ML20064E811

Presents Views on Proposed Hearing & Testimony Schedule.No Document Defining ASLB Position on Contentions Received. Listed Contentions Should Not Be Heard Before Jg Keppler Testimony Evaluating QA on Soils Issue

ML20064E811
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	Sinclair M SINCLAIR, M.P.
To:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8301060143
Download: ML20064E811 (2)

Text

m.

- me 5711 Summerset Drive Tlidland. '.!I 48G40 December 31, 1982 '83

&l-5 A10:49

[~. r :' ..

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman  :.*L ~NCHSEii. n~

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Re: Midland Plant, Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330

Dear Mr. Bechhoefer:

William Jordan of Ilarmon & Weiss,who substituted for Attorney Lee Bishop

, and represented me during the conferena calllest week summarized the dis-cussion of that call in relation to scheduling. .

lie told me that Tir. Keppler's testimony and evaluation of quality assurance work at Midland were postponed tmtil April 5,1983 He advised me, however, that several outstanding matters on soil settlement issues would be scheduled for February 14, 1983 In addition, he said that at this point the Board was also contemplating hearing several of my contentions for the operating license. It is my understanding that the following contentions were being considered for hearings in February: Number 3 on Class 9 accident, Number 28 on the water hammer problem, and Number 30 on the steam generator tube degradation issue. I believe it is important to state my views about this proposed schedule before the next conference call on January 6,1983.

As of this date, I want to bring to your attention the fact that I do not have any written document from the Board that specific' ally states which contentions or any part of any contentions that I have submitted have been accepted by the Board. Although they were discussed informally during hearings in November, no document defining the Board's position has'been issued. This document is essential for me to have to even begin any kind of meaningful preparation for hearings on these issues. It is also incomprehensible to me how the contentions mentioned above,which represent some of the most serious unresolved problems in nuclear development,can be heard with any degree of thoroughness before we hear Mr. Keppler's evaluation of quality assurance on the soils issues.

At this point, we are not only faced with serious questions about the actual outcome of the whole underpinning operation, but also must consider the fact that all the safety systems in the reactor buildings, the diesel generator building and the auxiliary building are being removed and must be replaced and reinstalled properly. Until there is some assurance that these tasks can be properly done

1. 1. f0 P

O vsos

_ m e

,d

e. ~ Paga Two Charles Bechhoefer December 31, 1982 and we have a realistic time frame in which this work is to be completed and approved, continuing with the operating license contentions, in my view, is an exercise in futility. After all, examining a few technical specifics related to each of the operating license contentions and closing them out without relating them to the overall construction adequacy of the plant is not going to create any record of j assurance that the public healthend safety is being protected by the decision-making of this Board.

~

I expect to be able to discuss these views in greater detail at the Wednesday,

, January 6,1983, conference call.

Yours sincerely, V lW(s Mary Sinclajr cc: Ralph S. Decker

• Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Jerry Harbour, Esq.

Secretary, NRC Docketing and Services Section Michael I. Miller, Esq. .,

William Paton, Psq.

Mr. Wendell Marshall Ms. Barbara Stamiris James E. Brunner Lee Bishop

l 5

, to e

e

+- e - - - - - r Qc -

y y