ML19345B297

Response in Opposition to Plans for Consolidation of Parties on Contentions 4 & 5.Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Does Not Have Same Interest as Other Intervenors.Other Parties Would Not Adequately Represent Cfur.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19345B297
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/20/1980
From:	Fouke R, Hart J CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8011280036
Download: ML19345B297 (4)

Text

. -_

e . {4 - . w

. /

y 11/20/80 ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCEMISSION -

(?v-S N '

, 6, g o <- ,P BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND IICENSING BOARD 'l '

{

In the Matter of )

N 1 TEXAS UTII.ITIES GENERATING CCMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50 44, ,tr e (Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

'0 446 5

Units 1 and 2)

PLANS FOR CONSOLIDATICN OF PARTIES The Board has announce'd plans to consolidate the Intervening parties including CFJR with regard to certain Contentions admitted in this proceeding. CFJR, according to the Board's Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980 (dated June 16, 1980), has an 4 interest in two of the Contentions on which consolidation is proposed.$

These two Contentions and the corresponding interested Intervenors arE:'

Contention 4 (CFUR and ACORN) and Contention 5 (CFUR CASE and ACORN). -

CFUR respectfully subnits that consolidation with either or both of tlis other Intervenors on either of the two Contentions in questioniwould - -

n. n be improper and highly preaudicial to CFUR in this proceeding.* 'y  :

I. CFUR does not have substantially the same interest in either of the Contentions proposed for consolidation as do the other Intervening parties.

A) Contention 4 CFUR's primary interest is evaluation of those accidents which would now be considered credible - including accident sequences having a probability of occurence (with a specified level of confidence to insure conservatism) greater than -a specific criteria.

~

ACORN appears to argue that all Class 9 aceidents be evaluated.

The difference could be considerable, since the number of possible Class 9 accidents is without limit.

B) Contention 5 CFRU's primary interest is the Applicant's f ailure to establish ,

and effectively execute those planned and systenic actions necessary.

~

to provide adequate confidence that Comanche Peak will perform ^

psn f8013eso o3c g 3 ,,

- F v

iI satisfactorily in service - actions which are necessary during ,

the design and construction phases as well as the operation phase and which the Applicant may delegate to others but shall- I retain responsibility thereof. CFUR has indicated the possibility of sone physical construction deficiences but CFUR is of the f opinion that these deficiences can be corrected or, in the alternative, the conditions of the license can be anended.

CASE and ACORN appear to be concerned with physical deficiences which would ereclude the isruance of an operating license.

The differences are appreciab3e with reseect to discovery, presentation of evidence and cross-examination as well as the balance of the croceedings in that managerial and administrative actions are CFUR's prinary interest whereas the physical condition of structures, etc. are the primary interest of the other Inte rvenors.

II Consolidation would crejudice the rights of CFUR A) The interests of CFUR are different from those of the other Intervenors as previously established.

B) Other parties will not adequately represent CFUR because they are are not familiar with the technical bases of CFUR's interest.

C) Consolidation would cause undue burdens I

1) A considerable amount of tine would be necessary for either of the other Intervenors to becone familiar with CFUR's interests .

or for CFUR to becone faniliar with their interests.

2) The other Intervenors are approximately 15 miles in distance from CFUR - in opposite directions. The extra travel represents both additional time and additional expense.

3) With differing interests, allocating expenses will be difficult l to negotiate - thereby requiring still more additional time.

l l

'ti

• ~.. . -

-4

'{' _3 t.

D) A cleaur more concise record will be produced if differing interests are represented seperately. Since the interests of the Intervenors are substantially different, the likelihood of duplication is negligible.

III If the Board does unfortunately consolidate, CFUR should be the lead party for Contentions 4 and 5.

~

A) This is the only way that CFUR's rights can be protected. The other Intervenors will find it difficult to becene familiar with the technical bases of CFUR's interests and will most likely not be able to fairly represent those interests in this proceeding. Conversely, the technical bases of the other Intervening parties are not that demanding and could be acquired by CFUP. if so necessary.

3) CFUR is centrally located equidistant from the other Interveners.

This arrangenent would ninimize the additional time and expense entailed for neet$ nes, etc.

C) CFUR has the assistance of attorneys. While the attorneys are not necessary for the technical aspects, atterneys are helpful for the procedurial aspects of this proceeding.

Respectfully Submitted,

/

Richa d L. Fouke l

/ vf

/uf!unrt, zag.

I b

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE B

I hereby certify that copies of "PIANS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF PARTIES"  ! i 9 ,

have been served of the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, this 20th day of Novenber,1980.

Valentine 3. Deale, Esq. , Chaiman Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1426 South Folk Street Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.

Atenic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas Legal Services '

100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

305 E. Hamilton Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76102 State College, PA 16801 Dr. Richard Cole, Menber David J. Preister, Esq.  ;

i Atenic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Enviromental Protection Division P.O. Ecx 12548, Capitol Station '

Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, TX 78711 ,

Marjorie U1 nan Rothschild, Esq. Jeffrey L. Hart, Esq.

Cffice of Executive Legal Director U.S Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission 4021.Prescott Avenue Dallas, TX 75219 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Arch C. McColl III, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street 1200 17th Street, N.W. Suite 302 Dallas, TX 75202 Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclea- Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

,r w, W. &

Richard L. Fouke CFUR

/3 .

16683 Carter Drive

.3

(( %~pr -

Arlington, TX 76010 f

fez

., l Q .

l o '%% 4 j N l 5 [

i

_ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ \ h