ML20196G844
| ML20196G844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1988 |
| From: | Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, COHEN, MILSTEIN & HAUSFELD |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6635 CPA, NUDOCS 8807060040 | |
| Download: ML20196G844 (3) | |
Text
.-
'4435 L
COH EN, MILSTEIN & HAUSFELD DOC KE TEE-Uwc Surre soo 14o1 N Ew YORK AvENU E, N. W.
'88 JA. -1 P5 :16
$"a*ER$ [MItsTCm WASHINGTON, D. C. 2000 s MICH AEL O. H AUSFELD STEVEN J. TOLL IC' - ~ '*
A IS M. M EZZ E TI 00CHET m a.tstnwicRtrom>ere 3473 ANOREW H. FRICOM AN BRANC" RICH ARO S. LEWIS ANTHONY 2. RolSM AN" ELIZABETH J. CURR EN OANIEL S. SOM M ERS OF COUN$EL June 29, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 RE:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station), Dkt. No. 50-445,jrequest for extension of construction permit no CPPR-126 bPh 3entlepersons:
On June 6, 1988, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) filed a request for an extension of its construction permit completion date for Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant (CPSES).
This request seeks an additionhl three years for completion, in addition to the three year extension requested in February 1986, which was approved by the commission but made the subject of an evidentiary hearing, which is still ongoing.
Docket No. 50-445 (CPA).
The Commission has unequivocally concluded that the granting of any extension of the construction completion date for the Comanche Paak Unit 1 raises sufficiently substantial safoty issues that a licensing hearing should be held.
l The question that was admitted in,that licensing hearing --
approved by the ASLB and the ASLAP without Commission review --
is whether the licensee's failure to complete construction on a timely basis was caused by its deliberate disregard of the Commission's regulations in an unlawful attempt to speed construction and reduce costs and, if so, whether the licensee has appropriately repudiated that improper motive.
No hearings have yet been held on this issue, but substantial evidence has been aTnassed by the Intervenor CASE from the files of tne lead l
licensee and the minority owners.
This evidence indicates that there is substantial merit to the issue.
In light of all of these' developments, CASE opposes the l
l consideration of the licensee's request for an extension of its
(
construction permit for Unit 1, other than in a contested licensing proceeding in which CASE would file as an Intervenor.
Q U
)S 8807060040 080629 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR g
~ _
Such a licensing proceeding should be consolidated with the existing licensing proceeding c1 ready pending on the first request for an extension of time, since the issue that CASE would raise in the new proceeding is the same as that already raised in the existing proceeding.
Subsequent to the admission of that contention, additional evidence was uncovered that reinforces the bases for the contention.
In particular, CA'3E directs your attention to the following documents, all of which have been previously made available to the Staff and which are incorporated herein by reference:
Technical Analysis Corporation, The Quality Assurance Procram at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (4/30/88), Parts I and II Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Analysis and Evaluation of the Project Manacement-Services Provided by Texas Utlities in the Construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (2/15/88)
Whitfield Russell Associates, Damaces to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., Related to Participation in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (February 1988)
Victor Gilinsky, Comanche Peak Licensinc Delay, A Report to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas (2/15/88)
Southern Engineering, Report on Rural Electric Cooperatives (February 1988)
Randel Associates, Inc., Review & Analysis of Encineerino, Construction & Testino at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Project (2/12/88)
Randel Associates, Inc., Addendum to Review & Analysis of Encineerine, Construction & Testino e.t the Comanche Peak Nuclear Project (4/29/88)
Letter to Administrative Judges from Juanita Ellis, CASE, re: Dkt. Nos. 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL, 50-445-CPA, Department 4
of Labor complaints (4/15/88), with attachments Letter to Administrative Judges from Juanita Ellis, CASE, re: Dkt. Nos. 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL, 50-445-CPA (5/17/88),
with attachments See Letter to Administrative Judges from Juanita Ellis, CASE, re-Dkt. Nos. 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL, 50-445-CPA (5/11/88) transmitting minority owner' documents.
s We believe that the recently filed request raises significant hazards considerations, as demonstrated by the previously referenced documents.
Those documents disclose serious safety problems that were ignored as a direct result of TUEC's improperly motivated construction plan.
If, as CASE alleges, the improper motives have not been repudiated in fact and deed (but in word only), similar safety problems will also be ignored in the rework program when it is advantageous to the construction schedule.
Because of the presence of significant hazards considerations, action on the TUEC request must be preceded by a notice and opportunity for hearing pursuant to Commission regulations and decisions.
Thus we request that the Staff promptly file the appropriate notice of opportunity for public hearing in th-a Federal Reaister and defer any further action on the requested extension until such time as a licensing board is appointed and then proceed to act in accordance with the directives of that Board.
There is also now pending a request by TUEC to extend the completion date of the CPSES' Unit 2.
CASE advances all the same arguments set forth hure with respect to that pending request, including CASE's request that all action be deferred until a notice of opportunity for hearing has been filed and a duly authorized licensing board has been appointed.
In the interest of efficiency, CASE urges that the three CPA dockets be consolidated for all matters, since the identical underlying icsue applies to all dockets.
This letter is not a substitute for a full intervention petition nor does it purport to fully represent al? of the data supporting the positions stated.
This letter ay be supplemented shortly.
Like TUEC's June 6, 1988, it is
- rely a bare outline of the basic principles being advanced.
At the c.ppropriate time and in the appropriate forum, CASE will provide additional information in support of its position.
Sincerely, I
f Anthon[,.Roisaan One of t e Counsel for CASE cc:
Chris Grimes William Counsil Billie Garde Juanita Ellis
.