ML20209G563
| ML20209G563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3291 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8705010016 | |
| Download: ML20209G563 (26) | |
Text
-+
[
C0CHEIEP CNN0001 and JNN0002 UWC 04/27/87 BNN00001
'87 APR 29 N0:43 CASE's Response to 4/3/87 B/0 JI's Response to 4/3/87 B/0 Computerization Offiti L..
O Prejudice to Due Process DOCH ig.
3'v'Cf N/A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
}{
}(
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}(
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, et al.
}(
and 50-446-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}(
(Application for an
}{
Operating License)
}(
}(
}(
Docket No. 50-445-CPA
}{
}(
(Application for a
}(
Construction Permit)
RESPONSE OF CASE (IN OL) AND JOINT INTERVENORS (IN CPA)
TO BOARD'S 4/3/87 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Proposed Order Concerning Standardized Computer Filing Formats)
This Response to the Board's 4/3/87 Memorandum and Order (Proposed Order Concerning Standardized Computer Filing Formats) is being filed on behalf both of CASE in the Operating License (OL) proceedings and the Joint Intervenors (CASE and Meddie Gregory) in the Construction Permit Application (CPA) proceedings n /. Throughout this pleading, rather than having to continually refer both to CASE and Joint Intervenors, when we are speaking on behalf of both, we will usually simply refer to Intervenors; and when we use that term when voicing a position or concern, the Board should consider that we are speaking on behalf of all Intervenors in both dockets.
8705010016 870427 PDR ADOCK 05000445 1
o PDR d
THE OVERALL VIEW Intervenors recognize the fact that the size of the record in these proceedings is huge and its complexity is awesome. The difficulty of the task at hand -- for the Board and all parties -- is truly staggering. The efficiency that a totally computerized record, equally available and usable to all parties, would bring to the proceedings is appealing indeed, not only to the Board but to Intervenors as well.
However, there are unfortunately but undeniably numerous problems which i
make the computerization of the record, in the manner which the Board proposes 1
in its Order, inequitable and totally unfair to Intervenors (although we do not believe this is the Board's intention). As everyone is aware (and whether everyone agrees with them or not -- obviously, Intervenors do not) there are prohibitions against intervenor 6:nding in NRC proceedings; however, there is at the same time a corollary responsibility and prohibition against the NRC making 4
it more difficult for intervenors. What the Board is proposing in its Order would make it not just more difficult but on some points impossible for CASE to l
continue to participate in the proceeding and mske a meaningful contribution.
The Board must not use its discretionary powers to place requirements on CASE that overburden its resources to the point of near-annihilation. CASE recognizes that intervenor funding is not allowed, but the Board must also recognize that the corollary of not helping CASE is that it cannot make things more difficult for CASE above and beyond the requirements that go along with normal participation in NRC proceedings. Clearly, the Board's Order goes well beyond any usual requirements (which, we might add, are dif ficult enough) /2,/.
First of all, Intervenors do not have the machine capability to participate f ull y.
We simply do not have the machinery necessary to participate fully as equal parties in this ef fort; we therefore firmly believe that what will 2
inevitably occur 15 that we will become a second-class party, almost like an interested party because we will not -- and cannot -- be on equal footing. We will not have equal access to the information, and essentially by default it will become an ex-parte situation, because the other two parties (Applicants and NRC Staff) will be able to communicate with the Board and we will not.
Intervenors will have handicaps which will prevent full, reasoned, and intelligent participation.
In addition to the lack of machine capability is person power. The Board has its own personnel available, Jack Whetstine, as well as having available an administrative staff to assist with the computerization; CASE does not have such personnel, and those individuals who are available are working at full capacity already.
In addition to the fact that we have lawyers or representatives in three dif ferent locations (Dallas, Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Appleton, Wisconsin), we also have expert witnesses all over the country. These experts have no capability to get on a computer system; it would require their physical location at a computer or instead of being able to send hard copies back and forth in the mail, it would be using hard copies plus the additional task of converting to computerized records.
This brings us to yet a third factor, which is the sheer amount of time involved to organize and maintain a compute-frad system. These are the three primary reasons it would be absolutely impossible for Intervenors to stand on equal footing with the other parties, and why Intervenors must regretfully oppose the Board's Order and consider the possibility of an appeal should it become necessary.
CASE has already contributed me,h to these proceedings. We have done so by a lot of hard work (by CASE and its witnesses and whistleblowers) and an ability to read, digest, and analyze the issues. We are certain that the Board does not 3
l intend to deliberately hamstring our ability to do our work; but this will be the effect. The real world in which CASE works is far different from the one in which the Board and other parties work; we know how we can and must work best, and the way set forth in the Board's Order is not it.
The Board must recognize the fact that what will be lost in compliance with machinery is our ability to spend the time with the information necessary. The Board may achieve a level of efficiency in reviewing a record which is helpful to it, but it will lose from I
us the time that it takes for us to do thorough, quality work. We simply cannot do both, given our limited resources.
The only possible way that we could even hope to be able to comply would be if all the parties and the Board were willing to waive the prohibition against assistance to intervenors, and if one of the parties or a combination thereof were willing to make available to us funding for us to secure adequate personnel and equipment (to be within our control) on a temporary basis for the remainder of these proceedings.
If we had the funding for the people and the machinery, and adequate time for setting up and training, we would be glad to be able to fully participate (and obviously if we should ever get to that point, we will immediately advise the Board), but we only have a fixed number of hours in the day to be distributed between certain things. Otherwise, what will be lost is quality of work product and our analytical ability.
4 SOME SPECIFICS In CASE's opinion, there is nothing in the Board's Order which will be helpful to CASE.
In fact, it appears to CASE that the Board's Order (contrary to " creating the possibility of substantial savings for all parties" as stated 4
in the Board Order at page 6) will tend to assist the Board and the other parties at CASE's expense and to CASE's detriment.
CASE and Joint Intervenors must respectfully oppose the Board's Order (except under the admittedly unlikely conditions discussed in the preceding).
We will, of course, comply with the Board's directives to the very limited extent which is possible for us by attempting to comply with the specific indexing requirements set forth for Intervenors in the Board's 4/3/87 Order.
It should be noted that CASE does not own a computer or a printer. CASE in Dallas has access to a computer and a letter-quality printer, with the understanding that CASE will take good care of them and pay the costs of upkeep on them.
CASE's use does not include making changes to the computer or the printer.
We note that there is nothing in NRC regulations -- nor should there be --
which forces intervenors to be able to fully participate in NRC proceedings only if they have a computer. Had such been necessary earlier in these proceedings, CASE would not have been able to participate.
Further, the record of these proceedings would have suffered greatly and been extremely deficient. For example, we call the Board's attention to the fact that such important pleadings as CASE's 447 page 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations) was typed entirely on a typewriter. It had to be; at the time CASE did not even have access to a computer. There should be nothing in NRC regulations and nothing f rom these proceedings which might be used as a precedent to require that intervenors must utilize a computer to fully participate in NRC proceedings.
In order for the computerization suggested by the Board to be of benefit to CASE, based on the best estimate we have been able to obtain to date (and we 5
have spent an inordinate amount of time already in researching this), it would be necessary for CASE:
to purchase a different computer from what we presently have available (at a cost of approximately $2,000 to $3,000 minimum, including software); to have a dedicated telephone line installed; to purchase a dedicated computer; to obtain an office in which to house such computer; to hire a full-time person to operate the computer and manage the office; and to be given sufficient time for such person to be properly trained in the use of such computer. CASE does not have the funds for any of these items available at the present time. While a few thousand dollars may appear to be a relatively small amount when compared to the cost of Comanche Peak or these proceedings, it is a large amount for CASE.
One important reason it is impossible for CASE in Dallas to fully participate in any proposed computerization is the fact that during the entire time information is being transmitted back or forth, both the computer and the telephone are tied up.
This is totally unacceptable and unworkable for CASE.
Because of the back problems of CASE's Dallas representative, CASE has recently had to have additional help with typing. CASE's Dallas representative is therefore many times using the telephone at the same time the computer is in use.
There is simply no way that CASE could get its work done were it necessary to tie up both the telephone and the computer at the same time. This would clearly impact CASE adversely in a manner not shared by the other parties or the Board, and would severely and irreparably damage CASE's due process rights and ability to fully participate in these proceedings.
Further, there would be an additional, unplanned-for, unnecessary, and unfair additional cost because of long-distance telephone bills (and those would be during higher-costing daytime periods) -- in addition to CASE's already-necessarily-large telephone expenses.
6
i Another limiting factor for CASE is that the WORDSTAR program (although it will allow one to edit one file while printing out another file on the same disk) will not allow one to edit a file on one disk while printing out a file from another disk.
Since the space on each disk'for the computer which CASE has available is so limited (compared to computers which use hard disks or to the computers which the Board has available), this further limits CASE's capability to send and/or receive information quickly and easily and would require more constant monitoring than would be necessary for the Board or parties with larger i
systems.
I f
The Board's Order, even with only the limited indexing requirements t
proposed for Intervenors, would necessitate CASE's having to coordinate filings from three different locations: Dallas, Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Appleton, Wisconsin.
(We suspect that Applicants could legitimately voice concerns about 3
similar logistical problems.) This is already proving to be difficult enough 4
]
for filings without exhibits; it will be practically (if not actually) impossible to do regarding exhibits.
If we had had to do it during the time we l
were having evidentiary depositions on harassment and intimidation at the same j
time we were working on responses to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition during the summer of 1984, it would have been totally impossible. There is no reason of which CASE is aware to assume'that the next round of hearings and/or summary dispositions will be any less hectic or any more possible.
Yet another additional expense (which almost pales into insignificance when compared to the other costs and time factors involved) is that CASE will have to l
print new letterheads, new forms for each of the various pleadings (for the OL and CPA, for the Licensing Board and Appeal Board, etc.), since the Board's i
i format would print on top of our current already printed forms. This is just j
one more additional expense of time, money, and effort.
I 7
+
On page 2 of the Board's Order, the Board states:
"... we invite parties that wish to rely on previous parts of the record to submit those portions anew in this new format.
"The Board will, of course, continue to be responsible for reviewing the entire record. Compliance with our format will assist us in performing that duty."
Intervenors do not doubt for a moment the Board's good intentions. However, we are very concerned that there will be tremendous pressure and a very natural and possibly overwhelming tendency to give greater weight to that portion of the record which has been computerized. Intervenors believe this is true because of the easier accessibility of the more recent information.
If the record is to be computerized, Intervenors believe that the entire record should be computerized, with the cost for computerizing past pleadings, testimony, transcripts of hearings, documents admitted into evidence, etc., being borne by the NRC (although an argument could also be made for requiring Applicants to bear such costs). Obviously, this would be a massive, time-consuming and expensive undertaking.
Intervenors should not have to bear any extra burden for such computerized updating (we did well to file things the first time).
With regard to "1. Standard PC Document Format" on page 2 of the Board's Order, CASE sees one general problem in its opinions there is simply not enough room to put all of the required information on documents and still have those documents retain as much as possible of their authenticity, and we are concerned that it would be necessary to cover part of an evidentiary document to that great an extent. We recall that in the past it has at times been difficult to find sufficient space to even put " CASE Exhibit No. xxx" on some documents without covering up part of the printing, drawing, etc.
8
CASE does not see a problem with the first three lines ("PAGE SIZE, PAGE LENGTH, PAGE NUMBERS") of the primary format, discussed on page 2 of the Board's Order.
However, we do have some concerns regarding the fourth line, " PITCH," which f
calls for 10 (PC). The letter quality printer which CASE in Dallas has available is set up for 12 characters per inch (elite type size, which is one of the two most common type spacings). The standard WORDSTAR pitch is 10 characters per inch (pica type size), the other most common type spacing, which is also normally accepted.
CASE certainly does not believe it would be appropriate for the Board to exclude either of these two commonly used and accepted type sizes. We note that the Board appears to be utilizing 12 characters per inch also. CASE in Dallas would strongly object to having to use anything other than 12 characters per inch -- especially becauce of recent l
events to assist the NRC in its being able to easily scan CASE's filings /3/.
CASE did everything possible to comply with the NRC's needs, and we now have on
{
hand four Prestige Elite 12 printwheels (which are supposed to be used at 12 characters per inch, but not 10 characters per inch).
In addition, the letter-quality printer itself (which also does not belong to CASE and which we are not authorized to change) would have to be changed, since using the WORDSTAR commands for changing the pitch does not make any difference in the pitch; it prints out at the same spacing regardless.
With regard to the fifth line, " FOOTNOTES," CASE notes that although it will be physically caster to place all footnotes at the end of each filing, it will also make it a little more difficult to quickly read such filing and will also possibly decrease the likelihood of footnotes being road (which could mean j
that some inf ormation might be overlooked, and which, CASE feels, would also be 9
unfortunate since we have of ten enjoyed footnotes by the Board and parties). We have no problem with complying, however.
With regard to the sixth line, " SPACING," CASE has no problem with utilizing double spacing, with the available alternate of single spacing allowed by the Board, since this is what we normally utilize.
With regard to the seventh line, " TAB SETTINGS," CASE has no problem with having them f all every five positions f rom the lef t margin (so long as that lef t margin is set on 1, rather than 2, as discussed in the following paragraph regarding the eighth line).
With regard to the lef t-hand margin being set on 2 (rather than 1, which would be the normal setting), CASE is opposed to this requirement and asks that the Board reconsider this requirement; we have used a setting of 1 in this pleading to demonstrate a point explained in the next paragraph regarding the length of lines. The WORDSTAR program available to CASE has default settings at every five characters from the left-hand margin set at 1 (e.g., at 6, 11, 16, 21, etc.).
Although setting the margin at 2 is, of course, in and of itself no big problem, it would make it necessary to reset each and every tab setting used throughout each pleading in order to comply both with the Board's tab setting and margin requirements set forth on page two of the Board's Order.
With regard to the right-hand margin of 80, one of the reasons that CASE normally has used a margin of.76 is that at a margin of 80, one of ten cannot see the last letters of each line on the screen of our computers the screen simply will not display that many characters at one time. CASE, therefore, is opposed to the requirement that a right-hand margin of 80 be used and asks that the Board reconsider this requirement.
(For example, in the second line of this paragraph, what is shown on CASE's computer screen is:
"normally has used a margin of 76 is that at a margin of 80, one of ten cannot se+".
This is 10
1 i
i confusing and makes the probability of error more likely. Further, when using the WORDSTAR command to move quickly to the end of a line (control QD), which is 4
a feature often used in underlining, on lines which take up the full 80 characters the cursor does not move all the way to the end of the line, thus necessitating additional manual moving of the cursor which takes up time and would otherwise be unnecessary.
In addition, CASE noticed in preparing this pleading that it is much more likely to forget to reform paragraphs when additional words are added because it is less obvious when one has gone past the right-hand margin. And finally, CASE opposes this particular proposed requirement because using a right-hand margin of 80 leaves margins of only about an inch on each side; this would appear to be contrary to the requirements of to CFR 2.708(b).
i To CASE in Dallas (with our very limited knowledge of computers), the Board's Order was confusing in some places, especially where the Board's filing 1
did not seem to follow the new format (i.e., the page numbers were not centered at the bottom of the page; the right hand margin appeared to be about 72 or 73, rather than 80 (CASE normally uses 76); the date (line 2, discussed at B on page i
)
4 of the Board's Order) did not follow the format suggested by the Board (and, I
j in addition, it was not clear that the board meant the first number to be the month, the second number to be the day of the month, and the third number to be the year, although CASE assumed this was the Board's intent).
l l
The Board's Order itself also demonstrates how easy it would be for simple and inevitable typographical errors to creep in which could nonetheless cause i
big headaches when applied to computerization.
For examples On page 3. under "A. Line 1," the Board refers to "A unique consecutive number using two letters
[
nnd four digits before the decimal point and four digits af ter the point" i
j
l l
(rather than three letters). On page 4, last line of third paragraph, the Board states that "The first admitted exhibit for Staff might be SEE00001.0002" (which includes five, rather than four, digits before the decimal point).
Intervenors are convinced that these and other inadvertant errors that are inherent with any system as complicated as this are going to make life incredibly difficult.
Regarding "II. INDEXING REQUIREMENT," beginning on page 3, the Board's Order does not appear to have taken into account the dif forences between the operating license proceedings (OL) and the construction permit proceedings (CPA). This is an essential part of what needs to be included in the eight-line format, for the following reasons:
(1) it is necessary to differentiate between the two proceedings because of the Board's instructions on page 3 regarding Line 1, necond letter, since some documents will be admitted into evidence in one proceeding but not in the other proceeding; and (2) for pleadings such as this l
one, there will normally be nothing in the Board's suggested format which identifies whether the pleading applies to the OL or the CPA proceedings (as 1
illustrated by the Board's 4/3/87 Order, where it is impossible to tell f rom the information on the initial eight lines whether the document applies to the OL, the CPA, or both). CASE suggests that a relatively simple way to remedy this potential problem would be to add "0L" and/or "CPA" following the unique connocutive number filings which apply to more than one proceeding could both be written on the name line (i.e., the first line of the Board's 4/3/87 Order would then read "BNN0001 OL and DNN0001 CPA"; and the numbers on the first line of the first page of this filing would be shown as "CNN0001 OL and JNN0002 CPA").
It in not cicar whether or not all f111ngs require the decimal point l
followed by an additional four digita, or if this applies only to filings 12 l
intended to be submitted as exhibits. CASE assumes that this is meant to apply only to filings intended to be submitted as exhibits, since it would seem to serve no useful purpose and would simply increase the possibility and probability of error to have it apply to other filings.
In addition, CASE believes it will be very confusing and easy to make mistakes in the second and l
third letters of Line 1, since "The second letter will be 'E' if the document has been admitted into evidence and 'N' if it has not been admitted. The third t
letter will be an 'E' if the document is intended as an exhibit, and an 'N' if it is not."
The use of the letter "E" to indicate both " evidence" and i
l
" exhibit," especially in combination with the f act that the two letters are l
adjacent to each other, to CASE seems likely to invite additional errors. One easy-to-remember and simple change would be to retain "E" for " evidence" and use "X"
for Exhibit.
Or, if a document is intended to be an exhibit, why not simply shorten what has been the practice in the past (e.g.:
CASE Exhibit 950 might be written CXO950); once an exhibit has been admitted into evidence, additional helpful information could then be added (rather than changing an already existing character; see additional discussion following).
]
CASE can foresee a nightmare regarding the third paragraph on page 4, once tampering begins with the numbering system when exhibits are admitted into 3
evidence.
It would be time-consuming and difficult enough to keep up with numbering documents once, much lens to have to attempt to keep up with renumbering them again once they are admitted into evidence.
(This will be further complicated by the fact that the personnel working on Comanche Peak continues to change; for instance, we have very recently received notices of appearance for one new NRC staff attorney and several new attorneys for the Applicants. This will increase the likelihood of mistakes being made, as well i
~
13 1
l 4
j as increase the difficulties for new individuals of participating in an already-t difficult case.) Further, CASE questions the extent of usefulness of such renumbering. All that the suggested renumbered format would tell one is that 1
i the exhibit has been admitted into evidence.
If one has to go to the trouble to renumber a document which has been admitted into evidence, why not go ahead and incorporate into the system sufficient information to be really useful in i
i filings such as Proposed Findings of Fact, as well as other filings (e.g.:
CASE l
Exhibit 950, admitted into evidence at Tr. 6590, bound in following Tr. page 6592, which might be written CX0950.A06590.B06592).
i in the second paragraph on page 5 of the Board's Order, it is stated:
"If applicable, the unique consecutive number of the motion that began the sequence to which this filing is a part should be placed on this i
line."
l l
CASE believes it understands the reasoning behind the Board's inclusion of this i
particular item, and (although it will introduce one more possibility for I
j error), it does not seem unreasonable. We note, however, that there does not i
appear to be a mechanism in place to accommodate references to multiple filings; we assume that N/A would be acceptable in such a1 instance. CASE also suggests
)
one small additional change in the information to be shown on line 3 of the 1
)
Board's 8-line format (discussed on pages 4 and 5 of the Board's Order):
to show the number of the first filing in a series on the third line also (i.e.,
i j
for the Board's 4/3/87 Order, BNN0001 would also be shown on the third line as t
well as the first line).
J Regarding "Ill. Pretest," on page 6, Intervenors are relieved that the j
Board is not requiring Intervenors to file electronic materials, although the i
Board is requiring Intervenors to comply with indexing materials (which will be difficult enough considering our limited resources).
I 1
14 1
i
With regard to the second paragraph under this section, CASE must respectfully voice strong disagreement with that portion where the Board states:
"We also intend to make available on line, to all parties that file electronic materials, all hearing transcripts, thus creating the possibility of substantial savings for all parties." (Emphases added.)
With all due respect, and while we do not question the Board's sincerity, we must point out that CASE does not have the funds available to participate in the Board's proposed computerization -- much less to fully participate.
If CASE did manage to obtain funds to buy another computer, to install a dedicated telephone line, to obtain a dedicated computer, to obtain an office in which to house such computer, to hire a full-time person to operate the computer and manage the office, and to be given sufficient time for such person to be properly trained in the use of such computer, that computer would still not be capable of handling the magnitude of information the Board is talking about (such as entire transcripts of hearings).
Furthermore, even were we to miraculously be able to fully participate, we are concerned about when all this transferring of information would be taking 4
place. There are tremendous unanswered questions regarding overlapping times when the parties would want the use of phone lines, and of access to the
}
material which the Board plans to offer -- basic questions such as:
If 1
j Applicants are sending the Board information at the same time that Intervenors l
would like to receive information from the Board, how would that be handled?
Would we all be fighting over telephone and computer time? Would we have to put everything aside and take advantage of the Board's stated intention to "make our computer available in read-only answer mode at periodic intervals that will be announced" on a now-or-never basis?
?
15
Under "IV. Paper Filings" and, on page 6 of the Board's Order, the Board states that " filing by modem would substitute for express mail."
It appears that this would be yet another instance where CASE could be placed at a disadvantage (if the time of filing of a document was keyed to the date of receipt rather than the date of mailing), since it would, in effect, allow those who filed by modem to have an extra day for preparation their filings.
(Of course, this would not be a problem if the date was keyed to the date of filing rather than the date of receipt.) CASE is also concerned regarding the statement that "the ASLBP will need one fewer paper copies, since the chair will rely on the electronic copy..." This is a concern to CASE because it seems to indicate that the Board Chairman will be more likely to rely on the written word and will perhaps be less likely to look at drawings, calculations, etc. We recognize that such documents will continue to be available in the ASLBP docket room; we are simply concerned about such a possibility.
Under "V. Electronic Filings" on page 7 of the Board's Order, the Board states:
"Intervenors may file documents in electronic form.
If they do not do so, they shall produce all documents in a form such that the textual portions (i.e., excluding graphs, drawings, and the like) are suitable for conversion to electronic form by optical character reading equipment."
It is not clear to CASE exactly what the Board means by the second sentence in the above quoted portion. How does the Board expecc Intervenors do this?
Surely the Board is not suggesting that Intervenors be required to retype the textual portions of all documents that are not able to be easily scanned by the NRC equipment or which are not typed using a type style which the computer scanner recognizes (or, for that matter, for Intervenors to even know which type styles the scanner recognizes). CASE is also very much concerned -- since the 16
. computer scanner equipment had so much trouble with CASE's one broken "i" --
about what the scanner will do with documents Intervenors may send which are copies from copies received on discovery, or which have spots or imperfections on the pages, or which are not of good quality printing? We cannot believe that this is the Board's intention; if it is, however, Intervenors strongly oppose this portion of the Board's Order. It is also not clear to CASE how the computer scanner will handle things such as graphs, drawings, calculations, handwritten notes, etc.
With regard to "VI. Start Date" on page 7, the Board states:
"Previously submitted important documents are encouraged to be submitted for the system as well. Do not change the original date of filing on such documents but refile them in electronic form and assign them numbers within the unique numbering system uet up in this memorandum."
CASE sees nothing for us in this except additional time, trouble, and headaches.
Our files in Dallas are set up in date order, and a listing of previously submitted documents with new unique numbers would not help CASE to find or identify such files.
In fact, such a system would force CASE to set up a new listing to identify old files by the new unique numbers, and therefore further increase our workload.
Further, unless everything which is already in the record is added. in'to the unique numbering system, there is an excellent possibility that many of the Applicants' and NRC Staff's old documents which are detrimental their case but which support our case, will never be included in the system. This would severely prejudice CASE's rights in these proceedings, and act to our detriment.
Under "Vll. Our System" on page 8, the Board states:
"We use an IBM XT, 20 megabytes and also have available a Compaq with 130 megabytes plus expansion capability for a larger capacity drive.
Our principle sof tware will be Bluefish. We intend to make our 17
.n.
OM '
computer available in read-only answer mode at periodic intervals that will be announed (sic)."
CASE is not familiar with the IBM XT, the Compaq, or Bluefish. The computer to which CASE in Dallas has access is an Apple IIe with WORDSTAR software. Its capacity is about one-eighth of a megabyte (as compared to the Board's 20 megabytes plus 130 megabytes plus expansion capability for a larger capacity drive).
It is not clear whether or not CASE will be required to meet certain criteria of compliance with the Board's suggestions on computerization (assuming we were ever able to raise sufficient funds to do so in any meaningful way) prior to our being able to take advantage of the Board's making its computer available in read-only answer mode; nor is it clear whether or not we would ever be able to afford a large enough system for it to be worth our while to do So.
With regard to the Board's making its computer available in read-only answer mode (as discussed at page 8 of the Board's Order), during its research for this filing, CASE has received information which we feel we must pass on to the Board. CASE has been told by several people who are far more familiar with computers than is CASE (some of whom vakk. on and/or install large commercial computers) that the read-only answer mode is, in the real world, a f allacy and that if the Board makes its computer information available at all, it should consider that it is being made fully available and that it is indeed possible to enter and change the information contained therein.
If computerization were to take place, CASE believes that it would be absolutely imperative that a system of unique sequential numbers be used, and that a mandatory listing on a continuous updated basis be supplied to all parties; perhaps each party and the Board (the NRC Staff could perhaps be responsible for the Board's listing) could provide such a listing for their own l
l 18 i
filings on a regular basis (perhaps as an attachment to each Progress Report).
There are a few other additional questions and concerns which come to mind:
If computerization is required by the Board, would it not be possible to utilize the already-set-up and already-in-use assession list of the NRC rather than adding additional paperwork with a new and additional numbering system?
One of CASE's primary concerns and goals has always been education of the public. Will the computerized information and/or documents be made available to the public as well? For example, will the news media have access to the information and/or documents, and if so, by what means (by computer? only by computer? by paper ccpies only? by both paper copies and computer?). Will public access to information be lessened by this computerization?
It is also not clear from the Board's Order exactly how items such as the following are to be handled: Attachments to non-evidentiary filings which may, at some point, be asked to be admitted into evidence; pre-filed testimony (on page 4, the Board states that pre-filed testimony is not an exhibit, but there is no clear direction given as to exactly what it would be considered);
affidavits attached to non-evidentiary filings but which may, at some point, be l
asked to be admitted into evidence; or other documents attached to non-evidentiary pleadings but which may, at some point, be asked to be admitted into evidence (for example: CASE has for some time been sending the Board copies of SDAR's (Significant Deficiency Analysis Reports or 50.55(e) Reports); should each of these be marked with eight-line format information because CASE may at some point in the future ask that they be admitted into evidence?). It is also l
not clear whether or not the Inspection Reports, SALP Reports (usually prepared i
by NRC Region IV), Commission transcripts insofar as they relate to Comanche Peak, 01 Reports, OIA Reports, reports by Stone & Webster, Impell, Ebasco, etc.,
will be automatically fed into the computerized process. This is of particular 19 l
i interest to CASE, since in 1982 we spent around $5,000 on copies of NRC Inspection Reports which we were going to submit into evidence because the NRC Staff had decided not to offer them into evidence themselves (until CASE decided to do so); we would like to avoid such unnecessary and unfair expenditure of CASE's limited funds in the future.
If the Board does decide to go ahead with the computerization of the record, CASE believes that certainly these reports should automatically be included. We also believe all Board Notifications and OIA Reports should be included (although it is not clear what the computer would do with any expurgated portions).
It is also not clear whether or not the Board intends that vitally important documents such as the FSAR are to be added to the computer record of the proceedings. As the Board is aware, CASE has always been concerned about the timing and (in some instances) the content of changes in the FSAR. Further, we would point out that the FSAR initially was submitted as Applicants' Exhibit 3 in the proceedings; however, there has been no stipulation by CASE that all changes are acceptable, that the Board should automatically accept all such changes without question or that CASE will do so.
CASE also considers it important to know what commitments were contained in the FSAR at the time work was being performed (but which may subsequently have been changed).
One major question in CASE's mind is how and by whom will the authenticity of filings and documents be verified? What security or guarantee is there that the information and documents received by Intervenors will be exactly the same as those received by the Board? How will the matter of signatures for sworn answers be handled? Who's going to actually take the time and effort (and who has the capability) to perform these tasks?
At the top of page 3 of the Board's Order, " Transmission Standard," CASE is 20
opposed to this (although we understand that at this time the Board is not requiring Intervenors to comply at this time). CASE is not familiar with how tne Board's instructions could be followed, and we do not have the. facilities, equipment, or personnel to comply.
We are still very much concerned by the Board's statement that "We are not
" (emphasis added),
at this time considering dispensing with paper filings.
as discussed elsewhere. CASE has contributed much to these proceedings; thanks to our efforts and the efforts of our witnesses, there can be no question that Comanche Peak will be a much safer plant than it otherwise would have been (although we are still not convinced that it is a safe plant). After thousands of dollars were expended, we finally were able to come to an agreement with the Applicants which helped alleviate somewhat the financial burden of our initial copying costs (the 8/19/86 Agreement Between CASE and Applicants Regarding Discovery Matters Relating to Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, signed during the 8/19/86 prehearing conference in Dallas).
Now we cannot help but feel that the Board itself is undermining what we have fought so hard and so long to obtain and that the Board, by its proposed actions, will be adding to CASE's burdens both financially and physically.
We mean no disrespect, and we do not for a minute believe that this is the Board's intention -- but for CASE, it does
- l appear to be its result.
CASE must continue to receive paper filings and discovery documents. Even if CASE had the facilities to receive and copy everything by computer, we would simply then have to turn around and spend the time, money, and effort to print out a paper copy of it -- because the individuals who are working on the case do not have access to computers or printers and must rely on paper copies.
Because 21
.._.. _ _.-~
1 of this, receiving information by computer would do nothing more than add to CASE's already-heavy burden.
There is one statement on page 7 of this section with which we are in total
- agreement:
"The docket maintained by the Office of the Secretary will continue to be the of ficial record of the proceeding."
In conclusion Intervenors believe that it is essential for us to address this matter in more detail than might have been necessary -- because of the Board's rather cryptic statement on page 6 that "We are not at this time considering dispensing with paper filings... " (emphasis added). Although we are. relieved that the Board is not -- at this time -- requiring Intervenors to file electronic materials, it is requiring us to comply with indexing materials (which will be 4
difficult enough considering our limited resources). We have therefore addressed not only those requirements which the Board would have immediately
- apply to Intervenors, but other areas where we perceive potential problems as well.
Intervenors believe it is important that the Board understand our views and concerns now, and we do not want to let the opportunity to comment on the Board's Order go by and risk later receiving a Board Order which says that the Board has now decided that it will dispense with paper filings, without the Board being fully aware of Intervenors' views and reasons for those views on l-this important matter.
CASE and Joint Intervenors are opposed to the Board's 4/3/87 Order (although not with the general concept of computerization) for the reasons stated herein. If[ computerization had started at the very beginning of these i
22
. ~
proceedings, if[ all the parties had been asked for their input prior to such computerization so that a format and methodology could have been developed in advance which would have been mutually acceptable and beneficial, if,an intervenor such as CASE which has proven its ability to make a substantial contribution to the public health and safety had intervenor funding available, and 11[ this were a more perfect world, perhaps computerization would have been a good and workable idea.
Unfortunately, this is not the situation in which we now find ourselves. CASE believes that the Board's Order -- no matter how well-intentioned -- will result in severe and irreparable detriment to CASE's and Joint Intervenors' ability to meaningfully participate in these proceedings and to our due process rights which would be impossible to overcome. The Board, in one fell swoop, might well achieve what Applicants have been unable to achieve by proof. For this reason and the reasons stated herein, CASE and Joint Intervenors must regretfully oppose the Board's Order (although we will, of course, comply with the Board's Order to comply with the indexing requirements set forth, f
Intervenors fervently wish that we were able to fully participate in I
computerization of the entire record of these proceedings. We simply are unable to do so.
(
Respectfully submitted, WJ J
fjMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President vCASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 Representative for CASE and Joint Intervenors 23
m
.. _=. _
4 fl/ CASE, with the assent of the Board Chairman, was granted an extension to file this response until 4/27/87; Applicants had no objection. At the request of the Board Chairman, CASE subsequently also advised the NRC Staff counsel that the same amount of time had been extended to the other parties by the Board.
/2/ In the past, the Board has recognized the additional costs which Applicants have caused CASE (see especially Boards' 10/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Status of Pending Motions), page 6).
It is most upsetting and difficult for CASE to believe that the Board itself would now even consider deliberately adding to that burden, both in terms of financial and already-spread-thin personnel resources. CASE's primary representative in Dallas has nothing left to donate.
f3/ CASE, for some time, had had a problem with the little "i" on our i
printwheel because the little "1" was slightly broken and had a space in the bottom part of the letter which was not supposed to be there. We were told that it took the NRC a considerable amount of time to clean up the scanning equipment after CASE's filing was scanned. To cut short an
)
incredibly difficult and time-consuming saga, CASE had already attempted to obtain a replacement printwheel locally, and finally had to baccorder a replacement which was to be sent to us as soon as it was received locally; because the company had a minimum order of $50 for backorders, we ordered four identical printwheels (while we could still obtain them and so that we would not have a similar problem in the future). This relatively minor and i
not-very-noticeable (except when scanning to input into the NRC computer) problem was corrected by the new printwheels.
4 4
1 24
~
DOLKETED USNFC
'87 APR 29 A10:43 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OffI;E N e Wf 00CK!. TIN 3 4 ~P v lCl.
BRt.NCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter cf
}{
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445 -OL COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446 -OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
Docket No. 50-445-CPA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of RESPCriSE OF CASE (D1 OL) AND JOINT INTERVENORS (IN CPA) TO BOARD'S 4/3/87 MDdORANDUM AfD ORDER (Proposed Order Concerning Standardized Computer Filing Formats) have been sent to the names listed below this 27th day of April
,198 7,
by: :0# pee #9:2HtM where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Feaeral Express
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray _..
4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor 225 Franklin Street Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Judge Elizabeth B. Johason 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 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
- Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 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 s
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. Roissan, 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. Herman Alderman Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C.
20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 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 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Docketing and Service Section 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
(3 copies)
Washington, D. C.
20005-4798 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, California Midwest Office 94111-5894 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
Suite 700 Washington, D. C.
20007 lu S
N.
~
i ',) Juanita Ellis, President E (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2