ML20024E274
| ML20024E274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1983 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jay Collins, Harold Denton, Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E275 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308100165 | |
| Download: ML20024E274 (2) | |
Text
-.
j f
c 0 #l5 J
4 August 8, 1983 Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement John T. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) - ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION On July 29, 1983, the Comanche Peak Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a " Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning Aspects of Construction Quality Control, Emergency Planning and Board Questions)." The Board noted that it adopted the unusual procedure of issuing a " proposed deci-sion" because two of the three members of the present Board (Judges Bloch and Jordan) became Board members after completion of hearings on the matters it addresses in the decision. The effect of designating the deci-sion as " proposed" is to permit the Board to invite comments, in the form of objections to its " tentative conclusions" before the Board becomes committed to them. Such objections must be received by the Board within 22 days of the issuance of the decision. Copies of the decision have been provided to your staffs to elicit their comments on the decision so that objections, if any, may be timely filed.
In addition, the Board identified approximately 22 "open items" or matters raised during the hearing concerning which the Board believes it needs additional information.
Resolution of certain of the "open items" identified by the Board may require additional evidence from the staff, either in the form of affidavits or testimony.
The Proposed Initial Decision is the first decision relating to the merits of the contested issues in the Comanche Peak operating licensing proceeding.
It concerns (1) certain allegations raised by Intervenors' witnesses relating to Contention 5 (construction quality assurance / quality control),
(2) Contention 22 (emergency planning), and (3) four " Board Questions."
8308100165 830808
)
PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
, a _
e 4 With respect to quality assurance / quality control, the Board stated it did not attempt to evaluate the overall efficiency of the quality assurance program in the proposed decision but rather, whether any of the alleged deficiencies raised by the Intervenor's witnesses are sufficiently serious and uncorrectable that the plant, due to those deficiencies, cannot operate with the requisite degree of safety.
(Decision, at 5.) The decision does not cover the "Walsh/Doyle" allega-tions, or other "particular alleoations" which were the subject of hear-ings held after September 17, 1982. While the Board declared Intervenor CASE to be in default on each allegation on which it has not filed find-ings of fact, the Board nevertheless stated that it had " examined each important allegation that is in default in order to determine whether to raise any of these defaulted issues by ourselves (sua sponte)."
(Decision, at2.) Although the Board did not raise any issues sua sponte in this initial decision, it identified, with respect to Conteiition 5, certain "open items" for which additional evidence is needed before the Board can determine whether or not to declare a sua sponte issue. According to the
'oard as to certain open items, a "fi'eTd investigation" is the only way to "cWify the scope of the problem."
(Decision, at 35 and 39, concerning unentrolled weld rods and use of torque seal, respectively.)
With respect to emergency planning, the Board is not satisfied that the emergency plans as presently constituted are adequate. The Board intends to continue to observe the development of the emergency plans and may raise issues sua sponte later if commitments are not met or deficiencies are not rectiTied.
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
Attachment:
ASLB Proposed Initial Decision cc w/
Attachment:
W.J. Dircks DISTRIBUTION:
MURothschild SATreby MKarman SETurk GSMizuno ESChristenbury JPMurray JLieberman ELD Rdg.
Off/Chron GCunningham(Chron)
JGutierriz, Reg. I BJones, Reg. II Slewis, Reg. III DESIGNATED ORIGINAL BBrown, Reg. IV Certified By 3507 DAs A
- OELD
- 0 ELD / &
V 0FC :0 ELD:mb/as
_:_____ 37 ___: ____ V______:_'
NAME :MRot sc ild : SATriby
- EChristenbury u'nningham:
_____:____________:____________:____________;p2_________:____________:____________:.__________
DATE :08/04/83
- 08/04/83 :08/04/83 7 08/04/83
./
-