ML20210N281

Consolidated Intervenors Amended Contentions 1 & 2 Re Reinsp Efforts & Const Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20210N281
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/30/1986
From:	Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GREGORY, M., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20210N269	List: ML20210N264 ML20210N281
References
CPA, NUDOCS 8610060446
Download: ML20210N281 (8)

Text

~~-

BBFORE THE DOCKETED USH8C UNITED STATdS NUCLSAR REGULATORY COMMISSION derore tne Atomic Safety .

~86 0CT -2 A1) :26 and Licensing Appcal Board in~tne Matter of )

GFFICE OF yl:lp[hI 00CKET$iiCii a

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, )

et al. Okt. Nos. 50-445-CPA

)

)

(Comanene Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1)

)

CONSOLIDATBD INTdRVENOxS' o

AMdND80 CONTENTIONS 1 AND 2 Amencea Contention 1 Since Applicants do not allege tnat tney have a 9000 cause for tne celay, tney can only preva11 if tney allege and prove good cause for tne extension of cemonstrating that they nave

~

iaentified the cause for the delay and nave aiscarded and repudiatea the policies that led to and/or caused the delay.

Applicants nave not alleged or establisned that they have alscarded and repuaiated the policies that caused the delay in completion of construction of Unit 1.

Bases _for Amendea Contention 1 A.

In recent answers to discovery in the operating license proceeding, Applicants disclose that the reason there is a reinspection effort is oecause of rincings or tne tat and the need to reevaluate tne plant in lignt of tnose tindings.

AppilCants' Responses datea Septemoer 22, 1966, to CASE Interrogatories (9/3/o6) at a-4.

8610060446 860930 PDR C ADOCK 05000445 PDR

n. Applicants nave also alleged in this proceecing tnat it is tne need to complete tne reidspection that is the reason wny tney neea the extension of their construction permit.

C. Applicants also nave implementea a reinspection errort tnat is not cesignea to identify tne root causes of tne proolems identified of tne TRT out only to identity root causes of proolems tnat tney now laentify, atter new analysis, as having safety signiticance.1 Amenced Contention 2 Tne delay in construction ot Unit 1 was caused by Applicants' intentinal conduct, wnicn nad no valid purpose and was tne result or corporate policies wnica have not Deen discarded or repuaiated by Applicants.

Bases for Amendeo Contention 2 A. The corporate policy tnat caused tne delay was:2 7 1

Root cause determination "will De investigated and determinea wnere possible for all adverse trends or deviations ana/or aesign ooservations ano for all deficiencies iaentitiea tnrougn tne CPRT program." CPRT Program Plan, Rev. J, Introduction, at 9 (1/43/do). Deviations, design ooservations ana/or deficiencies are aerinea as tailure to meet a licensing or procedural requirement wnica, it left uncorrected, "would result in the loss of capaoility of tne atfected system, structure or component to perform its intended safety tunction."

Altnougn it is not a lawtui requirement tnat an intervening party must disclose as a condition for admission of a contention any eviaence that supports its cases, Consolidated Intervenors do direct the attention of the Boarc and the parties to, and incorporate of reference, Appendix B of CASS's Motion for an evidentiary Stanaara (Feoruary 4, 19o5) wnica contains references to documents supporting Conso11aatec Intervenors' cases.

l i I

i l

1. Applicants celiDerately refused to tane positive action to rerorm tnear wA/wC program in tne race of consistent criticism, and

4. Applicants have tailed to properly cesign tnelr plant, spectrically:

a. Applicants failed to correctly apply tunaamental engineering principies,

o. Applicants railed to properly identity unique designs in tneir PSAR,

c. Applicants constructea much of tneir plant prior to its aesign naving Deen completea,

d. Applicants nave f ailea to comply witn 10 CFR Part 30, Appenaices A ano 8, incluaing tnelr failure to promptly identity and correct aesign aeficiencies, ano celioerately refused to taKe positive action to correct such ceficiencies.

J. Applicants ignorea consistent criticism of tnelr wA/QC program over a period of at least ten years and of tneir design over a period of at least four years, in tne f ace or warnings oy incepenaent aualtors, the NRC, and even tne Atomic Safety anc Licensing doard._ As a result or tnese deliDerate actions, Applicants ouilt an unlicensaole plant wnich must now De reinspectea, recesigned, and reconstructed n the hope that it can ce made licensaole. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants ror why, in the face or these criticisms, they retuseo to change their VA/vC implementation or aaaress ano correct design deficiencies.

u. Applicants nave never aCKnoWieaged tuat tnis or any otner corporate policy was tne cause or the delay or tnat anytning in tne control or corporate management caused the ceiay, ano tnus Aeplicants nave never discarded or repuciated tne policies that caused the celay. Tnis casts is supported of tne aosence or any statements of repudiation and of any statec intent to aiscaro any corporate policy.

C. Applicants nave actually continueo in place tne corporate policies ano personnel primar11y responsiole ror tne

)

or191nal aelay.

1.

Tne people running tne plant now are most ot tne same persons wno made the original decision to ignore the legal requirements for ouilding tne plant in order too Duila it faster. Applicants' Septemoer 16, 1966, Supplementation to Answers to CASS's Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 19d5).

z. Applicants' redesign, reinspection, anc reconstruction progran. is in tact a continuation of tne previous corporate po11cies whica caused tne delay.

particular:

In

a. The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on tne safety signiticance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRS, design cnanges, and reconstruction are made oy TOSC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs.

Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, ana Finneran (all now employ ed at CPSES), made tne original juagments tnat allowed tne aeticient conditions to exist.

o. CPRT reinspections are Deing conducted without complying witn Appenaix d, thus making trending, accumentatin, and any verirication of the work performed impossiole.

c. The CPRT program nas not Deen fully approved by tne Statt but has been modified at least tnree times, apparently witnout going oack to redo work conducted under tne rejected plans.

a. Tne CPRT implementation nas violated CPRT standards for reinspections, including the use of proauction quotas for inspectors and harassment anc intimidation of inspectors.

e. Tne work that Applicants propose to conduct unaer i tne extended construction permit represents major cnanges in tne original proposed construction and aesign ano cannot De lawrully undertaken unless tne construction permit is amended. No such amenoment nas been sougnt or received. This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of tne NaC regulations nas caused many problems, including a construction work halt to await staff approval of the proposed extension of the construction permit, whicn Applicants naa allowed to expire without seeking a renewal.

D. In order to estaollsn tnat they nave discarded and repuoiated tne corporate policies tnat led to the delay, Applicants must doopt and implement a recesign, reinspection, and reconstruction program that contains at least tne following elements, wnicn are now missing trom tne CPuT program:

1. tull inaependence from all current and former CPS 8S employees,

2. stop work on construction ana on reinspection of construction until reanalyses and redesigns nave Deen completea and tne oesigns nave been approved as acceptaole by the nearing ooard, J. existence anc implementation of a QA/gC program for reinspection, redesign, ana reconstruction tnat compiles witn lu CFR Part du, Appena1x 8,

4. rull cocumentation tnat rundamental engineering principles nave been correctly applieo in tne reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction process,

b. ru11 accamentation tnat all previously identifieu design issues (including, out not limited to, tne walsn/Doyle allegations and concerns raisea oy Cygna or during tne Cygna nearings) nave oeen correctly identitieo and properly addressed,

o. nold points in tne reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction process to enaole starf, public, and Boara review or tne previously completed tasks, ana

7. rull puolic access to all accuments generated by tne process, transcription or all meetings, and puolic attenuance at tnose meetings.

_3_

l l

Respectfully suomitted, Af ANTtlONY y $ SMAN /'

Trial Lawyers tor Puolic Justice 2000 P Street, NW, 7611 washington, D.C. 200J6 (202) 403-o600 Counsel tor Meadle Gregory t - lr O f g04NITA ELLIS /

W26 Soutn Polk Dallas, TX 75244 (214) 946-944o Representative for CASE Dated: September 30, 19db i

se m Y

r-

, 'e UNIT 80 STAT 8S Nffgpk NUCL8AR REGULATORY COMMISSION detore tne Atomic Satety and Licensing Appeal omr4CT -2 m):26 In the Matter or  ;

) FF] ER g ]ANCH-Qa$gy ct T8AAS OTILITI8S GENdRATING COnPANY, 1 DKt. Nos. 50-44a-CPA et al. )

)

(Comanche Peak Steam diectric )

Station, Unit 1) )

C8RTIFICAT8 OF 88RVIC8 1 nereby certity tnat copies of CONSOLIDATBD INT 8RV8NORS' HOTION TO ADMIT AM8ND80 CONT 8NTIONS OR, IN Td8 ALT 8RNATIV8, FOR R8CONSID8KATION OF C8RTAIN PR8VIOOSLY 08NI80 CONT 8NTIONS and CONSOLIDAT80 INT 8RV8NORS' AM8ND80 CONT 8NT10NS 1 AND 2 were served toaay, Septemoer 30, 19do, oy first class mail, or of nand wnere indicatea of an asterisk, upon tne following:

Aaministrative Judge Peter Bloch*

0.S. Nucioar Regulatory Commission wasnington, D.C. 20SSb Or. Walter d. Jordan del West Outer Drive oak Rioge, TN 37d30 Dr. Kennetn A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 7407b 8112acetn d. Jonnson oak Rioge National Laooratory P.O. Box X, duilding 35u0 Oak Ridge, TN 37o30 Alan S. Rosentnal, Cnalrman*

Atomic Sofety a Licensing Appeal Boara u.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coahnission 4aou 8ast west asy, Stn rioor detnesda, MD 20d14

, s.

Dr. W. Reeo Jonnson*

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comialssion 4Jbu dast west dwy, stn floor detnesda, MD 20o14 Tnomas S. Moore, Esq.*

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4J50 East-West tlwy, stn floor detnesda, MD 20o14 ^

Nicnolas Meynolds, Esq.*

Bishop, Lioerman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17tn Street, NW Wasnington, D.C. 2003o Docketing a Service Section Ottice of tne Secretary U.S. auclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, D.C. 205db Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.*

Office or Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 77J5 010 Georgetown Road, luta floor Wasnington, u.C. 20535 Tnomas G. Dignan, J r.

• c/o Ropes & Gray 1001 22nd S t. , NW, f700 Washington, D.C. 200J7 Thomas G. Di3 nan, Jr.

Hopes & Gray 223 Frank 11n Street doston, MA 02110 i

s

~ /$i$ /

' AN friUNp ISMAN