ML19321A171
| ML19321A171 | |
| 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 8007220559 | |
| Download: ML19321A171 (7) | |
Text
.
7/lh/80 0,
SN
~
UNITED STATES OF M' ERICA g
NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCK4IS3 ION V
%e EEFORE TE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI?G E0ARD JU[ y 7
In the Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES
}
Docket fios. 50 hh5 3
ur.;;a.rtATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN
{
and 50-4h6 g I b, OFERATIDG LICENSE FOR CQ4ANCE
{
PEAK STEA*4 ELECTRIC STATION
[
UNITS fl AND !2 (CPSES)
{
SUPPLU4ENT TO IT241. (CASE CO :TE'! TION 1) CF CASE MOTICH FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CASE CONTENTION 3 DENIED OR REWORDED IN TE BOARD'S ORDER SUBSKUENT TO TE PREEEARING CONFERENCE OF APRIL 30, l')SO OR IN TE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CONTENTIONS DENIED IN THE BOARD'S CRDER Earl,ier this day (7/lk/80), CASE filed its Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Case Contentions Denied or Reworded in the Board's Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980 or in the Alternative Motion for Cer-tification of Contentions Denied in the 3 card's Order. Since placing the oriSinal motion in 'the, mail, CASE has received significant new inforration which supports admission of our Contention 1.
In our h/lO/80 Position on Contentions by CASE (Citisens Association for Sound Energy), in regard to Contention 1, we nade reference to certain lav-suits filed by the State of Texas Attorney General's Office against Texas Utilities ccupanies (see p. 9,10, and 11 cf h/10/80 filing). The State Attcrney General's 3
9 9s 8007220 55@
office on July 9,1980 requested that the District Clerk cf Rush Ccunty, Texas (where Applicants' Martin Lake plant is located) prepare citations for the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TU3CO), Texas Utilities Co. (TU) and Texas Utilities Service, Inc. (TUST) and attached 21aintiff's Second Amended Original' Petitica. In that petition, the State said regarding violations at the Defendants' Martin. Lake lignite plant:
"On May 18,1979, a 14 crary Injunction was entered in this cause...
Defendants have repea'edly violated the provisions of this injunction...
The actions of the Defendants, described herein, hate constituted and presently constitute a threat of real, i= mediate, and irreparable harm.
Defendants' discharge of over 15 million gallons of untreated waste cen-taining high levels of selenium and other toxic substances durin; the days of May 12 and 13,1979 shows a blatant disrecard for the laws of this State and the public health. Unless Defendants are immediately enjoined from further violating the Act, Defendants vill centinue to create the untolerable risks of permanent and irreparable injury to the public and the envirenment and the State of Texas for which tney have no adequate remedy at law. Further, because of the persistent nature of the pellution caused by Defendants, a risk to public health and wel-fare will remain unless Defendants are ordered to cease operations, clean up or remove conta=ination from the waters and seitnents in Martin Lake...
" Defendants a e strictly liable for the destruction of State rescurces and denages to the State as described in Paracraph XII because Defendants intentionally trespassed against public property. Further, Flaintiff's aforementioned injury is a direct result of Defendants' operation cf unusual and abnormally dangerous activities described above...
"The past and future dmnages to the state resources are a direct result of an intentional action by Defendants. Defendants have stated that vy their choice they decided to operate their coal fired electric genera-tors, without the necessary pollution control, rather than delay or shut down their operations. By makin5 that decision, Defendants were able to.
w e
P e
-u
$h y.
~
a'
+ -
-W w
e W
m v
9 cperate these less expensive power plants and save themselves and the electricity customers of Dallas Power and Licht, Texas Power and Light, and Texas Electric Service Co. nillions of dollars. By making that decision, Defendant chose to dump their vastes into the public var,ers of.the state and cause the pollution of the waters and the destruction of the fish and recreational resources at Martin Lake.
"For that blatant disregard for the state environmental laws, Defendants should be penalized an additional $5,000,C00 or, if Sreater, the amount of money saved by the Defendants as a result of their decisions to switch to the less expensive lignite generator facilities at a time when Defendants could not properly handle t9-ir vastes...
" Finally, Plaintiff prays that upon final trial hereof each Defendant be required to pay penalties to Plaintiff as provided in the TEfJLS WATER CODE in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000) Dc11ars for each and
'every violatien and for each and every day of violation of the TEXAS WATER CODE or Permit No. 01784 and at a minimum of $231,000 each', that Defendants be required to pay $1,h50,314 for the damages to state fish resources and at least $500,000 for lost recreation resources for the last two years destroyed as a result of Defendants' actions, that De-fendants be required to pay at least $5,000,000 cr the value of the economic benefit gained by Defendants as punitive damages as a resitlt of their actions, and that a permanent injunction be issued to provide that De-fendants are enjoined frcm causing, suffering, allowing or permitting the discharge cf any vaste associated with the control and containment of fly ash, scrubber slud ci bottem ash or any related pollutien aba":-
C ment equipment and enjoined from any discharges in violation of the requirements in Permit No. OlT8h, and that Defendant is mandatorily enjoined to take all necessary actions to restere Martin Lake to its 1977 condition by removins all contamination and resterin; the fish populatiens..."
The information contained in CASE's previous filings regardinc our Contention $1 and the allegations by the State of Texas as set forth in this most recent lawsuit should, in themselves, present adequate evidence for admissico.
of this centention. However, coupled with the fact that en May 30, 1980, Texas 1 e
Utilities Generating Company advised the Texas Farks and Wildlife D:partment that
~
TUGC0 "is not prepared at this time to enter into a lease agreement with the Texas Parks and *4ildlife Department covering a park site en Squaw breek Reservoir," the need to investicate and consider these developments in these preccedincs has become everwhelming. When the State Attorney General's Office inquired en June 10, 1980 recarding TUGCO's intentions with regard to " Recreational uses of portien of shore-line and waters of Sqyaw Creek Re:ervoir" which is listed in Table 8.1-21, pages 8.1-18 and 11.0-G of the Environmental Report as one of the principal indirect environmental benefits of CPSES, TUGC0 responded en July 3, lo?O that the company is not prepared at this time to enter into the lease acreement, and"still intends to make some provision for such use." (Ccpies of the May 30, June 10, and July 3 letterr were sent to the Service List by their writers.) The withdrawal of the lease agreement also constitutes significant new information and adds further weicht to CASE's Contention il for the following reasons.
The proposed lease agreement drawn up by the State states, in part:
"It is expressly understood and agreed, hcwever, that if the continued use of the Leased Premises or the Lahe for park purposes shall here-after become hasardous to the public health and asfety because of Cem-panics' creration.of the plant, State nay, at its cption, upon reasonable notice in writing to TU3CO, either (a) terminate this lease, or (b) close the park for such te=porary peried as the Department may deter =ine.
i Such action may be taken solely by the Department actin; by and throu;h the Texas Parks & Wildlife Cosaission at a public meeting. If the State shall elect to terminate this lease as provided above, Conpanies shall, within six (6) months after receipt of written demand from the Department, h_
~
l v
or within six (6) months n'fter a decisicn in arbitratien u hereinsf ter provided, whichever is later, reimburse State for the una=ortised and undepreciated portion of all sums expended by State for the constr tetion of facilities on the tract or tracts as to which the lease is ter_-inated, less the salvage value cf said facilities, and for the value of any came or forace fish in the lake which are killed er rendered unfit for human consumption as a result of the cperation of Cerapanies' plant. If the-State shall elect to temporarily close the park as provided abcve, Companics shall, within the time provided above, reimburse the State for the value of any c =e or forage fish in the Lake which are killed or rendered unfit for human consumption as a result of the creration of Cc=panies' plant. Ccmpanies shall have no other liability to the State for any costs or da: ages arising or sroving oit of the termina-tion of this lease or the temporary closins of the park, pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph 10."
Applicants have given no reason for withdrawing fro:n the. lease agreement
\\
(which they.themselves originally suggested) as drawn up by the State. However, if the reason was that the State inserted the clause whereby Applicants vould have to pay for any fish they killed er rendered unfit for human consumption or, should the continued use of the leased prc=ises or the lake for park purposes become hazardous to the public health and safety because of Applicants' cperatien of CPSES, the State could terminate the lease or close the park temporarily, then this would also support CASE's Contentien 81.
CASE maintains that there is clear enough reason, as presented in' our previous filings and in this filin;, to accept CASE Centention !1 as a valid contention in these proceedings. This is an issue which is tco vitally important to the health and safety of the public to be i nored. We urge that the Board C *
=
take this additional infor.ation into censideration and that they reconsider their ruling and accept CASE Contention y1 as a valid contention in these preceedings.
Respectfully sub:nitted, 0*, a w-kk Od,
$f s.) Juanita Ellis, President D SE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENFR 1h26 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 21h/946ch46 July 14,1980 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
By ny si nature below, I hereby certify that copies of "SUFFISIENT TO ID: 1. (CASE S
CONTENTION 1) CF CASE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CASE COIITENTICi:S D OR REWORDED IN TEE ECARD'S CRDER SUBSEQJENT TO THE PREGING CCNIZ'NCE OF AFRIL 30, 1980 OR IN THE' ALTERNATIVE M01' ION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CON ~'ENTIONS DErdC IN TEE 30ARD'S ORDER" have been served on the nr.es en the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this lhth day of July,1980.
0 2
f/L.
9 s
=
N coCKETED G
tisNRo
-2 2
JUL171980 >
~_.
9-office of theseatto }
Docketing & Sm!ce Branet
,a c5 / j ndn\\
~
6-v ew m
~
[^_
~
a.
~-
Y
,e.
UNITED ST/ ES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGL1 ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1
I APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN I and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
g, at UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
I g
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CO N h
6.
1*
- 3 2
juti 71980 > c)
W 3l
{
cm:ncf the#
Docieti:2
/
Branct
- /
e> j Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman David J.
Pre'.ter, 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. 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 Dr. 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 Regulatory Commissie 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 NNeu k &81)
.(N;s.) Juanita Ellis, President S
(
-x~.
CA E CITIZENS ASSCCIATION FOR '
e._ "
~
. SOUND ENERGY) e
...