ML20094N367

Affidavit of M Walsh in Support of Case Motion for Addl Time to Respond to Applicant Motions for Summary Disposition on Design/Design QA Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20094N367
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/12/1984
From:	Mary Walsh Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
Shared Package
ML20094N330	List: ML20094N327 ML20094N343 ML20094N367
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408160187
Download: ML20094N367 (8)

Text

- _ _ .__ ___ ___-__ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

7 t

(

AFFIDAVIT OF CASE WITNESS MARK WAL8N k0 IaspreparingthisaffidavitattherequestofCASE/prooident 4 .

d'Qp '

• /) i Juaalta Ellis, to emplain to the Licesslag Board the need foryadditional  !

p,,3 :.:

time to respond to the many Motions for Summary Disposition which 'the' t

' Applicants have filed. ,

f' Initially, I had anticipated that I would have more time available to devote to answering the Motions. However, for the past couple of months or so, I have had to work overtime at my full-time job. (I receive no l compensation from CASE for the work I do'for it, and must rely on my other f 1

job for a living.) .I had thought that the overties would be completed some l :

time ago however, it has in fact increased, to the point where I now as  !

working six days a week and sometimes even on Sundays, as much as 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> a l day, i I know that Jack Doyle has also been working a lot of overties for the past several months as well, and I know f ros my own personal esperience how I difficult it is to work 15 to 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> a week overties at a regular job, then try to work on Motions for Summary Disposition in the evenings and on l Sundays - especially on detailed and complicated engineering /desiSn setters. I'm sure it le even more difficult for Jack, and he has not been able to assist as much as I had anticipated. I

'l It's obvious that it took the App 11cante, with virtually unlimited staffe, contractors, and consultante, months to prepare the Motions. It should also be noted that the NRC Staff, along with its consultante, have ,

I not yet been able to answer a single Motion for Summary Disposition either, '

1 l 0 hk  !

1. PDk

o.  ;

L , ,

for the some reason. I've read that portion of the treneeript of the j 7/26/84 telepheme eenforence call where,the NRC Staff's attorney, Mr.

Ittause, dieeussed the diffleulty the Staff wee having with answering the l Itotione.- (Tr. 13,434.) As ler. Nieuse dieeussed regarding the Staff, I l

l don't think that CASE should be given any less opportunity to review the l l '

Nations in depth than the Applicante had to prepare thee.

Another probles for en to that it le very diffleult for me to put my -

thoughts down en paper about these technical teaues. 81meethielebeinh done under oath, and because I went the Board to have the complete picture i ef the problems, this has led to a lot of rewriting and editing. Mandling l l

the design leeuse in writing will be eseler for the Board, I se sure, but ti i 1

l 1e este diffleult for as (although realtettaally, it would probably have ,

been limposelbie for as to take additional ties off from work for a hearing as I have in the past to attend hearings). f The procedure set forth by the Beard in the 7/26/84 telephone  !

eenforence call, whereby we have to best the Staff in filing our answers, is f

going to be very diffleult, and probably taposelble to accomplish. In i addition to obtaining free Applicante new deeveente end information, in i order to properly and adequately reopend to the Applicants' many Motions, !

! must de a tremendous seeunt of researching of thousande of pages of i

transcript, thousande of doeusente (already in the record, resolved on  ;

discovery, telesene resolved free Cygna, etc.) and (if we had time, which we don't) the recently resolved phase 3 Cygna Report, which to a burden which

! t

is not shared by either the Statf er the App 11eents.  !

t i

3-

But the inforestion derived free such research le absolutely essential for the Board to ephe en infereed deelsten regarding these important Leones and for the record to be semplete. It inset be reasebered that I would not be havtag to ensuer these Nettene new at all had the leerd not allowed App 11eance to re11tigate the desten leaves. The App 11cante failed their chance where ,the jaettee had over 6 months to de findings, and new the l Applicants went CASE and myself to reopend to documente just se important as findings but in only a few months' time. It le just se toportant that CASE '

i be allowed new to complete the record. ,

l One,of the probless I've encountered to that CASE has not received some of the docussate which the Appiteente had prosteed us on discovery. It le 1

1

! er understanding that Mrs. Ellie le preparing a summary of the open items  !

and will be sending it at the ease ties she sende this Notion for Additional Time. This has ende it difficult to plan which Netions we can answer first, and we had to finally file seen answere last week without having received all of the inforestion requested. Not receiving the inforestion requested te not CASE's fault - it le the Applicants' f ault, but it appears that CASE le to be pena 11eed for it.

I need time to review the phase 3 Cygna Report (whteh we have not had time to de yet - the addittenal copy for Jack Deyte wee just received 8/1/84, and he just got it last week-end). As the Board will nottee in the I Anevere we've filed so far, we've referenced a few itees from it, but I really haven't had time to do more than just quickly seen a few pages of it. i 1

, I se eenvinced that it sentaine informatten leportant for the resolution of l these Nettene for Summary Diepeettien, and that the record will suffer '

without such inforeetten being included in our Anevere at this time. But  ;

l

. -- .- .~ --

without additional time to review the Report, we will not be able to include it. -

In ' conclusion, I can only say that we will do the best we can to comply with the Board's directives. I will be more than overjoyed when these b .

Answers are completed, so that I will not need to do all this additional and unnecessary work because the Applicants screwed up the first time.

~

We have been told by the Staff that they plan to fil'e Answers to the following eight Motions sometime during the week of 8/13/84, probably around the 15th; they have not indicated which-they will be filing first:

AWS/ASME (design) - Answered by CASE Richmonds -- Not answered yet by CASE; will take considerable time; Applicants have agreed (in the 8/6/84 CASE / Applicants / Staff telephone conference call) to provide documents. These documents are essential.for. CASE's position. (The Staff was to have had meetings with the Applicants in Bethesda on August 8 and 9 to

]

discuss Motions for Summary Disposition. I don't know whether or not Richmonds were discussed, but the transcripts from such meetings have been very helpful in the past, and it may well be that there will be helpful information in these as well. CASE hasn't received transcripts of the August 6, 8, or 9 transcripts yet.)

, OBE/SSE Damping Values -- Answered by CASE U-Bolts as 2-way restraints -- Not answered yet by CASE ,

Safety Factors -- Not answered yet by CASE Friction -- Answered by CASE Section Properties -- Being sent at same time as this Motion by CASE Gaps -- Being sent at same time as this Motion by CASE 4

.. 1

They have also indicated that they are working on:

Generic stiffnesses -- Not answered yet by CASE This is absolutely no way we can possibly answer all of the Motions the Staff has indicated they plan to file Answers to this coming week. We plan to answer them in the following order, as quickly as we can:

U-Bolts acting as 2-way restraints -- we have been working on this some already and should be able to get it out next week-end Safety Factors -- we have been working on this some already and should be able to get it out next week-end Richmonds I an especially concerned about the Richmond inserts. This is one of the most important items with which I am concerned, and it is one which will take a tremendous amount of time to complete.

i l

l l

5

. . _ . , . . , . . , - v- ,-- - -- n,, -- -- ,

The preceding Affidavit was prepared under my personal direction. I can be contacted through CASE President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, 1426 S. Polk, Dallas, Texas 75224, 214/946-9446.

I have read the statements therein, and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. .

W h *

(Signed) Mark Walsh STATE OF TEXAS On this, the 1 day of August, 1984, personally appeared Mark Walsh, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.

Subscribed and sworn before me on the I day of August, 1984.

twit kh6 D Notary Public in and for the State of Texas SAMUEE W. NESTOR $

My Commission Expireg,i My Commission Expires: 1 31-85 6

~

,, , - - - , -.,---,-w, ,, , ,n --n,- ,, , ~

.m,n-w-- - , ,

.4 q wEDCL"SCZ M _

UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA 00( i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION us4[En BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENbG AQARD In the' Matter of }{ 6 .

2.*/J

}{ 'W 9 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket 454-445-1 COMPANY, et al. . }{ 'an ITO-446-1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{.

Station, Units 1 and 2) }{

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Motion for Additional Time in Which to Respond to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition on Design / Design QA Issues have been sent to the names listed below this 13th day of August ,1984 ,

by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere.

• Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor & Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

• Ms. Ellen Ginsberg, Law Clark U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Office of Executive Legal Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Dr. Ranneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.

Architecture and Technology - Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road i Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 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

e.

.b_ -

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 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 s

Dr. David H. Boltz 2012'S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)

Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l

Sfrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

214/946-9446 l

l l 2

. _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _ .