Staff and ACORN have completed discussions on admissibility of proposed con-tentions.
Respectfully submitted,
.t au
/%
GEOFFREYjM. GAY Counsel for ACORN West Texas Legal Services Lawyers Building 100 Main Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 336-3943 DATED at Fort Worth, Texas, this lith day of February,1980.
e
O C
G UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
h c %"efiD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cC g,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g(.
~, G@
'l g
9 t}
', k'M s'/
IN THE MATTER OF S
'/
u:. s
.\\
N O,
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
5 Docket Nos. 50-445 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Acorn's Response to NRC Staff's Status Report on Proposed Stipulations and Acorn's Pequest That the NRC Staff Be Ordered to Further Negotiate Admissibility of Proposed Contentions" in the above captioned proceeding have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States Mail, this 11th day of February, 1980:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Richard W. IcWerre, Esq.
' tomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmntal Protection Agency U.S. Fuclear Pegulatory P.O. Box 12548 Colanission Capitol Station i
Washingten, D.
C.~
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Richard F. Cole Mr. Richard Fouke Atmic Safety and Licensing CFUR Board Panel 1668B Carter Drive U.S. Nuclear Peg'ilatory Arlingtcn, Texas 76010 Ccrissicn Washington, D. C. 20555 Frs. Juanita Ellis
/
CASE Dr. Forrest J. Remick 1426 S. Polk Charimn, Atomic Sa.fety and Dallas, Texas 75224 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Nicholas S. Paynolds, Esq.
Ccrnission Debescis & Liberman Washington, D. C.
20555 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washingtcn, D.C.
20036 lawrence J. Gandler, Esq.
Office of the Executive Mr. Gase R. Stephens DDcketing and Service Section legal Director U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Camssion Comnissicn Washington, D.C. 20555 Washingtcn, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel.
U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comissicn Washington, D. C.
20555 OY k 11 ha-Cooffrey)M. {ay
,,~
~.,.s.