ML20199L021
| ML20199L021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-873 OL, NUDOCS 8607090293 | |
| Download: ML20199L021 (27) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
g@
n BEFORE THE UNITED STATES I
NOCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 JL -7 P2 :17 ln the Matter of
)
)
cr.c- -~
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt.'Nos.'50-445-OL et al.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CASE'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HEARINGS Introduction In its June 12 Order, this Board used as a touchstone the principle that because CASE has already "twice prevailed in this proceeding" (Order, p.
- 2) fairness req'uires that it have "the opportunity to suggest a workable schedule that will give it control over the presentation of its case."
Id.
The Board also indicated that three characteristics should be included in the schedule -- i.e., conclusion of hearings by July 1987, maximum reliance on written filings wherever feasible, and use of depositions in lieu of live testimony where mutually agreeable.
Tne Board further indicated that all deadlines, presumably including the July 1987 deadline, are subject to change for good cause including late responses to discovery, inadequate time for discovery, and late completion of results reports.
Finally, the soard suggested some issues that may be tried separately, such as tne adequacy of the CPR}', and by implication urged CASE to oevelop a logical order for resolution of issues not driven by the dates on wnich Applicants believe they have completed phases 8607090293 860A90 1
PDR ADOCK 05r00445 G
of rework on the plant.
CASs has sought to follow this guidance from the Board.
However, we have not put specific calendar dates on most of the schedule because we lack information regarding the status of design re-evaluations and completion dates for results reports, and we have very little confidence in the Applicants' willingness to timely and completely respond to discovery requests.
We have 1
written the schedule primarily in terms of days from completion l
of each task.
If Applicants complete all tasks within the prescribed time, then the hearings could be concluded by the end of July 1987.
However, that date assumes completion of design dctivities by July 15, 1986, a date that may not be possible for Applicants.
The operative principle of tnis proposed schedule is that'it should follow the logical order applicable to construction of the I
plant.
l Thus we begin with adequacy of design and complete that, I
then adequacy of the inspection program and complete that, then adequacy of the implementation of the design and inspection l
l program -- i.e., was the plant built to the required design and did the original inspection program function sufficiently well to detect and force correction of all design and construction flaws
-- and complete that, and then the final question:
how broad was the failure of the original inspection and design program and what are the implications of that determination for the acceptability of the rest of the plant?
Our filing is divided into a narrative discussion of each phase of the proposed schedule with an explanation of the basis l l
for the proposal and an appendix that provides the details of the proposed schedule.1 1.
Design Issues As the Board recognized in its June 12 Order, CASE has been particularly successful in its attack on the adequacy of the design of the plant.
However, the Walsh-Doyle allegations remain essentially untouched at this point in the hearing, and Applicants have launched numerous " independent" analyses designed to address the allegations, including the Cygna audit, Stone'&
l Webster review of pipe supports, and Ebasco review of cable tray supports.
Applicants have not explained, much less provided documentation for, the relationship of these efforts to the CPRT design work.
Over the last eighteen months, Cygna has been particularly silent, even though completion of its work has been expected for quite some time.
A report to the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed some of the results of the Stone &
Webster review but in this hearing there has been no disclosure of documents relevant to or even an explanation for the modifications in pipe supports required by Stone & Webster.
This information blackout by Applicants makes it impossible i
1 The schedule discussed here presumes that this will be the last round of hearings.
To whatever extent Applicants modify what they are now doing, voluntarily stop all proceedings and/or make a major shif t in their tactics, af ter losing an issue propose a new "fix" or otherwise deviate from the general and specific direction in which they are now heading, CASE intends to respond appropriately.
Thus CASE does not waive any rights to pursue subsequently arising issues based on changed circumstances.
The proposed schedule is based on what we now know about what Applicants are doing, which, in some areas like design and ISAP VII.c. Work, is very little.
~3-
to identify all remaining design issues or to predict any schedule for their resolution.
Nonetheless it is abundantly clear that unless and until the design issues are resolved, resolution of any other issues is impractical, if not impossible.
In orcer to fully and efficiently resolve any issue related to inspection or construction, it is necessary to know what design is required.
The scope and subject of the hearings on QA/QC, CPRT adequacy, specific technical issues, and plantwide implications will all be directly impacted by the resolution of design issues.
For instance, an allegation that a particular pipe support was improperly constructed and that QA/QC inspections failed to detect the improper construction, while relevant in measuring the extent of the breakdown of QA/OC, will not be relevant in deciding whether in fact the pipe support is properly built until there is a decision as to the proper design for the support.
Thus if the pipe support was not properly designed initially, the only issue left to litigate with respect to the originally built pipe support will be whether the pipe support was in fact built to the intended specifications and if not why QA/uC did not i
detect it, and not whether that construction flaw would require rework.
It is particularly important for a party such as CASE, with limited resources, to approach the resolution of issues by narrowing the issues for resolution prior to litigating them.
However, this is also a principle enunciated by the Commission in its policy regarding the conduct of licensing proceedings.
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CL1 _-
8, 13 NRC 452, 4bS, 456 (1981).
The waste of agency resources through the litigation of overly broad issues will not serve the public interest as articulated by the Commission.
Resolution of design issues prior to resolution of other issues is compelled by the Commission's policy favoring increased efficiency of hearings.
Id. at 456:
The licensing boards should issue timely rulings on all matters.
In particular, rulings should be issued on crucial or potentially dispositive issues at the earliest practicable juncture in the proceeding.
Such rulings may eliminate the need to adjudicate one or more subsidiary issues.
Any ruling which would affect the scope of an evidentiary presentation should be rendered well before the presentation in question.
The first order of ousiness in resolving design issues is for Applicants and Staff to respond to CASE's outstanding motions for summary disposition.
If either believes the issues raised there are no longer ripe for resolution, they should at a minimum i
l produce the documentation -- as contrasted to legal rhetoric --
that will prove their point.
For instance, claiming that some of the issues are being addressed by new reviews without fully disclosing how the reviews are being conducted and what the reviews have found is not sufficient to preclude this Board from resolving the pending motions.
In addition, resolution of the t
pending motions will provide Applicants with directions on how to conduct their review.
The secono order of business is for Applicants to disclose exactly what they are doing about design issues.
CASE is filing under separate cover discovery requests designed to identify the
-b-
process and procedures being followed to address design issues, the results to date of those efforts, and all underlying documentation, the status of the work, and the anticipated conclusion of the work.
The completion of this discovery is essential if CASA is to have any chance to address and resolve design issues by the end of July 1987.
Receipt of this data will enable CASE to narrow or expand, as appropriate, the design issues.
It will also enable CASb to more precisely schedule the completion of its discovery on design issues and the schedule for ultimate resolution of design issues.
If Applicants continue to postpone production of so-called "in process" documents related to design issues, and if the Board accepts that position, there is no possible way that design issues will be able to be resolved by the end of July 1987.
CASE cannot be expected to review all design documents in a brief time period if Applicants dump all the documents on CASE at one time.
Such a data dump would be particularly egregious if the bulk of those documents have been in existence for a substantial time.
For example, the bulk of the documents relatea to Results Report 1.a.4.
were generated in January 1985 and not produced for over a year.
Since avoiding producing so-callea "in process" documents is merely a convenience to Applicants and not a legal right, this Board has previously recognized that delay in producing documents will not be allowed to deprive CASE of the time to review the documents that it would have had if the documents had been produced when requested.
Une essential point that must be stressed here is that the proper resolution of the design issues will require full l l
disclosure of the relevant documents, not only those in the possession of Applicants (including the minor owners) but also those in the possession of all the contractors, subcontractors, consultants, auditors, and the like who have reviewed design issues for the Applicants.
While this principle is well established with regard to Cygna documents, it does not appear that Applicants are applying it to others working on design issues.
Discovery must be applied to these other companies, consultants, and persons as well to assure that the whole truth is revealed before the Board decides the vital design issues.
A second and related point is that the schedule we propose here is based on limited information on design which makes any
~
schedule problematic.
There are, however, some filings due in the next two weeks which should help to clarify the situation. They are:
(1) the remaining responses to CASE's First through Fifth Sets of Interrogatories Re: Credibility (due to be filed by Applicants on 6/30/86); (2) Applicants' responses to Joint Intervenors' 6/9/86 2nd Set and 6/18/86 4th Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents (CPA)
(due to be received by 7/3/86); and (3)
Applicants' first progress report (due to be filed by 7/15/86). When we receive those pleadings, hopefully we will have a better idea of what has been, and is, going on at Comanche Peak. We will then be in a much better f
position to be able to determine how we want to pursue the design issues, i
more specifically what those issues are (there may, for instance, be issues identified by the Applicants in their 7/15/86 first progress report of which CASE is not yet even aware), and hopefully be able to more accurately estimate a timetable for the design issues. CASE therefore moves that the Board allow it to file a revised proposed schedule on design issues ten days following receipt of Applicants' 7/15/86 first progress report (should it eppear ntcessary to CASE, and assusing thtt there is suf ficient information in hand by that time to be able to make a more accurate projection of issues, time, etc.).
We are including herein our proposals for the handling of the rest of the case on design issues.
Use of written filings vs. other methods In its Order at page 2, the Board states "(2) written filings should be received in evidence and substituted for eyewitness or expert testimony whenever feasible, consistent with legitimate needs to contest the credibility of witnesses." Although CASE believes there are legitimate uses for written filings, CASE is adamantly opposed to the use of one type of written filings -- Motions for Summary Disposition -- regarding the design issues.
We have already expressed our views rather thoroughly regarding i
this matter, and incorporate herewith by reference CASE's 9/25/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 8/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Proposal for j
Governance of This Case), especially pages 3 through 18, and CAS3's 6/23/86 Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Portions of 6/6/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Adoption of Discovery Schedule), pages 17 and 18, filei in the Construction Permit Application proceedings.
Further, CASE again reurges and moves that the Board grant CASE a protective order, as requested in our 9/25/85 pleading (page 13) so that we do not have to respond to any Motions for Summary Disposition which may be I
t filed by Applicants or the NRC Staff until such time as Applicants and NRC Staff have f2/... (2) answered substantively and in proper form CASE's First, Third, and Fourth Motions for Summary Disposition (filed 10/6/84, 11/2/84, and 1/14/85, respectively).
f2/ The Board has already ruled regarding (1) of our request, and allowed Applicants to withdraw the Motions for Summary Disposition which they had flied, thereby relieving Applicants and NRC Staff from that portion of our request, which urged that Applicants and NRC Staff be required to respond substantively to CASE's answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition.
i Additionally, the Board should be aware that CASE will never again voluntarily agree to the unusual procedures suggested by the Board for the 1984 Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition (and agreed to by all parties, even though Applicants and NRC Staff reneged on their part of the bargain). We are aware that, under the circumstances at the time (including some potential difficulties with Dr. McCollom's schedule) and under the conditions which CASE believed were going to apply, it seemed like a good idea. However, in retrospect, the experiences of CASE and our two engineering witnesses now necessarily lead us to a different approach to our case -- we do not want a repeat performance of the same thing all over again.
It should be noted and understood that CASE's opposition to the use of Motions for Summary Disposition applies only to the design issues, not to other aspects of these proceedings. This is because the design issues differ considerably from any other aspects or issues in these proceedings.
(as the Board is well aware), the design issues are extremely First detailed, complex, and complicated, and require a correspondingly large amount of discovery, documents, drawings, analyses, calculations, and sufficient time to deal with same -- far more than do most (perhaps all) other issues in these proceedings.
Further, CASE does not believe that Motions for Summary Disposition jy1 design issues would prove anything other than what everybody already knows:
that there are indeed severe problems in the design of Comanche Peak, and that there are serious and substantive disputes among the parties as to what
-9_
those problems are, the extent of them, the importance of them, etc.
- Thus, summary dispositions would not serve any useful purpose, including narrowing issues for hearings -- unlike summary dispositions on other aspects of the proceedings which could indeed serve such a very useful purpose. Any matters on which Applicants and CASE can now agree can be resolved far more quickly, easily, and fairly (and thus hopefully would not have to be the subject of actual hearings) through admissions or stipulations; and CASE is hopeful that Applicants are now ready to admit that at least some of the l
problems which they have denied in the past were problems, actually are t
problems, which would then eliminate our having to prove that point and allow us to get on to finding out what Applicants have done or are doing to correct those problems. Such admissions and stipulations would then be part of the record, with the added attractive feature to CASE that Applicants
{
could not withdraw them when they realized they were losing, as they did I
i their 1984 Motions for Summary Disposition.
What CASE proposes instead on the design issues is (as discussed elsewhere herein) for the Board to order that the design issues be handled first. Obviously, the very first item on that agenda should be for the Board to order Applicants and NRC Staff (and Cygna, if they still are interested in participating) to respond now to CASE's outstanding Motions for Summary Disposition. We are aware of the Board's prior ruling in this regard, which (assuming that the Board does not change that ruling) further j
reinforces and supports CASE's position that Motions for Summary Disposition are not appropriate and should not be allowed on design issues.
l
Mq;f!f CASE is not opposed to the use of other types of written p' leadings on i
design issues, however, and (as stated above) we view admissions and stipulations as viable discovery options which we intend to utilize.
These will, we believe, prove useful in narrowing the issues for trial and decrease the amount of necessary hearing time, while at the same time helping to preserve CASE's due process rights and helping to assure a complete record.
Further, we believe that (following, and depending on the results of, our other discovery) it will probably be helpful to have evidentiary depositions (similar to what was done in the intimidation / harassment portion of the proceedings, with the NRC Staff paying for the depositions in lieu of hearing time ]3/), with the understanding and advance agreement that they be stipulated into evidence as suggested by the Board in its Order at page 2, item (3).
i l
Other matters CASE agrees with the Board, regarding design issues specifically, that any schedule must be subject to revision for good cause shown, such as later-than-expected completion of results reports, inadequate responses to discovery, inadequate time to complete discovery, etc. (Board Otder at page 2).
f3,/ The Board has already recognized that " Applicants failure to prevail on the technical merits of its case has imposed enormous unnecessary costs on CASE."
(See Board's 10/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Status of Pending Motions) at page 6.
CASE does not now have the funds to be
'able to pay for depositions, even in those instances when depositions would be the next logical and necessary step to obtain all the necessary facts and to avoid unnecessary hearing time. _
With regard to when the record on specific issues will be closed, and at what times it would be appropriate for the Board to decide each portion of the case (Board Order at page 3), based on what has transpired to date regarding the design issues, we believe it is imperative that the Board keep the record open until CASE and the Board are each satisfied that we have correct answers to all necessary questions, and that each design problem has been corrected and acceepted as being corrected by the Board (following evidentiary depositions, hearings, or whatever else may be required on each issue). It is important to be able to arrive at conclusions as to what problems existed, what the root cause and the generic implications of each problem are, how Applicants have dealt with the problems (including how they have addressed the root cause and generic implications) and corrected them, and how Applicants have assured that similar problems will not reoccur in the future.
Further, we believe it is essential to leave the door open for receipt of new information without having to reopen the record. CASE should not have to bear the extra burden of having to go through the process of reopening the record (which we seem to recall from the Federal Register has been made even more stringent recently) -- especially considering the fact that Applicants in the past have been (and we anticipate may again in the future be) allowed to reopen the record without any showing of good cause.
We suggest that the Board might want to consider issuing Proposed Initial Decisions (as it has on occasion in the past), but not make them final until the end of the proceedings.
1 CASE moves that the Board reconsider its ruling that all filings are to be delivered by the due date (Board Order, page 3).
We further move that all Board Orders in these proceedings be served by overnight delivery.
Our reasons for this request are the same as those set forth in CASE's 6/23/86 _ _
Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Portions of 6/6/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Adoption of Discovery Schedule) filed in the Construction Permit Application proceeding, at pages 14 through 17.
We will not repeat those pages here, but incorporate them herein by reference i
and ask that the Board consider them as though filed here.
i
(
L Issues to be tried l
The Board encouraged CASE to be specific about what issues or portions of issues will be tried (Board Order at page 3).
As discussed in the preceding, CASE's information regarding design issues is severely restricted at this point in time. However, there are some specific design issues which immediately come to mind as issues to be tried, although we again emphasize that this list should not be considered to be complete:
All of the Walsh/Doyle issues (not just those Applicants chose for their now-aborted 1984 Notions for Summary Disposition)
All other pipe support design problems identified '
)
Design of cable tray supports (including, but not limited to, problems i
identified by CASE Witness Mark Walsh during the May 1984 hearings and in follow-up meetings, problems identified by Cygna, and all additional problems identified during Applicants' reinspection by either Applicants or their consultants) 1 Design of conduit supporto Design of HVAC system Design of the control room ceiling Other design issues which have not yet been identified but which undoubtedly exist - not only in Unit 1, but also in Unit 2 (we assume that Applicants' 7/15/86 pleading will shed some light on these, as will Applicants' responses to our various discovery requests)
CASE anticipates that the preceding will require evidentiary depositions and very probably hearings which will include Cygna, Stone &
Webster, Ebasco, and other of Applicants' consultants or personnel.4./
4 Limited Data has been provided on design issues, and thus this list l
is inherently preliminary.
The schedule provides for an actual dead-line for promulgation of issues following completion of full discovery.
This is a non-binding list.
l l
+-
+
.-,.n.
II.
CPRT Adequacy
~
i once the design issues are resolved, it will be appropriate
)
I to evaluate the adequacy of the CPRT process.
Theoretically, this effort could proceed without awaiting resolution of the design issues.
But in practice, in this proceeding, that approach would be neither efficient nor fair.
First, CASE, having already won twice on the design issue, has at least a substantially better chance of ultimately prevailing on the design issues than do Applicants.
Thus it is more reasonable to assume that Applicants will lose the design issue than that they will prevail.
Because the design flaws identified and urged by CASE are so basic (3. g, that the j
iterative design process did not produce a licensable plant) th e
consequence of losing on the design issue would be that Applicants would be compelled to redesign and reconstruct substantial portions of the plant.
The current CPRT process, which is really nothing more than an elaborate program to produce post hoc analyses to attempt to prove that previously undetected deficiencies do not have safety significance, will become obsolete, since the underpinning of Applicants' current operating assumption for the CPRT is that fundamentally the plant has been properly designed.
Thus litigating the CPRT adequacy prior to completion of resolution of the design issues will more likely than not be a waste of time.
Since CASE has already been forced to waste its time by pursuing issues that Applicants allege are mooted by subsequent events, it is unreasonable to force CASE to once again enter such a process where the probability is that.
i once again its efforts, albeit successful, will not push the rock I
to the top of the mountain.
When the issue of CPRT adequacy is reached, CASE proposes that the generic issues be addressed except for the issue of scope.
It is applicants' view that the CPRT can be focussed only on the identified deficiencies and expanded only if the examination of the deficiency warrants.
CASE believes and has consistently argued that the scope of the known deficiencies is sufficiently broad that Applicants must begin with a commitment to a 100% reinspection effort and only narrow that effort where it finds sufficient evidence to justify to thi 100% review.
s Board a less than In order to resolve that issue, it will be necessary to litigate the technical validity of every TRT finding, every allegation, and every CPRT identified deficiency and then determine whether the scope of the breakdow n found was sufficient to require a 100% reinspection.
This process would require such an enormous commitment of time and resources by all parties and the Board (compare the hearing time devoted j ust to the liner plate controversy) that it should be pursued only as a last resort.
CASE's proposal preserves it as a last resort The generic CPRT issues, which would be litigated upon completion of the resolution of design issues if such litigation is needed, 0
are:
i 5
Limited data has been provided on the CPRT restricted access very recently),not yet have unrestricted acces tegg, CASE does only got inherently preliminary.
and thus this list is The schedule provides for an actual deadline f discovery.or promulgation of issues following completion of full This is a non-binding list.
available in CASb's Suggested Construction ReverifiFurther details are cation Program - -
/?
- 1) independence of the CPRT process from TUEC, Brown & Root, and other contractors' for finding, interpreting, and resolving safety problems;
- 2) appropriateness of criteria used for deciding when a
.I I
deficiency a) is safety significant, b) should have its root cause determined, c) should have its generic implications considered;
- 3) appropriateness of the detinitions of " root cause,"
" safety significant,"
and " generic implications";
- 4) adequacy of sampling procedures;
- 5) adequacy of enecklists;
- 6) absence of o WA/QC program for the CPRT and other non-compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B;
- 7) failure to redo previous' CPRT activities to conform to subsequent modifications in the CPRT;
- 8) failure of CPRT to include all deficiencies alleged;
- 9) inadequate public, staff, and board participation in the reevaluation and rework process;
- 10) absence of NRC staff hold points;
- 11) inadequate construction and inspection procedures which were not revised or properly revised prior to reinspection effort:
- 12) failure to properly train personnel and requalify to new (2/4/uS),
(2/4/85). Appendix A to Casts Motion for an Evidentiary Standard procedures;
- 13) failure to properly review QA/OC programs of vendors contractors, subcontractors, consultants;
- 14) failure to requalify all equipment.
-t III.
Results Reports and Technical Issues Here too the resolution of these issues should not begin until the previous category of issues are resolved.
Obviously, if the CPRT is generically inadequate, the results reports based on the CPRT will not be valid and further litigation with respect to them will be unnecessary.
This category of issues will also address technical matters not covered in the CPRT that were not detected by the QA/QC program and thuc further indict that program.
If the litigation of CPRT adequacy is fully successful, then the new CPRT that will be required will address all deficiencies, including these items.
The issues covered in this Part III will involve the actual resolution of the technical merits of individually identified deficiencies.
Thus if Applicants claim in a results report that a particular deficiency does not exist or has no safety 3
significance, it will be here that the issue will be joined on that controversy.
Similarly, if Applicants dispute findings by the TRT or in the SSERs, that dispute will be resolved during this phase of the hearings.
I Although CASE believes resolution of these technical issues should await resolution of design and CPRT adequacy issues, there is still much that can be done on these issues prior to their resolution.
For instance, CASE will continue to prepare and file >
its prelimiary analyses and critiques of the individual results reports within approximately 60 days of the receipt of the report and all relevant documents.6 Staff should be required similarly to do its analysis of each result report and release them as they are finished.
This schedule will be impacted by the rate at which Applicants respond to discovery regarding results reports, the thoroughness of the responses, and Staff completion of its review of results reports.
Based en the limited review CASE has conducted of the results reports, it appears that with limited depositions in lieu of hearings the individual results reports (undoubtedly with the exception of VII.c.) will be able to be resolved without extensive hearing time and primarily on the basis of documents.
One crucial factor in this judgment is whether the Applicants intend to rely only on the results reports as their affirmative case or whether further direct testimony and documents will be relied upon to make their case.
IV.
Ultimate Conclusions and Generic Implications The final group of issues involves the question of scope.
Assuming Applicants have not already been compelled by resolution of previous issues to redesign a substantial portion of the plant and conduct a plantwide 100% reinspection, then it will be necessary to decide whetner, based on the previous findings, there has been a sufficiently broad failure of design, 6
This is a maximum time.
It will be less on many result reports, and there should be some where CASE will have no filings..
4 construction, and/or QA/QC that, absent a broader reinspection effort, the plant is not licensable.
Among the issues that will be resolved in this phase are whether there was pervasive harassment and intimidation or other discouragement of reporting i
safety problems which impacted on the QA/QC inspectors and the performance of their duties.
This conclusion can be reached by inference from the breadth of the QA/QC breakdown, from the safety seriousness of an even smaller number of breakdowns, and/or from the presence of a pervasive adverse atmosphere.
d Also
?
relevant here will be the generic implications of identified breakdowns, regardless of their cause, and whether Applicants have fully addressed the generic reach of the particular problem The potential ripple effect of a deficiency found in one area is addressed in this Board'as Memorandum (Board Concernst of If, as CASE contends, the breadth of the breakdowns in design, construction, and QA/QC at the plant warrant a 100%
reinspection effort, then whatever CPRT reinspection process it had been previously determined was required Applicants would now have to expand to 100% of the plant.
In short, resolution of this fourth phase will determine how muuch, if any, of that portion of the plant not properly (or at all) reinspected can be determined to have been properly designed and built.
CONCLUSION In its June 12 Order this Board urged tnat all hearings be concluded by the end of July 1987 and that CASE propose schedules for completing the record on various issues.
CASE has endeavored I
to do what the Board requests, but, with all due respect, it is i
l i
only the Board that can make achievement of the goals possible.
Unless the Board establishes the principle that as to all issues litigated this is Applicants' last chance, a conclusion of an
)
issue in favor of CASE will only produce from Applicants a new proposal which is the next least offensive nalfway solution to their problems, and we will be back in hearings again.
Only if this Board rules that Applicants must now take their best shot and live with the consequences will the schedule we have proposed reach the goals established by this Board.
Similarly, by denying Staff and Applicants the option of using summary disposition motions on design issues as a result of their misuse and abuse of that process, the Board will send a strong warning regarding the importance of properly using hearing procedures, thus enhancing the efficiency of the hearings.
Parties must realize that I
abusing rights can result in the Board treating those rights as l
waived by that party for the future.
i The procests for resolution of issues proposed here will take what has now become a diffuse hearing caused by Applicants' decision to stop the hearings, withdraw its summary disposition l
l
.mo tions, and evade responding to the CASE motions for summary i
disposition and provide an orderly and logical structure.
The speed of its implementation is primarily within the control of the Staff and Applicants.
Even while early phases of the hearing are being conducted, CASE has committed to completing much of the preliminary work on subsequent phases.
Thus, when the resolution of design issues is completed, CASE will be ready to go to hearings on CPRT adequacy very quickly, probably in less than two months.
The steps left until completion of the design hearings are resource intensive steps that are substantially dependent on the outcome of the precedirig hearings.
CASE is prepared to continue its consistently diligent drive toward the resolution of all outstanding issues and trusts that Applicants and Staff are prepared to join it.
Respectfully submitted, Ws ~ 3
[J19Th0NY Z. RI Trial La rs for Public Justice 2000 P S reet, NW, #611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE l
/l
/$.
U ITA ELLIS 26 S.
Polk Dallas, TX 75224 (214) 946-9446 Representative for CASE Dated:
June 30, 1986
CASE Proposed Schedule For Coupletion of Hearings
- Step 1.
Iby 1 (June 30)*
CASE files first phase of discovery on design.
Step 2.
Day 10 Applicants and Cygna respond to CASE's previously filed notions for sunmary disposition.
Step 3.
Day 15 Applicants conplete all design review and produce all docunents generated by it or any of its contractors, consultants, etc., related to the design review.
Step 4.
Day 15 Staff responds to CASE's previously filed motions for sumary disposition.
Step 5.
Day (10 days after Step 4)
CASE discovery to Staff and Applicants based on responses to sunmary disposition motions.
Step 6.
Ihy (30 days after StepT)
Applicants and Staff respond to Step 5 discovery.
Step 7.
Day 30 days after com-pletTon(of Step 6)
CASE reply, if any, to Applicants and Staff responses to stunary disposition motions.
Step 8.
Day (45 or 120 days after ccznpTetion of Step 3)***
Parties file final discovery on design other than requests for adnissions and depositions.
design review and the CPRP, and depending on the volum ran the and the extent to which the design reviews and Besults
, timing of cumentsy may be that this schedule cannot be ccznpleted by July 1987.
, it result of Applicants' refusal to share docunents with CASE when they come i t'I existence.
available docunents will not prejudice CASE by forcing C no l
g the docunents in less time than it would have had if the docunen ze timely produced, July 1987 may be an unrealistic deadline a
een based on our best judgnent of the tine we will need and the tine to which
'Ihis schedule is are entitled.
the day-for-day-of-delay principle would allow.In many instances we propose l we t
should the schedule proposed not be adoptedthe context of the pro i
at principle Some items like depositions or hearings will ccanence on in an indefinite future.
ccnclude Staff or Applicants respond to discovery.Other dates uny slide depending upon how tho
}
Assuning Applicants produce all design documents when they cone int existence and when each part of the design wrk is finished, thcn the tine in o
5ttp 8 could be as little as 45 days.
dccuments regarding pipe supports and cable penetratio
.., the although the decisions regarding redesign of these canponents have been cc een produced the volume of the material.then 120 days is a mininum tine required and more m p eted),
ssary depending on
Step 9.
Day - (30 days after Step 8) Applicants and Staff respond to Step 8, including Staff final position on design issues.
Step 10.
Day (60 days after cm-Parties identify issues for hearings (or pletion of Step 9) depositions in lieu of hearings) and file requests for adnissions.
Step 11.
Day _ (15 days after Staff Depositions in lieu of hearings comnence.
and Applicants respond to requests for admissions)
Step 12.
Day (30 days after om-Parties file prefiled testimony for hearings pletIo~n of Step 11) and all h==nts upon which that testimony relies identified and produced (if not already produced).
Step 13.
Day (20 days after cm-Hearings begin, and, following their empletion, pleticIn of Step 12) an initial decision is issued on design issues.
Step 14.
Septernber 1,1986 All parties file final discovery other than depositions and adnissions relevant to CPRP adequacy.
Step 15.
Saf,i.=uba 30, 1986 All parties respond to Step 14.
Step 16.
Day (10 days after Step 13 All parties emmence depositions in lieu of or 1 _5, whichever is later) hearings on CPRP adequacy.
Step 17.
Day (10 days after avail-All parties file requests for admi.ssions, motions
~
ability of transcripts fr m for sumary disposition, identify issues for Step 16 in the PDR in D.C.)
hearings, and file preliminary prh_ findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Step 18.
Day f7)(10 days after Prefiled testimony of all parties with all Step doctznents relied upon in preparing testimony identified and produced (if not previously i
produced).
Step 19.
Day (4 days after cm-Hearings begin, and, following their conclusion, pletion of Step 18) an Initial Decision is issued.
1 Step 20.
On the days Applicants Applicants make avaiMle all documents generated 4
release each Results Report by it or any contractor, consultant, and the like in preparation of the Results Report and all hw=nts reviewed in preparing the RR.
i Step 21.
60 days after ccarpletion of CASE and Staff file their analyses and critiques Step 20 for each RR, with of each Results Report.
I total time being at least 1
30 days for each RR released Step 22.
10 days after ccupletion of Parties file discovery as to each Besults Report Step 21 for each RR except depositions and adnissions.
Step 23.
15 days after ampletion of Parties begin depositions in lieu of discovery Step 22 for each RR, or 30 on each Results Report.
j days after coupletion of Step 19, whichever is later Step 24.
Day (10 days after avail-All parties file requests for admissions, motials abillty of transcripts fran for sumary disposition, dJdentify issues for Step 23 in the IDR in D.C.)
hearings, and file preliminary proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Step 25.
Day __ (10 days after Prefiled testimony of all parties with all Step 24) docunents relied upon in preparing testinony identified and produced (if not previously produced).
Step 26.
Day _ (4 days after Step 25) Hearings begin, and, following their coupletion, an initial decision is issued.
Step 27.
Day (15 days after can-All parties file any final discovery with pletion of Step 26) respect to remaining issues in Phase IV.
Step 28.
Day (30 days after can-All parties file requests for admissions, pletion of Step 27) motions for sumary disposition, idantify issues for hearings, and file preliminary proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Step 29.
Day _ (10 days after Prefiled testinony of all parties with all Step 28) docunents relied upon in preparing testinony identified and produced (if not previously prMarwl).
Step 30.
Day - (4 days after Step 29) Hearings begin, and, upon their completion, an initial decision is issued.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
and 50-446-OL
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HEARINGS have been sent to the persons listed celow this 30th day of June 1986 by:
Express mail where indicated by *; Hand-delivery where indicated by * *;
and First Class Mail unless otherwise indicated.
Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bul W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Elizabeth 8. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1
l i
Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtca, D.C.
20555 l
Robert A. Wooldridge, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels
& Wooldridge 2001 Bryan Tower, suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire **
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington,.D.C.
20036 Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire **
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S.
Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Mr.
W.G.
Counsil Executive Vice President 1
Texas Utilities Generating Co.
Skyway Tower, 25th Floor 400 N. Olive Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 1
2
Mr. Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street i
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 I
Mr. Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.**
c/o Ropes and Gray 1001 22nd Street, NW 7th floor Washington, D.C.
20037 o
AM, ) /
< ANTHONY Z.
I 3
.. i l-
.