ML20101S831

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Opposition to Applicant 841228 Request for Appellate Relief from ASLB 841218 Order Re Welding Issues Raised in Support of Contention on Qa/Qc Program Implementation.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20101S831
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 02/01/1985
From: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#185-377 OL, NUDOCS 8502050661
Download: ML20101S831 (33)
v • d • e


Text

.

)

- 1

. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD

. o ;; '

In the Matter of ) "6J ~~

) "

Docket,Nos. 50-445 4;1dbf TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )

COMPANY, et al. .) 'an'd 446-OL

)

-(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) February 1,'1985 Station, Units 1 and 2) )-

CASE'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR APPELLATE RELIEF -

The Citizens' Association for Sound Energy (" CASE") asserts that Texas Utilities Electric Company's ("TUEC") untimely attempt to interject the Appeals-tribunal into the ongoing operating licensing hearing is for.the sole purpose of preventing the Licensing Board from carrying out its lawful duties and responsibilities, which.are to reach an informed decision on j issues properly in contention regarding the implementation of the quality assurance / quality control program at the Comanche Peak nuclear plant.

CASE urges the Appeals Board to dismiss the request for appellate review outright as' untimely, illogical and improper.

I. INTRODUCTION On, December 18, 1984, the Licensing Board issued a Welding _

Memorandum and Order concerning, inter alia, welding issues m

timelyf~aised r by CASE in support of its properly admitted contention on the implementation of the-QA/QC program at-Comanche

', Peak. Applicant prevailed on the issues considered.

~

8502050661850201 PDR ADOCK 05000445 o PDR  ;

- -b Notwith' standing their success, on December 28, 1984, Applicant' filed exceptions to.the Licensing Board's memorandum, which the Appeals ~ Board has treated as a Notice of Appeal.

The issues raised on appeal dispute (1) the Board's right to pursue issues defaulted by'Intervenor for failure to file findings of fact,'(2) the Licensing Board's finding of a significant violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appen' dix B because an unauthorized practice (of unauthorized weld repairs)'was deemed to be of " substantial extent", (3) the finding of a. clear violation of Appendix B by Applicant in its failure to promptly identify deficiencies and for not trending potentially significant deficiencies, and (4) the propriety of the Licensing Board's pursuit of. an improper welding practice (failure to check preheat) which first arose in the hearings on' welding issues and QA/QC controls over welding.

On January 2, 1985,.the Atomic Safety.and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") directed-the Applicant to show cause why its December 28, 1984 Exceptions to' Licensing Board's~ Memorandum Concerning Welding Issues (" Notice of Appeal") should-not be dismissed.

Applicant's response to the Appeal Board's Order of January 2, 1985 ("Show Cause Response") was fil'ed January. 11,'1985. In its response, Applicant defends its: Notice'of Appeal by asserting that the Licensing Board's Welding Memorandum is a' partial

~

initial or final. decision,-and therefore appealable as a matter of righk. Applicant; also expands its plea for interjection of .

the Appeal Board-by seeking directed certification of-three

~ issues which they; claim'first arose out of the Welding l

~I i

l

Memorandum.

CASE opposes both attempts by the Applicant to interrupt the Licensing Board hearing.

For. reasons stated below, CASE requests that the Appeal Board dismiss Applicant's Notice of Appeal as premature and deny Applicant's request for directed certification because (1) it is untimely, (2) it'does meet the criteria for discretionary inter-locutory review, and.(3) it requests the Appeal Board to arrest the lawful authority and responsibility of the Licensing Board.

II. BACKGROUND The instant dispute arises from Applicant's distress over the Licensing Board's wording'in'a recent order, and its procedural. treatment of sub-issues of a properly admitted contention. This contention, as admitted, states:

The Applicants' failure to adhere.to the quality assurance /

quality control provisions _requirad by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction. practices employed _specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks,' steel, fracture toughness

testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft (as they may affect QA/QC personnel, have raised

, substantial questions as to the adequacy ofithe construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. [18 NRC at 125.]

In support.of this contention, Intervenor timely submitted, among other evidence, the testimony of a former welding quality control-inspector and a former welder, Henry and Darlene Stiner.

Their testimony-contained allegations of. specific practices which violated site welding and QA/QC procedures,-harassment and

1 o l 1

~ intimidation, and other examples of their own experiences at the Comanche Peak site which were' indicative of violations of 10 C.F.R.'Part 50, Appendix B.

The Stiners' allegations have been divided, by agreement of the parties, and for the efficiency and organization of litigation. The Stiners' welding allegations were first I

litigated in September, .1982, with findings filed in February, 1983. On July 29, 1983, the Licensing Board issued its first-of three memoranda concerning, inter alia, the welding issues.

Proposed Initial Decision-(concerning Aspects of Construction

.Ouality Control, Emergency Planning and Board Questions) LPB 1 43, 18 NRC 122 (1983).

In its first decision, the Board found CASE-had~ abandoned j the welding issues for failure to file proposed findings on this 2

issue. (18 NRC at 124 and 130) 1 The procedure of the issuance of a " proposed" decision-instead of an initial decision was chosen by the Licensing Board in order to obtain comments from the parties, particularly because two of the Board's members were recently appointed and 1 the record was complex. LBP-83-43.

2 Although it is.true that CASE did,not file complete provisional- proposed findings of fact and did not file any -

regarding some issues (including the welding issues): addressed-during the 1982 hearings, it was for good cause.:

Applicant had filed a pleading with the Licensing Board ~

'which made extremely serious charges of misconduct by CASE. CASE believed itself in danger <of literally being. banished from the hearings or-. subject to criminal prosecution were. Applicant's charges allowed to stand unrefuted on-the record.- CASE also believed that Applicant was _ going to use the filing as the foundation _for'the firingo(or laying off) of_three employees

_(potent'ial CASE witnesses) whose affidavits CASE had recently.

filed with:the Licensing Board. ' (cont ' d. ) .

_ e- g

, , . ,. .- w-y y - - - - . .- 4

- :. ;a - .~ ~

,m , . ,

c w ;, .

u .. . - . .- - . ~

i ..

~

N ^ ~

5. ,

l

+

The Bbard: subsequently reconsidered its Proposed Initial DecisionDandfissued a' Memorandum and Order, LPB-83-60, 18 NRC 672

~

l (1983)3also: dealing,. inter alia, with the. welding issues. The'

' - Board upheld its init'ial ruling that CASE was in default,~

4 however, stated that it required ~ answers to certain questions 4 - regarding the welding issues "in order to have a satisfactory-h understanding'of;the; quality assu'rance contention." (18 NRC at t 675);

After receiving further testimony from all parties on the

( ,

~

welding quality assurance / quality control ~ questions in March of l

4 1983 and' observing the demeanor of the witnesses, the Licensing j Board again accepted findings from all parties on'the remaining i

~

' welding issues. On December 18, 1984, the: Licensing Board issued ,

(

the decision for which Applicant now seeks Appeal Board review.

l I

4 Although the-Applicant prevails on.the welding issues (that i

j. 2 cont' d. / .

.ui the-February 21, 1983 CASE' response toiApplicant's l

i February 8, 1983l pleading, CASE ~ summarized its' dilemma:

!' Applicant's'2/8/83 Answer to CASE Motion (and Supplement)

for Protective Orders.was" deliberately phrased _in such a way

}

- that CASE would have only two' options: 'l) to' answer ~it-l (thereby. robbing CASE of valuable'and needed timeLto work on i the provisional. proposed-findings of fact); or 2)'to i continue tu) work on the provisional 1 proposed findingscof-F " fact and risk being discredited 1in the eyes..of:the; Board and all who . received a copy l of. Applicant's Answer.- Either

~

option would be unacceptable to CASE, and'either option

~

j. chosenLby CASE would work t'o' Applicant's benefit.... , CASE
urges that the Board not allow Applicant to benefit ~at CASE's expense-by their attempts to discredit CASE.or to rob
  • CASE'of valuable and necessary time for preparing its provisional proposed findings of: fact.. .(Emphasis in the-original)

L

' The Board y did notL grant CASE's plea, and therefore ncwr benefits-- .

from its' attackE(later stricken): on Intervenor.';

F -

L

,~

h -. A .--:--..b, -

y , ,, ,,e T e v-- - -

w * ,+<-y y- i+- - - - -w.--e-

u . _._ _ _

~

is, the Board finds.that "there is a reasonable assurance that

. these. allegations are not reflective of any condition that could adversely'impactptheTsafe operation of'the plant"'(Welding

~

- Memoran'dum at 77),'the Licensing Board makes several conclusions

. which Applicant considers adverse and therefore objectionable.

~

This includes a . finding that some of Applicant's actions (in i

regard.to QC inspectors improperly doing repair welds of craft's mis-drilled holes) constituted a clear violation of Appendix B to' 1 0 C . F . R . Part 50, and that the Applicant " failed to create any deficiency paper" (regarding the improper weld repair ~Mrs. Stiner made at . the' direction of' her supervisor), and that they i

p " conducted no contemporaneous investigation of the extent of this 4 improper practice, therefore making trending of this practice i

impossible." (Id. at 69-71) These findings, according to the Licensing Board, will be concidered in a later decision-L 9 enc'ompassing all of the evidence in the record in the adequacy and implementation of Applicant's QA,'OC program.

Following the issuance of the Welding Memorandum-the r

l Applicant filed an unusual request with the. Appeal ~ Board which is now being treated as a Notice of Appeal.

Applicant understandably'does not appeal'the' conclusion of.

the Board on the welding issues -- they prevailed.' Nor-does it i

4 1

-assert.in its appeal that the-Licensing Board reachedithe wrong decision on~the evidence in the' record.- Nor does it claim that there was, and is,'more evidence available that the Licensing e

3-j Board'should have considered, but didn't.

, 3 . . .

l CASE,'who does dispute the factual findings,-has already

- .(cont'd.)

a-

,,m , , - . e , ,,, , 4 . . . - . _ ,- .__. .cm., , , . , . . . m. - -- - .

What Applicant does now protest is the litigation procedure being used for~18 months by all parties, and the utilization of some of the evidence produced in these hearings upon which the Licensing Board now reaches an opinion that there were violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B.

III.- Applicant's Appeal Is Untimely Applicant is 18 months late-in objecting.to a procedural decision on the conduct of the hearings, and premature in its-

, appeal of the Board's finding of two or three' violations of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control criteria.

Even if the Appeal Board would find that Applicant has a legitimate claim to an appeal, it cannot find that such a claim is timely, and therefore must dismiss it.

Applicant claims that.the Welding Memorandum is a final decision because it disposes of a major segment of the case and 3 _ cont' fileo a d. /

notion for Reconsideration of the Welding Memorandum.

Interestingly, Applicant does not oppose CASE's Motion for i Reconsideration on the grounds that CASE should.have filed a Notice of Appeal, nor does it even request the Licensing Board toll its consideration of Intervenor's motion until the Appeal Board reaches a decision on whether or not the Welding Memorandum is appealable. -Instead, Applicant's aggressively argue that the Licensing Board's findings (in favor of Applicant) are correct, and'should not be reconsidered o_r modified

From the foregoing, Applicants maintain that CASE's Motion raises nothing that. calls into question the conclusions reached.in the licensing board's Welding Decision.

Accordingly, the Licensing Board should deny CASE's Motion

[f,or Reconsideration]....

. Applicant's Reply to CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board's Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues, January 22, 1985), p. 22.

I

- e

-t r - .

.m . . -, . _ , _ _ , , _ . _ _ , _ __ , ,, ' ' ' '~ "

1m,A . 1.. L ., y_s . A . , - - <

' ![6] -.6.. . 4

, .L , , e . . a .,

- 8-f therefore appealable as_a matter of right. (Show cause Motion at ,

e-18-10) It is not, however, the decision that they wish to appeal,

.but'only a few paragraphs in thatLdecision regarding the Board's-observation that Applicant's 'QA/QC program failed in regards to

).

two ofuthe welding' issues raised by the Stiners (repair of  ;

1 misdrilled holes which-were not identified, evaluat'ed_for generic L '

impact or trended). As discussed below the proper time to

~

4 i

I-dispute the factual QA/QC fihdings will be when the overalli  ;

decision is issued, incorporating the isolated findings objected [

1 l to and other -findings on the QA/QC program adequacy.

As_to the objections regarding procedures, the' Applicant has l

, known for some' time that the Board intended to deal with each i

i allegation separately.and then issue an ultimate decision on the  ;

i . .

l adequacy of"the QA program.' ,

-29, 1983. Proposed Initia1' Decision on, inter 7 .

Since the July _

alia, welding issues, the Licensing Board has' put Applicant. on -

I notice of. its view of the QA/QC program and its implementation, i.

j and how the Board intendedito deal withLallegations'and the '

t-l overall QA/QC program.

2

} A problem identified by the quality assurance program may t cause concern for the.public safety if it cannot be-satisfactorily resolved. .A program may also cause concern

if it , identifies an extraordinarilyf large number of. defi-

! ciencies,-casting doubt on the plant's design and j . constru ctionproces ses . . Additionally,.if a quality .

assurance program identifies. extraordinarily few l

deficiencies' or if we were to find that substantial. numbers _. -

1 of. deficiencies have' been overlooked, that may. raise questions about the. adequacy of the quality assurance program.-- At this stage, we are.not' evaluating the overall efficacy o))the quality assurance program, but rather, whether any.of'the alleged deficiencies are.sufficiently.

serious'and uncorrectableithat-the1 plant, due to those-t deficiencies,ccannot operate with_the requisite degreelof-

! safety.~

r i

k 4,_ - - - ,-m., ,_, , _ - .. . . , . - , , s._, ..,~,m - . - . ,,,,_, ._ . ._._e,...-..-----

rc .. a . .. s .- ~.: - . . . - . - ~ . . . . - . .

In other words, we have-considered each allegation independently, without regard to whether it may represent a pattern related to the adequacy of the quality assurance program. In addition, there_are particular allegations which have been'or will be the' subject of hearings held after September.17, 1982. These questions are not resolved by this decision. (Emphasis.added) (pp. 4-5) ,

Had any doubt remained regarding the Licensing Board's intention, it would have been cleared up by the Board's September i

23, 1983 Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues), which the Board filed 1

following receipt and consideration.oficor.ments which the Board had invited from the parties (NRC Staff, Applicant, and CASE).

The Licensing Board stated:

This. decision is called a ' Memorandum and Order' because its effect is to affirm the declaration of a default on some issues and to make interim' factual findings that do not dispose of any contentions. Hence, this is an inter-locutory order that does not conclude the evidentiary record on any contention. (footnote omitted)

Finally, following extensive filings by the parties, the Licensing Board issued its March 15, 1984 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues). In that Memorandum the. Board reiterated its procedural intentions.

This opinion is. issued, at the request of all the parties, for the purpose of clarifying the issues that'are open in this proceeding....

For the most part, these matters arise' from our prior decisions.... Because we chose to issue a Proposed.

Decision,_followed by a decision on the objections filed by the parties, followed by a further decision on a motion for reponsideration, the parties have sought our assistance in simplifying the accumulated effect of our orders.

Before these hearings are concluded, the parties and the

~

Board will face their hardest tasks assembling the kaleidoscope of facts into meaningful'overall conclusions about the safety of the physical plant and the adequacy of i

management of the design and construction process. Although we are litigating many subissues, that should not obscure the overall licensing concerns from view. Our clarification

of the subissues does not remove these overall concerns from the proceeding, and we foresee the possibility that some evidentiary hearing sessions will be needed to resolve these more global issues.

Applicant again chose not to attempt an interlocutory appeal regarding the procedural issues under discussion in the current Motion.

If Applicant cannot get an appeal as a matter of right, it seeks directed certification regarding the conduct of a hearing that has already been held. On this item Applicant is too late.

If it objected to the hearing being held in the first place the time to have. sought certification was before the hearing, not now after the evidence is on the record, findings written, and a decision issued. If Applicant objects to the conduct of further hearings in this category, the time to take that action is when 4

those hearings are scheduled.

Ironically, Applicant has been the prime beneficiary of the proceedings it now seeks to have declared unauthorized. The Appeal Board should recognize that the evidence upon which the Licensing Board stands in their favor was produced during the rounds of hearings Applicant now seeks to claim are invalid.

4 Applicant's claim to appellate intervention is premised on the assertion that there are numerous other open items in the same category as the welding issues. However, as the record clearly-indicates the "open items" cited fall into the category of issues which have been fully litigated except for the consi-deration of what each issue means in the context.of the adequacy of the quality assurance program. The exception to that is the question ~of deficiencies in the quality assurance program's documentation and record retrievability which have not been.

litigated, and the protective: coatings issues. The design and design OA issues are being dealt with through summary disposition,. and the harassment and intimidation issues are on-going.

G '  ; ,:. - . . . . .- u w-.

In describing the basis for its conclusion the Licensing Board plainly points to the testimony of witnesses presented "...

to respond to the allegations of'Mr. and Mrs. Stiner ... during the second round of hearings on these alle~gations." (emphasis added) (Welding Memorandum, p. 5).

Notwithstanding its opportunity to supplement the record, had Applicant disagreed with the Board's procedures, it should have' filed an appeal with the Appeal Board following the Board's September 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order. Applicant's current appeal is lateEfiled by about sixteen months.

Applicant had a second opportunity to file an appeal-to the procedures being employed by the Board following the Licensing Board's October 25, 1983 Memorandum and Order -of September 23, 1983). The Licensing Board stated in that Order (pages 2 and 3):

I. Board Involvement in Defaulted Issues We are not persuaded by applicant's arguments on this issue.

Within the scope of an admitted contention, the Board is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes. We must assure

-that relevant and-material evidence bearing on the admitted contention is sufficiently_well developed so that we can-prepare a reasoned decision resolving the issues before us.5/ In this case, we have sworn testimony concerning an admitted contention about quality assurance deficiencies; the Board must be satisfied that the allegations in this testimony have been adequately answered. Furthermore, in light of our conclusion that we are properly concerned about the completeness of the record, there is no reason.that we are required to bar intervenor from helping us to pursue our interest. (footnote omitted) 5/~ See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 751-52; South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Virgil C.

~

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-663, 14 NRC 1140, 1163 (1981). We consider this'such a basic principle' governing our proceedings, that'we did not think it necessary to provide these citations in our previous opinion.

l .

.In sum, had Applicant disagreed with the Board's decisions, it-should have filed an appeal with the Appeal Board at the appropriate times -- certainly not at this late date.

Applicant's-current ploy to obtain an advisory opinion from this

' Court should not be granted by the Appeal Board.

. IV. APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ITS NOTICE OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED The federal regulations gove'rning the conduct of licensing hearings provide for appeal of initial decisions. 10 C.F.R. 2.762 states: ,

Within. ten (10) days after service of an initial-decision, any party may take an appeal to the Commission by filing a notice of appeal....

The Appeal Board has clarified that a party's right to an appeal must be premised on (1) a requirement of finality of the decision to be appealed and (2) the requirement of some discernible injury. If the Appeal Board does not dismiss the Notice of Appeal without review it must still dismiss it because-Applicant has not shown cause for its considerationLunder the criteria established for appeal rights.-

A. The Welding Decision Is Not A Final Agency Action The Appeal Board found that the' test for finality for appeal purposes is essentially a practical-one. For-the most part,.a-

' Licensing Board's actions are final when-it either disposes of a najor segment of a case or terminates-a party's right to 4

participate. Toledo Edison Co.-(David-Bessee Nuclear Power' Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, 758 (1975).

.l l

4

. ~ . . . .l _.1_i_ .T_i . M a a s___ __. 1 _

-Q* - - - a _. ,.:. _.

13 -

' Th'e Welding Memorandum obviously does not terminate a party's right to-participate, nor does.it dispose.of a major-5 segment of a case.

Appl'i cant's attempt to reach ~ finality by stating that the

- Welding Memorandum "makes findings and issues orders disposing of a discrete segment of this case." (Show Cause Motion at 9) In Applicant's judgment,.the issues addressed in the Welding

- Memorandum 1and their resolution "can proceed. independent of other

issues." What they really mean is that they wish to dispose of a single statement based on one piece of
evidence taken.in the

- context of litigation of one sub-issue of one contention in the overall operating license case. 'They do not want to appeal the i,

6 conclusion of the Board on'the allegations.

Applicant is correct that the Welding Memorandum "makes findings and issues orders. disposing of a discreet segment of

. this: case" (Show Cause Motion at 9), but, even these findings are obviously not intended to be the final or even' partial initial- .

decision on the overall quality control / quality assurance contention.

5

-The Welding Decision is only a sub-part of Contention Five

(supra at 2-3).

6 A good example of the lengths to which Applicant is willing 4

to stre,tch to recruit-appellate review is evidenced.by their citation to a phrase in the Welding Memorandum in which'the Licensing Board allegedly; refers to the Welding Memorandum as a i

partial initial decision." (Welding Memorandum at 19) ' _ However, -

l a- review of the full text cited- by Applicant reveals that the 4 wording on which they now attempt to rely to prove finality is, in fact, Applicant's own wording. THe Licensing Board said that it "found it appropriate'_to.use Applicant's-proposed partial initial decision as the framework within which-to write our decision...."

~

(Emphasis;added) i d

v e- e v w - - , - r , -- -, -w-w-* .- w- - - - r--

i l

  • . l

- 14 -

I

'That final decision will encompass a complex combination of larger issues, such as' management attitude toward its OA/QC program, harassment and intimidation, and technical issues (welding, liner plates, paint coatings, documentation, electrical systems, etc.), and.sub-issues of each of those technical issues.

By law and by logic the' Appeal Board cannot interfere with the Licensing Board's judgment of an interlocutory finding simply because one party does not agree with one negative paragraph in one ruling on one sub-issue of the case.

If such a motion were entertained, the floodgates of interlocutory appeals would surely open wide. Even the entertainment of such an appeal flies in the face of the Appeal Board's long-stated disinclination to interfere with the 7

Licensing Board's conduct of the licensing hearings.

The Appeal Board should dismiss the Notice of_ Appeal as premature.

7

' Applicant also reaches new limits of abuse of the inter-locutory process by employing this forum to clarifyLthe Board's intentions. In their Show Cause Memorandum Applicant states, "Unlike its earlier decisions regarding this issue, the Licensing Board's Welding Decision did not state its view that the decision was interlocutory." (p. 6) If there was a doubt as to the Board's intention in this regard, Applicant had only to pick up the telephone and inquire what the Board's intentions were, or they could have filed a motion for reconsideration, or a request for clarification, or scheduled a conference call with all the parties.- Instead they have filed a Notice of Appeal on a presumption of what the Licensing Board meant by what it did.

Applicant's failure to seek an answer is telling. They must have known that such a request would remove any ambiguity in the Board's ruling, thereby washing away their pebbles of legitimacy.

6 15 --

B. The Applicant Has Not Suffered Any J Injury From The Welding Memorandum  :

1 Applicant has, to date, significantly prevailed on'the welding issues. The Board has found CASE's witnesses not credible,'their' testimony inconsistent, and concludes that the issues raised by their allegations do not affect the " reasonable assurance" of the Licensing Board with regard to the safety of the plant. (Memorandum at 77) 8 It is difficult to imagine a more sweeping victory.

' Clearly, Applicant must be satisfied with the result of the Licensing Board's review of the record before it on these issues.

4 The Appeal Board has previously precluded a party from appealing the reasoning of an issue with which it is satisfied with the result. Consumers Power Corp. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-282, 2 NRC 9, 10 at n.1 (1975); an appeal will lie only from unfavorable action taken by the Licensing Board, not

.from wording of a decision with which a party disagrees, but which has no operative effect (emphasis in the original); Duke Power Company (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-482, 7 NRC 979, 980 (1978); Appeal Board holding that a party may not file exceptions to a decision if-it is not aggrieved by the result. Rochester Gas & Electric Company, et al. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383,-393 (1978). There is.no right to an administrative appeal on every-factual finding.

8 CASE is,'as previously stated, seeking a reconsideration of the Board's decision, and ultimately may file an appeal cut those issues.

r-- - -

Tennessee Valley' Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units lA, 2A, 1B & 2B), ALAB-467, 7 NRC 459, 461 at n. 5 (1978).

-While the Licensing Board's finding of a violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, reflects negatively.on Applicant, the finding could not have come as a shock to Applicant. It is only one conclusion of.a. decade of similar findings by the NRC Staff.

For example, in 1976 an internal NRC trend analysis of Comanche Peak stated:

"During the early part of 1976, it became apparent to the principal inspector that the effectiveness of.the licensee's OA/QC Program was in a state of degradation as a result of a domineering and over-powering control by the contractor's

. site construction management. (NRC Trend Analysis 1976, Staff Exhibit 184, p. 1, Hems e, f, and g)

In 1979 the NRC found that the QA/QC program was ineffective because the Applicant has been led down a poor path by Brown and Root during past years. It appears to [the RRI] that Brown and Root has, in many instances, provided construction procedures.to fulfill Appendix B that provide a minimum amount of direction to the construction force and yet comply to the words, if not the spirit of Appendix B.

What I have begun to see, but have difficulty proving is that the Brown & Root construction philosophy is to build something anyway they want to and then put it up to the engineer to document and approve the "as built" condition.

3 If the engineer refuses, he is blamed for being too conservative and not responsive to the client's needs and thus the driving force behind my request for a special engineering audit of site operations.

Only recently has there been a real effort on the part of

-the licensee itself or on the part of Brown & Root, to write explicit instructions to the line inspectors on what they were to inspect. .Previously, the procedures were frequently pretty' general, again not too bad if the inspectors were knowledgeable in the subject being inspected but terrible if

~

they are not. In a couple of cases I have been able to show  ;

them that their people are essentially incompetent, even  ;

though they have been through the site training and a certified as competent. l 1

. l

- - - - - . -~ -_.

4

  • 1

- 1

. l

  • s. e * *

-l

. . . too ~ often. an installation clearly accomplished other i .than as originally. designed.and buildable has been. approved i the licensee's onsite engineering are as fulfilling l

! requirements. , . In effect, the engineer has approved a non-

. conforming condition in advance of QC'being called. QC has been signing for'the as-built condition and the underlying i problem is not addressed. (NRC Staf f Exhibit, p. 2(f))

I , The4 report continues on page 3 about trends indicative of f poor performance,

. It seems likely-to'me that the licensee.will use his full 4 powers to be less open.with us in the area of identified .

l construction deficiencies than he has in the past. I think he will.take maximum advantage of part 50.55(e) and the

! [NRC] guidance to go through the-necessary formalities but j avoid, if at all'possible, having to report-to us.- (supra)

! In 1980, the first annual Systematic Assessment of Licensing '

1

' Performance report (IE Report-' #80-25, NRC Staff Exhibit 181), 2

! continued to report problems with the QA/QC' program, unqualified i

! personnel, and' attitude toward regulations. The report concludes i the following about the effectiveness'and attitudes of licensing

1. .

j personnel in complying with NRC requirements:  ;

I i Licensee construction and engineering management -- the NRC

personnel stated that it appears there is a continuing i tendency to engineer away construction problems rather than i enforce compliance to drawings and specifications.

i i Again the Applicant promised to reform and correctjits

programmatic and personnel weaknesses by taking unspecific

" management action with the engineering and construction.

personnel to alleviate this situation."

In-1982 a special Construction Appraisal l Team-(CAT) also .

i.

identified significant deficiencies in the QA/QC program. In its

. i

~

l report (Staff Exhibit 206) the team identified the following construction program weaknesses i

I

- , e ..-- , ..,c. -.m, +. 1. . , - . *,-s-- .er- , , , - -' n. --M.. _ . , , w , 7e w&e.--

~' '~

..s .

L... .r ... T~ . T L Tl ? ~ J == L - L^"~~

k s

l. ;Results of.the inspection indicated a breakdown in 1 fabrication, installation, and inspection in the iheating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
2. 'A number.of examples were identified of failure to meet i criteria for separation of safety-related cables from mechanical structures and piping, and separation of
redundant trains of safety systems.... ,

I 3. ; .The licensee's quality assurance _. program did not ensure i- that certain hanger, support, electrical and mechanical 1

equipnent was installed to the latest' design documents, and commensurately that an appropriate inspection was

! conducted. to the latest design dccuments.

)

~

4. . Findings also indicate a' number of instances where i

nonconforming conditions were identified:.however, various. methods (e.g., punchlists, inspection' reports, i verbal, and other informal methods) were used to ,

l address and resolve these nonconformances. These

methods do not comply with requirements.to identify
nonconforming conditions and provide corrective
actions j to prevent recurrence.

I 4 5. The licensee's Quality. Assurance audit. program shou'ld

{ have been more effective in detecting and obtaining 4

correction of deficiencies in safety-related work; such j as those in the HVAC system, mechanical = equipment, and

electrical components.

j In summary, the identified, weaknesses require increased-j dedication.by management at all' levels to assure completed installations meet design requirements and that inspection documentation reflects that the completed installations.have '

been adequately inspected to the latest design document.

i Finally, several weeks ago the Technical. Review Team (formed i'

  • to conduct an extensive inspection and investigation of i allegations of hardware and QA/QC-problems) released a.25-page summary of its findings which, according to the January 8 1

report,; indicate: '

A. -TUEC failed to periodically assess the overall '

effectiveness of the site QA program in that there have

' ~

been rui regular reviews of program adequacy by senior i -management. Further,'TUEC did.not assess 1the ' ,

effectiveness of its QC inspection program.

i .

1 4

~.

4

- 19 -

B.. 'During the peak site. construction period of 1981-2, c 'TUEC employed only four auditors, all'of whom had-questionable' qualifications in technical. disciplines.

Although charged with_ overview of all site construction land' associated vendors, these Dallas based auditors provided only limited QA surveillance of construction activities.

C. Repetitive NCRs .were issued that . identified the nee'd to retrain construction personnel in the requirements and contents of-QA' procedures. One correctiva action request (CAR) dealing with inadequate construction training.and' records remained open,for-one year. The identical problem was identified in a subsegrent CAR, which still had not been closed at the time of the

'TRT's onsite review.

D. The TRT found many examples'of' incomplete and. -

inadequate workmanship and ineffective QC inspection in' '

TUEC's evaluation of the as-built program. (See Section 4 for a detailed discussion.)

E. Some craft workers newly assigned as QC inspectors were in a position to inspect .their own work and records.

Site management did not view;this lack ofLseparation between1 production and inspection' roles as a potential conflict-of-interest.~

F. There were potential weaknesses in the TUEC 10.CFR 50.55(e) deficiency-reporting system. Applicable procedures did not identifyLwhat types of deficiencies constitutedcsignificant breakdowns in the QA~ program, nor how they should be evaluated for reportability to the NRC. Evaluation guidelines for reporting hardware deficiencies. lacked clarity and definitive instructions and the threshold for reporting deficiencies was too high.

G. .The TUEC exit interview system for departing' employees appeared to be.neither well structured nor effective, as evidenced by the lack of employee confidence, limited implementation, failure to-document explanations and rationale, and failure to complete-corrective actions and to determine root.causes.

H. The BER' corrective action system was generally-ineffective and was bypassed by the B&R'QA Manager.

~

I. .The TUEC corrective action system was poorly structured-and ineffective.

O 6

,,, y , -- - ,. - --- ,. - _ - , . . - . . , , , .,..,,r- ,,,-4,- , ,-m--+. ~, ,m_.--- ~, ,,,,,,-w . , - - , ,,,_,v-, -

) .

The Board's findings of a specific' violation with a potential generic impact is not enough harm to warrant appellate review of the , Welding Memorandum. Indeed, the Appeal Board has clearly articulated that it does.not expect nuclear power plant construction to be perfect. Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) ALAB-740 (1983), p. 2. Thus, the only harm which could arise from the Board's finding of violation of Appendix B will be if, when it later considers that violation in the context of the entire record on quality assurance / quality control program implementation, Applicant does not prevail on the overall contention.

In sum, Intervenor submits that whatever harm flows from the Board's conclusions regarding violations of Appendix B are potentially curable in the ongoing licensing proceeding by either the introduciton of credible hard evidence properly submitted through a Motion to Re-Open the Record on those issues, if there is any; or appealable if the ultimate conclusion of the Licensing Board is to deny a license based, in part, on the conclusions now objected to.

! V. Applicant Has Not Demonstrated That Dis-cretionary Interlocutory Appeal Is Warranted Applicant has not, and cannot demonstrate,.that the Welding Memorandum is appealable as a matter of right (supra, pp. 12 to 14). Anticipating failure on that argument, Applicant then pleads that the Board grant discretionary interlocutory review of the Welding Memorandum pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i).

  • 7 That-section-of the federal regulations delineates the power of a presiding officer to " certify questions to the Commission

.for its determination, either in his discretion or on direction 9

of the Commission."

In~a 1982 ruling the Appeal Board strongly reiterated its

. position in the denial of "the seventh motion for directed certification in'the recent months" by patiently explaining that interlocutory appellate review of licensing board orders is disfavored (footnote omitted)-and will be undertaken as a discretionary matter only in the most compelling circumstances. (Citing) Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 483-86 (1975).

More specifically, in the exercise of our directed certification authority conferred by 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i), we will step into a proceeding still pending below-only upon a clear _and convincing showing that the Licensing Board ruling under attack or.either (1) threaten (s) the party adversely affected by it with immediate and' serious irreparable impact, which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affect (s) the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual matter. (Emphasis added) Arizona Public Service Company, et al.-(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),

ALAB-742, September 19, 1983.

Applicant has not heeded the admonitions of the Appeal Board to all parties to licensing proceedings instructing them to

" exercise in the future a greater measure of circumspection insofar as requests for interlocutory appellate-review are concerned." (Id.)

9 A request for directed certification must be premised on a denial of such a request by the presiding officer, in this case the Licensing Board. To the best of CASE's knowledge, Applicant has sought no such certification for the instant motion from the Licensing Board.

L

u. L i

l

> in :

. Clearly this Board-intended its Palo Verde, supra decision to apply to cases such as this. We include here the instructions

.which should have been heeded by Appellant prior to its filing which has<had exactly the effect which the Appeal Board explained it sought to avoid -- that is, a waste of everyone's time on

" insubstantial directed certification requests." (Id.)

Understandably, parties and their counsel are displeased whenever a licensing board enters an interlocutory order that appears to affect their. interests adversely and, in their judgment, is plainly w'rong to boot. And, no doubt, such an~ order will be found especially frustrating if its, consequence is,:for example, the litigation of issues that counsel believes should not be tried,.the summary dismissal

]F of issues that counsel is convinced are entitled to evidentiary consideration, or the infelicitous scheduling of the: hearing on an issue. But, to repeat what we have said 1 on so many prior occasions, in the overwhelming majority of

. instances the party simply must await the licensing board's

initial decision before bringing its complaint to us (assuming that the grievance has not been; mooted by intervening developments). The failure to accept this1 fact 4 of adjudicatory life -- judicial as-well as administrative

-- has the unfortunate effect of diverting-attention from the progress of the licensing board proceedings where it belongs. (emphasis added) l 4

A. There Is No Immediate And Serious

-Irreparable Impact Which Cannot Be Later Cured _

CASE does not believe that Applicant.has. presented any evidence that it has been " threatened with immediate an'd serious irreparable impact, which, as a practical matter, could not be 3 ~ alleviated by.a later appeal." Marble Hill,. supra. Indeed the .

instant' motion by Applicant, its December 28,'1984 Notice of Appeal, evidences the fact that it believes the impact of the Licensing Board's Welding Memorandum is curable through regular

~

-appeal channels.

e- , - r v e , , ~

23 -

Further, Applicant has not demonstrated that it has or will j suffer any impact whatsoever by the Board's ruling, much less the

' requisite "immediate and serious irreparable impact" required for int'erlocutory' appellate-review. (Id.)

-The' parties and the Appeal Board are left to aonder just what horrible calamity will instantly befall Applicant in a proceeding now suspended'at its own request if interlocutory review is not granted. We can imagine none.

F s B. Applicant Has Not Presented Clear And Convincing Evidence That The Issues It

-Seeks Directed Certification.On Affect The Basic Structure Of The Proceeding In A Pervasive Or Unusual Manner Applicant raises three issues for interlocutory' review claiming "they have already affected.the proceeding in a

'10 pervasive manner and are likely,to be repeated." Those issues all deal with a Licensing Board's right to' consider safety issues raised during the course of litigation. They are:

1. Whether in an operating license proceeding, the Licensing Board has authority to, require ~ issues. abandoned by intervenor to be litigated nevertheless, without declaring a sua sponte issue and complying with 10 C.F.R. $2.760a? If jua, what is the practical effect of an intervenor abandoning an issue.?

10 hs~ stated previously (supra, p. 7), the time for Applicant to raise its complaint.was either before the hearings occurred,

' or b7 fore the next hearing occurs (if-there is one),'not now while, hearings are suspended at'the' request of the Applicant.

(Transcript of January'17 meeting between' Applicant and TRT).

p ,

I

~

,a y ., -

24 -

2. .

Wheth'er in an operating licensing proceeding,'the Licensing Board has the. authority to require full litigation j of a tangential issue:raiecd for.the first time during hearings,-.without a finding of, inter alia, good cause for lateness pursuant to 10'C.F.R. }2.714(a)(1),-or without.

declaring a sua~sponte issue and complying with 10 C.F.R.

$2.760a?,

3. Whether.in.an~ operating license proceeding, without-declaring a sua sponte issue, the Licensing Board can retain =

3 for inclusion in?its ultimate conclusion 1ofLlaw an abandoned j

segment of the case:and an issue filed late with no finding of good-cause for lateness?

However, Applicant does not offer a scintilla of evidence on 1 how the raised issues affect.the basic structure'of the.

?

proceeding, nor demonstrate-how the affect -- if:there is:one --

1 if is either pervasive or unusual.. In fact, Applicant does-not even substantiate that the issues' raised-(sua sponte1 authority) are grounded in the record of'this case.- CASE asserts.they are not.

The: Licensing Board-made its position' clear on.its: procedure in its September 23, 1983_ Memorandum and orders-

... we no longer consider that our remaining questions on i these quality ^ assurance issues arerin-the nature of
l. preliminary inquiriesfconcerning, potential.sua sponte issues. "Since4 the quality assurance-contention:still~is
pending, we need notidecide whetherJour; questions-are

'important' safety issues --:as used in the sua sponte section of.the procedural rules ---but only whether we require ~ answers.in order tofhave a satisfactory' ,

un,derstanding of..the~ quality assurance contention..-

i

-BecauseLof this. change in the Board's: analysis,(statements'.

.:in our' proposed. decision about.whetherfor not we'will declare asua.sponte' issue.should beLinterpreted as

' statements about whether'or not we' req'uireLa<more' complete-

. ~

[ . record . .

9

i

n -+- .. , - - -~ --------. +la -- >

e w

In other words, the Licensing Board is following the

. instruction of the Appeal Board regarding the litigation of complex quality assurance / quality control. contentions.

In the decision of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Units 1 and'2) ALAB-770, May 7, 1984 (" Byron") the Licensing Board denied'an operating license because it could not make a-finding that there was " reasonable assurance that any and all serious construction infirmities have been detected and rectified." (Id .

at 8). The Appeal Board agreed that the Licensing Board was correct to not authorize license issuance under those circumstances, but disagreed with the Board's issuance of a final decision denying the license outright.

The Appeal Board then. established the exact licensing model which Applicant now seeks;to have the Appeal Board interfere with.

... we think that the Board should have adopte'd the '

alternative of informing the parties now of-the substance of

[its] views on the quality assurance issues, retaining jurisdiction over them, and providing for_further proceedings before [it] when'the various inspections, investigations and remedial actions become ripeEfor consideration. (ld. at 10)

The Board noted'that under those circumstances the Applicanti could have sought interlocutory review,-although warning that "Indeed, it is a general rule that, irrespective of how detrimental to its interests an interlocutory order might be, a party must abide the event of final action on the matter before pressing for appellate relief." (Id. at 11)-

There is-nothing more certain in the Comanche Peak

. -litigation than an acknowledgement that the.various inspections,

investigations, and: remedial actions are not yet ripe for final I ' consideration by.the L'icensing Board, much less'for appellate

. review.

l s-q C. The Licensing Board's' Conduct Is Proper In Regard To The Issues Raised By Applicant-Applicant has framed the three' issues _for which'they seek'

'firectedcertificationasquestionsoveraLicensingBoard'ssua sponte. authority.: They-even assert that the Licensing Board has

' flaunted a. Commission-directive in'its pursuit of " tangential" l issues in the licensing proceeding. (Show Cause Motion at 8).

In reality,-however, the Licensing Board's pursuit of information to insure a complete record is not only acceptable conduct, it is i

exactly the instructions set.forth by the Appeals Board since at least 1973, and mandated in Byron, supra.

l Applicant's query in their first~ issue submitted for directed certification, whether the Board "has the authority to '

4 require issues abandoned by intervenor to be litigated neverthe--

less,.without declaring a sua'sponte issue and complying with 10 i

C.F.R. 2.760a?" As the Appeal. Board will' surely realize, .there-i i is a significant distinction between issues properly.in the case as admitted contentions and issues imposed on the parties by the

, _ Licensing-Board.

, The Appeal Board has previously. dealt with_the effect of-the-j failure of-a party to file proposed. findings. Previous decisions imply-that~there'isLdiscretion of the Appeal Board to consider an appeal.even though-no proposed findings were' filed by the g appellant. .See, Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear

.x. . . .

^

^

~~

. :. - . =w  :- c u== ----- - - - - -

27 -

. Power-Plant,. Unit 2), ALAB-280, 2 NRC 3-(1975), and Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC'331 (1973);1and Northern States Power Co.-(Prarie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-244,.8 AEC 857 (1974).

The declaration of abandonment or default for failure to file findings-is a discretionary sanction.available to the judge

'to enforce the-conduct of the partiesfin litigation, not as a ,

J tool to expand or narrow issues. . The difference between a board's authority over the conduct of a hearing and its authority

to expand or-narrow issues is exactly the point raised in the '

4 Commission decision cited by. Applicant. If a finding of i

abandonment or default for failure to file findings had the effect of striking from the record all testimony and evidence regarding an admitted contention, the discretionary authority'to control the proceedings would expand the authority of the Board beyond that recognized by the Commission.

In 1981 the Commission ruled in this case, but on another q

question related but distinguishable, to a Licensing Board's sua l: sponte authority. The issue before the Commission in 1981~was whether admitted contentions, whose intervenor sponsor had been voluntarily dismissed from the proceeding,.should proceed to

. hearing under the Board's sua sponte authority. The Commission stated that l

At'present, all an intervenor need do to support admission of.a contention is set forth the. basis for the contention 4 with reasonable-specificity. Mississippi Power and Light

! Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit-1.and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423,-426 (1973). Moreover, given the availability of summary ' disposition procedures, . the l- admission of a contention does not automatically require exploration'of that contention.at hearing.

9 I

+,,-,-a,,,-w,.wq.w-. " +-

, -- - z,- e +r p . ,- - - - , - . g-- 9 - 3

~

sq t- g . . _ .1 w .. . -. _ __ a . L.

s. -

e h

. 3 ' ;28 -

hit _is:notlthe~ entry of Contention Five that is in question,

- only;the. panner of1the disposition of its subparts.- Nothing in

=_CLI 81-36' suggests that a' Board is required to-exercise sua sponte; authority to pursue' resolution, it simply gives the Licensing Board-the option of. dismissing a contention through

_ . summary disposition.-(M. at 3)-

This' principle
equally applies to the second~ issue raised by

' Applicant,Lwhether'"the; Licensing. Board has the authority to-require ~ full' litigation of a tangential; issue ~ raised for the sfirst' time.during hearings, without declaring'a.sua sponte issue or findingigood cause forulateness." (Show Cause Memorandum at 13)

Applicant's issueLis apparently based on their distress over-the Board's' consideration of the pre-heat. issue, which arose:in the course of' litigation of the. welding issues.

Far.from being a tangential issue in this' case,Jimproper welding practices is precisely the subject at the heart.of this subissde. Evidence regarding this, or other, . improper welding practices discovered by the Staff surely must be part'of the factors 1 considered by the Licensing Board'in its decision.

Applicant suggests thatlthe parties, and the Board, are somehow bound to.the evidence of specific-QA/QC problems first introduced by Intervenoriin support of its contention, and-required to put blinders on to all subsequent' evidence that supports Intervenor'sscontention which is developed in the hearings. ; Such an approach .tu) ~ litigation is absurd.

e ,

e- .

In the third issue Applicant suggests that a conclusion reached by the Board on evidence properly in the case must be excluded from'any ultimate conclusions of law because either Intervenor did not' file findings on that issue or because a 11 specific incident developed in the hearings. -

The conclusion that has catapulted Applicant into filing the instant appeal is-included below:

... we note;that Applicants repeatedly testified that individuals are ' terminated' when they violate procedures.... Fred Coleman, who was a welder at the plant, testified that there were many misdrilled holes repaired in the Unit 1 cable spread room. Tr. 11542. Additionally, Mr.

Coleman was not even aware that any form of paper, such as a Repair Process Sheet, was needed for him to repair such a hole. Tr. 11544-45. Nor have Applicants even attempted to 4 explain this testimony of Mr. Coleman. . . .

The welding of misdrilled holes without authorization is further substantiated by a Staff inspection of 56 supports in the north cable spreading room. Staff found two plug welds in each of three supports, but none of these welds was properly documented. Addendum to page 27 of Staff Testimony at 1 (Gilbert)....

We note that the Staff has requested and is evaluating an explanation of these undocumented repairs [in the north cable spreading room] from the Applicants. NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact on Weld Fabrication at 57. We will consider the Staff's analysis of the Applicants' response in this proceeding. We are particularly concerned about the extent to which welding procedures and, possible, QC procedures may have been ignored. The possibility _of OC procedures being ignored is supported by the testimony _of Mr. Fred-Coleman, who stated that QC inspectors were present in the cable spreading room during the time he was welding-misdrilled holes.- (Tr. 11542) 11 -

CASE has not abandoned the issue of the adequacy of the QA/QC program -- including those that stem from the litigation of the Stiner's welding issues. As stated previously, the issue of the adequacy of the OA/QC concerns has not been addressed in findings or by a decision. j i

l l

.2. . .. - _. ~- _, . ~ . - .

+

This' evidence comes from a properly conducted hearing on 12 properly admitted contentions. It is the conduct of Applicant's employees with regard to the implementation of the QA/QC program at the plant that should be of concern to them, not the conduct of the Licensing. Board who hears factual testimony about the QA/QC deficiencies-at the Comanche Peak plant.

CONCLUSION Applicant has failed to show cause why its Notice of Appeal should not be dismissed. It is untimely, both because it is premature to appeal specific factual findings which are to be later considered by'the Licensing Board in another decision, and because it is exceedingly late to object to the conduct of a hearing held a year ago. Further, the appeal does not meet the appropriate criteria for either regular or discretionary inter-locutory appeal.

Finally, the sole basis for the appeal -- the Board's observation of a specific violation of the QA/QC program, is based on facts presented by Applicant's own witnesses is a legitimately conducted hearing probing issues properly admitted into the operating license case.

[2 The Welding Memorandum in dispute deals only with those welding concerns raised by CASE witnesses Henry and Darlene Stiner.' Other welding concerns of other witnesses appeal in other portions of the record. Those include inadequacy of the vendor weld -inspection program of CASE witness Charles Atchison, and the-inadequacies of the liner plate welding and welding inspections brought to the hearing by CASE witness Sue Ann Neumeyer, and others.

. hr. 4 i .b d C-# .-4. ,.#4- - 4% , 4 O e e ..

-t e.

CASE urges that the Appeal Board dismiss the appeal for' reasons stated herein.

Respectfully submitted,

( Silb)

Juanita Ellis, President CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 On Brief:

Steve Kohn, Esquire Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 i

i f

I e

.o 1

o UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEALS BOARD

-In.the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, et al. )

) and 50-446-OL (Comanche, Peak' Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2)' )

4

~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

~

By my signature below, I hereby certify'that true and correct copies of CASE's. Opposition To Applicant's Request For Appellate Relief have been sent to the names listed below this 1st day of February, 1985, byr Express mail where indicated by

  • Hand-delivery where indicated by **; and First-Class Mail unless otherwise indicated.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20550 Dr. W. Reed Johnson **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20550 Thomas S. Moore, Esquire **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20550 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch**

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

4350 East-West Highway, 4th Floor' '

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

O l 4

Herbert Grossman**-

~ Alternate Chairman,~ASLB Panel U.S. Nuclear -Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda,. Maryland 20814 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter- H. Jordan 881.W. Outer Drive.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

~

i Ms. Ellen Ginsberg, Law Clerk **

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Bishop, Liberman,_ Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Stuart Treby, Esquire Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Office.of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Rd.

10th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme, Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 i

A

, Juanita Ellis J

e 9

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20101S831&oldid=2773792"