ML20151A627

Memorandum & Order (Dismissing Proceedings).* Documents That Parties in Joint Stipulation Agreed to Tender Admitted to Record at 880713 Prehearing Conference.Served on 880715

ML20151A627
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/13/1988
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#388-6711 79-430-06-CPA, 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-CPA, 79-430-6-OL, ASLBP-79-430-6, CPA, OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8807200065
Download: ML20151A627 (81)

Text

--

0 N70 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i Mi

• i-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:

• 88 JJt.15 A11 :50 Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom of'tu 00C W '

.'?!,,

p ;. w '

• l -

i

)

SERVED JUL 1 5 1983-In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-445-OL2 Texas Utilities Electric Co., e_t. a.l

)

50-446-OL2

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

ASLSP No. 79-430-06-O L Units 1 and 2)

)

)

July 13,1988

)

)

Irrthe Matter of

)

)

Docket Nc. 50-445-CPA Texas Utilities Electric Co., et. al.

)

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,)

ASLBP No. 79-430-06-C PA Unit 1)

)

~

)

July 13,1388

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Proceedings).

Pursuant to the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Proceedings Subject to Condition) dated July 5,1988, a prehearing conference was held on July 13, 1988, at which there was admitted into the record of these proceedings the documents that the parties in their Joint Stipulation agreed to tender.

The condition of paragraph 2 of that Memorandum and Order having thereby been satisfied,it is hereby ORDERED that these proceedings are dismissed.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f

k DO 1

O Peter B. Bloch, Chair Administrative Judge D

J:

+

!.. c

-t i :.

,i Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge

. t.

+

2ni

. Yc 'h w Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge e

8 1

i o.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINO BOARD

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-445-OL

)

50-446-OL

)

In the Matter of

)

(Application for an N

)

Operating License)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY

)

et al.

)

and (Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

Station, Units I and 2)

)

Docket No. 50-445-CPA

)

)

(Construction Permit

)

Amendment)

)

- JOINT MOTION FOR DBMISSAL OF PROCEEDtNGS On June

,1988, Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE"), Texas Utilities Electric Company, y al,. ("Applicants"), and the NRC Staff entered into a Joint Stipulation, filed herewith, to withdraw from controversy the contentions sponsored by CASE in the Comanche Peak operating license and construction permit amendment proceedings. The parties believe that the agreement contained in the Joint Stipulation is a fair and reasonable settlement of each of the contested issues and is in the interests of all parties and the public. CASE, Applicants, and the NRC Staff hereby move the Board to accept the Joint Stipulation and to dismiss these proceedings.M If The State of Texas, although appearing in the OL proceeding as an interested state pursuant to 10 CPR S 2.715(c), has not filed a petition to intervene, requested a hearing, or sponsored any contentions, and is not a party to these proceedings under 10 CPR S 2.714.

Consequently, since all parties' contentions have been withdrawn, dismissal of these proceedings is appropriate.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (R. E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LBP-84-34, 20 NRC 769 (1984). See also Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2)3BT53-45,18 NRC 213 (1983).

g 3

N

There era compelling policy reasons for dismissal of th:se proceIdings by virtue of the parties' settlement. Longstanding Commission policy supports dismissal:

The Commission recognizes that the public interest may be served through settlement of particular issues in a proceeding or the entire proceeding.

Therefore, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the hearing requirements in section 189 of the (Atomic Energy] Act (42 U.S.C. 2239), the fair and reasonable settlement of contested initial licensing proceedings is encouraged. It is expected that the presiding officer and all parties to those proceedings will take appropriate steps to carry out this purpose.

10 CFR S 2.759. See 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A 1 V.(d)(10); and the Commission Policy Statement on Conduct of Proceedings,46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (May 27,1981). These policies favoring dismissal are consistent with the guidance of the Appeal Board, se_e Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-830,23 NRC 59, 60 (1986), and the practice of other licensing boards. See eg, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station), LBP-85-6A, 21 NRC 648 (1985);

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (R. E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LBP-84-34, 20 NRC-769 (1484); Gulf States Utilities (River Bend Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-51, 20 NRC 1478 (1984).

The parties agree that the existing hearing schedule remains in effect pending an order by the Board dismissing these proceedings.

However, in order to prevent unnecessary burden upon the parties pending a ruling by the Board on this Joint Motion, the parties agree that they will not take any action required under the hearing schedule during the thirty days following filing of this Joint Motion, and the parties request that the Board issue an order permitting deferral nunc pro tune of any actions required under the hearing schedule.E As a result, time is of the essence in receiving an order in response to this Joint Motion, and the parties request an expeditious ruling from the Board.

2/

The agreement of the parties does not affect the issuance of any SSER by the NRC ftaff, or the voluntary supplementation of interrogatories, but would defer nunc pro tune any action of any party dependent upon such issuance or any subsequent action of a party. '

The parties' Joint Stipulation is supported by a substantial technical basis and has been arrived at following extensive exchanges of information.

Through the Joint Stipulation, the parties have agreed that the remaining issues can best be resolved and their interests can be protected by withdrawal of the remaining contentions, dismissal of the adjudicatory hearings, implementation of the programs and plans described in the Joint Stipulation, and active continued involvement by CASE in these programs and plans.

The parties urge the Board to act promptly and decisively to end these proceedings.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Board:

1.

Accept the Joint Stipulation of the parties filed herewith; 2.

Admit into the evidentiary record of these proceedings the documents that the parties in their Joint Stipulation have agreed to tender for admission into the proceedings; and 3.

Order dismissal of Docket No. 50-445-OL, Docket No. 50-446-OL, and Docket No. 50-445-CPA.

Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 022L E4r, f>! fD J

yyts.) Juanita Ellis, President and v Co-Representative 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 (214) 946-9446 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN BILLIE PIRNER GArIDE By:

\\b Billie Pirner Garde Attorney for CASE 1

Texas Utilities Electric Company for the Owners of the CPSES m

-~

Jac Nw Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Suite 1000 1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6800 Attorneys for Texas Utilities Electric Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff T fA A /I M M M Janice E. Moore Counsel for the NRC Staff Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 O

l

~

o

.1

1. 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-445-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC

)

50-446-OL COMPANY, et al.

)

(Application for an

~

)

Operating License)

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

Docket No. 50-445 CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

(Construction Permit

)

Amendment)

)

JOINT STIPULATION PREAMBLES -

1.

On February 28, 1978, an application for operating licenses for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 ("CPSES"), was filed by Texas Utilities Generating Company,1/ et al., ("Applicants"). This appilcation was subsequently docketed 1

as Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC"), and the application has been amended from time to time.

2.

Pursuant to a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (44 PED. REG. 6995),

petitions to intervene in the CPSES OL proceeding were filed by several persons, including Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE"). On June 27, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") presiding over the CPSES OL proceeding granted the petitions to intervene and subsequently admitted several contentions.

1/

The successor in interest is Texas Utilities Electric Company ('TU Electric").

gj8j>Wf

3.

All intervenors except CASE withdrew from the CPSES OL proceeding. As a result of various decisions by the ASLB, all contentions in the CPSES OL proceeding have either been dismissed or withdrawa, except for Contention 5 related to quality assurance

("QA") st CPSES. A list of admitted Contentions is attached as Exhibit 14 hereto.

4.

Following hearings on Contention 5, the ASLB issued a Memorandum and Order on December 28,1983, which found CASE's contention concerning design QA to be meritorious in part and ordered that Applicants file a plan to satisfy the ASLB concerning the issues discussed in the decision. This decision was based upon concerns expressed by CASE witnesses Walsh and Doyle regarding piping and pipe supports and stated in part:

The record before us casts doubt on the design quality of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Comanche Peak), both oecause the Texas Utilities Generating Company, g al. (applicant) has not demonstrated the existence of a system that promptly corrects design deficiencies and because our record is devoid of a satisfactory explanation for several design questions raised by the Citizens Association for Safe (sic-Sound) Energy (CASE). We suggest that there is a need for an independent design review and we require applicant to file a plan that may help to resolve our doubts.

On February 8,1984, the ASLB issued a further Order on Reconsideration Concernig Quality Assurance for Design.

5.

A separate ASLB was appointed in the CPSES OL proceeding to preside over hearings pertaining to allegations of harassment, intimidation, and threats at CPSES. The ASLB presiding over these hearings has been disestablished and those matters have been consolidated with the matters being heard by the ASLB presiding over the CPSES OL proceeding.

6.

On January 29, 1986, Applicants filed an application for amendment of its construction permit for CPSES Unit 1 in order to extend the latest date of completion of construction contained in the construction permit. This application was docketed under Docket No. 50-445-CPA by the NRC. The ASLB in the CPSES OL proceeding was also designated to preside over the CPSES CPA proceeding.

l 7.

Petitions to intervene in the CPA proceeding were filed by CASE and Meddie Gregory. CASE and Meddie Gregory were granted leave to intervene (Ms. Gregory is now deceased and no longer a party).

Ultimately, a joint contention (Contention 2) was admitted. Contention 2 alleges that "(tlhe delay of construction of Unit I was caused by Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants."

8.

Contention 5 (OL) and Contention 2 (CPA) have been the subject of extensive discussions and exchanges of information among the parties. Applicants and the NRC

~

Staff have programs in place and plans for action, as discussed in paragraph 9 below, that are intended to address the concerns in the remaining contentions. CASE, through its involvement in these programs and plans in the manner and to the extent described in Sections A and B below, has an opportunity to participate in the resolution of the concerns raised by the remaining contentions without resort to the adjudicatory process. As a result, all parties now have concluded that the remaining issues can best be resolved and their interests can be protected by withdrawal of the remaining contentions, dismissal of the adjudicatory proceedings, iinplementation of the programs and plans described in paragraph 9 and Sections A and B below, and active continued involvement by CASE in these programs and plans. CASE believes that it can best serve the public interest through the implementation of the provisions of this Joint Stipulation.

9.

Applicants and the NRC Staff have taken many actions which are designed to address the concerns reflected in Contentions 2 and 5, including the followings a.

TU Electric contracted with Cygna to perform an Independent Assessment Program ("IAP") of the design of CPSES, including a review of the methodologies for addressing the Walsh/Doyle issues.

Cygna has issued Review issue Lists ("RIL's") (attached as Exhibit 1) which indicate Cygna's position on design issues. In particular, all Cygna technical issues have been,

closed. Cygna is currently preparing its final report, which pertains to Phase IV of its activities.

b.

In 1985, TU Electric contracted with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ("SWEC") to resolve piping / pipe support issues As a result of the SWEC efforts, TU Electric decided to perform a design validation program and hardware validation program for piping and pipe supports. As discussed in the Project Status Reports (attached as Exhibit 9), design validation for piping and pipe supports has been completed, and hardware validation is in process.

c.

The NRC Staff established a Technical Review Team ('TRT") to perform en extensive series of inspections in areas subject to concerns and allegations pertaining to CPSES.

The majority of the results of these inspections have been reported in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports

~

("SSER's") 7,8,9,10, and 11. SSER 11 stated in part, as follows:

- The pattern of failures by QA and QC personnel to detect and document deficiencies suggests an ineffective B&R and TUGCO inspect!on system. This pattern, coupled with (a) the past problems in the document control system, (b) deficiencies in the QC qualification program, (c) ineffectiveness of the quality' audit and survelliance systems, (d) a rudimentary and ineffective trending and corrective action system, (e) QC problems as shown in QA/QC Category 8, AQ-50; and (f) instances of improper workmanship of hardware as found by all of the TRT groups, challenges the adequacy of the QC inspection program at CPSES on a system-wide basis.

The NRC Region IV office also continued to issue inspection reports and provide inspection and cversight *.tntil 1987. Additionally, in 1987 the NRC established an Office of Special Projects in order to provide increased inspection and oversight of CPSES and the plants owned by the Tennessee Valley Author lty.

d.

TU Electric established the Comanche Peak Response Team

("CPRT") to evaluate the issues identified by the TRT and other external sources (including issues identified during hearings and by the ASLB in the '

i

~

O CPSES OL proceeding) and to perform a self-initiated evaluation of the design and construction of CPSES. Revisions 3 and 4 of the CPRT Program Plan (attached as Exhibit 2) were approved by the NRC Staff in SSER 13 (attached as Exhit:lt 3) and in a letter dated January 22,1988, from Stewart D. Ebneter (NRC) to William G.

Counsil (TU Electric) re: "CPSES Licensing and Corrective Action Programs" (hereinafter referred to as NRC Staff's January 22,1988, letter) (attached as Exhibit 4).

The results of CPRT's evaluations have been provided in Results Reports (attached as Exhibit 5) for issue Specific Action Plans ("ISAP's") and Discipline Specific Action Plans

("DS A P's").

Additionally, CPRT collectively evaluated its results and evaluated the collective significance of its results, and the results of these evaluations have been reported in the Collective Evaluation Report ("CER")

(attached as Exhibit 6) and the Collective Significance Report ("CSR")

(attachetias Exhibit 7). Based upon the results of 'its activities, the CPRT concluded that there were problems arising from weaknesses in the historical programs, that the CPRT identified the weaknesses in the historical programs and defined appropriate corrective action, and that in conjunction with full implementation of the prescribed corrective actions, the current programs for design, construction, assurance of quality, and testing of CPSES are adequate.

The CPRT also concluded that the Corrective Action Program ("CAP"),

discussed in paragraph 9.e below, provides an acceptable means of validating the design and hardware for CPSES. The NRC Staff is in the process of reviewing the Results Reports, CER, CSR, and supporting information and preparing SSER's to document its results and conclusions regarding reasonable assurance as to whether or not the structures, systems, and components at CPSES will be capable of performing their intended safety functions.

5-

Based in part on the preliminary results of the CPRT program, e.

TU Electric established the CAP (attached documents in Exhibit 8 described CAP). The CAP includes a design validation program and a Post Construction Hardware Validation Program ("PCHYP") for CPSES. Furthermore, the CAP is subject to audits and overviews by the CPRT, the Technical Audit Program

(' TAP"), and the Engineering Functional Evaluation ("EFE"), among others.

The CAP plan was approved in NRC Staff's January 22,1988, letter. The results of the design validation program have been provided in Project Status Reports ("PSR's") (attached as Exhibit 9) for various design disciplines Based upon its inspections and reviews, the NRC Staff has issued SSER 14 (attached as Exhibit 10) which concluded that the design of large and small bore piping and pipe supports is acceptable and meets the applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC Staff is currently in the. process of reviewing the reinalning PSR's and supporting documents and preparing SSER's to document

~

its results, f.

TU Electric has taken numerous actions to improve its management, organization, and programs for CPSES (description attached as Exhibit 13). These include hiring experienced nuclear managers, obtaining the services of experienced nuclear contractors to implement CAP, and enhancing the CPSES QA program, including the design centrol program, as reported in the CER and CSR. Additionally, TU Electric has established the SAFETEAM program and the Hotline program and has utilized its Corporate Security Department to provide employees with means of expressing any concerns they may have regarding CPSES. These improvements are described in part in amendments to the Final Safety Analysis Report for CPSES, correspondence with the NRC, policy statements and procedures reviewed by CASE and the NRC Staff, NRC Staff inspection reports for CPSES, statements at public O

t 4

meetings related. to CPSES, pleadings filed in these proceedings, and other documents, g.

TU Electric has provided responses to numerous informal discovery requests by CASE, and it has provided CASE with the CPSES documents identified in the Index of Exhibits, attached. Additionally, TU Electric has held a series of public meetings with CASE to describe the CAP and TU Electric's methodology for resolving issues of concern to CASE and any other external source issues (transcripts attached as Exhibit 11).

These

~

meetings also provided CASE and its technical consultants with an opportunity to seek resolution of many questions or concerns they have had regarding the CPSES design. Representatives of CASE have also toured CPSES to observe implementation of some design changes.

10.

The agreements set forth in this Joint Stipulation arise from the specific facts and cire'umstan~ces involved in this proceeding and are not intended to serve as precedent in any other proceeding.

11.

The parties are committed to execute in good faith

• the programs, plans, commitments, and agreements contained in this Joint Stipulation.

12.

As a result of the agreements reached among the parties reflected in this Joint Stipulation, the parties agree that these proceedings should be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed among the parties that:

A.

Contention 5 in Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL and Contention 2 in Docket No. 50-445-CPA are withdrawn in their entirety, and the parties request that the ASLB accept this agreement and dismiss these proceedings, subject to the following conditions and agreements among the parties:

1.

Cygna shall continue to implement the IAP under the terms of the current protocol. Cygna's activities shall be concluded under the IAP upon issuance of the Phase IV Report..

2.

TU Electric shall continue to implement the CAP for CPSES Unit I l

as described in pages 6 through 12 of the enclosure to the NRC Staffs Janusry 22,.1988, letter.

TU Electric shall continue to implement the provisions for CPSES Unit 2 described in TU Electric's letter TXX-88373 to NRC dated April 14,1988 (attached as Exhibit 8). TU Electric may make changes in the programs as described above only in accordance with the provisions of paragraph A.3, below, and subject to the provisions of Section B, below.

N 3.

TU Electric shall provide CASE with notice of any proposed change / in the programs as described in paragraph A.2, above. CASE shall 2

have an opportunity within twenty-one (21) days of notice of the change to notify TU Electric and the NRC Staff of any concerns it may have regarding a proposed change, and TU Electric shall not implement a proposed change during th"is pernd.

4.

The SAFETEAM program, the Hotline program, and the allegation investigation portion of the Corporate Security Program, will continue until at least 1993, at which time they will either be continued or replaced by some other employee allegation management program. In addition, until 1993, each worker who is discharged or terminates employment at CPSES shall receive a notice that describes TU Electric's policy toward intimidation and harassment and treatment of worker concerns, the methods by which workers msy express any concerns they may have, and the means for directly informing senior TU P.lectric management of any concerns for which the workers may not have received a prompt response from SAFETEAM, and that immediately advises 2_/

"Chinge as referred to in this paragraph means any modification, deletion or substitution of any of the programs described in A.2, above.

.g.

o t

each worket of his rights under the Department of Labor ("DOL") and the statute of limitations to pursue his legal recourse.

5.

CASE's representative or Mrs. Juanita Ellis or her designee, which may include Billie P.

Garde or another attorney from the Government Accountability Project ("GAP"), shall be provided with an opportunity during 1988 to hold a session, of approximately two hours in length, with mid-level managers at CPSES to provide them with information on additional methods for dealing with worker concerns. If necessary to accommodate the number of mid-level managers at CPSES, more ths.n one such session may be conducted.

For the purpose of this paragraph, the term "mid-level manager" shall be defined as a TU Electric individual whose job title is "manager" or "supervisor" or a contractor individual who occupies an equivalent position. TU Electric agrees that it will make a good faith effort to work with CASE to develop a mechanism for more effectively addressing and resolving concerns raised by individuals who are directly or indirectly working for TU Electric at CPSES.

6.

Upon the effective date of the Joint Stip"ulation, CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, shall be appointed as a full memoer of the CPSES Operations Review Committee ("ORC") for a period of at least five years and will be entitled to all of the rights and privileges that all other individuals have as members of the ORC. CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, at her discretion, may designate an alternate to attend and participate on her behalf. Although this is an unpaid position, TU Electric will reimburse CASE for all expenses as ociated with such participation by Mrs.Juanita Ellis or her designee. If at the time of the expiration of such' five (5) year period, Unit 2 is estimated by TU Electric ta not be in commercial operation during the period of eighteen (18) months thereaf ter, then, in such event, the tenure on ORC of CASE's representative, Mrs. Ellis, shall be extended for at least an additional year.

r 7.

TU Electric shall notify CASE in the event that any nuclear officer of TU Electric or a CAP contractor or a TU Electric consultant makes, and TU Electric rejects: a written recommendation for a change in the programs as described above in paragraph A.2, with a complete description of the proposed change and TU Electric's reasons for the rejection. Such notification shall be made in writing and delivered to CASE within ten (10) days of the date

~

of rejection of such recommendation.

8.

CASE shall continue to receive copies, at no charge, of all filings and correspondence between the NRC Staff and TU Electric until 1993 or one year after commercial operation of CPSES Unit 2, whichever occurs first. If requested by CASE, up to three copies of '.ny documents will, at no charge, be delivered to CASE consultants, employees, or advisors specified by CASE.

9.

TU Electric shall provide CASE with prior notice of and opportunity to attend all monthly exit meetings related

• to NRC Staff inspections of CPSES until at least 1993, all exit meetings for NRC Staff inspections related to the CAP, and all formally noticed meetings between NRC and TU Electric until at least 1993. TU Electric shall provide such notice telephonically at least two working days in advance of a scheduled meeting or within twenty-four (24) hours of the time any member of TU Electric nuclear management becomes aware of such scheduled meeting, and shall confirm such notice in writing transmitted by First Class mail or hand delivery.

10.

CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, (and her designated alternate to ORC) shall be provided until at least 1993, and the designated technical consultant of CASE shall be provided until twelve (12) months after I m-

r _______-__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _

CPSES Unit 1 initially achieves 5% of full power, with access to the CPSES site at all reasonable times, including Saturdays, upon providing TU Electric with forty-eight hours prior written or oral notice. TU Electric shall assist in obtaining whatever security or other clearances may be required for such access, and such access shall be subject to any CPSES procedures, controls or other limitations on access that may exist for reasons of security, safety, radiological protection, or similar concerns.

During such visits, CASE's representative, or alternate shall be provided reasonable access to, and copies

~~

of, documents in good faith determ:ned to be necessary to perform his/her responsibilities on the ORC.

11.

Until twelve (12) months after CPSES Unit 1 initially achieves 5%

of full power, TU Electric shall provide CASE with matrices of schedules of

~

audits to be conducted by TU Electric's QA department at CPSES, and CASE's technicafconsultant shall be efforded an opportunity to accompany personnel performing such audits, subject to the provisions in paragraph A.10, above. It is the intent of the parties that, during the performance of such audits, CASE's technical consultant or representative shall have the freedom to observe the work being audited. Additionally, following completion of the activities being audited, CASE's technical consultant shall be provided with indeoendent access to copies of the documentation associated with such audits. Furthermore, CASE shall be provided with the opportunity to recommend areas or activities to be audited in addition to those identified on the matrices of schedules of audits to be conducted by TU Electric's QA department at CPSES.

TU Electric shall, in good faith, consider whether to condtiet such audits recommended by CASE.

If such an audit is performed, CASE's technical consultant or representative shall be afforded an opportunity to accompany ___

1*

l personnel performing such audits in accordance with the provisions discussed above.

B.

In the event that any dispo'.? between the Applicants and CASE arises relating to any matter under the jurisdiction of the NRC pertaining to the design, construction, or operation of CPSES prior to the issuance of the full power operating license for CPSES Unit 2, the Applicants or CASE, as the case may be, may seek resolution of the dispute by the NRC Staff as fonows:

1.

The Applicants or CASE shall promptly notify, but not later than

~

~-

ten (10) working days af ter identification of a dispute, the other party and the NRC Director of Special Projects for CPSES3/ as to the existence of any such dispute.

2.

Applicants and CASE shall exercise their best efforts to resolve the dispute between themselves without a request for resolution by the NRC Staff purIuant to paragraphs B.3, B.4, and B.5, below.

3.

The Applicants or CASE shall submit a documented request for action to the NRC Director of Special Projeco for CPSES and to the other party within twenty-one (21) days after either Appicants or CASE notify the other party that resolution under paragraph B.2 cannot be effected; provided, however, that if the party raising such dispute fails to make a submission within the time reqaired by this paragraph af ter said notice is given, then the dispute shall be deemed conclusively resolved as between the Applicants and CASE.

4.

The Applicants or CASE shall submit to the NRC Staff and to the other party its response, if any, within twtnty-one (21) days after receipt of any request for action under paragrapn B.3, above.

3/

In the event that the NRC Office of Snecial Projects is disbanded or CPSES is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Projects, the responsibilities of j

the Director of Special Projects under this Joint Stipulation shall be exercised by the Branch Chief of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") responsible for CPSES..

w--m,,-

r-- - - -

-e

--,+ - --- -

-w

5.

Within twenty-one (21) days af ter receipt of any NRC Staff determination resolving a dispute submitted under paragraphs B.3 and B.4, above, the Applicants or CASE may s2ek review of the NRC Staff resolution of the dispute by the NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR").

In the event that either the Applicants or CASE determines that an NRC Staff resolution pursuant to paragre '- B.3 and B.4, above, is, under the circumstances, unreasonably delayed, nuher party shall object to the other's seeking a resolution by the Director of NRR.

Any

~ _.

determination resolving a dispete by the Director of NRR or any determination by the NRC Staff pursuant to paragraphs B.3 and B.4, above, for which review by the Director of NRR is not sought within the time period provided above, shall be conclusive and binding upon the Applicants and CASE.

6.

If the parti s agree or either party concedes the issue in question at any tinte during the process discussed in paregraphs B-1 through B-5 abor?,

the appeal channel will be abandoned, in writing, by the party making the appeal.

7.

The provisions in this Joint Stipulation shall be the exclusive remedios of the Applicants and CASE for seeking resolution of any disputes related to an - matter under the jurisdiction of the NRC pertaining to the design, constru '

a, or operation of CPSES prior to issuance of full power operating license for CPSES Unit 2, which shall include any activities conducted under the CPSES construction permits and any matter in connection with the issuance of any operating licenses for CPSES, including any associated licenses ce permits and any amendments to the construction permits for CPSES. The provisions in tHs Joint Stipulation do not prohibit CASE from contesting amendments to full power CPSES operating licenses or from seeking relief under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.206 in the event that it '

e is not satisfied with the resolution of any disputes raised under Section B.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall prohibit CASE from continuig to exercise its existing rights to communicate with the NRC or any of its offins.

C.

The documents described in the Index of Exhibits attached shall be jointly offered for admission into the evidentiary record of the CPSES OL and CPA proceedings.

Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall affect the evidentiary status of documents already in the record in such proceedings.

D.

The following documents will remain as part of the recora in the public docket

~

file in this proceeding: all filings, progress reports, NRC inspection eports and responses thereto, correspondence relating to 10 CFR 50.55(e), exchanges of discovery, voluntary supplementation of interrogatories, transcripts of all meetings and conference calls, and all of the items that have been docketed since the CPSES OL and CPA proceedings were

~

originally noticed and scheduled.

~

~

E.

This Joint Stipulation shall become effective when it is accepted by the ASLB and the CPSES OL and CPd proceedings are dismissed.

The undersigned warrant and represent that they have full and complete right, power, authority and capacity to execute this Joint Stipulation on behalf of the parties to this Joint Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),Intervenor By:

be dL [44 7

f (Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, Separately and Acting as Project Manager under the Joint Ownership Agreement on behalf of all the Owners of CPSES By:

f#y William G. Counsil ELeutive Vice President, Generating Division

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO TAFF By:

/

r.

jj

, W'

'%el Date:

8 PS /

- /

APPROVED:

NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.

~

~

/

- t By:

%4 /

'~

Attorney for TU Electric ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN BILLIE PIRNER GARDE By: M1

%_b 3

Billie Pirner Garde Attorney for CASE By:

TU- / A A M N Attorney for NRC

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO THE JOINT STIPULATION EXHIBIT 1 Cygna Energy Service, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Independent Assessment Program, Review Issues List:

a.

Conduit Support - Rev. 3 (Nov. 20,1986).

b.

Civil / Structural-Rev. 0 (July 21,1987).

c.

Cable Tray Support - Rev.14 (July 31,1987).

~ _.

d.

Pipe Stress - Rev. 4 (Sept.16,1987).

e.

Pipe Support - Rav. 4 (Sept.18,1987).

f.

Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls - Rev. 4 (Jan.18,1988),

g.

Mechanical - Rev. 4 (Feb. 9,1988).

h.

Phase IV Report (to be included when available)

EXHIBIT 2

, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units I and 2), Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan:

a.

Rev. 0 (October 3,1984).

b.

Rev.1 (Nov.19,1984),

c.

Rev. 2 (June 28,1985).

d.

Rev. 3 (Jan. 27,1986).

e.

Rev. 4 (June 25,1987).

EXHIBIT 3 NUREG-0797, Supplement No.13, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (May 1986).

EXHIBIT 4 Letter from Stewart D. Ebneter, Director, Office of Special Projects, U.S. NRC to Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, regarding CPSES licensing and Corrective Action Programs dated Jan. 22,1988.

-1

.o EXHIBIT 5 ISAP and DSAP Results Reports Mo.

Name Rev SRT Approved I.a.1 Heat Snrinkable Sleeves 4

12/17/86 I.a.2 Insp. Rprts. Butt Splices 4

03/31/87 I.a.3 Butt Splice Qualification 4

04/30/86

!.a.4.

Dwgs/ Terminations 4

06/25/86 I.a.5 NCR's on AMP Terminal Lugs 4

07/24/86

!.b.1 Flex / Flex Separation 4

12/09/86 I.b.2 Flex / Cable Separation 4

12/09/86 I b.3 Conduit / Cable Tray Separation 4

03/26/86 I.b.4 Barrier Removal 4

12/09/86 I.c Conduit Supports 3

10/28/87 I.d.1 QC Inspector Qualifications 2

12/02/87

~

I.d.2 Admin. of Inspector Tests 2

09/17/86

!.d.3 Craft Personnel Training 2

08/27/86 II.a Re Steel in Cavity 3

10/23/87 II.b Concrete Compressive Strength 3

02/28/86 II.c Air Gap 3

12/10/86 II.d Control Room Ceiling 3

10/21/87 II.e _

Rebar in Fuel Handling Building 3

09/03/87 III.a.1 HPT Data Packages 4

07/01/87 III.a.2 JTG Approval of Test Data 3

10/15/86 III.a.3 Tech Specs for Deferred Tests 3

10/15/86 III.a.4.

Traceability of Test Inst.s 4

08/06/86 III.a.5 Preop Package Accept. Criteria 0

03/26/87 IU.b Conduct of CILRT 4

02/24/87 III.c Prerequisite Testing 4

08/25/87 III.d Preop Testing 4

03/13/86 V.a Skewed Welds in NF Supports 2

10/22/86 V.b Shortening of Anchor Bolts 2

10/29/97 V.c Piping Between Buildings 2

10/29/86 V.d Plug Welds 2

12/10/86 V.e Install. of Main Steam Piping 2

10/15/86 VI.a Insulation / Shield Wall Gap 2

03/10/87 VI.b Polar Crane Shim 2

09/23/87 VII.a.1 Material Traceability 1

05/13/87 VU.a.2 NC and CA Systems 1

05/13/87 VII.a.3 Document Control 1

12/17/86 VU.a.4 Audit Pro. & Auditor Qual's 1

04/18/86 VII.a.5 Periodic Review of QA Program 1

07/28/86 VII.a.6 Exit Interviews 1

10/29/86 VII.a.7 Housekeeping and Sys. Clean 1

11/21/86 VU.a.8 Fuel Pool Liner 1

11/04/86 VU.a.9 Purch'd Safety Mat'l and Equip 0

02/26/86 VU.b.1 Onsite Fabrication 1

02/13/87 VU.b.2 Valve Disassembly 1

03/19/86 VII.b.3 Pipe Support inspections 1

12/02/87 VU.b.4 Hilti Bolts / Inspection 1

05/13/87 VII.c Results Report (Hardware) 1 12/31/87 VIII Civil Struct. DSAP: Cable Tray 1

10/21/87 VUI Civil St' it. DS AP: Conduit 1

11/10/87 IX Piping and Supports DSAP: LBPS 1

09/03/87..

f. - _ _

EXHIBIT 6 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units I and 2), Comanche Peak Response Team, Collective Evaluation Report, Rev. 0 (Dec. 23,1987).

EXHIBIT 7 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units 1 and 2), Comanche Peak Response Team, Collective Significance Report, Rev. 0 (Feb. 28,1988).

EXHIBIT 8 a.

Letters from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, to U.S. NRC:

1.

TXX-6247 regarding Corrective Action Program (CAP) dated Jan. 29,1987; li.

TXX-6500- regarding Response to Request for Additional Information in Conjunction with Program Plan Update dated-June 25,1987; 111.

TXX-6631 regarding CPSES Programs dated Aug. 20, 1987; iv.

TXX-6675 regarding CAP Description and Flow Diagrams dated Aug. 28, 1987;

~

v.

T XX-667'8 regarding Technical Audit Program and Engineering Functional Evaluation dated Sept. 8,1987; vi.

TXX-6712 regarding Post-Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP), and Engineering Evaluation Methodology dated Sept. 8,1987; vii. TXX-6783 regarding PCHYP Attribute Matrix dated Sept. 23, 1987; vill. TXX-6961 regarding Clarifications of CPSES Programs Descriptkons dated Nov. 25, 1987.

b.

Transcripts of meetings between TU Electric and U.S. NRC to discuss CPRT/ CAP:

1.

Jan. 7,1987; 11.

April 2,1987; iii.

April 7,1987;.

iv.

July 29-30,1987; v.

Dec. 9,1987.

Letters from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, to U.S. NRC responding c.

to questions at Dec. 9,1987 meeting:

1.

TXX-7099 regarding Response to NRC comments on CPSES Corrective Action Efforts dated Dec. 18, 1987; 11.

TXX-8'8135 regarding status of Response to NRC comments on CPSES Corrective Action Efforts dated Feb.1,1988; st 111.

TXX-88254 regarding Design Deficiencies Identified in the CAP dated March 16, 1988; iv.

TXX-88373 regarding Responses to NRC Staff Requests dated April 14, 1988.

EXHIBIT 9 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit I and Common; Corrective

~

Action Program - Project Status Reports:

a.

Large Bore Piping and Pipe Supports - Rev. 0 (Nov. 3,1987).

b.

Small Bore Piping and Pipe Supports - Rev. 0 (Nov. 3,1987).

c.

Cable Tray and Cable Tray Hangers - Rev. 0 (Nov. 6,1987),

d.

Conduit Supports Train C 2 Inch Diameter and Less - Rev. 0 (Nov.11,1987).

e.

Conduit Supports Trains A and B, and Train C Larger Than 2 Inch Diameter - Rev. 0 (Nov.18,1987).

f.

Equipment Qualification - Rev. 0 (Jan. 8.1988).

g.

Electrical - Rev. 0 (Jan.15,1988).

h.

Mechanical-Rev. 0 (Jan 25,1988):

1.

Mechanical Supplement A - Systems Interaction, Rev. 0 (Jan. 25,1988);

j =

m

s Mechanical Supplement B - Fire Protection, Rev. 0 (Jan 25, 1988).

i.

Instrumentation and Controls - Rev. 0 (Feb.1,1988),

j j.

Civil / Structural - Rev. 0 (Feb. 8,1988).

k.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) - Rev.0 (Feb.18,1988).

EXHIBIT 10 NUREG-0797, Supplement No.14, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 N

(March 1988).

EXRIBIT 11 Transcripts of meetings between TU Electric and CASE to discuss Corrective Action Program and Project Status Reports:

MEETING DATE DESCIIIIFI' ION

a. 12/17/87 Meeting to discuss specific areas related to piping and pipe supports, cable tray hangers, and conduit and conduit

supports,

b. 12/18/87 Meeting to discuss specific areas related to piping and pipe supports, cable tray hangers, and, conduit and conduit supports.

c. 02/18/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to cable tray hangers, conduit and conduit supports,

d. 02/25/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to pip'1g, pipe supports, civil / structural and mechanical.

e. 02/26/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to piping, pipe supports, civil / structural and mechaalcal.

f. 06/23/88 Meeting to discuss the upper lateral restraints, HVAC, and other issues.

EXHIBIT 12 "Investigation of Weld Quality for Safety Related Pipe Supports,"

prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, dated Dec. 22, 1987.

EXIUBIT 13 Letter (TXX-88495) from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, to U.S. NRC regarding CPSES Programmatic Enhancements dated June 9,1988. '

-\\

EXHIBIT 14 List of Contentions Admitted in Dockets 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL.

Other documents which the parties mutually agree are necessary to a sound record may also be jointly offered for admission into the record.-

i w-b

=

N O

O f.

v.---

.-e+,-venyv...-w--~..m.e.e,

,e+

=.

c.

i EXHIBIT 14 List of Contentions Admitted In Dockets 50-445/OL and 50-446/OL Contention 1.

Applicanto have not' demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with 10 CFR S 50.57(a)(4) in that they have relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

~

~

(CFUR 1)

Contention 2.

One or more of the reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and formally accepted; thus conclusions based upon these computer codes are invalid.

(CFUR 2A)

Contention 3.

The computer codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be tested and, if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict plant behavior.

(CFUR 2B)

Contention 4.

Some accident sequences heretofore considered to have probabilities so low as to be considered incredible, based, in part, upon the findings of WASH-1400, are in fact more probable in light of additional findings, such as those of the Lewis Committee and should be evaluated as credible accidents for CPSES.

This evaluation should include a hydrogen explosion accident.

In order to insure conservatism, the probabilities associated with such accident sequences should be the highest probabilities within the specified confidence band.

(CFUR 3A, 3B and ACORN,ll)

Contention 5.

The Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisioas required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility.

As a result the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR S 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.

(CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 Joint Contention)

~

-g-Contention 6.

There is no assurance that the Spent Fuel Pool area can withstand the effects of tornadoes, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 because:

a.

The analyses upon which the Design Basis Tornado (DBT) is based on (is) perfunctory, outdated and unreliable;

'o.

The loading analyses based on the Design Basis Tornado (DBT) are inappropriate because they fail to consider the potential loading combination of the DBT and a tornado generated missile.

c.

The assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination equations incorporating tornado loadings in combination with "normal and accident conditions" is unacceptable, d.

The DBT parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1. are less conservative than the parameters found in PRC Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2.

(CFUR 5)

Contention 7.

Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate whether th.e rock "overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability of category I structures to withstand seismic disturbances.

(CFUR 6)

Contention 8.

Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of the drawdown of the groundwater under'CPSES during and as a result of plant operation.

(CFUR 7)

Contention 9.

Applicants have failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary.

Various transport mechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclusion boundary.

(CFUR 8)

Contention 10.

The CPSES design fails to adequately account for the effect of asymmetric loading resulting from a pipe break in the areas between the reactor vessel and the shield wall.

(ACORN 1)

Contention 11.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has a reliable method for evaluating or insuring that Class IE safety-related equipment is designed to accommodate the affects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associated l

with the most severe postulated accident; thus General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 3)

Contention 12.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has reliable l

methods for evaluating and insuring that structures, systems and l

components important to safety are designed to withstand the

' affects of the safe shutdown earthquake without losing the capability to safely shutdown the plant:

thus, General Design Criterion 2 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 4)

Contention 13.

Present fire protection measures proposed by Applicants are not adequate to minimizesthe probability and effect of a fire ~from disabling the electric cables for all redundant safety systems; thus, General Design Criterion 3 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 5)

Contention 14.

The DC Power System for the CPSES plant fails to meet the single failure criterion as defined in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.

(ACORN 6)

Contention 15.

The CPSES design does not provide adequate, reliable instrumentation to monitor variables and systems affecting the integrity of the reactor core, the pressure boundary of-the containment after an accident, in violation of General Design Criterion 13 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

(ACORN 7)

Contention 16.

The CPSES does not provide adequate equipment outsLde of-the control room to promptly put the reactor in hot shutdown and so maintain it until attaining cold shutdown (also from outside the control room) as required by General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.

(ACORN 9)

Contention 17.

Neither the Applicants nor the St'aff has adequately considered the effects of aging and cumulative radiation on safety-related equipment which must be seismically and environmentally qualified, thus, General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 10)

Contention 18.

The CPSES design fails to present a means for dealing with pressure transients produced by component failure, personnel error, or spurious valve actuation which exceed the pressure / temperature limits of the reactor vessel. (ACORN 13)

Contention 19.

The CPSES design fails to protect against corrosion within the steam generators which causes cracking of pipes and leakage of radioactive water.

(ACORN 15)

Contention 20.

The CPSES design does not adequately insure that safety-related water supplies will be available for plant operation in the event of ice buildup at the service water intake structure.

(ACORN 10)

Contention 21.

The CPSES design fails to protect against accidents involving the movement and handling of

=avy loads in the vicinity of spent fuel at the facilit" (AC'

' 21)

i ~

Contention 22.

Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:

a.

The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or who have special qualifications for dealing with emergencies.

(CASE 12(a))

b.

No agreements have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identification

~

of the principal officials by titles and agencies.

(CASE 12(b))

c.

There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary.

(CASE 12(c))

-d.

-There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions for partici-pation in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicant.

(CASE 12(d))

l e.

There is no provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose.

(CASE 12(e))

f.

There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex.

(CASE 12(f) and ACORN 24)

Contention 23.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions w:. 1 be as low as is reasonably achievable.

(ACORN 25 and CASE 9)

Contention 24.

A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made vecause the Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a.

The costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful life (ACORN 31 and CASE 6(a))

b.

The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel (CASE 7) l

5-c.

The fuel costs and supply (CASE 6(c))

d.

The costs of waste storage (CASE 6(d)).

Contention 25.

The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 10 CFR 50.57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50 Appendix C have not been met in'that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility.

(CASE 16)

G

+w Y

O d

,,rn

,.,n,,--

---n.e,

--r--

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CASE, MRS.JUANITA ELLIS AND TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY RECTI'ALS This Settlement Agreernent is made and entered into this 28th day of June,190a, between Texas Utilities Electric Company, separately and acting as the Project 11anager under the Joint Ownership Agreement on behalf of all the owners of CPSES (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'TU Electric"), Citizens Association for Sound Energy and N!rs.

Juanita Ellis (heretriaf ter the use of the term "CASE" shall refer to Citizens Association for Sound Energy and 31rs. Juanita Ellis in her capacity as President of CASE. Provi:lons of this Agreement specifying 31rs. Juanita Ellis in any capacity other than as President of CASE shall refer specifically to Sirs. Juanita Ellis):

W.HEREAS, TU Electric and Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE") are parties to a number of proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in connection with the licensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric, Station Units 1 and 2

("CPSES"), as more fully described in paragraph 1.1 of Article 1 of this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, TU Electric and CASE have decided that those proceedings should be resolved in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS I. Resolution of All NRC Proceedings 1.1.

TU Electric e.nd CASE agree to execute and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a Joint Stipulation and Joint 31otion for Dismissal of NRC-Proceedings, specifically Docket Nos. 50-445 OL, 50-446 OL and 50-445 CPA, in a form

as SM forth in Exhibits A and B attached to this Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes of this Agreement.

1.2.

TU Electric and CASE agree to prosecute diligently, in accordance with their respective charters, such Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Dismissal and to provide any additional information, file any additional pleadings, make such appearances, and provide such support before the NRC and an:t other body as may be necessary to effectuate the dismissal of the above-referenced NRC proceedings. In fulfilling their respective obligations under this paragraph, Mrs. Jt.anita Ellis or other representatives of CASE will not be required to undertake travel away rom Dallas, Texas.

1.3.

Upon the effective date of the Joint Stig.lation, CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis agree that they will not contest before the NRC, any other regulatory body or any court the issuance of any operating license or any amendments to the construction permit for CPSES Units I and 2, including the issuance of any associated licenses or permits, except as expressly provided in the Joint Stipulation. This provision does not apply to any proceedings before the Texas Public Utilities Commission nor, notwithstanding Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, does it apply to any amendments to full power CPSES operating licenses. This agreement is based upon the understanding and trust by CASE tnat TU Electric has agreed to complete and carry through on its commitments as provided in the Joint StJpulation to ensure that the design and construction of CPSES Units 1 and 2 are accomplished correctly in a manner specified by TU Electric and approved by the NRC Staff.

II. Commitments of TU Electric 2.1.

TU Electric agrees to comply with the Joint Stipulation when effective.

2.2.

TU Electric agrees that William G. Coun:il, Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, will continue to serve as the primary point of contact for CASE within TU Electric for the period that a representative of CASE serves on the Operations Review Committee pursuant to the Joint Stipulation. TU Electric will take no action to prevent or lessen Mr. Counsil's accessibility to CASE while he is employed by..

TU Electric.

Nor shall TU Electric terminate Mr. Counsil's employment for reasons inconsistent with this paragraph 2.2. In the event Mr. Counsil ceases to be employed by TU Electric, CASE may designate any then-current TU Electric nuclear officer 1/ as the primary point of ccatact and may change such contact at CASE's discretion.

2.3.

I r. recognition of CASE's concerns about workers formerly employed in conneciton with the construction of the CPSES, who may have employment discrimination claims against TU Electric or a contractor thereof, whether pending or anticipated, at the time of the signing of this Agreement, or who have assisted CASE in the CPSES licensing proceeding, TU Electric has also entered into good faith settlement negotiations which will resolve the disputes with the representatives of the former workers currently engaged in litigation if and when the Joint Stipulation becomes effective. Now and in the future, TU Electric agrees to make a good faith effort to investigate and resolve issues brought to CASE by CPSES workers or others.

1.4.

Contingent upon the Joint Stipulation becoming effective, then upon either the issuance of a dismissal of Docket Nos. 50-445 OL, 50-446 OL and 50-445 CPA or the issuance of an operating license to operate CPSES Unit 1, whichever comes first, TU Electric will issue to the public and the news media the following statement and will file with the NRC the request 1/ that it be made part of the record of the ASLB proceeding in the previously referenced OL and CPA dockets:

1_/

As used herein, nuclear officer means the Executive V!ce President of Nuclear Engineering and Operations, or any officer wk.o reports directly to him.

1/

It is agreed that the parties will file within five (5) days af ter entry of an Order of Dismissal of said Dockets such statement as reflected in Exhibit C hereto together with any additional documents to be included in the ASLB record, providing the parties have mutually agreed in advance to the appropriateness of such additional inclusions in the record, provided, however, that all documents specifically identified in the Index of Exhibits to the Joint Stipulation shall be excepted from this provision. This Agreement will be contingent upon admission of the statement in the record of the proceedings. 1

TU Electric recognizes that the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and its President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, have made a substantial, personal, and unselfish contribution to the regulatory process which assures that Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("Comanche Peak") will be a safer plant. Through the untiring efforts of CASE representatives, deficiencies which existed in the early 1980's have been revealed in the design of substantial portions of the plant which no one else, including TU Electric, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or other tnird-party experts had fully recognized or i

discovered.

As a result, Comanche Peak is a better, safer plant than before and, through the reinspection and Corrective Action Program, has a greater assurance of safety and reliable generation. We commend CASE, together with its technical advisors, Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh, and other workers, public interest organizations, and supporters for their courage and devotion to CASE's goals of finding the facts and informing the public. Because of these activities, CASE's President, Mrs. Ellis, has been appointed to the Operations Review Committee ("ORC") at Comanche Peak, an unpaid but important position which will provide CASE with the opportunity to continue to play an active part in assuring itself that Comanche Peak is as safe a nuclear facility as possible.

The ORC is required by the Comanche Peak technical specifications and functions as an independent body assigned the responsibility for review of various safety related matters including nuclear power plant operations, nuclear engineering, radiological safety and quality assurance practices among others. Among its duties, the ORC will be responsible for independent review of proposed modifications to the Comanche Peak facilities or procedures, changes to the Technical Specifications and license amendments, any violations or deviations which are required to be reported to NRC and other safety related matters deemed appropriate by the ORC members. The ORC meets periodically to review snd discuss various issues bearing on the safe operation of Comanche Peak and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations.

TU Electric also recognizes its own shortcomings in assuring the NRC that they fulfilled NRC Regulations. We acknowledge that nuclear expertise did not exist to meet those demands and that its nuclear management did not have full sensitivity to the regulatory environment.

CASE, Mrs. Ellis, and her colleagues played a substantial part in achieving our current level of awareness.

III. CPSES Operations Review Committee 3.1.

As provided in the Joint Stipulation, CASE's designated representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its designated alternate, will serve, without salary reimbursement from TU Electric, as a member of the Operations Review Committee ("ORC"). In the event Mrs. Ellis resigns or is otherwise unable to serve, CASE may designate a representative.

3.2.

TU Electric agrees that CASE's designated representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its alternata, in furtherance of his/her duties r.s a member of the ORC, may engage the l

l

( ;

i

technical consultant 8 at TU Electric's expense.

Such services of one or more consultant (s) shall be subject only to the qualification requirements of CASE and not those of TU Electric. The total fees and expenses of all such technical consultants shall not exceed $150,000.00 on an annual basis, such fees to be in addition to any amounts payable pursuant to paragraphs 4.1 and 6.1.

Such payment shall continue during such period of service on ORC in accordance with paragraph A.6 of the Joint Stipulation.

3.3.

In addition to the fees and expenses of technical consultants set forth in ~

paragraph 3.2, TU Electric agrees to reimburse CASE's representative, Mrs. Ellis, or its alternate for any other reasonable costs and expenses he/she may incur in furtherance of his/her duties as a member of the ORC, in accordance with normal TU Electric company policy.

IV. Reimbursement of Licensing Costs and E,e 4 rl.

Irt. recognition of the significant contribution made by CASE and the tremendcus cost and expenses incurred by CASE from 1979 through 1988 in the NRC licensing proceedings involving CPSES, including the separate, simultaneous dockets in 1984 and 1985, and the dockets relating to the construction permit extension requests and appeals therefrom to the NRC and the Federal Courts, TU Electric agrees to reimburse CASE the arr.ount of $4,500,000 for all costs, expenses, attorneys fees, consultants fees, court costs, salaries and debts incurred by CASE in the past and pay for such costs and expenses which CASE will incur in closing out its participation in the NRC licensing l

proceedings anif establishing its oversight role.

l l

4.2.

The payment specified in paragraph 4.1 will be made to CASE within thirty days of the date the Joint Stipulation becomes effective in the manner specified by CASE at that time.

3/

As used herein, "consultant" shall mean any individual hired by either CASE or TU Electric for the purpose of prvviding advice, recommendations, ooinions, technical assistance, or special services, whether or not paid by salary, commission or any other form of reimbursement.

l 1

l 5

9 4.3 Payment obligations hereunder shall not be subject to Arbitration.

V. Mutual Releases 5.1, Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, TU Electric agrees to release and discharge CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis, their successors, assigns, officers, Board of Directors, members, consultants and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action that TU Electric may now have or that might subsequently accrue arising out of or connected in any way with the design, construction, operation or licensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

~

5.2.

Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis each agree to release and discharge TU Electric, its predecessors, successors, assigns and any of its parent or sister companies, officers, directors, managers, agents, employees, contractors,dl consultants and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action that CASE or Juanita Ellis may now have or which might subsequently accrue arising out of or connected in any way with the design, construction, operation or licensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

5.3.

At the time of payme it by TU Electric pursuant to paragraph 4.1 above, CASE shall deliver to TU Electric a General Release in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit D, attached, from Jack Doyle, Mark Walsh and any person, other than CASE or Mrs. Juanita E111s, who is to receive reimbursement as a consultant to or an expert witness for CASE out of the amount specified in paragraph 4.1.

5.4.

It is understood and agreed that the release granted in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 shall have no effect on any claim which is otherwise within the terms or coverage of the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210. It is further agreed that the releases granted in 3/

As used herein, "contractors" shall mean any company or organization hired by either CASE or TU Electric for the purpose of providing advice, recommendations, opinions, technical assistance, or special services, whether or not paid by salary, commission or any other form of reimbursement, l

I l

-s-

paragraphs S.1, 5.2 and 5.3 shall not prevent the releasing party from assertiI defense or counterclaim with respect to claims which are the subject of such releas asserted against the releasing party by any one not a party to this Agreement or b owner of Comanche Peak other than TU Electric.

VI. Indemnification 6.1 Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation and subject to paragraphs 6.2 and.6.3 of this Agreement, TU Electric as defined in the first paragraph of the Recitals hereto, agrees to indemnify and defend CASE, and Mrs. Juanita Ellis, their successo

~

assigns, Board of Directors, members, consultants, and attorneys from any and all cl demands and causes of action asserted or brought against them in violation of the release set forth in Article V, paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3.

Such indemnification shall include all attorney's fees that CASE, or Mrs. Juanita Ellis may incur by reason of or in consequence of any such claim, demand or cause of action, provided however, that TU Electric's total liability underthis paragraph 6.1 shall not exceed $4.5 million, which amount would be in addition to the sums paid in paragraphs 3.2 and 4.1.

6.2 CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis shall notify TU Electric of any such claim, demand or cause of action asserted or brought against them or any one of them anJ TU Electric will assume and defend, at its sole cost and expense, any and all such claims demands or causes of action. TU Electric will, however, provide to CASE copies of all pleadings and briefs filed in the case.

6.3 The notice required by paragraph 6.2 shall be provided not later than fourteen days af ter CASE or Mrs. Juanita Ellis receive or obtain knowledge of any such claim, demand or cause of action. Notice shall be provided as specified in oaragraph 10.5.

6.4 Notwittstanding the provisions of paragraph 10.1, TU Electric may, af ter prior notice to CASE, disclose this Agreement or the terms of this Agreement if, in TU Electric's sole discretion, such disclosure is necessary to the defense of any such claim, demand or cause of action. '

VII. Conditions of Settlement 7.1.

This Agreement, the Joint Stipulation and the Joint Stotion to Dismiss are null

'and void and of no legal effect if TU Electric, CASE and the NRC Staff fail to execute and jointly file the Joint Stipulation and Joint 3fotion for Dismissal.

7.2.

In the event the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") fails to either grant or deny the Joint afotion for Dismissal within 30 days of its filing, TU Electric may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement, the Joint Stipulation and the Joint Motion for Dismissal by written notice to CASE made within 30 days after the expiration of the 30-day period following filing of the Joint Motion. If TU Electric fails to make written notice to terminate within the 30-day period, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and neither party shall be entitled to rescind this Agreement except as provided in paragraph 7.3 below. In the event that TU Electric elects to so terminate, the period for deferral of actions required under the hearing schedule, as specified in the Joint Motion, shall be extended for an additional period of time equal to the number of days between the end of the 30-day period following filing of the Joint Motion and the day on which the notice of termination is made.

7.3.

At any time up to 30 days after the ASLB issues an order denying the Joint Motion for Dismissal, TU Electric may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to CASE, either:

(a) make the Joint Stipulation effective as to the rights and obligations of TU Electric and CASE thereunder, subject only to the concurrence of the NRC Staff as to the applicability of Section B thereof.

Upon such concurrence by the NRC Staff, the Joint Stipulation shall be deemed effective as if the ASLB had accepted the Joint Stipulation and dismissed the t.:oceedings; or (b) af ter such denial, terminate this Agreement.

.g_

This Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of such 30 day period unless TU Electric exercises its rights under this Article.

VIII. Arbitration 8.1.

Except as provided in paragraphs 4.3 and 8.3 of this Agreement, all disputes regarding the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or of paragraphs A.5, A.6, and A.8 of the Joint Stipulation, which the parties cannot resolve amicably shall be resolved in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") except as modified by this Agreement. Arbitration will be commenced by the service of a written 1

notice by the party seeking arbitration setting forth the matter in dispute and requesting a rul!ng pursuant to this Article.

8.2.

The arbitration panel will be composed of three arbitrators, one appointed by TU Electric, one appointed by CASE, and the third arbitrator appointed by the two arbitrators named by the parties. If one party falls or refuses to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days of the commencement of arbitration, the arbitration will be conducted by the arbitrator appointed by the other party. If the two arbitrators are unable to reach agreement on a third arbitrator within thirty days of their appointment, the th!rd arbitrator will be appointed by the AAA.

P.3.

The arbitration panel shall Issue a written decision dedaring the rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement, and shall have authority to issue an order requiring the parties or either of them to take or refrain from taking action; provided that the arbitration panel shall have no authority whatsoever to hear or decide any dispute falling within the terms of Section B of the Joint Stipulation attached. The decision of the arbitration panel will be final and binding on the parties.

8.4.

The situs of the arbitration will be Dallas, Texas.

8.5.

All costs of arbitration incurred by both parties, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, witness fees, and administrative costs, shall be borne as determined to be appropriate by the arbitration panel, pursuant to the rules of the AAA.

.g_

in resolving any dispute between the parties pursuant to this Article, the 8.6.

arbitration panel shall apply the substantive law of the State of Texas excluding, however, the conflict of laws provisions of the State of Texas. In addition, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to any and all claims made pursuant to Article VIU of this Agreement.

IX. Resolutions and Legal Opinions 9.1 The parties agree to exchange copies of duly executed and approved resolutions of their respective Board of Directors in form and content set forth in Exhibits E and F attached. In addition, TU Electric shall deliver to CASE a legal opinion of the firm of Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge in form and content set forth in Exhibit G attached.

X. Miscellaneous 10.1. Except for the information set forth on Exhibit H attached, which may be released to the public when the Joint Stipulation is filed, this Agreement shall be maintained in confidence by TU Electric, CASE and Mrs. Juanita Ellis and neither the Settlement Agreement nor the terms of this Agreement may be disclosed to any other person unless such further disclosure is required by law (af ter diligent attempt is made to prevent such disclosure) or is agreed to in writing by all parties. If any party to this Agreement is threatened or compelled by operstion of law to disclose this Agreement or the terms of this Agreement, such party shall, prior te disclosure, immediately notify the other parties to this Agreement of such threauned or compelled disclosure in order that all parties may contest the disclosure. The obligation to maintain this Agreement in confidence shall survive th6 termination or cancellation of this Agreement. It is agreed that any public statements or press releases concerning the Agreement mada by any party to the Agreement shall first be approved by the other parties hereto..

10A This Agreement will be oinding upon and inure to the benefit of CASE, Juanita Ellis and TU Electric, their successor and assigns. This Agreement will not be assignable by any of the parties hereto without the written consent of the remaining parties.

10.3. This Agreement will become effective upon its execution by TU Electric,.

C ASE and Juanita Ellis, 10.4. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements,

promises, and understandings, whether oral or written, express or implied. This Agreement mty only be amended or modified by a writing signed by all parties. This Settlement Agreement and the Joint Stipulation will be construed in a consistent manner, taking into consideration the purpose of this Settlement Agreement. If any of the provisions are not consistent or are contradictory, CASE and TU Electric agree that the Settlement Agreement will govern.

.10.5. Any communications or notices made or given by any party in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing, to the following:

If to TU Electric:

William G. Counsil Executive Vice f resident, TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 If to CASE:

Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 With a copy to:

Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 104 East Wisconsin Avenue - B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897 - -.

Written notices will be by certified mail, return receipt requested or hand delivered and will be deemed given on the date of mailing if mailed or delivery if hand delivered, 4

i The undersigned warrant and represent that they have full and complete right, power, authority and capacity to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties to this Agreement, due to Corporate Resolutions duly authorized.

For and On Behalf of Texas Utilities Electric Company Separetely and Acting as Project Manager under the Joint Ownership Agreement on behalf of all The Owners of CPSES By:

6

' William G. Counsil Executive Vice President, Generating Division CASE (Citizens Association For Sound Energy)

By: hszAm1

[ffa f-(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President By:

0, n l4, (/C, pars.) Juanita Euis, inoivieuatiy

EXHIBfr A j

i I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGIJLATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

l In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-445-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC

)

50-446-OL COMPANY, et al.

)

(Application for an l

)

Operating License)

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

Docket No. 50-445 CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

(Construction Permit

)

Amendment)

)

JOINT STIPULATION PREAMBLE:

15 On February 28, 1978, an application for operating licenses for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 ("CPSES"), was filed by Texas Utilities Generating Company,1/ et al., ("Applicants"). This application was subsequently docketed as Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC"), and the application has been amended from time to time.

2.

Pursuant to a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (44 FED. REG. 6995),

petitions to intervene in the CPSES OL proceeding were filed by several persons, including Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE"). On June 27, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") presiding over the CPSES OL proceeding granted the petitions to intervene and subsequently admitted several contentions.

1/

The successor in interest is Texas Utilities Electric Coinpany ('TU Electric").

M

All intervenors except CASE withdrew from tha CPSES OL proceeding. As a 3.

result of various decisions by the ASLB, all contentions in the CPSES OL proceeding have either been dismissed or withdrawn, except for Contention 5 related to quality assurance

("QA") at CPSES. A list of admitted Contentions is attached as Exhibit 14 hereto.

4.

Followly hearings on Contention 5, ths ASLB issued a Memorandum and Order on December 24,1933, which found CASE's contention concerning desiga QA to be meritorious in part and ordered that Appilcants file a plan to satisfy the ASLB concerning the issues discussed in the decision. This decision was based upon concerns expressed by CASE witnesses Walsh and Doyle regarding piping and pipe supports and stated in part:

The record before us casts doubt on the design quality of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Comanche Peak), both because the Texas Utilities Generating Company, g al. (applicant) has not demonstrated the existence of a system that promptly corrects design deficiencies and because our record is devoid of a satisfactory explanation for several design questions raised by the Citizens Association for Safe-(sie-Sound) Energy (CASE). We suggest that there is a need for an independent design review and we require applicant to file a plan that may help to resolve our doubts.

On FeI>ruary 8,1984, the ASLB issued a further Order on Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design.

5.

A separate ASLB was appointed in the CPSES OL proceeding to preside over hearings pertaining to allegations of narassment, intimidatica, and threats at CPSES. The ASLB presiding over these hearings has been disestablished and those matters have been consolidated with the matters being heard by the ASLB prestaing over the CPSES OL proceeding.

6.

On January 29, 1986, Applicants filed an application for amendment of i:s construction permit for CPSES Unit 1 in order to extend the latest date of completion of construction contained in the construction permit. This application was docketed under Docket No. 50-445-CPA by the NRC. The ASLB in the CPSES OL proceeding was also designated to preside over the CPSES CPA proceeding. J

7.

Petitlens to intervene in the CPA proceeding were filed by CASE and Meddle Gregory. CASE and Meddie Gregory were granted leave tc intervene (Ms. Gregory is now deceased and no longer a party).

Ultimately, - f.at contention (Contention 2) was admitted. Contention 2 alleges that "[tlhe delay of construction of Unit I was caused by Applicads' intentional conduct, which had no valtd purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarocd or repudiated by Applicants."

8.

Contentloh 5 (OL) and Contentien 2 (CPA) have been the subject of extensive discussions and exchanges of information among the parties. Applicants and the NRC '

~

Staff have programs in plact and plans for action, as discussed in pa agraph 9 below, that are intended to address the concerns in the remaining contentions. CASE, through its involvement in these programs and plans in the manner and to the extent described in Sections A and B below, has an opportunity to participate in the resolution of the concerns raised by the remaining (;ontentions without resort to the adjudicatory process. As a result, all pa'rties now hsve concluded that the remaining issues can best be resolved and their interests can be protected by withdrawal of the remaining contentions, dismissal of the adjudicatory proceedings, implementation of the programs'and plans described in paragraph 9 and Sections A and B below, and active continued involvement by CASE in these programs and plans. CASE believes that it can best serve the public interest through the implementatior, of the previsions of this Joint Stipulation.

9.

Applicants and the NRC Staff have taken many actions which are designed to address the concerns reflected in Contentions 2 and 5, including the following:

TU Electric contracted with Cygna to perform an Independent a.

Assessment Program ("IAP") of the design of CPSES, including a review of the methodologies for addressing the Walsh/Doyle issues.

Cygna has issued Review Issue Lists ("RIL's") (r.ttached v Exhibit 1) which indicate Cygna's position on design issues. In particular, all Cygna technical issues have been i i

1

elesed. Cygna is currently preparing its final report, which pertains to Phase IV of its activities, In 1985, TU Electric contracted with Stone & Webster Engineering b.

Corporation ("SWEC") to resolve piping / pipe support issues. As a result of the SNEC efforts, TU Electric decided to perform a design validation program and hardware validation program for piping and pipt supports. As discussed in the Project Status Reports (attached as Exhibit 9), design validation for piping and pipe supports has been completed, and hardware validation is in ptocess.

~

The NRC Staff established a Technical Review Team ('TRT') to c.

perform an extensive series of inspections in areas subject to concerns and allegations pertaining to CPSES.

The majority of the results of these inspections have been reported in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports

("SSER's") 7,8,9,10, and 11. SSER 11 stated in part, as follows:

The pattern of failures by QA and QC perso' ins!'to detect and document deficiencies suggests an ineffective B&R and TUGC0 inspection system. This pattern, coupled with (a) the past problems in the docur ent control system, (b) deficiencies in the QC oualification program, (c) ineffectiveness of the quality audit and surveillance systems, (d) a rudimentary and ineffective trending and corrective action system, (e) QC problems as shown in QA/QC Category 8, AQ-50; and (f) instances of improper workmanship of hardware as found by all of the TRT groups, challenges the adequacy of the QC inspection program at CPSES on a system-wide basis.

The NRC Region IV office also continued to issue inspection reports and provide inspection and oversight until 1987. Additir.. ally, in 1987 the NRC established an Office of Special Projects in order to provide increased inspection and oversight of CPSES and the plants owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, d.

TU Electric established the Comanche Peak Response Team

("CPRT"' to evaluate the issues identified by the TRT and other external sourcq '.cluding issues identified during hearings and by the ASLB in the

_.g.

CPSES OL proceeding) and te perform a self-initiated evaluation of the design and construction of CPSES. Revisions 3 and 4 of the CPRT Program Plan (attached as Exhibit 2) were approved by the NRC Staff in SSER 13 (attached as Exhibit 3) and in a letter dated January 22,1988, from Stewart D. Ebneter (NRC) to William G.

Counsil (TU Electric) re: "CPSES Licensing and Corrective Action Programs" (hereinafter referred to as NRC S taf f's January 22,1988, letter) (attached as Exhibit 4).

The results of CPRTs evaluations have been provided in Results Reports (attached as Exhibit 5) for Issue Specific Action Plans ("ISAP's") and Discipline Specific Action Plans

("DS A P's").

Additionally, CPRT collectively evaluated its results and evaluated the collective significance of its results, and the results of these evaluations ha',e been reported in the Collective Evaluation Report ("CER")

(attached to Exhibit 6) and the Collective Significance Report ("CSR")

(attached as Exhibit 7). Based upon the results of its activities, the CPRT concluded t' hat there were problems arising from weaknesses in the historical programs, that the CPRT identified the weaknesses in the historical programs and defined appropriate corrective action, and that in conjunction with full implementation of the prescribed corrective actions, the current programs for design, construction, assurance of quality, and testing of CPSES are adequate.

The CPRT also concluded that the Corrective Action Program ("CAP"),

discussed in paragraph 9.e below, provides an acceptable means of validating the design and hardware for CPSES. The NRC Staff is in the process of reviewing the Results Reports, CER. CSR, and supporting information and preparing SSER's to document its results and conclusions regarding reasonable assurance as to whether or not the structures, systems, and components at i

CPSES will be capable of performing their intended safety functions.

i Based in part on the preliminary results of the CPRT program, e.

TU Electric established the CAP (attached documents in Exhibit 8 described CAP). The CAP includes a design validation program and a Post Construction Hardware Validation Program ("PCHYP") for CPSES. Furthermore, the CAP is subject to audits and overviews by the CPRT, the Technical Audit Program

(' TAP"), and the Engineering Functional Evaluation ("EFE"), among others.

The CAP plan was approved in NRC Staff's January 22,1988, letter. The results of the design validation program have been provided in Project Status Reports ("PSR's") (attached as Exhibit 9) for various design disciplines. Based upon its inspections and reviews, the NRC Staff has issued SSER 14 (attached as Exhibit 10) which concluded that the design of large and small bore piping and pipe supports is acceptable and meets the applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC Staff is currently in the process of reviewing the remaining PSR's and supporting documents and preparing SSER's to document its results, f.

TU Electric has taken numerous actions to improve its management, organization, and programs for CPSES (description attached as Exhibit 13). These include hiring experienced nuclear managers, obtaining the services of experienced nuclear contractors to implement CAP, and enhancing the CPSES QA program, including the design control program, as reported in the CER and CSR. Additionally, TU Electric has established the SAFETEAM program and the Hotline program and has utilized its Corporate Security Department to provide employees with means of expressing any concerns they may have regarding CPSES. These improvements are described in part in amendments to the Final Safety Analysis Report for CPSES, correspondence l

l with the NRC, policy statements and procedures reviewed by CASE and the NRC Staff, NRC Staff inspection reports for CPSES, statements at public

\\,

I

me3 tings related to CPSES, pleadings filed in these proceedings, and other

~

documents.

g.

TU Electric has provided responses to numerous informal discovery requests by CASE, and it has provided CASE with the CPSES documents identified in the Index of Exhibits, attached. Additionally, TU Electric has held a series of public meetings with CASE to describe the CAP and TU Electric's methodology for resolving issues of concern to CASE and any other external source issues (transcripts attached as Exhibit 11).

These meetings also provided CASE and its technical consultants with an opportunity to seek resolution of many questions or concerns they hav6 had regarding the CPSES design. Representatives of CASE have also toured CPSES to observe implementation of some design changes.

10.

The agreements set forth in this Joint Stipulation arise from the specific facts and circumstances involved in this proceeding and are not intended to serve as precedent In any other proc.",ag, 11.

The parties are committed to execute in good faith the programs, plans, commitments, and agreements contained in this Joint Stipulat'an. '

12.

As a result of the agreements reached among the parties reflected in tnis Joint Stipulation, the parties agree that these proceedings should be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed among the parties that:

A.

Contention 5 in Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL and Contention 2 in Docket No. 50-445-CPA are withdrawn in their entirety, and the parties request that the ASLB accept this agreement and dismiss these proceedings, subject to the following conditions and agreements among the parties:

1.

Cygna shall continue to implement the IAP under the terms of the current protocol. Cygna's activities shall be concluded under the IAP upon issuance of the Phase IV Report.,

2.

TU Electric shall continue to implement the CAP for CPSES Unit !

as described in pages 6 through 12 of the enclosure to the NRC Staff's January 22, 1988, letter.

TU Electric shall continue to implement the provisions for CPSES Unit 2 described in TU Electric's letter TXX-88373 to NRC dated April 14,1983 (attached as Exhibit 8). TU Electric may make changes in the programs as described above only in accordance with the provisions of paragraph A.3, below, and subject to the provisions of Section B, below.

]

3.

TU Electric shall provide CASE with notice of any proposed change $/ n the programs as described in paragraph A.2, above.

i CASE shall have an opportunity within twenty-one (21) days of notice of the change to notify TU Electric and the NRC Staff of any concerns it may have regarding a proposed change, and TU Electric shall not implement a proposed change

-during-this period.

4.

The SAFETEAM program, the Hotline program, and the allegation investigation portion of the Corporate Security Program, *will continue until at least 1993, at which time they will either be continued or replaced by some other employee allegation management program. In addition, until 1993, each worker who is dlscharged or terminates employment at CPSES shall receive a notice that describes TU Electric's policy toward intimidation and harassment and treatment of worker concerns, the methods by which workers may express any concerns they may have, and the means for directly informing senior l

TU Electric management of any concerns for which the workers may not have received a prompt response from SAFETEAM, and that immediately advises 3/

"Change" as referred to in this paragraph means any modification, deletion or substitution of any of the programs described in A.2. above.

each worker of his rights under the Department of Labor ("DOL") and the statute of limitations to pursue his legal recourse.

5.

CASE's representative or Mrs. Juanita Ellis or her designee, which may include Billie P.

Garde or another attorney from the Government Accountability Project ("GAP"), shall be provided with an opportunity during 1988 to holo a session, of approximately two hours in length, with mid-level managers at CPSES to provide them with information on additional methods for dealing with worker concerns. If necessary to accommodate the number of mid-level managers at CPSES, more than one such session may be conducted.

For the purpose of this paragraph, the term "mid-level manager" shall be defined as a TU Electric individual whose job title is "manager" or "supervisor" or a contractor incividual who occupies an equivalent position. TU Electric agrees that it will make a good faith effort to work with CASE to develop a meenanism for more effectively addressing and resolving concerns raised by i

individuals who are directly or indirectly working for TU Electric at CPSES.

6.

Upon the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, shall be appointed as a full member of the CPSES Operations Review Committee ("ORC") for a period of at least five years and will be entitled to all of the rights and privileges that all other individuals have as members of the ORC. CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, at her discretion, may designate an alternate to attend and participate on her behalf. Although this is an unpaid position, TU Electric will reimburse CASE for all expenses associated with such participation by Mrs. Juanita Ellis or her designee. If at the time of the expiration of such five (5) year period, Unit 2 is estimated by TU Electric to not be in commercial operation during the period of eighteen (18) months thereaf ter, then, in such event, the tenure

_g.

j l

on ORC of CASE's representative,' Mrs. Ellis, shall be extendid for at least an additional year.

7.

TU Electric shall notify CASE in the event that any nuclear officer i

of TU Electric or a CAP contractor or a TU Electric consultant makes, and TU Electric rejects, a written recommendation for a change in the programs as described above in paragraph A.2, with a complete description of the proposed etange and TU Electric's reasons for the rejection. Such notification shall be mide in writing and delivered to CASE within ten (10) days of the date of rejecticn of such recommendation.

S.

CASE shall continue to receive copies, at no charge, of all filings and correspondence between the NRC Staff and TU Electric until 1993 or one year after commercial operation of CPSES Unit 2, whichever occurs first. If requested by CASE, up to three copies of any documents will, at no charge, be d,elivered to CASE consultants, employees, or advisors specified by CASE.

9.

TU E1cetric shall provide CASE with prior notice of and opportunity to attend all monthly exit meetings related to NRC Staff inspections of CPSES until at least 1993, all exit meetings for NRC Staff inspections related to the CAP, and all formally noticed meetings between NRC and TU Electric until at least 1993. TU Electric shall provide such notice telephonically st least two working days in advance of a scheduled meeting or witMn twenty-four (24) hours of the time any member of TU Electric nuclear management becomes aware of such scheduled meeting, and shall confirm such notice in writing transmitted by First Class mail or hand delivery.

10.

CASE's representative, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, (and her designated alternate to ORC) shall be provided until at least 1993, and the designated technical consultant of CASE shall be provided until twelve (12) months after,

9 CPSES Unit 1 initially achieves 5% of full power, with access to the CPSES site at all reasonable times, including Saturdays, upon providing TU Electric with forty-eight hours prior written or oral notice. TU Electric shall assist in obtaining whatever security or other clearances may be required for suen access, and such access shall be subject to any CPSES procedures, controls or other limitations on access that may exist for reasons of security, safety, radiological protection, or similar concerns.

During such visits, CASE's representative, or alternate shall be provided reasonable access to, and copies of, documents in good faith determined to be necessary to perform his/her responsibilities on the ORC.

11.

Until twelve (12) months after CPSES Unit 1 initially achieves 5%

of full power, TU Electric shall provide CASE with matrices of schedules of audits to be condi:cted by TU Electric's QA d'epartment at CPSES, and CASE's technicarconsultant shall be afforded an opportunity to accompany personnel performing such audits, subject to the provisions in paragraph A.10, above. It is the intent of the parties that, during the performance of suc'h audits, CASE's technical consultant or representative shall have the freedom to observe the work being audited. Additionally, following completion of the activities being audited, CASE's technical consultant shall be provided with independent access to copies of the documentation associated with such audits. Furthermore, CASE shall be provided with the opportunity to recommend areas or activities to be audited in addition to those identified on the matrices of schedules of audits to be conducted by TU Electric's QA department at CPSES.

TU Electric shall, in good faith, consider whether to e Not such audits recommended by CASE.

If such an audit is performeo, ASE's technical consultant or representative shall be afforded an opportunity to accompany i

personnel performing such audits' in accordance with the provisions discussed above.

B.

In the event that any dispute between the AppUcants and CASE arises relating to any matter under the jurisdiction of the NRC pertaining to the design, construction, or operation of CPSES prior to the issuance of the full power operating license for CPSES Unit 2, the Applicants or CASE, as the case may be, may seek resolution of the dispute by the NRC Staff as fouows:

1.

The Aoplicants or CASE shall promptly notify, but not later than

~

ten (10) working days af ter identification of a dispute, the other party and the NRC Director of Special Projects for CPSES$/ as to the existence of any such dispute.

2.

Applicants and CASE shall exercise their best efforts to resolve the dispute between themselves without a request for resolution by the NRC

' Staff pursuant to paragraphs B.3, B.4, and B.5, below.

3.

The Applicants or CASE shall submit a documented request for action to the NRC Director of Special Projects for CPSES and to the other party within twenty-one (21) days after either Applicants or CASE notify the other party that resolution under paragraph B.2 cannot be effected; provided, however, that if the party raising such dispute fails to make a submission within the time required by this paragraph after said notice is given, then the dispute shall be deemed conclusively resolved as between the Applicants and CASE.

4.

The Applicants or CASE shall submit tc the NRC Staff and to the other party its respense, if any, within twenty-one (21) days af ter receipt of any request for action under paragraph B.3, above.

3/

In the event that the NRC Office of Special Projects is disbanded or CPSES is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Projects, the responsibilities of the Director of Special Projects under this Joint Stipulation shall be exercised by the Branch Chief of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") responsible for CPSES.

5.

Within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of any NRC Staff jetermination resolving a dispute submitted under paragraphs B.3 and B.4, above, the Applicants or CASE may seek review of the NRC Staff resolution of the dispute by the NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR").

In the event that either the Applicants or CASE determines that an NRC Staff resolution pursuant to paragraphs B.3 and B.4, above, is, under the circumstances, unreasonably delayed, neither party shall object to the other's seeking a resolution by the Director of NRR.

Any determination resolving a dispute by the Director of NRR or any determination by the NRC Staff pursuant to paragraphs B.3 and D.h above, for which review by the Director of NRR is not sought within the time period provided above, shall be conclusive and binding upon the Appucants and CASE.

6.

If the parties agree or either party concedes the issue in question at any time during the process discussed in paragraphs B-1 through B-5 above, the appeal channel will be abandoned, in writing, by the party making the appeal.

7.

The provisions in this Joint Stipulation shall be the exclusive remedies of the Applicants and CASE for seeking resolution of any disputes related to any matter under the jurisdiction of the NRC pertaining to the design, construction, or operation of CPSES prior to issuance of full power operating license for CPSES Unit 2, which shall include any activities conducted under the CPSES construction permits and any matter in connection with the issuance of any operating licenses for CPSES, including any associated licenses or permits and any amendments to the construction permits for CPSES. The provisions in this Joint Stipulation do not prohibit CASE from contesting amendments to full power CPSES operating licenses or from seaking relief under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.206 in the event that it ls not satisfied with tha resolution of any disputes raised under Section B.

f Nothing in this Stipulation shall prohibit CASE from continuing to exercise its

. existing rights to communicate with the NRC or any of its offices.

C.

The documents described in the Index of Exhibits attached shall be jointly offered for admission into the evidentiary record of the CPSES OL and CPA proceedings Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall affect the evidentiary status of documents already in the record in such proceedings.

D.

The following documents will remain as part of the record in the public docket file in this proceeding: all filings, progress reports, NRC inspection reports and responses thereto, correspondence relating to 10 CPR 50.55(e), exchanges of discovery, voluntary supplementation of interrogato.o, transcripts of all meetings and conference calls, and r

all of the items that have been docxeted since the CPSES OL and CPA proceedings were originally noticed and scheduled.

E.

This Joint Stipulation shall become effective when it is accepted by the ASLB and the CPSES OL and CPA proceedings are dismissed.

The undersigned warrant and represent that they have full and complete right, power, authority and capacity to execute this Joint Stipulation ca behalf of the parties to this Joint Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),Intervenor Bys 0u n W $f4, ff (Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, Separately and Acting as Project Manager under the Joint Ownership Agreement on behalf of all the Owners of CPSES Byt William G. Counsil Executive Vice President, Generating Division - _ -. -

tJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO TAFF

,(

Bys M.

A y-w.>

Dates PC A?P ROVED +.

NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.

' ' A.'

By:

, Attorney for TU Electric ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN BILLIE PIRNER GARDE By:

ih b E,iUie s'irner Garde Attorney br CASE By:

7U-l& A. M Attorney for NRC INDEX OF EXHIBrr5 TO THE JOINT STIPULATION EXHIBIT l Cygna Energy Service, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Independent Assessment Program, Review lssues List:

a.

Conduit Support - Rev. 3 (Nov. 20,1986).

b.

Civil / Structural - Rev. 0 (July 21,1987).

Cable Tray Support - Rev.14 (July 31,1987),

c.

d.

Pipe Stress - Rev. 4 (Sept.16,1987).

~

~

e.

Pipe Support - Rev. 4 (Sept.18,1987).

f.

Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls - Rev. 4 (Jan.18,1988).

g.

Mechanical - Rev. 4 (Feb. 9,1988).

h.

Phase IV Report (to be included when available)

EXHIBrr 2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units 1 and b. Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plant a.

Rev. 0 (October 3,1984).

b.

Rev.1 (Nov.19,1984).

c.

Rev. 2 (June 28,1985).

d.

Rev. 3 (Jan. 27,1986).

e.

Rev. 4 (June 25,1987).

EXHIBtT 3 NUREG-0797, Supplement No.13, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (May 1986).

EXHIBIT 4 Letter from Stewart D. Ebneter, Director, Office of Special Projects, U.S. NRC to Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, regarding CPSES licensing and Corrective Action Programs dated Jan. 22,1988..

EXHIBff 5 ISAP and DSAP Results Reports Mo.

Name Rev SRT Approved I.a.1 Heat Shrinkable Sleeves 4

12/17/86

!.a.2 Insp. Rprts. Butt Splices 4

03/31/87

!.a.3 Butt Spilce Qualification 4

04/30/86 1.a.4.

Dwgs/ Terminations 4

06/25/86

!.a.5 NCR's on AMP Terminal Lugs 4

07/24/86

!.b.1 Flex / Flex Separation 4

12/09/86

!.b.2 _

Flex / Cable Separation 4

12/09/86 1.b.3 Condult/ Cable Tray Separation 4

03/26/86 I.b.4 Barrier Removal 4

12/09/86 1.c Conduit Supports 3

10/28/87 1.d.1 QC Inspector Qualifications 2

12/02/87 I d.2 Admin. of Inspector Tests 2

09/17/86

~

!.d.3 Craf t Personnel Training 2

08/27/86 II.a Re Steel in Cavity 3

1C 23/87 II,b Concrete Compressive Strength 3

02/28/86 II.c Air Gap 3

12/10/86 U.d Control Room Celling 3

10/21/87

!!.e Rebar in Fuel Handling Building 3

09/03/87 m.a.1 HFT Data Packages 4

07/01/87 m.a.2 JTG Approval of Test Data 3

10/15/86 ID.a.3 Tech Specs for Deferred Tests 3

10/15/86 m.a.4 Traceability of Test Inst.s 4

08/06/86 ID.a.5, Preop Package Accept. Criteria 0

03/26/87 m.b Conduct of CILRT 4

02/24/87 m.c Prerequisite Testing 4

08/25/87 m.d Preop Testing 4

03/13/86 V.a Skewed Welds in NF Supports 2

10/22/86 V.b Shortening of Anchor Bolts 2

10/29/87 Y.c Piping Between Buildings 2

10/29/86 V.d Plug Welds 2

12/10/86 V.e Install. cf Main Steam Piping 2

10/15/86 VI.a Insulation / Shield Wall Gap 2

03/10/87 VI.b Polar Crane Shim 2

09/23/87 VU.a.1 Material Traceability 1

05/13/87 VU.a.2 NC and CA Systems 1

05/13/87 VU.a.3 Document Control 1

12/17/86 VU.a.4 Audit Pro. & Auditor Qual's 1

04/18/86 VU.a.5 Periodic Review of QA Program 1

07/28/86 VU.a.6 Exit Interviews 1

10/29/86 VU.a.7 Housekeeping and Sys. Clean 1

11/21/86 VU.a.8 Puel Pool Liner 1

11/04/86 VU.a.9 Purch'd Safety Mat'l and Equip 0

02/26/86 VU.b.1 Onsite Fabrication 1

02/13/87 VU.b.2 Valve Disassembly 1

03/19/86 VU.b.3 Pipe Support inspections 1

12/02/87 VU.b.4 H!1tl Bolts / Inspection 1

05/13/87 VII.c Results Report (Hardware) 1 12/31/87 VW Civil Struct. DS AP: Cable Tray 1

10/21/87 VW Civil Struct. DS AP: Conduit I

11/10/87 IX Piping and Supports DSAP: LBPS 1

09/03/87 l

EXHIBIT 6 Comanch3 Peak Steam Electric Stati n (Units I and 2),

Response Team, Collective Evaluation Report, Rev. 0 (D EX1GBIT 7 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units 1 and 2), C Response Team, Collective Significance Report, Rev. 0 (Fe E_XHIBIT 8 a.

Letters from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, to U.S. NRC:

1.

TXX-6247 regarding Corrective Action Program (CAP) dat Jan.29,1987; it.

TXX-6500 regarding Response to Request for Additional Information in Conjunction with Program Plan Update date June 25,1987; (11.

TXX-6831 regarding CPSES Programs dated Aug.

20, 1987; iv.

TXX-6675 regarding CAP Description and Flow Diagram dated Aug. 28, 1987; v.

TXX-6676 regarding Technical Audit Program and

~

Engineering Functional Evaluation dated Sept. 8,1987;.

vi.

TXX-6712 regarding Post-Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP), and Engineering Evaluation Method dated Sept. 8,1987; vil.

TXX-6783 regarding PCHVP Attribute Matrix dated Sept. 2 1987; vill. TXX-6961 regarding Clarifications of CPSES Programs Descriptions dated Nov. 25,1987.

b.

Transcripts of meetings between TU Electric and U.S. NRC to discuss CPRT/ CAP:

1.

Jan. 7,1987; ll.

April 2,1987; 111.

April 7,1987; ;

iv.

July 89-30,1987; v.

Dec.9,1987, Letters from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electric, to U.S. NRC responding c.

to questions at Dec. 9,1987 meeting:

1.

TXX-7099 regarding Response to NRC comments on CPSES Corrective Action Efforts dated Dec. 18,1987; 11.

TXX-88135 regarding status of Response to NRC comments on CPSES Corrective Action Efforts dated Feb.1,1988; 111.

TXX-88254 regarding Design Deficiencies identified in the CAP dated March 16,1988; iv.

TXX-88373 regarding Responses to NRC Staff Requests dated April 14,1988.

E XHIBTF 9 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit I and Common; Corrective Action Program - Project Status Reports:

Large Bore Piping and Pipe Supports - Rev. 0 (Nov. 3,1987).

a.

b.

Small Bore Piping and Pipe Supports - Rev. 0 (Nov. 3,1987).

Cable Tray and Cable Tray Hangers - Rev. 0 (Nov. 6,1987),

c.

d.

Conduit Supports Train C 2 Inch Diameter and Less - Rev. 0 (Nov.11,1987).

Conduit Supports Trains A and B, and Train C Larger Than 2 Inen e.

Diameter - Rev. 0 (Nov.18,1987).

f.

Equipment Qualification - Rev. 0 (Jan. 8.1988).

g.

Electrical - Rev. 0 (Jan.15,1988).

l h.

Mechanicil - Rev. 0 (Jan 25,1988):

1.

Mechanical Supplement A - Systems Interaction, Rev. 0 (Jan. 25,1988);

-4 l

l

110 Mechanical Supplement B - Fire Protection, Rev. 0 (Jan 25, 1988),

l.

Instrumentation and Controls - Rev. 0 (Feb.1,1988),

J.

Civil / Structural - Rev. 0 (Feb. 8,1988).

k.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Rev.0 (Feb.18,19 88).

EXHIBtT 10 NUREG-0797, Supplement No.14, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 ~

(March 1988).

EXHIBIT 11 Transcripts of meetings between TU Electric and CASE to discuss Corrective Action Program and Project Status Reports:

MEETING DATE DESCRIPTION

a. 12/17/87 Meeting to discuss specific areas related to piping and pipe supports, cable tray hangers, and conduit and conduit supports.

b. 12/18/87 Meeting to discuss specific areas related to piping and pipe supports, cable tray hangers, and conduit and conduit supports.

c. 02/18/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to cable tray hangers, conduit and conduit supports.

d. 02/25/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to piping, pipe supports, civil / structural and mechanical.

e. 02/26/88 Meeting to discuss issues related to piping, pipe supports, civil / structural and mechanical.

f. 06/23/88 Meeting to discuss the upper lateral restraints, HVAC, and other issues.

EXHIBrF 12 "Investigation of Weld Quality for Safety Related Pipe Supports,"

prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, dated Dec. 22, 1987.

EXHIBrr 13 Letter (TXX-88495) from Wm. G. Counsil, TU Electrie, to U.S. NRC regarding CPSES Programmatic Enhancements dated June 9,1988.

EXHIBff 14

' List of Contentions Ad itt d i m

e n Dockets 30-445-OL and 50-446-OL, Other documents which the parties mutually agree are necessary to a sound may also be jointly offered for admission into the record.

m 9

W O

6-

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

-,, -,,,,,.---,-.--,---,,c

I i

i EXHIBIT 14 List of Contentions Admitted In Dockets 50- 4 4_54QJ, a nd 5 0-4 4 6 /OL Contention 1.

Applicants have not demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with 16 CFR S 50.57(a)(4) in that they have relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the.'inal Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

(CFUR 1)

Contention 2.

One or more of the reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and formally accepted; thus conclusions based upon these computer codes are invalid.

(CFUR 2A)

Contention 3 The computer codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be 2

tested and, if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict plant behavior.

(CTUR 29)

Con t'e n t i o'n 4.

Some accident sequences heretofore considered to have probabilities so low as to be considered incredible, based, in part, upon the findings of WASH-1400, are in fact more probable in light of additional findings, such as those of the Lewis Committee and should be evaluated as credible accidents for CPSES.

This evaluation should include a hydrogen explosion accident.

In order to insure conservatism, the probabilities associated with such accident sequences should be the highest probabilities within the specified confidence band.

(CTUR 3A, 3B and ACORN 11)

Contention 5.

The Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concreto work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organization of QA/CC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility.

As a result the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR S 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of ar. operating license for Comanche Peak.

(CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 Joint Contention)

-~-

Contention 6.

There is no assurance that the Spent Fuel Pool area can withstand the effects of tornadoes, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 because:

The analyses upon which the Design Basis Tornado (DBT) a.

is based on [is) perfunctory, outdated and unreliable; b.

The loading analyses based on the Design Basis Tornado (DBT) are. inappropriate because they fall to consider i

the potential loading combination of the DBT and a tornado generated missile.

~

c.

The assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination equations incorporating tornado loadings in combination with "normal and accident conditions" is unacceptable.

d.

The DBT parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1 are less conservative than the parameters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2.

(CFUR 5)

Contention 7.

Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate whether the rock "overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability of category I structures to withstand seismic disturbances.

(CTUR 6)

Contention 8.

Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of the drawdown of the groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation.

(CFUR 7)

Contention 9.

Applicants have failed to make any effort to i

determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary.

Various transport mechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclusion boundary.

(CFUR 8)

Contention 10.

The CPSES design fails to adequately account for the effect of asymmetric loading resulting from a pipe break in the areas between the reactor vessel and the shield wall.

(ACORN 1)

Contention 11.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has a reliable method for evaluating or insuring that Class IE safety-related equipment is designed to accommodate the affects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associated with the most severe postulated accident; thus General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 3)

Contention 12.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has reliable methods for evaluating and insuring that structures, systems and components important to safety are designed to withstand the

l affects of the safe shutdown earthquake without losing the capability to safely shutdown the plant:

thus, General Design Criterion 2 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 4)

C2ntention 13.

Present fire protection measures proposed by Applicants are not adequate to minimize the probability and effect of a fi:e from disabling the electric cables for all redundant safety systems; thus, General Design Criterion 3 has not been satisfied.

i (ACORN 5) q;ntAntion 14.

The DC Power System for the CPSES plant fails to the single failure criterion as defined in 10 CFR Part meet Appendix A.

(ACORN 6) 50, i

contention 15.

The CPSES design does not provide adequate, reliable instrumentation to monitor variables and systems affecting the integrity of the reactor core, the pressure boundary of the containment after an accident, in violation of General Design Criterion 13 of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

(ACORN 7)

Cantention 16.

The CPSES does not provide adequate equipment outside of the control room to pro.iptly put the reactor in hot shutdown and so maintain it until attaining cold shutdown (also from outside the control room) as required by General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.

(ACORN 9)

Contention 17.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the effects of aging and cumulative radiation on safety-related equipment which must be seismically and environmentally qualified, thus, General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.

(ACORN 10)

Contention 112 The CPSES design fails to present a means for dealing with pressure transients produced by component

failure, personnel error, or spurious valve actuati.on which exceed the pressure / temperature limits of the reactor vessel.

(ACORN 13)

Contention 19._

The CPSES design fails to protect against corresion within the steam generators which causes cracking of pipes and leakage of radioactive water.

(ACORN 15)

Contention 20.

The CPSES design does not adequately insure that safety-related water supplies will be available for plant operation in the event of ice buildup at the service water intake structure.

(ACORN 20)

Contention 21.

The CPSES design fails to protect against accidents involving the movement and handling of heavy loads in the vicinity of spent fuel at the facility.

(ACORN 22)

Contention 22.

Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part j

50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:

a.

The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or who have special qualifications for dealing with emergencies.

(CASE 12(a))

b.

No agreements have been reached with local and state i

officials and agencies for the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identification of the principal officials by titles and agencies.

~

(CASE 12(b))

c.

There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary.

(CASE 12(c))

d.

There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions for partici-

~ pation in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicant.

(CASE 12(d))

There is no prevision for medical facilities in the e.

immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose.

' CASE 12(e))

f.

There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex.

(CASE 12(f) and ACORN 24)

Contention 23.

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achievable.

(ACORN 25 and CASE 9)

Contention 24.

A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because the Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

The costs of safely decommissioning.he facility after a.

its useful life (ACORN 31 and CASE 6(a))

b.

The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel (CASE 7)

5-c.

The fuel costs and supply (CASE 6(c))

d.

The costs of waste storage (CASE 6(d)).

Contention 25.

The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 10 CFR 50.57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50 Appendix C have not been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility.

(CASE 16) l

~

~

9 O

M O

4

r s

EXHIBIT C r

ll' 'l

J

=_

~

1UELECTRIC Wilhem G. Cowul r e,..m, i, m,#~

June 28,1988 Mrs. Juanita Ellis

~ _.

President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 752

Dear Juanita:

We have agreed that when the NRC licensinir proceedings for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (NRC Docket Nos. 50-445-OL,50-446-OL and 50-445-CPA) have been dismissed and the Joint Stipulation has become effective, you will be authorized to release this letter to the public and the news media and we will file it with the NRC as part of the record of the licensing proceeding.

I am duly authorized to make the statemients he7ein on behalf of TU Electric and to sign this letter.

TU Electric recognizes that the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and its President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, have made a substantial, personal, and unselfish contribution to the regulatory process which assures that Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

("Comanche Peak") will be a safer plant.

Through the untiring efforts of CASE i

representatives, deficiencies which existed in the early 1980's have been revealed in the design of substantial portions of the plant which no one else, including TU Electric, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or other third-party experts had fully recognized or discovered. As a result, Comanche Peak is a better, safer plant than before and, through the reinspection and Corrective Action Program, has a greater assurance of safety and reliable generation. We commend CASE, together with its tschnical advisors, Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh, and other workers, public Interest organizations, and supporters for their courage and devotion to CASE's goals of finding the facts and informing the public. Because of these activities, CASE's President, Mrs. Ellis, has been appointed to the Operations Review Committee ("ORC") at Comanche Peak, an unpaid but important position which will provide CASE with the opportunity to continue to play an active part in assuring itself that Comanche Peak is as safa a nuclear facility as possible.

The ORC is required by the Comanche Peak technical specifications and functions as an independent body assigned the responsibility for review of various safety related matters including nuclear power plant operations, nuclear engineering, radiological safety and quality assurance practices among others. Among its duties, the ORC will be responsible l

for independent review of proposed modifications to the Comanche Peak facilities or F

procedures, chan6es to the Technical Specifications and license amendments, any violations or deviations which are required to be reported to NRC and other safety related matters deemed appropriate by the ORC members. The ORC meets periodically to l

l l

400 North oks Sver, LD 89 Deuss. T,ss, ?J.'01

Mrs. Juanita Ellis June 28,1988 Page 2 review and discuss various issues bearing on the safe operation of Comanche Peak and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Executivo Vice President, Nuclea.' Engineering and Operations.

TU Electric also recognizes its own shortcomings in assuring the NRC that they fulfilled NRC Regulations. We acknowledge that nuclear expertise did not exist to meet those c

demands and that its nuclear management did not have full sensitivity to the regulatory environment. CASE, Mrs. Ellis and her colleagues played a substantial part in achieving our current level of awareness.

Sincerely,

/f/

W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President, Generatirg Division TU Electric e

E XHIBrf D GENERAL RELEASE The undersigned,in consideration of the payment of cash to be made to me pursuant to a Settlement Agreement with Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) on the day of June,1988, does hereby release and forever discharge TU Electric, Texas Utilities Company, Texas Municipal Power Agency, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Brown & Root, Inc., Ebasco Services, Inc., C.

Thomas Brandt, and any other person, firm, or corporation who performs work for or have been associated with the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station project ("Comanche Peak"), together with each of their respective attorneys, related or affiliated companies, successors, assigns, officers, directors, managers, age'its, partners, and employees, and each of them, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Released Parties, from any and all claim or liability arising out of my employment at or involve ~ ment wlth the Comanche Peak project or any other claims or actions of any nature

~

whatsoever I might have arising out of ar.y acts or omissions on the part of said Released Parties, whether known or unknown, as of the date hereof.

~

The undersigned understands that this General Release resolves and extinguishes, among other things, any and all claims raised in complaints filed before the Department of Labor or under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act and any and all claims raised in any complaints filed in any state or federal court or administrative agency, together with any and all claims that I mignt have asserted or es.: assert in any suit, cause of action, chvge of discrimination, or other claim against any and all of the Released Parties.

If I am presently a par'.y to any legal action in any court or administrative forum, state or federal, against any one or more of the Released Parties herein, I agree to immediately cause such : ult or legal proceeding to be dismissed with prejudice to my right to refile same.

1 '

,e I further agree that this General Release she.ll be binding on the undersigned, my agents, attorneys, representatives, executors, personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns.

~

! hereby acknowledge that I have read this General Release and that I fully understand the terms, nature, and effect of the Geneeal Release and have voluntarily and knowingly executed the General Release. I further acknowledge that, by the payment of the consideration herein to me, neither TU Electric nor any of the other Released Parties admits liability or responsibility to me in any respect but rather denies same and I ~ ~

recognize that the sum so paid is to buy peace and avoid furtMr litigation or the assertion of claims.

Signed this day of June,1988.

Witness:

2-

\\

EXHIBrr R CORPORATE RESOLt7t!ON corporation, hereby certify that the resolution set fo meeting of the Board of Directors of said Company duly held on June 2 7, 19 rescinded and is in full force and effect on the date hereof:a quo RESOLVED that all of the actions heretofore taken and proposed to be taken by the officers of the Company with respect to the proposed Settlem Agreement between CASE, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, and the Company, (herein the "Settlement Agreement"), including but not limited to, the actions of officers in connection with negotiation and participation in discussions wit the parties to the transaction be, and hereby are, in all respects approve confirmed and ratified; and further RESOLVED that the terms and provisions of the proposed Settlement Chairman of the Board, or any Division President or

' of the Company, be, and each of them hereby is, authorized and empowere execute and deliver the Settlement Agreement in such form as he may deem

, his signature thereto, and to take any and all setion perform all of its obligations with respect to the said and further RESOLVED that said officers of the Company be and they hereby are authorized and directed on behalf of the Company to execute any and all desirable in order to enable the Company to carry ou purposes of the foregoing resolution.and the transaction covered thereby.

((IN WITNESS WHEREOP 1 hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Com dey of June,1988.

/2 6 c. u-

BIHIBrr F RESOLITTION I, Barbara N. Boltz, Secretary of Citizens Asociation for Sound Energy, a Texas Hon-Profit corporation (hereinaf ter the "Association"), hereby certify that the resolution set forth hereunder was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of said Association duly held on June 14, 1988, at which a quorum was present and voting, and that said resolution has not been amended or rescinded and is in full force and effect on the date hereof s

RESOLVED that all of the actions heretofore taken and proposed to be taken by Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President of the Association, with respect to the proposed Settlement Agreement between the Association, Mrs. Juanita Ellis,

~

and Texas Utilities Electric Company, (hereinafter the "Settlement Agreement"), including but not limited to, the actions of Mrs.

Ellis in connection with negotiation and participation in discussions with the parties to the transaction be, and hereby are, in all respects approved, confirmed and ratified; and further RESOLVED that the terms and provisions of the proposed Settlement Agreement, as presented to the meeting, be, and hereby are, approved and the the President of the Association, be, and hereby is, authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the Settlement Agreement in such form as she may dgem necessary or advisable, her approval thereof to be conclusively evidenced by her signature thereto, and to take any and all actioa she may deem necessary in connection with the foregoing to enable the Association to fully and promptly perform all of its obligations with respect to the said Settlement Agreement; and further RESOLVED that Mrs. Ell's be and she hereby is authorized and directed on behalf of the Association to execute any and all documents and to take any and all action that she may deem necessary or desirable in order to enable the Association to carry out and effectuate the purposes of the foregoing resolution and the transaction covered thereby.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Association this

.C'7 day of June,1988.

hp! kev _. Y b '-

/

Barbara N. Bolds, Secre

,> a 1

WonSHAx, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLDRIDGE f aiRTY f*C muNO.50 koos Ser.N TCwtm DALLAS. Texas 752o f tn C.*CNC la419793000 "ell'".*Eo.uc

..l*~!s'c!*'

"."7e'."'"

'?d.e '!'ld.o7 L'." "CO'".v'"n a

.e-n e.. c so.

, m ic.

..v S

.ket..oos C. C = 8 C.50ae

..s a : Se c

?"

:?

',';?:.:,";,':

T 4:re,

'T4.'. "?"'.1....

T,f ="

*;1* " " 'r*'

J'.l;;.';'2"...

I'."'o*:,*."'s"!'

1 EXHIBIT G JuneN,1988 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

We have acted as counsel for Texas Utuities Electric Company, a Texas c. r goration (the "Company"), in connection with that certain Settlement A reement dated June d

1988 (the "Agreement") by and between Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE"),

Mrs. Juanita Ellis ("Ellis") and the Company. Th's opinion is delivered to you pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Agreement.

In connection with this opinion, we have reviewed copies of the Agreement and all Exhibits referenced in and attached to the Agreement. We have also examined originals or copies, certilled or otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of such corporate records, certificates and other documents of the Company and made such investigations of law as we have deemed necessary or appropriate as a basis for the opinions expressed below.

Based upon the foregoing and subject to the qualifications set forth herein, we are of the opinion that:

l 1.

The Company is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Texas with requisite corporate power and authority to carry on its business as now conducted.

2.

The Company has requisite corporate power and authority to execute, deliver and perform tM Agreement acting separately and as Project Manager under the Joint Ownership Agreement between the owners of the CPSES, and to carry out its obligations thereunder. The Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Company, and constitutes valid and legally binding obligations of the Company

n.h Mrs. Juanita Ellis June

,1988 Page 2 l

enforceable against it in accordance with its respective terms. The execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement by the Company does not conflict with or result in any violation of, or constitute a default under, the Articles of Incorporation or by-laws of the Company.

We are licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. We do not purport to be experts on, or to express any opinion herein concerning, any law other than the laws of the State of Texas and the federallaw of the United States.

The foregoing opinions are limited to the existing laws on the date hereof and we undertake no obligation or responsibility to update or supplement this opinion in response to subsequent changes in the law or future events or circumstances affecting the

~

transactions contemplated herein. This opinion has been delivered solely for your benefit and may not be otherwise reproduced, filed or relied upon by any other person or entity.

Very truly yours, WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, S AMPELS

& WOOLDRIDGE By:

e_

Robert A. Wooldridge, p Pattner

/

o EXHIBIT H PUBLIC STATEMENT Upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement and the filing of the Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Dismissal the following statement, describing the terms and basis for the Settlement Agreement, may be released to the public and the news media together with the Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for Dismissal witaout violat the provisions of Article VIII, paragraph 8.1:

Texas Utilities Electric Company

(. "TU Electric") and Citizens Association for Sound Energy ("CASE") announced that they, along with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, have filed a Joint Stipulation and a Joint Motion for Dism!ssal of the ongoing NRC licensing proceedings involving the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

Under the terms of the Joint Stipulation, which becomes effective in the event that the ASLB grants the Motion to Dismiss, TU Electric wul continue to implement the various corrective actions already in place and CASE will continue to be actively involved in that process. In addition, Mrs. Juanita Euis, the President of CASE has been appointed as a full member of the Operations Review Committee

("ORC") for Comanche Peak, which is a position for which TU Electric pays no salary. The ORC is required by the Comanche ?eak technical specifications and plHys a vital role in reviewing operational and other safety-related matters in connection with Comanche Peak.

The dismissal of the ongoing licensing proceedings is,part of an overall settlement between CASE and TU Electric. In addition to the dismissal of the NRC licensing proceeding, the settlement requires TU Electric to resolve claims by workers formerly employed at Comanche Peak who have employment discrimination claims or suits against TU Electric or its contractors, anet TU Electric will reimburse CASE for the expenses and debts incurred by CASE in connection with the licensing of Comanche Peak.

- - - - - - - - -