ML20215D747
| ML20215D747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3777 OL, NUDOCS 8706190130 | |
| Download: ML20215D747 (9) | |
Text
7.77 6/8/87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-00gED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD JUN 15 A10:04 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-4 and 50-4464 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC E41 '
COMPANY, et al.
"S N =
(Application for an
.(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
CASE'S PROGRESS REPORT (V)
Pursuant t'o the Board's June 6,1986, Memorandum and Order (Progres,s Report and Notice of Available Documents), CASE submits its fifth progress report.
CASE's efforts in attempting to obtain discovery from Applicants regarding those portions of Applicants' CPRT Plan which were to have been includedintheupcomingproceedingsf_1/havenowbeenineffectplacedon hold, pending receipt of additional information from Applicants. It is CASE's understanding from discussions with. Applicants that Applicants are in the process of making significant changes in their proposed plan to resolve the concerns of CASE, the NRC Staff, and' the Licensing Board about Comanche Peak. This includes Revision 4 to the CPRT Plan,'which we have not yet received. Although we are continuing to review those responses which we have obtained to date, CASE believes that it is absolutely imperative that l
n / As discussed in the Board's order during.8/19/86 prehearing conference (TR. 24603-24605); and in CASE's 9/15/86 letter to Board under
Subject:
Memorialization of Changes in Recent Board Orders and/or Filing Dates for Certain Pleadings, item 4, pages 2 and 3.
See also 11/21/86 letter from CASE's Mrs. Ellis to Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad.
l 1
4 8706190130 870608 ADOCK050g5 PDR b60; 1
~--
t we.have additional information about these apparently major changes in order for us to'make informed decisions as to how to proceed efficiently and effectivelyatthis' point.. intime /2/.
CASE is also having difficulty in attempting to obtain discovery from the NRC Staff regarding trending and other information relevant to these proceedings having to do with the recent DIA Report. On 1/21/87,fCASE filed:
~
its. Motion to Compel NRC Staff!to Supplement Responses to Question 1 of
~ CASE's 2/10/82:First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to NRC r.
Staff..regarding trending performed by the NRC Staff, as referenced.in the
- recent 01A report-(Board Notification No. 86-24).- Since that time, there have been several filings-regarding this matter fj /, including the filing with the Board by Ms. Garde of_the testimony of an NRC resident inspector at Comanche Peak and an 01A investigator regarding allegations by that-inspector. Following hearings before Senator John Glenn's Sentate Committee on Governmental Affairs.on April 9, 1987, the NRC set up'a blue-ribbon panel' to look into the matters raised; their report, which is referred to as the Arlotto-Report, has now been completed, but the NRC Staff now has taken the position that it is unable to proceed with a further' substantive response to
~~~/2/ We note that the Board has recognized, in its 6/1/87 Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7), page 5, that the issues to be litigated are still unfolding and that Applicants' work is in a state of constantly changing flux.
/3/ See also: CASE's 1/29/87 letter to Board, under subject of Additional Information Regarding OIA Report, Board Notification No. 86-24, Report i
of_ Investigation by the Office of Inspector and Auditor, sent to the Board and Service List under cover letter 12/11/86 from NRC Staff's Mr.
Noonan; NRC Staff's 2/17/87 Response to CASE Motion To Compel; NRC Staff's 5/26/87 letter to Board re: questions by Judge Bloch in'3/2/87 telephone call; and NRC Staff Counsel Mr. Chandler's 5/14/87 letter to CASE Attorney Mr. Roisman.
2
)
- ;(
CASE's' discovery request pertaining to.either the OIA Report or the'Arlotto' Reportf_4/.cSince.it,appearsthatinformaleffortshavebrokendown'toget 4
the NRC Staff to release the information which we believe is critical to our.
making - some kind of determination of exactly 'how to proceed regarding-this matter (e.g., to file a new contention, etc.), Ms. Garde is pursuing Freedom.-
of Information Act (FOIA) requests by GAP and in the process of filing-lawsuits on each of the F01A's which the NRC has not' answered regarding Comanche Peak.-
CASE-also notes that the wording of the Staff's 5/26/87 letter to the Board appears to CASE'to be overly restrictive and narrow, and somewhat-inconsistent with what Judge Bloch actually requested during the'3/2/87 telephone call, which included, to the:best-of CASE's recollection: whether or.not-the NRC Staff, Office of Investigations (01), and/or Office of Inspector and Auditor?(OIA) know of Staff trend reports or draft documents related to the'adequa'cy'of QA/0C at Comanche. Peak; what kind of inquiry is.
made and that the Staff describe the scope of what the search-is; whether whoever is doing the follow-up work may be looking at draft Staff documents that vere not adopted and that such individuals would know if there were
' draft reports that are relevant; whether or not in the follow-up they are finding other draf ts that suggest similar things; that the Board is interested in the site 0A/0C program as well as any problems in the NRC Staff's OA/0C; that the Board wants to be sure that this includes any Staff group; and that the Board would want to know what all such documents are (although it is.not asking that they be supplied at this time, but whether-or not the Staff would like to disclose it at this time).
H / NRC Staff Counsel Mr. Chandler's 5/14/87 letter to CASE Attorney Mr.
Roisman.
3
Ms. Garde has also'recently been working on a Section 210 Department of i-Labor case which has to do with a'former engineer.at Comanche Peak who_has made. allegations'of harassment _and intimidation and raised design concerns
- which'in some instances are similar to some'of the Walsh/Doyle issues but in a later time-frame (as well as some additional concerns)._ See also:
5/28/87 letter f rom Christopher 1. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special' Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil; and NRC Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/86-31, 50-446/86-25, under cover letter of June 1, 1987, beginning at bottom of page 31, item-(4).
-In CASE's 2/20/87 Progress Report (IV)' at page' 6, there was ' a discussion of the potentially significant changes anticipated in the internal restructuring.of the NRC Staff as it relates to Comanche Peak. We note'that Applicants attached to their 5/18/87 Fifth Progress Report a copy l
of
' 5/12/87 letter from Director Grimes to Applicants' Mr. Counsil under subject:
Request for Additional Information in Conjunction with Program-Plan Update. CASE. considers.that-all of the questions raised are timely and
-that answers are essential before the Staff or CASE can proceed in an informed fashion with this case. It should be noted that CASE has also had one meeting (with additional meetings anticipated in the future) with
' Messrs. Keppler and Grimes, and that CASE is approaching the changes made in the Staff with a cautiously optimistic (but ever vigilant) open mind.
As mentioned by Applicants in their Fifth Progress Report (top of page 1
7), Applicants met with CASE on March 12 through 14, 1987, so that CASE at-I this-time non-testifying witness Jack Doyle could discuss some issues with j
l 4
4 I
q 1j
4 Stone & Webster personnel. CASE considers that the meeting (which, it should be emphasized, addressed only Applicants' plan and not implementation which we made clear we also are concerned with) was very helpful to all parties; and it is hoped that there will be other similar meetings in the future. CASE' urges that the Board obtain copies of the transcript of that and all other recent meetings, as well as all of the major documents regarding which Applicants have been sending the Board letters but apparently without attaching the documents. There are many, many such documents being generated by Applicants and their consultants which CASE believes should be provided to the Board by Applicants, rather than CASE having to bear that extra burden.
CASE has for some time been sending the Board potential 50.55(e) reports and a few other selected documents which appear to be ' specially significant, but we simply do not have the financial, yle, or time resources available to do much more along this line at the present time.
It is not completely clear to CASE exactly what documents the Board is currently receiving; but we are becoming concerned that the Board may find itself deluged with so much information later that it cannot easily assemilate it (rather than receiving the information along as it is produced).
Since the last Progress Report, CASE has responded to several sets of interrogatories (Sets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), motions to compel, etc.,
from Applicants. CASE has also sent to the Board some additional documents whichwebelievearesignificantorpotentiallysignificantf5/,in f5/ See CASE's 3/20/87 and 4/30/87 letters to the Board under subject:
Potential 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items.
5
~
l accordance with the Board's stated desire to be kept informed of such matters. We shall continue to do so, and anticipate that we will be sending some additional such documents to the Board in the near future.
CASE is also continuing its analyses of other documents received recently (for example, many of those listed by Applicants in their 5/18/87 I
Fifth Progress Report and in Applicants' Annotated Bibliographies). We expect to file additional discovery requests regarding some of the items listed in Applicants' Progress Reports and Annotated Bibliographies and we will surely have many questions regarding Revision 4 of the CPRT Plan when f
\\
\\
l it is finally issued and received. As we have stated before, we consider it l
absolutely essential for CASE to be able to make informed decisions regarding our next steps in the case.
l CASE regrets having to report to the Board that Applicants have not yet responded to those interrogatories ordered in the Board's 3/16/87 Memorandum 1
l
)
t and Order (Motion to Compel: CASE's Set 12) regarding Sampling; based on l
CASE's most recent telephone conversation with Applicants' counsel, CASE j
l expects to receive Applicants' response soon, and sincerely hopes that it will not be necessary for us to again come to the Board for assistance in this matter. We also note that there have been inconsistencies between commitments made to CASE by Applicants and what has actually occurred l
regarding Revision 4 of the CPRT (see 5/26/87 letter from CASE attorney Ms.
I Garde to Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad).
j l
There are also still some other discovery requests regarding which Motions to Compel by CASE are in abeyance awaiting results of further l
6
u informal discussions between CASE-and Applicants f6,/. In the.past,.
l Applicants': and CASE'sf joint 'ef forts had appeared to be f ruitful in many-
-I areas, and we had mutually agreed on further extensions of time-so that
.these efforts could continue; we will continue to keep the-Board advised in this regard.-
There has'also been increased activity in the Construction Permit.
proceedings (CPA) during thisi time period, including'much time spent byLCASE-recently (with much' additional. time expected to be spent in the near future) responding to Applicants' interrogatories [7/.
Respectfully submitted, 2n s s W LJ
$s.JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 Co-Representative for CASE i
- db/ As has been indicated previously, it is the understanding of both CASE and Applicants that, in cases of agreement on enlargements of time, the Board does not require that any action be taken by it, but rather is i
satisfied with notice of the agreement.
f7/ See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' interrogatories to
" Consolidated Intervenors" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective l
Order. Although the CPA is a different proceeding, the parties are all involved in it as well as the operating license proceedings, and we therefore mention it here for completeness.of the record.
7
cxstir-
< ima ;
'87 JUN 15 A10:04 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V~ vN1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OF R - '
00Clui*.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the Matrer of
}{
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units i and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
By my signature below, I hereby certily that true and correct copies of i
CASE's Progress Report (V) have been sent to the names listed below this 8th day of June
,19 8, 7_,
by: Federal Express where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray j
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 225 Franklin Street I
Washington, D. C.
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l
I 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. Renneth 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 i
1
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 1401 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 600 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20005 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 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 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Government Accountability Project Walnut Creek, California 94596 Midwest Office 104 E. Wisconsin - B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
Suite 700 Washington, D. C.
20007 0/x f
l>
g rs.) Juanita Ellis, President (ftASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2