ML19321A160
| ML19321A160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1980 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007220546 | |
| Download: ML19321A160 (20) | |
Text
. o
-s 7/lk/80 n
.s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DN NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COINISSION uwse
{f EEFORE TE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIIU BOARD JUI 101980 p.
Offaef thesecegy E
In the Matter of j
g Sedce
/f I
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50 hh5 %
. ( ("
GENERATITU CQ4PANY, ET AL. FOR AN
[
and 50 kh6 OPERATIIU LICENSE FOR CO'4ANCEE l
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l
UNITS fl AND 82 (CPSES)
[
CASE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CASE CONTENTIONS DENIED OR REWORDED IN TEE BOARD'S ORDER SUBSE~iUENT TO TEE P3EEEARING CONFERENCE OF APRIL 30, 1980 OR IN TE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATICN OF CONTENTIONS DENIED IN TEE 30ARD'S ORDER On June 16, 1930, following the filing by all parties of a ec=plete report on each centention and a pre-hearin6 conference en April 30 and May 1, 1990, at which the contentiers were discussed, the Board issued its Order Subse-quent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980. In this order, the Board accepted sc=e of CASE's contentions and rejected certain others. CASE =aintains that each of its contenticas should have been accepted and submits this, its Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Case Contentions Denied or Reverded in the Board's Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30,1980 cr ir. the Alternative Motien for Certification of Cententions Denied in the 3 card's 1
Order. In support whereof, CASE vould respectfully show the folleving:
,1) The Board orally authorized CASE to file this motion out of tine.
6) 0 96
!\\
I
<80072205f/4
1 1.
CASE Contention 1.
The past record of the Applicant clearly de=en-strates an unwillin5 ness to voluntarily comply v'.th procedures and regulations necessary to assure the health and.*afety of the pubile; therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.hO (a,- and d), 50 57 (a)
(1,2,3 and 6), 30 57(b), 51.20 and 51.21 have not been met, and a
.favorablecost/benefitanalysiscannotbestruck.
The Board denied CASE Contention 1 as being "too va5ue and overly bread."
CASE's basis for this contention, however, reveals that CASE had very specific and verifiable concerns to which this contention is addressed. We cited specific instances in support of this contention, includin5 lawsuits which clearly indi-cate an established practice of violating laws and regulations and demonstrate that Applicants' general established operating practices will create the risk of permanent and irreparable injury to the public and the envirorcent for which the e 'is no adequate remedy if Applicant is allcwed to operate CPSES.
In addition, a belief that the contention is " overly bread," is not, in this particular instance, adequate grounds for denyin6 the Contention. If the centention were overly broad, the Board and/or the IBC Staff should work with this citizen intervenor Group to narrow the contention to ensure that the concerns which the bases indicate are real and substantial are dealt with in these hearings. In fact, the Staff proposed very similar wording in its h/10/80
!EC Staff's Report on Its Position Concerning the Admissibility of Intervenors' Contentions (pages 30 and 31), which was filed at the same time CASE filed its h/lO/80PositiononCententions. After discussions with the Staff and Applicant, ;
l l
l l
o
.e i
CASE attempted to refine the wording to more accurately represent what we were tryin6 to litigate. The Staff objected to the wording previously proposed by CASE:
The applicant cannot be depended upon to adeoustely protect, either in the normal or the emergency operation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPSES), the health and safety of the public and the individuals represented by CASE, and should therefore not be allowed to operate the plant.
But Staff further stated:
"At best, these references vould support a more narrev contention -
that Applicants have de=enstrated a lack of co=mitment to comply with applicable regulations established to protect the health and safety cf the public, sufficient to assure that they will adequately co= ply with the environmental and safety regulations associated with the operation of a nuclear facility. The Staff is of the view that a refermulation of this contention in this manner would alleviate the
~
Staff's concerns over the vagueness of the contention as presently worded."
To ignore the issue of whether or not the Applicants will comply with procedures and regulationsnecessary to assure the health and safety of the public in heJ71ngs to detensine whether or act they should be 6 ranted a license to cperate 1
a nuclear power plant is to 16nore one of the basic findings which must be made before Srantin6 such ; license, as stated in 10 CFR 50 57(a)(3):
" Pursuant to 8 50 56, an operating license may be issued by t.he Cem-mission...upon finding that:
...(3) There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities vill be conducted in compliance with the regu-lations in this chapter.'..".
--u. - - -.. -...
2.
. s = - ----
p I
CASE urges the Board to recensider its rulin3 on this contention and that it be accepted as a valid contention for consideration in these hearings, or that at a minimen the Board narrow the contention in the manner previcusly suggested by the Staff and admit it with that wording.
2.
CASE Centention 3 Requirements of the National Environ = ental Policy Act (NEFA) and 10 CFR 50 and 51 have not been met and a favorable cost / benefit analysis cannot be made, because:
(a)TheEnvironmentalReport(ER)isinaccurateinthatactual and projected figures for the Applicant's capabilities, denands and reserves, are inaccurate and inecmplete; (b) The ER is inccmplete in that Applicant has failed to cen-sider significant factors which must be included in order to make an accurate cost / benefit analysis; and (c) If the changes indicated in (a) and (b) above are made, so that the ER is accurate and complete, a cost / benefit analysis favorable to the operation of Comanche Peak nuclear plant cannot be made.
The Beard denied this Contention and stated:
" CASE contentien 3 has two main thrusts--there is no need for the power frem the facility and alternatives are available, e.6, li5 nite, gas, coal, energy conservation, peak load pricing and solar. As stated in our rejection of ACORN's contentions 26 and 27, the criteria of signifi-cant new information must be met to make the issues of need for power j
and alternative sources of energy acceptable at the Operating License proceeding. We have determined that no significant new information has been presented for these issues which vere considered at the Construction Permit proceeding and the contention is rejected."
The Board has completely ignored that pertion of the contention which regards inaccuracies and incompleteness in the Environmental Report (ER).
No reason whatsoever is given for rejecting this portion of the contention. CASE h-O e
w
!=
h submits that this portion of the contentien is certainly a litigable issue and E
5 should be accepted.
{
With reBard to the need for power, the Board' has supplied no basis for CASE
'+:
its statement that "no si6nificant new information has been presented."
E has clearly pointed out in its bases for this contention that the use of energy has changed dramatically as a result of the extremely significant increase in costs of energy since 197h. We live in a ce=pletely different energy world due to the oil embargo, increased costs of fuel and electricity, double-digit infla-tion, higher costs of living, and increasing use by electricity consumers of In 197h, the Applicants asserted that the Cemanche measures to ecnserve energy.
It is significant Peak plant would be needed to meet demand in 1980 and 1982.
that in the su=mer of 1980, with continuous record-breaking heat and electricity
- m..rassingly high reserve capacity, withcut usage, Applicants still maintain Even if the prou tetions made by the Applicants in 197h the Car.anche Peak plant.
were reasonable (which CASE disputes), the fact that the actual reserve capacity has proven to be almost 31 times what had been projected (59 3% reserve capacity in 1979 when 17 3% had beer. projected) is a clear indication that the projections
~
had to either have been made in bad faith or based on inaccurate information.
If information such as the dramatic chanse in costs', uses of energy, and the tremendous increase in reserve capacity 'since 197h is not the kind of new in-formation that is significant in terms of the regulations, ve would appreciate 5
l
an explanation as to what the Board believes the term "si6nificant new information" does mean and what examples of significant new information might be.
10 CFR 51.21 states that Applicants at the operatin6 license stage shall submit an Environ = ental Report "which discusses the sa=e matters described in $51.20 but only to the extent that they differ from those discussed or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in the final envirec= ental impact statement prepared by the Cem-s mission in connection with the construction permit." (Emphasis added.) CASE believes any decision to' 15nore the significant new idfc'rmation presented by CASE which has rendered the Applicants' prior projections so dramatically in-accurate vill amount to an unwritten decision by this Scard to 15nore altegether the need criteria, centrary to the written regulations en which Intervencrs have relied and by which the Applicants are bound. Such an unwritten decision is not only inconsistent with this 3 card's authority, but =cre importantly is a viclation of this Board's obligations and responsibilities undel* the regulations.
Tied to the need for power are certain spectric alternatives, spelled cut it CASE's bases for this contention, which were not available at the time of the construction hearings but which are now available. Clearly this repre-sents significant aeu inIormaticn and under the reSulations must be considered in the Environmental Report at the operating license stage.
l CASE maintains that this contention is a valid cne and urges that the Ecard reconsider its ruling and admit each of the contentionh parts in this proceeding.
(
.i 3
CASE Cententien 8.
The ER fails to analyze the prcbability of the occurrence of a Class 9 accident and the potential costs in terms of health and dollars, which failure results in: (1) viola-tion of the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22 and 51.23, violation of the requirements of the National Environ = ental Policy ACT (NEPA) in general and specifically the guidelines set dcun by the Presi-dent's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and violation of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act; and (2) preventing the com-pletion of a valid or accurate cost / benefit analysis as required by 10 CFR 51.20 and 51.21.
The Board denied CASE Contention 8 as "not being required" as a r.atter of Cc=missica policy. However, it is important to note that the Cc==ission policy referred to is the Cc==ission's June 9,1990 " Statement of Interim Policy" (emphasis added). As stated on page 2 of the Cc=missien's State =ent, the cerment period vill not expire until Septe=ber 11,19S0. CASE plans to submit co==ents regard-
~
ing this interi= polic) as E.umercus other concerned citizens and Interveners v111. In the meantime, CASE urges the Board to reconsider its ruling denying this contention and instead certify it to the Cc=rission in light of the fact that it is an " interim policy" and not a final policy.
Furthermore, CASE contends that this cententien shculd be reviewed and admitted as a proper contention in the licensing stage in that it deals with what ha' e previously been referred t' a Class accidents, which results in this con-tention's having the greateso i= pact open 2e entire licensins procedure. To not require the Applicants to discuss or censider a Class 9 geeident in the Ettvironmental Report and in the licensing procedure would result in the licensing.
4
C e
Soard, the IEC Staff, the Interv.enors and the entire licensing proceedfn6 cmit-ting discussion of what is obviously the single most important safety and environ-mental issue dealing with a nuclear power plant.
CASE vould point out that on paSe 10 of the Interim Policy Statement the Commission has specifically stated that " Environ = ental Reports sub=itted by applicants for construction permits and for operating licenses on or after July 1, 1980 should include a discussion of the environ = ental riske associated with acci-dents that follows the guidance 61ven herein."
(Enphasis added.) The signifi-cance of that requirement is that it causes the Applicants to review, consider, and appreciate a Class 9 accident scenario. To require consideration of a Class 9 ac'cident only in the Final Environmental I= pact State =ent results in the IGC Staff fully understanding t he i= pact of a Class 9 accident rather than the Appli-cants who vill be cperating CPSES. Consequently, CASE urses that the Applicants be required to deal with the Class 9 scenario in the Environ = ental Report at the operating license stage. CASE intends to file co==ents with the Coc=ission on its Interin Policy Statement concerning the effect of an arbitrary cut,off date, namely July 1,1980, as set forth on prge 10 of the Statement. The mere rational approach would be to require L st all ejplicants in the licensing stage (both construction and cperating) deal with C1' ass 9 accidents in their ER's, am 1 mere preferably to require a consideration of Class 9 accidents in an a=
ded or a sup-pir: mental ER for every existing cperating nuclear power plant. CASE sees no.
~~s rationale for distinguishing between a plant which has not submitted its ER until July 2,1980, and a plant presently producing electricity, other than mere economics of insignficant amounts. If the justiflcatien for the arbitrary cut-off date is dollars and cents to produce or supplement the ER, then the public shculd know that the health and safety of the public has been jeopardized for that reason.
To deny the me=bers of CASE the right of including the. Class 9 issue in the licensing hearing concernin3 this local nuclear power plant wculd be to deny those members eqpal protection under the law as guaranteed by the U. S.
Ccnstitution in that citizens surrounding and living in the vicinity cf other nuclear power plants vill have the benefit of a Class 9 review by the Applicant of their particular nuclear plant while the citizens of this ce=munity will be deprived of such crucial review.
In summation, CASE feels this Board should either accept Contentien 8 as a valid contention cr certify this contention to the Ccemission for a ruling under 2 730(f) due to the following three facters:
(1) The everall importance and effect of this contention; (2) the fact that the policy state =ent is an interim policy statement; and (3) certification is definitely "necessary to prevent detri-ment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense."
h.
Accepted Centention 5 The Applicants' failure to adhere to the qpality assurance /qpality control provisions reqpired by the con-structiod pennits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the reqpire-ments of Appendix 3 of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices 9_
e
'i employed, specifically in regard to concrete verk, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the rea'ctor vessel for Unit 2, velding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC),and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findin6s required by 10 CFR g50 57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.
The Board accepted this centention with the statement "the Board is of the opinion that the language proposed by the NR" Staff is sufficiently broad to enec= pass the subject matter of each intervenor's CA/QC centention." CASE discussed the wording of this contention in its 3/12/80 Motion in Support of Retaining Present Wording of Quality Assurance / Quality Control Contention (CASE ContentionNo.19). At this time, we vill merely reiterate that the problems at the Comanche Peak plant are not narrow; to the contrary, they are numerous and of diverse types. We are concerned primarily with the Beard's deciding on wording which accurately reflects CASE's concerns and which vill not li=it us to an extent which would preclude our pursuins some of these concerns as indicated.
One problem we have with the list of construction practices employed, as contained in the verding accepted by the Board, is that it's hard to tell whether all of our concerns can be contained in the wording. We're concerned (1) whether or not sese of our cententions fit in there; and @) regarding violations which indicate a pattern.
T In our 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Cen-tentions by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), we stated:
"There are numerous other problems with constructica and procedures which are indicated in the ISE (Inspection and Enforcement) reports, and CASE vould incorporate them all herewith by reference. It is cur intention to pursue them in detail during the hearings, and to present related testimony by expert witnesses."
There are numerous problems identified in the ILE reports which were included in cur above state =ent on page Sh (item 7) of cur 3/7/79 Contentions.
Our concern is that we may not be abir. to pursue some of the problems covered by those other I&E reports under the present wording of the centention. It appears to CASE that the primary intent of the rewording of the contention is to limit discovery.
CASE believes that the specific construction practices listed in the verdin$ accepted by the Board demonstrates an established pattern of violations and problems. In the discovery procedure ve shculd be alleved to pursue additional violations which may be revealed as part of that pattern. We believe it's safe to assume that the discovered violations do not include all of the violations which have actually occurred. If this plant and these Applicants had a good record, this assum' tion m16ht be arguable. But CPSES is being built by people p
who have a terrible, proven record (as shown in the investigation by the NRC at the South Texas Nuclear Project), overseen by people who have clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to voluntarily comply with procedures and regulations necessary j
.V to assure the health and safety of the public (as demonstrated in CASE's Conten-tion 1, which was denied by the Board), and we have evidence from the NRC's own I&E reports that indicate there are continuing problems and violations recsrding vital areas of concern at CPSES. This Intervenor does not intend to use this contention to merely have an excuse to examine all the records of the Applicants; but we do believe that we should be able to pursue the construction problems related to these which we know about already and which are revealed. The Board' has the authority and the ability to control discovery and to prevent Intervenors frem abusing the discovery process by engaging in a mere fishing expedition so that the interests of the Applicants are protected. Eut on the other hand, this f
fear of possible abuse should not cause serious problems to be overlcoked in the licensidg procedure. This process is an unusual legal process in that the Com-mission is charged with protecting the public and discovering the true facts, and has great diacretion in exercising its duties in order to discover those facts.
Technical distinctions and wording should not obscure that responsibility.
CASE can (and will, if the Beard desires) provide specific' instances of I&E reports which concern problems not covered by the present wording of this contention. However, as indicated in CASE's 5/12/80 Motion in Support of Retain-ing Present Wording of Quality Assurance / Quality Centrol Contention, to try to list each specific problem area in the wordin5 of the cent-ntion would be burden-some, cusbersome, and go far beyond " reasonable specificity.".
e B
^
\\
For these reasons, CASE urges that the Scard revise the wording of this contentien ta the following:
The Applicants have failed to adhere to the require =ents of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 and to the quality assurance / quality control pro-visicos reqaired by the construction per=1ts for CPSES, Units 1 and 2.
As a result, the Co=issica cannot =ake the findin6s required by 10 CFR 50 57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for CPSES.
5 Accepted Contentien 23 Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation en the population surrounding CPSES, ' inasmuch as the CPSES design dees not assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achievable.
There are many aspects of this centention, as discussed in the bases presented by CASE. Our concern initially with the rewcrding of the centention by the Scard was that certain parts of the centention as subnitted by CASE might be lost or limited by the revised verding. This concern was strengthened by the Applicants' 7/1/80 Statement of Objections to Prehearin6 Conference Order and Motion for Modification. In this filin$, the Applicants argued that the first part of the contention, dealing with the health effects of icv-level radia-tion,is a challenge to Co:r.ission reSulations and should be deleted, arid that the lan6ua6e of the second part of the cententien should be changed, leaving i
the wording of the contenticn:
"The CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions vill be as low as is reasonably achievable."
One aspect of this contention is that the desi5n, construction, and.
e
e.
E proposed operation of the plant will not ensure that radioactive emissions vill be as lov as is reasonably achievable, which means that the Applicants have not complied with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
A second aspect of this contentien is that there has been an increa;;e in knowledge regarding the health effects of radiatien since the time the Final Environ = ental Impact Statement at the construction permit stage was ce=pleted, but the Applicant has not addressed the changes due to such increased knculedce.
(See paces 37 and 38 of CASE's h/10/80 Cententions.) At the tir.e of our filins CASE's h/10/60 Contentions, the Applicant 3 and the Staff were askins that the Board defer ruling on this. If the Board agrees with the Applicants that this aspeck cf the contentien is a challense to Cc==ission reculaticas, CASE reqpests that the Scard either defer ruling on the contentien pending resolution by the Commission of the Rule =aking proceedin5 indicated in the March 20, 1980 FIDEPAL REGISTER, Pages 18023 through 18026,"10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation" (see page 39 and Attach =ent D cf CASE's 4/10/80 Contentions);
or in the alternative, we request the Board to certify this aspect of the contentien to the Cc=aission under 2 730(f), since it meets the criteria of that regulation:
"... prompt decision is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense."
Whatever the Board's decision regarding this aspect of the contention, CASE vould reiterate its position that the full impact of CPSES must be addressed senevhere; and to the extent that it is not addressed by the aforementioned
- lh -
O 9
0
E rulemaking proceeding, it =ust be addressed (if necessary after the rule =akins proceeding is completed) in the operating license hearings in crder to cc= ply with the reqyirements of 10 CFR 50 57, 51.20, 51.21, 51.22 and 51.23, before an cperating license can be issued.
A third aspect of this contention is that the Applicants si= ply have not done the thin 6s necessary to adeqpately consider the health effects of lev-level radiation on the population surrounding CP3ES. For exa=ple, as pointed cut in CASE's 5/7/79 Cententions (p. 55, ite= 10) and incorporated by reference into our h/10/80 Contenticas (p. 37, paragraph 3):
"The February 13, 1979 letter from Robert L. Ener to R. J. Gary indicated that the applicant =ust provide an Offsite Dose Calculatien Manual (CDCM). It is impossible without this manual to be assured that 10 CFR 50 57(a)(3) and lo CFR 50 57(a)(6) have been ce= plied with. It shculd be supplied, reviewed, and approved by the staff and intervenors before issuing an operating license."
As far as CASE knows, this =anual still has not been prepared (at least CASE has received no indication that it has been). Until this is done, Applicants have failed to adequately consider the effects of low-level radiation on the popu-lation surrounding CPSES, as stated in the first part of this contention.
There is significant new infor=ation available on the adverse health effects that low-level radiation vill have on the pcpulation surroundin6 CFSES which was not available at the time of the construction per=it stage. However, Applicants have not adeqpately considered the effects of low-level radiation on.
e e
f.
=r E
the population surrounding CFSES in light of this new and significant knowledge of radiation effects. For example: Appundix 11A.of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) deals with Compliance by the Applicants with Appendix I of 10 CFR The calculations which the Applicants have made fail to take into account 50.
the effect of radiation this increased knowledge in several areas, including:
on the gonads of sub==ers in Squaw Creek, althou6h current knowledge clearly indicates that there is greater effect on the gonads than had been previously assumed; and the effect of radiation on nursin6 mothers and their babies, altheush there is an increase in the number of mothers who breast-feed their tabies over the number for the past several years and there is increaced knculedge about the effqcts of radiation on them. On page llA-6 of the FSAR, Applicants state:
"All usage and consumption values, transport times, bicaccumulation
' factors, dose conversion factors, and other ccnstants utili:cd vere those suggested in Reg. Guide 1.109."
Regulatory Guides are just that -- guides. They do not have the force of law.
Also, the Applicanta appear to have used the or16 nal Regulatory Guide, which 1
was first put out for comment in March 1976 (at least Applicants do not indicate that they used a revision); however, this Guide was revised in October 1977, with considerable change; a footnote on the cover pa6e of the revision stated:
"The substantial number of changes in this revision has made it impractical to indicate the changes with lines in the margin."
(Enphasisadded.)
Thus, it is not clear that the Applicants have even used the most current Guide.
Even had they used the most current Guide, they have not taken advantage of the
)
i l
t pr' if increased knowledge of radiation effects which might be expected of reasen' ably s
Therefore, they have not adeqpately considered the effects of low-prudent men.
level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES, as stated in the first part of this contention.
So we actually have three separate and distinct aspects of this con-kntion, all of which should be addressed before cranting the Applicants an opernt-ing license for CPSES:
(1) The desi5n, construction, and preposed cpehaticn of CPSES will not ensure that radicactive emissions vill be as low as is reason-ably achievable, which =eans that the Applicants have not complied with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; (2) There has been an increase in knowledce regardinG the health effects of radiation since the time the Final Environmental I= pact Statement at the construction permit stage was cc=pleted, but the Applicants have not addressed the chances due to such increased knowledce; and (3) The Applicants imply have not done the thincs necessary to adeqsately consider the health effects of low-level radiation on the pcpulation surrounding CPSES.
CASE maintains that the first and third aspects of this contention are The second aspect is eqpally important, clearly liticable and should be retained.
and CASE urges that the Beard retain it also; in the alternative, we urce snat the Scard either defer ruling en this aspect or certify it to the Cornissien.
The initial primary concern CASE had with the voriing of the contention as accepted by the Cominission was that the addition of the wording " inasmuch as the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions vill be as low as is reascnably.
O r
.f achievable" would limit the scope of the cer;tention in regard to some aspects of CASE's concerns, as previously set forth. If the Scard's interpretation of the wording allows the inclusion of these concerns, we have no objection to the wording of the contention as accepted by the Board. Hoveter, if the Beard's interpretation of the contention as worded would limit CASE frem purcuing the other aspects of our contention, we have stronc objections.
6.
Other rejected contentions. CASE also believes that CASE Cententions 6(b), 6(e), and 10 are valid contenticas and asks that the Board recensider its ruling on them and that they be admitted for litisatien in these proceedings.
7 CASE requests reconsideration of the cententions which vere denied in the Ecard's order of June 16,19S0, and if the Board chcoses not to admit
' those contentiens that it certify them to the Appeal Board or, where requested, to the Commission. We further request reconsideration of the wordins of the approved Contention 5 and, if the Board's interpretation is unfavorable, approved Contention 23; further,11' the Board's decision en the second aspect of accepted Contention 23 is unfavorable, ve request that it be certified to the Coimission.
. f O
g 6
(
i f!i E.i Ei M
WEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDE9ED, Intervencr CASE prays that the Board 3
Brant this motion in all particulars and that all contentions be accepted, and
{
E E
for any other relief to which CASE may shev itself to be entitled.
s Respectfully submitted, AlA, h $ M
~
(gs.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Folk Dallas, Texas 7522k 21h/9h6-9hh6 July lk, 1980 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
By my' signature belov, I hereby certify that copies of " CASE MOTION FOR RECONSIDE TION OF CERTAIN CASE COIiTINTICNS DENIED OR RDORDED IN TEE BO TO T2E PREHEARING CONFERENCE OF A?RIL 30, 1980 CR IN TEE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FO CERTIFICATION OF CONTEirfIONS DENIED IN THE ECARD'S ORDER" have bee ne:nes on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States ~ ail, first class, this lkth day of July,1980.
><nNL DL,
(/
S e.
0 9
9 9
,a s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lil NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION
- i BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1
1 APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1
Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN 1 and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE 1
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1
b-q)
UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 s
Doc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
f 6:
JUL 181980 >' tl0
~~
omm oreen atan Ocdetingi Service q
4 Branc.,
h
_\\
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman David J.
Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forres t J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenua 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 1.' Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
U. S. Nuclear Regula.ory Commissic Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissie Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay West Texas Legal Services 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
Fort Worth, TX 76102 m ~b& kd%
@rs.) Juanita Ettis, Presiaent CASE (C1TIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR.
SOUND ENERGY) 9