ML20140C199
| ML20140C199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-503 OL, NUDOCS 8603250243 | |
| Download: ML20140C199 (7) | |
Text
,
s.
hO 3/17/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OgSgCEO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'86 MR 24 A10:48 In the Matter of I
Docket Nos. 50-445 l
Igd 50-446~ 6k TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i
[0CMa$r((bh-COMPANY, et al.
I sanicq l
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S MOTION FOR LICENSING BOARD TO ORDER THAT 3/18/86 STATISTICAL SAMPLING MEETIN",BE TRANSCRIBED CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Motion for Licensing Board to Order that 3/18/86 Statistical Sampling Meeting Be Transcribed. On 3/17/86, CASE Informed the Board Chairman and counsel for Applicants and the NRC Staff that we would be filing this pleading and gave them a brief description of its basic contents.
The underlying problem which necessitated this pleading is due to the different views of CASE and the NRC Staff as to whether or not it is necessary to transcribe the meeting on statistical sampling which has been scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday, March 18, 1986, beginning at 1:00 l
P.M., in Room 6110 of the Maryland National Bank Building n/.
On November 11,' 1985, the Licensing Boards issued their MEMORAhTUM (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling). Following initial responses by the parties, the NRC Staff advised in its 2/28/86 letter to the Board that the Staff intended to file its response to the technical concerns raised in g/ Applicants' counsel (Mr. Gad) advises that Applicants will probably not get involved in this dispute unless the Board feels that a conference call is necessary on the morning of 3/18/86, in which case he will be available.
5
$O 3 m
the Board's November 11, 1985 Memorandum by March 14, 1986 (on which date CASE also hoped to be able to respond). On 3/12/86, CASE was advised of a meeting which had been scheduled between the Applicants and NRC Staff in Bethesda on statistical sampling for Tuesday, 3/18/86. On 3/13/86, NRC Staff counsel advised CASE that the Staff wanted to have the date of its response changed to on or before April 4, 1986. At that time, CASE advised that we wanted to have our response keyed to receipt of the transcript of the 3/18/86 meeting (i.e., we wanted to have the transcript in hand a few days prior to having to file our response).
(CASE so advised the Board Chairman on 3/14/86.)
CASE learned for the first time at about 10 A.M. on 3/14/86, from NRC Staff counsel, that the 3/18/86 meeting was not going to be transcribed; i
CASE immediately sought to have the Staff reconsider that decision. This included discussions with NRC Staff counsel and other NRC Staff personnel, culminating finally in a discussion with Mr. Vince Noonan (Director, Comanche Peak Project, NRC Division of Licensing) at about 3:15 P.M. on the afternoon of 3/17/86 (the earliest time CASE was able to talk with Mr.
Noonan).
The scheduled 3/18/86 meeting was described by Staff personnel during those various conversations as: sort of a technical textbook kind of discussion of statistics between two statisticians to make sure that the Staff and the Applicants had some common understandings; statistical i
i clarification, which might involve a difference of philosophy between two statisticians; which was nonetheless not too difficult for a layperson representing CASE at the untranscribed meeting to be able to follow and understand; having very little, if anything, to do with CPRT, the methods 2
l 4
F being used or the actual sampling which will be done at Comanche Peak, or what's going on at the plant.
Mr. Noonan described the meeting as "an I
academic discussion of statistical analysis," and stated that he did not believe that it had a direct bearing on Applicants' CPRT Plan or the Staff's SSER; he further stated that the Staff would be writing the SSER based on Appendix D (Revision 1 of Appendix D "CPRT Sampling Approach, Applications and Guidelines" of the CPRT Program Plan, provided under cover letter CPRT-219 from Applicants dated January 31, 1986, received by CASE on 2/1/86), and that he did not consider the meeting very important except for clarification i
~
and to make sure that when the Staff writes their SSER they have all the j
information before them which they need.
Mr. Noonan stated that he would make the information discussed during the meeting available in the Staff's J
summary of the meeting.
CASE's motion is that the Licensing Board order that the 3/18/86 meeting be transcribed (as have most of the meetings in recent months regarding issues which are or may be in controversy in these proceedings) e f 2/. This is necessary for several reasons.
First, it is obvious from the statements made by NRC Staff personnel that the information obtained during this meeting goes to the very underpinnings of the st.'atistical sampling which will eventually be the basis
]2/ lt should oe noted that, as CASE advised Mr. Noonan on 3/17/86, CASE does not expect each and every meeting between the NRC Staff and the Applicants to be transcribed. There are some meetings which CASE representatives could attend where the subject matter might be such that no transcript would be necessary either for use by CASE experts or consultants or for timely informing the Board of potentially significant information. In fact, CASE was informed on 3/14/86 of a meeting scheduled for 3/27/86 which is not going to be transcribed, and for which we did not request that a transcript be made. However, this is not the situation here.
J 3
.- l
for many of Applicants' claims regarding the processes, procedures, implementation, and results of the CPRT Plan -- many or all of which will very likely be challenged by CASE in these proceedings. Further, this information will be used by the NRC Staff to clarify their understanding of statements which Applicants have made regarding the CPRT statistical sampling and will be used in the preparation of the Staff's SSER and its response to the Board's 11/11/85 Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling). In addition, it appears from the Staff's statements that this meeting may reveal differences of philosophy between Applicants' statistician and the NRC Staff's statistician, and will therefore include many potentially important admissions which CASE needs to be able to preserve.
It is clear, therefore, that the information which will be derived from this meeting is relevant and material to this case and in order to be able to adequately respond to the Board issue discussed in the Board's 11/11/85 Memorandum, and that it is vital to CASE that the information discussed during this meeting be preserved in its original form. This can nnly be accomplished by a transcript; it cannot be preserved through a sucmary f3,/; if this information is not preserved by its being transcribed, it will be lost forever.
It should also be noted that CASE has been given precious little information regarding the statistical inference issue; we did not receive f3/ The Staff has made arrangements to allow CASE to tape record the meeting. However, past experience demonstrates that such recordings are of very limited value.
It is impossible to hear what is said by many of the individuals who are not directly in front of the recorder, and there is no way of identifying each speaker by name or by organization. CASE does not consider this to be an acceptable alternative to having the meeting transcribed.
4 I
Appendix D to the CPRT Plan until late, and what was received at that time was very skimpy. This increases the value and necessity of having the information discussed at this meeting preserved in its originial form.
Otherwise, CASE cannot be reasonably expected to be able to prepare an adequate presentation and response on the statistical inferences issue, which is of great importance to CASE and to the Board's being able to make a reasoned, informed decision based on a complete record.
i For the preceding reasons, CASE moves that the Board order that the NRC Staff have the 3/18/86 meeting on statistical sampling transcribed. CASE further moves that CASE's response to the Board's 11/11/85 Memorandum l
(Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) be filed seven days following i
receipt of the 3/18/86 meeting transcript.
Respectfully submitted, k
lO 21j-f(
s.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e
1, 5
,e
-n-,
+
00LMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO!$6 gq y g)gg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI.MQ. BOARD E0'CENIEc"d's/d'4['[
In the Matter of
}{
BRA M
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Motion for Licensing Board to Order that 3/18/86 Statistical Sampling Meeting Be Transcribed have been sent to the names listed below this of March
,198 6, by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 1,7th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 I
Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollcm Commission 1107 West raapp Street Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Stillwater, Oklahcma 74075
- Roc = 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland
'20814 1
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 1
. ~.
Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin
- Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N. W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Owen S. Merrill Lanny A.
Sinkin Christic Institute Staff Engineer 1324 North Capitol Streat Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C.
20C02 Safeguards (MS H-1016)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. David H. Boltz Washington, D. C.
20555 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil, Vice President
& Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esc.
Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies)
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C.
20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111-5894 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jef ferson Street, N. W.,
1800 M Street, N. W.
Suite 700 l
i Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C.
20007 Washington, D. C.
20036 JJ A~ ib N5
//".'s.) Juanita Ellis, President
~
TASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
,