ML20151B359
| ML20151B359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6786 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8807200336 | |
| Download: ML20151B359 (111) | |
Text
..
i l b> ; j,, g l_
UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)
Case No. 50-445-OL
)
i (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta tion,
)
50-445-OL Units 1 and 2)
)
)
50-445-CPA
)
)
)
4 o
t Pages:
25,187 through 25,295 Place:
Dallas, Texas Date:
July 13, 1988 l...............c.........................................a 78 PJ 0/
l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION j
O onsune 1229 L 5eset, N.W., Seite 600 WasMagton, D.C. 20t*O 8807200336 ?80713 (202) N F DR ADOCF. v5000445 i
T PDC l --
25187 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
x 6
In the Matter of
- Case No. 50-445-OL 7
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC No. 50-446-OL 8
COMPANY, et al.
No. 50-445-CPA 9
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
10 Station, Units 1 and 2) 11
x 12 800 Skyway Tower 13 Southland Building 14 400 North Olive 15 Dallas, Texas 16 Wednesday, July 13, 1988 17 The above-entitled matter came on for a prehearing 18 conference, pursuant to Notice, at 9:10 a.m.
19 BE FORE :
20 PETER B.
GLOCH, Administrative Judge 21 DR. WALTER H. JO RDAN, Board Member 22 DR. KENNETH A.
McCOLLOM, Board Member 23 24 25
25188 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicants:
3 GEORGE EDGAR, Attorney at Law 4
MAURICE AXELRAD, Attorney at Law 5
Newman & Holt. zinger, P.C.
6 1615 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 1000 7
Washington, D. C.
20036 8
and 9
ROBERT A. WOOLDRIDGE, Attorney at Law to Worsham, Forsythe, Samples & Wooldridge 11 Suite 2500, 2001 Bryan Tower 12 Dallas, Texas 75201 13 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
14 JANICE E.
MOORE, Attorney at Law 15 Office of Internal Counsel 16 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
18 ON behalf of CASE:
l l
19 JUANITA ELLIS, President 20 BILLIE GARDE, Attorney at Law 21 Citizens Association for Sound Energy l
22 1426 South Polk l
23 Dallas, Texas 75224 l
24 and 25 l
25189 l
1 APPEARANCES:
[ Continued]
2 On behalf of CASE:
3 ANTHONY Z.
ROISMAN, Attorney at Law 4
Cohen, Milstein & Hausfeld 5
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 600 6
Washington, D. C.
20005 7
and e
JACK DOYLE 9
61 Circuit Avenue, West 10 Worcester, Massachusetts 01603 ij 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
25 l
l
25190 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE BLOCH:
Good morning.
I am Peter 3
Bloch, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
Board for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
There are 5
two dockets with which we are concerned.
6 With deep respect for everyone here, I 7
respectfully and wholeheartedly welcome you to these 8
Proceedings.
9 The dockets involved include an operating 10 license application and a construction permit amendment 11 proceeding.
The formal numbers of those dockets are 12 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL and 50-445-CPA.
I 13 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 14 consists of three members.
On my left, Dr. Kenneth 15 h Collom who is a member of the Board; and my right, 16 Dr. Walter Jordan.
17 I'd appreciate it if the parties would 18 identify themselves for the record, please, starting at 19 my left, f
20 MS. MOORE:
Your Honor, my name is Janice E.
21 Moore, counsel for NRC Staf f.
To my right is Mr.
22 Michael Harrison, a paralegal from the NRC Office of 23 General Counsel.
24 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please use the microphones when f
25 you talk.
n 25191 1
MR. EDGAR:
I'm George Edgar.
I'm a partner 2
in the Washington law firm of Newman & Holtzinger.
I 3
represent Texas Utilities.
4 Seated to my immediate left is Robert A.
5 Wooldridge, a partner in the law firm of Worsham, 6
Forsythe, Samples & Wooldridge, Dallas, Texas.
7 And to his left, Mr. Maurice Axelrad, one of a
my partners.
9 MR. ROISMAN:
My name is Anthony Z.
- Roisman, io I'm one of the counsel for the Intervenor CASE.
Seated to my immediate left is Ms. Billie 11 12 Garde, another counsel for the Intervenor CASE.
13 To her left, Juanita Ellis, the president and 14 representative in this proceeding of the Intervenor 15 CASE.
16 And to Ms. Ellis' left is Jack Doyle, one of 17 the tenhnical experts that CASE has presented in this 18 proceeding.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have received this morning a 20 petit. ion filed by an attorney named Mr. Richard Lee 21 Griffin.
Would he come forward and identify himself 22 for the record, please.
23 There's a microphone up here, Mr. Grif fin.
24 MR. GRIFFIN:
I am Richard Lee Griffin.
I 25 appear today on behalf of Citizens for Fair Utility
25192 1
Regulation, known as CFUR, and for the Greater Fort 2
Worth Group of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra 3
Club.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
5 I have before me -- Mr. Griffin, you may want 6
to hear this; maybe you can sit up front if you could.
7 It might help you in getting back and forth.
If you 8
don't mind, it's possible the Staff wouldn' t mind you 9
sitting at their table.
10 MS. MOORE:
That's fine, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have before me a proposed 12 agenda which is jointly proposed by the admitted 13 l parties.
Mr. Griffin, have you had a chance to see it?
14 MR. GRIFFIN:
No, sir, I have not.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Let me familiarize you with it.
is What I'm going to propose is that we slightly alter the 17 agenda to include an oral presentation by Mr. Griffin, 18 and then an opportunity for the parties either to 19 respond immediately or to explain that they need more 20 time to respond.
21 The remainder of the agenda, after we speak 22 to Mr. Griffin, is special appearance statements which 23 we have discussed with some of the members of the 24 public who are interested in speaking to us this 25 morning.
l
25193 i
We understand that the statements are 2
primarily opposed to the agreement that is already 3
approved by this Board and also may be opposed to the 4
licensing of the plant.
5 The combined statements should take less than 6
one-half hour.
They are to be limited to about five 7
minutes each.
8 Following the limited appearance statements, 9
there will be responses by the diff erent parties.
10 Then there are a group of motions that have 11 been filed before us whose status is uncertain.
These 12 were filed by counsel for certain people or ja organizations who would like to intervene in this 14 Proceeding.
The statut, of those motions is itself 15 uncertain because counsel for them has withdrawn.
16 But we'll discuss the status of those motions 17 and see if action is appropriate at that time.
18 Then the Utility proposes to present the 19 terms of the settlement agreement and to present 20 certain exhibits for receipt into evidence and to offer 21 and obtain a ruling on the admissibility of a certain 22 letter from Mr. Counsil to Ms. Ellis.
23 Then there will be opportunity for closing 24 comments by TU Electric, CASE and the NRC Staff, after 25 which tnere will be a submission of an agreed form of
25194 j
3 dismissal and a request for us to enter an order.
2 At that point we will decide what to do and 3
will announce what we will do.
4 Should we approve the settlement terms and 5
dismiss the case, then there is a condition subsequent 6
to the effectiveness of the settlement, and thct is, an 7
agreed letter which will be delivered from Mr. Counsil 8
to Ms. Ellis.
The Board would like to announce that it has 9
to reci.ewed this morning two documents from Texas Utilities.
One is a summary of the settlement 33 12 agreement, and the other is the complete settlement 13 agreement, so that we will have a chance to read and 34 consider what the terms of the settlement agreement are before we decide to act on it.
15 16 Are there any objections to that order of 17 proceeding?
18
[No response.]
39 JUDGE BLOCH:
Then if you would, Mr. Griffin, 20 I would request you to make your presentation either 21 from there or from up here.
That's up to you.
22 I'd like to say that I have noticed that --
23 I would like you to feel as relaxed as possible with 24 us.
I know you've been working all night.
25 We are going to have to do our job about what I
25195 3
you're presenting, but I'd like you to feel as 2
comfortable here as you possibly can.
So if you would 3
make your statement, we would welcome that.
4 MR. G' J.- f IN :
Thank you, Judge Bloch.
I have filed on behalf of CFUR and the Fort 5
6 Worth Area Group of the Sierra Club a request that the 7
proceedings be continued and not be dismissed, and a 8
request that CFUR and this group of the Sierra Club be allowed to intervene in the case.
9 10 The propriety of CFUR, and probably also of 11 the Sierra Club, to act as intervenors in the case is 12 not open to serious question.
CFUR was an intervenor I
13 in the case as early as 1979.
f At that time there were three intervenors:
34 15 ACORN, CFUR and CASE.
ACORN and CFUR withdrew and 16 allowed CASE to continue to represent the intervenors.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
I'm sorry, but I don't 18 understand that.
What do you mcan, they allowed CASE 19 to represent the' intervonors?
20 MR. GRIFFIN:
No, they allowed CASE to 23 proceed as the only intervenor.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
23 MR. GRIFFIN:
And from that time until just 24 recently, there has been a close working relationship 25 between CASE and between CFUR.
25196 CFUR and the Sierra Club do not seek to 3
2 expar.d the contentions or increase the number of 3
contentions.
We seek to adopt only Contentions No. 2 4
and No. 5 as ti f existed before the stipulation.
9 I would like to briefly address what I think 6
may be the most important questions, which are tl.e factors that the regulations set out as governing late 7
g filed petitions.
9 Before I embark on that, I'd like to ask the 10 Board to keep in mind that CFUR is actually refiling.
11 They have been b3 fore the Board before.
The first one I would like to address is the I '.
13 good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
34 CFUR has good cause for filing this petition late, as 15 does Sierra Club.
16 The proposed joint stipulation would 37 basically bring an end to the proceedings.
The Board is would not exist to review the proceedings any more, and 39 there would not be a public licensing procedure in
{
pg effect.
It would remove the decisions from the public 21 scrutiny that this forum provides and allows, and I 22 I
i think was created for.
23 24 It is only recently that the pacple I 25 epresent have learned that there is, in connection I
I
}
25197 1
with the joint stipulation and the agreed dismissal, an 2
agreement which has not and cannot be disclosed to the 3
public or to CFUR or Sierra Club.
We believe that the secret terms of the 4
5 agreement relate to the payment of monies to CASE for 6
its expenses.
And also we believe that it's connected with the settlement of lawsuits or other claims that 7
8 have been brought by whistle blowers and witnesses, so 9
that those are also resolved as part of this settlement.
10 It has also come to our attention that there 11 is at least an appearance of the possibility of a 12 13 conflict of interest between ':ASE's duty to represent 14 the intervenors -- to be 1.5e in.ervenor and represent a 15 certain interest and a desire to represent perhaps the interest of the whistle blowers.
16 17 JUDGE BLOCH:
I don't understand the 18 relevance of that to this proceeding, because they're 39 not representing the whistle blowers in this 20 proceeding.
2' i MR. GRIFFIN:
No, they're not.
Esc.t --
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
In addition to which, they 23 intend to be out of the proceeding, so any conflict of interest will be taken care of.
24 25 MR. GPTeJIN:
Right, after the fact.
But
\\ %
\\
25198 1
should the conflict of interest throw some negative li ht on the process that led to the agreement in the 9
2 3
first place --
In other words --
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Are you proposing that we would 5
require them to stay in the case?
6 MR. GRIFFIN:
Or let us intervene.
That's 7
what I'm proposing, to let us intervene in their place.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
I would suggest tFTt 9
that may be possible under the rules if you meet the 10 criteria, but that it's entirely irrelevant as to why 11 CASE is withdrawing, because we can't require them to 12 stay.
13 And if we did, I don't think you'd be 14 satisfied any way.
15 MR. GRIFFIN:
No, I'm asking you not to 16 dismiss these proceedings.
I'm not asking you to 17 ref use to let CASE out of the action.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
So their conflict of interest 19 really is not a complaint of yours.
It's relevant to 20 the petition for admission as a party.
If you have the 21 grounds for --
Well, the fact that you have just 22 learned of this stipulation may help c; form good cause 23 for late filing.
24 MR. GRIFFIN:
Right.
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
But the fact that there's a l
?
25199 1
conflict of interest, I suggest, has nothing to do with a
the criteria for late filing.
3 MR. GRIFFIN:
Well, all right.
I've 4
presented it as far as a good cause for late filing.
5 That's the place in my petition which I --
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
The conflict of interest has 7
nothing to do with the good cause as to withdrawal from 8
the case?
I'm surprised about that.
9 MR. GRIFFIN:
We are surprised about that.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Am I correct, though, that the 11 conflict of interest has nothing to do with your 12 grounds for substituting yourself as a party or 13 becoming a fresh party, which is really what the rules ja make possible?
15 MR. GRIFFIN:
We don't know.
We don't know what's in the agreement.
It is possible that in the 16 17 agreement it is --
I can't know until I see the 18 agreement.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, assume they have been 20 bribed, which I don' t believe at the present time, but 21 assume that was true.
Why would it be relevant to your l
22 becoming a party?
23 MR. GRIFFIN:
It depends on the terms of the 24 agreement with the witnesses who are settling lawsuits l
25 probably and receiving money in exchange therefor.
1 L
6 25200 1
If there's any suggestion that the witnesses 2
out of that agreement will not appear or will not give 3
testimony. then that's quite significant to the 4
settlement.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
They obviously are not going to 6
Present further testimony in this case if they 7
withdraw.
8 MR. GRIFFIN:
WO would like for them to be 9
called, if we need them, as wi.tnesses, and if the to agreement that dismisses --
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
I can see that as a 12 subsequent matter if you are admitted as a party.
You 13 might have other mc ns to make before us.
I just 34 don' t see its relevance to your admission as a party.
15 MR. GRIFFIN:
I would like to then focus --
16 I will skip over other factors which are addressed in 17 my petition and focus on what I consider the most 18 important, which is the contribution that we can make 39 to the record.
20 There are two witnesses who have significant 21 knowledge that should be presented to this Board.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Before you continue, I'd like 23 to say, this is the portion of the petition that 24 concerns me the most.
I'd like to say why.
The reason 25 it concerns me the most is because there have been
~.
25201 i
extensive studies done by Stone & Webster and by the 2
entire CPRT program of the Applicants, and there are 3
extensive get-well programs underway.
4 When I say "extensive," I mean they're so S
heavy that no one chose to carry them to the hearing.
6 My concern is that in order to make a contribution to 7
this heuring that it would be necessary for any new 8
intervenor to know how allegations that are being 9
brought now relate to all of that work.
10 My initial impression is that there's no 11 understanding here at all of how these contentions 12 relate to the extensive work that's underway or why 13 that work is insuf ficient to remedy these concerns.
34 In addition, the technical concerns are not 15 described well enough so that I can even tell what they 16 are.
17 The concern that there's something wrong with 18 a hydro test is interesting, but apparently the Staff 19 knows there's something wrong with the hydro test, and 20 I can' t tell anything from the statement about the 21 hydro test about whether I'm concerned.
22 I'd like to say that there's a history in 23 this case that when there is something to be concerned 24 about, the Board looks into it very closely.
But I 25 just can't tell from this what the technical concern 1
l 25202 i
really is.
2 I'd also like to disclose for the record that 3
Mr. James Sutton called me last night. He obviously is 4
emotionally concerned ind cares about what's happening 5
here.
6 But I do have to know what the technical 7
concern is.
My inclination at the present time would 8
be to permit you to withdraw the filing without 9
prejudice and to allow you to file something that would to demonstrate that you have enough mastery of what has 11 gone on in this case so that the Commission might hear 12 your petition and decide whether or not you have 13 grounds, meritorious grounds, for contributing as a 14 Party.
15 That would have to show somehow that you 16 understand the programs that are underway and that this 17 is not enough for addressing these concerns.
18 It also would have to show enough of a 19 mastery of the technical matters to show that what's
{
20 being done is not adequate.
21 Now, that's an extensive statement from me, 22 but I'd like to have you have a chance to think about a
it before you respond.
24 If you want to respond immediately, you may.
25 But if you'd like to think about it for a little while l
l
k 25203 l
3 too, you could do that.
2 MR. GRIFFIN:
Well, I would prefer to respond 3
right away.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay, sure.
5 MR. GRIFFIN:
Allowing us to file a petition later before this Board --
6 7
JUDGE BLOCH:
No, if we dissolve the a
proceeding, which wo surely will do if you're not a 9
party because you wouldn't have standing to file any 10 other motions -- if we do that, you can file a petition 31 to become an intervenor under the rules of the Nuclear 12 Reguitiory Commission, meeting the same standards that 13 you have here.
14 It would be filed before the Commission.
The 15 Commission would then either act itself or, as is most 16 likely, they would appoint a board to consider the 17 contentions.
18 The greatest likelihood would be that the 19 three judges sitting here would be that board, although 20 there would be no assurance of that.
I would be 21 unwilling to assume, if it was not this board, that the 22 other board would be less capable because we are 23 creatures of the Commission.
1 24 It would be likely it wculd be ours, but it 25 might not be.
25204 1
The point is that your rights to intervene 2
would be exactly the same, whether they're considered 3
now or later.
4 MR. GRIFFIN:
We would like for you to f
5 consider them now, and we would like to point out --
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
Then you must address our 7
concerns about --
8 MR. GRIFFIN:
We have only learned of Mr.
9 Sutton as of July 12, 1988.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's why I want to have you 11 have more time to show that you can contribute to the 12 Proceeding.
If you can show it now, you should 13 continue now.
If you can't, you might as well withdraw 14 the motion.
15 MR. GRIFFIN:
Well, I am not prepared to 16 Present Mr. Sutton's testimony today.
That's why we 17 want to continue the proceedings.
18 We can flesh out definitely his testimony and 19 present it to this Board.
This Board is the board that 20 has been working with this case for a long time.
We 21 don't want to lose the expertise and experience of this 22 Board, and that's another reason that I think it is 23 appropriate for us to intervene because CFUR has been 24 working on the case since 1979.
25 The members of CFUR have a much greater grasp
25205 1
of the technical questions than I do, quite frankly.
2 They have been reviewing documents for over ten years.
3 They have been consulting with engineers --
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Would you like to consult with 5
your client to see how this relates to the CPRT 6
program, if she is so informed about what's going on 7
with the case?
8 MR. GRIFFIN:
Yes, I would like to consult my 9
client about that.
{
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Why don't you take a few 11 moments to do that now, to see if you can address the 12 Board's concern about the relationship between these 13 arguments and what is already being done about these 14 arguments.
15 MR. GRIFFIN:
Okay.
We'd like a short time 16 to do that.
17 CUDGE BLOCH:
We'11 take a five-minute is recess.
If you need more time, please tell us.
19
[Short recesc.]
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
The hearing will please come 21 to order.
22 MR. GRIFFIN:
Judge Bloch, on behalf of CFUR 23 and the Greater Fort Worth Area Group of the Sierra 24 Club, I would ask the Board to allow us to withdraw our 25 petition without prejudice.
25206 1
I would ask the Board to rule that we have 60 2
or 90 days within which to file a petition, and that a
that will be deemed a timely filing.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
The Board doesn' t have 5
that latter power.
The question is --
I have no 6
problem with allowing you to withdraw without 7
prejudice, unless the parties object and wish to mako 8
motions about that.
That doesn' t concern ic:a at all.
9 The only question about whether you file now 10 or within 60 days will be the same question of due 11 cause for late filing, reasonable cause -- well, 12 whatever the words are in the regulations.
13 MR. GRIFFIN:
Right.
So, in other words, we 14 would still be in the position of having to justify a 15 late filing?
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's right.
And you'd only 17 have however many more days are involved to justify it.
18 Not having jurisdiction over what you're 19 filing then until it's given to me, I can't rule on 20 what you're going to do then.
21 But I would be willing to permit you to 22 withdraw without prejudice.
Does that change your 23 mind?
24 MR. GRIFFIN:
I don't want you to adjourn, 25 but can I speak with my clients for just a minute?
25207 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
If you'd like a small moment to 2
confer with your clients again, we can permit that 3
right now.
4
[ Discussion off the record.]
5 MR. GRIFFIN:
Judge Bloch, we would like 6
Permission to withdraw our petition from your 7
consideration without prejudice, but we would like 8
also, if you possibly can, to deem it filed as of today 9
for future proceedings.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, of course, what you can 11 do is reference in your filing that you have presented 12 it today.
I also cannot make a ruling about what to 13 deem something in a proceeding that I'm not presiding 14 over.
15 I would urge that you file as quickly as 16 possible, as soon as you can show what I suggested 17 today, which is that you have a grasp of the is relationship between your concerns and the overall 19 programs that are in offeet at the plant.
20 I think that would be crucial to showing that 21 you can contribute to the proceeding.
There has to be 22 both the technical concerns described in enough detail 23 so that people will know what you' re worried about and 24 enough understanding of what's being done to know why 25 you're concerned that the existing process is
I l
25208 1
inadequate.
2 No, I can't deem anything about someone 3
else's jutfisdiction.
4 MR. GRIFFIN:
In that case we would just 5
request your permission to withdraw the petition 6
with'ut prejudice.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
And thank you for 8
your appearance before us today.
{
9 Are there any comments by the parties on what 10 has just transpired?
11 MR. EDGAR:
Nothing, Your Honor.
12 MR. ROISMAN:
No comment, Mr. Chairman.
13 MS. MOORE:
The Staff has no comment, Your 14 Honor.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Just to clarify the record, it 16 is ordered that the motion may be withdrawn without 17 prejudice.
18 The next portion of our announced agenda is 19 to hear limited appearances.
20 Now, I'd like to explain what's involved here 21 because I don't want anyone coming forward to think 22 that a limited appearance statement under these 23 circumstances has more value than it actually has.
24 People coming forward to speak to this Board 25 and to this audience may speak about the settlement or
25209 1
about the safety of the plant.
The Staff is here to 2
listen, and it could happen that someone would say 3
something of such importance that the Board would ask 4
the Staff to look into it further.
5 It's unlikely that the Board would act on 6
anything being said unless there were enough evidence 7
and proof presented to us so that we knew that an 8
important safety matter that's not being addressed was 9
being raised.
10 Since we have been keeping up with what's 11 going on in that case, it's unlikely that that can be 12 done this morning, but we're open to that possibility.
)
13 Arguments about our not approving the 14 settlement are unlikely to af fect us because no one at 15 this time has standing as a party to make those 16 arguments.
17 And also because a showing that we should 18 stay the agreement that's before us would have to meet 19 the requirements for a stay, which include irreparable 20 injury.
21 And given that the procedure for becoming a 22 party will still exist whether or not this agreement is 23 approved, it would be very difficult to show 24 irreparable injury.
25 I would also point out that on Monday of this
25210 1
week, we've already approved in an order the general 2
terms of this agreement, subject to the exchanges of 3
paper to take place today.
4 As I'll explain later, I also would like to s
say that there are reasons that just spring from the 6
nature of this proceeding why it would be difficult to 7
persuade us at this time.
8 It has to do with the fact that we have 9
learned to know and to respect each of the parties in 10 this proceeding over an extended period of time in 11 which at least part of the time there was great 12 antagonism present in this proceeding, and in which we 13 were not always satisfied with the performance of the 14 parties.
15 Respect for the parties has grown as they 16 have learned more about what's going on and have 17 learned to trust one another more.
I would also 1'.ke 18 to say that the extent of the agreement grew well 19 before the settlement agreement was proposed to the 20 point where the intervenors in this case made a public 21 statement that they approved of the way that the plant 22 was being designed, without any consideration flowing 23 to them at all.
24 So I would like to invite limited appearance 25 statements, but to completely make it clear that we're
7~- -
25211 l
1 not trying to masquerade as a completely open forum at 2
this point that hasn' t seen what has been going on in 3
this case.
4 We will listen with open ears and will attend 5
to anything that's worth listening to.
We will 6
certainly respect the people who come before us to make 7
these statements.
8 We know that there's a lot of emotion about 9
what's going on.
There's a broad spectrum of views 10 about nuclear power in this country and in this area.
11 We do want to hear from the people so that we 12 can appreciate what their concerns are.
13 I understand, Mr. Anthony, that you've 14 arranged for a limited number of speakers.
Could you 15 tell us how many there are --
I'm sorry.
Mr.
16 Griffin.
17 MR. GRIFFIN:
No, Judge, I have not arranged 18 to have anybody except CFUR and the Sierra Club.
Did 19 you intend for me to?
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
No, I'd like to know if CFUR 21 and the Sierra Club could tell me how many people want 22 to make limited appearance statements in that case?
23 MS. BRINK:
Just one moment.
24 Four.
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
There are four people.
And are
25212 1
you sure that those four people are the only ones in 2
the audience who wish to speak?
3 Could the four people who wish to speak this 4
morning please stand.
5 Are there any other people in the audience 6
wishing to make limited appearance statements that are 7
opposed to the settlement or the plan?
8
[No response.]
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
What we'd like to 10 do is limit each of the people to five minutes.
11 Whatever order, Ms. Brink, that you'd like to arrange 12 is acceptable to us.
13 When you begin, if you'd like to submit a 14 statement for the record, you may do that.
Please 15 announce your name, and if there is an affiliation, the 16 affiliation for the record.
You' re not required to 17 state any affiliation at all.
18 STATEMENT OF TOM SMITH 19 MR. SMITH:
Good morning.
My name is Tom 20 Smith.
I'm Director of Public Citizen of Texas.
We're 21 a membership-based consumer group with approximately 22 3000 members in Texas.
23 I'm not an attorney, and I'd like to make 24 that clear from the outset.
25 What we are here today to do, though, is ask
?
25213 1
that the Board consider staying its order, I believe, 2
of the 5th of July for a period of approximately 60 3
days to allow people throughout Texas and the nation to 4
comment on the settlement agreement reached between the 5
parties.
6 We think there are a number of important 7
reasons why this ought to happen, among them, that it 8
would allow people the opportunity to adequately 9
prepare petitions for intervention if they feel that to there are not appropriate resolutions to their
{
11 complaints.
12 I appreciate the work that GAP and CASE have 13 done over the years, and I want at the outset to 14 comment on the fact that we believe that they have done is a very adequate job in this case and that we believe 16 fully in their integrity and thank them also for 17 keeping us informed up until recently of the processes 18 and what they've been going through in their 19 intervention at Comanche Peak.
20 However, right after the settlement was 21 announced, calls began coming into our office from all 22 across Texas, especially from this part of Texas where 23 approximately a third of our members live, concerned 24 about the agreement and their lack of understanding about what was contained in this agreement.
25 t
25214 1
It is clear from talking to people today that 2
they still don't fully understand what this agreement 3
does.
Today's proceeding I think will help a great 4
deal in explaining that.
5 But, unfortunately, people are not going to 6
have enough time to adequately prepare comments on the 7
agreement and whether it ought to be accepted Who are 8
not here in this audience today.
{
9 That's why we'd like to request a stay.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Smith, as I said, we're not 11 going to entertain this ar a motion.
Are you really 12 suggesting that we could require CASE to stay in this 13 proceeding?
14 MR. SMITH: I would like to ask that you 15 consider the possibility of staying your order, not 16 necessarily requesting that CASE stay in this 17 proceeding.
18 But if I may, I'd like to finish and explain 19 why I think that some of the provisions of this are 20 fairly disturbing and that as a board there are some 21 things that I think you can do to help clarify the 22 agreement.
23 I think that may end up resolving some of the 24 concerns that people have, and in addition give the 25 Board an opportunity to entertain additional motions.
25215 1
What I think is most disturbing about this is 2
that the agreement essentially has negotiated away the 3
right that CASE has had to a full adjudicatory hearing 4
before this Board in ret'trn for a number of rights that 5
may well be real important.
6 It puts Ms. Ellis in a position of where she 7
is sitting on a committee, one of nine people on that a
committee, and then gives her certain rights if issues 9
come up later on, to appeal decisions that Texas 10 Utilities and she did not agree to, to personnel within 11 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 But what has essentially happened in doing so 13 is that she has stepped beyond the pale of what is 14 known, a system of hearings and adjudication where 15 there are manuals, where there are precedents, where 16 there are rules of procedure to guide what happens when 17 there are not -- when the parties are not able to 18 resolve things among themselves, and has put CASE and I
19 the people of Texas who have relied upon them to 20 represent their interest here into an area of 21 uncertainty, where there is no methodology for 22 resolving the complaints.
23 It puts them in a situation where they're 24 having to rely on the good faith of Texas Utilities and 25 the NRC within this region and within this Special
(
I 25216 1
Projects Of fice -- if I've got the right phraseology --
2 to resolve issues and to resolve them in a fair way.
3 But, unfortunately, that has not always been 4
the case that this has worked out to be a fair system, S
and that Texas Utilities has dealt with good faith in 6
resolving the issues in Comanche Peak.
7 Just last April two headlines came across the 8
wires.
Texas Utilities was in some manner rather 9
involved in the intimidation of people who worked for to Cygna.
11 Two more whistle blowers surfaced on April 12 16th, I believe the date was, alleging that as 13 inspectors they were asked to falsify inspection 14 reports.
15 These kinds of things continue to surface 16 just a month and a half ago.
17 Ms. Ellis in her letter to the Board this 18 morning says -- basically in the second paragraph -- as 19 CASE has told the Board, we're ready to state that if 20 the Applicants do what they say they're going to do and 21 the way they say they're going to do it, their plan is 22 acceptable to CASE.
23 One of the most damning parts of this 24 agreement is that it rides on those if's, that it says 25 if TU is going to follow its promises, everything will
25217 1
be okay.
2 I wish that had been the case over the last 3
14 years, and that's what concerns me and concerns the 4
people that we represent here today, is that it puts a 5
tremendous amount of reliance on the good faith of c
Texas Utilities and on the quality of the people within 7
this region of the NRC.
8 I wish that that faith had been placed in 9
those people and had been relied upon and could have to been relied upon over the last 14 years, bat it has 11 not.
12 That's why we' re asking that the Board 13 consider on its own staying for 60 days its order to 14 implement this agreement and accepting this agreement.
15 We believe that there is irreparable harm 16 because what is going to end up happening is we're 17 going to find ourselves in an area where there is not 18 charted procedure to allow the resolution of the 19 complaints that might come up at a later time, as they 20 have been coming up over the last 14 years, and that 21 without that process -- that procedure -- there is no 22 methodology save filing an entirely new procedure with 23 the NRC that's going to take years to resolve perhaps.
24 That doesn' t make a whole lot of sense.
25 We've made a lot of progress, but now is not the time
25218 1
to stop the progress we've make, to stop the kind of 2
impetus that having this Board sitting in judgment and 3
making decisions on issues as they como up has given 4
the parties.
5 That's our biggest concern, and I think where 6
the irreparable harm comes in, is without the pressure 7
this Board gives it, without that process, we don't 8
have an ability to resolve questions as they como up.
9 And as a result, people in this part of the to world who are living close to Comanche Peak are going 11 to be in a position where they' re never going to know 12 if the plant is safe.
13 They'11 never have the assurance that the 14 Board has looked at everything, that it has made all of 15 the decisions and has resolved all of the complaints, 1G and that there is a body to resolve additional and 17 future complaints as they come up and as they will come 18 up, as they have been coming up for the last 14 years.
19 So that's why we're asking that you consider 20 this stay, and it would have to be something that I 21 think you folks would have to do on your own because I 22 don' t have the status to do that or to make that 23 motion.
24 Thank you very much for your time.
25
[A true and correct copy of written statement i
25219 1
submitted by Tom Smith follows:
2 "Texas Public Citizen (' Petitioner')
3 petitions for an emergency 60-day stay of the 4
effectiveness of the Joint Stipulation and the July 5, 5
1988, Memorandum and Order (Terminating Proceedings 6
Subject to Condition) until those who may be endangered 7
by operation of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant, a
including meanbers of Texas Public Citizen, have an 9
opportunity to review and commr;nt on the stipulation 10 and dismissal order, and have an opportunity to file 11 petitions to intervene in the above-captioned case.
12 "Petitioner is a consumer-advocacy 13 organization based in Texas.
Among its 3,000 members 14 are numerous individuals who reside within the 50 mile 15 radius of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant.
Petitioner, 16 while devoting significant time and resources to issues 17 concerning the South Texas nuclear plants, has relied 18 on CASE to represent fully its members' interests in 19 licensing proceedings examining the Comanche Peak 20 plant.
Petitioner joins a number of other Texas 21 organizations in asking that the Board allow a 60-day 22 review period bafore dismissing any aspect of this case 23 on the basis of the Joint Stipulation agreement.
24 "Petitioner recently learned that 25 confidential negotiations were occurring for some time 9
25220 1
between CASE, Texas Utilities (' Applicant') and the NRC 2
Staff.
Petitioner understands that thera are still 3
aspects of this negotiation process and settlee.ent 4
agreements which re'.iaan confidential.
The Joint 5
Stipulation apparently represents a partial result of 6
these negotiations.
The parties to the Joint 7
Stipulation failed to notify the public of the 8
negotiations or of the agreement and failed to provide 9
the community any opportunity to rebut the arguments of 10 the agreement's proponents before it was signed.
11 Petitioner and the community still do not fully 12 understand the impact of this settlement agreement.
13 "The public interest has not been served in 14 this case by close-door negotiations.
The Joint 15 Stipulation reveals that CASE negotiated away its 16 statutorily-granted hearing right in exchange for 17 limited access to the plant and input into certain 18 plant operation decision-making processes for a period 19 of five years.
As the Atomic Energy Act's hearing 20 right is the only right granted expressly to the public 21 under the Atomic Energy Act, Petitioner believes that 22 any agreement between adverse parties of unequal 23 resources, in which such a critical right is negotiated 24 away, is of vital precedent-setting importance and must 25 be carefully reviewed by the Board. Never before has a
25221 1
licensing proceeding with such public importance been 2
entirely terminated with a complex, precedent-setting 3
agreement negotiated in secret.
4 Moreover, the commitments by the Applicant in 5
this case represent informal license conditions which, 6
at the very least, deserve careful examination by this 7
Board, af ter full opportunity for public comment.
In 8
addition, there are federal preemption issues raised by 9
this agreement which suggest the possibility that the to agreement could not withstand legal challenge.
For 1) example, if the Applicant or the NRC later determined 12 that CASE's access to the site interferes with the 13 NEC's exclusive, statutorily-mandated responsibility to 14 regulate the plant, a court may be obligated to void 15 the agreement in the face of an agency or utility 16 challenge.
17 "Finally, Petitioner understands that certain 18 parties have filed peti +. ions to intervene in the above-19 captioned case.
Among these parties is an organization 20 called CPUR, which had formerly intervened.
Seven 21 years ago CFUR agreed to turn over to CASE its 22 contentions regarding quality assurance and quality 23 control at Comanche Peak with the understanding that 24 CASE would pursue these issues in licensing hearings.
25 CFUR believes these issues have not been resolved by
25222 1
the Joint Stipulation and now seeks to reestablish its 2
participation in the licensing hearings to resolve 3
them.
4 "Petitioner understands that operating 5
license hearings are always discretionary to the extent 6
there must be an intervening party with admissible 7
contentions before a hearing may proceed.
Petitioner 8
also understands that an intervenor may withdraw from a 9
hearing at any time.
However, in this case, withdrawal 10 from the hearing represents the end of the licensing 11 process which could have serious health and safety 12 repercussions for the community, unlesa the Board 13 grants new petitioners with admissible contentions the 14 right to intervene.
15 "Former intervenors and members of the 16 community relied on CASE to pursue the licensing issues 17 before a public hearing board.
The basis of this trust 18 was an understanding by these parties that CASE was 19 eager to represent the community as the intervening 20 party in the licensing prceeedings s;t up to examine 21 the Comanche Peak construction permit and operating 22 license applications.
Petitioner further believed that 23 CASE intended the licensing issues in this case to be 24 resolved by the Board following the on-the-record 25 process it originally established.
Petitioner and the L
25223 1
community were informed less than two weeks ago that 2
CASE intended to change radically the procedure in 3
which the case would be resolved.
It did so in the 4
midst of the adjudicatory process.
CASE's definitive 5
steps to stop the hoarings represents a clear departure 6
from the community's earlier understdnding of how it 7
intended to pursue the serious safety issues involved 8
in constructing and operating Comanche Peak.
9 "Evidence developed over the course of this to hearing process to date demonstrates that Comanche Peak 11 is a troubled plant.
As a result of the Joint 12 Stipulation, the hearings will end without an 13 underpinning Licensing Board decision to resolve 14 critical safety issues nd without development of a full 15 adjudicatory record.
Indeed, it is unclear how any of 16 these serious issues now will be resolved.
17
" As the recent outpouring of opposition to 18 this agreement illustrates, the community will suffer a 19 serious loss of public confidence and psychological 20 harm if the plant is permitted to operate without a 21 satisfactory Licensing Board decision.
The community 22 demands that any agency decision permitting operation
<3 of this inherently dangerous technology, potentially 24 life-threatening to the individuals thest live and work 25 around the plant, be explained clearly and supported by f
25224 l
1 substantial record evidence, so tar, the rccord cannot 2
sustain such a decision.
At the very least, it is.
3 crucial that the Board explain the reason for not 1
i 4
waiting for completion of the adjudicatory record 5
before allowing the Applicant to operate Comanche Peak 6
and address the concerns raised by the community.
7 "In evaluating the Joint Stipulation, the 8
Board must consider the following questions:
9 Are there important issues of law which to merit Boaro evaluation and comment?
For example, what 11 is the preemptive effect of the Atomic Energy Act on 12 the Joint Stipulation?
13 "2.
Are there important public rights which
- 4 are eroded by this agreement?
'. 5 "3.
Does the seriousness of the issues 16 raised in this case argt:c f ar a decision based on an 17 on-the-record ad judication?
18 "4.
Will this agreement ensure the future 19 protection of tne community, particularly since CASE's 20 rights to participate in decision-making processes and
?
21 l have access to the plant terminate in five years, we ll 22 short of the average life-span of a nuclear plant?
23 "Petitioner recognizes that CASE and this 24 Board have succeeded, after vigorous efforts, in 25 forcing the Applicant to take certain steps to increase N
~
25225 f
1 the plant's safety.
However, the potential that 2
serious safety issues are still unresolved remains of 3
prime concern for this community, f
4 "Members and others living in the area 5
immediately surrounding the reactors may be irreparably 6
injured by operation of this plant in the face of the 7
Board's failure to resolve outstanding safety issues.
8 "Given the extreme gravity of the matter at 9
hand -- the risk of an accident -- a 60 day stay of the 10 effectiveness of the Joint Stipulation and Memorandum 11 and Order is a modest request, particularly since, 01:
12 balance, the parties to the agreement will not be 13 harmed. The plant will not be ready to operate until at
!least1990, according to the Applicant's current 14 15 estimates.
16 "Petitioner requests that its members and the 17 surrounding community be granted 60 days to review the 18 agreement, to determine whether it operates to 19 denigrate the public's rights, and to inform the Board 20 of their views.
Petitioner requests that petitions of 21 parties who had relied on CASE's assurances to pursue 22 their interests in this proceeding and who may now wish 23 to intervene be considered by the Board so as to ensure 24 a careful resolution of all safety ',ssues prior to the 25 start up of the plant.
For after having solicited the
I 25226 l
1 community's proxy and trust, CASE must realize that 2
from its own best interesc, the workability of the 3
settlement agreement requires a level of public 4
confidence that is now non-existent due to this 5
secretive 'no comment' process."]
6 STATEMENT OF CLIFF RUSHING 7
My.name is Cliff Rushing.
I'm a member of 8
the Citizen Audit.
I signed the petition asking for 9
disclosure of the secrE.t agreement between CASE and TU.
10 The Citizen Audit is an af filiation of senior 11 citi ze ns, church groups and civic organizations --
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Do you know that that's about 13 to occur?
The entire agreement is going to bc lisclosed this morning.
15 MR. RUSHING:
The entire agreement?
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
The entire i.greement will be 17 disclosed this morning.
18 MR. RUSHING:
I understood there were three 19 parts and the last part, the money paid to the 20 individual people, would not be disclosed.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
The agreement appears not to 22 contain the amount to be paid to individual people.
My 23 understanding is that's not complete, but that's an 24 undertaking in good faith.
25 I believe there is no statement on the money
.3 25227 l
1 to individuals, 2
MR. EDGAR:
That's correct.
3 JUDGE BLCCH:
You are correct in that, but my 4
understanding is that's in part because that's not 5
completed.
6 MR. RUSHING:
That's what I'm concerned with, 7
JUDGC BLOCH:
Please address that.
8 MR. RUSHIN3:
Let me repeat.
The Citizens 9
Audit is an affiliation of senior citizens, church 10 groups and civic organizations.
We are concerned with 11 the financial impact of Comanche Peak on the community.
12 We filed this petition because of our 13 concerns about the secrecy of this agreement, and 14 especially the financial impact to the ratepayers, 15 specifically how this agreement affects the long-term 16 costs of the plant and financial impact of unresolved 17 safety matters.
18 Will additional costs be involved in re-work 19 of safety items because of this agreement?
Will 20 unresolved safety items have to be resolved at a later 21 time at increased expense?
Will the plant open and q
22 close repeatedly because of the safety problems, 23 further increasing plant costs?
Is the compensation 24 for whistle blowers and plant opponents going to be 25 passed on to the ratepayers?
25228 1
This plant was started at an estimated cost 2
cf $779 million, and tha cost has now increased to $9.1 3
billion.
At first glance we thought this agreement 4
would put an end to the endless cost increases, but so 5
many issues are cloudy and cloaked in secrecy.
Please 6
do not approve this secret agreement.
7 Thank you for listening to our concerns.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
9 Did you submit a copy for the record?
I 10 would like to direct that the copies that are submitted 11 be bound in in the record at the point that they are 12 submitted.
13
[A true and correct copy of written statement 14 submitted by Mr. Cliff Rushing follows:
15 "My name is Cliff Rushing 527 Tish Apt. 903 16 Arlington, TX. 76006.
I am a member of the citizen 17 Audit.
I signed the petition asking for disclosure of I
16 the acret agreement between CASE and TU.
19 "The Citizen Audit is an affiliation of 20 Seni )r Citizens, Church Groups, and Civic 21 organizations.
We are concerned with the financial 22 impact of Comanche Peak on the community.
23 "We filed this petition because of our 24 concerns about the secrecy of this agreement, and 25 especially the financial impact to the rate payers.
25229 l
1 Specifically how this agreement affects the long term 2
costs of the plant, and the financial impact of 3
unresolved safety matters.
4 "Will additional costs be involved in re-work 5
of safety items because of this agreement.
Will 6
unresolved safety items have to be resolved at a later 7
time at increased expense. Will the plant open and 8
close repeatedly because of safety problems further 9
increasing plant costs.
Is the compensation for 10 whistle blowers and plant opponents going to be passed 11 on to rate payers.
12 "This plant was started at an estimated cost 13 of $779 mil. ion and the cost has now increased to $9.1 14 billion.
At first glance we thought this agreement 15 would put 3r end to the endless cost increases, but so 16 many issues are cloudy and cloaked in secrecy.
Please 17 do not approve this secret agreement.
Thank you for 18 listening to our concerns."]
19 STATEMENT OF LON BURNAM 20 MR. BU RNAM:
My name is Lon Burnam, and I'm 21 here representing the Greater Fort Worth Group of the 22 Sierra Club and the Lone Star Chapter.
23 We, too, in light of our withdrawing our 24 petition asking for a 60-day stay.
25 Much like the Sierra Club has for almost a
F l
25230 1
hundred years in this country held a public trust to 2
guard the environmental concerns of our nation, CASE 3
has enjoyed a public trust with many people throughout 4
this region to safeguard us with regards to the 5
licensing process of this plant.
6 We feel like this public trust has been 7
violated and that we at this point have no means other 8
than through this board, who has been constituted these 9
many years, to approach the board; and if you disband to yourself this time the issues that are of concern to us 11 regarding the safety cannot be resolved.
12 There are many questions about the process 13 that may or may not be relevant to the safety issues.
14 But the issue at hand is -- we have two whistle blowers 15 that want to make certain that they have the is opportunity to participate in this process.
17 One of them alleges what many of us have 18 suspected for a long time:
perjury on the part of 19 Texas Utilities.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
I've heard that said several 21 times, and I've seen no proof of it.
It offends me 22 that people will make statements about perjury without 23 submitting proof.
It just really bothers me.
24 MR. BURNAM:
I appreciate that, Mr. Bloch, 25 The process here offends me because it's constraining j
I 25231 1
the exercise of citizens concerned about the saf ety and 2
welfare that this plant threatens in our home life.
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
That doesn' t excuse to me 4
stating that a person or a group of people may have that doesn't show respect for 5
committed perjury.
m 6
other individuals.
7 I do want this proceeding to be respectful.
8 MR. BURNAM:
I appreciate that, Mr. Bloch, 9
and individuals that I know with the Utility, as well 10 as individuals at CASE, I respect individually.
I 11 can' t say that I respect the process or the product of 12 Texas Utilities over the last 15 years.
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
That I'm willing to hear you 14 say.
But when I hear someone alleging a crime, I 15 shudder unless they hcve proof.
It just does n' t seem 16 fair.
17 MR. BURNAM:
I'm not the one that's making 18 the allegation.
I'm only --
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, you just said it.
When 20 you say it, I want you to know that I am upset, when 21 you don't have your own personal proof so that you know 22 it's true.
23 MR. BURNAM:
I appreciate your being upset.
24 I don' t have my personal proof; I have my suspicions.
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
You continue to say it.
But I
25232 l
1 want you to know I hadn' t even heard it.
Yes, sir.
3 That's really all I wanted to say.
We would 4
like a 60-day stay because we f eel that the public 5
trust has been violated and we have no way of assu. ring 6
our safety.
7 Thank you.
8 STATEMENT OF BETTY BRINK 9
My name is Betty Brink, 7600 Anglin Drive, 10 Fort Worth, Texas.
11 I am going to read this, knowing full well 12 that our motion has been denied without prejudice.
So 13 some of the things that are already in here, I 14 recognize the Board is not going to accept and rule on.
15 I am a lifetime resident of Fort Worth and am 16 now living in the home in which I grew up, about 45 17 miles from Glen Rose and Somervell County, the site of 18 the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
19 From my back door, I can see the power lines 20 that may some day connect my home to that plant.
21 As a mother of five grown children and a 22 grandmother of 11, I not only have a desire, but I have 23 an obligation to make sure that their home is a secure 24 place where they will have a future.
25 For the past several years, while the
25233 1
Licensing hearings have been suspended, I have been 2
actively opposing the plant on economic, as well as 3
safety issues, in an effort to protect the ratepayer 4
and the citizens of this area.
5 I have appeared before the Fort Worth City 6
Council on a regular basis, am currently serving on a 7
Fort Worth City Council ad hoc committee on Comanche 8
Peak, have written articles, held seminars, organized 9
with seniors and low income groups and spoken before 10 various forums.
11 This has all been with the knowledge and 12 support of CASE, Intervenor CASE, in this proceeding.
13 We have discussed our separate but equal goals 14 frequently with Juanita and Billie Garde, and we have 15 received advice from both of them.
16 We saw our work as complementary and believed 17 that they both encouraged us because they believed the 18 plant was too unsafe to ever operate without fear of an l
19 accident.
20 I became an intervenor in these licensing 21 procaedings as a member of Citizens for Fair Utility 22 Regulation in June of 1979, because I felt then that l
23 the Comanche Peak plant was not being constructed 24 safely.
25 I still feel that way today.
And while I l
/
25234 l
1 have requested a 60-day stay and full disclosure, I 2
recognize that our motion has been denied without 3
prejudice.
So anything I say referencing that, please 4
bear with me.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Brink, I want to be 6
completely fair.
There's no way that we can deny the stay motion without prejudice.
8 MS. BRINK :
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I'm not a 9
lawyer.
10 We believe there are still outstanding safety 11 issues.
Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Garde both have so stated 12 to me last month after CASE reached an agreement with 13 Texas Utilities on the design portion of the pipe 14 hangers and supports.
15 Both said, "The hearings will continue.
16 There are still many, many safety issues to litigate 17 under the OA/0C contention (that is, Contention 5)."
18 We have recently been contacted by two people 19 who seem to have allegations that will fall under the 20 Of/0C contention, and I recognize that we are going to 21 have to raise that in another forum.
22 But if these hearings are shut down and this 23 Board dissolved, the likelihood of these allegations 24 being heard and a determination of their validity being 25 made is small indeed.
u
25235 1
When this Board ruled in December 1983 that 2
"The record before us casts doubt on the design quality 3
of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station," it said 4
further in that order that "... when it comes to s
considering the safety of a nuclear plant, we think it 6 l important to consider any argument that may be made.
7 If the saf ety of the applicant's plant is not assured, 8
even from arguments not previously thought of by the 9
intervonor, then the safety of the public is not 10 assured.
There is no reason to think that potential 11 accidents have all been described in arguments 12 previously made."
13 While I recognize that this statement is made 14 in reference to intervenors already admitted, CASE, the 15 same argument can be made to assure that this board 16 hears all allegations of unsafe conditions regarding 17 this plant.
18 The basic premise has not changed simply 19 because the intervenor is attempting to withdraw; that 20 is',
the consideration of the safety of a nuclear power 21 plant.
22 Too much has already been before this Board 23 for this Board to not have an obligation to continue to 24 hear evidence or investigate alle,ations.
25 The licenning of an unsafe nuclear power
25236 1
plant has the potential for devastation and death on a 2
massive scale.
There is really no other reason for 3
such close scrutiny or such stringent regulatory 4
requirements, requirements not required for any other 5
type of energy resource.
6 In its past writings this Board has 7
recognized the awesome responsibility it holds.
I 8
would further argue that the redesign and rework now in 9
progress at the plant, rework and redesign necessary to 10 correct a litany of past mistakes, violates Appendix B 11 to 10 CFR Part 50 which requires that "the process for 12 correcting errors be reasonably prompt" (from the 13 Board's Memorandum and Order of December 1983).
14 In that order you ref er to Appendix B as a 15 "sensible, integrated regulatory system for requiring 16 that both the design and construction of a nuclear 17 plant must be scrutinized to assure that all conditions 18 adverse to quality, including design deficiencies, must 19 be promptly identified and corrected."
20 The issues addressed by the December 1983 21 order were the design deficiencies brought up by 22 engineers Walsh and Doyle in 1982.
These are now being i
23 corrected, we understand, from the CPRT and the CAP and 24 are part of the reason CASE has agreed to withdraw.
l 25 We feel that six years between the time a
25237 l
1 condition adverse to quality is identified and 2
corrected can never, in any stretch of the imagination, 3
be considered to meet the spirit or the letter of 4
Appendix B.
There is no "reasonable" promptness going 5
on here.
6 It is reasonable also to assume that this is 7
the case in all the corrective work going on now at 8
Comanche Peak.
It is simply too late to go back 10, 9
11, 12 or 14 years, the lifetime of the construction of to this plant, correct the mistakes made either in 11 construction or design and still meet the "reasonably 12 prompt" requirements of Appendix B.
13 In closing I wish to state without 14 reservations that I would have had no quarrel with a 15 straightforward decision by CASE to withdraw from these 16 proceedings.
17 I can personally state, because of my long 18 association with and support of Mrs. Ellis, CASE and 19 other CASE members, that this intervenor's 20 extraordinary and heroic involvement in these 21 proceedings on behalf of CASE members and the general 22 public is unparalleled.
23 Mrs. Ellis is a gifted, dedicated woman and 24 her contributions to society will be felt for years to 25 come, her contributions to a safer society.
25238 1
My reservations, if you will, are with the 2
agreements themselves, some of them that we feel or 3
have heard were secret, which not only takes CASE out 4
of the proceedings and closes the hearings, but may 5
effectively block new intervenors from being admitted 6
to continue the process in a timely and reasonable f
7 manner.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's not true.
9 MS. BRINK:
All right.
Well, it's going to to be difficult.
We recognize the difficulty of it.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
I just want you to know that 12 the agreement doesn' t do that.
13 MS. BRINK:
Okay.
Such a secret agreement 14 surrounding the licensing of a nuclear power plant 15 cannot serve the public's interest in any way, nor the 16 future interest of the public.
17 Neither should the licensing of a nuclear 18 power plant be intertwined in any way with the 19 legitimate financial claims of whistle blowers who have I
20 testified about unsafe and defective workmanship at 21 that same plant.
\\
22 In the past days I have spoken with at least 23 four members of CASE or other parties to this 24 agreement, including one of the whistle blowers.
Each i
25 person admits, after a direct question, that the plant
25239
(
1 is not safe.
One member said, "I don't think it can 2
ever be made safe."
3 I respectfully submit this for the record, 4
and thank you very much.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
6
[A true and correct copy of written statement 7
submitted by Ms. Betty Brink follows:
8 "My name is Betty Brink, 7600 Anglin Drive, 9
Fort Worth, Texas 76119.
I am a lifetime resident of 10 Fort Worth, and am now living in the home in which I 11 grew up, about 45 miles from Glen Rose and Somervell 12 County, the site of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power 13 Plant.
From my back door I can see the power lines 14 that may someday connect my home to that plant.
As a 15 mother of five grown children and a grandmother of 11 16 youngsters, I not only have a desire, but I have an 17 obligation to make this, their home, a secure place 18 where they will have a future.
19 "For the past several years -- while the 20 licensing hearings have been suspended, I have been 21 actively opposing the plant, on economic as well as 22 safety grounds in an effort to protect the ratepayer.
l t
23 I have appeared before the Fort Worth City Council on a 24 regular basis, am currently serving on a Fort Worth 25 City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Comanche Peak, have
25240 1
written articles, held seminars, organized with seniors 2
and low income groups and spoken before various forums.
3 This has been with the knowledge and support of CASE, 4
discussing our separate but equal goals frequently with 5
Juanita and Billie Garde and receiving advice from 6
them.
We saw our work as complementary and believed 7
that they both encouraged us because they believed the 8
plant was too unsafe to ever operate without fear of an 9
accident.
Juanita has been sending me documents 10 relating to this plant on a regular basis.
11 "I became an intervenor in these licensing 12 proceedings as a member of Citizens for Fair Utility 13 Regulation in June of 1979 because I felt then that 'che 14 Comanche Peak plant was not being constructed safely.
15 I still feel that way today and request that this board 16 grant a 60 day delay and require full disclosure of the 17 agreements between intervenor CASE and Texas Utilities 18 and any other parties to the agreements, co that those 19 of us who have an interest in whether this plant 20 receives an operating license can truly determine if l
21 this agreement will secure for all of us a safe plant.
22 If doubts still exist after reading the agreements, 23 then we need to be able to have a reasonable time to 24 determine if we can reintervene and carry forward these 25 same hearings on the safety issues still outstanding.
e 25241 1
"otherwise this agreement will eff ectively 2
dissolve this board and silence these issues forever.
3 "There are still outstanding safety issues.
4 Mrs. Ellis and Ms. Garde both have so stated to me last 5
month after CASE reached an agreement with TU on the 6
design portion of the pipe hangers and supports.
Both 7
said, 'The hearings will continue; there are still e
many, many safety issues to litigate under the QA/QC 9
contention," that is Contention 5.
And Mrs. Ellis 10 further assured me that the redesign of the pipe 11 hangers was all that CASE had agreed to accept as 12 satisfactory under the redesign and rework now ongoing 13 at the plant.
14 "Further, we have recently been contacted by 15 two people who seem to have allegations that will fall 16 under the QA/QC contention.
If these hearings are shut 17 down and this board dissolved, the likelihood of these 18 allegations being heard and a determination of their 19 validity being made is small indeed.
When this board 20 ruled in December 1983 that 'The record before us casts 21 doubt on the design quality of the Comanche Peak Steam 22 Electric Station,' it said further in that order that 23
'... when it comes to considering the safety of a 24 nuclear plant, we think it important to consider any 25 argument that may be made.
If the saf ety of the l
25242 1
applicant's plant is not assured, even from arguments 2
not previously thought of by the intervenor, then the 3
safety of the public is not assured.
There is no 4
reason to think that potential accidents have all been 5
described in arguments previously made.'
6 "While I recognize that this statement is 7
made in reference to intervenors already admitted, the 8
same argument can be made to assure that this board 9
hears all allegations of unsafe conditions regarding 10 this plant.
The basic premise has not changed simply 11 because the intervenor is attempting to withdraw; that 12 is, the consideration of the ' safety of a nuclear power 10 plant.'
Too much has already been before this board 14 for this board to not have an obligation to continue to 15 hear evidence or investigate allegations.
The 16 licensing of an unsafe nuclear power plant has the 17 potential for devastation and death on a massive scale.
18 There is really no other reason for such close scrutiny 19 or such stringent regulatory requirements, requirements 20 not required for any other type of energy resource.
21 "In its past writings this board has f
22 recognized the awesome responsibility it holds.
I 23 would further argue that the redesign and rework now in 24 progress at the plant, rework and redesign necessary to 25 correct a whole litany of past mistakes, mistakes made s
t
25243 1
years ago in many cases, violates Appendix B to 10 CFR 2
Part 50 which requires that 'the process for correcting 3
errors be reasonably prompt.' (From the board's 4
memorandum and order of December, 1983).
5 "In that order, you refer to Appendix B as a 6
' sensible, integrated regulatory system for requiring 7
that both the design and construction of 'a nuclear 8
plant must be scrutinized to assure that all conditions 9
adverse to quality, including design deficiencies, must to be promptly identified and corrected.' (My emphasis) 11 "The issues addressed by the December, 1983 12 order were the design deficiencies brought up by 13 Engineers Walsh and Doyle in 1982.
Those are now being
{
14 corrected, we understand from CASE and the NRC, and are 15 part of the reason CASE has agreed to withdraw.
16 "We feel that six years between the time a 17
' condition adverse to quality' is identified and 18 Corrected can never, in any stretch of the imagination, 19 be considered to meet the spirit or the letter of 20 Appendix B.
There is no ' reasonable' promptness going 21 on here.
22 "It is reasonable to assume that this is the 23 case in all the corrective work going on now at 24 Comanche Peak.
It is simply too late to go back 10, 25 11, 12 or 14 years, the lif etime of the construction of l
1
25244 1
this plant, correct the mistakes made, either in 2
construction or design and still meet the ' reasonably 3
prompt' requirements of Appendix B.
4 "In closing. I wish to state without 5
reservations that I would have had no quarrel with a 6
straightforward decision by CASE to withdraw from these 7
proceedings.
I can personally state -- because of my 8
long association with and support of -- Mrs. Juanita 9
Ellis, CASE and other CASE members, that this to intervenor's extraordinary and heroic involvement in 11 these proceedings on behalf of CASE members and the 12 general public, is unparalle led.
Mrs. Ellis is a 13 gifted, dedicated woman and her contributions to 14 society will be felt for years to come -- her 15 contributions to a safer society.
16 "My quarrel -- or reservations if you will --
17 is with the agreements themselves, the secret 18 agreements which not only take CASE out of the 19 proceedings and close the hearings, but may effectively 20 block new intervenors from being admitted to continue 21 the process in a timely and reasonable manner.
Such 22 secret agreements surrounding the licensing of a 23 nuclear power plant cannot serve the public's interest 24 in any way, nor the future interests of the public.
25 Neither should the licensing of a nuclear power plant
25245 1
be intertwined with the legitimate financial claims of 2
whistle blowers who have testified about unsafe and 3
defective workmanship at that same plant.
4 "In the past days, I have spoken with at S
least four members of CASE or other parties to this 6
agreement, including one of the whistle blowers.
Each 7
person admits after a direct question that the plant 3 8 8
not ' safe.'
One member said,
'I don't think it can 9
ever be made safe.'
10 "I respectfully request that this board grant 11 our request for a 60 day delay and full disclosure."]
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
I would like to urge that the 13 responses of the parties also be respectful, and in 14 that vein does Texas Utilities wish to respond at this 15 time?
16 MR. EDGAR:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I wasn' t 17 paying attention.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's very unusual.
Would 19 Texas Utilities like to respond to the limited 20 appearance statements?
21 MR. EDGAR:
Very briefly.
22 The first point I' d like to make involves a 23 mixture of legal and a practical point.
The comment 24 was made that the agreement negotiated away CASE's 25 rights.
There are two phrases and words in that l
l
25246 1
statement that one needs to focus on.
2 The first is "CASE's rights."
They were not 3
the rights of someone other than CASE.
And the second 4
is that they weren' t negotiated away, but they were 5
rather replaced with a rational process for dispute 6
resolution.
7 The argument that one must maintain the 8
hearing process here days too much about the hearing 9
process.
It says that one could never reach an 10 alternative method of dispute resolution.
One could 11 not settle a case; litigation would be endless.
12 The real question here is basically set forth 13 in the Board's order terminating the proceeding.
There 14 are no matters in controversy between the parties.
15 There are no sua sponte issues.
16 And as a matter of law, dismissal is 17 appropriate.
18 The second point is one that I hesitate to 19 raise, but I don't want to raise it in any kind of a 20 pejorative way.
It's simply the accusation that CASE 21 has violated the public trust.
That is simply not the 22 case.
23 Anybody that knows CASE and its counsel, 24 whatever their view, would have to regard them as 25 having the highest possible integrity.
I L
j
~
\\
25247 1
The next point is one that I wish I did not 2
have to address before this Board.
I wish I were not 3
placed in t.his position, but there has been an 4
accusation of perjury.
5 It has been made in pleadings before this 6
board; it has been made in open letters to the 7
Commission and it has been made today.
8 That's unfortunate.
I don't wish to 9
complicate these proceedings, and I certainly don't 10 like the situation that creates disrespect for the 11 Board and the process and the parties.
12 But we have, as stated on the record today, a 13 suspicion of perjury.
We know of no such evidence.
We 14 strongly deny ary such circumstances, and we will ask 15 for accountability outside the confines of these 16 proceedings.
17 As a final note -- and I think it's the most 18 important point to bring to this Board -- with due 19 respect for today's expressions of concern, without 20 raising a question of whether one agrees or disagrees 21 with the point of view, there haven't been any safety 22 issues brought forward to this Board today that are new 23 and are significant.
24 If there are real technical issues, there is 25 a process for allowing those to be presented to the 1
i 25248
/
l 1
Commission. And if there are real safety issues, 2
speaking on behalf of TU, we'd like to see them so that 3
we can address them, 4
We note in CASE's July --
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
I' d like to say that there is a 6
new avenue also under the agreement, which is that 7
people with safety concerns can also go to Ms. Ellis a
who can pursue them for them within the new process.
9 MR. EDGAR:
Exactly.
We should understand 10 that C.TSE's participation in these proceedings has been 11 a ler.gthy one r it has been a probing one.
12 We have not reached agreement on the merita.
13 We have reached agreement on a process for resolution 14 of issues.
We expect CASE's participation to remain a 15 l probing participation.
16 If people have real safety issues, we'd like 17 to see them.
18 With that, I have no further comment to make.
13 Thank you.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
CASE.
21 MR. ROISMAN:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the 22 Board, my name is Anthony Roisman; and I am one of the 23 counsel for CASE that have been asked to present a 24 brief response by CASE to the limited appearance 25 statements.
1
25249 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
Before you proceed, Mr.
2 Roisman, you handed a statement to the reporter --
3 MR. ROISMAN:
And I was just going to ask the 4
Board's permission to have it included within the 5
record. It is a letter which CASE submitted to the 6
Board this morning, which sets out in far greater 7
detail the points that I will be making here.
8 I would ask that it be bound in with the 9
record so that it will be a part of this record today.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I can do that, but I have some 11 concern because there's language in it that is 12 emotional language about the role of the intervenors.
- ?
It seems to me somewhat unfair to bind that into the It record without giving them a chance to respond.
15 If you were able to summarize the substance 16 of that, without putting the charges in the way they 17 are, I would prefer that.
18 MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
We can do that, Mr.
19 Chairman.
It may take me a couple of minutes longer.
20 First of all, I think it's important to 21 understand -- because Mrs. Ellis' name has become 22 almost synonymous with CASE -- that this is a 23 proceeding which has been pursued by CASE, and Mrs.
24 Ellis, 14.ke Billie Garde and myself, have spoken on 25 behalf of CASE, an organization with a membership and a
25250 1
board of directore, all of whom have participated 2
actively, not only in the litigation process, but also 3
in the negotiation process.
4 I think it's important to get a better 5
understanding of what the agreement is that has been 6
reached between ' CASE and Texas Utilities.
This is not 7
an agreement, as Mr. Edgar has said for Texas a
Utilities, to resolve any substantive issue.
9 Every issue that CASE believed was of concern 10 a month ago, it still believes is a concern today.
11 Every conviction that it had a month ago to see to it 12 that those concerns were adequately addressed before 13 CASE would be satisfied, if it would be satisfied about 14 the safety of this plant, remains today.
15 What CASE has done is to exchange a process 16 that it was using to pursue those for a far better and 17 more effective process.
18 All of you who today came here to present 19 four views to this Board have seen in a small microcosm 20 what's wrong with the lecial system for resolving these 21 issues.
22 Each of you have in one way or another been 23 frustrated by the legalisms of the Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission licensing process, the rules, the 25 regulations, the decisions of the Commission and its l
25251 1
Licensing boards which have bound this Board and bound 2
all of us as parties.
3 We have spent today and in preparation for 4
today hours, and you many hours, doing nothing but 5
dea.ing with legalisms.
What CASE has decided is that 6
at this moment in time, what is needed is less time 7
With lawyers arguing with lawyers about the law and 8
more time with technical experts talking to technical 9
experts about substantive issues of safety and concern.
10 We have reached a plateau from which CASE 11 believes that it cannot progress adequately in the 12 legal process.
It has done what virtually every other 13 person in the world does all the time.
We don't resort 14 to litigation as our first resort for dealing with 15 problems.
16 Ten years of beating up on, of contesting, of 17 challenging, of confronting the Texas Utility Company 18 has brought them to a position in which CASE is 19 convinced that we can make more progress, do more for 20 public health and safety, assure a better quality 21 plant, or if it cannot meet the quality required, 22 assure that it will not be licensed, through a process 23 other than the legalisms which all of you ran into 24 today.
25 Never again will CASE have to worry about 10 1
I l
q It 25232 1
CFR, which those of you who nave h&d the misfortune to 2
study, will realize is not a model for rational 3 idecision-making.
4l It is a procesa; it is a legal process.
It's i.a process that applauds lawyers like myself, but not 6
technical experts like Jack Doyle, not technical 7
experts like Cneck Atchison, not technical e?.perts of 8
the kind who the intervenors would like to have present 9
their views to this Doard.
10 No 7ne knows that better than the two 11 technical membera who sit on this Board and must see 12 the conflict.
So CASE has made a very studied and 13 careful decision.
14 A second thing that CASE hac done is it has 15 bargained for and obtained a substantial yearly 16 re so.2rce from Texas Utilities to allow it to hire the 17 consultants to present its views to Texas Utilities; in la effect, to be a pure and true independent ombadsman of 19
's corporation.
20 Ncw. no one knows better than Betty Brink and 21 CFUR what those resources mean becadse they withdrew 22 from this hearing seven years ago because they didn't 23 have the resources to proceed.
24 Resources and expertise is what this is all 25 about.
That's the issue, and that's what CASE has
- I
)
n 25253 1
bargained for.
2 In recent months Jack Doyle and Juanita Ellis a
had a chance to test the effectiveness of the meet-4 with-Texas Utilities-and-try-to resolve-the-substantive s
issues.
6 And in literally days and weeks of meetings
,i and preparation, they managed to persuade Texas a
Utilities to do in the design of piping and pipe 9
support what Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh had been urging 10 this corporation to do for years.
1' And they reached an agreement.
In that same 12
.ime f1ame, as one of the earlier speakers pointed out, 13 it ch a-same time frame this licensing board was unable 14 tc pre /ent the alleged harassment of Cygna 15 investigators hired by the ccmpany at the urging of the 16 Board, or to prevent the existence of whistle blowers 17 who felt that their concerns were not being adequately 18 addressed within the plant.
19 CASE's response to that ist Let's get away 20 from this board tha t sits on a platform and get down L1 into the inside of Texas Utilitics where the decisions 22 are being made, where you can really have an imp 5ct the 23 way Juanita and Jack Doyle did on the piping and pipe 24 support question.
25 Now, that exchange -- the exchange of this
25254 1
abstract and remote licensing process for the day-to-2 day processes which puts Juanita in a position and CASU 3
in a position to really influence day-to-day decisions, 4
not to deal with history but to deal with current 5
events.
That's what CASE has bargained for.
6 Secondly, CASE has retained the avenues to 7
pursue the problems to the extent that it and the 8
company dor.' t come to agreemont.
It pursues all of its 9
rights in front of the NRC Staff.
It pursues the 10 rights hidden in that 10 CFR known as 2.206, the right
$1 to petition the agency to take action, including the 12 right to shut down construction at the plant, the right 13 to seek any kind of order that would restrict what the 14 company can do at the plant.
Those rights are 15 preserved.
16 The right to talk to the press, to get thes9 17 cameras out at any time, for Juanita to walk out of a 18 meeting of the operations review committee and hold a 19 press conference and say, "Let me tell you what 20 happened in that meeting, and what they didn't agree to 21 and why I think they were wrong."
22 All those rights are preserved, every single 23 one of them.
Plus the rights of any other person who 24 thinks that this licensing process is the better way to 25 go, to come *^ the Commission and ask the Commission, 1
m 25255 1
"Start one for us."
2 And as this Board has already ru1.ed today, as 3
everyone has agreed, there is no diff erence in the 4
rights of a party who filed a petition yesterday and 5
one who files one tomorrow.
The rights are exactly the 6
same.
7 They face the same hurdles.
They must g.
t 8
through the same legalisms.
They stand in the same 9
shoes.
to Aad if they are able to prevail and they have 11 an opportunity to be in front of the licensing board, 12 maybe ten years down the road, they, too, will learn 13 what CASE has learned; that is, that there can be and 14 is a better way.
15 The parties who spoke out today, CASE is 16 delighted at this show of public concern about nuclear 17 safety and this plant.
It is sorry that it wasn' t 18 there earlier.
It is sorry that it wasn't there to 19 help the process as much.
It hopes that this is 20 indicative of the fact that this will not be one woman 21 and her board and her members pursuing this issue on 22 behalf of all of the State of Texas or the nation, as 23 one speaker indicated, but rather that this is the 24 beginning of an outpouring of interest sufficient to 25 work with the most ef fective ci tizen intervenor group t
25256 1
in the nation, to see to it that Texas Utilities builds 2
a plant that is safe.
3 Let me say something on this.
There is not a 4
single person at Texas Utilities who I have ever met, 5
and many who I have cross-examined, who has ever 6
indicated to me or demonstrated to me that this company 7
has an interest in building an unsafe plant.
e There's a genuine disagree:aent as to what that safety requires.
There's nobody there, they have a
10 nothing to gain, and if you thought they did, take a 11 look at what has happened to gene al public utilities 12 who boilt and operated an unsafe plant and have 13 essentia)1y gone into bankruptcy as a result of it.
14 That's the Three Mile Island plant, of course.
15 There's no interest., there's no self-serving 16 interest in this company building that plant.
What 17 CASE has done for ten years is to say, by banging on 18 the door, "We have something to of f er you that will 19 help you make this plant safe."
?O And what Texas Utilities has said in this 21 agreement, "You know what?
You do, and we want to open 22 our door and bring you in so that we can hear you 23 better without the noise factor of the litigation 24 process."
25 Now, Juanita, Billie Garde and myself have
25257 1
spent literally hours each day, and overy day since 2
this agreement was made public on July 1, talking to 3
citizen groups, many of whose spokespersons were up 4
here today, to explain to them not only the Joint 5
Stipulation, but the broad outline of the settlement 6
agreement, to assure them beyond any doubt, as everyone 7
here will know in a few minutes if the Board approves a
this dismissal, and the settlement agreement is 9
re leas ed, that no one -- no one -- is prohibited from 10 speaking out.
11 No worker is prohibited from raising his 12 concerns in any form that he seeks.
The only thing the 13 workers are being asked to release is their liability 14 claims against the company for their allegation that 15 they were wrongfully discharged.
16 We've read the relevant portion of the 17 proposal that has gone to each of those workers to 18 anybody who would listen to it.
And it says it in 19 crystal clear language.
20 All the concerns that were raised this 21 morning, that allegedly the great secrets that were not 22 released, Juanita, Billie and myself have explained at 23 great length -- at great length -- to allay the fears 24 of the public rnd any person that there is no silence 25 associated with this agreement and that there is no gag i
t
25258 1
order placed on anyone.
2 Nor would anycae have been willing to sign 3
such an agreement.
4 What Juanita Ellis has done -- and I must say 5
to me it's a stunner -- ten years of fighting this 6
plant has produced what we have heard in some forums --
7 not here today -- the suggestion that she's selling out 8
by agreeing to spend five more years being involved 9
with this plant.
10 Even for a woman as young as Juanita, 15 11 years of her lif e devoted to a single project is a 12 substantial piece of ticae.
13 There has been in the press and some innuendo in the pleadings before this Board that silence and 14 15 money w*re being exchanged.
Not only is that a gross 16 misrepresentation of what is clear in the document 17 itself, clear in the ntatements that Juanita and Billie 18 and I have made, clear in what anybody -- I mean those 19 of you who know some of these whistle blowers who have 20 ever seen Chuck Atchison or Dobie Hatley or any of the people who are insolved as whistle blowers at this 21 22 plant, silence is the last thing on their mind, is the 23 last tl.ing that they would ever bargain for.
24 These are the most articulate people you will 25 ever meet.
They are not silent.
25259 l
1 Why did that idea come up?
Because two young 2
inexperienced lawyers who have now withdrawn their 3
representations stirred it up.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
I'd rather not have this have to do 5
with personalities.
6 MR. ROISMAN:
It's not.
That's why I'm not v
7 mentioning their names, Judge.
8
[ Laughter.]
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, maybe you could stay away from 10 anything about that.
11 MR. ROISMAN:
Okay, nothing more about the Dough 12 Broth e rs.
13
[ Laughter.]
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
It's the adjectives I'd prefer you 15 to avoid, not the names.
16 MR. ROISMAN:
All right.
17 Lastly, I want to talk about the question of 18 trust.
The team of people that have been involved with CASE 19 in this licensing proceeding is (and I will say somewhat 20 immodestly and include myself in the group) the absolute 21 best in this country on interventions and representation of 22 citizen groups.
23 Juanita Ellis -- and I've worked with them all; 24 I've worxc9 with virtually every citizen group that's 25 involved in nuclear plants.
I've never in my life seen a
25260 1
person as effective in the legal process, in the 2
administrative process, in what she writes and how she does 3
it and as dedicated as Juanita Ellis or CASE as an 4
intervenor.
None.
None with that staying power.
None with 5
that capability.
6 There is no lawyer in this country that even is in 7
the same page of the book as Billie Garde as a person who a
works with whistle blowers, who understands their concerns, 9
who helps them present those concerns effectively.
10 While I will not s a) that I am the number one 11 intervenor lawyer, I can at least say I've been around 12 longer than any of the other intervenor lawyers, and I've 13 been in a lot of these cases.
14 MR. EDGAR:
You're in the top ten.
15 MR. ROISMAN:
George and I have met before in 16 these proceedings.
17 All of you know of the qLality of this Licensing 18 Board.
19 Trust means taking the word of those who know.
20 This Board has already said that this agreement is good and 21 appropriate and should be approved.
22 Billie, Juanita and I don't really think it's 23 good.
We're enthusiastic.
We' re jumping up and down.
24 We're ecstatic.
We know that this is the best possible way 25 for CASE to proceed to pursue the issues that it wants to
25261 1
pursue.
2 Mark Twain said something once that I think is 3
important to reiterate here.
He said, "The truth hasn't got 4
its boots on by the time a lie is halfway around the world."
5 Ne're today trying to tell you the truth about 6
what this is all about, and we do not accept the premise 7
that because we suddenly come to a point in the process 8
where we believe we can work better inside than outside, 9
that there's a basis to believe that that is an unfair 10 settlement.
11 Remember the role of the whistle blowers in all 12 these cases.
They start on the inside, and when they come 13 out it's to get the right to go back inside again, because 14 they know better than all the rest of us that the decisions 15 are made on the inside, not here by the Licensing Board, 16 certainly not by the lawyers.
17 This settlement agreement is enthusiastically 18 supported by all but perhaps one of these whistle blowers, 19 because they know better than any of the rest of us that 20 what has been bargained for and obtained is the right to 21 make a d.tfference.
22 I,
for one, am not willing to accept the premise 23 that a corporation is unable to see the light, and that's 24 the premise of this whole discussion.
25 I think Texas Utilities as a company has come a 1
25262 1
long way and I think that CASE is prepared to recognize that 2
movement and say, "Let's work together.
If this plant can 3
be made safe, we will work together to e 3e that that 4
happens."
5 Trust is a two-way street and what CASE has been 6
saying in every way that it could and in every forum 7
available to it is, "You have every reason to trust the 8
judgment of the people who know this licensing process 9
better than anybody else; that this settlement and this 10 agreement are not only in the public interest but 11 substantially advance the public interest.
12 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Roisman, could you take back the 14 document that's not being bound in?
15 MR. ROISMAN:
With reluctance, Mr. Chair.ian.
More 16 legalism.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Staff.
18 MS. MOORE:
After the two previous gentlemen have 19 spoken, I have little to add, but I do want to add the 20 Staff's perspective, if I can on this agreement, and I do 21 want to address the concern that I thought I heard from the 22 people who spoke today.
23 That concern was that somehow if these proceedings 24 are dismissed, the safety issues involved with Comanche Peak 25 will somehow die.
m z
25263 1
That's a concern that is really not justified.
2 The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a 3
dedicated group of people who are working to evaluate the 4
activities at Comanche Peak and inspect those activities to 5
make sure that there is a basis for resolving design and s
construction issues, to make sure that that facility 7
complies with the NRC requirements and the license 8
application and to make a determination that there's 9
reasonable assurance that this plant when and if it operates to will operate so as to not endanger the public health and 11 safety.
12 That's the duty that each Staff member involved 13 with Comanche Peak faces and they take it very seriously and 14 they work very hard to perform that duty.
15 Their duty doesn't end with this proceeding.
They 16 don't have to appear at a hearing; that may be true, but the 17 Staff still has the obligation to review the activities of 18 Texas Utilities, to review the license application and to 19 make a determination as to whether or not the issuance of an 20 operating license should be recommended to the Commission.
21 That duty is being pursued and will continue to be 22 pursued, regardless of whether this proceeding is dismissed 23 or not.
24 The Staff will continue its vigilance at the 25 Comanche Peak site.
They will continue to have a Staff on
F 25264 1
site at Comanche Peak which inspects the licensing 2
activities for TU Electric.
3 The Staff at headquarters will continue to review 4
the submissions of Texas Utilities.
They'll continue to 5
review the corrective action efforts.
6 All of these processes are ongoing.
If at any 7
time there is a concern that a person has, whether or not 8
they've been involved in this proceeding, they are free to 9
bring it to the NRC and the NRC Staff will investigate it.
10 That is the staf f's charge and it does not change.
11 So therefore the concern that the disputes that arise 12 between Intervenors -- or CASE, I should say, if this 13 proceeding is dismissed, and the Applicants will not be 14 resolved should not be a concern.
It's true there will not 15 be a Board to resolve them, but there is a mechanism in the 16 agreement for the Staff involvement.
17 And the Staff takes that charge very seriously.
18 They will be involved in dispute resolutions if the disputes 19 are brought to them.
In addition, they will raise their own 20 issues and have consistently raised issues with the 21 Applicants, as you can discern from the Staff's numerous 22 inspection reports on the Comanche Peak site.
23 At some point in the future, of course, the Staff 24 would expect that no special regulatory oversight would any 25 longer be necessary for Comanche Peak, but that time would k
25265 l
1 not come until the licensing basis for Comanche Peak is 2
clearly established and Texas Utilities can demonstrate the 3
capability to conduct safe operations at the Comanche Peak 4
site.
5 The Staf f is now and will continue to be deeply 6
involved in Comanche Peak and we do not believe that this 7
agreement 3n any tay endangers either the public's right to 8
pursue their concerns, as Mr. Roisman said, either through 9
2.206 petitions or to come to the NRC with allegations.
10 We do not believe this agreement endangers in an; 11 way the ability of the Staff to pursue its own review and 12 evaluation of all the activities surrounding the licensing 13 and operation of Comanche Peak.-
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
We'll have a brief recess.
16
[Short recess.]
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please come to order.
18 I'd like to briefly rule on the motions that have 19 been submitted to us but which are in doubt because Counsel 20 who submitted the motions has withdrawn his appearance.
For 21 the sake of the motions I will treat them as still being 22 submitted to us.
They have been made by non-parties and, 23 therefore, there's no standing to make those motions.
24 I'd also like to state that insofar as they 25 requested a stay in today's proceedings, they fail to meet 1
1 1
-]
~, -
25266 1
the~ stay cri teria in two ways, both through showing of 2
irreparable injury, which was not shown because the same l
3 procedure for becoming a party will be available af terwards, 4
and also because there was no showing of a likelihood of 5
success on the merits.
6 The next item on the agenda is for Mr. Edgar on 7
behalf of Texas Utilities to present the terms of the 8
settlement agreement.
9 MR. EDGAR:
Your Honor, I will briefly summarize to the terms of the agreement.
The statement that I will 11 present to the Board for the record is a statement that 12 enjoys the support of all parties.
13 As previously reported to this Board, the Joint 14 Stipulation and Joint Dismissal Motion filed by the parties 15 on July 1, 1988, were part of an overall settlement 16 agreement reached by TU Electric and CASE on June 29, 1988.
17 I'm pleased to summarize here for the Board's 18 information the principal substantive provisions of that 19 settlement agreement.
20 Upon the Board's issuance of an order dismissing 21 these proceedings, if that should be the Board's course of 22 action, CASE and TU Electric will release the settlement 23 agreement.
24 Let me begin, then, with a brief summary.
25 The first major provision is as follows:
The
25267 1
settlement agreement provides that TU Electric and CASE will 2
execute and file the Joint Stipulation and Joint Motion for 3
Dismissal and diligently prosecute them before the NRC.
4 Second, it provides that the means established 5
under the Joint Stipulation for resolving technical issues 6
without resort to the litigation process will be used with 7
respect to any concern related to the issuance of any a
operating license or any amendments to construction parmits 9
for Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2, including the issuance of to any associated licenses and permits.
11 This obligation does not apply to any proceedings 12 before the Texas Public Utilities Commission nor to any 13 amendments to the full power Comanche Peak operating 14 licenses.
15 Third, in addition to committing to comply with 16 the Joint Stipulation, TU Electric agrees to provide an 17 appropriate primary point of contact for CASE for the period 18 that a representative of CASE serves on the Operations 19 Review Committee, the ORC.
20 That point of contact will be Mr. William G.
21 Counsil, the Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering 22 and Operations, or if Mr. Counsil ceases to be employed by 23 TU Electric, any then current TU Electric nuclear officer 24 selected by CASE.
25 Fourth, in recognition of CASE's concerns about l
~.
25268 i
workers formerly employed in connection with the 2
construction of Comanche Peak who may have employment 3
discrimination claims against TU Electric or a contractor, 4
TU Electric agreed to enter into good-fai th settlement 5
negotiations to resolve such disputes when the Joint 6
Stipulation becomes effective.
7 Although any former worker who agrees to settle a
his claim will be required to execute a general release, the 9
release does not preclude him from bringing any safety or 10 technical matter to the attention of the NRC.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's the point Mr. Roisman was 12 addressing before.
There is no restriction at all on anyone 13 coming to the NRC with safety concerns.
14 MR. EDGAR:
Right, and might I add another point 15 just for the record, that many of the provisions that I'm 16 summarizing here are repetitive or redundant to those in the 17 Joint Stipulation and in that regard the Joint Stipulation 18 indicates clearly that nothing in that stipulation would in 19 any way limit the right of any individual or CASE to go to 20 the NRC.
21 Now, continuing and referring again to settlement 22 of claims.
These negotiations, referring to negotiations 23 concerning settlement of claims, include five legal 24 proceedings involving eleven plaintif fs, including some 25 presently pending cases before the Department of Labor, and
l 25269 1
also provides for payment to other workers who, although 2
they have no pending cases, have assisted CASE in the NRC 3
licensing process.
4 TU Electric is willing to settle these claims for 5
a total amount not to exceed $5.5 million.
6 Fifth, TU Electric agrees now and in the future to 7
make a good-faith effort to resolve issues brought to CASE 8
by Comanche Peak workers or others.
9 Sixth, upon the Joint Stipulation becoming to effective and these proceedings being dismissed, TU Electric 11 agrees to issue a public statement recognizing CASE's 12 contribution and TU Electric's responsibi.1.ity and to file a 13 statement with the NRC with the request that it De made part 14 of the evidentiary record.
15 Seventh, TU Electric agrees that while Mrs. Ellis 16 or her alternate serves on the ORC, she may retain one or 17 more technical consultants and that TU ectric will 18 reimburse CASE for thei.e fees and expenses at an amount up 19 to $150,000 annually.
20 TU Electric will also reimburse Mrs. Ellis or her 21 alternate for any other reasonable costs and expenses 22 incurred in furtherance of duties as a member of ORC.
23 Eighth, in recognition of CASE's significant 24 contribution and the tremendous costs and expense incurred 25 '
by CASE from 1979 through 1988 in these proceedings, TU l
l i
25270 1
Electric agrees to reimburse CASE the amount of $4.5 million 2
for all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, consultant fees, 3
court costs, salaries and debt incurred by CASE in the past 4
and for such costs and expenses which CASE will incur in 5
closing out its participation in these proceedings and 6
establishing its oversight role.
7 Finally, in addition to resolving these 8
substantive matters, each party has also agreed to release 9
the other from any claims or causes of actions it might have 10 arising out of the construction or operation of Comanche 11 Peak.
12 Any disputes under the agreement will be resolved 13 through binding arbitration.
14 Your Honor, that concludes the summary and I am 15 prepared at this time to make several offers of documents 16 into evidence.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
We are prepared to 18 proceed.
19 MR. EDGAR:
The Joint Stipulation which has 20 previously been filed with this Board includes 14 numbered 21 exhibits which are identified explicitly in the Index to 22 Exhibits to that document.
23 All of those documents have been previously served 24 on the admitted parties to the proceeding.
The stipulation 25 itself on behalf of all parties jointly requests admission
25271 1
of those exhibits into the evidentiary record.
2 With the concurrence of all parties, I now request 3
that those &cuments be received into the evidentiary record 4
and request a ruling to that effect.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Those documents of which our copy 6
resides in Washington, D.
C.,
are formally admi'.ted into the 7
record, and it should be so noted.
8 MR. EDGAR:
There is a letter dated June 28, 1988, 9
which I referred to in my summary of the terms of the to settlement agreement.
It is a letter signed by William G.
11 Counsil, Executive Vice President of TU Electric, and 12 addressed to Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President of CASE.
13 This statement which is addressed as an integral 14 part of the settlement agreement is now and with the consent 15 of all parties offered into admission into the evidentiary 16 record.
We request a ruling to that effect at this time.
17 I will deliver a copy of this letter to the Board 18 at such time as any order may issue dismissing the 19 proceedings.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Edgar, we have seen the letter 21 and it is received into evidence to be supplied after the 22 order is issued.
23 MR. EDGAR:
At this time, Your Honor, we are 24 prepared, as are all parties, with some very brief closing 25 remarks, and I would request permission to proceed, followed
\\
l l
25272 1
by CASE and then the NRC Staff.
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please proceed.
3 MR. EDGAR:
Let me say on behalf of TU Electric 4
that we are most gratified to reach this point in these 5
difficult, complex and lengthy proceedings.
We believe that 6
the agreement is logical and constructive as a device for 7
resolution of any safety concerns that may arise.
8 We believe and we are con /inced that the parties 9
are committed to carry out this agreement in accordance with 10 its terms.
11 TU management is foursquare behind it.
I have no 12 doubt that the Intervenors will continue their probing 13 review and as the Staf f has said today, they w'll continue 14 with their review and maintain the high quality of that 15 review that has been evidenced in recent times.
16 We submit to the Board that sound regulatory 17 policy favors dismissal of these proceedings.
Commission 18 policy statements and case law clearly support dismissal.
19 The case cited by the Board in its termination 20 motion and the Commission policy statements are directly on 21 point.
22 Going beyond that, though, there is a significant 23 practical consideration, in our view.
We think that this 24 settlement agreement provides a unique opportunity to 25 establish and run a demonstration for the future that there
25273 1
are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that can and 2
will work.
We think there's a very significant contribution 3
to be made there.
4 Now, as a final note, TU wishes to thank and 5
commend the Board for its patience and professionalism 6
throughout this difficult proceeding.
On a personal note, 7
I'd like to reiterate that.
For the relatively short time 8
I've been here, although my contribution to this result, 9
such as it is, dims in comparison to that of my colleagues 10 and the Board, I'd like to simply say that it's been my 11 privilege to appear with these parties and before this 12 Board.
13 Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Mr. Edgar.
15 CASE.
16 MS. GARDE:
This is Billie Garde.
I'm going to be 17 making a few statements at the request of Mrs. Ellis, but 18 first of all, I'd like to give Mr. Doyle an opportunity to 19 make a brief statement.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
I welcome him to make that 21 statement.
22 I'd like to introduce him first.
Jack Doyle is an 23 engineer who once worked for this plant who felt that there 24 were things that were being done about the design of the 25 plant that required him to resign and work elsewhere.
l
\\
j i
25274 i
He also was sufficiently motivated by his concerns 2
to stand up and speak for them before the NRC and before 3
this Board after hundreds of hours, maybe more than that, of 4
diligent effort.
5 Although Mr. Doyle is not a degreed engineer, he 6
knew the truth about this plant when people hired for 7
millions of dol 3ars eithor didn't know the truth or refused 8
to see it.
9 We are deeply indebted to Mr. Doyle for having to given testimony in this proceeding that has resulted in substantial improvements in the quality of the design of 11 12 this nuclear power plant.
I cant to thank you personally, 13 Mr. Doyle.
14 MR. DOYLE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 I have a question before I proceed.
I'm still 16 under oath, ain't I?
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
At this time you're not under oath 18 because you are not giving a -- this is just a statement 19 from you to the Board and to the public.
20 MR. DOYLE:
I didn't think I'd been --
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
I can't imagine that you'd ever lie 22 to us.
23 MR. DOYLE I'm sort of celebrating an anniversary 24 at this point because it will be in two weeks that I have 25 been involved in these -- not the direct procedures, but
25275 l
1 became involved in the process, which I filed my deposition 2
in August a few weeks later.
3 In the first approximately two years of the 4
hearings, the utility and myself were at loggerheads.
We 5
fought bitterly and very tough.
However, at no time did Mr.
6 Spence or any of the other members of TU carry this outside 7
of the arena.
We saved all of our barbs and accusations and a
everything for the hearing process itself and maintained at 9
a minimum a cordial relationship.
10 Along about sometime prior to August 1984, I 11 believe -- I'm losing track of time.
-- the NRC began 12 discovering that the answer to the questions wasn' t quite as 13 simple as everybody had believed and started rooting through 14 the mountains of paper involved in the construction, the 15 engineering and construction of the plant, and came up with i
16 serious questions.
17 The utility then brought in Stone & Webster who 18 did an extensive study of the plant and came up with a vast 19 number of questions of their own.
20 The elements of the hearing in which I was 21 involved were basically associated with welding, metallurgy, 22 pipe supports, things of that n/1ture.
23 once the utility found out they had indeed serious 24 problems in that area, with no prodding from as -- in the 25 first place, we weren't in a position to prod -- they h
1
~
25276 1
started looking into all areas of the plant.
They went into 2
areas that I wouldn't have anticipated.
3 At a point a little further down the line they 4
dedicated enormous expenditures to correcting all of the 5
problems, including those that they were beginning to dig up 6
on their own.
7 They brought in an entire new staff of officers 8
and these were executive vice presidents (I won't mention 9
any names) and vice presidents --
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I think you could mention them if 11 you want to.
12 MR. DOYLE:
-- who are unique in my 40-some years 13 of employment in that these are working executives.
They 14 get down in the trenches.
(
15 What is further unusual is that the personnel that 16 they brought in in their consulting basis, for example, 17 Stone & Webster cr Intel, Ebasco, their executives also are 18 right out there in the trenches with everyone else.
19 I was invited out on a number of occasions to go 20 through the plant and see how the progress was coming.
One 21 thing I noticed is an environment that is unique, and not 22 only in this industry but in the United States, and that is 23 that when we first started the hearings, we were having 24 trouble getting Texas Utilities to admit that the plant was 25 located in the State of Texas, l
t l
I 25277 1
We were then confronted with a new problera.
There 2
just weren't enough hours in the day to look at the things 3
their people wanted us to see.
4 Additionally, I walked of f on tr'f own and would 5
search out areas which I had recalled from six years earlier 6
that I thought perhaps they forgot something here, and 7
unfortunately I found nothing, or fortunately.
8 As far as these agreements are concerned, I have 9
no -- everything I know, I know right now, because I refused 10 to participate.
In the first place, I was busy with a 600-11 page calculation; you gentlemen are all aware of the upper 12 lateral restraint.
I finished it and brought it in this 13 morning.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's a portion of this nuclear 15 power plant.
16 MR. DOYLE:
Anyone who believes that the 17 confrontation is over is not using good sense, because I was 18 working as recently as this morning on just such a question.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
As I hear it, though, it's a 20 continued vigilance on your part, but it doesn' t feel like 21 it's still a confrontation, because it is being welcomed.
22 MR. DOYLE:
Well, not only that, but the 23 cooperation is unbelievable.
I worked, like I say, for over 24 40 years.
I worked in a number of industries, as you 25 gentlemen are aware, including aircraft industry, nuclear
25278 1
. submarines, et cetera, b sides structural.
I'm still in the 2
engineering business, and I have never ever in my life seen 3
the attitude from the middle management.
4 At first I thought I was being conned.
I had to 5
be conned.
However, I found that this wasn't the case.
6 From the lowest to the highest elements were exerting every 7
effort beyond what is required.
8 Mr. Nace is out there.
Mr. Siskin.
It's 9
unbe lieva ble.
I don't even know the vice president of my 10 own company right now and it's only a 400-man company; 11 whereas, here, Mr. Nace and Mr. Counsil and Mr. Siskin are 12 well known by all the personnel on site.
13 This is the thing that gives you confidence.
It's 14 not so much what they tell me, because words can be 15 manipulated and design words to convey your position.
I'm 16 more interested in the attitude of the personnel who are in 17 the trenches doing the physical work, and they actually 18 formed clubs to see who could find the. most things.
19 The reason I mention this is this is something you 20 only find in Japan.
You don't find it in the United States.
21 You don't find executive vice presidents, vice president, 22 consultants' vice presidents telling their people, "I will 23 reward you if you can come up with the most this month.
Get 24 me the most."
25 So the enthusiasm is the thing that's contagious
C f
25279 1
and you can note it.
2 As far as the design of the plant, it was about a 3
year ago that I public).y in a hearing, with the newspapers 4
and everybody present, stated that I had accepted the design 5
approach and the procedures as established by Stone &
6 Webster, Intel and Ebasco.
7 So I had nothing for sale, I had already approved a
long ago what is going on at Comanche Peak.
9 I would like to make another remark as far as 10 selling out, and I'll put it into terms that people can 11 undcratand, rather than getting into something as complex as 12 the machine that they have down there at Glen Rose.
13 If I were in Egypt and I noted that they were 14 building the pyramid in an inverted position and on is informing them, regardless of the amount of argument 16 involved, if they would correct the problem, I have achieved 17 my end.
If I continue to batt.le against having that pyramid 18 put in place af ter it is satisfactory to me, the sel) out 19 would be to myself.
20 I believe Mr. Nace and Mr. Counsil, Mr. Spence, I 21 know Juanita and 1 believe everybody knows, I don't sell out 22 to nobody.
As I say, I'm as shocked by what's come out -- I 23 can understand why people would think I'd sell out, but 24 there was never ever anything other than cooperation between I
25 Texas Utilities and at laast myself.
1' lI 1
p-25280 1
I had agreed that the plant was_ fine.
The 2
newspapers came there expecting a shootcut at the OK Corral J
3 and the attitude of cooperation and agr was such that 4
they walked away and didn' t even come to the
. meetings.
v 5
They were tno boring.
Things were going to nothly.
6 But the plant itself, I believe, could be a model'.
7 for the remainder of the nuclear industry and definitely 3jwhatcuorMr.Counsilhasput in place that has achieved such 9lco(>cration between diverse organizations and among his to people is to be complimented.
11 I believe that's really all l've got to say on the 12 subject, except that I'm delighted that I'm not going to try 13 for a seventh year.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
15 MS. ELLIS:
I would like to make one comment 16 today.
I said I probably wouldn't, but I would like to make 17 ' one.
18 That is to express CASE's apprecic: on and ny 19 I personal appreciation to Jack Doyla. Mark Walsh and all the 20 other people who have assisted in this effort.
I 21 so many times it does seem lfhe I'm po.-trayed as a 22 wonder woman.
I certainly am not and certainly we could not 23 have achieved the0e results without the help of people like 24 them.
We want to thank them very much.
2rl In addition --
25281
- 1 JUDGE BLOCH:
Could it be that you couldn't aave 2
achieved the results without them and that you also are a 3
wonder woman?
4 MS. ELLIS:
T don't think so.
5 I would also like to go ahead and though I had 6
asked Billie to say this, I would like to go ahead and take 7
this opportunity to thank the Licensing Board for its a
patience with us when
.t times we were faltering and did not 9
knos the proper legal procedures and for its sincere concern to and recognition that there were perhaps problems at the 11 plant and your efforts to find the truth about what Comanche 12 Peak was all about.
13 Without having that xind of insight and allowing 14 us the latitude to be able to get into areas that brought to out all these facts, the plant would be a far different one 16 today.
17 Also, finally, I know you didn't accept the letter 18 into evidence today, but there is one comment that I want to 19 be sure and make.
That is that you sure expect a lot from 20 an intervonor.
21 Thank yoa.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mrs. Ellis, before we continue, I'd 23 like to say that there may have been times in the early part 24 of this case when we had to be solicitous of the 25 Intervenor's legal skills.
If I had the ability to bestow a
25282 1
legal degree on you, I would do it.
2 I don't think I've ever seen legal work that's any 3
better than whet you've been doing lately.
It's a pleasure 4
to receive papers from you.
5 MS. ELLIS:
Thank you.
6 MS. GARDE:
Your Honor, I'm glad that Mrs. Ellis 7
made the statements that she had asked me to make, and I 8
would simply like to make the statement to the Board that I g
also would like to thank the Board for its reception and 10 diligence and its inaistence on the truth and ite refusal to 11 accept anytniag less than the truth from any of the parties 12 to this proceeding, which has forced all of us to face each 13 other on the grounds of realty and deal with the issues at 14 hand.
15 I'm personally convinced, as I think that everyono 16 is, that we never would be at the position that we are at 17 today and the plant would never have been in the position 18 that we could u.ove into this new area had the Board not been 19 so insistent on asking and formule 39 exactly the right 20 quest. ions to ask, which forced both the utility to look at 21 its own weaknesses and us to pursue those areas that needed 22 to be pursued.
23 As you know, my principal position in this case 24 started representing whistle blowers who came to GAP at the 25 request of Juanita, who just couldn' t handle them all.
I
\\
25283 1
started this procedure as a law student.
I now have been 2
Practicing for two years and I have had a nremendous 3
Opportunity
+,e learn in this proceeding.
4 There has been much said about the proposition 5
that this settlement represents some type of hush money or 6
money for silence.
On behalf of all of my cliente., present 7
and in the past, I would like to say that none of them would a
ever accept hush money.
Their integrity is high enough that 9
they risked everything that they had to tell the truth and 10 they would never accept hush money in exchange for silence.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
In Ms. Moore for the Staff.
14 MS. MOORE:
In light of the comments that I have 15 made previously, the Staff has only one brief statement to 16 make, and that is that the Staff agrees that the 17 Commission's policy and rules would favor dismissal of this 18 Proceeding in light of the agreement that the parties have 19 reached.
20 I would also 3ast reiterate once more that the 21 Staff will continue in its efforts, in its high quality 22 efforts, to evaluate and review the Comanche Peak license 23 efforts.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Ms. Moore.
J e
25284 1
What the Board is doing now is it is about to sign 2
a summary order dismissing the case.
We expect to issue.
3 somewhat fuller order that will attach some of the
)
4 documentation to it for publication so that there will be a 5
public record that can ba consulted for the purpose of 6
precedent. But we're going to sign the order now.
7
[ Board members sign document]
a JUDGE BLOCH:
The case is dismissed, pursuant to 9
the memorandum and order that we have just signed.
io There are some details that we want to wrap up and 11 the Beard members want to make a few statements, toe.
12 This is a momentous occasion for this community, 13 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and certainly for 14 myself and the Board members personally.
15 I see what's happened here as a refutation of the 16 common belief that the world is black and white.
I feel 17 that it is purple and that it's in seeing all the colors ta that we find the truth.
19 In the black and white view, an intervenor 20 organi zation, depending on whether you are for or against 21 intervenors, either never knows the truth or always know the 22 truth.
23 In the black and white view, a utility either is 24 always evil or always good.
25 And the Staff of the Commission is always
25285 1
delingeent in fulfilling its responsibilities or always 2
diligent.
3 And the same can be said for the Licensing Board 4
that's before you.
5 I don't think people are that simple, and we've 6
learned that in glowing colors in this casc.
7 I'd like to acknowledge the crurage of the people 8
who work for CASE, all of them.
To undertake opposing 9
institutions that had resources that were far more vast than 10 the resources that they could muster.
11 It was because of their commitment to the truth 12 that they did that and they stuck with it when it was very, 13 very difficult and when they had no idea about whether their 14 point of view would prevail.
15 They did it with integrity, saying from the 16 beginning that they were for a safer nuclear power plant and 17 not against nuclear power.
They've proved by their deeds 18 that that was indeed what they meant.
19 They have been concerned with every detail that's 20 happened to this plant and they have never taken a position 21 just because it was against something.
22 I remember vividly Jack Doyle, hearing the 23 testimony of Cygna Corporation, which was auditing the 24 plant, and after hearing it, withdrawing one-third of the 25 arguments that he had made to us, because he saw there was
25286 1
technical expertise that answered his concerns.
2 That has been the spirit of CASE's representation N
3 in this proceeding.
4 The Applicants, Texas Utilities, has also done 5
something really remarkable, because the common view would be that utilities don't learn, and there's been a dramatic 7
change in the way they've approached the design of this 8
plant, costing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars 9
to see that the safety of the plant was corrected.
10 I would like to especially congratulata Mr.
11 Counsil and other members of the new management team and the 12 lawyers who've represented the utility through all this time 13 for their flexibility and their willingness to listen and to 14 see the truth, even when it came from an intervenor.
15 And I'd like to thank the Staff, because the level 16 of Staff effort also altered dramatically in this case.
17 Prior to 1983 I'm not proud of the efforts that the Staff of 18 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission managed.
It was at that 19 time that the Staff agreed with the Applicants and opposed 20 the testimony of Jack Doyle about the safety of this plant 21 and claimed that it was safe.
22 There was a dramatic shift in the way the Staff 23 approached this case, beginning with the CAP team and the 24 technical review team, and it's because of the integrity of 25 the recent Staff efforts that I have great confidence that
25287 1
this agreement will be overseen by a vigorous staff.
p It's also a confidence that Texas Utility will 3
continue with a high level of technical concern and my 4fconvictionthatCASEwillcontinuewithitshighlevelof 5
technical concern and diligence that I'm convinced that we 6
have a procedure here that is far more effective than the 7
continuation of these proceedings could ever be to assure of a
the safety of this plant, which is the bottom line under the 9
law.
10 It's the bottom line of our responsibility for the 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 I would also like to thank my fellow panel 13 members, whom I've grown to love during the course of this 14 proceeding.
We' ve always worked closely together.
15 I think it speaks highly for the Atomic Energy Act 16 that there is a Board on which technical experts and lawyers 17 work together to oversee a matter of this si s.
The 18 partnership has been a truly rewarding one for me.
19 I would like to say in pa; sing, Mr. Roisman, I am 20 really pleased that we have a better procedure than the 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board now, but there was a time 22 in this case where that was not true.
It required the 23 cauldron of dispute, the bitterness that was reflected in 24 the hearings nd the disagreements before the parties were 25 able to reach the situation that we've reached now.
25288 1
I would.'_ike to see thia' kind of cooperation so 2
that there could be increased assurance for the safety of 3
plants.
I think it is a model.
I's a possible way that in 4
future times the country might choose to go if other forces 5
permit further nuclear power to be begun.
6 I would like to also acknowledge the people in 7
this room who just oppose nuclear power.
I know that they 8
have a very strong point of view and it comes out of fear 9
and knowledge and concern.
10 There's no way that I can cit up here and say I 11 think they're wrong.
What I do know is that the law 12 requires that plants be licensed when they are built 13 according to the regulations, and I feel comfortable working 14 within that law.
It's a point of view that I personally 15 support.
16 I don' t want to say to anyone in this audience 17 that they are wrong to be concerned about this agreement or 18 about this plant.
It's their point of view and I respect 19 it.
20 It's a picasure to have hat, the obligation and 21 responsibility to serve on this Board and to work with the 22 many wonderful people that we have come to work with.
23 I do want to mention Cygna, which is not 24 represented right now.
It seems to me that they were l important at an important turning point in this case.
They 25 l
25289 came in as an independent auditor and they went through some i
i W
hearings before this Board and I think they were helpful in 2
3 allowing everyone to see the truth in some of the technical allegations that were being presented by Mr. Doyle and CASE.
4 5
So I would also like to applaud Cygna for its 6
important role and its integrity in helping to bring us to 7
the situation that we're at now.
8 For the NRC and for myself I want to thank 9
everyone and express my appreciation for this opportunity to 10 serve.
11 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
I have had the longest tenure of 12 any of the members on this Board, having started on the 13 Board in December of 1981.
There has been a significant 34 change and approach across the nuclear industry, I feel, 15 about how intervenors work and identify potential problems, 16 if not actual problems, and the utilities' response.
17 It may be that this is the ultimate in terms of 18 having reached that position.
39 I remember before my two other Board members here 20 were on time Board, we were sitting in the Hilton Hotel over 21 in For,'. Worth and a reporter came up.
The other two Board 22 members were with me.
I remember a statement I made, which, 23 by the way, was put in the newspaper.
24 I said, "There's no way that Texas Utilities will 25 get an autcrnatic license," because at that time tnat was a
i 25290 1
concern that was held.
And I hope that it's obvious now, 2
six years later, that it wasn' t an autcmatic license.
3 I've been on Paards now since 1972 aad in that time I've seen it go from no intervenors to only 4
confrontational intervenors to constructive intervenors.
5 Believe me, the latter is a very welcome phase for somebody 6
who is sitting trying to support the legal responsibilities 7
g that they have as visualized and written in the Atomic 9
Energy Act and the followup amendments to it, because that's jo what our responsibility is.
It's important that we all try j3 to contribute towards that goal when we are in a situation like this.
12 13 I do commend the parties for having been able to y
attain this kind of cooperation.
I know we're all going to 15 watch with great interest the outcome as you proceed towards 16 a full power operation.
37 Thank you.
JUDGE JORDAN:
Any statement that I could 1 make 18 jg now af ter the few eloquent statements by Jack Doyle, Tony Roisman, Mr. Edgar, Ms. Moore, my own Chairman, would be 20 anti-climactic.
21 22 I agree with what they say and have said.
I've 23 seen the turn-around in the attitude of the Texas Utilities and the Intervenors and certainly there has been change, and 2;
25 a very welcome change in the Staff.
I feel that the Staff I
i 25291 1
now does have a real honest, good team and that this, more 2
than anything else, confirms my belief that the plant --
3 that the proposed changes will indeed be carried out, 4
because I have confidence that the Staff will insist that it 5
be done.
6 So it's been an interesting experience and in a 7
way I'm going to miss coming to Dallas occasionally.
8 I just had an eightieth birthday and whether I 9
will undertake another case or not is questionable, but 10 certainly not one that lasts as long ao this one.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
We have one more step to take today, 12 Mr. Edgar.
13 MR. EDGAR:
Your Honor, I would like to deliver to 14 the Board three copies of the June 28th letter from Mr.
15 Counsil to Mrs. Ellis, the one that the Board previously 16 ruled as admissible.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Mr. Edgar, I have the 18 feeling that despite the fact of some embarrassment to the 19 utility, I also feel like it's a high point that the utility 20 is willing to make the statements in the letter.
21 I feel it ought to be read; if not by you, by me.
22 MR. EDGAR:
Let me make a comment on that.
It is 23 not a matter of embarrassment to the utility.
We accept the 24 agreement we've entered into with considerable pride.
25 Furthermore, this statement is not something that
l l
)
25292 l
1 was extracted from Texas Utilities.
It is son.ething that we 2
feel is appropriate to mak e.
We volunteered this as part of 1
3 our agreement.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
I'd like to apologize for the words, I
S because I feel really it is something to be proud of and 6
that learning from experience is an awfully important thing.
7 MR. EDGAR:
Absolutely.
All I'm suggesting is 8
that this is something that the company volunteered up front 9
and feels is appropriate.
It is a cornerstone of out to agreement.
11 I'd be glad to read it into the record, with the 12 Board's permission.
13 MS. ELLIS:
Excuse me just a second.
I'd like to 14 make just one brief comment about that.
15 I'd like to say that this document is the primary 16 reason that CASE was first willing to sit down with the 17 utility and talk about this agreement.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Edgar, did you also give one to 19 the reporter?
If you're going to read it verbatim, she 20 won't need it.
21 MR. EDGAR:
I'm going to give one to the reporter, 22 but I'd like to make a request of the Board, also.
The man 23 behind this letter is Bill Counsil and with the Board's 24 permission, I would like Bill to read that.
I may live to 25 regret that request.
25293 1
I'm alco going to give a copy to the reporter.
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
Before Mr. Counsil reads the letter, 3
I would like to express my personal appreciation for what he 4
has done, his part in making this agrew
...t occur, in making 5
the ef forts of Texas Utilities diligent in recent months.
6 MR. COUNSIL:
If the Board permit, I'll skip the 7
salutation on the letter and the first paragraph and go 8
right to the meat of it.
9 "TU Electric recognizes that the Citizens 10 Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and its President, Mrs.
11 Juanita Ellis, have made a substantial, personal and 12 unselfish contribution to the regulatory process which 13 assures that Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Comanche 14 Peak) will be a safer plant.
Through the untiring ef forts 15 of CASE representatives, deficiencies which existed in the 16 early 1980's have been revealed in the design of substantial 17 portions of the plant which no one else, including TU 18 Electric, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other third-19 party experts had fully recognized or discovered.
As a 20 result, Comanche Peak is a better, safer plant than before 21 and, through the reinspection and Corrective Action Program, 22 has a greater assurance of safety and reliable generation.
23 We commend CASE, together with its technical advisors, Jack 24 Doyle and Mark Walsh, and other workers, public interest 25 organizations and supporters for their courage and devotion
25294 1
to CASE's goals of finding the facts and informing the 2
public.
Because of these activities, CASE's President, Mrs.
3 Ellis, has been appointed to the Operations Review Committee 4
at Comanche Peak, an unpaid but important position which 5
will provide CASE with the. opportunit / to continue to play G
an active part in assuring itself that Comanche Peak is as 7
safe a nuclear facility as possible.
8 "The ORC is required by the Comanche Peak 9
technical specifications and functions as an independent 10 body assigned the responsibility of review of various safety 11 related matters including nuclear power plant operations, 12 nuclear engineering, radiological safety and quality 13 assurance practices among others.
Among its duties, the ORC 14 will be responsible for independent review of proposed 15 modifications to the Comanche Peak facilities or procedures, 16 changes to the Technical Specifications and license 17 amendments, any violations or deviations which are required 18 to be reported to NRC and other safety related matters 19 deemed appropriate by the ORC members.
The ORC meets 20 periodically to review and discuss various issues bearing on 21 the safe operation of Comanche Peak and reports its findings 22 and recommendations directly to the Executive Vice 23 President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations.
24 "TU Electric also recognizes its own shortcomings 25 in assuring the NRC that they fulfilled NRC Regulations.
We
25295 l
1 acknowledge that nuclear expertise did not exist to meet 2
those demands and that its nuclear management did not have 3
full sensitivity to the regulatory environment.
CASE, Mrs.
4 Ellis and her colleagues played a substantial part in 5
achieving our current level of awareness.
6 "Sincerely, W.
G.
Counsil, Executive Vice 7
President."
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Mr. Counsil.
9 MR. COUNSIL:
You're welcome.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
On behalf of the Licensing Board, 11 I'd like to reiterate that Docket Nos. 50-445-OL(2), 50-446-12 OL(2) and 50-445-CPA are all dismissed.
13 Therefore, we now adjourn without a date.
Thank 14 you.
15
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m.,
the hearing was 16 adjournad.]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
~
(,
e,:F.
- t. '..li,,
4 3
r
-1 C'E R T'I F I C A T E-p 4
)'
3
' I'hereby certify that the foregoing:is'a true b
.I 4
.and correct transcription of the above-entitled' proceedings.,
4 5
6 7
g,L,f br &
. Gay'E. @enton', Reporter 8
9 4
10 11 "4
12 4
13.
~
' l) is
+
h" g
is z.
7,.-
c s
16 J
A
- I i.
17-
!e l
18 19-20 21 i
i 23.
~ 2. '
L g
35
[
Heritage Reporting Corporoflon-e.
<=n..
L ~,--. ac,,.a N._ _.
- -..- -... - ~ -..
. - ~. -
.~~
-