ML20198J752
| ML20198J752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-335 OL, NUDOCS 8606030199 | |
| Download: ML20198J752 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, h 5/27/8 ^ th-J h'e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g & g/98 g, Fi In the Matter of l Docket Nos. 50 i(and 50-4, 6g S l TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC l \\Qk '., cv,,' COMPANY, et al. l l (Application for an %/ L (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Operating License) ~ Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S MOTIONS AND RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' 4/17/86 RESPONSE TO CASE'S OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING SCHEDULE On April 17, 1986, Applicants filed, without leave to do so, Applicants' Response to CASE's Objections to Motion for Establishment of a Hearing Schedule; such a pleading would not routinely have been allowed. On April 18, 1986, Applicants belatedly filed their Motion for Leave to File " Applicants' Response to CASE's Objections to Motion for Establishment of a Hearing Schedule." During the April 22, 1986, Prehearing Conference, CASE requested and was granted the opportunity to respond to Applicants' 4/17/86 pleading (Tr. 24378/22-24380/1), since the Board indicated that it would considertheApplicants'4/17/86 pleading /_1/. d/ The time initially set for CASE's response was ten days following our additional response regarding statistical sampling, which was filed on 5/6/86, thus making 5/16/86 the initial filing date for CASE's response. On 5/14/86, CASE sought and was granted additional time, until 5/26/86, in which to file the response; neither NRC Staff nor Applicants had any objections. On 5/23/86, CASE advised the Board Chairman that the Post Office (and even Federal Express) would be closed on 5/26/86 (Memorial Day), and requested that the date be changed to 5/27/86. The Board Chairman agreed; he further agreed, in response to CASE's inquiry, that it would not be necessary to also telephone Applicants and the NRC Staff to ask if they had objections under these particular circumstances. 8606030199 860S27 PDR ADOCK 05000445 C PDR ])S o 3
o en We note that CASE has just received (on 5/24/86) Applicants' 5/20/86 Response to CASE's " Response to Board Questions." We are not attempting to address that pleading herein. We also want to point out to the Board that we are not attempting herein to address.each and every point in Applicants' pleading (although we are admittedly restraining ourselves with some difficulty in this regard, since we could almost go through and disagree with Applicants' pleading line-by-line), and our failure to address specific points should not be construed by the Board as agreement with Applicants' statements or positions. APPLICANTS REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE BOARD'S RULINGS I., Throughout their 4/17/86 pleading, there is an underlying basic and fundamental error in Applicants' assumptions and perspective: that the Licensing Board has adopted Applicants' CPRT Plan as the entire issue remaining in these proceedings, and that CASE is also limited to using only CPRT Plan information to prove our case. In addition, Applicants have (as they have in the past) again attempted to substitute their own wording and interpretation for the wording of CASE's Contention 5 and the Board's interpretation of it and to redefine the issues to be litigated in these proceedings. There are, however, no such restrictions on the Licensing Board or on CASE. The Board has not adopted the Applicants' CPRT Plan as its sole source of information for making its determination -- to the contrary, the Board has specifically rejected Applicants' proposal. Further, for the Board to have adopted Applicants' proposal would have been contrary to NRC regulations and due process; the Board quite properly declined to so limit 2
a' CASE or bar us from using other relevant and material information to support our case. This Intervenor has legal duly-accepted issues which have been authorized for litigation in these proceedings, for the most part not only by the current Licensing Board (Judges Bloch, Jordan, and McCollom) but by the previous Licensing Board (Judges Miller, Cole, and McCollom) as well. These issues include not only such matters as QA/QC (both design and . construction), construction practices, intimidation and harassment, but also design (which litigation ultimately led to the Board's conclusion that the design of the entire plant is now in question; see Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), reaffirmed in its 10/2/85. Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification) at page 4, footnote 3). Further, the Board has made clear that "should important new safety concerns or allegations, relevant to this contention, come to light, they will be admitted for consideration by this Board. Furthermore, the trial of some issues may reveal interrelationships among issues or may give rise to new issues, and those implications may require exploration." (Quoted from Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues), page 5.) The time is'long since past for Applicants to have have attempted to gain reconsideration regarding the Board's intepretation of CASE's contention to include design; in addition, it is obvious that the testimony of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle supplied more than adequate grounds for a new contention had the Board believed it necessary (rather than including it under CASE's Contention 5). Applicants did seek reconsideration of the Board's refusal to accept only Applicants' CPRT Plan as an issue in these proceedings,' unsuccessfully. However (as discussed in more detail later 3 i
herein), they continue to act as though their position had been accepted by the Board and to ignore or quarrel with the Board's Orders. The Board first declined to adopt Applicants' proposal to consider only the CPRT Plan in its 8/16/85 Memorandum and Order (current Status of Discovery). And in the Board's 8/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Proposal for Governance of this Case), the Board specifically stated: "The Board finds that it would not be proper to adopt the Management Plan as the sole basis for continued litigation of this case." (Page 2.) "10. IApplicants cannot be immune from litigating the prior QA/QC program and, at the same time, rely on that program to add confidence to the adequacy of the plant. (See Management Plan at 42.)" (Page 5.) "Although apparent' ' expedition' could have been accomplished by accepting' Applicants' plan at this time, regrettably, the easy road for this case is not the proper one. The parties are encouraged to cooperate in the interest of limiting the work that lies before us all." (Page 9.) The Board's 10/2/85 Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification) reaffirmed the Board's position in this regard. Thus, the underlying theme which runs throughout Applicants' pleading is built upon a basic and fundamental error in Applicants' Essumptions and perspective which has already been rejected by the Board. II. Another matter needs to be considered by the Board in regard to scheduling (and in regard to the entire proceedings as well), which reflects a total disregard by Applicants for the Board's clear rulings regarding (1) discovery and (2) keeping the Board informed. It has long been established that the Licensing Board expects to be kept informed about matters which are important to these proceedings (see: 10/20/81 Board Order directing that it be informed promptly and directly of any changes that might affect the 4
E o
- o hearing schedules; Transcript of 12/1/81 hearings, Tr. 119/8-124; 1/4/83 Board's Memorandum and Order at pages 5 and 6; and Board's 9/1/83 Memorandum and Order (Motions to Reopen the Record and to Strike) at page 2, footnote 3).
In addition, CASE calls the Board attention specifically to the following portions of the Board's rulings: Board's 8/16/85 Memorandum and Order (Current Status of Discovery) (pages 2 and 3): " Meetings should continue to be. held among all the parties, both to make periodic progress reports and to discuss significant developments or completed documents." "The parties may recommence discovery pursuant to the procedural rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Outstanding discovery requests that have not been responded to because of Board orders issued in 1985, other than our recent order about the MAC Report, shall be considered to be filed today and shall be responded to anew.. Board's 10/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Status of Pending Motions): "IV. Request for the Board to Ask Applicant to Supply Documents "Given the current status of the case, we see no need to order Applicants to supply any documents to us. We urge that Applicants and Staff examine documents as they are completed, however, from the standpoint of whether they have an important bearing on this case --whether favorable cy; unfavorable to their position. For example, a mechanism should be adopted by which the Board can be kept abreast of the complete, current CPRT Plan.- By serving important documents on us currently, the parties will eanble us to keep abreast. of our homework and help us to be prepared for the intense work that' appears to be on the horizon." - page 5 "We ask that Applicants evaluate discovery requests. . with an eye toward responding rather than objecting." - page 6 Board's 10/31/85 Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings; Board Concern About QA for Design) (pages 3 and 4): "To the extent that Applicants have objected to discovery requests because they refer to documents not yet in existence, we do not expect to honor that objection. If there are no documents of a requested type available, Applicants should say so. Then, given the gradually unfolding nature of this case, they should update their response periodically until the period of discovery is 5
O O closed by Board order, pursuant to this Order of the Board and to 10 CFR 2.740(e)(3). "We continuue to encourage cooperation among the parties concerning the informal exchange of information. To the extent that any of the parties have objected to the participation of other parties in meetings to exchange information, we are hopeful that a more cooperative attitude may prevail in the future. Each of the parties has demonstrated the ability and willingness to participate in constructive dialogue. We are hopeful that each of the parties will keep this in mind and will not only encourage cooperation but will seek to learn from and benefit from the contributions of the other parties. "In the interest of efficiency, we require parties faced by a discovery request considered to be overly broad to explain why the request is too broad and, if feasible, to interpret the request in a reasonable fashion and to supply documents (or answer interrogatories) within the realm of reason." Board's 11/25/85 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum): "... we are not persuaded to revise any portion of our Memorandum of December 18, 1984. Consequently, the Order issued that day remains in effect. The discovery period shall run for 50 days from the issuance of this Memorandum. Discovery may of course cover the supplementary filing. Applicants' answers may, where appropriate, reference appropriate sections of the supplementary filing." -- Page 11 "3. ... Interrogatories previously served shall be responded to promptly." -- Page 13 Board's 2/4/86 Memorandum and Order (CASE's January 1986 Motions to Compel and Clarify) (page 5): "... If Applicants delay their responses to requests that have now been approved by the Board, a request for an extension of time for discovery obviously will be in order." There are several aspects of the preceding to which CASE would call the Board's attention: 1. Despite the clear wording of the Board Orders referenced in the preceding, CASE must disappointedly report to the Board that CASE is unable, without the Board's intervention, to obtain responses from Applicants to 6
a O numerous still-unanswered discovery requests regarding CASE's First through Fifth Sets of Interrogatories Re: Credibility (see CASE's 10/26/85 (Main Docket) Response to Board's 10/15/85 Request Regarding Discovery Matters, page 12, and Attachments). These five Sets were timely filed 1/17/85, 2/4/85, 2/25/85, 2/25/85, and 3/4/85, respectively. The Board will recall that it had been CASE's (Main Docket) understanding that these would be discussed at the 11/12/85 prehearing conference on discovery matters; CASE spent a lot of time and effort in getting as much information in writing as possible to the Board and parties with our 10/26/85 pleading. However, due to an apparent misunderstanding between the parties and the Board as to exactly what would be covered at the 11/12/85 prehearing conference, the Board decided that it was best not to get into the five Sets Re: Credibility at that time (Tr. 24330/10-13). Since that time, CASE has attempted to work with Applicants to obtain answers to the many still-unanswered discovery requests contained in those five Sets. CASE has initiated follow-up telephone calls, and on at least two separate occasions, we have been specifically assured by Applicants' counsel that we would be receiving responses shortly which would either adequately respond or, at a minimum, tell us which specific Interrogatories Applicants did not intend to answer or to which they objected. (Since the Board ordered that Applicants evaluate discovery requests with an eye toward responding rather than objecting, it is difficult for CASE to even file a proper motion to compel without having this information.) All of this has taken place over a period of months, with the additional wasted time, inconvenience and unnecessary expense to CASE of having to place long-distance telephone calls to request responses. CASE has attempted to fully comply with the Board's directives that the parties be cooperative regarding discovery matters. Applicants have not, 7
o 0-and there is no reason for the Board to rely on Applicants' representations or promises regarding discovery, based on their past track record in these proceedings. For the Board to do so can only lead to further unnecessary wasted time, effort, and expense on the part of CASE and work to our further detriment. CASE now moves that the Board -- again -- specifically order Applicants to promptly respond to all of the outstanding discovery requests in CASE's five Sets Re: Credibility and to immediately inform CASE which specific interrogatories Applicants now object to or refuse to respond to.
- Further, we move that the Board (even if it does not adopt CASE's already set forth previous suggestions which we still urge) at a minimum -- if not merely in the interest of fairness, then as a sanction -- key any beginning of tolling of time on CASE's having to respond regarding ISAP's/DSAP's to the time when the last response is received from Applicants completing their responses to CASE's interrogatories on our five Sets Re: Credibility.
(In addition, in those instances where our initial questions have not yet been answered, it will obviously be necessary for CASE to request additional time should we have follow-up questions, as allowed for by the Board in its 2/4/86 Memorandum and Order.) 2. As the Beard is perhaps already aware, it now appears that Applicants and NRC Staff have abandoned their previous commitment to having monthly meeting updates. (CASE notes that the content of the meetings had been reduced to the point where they were only marginally helpful at times; } however, we believe they were still worth having to obtain what little I (. Information might be gleaned from them. Further, they were one of the few ways in which the Board was being supplied with at least some information about what was going on.) 8 1
a 3. 'In the Board's 10/29/85 Memorandum and order (Status of Pending Motions), the Board declined to take formal action concerning CASE's request for Applicants to supply the Board with documents (page 10, item 4). CASE now again calls the Board's attention to the fact that the Board is not being supplied by the Applicants and NRC Staff with information about significant matters important to these proceedings and essential for the 1 Board to make a reasoned decision regarding scheduling. CASE co-counsel Ms. Billie Garde provided the Board with some such information, as attachments to her May. 15, 1986, letter to the Board. There is more such information which should already have been (and now should be) provided to the Board by Applicants and/or the NRC Staff. We call the Board's attention to the attached article from the 5/19/86 DALLAS MORNING NEWS. CASE has not yet had the time to verify the accuracy of all the information in the article, although we already have information which would add credence to portions of it. However, if indeed more than 40% of the pipe supports are to be modified -- and if 1,000 supports need minor work, 1,700 are to be redesigned and modified, and 1,000 are to be torn down -- it is obvious that a Board notification should have been made of these facts. Also, if the sampling of cable trey supports and conduit supports has already le'd Applicants to go to a 100% sampling, and if all 4,500 cable tray and conduit supports in Unit 1 are being examined for design problems, obviously a Board notification should have been made of these facts. We also call the Board's attention to that portion of the attached I newspaper article which states: "Overall, reinspection of existing construction is about 60 percent complete. But because procedures to check the design adequacy of the plant were not completed until January, inspection of design work is only 20 percent to 25 percent complete, utility officials said." 9
If these statements are correct, this should also have been the subject of a Board notification, since it.has far-reaching and important implications, which include specifically the natter of scheduling. If correct, this would mean that CASE (and the Board and other parties) could very likely be placed in the position of wasting time on hearings regarding construction activities which may well have to be redone because of design changes -- especially considering the extent of design changes already Identified. CASE objects again to the additional burden being imposed upon it by T our having to provide the Board with such Board notifications. We call upon the Board to again remind Applicants and NRC Staff of their responsibilities in this regard and to order them to immediately provide the Board with all-such information so that the Board can consider it when making determinations such as scheduling. III. In the Board's 12/23/85 Memorandum and Order (Discovery), the Board stated (pages 3 and 4): " Request 11. We.shall deny Request 11, dealing with scheduling forecasts, at this time. However, should Applicants seek'once again to persuade us of the need for expedition of this proceeding in order to meet its scheduling needs, we will require it to provide to CASE all of this requested information and we will permit CASE an ample opportunity to study the information before we reach any conclusions on the need for expedition. Applicants may avoid delay that may occur in this manner by voluntarily furnishing this information at this time." CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to immediately provide all of the information requested in Request 11 (as the Board stated it would), since Applicants are now pressing for expedition of this proceeding to comply with their own schedule. 4 1 10 y.
d e IV. At pages 2 and 3, Applicants state: " CASE has now responded [to Applicants' 3/21/86 Motion for Establishment of Schedule). CASE has used the occasion of the motion for a schedule to attempt a major transmutation of this proceeding into something that it never was and something that the Commission's Rules of Practice do not contemplate it being. "This is an operating license proceeding in which a OA/0C contention has been raised. That does not mean, however, that it is either required or permissible for CASE to assume the role of construction auditor, required to verify that each and every lota of constructed hardware has been built or designed, as the case may be, correctly." (Footnote omitted.) And at page 16, footnote 12, Applicants state: . If the Stone & Webster work and the CPRT work should fall to resolve to the Board's satisfaction any heretofore articulated 'Walsh/Doyle allegation' -- or anything else properly within the scope of the litigable issues -- CASE should be ecstatic. CASE's argument, however, goes to the merits of an offering not yet made, not to the question of a schedule." Applicants have again demonstrated a total lack of understanding, not only of CASE and its concerns, but of what constitutes due process and efficient' proceedings. CASE has done certain things which are no doubt distressing to Applicants: we have sought to ascertain whether or not the plant has been designed and constructed properly; we have sought to assure that Comanche Peak has been designed and constructed in accordance with its construction permit, its FSAR commitments, applicable industry codes and standards, and NRC regulations; we have sought to litigate the duly-accepted issues in these proceedings; and we have sought to have the Applicants retain outside independent reviewers to thoroughly look at the plant -- but this has never been done in the past and is not being done now by the CPRT. CASE has not ever wanted to be, attempted to be, or had the capacity to be the auditor for Comanche Peak; at best, we have been able to review only small samplings of the plant -- although, now that Applicants mention it, even with our limited resources we do appear to have done a better job of identifying problems than either Applicants or NRC Staff (it was, for 11
6 - O^ instance, CASE's witnesses who first identified problems in design of the pipe supports, the cable tray supports, and even the control room ceiling; see further discussion in CASE's 5/6/86 Ad.11tional Response to Licensing Boards' 11/11/85 Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)). It is very important for the Board to consider the full implications of this fact. Applicants stated in their 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues (page 7): "In sum, Applicants recognize that plant design and construction have not been error-free. Preliminary Indications from the comprehensive Comanche Peak Response Team effort to this point, however, reflect few safety-significant deficiencies." After extensive hearings, briefs, legal pleadings, inspections, reinspections, samplings, etc. -- first begun in July and September 1982 with the testimony of Mark Walsh and Jack Doyle -- the utility finally stated in its SEC 8-K filing on April 18, 1986, that it "now expects that modifications... will be required on approximately thirty percent of the pipe supports in Unit 1" (a figure which the attached newspaper article indicates is about 40%). This occurred only after Applicants hired Stone & Webster to perform a 100% reinspection of the large bore (4" and over) pipe supports. Yet the design (and construction, to a lesser degree) of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak has been under a microscope for almost four years -- CASE was looking at them, the Applicants and many of their consultants were looking at them, the NRC Staff was looking at them, and the Licensing Board was looking at them. But it was not until the 100% reinspection by Stone & Webster that the Applicants finally found the problems (and we're not even sure yet that they have found all the problems), and now state that they are finally taking steps to correct them. Similarly, it was not until CASE Witness Mark Walsh identified problems with the cable tray supports that Applicants or their consultants or the NRC 12
a e Staff apparently began looking closely enough to see that there were indeed severe problems with the design of the cable tray supports also; further, had it not been for the tenacity of Mark Walsh and his refusal to accept the assurances of Applicants and NRC Region IV Senior Resident Inspector of Construction Robert Taylor, Comanche Peak would probably have gone on line (if it ever does),with an inadequate design for the control room ceiling (see Affidavit of CASE Witness Mark Walsh, attached to CASE's 5/6/86 Additional Response to Licensing Boards' 11/11/85 Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling). In light of these facts, CASE submits that there is absolutely no reason to believe that Applicants and its consultants (which are under the direct control of the Applicants) will be able to find, much less correct, other problems at Comanche Peak which have not even been under the intense scrutiny to which the pipe supports were subjected -- absent a carefully structured and monitored 100% reinspection of the rest of the plant. Applicants' most recent 8-K filing (and the attached newspaper article, if it is correct) again adds emphasis to the need for a 100% reinspection. Far from being ecstatic if Applicants latest efforts still do not resolve the Board's concerns, as Applicants suggest, CASE and its witnesses are extremely disappointed that Applicants have not seized upon what was a perfect opportunity for them to finally, once and for all, go out there and DO IT RIGHT, and have a thorough, truly independent, 100% reinspection of the plant. Contrary to what Applicants seem to believe, CASE and its witnesses do not want to make Comanche Peak our 11ves' work; nor do we appreciate Applicants' continuing to engage in half-way measures (the latest of which is even being conducted outside the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) which amount to their doing it over and over again until they 13
get it wrong -- at the expense both of CASE's due process rights and efficient' proceedings. Based on the relatively small amount that we already know, it is CASE's firm belief that Applicants' latest. "get well" plan will (like its predecessors) Instead only prove again that Applicants' plant is sicker than anyone had ever even imagined. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead to Applicants' deciding that they don't really want to rely on this "get well" plan, and that they need yet another chance to prove that the plant is really 0.K. It appears obvious to CASE that it's time to require the Applicants to do it right. What's it going to take to require Applicants to have a truly Independent, 100% reinspection of all accessible attributes of design followed by a 100% reinspection of all accessible attributes of construction, under strict guidelines and with set and approved procedures before the reinspection begins, with proper independence criteria clearly in place, with oversight by the Licensing Board, input from CASE, and the opportunity for true public participation? How can the Licensing Board be satisfied with less? In any event, it is clear that, at a minimum, there is much additional information which the Board needs to have in its possession before it makes any decision regarding scheduling. Respectfully submitted, Dabba f/A *.) f(Krs~.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 14 w-.~ e - - _,,... -,, - - - _ _.. ~ > _ - -, - - -.s
g 3 - -t je gd:-E ~- - -Si t UN
- d h.E Eg]$
5Ok d E%r $ g-5 5 ", a 'I! COM ANCHE PEAK'S a 3 6 f.4 S TROUBLED SPRING fSg S p ague A . T.x t t, CD l I C#) By 3 y3g fine for 19831nttrridation incktent go b i ~g 5o ( W ga"gg{ 2 2 ". E a 2 April 1s: Texas utilities abandons l o y e$"2mo es_.C, omanche Peak $456bmioncostestimateandmid-j o a t e ,_,et ZQ ajg 6x$ m-e*a $ =-- v_. m a %yg @[,akSji m @
- c. remspection plan
=Utstlescreditratingb = g April 29: Moodys downgrades Texas 8. a a6-g g i =. -.d 1 g ooof 4f g $8 i am by NRC Continued from Page 13A. amined for design problems. To May 5: Hearing granted to challenge j, 33-I,7 g construction pwm:t extension Sa = u o oa in A'2 gust. He is date, half the supports have been '$ % e b.$ #ISN fgp 0 E U pe now planning a supplemental checked against design drawings. The n &s Mornins News v-4 "3 S@6g e,o budget request to extend the effort Only 800 have received a prelimi-
- ""d
@jE= level inspectors to observe correc-iiEg #fg[R k! R a=E E "at least through the end of the nary design review, and final re-gnE*gn ~ tive work at the plant, Noonan said. R year." ports are not available. The trays yoo O!E S Toplevel management also met gE D j 3 ~C 3 -'g"3E That indicates the plant proba-contain control and instrumenta-with inspectors to stress the impor-2 bly cannot begin operation before tion cables essential to safe opera-x o isagas k Eh8eg ?EaEE S 5 1988. lfeanwhile, Unit l of the plant tion of the plant. E ility officials tance of following instructions O a g e1:: has been 99 percent compiete for have said the supports, instead of pr(cisely = S E :"p j 5 7
- M Noonan said utility actions ap.
B more'than a year, and the second being individually designed, were 3o g 8 { j $ j]8]j g S ev a pear to have been ef fective, and the uEE o 3. j reEts unit is 81 percent complete. built according to " cookbook" de-2 2 y;[ 8 y,a g quahty of the inspections is improv-j g ~. Moradan 8,200 laborers, inspectors signs borrowed from technical s O ing. 'D tg 8 o" and 4250sultants continue to work manuals that underestimated stress 0 hobbyu2 h j$SbhlgS^',j@[gkr a A majorincident occurred late O C#3 bS p* on thl! project both on and off-site. on the supports. Because many > tast year when two supervisors im-gj aSggg g Interest on money borrowed by the cables already have been installed, d j, $ 3 Rm t h6a g g, g utility for the project, insurance the utility may face the complicated posed unrealistic production quotas on reinspection teams, forcing nu- .g and other costs are more than $1 task of rebuilding or tearing out g merous mistakes that invalidated at Q Sg ggsy g g 8 g ;" 5 g million a day.That does not include supports without damaging the least three months of work on the o3 5.SggcS g laborcosts. cables. p .j s E y 3 - S }> g,a g! j h,aJ e plant's cable tray inspection pro-8a g And reinspection is by no means aSupports for heating, ventila-M gram. The problems went unde-ME=Qb the project's only problem. tion and air <onditioning also face CD E *a $ E -{j o 0 5,e4 8$efg ThFlatest blow came early this design problems, but that analysis tected because no audits or quahty- < -} [ a2 controlchecks were ordered for the .g,*5 j @.:: i - i $ g & a $ g. yS o* month when the regulatory com-and hardware inspection still is m m" E - E E mission slapped,the utility with preliminary. work. After the regulatory commie u sion discovered the problems, 2 $370,000 in proposed fines. That to-Overall, reinspection of existing 8j$ $ "3 b 6 e S $.b C.) Texas Utilities manegement sus. $qS talTricluded a 5120,000 fine issued construction is about 60 percent I %2=g"k g$gf6". k j j ti e g yj$EE
- j pended all reinspection work for 3
g3 3-for'thfee incidents that intimidated complete. But because procedures f 8SS qtidlitycontrol inspectors and to check the design adequacy of the two weeks, doubled the quality con-gjj trol inspectors from six to 12, and 4 cotild"have prevented them from plant were not completed until Jan-S q .M h,6"ggf =SS q; replaced both supervisors. ) r se n.sizi,e gj2 Eg finding safety problems at the nary, inspection of design work is That incident contributed to a l e ,iant-Notificai>o e me inst aar >r 2a r rc t t 2s e i c m-iso.e0e fine nsainst th utiiitz. yjh o3 9y g 'gg after the utility had agreed to pay plete, utility officials said. .w fgwg$g,U gy [ mThe first five of an estimated M j its first fine for a similar offense in 8 o Q a Ec k 1981.. a 52 "results reports" - the final w-Saco e-product of the reinspection effort O '.Tbl lion's share of the $370,000 Whether the plant receives a li- $ $ $ I$$h}!f k 8 and a key to Comanche Peak obtain-in futes - $2so,000 - was levied cense is closely tied to how convine-yBj !)HS3, a3 8 ing a license - already have cre-Q aga nst the giant for "multiste fail-ing a Qb the utill~p's Comanch q
mes 01 sts construcuon and qual-ream response Tema does on the Mora than a year in the making, p: c.g u .g g o g gg g g gg ityassur nca programs. Th2 fine reinspection. The response team thz five reports r; teased in mid-gg vi y 5 o .w Tog,* f.gt: was tssued for repeated violations must faithfully follow 1312-pouId, April hav2 been questioned by the DES 7,. y }@ g, A 8 of 3equirem:nts f r design, con. +1nch-thick program plan to th2 let-ch;irman of the U1 Atomic Saf;ty
- 9 yTg o y o.
y struction and inspection of nuclear tir if the plant is sver to start opera-and Licensing Board, the regula-a8 g it O g gfg.ga8 Sjf*I a ges y tion. =a y M g. power,iants, and for signiricant weaknesses" in the plant's qual!!y "If the CPRT (program plan) [ p',,"g" M* nts al no CD c J g ' Programs. doesn't fly, then the plant won't being as thorough as anticipated. ~ gaaae 2 gdj303 3g 'Ip turn, that damaging news led flf. Noonansaid. The utility pledged to answer nu-M '5$ak= hy,2
- 5. g ;a a8 nere is evidence that the re-c? 3
- ; to a downgrading of Texas Utilities merous questions raised by Atomic o
aa S - 3 i stock by the New York bond-rating sponse team already has hit some Safety and Licensing Board chair. dj bdgf h S g,afa h6dse of Standard ar Poor's Corp. serious problems in implementing man Peter Bloch. Q) >= - g a g.o m]gg$ The project suffered another set. the plan. Noonan agreed that the reports gQ 83 E $"is, S 8,3 S 's.= 8 back when the UA Atomic Safety Disturbing flaws appeared in the are " sparse" and that the informa-and ticensing Board granted Co-utility's reinspection program as tion they contain are the " bare min-manche Peak opponents a hearing early as mid-August, according to imum" that would be acceptable to on whether Comanche Peak should regulatory commission inspection the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-be' ranted an extension of its con-reports released in the past few sion. IIe also admitted that the com-g stfudllon permit. The utility and months-mission staff was "not overly th8'tFgulatory commission staff ap-Monthly inspection results for happy" with some of the reports. al-pedled the decision last week. September, October and November though supporting documentation Ahd the Soviet reactor accident - released pub!!cly in December. contained in voluminous files at CHernobyl, reawakening public March and April -indicated con-maintainea by the utility is ex-copcern about the safety of nuclear sultants had made numerous mis-pected to satisfy most questions. power, provided a catalyst for Dal. takes reinspecting construction But Comanche Peak opponent las County Commissioner John work and sometimes worked from Billie Garde, who represents Da!!as. Price to join the plant's oppo. Instructions that could be misinter. based Citizens Association for Wile {in a call for a completc rein-g nents Preted. Sound Energy, said the accompany-specti'on of the Glen Rose facility-Inspections representing more ing files do not contain the crucial sothething that utility officials said than 8,200 inspector-hours of work information needed to determine could doom the plant. Indicated that: the quality of the plant. l I %Itanwhile, the utility's consult. m A small but troubling percent- "This is our first look at what the ant's continue to churn out evt. age of inspection errors had been utility has been doing for the last cp dence of problems at Comanch: committed by outside consultants-year and a half, and it's pretty ap. Peak. Noonan said inspectors became palling," she said. "The documenta-The design quality of the plant-concerned in November when the tion in the central files has just got i 'g M first shallenged by Comanche Peak number of faulty inspections by huge gaping holes in it. The paper oppchents in mid-1982 - still ap. utility consultants began to exceed trailis not there." i p pears to be its most severe problem: an acceptable 1 percent error rate utility spokesman Dave Florelli m m in October, utility officials es, and climbed to the 2 percent to 3 said Ms. Garde's assessmen' " mis-g tinisted 120 pipe supports of the Percent range. characterized" the condition of the 9,000 supports in Unit 1 would have "We started getting concerned results reports. toibCremoved or modified at Co-because itwas getting to be what we "We feel they are a lot more com-td manche Peak. De latest estimate call 'on the ragged edge,' and we plete than her comments would in. M refensed by the utility indicates didn't want it to go any farther" dicate," Fiorelli said. "We feel that fS 3,700 supports - more than 40 per-Noonan said. "This program is the files do support the results re-cent - will be affected. Utility offi-going to be long enough, and we Ports thoroughly and in sufficient N cials sold 1,000 supports need minor don't need to find that it's starting detail." Ng> ylTUM work,1,700 pipe supports must be to get out of hand on us." . Said Ms. Garde:"The conclusions re<!e; signed and modified, and an-After the regulatory commission by the reinspection program are QN other,1,000 supporp must be torn notified utility executives, steps based on the same kind of missing down. were taken to "re-tune" the rein-paper and missing supporting docu- ,e 411 4,500 cable tray and con-spection effort.he said, mentation that the plant itself is p pilable ()n dult supports in Unit 1 are being ex-One of the steps required higher-based on. AperNre M
t l I i. UNITED STATE!i OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGTJLATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY-AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of }{ }{ TEXAS UTILI"IES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{ Station,' Units 1 and 2) }{ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S MOTIONS AND RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' 4/17/86 RESPONSE TO CASE'S - OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR ESTABLISWENT OF A HEARING SCHEDULE have oeen sent to the names listed below this 27th day of May ,1986, by: First Class Mail Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atcsaic Safety and Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington, D. C. -20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W. Washington, D.C. 20036 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. McCollom Commission. 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D. C. 20555 .Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 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
i 9 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 Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Owen S. Merrill Christic Institute Staff Engineer 1324 North Capitol Street Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C. 20002 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 2500 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq. 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 Ms. Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project San Francisco, Calitarnia 1901 Que Street, N. W. 94111-5894 kashington, D. C. 20009 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W., 1800 M Street, N. w. Suite 700 Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20007 washington, D. C. 20036 2Rm5 fNi, .~) Juanita Ellis, President E (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2}}