ML20202G475

Petition of Case for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc & Jl Howard Affidavit Encl

ML20202G475
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/07/1986
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20202G471	List: ML20202G469 ML20202G475
References
CPA, NUDOCS 8604140399
Download: ML20202G475 (14)

Text

-

. +

4/7/86 UNITED STATES j, ,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinq BoAKd

~1IS?I c In the Matter of ) -

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Dkt. o. 0-44hdhk et al. )

I CFFl r; 2 .-

00Cin:' T r.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) s,1 ,l[ ~

Station, Units 1 and 2 )

PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY

, The Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) has previously been granted the right to intervene in the operating license proceeding for Units 1 and 2 of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). Since the instant proceeding is "another round in a continuing controversy as to whether the licensee can be reasonably expected to comply with [NRC] quality assurance regulations," CASE should not have to again identify its interests to participate in this proceeding. Consumers Power Co. (Midland), CLI-74-3, RAI-74-1, pp. 7, 12 (1974). To the extent a statement of interest is required, we incorporate by reference the statement contained in our original Petition to Intervene and supplemental affidavit in the operating license proceeding and cite the acceptance of our petition as barring Applicants and Staff from challenging that CASE has shown the requisite interest. Finally, we further supplement that pleading, if supplementation were required, by noting CASE's long-stsnding and valuable participation in the licensing process for CPSES and the fact that many members of CASE live within 50 wou91903Y9 860407 ~

PDR ADGCK 05000445 G PDR

miles of the plant and some within 10 miles of the plant, all of whom would be adversely affected by the improper construction of Unit 1 of CPSES. Included among these members is Ms. Johnnie L.

Howard, whose mailing address is Box 430, Glen Rose, Texas 76043, which is within 10 miles of the plant.

CASE's participation in this proceeding is not a waiver by it of any of the claims it has made in the pending legal action CASE v. NRC (D.C. Cir., No. 86-1169), regarding the expiration of the CPSES Unit 1 construction permit or the proper procedure to follow with regard to an extension amendment to the construction permit if the permit is still in existence. In addition, CASE believes that the definition of legitimate issues for a construction permit extension hearing contained in Washington Public Power Supply System (Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221 (1982), particularly as interpreted in Washington Public Power Supply System (Unit 2), ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546 (1983), and Washington Public Power Supply System (Unit 1), ALAB-771, 19 NRC 1183 (1984), are inappropriately narrow. They eliminate many legitimate issues related to whether there is a good cause for delay and extension of a construction permit and whether such an extension should be granted. However, we realize that challenges to the decisions of the Commission or Appeal Board are not appropriate before an ASLB, and we are preserving our challenges for the appropriate fora. The following contentions should be admissible in this proceeding for extension of the construction permit for Unit 1 under a proper interpretation of 10 CFR 350.55(b) and will be pursued by CASE:

1. The delay was caused by factors totally within the control of Applicants'and thus the requirements of 10 CFR 950.55(b) have not been met and the request should be denied.

2. The delay was caused by Applicants' refusal and failure to follow NRC regulations, particularly with respect to QA/QC for design and construction, and thus the requirements of 10 CFR 550.55(b) have not been met.

3. Further delay will be caused by Applicants' refusal and failure to_ follow NRC regulations, particularly with respect to repeating and exacerbating design deficiencies in direct violation

, of 10 CFR Part .50, Appendices A and B requirements.

4. There is no good cause for the extension because at present there is no basis for concluding that there is reasonable assurance that Applicants will construct Unit 1 in conformance with its construction permit and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, or that there is adequate and/or appropriate management control over CPSES Unit 1 to ensure that NRC requirements are being and will be met.

Thus continued construction of Unit 1 creates immediate health and safety implications. See Cincinnati Gas & Electric (Zimmer), CLI-82-33, 16 NRC 1489 (1982). '

5. There is substantial evidence that Applicants are not technically competent to build Unit 1 properly, are not willing to follow NRC regulations in building Unit 1, have not and will not implement a proper QA/QC program for inspection, design, and construction of Unit 1, and cannot and will not meet the architectural and engineering commitments they have made in their application for a construction permit, in the hearing record for the construction permit and the operating license and to the Staff. Under these circumstances, unless and until Applicants present evidence that overcomes this evidence or agree to conditions to assure that the problems will not recur,-they should not be allowed to continue construction of CPSES Unit 1 -

because continued construction involves immediate health and safety implications. Cincinnati Gas & Electric (Zimmer), supra.

The following contentions are admissible even under the erroneous legal criteria of the WPPSS cases and will be pursued by CASE:

6- 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 th's reason for delay was not intentional and without a valid

~

purpose.

b. The real reasons for the delay in construction completion were that:

(1) Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to reform their QA/QC program in the face of consistent criticism, and (2) Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:

1. Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles, 1

F o

1 ii. Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR, f

iii. Applicants-constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed, iv. Applicants have ' failed to comply with 10 CFR Part  !

50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused

- t'o take positive action to correct such deficiencies.

Applicants ignored consistent criticism of: their QA/QC program over a period of at least ten -years and of their design

, over a period of at-least four years, in the face of warnings-i by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and 1

j Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants l built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the' hope that it can be made 1

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 or address and- correct design deficiencies.

Thus Applicants have not established a good cause for the delay. '

d

7. Applicants have failed to establish a good cause for the extension.

l a. Applicants' stated reason for the extension is to be allowed to complete the CPRT reinspection, redesign,.and r reconstruction process in order to make the plant licensable.

However, this process is not being conducted in compliance with i the requirements and practices of the NRC and thus its completion cannot produce the intended result of a 11censable plant'but will i

l

. l instead necessitate further reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction. In particular the CPRT plan is inherently flawed because:

1. The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies i and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, 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.

1 iii. The CPRT program has not been approved by the Staff but has been modified at least three times, apparently without going back to redo work conducted under the rejected a plans.

iv. The CPRT implementation has violated CPRT

standards for reinspections, inclu, ding the use of production quotas for inspectors and harassment and intimidation of inspectors.

b. It is not a good cause for an extension of time to I

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.

j 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 1

1 j 1

undertaken unless the construction permit is amended. -No such j 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 i50.10.

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 4

! unapproved reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction program 1

that does not meet NRC regulatory requirements cannot show good i

j cause for extending its construction completion date unless it at i

! least is. subject to conditions to assure that the reinspection, 3 redesign, and reconstruction are properly undertaken. Included I among these conditions are:

i. full independence from all current and former =CPSES employees, ,

s ii. stop work on construction and on reinspection of-construction until reanalyses and redesigns have been completed ,

and the designs have been approved as acceptable' by the hearing Board, iii. existence and implementation of a QA/QC program i

for reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction which complies with 10 CFR Part ~ 50, Appendix B, l

a iv. full documentation that fundamental engineering principles have been correctly applied in the reinspection,

redesign, and reconstruction process,

i

v. full documentation that all previously identified design issues (including, but not limited to, the Walsh/Doyle allegations and concerns raised by Cygna or 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.

1.

4.

~

8, Applicants have failed to establish that the period of

the requested extension is reasonable.

j 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' i

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 j review of the work performed will require extensive oral presentations to Staff, in discovery and in hearings. l L

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 l over three years.

I

.. - - -l

l c. Applicants' request for an extension of the 1

completion date for the plant to. August 1988 is grossly inadequate.

! 9. The environmental appraisal by the Staff is legally l deficient. A full FES should have been prepared.

l

a. The potential impacts of the proposed action involve substantial resources and significant potential i

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 FES.

ii. Similarly, the delay in licensing and the possibility of not receiving a license at all will involve

, 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 l

other measures which, if CPSES is licensed, may have to be abandoned in order to justify CPSES Unit 1. In short, because i

Applicants persist in their plan to evade NRC regulatory l l requirements and to not acknowledge the error of past practices, the future of CPSES Unit 1 is uncertain, and this uncertainty requires expenditures of substantial additional financial

~

resources and potential environmental impacts.

i i

i

-9_ l i

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 r

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 j construction and operation of Unit 1. See, generally, Braidwood, j , Illinois Commerce Commission Dkt. #82-0855, Business and Professionals in the Public' Interest, Exhibit 12, "Least Cost J

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-I f 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 houston, "Leaut-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, t

L-d fD

[JMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President 4

CASE (Citizens Association for i Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224-214/946-9446 Representative of CASE i

Dated: . April 7, 1986 4

s 1

4 k

6 i i j

l 1

4 i

4

- 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I

l In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. No. 50-445-CPA

_e_t _a_l . ) {

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHNNIE L. HOWARD City of )

) ss:

County of )

I, JOHNNIE L. HOWARD, have read and fully endorse all of the statements contained in the Petition to Intervene of Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) dated April 7, 1986. As a member of CASE, I have specifically requested that CASE represent my interests in this action. All the statements contained in the above named Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and all those statements concerning zae personally are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.

JOHNNIE L. HOWARD Signed and sworn to before me this day of April 1986.

Notary Public l l

l l

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

_et _al. )

(Comancho Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

I hereby certify that PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CASE was served today, April 7, 1986, by first class mail, upon the following:

Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atcraic Safety and Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington , D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 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. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission l

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 Cossaission Washington, D. C. 20555 1

Note:

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.

, .-. -. - .-- .. ~..

l l

.. ,e

}

I 1

l Chairman Renea Hicks,*2sq. j Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General  !

Beard Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20155 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 .

Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Owen S. Merrill i Christic Institute Staff Engineer

} 1324 North Capitol Streat. Advisory Committee for Reactor i Washington, D. C. 20002 Safeguards (MS H-1016) i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Dr. David H. Boltz Washington, D. C. 20555

, 2012 S. Polk 1 Dallas, Texas 73224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

. Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels

William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge j Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite Gees 3200 j Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201

400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 6

Dallas, Texas 75201 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Ropes & Gray

Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street I (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110 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 1901 Oue Street, N. W. 94111-5894 Washington, D. C. 20009 '

Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,-

1800 M Street, N. W. Suite 700 Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C.

20007 Washington, D. C. 20036 l

jjiwE 3 hil'D s.) Juanita Ellis, President j ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)

! 1426 S. Polk l Dallas.. Texas 75224 i .

214/946-9446 l

i i

2 b .

s