ML20236R898
| ML20236R898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1987 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4885 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8711240093 | |
| Download: ML20236R898 (6) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE 0f SECitar.
Before Administrative Judges:
DONG m
Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom SERVED NOV 1 9 1987 In the Matter of
]
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL2
]
50-446-OL2 Texas Utilities Electric Co.,
et al
]
]
ASLBP No. 79-430-06-OL
]
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,]
November 18, 1987 Units 1 and 2)
]
]
_]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Litigation Schedule)
The purpose of this memorandum is to establish a litiga-tion schedule governing discovery and the resolution of issues in 1
this case.
The schedule is organized around the Collective Signifi-can e Report and the Project Status Reports, documents being prapared by Texas Utilities Electric Co., at al, (Applicants).
These documents are being produced as part of applicants' efforts to demonstrate the safety of their plant withour, regard to the overall effectiveness of their historical QA/QC program.
- Hence, in evaluating these documents, we will assume that the historical QA/QC programs for design and for construction have broken down.
We will, therefore, require careful proof whenever portions of 8711240093 871118 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
PDR 1
The schedule is responsive to the filings of the parties prior to our November 2-3 prehearing conference, to the discussions at that conference and to the subsequent comments of the parties.
Y@
i i
i i
Schedule:
2 I
the QA/QC program are relied on to assure the safety of the plant.
To some extent, this case bears similarity to Diablo Canvon Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-763, 19 NRC 571 (1984).
In that case (at p.
582),
the real issue [was]
whether, in view of the conceded weakness of the Diablo Canyon design quality i
assurance program, the applicant's verification efforts demonstrate that the safety-related structures, systems
)
and components of the plant are properly designed.
s The Appeal Board concluded that the Diablo Canyon design review was sufficient to assure " adequate confidence" in the safety of design.
Indeed, the Appeal Board stated, at p.
584, that
[T]he final seismic design derived from the ITP's efforts and the IDVP review of those efforts subjected the design of Diablo Canyon to a measurably greater level of scrutiny than.
could have been provided by a quality assurance program 1
complying with Appendix B.
With respect to design QA/QC, the decision of the Appeal Board makes substantial sense.
Each design document can be identi-fied and examined.
If at any time those documents are carefully scrutinized and corrected as part of a systematic effort that itself complies with Appendix B, the purpose of. Appendix B is served:
that j
the plant be carefully designed and its quality assured.
With respect to QA/QC for construction, the actual construc-tion process cannot be reexamined.
Some construction variables,.
such as the preheat temperature for welding, can never be observed again.. Some portions of construction are no longer visible because i
they are covered over or inaccessible.
Hence, engineering analyses must substitute for actual physical observations of in-process i
1 i
Schedule:
3 variables and it may be harder to demonstrate the adequacy of finished construction than it is to demonstrate the adequacy of finished design.
In particular, it may be difficult to show that the plant has received at least the level of scrutiny that could have been provided by a quality assurance program that initially complied with Appendix B.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulty, Applicants have chosen to meet this standard and should relevant matters be contested
{
before us, we will scrutinize the proof carefully and determine
]
whether Applicants have met their burden of proof.
The schedule we have adopted is set forth in Table 1.
All days are calendar days.
Whenever a deadline falls on a day in which the federal government is not open for business, it automatically is adjusted to the next business day and all subsequent deadlines are adjusted accordingly.
Additionally, should the Board grant an I
extension of time with respect to a deadline, all subsequent dead-lines will be automatically adjusted accordingly.
All parties are expected to cooperate by providing full responses to interrogatories and other discovery requests, sympa-thetic to the intent of the request.
Where there is ambiguity, parties are expected to resolve the ambiguity orally.
If a party pleads ambiguity without attempting to resolve it orally, failure to seek oral resolution will be coneidered with respect to a motion to compel.
We request that the Staff phase the release to the parties of its work to permit early, efficient consideration at hearing.
We also urge Staff to consider providing as much in-process cooperation
Schedule:
4 to CASE as can be efficiently managed.
For example, Staff may inform CASE as early as feasible about the inspection reports,= audit reports, investigations and other work products that are going to be l
addressed in each SSER and allow CASE to pursue discovery of the Staff on Staff documents as they become available.
Discovery deadlines may be extended upon a showing of good cause and reasonable diligence.
Discovery may be reopened upon a showing of good cause that the information is important and could not have been obtained, despite due diligence, during the period afforded.
The Board will determine the format of hearings at a later date.
l l
L_
5 Schedule:
5 TABLE 1 Schedule Phase Har Event I
1 Notice by Applicants that a Project Status Report or the Collective Significance Report and reports and documents relied on in the report, are available for review.
At the time of issuance of the Collective Significance Report, any agg information is available for discovery, regardless of whether it has been previcusly covered in a PSR.
2 Discovery by CASE commences.
l II 1
Staff files a Safety Evaluation Report covering a subject of a PSR or the CSR.
Discovery of Staff begins.
30 CASE completes all discovery of Applicants and Staff.
44 Responses to discovery received by CASE.
I l
54 CASE specifies the issues in which it is interested and the basis for its interest.
Discovery of CASE begins.
l 74 Motions to strike or for summary judgment due.
Parties may end this period early by communicating to the Board and parties that they do not choose to file such a motion.
III 1
All steps of Phase II are completely resolved.
20 Discovery of CASE is completed.
45 Direct testimony filed for all witnesses, including specification of documents on which they rely and affida-vits establishing document admissibility.
(By agreement of the parties, the testimony may be submitted as written filings for the Board's determination without hearing.
l If so, the Board may hold hearings solely in its discre-l tion or on conditions specified by the parties.)
l l
70 Rebuttal testimony or responses to written filings.
Re-l buttal documents filed.
Objections to the admissibility of I
documents must be filed or they will be waived.
80 Earliest date for commencing a hearing.
l
b Schedule:
6 ORDER Upon consideration of the filings of the parties.and'the l
entire record in this matter, it is this 18th day of November 1987 l
l ORDERED That, subject to extensions of time or modifications of schedule by motion for good cause, the parties shall comply with the.
schedule set forth in Table 1 of the accompanying memorandum.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD:
P'eter B. Bloch, Chai'r Administrative Judge Bethesda, Maryland F
_ - _ _ - - = _ _ _ _ _ _. - _. _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
_