ML20137X053

Memorandum & Order Granting,In Part,Applicant 850925 Motion for Mod of 850829 Order.Independence of Comanche Peak Review Team Affects Weight of Evidence,Not Whether Evidence Would Be Received.Served on 851002

ML20137X053
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/02/1985
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#485-672 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8510040449
Download: ML20137X053 (5)

Text

I<lj72-

?.

00LE TED USNFEBP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMfgITT -2 P2 @

Before Administrative Judges:

GFFILE OF SELHr TA, Peter B. Bloch, ChaigETING 4 SEsvir;,

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom *H Dr. Walter H. Jordan SERVED L;m g Herbert Grossman, Esq.

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL & OL-2

) 50-446-0L & OL-2

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)

) ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL 1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) October 2, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Applicants' Motion for Modification)

Applicants' Motion for Modification, filed September 25, 1985, shall be granted in part.

We agree with Texas Utilities Electric Company, e_t, al.,

(Applicants) that the degree of independence of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) affects the weight of the evidence and not whether it would be received into evidence. See The Dallas Morning News article of August 30, 1985 (p. 16A) cited by Applicants.

We find that the remainder of our Memorandum and Order dealing with the way in which management has exercised its responsibility requires neither modification nor correction in response to Applicants' motion.

The assessment of plant quality- is a complex matter. There are allegations of a pattern of construction and design deficiencies. A determination concerning how management has exercised its responsibility 8510040449 85 45 PDR ADOCK O pg d

r a

Modification: 2 for the quality of design and construction and t N adequacy of QA/QC would, at the very least, affect the necessary scope and intensity of review, including sample sizes.

With respect to sua sponte matters, our view of our responsibili-ties differs from that of Applicants. In particular, the timeliness factors that affect us are different from those affecting intervenors.

Intervenors must submit new issues in a timely manner when information relevant to those matters raises their suspicions. It is not, on the other hand, appropriate for a Licensing Board to act on suspicion. We wait. We hear the presented evidence. We declare issues sua sponte when the evidence suggests the necessity for our doing so.

Our unwillingness to act on suspicion is tempered by our awareness that in complex ' litigation it may be proper to discuss our views, in a preliminary and non-binding manner, in order to assist the parties in anticipating -their evidentiary needs. This can avoid the extensive delay that might arise if our views came as a surprise to a party later in the litigation. Hence, we prefer to put the parties on notice of our preliminary views -- providing them with a fair opportunity to assemble and present relevant evidence.

At the present time, the way in which management exercised its responsibility for the construction of Comanche Peak is relevant to the compiling of an adequate record about plant quality. In addition to the present significance of this information, we will consider the implications for the safe operation of the plant of whatever we learn from this relevant evidence.

O

./

Modification: 3 We expect Applicants, either in the hearing context or outside of it, to address management's responsibility in a careful fashion that re-flects their concern for the public safety. We expect to be apprised of any documents that reflect the way in which management exercises this responsibility.

Whether or not Applicants harassed workers or otherwise deviated from Appendix B requirements, as alleged, affects our assessment of the adequacy with which QA/QC observed the quality of the plant. In assessing the significance of QA/QC deficiencies and the remedies that might be appropriate with respect to such deficiencies, we would be concerned were we to conclude that present management has difficulty assessing and learning from management's previous errors. Consequently, should carefulness be missing from Applicants' studies of its own management behavior (or should Applicants fail to develop an adequate understanding of its own behavior), we would consider the implications '

of that lack of ccncern.1 To the extent that the CPRT does not assess management actions, including actions with respect to this litigation, we are hopeful that the Staff will rise to fill that void. If not, we will need to consider whether to declare a sua sponte issue, considering all the evidence before us as this case is developed.

I Of course, to . the extent that the evidenw might indicate that Applicants' QA/QC program was adequate, the need for management to (Footnote Continued)

(

.i i

Modification: 4 Since Applicants have withdrawn their sumary disposition motions, we will not act on those motions.2 Typically, when a motion is withdrawn it becomes moot. However, the submission of these summary disposition documents may reflect on management's ability to understand and control the quality of design.3 The affidavits were submitted for our formal consideration. To the extent that the evidence was incomplete or misleading, we still expect Applicants to fulfill their obligation to correct our record. If necessary, they should explain the reason for the incomplete or misleading affidavits.

(FootnoteContinued) demonstrate an appreciation for its own deficiencies would be diminished.

2 Although Applicants appear to be withdrawing all their summary disposition motions, including those we have already acted on, we do not interpret their motion to apply to withdrawal of motions covered by final decisions of the Board. If we are incorrect in this interpretation, Applicants should notify us promptly, stating why they would have us withdraw decisions that we have already issued.

3 We note that our December 1983 Memorandum and Order, LBP-83-81, 18.

NRC 1410 at 1452 concluded, in part, that "[T]he record before us casts doubt on the design quality of Comanche Peak, both because applicant has failed to adopt a system to correct design deficiencies and because our record is devoid of a satisfactory explanation for several design questions raised by intervenors."

Nothing subsequently presented to us, up to this time, has detracted from this conclusion.

i Modification: 5 0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 2nd day of October 19P5 ORDERED:

Applicants' September 25, 1985 Motion for Modification of our ordar of August 29, 1985, is granted in part--by clarification in the accompa-nying memorandum of the Board's concern about the independence of the CP'T.

R In all other respects, the Motion is denied.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Peter B'. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland