ML20077N387

Answer Opposing Util Objections to Proposed Initial Decision.Util Unreasonably Clings to Overly Optimistic Fuel Load Date.Aslb Should Not Allow Util to Pressure Early Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077N387
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/08/1983
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8309130063
Download: ML20077N387 (14)

Text

1Q) *~

Q(:fs:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9/8/83 w-j, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0; Og*' "ED F e

, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.' In the Matter of y' '83 SEP 12 P1 :20 j g J ;

) APPLICATION OF'TEXASL UTILITIES

. GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR .f O[ckekbI)kNO-445 Er:and 50-446 '

AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR

' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC l

'STATIONJUNITS #1. AND #2 ,

(CPSES)- g 1 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION .

. 0n 8/29/83, CASE received- Applicants' Objections to Proposed Initial Decision.

We hereby file this, our Answer to this pleadinh. We will address them generally in the order in which thdy are contained in Applicants' pleading.

II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS j;

i A.. Timely Decisionmaking  :

'Throughout pages 1 through 5 of its pleading, Applicants persist in .

attempting to push the Board into premature declsions regarding issues which n

, are extremely complex and which, according to Applicants own statements, have

" hundreds of pleadings have been filed, . . . nearly  ?

. tesulted .in the following: *

M i

j, ,

six weeks of hearings have been conducted . . . :0ver 1,000 documents have been

, 3

-adinitted into evidence. and 8600 transcript pages produced." j

+

t Applicants continue to hold out an overly optimistic and impossible-to- -

19 m

l achieire' . fuel load date.

This was discusse'd in detail in CASE's 9/3/83 Motion A

^ -

[:

~ ' .;. .Regarding 9/7/83 Conference Call, which we incorporate herewfth by reference.

. As discussed therein, CASE submits that Applicants con'tinual reference to this

?

J

~

non-existent fuel loa'd date is one more desperate attempt to force the Licensing ' -

p q l

n'n

.4 i-P30913OO63 830908 E. PDR ADOCK 05000445 ,

O - PDR . C)3 L: - .. .. -

J

l

_2_

t Board to prematurely close the hearings before all the facts are in for the Board to make a reasoned, informed decision as to whether or not Applicants

should be granted an opera ting license for Comanche Peak.

Following the 9/7/83 Conference Call, the Board advised the parties that it had decided to wait for a report by the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel before deciding whether or not to grant Applicants' motion regarding in-camera report to the Board regarding ongoing NRC investigations; the Board stated that the Staff's estimate fcr such report was about the first week of October. Based upon what is currently known as to the items which must be completed prior to fuel loading, etc. (see CASE's 9/3/83 pleading), it is obvious that Appli-cants cannot possibly achieve all of the things which must necessarily be completed prior to fuel load in time to meet their phony f uel load date of December 1983.

In addition, CASE calls the Board's attention to a document which we believe should have been forwarded to the Board by Applicants and/or NRC i Staff: the June 10, 1983 letter from H. C. Schmidt, TUSI, to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, unoer subject of: NRC Staff memorandum from Vince S. Nocaan to B. Joe Youngblood, entitled " Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Review of Safety-Related Equipment for Comanche Peak Unit #1." This document, which is some 3/4" thick, lists generic concerns

• which are still open regarding Comanche Peak. On Attachment 1, page Al-1, of that document, it states, quoting from the referenced NRC S'taff memorandum:

"Most of the equipment inspected were not in a state ready for plant

' operation, for example temporary supports and straps, missing supports from accumulator line, missing nuts from U-bolts for charging pumps, spring mounted platfonn for compressor bottomed out. The deficiencies

,.._ q

.i ,. e

, ~i 3

g

.}' , .

'?

observed by the SQRT were compared against the check list that is maintained. A

[ by the applicant to improve quality assurance (QA). However, the SQRT items

.did not appear in the QA check list." 4

-x

,-- "The applicant should perfonn an independent inspection of the installation -

~

and supporting arrangement for seismic Category I equipment using personnel . ,_

< .femiliar with seismic qualification requirements, modify any deficiencies found, and provide a written report to the NRC staff on the inspection -

activity and the findings."

As stated in Applicants' response to the above item:

}

j{ ' "CPSES Response: ,

"The applicant attempted to perform an audit of the seismically mounted ,

$ ~

. equipment in order to provide the NRC staff with the confidence needed to close this item. Again, however, it was found that equipment had not received final acceptance and was not in a . state ready for plant operations.

"The applicant will perform an inspection of installation and supporting  ?

. arrangement for equipment classified at CPSES as siesmic Category I. This -

1 inspection will be completed and deficiencies resolved prior to fuel-load." , ';

The preceding was just for " Generic Item (1) - Equipment Installation."

Included in Applicants'. June 10 letter are discussions regarding "the results '

of a Seismic and Dynamic Qualification review on 26 specific items at CPSES

. . . a , tabulation of these specific items and response to many of the unresolved concerns . . . several. specific items require more details responses and these .

~

[ responses are provided in attachments (12) through (22) . . . " Obviously, t l the preceding does not support Applicants' projected Decenber 1983 fuel load l da te. It is very clear from this and other indications that Comanche Peak is not a plant ready to load fuel or receive its operating license.

l. l CASE has not attached a copy of the complete June 10 letter from TUSI,

<for a very simple reason. CASE has too long-had to supply the Licensing 4

Boa'rd'with documents necessary for it to have in order to make a reasoned, informed decision as to whether or not to grant Comanche Peak an operating ,

?

e- ***4.*4 +M g

=g , ,- ,

- - = -

w- - -

x ,

... .f . . ,c ,p-?

g; or f' '

_4_ .:l

.Y

,v ,

y3 'f - 7 p: ,

3 . . . .

m - : n.,.

, license. ' Our very limited funds and volunteer manpower simply cannot continue ,

i'" ^

. pl t T to carry this undue a burden, which would be unnecessary if Applicants and N 7

E. Staff were complying with the Board's explicit directions'that '" parties have I

~

& Q an obligation to inform us of significant developments that are relevant to ,

s ,

i ' .- the case. " This has been a long-standing directive of the Licensing Board y- QL ^ 9].

. in these proceedings and was confirmed again 'in the Board's 9/1/83 Memorandtsn -

d

$l.[,

~

' , ' and Order (Motions to Reopen the Record and to Strike) (see Footnote 3, page 2). ,

,n '

- This'was discussed in detail in CASE's 8/25/83 Answer to Applicants' Motion

to Strike Intervenor's Extra-Record Submittals, which we incorporate herewith

- by reference.

It should be noted that CASE was n_o_t on the mailing list to receive copies F

o'f Applicants' June 10 letter. In fact, the only carbon copy (cc) shown wasJ .. . l

" to Mano Subudhi - BNL; there were several blind copies (bec) shown, most of , [$

which (perhaps all of which) were to Applicants' personnel. Neither the Board ,

fq

..' nor the other parties'~in this proceeding were shown on the list of copies. c' 4.

' It was only through an unusual' series of events that CASE obtained copies " (.,

of Applicants ' letter. <

There is. another recent development of which the Board should be aware.

. CASE has 'no documents at this time regarding this matter, since we only became p .,

. m; y . , ' aware o.f it through a telephone call from a rep *orter late this afternoon (which e

happens as a routine and usual occurrence lately). According to the reporter, f Applicants released a press release today that the emergency evacuation drill ,

y L. .:wh.ich had been scheduled for October has now been postponed until December. '. ,

. ~ Applicants had attached to their news release a copy of an NRC inspection report ^l 3 \ under cover letter of 8/24/83. 4

. t '

./

h. ..

1

.O 1

~

qq _,

3g- m ,

s.

5 . , , ..

,; 3..

.[ [yl r.

CASE is supposed to be on the mailing list to receive copies of all such 1&E reports from the NRC Region IV office following the ten-day waiting period

~ -allowed to Applicants'to ascertain whether or not they object to release of

~

f any of the information due to its being proprietary. The information should

.have been released to CASE on September 3 (since this was a Saturday, the Labor Day week-end, it should at a minimum have been released to CASE on z.

September 6). We should have had this infonnation in hand at least by the ,

time reporters received their weekly news release from the_ Applicants.

This is not the first time this has happened. CASE has given the NRC Region IV office the benefit of the doubt and accepted that there was no deliberate withholding of I&E Reports fro.n CASE. We accepted at face value the reason given for our not recei ring an I&E Report recently (that the person who normally sends out the report had been out sick, etc.). However, CASE submits that there is now the appearance that the NRC Region IV office is holding I&E Reports until after Applicants have had the opportunity to in-clude them with their weekly news releases giving Applicants' views as to the reports' importance and meaning. This is clearly contrary to 10 CFR S 0.735-49a, and it should be stopped. '

We would assume that the Staff will now submit to the Board a report of some kind regarding the change in the plans for the emergency evacuation ,

drill., now that CASE has brought it up (as they did regarding the proposed Independent Assessment Program and the I&E Report on the inspection of the Fuel Buildingl and as they have in other instances.

I See CASE's 8/22]83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/

Doyle AllegationsT, pages XXVII-9 through -15; and NRC Staff's letters to the Board of August 25 and August 24, 1983.

.. _ 'CfQ

y _ ~ '

W -

Although Applicants and NRC Staff have argued that the Board should dismiss Contention 22, the fact remains that the Board has stated (through

~today's date, at-leas [) that it still has concerns about emergency planning

.and has specifically stated "the evolutionary process is not yet complete (there must for example, be a drill or exercise),"2 thereby indicating its continuing interest in emergency planning in general and specifically in the upcoming drill or exercise. CASE submits that there is no excuse for

}

Applicants and/or NRC Staff withholding this information from the Board and the other parties in these proceedings. This is especially of concern con-sidering the fact that ,just yesterday a telephone conference call was held during which were discussed matters relating to the state of readiness of Comanche Peak to -load fuel; yet neither Applicants nor the NRC Staff so much as mentioned the fact that the time for the emergency evacation drill had been changed by two months.

Applicants also state that ". . . despite these major efforts over a four-year period and even though scheduled fuel loading for Comanche Peak, Unit 1, is only four months away," (which is, as indicated herein, impossible-for Applicants to achieve) "the NRC has yet to issue a final decision on any

)

~

issue in contention." One of_ CASE's continuing, concerns in these proceedings has been and continues to be that no one seems to be looking at the overall picture of construction and QA/QC at Comanche Peak. This is one of our primary reasons for calling for an in-depth investigation at the national level of the 2 Board's 7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning Aspects of Construction Quality Control, Emergency Planning and Board Questions), page 52.

M- -.

' ~

7

n. u ;

7.-

~

3:

h

^

3 NRC of all aspects of construction and QA/QC at Comanche Peak . As matters

, now stand, only the Licensing Board appears to_ have any interest in looking at the overall, integrated picture of what's going on at Comanche Peak (rather than looking at it in bits and pieces). Our concern extends to a certain extent to 'the Board's proposing orders on portions of. the hearings without all hearings having been completed. However, we believe that the Board has corrected identified several open items in its 7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision and that it is entirely proper for the Board to leave these matters open for the reasons indicated by the Board. The NRC Staff appears to support the Board in this matter also; it stated in its 8/29/83 Objections to Proposed Initial Decision (Footnote 2, page 3):

. . . the underlying issue of Applicants ' quality assurance program re-mains a matter of controversy in the proceeding. It is appmpriate for the Board to consider all the evidence of record in determining its find-ings on this matter in controversy." ,

Applicants raise objections to the Board's-filing of a " proposed decision" because (according to the Applicants) this would " allow the intervenor to submit additional evidence or statements of position (tantamount to proposed findings, of _ fact) on matters on which the intervenor is in clear default and regarding which the Board has not found a serious safety concern warranting

.' sua sponte consideration." This is discussed iri CASE's 8/27/83 Objections ,

-p .

4 U

to Licerising Bnard's Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of con-struction quality control, emergency planning arjd Board quest-ions), pages 3 CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), especially pages XXX-25 and -26.

• -2e .

b 1 through 5, and we refer the Board to that pleading in this regard. We do not believe that Applicants' statements about the Board's allowing the inter-

- venor to submit additional evidence, etc. is accurate. We await further enlightenment by the current Board in this regard and will take whatever action appears appropriate at that time (including, if necessary, Motion for Reconsideration, Appeals, etc.).

Applicants apparently assume that because CASE has been found in default regarding certain aspects of our contentions, we should sit mute and allow Applicants to misrepresent the record of these proceedings to the Board. We do not intend to do this, and address certain matters which fall into this category in this pleading. The Board's authority and responsibilities extend further than Applicants would have one believe. Applicants stated (page 3):

. . of course it will not be the agency or other parties, but Applicants and their customers, who suffer if the licensing process delays operations."

The Board's overriding responsibility is to assure that Comanche Peak has been built and can operate such that the public health and safety will not be jeopardized -- not to assure that it will go into operation based on Applicants' fictitious time-table for completion of construction and fuel load. Clearly, .

Applicants' customers could suffer far more, not only financially but in health and safety as well, should the Board rush to a premature decision which allowed

~

Comanche Peak to load fuel and go into operation withoct having questions which bear on the public health and safety adequately discussed and answered prior to Applicants' receiving an operating license for Comanche Peak. Additionally, the agency (the NRC) and other parties would also suffer far more under such circumstances, especially should such lack of adequate consideration result in an accident at Comanche Peak.

-engqy Lu

^

. -7f

y.e . .

MS.

. e. ,

r It .is also_ a fact that the Boabd's authority and responsibility extends to making certainithat the record'is clear regarding any uncertainties which

"~'

arise from lack of" sufficient information in the record. (See especially

. :10 CFR, Part 2 Appendix A, V.(g)(1).)_

I Further, if the Board has inadvertently overlooked something in the massive

,.  ; record of these' proceedings, CASE.should call it to their attention. Similarly, if there ~are instances where the Applicants have misrepresented matters of record in their proposed findings, CASE should call it to the Board's attention.

. 0ne further item is that Applicants (page 5) insinuate that CASE has flaunted the Conmission's adjudicatory process by not filing complete Proposed Provisional

' Findings of. Fact. This is simply not true. As indicated in CASE's 8/27/83

. -0bjections, there were extenuating circunistnace which led to CASE's being unable to file complete Proposed Provisional Fin' dings -- circumstances brought about directly and deliberately. by. Applicants. These were' detailed in CASE's 8/25/83 Answer to Applicants' Motion -to Strike Intervenor's Extra-Record Submittals,

. pages 3' through 6, which were attached to and. incorporated by reference into our 8/27/83 pleading. We stated therein, in part:

"It is not just CASE which has been hurt by the Board's decision in this

' regard. - The Board has also been hu_rt, as has the entire hearings process

-- because' Applicants have succeeded in usipg the Licensing Board to f achieve their aim of diverting CASE from its Findings." *

.O 1

I f3 B. SualSponte Authority *

~

y . CASE disagrees with Applicants ' statements regarding the Board's use of its sua sponte authority. 'We believe the Board has accurately assessed and Y

a - .

p+' i5 s - - -

~

N y. ' c ll?',

,g s e i-t 1

Kw- ,

, argued for-its position in its Proposed Findings. We will -therefore not attempt to rebut each of Applicants' arguments, but state that we fully m support the Board's retention of the issues so indicated. Further, Appli-cants' assumption that any of the allegations will not raise ' serious safety questions cannot be supported absent the additional information which the Board states is needed on ea'ch issue. The Board must have the infonnation 1 l

necessary to determine whether or not they need to raise issues sua sponte i

-- certainly they must have the authority to gather whatever information is 'necessary in order to make that determination. Even Applicants appear to agree with this .(page 12). The straw man which Applicants present at pages _12 and 13 of what could allegedly happen has no relation to the facts in' these proceedings, and the Boani should so find. Clearly, the Board has not subverted "the entire adjudicatory process."

III. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS A. Emergency Planning See discussion in II. A. and B. preceding. Knowing that they were not ready to have the scheduled drill in October, and knowing that it was going to be postpored until Decenber, it is little~wobder that Applicants fought a so hard :to have the Board abandon its concerns r,egarding emergency planning.

CASE submits that the Applicants' announcement today supports the Board's a[ concerns and makes it even more imperative that the Board continue to look

~ ~~at this issue, keeping open the possibility that it may raise the issue sua spo'nte.

CASE did not pursue this issue more vigorously primarily because we were faced with decisions along the way where we constantly had to decide whether 1

f

' l 2 -

e, .==-

w-  % ' '

p.

\p j.

+

.~

z 11 - ,J;, -D s' -

y

., k.r :

x ,

,y  %

F

k. m m. , . N w. ,.

' ' * " b

+, to actively pursue the emergency planning contention and thereby less actively . ~ '

~, m s .s .

~ ~

pursue other aspects Of our contentions.. It wE obvious -that we could'not do s

.l*## g O p -

,g , .,

e, % \ *

/'

both, and when such d$cisions had to'bkmade,~we Yhose the QA/QC contention ,

~~

xg

-(Contention 5), as being the most important. It'was-not and is not .that we  ;*.

~'

.' \ '

< \,-

were not and are not -concerned about emergency planning.s , -

~

. ~, N,- , ..

~ , -

z -

Further, we were precluded by then-Board Chairman Millermio the September u u. ' -

es ..-

U s_ _ > ..

-1982 hearings from pursuing the portion pf' bur conter.t' ion dea'lingyith errergency m ~.s planning for the DillaM/ Fort Worth area leven though sor.(e trqsureff emergency .

.g ,

planning in this regard is, CASE believes, mandated'iinder" hup.EG-0654 7'which who testified for the Applicants N

the State of Texas witnessespave now adnitted is riot .and apparently will not s be complied with in some respect s). We frankly found'it difficult to takd -

seriously an emergency plan which was based almost,qntirely on what Applicants, O _

.y - .

the NRC, and FEtlA were" allegedly going to do a,t some unspe6ified t}ty .in' the ~

RNg future. However, we wo'til,d have likid to have been Uble m to devote more attentioris',, . m, w

~

to this contention anTwould have done so had it not been 'for our lirif ted s s.

e ~ v'

- " g resources . s '

[, . . ~

y * ,q 3 In addition, recent decisions by the- Commission'rende')T the. issue of e' W -

~~

y y n

't emergency planning as vir'tually meaningless, in CASE'slopirdon. It has become

,~

~

such a charade and a farte_ that (although we did not'know it at the. time) it O

, -. ~_ m -

,%^

would probably have beenia wasteof CASE's time to pursue it in any eyent. . _ Q q

~

m -

Although we support thefoard's position - regarding it', there is strong question \

T

~

.. . c -

in CASE's r.iind as to what'even the Board can do to 3e'e th51 cfi adequate energency -

3 v

y, m

. plan is in place at Comanche Peak prior to fu'41* loading and. granting of an .

wa -

s operating license.  ;~ ~

,.._t w Swe==*

> Da. men ' '"

4

~

"X

.g,.#

4, 4

[ s

_ . 4

-'#' \ '%

C_ -

57 .

t C. "Open Issues" See discussion under II.A. and B. preceding. As indicated previously, CASE believes the Boa d has accurately assessed and argued for its position in its Proposed Findings, and we agree with the Board's position. It is obvious' that the Board has read the record in detail and has based its pro-

- posed findings on such reading. Additionally , Applicants ' self-serving state-ments that there was no intimidation is clearly an open item in these proceed-ings and the Board is correct in its evaluations of the record in this regard.

We have already incorporated into our 8/27/83 Objections our 7/28/83 Answer to Applicants' 7/15/83 Summary of the Record Regarding Weave and Downhill Welding, and will not repeat it here.

In summary, CASE generally fully supports the Board's position on most items (with the exceptions as noted in this and previous pleadings). We disagree

~

with Applicants' statements almost in their entirety.

Respectfully submitted, r

'46/m U L rs.) Juanita Ellis, President

, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk

' Dallas , Texas 75224 .

'l- N 214/946-9446

- ~ ,

h 4

-w' h,

wq ~ ~

~,

PJ

~.

'yqj

• . c a. a lt s .

t.

UillTED STATES Or AMERICA

"- ,' HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0li BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE;1 SING BOARD In the Matter of I l

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTil.ITIES Q GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR Q Docket Nos. 50-445 AN OPERATING LICENSE'70R Q and 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Dy my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of

_ CASE's 9/8/83 Answer to Applicants' Objections to PROPOSED Initial Decision have been sent to the names listed below this _8th day of September , 198 3_,

by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere.

A'dministrative Judge Peter B. Block Alan S. Rosenthal Esq. , Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 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 '

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 Washir.gton, 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. Washin~gton, D. C. 20555

• Washington, D. C. 20036 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)

MIrjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Office of the Secretary ,

Office of Executive Legal Director , USNRC U. S. Nuclear Regul% tory Comission U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555

~

Atomic Safety and Licen' sing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 D

_ hh 3l$$ ~ muy -

. .. I C';rtifftate of S;rvice Pag 3 2

.." ,.i

=

l David J. Preister, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Er.vironmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins

. Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. fluclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 l

Lanny Alan Sinkin ,

838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Dr. David H. Boltz t 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 l i

e ,

4

[hw& (2c f fs.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) E 1426 S. Polk i Dallas, Texas 76224 [

214/946-9446 i

4 tc t-R$l *