ML20099C997

Applicant Response to Case 841006 Motion & Offer of Proof Concerning Case First Motion for Summary Disposition Re Certain Aspects of Implementation of Applicant Design & Qa/Qc for Design.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20099C997
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/13/1984
From:	Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-125 OL, NUDOCS 8411200148
Download: ML20099C997 (13)

Text

w

n y

av, M[M[h,%,.@R;& l&Q( W',, -.;&

' ~ $

f a:

A$?

ll ll f bf, ;

M, L-

% O y.o Nd,

'I 1

L.

~ 'T

,f, ',/

O. '

4 y

,. h, %; g:;: W, M, '

m.

'g: m:(2p; w ' /

~c J-

, 33 i

JN s'

y s

~

);- Q.' ?:

~ ;

4 pj y.p g y

l,

.y.

~1

[g w.

.. r ::

ll

,J-

~

~

5*

a

- 3.. g;mg,,

tyy j;

3_

~

7. _.

3 u.

4 gygg

. : 7 1 %;U)

~

'K?* M MM ~

~-

No M er 13h1984:. u..

t.

-]t

' '-,gy y

}.

1

~c.

sg:o. -

'.3 -. a

1. e ' 9:

W

>~

a%

.g i. v. f /

6,..

%gg#;{ :

9 03 P

s gg-s.

pgp g y ;g: ;

~

m.

2.

m(

1, sb 2 -

3W

(

UNITEDlSTATES'OF AMERICA..

4 j

n c-j-f y., 1 NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION, iy

. - s w-

. ~y 5

3:" M w:Ms, ps 9,

e

,u

~.,

q.

S/W.

5

..OBEFOREtTHE* ATOMIC' SAFETY'AND1 LICENSING: BOARD

,s.

f, A'

A L'.

I

'(

4 h dyp 4

A e j fb s

yr pll f[

,f-i 31 4

.f.,

e t;2

.;In the LMatterd of) -

W N'

cc, jy

)

)?

f; ),

?.

3 Y

C

2) :

4. Docket: Nos W 50 -4_45 fand u

1 TEXAS 1UTILITIESJELECTRICs i ).. '

m"~

50.-4461 J'

COMPANY,diETJ AL.1 C-Q W

.f 1.

W 4

s

.)

f( Applicationifo'r

'i(Comanche-lPeakLSteam Electri )

):

Operating 3 Licenses)..

e c

f LStation,y Unitsf IJ a'nd52):

1)f

~.

y 4

+

s S

~

+

-ac-y

,uGy

n; 5,,,

W APPLICANTS'1ANSWERnTO'. CASE'S. MOTION.AND1 i

' 7, fOFFER OFsPROOFLREGARDING CASE'S"FIRST'-

1 M-P LMOTION FOR

SUMMARY

-DISPOSITION'REGARDING

,s CERTAIN< ASPECTS OF;THE1 IMPLEMENTATION =OF 1

APPLICANTS'EDESIGN"AND=QA/QC:FOR' DESIGN-

. I.'. INTRODUCTION-

Texas Utilities; Electric Company, J ej al.. ('.' Applicant's").

.hereby submitr their an'swer ' to CASE's " Motion and Offer of Proof

-Regarding CASE's First Motion for: Summary Disposition Regarding

'Certain, Aspects of the-I'mplementation of Applicants' Design.and-QA/QC" for-Design," filed. October 6, 1984.1 For.the reasonsfset

.forth below, Applicants urge. the Board to dismiss CASE's ' motion

_for s.ummary disposition as untimely and/or an ~mproper use of-i

. summary disposition procedures.

The Board should find that to li

' Applicants and_ CASE agreed, and. notified the ' Board, that lp <

! Applicants would file their answer' to CASE's first motion at this time, when their answer to CASE's second motion would-f, be due.

Applicants'" answer =to CASE's second motion was L

ifil'ed on November 9, 1984, with Applicants' in Board's memorandum regarding Applicants' responsecto.the retention of an

' independent: academic expert.

t w-~

r.

. 9go$

N.:Mfob,hh,

[

t 4 4 y k

F g

d

,wm. au x

L l

u ik i I.w:

[ assure: the. efficienticonduct(of r theLproc'eeding the assertionsLin 2

s k

4 sCASE'sJmotion-shouldJbe.'orishouldthave beenIaddressediin'oth'ern

. fcontexts.

N-II' fBACKGROUND:

On Decemberi 2 3, '1'9 8 3, - theiBoard: issued its' Memorandum'andv

~

Order i(QualityJ Assurance ' foriDesign). - l Therein. the : Board ident'i-L fied 'certain issues it -believed : required L additional-evidence in '

2 order-for it to reach.a E ec~ision lconcerningiApplicants' L pipe-d

-support designiprocess.

The Board = requested that Applicants? file a. plan to respondh to the Board'.s iconcerns'. - In response.to' that:

Memorandum-and-order,; Applicants submitted'theirl" Plan to-Respond to Memorandum and Order (Qualityf Assurance -for Design)" on February 3, 1984.

Each of the parties was afforded an oppor-tunity to r'espond and did so.2 The' Board also commented on:

Applicants' Plan during= the February and. April, 1984, hearings (see Tr. 10,337-38, 13,115-23), where it stated that a satisfactory demonstration of the adequacy of Applicants' designs through its Plan was likely to provide the Board with adequate assurance as to Applicants' design QA process.

Applicants considered the comments of each of the parties and the Board and supplemented their Plan on March 13,'1984.

2 CASE filed a " partial, answer" to Applicants' Plan on

February 10, 1984, and an additional answer" on' March 5,

-1984.

The NRC Staff. filed comments on Applicants' Plan on March 9, 1984.

.-,_y y=

_,y3,.,w+-

,i-m6

-**+ ' ' " " " -

+Y W _.. i

~

f :y k ju

?'

'?

.y

~

\\l~'

Ni

+

nw e,

~:e 4

gz s'YF

~

~

~

g ;

> Q -:

c 4,s a-

.;3 ;,

N r

).

t g.;

s 3

^

3 y.-

w 3., ;.

..N

7

_s

,;As0 Applicants?completedsthe difforentLsegme'nts offtheir?

z, s

.~

. x,

'! Plank theyfsubNittled' motion's} forj summary dispositiori: regarding c

v

" ithel variou's ! hechn'icaltiissues. - EThe ~ Bo.ard landl parties Jagreeditol

~

~

j 1

- T ithis lapproachjfor c r'esolving : those [ issues !and fagreed ; that' hearings.

~...

s

.L J, jwould: be ' held onlyz if LthelBoard.was.1 unable 'to Jreach -a: rea'soned x

e Ldecision(on;writtenf filings 1(Tr. ' 13,7.98, (13800-01 ;I 13i 803 ;i s

~

l: Memorandum and Order (Whitt'en-Filing.Deci31ons #1; someI-AWS-ASME c

Issue's),y June l 29, 1984). - lAf terTrecei'ving-the}; first' grUupf ofi CASE's;answersyto Applicants motions the: Board?requestedfthat; i-

. Applicants respond to:thoseganswe'rs (Tr.c13i995);. : The" Board also'

-established procedures. byiwhich ' CASES : andLApplicantist-mayafile

~

subsequent pleadingsfon these; issues (see Memorandum (Multiple:

Filings), October 31,'1984).

-SimultaneousEwith the~above.' process, theTBoard and, parties;

~

have undertaken,1on Applicants' motion,3.to, establish procedures--

.for: the' resolution of -issues raised in the; Cygna Phase 3 Report.

At present,- the: Board cis awaiting ' completion of the Staff's review of Cygna' Phase 3 before deciding on the procedures. for m

addressing'that report (Memorandum.(Scheduling of Cygna Matters),

November 7,-1984). LHearings have already been held on Phaseswl

andi2'of the:Cygna Report.:

.u.

I 3

? Applicants' Motions to-Set Schedule for Briefs Addressing Cygna-Phase -3 : Issues and for Expedited Responses, October 5,

'1984; f

N

g

p, 9

s.;-

- nf s 4

~

bN 4~

~

3 M

~. -

III.1 " APPLICANTS ANSWER TO CA$iE'S' IMOTION^

' CASE lrequestalinithe 'instadt motio'n {that ithejBoardi grant it)

-- " summary disposition" regarding "the implementation.'of Appli-

~

2 icants'i dssign and-QA/QC for.(design.". CASE's ' motion consists < of 'a, series of' assertions'regarding: numerous 11ssues}at various stages 3 of litigation.. For'!the' most part,. those ;, assertions concern the-7

technical adequacy;of;the'pipefaupport. designs themselves.

CASE's motionfdoes'not focus oniany ~ aspect-.of tihe quality 1

. assurance program ~ for: design.-

Rather,.l CASE asserts that - what ' it--

fperceives to beftechnical deficiencies.in-Applicants' designs

" evidence a~ deficient? design process..

~

Applicants' demonstrate below that CASE's ausertions are not i

proper' subjects'for summary disposition. 'For-the:most part these-technical issues ~have already been, or are in.the.processfof' being,ditigated and, thus, summary disposition ~is inappropriate and/or untimely..The. remaining issues are presently the subject of efforts to establish procedures for their resolution.

Summary disposition on these' matters is inappropriate at this time. :To assure a-fair and efficient -process -for resolving these issues the Board should dismiss CASE's motion and direct that CASE

= pursue-these issues in their: appropriate contexts and through

' established procedures.

> ~ *Q my

~;

b g*

J

~ [

W y[f a 'jm5

' %F '

7gCy-

%[

t w:- y

.m c' t A

GJ z.

'j'y,

~

i 2

%p

.r;, 'j M:

?

x a#..

s.

ye c

,o s

..p-

' f '<:,...,

y., 4

^

w ue ". h;yn a

-=

m-

}.

s

'{ '

a%

$ i ;.' t.

p'-l M

s i Q'.

n

, 7 L f

h -!

3,.

w.

' ' y, j i y'

wf; o 3;,

s e

4 D A;. ! CASE'si, Motion Yi'siInconsistent;Withi '

4

g<

~

( Proc' durest foriSummary: Disposition -

_s a

e

- w L:

HThe iRul'e s (o f f Prac tice i contempl a te ltho luse fof i s umm'ary[di s-L s

yo >

..m x

n.

N.

9 position 1proceduresfinladvanceLof} litigation;of/partibular:

1 t M a.

r fi ssues.' ; Section.;.2 ~. 749( a)(provides,V in ; part Vas t fol lows s '

_..1 s

_s t i m

~

7There!IhalC be annexeditio the1 motion (a N-

t

_ ! separate;J short ; and c.oncise " statement'of? the ~

N

~

l

+

E;p" v

'iaateriali factsiassto' which the : moving partyg jcontends'thatlthere.jlsino: genuine.Iss{ue.to be '

L

~

x,

~

Eheard.L.T.t.'.ThatBoard may-' dismiss 1summ EiTF '

motions e filed Tshortly before ithe hearing;

= commences;or during. the hearing :if-the; other.:

parties or7the ; Board would : be; required :- to ;

idivert ?sub'stantialT resources E from ? the ;h' aring'.

. '.~'

e iin=orderito1 respond ~ adequately tolthe. motion.

[lOfC.F.RJ)2.749.(a)

(~ emphasis;added) G Thus,~summaryddisposition#regarding matters!which have already

~

~

'g t

!been ':litigato,dff and forf which additional. proceindings are i not;

.' contemplated ;is -incon~sistenti with the Commission's Rules of-4

-Practice.

Indeed,. the ' correct procedure i for.: addressing ' issues -.

already. litigated is proposed findings,- in = accordance-with 10 C.F.R.'52.754.

I t

i f-1.

Cygna Phases 1 and 2 W

' A signi ficant' portion of CASE's " summary disposition" ' motion i

3

. concernsimatters raised in Cygna Phasen. 1 Land 2.'4' Litigation of

'4'

Appended; hereto. is an out1ine of the various issues raised 3

~by. CASE-in its Motion and cross-references ~to.the context-in:

u

~which.the issues were raised and in which~~they should be

./ litigated.

We note that CASE itself recognizes that the four-categories;of issues on which~it bases its motion ares (1)f CASE's. original epipe - support design testimony, (2);Cygna

' Phases 1 and 2,'(3) Cygna Phase 3,.and'-(4). Applicants'

~

Motions for Summary Disposition (see Doyle Af fidavit-1 accompanying CASE's motion,--at 75).

t o

i 1

.yv

,._.-..-..-e',+"

--"- ' " - * " ' ' ' " * ' * - ~ * '

' ~ '

• j. f ]gjW Q J f: ~ g ' '

z A,;

2

~

6 4

~

O[. -

< pre z

',m

- ;c, ye

.... ~hk. c y _,_.

b 4

+

. ~

W l

n

\\

g<;j <

e AQ

[m.m (.

m sj e

y,939:s

[

gg

- 4;@ *

% t-L6 7

+

~

/

, ;j

+

gg/'-

^

g,

.n-

.n y,. - n, mL

.g g,.

' '.m i "J -

1 1

s "Y,

??

p $<

....y x

..l l.

Y

_O'

3..$ Y'

^N s

- (these; matters?occurredfearliery.thisiyearfandshasbeen; comp _Je m

+

+

J

.,.s

.5 iwith;the dxceptionlof;:alfew discrete :BoarMquestionsL

,.In3 fact,;.. ~ ~ J,.

1..

. J.2 zv;.

,x

. 3> /. y?..

!.the. Board indicated : at" the" concl u'slon Tof d.c.hoselhearingsi.Q.hatt.

+

. +

.4 t

~

2

> y, a; a

. J '.

• n%

^

... +.. !

+.

t N

~? propose.d ifi nding s/ on (Cyg na E Pha se s*1iadd ',2 -i woul d : be ; cal l ed i for. ~ e W

i

- ~

4

(

F i

- iThus4, contrary to3,sCASE'.s t claimj (Motion #at1'8) L there w"* lly be anj.

I

.O i

7-9Y

+

e w

lopportunitydof file proposed 3 findi'ngs 'Lon f these ! issues.: Further,;

g

~

itiwou1d beipatently' unfair to Applicantsiand-anJinefficienO Nsel

, a 1,

s

[',

of the Board';s"Jand[ parties'itimolandf resources to, allow CASEito.

1-5 2

relitigate; matters asito which. months f ofilitigation werelaiready.l 7,

f,

' dedica ted'.

CASE L should : be1 required L to pursue ; the Tissuesl stemming i :% "

f

~

I

f

-: h from(Cygna Phases 1 'andu 2. through proposed [ fihdings easicontem

)

o

plated 1by Comm1'ssion regulation.5; L

3 j-i

~

s 2L CASE' Original Allegations

'w

't

?

Even.ttore inappropriate for summary disposition 'are the allegations which were originally raised by CASE and addressed ini c

CASE's proposed findings of fact on pipe support design isstie~s,'

~

1 e

o filed August 23,'

1983.

Not only is. consideration of~these 2

e matters through summary disposition inappropriate'in-that it'is:

I untimely.and,-thus,-contrary to the Rules of Practice,.but itfis (inconsistent' with. the. procedure the Board established for 2

resolution of'these matters.

4 J

n

,s l-s e

f a

!5-In.that context CASE would be required _to provide-record s 3.

citations, -as iwell as clear and concise proposedJ findings of -

fact and conclusions of -law, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 352.754.-

i

+

i k

t 4

~,,.,r-w-,e-w.-

-%~,--e-%+,,--w e m-b 4e,

.#-rw r.,--

n.

,e-v-

w----

e

..w v.w. w,

r w-- 3 n.- y + t

k gf g,$

gg

[

m..

2d G

,- w y*

,,, g._ g p,

p, y no n m n,

,,p' jf Y

.Q W,

U j,M Q&l W c.

4~~ ;

[wun.)&. ; %[

$ 2:&f

. s 4

'.; N. :i

,%*t

%n c

Q h' % g l

- ~ l )p:. l' 4

4^

.s.

p.,-

, y ~ ;wq, ym m, pc

. : n,g,g c

i.

k V f ;~ V

@K;,

W's>.,

J A.n M

vn

-.F_

+

m.'

' ban @- =?h f M L-17 ->

. q: w

.v gy t ~ %

y'.-

,6%vrQ qr,c/

, < e~ + #

, :e ',.,

>a, A g r g.

9 pl-3?

• y @m.

, t e gcs u w m e w

s w -

a-a

.m p.,[L

~

s C) p.

fg'- y j.w-F:

+

' n:

ty JWiW, : ch :

N" se kWM,',,

~

4 ~

,Mp

- kyp, :nq

~;

. w

~, ~ 3mmw z

'c 3g "d.m' sThosen;issu.es ha ~ faire

- +

v hbeen ? the isubj ec,t, ofiBoard(decision? '. --,'

++,

s=

[' ' "^ -

Ond,Jtol;the}extentith,hoa[rkj'$,j,founal' a1M i h, i~ona1 Eevidenc'eTw,ould de

(,

, ].,p f

,1 j g 4

o w

~

m wy w

y3 w_

w

.,._[,.,

l.have?

r[hh ' [g, Y

.s T

.i 14.*,

hj'h Y

,s.

i..,

g (requiredjford, t( to M,w.lvej hofiseg y_ separate procedures,7, - -

i g,

'd!

so r

,~.

,+ -

y

. p,

]

"$Already(IEe{estab,ti sed.i( iYe. [Ahpik ha$["kN)[to hrNv1dk" thdt

~? 1

evidende.3 % A.j Q g..

o c 4

,j

&s

~ -W

%L-

- k M Eychjof.';thn parties)hasLh,@ an op 'quhiLty to: comments c

m.

4

%A s

a W

.,g:$h'osehprdcedures a N $e" Boar (,hdh?alreadyJ hiedithatladheringh #

t 2

.:@ S, j W,to those+g w q ycsdure's f( Appl i tanta 'n Pl an) [ 's t an ; app gi

.e

.~,

p_y 'd, 4

- 3. g.

~

g; g

-s r-

~.

u w 3-

+

m g

p t

i s;

,s c 9:4

.4 1 r..

..e V.,1 c

p

~

- f App 11cantar to; attempt >to ; provide s thejBoard 'with ? reasonab1'e-y 8

' - L-~.

g' '

.m,

<%y 3,n%

- <x

~ r'

-n ;v

assurance /A1 to the"q.

>r.

~

r

+

4, g.

_o pq apquahy.;of i Applicants' 7 support designs ?(Tr.",

, er:-

"Ay g

we h m a

m

10,33'8U132123)'~!. The)s W

~

phitiepare finj thofmidstf of Cthe process..

4^

~

O'd'

? approved'by the Board i for resblutionlof: thos' ': issues.; ForHCASE1 g

_m e

+

m.

m,

u

, b s

n y_

r to pursue these. questions,now is,? therefore, teontrarygoth Ito the !

/'

.Nf.

' f-1 s

..y zgn J

J L

Rules _of Practiceigoverning summary Ldispo;sition' an.d5the~procedurei

w y

g previounty( estahlkshed tion redolvejipe supportEdesignJ ssues..

p.

i q

a.. s'

' According1N, thehBoard 'shWid find that further :considera-

.v

.3-s ia

.tirn'of these asser,.,pnstis inappropriate'.and dismiss CASE's; s

q.

i.;.

ws W

I h

n,,Aotioe. to theleh't:ett it seeks tos rai'so matters previously g 1

, 4(7eddressed fin, its,prQposedafin jngs.

w y w.

e

_~,.

w r

~

g;:

6h%. M N\\

'k:

\\

.m F

k:

i.s B.-

CASE's MOtlon With Respecti to 'Cygna Phase '3 Matters 11einot ' Ripe ' for Summdry ' disposition ms A

s i:

'On October 5,1984,} Applicantis filed a motion to establi h

,{

s g

, Lh

). )

/

procedures for'addre'ssing Phase 3 of the Cygna Report.- Appli-e cants proposed that a - coriference call be held. to hear the i

r 4

.-4

.partlas'.Lanswers to Applicants' motion.

In its response to sr

> v.

.g-3 n3

Applicants'. motion, dated, November *2 1984, CASE' acknowledged

[^

L T,

)

-w qw s

1 g

• y w

('

t V'

f

~.

g (4

. 'l i Q n

,,r

'I' s

'/

r

', MM [:

h tw 1 C*

.t i

. - ~.

~ ~ - - ~ ~ ' ~

~~~~'

.--qg w #

e --

w

=,

[p v

a

~

~,

~

g, 2

A m

j1 Ih Y 4

A

' J -*

9 O }Q ]

_.- 8 -E

~.

g>,

'g s

p?-

-e 3

m, m.

4that: thepartiesTshould Lestablish ; a - process ? fore resolving / Cygna. '

Phase:!3fissues,'J:but argueditihht it, wasipremature5to? establish b

thoselprocedures.; On' tiovem' er 7,::1984', the BoardIruled thatlit b

M.

would -furtherSdefer1 establishing,.procedurestfor.' addressing Cygna Phase n3 matter's: until lthe\\ Staff ' completes.1 its review of the-y

~ report.-

Applicants : submit thati the most: efficient means-of address-j

-O

_d., 'ingi the [Cygnai Phase'3" Report is to. establish coordinated. pro'-

e, ~;

Ecedures for-;, addressing the entire. Report.- -Itfisinot:anLefficient use of theLparties'"cr'the: Board's" resources:tolresolve'these iissuesLpiecemeal.6 - g' ' the-Board !found with respect to another s

matter,Esummary disposition-should not' be rused to address. issues) in such a piecemeal Efashion.(see Memorandum. (CASE'si Motion-

~Regarding J.J.. Lipinsky)'. '(October 10, 1984).

i

Accordingly, the Board should-dismiss CASE's. motion with respect to the assertions 'regarding ' Cygna Phase '3 and direct CASE to hold-those matters in abeyance pending a. determination'as to the procedures for addressing Cygna Phase 3 issues.

C.

CASE's Motion Regarding Plan Items is Inappropriate and Ifntimely A large portion of CASE's motion concerns allegations regarding individual items from Applicants' Plan which are presently.being addressed through Applicants' motions for summary 6

In its answer.to' Applicants' motion CASE made several

-motions concerning proposals for handling the Cygna issues.

. Applicants will be responding to CASE's motions shortly.

t a

)

r. -

4

< r-

.3 2 J. '

7

- Vs 7

f*I

% --.( ':W

' i M ;U %,.

• 3, e

gg i [q " '$.

<a a

2.;;"i y*

g lpy

'dJU '

[ ey y

^

a;

. - :g f.,'

2

• jg

) d "fp g ] % *

$p A

i r

~

s

>\\

(,

, ' ! >.[',r up'

~

g 1

u w>

o

,y.

_-9

- _ r

9 -

c o;

,m

. s us.

1 K,,

-:p

• AL%; ;Q ' ii -

-k 1

J

'Ut

+

3

,v

~ 3:, '

='

~

- } s'

_l_

- "disposfition.. LThis eprocedure' 1which includesT anjopportunity; for?

i a

R o

.. t.

L.

~

@y r+

s e

$ f CASE to respond [to anyffiling :ma _de byfApplicants,; has been=

... ~

~

s9 w m s.. _

.y 3:.

1

- approved :by thebBoard ? forU resolving. the4 Plan items. : ! CASE's at-:

g

,W" thesesitems;ih its motionlis,,thus,fcontrarysto-Q$

L'.

ftempt tofaddressI

~N 1

.e-

?m Lthat procedure.; 7 o:permitiCASE[tlo pursue $this' cours'e;now(w T

s

^

m

~~

C, ibe =,grosslyginef ficie~ nt -and -burdensome?to) the l other; parties."7 ~-

i

~

s.

t

. FurtherNtOL thel extentiCASE : seeks toj raise (new tallegations t I

y t

regardihgjt.op'ics; addres' sed in; Applicants ~~ motions ifor: summary :

'k.

dispositione CASd',siarguments.areiuntimely. ' CASELisjsimply;

^ '

4

,c

attemptingito.finjectinew issue.s

whichMitishould'have.-raisedLin!

L its.' answers to AEN11 cants' E motions. t CASE had Lmore3 than:l ample 1 I

y

{ opportunity;th!raisejthose c151mstin itssans'wers.7 T6 permitLit.

i ~

.to do7so?no Rnot onlyfwould-be'. grossly mnfair:to; Applicants"(whoj G

f

_4 1

1

+.

qwould o'f necessity' be : forced ;to replysin detaillafter-alreadyJ

.1 (expending t'me-and* resources respondin'g.Jo; CASE'sfauthorized-i g

answers) but.would7 create a-quagmire of litigation ~ th'at would '

4

.make thelBoard's attempt to resolve these'.technicaloissues-all the more 'dif ficult. -

Accordingly,- the Board should strike -CASE's motion with -

~

. respect ' to issues al' ready being, address"ed 'in-Applicants' ' motions.

ifor;L summary Ldisposition.-

,o 3

4

+" -~

I w

+

a

.y J,.

.s-57/

ThelStaff hasialreads. Indicated that it~will not respondito'

,."1 CASE's motion untillit responds to-Applicants' motion.for summary' disposition.

m

. :The Staff ~ anticipates filing its ~

l response Lin January, :1985.

g gi%

++

~

t

,' h h. i 5.:

'y-f n "

~

i

?.- - - M -

~'

,4

= * ' ~ ~ ' ^ ^ ~ ' '

r5f.p '- _

l :' _ ' '

'[.

l

, j _-

^ '

• 3 i

b

- w

^

+

?-

g x

y.

y s

-- 10. - ~

p'

~

g 4

D ',.

-III.. ' CONCLUSION'-

For the' ' foregoing. reasons',< the Board 1should dismiss ' CASE's h-(first motion

,for-summary disposition and direct-CASE'to' pursue c

~

' the lissues,Jraised fin its: motion.in the-proper. fashion, l cons,.

~

istent' with the above' answer 8f.

,4 y

Respec u) y'submitt$d, 3

/

Nichol4

_S.. Reynolds-

Willia' A.'Horin" Bishop, Lit rman,ECook,-

'Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

' 20036 (202)~857-9800-

' November 13, 1984~

^

1 l

8 In.the event'the BoardIdoes not follow ~ Applicants' recommendation in;whole'or in part, Applicants request an extension ~ of tinie to' file whatever formal answer to CASE's

. motion may be' required.

Applicants request an extension to filefsuch answer.to:no later than the date,the Staff files-

'i'ta answer.

~

s

+'

.g

~

up V w

y

--w,i.-

-,W, w-

.u e

y

-, ~ - -c.+

+--=

& l $,i-h [ h h h ? z fd?

k;'kbfh;$h

.. hl h ? h, f b $ h,. ~ n n Og a gp g v va?

yq.. '

W f

]pr % ' _+ y!p e

+ >

n JQ

< p ;~g:,g

'A

~

.' 4;f

'lAPPENDIf "

Y,'

q

m age -

g

,r Q..

l

f ~ l m

?l l, i-W :

_~,

p t

,"* d; w.w.I... cu 'un J

T

.. [ CASE ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONST#

~

ci

.w m -_

.n o

,n c-2 y

.47 3

73.

-s

~

1-t R_

M.

i# f?

.'m-XP N-

^ Affidavit (Cit!ation(

q,

'(pager and?lineinumbe'r)...

k;

~

iIssue >

d J Genera'.-l5

"+

251( 1-3, 19 25 ) ;;f 6'.7 ( 6 ) ;;

ip 2

4 s

J-615(24)-20(3).

s, r;r s

n..

W

! Stability *:

17(7)1-18L.;(18);i

.f My

$C GNA'PHASESi JAND -

l w- +

i Aneral?'

15(3-5);J2 11 G

~.

y TLocil-: displace ~ments and: stresses *!

q

'2'2-23'5

~ '

'M

.JAxialTrestraints*

24-26(17):

.s Deadweights 126(20)-29(8)L 1

1 CinchedLU-bolts *(,

?29(11)-33(12)1 s

CVGNA PHASE 31 E

4 a

LGeneral

,;5(5 9);136(11)'-54(7);-

1

.73(12).-74(24) a

' Stability

• 14(23)215(10).

PLAN ITEMS General

' 5 ( 11-15 )'; 2 2 0'( 4-25 ),. 3 6 ( 3-ld ),

5 4 ( 8 )--55 ( 6 ) ; 56 ( 4 )-57 (17 )f;c 7 2 ( 5 )-.7 3 ( 9 )

Stability.

8(18)-15(23)

~

'U-bolts acting as two-way.

16(15-17); 60(21)-68(15);

restraints

[. Local ~ displacements and stresses.

22-23; 33(l')-36(2)';-55(ll-17I 6_

. Axial'res'traints 24-26(17)

Cinched J-bolts.

.29(11)-33(12); 55(18)-56(3)';

57(19)-60(19)

Upper lateraitrestraint 55(7-10)

Generall v..i Actual.. Stiffness 68(16)-72(3) s s

.sg.

i

'*1Al'soirelated.to Plan item.-

3 j

9 2 ' vc.

P

)_

k.OfigTu[N ( &f }

Yl :_ j m:

W -

p- )$ 2 / Ny > _ 1',,[ -.8

- % O; UdU '

" ~,

~

, 'l

)

-v g 3

,9 M m!%i% -

4 a#>

"L#

M:

1

<s-

-K

~.

+

~ -

,y m

q M

5 4-

' k. '

3; W _

. az,

-+ <

. ~

dl[

^

f

. n-c

?

3 1

2

~

WE-w..fg, ' * '

NPm 9

s 4

W 2

- y

~

SUNITEDsSTATES10F: AMERICAS i-NUCLEAR ! REGULATORY : COMMISSION :

14jp,.jbI

<.l o.

L

'.y o-v

.y -

n f,,pn. c.: 2Q, ej v ~

ggs wq.

iBEFORE-THEtATOMIC= SAFETY-AND LICENSING' BOARD Wy g 59 NCH.

(In? the: Matter [of:N"

'I) 1 1)

LDocket[Nos.(50-445;andJ TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRICr

)*

50-446'.

~

'COMPANYi:etfal.

• h

.)i

. W~

t[

L( App 1'ication L for

+

1(ComanchelPeald LSteam. Electric- ;)

. Operating, Licens~es)

.;StationM Units?1(and.2);

-- ) -.

+

- m fTCERTIFICATE OF! SERVICE,

~

' I' hereby-certifyL that copies :of L " Applicants'~sAnswer to; CASE's1 Motion'= and ' Of fer JofiProof-Regarding-CASE'si First ~ Motio.,

~

n.

for Summary Disposition Regarding.-Certain. Aspects ofJ the Implementation of Applicants l Design and'QA/QC'for' Design",='in-L J

-?the~ above-captioned matter was served upon the1 following persons 1 by express: delivery (*),,or deposi?rin'the'UnitedJStates mail,

first class, E postage prepaidi this :

~

~

~

13th day of November, 1984,.or by hand delivery (**) on :the 14th day. of November, 1984.-

~** Peter B. Bloch,. Esq.-

Chairman, Atomic:S'afety and

~

-Chairman, AtomiciSafety and Licensing' Appeal. Panel

-Licensing. Board 1U.S.' Nuclear Regulat my U.S.' Nuclear-Regulatory Commission-Commi'ssion Washing ton, D.C.

20555.

Washington, D.C.

-20555 Mr. William L.

Clements;

^

-* Dr.' Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Driv ~e Docketing &-Service Branchl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

~-Oak. Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

~* Dr'. Kenneth'A. McColl'om

. Dean, Division of Engineering

• • Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

? Architecture and Technology Office of the~ Executive Oklahoma ~ State University Legal Director,

-Stillwateri Oklahoma ~ 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Chairman,vAtomic Safety 7735 Old Georgetown Road and Licensing' Board Panel Room 10117 iU.S.JNuclear. Regulatory Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Commission

Washington,'D.C.

20555 "y-g r

t

~ '

C, I

~

, :.a iNL-d.,w;,, ?[

~

m I

y) x r

~

i

)

-u

.,;2!

~

a f

.A M-Y Q%3Tlq 'Ca' 7 L *T'll wr~

J Robert D'.'- Martin '

Elizabeth.B.-! ohnson J

-Regional. Administrator, Oak -Ridge jNational Laboratory.

yRegion.IV PostJOffice Box X' 4

U.S.(Nuclear Regulatory.

Buildingi3500 Commission:

OakL Ridge,. Tenne's'see.37830

~

611=Ryan Plaza Drive

. Suite 1000.

~

Mrs.-Juanita1Ellis

' Arl ing ton,; LTexas" '-76011:

-President,; CASE 1426 South Polk-Street'-

< Renea.: Hicks,-;Esq.-

-Dallas, Texas" 75224:

AssistantEAttorney General Environmental Protection LLannyTA.:Sinkin

. Division.

114.W.27th Street'

P.O. Box 12548

-Suite 220'

- Capitol? Station; Austin,JTexas. 78711.

-Austin, Texas 78701

@r }.%

William.A. Hor'in 1.

' cc:

John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge,'Esq.

T

=

T

-4 4

w w

ww 7

<-v-er-gv1 F-v d