ML19330B516

Response in Opposition to Applicant 800701 Objections to ASLB 800616 Order Defining Contentions.Objections Were Filed Untimely.Applicant 800716 Motion to Modify Contentions Must Be Denied.Certificate of Svc & Draft Order Encl

ML19330B516
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/23/1980
From:	Fouke R, Mccoll A CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19330B514	List: ML19330B513 ML19330B516
References
NUDOCS 8008040122
Download: ML19330B516 (19)

Text

. ,

3 l, ,

t July 23, 1980 p GN

\

d coc@

- UNITED STATES -OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY . COMMISSION 9 JUC'2 81980 * ';

Ciiin cf St Sch7 cc.:Sg & SW:t /

S BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY ' LICENSING BOARD Dg to 4

l ca InLthe Matter of )

)

TEXAS-UTILITIES GENERATING' ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANE, et al ) 50-446

)

l(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2)

CFUR'S (1) OBJECTION TO . APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER FOR LACK OF TIMELINESS (2) MOTION REQUESTING APPLICANTS ' COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF TIME (3)' MOTION FOR EQUAL-TIME EXTENSION FOR RESPONDING 1TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS AND MOTION AND (4) CFUR'S PARTIAL SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO APPLICANTS '

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS-AND MOTION.FOR MODIFICATION I.

On June 16, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

" Board" issued its ~" Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980"(" Order"). That Order defined cer tain con-tentions -proposed by Intervenors and questions from the Board

. which would be included and considered as relevant issues at the hearings in this proceeding. Appl! cants have objected and have requested modification of certain of its portions.

It is reasonable to conclude that Texas Utilities Company, et al.: .( " Applicants") . received a copy of the June 16, 1980 Order

'during the Tweek:of June 18 ,- 1980 if. not. on . June 16, 1980.

Applicants,fhowever , . failed to file any Ob'jections to that Order t

wi thin' five c(5 ) days: as required by 10 CFR S2.752 (c) . Instead, 1

s

8008040 /? mx. >

y y _ p: 'l

7.-

they filed Applicants' Statement of Objections to , P r ehear i ng Conference Order and Motion for bbdification (" Applicants' Ob-jections") on or af ter July 1,1980, at least (6) days late. Due to this late filing, tne Board is without authority to consider Applicants' Obj ec tions 'or use them as a basis for revising or modifying the ' Order o f June 16, 1980, as explained herein.

The regulations promulgated by the Commission are the es-sential framework for proceeding before the Commission and its Boards. Not only do the regulations provide guidelines for proceeding, they also serve as constraints on the power exercised by the Ocmmission. In its actions, the Commission must strictly adhere to the procedures established by its own regulations in carrying. out its authori ties. It is clear that the failure of a governmental agency to follow its regulations voids all action resulting from that deviation. Service v. 7allas, 354 U.S. 363 (1957).

Should the Board modify or revise its June 16, 1980 Order pursuant to Applicants' Cbjections, it would be violating 10 CFR S2.752(c) which empowers the Board to revise such orders only upon the timely filing of objections. Consequently, any modification of the Order would be improper and void unless cer tain procedures are Eirst followed.

In Applicants' Objections it is alleged that they were given oral authorization to file the Objections out of time. Such an extension, however , is improper . Should Applicants have desired e

.mm

' ~

t an extension;of. time to. file objections. under 10 CFR S2.752(c),

their. remedy was to:. petition .for a waiver or exception as specified byL10 CFR S2.758. Clearly, Applicants have made no,

. ef for t to-comply with Section 2.758 in requesting a , waiver or

- exception to that _section- or otherwise shown _ good cause for the late filing 'of their Objections.

The exclusive reme~ dies for a par ty to seek modification of the Commission's regulations are 10 CFR S2.758 and 10 CFR S2.802.

-Ci tizens for Safe Power , Inc. v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1298 (D.C.

Cir. 1975)'. .Since_ Applicants have made no ef for t to seek either of these remedies, there is no authority for allowing them to file their Objections out-of-time in contraventio'n of 10 CFR S2.752(c)." Consequently, Applicants' objections are not timely.

filed and the Board cannot properly modify or revise its Order of June'16', 1980 wi thout the: Applicants having following- cer tain specifie6 procedures. Should.10. CFR S2.758 (c) be ignored in the proceeding', the Board will- have engaged in improper e f ac to d_e, rulemaking in effectively recinding that Section. Oglala Sioux Tribe i o f Indians v. Andrus, 603 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1979);

Lavitarell'li v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 (1959); Dilley v. ' Alexander ,-

603 F.2d-914 (D.C. Cir 1979).

II.

Asia; consequence 'of the Board's condoning the failure of the

' Applicants to -' file a peti tion _ for exception or waiver to the filingideadline' and the Board's - granting, y par te, an oral 7

i%

b:b s' n

d

__ * ' " ^ ' - " - - --- ' ' ~ ' '

?

- request for exception, CFUR was denied the ability to respond to the: Applicants' request for an untimely filing.. The oppor tunity

- for CFUR 'to respond - to the Applicants' request for' untimeliness is 'specifically set for th in Section 2.758 and is consistent with the procedural protections of notice and ' the oppor tunity for a hearing regarding the suspension of rules regulating administea-tive proceedings as' guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Four teenth Amendment of the United States Consti tution. CFUR now a

- moves the Board to require the Applicants to conform with 10 CFR S2.758 including an af fidavit accompanying th'e petition as-required '

by_ ..the regclation.

i Alternatively, CFUR would request that the Applicants fol-low the procedures prescribed in 10 CFR S2.802, " Petition for Rule Making." .Under either procedure,CFUR will have guaranteed to it t1:e oppor tunity- to object to any regest for a waiver of any of the regulations un' der which this proceeding is being conducted. CFUR specific' ally objects tc the ex oar te oral exception which was given ' to the Applicants wi thout - notice or oppor tuni ty to object i'n violation o f Sec tion ~ 2. 730 (b) , which specifically requires

.that -

Unless made orally on- the record during a hearing, or the presidin'g officer directs otherwise, a mo-

. tionishalll be in wri ti ng , shall state with par-ticulari ty- the grounds and the reliaf sought, and'

.shall be accompanied by- any' af fidavits or other evidence relied on, and, as~ appropriate, a proposed

-form orlorder.

There -is Eno. order reflecting that the presiding of ficer 6-h _ k-

a -

4 . .; , ' ,

~ directed "otherwise. " Because this ex car te granting of'an extension will ~ af fect substantive due process rights of CFR, as explained below in Paragraphs III and:IV, CFUR would respectfully

. submit that the' action.of thel presiding officer was arbitrary and

. capricious.

. CFUR' respectfully requests that the Applicants be required-to . comply.with the regulations respecting exceptions to -

the' rules so that CFUR may have an adequate oppor tunity to respond to any such motion for exception to filing deadlines.

III.

_The'(papers . in this cause. will r eflect t' hat while the Ap-plicants have had approximately fif teen (15) days _to review the NUREG-0694, by vir tue .o f having " advance copies" (Exhibit A),

CFUR, on-'the other ' hand, has had only five days to review that -

thirty-eightlpage document and file a response to the Applicants' Object!ons1and. Motion for_ Modification. Specifically,CFUR has reason: to believe and_ does believe that the' Applicants received an " advance copy" of NUREG-0694 on June 16, 1980. The Applicants filed ltheir. Objections to the Prehearing order and Motion for Modification on July '1, fif teen (15) days following their receipt

.of [N'UREG-0 6 94 . CFUR received a copy of said document from the 1

1 Applicants _on-~ July 8,'and made a request on July 9 for five days' l iadditional' cime' to respond = to the Applicants' motion of July 1.

CFUR' requestedIa copy of NUREG-0694 and received it on July 18

[.  ?(See ' attached af fidavi t' of Dick Fouke) . CFUR was givan only five'

_ -days to.. 't eview (NUREG-0694& was required to file a response by

,c

5-

.j

e

- ~

> 1

[ July'23. LApplicants, .on.-the o ther hand, wer e given three times .

..as!long, i.e.,_ fif teen days to. review that same regulation and file: . theirL objections and - mo tions. - CFUR would ' respectfully-1 request equal ' time'.. as was granted the Applicants .in order to review. and to respond to the Applicants' Objections-and Motion.

The . Applicants would specifically object to this inequality of-revi~ew and response time on the basis of the Equal Protection and

~

' Due Process clauses of the ' Four teenth Amendment of the. Uni ted S tates ~ Consti tution. On that same legal basis, but without waiving any. prior objections, CFUR would respectfully move the -

Board .at this time to grant it an extention of ten days, until August 4,1980, to file a response to the Applicants' out-of-time

. Objections' and Motion.

I V.

Without waiving'any of the foregoing objection; and motions, if.they be. denied, CFUR, in the alternative, presents 'this partial response to - the Applicants' Objections and Motion. Due to the unequal constraints of time, as enumerated in Paragraph III above, CFUR was not able to respond completely to the Applicants'

. obj ections and motions. .

9 x_

i m e I ,

L

~

CFUH'S AITS'.ER 0PPOSIGU APPLICANTS 8 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION Citizens;for Fair Utility Regula. tion (CFUR) hereby submits an answer. _in. opp'osition to the Motion For Modification filed by Texas. Utilities. Genera. ting Company, et. al (Applicants)- un July 16, 1980h The .tpplicants coved that the . Atomic - Safety and Licensing Board (Board). modify its Order of June 16, 1980 with regard to Contentions '. 3, 4 and 9 CFUE submits tha.t the Board should deny each of the applicantsi motions.

A Contention 3c - The computer codes used in .the C?sss/FSAR sust be teste6 and, if necesxry, codified to accept the paraceters reflecting the. sequenec of events at Three Mile Island and then -

to retlj stleally - predict plant behavior.

• CFUR's Ia.itiel Answer.:-

The Applj ecnts state that this contention clearly seeks imposition

-of, requiremeots in addition to the requirements of NUREG-0694 .

This sta.tement is evidently based on requirement I.C.1 on page -

-13 of~NUREG-0694 That portion of requirecast I.C.1 sta.ted on

-page 13 and whieb shall be =et before fuel leading directs the Applicant and Steff to analyse sma.ll break LOCAs and inadequate 1;The Board. authorized CFUR to file this answer out of time;

" Order. Relative- to Additional Time For CFUE and CASE,*

July-10, 1980 1

4

- a ,

c.. "., '

~

[f .

core. cool'ing which encompass a1 significant - portion of the'

design -

basis accidentiscecarios.

- Additional requirements of NGR3G-069 L 'are also pertinent. '

Requirenent I.C.8. on page 21 directs the NRC Staff to audit small-break. LOC.W s, loss ofl fee'dvater, restart of engineered safety fea:Lurestfollowing as lossf of AC power, f steaa-line break,or steam-gccerator - tube rupture. These scenarios include additional' design ~

basie accidents. t properly conducted audit requires an analysis of theseJaccidents. This action must be completed prior to issuance ci e fc31-power l license.

Ecquirement II.E.1.1 on page 23 specifies 'that dest en basis

. accideots a nd transients and corresponding acesptance criter.ia for tho >J"4Scust be analyzed before issunnee of 4. - full-power license.

Thir. requires consideration of additional-design basis criteria.

Requirement I.k.l.1 on page 28 specifies - that the Shif t Techni-J ect.. ).tivisor r.eceive specific training- in the L design, .f unction,.

at rangeneot ~and operation of plant systems and in the' expected -

: response 'of the plant; and instruments to cor=al operation, tran-t.

Isie,nts and accidents in' eluding multiple failures of equipment and operator errors. ~ Specific training implies that soceone somewhere l- :ht.r been able to; analyze these crents - simple exposure does not constitute training. This requirement shall be 2et by January 1, fl981 --- prior to the scheduled'. issuance of the CPSES operating

)1icense.:

biditional; I.C.1 requirements on pa.ge. 30 direct the Applicant E

andistaff Lto ? analyze the design basis transients and accidents,-

-- T 4

e

-e -

c

' including single. active ' failures and considering additieaal equip-ment;failuresiand operator errors. ThisErequirement was' intended-

~to1be completedDin'early 1980; however,'soas difficulty ta'com-pletingfthis requirement has zbeen experienced. Clarification of

. the ' scope- and -revision of. the ' schedule are being developed and will

.be issued'by July, 1980.. CFUR has no infor=atton concerning possible-schedules, f or this require = eat.

TheLextent of: the deficiences in present~ analyses of design

. and off-co'r sal transients and . accidents is reflected la the NRC ,

-Lessons Learned: Task Force Short-Ters Recossendations (emphasis added.). A partial list cospiled frospages A 42 through A h5'of NUREG-0578~ follows:

"The experience of the TMI-2 accident indicates further analyses of transients and scall LOCAs are needed."'

• Even for those cases ~ in which guidelines are supplied, the guidelines are usually. based on the transient and acci-

. dent analyses fros Sectioc 15 of the 71aal Safety Analysis .

Report used in the licensing design review. This is not satis-l factory -since the section 13 FSAR: analyses are ' performed co

-demonstra.te : the acceptability of various systen designs pur-suant to : specific and prescriptive design basis events derived from-the:-Con 21ssion regulctions. More and a different kind of analysis is needed for use in developing energency pro-

. cedures and operator . training.

"The acalyses of transients and accidents shall include the design-basis / events specified in Section 15 of each ?SAR.

The -analyses sha11 include a singic active failure. . . Con-

-sequential fa11nres1sball also be considered, Failures of the operators to perform required control ~ manipulations shall be given coastderatica for_ percutations of the analyses.

Operator actions that could cause the complete loss of function

~

.offa safety systen shall also be considered.*

t v

w -

c -

-w

- "In ad'dition to 'the analyses perforced by'the~ reactor vendors,.

analyses of- selected transients should be performed by the ERC Office of Research, using the best available computer codes... These datattogether with comparisons to data, in-

. cluding LOFT stall break test da. tat, will constitute the short -

- ters verification effort to assure the adequacy of the analyti-calimethods~being used to generate energency procedures."

These reconnendations do not in any way. or sanner conflict with CPUR's' contention. It is noted by the Task Force that the

.Section -15 FSAR). analyses are in themselves deficient in that osten-sibly the analyses performed in Section 15 are supposed to demon-strate. acceptability of design but that they only address specific

~

and prescriptive design basis accidents derived from the Concission's re gulations. Even though deficient haths range of accidents addressed, it is evident that the Task Force considers 'the degree of analysis to be deficient as -well -- which is the subject satter of this contention. '

What is not clear. from the inforcation available to this inter-venor is when,the Conzission intends for these deficiencies to be corrected.. In.the view of CFUR, Requiresents I.C.1 as stat 3d on page 13 - of KUREG-0694 -together with requirements I.C.8, II.g.1.1 and I.A.1.1 constitute a-requirement-to analyze essentia;117 all of the design basis accidents taking into consideration human inter-faces. In particular, there is no vay. CFUR can think of to train an individual in the expected response of the plant and instruments to1 transients and accidents without performing an adequate analysis.

In addition, there is no vay to demonstrate accep.tability of design

• a ..

t

q, .

.~,

n .. ...

r J

for any range of accidents unle'ss t t is' l demonstrated that the equip-taentJean :be . =aintained and operated byg available persons (reasonable.

intelligence , ' proper pay ~ scale ,J appropriately; challenging, attain--

, :ableftraining,,etc.). . The computer codes used in the CPSES/FSAR (do ' not accomplish . this.

It is clear tbat these requiresents cust -be accomplished before

~

~the scheduled' issuance of the'CPSES operating ~ license. CPUR cain-Ltains that 'Contenti~on13, as vorded,. is an acceptable contention-based solely on c these considerations.

~

- CFUR wishes to point out that the contention, however,- does

~

not rely solely 'on TMI-related satters. A GAO report,EMD-79-67, documents'that human error accounted for 18 percent of all-report- -

able facidents'in 1978, with specific operator error accounting for -one-thi9d of that percentage. Although TMI-2 was the event which ~dra=atized these problems and -is 'he event suggested to be used'as aLreference, TMI-2 was not the precursor and does not con-1stitute the total basis -for- this contention.

E

. Alt' hough.CFUR raintains otherwise, if the Board decides only Requirement ~ I.C.l'on page 30 of NUREG-0694 addresses all of the computer--codes used in the CPSES/' FSAR, the contention, as worded, is clearly! acceptable and must be addressed before issuance of an

-op_ era: ting = license?in the-event that-the Co mission schedule.is

! compatible with the short-term recommendations of the Task Force.

I s

j _

s t J c

L

A In _ the . event that the Commission. decides that r equir ement I.C.1 does not- need' to be addressed in the shor t-term and the Board decides as stated in the previous paragraph, CFUR takes the followi'ng posi tions >

1) CFUR should be allowed to intervene with respect to this contention to the extent allowed by the applicable portions of requirements I.C.1, I.C. 8, II.E.1.1 and I. A. l.1 prior to issuance of an operat,ing license and with respect to the balance of I.C.1 at the proper time.

2) The above requirements are for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of emergency procedures and operator training. Adequacy of design is an ancillary concern. The CPSES/FSAR purpor ts to document adequacy of design but is clearly deficient. Thi s deficiency should not be allowed to continue. This consideration alone shoul'd be sufficient reason to admit this contention.

B. Con ten tio n 4. The Applicants have not raised any new or intervening information which'was not before the Board when it issued its Order. Rather, the Applicants are merely quibbling with the Board.

C. Contention 9. The Applicants, again, have not raised any new or intervening information which was not before the Board when. i t issued its Order . The Applicants continue to of fer specious arguments. Reference is made to requirements set for th in 10 CFR par t 50, Appendix I.

Section 20.106, " Radioactivity in Ef fluents to Unrestricted Areas," of the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Par t 20,

[,: , ,

-13 _

"S taridards for Pro tection Against-Radi'ation," establishes limi ts -

g-c; - - -

Von concentratio'ns of : radioactive: material in effluents to unre-

~

< 's tr ic ted; ar e a s'.: Paragraph 20'.1(c) of 10 CFR Par ti 20 states that, i'n addition to complying within the ' limits: set forth in' that par t, licensees should . make - everyL reasonable ef for t : to : maintain re-

" leases ' o f ->r adioactivs materi'als tin - ef fluents to ' unr estricted '

' areas as;far below theilimits specified-as is reasonably achiev-

=able ( ALARA) '.

!This implies- that the cumulative man-rem dosage _ should be_

minimi2 ed corisistent with:the measurement criteria established for 'ALARA purposes and is consistent with the basis for this contention. CFUR urges the Board to deny- the Applicants.' motion.

~

9

,- 1 f

a 1

1

~

w :- - . ._

4 , ,

- i f.N.  ; .

s -

, . , +

PRAYER <

- WHEREFORE, : PREMISES CONSIDERED, CFUR respectfully prays-Ethat .the LCour t grant its motion in. the ;;following respects:

~

^

[(1) The Applicants be ordered by the Board to petition. the -

+ - Board Lfor. an exception;or . waiver pursuant to 10' CFR S2.758 or!10

= CFR _ '5 2. 80 2 ; :

(2) The' Board' gr ant CFUR's motion for extension of time- to -

fileL the'ir. response th the Applicants' Statement.of objections E and Motion- fo~r' Modification: o f Pr ehearing Conference Order , the extension being' ten '(10) days,- until' August 4, 1980;

,(3)_ The Board sustain.the par tial objections by CFUL to the

. Applicants ' Objections and ' Mo tion for Modi fi cation.

Respectfully submitted, if #  % s' RfEHARD FOUKE

1668B Car ter Drive Ar li ng to n , Texas 76010

)

l ARCH C. McCOLL,-III '

701-Commerce Street, Suite -302 Dallas, Texas 75202-(214)744-5044 JEFFERY L. HART tc 3 4021 Presco tt ' Avenue-Dallas, Texas '75219

m. .,-

O i

4

,. ',. y

~

s . .j; ~ i. ,

, .,n. .u- ,_ -.

g --( ,

t_-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby cer tify that copies of CFUR'S Objection to Appli-cants' Statement Of Objections To Prehearing Conference Order For

. Lack .Of:Timelines's,-~ Etc. in:the above'-captioned proceeding have been served on ths following by deposit in the United States mail, .

. first class, this 23rd day-of July, -1980.

Eli?.abeth S. Bowers,.Esq., Chairman Atomic Sa fety and Licensing - Board .

U. S.ENuclear Regulatory Comnission g\ O 4

Washing ton', . DC 20555 Dr . Forrest J. Remick, Member < C00hW '

Atomic. F,sfety and Licensing Board _

US #

U.S. Nucelear Regulatory Commission 9- m 2 B GS0

• _12 Washi ng ton ,. DC 20555 ' '-

,g g Richz,rd Cole, Esq., Member 9 c -3 ; s ni"-+

h /

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board W s U.S. ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission s #

1r a N .

Wa shi ng to n , ' DC 20555 ~

' Mar jorie Ulman Ro thschild , Esq.

Office 3f Executive Legal Director U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Washing ton, D'. C. 20555 Nich'olas lS. .Reynolds, Esq.

Debevois G.Liberman

.120 0 17 th -~S tr ee t , N.W..

Washi ng ton , DC ' 20036 Mrs. Juanita Ellis?

President, CASE, 1426~ South Polk Street ' i Dallas, Texas.~75224 '

Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay:

West Texas

• Legal 1 Services 100 Main. S treet f(Lawyer s - Building)

For t: Wor th, Texas 76102

( ,. +

.au.,

pc.

n -

, g, -

1

~

i' 1 - . a ,, . . ,-

h; o. . , ,

. -DavidjJ.'Preister,;Isq.7

' Assistant : Attorney- Gener al .

Environmental Protection Dvision

~ ' P ::0. : BoC 12548, .' Capi tol' Station

, Austin,; Texas .7.8711:-

' Atomic ~: Safety and ! Licensing Board Panel-U. S '. y Nuclear . Reg ulator y ' Commi's sion :

. ~

l Washington, DC 2055_5-

' Atomic ' Safety and J Licensing Appeal Panel .

s U.S". Nuclear : Regulatory Commission-Washing ton, .- DC L -20 55 5 -

' Docketing- and: Service Section of fice. o f -! the1 Sect e tary U.S.-; Nuclear' Regulatory Commission '

- Washi ng ton , -~ DC :. : 20 5 55

,/ .jn_s M)qt.

Richard L. Fo uke CFUR 9

+

r v

1 A

y -

V 4

Y A

-m >- + -

g - ,~ -

~

g. l h: . '

r

~

y ,3 7 ,. , . .

t@

. CP 1 UNITED STATES --OF AMERICA -

4' 5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION =

• 0

^ M l %cb+F

- f BEFORE.THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING' BOARD bgB$N g.-, n

~

~

(9 3 sx3$ /

tin the: Matter Jof: 1 t.,gg$~\g g

TEXLS; UTILITIES GENERATING ) ~ Dock e t No s . 50 -4 4 5 4 y b

COMPANY,,et'at- }- 50-446-

~

).

(Comanchs

Peak S team Electric )

S tation, Units 'l' and ~2)

)

~

ORDER

-Onfthi's ? day, the Board having received CFUR's (1) Objection to Applicants' Statement Of. Objections To Prehearing Conference e

Order ? Fot - Lack : Of Timeliness - (2)! Motion Requesting Applicants '

Compliance - Wi th : Regulations 'Regarding Extensions. Of Tima (3)

F ..

Motio'n -For , Equal Time Extension for Responding To Applicants '

S tatement Of . Objections and Mo tion for Modification and (4) 4 CFUR's Par tial' Objection To Applicants' Statement Of Objections On The Merits, is of the opinion that the motion is meritorous and should 'be granted' in the .following respects:

(1) 'The Applicants are ordered by the. Board to petition the Board!.for an exception or vaiver pursuant to 10 CFR S2.758 or 10!

CFRIS2.8.02 r egarding its .out-of-time. Objections and Motion.

'( 2 ) ~. The Board-hereby grants CFUR's motion for extension of time 1 todfile ; ; theld response' to the Applicants' Statement of.

Objectionsiand $otion for Mcdification of Prehearing. Conference

Order , .

the :nxtensioni baing ten - (10) days, until August 4,1980; b I 4 s b'

,x *

(( - i

y. ~. . .. ._.;. ,

=- -

a=: , .;g.. -

z - ', -

, , .n y*. ; a;.- , -

a. ,

2 3; __ _ _

- } (3),1Ths Board .' herebyjsustains the' par tial! objections [by.

M

~

' [CFUR . to:Tthe :- Applicant's ' . Objectio'ns ;and Mo tion 2 for 1 Modi fication

~

y; -

w Jin the[followingf respects:

4

, IT-ISSO ORDERED.

j. _.

, FOR.THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Elizabeth S. Bower s, Chairman Datsd ' .at '.Bethesda, Maryland,; this- day of ,

t

1980.

e t.

' ' E ?.

t rV.,

,.  : s ,

! -7 4

5 ' ~

j ,, r e f

k ~

-[

g., .

', e d s-y ,

as+- y s E

i::. _. '_ _ ._. . _._:._ _ m

, _. =

1. ,~

1 4

1. g '

^

' ltp: }gg -

k

.~

.~ ,

y

's  : -

e

~

~ - -

NHE.ISTkTE.0FiTEXASj):

.. . . . -). -

. ots 1 COUNTY [OFj DALLAS )~

s u

' ^

':On this(day personally appeared before me RICHARD FOUKE,. to'.

_ ime' well known, 'wholonthi's o'ath ' deposes Land :says: as fellows:-

' ~

.'Myi name Dis ; Richard Fouke. ; :I have - been ' active as an in-tervenor in'c a matter .before the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

s6yled ~In The Mattdr .of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric -Station, Uni ts 1 and 2), Dockets

' No's. . 5 0-4 4 5 /and 50-4 4 6. . I- r eceived NUREG-0694 on July 18, 1980, L and -had only, five (5) days af ter receipt of same to respond even though the ' document is - qui te lengthy.

~

. .I .found that due to the- technical nature of the document, I

was unable to 1 complete my. Objections on. behalf.of CFUR to the

.'ObjectionsJof: the Applicants, and I would respectfully request a

. ten-day. extension so that I might have the .same amount- of time that' the Applicants had ' to r eview the. documents. '

Respectfully submitted, y k' e RICHARD FOUKE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN 'TO - BEFORE ME this ~ day of M ,,1-19'80.

1. / ,

~

' j' Notary Public _in and for Dallas, County, . Texas.

U_.

.2-

,,h ,

v l <

.:s.

c., .r '_ -

n .e

$1' ~

+

n ---

s cf ut- 7

,...z p"f%41

• ' foi <

UNITED STdTES l'$-S.) (d . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

W ASHitvGToN. O. c. 20555 *

, 3' % .*g%:$

$GA '[f .f ~ C "

3 ~w .

f: Ly-July'11, 1980.

Mrs'. Juanita Ellis President, CASE.

.Ik26 South Polk Street .

Dallas , TX :. 75224 In the Matter of Texas-Utilities Generating donpany, et al.

~(Cecanche Peak Stes:s Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

._ Docket Nos. 50 kh5 and 50 Lh6

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of yesterday, I en enclosing a copy of N'JiEG-C69h, entitled "TMI-Related Require =ents - for New Operating Licenses,"

' dated June 1980.

As I advised you, our office has not yet received our ovn copies of this

-publication, in as =uch as the publication thus far has been reproduced only in a limited nu=ber of advance copies. I received the enclosed copy -

only yesterday, upon making a special request to the NRC's publications office.-

By copy of this . letter, I am for arding copies of the enclosed I"JREG-069h

-to Intervenors CTUR and ACORN.

Sincerely, Lu) D N Shervin 2. Turk Counsel for li?C Staff

Enclosure:

- NUPIG-0694 Lcc:v/ enc 1: Mr. Richard Fouke Mr.;Geoffrey M. Gay ec v o encl:' Rest of Service List m

/t ;r rw