ML20199K740
| ML20199K740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1986 |
| From: | Roisman A GREGORY, M., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-701 CPA, NUDOCS 8604100219 | |
| Download: ML20199K740 (10) | |
Text
C$
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIgEfED Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board T6 APR -9 P1 :20 In the Matter of
)0FFCE nf -
)D0g)(ki4o.u50-445-CPA
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
_et _al.
)
~
"^
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
g pg g jgg Station, Units 1 and 2
)
PETITION TO INTERVENE OF MEDDIE GREGORY This Petition is filed on behalf of Meddie Gregory, a former worker at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) who resides at 407 Ross Street, Glen Rose, Texas 76043.
Petitioner Gregory has a long-standing interest in the construction and proposed operation of CPSES exhibited by her active involvement in raising safety concerns while employed at CPSES.
She also li'res within close proximity to the plant (less than ten miles) and har health and safety are threatened if Applicants are allowed to continue construction of Unit 1 without the imposition of conditions to assure that the requirements of NRC regulations are met, including the requirement of building or rebuilding to an approved design.
Improper construction of CPSES Unit 1 creates a threat to the public health and safety, including the health and safety of Petitioner.
If the unconditioned extension of construction is allowed, then the construction of CPSES will not comply with NRC regulations.
8604100219 860407 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR rw
/
I
4 Petitioner will pursue the following contentions:
1.
Applicants have not met their burden of proving that the delay in completion of construction was not caused by their own dilatory conduct.
a.
Applicants have not given any reason for the existence of the delay.
They only assert they need more time to complete a reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction program but they do not disclose the reason why such programs are needed or that the reason for delay was not intentional and without a valid purpose.
b.
The real reason for the delay in construction completion was that Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to reform their QA/QC program in the face of consistent criticism over a period of at least ten years, and that they refused to properly design their plant, specifically failing to apply fundamental engineering princip1'es, failing to identify designs in the PSAR, constructing the plant prior to having a completed design, ignoring confirmed design deficiencies, and failing to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A and B requirements.
As a re ult of this deliberate refusal to implement a proper QA/QC program for design and construction after years of warning from independent auditors and the NRC, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable.
There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation.
Thus Applicants have 4
1 failed to establish that the delay was not intentional and for an 4
L
_f I
invalid purpose.
2.
Applic nts have failed to establish a, good cause for the extension.
a.
- Applicants' stated reason for th extension is to be allowed to complete the CPRT reinspection, ' redesign, and reconstruction process in order to make the blant licensable.
However, this process is not being conducted in compliance with the requirements and practices of the NRC and..thus its completion cannot produce the intended result of a licensable plant but will instead necessitate further reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction.
Thus continued reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction as proposed by Applicants have immediate health and safety implications.
See Cincinnati Gag;L Electric (Zimmer),
CLI-82-33, 16 NRC 1849 (1982).
In particular the CPRT plan is
~
inherently flawed because:
i.
The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC
-:l.
since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tblson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now employed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.
ii.
CPRT reinspections are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.
iii.
The CPRT program has not been approved by the Staff but has been modified at least three times, apparently
, r
without going back to redo work conducted under the rejected plans.
iv.
The CPRT implementation has violated CPRT standards for reinspections, including the use of production quotas for inspectors and harassment and intimidation of inspecto rs,
b.
It is not a good cause for an extension of time to complete construction of a nuclear plant where the applicant has revealed that it does not intend to properly reinspect, redesign, and reconstruct the nuclear plant.
c.
The work which Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction permit represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended.
No such amendment has been sought or received.
Thus there is no good cause for Applicants to obtain an extension to conduct work for which no valid construction permit exists in violation of 10 CFR 550.10.
d.
An applicant with a history of noncompliance with NRC regulations, with a history of failing to heed the warnings of independent auditors and the NRC regarding the implementation of its QA/QC program, and with a history of implementing an unapproved reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction program that does not meet NRC regulatory requirements cannot show good cause for extending its construction completion date unless it at least is subject to conditions to assure that the reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction are properly undertaken.
Included among these conditions are:
6 r
i.
full independence from all current and former CPSES employees; ii.
stop work on construction and reinspection of construction until reanalysis of the design and approval of the design have been completed and the design has been approved and accepted by the hearing board; iii.
existence and implementation of a QA/QC program for reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction which complies with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; iv.
full documentation that fundamental engineering principles have been correctly applied in the reinspectin, redesign, and reconstruction process; v.
full documentation that all previously identified design issues (including but not limited to the Walsh/Doyle allegations raised by CYGNA during the CYGNA hearings) have been correctly identified and properly addressed; vi.
hold points in the reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction process to enable staff, public, and Board review of the previously completed tasks; and vii.
full public access to all documents generated by the process, transcription of all meetings, and public attendance at those meetings.
3.
Applicants have failed to establish that the period of the requested extension is reasonable because there will be insufficient time for adequate safety reviews by the Staff and the hearing board.
a.
Because Applicants are not reinspecting, redesigning, and reconstructing the plant in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and because they have proceeded to conduct their work without first obtaining staff approval, the process of staff, intervenor, and Board review of the Applicants' activities will require a substantial period of time, at the end of which the plant will not be accepted as licensable.
Three years is insufficient for completion of this process because the Applicants have not created an auditable paper trail and thus review of the work performed will require extensive oral presentations to Staff, in discovery and in hearings.
b.
For the same reason, the Applicants will ultimately have to go back and redo the reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction of the plant, which, if done properly, will take over three years.
c.
Applicants' request for a three-year extension of the completion date for the plant is grossly inadequate and will frustrate regulatory oversight.
4.
The environmental appraisal by the Staff is legally deficient.
A full FES should have.been prepared.
a.
The potential impacts of the proposed action involve substantial resources and significant potential environmental damage not examined by the Staff.
i.
As noted in contention 3, if the plant is ever licensed, it will take at least one more reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction effort.
This will require a significant expenditure of financial and human resources not considered by the Staff and not factored into the original construction permit WES.
i l,
ii.
Similarly, the delay in licensing and the possibility of not receiving a license at all will involve i
changes in the energy supply and energy use patterns for Applicants' service areas.
These changes were not considered by the Staff, including the possibility that the continued uncertainty about operation of CPSES may force Applicants to take other measures which, if CPSES is licensed, may have to be abandoned in order to justify CPSES Unit 1.
In short, because Applicants persist in their plan to evade NRC regulatory requirements and to not acknowledge the error of past practices, the future of CPSES Unit 1 is uncertain, and this uncertainty requires expenditures of uubstantial additional financial resources and potential environmental impacts.
b.
Since the initial construction permit was issued, the costs and on-line date for CPSES Unit 1 have changed dramatically.
These assumptions in the original FES formed the principal basis for rejecting alternatives including improved load management and energy conservation.
Consideration of these and other alternatives at this time would demonstrate that abandonment of CPSES Unit 1 and implementation of available load management and energy conservation would save money and eliminate any impacts on the environment associated with continued construction and operation of Unit 1.
See, generally, Braidwood,
~
Illinois Commerce Commission Dkt. #82-0855, Business and Professionals in the Public Interest, Exhibit 12, "Least Cost Electrical Services as an Alternative to the Braidwood Project" (shows a net present value savings of at least S3.2 to 7.0,
billion (1984 dollars) from abandoning a 2.24 gigawatt, 2-unit nuclear reactor project whose "to-go" capital costs are $0.7 to 1.0 billion (1984 dollars)), and buying and using efficiency products instead).
An extensive supporting record in petitioners' brief and reply brief confirmed the conservatism of this result.
See, also, A.
B.
Lovins, on behalf of the City of Hous ton, "Least-Cost Alternatives to the Malakoff Lignite Plant,"
prepared for Docket #5779 and filed in the ten-year statewide load forecast proceeding.
PUC of Texas, January 1985 (describes cheap alternatives to savings on Houston Power and Light power systems).
Respectfully submitted, I
01% 3.Ds+G, ANTriONY 4.
ROISMAN Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, Suite 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202)463-8600 Attorney for Petitioner Dated:
April 7, 1986
_a_
i O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt. No. 50-445-CPA et al.
)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2
)
AFFIDAVIT O_F MEDDIE GREGORY City of Washington
)) ss:
District of Columbia )
I, MEDDIE GREGORY, have read and fully endorse all of the statements contained in the Petition to Intervene of Meddie Gregory dated April 7, 1986.
All those statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and all those statements concerning me personally are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.
Y / N f-Wm MEDDIE GREGORY " T Signed and sworn to before me t
s 2nd day of April 1986.
A
. f" "
Notary Public
,Alf Coistmi ssnd E>cf. 3 -Np ~ e$f MUSHTAQ AHMED Notary Public, Dhtrict of Columbia 1913 Massachueta Avenue, N.W.
%hington, D.C. 20036
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA
- _al.
)
et (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that PETITION TO INTERVENE OF MEDDIE GREGORY and AFFIDAVIT OF MEDDIE GREGORY were served today, April 7,
1986, by first class mail, upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 I
Nicholas Reynolds Docketing & Service Section Bishop, Liberman, Cook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Purcell & Reynolds Washington, D.C.
20555 1200 17th Street, NW 4
Washington, D.C.
20036 1
M.w - >.
b4CL. -
ANTHONpZ. ROISMAN Notes Even though the NRC Staff is not a party in this proceeding, a courtesy copy has been sent to Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
\\
-