ML20082F730
| ML20082F730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311290220 | |
| Download: ML20082F730 (15) | |
Text
-
e e
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA 11/23/83 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OgEiED pc BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ATID LICEtiSING BOARD.
13 NOV 28 M1:06 In the Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS. UTILITIES l
rFrte c errrer "
g Doc ke t tfloTshS0-445a GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and'50L446 AN OPERATIflG LICENSE FOR I
I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS #1 AND #2
'(CPSES) g CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVITS ON 0 PEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS)
Pursuant to the Board's directive in the 11/16/83 telephone conference
' call (Tr.
I), CASE (Citizens hssociation for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, files this, its Motion for Reconsideration (Affidavits on Open Items Relating to Walsh/Doyle Allegations). As the Board instructed, we contacted both NRC Staff and Applicants as soon as possible after our discussion regard-ing these matters with Mr. Doyle.
(As indicated in the 11/16/83 conference call, we were unable to contact Mr. Doyle until the November 19-20 weekend, and we contacted the Staff and the Applicants' attorneys on Monday, 11/21/83, which was the earliest we were able to do so following our discussion with Mr. Doyle.)
l CASE is unable to cite the transcript page reference, since the transcript of the conference call has not yet been received at the UTA Library and is therefore not yet available to CASE.
In this pleading, references and quo-tations are from the rather poor tape recording CASE made of the conference call.
8311290220 831123 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
In our discussions with the Staff attorney, Mr. Mizuno, it is our under-standing that the Staff's bottom-line position is that if further hearings are. not going to be required on these matters, the Staff had no objection to the affidavit of Mr. Doyle being admitted into evidence; nor do they have any objection to the Applicants having an opportunity to respond.
If further hearings are to be required, the Staff is opposed to the admission into evidence of Mr. Doyle's affidavit.
In the 11/16/83 telephone conference call, Mr. Mizuno stated that (Tr.
):
"It is the Staff's and the Applican'ts' position that there is no reason to have the affidavits of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle admitted without a further showing by CASE pursuant to the Board's direction at the last hearing at Tr. pages 8856-58 showing why there should be good cause for allowing Messrs. Walsh and Doyle's affidavits in.
"The Staff has proposed a compromise position, which is to allow both the Applicants' and the Staff's and the affidavits of CASE in and to allow an opportunity for the Applicants to submit an affidavit."
"... It is also the Staff's assessment after reviewing the matter, that 90% of the material in Misters Walsh and Doyle's affidavits are in fact completely just a regurgitation of positions which they pre-viously presented at hearings and the remaining 10%, although you could consider them to be new material in that they are responding to specific items which were not in the record (i.e., the Applicants' Generic Stiffness Study), if you have a very close reading of what they're saying, in fact what they're doing are bringing up arguments -- new arguments -- which they had previously applied in other subject matters and applying them now to this new area. So in fact, if you look at the overall content of the subject matters, they present nothing new in terms of new concepts or -ideas."
(Emphases added.)
Applicants have indicated that their position is unchanged from what it was in the telephone conference call after CASE's discussion with them on Monday, 11/21/83.
. THE BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT OF MR. D0YLE If1TO EVIDEf1CE CASE maintains that the Board should accept the Affidavit of Mr. Doyle into evidence, for several reasons.
In the 11/16/83 conference call, Judge Bloch indicated that he was not sure that there is any additional factual information in the affidavits of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle beyond,what's already in the record. However, as shall be discussed in more detai,1 later in this pleading, Mr. Doyle's Affidavit is for the most part itself new material in answer to new and as yet unchallenged material introduced,by the NRC Staff.
(Mr. Walsh's
, Affidavit has, we believe., already*been covered adequately by CASE's Proposed Findings regarding the Walsh/Doyle matters, although his Affidavit does include new specific examples which are not presently addressed in the record.)
As indicated during the 11/16/83 telephone conference call (see page 2 of this pleading), even the NRC Staff's attorney did not argue that there was n_o new factual it.rormation in the affidavits of Messrs. Walsh
,and Doyle.
In fact, Mr. Mizuno stated that the Staff's compromise position was to allow the Staff's and CASE's affidavits into evidence and allow an opportunity for the Applicants to submit an affidavit.
During the May 1983 hearings, the Board heard testimony and cross-examination regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations. The Board allowed all participants to cover the issue in detail, at times even allowing witnesses on a joint panel to cross-exam'ine other witnesses on the same panel.
CASE believes that the Board's procedures in this regard were helpful in achieving
O I,
what we believe the Board's goal was:
to arrive at the facts and to provide the Board with a complete record on which to base its decisions on the Walsh/Doyle allegations -- with one important exception:
the items which were left open at the end of the May hearings. The itRC Staff indi-cated that they needed further time in which to form their final conclusions regarding those matters.
CASE had no objection to the NRC Staff's being allowed additional time in this regard, under the assumption that CASE's rights would not be prejudiced by such a. procedure.
However, had the NRC Staff been prepared to present testimony regard-
,ing those open items at the May hearings, CASE would have had the opportunity to cross-examine the Staff witnesses, to present rebuttal testimony by our witnesses,along with documents to support such cross-examination and/or testimony.
It now appears that CA'SE is to be denied not only the opportunity to cross-examine the flRC Staff witnesses about the affidavits which the Board has now admitted into evidence (along with documents _ which we might have introduced as part of such cross-examination), but also denied the oppor-
,tunity to cross-examine either the Staff or the Applicants regarding an entirely new document which was attached to Dr. Chen's affidavit, the
" Applicants' Additional Pipe Support Generic Stiffness Study." (CASE has had no opportunity for discovery regarding this document, either, although we do not believe discovery would be necessary were we afforded cross-examination or an opportunity for rebuttal.)
Further, CASE is apparently to be denied the opportunity to have rebuttal testimony by our expert witness (es) regarding the new information
, and arguments advanced by the Staff, either in testimony in hearings or in affidavit form. Although we understand the Board's position that it can rely upon CASE's arguments in the Board's findings (as stated by Judge Bloch in the 11/16/83 conference call), as the Board Chairman himself pointed out, factual information and argument may overlap in the expert testimony It is obviously going to carry more weight if it is stated by an area.
expert witness than if it is just stated in a brief by CASE.
It appears to CASE that, by allowing only the NRC Staff witnesses' affidavits into evidence, the Board is in effect allowim them to testify without CASE's
,being afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, to present additional documents into evidence (either through cross-examination or direct testimony of our own witnesses), or to present rebuttal testimony by expert witnesses.
CASE is not concerned in this regard so much as it applies to the current Licensing Board. However, we must point out that we have already had four Board Chairpersons in these proceedings, as well as changes of other Board members. We hope sincerely that the present Board will be the
. Board which ultimately makes the decisions regarding the Comanche Peak plant, but this is something which we simply cannot rely upon.
It might well be that any future Board Chairman, for' example, would view the Staff's witnesses' affidavits as being in the record and CASE's witnesses' affidavits as not being in the record and therefore not to be considered.
Further, CASE is not certain that others (such an the Appeal Board, the Commission, or the Courts) would give any consideration (as argument or otherwise) to the affidavits of CASE's witnesses under the terms the Board presently embraces.
V e
CASE believes that this is clearly contrary to 10 CFR 2.743(a) which states:
"Every parth to :a proceeding shall have the right to present such oral or documentary evidence and rebuttal evidence and conduct such cross-examir3ation as.may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts."
If the Board acce. pts into e idence the affidavits and supporting documents of the NR Staff witnes'ses, CASE submits that it should also accept into evidence the' affidavits and supporting documents of CASE's witnesses (especially the affidavit of !{r. Doyle). To do otherwise would severely prejudice CASE's rights in these proceedings.
CASE urges that the Board reconsider.
1 In the telephone conference call, 7.he Board Chairman sel forth some specific details regarding whether or not affidavits should be accepted into evidence.
It appears to CASE that if the NRC Staff's affidavits d_o constitute new material and meet the criteria for admission into evidence, o
CASE must have the opportunity under the rules of evidence to rebut it with new inaterial. '(If the# Staff's affidavits do not constitute new material, they should not be admittep into evidence either. We believe that Mr.
Tapia's affidavit falls into this category and that it does'not present new information which has not already been stated by the Staff.)
Should the Board accept both the Staff's and CASE's affidavits into evidence, the Staff has indicated that it has no objection to the Applicants being afforded the opportunity td respond with affidavits also. CASE would have no objections to this, provided the Applicants are allowed to respond on,1y_ to the Staff s affidavits and are not allowed to use it as an opportunity to attempt to rebut CASE's affidavits.
(We do not believe that it is actually ev$n necessary for Applicants to respond, since it is to be expected that th'ey will not disagree with the Staff's conclusions.)
l
SPECIFIC OPEN ITEMS STILL OF CONCERN At the conclusion of the May 1983 hearings, a number of items were left open regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations for further consideration by the Amo[1g these (but not limited to) items were the following:
NRC Staff.
1.
Diaphram problems with support CC-2-008-709-A43K, covered under Questions and Answers 1, 2, and 3, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
2.
Thermal constraint involving support MS-1-003-009-C72K, covered in Questions and Answers 4, 5, and 6, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
3.
Deflection tube to torsion instructions made up of wide-flange
,s sections covered in Questions and Answers 7, 8, and 9, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
4.
Richmond insert torsional coupling methods covered in Questions and Answers 10,11, and 12, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
5.
Problems with evaluation of spring constant for upper lateral restraint /
walls covered in Questions and Answers 13 and 14, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
6.
Flexibility of Richmond bolts (A307) covered in Questions and Answers 15,16, and 17, of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
7.
Generic stiffness values for supports covered in Questions and Answers i6,19, and 20 of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
8.
Bending of A307 bolt material covered in Questions and Answers 21 and 22 of Dr. Chen's Affidavit.
9.
Dr. Rajan's calculation for support CC-1-028-059-S33R in support of the Affidavit.
In support of the Affidavit of Dr. Chen was (a) Figure 1, a diagram indicating Dr. Chen's concept for coupling out the torsion from the tube to the A307 bolts; and (b) Applicants' additional pipe support generic stiffness study (which was apparently prepared for the Staff's use in Dr. Chen's affi-davit). Also included in the NRC Staff's package was the calculation referenced in item 9. above, which was performed by Dr. Rajan on support CC-1-028-039-S33R.
This calculation was requested by CASE and the Board suggested that the NRC furnish a copy to CASE. The calculation is attached to Mr. Doyle's Affidavit as Attachment E.
In reference to the above material submitted by the NRC Staff and received by CASE on October 15,1983 (just prior to the October hearings), various points were made by the NRC Staff, in reference to the critical allegation affecting the health and safety of the public, with particular emphasis of severity in regards to plant operability during a seismic event.
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this pleading, the Licensing Board in the conference call of 11/16/83 accepted the affidavits of Dr. Chen and Mr. Tapia regarding the open items on Walsh/Doyle, but not the affidavits of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle.
Messrs. Walsh and Doyle address the points in the Staff's affidavits from their viewpoint as expert witnesses.
The affidavit of Mr. Doyle in answer to the NRC Staff's new material in reference to open items is for the most part itself new material in answer to new and as yet unchallenged material introduced by the NRC Staff, as will be shown below. However, before proceeding, it should be noted that we will address only those items which have not been subjected to repair under the
guise of bringing the items in question up to the requirement of vendor certi-fication level. We will only be addressing those items which have not and will not be rectified as a result of the conclusions of the Applicants with the Staff concurring by way of these new argunents (in reference to open items in their affidavits).
The specific items of concern to us at this point in time are therefore:
4.
Richmond insert torsional coupling methods (Q.&A.10-12, Chen Affidavit).
In his Affidavit, Dr. Chen introduces new and erroneous principles to qualify the methodology used by the Applicants to couple oct the torsion in
, the tube to the A307 anchor bolts.- In his Affidavit on page 5 (line 20) through 8 (line 24) and supplemented by Figure 2 (sheets 1 through 3) and Attachments A, B, and C, Mr. Doyle dissects the erroneous conclusions of Dr. Chen and offers conclusive new proofs, which are not a part of the record of these proceedings, that the methodoiogy used by the Applicants and approved by the NRC are incorrect and can lead to loading on the bolt which exceeds the calculated value by a considerable margin.
5.
problems with evaluation of spring constant for upper lateral restraint /
walls (Q.&A. 13-14, Chen Affidavit).
In his Affidavit, Dr. Chen introduces new material to support his argument that the Applicants' errors in calculations have negligible effects on the stress levels in the walls and the beam which make up the supporting structure for the steam generator.
In his Affidavit, pages 9 (line 1) through 12 (line 4) and supported by Figure 3 (sheets 1 and 2), Mr. Doyle presents new material and arguments
_ 10 _
to contradict the erroneous parameters established by Dr. Chen.
The basic error by Dr. Chen is based on his new conclusion that the load path for the wall in reacting the beam is a vertical strip whereas Mr. Doyle shows conclu-sively by the introduction of new materials that the actual strip which reacts to the beam loads is horizontal (the stiffer path in a two-way slab).
6.
Flexibility of Richmond bolts (A307) (Q.8A.15-17, Chen Affidavit).
Dr. Chen introduces several new parameters in reference to the flexi-bility of Richmond anchors, particularly in reference to the negligible effects on overall stiffness caused by A307 bolts in tension. Secondly, and more important, Dr. Chen introduces a new element into the anchorage system which is counter to the position that both the NRC Staff and the Applicants have adhered t'o throughout these hearings. That new element is friction, which is alleged to exist in a joint which was touted as being frictionless when LOCA was the problem under discussion.
In his Affidavit, on pages 12 (line 7) through 21 (line 14), and through Attachments F, G (pages 87-89 in particular), and H, Mr. Doyle introduces much
, new analysis, arg'ument, and supporting documentation to disprove the position taken by Dr. Chen, most important, involving the consideration of shear resistance in joints,via friction when such consideration is prohibited by all codes (ASME also).
7.
Generic stiffness values for supports (Q.&A.18-20, Chen Affidavit).
In Dr. Chen's Affidavit, he offers new evidence indicating the negligible effect of varying the stiffness of supports from the generic value utilized by the Applicants and in support thereof, he attaches the " Applicants' Additional Pipe Support Generic Stiffness Study." This document apparently was prepared
_ 11 _
for use by the NRC Staff in formulating its response regarding this item.
Mr. Doyle, in his Affidavit, pages 21 (line 14) through 24 (line 9),
offers new arguments and evidence to counter Dr. Chen's erroneous conclusions.
One piece of this new evidence is Attachment D to Mr. Doyle's Affidavit, which shows conclusively that the stiffness of the h.irdware alone is so low as to render the generic stiffness used by the Applicants useless. The new material by Mr. Doyle in response to the new material submitted by the NRC Staff indicates that the loadings at the supports are non-conservative by a wide margin.
,}
8.
Bending of A307 bolt material (Q.&A. 21-22, Chen Affidavit).
We will not address this point specifically here. However, it should be noted that the value of the A307 bolt itself is contingent on item 6.
preceding. This is addressed in Mr. Doyle's Affidavit on page 26 (lines 9-18).
9.
Dr. Rajan's calculation for support CC-1-028-039-533R (in support of the Affidavit).
This item could not be addressed at the Hay 1983 hearings, since CASE did not have a copy of the calculations which were the basis of Dr. Rajan's testimony. At that time we were shooting at targets in the dark.
In his Affidavit, pages 26 (lines 20-25) and 29 (lines 8-10), and sup-ported by Figure 4, Mr. Doyle proves conclusively with new materials that Dr. Rajan was using an erroneous configuration of the support to establish his position.
(Dr. Rajan's calculations are Attachment E to Mr. Doyle's A ffidavi t. )
n r
d
_ 12 _
CASE'S MOTION In conclusion, nothing less than the safety of the piping systems at Comanche Peak is in question.
In order to determine the degree of non-con-servatism involved in the design and construction, b'oth sides of each question must be presented, and from the information established, the Board must draw its conclusions.
If the Board, or others in the future (such as the Appeal Board, the Commission, or the Courts) are confronted with a matrix which lacks an adequate point / counterpoint make-up, then the Board can only draw conclusions which are predestined to be biased in,fsvor of the NRC Staff (and thus the Applicants, since the Staff concurs with the Applicants' positions in most instances), and material in the record will be unrefuted.
In the American system of justice, which is the foundation of the Nation, conclusions may only be based on an inquiry which allows hearing both sides of a point and not one uncontested side. Although there are some differences between the administrative proceedings in which we are involved and the judicial system of the courts, the two share this basic principle. Further, the Licensing Board is charged with assuring itself that it has a full and complete record which is sufficient for the Board to make a reasoned determi-nation as to whether or not to grant an operating license to Comanche Peak.
For these reasons, CASE moves that the Licensing Board choose among i
the following options in order to maintain the current Board's good record of fairness in these proceedings, to avoid compromising CASE's due process rights, and to ensure that the public heaith and safety are not sacrificed:
(1) Accept the. Affidavits of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle as is, with all Attachments and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Figures 1 and 2 on
the AWS material.
(2) Accept the Affidavit of Mr. Doyle as is, with all Attachments and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Figures 1 and 2 on the AWS material.
(3) Retain the following pages of Mr. Doyle's Affidavit: 5 (beginning with line 20) through 16 (line 22, including footnote 3a),17 (lines 8 and 9),18 (line 10) through 24 (line 9), 26 (line 9) through 27 (line 1), and 29 (lines 8 through 20), with all Attach-ments and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, and accept them into evidence.
(4) Initiate further hearings on e open items on Walsh/Doyle which could not be adequately addressed or contested by CASE until the NRC Staff's position was known.
or (5) Accept the pleadings regarding the open items into the record (in-g cluding the Affidavits o'f all parties' witnesses and all attachments thereto) as supplements to each party's Proposed Findings of Fact on Walsh/Doyle Allegations.
Respectfully submitted, EM E
(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Ecund Energy) 1426 S. Polk, Dallas, TX 75224 214/946-9446 2 We note that the Board has indicated in the 11/16/83 conference call that it plans to decide the Walsh/Doyle matters before it decides whether sub-sequent hearings are needed on these matters; and further, it also was indicated that the Board had not yet decided whether or not there woul.1 be aspects of Walsh/Doyle that'the Board would have to raise.
-VillTED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0tl BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD In the Matter of l'I APPLICATI0f10F TEXAS UTILITIES Q
GEllERATIrlG COMPANY, ET AL. FOR Q
Docket Nos. 50-445 Afl OPERATIrlG LICENSE FOR I
and 50-446 COMAtlCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q
STATION UNITS #1 AfID #2 (CPSES)
{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S MOTION'FOR RECONSIDERATION d5FFIDAVITS ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS) have been sent to the names listed below this 23rd day of November
,1983,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Administrative Judge Peter B. Block _
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Eafety and Licensing Board Panel -
U. S. fluclear 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 Canaission 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 Comnission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.
20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. fluclear 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 Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pa nel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
O ' 8 Certificate of Service Page 2
~
David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney _ General 1
Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
' John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
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 (anny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 Dr. David H. Boltz' 2012 S. Polk St.
Dallas, Texas 75224
}
't i
1 5
i 1
i
<du [f L 1
iCfMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President
- )
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 1-214/946-9446
[
.