ML19351F152

Answer in Opposition to Citizens Association for Sound Energy 801120 Motions for Separate Intervenor Status & Alternatively for Appointment as Lead Party on Consolidated Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19351F152
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/05/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8012290647
Download: ML19351F152 (6)

Text

_ . ,

- December 5, 1980 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e

g0 80 gQ0 b e k

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "3

/% .

u . u,.g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ?, J ..,

s #

In the Matter of ) M

) ] r TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 - 1 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 d U$

)

.~ - - 3~?

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTIONS (1) FOR SEPARATE INTERVENOR STATUS AND (2) ALTERNATIVELY FOR APPOIh7 MENT AS LEAD PARTY FOR CONSOLIDATED CONTENTIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR 42.730(c), Texas Utilities Generating Company et al. (" Applicants") hereby answer the motions of Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE") served November 20, 1980 for separate intervenor status, or, in the alternative, to be designated lead party on the consolidated contentions.

CASE filed these motions in response to the October 31, 1980

! Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") regard-ing consolidation in which the Board invited each Intervenor to 2.nform the Board of 4ts choice for the lead party for each contention.O lj We question the need for or propriety of CASE's motions, given that the Board merely invited the -views of the Intervenors on consolidation. CASE's motions merely t trigger an unnecessary flurry of pleadings which likely restate the positions of the parties previously enunciated.

Nevertheless, we feel compelled to respond formally to CASE's motions.

k g sexagggggy s

I. CASE's Motion for Separate Intervenor Status Should be Denied CASE argues in its motion for separate intervenor status that any consolidation of CASE with other Intervenors would prejudice its rights as a party. However, CASE has not ade-quately demonstrated that its rights as an intervenor would in fact be prejudiced by consolidation.

While CASE claims that there may be some inconveniences involved in consolidation, CASE has not shown that it would be impossible or even inordinately taxing for Intervenors to coordinate their consolidation. Portland General Electric Co.

(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-496, 8 NRC 308, 310 (1978).

Further, CASE has not demonstrated that consolidation would be improper under the tests in 10 CFR $2.715a. CASE has~substan-tially the same interests as other Intervenors, and raises substantially the same questions in at least four contentions (viz., Contentions 5, 22 ( f) , 23 and 24(a)) as one or more of the other Intervenors. Further, consolidation should lead to considerable savings of resources of all parties and would promote efficient administrative proceedings. In sum, Appli-cants rely on their November 20, 1980 Comments on Consolidation to support consolidation of the Intervenors as within this Board's authority and as appropriate in this proceeding. Thus, I

the Board should deny CASE's motion for separate inte rvenor status.

l

i

, i i

i -

3-II. CASE's Mation to be Appointed Lead Party Should be Granted

In Part If CASE's motion for separate Intervenor status is denied, CASE moves in the alternative to be appointed lead party on each contention which CASE raised which may be consolidated with contentions of other Intervenors. Since all Intervenors appar-ently have not reached agreement as to which Intervenor should serve as lead party for each contention,  !

Applicants urge this Board to adopt Applicants' recommendations for consolida-tion as set forth in Applicants' November 20, 1980 Comments on Consolidation.

In this regard, Applicants believe that CASE's motion should be granted to the extent that CASE would thereby become lead party for Contentions 22(f) and 24(a). As to all other contentions on which consolidation is appropriate, CASE's motion should be denied. In support of this position, Applicants rely a

-2/ Compare CASE's " Motion to Appoint CASE as Lead Party for Consolidated Contentions" (November 20, 1980), CFUR's

" Plans for. consolidation of Parties" -(November 20, 1980),

and " ACORN's Response to Announcement of Plans Sor Consoli--

dation of Parties" (November 20, 1980). Each Intervenor has claimed it should be lead party on each consolidated contention.

l on the reasons set forth in Applicants' Comments on Consolida-tion.

Respectfu y submitted, f

Nichola S/. Reynolds l ,

V l

() _ n* . h William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

j washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants I

l a

December 5, 1980 2

6

-, ,n .-- -- . ,-.,v,-.<-- , , , ,,n, , -n.,-- - , - , , . , - - . - - - - - , , - - . , - ~ , -

. , , + , , - -, . - - - - - , ,.

E d

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docke t Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, -et al. ) 50-446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motions (1) for Separate Intervenor Status and (2) Alternatively for Appointment as Lead Party for Consolidated Contentions," in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 5th day of December, 1980:

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office,of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.

Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection-Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box'12548 Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin,-Texas 78711 Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard L. Fouke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive l Arlington, Texas 76010

._ , , _ _ _ _ . _ ,_, ._, _ - - . , _ . _ , - - - . . - _ . - - . _ , , - - . _ _ . . , ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . - _ . _ _ . . . - . _ , . _ . , _._

- - - A a. -h -- s Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geof frey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 kjl  % . h -

William A. Horin cc: Home r C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _