ML20154R306
| ML20154R306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6469 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8806070264 | |
| Download: ML20154R306 (34) | |
Text
, 7, + , .. ~ ~ . . . .
- 7. .
7 -i
~
Ol31\ A L G.- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING, BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL l et al. ) 50-446-OL '
) 50 .445-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,)
Units 1 and 2) ) l
( ,
- l 1
Pages: 25157 through 25186 Place: Dallas, Texas Date: June 1, 1988
.......................................................... l l
<h 6% HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION l- opkWR w 1220 L Strset, N.W., Sidte 600 l WasMagton, D.C. 20005 a l (292) 628 4888 8806070264 880601 PDR ADOCK O*000445 T ._..
.,_ _.PDR__. s.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY 1
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _-. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ -x 3 :
In the Matter of: :
4 :
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, : Case Nc. 50-445-OL 5 et al. : No. 50-446-OL
- No. 50 -44 5- CP A 6 (Cemanche Peak Steam Electric Station, :
Units A and 2) :
7 :
.__________________x 8
9
. Gallery Ballrocm 10 Sheraten Hotel 400 North Olive 11 Dallas,. Texas 12 Wednesday, June 1, 1988 ,
13 The above-entitled matter came on f or a pre-hearing 14 ccnference, pursuant to Notice, at 9:00 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 Peter B. Blech, Chairman 17 Dr. Walter Jordan, Member Dr. Kenneth McCollom, Member 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
. . - , . , ~ -.-. .-
25158 1 APPE ARANCES :
i 2 On behalf of the Applicants:
3 GEORGE EDGAR, Attcrney'at Law MAURICE AXELROD, Attorney at Law 4 Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 5 Washington, D.C. 20036 6 and 7 ROBERT A. WOOLDRIDGE, Attorney at Law Worsham, Fcrsythe, Samples & Wec1dridge 8 Suite 2500, 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 9
On behalf of the NRC Staff:
10 JANICE E. MOORE, Attorney at Law 11 BERNARD M. BORDENICK, Attcrney at Law Office of Internal Counsel 12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C. 20555 13 On behalf of CASE:
14 JUANITA ELLIS, President 15 JERRY LEE ELLIS BILLIE GARDE, Attorney at Law 16 Citizens Asscciaticn f or Scund Energy 1426 Scuth Polk 17 Dallas, Texas 75224 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25159 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BLOCH: With deep respect, I welcome ycu 3 all to this hearing en the Licensing Beard for Comanche 4 Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Today 's pre-5 hearing conference is with respect both to the operating 6 license case and to the CPA case.
7 The principle subjects for this morning are a whatever we can learn about detailed scheduling of these 9 twc casas. That's the first matter. The possible to censelidation of the cases is ancther matter, and the 11 Applicant's mot.cn cencerning there being no issues on 12 piping and pipe support, supported by staff's motion. So -
13 there are three matters.
14 The icgical order fer me seems to be.first the 15 scheduling. What the matters are, particularly the CASE 16 plans tc litigate and what they can tell us abcut the order 17 in which they wish to litigate those issues. The second 18 matter wculd seem to be whether er not CASE dces intend to 19 litigate anything with respect te piping and pipe suppcrt 20 and what they can tell us about that. And third wculd be 21 further argument en censolidation.
22 I'd like the parties te intreduce themselves 23 for the reccrd, and then if people want they can ecmment en 24 the proposed order. First I wculd like to introduce Dr.
25 Kenneth McCollem en my left, and Dr. Walter Jcrdan en my
25160 1 right.
2 The parties may introduce themselves, starting 3 at my left.
4 MS. MOORE: My name is Janice E. Mcore, ccunsel 5 for NRC Staff. With me today is Bernard M. Bordenick, also 6 counsel f or NRC Staf f.
7 MR. EDGAR: I'm George Edgar. I' m a partner in 8 the Washingten law fire of Newman & Holtzinger, 9 representing T. U. Electric. Seated to my immediate left 10 is Mr. Robert A. Wccidridge, and to his immediate left is 11 Mr. Maurice Axelrod.
12 MS. GARDE: My name is Billie Garde. I' m the 13 atterney for CASE. Mr. Wiseman will not be here today 14 because of a deposition that he ceuld not reschedule. On 15 my immediate left is Ms. Juanita Ellis. She is the 16 president of CASE and co-representative in this proceeding.
17 And Mr. Jerry Ellis is also at the table.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank ycu. Are there comments en 19 the proposed crder cf the discussion this morning?
20 MR. EDGAR: Yes. I think I can speak, er I've 21 been authorized to speak fer the parties. We have had some 22 discussions, and I'd like to give a report on those 23 discussiens.
i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: We welecme that. Anything the l l
25 parties can do together is cf great interest to us.
i
~
25161~
t MR. EDGAR: It_in effect pre-empts two of the 2 three possible issues, leaving the third open, but let 3 explain in some detail. The Board asked us to each scratch 4 our heads and determine what the best way to put this case 5 en was, and we have gotten tcgether and we have had 6 discussiens on that subject.
7 We can report some areas of agreement, and we 8 can report some areas for further discussion. We think our 9 discussions have been rather pointed, and they have been 10 rather censtructive. They will centinue, and centinue for I
11 a time certain.
12 Let me start with cur areas of agreement. We 13 believe that the present hearing schedule as embcdied in 14 the Beard's crder which is new effective should remain in 15 effect. There are some adjustments, cne adjustment in 16 particular, that we have identified new that needs to be 17 made, and we are going te work en that, and that will be my is last item in my list of five, and I will discuss what we 19 intend to de with that ene.
20 The second basic area cf agreement is that the 21 area er time in the hearings when the hearing schedule 22 triggers the milestenes to bring us to hearing en the CSR 23 and the CER is the Icgical peint to put en some of the more 24 subjective issues, the root cause, the harassment. And a 25 third set of issues ': hat involve the questien of
) - _ -
25162 1 implementation of the technical issues. In particular, in 2 the piping area we have an agreement, but we dcn't have 3 closure on certain implementation issues, and I'll describe 4 what we mean by that.
5 In addition, at that phase, the CSR/CER, we're s in a positien today tc tell you the cutline of what we 7 intend as an affirmative case. We don't propose that as a 8 matter of argument. We propose that as a matter cf 9 information.
10 We presented it the interveners and the NRC 11 Staff yesterday, and we think it helped put the discussion 12 in perspective, and we think it helped f oster some 13 understanding of where we were headed and why censolidatien 14 is at least an issue wcrth further discussion. Now, ccming 15 to that, we don't have agreement en censelidatien. We, 16 though, are both -- all parties are ccmmitted to discussing 17 that further.
is The idea wculd be, if we censolidated to have 19 ene hearing to gather all the evidence en both cententiens 20 five and twc, and if the Beard is interested after I get 21 thrcugh this recap, I can give you ten minutes en what cur 22 affirmative case Icoks like fer information, and that may 23 give you mere insight as te where we're headed in cur 24 further discussions amongst the parties.
25 The other subsidiary, but nevertheless
25163 1 important point related to consolidaticn is, assuming they 2 are consolidated, assuming we reach an agreement there, 3 what would be the right schedule for filing up. I mean, do 4 ycu file two sets at the sar$ time? Do ycu file them s serially, et cetera. And we need further discussion en 6 that.
7 Coming to the pipes and pipe support: We think a the pipe and pipe support issues are closed, with the ,
9 exception cf imple me nta tion.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Are ycu still speaking f or 11 everybcdy?
12 MR. EDGAR: Yes. Now, we're going to embody 13 this all in a written stipulaticn so that nobcdy, ycu knew 14 -- everybody will understand exactly what we've agreed on.
15 And cne of the reasons that we hope to -- cr cne of the 16 things we hope to do on cur discussion is to got some of 17 l these things in writing so that we can converge cur 18 thoughts a little better. That's going to be necessary fer 19 us to ccre to grips with the consolidatien issue, se, we 20 wculd try to embody this all in a written stipulation.
21 New, the part of pipes that is enclosed is what 22 we've labeled implementation, and by that we mean, in 23 simple language, there are no issues with respect te what 24 the licensee or applicant has dcne to implement these 25 program en pipes. The question will be did you do what you
25164 1 said ycu were going to do. And we think as to that there 2 is one more feature that we need tc add into the hearing 3 schedule, and I've essentially --
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that issue with respect to 5 construction folicwing design, or design --
6 MR. EDGAR: It wculd be the latter. It wculd 7 be the PCHVP basically, Post Construction Hardware 8 Verification PICgram.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Sc the parties den't still think 10 that there is a design implementatien problem?
11 MR. EDGAR: That's correct.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: It's just construction?
13 MR. EDGAR: That's correct. Dc you follow up?
14 Do ycu do the things ycu were going to do -- said ycu were 15 geing te dc.
16 Now, we need te ccme up with a set of criteria 17 fer closure and implementation. By that, I mean when you 18 set cut the hearing schedule, ycu need the thing that says !
l 13 here is the date er milestene by which you must identify l l
20 all cf ycur implementation issues, and that can be a 21 combination. Several boundaries could apply there: Time, 22 percentage, ccmpleti.cn, et cetera. We need to werk that 23 cut amongst ourselves. We need to get that reduced to 24 writing and put that in the stipulation so that everybody l
25 understands just when the time is for clorure en '
l
25165 1 identification of implementation issues, and we'll get 2 that.
3 JUDGE JORDAN: Has it been agreed upon what is i 1
4 meant by implementation, what's included in that? j 5 MR. EDGAR: Yes, sir. As a matter cf fact, I 6 think we have agreement. If ycu look cur metien and the 7 Staff's motions on pipe, the last 'page of our motien has a I
8 Prayer for relief, and says what's closed, and the Staff '
9 has one more increment on that which is the precess or l 10 precedures in PCHVP that we didn't put in, but we agree 11 with the Staff, and if ycu'll add all those things up 12 that's closed. But what isn't closed is like the PCHVP 13 field werk.
I 14 Se, I think we understand it. We reed to put !
l I 15 very precise words around that so that there wcn't be any l
16 misunderstanding. But I think we have an agreement on 17 principle on that.
18 Now, what we wculd propose te do wculd be l 19 centinue our discussiens and reduce our thoughts to l
20 writing, and report back to the Beard in twc weeks, and we
- 21 will deliver cne of two products to you in twc weeks.
j 22 Either a stipulation that resolves all these things in 23 whole er in part. That's a centradicticn in terms. We'll j 24 deliver ycu a stipulatien. We may also deliver you a 25 request fer a ruling en what re ma i ns , but we will be able
25266 1 to tell you where our areas of disagreement are and where i
2 we need a ruling.
3 We think several elements of this agreement and 4 agreements en areas for further discussion need just a 5 brief ecmment. We think the agreement we've reached on 6 pipes takes this discussion off the critical path of the 7 hearings, so that's good. We're not idling here, and we're a using what time we have.
9 The second thing is we think it's constructive to and legical to do it this way, if we can do it and we, I 11 think, de not share agreement yet, but we share some hope 12 that we can get there. Our request to the Beard would be 13 that the Board defer ruling en motions that are new pending 14 befcre the Beard, and that you put the enus en us to ccme 15 back to ycu within twc weeks and we'll either have a 16 completed product er a request for a ruling, and that's 17 where we are. Se, that's the summary.
18 I'm prepared tc go over this af firmative case 19 as a matter of informatien, and we are all three of us 20 prepared to answer any questiens.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: That sounds pretty heartening to 22 re that the parties wculd get together and reach that kind 23 of agreement on how it's best te go further, and to agree 24 that there will be further agreement within two weeks. De 25 any of the other parties --
25167 1 JUDGE JORDAN: I just want to also join in with 2 the Chairman in saying that I ccmmend all parties in 3 achieving what ycu have done.
4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Me, toc.
5 JUDGE JORDAN: Keep up the good work.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do any of the other parties wish 7 to comment on what Mr. Edgar has said?
8 MS. ELLIS: Yes. Just a ccuple. I think it 9 was really sort of implicit in what he said, but just to be 10 real clear, included in that wculd be a postponement of the 11 time, if it becomes necessary, for us te answer the
,2 pleadings that the Beard is treating in the Motion for 13 Summary Disposition.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: As I understand it, that's in 15 keeping with the agreement, so therefere, that is correct.
16 MS. ELLIS: Right. And also the piping and 17 pipe suppert issues which we are talking abcut. I think j 18 it's appropriate to mention that, as the Beard is aware I'm 19 sure, Mt. Doyle has made some trips dcwn here, and Mr.
20 Walsh has also primarily en cable tray supports in his 21 case. But en the pipe and pipe support issues, Mr. Doyle 22 has been really well pleased fer the most part with 23 everything that he has seen so far. I think that there is 24 the possibility, a very good possibility thet in the future 25 he may be ready to say that the implementatien is all )
I l
l
25168 1 right, toc. If they continue as they have en the 2 implementation that he has seen so f ar, I think that's a 3 goed possibility. So things de lock hopeful in that 4 regard.
5 It's just'a matter of we're just not ready to 6 let go of them right new until we see a little bit mere.
7 But the plan itself, I think for sure he is very well a pleased with that.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: I wculd tc especially comment 10 that CASE has been couragecus in follcwing what it believes 11 te be correct, whether it's in the interest cf defeating 12 this plan or whether it's in the interest of supporting 13 something that's happened, and that is scmething that's i 14 very commendable aise.
15 MS. ELLIS: One additicnal thing that we 16 discussed yesterday was the status of disecvery, and 3 17 think that the Beard should be aware that thrcugh the 18 informal prccess, there is a number of requests that CASE 19 has made inf ormally which they're permitted to respond to.
20 We assume that the response will be adequate. If it isn't, 21 it wculd then graduate to the level of fermal discovery.
22 We also have a letter frem the Applicants --
j 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Just stop for a seccnd. I take 24 it that that informal procedure is acceptable with the ;
25 Applicant also?
_ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ -
25169 1 MR. EDGAR: Yes. We 've been exchanging views 2 en that. I think we have one item in particular where we 3 had a discussic'n. yesterday. We're going to provide a 4 response. I think we'll be able te work that out and not 5 rescrt to the f ormal discovery process, much less bother 6 the Beard.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: That's excellent. Not that we a might be bethered, but that ycu're werking cut information.
9 As a matter of fact, it's kind of anncying to be a judge 10 and have ac little to dc.
11 JUDGE JORDAN: Are you referring to discovery 12 in bcth proceedings?
13 MS. GARDE: Yes. The other item cf discussion l 14 yesterday which I wanted to make the Board aware of is what 15 I call the feedback phase of getting the information that 16 has been coming cut of the Staff and the Applicant back to 17 the werkers who originally raised the cencerns. We've been is dcing that, and it's been semewhat easier cf late with the 19 charts that have been provided by the staff and the 20 Applicant tn track allegaticns and what was dcne with each 21 allegation, and we're in the precess ef discussing ways to 22 increase that -- the efficiency of that process a little 23 bit better. But if we envision that when and if we go 24 thrcugh this schedule and we're identifying those issues 25 for hearing, we will have recentacted with the allegers
25170 1 that criginally raised the issues, and that will, in 2 essence, be a part of the case if they had a dispute, but 3 we will have already brought that back to the Staff and the 4 Applicant befcre we identify this as an issue for hearing.
5 SC We spent about an hour on discussing that.
6 MS. ELLIS: There is one other thing 7 probably 7 need to mentien, just to be very clear en it. The piping s and pipes that were issues which we were talking abcut in 9 the motion were limited to the operating license proceeding 10 rather than CPA.
11 MS. GARDE: No further ccmment.
12 MR. BLOCH: Thank you very much.
13 MS. MOORE: The Staff has only one ecmment, and 14 that is with respect to -- and I believe it was clear frem 15 what Mr. Edgar said, but I wculd like to reiterate it.
16 This process we were working on ccncerning implementatien 17 issues will deal with all disciplines. It's nct only the is piping and pipe suppcrts but all disciplines.
19 MR. EDGAR: I wasn't clear when I said it.
20 That,'s the second time she's had to correct me.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, I sense we're werking 22 together in the sense. That doesn't often happen in these 23 proceedings. If I understand correctly, the business 24 that's left for new is to hear Applicant's cutline of what 25 it expects te present as prcof.
25171 1 I guess my only surprise is that it's possible 2 the issues will be so narrow you will need to present as 3 prcof. But why den't we proceed with that.
4 (Conference among Judges.)
5 JUDGE BLOCH: There 's a possible lack of 6 understanding. Did ycu cffer to say more about the 7 discussions among the parties, or just about Applicant's 8 case?
9 HR. EDGAR: I may have let twc concepts run 10 together. What I said was I'll be happy to present the 11 outline, rough outline of how we wculd put cur affirmative 12 case en under present assumptiens and present kncwn 13 conditions. That presentation that I wculd give the Board 14 we exchanged yesterday. That helped the discussiens, we 15 thought, the parties thought in trying to come to grips 16 with the wisdem er lack of wisdom of censolidation.
17 If yCU Dee what we have for the core part of 18 the case, then you can see -- ycu knew, it may follew, 19 then, censolidatien is logical or beneficial. Sc, we think 20 it's a matter of keeping the Board informed. We're happy 21 to do it, and that's the centext of it.
22 I'm net presenting argument. I'm presenting it 23 for what it's worth.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: We wculd like to be a part of 25 that. It's just that the parties in their discussiens j
25172 1
would also assist us, and we want to be sure en it. Thank 2 ycu.
3 MR. EDGAR: To look at this cutline, it helps 4 -to establish a f ew premises. One of those premises is that 5 we don't have the piping' technical issues new. We're 6 taking that off the board.
7 The Staff's current schedule for issuance of a SSER's, which are the trigger documents in the hearing 9 schedules Janice can provide. But essentially, I' m going to to ever simplify it a little bit, but essentially the t ra y, 11 cable tray, SSER and the mechanical civil structure, the 12 discipline SERs and the CSR/CER will be ccming cut at abcut 13 the same tine. And so, for all practical -- there may be 14 some mismanage, and it may be that some cf the technical 15 PSRs will be later in time in a CER status. l 16 JUDGE BLOCK: Ycu're actually talking abcut the 17 SSERs en the PSRs, right?
18 MR. EDGAR: Correct. ,
Okay. And I' m 19 simplifying a little bit, but what I'm going to talk abcut 20 is how we move cur case along if we have the CSR/CER as the !
21 trigger document, and we may have an issue er two en the 22 cable tray. We may have an issue or twc cn HVAC or EQ cr 23 scmething, but I could explain hcw that cculd get tucked i 24 in. We'll deal with that.
25 What we're going te do is, given the present i
i 25173 1 state of knowledge and what we think the issues are to be, 2 and what we have to anticipate, here's how we wculd put en 3 cur case. And we de it in basically a three-tier approach 4 where -- and we can read back into this the CPA issues, and 5 I'll explain that last where they come back.
6 The first tier is basically your corporate 7 policy in management level, with senier management s explaining the ecmpany's policies, what went into the 9 decisiens implemented, the CAP and CPRT Programs. That is to a rather bread presentation.
11 The next level dcwn f rcm that, the second level ;
12 is ycur nuclear management and policies. That has a number 13 of ecnstituent elements, but the twc principal elements l 14 there wculd be a presentation en the organizational 15 enhancements that have been made, the restructuring cf 16 percennel, additiens and the like, and then what 1 call, 17 for want of ancther werd, systemic enhancements: Hcw ycu 18 do business better, design centrol and instructicn 19 methodology, all sorts of systemic imprevements.
20 The next level dcwn frem that is your basic 21 core presentation en the CAP, Ccrrective Action 22 Program /CPRT Program. And that, of course, wculd have in 23 it first a program descriptien, and then a presentatien cf 24 resulte of design validatien, and a presentatien of results i 4 j 25 cf PCHVP, which is the hardware validation, and integrating i
l 25174 j 1 those two together would be conciliation.
2 It is in that centext that what we are calling 3 13Pl ementatien would come up. We wculd present ;
i 4 affirmativcly our results of imple me n t a tion, and if there !
5 were issues the intervence had identified, they wculd 6 either come after that, depending upon how we set these j 7 criteria, or in that centext. But we wculd cite the I e affirmative context there first or whatever cur view wculd i l
9 happen to be. I 10 Then, of ccurse, supporting that and actually j 11 setting a tene fer the whole thing is the discussien of the 12 CPRT investigations in design construction in QA and i
13 testing. Then, having completed that, we then drop dcwn to 14 a set of additienal items which blend in, the rect cause, 15 the harassment issues, if there are any open at that point, 16 and any residual technical issues. I can't predict what 17 that might be, but let 's suppose that there is an open is technical issue on cable tray, er an open technical issue 19 that gets identified on EQ. Then we wculd have those 20 P i cked up by the right witness panels that are presenting 21 the material in the CAP /CPRT results.
22 The final thing is how ycu blend in the CPA 23 evidence. We have, as I've said, the three levels here.
24 We have corporate, nuclear, and the CAP /CPRT level 25 Presentatien. We break the CPA logically into two
25175 1 elements.
2 We have what we call prong 1, which is the 3 questien of disregard er violation of NRC requirements, a 4 conscious disregard. Then we have prong 2, which we call 5 ' repudiation. -
6 Now, we believe that everything we've said 7 abeve, particularly the organizational enhancements and the 8 systemic enhancements and the CAP /CPRT are directly 9 respcnsive to prong 2. As a matter cf logic, they to enccmpass that. That leaves us with prong 1, and what you 11 have :o do there is put the prong 1 evidence into each cf 12 the three tiers that I've previcusly mentioned.
13 You have the policy level of prong 1, which 14 fits in that corporate policy and nuclear management part.
15 Ycu have ancther thing which is kind of unique to the CPA 16 which is the set of specifica. We den't knew what they are 17 yet. We have a set Cf basics Cut there, but they'll have j
- 18 to be narrcwed during discovery. But, an example might be 19 something like ycu have thus and such a report, er thus and 20 such in an audit finding. What wculd ycu do about it? l 1
21 It's an allegation that we must respcnd tc. So we wculd l l
22 have tc leave in the specifics of that with cur nuclear
]
l 23 management, er perhaps we have -- that may be an area we 24 have to put on additional evidence. It doesn't quite fit l i
25 in this coherent structure.
25176 And then the final part of it is the inferences 2 that one can draw frcm the CAP /CPRT results. Ycu have !
3 certain objective evidence and data, and one can examine 4 those data and ask the question: RDo they reflect or dc 5 they allcw an inference of any intentional violation of 1
6 regulations. And so that wculd be blended in with the 7 CPRT/ CAP. So, I think all of the pieces fit, and that's 8 how we wculd proceed and attempt to proceed.
9 It's not something we're negotiating. It's 10 just something we're willing te tell pecple, and it may 11 help cur further discussion.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Just an off the cuff remark. If 13 it appears that you try the case that way, whether we 4
14 censolidate er not, that would be an argument.
15 MR. EDGAR: Yes. We discussed that yesterday.
16 The Icgic that we were going thrcugh, and we still need to 17 de more discussicn among the parties. .The logic that we is have gene thrcugh is that the interveners have to weigh the 19 prenga 1 and 2 cf Cententien Twc. We can win Cententien 20 Five or prcng 2 cf Contentien Two, and we win. Or we can i 21 win prong 1, Cententien Twe, and we've lost. We ,
22 neutralize. l 4
23 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand that. ;
I j 24 MR. EDGAR: Okay. Well, we have tc put en cur i 25 -- let ne put it ancther way. We have to put on our OL 1
i I
i i
25177 1 case.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand how ycu can 3 win en Ccnvention 5 and not block.
4 MR. EDGAR: Oh, we always block when we went on 5 Centention 5. Wu necessarily --
6 JUDGE BLOCH: That's why I don't understand why 7 anycne is interested in whether or not we consclidate. If 8 that's true and we try the OL first, why does it matter 9 whether we censolidate?
10 MR. E DG AR : It's a matter of form in my mind 11 rather than substance. You put your finger en it when ycu 12 said that the real issue is the order in which ycu present 13 the evidence, and that's why we said this is hcw we're 14 going to do it, because we think if we prevail en 5, and is this is a 5 case with just using CPA as a checklist and 16 ccme back and make sure you're logically covered. If we 1
17 win en 5, we win en prong 2, and that's it. There is is nothing left. But that's cur view of the matter. We 19 amongst the parties need to discuss that some more.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: I could imagine the possibility 21 that that's net true, but I don't see it's very likely.
22 MR. E DG AR : I agree with ycu.
23 JUDGE JORDAN: My problem is hcw do you knew
! 24 you've wen on 5 if ycu're planning to centinue with all of 25 the items that you've mentiened? Are you going te stop, J
25178 1 assuming new that there is conoclidation, and that 's the 2 case that bothers me. Where 5c you stop?
3 MR. EDGAR: That again is a matter of 4 discussion amongst the parties. But our view of that is 5 you file your findings both ways. Remember, the real 6 distinction here is the hearing is'the vehicle for putting
, 7 the evidence on. The structure that we propose gets all cf 8 the right pieces in. It's all a matter of logic.
9 The next questien is the inferences ycu draw to frcm that same evidence. Ycu can brief that. That can be 11 a finding. Two sets -- you can put different cover pages 12 en findings if ycu want, but twc sets of findings should go 13 in simultanecusly. Then, it's incumbent en the Board to 14 ask itself the question: Dces it even have to answer preng 15 1.
is I' m presupposing that the evidence is such, and l 37 I'm an optimist, se I'm presupposing that the evidence is 1
, 18 such that we wculd convince ycu en preng 5.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: I had assumed that cur job was to 20 decide the case. !
i 21 MR. EDGAR: Exactly. l 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Therefore, if Contentien 5 was 23 decided, it necessarily decides prong 2. I dcn't see that 1 24 as a Licensing Board we have any business looking at prong 25 1. .
l l
l
25179 1 MR. EDGAR: I agree with you.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Because our job is whether or not i
~
3 to license the plant, not to lock into intellectual issues.
4 It wculd be fun for us. I don't think it wculd be fun for 5 everybcdy.
6 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I understand ycu put in your 7 two findings. One wculd be on Cententien 2.
8 MR. EDGAR: That's ccrrect. Now that's -- the 9 parties haven't agreed to that, but that's our view cf the 10 matter. That 's all I' m saying.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to clarify cne 12 thing. I assume, given the level of communicatien going en i
13 among the parties new, that all of the sericus concerns 14 that CASE has are a matter for sericus inquiry both by the l
15 Applicants and for the Staff. Am I ccrrect in that?
16 MS. GARDE: I dcn't understand.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Ycu have raised certain issues
+ 18 in -- i 19 MS. GARDE: Ycu mean the procedural questiens 20 that we raised about censolidation?
21 JUDGE BLOCH: No. Het just the procedural 22 enes. The substantive issues ycu've raised I assume are 23 being sericuely looked at by both the Staff and by the 24 Applicant.
MR. E DG AR : Well, let ne speak for us.
) 25 l
25180 1 Everything we knew about, and we have to apply our cwn 2 judgme nt for that, but everything we know about that 's 3 sericus we're working on. We either have an answer -- ycu 4 may not think it's goed enough, but we have one or we're 5 working harder en it. The three residual areas that we 6 talked about extending out at the pipe motion root cause, 7 harassment and implementatien are three that we're 8 definitely werking en and have done something with, and 9 will centinue te do more with.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: I assume the staff also is 11 locking into those issues?
12 MS. MOORE: Yes. The Staff is looking at those 13 issues. i 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Garde?
15 MS. GARDE: I just want to comment that we're 16 net holding any-issues. When something ccmes to our :
17 attentien that is of cencern to us, we are bringing it to is the attentien of the Applicants and the Staff. We have no I 19 intentien of holding any issues. But we are net agreeing I i
20 with -- we agree with how they are addressing those issues. l 21 They're aware cf what our cencerns are and have to make
]:
22 some kind of decision.
23 MS. ELLIS: In addition, there are some things l l
i 24 that are still being locked at. For instance, in the There may 25 technical areas, say en the HVAC, for instance.
i i
l
25181 1 be some technical cencerns even with the plant itself that :
2 we may want to look inte before we release that. Sc these 3 things are still in process at this peint. As scen as we 4 have them finalized at some point, as soon as I can get 5 around to typing most of them, we will get them to the 6 Applicant and Staff and let them be locking at them. Sc 7 we're not holding them back, but it's just a matter of ,
s being able to do it.
9 MR. EDGAR: We think there's an infermation i 10 exchange that's developed here, and if, fer example, Ms.
11 Ellis mentioned the HVAC. She has a person locking at i
12 that. It may be, and we can't predict the unkncwn, but 13 there's a way for us to take those issues and get them and j 14 get the technical people together and resolve them. New, 15 that's obvicualy in everybody's interest.
16 The exchange precess that was developed en the '
4 17 bigger piping issues seem to be a wcrthy effort. It may be 2
- 18 that we need to do smaller efferts of similar kind. But 19 certainly the ccmpany is open to that approach and 20 1 recognizes its value, and we think the intervencrs are 21 being directed at it and are giving us the information ,
22 that's on their minds.
23 JUDGE JORDAN: I believe that rcot cause is one l
l 24 cf the issues that you still are thinking abcut. But this j
, I l 25 ycu say will he censidered with the CSR ccmes up; is that ,
a !
i i
25182 1 right?
2 MR. E DG AR : Yes. That wculd be our view of the 3 matter, because we don't think the root cause issue such as 4 it is is discipline specific necessarily, and that it fits 5 better in that broader centext.
6 MS. GARDE: May I ccmment? I think the 7 information or exchange such as was gej.ig en with Mr. Walsh a en pipe Jesues did werk very well. It'r nu practical to 9 bring 80 whistle blewers back from all :<<~ .he ccuntry to to explain to them exactly what was dene. .vo we are dcing 11 that, fcr the most part, through the mall.
12 The Applicant will knew -- thecretically the ,
13 Applicant will knew before we have to file our metien 14 identification issues what those issues are, and they wen't is be surprised. But in both metiens there may be certain 16 areas of dispute, because those wen't have been resolved.
17 The Cnly problem that we f oresee, and we discussed that 18 with thsm, is that if the staff puts all those SGERs en the 19 street at the same time, we're going to get into a time 20 crunch. I dcn't think it's a significant time crunch, but 21 it 's dif ficult to centact and deal with that many people 22 who are, for the most part, serving as the expert review cf 23 their criginal cencern.
24 Sc I think that all cf that is in the process, 25 and I think what your cencern is that when they get the
25183 i 1 moti;ns that identify the issues, there aren't 17 new ;
I 2 workers raising 25 new issues on that area of interest, and 3 that is not what we anticipate would happen. If there is a
- 4 new werker, whether er not he has brought forward a 5 Department of Labor complaint -- but if he has technical 6 issues becught to cur attention, we will be bringing those 7 cr have brought those to the Utility.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: I think this tir- crunch issue is 9 ene the Applicants knew about, and it's one of the things 10 that's still under discussion.
11 MS. GARDE: Well, it's still under discussion, 12 but I den't think there needs to be very much discussicn l 13 because the schedule that ycu've put in place, and the way 1 14 that we've been implementing it provides f er us to be able 15 te ask for extra days if we need them, and so far it hasn't 16 been a problem if it 's ten days here er fif teen days there. ,
i 17 New, if we get ten SSERs in ene day, it's going to be '
18 impossible f cr us te process in the timely manner 19 envisicned. And if it's net werked out, we can't reach an 20 agreement that's acceptable, then we may have to come back 21 to the Beard. But it's pretty much depending en whather 22 the Staff actually releases the SSERs, hcw far alcng we are 23 with distribution er information at that point. Dces that I 24 answer ycur question?
I I 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, thank ycu. Does Staf f have 1
- I
25184-1 .any comment?
2 MS. MOORE: I would just mention what Ms. Garde 3 was referring to with respect to the workers. We are 4 endeavoring to provide such information by sending letters 5 back to the allegers we knew abcut who have made specific 6 allegations with the closecut of their issue so that at 7 least our position on their issues is being provided to a them, and also I believe where the allegers are related to e CAP in some way cr to CASE, that they are receiving a copy 10 of that letter so they are given the Staff's position, and 11 then it's a matter of having other information that they 12 might --
that those werkers might need te answer or to 13 judge the accuracy of the resolutien of the issues.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it that they're usually 15 given that before the Staff reaches its final conclusion?
16 MS. MOORE: I don't think I understand what ycu 17 mean the final conclusion. I believe they're being given is that information when the resolutien has been finalized.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: At an earlier phase of the case, l
20 we had asked the pecple who had made allegations be told of 21 the resolutien, and they be given an opportunity to comment i
22 before the Staff concluded that they had satisfactorily 23 concluded to resolve the issue.
24 MS. MOORE: In the letter they are being given 25 an oppertunity that if the resolutien is not satisfactory l
1 l
l l
l
25185 t to them, that they can raise the issue with us. They tell 2 us the source of their dissatisfaction.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Does the Staff consider that it 4 has reached a conclusion before or after it gets that back?
5 MS. MOORE: We are trying to send cut thota 6 letters before the completion of the Staff SERs en the 7 particular discipline that ccncerns that issue. I wculdn't e be able to say at this point that that's always going to 9 happen. But we will always consider if we have a respense to back, that we have not satisfacterily resolved that issue, 11 and we'll make sure we take that response into account, and 12 if need be we wculd issue a correction or a supplement in 13 that regard.
14 JUDGE BLOCK: Thank ycu. That's very helpful.
l 15 The Board is very pleased about we seem to have reached a l I
16 new phrase in this preceeding. It's a phase in which the l l
17 parties are cooperating more actively and accomplishing i 1
18 things that it's not possible for the Board te accomplish 19 in that lengthy litigation. It's a very ccnstructive l 20 development for this case. It means that we will do more 21 by dcing less, and we are pleased to be able to cooperate 22 by doing less.
23 I want to ask my celleagues if they have any 24 comments before we conclude this morning's session.
25 JUDGE JORDAN: Only to seccnd the Chairman's
., ~ - _. . - . - , . -
25186 1 opinien.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: The pre-hearing conference is in 3 recess. Adjourned.
4 (Whereupon, at 9:41 a.m., the hearing was 5 adjcurned.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 j 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
6 7 Docket Number: 50-445-OL; 50-446-OL; 50-445-CPA 8 Place: Dallas, Texas 9 Date: June 1, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate re d of t fof going proceedings.
16 /s/ . V V
17 (Signature typed): Gay E. Denton I
18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
20 !
21 22 23 24 25 )
I Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
, . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . .. . , . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , . . _ _ . , _ _ _ .