ML20077H715
| ML20077H715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308110237 | |
| Download: ML20077H715 (10) | |
Text
-
e DOCKETED 8/8/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Ag@l0 Pl252 In the Matter of
[0ChT ib G
i M M!Oi APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Docket Nos. 50-445 I
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and 50-446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I
STATION UNITS #1 AND-#2 I
(CPSES)
CASE'S MOTI0h FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS AND TO REPLY TO BOARD'S PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION ISSUED JULY 29, 1983 As discussed with the Licensing Board Chairman and all parties last week, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, hereby files this Motion for Extensions of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact Regarding Walsh/Doyle Allegations (Concerning Pipe Support Design Questions),
and to Reply to the Board's Proposed Initial Decision issued July 29, 1983 (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions).
Under the schedule as presently set up, the following dates apply:
8/3/83 (Wednesday) -- CASE met with NRC officials from NRC Region IV and the Office of Investigations to discuss in-formation and witnesses of which CASE has know-ledge pertinent to the ongoing investigation (s) into discouragement from reporting nonconforming conditions at Comanche Peak, intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors, etc.
8/5/83 (Friday) ----- Applicants to have their Proposed Findings of Fact regarding Walsh/Doyle allegations in mail by over-night delivery to arrive 8/6/83 (Saturday) 8/15/83 (Monday) ---- CASE to have its Proposed Findings of Fact regard-ing Walsh/Doyls allegations in mail by overnight delivery 8308110237 830000
{DRADOCK 05000445 PDR.
~3)303
i
~
~
4, s
s 8/18/83 (Thursday) -- Replies to Board's Proposed Initial Decision to be mailed by overnight delivery in order to be
. received by 8/19/83 (Friday), the applicable date since 22 days from issuance of Board's 7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision would fall on a Saturday (8/20/83)
~
CASE has been diligently working on its Proposed Findings _ o.f Fact re-
\\
garding what has connonly come to be ca'lled the Walsh/Doyle allegationst (concerns raised by CASE witnesses Mark Walsh and Jack'Doyle regarding problems with pipe supports at Comanche Peak). These primarily-engineering concerns are very complex and detailed' (witness the amount'of time, energy, 9
and effort expended by. all parties and the Board reaarding just one of about twenty issues raised -- thermal expansion stresses reiuiting from constraint '
of free-end displacement resulting from unifornPincrease in temperature due '
to a LOCA, or loss-of-coolant <eccident).
~ '
The record in these proceedings regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations consists of thousands of pages of transcrip,t a,nd over a. hUndred documents' (not to mention the numerous briefs and other pleadings associated with them).
Just to summarize CASE'y position and the testimony of iis witnessds, Mark Walsh and Jack Doyle, regarding these matters would be a tremendous undertaking. However, the Board has also asked (that' each, party;al,so include
-s x
facts adverse to its position ~an'd tell why they are not valid.(For CASE,
.t 3
this has increased the work load about three fold what it would have been
. o had we been able to merely present our own position.
(Wido n6t, quarrel with the Board's request in this regard; it appears to us to be'a very logi-
-s cal way to handle the findingsthowever, we are concerned about the amount of time we have had to spend to accomplish this worthy goal.)
~ :,
s,.
s
'(
g,, N an
- ' g
- se'
,y
..X >
Ii y.f.
,w y
4._
]
+
g
In effect, the burden of proof iri regard to the Walsh/Doyle allegations is on CASE, as the only party taking an adversarial position to the Applicants in this particular. matter (the NRC Staff has historically taken a position in close tandem with the Applicants in these proceedings, and the State of Texas has been unable to actively pursue the Walsh/Doyle allegations aspect of these hearings). This means that CASE cannot deal in generalities; we must give specific details, backed by testimony and/or documentation, to support each and every aspect of the Walsh/Doyle allegations.
(We note that
~
' Applicants have attempted to deal with some of the concerns raised by Messrs.
Walsh and Doyle by merely stating "To the extent CASE may have raised other questions, we have considered those also, and found they are either without l
nerit or are insignificant and could not affect our determination here." CASE cannot address any of the Walsh/Doyle concerns in this manner.)
We have been working on the Findings on the Walsh/Doyle allegations for months.
However, much of what we had previously done has had to be reworked in order to integrate more. recent testimony, primarily from the May (and June) hearings.
The difficulties. and amount of time reguired to accomplish this, while at the same time attempting.to present each issue in a coherent, reasoned manner which the Board can easily follow, is an awesome task indeed.
Our problems have been increased by the fact that much of the writing and-discussion has had to be done with Mr. Doyle at his home in Massachusetts.
l We have also been handicapped in this regard because (although Mr. Doyle can send CASE mailings-by Express Mail) the Post Office does not deliver Express Mail from. Dallas to Mr. -Doyle's town.
It should be noted that CASE had :
I L
Page 82 Applicants' 8/5/83 Proposed Findings of Fact.
3
\\j s-
-c-
requested Applicants to serve a copy of their 8/5/83 Findings on Mr. Doyle i
direct in addition to the one normally sent to CASE. We explained that we could not send anything to Mr. Doyle's home by Express Mail (since the Post Office does not have Express Mail delivery from Dallas to Mr. Doyle's home) and that Federal Express (which we sometimes use, at about double the cost of Express Mail, in order to get information into Mr. Doyle's hands faster) had no planes flying over the weekend, which could delay our getting the Findings into Mr. Doyle's hands and cut down on the amount of time avail-able for reviewing Applicants' Findings before having to file ours on the 15 th.
Applicants refused CASE's request in this regard.
As CASE explained to the Board and parties, it will realistically be impossible for CASE to adequately reply to the Board's Proposed Initial Deci-sion of July 29 in the three-days' time between the filing of CASE's Proposed Findings and the filing of our reply to the Board's Decision. We believe that a week between the times of filings will be sufficient to allow us to adequately respond; this would increase the amount of time provided by only two working days.-
j It is of vital importance that the Board have the benefit-of CASE's Findings regarding the concerns raised by CASE witnesses Walsh and Doyle.
The importance of a complete record about these matters is obvious; the l
concerns raised are wide-ranging and of great potential significance. A l
decision by the Licensing Board based on incomplete information could l
possibly lead to an accident in the future which could seriously jeopardize the public health and safety.
(This is of special concern considering the fact that two of the three present Board members were not on the Board during either the July 1982 or September 1982 hearings regarding the Walsh/Doyle concerns. While we appreciate the efforts of the present Board members in this regard -- and it is obvious that they have worked very diligently to infonn themselves about these matters -- it would be impossible for the Board to dig out for themselves from a cold record all of the aspects of the Walsh/Doyle allegations which CASE will discuss in its Findings.)
CASE also is attempting to cooperate fully with the NRC's Office of Investigations and the NRC Region IV office in their ongoing investigations into discouragement from reporting nonconforming conditions at Comanche Peak, intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors, etc.
To that end, CASE prepared 2
for the NRC investigators (and concurrently for the information of the Board )
a compilation of certain information of which CASE is aware which is pertinent to these matters, along with a listing of names and telephone numbers of individuals to whom CASE believes the investigators should talk. We have promised to assist further by providing additional names following completion of the filing of our Findings; the investigators will contact us if they complete contacting the list we have already given them before we file our Findings.
As discussed in CASE's 8/3/83 letter to the Board, many of CASE's witnesses 2 See CASE's 8/3/83 letter to the Board under Subject of: Record Regarding Discouragement from Reporting Nonconforming Conditions at Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant.
l and potential witnesses have little confidence in the NRC. CASE will attempt to encourage them to talk freely to the investigators; we have already been contacted by one of them (and expect to be contacted by others) requesting that a representative from CASE be present during their discussions with 3
the NRC. Due to the press of time to get in our Findings, we had to turn down the request of ute individual who has asked us to attend his meeting with the NRC; however, we would like to be able to accomodate our witnesses 4
in this regard in the future and believe that our presence would help to assure that tha witnesses are more relaxed and that the NRC investigators I
would be more likely to get all of the pertinent information from those witnesses.
Further, we would like to be present (if requested by our wit-nesses) to assure that the NRC investigators do not attempt to convince 4 our witnesses to remain confidential so that the investigators' report can hide behind the shield of confidentiality which was successfully used in regard to the investigation of the Stiners' allegations. This is a legiti-5 mate concern, since it apparently has already happened at least once,
CASE's request for additional time to file Findings and to reply to I
the Board's Proposed Findings will not be detrimental to or prejudice the ECASE has already been found in default by the Board regarding partions of the testimony of our previous witnesses because of the Applicants' untrue and unwarranted attack of 2/8/83 (see footnote 1 to CASE's 7/28/83 Answer to Applicants' 7/15/83 Sumary of the Record Regarding Weave and Downhill Welding). We will not allow this to happen again with the Walsh/
Doyle Findings.
4 As opposed to simply stating that the witness can remain confidential if they prefer.
5 See Affidavit of Roy Keith Combs, CASE Attachment 5, page 3, to CASE's 1/11/83 Written Argument on Issues.
l I
T
7-rights of any party, since the NRC Staff normally would have ten additional days after filing of proposed findings by other parties in which to file their proposed findings, and the Applicants nonnally would have five additional days after filing of proposed findings by other parties in which to reply.
j (It is our understanding that the State of Texas does not plan to file Find-ings regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations.) We would propose that the Staff and Applicants still be afforded that opportunity.
Applicants have already stated in a telephone conversation that they will oppose any motions by CASE for extension (s) of time. However, the
{
NRC Staff has stated that they have no objection to reasonable extension (s) as long as they are still allowed the usual additional ten days in which to file.6 The State of Texas has indicated that it has no objection to CASE!s motions.
Further, the granting of CASE's motions will not delay these proceedings since it is apparent from discussions with the NRC investigators that it will i
take quite some time for them to complete their investigations, which would as we understand 1t the triggering mechanism for the Board to decide whether or not additional hearings are needed regarding the subjects of the investigations.
6 At the time we discussed this last week, CASE did not have a firm estimate of the length of time we would need to request; we talked about probably _
a week or so. However, further discussions with Messrs. Walsh and Doyle this week-end indicate that we will need longer in order to do an adequate job which will be most helpful to the Board in arriving at its decision.
,---w.,..,.
,,. - -, a
.e-,
N..
+
e,..
n -,
CASE'S MOTIONS For the reasons stated herein, CASE hereby moves that the Licensing Board grant the following:
(1) Grant CASE an extension of time in which to file its Proposed Find-ings of Fact regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations; (2) That such extension be for fifteen (15) working days, with our Proposed Findings to be mailed by overnight delivery to the Board and all parties on Tuesday, September 6,1983 (the day following LaborDay);
(3) That an additional five (5) working days be granted for replying to the Board's Proposed Findings of Fact, with our Reply to be mailed by overnight delivery to the Board and all parties on Tuesday, September 13, 1983.
Respectfully submitted,
{44 %
JKrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 k
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0(Lh[
NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 0
'83 NJG 10 P12 52
- In the Matter of l
ornCE Qh1 APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES o
GENERATING COMPANY, ET'AL. FOR Q
Docket Nos.09@Qggcg AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR Q
and 50-446
. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l
' CERTIFICATE OF S'ERVICE By my signature below,FOR EXTENSIONS O'F TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's 8/8/83 MOTION REGARDING WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS AND TO REPLY TO BOARD'S PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION 155ULU JULY 29, 196J have been sent to the names listed below this 8th day of August
,198_3, by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, Maryland 20014 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 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 Comission 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 (3 copies)
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Office of the ' Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director, USNRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comi.ssion Maryland National Bank Building Washington, D. C.
20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road - Room 10105 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20555
~
Certificate cf Sarvica Page 2 David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division' Supreme Court Building.
Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins 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 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 J
(At *~
prs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 h
4 e
9 O
G 8
Y'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _