ML19253C152

Responds to Re Intervenor.Citizens Association for Sound Energy Contentions 5,7 & 10.Requests Explanation for Change in NRC Position.Some Contentions Renumbered

ML19253C152
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/30/1979
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Chandler L, Ulman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7911300052
Download: ML19253C152 (2)

Text

-.

[

/*

i P. O. Scx h123 I

I h

'allas, Texas 752C8 x

21h/9k6.ok-o' Dalla h

(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

F A' \\

s'y'

• N E o

\\

October 30, 1979 g

,gsrb g\\j C

Ms. Marjorie B. U1=an and

' a Mr. Larry Chandler 9

s g!I 7

Counsels for NEC Staff

1. c5**Ne*

b U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccx=:iission g,

P

'Jashin6 ton, D. C.

20555 M (ta \\

i y

Dear Marjorie and Larry:

u Sub,} ect : rockets 50 kk5 and 50 Lho i

Application of Texas Utilities g

Generati:g Ccepany for as hj Operstiug License for Cc:anche J

w31 UIL UI jj Peak Steam Electric Station Units El and #2 (CPSES)

In response to your letter dated October k,1979, there are several itens which need attention:

1.

Contention No. 7 (old Contention Nos. 9 and 17), Radiation Effects.

In reviewing our notes on the conference where ve vorhed out the wording of the contentions, we believe ve discussed thoroughly at that ti=e exactly what we meant by this contention, and that the wording finally agreed upon after =uch discussion reflects what we vanted to ecver by this contention. Further, the Staff agreed at that ti=e that this was a valid contention.

In your 8/31/79 conference call, you indicated that you now feel that we are atte=pting to challecge Appendix I, which is not per=issable. Frankly, we

}

are at a lo.s to understand your change of stance at thia point and would request I

an explanation.

I Further, if the Staff insists on chacging its support of this contention, ve vould like to revise our vording of the contention, for pur;czes of clarifi-cation only, to the folleving:

"Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low level radiation on the population surrounding CFSES as re-quired by 10 CFR 51.20 (c) and 10 CFR 50 57 (a)(6)."

This would not change the = caning as originally agreed upon and as outlined in our original bases but vould clarify the exact =eanin6 sccevhat.

2.

Contention No. 5 (cid Contention No. 7), Spent Fuel. As I recall, Larry, in our 8/31/79 conference call, you stated that a "secccd Ger=an report" repudiates Ge. an Report No. 290. In reviewinr,the infor:ation ve have, this does not see:

~

1442 259 7 9113 0o O f} g

. m.,

w.m. m

- m - - e m m g

~ to be the case. Please advise exactly what Ger=an report you are referring to, seed us a copy of this second Ger=an report, and advise in which specific areas it repudiates Report No. 290. Here again, we request an explacation for the Staff's change in position.

3 Contention No.10 (old Cov.ention Nos.12,13, ik and 15), Evacuation.

We do cot believe the wording in your October 4 Stipulation accurately reflects whatIagreedtooverthephoneos9/18/79 We request that the folleving wording be used to replace the wording of ite:n 7, page 3, of your Stipulation:

"The parties stipulate to the consolidation of contentions 12,13, ik, and 15 into the la=guage of revised contention 10, as set forth in the Attach:nent, but agree to defer for the present, consideration of this contention in light of probable changes in Cce=ission require =ents reSarding e=ergency planning, with the understacding that the Intervenor vill be given the opportunity to pursue this contention in the operating license hearings at a later cate, before the operating license is issued."

h.

Ites h, page 2, of your Stipulation should read: "The Staff and Intervecor also agree that contentions 6 and 18 (ccobined) and 16....." etc. and "The Applicant dces not agree that contentions 6 and 13 (cc=bined) and 16....." etc.

5 Item 7, page 3, of your Stipulation should read "The parties stipulate to the consolidation of contentions 12,13, ik and 15 into the lacs.:sse of revised contention 10....." etc. This contention, when renu =bered, vould beco=e No.10 rather than No. 12.

6.

The wording regarding Contention 2 should = ore accurately read:

"With-drawn; included in other contentions" or si= ply " Included in other contentions."

Ve vould request new stipulations with corrected attach =ent referred to in the stipulations actually attached thereto and referenced as an exhibit before signing.

Tha:ls for your help in working out these problems.

Sincerely, CASE (CITI S ASSOCIATICN FOR SCUND ENERGY)

(Mrs.) Juanita Ellit President ec: Service List 1442 260 u.uw,> mJ