ML20041E106

Advises That Statement in NRC 820219 Ltr That Written Answers Unnecessary to Interrogatories Is Incorrect.Formally Requests ASLB to Direct NRC to Answer Interrogatories.W/ Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20041E106
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/01/1982
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Cole R, Mccollom K, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8203100152
Download: ML20041E106 (9)

Text

- .

, ~ ^'

, ~ ~ rs: Ju w w o:m -- z.

ik26 S. Polk Y-h3

[dkh ' f ,. J g tallas, Texas 7522k'-

21L/9L6-9hk6 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) 214/941-1211, work _

t: -,. -

.c. 7 March 1, 1952 Marshall E. Miller, Esq. , Chairman Dr. Richard Cole Adninistrative Judge Ad::dnistrative Judge -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atcraic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co::rission U. S. Duc1 car Pegulatory Cannission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washingecn, D. C. 20555 D: . Kenneth A. McG>11orn Adninistrative Judge Dean, Division of Engineering, -

Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State thiversity fD;]/

h Stilhmter. Oklahoma 74074 js In the Matter of .<n?D -

Texas Utilities Generating Company, et_lal.

(Comanche Peak Stea:n Electric Station, Units 7 and 2)

"' e [3 f-Docket !bs. 50-445 and 50-446 -

4

Dear Administrative Judges:

q ghU sm Pursuant to the Board Chairman's directive to put it in writing, this is to advise that the information contained in the February 19, 1982, letter to the writer from Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Counsel for NRC Staff, contained an incorrect statement: "It is my under-standing that you feel the Staff satisfactorily responsed to those

inter _rogatories during the conference call and on that basis, written answers will not be necessary."

During the February 18 conference call with Ms. Roth s child ,

Spottswood Burwell, and CPSES Resident Inspector Bob Taylor, I stated, l

in response to Ms. Rothschild's incuiry, that my thinking at that time was that written answers woulc. not be necessary, but to let me think about it over the weekend and look things over and get back l with her Monday, February 22; that if she didn't hear from me on Monday, she could assume that written answers would not be necessary.

(Although I did not go into this at the time with Ms. Rothschild, j CASE was still in the. process of evaluating CFUR's withdrawal from the hearings and its effect on Contention 5 and possible hearing schedules, and whether or not CASE could continue in the hearings as the sole intervenor. We expected to make a firm decision in this regard over the weekend, and did so. I did not want to tell the Staf f that written answers woul' be required until I was 'certain ,

what CASE's decision would be in that regard.)

On Friday, February 19, 1982, we received a call from the NRC Y} 2 Staff to the effect that NRC Co=missioner Thomas Roberts was going to make a tour of the Comanche Peak facility on Monday, February 22, cnd that I was invited to also take the tour. Over the weekend, we

//

made the decision, to remain in the hearings as the sole intervenor.

8203100152 820301 PDR AD0tK 05000445 0 PDR t . _ . _ ,

i .

e 2-On Monday morning, February 22, I placed a call to the NRC office of Ms. Rothschild. She was not in, sc I left word that I was going on the tour at Comanche Peak with Commissioner Roberts and would be unavailable for the rest of the day, and to advise Ms. Rothschild that we would need answers in writing and that I would call her the next day (Tuesday, February 23) .

On Tuesday, February 23, I called Ms. Rothschild and advised that we would want the answers in writing, since we intended to use them in deposing or cross-examining NRC Staff witnesses. in the hearings. It is our understanding that one of the primary purposes of discovery is to cut down on the actual time spent in the hearings themselves. Ms . Rothschild indicated, as she had emphatically several times before in telephone conversctions, that the Staff .

didn't have to answer anything or supply any documents unless l ordered to do so by the Board. She further stated that they would, however, be willing to consider supplying answers to some of the questions if we would drop the ones the Staff considered obj ection-able. In answer to my inquiry if she was saying that they would not answer any questions if we didn't drop the ones they considered objectionable, she replied that they might not. Since we had only asked questions to which we wanted answers and since we believed all our questions were necessary and proper, I advised Ms. Rothschild -

that we would prefer that the Staff go ahead and answer all the questions we had asked, in writing, objecting to those they felt were improper, and leave it to the Board to make that determination.

It was not until we received Ms. Rothschild's February 19 letter on February 25 that we realized that she had erroneously jumped the gun and (by copy of her letter) advised the Board that written answers  :

would not be necessary. -

-[

~

In conclusion, we are formally requesting the. Board to grant our request to direct the Staff to expeditiously answer our questions and provide the documents requested. Ms. Rothschild has already indicated that they will do this, and this letter is just to set the record straight.

There are also some matters on which we would appreciate the =

Board's help in the way of clarifying procedures for us.

1.

There is some confusion in our minds as to what is considered -

to be part of the hearing process and what isn't. Some back-ground information is necessary at this point . On October 21, 22, and 23, 1980, the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel visited CPSES 7

e M.

3- -

i 1

to determine (as I was told) how much work still remained to be done, so that they would know how to allocate the NRC's manpower. I was told by the NRC Staff about this trip, which was to include a tour of the plant on October 22. The NRC invited CA3E to attend. In a simtlar manner to what happened 4

l regarding the recent plant tour by Commissioner Roberts, we l were told by the utility that we could not go on the plant tour. -

l

' To make a long story short, the October 7T and 23 meeting portion was open to the public, but CASE, as an Intervenor, was barred from going on the plant tour. Our inquiries to several people in the NRC were answered that the Caseload Forecast Panet s l

tour was not a part of the hearing process per se but rather i

a regular thing which the NRC had been doing prior to the the l hearings for the operating license being set up, that utility had the right to bar Intervenors from taking the '

i j tour since it was on private property, but that the NRC's meeting would be open to the public.

i It was at the October 23 meeting, after the NRC's tour ,

^

of the plant on October 22, that the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel came up with their estimate that Unit I would be com-pleted December 1982 instead of December 1981 as the utility l

I was currently projecting.

On Friday, February 19, 1982, I received a telephone call .

from the NRC Staff telling me of the visit and tour of CPSES on Monday', February 22, by Commissioner Roberts and inviting i me to go also. I was advised to contact the utility about what I

time to be there, whether or not my husband could accompany me (I knew he would want to accompany me on the 70 mile + trip, 140 miles + round-trip) , and to make arrangements to get in i

the gate. I did so, and on Saturday morning, February 21, re-ceived another call from the utility stating that we could not -

go on the tour with the Commissioner.. I attempted to contact someone with the NRC, and happened to catch one of Commissioner Roberts' assistants in his office on Saturday. I explained the

' situation to him, pointing out that we were an Intervenor in the CPSES proceedings and that we had a specific contention about the way the plant was being built andHethat we really wanted said he would get to go on the tour with the Commiss'ioner.

back with me on.it. About 5:00 P.M., I received a call from l

the utility company, inviting nie to be their personal guest on the tour (but was advised my husband could not go).

Had I not been able fortuitously to contact Commissioner i

Roberts' assistant, we would have again been barred from going on the plant tour.

It is my understanding that the Intervenors in the South time to be at the plant Texas Project hearings were told what l

j site to accompany Commissioner Roberts on the plant tour he took

' on Sunday, February 21, that they were there at that time, waited for an hour, then lef t a note; they did not get to accompany the Commissioner on the tour of STNP.

j -

J Me

Our question in this regard is:

Are Caseload Forecast Panel plant tours part of the  ;

licensing process or not? -

l 4

A e tours by the Commissioners part of the licensing j process or not, when Intervenors have specific contentions q about the way the plant 's being built?

Would not the Commissioner's visit to STNP and to CPSES come under the rules regarding ex parte communications, )

since he would ultimately be one of the decision-makers regarding whether or not operating licenses are granted ~

for the two plants?  !

i

2. A related area of confusion exists regarding Incpection and l En forcement (I&E) Reports. For some time, CASE and the other Intervenors have been receiving the I&E Reports (under an _

agreement with the NRC) from the Region IV office in Arlington when they are released to the public. However, we have never received the Applicants' answers to them, although those answers i are being sent to the UTA library mini-public document room. <

(This has meant that the only way to get Applicants' answers has been for us to make the 30-mile round trip ever so often "

to see if perhaps some new answers have come in from the Applicants.) Because of this, we have never really thought of the I&E Reports as an actual part of the hearing process; this opinion was further enforced by what we were told by the  :

NRC regarding the Caseload Forecast Panel, since the I&E Re-ports were being done prior to the hearings being set up (as l

were the Caseload Forecast Panel's tours) .

8 Our quection in this regard is: -

Are I&E Reports part of the licensing process or not?

If they are, shouldn't all parties receive copies of them, as well as copies of the Applicants' answers? ,

3. Some questions have been raised in our minds regarding the February 19, 1982 (two-page) letter from Ms. Rothschild to ,

me, .which we received February 25. One is the statement- -

that "...it is nct appropriate for you to contact directly -

members of the NRC technical Staff, including inspectors or -

investigators in the Region IV office, for the purpose of a requesting info rma tion or documents . . ." etc . Another is -

the statement "...it is not appropriate for you to request from the Staff, as part of discovery, a document wich hasn't been issued yet, such as 'I&E Report 81-12.'"

i;

5-Our question in regard to the first is:

Does this mean that the NRC's investigative branch cannot make confidential, independent investigations about CPSES without having to go through the NRC Staff counsel? .

Regarding the second, CASE attempted to contact Chairman Miller on February 12, 1982, to clear up whether or not .

I&E Reports are part of the hearing process and whether l or not it was necessary to ask for them in interrogatories [

to the NRC Staff. Mr. Miller was out and Dr. Cole returned the call (which we had left for Mr. Miller or Dr. Cole , which- #

ever returned that day, which was a Friday) . Dr. Cole advised us to put in writing any requests for any documents we wanted. ,

(We apolo ;ize to Dr. Cole for any discomfort this may have -

caused him -- we certainly had no desire to put him in what -

could have even remotely been considered to be an ex parte situation.)

We did file interrogatories regarding I&E Report 81-12, to be sure it was in the record that we were attempting to obtain this document and had as yet been unable to do so because it was not yet available. We were especially in-terested in any possible tie-in with the ASME's allowing Brown and Root's certification and stamps to axpire on January 8, 1982, and whether or not the NRC had found any problems similar to those outlined in ASME's letter in that regard. (See CASE's 1/4/82 Sixth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Applicants , CASE's 2/10/82 Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, CASE's 2/10/82 First Set of Interrogatories to NRC Staff and Requests to Produce, and CASE's 2/13/82 Second Set of Inter-rogatories to NRC Staff and Requests to Produce.) We are also interested in the results of the investigation, whatever those ,

l results may be.

We are now frankly quite confused. We have been told by Dr. Cole to ask for any documents we want in interrogatories; we have been told by Ms. Rothschild that it was not appropriate for us to request from the Staff, as part of discovery, a docu-ment which hasn't been issued yet, such as "I&E Report 81-12."

.We request clarification from the Board on this matter.

4. Much of the confusion which har resulted recently from some of the preceding could be alleviated, we believe , by a clari-fication by the Board of precisely what the Applicants and the NRC Staff are supposed to advise the Board of in these proceedings. CASE's understanding is apparently quite different from that of the Applicants and the Staff.

. ~.

- 1 1

CASE was unaware of the ASME's allowing 3rown and Root's i i

certification and stamps to expire until we were sent a copy of the attached article from the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM dated December 24, 1981; it was some time later before we received it. We immediately began discovery  !

regarding it. (See our 1/4/82 Sixth Set of Interrogatories ,

to Applicants and Requests to Produce.) We have been dili-  !

i gently pursuing it ever since.

Had we been aware of this matter earlier (obviously the Applicants were aware of it prior to the December hearings, and according to our verbal co=munications, at least the CPSES NRC Resident Inspector and regional manage-  ;

ment were also aware of it), we would have been able to ,

begin discovery much earlier on it and would not now be in the position of having to ask for an extension of time -

to pursue it further (see attached Motion for Extension of  !

Time for Discovery on Contention 5) .

In response to our question as to why they do not believe such certification problems (as the ASME's allowing Brown and Root's certification and stamps to expire) come within the Board's Order to Applicants to keep thg Board advised .

of significant events in these proceedings , Applicants . . ,

responded " Applicants are not required to notify the Board of such matters at this phase of the proceeding. Applicants are obliged to inform the Board of matters which may affect the Board's deliberation on issues which have been litigated, e.g., Contention 25. Contention 5, however, has not even been scheduled for a hearing. Further, Applicants are under an obligation to notify the Board of changes in the schedule -

for completion of Comanche Peak since such changes could affect the Board's schedule for the hearings on the remaining issues. Matters affecting scheduling are not involved in this Case..., .

In verbal response to our question as to why the NRC Staff i

does not believe such certification problems (as the ASME's allowing' Brown and Root's certification and stamps to expire) come within the Board's Order to the Staff to keep the Board advised of significant events in these proceedings 3, the answer

'was that the NRC Staff doesn't have to account for why, but that r 1 CASE's 2/10/82 Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and -

Requests to Produce, page 3, Question 1(c) . ,

l 2 Applicants' 2/25/82 Answers to CASE's Seventh Set of Interrogatories,

pages 1 and 2, Answer 1.c.

3 CASE's 2/10/32 First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to NRC Staff, page 3, Question 3.(d).

i

.. ~.

0 .

the Staff is supposed to advise the Board of anything that would affect scheduling which this clearly does not, that the Board notification program, through NRR, relates to sig-nificant new information, which the CPSES NRC Resident In-spector didn't consider this to be.

CASE considers this to be at least potentially significant new information (it was certainly new and significant to us) , certainly worthy of exploring through discovery. Al- l though this might not have an effect on the actual date set for litigating Contention 5, it has already had an' effect on the cut-off date for discovery and is one of g the reasons CASE has now found it necessary to request f an extension of time for discovery on Contention 5 (see attached). The decision by the Applicants end the NRC '

Staff that this information does not come under the Board's directive to keep it informed of significant events in these proceedings has placed a hardship on this Intervenor, necessitated our asking for a delay, and (we believe) is not in keeping with the Board's in t ent in its directive.

We request that the Board clarifv its intent in its directive to the NRC Staff and the Applicants to keep it informed of significant events in these proceedings.

CASE has always expected to work within the rules of the NRC in these proceedings. However, we need to know clearly what the rules really are and what they mean.

We realize that the Board may not be the best source of this in-formation, but we frankly don't know who else to turn to for this in formation . We ask that the Board please clarify us or refer us to someone within the NRC who can do, these so. things for s

Sincerely, CASE (CIT 1ZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY) une fDL fMrs.) Juanita Ellis, .

President

. 64

THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 74.1981 51 (1981 FORT WCRTH STAR TElfGR AM SC y Brown & Root permit to expire j 2.

at Comanche Peak N-plant siteg  ! l t

construction and record keeping proce- tion and manufacture of critical safety By MICilELLE SCOTT star Telegram writer dures. He said those inconsistencies aresafety cause stems covered problems by plant.

at the the certification migj The certification that allows Brown & being corrected and will be inspected  !

But an of ficial with Texas Utilities Gen-Root to manufactt:re and install certain again by the ASM E team on Jan.18 22.The team willinform Texas Utihties of their crating Co. a subsidiary of Texas Utilities - i ecmponents a t the Comanche Peak nucle- decision on whether to issue a new stamp inchargeof constructionatthep' ant has '

ar power pla nt will expire Jan. 8, about 10 said those inconsistencies would not days beforca tea m of consultantsis sched. on The Jan. certification 22, he said. stamp indicates com- cause safety problems. .

uled to resurvey proc ed ures at the plant. p cd

~

Problems that kept the ASME team ,<

Texas Electric Service Co. spokesman n it y te sa dc po ents f rom issumg renewals included inconsis- - ,

George Hedrick said Wednesday, howev- at the plant, such as pressurized piping tencies between the main manual and,1 cr,thatexpirationof thecertificationwill systems, once they are completed. Work those manuals used by employees doing not affect work at the plant construction in those areas tnay be continued despite the actual work; inconsistencies in the ,

site, not willit a f fet the plant's construc- the lack of certificatics But they cannot way records were kept; and generalin , .

tion schedule.TESCO is one of the utility be certified as safe untit the stamp is reis_ consistency between the engineering so- . ,

cornpanies that is scheduled to receive sued. Hedrick said~ ciety. and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory J -

power f rom the Te xas Utilities Co.-owned c The ASME tcam "will review material Commission.

plant. to make sure the company is complying The NRC has said Texas Utilities is re-Ateamof AmericanSocietyof Mechan- with procedures described in the certifi- sponsible for overall quality of the plant. -

ical Engineers consultants decided cation," Hedrick said. "Upon determin- Th e society's code, how ever, requires that against renewing the certification during ing the procedures are being followed, only the stamp owner (Brown & Root).~

a regular review of the plant conducted they will renew ASME certification."

Oct.12-14. Hedrick said the stamp was not Employees of Brown & Root quality makes decisions and issues directives to assura nce have complained that inconsis- employ ees doing the work.Thatinconsis .

renewed because of inconsistencies be-tween the contrac tor's manual and actual tencies in manuals they use for installa- tency is in negotiation.  :

5:

~~ ~~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIO!ISS10N

• I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING, BOARD, ~

.. T*1 :21 In the Matter of I I  !

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I Docket Nos. 50-445 )

GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR A" I and 50-446  ;

OPEMTING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I I PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I -

,l UNITS 81 AND 02 (CPSES) I ,f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L

By my signature below, I hereby certify that true 'and correct copies '

r of CASE's 3/1/82 Letter to ASLB Members .

M have been Sent to the names listed below thiS lst day of March .

Express Mail where indicated by

• and Firs t Class Mail d 1982, by:

'~

Elsewhere

• Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. Preiste r, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Atterney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environmental Protection Division -

W2shington, D. C. 20555 'P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean ,

G. Marshall Gilmore, Esq. 3 Division of Enginecring, Architecture, 1060 W. Pipeline Road and Technology Hurst, Texas 76053 .

Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074

• Dr. Richard Cole, Member ,

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CormEission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W3shington, D. C, 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 17th St. , N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. -l

• Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Office of Executive I4 gal Director Office of the Secretary ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 ,~

h J M s_.- _. bJ k{Mrs.IJuanitaEllis, ASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION President FOR SOUND ENERGY)

.e =,s .ge, . em ae_

_ _ _ _ . - __ -_____