ML20010E400
| ML20010E400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1981 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Stephens B ARIZONA MUNICIPAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109040080 | |
| Download: ML20010E400 (2) | |
Text
.
DC0:;27!:LT.:G2a $ g h d h puw OD. & R m, UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
5 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENslNG BOARD PANEL h!
,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 August 31,'1981 Li SEP d
~
t 11981 y $)
+
Dese
'/
Mr. Bill Stephens
'8 8 d:n,. //
Executive Director
/
-l Arizona Municipal Water
' (f[ hQ y
g N
I } SEP 0 3 ;301el,,lf
- 'C Users Association
~
1010 East Jefferson Street i
dis @'on%p
~.)
- u., %
H Phoenix, Arizona 85034 v
Dear Mr. Stephens:
z
$7
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating'sdF.dnf s 1, 2 and 3 In response to your letter of August 5,1981, please be advised that oral or written statements by persons who have requested to make limited appearances will be received at the opening session of the evidentiary hearing in this proceeding.
I have directed that your name be placed on the service list so that you will receive notice when the start of-the hearing is scheduled.
Persens permitted to make a limited appearance may state their position and raise questions which they would like to have answered to the extent that such questions relate to the proposed issuance of operating licenses for the Palo Verde facilities. Accordingly, each of the topics which you have listed in your letter would be included within the scope of l
the hearing for limited appearance purposes.
1.imited appearance statements are not testimony in the record of the proceeding upon which the Board's ultimate decision can be based, but such statements often serve to bring to the Board's attention matters of public concern which the Board can then address on its own motion.
As for the matters which have been placed in controversy by the parties
~
i l
to this proceeding (on which sworn testimony will be received at the hearing), five contentions have been admitted.
For your information, I
these are:
Contention No. 1 Applicants will fail to maintain annual releases of radioactive materials from the normal operation of PVNGS "within the levels set forth as numeral I
guides for design objectives in Section III" as required by Section IV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
Contention No. 5 Applicants will not have an assured supply of usable treated municipal l
effluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the firtt.five years of operation.
!Wuwassus, 9%
PDR i
Mr. Bill Stephens 2
August 31, 1 981 Contention No. 6B The Applicants have not incorporated measures designed to mitigate a postulated ATWS event.
Contention No. 7 The Applicants have failed to demonstrate their financial qualifications as required by 10 CFR 550.33(f) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, because they have inadequately figured decommissioning costs.
Contention No. 8 The base mats for Units 1 and 2 are not structurally able to support the system and equipment inside containment, because some of the concrete slump tests per-formed by Engineering Testing Labs for Units 1 and 2 were falsified.
I trust that the above is responsive to your request.
Sincerely, Robert M. Lazo Vice Chairman - Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4
A
_