ML20099D191

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 841031 Memorandum Re Multiple Filings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20099D191
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-204 OL, NUDOCS 8411200240
Download: ML20099D191 (26)

Text

l$6%py l

%.1 -

L y

.r 3

4 c

^f_<

T W '.

~ UNITED. STATES OF/ AMERICA 1 f g,

~

'11[1((g,_ ED _

m NUCLEAR: REGULATORY COMMISSION:

^

L.

~

i BEFORE1THE " ATOMIC SAFETY ' AND < LICENSING ~ BOARD :

4 t

k

.In he Matter ofi

?i[

Docket:Nos.- 50 44

l and{5Q,446 f

' TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC,

[!

MTQhECREr,wy

.':. sad [N.

20MPANY,Tet~alo-

.l

~

l'

((Application for an c" m.

7 l(Comanche Peak-Steam Electric 1

' 0perating: License)'

~

l.

~

Station,: Units;l and 2).

s v

N:

CASE'S MOTION = FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (MULTIPLE FILINGS)1

.(.

In an 'of f-the-record conference call among[tihe Board 'and parties: on

'10/23/84, NRC' Staff counsel Mr. Mizuno requested an. extension until l0/31/84

~

I to respond to the Applicants' 10/4/84 Motion to Strike CASE's Answer to

~

. Applicants' Reply'to CASE's' Answer to Applicants' Motion for-Summary Disposition Re'garding Consideration of Friction Forces. CASE and Applicants

-had no objection to an extension of time,:except that CASE requested an extension so that.we could put our answer'into the mail on 11/2/84, since we were attempting to respond'to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition'on QA for Design d/ and were'having to devote our attention and time to that effort.

CASE's request was granted (as recognized in Applicants' 10/26/84 Reply to the Board Chairman's " Preliminary Views" Regarding Additional

~

l Pleadings, page 4, footnote 5); however, on 10/31/84 CASE was informed by the Board Chairman that the Board had issued its 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings) that day.

Since the MEMORANDUM had already been issued d/ -Applicants' Motion for-Summary Disposition Regarding Applicants' Ouality Assurance Program for Design of Piping and Pipe Supports' for Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station.

- 8411200240841115 C

1 y

PDR--ADOCK 05000445 A

PDR

y, 3 '- -

.c

- ;g up}s, -

4 m,

3:- Fg v

m m

g=

a r,

=

yy

-.e.

m.

4 "s

6,

, 4 -1 e

,~

3 y e

n J

I'.

m 4t:;,, _,.

. f >,.[ 1 si.

i

\\- -

i e

4 s

s o

y _;

g.,-

l-'

pr'idr; to CASE's havinglan;o'pportunity tolfile, its'

response,1 CASE awaii:ed5 u'

.L'

..M'

x...l N

-c

.{ receipt ofl.the Board'sLMEMORANDUM,;which welreceived.on'11/5/84.

ng.

a:r--

w

-;y.

.5

< t s

t

+

M '

In

reviewing th'at MEMORANDUM,7 CASE. believes.that.pertions1of1it arel q

-s n

.,~

tinherentlyiunfairl and; prejudicial to CASE's' duel process rights. ; CASE W

'l

.? e

- therefore findsiit' necessary tol file this Motion? for Reconsideration of-the.,

a Bdard's MEMORAND'UM.'

+

y r

2 BACKCROUNTL o

-.x

~

' ~

'The Board.is well aware of the; process begun with'the Board's l2/28/83)

MEMORANDUM AND'ORDERL(Quality dssuranbelfor! Design),1andive[willitouch'on M p'

. as'pects of that process only briefly herein.

In'its.12/28/83;0rder,1the'-

- Board stated that the record'in'these proceedings cast.doubtion'the-adequacy; i

~Lf

.of design of the entire plant. The' Board suggested that there~was a~need for an independent design review and the Board -required' Applicants to file al

~

plan that might help. resolve its houbts and-the questions raised:about.the

- e adequacy of design of the plant (pages 1, 2, and 73 through 75).,At page 71, the Board statedEthat, with respect to the design, deficiencies which it noted, therd were aspects of Applicant's' case whiEh the Board would have decided.infavorofAppl[ cunts,andthatitsdecisiontostopwhereitdid I

was " base ~d on our conclusion-that thero<were enough deficiencies'that'we could not. be satisfied by the quality of ^ design reflected.~on our record.

Ay pages'73 through 75, the. Board set forth specific characteristics of an

.s independect design review,'which the Board urged Applicants to consider.

Motions for Reconsideration of the Board's*12/28/83 MEMORANDUM AND -

ll ORDER (Quality Assurance for Design) were filed by Applicants, NRC' Staff, i

l' J

l' and CASE on 1/17/84.-

f.

1 l

.g

.2

<4

'7~-.

.l t1

. r, :.

^

-,, :nn

. d T?,WM N

e, p.

,- y

v w n-g

. a;

+

Y : ' [,Q T

.g

, 4 r

n g

e s

s

,,'!s n

-,h L

7

~

l

,t s

(*

b.

t T

h9~,,'

}'

l

~

• l W.

(

l

.c,

t

-.1

$x 1Applicantstresponded) tithe Board's112/28/83 ' Order: with' theirD2/3/84 -:

.m J

~

q=j ~

,-n 2

m,-

3 s

N: Plan:tolRespodd tol Memorandumand/ Order 1(QualityLAssurance!forjDesign)'.1 7

e YO

.~

..l.

j -

T.,

cFollowing the' Board's'reviewiofltheil/17/84kMotions for Reconsiderations n:

• s

,, L..... -,.

~,.

+ T ; filed bylApplicant'sh NRC,Sta'ff, and CASE,ithel Board issued itsl MEMORANDUM:

y.

c,-

Design):on'- ' f 1y t

1 s

' ;"' VAND.ORDERT (Reconsideration-Con'cerningjQuality(AssuranceDfor:..,,<.

t

f'

/.

w

?2 8/.84(1I67thatior' der,CtheBoardLatited,~iinpart.(excerptedifrompagesl341 S;

f rH.

,through 36):

n;.

.4 n-i

,T.

..7C f! _

~

m

~

"We are. permitting Applicant sto reopen the' record withouti La Sh wihofi

' ~

._ " goo'd cause ;becau~selit does not!'seem to 'us!. logical or proper;to close -

1 W Edownta multi-billion: dollar nuclear plant becausej of ca ' deficiency 'of:

l proof s ; Ailelthere would be f some : 'judtice' to 'su'ch a' proposition,

'- - - there 'would i bei no < ' sense to :it.--

t1 "Furthermore,(weinote ;that intervenors (receive iseverall procedurali

. advantages. iniour, proceedings ;that also are not.:fullypsymmetrical^and s.

that compensate 1 for -the : application > of different ' standards forn 2

~

s

reopening : the ' record.; First,theBoardhas(the~ authority;to,rai,se' important Issuesjsua'sponte, thereby protecting publicTsafety:and the; environment even when intervenors may, not' have raised the issues...

Second,sthe Board has-the responsibility to assure'the adequacy'ofith'e' s

record, thereby1 causing it to pursue more-fully-matters of.public7,_

' safety that may;not'have.been= fully pursued.by intervenors.'.:.' Third,

.the burden'of proof generally falls on applicants',.who'must thereforei attempt to appreciate and rebut, by a preponderance of'theLevidence;-

all-'the' implications of all issues raised-by intervenors.-

3 "In one. sense, the reopening of the' record doe's not'seem' fair. ' CASE has 'been put to unnecessary expense because.it; will have to prove:itisD caseitwice.

In addition,<the need to continue disp"uting.an.already closed issue is an unnecessary tax on its volunteer resources. '. "

(Emphases.added.)-

s Thus, the Board' afforded Applicants the opportunity to' remedy their deficiency of proof.

On 2/24/84, at the close of r. hat week's hearings, the' Board gave Applicants the benefit of its initial impression regarding Applihants'

.2/3/84' Plan (see' discussions at Tr.'10,337/14-10,340/6).. Included in the

. Board's. comments were the following (Tr. 10,338/4-18):

b

- e 3

,c J-w

&q@w$$um%p.x % &cdy? 4%@pm ?hab?sg%: mx. +&p%, m%QE W '2 N;W WT %5Mi

% 3Ru%&&

h M

,w n

n k

6 g M. m

$pv g%. m~m RgW4?W a', ~ L s,,, e em, M me.,wo,n,

.L., : a.a,%.a Q%

M h

%Q3g%nMR W,j6 w

y4 qw&,, 4 V.p.x w

mm w%a, $p:@;y }g'.lw' 3:g$y_,

w,._w. &

V7,.

A m, W:

m_.;a, w ;

v,w >

i.

e TW.%-. C - *, gw ?95G;N 1'E

-%~ ' '$1 l' Bi q.

wem _

g'S -g &s~ e m~%s m

z 7', JfN w- - n.-;

Q m.,- ~ Q.

S,y f

A V4 l'.6. A.. -

7 wmn;g

&ue y;

,s m

.m,> p y ;W o WQQk; g., Sp;c, :

m 5-y.

gm n gz - y.yw

>s<

g% Q&. mg_3n.m'f%g, W,m.-

_ _ ~ &r ;)

~.. -%.

. A m m..z-).3 -y ; C Aw:k; y+.,',4

[.

f 4;M, y~

f

. : ~s%

. C b aib $h,

%<[n";Y h

?

4, :p- ',q"

.,p..

i 7

pg o

A, m2

% ", x y' y mg&~w, y n

y

' w, g, e.:: W -%

• w.%.,p y n-g a

w:m 2

. ~>

sw

~;

c f:

a w.

., w a =_

~

.-n

=

+

e i!

s O n,.

t

.J n

c:

-ry.

s+e

.< P t & JWalsh/D,oyle).i.ssu.os,h.a.wq~ issued m,; base / ;Lon;conceralabo

'p2 a + :-

mm

'v' ec was4 d

., >. m.

~a s

/

v.

l$ f &,.V.

?,"T. he. :. decision.: whic n

n-iandraboutjthelade~quacylo. f,7theTquali. tytassuranc.e)p,lanl n M. n.cl p.

.w,.

~ -

u

?

c nk,t %,

. J D:6-..

m ? %fttheiApplicants,yparticularly(underg ^riterionf1 andfly of;AppendixiBe ~ ; q# F '

C F

1

' A FM,x - iToithe ext.entuthaesthe4pr_oofi. lsfade_qua,teitoidem m

.. ~..

W-b:

, %em,

1. y, 9

,,,gou,qi,,,,,iari,bezadequate(to;, demonstrate;th5tithejBoard(should R,.,$NA '

m

.. s.ing Mu.'tT..of _lth,e' Walsh/Doyle' concernipth. el, Applicant'si.

- wa.

m

~ _

1An sa.....y provefto) h ' W haveiconfidence71nMhe? design loffApplicket'.,s plan.%

OP W4j g

M,k M+r MMd& @:

A eV e>

~

wpm 4

.?

^

.. s y

<:y

%_ _ %, ypW.wnnn mp.. -

sw+

ne

,s.. 3 _... n.. C,p y,

r.

y

~,y c,, ~

d. /.

w e

. n.W,. 4 a.

n..,w s ;n ':. ;

s

-3 M c "..."IfL howeverp.p..._ thel,pidn?.mfail'sl(toj succeed. ;iM p.., 7, '...r p

.c.

,. t. -

=

1 7W4 &m.s i

4 y

c

%.m.

J

~.m o

~ '.

c

- = - -

~.

-.m~

s

. m yin %s~w; a *ireviewithattweireque _sted:as;an additionaltwaylofigiving'!do.the design ? '~ ' _

M.s._

3 confide.nce,Tweldolnot! anticipate anothernopportunity)t.o.

J W

. n e

y

-....m s.

ustconfidence 4 4 W 4 M i yy x

f"d.a,

, -j,..,,

(Thetmaatter7wouldf the.n.,;fallibeforei the( AppealsBoardD'L7 MS.if, i - d*N %u~W

x. -4 em y~

m v.

... m,

s s

e n

'4 n b

[J#'

' ]t T- " -4 i

I

.s Ik5 E p

' ' ~

~ I

• i 'ek,

t 3

g

.:'S d #

' A '[ Q il-c

...t-a:

5.=

e

9. b I '

3 '- u

.. ^ Q~ i

,7 MC.h ~ ~.

t

,.N'.-/-t-61/.3 -

J-c.

f.i i% Mbf f 4

t p

. f M

.c y

. The1 Board,:thusiaf forh :d? Applicants the#nopportunityrtojsupplement9theira RE 4 e

n.

., ~.

w,...

• 4

~

..e.gg a,n w

,,..m, < s,-'.

n e

wm. w. i,

,s

. s -

s n

-,, 7h 1

..g,-

.n 2

., =,,.*,

++;v

.,,,r W' s y g

-4 4

, A,

,' l 2 Plan %toDmoreladeqyst'ely:(faddress aand4 attempt 3to : resolve =the(Boardis.,

a

y. g iconcerns.; y

.+

w

. r:.

n

-: w, ap' e

.a

,y

m t.

~<

r

.u- ~

\\

. 2 nt's[L. xp:;. filed: the'ir! Supplementc;to7 Applicants'pPiknitoh ir - MT v

_ x L

fA'n'dlonl3/13/84MApp1Ica2 y.

y p,.. ;

-~

g3~..

~

x

' (s

_,,3+

yc

~

a...

,... ~... ~..

iRespond'toLMemoranduaiandiorder;(Quality l Assurance fo'r Design)~4

- 1 aF v,y y

s y-c.

n

~

a x

'h n.. >.

~i' N.

s, 3

g

~

1

, -~

2,.

t w

n,

r..

g,

.w r

q, m

..gv g

s p-y

~

s

g..,

4 o

.q DISCUSS 10NO d'

l gu

.1 D

+

m p

"f'

.FollowingdiscussiAns'amongitheBoard(addfparties,.on1/29/847the'Boaid[

t

.s -

.,..i.

j

,o

- 3 s

e>

7

_-.-.. +

=

issued:its MEMORANDUM AND;0RDER'(Written-Filing Decisions' M ir"Some AWS/ASMET ?

1 s$.

b.

..y t

,7 Jq' LIssues); on pages'l't'h' rough 3,ithe Board _ discussed"the.proceduresLwhich",thet 7 Z1 *

)

.I,.

g

~

. + -

a..

aN k;

~

l Board adopted. ; The; Board stated e in part:

~

a 3

s,

[M4_ -

~ l'This memorandum and ' order inaugurates: a -series of' decisions intended"-

.Nu

+

~

f to resolve,~without further' hearings,'aslmany as possibleIof-the2 design-s e

1 quality' assurance and design issues' remaining inLthis' casei

^ N

__,L'

~

y w..

_s

.,we are'considering summarysdisposition subsequent to the n"

is'suance of:a forma 1l order concerning the' issuesfin controversy.[Thit

'orderLis' binding in thisilitigation'and provides the frame' work for?-

t consideration 'of Lthe sunusary) disposition 1 motions' c

n y, m.

2:e.

"Anotherzunusualiaspect:of the, procedure-is.that.we havetadopted--with

~

thejpermission offthe parties--a'somewhat'more lenientEstandard for?

'~

y

1. grantinglsummary? disposition..i Whenever weffind ambiguit'ies requiring ~

J

~

F-

'further clarification; welwill askfquestions (in' writing 6r.on the?

r..& +

i J re' cord)l,)reque'st briefs"or fotherwise. seek 7to clarify; matters fairly..

4 U

Having ' donei thath iwe3111' sche'dule a' hearing (or cross-examination of -

one7or' moreiwi,tnesse's) onlysif tw'e determine that the' hearing is'.

p-

~lJ necessary for us to make alreasoned decision.

3."4 (First emphasis

,,4" j % ',_

indded;asecond emphasissincthe-original.);

7 n

,c p

M 4.

1 i'-'^

J s

{

+

, s s

vu 4

s n..

c, yW ::. s 4,,

cM

Qy4, y

j.t

,s c of.

+

q s

b 7

I y

g upfS * '

~.

Trlr<

l

.M w.wm&. -,,;.a.+.

Q

.us n..

... -,, -.,~,, -.,~ w - a n a n - 2y

,6w.,e

~ ea

_y

, ~

, x, z;w ::n e,

"The purpose of this more lenient standard for summary disposition is to avoid unduly prolonged hearings of technical matters, which generally are better resolved based on an understanding of the facts rather than by use of a magical wand to discern truth telling. Our experience in these hearings is that technical issues require careful study and the comparison of the views of the experts called by the parties. This is an arduous task that is helped by cross-examination only when there is substantial lack of clarity in the written filings or there are important disagreements that require clarification and resolution through the oral interchange provided by a hearing..."

It was CASE's understanding that these procedures (in conjunction with consideration of the Cygna Reporte) were to be the means which Applicants would use to attempt to alleviate the Board's concerns as cet forth in the Board's 12/28/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Quality Assurance for Design). Thus, the Board (with the agreement of the parties) set up procedures which allowed the Applicants to choose the specific items which they would address in their Motions for Summary Disposition, as well as the specific items addressed in their Statements of Material Facts As To Which There Is No a

Cenuine Issue, and the back-up Affidavits for those Material Facts. These a

specific items chosen by the Applicants were to have been Applicants' i

opportunity to correct their deficiency of proof and should have been comprehensive enough to thoroughly address the issues.

These specific items

-- chosen by the Applicants -- also limited the responses which CASE could make to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition (see discussion during 3

7/26/84 conference call at Tr. 13931/13 et seq.).

It is obvious that Applicants hoped to be able to flood CASE with Motions for Summary Disposition and bury us under such a tide of paper that we would be unable to respond to many of the Motions. However, the Board --

following extensive discussions and motions for reconsideration by the parties, and acting properly and necessarily, in recognition of the

}

extremely complex and detailed technical issues involved and the unusually E

5

=

5

r-m q

u -:.:

3s.

c

~

d

large number of Motions;forfSummary Disposition. involved,'in order;to assure

~

fa complete record,J o be: fair, because there.was no'prejsidice to the

.t fproceedings,-and because CASE would be:taking less' time than'would be

. allowed'to thatNRC Stafff-- allowed CASE discovery and additional. time in 2

!which'to'respondgo-Applicants'~Motionsfor'SummaryDisposition,.withthe requirement that CASE beat ithe Staff's filin'g 'of J heir Answer' to Applic' ants' '

~

t Motions :(Tr. ;13,941/22-13,943/22).,

The. Board should be aware that, even.withjthe-benefit.of discovery and

. some additional time in which to respord, CASE has been unable to thoroughly.

cover.each:and every-point which should have been responded to.

This is

~

especially true regarding the first nine Motionsi o which we--responded, t

. where we were.under deadlines to beat the Staff's filing of answers. -During

~

the 7/26/84 conference call among the Board and' parties, we=were' told by NRC-Staff counsel that.(excerpted from Tr. 13,837/24-13,838/25):

"I can think of one motion right now that we are pretty close to.being

-able to getting (sic) into_ final shape. What remains is for myself to write up the legal brief accompanying the affidavit. That is all.. The

~

other half of the AWS ASME area, I can think of two additional motions' which are very close-to' coming up too.

That involves...

"... Friction forces through small thermal movements. At (sic) the summary disposition motions, that is for OBE and FSE (sic)..However, on the others, they-are a little bit further away from,' trying to resolve them. As a matter of fact, the most recent summary disposition motions are very complex. As you know, the applicants have the finite analyses and the tests, and several different areas.

I.can say that it is a trendmenous (sic) task for the staff to go through it.. We are doing the best that we can. 'I just want the board to = recognize that it took1the applicants quite a bit of time to do the work.

I don't=think

.that the staff should be given any less opportunity to review the in depths (sic) of what the applicants did.

"So, at-this moment, I can just say -that our current schedule calls for everything except for one motion for summary disposition to be filed by August 27th. The one exception is the upper lateral restraint."

g.

v f_

.q e.

6 4l

>m

~.

i;'.; df ",.

'?

^

1 g

- t n.'

+

C; w

, y 57 b^

N M-

~

4 y

g g'

+.

s

^'

+;W #

d @n 8/3[84,i CASE was.toldSby Staff counsel-that!Lthey expected to bei y,,

c

,, u. fillingf.thsiranswers'tothefollowing(Applicants'iMitionsjforiSummary' Wl

w Disposition during'the weekJofd8/13/84, probably sometimeVaround.the115thi

~

+

~~ ?AWSIASMEg(design);Richmonds;~OBE/SSE-Damping' Facto's;U-Boltsjactingias

~

r itwo-way' restraints;, safety-factors;.' friction;.section properties;igap's; and u,

IthatitheyLwere' working on"and;mightIalso:have ready: answers on! generic!

~

a

~. ~.

m

?stiffnesseskE0n.the basis'of these.and other representations!by-Jthe. Staff, s

-CASEIandLits two engineering. witnesses broke cur' backs toltrylto' comply withi htheiBSard'sorder(seeCASE's'8/6/84*1ettertotheBoardattachingCASE's' Answers regarding-0BE/SSE damping: factors, AWS/ASMEi(design),;and: friction,

~

s; and-CASE's 8/29/84: letter to the Board. attaching: CASE's-Answers regarding.

4

)

. l'o' cal' displacements,i dif ferential-displacement : (wall-to-wall / floor-to--

b

-ceiling),' axial-restraints, upper lateral restraint, generic'stiffnesses, and. safetiy factors).

The Board should also be aware that-Messrs. Walsh and Doyle, because o'f i.;

j

. an unusually heavy work load on their jobs at that time which required a lot

['

of. overtime for both'of them, were unable to adequately and thoroughly 4

[

review all.of Applicants' Motions for Sn==ary Disposition prior to having to ask'for documents-on discovery. This means that CASE did not ask for all.

the' documents,we should have (and would have, had we not-been under such k

l 1 severe and, as it later turned out, inaccurate time schedules) on many of:

i he Motions.

t It.is.especially important for the Board to take note of these two 4..

3 deficiencies in CASE's Answers'to Applicants'. Motions for Summary i

Disposition,.because it means that the' Board cannot and should not-rely on

,c CASE's having identified and addressed each and every pointLor problem in j

4 7

1

. ~.

4 y.

y s.

+

w.,

w

.c w=

--pa-=Ee+tww ter--

vv"'S

=

vt~V' D*'

W-

' ~'"'

=- -

!F -

ly s.f ' q A

g

z. m

,1 s.

'4 m

3 J

~-

~ :

> ~

x s.

'~,

,, q.c

,? responding?oIApplicankeJ,$otions.'This1haa:aNeady.:-beenproved'onhe,;_

Y t

~

~

. s w,

~

g 3;

m.. -,.....

because.had tho' Board not:requestadEthe raw-data supporting" Applicants

iTable 2Ein'its10/18/845 MEMORANDUM'ANDORDER;(Information'ConcerningTorquesj

~

1in U-Bolts), neither the Board nor CASE would not have known that Applicantst i

s 4

m

.'were using a: nonrepresentative sample as the. basis for.their tests of::

-cinched-down U-bolts.

1 CASE urges..that the Board)take this'into consideration in'its' review oft s

Applicants' Motion's and'thA' answers of.the parties,'andLthat the Board ask

~

(whatever questions or. request.;whatever documents 1(from Applicants, NRC' Staff,- or_ CASE)\\it considers _ necessary to allow the Board to make an informed, reasone'd decision regarding th'ese important design / design OA-

~

issues. -This - type of ' request by the Board is consistent. witih the -

understanding which CASE had of the method which was originally agreed to by the parties regarding the use'of Motions'for Summary Disposition on the design / design OA issues; If' Applicants refuse to provide the information requested by the Board, the Board should deny Applicants' Motion and find that Applicants have again not met their burden of proof sufficiently to reassure the Board that that-particular aspect of Applicants' design / design OA program is. adequate to assure a plant which will not endanger the public health and safety -

rather'than giving Applicants yet another opportunity, again without a'

~

~

showing of good cause, to remedy their deficiency of proof, or giving them the ' alternative of attempting-to find some other way of responding f 2,/.

11/5/84 Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum and f,2) See Applicants' 2

Order (More Detail on Individual Pipe Supports); see also Board's 11/6/84 MEMORANDUM (Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration About Pipe

i Support Information).

, 8 s

. i f

The Board's 6/29/84 Order (and CASE's agreement to the procedure outlined in-the Board's Order), as quoted in the preceding, anticipated that-whenever the Board found-ambiguities. requiring further clarification, the Board would "ask questions (in writing or on the record), request briefs or otherwise seek to clarify matters fairly" (emphasis added).

CASE had anticipated that such requests by the Board would be sometliing on the order of the Board's specific requests for information contained in its 10/18/84 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Information Concerning Torques in U-Bolts) and'its 10/18/84 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (More Detail on Individual Pipe Supports).

(It appears that. Applicants do.not share CASE's views in this regard;..see references in footnote 2 on preceding page.)

The Board'r 6/29/84 Order (and CASE's agreement to the procedure outlined in the Board's Order) did not anticipate Applicants being allowed carte blanche to answer CASE's answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition - and the Board's Order (and CASE's agreement) certainly did not anticipate Applicants being allowed catte blanche to say whatever they wanted to in answer to CASE's answers -- without having to meet any criteria

- while at the same time severely restricting CASE's addressing the statements in Applicants' answers. This, however, is the untenable and unfair situation set forth by the Board's 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings).

CASE and its Witnesses Messrs. Walsh and Doyle have atteepted to accept the Board's 2/8/84 Reconsideration Order with good grace, and to respond to the Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition. CASE supports the Board's position that it must assure a complete record; however, as discussed herein, we do not support those portions of the Board's 10/31/84 Order which 9

e-7 would allow only' Applicants to complete their portion of the record, without l'

allowing CASE.the same privilege.

A'pplicants should only be allowed to file a third-round filing or response if CASE's-answers raise new technical issues (see discussion at Tr.

13,995). For them to comply with this requirement, Applicants should, in their responses to CASE's Answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition, be required to meet the same four criteria to which the Board would subject CASE: ~ Applicants should have to clearly demonstrate, for each subject matter discussed:

(1) relevance, (2) what new material in the last round filing is being responded to, (3) why the party was unable to anticipate this material in its last filing, and (4) the safety significance of the point that is being made - and the Board should strike any filings by Applicants which do not comply with this directive.

Thus far, the number of third and fourth round pleadings has not been great. However, CASE is now concerned, as is the NRC Staff, that "An unfettered right by either Applicants or CASE to continue disagreeing over the same underlying technical issues in a never-ending set of reply briefs does not further the goal of expeditious resolution of the issues in a fair manner" f 3/.

It is noteworthy (though not surprising based on the past posture of the Staff in these proceedings) that the Staff further seeks to restrict only CASE -- not Applicants -- in its responses, while at the same time the Staff recognizes that the " Board specifically stated that the reason for allowing Applicants to respond to CASE's answers was the Board's perception that CASE's answers raised new technical issues which may or may f3/ NRC Staff 11/1/84 Response to Applicants' Motion to Strike CASE's Answer to Applicant's Reply to CASE's Answer on Consideration of Friction Forces, page 4.

10

h%d M d%n @)a,[,b, Dl' W)[ h...p ( h [cMQ [ Nk(

Q;7;k, Fmg$,pff]@uge fg

&.m e g

w

- u

. n

~

m

~$:),

$g r

...f.

?$

$?

g ymmig&g-W,h 4yhi' 5-

^lhD 4:& -

? ylm&Y

?

W Q M,C wc; =y

~ ~ '

sm -

xn. > ;mg u

7, ww c.

-n/ my@Jp n Q:

N ' w<., a :

wwg. r

,1.s m

mw

,a

^+ nw

~

e.

4Wh vv m

'h 71L M'A - ~

3

< W% +

.A/

2 N" % '

. -7 q ' ${. V-;c 7.. %E.p g :; w w?.M U c ~ f j !C

,s-wM 4M

%~d-Q, MOM %@J.. ; W !

y Wp; s

L,.. @3 m c,. M 5', m'. Q fD 0-N w

..~u j-.).3 M-4 F

.u$

y:

W ms

. gi ps o m mps,

c s,

.qw cm.w~ ns:.3,, - sa wm "c

-y Wg I.pg ;,

4 % ; w; p g, 'g?

e s-

+s, y a

~ :

r 4 _p%pMM ^

n.

1 M:g ; g g g' 6 y ge

+

- + a n x: ~,

.,. ~? k & m.

-W

+ n t's ?! 'y, > b x$ % + m:Q us ~, e,

~ m%

~ +

W v19 t

mz 41 Tra

_w ;

~,~V,n y

w m

o

-e

...k h,_

- I wNh ks k

y N $. % E Jaot/beirelevantstodtheiissue soughtito',be disposed of C;hU[. Applicants sho T m Y

uld?

4 awh;,,W 7 f m.m.m. c tw' W

m,4 stu u %, K J.< twy.; ; x; _4

<x n ' ' m:= wy; ' - :

y

- m

+

M y cev fm..~

ihave tosspe'ificallylidentifyfany;such?nes"RmtechnicaliissuesM<and.Mhouldabei_

- J m

c

'W4 e

x-5MW p"%p%. ;,w; _a s

a w

-- fu-7sm s ~

,, s '

w

+

m

- n g_=

< (Wff Q n., 2...

.:_p;e; '

,s+_"~

yp

. mj ' -

g,m 4 y;;Lrequired}!to(se"ecit. isaas ifouricrite riai whichithe' EBoard,would Mapose ;on.1 ~- '

J ; n:t u;; =.~,

n'r'

- v r.

v.

k,

..y

-Q.-

p.

.t

--e.s-,

,m:>.. tw gl Vyy '

a n wa g:.p ; p33g. ch.

a; q,, gg,

x,p:

y B y ~ @, g] CASE'.n, m.e m,ever,_( m e.

_ e

. ]neithe'rdthp Board (noritha Staff;has.fsuggestedEthac M ;.

-t

'4' - %w,

.m -,

< m

~

u.,

w-ewm.

l How e

y n.

.. e iv, n< m. m,.w o

.wn w

w.-

.,. w. u w

~

, w o

nn;r m:

y c,g,

hy., ca.m, n.,. -MQ$eApplicantsyinitheir3responsesitoiCASEl'g,sianswers,}(aust2 meet 1those[foury f ;

c. P f~,

u

... bu 4

..1.,

,,..s y y

..m 4

eq xg W o, o

4 CN ww. _. ctf,15 crite ria M no, r, A. ", -

wg

+e-

. w:

-m

-

• m '-

t 4

=

rm > +

s

~

u

- 54m-m,.w

-. n m mn

-are ' Applicants J beingi told l that ? the.: Board ;willis trike.ianys -

M., 3,

e w &.

.w ~....

y c

y.

a

~ cy pn

, m

. e ' -';, gg. '

~.c

,. afe

_,p

...;o s

,..,-s

, r u.

. - 1.

r J S,.~f! Applicants h filings? thatt do (notx comply; with ; thi~s ?' directive 6 a

v.

' f

'.\\3 *,

I '

y j

,b m_...;

_.-.19 m.T E po...

y a.

r

- m.

1_

-7 a <. -..

,. 2 -

~. @~ ~ -.. ~1 mv.

-..,...a

.m

....s 4,e

.%4-

., -., -a.

' @ ~.1CASETsubmitsit Otb-...yto.be? fair,!;~and 'even-handed,$.. thei, Board.ishould1.not t t-w

.a r

~

..w -. sg. -

w

~ m s

1 M ' i"..M N.

' ' ^

.A 2..

-s.

'.'h~

• r s".-

-\\ ?

-6 e

'.m

. 1

+ -

%?, MJ sjcons'idsr.(either: Applicants.'f repliesftoiCASE's 4 Answers to1 Applicants'qMotionsg

y

-c-

..s< 3 -C 1

..t.

.w ag

• ,

• mn :

r g-

?.

fod Sde[ mary!Dispod.ition-(tN rEliround:reponse);oriCASE's1Answersito? - ' i pf, ' ? ' I :,5

^

..[-.Y 3 m ".c'f*

^

i i,

a g

'e, N

A

_e,e.

<..,p

.,!y

,, y s '. V.-

e.

~% D 3.~..a s

,., s

- (

J Applicants O repliesi to,# CASE's J An'swers 1tol ' Applicants '; Motions ) for Summary;-

.s

+.

p x,

eMr e.

~

~

"e r

(Disposi.tidn[(fourth (round ! response);un14ssf anylsuchL responses? byf either f 1 x y

. x, u

e e

.,.. ~

' '.D 4

JApplicantsiorlCASE meet th2 four criteriarset'forth/in:the' Board's:10/31/84"

_ T1 s

o w

m

+

.(^

'7 F

. This: requirement ahouldtbe; imposed 6at?Ti 4 MEMO.RANDUM ?. (M.ultiple F' ilings).

i r

1 n+,

,,9 JJ '. f 1'

{

t

^ 4, _

2 minimue,s regarding ' Applicants '" answer on; gapsM, 4,/ ' and all)othe~r L third-round:

U1 1

5 g

9b answersLby. Applicants'which follow.

j.

y

-In-Applicants'" replies to CASE's' Answers lto'ApplicantsT Motions;for; "x i J'

^

[ ','

Summary: Disposition receivedIthus far,, Applicants have, a=eng other~ things:

7

. + "-

f reargued'their same position,:using new. arguments and at: times new 4

~

Tinfdraation and'new? documents; altered'or taken.a new approach to their-

h..,.

m

.4

!1 iprevious' position,7at" times'using new arguments,,new information, and new:

tu <,

-.. s a

!?

(documents;;and usedJtheir reply to deliberately misrepresent' statements'by.

.\\

4 3

CASE's11tness(es)..

y i

c e

A 4

c/4/wApplicants(10/.26/84?Rehly,to(1) CASE'sAnswertoApplicants'_ Motion w

Db

? 7 for(Suemary Disposition Regarding the Effects of Caps and (2) Board"

Chaliman's_"Prelimin'ary views" Regard *.ng Additional Pleadings.

s i

(

'p f (bs (

e

,4

{'

- r A

b c.y y-

h,,

4 4

i

'l J

b'

, T 4

y

(

4 e

l

'f4*

4

~,-i,>>-

7 4

1 i'[ - t >.[T j' ; y

• L s

g

_2 4 ( j'l,)

a,r r

.. y

.)

p[

x o

K N

[ 's.

.Jj =.

.'g j

1:

4 z

g;.

j ; ~' %,,

' * ? p..

y

/

,tn

'-. m; o

f..

[..

M

~

M

~

~

g

'e i,

t 5

, DAnd in their. reply'regarding' gaps 1(see' Footnote 41on~page 11),

Applicants have, introduced information which~is irrelevant in an effort to'-

- sirsy the1 Board to their views. ' ?Applicanta have-'not made. any showing that

~

kthis?informationLis= relevant, but;since'they areLattempting to useLit to.

s 3

Lsupport their position.and to sway the Board, CASE must' address it-or risk-t

-the Board's being misled by it -- thus placing. CASE in the untenable

. position of having:to argue not that'something is' relevant,7but.that the b

information contained in Applicants' pleading;is irrelevant. This burden 4

.should not be on. CASE - the burden 'should be"on Applicants ! to " clearly ;

J

~

m

,[

demonstrate" the relevance of the material in question. Yet,.under the

' Board's;10/31/84'. MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings), Applicants'are not being required to show relevance or.to meet any of the:four criteria ~ stated by the' Board.

CASE also takes strong exception to the following emphasized portion of the Board's 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings) where the Board states (page-2):

"... we have now obtained and read the transcripts of the August 8, 9

'and 23. meetings between Staff and Applicants. Our understanding of these meetings leaves us without any rational explanation of how-Applicants could have come to assure this Board that there were no significant matters raised in those meetings. We trust that Applicants understand the importance of the matters raised by.the. Staff and the apparent need to supplement their Summary Disposition motions in a clear, responsive fashion. Supplementation appears to be necessary to avoid denial of the filed motions." (Emphases added.)

The Board is offering Applicants yet another opportunity to remedy its 1

deficiency of proof - again without a showing of good cause (which good i

1 cause CASE does not believe exists) -- by supplementing their Summary Disposition motions. Such supplementation will undoubtedly require yet

- another answer from CASE, thus unnecessarily burdening the Board, the' Staff, 12 1

0 7

f

[}: ~W hk; -

~

. c

?1

~,

+

v tw ;;

G, m.

y

~

j$%+

W "m

' 7 4

,s 4

w.

H o4 W.

, m

',h

'N.7 j,i C

3

^

V

^f..

~

s

~ _ ;f Y

'.. y ; *f],

and2 CASE;~as"wellSas the. record.of these.proce$ dings,;and: serve;to' y

7 1

+

Junnecessarily; delay;the'procesdings.t n

~

T, "#

iApplisantis chose ;tk deIiberate1[ deceive the LBoard regardingithe-

.~

^

Esignificance;of the1 matters raised in the~ meetings between Staff and-

~

~

~

b.

(

? Applicants - event'when; CASE specifically. called -such? significance to ther

.w jattention.of-the Boar 'and? Applicants, not'once,-bution at>least-three n

' separate occasions:Lduring-anfoif-the-record telephone conference between:

1. theBoardChairmanFApplicants' counsel,jandCASE1on'8/27/84;LinCASE's'

'8/29/84 ' letter to' the Board. under subjectf o_f[ CASE'sl Partiin1. Answer -to

~

Applicants' Notions'for= Summary Disposition, Epa e 2, ass quoted on page 15;

-following;'and during the 9/5/84.on-th'e-record conference call among the'

Board and. parties-(we do not have a. transcript citation._because we have not-yet made. time to make the 30-mile round trip to.the-Library'to get a copy of-the transcript, but it was near the end of.the_ conference call); this was1 also discussed in the off-the-record conference c'all among the Board'and

' parties on 8/31/84). It should be noted that'(at least,in CASE's opinion) the NRC Staff coensel were'also under an' obligation to have' corrected' Applicants' misrepresentation to the Board.

While CASE can understand;(although we were disappointed that the Board chose to believe Applicants rather than CASE) that the Board undoubtedly found-it difficult to belie e that Applicants' counsel would deliberately I

i misrepresent the. significance of the matters raised in-the meetings between Applicants and Stcff, the fact remains that this is precisely what occurred (as is in'effect acknowledged ~by the. Board at page 2 of'its 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings)).

- 13

---,yhyWg

__ty-ee=w=e-'F--

s

-w,vy

.g-w*wvg.-.ewyap-~ye<-p--,-me**wwy

p l

The Board statea (10/31/84 MEMORANDUM at page 2):

"Under the circumstances, we should not have required CASE to respond Q1 to summary disposition motions with respect to which the Staff has E

serious doubts. We required CASE to do so based on Applicants' I

representations that significant matters were not involved. Hence, we unnecessarily subjected CASE to a time deadline and to the likely need to make multiple filings.- We will consider this burden in subsequent rulings on time deadlines. Furthermore, we will automatically permit CASE to make fourth-and higher-round responses with respect to any-pending motions which CASE believes were significantly questioned by Staff at these meetings. Once CASE makes such a good-faith representation, its obligation to demonstrate the four points listed above will not attach. The filing will be accepted."

~

We appreciate the Board's statements and consider that its efforts to remedy the damage to CASE are proper and necessary. However, there are a couple of matters which should also be considered.

First, the damage to CASE has been far greater than indicated by the Board in the preceding and does not apply only to the design / design OA issues. CASE was also forced to forego filing complete and adequate welding findings because we had to make a decision between the welding findings and our Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Richmond inserts. Had we not had to answer Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Richmond inserts at the particular time we did, we would have had enough time to more adequately complete our proposed welding findings; as it was, we did not have sufficient time, and due to the press of other deadlines, we were unable even to file responses to Applicants' and NRC 1

Staff's proposed welding findings.

When CASE filed its answers to six of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition on 8/29/34, we advised the Board of the difficulties being encountered regarding our welding findings.

From the 8/29/84 letter to the Board from CASE President Mrs. Juanita Ellis (page 2):

4 8

14

f.

p e'

^

f m.

x g.

8 j

'At this - point, I am not' at-all certain that 1 will. physically be' able to meet'the-deadline.the Board;has set for the; welding findings.. 11

.have-had:to make a' difficult choice -- the Answers:to Motions for 1

- 10

-Summary Disposition:or the welding findings.-<1 haveLnot been able to (work.on'the welding: findings'for any length of time. :Although we do-

-have 1t'few CASE volunteers who are. helping with them, there:is no one

, 1else in our: organization who has the. background'to be ablelto pull.them:

lall-together -in a logical.. orderly fashion for. the Board except me.

.I'll do what11 can.- As usual, whatican'tlbe done won't be{ fAnd the.

. record will suffer."-

"There is one other: matter t'o which I'want to call the Board's:

attention.. Contrary to what_was stated'by1 Applicants'qcounse1Lduring

^'

. the telephone conversation between the Board Chairman, ' Applicants'-

counsel, ~and me.on Honday,' 8/27/84, it 'is my understanding from -further.

conversations with Dr. and Ms. Boltz (who attended'the 8/23/84 meeting.

on behalf of CASE) that: there is-to be, a substantive change in-at least -

one Affidavit,fregarding Richmond Inserts,-and the Applicants' Motion.

for Summary Disposition. We ask>that the-Board check with the'StaffJ and-Applicants'to ascertain whether.or not-this is true'. fIf it is,'

CASE strongly objects.to having to' answer this Motion without having, this change and any accompanying documents in-hand, and sufficient time to properly" review'and analyze them. Our answer is currently scheduled to be put in the:eall on 9/10/84.. We will appreciate the Board's assistance on.this."- (Emphasis'in the. original.)

Mrs. Ellis also advised the Board in the 8/31/84 off-the-record

' conference call and in the'9/5/84 on-the-record conference call among the Board and parties (near.the end of the call) that we would file our answer r

on the Richmond Inserts, even if it meant we were not able to also file complete and adequate welding findings. This is precisely what happened.

We did file our answer on the Richmonds, and it is obvious from our pleading why it was necessary to devote so much time to preparing our response; it was a mammoth effort. Looking back now at that answer, it is a miracle that I

we were able at the same time to file noy welding findings, even the incomplete ones which we did manage to file. Thus, the record is deficient

.on the proposed welding findings; for example, both Applicants and NRC Staff are satisfied with Applicants' program for weld rod control, even though a careful reading of the record clearly indicates that that program is a 15 I

m-

-r 4

.-.-n n,

,m,a e

s

<,m

---r.

s

y M &w n k*L y' g ; y 'c*p -

mnmw'uym x,

w

~ 4 ' w,...," 2, ufmy z,

m -

, n v. %

n '.

m

- w;.

U W;;V +] &.' ?wa.n, "^> W d, W ^Jh %.29W C;W '

9;.

W.

w:s c.

RWh d d h. K ' k T %,

= >

J.y

,=

GW

- w l..y ;,

w w., _.

w

~ m

u,

w n

'w n.

_ (tQ n l$3 i 3,. 2

(

l MM a. < #9 "e.

' 4,

~

4 f W + &' 9 ' Mn' w"Q a

~;

't ;

7" sc+

r e

W Ly;d$)h,,^ # ' % ' %.& # W L.

'%d 1, % %

e yOf5

% &. ~ $3* i.

. L mn[;1:x%\\M, t ', > m,N ^ *g ?-

M d @;8@((Y[$5 b

GO.

MU 1

1 -

• et wy Ay-iW ypV6 bg(

"ggs

~~a a

p<$

w$y J

+

y.

g

_ u m-4 j

AV m._

7

.. J " s e, " _,

Ag uo fg#

c -jy y}y

.~,

i j l p'

~;%"

r y' ;

Q.

u K

y y,

s

.u 7..

,-. : n, 1

' ',. pas nw,

+ x 1 n >

o?

@xk @Q$.failureTandfthat[there is,[in fact,ino ; adequate 1programiinieffect. AThisK'.i t

'=

~.,

• ~ yg r

34 V

~

~~

S gr' e

y:,fg-a

',._p,.

. Lp,_

3_ 73_.

2

' cwould have;beenidocumented for.the-Board'by; CASE 1had weinot.had;;to-filefourg -

Q yi Qn v, w,m na - -

e, pp- ',

~

y-W~,..

/

n.

n s.

?e$ e.'f M newErjtofAN 11 cants'jMot k fdrIS'ummaryI.DiApoN tion when wUdid A 5 C 1 JIN i

y. m_

w-vA

_m.

, - o

,w4 g

m,.-~

s o

• 9;.- -.

Q The;onlyJadequate;remedyfto'.this, damage,to CASE,1which;was,the: direct;~ -

y +, x r sM m-s c.... m 4:. 0.

m.

's

,+

t

..,~n,-

=,-r a.

v;.=

r.

m m -

_, [w^

Q,,

• "' [ lC ' _

,?...

c s

, e

_1 e JresultRoffApplis' ants Qdeliberatelmisrepresentations'toithe Boardfwould1be N -

$l

_.,,7 f f LM

'u tl %

ny

• m;py ::,

5,

s

~

v.

-t t

. >j w,.

g., m-

~

4 7oEa110wCASEltfsupplement;itsjp'roposellfweld[ng[ findings.;LHoEever,fsuch[a: [

s

+%.

3,;,c l, w

a g~ y

. 7.

y' n

.p. x,

^'

' remedy is11mpossible andjworthlessiiffit)must)runiconcurrently1withi hef

• 1W t

m _ i

,L.

_t m

+ '

4~

. "e

=3..

-9y:

otherideadlines :and.wcrkiload, CASE is M,nderJ regarding the design / design' OA w

~

s=

_.bI

'ew,

,1^

N,

., f Y,:

~

?

N <

n 4

~

"ff-

~

1

~L

..issuest LApplicants beingc al1 owed to continue !down(their: current path.o.,

c

~

,+

x

- (k

'.3

...,..s

. - \\. " '. U e

M cI g

'%g

respondingTtol.eachtofJCASE's?Answersito' Applicants'. Motions for Summary;, _

+

.o m

m~

m"*

?

.m

<._ _... z L..

'u LDispos'itionwithouthavingLto'maka(anyJshowing~astogoddcause,l'relevanchc

~

^

4

,.,1 corany;ofctheot$ericriteriawhichthe' Board (would:imposalonCASE,fwilll m

- r x

z l-

+

gj foffectively preclude CASE from ever-b'eingLable to supplement:itsiproposedL-

1. ~

A l"'

).

4. >

(welding-findings _even.sh'ould the Board"allowfit. ThisLis necessarily true=

p

.7,.

a Tbecause' at least ;the information on the welding, issues ;is'aiready -in the, t =

g

[.

r p

record;- therefore,J any time there must be a; choice:between proposed welding r

h findings and new information (not'aiready in_.the record) regarding

_. i

=.

F l design / design-0A' issues, CASE must choose the design / design OA issues.

s i

It cannot be argued,'in one sense of the word, that CASE should be

}

p

. allowed to-supplement-our Proposen Findings of Fact;and' Conclusions.of Law

'Regarding Welding Issues in order.co complete the record; obviously, what's g

inlthe record,"is

in.the record already., However, there is another m,, -

compe111ng reason for allowing CASE to so supplement:

to assist the' Board.

I

[

l Wit!hout such supplementation by CASE, the Board will'have to engage in a m

t s

r s

p

.auch more detailed, exacting scrutiny of the record to be certain that?its r

s

..y

,- decision-does not. le' ave out important: points.

?

s b

l ' \\

h y

y 4

16

.6 f,

'ir g

~ Hu s

_,_,L..

_, _.,. _.,, _. i, m,_

S" W.

~

n. m., _...,

a r,. s,

u

,,_ _ _.,_.,,, m, _

h @Fy M Q M W C a @' 1'M M @Ms$$W@ Mirk M6E> fed &M mM Sk gg;%m - -:s W%gm@- M), - M9

' " 3 G @p..?pp4 K % W M j; f

ik,n%p q p PF W 4%

n +7pM agg% ; W -

7:-M G

xm

%.V g? : ' t n y','

. yo nghy

J-Lgn%p sa w am. ~ ~gm -

&m,.

24 as;w M w w v, Y '.

, - ny e_

ga s~

0 33, Ar.

mx ea n7

.w e

e w g =wga y[^QcM;f%N

' N $ _ MN[@f S b Th /N$. M M+d$ / % # ~ f b Q b "

4 qg4 ng pg g g g y.,

s. 3 3 4 %

, s

,3 4

_ gg

>+

Nhh z dbil ;

,Wy % ts m ;%.

m-M, m.m, w

/ q u

. ' w,...;y%s y% M,-v g j-.,

w g:t q a

g,,-

-m;.u *~.s Q. o,..

w;g -

.-n-

.". _~ j -

4 n.

m fy;

..r r.

y m

v t

i..

.w y 4

g

- m.

e.

, #[ f

.g

-l,._.

l, 0

.- s,

$. msg,$,

'f ?, _.; f:jN.- s n.

t l

a N

..(

YY 7a m.

fh^ '. g.,., ?'~g3, s

C

.fy I,

J,

, Sk I ce!r~.

L N,-,9y-y_0

1. ,f, a

.c

,_y, c -;MW R u ?, ?n, -

3 j

5 lkh5Q 'jl3.

h@Q 3 @W,M ] %p CAggtthereforelmo7esttha &yas,s..

^ s v --

ti i ] partial.:remedyftothelhsagedonedto.;

Q' JM if@

c 7 NL7, r Nl @ l CASE @yfApplicantsFfdeliberate; mis _representationsgto ghe. Board, G'

g, 3g &

gi %,j{__

{^., y3 fy M

1.. :V e

&, ;A : ;,, -W 5% Fp. + :ge am n wl6 ^,. ; :p.

r%. m.m_;V h w.V, ;,

wgy x

w m.

m'

.-j ;. 9

~. 6'",,

L.

s;1n4whichTtoL,oupplement'CASEts3 Proposed S,1.3M %l

+

+

,7 N@? % w e-4 allow CASELan;additionalttwenty[ day % ;m,-

g

- - =

1

'C

.. _' w>.

, ch, g

v-

,a s

- -m 4

<w-

>w t 1 4

q m;m, RfA J @myifdingC,offiscCand:

~ ~

m. Enalusionsiofjtaw(Regarding1Weldingilssues'.fjFurther, W j ^ e m

a, r,,

s j e:

'? d Z

.d.. g,,,f} qs%i f $f

',',_7,

. 4 TM 4 W-

.. l %. g w

,y q

1 ^ " n n). [..

',x, w$~ #

g

--~v

+,

.~

[

,Q y _ a "wi MCASE' move'sLthah dis add'itionalitime beitime setinsidelfor!q-thisTs'pecific W,^ s k ' d s

s-

s y

,'g.

s x;- ~

e y

?n y

~

pu gg y a t _

p;

.'. e L

y,,

g; O,k,,,

s ' d purpose [ %withou'tTthOelock's'l running 7onother," matters (such'asi, design /de'signjT@

e >, m.*

w n,,.+ *

.i _ -.,,

t,, ',.,

g

?

7-D

.'c

'~.

tm s

,....y,M.

( '_e^ --... > >.

f 3

],

t

'S d *-

g e

t e JQAlpisadings);_-this;wouldrhe simi1~arito;the time?settasidelbytthe-Board? p,; ' W' nu gU <

m w

n e? % ;%g-m m

o g

.r

- y

-1, 7

s 4

co -

....T N

W f

4~ i jK V" g' <, m cm c

.m.

u e

,during} hearings,;

9

y

~ - '

W c

s j

s t

~

w,

.g i 24-t

+

,.d M

' ~

. J k..

'.-E'.

j$

<rs'

)

Q-j,j H f.

s y

y *"

,f i

.t..

.,s 1

~

,g s

e

~

TheLsecondEaspectTofTthetBoard's; MEMORANDUM l(lastithree. sentences ofi f,

6, -

~

.xy

.l., 1.2

.. N IJ W the_ portion quotedjon page 14? preceding).whichtshould'be? considered ist..

..?

U

...S?,

_5 s,j,y w

the; -

y a:

i

} '

T

f,

~

l

+

,_s

-),

.3

,g

, 2 TadditionalfunneessaryLandlunfa'>irfburdentinposed upon CASE.c In order for1

- g' s

%,A

?_

su a

_ y

~.

a.

m.

.a w-

-t

~

',W

' CASE to : take ' advantage 1of; the opportunitylaf forded by thel' Board's1 46,'

l C

w p

q_,

p.

directives, we would-firs't.have to again review andianalyzeiche_ transcripts; i

y m

J

~

i ofjthe several meeting's'between Applicants ~and NRC Stafr, attempt:to

.4 3

.determineithose items which the-Staff'significantly questioned st those m

1

}.

meetings, then.g'o through the' usual _ procedures necessary to'make=fillags 3

3 v

5 g

/_5],'all'of.whichwould'takealargeamountoftimeandeffort,inaddition:

fjf I.e. L W eers. Walsh and/or Doyle would have to prepare the information

". a for an affidavit; that' affidavit.would have to'be typed up; Messrs.

Walsh and/or Doyle would have to sign'and have such affidavit notarized;!anylnecessary accompanying documents would have to be D'

identified, found, and appropriately marked;2a cover letter, 'a letter to Docketing and Services and~a Service List 1would have to be prepared;'

~

copies;would have~to be.run of the pleading;;those copies would have to be collated and stapled; envelopes would have to.be prepared for the,

,i mailing; the1 pleading lwould have to be stuffed into the envelopes;;the.

i.

envelopes would.have to be weighed and the proper postage applied;-and fina11y'the completed' pleading would have-to be taken to the-Post' g,

y a

" Office.for mailing.

This is not a large burden for Applicants or NRC Staff, with their

~

.(/..," N sworkers, and the_ratepayers' or taxpayers' money to operate with, etc.

staffs of attorneys,.' technical people, secretaries,' typists, office However, it is a heavy burden indeed'for CASE, with its comparatively n yb X'

meager personnel;and' financial resources.

t s

Q W

l

^

w wn n*. u UI' f '.

g 'f l-iWL V '

'.a :. ',,,

ft

? vm~

c

~, 4 4 7 9_f ke /% ); si..... g ;:.

r.,

4

' *

• p;f

.W '; y W E ?

r,

-i

=r igyqt 4 - sxy}j+

1

1

$ND

+

1 to the additional financial burden involved.

CASE submits that the proper and fair procedure, because of these particular circumstances, would be ~ for the Board to order:

1.

Applicants to file affidavit (s) (not representations by cuunsel)'

setting,forth:

(a) the specific details with respect to any of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition which the NRC Staff 1

, questioned at the several Applicants / Staff meetings; (b) an assessment by Applicants of the significance or potential significance of each item it!entified; and (c) an explanation of Applicants' representations to the Board that there were no significant matters raised in the meetings.

2.

Applicants to supply the Board with:

(a) copies of Applicants' Response to NRC Questions of Meeting of August 8-9 and August 23, 1984 /6/ (Applicants provided the Staff and CASE with copies under cover letter of 9/24/84, but sent only the letter without attachments to the remainder of the Service List); and (b) any other similar follow-up responses by Applicants to the Staff.

(It would then be helpful to the Board for the NRC Staff to review Applicants' pleading and advise the Board

/6/ A portion of Applicants' filing to the Staff was included as Attachment

^^~

E to CASE's 10/15/84 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Stability of Pipe Supports. This will I

give the Board an idea of the type of information supplied to the Staff l

by Applicants.

18

n whether or not they concur with Applicants' assessment regarding the significance of the items in question.)

After the preceding has occurred, CASE should be automatically pern.itted tu file its response to Applicants'_(and, if the Board has requested it, NRC-Staff's) filings, with the requirement only that-CASE make a good-faith representation that it believes its filing to be necessary for a complete record in these proceedings (and without having to demonstrate the four points listed in the Board's 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM).

This would be a more expeditious and logical method of dealing with this particular matter, and -- more importantly - it would place the primary burden on Applicants (where it properly belongs) rather than on CASE.

CASE submits that the response which the Board should make is to now deny each of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition regarding which Applicants misrepresented to the Board the significance of the matters raised in the meetings between Applicants and Staff.

In the alternative, should the Board believe that the need for a complete record is so great and compelling that it is necessary to require or allow additional information regarding these matters, CASE moves that the Board adopt the procedures set forth above.

IN CONCI.USION It should be noted that CASE does not believe the Board, in its 10/31/84 MEMORANDUM (Multiple Filings), deliberately sought to reward Applicants for their misrepresentations to the Board or to impose unfair 19

a

,. c3 Q' &, -

-:6 s,

~

g' g : w w,, = j

,y x

.] l

+;'

f - Q^6 Qsf.'

1 m

~

m, n

wn

[< i):c-3 x

9

4

]

'f3 7

x

.t.

,3.

- 3; x cx e

a+

w A_

...4f

, {.

^-

3 m l g' y

• y[

?

r 3

1:9 7;g, u -

u;

,p'>

x -

^

s L, wm

sdditionaltburdens

on"l CASE.;SHowever, as discussed herein,7 hat::isfthe-..*

]'

f,, -,-

t s

m

- 3;;;

y y;

q f,

+

+ +

~

~

soffect.;

e W

~.

p

w..

,x x

y

.. +.

1

-Applicants'to1 file 1 1

,,The Board ? s. MDIORANDUM 'sa i written) would Iallow :

y m

~......I iresponses to' CASE's' Answers"t'ojApplicants' Motions [for Summary Disposition:

La,

~

?

^

_ 1(thirdiround' responses),[withouttheirh5ving-to.sh'owgoodicause=ormeetiany

~

s,l '. ?.I Y ?

E of-:the four crit'sriaL which the Board's MEMORANDtM'would. impose.upon l CASE 2 1

i L(i.e. "any such responess~must clearlyLdemonstra*.e. forjesch subject matter _

~ ;y

.s; -.

Ediscussedi 1(1). relevance,f(2)fwhatnewmaterialin.thelastround-filingis' i

Jbeingrer.,ondedto[(3)why:thepartywasunableto'antiAlpatethikmatesiSil

?

initslastfiling,and(4)thesafety-.significanceoff"theipoint(tha' tis;-

s m

being made;" - the Board "will strike-any filings that'do not comply withL t

this directive'.").',

Further;theBoard'sMEMORANDUM,.while~expressingpussiementatj"how Applican, i could havef come: to assure this Board that' there were no significant antters raised in those' meetings," imposes no sanctions upon Applicants.for their deliberate misrepresentations to the Board.

Instead, the Board's HEMORANDUM,'.in effect, rewards Applicants by offering them yet another bite at the apple, by way of inviting them to supplement their Summary Disposition motions to. avoid denial of the filed motions.

Rather than allowing' Applicants more and more opportunities to. remedy.

their deficiency of proof, the. Board should now deny each of Applicants' Motions for-Summary Disposition regarding which Applicants misrepresented to the Board the significance of the matters raised.in the meetings between Applicants and-Staff. The Board should also find that Applicants have.again not met.'their burden of proof sufficiently to reassure the ' Board that'esch 20

.r._u.

p Ge % a n m e n, @n n ~. La m

Q g g&.-=

• J W.. ;" ;s W: *

- - 73% -

~

qMMyk%M cP"#D MM ' >

b+

g]e

.s.g- "-w

. a u.m,r s a ' ~

e m'5 ;-

geg; p - < < 1 ~

"?

e 4

,w-r-

q n,

, Q 1-

'i <. _f

,~

zg f- :.

',c

~

.# - m:

~

. p-ly 4 l

e

g,l WE

w

, ' gj?q L

Y

) g eml 'lgfi" %,T '.' y b

, ' '., + J,I:

', ' ' r; = ~t m

,.a..' ' ' ' " ' '

^

'h. cpl m

s m.r

~

q ;. -

y f '> \\ ' D Q,.

&, _h ~

m

m. -

l q

t,.

ny,',

- y =f; p?,

p, 5 ;-l f

~

y, a,,

x,

., u,,, ;.,..

m,, #

y 4

>+

}-_

t..

i 2

992

.e t

i i jg

, ;Y l ',,

% m~it:

V -\\, +* -

Q'M-Q.b; l h n, a

n--

fQ *

',dS-L

,fJ ys y..,

-u?~

y-ld I;, ' -

~- t

, -[: D,'

r, m

e

.u n

.m n-

{gllg*$c g-

i,

] p } h('.,

~

5

,,3,

-me

-= 4

? ' 4 g

p m

f,,

,',tn

, r:4,=

h;;.- O-1o 2

.e WdpW~,~. part12Elariaspect Lo'f' Applicants'5 design / design' QA program (regar' ding which' m _

qshm 7 m.. '.

. s; e;

a

- p2 pf f; jkMrd hasU, ~enied $Ipplicant's'iMotion)' isfidequata;to? assure aMant(which

~

• i.

gq q

~

y, 1 ~

JMk, i n

-a M;M &g sCl3@-,

iwil(not eEdangeriche public healthland; safety.m,'

s s..

7 s

y'i

- ^

1 m

-- M,'"

't.

?y: J m

• _ N M M y, R.

i 9 >.

- (.

d,,

s c

4 e

JCASE'so moves.t p'

~ r!

sym' WR:

-~

w m

n'%

v.

"1.C Q iIk the :alternativef should the Board :believe ;thatitheineed for-as c c

~

+

d4. (

3 1.

s a_.

', M v#

s 4

~

dr%

c

~ >

~

l

... ~

.,?,,

O.

_ 'D :.

_p Jcomplete f record islsofgren't and compelling lthat ;itTist necessary to; requiret '

Ml 9~

> n

~. C.g 8

(:4 ' I -

. ~.

s,,,,

.~

m,

s L_

n

~

_g

=,

4 n

CASE' moves:thatlthe.

• L 9 or; allow additionallinformation;regarding these' matt. ors,:

4 7,y i

-j w.

~

g 53

,3g..y.

...- c d-s.'

• i y'* )y ' t,F

/n Board adopt theifollowing 'alternativej procedures f.

~;

E1

^5

.y 1

i

'p' Ms

. ~ '

i icASE moves that.theLBoardt s

, aw s

e m

m 11 1 ETakenoteiof[the.factthatthe"Boardcannotcandishouldnotrely;on:.

W

~v 1 m

s g

)d i

3

,g CASE's'having identified land addressed leach andievery point'orJ

~

+

~

problem in responding'tof ApplicantsMMoticas for Summary [

W'

' Disposition, and 'ask' whatever questions or request whatever;,

T 1

L<

3 documents (from 5pplicants,-lNRC. Staff,~orICASE) it considers

~

p a

.g F

'necessary to allow the Board to'make'an informed,:reasone'd! P decision'regarding these important' design /, design QA issues.:-(See 6

" discussion.at pages 7 and 8 preceding.)-

~

m nm.

Deny Applicants' Motion regarding any items discussed in item 1.

V" 2...

4 M

pceceding on which Applicants refuse'to provide the information ~

8

' requested by.the Board, and find that ' Applicants have again.not-y a:

i P'

met" their burden of proof suf ficiently to reassure the Board ' that-

..y Bq

that particular aspect of Applicants' design / design QA program is c

,s adequate-to assure a plant which will not endanger the public 3

5'

~ fi,

4 h

e healthiand safety.

w

(

/

g v '.. I

. ).

e t

• y4 I

i

'7,

?Q R U,,,

21 Wf,&'

y;g i

,t p".

,2

,' t

~

,g.

.g.

• • ,, +,i, '

- d,, ;.

..i.%.-.,4,d_,.,..#_,.L.,,#,,mm_,._,,

,.,,.,, _. d _,4

,O.

,_m..,

.-,c..

h ha.h h. h, N., n w O 3: M M M Y l w[^ Q,R f> f R &y a g&aks M k s j &w h

bhk[kh.%y, hh hhhhhfhhhk.

m wv wwd n au sa n

w v g Y Q @ u %m?w.pM : % Q;&m

. Q

,'YlW LQW, &

g h

nw. n +,,.

.~QQ,

~ w~u

s. w ~ wtw m~ r~ n n

n, -

g 7

't

. w~ m,.i, ? '_ [~]

pw m

~

u i' h 3 Q k'. uw

,jr. n[ a n.

~,g~'

• ,r.

> v_

~.

, W g,.c 4,

.m c

j a w'h'.. - 3 k

_' 5

,,,,d^

r tq w. y,Mm %.n. p%y,a' 0pq" mmu m fM M

h.

,.4,,.

3)

,. h Y

QW~ $;f6Q%g%gmg.f ;&::n'gg; /, m

g,

7 p

e p

~:.a i

w@g, #.g _

y %; p am s

n y G W lq g w g,

y^'

jg w

o s

Bf DQC<% ges MAM - e%q W+. dQ W

fM" 7Q : Q

/J' W ' el _.

O Mb;t,ms%w

. %W+

~

w e w 4 ;e % m ~. '

w n

4

&j.ed as a 4:. a:

q m

M mny:

p g&w.:

p:3 % ;+f. my, >

h+4 Q W M V;? m.. ". --

gm

~

~. m.w

%. w%

o

+

,J w

v7 m - n i q:,

t

~ w ~

c. ~ ~ =,.

-. = 4 n.s - e.

'y;-

~..

-n Ayg g;m.Aaa p 4q %s.

m e

$.@yMy W t QfAllowl Applicants;tof fileireplies' to CASEt s a

a n

$p h a d \\..N M '. s, ' W 4

.N s

.'-.O. M wa7-.

i L E WW.0 >N_g. %n J

4

_ 6-M

,.. m %s -

o -

t

$we j,QW

- m o,.. -

JWpa;sm u ? p 2 Motions (for; Summary;. ispositionE(third-roundsresponsesh# nonlyfif &,

2.

s

~ ~<

99 N D

nn v'

~

m m & b ?w? N %.a-.& ' W,.

im-m -n w.

+ > =. u VGf ky.U'O W % N.W h1L..

YLE ' D ln L ~ s h_ l ' L D?>,v~ J w- ^

M_ W g g y g ' -l N CASE'afanswerscraisefaewstechnica141ssues f require Applicantsito) _

T g5" We pWs h, 7 h

' M a ).c;,

. ~

-%e..

$s< a$ f g ~ W y make5a showingtoffgoedic#~ 7 p

@ M.,

ause as;to;whyl f,, &~

"~l, ~,theyJehouldjbeiallowedjto s

~

% ' M M.,k

-n...

.y

.m m

a m'.+Q.,g3 n.

=

n

-~ -

• e' y h d, '

s w,,a w,

. %u.

em.

<~

w f7$$sfgnU$) u-

.. n ivg 5 <J.

.3

=.

'qr m;

y.

_9 9 jy

.4g

". '.file s,.j., i.L.Sthird-round,; response (s)/ }and require.' Applicants' toimeetf the4 g.; 71 c& 5 Mg-';-f r

-1 y

W SW G ~

+-

y s ' yV,. [ y$. = u,

'~1 L' ' n; u ' w A ~x

&.,, y a., J,

g P

. t

-y 3

_ D;',i"Rn

?

c L

s e

.n.

% ;i( ' H 1

P_' y [-i 'i

'1

- :sans,ieriteris whi_chEthef BoshdiwouldLi.mpose on,: CASE M,th,atfisl3

(

y6

"*'l*

J',

~-

A v C ~

,,V L-s

.L

r.,..

a

2. f_ 'm _.

m,: ' %.-,,.

..g g

,, m..

m m.. *Q L s

~ m, Q '

• • L

-n u"]r m

4.- m m'p + jr n w't

.h4@.,--

7ns+~

, w t, <

)!._.,

f,*,.

7 g%,

m;

- 8 c.

g g, p y,

y Applicantis musticlearly>'~demonstratesforje'ach subjecc matterL+, WC gw@-+o c.

p m,

- 3.

,7

,a

..,x.

3

'" - N,.,,e c.u.

^,,

+

n.

w 4 sm.

sw.

.pp w

? -

v... '

t.4,.

n. u; f 2 " [ idiscussed:M( 1')ir, elevancej -{(2) Jwhat z new'materialfin } thei.p;a.),,,,, / ~,l v

,f s--

• 'e

,d yy w

y g hn:

w y

yl.

= -

3 y

w

+ %,:. -

s, n

,/ w; 1

, -rwu

_..T

. - +

5 a

a

. ?M W:

7 L

.ffilingL is being: responded; tor (3)~'why,f,,the party; _,was unab,leito,9 p v

. L

.c

. gn, u n,.

._,m a ;

4 s.

m. s m

anticipate ? this".

yn, materis1*iniits71ast filing Jand((4),itheisafety?"7 ^ WP

, R

+

~~

~

;

:wwg?g!y +, _

a

,& w

.,f~,-

%~,'+

- 9

., arm m:. a c a y

. v z.._.

.t w.,

s Teignificancefoffthe pointi,that is.being'made.- -andLthejBoardfv111;'

N? <

-g- -

q-

, 7.

ysg, m

s s

.., w ~,. ; w. t r..

g~

Estrike ;any filingsiby/Applicantsiwhich-do not complytwithithisW.n

-y

,M o

x u s n@

. *~

,w ids

@,r 4-(,m g,,

directive.:S(See:discussioCat'pages19)through.131precedi,ng.')f

_ A "

1

.ng

~

+,

w

., =.,, _,.

,F' r..

. 1:

c

~

?

\\

dzc..

~

(

(4. mReviseithe last? three'~sentencesiofithat7. portion' of ithe; Board?s.l

.

• V I

^Fo 4

1 1

+

n.n-1 f ei ma w.

Q' Order, quoted"on' page :14Tprecedi. ngl.and order: ;

l 1

d

.wh

~

q

'A.

LApplicants tolfileisffidavit(s) (not.repr.esentations byc

,J r

m

~

Ecoun,sel) setting forth

. (1)' - the. specific ~ details with respect : to Jany -of JApplicants' ?

f

,1

'9 o.

Motions for Summary Disposition which;theiNRC Staff g

r t

questioned at the several Applicants / Staff meetings.;s

~

s, c'

-(2) an assessmentiby' Applicants of the significance or

?

4

,u,'-f f,,

M

- potential significance of each item identified; and

~

w) /4

'h.

-i g re yg s

iM'

'(3).

an explanation'of Applicants' representations to the.

v. m

~r q

,v

,'-N'

MJM

~

Boar,d that there were no significant matters raised in' 4

s t

Og66:,.,

..t s

- the meetings..

.m#

,v, + x,,

w o

p' ib ',p y -

d

,i4*

i 8 N(.

c, _

a s

5 s

5

> y!bu >

~

^

.22

~..dw, w, b # #

s a

aa-d y

1 r

4 (Q;hJ :;;i;_

s

~Y' f

'?

-)

NW w[. u$.g gW.nR, r^. n :

• G W >n%,m'b.M+;pe;' @ P.i

_97R P

• @.<~*' w~. d N gi 9h M 4

f Qt; gmW

=d 9 -

en m gV%

~

M c

x.Q.

%[;g Wy ' %y%;%g' ;a;; J.?g gl%g: p

' %e

~p'p

=v

- -, x, ; de Q

w < y~

y% m.m ; 3 y 4.?

w 9mW: - s.

' ^ &+ +

~

t, y,_

ch&w W, p ' ~

7~

j M QMF 4m

gb %

jg v

y' &s H; g ~ %m h

e q=

i.

3 n; M. 4-

c r

Ws

,w

. Lr

,,, w.;p. xw L a.,_

,~

asw y.

y$^$

+.l~

J [ \\~ : >

'~ *W

',l k~ ^w' ^ *,. l(h3 " V-}

' '.'W

-. <.?

A !,.

~f -

y se

,,a]

y ss

,w. -

- v

+

n

.r:

<, ~ '

?y

' *',- & i h'.J.

~,

~.%

S q:. L i

sl

g e

, 9?

wp

.v

+

kh,

1;

• k s.,;

l_.f g f.,

me ;,,, ',.,.,,, ' - ~

i n

, yn

['

^

.,. " - n n

,.a

-a w

> ~..

~

> - m g ff { %

y MB.g LApplicant{to'supplygthe: Board :with: + ' h fig

]QE >

j" yf n

y _. tg 9,,, fjy ;

m, ", 7. p. _.Y..

nt',

'i t ( De

, an, f ; 1(1)y copiesioffApplicanta't e'sp6eises to' NRC QuestionsTof @ m ^W 7 ', >

R

=

i

- - ~

...., kL '. :',a-s h

../.'e.. ? ?A D.L, " ;,,.

a f,~.

y g4 e - v

• W,< - h z.-

-v.;,

..+..m r

y g

. 1Heeting of; August l8-9'and(August)23 6'198'4;iandJ L'

M W _,

~.%,c'

.m ;

' ? '

, ".. gp q mg mic, A, H

~

?>

3 ;74,

1,.

4 e

x g t

\\t(2),

iany othe+r.~,7similarifo11ow-sp responses by' Applicants tol

" N, /J "e3

- s.'y ~ s,

,y;y

~ 1 1

e,

, '; f,:,

1.

sr

-f-m

' othe Staff 3...(I. tLwouldithen'be helpful to;the ^ Boa-d ?for:n 3

r _. s s.

,j,a

,,.? ?

s

,.r.

....3_./ry "

w.

sg

..s r

my m"#

,~

s w#

m m a gh..

.w _..u y

(

1 Jthe?NRC Staff [to.'reviewi pplicants'}pleadingland!' advise; ! #,-(

j.

%:p

~

A 4,

' x. f,. : z

,..W..,

'w, w:

1.,, ss. P4.

N. ) ?

+"

,q g

e

.7.

pc

. c c

, c

/the Board whe 6er or noti.they/ concur with? Applicants'4 ?! " %

+

4 w

u w m

g_

1

+

umv;,

v.m

. we.

m

. ~,

fassessmentlregarding[the significancefofltheTitems71n N W'

4

^:

c.

e m'

-f J-

=u 3.;

4

\\r'.,f g

• _ # f,' /

i.y r'.

Af 1,

-2

'A' Y *

,'w

'A

-)

i m,cquestion..)' "

7,,

+

q

~

1 m

nu m -

g u. s s

n rmy o

?'"

, lC.f.fAfter1theipreceding hasl occurred [autseatic'a.lly perait: CASEV

.~.

x

~

,,,,f f

a 4

.A I

to{ file;its response to Applicants' (and ?aifEthe' Board hasi

~

%~.

4 3

% o.,

m m

d'i..

.,.., ~ -....' -

',~

l?'__+

requested'ithNRCStaff's)if111ags,1withithef.requirementonly%J.

s g<

4. - n-

.-4; g

-(,

w;

,e

' that CASE [makeia; g'ood-f aith representatihn ' thatlitI beliAves [ '

i

~

r e

d +

't.:

'its'filingfto be' necessary for(afcomplete recordfinithesef 1

.r 0

~

cproceedings?(an'!without havingitotdemonstrate:the four d

c L

. points $11sted? in the Board'sL10/31/84 MEMORANDUM)

- (See: discus,sion at pages 17.through?l9 preceding.):

In any. event, CASE moves that;the~ Board:

t s

R 5.1 Allow CASE an additional twenty days in which to' supplement CASE's.

i

~ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Regarding Welding i

Issues; and'furthere set'aside additional time'for this specific'

)

U E

purpose without-the~ clock's. running on other matters (such as

~

,j design / design QA pleadings); this would be similar to the time. set i

I

+

aside byLthe Board during hearings.

(See discussion at pages 14 h

i 4

J s nthrough'17(preceding.)

a

<2 s

.s - ',- [

l

.23 4

ri--

a V

g j

r en !r j i

+;

i

.p p p n g% j;; y ;e 2 ims %.,

W c nim-

. f.

- =-

W-l ~

<. ~n

.a,;.

%y;

..3 f:

w u c.,k, h a t &

v-,O;su '

s-w

~

wu-a =-

a me --

L. w:.,:

n.

i].;

.p>

~

1

,i,,

.,u m

w: y. y. q i.

%r?",'

. ya ~

~*c

< ~' -

o c,c e~

w,.. _

m,.

p 0

^x

~

Wl -

.f.. r ;. +

,v, s

.f ;, ' J! *

~ *

• 7,.

g.,

j !l -. - '

r si sv 2

., fgg,y,.

4

{.

~~~: ~~ ': ' f j' ;

r y

^l x

r a

< pg -

t 4.

• c m_.

-v 4*yfy f

G,

, M

- ~

.M-

/JD"ringa-telephone 4conversationiwith? Judge.Bloch'and' Applicants'[

j

..m fw

'W

^

J_ < W 3 7 /

[_

-i y,

_p counsel?Willissi.Horinfon?11/12/84',:Mrs.3Ellis'adyisedkthem that? CASE"wouldE

- 2

. t I

belfilinglthisMleadinginthhnext!fewdays(and3dhisedthem;of2part}of 4:

e I

^

m.

an

.~,.

.e,..

y.

at

-H -- >; CASE',s} position f.i'.e.,,thatEthe problem (with!the. multiple f111ngs,was notJ '

N 6

1N-9.

.,7

_ r;,

s, 4

ionlyfwithpSE'sl filinas" but;with Applicants',as ;well. ; -IsisjhhpedT tisatl thisj 4

?<-

4

4..

-y yplaci..ng2 Applicants'Tcounsellon notiice regardinglthis: pleading may;assistiin?

4

+<

U

. Applicants.' l making? an ' expeditious response.-

m s

4 v

m y---

(.-,,.,-;-,i t

~p.,

4 S - LRespectfu11y sramitted,,

y r

2 ih' t

3 e

j

). g,

m sw W M

gj.

Qlts.) Juanita Ellis,. President; s

^

TASEi(Citizens Associa' ion 1for Sound

F t

,lI i,

Energy)-

~

1426 S.? Polk.

(Dallas', Texas- '75224:

.214/946-9446

~

h :.

. t W

W 3

24

,3,.

.4 Jr.

Q- -- :pA f,.

.N

'- w,,We,

.l;deK,,' '

'I 1 f 9

Y w kg _. M

.I$*

f 4 % i:.,:;g %.syl- +%

q w m }:Q W m,

mW

+w

.c m 4' h; k h,@m:. MMNA

>m, aw na :

NR d

w@w h > M M i M d s M M NhNn@y;M M P.# Q N~.g~N @ W '.k%W ? G N M 7

. n L v-mme m y :+ w}-

m o

~

, - g ~. y a.n x+4 g ggjn.(- yp s

m-'s A.

n g,.gf.cq;g~.;, el

- - e um g - m v 7fp. p ig 4.p y-'7q

.64 u <

g

.g 4 e

Mj tg g #w' e > v x?n ? 'xn e

n-c,.

, y,.f 2, wm 1 -

7 s p f Q* "y% e M M L[ v a,:

.,3 T % '.

~

'.~ e i p:

s

+w U+"

' g+ [%.uf v

y

fW* @ ; jW q

/

-y :y \\

, q ;3 s

' +

_,w

,YW 8

s

' e. r.

p4i-7 m mh <3:n.a%,K "j Q,i Q w f

\\ ;+

N,

)

,, ~

s

.m

(

ew n n a

r

. f 5

{

f

• [

A'. l '

of

m,

~

k-3 p g

.3,,

m;p. '_

m, -

g y

h y y;.

g y :_3 zu

n..

m

y:

n s

, a -;

< <%3

,Q;m,' q g, y '&. :.

~

,6 m

~

m

p '

1 wW s: yQ " L.o A

,e g.y )

9..,

+

.m w

l w.y w. -n.sm 9;:e s

ye 40 v;

w u

M. ~

z.m _:3l.. <,

e

' A rt,, L..

W

~

(q;

-pp 1

r p &'s F +'

>=r-R. &_ _

^

+

w..

+,

r u

,~i,

l. UNITED' STATES:OF4 AMERICAL,-

,1 7

,a s

s _,

m M L U +g A, Ju.

.E*

w -

%n. NUCLEAR REGULATORY;COMMISS10N' D,"'

q V,

4 I.-

m.i, ! I g

~.

,. [=

• t..f..

f

. M,-

-.5 t

g, y

+

i JBEFORE;THEJATOMIC SAFETY'AND* LICENSING BOARD'.

6e y, ', -

r a

~

+

s v f' z

~

a A

. SIniche11aeter of >

/}{0 u..

x l

1

+,

e,

} {.

., w, - -=

e z

bTEXASLUTILITIES ELECTRIC; i } (.

Docket NosR50-445-1:

j f COMPANY,'_e t _al'.x '

- }{i landl50-446-10 c

M (Comanche Peak: Steam Electric:

J}{'

(Station, Units 1~andL2h

'} {

F

.I E

CERTIFICATE'0F SERVICE 3

i:,.'

( By. my3 signature below, -I: herebyicertify that true and correct copies of c

J' CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 10/31/84 Memorandum;(Multiple.

~

Filings) 4 Tave been sent to 'the names listed below this 15th day'of November 198 _4,

.by:'. Express Mail'whe ~ indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere.

• Administrative-Judge Peter B. Bloch

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U.'S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b

~

Bishop Liberman, Cook, Purcell o ~

~

'4350. East / West Highway,'4th Floor

& Reynolds

~ ' '

~

(

,m iSethesda,. Maryland '.20814

- 2 c'

1200 - 17th St.,i N. W.

4 p

Washington, D.C.

20036

• Aldge Elizabeth B. Johnson

(,

fOak Ridge National Laboratory

• Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

'P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal z.

• ~

?

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director

'1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

,b7

*-Dr. Kennech A.'McCollos,' Dean Commission 3:/"$..

' $ Division of. Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.

'D

? Architecture and Technology

- Room 10105 u

(, _

.' Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road iStillwater, 0klahoma 'J74074 Bethesda, Maryland

'20814

3; F;'~'

+7 c

..c

- mwn m n

1.

+

y o n,ff;hl, r.

,0. A %>a;}% n % & {QjJordan 4

, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing

" QLj%

i%f.. y s

,y.

K

.; T gy. ?-rix l$ ;w ;@M:..M lj %,, ' h ' Vllll gy f ' 4

• Dr.1 Walter 3 x,

2 MF. s u w}id W '

" f f' a

m WG,i $, 881 W.30 uter Drive. AMH M e P<

• a; % Board Panel V O N. V #.

QW M e;.< 4 0ak,zRidge ~, Tenne.sses m37830

<U.~S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ng

~

- ~

c.

m x

e3 Md@iMM@MM@yWgMM$9@

• AWWWashington,*D.iC.420555ssq$fQge#j d

MgQ ;w e. h

q r g,1.y;M J g ; 3 2-Qa e ;. a nd.

. -@ p-.

yqs 7,. wh. g r o{

y>

,s eom mm

-v

, s

~

m y

@.JM M @,

yngqq, g(Q Ap;g7W j& g f

bgM 24 j WKW& dQQ -flyyQyR W - f p(:,$ri1 G. M ISJ F G @ W W 6 #

- W, m. '+ Fif y f n M g M y*t p f]

u

~

i N, W_ v_ A,@; :. M e ) ? "m m;, r ~~ N B W N W g,

w& ay n 7m m k% w -

,'=u44 m]

f V&e-W s,C:

V ~ N 'S.

' %.- b,B M V:%w;W-G C el% N w' v.xw es s

c

?,,W M, G W M V G Q~% ;* C % M p:$ajn ;'

Y m s m fv %S

~ -

a

i MW'l d%v, s\\ <,,

Q $g; W

n '

c-- mu*

vp M, Ws A. a '1 1'{

q 3 M..

A:,A&ya y ms w

t 1

.%-Q '

'e %: % T{ 3: y p' ?'c*. ;gy n y;

, ;ypq t

yy, zL

• 1 %; '

6--

ykW ~ ~

7 QlfQ,

Q. _mMt /p = % p- -@- 'l M d -T'f, n %,. 6 s

'J

].. -.

7',, ~gL",a'; w m*1

• /

(

1 s.

e

.M v...

Jm ', $,w ' b

~_'_.,*rm,-.,.. _ _ ' * -

!L

,f 6,

.- o m

~ ~

W :=.

~,r-c P.

,.; ; p:

- x,:

- i ~ ;c

. - - a w

m,

.m

=

+

a 1'.,, *g

~,

a-y L.~, w: w p:

+

b

%aw

.ns

[ ' /[$k' pMkx[m$gs$dMhp%gg~ N g@@ g-M":~.@ b W k&,M, ygh.,.,O.

% apv, p a s t,

,d l

%h~f. -G k V

s df

_,_ s s

s

.N g

.n_

sus

-.nw@GO 5, o E

3

~-.a

. 4 1,, i bs, ",;

&pi@ 3R $y@g, f,Up " O ' ' M% ' ?

"f S

v.

q>

, <s.a; :

s

r>

w w

m

.nw s

+

_ #xt;

.. a., ' y =

Q 3.

^

a,.

, af

,e w

>-r

• .e.

' e, g

Op 7W%

r j ~

n_y: p,

w-s-

- 4

'('

. W',

,,c' G:

n. W. F 7

- u.

y 9..,

2-.

4.;.-; ;

x C '

.y

= ;c r

esm

'0i.'.,

'N' Y

q y

-[

^

y e

..M Chatrean?

.',A f.'

_.,.~.

^k'+

c.

p;

-,- y'

,p~

.~

.$-.,t.

-~

m.

-l[f 3 g I

.c_- "#

s

%y y

3tenea: Hicks, Esq'.4 -...

,.l~r

~

m K-f fAtomic SafetyIand Licensing Appeali 7 Assistant AttorneyyCenerali;L..,

~H N. < Board PanelsU.N.fNuclear[RegulatoryICommission4_.

Environmenta1> Protection Division.

?.

/ Supreme Court:Buildingj' S

h.

+

1 Washington, D.;C.i,20555

... iAustin, Te'xas : 787.110-O, A

~

a

/'

F 3

J.

e-

./--.

7

.1 u 7Joh'niCollins i _ _ _.

.. in M7 Ne tRegionalfAdministratorJRegion;IVi u

J

~

f

U. S. Nuclear

RegulatoryLCommission

-

1 J 6114Ryan Plasa Dr.',75uite 1000 z

t Arlington',; Texas 1 7.6011s R

7, n.=

lLanny'A. Sinkin-e-

e 4

s 1

~

"114.W.i7th, Suite220 f

'^,

(Austin / Texas 787011 i

.f V:

' 'Dr.1 David H. Bolts; m

J2012 S.-Polk 1

Dallas,LTexas % 75224 x -

m+

- i

-t r.u

- t

_ib 1

~

JMichael D.. Spence,1 President ~

~

Texas Utilities Generating Company 1 Skyway Tower '_

400 North Olive St., L.B. 81' N

Dallas,; Texas 175201 23 t

Docketing and Service Section g(3'. copies)

/ s.

Office ~of!the Secretary J ~

,. i ~,w.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.. mm, n

"'W+ ashington; ) D.~ C.',7 20555 mS.

AA, a>cw>

,7, g,.

gy% -s,n ' j.,,

3.q ( w&c 7 -

p,v.

s. r-

.~

e-w:.

m 4 +

+ + s,w;-. w c

m o m-

• )4 Q. D SAY i-Kk a

w

'Vp ; f_. 3,.

m y

c

-*

• f.*)p Q.y p

'; ; y-

,\\

,; f i' s

n

, F_,

-f f?t

,/ w;.p. ~ ~ %: z, yup w.,s:

m anm~,

.a.

~h 4, g w

h JO " }g "

,p,

y.:

s.

o

,t w

n, g., w -

& ^, s,

- ;c w

h$.. <

!f, h'.

4 n[ ;[.

_t N i,'k

-N

.A

%m(myww m~%.a, r [.. U h..;.,.

g >

f, '.

D

)$* n l

- geww. o s.) Juanita Ellis, P.re.sident -

.w1.y.afg.3 u

.c,,,; x.ma xm%. c ' 1 - w. ' c.w < ASE((Citizens Association for. Sound Energy).y u A. a,a,- +

s o..

py 4

_ 3 m-s.

m.. u g fggyg%a.-W$

?

WN y? US frW+MW k@,M^^m$;#:&.W4@y MWWM l426'S*"^ Polk"w" W "' W *f~ w "%" ",,M WMW M#

p Aa v.w m.

w.v.

t '

sprew, 2.q 4 w twman hk@drhkMh%d5km,n..,k h k N:h h k h k D81,1a8 OTeXa8.M 75224.g g g. y g

'. n e wggMMg@m.dWmpw;uc A M <214/946.9446 y &m. M

• 4

. ;;< u.o< vu t

m ww a M.; -

m.

w m n -

a n

+m.

n.

l ib 4 /M p c bh bi f Yk!Mk -- h % Q['

d[b N: ',. ( [4)ch f [

Y

j'

JA#

I

,, s n / q'?;t,

n u' pn r. eg nupu g. w-y-w..jwm. e.w.ww. m.,a 3

t' nv ps

, : ww m ny <

3.:

s my w

c l, k f v;r.c

>~w

,w 3.< ' s ei,.h,, v +, <

n

-,e m s;, +.a g z.>

e u gm y s

g : us,_h n.

- L,ij %

+

y a-w w.

a u.r y%.

s-e a.

t.

q Qj* i, N;Q* & #f U ?ifig-st-i ]&a'y}u,,a % & &*p.

z

,)

et u

\\,w f+ c-V n

' \\. g s,,

an, L Q ;

vf'&,wa -, W'* n V

% ^'

a r p :4

% : y?'.%"$'.A Q

a u

1. ,4 u

d J,,, n p s,

n y:

a..-

.'s s

-~

A,'&u. xph s

j

+ps r4

$7 n gm &

?

8

~ ih n&

3 ;15:

.f Q,hyd,N@w;QN# QfY4, 9.Qwg3,.) } 'n w.q ; %!@ C:p xw. +a % M Ljk.

4.>-

i u '

--;*.s,-j

y y

s-r

'F'>

?% o-d;. %.

qq.

s 3%

v u.

a s 1 wCWw ry i

w% v4 91 s,

n 1,r

~%

ws' WW 3 %

w p.m:

1 r

<y

,x w..

-m v -

e 1

s 4

]a.; @y f -

[en> 9 @# h~

OJ 9_* j d.

. m yyc

> N f.g ]USd,'

Q o

1 4

.~

4-y

, ~, g y g >p 7 p.

i&,

y, y

.-2 i

J.*_'s s fg ji.<;

1 "lp}hf,,l;

,j h_ 7f "i gy;;; ?

• f; f

,: 4, N

l,, l & Q~,_

j s

z,. m - u -

e t

,,,, f ;

& llD.. pl.,

_ e t

.y, o

4

~

4 us et a