ML19312D551

Response in Opposition to NRC 800125 Status Rept of Negotiations Filed Per ASLB 800110 Order.Stipulation Not Signed by Intervenor Due to Questions Raised Re Contentions & Due to Third Party Actions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19312D551
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/25/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003240606
Download: ML19312D551 (8)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ -_ -_ --- _-_

l ';

• x

[b f AL -

2 ,

p'

~

~

'O t .

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.f,

{

ltUCLEAR REGUIATORY Cole (ISSION gangggo ,\

i S. UENRC ,p BEFaRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD 2 FEB 27 800 >

~/

In the matter of [ Otti o [U TEXAS ITfILITIES GENERATING Docket Nos. 50- W 5 4 '

f COMPANY, ET AL.- _ l 50-M6 cv e3 I

-(Comanche Peak'Steen Electric' i Station, Units'l and 2) l INTERVENOR CASE'S RESPCNSE IV NRC STA7F'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPUIATIONS AND REQUEST TO SCHEDULE PREBEARING CONFERENCE (dated 1/25/80, received 2/1/80)

The following constitutes the response of Intervenor CASE (Citizens e

Association for Sound Energy), hereinafter referred to as CASE, to the NRC Staff's Status Report of January 25, 1980, filed in response to order of the Licensing Board of January 10, 1980 in which the Board requested the NRC Staff "to give us a realistic appraisal of the status of the' negotiations."

While CASE did receive a final version dated January 25, 1980, of the several stipulations, CASE would show this Board that said final version did not reflect the final agreements between the Staff, the Applicant, and Intervenor CASE. Further, recently certain questions have been raiced regard-ing understanding of certain aspects of several of CASE's contentions. It is for these reasons that the Stipulation has not been signed'by CASE and returned to the Staff and not for reasons of delay or neglect by Intervenor CASE.

,Furthermore, CASE pleads that it has not in any way been negligent

.~

in attempting to reach agreements with the Staff or Applicant as inferred by.,

the Staff's Status Report, particularly footnote 2 of page 2, wherein it was

, s .

& smMd 6 6 6 i

_ u Yb i.1.)l .f T^l

, l" ',  %' ': i:;f '

~

, ,, . \t; 3

- . y ;: - _ 1 A  :',,-] 7 .C , .2-

"2}'

O.  ;

' s 7. ' , ,.. ,9 '- ,

stated!" Efforts to; discuss this matter with Counsel for ACORN and CASE's repre .

~

sentative have' been unsuccessful due to their unavailability." ~ In fact, the time referredI to by'.the Staff when this representative was unavailable consists

~

only of one 'four-day period (January 22 through January 25,198o) due to sickness

-- this representative was instructed by her doctor specifically not to converse on the telephone and to severely limit talking to an absolute minimum.

CASE would further show that if any delay has been caused in the -

attempts to reach a final version of stipulations, it has been due to other,-

parties' actions:L -

(1)eApplicant, with no prior notification or explanation to Intervenor, changed its position on one of CASE's contentions; the first indication CASE had of this change of position was upon receipt of the .1/25/8o

~

Stipulations from the NRC Staff.

(2) Staff has changed its position regarding- one of CASE's Contentions originally agreed upon; Staff then . wanted to defer consideration of this contention; then Staff stated in their 1/25/80 cover letter with Stipulations that "...the parties have now agreed that deferral ia no longer necessary and have taken a position with respect to this contention." The final ~

discussion between CASE and Staff regarding this contention prior to that lett,er was concluded on the basis that Staff wanted to do some further l thinking on it; Intervenor had no further discussion with Staff in this l

l regard prior to receipt of the 1/25/80 Staff letter and Stipulations.

h Uiff

/ ,;p _ <. .h, h'{h .-}'f( .

3.

-. ; . .,+,. .:e. ,,.

4.

u.-

J , M. g ' j ;; - , 5- .~-l3 .' .- M 4 . ep c5 .

_ :yy.y

. .s, . .'- ,

. 3 . s., .

. .O ,

m ' qh - ;

s In a 1/31/80. telephone: call to Staff,-CASE was able to obtain ibo? c reasons

~

fromStaffastowhytheyhadagainchangedtheirpositidaland}nowwasted'

,z to%roceed with this contention. 7 v

~

. '(3) Staff has chabged its position regarding one of CASE'a

. n-contentions and delay by Staff.in supplying CASE with pertinent information~has, now

~

placedCASE{inanuntenableandunfair_ position.: CASE's first indication- _

of Staff's proposed. change of position was contained in ab 8/21/79 letbr

....s - t.

from Staff to CASE, with details revealed in an'8/31/T9 conference Call between Staff, ' Applicant and CASE. In that discussiod, Sbf.asid they

. -t had'a'sebond German report which refuted the first German report) referred to in CASE's contention;- CASE stated that we needed to see 'that second' c; ..,

.: q 41 . w 3

, reporti andiStaff promised to provide it;' On~ 0ctober130,1979, CASE requested

~ ~ [ { *{Q :^: '

in writingsthatT. Staff furnish this report, and Staff promised on at'.least

,i g i[' .. ,

four other" occasions to supply it. However, said report was not received by CASE until 1/21/80, some four-and-a-half months following our initial request, and obviously not in time to be reviewed and analyzed prior to receipt of Staff's 1/25/80 Stipulations. This report was crucial-and remains cruchkl to preparation of the proper wording'and substance of

- a.: ,{~ _

this CASE Contention. , T.6 - .

(k) Staff has changed its position within about the past month on

.r

-3 '

.two:sther' CASE Contentions without adequate discussion.withiIntervenor .

_ w. .

-or resolution regarding the reasons for such changes. - -

- ,,1- -

.s, ,.

1 e.

l m l l

-k-

~

(5) In a 12/26/79 telepEne conversation with mC Staff (initiated by CASE regarding other matters), Staff stated that they: intended to change

.their position on one of CASE's contentions to one of deferral:due to the Appeal Board's ruling in the Black Fox case; CASE requested that ~ Staff supply a copy of this ruling and Staff promised to supply it. The 1/25/8o Stipula- .

tions fras Staff, p. 3 and 4, item 6, stated:

"The Staff and the Applicants requect that the Board defer ruling on the admissibility of contentina 7 pending resolution by the Commission of the following question certified to it by the Appeal Board in Public Service Company of Oklahama (Black Fox Station, Units 1. and 2), AIAB-573, 10 BC (December 7,1979), slip.op.at29..."

on 1/31/80, Intervenor telephone Staff and again asked that Staff supply a copy of said ruling; Staff promised to do so. The ruling was received by  ;

CASE on 2/8/80, after the Stipulations had been received. CASE is in;the

..,- l process of rt. viewing said ruling at this time. -

^ '

t .

(6) During discussions with the B C Staff over a period of time and especially during the past month or so, certain vital questions have been brought to light regarding understanding of certain aspects of several of CASE's contentions. We wrote the EC Staff and the Applicant on 2/18/80 regarding specifics of these questions and are currently awaiting their re-sponses. CASE believes it is imperative that these questions be discussed further and resolved before we can adequately assess our position and ccm-plate preparation of our Contentions.

(7) CASE has attempted to obtain certain information which we believe to be pertinent and vital, much of which couid have a direct bearing on the 1

l

5- -

specific CASE contention already approved by the Board: l l

(a) In a telephone conversation with the Staff prior to October 30, '

1979, we requested that we be furnished a copy of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Environmental Report (ER), and that we l

be added to the mailing list to receive all future revisions. - At i

~

l the suggestion of the Staff, we requested .in our' October' 30,1979s l

, s I letter that the Applicant provide us with this:information. 'On -

l December 19,1979, our request was declined b'y the Applicant.:. .

"...As you may know, a limited number of copies of the FSAR and ER vere printed, and this limited number is restricted for distribution by the requirements of our cougs ny and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In these circumstances,'and since it is not our policy to provide these docusents to individual members of the public, we cannot fulfill your

. request for copies of the documents.

"You are of course velecom to examine the PSAR and ER at the NRC local Public Document Room (Scaervell County Library) in Glen Rose...(or) at the EBC Region IV Office of Inspection and Enforcement in Arlington."

(b) In our October 30,1979 letter to the Staff, we requested that CASE be added to the mailing list to receive copies of all future Inspection and Enforcement reports and the Applicant's responses to them. In the Staff's December 14, 1979 response, it was stated:

"...it is generally I&E policy not to include intervenors on the distribution lists for reports from that office. Upon their public release, copies are, however, sent to appropriate .

local public 6cument rooms. However, in this proceeding we I

, , have requested that I&E add all parties to the distribution i r list for I&E investigation and inspection reports for Cemanche r Peak."

l i

To date, we have received no such reports. l l

l l

e. .mpna sm.== -

--. N - - - -

1 i , . .

e .

(8) There have been nuserous requests for information from the NRC l Staff to the Applicant. These involve a wide variety of information, much l-of which has direct bearing on t he specific CASE contention already approved

-by the Board, as well as other proposed CASE contentions. To date CASE has received only copies of the Staff's requests to Applicant and not Applicent's responses thereto.

~

The unilateral and late changes in the Staff's position, outlined pre-viously, have resulted in prevention of any meaningful discussion as to substance and wording of some of CASE's contentions and furthermore constitutes a valid reason for delay of the proposed pre-hearing conference.

l In light of the several se".scommunications, changes in Applicant's and in Staff's positions, delays in receipt of pertinent and vital evidentiary material, CASE submits that the April 30 pre-hearing conference proposed by the Board is premature until further efforts have been made to resolve these problems, would essentially deny this Intervenor of due process, work a surprise on this Intervenor, and prevent a meaningful participation by this Intervenor in this hearing process. l l

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, CASE moves that this Board:

]

(1) Order 'the Staff and the Applicant to provide CASE with copies of the materials specified in the aforementioned items (7) and (8).

(p) Order the Staff to set up a meeting in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area between Staff, Applicant and CASE to attempt to resolve the differences in the Contentions, at a time mutually agreeable to the three parties; and l

l

~

\

l \

l- .

(3) order that date for the pre-hearing conference be ch s-d frcst l April 30 and that the setting of such date await further notice freut Staff to the Board as to the outcces of the requested meeting, that all parties have sufficient prior notice of and concurrence in any such date, and (as '

suggested by the Board for the April 30 pre-hearing conference) that such pre-hearing conference be held in the Dallas / Fort Worth area.

1 Respectfully submitted, l l

I

??

TMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President 1 I

CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERmf) 1426 S. Pblk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/9M-9446 2/25/80 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "INTERVENOR CASE'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPULATIONS AND REQUEST TO SCHEDULE PREHEARIIC CONFERENCE" have been served upon all parties on the attached Service List thie 25th day of Fabruary, 1980, by the following means:

1 Certified, Return Receipt Requested: Elizabeth S. Bowers  ;

l Lawrence J. Chandler Nicholas S. Reynolds 1

First Class Mail: Dr. Richard F. Cole i Dr. Forrest J. Remick Richard W. Lowerre Richard Fouke

, Geoffrey M. Gay l Docketing and Service Section, NRC At mic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel, NRC l At mic Safety & Licensing Board Panel, NRC fy? =W QGrs.) Juanita Ellis

-s .. .. ,

,.;s.. .. ,

,3;,. - ' -

ef;',9'Q.

g g g .f y: 7 jyg 'feg A 'W. -

UNITED STATES OF ABERICA NUCLEAR R,EGULATORY C010(ISSION

- BIPORE k1EE ATCHIC SAT *rY AND LICENSING B0m In the Matter of '

)

'. )

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CCHPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-445

, ) 50-446 (comenche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1-and 2)

)

SERVICE LIST _

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman Richard W. Lowerre Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington,pC 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 '

Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Richard Cole, Esq., Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esg. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Debevoise & Liberman (Attorney for Panel 1200 17th Street, N.W.- Applicant) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler Docketing and Service Section Counsel for ERC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. Washingt n, DC 20555 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Cay (Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President West, Jex'as Legal Services CASE '(Citizena Association for Sound Energy) 100 Msin. Street (Lawyers Bldg.) 1426 S. Polk Fort Wirth, TX 76102 Dallas, TX 75224)

I

\ ,

l 1

!