ML20054L250

Suppl to Petition to Intervene,Listing Contentions to Be Litigated.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054L250
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	06/30/1982
From:	Newman P, Newman S CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8207070309
Download: ML20054L250 (4)

Text

., . ($ Nil

~.. y y

s

't U:;;II.D STATE.i CF AEnI0a D "

~

6,,,,,, JUL 6

., . , , r.nn u, ...,v. .v .4. 4- v aY .,

,e, v., ,,,, .. . . us .i . .e. >a

- Office or the Secretery g Docketirg & Ss ~

BW ,<

h t e2. . ,,. u. r. x T o,, ,'I , .. ., r r , ,u J. ..,..,w...,.,t..a

.. m r .o- . . ,aJ ,

u ,a/

N In the nr.tter of Car,11r.u Pruct nni L!cht Organy, Dockets 50-400 i

d. al . , Chearon Farria Naelcor Pe. er Plant, "0-401 Units 1 end 2.

June 23, 1H 2 id

,Av 1.3

.cJU. . .T . L.yr...t, & _f As .c._. 4

• v M.m..

., n.

t vi .eun b I, . . . m. A v ,. ,.."

Citizens Against Nuclear rower (CANP) hereby fila thic supplecent to tim retition for Leave to Interveno, listing the contentionc it r.ceks to litigate in the above captioned preceedings. CA"P fully reserves the right to amend th!" listtrg on the naris of information not now known to it tut which rey tecenc known to it, such ac rny be centained in the Applicant's or Comminaion 3taff's further filings in these proceedind3.

Chauld the Board construn any or thoce contention nc an attack upon a rule or regulation of thn Co.cnission, or any provim on therMP, P^titlener CANP rcqucets thnt uch rule er regulation N 4 :!cntified nr.1 the Patit ioner C A..:

Le permi* ted t, reek 'in 'veention to, or vniver of, tr.e qpti:a'icn of cu^h rule or regulation with rerpect to thi, mrticulu proceeding.

To expedite a coneice end t ur.ely Filing CANP elects to ,ta*. . reveral of itr contentionr, by the eni,rcencnt by reference of appecik etntemente of i

! contentions of ether Pe'itioners ir. the.m proceadings. Su.:li endoraemant, i

) surgested ty W 9asrd's Order cf June 4,1982, is for the sole purpose c,f a convenient retting forth of our contentions for the purposes of this filing.

l Such eniorsemnt makes use of the cenvenient av tilability of letailed "tntenents o" retitiences' knowledge and belief, n feconce te public recorde and putlications, etc. dich rre reflective af the tenor cf e CANP caat.cntion, cut such en !orrm.cnt by referonce 'o er not c,neei? 'he nubrtantial identity of CISP's anl the th~ rein ref"rtnced Poti 'oner's contention, only their closely reinted evi.2entiary t,asec. 8207070309 820630

( r/* * *

• osooo g 33M

. . page 2 (1) An a ctatement of its contention that Applicants' emergency plarning fails to muka adequate travicion for % public henith sni cafety in the event of a radiation reloccing accident at Choaren Hurric Muclear Power Plant (SENrF)

CANP endorces uvntentions 56, 57 und El of retitioner Wella Eldleman.

(2) As a statenx;t of its cententien that Applic;nt.'s engineering of SUNFP ic deficient in providing for the puolic heslth snd cafety, partic'ilarly in regard to Sh.NFf's steam generators, CAKP endorsca contentionc 112 and 113 of Petitioner Welic Sudlemaa.

(3) Ac a staterent of ita centention that Applicant's lack the canagerial capacity to cperate S~.1:?FP with duo protection of the public health and safety CANP endoracs cententien 3 of 4 etitioner Wells Eddlensn.

(4) As a statement of its contentien that Applicant's construction of SENPP is deficient in providing for the publi: hr.lth and cafety, CANP endorces contentions 41 and 42 of Petitioner Wells Eldleran.

(5) As a tatement of its contention that Applicante' provicions for the protection of the public health and narcty fron radiolod i cal threat are deficient with recpect to the radiologirul data baue used by Appliennt to project the health effectc of radiation, Ca. P en 'orces contentiona 37 and 82 of I

Fetitioner Weil Cadleman.

(6) Ac a atetene..t of itc contention that Applicant's provicions for cho j nonitoring of environnental releasca cf radiation from LiiiFP is deficient in providing for the public health and safety, CANP cndorses centention 29 cf Fetitioner Wells 22dlersn. l (7) Cid? contends that applicant.'s iA and FSidt are eeriously deficient in failing to address a nanifect and subctantial threat to Applicent's ability ta operate CHHFP with dua regard to the protection of the public health and I

cufety, which thrent ic (1) the videcpvead econ,ric licintegration of the

rage 3 pool of specializeu engincer:ng and manufacturing eara,ity cerving the uniquely stringent technological reqcir rents for the rufo cperation of FWR'c such as are conte: plated at JH::FP, and (2) the burgeoning politien1 dicpecition to limit and reduce local, ctate, and fcdorel regulatery effortc. In ryricd direct and indircet ways Applicant'a proposals for the cafo operation of SHNPP throughout its anticipataa useful life ascumo and rryuire both the continuad full integrity of the nuclear inductry's technological naca and the continued commitment of govern =cntal of rort and monies to the tacks of r.onitoring, regulating, end otherwiso cupporting the cafe censtruction, operation and tainter.ance of 3HNfP. Tne recent econceic uistory of the nuclear inductr/

(N. Y. Timen, 11/22 / 31, p.10E) and clear trends in current politica call both thero ecuurptions into quertion. 01 ncly a degrudation of technological cunport or a diminution of regulatory vigilcnce, or noth, would work to vcriously j/ undernine the continued rnfe operation and naintenance of 3:dPP. Applicant appcrently fciled to foreceo, and therefore c:.nnot work to fore" tall, thcee effects and their concequent danger to the public heSith and ELfety.

CA:iP contende that because of the direct, substantial and divcree implications s

' for snfety of theco developnants, the manifestly reacocable cucpicion en precent ovidence that the operational context of SHdPP might bo impauted ty either or both, a degradution in nuclear technology support cervicec or a degra!Ltion in g / government monitoring and rupportive services, requires that tha Applictnt :

! (1) make renconable projections of theco trende over the projected life of ShNFP, and (2) from such projections arsecs the probable iups'et of these trend; on their capacity for cafe operation 4nd maintennnce of CENFP, and

(

()) show how, !n cypropriate crendations of th' da -nd FCla, they can take auch icvelopments into account so as to minimir.e or prevent their threatened disruption of the cafe operation and maintenance of SE:iPP.

i L

. . . page 4 Absent cuch cetailed and specif1: cnalycic, Applica*it's Zit and F3AR must be held to bo sutstantially deficient in failing to give attcntion to a .manifcet and substantial threat to Applicant's ability to operate and SHNFP maintain'with due regard to the public health and safety.

In so contending (contentions 1-7 aouve) CAar wiches to argue that App 110.snt's re quest fo; a 11cence tu uun, use and opersto SENrr nr.uuld ce denied or appropriately cenhtloned in complicnce with tne NRC's uoligation 50 provide for the public health and rarely in its regulation of cuanercial use of nucient power.

Juno 29, 1982 h ._

Whbt/b (L

. . . - r

, l ff] tabt.

rntricis T. n a. iran enr:

,N.E' 8 W Slater E. Newman Co-Ccerlinators C1;1: ens Again_t L'uclear Power 230'? '.?ofnouth Court Raleigh, N. C. 27612 CEIFI?ICATE OF SE1VICE:

We hereby certify that copics of Supplenont to Petition for Leave to Intervene were cerved upon the Tollowing percon: by 2nrit in the U. S. =211, posta;,e prepaid, the 30th da;' of June,1982.

Coor;;o F. Trowbrid,;e, Esq. Atonic Safety and Licensing Joard Pcnol Shaw, Plttman, Fotta 2 " rower 14e U. 3. .';uclear rtegalc~ry Cotuission 1800 M Street, I . W. Washinr; tan, D. C. 20555 (3 Coptar)

Washington, D. C. 20036 ( l Copy)

Staff Attorney Locketing and Service Sectier U. S. . Nuclear I'egulatory Comd salon Office of the Secretsry Washington, 3. U. 20555 (1 copy) U. S. N.Iclear Itegulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 2C555 ( 3 Copiec) 7

,. / s- - - , - 4 *,

Iih&SDO, f, it) h t D X L w

_2c. e. ~-

.