ML20072K096

Motion to Compel Applicants to Provide Design Criteria & Related Info on Pipe Supports.Info Relevant to Walsh/Doyle Allegations.Applicants Have Not Made Required Showing That Info Sought Is Proprietary.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20072K096
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/23/1983
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8303300371
Download: ML20072K096 (7)

Text

mp..

, s s

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

23/83 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cf[,h,c,p' US BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g3 1:;R 28 P1:36 In.the Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTII.ITIES Docket Nos' 50f4 N 0th GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR l and S0:446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 I '

(CPSES)

CASE'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE DESIGN CRITERIA AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION ON PIPE SUPPORTS Pursuant to the Board's 3/9/83 Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Conference Call), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, has been -

engaging in good-faith efforts with the NRC Staff and the Applicants to obtain

" informal discovery" on matters to be litigated in the upcoming April 4-8 hearings.

This includes the Walsh/Doyle allegations.

As indicated in the Board's 3/9/83 Order, "The Staff and the Applicants -

have agreed to supply CASE p~romptly with documents cited in these Inspection Reports and other necessary data through informal discovery." However, the Applicants have informedusl that they will not supply us with several items referenced by and/or relied on by the NRC Staff and requested by CASE in its '

Mr.rch 11 and March 16 letters to Applicants. Pursuant to the Board's orders, '

we have advised Applicants and NRC Staff that we are filing this instant motion.

The Board is well aware of the circumstances surroundin g the refusal of the Applicants to. supply the design criteria and other related infonnation for the pipe supports by ITT Grinnel and NPS Industries (NPSI) and of CASE's efforts to obtain these documents. These are detailed in CASE's 1/28/83' Request 1

On March 21, 1983.

C303300371 830323 PDR ADOCK 05000445 t

L _

PDR

& j

+ <

. s for Show Cause Order to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, NRC, Washington, D. C., andwe incorporate that pleading herein by reference.

(We are attaching a copy of that pleading to the Board's copies of this pleading, for the convenience of the Board.)

Since our 1/28/83 Request for Show Cause Order, we have received the NRC Staff's Inspection Report 50-445/82-26, 50-446/82-14 (hereinafter referred to as I&E 82-26) under cover letter of February 22, 19.83. The Staff indicated that it expected that this I&E P.eport will fom the basis for the Staff's tes'ti-mony on the Walsh/Doyle allegations in the upcoming April 4-8 hearings. In I&E 82-26, there are numerous references made to "ITT-Grinnell and NPSI guidelines

... design criteria adopted by PSE, ITT-Grinnell and NPSI..." etc. (See, for example, pages 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 17, 43, 44, 45, 50 of I&E 82-26.) And on page 35 of I&E 82-26, it states: "The Special Inspection Teae evaluated the calculations perfomed by both PSE and NPSI in detail. The review included the modeling techniques, design criteria, analytical assumptions, computer programs, and hand calculations. Discussions were held with individuals in the PSE, ITT-Grinnell, and NPSI design groups who routinely performed the calculations and were involved in the design process." (See also items '3, 46, 49, 90, 94, 98, 99, 101, 104, 147, 153, 178, 182 of CASE's requested list of documents attached to our letter of March 11 to Applicants.) .

ITT-Grinnell and NPSI are two of the three primary suppliers of pipe supports at Comanche Peak. And on page 34 of I&E 82-26, it is stated: "The large bore t

piping afsports were primarily_ designed by ITT-Grinnell and NPSI. There are over 16,000 such supports and hangers in Unit 1 and over 11,000 in Unit 2."

l (Emphasis added.) It is obvious that information regarding the design. criteria for these two suppliers is vitally important to any meaningful assessment of the Walsh/Doyle allegations and the NRC Staff's I&E 82-26. It is also obvious i

b

- that the NRC'Special Inspection Team relied extensively on both verbal and written information regarding the ITT-Grinnell and NPSI design critoria and other related information and documents when preparing I&E 82-26 and when arriving at their conclusions regarding the Walsh/Dcyle allegations. It is  ;

ludicrous to think that the design criteria for these two companies will be withheld from Intervenor CASE, .the Licensing Board, and the public when they attempt to assess the Walsh/Doyle allegations and the NRC's I&E 82-26.

As indicated in its March 11 letter to the Board (re: Response to CASE's  ?

1/28/83 Request for Show Cause Order), it should be noted that the February 15, 1983, cover letter to I&E Report 82-26 included (last paragraph) the usual pro-vision for Applicants to notify the NRC if anything contained in the I&E Report was of a proprietary nature pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790. There is no indication that Applicants filed pursuant to that provision, and we therefore requested

.that Applicants supply us with the NPSI and ITT Grinnel design criteria and gu'delines and related infonnation as part of the informal discovery provided for by the Board in its 3/8/83 confuence call. Applicants have stated that their position is unchanged, that the information is proprietary and that it is not available to them. (CASE's efforts to obtain the infonnation through NPSI and ITT Grinnel direct are detailed in CASE's 1/28/83 Request for Show l Cause Order.) ,

CASE does not believe the Applicants have made the required showing that the infonnation sought is proprietary. However, even should it be determined that such is the case, the Licensing Board should balance this against the public's right to be fully apprised regarding the design and construction of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak. (See 10 CFR 2.790(b)(5).) .

Clearly, in this instance the right of the public to be fully apprised l

b

- - - _ . t

. .p tO

.> L

' hH g

M W;

~

clearly outweighs other considera tions. The idea of having secret pipe supports l at Comanche Peak is completely contrary to the idea of having public hearings, t

to any semblance of fairness and justice, and to CASE's rights to due process .

as an Intervenor in these proceedings. l9 One' of the assumptions that the Licensing Board made in its order for  ;

the resumption of hearings the week of April 4-8, 1983, was that "The Staff i and the Applicants have agreed to supply CASE promptly with documents cited ll in these Inspection Reports and other necessary data through informal discovery." 'f This assumption has not matdrialized. By refusing to provide CASE with this i

j .

Vitally important and necessary information, Applicants have assured that, even c P

should the Board now require them to supply CASE with the information sought, E 1:

we will not have time to read and analyze it prior to the scheduled April 4-8 f hearings. (-

N'

- CASE'S MOTIONS ri '

For the reasons stated herein, CASE hereby moves that the Licensing Board:

i (1) Order Applicants to inmediately supply to CASE the NPSI and ITT-Grinnel design criteria and related information for the pipe supports at Comanche 1

Peak, including all notes, memoranda, and other written communications, ,

as requested by CASE in its attachment to our March 11,1983 letter to -

Applicants (i .e. , items 3, 46, 49, 90, 94, 98, 99, 101, 104, 147, 153, x 178, and 183); and (2) Reconsider its order that hearings resume on the Walsh/Doyle allegations during the week of April 4-8, 1983, to enable CASE to have sufficient time to receive and analyze these documents prior to hearings on the Walsh/Doyle allegations.  ;

e i;

V.

' n

. _ . . . . . . . _ _ . , g;

g

. l l It should also be noted that it will be impossible for either Jack Doyle 1

l or Mark 'Walsh to attend the April 4-8 hearings. This will mean that Mrs. Ellis, CASE's representative, will have to cross-examine on the complicated issues involved in the Walsh/Doyle allegations -- with no engineering background whatsoever.  !

'i We urge that the Board grant CASE's motion and allow us sufficient time i i

to receive and analyze the documents denied us by Applicants and to schedule g attendance at the next hearings by Mr. Walsh, who cross-examined as an expert l in the December hearings and would cross-examine as an expert in the next hearings if sufficient time is allowed to schedule his time without jeopardizing his new .

job.

Respectfully submitted, A44vs sb6D Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 O

B

v:.. a.

~

... .r -

t'

.... . 7 . fQ.y

• s c

' ;M f , '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

/ '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C?,q,.j,4yn .

.: -1  : .

. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.In the Matter of l 2 28 P1 :36 - 2 i

APPCICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES { E t. _ . . ;u s .

. GENERATING COMPANY, ~ET AL. FOR { Dockdt' Nos K!50-4.45Jjp'.

AN OPERATING LICENSE MiR- Q and'5D1446 '

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC 4 .

STATION UNITS #1 AND #2'(CPSES) l .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

, ' ASE's C 3/23/83 Motion to Compel Applicants to Provide Design Criteria and.0ther *

,e

~Related Infomation on Pipe Supports _

.'have been sent to the names listed below this 23rd day of March , 198 3,. ,  !

-]by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere. --

J

. ~. e. 2 j' ' .

y,

• Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. , Chaiman "

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board  :

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington,-D. C. 20555

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member ,

Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member

• Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ~ Board "

881 W. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

' Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 - 17th St., N. W. . Washington, D. C. 20555 .

Washington, D. C. 20036 Docketing and Service Section Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Office of the Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555

• Ms. Lucinda Minton, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Nucla r Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 - -

Washington, D. C. 20555 s

9

=*we-- we simmune

+, m

g I

• Certificate of Service

~

Pag 2 2 3

David J. Preister, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

) Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station l Austin, Texas 78711 9

,, John Collins y Regional Administrator, Region IV -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. R. J. Gary .

Executive Vice President and .

General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower -

Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny Alan Sinkin -

838 East Magnolia Avenue

1. San Antonio, Texas 78212 i

b -

f f

b i,

3 4 firs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk i Dallas, Texas 75'c24

}

l 214/946-9446 l'

l r

I