ML20083C994
| ML20083C994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1983 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312270156 | |
| Download: ML20083C994 (9) | |
Text
_ - _____
00CHET,ED UMRu December 22, 1983 13 EC 23 A9:16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFl0E OF SECEt7af' G3CKLT!NG & SEPliu~
BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
50-446 COMPANY, et al.
)
~~
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Stoam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CASE'S " IDENTIFICATION" OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES FOR SITE VISIT In an effort to assure that this proceeding would be completed in a timely manner, the Board has sought to establish a reasonable process by which it could receive evidence from the intervenor regarding the adequacy of construction of Comanche Peak.
See Memorandum (Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance) (October 25, 1983).
The Board proposed that the intervenor submit allegations of " specific" construction deficiencies of which it claimed already to have knowledge and which the Board could then view on site.
This document was to be subject to strict nondisclosure restrictions.
Memorandum at 3.
In response to this reques t, the intervenor filed two documents which purport to satisfy the Board's instructions and which the intervenor claims should serve as the basis for the 8312270156 831222 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
i
. Board to undertake a site visit.
However, this material is no more than a littany of previously raised general allegations of deficiencies which is wholly lacking in the specificity the Board sought.
Applicants strenuously object to the Board's reliance on any of the material now before it as the basis for conducting a site visit.
Before addressing in more detail the material supplied by the intervenor, Applicants note that they do not object in principle to the concept of the Board visiting the site to examine construction deficiencies which it has reason to believe exist.
We are particularly willing, and indeed anxious, for the Board to explore any specific allegations to ascertain for itself the adequacy of construction at Comanche Peak.
Although we do not believe the visit contemplated by the Board is necessary for it to render a favorable decision regarding the safety of the facility, and that the more appropriate method for handling these allegations would be through the investigatory and inspection arms of the Commission independent of these proceedings, we endorse the overall concept initially put forth by the Board.
However, we strongly object to the manner in which the intervenor would have the Board turn its invitation to identify specific deficiencies into an open license to wander the site without any firm indication that particular deficiencies exist.
For this reason we object to further pursuit of this process.
~,
. RESPONSE TO " IDENTIFICATION" OF DEFICIENCIES Applicants must first note that it is impossible to provide a reasoned reply to the alleged categories of deficiencies presented by the intervenor.
No specific information has been provided that would enable Applicants to assist the Board in determining, as it initially contemplated would occur (Memorandum at 3), whether a site visit is warranted.1 The intervenor raised only categories of alleged deficiencies and those categories nave been raised previously in the proceeding and addressed in the Board's decisions.
No additional detail has been provided, as the Board requested, that would give any reason to question the adequacy of the Board's disposition of those matters or to raise new ma tters.
Accordingly, we are constrained by lack of information from providing any detailed response on the particular allegations.
However, Applicants strongly believe that there are several reasons why the Board should simply cut off further pursuit of this approach.
In the first instance, the Board has afforded the intervenor more than ample opportunity to provide information regarding existing construction deficiencies, and yet che only information disclosed provides no indication that the alleged 1
Although the Board first directed the intervenor to provide information regarding known " specific identified quality deficiencies" (Memorandum at 3), the Board has since relaxed that standard to allow some-identifying information not to be disclosed.
However, the Board's direction did not permit such vague references that it would be impossible to ascertain whether there is any assurance that the alleged deficiencies still exist and can be observed, or that the deficiencies raise an actual safe ty concern.
1 deficiencies still exist (if they even existed in the firs,t instance), that they could be found by the intervenor, or that they involve any matter which raises a true safety concern that could justify the Board making a site visit.
Indeed, the intervenor does not even attempt to assure the Board there is a likelihood that it will be able to identify any of the alleged deficiencies.
Rather, the intervenor presents a string of discla ime rs, asking the Board not to place too much importance on this exercise in case its " witnesses" cannot find any deficiencies.
(See e.g.,
ChSE's December 5, 1983, Response at 4).2 If the intervenor itself does not have any confidence in this procedure, the Board certainly should not find any assurance that it is likely to produce evidence relevant and useful to the case.
In sum, the intervenor simply has not set forth a reasonable basis for the Board to inquire further.
Another important factor which is now evident and which significantly detracts from the viability and fairness of this process is that the intervenor is now asking for a blank check to physically inspect various aspects of plant construction.
The intervenor would have the Board transform a process, 2
In addition, quick review of the affidavits the intervenor produced demonstrates that the affiants do not have much confidence in their ability to identify deficiencies.
- See, e.g.,
the following af fidavits which respond to the question of whether there are deficiencies which the affiant can identify:
Doyle affidavit at 6 ("Even those items which I testified to in August of 1982 I couldn't find today
");
Krolack af fidavit at 7 ("I'm not sure I could find it now,
"); tiesserly af fidavit at 3 (".
I doubt it.");
Hamilton affidavit at 9 ("I might still be able
.");
Stiner af fidavit at 2 ("I'm not sure how we could actually show the Board
.").
. originally proposed as a way to identify discrete alleged deficiencies, susceptible to identification and observation by the Board, into an opportunity to conduct unlimited discovery by wandering through the plant.
To illustrate this point, the Board need only hypothesize any type of deficiency and compare that to the supposed
" description of problem" list on the " restricted use" table presented by the intervenor.
We are hard-pressed to postulate a deficiency which could not be argued to come within at least one, if not more, of the categories of " problems".
In addition, the intervenor has excluded few safety-related buildings or areas from its list of " locations" which it wishes to inspect.
Furthermore, the intervenor has estimated the process could take more time than many NRC inspections or any hearing session yet conducted in this proceeding.
In effect, the intervenor is asking for the opportunity to wander the plant st will, for weeks, in an attempt to discover deficiencies which may or may not exist.
It would simply be l
l unjust and unfair at any time, let alone at this la te da te,
when the stated purpose of this exercise is to enable the Board to conclude the proceeding, to subject Applicants to such a process, affording the intervenor the free reign it seeks.
Extensive discovery has already been conducted, and lengthy hearings addressing virtually the same allegations by many of the same individuals also have been conducted.
It would be a gross distortion of the adjudicatory process to accede to the
c
. intervenor's vague proposal, particularly where there is so little assurance that any deficiencies exist or could be identified.
In sum, it is now evident that the process which the Board envisioned for resolving specific alleged construction deficiencies cannot work.
Even though the intervenor has been given several chances to provide information which would give the Board a reasonable basis to believe that safety-related deficiencies would be identified by a site visit, it has failed to do co. Instead, we are confronted with an open shopping list of areas and suppposed deficiencies, and a wholly unreasonable estimate of time to perform the requested inspection.
It would simply be a waste of time and resources of all parties and the Board to pursue this matter further.
Accordingly, the Board abould abandon this approach.
Finally, because Applicants firmly believe that there is no basis for conducting a site visit, we do not set forth here the procedures we would urge be followed for such a visit.
However, if the Board determines that it will visit the site, Applicants will promptly provide proposed procedures to the Board.
In any event, we ask that if the Board decides to conduct a site visit that it be scheduled at the earliest possible time.
It is essential that the Board determine whether it will be necessary to address any information disclosed as a result of that visit during the upcoming
. hearings.
It is not practical to wait until the end of Jitnuary, as the intervenor suggests, and yet provide sufficient time to prepare for the hearings.
Respec fu ly submitted, j
Nichol s p{
Reynolds f
I Y
w William A.
Horin Counsel for Applicants DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817 December 22, 1983
- _ _... ~.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Response to CASE's " Identification" of Alleged Deficiencies For Site Visit" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by overnight delivery (*),
or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of December, 1983, or by hand delivery (**) on the 23rd day of December, 1983.
- Peter B.
Bloch, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
205'55 Mashington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Scott W.
Stucky
- Dr.
Walter H.
Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 W.
Outer Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr.
Kenneth A.
McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering l
Architecture and Technology
- Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Mr. John Collins Commission Regional Administrator, Washington, D.C.
20555 j
Region IV l
U.S.
Nuclear Regula tory Chairman, Atomic Safety and l
Commission Licensing Board Panel l
611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regula tory Suite 1000 Commission l
Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C.
20555
! l
' David J.
Preister, Esq.
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney General President, CASE Environmental Protection 1426 South Polk Street Division Dallas, Texas 75224 P.O.
Box 12548 l
Capitol Station
{
Sinkin 114 W.
7th Stree t Suite 220 l
\\
L l
William A.
Horin cc:
Homer C.
Schmidt Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
- - - - _ _. - _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _