ML20203L386

Responds to NRC 860804 Response to Statements in Case Proposed Schedule for Hearing,Clarifying Statements to Save Time at 860818-19 Prehearing Conference Re Scheduling. Related Correspondence

ML20203L386
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/18/1986
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#386-472 OL, NUDOCS 8608260143
Download: ML20203L386 (4)

Text

C A S E (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

== -

DOCKETED August 18, 1986 MKQWEgoydNRC Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Dr. Kenneth A. Mc%g11 ADS 25 P1 :50 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1107 West Knapp Street-4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 0FFicf or FEg g 00CKLi n n ipm'

'U Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

In the Matter of Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. for An Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 d NRC Staff Response to CASE's Proposed Schedule for Hearings After reading subject Response by the NRC Staff filed 8/4/86, it is apparent that some clarification of statements made in CASE's Proposed Schedule for Hearings would be helpful. These could, of course, be discussed at the 8/18/86-8/19/86 prehearing conference regarding scheduling; however, we believe that a considerable amount of time can be saved during the conference (which will have a full agenda, it appears) by discussing them somewhat here, and we offer them with that in mind.

On pages 9 through 11 of the Staff's pleading, they discuss CASE's motions for summary disposition, regarding which CASE asks that the Board require Applicants and Cygna to respond to (Step 2 of CASE's Proposed Schedule), and which we specified as CASE's First, Third, and Fourth Motions for Summary Disposition (filed 10/6/84, 11/2/84, and 1/14/85, respectively) (bottom of page 8 of CASE's Proposed Schedule). By way of clarification, we did not' include CASE's Second Motion (regarding the expert from the academic community);

however, we left this Motion out not because of the reasons given by the Staff, but because the Board has already covered this Motion with its 10/26/84 Memorandum (Intent to Retain Academic Expert) and its 11/9/84 Memorandum (Testimony From Dr. Arthur P. Boresi), and CASE accepts the Board's decisions stated therein.

With regard to the Staff's other statements, we will be prepared to discuss them further at the prehearing conference if necessary.

With regard to the Staff's statements beginning at the bottom of page 11 concerning what CASE considers to be the Staff's misuse and abuse of the summary disposition written filings process, etc., by way of clarification, we were referring to the fact that CASE was forced to rush to beat the Staff's filing of responses to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition l

l l 8608260143 860818 ADOCK 0500 5 DR g3

(which was discussed in considerable detail in the 7/26/84 conference call, especially at Tr. 13844/1-5, 13922-13931, 13943, and the circumstances of which CASE-is sure the Board is aware). Tne Staff represented that they would be responding to all motions for summary disposition by Applicants (with one exception, 'the upper lateral restraint) by August 27, 1984 (see Tr.13,838/22-25 of 7/26/84. conference call transcript, copy attached); in CASE's 8/6/84 letter to the Board attaching our responses to Applicants' three Motions for Summary Disposition on (1) Damping Factors, (2) AWS/ASME for Design, and (3) Friction, we advised the Board that we had been informed by the Staff that they planned to have five or six additional Answers, in addition to the three which we were then answering, ready to mail the week of the 13th, probably around 8/15/84 (see CASE's 8/6/84 letter to Board, copy of which is attached); and in CASE's 8/29/84 letter to the Board, to which we attached CASE's responses to six of Applicants' Motions, on (1)

Local Displacements and Stresses, (2) Differential Displacement, (3) Axial Restraints, (4) Upper Lateral Restraint Beam, (5) Generic Stiffnesses, and (6) Safety Factors, we expressed cur problems and deep _ concern that we were unable to do an adequate job due to the severe time restrictions under which we were having to work -- all in an attempt to beat the Staff's filing of responses, which we believed were about~to be filed right away, and in an attempt to comply with the Board's requirements. (See CASE's 8/29/84 letter attached.}

The Board stated in its 10/31/84 Memorandum (Multiple Filings). (page 2):

"On the other hand, we have now obtained and read the transcripts of the August 8, 9 and 23 meetings between Staff and Applicants. Our under-standing of these meetings leaves us without any rational explanation of how Applicants could have come to assure this Board that there were no significant matters raised in those meetings. We trust that Applicants understand the importance of the matters raised by the Staff and the apparent need to supplement their Summary Disposition motions in a clear,. responsive fashion. Supplementation appears to be necessary to avoid denial of the filed motions.

"Under the circumstances, we should not have required CASE to respond to summary disposition motio'ns with respect to which the Staff has serious doubts. We required CASE to do so based on Applicants' repre-sentations that significant matters were not involved. Hence, we unnecessarily subject CASE to a time deadline.and to the likely need ,

to make multiple filings. We will consider this burden in subsequent rulings on time deadlines. . . "

As the Board is aware, the Staff in fact never filed responses to the~ vast majority of Applicants' Motions for Suninary Disposition as stated by the Staff itself at page 12 of their 8/4/86 Response to CASE's Proposed Schedule. Any statements by the Staff that it could.not respond to the remaining motions filed by Applicants came, in CASE's opinion, after CASE had been severely abused by the entire process as it developed. As stated in our 6/30/86 Proposed Schedule, we will never again voluntarily agree to subject ourselves to such a process (and we again point out that this applies only to design issues).

We offer this information in the hope that i.t may save some time during the prehearing conference, and so that if arguments are to be made, it will be clear to the Board and parties what CASE's position is and its basis.

Res e tfully submitted, cc: Service List (hand-delivered or mailed 8/18/86 or 8/19/86) (ttr . s'uanita is, President of CASE

.s . . . .

i ORIGINAL d-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a .

i 5

6 In the Matter of:

a y TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY 8 (Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 & 2) 9 10 ,

12 13 .

14 15 16 17 18 19 3 -

Location: Bethesda, Maryland Pages:13,811 - 13,96F 20 Date: Thursday, July. 26, 1984

',- 21 0

22 23 24 25 s

FREE STATE REPORTING INC.

Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Balt. & Annao. 269-6236

, 13,838 l 1 shape. What remains is for myself to write up the legal 2 brief accompanying the affidavit. That is all. The 3 other half of the AWS ASME area, I can think of two 4 additional motions which are very close to coming up v

5 too. That involves the friction, small thermal

, 6 movements, and ...

7 MS. ELLIS: I'm sorry. What was that last one?

8 MR. MIZUNO: Small thermal movements. Friction 9 forces through small thermal movements. At the summary to disposition motion, that is for OBE and FSE. However, ii on the others, they are a little bit further away from, 12 trying to resolve them. As a matter of fact, the most 13 recent sununary disposition motions are very complex. As 14 you know, the applicants have the finite analyses and is the tests, and several different areas. I can say that is it is a trendmandous task for the staff to go through 17 it. We are doing the best that we can. I just want the 18 board to recognize that it took the applicants quite a 19 bit of time to do the work. I don't think that the 20 staff should be given any less opportunity to review 21 the in depths of what the applicants did.

22 So, at this moment, I can just say that our 23 current schedule calls for everything except for one 24 motion for summary disposition to be filed by August 25 27th. The one exception is the upper lateral restraint.

1 BH NRC-93 l T-1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.

Court Reporting e Depositions n- w . 3m.inna , r.+ r h., . S 4 n.4% v l

+ - --------------r-.-y w ,-,,- e -- - - c-- ----- m-,

C A S E ==

~

~

l 21h/946-946 I (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) -

August 6,1984 l

Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Dr. Venneth A..McCollom, Dean U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Engineering, Architecture 4350. East / West Highway, 4th Floor and Technology Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Oklahoma State University  !

Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 ,

Dr. Walter H. Jordan '

881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

In the Matter of Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. for An Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 CASE's Answers to Some Motions for Summary Discosition We are attaching the following Answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition Regarding:

Alleged Errors Made in Determining Damping Factors for OBE and SSE Loading Conditions Certain CASE Allegations Regarding AWS and. ASME Code Provisions Related to Design Issues Consideration of Friction Forces in the Design of Pipe Supports with Small Thermal Movements We have now been informed by the NRC Staff that they plan to have five or six additional Answers (in addition to those listed above) ready to mail the week of the 13th, probably around 8/15/84. Since most of our work on these Answers must be done on week-ends, we plan to mail whatever Answers we have cynpleted on Monday, 8/13/84. We will do the best we can to comply with the Board's direction to beat the Staff in our filings; however, because of the amount of time necessary to prepare these answers, my best guess at this time is that we will not be able to file that many Answers before the Staff files, and some of those answers may not be for the same ones the Staff files first.

We will do the best we can; we can do no more. We will advise the Board if it looks as though we will not be able to meet the deadline, but this will not be known for sure until the week-end.

Sincerely,

' 4 -tA+_, b@

4 firs.) Juanita Ellis, CASE President cc: Service list i Attachments (3) nt L n LG Ad do

%) y a y u y 7 "

• 1 C A S E (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

= =. -

August 29, 1984 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Engineering, Architecture 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor and Technology Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

In the Matter of Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al . for An Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 CASE's Partial Answer to Applicants' Motions for Sunrnary Disposition We are attaching CASE's Answers to the following Motions for Summary Disposition, in accordance with the Board's directives:

Regarding Consideration of Local Displacements and Stresses Regarding Differential Displacement of Large-Framed', Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Ceiling Pipe Supports Regarding Allegations Concerning Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints Regarding the Upper Lateral Restraint Beam Regarding Applicants' Use of Generic Stiffnesses Instead of Actual Stiffnesses in Piping Analysis Regarding Safety Factors As indicated in these Answers, both Messrs. Walsh and Doyle do not feel that they have been able to do an adequate job due to the severe time restrictions under which they have had to work. Likewise, I have been unable to do an adequate job either, and am dispensing with the usual cover letter because I simply do not have time to get them done. I assume that the Board approves of this procedure, under the circumstances. If not, please advise.

As also indicated, Messrs. Walsh and Doyle would like the opportunity to supolement their answers, where appropriate, when new information is received.

1 4 '<ji$ N % S .2pf-

I hope the Board understands that I sincerely mean no disrespect by what I am about to say. I am merely reporting the current situation with CASE, our witnesses, and me.

If the Board is interested in seeing just how much flesh and blood can endure without total collapse, please consider that tnat limit has been reached and exceeded.

The attached six Answers are the result of superhuman effort on the part of all of us, and Mr. Doyle, Mr. Walsh, and I have all reached the absolute limits of physical and mental endurance (at least for the time being, until we have had a little time to regenerate ourselves). One cannot keep going steadily for 14 to 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> a day, seven days a week, day-in and day-out, for weeks on end -- as we have been forced to do to meet the Board's deadlines

-- (which is far more than the Board requires of the NRC Staff with its numerous attorneys, witnesses, consultants, typists, secretaries, etc.) without its taking its toll.

We will attempt to meet the Board's deadlines for as long as possible. I have too much to do to continue to file Motions for Reconsideration asking for more time (never knowing whether or not. they will be successful). At this point, I am not at all certain that I will physically be able to meet the deadline the Board has set for the welding findings. I have had to make a difficult choice -- the Answers to Motions for Sunnary Disposition or the welding findings. I have not been able to work on the welding findings for any length of time. Although we do have a few CASE volunteers who are helping with then, there is no one else in our organization who has the back-ground to be able to pull them all together in a logical, orderly fashion for the Board except me. I'll do what I can. As usual, what can't be done won't be. And the record will suffer.

There is one other matter to which I want to call the Board's attention.

Contrary to what was stated by Applicants' counsel during the telephone con-versation between the Board Chairman, Applicants' counsel, and me on Monday, 8/27/84, it is my understanding from further conversations with Dr. and Ms. -

Boltz (who attended the 8/23/84 meeting on behalf of CASE) that there is to be a substantive change in at least one Affidavit, regarding Richmond Inserts, and the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. We ask that the Board check with the Staff and Applicants to ascertain whether or not this is true.

If it is, CASE strongly objects to having to answer this Motion without having this change and any accompanying documents in hand, and sufficient time to properly review and analyze them. Our answer is currently scheduled to be put in the mail on 9/10/84. We will appreciate the Board's assistance on this.

Sincerely, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) f G:ean w C.

-: G ddw

~(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President cc: Service List Attachments

._